Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, for more explanation regarding these three sources of impurity.

See ibid.:3-4 regarding these two sources of impurity.

These four sources of impurity are discussed in ibid.:8.

See ibid.:9.

Ibid.:12.

Ibid.:13.

Ibid.:3.

Ibid.:4.

See ibid.:8 regarding these two sources of impurity.

See ibid.:9.

See ibid.:16 regarding these two sources of impurity.

These two terms are defined in ibid.:15.

See ibid.:11.

This phrase indicates a conclusion which the Rambam arrived at through his own process of deduction without an explicit prior Rabbinic source.

As stated in Numbers 6:9-12 and explained in Hilchot Nezirut 6:3,11, if a nazirite incurs impurity through contact with a human corpse, the observance of his nazirite vow is invalidated. He must shave his hair, bring certain sacrifices, and begin counting his nazirite vow anew.

As stated in ibid. 7:6, there are twelve situations which would ordinarily render a person impure, but do not obligate a nazirite to shave his hair because of them. Why should he not shave? Because as long as his nazirite vow is in effect, he is forbidden to shave his hair according to Scriptual Law. Thus shaving to observe a Rabbinic decree concerning impurity would lead to the violation of a Scriptural commandment.
The fact that shaving is not required in the three situations mentioned in this halachah indicates that the impurity is Rabbinic in origin. Why else would they not be required to shave?

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:13-14.

As stated in ibid.:12, “When an impure person willfully enters the Temple, he is punishable by karet, as [Leviticus 17:16] states: ‘If he will not clean [his garments] or wash his flesh, he will bear his iniquity.”‘

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam on this matter. He states that a limb that does not have a sufficient amount of flesh on it is considered as a bone and, as stated above, a bone the size of a barley-com imparts ritual impurity when touched. Indeed, this is explicitly stated. Similarly, the fact that a revi’it of blood imparts impurity when one is under the same shelter is derived from a verse.
The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s approach, explaining that perhaps the limb without flesh is referring to a limb of a fetus that is smaller than a barley-com. Similarly, the verse interpreted to mean that blood imparts impurity when under the same shelter can be understood as an asmachta, i.e., the law is Rabbinic in origin, but the Sages found a verse which could be used as an allusion to it. Although the Rambam himself cites verses as support for these concepts in his Commentary to the Mishnah, these can also be interpreted as asmachtaot. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 5, and notes which refers to the Kessef Mishneh who states that (as the Rambam states in Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2) any concept that is not explicitly stated in the Torah, even through it is derived through accepted techniques of Biblical exegesis, is considered as midivrei sofrim, “from the words of the Sages,” and not from the Torah. See also Chapter 19, Halachah 6.

I.e., substances that will not decompose or rot. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 2:2), the Rambam writes that the coffin cover must also be of such a material.

And Jewish custom is to bury the dead in a shroud.

Before the corpse decomposes entirely, the addition of another substance prevents it from being placed into the category of rekev. Once it is placed in that category, however, the addition of another substance does not remove its impurity (Nidah 27a).

In Hilchot Nizirut 7:3, the Rambam explains the rationale for this ruling. As stated here, for the laws of rekev to apply, the corpse must be entirely intact. When a person was slain, his blood is lacking.

The rationale behind the first and the third clauses is the same: the laws of rekev apply with regard to one body and not two bodies. Even the fetus is considered as a separate entity.
With regard to the second clause, the rationale is that once the hair and/or nails are cut off, they are considered as separate entities. Thus the rekev would not be considered as coming from the body alone.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 11, and notes, for a definition of this concept.

These and the above laws are discussed in Nazir 51a and also stated in Hilchot Nizirut 7:4.

As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 11, this is the minimum amount required for rekev to impart ritual impurity.

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that all the conditions mentioned in Halachah 4 must be met for the rekev to impart ritual impurity.

The liquids produced by a decomposing corpse (Chapter 2, Halachah 1). It is necessary that there be an olive-sized portion of netzal for it to impart impurity.
I.e., the question is whether the substance is primarily the decomposed mass of the corpse with a little earth mixed in or primarily earth with some of the fluids produced when a corpse decomposes.

It does not, however, impart impurity when touched, as stated previously in Chapter 2, Halachah 11.

The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam’s wording, because initially, he implies that there is a question about the makeup of this substance: Is it primarily rekev? Or is it primarily earth? And ultimately, he states definitively that it is primarily rekev. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since we are speaking about a corpse that was buried in a stone coffin without anything else being there, we can assume that the mass is primarily rekev.
Although this is not apparent in the Rambam’s words, the simple explanation appears to be that since it is possible that the mixture was primarily rekev, because of the doubt that possibility raises, we rule stringently.

The commentaries point to a similar ruling in Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTum’ah 4:12 where the Rambam writes that he thinks that this impurity is Rabbinic in origin.

In which case it would impart impurity when intact.

For it has lost its natural form. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nidah 7:1) which states that even if flesh becomes dry like bone, it imparts ritual impurity. In this instance, however, it is no longer intact and hence, is considered pure.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that this ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in Nidah 55a, and the Rambam’s wording appears to follow the opinion of Reish Lakish. This presents a difficulty, because generally, when there is a difference of opinion between these two Sages, the halachah follows Rabbi Yochanan. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s words can be interpreted as meaning, not that the skin has actually become flaky like powder, but that it is so dry that it could become that flaky. Rav Kapach (in his gloss to the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah) suggests that the Rambam had a different version of that Talmudic passage.

The Rambam is following the conception, accepted at the time of the Talmud, that there are worms that are not produced by ordinary reproduction, but rather come into being through spontaneous generation from decomposing matter. See his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 2:2).

Chapter 2, Halachah 5.

Which also impart ritual impurity. See Hilchot Sha’ar Avat HaTum’ah 1:4, 4:4.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:2), the Rambam defines this as the amount of time it would take a person to walk four mil. A mil is equivalent to a kilometer. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 3:2), the Rambam defines that period as 24 minutes. Others give a figure of 18 minutes.

Chulin 122a states: “This is a decree, lest a person make carpets out of the skin of his father and mother.”

This refers to the placenta which is not considered as part of the body of either the mother or the child.

Note the parallel in Hilchot Ma’achalat Assurat 4:20.

And can impart that impurity.

I.e., when separated from the corpse.

I.e., they are not permanent parts of a person’s body, as indicated by the fact that they are removed and others grow in their place. Niddah 55a, the source for the Rambam’s statements, notes that some teeth are not replaced. Nevertheless, they are not considered as permanent parts of the body because they did not exist when the person was born. The Rambam does not elaborate, because there is no halachic difference involved (Kessef Mishneh).

Because of the impurity contracted through ahel, being under the same shelter.

See Hilchot Mechirah 1:17, Hilchot To’en v’Nit’an 5:4, which state that produce which is ready to be picked is considered as if it has been picked even though it remains attached. On the other hand, from Hilchot Me’ilah 5:10, one could conclude otherwise. Since there is no clear-cut ruling concerning the matter, the Rambam leaves the issue undecided.

Chapter 2, Halachah 12.

See Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTum’ah 10:4.

See Rashi, Chulin 109b, who states that “a liver is entirely blood.”

I.e., even if the special laws that apply to a backbone, a skull, or a quarter of a kab of bones (see Chapter 2, Halachot 8-9) do not apply, one would contract impurity for touching or carrying any one bone that is more than a barley-com in size.

For the special laws that apply to a limb from a living person (Chapter 2, Halachah 3) apply only when that limb is intact.

I.e., the conditions applying to rekev, that the corpse have been buried naked, in a marble coffm, etc. (Chapter 3, Halachah 4), must apply to each one of them, nor may they have been buried together (Chapter 3, Halachah 5). If these specifications are met and then one takes a handful of rekev from one corpse and combines it with a handful of rekev from another corpse, the combined amount imparts ritual impurity (Kessef Mishneh).

And impart ritual impurity as they would have had they come from one corpse.

Since netzal is decomposed flesh and like flesh, an olive-sized portion imparts impurity, it can be combined with flesh to reach that measure.

But not when touched, for like rekev, a divided bone cannot be touched at once (Chapter 2, Halachah 11). See also the following halachah.

Similarly, it imparts impurity when carried, but not when touched. Rambam Le’Am opines that if in fact one does touch an entire portion of a bone the size of a barley com at one time, he becomes impure even if the bone is not intact.

Even though the entire measure is not considered intact, that is not significant with regard to these ways of contracting impurity.

One does not contract impurity by touching unless one touches an olive-sized portion of the flesh at the same time. Hence, in the present instance, if one touches only a portion of the flesh, it is not considered as if one touched the entire measure. For, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, the fact that there is an olive-sized portion of the flesh present and that appears as a single entity is not significant. In this instance as well, Rambam Le’Am opines that if in fact one does touch an entire olive-sized portion of the flesh at one time, he becomes impure even if the portion is not intact (see the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger to Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 1:12).

Provided it is still intact, as a single entity.

And thus becomes a single mass. The rationale is that it is being joined together due to man’s influence and a fusion brought about by man is not significant.

For example, an olive-sized portion of flesh. Even though it is divided, when brought into the house, the entire olive-sized portion is under that shelter. The Ra’avad adds that this law applies even if there is no shelter to cause the two entities to be considered as one. If one touches half an olive-sized portion of a corpse with one hand and half with the other hand, he becomes impure, because he is touching an entire olive-sized portion at the same time.

I.e., naturally, as a matter of course.

Even though only a portion of the bone has been brought into the house, it is considered as if the entire bone was brought in. This applies even if all of the flesh was outside the house, the bone is considered as a yad, “handle,” for the flesh and thus an extension of it. Thus bringing a portion of the bone into the house is considered as bringing the flesh in.

Unless a sufficient quantity of the impure substances were brought inside.

The minimum measure required to impart ritual impurity.

Because the entire quantity of two handfuls is under the same shelter. Hence it is considered as combined.

As the Rambam proceeds to explain, at the time the blood was brought in, the house and all of its contents contracted impurity. When the blood was absorbed, however, that impurity departed. Even if the entire quantity of blood was not absorbed, as long as less than a revi'it remains, the house does not contract impurity.

We assume that it was consumed or dragged out of the house by a cat, a weasel, or the like (Rav Yosef Corcus, as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., we assume that the piece of flesh found is the piece that was lost and not a new piece of flesh (ibid.).

Thus any article or any person who was in the house at any time during this period is retroactively considered as impure.

In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 3:3), he interprets this as referring to the open space within a structure. If the structure projected over it, it becomes impure. The Tosafot Yom Tov interprets the mishnah differently, explaining that it refers to open space outside a structure. If it collects in one place and a person stands over it, he becomes impure. There are some who maintain that the Rambam changed his mind and accepted that interpretation here.

For when liquids are flowing on an incline, they are not considered as connected. Note a parallel in Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 7:6.

Even though the lintel of the house covered the doorstep, it is not considered as if the blood was under the house, because the blood did not come to rest there (ibid.).
The Ra’avad explains that the rationale is that the blood is not considered as a single entity, because it became separate when it flowed because of the incline. He maintains that this law applies only to blood. It must be a single mass, for it is written (Deuteronomy 12:23): “The blood is the soul.” And blood can only be a medium for the soul when it is connected as a single entity. This does not apply to flesh or bones. Even if they are not intact, their mass is calculated together.

This applies even if a portion of the revi’it of blood was not under the lintel. As long as it is intact as a single unit, it brings about impurity (Kessef Mishneh in the name of Rabbenu Asher).

In which instance, the garment is impure, but it does not impart impurity to others.

To see whether or not a revi’it is discharged.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 11, impurity may be conveyed through ohel in three ways: one enters a shelter where a corpse is located, one stands over a corpse, or the corpse is held over the person’s body. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, since all of the ways of contracting impurity come from the same category, they may be combined.

We are speaking about an instance where the portion of the person’s body touching the corpse was not under the same shelter as the portion to which the concept of ohel applied [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 3:1)].

This refers to an instance where the person carried the portion of the corpse without touching it.

E. g., carrying and touching a portion of a carcass of a dead animal (ibid.).

This Hebrew word is a general term used to refer to an article that is used for a specific purpose. It refers to garments, furniture, containers, cooking utensils, tools, weapons, containers, and many other types of useful articles.

This term implies more than the duration of time the person or the k’li remains impure. In addition, such a person or k’li becomes a source of impurity and imparts impurity to other entities, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
As will be explained, the impurity does not cease automatically after seven days. The intent is that after seven days, the person can undergo the purification process that removes the impurity.

See Chapter 3, Halachot 1-3.

The implication is that the garments also may not be purified until after the seven days.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that from Nazir 42b, one could derive the impression that a person who touches a colleague while the latter is touching a corpse contracts impurity that lasts seven days. However, from Avodah Zarah 37b, it appears that this supposition is not accepted and he is only impure until the evening. Indeed, the prooftext which describes this impurity indicates this, because unlike the other verses which speak about contracting impurity from contact with a corpse, it does not mention being impure for seven days.

Which may not be eaten by a person who is ritually impure.

The rationale is that adherence to this Rabbinic stringency would cause the person to transgress Scriptural Law. For a nazirite who becomes impure due to contact with a corpse must shave his head. If, however, he is not impure, it is forbidden for him to shave his head. Similarly, if the person who sought to bring a Paschal sacrifice refrained from doing so because of this impurity, he would be ignoring a positive commandment whose violation is punishable by karet (see Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:2).

I.e., their status is that of a source of impurity and not a derivative of impurity.
Carrying or being under the same shelter as such a k’li, by contrast, does not impart ritual impurity, as stated in Halachah 13. See Hilchot Nizirut 7:8, which distinguishes between this type of impurity and other impurities. stemming from contact with a human corpse.

This impurity is imparted by the k’li only through touch, not by carrying, nor by ohel (Kessef Mishneh).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 1:2, based on the Sifri to the verse cited, Pesachim 34b, et al; see also Chapter 2, Halachah 3, above), the Rambam notes that seemingly, the mention of the term “sword” in the above verse is unnecessary, for there is no difference between a person killed by a sword or one killed by a stone or piece of wood. Why then is a sword mentioned? To teach that the sword itself becomes a source of impurity.

I.e., a k’li that comes in contact with a corpse.

This reflects a classic difference of opinion among the Halachic authorities. The Rambam’s view is also followed by Rabbenu Yitzchak and the Ramban, while many other authorities including the Ra’avad, Rashi, and Rabbenu Tam differ and maintain that the law applies only to metal utensils (which in that way resemble a sword) and not those made from other materials.

This refers to utensils made from wood, bone, or glass.
Rav Kappach notes that in the Rambam’s original text of his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.; see also Ediot 2:1; Pesachim 1:6), “utensils [that can be purified by] immersion” are not mentioned. Only later did he amend that text to reflect the ruling stated here. He maintains that originally, the Rambam subscribed to the view held by Rashi and the Ra’avad and changed his mind later in life.

Excluded are earthenware containers, as stated in Halachah 6.

With the ashes of the Red Heifer, as obligatory for one who became impure for a seven day period.

There is no reason to suppose that, for the killer had no contact with his victim.

Afterwards, the concept is then applied to other types of keilim.

There is, however, a difference between the laws applying to them. The keilim that touch the corpse themselves also impart the impurity that lasts seven days. keilim that touch such keilim, by contrast, only impart impurity that lasts until the evening, as the Rambam proceeds to state.

A person or a k’li that touches a k’li—but not a person—which touched a corpse.

A person or a k’li that touches a k’li that touched a person who touched a corpse.

See Halachah 2.

A person who contracts impurity is liable for entering the Temple (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:12-13) or partaking of sacrificial foods while impure (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:13). See also Halachot 8-9.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that a nazirite is not required to shave if he is touched by a person who touched a corpse. Hence, he questions why such a person is obligated for entering the Temple in a state of ritual impurity. He explains that the Jerusalem Talmud (Nazir 7:4) states that this principle applies only to impurity stemming from the corpse and not to a person who touched a person who touched a corpse.

I.e., the one who touched the corpse.

I.e., he is forbidden to enter the Temple or partake of holy food in such a state, but he is not liable for doing so.

Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:15.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s approach, maintaining that these laws also have the status of Scriptural Law. There is merely an exception with regard to these particular elements. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is following his renowned approach (Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2) that any concept that is not explicitly stated in the Torah is considered as “from the Oral Tradition” even though it was also conveyed to Moses at Sinai and derived from accepted rules of Biblical exegesis. See also Chapter 19, Halachah 6.

Numbers 19:22, as stated in Halachah 2.

These words are somewhat misleading. An earthenware container contracts impurity when a source of impurity enters its inner space even if it does not touch it and it does not contract impurity if such an object touches its external surface. See Chapter 6, Halachah 3; Hilchot Keilim, ch. 13.

It does, however, impart ritual impurity to food or drink (Hilchot Kelim 13:2). See also the following halachot.

This phrase translates the term av tum’ah, literally, “a father of ritual impurity,” so called because it generates ritual impurity, like a father generates offspring.

This phrase translates the term v’lad tum’ah, literally, “the offspring of ritual impurity,” so called because it receives ritual impurity from contact with another entity, like offspring produced by their parents.

Thus Bava Kama 2b states that the derivatives of ritual impurity do not resemble the primary sources. For there is a fundamental difference with regard to the extent ritual impurity is spread.

For they are not inherently impure, but like offspring who receive from their parents, they contract their impurity from another source [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 1:6)].

This is one of the unique dimensions of the impurity stemming from contact with a corpse. Although in actual fact it is a derivative, for the impurity was not inherent to the person or the k’li, but instead, came about due to his contact with the corpse, it still becomes a primary source of impurity.

Halachah 5.

Nor through ohel. The Rambam does not mention the impurity of ohel, because he is borrowing the wording of Keilim 1:1.

Thus one which touches it becomes a derivative of a second degree.

See Halachot 4-5 which explain that when keilim are touching a corpse, a person is touching those keilim, and other keilim, the latter keilim have the status of a primary source of impurity. Food which comes in contact with them, even though its contact with a corpse is of a fourth degree, becomes a first derivative.

See the conclusion of Ch. 2, and Cbs. 10 and 11, for explanation of these terms.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 13, for an explanation of this term.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 15, for an explanation of these terms. Here too, as in his gloss to that halachah, the Ra’avad objects and maintains that the impurity imparted by a gollel and/or a dofek is of Scriptural origin.

A gollel and a dofek do not impart impurity when carried.

Even one that is pitched as a permanent dwelling. Although generally a substance attached to the ground does not contract impurity, an exception is made in this instance.

I.e., a corpse.

The Rambam is emphasizing that not only the articles that are in the structure, but also the structure itself becomes impure. He, however, qualifies this statement, explaining that it depends on the substance from which the structure is made.

The verse is referring to the sprinkling of the ashes of the Red Heifer, the medium through which an object that contracted impurity from a corpse is purified. The fact that the Torah states that it must be purified indicates that it contracts impurity.

This term refers to cloth made from wool or the like.

See Hilchot Keilim 1:12 for a definition of this term.

Based on the exclusion of wood later in the halachah, we are forced to say that here the Rambam is referring to articles made from flax which is occasionally referred to as an etz, “wood,” (Kessef Mishneh). See note 53 below.

The Ra’avad emphasizes that we are speaking about a situation where the wooden or metal utensils are permanently attached to the ground or to a building that is attached to the ground and thus are considered as part of the building and not as independent entities.

The house itself, however, remains pure.

Flax is referred to as wood in certain contexts. See Joshua 2:6, as cited by Shabbat 27b, et al.

As stated in Halachah 3.

Chapter 1, Halachah 2. Although through the principles of Biblical exegesis, it is derived that one becomes impure when carrying a corpse, that applies only to a corpse itself and not to objects deemed equivalent to a corpse.

I.e., this impurity is imparted by a man, a corpse itself, and not objects that contracted the impurity of a corpse.

In his Commentary on the Torah (Numbers 19:16), the Ramban agrees with the Rambam’s statements with regard to ohel, but takes issue with regard to carrying an impure garment. The Kessef Mishneh substantiates the Rambam’s view.

I.e., As will be explained in Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 6:1-2, there are several types of people including a zav (a male who becomes impure as a result of a discharge associated with disease) and a zavah (a woman who becomes impure because she experiences uterine bleeding outside her ordinary menstrual cycle) who impart impurity to a chair or other entity on which they sit or a bed or other entity on which they lie, even though they do not touch that entity. This stringency does not apply with regard to a corpse.

In this instance as well, a zav or a zavah would impart impurity to articles placed above them even though they do not touch him or her. Refer to Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 6:3.

As stated in Halachah 4.

Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, op. cit.

Impurity is described as retzutzah when there is not a handbreadth of free space between the corpse and the objects above it. In such an instance, the impurity rises through all the garments as it were and causes them all to become impure, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 4.

If there would be a shelter encompassing both the corpse and the garments, they would all become impure (see Chapter 12, Halachah 1).

In which instance, it prevents the impurity from reaching the articles on top of it.