Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

There are Rishonim (Tosafot, and according to some, Rashi) who differ and maintain that food also does not contract impurity unless an egg-sized portion is present. The Rambam’s ruling is based on the Sifri to the prooftext cited.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 8:1, 3.

See ibid.:10-11 where the Rambam discusses this matter in greater detail.

Ibid.. A revi’it is 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 150 cc according to Chazon Ish.

I.e., they can be combined even if they are totally different entities.

I.e., a beast of prey ate part of the animal and left a part.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 3, for the explanation of this and the other terms mentioned in this halachah.

I.e., even though these substances would not necessarily be considered as food, they are placed in that category when one considers them as such. When they are added to other foods, they are also considered significant and can be counted as part of the minimum measures mentioned previously. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:1).

I.e., we consider the size of the food at the time the ruling is being made even though this leads to a more lenient ruling.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 4:13 for more details. There, the Rambam. writes that if a substance was less than the minimum measure, but was left in water so that it swelled and attained the size of the required minimum, it is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law.

Sacrificial meat that was left beyond the time when it was permitted to be eaten.

A sacrifice that was disqualified because the priest had the intent that it be eaten at a time when it was forbidden to do so.

Premature death in this world and the soul being cut off in the world to come.

One is liable for punishment only if he partook of the minimum measure. Since the substances shrank in size, it is not considered as if he partook of that quantity.

An av tum’ah, a primary source of impurity.

The impurity associated with foods that involves a derivative of impurity.

Which would cause the person to be liable for karet.

Onion leaves that grow from onions that are not rooted in the ground [Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 2:9)].

I.e., their volume is calculated without compressing them. Since the sap is flowing in them, their size is calculated according to their volume in their present state.

I.e., without sap.

See Rama (Orach Chayim 486:1) who quotes this principle in a different context.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that the root of this Hebrew term is sifog, meaning “sponge,” i.e., a bread that is puffy like sponge.

Its volume is not compressed.

And thus its volume reduced.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that it is common for the meat of a calf to absorb moisture and expand when cooked. Conversely, when the meat of an older animal is cooked, it contracts.

I.e., as it is after one cooked it, not according to its volume before it was cooked.

Even though when fresh, their volume was greater.

An olive-sized portion of the flesh of a human corpse imparts impurity (Hilchot Tum'at Meit 2:1), while a handful of the decomposed mass (rekev) does (ibid. 2:11).

An olive-sized portion of both imparts impurity, but the impurity associated with a human corpse is different and more than that associated with an animal carcass, for it imparts impurity that persists for seven days.

A lentil-sized portion of the flesh of the carcass of a crawling animal imparts impurity, while it is an olive-sized portion of an animal carcass which does so. Also, the type of impurity is different, as reflected in the fact that the flesh of an animal carcass when carried (without being touched) and the flesh of the carcass of a crawling animal does not impart impurity in that manner [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Me’ilah 4:4)].

A tertiary degree derivative of impurity imparts impurity to sacrificial foods.

A fourth degree derivative does not impart impurity to any substances. Since there is less than an egg-sized portion of the food that is a primary derivative, it does not impart impurity to the other food. The Rambam is emphasizing that we do not take the average of the two which would cause the mixture to receive a more severe degree of impurity.

For the primary derivative alone was of sufficient size to impart impurity.

For the primary derivative is reduced a level.

I.e., the loaf is considered as a tertiary derivative. Since the two mixtures did not fall at the same time, they are not combined and the situation is considered as that of a secondary derivative that touched other food.

In which instance, the food will be coming in contact with an egg-sized portion of a primary derivative.

We follow the same principles as in the previous halachah. Here, the secondary derivative alone was of sufficient size to impart impurity.

For, as above, the primary derivative alone was of sufficient size to impart impurity.

I.e., any food touched by a primary derivative becomes a secondary derivative. The fact that it had been classified as a tertiary derivative is of no consequence.

For there will be an egg-sized portion that is a primary derivative in each half.

Because it is probable that there is less than an egg-sized portion that is a primary derivative in each portion.

Lit., “hand” or “handle,” i.e., something through which food could be held or suspended from [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 1:1)]. In this halachah, the Rambam defines the terms to which he will refer throughout the chapter.

See Halachah 20.

Lit., “protectors,” something that maintains the existence of a fruit [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.); see Halachah 4].

I.e., they are not counted when measuring to see whether there is a minimum measure of food or not.

Since it serves the food, it is considered as part of it.

Even though impurity did not touch the food. Others (Rashi, Rabbenu Shimshon) interpret “imparts impurity” as meaning “imparts impurity to other foods,” i.e., if the stem touched other foods even through the fruit did not, those fruits become impure.

Even though the impurity did not touch the yad.

Which imparts impurity to other foods (Chapter 4, Halachah 1).

Which imparts impurity to a person who partakes of it (ibid.).

See Chapter 1, Halachot 1-2.

This refers to the food itself contracting impurity, which- as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 1—can occur regardless of the size of the food.

A bean is considered as half the size of an olive.

Since it is divided, it is no longer functional. Thus it does not serve the food and hence, is not combined with it.

The commentaries question the exact intent of the Hebrew term used by the Rambam. All agree that it refers to a coating around the kernel.

Included in this category are also shells of nuts and pods of legumes.

This includes the stems.

For he does not desire to hold the fruit at all.

Some of the grape juice will be absorbed by the stems. Hence their presence is not desired by the owner.

I.e., as s’chach. The produce itself is not acceptable for use as s’chach, but the stalks in which it grows are.

I.e., the sukkah used on the Sukkot holiday.

Since the person intends to use the stalks for the s’chach (for which the produce is unacceptable), he has diverted his attention from the produce. Hence the stalks are no longer considered as yadot. On the contrary, in this context, the stalks are of primary importance.

For once they are crushed, they are no longer functional.

Since it no longer contains any grapes, it is no longer considered as a yad. Instead, it is like other wood.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 1:5), the Rambam writes that the sprig is a shomer for the grape. Classifying it as a yad, as is done here, seems more appropriate.

For it is considered as a yad for that grape.

This refers to pods that are not fit to eat in and of themselves. Peapods and the like that are eaten are considered as foods and are susceptible to impurity because of themselves.

There are several types of nuts that have two shells. In such an instances, the outer shell is not halachically significant. Only the inner shell is considered as a shomer.

Because it is considered as food itself.

As stated in Halachah 3, once a shomer is not whole, it is not combined.

For it is considered as a shomer to a shomer. Significantly, these concepts are stated in Uktzin 2:4 in the name of Rabbi Yehudah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes that the halachah does not follow Rabbi Yehudah’s view. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam accepts his position because it is used as a basis of a Talmudic argument in Chulin 119b.

For it is obvious that the person no longer considers them as food.

For they are edible and are considered as foods in many places.

Because they are considered as shomerim for the food.

Because the peels are edible themselves.

For they are sown as seed with their shell (Kessef Mishneh). Therefore the shell is considered as protection for the seed.

I.e., they are considered as yadot, as stated in Halachah 1.

For if the seed of a fresh date would be removed from it, the date would spoil. Hence the seed is considered as a shomer for the fruit [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 2:2)].
The Ra’avad emphasizes that this applies even when the seed projects beyond the fruit. The Kessef Mishneh states that this concept is implied by the Rambam’s wording. See Halachah 15.

For it can be removed without causing the fruit to spoil [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

Because it is separate from the seed. Since the seed is merely a shomer, this covering is like a shomer for a shomer [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].
The Ra’avad offers a different understanding of that mishnah and, hence, differs with the Rambam’s ruling. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s position.

The rationale the Rambam gives here differs slightly from that which he offers in his Commentary to the Mishnah. There he states that when the date is dry, the covering of the seed serves as the shomer for the fruit.

Either because one squeezed it out or one ate a portion of the fruit.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that when a portion of the fruit is eaten, only the portion of the seed that is opposite the fruit is included. If, however, a portion of the seed was squeezed out of the fruit and the fruit is whole, the entire seed is combined.

I.e., surrounding it on all sides. Thus a portion of the bone has had the meat totally removed and a portion has meat on all sides.

Most bones are not solid from one side to the other.

A hyssop stem is very thin. Only this portion of the bone is combined with the meat, because this portion is sufficient to keep the meat from spoiling [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, interpreting that mishnah based on the Tosefta (Uktzin 2:3) that serves as the basis for the Rambam’s ruling in the following halachah. He maintains that as long as there is some meat on the bone, the entire bone is included in the measure of impurity. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s interpretation, explaining that the Mishnah and the Tosefta are referring to different situations.

Without the bone, the meat would spoil faster.

See Halachah 3 which states that even if the food is less than a bean-sized portion, there can be a concept of a shomer.

I.e., seeds that were removed from the fruit and cooked as independent entities.

Because they never become soft enough to be considered as food.
The Or Sameiach notes an apparent contradiction to Hilchot Terumot 11:11 which appears to indicate that these seeds are considered as food. Nevertheless, the commentaries explain that the intent in Hilchot Terumot is not that the seeds themselves are considered as food, but that they often have part of the fruit attached to them.

For, in their present form, they are not fit to be eaten.

For then they soften and are fit to be eaten.

For they are considered either as part of the food itself or as a shomer to the food.

Our translation of this and other terms in this halachah is based on [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 1:2)].

The bulge on the head of the onion where the roots are connected to the plant itself.

From which the seeds of the onion grow.

Our translation is based on the version of Uktzin 1:2 found in Rav Kappach’s version of the Rambam’s text of the Mishnah and authentic manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah.

For they are considered as merely yadot to the food, as the Rambam states at the conclusion of the halachah.

The stems of squash are very long. The entire length cannot be considered as a yad for the food, only the handbreadth near it.

Our translation of this and other terms in this halachah is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 1:6)].

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 1:3), from the branches of a grape vine grow several twigs. On each twig, grow several clusters of grapes.

Even though the grapes were removed from this portion of the cluster, this portion of the shoot is necessary to support the grapes that remain on the upper portion of the cluster (ibid.).

The term the Rambam uses is mechabed also means “broom.” In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), he explains that the branches of a date-palm which, like the base of a broom, contain many leaves that spread out.

I.e., the branch may be longer, but only four handbreadths are considered as a yad.

I.e., stalks of grain project from the ground consisting of a stem and an upper portion that contains the kernels of grain. Three handbreadths of this stem are considered as a yad.

I.e., plants whose stem is gripped and then cut with a sickle.

But, instead, are uprooted from the ground.

Whether large or small.

All of these portions of plants are not eaten, nor do they provide any benefit to the produce itself.

The inner, yellow protuberance below the pomegranate's crown [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 2:3)].

It is considered as a shomer, because the fruit would spoil if it were removed.

The thin, yellow growths that sprout from the top of pomegranate when it has fully ripened (ibid.).

To the extent that it is no longer fit to be eaten (ibid.).

The part that decomposed is considered as neither a yad, nor a shomer.

I.e., even the portion of the peel over the part of the fruit that is intact.

I.e., it is no longer considered a shomer.

Since there is a rotten portion of fruit next to the portion that has not yet rotted.

Either they are eaten themselves or they protect the food.

I.e., leaves that have wilted.

I.e., there are cracks in them, but they are still connected to the fruit [the Ram. bam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 2:6)].

And classified as a shomer and included when calculating whether the food is as large as an olive-sized portion.

Once the shell is shattered, even if it is again placed over the fruit, it is not considered as a shomer (ibid.). The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that once a shell has been cracked, even if it has not been shattered, it is not considered a shomer. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s understanding, stating that as long as the shell is not shattered entirely, it is somewhat useful as a protective agent.

I.e., roasted to the degree that the egg itself has been cooked some, but has not coagulated entirely. See Uktzin 2:7.

And is no longer considered as a shomer.

And can no longer be sucked through a hole.

A cooking technique is to apply spices to the shell of an egg. Since the shell is porous, the spices will be absorbed and will flavor the egg.

Even though the shattered shell will no longer be effective in protecting the egg, it is desired, because it will flavor it (Kessef Mishneh).

The marrow is considered as food and the bone, as its shomer. Hence, the bone is included together with the marrow in the measure of an egg-sized portion [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin, loc. cit.)].

Although this action indicates that the person intends to remove the scales and the wings, as long as they remained attached to the fish or the locust, they are included in its measure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that when the shell of a pomegranate has dried out and the pomegranate seeds can be heard shaking within the shell, the shell is still considered as connected to them until one strikes the shell with a reed or a stick to cause the seeds to fall.

Which hold the dates themselves.

Although several stalks grow from the same branch, the stalks are not combined with each other, but instead are considered as independent entities.

I.e., he cut it into portions, but did not divide the portions entirely from each other.

The Rambam’s text is based on the Tosefta (Uktzin 2:5). Rav Yosef Corcus explains the Rambam’s understanding as follows: When cucumbers were served in the Talmudic era, they would be cut into four quarters. Nevertheless, the different pieces were not separated from each other entirely and remained connected to each other on their underside. When a person desired to partake of a given piece, he would separate it entirely.

It was customary to cut this portion off by itself. Hence it is considered as a distinct entity even when it was not yet cut off.

This teaching is a continuation of the above Tosefta. Although the standard version follows the Rambam’s understanding, others follow a different rendering of that text that presents fewer conceptual difficulties.
As the Kessef Mishneh and R. Yosef Corcus state, the Rambam’s version is difficult to understand, for seemingly, the opposite is true: The portion that he separated to eat has already become distinct, while the remainder remains connected and is considered a single entity.

For they will be separated through the cooking process [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 2:5)].

For he desires that the pieces remain together so that when he takes one, he will take all the others (ibid.).

The piece that is separated is considered as a distinct entity, but the remainder of the vegetable is still considered as joined (ibid.).

And they are not viewed as a single entity. From the different opinions mentioned in T’vul Yom 3:1, it would appear that, according to the Rambam, the fact that the converse is true — that if one would pick up the portion that is pure, the impure portion would ascend with it — is insignificant. The ruling depends on what would happen when the impure portion is picked up.

I.e., without falling off [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 3:1)].

And if an impure person touched the leaves or the stalk, it is considered as if he touched the food itself.

And thus can still impart impurity in certain situations.

And the determination of whether or not the portion is connected determined accordingly.

The Kessef Mishneh understands this as implying that if it would ascend with either one, a stringent ruling is delivered and it is considered as part of the food.

I.e., tied the stems of the nuts together to produce a long chain with nuts hanging from it. This is possible only when the stems are soft [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 2:6)]. In his gloss to the following halachah, the Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of this mishnah, but the Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s view.

That were still joined to each other.

Since they were joined together by human activity, as soon as the person indicates that he no longer desires to keep them joined forever, they are considered as separate.

I.e., has been made susceptible to impurity, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachot 1-2.

The Ra’avad questions why this chain of garlic heads is considered as different from the chain of onions mentioned in the previous halachah. The Kessef Mishneh writes that, indeed, according to the Rambam, there is not necessarily a difference. The difference is between actually contracting impurity and becoming susceptible to impurity.

Since the garlic heads are not expected to be left joined for an extended time, to become susceptible to impurity, each one must come in contact with liquids individually.

Even though they are held together by the needle or the wood.

Mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachot 2.

Even though amassing such foods in this manner is a common practice, they are considered as separate in this context.

For the cooking process has caused them to become a single entity, not just a conglomeration of separate units.

Before they were pressed, olives were stored in a pit so that they would soften. The pressure of the many olives would compress them into a single mass.

The flow of their fluid from one olive to another enables more oil to be expressed when they are placed under the press.

Because turning them over will separate them. Once the person has begun to separate them, we assume that he will continue until they are all separate.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Eduyot 3:2), the Rambam gives as examples, nuts or pistachios.

Halachah 14.

As explained, Chapter 4, Halachah 1, when there is less than an egg-sized portion of food, it can contract ritual impurity, but it does not impart impurity to other substances. When foods are lumped together in this manner, if they all contract impurity, they are considered as a single mass with regard to imparting impurity to other substances.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 2:5), this term refers to cooked grains, porridge, or the like.

Since it is touching an impure food, it also contracts impurity, but its impurity is lesser than that of the food it touched.

That was dough or only partially baked.

For they are considered as a single entity.

As it was initially.

After their separation, they regain their initial identity and, hence, are considered as food which touched impure food, i.e., a secondary derivative.

This is speaking about a loaf that is terumah, for there is no concept of tertiary derivatives with regard to ordinary food.

This is also speaking about a loaf that is terumah. Since there is no concept of derivatives of the fourth degree with regard to terumah even when the other loaves are attached to the first, its impurity is not considered as powerful enough to change their status.

Because at the time the loaf contracted impurity, they are all considered as a single entity.

Impure liquids are always considered as primary derivatives of impurity (Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:5). Hence food that they touch is considered as a secondary derivative. Since the loaves were attached at the time the first contracted impurity, they all share the same status.

Our Sages decreed (ibid. 8:2) that hands which one was not watching at all times would be considered as a secondary derivative of impurity.

With this sentence, the Rambam is explaining the difference between this law and the previous one. In this halachah, the loaves were a single entity when they contracted impurity. In contrast, in the previous halachot, one loaf became impure and then it was joined with the others. Hence there is greater room for leniency.