Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., water has been sprinkled upon them after they were detached from the earth. As the Rambam states in the following halachah, not only do we assume that they became susceptible to impurity, but we assume that they contracted impurity.

To remove their outer shells, as the Rambam states at the conclusion of the halachah.

Including, of course, people who are ritually impure.

I.e., foods about which it is not a near certainty that they were exposed to liquids.

For that reason, as the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 2:3), it is permitted to purchase produce that is dry from such a person.

For, as indicated by the following clause of this halachah, it is common for the fisherman to turn the net over them, spilling the water upon them.

The Rabbis (see Tosafot Yom Tov) have questioned whether this is a reversal of the Rambam’s opinion from his position in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:3) or not.
The mishnah speaks of daga and the Rambam states that the term refers to a specific species of fish. One could infer that this principle does not apply to other fish. Here, however, he understands daga as a general term, applying to all fish.

For it can be assumed that they were touched by impure people.

Even though there is water upon them, it is not considered as if it was uprooted willfully, because one did not perform any unique act to insure that they became wet.

Because a specific act was performed to pour the water over them.

In which instance, the net would not be turned over upon them.

By contact with water. Although undiluted fish brine is not susceptible to impurity (Bechorot 22a), it becomes susceptible when mixed with water. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:3), fish brine that is served is made by mixing the natural product with water, thus making it susceptible to impurity. The Rambam is assuming that more than half the mixture is water.
The Rambam is referring to fish brine possessed by an unlearned person. It is assumed that he mixed water with it and therefore made it susceptible to impurity. If the brine is possessed by a person who is careful with regard to the laws of impurity (a chavair), it is assumed to be pure.
The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s statements, maintaining that it would have been preferable to use the wording of the Mishnah (ibid.): “All fish brine can be assumed to be impure.” The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam changed the wording of the mishnah to indicate why the brine becomes impure: because it can be assumed that it was made susceptible to ritual impurity due to contact with water.

I.e., as water. The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling, stating that Bechorot 23b maintains that fish brine does not contract impurity unless the majority is water. Although the Rambam’s ruling has its source in the mishnah (op. cit.), the mishnah is speaking about fish brine that is commercially sold which is already half water. Hence, an addition of even the slightest amount of water would make the majority water. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that even though it is difficult to say that this is the Rambam’s intent, his words should be interpreted in this manner, so that they do not run contrary to the Talmud’s statements.
From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, a different understanding can be advanced. As the Rambam states there, pure fish brine refers to fish brine that was made ready to be used by being mixed with salt or fruit juice. Hence, if even the slightest amount of water is added to this mixture, it becomes susceptible to impurity, as evident from the continuation of this halachah. In contrast, as evident from Halachah 5, if brine is made only from fish brine and water, it does not contract impurity unless the majority is water.

Because we assume that it came in contact with an impure person.

I.e., liquids other than water that are susceptible to ritual impurity.

If the majority of the mixture is from these liquids, the mixture is susceptible to impurity.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, referring to the Tosefta at the end of tractate Machshirin which mentions this concept as a minority view. The Kessef Mishneh asserts that perhaps the Rambam had a different version of that source.

In this matter as well, the Ra’avad disputes the Rambam’s ruling. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s position.

As the Rambam proceeds to explain, it is possible that the mixture was not in fact impure. This action is being taken as a safeguard lest it have contracted impurity.

For impure water can be purified through contact with a mikveh, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 21.

And thus, the mixture does not come into contact with other impure water.

The impure water in the brine finds the water in the pot and causes it to become impure.

I.e., this water in the brine did not become purified because at the time it came in contact with the water of the mikveh, it was insignificant.

From the continuation of the Rambam’s words, it appears that the intent is that we assume that the produce never came in contact with water and hence, never became susceptible to impurity.

Who is impure by virtue of Rabbinical decree and would not take any measures to prevent the produce from becoming susceptible to impurity.

As mentioned in Halachah 1 and in the following halachah.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:3). The term refers to a shrub of the rhus genus that has clusters of green flowers, red hairy berries, and feathery leaves.

Since they are hanging at the entrance to the store, it is certain that they were touched by an impure person.

Deuteronomy 23:12.

Leviticus 12:4, as interpreted by the Oral Tradition; see Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:13.

Leviticus 22:4.

Deuteronomy 26:14, as interpreted by the Oral Tradition; see Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 3:1.

Taharot 2:3-6.

I.e., it is itself impure and can impart impurity to other substances.

It is considered impure itself, but it does not impart impurity to other similar substances (Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTumah 11:1).

Ibid.:3-4.

As stated in ibid. 8:10, our Sages decreed that someone who partakes of such food should be considered impure. Hence when he touches terumah, he disqualifies it.

This license pertains even to food from which terumah has not been separated. Although in this manner, the terumah will also be impure when it is separated, since it had not yet become a distinct entity at the time the impurity was imparted, there is no prohibition involved.

For there is no ritual dimension in partaking of these foods. Fom the Rambam’s words, one may infer that although it is permitted to impart impurity to ordinary foods from which the required separations have not been made, as an initial preference, one should refrain from doing so (Kessef Mishneh).

Even as an initial preference.

Similarly, if a person has contracted impurity, he is not required to immerse himself in a mikveh to regain purity (Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 109).

A priest, in Leviticus, ch. 22, and a nazirite, in Numbers, ch. 6.

Levites and Israelites.

For were they forbidden, there would be no need for additional prohibitions for priests and nazirites.

For the Scriptural prohibitions relating to them involve only contact with a human corpse.

The commentaries question whether this prohibition applies to Israelite women as well as men.

Which may only be done in a state of purity.

Which seemingly prohibits all Jews from contracting the impurity that stems from an animal carcass.

As the Sha’agat Aryeh, sec. 67, explains, the intent is not that there is an intrinsic obligation to purify oneself on a festival. Instead, there is an obligation to be pure on the festivals so that one can offer the required sacrifices and that is possible only in a state of purity.

Sifri to the verse.

For even if the pure person contracts impurity, he will not have violated a prohibition.

As explained in Hilchot Ishut 21:8; Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 11:18. These measures were instituted lest familiarity lead to intimacy.

I.e., even a zav. The prohibition also applies to an ordinary person, not only a zav. The Rambam mentions a zav, because a zav could say: “I am already impure; what difference does it make if I contract other impurity.”

Literally, “those who separate themselves.” This is the root of the Latin term Pharisees. See also Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 10:1; Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 13:1.

The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah combines the verse cited with Leviticus 21:8. The version used has its source in authentic manuscripts and early printings of the text.

This Hebrew word, the plural of k’li, is a general term used to refer to an article that is used for a specific purpose. It refers to containers, garments, furniture, cooking utensils, tools, weapons, containers, and many other types of useful articles. As will be explained, there are certain distinctions between containers and other articles referred to as keilim. Therefore, at times, we will translate k’li as “container,” at times, as “implement,” and, at times, we will use the Hebrew term.

See Halachah 11 for a more precise definition of the term.

Articles or garments made from goats’ hair or other coarse fibers; see Halachah 12.

When describing the impurity that is contracted from the carcass of a crawling animal.

With regard to the purification of the booty taken from the Midianites after their being defeated in war.

The verse mentions six metals. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Yoreh De’ah, Vol. II, responsum 164) writes that only these six — and not others that became popular afterwards, e.g., aluminum — are susceptible to ritual impurity.

As cited in Chulin 25b.

The Hebrew term vechol, translated as “and anything” implies an inclusion beyond the expected scope of the verse. Thus in addition to garments made from goats’ hair, the verse is including keilim made from other body parts of the goat.

The Talmud (op. cit.) questions: If all other animals are to be included, why did the Torah single out a goat and thus imply an exclusion? To exclude a fowl (for it is not of the same type as a goat).

Our translation is based on the notes of R. Aryeh Kaplan’s Living Torah. The precise definition of the intended species is the subject of a difference of opinion among both Rabbinic authorities and zoologists.
Keilim 17:14 mentions that keilim made from the wings of an oz are susceptible to impurity. The Rambam identifies that term with the ozniah.

If an ostrich egg is not coated, it is too fragile to serve as an implement.

For according to Scriptural Law, the above-mentioned exclusion applies.

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 6:1.

Or others in the same category of impurity, as explained in Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 1.

E. g., a type of moss or seaweed. See Hilchot Kilayim 10:1 which states: “In seaports, there is something like wool that grows on stones in the Mediterranean Sea whose appearance resembles gold and it is very soft. It is called kelech. It is forbidden [to be mixed] with linen because of the appearance it creates, since it resembles lambs’ wool.”

Sifra to the above verse.

Or from the wool of animals nourished from plants that grow on the earth.

The Sifra derives this principle from the above verse.

“The strands of a garment that the tailor draws out when he cuts fabric” [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:13)].

I.e., if they were both ordinary garments that were connected in a way that one would contract impurity if a source of impurity touched the other. See parallels in Hilchot Parah Adumah 12:5-6.

This phrase introduces a deduction made by the Rambam on the basis of logic for which he has no explicit source in prior Rabbinic literature.

See Halachah 2.

See Hilchot Tefillin 1:10, 20; 3:15.

And thus just as such a hide is susceptible to ritual impurity, the skin of a fowl should also be susceptible.

The leather-making process dries out other hides and prevents them from exuding unpleasant smells. The skin of a fish, by contrast, remains oily and continues to exude foul odors.

For there is no mention of them contracting impurity in the Torah.

I.e., when looking at them, an entity that is inside appears as if it is outside. Hence, when impurity touches their outside, it is as if it touched their inside [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1)].
The Ra’avad differs with this rationale. He explains that the Sages’ reasoning was: Since their inside can be seen from their outside, the outside is considered like their inside. Thus, if, they would also contract impurity from their inner space, like earthenware containers, the laws governing them would be more severe than those governing all other types of keilim. That is not appropriate since their impurity is only Rabbinic in origin. Hence, they did not impose this stringency.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that Shabbat 16b, the source for this ruling, appears to follow the Ra’avad’s understanding. He does, however, offer an interpretation of that passage that fits the Rambam’s approach.

Earthenware containers contact impurity even if the impurity merely enters their inner space without touching the container.

See Halachah 10 which mentions an exception to this principle.

I.e., just as earthenware containers cannot regain ritual purity by immersion in a mikveh (or through any other means), so too, glass utensils cannot regain purity after becoming impure. See Hilchot Mikveot 1:3.

Terumah and sacrificial foods that contract impurity (even most Rabbinic impurities) must be destroyed by fire. Nevertheless, our Sages did not impose this stringency if these foods contracted impurity from glass utensils.

These foods are not burnt, as is produce that is considered as impure, nor may they be used. Instead, they are left until they contract impurity from another source or they are disqualified because they were kept beyond the time in which they should be eaten.

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 6:2 and notes where these concepts are first stated and explained in depth.

Menachot 69a raises this question and does not resolve it.

In which instance, they would not be susceptible to impurity.

Which are susceptible to impurity.

Since it was excreted without any fundamental change, its status is also not altered. While it is in the elephant's stomach, however, it does not impart impurity. See Hilchot Tum'at Meit 20:2.

The rationale for this concept can be explained as follows: An earthenware container contracts impurity only when a source of impurity enters its inner space. Thus if an earthenware implement does not have a receptacle — i.e., inner space — it does not contract impurity. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, ch. 27:1.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:3), the Rambam makes a further point: If an earthenware utensil has a receptacle, but that receptacle is not intended to contain anything, the implement is not susceptible to impurity. See Chapter 18, Halachah 1.

Large containers of this size that are made from wood are not susceptible to ritual impurity. See Chapter 3, Halachah 1; Hilchot Tum’at Meit 6:2.

Upon which one writes; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 1:5).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 16:4), the Rambam debates whether flat leather utensils are subject to ritual impurity or not. Although there he states that he leans to the lenient perspective, here he rules stringently.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 1, which states that there are certain wooden keilim that are not susceptible to impurity at all, even according to Rabbinic Law.

For Numbers 31:20, the verse which teaches that bone keilim are susceptible to ritual impurity, also mentions wooden keilim, implying that an equivalence is established between them.

Women who are zavot, nidot, or impure after childbirth.

And these utensils are fit to lie upon (see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1). See also Chapter 25 of these halachot.

Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 7:1.

Even if it does not have a receptacle (see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 27:1).

In contrast to fabrics made from entities that grow in the sea (Halachah 3).

Rolls of wool that are compressed together to form a fabric [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 9:9)]. See Chapter 22, Halachah 2; Hilchot Tum’at Meit 13:1.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 19:3), the Rambam explains that this refers to a band that is wound around the belly of a donkey to hold its saddlebags in place.

Or any other fabric.

I.e., ropes are susceptible to impurity if they are part of another implement, but not in and of themselves. See Chapter 21, Halachot 6-7.

I.e., they are susceptible to ritual impurity. This applies, however, to the ritual impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse, not that which stems from articles that contracted impurity from a zav. See Chapter 25, Halachah 13.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1) where he explains that the Hebrew term refers to a soft stone of blue color that is easily dissolved in water and is used to wash hair and cloths. Our Sages frequently refer to it as a detergent agent.

The Hebrew term refers to a cooking surface with an opening for two pots.

The Hebrew term refers to a cooking surface with an opening for one pot.

In the Talmudic era, these cooking structures were earthenware vessels that were built into the ground itself with mortar. Since they were connected to the ground, one might think that they were not susceptible to ritual impurity. Nevertheless Leviticus 11:35 explicitly mentions that it is possible for these utensils to contract impurity. See Chapters 15 and 16 which elaborate on the laws applying to these utensils.

Even in circumstances where such items would not ordinarily be considered as utensils, as evident from the examples that the Rambam mentions.

The Hebrew term the Rambam employs, matzah, is used, because just like matzah is simply flour and water with nothing added, so too, this hide has not been processed at all.

The terms child and minor are redundant, having the same meaning (Ma'aseh Rokeiach).

In certain contexts, their actions are given the same halachic consideration as if they were performed by an adult.

As will be explained, there are instances where the intent of a mentally sound adult is significant in changing the status of an article with regard to ritual impurity. The intent of the individuals mentioned here is, however, not significant, because their intellectual capacity is limited and their thoughts will not necessarily have an effect on the articles in question. Their deeds, by contrast, do create an effect. Hence, they are halachically significant [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:15)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:16), the Rambam writes that deceivers make a hollow in the horizontal rod of a scale and place a weight there so that it will weigh down the side on which the merchandise is placed and make it appear that there is more of the merchandise that they are selling than there actually is.
Similarly, by placing a weight in the rod used to level off flour and other produce, the seller will cause it to sink into the produce and thus produce a loss for a purchaser (ibid.).

The peddler may place a receptacle in the pole where he can store coins that he stole while negotiating a transaction (ibid.).

A poor man collecting alms may make a hole in his pole to store drinking water while creating the impression that he is fasting (ibid.).

The Rambam does not mention a rationale for this practice. Other commentaries to the Mishnah speak of a staff having a place for a mezuzah and a pearl. They explain that a deceiver would wrap the pearl in the mezuzah and explain that he is carrying the mezuzah for protection. In that way, the pearl would not be detected. The Rambam mentions the two in separate clauses, indicating he considers the mezuzah as an independent concept, presumably also for the reason of protection. It is then, however, difficult to understand why the mezuzah is mentioned together with all the previous examples, for they are all means of deception.

So that it could be hidden from a customs’ inspector.

Keilim 17:17 mentions that a sharpener is susceptible to ritual impurity. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that the intent cannot be a stone sharpener, for stone utensils are never susceptible to ritual impurity. Nor could the intent be a metal sharpener, because metal implements are always susceptible to ritual impurity. Instead, the intent is a block of wood on which a knife is whetted.

The wax would be stored there to be used to seal letters (ibid.).

The point of this halachah is that even though most people would not consider such a receptacle significant, since there are people who do, the receptacle causes the article to be considered as a k’li and susceptible to ritual impurity.

Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, since the wood serves the metal, it is susceptible to impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:17); see also Chapter 4, Halachah 5]. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah, without an anvil, such a block of wood is not considered as an implement at all and is not susceptible to ritual impurity, even according to Rabbinic Law.

There are commentaries who maintain that the Rambam’s intent is that even before the receptacle is filled, the wood is not susceptible to impurity. Since the intent is that receptacle will be filled, even before it is actually filled, it is considered as filled.

The commentaries note that the Rambam’s ruling here contradicts his ruling in Hilchot Sukkot 5:5 where he considers such receptacles as significant and rules that they disqualify wood for use as s’chach, because they cause it to be considered as susceptible to impurity.

For only then is it fit to take in other substances.

Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 2:2). When explaining this term in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:17), the Rambam refers to the wording of II Kings 4:39.

I.e., using the straw as a mezuzah case. By placing the mezuzah inside, the person indicated that he considers the straw as a container.
The Ra’avad notes that Keilim 16:7 states that a mezuzah case is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Mishnah is speaking about a case that is useful only as a mezuzah. By contrast, the Rambam, quoting [the Tosefta (Keilim 14:3)] is speaking about a straw that could be used for other purposes as well.

The Rambam (and his source, the Tosefta) are apparently speaking about an instance where there is a hollow in the wall where the straw could be placed, but it would not be affixed there permanently.

Since the person placed the mezuzah in it beforehand, he made it evident that he intended to use the straw as a container. The fact that he placed it upside down does not cause its status to change.

Placing the mezuzah inside before affixing it.

By being permanently affixed to the building, it is considered as attached to the ground. Nevertheless, since it is being used as a container, its status does not change when affixed.

Since it is permanently affixed to the wall with its open part facing downward, it is no longer considered as a container and is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

But did not affix it permanently.

Because its position indicates that it will be used as a container and it is not permanently affixed to the wall, it remains susceptible to impurity.

Because its position indicates that it will not be used as a container.

Since the straw was permanently affixed to the wall before it was used as a container, it is considered as part of the building. Hence, just as the building is not susceptible to ritual impurity, the straw is also not susceptible.

This term is generally translated as cork. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:6), the Rambam identifies it with an Arabic term which Rav Kapach defines as “a flexible tree that comes from India.”

In that source (ibid. 22:10), the Rambam explains that a structure like a net with high walls is made from these pliable pieces of wood.

I.e., and is open from both sides (ibid.).

Because it is not considered as a container.

See Shabbat 59a and commentaries which explain that, on occasion, such a foot-covering is used by humans.

Among the reasons given is that it is not a lasting entity.

As stated in Halachah 1 above.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:2), the Rambam explains that unlike a pearl, the coins are separate entities. Hence, the hide will not be formed into a pouch with a single receptacle.