Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The term literally means “people of the land,” i.e., common people who are generally given over to mundane pursuits.

An article on which a zav or one who imparts a similar impurity sat or lied upon, or was supported by in another way. In this instance, we fear that the unlearned person’s wife sat on the person’s clothes while she was in the nidah state (Chulin 35b).

If, however, he touches it from the outside, it is insignificant, because an earthenware container contracts impurity only from its inside. See Chapter 8, Halachot 3-4, and notes.

As is impure terumah.

I.e., we are not certain that the unlearned person is impure. Now, there is a prohibition against destroying pure terumah unnecessarily. For that reason, generally, if there was a question whether terumah contracted ritual impurity, it was put aside and not burnt until it is certain that it contracted impurity. Nevertheless, in this instance, our Sages decreed that the terumah should be burnt. From here, we see the intent is that the Sages did not merely suspect that the unlearned people were impure, they assumed that they were impure (Likkutei Sichot). See further discussion of this issue in Hilchot Sh’ar Avot HaTum’ah 13:13.

l. e., whether the articles contracted impurity or not.

F oods or utensils.

l. e., we do not suspect that the person would lie. Instead, the likelihood is that he or she will simply be unaware that a food or a utensil became impure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Demai 2:3), the Rambam explains that this term is used because, as indicated by the following halachah, the term refers to Torah scholars. Chavair means “friend.” This term is appropriate to be used with regard to Torah scholars. Since their friendship is based on the Torah, it is true friendship, for its motivation is for the sake of heaven.

Until produce was touched by water, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Hence it is permissible to take produce that is dry from an unlearned person. Similarly, there is no restriction against selling him such produce (see Kessef Mishneh).

In a place where it is obvious that he is carrying out these deeds as a result of a genuine commitment and not out of a desire to impress others.

I.e., he will wash his hands in the ritual manner before touching terumah.

For this is the primary aspect associated with eating ordinary foods in a state of ritual purity. Indeed, it is of such great importance, the person is not considered to have “accepted all the restrictions of a chavair except one,” because any and all matters that are not included in this restriction are secondary in nature (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., even in the era after the destruction of the Temple, such a person could be relied on even though it was unknown whether he formally accepted these restrictions.

For a person would not be accepted into the academy unless he agreed to accept these restrictions.

He has no choice, for he will not be able to maintain his observance of these precepts unless it is shared by the members of his household.

I.e., their conduct indicates that they are no longer mindful of these restrictions.

Or his divorcee.

The acceptance must be formalized in the presence of three chaveirim and there is a 30 day interim period for them to become familiar with these practices.

We assume that they will continue observing the practices that they followed previously.

I.e., in the time when he had not yet achieved the status of a chavair, other unlearned people had also touched these pure articles. He was familiar with their personal circumstances and relied on their word that they had not imparted impurity to the pure articles.

I.e., considered impure. For the word of an unlearned person is not accepted by a chavair.

l. e., if he knows that he was pure at the time that he was involved with them, even after his status changes, he may rely on that knowledge and consider the articles as pure.

l. e., other chaveirim must regard the foods as impure, because their status is dependent on the knowledge of a person who was “unlearned” at the time.

Although in other contexts, e.g., whether his firstborn animals have contracted a disqualifying blemish, a scholar is not allowed to issue halachic rulings with regard to his own possessions, in this instance, we accept his rulings (Bechorot 31a).

This term refers to a practice common in the Roman era in which a person would pay the tax duty for a particular region to the king in advance. He would then collect that duty—and more—from the inhabitants of that region. Since he is making a profit, and in most instances, an inordinate profit, from the inhabitants, he is considered as a robber and disqualified as a witness (see Hilchot Edut 10:4). The Sefer Me'irat Einayim, Choshen Mishpat 34:34 interprets this term slightly differently, explaining that it refers to customs collectors and income tax collectors. Since the rules governing these duties are not so clear cut and it is possible for the collector to overcharge, it is suspected that he will do so and keep the remainder for himself.

The collectors of a fixed head tax or property tax.

l. e., he does not revert to his initial status automatically. Instead, he must make a formal acceptance of these practices and go through an initial period of acclimatization before his word is accepted, as stated in Halachot 2 and 5.

l. e., there was reason to suspect that he did not observe a certain dimension of the laws of ritual purity.

He is not suspect to have abandoned the observance of ritual purity entirely.

If he is willing to violate a more severe restriction, his fear of heaven will not be strong enough to prevent him from violating a lesser one.

For we assume that his fear of heaven will prevent him from such a violation.

With regard to any matter of ritual purity.

As long as it is not known that he violated a prohibition punishable by lashes, in which instance, his testimony is disqualified, as stated in Hilchot Edut 10:2.

Hence although he might violate the transgression involved for his own benefit, we do not cast aspersions on his testimony or judgment with regard to others. This is a general principle, applicable in many different contexts in Jewish Law; see, for example, Hilchot Ma’aser 12:17, Hilchot Shemitah 8:17, Hilchot Edut 11:8.
In those sources—and here—the Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling and cites sources which appear to indicate that the suspect person’s word is not accepted at all, not with regard to his own matters, nor with regard to those involving another person. In the places cited, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh provide explanations that justify the Rambam’s ruling.

For this wine and oil are offered on the altar.

For doing so is much more worthwhile fmancially.

During the remainder of the year.

We do not fear that the unlearned person will unlock the entrance without the priest's knowledge.

I.e., that had not come into contact with water.

According to Scriptural Law; according to Rabbinic Law, they do contract impurity, as stated in Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 11:1.

Tosafot (Chulin 35b) interprets this to mean that the person declared: “A revi’it which I will ultimately separate from this barrel is consecrated.” We are forced to accept this interpretation. Otherwise, the consecrated wine will be mixed together with the terumah and hence, the entire quantity would be forbidden to a priest.

I.e., a relatively small amount of wine, 86 cc. according to Shiurei Torah, 150 cc according to Chazon Ish.

Rambam LeAm suggests that a precise reading of the Rambam's wording implies that even the barrel in which wine or oil was kept cannot be used a second time. See Rashi (Chagigah 25b).

This refers to empty containers in general. The particular container in which consecrated wine or oil was kept is, however, considered pure. For it is not considered as respectful to consider the containers of consecrated foods as impure (ibid.).

Even though he had not consecrated the wine or the oil yet.

For it was common that unlearned persons would prepare the utensils used to make wine and oil before the season when these liquids were actually produced.

For it was unlikely that the preparations would be made so far in advance.

I.e., ordinary liquids.

For the word of an unlearned person is not accepted with regard to the liquids except when the olive presses and wine vats are active.

I.e., the determination of the clothes of an unlearned person as impure was only a Rabbinic decree and they ruled that this decree should not be applied in such a situation.

So that their smoke does not ruin the appearance of the holy city (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:14). Accordingly, there was a shortage of containers in the city and it was necessary to use those touched by unlearned people. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chagigah 3:6), the Rambam writes that because of the shortage, the unlearned people were careful and would not cause the containers to become impure.

Others render the name of the town as Modi'im. As stated in Pesachim 93b, it was located 15 mil (approximately 15 kilometers) outside Jerusalem.

The chavair was entering Modi'it on his way to Jerusalem and the unlearned person was departing on his way home.

But not with regard to terumah.

And the c סntainer may be used. The rationale is that the potter is departing and the chavair will not have another opportunity to purchase this pot

If they are both departing, the chavair could have purchased the container beforehand. If he did not, there is no need to show him leniency. (Alternatively, once he has left Jerusalem, he is not in need of the container.) If they are both entering, there is no need to extend the leniency, for they can proceed together until they are passed Modi'it (see the commentaries to Chagigah op. cit.).

I.e., we do not fear that perhaps the potter (who was unlearned) touched the utensils in the first row when he opened the ki1n [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 5:1)].

I.e., we do not fear that a previous purchaser (who was unlearned) picked up several of the utensils and then put them back in place.

Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot, when the entire Jewish people are commanded to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and bring sacrificial offerings. They would enter the Temple and partake of the offerings. Both of these acts must be performed in a state of ritual purity (Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 16:10).

I.e., while they are in Jerusalem.

I.e., even if they know that they did not contract impurity afterwards. According to the Rambam’s wording, this concept is difficult to understand: Since the reason the unlearned people are considered impure is “because they purify themselves,” why do they and everything they touch revert to a state of impurity after the festivals? [Rashi (Chagigah 26a) interprets the ruling differently, stating that, on the festivals, the Sages relaxed their decree so as not to embarrass the common people. According to that interpretation, there is no question, for we do not assume that the people were actually pure. However, according to the Rambam who states that the people purify themselves, it is difficult to understand why after the festivals the law changes.]
Likkutei Sichot clarifies the issue, explaining that during the festivals, the entire people are judged as a collective. Since by and large the people purify themselves, as a collective, everyone is considered as pure. After the festivals, when that collective identity is no longer highlighted, everyone is judged as an individual. Since it is possible that an unlearned person was impure, retroactively, he is considered as impure.

And thus it was probably touched by unlearned people. During the festival, it is considered as pure.

After the festival, they are considered as impure retroactively.

The Copper Altar refers to the era of the Sanctuary. In Jerusalem, the Outer Altar was a large structure made from stones lime, pitch, and molten lead (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:16). There was no way it could be picked up. Moreover, since it was connected to the ground, it was not susceptible to ritual impurity.

They were wooden utensils plated with metal. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:4), plated utensils do not contract impurity, even if they have a receptacle. The rationale is that the Torah (Leviticus 11:32) speaks of impurity being imparted to “all utensils with which work is performed.” The Sifra to this verse explains that this phrase excludes all coated utensils, for work is not being performed with the utensil itself, only with the coating. And the coating itself does not contract impurity, because it is not considered as an independent entity. See also Hilchot Keilim 4:4 and the commentary there.

As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:1), the reason unleamed people are considered as impure is not because we think that they will lie, but that they are unaware of the intricacies of the laws and will not take proper precautions. With regard to the impurity associated with a human corpse, the laws are rather straightforward. Hence, if he states that a k'li is pure, his word is accepted. See also Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

As would be necessary to purify it from the impurity associated with a human corpse.

They are not considered to have contracted the impurity associated with a human corpse, because they did not enter the domain of the unlearned person. Nevertheless, since he was entrusted with watching them, there is room for concern and they are considered to have contracted midras impurity (Rav Yosef Corcus, as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).

Since they contract impurity only when carried by an impure person and the owner is not far off, we do not think that he made them impure until the owner leaves him with no supervision entirely.

We assume: a) that, before the unlearned person went to sleep, the Chavair saw the unlearned person touch everything that he would touch and b) that the unlearned person would not go through the house, seeking things that he had not seen beforehand. Nor do we suspect that he woke up, touched things, and went back to sleep.

For we fear that when he awoke, he touched things that he had not thoroughly looked at before he went to sleep. We do not, however, fear that he wandered throughout the house and touched other items. Instead, we assume that he remained in bed and touched only what he could reach.

I.e., a Jewish tax-collector. As stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 8, even if a Chavair accepted such a position, he is no longer considered as a Chavair and anything he touches is considered ritually impure.

Although the Rambam's interpretation is based on the Tosefta (Taharot 8:4), many other commentaries follow a different version of that Tosefta (and thus interpret Chagigah 26a differently than the Rambam would). They have asked: Why would the presence of a gentile cause them not to touch articles? On the contrary, seemingly, the presence of the gentile would cause them to search more thoroughly? Perhaps the intent is that they would not lie in the presence of the gentile.

Jewish thieves who were unlearned.

Because we fear that they imparted midras impurity or moved the article and imparted impurity by doing so.

Even though he can physically touch them, he has no permission to and will be considered as a thief. We assume that a person will not act in this manner out of fear of being caught.

As stated in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 11:1, “When wine has been poured as a libation to a false divinity, it is forbidden to benefit from it. A person who drinks even the smallest quantity of [such wine] is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law.” Moreover, as those halachot proceed to explain (11:3): “When we do not know whether wine belonging to a gentile was used for a libation or not, it is called ‘ordinary [gentile] wine.’ It is forbidden to benefit from it, as it is forbidden to benefit from wine used as a libation.” Whenever a gentile touches wine, even though it belongs to a Jew, it becomes forbidden for that reason (11:4).

We fear that the neighbor might have touched them. Unlike the situation described in the previous clause, in this instance, if the neighbor is caught extending his hand to the chavair’s property, he could always excuse himself, saying that an article fell off his own roof and he thought it had fallen onto the chavair’s.

Since she entered without permission, she will not dare to touch anything in the house, lest she incur the wrath of the owner.

Because we do not suspect that they were touched or moved by an unlearned person.

Since the food and/or liquids were placed down outside, it appears that they were placed down for the purpose of sale and then passersby will feel free to touch them. Even if they did not actually touch them, the fact that they had the opportunity changes the status of the foods and/or liquids.