Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

When a priest purifies his keilim for the grape-pressing season and then sets them aside for the following grape-pressing season, it is assumed that their status remains unchanged, for unlearned people will not touch the keilim of a priest when they are in his winepress, because he partakes of pure food. If an Israelite puts away his keilim in a similar manner, by contrast, they are considered impure, unless he says: "Within my heart, there was a resolve to guard against an unlearned person entering the winepress and touching the keilim."

When a person desires to make wine that is ritually pure while using workers who are unlearned, he must make sure that those who harvest the grapes immerse themselves in a mikveh. Similarly, if they were involved in producing oil, he should have those who work in the olive-press immerse themselves. He must stand over the workers and have them immerse themselves in his presence, for they are not familiar with the laws of immersion and intervening substances.

If the workers left the entrance to the olive-press and went outside to defecate behind a fence and returned, they are still considered as ritually pure. How far may they go and still be considered as ritually pure? Until they are hidden from the chavair's sight. If, however, they go out of his sight, they return to a state of impurity until he has them immerse again and they wait until nightfall.

When a source of impurity was found in the presence of olive-press workers and grape harvesters, if they say, "We did not touch it," their word is accepted. This also applies if their children say: "We did not touch the wine or the oil."

The following laws apply when a person purifies olive-press workers, brings them into the vat, and locks it. If there were keilim there that had contracted midras impurity, the entire olive-press is impure, for perhaps they touched those keilim. Even if the chavair saw them previously showing care not to touch those keilim, the olive-press is impure, for perhaps they moved them and thus contracted impurity and they think that a person who moves keilim with midras impurity is not impure. For unlearned people are not familiar with the impurity contracted by moving keilim.

When a chavair's donkey-drivers and porters were loaded with pure foods and they were proceeding in front of him, even if they were more than a mil ahead of him, they are pure. The rationale is that they assume that he is watching them. Hence, they are afraid to allow others to touch impurity, for they will say: "He will come now, for he is following after us." If, however, he tells them: "Go and I will follow you," as soon as they proceed beyond his sight, the foods are impure.

The following laws apply when a chavair was wearing a tunic and wrapped in a cloak while proceeding on his way. If he said: "In my heart, I intended to guard the tunic from contracting impurity and I was careful about it, but I diverted my attention from the cloak," the tunic remains pure, while the cloak is considered impure, because it is possible that an unlearned person touched it.

If there was a basket on his shoulder with a pitchfork in the basket and he said: "In my heart, I intended to guard the basket and to guard the pitchfork from something that would make it a source of impurity, but not from something which disqualifies it," the basket is pure, the pitchfork is impure, and all the terumah in the basket is impure. The rationale is that the impure pitchfork disqualifies the food in the basket.

If chavairim were using a barrel while in a state of purity under the assumption that its contents were ordinary food and it was discovered that they were terumah, even though it is pure, it is forbidden to be eaten, for perhaps it was touched by a person who had immersed in the mikveh that day. Such a person disqualifies terumah, even though ordinary food he touches is pure, as will be explained. Guarding terumah is not the same as guarding ordinary food. If, however, he states: "In my heart, I intended to guard it from even an entity that will disqualify it," it is permitted to be eaten.

If a person's Sabbath garments become exchanged with his weekday garments and he wore his Sabbath garments on an ordinary weekday, they become impure, for one does not guard his weekday garments to the same degree as he guards his Sabbath garments.

An incident occurred concerning the wives of two chavarim whose clothes became exchanged in the bathhouse. The matter was brought to the attention of the Sages and they ruled that the garments were impure. Even if one's scarf fell and he asked a chavair to give it to him and he gave it to him, it becomes impure. This is a decree, enacted lest an unlearned person give it to him or lest the chavair not guard it, for a person will not guard articles that do not belong to him like he guards his own articles unless the other person notifies him and relies on him.

When a chavair dies and leaves pure foods, they are considered as pure. When he leaves keilim, they are impure. The rationale is that we suspect that perhaps they became impure and he had the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled on them on the third day of their impurity, and not on the seventh day. Or perhaps he had the ashes sprinkled on them on the seventh day, but did not immerse them. Or perhaps he did not have the ashes sprinkled on them on the seventh day at all.

When one witness tells a person, "Your pure foods have contracted impurity," and the owner remains silent, his word is accepted and the foods are considered as impure. If he contradicts him and maintains that they did not contract impurity, it is assumed that their status has not changed unless two witnesses testify that they contracted impurity.

If a person was working together with a colleague with pure foods or sacrificial offerings and after a while, the colleague found him and told him when he met him: "The pure foods with which I was working with you became impure or the sacrificial offerings that I was offering with you became piggul, his word is accepted. If, however, he met him and did not say anything and afterwards met him a second time and he told him the above, his word is not accepted. Instead, his sacrifices are assumed to be acceptable and his pure foods are assumed to be pure.

Blessed be God who grants assistance.

Introduction to Hilchos She'ar Avot haTum'ah

Included in this text are three positive commandments. They comprise the following:
1) the laws of the impurity of a dead animal;
2) the laws of the impurity of a dead crawling animal;
3) the laws of the impurity of semen.
False deities impart impurity like a dead crawling animal. This impurity is a Rabbinic decree.
These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

The carcass of a dead animal is a primary source of impurity. An olive-sized portion of its meat imparts impurity to a person and keilim when touched and to an earthenware container when it enters its inner space. And it imparts impurity to a person when being carried to the extent that his clothes become impure, as is the law regarding a surface on which one rides that contracted impurity from a zav.

What is implied? When a person touches the carcass of a dead animal, he is considered as a primary derivative of impurity. If he touches keilim - even at the same time that he is touching the carcass - they are pure. Similarly, the clothes that he is wearing are pure, for he is a derivative of impurity and a derivative does not impart impurity to keilim.

When, by contrast, one carries the carcass of a dead animal, he imparts impurity to keilim while he is carrying it, as Leviticus 11:28 states: "One who carries their carcasses must launder his garments." Those garments are considered as primary derivatives of impurity. He does not impart impurity to another person or to earthenware containers even when he is carrying the carcass, as we explained in Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav.

These laws apply regarding both the carcasses of a domesticated animal and a wild animal, whether of a species permitted to be eaten or one forbidden to be eaten. If any of these types of animals die, an olive-sized portion of their meat imparts impurity. The ritual slaughter of a kosher domesticated animal or a kosher wild animal purifies it in all circumstances. Even if one slaughtered an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard or a consecrated animal outside the Temple Courtyard, they are pure. If a disqualifying factor occurs in the process of ritual slaughter, the carcass is considered like that of an animal that died. It imparts impurity when carried, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah.

Ritual slaughter has no effect on the status of a non-kosher domesticated animal or a non-kosher wild animal. Whether one slaughters such an animal, stabs it in the throat, strangles it, or it dies naturally, it is considered as an animal carcass. Flesh from all carcasses - both from kosher species and from non-kosher species can be combined to reach the minimum measure of an olive-sized portion that imparts ritual impurity.

The marrow of a bone is considered like flesh. The blood of an animal carcass does not impart impurity like an animal carcass. Instead, it is considered as an impure liquid which does not impart impurity to a person or to utensils according to Scriptural Law.

The fat of a kosher animal that died without ritual slaughter is ritually pure, as implied by Leviticus 7:24: "The fat of a domesticated animal that died or the fat of a domesticated animal that was torn to death may be used for any purpose." The license granted by this verse applies to an entity forbidden only because the animal had died or was torn to death. If such fat was made fit to contract impurity due to contact with liquids that convey that status, it is considered as impure food and not as the meat of a dead animal.

Nevertheless, when one touches the fat that surrounds the kidney of a kosher domesticated animal that died without ritual slaughter before it was separated from the kidney, he is impure like one who touches the kidney itself. The rationale is that several strands of flesh from the kidney itself extend into the fat.

With regard to a non-kosher domesticated animal and a wild animal, whether kosher or non-kosher, the same laws apply to both its meat and its fat with regard to ritual impurity. An olive-sized portion imparts impurity to a person and to keilim like the meat of a dead animal.

The fat of a ko'i imparts impurity like its meat does, but this impurity is of doubtful status. Therefore terumah and sacrificial foods are not burnt because of it, nor is one liable for karet for entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial foods after touching it.

These are the parts of a carcass that do not impart impurity: the bones, the horns, and the hoofs; this includes even their soft portions that if cut off from a living animal would cause bleeding, the hide, even if it has not been processed to use for other purposes, the pieces of flesh that remain attached to the hide when an animal is skinned, the sinews, sauce, and spices cooked with such meat.

When does the above apply? When they were separated from an animal's carcass. If, however, one touches any of these entities while they are still attached to the meat of a carcass, he contracts impurity, provided there is an olive-sized portion of meat. For none of these can be included as part of that required olive-sized portion.

The pieces of flesh that remain attached to the hide when an animal is skinned whether separated by a wild beast or by a knife should not be considered as part of an olive-sized portion. If the different pieces of flesh were collected and they comprised an olive-sized portion, they impart impurity.

These are the parts of animals for which the hide is considered as their meat: the hide of a domesticated pig, the soft hide of a camel hump, the skin of the genital area, the skin of a fetus, and the skin below the fat-tail. Such portions of an animal carcass impart impurity. If one processed them or trod upon them to the extent necessary to process them, they are pure. If one performed a deed that negated their use as meat, they are pure even though he did not trod upon them to the extent necessary to process them.

What is implied? If one used the ear of a donkey as the handle for his basket, it is pure. For how long must one tread on a hide in order to process it? For as long as it takes to walk four millin. What is meant by a soft camel hump? One that was never used for a burden. If a camel reached the age when it was fit to carry burdens, but one did not use it for that purpose or one used it for that purpose before it reached the appropriate age, it is questionable whether its status changes.

The following laws apply when one skins the carcass of a domesticated or a wild animal, whether from a kosher species or a non-kosher one, whether it is a small animal or a large animal. If he skins it to use as a mat, as soon as he skins a portion of the hide sufficient to hold onto, i.e., two handbreadths, one who touches the hide that was skinned is pure. Before it is skinned two handbreadths, one who touches the hide is like one who touches meat.

If one skins the animal in order to use its hide for a flask, the hide is considered as connected to the carcass until one skins the entire breast. If one skins an animal from its feet alone, the entire hide is considered as connected. One who touches the hide is like one who touches the meat until the hide is entirely separated from the meat. Similarly, when one skins the hide of crawling animals, the hide is considered as connected until it is skinned in its entirety. Similarly, the hide that is around an animal's neck is considered as connected until it is removed in its entirety.

Any hide that is considered as connected with regard to imparting ritual impurity is also considered as connected with regard to contracting ritual impurity, i.e., if an animal was slaughtered and impurity touched this hide that was connected to the meat, the meat contracts impurity.

When there is a hide that has an olive-sized portion of meat from a carcass on it, if one touches a strand of the hide that extends outward from the meat or the hair on the other side of the hide that is opposite the meat, he contracts impurity. The rationale is that the hide and its hair are considered as "protecting" the meat.

When does the above apply? When the meat was left over by an animal. When it was left over by a knife, it is considered insignificant with regard to the hide if it was thin.

When there are two pieces of meat, each half the size of an olive-sized portion on a hide, the hide causes them to be considered as insignificant. They do not impart impurity, neither when touched, nor when carried. The rationale is that any portion of a carcass that does not impart impurity when touched does not impart impurity when carried.

If, however, one skewered two pieces, each half the size of an olive-sized portion, one who carries them is impure because he carried an olive-sized portion of meat from a carcass. One who touches them, by contrast, is pure, because something joined by man is not considered as joined. The liability for carrying the pieces of meat applies provided both pieces are flattened and stuck together so that they are picked up together. If, however, the two half olive-sized portion were separate entities, but held on the same skewer, the person is pure even if he carries them back and forth the entire day.

When the meat of a carcass decomposes, becomes spoiled, and is no longer fit for a dog to eat, it is pure. Accordingly, there is an unresolved doubt whether the netzal of an animal carcass imparts impurity or not.

The following laws apply when the meat from a carcass dries out. If it would return to a moist state and be fit for a dog to eat when left to soak in lukewarm water for an entire day, it imparts impurity. If not, it is pure. It does not even impart impurity like impure foods do.

When the meat of an animal carcass was decomposed at the outset and was not fit for human consumption, it is pure, as can be inferred from Deuteronomy 14:21: "Give it to the stranger in your gate and he will eat it." At the outset, it must be fit for a stranger to eat.

A placenta found in an animal carcass is considered as waste matter and feces. It does not impart impurity like a carcass. If the person had in mind to eat it, it is susceptible to the impurity associated with food. The dried milk in the stomach and the liquid milk in the stomach of a carcass are entirely pure.

When an animal discharges coagulated blood, even though such a discharge makes it exempt from the laws of the firstborn, it does not impart impurity, neither when touched, nor when carried unless there is the form of a fetus recognizable. The rationale is that it is nullified because there is a majority of other substances that are discharged with it. Therefore, it is pure even though it was initially fit for a stranger to eat together with its mother.

The following laws apply when the carcass of an animal that was not slaughtered became intermingled with that of a slaughtered animal. If the majority of the meat is from the ritually slaughtered animal, the meat from the carcass is considered as insignificant and none of the mixture imparts impurity when touched. If, however, one carries the entire mixture, he contracts impurity.

The reason why the meat of the carcass can be considered insignificant is that it is impossible for the ritually slaughtered meat to be considered as a carcass, but the carcass can become pure if it becomes putrefied. Therefore it can become nullified.

When a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild animal was slaughtered, it does not impart the impurity of a carcass as long as it is in its death throes unless its head is cut off. Instead, it is considered as impure food. If it is killed by being stabbed in the throat and it is in its death throes, as long as it makes convulsive movements, it is not even considered as impure food.

A limb that is separated from an animal that is making convulsive movements is forbidden to a Noachide, as if it were separated from a living animal. And meat that is separated from it is considered as having been separated from a living animal. Similarly, when a kosher animal is slaughtered in an unacceptable manner and it is still making convulsive movements or one of its signs or the majority of one was slit, it is not considered impure at all until it dies.

If one divides an animal in half or one removes its thigh and its inner cavity, it is considered as a carcass and it imparts impurity when carried and when touched, even though it shows signs of life. Similarly, if it was ripped apart from its back or its back bone was broken and the majority of the meat around it severed, it is considered as a carcass in all contexts.

When the fetus of an animal dies within its womb and a shepherd inserts his hand and touches it - whether it is a non-kosher species or a kosher species - the shepherd who touches it is considered pure until he removes the stillborn animal from the womb.

Meat that is separated from a domesticated or wild animal - whether from a kosher species or a non-kosher species - in their lifetime is ritually pure and does not impart impurity as a carcass does. When, however, an entire limb is separated from a living animal, it does impart impurity as a carcass does. This applies to a limb from a living animal itself or from a fetus in its womb.

There is no minimum measure to the size of a limb. Even if it is the size of a barley-corn or smaller, it imparts impurity provided it was intact as when it came into being with flesh, sinews, and bones. It must have enough flesh to regenerate and return to a state of wholeness. If the limb did not have enough flesh to return to a state of wholeness or the bone was lacking, it is pure.

A kidney, the tongue, the lips, and like - even though they are organs and will not regenerate - are considered as meat in this context, because they do not have bones.

The flesh or a limb of a domesticated or wild animal that could not regain its vitality and reconnect with the remainder of the body does not impart impurity as a carcass does as long as the animal is alive. Instead, they are considered as like other edible substances. If they were made fit to contract impurity, they can contract impurity while attached to the animal.

If the animal was slaughtered, the slaughter causes the flesh or the limb that had been maimed to be considered fit to contract impurity, but they do not impart impurity as a carcass does. For the slaughter of the animal does not cause them to be considered as if they were separated from the animal during its lifetime. If, by contrast, the animal died, the flesh that was hanging loosely from it during its lifetime must be made fit to contract ritual impurity and a limb that had been hanging loosely imparts impurity as a limb from a living animal and not as a limb from a carcass.

What is the difference between a limb from a living animal and a limb from a carcass? Meat that was cut from a limb separated from a living animal is pure, while meat cut from a carcass imparts impurity when touched or carried if an olive-sized portion is present. The same measure applies in both instances.

When an animal that was tereifah was slaughtered in a proper manner, even though it is forbidden to be eaten, it is pure. Similarly, when a person slaughters an animal and discovers a dead fetus, the slaughter of its mother purifies it from imparting the impurity associated with a carcass.

If one discovers a fetus that is in its eighth month and is alive, it is considered as a tereifah. Even if it is slaughtered after it was deemed tereifah, the slaughter does not prevent it from imparting the impurity associated with a carcass. The rationale is that there is no concept of ritual slaughter for an animal of this type.

Based on this logic, when the offspring of an animal was not kept for seven full days before it was slaughtered, the slaughter does not prevent it from imparting the impurity associated with a carcass, because such an animal is considered like a non-viable offspring.

As explained, when a person slaughters an animal and finds a living fetus that has been carried for nine months, ritual slaughter is not required before it steps on the ground, because the slaughter of its mother causes it to be considered as pure. Nevertheless, if its mother becomes impure before the fetus was removed, the fetus does not contract impurity. If the slaughter of its mother was not performed successfully and the mother became considered as a carcass, the living fetus remains pure. The rationale is that a living being does not contract impurity at all, not the impurity associated with foods, nor the impurity associated with a carcass, even though it is considered as one of the limbs of the mother. If it dies before it steps on the ground, it is pure, because the slaughter of its mother causes it to be deemed pure.

When an animal that is tereifah was slaughtered, even though its meat is pure according to Scriptural Law, if meat from a sacrificial animal touches it, the sacrificial meat contracts impurity according to Rabbinic Law. This is an added stringency applied with regard to consecrated foods.

The following laws apply when an animal had difficulty birthing its offspring. If, after the fetus stuck out its foot and it was cut off, the mother was then slaughtered, the limb that was cut off is considered as if it was from a carcass, but the remainder of the meat of the fetus is pure.

If the mother was slaughtered and then the limb was cut off, the limb is considered as the meat of a tereifah animal that was slaughtered. The remainder of the meat of the fetus is considered as meat that touched a tereifah animal that was slaughtered which imparts impurity to consecrated foods, but not to terumah.

If the fetus stuck out its foot between the slaughter of one sign and the other and it was cut off, the slitting of the second sign is joined to the slitting of the first to purify the limb from imparting impurity as a carcass does.

When a non-Jew slaughters an animal, it is considered as a carcass and imparts impurity when carried. This applies even when a Jew is supervising him and even if he slaughtered it properly with an acceptable knife. Whether the slaughterer is a gentile, a Samaritan, or a resident alien, his slaughter causes the animal to be considered as a carcass.

According to my estimation, this is also a Rabbinical decree, for the impurity imparted by false deities and objects offered to them is a Rabbinical decree, as will be explained. And it is because of their worship of false deities that the Samaritans were distanced and their slaughter forbidden. If you will ask: According to Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to partake of an animal which they slaughtered? In resolution, it can be said that not everything that is forbidden to be eaten imparts impurity. For an animal that is tereifah, but which was slaughtered properly, is forbidden to be eaten, but is ritually pure. It is impossible to obligate a person for karet for such impurity for entering the Temple or for partaking of sacrificial foods unless one can clearly prove his assertion that he contracted impurity.

When a person touches or carries the thigh bone of a dead animal, he is pure. The rationale is that any portion of an animal's carcass that does not impart impurity when touched, does not impart impurity when carried. If, however, it was perforated to the slightest degree, one who touches it or carries it contracts impurity.

When does the above apply? When the marrow in it rattles, for, in that state, it would not regenerate flesh were the animal to be alive. If, however, it is in its natural place and it has sufficient marrow that it could regenerate flesh on the outside of the bone, it imparts impurity when touched or carried like other limbs. We have already explained that a thigh-bone is closed on all sides.

When a person thought of perforating a thigh bone, but had not done so as of yet, one who touches it contracts impurity of a doubtful status. For there is an unresolved question whether the fact that he has not perforated the bone as of yet is considered as not having carried out a significant deed or not.