Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

This impurity is not considered as an independent mitzvah. It can be assumed that it is included in the scope of the laws of the impurity of a carcass discussed in the previous chapters.

See Sifra to the above verse. The verse speaks of “a carcass and one which is tereifah.” From this, our Sages inferred that only when the laws of a tereifah apply, i.e., when the fowl is of a kosher species, because there is no concept of a tereifah in a non-kosher species, do the laws applying to a carcass apply.

I.e., the inner portion of the body, for the soul does not derive satisfaction until the food enters its digestive system.

From which one could infer that it imparts impurity when eaten.

See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:3.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and Hilchot Parah 5:2.

I.e., keilim of any type except earthenware containers.

Since the meat has passed from his gullet to the inner portions of his digestive system, it is as if he is no longer touching it or carrying it.

For keilim contract impurity only from a primary source of impurity, not a derivative.

See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 3:2-3 where it is explained that for certain substances to impart the impurity associated with food, someone must have thought of using them for that purpose.

Implied is that generally, one would not think of partaking of it. See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 3:3 for more details.

Impure foods can impart impurity to other foods. When, however, a carcass of a fowl is not considered as a food, it does not impart impurity to foods.

I.e., as a food, it would have to have contracted impurity from another source. Nevertheless, since it will become a source of impurity itself, that is not necessary.

By coming into contact with water.

As stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:16, this term refers to the goats offered as a communal sin-offering for the violation of the prohibition against the worship of false divinities (see Hilchot Shegagot 12:1). These sacrificial animals were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard and then carried outside the walls of the city to be burnt in the ash heap outside of Jerusalem.

I.e., even if they are not considered as food, they impart ritual impurity to those involved with them, as stated in Hilchot Parah Adumah 5:1, 4, 7. Nevertheless, as the Rarnbam proceeds to explain, if they are also considered as food, they can contract a different type of impurity.
In the hashlamot, Rambam LeAm explains the difference between the carcasses of these animals and the carcass of a species of kosher fowl mentioned in the previous halachah. Had the Torah not singled out the carcass of a kosher fowl and taught special laws concerning it, we would have thought that it is impure like other carcasses. Hence, its impurity is considered as more severe. In contrast, were the Torah not to have mentioned the impurity of the consecrated animals mentioned in this halachah, we would not have considered them impure. Hence, their impurity is less severe.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, based on his interpretation of Zevachim 105a. The Kessef Mishneh offers an interpretation of that passage that justifies the Rambam’s conception.

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:3, 8. There the Rambam states:
If, however, a person took a source of impurity, skewered it with a weaving needle, and inserted it into the throat of a person who is ritually pure without it touching his tongue or inserted it within the womb of a woman from below without touching her flesh, the person who swallowed [the source of impurity] does not become impure because [his inner organs] came in contact [with the source of impurity]. [The rationale is that] contact between [a source of impurity and] one’s inner organs is not considered as touch....
When a person carries [a source of impurity] in a hidden part of his body, he becomes impure. Even though touching such portions of the body is not considered as touch, carrying an article there is considered as carrying unless the source of impurity is swallowed up in the person’s digestive system.

One might think that since the carcass of the fowl did not actually touch the person’s gullet, it is not considered to have been eaten. This supposition is not accepted, because it is common practice to wrap meat in lettuce. Hence, the lettuce is not considered as an intervening substance (Kessef Mishneh).

Since the tree bast is not food, it is considered an intervening substance. Hence, it is as if the carcass had not entered his gullet (ibid.).

This situation is possible, because an intestine is long.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, noting that it appears to deviate from the Talmudic passage (Menachot 70a) which is its source. The Kessef Mishneh cites a different version of that passage that justifies the Rambam’s ruling.

I.e., in some situations, an entire limb is considered significant, even if it is not as large as an olive-sized portion (see Chapter 2, Halachah 3; Chapter 4, Halachah 3). However, that stringency does not apply in this context. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:3, for a parallel ruling with regard to eating such a carcass.

Our translation of these terms is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2). There he explains that after the large feathers are plucked from a fowl’s wings, there still remain small, thin feathers. And after the feathers are plucked from its crop, there remain wooly hairs.

See Halachah 14.

I.e., for impurity to be imparted there must be an olive-sized portion without these feathers and hairs.

This refers to a place where bleeding would result if such a portion of the nail or beak would be cut from a living fowl (ibid.). Note Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:18 which states that one who eats these portions of the body is not liable for partaking of a carcass.

These are usually dried portions of the body that are cast away (ibid.).

All of these portions of the body do contract and impart impurity as foods do; see Halachah 14 and Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 4:4.

I.e., the bones that can be eaten.

The Hebrew term giddim used by the Rambam is a general term referring to sinews, nerves, cartilage, and blood vessels [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:1)].

Our translation of this term is taken from Rashi (Beitzah 7a).

I.e., while being left in the sun, it will begin to decompose and become rancid, and thus no longer fit to be eaten. See the parallel in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:11.

See parallels to these laws in Chapter 1, Halachah 13.

“Flesh that has decomposed and turned into a putrid liquid mass, provided the liquid mass that resulted from the corpse coagulates” (Hilchot Tum’at Meit 2:1).

The Kessef Mishneh explains the difference between the ruling here and that in Chapter 1 as follows: Nazir 50a leaves unresolved the question whether the netzel of an animal imparts impurity or not. Since the question is posed only with regard to an animal, it can be inferred that it can be assumed that the netzel of a fowl does not impart impurity.

I.e., incurs a physical impairment that will cause it to die within twelve months.

See the parallels in Chapter 1, Halachah 2, and Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

In the Temple Courtyard, it is forbidden to slaughter ordinary fowl and a fowl slaughtered there is forbidden to be eaten. Moreover, consecrated fowl are not slaughtered before being offered, but killed through melikah, as will be explained. Nevertheless, although this slaughter does not cause the fowl to be permitted as food, it prevents it from imparting ritual impurity. For not everything that is forbidden to be eaten imparts impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 7:5)].

As explained in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:23, the priest offering a fowl as a sacrifice holds the fowl in his hand, cuts through its flesh and its neckbone with his nail, and slits the windpipe and the esophagus, the organs necessary for ritual slaughter.

“For melikah permits and purifies only a dove that is acceptable to [be offered on] the altar” (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 7:2).

In both instances, the melikah is not effective and it is forbidden to partake of the fowl.

See ibid. 7:2-9.

See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, ch. 3.

To atone for the murder of a wayfarer if the identity of the murderer was not known (see Deuteronomy, ch. 21; Hilchot Rotzeiach, chs. 9-10).

Where its neck is to be broken.

For, as stated above, not everything that is forbidden to be eaten imparts impurity.

The impurity discussed in this chapter applies only with regard to a kosher species of fowl, as stated in Halachah 1.

Since it is not common to partake of such a carcass, for it to be considered as food, one must have the intent of using it for that purpose. See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 1:1.

To be made fit to contract impurity an object must come in contact with one of seven liquids (see Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 1:1-2).
Neither here, nor in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:3, the source for this halachah), nor in Halachah 16, does the Rambam mention that to contract ritual impurity, the object must come in contact with a source of ritual impurity. And in his commentary to Uktzin 3:9, he explicitly states that this is not necessary. As the Kessef Mishneh relates, many other authorities differ and require the carcass to come in contact with a source of impurity and indeed, one might draw that conclusion from Halachah 2.

And can both contract and impart impurity. See Halachah 9 where it is mentioned that the feathers and the hairs of a kosher fowl are not included as part of the measure of meat necessary for the laws regarding the impurity of a carcass of a fowl to apply. Here, however, we are speaking of the impurity imparted by foods. It can be assumed that if a person decides to eat a non-kosher fowl, it is likely that he will also desire to partake of these portions.

The continuation of the verse speaks of an animal with a split hoof.

And thus exclude a fowl.

See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 4:1, 4.

Leviticus 11:29-30. The translation of the names of these eight species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter. The Torah singles these crawling animals out from others and states that their carcasses convey ritual purity.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 97) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 159) include the laws governing this impurity as one of the commandments in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot.

Even if it does not touch the walls or the bottom of the container. See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:5.

When stating that the carcasses of these animals impart impurity, Leviticus 11:31 does not state “He must launder his clothes,” implying that the garments do not contract impurity even when he is wearing them while touching the sheretz. Needless to say, impurity is not contracted when one touches garments or other keilim afterwards.

This same measure applies with regard to the prohibition against partaking of their flesh. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 2:7.

I.e., a lentil-sized portion comprised of the meat of several species of sh’ratzim imparts impurity. It is not necessary that the entire quantity be from one species.

I.e., if there is an entire limb that is intact, it imparts impurity even if it is less than a lentil in size, as indicated by the following halachah.

I.e., with flesh, sinews, and bones. See Chapter 2, Halachah 3.

The Hebrew term giddim used by the Rambam is a general term referring to sinews, nerves, cartilage, and blood vessels [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:1)].

See Chapter 2, Halachot 3 and 11.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 4.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Meilah 4:3), the Rambam cites the derivation of this concept from the Sifra to Leviticus 11:29.

Once it is separated from the flesh, however, it is not included in that measure. See also Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 10:3.

Similar laws apply to its hair and teeth.

For they are not usually eaten.

For they are eaten. When speaking about the prohibition against partaking of these substances (Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:21), the Rambam adds that these hides must be soft for the prohibition to apply and for them to be susceptible to impurity.

For then it is no longer considered as food.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 9.

As in Chapter 2, Halachah 11, this is speaking about a bare bone, without any meat on it. Note the other parallels to this halachah.

See Halachah 4.

For then the marrow is exposed. It is considered like the flesh (ibid. and notes).

Some, though not all, of the animals classified as sh’ratzim bear young by laying eggs.

For the shells of these eggs are clear. The person is considered as pure, because as long as the shell is intact, the embryo itself cannot be touched.

For once the embryo is formed, it can impart impurity. Note a parallel ruling in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 3:8.

The Rambam is quoting Chulin 8:6. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, he explains that there are mice that come into being from earth. He states that many people have told him that they witnessed such a phenomenon. He personally maintains, however, that the existence of such an animal is a wondrous matter for which he knows no explanation. The halachah is speaking about an instance where a person touched the carcass of such a mouse that died as it was in the process of coming into being.

For he is considered to have touched the carcass of a sheretz.

For the earth is not considered as part of the sheretz.

Although the entire length of the animal has already been formed, there are parts along the width of the animal that remain earth.

The Kessel Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s ruling appears to contradict its Talmudic source (Chulin 126b). He quotes Rav Yosef Corcus who offers possible explanations for the Rambam’s position.

See the parallels in Chapter 1, Halachah 13; Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 2:21.

Although Nidah 54b cites a verse from which one might conclude the concept is derived, the Rambam maintains that the verse is merely an asmachta (a support) and the law is of Rabbinic origin. His rationale appears to be that since the flesh on the skeleton is so dry, it is considered as earth (Kessef Mishneh).

E.g., as stated in Taharot 3:4, it was left in the sun.

For the determination of an entity’s status is dependent on its size at the time it comes before us. Note similarities and contrasts to these laws in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 14:4.

Because it was left in the rain (ibid.).

Rav Yosef Corcus notes that with regard to the Sabbath laws (Hilchot Shabbat 18:27), the Rambam rules that if one picked up an entity while it was the size of the minimum measure, it shrank and then it swelled back to its original size, and then he placed it down in a different domain, there is an unresolved question whether one is liable or not. He explains the difference between that ruling and this one on the basis of the concept that, with regard to the Sabbath laws, the forbidden activity involves both picking the object up and placing it down. Hence, since one would not have been liable had he placed the article down while it was smaller, there is reason to say that picking the item up and placing it down should not be linked together.

I.e., the fundamental organs in the neck have been severed, but the head has not been cut off entirely.

Which will continue to make convulsive movements even after it was severed from its trunk.

I.e., any aside from the eight mentioned in Halachah 1.

Because they are generally not eaten. Hence, if they come in contact with a source of impurity, they do not impart impurity to other foods or liquids.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 105) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 180) include the laws governing this impurity as one of the commandments in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot.

For the prooftext that mentions this impurity does not speak of the person “laundering his garments” (Kessef Mishneh).

The Hebrew term used by the Rambam (based on Leviticus 15:3), literally means “seals the mouth of the organ,” i.e., fills the orifice with semen. The Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam’s ruling based on Nidah 43a, from which it appears that “sealing the orifice” and “even the slightest amount” represent the views of two differing Talmudic positions. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam (as Tosafot and Ritba) do not see the two opinions as contradictory and interprets “sealing” as “reaching.”

I.e., a reed (or a tube) is inserted in the male organ and the semen is discharged through it.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that this appears contradictory to his previous ruling. Since the semen passes through the reed, it does not “seal the orifice.” He explains that the Rambam interprets Nidah 22a, the source for this ruling, as referring to an instance where the reed was inserted entirely within the male organ. Thus when the semen left the man’s body, it was leaving from the orifice of the organ and not from the reed.

Overexertion, overeating, or other external causes (Nidah 35a).

Until then, his sexual activity is not considered significant (see Halachah 19; the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, the Introduction to the Order of Taharot).

Like the white of an egg (Tosefta, Zavim 2:2).

The Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh question the Rambam’s ruling based on Nidah 43a.

I.e., in his dream, he felt that he ejaculated.

As stated in Halachah 15, this impurity is a Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, he is pure.

Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 8:2). Others interpret the phrase differently.

And, afterwards, he urinated normally. In such a situation, we assume that he had difficulty urinating and therefore experienced such a phenomenon at the outset (ibid.).

For we assume that semen was mixed with the urine. As stated in Halachah 15, this impurity is Rabbinic in origin.

For such an appearance indicates that semen was mixed in together with it.

The Mishnah (loc. cit.:3) states that Rabbi Elazar Chisma holds that such a person is impure. Since that opinion is mentioned in his name, we can assume that the majority of Sages differ and maintain that such a person is pure (Kessef Mishneh).

Thus when he urinates, those remnants are discharged and cause him to become impure [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 8:4)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam writes that a young man or a youth, even if he is sick, can ejaculate in this manner.

For we assume that the semen will drip from her vagina and touch her body, making her impure.

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:3; 25:12, et al.

Like the impurity of the man, stated in Halachah 1, the impurity of the woman results from the very fact she engaged in relations, even if the semen does not touch the external parts of her body.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Scripture the verse includes a vav. That letter, however, is missing from both the authoritative manuscripts and most printings of the Mishneh Torah.

The sexual activity of a girl younger than three is not considered significant.

Our translation is based on Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 1:10. As debated in the gloss Sha’ar HaMelech, the Rambam’s wording leaves open the question: What would be the man’s state if he inserted his entire organ, but did not ejaculate?

As stated in Halachah 13, an onah (translated as a “twelve-hour period”) refers either to a full day or a full night.
As evident from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 8:3) and explained by the Kessef Mishneh, the Rambam is following the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah in Mikveot 8:3. Rabbi Elazar (and the other Sages mentioned in that Mishnah) maintain that this concept is derived from the experience of the Jewish people before the Giving of the Torah. The Torah was given on the Sabbath in the morning. The Jews immersed themselves Friday night in preparation. For three onot beforehand — Thursday day, Thursday night, and Friday day — they refrained from relations.

A zavah must experience seven days without any trace of vaginal bleeding. If she discharges seed on one of these days, that day is not counted among the seven. It does not, however, invalidate the days counted beforehand. See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 6:16.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 3:2.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 5:2; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 5:3.

Indeed, the term twelve-hour period is not technically correct, because winter nights and summer days are longer than twelve hours, while summer nights and winter days are shorter.

See Hilchot Shabbat 3:14; Hilchot Ishut 14:1.

Apparently, the Rambam is following Rabbenu Chananel’s interpretation of Shabbat 86a (Kessef Mishneh).

Halachot 1 and 9.

Halachah 11.

Halachah 5.

Halachah 6.

And, needless to say, to sacrificial foods.

As Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 16:12 states, the pious would partake even of ordinary foods in a state of purity.

I.e., a Jew engaged in relations with a gentile woman or sodomized an animal.

Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 2:10.

I.e., she engaged in relations with him.

Even according to Rabbinic decree (Nidah 34b).

As part of the conversion process (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 13:4).

Nidah 43a raises this issue and leaves undetermined whether it is considered that he released the semen before he converted — in which instance, he would be pure — or afterwards.

Whose semen does not impart impurity (Halachah 2).

Whose semen is also pure (Halachah 17).

Here the intent is a girl more than three. See Halachah 9.

The Kessef Mishneh suggests that this is not the correct prooftext and instead suggests employing the verse cited in Halachah 9.