Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 96) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 161) include the laws governing this impurity as one of the commandments in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot.

I.e., in contrast, to the substances mentioned in Halachah 7.

As stated in Hilchot Tum'at Meit 1:5; 6:3; Hilchot Keilim 13:1, et al, earthenware containers contract impurity only when impurity enters their inner space or when they are moved by a zav or the like.

See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 6:2.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 12, which explains that this is exception to the general rule.

Not only the clothes he was wearing, but also any other k’li (other than an earthenware container) he touches also becomes impure [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 1:1); Sifra to the prooftext cited].

But not after he puts down the carcass. By carrying the carcass, he contracts impurity even if he did not actually touch it.

I.e., immerse in a mikveh to purify from ritual impurity.

In which instance, it would be forbidden to partake of them and in the case of consecrated animals, even to benefit from them (Hilchot Shechitah 2:2; Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 18:3).

Or touched.

Hilchot Shechitah 3:18.

In this context, there is a difference between the laws governing ritual impurity and those pertaining to partaking of non-kosher food. In that context, as stated in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:17, non-kosher meat from a kosher species can not be combined with meat from a non-kosher species to comprise an olive-sized portion of a prohibited substance.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 1. The Rambam’s ruling here implies that the blood of a carcass does impart impurity according to Rabbinic Law [see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediyot 8:1)]. Nevertheless, such blood does not make foods susceptible to ritual impurity, as stated in Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 10:3.

The verse mentions a domesticated animal explicitly and the license applies to it and not to a kosher wild animal.

This is the literal meaning of the term tereifah. It also refers to any animal that dies — or would die — because of sickness or infirmity.

The statement that it can be used for any purpose implies that it can also be used in the Temple. Thus one can infer that it does not impart ritual impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 3:9) based on the Sifra to Leviticus 11:27].

And not to an entity that is inherently unacceptable like a non-kosher animal.

See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 1:2.

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) which explains that for the fat to become impure, it need not come into contact with a source of impurity, but is inherently considered as impure food. As the Kessef Mishneh states in his gloss to Chapter 3, Halachah 14, many authorities differ and maintain that it must come in contact with a source of impurity.

In Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 1:13, the Rambam defines this term as "A hybrid that comes from the mating of a kosher domesticated animal and a kosher wild animal." In his gloss to Hilchot Bikkurim 9:5, Rav Yosef Caro explains that the Rambam understands the term ko'i as referring to an independent species that we do not know whether to classify as a domesticated animal or as a wild animal. He maintains that the proper version of Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot is "any animal whose classification as a domesticated animal or as a wild animal is doubtful is a ko'i" and he maintains that Hilchot Shechitah 14:4 serves as proof of this interpretation.

Since the classification of a ko’i is a matter of question as stated in the previous note, it is not known whether its fat is considered as the fat of a domesticated animal (and is thus pure) or the fat of a wild animal (and impure).

As is appropriate when these substances definitely contract Scriptural impurity.

As he would be liable if he had definitely contracted Scriptural impurity.

I.e., the impurity associated with a dead animal. For it is the meat of the carcass that imparts impurity and these parts of the body are not considered as meat. In Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:18, the Rambam states that these parts of the body are not considered as meat within the context of the prohibition against eating non-kosher meat. Here he states the same concept with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. It must, however, be noted that they could be considered as a component of the olive-sized portion that contracts the impurity associated with foods (Chulin 9:1).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:1).

As the Rambam states in the above source, giddim is a general term including blood vessels, nerves, sinews, and cartilage.

I.e., when attached to the carcass, they are considered as a “handle” of the carcass and governed by the same laws.

For as stated in Halachah 1, there must be an olive-sized portion of meat for it to impart impurity.

An animal ate the meat of the carcass and left small portions stuck to the hide.

When skinning the animal, as explained above.

I.e., if there is slightly less than an olive-sized portion of meat from an animal carcass and the meat that stuck to a hide would have enabled an olive-sized portion to be comprised, that meat is not considered significant and is considered as if it does not exist.

Since the person collected the pieces, he shows that to him, they are considered as important and hence, impart ritual impurity (Rashi, Chulin 117b).

See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:21 which mentions these — and other hides — within the context of the prohibition against partaking of the meat of forbidden species.

The hide of a wild boar, by contrast, is too tough to be eaten.

The Mishnah (Chulin 9:2) mentions several other types of hides as well. Nevertheless, as the Rambam mentions in his Commentary to the Mishnah, the majority of the Sages did not consider those hides as meat.

Because they are considered as meat, they are considered as impure.

I.e., they are considered as pure, because they are obviously no longer considered as food.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

Like a sheep or a goat.

Like a cow.

In which instance, one would slit the hide from the neck to the tail and then peel the hide from the meat (ibid.:3).

At which point it could be considered as an independent entity.

A handbreath is approximately 3.6 inches according to Shiurei Torah.

And is thus impure unless the animal was killed through ritual slaughter.

In this instance, the hide is cut from leg to leg and then cut or peeled away [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:3)].
We have translated the term according to its accepted meaning. In this instance, however, since one is using the skin of the entire animal, it appears the intent is a very large flask or a sack.

And thus conveying ritual impurity.

As the Rambam explains (ibid.), there was a unique technique in which a sheep was skinned by cutting open the hide only at the feet and the entire animal was removed through that hole. Thus all of its flesh remained intact. Such a technique was used when the hide was intended to be used as a flask.

The eight species of crawling animals whose flesh imparts ritual impurity, as will be explained in ch. 4.

I.e., one skinned the entire hide except the portion around the neck.

And thus its meat does not impart ritual impurity and can contract ritual impurity, as other foods can.

As if it had been touched itself. Conversely, if the hide was already considered as separated, even though it was actually attached—e.g., one was skinning the hide to use as a mat—the fact that impurity touches the portion that has been skinned does not change the status of the meat [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

That preyed on the carcass. Since there is a significant portion of meat left, it is not ignored.

I.e., a person skinning the hide. Since it was ignored by the person skinning the animal, it is considered as insignificant.

Even though together, they would be considered as of significant size, since they are separate, they are considered individually and each is considered as insignificant.

Even if the person would touch both pieces at the same time, he would not contract impurity, because neither alone is considered as significant and touching each one is considered as a separate act. Therefore it is of no consequence.

Although when carrying the hide, one is carrying an entire olive-sized portion, since they are separate and each one is considered insignificant, they do not impart impurity.

When the conditions the Rambam proceeds to mention are met, the two pieces are considered as a single entity with regard to being carried.

See Hilchot Tum ‘at Meit 4:5 for another example of the expression of this concept. From the precise wording of that halachah: “It does not impart impurity when one touches a portion of it,” Rabbi Akiva Eiger infers that if one does touch an olive-sized portion of meat, even if it is from separate pieces, he contracts impurity. See also Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 6:17.

I.e., when one picks up one of the pieces, the other will remain attached.

For it is no longer considered as meat. If, however, it is fit for a dog to eat, it imparts impurity, even if it is not fit for human consumption.

"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).

An olive-sized portion of the netzel of a human corpse imparts impurity (ibid.). Nevertheless, since the impurity associated with an animal carcass is dependent on it being basar, meat, there is a question whether that impurity applies once it has decomposed.

Compare to Hilchot Tum’at Meit 2:1 where the Rambam rules that the flesh of a human corpse that has become dry like a shard retains its impurity.

Our text is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slightly different version.

Impure foods impart impurity when touched, but this dried meat does not.

I.e., the animal died while pregnant.

For most people do not consider it as fit for consumption [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 4:7)].

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of Chasdei David, Chulin, ch. 8. The stomach itself is considered as meat and imparts impurity,

For they are also considered as waste products, unfit for human consumption. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:19 where the Rambam states the same concepts within the context of the prohibition against partaking of forbidden meat.

It is thought that there was a fetus that was crushed and dissolved in the blood that was discharged. Hence, the next offspring the mother animal bears is not considered the firstborn.

I.e., even though it is thought that there was a fetus dissolved in the blood, it is not considered as meat and hence, does not impart impurity.

Note the contrast to the following halachah, as explained in its notes.

There are those who maintain that this applies only when he touched only one piece. If, however, he touched all the pieces, he does contract impurity. Their logic is that, seemingly, the same logic that applies with regard to carrying would apply to touching (see Rashi, Bechorot 23a). The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam differs and considers the person pure even if he touches all the pieces.
Why is touching different from carrying? Rav Yosef Corcus explains that each piece he touches is judged individually. Since it cannot be identified and the carcass is nullified, with regard to each judgment, the person is considered as pure. When carrying, by contrast, he is carrying the entire amount together and within that amount, the impurity is certainly present.

For he certainly carried the meat from the carcass. Even though it cannot be identified and therefore its existence is considered nullified with regard to touch, since the meat from the carcass is present and it is being carried, it imparts impurity (ibid.). For it to impart impurity, at least one piece of the carcass must be the size of an olive, as evident from Halachah 12.
The Kessef Mishneh questions how this situation is different from the discharge of blood mentioned in the previous halachah. For there, a person carrying it does not become impure. In resolution, he quotes Rav Yosef Corcus who explains that, in that situation, the fetus was dissolved. Hence, it is considered as if it did not exist. In this instance, by contrast, the meat from the carcass obviously exists. It is merely not recognized.

The Ra’avad objects to the inclusion of this rationale, stating that, from Menachot 23ab, it appears that this rationale is offered only according to Rabbi Yehudah’s approach. He maintains that a substance can never be nullified when mixed together with another substance of the same type. Therefore this rationale is required to explain why an exception is made in this instance. According to the majority opinion, which maintains that a substance can be nullified when mixed together with another substance of the same type, seemingly, this rationale is unnecessary. The Kessef Mishneh explains that perhaps the Rambam included this point merely to satisfy the proponents of the minority view.