Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 18:17. According to Scriptural Law, if there is a doubt regarding the existence of a prohibition, there is no obligation to observe it. The Rabbis, however, established safeguards and rule that such prohibitions should be observed. See parallels in Hilchot Kilayim 10:27; Hilchot Tum’at Meit 9:12.

A woman suspected of adultery who was warned not to enter into privacy with another man. See Numbers, ch. 5; Hilchot Sotah.

For there are no witnesses to that effect.

A lack of fidelity is referred to as impurity. An adulterous woman is forbidden to her husband. Since there is a doubt whether or not the sotah committed adultery, she is considered “impure” until her status is clarified.

That will cause her fidelity or lack of such to be established. Thus we see that when there is a doubt in a private domain, we consider the person impure.
The Ra’avad refers to the Tosefta (Taharot, ch. 6) that offers another rationale, stating that a question regarding an individual can be clarified, while a question regarding masses of people cannot be clarified. [Significantly, the Rambam quotes the Tosefta in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 3:6)]. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam does not favor this approach, because, as stated in the following halachah, even when only three people are present in a domain, it is considered as a public domain. And a question involving three people can be clarified.

For she is an adult and intellectually and emotionally competent.

Since the person can neither hear, nor speak, he or she is considered as intellectually compromised.

As apparent from Halachah 10, if a minor is sufficiently mature that he is able to respond to questions relevant to the contraction of impurity, he is considered as an adult. Unless he can clarify the matter otherwise, whenever there is a doubt whether he contracted impurity in a private domain, he is considered as impure.

In the Talmudic era, private homes would open up to courtyards, which would open up to alleys and the alleys would open up to the public domain. Thus the courtyards and the alleys are normally considered as private domains.

Although the awareness of these individuals is limited, at least in these situations, since they are mature adults who are able to respond to questions, they are not considered as children or mentally compromised individuals.

The principle and the example that follows apply to a question that arises in a private domain.

This is speaking about a situation were it was previously established that the child was impure. If that is not known, he is not assumed to be impure. See Halachah 10.

Even though someone else could have given the dough to the child without the child touching the dough [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 3:8)].

As is required when terumah becomes impure.

Instead, the determination of its status is held in abeyance. It is not eaten, nor is it burnt until it definitely contracts impurity.

There is no one to ask and thus, based on the principle stated in Halachah 2, one might presume that the dough would be considered pure. Nevertheless, the presumption discussed here is deemed powerful enough to override that principle.

For it is common for a cow to wipe its tongue against its lips after drinking. Hence, we assume it did so and thus removed the impure liquids before partaking of the dough.

Thus it can be assumed that it ate the food without touching the liquids.

Which are not included among the eight crawling animals whose carcasses impart impurity. See Chapter 4, Halachah 14.

Since the two are in such close proximity, we assume that if the garment touched one, it also touched the other (Kessef Mishneh).

Although generally, when questions arise concerning keilim, we rule leniently, because the keilim cannot clarify the situation. In this instance, since there is a person involved, if he cannot clarify the matter, based on the principles mentioned in Halachah 2, the article is deemed impure.

The Rambam is borrowing the wording of Nidah Sb. As Tosafot (cited by the Kessef Mishneh) states, the intent is not that it was actually impossible that it did not touch them both, because such a ruling would be obvious. Instead, the intent is that it was highly unlikely.

Because no one actually saw the garment touch both the impurity and the pure substance.

And thus is considered as a primary source of impurity (Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 6:2).

Thus it is highly likely that the loaf fell from the board to the support, thus contracting impurity, and then fell to ground.

In his gloss to Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 12:16, the Kessel Mishneh cites a responsa of the Rambam which explains that we do not suspect that an impure person came and moved the loaf (and thus imparted impurity to it).

I.e., the cemetery. And thus it is logical to conclude that the child picked the roses and contracted impurity from the graves.

As mentioned in Halachah 2, a child is not considered capable of responding to questions concerning halachic matters.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 3:7).

And at the time both the child and the donkey were discovered, they were not in contact with impurity.

Even though the child himself is incapable of responding, bis father can.

And thus imparted impurity to him.

An impure entity.

The latter are impure due to Rabbinic decree, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

After the fact, the status of the pure entities does not change.

As stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 8, and Chapter 13, Halachah 3, our Sages instituted additional safeguards regarding the impurity of hands that apply even when a person’s entire body has not contracted impurity.

This precaution is taken lest he caused the terumah to contract impurity.