Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

When an olive-sized portion of a human corpse is held over a person or a k'li, that person or k'li contracts impurity due to the principle of ohel.

I.e., he is not a deafmute, mentally or emotionally compromised, or an immature child.

Rav Yosef Corcus emphasizes that this is speaking about an instance where the person drew water separately for each particularly container. For if he drew all the water at the same time, there would be no reason to differentiate between this clause and the following one.

Hence, it had imparted impurity to all the water and the water imparted impurity to all the other containers.

The Ra’avad offers a different rationale for this ruling: that the status of keilim with regard to impurity depends on the situation in which they are found. He does not accept the Rambam’s rationale, because he maintains that since the question was brought about by human activity, it is not considered as if there is no one to ask. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s position, explaining that since no persons know how to clarify the issues regarding the keilim, it is not considered as if there is anyone to ask.

Which would have prevented the carcass of the animal from flowing out.

Until the water was poured into the last container.

We assume that the carcass was in the container used to draw water and remained there until the water was poured into all the containers. Thus the water in all the containers (and therefore the containers themselves) was impure. The Kessef Mishneh asks: Since a doubt involving containers is involved, why are we stringent here?

The other nine containers are certainly pure, because there was no carcass in them, nor was there any reason to suspect that there was a carcass in the bucket from which the water was poured. Similarly, only one of the buckets — the bucket from which the water was poured into the container where the carcass was found — should be impure. Since the identity of that bucket cannot be determined, we rule leniently regarding all the buckets.

Either terumah or sacrificial foods.

After the pure substances were removed.

For we assume that the carcass was in the container at the time the pure articles were held within and imparted impurity to them. When the container has a base, the substances are removed from its opening and it is possible that the carcass was not noticed at the time they were removed. When it does not have a base—and thus had the carcass been located there previously, it would have been poured out together with the pure substances—if it has a rim, the rim would have kept the carcass inside. Hence, it is deemed pure.

Thus it was present when the pure substances were placed inside.

Oil or wine [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:7)].

For either the carcass was in the container before he immersed it in the cistern, in which instance, it imparted impurity to all the liquid in the cistern or the carcass was in the cistern beforehand and had imparted impurity to it.

The water remaining in the cistern is also impure.

After the oil or wine was poured into it.

Because the crawling animal must have come from the original cistern or the container used to draw from it. There is no other alternative. Hence the wine is all impure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 9:1), the Rambam explains that a pit is dug in the ground and the olives are stored there before they are pressed so that they will soften.

For we assume that the crawling animal was not in the pit and removed together with the olives.

The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 9:9).

Those on the roof, however, are pure, for we assume that they were removed before the crawling animal fell into the pit. The Kessef Mishneh observes that this ruling [although based on the Tosefta (Taharot 11:1)] runs contrary to the mishnah cited in the previous note and questions why the Rambam did not, as is the common practice, give precedence to the mishnaic ruling.

Without touching the olives.

We do not suspect that the carcass touched the olives and then fell off.

We are speaking about an instance where the carcass is found within the mound itself.
Now, olives will not solidify into a mound within three days. Hence, it can be assumed that the while the mound had been in the vat, the carcass had been there and had imparted impurity.

I.e., the carcass fell among them after they were taken to the roof. There they solidified and formed a mound.

I.e., touching it externally, but not mixed in it.

The larger portion is pure, for we assume that the carcass fell there afterwards.

For we assume that it fell there after the smaller portion was removed.

Because it was obvious that it had been mixed together with the dough and taken from the larger dough together with the smaller portion.

If there was liquid present, there is greater reason to suspect that the loaf or food became impure. For the impure food would have imparted impurity to the liquid and the liquid would have imparted impurity to the loaf or the food. Nevertheless, even if there is no liquid present, the loaf or the food are considered impure for the reason the Rambam proceeds to explain.

And thus the impure food never touched the pure loaf or food.

As mentioned in the first clause of the previous halachah.

If the majority of the food that had been located in the house previously was pure, the loaf or cooked food is pure. If the converse is true, it is considered as impure.

The carcass of a crawling animal is impure, as is the blood which emerges from it (Chapter 4, Halachah 7). This does not apply with regard to a living crawling animal.

And are thus impure in addition to the meat that comes from them being forbidden to be eaten.

If, however, it is found inside a home, it is considered as kevua, having a fixed place and we follow the general principle (Ketubot 15a): “Whenever an entity has a fixed place, all doubts about its status are considered as equally balanced.” See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 8:11 with regard to the parallel with regard to the laws of kashrut. Moreover, a home is generally considered as a private domain and, hence, that itself is sufficient reason to rule stringently.

Although one might argue that there is a greater likelihood of non-kosher meat being discarded than kosher meat, the ruling still depends on the majority.

See parallel rulings in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:11; Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:25; 15:26, Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 12:28.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 3:1).

See Chapter 4, Halachah 2.

Because it is unlikely she touched it.

Chapter 16, Halachah 1.