Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

We already explained that there are only seven liquids that contract impurity and make foods susceptible to impurity. Other liquids are referred to as fruit juices and they neither contract impurity, nor make foods susceptible to impurity. The derivatives of the seven liquids that we mentioned are governed by the same laws as they are.

The derivatives of water are: fluids secreted by the eye, the ear, the nose, and the mouth, and human urine whether from adults or minors. Anything excreted by man is considered as a liquid whether it was excreted consciously or unconsciously. The urine of animals and salt that was liquefied are considered as fruit juices. They neither contract impurity, nor make substances susceptible to impurity.

The blood that is counted as a liquid is the blood that flows from a kosher domesticated or undomesticated animal or fowl at the end of its slaughter. Blood that flows at the beginning of the slaughter, by contrast, does not make food susceptible to ritual impurity, because the animal is still alive. It resembles the blood of a wound or blood that is let.

When a person slaughters an animal and its blood sputters on to food, but that blood is cleaned between the slitting of one of the signs and the other, there is a doubt concerning the matter. Therefore the ruling is held in abeyance. The food is neither eaten, nor is it burnt.

A derivative of blood is blood let by a human being that was released with the intent of it being drunk. If, however, it was released as a medical treatment, it is pure and it does not make foods susceptible to impurity. Similarly, the blood released during the slaughter of non-kosher domesticated or undomesticated animal or fowl, the blood that is released with mucous or with feces, or the blood of boils, blisters, and blood concentrated in flesh, all neither contract impurity, nor make substances susceptible to impurity. Instead, they are like other fruit juices.

The blood of a crawling animal is like its flesh, it imparts impurity, but does not make foods susceptible to impurity. There are no entities analogous to it.

Whey is considered like milk. Human milk that is not needed is not placed in the halachic category of a liquid. It does not make foods susceptible to impurity, nor does it contract impurity. Therefore, milk excreted by a male is not placed in the halachic category of a liquid. This also applies to the milk of a domesticated or undomesticated animal that was released without human intent, e.g., it flowed out from the animal's teats spontaneously or it was milked without intent. The milk of a woman, whether it was released intentionally or unintentionally, is generally placed in the halachic category of a liquid. It makes foods susceptible to impurity and it can contract impurity, because it is fit to be drunk by an infant.

Liquids released by those impure people whose impurity causes these liquids to be considered as a primary source of impurity, impart impurity even though the foods had not been made susceptible to ritual impurity beforehand. For the food's susceptibility to impurity and that impurity come simultaneously. They are: the secretion of a zav, his semen, and his urine, a revi'it of blood from a human corpse, and the blood of a nidah.

Similarly, the blood of the wound of a zav and others like him, the milk of such a woman, their tears and the other derivatives of water that they release impart impurity like impure liquids which impart impurity without any specific intent. For impure liquids impart impurity when they are brought into contact with food intentionally or when they come into contact unintentionally. Accordingly, if milk drips from the breast of a nidah or a zavah into the inner space of an oven, the oven and all its contents contract impurity.

We have already explained that the liquids released by a person who immersed that day do not impart impurity. Therefore, even if they fall on a loaf of bread that is terumah, it does not become susceptible to impurity unless they fall on it intentionally, as is the law regarding other pure liquids which do not make food susceptible to impurity unless they fall on it intentionally.

Sweat, pus or vomit, feces, the liquids released by a fetus born in the eighth month, the diarrhea of a person who drank the waters of the hot springs of Tiberias or the like, even if it is clear, are all not placed in the halachic category of liquids. They do not contract impurity, nor do they make foods susceptible to impurity.

When a person drinks other liquids and releases them, they are considered liquids as they were previously, for other liquids do not regain purity in a person's body.

What is implied? If one drank impure water and then regurgitated it, it is still impure. It did not become purified when released. If one drank impure water, immersed in a mikveh and then regurgitated it, or it became loathsome and then he regurgitated it, or it was released as urine, even if he did not immerse himself, it is pure.

If one drank other impure liquids or ate other impure foods, even though he immersed and then regurgitated them, they are still impure. They do not become purified in a person's body. If they became loathsome or were released as urine or as feces, they are pure.

We already explained that sweat is not placed in the halachic category of liquids. Even if a person drank impure liquids and excreted them by sweating, his sweat is pure. If, however, a person bathes in drawn water and then sweated, his sweat is impure. If he dried himself from the water and then sweated, his sweat is pure.

Moisture that collects on the walls of homes, trenches, caves, and cisterns is not placed in the halachic category of liquids. Even if the house is impure, the moisture that collects is pure. The moisture that collects in a bathhouse, by contrast, is considered as water. If water in the bathhouse was impure, the moisture that collects there is also impure. If one brought produce into such a house and moisture collects upon it, it becomes susceptible to impurity. If he brings containers there and moisture collects upon them, the moisture is considered as separated intentionally and it makes foods susceptible to impurity.

When there is a pool in a house and moisture collects on the walls of the house because of it, if the pool contains impure water, all the moisture that collects in the house because of it is impure.

When there are two pools in a house, one containing impure water and one containing pure water, if moisture collects close to the impure pool, it is impure. If it collects close to the pure one, it is pure. If it is equidistant from the two of them, it is impure.

The black liquid that flows from olives without their being pressed is considered like oil. The liquid that drips from the baskets of olives and grapes when they are harvested is not placed in the halachic category of liquids. It does not contract impurity, nor does it make foods susceptible to impurity unless it is collected in a container.

When a person weighs grapes in a weighing pan, the wine left in the weighing pan is not placed in the halachic category of liquids unless it is poured into a container. It resembles the liquid that drips from the baskets of olives and grapes mentioned in the previous halachah.

When a person pushes grapes that are terumah into a jug, even though the wine flows over his hands, everything is pure.

The liquids that flow in the butchering area in the Temple Courtyard, i.e., the blood of the sacrificial animals and the water used to clean them, are always considered as pure. They do not contract impurity, nor do they make foods susceptible to ritual impurity. This matter is a halachah conveyed by the Oral Tradition. Therefore all the blood of the sacrificial animals is not susceptible to ritual impurity, nor does it make foods susceptible to ritual impurity.

Since the blood of the sacrificial animals does not make food susceptible to ritual impurity, the sacrificial animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard were not made susceptible to ritual impurity through the blood of their slaughter. The meat of these sacrificial animals does not become susceptible to ritual impurity unless liquids other than those of the butchering area of the Temple come into contact with them.

When a cow that was consecrated as a sacrificial animal was made to cross a river and was then slaughtered while it still had tangible moisture on it, it has become susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if an impure pin was found in its flesh, the meat is impure.

Similarly, if the cow's mouth was sealed closed outside of Jerusalem, even though the status of the pin found in its meat is unknown, the meat is impure. The rationale is that it touched implements outside of Jerusalem. If the pin was found in its wastes, the meat is pure. In either instance, the hands of the people involved in cutting up the animal are pure, because the decree involving the impurity of hands does not apply in the Temple, as we explained. In which context does the above apply? For the meat to be considered impure according to Scriptural Law. To incur impurity of Rabbinic origin, by contrast, consecrated food does not require exposure to liquids to make it susceptible to ritual impurity. Instead, the cherished nature of consecrated foods itself makes the meat susceptible to impurity. If any impurity, whether minor or severe, touches it, it becomes disqualified, even though it was not exposed to liquids, as we explained.

When one harvests grapes to sell in the marketplace or dry, they do not become susceptible to impurity unless they come into contact with liquids when the owner desires that they do, as other foods.

If, by contrast, one harvests grapes to crush them and make wine, they become susceptible to impurity even if they had no contact with liquids at all. If they were touched by an impure object, they contract impurity. This is a decree of Rabbinic origin.

Why did the Sages decree that when one harvests grapes for the wine press, they become susceptible to impurity? For there are times when a person enters into his vineyard to see if the grapes are ready to harvest. He will squeeze a cluster of grapes to check them and then cast it on the grapes that have already been harvested, for all of the grapes are prepared to be crushed for their juice. Moreover, he is not careful regarding the cluster and will allow it to be pressed by the other grapes, causing its liquid to flow out. He is careful concerning the liquid, desiring that it not flow out on the ground. Thus all the grapes will become susceptible to impurity because of it. Therefore our Sages decreed that when anyone harvests grapes for the wine press, they become susceptible to ritual impurity.

When a person harvests grapes with the intent that, if he will not find purchasers for them, he will bring them back to the wine press, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity until they are brought into the wine press. Similarly, olives that are brought into the olive press become susceptible to impurity, as will be explained.

When a person harvests grapes and places them in a storage pit or spreads them out on leaves, they become susceptible to impurity because of the liquids that are released by them, since he is concerned with the liquids. That is the reason he placed them on leaves or in a storage pit that is like a cistern. Therefore, if someone who was impure or merely whose hands were impure takes some of them, he imparts impurity to them.

If, however, he harvested the grapes and placed them in baskets or spread them out on the earth, they do not become susceptible to impurity, because he is not concerned with the liquid they release. Therefore an impure person may take them and partake of them. Even though they have split open and juice is dripping from them into the wine press, the grapes in the wine press are pure, because the grapes from which the liquid dripped were not made susceptible to impurity and were harvested for the purpose of consumption.

A similar ruling applies in the following instance. A person took the grapes from the baskets or from the earth where they were spread out and partook of them, leaving over a se'ah or two which he cast into the winepress. Even though the juice is sprinkled over the grapes in the wine press, they are not made susceptible to ritual impurity.

When one takes grapes that were in baskets or spread out on the earth to crush for wine, they become susceptible to ritual impurity. Hence they must be taken with pure hands, lest an impure person take from them and impart impurity to them.

When a vineyard grows in a beit hapras and one harvests the grapes for the wine press, they are not considered as susceptible to impurity as long as they are in the beit hapras. The rationale is that since the impurity of a beit hapras is a Rabbinic decree and the concept that when a person harvests grapes for the wine press they become susceptible to ritual impurity is a Rabbinic decree, the Sages were lenient regarding this decree in this instance and did not consider the grapes as susceptible to ritual impurity until they were taken out of the beit hapras.

Accordingly, a person who desires to harvest grapes growing in a beit hapras for the wine press in a state of ritual purity must do the following. He must purify the harvesters and the utensils, having the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon them on the third and seventh day. They must wait until nightfall of the seventh day so that it is obvious that leniency is being taken with the impurity of a beit hapras, only because it is a doubtful situation. Afterwards, they enter, harvest the grapes, and take them outside the beit hapras. Other pure porters receive the grapes from them and take them to the wine press. If the harvesters touch the porters, the porters contract ritual impurity and make the grapes impure. For the people in the beit hapras are impure and they impart impurity to those outside, causing them to be considered as primary derivatives of impurity. They then impart impurity to the grapes, for they became susceptible to ritual impurity when they were taken out of the beit hapras.

When a person harvests olives with the intent of pickling them or selling them on the market place, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity unless they come into contact with liquids as desired by their owner, as is the law with regard to other foods. Similarly, when a person harvests olives to crush in an olive press, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity until the work required to prepare them for pressing is complete.

Why are olives susceptible to ritual impurity when the work required to prepare them for pressing is complete? Because it can be assumed that they became susceptible to impurity because of contact with the fluid of the olives, for the owner desires it so that the olives will soften and be easier to crush. Before the work required to prepare them for pressing is complete, the fluid released by the olives does not make them susceptible to ritual impurity, because it is not desired.

Accordingly, when the work required to prepare olives for pressing has not been completed and impure liquids fall upon them, only the places touched by the liquids contract impurity, as is the law regarding all foods that have not become susceptible to impurity. When impure liquids fall upon them after the work required to prepare them for pressing has been completed, all the olives contract impurity. The rationale is that the impure liquids impart impurity to the fluid that flows from them and that fluid imparts impurity to all of them, for the fluid that is released by them after the work required to prepare them for pressing has been completed is considered as a liquid in the context of the laws of impurity and makes foods susceptible to impurity and imparts impurity to them.

When there is a jug of olives that are salted and pressed together, it is necessary to make a hole in the jug so that that fluid will drain off. If he does not make such a hole, the olives become susceptible to ritual impurity. If he made a hole for the liquid to drain off, but it became plugged by olive dregs and thus the olives became saturated with this fluid, they are not susceptible to impurity for their exposure to liquids was not desired by the owner, as indicated by his making the hole.

When is the work to prepare olives for pressing considered to be completed? When the entire harvest has been completed and they are deposited in one place, prepared to be pressed. Even though liquids did not fall upon them and liquids did not emerge from them, since the work necessary to prepare them was completed, they become susceptible to ritual impurity. Before the work necessary to prepare them was completed, by contrast, even though they were crushed, secreted liquids, and became stuck together because of the liquids, they do not become susceptible to impurity.

If one completed harvesting his olives, but intended to purchase other olives in the future and add them to them, even if only a kab or two kabbim, they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. If, however, he acts with guile, they become susceptible to ritual impurity.

If he completed his purchase of olives, but intended to borrow money and purchase more, but he was prevented by forces beyond his control or he became involved in a celebration and therefore did not add more, it is still considered as if the work necessary to prepare the olives for pressing was not completed and the olives are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Even though zavim and zavot tread upon them, they remain pure.

When a person stores his olives in two olive presses, when he completes loading one of them, the olives in that press become susceptible to ritual impurity.

When a person harvests his olives in the Upper Galilee and he has the intent to bring them to the Lower Galilee in the future, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity until he brings them there. This applies provided he had this intent before he harvested them. If he does not have this intent until after he harvests them, his intent is of no consequence and they become susceptible to impurity. If he completed storing his olives, but had the intent of selling them in the future, they do not become susceptible to impurity. If he had the intent of covering them with leaves, they become susceptible to impurity.

The following law applies when a person purchases a storage vat of olives from a gentile. Even if there are olives to harvest on the earth, he should process the olives in a state of impurity, for it can be assumed that the gentile completed the harvest of that vat.

The word of an unlearned person is accepted when he says: "I did not complete storing olives in this vat."

When a person wishes to take and crush for oil some olives from a storage vat that has not been completely filled, he may take them while ritually impure, bring them to the olive press in a state of ritual impurity, and cover the olives remaining in the storage vat in a state of ritual impurity, because the olives in the storage vat had not become susceptible to impurity.

When a person places his olives in an olive press, so that they will soften and be easy to crush, they become susceptible to ritual impurity. If he left them to soften, so that he will salt them after they soften, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity, for his intent is to pickle them.

When a person rubs or breaks apart olives that are terumah with impure hands, he disqualifies them, because breaking them open completes the work associated with them. If, however, he broke open the olives with the intent of salting them, they do not become susceptible to impurity. Similarly, if he broke them open in order to check them to see whether they have oil and are ready to be harvested, they do not become susceptible to impurity.

When a person leaves olives on a roof for them to desiccate and dry out, they do not become susceptible to impurity even if they are cubit high. If he brought them into the house to spoil some even though he will take them to the roof in the future or he brought them to the roof in a mound to spoil, even though he will break it open and spread them out to dry in the future, they become susceptible to ritual impurity. If he brought them into his house until he will make his roof fit for them or until he takes them to another place, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity, because the work involved in their preparation has not been completed.

When a person stores his olives in a domain belonging to an unlearned person, and locks and seals the door, he need not suspect that the unlearned person has another key and seal. Even if he discovers the seal broken and the lock open, the olives are pure. The seal mentioned could be even a stone or a sliver of wood.

If there were holes and cracks in the storeroom, he need not suspect that the unlearned person inserted a rod and moved the olives. If there are windows four handbreadths by four handbreadths, they are considered as an entrance.

How should a person who crushed his olives in a state of impurity and, afterwards, sought to purify the utensils in the olive-press and the borders from the impure liquids that were absorbed in them act?

Keilim made of wood or stone should be washed thoroughly. If they are from reeds or the like, they should be dried. If they are from resinous cane, they should be left for twelve months, exposed to hot water or water in which olives were cooked, or placed under a drainpipe of running water or into a stream of flowing water for 12 hours.

Afterwards, he should immerse in a mikveh those keilim that require immersion and use them in a state of purity.

All the laws involving making foods susceptible to ritual impurity originate in the Oral Tradition. According to that tradition, it was taught that the verse Leviticus 11:38: "When water will be placed on seeds," refers not only to water, but to all the other seven liquids as well. And it applies only when the crops were exposed to the liquids willfully by the owner after the crops were uprooted from the earth. This is logical, for it is well known that there are no crops that were not exposed to water while they were connected to the ground. "When water will be placed..." applies only after the crops were uprooted and the liquids also were displaced.

When a liquid fell on food and originally, it was desired by the owner, but ultimately, he was not pleased, or ultimately, he would be satisfied, even though initially, he was not, it becomes susceptible to impurity. If the food was exposed to liquids against his will, it does not make them susceptible to impurity. Even if the owner exposed his foods to liquids because of danger or out of necessity, but he does not desire that they become wet, they do not become susceptible to impurity.

What is implied? When a person hides his crops in water because of thieves or places them in a flowing river to transport them with him, they do not become susceptible to impurity.

When liquids were uprooted from the ground against a person's will, they do not impart impurity to foods. Therefore if a person, a k'li, or produce became wet with moisture and then was picked up from the ground against the person's will, even though foods came in contact with those liquids willfully, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity. The rationale is that the water was uprooted from the ground against the person's will. Thus it is as if it is still on the ground and it does not make foods susceptible to impurity.

If there was water on a person, on a k'li, or foods that were uprooted willfully and foods touched them willfully, the foods become susceptible to impurity.

What is implied? If a person turns a bowl upside down on a wall so that it would be washed, the water it collects can make foods susceptible to impurity. If produce was placed in the water intentionally, it becomes susceptible to impurity, because the water was intentionally caused to enter the bowl. If he placed the bowl there so that the water would not damage the wall, the water the bowl contains is not considered to have been uprooted from the ground. Therefore if he placed foods in it, they do not become susceptible to impurity.

Different laws apply if he turned the bowl over with the intent that the wall be washed. If the wall was the wall of a house, the water makes foods susceptible to impurity. The rationale is that the walls of the house are considered as an independent entity, even though they are connected to the ground, because an entity that was separate and then connected to the ground, is considered as separate from the ground with regard to making foods susceptible to impurity. Thus the water on this wall is like water in containers. If it is the wall of a cave which was not built, but instead, it is part of the ground itself, the water on it is not considered as uprooted from the ground.

When a person bends down to drink, the water that ascends on his mustache and mouth is considered to have been uprooted willfully, for it is well known that one who drinks will raise up water on his mouth and mustache. Water that ascends on his nose, his beard, and his head, is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.

When a person fills a jug from a well, the water that ascends after it, on the rope that is wrapped around its opening, and on the portion of the rope that is required to lift it up is considered as having been uprooted willfully. The water on the portion of the rope that is not required to lift it up are not considered as having been uprooted willfully.

If a person placed a jug beneath a drainpipe, all of the water on its outside and on the rope are not considered as having been uprooted willfully. Therefore water found there does not make foods susceptible to impurity.

When rain falls upon a person, even if he is a primary source of impurity, the water on his body is pure, even though it runs down from the upper portion to the lower portion, provided he shakes it off immediately with all of his power. If, however, the water flows and runs down slowly, it does contract impurity at the time it is separated from him. If the water is pure, while it is on his body or clothes, it does not make foods susceptible to ritual impurity, for it did not flow on to him willfully. If he shakes the water off his clothes, it is considered as willful.

If he stood under a drainpipe to cool off or to wash himself, he is considered to have come into contact with water willfully. If he was impure, the water that is on his body is impure.

When a barrel was filled with produce and water from a drainpipe from a roof spilled into it, the owner should pour the water off the produce. It is not considered as susceptible to impurity even though he desired that the water be in the barrel until he pours it off.

When water from a drainpipe flows into a kneading trough, the drops that sputter off and the water that flows over the edge are not considered as having been uprooted willfully. Even if the owner picks up the kneading trough to pour out the water, the water it contains is not considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he left the trough for the water to drain into it, the drops that sputter off and the water that flows over the edge are not considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he picks up the kneading trough to pour out the water, it makes foods susceptible to impurity. The rationale is that since he did not overturn it and pour the water out in its place, it is considered as having been uprooted willfully.

When a person immerses his keilim in a mikveh or washes his clothes in a cave, the water that ascends on his hands is considered as drawn willfully. The water on his feet is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.

When fruits fell into water and one extended his hand and took them, they do not become susceptible to impurity. If he intended that his hand would be rinsed while picking them up, they become susceptible to impurity because of the water on his hand. For the water on his hand and on the produce are considered as having been uprooted willfully.

When a person willfully placed his produce in water, if the water is on the ground, the produce does not become susceptible to impurity as long as it is in the water. If he removed the produce, it becomes susceptible to impurity because of the water on it or on his hands, because it was uprooted willfully.

What is implied? If there were radishes or turnips in water in a cave, a woman who is a nidah, may wash it there and it is still pure. If she raised it out of the water at all, it became impure because of her touch.

When a container was filled with turmos beans and placed in a mikveh, a person who is impure may extend his hand and take beans from it and they are pure. The rationale is that they were not made susceptible to impurity inside of it and he does not desire the water that is upon them.

If he lifted the entire container from the water, the beans that are touching the container are impure, because they became susceptible to impurity due to the water in the container that was willfully raised from the mikveh. The remainder of the beans in the container are pure.