Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Taharot 3:2 also cites an opinion that maintains that the same ruling applies to wine that solidifies, but the Rambam does not accept it.

I.e., regardless of how many times they solidify and return to a liquid state, regardless of whether they are liquid or solid at the time a question arises. The rationale is even when they are solid, they are not totally solid and are considered as liquids even at that time [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 3:2)].
The Kessef Mishneh states that, although this idea is not explicit in the Rambam’s wording here, it is possible to interpret his statements in that vein. Indeed, it is necessary to do so. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand why he makes a distinction between these liquids and those mentioned in the following halachah.

Which are likely to solidify when they become cold [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:1)].

This follows the interpretation of the Lechem Mishneh. Rav Akiva Eiger suggests that the term should be read as cheilev, i.e., fat.

Since they are not usually eaten while solid, in this state, they would not ordinarily contract impurity. If, however, one thinks of partaking of them in this state, they can be considered as foods. See Chapter 1, Halachah 20.

Which is always considered as a primary derivative.

The minimum measure of food that imparts impurity. See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

The liquids are considered as having a different form than the solid mass. Hence, they are like a new entity and are, therefore, pure. They do not contract impurity from the solid mass, because it is less than the minimum measure necessary to impart impurity.

The bracketed additions (based on Chapter 6, Halachah 17) are necessary, because liquids do not contract ritual impurity unless they come in contact with food the size of an egg. Now, we are obviously not speaking about oversized grapes or olives, but a mass of these fruits.

For then the liquids would become impure because of his touch.

Other applications of this concept are found in Hilchot Terumot 12:11 and in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:8.

Hence the fact that the fruit is impure does not change their status.

I.e., a woman after childbirth or a woman in the nidah state.

Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 6:5-6, 8:2.

That were ordinary food [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 2:1)].

Thus impurity was not imparted to liquids.

Even though part of the leaf extends into the pot, since the part that was touched reaches outside the pot, it is considered as a distinct entity (ibid.). It must be emphasized that the other commentaries to the mishnah interpret this mishnah differently.

Because impure liquids are always considered as a primary derivative of impurity.

For impure liquids can impart impurity to keilim (Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:1).

The impure person touched the leaf, but not the liquid.

If, however, it is smaller than an egg, it does not impart impurity to the liquids.

Because it is connected to them and even the slightest connection between liquids is sufficient to impart impurity.

This clause is a continuation of the mishnah cited above. In his commentary to that mishnah, the Rambam states that the mishnah is speaking about ordinary food which is not disqualified by a person who immersed that day. For that reason, in his explanation, he adds an additional factor: that the hands of the person who shook the pot were impure.
Here he interprets the situation differently, explaining that the vegetables in the pot were terumah, for terumah can be disqualified by a person who immersed.

As is food touched by a person who immersed that day. Although it is not known for certain that the person touched the food, when there is a doubt concerning impurity that was possibly imparted by a person who immersed that day, we rule stringently (Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTumah 10:5).

For liquids that were disqualified because they were touched by a person who immersed that day do not impart impurity to keilim (ibid.:3).

In which there were many grapes prepared to be crushed.

For a grape is smaller than an egg. Hence, it does not impart impurity to the grapes or to the wine. Since its stem is intact, no liquids will drip from that place [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:5)].

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:4).

Hence contact with that liquid will make the grapes susceptible to ritual impurity.

For, inevitably, there will be a small amount of liquid that drips from the place of the stem.

Since he touched them, they contracted impurity from him.

The Ra’avad adds that this ruling applies provided the impure person does not touch the liquid. The Kessef Mishneh states that this point is obvious and need not be mentioned.

See Halachah 2.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 16.

And his intent was to use the olives as kindling fuel.

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:1.

I.e., when the olives are heated, the oil they contain will flow out. Nevertheless, this oil is not considered impure, because it did not come in contact with impure food that was the size of an egg [Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 3:2)].

For impure liquids do impart impurity to keilim.

And thus their mass is certainly larger than an egg.

Because the oil will not have come into contact with an egg-sized portion of impure food (ibid.).

Moreover, in contrast to the oil mentioned in the previous halachah, in this instance, we are not concerned that the absorbed liquids will flow out when the oven is heated. Instead, it is assumed that they will be vaporized while within the wood [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Machshirin 4:10).

I.e., one should not load the oven with this wood if he diverted his attention from his hands, in which instance, they are considered impure. Although water touched by these hands would not impart impurity to the oven, this safeguard should be taken for the reason mentioned by the Rambam. Once, however, people at large take this measure of care, even impure people will be more meticulous.

Where the olives are ground to extract their oil [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 9:8)].

This is speaking about an instance where the olives the carcass touches are not compressed into a mass the size of an egg. Hence the impure olives do not impart impurity to the pure ones.

Through contact with the carcass.

Because the olives became susceptible to impurity because of contact with the oil (ibid.).

Although the word of an unlearned person is not accepted with regard to the purity or impurity of his own produce, it is accepted with regard to the purity of produce belonging to others. See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 13:3.

Chapter 6, Halachah 16.

The bracketed addition was made because, according to the Rambam [see Chapter 6, Halachot 16-17], even if the carcass was touching an egg-sized portion of olives, as long as they are not compressed together, they do not impart impurity to other foods or liquids.

See Hilchot Metam’ei Mishkav UMoshav 10:1 for a definition of the term. As mentioned there, the impurity of an unlearned person is Rabbinic decree. He is not definitely impure. If a person is known to be definitely impure, all of the clusters in the winepress would be impure (Rambam Le’Am).

His touch renders those clusters which he touched as impure and they impart impurity to the clusters with which they are in contact.

From the Tosefta (Taharot 3:1), it appears that the intent is that the oil or wine was released from the olives or grapes originally, when those liquids were produce. Afterwards, when the pressure of the fruits was released, a small amount became reabsorbed in the waste products. When the impure people tread on the wastes, that liquid was released. Since the impure people did not touch it, it remains pure.

Because it contracted impurity when it was first expressed.

I.e., as a natural consequence of walking.

See a parallel ruling in Hilchot Parah Adumah 13:4.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:10), the Rambam emphasizes that the intent is not water designated for the ashes of the Red Heifer, but ordinary water that is being treated with the severity of consecrated foods.

The Rambam is describing an instance where the first loaf touches the second loaf without the liquids they contain touching each other. For that reason, due to the cherished nature of consecrated foods, this stringency was ordained. Had the liquids touched each other, the same ruling would apply with regard to ordinary foods and terumah as well, as the Rambam proceeds to state.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam states that it is considered as if the liquid in the hollows touched each of the loaves. According to that logic, seemingly, the loaves themselves would be secondary derivatives and not primary derivatives as stated here (Mishnah Achronah).

As explained in Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:5, if liquids that are primary derivatives of impurity touch other liquids, which touch other liquids, they are all still considered as primary derivatives of impurity. Indeed, even the 100th liquid in such a chain is still considered as a primary derivative.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 11:3.

This is a frequent occurrence in pottery made from clay and heated in a kiln [Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 2:8)].

Note the accompanying diagram, taken from the drawings accompanying the above source.

I.e., a person who is a primary source of impurity placed his finger over the hole to the bubble.
The Ra’avad objects, stating that this law would apply even if a person who immersed that day (whose impurity is on a lesser level) would put his finger over the hole. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam (and his source) mention a primary source of impurity to teach that, in the situation described in the final clause, even a primary source of impurity does not impart impurity to the liquids in the jug.

As mentioned in Hilchot Tum'at Meit 20:1, a sealed covering prevents a container from contracting impurity. In this instance, however, since the hole extends into the inner space of the jug, it is not considered as sealed closed (ibid. 22:3).

Since the inner hole is higher than the outer hole, the level of the liquids in the bubble will sink below the inner hole and will not flow into the jug.