Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

See Chapter 1, Halachah 2. The seven liquids are water, dew, oil, wine, milk, blood, and honey.

The following halachot describe these derivatives.

Based on the commentary of Meiri to Chulin 37a, this is speaking about the last revi’it of blood that flows out, causing the animal to die.

Based on the following clause, the Rambam’s statements here have attracted the attention of the commentaries, because they seem to be in conflict with the following clause. Seemingly, if, as stated in that clause, there is a question concerning the blood that sputters between the slitting of the organs necessary to be slit for ritual slaughter to be effective, on the surface, at least that same ruling should apply to the blood that flows after the slaughter. See Shoham VeYashpeh.

For kosher slaughter to be effective the animal’s windpipe and esophagus must be slit. These two organs are referred to as simanim, “signs.” In this instance, the blood was cleaned between the slitting of one of these organs. Thus it could be said that it was not “the blood of the slaughter,” because the animal was not killed at that time. On the other hand, the process of slaughter had started, so that term could be considered as correctly applying to this blood.

Chulin 36a states that this ruling is dependent on the principle (Hilchot Shechitah 4:13): “Ritual slaughter [is considered an integral act, a single continuity] from the beginning to the end.” Hence even the blood that emerged in the beginning of the slaughter is considered as “the blood of the slaughter.” Although the Rambam accepts that principle in Hilchot Shechitah and in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:18, since other Talmudic principles feature in this ruling and when all of them are factored together, there is no clear decision, the Rambam considers this instance an unresolved matter (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

This is speaking about food that is terumah or consecrated. It is forbidden to partake of these foods if they are impure. Hence, it is necessary to refrain from doing so because of the doubt.

Consecrated food and terumah that contract impurity must be burnt. Nevertheless, if these foods are pure, they are forbidden to be destroyed. In the situation described above, because of the doubt, terumah is left until it definitely contracts impurity (Hilchot Terumah 12:3) or until it rots. Consecrated foods are left until one of the above occurs or they are disqualified because of the passage of time.

I.e., by an animal or by a person who transgresses [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:5)].

I.e., blood that does not flow out when an animal is slaughtered, but remains within its flesh.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 4:7.

All other liquids that impart impurity also make foods susceptible to impurity.

The watery liquid that separates from the solid part of milk when it turns sour or when a piece of an animal's stomach is added in cheese-making [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:5)].

There is a lengthy process of a fortiori reasoning presented by Rabbi Akiva at the conclusion of the tractate of Machshirin to prove that an animal’s milk should impart impurity whether it was released with human intent or not. Nevertheless, the halachah does not follow his opinion.

A person was touching the animal’s teats without the intent of milking it.

This term loosely translates the Hebrew s’tama. If the person explicitly states that he does not desire the milk, it is not given the halachic status of a liquid.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:6), the Rambam. states that the semen of a healthy person imparts impurity. Certainly, this applies with regard to the semen of a zav. And he quotes Nidah 55b which explains how the impurity of a zav ‘s urine is derived through techniques of Biblical exegesis. In Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:13-16, the Rambam. states that these laws also apply to a zav’s saliva and other liquids he releases.

I.e., a zavah, a nidah, and a woman after childbirth.

Even if the food had not been made susceptible to ritual impurity previously.

As explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 2, usually liquids do not make foods susceptible to ritual impurity unless the owner desired that the foods come into contact with the liquids. With regard to these impure liquids, different principles apply and the food contracts impurity even if the owner did not desire that it come into contact with these liquids. See Chapter 2, Halachah 13.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:11), the Rambam states that this applies to all impure women. See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 10:4

lbid.:6.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

Our translation is taken from [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:7)].

According to Talmudic tradition, a child born after only eight months of pregnancy will not survive. Hence, even while he is alive, he is considered as already dead. Accordingly, even though had such liquids been released by a healthy person, they would have made foods susceptible to impurity, in this instance, they are considered as liquids that were released by a corpse and they do not make foods susceptible to impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:7)].
(It must be emphasized that today, efforts are made to save all infants, even those born in the eighth month and in many instances, the doctors have been successful in enabling such infants to live.)

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

Sometimes the water merely passes through the body and emerges clear (ibid.).

The Ra’avad had an erroneous version of this halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains the validity of the version used here.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:8), the Rambam explains that water is the only liquid that regains impurity when immersed in a mikveh. Even if it is within a person’s body, the immersion is effective.

For once they become loathsome, they are no longer placed in the halachic category of liquids.

Although their appearance remains as water.

Halachah 7.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:1), the Rambam gives the rationale for this ruling: the sweat is not the same liquid that he drank. Moreover, he explains that this law applies even if a person drank a revi’it of the impure liquids and thus contracted impurity. Nevertheless, his sweat remains pure.

As explained in Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 9:1, a person who bathes in drawn water, i.e., water that has been drawn with a container, contracts impurity according to Rabbinic Law.

Because his sweat is mixed with the water which contracted impurity from the person to which it imparted impurity.

Because it contained a human corpse or because a person afflicted with tzara’at entered it.

Because it is obvious that this moisture collected from the water of the bathhouse [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:2)].

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

Contact with liquid does not make food susceptible to impurity unless the owner intentionally exposed the food to liquid. Nevertheless, since it is obvious that water will collect on produce brought into a bathhouse, it is considered as if the person intentionally had the water collect there [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:2)].

Unless liquid is drawn from its source intentionally, it does not make foods susceptible to impurity (Chapter 12, Halachah 3). Nevertheless, the rationale mentioned in the previous note applies here as well (Kessef Mishneh).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 6:5).

Since the person does not collect these liquids and allows them to be lost, they are not placed in the halachic category of liquids.

This shows that he considers the liquid as important.

He is not intending to crush the grapes and have the wine flow out, but merely to collect as many grapes as possible in the container.

Generally, when hands are not specifically guarded to be ritually pure, the Rabbis considered them as secondary derivatives of impurity (Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 8:2).

Since he is not crushing the grapes with the intent of producing wine, the wine that is produced is not considered as significant.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:13-14 which explains that there was an area in the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard that had poles on which animals were skinned and tables on which they were cut up. It was called the butchering area.

If, however, they were slaughtered outside the Temple Courtyard, they are disqualified as sacrifices. Hence, the blood of their slaughter does make them susceptible to impurity.

As is true with regard to other animals that are slaughtered, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

In the Temple Courtyard.

See Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 13:4 which states that implements found outside of Jerusalem are considered as impure. Since the cow’s mouth was sealed outside of Jerusalem, it can be assured that the pin entered its body before it entered the holy city.

I.e., when the animal was cut up, the pin was found in the wastes in its stomach.

Because the pin did not touch the meat of the animal.

Ibid. 8:6.

That the meat of sacrificial animals does not become susceptible to impurity from the blood of its slaughter.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the cherished nature of consecrated foods makes the meat susceptible to impurity even according to Scriptural Law. The Kessef Mishneh states that Chulin 36a appears to support the Ra’avad’s position. Nevertheless, he explains that the continuation of that passage (op. cit.b) can be interpreted in a manner that supports the Rambam’s view.

Ibid. 12:13.