Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 4:10). There the Rambam states that we are speaking about a wooden or earthenware cylinder.

Because it was filled through a person’s conscious effort.

The fact that he left the water there for such an extended time indicates that he had no desire for it and intended to let the water to dry up (Machshirin 4:10).
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, maintaining that once the water has been considered as having been uprooted willingly, it cannot be taken out of that category. Instead, he interprets Machshirin, op. cit. (the Rambam’s source) as referring to water on the outside of the cylinder.

I.e., one of the seven liquids that make food susceptible to impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 4:11)].

Even though he did not pour the rainwater over the wood, the fact that he intended for the rain to descend upon it is sufficient for the exposure to the rainwater to be considered as willful.

Since he was happy that his feet (or his animal’s feet) were washed, it is as if he intentionally poured water over them.

Because to make food susceptible to ritual impurity, the person must have uprooted the water intentionally or, at least, been happy that it was uprooted. This entire chapter revolves around determining which activities are considered as willfully uprooting water and which are not.
As explained in Kiddushin 59b, when stating how produce becomes susceptible to ritual impurity, Leviticus 11:38 uses the wording ki yutan mayim..., “When water was placed on seeds,” employing a passive form. Although the pronunciation implies that a person’s intent is not significant, the way the term is written in the Torah allows for the reading ki yitain, “when a person will place water,” Our Sages explain, when ki yutan resembles ki yitain, i.e., when a person is satisfied that his produce was exposed to water even if he did not perform an activity to do so, it becomes susceptible to impurity.

A plow or the like [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 3:8)].

Which is hot and dry.

I.e., the water will cause the wood to swell and thus cause its cracks to close.

Because it is obvious that if one would submerge these implements in water, water would ascend with them when they are pulled out.

Since there is no way an animal can drink without getting its mouth wet, desiring that it drink is equivalent to desiring that water become uprooted with its mouth.

Because it is possible for an animal to drink without getting its feet wet. Therefore, desiring that it drink is not equivalent to desiring that its feet to get wet.

As in Halachah 2.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 3:8) which explained that the mishnah is referring to a sickness that affects the feet of an animal that is required to walk too much. This translation follows the version in the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version.

At that time, the long hours of threshing can also cause the animal’s feet to be injured (ibid.).

Because at such times, it is obvious that soaking the animal’s feet in water will be beneficial for it and, hence, desired by its owners. They need not have a specific intent that this take place.

Since they are not intellectually developed, their intent is not halachically significant.

This is a principle applying not only within the context of the laws of ritual impurity, but in many other areas of Torah law.

For his immersion to be effective, the water must touch his body. Hence, his intent is that the water be uprooted.

He crosses a river or stream and enters the water only because he desires to reach the other side.

Even though he willfully entered the river, since he did not desire to get wet, it is not considered as if he intentionally uprooted the water.

As obvious from the previous halachah, although the initial water would be considered as having been uprooted willfully, the second water is not. It is considered as if the second water washed away all of the initial water.

The translation of this term is taken from the context. Some texts use the term (Hebrew) whose root means “dam” and thus the meaning could be a pool resulting from a dam. Alternatively it can be interpreted as meaning “when he was drunk,” i.e., and not aware of his actions. The authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, however, use the term (Hebrew) which can be interpreted as meaning “to break him,” i.e., to harm the person or his animal.

This is speaking about an instance where the second person pushed the first person or his animal into the water with a malicious intent, against the will of the first. The second water is considered to have washed away the first water. And the second water is not considered to have been uprooted willfully, because the person did not desire to be pushed into the water.

I.e., the two were willfully cavorting near the water.

Since they were willfully playing together, the person who was pushed into the water should have considered that possibility. Hence it is considered as if he desired that this take place and his being pushed into the water is not considered against his will [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 5:1)].

Rainwater that descends upon a person’s body is not considered to have been uprooted willfully.

For he does not intentionally uproot that water.

For he did desire to swim and thus his body would certainly become wet.

The literal meaning of the term used by the Rambam (quoted from Machshirin 5:2) is "a bird." In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that youths would frequently make such spouts out of reeds.

For the person's intent is to squirt the water out and not to squirt it on any particular individual or object. Similarly, the water remaining in the spout is not considered as uprooted willfully, because the person does not desire that it remain there (ibid.). Rav Yosef Corcus emphasizes that this is speaking about an instance where the spout remains in the water. Were it to be taken out of the water, the water it contains and which squirts forth would have been considered removed willfully.

For undoubtedly his hand or the measuring stick will come in contact with water in this activity.

It is possible for him to measure the width of the opening of the cistern without getting his hand or the measure stick wet. Hence, even if they do become wet, this is not considered as a willful act.

Since he has no desire for the water per se and it is not inevitable that he will come in contact with it, the water is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.

For in this instance, he is certain that his hand will become wet.

For he has no intent or purpose in uprooting that water, nor is he certain that there is water there.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 5:5), the Rambam states that this is speaking about a stone that is resting in the water, but projecting above it.

Since the stone is resting on the ground in the cistern, even the water on its upper surface is not considered to have been uprooted from the ground. As the Ra’avad notes, the Rambam altered the wording of the mishnah to fit the context.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:6).

Indeed, that is the reason for his act (ibid.

On the contrary, then his intent is to wash the hide. Obviously, it will remain wet.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 5:7), the Rambam explains that this refers to a place in the middle of a ship where the water that leaks in from the sides of the ship is left to collect and from there, it is removed from the ship.

For the person is not interested in collecting this water at all.

Which are used to catch fish or other animals (ibid.).

Even though he purposely placed them in the water, he has no desire for the water that ascends upon them.

Because then the person is intentionally casting the water off.

I.e., coverings placed on a table after it was set with food (ibid.:8). The Ra'avad offers a different interpretation of the term used by the Rambam (and his Mishnaic source), but there is no conceptual difference between his view and that of the Rambam.

A covering placed on bricks before they were hardened by being fired in a kiln. The covering prevents the rain for damaging them (ibid.).

Because he did not desire that water collect on them.

When a ship is left on dry land for an extended period of time, it dries out and cracks appear in its walls. Therefore, from time to time, it is desirable to take it out to the water so that its walls will absorb water, swell, and close those cracks (ibid.:7).

When metal that has been exposed to fire is suddenly placed in water, it contracts and hardens (ibid.).

Instead of letting it bum out entirely and turn to ash.

For one’s intent is to expose the substances themselves to the water.

In this instance, the person has no desire that there be water on the substances themselves, merely, that it quench the fire. The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s ruling follows the Tosefta (Machshirin 2:6), but appears to run contrary to the ruling of the Mishnah (Machshirin 5:7), although generally, the Mishnah is favored over the Tosefta. The Kessef Mishneh explains, however, that it is not necessary to see the sources as having divergent views. Instead, the Tosefta can be interpreted as an explanation of the mishnah: When is one liable for taking out a firebrand to quench its flame? When one intends to make it into a coal.

The intent is to lift the implement or the chicken out of the cistern.

For he has no desire that the hook or the basket become wet.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 1:5), the Rambam interprets this as referring to an instance where the cress were still connected to the ground or water fell upon them against the owner’s will.

Because he willfully desired to remove the liquid from the vegetable or his hair.

And later drips onto food.

Hence, it cannot be said that the fact that they moved from one portion of the vegetable or his hair to another causes them to be considered as having been uprooted willfully, as mentioned in the following halachah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam emphasizes that although the mishnah states this ruling in the name of Rabbi Yossi, it is not a minority view, but rather it follows the opinion of the School of Hillel.

If detached from the ground.

Since he desires to have the water move off the vegetable, with regard to the vegetable itself, the movement of the water from one portion of the vegetable to the other is considered as a willful action and thus makes the vegetable susceptible to ritual impurity.

Since he acted to remove the water with all his power, he indicated that he did not desire the water on it at all.

In his gloss to Machshirin 1:2, Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura explains that this refers to an instance where a raven had brought the carcass of a crawling animal or a portion of the carcass of an animal into the tree.

Because his intent is not for the liquids to be removed from the tree.

Hence if the liquids fall on food in the tree or fall off later onto food, they do not make it susceptible to impurity.

Since that intent was not satisfied, the fact that they moved from place to place in the tree is of no significance.

If the liquids later fall on other produce that was detached, they do not cause that produce to become susceptible to impurity.

For the fact that they were uprooted intentionally the first time is not significant. Since they fell on produce that was attached to the ground, it is how they are uprooted the second time that determines their status.
The Ra’avad states that the Rambam should have mentioned that if the produce was detached from the ground while the water was still on it, it does become susceptible to impurity. The Kessef Mishneh cites rulings that support the Ra’avad’s understanding.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 1:3). As stated there, the ruling that follows applies even if one shook the tree with the intent to remove the water from the tree.

Since they came to rest on a plant or a portion of a plant that was still connected to the ground, the fact that initially they were uprooted willfully is of no consequence. The Ra’avad offers a different understanding of the mishnah, while the Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam’s conception. The Kessef Mishneh asks, however: Why is it necessary that the water had to fall from one tree or one branch to another? Since the produce on which the water fell was still attached to the ground, seemingly, the same ruling would apply even if the water fell directly from the first tree or branch to it.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that it is possible to say that the Rambam’s point is that since the water fell from one tree or branch to another, even if it ultimately falls on the produce below the tree, it is not considered as if it fell there willfully. Hence, even if that produce was detached from the ground while wet, it does not become susceptible to ritual impurity.
[It must be emphasized that this explanation follows the revised version of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (see Rav Kapach’s translation). The original version (preserved in the standard published text) follows a different understanding.]

Hilchot Terumot 11:13.

I.e., the amount of grape juice present is substantial enough for the mixture to be considered like grape juice and therefore permitted only to priests. From the third batch on, however, the amount of grape juice is not that substantial. Hence, even if the mixture has the flavor of wine, it may be drunk by a non-priest.

I.e., to be sold and the money used for improvements for the Temple.

This is an extra stringency due to the importance attached to consecrated substances. See Hilchot Meilah 5:12.

I.e., for wine libations to be produced from them.

Even a fifth or sixth batch.

If, however, the fruit was taken from an unlearned person, different laws apply. Generally, the second tithe is taken from such fruit as a safeguard, because not all unlearned people separate the second tithe. In such an instance, however, a mixture made with the dregs of such grapes is permitted entirely.

Which must be eaten in a state of purity in Jerusalem.

I.e., forbidden to be eaten like ordinary produce. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 3:12.

I.e., ordinarily if water became mixed with wine dregs without man's intent, after the first mixture, it would no longer be considered desirable as water, and hence would not make foods susceptible to ritual impurity. If, however, the dregs came from grapes that were from terumah, the second tithe, or which were consecrated, the later mixtures of water can also make foods susceptible to impurity. The rationale is that since the mixture is considered significant with regard to the Torah's prohibitions, it is also significant in this context.

I.e., without human effort.

If, however, a human drank the mixture, it would be considered as water, regardless of how many mixtures there were.

The water that is ultimately left by the animal is subject to the groundrules mentioned above.