Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

This impurity is not considered as an independent mitzvah. It can be assumed that it is included in the scope of the laws of the impurity of a carcass discussed in the previous chapters.

See Sifra to the above verse. The verse speaks of “a carcass and one which is tereifah.” From this, our Sages inferred that only when the laws of a tereifah apply, i.e., when the fowl is of a kosher species, because there is no concept of a tereifah in a non-kosher species, do the laws applying to a carcass apply.

I.e., the inner portion of the body, for the soul does not derive satisfaction until the food enters its digestive system.

From which one could infer that it imparts impurity when eaten.

See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:3.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and Hilchot Parah 5:2.

I.e., keilim of any type except earthenware containers.

Since the meat has passed from his gullet to the inner portions of his digestive system, it is as if he is no longer touching it or carrying it.

For keilim contract impurity only from a primary source of impurity, not a derivative.

See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 3:2-3 where it is explained that for certain substances to impart the impurity associated with food, someone must have thought of using them for that purpose.

Implied is that generally, one would not think of partaking of it. See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 3:3 for more details.

Impure foods can impart impurity to other foods. When, however, a carcass of a fowl is not considered as a food, it does not impart impurity to foods.

I.e., as a food, it would have to have contracted impurity from another source. Nevertheless, since it will become a source of impurity itself, that is not necessary.

By coming into contact with water.

As stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:16, this term refers to the goats offered as a communal sin-offering for the violation of the prohibition against the worship of false divinities (see Hilchot Shegagot 12:1). These sacrificial animals were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard and then carried outside the walls of the city to be burnt in the ash heap outside of Jerusalem.

I.e., even if they are not considered as food, they impart ritual impurity to those involved with them, as stated in Hilchot Parah Adumah 5:1, 4, 7. Nevertheless, as the Rarnbam proceeds to explain, if they are also considered as food, they can contract a different type of impurity.
In the hashlamot, Rambam LeAm explains the difference between the carcasses of these animals and the carcass of a species of kosher fowl mentioned in the previous halachah. Had the Torah not singled out the carcass of a kosher fowl and taught special laws concerning it, we would have thought that it is impure like other carcasses. Hence, its impurity is considered as more severe. In contrast, were the Torah not to have mentioned the impurity of the consecrated animals mentioned in this halachah, we would not have considered them impure. Hence, their impurity is less severe.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, based on his interpretation of Zevachim 105a. The Kessef Mishneh offers an interpretation of that passage that justifies the Rambam’s conception.

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:3, 8. There the Rambam states:
If, however, a person took a source of impurity, skewered it with a weaving needle, and inserted it into the throat of a person who is ritually pure without it touching his tongue or inserted it within the womb of a woman from below without touching her flesh, the person who swallowed [the source of impurity] does not become impure because [his inner organs] came in contact [with the source of impurity]. [The rationale is that] contact between [a source of impurity and] one’s inner organs is not considered as touch....
When a person carries [a source of impurity] in a hidden part of his body, he becomes impure. Even though touching such portions of the body is not considered as touch, carrying an article there is considered as carrying unless the source of impurity is swallowed up in the person’s digestive system.

One might think that since the carcass of the fowl did not actually touch the person’s gullet, it is not considered to have been eaten. This supposition is not accepted, because it is common practice to wrap meat in lettuce. Hence, the lettuce is not considered as an intervening substance (Kessef Mishneh).

Since the tree bast is not food, it is considered an intervening substance. Hence, it is as if the carcass had not entered his gullet (ibid.).

This situation is possible, because an intestine is long.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, noting that it appears to deviate from the Talmudic passage (Menachot 70a) which is its source. The Kessef Mishneh cites a different version of that passage that justifies the Rambam’s ruling.

I.e., in some situations, an entire limb is considered significant, even if it is not as large as an olive-sized portion (see Chapter 2, Halachah 3; Chapter 4, Halachah 3). However, that stringency does not apply in this context. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:3, for a parallel ruling with regard to eating such a carcass.

Our translation of these terms is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:2). There he explains that after the large feathers are plucked from a fowl’s wings, there still remain small, thin feathers. And after the feathers are plucked from its crop, there remain wooly hairs.

See Halachah 14.

I.e., for impurity to be imparted there must be an olive-sized portion without these feathers and hairs.

This refers to a place where bleeding would result if such a portion of the nail or beak would be cut from a living fowl (ibid.). Note Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:18 which states that one who eats these portions of the body is not liable for partaking of a carcass.

These are usually dried portions of the body that are cast away (ibid.).

All of these portions of the body do contract and impart impurity as foods do; see Halachah 14 and Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 4:4.

I.e., the bones that can be eaten.

The Hebrew term giddim used by the Rambam is a general term referring to sinews, nerves, cartilage, and blood vessels [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:1)].

Our translation of this term is taken from Rashi (Beitzah 7a).

I.e., while being left in the sun, it will begin to decompose and become rancid, and thus no longer fit to be eaten. See the parallel in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 4:11.

See parallels to these laws in Chapter 1, Halachah 13.

“Flesh that has decomposed and turned into a putrid liquid mass, provided the liquid mass that resulted from the corpse coagulates” (Hilchot Tum’at Meit 2:1).

The Kessef Mishneh explains the difference between the ruling here and that in Chapter 1 as follows: Nazir 50a leaves unresolved the question whether the netzel of an animal imparts impurity or not. Since the question is posed only with regard to an animal, it can be inferred that it can be assumed that the netzel of a fowl does not impart impurity.

I.e., incurs a physical impairment that will cause it to die within twelve months.

See the parallels in Chapter 1, Halachah 2, and Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

In the Temple Courtyard, it is forbidden to slaughter ordinary fowl and a fowl slaughtered there is forbidden to be eaten. Moreover, consecrated fowl are not slaughtered before being offered, but killed through melikah, as will be explained. Nevertheless, although this slaughter does not cause the fowl to be permitted as food, it prevents it from imparting ritual impurity. For not everything that is forbidden to be eaten imparts impurity [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 7:5)].

As explained in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 6:23, the priest offering a fowl as a sacrifice holds the fowl in his hand, cuts through its flesh and its neckbone with his nail, and slits the windpipe and the esophagus, the organs necessary for ritual slaughter.

“For melikah permits and purifies only a dove that is acceptable to [be offered on] the altar” (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 7:2).

In both instances, the melikah is not effective and it is forbidden to partake of the fowl.

See ibid. 7:2-9.

See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach, ch. 3.

To atone for the murder of a wayfarer if the identity of the murderer was not known (see Deuteronomy, ch. 21; Hilchot Rotzeiach, chs. 9-10).

Where its neck is to be broken.

For, as stated above, not everything that is forbidden to be eaten imparts impurity.

The impurity discussed in this chapter applies only with regard to a kosher species of fowl, as stated in Halachah 1.

Since it is not common to partake of such a carcass, for it to be considered as food, one must have the intent of using it for that purpose. See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 1:1.

To be made fit to contract impurity an object must come in contact with one of seven liquids (see Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 1:1-2).
Neither here, nor in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 1:3, the source for this halachah), nor in Halachah 16, does the Rambam mention that to contract ritual impurity, the object must come in contact with a source of ritual impurity. And in his commentary to Uktzin 3:9, he explicitly states that this is not necessary. As the Kessef Mishneh relates, many other authorities differ and require the carcass to come in contact with a source of impurity and indeed, one might draw that conclusion from Halachah 2.

And can both contract and impart impurity. See Halachah 9 where it is mentioned that the feathers and the hairs of a kosher fowl are not included as part of the measure of meat necessary for the laws regarding the impurity of a carcass of a fowl to apply. Here, however, we are speaking of the impurity imparted by foods. It can be assumed that if a person decides to eat a non-kosher fowl, it is likely that he will also desire to partake of these portions.

The continuation of the verse speaks of an animal with a split hoof.

And thus exclude a fowl.

See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 4:1, 4.