Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

The term challah can refer to a loaf of bread. It also refers to a portion of dough that is separated from a larger dough and given to a priest. The laws regarding such a portion are the same as those applying to terumah. From the fact that the Rambam mentions this concept in his Commentary to the Mishnah in the mishnah from which this law is derived (T'vul Yom 1:1), one might infer that he interprets the term as referring to loaves made from such separated portions of dough.

The Rambam is speaking about a situation in which the loaves and breads-and similarly, the other foods mentioned later on—are terumah. As mentioned in the previous chapter, ordinary food is not rendered impure when touched by a person who immersed that day.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam writes that if they are left attached, their form will be destroyed. This obviously is not the person’s intent.

And the sides of the bubble are touching food that is terumah.

For they are nothing but air.

Even impurities of Rabbinic origin, as explained at the conclusion of the previous chapter.

And thus impure.

Since he did not intend to separate them, they are considered as a single entity.

Since their surfaces have already hardened, they will certainly become attached. Thus inserting them into the oven at this stage indicates that the person desires that they remain attached (ibid.:2).

For oil never produces large bubbles (ibid.).

In all these instances, the bubbles contain substance and hence, they are considered as joined to the entities at their sides.

Because it is much thinner than the remainder of the loaf.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:3), the Rambam explains that this term means "exposed to excessive heat."

2 cm. according to Shiurei Torah, 2.4 cm according to Chazon Ish.

Since they are small, they are not considered as separate and distinct entities, but as part of the loaf.

For these are considered as distinct and separate entities and not as part of the loaf.

Thus if impurity touches the burnt portion, the remaining portion is still considered as pure.

The Rambam’s ruling is based on his version of the Tosefta (Uktzin 2:4). The · conclusion of that Tosefta is quoted above, Chapter 5, Halachah 22. See the comments of the Ra’avad and those of the Kessef Mishneh who explains that there is no difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Ra’avad on this issue.

I.e., it does not contract impurity and therefore become forbidden. Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 2:5).

They are impure, but not the remainder of the meat or the congealed sauce. For that sauce is not considered as a liquid. Were it considered as such, it would contract impurity in its entirety and then impart it to the other pieces.

The wine is still considered as pure.

I.e., its white and yolk mixed together.

But not the vegetable.

The entire vegetable does not become impure, only that stalk. There is room to say that even that stalk should not become impure, for the egg is ordinary food and does not contract impurity when touched by a person who immersed that day. Nevertheless, since the portion he touched was directly on top of the vegetable, the Rabbis ruled stringently.

I.e., bubbled when cooked; thus there is air between the places touched by the person and the vegetable. Our translation is taken from the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (T'vul Yom 3:2).

And even that vegetable is not considered to have contracted impurity.

The frying pan contained food that was terumah and the strand of the egg extended to it (ibid.:3).

Since the contents of the barrel would have flowed out had the person not place his finger there, our Sages considered it as if he touched all the contents.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that, in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 12:10, the Rambam discusses a similar situation with regard to a gentile who plugs a barrel of wine with his finger. There, however, the Rambam rules that if the barrel is perforated from the side, the wine below the hole is permitted. The Kessef Mishneh states that our Sages were more stringent concerning the consideration of foods as joined with regard to impurity than with regard to wine touched by gentiles.

That were terumah.

I.e., if the entire liquid was 101 or more times the portion he touched, the amount of impure liquid is considered insignificant and the entire amount is pure. If the entire amount is less than that figure, the entire amount is considered as impure.

Hilchot Terumot 14:14.

Obviously, the person was careful not to touch the wine once it had been designated as terumah, for that would disqualify it.

From the wording of the Rambam here, it appears that we are speaking about a vat of wine that was not terumah. This represents a change in his approach from his Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 2:6; the source of this halachah) which speaks about the entire vat becoming disqualified, indicating that he considered the mishnah to be speaking about an instance where the wine in the vat was also terumah (Tosafot Yom Tov, T’vul Yom, op. cit.).

The fact that he touched the other wine in the vat is not significant, for that wine is not terumah and will not be disqualified when touched by a person who immersed that day.

I.e., he held the jug from its sides or from the top of the rim without inserting his hand inside at all.

And the wine in the jug is not disqualified.

And is hence disqualified.

I.e., it was not a vat built into the ground, but an oversized tank (Kessef Mishneh who explains that there is no difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Ra’avad on this point).

A kor is 249 liter according to Shiurei Torah and 486 liter according to Chazon Ish.

For everything in the container is considered part of its contents and not a separate entity.

Even the wine at the top of the container.

Which is offered with the meal offerings and is part of the incense offering See Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 6:8 where the Rambam states that although frankincense and the like are not foods — and hence would not ordinarily contract ritual impurity — because of the cherished nature of consecrated articles, it is possible for them to contract ritual impurity.

Even though every grain of these substances is a separate entity and thus the remainder is not joined to the portion touched by the person who immersed, because of the cherished nature of consecrated substances, our Sages were stringent and considered the entire amount as a single entity. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Eduyot 8:1; see also Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 12:7), the Rambam cites Chagigah 24a where this concept is derived from a non-literal interpretation of Numbers 7:14, “One golden ladle, [weighing] ten [shekalim], filled with incense.” Our Sages ruled that everything that is in the ladle is considered as one entity. Moreover, the Rambam follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in Eduyot, loc. cit. which maintains that even if the consecrated entities are located on a board, a tablet, or the like — i.e., an implement that does not have a cavity that serves as a container — they are all considered as joined.

And thus are treated as consecrated articles. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 2:5.

And this stringency is applied only because of the cherished nature of holy articles.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:5.

Which ran through the Temple Courtyard.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that as long as the coals are in the firepan, they are considered as consecrated and, hence, are susceptible to ritual impurity. The Kessel Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling.

Since they are ordinary food, even if the person who had immersed had touched the stew or the cake, he would not have disqualified them.

Even though the oil permeates the entire vegetable, it is not considered as joined. Rabbenu Asher (T’vul Yom 3:5) explains that oil would cause terumah or consecrated food to be considered as joined, but does not have that effect on ordinary food.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 2:3), the Rambam writes that it was common practice to crush garlic in oil and use it as a condiment for cooked foods.

Since the stew is terumah, it is considered to have joined everything together.

Since the stew is ordinary food, it does not join all the other elements together.

I.e., the entire mixture is considered as terumah [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)]. Hence, if such a person touches any portion of the mixture, it is all disqualified.

I.e., he desires that the garlic be crushed into small pieces which are separate from each other. Therefore, it is not considered as a single entity the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 2:3)]

I.e., he deviates from the usual process and does not collect them while mixed with liquids. Were he to have collected them together with liquids, they would have been considered as joined (ibid.).

See Chapter 6. Halachah 14.

The portion of a dough given to a priest which is governed by the same laws as terumah.

Even the part that was not challah, nor directly adjacent to it.

Because it was once a totally distinct entity and even now, the intent is not that it become mixed into the remainder of the dough (for then, the entire dough would have to be eaten like terumah).

When ordinary food becomes mixed with terumah and the ordinary food does not constitute 101 times the terumah, the mixture is forbidden to a non-priest and must be eaten with the stringencies required for terumah. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot, ch. 15; Hilchot Terumot, chs. 13-14, for more details concerning mixtures of terumah and ordinary food.

In which instance, the entire dough is considered as if it were mixed with terumah and is forbidden to be eaten by non-priests even if the yeast was one thousandth of the entire total (Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 16:2).

Although the terumah is significant with regard to the prohibitions regarding eating, it is not considered as significant with regard to impurity.

The bracketed additions are added on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 3:4).

Since the dough was kneaded with fruit juice and not water, all of the different portions are not considered as connected to each other. See Chapter 6, Halachah 13.

I.e., the person himself is pure, but his hands are impure due to Rabbinic decree, as mentioned in Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 8:8.

A portion which the Levites must separate from the tithe and give to a priest. It is governed by the same laws as terumah and must be eaten in a state of ritual purity.

I.e., it is not considered to have contracted impurity previously.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 11:15.

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 11:2. Both a person who immersed and impure hands are considered as secondary derivatives of impurity. Hence, they have no effect on the status of ordinary foods.

Which is bound by the same laws as terumah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 4:2), the Rambam mentions the women putting it into a container that is not susceptible to ritual impurity. The commentaries have questioned the need for this, since a secondary derivative of impurity does not impart impurity to a container.

These additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 4:2).

See Hilchot Terumot 3:17; Hilchot Bikkurim 5:17.

I.e., there is no difference in law whether the person involved immersed that day or the utensil involved was immersed [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:3)].

When the bottle that was immersed will regain a full state of purity.

The fact that the bottles were not totally pure at the time the wine was placed in them is not significant, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Tevel is a term used to refer to produce from which the necessary separations have not been made. In this instance, the wine in the bottles is considered as tevel and not terumat ma'aser, because, at the time that the designation was to take effect, the wine for which it was designated as terumat ma'aser no longer existed. Hence, the separation is not effective and it reverts to its initial status [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 4:4)].

For the separation was never effective, since the wine in the bottles no longer existed at the time the stipulation was to take effect.

In both instances, they are not able to regain purity until the seventh day after contracting impurity. Nevertheless, on the day they purify themselves, there is no difference between them and a person who purifies himself from a lesser impurity.

For the oil is like other ordinary food and is not disqualified when touched by a t’vul yom.

A man who experienced three successive discharges from his sexual organs similar to those resulting from a gonorrheal infection. See Leviticus, ch. 15; Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah 2:1; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 1.

A woman who experiences uterine bleeding on three consecutive days outside her ordinary menstrual cycle. Her impurity is mentioned in Leviticus, op. cit.; Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah 1:6; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 1.

Such individuals must count seven pure days in which no discharges were experienced. They may immerse themselves on the seventh day to regain purity. Nevertheless, their status is different from any other person who immerses himself, because if they experience a discharge during the day, before nightfall, all the seven days are disqualified retroactively. See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 5:9.