Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Avodah Zarah 47b, the source for this ruling quotes a different prooftext, the verse cited by the Rambam in Halachah 2. This points to a pattern found frequently in the Mishneh Torah: The Rambam will cite original allusions to verses from the Torah.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 2.

Unlike a crawling animal in which instance, a lentil-sized portion imparts impurity.

Whose minimum measure is also an olive-sized portion (Hilchot Tum’at Meit 2:2).

Or any part of the image.

See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 8:4.

I.e., there is no need for a trained craftsman.

For, as stated in the previous halachah, a false deity imparts impurity only when intact. See the Mishneh LeMelech who offers this interpretation after noting that, as stated in the Kessef Mishneh, Shabbat 83b raises this question and leaves the matter unanswered. Generally, in such a situation, the Rambam would say that the matter is unresolved. Here, however, he does not rule in that manner.

Compare to Halachah 3.

This does not refer to an instance where the building itself is worshiped.

I.e., just as a house in which a tzara’at blemish is discovered imparts impurity (see Hilchot Tum’at Tzara’at 16:6), so too, such a shrine imparts impurity.

Since an earthenware container only contracts impurity from its inner space, if one brings its base into such a shrine, but its opening is left outside, it does not contract impurity.

As if they touched a source of impurity.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1.

Or as evident from the continuation of the halachah, an implement or other object.

Note Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:9-10 which states that a gentile (but not a Jew) may nullify a false deity that belongs to him or to another gentile (but not to a Jew) by treating it irreverently. In such an instance, it is then permitted to benefit from the false deity. Similar laws apply to the deity’s accessories. In that source, the Rambam states that the connection between the offerings to a false deity and that deity can never be nullified.

Generally, we follow the principle that when a doubt arises regarding a matter of Rabbinic Law, one rules leniently. Nevertheless, because a false deity is involved, the Rambam rules more severely.

See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 3:4.

The commentaries note that, in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, op. cit., the Rambam does not make a distinction between foods offered to a false deity or keilim that were offered.

As explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 11:1, there is a Scriptural prohibition against benefiting from wine poured as a libation to a false deity.

As explained in ibid.:3-4, our Sages were stringent and forbade not only wine that they knew had been offered to a gentile deity, but any wine belonging to or touched by a gentile.

In that instance, it does not impart impurity until there is a revi’it, a significantly larger measure, present (Chapter 8, Halachah 11).

I.e., Sefer Taharah.

This includes persons, utensils, garments, foods, and liquids.

E. g., the carcass of a crawling animal or a false deity (see Halachah 2).

For our Sages instituted their decrees in a manner that parallels Scriptural Law.

For in these instances, the Torah did not state that the person must launder his garments.

For in these instances, the Torah does state that the person must launder his garments.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, with regard to the carcass of an animal; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 6:2.

When there is not a sufficient amount of water to be sprinkled, one who touches the water also becomes impure, but he does not impart impurity to his garments (Hilchot Parah Adumah 15:1). That source also specifies how much water is necessary for the amount to be considered enough to sprinkle.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:7.

Chapter 3, Halachah 1.

See Hilchot Parah Adumah 6:1 and notes.

I.e., the person who performed the activity is considered a primary derivative and the foods he touches, a secondary derivative.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zavim 5:10), the Rambam. explains the distinction between the individuals mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in the preceding halachot. Those halachot describe a person contracting impurity through physical contact with a source of impurity. The persons mentioned in this halachah, by contrast, contract impurity because of an activity they perform even if they do not come in contact with the animal that is offered.

The verse refers to the carcasses of crawling animals and from that concept, inferences are drawn with regard to other sources of impurity.

Separating himself from the source of impurity before a portion of his body ascends from the water.

As the Kessef Mishneh mentions, a significant concept is apparent from the Rambam’s wording: an impure person immersing himself attains purity when he emerges from the immersion and not in the midst of the immersion.

More precisely, he attains the status of a t’vul yom and he does not attain a full state of purity until nightfall.
At this point, the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah has several extra lines that were apparently inserted due to a printing error. Our text is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings.

Provided it was separated from the zav before a portion of it was lifted from the water.

Like he would had he touched them while still in contact with the source of impurity when standing outside the mikveh.

For he would impart impurity to these even if he was no longer in contact with the source of impurity.