Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

The Rambam explains them one by one, beginning with this halachah. See Chagigah 20a ff. for the Talmudic discussion of the matter.

One may place smaller keilim that are impure inside a larger vessel that is pure and immerse them.

As stated in Hilchot Mikveot 3:26, the opening of the pure container must be as large as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch.t

See Hilchot Mikvaot 8:1, 6 that explains that a hole this wide- calculated to be two fingerbreadths in diameter- joins two bodies of water together. Similarly, it joins water inside a vessel with a larger body of water (ibid. 6:8).

I.e., were a person to immerse keilim inside a container with a smaller opening, the immersion would not be acceptable. Nevertheless, with regard to keilim to be used for consecrated foods, our Sages instituted a safeguard and did not accept immersion even if the opening of the larger vessel was larger than the required measure. They did not institute such a safeguard for utensils to be used for terumah.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 3; Hilchot Keilim 13:4.

I.e., an indent in the rim enabling the container to be held without inserting one’s finger inside of it. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 25:8).

This is the second of the 11 stringencies.

I.e., something on which a zav stood, sat, or lay on. Such an article is a primary source of impurity and imparts impurity to one who carries it.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chagigah 3:1), the Rambam illustrates this situation with an example of a person carrying a board on which the impure support and the consecrated food were placed.

Were he to touch the support, he would impart impurity to it.

This is the third of the 11 stringencies.

It does not apply with regard to other sources of impurity, e.g., the carcass of a creeping animal or animal, that was carried.

From the gloss of the Ra’avad to Hilchot Parah 13:3, it would appear that the Ra’avad maintains that the consecrated food contracts impurity.

I.e., they impart impurity to a person and to keilim.

This is the fourth of the 11 stringencies.

I.e., with regard to immersion, it is considered as a single whole.

E.g., fat or the like [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

For, because of the stringency, each of the components is considered as a separate entity.

Reassembling the k’li. This is the fifth of the 11 stringencies.

Even if the intermediate stages of fashioning the utensil were performed by an impure person, the utensil does not contract impurity. For it is only when it has reached its final stages that this can take place.

This is the sixth of the 11 stringencies. As stated in Halachah 16, there is a difference between these six stringencies and the following five.

Who is considered to be a zav by Rabbinic decree (Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 10:1). Hence, his spittle is considered as a primary source of impurity (ibid. 1:14).

Had the spittle have dried by the time the utensil was completed, it would not have contracted impurity (ibid. 2:1). Since the likelihood of this happening is high, the utensil is considered pure with regard to terumah. Nevertheless, for consecrated food, higher standards are required.
Our translation is based on the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text mistakenly placed the last words of this halachah at the beginning of the following one.

This is the seventh of the 11 stringencies.

Even when laws were instituted by Rabbinic decree, our Sages would often point to verses from the Torah as allusions to them.

Chagigah 23b.

E.g., the container held an entire isaron of flour, half in one comer and half in the other. In between the two halves, there was another entity.

E.g., it is something like frankincense which would complete the offering and make it fit for the altar.

E.g., meat or another entity that has no connection to the offering.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, offering a different interpretation of Menachot 24a, the Rambam’s source. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s approach.

As stated in Halachah 7.

I.e., the food is considered a derivative of impurity and it imparts impurity to the water.

Menachot 24a raises this question. As Rashi states in his commentary to that text, the question is: Does the concept that a container joins the two masses together apply only when the contact with the agent that imparts impurity occurs within the container or does it apply even when that contact occurs outside the container?
Rambam LeAm questions: True, the concept is left unresolved by the Talmud. But still, as the Rambam writes in Halachah 7, the entire concept of articles in the same container being considered as joined is Rabbinic in origin. Since, generally, we follow the principle that whenever a doubt arises regarding a point of Rabbinic Law, one should rule leniently, why is this instance considered to be different?

The container joins the masses together only when impurity is imparted to one of the masses at the time when they are both in the container.

And is therefore considered as a second degree derivative of impurity.

Rambam LeAm explains that the Rambam illustrates this concept by mentioning a person who immersed that day as the agent who imparted impurity and not another entity that is a primary source of impurity, e.g., a carcass, because there are times when contact with a primary source of impurity will impart a more severe state of impurity to an entity that is already impure. In contrast, a person who immerses himself imparts the lowest level of impurity.

It is considered as impure itself, but does not impart impurity to other entities. This is the eighth of the eleven stringencies imposed by the Rabbis.

As stated in Chapter 11, Halachah 8, the liquid is considered as a primary derivative.

I.e., the liquid contracts impurity and is considered as a primary derivative. If the person’s other hand would touch the first, it would contract impurity. Even if it is not known that it touched the first hand, we considered it impure as a safeguard, for perhaps it did so unknowingly. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that, if it was not touched, there is no reason for the second hand to contract impurity. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that these laws are Rabbinic safeguards and the Rabbis felt that such a decree was necessary.

For consecrated foods, in contrast to terumah, it is not sufficient to wash hands that contracted impurity. They must be immersed in a mikveh, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 7. If the person did not touch his other hand and his first hand did not become moist, only that one hand must be immersed.

If, however, he touches the second hand while the first is moist, the second does contract impurity (Kessel Mishneh).

This is the ninth of the eleven stringencies. Tosafot (Chagigah 20b) explains that the two distinctions mentioned in this halachah are not considered as separate stringencies, for the Sages counted only the stringencies involving contracting impurity, not purifying oneself from it (the subject of the distinction between immersion and washing).

As explained in Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 1:1-2, for food to be susceptible to ritual impurity, it must first come into contact with one of seven specific liquids.

I.e., contact with the person’s hands does not render the food impure.

Even if it was not touched by liquid beforehand.

According to the Rambam, this stringency applies even if he is eating that consecrated food alone. Chagigah 24b states that this is a safeguard imposed lest the person take a moist vegetable with his hands (thus making the vegetable impure) and eat it together with the consecrated food, causing the consecrated food to contract impurity.
The Kessef Mishneh states that this safeguard is the tenth of the eleven stringencies. The previous concept- that the cherished quality of consecrated food causes it to be considered as susceptible to impurity even if it did not come into contact with liquids — is not considered as one of these eleven stringencies, either because it is of Scriptural origin or because it is a separate Rabbinic decree that was not instituted together with these eleven.

That the cherished quality of consecrated food causes it to be considered as susceptible to impurity even if it did not come into contact with liquids.

The Kessel Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s source is Chulin 36a which raises this question with regard to remnants of flour from the meal offerings that were not touched by oil and leaves the matter unresolved. The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Chapter 8, Halachah 3, the Rambam rules that primary and secondary derivatives can be reckoned after contact with such remnants. He states that, according to the Rambam, the principle that the cherished quality of consecrated food causes it to be considered as susceptible to impurity even if it did not come into contact with liquids applies in all contexts with regard to Scriptural impurity and even with regard to most instances of Rabbinic impurity. Here the Rambam is speaking solely with regard to our Sages’ decree that hands alone can be deemed impure (Chapter 8). Since the impurity imparted by such hands is itself a Rabbinic stringency, the Sages questioned whether the foods to which they imparted impurity can themselves impart impurity to other substances.

I.e., one who lost one of the relatives for whom he is required to mourn (his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister; one must mourn for his or her spouse according to Rabbinic Law). On the day of the person’s death, he is considered in acute mourning according to Scriptural Law. And at night, he is in acute mourning according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:9; Hilchot Evel 2:1).

I.e., a zav or the like, who must bring sacrifices before being permitted to partake of sacrificial foods.

This is the eleventh stringency.

In the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chagigah 3:3), he rules slightly differently than here, stating that a person in acute mourning may touch consecrated foods, but one who is lacking atonement is forbidden to touch them and imparts impurity to them if he does. There is a difference of opinion regarding the wording of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim 12:1). Some versions of the text follow the ruling here, but others state that it is forbidden for such a person to touch sacred food.

Chapter 11, Halachah 9. Here, as there, the Ra’avad differs.