Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Our Sages deemed that twelve questionable situations are deemed as pure: They are:

a) A doubt concerning drawn water in a mikveh,

b) a doubt concerning impurity floating on water,

c) a doubt whether liquids imparted impurity to other entities; with regard to their own status, however, they are considered impure when a doubt arises,

d) a doubt concerning the impurity of hands whether regarding the impurity of the hands themselves, such hands imparting impurity to other substances, or a doubt regarding the purification of such hands from this impurity,

e) a doubt concerning impurity of Rabbinic origin,

f) a doubt concerning ordinary food prepared with the stringencies of consecrated food,

g) a doubt concerning sacrifices that are required to be brought,

h) a doubt concerning tzara'at blemishes,

i) a doubt when a person afflicted with tzara'at stood still or passed,

j) a doubt concerning the carcass of a creeping animal,

k) a doubt that arose in the public domain,

l) a doubt concerning two domains.

What is meant by the principle: a doubt concerning drawn water in a mikveh? Three lugim of drawn water that fall into a mikveh disqualify it. If there is a doubt whether or not such water fell into a mikveh or even if it is certain that the water fell, but there is a question whether the minimum measure was present or not, we consider an article immersed in the mikveh as pure and the mikveh as acceptable. Nevertheless, a person should not be instructed to immerse in such a mikveh and to be involved with pure substances as an initial preference. If he immersed and was involved with pure substances, they are considered to be pure.

What is meant by the principle: a doubt concerning impurity floating on water? There was a carcass of a creeping animal floating on water, whether the water was in a container or in a pool in the earth and a person descended into the water, unless he is certain that he touched the carcass, he is considered as pure. This applies even if there is no space for anything in the container or the pool but the person and the impurity.

The principle, a doubt concerning impurity floating on water is pure, was stated only concerning a carcass of creeping animal. If the carcass of a creeping animal is suspended from above and floating on water or is being dragged over water, it is considered as being placed down and not as floating.

When the carcass of a creeping animal is placed in a container and the container is floating on the surface of water or it was placed on a human corpse, an animal carcass - even if the carcass or the corpse below it has decomposed - or semen that is floating on the water, it is considered as if it was placed on the earth, in which instance, a doubtful situation that arises in a private domain is considered as impure, as will be explained.

If the carcass of one creeping animal was lying on that of another creeping animal that was floating on water, it is considered as thick impurity and a doubtful situation that arises is considered as pure. There is an unresolved doubt whether the carcass of a creeping animal that was floating on water on which the ashes of the red heifer had been sprinkled which in turn was floating on other water is considered as placed down on the earth or not. Therefore it appears to me that the doubtful situation is considered as pure.

Just as our Sages deemed a doubtful situation concerning impurity that was floating on water, whether in a container or on the earth, as pure, so too, they deemed as pure a situation involving something pure that was floating on water, whether in a container or on the earth.

What is implied? There was a kneading trough that was impure due to contact with a human corpse and there was a loaf of bread that was terumah wrapped in tree-bast or in paper placed inside of it. Water descended into the kneading trough and filled it. The paper spread out and thus the loaf was floating on the water with the paper separating between it and the water. If there is a question whether or not the loaf touched the side of the kneading trough, it is considered as pure, because it is floating.

The following laws apply when the carcass of a creeping animal was floating on a cistern in a winepress. With regard to terumah, when there is a doubt, it is deemed impure. With regard to the workers, when there is a doubt, it is deemed pure, because the impurity is floating.

When a doubt arises whether liquids imparted impurity to other entities, they are considered as pure. With regard to their own status, however, they are considered impure.

What is implied? A person was holding a staff that contained impure liquids on its top and he threw it among pure loaves of bread. If there is a doubt whether the liquids touched the loaves or not, they are deemed pure. Similarly, if a doubt arose whether impure liquids touched a given container or not, the container is pure. Similarly, if a doubt arose if these impure liquids touched other liquids or not, the other liquids are pure. If, however, an impure person extended his hand or his foot into a place where there are pure liquids and there is a doubt whether or not he touched the liquids, they are impure because of the doubt. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

The following rule applies when there was a jug that was filled with liquids and an impure person extended his hand into its inner space. If there is a doubt whether or not he touched the liquids, the liquids are impure, but the jug is pure, for liquids whose purity is of a doubtful status do not impart impurity.

Similarly, if liquids which are questionably impure enter into the inner space of a jug, the jug is pure and the liquids in it are pure, for they contract impurity only from the jug. If the liquids that were questionably impure became mixed with the liquids in the jug, all of the liquids are questionably impure, but the jug is pure. Similarly, if these liquids fall into an oven, any bread that is in the oven and the oven itself are pure.

When a person poured or sprinkled impure liquids in his house and there were ritually pure objects there, if there is a question whether some of the liquid sprayed on them or not, they are considered pure despite the doubt.

If one sprinkled both pure and impure liquids in a house and, afterwards, liquids were found on a loaf of bread that was terumah, should one take it and inquire about its status, it is deemed pure, for when there is a question whether liquids imparted impurity, the object is deemed pure. If, however, one left the bread until the water dried, it contracts impurity because of the doubt. For when there is a question concerning impurity in a private domain, the object is deemed impure, as will be explained. At the time the inquiry is being made, no liquids are present, only the loaf and there is a question whether it is pure or impure.

When there is a doubt concerning the impurity of hands whether regarding the impurity of the hands themselves, such hands imparting impurity to other substances, or a doubt regarding the purification of such hands from this impurity, the object in question is deemed pure.

What is implied? If a person's hands were pure and there were two impure loaves before him, should a question arise whether he touched the loaves or not, the status of his hands and the loaves is the same as it was previously. This same ruling applies if:

a) a person's hands were impure and there were two pure loaves before him and there is a question whether he touched the loaves or not;

b) one of the person's hands was pure, the other was impure; there were two pure loaves before him, he touched one of them and it was unknown whether he touched it with the impure hand or the pure hand;

c) both his hands were pure; there were two loaves before him, one pure and one impure; he touched one of them and he did not know whether he touched the one that was impure or the one that was pure;

d) one of his hands was pure and one was impure and there was both an impure and a pure loaf before him; he touched both of them and he is unsure whether the impure hand touched the impure loaf and the pure hand, the pure loaf or whether the impure hand touched the pure loaf and the pure hand, the impure loaf.

Similar concepts apply if a person's hands were impure and he immersed them in a mikveh or washed them in the ritual manner. If there is a doubt whether or not the water with which he purified them is acceptable for hands or unacceptable, whether or not the required measure of water was present, whether or not there was an intervening substance on his hands, his hands are considered as pure.

If one of a person's hands was impure and he did not know which one it was, he is instructed not to be involved with pure articles until he washes both his hands. If he touches pure objects with one hand before he washed them, the pure articles remain pure.