Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

I.e., by having the water scatter among all the fruits, it would dry faster [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 5:3)].

Because the owner did not want the produce to become wet.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:1)].

For his intent was not that it become moist. Even though the dew will descend upon them at night, it is not considered as if. by bringing the produce to the roof, he intentionally had the produce exposed to moisture, as stated in the following halachah.

All of these three are not held responsible for their actions.

Thus if they poured water on the produce, it would become susceptible to impurity (ibid.).

The commentaries emphasize that the Rambam mentions only a minor in this clause. Implied is that even when the intent of a deafmute or an intellectually or emotionally compromised person is discernible, his actions are not significant.

For the reason the produce is being turned over is so that the other side also be exposed to the dew.

This is a general principle in Torah Law (Chulin 13a, et al).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 6:2). Nevertheless, in Chapter 11, Halachah 13, this term is interpreted differently.

As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 3:5), when wheat is soaked in water, the flour it produces is whiter.

For, as explained in the notes to Chapter 13, Halachah 2, it is not necessary for a person to pour water over produce for it to become susceptible to impurity. It is sufficient that he be happy that the produce was exposed to liquids.

For this will wash the olives and prepare them for pressing.

And will impart impurity to other produce with which it comes into contact.

As seeds and particularly grain placed near water is wont to do [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 3:1)].

Since the owner is happy that the seeds will absorb the liquids and appear fuller, it is considered as if this was an intentional action (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., grains as stated in the previous halachah.

For an earthenware container is porous and the liquid can be absorbed through its walls.

The other four of the seven liquids mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 2, are heavier and do not pass through the walls of utensils [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:2)].

Ordinarily, a loaf of bread becomes susceptible to impurity, because the dough is made with water. This is referring to an instance were the dough was made with fruit juice [Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 3:1)].

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this is referring to an instance where the loaf was not seen until afterwards. If drops of liquid were visible on it at the time it was placed on the jug, the loaf becomes susceptible to impurity.

The absorption of the wine makes it susceptible to impurity and imparts impurity to it simultaneously.

To prevent dust from rising.

I.e., the moisture from the floor of the house itself.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:4), the Rambam states that this refers to an earthenware kneading trough that has liquid absorbed in its walls. The Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of that source.

There is always a certain amount of moisture in sand. Since the person’s intent was that the produce become moist, it becomes susceptible to impurity.

If, however, he intended that they come in contact with water, they do become susceptible to impurity.

Even though the owner would be happy initially, nevertheless, ultimately, the presence of water in a grainheap is undesirable. Hence, the kernels are not considered susceptible to impurity.

For their susceptibility to impurity and their contraction of impurity occur simultaneously.

And not susceptible to impurity.

For his intent was to shake the water off the vegetables entirely.
This ruling follows the thinking of the School of Hillel, who differentiate between a bunch of vegetables and one vegetable (see Chapter 13, Halachah 14). With regard to one vegetable, the fact that water moved from one portion to another is considered a willful action, but with regard to several vegetables, the fact that water moved from one to the other is not considered as willful.

I.e., sacks of produce that fell into the water against the will of their owner (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Machshirin 1:4).

Since he knew that the water from the upper sacks would drip onto the lower ones, it is considered as if he intentionally poured the water over the lower sacks.
Rav Kappach maintains that this ruling parallels the version of the manuscripts of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 1:4). This, however, runs contrary to the version in the standard printed text. See the gloss of the Tosafot Yom Tov to Machshirin, loc. cit., which attempts to reconcile the version in the standard text with the ruling here.

In bis Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 1:6), the Rambam explains that before lentils or other legumes are cooked, it is common practice to blow on them. If they collect moisture, it is known that they are porous and will cook quickly.

For they were willfully exposed to that moisture.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 2.

As Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura explains, when a person eats sesame seeds, he generally places them in the palm of one hand, licks a finger of the second hand, places the moist finger in the seeds and eats them. Thus he will have intentionally exposed the sesame seeds to moisture.

Since the person will not appreciate having the bread wet, it is not considered as if it willfully became wet.

Whose moisture already began to flow.

For the pit cannot be sucked without becoming moist.

Since he did not desire that the pit come into contact with liquids at all.

Chapter 3, Halachah 3.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 1:2).

For they were generally considered as animal fodder.

I.e., willfully exposing them to water.

Because of the water on them at that time.