Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)
Featuring a modern English translation and a commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.
Mishneh Torah (Moznaim)
Featuring a modern English translation and a commentary that presents a digest of the centuries of Torah scholarship which have been devoted to the study of the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides.
See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 6:3 which explains that to impart impurity, the source of impurity must enter the receptacle’s inner space.
Holy Scriptures (Parah 10:3).
Our translation follows the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slightly different version.
The situation described by the Rambam invites consideration of an oft discussed Rabbinic question: Can the prohibition of an object by Rabbinic decree affect its status vis-á-vis Scriptural Law? To explain: The simple way of interpreting this law is that implicit in the Sages’ decree that such an object would become impure according to Rabbinic Law is that the ashes of the red heifer should not be placed upon it.
There is, however, an alternative. It could be said that since the Sages deemed such an object as impure, the ashes may not be placed there according to Scriptural Law, for in the context of their present halachic status, they cannot be considered as “a pure place.”
E.g., a house containing a corpse or the like or one where there is a blemish of tzara'at.
Since it is within the inner space of the house, it contracts impurity.
For then the impurity rises through the aperture, as stated in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 16:1.
Which never contracts ritual impurity (ibid. 6:2). Since the container is not susceptible to ritual impurity, it intervenes in the face of it.
The Kessef Mishneh cites Rav Yosef Corcus who clarifies that this is speaking about an instance in which the container is not hanging within the house. In such a case, the fact that the ashes are in a pure container protects them. When, however, the container is hanging into the house, even if it is made of stone, the ashes contract impurity, because they are not in “a pure place.”
Generally, objects in a container that is sealed close remain pure even though they are placed in a shelter where a corpse is located (Hilchot Tum’at Meit 21:1). In this instance, an exception is made, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
The water may later be sanctified and the container later used for the ashes of the red heifer even though they were once in an impure house. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 10:5), the Rambam explains that the rationale is that the Torah required “a pure place” only for the ashes of the red heifer — or sanctified water, because it came in contact with those ashes. Other substances — even when they will be used in this purification process - are not bound by this stringency.
As evident from Chapter 13, Halachah 10, standing on the oven does not render the person impure.
Even if it would be considered as pure in other contexts, since it was not purified for the sake of this purification process, it is not considered as a pure place in that context. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 10:4).
In all the instances mentioned by the Rambam, though in actual fact, the ashes were not above the oven, since it was necessary for their support, they are considered as in its space.
Because of the rationale mentioned in the notes to the first clause of the previous halachah.
Passing over an impure entity does not cause it to be considered as being in an impure place.
More particularly, something placed in the categories of mishkav or moshav.
The impurity contracted by the other receptacle is not conveyed back to the one containing the sacrificial food.
Even though it was pure and containing sacrificial food.
Chapter 13, Halachot 6, 10.
Since the receptacles are placed on the ground and the person did not carry the sanctified water directly, the receptacle containing the sacrificial food does not become impure [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 10:6)].
A person who purified himself for this process.
For carrying sanctified water causes anyone who is not pure with regard to this purification process to become impure (ibid.; Chapter 15, Halachah 1). By touching the receptacle containing the sacrificial food, the person entered the above category and that caused him to contract impurity. He then conveyed this impurity to the sacrificial food. The Ra’avad offers a slightly different interpretation.
Hence he does not become impure due to carrying that water.
He is then deemed impure with regard to this purification process.
Because once he is deemed impure, carrying that receptacle is sufficient to impart impurity to the water, even if he did not touch it.
Chapter 13, Halachah 7.
Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTwn’ah 14:1.
I.e., the food is not considered as pure, nor is it considered as impure. Instead, it is left until it contracts definite impurity. See Ibid. 13:13.
The rationale is that, because of the doubt that arose, the status of the article in question has been downgraded and it will never be considered as acceptable again. With regard to terwnah, since it is food and it is forbidden to destroy it unnecessarily, it cannot be disposed of or destroyed unless it is known that it is definitely impure. Hence, we wait for such a situation to occur. There is, however, no such restriction regarding the water or the ashes for this process. Hence, once their status is downgraded, they are discarded.
Ordinary food and utensils that were kept in a state of ritual purity.
I.e., they are not considered as impure, nor as pure, but left until they incur definite impurity. They are not disposed of immediately like the ashes or the water used for the purification process, because they are articles of value and should not be destroyed without cause [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 11:2)].
The concept of impurity is not relevant to them at all (ibid.).
Although the Rambam appears to be referring to an instance where the fig fell unintentionally, without the owner desiring this, this same law would apply if he was happy with it having fallen.
The minimum measure for foods to impart impurity (Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 4:1).
At the hand of heaven.
I.e., the person contracted impurity because he touched the sanctified water (that was on the fig) for a purpose other than sprinkling (as will be stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 1). He is then liable for death at the hand of heaven for partaking of terumah while impure, as stated in Hilchot Terumah 7:1.
Our translation follows the version of the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh
Torah and the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Parah 11 :3). The standard printed texts states “because he partook of impure terumah.” We favor our version, because, as stated in Hilchot Terumah, op. cit., an impure person who partakes of impure terumah is not liable for death.
The commentaries have noted that, based on that ruling, the person eating the fig should not be liable, because the fig contracts impurity. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the impurity the fig contracts is merely a Rabbinic stringency and the designation of something as impure due to a Rabbinic stringency does not have the power to free the person from liability according to Scriptural Law.
The person partaking of the terumah is still liable for death, because he becomes impure and then partakes of terumah while impure.