She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 20

See Hilchot Shabbat 14:1.

And questions arising there are judged more leniently.

As explained in Chapter 16, Halachah 2, with regard to impurity, the concept of privacy is important in defining a place as a public or private domain. Since the four cubits next to the public domain is not private, in this context, it is considered as a public domain.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 1:1), the Rambam explains the derivation of this term: armalit is the Aramaic for “widow” and the prefix ki means “like.” Thus, the term means “like a widow”—i.e., neither an unmarried, nor a married woman. Similarly, since a karmelit is not a place in which many people walk (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 345:14), it is not classified as a public domain. Nevertheless, it is not set off from the public sufficiently to be considered a private domain. Among the examples of a karmelit given by the Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 14:4) are: a mound in the public domain, a groove in the public domain, and a passageway that is not enclosed. All this applies with regard to the Sabbath laws. With regard to ritual impurity, since they are not private places, they are considered as public domains.

Our translation is taken from Shulchan Aruch HaRav 345:21. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohelot 18:8), the Rambam describes this term as referring to a place, open on its sides, set off from the public domain as a whole, where merchants peddle their wares.

We are speaking about an alley enclosed by a wall on either side, but open at its entrance and leading to—and ending at—one of the storage places mentioned by the Rambam. Since people can enter only from one side, it is considered as a private domain with regard to the Sabbath laws. Nevertheless, since there is a certain amount of human traffic to and from the storage area, it is considered as a public domain with regard to ritual impurity.

In the summer, a valley will not be a place through which many people pass. Nevertheless, there will be harvesters and workers there and thus it could not be considered a private place [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 6:7)]. With regard to its status in the winter, see Halachah 6.

Basilius is a Greek word meaning “king.” A basilica is thus a king’s building. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:8), the Rambam describes it as an ample-sized, roofed building. Afterwards, the term took on other meanings.

See the accompanying drawing taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:9).

None of these are private places;

For even though it is a closed-in area, it is frequented by many people. This ruling also pertains to the chambers in the Temple Courtyard [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ediyot 8:5)]. Even though they are enclosed areas, they are not private.

In the Talmudic era, cities were built on many levels. Often, the lower level of a city would be used for a market place or dwellings and the upper level to transport goods.

For then, many people will not enter.

Its gates would be opened during the day and closed at night.

I.e., but not with regard to the Sabbath.

With regard to its status in the summer, see Halachah 3.

Since it is not enclosed, it cannot be deemed a private domain with regard to the Sabbath laws. Nevertheless, with regard to the laws of impurity, different principles apply. In the winter, many people will not walk through a valley of fields, because this will spoil the seeds and, also, there is no purpose in entering it, because it has already been sown and all that is necessary is to wait for the grain to grow.

Once it has been classified as a private domain with regard to impurity, it never leaves that category (Rashbam, Bava Batra 153b).

Literally, “the days of the rain.”

I.e., from Rosh Chodesh Kislev (Hilchot Nedarim 6:11; Hilchot Matnot Aniyim 1:11). This date is significant in several other halachic contexts. For example, see Hilchot Shemitah VeYoval 7:17; Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 5:4, et al.

Where grapes are stored before they are brought to the wine press where they are crushed [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 10:8)].

After the grapes were crushed to remove their juice, the pulpy mass that remained was placed in a pile (ibid.).

For the workers at the wine press.

I.e., what they have not yet harvested.

People refrain from entering there lest it be thought that they were intending to steal the grapes.

I.e., which has already been harvested.

For there is no reason that one would refrain from entering the area. Indeed, the poor come to collect the leftover grapes.

Thus even though they are not enclosed areas, since they are not places through which the public passes, they are considered as private domains.

The minimum size of a private domain with regard to the Sabbath laws.

And it did not fit the criteria of height or width to be considered as a private domain with regard to the Sabbath laws.

As is the law regarding a question concerning impurity that arises in a private domain.

Which is considered as a private domain [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 6:3)].

I.e., there was a human corpse or a person afflicted with tzara'at inside of it and thus anyone who enters the store would contract impurity.

I.e., since it is not known whether the person entered the store or not, the question is considered as a doubt that arose in the public domain and not as a doubt that arose in a private domain, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

I.e., the public domain encompasses both the person and the store. Hence, the situation is considered as a doubt that arose in the public domain.

Since he definitely entered the private domain, it is considered as a doubt that arose in a private domain.

When a valley is considered a private domain (Halachah 6).

There is a difference of opinion among the Sages (Taharot 6:5) whether a doubt whether one entered an impure place is considered the same as a doubt whether one touched impurity. The halachah follows the opinion that the two situations are analogous.

In his gloss to Taharot 6:1, Tifferet Yisrael explains this refers to a building that was private property, was then sold to the public, and then sold back to a private individual. In that way, he differentiates between this instance and the instance described in Halachah 6.

This law is stated in the same mishnah as the law stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 15. There the person’s status changed depending on the domain in which he was located. Similarly, the status of the articles contained in the domain changes according to that change in the ownership of that domain.

I.e., inserted his hand within the inner space of the container.

Since the container is in the public domain, the question is considered as a doubt that arose in the public domain.

Since the container is more than ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, it itself is a private domain and we follow the principle: When a doubt arises in a private domain, the person is impure.

Which does not contract impurity [Hilchot Tum’at Meit 6:2; see also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (T’vul Yom 4:2)].

Which are not utensils; hence, they do not contract impurity. Hence, since the loaf was wrapped in these substances, it was unlikely to have contracted impurity.

Who was not known to be pure with regard to terumah.

Since it is being carried by a person, it is as if it was in a private domain. Hence, even though it is likely to be pure, it is considered impure because of the doubt (Kessef Mishneh). Rav Yosef Corcus explains that this is referring to an instance where a person was certain that he inserted his hand into the container, but was uncertain whether or not he touched the impurity. Thus this situation is analogous to the one described in the previous clause and those described in the following halachah.

Thus it could be considered as a private domain.

In both clauses of this halachah, the Rambam follows the same logic as in the first clause of the previous halachah. If the question is whether or not he touched the place where the impurity was located, he is pure, because he is located in the public domain. If it is certain that he inserted his hand into that place and the question is whether or not he touched the impurity, he is impure.