Tum'at Okhalin - Chapter 2

In Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 10:12, the Rambam defines this as a root “even as thin as a needle over which embroiderers wind thread.”

If, however, they cannot sustain themselves through this nurture, they are considered as having been uprooted and are susceptible to impurity.

As explained in Chapter 5, Halachot 1-2, there are substances that are considered as “handles” for food. Although they are not susceptible to ritual impurity in their own right, since they are considered as a “handle,” if impurity comes in contact with them, the fruit becomes impure and if the fruit contracts impurity, they also do.

This is speaking about an instance where the produce is dry and unfit to be considered as food.

And subject to the laws of ritual impurity. The fact that the person does not intend to use them as food is of no consequence.

Because once the tree dries out, its fruit no longer derives nurture from it. The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s source and the Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam’s position.

I.e., even though they are connected to the tree and the tree is connected to the ground.

As long as the animal is alive, it is not considered as food, but as a living entity which does not contract impurity. See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:13.

This refers even to a non-kosher animal or fowl. The rationale is that once a kosher animal has been slaughtered, it is halachically considered as “food” and it is permitted to partake of it even though it still makes convulsive movements. Hence, it contracts impurity from this time onward. True, with regard to the impurity associated with an animal carcass, an animal is not considered as dead until it ceases movement. Stringency is, however, required in that context because the relevant prooftext {Leviticus 11:39) states: “If an animal... will die” (Kessef Mishneh).
Since slaughter changes the status of a kosher animal in this manner, it can also change the status of a non-kosher animal, causing it to be considered as food and, hence, susceptible to ritual impurity. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 4.

There is no concept of ritual slaughter for fish. See Hilchot Shechitah 1:3.

Due to an injury or illness that will cause them to die in the near future.

And thus susceptible to ritual impurity.

I.e., although not severed from the body entirely, it was dislocated and its inner organs crushed to the extent that it will no longer regenerate itself. See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 2:5; Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 5:6; the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:7).

I.e., it came in contact with one of the seven liquids, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachot 1 and 2.

Because the blood that emerges during ritual slaughter causes it to receive this status (Halachah 7).

Chapter 5, Halachah 3.

There is a Mishnaic view (Chulin 2:5) that the ritual slaughter itself is sufficient to make an animal susceptible to impurity, but the halachah does not follow that opinion.

I.e., come in contact with liquids.

Moreover, the owner must be pleased that the water was detached from the earth, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 3.

Otherwise, almost all produce would be susceptible to ritual impurity because it came in contact with rain while it was growing (Sifra; Rashi; Chapter 12, Halachah I).

Unless it is lifted up from the ground again.

As evident from the continuation of the Rambam’s words, this is speaking about a flowerpot with a hole.

The Ra’avad objects to the usage of the phrase “even though.” He maintains that this is referring to a flowerpot without a hole. Nevertheless, the portions of the plant that grow outside the flowerpot are considered as attached to the ground outside the plant. Hence, they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. The Kessef Mishneh notes that there is a Tosefta (the end of Uktzin, ch. 2) that supports the Ra’avad’s conception, but the Rambam’s source (the mishnah, Uktzin 2:10) can be understood according to his interpretation here.

I.e., even if impurity touched only the portions outside the flowerpot, they are not considered as separate from the portions in the flowerpot.

Because it is considered as water on the earth; see the previous halachah.

Even though the plant and its fruit are still attached to the earth in the flowerpot, it is considered as if they are already detached.

As does water in other containers.

I.e., a vessel made of earth that was not fired in a kiln.
In his gloss to this halachah, the Ra’avad explains that these laws also apply to an earthenware container that has been fired in a kiln.

For ultimately, the roots of the plants will protrude through the flowerpot and extend outward. This interpretation ref-lects a change from the Rambam’s position in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Uktzin 2:11).

As stated in Hilchot Keilim 18:1, an earthenware implement is not susceptible to ritual impurity unless it serves as a container.

I.e., foods that had not yet been made susceptible to ritual impurity.

As will be explained (Chapter 12, Halachot 1-2), generally, to make food susceptible to ritual impurity, the liquids must fall on the foods as desired by the owner. An exception is made, however, when the liquids are impure (Chapter 10, Halachah 5). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 1:1), the Rambam explains that when the food is merely made susceptible to ritual impurity, it is necessary for the owner to desire that the liquid fall on the food. When, however, the food contracts impurity at the same time it becomes fit to do so, that is not necessary. The rationale is that Leviticus 11:38, the verse that requires that the owner desire that water come into contact with the food, speaks about it contracting impurity afterwards. One can infer that if it would contract impurity at the same time, there would be no such stipulation.

As stated in Halachah 8. See also Chapter 15, Halachah 1.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, citing Taharot 8:6 and other sources that appear to indicate that, for food not to be susceptible to ritual impurity, it must become spoiled to the extent that it is not fit for a dog to eat (a far greater degree of spoilage). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (see Rav Kappach’s version), the Rambam addresses this issue, stating that food that is not fit for human consumption is not considered food at all (see the following note). Although the mishnah mentions food becoming spoiled to the extent that it is unfit for a dog to eat, that refers to food that has already contracted impurity and then spoiled. Since it already became impure, becoming spoiled to the point that a person would not partake of it is not sufficient for that impurity to depart. It must become unfit for a dog to eat (see Halachah 18). When, by contrast, a food has not yet contracted impurity, as long as it is unfit for a human, its status remains pure.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam does not need a prooftext to support this concept; it is obvious. After all, the spoiled food is considered like ordinary earth or waste. Leviticus 11:34, the prooftext which teaches the entire the concept of impurity of foods states: “from any food that would be eaten.” The Sifra comments: “This excludes food that has spoiled, because it is not fit to be eaten.”

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

Implied is that it must be suitable for drinking. Although the phrase primarily comes to teach that such water does not make food susceptible to impurity, it also implies that it does not contract impurity itself. See also Halachah 21.

Even when it is not cooked. An animal’s hide is tough and would not be fit to be eaten unless it was cooked. A placenta, by contrast, is soft and could be eaten. Nevertheless, since it is not normally eaten, one must have a special intent for it to be considered as food.

I.e., even if one did not cook these articles with other foods. If they were grouped with other foods, they would contract impurity even if they were not cooked (Kessef Mishneh to Halachah 16). Although, generally, these articles are not considered as food (see Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 1:9, 15), if they are designated as such, they are susceptible to ritual impurity.

I.e., even if they were not cooked with other foods.

Even after being cooked, it is virtually inconceivable that it would be eaten.

For they are considered as disgusting (see Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:13) and unfit for human consumption.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Tosefta, the end of ch. 9 of Taharot, states that it is only when one thinks of partaking of them at the time he gathers them do they become susceptible to ritual impurity. If he has this intent afterwards, they are not susceptible to impurity. The Kessef Mishneh states that it is possible — but not absolutely necessary — to interpret the Rambam’s words in that manner.

In such a situation, the food is not spoiled, but it is not fit to be eaten by a dog. For any food that becomes this dry is considered as dust (see Nidah 55a).
The commentaries note that in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 2:1, the Rambam rules that the flesh of a human corpse that has become dry like a shard retains its impurity. Nevertheless, a distinction can be made between these two types of impurity. In that vein, see also Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 1:13,4:12, and 5:14, where it is stated that when a source of impurity becomes dried out, its impurity departs. In those sources, however, it is mentioned that when the source of impurity would become soft after being soaked in water for a day, the impurity does not depart. Kin’ at Eliyahu suggests that here greater leniency is shown, because unlike the sources of impurity mentioned previously, here, the impurity is a derivative.

I.e., its impurity departs without a person having to take any action.

E. g., an onion or the like.

For then they are considered as having become connected to the earth and are no longer considered as food (Rashi, Pesachim 34a).

For their previous status is not considered to have changed.

E. g., the remnants of dough that become attached to a kneading trough.

I.e., as part of the utensil.

See a parallel expression of this principle in Hilchot Tum’at Tzara’at 14:10.

The Ra’avad writes that if a liquid was once fit for human consumption and then it spoiled and became foul (even before it contracted ritual impurity), it can contract impurity in that state. The Kessef Mishneh offers two interpretations of Torat Kohanim (the Rambam’s source), which do not follow the Ra’avad’s conception.

More specifically, impure water, for only water can regain impurity, as stated previously [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Taharot 8:9)].

As evident from the mishnah cited previously, one might think that since there is water on the entire staff and part of the staff is immersed in the mikveh, even the water that is on the portion of the staff that was not immersed should be considered as joined to the mikveh. That conception is not accepted and the water that is outside the mikveh is not considered as pure (see parallels in Hilchot Mikveot 8:12). Moreover, when the portion that was immersed in the mikveh is removed, the water on it becomes impure because of its contact with the water that had not been immersed.

The commentaries note the apparent contradiction between the Rambam’s ruling here and his ruling in Chapter 1, Halachah 22, where he states that if a portion of snow becomes impure, the snow does not become impure in its entirety. A possible resolution is offered by Rabbenu Shimshon in his commentary to Taharot 3:2. He explains that since snow can be considered as an integral part of a mikveh, any contiguous portion of snow is considered as joined to the mikveh.

A mixture of grape dregs or peels and water that produces a drink that is not wine, but is grape-colored. If it is left for a significant time, the mixture can develop a vinegar taste [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 1:6); see also Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 7:6-7].

E. g., someone who touched a person who had touched a corpse, someone who had touched an animal carcass, or the like.

For, as stated in Halachah 21, it is only water that is purified through contact with a mikveh.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:2. The pot does not contract impurity from the person who touched it, as stated in the clause that follows.

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 5:7; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 6:2; Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 1:1.

Someone who touched a corpse, a zav, or the like.

The water it contains does not become impure, as long as it is connected to the water of the mikveh. Once, however, the pot is lifted from the mikveh, the water it contains also becomes impure.

Indeed, an earthenware container can never regain ritual purity. See Leviticus 11:33; Hilchot Mikvaot 1:3.

For we assume that some impure water was mixed with it. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Machshirin 2:3).

As the Rambam writes in Chapter 15, Halachah 4, when a majority of rain water is added to the drainage water, the drainage water is considered as if was nullified.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that although generally we follow the principle that the status of the water that is there originally is the determinant, here the water is not collected in a given place. Hence the water that comes afterwards causes the water that was there initially to flow away. Accordingly, it is the status of the second water that is significant.

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s rationale. The explanation of the Kessef Mishneh mentioned above was given to clarify this objection.

Before the rainy season, mud was spread over the roofs of homes to seal them, because it is possible that the heat of the summer caused cracks to develop.

To regain purity.

For this small amount of oil is considered insignificant. If, however, he used a larger amount of oil, the oil is considered as significant and contracts impurity from the person. Its purity is not restored when the person immerses.