diff --git "a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Taharah/Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods/English/merged.json" "b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Taharah/Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods/English/merged.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Taharah/Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods/English/merged.json" @@ -0,0 +1,315 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Defilement of Foods", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Defilement_of_Foods", + "text": [ + [ + "All foods that are designated for human consumption, e.g., bread, meat, grapes, olives, and the like, are susceptible to ritual impurity. All foods that are not designated for human consumption are pure and are not susceptible to ritual impurity unless one had a specific intent and set them aside for human consumption. No foods are susceptible to ritual impurity unless it was first dampened with one of the seven liquids. This dampening is referred to as hechsher. These concepts are derived from Leviticus 11:38 which states: \"When water will be placed on a seed....\"", + "These are the seven liquids that make foods susceptible to impurity: water, dew, oil, wine, milk, blood, and honey.
They do not make foods susceptible to impurity unless they fall upon them as desired by the owner. Nor may they be squalid, for squalid liquids do not make food fit to contract impurity.
Once food has been made susceptible to ritual impurity, it retains that status after it is dry, with no liquid on it.", + "When food has been dampened with fruit juice, e.g., berry juice or pomegranate juice, even though it is wet and was touched by a zav or the flesh of a corpse, it is pure, because it was not made susceptible to impurity by one of the seven liquids.", + "Only the seven liquids that we mentioned are considered liquids that are susceptible to ritual impurity. Other fruit juices, by contrast, neither make foods susceptible to ritual impurity, nor do they contract ritual impurity themselves at all.", + "When grapes and olives have not reached a third of their maturity, the liquids they produce do not make foods susceptible to ritual impurity, nor are these liquids themselves susceptible to ritual impurity. Instead, they are like other fruit juices and they are pure forever.", + "The following herbs are not susceptible to ritual impurity even though people eat them. The rationale is that they are not eaten to receive benefit from them as independent entities, but because they impart flavor, aroma, or appearance to other foods. They include: ginger, aldartzini, the primary spices, asafetida root, asafetida, pepper, or safflower. Similar laws apply with regard to all analogous substances.", + "Dill can be assumed to be used to be eaten itself like other vegetables of the field. If it is intended to flavor a cooked dish, it does not contract the impurity of foods. Once dill has imparted flavor to a cooked dish, it is considered as a waste product and it does not contract the impurity of foods.", + "Dates and dried figs that were placed in a cooked dish as spices still contract the impurity associated with foods until they become spoiled to the point that they are not fit for human consumption.", + "If vetch was designated for human consumption, it contracts the impurity associated with foods.", + "Hearts of palm are considered as wood in every way. If they were cooked and fried, they contract the impurity associated with foods.", + "Grape seeds and grape pomace, even though they were collected to serve as food, do not contract the impurity associated with foods.", + "Hard olives and grapes that slip out and emerge from under the beam of the press while the produce is being pressed are not susceptible to ritual impurity.
To what degree is this leniency granted? For four kabbin for every kor. If more than that amount emerge, they are susceptible to ritual impurity. If they were set aside to be eaten, even if there are less than four kabbin, they are susceptible to ritual impurity.", + "Budding dates, budding fruit, underdeveloped fruit, and black cumin are all considered as foods and they are susceptible to ritual impurity.", + "Budding leaves from branches, carob trees, pepperweed and wild onions are not susceptible to impurity until they are sweetened.", + "Mustard seeds, lupine beans, and other foods that are pickled are susceptible to the impurity associated with foods both after they have been sweetened and before they have been sweetened.", + "When olives have been pickled together with their leaves, the leaves are not susceptible to ritual impurity, for they have not been pickled to be eaten, only for the sake of their appearance.", + "The hairs of zucchini and its flower are not susceptible to ritual impurity, because they are not food.", + "When honey is in its beehive, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity associated with foods, even if one does not designate it as food in his mind. When one begins removing the honey, when the honey combs are broken, the honey is susceptible to impurity as a liquid. When honey flows out of a beehive, it is susceptible to impurity as a liquid. If one considers it as a food, it is susceptible to impurity as a food.", + "Oil that has congealed is neither considered as food, nor a liquid in this context. Even if one thinks of it while it is congealed as a food or a liquid, his thought is of no consequence. Similarly, when blood has congealed, it is neither considered as food, nor a liquid. If one thinks of it as a food, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity associated with foods. If one thinks of it as a liquid, his thought is of no consequence.", + "When milk has congealed, it is neither considered as food, nor a liquid. If one thinks of it as a food, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity associated with foods. If one thinks of it as a liquid, his thought is of no consequence.", + "Date honey is neither considered as food, nor a liquid. If one thinks of it as a food, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity associated with foods. If one thinks of it as a liquid, his thought is of no consequence. All other fruit juices are neither considered as foods, nor liquids with regard to ritual impurity. If one thinks of one as a food or a liquid, his thought is of no consequence.", + "Snow is neither considered as food, nor a liquid. If one thinks of it as a food, his thought is of no consequence. If one thinks of it as a liquid, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity associated with liquids. If a portion of it contracted impurity, the entire quantity is not considered as impure. If the snow was passed over an impure earthenware container, all of it becomes impure.", + "When one had in mind to use milk that is in the teats of a slaughtered animal, his thought is of no consequence and it is pure. If he had the intent to use congealed milk that is in the stomach of a slaughtered nursing animal, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity associated with foods.", + "When grapes have been trodden upon, once one has crisscrossed over them, they are susceptible to the ritual impurity associated with liquids. If whole grapes remain, those grapes are susceptible to the ritual impurity associated with foods.
Similarly, when olives are loaded in an olive press, they are susceptible to the ritual impurity associated with liquids. If whole olives remain, those olives are susceptible to the ritual impurity associated with foods.", + "Although it is forbidden to benefit from any of the following: produce that is orlah, mixed species that grew in a vineyard, the meat of an ox sentenced to be stoned that was slaughtered, the meat of a calf designated to have its neck broken, whether it was slaughtered beforehand or whether its neck was broken, the birds used to purify a person afflicted with tzara'at, a firstling donkey, a mixture of milk and meat, the meat of the red heifer, and meat from a sacrifice that is piggul or notar are all susceptible to the ritual impurity associated with foods." + ], + [ + "All foods that grow from the earth are not susceptible to ritual impurity until they are uprooted from the ground. As long as they are connected to the earth - even by a small root, as long as they can sustain themselves from it - they are not susceptible to impurity.", + "When a branch of a fig tree was broken off, yet it is still connected by its bark, but it cannot sustain itself from it, all the fruit on it are susceptible to ritual impurity. There is an unresolved doubt with regard to this matter: Is the remainder of the tree considered as a handle to this broken branch or not?", + "When vegetables become dried out while budding, e.g., cabbage or squash that becomes dried out while budding, they are not susceptible to the impurity associated with foods. If produce was harvested with the intent of it being dried, it is considered as food until it becomes totally dry and hard like wood.", + "When the branches of a tree that contained fruit were broken off, the fruit is considered as having been harvested. Similarly, if a tree containing fruit dried out, the fruit is considered as having been harvested.", + "When figs dry out when budding, they contract impurity in their place.", + "All foods that come from living animals are not susceptible to ritual impurity until the animals die. If one slaughtered a domesticated animal, wild animal, or fowl, even though it is still in its death throes, it is susceptible to ritual impurity.
When do fish contract impurity? When they die. If a factor arose that caused a fish to be considered as tereifah and it contracted impurity when it is in its their death throes, there is an unresolved question: Is it considered as if it had died, because it already became tereifah? Or is it not susceptible to ritual impurity until it becomes inanimate like stone and does not move?
If a limb or meat that was loosely hanging from a domesticated or wild animal and could not rejuvenate itself was made fit to contract impurity, it is susceptible to impurity even when in its place attached to the animal, because it is already considered as food that has been separated. If the animal was slaughtered, the slaughter makes it fit to contract impurity, because the entire animal is considered as a \"handle,\" to this limb. And when a \"handle\" is made susceptible to ritual impurity, the entire organ becomes susceptible, as will be explained. There is an unresolved question if an animal can become a \"handle\" to a loosely hanging limb or flesh in the animal's lifetime.", + "When one slaughters a domesticated animal, wild animal, or fowl, all of its meat becomes susceptible to ritual impurity because of the blood that emerges at the time of ritual slaughter. Therefore, if no blood emerges at the time of ritual slaughter, all of the meat must be made susceptible to ritual impurity like all other foods that were not yet made susceptible to impurity.", + "When foods are made susceptible to impurity while they are attached to the earth or they were made susceptible with water that was attached to the ground, they are not susceptible to impurity. They receive this status only after coming in contact with water that is not in contact with the earth or with other liquids after the produce has been detached from the earth, as implied by Leviticus 11:34: \"in any container.\" It can be inferred that a liquid does not make food susceptible to impurity unless it was lifted from the ground, like water in a container. If one drew water with a container and then poured it on the ground, it does not make food susceptible to impurity.", + "When a zucchini was planted in a flowerpot and it grew, even though portions of it emerged outside the flowerpot, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. The rationale is that when a flowerpot has a hole through which a small root can protrude, produce growing in it is considered as attached to the earth and anything planted in it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Similarly, if there was water in it, the water does not make produce susceptible to impurity.", + "When a flowerpot does not have a hole, anything growing in it is susceptible to ritual impurity. If there is water in it, that water makes produce susceptible to impurity.", + "Vessels made from animal turds or earth from which roots can break through and protrude do not cause plants to become susceptible to impurity. Even though they do not have a hole, they are considered as if they have a hole.", + "When a flowerpot was filled with earth until its edge, it is no longer considered as a container. Instead, it is considered as a flat surface that does not have an edge, for it is no longer a receptacle.", + "When impure liquids fall on foods, the foods become impure even though they fell contrary to the desire of the owner. The rationale is that the food's contraction of impurity occurs at the same time as it became susceptible to impurity. This applies provided the liquids are not on the earth.", + "Whenever food has spoiled and rotted to the point that it is no longer fit for human consumption, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Similarly, a liquid that has spoiled and become foul to the point that it is no longer fit for human consumption is not susceptible to ritual impurity, just as it does not make foods susceptible to ritual impurity, as implied by Leviticus 11:34: \"which he shall drink.\"", + "When one cooked an animal's hide or thought of partaking of a placenta, they contract ritual impurity as an independent entity.", + "When one cooks the hide of a donkey, there is an unresolved question whether it contracts ritual impurity as an independent entity, because it was cooked or it does not contract impurity, because it is very disgusting.", + "Kernels of wheat that are found in cattle turds or barley that is found in animal turds that were collected are not susceptible to ritual impurity. If one thought of partaking of them, they contract the ritual impurity associated with foods.", + "When food became impure and after it became impure, it spoiled and rotted, if it became unfit for a dog to eat or it became dry like a shard, it is pure. If it became unfit for human consumption, but it is still fit for a dog, it remains impure as it was beforehand.
Whenever food becomes impure, it cannot regain purity by being immersed in a mikveh.", + "When one sows impure seeds, the plant that grows from them is pure, even if it is an entity whose seed does not decompose. The above applies provided the seeds sprout roots. If, however, they do not sprout roots, they remain impure even if the seed decomposes.", + "When food is attached to a utensil, it is no longer considered as food. If the utensil becomes impure, it contracts the impurity of the utensil. Since the food serves as wood, it is considered as wood.", + "Whenever a liquid contracts impurity and afterwards spoils and becomes foul, it remains impure forever. For the impurity of a liquid never departs, even if it becomes unfit for a dog to drink. Liquid that becomes impure can never regain purity. The only exception is water, i.e., if one immersed impure water in a mikveh, when the water of the mikveh covers the impure water, it regains purity.
Hot impure water can be immersed in a cold mikveh. Similarly, cold water can be immersed in hot water, foul water can be immersed in pleasant water, and pleasant water in foul water.", + "When a staff was thoroughly wet with impure liquids, if a portion of it was immersed, the water on the other portion is not purified until it is immersed in its entirety.", + "When snow becomes impure and a portion of it is joined to the waters of a mikveh, since a portion became pure, it becomes pure in its entirety.", + "Temed that became impure - whether it became impure after the water was mixed with the grape dregs or whether the grape dregs were mixed with impure water - until it becomes vinegary, it can be brought into contact with a mikveh and purified, for it is like water. Once it becomes vinegary, it's like wine and it cannot be purified in a mikveh.", + "When a pot was filled with liquids, e.g., honey, wine, or the like, and placed in a mikveh and then a person who was a primary derivative of impurity extended his hand outward and touched the liquids, the liquids become impure even though they are in the mikveh. And the pot contracts impurity from the liquids in it, even though it is in the mikveh.
If, by contrast, the pot contained water, the pot is pure, because a derivative of impurity never imparts impurity to an earthenware container. Nor does the water it contains contract impurity, for it is mixed with the water of the mikveh. If, however, a person who is considered a source of impurity extended his hand and touched it, the pot becomes impure, for a mikveh does not impart purity to an earthenware container.", + "Drainage water can be assumed to be impure. If rain water descended upon it to the extent that it became the majority, the mixture is pure. If they are of equal quantities, everything is impure, whether the water is found in a container or on the earth.
When does this apply? When the drainage water came first. If, however, the rain water came first and then even the slightest amount of drainage water fell upon them, everything is impure, for when impure liquids descend into pure liquids, even the slightest amount imparts impurity.", + "When a person spreads mud on the roof of his house or if he washes his clothes and water is dripping from them and then it rained and the dripping increased, we conclude that the majority is rain water and the water that drips is pure.", + "The following rules apply when a person applied ritually pure oil to his body and afterwards contracted impurity. If he immersed himself while the oil is still on his body, if merely the amount of oil to rub on a small finger was applied, the oil is pure as it was originally.
If a person applies impure oil to his body and immerses himself, the oil on his body does not regain purity. Instead, if there is moist oil on his body, the oil remains impure. If there is not enough that feels moist, it is nullified because of the small amount that is there." + ], + [ + "We have already explained that food does not contract impurity until it is made fit to do so and that all food that is not designated for human consumption does not contract ritual impurity until it is designated for human consumption.", + "The following rules apply when food is designated for human consumption in one locale, but is not designated for human consumption in another place. In a place where it is so designated, special intent is not necessary to designate it for human consumption. In a place where it is not so designated, one must have a special intent to designate it for human consumption and then it will be susceptible to ritual impurity. Any food that will ultimately impart impurity to a person or to keilim need not be exposed to liquids to become susceptible to ritual impurity.", + "There are foods that require exposure to liquids, but do not require a special intent. There are foods that require a special intent, but do not require exposure to liquids, foods that require special intent and exposure to liquids, and foods that require neither special intent, nor exposure to liquids.
What is implied? All foods that are designated for human consumption in any place require exposure to liquids, but do not require special intent. Kosher fish and kosher locusts in all places and non-kosher locusts and fish in rural areas are considered as designated for human consumption and require exposure to liquids, but do not require a special intent. Similarly, in all places, the fat of a kosher animal that died requires exposure to liquids, but does not require special intent.
The following require special intent and exposure to liquids: Meat that was separated from a living being, whether a human, animal, or fowl, the carcass of a non-kosher fowl, in rural areas, the fat of a kosher domesticated animal that was ritually slaughtered - even though it was exposed to liquids when slaughtered, it requires a second exposure after one had the intent to partake of it, and all wild vegetables, e.g., very pungent onions and mushrooms. Similarly, in rural areas, small locusts and fish require a special intent. When endives were sown for animal fodder and then the owner changed his mind and thought of using them for human consumption, they are not subject to ritual impurity unless he had such intent after they were picked. For an intent that one had while produce is connected to the earth is not significant. When one collected endives for an animal, washed them, and then thought to serve them to a human being, they must be exposed to liquids again after the change of mind. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
If one thought of partaking of the the allal, it can contract the impurity associated with foods. If not, it is considered as wood and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Similarly, bones that are joined to meat, the giddim, the soft portions of the horns and the hoofs, the thin feathers and the wooly hairs of a fowl, the soft portion of its nails and its beak that are embedded in its flesh require special intent and exposure to liquids.
The following require neither special intent, nor exposure to liquids: the carcass of an animal from a kosher species, the carcass of a fowl from a kosher species, and the fat of a domesticated animal in large cities. None of these require either special intent, or exposure to liquids. The rationale is that since they are designated for human consumption, there is no need for special intent. They do not require exposure to liquids for ultimately, an olive-sized portion of them can impart impurity to a person or to a k'li and any substance that imparts impurity of a more severe type does not require exposure to liquids.
The following require special intent, but not exposure to liquids: The carcass of a fowl from a kosher species in rural areas and the carcass of an animal from a non-kosher species in all places. The above applies when one has in mind to partake of less than an olive-sized portion. An olive-sized portion, by contrast, is a primary source of impurity.", + "When a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and slits the two - or the majority of the two - signs of ritual slaughter, it becomes susceptible to the impurity associated with food as long as it is in its death-throes. It does not require a specific intent, for when a Jew slaughters an animal for a gentile to eat, there is no greater special intent. It does not require exposure to liquids, for ultimately, it will impart impurity of a more severe type.
If he only slit one of the signs of ritual slaughter or stabbed it in the throat, it does not contract the impurity associated with foods. Similarly, if a gentile slaughtered a kosher animal for a Jew, slitting the two - or the majority of the two - signs of ritual slaughter, it imparts the impurity associated with food as long as it is in its death-throes and it does not need to be exposed to liquids. If he only slit one of the signs of ritual slaughter or stabbed it in the throat, it does not contract the impurity associated with foods and is considered like other animal carcasses.", + "When a person cuts meat from a limb severed from a living animal and, afterwards, considered using it as food, it requires exposure to liquids to become susceptible to impurity. If he thought of using it as food and then severed it, it does not require exposure to liquids, because it imparts the severe impurity associated with an animal carcass. And whenever a substance imparts severe impurity, it need not be exposed to liquids.", + "When a person has in mind to partake of less than an olive-sized portion of the carcass of a non-kosher animal and combined it with other foods to complete the egg-sized portion of impure foods required to impart impurity, the entire amount need not be exposed to water. The rationale is that were one to increase the portion that is less than an olive-sized portion in the egg-sized portion until it was the size of an olive, it would impart severe impurity.
Similarly, when there is an olive-sized portion of meat from an animal that one had in mind to eat that was covered with dough until it reached the size of an egg, since it does not impart impurity when touched because of the dough, it is necessary that one have in mind to use it as food. The dough need not be exposed to liquids to contract impurity. The rationale is that the entire measure can impart impurity when carried, because of the olive-sized portion of the animal carcass it contains. Even though it does not impart impurity when touched, it is considered as if it is ultimately capable of imparting more severe impurity. Therefore it need not be exposed to liquids.", + "When there is less than an olive-sized portion of a human corpse to which other foods were added so that an egg-sized portion of food would be reached, one must have in mind partaking of the entire amount for it to become susceptible to impurity, since generally, the entire amount is considered of no importance by all people. The entire amount does not require to be exposed to water, because of the meat from the corpse that it contains.", + "When an olive-sized portion of a human corpse is covered with dough, the entire amount imparts the severe impurity associated with a human corpse.", + "When a person cuts flesh from a living human being to feed to an animal, if afterwards, he thinks of using it as food for humans, for it to impart the impurity associated with foods, he must have such an intent, but it need not be exposed to water.", + "When a chick falls into a vat of wine and dies, even though the vat is located in a city, it becomes repulsive in the vat. Therefore to become susceptible to ritual impurity, one must have a specific intent to partake of it.
If, when one lifted it out of the vat, he thought of feeding it to a gentile, it imparts impurity, for he thought of using it for human consumption. If he thought of feeding it to a dog, it does not contract the impurity associated with foods. If the person who thought of feeding it to a person was a deafmute, a mentally or emotionally compromised person, or a minor, it is pure. If such individuals lifted it out of the vat to feed it to a person, it is impure, for their deeds are significant, but not their intent." + ], + [ + "What is the minimum measure for the impurity of foods? For them to contract impurity, even the slightest amount. Even a sesame or mustard seed contracts impurity, as Leviticus 11:34 states: \"Any food that shall be eaten,\" including even the slightest amount.
Food does not impart impurity to other foods or liquids or a person's hands until it is the size of an egg without its shell. And a person who partakes of impure foods is not disqualified from partaking of terumah and sacrificial foods unless he partakes of a portion of impure food the size of an egg and a half. This is half a p'ras.", + "Even the slightest amount of liquid can contract ritual impurity and impart ritual impurity. Even a drop of an impure liquid the size of a mustard seed that touched foods, keilim, or other liquids causes them to become impure. Nevertheless, a person who drinks impure liquids does not become disqualified unless he drinks a revi'it, as we explained.", + "All liquids can be combined to comprise the minimum measure and disqualify a person's body if he drank a revi'it. All foods can be combined to comprise the minimum measure of an egg-sized portion that imparts the impurity associated with foods and to a half a pras to disqualify a person. Even wheat can be combined with flour, with dough, with figs, with meat and the like. Everything can be combined.", + "When an animal's hide is connected to its meat, the juice it secretes, the spices, the meat connected to the hide - although one had the intent to eat part of it and did not have the intent to eat the remainder, even though part of it was separated by a beast of prey and part of it was separated by a knife - the bones that are connected to the meat, the giddim, the soft portions of the horns and the hoofs, the thin feathers and the wooly hairs of a fowl, the soft portion of its nails and the beak that are embedded in its flesh: all of these contract impurity, impart impurity, and are included in an egg-sized portion or half a pras.", + "When an egg-sized portion of impure food was left in the sun and it shrank, it does not impart impurity. Similarly, an olive-sized portion from a human corpse or an animal carcass and a lentil-sized portion from a dead creeping animal that was left in the sun and shrank are pure.", + "When an olive-sized portion of fat, blood, notar, or piggul was left in the sun and it shrank, one is not liable for karet for partaking of them. If he left them in the rain and they swelled, returning to the specified volume, they return to their original status, whether that involves severe impurity, a lesser impurity, or a prohibition against partaking of the substance.", + "Onion leaves and onion shoots that are hollow which possess sap are measured according to their present size. If they are hollow and empty, their hollow should be compressed before their volume is measured.", + "A puffy bread is measured as it is. If it has a cavity, the cavity should be compressed.", + "When the meat of a calf expands or the meat of an older animal shrinks, its volume should be measured in its present state.", + "The volume of nuts, dates, and almonds that have dried are measured in their present state.", + "All entities whose type of impurity and minimum measures are similar can be combined with each other to reach that measure. If their impurity was similar, but not the minimum measures or the minimum measures, but not the impurity, they should not be combined, not even to impart the lesser type of impurity. What is meant by the type of its impurity, but not the minimum measure? E.g., the flesh of a corpse and the decomposed mass from it. What is meant by its minimum measure, but not its type? E.g., the flesh of a human corpse and the flesh of an animal carcass. Needless to say, impure entities that are not similar, neither in their measure and their type of impurity, e.g., the flesh of an animal carcass and the flesh of a dead crawling animal, are not combined.", + "The measure of all impure food is the same. For all impure foods do not impart impurity unless there is an egg-sized portion present. And their impurity is of the same type, for all impure foods impart impurity only through touch and they do not impart impurity to humans or to keilim. Therefore, they can be combined to impart impurity according to the lesser level of impurity among them.
What is implied? When there was a half an egg-sized portion of food that was a primary derivative of impurity and a half of an egg-sized portion of food that was a secondary derivative that were mixed together, they are considered as an egg-sized portion that is a secondary derivative. If the mixture touches food that was terumah, it disqualifies it.
When there was a half an egg-sized portion of food that was a secondary derivative of impurity and a half of an egg-sized portion of food that was a tertiary derivative that were mixed together, they are considered as an egg-sized portion that is a tertiary derivative. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. Even when there was a half an egg-sized portion of food that was a primary derivative and a half of an egg-sized portion of sacrificial food that was a fourth degree derivative that were mixed together, they are considered as an egg-sized portion that is a fourth degree derivative.", + "When an egg-sized portion of food that was a primary derivative of impurity and an egg-sized portion of food that was a secondary derivative were mixed together, the entire mixture is considered as a primary derivative. If the mixture was divided, each portion is a secondary derivative.
If one of the portions of the mixture that was divided fell on a loaf of bread that was terumah and then the other fell upon it, they disqualify it. If the two fell at the same time, they cause it to be considered as a secondary derivative.", + "When an egg-sized portion of food that was a secondary derivative of impurity and an egg-sized portion of food that was a tertiary derivative were mixed together, the entire mixture is considered as a secondary derivative. If the mixture was divided, each portion is a tertiary derivative. If one of the portions of the mixture that was divided fell on a loaf of bread that was terumah and then the other fell upon it, they do not disqualify it. If the two fell at the same time, they cause it to be considered as a tertiary derivative.", + "When an egg-sized portion of food that was a primary derivative of impurity and an egg-sized portion of food that was a tertiary derivative were mixed together, the entire mixture is considered as a primary derivative. If the mixture was divided, each portion is a secondary derivative. The rationale is that when a tertiary derivative touches a primary derivative, it becomes a secondary derivative.", + "When two egg-sized portions of food that were primary derivatives of impurity and two egg-sized portions of food that were secondary derivatives were mixed together, the entire mixture is considered as a primary derivative. If the mixture was divided in half, each portion is a primary derivative. If they were divided into three or four portions, each one of them is considered a secondary derivative.
Similarly, when two egg-sized portions of food that were secondary derivatives of impurity and two egg-sized portions of food that were tertiary derivatives were mixed together, the entire mixture is considered as a secondary derivative. If the mixture was divided in half, each portion is a secondary derivative. If they were divided into three or four portions, each one of them is considered a tertiary derivative." + ], + [ + "The term yad when used in connection with food refers to the thin stems that are close to fruit from which the fruit hangs from the tree, e.g. the stems of figs and pears and the edges of a grape cluster. In a similar category are included seeds and other entities required by the foods and any shomrim for foods, i.e., the shell over the foods that protects it. Similar laws apply to all analogous substances.", + "Any substance that is a yad, but not a shomer is susceptible to impurity, imparts impurity, but is not considered as part of the food. Any substance that is a shomer, even though it is not a yad is susceptible to impurity, imparts impurity, and is combined together with the food. Any entity that is not a shomer, nor a yad, is neither susceptible to impurity, nor does it impart impurity. Needless to say, it is not considered as part of the food.
What is meant by saying \"it is susceptible to impurity, imparts impurity, but is not considered as part of the food\"? If impurity touched the yad, the food suspended from it becomes impure. If impurity touched the food, the yad becomes impure. The yad is not combined with the food to comprise an egg-sized portion or a half a pras. If, however, an entity is a shomer it is considered as part of an egg-sized portion or a half a pras.", + "Just as there is a concept of a yad with regard to contracting impurity, so too, there is a concept of a yad with regard to making foods susceptible to impurity through exposure to liquids. If the yad was exposed to a liquid, all of the food hanging from it is susceptible to impurity.
The concept of a yad applies even though the fruit is smaller than an olive-sized portion and the concept of a shomer applies even though the fruit is smaller than a bean. When a shomer is divided, it no longer is combined with the food.", + "What is the source that teaches that the shomerim of food contract impurity together with the food when they are connected to it? Leviticus 11:37 states: \"On any type of kernels of seed that will be sown.\" Implied is that the kernels are considered in the form which people use to sow, e.g., wheat in its coating, barley in its shell, lentils in their coverings. Similar laws apply to other shomerim.", + "What is the source that teaches that the yadot of food are susceptible to impurity and impart impurity when they are connected to foods? It is written ibid.: 38: \"They shall be impure for you,\" included is anything necessary for you so that the food can be eaten.", + "When a person harvests grapes for a winepress, there is no concept of yadot, for he has no need of the yad, because it absorbs the liquid.", + "When one harvests produce to use as a covering for his sukkah, there is no concept of yadot, for he has no need of the yad.", + "Whenever the yadot of food were crushed in the granary, they are pure.", + "When a sprig of a cluster is stripped of its grapes, it is pure. If one grape remained, it is considered as a yad for that grape and it is susceptible to impurity. Similarly, if a stalk from a date palm was stripped of its dates, it is pure. If one date remained, it is impure. Similarly, if a pod of legumes was emptied, it is pure. If one legume remained, it is susceptible to impurity.", + "There can never be a concept of a shomer for a shomer. Only the protective covering that is closest to the food is considered as part of it.", + "There are three peels to an onion: the inner peel, whether it is whole or cut, it is combined with the food. When the middle peel is whole, it is combined. If it is cut, it is not combined. The outer peel is pure in both instances.", + "All shells become susceptible to impurity, impart impurity, and are combined together with the food because they are shomerim. When the pods of beans and vetch are discarded, they do not become susceptible to impurity. If they were saved to be served as food, they do become susceptible to impurity. If food remains inside them, they are susceptible to impurity regardless.
Cucumber peels are susceptible to the impurity of foods, even though they are not connected to the cucumber at all. When barley kernels are dry, their shell is included with them. If the kernels are fresh, the shells are not included with them. The shells of wheat kernels are included with them in all instances.", + "All seeds become susceptible to impurity, impart impurity, but are not combined together with the food with the exception of a fresh date seed. The seed of a dried date, by contrast, is not combined with the food.", + "The covering of a fresh date seed is not combined with the fruit. The covering of a dry date seed, by contrast, is combined with the fruit. Since it cleaves to the fruit, it is considered as part of the fruit.", + "When a portion of a date seed projects outside the fruit, the portion that has food around it is combined with it. The portion that projects beyond it does not.
Similarly, when there is a bone with meat on it, any portion of the bone that has meat around it is combined with the meat. If it has meat on it only from one side, only the portion of bone under the meat is combined with it and only the upper portion of the bone until its cavity. If a bone does not have a cavity, we consider it as the thickness of a hyssop stem. Only that portion is combined with the meat; the remainder is not combined. The rationale is that the bones are considered like shomerim for the meat.", + "A thigh bone that has meat - even a mere bean-size portion - upon it causes the entire bone to be included in the reckoning for impurity.", + "Even if olive and date seeds were cooked to be eaten they are not susceptible to impurity.", + "Even though one collected carob seeds with the intent of eating them, they are not susceptible to impurity. If one cooked them with the intent of eating them, they are susceptible to impurity.", + "The following are susceptible to impurity, impart impurity, and are combined together with the food: the roots of garlic, onions, and leek, when they are fresh, their protuberance, whether fresh or dry, their stalk which is opposite the food, the roots of lettuce and Israeli radishes, and the main root of large radishes are combined with the food. The thin roots of large radishes, by contrast, are not combined. The roots of mint and rue and the roots of wild vegetables that were uprooted with the intent of replanting them, the center stalk of grain and the husks of its kernels, the stems of figs, dried figs, thin figs, and carobs are susceptible to impurity, impart impurity, and are combined together with the food.", + "The following are susceptible to impurity, impart impurity, but are not combined together with the food: the roots of garlic, onions, and leek, when they are dry, stalks growing from them that are not opposite their central portion, the mila'in of grain stalks, i.e., the dark hairs on top of a grain stalk that resemble the teeth of a saw, the stems of pears, small pears, quince, and crabapples, the handbreadth of the stem of squash that is closest to the vegetable itself, a handbreadth of the stem of an artichoke, and similarly, a handbreadth from either side of a branch from which a twig of a grape vine grows. From the twig of a grape vine grow many clusters. This same ruling is applied to the stem of a cluster regardless of its size. The yad of the tail end of the shoot of the cluster from which the grapes were removed and that of a branch of a date palm is four handbreadths long. The term branch refers to the red branch that the stalks hang from; the dates hang from the stalks. Three handbreadths of the stem of the grainstalk are considered as a yad. Similarly, three handbreadths of the stem of all plants that are reaped are considered as a yad. If plants are not reaped, their stems and roots are considered as yadot regardless of their length.
All of the aforementioned are susceptible to impurity, impart impurity, but are not combined together with the food, because they are yadot.", + "The following are not susceptible to impurity, do not impart impurity, and are not combined together with the food: other stems, the roots of cabbage heads, the roots of beets, the roots of turnips - this refers to the deep roots that remain when the cabbage and turnips are harvested from which the plants grow a second time - and all the roots that are cut off when they are uprooted together with the food.
The button of a pomegranate is combined together with the fruit. The buds that grow from it are not combined.", + "When part of a pomegranate or a watermelon decomposed, the remainder is not considered as joined to the part that decomposed. The remainder of the peel is not combined with the fruit, for its protection of the fruit is of no benefit. Similarly, if such fruit was intact on either side, but rotten in the center, the portions of fruit on the sides are not considered as joined to each other, nor is the peel combined with the food.
The green leaves of vegetables are combined with the foods. The white leaves are not, because they are of no benefit." + ], + [ + "When the shells of nuts and almonds are cracked, they are still considered as attached to the food until the shell is shattered.", + "Once a perforation has been made through which to suck out the contents of a soft-roasted egg, the remainder of the shell is not considered as connected to it. When an egg has been cooked, its shell is considered as connected to it until it is shattered. If the shell has been spiced, even if it is shattered entirely, it is still considered as connected.", + "When a bone contains marrow, the bone is considered as connected to the marrow until it is shattered. The wool on the heads of sheep and the hair on a goat's beard even when charred with fire are still considered as connected to the food until one begins removing them.", + "Even though one already passed a knife over the wings of locusts or the scales of fish, they are considered as connected until one begins actually peeling them off. When the seeds of a pomegranate have separated, they are still considered as connected until one strikes it with a reed.", + "The stalks of a date palm are not considered as connected to each other.", + "When one cut a cucumber and placed it on the table, the portions are considered as connected until one begins to separate one from the other. If one begins to separate, a piece and anything that ascends with it is considered as connected. The remainder is not considered as connected. The lower tip is considered as connected to itself and not to the other pieces.
When there were two or three cucumbers, one cut each one of them and placed them on the table and began eating one of them, the one he began eating is considered as connected and the others are not considered as connected. Even if he said: \"I am eating half in the morning and half in the evening,\" the half with which he began is considered as connected and the remainder is not considered as connected.", + "When a person cuts vegetables and the like to cook them, even though he did not finish cutting them to the extent that they were separated, they are no longer considered as connected. Instead, if one piece contracts impurity, the other does not contract impurity even though they remain attached.
If one cuts a vegetable to pickle, to cook lightly, or to serve on the table, the pieces are considered as connected, even if he begins to separate what he cut.", + "Any food that was still not separated is considered as connected. If part of it contracts impurity, it is impure in its entirety.", + "The following rules apply when food was divided, but the pieces were still partially attached and an impure person touched one piece. Were he to hold the piece that he touched, the other piece would ascend with it, they are considered as connected. If when one holds the impure piece and lifts it up, the other one would break off and fall, they are not considered as connected. Instead, the second piece is considered as touching the piece that contracted impurity.", + "The following laws apply whenever leaves or stems are connected to foods. Those that are usually held by their leaves, should be held by their leaves. If they are held by their stalks, they should be held by their stalks. If the food remains hanging from the leaves or the stems, it is considered as connected when touched by a person who immersed in a mikveh that day. Needless to say, this applies to other impurities.
Similarly, if a fruit has a part that could be considered as a handle, it should be held by the handle. If it has both leaves and a handle, it should be held by whichever one desires. If it has neither leaves nor a handle, concerning such a situation, our Sages said: If when one holds the impure piece and lifts it up, the other one ascends with it, they are considered connected. If not, they are not considered connected.", + "When one cut off nuts with their stems when they are soft and joined them together like a rope or joined onions together in a like manner, they are considered as joined. If he begins separating the nuts or cutting off the onions, the remainder are not considered as joined. Even if there were 100 kor left, they are all not considered as connected, because he has indicated that his intent is to undo all of them.", + "When there is a braided chain of garlic heads and liquids fell on one of them, it is impure, but those joined to it are pure. For articles joined together by humans are not considered as joined together for all matters. Similarly, when an esrog was separated into pieces and skewered by a weaving needle or a sliver of wood, the pieces are not considered as joined.", + "When a dough was kneaded with fruit juice, the portions of the dough are not considered as joined, for the only entities that join food are the seven liquids.", + "When one crushes foods together and amasses them, e.g., dried figs, dates, or raisins that were amassed and made into a single block, they are not considered as joined. Therefore, when impure liquids fell on a portion of a ring of dried figs, one may remove the portion on which the liquids fell and the remainder is pure.", + "If one cooked dates and dried figs together and made them a single mass, they are considered as joined.", + "When olives were stored and combined together in a single mass, they are considered as joined, since at the outset, they were placed in the pit with the intent that their fluids flow from one to another.
Therefore if the carcass of a creeping animal was found on a mound of olives, i.e., olives that have become a single mass, even if it touched only a barley-sized portion of the mass, the entire amount is impure, because it is all a single entity.
If a person had a mass of olives and he was planning to turn it over, once he inserts the spade into the mass, they are no longer considered as connected even though there are many lumps. If a mass is formed after they were turned over, they are not considered as joined.", + "When separate foods are all collected in the same place and are clinging to each other, even though they are not considered as joined with regard to the contraction of impurity, and they are not considered as a single mass, as explained, they are still combined to produce the measure of an egg-sized portion to impart impurity to other foods. If the foods were not collected as one mass, but instead were separate like cooked food and legumes, they are not considered as a combined entity even in that context until they are collected and formed into a single mass.
When there were many lumps of food, one next to another and a primary source of impurity touched one of them, that lump is considered as a primary derivative of impurity. The lump next to it is considered as a secondary derivative, the one next to the second, a tertiary derivative, and the one next to the third, a derivative of the fourth degree.", + "If a loaf that was terumah was a primary derivative of impurity became attached to others, they are all considered as primary derivatives. If it was separated, it is considered as a primary derivative and the others, as secondary derivatives. If it was a secondary derivative and it became attached to others, they are all considered as secondary derivatives. If it was separated, it is considered as a secondary derivative and the others, as tertiary derivatives. If it was a tertiary derivative and it became attached to others, it remains a tertiary derivative and they are all considered as pure, whether they were separated or not.", + "When loaves that are terumah are attached to each other and one of them contracted impurity from the carcass of a crawling animal, they are all considered as primary derivatives even if they are separated afterwards. If one of them contracted impurity from impure liquids, they are all considered as secondary derivatives even if they are separated afterwards. If one contracted impurity from impure hands, they are all considered as tertiary derivatives even if they are separated afterwards. The rationale for this law is that the loaves were a single entity at the time the impurity was contracted." + ], + [ + "A column of liquid being poured is not considered as joined, neither to an impure entity nor to one that is pure.
What is implied? If one was pouring pure liquids into an impure container or even on the carcass of a crawling animal itself, the column of liquid being poured is pure. If one would collect some of the liquids that are being poured while they are in the air, what he collects is pure. Needless to say, that the liquids in the container from which one is pouring are pure.", + "When does the above apply? When one is pouring cold liquids to cold liquids, hot liquids to hot liquids, or hot liquids to cold ones. If, however, one pours pure cold liquids into impure hot liquids, the column of liquids being poured is considered as joined. The liquids are considered as a primary derivative of impurity. They impart impurity to the container in which they are held.
Why did the Sages say that when one who pours cold liquids into hot liquids, the liquids are considered as joined? Because the vapors of the hot liquids ascend like a pillar of smoke. It becomes intermingled with the column of liquid being poured and the liquid in the upper container, causing it to become impure. For the vapor ascending from the hot liquid is also considered as liquid.", + "For this reason, when a woman whose hands were pure was stirring a hot pot that was impure and liquid collected on her hand because of the vapor of the pot, her hands contract impurity. It is as if they touched the liquids in the pot. Similarly, if her hands were impure, she stirred a hot pot, and liquid collected on her hand because of the vapor of the pot, all of the contents of the pot contract impurity, as if she touched the liquids in the pot.", + "When honey from Zif and Tzapachat is poured, the column of honey is considered as joined even if one is pouring from a cold container to a cold container. The rationale is that the honey remains attached to them and they are extended like glue. Therefore the column of all other foods which are poured are not considered as joined even if they are very thick, e.g., cooked groats, melted fat, or the like, because they do not remain attached. Similarly, with regard to other liquids, a column of poured liquid is not considered as joined unless one is pouring from cold to hot, as we explained.", + "Similarly, a column of liquid is not considered as joined to a pure entity.
What is implied? If one poured impure water from a stone container or the like into a mikveh, we do not say that when the edge of the column being poured reaches the water, it is purified. Instead, it is considered as impure until it is all connected to the mikveh from one side, as we explained.
Similarly, when there is an incline that has tangible moisture upon it, the moisture is not considered as joined to other liquids on that incline, neither to render them impure or pure. Liquids that are collected on the ground, by contrast, are all considered as joined, whether this renders them impure or pure.", + "When a kneading trough is on an incline, there is tangible moisture on it, and there are three impure pieces of food, together an egg-sized portion in size, positioned on it, one below the other, they are not combined. If there are two, they are combined. If there was standing liquid beneath the food, even if the pieces are all the size of mustard seeds, the liquid combines them all.", + "We have already explained that a person who immersed to purify himself on the same day does not impart impurity to ordinary foods at all. Instead, he disqualifies foods that are terumah and liquids that are terumah, making them all tertiary derivatives. Similarly, if he touches sacrificial foods or sacrificial liquids, he disqualifies them and causes them to be considered as fourth degree derivatives.", + "There are certain situations where articles are not considered as joined when one of them is touched by a person who immersed that day even though they are considered as joined with regard to all forms of impurity. Instead, if a person who immersed that day touched them, he disqualifies only the article he touched. If, instead of such a person, those articles had been touched by another impure person, he would have disqualified all of them. Even if the person who touched them merely partook of impure foods or drank impure liquids and thus his impurity is light, he disqualifies everything. In contrast, a person who immersed that day does not disqualify it. Needless, to say, if a person is a primary source of impurity or a primary derivative of impurity, he imparts impurity to everything.
Why was leniency granted to a person who immersed that day? Because he already purified himself and he is lacking only nightfall to attain purity.
A further leniency was granted with regard to a person who immersed that day. There are foods that are designated for human consumption and hence susceptible to all types of impurity, but they are pure if touched by a person who immersed that day. They are barley and spelt when they are not shelled. If, however, they are shelled, and, similarly, wheat, even if it is not shelled, black cumin, and sesame seeds are disqualified when touched by a person who immersed that day. Needless to say, they contract all forms of impurity.", + "All of the \"handles\" of food that are considered as joined to the food with regard to a primary source of impurity are also considered as joined with regard to a person who immersed that day. Similarly, whenever food has been sliced, but is still somewhat connected and thus is considered joined with regard to a primary source of impurity, it is also considered as joined with regard to a person who immersed that day. Whenever leniency is granted and objects are not considered as joined with regard to a person who immersed that day, they are considered as joined with regard to the impurity of hands. This is also a stringency that applies with regard to the impurity of hands that does not apply with regard to a person who immersed that day." + ], + [ + "The following rule applies when loaves or breads were inserted into an oven and were attached to each other - although one had the intent to separate them - or one baked one loaf over another in an oven and its surface did not yet harden. If a person who immersed that day touched one of them, he only disqualifies the loaf that he touched.
Similarly, in the following instances, water was boiled and made large bubbles, groats were boiled for the first time, fresh wine began to ferment, or rice was boiled, if a person who immersed that day touched the bubbles, he disqualifies only the bubbles. With regard to other impurity, by contrast, whether lenient or stringent, everything is considered as joined.
If, however, loaves were attached to each other and the person did not intend to separate them; he baked one loaf over another and they became attached after the surfaces hardened in the oven; water bubbled and the bubbles were not empty as large bubbles are; groats boiled for a second time; aged wine fermented and produced bubbles; oil - whether fresh or aged - bubbled; lentils bubbled - all these situations are considered as joined even when touched by a person who immersed that day. Needless to say, this applies with regard to other impurities.", + "The following rules apply if dough is taken out at the time of baking and left to harden, so there is a projection like a nail in the midst of a loaf or the end of the dough is extended and becomes burnt while the loaf is baking; it is called a chirchor. If they were smaller than a fingerbreadth in size and a person who immersed that day touched them, he disqualified the entire loaf. Similarly, if such a person touched a small granule of salt in the loaf, he disqualified the entire loaf. Needless to say, these laws apply with regard to other impurities.
If, however, there is a pebble in a loaf, a vetch bean, a large granule of salt, a chichor that is larger than a fingerbreadth, even if a primary source of impurity touches them, the loaf is pure. Needless to say, this applies with regard to a person who immersed that day.", + "When half of a roll is burnt and half remains edible, the two are not considered as joined. If the center of a roll became burnt, but the sides remain edible, they are not considered as joined to each other. This applies even with regard to a primary source of impurity. Needless to say, this applies with regard to a person who immersed that day.
If the sauce in which sacrificial meat was being cooked congealed around it and a person who immersed that day touched this gel, the meat is permitted. If he touched a piece of the meat, that piece and anything that ascends with it are considered joined. Similar laws apply if cooked legumes congeal on pieces of bread.
When oil is floating on wine and a person who immersed that day touches the oil, he disqualifies only the oil.", + "When there is an egg that is stirred placed on a vegetable that is terumah and a person who immersed that day touches the egg, he disqualifies only the stalk of the vegetable below the place he touched. If the egg bubbled like a helmet, it is not considered as joined to the vegetable.", + "The following laws apply when a strand from an egg congealed on the wall of a frying pan and a person who immersed that day touched it. If he touched a portion of the egg that was on the rim or further inward, it is considered as joined to the food. If the portion he touched was beyond the rim and to the outside, the egg is not considered as joined. The same laws apply with regard to cooked legumes whose broth congeals on the rim of a pot.", + "If there was a barrel that was perforated, whether from its base or from its side, and a person who immersed that day closed the hole with his hand, the contents of the entire barrel are disqualified.", + "When a person was pouring liquids from one container to another and a person who immersed that day touched the column of liquids, we estimate whether the liquids that he touched were less than a 101th portion of the entire amount. The rationale is that impure terumah that is mixed with 101 times its volume is considered insignificant because of its minimal size, as we explained in Hilchot Terumot.", + "The following laws apply when a person who had immersed that day was separating terumah from a cistern of wine. An open jug of wine that was terumah fell from his hand and became submerged in the cistern of wine. He sought to retrieve the jug and touched the jug of wine in the cistern. If his hand touched only from the rim of the jug and outward, the wine he touched is not considered as joined to the wine in the jug. If his hand extended beyond the rim of the jug inward, it is considered as joined.
If the cistern was a giant container, even an immense tank that holds 100 kor, all of the wine is considered as joined. If a person who immersed that day touched some of the wine, he disqualifies even the terumah in a jug in the bottom of the large container.", + "When a person who immersed that day touches some of the flour for the meal offerings, frankincense, the incense offering, or coals, he disqualifies the entire amount that are held together in a container.
To what does the above apply? To the coals that one collects in the firepan used on Yom Kippur, for the coals in that firepan are taken into the Sanctuary. It does not apply to the coals that are taken every day, for they do not posses holiness. This is evidenced by the fact that if some of the coals are scattered when he pours from the silver firepan to the golden firepan, they do not possess holiness and are swept into the drainage canal.", + "When oil that is terumah is resting upon a thick stew or an unbaked cake of ordinary food and a person who immersed that day touched the oil, he disqualifies only the oil. If he mixed the oil with the stew or the dough, any place the oil reached is disqualified.", + "If one cooked a vegetable that was ordinary food with terumah oil and a person who immersed that day touched it, he disqualifies only the place he touches.", + "When there is a thick stew that is terumah and garlic and oil that are ordinary food and a person who immersed that day touched part of the stew, the oil, or the garlic, he disqualifies everything.", + "If the stew was ordinary food and the garlic and oil were terumah and a person who immersed that day touched a portion, he disqualifies only the place he touched. If there was a majority of garlic, the ruling depends on the majority.
When does the above apply? When the garlic is a mass in a bowl. If, however, it was spread out in a pestle and one touched a portion of it, he disqualifies only the portion that he touched. It is not considered as joined, because he desires that it be dispersed.
With regard to other condiments that are crushed into liquids like garlic is crushed into oil, if they were crushed without liquids and collected, even though they are like a single entity in a bowl, he disqualifies only the place where he touches. For the condiments are considered like a roll of dried figs, in which instance, the ruling is that if a portion of it contracted impurity, the entire roll does not contract impurity.", + "When a portion in the northern or southern part of a dough is designated as challah and similarly, when a portion in the northern or southern part of a zucchini was designated as terumah, the terumah or the challah are considered as joined to the entire dough or zucchini. Thus if a person who immersed that day touched part of the dough, the challah is disqualified. If the challah was removed from the remainder of the dough and then returned to it, it is not considered as joined.", + "When a dough that was ordinary food became mixed with terumah or became leavened with yeast that is terumah, it is not disqualified when touched by a person who immersed that day.", + "If the grains from which the flour used to make a dough had been exposed to liquids and thus made susceptible to ritual impurity and then the flour was kneaded with fruit juice, should a person who immersed that day touch the dough, he disqualifies only the place he touches.", + "When food that is the first tithe was exposed to liquids and thus made susceptible to ritual impurity and a person who immersed that day or one with impure hands touched that food, terumat ma'aser should be separated from it in a state of purity. The rationale is that the first tithe is considered as ordinary food and neither a person who immersed that day nor one whose hands are impure disqualifies ordinary food, for ordinary food that is a tertiary derivative of impurity is pure, as we explained.
Similarly, a woman who immersed that day may knead dough, cut off a portion as challah, set it aside, place it in a container, put it together with the other dough in one container so that they are considered as one entity, so that it can be separated while the two are one entity. Afterwards, she designates it as challah, saying \"This is challah.\" Once she designates it, she should not touch it, lest she disqualify it. She should follow a similar pattern if she was kneading in a kneading trough that had been immersed that day.", + "When a person fills bottles that were immersed that day from a jug of wine that is from the tithes from which terumat ma'aser had not been separated and says: \"May this be terumat ma'aser for the wine in the jug at nightfall,\" it is pure terumah. The rationale is that the separated wine does not become terumat ma'aser until nightfall, as he stipulated. And at night, the day in which they were in an intermediate state will have ended for the bottles and they will become pure.
If the jug from which the wine was taken breaks before nightfall, the wine in the bottles is considered as tevel. If the bottles break, the wine in the jug is considered as tevel.", + "A person who immersed after purifying himself from the impurity associated with a human corpse or the impurity that results from relations with a nidah may work in an olive press.
Similarly, other impure people who immersed themselves to regain purity may work with ordinary food that is pure with the exception of a zav and a zavah on their seventh day. Even though these individuals immersed themselves, they should not work in an olive press or become involved with pure foods lest they experience a discharge. In such an instance, they are considered impure retroactively, for the discharge disqualifies all the seven pure days, as we explained." + ], + [ + "When oil or honey contract impurity, coagulate and become solid, and then return to a liquid state, they are considered as first degree derivatives of impurity forever, because they are liquids. This applies even if they solidify after contracting impurity.", + "When sauce, groats, or milk solidify, they are considered as foods and intent is required for them to become susceptible to ritual impurity. If food that was a primary derivative of impurity or an impure liquid touches them, they are considered as secondary derivatives. If there was moist liquid on them, they are considered as liquids and they are deemed primary derivatives.
If they contracted impurity while they were liquids and then froze and solidified, they are considered as secondary derivatives, like food that contracted impurity from impure liquids. Different laws apply if they contracted impurity when they were solid and then melted and became liquid. If they were exactly the size of an egg or less, the liquids are pure. If they are larger than an egg, the liquids are impure. The rationale is that when the first drop melted, it contracted impurity from the egg-sized portion of frozen liquid from which it melted. That drop will then impart impurity to all of the liquids that will melt afterwards.
Similar laws apply if a person who was impure due to contact with a human corpse squeezed a mass of olives or grapes that were made susceptible to ritual impurity. If the fruits were only the size of an egg, the liquids produced are pure, provided the person does not touch that place from which the liquids are dripping. The rationale for the leniency is that the liquids are set aside in the food; it is as if the food was a separate entity.
If the grapes or olives were larger than the size of an egg, the liquids that emerge from them are impure. For once the first drop emerged from them, it became impure due to contact with an egg-sized portion of impure food and it imparts impurity to all the liquids.
If the person squeezing the grapes was a zav, a zavah, or the like even if they squeezed only one grape which had not been made susceptible to ritual impurity, and they did not touch the liquid, the liquid is impure. The rationale is that when the first drop emerged, it became impure because it was carried by a zav. For a zav who carries food or liquids imparts impurity to them, as we explained. Similarly, when a zav milks a goat, the milk is impure. For when the first drop emerged, it became impure because it was carried by a zav.", + "The following laws apply when there was a pot filled with vegetables left to pickle, their leaves extended outside the pot, and a primary source or a primary derivative of impurity touched the leaf that was outside the pot in a dry place. Even though the leaf was the size of an egg, it is impure, but everything else is pure. If it is returned to the pot, it imparts impurity to all the liquids in it. As a result, the pot and all the vegetables contract impurity. More stringent rules apply if the impure person touched a leaf that was outside the pot that had liquid on it. If the leaf is the size of an egg, everything is impure. The rationale is that the leaf imparts impurity to the liquid on it. That liquid imparts impurity to all the liquids in the pot and they impart impurity to the pot.
A pot that was filled with pickled vegetables that were terumah was shaken by a person who immersed that day. He discovered liquids on his hand and was in doubt whether they were sprayed from the pot or whether a stalk from a moist vegetable in the pot touched his hand. The ruling is that the vegetables are disqualified, but the pot is pure.", + "The following laws apply when an impure person was partaking of grapes that had been made susceptible to ritual impurity and one grape fell into a wine press. If the grape was complete and its stem had not been removed from it, the grapes in the wine press are pure. If its stem was removed and the grapes from which he took the grape that fell were stored in a storage pit and prepared to be crushed - indicating that he desires the liquid that emerges from them - the grapes in the wine press contract impurity from the drop of liquid that emerges from the place of the stem.
Should grapes fall from the hands of the impure person and he crushed them in an open place, the liquids that emerge from them are pure if the grapes were exactly the size of an egg or less, as we explained. If there is more than an egg-sized portion, the liquid that emerges is impure. Once one drop emerges, it contracts impurity from an egg-sized portion of impure foods and then it imparts impurity to all the liquids that emerge afterwards.", + "The following laws apply when there was a mound of impure olives that were collected and pressed together until they were considered as joined which was thrown into an oven that was then kindled. If the olives were exactly the size of an egg or less, the oven is pure. The rationale is that impure food does not impart impurity to keilim and the oil that emerges from them is pure, as we explained. If the mound was larger than an egg, the oven contracts impurity. For when one drop emerges, it contracts impurity from an egg-sized portion of impure foods and then it imparts impurity to the oven. Therefore if the impure olives are separate and not in a mound, even if there are 100 of them, the oven is pure.", + "When wood that absorbed impure liquids was kindled as fuel for an oven, the oven is pure, because the liquids are considered insignificant while absorbed in the wood. Even if the person took the wood out so that rain would fall on it and thus it is considered as desirable for him that the rain fell on it, the oven is pure. The rain- water that is on the wood does not contract impurity from the liquids that are absorbed in it.
One should not kindle the oven with this wood unless one's hands are pure. This is a decree lest an impure person kindle the oven with such wood and thus the liquids on it would make the oven impure.", + "When the carcass of a creeping animal is found in an olive mill, only the portion which it touches contracts impurity. If there is liquid flowing, everything is impure, for once a little of the liquid becomes impure, the entire amount becomes impure and then, the oil will impart impurity to the olives.
If the carcass is found on the leaves above the olives, the workers should be questioned. If they say that they did not touch the carcass, their word is accepted. If the carcass was found on a compressed mass of olives, the entire mass becomes impure, as we explained.
If the carcass is found on separate olives, but it is touching a compressed mass the size of an egg, everything is impure. For food the size of an olive will impart impurity to liquid mixed with it. The liquid will then impart impurity to the other olives. If there were separate olives piled on other separate olives and the oil was below them, even if the carcass was touching a mass the size of an egg, only the place it touches contracts impurity.", + "When an unlearned person extended his hand to a winepress and touched the clusters of grapes, the clusters he touched and those around them are impure, but the clusters in the winepress as a whole are pure. For the clusters that are around the clusters that he touched separate it and the remainder of those in the winepress.", + "When impure people tread over the waste products of olives or grapes from which oil or wine was produced in a state of purity and afterwards, liquid emerged from them, this liquid is pure. The rationale is that originally, the oil or the wine was produced in a state of purity. If originally, the oil or the wine was produced in a state of impurity and afterwards, through the actions of these people, liquid emerged, it is impure.", + "The following laws apply when workers at an olive press would enter and depart and there was impure liquid on the floor of the olive press. If there is sufficient space between the liquids and the olives so that they could dry their feet on the ground, the olives are pure, because a person who touches impure liquids with limbs other than his hands is pure, even with regard to consecrated foods.
Stringency is required in the following instance. There were loaves that were consecrated. They had hollows and there were consecrated liquids in the hollows. The carcass of a creeping animal touched one of them and then the first loaf touched a second, the second, a third - even if this continues to 100, the loaves are considered as primary derivatives of impurity, because of the liquid in the hollows. Due to the cherished nature of consecrated food, they are all considered as liquids from which secondary and tertiary derivatives are not counted.
If, however, the loaves were terumah, only the third loaf is disqualified. From the third onward, the loaves are pure. If there was liquid that could be felt on all the loaves, even were the loaves terumah, they would all be impure. They are all secondary derivatives except for the first that was touched by the carcass of the creeping animal. It is a primary derivative.", + "The following laws apply when there is a bubble in the side of a jug and it is like another container at its side. When the bubble was perforated to the inner space of the jug and perforated on the other side outward with the two holes on the same level or the inner hole was lower than the outer hole, if both the bubble and the jug contained liquids and a primary source of impurity touched the liquids in the bubble, all of the liquids in the jug contract impurity. Also, when the jug has a sealed covering and it is located in a building where a corpse is located, it contracts impurity because of the hole in the bubble, since it reaches into its inner space.
Similarly, if the inner hole was higher than the outer hole, the jug is not protected from impurity by its sealed covering. If, however, a primary source of impurity touched the bubble, the liquids in the jug do not contract impurity and they are considered as separate from the liquids in the bubble." + ], + [ + "We already explained that there are only seven liquids that contract impurity and make foods susceptible to impurity. Other liquids are referred to as fruit juices and they neither contract impurity, nor make foods susceptible to impurity. The derivatives of the seven liquids that we mentioned are governed by the same laws as they are.", + "The derivatives of water are: fluids secreted by the eye, the ear, the nose, and the mouth, and human urine whether from adults or minors. Anything excreted by man is considered as a liquid whether it was excreted consciously or unconsciously. The urine of animals and salt that was liquefied are considered as fruit juices. They neither contract impurity, nor make substances susceptible to impurity.", + "The blood that is counted as a liquid is the blood that flows from a kosher domesticated or undomesticated animal or fowl at the end of its slaughter. Blood that flows at the beginning of the slaughter, by contrast, does not make food susceptible to ritual impurity, because the animal is still alive. It resembles the blood of a wound or blood that is let.
When a person slaughters an animal and its blood sputters on to food, but that blood is cleaned between the slitting of one of the signs and the other, there is a doubt concerning the matter. Therefore the ruling is held in abeyance. The food is neither eaten, nor is it burnt.
A derivative of blood is blood let by a human being that was released with the intent of it being drunk. If, however, it was released as a medical treatment, it is pure and it does not make foods susceptible to impurity. Similarly, the blood released during the slaughter of non-kosher domesticated or undomesticated animal or fowl, the blood that is released with mucous or with feces, or the blood of boils, blisters, and blood concentrated in flesh, all neither contract impurity, nor make substances susceptible to impurity. Instead, they are like other fruit juices.
The blood of a crawling animal is like its flesh, it imparts impurity, but does not make foods susceptible to impurity. There are no entities analogous to it.", + "Whey is considered like milk. Human milk that is not needed is not placed in the halachic category of a liquid. It does not make foods susceptible to impurity, nor does it contract impurity. Therefore, milk excreted by a male is not placed in the halachic category of a liquid. This also applies to the milk of a domesticated or undomesticated animal that was released without human intent, e.g., it flowed out from the animal's teats spontaneously or it was milked without intent. The milk of a woman, whether it was released intentionally or unintentionally, is generally placed in the halachic category of a liquid. It makes foods susceptible to impurity and it can contract impurity, because it is fit to be drunk by an infant.", + "Liquids released by those impure people whose impurity causes these liquids to be considered as a primary source of impurity, impart impurity even though the foods had not been made susceptible to ritual impurity beforehand. For the food's susceptibility to impurity and that impurity come simultaneously. They are: the secretion of a zav, his semen, and his urine, a revi'it of blood from a human corpse, and the blood of a nidah.
Similarly, the blood of the wound of a zav and others like him, the milk of such a woman, their tears and the other derivatives of water that they release impart impurity like impure liquids which impart impurity without any specific intent. For impure liquids impart impurity when they are brought into contact with food intentionally or when they come into contact unintentionally. Accordingly, if milk drips from the breast of a nidah or a zavah into the inner space of an oven, the oven and all its contents contract impurity.", + "We have already explained that the liquids released by a person who immersed that day do not impart impurity. Therefore, even if they fall on a loaf of bread that is terumah, it does not become susceptible to impurity unless they fall on it intentionally, as is the law regarding other pure liquids which do not make food susceptible to impurity unless they fall on it intentionally.", + "Sweat, pus or vomit, feces, the liquids released by a fetus born in the eighth month, the diarrhea of a person who drank the waters of the hot springs of Tiberias or the like, even if it is clear, are all not placed in the halachic category of liquids. They do not contract impurity, nor do they make foods susceptible to impurity.", + "When a person drinks other liquids and releases them, they are considered liquids as they were previously, for other liquids do not regain purity in a person's body.
What is implied? If one drank impure water and then regurgitated it, it is still impure. It did not become purified when released. If one drank impure water, immersed in a mikveh and then regurgitated it, or it became loathsome and then he regurgitated it, or it was released as urine, even if he did not immerse himself, it is pure.
If one drank other impure liquids or ate other impure foods, even though he immersed and then regurgitated them, they are still impure. They do not become purified in a person's body. If they became loathsome or were released as urine or as feces, they are pure.", + "We already explained that sweat is not placed in the halachic category of liquids. Even if a person drank impure liquids and excreted them by sweating, his sweat is pure. If, however, a person bathes in drawn water and then sweated, his sweat is impure. If he dried himself from the water and then sweated, his sweat is pure.", + "Moisture that collects on the walls of homes, trenches, caves, and cisterns is not placed in the halachic category of liquids. Even if the house is impure, the moisture that collects is pure. The moisture that collects in a bathhouse, by contrast, is considered as water. If water in the bathhouse was impure, the moisture that collects there is also impure. If one brought produce into such a house and moisture collects upon it, it becomes susceptible to impurity. If he brings containers there and moisture collects upon them, the moisture is considered as separated intentionally and it makes foods susceptible to impurity.", + "When there is a pool in a house and moisture collects on the walls of the house because of it, if the pool contains impure water, all the moisture that collects in the house because of it is impure.", + "When there are two pools in a house, one containing impure water and one containing pure water, if moisture collects close to the impure pool, it is impure. If it collects close to the pure one, it is pure. If it is equidistant from the two of them, it is impure.", + "The black liquid that flows from olives without their being pressed is considered like oil. The liquid that drips from the baskets of olives and grapes when they are harvested is not placed in the halachic category of liquids. It does not contract impurity, nor does it make foods susceptible to impurity unless it is collected in a container.", + "When a person weighs grapes in a weighing pan, the wine left in the weighing pan is not placed in the halachic category of liquids unless it is poured into a container. It resembles the liquid that drips from the baskets of olives and grapes mentioned in the previous halachah.", + "When a person pushes grapes that are terumah into a jug, even though the wine flows over his hands, everything is pure.", + "The liquids that flow in the butchering area in the Temple Courtyard, i.e., the blood of the sacrificial animals and the water used to clean them, are always considered as pure. They do not contract impurity, nor do they make foods susceptible to ritual impurity. This matter is a halachah conveyed by the Oral Tradition. Therefore all the blood of the sacrificial animals is not susceptible to ritual impurity, nor does it make foods susceptible to ritual impurity.
Since the blood of the sacrificial animals does not make food susceptible to ritual impurity, the sacrificial animals that were slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard were not made susceptible to ritual impurity through the blood of their slaughter. The meat of these sacrificial animals does not become susceptible to ritual impurity unless liquids other than those of the butchering area of the Temple come into contact with them.", + "When a cow that was consecrated as a sacrificial animal was made to cross a river and was then slaughtered while it still had tangible moisture on it, it has become susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if an impure pin was found in its flesh, the meat is impure.
Similarly, if the cow's mouth was sealed closed outside of Jerusalem, even though the status of the pin found in its meat is unknown, the meat is impure. The rationale is that it touched implements outside of Jerusalem. If the pin was found in its wastes, the meat is pure. In either instance, the hands of the people involved in cutting up the animal are pure, because the decree involving the impurity of hands does not apply in the Temple, as we explained. In which context does the above apply? For the meat to be considered impure according to Scriptural Law. To incur impurity of Rabbinic origin, by contrast, consecrated food does not require exposure to liquids to make it susceptible to ritual impurity. Instead, the cherished nature of consecrated foods itself makes the meat susceptible to impurity. If any impurity, whether minor or severe, touches it, it becomes disqualified, even though it was not exposed to liquids, as we explained." + ], + [ + "When one harvests grapes to sell in the marketplace or dry, they do not become susceptible to impurity unless they come into contact with liquids when the owner desires that they do, as other foods.
If, by contrast, one harvests grapes to crush them and make wine, they become susceptible to impurity even if they had no contact with liquids at all. If they were touched by an impure object, they contract impurity. This a decree of Rabbinic origin.
Why did the Sages decree that when one harvests grapes for the wine press, they become susceptible to impurity? For there are times when a person enters into his vineyard to see if the grapes are ready to harvest. He will squeeze a cluster of grapes to check them and then cast it on the grapes that have already been harvested, for all of the grapes are prepared to be crushed for their juice. Moreover, he is not careful regarding the cluster and will allow it to be pressed by the other grapes, causing its liquid to flow out. He is careful concerning the liquid, desiring that it not flow out on the ground. Thus all the grapes will become susceptible to impurity because of it. Therefore our Sages decreed that when anyone harvests grapes for the wine press, they become susceptible to ritual impurity.", + "When a person harvests grapes with the intent that, if he will not find purchasers for them, he will bring them back to the wine press, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity until they are brought into the wine press. Similarly, olives that are brought into the olive press become susceptible to impurity, as will be explained.", + "When a person harvests grapes and places them in a storage pit or spreads them out on leaves, they become susceptible to impurity because of the liquids that are released by them, since he is concerned with the liquids. That is the reason he placed them on leaves or in a storage pit that is like a cistern. Therefore, if someone who was impure or merely whose hands were impure takes some of them, he imparts impurity to them.
If, however, he harvested the grapes and placed them in baskets or spread them out on the earth, they do not become susceptible to impurity, because he is not concerned with the liquid they release. Therefore an impure person may take them and partake of them. Even though they have split open and juice is dripping from them into the wine press, the grapes in the wine press are pure, because the grapes from which the liquid dripped were not made susceptible to impurity and were harvested for the purpose of consumption.
A similar ruling applies in the following instance. A person took the grapes from the baskets or from the earth where they were spread out and partook of them, leaving over a se'ah or two which he cast into the winepress. Even though the juice is sprinkled over the grapes in the wine press, they are not made susceptible to ritual impurity.", + "When one takes grapes that were in baskets or spread out on the earth to crush for wine, they become susceptible to ritual impurity. Hence they must be taken with pure hands, lest an impure person take from them and impart impurity to them.", + "When a vineyard grows in a beit hapras and one harvests the grapes for the wine press, they are not considered as susceptible to impurity as long as they are in the beit hapras. The rationale is that since the impurity of a beit hapras is a Rabbinic decree and the concept that when a person harvests grapes for the wine press they become susceptible to ritual impurity is a Rabbinic decree, the Sages were lenient regarding this decree in this instance and did not consider the grapes as susceptible to ritual impurity until they were taken out of the beit hapras.
Accordingly, a person who desires to harvest grapes growing in a beit hapras for the wine press in a state of ritual purity must do the following. He must purify the harvesters and the utensils, having the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon them on the third and seventh day. They must wait until nightfall of the seventh day so that it is obvious that leniency is being taken with the impurity of a beit hapras, only because it is a doubtful situation. Afterwards, they enter, harvest the grapes, and take them outside the beit hapras. Other pure porters receive the grapes from them and take them to the wine press. If the harvesters touch the porters, the porters contract ritual impurity and make the grapes impure. For the people in the beit hapras are impure and they impart impurity to those outside, causing them to be considered as primary derivatives of impurity. They then impart impurity to the grapes, for they became susceptible to ritual impurity when they were taken out of the beit hapras.", + "When a person harvests olives with the intent of pickling them or selling them on the market place, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity unless they come into contact with liquids as desired by their owner, as is the law with regard to other foods. Similarly, when a person harvests olives to crush in an olive press, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity until the work required to prepare them for pressing is complete.
Why are olives susceptible to ritual impurity when the work required to prepare them for pressing is complete? Because it can be assumed that they became susceptible to impurity because of contact with the fluid of the olives, for the owner desires it so that the olives will soften and be easier to crush. Before the work required to prepare them for pressing is complete, the fluid released by the olives does not make them susceptible to ritual impurity, because it is not desired.
Accordingly, when the work required to prepare olives for pressing has not been completed and impure liquids fall upon them, only the places touched by the liquids contract impurity, as is the law regarding all foods that have not become susceptible to impurity. When impure liquids fall upon them after the work required to prepare them for pressing has been completed, all the olives contract impurity. The rationale is that the impure liquids impart impurity to the fluid that flows from them and that fluid imparts impurity to all of them, for the fluid that is released by them after the work required to prepare them for pressing has been completed is considered as a liquid in the context of the laws of impurity and makes foods susceptible to impurity and imparts impurity to them.", + "When there is a jug of olives that are salted and pressed together, it is necessary to make a hole in the jug so that that fluid will drain off. If he does not make such a hole, the olives become susceptible to ritual impurity. If he made a hole for the liquid to drain off, but it became plugged by olive dregs and thus the olives became saturated with this fluid, they are not susceptible to impurity for their exposure to liquids was not desired by the owner, as indicated by his making the hole.", + "When is the work to prepare olives for pressing considered to be completed? When the entire harvest has been completed and they are deposited in one place, prepared to be pressed. Even though liquids did not fall upon them and liquids did not emerge from them, since the work necessary to prepare them was completed, they become susceptible to ritual impurity. Before the work necessary to prepare them was completed, by contrast, even though they were crushed, secreted liquids, and became stuck together because of the liquids, they do not become susceptible to impurity.
If one completed harvesting his olives, but intended to purchase other olives in the future and add them to them, even if only a kab or two kabbim, they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. If, however, he acts with guile, they become susceptible to ritual impurity.
If he completed his purchase of olives, but intended to borrow money and purchase more, but he was prevented by forces beyond his control or he became involved in a celebration and therefore did not add more, it is still considered as if the work necessary to prepare the olives for pressing was not completed and the olives are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Even though zavim and zavot tread upon them, they remain pure.", + "When a person stores his olives in two olive presses, when he completes loading one of them, the olives in that press become susceptible to ritual impurity.", + "When a person harvests his olives in the Upper Galilee and he has the intent to bring them to the Lower Galilee in the future, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity until he brings them there. This applies provided he had this intent before he harvested them. If he does not have this intent until after he harvests them, his intent is of no consequence and they become susceptible to impurity. If he completed storing his olives, but had the intent of selling them in the future, they do not become susceptible to impurity. If he had the intent of covering them with leaves, they become susceptible to impurity.", + "The following law applies when a person purchases a storage vat of olives from a gentile. Even if there are olives to harvest on the earth, he should process the olives in a state of impurity, for it can be assumed that the gentile completed the harvest of that vat.
The word of an unlearned person is accepted when he says: \"I did not complete storing olives in this vat.\"", + "When a person wishes to take and crush for oil some olives from a storage vat that has not been completely filled, he may take them while ritually impure, bring them to the olive press in a state of ritual impurity, and cover the olives remaining in the storage vat in a state of ritual impurity, because the olives in the storage vat had not become susceptible to impurity.", + "When a person places his olives in an olive press, so that they will soften and be easy to crush, they become susceptible to ritual impurity. If he left them to soften, so that he will salt them after they soften, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity, for his intent is to pickle them.", + "When a person rubs or breaks apart olives that are terumah with impure hands, he disqualifies them, because breaking them open completes the work associated with them. If, however, he broke open the olives with the intent of salting them, they do not become susceptible to impurity. Similarly, if he broke them open in order to check them to see whether they have oil and are ready to be harvested, they do not become susceptible to impurity.", + "When a person leaves olives on a roof for them to desiccate and dry out, they do not become susceptible to impurity even if they are cubit high. If he brought them into the house to spoil some even though he will take them to the roof in the future or he brought them to the roof in a mound to spoil, even though he will break it open and spread them out to dry in the future, they become susceptible to ritual impurity. If he brought them into his house until he will make his roof fit for them or until he takes them to another place, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity, because the work involved in their preparation has not been completed.", + "When a person stores his olives in a domain belonging to an unlearned person, and locks and seals the door, he need not suspect that the unlearned person has another key and seal. Even if he discovers the seal broken and the lock open, the olives are pure. The seal mentioned could be even a stone or a sliver of wood.
If there were holes and cracks in the storeroom, he need not suspect that the unlearned person inserted a rod and moved the olives. If there are windows four handbreadths by four handbreadths, they are considered as an entrance.", + "How should a person who crushed his olives in a state of impurity and, afterwards, sought to purify the utensils in the olive-press and the borders from the impure liquids that were absorbed in them act?
Keilim made of wood or stone should be washed thoroughly. If they are from reeds or the like, they should be dried. If they are from resinous cane, they should be left for twelve months, exposed to hot water or water in which olives were cooked, or placed under a drainpipe of running water or into a stream of flowing water for 12 hours.
Afterwards, he should immerse in a mikveh those keilim that require immersion and use them in a state of purity." + ], + [ + "All the laws involving making foods susceptible to ritual impurity originate in the Oral Tradition. According to that tradition, it was taught that the verse Leviticus 11:38: \"When water will be placed on seeds,\" refers not only to water, but to all the other seven liquids as well. And it applies only when the crops were exposed to the liquids willfully by the owner after the crops were uprooted from the earth. This is logical, for it is well known that there are no crops that were not exposed to water while they were connected to the ground. \"When water will be placed...\" applies only after the crops were uprooted and the liquids also were displaced.", + "When a liquid fell on food and originally, it was desired by the owner, but ultimately, he was not pleased, or ultimately, he would be satisfied, even though initially, he was not, it becomes susceptible to impurity. If the food was exposed to liquids against his will, it does not make them susceptible to impurity. Even if the owner exposed his foods to liquids because of danger or out of necessity, but he does not desire that they become wet, they do not become susceptible to impurity.
What is implied? When a person hides his crops in water because of thieves or places them in a flowing river to transport them with him, they do not become susceptible to impurity.", + "When liquids were uprooted from the ground against a person's will, they do not impart impurity to foods. Therefore if a person, a k'li, or produce became wet with moisture and then was picked up from the ground against the person's will, even though foods came in contact with those liquids willfully, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity. The rationale is that the water was uprooted from the ground against the person's will. Thus it is as if it is still on the ground and it does not make foods susceptible to impurity.
If there was water on a person, on a k'li, or foods that were uprooted willfully and foods touched them willfully, the foods become susceptible to impurity.
What is implied? If a person turns a bowl upside down on a wall so that it would be washed, the water it collects can make foods susceptible to impurity. If produce was placed in the water intentionally, it becomes susceptible to impurity, because the water was intentionally caused to enter the bowl. If he placed the bowl there so that the water would not damage the wall, the water the bowl contains is not considered to have been uprooted from the ground. Therefore if he placed foods in it, they do not become susceptible to impurity.
Different laws apply if he turned the bowl over with the intent that the wall be washed. If the wall was the wall of a house, the water makes foods susceptible to impurity. The rationale is that the walls of the house are considered as an independent entity, even though they are connected to the ground, because an entity that was separate and then connected to the ground, is considered as separate from the ground with regard to making foods susceptible to impurity. Thus the water on this wall is like water in containers. If it is the wall of a cave which was not built, but instead, it is part of the ground itself, the water on it is not considered as uprooted from the ground.", + "When a person bends down to drink, the water that ascends on his mustache and mouth is considered to have been uprooted willfully, for it is well known that one who drinks will raise up water on his mouth and mustache. Water that ascends on his nose, his beard, and his head, is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.", + "When a person fills a jug from a well, the water that ascends after it, on the rope that is wrapped around its opening, and on the portion of the rope that is required to lift it up is considered as having been uprooted willfully. The water on the portion of the rope that is not required to lift it up are not considered as having been uprooted willfully.
If a person placed a jug beneath a drainpipe, all of the water on its outside and on the rope are not considered as having been uprooted willfully. Therefore water found there does not make foods susceptible to impurity.", + "When rain falls upon a person, even if he is a primary source of impurity, the water on his body is pure, even though it runs down from the upper portion to the lower portion, provided he shakes it off immediately with all of his power. If, however, the water flows and runs down slowly, it does contract impurity at the time it is separated from him. If the water is pure, while it is on his body or clothes, it does not make foods susceptible to ritual impurity, for it did not flow on to him willfully. If he shakes the water off his clothes, it is considered as willful.
If he stood under a drainpipe to cool off or to wash himself, he is considered to have come into contact with water willfully. If he was impure, the water that is on his body is impure.", + "When a barrel was filled with produce and water from a drainpipe from a roof spilled into it, the owner should pour the water off the produce. It is not considered as susceptible to impurity even though he desired that the water be in the barrel until he pours it off.", + "When water from a drainpipe flows into a kneading trough, the drops that sputter off and the water that flows over the edge are not considered as having been uprooted willfully. Even if the owner picks up the kneading trough to pour out the water, the water it contains is not considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he left the trough for the water to drain into it, the drops that sputter off and the water that flows over the edge are not considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he picks up the kneading trough to pour out the water, it makes foods susceptible to impurity. The rationale is that since he did not overturn it and pour the water out in its place, it is considered as having been uprooted willfully.", + "When a person immerses his keilim in a mikveh or washes his clothes in a cave, the water that ascends on his hands is considered as drawn willfully. The water on his feet is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.", + "When fruits fell into water and one extended his hand and took them, they do not become susceptible to impurity. If he intended that his hand would be rinsed while picking them up, they become susceptible to impurity because of the water on his hand. For the water on his hand and on the produce are considered as having been uprooted willfully.", + "When a person willfully placed his produce in water, if the water is on the ground, the produce does not become susceptible to impurity as long as it is in the water. If he removed the produce, it becomes susceptible to impurity because of the water on it or on his hands, because it was uprooted willfully.
What is implied? If there were radishes or turnips in water in a cave, a woman who is a nidah, may wash it there and it is still pure. If she raised it out of the water at all, it became impure because of her touch.", + "When a container was filled with turmos beans and placed in a mikveh, a person who is impure may extend his hand and take beans from it and they are pure. The rationale is that they were not made susceptible to impurity inside of it and he does not desire the water that is upon them.
If he lifted the entire container from the water, the beans that are touching the container are impure, because they became susceptible to impurity due to the water in the container that was willfully raised from the mikveh. The remainder of the beans in the container are pure." + ], + [ + "When a person draws water with a cylinder, the water remaining in the cylinder is considered as having been willfully uprooted for three days. After being left for three days, however, it is not considered to have been uprooted willfully. Instead, if liquid remains there, it does not make foods subject to impurity.", + "When wood was exposed to liquids willfully, but rain fell upon it against the person's will, if there was more rain than liquid, all of the liquid on the wood is considered to have come against the person's will. If he brought wood out so that the rain would fall upon it, even though there is a majority of rainwater, all of the liquid is considered as having been poured on the wood willfully.
When a person's feet or the feet of his animal were filled with mud and he crossed a river and rinsed them, if he was happy, the water on his or their feet is considered to have been uprooted willfully. If he was not happy, they are not considered as uprooted willfully.", + "When a person brings wooden wheels and implements used for oxen into water during the summer when the east wind blows so that the cracks in the wood will seal, the water that ascends with them is considered as having been uprooted willfully.", + "When a person leads an animal down to a stream to drink, the water that ascend with its mouth is considered as having been uprooted willfully. The water that ascends on its feet are not considered as having been uprooted willfully, unless he had the intent that its feet be rinsed. When the animal's feet are diseased, and in the threshing season, even the water on its feet is considered as having been uprooted willfully.
If a deafmute, a mentally or emotionally compromised person, or a minor brought the animal to drink, even if he intended that its feet be washed, the water that ascends on its feet is not considered to have been uprooted willfully, because the deeds of such individuals are halachically significant, but their intent is not.", + "When a person immerses himself in water, the water on his body is considered to have been uprooted willfully. If, however, one passes through water, all of the water on his body is not considered to have been willfully uprooted.", + "When a person immerses himself in a river and there was another river before him and he crossed it, the second water nullifies the presence of the first water and the water on his body is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.
Similarly, if a person's friend pushed him or his animal into a pool, the presence of the first water is nullified. If, however, he pushed him in jest, the second water does not nullify the first and the water that is on his body is considered as having been uprooted willfully.
If a person immerses himself in a river and ascended and then, rain fell upon him, should there be more rainwater than river water on his body, the rainwater nullifies the presence of the first water and the water on his body is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.", + "When a person is swimming on the surface of water, the water he splashes is not considered as having been uprooted willfully. The water on his body, however, is considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he intended to splash water on a friend, the water he splashes is considered as uprooted willfully.", + "When a person makes a squirting spout in the water, the water squirted from it and within it are not considered as uprooted willfully.", + "When a person measures a cistern to find out how deep it is, the water that ascends on his hand and on the article with which he measures is considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he measures its width, the water that ascends on his hand and on the article with which he measures is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.
If a person extends his hand or foot into a cistern to see whether it contains water, the water that ascends on his hand or foot is not considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he extends them to see how much water is there, the water that ascends on his hand or foot is considered as having been uprooted willfully. If he casts a stone into a cistern to see if it contains water, the water that is splashed is not considered as uprooted willfully. Similarly, the water on the stone is not considered as uprooted willfully.", + "If a person beats a hide from which the wool has not been separated while it is outside the water, the water that is expelled from it is considered as having been uprooted willfully, for his desire is that the water be expelled. If, however, he beats it while it is in the water, the water is not considered as having been uprooted willfully.", + "The water that ascends on a ship, its reservoir, and its oars is not considered to have been uprooted willfully. Similarly, the water on the snares, nets, and meshes is not considered to have been uprooted willfully. If one shakes them out, it is considered to have been uprooted willfully.
Similarly, the water on the table-coverings or coverings for bricks is not considered to have been uprooted willfully. If one shakes them out, it is considered to have been uprooted willfully.", + "When a person takes a ship out to the Mediterranean Sea to strengthen it, takes a peg out to the rain to harden it, or takes a firebrand out to the rain to make it a coal, the water on them is considered to have been uprooted willfully. If, however, one takes a glowing peg or a firebrand out to the rain to quench their fire, the water on them is not considered to have been uprooted willfully.", + "When one lowers a chain with a hook into a cistern to lift up a container or a pitcher or one lowered a basket into a cistern so that a chicken would sit on it, the water on these objects is not considered to have been uprooted willfully.", + "When one smoothes out cress to remove the water on it or one squeezes the water on his hair into his garments, the water that emerges is considered to have been uprooted willfully. The water that remains is not considered to have been uprooted willfully, because he desired that all of the water be purged originally.
The cress itself becomes susceptible to impurity, because the water makes it susceptible to impurity when it departs. If he removed the water from it with all his power, it does not become susceptible to impurity.", + "When a person shakes a tree to cause food that had been placed there or an impure object to descend, the water which sputters from it is not considered to have been uprooted willfully. If he shook it to remove the liquids, the liquids that fall are considered to have been uprooted willfully. The liquids that remain inside it are not considered to have been uprooted willfully even though they moved from place to place, because his intent was that they be removed entirely. Similarly, if the liquids sputter on produce that is connected to the ground, they are not considered to have been uprooted willfully.", + "When a person shakes a tree and water from it falls on another tree or a branch and then the water fell on other branches under which there were plants and vegetables attached to the ground, the water on the plants or the vegetables are not considered to have been uprooted willfully.", + "As explained in Hilchot Terumot , when one poured water over wine dregs that were terumah, the first and second batches produced are forbidden to non-priests. If the dregs had come from grapes consecrated for improvements for the Temple, even the third batch is forbidden. And if the grapes were consecrated for use for the Altar, all mixtures are forbidden. If the grapes are definitely from the second tithe, only the first batch is forbidden.
Just as these groundrules were established with regard to prohibitions, so too, they are applied with regard to the mixture making foods susceptible to ritual impurity. For example, water became mixed with dregs on its own accord and an animal drank one mixture after another. An animal is mentioned, because if, by contrast, a person would remove the first water, even though the water fell on its own accord, since a person gave thought to it and objected to its presence, it is considered significant and imparts impurity." + ], + [ + "When water from a drainpipe descends into produce and the owner mixed the produce so that it would dry, the produce does not become susceptible to impurity.", + "When a person brings his produce to the roof so that it does not become worm-infested and dew descends upon it, it does not become susceptible to impurity. If he intended that the dew descend upon it, it becomes susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if a deafmute, a intellectually or emotionally compromised individual, or a minor brought the produce up to the roof, even if they had the intent that dew descend upon it, it does not become susceptible to impurity. The rationale is that their deeds are significant according to Scriptural Law, but their intent is not significant, even according to Rabbinic Law.
If minors turned the produce over on the roof, it becomes susceptible to impurity. For if the intent of a minor is obvious from his actions, his intent has an effect according to Rabbinic Law.", + "When a person brings bundles of vegetables, dried figs, or garlic to a roof so that they will be preserved and dew descended upon them, they do not become susceptible to ritual impurity. We do not say that since everyone knows that dew will descend, it is as if he willfully exposed them to water. The rationale is that he brought them up to the roof solely so that they should be preserved.", + "When a person brings wheat to be ground into flour and rain falls upon it, if he was happy, it becomes susceptible to impurity. When his olives had been placed on the roof and rain descended, if he was happy, they were made susceptible to impurity. When donkey-drivers were crossing a river and their sacks fell into the water, and they lifted them up, if they were happy that the produce became wet, the produce was made susceptible to impurity. The water that is on the sacks is considered as having been uprooted willfully, for they were happy that the sacks became wet.", + "When a sack that was filled with seeds and was placed on the edge of a river, at the opening to a cistern, or on the steps leading to a storage cavern of water, if they absorbed water, they become susceptible to impurity.", + "When an earthenware jug containing produce was placed in liquids or a jug containing liquids was placed among produce and the produce absorbed the liquids, it becomes susceptible to impurity.
With regard to which liquids was the above said: With regard to water, wine, and vinegar. Other liquids are not absorbed through the walls of earthenware containers causing produce to be made susceptible to ritual impurity.", + "The following rules apply when a person removes a hot loaf of bread from an oven and places it on the opening of a jug of wine: If the loaf was from wheat flour, it does not become susceptible to impurity. If it was from barley flour, it does become susceptible to impurity, because barley is absorbent. Similarly, if the wine was impure, if the loaf was from wheat, it is pure. If it was from barley, it becomes impure, because it absorbed impure liquids.", + "When a person sprinkles water on the floor of his house and then placed wheat upon it and it became moist, if it became moist because of the water, it becomes susceptible to impurity. If it became moist because of the stone, it does not become susceptible to impurity.
When a person washes his garment in a kneading trough and afterwards he placed wheat in it and it became moist, if it became moist because of the water, it becomes susceptible to impurity. If it became moist because of the kneading trough, it does not become susceptible to impurity.", + "When a person buries his produce in sand so that it will become moist, it becomes subject to impurity. When he buries it in dry mud, if the mud is moist enough that a hand that touches it will become wet, the produce becomes subject to impurity. If not, it does not.", + "When a person sprinkles water on his threshing floor, he need not worry that his wheat became susceptible to impurity if the kernels came in contact with water even though he is satisfied that this happened.", + "When a person gathers grasses upon which dew had descended to use for covering wheat, the wheat does not become susceptible to impurity. If this was his intent, it does become susceptible.", + "When a person sprinkles impure water on the floor of his house and then placed stalks of grain there and they become moist, they become impure if there is enough moisture upon them that the hand of one who touches them also becomes moist. If not, they are pure.", + "When a person shakes a bunch of vegetables that had liquid on them and the liquid descended from the upper ones to the lower ones, they do not become susceptible to impurity.", + "When a person lifts sacks full of produce from the river and places them one on top of the other, the lower one becomes susceptible to impurity because of the water descending from the upper one, for he willfully placed one on top of the other.", + "When a person blows on lentils to see if they are good for the purpose of cooking, if water collects on them, they become susceptible to impurity because of the moisture in his breath which is a derivative of water. Similarly, when a person eats sesame seeds with his finger, they become susceptible to impurity because of the moisture in his breath and on his finger.", + "When a person bites food and then it falls from his hand, the liquid on the food is not considered as having been placed there willfully. If a person was eating olives that had been broken open, moist dates, or any other produce whose pit he desired to suck, but it fell from his mouth, the liquid on it is considered as having been placed there willfully. If he was eating dry olives, dried dates, any other produce whose pit he does not desire to suck, and it fell from his mouth, the liquid on it is not considered as having been placed there willfully.", + "We have already explained that when a person gathered endives for an animal and washed them, but changed his mind afterwards and thought to use them for human consumption, they need to be exposed to water a second time to make foods susceptible to impurity. If, however, there was tangible moisture on them when he thought to use them for human consumption, they are susceptible to impurity." + ], + [ + "Water that is in a container contracts impurity, whether it entered the container willfully or against one's desires. It imparts impurity to foods and keilim whether it came in contact with them willfully or against one's will. Water collected on the earth, by contrast, e.g., water in a cistern, storage trench, or storage cavern or water in a pit that does not contain 40 se'ah, does not contract impurity unless it comes in contact with the source of impurity willfully, nor does it impart impurity unless it comes in contact with the food willfully.
What is implied? When there was less than 40 se'ah of water collected on the ground, whether it was drawn or it was not drawn, and a human corpse fell into this water or an impure person walked through it, it is pure. If, however, an impure person drank from this water, one filled an impure container with it, or impure liquids willfully fell into it, the water becomes impure even though it is still collected on the ground. If a pure person drank from this water after it became impure on the ground or one filled a pure container with it, the person who drank and the container with which the water was drawn becomes impure, because he drank or the container was filled intentionally.
If a loaf that was terumah fell into such water, it is pure as it was originally, because the water imparts impurity only when foods come in contact with it willfully. Therefore, if one washed his hand and removed a loaf, the loaf contracts impurity from the water on the person's hand, because it was removed willfully.", + "The following laws apply to water that is collected in a pit and other types of water collected on the ground, e.g., water in a cistern, storage trench, or storage cavern, rainwater that stopped flowing and collected in one place or mikveot that do not contain 40 se'ah that became impure. If rain then descended, causing there to be more rainwater than the water originally collected, even if the original water did not flow out, those bodies of water become pure. Therefore, during the rainy season, all water collected on the ground, e.g., water collected in a pit or the like, is assumed to be pure.", + "Different laws apply when the rains cease. When such bodies of water are close to a town or a thoroughfare, they are impure, because it can be assumed that an impure person drank from them and/or water was drawn from them in impure containers. Those that are distant are pure until the majority of people begin walking. Once they do, they are all assumed to impure, because those who journey on caravans drink from them.
When does the above apply? With regard to water in a pit from which it is possible to drink. If, however, there is water in a pit that it is impossible to drink from except through great effort, it is assumed to be pure unless the footprints of a person or large animal were evident. If, however, the footprints of a small animal were found, the water is pure, because it is possible that the animal descended on its own accord.", + "In the rainy season, it can be assumed that the mud and the water in the hollows at the entrance of stores in the public domain are pure. When the rains cease, they are considered as drainage water. The ruling concerning water in the marketplace depends on the majority. .
When wine, milk, or honey fall into a pit filled with water, the ruling depends on the majority. When oil falls into it, the mixture can contract and impart impurity without the owner's desire even when it congeals. The rationale is that it is impossible that droplets will not remain mixed with the water.", + "Oil and other liquids aside from water are governed by the same laws whether they are collected in the earth or in containers.", + "Streams of rainwater that are still flowing - even if they do not contain 40 se'ah, since they are on the earth and their water is flowing - do not contract ritual impurity. Even if an impure person drank from them, drew water from them with an impure container, or poured impure water into them, they are still pure with regard to all matters.", + "When a person was eating terumah with impure hands, e.g., a dried fig that had not come into contact with water, if he inserted his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, were he to turn over his finger while doing so, the fig would become impure because of his saliva. For the saliva would become impure because of the person's hand, because he uprooted the saliva from its place. If, however, he did not turn over his finger, it is pure. The rationale is that, before he turns over his finger or sucks it, the liquid in his mouth is comparable to water on the earth that was not uprooted from its place, but instead, is on the ground. As explained, such water only contracts and imparts impurity due to willful actions. This person desired only to remove the pebble.
The following rules apply when, in addition to the dried fig, there was a pundiyon in his mouth and he extended his hand to remove it and the fig from his mouth. If he had placed the coin in his mouth because he was thirsty, the saliva on it is considered as removed from its place and the fig contracts impurity from the moisture in his mouth that contracted impurity because of his hand.", + "The following rules apply when a woman was partaking of food that is terumah which had not been made susceptible to impurity while she was removing the coals from an impure oven. If she was poked by a splinter that caused her to bleed and she was sucking her finger because of the blood or she burnt her finger and inserted it into her mouth, the terumah in her mouth contracted impurity, because she desired to remove the liquid from her mouth, taking it [from its place] by sucking her finger." + ], + [ + "All bundles of vegetables in the marketplaces and all the flour and fine flour in the marketplaces can be assumed to have been made susceptible to ritual impurity: the bundles of vegetables, because it is common practice to continually sprinkle water upon them and flour and fine flour, because the kernels of grain are washed and afterwards, they are ground. Similarly, when kernels of wheat are crushed in a mill into two or three pieces in order to be cooked as groats or the like, it can be assumed that they were made susceptible to ritual impurity in all places, whether they are from the marketplaces or from private homes, because they are washed to remove their shells.", + "All of the above that are assumed to have become susceptible to ritual impurity are also assumed to have contracted impurity, because everyone touches them and they have already become susceptible to impurity. In all such situations, the word of an unlearned person is accepted if he says: \"They were not made susceptible to impurity.\" Needless to say, with regard to other foods about which such assumptions are not made, the word of an unlearned person is accepted if he says: \"They were not made susceptible to impurity.\"", + "It is assumed that all fish have been made susceptible to ritual impurity. In this instance, if an unlearned person says that they were not made susceptible to impurity, his word is not accepted. For this reason, fish are always assumed to be impure.
Whether fish are caught in a large net, a small net, or a snare, if it was not turned over upon them, they do not become susceptible to impurity. If it is turned over upon them, they do become susceptible to impurity. The word of an unlearned person is not accepted if he says: \"I did not turn the snare over upon them.\" It is assumed that they are impure unless one had the intent to catch them in a state of purity.", + "It is assumed that all fish brine has been made susceptible to ritual impurity. When even the slightest amount of water falls into pure fish brine, the entire mixture is considered as a liquid. It makes substances susceptible to ritual impurity and it itself can contract the impurity that affects liquids. Therefore it is assumed to be impure.
If wine, honey, or milk fall into fish brine, the ruling is determined by the majority of the mixture. Similarly, if fruit juices become mixed with liquids that are susceptible to impurity aside from water, the ruling is determined by the majority of the mixture. If the fruit juice becomes mixed with even the slightest amount of water, the entire mixture is considered as a liquid that imparts impurity and it is susceptible to contracting impurity as liquids do and it makes other foods susceptible to impurity.
Brine from unkosher locusts does not make foods susceptible to impurity, but it does contract the impurity associated with liquids.", + "When a person purchases fish brine from an unlearned person, he can make it pure by connecting it to the water of a mikveh. The rationale is as follows: If the majority of the brine is water, the water regains purity because of the mikveh. If the majority is fish brine, it is not susceptible to impurity and the water within the mixture is considered as negligible because of the small amount that is present.
When does the above apply? When one seeks to dip bread in the mixture. If, however, one seeks to cook it in a pot containing water, one type finds its fellow and it becomes significant. Thus the majority of the water is impure, since the minimal amount that was in the brine was not purified in a mikveh.", + "Produce is always considered as pure, even if the seller is a gentile unless it is known that they became susceptible to impurity through contact with water or are from the types of produce that we can assume became susceptible to impurity.", + "In all places, sumach berries can be assumed to be impure. Similarly, all zucchini, squash, and other vegetables that are hung by reeds at the entrance to stores can be assumed to have been susceptible to impurity and to have contracted impurity.", + "All that is written in the Torah and the words of Scripture concerning the laws of ritual purity and impurity apply only with regard to the Sanctuary, sacrifices consecrated for it, terumah, and the second tithe. For individuals who are ritually impure were warned against entering the Sanctuary or partaking of sacrificial foods, terumah, or the second tithe while impure. There is no prohibition at all against partaking of ordinary foods while impure. Instead, it is permitted to eat ordinary foods that are impure and partake of ordinary beverages that are impure. Behold, it is written in the Torah Leviticus 7:19: \"The meat that will come in contact with any impurity should not be eaten.\" It can be inferred that that it is permissible to partake of ordinary foods while impure, because the verse is speaking only about sacrificial foods.
If so, what is the intent of the statement: Ordinary food that is a primary derivative of impurity is impure and that which is a secondary derivative is disqualified?. The intent is not that the food itself is forbidden to be eaten, instead, its status is important only when counting levels with regard to terumah and sacrificial foods. For if ordinary food that is a secondary derivative of impurity touches terumah, it disqualifies it and causes it to be considered as a tertiary derivative. Similarly, if it touches sacrificial food, it imparts impurity to it and causes it to be considered as a tertiary derivative, as we explained. Similarly, if a person who ate ordinary food that was a secondary derivative of impurity touches terumah, he disqualifies it.", + "Just as it is permitted to eat impure ordinary food and drink impure ordinary beverages, so too, it is permitted to impart impurity to ordinary food in Eretz Yisrael. Even as an initial preference, one may impart impurity to food from which terumah and the tithes were separated.
Similarly, it is permissible for a person to touch all sources of impurity and contract impurity from them. This is evident from the fact that the Torah warned a priest and a nazirite from becoming impure through contact with a human corpse. One can infer from this that all other members of the people are permitted. Moreover, even priests and nazirites are permitted to contract impurity from all other sources of impurity with the exception of a human corpse.", + "All Israelites are warned to be pure on every pilgrimage festival, because at that time, they are ready to enter the Sanctuary and partake of consecrated foods. The Torah's statement Leviticus 11:8: \"You shall not touch their carcasses,\" applies only on the festivals. Moreover, if a person does contract impurity, he is not liable for lashes. During the remainder of the year, one is not prohibited at all.", + "\"The impure and the pure may partake of it\" [Deuteronomy 12:22. According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: an impure person and a pure person may eat from the same plate. Nevertheless, a husband may not eat from the same plate as his wife when she is in the nidah state, nor may he drink with her, nor may he pour her a cup of beverage for her, as we explained. Similarly, a zav should not eat with a zavah because familiarity may lead to sin, for perhaps they will engage in intimate relations.", + "Even though it is permitted to eat impure foods and drink impure beverages, the pious men of the early generations would partake of their ordinary food in a state of ritual purity and would avoid all of the sources of impurity throughout their lives. They are called perushim.
This is an extra measure of holiness and a path to piety: to be separate from people at large, to hold oneself apart from them, not to touch them, nor eat and drink with them. For setting oneself apart leads to the purification of the body from wicked actions. Purifying one's body leads to sanctifying one's soul from wicked character traits. And the holiness of the soul causes one to resemble the Divine presence, as Leviticus 11:44 states: \"And you shall make yourselves holy; and you shall be holy, because I, God, Who makes you holy, am holy.\"" + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות טומאת אוכלים", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Taharah" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file