Other Sources of Defilement

The carcass of a dead animal is a primary source of impurity. An olive-sized portion of its meat imparts impurity to a person and keilim when touched and to an earthenware container when it enters its inner space. And it imparts impurity to a person when being carried to the extent that his clothes become impure, as is the law regarding a surface on which one rides that contracted impurity from a zav. What is implied? When a person touches the carcass of a dead animal, he is considered as a primary derivative of impurity. If he touches keilim - even at the same time that he is touching the carcass - they are pure. Similarly, the clothes that he is wearing are pure, for he is a derivative of impurity and a derivative does not impart impurity to keilim. When, by contrast, one carries the carcass of a dead animal, he imparts impurity to keilim while he is carrying it, as Leviticus 11:28 states: "One who carries their carcasses must launder his garments." Those garments are considered as primary derivatives of impurity. He does not impart impurity to another person or to earthenware containers even when he is carrying the carcass, as we explained in Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav.

These laws apply regarding both the carcasses of a domesticated animal and a wild animal, whether of a species permitted to be eaten or one forbidden to be eaten. If any of these types of animals die, an olive-sized portion of their meat imparts impurity. The ritual slaughter of a kosher domesticated animal or a kosher wild animal purifies it in all circumstances. Even if one slaughtered an ordinary animal in the Temple Courtyard or a consecrated animal outside the Temple Courtyard, they are pure. If a disqualifying factor occurs in the process of ritual slaughter, the carcass is considered like that of an animal that died. It imparts impurity when carried, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah.

Ritual slaughter has no effect on the status of a non-kosher domesticated animal or a non-kosher wild animal. Whether one slaughters such an animal, stabs it in the throat, strangles it, or it dies naturally, it is considered as an animal carcass. Flesh from all carcasses - both from kosher species and from non-kosher species can be combined to reach the minimum measure of an olive-sized portion that imparts ritual impurity.

The marrow of a bone is considered like flesh. The blood of an animal carcass does not impart impurity like an animal carcass. Instead, it is considered as an impure liquid which does not impart impurity to a person or to utensils according to Scriptural Law.

The fat of a kosher animal that died without ritual slaughter is ritually pure, as implied by Leviticus 7:24: "The fat of a domesticated animal that died or the fat of a domesticated animal that was torn to death may be used for any purpose." The license granted by this verse applies to an entity forbidden only because the animal had died or was torn to death. If such fat was made fit to contract impurity due to contact with liquids that convey that status, it is considered as impure food and not as the meat of a dead animal. Nevertheless, when one touches the fat the surrounds the kidney of a kosher domesticated animal that died without ritual slaughter before it was separated from the kidney, he is impure like one who touches the kidney itself. The rationale is that several strands of flesh from the kidney itself extend into the fat. With regard to a non-kosher domesticated animal and a wild animal, whether kosher or non-kosher, the same laws apply to both its meat and its fat with regard to ritual impurity. An olive-sized portion imparts impurity to a person and to keilim like the meat of a dead animal.

The fat of a ko'i imparts impurity like its meat does, but this impurity is of doubtful status. Therefore terumah and sacrificial foods are not burnt because of it, nor is one liable for karet for entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial foods after touching it.

These are the parts of a carcass that do not impart impurity: the bones, the horns, and the hoofs; this includes even their soft portions that if cut off from a living animal would cause bleeding, the hide, even if has not been processed to use for other purposes, the pieces of flesh that remain attached to the hide when an animal is skinned, the sinews, sauce, and spices cooked with such meat. When does the above apply? When they were separated from an animal's carcass. If, however, one touches any of these entities while they are still attached to the meat of a carcass, he contracts impurity, provided there is an olive-sized portion of meat. For none of these can be included as part of that required olive-sized portion.

The pieces of flesh that remain attached to the hide when an animal is skinned whether separated by a wild beast or by a knife should not be considered as part of an olive-sized portion. If the different pieces of flesh were collected and they comprised an olive-sized portion, they impart impurity.

These are the parts of animals for which the hide is considered as their meat: the hide of a domesticated pig, the soft hide of a camel hump, the skin of the genital area, the skin of a fetus, and the skin below the fat-tail. Such portions of an animal carcass impart impurity. If one processed them or trod upon them to the extent necessary to process them, they are pure. If one performed a deed that negated their use as meat, they are pure even though he did not trod upon them to the extent necessary to process them. What is implied? If one used the ear of a donkey as the handle for his basket, it is pure. For how long must one tread on a hide in order to process it? For as long as it takes to walk four millin. What is meant by a soft camel hump? One that was never used for a burden. If a camel reached the age when it was fit to carry burdens, but one did not use it for that purpose or one used it for that purpose before it reached the appropriate age, it is questionable whether its status changes.

The following laws apply when one skins the carcass of a domesticated or a wild animal, whether from a kosher species or a non-kosher one, whether it is a small animal or a large animal. If he skins it to use as a mat, as soon as he skins a portion of the hide sufficient to hold onto, i.e., two handbreadths, one who touches the hide that was skinned is pure. Before it is skinned two handbreadths, one who touches the hide is like one who touches meat. If one skins the animal in order to use its hide for a flask, the hide is considered as connected to the carcass until one skins the entire breast. If one skins an animal from its feet alone, the entire hide is considered as connected. One who touches the hide is like one who touches the meat until the hide is entirely separated from the meat. Similarly, when one skins the hide of crawling animals, the hide is considered as connected until it is skinned in its entirety. Similarly, the hide that is around an animal's neck is considered as connected until it is removed in its entirety. Any hide that is considered as connected with regard to imparting ritual impurity is also considered as connected with regard to contracting ritual impurity, i.e., if an animal was slaughtered and impurity touched this hide that was connected to the meat, the meat contracts impurity.

When there is a hide that has an olive-sized portion of meat from a carcass on it, if one touches a strand of the hide that extends outward from the meat or the hair on the other side of the hide that is opposite the meat, he contracts impurity. The rationale is that the hide and its hair are considered as "protecting" the meat. When does the above apply? When the meat was left over by an animal. When it was left over by a knife, it is considered insignificant with regard to the hide if it was thin.

When there are two pieces of meat, each half the size of an olive-sized portion on a hide, the hide causes them to be considered as insignificant. They do not impart impurity, neither when touched, nor when carried. The rationale is that any portion of a carcass that does not impart impurity when touched does not impart impurity when carried. If, however, one skewered two pieces, each half the size of an olive-sized portion, one who carries them is impure because he carried an olive-sized portion of meat from a carcass. One who touches them, by contrast, is pure, because something joined by man is not considered as joined. The liability for carrying the pieces of meat applies provided both pieces are flattened and stuck together so that they are picked up together. If, however, the two half olive-sized portion were separate entities, but held on the same skewer, the person is pure even if he carries them back and forth the entire day.

When the meat of a carcass decomposes, becomes spoiled, and is no longer fit for a dog to eat, it is pure. Accordingly, there is an unresolved doubt whether the netzal of an animal carcass imparts impurity or not. The following laws apply when the meat from a carcass dries out. If it would return to a moist state and be fit for a dog to eat when left to soak in lukewarm water for an entire day, it imparts impurity. If not, it is pure. It does not even impart impurity like impure foods do.

When the meat of an animal carcass was decomposed at the outset and was not fit for human consumption, it is pure, as can be inferred from Deuteronomy 14:21: "Give it to the stranger in your gate and he will eat it." At the outset, it must be fit for a stranger to eat.

A placenta found in an animal carcass is considered as waste matter and feces. It does not impart impurity like a carcass. If the person had in mind to eat it, it is susceptible to the impurity associated with food. The dried milk in the stomach and the liquid milk in the stomach of a carcass are entirely pure.

When an animal discharges coagulated blood, even though such a discharge makes it exempt from the laws of the firstborn, it does not impart impurity, neither when touched, nor when carried unless there is the form of a fetus recognizable. The rationale is that it is nullified because there is a majority of other substances that are discharged with it. Therefore, it is pure even though it was initially fit for a stranger to eat together with its mother.

The following laws apply when the carcass of an animal that was not slaughtered became intermingled with that of a slaughtered animal. If the majority of the meat is from the ritually slaughtered animal, the meat from the carcass is considered as insignificant and none of the mixture imparts impurity when touched. If, however, one carries the entire mixture, he contracts impurity. The reason why the meat of the carcass can be considered insignificant is that it is impossible for the ritually slaughtered meat to be considered as a carcass, but the carcass can become pure if it becomes putrefied. Therefore it can become nullified.

When a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild animal was slaughtered, it does not impart the impurity of a carcass as long as it is in its death-throes unless its head is cut off. Instead, it is considered as impure food. If it is killed by being stabbed in the throat and it is in its death throes, as long as it makes convulsive movements, it is not even considered as impure food. A limb that is separated from an animal that is making convulsive movements is forbidden to a Noachide, as if it were separated from a living animal. And meat that is separated from it is considered as having been separated from a living animal. Similarly, when a kosher animal is slaughtered in an unacceptable manner and it is still making convulsive movements or one of its signs or the majority of one was slit, it is not considered impure at all until it dies. If one divides an animal in half or one removes its thigh and its inner cavity, it is considered as a carcass and it imparts impurity when carried and when touched, even though it shows signs of life. Similarly, if it was ripped apart from its back or its back bone was broken and the majority of the meat around it severed, it is considered as a carcass in all contexts.

When the fetus of an animal dies within its womb and a shepherd inserts his hand and touches it - whether it is a non-kosher species or a kosher species - the shepherd who touches it is considered pure until he removes the stillborn animal from the womb.

Meat that is separated from a domesticated or wild animal - whether from a kosher species or a non-kosher species - in their lifetime is ritually pure and does not impart impurity as a carcass does. When, however, an entire limb is separated from a living animal, it does impart impurity as a carcass does. This applies to a limb from a living animal itself or from a fetus in its womb. There is no minimum measure to the size of a limb. Even if it is the size of a barley-corn or smaller, it imparts impurity provided it was intact as when it came into being with flesh, sinews, and bones. It must have enough flesh to regenerate and return to a state of wholeness. If the limb did not have enough flesh to return to a state of wholeness or the bone was lacking, it is pure.

A kidney, the tongue, the lips, and like - even though they are organs and will not regenerate - are considered as meat in this context, because they do not have bones.

The flesh or a limb of a domesticated or wild animal that could not regain its vitality and reconnect with the remainder of the body does not impart impurity as a carcass does as long as the animal is alive. Instead, they are considered as like other edible substances. If they were made fit to contract impurity, they can contract impurity while attached to the animal. If the animal was slaughtered, the slaughter causes the flesh or the limb that had been maimed to be considered fit to contract impurity, but they do not impart impurity as a carcass does. For the slaughter of the animal does not cause them to be considered as if they were separated from the animal during its lifetime. If, by contrast, the animal died, the flesh that was hanging loosely from it during its lifetime must be made fit to contract ritual impurity and a limb that had been hanging loosely imparts impurity as a limb from a living animal and not as a limb from a carcass. What is the difference between a limb from a living animal and a limb from a carcass? Meat that was cut from a limb separated from a living animal is pure, while meat cut from a carcass imparts impurity when touched or carried if an olive-sized portion is present. The same measure applies in both instances.

When an animal that was tereifah was slaughtered in a proper manner, even though it is forbidden to be eaten, it is pure. Similarly, when a person slaughters an animal and discovers a dead fetus, the slaughter of its mother purifies it from imparting the impurity associated with a carcass. If one discovers a fetus that is in its eighth month and is alive, it is considered as a tereifah. Even if it is slaughtered after it was deemed tereifah, the slaughter does not prevent it from imparting the impurity associated with a carcass. The rationale is that there is no concept of ritual slaughter for an animal of this type. Based on this logic, when the offspring of an animal was not kept for seven full days before it was slaughtered, the slaughter does not prevent it from imparting the impurity associated with a carcass, because such an animal is considered like a non-viable offspring.

As explained, when a person slaughters an animal and finds a living fetus that has been carried for nine months, ritual slaughter is not required before it steps on the ground, because the slaughter of its mother causes it to be considered as pure. Nevertheless, if its mother becomes impure before the fetus was removed, the fetus does not contract impurity. If the slaughter of its mother was not performed successfully and the mother became considered as a carcass, the living fetus remains pure. The rationale is that a living being does not contract impurity at all, not the impurity associated with foods, nor the impurity associated with a carcass, even though it is considered as one of the limbs of the mother. If it dies before it steps on the ground, it is pure, because the slaughter of its mother causes it to be deemed pure.

When an animal that is tereifah was slaughtered, even though its meat is pure according to Scriptural Law, if meat from a sacrificial animal touches it, the sacrificial meat contracts impurity according to Rabbinic Law. This is an added stringency applied with regard to consecrated foods.

The following laws apply when an animal had difficulty birthing its offspring. If, after the fetus stuck out its foot and it was cut off, the mother was then slaughtered, the limb that was cut off is considered as if it was from a carcass, but the remainder of the meat of the fetus is pure. If the mother was slaughtered and then the limb was cut off, the limb is considered as the meat of a tereifah animal that was slaughtered. The remainder of the meat of the fetus is considered as meat that touched a tereifah animal that was slaughtered which imparts impurity to consecrated foods, but not to terumah. If the fetus stuck out its foot between the slaughter of one sign and the other and it was cut off, the slitting of the second sign is joined to the slitting of the first to purify the limb from imparting impurity as a carcass does.

When a non-Jew slaughters an animal, it is considered as a carcass and imparts impurity when carried. This applies even when a Jew is supervising him and even if he slaughtered it properly with an acceptable knife. Whether the slaughterer is a gentile, a Samaritan, or a resident alien, his slaughter causes the animal to be considered as a carcass. According to my estimation, this is also a Rabbinical decree, for the impurity imparted by false deities and objects offered to them is a Rabbinical decree, as will be explained. And it is because of their worship of false deities that the Samaritans were distanced and their slaughter forbidden. If you will ask: According to Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to partake of an animal which they slaughtered? In resolution, it can be said that not everything that is forbidden to be eaten imparts impurity. For an animal that is tereifah, but which was slaughtered properly, is forbidden to be eaten, but is ritually pure. It is impossible to obligate a person for karet for such impurity for entering the Temple or for partaking of sacrificial foods unless one can clearly prove his assertion that he contracted impurity.

When a person touches or carries the thigh bone of a dead animal, he is pure. The rationale is that any portion of an animal's carcass that does not impart impurity when touched, does not impart impurity when carried. If, however, it was perforated to the slightest degree, one who touches it or carries it contracts impurity. When does the above apply? When the marrow in it rattles, for, in that state, it would not regenerate flesh were the animal to be alive. If, however, it is in its natural place and it has sufficient marrow that it could regenerate flesh on the outside of the bone, it imparts impurity when touched or carried like other limbs. We have already explained that a thigh-bone is closed on all sides.

When a person thought of perforating a thigh bone, but had not done so as of yet, one who touches it contracts impurity of a doubtful status. For there is an unresolved question whether the fact that he has not perforated the bone as of yet is considered as not having carried out a significant deed or not.

The carcass of a kosher fowl that was not ritually slaughtered imparts impurity according to Scriptural Law. According to the Oral Tradition, it is taught that Leviticus 17:15: "Any soul that will partake of the carcass of a fowl or one that is tereifah - whether a native or a convert - shall launder his garments and bathe in water" is speaking only about one who partakes of the carcass of a fowl from a kosher species that is forbidden because it is a carcass or tereifah. How is its impurity defined? It does not impart impurity when touched or when carried or when it is in one's mouth, only in one's gullet. This is implied by the phrase: "Any soul that will partake...," i.e., it imparts impurity only when it has been ingested in "the chamber of the soul." It uses the term "partake" to define that the minimum measure that imparts impurity is the measure to which the prohibition against eating applies, i.e., an olive-sized portion. Moreover, it is written: "shall launder his garments;" this teaches that one who contracts impurity from such a carcass imparts impurity to his garments until he separates himself from the object that imparted impurity to him, as we explained. What is implied? When one swallows an olive-sized portion of the carcass of a fowl from a kosher species and touched keilim while swallowing it, they become impure and are considered a primary derivative of impurity. If he was touching a person or earthenware containers while swallowing it, he does not impart impurity to them, as we stated with regard to other primary categories of impurity. After he has ingested the meat from the fowl, he does not impart impurity to other keilim. He is like a k'li that is a primary derivative of impurity that has been separated from the substance that imparted impurity to him. For even though he must immerse himself and wait for nightfall to regain ritual purity, he does not impart impurity to keilim.

It is not necessary for one to have the intent to consider the carcass of a fowl from a kosher species as food to impart this severe type of impurity. Instead, whenever one swallows an olive-size portion of such a carcass, it imparts impurity when in the person's gullet. If one thought to partake of it, it imparts the impurity of foods. It is considered as a primary derivative of impurity even though it did not touch another source of impurity, nor must it be made fit to contract impurity.

The above does not apply to a red heifer and goats that are to be burned. Even though they impart impurity to those involved in offering them, if one considers partaking of them, it is necessary for them to come in contact with a source of impurity. Only then, do they contract the impurity associated with food.

When a person skewered an olive-size portion of an animal carcass with a weaving needle and inserted it into the inner organs of a woman from below or inserted it into the gullet of a colleague in a place where the carcass of a fowl from a kosher species would impart impurity, the person contracts impurity, because he or she is carrying the impurity, not because he touches it, as we explained in the beginning of this book.

If a person wound an olive-sized portion of the carcass of a fowl from a kosher species in lettuce or the like and swallowed it, he is impure, even if it did not touch his throat. If he wound it with tree bast and swallowed it, he is pure.

If a person swallowed an olive-sized portion of the carcass of a fowl from a kosher species and, after swallowing it, vomited it before it was digested, he does not impart impurity to his garments when it passes his throat when vomiting it. For it imparts impurity in the gullet only when it is swallowed, but not when it is vomited.

The following rules apply when a person swallowed part of an intestine of a kosher species of fowl, part of it was in his gullet, and part was in his mouth. If there is an olive-sized portion in his gullet at one time, he is impure. If not, he remains pure.

When a person swallows an entire limb that is not as large as an olive-sized portion from such a carcass, it does not impart impurity. Even if he took an entire fowl and swallowed it, if it is as large as an olive, he becomes impure. If not, he remains pure.

Although the thin feathers and the wooly hairs on the carcass of a fowl are considered as food and contract and impart the impurity associated with food, they are not included when reckoning an olive-sized portion of the carcass of a kosher species of fowl. In contrast, the soft portions of the beak and the nails that are close to the flesh are considered like meat and are included in the reckoning of an olive-sized portion. The tips of the wings, the tip of the tail, and the bones, even those which are soft, are not included.

When a person partakes of the soft bones, the sinews, underdeveloped eggs while in the mother's body, or the blood of the carcass of a fowl from a kosher species or meat cut from such a fowl while it was alive, he is pure. If, however, one partook of the meat to which the underdeveloped eggs were attached, the gizzard, or the intestines of such a fowl after it died, or he liquefied the fat in fire and drank it, he is impure like one who partakes of its meat. One who drinks is like who eats. If he liquefied it in the sun and partook of it, he is pure, for he has caused it to become rancid.

When the carcass of a fowl of a kosher species has decomposed to the extent that it is unfit to be eaten by a dog, it is pure. Similarly, if it becomes dry like a shard and would not return to its original state if left in lukewarm water for an entire day, it is pure. One who partakes of the netzel of the carcass of a fowl of a kosher species is pure.

When a fowl from a kosher species becomes tereifah, but was slaughtered in a kosher manner, the slaughter causes it to be considered pure. This applies even if it was slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard. If its head was snipped off through melikah and it was discovered to be tereifah, the melikah does not cause it to be considered as pure. Thus it can be inferred that when one slaughters a fowl from a kosher species, whether outside the Temple Courtyard or inside of it, whether the fowl is consecrated or not, it is pure. Whether one performs melikah on ordinary fowl within the Temple Courtyard or consecrated fowl outside the Temple Courtyard, they impart impurity to a person and his garments when in the gullet.

When one performs melikah on consecrated fowl in the Temple Courtyard, if they are fit for a sacrifice and do not have disqualifying blemishes, as explained in its place, they are pure. Similarly, when a calf that has its neck broken as required by law, it is pure, for "atonement" is mentioned with regard to it, as with regard to sacrificial offerings. Similarly, if it was slaughtered after it was taken down to the wadi, even though it is forbidden to benefit from it, the slaughter prevents it from being considered as an impure carcass.

The carcass of a fowl from a non-kosher species is pure and does not impart impurity in the gullet. If one thought to partake of it and it was made fit to contract impurity, it is considered as an impure food which is a primary derivative of impurity. The thin feathers, the wooly hairs, and the soft portions of its beak and its nails are considered as its meat.

When a limb is separated from a living fowl - whether from a kosher species or a non-kosher species - it is pure and does not impart impurity at all, as can be inferred from Leviticus 11:24-26: "Because of these, you will contract impurity... because of all the animals." This excludes fowl, because it does not have a hoof. According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that the verse comes solely to teach that a limb from a living domesticated or wild animal is impure.

A limb separated from the carcass of a fowl is considered like the carcass of the fowl from which it was separated. If it was from the carcass of a kosher fowl, an olive-sized portion of it imparts severe impurity in the gullet. If one thought of partaking of it, it contracts the impurity associated with impure foods. If the carcass was from a non-kosher fowl, it contracts the impurity associated with impure foods if one thought of partaking of it and it was made fit to contract impurity. It does not impart impurity to other foods unless it is the size of an egg. This is the measure required for all foods to contract impurity, as will be explained.

The eight crawling animals that are mentioned in the Torah are: the weasel, the mouse, the ferret, the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole. The impurity of them all is the same. They are each referred to as a sheretz with regard to impurity.

A sheretz is considered as a primary source of impurity and imparts impurity to persons and keilim when touched and to an earthenware container, when it enters its inner space. It does not impart impurity when carried and one who touches it does not impart impurity to his clothes when touching it. The minimum measure that imparts impurity is a lentil-sized portion. All the sh'ratzim can be combined to reach this measure.

There is no minimum measure for the limbs of a sheretz to impart impurity. To impart impurity a limb of a sheretz must be intact as when it came into being.

A limb from a sheretz that is intact with flesh, sinews, and bones that is less than a lentil-sized portion - whether it was separated from the sheretz while it is alive or after it died - imparts impurity. It must have enough flesh or marrow within the bone to regenerate and return to a state of wholeness.

When flesh is separated from a living sheretz, it is pure. Only a limb which is comparable to an entire sheretz imparts impurity. What is meant by comparable? Just as a sheretz possesses flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, a limb separated from it must possess flesh, sinews, and bones.

A kidney, a liver, the tongue, and the like, even though they are considered as organs and will not regenerate, are considered as flesh in this context. If they were separated from a living sheretz, they are pure.

The blood of a sheretz is considered as its flesh. It can be combined to reach the minimum measure of a lentil-sized portion, as long as it is connected to its flesh.

The bones of the swarming creature and its sinews and claws are pure. And the skin of the "choled" (rat, weasel, mole rat, or mongoose), of the mouse, of the "tzav" (toad or spiny-tailed lizard), and of the "tinshemeth" (mole rat, gecko, chameleon, or monitor) are pure even when still moist and not yet tanned nor trodden upon. However, the skin of the "anakah" (gecko, hedgehog, or glass lizard), of the "koach" (chameleon), of the "letaah" (lizard), and of the "chomet" (snail) are like their flesh and a lentil-sized portion of it imparts impurity. And if they were tanned, or trodden upon till tanned, they are pure. And how much [must one tread on a skin ] to tan it? As much as it takes to walk four "millin" (~3.7 miles).

When a person touches the thigh bone of a sheretz, he is pure, even though it is filled with marrow, provided the marrow in it rattles, for then it could not regenerate flesh were the sheretz to have been alive. If, however, it is in its natural place and it has sufficient marrow that it could regenerate flesh on the outside of the bone, one who touches it is impure, as is true with regard to all the limbs that could regenerate flesh as we explained. If the thigh bone was perforated to even the slightest degree, one who touches any part of it is impure.

An egg of a sheretz in which the embryo has begun to take form is pure, even though the embryonic sheretz can be seen within it. If it is perforated to the slightest degree, one who touches it is impure.

The following laws apply with regard to the carcass of a sheretz that is half flesh and half earth. If one touched the flesh, he is impure. If he touched the earth, he is pure. If the form of the sheretz was already apparent over its entire length, even one who touches the earth that has not yet been formed into a sheretz is impure.

When the flesh of a sheretz has decomposed and become spoiled and is unfit to be eaten by a dog, it is pure. The following laws apply if the carcass of a sheretz dries out like a shard. If it would return to a moist state and be fit for a dog to eat when left to soak in lukewarm water for an entire day, it imparts impurity. If not, it is pure. It does not even impart impurity like impure foods do. When does the above apply? With regard to a portion of a sheretz. If, however, an entire sheretz has become dry and its skeleton remains intact or it was burned and its skeleton remains intact, since its entire form remains, it imparts impurity. In my eyes, this impurity is a Rabbinic decree.

An olive-sized portion of meat from an animal carcass or a lentil-sized portion from the carcass of a sheretz that shrank and was reduced in size is pure. If a piece of flesh from a sheretz that is less than a lentil or one from an animal carcass that was less than an olive swelled and increased to the size of the minimum measure, they impart impurity according to Rabbinic decree. If, originally, they were the size of the minimum measure and then shrank, but afterwards swelled until they regained the size of the minimum measure, according to Scriptural law, they impart impurity like they did previously. Similar laws apply with regard to an olive-sized portion from a human corpse.

A sheretz does not impart impurity until it dies. If it has been decapitated, even if the head is still connected to the skin of the body, and it is still in its death throes as happens with regard to the tail of a lizard, it imparts impurity. All the other teeming and creeping animals, e.g., a frog, a snake, a scorpion, or the like, even though it is forbidden to partake of them, do not impart impurity at all. They are not even considered as impure foods. There are no teeming animals that impart impurity except the eight species mentioned in the Torah.

Semen is a primary source of impurity and imparts impurity to persons and implements when touched and to an earthenware container, when it enters its inner space. It does not impart impurity when carried and one who touches it does not impart impurity to his clothes even when touching it. It imparts impurity both to one who touches it and one who discharges it. They are both primary derivatives of impurity according to Scriptural Law. What is the measure that imparts impurity? For one who touches it, an amount the size of a lentil. For one who discharges it, the slightest amount. A man who discharges it is not impure until it leaves his body, reaching the orifice of the male organ, as implied by Leviticus 22:4: "From whom is discharged semen." Therefore even one who discharges semen through a reed, is impure because the semen reached the orifice of the male organ. One is impure whether he discharges semen as a natural physical reaction or due to forces beyond his control.

The semen of a minor does not impart ritual impurity until he is nine years old.

Semen that is red is pure. It does not impart impurity unless it is white and viscous.

Whenever a person's body does not feel the discharge of semen, it does not impart impurity. Therefore if a person discharges semen without an erection and without desire, it does not impart the impurity associated with semen. If there was a sensation when the discharge began, he is impure even though when it departed from his body, there was no sensation.

When a person thinks about sexual matters at night and dreams that he had intercourse and awakes to find his organ warm, he is impure even though he did not find traces of semen. It is presumed that since, in his dreams, he had the sensation that he was involved in intercourse, he discharged semen with a physical sensation. That is why his organ was warm. The discharge, however, was small and it was absorbed on his flesh or on his clothes. Therefore, he did not find any moisture. If he had sexual thoughts, but did not find his organ warm or found his organ warm, but did not have sexual thoughts, he is pure.

If a person's urine was slippery or murky at the outset, he is pure. If the slipperiness or the murkiness was seen in the middle of his urination or at the end, he is impure. If, from the beginning to the end, the urine was slippery and murky, he is pure. If it was white and viscous, he is impure. One who releases thick drops from his male organ is pure.

When a man who experienced a seminal emission immerses himself and had not urinated before he immersed himself, he becomes impure when he urinates. For there are remnants of semen that are not discharged until he urinates. To whom does the above apply? To one who is sick or elderly. A healthy youth, by contrast, is pure, for he ejaculates semen powerfully, like an arrow and it clears the orifice of the male organ entirely. Until when is a male considered a youth in this context? As long as he can stand on one foot and put on or remove his other shoe. If he cannot do this because he is sick, he is considered as infirm in this context.

Any woman who engaged in physical intimacy and then went and immersed herself before she washed her vaginal area thoroughly remains impure.

Both a man and a woman who engage in physical intimacy are impure. Both of them are considered as primary derivatives of impurity according to Scriptural Law. The woman is not impure because she touched the semen, because the semen touched the inner part of her body, and touching the inner part of the body is not considered as touch. Instead, a woman who engages in intercourse is considered as a man who ejaculates. The above applies provided the female is at least three years old, as implied by Leviticus 15:18: "A woman with whom a man lies." If a minor is less than three, she does not become impure because of the physical intimacy itself. She can, however, become impure because she touched the semen if it touches the outer surface of her flesh. Based on this logic, when a man engages in anal intercourse with an adult woman, she is pure, for Scripture only dictated that a woman becomes impure although the impurity only touched her internal organs when intercourse was carried out in the ordinary manner.

When a man engages in intercourse with a woman and does not ejaculate, he is pure even though the corona entered the vagina. Similarly, the woman is pure until the man ejaculates.

The following rules apply when semen seeps from a woman after relations. If she discharges it within three twelve-hour periods after intercourse, she is impure like a man who has a seminal emission. Therefore, she misses one day if she is a zavah, like a man who had a seminal emission. Even the slightest amount of semen renders her impure even if it does not emerge outside her body, but is just discharged between the folds of her vagina, she is impure, for semen is like vaginal bleeding. Just as vaginal bleeding imparts impurity while inside the woman's body, so too, semen that she discharges makes her impure while it is within her body.

Semen itself that was discharged within three twelve-hour periods imparts impurity to others who touch it as it imparts impurity to the woman who discharges it. If she discharged it after three twelve-hour periods, the woman is considered as pure. Similarly, the semen itself that was discharged after such a time is pure, for its substance has already putrefied.

What is meant by a twelve-hour period? A full day or a full night. The period in which relations took place is not counted. What is implied? If relations took place on Friday night, the three twelve-hour periods are: the Sabbath day, Saturday night, and during the day on Sunday. If she discharged semen during this time, she is impure. If she discharged it from Sunday night onward, she is pure. When a man was sodomized, the semen he discharges is impure, as long as it is moist, even after several twelve-hour periods. Similarly, the man who discharges it is impure.

Semen does not impart impurity unless it is moist. If it becomes dry like a shard it is pure. If it would return to its original state when left to soak in lukewarm water for an entire day, it imparts impurity.

In this chapter, we have already explained that a man who ejaculates, a woman who engages in relations with a man, and one who touches semen, are impure according to Scriptural law. Similarly, a woman who discharges semen within three twelve-hour periods after relations is impure according to Scriptural Law like one who has a seminal emission. All of the others about whom it was said in this chapter that they are impure, e.g., one who has sexual thoughts in his dreams or has questionable substances in his urine, are impure only due to Rabbinic decree. That decree applies only to terumah, but for ordinary foods, they are pure.

When a gentile woman discharges the semen of a Jew within three twelve-hour periods - or when an animal discharges the semen of a Jew within this time - the semen discharged is impure. If it was released after this time, there is an unresolved question whether it is considered to have putrefied or not.

In Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, we already explained that the semen of a gentile is absolutely pure. Therefore if a Jewish woman discharges the semen of a gentile even within three twelve-hour periods, she is pure.

When a gentile felt the release of semen, converted and went to immerse himself and released the semen that he felt initially after he immersed, there is a question whether or not he is impure.

When a minor less than nine years old - or a gentile or an animal - engages in relations with a mature female, she is pure, as indicated by Leviticus 15:18: "And a man who will lie with a woman." Implied is that the male must be a mature man and Jewish, as we explained.

The impurity of false deities is of Rabbinic origin. There is an allusion to it in the Torah Genesis 35:2: "Remove the foreign gods that are in your midst. Purify yourselves and change your garments." There are four primary categories of ritual impurity associated with the worship of false deities: the false deities themselves, their accessories, something offered to it, and a wine libation offered to it. The impurity associated with all of these is of Rabbinic origin.

A false deity itself imparts impurity to persons and keilim when touched and to an earthenware container, when it enters its inner space. Like the carcass of a teeming animal, it does not impart impurity when carried, as implied by Deuteronomy 7:26: "You shall certainly regard it as disgusting." The minimum measure that imparts impurity is an olive-sized portion; it should not be more stringent than a portion of a corpse. If an image is less than an olive in size, it is pure.

If one cut off a limb from it, even if it is as large as the steering rod of a plow, it is pure. The rationale is that a false deity does not impart impurity when separated into limbs, only when the entire image is intact, as can be inferred from Isaiah 30:22: "Cast your idols away like someone impure." Just as the limbs of an impure person do not impart impurity, so too, the limbs of a false deity do not impart impurity. Its impurity was established according to the leniencies applying to all the primary categories of impurity. Since its impurity is of Rabbinic origin, it was considered as the carcass of a teeming animal in that it does not impart impurity when carried, like a corpse in that an olive-sized portion is required, and like a nidah in that a limb of it does not impart impurity.

When a false deity was separated into parts, even though it could be reassembled by an ordinary person and all of its parts are present, it does not impart impurity.

All of the accessories of a false deity are like the carcass of a teeming animal. They impart impurity to persons and keilim when touched and to an earthenware container, when they enter its inner space. They do not impart impurity when carried. The minimum measure that imparts impurity is an olive-sized portion. Even if one cut off an olive-sized portion from an implement, it imparts impurity like the carcass of a teeming animal. In this context, the law applying to the accessories of a false deity is more stringent than that applying to the false deity itself. With regard to a shrine in which a false deity is worshiped: Its stones, its beams, and its earth all impart impurity when an olive-sized portion of them is touched, as all of the other accessories of a false deity.

When a person inserts his head and the majority of his body into a shrine of a false deity, he becomes impure, as if he touched it. Similarly, if the inner space of an earthenware vessel was brought inside a shrine of a false deity, it becomes impure. When the greater portion of a bench or a couch was brought into a shrine of a false deity, it contracts impurity. They are considered as primary derivatives of impurity.

An offering brought to a false deity imparts impurity when touched and when carried like the carcass of a dead animal. The minimum measure that imparts impurity is an olive-sized portion. Any entity offered to a false deity, whether meat or other foods or beverages, is considered like an animal carcass, for Scripture Psalms 106:28 refers to them as "sacrifices of the dead." Although foods that were sacrificed to false deities may never be nullified in a manner that enables one to benefit from them, if their connection with the false deity was nullified, it is questionable whether or not they impart impurity. When, by contrast, the connection between an implement offered to a false deity and that deity was nullified, it is pure. Similarly, a false deity and its accessories that were nullified are pure.

When wine was poured as a libation to a false deity, it imparts impurity to persons and keilim when touched and to an earthenware container, when it enters its inner space. It imparts impurity to a person when carried, as an animal carcass does. The minimum measure for its impurity is an olive-sized portion, as can be inferred from Deuteronomy 32:38: "Who eat the fat of its sacrifices, who drink the wine of its libations." This impurity is imparted only by wine that was poured out by hand before a false deity. Ordinary wine belonging to a non-Jew imparts a lesser impurity like all other impure beverages.

From everything that we have explained from the beginning of this book until here, one may conclude that there are primary categories of impurity, some of Scriptural origin and some of Rabbinic origin.

Any entity that contracts impurity from a primary source of impurity of Scriptural origin is considered as a derivative of impurity of Scriptural origin. Any entity that contracts impurity from a primary source of impurity of Rabbinic origin is considered as a derivative of impurity of Rabbinic origin.

Any primary source of impurity – whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin – that imparts impurity [to a person] through touch, but does not impart impurity when carried, does not impart impurity to the clothes a person who touches it is wearing. [This applies even] while he is touching [the source of impurity]. Nor does he impart impurity to another person or to earthenware utensils even though he has not yet separated himself from the source of impurity. Both after and before he separates himself from the source of impurity, his status is that of a derivative of impurity who imparts impurity to foods and makes them a secondary derivative of impurity, for he is a primary derivative.

When a person touches or carries any primary source of impurity - whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin - that imparts impurity through touch or when carried, that person imparts impurity to his clothes at the time he is touching the source of impurity or carrying it. He causes the garments to be considered as a primary derivative of impurity. Similarly, if he touches foods, he makes them a primary derivative of impurity as long as he has not ceased contact with the source of his impurity. If he ceases contact with the source of his impurity, he is considered as a primary derivative of impurity in all contexts and he does not impart impurity to his garments. If he touches foods, they are deemed as secondary derivatives. When does the above apply? With regard to all the primary sources of impurity with the exception of an animal carcass and a surface on which a zav rides. With regard to these two sources of impurity, even though they impart impurity when touched or when carried, a person who touches them does not impart impurity to his clothes when he is touching them. If he touches foods, they are secondary derivatives of impurity. One who carries such entities imparts impurity to his clothes when carrying them. If he touches foods before he separates from the source of his impurity, they are primary derivatives of impurity, as we explained.

When there is a sufficient amount of water upon which the ashes of the red heifer have been placed to sprinkle it, it is considered like an animal carcass and a surface on which a zav rides and only one who carries it imparts impurity to his garments. Nevertheless, one who touches such water imparts impurity to his garments while touching them, because it is as if he is carrying the water. For it is impossible to touch water without moving it and we have already explained that the laws that apply to carrying a source of impurity also apply when moving it. Similarly, one who touches the wool of an animal carcass or who touches the strands protruding from a surface on which a zav rides imparts impurity to his clothes when he touches these entities because it is as if he is carrying them. For it is impossible to touch them without moving them. Therefore he imparts impurity to his garments until he separates himself from the source of impurity like one who carries.

When one swallows the carcass of a fowl from a kosher species, he imparts impurity to his garments at the time he swallows it as we explained. They are considered as primary derivatives of impurity. Similarly, if he touches foods at that time, they are primary derivatives of impurity. After he swallows it, he is considered to have separated from the entity that imparted impurity to him.

Although all of the following - one who burns the red heifer or the goats that are burnt and one who sends away the goat to Azazel - impart impurity to their garments while performing their tasks, as we explained, if they touched foods, even while performing their tasks, the foods are deemed a secondary derivative of impurity.

When a person touches a primary source of impurity that had been cast into a mikveh, e.g., an animal carcass, the carcass of a teeming animal, or a surface on which a zav rides was in a mikveh and a person touched it, he is impure, as can be inferred from Leviticus 11:36: "But a spring and a cistern in which water collects will be pure. One who touches their carcasses contracts impurity." Implied is that even when they are in a mikveh, they impart impurity. When the person who touched the source of impurity immerses and ascends from the mikveh, he is pure. Similarly, if a zav treads on a surface on which one rides that was pure while it was found in a mikveh, the surface contracts impurity. When the surface is lifted up from the mikveh, it regains purity, for it is considered as if it was immersed. When an individual who touches an impure surface on which one rides while he was in a mikveh sticks his hand outside the mikveh and touches objects, he imparts impurity to garments. Needless to say, he imparts impurity to foods and beverages.

It is explicitly stated in the Torah that foods and liquids contract ritual impurity, as Leviticus 11:34 states: "Of all foods that will be eaten that were exposed to water will become impure and any beverage which one will drink in any vessel will become impure." Food that contracted impurity does not impart impurity to other foods according to Scriptural Law. Nor do liquids that contracted impurity impart impurity to other entities according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, it was decreed that impure food that touched other foods would impart impurity to them. Similarly, if impure foods touched liquids, the liquids are impure. Food does not, by contrast, ever impart impurity to a container that it touches even according to Rabbinic Law. Similarly, the Sages decreed that impure liquids should impart impurity to foods, liquids, and keilim that they touch.

There are no derivatives of impurity that impart impurity to keilim other than impure liquids. This impurity is a Rabbinic decree. It applies provided the original source of the liquid's impurity is a primary category of impurity, whether of Scriptural or Rabbinic origin. Why did they decree that impure liquids should impart impurity to keilim? Because of a similarity to the liquids that emanate from a zav, which are a primary source of impurity and impart impurity to keilim according to Scriptural Law, as ibid. 15:8 states: "When a zav shall spit on a person who is pure," as we explained.

When the Sages decreed that impure liquids should impart impurity to containers, they decreed that they should impart impurity from their inner surfaces. What is implied? If impure liquids fell into the inner space of an earthenware container, it becomes impure in its entirety. It is considered as a secondary derivative. If they touch other containers on their inner surface, they become impure in their entirety and are considered as secondary derivatives of impurity. If, however, impure liquids touch the outer surface of a container, whether it be an earthenware container, a k'li that can be purified by immersion, or a metal k'li, only the outer surface becomes impure. The outer surface is considered as a secondary derivative, but its inner surface does not become impure. In what context does the above apply? To terumah. For sacrificial foods, by contrast, when the outside of a container becomes impure, it becomes impure in its entirety and it is considered a secondary derivative of impurity in its entirety.

We already explained, that foods do not impart impurity to utensils, but that liquids do. Why did our Sages make the above distinction - that when the outer surface of a container was touched by impure liquids, its inner surface does not become impure for terumah? To make it known that the impurity of these keilim is a Rabbinic institution so that terumah and sacrificial foods will not be burnt as a result.

We already explained that foods and liquids that touch one of the primary sources of impurity become primary derivatives of impurity. Similarly, if food touched a person or a k'li that had contracted impurity from a source of impurity, that food becomes a second derivative of impurity. Food that touches this secondary derivative is considered a tertiary derivative of impurity and if the tertiary derivative touches a fourth food, it is considered a fourth degree derivative of impurity. To what does the above apply? To foods. With regard to liquids, by contrast, whether a liquid touches a primary source of impurity, a primary derivative or a secondary derivative, that liquid is considered as a primary derivative. It imparts impurity to another liquid, which in turn can impart impurity to another liquid, even if there is a chain of a hundred. For there is no concept of degrees of impurity with regard to liquids. What is implied? When wine touched a primary source of impurity or a primary or secondary derivative, the wine is considered as a primary derivative of impurity. Similarly, if this wine touched oil, that oil touched milk, that milk touched honey, that honey touched water, and that water touched wine, in an endless chain, all the liquids are considered as primary derivatives. It is as if each one of them contracted impurity from a primary source. They all impart impurity to keilim. Similarly, if the outer surface of a container contracted impurity from a liquid and other liquids touched that impure outer surface, even if the other liquids are not sacred, the other liquids are considered as a primary derivative of impurity and impart impurity to other containers, making them secondary derivatives of impurity. Needless to say, they impart impurity to other foods and liquids.

When the outer surface of a container contracted impurity and then foods - even food that are terumah - touched this impure outer surface, the foods are pure. For when only the outer surface of a container contracts impurity, it does not impart impurity to foods with the exception of sacrificial foods. For when the outer surface of a container contracts impurity, it is considered as entirely impure with regard to sacrificial foods, as we explained. Therefore, it imparts impurity to sacrificial foods.

Whenever one touches a primary derivative of impurity with his hands, whether that primary derivative was an impure person, k'li, food, or liquid, his hands - until his joints - alone become impure. Similarly, if a person inserts his hands into the inner space of an earthenware container that contracted impurity from a primary source of impurity or he inserted his hands into a house that is deemed impure due to tzara'at, his hands become impure. The impurity of hands is a Rabbinic decree.

Hands that contracted impurity are always considered as a secondary derivative according to Rabbinic Law. For their impurity is a Rabbinic decree, and when it was decreed that they would be impure, it was decreed that their status would be that of a secondary derivative. Even when one inserts his hands into a house that is deemed impure due to tzara'at or touches with his hands a person who imparts impurity to his garments before that person has separated himself from the source of his impurity, the person's hands are secondary derivatives.

Piggul, notar, and remnants of flour from the meal offerings are considered as primary derivatives of impurity. Primary and secondary derivatives are counted if other entities come in contact with them. Therefore, an egg-sized portion of them imparts impurity to hands. Piggul and notar may not be combined to reach an egg-sized measure even though they both share that same measure. The rationale is that the impurity of hands is a Rabbinic safeguard. Other impure foods, by contrast, are combined to reach that measure. For impure foods do not impart impurity unless there is an egg-sized portion present.

Even though the thigh bone of a sacrificial animal that was either piggul or notar is intact, when a person touches it with his hands, his hands contract ritual impurity. For the bones of sacrificial animals that became either piggul or notar impart impurity to hands, because they serve as the base for a forbidden entity.

When sacrificial meat is taken outside its appropriate place, there is an unresolved question whether it imparts impurity to hands or not. Therefore, it does not impart impurity, for if there is a doubt with regard to the impurity of hands, they are considered pure, as will be explained. If meat from a Paschal sacrifice was taken outside the home where it is being eaten, it is pure. We assume that the members of the company are vigilant.

The concept of impurity of hands does not apply in the Temple. At the time that Sages established their decree regarding the impurity of hands, they did not apply it to the Temple. Instead, if a person touches impure foods or the like - whether he touched them in the Temple or outside the Temple - and then touched sacrificial foods in the Temple, he does not impart impurity to them. If he touches sacrificial foods outside the Temple, he imparts impurity to them. Similarly, he disqualifies terumah, as will be explained.

When one of a person's hands become impure and he touches the other one, the other remains pure. It is sufficient for him to wash the impure hand. When does the above apply? With regard to terumah. With regard to sacrificial foods, by contrast, if one of a person's hands become impure and he touches the other one, he imparts impurity to the other. Both of them must be immersed in a mikveh before touching sacrificial foods. For terumah, by contrast, it is sufficient to wash one's hands to purify them.

King Solomon and his court decreed that hands are always considered as secondary derivatives of impurity, even if one does not know with certainty that they contracted impurity, for "hands are busy." Solomon decreed that hands were impure only with regard to sacrificial foods. Afterwards, the later Sages extended the decree also with regard to terumah. Therefore it is necessary to wash one's hands before partaking of terumah. If one touched terumah before he washed his hands, the terumah is disqualified. It is burnt because of this impurity.

A person may wrap his hands in a napkin and partake of terumah without washing his hands. We do not suspect that he will touch the terumah. He should not do this when partaking of ordinary food that is being eaten under the stringencies that apply to the purity of sacrificial food or terumah, lest he touch it, for he is not that careful with regard to it.

Since a person's hands are considered second degree derivatives of impurity, if they touch liquids, they cause them to be considered as primary derivatives. If such liquids touch foods, they cause them to be considered as secondary derivatives. If such liquids touch other liquids, they cause them to be considered as primary derivatives, for liquids are always considered as primary derivatives, as we explained. Such liquids that contracted impurity due to contact with hands do not impart impurity to keilim, for the fundamental impurity of the hands is of Rabbinic origin. Similarly, our Sages decreed that any person who partook of impure foods - whether the foods were primary or secondary derivatives of impurity - or who drank impure liquids should be considered as a secondary derivative of impurity until he immerses in a mikveh. If he touches foods, he causes them to be considered as a tertiary derivative. If he touches liquids, even ordinary liquids, he causes them to be considered as a primary derivative and they impart impurity to other foods and liquids. They do not impart impurity to keilim, because the impurity contracted by this person is fundamentally a Rabbinic decree. Why was it decreed that a person who partakes of impure foods contracts impurity? For perhaps he will partake of food that is a primary or secondary derivative of impurity and, at the same time, drink a liquid that is terumah. The liquid that is terumah will contract impurity from the food in his mouth. Similarly, if a person is drinking impure liquids, there was concern that he might eat food that is terumah with them and impart impurity to it because of the liquids in his mouth. We have already explained in Hilchot Terumah that it is forbidden to partake of impure terumah.

A person who contracts impurity because he partook of impure foods does not contract impurity unless he partakes of a quarter of a loaf of bread which is the size of an egg and a half when judged generously. Similarly, one who contracts impurity from drinking does not contract impurity unless he drinks a revi'it of impure liquids. All types of foods can be combined to comprise the sum of a quarter of a loaf that disqualifies the body of a person who partakes of them. And all liquids can be combined to comprise the sum of a revi'it. If one eats or drinks less than these measures, he is pure. The following rule applies if one ate a small amount, then waited, and then ate some more. If he ate the required measure within the time it usually takes to eat half a loaf, the quantities are combined. If not, they are not combined. Similarly, if he drank a small amount, then waited, and then drank some more, if he drank the required measure] within the time it usually takes to eat half a loaf, the quantities are combined. If not, they are not combined. The following rule applies if one ate less than the minimum measure, immersed in a mikveh, ascended, and immediately ate more. If he did not wait between eating and there is less time than it usually takes to eat half a loaf between the eating that preceded the immersion and the eating that followed it, they can be combined.

When a woman who is a primary derivative of impurity nurses her son, her son is pure. The Sages did not decree that he would be impure. Even if one would say that the infant nursed a revi'it of milk, it is possible that from the beginning to the end, doing so took more time than it usually takes to eat half a loaf, for he does not nurse all at once.

Because of the danger, our Sages granted a pregnant woman license to partake of less than the minimum measure, even though ultimately, she will partake of a larger amount. She does not need to immerse herself. Instead, she is pure.

When a person immerses his head and the majority of his body in drawn water or three lugim of drawn water fall on his head and the majority of his body, he is a secondary derivative of impurity until he immerses himself in a mikveh. If he touches foods, he causes them to be considered as a tertiary derivative. If he touches liquids, he imparts impurity to them, causing them to be considered as a primary derivative and they impart impurity to other foods and liquids. They do not, however, impart impurity to keilim. Why did the Sages decree that such a person should be impure? Because people would immerse in caves where the water was foul and then they would wash with fresh drawn water for the sake of cleanliness. This became such a widespread practice that the majority of people got the impression that the drawn water in which the people would ultimately wash was the agent that conveyed ritual purity and not the immersion in the waters of the mikveh. Therefore, they would immerse themselves carelessly, without attention to details. Accordingly, our Sages decreed that when a person immerses his head and the majority of his body in drawn water or three lugim of drawn water fall on his head and the majority of his body, he becomes a secondary derivative of impurity. Even when three lugim of drawn water falls on the head and the majority of the body of a person who was pure or he immerses his head and the majority of his body in drawn water, he becomes a secondary derivative of impurity until he immerses himself. After a person who contracted impurity in such a manner immerses himself, he need not wait until nightfall to regain purity, for the impurity contracted by this person is fundamentally a Rabbinic decree. Similarly, a person who contracted impurity because he ate impure foods or drank impure liquids and then immersed himself need not wait until nightfall to regain purity. Similarly, when keilim become impure due to contact with impure liquids, once they were immersed, they become pure. There is no need to wait until nightfall, because these impurities are fundamentally Rabbinic decrees.

The following laws apply when three lugim of drawn water fall on a person from two or three different containers. If water began to flow from the second before it concluded flowing from the first, they can be combined to reach the sum of three lugim. If water falls from four containers, it is not combined. Even if one began to flow before the other ceased flowing, the person is pure. If the water fell on his head, but not on the majority of his body or fell on the majority of his body, but not on his head, or fell on his head from above and on the majority of his body from the side or from below, he is pure. To impart impurity, the water must fall on his head and the majority of his body that is close to his head in an ordinary manner. Similarly, if his head entered drawn water, but not his body or his body entered, but not his head, or his head was inserted in drawn water and then other drawn water engulfed his body from the side or from below, he is pure. To contract impurity, his head and the majority of his body close to his head must enter the water in an ordinary manner.

When a portion of a person's head and half the majority of his body were inserted in drawn water and drawn water falls on the other half of his head and the majority of his body, since water fell on half and half was inserted in water, he is pure.

When the three lugim of water which fell upon a person or into which he inserted his head and body were a combination of drawn water and natural water or they were mixed with wine, honey, or milk, he is pure. The three lugim must be entirely drawn water. The status of these three lugim of water which fell on a pure person or in which he inserted his head and body and from which he contracted impurity also changes. Since the person became a secondary derivative of impurity, the water is also impure for it touched a secondary derivative. It is as if the water tells the pure person: "I made you impure and you made me impure."

Initially, they would place loaves of terumah next to sacred scrolls, saying: "These are holy and these are holy." Mice would come and tear the sacred scrolls. Therefore, the Sages decreed that any terumah that touches the Holy Scriptures would become impure. It is considered as a tertiary derivative of impurity, as if it touched a secondary derivative. Thus all the Holy Scriptures disqualify terumah like a secondary derivative. Moreover, when anyone whose hands were pure touched one of the Holy Scriptures, his hands become secondary derivatives of impurity and impart impurity to terumah and to liquids. Although generally, hands only contract impurity from a primary derivative of impurity, as we explained, they contract impurity from a scroll.

Tefillin straps when connected to the tefillin, the blank parchment of the margins above or below the scroll and at its beginning or end when connected to the scroll, a scroll that was erased, but at least 85 letters remained, and a scroll on which at least 85 letters from the Torah are written, as in the passage Numbers 10:35-36: "And when the ark set forth...," all impart impurity to hands. Not only the words of the Torah, but the words of all the Holy Scriptures, including the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes which are words of wisdom, impart impurity to hands.

The Aramaic portions in the Books of Ezra and Daniel are considered as part of the Holy Scriptures. If, by contrast, one translated an Aramaic portion into Hebrew or a Hebrew portion into Aramaic, or wrote the Holy Scriptures in the Ivri script, they do not impart impurity to hands. That applies only when Scripture is written in the Ashuri script, on parchment, with ink.

Although it is forbidden to do so, if one writes Hallel or the Shema for a child to study, they impart impurity to hands.

Although it is forbidden to maintain them, as long as the strings and the straps sewed within a Torah scroll are attached to the scroll, they impart impurity to hands.

When the case of a scroll, an ark, or the mantle of a scroll are sewn to the scroll itself, they impart impurity to hands. By contrast, although passages of blessings, contain the letters of G-d's name and many Torah concepts, they do not impart impurity to hands.

Scrolls written by heretics do not impart impurity to hands. Since the passage of a sotah is intended to be blotted out, it does not impart impurity to hands.

As we explained, every entity, whether a person or a k'li, that contracts impurity from a primary source of impurity is considered as a primary derivative of impurity until immersion in a mikveh. After immersion, he or it is considered like a secondary derivative of impurity until nightfall, as implied by Leviticus 11:32: "It shall be inserted into water and it will be impure until evening, when it will become pure." Thus Scripture refers to an entity immersed that day as impure.

The same status applies both to one who immersed to purify himself from severe impurity, e.g., that of a zav, that connected with a human corpse, or tzara'at, and one who immersed to purify himself from the impurity stemming from the carcass of a teeming animal and the like. Any entity, whether a person or a k'li, that must wait until nightfall to regain purity, regardless of whether the impurity stems from Scriptural Law or the words of the Rabbis, is considered as a secondary derivative until nightfall.

Contact with a person who immersed himself that day disqualifies foods that are terumah, liquids that are terumah, sacrificial foods, and consecrated liquids. It disqualifies everything. What is implied? If a person who immersed that day touches food that is terumah, he causes it to be considered a tertiary derivative of impurity, for he is a secondary derivative. Similarly, if he touches liquids that are terumah, he imparts impurity to them and they are considered tertiary derivatives of impurity. In the same vein, if such a person touches consecrated liquids, he imparts impurity to them and they are a fourth degree derivative of impurity. Similarly, if he touches consecrated food, he causes them to be considered a fourth degree derivative of impurity. If, however, he touches ordinary foods or ordinary liquids, they remain pure. The laws that apply to those who are lacking atonement and one who immersed himself are the same with regard to touching consecrated food. From this entire discussion, one has learnt that liquids are never considered a secondary derivative. They are always considered as primary derivatives with the exception of liquids touched by a person who immersed himself that day which are considered as tertiary derivatives if they were terumah or a fourth degree derivative if they are consecrated foods.

Fluids, e.g., saliva or urine, produced by any of those who impart impurity - whether severe or light - are governed by the same laws as the liquids that they touch. They are all primary derivatives of impurity, as we explained, with the exception of those produced or touched by a zav and those like him. The fluids such individuals produce are primary sources of impurity, while the liquids they touch are primary derivatives of impurity. Even when a person contracts impurity by eating impure foods or drinking impure liquids, the fluids he produces are governed by the same laws as the liquids he touches, i.e., they are primary derivatives. Similarly, the fluids produced by a person who immersed and is waiting for nightfall are governed by the same laws as the liquids he touches; they do not impart impurity to other entities at all. Instead, if such fluids touch ordinary liquids, they are pure. If they touch liquids that are terumah, they become tertiary derivatives of impurity. And if they touch consecrated liquids, they become fourth degree derivatives.

From the above, it should be clear that a tertiary derivative that is terumah or a fourth degree derivative that is consecrated does not impart impurity to other liquids or other foods. Needless to say, it does not impart impurity to keilim. Therefore, the following rules apply when there was a pot full of liquids and a person who had immersed that day touches it. If they were ordinary liquids, everything is pure. If the liquids were terumah, the liquids are disqualified, but the pot is pure. If only the person's hands were impure, the liquids are impure, whether they are terumah or ordinary liquids. This is a stringency observed with regard to impure hands that does not apply to a person who immersed that day. There is a stringency observed with regard to a person who immersed that day that does not apply to impure hands: If there is a question regarding the status of a person who immersed that day, he disqualifies foods and liquids he touches because of that question. If, by contrast, the status of a person's hands is in doubt, the entities he touches are pure, as will be explained.

Both a person who was pure, but his hands contracted impurity and a person who immersed that day whose hands contracted impurity, impart impurity to ordinary liquids to cause them to be considered as primary derivatives of impurity that impart impurity to foods and liquids, as we explained. Since the fluids discharged by a person who immersed that day are governed by the same laws as the liquids he touches, if the saliva or the urine of a person who immersed that day falls on a loaf of bread that is terumah, it is pure, because the fluids are like the liquids that he touches.

From all the concepts that we have stated previously, it is possible to comprehend that a person may become a source of impurity and he may be a primary derivative of impurity according to Scriptural Law. A person will be considered as a secondary derivative only according to Rabbinic Law. This refers to one who partakes of impure foods or drinks impure beverages or one who inserts his head and the majority of his body into drawn water. In all of these instances, the person is a secondary derivative of impurity according to Rabbinic Law. Similarly, all types of keilim with the exception of earthenware containers can become primary sources of impurity or primary derivatives of impurity according to Scriptural Law. A k'li will be considered as a secondary derivative only according to Rabbinic Law; i.e., if it contracted impurity from impure liquids, it will be a secondary derivative according to Rabbinic Law, as we explained.

We already explained, that an earthenware container will never become a primary source of impurity, neither according to Scriptural Law, nor according to Rabbinic Law. It may become a primary derivative of impurity according to Scriptural Law and a secondary derivative according to Rabbinic Law if it contracted impurity from liquids, like other keilim. Neither persons, nor keilim ever become a third degree or a fourth degree derivative of impurity, neither according to Scriptural Law, nor according to Rabbinic Law.

Foods will never become a primary source of impurity, neither according to Scriptural Law, nor according to Rabbinic Law. They may become primary and secondary derivatives of impurity according to Scriptural Law. For if a person or k'li that is a primary derivative of impurity touches food, it causes it to be considered a secondary derivative. According to the Sages alone, foods may become third degree derivatives or fourth degree derivatives.

Liquids, e.g., the water on which the ashes of the red heifer have been sprinkled or the saliva or urine of a zav, may become primary sources of impurity according to Scriptural Law. And they may become primary derivatives of impurity according to Scriptural Law, e.g., if they touched a primary source of impurity. Similarly, if liquids touched a derivative of impurity - whether a person or a k'li - they contract impurity according to Scriptural Law and are considered as primary derivatives to impart impurity to other entities according to Rabbinic decree. Similarly, if liquids touched a secondary derivative of impurity - whether a person, a k'li, or foods, they are considered as primary derivatives to impart impurity to other entities according to Rabbinic decree, as we explained. Similarly, liquids can become third degree derivatives or fourth degree derivatives according to Rabbinic decree. What is implied? If a person who immersed that day touches a liquid that is terumah, he causes it to be considered a third degree derivative. If he touches a consecrated liquid, he causes it to be considered a fourth degree derivative. There is no concept of a liquid being considered as a secondary derivative or indeed, anything other than a primary derivative except liquids touched by or fluids discharged by a person who immersed that day or one who is lacking atonement with regard to consecrated liquids, in which instance, he disqualifies them, but does not make them impure, as we explained.

Whenever the term "disqualified" is used with regard to foods, the intent is that the food itself is considered as impure, but it does not impart impurity to other similar foods. Instead, if it touches another food, it is pure.

With regard to ordinary foods, a primary derivative of impurity contracts impurity and imparts impurity to others. A secondary derivative is disqualified, but does not impart impurity, for a secondary derivative does not create a tertiary derivative with regard to ordinary food. What is the source that teaches that ordinary food which is a secondary derivative is disqualified? Leviticus 11:33 states: "Whenever one of them falls into its inner space, everything in its inner space contracts impurity." Now, a carcass of a crawling animal is a primary source of impurity. The earthenware container into whose inner space it falls is a primary derivative of impurity. Thus the food in the container is a secondary derivative and yet Scripture calls it impure. Similarly, if the carcass of a crawling animal falls into an oven, bread in the oven is a secondary derivative, for the oven is a primary derivative.

With regard to terumah, primary and secondary derivatives of impurity contract impurity and impart impurity. A tertiary derivative is disqualified, but does not impart impurity, for a tertiary derivative does not create a derivative of the fourth degree with regard to terumah. What is the source that teaches that food that is terumah which is a tertiary derivative is disqualified? Leviticus 22:7 states: "And the sun will set and he will become pure. Afterwards, he shall partake of consecrated food." Thus a person who immersed that day is forbidden to partake of terumah until nightfall. If he touches it, he disqualifies it. A person who immerses is like a secondary derivative. Thus one can conclude a secondary derivative makes a tertiary derivative with regard to terumah.

With regard to consecrated food, primary, secondary, and tertiary derivatives contract impurity and impart impurity. A derivative to the fourth degree is disqualified, but does not impart impurity, for a derivative to the fourth degree does not ever create a derivative to the fifth degree. What is the source that teaches that a tertiary derivative is impure with regard to consecrated foods? Leviticus 7:19 states: "Meat that touches anything that is impure shall not be eaten." And Scripture has already referred to a secondary derivative of impurity as "impure," as stated: "Everything in its inner space contracts impurity." Thus one can conclude that consecrated meat that touches a secondary derivative contracts impurity and must be burnt. What is the source that teaches that a fourth degree derivative disqualifies consecrated foods? It is derived through an inference from a more lenient matter to a more stringent one: A person who is lacking atonement is permitted to partake of terumah, but is forbidden to partake of sacrificial food until he brings the offerings that secure atonement for him. If so, should not a tertiary derivative of impurity which disqualifies terumah cause a derivative to the fourth degree to become impure? Nevertheless, a fifth degree derivative is pure.

Even though ordinary meat is pure, our Sages decreed that it should be considered as a tertiary derivative of impurity and convey impurity to sacrificial food. It does not impart impurity to terumah. It appears to me that the Sages enforced their decree against it solely so that ordinary meat not become mixed with sacrificial meat. Were that to happen, an error could be made and inadvertently, one might think that the meat is ordinary and eat it while he is impure, although in truth it is consecrated.

When foods are joined together by liquid, they are considered as joined with regard to contracting the impurity associated with foods. There is an unresolved question if they are considered as a single entity from which to count primary, secondary, and tertiary derivatives or the food that was touched by the impurity is a primary derivative and the food that is joined to it as a secondary derivative.

Impure food that is a secondary derivative disqualifies food that is terumah and causes it to be considered as a tertiary derivative. If it touches ordinary liquids, it imparts impurity to them. Needless to say, if it touches liquids that are terumah or consecrated, it imparts impurity to the entire quantity.

Terumah that is a tertiary derivative of impurity that touched consecrated food disqualifies it and causes it to be considered as a fourth degree derivative. If it touches consecrated liquids, it imparts impurity to them and causes them to be considered as primary derivatives. If, however, terumah that is a tertiary derivative touches a liquid that is terumah, it is pure. Similarly, if consecrated food that is a fourth degree derivative touches a consecrated liquid, it is pure.

When ordinary food is prepared with the stringencies of terumah, if it becomes a tertiary derivative, it is disqualified, as is true with regard to terumah. Nevertheless, if such food touches consecrated food, it does not cause it to be considered as a fourth degree derivative. It does not even disqualify consecrated liquids. When ordinary food is prepared with the stringencies of consecrated food, a tertiary derivative is pure like ordinary food.

A person who partakes of consecrated food that is a fourth degree derivative of impurity is forbidden to partake of other consecrated foods. He is permitted to touch consecrated foods and does not disqualify them. Even when there is cooked food in which consecrated food was mixed, but there is less than an olive-sized portion of consecrated food in a mixture the size of half a loaf of bread, a person who partook of consecrated food that was a fourth degree derivative of impurity should not partake of this mixture. It may be eaten only by one who partook of consecrated food that was removed from impurity by the fifth degree. For he is pure, as we explained.

When a person partakes of terumah or ordinary food prepared with the stringencies of terumah that was a tertiary derivative of impurity, he is forbidden to partake of terumah until he immerses himself in a mikveh. He is permitted to touch terumah, and if he does, it is ritually pure. The Sages imposed a stringency with regard to eating, not with regard to touching. When does the above apply? To terumah itself. If, however, terumah was mixed into cooked food and there is less than an olive-sized portion of terumah in a mixture the size of half a loaf of bread, such a person is permitted to partake of the mixture, just as he is permitted to touch terumah.

Although a person who partakes of terumah or ordinary food prepared with the stringencies of terumah that was a tertiary derivative of impurity is considered as pure with regard to touching terumah, he is considered as a secondary derivative with regard to consecrated foods. For something that is pure with regard to terumah is impure with regard to consecrated food. When, by contrast, one partakes of ordinary food prepared with the stringencies of consecrated food that was a tertiary derivative of impurity, he is pure. There is nothing that creates a fourth degree derivative of impurity with regard to consecrated foods except consecrated food itself.

The term "consecrated food" employed with regard to the impurity of foods and liquids refers to sacrificial foods, e.g., meat from sacrifices of the highest order of sanctity, meat from sacrifices of a lesser degree of sanctity, bread from a thanksgiving offering and cakes of a nazirite's offering for which their sacrifice was slaughtered, flour offerings that were sanctified in a consecrated vessel, the two loaves offered on Shavuot and the showbreads when their surface became hardened in the oven. By contrast, the loaves of the thanksgiving offerings and the cakes of nazirite's offering for which their sacrifice was not slaughtered and flour offerings that were not sanctified in a consecrated vessel are not considered as consecrated food, nor as ordinary food. Instead, their status is the same as terumah.

Challah, the first-fruits, restitution made for terumah and the additional fifth are considered as terumah.

Tevel, a mixture of ordinary produce and terumah, produce that grew from terumah that was planted, the second and first tithes, and a dough from which challah had not yet been separated are considered like ordinary produce. A primary derivative is impure. A secondary derivative is disqualified and there is no concept of a tertiary derivative.

Our Sages decreed that whenever an entity would impart impurity to ordinary food according to Scriptural Law if one was certain that they came into contact, when one is in doubt whether it came into contact with dough from which challah was taken, that dough should be prepared in a state of ritual purity. Challah is separated from it, but its status is held in abeyance. It is neither eaten, nor burnt.

Our Sages established eleven stringencies applying to consecrated foods that do not apply to terumah. They are the following: A person may immerse keilim inside other keilim to use for terumah, but not those to be used for consecrated foods. This is a decree lest the opening of the container be narrow and not be as wide as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch. Thus the keilim inside of it would be considered as if they were immersed in the waters of the k'li and not in the waters of the mikveh. When does the above apply? When the large container in which the small impure keilim were placed was pure. If, however, it was impure, since the immersion is valid for it, it is also valid for the keilim inside of it, even though they were to be used for consecrated foods.

When the outer surface of a container contracted impurity because it touched liquids, its inner space does not become impure, nor does the fingerhold on its rim. Any liquids in its inner space or on its fingerhold are pure. One may drink from it. There is no need to worry that the liquids in his mouth will touch the outer surface of the container and then flow back in, causing its inner space to become impure. With regard to what does the above apply? To containers used for terumah. If, by contrast, they are used for consecrated foods, when the outer surface becomes impure, the k'li becomes impure in its totality.

When a person carries an article on which a zav had been supported, he is permitted to carry terumah together with it. Since the person carrying the support is not touching the terumah and the terumah is not touching the support, the terumah is pure. This leniency does not apply to consecrated foods. An incident occurred with a person who was carrying a jug of consecrated wine and he caused it to contract impurity because of an impure support he was carrying with it. At that time, the Sages decreed that one who carries such a support should not carry consecrated food. The decree was only instituted with regard to carrying such a support with consecrated food, as in the incident that occurred. If the person transgressed and carried the two together, since the support did not touch the consecrated food, the consecrated food is pure.

The clothes of people who partake of terumah, even though they are pure and they are careful not to contract impurity, are considered as the support of a zav with regard to consecrated foods.

When a k'li is made up of several component parts and its surfaces and beams are tied together, e.g., a bed or the like, if it contracts impurity and must be immersed for terumah, it may be immersed in its entirety, as one entity, while tied together. If it must be immersed for consecrated foods, he must untie all the component parts, wipe each of them down, lest there be an intervening substance upon them and immerse them one by one. Afterwards, he may retie them.

When the fashioning of utensils is completed in a state of purity, even if the one fashioning them is a Torah scholar who was scrupulous in keeping them pure, they must be immersed before they are used for consecrated food. It is not, however, necessary to wait until nightfall. For terumah, however, they may be used without being immersed, because they were fashioned in a state of purity. Why did the Sages require that such a k'li be immersed before being used for consecrated food? This is a decree, lest the spittle of an unlearned person have touched it while it was being fashioned and was still moist when it was completed.

Everything inside of a container is considered as joined with regard to consecrated food, but not with regard to terumah. What is implied? When there is a container filled with fruits that are separate from each other, e.g., raisins and dried figs, if a source of impurity touches one of them, everything that is in the container is impure with regard to consecrated foods, but not with regard to terumah. All of these stringencies are Rabbinic in origin. There is, however, an allusion to this stringency in the Torah. Numbers 7:14 states: "One golden ladle, weighing ten shekalim, filled with incense." Our Sages said: Everything that is in the ladle is considered as one entity. Even if a k'li does not have a hollow space, everything that is upon it is considered as joined together with regard to consecrated foods. For example, figs were collected on a board or on a hide; even though they are not touching each other, they are considered as a single entity.

The following rules apply when there were two masses within a container, another entity separating them from each other, and one of the masses becomes impure. If the entity between them is required by the container, everything is joined together and it all becomes impure. If it is not required by the container, only the mass that was touched by the impurity contracts impurity.

If there were two masses in a container and one mass was connected to water that was behind the container, should an impure person touch the second mass, they both contract impurity, because they are joined by the container. Moreover, even though it is behind the container, the water that is behind the container becomes impure, because of the food that is connected to it. If an impure person touched the water that is behind the container, the food that is connected to it contracts impurity. There is an unresolved question whether the other mass of food becomes impure because it is considered joined by the container or it is not considered as impure although it is joined.

When consecrated food that became impure was placed in a container which also held other consecrated food that was pure, as long as they do not touch each other, the one that is pure remains pure and the one that is impure remains impure. If a person who immersed that day comes and touches the impure food, an unresolved doubt arises: Does the principle that a container joins the masses it holds cause the pure food to become disqualified because the impure food was touched by the person who immersed or is it not disqualified, because the person who immersed only touched food that had already been saturated with impurity and he did not add anything else to it.

Consecrated food that is a fourth degree derivative of impurity is disqualified, but if it were terumah it would be pure. Similarly, if terumah that was a tertiary derivative touched a consecrated liquid, it contracts impurity, as we explained. When, by contrast, terumah or consecrated food that is a tertiary derivative touched a liquid that is terumah, it is not disqualified.

When one of a person's hands contracted impurity and he then touched his other hand or the hand of another person, he disqualified the other hand and it is considered as a tertiary derivative. If his hand was moist with liquid, the other hand contracts impurity even if it was not touched. He must immerse both of them in a mikveh. Only afterwards may he touch consecrated food. With regard to terumah, by contrast, if one of his hands contracts impurity, the other does not, even if he touched it, provided the first was dry. He need not immerse the hand that contracted impurity. It is sufficient to wash it in the ritual manner. He may then touch terumah.

Dry foods that have not become susceptible to contract impurity may be eaten with impure hands. With regard to what does the above apply? To terumah. With regard to consecrated food, by contrast, the cherished quality of consecrated food causes it to be considered as susceptible to impurity and it is forbidden for someone whose hands are impure to eat consecrated food even if it was not made susceptible to impurity by contact with liquids. Even if the person with impure hands did not actually touch the consecrated food with his hands, only with a weaving needle or his friend inserted it into his mouth, this is forbidden. Needless to say, if a source of impurity touched consecrated food that was not made susceptible to impurity by contact with liquids, it becomes impure, because the cherished quality of consecrated food causes it to be considered as susceptible to impurity.

In which instances does the above principle apply? With regard to disqualifying the food itself and to cause it to become forbidden to be eaten. There is, however, an unresolved question with regard to counting primary or secondary derivatives if other entities come in contact with such consecrated food. What is implied? If consecrated food contracted impurity without being made susceptible to impurity by contact with liquids with other food that was made susceptible to impurity by contact with liquids, there is an unresolved doubt, because the first food had not become susceptible to impurity because of contact with liquids.

Even after a mourner's period of acute mourning ends or after a person who was lacking atonement brings the sacrifices that bring him atonement, he must immerse in a mikveh before partaking of consecrated food, but not before partaking of terumah. For a person in a state of acute mourning and one who is lacking atonement may partake of terumah. Why did the Sages require immersion before partaking of consecrated food? Because until this time, such individuals were forbidden to partake of consecrated food. Hence it is possible that they diverted their attention from their bodies and contracted impurity without knowing of it. This stringency was imposed only with regard to eating, but not with regard to touching. Such individuals may touch consecrated foods before immersion.

The first six stringencies were imposed both with regard to consecrated foods and with regard to ordinary foods prepared with the stringencies of consecrated foods. The last five stringencies, beginning with "everything inside a utensil is considered as joined" applies only to consecrated food alone, but not to ordinary foods prepared with the stringencies of consecrated foods. With regard to these five matters, such food is considered as ordinary food. Therefore, with regard to ordinary foods prepared with the stringencies of consecrated foods, a primary derivative is impure, a secondary derivative disqualified, and a tertiary derivative is pure with regard to ordinary foods, as we explained.

Our Sages established five categories with regard to the ritual purity of clothes. They are the following: a) The clothes of an unlearned person are considered as a midras, an article on which a zav had been supported, for people who partake of ordinary food in a state of purity. Similarly, the unlearned people themselves are considered as zavvim with regard to pure substances, as we explained. b) The clothes of people who partake of ordinary food in a state of purity are considered as a midras for those who partake of the second tithe. The people who partake of ordinary food in a state of purity themselves - they are called perushim - are not considered as zavvim. Even with regard to terumah, a perush is considered pure, even if he touches terumah with his hands. c) The clothes of people who partake of the second tithe are considered as a midras for those who partake of terumah. d) The clothes of people who partake of terumah are considered as a midras for those who partake of consecrated food. The people who partake of terumah themselves are, however, not considered as zavvim with regard to consecrated articles. e) The clothes of those who partake of consecrated foods are considered as a midras with regard to the offering of the red heifer, as explained in Hilchot Parah Adumah. A person who is pure with regard to consecrated foods is not considered as a zav with regard to the offering of the red heifer.

Similarly, our Sages established categories with regard to ritual immersion: What is implied? If someone immersed himself without any intent, he is pure with regard to ordinary food, but he is forbidden to partake of the second tithe until he had the intent to immerse for the sake of the second tithe. If he immersed for the second tithe, he is assumed to be pure for the second tithe, but forbidden to partake of terumah. If he immersed for terumah, he is assumed to be pure for terumah, but forbidden to partake of consecrated foods. If he immersed for consecrated food, he is assumed to be pure for consecrated food, but forbidden to participate in the offering of the red heifer. If he immersed with the intent of participating in the offering of the red heifer, he is assumed to be pure for everything, for one who immerses for the sake of a more stringent circumstance is considered acceptable for a more lenient one. If a person immersed without any intent, i.e., without thinking of any of these situations, he is pure only with regard to ordinary food and is considered impure as he was previously, even for the second tithe. Similarly, when a person washes his hands or immerses them, he must focus his attention, even if he desires only to partake of the second tithe. From that tithe and any level of sanctity higher, one must focus his intent. For ordinary food, however, it is not necessary for him to focus his intent. All of these stringencies originate in Rabbinic Law. According to Scriptural Law, since the person immersed himself, he is pure with regard to all matters.

When a person who was pure with regard to terumah diverted his attention from partaking of it, the diversion of attention causes him to contract impurity. He is forbidden to partake of terumah until he immerses himself a second time. He need not, however, wait until nightfall. If his hands were pure for terumah, but he diverted his attention from eating, even though he says: "I know that my hands did not contract impurity," his hands are impure because of his diversion of attention, for hands are busy. If this applies with regard to terumah, it can be inferred that the same principles apply with regard to consecrated food. Anyone who diverts his attention must immerse himself. When a person did not guard himself from the impurity associated with a human corpse, if he is not certain that he did not contract impurity, he must have the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled on him on the third and seventh days after the doubt arouse, because of his diversion of attention. If he is certain that he did not contract the impurity associated with a corpse, but diverted his attention from other forms of impurity, he must immerse himself and wait until nightfall even for terumah. It is clear that all these immersions are Rabbinic safeguards.

Similarly, our Sages decreed that keilim that are discovered in marketplaces and streets - even in deserts - should be assumed to be impure, lest they have contracted impurity from a corpse or a zav. Similarly, saliva found in such places is considered to be impure, lest it be the saliva of a zav or the like.

All of the keilim found in Jerusalem are pure even if they were found on the way descending to a place of immersion. For the Sages did not institute a decree concerning keilim found in Jerusalem with the exception of knives for the slaughter of sacrificial animals. This was instituted because of the severity involving sacrificial animals. When does the above stringency apply? To knives found in Jerusalem throughout the year. If, however, one finds a knife in Jerusalem on the fourteenth of Nisan, one may slaughter sacrificial animals with it immediately. This applies even if the fourteenth of Nisan fell on the Sabbath, for no decree was made with regard to knives found on that day. Similarly, if a knife was found on a festival, one may slaughter with it immediately. For it is assumed that all keilim are pure on the festivals.

If one found a knife on the thirteenth of Nisan, the ashes of the red heifer should be sprinkled on it, it should be immersed, and one may slaughter with it on the following day. For, on this day, our Sages considered it as if the thirteenth of Nisan was the seventh day of its purification with the ashes of the red heifer.

If one finds a knife tied to a knife whose status he knows, whether on a festival or on other days, its status is the same as that knife. If the one is pure, it is pure; if it is impure, it is impure.

Our Sages decreed that any saliva of unknown origin found in the middle of the road in Jerusalem is impure like saliva of unknown origin found anywhere. Any saliva found on the side of the road in Jerusalem is pure, for the perushim walk on the sides so that they will not contract impurity through contact with unlearned people. During the festivals, the converse is true. Saliva in the middle of the road is pure, for all Israel are pure during the festivals. At the side of the road, it is impure. For there are few individuals who are impure during the festivals, and they move to the sides.

Just like a primary derivative of impurity creates a secondary derivative and a secondary derivative creates a tertiary derivative, when there is an unresolved doubt that an entity is a primary derivative it creates a secondary derivative of doubtful status, and a secondary derivative of doubtful status creates a tertiary derivative of doubtful status.

When there is a question whether terumah or consecrated food contracted impurity from a primary source of impurity of Scriptural origin - there is a question if the foods touched the impurity or not - they should be burnt because of this impurity.

There are situations where there is a question about a food's status for which the ruling is held in abeyance; they are not eaten, nor are they burnt. And there are other questionable situations that warrant the burning of terumah and, needless to say, consecrated foods.

If, however, there is a compounded doubt concerning the impurity of terumah - and needless to say, of consecrated food - they should not be burnt. Instead, the ruling concerning them is held in abeyance. They are not eaten, nor are they burnt.

There are six doubtful situations for which terumah is burnt. These are all Rabbinic decrees: a) a beit hapras, b) earth from the Diaspora, c) the clothes of unlearned people, d) keilim that are discovered, e) saliva of unknown origin that is discovered, and f) the urine of an impure person that became mixed with an equal amount of urine from an animal and it is not known whether the appearance of the mixture was that of a person's urine was nullified or whether that appearance was nullified. What is implied? If terumah contracted impurity due to contact with one of these entities, even though the fundamental dimension of their impurity is doubtful, the terumah should be burnt. The rationale is that were one certain that any of these impurities were present, the impurity would be Scriptural in nature, for a corpse and a zav are Scriptural sources of impurity. Whether terumah touched one of these six entities or contracted impurity due to one of these entities and thus it is a tertiary derivative from them, the terumah should be burnt. If, however, there is a question whether or not the entity touched the beit hapras, the earth of the nations, or if it touched the garments, the saliva, the keilim, or the urine, the ruling concerning the terumah is held in abeyance. The rationale is that a) the fundamental dimension of their impurity is doubtful, perhaps it is impure, perhaps it is pure; and b) even if you say they are impure, it is possible that there was contact with the terumah, but it is possible that there was no contact. Thus two unresolved questions are involved. When there are two unresolved questions, terumah is not burnt, the ruling concerning it is held in abeyance, as explained.

Our Sages deemed that twelve questionable situations are deemed as pure: They are: a) A doubt concerning drawn water in a mikveh, b) a doubt concerning impurity floating on water, c) a doubt whether liquids imparted impurity to other entities; with regard to their own status, however, they are considered impure when a doubt arises, d) a doubt concerning the impurity of hands whether regarding the impurity of the hands themselves, such hands imparting impurity to other substances, or a doubt regarding the purification of such hands from this impurity, e) a doubt concerning impurity of Rabbinic origin, f) a doubt concerning ordinary food prepared with the stringencies of consecrated food, g) a doubt concerning sacrifices that are required to be brought, h) a doubt concerning tzara'at blemishes, i) a doubt when a person afflicted with tzara'at stood still or passed, j) a doubt concerning the carcass of a creeping animal, k) a doubt that arose in the public domain, l) a doubt concerning two domains.

What is meant by the principle: a doubt concerning drawn water in a mikveh? Three lugim of drawn water that fall into a mikveh disqualify it. If there is a doubt whether or not such water fell into a mikveh or even if it is certain that the water fell, but there is a question whether the minimum measure was present or not, we consider an article immersed in the mikveh as pure and the mikveh as acceptable. Nevertheless, a person should not be instructed to immerse in such a mikveh and to be involved with pure substances as an initial preference. If he immersed and was involved with pure substances, they are considered to be pure.

What is meant by the principle: a doubt concerning impurity floating on water? There was a carcass of a creeping animal floating on water, whether the water was in a container or in a pool in the earth and a person descended into the water, unless he is certain that he touched the carcass, he is considered as pure. This applies even if there is no space for anything in the container or the pool but the person and the impurity. The principle, a doubt concerning impurity floating on water is pure, was stated only concerning a carcass of creeping animal. If the carcass of a creeping animal is suspended from above and floating on water or is being dragged over water, it is considered as being placed down and not as floating.

When the carcass of a creeping animal is placed in a container and the container is floating on the surface of water or it was placed on a human corpse, an animal carcass - even if the carcass or the corpse below it has decomposed - or semen that is floating on the water, it is considered as if it was placed on the earth, in which instance, a doubtful situation that arises in a private domain is considered as impure, as will be explained. If the carcass of one creeping animal was lying on that of another creeping animal that was floating on water, it is considered as thick impurity and a doubtful situation that arises is considered as pure. There is an unresolved doubt whether the carcass of a creeping animal that was floating on water on which the ashes of the red heifer had been sprinkled which in turn was floating on other water is considered as placed down on the earth or not. Therefore it appears to me that the doubtful situation is considered as pure.

Just as our Sages deemed a doubtful situation concerning impurity that was floating on water, whether in a container or on the earth, as pure, so too, they deemed as pure a situation involving something pure that was floating on water, whether in a container or on the earth. What is implied? There was a kneading trough that was impure due to contact with a human corpse and there was a loaf of bread that was terumah wrapped in tree-bast or in paper placed inside of it. Water descended into the kneading trough and filled it. The paper spread out and thus the loaf was floating on the water with the paper separating between it and the water. If there is a question whether or not the loaf touched the side of the kneading trough, it is considered as pure, because it is floating.

The following laws apply when the carcass of a creeping animal was floating on a cistern in a winepress. With regard to terumah, when there is a doubt, it is deemed impure. With regard to the workers, when there is a doubt, it is deemed pure, because the impurity is floating.

When a doubt arises whether liquids imparted impurity to other entities, they are considered as pure. With regard to their own status, however, they are considered impure. What is implied? A person was holding a staff that contained impure liquids on its top and he threw it among pure loaves of bread. If there is a doubt whether the liquids touched the loaves or not, they are deemed pure. Similarly, if a doubt arose whether impure liquids touched a given container or not, the container is pure. Similarly, if a doubt arose if these impure liquids touched other liquids or not, the other liquids are pure. If, however, an impure person extended his hand or his foot into a place where there are pure liquids and there is a doubt whether or not he touched the liquids, they are impure because of the doubt. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

The following rule applies when there was a jug that was filled with liquids and an impure person extended his hand into its inner space. If there is a doubt whether or not he touched the liquids, the liquids are impure, but the jug is pure, for liquids whose purity is of a doubtful status do not impart impurity. Similarly, if liquids which are questionably impure enter into the inner space of a jug, the jug is pure and the liquids in it are pure, for they contract impurity only from the jug. If the liquids that were questionably impure became mixed with the liquids in the jug, all of the liquids are questionably impure, but the jug is pure. Similarly, if these liquids fall into an oven, any bread that is in the oven and the oven itself are pure.

When a person poured or sprinkled impure liquids in his house and there were ritually pure objects there, if there is a question whether some of the liquid sprayed on them or not, they are considered pure despite the doubt.

If one sprinkled both pure and impure liquids in a house and, afterwards, liquids were found on a loaf of bread that was terumah, should one take it and inquire about its status, it is deemed pure, for when there is a question whether liquids imparted impurity, the object is deemed pure. If, however, one left the bread until the water dried, it contracts impurity because of the doubt. For when there is a question concerning impurity in a private domain, the object is deemed impure, as will be explained. At the time the inquiry is being made, no liquids are present, only the loaf and there is a question whether it is pure or impure.

When there is a doubt concerning the impurity of hands whether regarding the impurity of the hands themselves, such hands imparting impurity to other substances, or a doubt regarding the purification of such hands from this impurity, the object in question is deemed pure. What is implied? If a person's hands were pure and there were two impure loaves before him, should a question arise whether he touched the loaves or not, the status of his hands and the loaves is the same as it was previously. This same ruling applies if: a) a person's hands were impure and there were two pure loaves before him and there is a question whether he touched the loaves or not; b) one of the person's hands was pure, the other was impure; there were two pure loaves before him, he touched one of them and it was unknown whether he touched it with the impure hand or the pure hand; c) both his hands were pure; there were two loaves before him, one pure and one impure; he touched one of them and he did not know whether he touched the one that was impure or the one that was pure; d) one of his hands was pure and one was impure and there was both an impure and a pure loaf before him; he touched both of them and he is unsure whether the impure hand touched the impure loaf and the pure hand, the pure loaf or whether the impure hand touched the pure loaf and the pure hand, the impure loaf. Similar concepts apply if a person's hands were impure and he immersed them in a mikveh or washed them in the ritual manner. If there is a doubt whether or not the water with which he purified them is acceptable for hands or unacceptable, whether or not the required measure of water was present, whether or not there was an intervening substance on his hands, his hands are considered as pure.

If one of a person's hands was impure and he did not know which one it was, he is instructed not to be involved with pure articles until he washes both his hands. If he touches pure objects with one hand before he washed them, the pure articles remain pure.

What is meant by a doubt concerning a point of Rabbinic Law? For example, if there is a doubt whether or not a person ate impure foods or drank impure liquids, or there is a doubt whether or not a person inserted his head and the majority of his body in drawn water or three lugim of drawn water fell upon him, he is pure. Similarly, if a person ate impure foods or drank impure liquids or inserted his head and the majority of his body in drawn water or had three lugim of drawn water fall upon him and then a question arose whether or not he touched particular pure entities, those pure entities remain pure. Similarly, if he ate foods that are questionably impure or drank liquids that are questionably impure, he is deemed pure. Similarly, one who partakes of terumah whose status is held in abeyance, is pure. Similarly, in all analogous situations where there is a question regarding the status of derivatives of impurity, the person or the object is deemed pure. If, however, there is a question regarding a source of impurity, even one of Rabbinic origin, the person or the object is deemed impure unless the source of impurity was itself of doubtful status, e.g., a beit hapras or the earth of the Diaspora. Terumah is not burned because of a doubt whether it touched such substances, as was explained.

What is meant by the principle: a doubt that arises regarding ordinary food, i.e., the purity of the food prepared by those who partake of ordinary foods in a state of purity, the people called perushim? When a question arises regarding the purity of the ordinary food that is treated as pure by people who partake of ordinary foods in a state of purity, the objects are deemed pure. This applies with regard to all questions that arise. Only when impurity is definite is it of consequence in such instances.

What is meant by the principle: a doubt that arises concerning sacrifices? If a person lacking atonement was in doubt regarding an obligation to bring five sacrifices, e.g., a woman who was in doubt regarding five situations that could have rendered her impure due to zivah or due to childbirth, she may bring only one sacrifice. Afterwards, she is pure with regard to partaking of sacrificial foods. The remainder of the offerings are not considered as obligations that must be fulfilled, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah.

What is meant by a doubt concerning tzara'at blemishes? Until a person is categorized as impure, with regard to all questions concerning his status, he is considered as pure, as explained in Hilchot Negayim, ch. 6.

What is meant by a doubt when a person afflicted with tzara'at stood still or passed? When a person afflicted with tzara'at was sitting under a tree, a person who was ritually pure passed by, and there was a question whether or not he passed under the tree, he is pure. This ruling also applies if a person who was ritually pure was sitting under a tree, a person afflicted with tzara'at passed under the tree, and there was a question whether or not he stood still.

What is meant by a doubt concerning the carcass of a creeping animal, i.e., a creeping animal that was thrown? One threw the carcass of a creeping animal or another impure entity among loaves of bread and, in both instances, when there is a question whether or not the pure loaf was touched by impurity, they are considered as pure. The rationale is that the status of all questions of ritual impurity depends on the situation at the time the matter is discovered. We do not say: Maybe it touched the pure or impure object and then fell to its side? Instead, the ruling is given according to its state when it was discovered.

When there was a carcass of a creeping animal in the mouth of a mole that was walking over loaves of bread that were terumah and there was a question whether or not the carcass touched the loaves, it is pure, because the impurity did not come to rest. If the mole was walking on the loaves and touching them with the teeming animal, but there was a question whether or not it was alive, the loaves are pure. When does the above apply? When the mole seized the creeping animal when it was alive and then departed. If, however, the creeping animal was discovered dead in the mole's mouth, the loaves are impure. If, however, it was seen to be alive while it was in the mole's mouth even though it was discovered dead in front of it afterwards, the loaves are pure. Similarly, when there is a carcass of a creeping animal in the mouth of a mole and the carcass of an animal in the mouth of a dog and they passed between pure substances or pure substances passed between them, the status of the pure substances does not change despite the question. This leniency is granted, because the impurity does not have a fixed place. If they were pecking with them on the ground, they are considered to have been placed in a fixed position and they impart impurity retroactively because of the doubt if they were located in a private domain, as will be explained.

What is meant by a doubt that arose in the public domain? When impurity was located in the public domain and there is a doubt whether a person or a substance touched it or not, it is considered to be pure. If such a situation arose in a private domain and there is a doubt whether a person or a substance touched it or not, it is considered to be impure. All of these questionable situations which the Sages ruled as pure are given that status even if the situation occurs in a private domain, because the objects involved do not have the knowledge to inquire regarding their status, as will be explained.

What is meant by a doubt involving two domains? An impure entity was located in a private domain and there was a pure entity in a public domain or vice versa and a person touched one of them, but did not know which one he touched, he is pure. The same ruling applies if he moved one of them and did not know which one he moved if the impure entity would impart impurity when carried or one of them would impart impurity when one holds a portion of his body over it and he held a portion of his body over one of them, but does not know which one. Even though this involves a doubt in the public domain, he is considered as pure. When he inquires about his status, we tell him: "If you immerse, you have not lost anything." If he immerses, it is praiseworthy. If he does not immerse and touches entities that are pure, they remain pure, because when there is a doubt in the public domain, the entity is considered as pure.

When the carcass of a creeping animal that was burnt was found on food, or a garment that was worn out or a needle that was broken or rusty was found among keilim, the keilim are pure. This applies whether they are found in a public domain or a private domain. We do not say, perhaps the carcass was burnt only after it came into contact with the foods or after the keilim contracted ritual impurity because of contact with the garment or the needle, the needle broke or became rusty and the garment became worn out. For we follow the principle: the status of all questions of ritual impurity depends on the situation at the time the matter is discovered.

The following rules apply when two witnesses tell a person: "You contracted impurity," and he says: "I am pure.' His word is accepted with regard to his own status. Nevertheless, we do not tell him to involve himself with pure articles, but if he did involve himself with pure articles, they are pure, but he should take his own precautions. If one witness says: "He became impure," and two witnesses state: "He did not become impure," whether this occurred in a public domain or a private domain, he is pure. If two witnesses say: "He became impure," and one witness states: "He did not become impure," whether this occurred in a public domain or a private domain, he is impure. When one witness says: "He became impure," and one witness states: "He did not become impure," if this occurred in a private domain, he is impure. If this occurred in a public domain, he is pure.

Why did the Sages rule that when there is a question of impurity in the public domain, the person should be considered pure? Because the community offers the Paschal sacrifice in a state of impurity when the majority of the people are impure. Now, if ritual impurity that was definitely established is superseded by the presence of the community, certainly this would apply to a mere question of the presence of impurity. For all stringencies observed because of doubt were instituted by the Sages, as we explained in Hilchot Bi'ot Assurot. Why did they rule stringently concerning a doubt in a private domain? For in the instance of a sotah who entered into privacy with the person concerning whom she was warned, even though there is only a doubt that she committed adultery, she is considered as impure with regard to her husband until she drinks the sotah waters.

Just as a sotah and the person suspected of relations with her are two, so too, when there are questions of impurity that involve two individuals, it is assumed that the person or the article is not pure. If, however, there are three people in a private domain, when there is a question concerning impurity that occurs there, it is assumed that the person or the article is pure, as if the question arose in the public domain. When does the above apply? When the person who could have contracted impurity has the knowledge to be asked and be examined regarding the details that occurred, as is true with regard to a sotah. When, however, there is a deafmute, an emotionally or intellectually compromised person, or a minor who does not know the details and is unable to respond to questions that are asked involved in a private domain, if a doubtful situation arises, it is assumed that the person or the article is pure. What is implied? When a deafmute, an emotionally or intellectually compromised person, or a minor who does not know how to respond to questions are found in a courtyard or an alley where there is impurity and there is a question whether or not they came in contact with it, they are considered as pure. Similarly, in all instances where no one has the knowledge to respond to questions, even though the question arises in a private domain, they are considered as pure.

When a person is blind, sleeping, or walking at night, if there is a question whether or not they contracted impurity in a private domain, they are impure, because they have the knowledge to respond to questions. When do we apply the principle that whenever there is a question involving one who does not have the knowledge to respond to questions, it is assumed that the person or the article is pure? When the possibilities are equally balanced and there is no established presumption regarding its status. If, however, it is known that, in a given situation, one could be assumed to have contracted impurity, he is considered impure. What is implied? An impure child was standing next to some dough and there was also dough on his hand, the dough is deemed impure, for a child's habit is to pat dough and it can be assumed that he did so. Nevertheless, terumah should not be burnt because of this assumption.

When impure liquids, a pure dough that is terumah, and domesticated animals, beasts, or fowl were all located in the same place, and teeth marks were found in the dough, it is presumed that the animals drank the liquids and then bit the dough and thus imparted impurity to it. If a cow was there and the distance between the liquids and the dough was sufficient for the cow to wipe its tongue on its lips, the dough is pure. The same principle applies with regard to other animals if there was enough place for the animals to dry their mouths with their tongues. If there is less space than this, the dough is impure. If a dog was there, the dough is pure even if it is located next to the liquids, for it is not the habit of a dog to leave food and go to water. The following laws apply if there are signs of chickens pecking at the dough. If there is enough space between the liquids and the dough for them to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is pure. If not, it is not, for it can be assumed that they drank and pecked at the dough while the liquids were still in their mouths. When does the above apply? When the water is clear enough for a child's shadow to be recognized in them. If, however, the water was murky, the dough is pure, because if the chickens pecked with the liquids, the marks of the liquid would be observable in the dough. If the liquid was clear, although the dough is assumed to be impure, it should not be burnt due to this assumption. Instead, the determination of its status is held in abeyance.

What is an example of a presumption due to which terumah is burnt when a question of impurity arises in a private domain? There is a dough in a house, both creeping animals and frogs are becoming stuck in it, and pieces of their flesh was found in the dough. If most of those becoming stuck in the dough are creeping animals, the dough is deemed impure and should be burnt. If the majority are frogs, it is deemed as pure.

The following rules apply when there were pure substances next to or above sources of impurity and when a person clothed himself in his garment, a question arose whether it touched the impurity and the pure substances or not. If this took place in a private domain, it is deemed impure because of the doubt, because when there is a question of impurity that arises due to human activity, they can be questioned concerning it. Even if there is a k'li placed on the ground, it is considered as if there is someone to be questioned about it. If the pure substances and the source of impurity were in a public domain and a question arises, the substances are deemed pure. If it is impossible that the garment did not touch both of them, even though there is some doubt, the substances are deemed impure.

When a loaf of bread that is terumah is positioned on a board and a support that contracted impurity from a zav is positioned below it in a manner in which it is impossible for the loaf to fall without touching the support, even though the support is inclined, should one find the loaf in another place, its status of purity remains unchanged, for it is possible to say that another person came, took it, and put it in that place. If one can say: "I am certain that no person came here," it is impure, because it certainly fell and touched the support when it fell.

When a child is found standing next to a cemetery holding roses, even when there are roses only in the place of impurity, he is pure because there is a doubt; it is possible that another person gathered them and gave them to him. Similarly, when a donkey is standing in a cemetery, the keilim on him are pure. We do not say that he pressed himself against them when lying on the ground and touched a grave while doing so. The rationale for both instances is that the child and the donkey do not have the knowledge to respond to questions. Hence, we follow the principle that all questions of impurity are judged according to the circumstances at the time that they were discovered.

When a child was holding his father's hand or was riding on his father's shoulders, he is deemed impure with regard to any question concerning ritual impurity that arises in a private domain, for his father could be asked with regard to his status.

There are four questionable situations that our Sages discussed with regard to a child: a) When a child cannot walk and his mother placed him down in one place and found him as he was in that place, he is pure. We do not say that perhaps an impure woman came and kissed him and hugged him. b) When the child matured to the extent that he began to leave one domain and enter others on his own, his clothes are pure. They are not considered as a midras as are the clothes of unlearned people. Nevertheless, as an initial preference, they should not be brought into contact with pure entities. c) If he matured to the extent that he has the knowledge to answer questions, in a private domain, whenever there is a doubt whether he contracted impurity, he is considered as impure. d) If he matured to the extent that he has the knowledge to guard his body from contracting impurity, one may partake of pure foods that touched his body. If he has the knowledge to guard his hands, pure foods that touched them may be eaten. How do we check him? He is immersed and given ordinary food which he is told to treat as terumah. If he has the knowledge to guard his body, one may partake of pure foods that touched his body. If he has the knowledge to guard his hands, pure foods that touched them may be eaten.

When there is an olive-sized portion of a human corpse in the mouth of a raven and there is a doubt whether or not it flew over a person or keilim in a private domain, the person is impure because of the doubt, provided he has the knowledge to respond to questions. The keilim are pure, because they do not have the capacity to respond to questions. Similarly, when a person was drawing water with one container and pouring it into ten others and the carcass of a creeping animal was found in one of the ten, that container is impure and the others are pure. Although there is a question whether they are all impure, for perhaps the the carcass of the creeping animal had been in the container used to draw water, we rule leniently, because keilim are involved and they do not have the capacity to respond to questions. If the container with which he drew the water possessed a rim, since it is possible for the water to have been poured out, but for the carcass of the creeping animal to have remained, they are all impure. Similarly, when one draws water with ten buckets, one after the other, and pours the water into ten containers, each bucket into a separate container, and it is not known which container was first and which was last, if the carcass of a creeping animal was found in one of them, the other nine containers and the ten buckets are pure, for one could say perhaps the carcass of the creeping animal was in the container originally. If the buckets have rims, all of the buckets and all of the containers are impure. When one pours from one container to another and the carcass of a creeping animal is found in the lower container, the upper container is pure. We do not say that it fell from the upper container. Instead, it is possible that it had been in the lower container. The rationale for this leniency is that keilim are involved and they do not have the capacity of responding to questions. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

The following laws apply when there was a container that was used for pure substances and the carcass of a creeping animal was found in it. If it has a base or it has a rim, even if it does not have a base, all of the pure substances that were contained in it are impure. This applies even if it was checked before the substances were placed in it and covered afterwards, lest the the carcass of the creeping animal fell there when he lifted up his hand after checking. Even if one used it for pure substances in one corner and then moved it to another corner and the carcass of the creeping animal was discovered inside, all the pure substances are impure. For the assumption that impurity was present in an article is not changed when that article is moved from place to place. All the above applies with regard to holding the status of the pure substances in abeyance, but not to burn them.

The following laws apply when a person draws liquids from a cistern and fills barrels from them. If he would immerse each and every barrel in the cistern to fill them and a carcass of a creeping animal was found in the first one, they are all impure. If it was found in the last one, it alone is impure and all the others are pure. The rationale is that we surmise that the creeping animal fell into the cistern after the first barrels were filled. If he was drawing the liquids with one container and pouring them into barrels until they were full and a carcass of a creeping animal was found in one of them, it alone is impure and all the others and the cistern are pure. The rationale is that it can be said that the carcass of the creeping animal fell into this one alone or it was there before the liquid was poured into it. Accordingly, if the person checked all the barrels, then poured wine into them, and covered them afterwards and the carcass of a creeping animal was found in one of them, they are all impure. Similarly, if the carcass of a creeping animal was found in the cistern or the container used to draw from it, everything is impure.

When one would gather olives from the pit in which they were stored and bring them up to a roof to dry, if the carcass of a creeping animal was found on the roof, the olives in the pit are pure. If it was found in the pit, the pit and the olives contained there are impure. If the carcass was found in the pit between the wall and the olives, the olives are pure. The following laws apply if the creeping animal was found in a mound of olives and the mound was on the roof. If this occurred within three days of the olives being placed there, the pit is also impure, for it can be said that the mound was taken from the pit with the creeping animal in it. If the creeping animal was found three days after the mound had been taken to the roof, the pit is pure, because maybe the olives became compressed and formed a mound within these three days.

When a person breaks off a piece of dough from a larger quantity and the carcass of a creeping animal was found on the smaller piece, that piece alone is impure. If the carcass was found in the larger dough, only that dough is impure. If it was found in the midst of the smaller portion of dough, even the larger portion is impure.

When the seed of an impure food was found in a loaf [of bread] or on hot food, [the loaf or the food] are impure, even if there is no liquid present on it. [The rationale is that] it can be said that the entire [piece of impure] food fell there, but was dissolved – in the loaf or the food because of the boiling – and only the seed remained. If the seed was found on top of a loaf or in the midst of cold food, [the loaf or the food] are pure, even if there is liquid present. [The rationale is that] it can be said that the seed alone fell into [the loaf or the food] after the [impure food] was removed from it and [the seed] does not impart impurity.

If there was pure food and impure food in a home and a seed was found inside a loaf of bread or in boiling food, the determination of its status is made according to the majority. Similarly, if there was pure blood and impure blood in a home and blood was found on food, the determination of its status is made according to the majority. An incident occurred with a loaf of bread that was terumah upon which blood was found. The incident was brought before the Sages and they ruled that the loaf was pure. For even if it could be said that the blood was that of a creeping animal, it is possible to say that it was the blood of a living creeping animal which is pure.

When there are carcasses of both animals that died without ritual slaughter and slaughtered animals in a city, if meat is found in the streets of the city, the determination of its status is made according to the majority. Similarly, if the carcass of an animal was found and there is a doubt whether it is a creeping animal or a frog, the determination of its status is made according to the majority of animals in that town at that time. This is the general principle: When a questionable entity is found, the determination of its status is made according to the majority.

When a woman was collecting fertilizer in a courtyard and the carcass of a creeping animal is found in the fertilizer, she is pure, because the carcass of a creeping animal does not impart impurity when carried. If it was found on top of the fertilizer, she is impure, for perhaps she touched it. If she was sifting kernels of grain with a sieve and the carcass of a creeping animal was found in the kernels in the sieve, she is pure. If it is found on top of the sieve, she is considered impure because of the doubt, for perhaps she touched it. We follow the principle: whenever a question of impurity arises in a private domain, the person or object in question is deemed impure, as we explained.

No matter to what degree doubts and compounded doubts are multiplied in a public domain, the person or object involved is pure. In a private domain, by contrast, he is impure. What is implied? If one entered an alley and there was impurity in the courtyard to which the alley led. If there was a question whether or not he entered the courtyard, he is impure because of the doubt, because an alley is considered a private domain. This same ruling applies if: a) there is impurity in a house and there is a doubt whether one entered the house or not, or b) even if one entered, but there was a doubt whether there was impurity there or not, or c) even if one would say that impurity was present when one entered, there is a doubt whether it comprises the required measure or not, or d) even if the substance certainly comprises the required measure, there is a doubt whether it is impure or not, or e) even if it is certainly impure, there is a doubt whether or not one touched it.

If there are nine carcasses of frogs and one carcass of a creeping animal in a private domain and a person touched one of the carcasses, but did not know which one, he is impure because of the doubt. If there are nine carcasses of creeping animals and one carcass of a frog in a public domain and a person touched one, he is pure despite the doubt. This is the general principle: Any time there is a question concerning impurity in the public domain, the person is pure unless he says: "I certainly contracted impurity." Any time there is such a question in a private domain, he is impure unless he says: "It is certain that I did not contract impurity." Accordingly, if there are bones from a human corpse and bones from an animal carcass in the public domain or clods of pure earth and clods of earth from a beit hapras or from the Diaspora and one touched or moved one of them, but does not know what he touched or moved, he is pure. This same ruling applies if there was an olive-sized portion from a human corpse and an olive-sized portion of an animal carcass and one held a portion of his body over one of them, but did not know over which one he held a portion of his body. And it applies if there are two paths, one pure and one impure, one walked down one of them, but did not know which one he walked down, he touched a person on the road, but did not know whether he was pure or impure, or there were two people, one impure and one pure, he touched one, but he did not know which one he touched.

The following laws apply when a person journeyed on a road and found a corpse lying across the width of the road. If it was intact and it extended from one side of the road to the other, he is impure with regard to terumah, for it can be assumed that he touched it. If he had space on either side to pass by or the corpse was dismembered and torn into pieces so that he could have passed between his hips and the other portions of his body, he is pure. If a grave extended over the entire width of the road, the entire corpse is considered as a single entity because of the grave, and one who passes over it is impure. This instance does not resemble other questionable situations. Instead, it is assumed that he touched the grave.

When the carcass of a creeping animal is found in an alley, it imparts impurity retroactively to all those who passed through until the time that one said: "I checked this alley on this and this day and there was no carcass of a creeping animal there." Even if the alley was swept, if it was not checked, it imparts impurity to those who passed through from before the time it was swept and afterwards. When does the above apply? When the carcass that was discovered was dry. If it was fresh, it does not impart impurity retroactively for that length of time, only for the length of time in which the animal could have died and remained as fresh as it was found.

The following laws apply when there were two spots of saliva in a private domain. One was pure and one was of unknown origin when discovered and hence, was decreed to be impure, as explained previously. If one touched or moved one of them, but does not know which, the status of terumah which he touches is held in abeyance, because a compounded doubt is involved: Perhaps he touched the saliva that was known to be pure and perhaps he touched the one that was found whose status was unknown. Even if he touched the one that was found, perhaps it was impure, but perhaps it was pure. Different laws apply if there were two spots of saliva in the public domain. If they were dry and deposited there and a person touched one of them, he is pure, despite the doubt. If he carried one of them, the status of articles he touches is held in abeyance. The rationale is that after he carried it up, it is no longer deposited in the public domain. Similarly, if one of them was moist and the moist saliva became attached to him, the status of articles he touches is held in abeyance, for since it is on his garment, we can no longer apply the principle: when something is deposited in the public domain, it is pure despite the doubt. We already explained that, in all situations, if one touched, carried, or moved saliva of unknown origin that is discovered, terumah should be burnt because of it, like a beit hapras, and the like, in which instances, terumah is burnt in all situations when one has definitely made contact.

The following laws apply when a person was sitting in the public domain and another person whose status is unknown came and trod on his garments or spat and the saliva touched the person who was sitting. Terumah which he touches is burnt because of the saliva. With regard to the status of his clothes, the determination is made based on the status of the majority of the town's inhabitants. If most are impure, his clothes are considered to have contracted midras impurity. If most are pure, he is pure.

When a person lost a k'li and discovered it in a private domain, it is considered to have contracted midras impurity and the impurity connected with a human corpse. If he found it in the public domain, it is pure, provided he lost it during the day and found it that day. If he lost it during the day and found it at night, lost it at night and found it during the day, or lost it during the day and found it on the following day, it is presumed to be impure. This is the general principle: Whenever the night - or a portion of it - passed while an article was lost, it is impure.

If a person deposited or forgot a k'li in the public domain, it is pure even when the night passed while it was there. If he deposited or forgot it in a private domain, it is considered to have contracted midras impurity, but not the impurity connected with a human corpse. Why did the Sages not rule as stringently with regard to one who deposited or forgot an article as they did with regard to one who lost an article? Because depositing or forgetting an article in the public domain is not that common a circumstance. Hence, they did not institute a decree concerning it.

When a person loses an article and finds it at home, it is pure, because it can be assumed to be protected.

When a person spreads utensils out in the public domain, they are pure. In a private domain, they are impure, lest impure people have touched them. If he was watching them, they are pure. If they fell and he went to get them, they are impure, because they went out of his sight. Similarly, if one lost his utensils in a private domain and found them, even that day, they are considered to have contracted midras impurity and the impurity connected with a human corpse, as we explained.

If there is one intellectually or emotionally compromised woman or gentile woman in a town, all of the saliva of unknown origin discovered in any place in the town is always considered as impure.

The following laws apply when a woman trod on the clothes of a person or sat with him on a small boat: If she recognizes him and knows that he partakes of terumah, his clothes are pure. If not, he should ask her concerning her state.

When a person slept in the public domain and arose, his garments are pure.

When a person touched another person in the public domain at night and did not know if he was alive or dead, but when he arose in the morning, he found him dead, he is impure, for the status of all questions of ritual impurity depends on the situation at the time the matter is discovered. If he saw him alive in the evening and, in the morning, discovered that he died, this is considered to be a doubt in the public domain, and he is pure.

The following rules apply when a person in a private domain is dangerously ill, he fainted, and it was not known whether he died or was still living; he was taken to the public domain and then brought back into a private domain. When he is in a private domain, any questionable situations brought about by his condition are considered impure. When he is in a public domain, any questionable situations brought about by his condition are considered pure. An incident occurred with a person who was sick and was carried from town to town in a bed. The people who carried him took turns. Ultimately, it was discovered that he had died, but the Sages ruled that only the last group of people who carried him was impure.

The following rules apply when an impure person was standing and speaking while at the edge of a cistern, a drop of saliva shot forth from his mouth, and there was a question whether or not it reached the cistern. If the cistern contained oil and was in a private domain, it is impure because of the doubt. If the cistern contained wine, it is pure in all places despite the doubt, because the border of the cistern will prevent it from entering.

The following rules apply when there are two paths, one impure and one pure, and a person walked down one of them, but he did not know which one he walked down. Afterwards, he came in contact with pure foods and they were eaten. He then had the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon himself on the third and seventh days, and then, immersed to purify himself. He then walked down the other path and came in contact with pure foods. Those foods are considered as pure. If the foods he touched first still exist, the status of both is held in abeyance. The rationale is that one of the sets of pure food is definitely impure. If the person did not purify himself in the interim, the status of the first set is held in abeyance, while the second set should be burnt. The rationale is that these foods are certainly impure, since the person is impure because he walked down both paths. Similar laws apply if there was a carcass of both a creeping animal and a frog in the public domain and their form was no longer recognizable and it was impossible to determine which was the creeping animal. If one touched one of the carcasses and then came in contact with pure foods which were eaten, immersed himself, touched the other one and then came in contact with pure foods, they are pure. If the foods he touched first still exist, the status of both is held in abeyance. If he did not immerse himself, the status of the first set is held in abeyance, while the second set should be burnt.

Different rules apply when there are two paths, one impure and one pure, a person walked down one of them and came in contact with pure foods and another person walked down the other and came in contact with pure foods. If they came and inquired about their status one after the other, a ruling is given to each one that he is pure. If they both came together or one came and asked about his status and that of his friend, saying: "We were two people. We walked down the two paths and we both came in contact with pure foods," they are both deemed impure and the pure foods with which they came in contact should be burnt. Similar principles apply if they contracted impurity from a lesser source. What is implied? There were two loaves of bread, one pure and one impure. A person ate one of them and came in contact with pure foods. Another person came and ate the second and came in contact with pure foods. If they inquired about their status one after the other, they are both pure, because this is a doubt involving a question of Rabbinic Law which is one of the doubtful situations that our Sages ruled were pure, as we explained. If they both asked together or one asked about his status and that of his friend, they are both considered impure because of the doubt and the pure foods should be burnt, for certainly, one of them is impure. Even if there is one impure loaf mixed with 100 pure loaves, they are all impure and must be burnt.

When an impure loaf of bread became mixed with nine pure loaves and five people came and ate five loaves and five others came and ate the five remaining, the ones who came first are deemed impure, because they have no one else to hold accountable. The five last men are pure, because they can hold the first five accountable.

When there are two paths, one impure and one pure, and each of two people, one pure and one impure - or even one whose status was being held in abeyance - walked down one of these paths, the one who is pure can place the onus on the one who is impure or whose status is held in abeyance. We say: The person who was pure walked down the pure path and his status is still considered as pure and the one whose status was held in abeyance walked down the impure path. This applies even if they inquired about their status at the same time.

Any place designated as a public domain with regard to the Sabbath is also considered as a public domain with regard to the laws of impurity.

The four cubits that are adjacent to the public domain are considered as a public domain with regard to the laws of impurity. Similarly, a karmelit, e.g., the sea or a covered walkway, is considered as a public domain with regard to the laws of impurity.

There are places which, though they are considered as private domains with regard to the Sabbath, are considered as public domains with regard to the laws of impurity. They are the paths leading to storage caverns, cisterns, and wine presses, an enclosed valley in the summer, a basilica of kings, i.e., a building that is very wide with space for the king's carriage drivers to stay; it has many openings to the public domain, and a poren, i.e., a large building with two openings, one opposite the other, and a courtyard to which many people would enter through one opening and depart through the other. Also, the lanes leading to a sea or a river, although they are fenced in from either side, are considered as a public domain with regard to the laws of impurity if people can climb over the fences. Pillars and bathhouses are also placed in this category. Similarly, the entire Temple Courtyard is considered as a public domain with regard to the laws of impurity.

Gardens in a city over which the thoroughfare of a city pass are considered as a public domain with regard to the concept of impurity.

When a garden is guarded, it is a private domain. When it is not protected, it is a public domain with regard to impurity. Similarly, a large basilica, when its gates are opened, is a public domain with regard to impurity. When it is closed, it is a private domain in all aspects.

When a valley is enclosed with a fence, in the winter, it is a private domain with regard to the Sabbath and ritual impurity. If it was not enclosed, it is a private domain with regard to impurity alone. When, however, the winter passed after a valley was fenced in, it is considered as a private domain with regard to impurity even in the summer. This is what is meant by "the summer": When the grain is harvested from the valley. This is what is meant by "the winter": When the second rain begins. The area between the round barrel of grapes and the pile of grape pomace is considered a public domain with regard to impurity.

With regard to ritual impurity, a vineyard in front of the harvesters is considered as a private domain; the portion behind the harvesters, as a public domain. When does the above apply? When many people enter from one direction and leave from the opposite direction. The law pertaining to other places aside from those which we mentioned is: Just as they are a private domain with regard to the laws of the Sabbath, so too, they are a private domain with regard to the laws of impurity.

There are places that are not considered as a private domain with regard to the Sabbath laws, but are, nevertheless, considered as a private domain with regard to the laws of impurity, because the people do not use them. They are: trees and holes in the walls of the public domain even if they are not four handbreadths by four handbreadths. What is implied? There was a tree standing in the public domain with impurity in it. One climbed to the top of the tree and he is in doubt whether or not he touched the impurity, he is impure because of the doubt. One inserted his hand into a hole in which impurity is situated and he is in doubt whether or not he touched it, he is impure because of the doubt.

When there is a store that is impure which is open to the public domain, and a person is in doubt whether or not he entered, he is pure despite the doubt. For the entire store is considered as the carcass of a creeping animal lying in the public domain in which instance, if a question arose whether one touched it, he is pure. If there are two stores, one pure and one impure, in the public domain, and a person entered one, but he is in doubt whether or not he entered the impure store or the pure store, he is impure because of the doubt. This is considered as a doubt that arose in a private domain, because a store is considered as a private domain. Similarly, if, in the winter, there is a valley that contains many fields, with at least one field known to be impure and one, pure, and a person said: "I entered this valley and I do not know if I entered that field or not," he is impure because of the doubt. The rationale is that when a doubt arises in a private domain - even a doubt whether one entered - the person is impure.

When a place was considered a private domain, it then became a public domain, and then it became a private domain, the ruling depends on its immediate status. While it is a private domain, when there is a doubt, the person is impure. While it is a public domain, when there is a doubt, the person is pure.

Entities that are situated in the public domain are considered as the public domain. What is implied? There was a container ten handbreadths high in the public domain in which was situated a source of impurity. If one is in doubt whether he touched the container, he is pure despite the doubt. If he inserted his hand into the container, but he was in doubt whether he touched the impurity, he is impure because of the doubt. If there was a stone container resting on his shoulder and a loaf of bread that was terumah wrapped in tree bast or paper contained within it and there was a doubt whether or not another person touched it, it is impure because of the doubt.

When there is a donkey in the public domain that was ten handbreadths high, impurity was placed on it and a doubt arose whether a person touched the donkey's back, he is pure despite the doubt. If he extended his hand above the donkey and he was in doubt whether or not he touched the impurity, he is impure because of the doubt. Similarly, if there was a rock that was ten handbreadths high placed in the public domain and impurity was placed on it, if there was a doubt whether or not one touched the top of the rock, he is pure despite the doubt. If he climbed on top of the rock, but he was in doubt whether or not he touched the impurity, he is impure because of the doubt.

In all off the following situations: a) a zav was riding on his donkey; another person was riding on another donkey and they were riding on the way and the person was in doubt whether or not he touched the zav; b) an impure child was being carried on his father's shoulder and a pure child was being carried on his father's shoulder, the fathers were walking next to each other and a doubt arose whether one child touched the other; c) a person was carrying a package on his shoulder; there was unidentified saliva stuck to the wall and a doubt arose whether or not it touched it; d) utensils were spread out on a surface more than ten handbreadths high in the public domain; an impure person passed by and a doubt arose whether he moved them or not. In all these instances, the person or the article is pure.