Tum'at Met - Chapter 6

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 2:1), the Rambam defines this term as referring to the “moss” that grows on the side of a ship that remains in water for an extended time.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:13), the Rambam refers to the Sifra. That source notes that Leviticus 11:32 mentions the keilim that contract ritual impurity and speaks of “a garment or a hide.” The Sifra infers that only entities from dry land are susceptible to impurity.

Hilchot Keilim 1:3.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:1), the Rambam notes that the word g’llal can also be used to refer to marble (see Ezra 5:8). Nevertheless, he explains that marble implements would also be included in the term “stone implements.” Instead, he explains that the term here refers to animal turds mixed with earth and notes that even in his day, peasants would make implements from these substances.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:2), the Rambam differentiates between earthenware implements and implements made from earth. Earthenware is made from clay that is fired in a kiln and fuses together. Implements made from earth, by contrast, have not been fired in a kiln, but rather hardened in the sun or the like.

A Talmudic measure equaling 24 lugim. According to his usual calculations, Shiurei Torah would consider one se’ah as 8256 cc and Chazon Ish would put that measure at 14400 cc. It must, however, be mentioned that 40 se’ah is also the minimum measure for a mikveh. Because immersion in a mikveh removes a woman from a state of impurity and permits her to engage in relations with her husband, our Rabbis have shown greater stringency regarding the measure of 40 se’ah with regard to a mikveh. See Hilchot Mikvaot 4:1.

Shabbat 35a states that such a measure would contain a one and a half times that quantity of grain, because there would be an extra third above the container.

On which they stand so that they will be a permanent fixture.
The leniency mentioned applies only to wooden containers of this size. Metal containers, even if they are this large, are susceptible to impurity (Hilchot Keilim 1:9).

Chagigah 26b explains that when mentioning the keilim that are susceptible to ritual impurity, Leviticus 11:32 mentions a sack. Our Sages interpreted this as an exclusion, saying: “A sack can be carried either when full or empty. These oversized objects, by contrast, cannot be carried when full.” See also Hilchot Keilim, ch. 3.

I.e., they have neither a rim at their sides, nor a cavity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1)].

For liquids (ibid.).
In that source, the Rambam explains that this concept is derived from Leviticus 11:32 which mentions impurity being imparted to wooden (and other types of) keilim as well as to a sack. This leads to the following conclusion: Just as a sack serves as a container, only a wooden k’li that serves as a container is susceptible to impurity (Hilchot Keilim 1:10).

The commentaries note that the Rambam’s source (Keilim, loc. cit.) states that utensils made from leather, bone, and glass, are also governed by these laws and questions why the Rambam does not mention them here.

As stated in Leviticus 11:33; Hilchot Keilim 1:8.

See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch, 8.

See Chapter 21.

Numbers 19:15.

I.e., even its inner portions.

The covering for a grave (Chapter 2, Halachah 15). Or stands over them, contracting impurity through ohel, as indicated by Halachah 6.

Or stands over them, contracting impurity through ohel, as indicated by Halachah 6.

Even though the articles themselves remain ritually pure, they impart this impurity by Rabbinic decree.

I.e., they were removed from that place.

Which does not contract impurity while alive.

If it is not tied down, it will move and, hence, is not considered as a gollei.

Made from clay or the like. See ch. 21.

And its width protrudes beyond the opening of the grave on one side. This clause speaks of the ruling when one touches a portion that protrudes beyond the opening of the grave. The following clause focuses on touching the height of the beam, not its width (Rav Yosef Corcus).

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, because of his interpretation of Ohalot 15:8.

This applies even if the portion is directly above the grave. Since it is ultimately going to be cut off, it is considered as if it were cut off already.

Because one does not have to stand over the entire opening of the grave to contract ritual impurity. As long as he stands over a portion of the gollei that is of significant size, he is impure.

And thus a portion of the grave was uncovered.

The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rav Yosef Corcus as explaining that this refers to a person who is standing on the portion of the stone that is above the wall of the grave. If, however, he is standing above the grave itself, he is impure. His impurity results from standing above the grave, not from contact with the gollel.

If, however, he stands over them, he is impure, because by standing over the upper stones, he will inevitably be standing over the lower stones as well.

Which was located in that place naturally and cannot be moved (Kessef Mishneh).

From the top. Accordingly, the area around the corpse is not considered as a closed grave (Kessef Mishneh).

This refers to a structure that is built over the grave that protrudes above the ground [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 7:1)]. The Rambam’s commentary and his rulings here are based on his understanding of the Tosefta (Ohalot 10:7). The Ra’avad has a different understanding of the Toselta and hence, objects to the Rambam’s ruling.

The Kessef Mishneh states that all these clauses refer to an instance where the corpse was placed in the stone from the side. As such it is possible that the stone is considered as a distinct entity and can be considered as a grave and a dofek.

The commentaries understand this (and the following clauses) as referring to a stone projecting from a mountain.

The corpse was placed in the upper portion of the vault. Below it, there was a bed of stone.

I.e., below the corpse.

For this is considered like touching the mountain which is the base for the stone.

And the corpse was placed in the narrow portion on the bottom (ibid.).

In this shape, the burial vault is not considered as part of the mountain, but as a distinct entity. Therefore, even the portions below the corpse are impure. One who touches the wide portion on top is impure, because it is serving as a covering for the grave (ibid.).

And the corpse is placed in the upper portion (ibid.).

I.e., any portion of the stone lower than the handbreadth directly beneath the corpse.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam draws a diagram where the corpse is inserted vertically into the side of mountain.

For the covering of the opening is considered as a gollel.

Without a covering over it. The open space allows the impurity coming from the cave to escape, as it were (Kessef Mishneh).

In which instance, it is possible for the impurity from the cave to be trapped under the covering of the courtyard, as it were.