Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

As explained in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 20:1, 21:1-2, although generally every article contained in a house where a human corpse is located contracts ritual impurity, if a k’li, food, or liquids are located in an earthenware container that is sealed closed, everything in that container remains ritually pure.

If a container that is sealed closed is placed in the inner space of an earthenware container that is ritually impure, the food and liquids in the sealed container do not contract ritual impurity.

For the object becomes impure for seven days and requires that the ashes of the red heifer be sprinkled upon it.

Through a fortiori reasoning (kal vechomer in Talmudic terminology). Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:6), the Rambam quotes the Sifra which derives this concept from the exegesis of a Biblical verse, because there are aspects of the leniency mentioned here that surpass those involving a sealed container in an impure structure; see Halachah 9.

In which instance, the impurity departs after immersion in a mikveh and the passage of a day.

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 20:1, 8.

The fact that the pot is sealed closed prevents it from contracting impurity from the oven.

The presence of either of which would impart impurity to the oven.

Even though the impure object is not visible, since it is present within the inner space of the container, it imparts impurity to it. See a parallel concept in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 20:5.

Not because of the carcass of the rooster, but because of the carcass of the crawling animal or the flesh from a human corpse that it swallowed.

As explained in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 20:2, the fact that impurity was swallowed protects other entities from contracting impurity only when the being that swallowed it is alive. If it is dead, it does not protect against the spreading of the impurity.

The Rambam does not mention impure foods, because impure foods do not impart impurity to keilim [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:10)].

Without swallowing the liquids. Closing his mouth is not considered equivalent to sealing a container closed (ibid.).

Because the impure liquids are within the inner space of the earthenware container.

Because they are considered to have entered the inner space of the impure oven.

The minimal size of such a carcass that conveys impurity.

Hence although the impurity is not immediately visible, it changes the status of the container.

If they absorbed impure liquids and then fell into an oven, they impart impurity to it. In his gloss, the Ra'avad cites the Tosefta, Keilim 6:10, which states that reeds are used to test wine or, according to another view, to absorb fluids from a wound. The Ra'avad is implying that these three items are unique, because they are designated for the purpose of absorbing liquids. Most articles, by contrast, are considered like shards and even when they absorbed impure liquids, they do not impart impurity unless the oven is heated.
The commentaries debate whether the Rambam shares the Ra’avad’s position or follows a different perspective, maintaining that sponges, reeds, and turnips are examples and, in other instances, as well, it can be assumed that the liquids would flow out of the articles. Hence, if an article has absorbed impure liquids, it is impure.

Since the liquids are absorbed in the shards, it is as if they were not present.

The heat will cause the liquids to emerge.

Which are primary sources of impurity according to Scriptural Law.

Here the liquids are considered as other impure objects contained with utensils.

The waste product that remains after olives have been squeezed [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:5)].

For by this time, it can be assumed that the dregs have dried out.

It is apparent that they have retained some of their natural moisture.

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 24:2 which explains that a partition erected in a home can protect one side from contracting impurity.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:1), even though the impurity imparted by a human corpse is more severe than that imparted by the carcass of a crawling animal, the reason stated above is sufficient to make a distinction between the two instances.

As evident from Chapter 13, Halachot 11-12, the same law applies even if the edges of the container in which the impurity is located is merely the same height as the container into which it is inserted.

An oversized basket-like container usually made from straw, reeds, or tree bark. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 15:1; Ohalot 9:1).

I.e., a container made of wood.

I.e., a container made of an animal hide.

I.e., the edges of the inner container extended above those of the outer container.

Since they have a hole, they are no longer considered as containers and do not intervene between their contents and the inner space of the earthenware container.

This refers to utensils made from wood, bone, or glass.

The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:2); see a parallel in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 22:3. The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the same measure is used with regard to all containers. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s position.
The core of the Ra’avad’s argument is that the following distinction should be made: If liquid can seep out of a container, it is no longer considered as sealed. Nevertheless, since the hole can be patched, it is valuable to its owner and is still considered as a container. Rav Chayim HaLevi disputes that argument, explaining that even though the container can be patched in the future, at present, it is not fit to serve as a container and hence should not be placed in that category.

The Ra’avad protests the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that since tar cleaves very well to an earthenware container, it is considered as sealed. It is as if there never was a hole there. Thus if the opening of the container is above the rim of the earthenware container, the carcass is considered as in the container and not in the oven. The Rambam seemingly would accept this position as well. The difference between them appears to be with regard to other types of containers. The Rambam considers tar an effective sealant, while the Ra’avad does not.

Halachah 2.

Even metal containers. The rationale is that sealing a metal container does not prevent its contents from contracting impurity.

The Ra’avad explains the rationale for this ruling, stating that, as stated above, tar cleaves very well to an earthenware container. In contrast, it does not cleave well to other utensils. Hence, the hole is still considered as open.

Instead, the contents are considered as within the inner space of the oven [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:1)].

Because it is damaged and no longer intact, it is not considered in the category of a container (ibid.). That mishnah states that such a container protects the spread of impurity when placed in a shelter containing a corpse, but explains that, as stated in Halachah 7, a shelter can be divided in two; an earthenware container is not divided in two.

With regard to contracting impurity; see Chapter 6, Halachah 2; Chapter 7, Halachah 6.

And thus the part in the inner space of the earthenware container is intact. If, however, the hole is within the inner space of the earthenware container, this leniency does not apply.

It is still considered as if they intervene between their contents and the inner space of the earthenware container. Based on the following halachah, it appears that even when, as a whole, the article can no longer be considered as a k’li, the portion in the inner space of the earthenware container can be so classified in this limited context.

I.e., an entity that is not a k'li.

I.e., the hide is not considered as an intervening substance to prevent impurity from spreading.

I.e., as explained in the notes to Chapter 13, Halachah 6, in the Talmudic era, the ovens were sometimes made without a base or a bottom, but instead rested on the earth. Here we are speaking about an instance were the oven was placed over an open barrel of liquids.

But not into the barrel.

I.e., the drops that cling to the base when the barrel is overturned. Diagram