Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 3:7), the Rambam explains that the term “square” is added to emphasize that both the width and the length must be at least a handbreadth. If the covering is only half a handbreadth wide, it is not considered as an ohel even if it is several handbreadths long.

A Talmudic measure equal to 8 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 9.6 cm according to Chazon Ish.

The Ra’avad emphasizes that unless the covering is a handbreadth above the impurity, the impurity is considered as retzutzah, “flush.” The Rambam makes this point later in the halachah.

An overhang or shelter that causes everything under it to contract ritual impurity and intervenes between ritual impurity and everything above it, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Tamid2:1). The Rambam is giving examples of keilim that might be placed under such a small overhang.

Even though they are under the overhang. Since it does not meet the minimum requirements the laws of ohel do not apply.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 4.

E. g., keilim of stone or earth (Chapter 6, Halachah 2).

For the board served as a tent over the keilim and the impurity.

Thus the board serves as a tent to convey ritual impurity, but not to intervene in the face of it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 6:1)].

When supported by something other than a human or a utensil.

The Ra’avad emphasizes that this also applies to oversized wooden keilim (refer to Chapter 6, Halachah 2). The Kessef Mishneh states that, as evident from Chapter 13, Halachah 3, the Rambam would also accept this point and does not mention wooden keilim here for stylistic purposes alone.

I.e., that contain 40 se'ah. See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.

I.e., an oven that had not been used yet.

I.e., the board intervenes in face of the impurity.

Were it to be considered as an implement, the keilim would be impure, as stated in Halachah 1.

For the oven is considered like other keilim.

And thus considered like other keilim.

I.e., the ovens themselves create a separation, preventing the entire area from being considered as one large tent. It appears that, as in the following clause, the board is protruding beyond the ovens only at the sides, and not at the ends.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that it is not a correct interpretation of the mishnah (Ohalot 12:1). For the mishnah appears to be speaking about a situation where the board sticks out from the ovens on all four sides. Hence, the entire area is considered as one ohel. The Kessef Mishneh admits that the simple meaning of the mishnah would appear to follow the Ra’avad’s interpretation.

Here also, the Rambam’s point is that since the board protrudes only on the sides and not on the ends, the oven sets them apart. Hence the areas are considered as two tents and not one.

Our translation is based on early printings and authentic manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and is supported by the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 16:1). The standard published text has a slightly different version.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (lac. cit.), the Rambam cites Keilim 17:8 which states that the ordinary circumference of a plow was a handbreadth.

As the Rambam states at the conclusion of Halachah 8, he is speaking in approximations. A handbreadth is four fingerbreadths. Following the mathematic formula that the circumference is equal to the diameter times pi, one and a third times pi is slightly more than four.

He is considered as one who touched a utensil that was held over a corpse [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)]. Accordingly, he contracts impurity that lasts seven days and must be purified by having the ashes of the Red Heifer sprinkled on him. This stringency was imposed lest one think the impurity of ohel is of a lesser status than other impurities. This is one of the stringencies imposed on the day when the students of the School of Shammai outnumbered the students of the School of Hillel (Shabbat 1:4).

By a handbreadth, as stated in Halachah 1.

One who walks upon a grave is impure. See Chapter 2, Halachah 15.

The Rambam. derives this halachah from the account of Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok in Berachot 19a which relates that he (who was a priest and thus forbidden to contact impurity) and others would hurry over the coffins to see the kings of Israel. The Rambam postulates that they were coffins made of wood and that the Sages relaxed the decree mentioned here out of respect for the monarchy. The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the passage is speaking about stone coffins that were used in Eretz Yisrael at that time.

I.e., they are not considered as independent entities, but as part of the entire ohel. Hence, since a portion of it is large enough to convey ritual impurity, its entire span - even those portions that are not wide enough - are considered as part of the ohel.

For a length of a handbreadth.

Chapter 7, Halachah 4. Thus only the keilim or persons who are in the space directly above or below the source of impurity become impure.

Here also, the Rambam is speaking in approximations. Since circumference is pi times the diameter, for a board to be a handbreadth in width it would have to be slightly more than three handbreadths in circumference.

Thus, each side of the board would be a handbreadth,

If there is a cover over it, everything is impure because it is under the larger cover.

I.e., when dividing the circumference of 4.5 by pi, the diameter will be slightly less than 1.5.

Since the barrel is hollow, we consider its upper portion as constituting a covering, even if it is enclosed on the bottom. There will be a portion of the barrel that is more than a handbreadth by a handbreadth in area that is one handbreadth above the ground.

Because here too there will a portion more than a handbreadth by a handbreadth of the upper portion of the barrel above the ground.

Unlike the barrel, the pillar is not hollow. Hence, for it to be considered as an ohel, there must be a portion of its circumference a handbreadth by a handbreadth that is above the ground (Kessef Mishneh).

If it is that large, it conveys impurity to all keilim under it, even those that are under portions that are less than a handbreadth above the ground.

Actually, slightly less than one.

More specifically, a handbreadth times the square root of two which is 1.41.

If the pillar is 24 handbreadths in circumference, an imaginary square, 8 handbreadths by 8 handbreadths, can be circumscribed around it. [This is an approximation. Actually, the diameter will be slightly less 8.] Thus the length of the diagonal will be approximately 11 handbreadths. Since the radius of the pillar is slightly less than 8 handbreadths, the midpoint of the portion of the pillar above the ground will be approximately 1.6 handbreadths from the comer of the imaginary square and thus that point will be more than a handbreadth above the ground. Moreover, there will be more than a handbreadth of space from that point to the end of the imaginary square. Thus there will be more than a square handbreadth of space on the pillar that is a cubit above the ground,

Although lacking in the standard published versions of the Mishneh Torah, these words and the diagram were included in the authorized manuscripts.

Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

In this instance, the space was created through human activity, but the person did not have the intent to create a structure (Rashi, Sukkah 20b).

The Kessef Mishneh explains that from Ohalot 8:2, it would appear that branches and protruding stones are placed in the category of ohel according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, from Nidah 68b and other sources, it would appear that their impurity is Rabbinic in origin. The Rambam resolves that apparent contradiction by making this distinction.

I.e., the beams and the plaster placed over them [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot, loc. cit.)].

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling, noting several instances where, seemingly, impurity is conveyed according to Scriptural Law and yet, it appears that the entity in question is not capable of supporting a ceiling. For example, Ohalot 8:1, states that a bird can serve as an ohel and, generally, birds are not strong enough to carry a ceiling. He therefore states that when a covering is solid, it does not have to be sturdy. The general principles in the mishnah to which the Rambam refers, the Ra’avad explains, apply only in instances where, like the branches of a tree or the stones of a wall, there are open spaces between the entities. The Kessef Mishneh differs and supports the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that there are large fowl whose wings are strong enough to support a ceiling.

I.e., vessels that contain 40 se'ah. See Chapter 6, Halachah 2, and Chapter 12, Halachah 2.

Chapter 6, Halachah 2.

Implicit in the Rambam’s words, and obvious from his mention of a hand mill in the following halachah, is that if such keilim are not oversized, they do not intervene in the face of ritual impurity even if they themselves do not contract ritual impurity. The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam and maintains that such entities can intervene in the face of ritual impurity even if they are not oversized, for example, if they are placed in the aperture between a house and a loft.

See Hilchot Keilim 7:2.

This phrase refers to all the entities mentioned from “simple leather keilim” onward.

The Rambam is explaining how, not only one animal, but a herd of animals can be considered as a large ohel, as stated in Ohalot 8:1.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot, loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that the bird must be tied down to a wall or a tree.

As stated in Hilchot Ochalin 1:1, food is not made ready to be susceptible to ritual impurity until it comes in contact with water.

Our translation of this and the following terms is based on Rav Kapach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot, loc. cit.).

All of these plants are leafy and can create a thick covering.

That project from mountains and buildings. Our translation of this term is based on Rav Kapach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohatot 3:7) and based on one of the versions of the Targum to Isaiah 2:21, 57:5.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 8:2) the Rambam explains that the root of the gichir means “bent over,” as in I Kings 18:42.

I.e., the edges of the mountains. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam uses a term, shen hasela, found in I Samuel14:4.

I.e., if such an item was spread out over the aperture between a house and a loft, it does not prevent impurity from reaching the loft. Nevertheless, if such an item was spread out over a corpse and keilim in open space, the keilim become impure [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 8:3)].

Or was slaughtered, for ritual slaughter makes an object susceptible to ritual impurity (Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 2:7).

As stated in Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 1:1 foods do not become susceptible to ritual impurity until they were brought in contact with liquid after being harvested. Since the food was made susceptible to impurity, it is considered as impure.

I.e., they are not considered as ohalim at all.

For they can serve as food.

I.e., those mentioned in Halachah 3.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 8:5), the Rambam explains that these are not considered as an ohel, because they will easily dissolve and will not stand for an extensive time.

That is not tied down to anything, as evident from the contrast to the following halachah.

Without being anchored at all.

Since it is not lasting at all, it — in contrast to an ohel that is not sturdy, as mentioned in Halachah 2 — does not convey impurity even according to Rabbinic Law.

Shabbat 101b states that this applies “provided [the ship] is tied with iron chains.” While that can certainly be understood as an exaggeration, the article used to tie the ship must be strong and sturdy.

A heavy stone that will not be lifted up by the wind and will hold the garment down. Although the corners of the garment will be held down by stones, when the wind blows, its center will be lifted up and will be considered as a tent [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot, loc. cit.)].

It does not intervene in the face of impurity, because it is a utensil that can contract impurity.

Halachah 5.

Our translation of this and the following terms are based on Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 8:4).

In the Talmudic era, beds were constructed by running a series of cords from one side of the bed frame to the other and then placing a mattress on top of them. These cords can serve as an intervening substance.

I.e., none of the articles mentioned is a solid mass and all have some space between their cords or threads.
This halachah is quoted by the Siftei Cohen 371:2 and the Turei Zahav 371:1, because it is relevant at present as well with regard to the prohibition against a priest contracting ritual impurity. To express the concept in modern terms: If there is a screen covering a window, it is considered closed even though it allows for air to pass through.

In the following chapter. In particular, Halachah 4 relates to the subject at hand.

As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 12, Halachah 1, the term “square” is added to emphasize that both the width and the length must be at least a handbreadth. If the opening is only half a handbreadth wide, it is not considered as an opening even if it is several handbreadths long.

A Talmudic measure equal to 8 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 9.6 cm according to Chazon Ish.

I.e., the impurity spreads from one structure to the other through the window.

In contrast to a naturally made aperture, as described in the following halachah.

I.e., to pass articles through or the like.

An Italian coin used in the Talmudic period. It was worth one twelth of a dinar (Hilchot Shekalim 1:3) and equal in weight to eight barley corns [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:12)]. Ohalot 13:1 identifies it with “the size of a drill bit.”

For ritual impurity to pass through it.

Our translation is based on Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim, loc. cit.) who interprets “this refers to the shingles of ben Avatiach,” as referring to a well known shingle maker in the Talmudic era. Others interpret egrof as meaning “fist” and ben Avtiach (or ben Batiach) as a renowned giant.

Since the aperture was already made, the owner’s intent is sufficient to determine its status.

When it is forbidden to complete the task.

I.e., there remained more than the size of pundiyon of open space. Nevertheless, since the person began closing the window, there is room for some leniency.

The Rambam’s wording has attracted the notice of the commentaries, because in Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 15:4 and Hilchot Shabbat 17:36, the Rambam speaks of a measure of two fingerbreadths and identifies a fingerbreadth as a thumbreadth. Why then does he use two different terms here? Although he is quoting Ohalot 13:1, either the wording there should raise questions about his general approach or he would have to explain that this is an exception. Indeed, Tifferet Yisrael and other commentaries to the Mishnah maintain that here, the term fingerbreadth refers to the width of the finger next to the thumb.

I.e., if ritual impurity is found in an adjoining house, it can enter through this aperture [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 13:2)].

In contemporary terms, a screen.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

See note 1 of this chapter.

Halachah 1.

This is not considered as a hole that provides light, because it was not made for that purpose [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 13:4)]. From the comments of the Nekudot HaKessef (Yoreh De’ah 371), it would appear that if the hole was made for a specific purpose, it is governed by the rules applying to holes made for that purpose.

The same principle applies if there is empty space between the door and the door post.

Le, the size of an ordinary person’s head, as stated in Halachah 2.

For a lock to the door [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 13:5)]. The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s interpretation of the terminology used by the Mishnah, but, according to either interpretation, we are speaking about a hole made for storage.