Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

That impurity never returns. Ritual impurity applies only to keilim, functional articles. When these articles are broken, they are no longer considered keilim and, hence, no longer impure. See also Chapter 18, Halachah 10.

As stated in the following halachah, this is a Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, once they are broken, they are ritually pure.

If they are immersed while broken, they still return to impurity when new keilim are formed after they have been melted down.

I.e., for an article to regain purity, it must be immersed in a mikveh. Even so, it does not become pure on the day of its immersion, only after the appearance of three stars that night (see Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 10:1).

As explained in Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:1, after a person or an article contracts impurity from a human corpse, the ashes of the red heifer must be sprinkled on him or it on the third and seventh day afterwards. After the sprinkling of the ashes on the person or article, he or it must be immersed in a mikveh. Unless the ashes are sprinkled on both those days, the person or the article does not regain purity.

There is a difference between the Rambam and the Ra’avad concerning this halachah. Some commentaries maintain that the Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s wording here which could be interpreted — as could the wording of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:6) — as meaning that it is sufficient to sprinkle the ashes of the red heifer on the unformed mass of metal after it was melted down, even though it was not formed into a new k’li. The Ra’avad objects and maintains that metal can be purified only when a k’li is whole, either before it was melted down and reformed or afterwards. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that support can be found for both perspectives.
Tosafot Yom Tov [to the above-cited mishnah], however, interprets the difference of opinion in another manner. Both the Rambam and the Ra’avad require the k’li to be whole while the purification activities are performed. For when it is melted down, it is not impure and does not have to be purified. The Rambam, he maintains, requires all. the activities for the purification to be performed either before the melting or for all to be performed afterwards. The Ra’avad maintains that the first sprinkling can be performed before the melting and the second afterwards.

I.e., iron from a k'li that had contracted impurity and been melted down without being purified.

Which would produce ordinary earthenware utensils that are susceptible to impurity.

Utensils made from them are not susceptible to impurity (Chapter 1, Halachah 6).

The Zair Zahav to the Tosefta, Keilim 8:2, which interprets this as referring to a base metal k’li that is coated with gold.

The Kessef Mishneh and other commentaries have noted that the standard version of the Tosefta reads directly opposite from the Rambam’s text, stating that a pure k’li coated with impure material is pure, but a k’li made from impure coating is impure. Moreover, that version is more appropriate, based on the principles explained by the Rambam previously, because the coating of keilim is not susceptible to impurity (see Chapter 4, Halachah 4). And, as implied above, when a new k’li is made from impure metal, it is impure. Nevertheless, the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah follow the text cited here.

Chapter 11, Halachah 21, spoke of a two-edged hatchet. The thick side would be used for chopping logs and the thin side for the delicate work of a carpenter. Here apparently the intent is a one-edged hatchet.

It was common to coat a heavy iron hatchet with steel so that the blade would be sharper and cut better [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:5)].

For, as explained in Chapter 4, Halachah 4, a coating is not susceptible to impurity.

Containing beverages.

As mentioned in Halachah 2, the impurity of such a k’li is of Rabbinic origin.

There is a general principle that one Rabbinic stringency is not used to compound another (Shabbat 11b; see the following halachah). Thus since both the impurity of a false divinity and that of a reformed metal k’li are of Rabbinic origin, there are grounds to say that, in this instance, the reformed k’li should be pure. Moreover, there are commentaries (and some support for their view can be taken from Avodah Zarah 52a, the source for this law) who maintain that because of the severity of the prohibition against the worship of false deities, an exception should be made, but not with regard to other Rabbinic sources of impurity. The Rambam, however, clearly states that all types of Rabbinic impurity are considered the same in this context.

Chapter 1, Halachah 5.

In which instance, broken pieces can be subject to impurity (Chapter 18, Halachot 10, 13-14).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 30:1), the Rambam explains that it is common to make a wider base, like a bowl, for glass utensils as support. The Rambam — and the mishnah, his source — are speaking about an instance where the utensil itself was broken, but this bowl remained intact.

For then they no longer appear as broken keilim and are comparable to new keilim (ibid.).

Which would not be possible because its mouth is broken.

And it is possible to pour from it even when its mouth is broken.

Hence when the mouth is broken, it is no longer useful at all.

And susceptible to impurity.

Foods are left in them to pickle in wine or vinegar. Since a person is not inserting his hands into them frequently, the fact that the mouth is broken is not significant (ibid.:4).

I.e., it is considered as no longer useful as a k’li and hence, no longer susceptible to impurity.

Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:3), the Rambam reverses these points, speaking of the majority of the circumference and a third of the height.

The Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of the above mishnah. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s interpretation.

For these are not effective seals for glass. See a parallel in Chapter 20, Halachah 3.

Even if the hole is merely in the upper portion, it is no longer considered functional.

Because the majority of the k’li is functional.

Because it is not functional.

Hot liquids are more likely to cause a crack to expand and then to seep through it than are cold liquids.

Because the utensil can be used despite the crack.

Even though the utensils can be used for cold liquids, since they cannot be used for hot liquids, they are not considered functional.

But they are still functional entities.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 16, which speaks of a metal dispenser. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 30:4), the Rambam explains that a glass dispenser has a similar form. It is not considered as a utensil, because it has no base and is not a container. As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 5, our Sages did not issue a decree with regard to a flat glass k’li.

A divider that enables one to see the objects on its other side [Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 30:4)].

This is not significant, for that is not the way it is intended to be used.

Because a change was not made in its physical substance to alter its form. A change in intent cannot alter the status of a utensil, only a change in its form. See Chapter 8, Halachah 10.

For its primary function is not that of a container.

See Chapter 5, Halachah l; Chapter 8, Halachah 1.

Hilchot Twn’at Meit 1:5, 6:3; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 8:2-3; et al.

I.e., from a source of impurity entering its inner space. If, however, impurity touches its outer surface, it remains pure.

See Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 8, for elaboration concerning this concept.

The Sifra derives this concept from the fact that the prooftext cited above speaks of foods and liquids, but does not mention keilim [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (K.eilim 8:4)].

The smaller containers.

For keilim that touch impure liquids contract impurity according to Rabbinical decree (Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:2).

See ibid.:3. Here the Ra’avad refers to his commentary on that source where he maintains that there is no basis for such a stringency.

Significantly, the Rambam cites a different phrase than that cited by the Sifra, his source.

The Ra’avad accepts the Rambam’s ruling, but offers a different rationale.

For the impurity is below it and not inside its inner space.

In the Talmudic era, ovens were often clay structures built on the ground with earth as its base. Similarly, here, the Rambam is speaking about an earthenware oven with no base or bottom that was positioned over the ground and the carcass was found in the earth below the oven. In the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:3) the Rambam states that the use of the term nechoshet to refer to a bottom is found in Ezekiel 6:36.

It is assumed that they contracted the impurity stemming from a human corpse and thus could impart impurity to an earthenware vessel like an oven if it was found in its inner space.

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 13:4.

The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:3).

Since it was found in the ash, it is apparent that it was placed in the oven with the kindling fuel. Thus it is certain to have been within the inner space of the oven where it could have imparted impurity to it.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:7), the Rambam writes that it was customary to make a hole in the portion of the wall of the oven or range that is close to the ground through which wood was inserted and, at times, air was allowed to enter. When the oven would get very hot, this hole was plugged closed so that none of its heat would escape. Since it was opened at times and closed at other times, it was referred to as an eye which also opens and closes.

As explained in Hilchot Shabbat, ch. 3, and notes, all three of these cooking utensils are earthenware keilim that have similar forms except that an oven is closed on top and there are ranges with an opening for one pot and others with an opening for two. Diagram

The walls of the oven have a certain thickness. If the carcass did not extend beyond the thickness of the walls and thus did not enter the inner space of the oven or range, the oven or range is pure [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)]. The Ra’avad bad a different understanding of the above mishnah and therefore objects to the Rambam’s ruling. The Kessel Mishneh offers support for the Rambam’s view.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit, ch. 12. The outlet opens up to the oven. Thus it resembles an open window next to which impurity passes, as described in Hilchot Tum’at Meit, ch. 14.

I.e., the place where the fire is removed from the range at its base [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 8:8)].

I.e., the inner space of the range is considered as beginning from the surface of its walls. The thickness of its walls are not included in its inner space (ibid.).

I.e., a person heating water.

A craftsman who dyes clothes.

Although these seats may be connected to the range, the fact that impurity touches them has no effect on the status of the inside of the range.

I.e., everything inside the range.

This halachah, based on the continuation of the above-cited mishnah, conveys a similar point: the inner space of an oven begins from its inner surface.

Thus when water is poured from them, it does not flow in a single stream, but instead is divided by the screen and its holes [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaot 3:3)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:9), the Rambam explains that the crown-like projections of a pomegranate are also referred to as a “comb” (Uktzin 2:3).

We do not say that its inner space begins with the screen.

I.e., the inner space of the container was divided into three separate areas. In the diagram that accompanies the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 4:4), each enclosure is a separate compartment with a base of its own that it does not share with the others.

It is as if they are in a second container set off from the first.

Since it is higher than the inner wall, the inner compartment is considered as part of its inner space.

For the wall is considered as intervening between it and the impurity.

Because the entire container is considered as a single entity.

Since no one wall is higher than the others, each enclosure is considered as a separate entity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:8), the Rambam cites the Sifra which interprets the phrase (Leviticus 11 :33): “into whose inner space one of these will fall” as excluding the inner space of one container that is within the inner space of another. See also Chapter 14, Halachah 8.

Except the bottom one.

When a container has a hole of that size, it is no longer considered as a viable container. The container itself is not susceptible to impurity. Nevertheless, since it is no longer considered as a container, its entire contents are considered as within the inner space of the lowest frying pan.

Chapter 14, Halachah 9.

Provided their edges do not extend above those of the uppermost one [the Rambam.’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

As stated in Halachah 3.

I.e., a hand would become moist when touching it (ibid.).

As stated in Halachah 3, the pans are not considered as interposing between the bottom pan and the liquids. Even if the liquids are present in one of the intermediate pans, they are considered as within the inner space of the bottom one.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:7), the Rambam writes that in Egypt, it was common to make tabletops in this manner.

Since an earthenware container contracts impurity due to the presence of impurity in its inner space and the inner space of each of these bowls is distinct, the fact that one bowl contracts impurity does not affect the inner space of the other.

An upraised rim that surrounds the entire tabletop.

Since it has an upraised rim, the tabletop is not considered as a flat k’li, but as a container and all the bowls are considered as within its inner space (ibid.).

A container with several compartments so that herbs will not become mixed with each other (ibid. 2:3).

One that serves as two different containers (ibid.). In both these instances, even though the containers are a single mass, since they have separate compartments, each compartment is considered as an individual entity unless there is an upraised border causing the entire container to be considered as a single unit (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:8), the Rambam explains why, with regard to an earthenware container, the mishnah mentions contracting impurity from the carcass of a crawling animal, while with regard to a wooden container, it speaks of the impurity stemming from liquids.
The difference, he relates, stems from concepts outlined previously. Earthenware containers contract impurity from their inner space, while wooden containers contract impurity when touched by a source of impurity. Also, wooden containers do not contract impurity from liquids according to Scriptural Law, only due to Rabbinic decree. And that decree is limited; if the impure liquids touch only the outside of the container, not the inside, the container does not contract impurity.
Accordingly, when a carcass falls on an earthenware container of this type, since the inner space of its components is divided, unless there is a border that causes them all to be considered as a single entity, each of the components is considered individually. Were a carcass to fall on this type of wooden container, by contrast, since it imparts impurity through touch—whether it touches the inside of a container or its outside—and the components are attached to each other, they all contract impurity. When, however, the question is one of Rabbinic Law- as in the case of the impure liquids- there is room for leniency. Since the compartments are distinct from each other, it is considered as if the liquid touched merely the outside of the container.

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:3.

The Ra’avad states that this ruling applies in an instance where there is an upraised border that causes the entire spice box to be considered as a single entity. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam understood that concept as implicit and hence did not state it. There are, however, different ways of understanding this issue, for the matter involves Scriptural impurity.

If one of these compartments becomes impure, the entire container becomes impure.

For an entity that contracted the impurity stemming from a human corpse to regain purity, the ashes of the red heifer must be sprinkled upon it. As discussed in Hilchot Parah Adumah 12:4-5, when two entities are attached to each other, there are times when they are considered as a single entity and the ashes of the red heifer need touch only one of them for them to regain purity. And there are other situations, when they are considered as separate and the ashes must touch both of them. The Rambam is speaking about a situation where they are considered as a single entity.

For the compartments are obviously separate entities.

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