Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

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.

Thus indicating that it would not be used as an entrance in the future.

I.e., anything under the overhang of its roof or under balconies projecting from it.

See Halachah 4. Since the building is closed, it is considered as a structure built over a grave and any portion of it can impart impurity.

As long as the doorframe is intact, it can be assumed that this will serve as the entrance to the building. Hence, only the area around it imparts impurity.

It can be assumed that the corpse will be removed from the building through this entrance. Therefore even while the corpse is located in the building, the impurity departs through this entrance.

Even if it is smaller than an olive-sized portion, e.g., a tiny fetus. Conversely, even if the corpse is that of a giant, this small measure is sufficient (see Eruvin 30a).

More specifically, four handbreadths by four handbreadths.

Since we do not know through which entrance the corpse will be removed, we operate under the assumption that it could be removed through any one of them. Therefore, the overhang over any of them imparts impurity to any person of object under it.

Although the entrance is closed, since one intended to remove the corpse through it, its overhang imparts impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 7:4)].
As stated in the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura, et al, the fact that thought is sufficient to change the status of the entrances indicates that this entire situation is based on a Rabbinic decree and according to Scriptural Law, none of the entrances impart impurity.

This follows the opinion of the School of Hillel in the above mishnah. The School of Shammai requires that the decision be made before the person dies.

And persons or objects under their overhangs do not contract impurity.

Because one of the entrances is or will be opened. Hence, the impurity departs through it, as it were.

Since the opening did not exist beforehand, thought is not sufficient to establish its presence and one must actually complete creating an opening of the minimum measure.

Because it is unlikely that the corpse will be removed through a window. Hence unless one had the explicit intent to remove the corpse through a window, the window does not impart impurity (Rav Yosef Corcus, as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh). The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam is speaking about windows that are smaller than four handbreadths by four handbreadths. Since they are not the size of entrances, they do not save the doors. Were they to be that size, they would.

Rabbenu Shimshon explains that often gateways would have a large entrance through which goods and merchandise could be brought. Within that larger entrance, there was also a smaller portal through which people would enter and depart. According to the Ra'avad's understanding, we are speaking about a small door that is next to a larger door.

And only the overhang above the small entrance imparts impurity.

The Ra’avad explains that this refers to two doors side by side with a doorpost in the middle. The Kessef Mishneh offers another interpretation.

Indviduals closer to the deceased whose opinion could determine through which entrance he would be removed.

I.e., the first individual should not make these statements to purify the objects to be placed near the southern entrance, nor should those who come later have the intent of purifying the objects to be placed near the northern entrance.
[According to certain opinions, the ruse could only be effective with regard to articles placed there after the decision to use another entrance was made. If articles were under the overhang of an entrance before a decision was made, they are impure even if shortly afterwards, the decision is made to remove the corpse through another entrance. We do not say that retroactively, it is considered as if this was the intent initially (see Beitzah 10a). On the other hand, others maintain that even retroactively, the status of the entrances is changed (see the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus).]

This refers to a patio-like structure of the Greek-Roman period with a roof in the center and a continuous bench along the side wall. At times, several houses would open up into the same exedra.

According to the Kessef Mishneh, this term refers to the exedra, because it is like an entranceway to the houses. The Rambam’s ruling is based on the Tosefta (Ohalot 8:4). The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s ruling. Although the Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s understanding, he has certain difficulties in the wording.

Since the exedra is roofed, the impurity enters the other houses from it if their doors or windows are open.

I.e., the house in which the corpse was located has another entrance that does not pass through the exedra and the deceased’s relatives desired to remove him through it.

Seemingly, if the door of the house where the corpse is lying is closed, the exedra should not be impure. And if it is open, the other houses could also contract impurity. The Kessef Mishneh states that this is speaking about a situation where the door is closed. Nevertheless, the exedra contracts impurity, because it is a subsidiary of the house.

I.e., the door connecting the room to the remainder of the house is closed.

This translation of the term tum’ah is based on the gloss of the Ra’avad.

The portion outside the room.

Even though were the door of the room to be opened, the impurity would enter the house.

Although generally, it is assumed that a corpse will not be taken out through a window, since in this instance, it was brought in through the window and the door is closed, we assume that it will be removed through that path as well (Kessef Mishneh).

The translation of the term kever as grave in this context is somewhat misleading. Here we are speaking about a monument built over the corpse.

I.e., the entire monument does not become impure.

I.e., regardless of its size, the entire structure imparts impurity.

In an open field. Diagram

To the extent that there was not a cubic handbreadth of empty space [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 15:7)].

The laws of a building no longer apply to it (ibid.).

I.e., a portion of a corpse.

That are not touching it.

I.e., imparts impurity to humans, food, and keilim in it.

For the portion of the corpse is flush with its covering. Hence, as explained in the previous halachot, it would not impart impurity from its sides.

Since the wall is part of the structure, everything in the structure is impure.
The Rambam’s ruling is based on his understanding of Ohalot 7:1. The Ra’avad has a different conception of that mishnah and hence, differs with the Rambam here. The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam’s position. Diagram

It was known that a person had been buried in a field, but the location of the grave was unknown. Such a field is similar to a field in which a grave has been plowed over (a beit hap‘ras; see Chapter 2, Halachah 16). Indeed, when referring to this situation in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 18:3), the Rambam states: “This is a second beit hap’ras.”

Like a beit hap’ras, the impurity imparted is only of Rabbinic origin.

Which imparts impurity when touched or carried.

This applies even in the summer months when many people walk in the fields and they are considered as the public domain. Although generally, whenever there is a question about impurity in the public domain, we rule leniently, in this instance, we rule stringently, because it was an established fact that there was a grave there (see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 17:5), the Tosafot Yom Tov asks: Why is this case different from a situation described in Ohalot 7:1 (note a parallel situation mentioned in Chapter 7, Halachah 4)? There the mishnah states that if there is a portion of a corpse in a wall, no matter how many stories of a house are built above it, they are all impure. Why then is the impurity limited to the first house in this instance? The Tosafot Yom Tov explains that there is a difference between the wall itself being impure (as in Ohalot 1:7) and it merely covering impurity (as in the present instance).

See Chapter 12, Halachah 1, and Chapter 16, Halachah 3. As will be explained there, since the loft does not project beyond the boundaries of the house, the impurity is contained within the house and does not spread beyond its limits. See also Chapter 25, Halachah 3.

But rather the loft projects beyond the perimeters of the house.

Causing it to be considered as an ohel.

It is common to bury a corpse deep in the ground. Hence, it is unlikely the roots of plants growing from seeds will penetrate that deeply.

One may, however, plant trees that do not produce food (Ohalot 18:3).

In his gloss to this halachah, the Ra’avad explains that the reason for this prohibition is that people are likely to build dwellings near fruit trees, but will not necessarily do so near trees that do not produce fruit. See also the Ra’avad’s gloss (here and in Chapter 10, Halachah 10), where he refers to the above mishnah which states that trees growing in such a field may not be maintained. The Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot, loc. cit., 18) states that the prohibition “is because of impurity.” That interpretation is also reflected by the Kessef Mishneh who explains that the rationale is that the fruit will become impure.
It appears that the intent is not that it will become impure as food, for it does not become impure until it is uprooted from its source and exposed to liquid. Instead, the intent appears to be, as explained by other commentaries, that the prohibition stems from the prohibition against benefiting from a corpse (see Hilchot Evel, ch. 14). Since the roots reach the corpse, it will serve as nurture for the tree and thus cause it to be forbidden.
As evident from a comparison to Chapter 10, Halachah 8, the laws governing such a field are directly opposite to those governing a field in which a grave was plowed.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 3, an entire limb that is separated from a living person imparts impurity like a corpse.

And thus the original prohibition could apply to it.

Our addition is made on the basis of Rashi’s gloss to Ketubot 20b.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 18:4), the Rambam describes such a place as “far from the cemetery and close to the city.” There is not necessarily a contradiction between the sources. The intent could be an open place on the way to the cemetery.

In the above source, the Rambam writes that such a field is also used to eulogize the departed. He also calls such a field “a third beit hapras.” However, unlike an ordinary beit hapras, a person who enters such a field is not ritually impure, for it has not been established that there is impurity there.

Generally, it is forbidden to disinter a corpse even with the intent of reburying it (Hilchot Evel 14:15). Nevertheless, in this instance, an exception is made. Since it was not known that there was a grave in this place, it can be assumed that the corpse was buried without the knowledge of the owner of the field. This is forbidden. Hence, it does not acquire its place and it is permitted to disinter it (Rashi, Sanhedrin 47b; Siftei Cohen 364:8). We do not assume that it was a meit mitzvah, a corpse that was discovered lying in the open field (Hilchot Evel 3:8), which may be buried anywhere (Halachah 7), for then the grave would have been likely to have been marked.

This reflects the version of Sanhedrin 47b and the Tosefta (Ohalot 16:5) possessed by the Rambam which follows the Jerusalem Talmud’s treatment of the subject (Nazir 9:3). Rashi and others had a different version of these texts which reverses the rulings entirely, maintaining that the area around a grave that is discovered is pure and that around a grave that is known is impure. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 364:2) quotes both perspectives, but considers the Rambam’s as a minority view. See also the gloss of the Ra’avad who apparently had a third version of these sources.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the intent is not that the earth becomes actually forbidden. This never applies. Instead, the intent is that one must treat the place with reverence and not conduct oneself frivolously there, pasture one’s animals there, or the like, as applies with regard to a cemetery (see Hilchot Evel 14:13).

Lest there be other corpses buried there. This obligation applies only when three corpses were found. This warrants an investigation to see whether there had been a cemetery in that place. If only one or two corpses are found, an investigation is not necessary (Kessef Mishneh, based on Chapter 9, Halachah 3).

See Chapter 9, loc. cit.

For one can assume that it was buried with the consent of the owner and thus “acquires” its place forever.

For it can be assumed that there are no other graves there.

I.e., it is located in· a place where people frequently walk and thus causes them to contract ritual impurity (Rashi, loc. cit.).

According to the Rambam, not only is permission granted to move the corpse, it is desirable to do so. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 364:5), however, states merely that it is permitted to move it. The corpse may be moved even if it was buried there with the knowledge of the owner of the place [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].

Here also there is a difference of opinion based on the versions of the sources cited in the notes to the previous halachah. In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules that the place is pure and does not mention the Rambam’s view.
The Kessef Mishneh states that, here also, the ruling that the place is impure applies only in an instance when three corpses are found there and there is the possibility that the place was a cemetery. Kin’at Eliyahu explains that this is likely. Otherwise, of what advantage would there be to moving the corpse?

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) also rules in this manner. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the prohibition against benefiting from the grave could be referring to an instance where a structure was built above the grave. Even if the corpse was removed, it is forbidden to benefit from the structure (see Siftei Cohen 364:12; Turei Zahav 364:4).

Literally, “a corpse [that it is] a mitzvah [to bury].” See Hilchot Evel 3:8 which states: “What is meant by a meit mitzvah? A Jewish corpse cast away on the road without anyone to bury it.” See also Hilchot Melachim 6:12.

The 2000 cubit area measured from the outer boundary of the city on all sides (Hilchot Shabbat 27:1). Our translation is based on the commentary of the Meiri to Bava Kama 81b. Others explain it as referring to 2000 cubits from the cemetery.

Which is very valuable.

See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 5:3 which includes as one of ten conditions under which Joshua apportioned the ancestral heritages in the land of Israel that “a meit mitzvah acquires its place and should be buried in the place where it is found.”
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 364:3) emphasizes that for this law to apply, the head of the corpse and the majority of its body must be found. The Siftei Cohen 364:10 states that for several reasons, this law is not practiced today and, instead, a corpse that is discovered should be brought to a cemetery. Kin’at Eliyahu adds that with today’s breakthroughs in transportation and communication, the ruling of the Siftei Cohen should certainly be followed.

Our translation is based on Rashi’s commentary to Bava Kama 81b.

To a place where it will not cause difficulty to passersby. He will thus be moving the corpse into a person’s private property.

The principle governing this and the following clauses is that the damage should be restricted as much as possible. In this case, since no effort had been invested to till that field, it was preferable to bury the corpse in it than in a field in which effort had been invested.

Since crops have already been sown, the loss will be greater if the corpse will be buried there.

For a vineyard is more valuable than a field.

Trees grow high with much foliage. If a corpse is buried under them, the branches and the leaves will be considered a shelter and render anyone who stands under them as impure. Vines, by contrast, are low-hanging and will not create as great a problem in this regard.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro notes that there is a difference of opinion regarding this point depending on one’s understanding of Avel Rabati 4:32 and in his Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), he rules that the corpse should be buried in the orchard.

I.e., a person or utensils that passed over the place previously are also impure. Since we do not know when the corpse was placed there, we assume it was there previously and anyone who walked over it became impure. The fact that one was not conscious of his contracting impurity is of no consequence.

For we assume that the corpse was buried recently. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s statements [basing himself on a Tosefta (Taharot 4:6)], which states that if the carcass of a lizard is found in a street, it imparts impurity retroactively from the time in which the street was cleaned. Similarly, in this instance, although the grave should not impart impurity beyond the time at which the person said there was no grave there, why should it not impart impurity from shortly after that time?
The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling, stating that there is a difference between the carcass of a lizard, that will not necessarily be noticed, and the burial of a corpse, which is likely to be public knowledge.

By causing the people or the implements or foods they are carrying to become impure.

The intermediate days of Pesach and Sukkot.

Although an olive-sized portion conveys ritual impurity, in this instance, since the flesh will decompose in the grave, we assume that the size of the portion will be reduced and thus be less than the minimum measure.

I.e., by causing them to become impure. Were the designation to be exact, it is possible it would not be noticed by a person until he stepped on it and that would cause the articles he was carrying to become impure (see Rashi, Mo'ed Kattan 5b).

When a person sees such a designation, he shuns the place and thus the useful area of Eretz Yisrael will be reduced (ibid.).

See Halachah 1.

Our definition of these terms is taken from Chapter 13, Halachah 2. It is feared that a corpse was buried under these objects.

I.e., whether a grave was lost in it or a grave was plowed in it. The point of this halachah is that, as seen from a comparison between halachah 3 of this chapter and Chapter 10, Halachah 8, there are various differences between these two types of fields, and thus it is necessary to be able to clarify this point.

As stated in Halachah 3. Tosafot, Mo’ed Kattan, loc. cit., emphasizes that this principle applies in a place where it would be fitting for trees to be planted.

See Chapter 10, Halachot 8 and 10.

This follows the Rambam’s version of Mo’ed Kattan 7a. (Tosafot also follows that version.) Rashi and the Ra’avad follow a slightly different version of the text that leads to different rulings.

In that era, it was common to place shards in between the stones of a building.

As stated in Halachah 9. Hence, it can be assumed that one would not designate an area unless there was a reason for doubt. The boundary lines are pure, because as stated there, a slight extension should be made.