Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

At the same time. If, however, he is no longer standing over or holding the corpse, he does not impart impurity to keilim by standing over them [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 15:9)].

Obviously, in most cases, a handbreadth is the width of a grown person’s hands. The Rambam (ibid.) explains that this clause refers to a child or a youth with very small hands.

And he and they are pure.

I.e., his inner cavity is not one solid mass.

And thus can be considered as an ohel.

Chapter 12, Halachah 1; Chapter 13, Halachah 4.

If the door to the house was open at the time the corpse passed under the roof of the exedra, the impurity would spread from the exedra to the house (see Chapter 7, Halachah 3). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 6:2), the Rambam explains that we are speaking about a situation where the door was closed and the person attempted to lock it to prevent it from being opened and causing the house to become impure.

Without a person holding it closed. According to the Rambam (op. cit.), even if the key is what keeps it closed, the house does not become impure. Others maintain that the door must be able to remain closed even without a key.

By holding the door shut.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). There he explains that the oven was entirely inside the house, but the dome-shaped building was outside the house.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 5:1), the Rambam describes this opening as being on the curve of the oven, close to the ground, through which fire is inserted and ashes are taken out.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

Since the oven is resting on or built into the ground, it is considered as a separate entity and not as a k’li contained within the house. See Kessef Mishneh. The Ra’avad offers a different explanation.

I.e., one capable of holding more than 40 se’ah in which instance, it can never contract ritual impurity. See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.

Because as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 3, such a vessel intervenes in the face of ritual impurity.

This is speaking about an instance where there is no other entrance through which the impurity can depart and the closet is blocking the doorway entirely. Since the impurity seeks to depart, it pierces through the closet and enters its inner space (Kessef Mishneh).
It must be emphasized that Chullin 125b and many commentaries to the Mishnah follow a different version and rule that the closet is pure.

Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 18:2). Others offer different interpretations. Diagram

Although Ohalot 4:3 mentions three fingerbreadths, the Rambam understands this as meaning anything less than a handbreadth.

Were it to be able to be separated from the closet, it would be considered as an independent k’li. Hence, it could contract impurity and spread impurity throughout the house.

Including not only the portion that extends from behind the closet, but also the space it comprises within the closet.

Because the impurity pierces through and ascends and thus enters the inner space of the house.

Provided the doors to the closet are closed.

Thus if the impurity is in the closet, the house is impure, because the impurity will ultimately depart even though the opening to the chest is less than a handbreadth.

And thus those keilim are considered as if they were inside the closet.

For the impurity is within the house. Even if it is considered as being under a separate covering, when there is one ohel under a second ohel, everything under the second ohel is impure [Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 4:1)].

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 4:1).

In the above source, the Rambam explains that the closet was of hollow walls with boards on either side. The Mishnah — and this halachah — is speaking about an instance when there was either impurity or keilim between those boards.

I.e., anything less than a hand breadth. Diagram

It does not matter if the impurity is under a portion that is within a handbreadth of the ground or under a portion that is above a handbreadth. As long as part of the slanted wall is a handbreadth above the ground, it is considered as part of an ohel and conveys impurity to everything in the structure. There must, however, be a straight roof of at least a handbreadth by a handbreadth (see Chapter 12, Halachah 1; Hilchot Sukkah 5:25).

We are speaking about a wall that is made out of fabric, e.g., linen or wool, or leather (Chapter 5, Halachah 12). Therefore, even though it is considered as part of an ohel, it still contracts ritual impurity like a k'li.

The Kessef Mishneh states that this refers to an instance where the corpse was removed before the person touched the wall of the tent. Otherwise, he would contract the impurity that lasts seven days.

The impurity is combined and considered as an entire olive-sized portion despite the fact that half is inside the tent and half is outside. Nevertheless, since it is divided, it only conveys impurity that lasts until the evening rather than impurity that lasts for an entire week (Kessef Mishneh).

And only the articles directly above or directly below the impurity contract impurity. The structure as a whole is not considered as impure. The part that is spread out on the ground is not considered as an extension of the walls of the tent, but rather a covering over the ground.

This phrase translates the term kaveret that is used in the Mishnah (Ohalot 9:1; Kelim 15:1). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim, op. cit.), the Rambam defines this term as referring to a basket-like container usually made from straw, reeds, or tree bark. And in his Commentary to Ohalot, he explains that these containers are usually oversized, containing more than 40 se’ah. Thus the container itself never becomes impure. The articles in it or above and below it may, however, contract impurity, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the mishnah is speaking about an earthenware container.

This clause is referring to a container positioned less than a handbreadth above the ground.

With a portion inside the building and a portion outside (Kessef Mishneh).

In this chapter, the terms pure and impure refer to the status of any keilim (or persons) found in the spaces mentioned [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot, loc. cit.)].
Chapter 13, Halachah 3, states that oversized wooden utensils intervene in the face of ritual impurity. Nevertheless, that applies only to keilim on the side of the impurity. Keilim directly above or below that impurity can become impure (Kessef Mishneh; Tosafot Yom Tov to Ohalot, loc. cit., see note 16).

I.e., the inner space of the container as a whole does not contract ritual impurity, because the impurity is outside of it (Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, those keilim directly above or below that impurity become impure.
The Ra’avad objects to this decision, stating that since the impurity is not considered as flush, but rather under an ohel, the ohel should protect all the articles inside of it from contracting impurity, even those directly above the impurity. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since we are speaking about a container, it is not considered as an ohel in a complete sense and does not intervene.

Even though a portion of the container is found within its inner space, since the impurity is outside and the container does not serve as an ohel, the building remains pure.

Since the opening of the container is outside the building, the impurity does not enter its inner space even though some of that space is within the building [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot, loc. cit.)].

The inner space of the container becomes impure. Hence, even when the impurity is located in that part of the container that is outside the building, that impurity also spreads throughout the inner space of the container. And since part of the inner space of the container is within the building, the building also contracts this impurity (ibid.). The walls of the container do not prevent the impurity from spreading. It is like having one structure above another structure (Kessef Mishneh, referring to Chapter 18, Halachah 6).

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that even keilim that are not directly under the impurity contract impurity. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this applies only according to his conception that we are speaking about an earthenware utensil and not according to the Rambam’s interpretation that the mishnah refers to an oversized utensil.

Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

And thus creates an ohel (ibid.:2).

Since it becomes an ohel, the space under it becomes impure and that space extends into the building, making the building impure. Conversely, if there was impurity in the building, that impurity extends to the space under the container that is outside the building.

I.e., the keilim that are within the building and above the container. They become impure because the inner space of the building is impure.

As above, since it opens outside the building, its inner space is not affected by the inner space of the building.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the container intervenes in the face of the impurity and protects the keilim inside of it from contracting impurity. Others explain that this is a safeguard decreed by our Sages, lest there be such a container that does not have a handbreadth of empty inner space.

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s statements and, indeed, they appear to run contrary to what he stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 3. There he stated that an oversized wooden k’li intervenes in the face of ritual impurity. The Kessef Mishneh notes that the difficulty is not with the Rambam’s ruling here, but with an apparent contradiction between the mishnayot in Ohalot. Ohalot 6:1 states that a human being and a k’li, even a k’li that does not contract ritual impurity, serve as ohalot to impart ritual impurity, but not to intervene and preserve purity. Ohalot 8:1, by contrast, states that oversized wooden vessels intervene in the face of ritual impurity.
To resolve that contradiction, the Kessef Mishneh states that such utensils intervene when they are placed in a doorway or window and prevent impurity from entering from one building to another. When, by contrast, they serve as an ohel, they do not intervene.

But its walls are intact.

For, as will be explained (Hilchot Keilim 14:9), when a beehive-like container has a hole, it is no longer considered as a container and does not protect the entities inside of it. Even when the hole is plugged, that law applies (ibid.:11).

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

The minimum dimensions for an ohel over the impurity.

The Rambam’s wording is somewhat confusing, but his intent is apparent. Even if there is some empty space in the container, as long as there isn’t a handbreadth by a handbreadth in one place, it is not placed in this category.

And thus it creates an ohel.

I.e., the impurity spreads from within the building to the space under the container outside the building or from the space under the container that is outside the building, it spreads within the building.

In this instance, even the keilim that are directly above the impurity are not impure. As mentioned in note 15, their impurity is only a Rabbinic safeguard and such a safeguard is necessary only with regard to a valid container (Kessef Mishneh).

See Chapter 5, Halachah 12, which contrasts a wooden ohel to an ohel made from fabric. The wooden ohel does not contract impurity. Hence it prevents impurity from passing through it and its inner space does not become impure.

For a container does not intervene in the face of impurity as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

In the portion outside the building.

It does not bring impurity into the building. In such an instance, the container is considered as part of the ground and impurity in it or under it is considered as if it were buried in the ground [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:2).

On the portion outside the building.

And everything else is pure.

I.e., one which is damaged or filled.

But not the space above it. In this context, it is considered an ohel and it intervenes in the face of the impurity. The Ra’avad questions why that is so, for seemingly the impurity is flush and should ascend upward as well. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since once the container was fit to be considered as an ohel, that categorization remains to the extent that it prevents the impurity from spreading above it. See also the latter clauses of the following halachah.

And outside the building.

But not the space below it.

Any keilim in the container or under it remain pure, because it is as if they are buried in the ground.

But the impurity does not spread to the building.

And thus is considered as a valid k’li.

As in the previous halachah.

Since its inner space opens up to the building, the impurity spreads freely from it to the building and from the building to it [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 9:5)].

And thus created an ohel.

In the previous halachah, based on Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

And there was not an empty space of a handbreadth in one place.

Which are outside the building. These keilim are pure, because the container intervenes, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Because the inner space of one leads to the other, as explained.

In these instances, it does not matter whether the container was intact or damaged, filled or empty.

Generally, a handbreadth of open space is needed for impurity to spread.

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies even if the top of the container is sealed closed. For a seal does not prevent impurity from spreading.

The impurity cannot bear confinement, as it were, and departs into the building even if there is less than a handbreadth of open space. Nevertheless, since there is less than a handbreadth of open space, the impurity will not flow in the other direction and enter the container.

I.e., it does not matter whether the opening was positioned upright or at the side.

For rather than enter the building, the impurity will depart outward.

Since the container is blocking the doorway, the only way for the impurity to depart from the building is to pass through the container. See Kessef Mishneh and the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 9:10).

And thus considered as a k’li.

I.e., without a roof or covering extending over it and while it is resting less than a handbreadth above the ground. This halachah restates similar concepts as in Halachah 1, except that it applies when the container is not located in a building and thus certain factors are not relevant (ibid.).

As in Halachah 1, the container does not intervene in the face of the ritual impurity in this instance.

Those keilim become impure.

Thus creating an ohel.

When it is raised a handbreadth above the ground.

See Halachah 1 and notes.

In which case it is not considered as a valid k’li and cannot contract ritual impurity, as stated in Halachah 1 and notes.

Which also never contracts ritual impurity and intervenes in the face of ritual impurity, as stated at the conclusion of the halachah.

But it intervenes and prevents impurity from spreading to anything above it.

Chapter 13, Halachah 3.
The commentaries note that there is an apparent contradiction between the Rambam’s statements here and the explanation given in Halachah 1 where it was stated that this beehive-like container was oversized and yet did not intervene. The Kessef Mishneh offers a partial resolution, but it does not deal with the core of the question.

Without there being a handbreadth of space between it and the ground.

Conveying impurity only to the keilim that are directly above it or below it, as is the law whenever impurity is flush. The impurity does not spread to the sides [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 9:12)].

This is not speaking about a sealed covering which intervenes in the face of impurity.

Thus it—or the covering—will create an ohel. If it is overturned, it is considered as a closed grave (ibid.).

Kin’at Eliyahu questions why the qualifying clause is necessary. Seemingly, the same laws apply in all three instances.

See Halachah 1 and notes.

As in the previous halachah, in these instances, the container is not considered as an ordinary k’li and intervenes in the face of ritual impurity. This clause is speaking about an instance where the container is not raised a handbreadth above the ground. Therefore the impurity is considered as if it were covered by the earth [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 9:13)].

This rationale applies to the previous clause as well.

Without there being an ohel over it.

For a living entity other than a human intervenes in the face of impurity, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 3.

The commentaries have questioned the Rambam’s ruling, because seemingly the upper side of the camel should intervene as does the upper side of a damaged container. Or as the Kessef Mishneh notes, in Chapter 18, Halachah 2, it is stated that a person can be considered an ohel because he is not a solid mass. Seemingly, that same concept should apply with regard to a camel.

Hilchot Nizirut 7:6.

As required by a nazirite who contracts ritual impurity through contact with a human corpse. A nazirite is forbidden to shave his head. Nevertheless, if he contracts such impurity he is required to do so. This applies, however, only with regard to impurity that is Scriptural in origin. If the impurity is Rabbinic in origin, he may not violate the Scriptural prohibition against shaving to uphold a Rabbinic ordinance regarding impurity.

As reflected in the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Mamrim, ch. 1, there are three types of laws that are considered midivrei sofrim, “from the words of the Sages”: a) laws communicated by the Oral Tradition; these were transmitted to Moses at Sinai and then communicated from one generation to another; b) laws derived through the techniques of the attributes of Biblical exegesis; c) laws which they instituted as safeguards for the observance of Scriptural Law, on their own initiative.
Now the first two of these categories are considered as having the status of Scriptural Law in certain contexts. Nevertheless, as the Rambam states in Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 2), he considers them “from the words of the Sages.”

A person who contracts impurity is liable for entering the Temple (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:12-13) or partaking of consecrated foods (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:13).

Which themselves must be ritually pure and can be eaten only by a person who is ritually pure.

Chapter 3, Halachah 3; Chapter 5, Halachah 5.

The term used by the Rambam is taken from Numbers 19:15. See Chapter 21, where this subject is discussed in detail.

It must be emphasized that whenever it is said that a house or an ohel becomes impure, the intent is that the inner space of the house or the ohel, becomes impure. The house itself does not contract impurity.

And humans. This law is relevant to contemporary halachah when there is a corpse in the inner ohel and a priest in the outer one.

For the impurity will seek to depart from the inner ohel, as it were, and thus enter the larger ohel, as explained in ch. 7.
The Ra’avad explains that the law stated by the Rambam applies only when the inner ohel is fit to contract impurity or when there is no other opening through which the impurity can depart from the inner ohel. If, however, it is not fit to contract impurity itself and there is a window or entrance through which the impurity can depart, the larger ohel does not contract impurity.

Or animal.

Mikveot 10:8 explains that this applies in an instance where a person swallowed a pure ring, contracted the impurity associated with a corpse, had the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon himself, immersed himself and then vomited the ring. If he had not gone through the process of purification, the ring would not be pure, because it would contract ritual impurity by touching his body as he vomits it.

From spreading or from being contracted. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 8.

Thus if there is the flesh of a corpse in their intestines, the ohel becomes impure. It is as if the flesh from the corpse is in a container [Rav Kapach’s version of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 11:7)]. If there is a k’li in their intestines, the k’li becomes impure.

Ritual slaughter involves slitting the gullet and the windpipe. For the slaughter of a fowl to be effective, it is necessary that merely the majority of one of these two organs be slit. For the slaughter of an animal to be effective, the majority of both organs must be slit (Hilchot Shechitah 1:9, 3:5).

This concept is reflected in similar rulings in Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 2:6, 3:4. Nevertheless, in Chapter 1, Halachah 15, and other sources, it is stated that an animal in its death throes is considered alive. It is possible to explain that this is a stringency ordained with regard to the impurity of foods.

I.e., once the flesh of a corpse has been digested, it no longer imparts impurity. The Rambam is thus asking how long the digestive process of these animals takes.

See Shabbat 155b which explains that the digestive process of a dog is particularly slow. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam mentions that it is possible that this lengthy time applies only with regard to the digestion of the flesh of a corpse.

For it is considered as if it had decomposed already.

For they are intact.

Our translation of this and the following terms are taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:6).

At the top of a wooden spindle, there was usually a metal hook. In this instance, the hook was pushed into the wood so that it was not visible [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:6)].

A wooden rod used to direct the animals pulling the plow so that they do not deviate from the path (ibid).

The ring was in the clay from which the brick was made and it was fired in the kiln together with it (ibid.).

Moreover, even when there is a sealed cover, iron utensils are not saved from impurity, as will be explained.

In the Talmudic era, the ovens were made of earthenware and clay was often placed on the top or the bottom of the oven to reinforce it (ibid.:1).

Since they are part of the structure of the oven itself, their status is dependent on it (ibid.).

The rationale is that they are on the sides of the jug and the sides do not need a clay seal. Thus this clay is not considered as part of the jug. Instead, it is as if the keilim were attached to a jug with clay.

Since they do not project into the jug’s inner space, they are considered as integral part of the covering and not as a separate entity. Needless to say, they do not become impure if they are in the midst of the clay over the jug’s opening (ibid.).

Chapter 23, Halachah 1.

As long as they are covered by clay, they are not considered as having entered the inner space of the jug.

Chapter 24, Halachah 2.

Which is considered as a separate entity entirely.

And there is a cubic handbreadth of empty space below the partition. Here we are speaking of an instance where the entrance to the house is above the partition. See also Chapter 24, Halachah 2. In contrast to this halachah, there the Rambam speaks of an instance where the entrance to the house is below the partition.

Halachah 1. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, stating that there are instances when an ohel prevents the spread of impurity. The Kessef Mishneh agrees, but explains that this principle would apply were the partition to separate the house into two portions vertically across its entire inner space. Here, however, it does not. Hence, since the impurity seeks to leave the house, it passes above the partition and imparts impurity to the space there.

In this instance, the impurity does not seek to go under the partition, for its easier path is to depart from the house.

I.e., it has a domelike structure above it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 3:7)].

Although later, we will use the term a cubic handbreadth, each of the coordinates must be at least a handbreadth (ibid.).

For the easiest path is for impurity to depart through the entrance to the drain, rather than enter the house (ibid.). Diagram

The rationale is that the impurity “seeks to depart and not to enter.” Hence, its most direct path is to leave through the entrance of the house. This ruling leads to the general principle that a secondary opening that is a cubic handbreadth in size intervenes and does not allow impurity to enter (ibid.).

For there is no other path for the impurity to depart (ibid.).

Nevertheless, since it is a cubic handbreadth in size, it is considered as distinct from the house.

Since it is not a cubic handbreadth in size, it is not considered as distinct entity.

As stated in the previous halachah.

I.e., anything less than an olive-sized portion.

I.e., the sum of the two portions. There is no need for the two portions to be together. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishanh (Ohalot 8:6).

As stated in Halachah 1.

And the seal prevents the impurity from entering, as stated in the following chapter.

Since it is open, impurity can enter it.

Because it is in a sealed covering.

Because the impurity from the inner or middle room seeks to depart and passes through the outer room.

Because a full measure of impurity is not contained within them and the impurity from the outer room will not enter further into the house. In his gloss to this mishnah, Tifferet Yisrael emphasizes that this ruling applies provided the doors between the rooms are closed. If they are opened, the rooms are considered as a single entity. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 371:3. Diagram