Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

If it is touched by impurity from the outside, it remains pure.

The Rambam uses the expression kal vichomer, a conclusion drawn from a more stringent situation to a more lenient one (a fortiori reasoning). The logic is that if the sealed covering can protect the contents of a container that is susceptible to ritual impurity, it certainly will protect the contents of a container that is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

See Chapter 6, Halachot 1-3, for an explanation of this concept.

See the notes to the above source where a distinction is made between earthenware keilim and keilim that are made from earth.

The same leniency applies also to sea animals that are not fish per se. See Hilchot Keilim 1:3.

I.e., that a wooden board should be placed on top of a container and then fastened close [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:1)].

See Hilchot Keilim 8:1-5 for an explanation of this point.

Here also, the Rambam uses the expression kal vichomer. The logic is that if the sealed covering can protect the contents of a container from impurity, certainly, the fact that a k’li is swallowed or separated by an ohel will protect it.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that the hole must be closed for the funnel to be considered as a covering. The Kessef Mishneh differs and maintains that even if it is open, since this is the way such a utensil is made, it is considered as a valid covering.

I.e., even articles buried in the earth.

To seal it to the ground, as it were.

I.e., over its opening.

For then it is considered as sealed close.

In the previous clause.

For an ohel must be a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth (Kessef Mishneh).

Either the border of the wall or the utensil.

Thus the inner space of the container is considered as covered by the tent.

Thus the beam is serving as an ohel over the impurity.

If even a portion of the pot was uncovered, its contents are impure. For it to be saved from impurity, it must be covered entirely.

Even the smallest amount of empty space enables the impurity to enter. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 5:7).

For the space under the beam is impure and that impurity enters the pot.

In this and the next halachah, we translate both the Hebrew terms bor and chadut as “cistern.” In particular, however, there is a distinction between them. As the Rambam writes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 5:6, et al), a bor is a pit dug in the ground. A chadut is a storage area that is built above the ground.

A flat board is not considered as a k’li. Therefore it is not susceptible to ritual impurity and hence can serve as a covering that protects the contents of the cistern.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, noting that from the mishnah in Ohalot, it appears that even a flat utensil can also serve as a covering to the cistern. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the Rambam would not contest that statement and considers a flat utensil as similar to a board.

See Halachah 3 which explains that such a utensil serves as an ohel.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam emphasizes that this applies only when the k’li is not susceptible to ritual impurity,

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:7; Ohalot 11:8) the Rambam defines this term as referring to the round plate of a lamp on which the actual candle or wick is placed.

I.e., the flower of the lamp protrudes above the cistern and the utensil rests on it.

Obviously, if its support would be removed, it would descend. The question is whether it will fall into the cistern or not? I.e., is it large enough to serve as a covering for the cistern?

For the cover serves as an ohel and protects everything under it.

Since the cover is supported by the flower and the flower is susceptible to ritual impurity in this instance, the cover is considered like the flower and is not considered to have formed an ohel.

Here also we are speaking about a cistern built inside a house, where the walls of the cistern project above the ground.

Chapter 20, Halachah 1.

I.e., the minimum size of an ohel.

This ·refers to a situation where storage areas are hollowed out in the walls of the cistern. They are not considered as part of the house, but as part of the cistern. Just as the cistern protects the keilim in it, it protects the keilim in its walls [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 11:9)].

For then, they are considered as part of the house.

I.e., the cistern was built under the wall of the house, half opens up inside the house and half opens up outside.

I.e., even if it does not have a cubic handbreadth of empty space. Since the walls of the cistern extend beyond the walls of the house, the entities in its walls are never considered as part of the house.

Chapter 12, Halachah 3.

This refers to an oven that had not been used yet.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:7), the Rambam explains that this refers to a flat earthenware surface with holes in it.

I.e., the old oven projects somewhat outside the new oven. Although the covering is resting primarily on the new oven, it is supported somewhat by the old one.

In contrast to the new oven, the old oven is considered as a k’li and a cover must be fastened on to it for it to protect from ritual impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:7)].

I.e., in the new oven and of course, in the old oven.

For the cover is considered as an ohel on top of the new oven which is also an ohel. Hence it protects the keilim from impurity.

And thus the covering is considered as an ohel.

Since there is less than a handbreadth of open space there, the impurity does not enter and thus the oven is considered as covered even if it is not sealed close. [It must be noted that Rav Kappach’s edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:7) includes an emendation of the version of the Rambm’s commentary that differs from the version that appears in the standard published texts. The version in Rav Kappach’s text fits the ruling here.]

Since the covering has a border, it is considered as a k’li and like other keilim, it does not intervene in the face of ritual impurity, as a flat covering would.

Even the slightest amount [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 12:2)]. In that source, the Rambam also quotes the Tosefta (Ohalot 13:5) which explains that we are speaking about a covering with a border.

Since the oven is sealed close, it makes no difference whether it is new or old.

The commentaries question the addition of the term “even.”

I.e., above or under the portion that projects beyond the oven.

I.e., if the impurity is below the covering, the covering serves as an ohel and imparts impurity to the entire space and any keilim under it. Nevertheless, the covering does not intervene in the face of impurity. Hence, the impurity rises through the covering and imparts impurity to everything above it. If the impurity is above the covering, the covering does not intervene and the impurity descends through it. The covering then serves as an ohel and imparts impurity to the entire space and any keilim under it. That impurity then rises through the covering and imparts impurity to everything above it [the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Taharot 12:2)].

Because the oven is closed with a sealed covering.

Because it is covered by a sealed covering.

Because it is considered as a sealed covering.

Which, in contrast to the first clause, is, in this instance, open to contract the impurity in the house.

I.e., the pot cannot serve as a covering for the jug.

Chapter 13, Halachah 4.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:3). See also Hilchot Keilim 18:1.

These handles are often large enough to serve as containers in their own right.

And, as they are, the handles are not considered as keilim.

The Rambam’s ruling is based on the Tosefta, Keilim 7:7. The Ra’avad interprets the Tosefta differently and hence, rejects the Rambam’s ruling. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s interpretation.

The Rambam is developing the concept stated in the first halachah: A sealed covering protects only the contents of containers. If a container has large holes in it, it is no longer considered as a k’li and its contents are not protected from impurity.
Nevertheless, the Rambam’s wording has attracted the notice of the commentaries, for at the beginning of the halachah, he speaks about the hole being large enough for pomegranates to fall through, and in its conclusion, he speaks of olives falling through. The intent is, however, clarified on the basis of the Rambam’s statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:8) in which he contrasts that mishnah with the statements of Shabbat 95b.
The first clause is speaking about an instance where the container and the hole are sealed close. Therefore, for the container to be disqualified, the hole must be large enough for pomegranates to fall through if the container is small or must comprise the majority of the container if it is large. If, however, the hole is not sealed close, a much smaller hole can disqualify it, as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the later clause.

See Hilchot Keilim 19:2.

See Hilchot Keilim 18:10.

See Hilchot Keilim 14:9; 19:1.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:7). Nevertheless, the commentaries question the intent of the phrase “the opening of the rod.”

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 close so that none of its heat would escape. Since at times it was opened and at times it was closed, it was referred to as an eye.

To preserve the oven’s heat.

I.e., pulling it through the hole would not extinguish it.

For the hole is considered large enough to allow impurity to enter.

This halachah is also speaking about instances when the oven or the jug is sealed close and yet, there is a hole [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:8)].

This is a smaller measure than were the reed to be burning.

The second joint is slightly smaller than the first joint (ibid.).

It would appear that the hole must be large enough for a liquid to seep in when the container is submerged in it. [This qualification indeed appears in the standard published text of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). Rav Kappach, however, maintains that there is an error in that version.]

The Vilna Gaon explains why a larger hole is acceptable for a container for wine. Air entering the hole damages the flavor of the wine. Hence the owner will view such a hole as undesirable. With regard to other liquids, by contrast, a hole improves their flavor. Hence, the hole is appreciated.

And thus the hole is considered as undesirable.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:2), the Rambam states that sometimes such tubes are made from reeds or from glass as well, but in this instance, the tube is earthenware. The Ra’avad differs and maintains that here, the mishnah is speaking about a metal tube.

I.e., one drinks from the jug by sucking on the tube.

The Mishnah (ibid.) relates that originally, the School of Hillel ruled that the tube was pure, but later they accepted the more stringent ruling of the School of Shammai.

The Rambam's words require qualification, for with regard to the jug and its contents, the fact that the tube is crooked causes the jug to be considered as closed. Nevertheless, the tube itself becomes considered as a separate utensil and it is not considered as closed (Kessef Mishneh).

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:6).

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:2).

That was not brought into contact with water (see Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 1:2).

Fruit juice does not make grain susceptible to ritual impurity (ibid.:3), nor is a dough kneaded with it susceptible to ritual impurity (ibid. 6:13).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim, loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that originally, the Sages stated that these substances should not be used as seals. The rationale is that even though they are not susceptible to ritual impurity in their present state, it is possible that they will come in contact with water or a similar liquid in the future. Then they would become susceptible to impurity and indeed, contract it. And once, they contracted impurity, they would not be an effective seal. Afterwards, the Sages allowed these substances to be used as seals, because there is no obligation to maintain articles in a state of ritual impurity. Unquestionably, if such a substance was used as a seal, it protects the contents of the container until it contracts impurity.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, offering a different interpretation of Keilim 10:4, the Rambam’s source. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s interpretation.

Our translation is taken from Rav Kapach’s translation of the Arabic terms used by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).

I.e., it is not sufficient to smear a small amount of clay above the opening, one must smear clay over the entire ball or strands, covering them entirely (ibid.).

I.e., the clay must be smeared in a similar manner in this instance as well (ibid.).

For unlike the other substances, the leather or the paper are not porous.

It appears that according to the Rambam, this applies even if the covering was not sealed with clay.
The Kessef Mishneh interprets the Ra’avad as objecting to the Rambam’s ruling. Although it is based on a Tosefta, that Tosefta appears to contradict the mishnah cited in the previous halachah. For the mishnah requires that the covering be sealed and the Tosefta does not. It is possible to explain that there is not necessarily a contradiction, because here the entire jug is covered with the skin. The Kessef Mishneh, however, maintains that the Rambam would also require that a seal of clay be made where the covering was closed.

Since it is untied, it is likely that the clay sealing at the sides will be broken.

And thus the container was still functional.

For the pitch that is standing is considered as a cover for the based of the jug [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:5)].

As mentioned in Chapter 21, Halachah 1, not only earthenware containers, but containers that do not contract impurity, e.g., stone containers, oversized containers, and bone containers, protect their contents from ritual impurity. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, this decree was instituted only with regard to earthenware containers and not the other containers.

Because of their presence under a shelter where a human corpse is present.
As Eduyot 1:14 relates, originally, this was the position of the School ofShammai, while the School of Hillel maintained that Scriptural Law should be followed. Nevertheless, after hearing the reasoning of the School of Shammai, the School of Hillel accepted their position.

See Chapter 16, Halachah 5, et al.

Thus even though an earthenware vessel belonging to a common person will be sealed close, its contents will not be protected and they will contract impurity. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, the common person will not be aware of this and think that they are pure.

Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 10:1.

A person who accepts the stringencies of the laws of ritual purity and impurity upon himself (ibid.).

Seemingly, if there was a need for a decree, it should encompass these entities as well.

Because, as explained above, he does not consider himself as impure.

Because an impure container does not intervene in the face of impurity even when sealed close. Thus to be purified, the implement would have to have the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon it on the third and seventh days. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:1) where he elaborates on the concepts mentioned here.

Regardless of whether he is a chaver or a common person.

The explanation that follows is necessary, because the same rationale that applies with regard to metal keilim in an earthenware container also applies with regard to humans. For humans also can regain purity through immersion.

How often are humans found in sealed containers?

I.e., intended to be used for these substances, even if they are not contained inside these vessels at that time.

Since the common people are extremely cautious with regard to these substances, they will not make the errors of which they were suspected of making in the previous halachah. See Hilchot Parah Adumah 13:12; Hilchot M’Tamei Mishkav UMoshav 11:1.

I.e., garments and other keilim that could be purified through immersion. The ashes of the red heifer, the water used for it, and sacrificial foods, however, do contract impurity in such a situation, as stated in Hilchot Parah Adumah 14:3-4.

Covering it in its entirety.

As stated in Chapter 22, Halachah 3, in such a situation, a container no longer protects against impurity even when sealed close.

Because the impurity enters it.

Because the impurity will not enter the loft unless there is an aperture the size of a handbreadth by a handbreadth.

I.e., food, liquids, and earthenware implements, as mentioned above.

The situation is similar to that described in Halachot 1-2. Our Sages decreed that an earthenware container would not separate between the loft and the house out of concern that the container might belong to a common person who would not be aware that it is impure. Moreover, in this instance, the leniency granted in Halachah 2 does not apply.
[As in Halachah 1, this halachah reflects the position of the School of Shammai that was later accepted by the School of Hillel.]

As if it were in an ohel where a corpse was found.

Thus a unique situation is brought about: the container is impure, but the contents are pure.

Removing both her hands from the dough [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 5:4)].

For this is considered as a new circumstance, not included in the initial decree.

As mentioned in Chapter 21, Halachah 1, this refers to stone containers, oversized containers, bone containers, and the like.

As stated in Halachah 3.

The fabric of the tent is considered to have created a separation. The tent itself, however, is impure.

Chapter 21, Halachah 1. The Ra’avad offers a slightly different rationale. The fabric is considered as part of the tent even though it is not extended. Diagram