Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

See the parallels in Chapters 4 and 8 above.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim.4:4), the Rambam explains that there are certain tasks performed with earthenware containers after they are fired in a kiln, e.g., they are filed down and smoothed. Nevertheless, these are considered as secondary activities. Overall, once the containers are fired, the task of fashioning them has been completed.

An oven is generally not fired in a kiln. Instead, its clay becomes fired when it is used to bake for the first time.
Since donuts are made from light dough, an oven need not be heated to the same degree to bake them as is necessary if it were being used to bake bread or other heavier substances. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that when an oven had not been used before, its walls will absorb and let through some heat and therefore, even to bake doughnuts, it requires more heat [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 4:4)].

This applies when the frying pan has already been heated. If the frying pan had not been heated, great heat would be required to warm it (ibid.:2).

Sometimes, it is used as a range upon which to cook and sometimes, its opening is covered and it is used like an oven (ibid.).

As mentioned previously, in the Talmudic era, ovens were often a clay structure built on the ground with its earth as its base. At times, they were built in stages, one level added on to an existing level. Here, the Rambam is speaking about building the initial level of the oven.

I.e., even though one has not built it to its ultimate height, it is still useful and therefore considered a utensil if it is built to this extent.

Although the mishnah (Keilim 5:1) uses the expression “even the slightest amount,” Chulin 124a explains that the intent is a handbreadth.

Since it is used for cooking, not for baking, it does not require as much heat as an oven and, hence, need not be as large.

I.e., instead of the oven being heated from its inside, it was subjected to heat from the outside.

Without any food having been placed inside of it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:4)].

Although the mishnah (ibid.) mentions the ruling in the name of Rabban Gamliel alone, the Rambam understands it to have been accepted by the other Sages as well.

Flax is naturally dark and becomes whitened when heated.

Flax only requires a small amount of heat to whiten. Indeed, if one would apply excessive heat, it would be ruined.

To the extent that it became susceptible to ritual impurity.

Which impart impurity only due to Rabbinic decree.

The Ma’aseh Rokeiach differentiates between this ruling and that of Chapter 14, Halachah 7, which states that even when an earthenware container is divided by a partition, it is considered as a single entity, explaining that there, the entire container had already been made susceptible to impurity, while that was not the case in this instance. Alternatively, it is not common to divide an earthenware vessel, but it is common to divide an oven.

And thus became susceptible to impurity.

I.e., the half that is next to it.

The Ra’avad had a different version of the Tosefta than the Rambam and therefore differs with his ruling. The Kessel Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s decision.

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6, stone keilim are not susceptible to ritual impurity.

I.e., as the Rambam proceeds to explain, the specific laws that apply to earthenware ovens do not apply it.

I.e., an earthenware container and not a metal one.

Generally, an article attached to the ground does not contract impurity like the ground itself. Nevertheless, an exception is made with regard to an oven, because the Torah itself states that it contracts impurity.

All of the above laws apply with regard to metal keilim, but not earthenware ones.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:11).

Since the clay patch or addition improves its functionality, it is considered as an earthenware container.

Otherwise, the hole is insignificant and therefore, the clay patch is also of no consequence.

In particular, this applies to the size of a hole patched with clay. If fire emerged before it was patched, the clay patch causes it to become susceptible to impurity as an earthenware container (ibid.).

For the pot-rests are a useful addition (ibid.).

It is not susceptible to the impurity associated with an earthenware container. Instead, it is considered as a metal k'li.
In this instance, the addition is not significant, because unlike an oven for which the insulation would be useful, for a range it is of no avail. For the cooking on a range is done by placing a pot over the holes and the heat generated by the fire is sufficient for that purpose, even without the added insulation (ibid. 5:11).

As mentioned in Halachah 2, in the Talmudic era, the ovens were often structures with no base. As such, if an oven was not attached to the ground, one might think that since it is not functional, it is not susceptible to impurity.

Significantly, both here and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:6), the Rambam does not cite the same phrase from the prooftext as his source, Shabbat 125a.

Once an oven has been heated and its preparation is thus completed (see Halachah 1), it is susceptible to impurity no matter where it is located (see ibid.).

The commentaries to Keilim 8:9, the Rambam’s source, emphasize that we are speaking about an instance where the place to rest a pot was made from clay. It appears, however, that the Rambam followed a different version of that mishnah and he would not necessarily agree to the above point.

Even though the furnace would be primarily used for smelting, since part of its structure is a place for a pot, it can also be considered as a range.

Lime is produced by crushing stone and then burning it at high temperatures in a furnace.

In the range of glassmakers mentioned in the previous halachah, the sand from which glass was made fired into a block of glass. In the furnace mentioned in this halachah, the block of glass would be melted so that it would be pliable and able to be shaped into utensils (Tifferet Yisrael, Keilim, op. cit.).

These furnaces would be made of brick and not coated with clay. Hence, they were not considered as earthenware vessels (Tifferet Yisrael, Keilim, 8:9).

Made from clay.

I.e., only if it has a border is it impure. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim, op. cit.), Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura explains that these were large ovens that were considered as connected to the ground and hence pure. The border, however, is considered as an earthenware container and causes the entire oven to be susceptible to impurity.

As all earthenware containers do.

If a source of impurity touches its inside.

Rambam LeAm explains that according to Scriptural Law, such an oven is not considered as an earthenware vessel and is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Our Sages, however, were stringent and decreed that it should be considered susceptible to impurity. Nevertheless, in order to make a distinction and prevent terumah and sacrificial foods that contracted impurity as a result of it from being burnt, they ruled that it would impart impurity only through touch. See parallel concepts in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:3).

Even though stone keilim are not susceptible to impurity, these stones are not considered as entities in their own right, but part of the oven and contract impurity with it.

In Chapter 17, Halachah 4, the Rambam defines a tira as a place built at the side of an oven where loaves of bread are placed after they are removed from the oven. There also the relevant laws are stated.

For earth, even when subsidiary to a k’li, never contracts impurity.

From the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:3), it appears that this refers to a structure near a range where pots are placed so that they will remain hot.

Rambam LeAm states that this applies in a situation where the tira is not connected to the range. It is pure, because the food is not cooked on the tira.

The barrels and the frying pans were placed together in such a manner that they would enclose an area where kindling fuel could be placed and serve as a base on which pots could be placed to cook.

I.e., the inner space between the two barrels.

I.e., the external surface of the barrels and frying pans are susceptible to impurity when touched by impure liquids. (see the parallel in Chapter 13, Halachah 9).

I.e., its purity or impurity is not dependent on the presence of impurity in the inner space of the range.

To the earth (Tifferet Yisrael); alternatively, to each other (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura). See note 54 below and also Halachah 17.

Since the metal pegs are the primary element of the utensil, they are governed by the laws apply to a metal range described in Halachah 6.

The previous halachah spoke of three stands or pegs, because the stands or pegs are narrow. Stones, by contrast, are wide and even two can serve as a base on which a pot can stand.

Here, also, both interpretations given in note 53 are repeated. Based on Halachah 17, it would appear that the Rambam does not see them as mutually exclusive.

To the earth. In this instance, only this interpretation is appropriate.

I.e., between the oven—or one of the other articles mentioned—and the stone, it is possible to support the pot and enable it to cook.

Because it and the object that is susceptible to impurity are combined.

The commentaries explain that the term translated as “stone” refers to a loose stone, while that translated as “rock” refers to a rock embedded in the earth and attached from the beginning of existence.

Because the object to which the rock is connected is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

Who sells large amount of cooked meat. They would kindle several ranges at a time and cook a pot on each one [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Keilim 6:2)].

So that a fire could be placed under them and together they would support a pot.

Since these are not considered as earthenware vessels according to Scriptural Law and the intent was to use them to cook separate pots, our Sages did not rule stringently. The commentaries point to the laws stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 13, as a source.

Each of the two sets of stones constituted an independent range.

For, as stated in Halachah 14, such a range is susceptible to impurity if it comes into contact with impure liquids.

In his commentary to Keilim 6:3, Tosafot Yom Tov emphasizes that this ruling depends on the conception that in such an instance, the usual practice is to take a stone that is large enough to serve as a base for pots on either side.
On that basis, he differentiates between this law and the law stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 13 (which serves as the source for the previous halachah). For in that situation, it was not common to make the divider large enough to serve each side independently.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 6:3), the Rambam explains that the term has the implication of being placed in a category for all time.

And the other stone.

These portions of the middle stone are impure.

Because the previous situation has not been brought to an end entirely. Both of the external stones are in place and they are still functional.

Because the ranges that became impure are no longer functional, it is as if a new situation has been created.

The ranges are considered as having been newly made. The previous situation is not considered to have been reconstructed.

As stated in Halachah 1 above.

I.e., these — and the stones added later — were all coated with clay [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 6:4)].

Creating two new ranges.

Like the middle stone described in the previous halachah.

I.e., they are both considered as impure in their entirety.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 7:2), the Rambam explains that this refers to a cubic earthenware structure that functioned as a serving table. Its upper surface had receptacles in which a mixture of ash and coals were placed and upon which food was placed to warm and/or to remain hot.

Because it is not used to cook upon.

Thus the laws applying to it are more lenient in two aspects, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Once a k’li is permanently attached to the ground or to a building attached to the ground, it is no longer considered as a k’li, but as part of the entity to which it is attached. Hence, is not susceptible to impurity.

I.e., both leniencies. Even if it is attached to the ground, it is susceptible to impurity. Similarly, even if it has a hole, as long as it still can be used to cook, it is susceptible to impurity (ibid.).

Instead, the counter is considered merely like a receptacle. It is not considered like a yad, a handle, of the oven.

I.e., the part of the countertop that is left flat, without holes for food to warm.

The Mishnah Achronah states that this applies to the basket. The range built above, by contrast, is bound by all the laws applying to a range.

I.e., just as a large oven becomes susceptible to impurity when it is built to a height of four handbreadths (Chapter 15, Halachah 2), so too, it does not leave that category until it is destroyed to the extent that it is no longer of that height.

The rationale is that, at this size, it is still useful for its initial function.

Because once an oven is smashed, it is considered as if it no longer exists. Hence the impurity associated with it departs.

Since it is used for cooking, not for baking, it does not require as much heat as an oven and, hence, it remains useful even if it is much smaller.

As in Chapter 15, Halachah 2.

Cutting a space from its top to its bottom [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:7)].

But is no longer attached to the earth with clay (ibid.).

If it is taken apart in this manner, it is no longer functional, and hence, regains purity.

Since it is the larger portion of the k’li, it retains the impurity originally associated with it.

This principle is cited in other halachic contexts as well; see Hilchot Rotzeiach 9:8.

Because neither constitutes the larger portion of the tabletop. In his commentary to Keilim 12:6, Tosafot Yom Tov questions why the ruling regarding the tabletop differs from that concerning an oven. He explains- admitting that the explanation is somewhat forced -that possibly one can be exact when dividing a tabletop. Tifferet Yisrael offers a different explanation, stating that since the tabletop is cut in half, it no longer has borders on all its sides. Hence, the impurity associated with it is only of Rabbinic origin. Accordingly, since it is impossible to determine which is the larger portion, each one is given the benefit of the doubt and considered as the smaller portion and therefore pure.

Because it constitutes half — or more — of the size of the original oven.

Instead of separating the oven by vertical cuts, thus divided its substance into rings.

The minimum height of a large oven, as stated in Halachah 1.

Since each ring is less than the minimum size of an oven, the impure oven is considered to have been disassembled entirely. Hence, its impurity departs; it does not attach itself to any of the rings.

As stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 1, this is the measure required for an oven to become susceptible to impurity.

The sand and/or pebbles create enough insulation for the clay coating to be supported and for the new oven to retain its heat.

Because the substance of the oven itself is separate from the coating. Thus, halachically, it is considered as if its different components are unconnected. Instead, they are considered as separate entities, each one too small to be susceptible to impurity. Compare to Halachah 5 below.

Keilim 5:8. That mishnah also uses the phrase “Concerning this [type of oven], it was said....”

I.e., it does not contract impurity as an oven does. The rationale for the Rambam’s ruling is that the majority of the rings are less than four handbreadths high. Hence, as a whole, the structure is not considered as an oven according to Scriptural Law. Accordingly, the law pertaining to an oven—that it contacts impurity because of presence of impurity within its inner space—does not apply to any of its components, even one that fulfills the minimum requirement for the size of an oven.

Since there is nothing to hold the oven together, it is considered as if it was disassembled. Hence its impurity departs [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:9); see Halachah 3].

Not only does the oven not return to its previous impurity, it is not susceptible to impurity in the future. It is not considered as if a new oven was constructed, for the supports cause it to be considered as a single entity only the first time, directly after it is brought from the craftsman’s workshop (ibid.).

As stated in Halachah 3.

As is usually required (Chapter 15, Halachah 1).

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

Each ring being less than four handbreadths.

With the intent of preventing the rings from being considered as joined.

The rationale is that even though the sand separates between the different rings, the external covering causes the entire oven to be considered as a single unified entity. As the Ma’aseh Rokeiach explains, this ruling cannot be compared to that in Halachah 3, for in that halachah, there is sand separating between the rings and the coating. Hence the coating is not considered to have joined all of the rings into a single entity. In this halachah, by contrast, since the coating is applied directly to the rings, they are considered to have been joined together.
This type of oven, referred to as “the oven of Achnai” is the subject of a classic, monumental debate that left its mark on the history of Talmudic study. As mentioned in Keilim 5:10, Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages differed on this issue. As related at length in Berachot 19a and Bava Metzia 59b, Rabban Gamliel followed the perspective of the Sages, ruling that such an oven is impure. Rabbi Eliezer argued vociferously in support of his position, citing different proofs, but they were not accepted by the other Sages.
[Rabbi Eliezer] declared: “If the halachah follows my position, let this carob tree serve as proof and the carob tree moved 100 cubits.... They told him: “Proof is not brought from a carob tree.” He said: “If the halachah follows my position, let this water canal serve as proof’ and the water canal moved behind them. They told him: “Proof is not brought from a water canal.” He pronounced: “If the halachah follows my position, let the walls of the House of study serve as proof’ and the walls of the House of Study leaned as if they would soon fall. Rabbi Yehoshua rebuked them saying: “If Torah scholars are contesting with each other in halachah, what is it your business?” Out of respect for Rabbi Yehoshua, they did not fall and out of respect for Rabban Eliezer, they did not stand straight and they are still standing tilted. [Rabbi Eliezer then] told them: “If the halachah follows my position, proof will come from heaven” and a heavenly voice proclaimed: “Why are you disputing with Rabbi Eliezer? The halachah follows his opinion in all instances.” Rabbi Yehoshua stood up... and said: “It is not in the heavens.” What does “It is not in the heavens” mean?... No attention should be paid to a heavenly voice, because it was written at Sinai in the Torah (Exodus 23:2): “veer after the majority.” Rabbi Nosson found Eliyahu. He asked him: “What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do then?” He told him: “He smiled and said: ‘You have vanquished Me, My children. You have vanquished Me.”’
That day, they brought all the sacrificial foods that Rabbi Eliezer had purified and they burnt them and they voted against him, placing him under a ban of ostracism.

Without being supported by the earth behind it.

For it is considered as an earthenware structure.

For then it is a mere pit in the ground.

The standard printed text of the Tosefta, Keilim 3:1 states “and coated either from the inside or from the outside.” The Rambam probably had a different version of that source and favored it, based on a parallel ruling in Chapter 15, Halachah 11.

As required by Chapter 15, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 18, Halachot 13-14.

Removing the base of the barrel causes it to lose its functionality and hence become insusceptible to impurity.

Here also the Rambam mentions coating the barrel both on the inside and the outside, even though his source, the Tosefta, Keilim 4:8, mentions only an external coating.

Because the oven is not considered as whole.

Because the patch is considered to have restored the oven’s integrity.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:2). Note, however, (op. cit., Shabbat 8:4) where he interprets this term charsit as referring to a particularly thick type of mud. The commentaries note that the standard published text of the Tosefta, Keilim 4:7 includes charisit among the substances that can cause an oven to be considered impure. They explain that the Rambam had a different version of the Tosefta. It is possible to explain that the two versions are dependent on the two interpretations of the term charsit. According to the interpretation that it refers to a type of mud, it can serve as a patch, while according to the interpretation that it is a paste made from ground earthenware, it is not.

The Ma’aseh Rokeiach notes that in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, the Rambam rules that tar can be considered as an effective sealant for an earthenware container. Kin’at Eliyahu explains that there is no contradiction. An oven is heated and tar placed there will melt.

Attaching the oven to the wall of the home with the clay.

We are speaking about a situation where a shelf protrudes out from the oven. When the oven becomes very hot, it also becomes hot and will bake cakes placed upon it. Nevertheless, even though it is functional, it is not considered as an oven and is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

Since it comprises the major portion of the oven and it is functional, it is considered as part of the oven and susceptible to impurity.

For the portion covered with earth is considered as if it has been sealed closed.

E. g., the carcass of a crawling animal or the like [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:6)].

The Rambam states the same concepts in Hilchot Shabbat 3:7.

I.e., it was split across its entire length. Thus neither of the places where the pots could be placed are useful.

Because it is not functional.

I.e., the crack runs between the places where the pots are placed down. Thus each of these places are functional.

For, regardless, the place on which the pot is placed down is no longer functional.

As mentioned previously, a range was often built without a floor. While at times, the ranges were placed on the ground itself, it was also common for homeowners to place their ranges on round bases. This halachah is speaking about an instance where there is a hole in the upper surface of the base and thus the kindling fuel used to heat the range falls into the base itself [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 7:1)]. Diagram

Although the stone is serving as part of the base for the range, since it is not permanently affixed to the structure, the range is still considered as unable to fulfill its function.

If, however, the range had previously been impure, that impurity is considered to have departed.

This is translating the Hebrew term yad, which literally means “hand,” often is used to refer to a handle, but as will be seen in this chapter is used to refer to an accessory of a k’li. See also Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin, ch. 5, which uses the term yad in a similar context, albeit in relation to produce. See also a parallel in Hilchot Parah Adumah 12:12.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:2; based on Chulin 118a), the Rambam states that this concept is derived from Leviticus 11:35 which states with regard to an oven: “It shall be impure for you.” That phrase is interpreted to mean: “for all your needs,” i.e., including an accessory to the oven that contributes to its functionality.
The Ma’aseh Rokeiach notes that from Chapter 20, Halachah 1, it appears that the converse is also true. If the accessory contracts impurity, the oven itself also contracts impurity.

See Chapter 20.

For if it was removed from the oven, the oven would lose its heat and not bake as effectively [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:2)]. Diagram

For a stone this far away does not contribute to the functionality of the oven.

The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:5).

There the Rambam states that it was common for them to build a large copper pot into the ground and to build a base around it so that if it boils over, the water will spill onto that addition.

Dyers will be careful that the water does not boil over to the base of earth and thus discolor the dye [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Keilim 5:5)].

This is a structure built around the top of a range where pots can be placed to maintain their warmth [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:3)]. See also Chapter 15, Halachah 11.

Because it is not considered as connected to the range [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Keilim, op. cit.)].

Its presence is not significant, because at that height, it would not be useful for placing bread upon it [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim, op. cit.)].

By connecting it, the person indicated that he desired that the tira be considered as part of the oven (ibid.).

The person arranged three stones at the side of the oven and positioned the tira on those stones (ibid.).

Our translation of these terms is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

E. g., the carcass of a crawling animal (ibid.).

For it is forbidden to destroy terumah or consecrated food purposelessly. Since according to Scriptural Law, these foods would be pure, destroying them would be considered as purposeless.

They are neither eaten, nor burnt. Instead, they are left until they contract impurity of Scriptural origin or, in the case of sacrificial foods, the time when it is permitted to eat them passes and then they are burnt.

Literally, “the courtyard of a range,” i.e., a structure built next to a range that is used to facilitate cooking on the range. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 7:3). As evident from the continuation of the halachah, generally, this space has a border which causes it to be considered as a receptacle.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam slightly, explaining that if impurity is found above the open space in front of the range and it is opposite the opening of the range, the range also contracts impurity. Although the Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling here, an interpretation similar to that advanced by the Ra’avad is found in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:4). Both the Ma’aseh Rokeiach and the Merkevet HaMishneh explain that the Rambam did not necessarily retract his statements in his Commentary to the Mishneh. Here, he merely telescoped his wording, without explaining all the details.

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 5:11, 7:4), at the openings of the range where the pots are placed, there are three earthenware protrusions which support the pot.

Because they are considered integral parts of the range.

In his gloss to Keilim 7:5, Tosafot Yom Tov notes that the standard printed text of the mishnah states that such protrusions contract impurity together with the range whether it contracts impurity through contact with a source of impurity or due to the presence of a source of impurity in its inner space. He suggests that the Rambam had a different version of that text.

I.e., the protrusions on which the pot rests are set back somewhat from the hole over which the pot is placed. Diagram

Here, the Rambam does not mention to what degree imprecision is allowed for. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 7:6), one should take the base of the range which is certainly more than three fingerbreadths wider than the opening of the range and measure the protrusions against it.

Since the matter concerns a point of Rabbinic Law, a precise measurement is not required.