Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

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

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

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

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

The smaller containers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 13:4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I.e., a person heating water.

A craftsman who dyes clothes.

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

I.e., everything inside the range.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the entire container is considered as a single entity.

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

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

Except the bottom one.

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

Chapter 14, Halachah 9.

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

As stated in Halachah 3.

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

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

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

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

An upraised rim that surrounds the entire tabletop.

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

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

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

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

See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:3.

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

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

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

For the compartments are obviously separate entities.