Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

What is the source that teaches that a sealed covering saves the contents of a container from contracting ritual impurity in a shelter in which a corpse is located? Numbers 19:15 states: "Any open container that does not have a sealed covering on top of it is impure." One can derive from this that if there is a sealed covering on it, it is pure.

According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that the verse is speaking only about an earthenware container, for it is a container that contracts impurity only through its opening. Therefore, if its opening is closed with a sealed covering, all of its contents are protected.

From this, we can infer that the contents of any of the containers which are not susceptible to ritual impurity are protected when the container is closed with a sealed covering. Such containers include: containers made from cow turds, stone containers, containers made from earth, containers made from the bones or skin of a fish or the bones of a fowl, oversized wooden containers, wooden boards that are flat and are not containers, metal keilim which have not been completely fashioned. The contents of all of these are protected by a sealed covering.

Now if the contents of a utensil closed with a sealed covering are protected, we can infer that this also applies to keilim that are swallowed or under an ohel. What is the difference between ohalim and containers that protect because of a sealed covering? That the covering of the containers must be sealed close, while for an ohel, any covering is sufficient.

If a funnel is turned upside down, it protects anything it covers from impurity. Although its other end has a small hole, it is considered as if it were closed.

All containers that protect their contents when sealed closed also protect anything that is under them to the very depths if they are turned upside down and stood on the earth, when their inner space is a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth, even though one did not spread clay around the sides to seal them. The rationale is, in that position, they are like an ohel and an ohel protects from impurity. The only exception is an earthenware container, for an ohel formed by an earthenware container does not protect from impurity.

What is implied? When an earthenware jug is turned upside down, even if one smeared clay on its sides everything under it is impure, for the prooftext speaks of "a sealed covering on top of it," and not a closed covering on its back. If one attached its opening to the wall and smeared clay on its sides, it protects everything inside of it and everything opposite its opening in the wall. If one did not smear clay on its sides, it does not protect its contents, because an earthenware container does not protect as an ohel, as we explained.

All of the other containers that protect their contents when sealed close protect their contents when their openings are attached to the walls of a house even when they do not have a sealed covering, because they protect as an ohel. Therefore it is necessary that the walls of the utensil be at least a handbreadth high, for containers do not protect their contents with their walls as an ohel unless the wall of the container is at least a handbreadth.

If the wall of the container was half a handbreadth, there was a border of half a handbreadth protruding from the wall, and they were attached to each other, it is not considered as an ohel and does not protect its contents even though there is a handbreadth of empty space. It is necessary that the handbreadth come from one entity.

Just as such containers protect their contents from impurity when they are inside an ohel and attached to its walls, so too, do they protect their contents when they are outside the ohel if they are attached to the ohel, for the ohel is considered as a covering in all instances.

What is implied? A samovar that has walls that are a cubit high was placed on its side on staves outside an ohel and its opening was placed immediately next to the wall of the tent. If there is impurity under it, the keilim inside of it are pure. If it was placed next to the wall of a courtyard or the wall of a garden, it does not protect its contents, because these are not the walls of a tent. Therefore any keilim in the container are impure, for they were held above the impurity.

If there is a beam that is a handbreadth wide running from wall to wall, there is impurity below it, a pot was hanging from the beam and the beam was touching the entire opening of the pot and covering it, the keilim in the pot are pure. The rationale is that they were saved by the ohel covering them. If the opening of the pot was not covered by the beam, but instead there was some empty space between them, everything in the pot is impure and the pot itself is impure.

The following laws apply when there is a cistern in a building, there is impurity in the building, and there are keilim in the cistern. If the cistern was covered with a flat board or a container that can protect its contents from impurity because it has a wall that is a handbreadth high, everything that is in the cistern is pure. If the cistern had a border built around its opening that was a handbreadth above the ground, whether he covered it with a container that can protect from impurity because it has a wall or whether the container did not have a wall, the container protects the contents of the cistern from impurity, because there is a wall of a handbreadth from another source.

The following rules apply when a cistern is built inside a building and there is a lamp in it with its flower protruding and covering the opening of the cistern. One placed a container that can protect from impurity in an ohel where a corpse is located over the opening to the cistern and it is resting on the flower of the lamp. We see if the container that can protect from impurity would remain in its position if the lamp was removed. When this is the case, it protects everything that is in the cistern from impurity. The keilim that are between the edge of the container that serves as a cover and the edge of the cistern are pure until the very depths. Even the lamp is pure despite the fact that the edge of the flower is visible between the covering and the cistern. If the container would not remain in position, everything is impure.

The following laws apply when a cistern is built inside a house and a container that could protect its contents from ritual impurity was placed over its opening. If there was impurity between the edge of the container and the edge of the cistern or within the cistern, the house is impure. The rationale is that an ohel inside a building does not prevent the spread of impurity, as we explained.

If there was impurity in the house and there is a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth of empty space in the cistern, the keilim stored in the walls of the cistern are pure. If not, they are impure.

If the width of the walls of the cistern extends outside the house, they are nevertheless pure. The rationale is that they are not the walls of the house and just as the inside of the cistern is protected from impurity, so too, its walls protect.

We have already explained that an old oven is like all other keilim that convey impurity and is not considered as an ohel. For this reason, it does not protect its contents from ritual impurity unless it is sealed close like other containers that protect their contents. We have already explained that an oven is not considered as a k'li in this context and does serve as an ohel. Therefore it protects its contents from impurity merely by covering them without the cover being sealed close like other ohalim. The covering of an oven is called a serida.

The following rules apply when there is impurity in a house and there is an old oven inside a new oven, a serida resting on the new oven and that cover is being supported by the opening of the old oven. We see whether, when the old oven was removed, the cover would fall. If so, it does not protect from impurity and everything inside of it is impure. If the cover would not fall, everything is pure.

When there is a new oven inside an old oven and the serida is resting on the opening of the old oven, if there is less than a handbreadth between the new oven and the cover, everything in the new oven is pure. It is considered as if the covering was resting on its opening.

When there is a covering of earthenware that has a border and extends beyond the edge of the oven and the oven is closed with a sealed covering, even if there is impurity under the covering or on top of it, everything above or below the impurity is impure. Nevertheless, the portion opposite the inner space of the oven is pure.

If there is impurity on the covering above the inner space of the oven, the space above it until the heavens is impure. Anything inside of the oven is pure.

When there is impurity in a house and an earthenware pot was turned over and placed on the opening of a jug and then clay was smeared on its walls and the jug to seal it close, it protects everything inside of it and everything between it and the edge of the jug from impurity.

If one placed it on the opening of the jug upright and smeared clay around it to seal it, it does not protect it. The rationale is that the pot becomes impure from its inner space and an impure utensil does not protect another utensil from impurity, as we explained.

The handles of a large earthenware container, the bulges at the bottom of such a container, and the back of its walls do not protect their contents when sealed close in a tent where a corpse is located. If one cut them off, planed them, and made them into containers, they protect their contents if sealed close. The rationale is that the concept of sealing something close applies only to containers.

When clay is put into an earthenware container and filled half of it, it does not nullify it from being considered as a container. If keilim are sunk in that clay and the container is sealed close, the contents are protected from impurity.

An earthenware container protects its contents from impurity when sealed close unless it is perforated with a hole large enough for a pomegranate to fall through. If it is large, the majority of it must be damaged and open for it to be disqualified.

What is implied? If there was a large container and half was damaged, it was sealed close, including the damaged portion, it protects its contents from impurity even though it is not considered a utensil with regard to impurity. If, however, a container that was sealed close had a hole or a crack and the hole was not closed, it becomes impure and does not protect its contents.

How large must the hole be to disqualify the container? If the container was used for foods, the measure is a hole large enough for olives to fall through. If it was used for liquids, its measure is that the hole must be large enough to enable liquids to seep in when the container is placed in them. If it is used for both these purposes, we rule stringently and if a hole was made that was large enough for liquids to seep in, it does not protect its contents until the hole is closed or reduced in size.

The following rules apply when there was an oven in an ohel where a corpse was located. The oven had a covering upon it, it was sealed close, but it was cracked. If the crack was as wide as the opening of the rod of a plow which is a handbreadth in circumference, the oven is impure even though the rod could not be inserted into the oven through the hole, but the hole was equal to its size. If the hole was smaller than this, the oven is pure.

If the covering was cracked to the extent that the rod of a plow could enter, it is impure. If it is less, it protects its contents with a sealed covering. If the crack is round, we do not consider it as if it was long. Instead, the measure is dependent on whether the opening of the rod of a plow could be inserted.

The following rules apply when an oven that is sealed closed has an eye that was partially closed with clay. If the hole was large enough for a reed to be inserted and taken out while it was burning, the contents of the oven are impure. If the hole is smaller than this, the contents are protected.

When an oven has a hole at its side, the size of the hole that causes it to not to be considered as sealed is enough space for a reed to be inserted and taken out even when it was not burning. Similarly, when the clay seal of a jug was perforated, the measure is space for the second joint of a rye stalk to be inserted in the hole. Similarly, when large casks were perforated, the measure is space for the second joint of a reed to be inserted. If they are less than this, they are pure.

When does the above apply? When they were made to store wine. If, however, they were made to store other liquids, a hole of even the slightest size causes them to contract impurity and the fact that they are sealed close is not effective unless the hole was closed. Moreover, even if they were made for wine, the above applies only when they were not perforated by human hands. If, however, they were perforated by human hands, even the slightest hole causes them to contract impurity and they are not protected unless the hole is closed.

When a jug that is filled with pure liquids has an earthenware tube in it, it is considered as sealed close. If it is located in an ohel where a corpse is found, the jug and the liquid are pure. The tube is impure, because one end of it is in the jug which is sealed closed and the second end is open in the ohel where the corpse is found and it is not closed. Even though it is crooked, this does not cause it to be considered as closed.

When a jug that was sealed close had a hole on its side, but that hole was closed by wine dregs, it protects its contents from impurity. If the owner plugged half the hole and the dregs closed the other half, there is an unresolved question whether the contents are protected or not.

If one plugged the hole with a twig, it is not considered as closed unless one smears clay around the sides. If one closed it with two slivers of wood, one must smear clay from the sides and between one sliver and the other. Similarly, if a board was placed over the opening to an oven and one smeared clay at the sides, it is protected from impurity. If there were two boards, one must smear clay from the sides and between one board and the other. If, however, one joined the boards together with wooden pegs or the like or with cork, it is not necessary to smear clay in the middle.

With what can a jug be sealed closed? With lime, clay, gypsum, pitch, wax, mud, filth, mortar, or any substance that can be smeared. We do not seal with tin or lead, because it will not be a seal, nor will it close the container tightly. A plump fig that was not prepared to contract ritual impurity may be used as a seal. This also applies with regard to a dough that was kneaded with fruit juice so that it will not become impure. These qualifications are necessary, because an impure object cannot intervene in the face of impurity.

When the covering of a jug has become loose, even when it does not slip off, it no longer protects the contents, for it is not considered as sealed.

When a rubber ball or strands tied together were placed on a jug and clay was smeared at the sides, it does not protect the contents unless clay was smeared on the entire ball or collection of strands from below upward. Similar concepts apply with regard to a patch of cloth that was tied to a container. If a covering of paper or leather was tied over a container with string, it protects the contents if one merely smeared clay at the sides.

When a jug was enwrapped in a container made from the skin of a fish or from paper and it was tied close from below, the contents are protected. If it was not tied, it does not protect the contents, even if clay was smeared at the sides.

The following rules apply when there was a jug that was covered with pitch from the inside and then a portion of the clay of the jug was peeled off, but the pitch remained standing. If one placed a covering on the pitch and pressed it down until it became attached to the pitch and thus the pitch was standing between the covering and the base of the jug, its contents are protected.

Similar concepts apply with regard to a container used for fish brine or the like. If one of the substances that is smeared as insulation for the container was standing between the covering and the container like a border, since everything was attached together, the contents are protected.

When the contents of any implement that is sealed closed are protected from impurity, all of the contents are protected: food, liquids, clothes, and keilim that can be purified in a mikveh.

This is the Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, however, earthenware containers which are sealed closed protect only foods, liquids, and other earthenware containers inside of it. If, however, keilim that can be purified in a mikveh or garments were in an earthenware container that was sealed closed, they are impure.

Why did the Sages decree that they do not protect everything like other containers that protect their contents from impurity? Because the other containers that protect their contents do not contract impurity and earthenware containers do contract impurity. An impure container does not intervene in the face of impurity and all of the containers of the common people can be assumed to be ritually impure, as will be explained.

Why did the Sages not decree: an earthenware container of a common person does not protect anything from impurity, but a container belong to a chaver does protect everything because it is pure? Because a common person does not consider himself as impure. He will say: Since an earthenware container that is sealed close protects all its contents, there is no difference between me and a chaver. Therefore the Sages decreed that the seal should not protect everything.

Why did they say that it protects food, liquids, and earthenware containers from impurity? Because [regardless] these three types of entities are impure because they come from a common person – before they were located in an ohel where a corpse is located or after they had been located in such a place – [although they were in a container] that was sealed closed. A chaver will never borrow food, liquids, or earthenware containers from a common person except under the assumption that they are impure, for these entities can never be purified. Thus a stumbling block will never arise.

A chaver will, however, borrow keilim that can be purified in a mikveh from a common person. He will immerse them in a mikveh to purify them from the impurity they contracted from being touched by a common person, leave them until the evening and then use them for pure food. Therefore our Sages were concerned that a chaver will borrow keilim that can be purified in a mikveh from a common person that were sealed close in one of his earthenware containers. Now the common person will think that this container was protected, when in truth it has contracted the impurity that lasts seven days. The chaver will immerse these containers, leave them until the evening and then use them for pure food. Thus a stumbling block will arise. This is the reason it was decreed that sealing an earthenware container close would not protect the keilim that can be purified in a mikveh which were in it.

When a person was placed inside a cask that was sealed closed, he is pure. This applies even if the cask was made a covering for a grave. It appears to me that the Sages did not decree that an earthenware container sealed closed would not protect a person from impurity, because it is an infrequent situation. And our Sages did not enact decrees concerning infrequent situations.

The word of common people is accepted with regard to a container used for the ashes of the red heifer or sacred foods if they say they are pure. The rationale is that even common people are very careful in this regard. Therefore all entities are protected from impurity when their container is sealed closed even though it is of earthenware.

The following laws apply when there is an aperture between a home and a loft and there is an earthenware dish placed over the aperture. If the dish has a hole large enough to allow liquids to seep in, the dish is impure, but the loft is pure.

If the dish is intact, everything in the loft - food, liquids, and earthenware containers - is pure, but a person and keilim that can be purified in a mikveh are impure, for an earthenware container intervenes in the face of impurity only for food, liquids, and earthenware containers. Everything in the loft is pure, as if it is in an earthenware container that is sealed closed. A person in the loft was deemed impure, because that is a common situation. Therefore if there was a metal container or the like filled with liquids in this loft, the container contracts the impurity that lasts seven days, but the liquids are pure.

If there was a woman kneading dough in a wooden kneading trough in this loft, the woman and the kneading trough contract the impurity that lasts seven days, but the dough is pure as long as the woman is kneading it. If she ceased and then touched it again, she imparts impurity to it. Similarly, if one moved the dough or the liquids to another one of the keilim that can be purified in a mikveh that were in the loft, they become impure due to contact with the other container.

If the k'li covering the aperture was one that was not susceptible to impurity and which protect their contents when sealed closed, as we explained, in which instance, contact with a common person does not render them impure, or the k'li was an earthenware container that was pure and intended to be used for the ashes of the red heifer or for consecrated foods – in which instance everyone's word is accepted with regard to their purity – it protects everything in the loft. If there was a tent erected in the loft and a portion of its fabric was draped over the aperture between the house and the loft, it protects [everything in the loft] even though its roof is not positioned over the loft. [The rationale is that] a tent protects when it covers, as we explained.