Tum'at Met - Chapter 17

The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the commentary of the Ma’aseh Rokeiach and the Mishneh Achronah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 14:1), the Rambam explains this term with the accompanying sketch.

Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam states that these laws are “halachot transmitted to Moses at Sinai,” i.e., part of the Oral Tradition given at Sinai. Thus this statement represents a change of position for him.

I.e., an overhang a handbreadth by a handbreadth that is a handbreadth above the earth.

In the Greco-Roman period, it was common for pillars and other architectural structures to be crowned with decorative embellishments.

The Rambam’s ruling follows the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri in Ohalot 14:3. The Ra’avad differs, maintaining that Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion should be followed.

This is also a common architectural technique. Diagram

I.e., it is considered as an extension of the house. Thus if there is impurity in the house and implements under the projection, the implements are impure. If there is impurity under the projection, everything in the house is considered as impure. As stated in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit. 12:3), what is significant in all the laws applying to the projections is that in some way, they must cover space that leads to the open space of a house. Therefore, they are significant, only if they cover an entrance or a window.

For it is still considered as an extension of the house and it conveys impurity. As explained before, we follow the principle that it is the way of impurity to depart through the entrances of a house.

In this instance, since the size of the projection is not significant, it does not convey impurity.

See Chapter 16, Halachah 7, for a definition of this term. The roof of the exedra can serve as an ohel extending and conveying impurity.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that if it is less than two fingerbreadths above the window, it is not considered as an independent entity, but as part of the window, which in turn, is an integral part of the house. Hence regardless of its size, it conveys ritual impurity, because it is considered as an extension of the house.

It is considered as an independent entity. Hence a handbreadth is required.

Since the minimum size of such a window is very small (see Chapter 14, Halachah 1), there is no requirement for the size of this projection.

The Rambam identifies this structure with the term betach used in Ohalot 12:3. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, he explains that the root of the term means “trust.” The structure contributes to a person’s sense of trust and security. The Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of that term.

Because this structure does not cover space that leads to the open space of the house (ibid.).

And the space under the projection leads to the inner space of the house (ibid.).

Since the projections are a handbreadth by a handbreadth in size, they both serve as ohalim and convey ritual impurity to the space under them and they also intervene and prevent the impurity from spreading above or below them.

Thus the impurity is not considered as “flush” and the laws of ohel can apply.

For the lower projection prevents it from spreading upward.

For the lower projection prevents it from spreading downward and the upper projection prevents it from spreading upward.

For the upper projection prevents it from spreading downward.

Since the upper projection extends beyond the lower one, the lower projection does not intervene in the face of the impurity and all of the space below the upper projection is impure.

In this instance, even though the extra space is less than a handbreadth, the entire area under the upper projection is impure. As such, the impurity enters the space between the lower projection and the upper projection.

For the impurity spreads out and ascends under the small extension. It does not, however, descend and spread out under the lower projection.

Since there is not a handbreadth of empty space between them, the impurity is considered as flush and it pierces through the upper projection. Since the lower projection is a handbreadth by a handbreadth, it does intervene between the impurity and the space below the projection.

This ruling is granted, because neither of the projections are a handbreadth by a handbreadth in size. Even though there is a space of a handbreadth above the impurity, the Rambam deems it as flush in a halachic sense. The Ra’avad differs with regard to the rationale, but not with regard to the actual ruling.

There need not be a handbreadth of free space between the impurity and the earth, as long as the articles on which the impurity rests are a handbreadth above the ground, an ohel is created [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 15:1)]. See the conclusion of Chapter 16.

I.e., in contrast to the wooden tablets mentioned in the previous clause. Since stone is from the earth, when a stone is placed upon the earth, it is not considered as a separate entity with regard to the creation of an ohel.

Tifferet Yisrael (Ohalot 15:2) states that this refers to tablets like table tops that are considered as implements and are thus fit to contract ritual impurity.

The second tablet does not serve as an ohel to impart impurity to the implements under it.

This is apparently a reversal from his position in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 15:2), where the Rambam states that, in this context, it is considered as an extension of the original ohel. Moreover, the Rambam’s statements here appear to contradict that mishnah. For the mishnah states that the second tablet contracts impurity that lasts seven days, while, seemingly, according to the Rambam’s statements here, it would contract only the impurity that lasts until the evening. It is, however, possible to explain that his intent is that they resemble implements that touch an ohel while it is still standing over the corpse. In such an instance, the impurity lasts seven days (Kessef Mishneh).

Chapter 13, Halachah 4.

Chater 12, Halachah 1.

This refers to the implements that are directly over the impurity. They convey impurity that lasts seven days to keilim or people who touch them.

They contract the impurity that lasts seven days and convey impurity that lasts until the evening to other implements. The Rambam follows his approach stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 3: that an implement that contracted impurity from a human corpse imparts that impurity to other implements.

I.e., there was no overhang above it to serve as an ohel.

A measure large enough to convey ritual impurity.

For a k’li does not intervene in the face of ritual impurity.

Although, generally, an earthenware container does not become impure if impurity touches its outer surface, in this instance, it contracts ritual impurity. The rationale is that the impurity pierces through and makes the inner space of the jug impure. Thus, since its inner space becomes impure, the jug itself becomes impure [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 9:15)]. Diagram

The commentaries have questioned how is it possible for a container to have walls a handbreadth in width and explain that this could be talking about an instance where the handles and the walls together are a handbreadth wide.

The Sidrei Taharot explains that since the portion that is under the wall of the container makes it impure, it is as if that portion is separated from the portion under the container’s inner space. Thus if the portion under its walls is less than the size of an olive, there is nothing to make it impure.

For a pure implement serves as an ohel and intervenes in the face of ritual impurity according to Scriptural Law.

Due to another type of impurity. In such an instance, the impurity pierces through and makes the inner space of the jug impure due to the impurity associated with a human corpse. The jug itself then contracts this severe impurity, because its inner space is impure.

And thus it serves as an ohel.

And thus the covering serves as an ohel. Indeed, it is considered as a closed grave which conveys impurity from all of its sides [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit)].

And thus the impurity enters its inner space.

Its inner space, its outer surface, and its walls (ibid.).

See Chapter 21 which explains that when an earthenware container has a cover fastened to it, anything contained inside is protected from ritual impurity.

Although the seal protects the articles in the utensil, it does not intervene in the face of impurity.

I.e., without there being a roof over them.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 15:3), the Rambam explains that jugs are usually narrow at the base and on top and wide in the middle. Thus it is possible for the jugs to touch each other over a handbreadth of space, even though the bases do not.

Thus only that jug contracts impurity directly. The jugs are not considered as a single ohel.