Tum'at Met - Chapter 19

This phrase translates the term kaveret that is used in the Mishnah (Ohalot 9:1; Kelim 15:1). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim, op. cit.), the Rambam defines this term as referring to a basket-like container usually made from straw, reeds, or tree bark. And in his Commentary to Ohalot, he explains that these containers are usually oversized, containing more than 40 se’ah. Thus the container itself never becomes impure. The articles in it or above and below it may, however, contract impurity, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the mishnah is speaking about an earthenware container.

This clause is referring to a container positioned less than a handbreadth above the ground.

With a portion inside the building and a portion outside (Kessef Mishneh).

In this chapter, the terms pure and impure refer to the status of any keilim (or persons) found in the spaces mentioned [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot, loc. cit.)].
Chapter 13, Halachah 3, states that oversized wooden utensils intervene in the face of ritual impurity. Nevertheless, that applies only to keilim on the side of the impurity. Keilim directly above or below that impurity can become impure (Kessef Mishneh; Tosafot Yom Tov to Ohalot, loc. cit., see note 16).

I.e., the inner space of the container as a whole does not contract ritual impurity, because the impurity is outside of it (Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, those keilim directly above or below that impurity become impure.
The Ra’avad objects to this decision, stating that since the impurity is not considered as flush, but rather under an ohel, the ohel should protect all the articles inside of it from contracting impurity, even those directly above the impurity. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since we are speaking about a container, it is not considered as an ohel in a complete sense and does not intervene.

Even though a portion of the container is found within its inner space, since the impurity is outside and the container does not serve as an ohel, the building remains pure.

Since the opening of the container is outside the building, the impurity does not enter its inner space even though some of that space is within the building [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot, loc. cit.)].

The inner space of the container becomes impure. Hence, even when the impurity is located in that part of the container that is outside the building, that impurity also spreads throughout the inner space of the container. And since part of the inner space of the container is within the building, the building also contracts this impurity (ibid.). The walls of the container do not prevent the impurity from spreading. It is like having one structure above another structure (Kessef Mishneh, referring to Chapter 18, Halachah 6).

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that even keilim that are not directly under the impurity contract impurity. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this applies only according to his conception that we are speaking about an earthenware utensil and not according to the Rambam’s interpretation that the mishnah refers to an oversized utensil.

Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

And thus creates an ohel (ibid.:2).

Since it becomes an ohel, the space under it becomes impure and that space extends into the building, making the building impure. Conversely, if there was impurity in the building, that impurity extends to the space under the container that is outside the building.

I.e., the keilim that are within the building and above the container. They become impure because the inner space of the building is impure.

As above, since it opens outside the building, its inner space is not affected by the inner space of the building.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that the container intervenes in the face of the impurity and protects the keilim inside of it from contracting impurity. Others explain that this is a safeguard decreed by our Sages, lest there be such a container that does not have a handbreadth of empty inner space.

The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s statements and, indeed, they appear to run contrary to what he stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 3. There he stated that an oversized wooden k’li intervenes in the face of ritual impurity. The Kessef Mishneh notes that the difficulty is not with the Rambam’s ruling here, but with an apparent contradiction between the mishnayot in Ohalot. Ohalot 6:1 states that a human being and a k’li, even a k’li that does not contract ritual impurity, serve as ohalot to impart ritual impurity, but not to intervene and preserve purity. Ohalot 8:1, by contrast, states that oversized wooden vessels intervene in the face of ritual impurity.
To resolve that contradiction, the Kessef Mishneh states that such utensils intervene when they are placed in a doorway or window and prevent impurity from entering from one building to another. When, by contrast, they serve as an ohel, they do not intervene.

But its walls are intact.

For, as will be explained (Hilchot Keilim 14:9), when a beehive-like container has a hole, it is no longer considered as a container and does not protect the entities inside of it. Even when the hole is plugged, that law applies (ibid.:11).

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

The minimum dimensions for an ohel over the impurity.

The Rambam’s wording is somewhat confusing, but his intent is apparent. Even if there is some empty space in the container, as long as there isn’t a handbreadth by a handbreadth in one place, it is not placed in this category.

And thus it creates an ohel.

I.e., the impurity spreads from within the building to the space under the container outside the building or from the space under the container that is outside the building, it spreads within the building.

In this instance, even the keilim that are directly above the impurity are not impure. As mentioned in note 15, their impurity is only a Rabbinic safeguard and such a safeguard is necessary only with regard to a valid container (Kessef Mishneh).

See Chapter 5, Halachah 12, which contrasts a wooden ohel to an ohel made from fabric. The wooden ohel does not contract impurity. Hence it prevents impurity from passing through it and its inner space does not become impure.

For a container does not intervene in the face of impurity as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

In the portion outside the building.

It does not bring impurity into the building. In such an instance, the container is considered as part of the ground and impurity in it or under it is considered as if it were buried in the ground [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:2).

On the portion outside the building.

And everything else is pure.

I.e., one which is damaged or filled.

But not the space above it. In this context, it is considered an ohel and it intervenes in the face of the impurity. The Ra’avad questions why that is so, for seemingly the impurity is flush and should ascend upward as well. The Kessef Mishneh explains that since once the container was fit to be considered as an ohel, that categorization remains to the extent that it prevents the impurity from spreading above it. See also the latter clauses of the following halachah.

And outside the building.

But not the space below it.

Any keilim in the container or under it remain pure, because it is as if they are buried in the ground.

But the impurity does not spread to the building.

And thus is considered as a valid k’li.

As in the previous halachah.

Since its inner space opens up to the building, the impurity spreads freely from it to the building and from the building to it [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 9:5)].

And thus created an ohel.

In the previous halachah, based on Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

And there was not an empty space of a handbreadth in one place.

Which are outside the building. These keilim are pure, because the container intervenes, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Because the inner space of one leads to the other, as explained.

In these instances, it does not matter whether the container was intact or damaged, filled or empty.

Generally, a handbreadth of open space is needed for impurity to spread.

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies even if the top of the container is sealed closed. For a seal does not prevent impurity from spreading.

The impurity cannot bear confinement, as it were, and departs into the building even if there is less than a handbreadth of open space. Nevertheless, since there is less than a handbreadth of open space, the impurity will not flow in the other direction and enter the container.

I.e., it does not matter whether the opening was positioned upright or at the side.

For rather than enter the building, the impurity will depart outward.

Since the container is blocking the doorway, the only way for the impurity to depart from the building is to pass through the container. See Kessef Mishneh and the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 9:10).

And thus considered as a k’li.

I.e., without a roof or covering extending over it and while it is resting less than a handbreadth above the ground. This halachah restates similar concepts as in Halachah 1, except that it applies when the container is not located in a building and thus certain factors are not relevant (ibid.).

As in Halachah 1, the container does not intervene in the face of the ritual impurity in this instance.

Those keilim become impure.

Thus creating an ohel.

When it is raised a handbreadth above the ground.

See Halachah 1 and notes.

In which case it is not considered as a valid k’li and cannot contract ritual impurity, as stated in Halachah 1 and notes.

Which also never contracts ritual impurity and intervenes in the face of ritual impurity, as stated at the conclusion of the halachah.

But it intervenes and prevents impurity from spreading to anything above it.

Chapter 13, Halachah 3.
The commentaries note that there is an apparent contradiction between the Rambam’s statements here and the explanation given in Halachah 1 where it was stated that this beehive-like container was oversized and yet did not intervene. The Kessef Mishneh offers a partial resolution, but it does not deal with the core of the question.

Without there being a handbreadth of space between it and the ground.

Conveying impurity only to the keilim that are directly above it or below it, as is the law whenever impurity is flush. The impurity does not spread to the sides [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 9:12)].

This is not speaking about a sealed covering which intervenes in the face of impurity.

Thus it—or the covering—will create an ohel. If it is overturned, it is considered as a closed grave (ibid.).

Kin’at Eliyahu questions why the qualifying clause is necessary. Seemingly, the same laws apply in all three instances.

See Halachah 1 and notes.

As in the previous halachah, in these instances, the container is not considered as an ordinary k’li and intervenes in the face of ritual impurity. This clause is speaking about an instance where the container is not raised a handbreadth above the ground. Therefore the impurity is considered as if it were covered by the earth [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 9:13)].

This rationale applies to the previous clause as well.

Without there being an ohel over it.

For a living entity other than a human intervenes in the face of impurity, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 3.

The commentaries have questioned the Rambam’s ruling, because seemingly the upper side of the camel should intervene as does the upper side of a damaged container. Or as the Kessef Mishneh notes, in Chapter 18, Halachah 2, it is stated that a person can be considered an ohel because he is not a solid mass. Seemingly, that same concept should apply with regard to a camel.

Hilchot Nizirut 7:6.

As required by a nazirite who contracts ritual impurity through contact with a human corpse. A nazirite is forbidden to shave his head. Nevertheless, if he contracts such impurity he is required to do so. This applies, however, only with regard to impurity that is Scriptural in origin. If the impurity is Rabbinic in origin, he may not violate the Scriptural prohibition against shaving to uphold a Rabbinic ordinance regarding impurity.

As reflected in the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Mamrim, ch. 1, there are three types of laws that are considered midivrei sofrim, “from the words of the Sages”: a) laws communicated by the Oral Tradition; these were transmitted to Moses at Sinai and then communicated from one generation to another; b) laws derived through the techniques of the attributes of Biblical exegesis; c) laws which they instituted as safeguards for the observance of Scriptural Law, on their own initiative.
Now the first two of these categories are considered as having the status of Scriptural Law in certain contexts. Nevertheless, as the Rambam states in Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 2), he considers them “from the words of the Sages.”

A person who contracts impurity is liable for entering the Temple (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:12-13) or partaking of consecrated foods (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:13).

Which themselves must be ritually pure and can be eaten only by a person who is ritually pure.

Chapter 3, Halachah 3; Chapter 5, Halachah 5.