Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:3). See also Hilchot Keilim 18:1.
These handles are often large enough to serve as containers in their own right.
And, as they are, the handles are not considered as keilim.
The Rambam’s ruling is based on the Tosefta, Keilim 7:7. The Ra’avad interprets the Tosefta differently and hence, rejects the Rambam’s ruling. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s interpretation.
The Rambam is developing the concept stated in the first halachah: A sealed covering protects only the contents of containers. If a container has large holes in it, it is no longer considered as a k’li and its contents are not protected from impurity.
Nevertheless, the Rambam’s wording has attracted the notice of the commentaries, for at the beginning of the halachah, he speaks about the hole being large enough for pomegranates to fall through, and in its conclusion, he speaks of olives falling through. The intent is, however, clarified on the basis of the Rambam’s statements in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:8) in which he contrasts that mishnah with the statements of Shabbat 95b.
The first clause is speaking about an instance where the container and the hole are sealed close. Therefore, for the container to be disqualified, the hole must be large enough for pomegranates to fall through if the container is small or must comprise the majority of the container if it is large. If, however, the hole is not sealed close, a much smaller hole can disqualify it, as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the later clause.
See Hilchot Keilim 19:2.
See Hilchot Keilim 18:10.
See Hilchot Keilim 14:9; 19:1.
Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:7). Nevertheless, the commentaries question the intent of the phrase “the opening of the rod.”
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 close so that none of its heat would escape. Since at times it was opened and at times it was closed, it was referred to as an eye.
To preserve the oven’s heat.
I.e., pulling it through the hole would not extinguish it.
For the hole is considered large enough to allow impurity to enter.
This halachah is also speaking about instances when the oven or the jug is sealed close and yet, there is a hole [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:8)].
This is a smaller measure than were the reed to be burning.
The second joint is slightly smaller than the first joint (ibid.).
It would appear that the hole must be large enough for a liquid to seep in when the container is submerged in it. [This qualification indeed appears in the standard published text of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.). Rav Kappach, however, maintains that there is an error in that version.]
The Vilna Gaon explains why a larger hole is acceptable for a container for wine. Air entering the hole damages the flavor of the wine. Hence the owner will view such a hole as undesirable. With regard to other liquids, by contrast, a hole improves their flavor. Hence, the hole is appreciated.
And thus the hole is considered as undesirable.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:2), the Rambam states that sometimes such tubes are made from reeds or from glass as well, but in this instance, the tube is earthenware. The Ra’avad differs and maintains that here, the mishnah is speaking about a metal tube.
I.e., one drinks from the jug by sucking on the tube.
The Mishnah (ibid.) relates that originally, the School of Hillel ruled that the tube was pure, but later they accepted the more stringent ruling of the School of Shammai.
The Rambam's words require qualification, for with regard to the jug and its contents, the fact that the tube is crooked causes the jug to be considered as closed. Nevertheless, the tube itself becomes considered as a separate utensil and it is not considered as closed (Kessef Mishneh).
Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:6).
Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:2).
That was not brought into contact with water (see Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 1:2).
Fruit juice does not make grain susceptible to ritual impurity (ibid.:3), nor is a dough kneaded with it susceptible to ritual impurity (ibid. 6:13).
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim, loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that originally, the Sages stated that these substances should not be used as seals. The rationale is that even though they are not susceptible to ritual impurity in their present state, it is possible that they will come in contact with water or a similar liquid in the future. Then they would become susceptible to impurity and indeed, contract it. And once, they contracted impurity, they would not be an effective seal. Afterwards, the Sages allowed these substances to be used as seals, because there is no obligation to maintain articles in a state of ritual impurity. Unquestionably, if such a substance was used as a seal, it protects the contents of the container until it contracts impurity.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, offering a different interpretation of Keilim 10:4, the Rambam’s source. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s interpretation.
Our translation is taken from Rav Kapach’s translation of the Arabic terms used by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).
I.e., it is not sufficient to smear a small amount of clay above the opening, one must smear clay over the entire ball or strands, covering them entirely (ibid.).
I.e., the clay must be smeared in a similar manner in this instance as well (ibid.).
For unlike the other substances, the leather or the paper are not porous.
It appears that according to the Rambam, this applies even if the covering was not sealed with clay.
The Kessef Mishneh interprets the Ra’avad as objecting to the Rambam’s ruling. Although it is based on a Tosefta, that Tosefta appears to contradict the mishnah cited in the previous halachah. For the mishnah requires that the covering be sealed and the Tosefta does not. It is possible to explain that there is not necessarily a contradiction, because here the entire jug is covered with the skin. The Kessef Mishneh, however, maintains that the Rambam would also require that a seal of clay be made where the covering was closed.
Since it is untied, it is likely that the clay sealing at the sides will be broken.
And thus the container was still functional.
For the pitch that is standing is considered as a cover for the based of the jug [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:5)].
