In Chapter 1, Halachah 10, the Rambam stated that our Sages decreed that flat wooden utensils should be susceptible to impurity. Here the Rambam clarifies the scope of that decree.
The impurity of these objects is mentioned in the Sifri and it appears that it is derived from the exegesis of a verse. Rambam LeAm, however, cites an opinion which considers their opinion as Rabbinic in origin.
I.e., the lamp is the k’li that serves man. The lamp’s function is enhanced when it is placed in a candelabrum. When it is no longer burning, however, the candelabrum serves no purpose for the lamp.
In the conclusion of this halachah, the Rambam mentions a mold for tefillin.
More particularly, in his Commentary to that Mishnah, the Rambam explains that this term refers to the covering for a trunk used to store clothes.
On a waxed tablet [Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:2)].
Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 16:4).
Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:8).
The keilim Scripture mentions as susceptible to ritual impurity all serve man. From this, our Sages concluded that any k’li that does not serve man directly is not susceptible to impurity. Even those keilim that are impure by Rabbinic decree must also serve humans.
The commentaries have noted that it is hard to conceive of how some of these utensils, e.g., a sheath for a sword or one for a knife, are useful at the time the article is being used for its purpose.
Our translation of this and many of them following terms is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:7). In that source, he uses the same Hebrew term for the term translated as “a box” and does not explain why one is susceptible to ritual impurity and one is not.
A press to straighten crooked pieces of wood (ibid. 16:8).
A reed-like case in which a mezuzah is placed and affixed to the doorway (ibid.).
See Hilchot Tefillin 3:2-4 which explains that the compartments of teflllin are made by taking moist leather and pulling it over a square mold—with grooves for the head teflllin and without grooves for the arm tefillin. The leather is left to set and take the shape of the mold.
Two sticks about nine inches long that are used to tap out a rhythm during a song or mourners’ dirge. Mention of a similar term is found in the Targum to II Samuel 6:5 in the description of the musical instruments used in the celebration that accompanied the transfer of the ark [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].
A straw hat used by a worker (ibid.).
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 1:3; Keilim 18:3), the Rambam explains that, in the Talmudic era, it was common for there to be a canopy or net hung over a bed to protect the person sleeping from flies. At times, it was supported by four poles and at times, two. The term used here refers to two pillars that would be placed at the headboard of a bed for that purpose.
In the above source, the Rambam explains that the term chamor, literally, “donkey,” is used to refer to any object used as a support.
The Ra’avad offers another rationale why some of these articles are considered as pure, stating that there are those that are used in connection with keilim that are part of a fixed structure, e.g., the covering for a door bolt or a latch. The Kessef Mishneh explains that his rationale is unnecessary, because these articles only serve other keilim.
Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 18:3).
In each comer of the bed, there was a bedpost to which the bed's horizontal and vertical beams were joined (ibid.:18:5).
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s intent is that it is not used for a purpose at all times.
A board attached to two poles on which the Levites would hang the instruments on which they would play in the Temple (ibid.:3).
The commentaries cite the Tosefta, Keilim, Bava Batra, ch. 1, as the source. The standard version of that text, however, states; “a carpenter’s press.”
As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 3.
I.e., an ornamental covering.
For work is not being performed with them, i.e., with the coating, but with the article that they coat [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:4)].
For the plating is more valuable than the k’li itself.
In the previous clause. As our Sages explain (Chagigah 3:8), the Golden Altar in the Temple was not susceptible to ritual impurity, because it was made of wood, coated with gold.
A wooden k’li that does not have a receptacle is not susceptible to ritual impurity, while a metal k’li is susceptible to impurity even if it does not have a receptacle (Chapter 1, Halachot 9-10). Thus the question is which of the materials is considered of primary importance and thus determines the status of the k’li.
I.e., both the wood and the metal.
I.e., the portion of the key that turns the lock.
Thus the metal is the primary element.
Even if the impurity only touches the wood.
Even if the impurity touches the metal.
Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:8). Coral is not susceptible to impurity because it grows in the sea. Rashi, by contrast, explains that such articles are considered as wooden keilim that do not possess a receptacle.
Because the ring is of primary importance. Although the signet is the part of the ring that is used as a k’li, it could not exist without the ring. Therefore, the ring is considered of primary importance (Kessef Mishneh to Halachah 8).
Even though the coral ring has a receptacle, since the intent is that it be filled, it is not susceptible to impurity.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:8), the Rambam explains that these three terms refer to similar keilim that are used to winnow grains from their chaff. The term translated as “a pitchfork” has three teeth and is used to winnow wheat from coarse chaff. The one translated as “a farming prong” has more teeth and the one translated as “a winnow” has even more.
This ruling from the Mishnah evoked wonder from Rabbi Yehoshua who stated that he found it difficult to comprehend. Apparently, his question was: How can one tooth cause the status of a much larger utensil to change?
For the handle is facilitating the use of the staff and not vice versa.
Even though the metal is serving the wood, since the wood would be destroyed without the metal, the metal is considered of primary importance (Rav Yosef Corcus, as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).
For then the spikes are of primary importance.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:2), the Rambam writes that it was common to adorn staffs with nails coated with white tin.
This was also a frequently used decorative process (ibid.).
For the staff or door is of primary importance. Since they are not susceptible to impurity, the metal tubes also are not.
