Kelim - Chapter 11

Entities do not contract impurity unless they have a defined purpose and are considered as keilim. As evident from the following halachah, as long as a k’li can be used to perform its desired purpose, it is not removed from this category and is susceptible to impurity. Thus the matter is individual, with a different measure appropriate for each type of k’li. The purpose of this chapter is to define guidelines for certain keilim from which it is possible to extrapolate rules of a more general and encompassing nature.

Our translation of the terms used in this halachah is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:1).

A large coin of the Talmudic era. A samovar was also used to store such coins from time to time. Hence as long as it still can fulfill that function, it is still susceptible to impurity. Similarly, the other containers mentioned in this halachah were often used. for storage in addition to their primary function.

A tank used to heat water and then have utensils washed within it (ibid.).

I.e., it can no longer serve the function for which it was originally intended- to contain water. Nevertheless, since containing coins is a somewhat similar function and this container can be used for that purpose, it is still considered as a k'li and subject to ritual impurity. Similarly, several of the other entities mentioned in this clause cannot be used for the exact purpose for which they were originally intended. Nevertheless, since they can serve as containers for other substances—and they were intended—to serve as containers- they are still considered as keilim and are susceptible to impurity.

Small copper coins of minimal value.

Oil is thicker than wine and less likely to seep out through a crack in the measure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:8), the Rambam emphasizes that we are speaking about a metal strainer. Once three holes are made in its bottom, it can no longer be used for that purpose.

The small holes widened and thus it was no longer effective as a strainer.

I.e., a shovel used to stir mortar. The term magreifah means a stirring spoon and it was borrowed to apply to this context (ibid. 13:4).

I.e., its handle is hammer-shaped (ibid.).

I.e., in this instance, the handle could serve as a useful k’li. Nevertheless, since it was not made with that intent originally, it is no longer susceptible to impurity.

Which are made of iron [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:8)].

For it is still useful for its initial function in such a state.

The two outer teeth on such a comb are oversized and thus are not useful in combing out wool.

The commentaries have suggested that perhaps a printing error crept into the text, for we are speaking about a comb for wool which is not effective in combing flax at all. Nevertheless, we have not changed the text, for this version is found in the authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The Merchevet HaMishneh offers a possible resolution.

To pluck out body hair (ibid.).

For they have been made into a useful k’li.

To remove wicks and the like [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:8)].

I.e., one of the exterior teeth (see Yevamot 43a). On the basis of that passage, the Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam’s ruling here.

Since strands of flax are wider than strands of wool, even two teeth are functional.

For it is not functional.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:7), the Rambam explains that this refers to an iron wheel with many chains about nine inches long attached to it. At the end of each chain is a hook. As the wheel is turned, the chains are extended. Buckets would be hung from the chains. Turning the wheel was easier than raising the buckets directly and thus this mechanism would facilitate drawing water from wells.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 1, which mentions nails that serve as hooks and are susceptible to impurity.

I.e., every other tooth of the saw is removed [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:4)].

For it is no longer functional (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:2), the Rambam translates the term sit into Arabic. Most commentaries interpret his statements as meaning “the distance between the top of the thumb and the next finger [when the fingers are spread out]. This is one-sixth of the distance between the thumb and the middle finger.” Rav Kappach notes that in fact such a calculation will not be accurate. He interprets the Rambam’s words as defining a sit as half the distance between the index finger and the middle finger when spread out. This, he maintains, is two thumb-breadths.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim, op. cit., Shabbat 13:4), the Rambam differentiates between “the width of a sit” and “the full length of a sit.” As indicated by Hilchot Shabbat 9:20, “the full length of a sit” is two thumb-breadths. In contrast, as stated (ibid.:7), “the width of a sit” is a third of a zeret, i.e., four thumb-breadths.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:5), the Rambam explains that this refers to a hatchet used by carpenters that is made of several components which are mounted on a wooden handle.

This also refers to a carpenter’s tool, a piece of iron approximately nine inches long that is held by both hands and used to scrape a surface flat.

A blade positioned on an angle in a piece of wood with only a small portion projecting outward that is used to plane wood (ibid.).

A hand drill used to make holes in wood (ibid.).

Whose blades have been chipped. In the above source, the Rambam explains that these keilim are made with two types of iron. A blade of steel (referred to by the Rambam as “Indian iron”) is mounted on a base of softer iron.

For it is the steel portion that enables their function to be performed with them.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:5), the Rambam states that he does not know the identity of the k’li referred to by that term, but that it is obviously a carpenter’s tool that is comprised of two parts and neither one is considered a complete entity without the other.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:1), the Rambam states that this is a knife kept by scribes and businessmen among their writing utensils.

Used for household chores (ibid.).

This is the version in the Mishnah (Keilim 13:1) and in the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text uses a slightly different version.

Thus it cannot be said that it is fit to be used for its primary function.

For it is no longer useful for protection.

Because it covers the heart, the most vital portion of the body.

Because it is no longer functional.

For it is considered as a new and different entity.

The commentaries explain that glassmakers are craftsman who melt sand into glass. They require very powerful fires (and hence, large bellows). Glaziers refer to the craftsmen who shape the glass into useful articles. They require smaller fires (and smaller bellows).

For it is no longer useful for its original purpose.

Our translation is based on HaMadrich HaMaspik as cited by the Shabsie Frankel printing of the Mishneh Torah. Other interpretations are offered by the commentaries to the Tosefta, Keilim 10:6.

In contrast to the way other craftsman use this specific type of tongs—to pick up the articles with which they work (and thus the tongs are useless when divided)—these tongs are also used by a blacksmith to stir coals. Hence even when they are divided, they can still be used for such a purpose.

In the Talmudic era — and in the Rambam’s time — mirrors were merely polished pieces of metal.

To the point that it does not present a clear image.

For it can still be used for its initial purpose.

Because it can no longer be used to sew with.

Because it was made functional again.

Which is much longer and used to sew coarse garments and materials made from goat's hair [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:6)].

Even though this was not the original intent for which the k’li was made, since it can— and is likely to—be used for such a purpose immediately, it is susceptible to impurity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam states that such needles are used for the embroidery of silk.

I.e., this needle is used merely to hold up the thread so that it will be easy to insert it in between the threads of the weave. There is no need for a needle at all; any thin metal rod around which thread can be wound will serve this purpose (ibid.; see also ibid., Orlah 1:4).

I.e., as is the general principle, if the object can be used for its original purpose, it is impure. If not, it is pure.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.

See Hilchot Parah 12:10.

A Greek letter with a reversed L-shaped form.

Into which projections within the lock will enter enabling the lock to be opened.

Because it is still functional.

Because it is no longer functional.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:2), the Rambam states that the fork was used to pick up food that fell on the fire.

Meat or fowl are put in the net and it is held over a fire (ibid.). The Ra’avad disputes the Rambam’s interpretation of the terms used by that mishnah and offers others.

A blade that is used to scratch out the previous writing (ibid.).

For even though the functional element of the utensil remains, since it cannot be held, it cannot be used for its intended task.

I.e., the hatchet was two-edged, a narrow edge which is used to carve wood deftly and a broader piece that is used to chop larger pieces (ibid.:3).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:3). As explained there and as apparent from the following halachah, here the term “lance” is used in an extended sense.

This halachah explains the term “lance” used in the previous halachah.

The Rambam’s wording here reflects the later version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:7). Originally, he had a slightly different conception.

I.e., it serves as a protective or decorative coating for the staff or the door.

As the Ra’avad mentions, the Rambam’s wording is somewhat difficult to comprehend and the first clause appears to contradict the second clause. The Kessef Mishneh attempts to resolve the contradiction, explaining that the first clause involves a situation where the article is affixed to the staff or the door in a manner that totally negates its previous function. Hence, even if it was impure, that impurity departs because it is no longer considered as a separate entity, but rather as part of the staff or door which are not subject to impurity. The second clause refers to a metal k’li that is attached to the staff or door, but still retains its identity and function, i.e., were it to be detached, it could be used for its initial purpose. Thus even though it is attached, it is still considered as a separate entity and, hence, is still susceptible to impurity. Compare to the concluding halachah of ch. 10.

That loaves were placed in the oven upon it.