Kelim - Chapter 20

Chapter 17, Halachah 1.

To strengthen it.

The commentaries (see the glosses to Keilim 3:5) question this ruling, because seemingly, if the foods or liquids enter the inner space of the container, they are impure whether or not they touch the container. And if they touch the outside of the container, they are not impure, because the outside of a container does not impart impurity.

Had the foods or the liquids touched the implement itself, they would have contracted impurity. They, however, touched only the coating and, in this instance, as the Rambam explains, the coating is not considered as an accessory.

Because it is necessary to hold it together.

The simple interpretation of this ruling, based on the Tosefta (Keilim 3:2), is that these substances are not considered as effective sealants and hence are not considered as part of the implement. The Ra'avad objects to this ruling maintaining that they are effective sealants. He notes that there is a version of the Tosefta that reverses the clauses and maintains that this is the correct version.
As the commentaries note, there is a difficulty with the Rambam’s ruling, because—as stated in Halachah 5 below and in Chapter 19, Halachah 14—he does consider tar as an effective sealant. The Mirkevet HaMishneh notes the difficulty and explains that here we are speaking about an instance where additional tar was placed on the implement besides what was necessary to plug the hole. That additional tar is not considered as an integral part of the implement, as stated in Halachah 5.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 3:6), the Rambam states that this refers to soft grasses.

I.e., the casks of drinking water taken on ships (ibid.).

In his gloss to Halachah 7, the Merkevet HaMishneh clarifies that this applies when the coating was put on the barrel before the barrel contracted impurity. If, however, the barrel was impure before the coating was applied, the coating does not contract impurity.

The Rambam mentions foods and liquids, because an impure earthenware container does not impart impurity to humans or to implements (Kessef Mishneh).

Since it is necessary for the container, it is susceptible to impurity.

See Halachah 3 and notes.

Since it is not necessary for the barrel, it is not considered an integral part of it.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 3:7), the Rambam refers to Genesis 11:3 in order to define this term.

I.e., if the samovar was impure, the coating is considered as subsidiary to it and a person who touches it contracts impurity due to contact with an impure metal implement.

See the notes to Chapter 16, Halachah 9.

Hence, he is not considered as having touched the container.

And thus they are fused together as a single entity.

The rationale is that since the cover will ultimately be removed, halachically, they are considered as separate entities (Ra’avad). The Ra’avad, moreover, differs with the Rambam’s interpretation of Keilim 3:6, the source of this halachah. The Ra’avad maintains that a cover to a barrel is never coated with clay. That would be counterproductive, for the intent is to remove it, as stated previously. He therefore maintains that the mishnah is speaking about a covering without a coating. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the conclusion stated by the Ra’avad is obvious. He adds that often the cover of a barrel is sealed to it with clay and that is probably the Rambam’s intent.

As stated in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:3, when impure liquids touch the outside of an earthenware container, the outside of the container — but not the entire container — contracts impurity. Thus, if the cover was to be considered as part of the container, the contact with the liquids would have caused the outside of the container to be considered as impure. [It must be noted that the Ra’avad differs with the Rambam concerning that principle and that is why he offers a different interpretation here (Merkevet HaMishneh)].

Because the tar does not add anything to the functionality of the container. Moreover, as stated in Chapter 20, Halachah 15, tar will not remain attached to a container used for hot liquids.

In this instance, the tar serves a purpose, because otherwise, the metal would spoil the flavor of the wine.

Because it is chametz, leaven. See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:15 where the Rambam deals with related issues.

I.e., the person’s tendency is to be neat and always clean the kneading trough after use.

For the dough is considered an intervening substance, as in the previous clause.

For it will seal the crack.

For it is as if the carcass touched it.

I.e., which serve as bookmarks.

And thus if one of the entities — the cover of the book or the bookmark — contract impurity, the other also does.

Because they can easily be untied.

I.e., straps used for carrying these implements.

The commentaries have noted the apparent contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 17.

I.e., the portion of the handle that extends above the hatchet’s head. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 29:4).

A small portion of wood is necessary to extend beyond the head for the handle to be attached securely.

When a person uses a hatchet, he usually holds it within a handbreadth of the head. Hence, although the handle itself may be longer, only the portion between it and the head is considered as essential to its use. Therefore that portion alone is susceptible to impurity.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 29:5).

I.e., for the compass to be useful, its shaft must be a handbreadth long. If it was larger and after it broke, less than a handbreadth remained, it is not considered as useful and hence is not susceptible to impurity.

Used to engrave precious stones (ibid.).

See Chapter 11, Halachah 23, and Chapter 28, Halachah 4, where such plows are described.

I.e., the circular ditches dug around trees where water collects (ibid.:7).

I.e., to clear the trunk of a tree by stripping the bark and unnecessary branches (ibid.).

The Rambam is speaking about hammers used to break stones (ibid.).

To prepare it to be sowed.

If less than this measure remained, the remnants will not be useful.

I.e., a ladle used to stir a large pot (ibid.:8).

Their length is necessary, because the person will seek to keep his distance from the fire (Keilim 29:8).

This addition is made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:3). As stated in Shabbat 48b, it was common for a person to take an ordinary piece of wood, insert it in the head of a hatchet, work with it, and then cast it back into the woodpile.

The name of this implement is a unique example of the culture that prevailed in Eretz Yisrael at the time of the composition of the Mishnah. The term is a composite of two terms: dyu, a Greco-Roman term meaning "two," and star an Aramaic term meaning "side" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:3)].

If one comes in contact with impurity, the other also becomes impure. This applies, however, only at the time the task is being performed (ibid.).

A beam is not susceptible to ritual impurity, because it is not an implement at all (ibid.). Wooden articles that are not implements are not susceptible to impurity. Although the diyustar is attached to the beam, it still retains its own identity and is susceptible to ritual impurity.

Thus the status of the beam remains the same regardless of what happens to the diyustar.

As such, that part of the beam is considered part of an implement that is susceptible to impurity.

A wagon used to pull a plow. The question is whether the articles mentioned in the halachah are susceptible to impurity because they are considered as attached to the plow or not.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 5, and the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:4, 21:2), for a description of such a wagon.

Placed on the shoulders of the oxen (ibid.).

The ring made from worn out clothes that is placed over an animal's neck so that it will not be injured by the weight of the yoke (ibid.).

I.e., the ropes that are tied to the wagon so that the animals will pull it.

I.e., one is working with the plow.

He is not considered as one who touched an impure implement, because these items are not considered as connected to the plow.

This wooden shaft is connected to the blade of the plow and is held in the hand of the person plowing (ibid.).

This refers to a bent (hence the term knee-like) wooden shaft to which the blade is attached. It is dragged along the ground while the field is being plowed (ibid.).

I.e., the handle connected to the plow with which one tilts it in the desired direction. The root for the name used by the Rambam (and his source, the Mishnah, op. cit.) means “swerve,” as reflected by the Targum of Onkelos to Exodus 23:6 [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

A figurative term for the two pieces of wood on either side of the yoke (ibid.).

Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach’s translation of an Arabic term used by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).

Because they are considered as attached to the plow.

Who each hold wooden handles. The bracketed addition and similarly, many of the further explanations are based on ibid.:3.

For they are considered as subsidiary to the saw.

Used to attach the blade of the saw to the handles (ibid.).

The wooden shaft that runs between these two handles (ibid.).

Two round circular blocks of wood attached to the side-frames and to the blade (ibid.).

A wooden frame in which the blade of the saw is affixed (ibid.).

Used to straighten crooked pieces of wood (ibid.).

He is not considered to have touched an impure metal implement, because these are not considered as attached to it.

Our translation follows the authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah and is reflected in the Rambam’s text of the Mishnah (op cit.). The standard published text follows a slightly different version.

I.e., they are not considered as attached to the arrow.

Because the trap is not considered as connected to the lance [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

The beams from which the strands of the warp are extended from one to the other. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.: 1) for more details regarding this implement.

The loops through which the strands of the warp pass to facilitate the weaving process.

Used to tighten the thread while weaving (ibid.).

To facilitate the weaving process, but which will ultimately be removed from the fabric (ibid.).

The fabric can contract impurity through contact with a human corpse (ibid.). Nevertheless, these articles are not considered as joined to the fabric and do not contract impurity with it.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

I.e., it has been tightened and its weaving has been completed (ibid.).

I.e., if the garment is impure, one who touches any one of these entities contracts impurity.

As in the previous halachah, this is speaking about a situation where the garment which the person was weaving contracted impurity. Nevertheless, this wool remains pure, because it is not considered as joined to the garment.

Around which thread being used for a weave has been wound (ibid.).

I.e., if all the thread has been used so the spool itself can be seen (ibid.).

Because it is considered as joined to the garment.

If the needle contracted impurity, the thread remains pure.

I.e., one started sewing a garment, inserting a threaded needle into it. Diagram

Not only the portion close to the garment. Even though it is likely to be cut off, until it is actually cut off, it is considered as part of the garment.