Kelim - Chapter 23

In the Book of Leviticus, chs. 15, 31-32, and in the Book of Numbers, ch. 20, the Torah mentions several keilim in connection with ritual impurity, but does not mention a mat. Since it does not have a receptacle, it is not considered a wooden k’li [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 24:10)]. See also Hilchot Mikveot 1:3.

Although Shabbat 84a-b derives this concept through a kal vechomer (a fortiori reasoning), it is still considered as a Rabbinic institution, for that is one of the Rambam’s fundamental principles.

Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

Chapter 22, Halachah 1.

Here and in the following halachot, the term cloth (HEBREW_TEXT) refers to a cloth made from wool or linen.

Clothes less than these measures are not considered important by most people. See also Hilchot Shabbat 18:13 where the Rambam mentions that these measures also apply with regard to the prohibition against transferring articles from one domain to another.

For then it is not considered important unless it has the necessary size.

Since the person cuts the cloth to this measure, it is obvious that he considers the cloth important even though it is small [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:4)].

See Chapter 7, Halachot 2-3. Apparently, the difference is that here the cloth was set aside and/or modified for use by the harvesters, while there it was just picked up randomly and used for that purpose.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that as long as a person designates a fragment for a purpose, it is susceptible to impurity regardless of its size.

Because in all these instances, one is completing the required measure with an article that requires a greater measure.

Because in these instances, one is completing the required measure with an article that requires a lesser measure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:3), the Rambam states that since each of the substances is susceptible to the impurity associated with the support of a zav, an article made by combining them is also susceptible.

In his notes to his translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:5), Rav Kapach translates the Arabic terms used by the Rambam to explain that a sifter has small holes and is used for straining flour, while a sieve has larger holes and is used for straining grain.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:5). Since the sifter is worn out, it is no longer considered a k'li and is not susceptible to impurity. By cutting off the edges, however, one performs a deed that causes it to be considered a seat and hence, to become susceptible to impurity.

In that source, the Rambam explains that these sifters are at times made of leather, at times of goats’ hair, at times of cords, and at times of reeds. Thus it is fit to be used as a seat.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam states that this refers to a newborn infant.

Because even for an infant, a smaller garment would not be considered as significant.

I.e., with a front and a back as cloaks are worn. Thus were it to be open to its full size, it would be six handbreadths by three handbreadths.

This translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:6).

As a border (ibid.).

And sewn closed like a hem.

I.e., it is considered a primary source of impurity.

Thus making it less than three handbreadths by three handbreadths and thus not susceptible to ritual impurity. This applies even after the additional fabric was added to the garment. The portion of the garment that contracted the impurity must comprise the minimum measure itself without considering the addition for it to remain in that category.

Thus at the time the new threads were added, the fragment of the garment was not large enough to be impure with the impurity associated with the support of a zav.

Seemingly, as in the previous clause, it should be considered as an article that came in contact with an article that is impure with the impurity of a human corpse.

Halachah 3; Chapter 22, Halachah 21.

Sewn on to it as protection. The patch thus was a primary source of impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:6)].

By attaching it to the basket or the hide, the person made the cloth secondary to the entity to which it was attached and therefore lowered its level of impurity (ibid.).

I.e., when attached to the other entity, it lost its own importance and was no longer considered as an entity in its own right. Afterwards, when detached, it was considered like an insignificant portion of the basket and hence is not impure [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:6)]. If, when separating it, one had the intent to sit upon it, it is susceptible to impurity in the future, but it does not return to its previous impurity (Rabbenu Shimshon to the above mishnah).

As indicated by the previous halachah, when the impure cloth is joined to other cloth, they are all considered as a single entity and take on the status of the impure cloth.

Since it did not come in contact with the original impurity itself, after the patch is separated, it is only considered as a derivative and not as a primary source of impurity.

Since it is of the same type as the cloth to which it is attached, it cannot be said that its identity becomes subsumed to it [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:6)]. Thus when separated, its status is not changed.

A Greek letter whose form resembles a reversed L (ibid.:7).

Since it will be hanging loosely, it is not considered as attached.

Thus its status is only that of a derivative.

And neither of the pieces are three handbreadths by three handbreadths.

Unlike the fragment mentioned at the conclusion of this halachah, these remnants never came in contact with a cloth that was three handbreadths by three handbreadths. Hence, it cannot be said that they touched such a source of impurity.

See Chapter 18, Halachah 10; Chapter 19, Halachah 1.

I.e., one from which three handbreadths by three handbreadths would remain even after the fragment was removed.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:6, 27:9).

Because it is no longer an object on which one sits. It is, however, susceptible to other forms of impurity because it is a cloth k’li (ibid.). Moreover, as stated there, it is considered as an article that came in contact with a support of zav and is a primary derivative of impurity.

For a deed must be performed to move it from one category to another.

It is through the immersion of the article in a mikveh and the coming of nightfall that the article regains purity.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 29:1) which refers to I Kings 20:38.

And thus it could still be considered as a garment.

Hence it is considered as if it was tom already and it is no longer considered as a garment. If, however, he intended to use the fragments, the impurity does not depart from it. See Chu/in 123a.

Implied is that if the person did not immerse the article, the pieces tom from it are impure until its size is reduced less than three handbreadths by three handbreadths.

For being immersed in water will damage the garment.