Kelim - Chapter 24

I.e., hides that have been designated for a specific purpose, but little has been done to adapt them for that purpose.

A hide is not susceptible to midras impurity unless it is used as a support by a person. Although the primary purpose for which these hides are used is not as a support, they are susceptible to midras impurity, because, as the Rambam later states, it is likely that a person will lie or sit upon them.

This hide is susceptible to midras impurity, because there are times when a person will sit on it when riding the donkey.

This explanation is necessary, because a hide is not susceptible to midras impurity unless it is used as a support by a person.

So his clothes will not be soiled by the clay.

A hide worn by the person carding the flax to prevent the small chips of flax that are combed out from falling on his clothing.

To protect his clothes from being soiled.

Some of these hides people would not sit upon because the hide is dirty; they would not sit upon others, lest they dirty them. Nevertheless, in both instances, it is possible that they would turn the hide upside down.

As stated in Chapter 23, Halachah 3.

One is not likely to sit on these hides — or even on their undersides — lest they become soiled and then soil the fabric.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 4.

It is not considered as the cover of a k’li, because weights are not considered as keilim [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:7)].

Even if it would be of the required size.

I.e., even midras impurity, i.e., it is considered like a shoe or sandal.

Where is was left to dry [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:4)].

Although it must be removed from the mold, that task does not require professional expertise and can be performed by an ordinary person (Kessef Mishneh).

Our translation is taken from the Mayim Tehorim; see also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:8).

I.e., it is not necessary to perform a deed to prepare them to serve that purpose (see Chapter 8, Halachah 10).

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

The hide is usually smoothed down before one rides upon it, but people often use it in its unfinished state (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Keilim, 26:8).

The general statement that a hide is considered susceptible to impurity immediately after one thinks of using it for such a purpose [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:9)].

A private person is not careful about putting the final touches on finishing a hide to make it fit for a given task.

Since he sells hides, his hides are not considered as completed until he performs all the tasks necessary to prepare them to be used for their specific function. Otherwise, no one will purchase them (see ibid.).

See, however, note 27 below.

I.e., the robber was a zav and hence, would impart impurity to the support were it his property.

I.e., there was another article interposing between him and the bed.

Because it is not his. The concept that the thief did not touch the article must be stated, because the principle that the person must be the owner of the article applies only when impurity is imparted by sitting or lying on the article, not when touching. Nevertheless, this point is problematic, because the prooftext cited specifically mentions touching a couch (Kessef Mishneh).
The Mishneh LeMelech and the Ma’aseh Rokeiach write that the Torah’s exclusion applies only to a couch or a seat that is stolen. If, by contrast, one sits or lies on a couch or chair belonging to a friend, it contracts impurity, because the owner is willing to let that person use it as if he was the owner. See also Rashi and other commentaries to Bava Kama 66b.

Because it becomes the property of the robber. This statement (though apparently based on Bava Kama 66b and Keilim 26:9) has aroused the attention of the commentaries, because in Hilchot Gezelah 2:1-3, the Rambam rules that the owner’s despair is not sufficient to have a robber acquire the stolen property, the article must undergo a fundamental change or be transferred from the thief’s domain to the domain of another person.
The Kessef Mishneh attempts to resolve the difficulty by stating that the Rambam agrees that if it is known that the owner explicitly despaired, that is sufficient for the thief to be considered the owner of the article (see Bava Kama 114a). Alternatively, it can be said that here, since the thief changes the status of the hide by considering it as a support, it is considered to have undergone a fundamental change in his domain and, hence, he is considered to have acquired it (Rambam LeAm).

The difference between geneivah (theft) and gezeilah (robbery) in halachic terms is as follows: Geneivah implies taking another person’s property discreetly. Gezeilah, by contrast, involves taking something openly, by force, against the will of its owner (Hilchot Geneivah 1:3). Hence, it is likely that the victim will be aware of the identity of a robber and hope to recover his article from him, but not be aware of the identity of a thief and, therefore, despair of recovering his article [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:9)].

Because the hide is not considered his.

For it is assumed that the owner will despair and the hide will be considered as the property of the thief.

For it cannot be assumed that the owner will despair of recovering his article.

The minimum size for a hide to contract ritual impurity, as stated in Halachah 2 and in Chapter 23, Halachah 3. Implied is that the intent — and even the initial deeds — to reduce a hide’s size is not sufficient. It must actually be reduced below that size.

I.e., a k’li that does not serve as a receptacle.

This also applies if one type of leather receptacle is changed into another type of leather receptacle, as illustrated in the final clause of the halachah. This, however, reflects a difference between the treatment of the concept in the Mishnah (Keilim 28:5) and the Tosefta (Keilim 24:1). See the Commentary of the Tosafot Yom Tov.

Because the original k’li is considered to have ceased to exist and the new k’li is considered as a new entity.

I.e., wool or linen.

Regardless of how the article is changed, as illustrated by the following halachah. The rationale is that all cloth articles are similar.

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

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:1), the Rambam explains that the term translated as “sack” implies a sack made from goats’ hair and the term translated as “carrying bag” implies a leather carrying bag.

The rationale why they are not susceptible to other forms of impurity is obvious: They are no longer functional keilim. For that same reason, they are not susceptible to midras impurity. Since they are not functional, they will not be used for anything, but instead, discarded. Hence, they also will not be used as seats or cushions.

I.e., how large must they be to be considered something that a person might sit upon or lie upon.

A Kav (singular of Kabbin) is a Talmudic liquid measure, equal to 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

A se’ah is 8.3 liter in modern measure according to Shiurei Torah and 16.2 liter according to Chazon Ish.