Kelim - Chapter 26

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:5), the Rambam explains that this refers to a thick piece of wood with two legs, thus appearing somewhat like a chair and hence fit to be sat upon. Such pieces of wood would be placed in walls to connect two walls together.

Generally, an entity that is part of a building is considered as attached to the ground and therefore not susceptible to impurity. Nevertheless, different laws apply to the wooden k’li mentioned here. Since it was fit to serve as a seat and hence susceptible to impurity beforehand, it must be both permanently affixed to the wall and have a portion of the wall built on top of it to be considered as part of the wall and hence no longer susceptible to impurity.

Thus if a zav would sit on the portion of the ceiling above the mat, he would impart midras impurity to the mat (ibid.).

The Kessef Mishneh and others note that the apparent source for the Rambam’s ruling is Keilim 22:3. Nevertheless, the standard version of that text states that the bench is pure if one of the legs is removed. In his gloss to that mishnah, Tosafot Yom Tov maintains that the Rambam possessed a different version of the text that states “impure.” Rav Kappach’s text of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, however, does not alter that text.
According to the standard text, the bench is pure when one leg is removed, because it is no longer fit to sit on. According to the usual interpretation of the Rambam’s words, he maintains that the bench is still susceptible to impurity if one leg is removed because a groove can be made in the wall to support the other side of the bench.
It is possible, however, to offer a different explanation of the Rambam’s ruling based on his commentary to that mishnah. Our translation of the term rashav as legs has its source in the other commentaries to that mishnah. The Rambam, however, interprets that term as “armrests.” It is true that he mentions that interpretation with regard to a chair and not with regard to a bench, but at the beginning of his commentary, he states that a safsal, which we and others, translate as “bench” is a type of chair. On this basis, the ruling is easy to understand. The Rambam is speaking about a bench whose armrest is removed, not its legs. Now, if the armrests of a bench are removed, it is still fit to sit on and hence, susceptible to impurity.

It is fit to sit on.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 22:4), the Rambam explains that a bride’s chair was usually coated with ivory or ornamental wood.

Even though it is fit to sit on, without the ornamental coating, it is considered as if it were broken, because it is not fit to be used for its purpose (ibid. 22:4).

From a simple reading of the Rambam’s text, it would appear that this clause is also speaking about a bride’s chair. Nevertheless, the commentaries have noted that the source for this ruling is Keilim 22:5 which speaks about an ordinary chair, not a bride’s chair.

But instead, were embedded within it (ibid.:5).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that since its coating did not project outward, it is possible to turn the chair on its side, even before the coating was removed. Hence, the removal of the coating does not cause it to be considered as a broken k’li which is not susceptible to impurity.

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:6), it was customary to make an attractive border around the chair and for there to be several ornaments added around the border. If the additional ornaments were removed, it is still fit to sit on.

I.e., both the attractive border and the other ornaments (ibid.).

Although it is fit to sit on, since all the ornaments are removed, it is considered as a broken k’li and is not susceptible to impurity (ibid., Eduyot 2:8).

Our translation is based on Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 22:8). Others interpret the Rambam’s words — and the mishnah — differently.

For they are not fit to be used as a support.

Because it serves as a receptacle as the Rambam proceeds to state.

I.e., the Rambam is speaking about a basket hung from an animal and used as a dispenser for fertilizer (ibid. 19:10).

See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.

Since the building materials would soil the clothes of anyone who sat on it, it is not used as a seat and therefore not susceptible to midras impurity. Alternatively, a person who sits on it will get in the way of the people performing their tasks.

Because it is a receptacle.

A log is 344 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.

A kab is four luggin, 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

The crack is large enough to prevent it from holding water.

I.e., but not other types of impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:2)]. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, citing a Tosefta (Keilim 18:1) which appears to imply that the kneading trough is still susceptible to other types of impurity. The Kessef Mishneh states the Tosefta is problematic. Therefore the Rambam based his decision solely on the mishnah.

Due to the absorption of the rain.

If a person would want to sit on it, he would be told: “Stand up and let us perform our work” [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

For it is a useful k’li.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.) and authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different understanding.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:4). See also Chapter 23, Halachah 5.

With the exception of midras impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

Generally, an object affixed in a wall is not susceptible to impurity. In this instance, however, the kneading trough was not originally made to be affixed to the wall, so this rule is not applied with regard to it (ibid.; see also Chapter 11, Halachah 24). ·

Since the holes attaching the sideboards to the headboards were not changed, the bed is not considered to have been altered significantly and its status does not change [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 19:6)].

Even though it is standing with the new sideboards attached to it.

I.e., a headboard or a footboard.

Even though the bed will be inclined, it is still possible to lie on it comfortably.

Because in such a situation, the form of the bed is no longer intact (ibid. 18:56).

The posts which connect the sideboards to the headboards or the footboards, giving the bed its rectangular shape (ibid.).

Thus the bed could no longer stand.

The bedposts are legs, placed under the cornerposts (ibid.).

And thus the bed would continually tip to the sides.

A bed that is less than a handbreadth high is considered as broken.

Because it never lost its functionality entirely. Even if one of the sideboards was removed, it could still be used, by propping it up against a wall, as stated in Halachah 13.

Because it is considered as if the old bed was taken apart and this is an entirely new bed.

Since the new sideboard touched the bed while it had contracted midras impurity, it contracts the level of impurity that results from contact with such a source of impurity. See parallels to this ruling in Chapter 21, Halachot 9-10.

Because it is considered as a broken k’li.

When dividing their inheritance.

When dividing the resources of the partnership. Diagram

Even if one of the portions could stand on its own, the bed is considered to have been broken, because it is unlikely to be put back together again [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Keilim 18:9)].

But the previous impurity does not return.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and points out that, in Halachah 10, the Rambam himself ruled differently, stating that if the sideboards and two bedposts were removed, a bed is pure, while here he states that such a bed is still susceptible to impurity. The Kessef Mishneh explains the distinction between the two rulings as follows: When a bed is impure, it becomes purified if a sideboard and two bedposts are removed, because it has lost the form of a bed. A pure bed missing these components is, however, susceptible to impurity, because it can be propped up.

Because it was difficult to immerse the entire bed as a single unit.

Rambam LeAm emphasizes that we are speaking about a situation where a sideboard and two bedposts remain intact. If such a portion of the bed does not remain intact, the bed is purified because it was dismantled as stated in Halachah 10.

The cords running from one sideboard to the other to support the mattress.

Since the bed is in the process of being taken apart, it no longer imparts impurity. It is as if it is already broken.