Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Since it is not meant to be carried, the fact that it does not contain much — in contrast to the 40 se’ah requirement mentioned later — is not significant.

As reflected by the Rambam’s comments at the conclusion of the halachah, Leviticus 11:32 mentions both a wooden implement and a sack in the same verse concerning ritual impurity. On this basis, Chagigah 26b explains that an equation is established between the two. A wooden k’li is susceptible to impurity only when it is similar to a sack and it is made to be carried whether full or empty. Thus when a k’li is not intended to be carried, it is not placed in this category at all.

Examples of keilim that fit this category are given in the following halachah.

A se’ah is 8.3 liter in modem measure according to Shiurei Torah and 16.2 liter according to Chazon Ish. An example of a vessel that contains 40 se’ah is one that is a cubit by a cubit and three cubits high (Tosefta, Bava Metzia, ch. 5).

Two kor is 60 se’ah. The extra measure of 20 se’ah is added because it is common for people to pile grain and/or flour above the measure (Shabbat 35a). As the commentaries to that passage emphasize, such a large addition is likely only when the container is very wide. If it is high and narrow, it is less likely that grain will be added.

Its size indicates that it is unlikely to be moved.

Our definitions of this and the following terms are taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 15:1).

A flexible container made from straw or the like shaped like a basket.

The Mishnah (op. cit.) speaks of Alexandrian ships. In his commentary, the Rambam explains that the term refers to ships that sail from Eretz Yisrael to Alexandria. Since they sail in the midst of the Mediterranean Sea, they must be of substantial size.

Because, unlike a sack, they were not meant to be moved.

In the above source, the Rambam explains that the barrel was egg-shaped.

A large chest with many compartments placed on wheels which kings would use to carry food and beverages when they went on long journeys (ibid.).

I.e., ships that sail from city to city along the coast of Eretz Yisrael (ibid.).

Thus, despite their size, they are considered like a sack and are therefore susceptible to impurity.

Because of their base, they are stationary and not moved easily (ibid.).

Our text follows the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. There is a slight omission in the standard printed text.

I.e., able to hold 40 se’ah.

The Ra’avad explains that these keilim were singled out because they use very thick glass. Hence they would be extremely heavy and very unlikely to be moved.

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 5, these utensils are impure only by Rabbinic decree. Nevertheless, the Sages enforced this stringency.

The reason this measure is chosen is explained in Hilchot Mikveot 4:1. This is merely an example. As long as a container is of the required total volume, its particular dimensions are not of consequence.

Since the important factor is the container’s weight, it is not significant if that weight comes from its contents or the thickness of the walls itself.

Our translation of this term is taken from Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 18:2). The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s interpretation of the term used by the Mishnah. The Kessef Mishneh accepts the Rambam’s interpretation. Some clarification is, however, required as to why the Rambam does not discuss these drawers with those mentioned in the following halachah.

As the Rambam states there, the drawers of a chest are often totally removable.

I.e., if the chest contracts impurity, the drawer remains pure. Conversely, if the drawer contracts impurity, the chest remains pure (Keilim 18:2).

When a chest is located in a structure in which a human corpse is found, it protects the keilim stored within it from contracting impurity (ibid.; see Hilchot Tum’at Meit 13:3). If the drawer can be removed, neither it nor its contents are so protected.

For there are times when such drawers can be opened, but not removed from the chest entirely.

Here, as well, our translation of this term is taken from Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 18:2).

Through hinges or the like (ibid.).

For it is considered as part of the container. Thus it contributes to the volume of 40 se ‘ah. In the above source, the Mishnah and the Rambam. provide guidelines for measuring the volume of the domed cover.

As mentioned above, it is difficult to understand why the Rambam. does not include this discussion of drawers when mentioning them in the previous halachah.

I.e., the extra volume added when opening the drawers is not included in the 40 se’ah.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:3), the Rambam. clarifies the rationales for this ruling. The first opinion in the Mishnah maintains that since the leg was removed, the container is considered as a damaged entity and is no longer susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yossi differs, maintaining that if they can still serve as containers, but can no longer contain 40 se’ah, their status should change. The Sages, however, differ, arguing that because of their size, it is still unlikely that they will be moved. Hence their status should not change.

In Chapter 1, Halachah 10, the Rambam stated that our Sages decreed that flat wooden utensils should be susceptible to impurity. Here the Rambam clarifies the scope of that decree.

The impurity of these objects is mentioned in the Sifri and it appears that it is derived from the exegesis of a verse. Rambam LeAm, however, cites an opinion which considers their opinion as Rabbinic in origin.

I.e., the lamp is the k’li that serves man. The lamp’s function is enhanced when it is placed in a candelabrum. When it is no longer burning, however, the candelabrum serves no purpose for the lamp.

In the conclusion of this halachah, the Rambam mentions a mold for tefillin.

More particularly, in his Commentary to that Mishnah, the Rambam explains that this term refers to the covering for a trunk used to store clothes.

On a waxed tablet [Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:2)].

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 16:4).

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:8).

The keilim Scripture mentions as susceptible to ritual impurity all serve man. From this, our Sages concluded that any k’li that does not serve man directly is not susceptible to impurity. Even those keilim that are impure by Rabbinic decree must also serve humans.

The commentaries have noted that it is hard to conceive of how some of these utensils, e.g., a sheath for a sword or one for a knife, are useful at the time the article is being used for its purpose.

Our translation of this and many of them following terms is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:7). In that source, he uses the same Hebrew term for the term translated as “a box” and does not explain why one is susceptible to ritual impurity and one is not.

A press to straighten crooked pieces of wood (ibid. 16:8).

A reed-like case in which a mezuzah is placed and affixed to the doorway (ibid.).

See Hilchot Tefillin 3:2-4 which explains that the compartments of teflllin are made by taking moist leather and pulling it over a square mold—with grooves for the head teflllin and without grooves for the arm tefillin. The leather is left to set and take the shape of the mold.

Two sticks about nine inches long that are used to tap out a rhythm during a song or mourners’ dirge. Mention of a similar term is found in the Targum to II Samuel 6:5 in the description of the musical instruments used in the celebration that accompanied the transfer of the ark [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

A straw hat used by a worker (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sukkah 1:3; Keilim 18:3), the Rambam explains that, in the Talmudic era, it was common for there to be a canopy or net hung over a bed to protect the person sleeping from flies. At times, it was supported by four poles and at times, two. The term used here refers to two pillars that would be placed at the headboard of a bed for that purpose.

In the above source, the Rambam explains that the term chamor, literally, “donkey,” is used to refer to any object used as a support.

The Ra’avad offers another rationale why some of these articles are considered as pure, stating that there are those that are used in connection with keilim that are part of a fixed structure, e.g., the covering for a door bolt or a latch. The Kessef Mishneh explains that his rationale is unnecessary, because these articles only serve other keilim.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 18:3).

In each comer of the bed, there was a bedpost to which the bed's horizontal and vertical beams were joined (ibid.:18:5).

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s intent is that it is not used for a purpose at all times.

A board attached to two poles on which the Levites would hang the instruments on which they would play in the Temple (ibid.:3).

The commentaries cite the Tosefta, Keilim, Bava Batra, ch. 1, as the source. The standard version of that text, however, states; “a carpenter’s press.”

As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 3.

I.e., an ornamental covering.

For work is not being performed with them, i.e., with the coating, but with the article that they coat [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:4)].

For the plating is more valuable than the k’li itself.

In the previous clause. As our Sages explain (Chagigah 3:8), the Golden Altar in the Temple was not susceptible to ritual impurity, because it was made of wood, coated with gold.

A wooden k’li that does not have a receptacle is not susceptible to ritual impurity, while a metal k’li is susceptible to impurity even if it does not have a receptacle (Chapter 1, Halachot 9-10). Thus the question is which of the materials is considered of primary importance and thus determines the status of the k’li.

I.e., both the wood and the metal.

I.e., the portion of the key that turns the lock.

Thus the metal is the primary element.

Even if the impurity only touches the wood.

Even if the impurity touches the metal.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:8). Coral is not susceptible to impurity because it grows in the sea. Rashi, by contrast, explains that such articles are considered as wooden keilim that do not possess a receptacle.

Because the ring is of primary importance. Although the signet is the part of the ring that is used as a k’li, it could not exist without the ring. Therefore, the ring is considered of primary importance (Kessef Mishneh to Halachah 8).

Even though the coral ring has a receptacle, since the intent is that it be filled, it is not susceptible to impurity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:8), the Rambam explains that these three terms refer to similar keilim that are used to winnow grains from their chaff. The term translated as “a pitchfork” has three teeth and is used to winnow wheat from coarse chaff. The one translated as “a farming prong” has more teeth and the one translated as “a winnow” has even more.

This ruling from the Mishnah evoked wonder from Rabbi Yehoshua who stated that he found it difficult to comprehend. Apparently, his question was: How can one tooth cause the status of a much larger utensil to change?

For the handle is facilitating the use of the staff and not vice versa.

Even though the metal is serving the wood, since the wood would be destroyed without the metal, the metal is considered of primary importance (Rav Yosef Corcus, as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).

For then the spikes are of primary importance.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:2), the Rambam writes that it was common to adorn staffs with nails coated with white tin.

This was also a frequently used decorative process (ibid.).

For the staff or door is of primary importance. Since they are not susceptible to impurity, the metal tubes also are not.

The rationale is that it is only keilim, useful articles, that are susceptible to ritual impurity, not raw materials. Until the fashioning of a k’li is completed, it is not placed in this category. As will be explained, however, there are times a k’li can be considered as finished even though it is in an intermediate state.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 16:1), the Rambam states that this refers to a specific type of fish called alsafon whose skin is very bumpy. Rubbing the keilim with this skin would smooth them and polish them. Generally, until this final preparatory stage was completed, these articles were not considered as ready for use.

For the work involved in making them was completed.

Baskets woven from reeds or the like (ibid.:2).

And thus become susceptible to impurity.

A border is made around the ends of the weave of the reeds, tying them together, so that the weave will not be undone (ibid.:2).

For until then, it is not fit to be used for the purpose for which it was intended.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 16:3).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:16:3), the Rambam explains that reeds or palm bast would be woven into a very long reel, at times 50 meters long. Afterwards, they would sew the woven leaves into a container of the shape and size they desired. These containers would be used to store wheat and flour in mills. Similarly, the containers the Rambam proceeds to mention are all fashioned by taking a reel of woven reeds or the like and shaping it into the form of the desired k’li. At times, the reel of woven reeds would be wound more than once around the base of the container to raise the height of the container.

And a base sewed to the basket (ibid.).

Tifferet Yisrael and other commentaries to the Mishnah explain the difference between the terms dor and tzifirah used by the mishnah and the Rambam as follows: Tzifirah imply circles made by separate lengths of reeds, while dor implies that the same length of reed is circled several times without separation. There is, however, no indication of such an interpretation in the Rambam’s words.

Which is susceptible to ritual impurity, as reflected by Chapter 22, Halachot 1, 12.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:2).

The Rambam is borrowing — out of context — the wording of Isaiah 44:13.

From Chulin 25a-b, it appears that the rationale is that since these articles are of little value, it is likely that they will be used even before the finishing touches mentioned above are concluded. Hence, they are considered as “having been fashioned completely” even before then.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:8), the Rambam writes that unless this wood is planed, it is unusable, because it is likely to produce splinters.

Chulin 25b mentions a difference of opinion between two Sages, Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Nachman, that relates to the status of unfinished bone utensils without coming to a definite ruling. The Rambam appears to have accepted the view of Rav Nachman based on his own processes of deduction.
The Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s explanation, noting that Rav Nachman compares bone keilim to those made of metal, not to those made of boxwood. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam is not accepting Rav Nachman’s view over Rabbi Yochanan’s, but rather accepting the decision the Talmud attributes to Rav Nachman’s perspective for an entirely different reason: that like boxwood keilim, those made from bone are not considered as useful until they are finished.

The Kessef Mishneh interprets this as referring to the kupat mentioned in Keilim 22:9. Since it does not have a receptacle, nor does it conform to the accepted shape of a particular k’li, it is not placed in that category, for the laws of impurity apply to “keilim,” not to every type of useful object.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 15:2). Similarly, the version of the Hebrew text used depends on that source and the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text has a slightly different version.

Which are much smaller, for they are employed for personal not wholesale use.

For they do not have a specific shape or form so that they can be considered as a k'li.

For an ordinary block of wood is not painted. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:15:2), the Rambam emphasizes that the impurity of these keilim—and the others mentioned previously—are all Rabbinic in origin. According to Scriptural Law, wooden keilim that do not have a receptacle are all pure. See Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam identifies this term with the “service vestments” (Exodus 39:1) used in the Sanctuary.

The Kessef Mishneh asks an obvious question: It appears that this accessory contains a receptacle for water. If so, why is the accessory used by ordinary private persons pure? The Kessef Mishneh therefore explains that this accessory is a board on which a bowl of water is placed. Bakers designate a specific board for this purpose, while ordinary private persons use any available piece of wood. Rambam LeAm explains that a baker's accessory contains a receptacle for water, because that is necessary due to the quantity of loaves they produce. A homemaker, by contrast, uses an ordinary flat board upon which he pours water. That is sufficient for the few loaves he makes.

For it is now considered as a receptacle.

For it is no longer considered as a receptacle.

For it is a container. Indeed, the term used by the mishnah (Keilim 15:3) to describe it, yam, literally, “sea,” indicates that.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that we are forced to say that the form of the utensil used by private persons causes it to be pure. He does not explain how- and it is difficult to understand how- for if, like the k'li used by the professionals, it is a container, seemingly, it would be susceptible to impurity.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 15:5).

Pushing them from the side rather than lifting them up.

Loops from which utensils are hung on hooks, pegs, or the like. This is referring to loops that are not permanently attached to the utensils for which they are used.

Since the loops are not permanently attached to the utensil, their status is considered independently and, in and of themselves, they are not considered as keilim. Hence, even if the k'li that hangs from them comes in contact with a source of ritual impurity, they are considered as pure. If, however, they are permanently attached to the k'li that hangs from them, they are considered as part of that k'li and their status is dependent on its status.

These staffs were used by customs’ inspectors to probe loads of straw to see if grain was being hidden inside of it to avoid paying the taxes due [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 15:4)].

I.e., the person performing the task inserts his hand through the loop and uses it for support while carrying out the task (ibid.).

We have used the popular translation of the term although Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 15:6) explains that it refers to an ancient wind instrument.

The Kessef Mishneh (based on the gloss of R. Ovadiah of Bartenura to the above Mishnah) maintains that there would be cavities in these lyres in which the musicians would store money and the like.

For these lyres were not made with such cavities (ibid.).

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). It is impure, because it has a receptacle like the lyres mentioned previously.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that this term refers to a prosthetic leg and, by association, to a harp made in the form of such an object. This explanation resolves the question raised by the Ra’avad in his gloss.

Here also our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to that source.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 3:3).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim, 15:6), the Rambam explains that in that era, the traps used for these animals were made in a form that necessitated such a ruling.

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 16:5) for details concerning all the terms used in this halachah.

The Ra’avad offers a different rationale: Such containers are not intended to be carried.

Because it is not a lasting entity.

For such a divider will remain for a significant time.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that fresh dates and the like are placed in such containers when they are being sold so that they will not soil the hands of those who handle them.

Since the pocket is being used both to deposit fruit and remove it, it is considered as a container.

For it is obvious that it is being used only temporarily and is not considered as a container for ongoing use. From this, we see that disposable utensils are not susceptible to ritual impurity.

A cattle-horn or the like that was hollowed out and used as a drinking vessel or the like.

For, in its natural shape, it is not commonly used as a container.

Since it was susceptible to ritual impurity beforehand and can be used as a container in its present position, it is susceptible to impurity even though it has become permanently attached to an object that is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

Or its wall was affixed to the base of the chest, for in this way as well, it cannot serve as a container [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:5)].

Like the chest itself. The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rav Yosef Corcus who emphasizes that this ruling applies only when the chest is oversized and, hence, not susceptible to impurity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 23:5), the Rambam explains that this refers to a basket that is submerged in the water in which fish are snared.

From a comparison to the following halachah, it appears that the Rambam does not consider these objects to have the form of keilim.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that this refers to a board on which there is a support of wood held up by a rope. When the hunter sees a fowl rest on the board, he pulls the rope and the wooden support falls on the fowl.

I.e., a body of water is dammed so that the fish will collect in one place. Afterwards, the water is allowed to flow out and thus the fish will be caught.

We are speaking about benches made from a board with holes into which legs are inserted when one desires to use them. If one does not desire to use them, the legs and the boards are kept separate. Since they are not affixed to the bench permanently, it is not considered as a k’li.

I.e., a seat whose legs are permanently attached to it.

As the Rambam emphasizes in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 22:10), when even one of the legs of a two-legged bench are made from stone, it is considered as a stone utensil and no longer susceptible to ritual impurity.