Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The fact that a k’li has an independent name indicates that it is considered as a significant entity in its own right and is therefore susceptible to impurity. The Ra’avad differs with this principle. He maintains that what is halachically significant is not whether an object has an independent name, but whether it is used independently for a functional purpose.

Placed behind the door to bolt it closed [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:2)].

A metal cup in which the rod for a door hinge rests (ibid.).

Or a building attached to the earth. Anything that serves the earth or a k’li is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

Since this is the fundamental purpose for which these articles are made (ibid.).

For the name indicates that the article is not considered as an independent entity, but rather as part of the larger implement. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 12:3), the Rambam clarifies this principle, explaining that if the auxiliary term is not necessary to define the article, but merely elucidates the intent, the article is susceptible to impurity when detached.

The iron portion of the muzzle that enters the animal’s mouth (ibid. 11:5).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 5:1).

For it has an independent name.

If impurity touches a portion of the reins, every component attached to them contracts impurity.

I.e., an earring or a nose ring.

I.e., the “bowl” represents an empty cavity, and the lentil, a solid metal ball that resembles a berry [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:9)].

Because it is not an independent entity, nor does it have a receptacle.

I.e., several balls of gold attached to each other in the form of a cluster of grapes (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:4), the Rambam states that the rationale is that a birit does not have an independent name, while the kevalim do.

See Hilchot Shabbat 15:6. Shabbat 63b explains that these chains were worn to prevent the girls from taking very wide steps, because that was not considered modest and doing so might damage their signs of virginity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:8), the Rambam speaks of using links of gold.

For, at times, a woman may wear only one link on a chain as a necklace.

In the above source, the Rambam speaks of putting pearls on a golden chain.

For a chain may also be worn as an ornament.

A necklace whose golden chain was partially severed.

For then, it is still useful for its initial purpose.

They are considered as serving the receptacles, i.e., implements, and not humans.

For it serves as a receptacle in its own right [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:3)].

These boxes are usually made of iron or copper (ibid. 12:3). Other individuals also use such boxes, but unlike doctors, they do not employ the covers for a specific purpose. Hence those covers are pure.

For it is then k’li that serves man.

A Latin term, the root for the English word, ounce.

Since these merchants use their scales professionally, they usually use the metal weights. Therefore the beam is considered as subservient to those weights and is susceptible to impurity because of them.

I.e., private citizens who are not continually involved in commercial activities. They frequently weigh materials against each other without using metal weights. Hence the crossbeam is not considered as subservient to the weights and is judged as a flat wooden utensil that is not susceptible to impurity.

If the weights are permanently affixed to the beam, the beam is considered as subservient to them. The Ra’avad objects to this ruling. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that it can be derived from an exegesis of the wording of Keilim 12:2 which states: “The crossbeam of a scale of a wool-merchant is impure, because of the weights. If the beam of a private person’s scale has weights, it is impure.” Implied is that the merchant’s scale is always impure because of the weights. A private person’s scale is impure only if those weights are affixed to it.

Since they are broken, they are no longer considered as implements.

For now they are considered as new weights that have not been broken.

A coin of the Talmudic era, equivalent to four Roman dinarim.

I.e., it was damaged and its weight reduced.

I.e., its weight was reduced to a standard amount lower than its original weight [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:7)].

Like other weights..

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:7), the Rambam explains that porters would use a wooden pole with metal hooks to secure the burdens they would carry.

Because the wooden pole to which the hooks wen, attached was of primary importance.

Because the salesmen would make a hollow in the pole and store some of the wares there.

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 they are considered as subservient to and part of the bed-poles. Since the bed-poles are flat wooden articles, they are not susceptible to impurity.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:2). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:5), the Rambam states that the term refers to a small chair used to climb onto a large chair.

For a person uses them as handles when he ascends the platform [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaot 9:5)]. Hence, they are considered as implements that benefit man.

I.e., this snare is a bee-hived shaped basket which is lowered into the sea and lifted up from it with hooks (ibid.). As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 10, such a snare is not susceptible to impurity. Hence, the hooks for it are also pure.

For they are considered as part of the chest and the chest is susceptible to impurity.

The hooks are subservient to the lamp and the lamp is not susceptible to impurity, because it does not have a receptacle (ibid.; op. cit 2:1).

For they are considered as part of the table and the table is susceptible to impurity.

The point of both these principles is that the status of the hook is the same as that of the article to which it is attached.

Rambam LeAm cites an explanation that maintains that if the primary article is susceptible to ritual impurity only because of Rabbinic decree, its hook is not susceptible to impurity. That explanation is, however, somewhat problematic, because, as mentioned in the notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 1, there are opinions that consider the impurity of a table or a bed — two of the articles mentioned here — as of Rabbinic origin (Kin’at Eliyahu).

See Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

See Chapter 3, Halachah I.

A hook or a chain.

I.e., it is not attached to another implement.

For it is a utensil that is of benefit to humans.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:1), the Rambam defines this as a chain used to imprison a person or to tie a bundle of wood or the like.

Sellers of bread or wheat (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:3), the Rambam explains that measurers of land would use chains rather than ropes, because ropes expand in the winter (due to rain) and contract in the summer (when they dry out).

To mark the endpoint of the measurement (ibid.).

They are used to bind the wood in bundles (ibid.). There the Rambam gives another reason why they are not susceptible to impurity, they are referred to as “the chains of wood,” i.e., their name has a modifier (see Halachah 1).

It is impossible to draw water from the well using any shorter length (ibid.). On the other hand, because of its weight, it is necessary to hold it within that length.

It is called the chain of the bucket (see Halachah 1).

Since it is lighter, it is not necessary to hold the chain so close to the bucket.

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

A long metal beam on which a coppersmith both sits and uses as an anvil to hammer out large copper utensils (ibid.).

To verify the vertical alignment of a wall or pillar.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:7), the Rambam explains that the Hebrew term refers to a basket in which grain is placed. It is positioned in such a way that the kernels flow into the mill where they are ground into flour.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 12:8).

To use as a key.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:5). The Ra’avad interprets the Hebrew term differently, explaining that it means hardened by being exposed to fire and then water.

I.e., it is positioned in such a manner that if a person enters, he will move it and thus the owner will know that someone else has entered his home [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:5)].

For it is not considered as a k’li.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:6), the Rambam explains that there were metal brushes used in bathhouses that were used to scrape one's legs and feet. They would be hung from a small chain. There was a difference of opinion among the Sages whether that chain is susceptible to impurity or not [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Eduyot 3:9)].

See Chapter 5, Halachah 2.

The Ra’avad offers a slightly different definition of this term.

For it is affixed within a sundial made of stone and the stone is the fundamental element of the k’li (Tifferet Yisrael, Keilim 12:4).

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:4).

For the metal and not the wood is the primary element of this k'li.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:4), the Rambam explains that this refers to a wagon that is used to carry stones or the like. Two animals lead the wagon. A wooden yoke is placed on their necks. It is attached to the wagon via a shaft—sometimes made of metal and sometimes of wood. If it would be made of metal, it is susceptible to impurity as are all flat metal keilim. Note the accompanying diagram based on the drawings included in the Rambam's text.
As mentioned in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 21:2; See also Chapter 20, Halachah 14) in that era, it was common to attach a plow to a similar wagon. Hence, more details can be gleaned from a comparison to those sources.

I.e., attachments to the ends of the yoke into which straps that tie the animals are placed. Since they serve a purpose, they are considered as keilim and are subject to impurity (ibid. 21:2).

This protects the animals from being choked by the yoke (ibid.).

An iron peg in the front of the wagon behind the tails of the animals that serves as support for the wagon (ibid.).

A peg at the end of the shaft that serves to stabilize the wagon and prevent it from tipping due to the length of the shaft (ibid.).

In which the wagon's cargo was placed (ibid.).

Which holds the cargo of the wagon so that it will not fall (ibid.).

Our use of the plural form and the bracketed additions are based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).

If instead of using a metal shaft to connect the yoke to the wagon, a plated wooden shaft is used, that shaft is not susceptible to impurity, because an article covered by a coating does not contract impurity (Chapter 14, Halachah 4).

Since the metal serves the wood, these articles are not susceptible to impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

In contrast to the ornaments of a person, the ornaments of an animal are not considered keilim and are not susceptible to impurity.

Many portions of the wagon are covered with metal plates or coated for decorative purposes (ibid.).

These pegs are also included for decorative purposes.

The iron head of the beam used to crush olives. It is called "a scorpion" because it had an iron point at its end (ibid. 12:3).

Our translation is based on (ibid. 12:4). There the Rambam explains that this refers to a wooden box filled with crushed lentils. Since such chests were not made carefully, there was a difference of opinion among the Sages whether it should have been considered as a k'li or not.

The carriage; i.e., we do not consider the carriage as subservient to the chest.

The Rambam is quoting Beitzah 2:8. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, he explains that a pepper mill is constructed as follows: Around the mill itself is a metal sifter through which all the ground spice descends. Below it, is placed a small bowl that collects that ground spice. There is an iron coating that causes the entire object to be considered as a single entity. The Mishnah- and thus the Rambam- is emphasizing that not only is the entire entity subject to impurity, but that even if one of its components is separated from it, that component is still considered as a k’li subject to impurity.

This refers to the metal grinder.

The bowl.

In his translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:3), Rav Kappach translates the Arabic term used by the Rambam as “a hanging cabinet.”

Because it is subservient to the cabinet which is not susceptible to impurity.

The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). The Ra’avad and similarly, the Kessef Mishneh, interpret that mishnah differently and maintain that the Hebrew term refers to tongs.

Because they are independent metal keilim.

Because they are subservient to the range.

I.e., snips off the charred top of the wick so that the wick will burn cleaner (Zair Zahav to Tosefta, Keilim 8:3).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:4), the Rambam defines this as a bolt with a bulb at its head used to lock a double-door. There are interlocking rings on each of the doors and the bolt is slipped inside of them, locking the doors.

Because it is considered as a distinct entity as evidenced by the fact that it has a name of its own (ibid.).

Like other entities coated with metal (ibid.; see Chapter 4, Halachah 4).

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

For they are metal utensils.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:6), the Rambam explains that this term refers to a hemisphere with a hole placed on top of a weaving needle. The yarn is threaded through the hole. The hemisphere gives the needle extra weight and makes it easier to weave.

And thus is not an independent entity. In the above source, the Rambam gives a related reason: that the hemisphere does not have an independent name, because the term pikah is used in many different contexts. Unless one states the pikah of a weaving needle, one would not know which object is being referred to.

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

A musical instrument. From the above source, it appears that it is a type of flute.

Metal plates that make a sound when a current of air is passed over them.

For it is then considered as a k’li with a receptacle.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:1), the Rambam explains that the mishnah is speaking about a metal horn made by humans and not an animal horn. In the Talmudic era, there were two types of horns commonly made — a round one and a straight one. Both were composed of several pieces. However, putting together a round horn required a craftsman’s expertise. [Therefore one is liable for putting together such an instrument on Shabbat (Shabbat 47a).] A straight horn, by contrast, could be put together by an ordinary individual.

Because musical instruments are considered keilim and are subject to impurity.

Since the pieces can be taken apart by an ordinary person, even while they are together, they are considered as apart. The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s conception and argues that the opposite should be true. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s conception.

For the mouthpiece is considered as an independent entity.

Because it is not considered as an independent entity and is useful only when the entire horn is assembled.

When they are separated, they are called “branches of a candelabrum” and not merely branches, indicating that in and of themselves, they are not considered as independent entities. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:7).

The round cup in which the lamp is placed (ibid.).

Even when the candelabrum is separated, because they possess a receptacle.

For then they are considered as a single unit, a candelabrum (ibid.).

The bracketed additions are based on ibid. 12:1.

Placed around the neck of prisoners (ibid.). It is impure, because it is considered as a ring used by man.

Because it is considered as permanent part of a building.

Here the Rambam follows the understanding of the Tosefta, Keilim 11:4, even though in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:3), he offered a different interpretation of the concept. ·

For that indicates that it will become a permanent part of the structure.

And thus it could no longer be used as a saw.

Entities do not contract impurity unless they have a defined purpose and are considered as keilim. As evident from the following halachah, as long as a k’li can be used to perform its desired purpose, it is not removed from this category and is susceptible to impurity. Thus the matter is individual, with a different measure appropriate for each type of k’li. The purpose of this chapter is to define guidelines for certain keilim from which it is possible to extrapolate rules of a more general and encompassing nature.

Our translation of the terms used in this halachah is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:1).

A large coin of the Talmudic era. A samovar was also used to store such coins from time to time. Hence as long as it still can fulfill that function, it is still susceptible to impurity. Similarly, the other containers mentioned in this halachah were often used. for storage in addition to their primary function.

A tank used to heat water and then have utensils washed within it (ibid.).

I.e., it can no longer serve the function for which it was originally intended- to contain water. Nevertheless, since containing coins is a somewhat similar function and this container can be used for that purpose, it is still considered as a k'li and subject to ritual impurity. Similarly, several of the other entities mentioned in this clause cannot be used for the exact purpose for which they were originally intended. Nevertheless, since they can serve as containers for other substances—and they were intended—to serve as containers- they are still considered as keilim and are susceptible to impurity.

Small copper coins of minimal value.

Oil is thicker than wine and less likely to seep out through a crack in the measure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:8), the Rambam emphasizes that we are speaking about a metal strainer. Once three holes are made in its bottom, it can no longer be used for that purpose.

The small holes widened and thus it was no longer effective as a strainer.

I.e., a shovel used to stir mortar. The term magreifah means a stirring spoon and it was borrowed to apply to this context (ibid. 13:4).

I.e., its handle is hammer-shaped (ibid.).

I.e., in this instance, the handle could serve as a useful k’li. Nevertheless, since it was not made with that intent originally, it is no longer susceptible to impurity.

Which are made of iron [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:8)].

For it is still useful for its initial function in such a state.

The two outer teeth on such a comb are oversized and thus are not useful in combing out wool.

The commentaries have suggested that perhaps a printing error crept into the text, for we are speaking about a comb for wool which is not effective in combing flax at all. Nevertheless, we have not changed the text, for this version is found in the authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The Merchevet HaMishneh offers a possible resolution.

To pluck out body hair (ibid.).

For they have been made into a useful k’li.

To remove wicks and the like [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:8)].

I.e., one of the exterior teeth (see Yevamot 43a). On the basis of that passage, the Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam’s ruling here.

Since strands of flax are wider than strands of wool, even two teeth are functional.

For it is not functional.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:7), the Rambam explains that this refers to an iron wheel with many chains about nine inches long attached to it. At the end of each chain is a hook. As the wheel is turned, the chains are extended. Buckets would be hung from the chains. Turning the wheel was easier than raising the buckets directly and thus this mechanism would facilitate drawing water from wells.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 1, which mentions nails that serve as hooks and are susceptible to impurity.

I.e., every other tooth of the saw is removed [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:4)].

For it is no longer functional (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:2), the Rambam translates the term sit into Arabic. Most commentaries interpret his statements as meaning “the distance between the top of the thumb and the next finger [when the fingers are spread out]. This is one-sixth of the distance between the thumb and the middle finger.” Rav Kappach notes that in fact such a calculation will not be accurate. He interprets the Rambam’s words as defining a sit as half the distance between the index finger and the middle finger when spread out. This, he maintains, is two thumb-breadths.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim, op. cit., Shabbat 13:4), the Rambam differentiates between “the width of a sit” and “the full length of a sit.” As indicated by Hilchot Shabbat 9:20, “the full length of a sit” is two thumb-breadths. In contrast, as stated (ibid.:7), “the width of a sit” is a third of a zeret, i.e., four thumb-breadths.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:5), the Rambam explains that this refers to a hatchet used by carpenters that is made of several components which are mounted on a wooden handle.

This also refers to a carpenter’s tool, a piece of iron approximately nine inches long that is held by both hands and used to scrape a surface flat.

A blade positioned on an angle in a piece of wood with only a small portion projecting outward that is used to plane wood (ibid.).

A hand drill used to make holes in wood (ibid.).

Whose blades have been chipped. In the above source, the Rambam explains that these keilim are made with two types of iron. A blade of steel (referred to by the Rambam as “Indian iron”) is mounted on a base of softer iron.

For it is the steel portion that enables their function to be performed with them.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:5), the Rambam states that he does not know the identity of the k’li referred to by that term, but that it is obviously a carpenter’s tool that is comprised of two parts and neither one is considered a complete entity without the other.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:1), the Rambam states that this is a knife kept by scribes and businessmen among their writing utensils.

Used for household chores (ibid.).

This is the version in the Mishnah (Keilim 13:1) and in the authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text uses a slightly different version.

Thus it cannot be said that it is fit to be used for its primary function.

For it is no longer useful for protection.

Because it covers the heart, the most vital portion of the body.

Because it is no longer functional.

For it is considered as a new and different entity.

The commentaries explain that glassmakers are craftsman who melt sand into glass. They require very powerful fires (and hence, large bellows). Glaziers refer to the craftsmen who shape the glass into useful articles. They require smaller fires (and smaller bellows).

For it is no longer useful for its original purpose.

Our translation is based on HaMadrich HaMaspik as cited by the Shabsie Frankel printing of the Mishneh Torah. Other interpretations are offered by the commentaries to the Tosefta, Keilim 10:6.

In contrast to the way other craftsman use this specific type of tongs—to pick up the articles with which they work (and thus the tongs are useless when divided)—these tongs are also used by a blacksmith to stir coals. Hence even when they are divided, they can still be used for such a purpose.

In the Talmudic era — and in the Rambam’s time — mirrors were merely polished pieces of metal.

To the point that it does not present a clear image.

For it can still be used for its initial purpose.

Because it can no longer be used to sew with.

Because it was made functional again.

Which is much longer and used to sew coarse garments and materials made from goat's hair [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:6)].

Even though this was not the original intent for which the k’li was made, since it can— and is likely to—be used for such a purpose immediately, it is susceptible to impurity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam states that such needles are used for the embroidery of silk.

I.e., this needle is used merely to hold up the thread so that it will be easy to insert it in between the threads of the weave. There is no need for a needle at all; any thin metal rod around which thread can be wound will serve this purpose (ibid.; see also ibid., Orlah 1:4).

I.e., as is the general principle, if the object can be used for its original purpose, it is impure. If not, it is pure.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.

See Hilchot Parah 12:10.

A Greek letter with a reversed L-shaped form.

Into which projections within the lock will enter enabling the lock to be opened.

Because it is still functional.

Because it is no longer functional.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:2), the Rambam states that the fork was used to pick up food that fell on the fire.

Meat or fowl are put in the net and it is held over a fire (ibid.). The Ra’avad disputes the Rambam’s interpretation of the terms used by that mishnah and offers others.

A blade that is used to scratch out the previous writing (ibid.).

For even though the functional element of the utensil remains, since it cannot be held, it cannot be used for its intended task.

I.e., the hatchet was two-edged, a narrow edge which is used to carve wood deftly and a broader piece that is used to chop larger pieces (ibid.:3).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:3). As explained there and as apparent from the following halachah, here the term “lance” is used in an extended sense.

This halachah explains the term “lance” used in the previous halachah.

The Rambam’s wording here reflects the later version of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 9:7). Originally, he had a slightly different conception.

I.e., it serves as a protective or decorative coating for the staff or the door.

As the Ra’avad mentions, the Rambam’s wording is somewhat difficult to comprehend and the first clause appears to contradict the second clause. The Kessef Mishneh attempts to resolve the contradiction, explaining that the first clause involves a situation where the article is affixed to the staff or the door in a manner that totally negates its previous function. Hence, even if it was impure, that impurity departs because it is no longer considered as a separate entity, but rather as part of the staff or door which are not subject to impurity. The second clause refers to a metal k’li that is attached to the staff or door, but still retains its identity and function, i.e., were it to be detached, it could be used for its initial purpose. Thus even though it is attached, it is still considered as a separate entity and, hence, is still susceptible to impurity. Compare to the concluding halachah of ch. 10.

That loaves were placed in the oven upon it.