Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., a pipe that has a receptacle in it where water could collect.

A large barrel over which leather or parchment would be tied to be used as a float [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:3)].

Here also our translation is based on the above source. The Merkevet HaMishneh states that such barrels were used for pickling olives. The Ra’avad does not accept the Rambam’s definition of this article, but the Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s perspective.

The fact that one’s hand is inserted within does not cause it to be considered as a receptacle [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.)].

I.e., a cover placed around the light that protects it from being blown out by the wind. It has holes on the bottom to enable air to enter (ibid.:4).

A base placed on a potter's wheel upon which keilim are fashioned. Some of these bases are flat, without borders and hence are not susceptible to impurity. Others have borders against which the clay keilim are formed. Hence, they are considered as receptacles and are susceptible to impurity (ibid.).

Because like a pipe, the intent is that liquids pass through it and not collect there.

Through which he pours rosewater and fragrant oils (ibid.).

Since the perfumer intends that a certain amount of the fragrance collect there, the funnel is considered as a receptacle. A homeowner has no such intent. Hence, it is not considered as a receptacle for him. Diagram

Because obviously, the intent was that it should serve as a receptacle.

To allow air to escape in the cooking process [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:5)]. Since it has a hole, it cannot serve as a container.

The protrusion enables it to be picked up (ibid.). If it has a protrusion, it will not be able to sit upright and will never be able to be balanced [R. Ovadiah of Bartenura (Keilim, op. cit.)].

I.e., acts as a subsidiary to another k’li.

The subsidiary k’li.

Because it is not serving an independent function.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:6), the Rambam explains that this refers to a primitive type of sprinkler. It contained a large earthenware vat with tiny holes on the bottom and a very thin neck. When a person would place his finger in the neck, no air would enter and the water would not drip through the holes. If he would remove his finger, air would enter and the water would drip out.
The Ra’avad has a different conception of this k’li and therefore differs with the Rambam’s statements here. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s understanding.

In the portions where there are no holes.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:9), the Rambam explains that this refers to an earthenware shaft with a receptacle at its top.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:6). There he explains that these bases lack handles and are placed under large vessels containing water. See also Chapter 19, Halachot 1 and 9.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:3), the Rambam cites Shabbat 83b which explains this concept based on an allusion to a Biblical verse. Apparently, he later concluded that the verse is no more than an asmachta, a support, and the concept can be understood logically.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 1, and Chapter 12, Halachah 1, above.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling and maintains that the remnants of not only earthenware containers, but any type of utensil are still susceptible to impurity if they can still be used for their original function. Taharat Yisrael and the Merkevet HaMishneh explain that the Rambam would also agree that other keilim are still susceptible to impurity if they can still be used for their original function. His point is that even if they are no longer useful for that purpose, but could serve as a container, they are not susceptible to impurity. By contrast, earthenware containers in such a situation are.

For it is considered as a small earthenware container [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:2)].

See Sifra to the prooftext cited.

Because, in and of itself, it is not able to serve as a container.

The term used by the Rambam and his source, Keilim 4:1, literally means “ear.” In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 4:1), the Rambam explains that we are talking about an instance that the container has a very heavy handle on one side which causes it to tip to that side.

And it can now stand on its base.

For example, the basins used to receive the blood from sacrificial animals. They did not have flat bottoms so that they would not be placed down and the blood allowed to coagulate (Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:13).

Our translation of these terms is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 4:3).

The Rambam is explaining why these containers are exceptions to the principle stated in Halachah 10.

This expression has aroused the attention of the Ma’aseh Rokeiach and other commentaries, for it is not at all definitive. It leaves it unclear whether we are speaking about a newborn or an adult, whether the liquid must be rubbed on his entire body or only part of it.

According to his usual calculations, Shiurei Torah would consider one se’ah as 8256 cc and Chazon Ish would put that measure at 14400 cc. With regard to the measure of a se’ah for a mikveh, the Rabbis have shown greater stringency. See Hilchot Mikveot 4:1.

A Talmudic measure equivalent to 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc according to Chazon Ish.

This clause is an introduction to the halachot that follow. With regard to vessels that, at the outset, are too small to contain a revi’it, see Halachah 15.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that there is a difference of opinion regarding this matter in Keilim 2:2, the Rambam’s source, between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva and the Rambam is following Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion. As stated by the Noda B’Yehudah (Vol. II, Even HaEzer, Responsum 148), this is problematic, because the Rambam generally favors Rabbi Akiva’s view over that of Rabbi Yishmael. Moreover, in his commentary to that mishnah, the Rambam states that the halachah follows Rabbi Akiva’s view. In resolution, the Noda B’Yehudah states that the principles generally followed to determine the halachah when there is a difference of opinion between Sages of the Mishnah are not followed when the laws were not practiced in subsequent eras.

The words “or more” have attracted the attention of the commentaries, because the next clause speaks about a container larger than two se’ah.

I.e., without support from anything else.

Even though an ordinary person could use these shards as a base like a potter does, since it is unlikely that he will do so, it can be assumed that he did not consider them significant. Hence they are not considered as keilim and are not susceptible to impurity.
The Ra’avad states that he found a different version of the Rambam’s source, the Tosefta (Keilim 3:4), that rules that wherever shards are found, they are impure with the exception of those found in a potter’s shop. He favors that version. The Kessef Mishneh differs and justifies the Rambam’s interpretation.

See Halachah 8. Since the potter saves the shards, it is apparent that he considers them important for use as a base. Hence they are susceptible to impurity.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 3:1).

See Chapter 14, Halachah 9.

A hole that enables liquids to seep out is smaller than one that enables them to seep in. Thus the measure stated in this halachah is more stringent.

See Chapter 18, Halachot 8 and 16, for a description of these bases. See also Halachah 9.

As explained in the previous halachah.

Sprinkling the ashes of the red heifer over water drawn for this purpose is referred to as consecration. This consecration must be performed while the water is held in a container. See Hilchot Parah Adumah 6:6.

See Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 2:8. There it is explained that liquid does not make food susceptible to impurity unless it was “uprooted” from the ground, like water in a container. Since the container is still significant despite the hole, liquid in a container with such a hole is considered as “uprooted” from the ground and would make produce susceptible to impurity.

See ibid.:9.

If it was made for foods, as explained in Halachah 1.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 6, and the sources mentioned in the notes there.

The fifth category would be when that larger portion is also broken.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit 22:3.

Nuts would be stored in barrels even if they had holes. Hence, the barrels would still be considered as keilim and susceptible to impurity.

Since a pot and a frying pan are used both for foods and for liquids, we rule stringently and apply the measure appropriate for foods (see R. Ovadiah of Bartenura to Keilim 3:2).

Even though it can be used for its original function in this position, since this was not the intent for which it was originally made, it is no longer considered as a container.

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:4 which refers to a teni as a gold container used to collect the coals and the ashes from the altar. The term is used in several contexts in the Talmudic literature to refer to a metal container. In his gloss to Tamid 3:6, Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura states that it has the same root as the word tene used by Deuteronomy 26:2 to refer to the container used to carry the first fruits.
(Significantly, in his version of the Mishnah and his commentary to Keilim 3:2, the source for this halachah, the Rambam does not mention a teni and instead, speaks of a tipi. Some have suggested amending the text here to fit that version.)

Oil is thicker than water and requires a larger hole to seep through.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 3:2), the Rambam explains that the Hebrew term refers to a pitcher with screen over its opening. Thus when one pours, there are several streams of water. See also Chapter 13, Halachah 10, and Hilchot Mikva’ot 5:2.

The opening through which the wick is placed [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

For it is no longer fit to carry out its original function.

Which was not fired in a kiln.

I.e., as the wick burnt, it fired the earth around it.

See Chapter 15, Halachah 1.

A portion of it was removed and therefore it would not be able to hold anything when standing on its base (ibid. 4:1).

Because it can still serve as a container.

I.e., it did not have any one hole, but many cracks that prevent it from being carried.

1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

For it is no longer functional.

Even if the entire container is intact, since its handles were removed and it is thus difficult to carry, it is considered as no more than the base to a container (R. Ovadiah of Bartenura to Keilim 4:3).

Because it will break when one tries to pick it up.

For the person had the intent of carrying it in that manner.

I.e., because of the crack, the vessel produced was useless for anything more than placing below another container. Since it cracked in half, two such bases were produced.

The rationale is that when the work to fashion the barrel was completed, it became susceptible to impurity. Afterwards, when it cracked, it is not removed from that category, as explained in Chapter 18, Halachah 10.

Because it never entered the category of a container.

Thus it would not be suitable for the function associated with it.

Halachah 1; Chapter 18, 8.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 4:2), a base is considered like a remnant of a k’li even when it is whole, because it is only a portion of a k’li. Hence our Sages did not consider its remnants significant enough to contract impurity.

I.e., the protrusions have a cavity large enough to hold an olive [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 4:3).

I.e., it is considered as part of the base in every sense. Diagram

I.e., the last clause in the previous halachah.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, offering a different interpretation of the Mishnah which is his source. The Kessef Mishneh and the Merchevet HaMishneh offer support for the Rambam’s interpretation.

In Halachah 9, when the protrusions can hold olives.

Touching their outside, by contrast, does not render these entities as impure.
This refers to being touched by the carcass of a crawling animal or the like [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 4:3)]. If, however, impure liquids touch the outside of a container, they impart impurity to it [i.e., to the outside alone]; see Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah, ch. 7.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 5; Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

Which are not susceptible to impurity.

Although it was cracked and it would have fallen apart, since it never actually did, it always remained susceptible to impurity.

Hence, even when reconstructed, it is not considered as a k’li.

The minimum measure for it to be considered as a remnant of a container, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 13.

Even then, the container is not contracting impurity in its own right, but only because it is considered as an “accessory” for the part that could hold a revi’it. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 3:4) and Chapter 17, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 14, Halachah 10, and Chapter 20, Halachah 5, from which it appears that an earthenware container plugged with tar is considered as intact. Note, however, Chapter 20, Halachah 3, which appears to contradict this principle.

See Chapter 16, Halachah 8; Chapter 18, Halachah 11.

The hot liquids will cause the tar to melt and then seep through the hole. Even though the kettle can hold cold liquids, that is not sufficient to cause it to be considered as a k’li. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 3:7).

I.e., because hot liquids will cause the k’li to melt.

So that no liquid would flow through it.

In his gloss to Keilim 3:8, R. Ovadiah of Bartenura explains the difference between the ruling in this halachah and Halachah 14 (where an object is considered a container if a hole is plugged by tar). When a funnel is made from earthenware, it is smooth and the tar will not stick well to it. When, by contrast, a hole is made in a k'li, it will never be entirely smooth and the tar will stick well.

For the tar is an effective sealant for a wooden container.

Chapter 17, Halachah 1.

To strengthen it.

The commentaries (see the glosses to Keilim 3:5) question this ruling, because seemingly, if the foods or liquids enter the inner space of the container, they are impure whether or not they touch the container. And if they touch the outside of the container, they are not impure, because the outside of a container does not impart impurity.

Had the foods or the liquids touched the implement itself, they would have contracted impurity. They, however, touched only the coating and, in this instance, as the Rambam explains, the coating is not considered as an accessory.

Because it is necessary to hold it together.

The simple interpretation of this ruling, based on the Tosefta (Keilim 3:2), is that these substances are not considered as effective sealants and hence are not considered as part of the implement. The Ra'avad objects to this ruling maintaining that they are effective sealants. He notes that there is a version of the Tosefta that reverses the clauses and maintains that this is the correct version.
As the commentaries note, there is a difficulty with the Rambam’s ruling, because—as stated in Halachah 5 below and in Chapter 19, Halachah 14—he does consider tar as an effective sealant. The Mirkevet HaMishneh notes the difficulty and explains that here we are speaking about an instance where additional tar was placed on the implement besides what was necessary to plug the hole. That additional tar is not considered as an integral part of the implement, as stated in Halachah 5.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 3:6), the Rambam states that this refers to soft grasses.

I.e., the casks of drinking water taken on ships (ibid.).

In his gloss to Halachah 7, the Merkevet HaMishneh clarifies that this applies when the coating was put on the barrel before the barrel contracted impurity. If, however, the barrel was impure before the coating was applied, the coating does not contract impurity.

The Rambam mentions foods and liquids, because an impure earthenware container does not impart impurity to humans or to implements (Kessef Mishneh).

Since it is necessary for the container, it is susceptible to impurity.

See Halachah 3 and notes.

Since it is not necessary for the barrel, it is not considered an integral part of it.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 3:7), the Rambam refers to Genesis 11:3 in order to define this term.

I.e., if the samovar was impure, the coating is considered as subsidiary to it and a person who touches it contracts impurity due to contact with an impure metal implement.

See the notes to Chapter 16, Halachah 9.

Hence, he is not considered as having touched the container.

And thus they are fused together as a single entity.

The rationale is that since the cover will ultimately be removed, halachically, they are considered as separate entities (Ra’avad). The Ra’avad, moreover, differs with the Rambam’s interpretation of Keilim 3:6, the source of this halachah. The Ra’avad maintains that a cover to a barrel is never coated with clay. That would be counterproductive, for the intent is to remove it, as stated previously. He therefore maintains that the mishnah is speaking about a covering without a coating. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the conclusion stated by the Ra’avad is obvious. He adds that often the cover of a barrel is sealed to it with clay and that is probably the Rambam’s intent.

As stated in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:3, when impure liquids touch the outside of an earthenware container, the outside of the container — but not the entire container — contracts impurity. Thus, if the cover was to be considered as part of the container, the contact with the liquids would have caused the outside of the container to be considered as impure. [It must be noted that the Ra’avad differs with the Rambam concerning that principle and that is why he offers a different interpretation here (Merkevet HaMishneh)].

Because the tar does not add anything to the functionality of the container. Moreover, as stated in Chapter 20, Halachah 15, tar will not remain attached to a container used for hot liquids.

In this instance, the tar serves a purpose, because otherwise, the metal would spoil the flavor of the wine.

Because it is chametz, leaven. See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:15 where the Rambam deals with related issues.

I.e., the person’s tendency is to be neat and always clean the kneading trough after use.

For the dough is considered an intervening substance, as in the previous clause.

For it will seal the crack.

For it is as if the carcass touched it.

I.e., which serve as bookmarks.

And thus if one of the entities — the cover of the book or the bookmark — contract impurity, the other also does.

Because they can easily be untied.

I.e., straps used for carrying these implements.

The commentaries have noted the apparent contradiction between this halachah and Halachah 17.

I.e., the portion of the handle that extends above the hatchet’s head. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 29:4).

A small portion of wood is necessary to extend beyond the head for the handle to be attached securely.

When a person uses a hatchet, he usually holds it within a handbreadth of the head. Hence, although the handle itself may be longer, only the portion between it and the head is considered as essential to its use. Therefore that portion alone is susceptible to impurity.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 29:5).

I.e., for the compass to be useful, its shaft must be a handbreadth long. If it was larger and after it broke, less than a handbreadth remained, it is not considered as useful and hence is not susceptible to impurity.

Used to engrave precious stones (ibid.).

See Chapter 11, Halachah 23, and Chapter 28, Halachah 4, where such plows are described.

I.e., the circular ditches dug around trees where water collects (ibid.:7).

I.e., to clear the trunk of a tree by stripping the bark and unnecessary branches (ibid.).

The Rambam is speaking about hammers used to break stones (ibid.).

To prepare it to be sowed.

If less than this measure remained, the remnants will not be useful.

I.e., a ladle used to stir a large pot (ibid.:8).

Their length is necessary, because the person will seek to keep his distance from the fire (Keilim 29:8).

This addition is made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:3). As stated in Shabbat 48b, it was common for a person to take an ordinary piece of wood, insert it in the head of a hatchet, work with it, and then cast it back into the woodpile.

The name of this implement is a unique example of the culture that prevailed in Eretz Yisrael at the time of the composition of the Mishnah. The term is a composite of two terms: dyu, a Greco-Roman term meaning "two," and star an Aramaic term meaning "side" [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:3)].

If one comes in contact with impurity, the other also becomes impure. This applies, however, only at the time the task is being performed (ibid.).

A beam is not susceptible to ritual impurity, because it is not an implement at all (ibid.). Wooden articles that are not implements are not susceptible to impurity. Although the diyustar is attached to the beam, it still retains its own identity and is susceptible to ritual impurity.

Thus the status of the beam remains the same regardless of what happens to the diyustar.

As such, that part of the beam is considered part of an implement that is susceptible to impurity.

A wagon used to pull a plow. The question is whether the articles mentioned in the halachah are susceptible to impurity because they are considered as attached to the plow or not.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 5, and the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 14:4, 21:2), for a description of such a wagon.

Placed on the shoulders of the oxen (ibid.).

The ring made from worn out clothes that is placed over an animal's neck so that it will not be injured by the weight of the yoke (ibid.).

I.e., the ropes that are tied to the wagon so that the animals will pull it.

I.e., one is working with the plow.

He is not considered as one who touched an impure implement, because these items are not considered as connected to the plow.

This wooden shaft is connected to the blade of the plow and is held in the hand of the person plowing (ibid.).

This refers to a bent (hence the term knee-like) wooden shaft to which the blade is attached. It is dragged along the ground while the field is being plowed (ibid.).

I.e., the handle connected to the plow with which one tilts it in the desired direction. The root for the name used by the Rambam (and his source, the Mishnah, op. cit.) means “swerve,” as reflected by the Targum of Onkelos to Exodus 23:6 [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

A figurative term for the two pieces of wood on either side of the yoke (ibid.).

Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach’s translation of an Arabic term used by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).

Because they are considered as attached to the plow.

Who each hold wooden handles. The bracketed addition and similarly, many of the further explanations are based on ibid.:3.

For they are considered as subsidiary to the saw.

Used to attach the blade of the saw to the handles (ibid.).

The wooden shaft that runs between these two handles (ibid.).

Two round circular blocks of wood attached to the side-frames and to the blade (ibid.).

A wooden frame in which the blade of the saw is affixed (ibid.).

Used to straighten crooked pieces of wood (ibid.).

He is not considered to have touched an impure metal implement, because these are not considered as attached to it.

Our translation follows the authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah and is reflected in the Rambam’s text of the Mishnah (op cit.). The standard published text follows a slightly different version.

I.e., they are not considered as attached to the arrow.

Because the trap is not considered as connected to the lance [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

The beams from which the strands of the warp are extended from one to the other. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.: 1) for more details regarding this implement.

The loops through which the strands of the warp pass to facilitate the weaving process.

Used to tighten the thread while weaving (ibid.).

To facilitate the weaving process, but which will ultimately be removed from the fabric (ibid.).

The fabric can contract impurity through contact with a human corpse (ibid.). Nevertheless, these articles are not considered as joined to the fabric and do not contract impurity with it.

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

I.e., it has been tightened and its weaving has been completed (ibid.).

I.e., if the garment is impure, one who touches any one of these entities contracts impurity.

As in the previous halachah, this is speaking about a situation where the garment which the person was weaving contracted impurity. Nevertheless, this wool remains pure, because it is not considered as joined to the garment.

Around which thread being used for a weave has been wound (ibid.).

I.e., if all the thread has been used so the spool itself can be seen (ibid.).

Because it is considered as joined to the garment.

If the needle contracted impurity, the thread remains pure.

I.e., one started sewing a garment, inserting a threaded needle into it. Diagram

Not only the portion close to the garment. Even though it is likely to be cut off, until it is actually cut off, it is considered as part of the garment.