Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., even though it is fit for another purpose.

For it is no longer considered as a k’li. This is derived from the Torah’s statement (Leviticus 11:33) that breaking an earthenware utensil restores it to purity.
Even if the broken pieces of the impure container were formed into another k’li, that k’li is pure [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 17:4), the Rambam states that this is speaking about an instance where the owner places the pomegranates in a container and hangs the container over his shoulder. If the pomegranates will fall through, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity.
With regard to the interpretation of the concept, three touching each other. There are commentaries which explain that this requires a larger hole than that which is necessary if there is only one pomegranate present. Others say a smaller hole is required because the weight of the two pomegranates will push the third one out. The Rambam merely quotes the wording of the mishnah without indicating which interpretation he favors (see Ra’avad and Kessef Mishneh).

Which is, of course, much smaller than a pomegranate.

I.e., it is considered as if the initial container was destroyed and a new container fashioned (Kessef Mishneh).

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

A woven net of shoots over which vines are draped (ibid. 17:3; see also Kilayim 8:1).

Since these articles were made in a manner that they will not be able to receive pomegranates, the fact that they cannot receive them is not significant.
Although that principle is accepted, the law stated by the Rambam (which has its source in the Tosefta 13:2) is supported by the Mishnah [Keilim 17:3 (see also the following halachah), 24:9] which states that as long as loaves of bread will not fall out of a basket, it is susceptible to impurity.

The trellis is not susceptible to impurity, because it is not a permanent entity. Even when it is reinforced, there will be limits to its durability.

For the frame will maintain it and make it durable. Since it was made to be used in this fashion, the fact that it has holes large enough for pomegranates to fall through is not significant.

I.e., are too small to contain pomegranates.

A kab is four luggim and a lug is 344 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.

If it is smaller than that, even if a pomegranate can fall through the hole, it is still able to fulfill the purpose for which it was made. Hence, it is still susceptible to ritual impurity.

For this prevents the bushel from serving its purpose.

Which is larger than a bundle of vegetables.

For that is the purpose for which they will use this bushel.

Straw mixed with chaff which would be used as kindling for the fires of the bathhouse [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:1)].

There is a difference of opinion among the commentaries to the mishnah if this measure is smaller than a bundle of a straw.

Because of a hole.

Which are substantially larger than bowls. Since the container is still functional, it is still susceptible to impurity.

For it is still a functional container.

It is pure, just like a broken utensil is pure.

A table whose two parts are connected by hinges enabling the table to be folded in half or to be expanded to its full size. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 16:1).

Our translation of this term is taken from the above source.

I.e., like the containers originally mentioned, in contrast to the exceptions.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 16:2).

Our translation is taken from ibid. 19:10.

I.e., each of the sides is considered as a separate container.

Because it is no longer functional.

Our translation is taken from ibid. 22:1.

This is speaking about a three legged table that will not stand on only two legs.

A table top that is placed directly on the ground. One must, however, have the intent to use it in this manner. Since it was not made to be used as such, unless one has such an intent, it is pure.

Our translation is taken from ibid. 20:2.

For they will ultimately unravel and be ruined entirely.

For the seal will enable them to remain intact.

Because in such a situation, it is not easy to use it (Zair Zahav to Tosefta, Keilim 19:2).

Because it is functional again.

I.e., its legs fall off.

Enabling it to be used again.

The saddle-baskets carried by a camel do not have a base. Instead, they are merely tied closed by the driver. When he desires, he releases the knot and lets the contents slide out from below. Hence, when the knot is released, these baskets are not functional as containers at all.

As they are tied and untied.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 22:1), the Rambam. follows the same rationale as stated here: that utensils that are covered are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Others explain that marble is never subject to impurity. There the Rambam acknowledges that concept, but prefers to focus on the concept that an article that is coated is not susceptible to impurity.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 4.

Our translation of this term — as well as the following points — is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 16:4).

On which one eats (ibid.).

A leather circle on which ornamental designs is made (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam notes that according to Scriptural Law, flat leather keilim like these are not subject to ritual impurity. He gives two explanations for the ruling here: a) that like flat wooden utensils, these keilim are subject to ritual impurity according to Rabbinic Law; b) that this is speaking only about the impurity imparted by a support that contracted impurity from a zav and the like.
In that source, the Rambam states that he favors the second interpretation. In Chapter 1, Halachah 10, however, he rules according to the first interpretation.

Which will be attached to the cradle's legs.

Our translation is based on the gloss of Zair Zahav to the Tosefta, Keilim 13:1.

But not one that is sewn like a glove as in Halachah 5. Compare this law to Chapter 23, Halachah 3.

A hide on which coals are burnt to produce smoke to chase away bees [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 16:7)].

And thus are considered as containers.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:3). The term refers to a shrub of the rhus genus that has clusters of green flowers, red hairy berries, and feathery leaves.

For they are no longer suitable for that purpose.

These are considered as garments. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.) for more details concerning the points mentioned in this halachah.

Our translation is based on the version of authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. It is reflected by the text of the Rarnbam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 16:6) and is favored by the Kessef Mishneh. The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah employs different wording.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 16:6), the Rambam explains that the gloves are worn by these individuals for protection.

Since it is fitted to the person's hand, it is considered as a garment. Nevertheless, as the Rambam proceeds to explain, the glove is only susceptible to impurity if it is used for the benefit of the person wearing it. If it is used to protect the article with which he is working, it is not susceptible to impurity.

Since they are not made for the benefit of the person himself, even though they have a receptacle, they are considered like simple leather keilim (ibid.).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:2).

The threads that run lengthwise on a loom.

The threads that run horizontally on a loom. The thread of the woof is usually slightly thicker than that of the warp.

The commentaries have noted that the Rambam’s wording — which is a direct quote from his source, Keilim, op. cit. — is problematic. The first clause implies that the container is pure once the warp thread can fall through, while the second implies that as long as it can contain the woof thread, it is susceptible to impurity. Tifferet Yisrael to Keilim, op. cit., explains that this second clause is speaking about a container that is set aside to woof threads.

Which has a leather pocket inside of it [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 19:8)].

For the satchel itself is still useful.

I.e., if the pocket comes in contact with impurity, the satchel is still pure.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

The scrotum.

I.e., loops were sewn unto it so that it could be closed with straps that are inserted into the loops [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:2)].

Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:1).

For they appear as a straight piece of leather.

I.e., a special craftsman is not required to perform this task.

In his commentary to the above mishnah, the Mishnah Acharonah notices an apparent contradiction in the Rambam’s logic. For in the first clause, on the basis of this rationale, the keilim contracted impurity even though their straps were released and their shape undone. And in the second clause, this same reason served as the rationale for their impurity to be released.
He explains that the first clause is speaking about an instance where the straps were removed without the person’s conscious effort. Hence, since he can easily replace them, the article is still considered as a k’li. In the second clause, he purposely removed them. Since he acted intentionally and his actions are sufficient to undo the shape of the article, it is no longer considered as a k’li. The following halachah must also be interpreted in this fashion.

The hook indicated that it is not an ordinary piece of leather, but one that is being used for a purpose. Hence it is still susceptible to ritual impurity.

A piece of parchment with verses from the Bible and/or mystic writings used as a charm for good fortune and/or protection against negative spiritual influences.

Because it is being used as a container.

Because in its present state, it is a simple piece of leather.

For it is not considered as a k’li.

For ornaments are susceptible to ritual impurity (Shabbat 63b).

The head tefillin has four separate compartments, each of them containing one of four Biblical passages. See the description of the manner in which it is fashioned in Hilchot Tefillin 3:2-4.

An entity that comes in contact with a human corpse is not considered a derivative of impurity. Instead, it is considered a primary source of impurity (Hilchot Tum'at Meit 5:3). By removing one of the compartments, the person was intending to undo the tefillin –like one who undid the pouch mentioned in Halachah 10. Nevertheless, his actions do not change the status of the tefillin, because each of the compartments is considered as a separate container. Thus even if one became undone, the other three remain impure.

Because the third and fourth compartments are intact.

I.e., like a k’li that touched an article that came in contact with a human corpse, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

This halachah is very significant with regard to the laws of tefillin. Although the optimum manner of observing that mitzvah is to use a single piece of leather to make all four cubes of the head tefillin, as obvious from the statements of the Rambam and the Mishnah, even when cubes are made of different pieces of leather and sewn together, they are acceptable. See the Responsa of the Beit Ephraim, Orach Chayim, sec. 1.

With the intent of removing this lesser level impurity.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit 5:7.

I.e., one of the projections into which the laces are inserted to tie the sandal closed.

Most commentaries explain that the intent is that the sandal could be tied close even with one peg. Hence it is still functional and therefore susceptible to impurity. This applies even if the first peg was not restored. From the Rambam’s mention of this law together with tefillin, it is unclear if he would also accept that rationale.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:4).

In all these instances, in such a state, it is no longer a functional entity.

Which unlike a sandal covers the entire foot.

For it is no longer suitable for its desired function.

A ball with which one plays [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 23:1)].

E. g., for shoes or the like.

The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

For they are still considered as a derivative of impurity, as explained in Halachah 12.

For the contents are not considered as part of the container or attached to it [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 23:1).

The packing.

Whether containers or flat utensils [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:3)].

Our translation of this and the following clauses is based on the above source in which the Rambam elaborates in the explanation of the wording of the Tosefta, Keilim 9:5.

Polished and rubbed with oil [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 11:3)].

On whetting stones (ibid.).

Here also our translation is from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid. 11 :3) where he mentions the process in which iron ore is smelted to produce metal.

I.e., metal smelted from ore and poured into bars (ibid.).

For the metal used to make them is coarse and rough and its surface must be smoothed before the utensils are considered as functional. As the Ram bam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah, if one makes a finished utensil from these types of metal, it certainly becomes susceptible to impurity. Here we are speaking about an instance where the k'li was made while the metal was in its raw, unfinished state.

Since they were already once made into utensils, we can assume that their surfaces were already smoothed.

E. g., a needle or a spit.

Because of the doubt whether it is necessary to smooth them or not.

E. g., one fashioned a pot, but not a cover for it.

We do not say that it is incomplete because it is lacking its cover.

Thus it is considered a functional article, even in this state.

Because in its present state, it is not fit for the purpose for which it was originally intended.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 9-10.

These were made out of metal and served as protection [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 11:8)]. Note, however, Chapter 9, Halachah 2.

Included in this category are also noserings (ibid.).

A coin of the Talmudic era.

Because it is considered like a necklace. This was a common practice (ibid. 12:7).

If, however, they are considered as an integral part of a larger k’li, they may contract impurity together with that k’li.

Hence the bell is considered as a useful k’li, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Without clappers.

Bells were occasionally hung· from the edges of spice mills, because our Sages teach (Keritot 6b): “Sound is beneficial for spices.”

For without the clappers, they are mere ornaments.

Once their status has changed and they were deemed susceptible to impurity, this designation is not removed until they are entirely unfit to perform that task—in this instance, to create sounds.

Hence, without the clapper, it is still considered as “unfinished.”

As evident from Shabbat 58b, people would wear seals as a sign that they were subservient to a master or an employer. These were not considered as ornaments and, hence, are not subject to ritual impurity.

For they are considered as serving the person's garments and not the person directly.

Hence, it is considered as a k’li that benefits man.

If it is made of wood, it is not susceptible to impurity, because it is a flat wooden k’li (Rasbi, Shabbat 52b).

I.e., having the intent to change the function of a k’li.

I.e., the performance of a deed to change the function of a k’li.

All of these three are not held responsible for their actions.

Thus if they perform a deed that changes a k'li from being fit to be used for an animal to being fit to be used for a person or vice versa, that deed is significant. If, however, they merely have an intent to use a k'li for a different purpose, it is not significant.

Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 14:2.

Which is not susceptible to impurity.

Which is susceptible, as stated in Halachah 7.

Because of the thought alone.

E. g., for animals.

E. g., for doors.

For we assume that they were made for animals or for humans.

Which would not be susceptible to impurity if the order was made independently.

Which is susceptible to impurity; see Chapter 25, Halachah 13.

I.e., for an apprentice learning to weave tapestries to copy [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 24:13); Chapter 27, Halachah 12)].

Since we do not know which one is designated for which purpose and which one would be susceptible to impurity, they are both considered as susceptible.