Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., for aesthetic purposes, a garment is not necessarily hemmed. Instead, some of the threads protrude beyond the weave.

I.e., with regard to the laws of impurity, whether they contract impurity together with the garment or not. When they are as long as the measure stated, they contract impurity with it. If they are longer, the extra portion does not.

We have used the common translation of the term. Nevertheless, in his translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:7), Rav Kapach explains that the Rambam uses a term that refers to a garment similar to the talitot hakatanot commonly worn today.

A fingerbreadth is 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 2.4 cm according to Chazon Ish.

Our translation of this and many of the other terms in this and the following halachah is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 29:1).

Regardless of how long they are, they are considered as part of the garment.

Used as a belt for animals (ibid.).

So that his sweat will not spoil his clothes.

We have taken our translation from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 29:1). Today, the term simlah has other meanings.

Our translation follows the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:3) which explains that this term is not referring to a weight, but rather to a plumb line used by builders or carpenters to see if the walls of a building or piece of furniture are straight.

Because the additional portion is not necessary for the ordinary use of the plumb line.

Contractors who apply lime to roofs (ibid.).

I.e., craftsmen who work with plaster, making decorative designs (ibid.).

This is the ordinary length and hence, the measure that is susceptible to impurity.

The balance scale used in the Talmudic era consists of a chain either held in one's hand or suspended from the ceiling or a pillar. It was connected to the midpoint of a horizontal beam which had weighing pans held by strings suspended from its ends. Our Sages required that the heavier the article being weighed, the longer the chain which held the balance had to be so that its tipping would be more distinct. For precious items, it is not necessary for it to tip much, for even a small amount is significant.

Who usually do not weigh articles that are extremely heavy or valuable.

And is therefore not susceptible to ritual impurity.

And thus is susceptible to ritual impurity. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 19:1), the Rambam explains that a bed was made by tying cords to the frame of a bed in a crisscross manner, creating squares. Afterwards, a mattress or straw was placed on top of the cords.

The cords that form the criss-cross support for the mattress are tied to the outside of the frame of the bed. Any portion that extends inside the frame is impure.

I.e., if the bed is impure, a person touching it contracts the impurity resulting from contact with an impure k’li.

If there is no loose rope on the outside of a knot, it is highly probable that it will become undone over time (ibid.). There, the Rambam adds that this is the measure for cords of usual thickness. If thicker cords are used, it is necessary for the free-hanging cord to be longer.

I.e., the additional portions of the cord extending beyond the bed are not considered as attached to the bed, because they do not serve a purpose. Hence, even though the bed is impure, one who touches the cord does not contract impurity (ibid.:2).

It is too short to serve a purpose.

I.e., a cord of this size serves a purpose. Hence it is considered as an integral part of the bed.

Hence, it is not considered as an integral part of the bed.

As in the previous halachah, for ten handbreadths, the length of the cord is useful, because it can be used to hang the bed (ibid.:3).

And is no longer useful for its original purpose.

I.e., the cord tied over the saddle blanket of a donkey (ibid.).

The impurity imparted by a zav has several dimensions in which it is more severe than other types of impurity. As stated in Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:1, ch. 5, when a zav or the like sit or lie on a bed or other support, not only does it become a derivative of impurity, it becomes a primary source of impurity.

Since this extra portion of the mizran is an integral part of the bed, as stated in the previous halachah, its status is the same as the bed itself.

Although the mizran would not be considered as a support in its own right, since it is attached to the bed and the bed could be considered as a support, the mizran is placed in that category as well.

Since this portion of the extension of the mizran is not necessary for the bed, it is not considered as a part of it. Nevertheless, since it touches the bed, it contracts the level of impurity that results from contact with such a source of impurity.

For stepping on the mizran is equivalent to stepping on the bed itself.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 19:4), the Rambam interprets these concepts slightly differently.

Rambam LeAm (based on the Tosefta, Keilim 16:3) explains the rationale for this distinction as follows: a mizran is not fit to contract impurity as a support for a zav in and of itself. It is placed in that category only because it is considered as part of the bed. Beyond 10 handbreadths, it is not necessary for the bed and thus, is not considered as a part of it. Hence, it not considered as a support for a zav. With regard to other types of impurity, the mizran is itself fit to contract such impurity in its own right, regardless of its connection to the bed. Accordingly, even if it is distant from the bed, it contracts these types of impurity.
Since the mizran is connected to the bed, they are considered as a single entity with regard to other forms of impurity. Thus if one of the two contracts impurity, the other also contracts that same impurity. See Halachah 11 and notes.

The Rambam’s mentions impure liquids because their impurity is of Rabbinic origin, in contrast to the other examples whose impurity stems from Scriptural Law.

Since the mizran is now part of the bed, it is not considered as an object that touched a source of impurity, but rather as part of that source. See a parallel ruling in Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 6:18.

Since it was not part of the bed at the time the bed contracted impurity, the impurity is not intrinsic to it. Hence, it loses that status when it is detached from the bed. Nevertheless, since it did come in contract with the source of impurity, it is impure for that reason.

I.e., the impurity stemming from contact with a human corpse.

I.e., its status is that of an article that came in contact with a k'li that contracted the impurity from contact with a human corpse.

For an object which itself is merely a derivative of impurity does not impart impurity to keilim (Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:2).

Since the bed and the mizran were a single entity at the time they contracted that impurity, it is considered as intrinsic to both of them. Hence, the mizran retains that status even when separated. Their separation is not considered similar to the destruction of a k’li (which would purify them), because even as they are separate, each is considered as a complete k’li [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 19:6)].

I.e., a zav stepped on it while it was a separate entity. If, however, it had been part of a bed that had been impure and then the bed broke, it regains its purity, because the k'li of which it was a part is no longer functional [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 18:7)].

The bed and the bedpost are considered as a single entity and share the same level of impurity.

To purify it from the impurity stemming from a human corpse.

I.e., since it is considered as part of the bed, it is purified together with the bed even though it contracted impurity independently. See Hilchot Parah Adumah 12:4-5.

Like an object that touched an object that contracted impurity from a human corpse.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit 5:7.

I.e., the status of the tooth and the plow are dependent on each other like that of the bedpost and the bed [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

A cloth this size can be used to sit upon. A smaller cloth would not be useful for such a purpose [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:2)].

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 29:1). Others interpret the Hebrew term differently. See also Hilchot Shabbat 19:20.

Often, the term “garment” implies an article made from either wool or linen alone. Here the term “or” implies that other fabrics are also included. See also Halachah 21 with regard to patches made from other fabrics.

As recorded in Shabbat 27a.

From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:8), this appears to be the translation of the term used by the Rambam.

See Hilchot De’ot 5:9 which states that such garments are inappropriate to be worn by a Torah scholar.

Although these clothes are made of wool or linen, they are bound by the laws governing other fabrics, because their different composition makes smaller fabrics useless [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

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

I.e., it is not considered as a bag.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Eduyot 3:5).

To pull back the sling to project the stone (ibid.).

Because then the slingshot is not useful.

At the bottom of the net, there is a pocket that is like a bucket where the holes are very narrow [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 23:5)].

Since the holes are distant, the garment is not considered as a piece of clothing.

Because its weave is close, like that of a garment (ibid. 28:9).

I.e., a cloth through which liquids are poured to filter off impurities.

Even though it is no longer used for its initial function, since it is fit to serve as a garment, it remains susceptible to impurity.

Like a container that was broken.

A k’li is susceptible to impurity only if it serves humans, not if it serves other keilim. In this instance, the designs on the covers show that the covers were made to adorn the scrolls and not to serve man.

Since they do not have designs on them, they are not necessarily set aside for scrolls and may be used for other purposes as well (ibid. 29:4).

See 7:8, which explains that when an article was made for a purpose other than to be used as a seat, saddle, or couch, it is not susceptible to the impurity imparted by a zav to such a support. For such impurity is only associated with articles that are made to lie, sit, or ride upon or at least, that purpose is inherently associated with the article’s existence.

Because, occasionally, the porter will sit on it [the gloss of R. Ovadiah of Bartenura (Keilim 28:9)].

Because of the dregs it collects, it is unlikely it will be used to sit upon (ibid.).

So that an embroiderer will learn to copy them (Chapter 27, Halachah 12).

Thus at the outset, the cloth was not susceptible to impurity, because it is not considered as a k’li for humans.

And considered using them as ordinary cloths which are susceptible to impurity.

Generally, we follow the principle that an object’s status vis-á-vis ritual impurity is changed through deed and not merely due to a change of intent (Chapter 8, Halachah 10). That, however, applies with regard to releasing an object from susceptibility to impurity. It can become susceptible to impurity through thought alone (Ma’aseh Rokeiach).

In that instance, it is not being used for the sake of humans. Moreover, since it is being hung over permanent structures, it is considered as part of the building and not a k’li.

An immodest garment worn by a woman to entertain men [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:9)].

Our translation is based on ibid.:5.

From the gloss of R. Ovadiah of Bartenura to that mishnah, it appears that the intent is that it was designated for that purpose, not merely used once in that manner.

Usually, a head kerchief is susceptible to this form of impurity, because there are times when a woman will remove the kerchief and sit upon it. In this instance, however, since it is being used for a holy purpose, it is not fit for anyone- and certainly, not someone impure -to sit upon it (see Hilchot Tefillin 4:9).

For it is still considered as a garment. Although a cover for a scroll is not susceptible to impurity as stated in Halachah 6, the head kerchief is. The rationale is that, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 10, once an article has been deemed susceptible to impurity, its status cannot be changed by a change in intent alone. Instead, one must perform a deed that indicates that its function has changed. In this instance, there is no deed that has been performed with this kerchief.

A salve or oil is usually applied to the bandage. Hence, it is not fit to sit upon afterwards [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:3)].

A remedy made from bread, wheat, figs, or the like. It contrast to the salves mentioned in the previous clause, this remedy will dry (ibid.).

As stated in Halachah 1, a complete garment is susceptible to impurity regardless of its size. Here we are speaking of sheets of fabric that have been woven without having been designated for a specific purpose.

The portion tied on the forehead and around the head [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:10)].

The portion placed on the middle and peak of the head (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that these ornaments were made of gold. He cites the use of this Hebrew term with that intent in Isaiah 3:18.

For it is considered as jewelry which is susceptible to impurity.

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

I.e., if a source of impurity touches them, the head-covering contracts impurity.

If the headcovering comes in contact with impurity, they also contract impurity.

Because it can no longer fulfill the purpose for which it was made.

This was the final stage in fashioning a garment.

I.e., that it is no longer fit to be worn.

But the lower portion becomes worn out.

For it is still fit to be worn.

But the upper portion becomes worn out.

In both these instances, the garment is not fit to be worn.

I.e., when one cuts a strip of cloth in this manner, there is already a border on one side.

I.e., one must make a border on both sides of the belt (the gloss of Zair Zahav to the Tosefta, Keilim 23:2).

Although a belt is not considered fit to be worn until it has a border on both sides, if it had such a border at the outset and thus became susceptible to ritual impurity, it is not removed from that category until it is worn out entirely.

Since it still serves a purpose, it remains susceptible to impurity.

I.e., a wealthy man may consider a garment unfit to wear even if it is slightly worn out. A poor man, by contrast, will continue wearing it until it is worn out entirely. This halachah defines when a garment falls into that category.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:8), the poor would often wear garments that were assembled from patches from other garments. Here he is speaking about a garment made of very small patches.

From a comparison to Halachah 1, it appears that this is speaking about patches from fabrics other than wool or linen, because, as stated there, wool and linen patches are susceptible to impurity if they are three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths.

Implied is that it is necessary not merely to intend to use them for a purpose, but to perform a deed that reflects that intent.

For such a cloth is never considered as a significant entity.

To prevent air from escaping from the bathhouse so that bathhouse will not cool [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:2).

The owner’s disposal of it indicates that it is no longer fit to serve a useful purpose.

This ruling has attracted the attention of the commentaries (see Kessef Mishneh), because it is the subject of a difference of opinion between the Rabbis in the Mishnah (loc. cit.) which is discussed elsewhere in the Talmud (Shabbat 29a), and the Rambam appears to rule contrary to the conclusion of that Talmudic passage. Indeed, in the original version of his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam follows a different understanding. Later in his life, he changed his interpretation of the passage in Shabbat (apparently interpreting the passage similar to the way Tosafot does, rather than as Rashi does) and therefore ruled as he did here (see Rav Kappach’s notes to his translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah).

See Halachah 1.

These two terms reflect the Rambam’s understanding of the adjective bari used by Keilim 27:11 (Commentary to the Mishnah).

A relatively small measure, slightly more than a liter in modern measure according to Shiurei Torah, and approximately two liters according to Chazon Ish.

I.e., the owner did not discard it. Hence, only one of the two qualifications mentioned above are necessary.

I.e., the pieces would move, separating one from the other.

Because it is not intact.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:12).

All of these situations are signs that the cloth is extremely worn out and no longer fit for use.

Even if it had already contracted impurity, the fact that the owner cast it away indicates that he no longer considered it fit for use and thus nullified its functionality.

Or another person.

I.e., in the future. If, however, it was impure previously, that impurity does not return (Tifferet Yisrael to Keilim, op. cit.).

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

Hence even the scraps are considered significant.

I.e., one put a cover over several small pieces of fabric.

Rolling it into a ball and sewing it closed.

Because by putting this fragment into a ball—and certainly by sewing it closed when making it into a ball—one has diverted his attention from it and indicated that he no longer considers it important [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:1)].

Because it is still a significant size and if the ball would be opened, it would be useful.

Implied is that it is susceptible to other forms of impurity.

This is speaking about a piece of fabric exactly three handbreadths by three handbreadths. If it is larger and more than three hand breaths remain even after it was sewn, it remains susceptible to the impurity associated with the support of a zav.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and rules more leniently in both these instances. When the scrap was merely included in a ball, he maintains that it is not susceptible to the impurity associated with the support of azav, only to other types of impurity. And if it was made into a ball itself, it is not susceptible to impurity at all. The Kessel Mishneh states that there is not enough discussion of the matter to find support for either position.

In the Book of Leviticus, chs. 15, 31-32, and in the Book of Numbers, ch. 20, the Torah mentions several keilim in connection with ritual impurity, but does not mention a mat. Since it does not have a receptacle, it is not considered a wooden k’li [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 24:10)]. See also Hilchot Mikveot 1:3.

Although Shabbat 84a-b derives this concept through a kal vechomer (a fortiori reasoning), it is still considered as a Rabbinic institution, for that is one of the Rambam’s fundamental principles.

Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

Chapter 22, Halachah 1.

Here and in the following halachot, the term cloth (HEBREW_TEXT) refers to a cloth made from wool or linen.

Clothes less than these measures are not considered important by most people. See also Hilchot Shabbat 18:13 where the Rambam mentions that these measures also apply with regard to the prohibition against transferring articles from one domain to another.

For then it is not considered important unless it has the necessary size.

Since the person cuts the cloth to this measure, it is obvious that he considers the cloth important even though it is small [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:4)].

See Chapter 7, Halachot 2-3. Apparently, the difference is that here the cloth was set aside and/or modified for use by the harvesters, while there it was just picked up randomly and used for that purpose.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that as long as a person designates a fragment for a purpose, it is susceptible to impurity regardless of its size.

Because in all these instances, one is completing the required measure with an article that requires a greater measure.

Because in these instances, one is completing the required measure with an article that requires a lesser measure.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:3), the Rambam states that since each of the substances is susceptible to the impurity associated with the support of a zav, an article made by combining them is also susceptible.

In his notes to his translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:5), Rav Kapach translates the Arabic terms used by the Rambam to explain that a sifter has small holes and is used for straining flour, while a sieve has larger holes and is used for straining grain.

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 27:5). Since the sifter is worn out, it is no longer considered a k'li and is not susceptible to impurity. By cutting off the edges, however, one performs a deed that causes it to be considered a seat and hence, to become susceptible to impurity.

In that source, the Rambam explains that these sifters are at times made of leather, at times of goats’ hair, at times of cords, and at times of reeds. Thus it is fit to be used as a seat.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam states that this refers to a newborn infant.

Because even for an infant, a smaller garment would not be considered as significant.

I.e., with a front and a back as cloaks are worn. Thus were it to be open to its full size, it would be six handbreadths by three handbreadths.

This translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:6).

As a border (ibid.).

And sewn closed like a hem.

I.e., it is considered a primary source of impurity.

Thus making it less than three handbreadths by three handbreadths and thus not susceptible to ritual impurity. This applies even after the additional fabric was added to the garment. The portion of the garment that contracted the impurity must comprise the minimum measure itself without considering the addition for it to remain in that category.

Thus at the time the new threads were added, the fragment of the garment was not large enough to be impure with the impurity associated with the support of a zav.

Seemingly, as in the previous clause, it should be considered as an article that came in contact with an article that is impure with the impurity of a human corpse.

Halachah 3; Chapter 22, Halachah 21.

Sewn on to it as protection. The patch thus was a primary source of impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:6)].

By attaching it to the basket or the hide, the person made the cloth secondary to the entity to which it was attached and therefore lowered its level of impurity (ibid.).

I.e., when attached to the other entity, it lost its own importance and was no longer considered as an entity in its own right. Afterwards, when detached, it was considered like an insignificant portion of the basket and hence is not impure [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:6)]. If, when separating it, one had the intent to sit upon it, it is susceptible to impurity in the future, but it does not return to its previous impurity (Rabbenu Shimshon to the above mishnah).

As indicated by the previous halachah, when the impure cloth is joined to other cloth, they are all considered as a single entity and take on the status of the impure cloth.

Since it did not come in contact with the original impurity itself, after the patch is separated, it is only considered as a derivative and not as a primary source of impurity.

Since it is of the same type as the cloth to which it is attached, it cannot be said that its identity becomes subsumed to it [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 28:6)]. Thus when separated, its status is not changed.

A Greek letter whose form resembles a reversed L (ibid.:7).

Since it will be hanging loosely, it is not considered as attached.

Thus its status is only that of a derivative.

And neither of the pieces are three handbreadths by three handbreadths.

Unlike the fragment mentioned at the conclusion of this halachah, these remnants never came in contact with a cloth that was three handbreadths by three handbreadths. Hence, it cannot be said that they touched such a source of impurity.

See Chapter 18, Halachah 10; Chapter 19, Halachah 1.

I.e., one from which three handbreadths by three handbreadths would remain even after the fragment was removed.

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:6, 27:9).

Because it is no longer an object on which one sits. It is, however, susceptible to other forms of impurity because it is a cloth k’li (ibid.). Moreover, as stated there, it is considered as an article that came in contact with a support of zav and is a primary derivative of impurity.

For a deed must be performed to move it from one category to another.

It is through the immersion of the article in a mikveh and the coming of nightfall that the article regains purity.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 29:1) which refers to I Kings 20:38.

And thus it could still be considered as a garment.

Hence it is considered as if it was tom already and it is no longer considered as a garment. If, however, he intended to use the fragments, the impurity does not depart from it. See Chu/in 123a.

Implied is that if the person did not immerse the article, the pieces tom from it are impure until its size is reduced less than three handbreadths by three handbreadths.

For being immersed in water will damage the garment.