Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., hides that have been designated for a specific purpose, but little has been done to adapt them for that purpose.

A hide is not susceptible to midras impurity unless it is used as a support by a person. Although the primary purpose for which these hides are used is not as a support, they are susceptible to midras impurity, because, as the Rambam later states, it is likely that a person will lie or sit upon them.

This hide is susceptible to midras impurity, because there are times when a person will sit on it when riding the donkey.

This explanation is necessary, because a hide is not susceptible to midras impurity unless it is used as a support by a person.

So his clothes will not be soiled by the clay.

A hide worn by the person carding the flax to prevent the small chips of flax that are combed out from falling on his clothing.

To protect his clothes from being soiled.

Some of these hides people would not sit upon because the hide is dirty; they would not sit upon others, lest they dirty them. Nevertheless, in both instances, it is possible that they would turn the hide upside down.

As stated in Chapter 23, Halachah 3.

One is not likely to sit on these hides — or even on their undersides — lest they become soiled and then soil the fabric.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 4.

It is not considered as the cover of a k’li, because weights are not considered as keilim [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:7)].

Even if it would be of the required size.

I.e., even midras impurity, i.e., it is considered like a shoe or sandal.

Where is was left to dry [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:4)].

Although it must be removed from the mold, that task does not require professional expertise and can be performed by an ordinary person (Kessef Mishneh).

Our translation is taken from the Mayim Tehorim; see also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:8).

I.e., it is not necessary to perform a deed to prepare them to serve that purpose (see Chapter 8, Halachah 10).

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

The hide is usually smoothed down before one rides upon it, but people often use it in its unfinished state (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Keilim, 26:8).

The general statement that a hide is considered susceptible to impurity immediately after one thinks of using it for such a purpose [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:9)].

A private person is not careful about putting the final touches on finishing a hide to make it fit for a given task.

Since he sells hides, his hides are not considered as completed until he performs all the tasks necessary to prepare them to be used for their specific function. Otherwise, no one will purchase them (see ibid.).

See, however, note 27 below.

I.e., the robber was a zav and hence, would impart impurity to the support were it his property.

I.e., there was another article interposing between him and the bed.

Because it is not his. The concept that the thief did not touch the article must be stated, because the principle that the person must be the owner of the article applies only when impurity is imparted by sitting or lying on the article, not when touching. Nevertheless, this point is problematic, because the prooftext cited specifically mentions touching a couch (Kessef Mishneh).
The Mishneh LeMelech and the Ma’aseh Rokeiach write that the Torah’s exclusion applies only to a couch or a seat that is stolen. If, by contrast, one sits or lies on a couch or chair belonging to a friend, it contracts impurity, because the owner is willing to let that person use it as if he was the owner. See also Rashi and other commentaries to Bava Kama 66b.

Because it becomes the property of the robber. This statement (though apparently based on Bava Kama 66b and Keilim 26:9) has aroused the attention of the commentaries, because in Hilchot Gezelah 2: 1-3, the Rambam rules that the owner’s despair is not sufficient to have a robber acquire the stolen property, the article must undergo a fundamental change or be transferred from the thief’s domain to the domain of another person.
The Kessef Mishneh attempts to resolve the difficulty by stating that the Rambam agrees that if it is known that the owner explicitly despaired, that is sufficient for the thief to be considered the owner of the article (see Bava Kama 114a). Alternatively, it can be said that here, since the thief changes the status of the hide by considering it as a support, it is considered to have undergone a fundamental change in his domain and, hence, he is considered to have acquired it (Rambam LeAm).

The difference between geneivah (theft) and gezeilah (robbery) in halachic terms is as follows: Geneivah implies taking another person’s property discreetly. Gezeilah, by contrast, involves taking something openly, by force, against the will of its owner (Hilchot Geneivah 1:3). Hence, it is likely that the victim will be aware of the identity of a robber and hope to recover his article from him, but not be aware of the identity of a thief and, therefore, despair of recovering his article [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:9)].

Because the hide is not considered his.

For it is assumed that the owner will despair and the hide will be considered as the property of the thief.

For it cannot be assumed that the owner will despair of recovering his article.

The minimum size for a hide to contract ritual impurity, as stated in Halachah 2 and in Chapter 23, Halachah 3. Implied is that the intent — and even the initial deeds — to reduce a hide’s size is not sufficient. It must actually be reduced below that size.

I.e., a k’li that does not serve as a receptacle.

This also applies if one type of leather receptacle is changed into another type of leather receptacle, as illustrated in the final clause of the halachah. This, however, reflects a difference between the treatment of the concept in the Mishnah (Keilim 28:5) and the Tosefta (Keilim 24:1). See the Commentary of the Tosafot Yom Tov.

Because the original k’li is considered to have ceased to exist and the new k’li is considered as a new entity.

I.e., wool or linen.

Regardless of how the article is changed, as illustrated by the following halachah. The rationale is that all cloth articles are similar.

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

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:1), the Rambam explains that the term translated as “sack” implies a sack made from goats’ hair and the term translated as “carrying bag” implies a leather carrying bag.

The rationale why they are not susceptible to other forms of impurity is obvious: They are no longer functional keilim. For that same reason, they are not susceptible to midras impurity. Since they are not functional, they will not be used for anything, but instead, discarded. Hence, they also will not be used as seats or cushions.

I.e., how large must they be to be considered something that a person might sit upon or lie upon.

A Kav (singular of Kabbin) is a Talmudic liquid measure, equal to 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

A se’ah is 8.3 liter in modern measure according to Shiurei Torah and 16.2 liter according to Chazon Ish.

Since they do not have a receptacle, they are not susceptible to other forms of impurity according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, they are susceptible to those forms of impurity, as implied by Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

Since they are set aside for use by a corpse, one might think that they are not susceptible to midras impurity, because there is no impurity inherently associated with a support for a corpse [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 23:4)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 23:4), the Rambam describes this as a press used to straighten clothes.

Even though these chairs are not generally used by people, there are times when they are. Women will sit upon the bier of a corpse to weep; a bride and a woman giving birth will sit upon the chair designated for those purposes; and a launderer will sit upon his press to apply additional pressure (Kessel Mishneh).
The Kessel Mishneh also notes that the mishnah (Keilim, op. cit.) appears to indicate that several of these chairs are not susceptible to impurity. Nevertheless, he explains that from a comparison to the Toselta (Keilim 20:4) and another mishnah (Keilim 22:4), it would appear that this mishnah is merely the individual opinion of one Sage and was not accepted by the Sages at large.

Because one sits on it.

Because it is a functional article.

The Ra’avad challenges the Rambam’s ruling, offering a different interpretation of Keilim 22:10, the Rambam’s source. The Kessel Mishneh states that both interpretations are valid.

Because it is still fit to sit upon. Tifleret Yisrael (Keilim, op. cit.) emphasizes that this applies only when the leather is the minimum size, 5 handbreadths by five handbreadths. The Merkevet HaMishneh states that even if it is less than that minimum measure, it is considered as susceptible to impurity, for most likely, the person will later return it to its place.

As are other simple metal keilim.

Because without the leather covering, it is not fit to sit upon.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 22: 10), the Rambam explains that the basket also has leather borders.

I.e., it is not susceptible to impurity at all. It is not fit to sit upon, because it is coarse and not smooth, nor is it fit to serve as a basket, because it no longer has edges.

See Chapter 18, Halachah 10.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit. 22:10), the Rambam explains that this refers to a marble bench with wooden legs. The bench itself is not susceptible to impurity, because it is a stone implement. When the legs are made of wood, they are susceptible to impurity and can contract that impurity if a zav sits on the bench, even though they are not touched at all.

Tifferet Yisrael (Keilim, op. cit.) explains the rationale: Since the bench has one stone leg, with that leg, it could stand propped against a wall. As such, the wooden leg is unnecessary and therefore is not subject to impurity. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 12.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). He states that the cork is used to make all the boards a single entity that will float and thus the water will pass under them.

It appears that the Rambam’s intent is that since the intent of corking the boards is to have them float, even though a person may sit upon them, they are not susceptible to impurity, because they are not placed there with the intent to be used as a seat.

Even though the substances themselves are soft and could be used as a cushion, since the basket was left uncovered, it is possible that they will fall out and not serve that purpose.

Thus making a net that will prevent the other material from falling out [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 22:9)].

I.e., the heavy beam used to press olives and cause them to release their oil.

This is an expression used frequently by our Sages (Keilim 20:3, et al; see the Rambam’s Commentary to that Mishnah) as an explanation why a particular article is not susceptible to midras impurity. Even though it is fit to use to sit or to lie upon, it will not be used for such a purpose, because the people will need that article to carry out a particular task. Hence, instead of allowing the person to remain seated, they will tell him: “Stand up and [let] us do our work.”

That had been a separate entity beforehand.

Since it was susceptible to impurity beforehand, it retains that status even when it was affixed to the beam.

The beam is not susceptible to impurity, nor does it convey impurity to the seat [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

In contrast to the beam of an olive press mentioned previously, this beam is not designated for a specific purpose.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 22:4), the Rambam explains that the chair is pure, because it is attached to the kneading trough which is not susceptible to impurity. In his gloss here, the Kessef Mishneh asks: Why should the laws pertaining to a chair attached to a kneading trough be different from those concerning a chair attached to a beam? He suggests that the chair is pure only when the kneading trough serves as a support for one who imparts midras impurity. See the gloss of Tosafot Yom Tov (ibid.) who differs with the Kessef Mishneh and defends the simple interpretation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah.

But not the entire beam, as explained above.

In contrast to the seats inside a carriage, there is sometimes a place outside the walls of a carriage where a person—usually, a servant or a menial worker—can sit.

And it is only keilim that are susceptible to impurity.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 22:9).

See Hilchot Ochalin 14:2.

The Ma’aseh Rokeiach cites Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 2:15 where the Rambam states that for a mound of yeast not to be considered as chametz on Pesach, its surface must be covered with clay. Nevertheless, a distinction can be made between the two, because unless the mound of yeast is covered with clay, it is still fit to be used as a leavening agent for other bread. Hence, it is considered as chametz. With regard to midras impurity, however, once it is designated as a seat, it is susceptible to impurity.

Apparently, the intent is that such mats would be uncomfortable and would not be used for people to lie on. This ruling represents a reversal of the Rambam’s position, for in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:17), he rules that such mats are subject to midras impurity according to Scriptural Law.

Note the parallels in Hilchot Sukkah 5:6.

Keilim 20:7 relates a difference of opinion among the Sages whether attaching the reeds to a mat causes it to be considered as pure or not. First, the mishnah advances an opinion that such mats are pure, because they are uncomfortable to lie upon (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura). The majority of the Sages, however, maintain that such a mat is still susceptible to impurity, for one can lie in the space between the reeds (Tifferet Yisrael).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:7), the Rambam states that this letter resembles the Hebrew letter chaf. And in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:9, he depicts it (see also the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to this mishnah) as a reversed chaf, like an English C. Tifferet Yisrael writes that the letter's form resembles the English X and indeed, this is the view accepted by most scholars of Greek today. (There are scholars who maintain that the form of the Greek letters evolved over history and that the two opinions represent the form of the letter chi in different eras.)

Because-and this is true according to either of the above views- if the reeds were attached in such a manner, there would be no way to lie comfortably on the mat.

I.e., if there are more than four handbreadths between the reeds, a person could sit comfortably on the space between them. If there were less than that space, it would be impossible to do so [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit)].

Thus causing all the reeds to be broken in half (ibid.).

Even though it is not fit to lie on in an ordinary manner, it is still fit to sit upon.
There is an opinion in the above mishnah that maintains that the mat is pure in such a situation. Since all the supporting reeds are broken, it is considered as a broken implement. Nevertheless, the majority of the Sages maintain that since one can still sit upon each of the portions, it is still considered functional and therefore susceptible to impurity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that this term the Mishnah uses has its source in the description (I Samuel 15:32) of the bonds used to bind Agag, king of Amalek. Here also the ends of the ropes used to make the mat were tied to prevent it from unraveling. Thus he explains that the Mishnah is describing a situation where there is a portion of a mat six handbreadths long remaining with at least three strands of rope tied at their ends.

For it is no longer functional.

For it will soon fall apart. Diagram

I.e., as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, a k’li is not susceptible to impurity until all the work necessary to make it functional is completed. Nevertheless, one might think that the mat would be susceptible to midras impurity even before then, because it is fit to lie or sit upon even before the final tasks necessary to fashion them are completed. The Rambam, based on the mishnah cited above, teaches that this is not so.

Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

For it will not be able to be opened while someone is sitting.

For it is a functional implement.

Because it can be opened even when someone is sitting upon it.

For it is both a functional implement and fit to sit upon.

A carriage with which a child plays (Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Beitzah 2:10).

Even an old man who uses a walking stick does not rest his body against it. Instead, it is merely an auxiliary support. Thus, it is not susceptible to midras impurity. Nor is it susceptible to other types of impurity, because it is a flat wooden implement.

Such sandals were worn to protect one’s feet [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Eduyot 2:8), based on Shabbat 66a].

This clarification is found in Shabbat, op. cit., to resolve the question: “But such sandals are not used to walk upon?” Even though the limeworkers do stand on these sandals, they are not considered as supports, because they are using them only to protect their feet and not for the sake of support (Tosafot, Shabbat, op. cit.).
Eduyot quotes these statements in the name of Rabbi Akiva, stating that originally, the majority of Sages differed with him, but later they accepted his view. Although Shabbat, op. cit., quotes a bereita which indicates that the two views as divergent, the Rambam considers the mishnah in Eduyot as the resolution of the matter (Tosafot Yom Tov).

The extremities of his leg or hand that were not cut off evenly [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 6:8)]. Others interpret the Hebrew term differently.

As stated in Hilchot Mishkav UMoshav 6:2, the laws applying to a surface on which one rides are more lenient than those applying to a surface upon which one sits or lies.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 23:2), the Rambam writes that the saddle of a female camel is considered as a surface upon which one sits. This view is also presented by the Ra’avad in his gloss to this halachah. The Kessef Mishneh notes that both interpretations to the above mishnah are offered by the commentaries.

For they are primarily beneficial to the donkey, to make it easier for it to carry the burdens placed on it. Hence they are not considered as keilim.

For the person to sit upon while riding the donkey. Generally, however, it is not possible for a person to sit upon these boards and ride the animal [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 23:3)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:5), the Rambam explains that this refers to a thick piece of wood with two legs, thus appearing somewhat like a chair and hence fit to be sat upon. Such pieces of wood would be placed in walls to connect two walls together.

Generally, an entity that is part of a building is considered as attached to the ground and therefore not susceptible to impurity. Nevertheless, different laws apply to the wooden k’li mentioned here. Since it was fit to serve as a seat and hence susceptible to impurity beforehand, it must be both permanently affixed to the wall and have a portion of the wall built on top of it to be considered as part of the wall and hence no longer susceptible to impurity.

Thus if a zav would sit on the portion of the ceiling above the mat, he would impart midras impurity to the mat (ibid.).

The Kessef Mishneh and others note that the apparent source for the Rambam’s ruling is Keilim 22:3. Nevertheless, the standard version of that text states that the bench is pure if one of the legs is removed. In his gloss to that mishnah, Tosafot Yom Tov maintains that the Rambam possessed a different version of the text that states “impure.” Rav Kappach’s text of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, however, does not alter that text.
According to the standard text, the bench is pure when one leg is removed, because it is no longer fit to sit on. According to the usual interpretation of the Rambam’s words, he maintains that the bench is still susceptible to impurity if one leg is removed because a groove can be made in the wall to support the other side of the bench.
It is possible, however, to offer a different explanation of the Rambam’s ruling based on his commentary to that mishnah. Our translation of the term rashav as legs has its source in the other commentaries to that mishnah. The Rambam, however, interprets that term as “armrests.” It is true that he mentions that interpretation with regard to a chair and not with regard to a bench, but at the beginning of his commentary, he states that a safsal, which we and others, translate as “bench” is a type of chair. On this basis, the ruling is easy to understand. The Rambam is speaking about a bench whose armrest is removed, not its legs. Now, if the armrests of a bench are removed, it is still fit to sit on and hence, susceptible to impurity.

It is fit to sit on.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 22:4), the Rambam explains that a bride’s chair was usually coated with ivory or ornamental wood.

Even though it is fit to sit on, without the ornamental coating, it is considered as if it were broken, because it is not fit to be used for its purpose (ibid. 22:4).

From a simple reading of the Rambam’s text, it would appear that this clause is also speaking about a bride’s chair. Nevertheless, the commentaries have noted that the source for this ruling is Keilim 22:5 which speaks about an ordinary chair, not a bride’s chair.

But instead, were embedded within it (ibid.:5).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam explains that since its coating did not project outward, it is possible to turn the chair on its side, even before the coating was removed. Hence, the removal of the coating does not cause it to be considered as a broken k’li which is not susceptible to impurity.

As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:6), it was customary to make an attractive border around the chair and for there to be several ornaments added around the border. If the additional ornaments were removed, it is still fit to sit on.

I.e., both the attractive border and the other ornaments (ibid.).

Although it is fit to sit on, since all the ornaments are removed, it is considered as a broken k’li and is not susceptible to impurity (ibid., Eduyot 2:8).

Our translation is based on Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 22:8). Others interpret the Rambam’s words — and the mishnah — differently.

For they are not fit to be used as a support.

Because it serves as a receptacle as the Rambam proceeds to state.

I.e., the Rambam is speaking about a basket hung from an animal and used as a dispenser for fertilizer (ibid. 19:10).

See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.

Since the building materials would soil the clothes of anyone who sat on it, it is not used as a seat and therefore not susceptible to midras impurity. Alternatively, a person who sits on it will get in the way of the people performing their tasks.

Because it is a receptacle.

A log is 344 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 600 cc according to Chazon Ish.

A kab is four luggin, 1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish.

The crack is large enough to prevent it from holding water.

I.e., but not other types of impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 20:2)]. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, citing a Tosefta (Keilim 18:1) which appears to imply that the kneading trough is still susceptible to other types of impurity. The Kessef Mishneh states the Tosefta is problematic. Therefore the Rambam based his decision solely on the mishnah.

Due to the absorption of the rain.

If a person would want to sit on it, he would be told: “Stand up and let us perform our work” [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

For it is a useful k’li.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.) and authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different understanding.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:4). See also Chapter 23, Halachah 5.

With the exception of midras impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

Generally, an object affixed in a wall is not susceptible to impurity. In this instance, however, the kneading trough was not originally made to be affixed to the wall, so this rule is not applied with regard to it (ibid.; see also Chapter 11, Halachah 24). ·

Since the holes attaching the sideboards to the headboards were not changed, the bed is not considered to have been altered significantly and its status does not change [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 19:6)].

Even though it is standing with the new sideboards attached to it.

I.e., a headboard or a footboard.

Even though the bed will be inclined, it is still possible to lie on it comfortably.

Because in such a situation, the form of the bed is no longer intact (ibid. 18:56).

The posts which connect the sideboards to the headboards or the footboards, giving the bed its rectangular shape (ibid.).

Thus the bed could no longer stand.

The bedposts are legs, placed under the cornerposts (ibid.).

And thus the bed would continually tip to the sides.

A bed that is less than a handbreadth high is considered as broken.

Because it never lost its functionality entirely. Even if one of the sideboards was removed, it could still be used, by propping it up against a wall, as stated in Halachah 13.

Because it is considered as if the old bed was taken apart and this is an entirely new bed.

Since the new sideboard touched the bed while it had contracted midras impurity, it contracts the level of impurity that results from contact with such a source of impurity. See parallels to this ruling in Chapter 21, Halachot 9-10.

Because it is considered as a broken k’li.

When dividing their inheritance.

When dividing the resources of the partnership. Diagram

Even if one of the portions could stand on its own, the bed is considered to have been broken, because it is unlikely to be put back together again [Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura (Keilim 18:9)].

But the previous impurity does not return.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and points out that, in Halachah 10, the Rambam himself ruled differently, stating that if the sideboards and two bedposts were removed, a bed is pure, while here he states that such a bed is still susceptible to impurity. The Kessef Mishneh explains the distinction between the two rulings as follows: When a bed is impure, it becomes purified if a sideboard and two bedposts are removed, because it has lost the form of a bed. A pure bed missing these components is, however, susceptible to impurity, because it can be propped up.

Because it was difficult to immerse the entire bed as a single unit.

Rambam LeAm emphasizes that we are speaking about a situation where a sideboard and two bedposts remain intact. If such a portion of the bed does not remain intact, the bed is purified because it was dismantled as stated in Halachah 10.

The cords running from one sideboard to the other to support the mattress.

Since the bed is in the process of being taken apart, it no longer imparts impurity. It is as if it is already broken.