Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Even in circumstances where such items would not ordinarily be considered as utensils, as evident from the examples that the Rambam mentions.

The Hebrew term the Rambam employs, matzah, is used, because just like matzah is simply flour and water with nothing added, so too, this hide has not been processed at all.

The terms child and minor are redundant, having the same meaning (Ma'aseh Rokeiach).

In certain contexts, their actions are given the same halachic consideration as if they were performed by an adult.

As will be explained, there are instances where the intent of a mentally sound adult is significant in changing the status of an article with regard to ritual impurity. The intent of the individuals mentioned here is, however, not significant, because their intellectual capacity is limited and their thoughts will not necessarily have an effect on the articles in question. Their deeds, by contrast, do create an effect. Hence, they are halachically significant [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:15)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:16), the Rambam writes that deceivers make a hollow in the horizontal rod of a scale and place a weight there so that it will weigh down the side on which the merchandise is placed and make it appear that there is more of the merchandise that they are selling than there actually is.
Similarly, by placing a weight in the rod used to level off flour and other produce, the seller will cause it to sink into the produce and thus produce a loss for a purchaser (ibid.).

The peddler may place a receptacle in the pole where he can store coins that he stole while negotiating a transaction (ibid.).

A poor man collecting alms may make a hole in his pole to store drinking water while creating the impression that he is fasting (ibid.).

The Rambam does not mention a rationale for this practice. Other commentaries to the Mishnah speak of a staff having a place for a mezuzah and a pearl. They explain that a deceiver would wrap the pearl in the mezuzah and explain that he is carrying the mezuzah for protection. In that way, the pearl would not be detected. The Rambam mentions the two in separate clauses, indicating he considers the mezuzah as an independent concept, presumably also for the reason of protection. It is then, however, difficult to understand why the mezuzah is mentioned together with all the previous examples, for they are all means of deception.

So that it could be hidden from a customs’ inspector.

Keilim 17:17 mentions that a sharpener is susceptible to ritual impurity. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that the intent cannot be a stone sharpener, for stone utensils are never susceptible to ritual impurity. Nor could the intent be a metal sharpener, because metal implements are always susceptible to ritual impurity. Instead, the intent is a block of wood on which a knife is whetted.

The wax would be stored there to be used to seal letters (ibid.).

The point of this halachah is that even though most people would not consider such a receptacle significant, since there are people who do, the receptacle causes the article to be considered as a k’li and susceptible to ritual impurity.

Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, since the wood serves the metal, it is susceptible to impurity [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:17); see also Chapter 4, Halachah 5]. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah, without an anvil, such a block of wood is not considered as an implement at all and is not susceptible to ritual impurity, even according to Rabbinic Law.

There are commentaries who maintain that the Rambam’s intent is that even before the receptacle is filled, the wood is not susceptible to impurity. Since the intent is that receptacle will be filled, even before it is actually filled, it is considered as filled.

The commentaries note that the Rambam’s ruling here contradicts his ruling in Hilchot Sukkot 5:5 where he considers such receptacles as significant and rules that they disqualify wood for use as s’chach, because they cause it to be considered as susceptible to impurity.

For only then is it fit to take in other substances.

Our translation is taken from Rav Kappach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 2:2). When explaining this term in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:17), the Rambam refers to the wording of II Kings 4:39.

I.e., using the straw as a mezuzah case. By placing the mezuzah inside, the person indicated that he considers the straw as a container.
The Ra’avad notes that Keilim 16:7 states that a mezuzah case is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Mishnah is speaking about a case that is useful only as a mezuzah. By contrast, the Rambam, quoting [the Tosefta (Keilim 14:3)] is speaking about a straw that could be used for other purposes as well.

The Rambam (and his source, the Tosefta) are apparently speaking about an instance where there is a hollow in the wall where the straw could be placed, but it would not be affixed there permanently.

Since the person placed the mezuzah in it beforehand, he made it evident that he intended to use the straw as a container. The fact that he placed it upside down does not cause its status to change.

Placing the mezuzah inside before affixing it.

By being permanently affixed to the building, it is considered as attached to the ground. Nevertheless, since it is being used as a container, its status does not change when affixed.

Since it is permanently affixed to the wall with its open part facing downward, it is no longer considered as a container and is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

But did not affix it permanently.

Because its position indicates that it will be used as a container and it is not permanently affixed to the wall, it remains susceptible to impurity.

Because its position indicates that it will not be used as a container.

Since the straw was permanently affixed to the wall before it was used as a container, it is considered as part of the building. Hence, just as the building is not susceptible to ritual impurity, the straw is also not susceptible.

This term is generally translated as cork. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 10:6), the Rambam identifies it with an Arabic term which Rav Kapach defines as “a flexible tree that comes from India.”

In that source (ibid. 22:10), the Rambam explains that a structure like a net with high walls is made from these pliable pieces of wood.

I.e., and is open from both sides (ibid.).

Because it is not considered as a container.

See Shabbat 59a and commentaries which explain that, on occasion, such a foot-covering is used by humans.

Among the reasons given is that it is not a lasting entity.

As stated in Halachah 1 above.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 26:2), the Rambam explains that unlike a pearl, the coins are separate entities. Hence, the hide will not be formed into a pouch with a single receptacle.