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.
