Kelim - Chapter 22

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.