See Chapter 13, Halachah 4, and Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:3.
If the outer surface of the k’li contracts impurity from a primary source of Scriptural impurity, the inner side also contracts impurity (Pesachim 17b, quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).
With regard to sacrificial foods, by contrast, it does contract impurity (Kessef Mishneh, based on Keilim 25:9).
I.e., an indent in the rim enabling the container to be held without inserting one's finger inside of it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 25:7).
The above applies even if the handle has a receptacle.
Our translation of this and the following terms is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:1).
The projections to which the handles are connected (ibid.).
The Ra’avad emphasizes that one should not use the k’li until it was dried. The Kessef Mishneh states that this concept is implicit in the Rambam’s words.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, but does not clarify his objection. The Kessef Mishneh offers two possible interpretations of the Ra’avad’s statement: a) that according to the Ra’avad, the opposite is also true. If the inner portion of such a receptacle contracts impurity, the outer portion does not, or b) if impure liquids touch the outer portion of such a receptacle, even the outer portion does not contract impurity. Since the impurity imparted by impure liquids is Rabbinic in origin, our Sages wanted to make a clear distinction in its regard.
I.e., keilim that do not have a receptacle.
This refers to utensils made from wood, bone, or glass.
I.e., a frame around the tabletop. See Keilim 25:1 and commentaries.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 10.
A roasting tool with a ladle to remove soup at one end and a three-pronged fork to remove meat at the other [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 13:2; 25:3)].
This ruling reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah (Keilim 25:3). The Ra’avad differs, stating that Rabbi Meir differs in that source and, he maintains, Rabbi Meir’s opinion is supported by the majority of Sages. The Kessef Mishneh, however, supports the Rambam’s view.
Although the plow is not a container, there is a distinction between the contraction of impurity by its functional parts (parallel to the inner space of the receptacle) and it supporting beams (parallel to the external surface of the receptacle) [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 25:2)].
Both the Hebrew terms melamed and marde’a are translated as plow. With regard to a melamed, see Chapter 11, Halachah 23, where the Rambam states that a plow is comprised of: “A long, thick beam with something like a sharp peg implanted in its end from above. This metal [peg] is called a darban. On the other end below is a metal [projection] like a spear. The wood that is inserted into it and this iron piece is called a lance (charchur).”Keilim 25:2 speaks only of a marde’a and uses a similar description.
These seven handbreadths — and similarly, the four handbreadths mentioned in the following clause — were considered as necessary for the functioning of the plow. See also Chapter 20, Halachah 12.
I.e., they are considered as separate entities.
And thus neither is considered in the inner space of the other. See also Chapter 13, Halachah 12, where a more stringent ruling is given to a somewhat parallel situation.
As in the law that applies regarding a receptacle: If the inner space contracts impurity, the outer surface is also impure.
As is the law when impurity touches the outer surface of a receptacle.
I.e., in a case of impurity of Scriptural and not merely Rabbinic origin, the leniency mentioned in this halachah is not applied. Our translation follows the version of the Mishneh Torah suggested by the Kessef Mishneh, Ma’aseh Rokeiach, Mishneh LiMelech, and others. The standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah — and, in this instance, also the authoritative manuscripts cited in the Shabsie Frankel printing — follow a different version.
A Talmudic measure equal to 86 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 150 cc according to Chazon Ish. Diagram
A k'li must be immersed in a mikveh all at once. Even though the two measures are considered as separate keilim with regard to the contraction of impurity, they are considered as a single entity with regard to immersion.
As stated in Halachah 1.
