Commento su Kelim 26:10

סנדל עמקי (sandals worn in valleys) – Sandals that are made in a valley village.

Introduction Chapters 26-28 deal with vessels made of leather and cloth. The general rule with regard to these vessels was stated in 2:1 if they are simple, they are clean but if they form a receptacle they are susceptible to impurity. Today's mishnah lists four vessels that are either laced or tied up.

כיס של שנצות (a bag which is closed by means of laces) – like a species of straps inserted in loops at the rim of the pouch and we pull them this way and that and the pouch/bag is closed from itself.

An Imki sandal and a laced-up bag, Rabbi Judah says: also an Egyptian basket; Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: also to a Lattakian sandal can be made susceptible to uncleanness and again be made insusceptible without the aid of a craftsman. The "Imki sandal" seems to have been made in a village called Imki. We don't really know much more about how this sandal was formed. Assumedly, it was a distinct enough brand that it would have been known to all by name. An "Egyptian basket" is woven from branches of palm trees. Lattakian sandals come from the town with that name in Syria, and assumedly they were distinctive as well. The commonality of all of these vessels is that even a lay person, one who is not a craftsman, can make these vessels and cause them to be susceptible to impurity. Such a person can also undo the vessels so that they are no longer susceptible to impurity. For instance, a non-expert can put the laces into a laced bag and thereby make it susceptible to impurity. He can also remove the laces and flatten the bag out such that the bag is no longer susceptible (we will learn more about the lace-bag in particular in tomorrow's mishnah).

כפיפה מצרית (an Egyptian basket made of palm twigs) – a basket made from the bands made of palm-bark. They bring willows and palm-leaves and tear them and make from them threads and make from them a basket of osier and rope.

Rabbi Yose said: But can't all vessels be made susceptible to uncleanness and again insusceptible without the aid of a craftsman? Rather, these, even when they are unlaced are susceptible to uncleanness since a layman is able to restore them. They spoke only of an Egyptian basket which even a craftsman cannot [easily] restore. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that all vessels can be made by a non-expert, if he knows how to do so. In other words, if a non-expert succeeds in making any vessel, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. And if he succeeds in taking it apart, it is no longer susceptible. In this respect, these four vessels are not unique. While Rabbi Yose disagrees with the previous halakhah, he does acknowledge that these vessels are in some ways distinct from others. They were indeed "mentioned" in an older list and moreover, this list is connected to the distinction between acts performed by a craftsman and acts performed by a layman. The distinctiveness of these vessels is that even when they are untied, they are still susceptible to impurity because even a non-expert can retie and refashion them into a vessel. Of the vessels mentioned in section one, only the Egyptian basket is clean when it is untied because even an expert has trouble retying this vessel. Since this vessel is so hard to tie once it has been untied, it differs from the other vessels, and it is pure when untied.

סנדל לדיקי (a Laodicean sandal) – that the people of Laodicea make.

הרי אלו מיטהרין ומיטמאין שלא באומן – because all of thee have straps and there is no need to tie them, but he stretches them and they are closed from on their own, and similarly, they open from on their own through other straps that pull them. Like the kind that they make for purses in our places. But if those straps were left over, then they are further not appropriate to close and open with, they are pure. But Rabbi Yossi holds that even though they are permitted, they are impure, since a non-specialist can restore them. Except for the basket of osier, for even the artisan is not able to restore them. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

שניטלו שנציו (whose laces were removed) – to the Rabbis, we are speaking about that they were not removed completely, but rather that torn loose from the loops, and are still hanging in the bag. But according to Rabbi Yossi, even if they were removed completely, because a non-specialist is able to restore them.

A laced-up bag whose laces were removed is still susceptible to uncleanness; But if it was made flat it is pure. If the laces from a lace-bag are completely removed, it is still susceptible to impurity. It only becomes pure if it is flattened out such that it does not have a receptacle (see yesterday's mishnah).

נפשט(when it – the bag – is straightened out – so as to be a plain piece of leather) – the bag and it became like a kind of smooth piece of leather that has no receptacle, it is pure.

If a strip of cloth has been put on it below, it is susceptible. By taking a strip of cloth and sewing it below the lace-bag he changes the lace-bag into a regular pouch without laces. If he does so, it has a receptacle and it is susceptible to impurity.

טלה עליו את המטלת (if he underlined the bag with a patch on the bottom) – he placed a patch on its rim, that is to say, a small piece of leather that he attached to it from the bottom, for the it is the manner of bags to bring in a small piece of leather between the stitches and when he stretches it out, the the leather remains and it does not annul its receptacle.

If a bag was within another bag and one of them became unclean from a liquid, the other does not become unclean. In this case the rabbis were lenient because liquids defile vessels only "derabbanan" from rabbinic decree. According to Torah law, liquids cannot convey impurity to vessels. Therefore, if one bag was inside another bag and one bag came into contact with an unclean liquid, only that bag is defiled. The other bag remains pure.

לא נטמא חברו – for defilement by liquids to defile vessels is not according to the Torah and is not considered an attachment.

A pearl pouch is susceptible to uncleanness. A pearl pouch is a small piece of leather sewed up to protect a pearl. It is susceptible to impurity.

צרור המרגלית (a piece of leather in which jewels are bound up) – they place the pearl within the leather to be protected there and they tie it, and when they remove the pearl, the leather remains like a bag until one goes to the trouble and straightens it out [by stretching it] , on account of that pearl that stood for many days and was tied up.

A money pouch: Rabbi Eliezer says that it is susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is pure. Rabbi Eliezer says that a money pouch is susceptible in the same way that a pearl pouch is. Both have receptacles, and therefore both can become impure. The sages disagree. A money pouch is opened frequently and when it is opened it no longer has a receptacle. Since it is so frequently found in its "simple" state, without a receptacle, it is considered a "simple" vessel and is not susceptible.

צרור המעות (a piece of leather in which money is bound up) – like the piece of leather in which jewels are bound up. And the reason that the piece of leather in jewels is bound up defiles more, because it is the manner of the piece of leather in which jewels are bound up to stand more than the piece of leather in which money is bound up, for the piece of leather in which money is bound up is loosened all the time, because it was given for spending. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

כף לוקטי קוצים (glove of thorn pickers) – like a kind of leather hand-glove that thorn pickers catch in their hands, so that they don’t puncture their hands with thorns.

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with various types of protective clothing worn by fruit-pickers.

טהורה – that it is not made for receiving.

The hand-coverings of thorn-pickers are pure. The hand-coverings used by thorn-pickers are simple pieces of leather, not fashioned fully into gloves. Since they do not have a receptacle, they are pure.

הזון (girdle, laborer’s apron) – a girdle/belt like a kind of belt. And in the Greek language, we call this belt ZONI.

A belt and leg guards are susceptible to uncleanness. However, their belt or leg-guards are susceptible either because they do have receptacles or because they are considered to be vessels.

ברכייר (brick-layer’s cushion – on which he kneels at work; stone-setter’s knee-band) – a leather frame that is placed on the knees, in order that they would be able to stand on their knees.

Sleeves are susceptible to uncleanness. The sleeves referred to here are not attached to a shirt, but are independent. They are susceptible for they are considered vessels, even though they don't have a receptacle.

טמאין – for they are made for reception.

But hand-coverings are pure. But hand-coverings (these are different from those mentioned in section one) are not susceptible.

שרוולים (workingman’s leather sleeve/chest protector in hot weather) – like a kind of pressed leather narrow handle that artisans place on their arms, in order that their wide clothing will not fall on their hands and annul them from their work.

All finger-coverings are pure except that of fig-pickers, since the latter holds the sumac berries. If it was torn, if it cannot hold the greater part of a sumac berry it is pure. Fruit-pickers would use finger-coverings to protect their fingers while harvesting the fruit. Generally these finger-coverings are simple pieces of leather and are pure. The exception is the finger-coverings used by fig-pickers for they would use these finger-coverings to hold sumac berries. If the fig-pickers finger-coverings were torn, they could no longer hold berries and they would be pure.

פרקמינין (greaves, leggings) – we have the reading [פרקמינין] and it is a thing that wraps up/bandages and ties up his forehead.

בית אצבעות (finger holes) – like a kind of leather hand made to put in his fingers into it.

קייצין – those who pick thorns. Another explanation, those who pick the summer fruit.

האוג (red berry of the Venus’ summachtree) – a red fruit that is found on a tee that grows in the forest on its own. And sometimes when they pick the thorns in the forests, they pick the red berry of the Venus’ summachtree and they place it in the finger-holes, as it is found that it is made for reception.

ותקנה טמאה מדרס – it still stands in its defilement, because the second strap/handle exists.

A sandal, one of whose holes was broken but was then fixed, retains its midras uncleanness. If a second hole was broken and it was fixed, it is free from midras uncleanness but is unclean from contact with midras. If the second hole was broken before the first could be mended, it is clean. The sandal has two holes through which straps are put in to tie the sandal to the shoe. The mishnah deals with the purity of the sandal when one or both of these holes are broken. This type of mishnah, one which distinguishes between something that has midras uncleanness and something that had contact with midras uncleanness can be found in 18:6-7. My explanation here is similar to my explanation there. If one hole was broken, and then it was fixed, the whole sandal and even the part with the new hole, retain the midras uncleanness that was there in the original sandal. This is because the new hole is part of the old sandal and the old sandal never lost its impurity. However, if the second hole broke and then he repaired it as well, the sandal lost its original midras impurity because it is considered new. Although the original midras impurity is gone, the sandal does have a lesser degree of impurity because it was in contact with something that had midras impurity. When the first hole was repaired it contacted impurity from the rest of the sandal. And even when the second hole broke, and the sandal lost the impurity it had, it did not lose the impurity it had by being in contact with other impure parts of the sandal. This is because the bed continued to be usable. If both holes were broken at the same time, then the sandal is completely pure, even from contact with midras. This is because when both holes are broken, the sandal cannot be used.

טהור מן המדרס – even though the first one was repaired prior to the second one breaking, nevertheless, it is pure, for new faces came to here, for after it went down into defilement by treading, these faces were renewed, and this is not the first after it already had ben ruined in order to annul it.

If its heel was torn off, or if its toe-piece was removed, or if it was torn in two, it becomes clean. In these cases the sandal is unusable and therefore it is pure.

אבל טמא מגע מדרס – because the first strap/handle, when it was broken/snapped, and it was repaired, that he brought another strap in place of the broken one and attached it to the sandal, it became defiled through contact with treading, for it touched the sandal that was impure through treading, but when the second strap snapped and their flowered from it the defilement of Midras/treading, there remained in it the defilement of contact, for the entire sandal was attached to the first strap that had been repaired.

A heel-less slipper that was torn anywhere becomes clean. The heel-less slipper has a forefoot but no heel (duh!). Since it is so insubstantial, any missing part renders it is unusable and pure.

עד שנפסקה – the second strap.

A shoe that was damaged becomes clean if it cannot contain the greater part of the foot. If any shoe is damaged so much that it doesn't hold even the greater part of the foot, meaning at least half of the foot, it is pure.

טהורה – for since the two straps were broken, it further was not appropriate for anything.

A shoe that is still on the last: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is insusceptible to uncleanness, But the sages say that it is susceptible. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the shoe's manufacturing is not considered to be complete until it is removed from the last, the model upon which the shoe is formed. The sages disagree and rule that as long as the work on the shoe has been completed, it is susceptible to impurity.

מפסק עקבו (if its heel was torn) – the leather of the sandal that covers the height of the foot that is corresponding to the foreleg from its backside.

All water skins whose holes have been tied up are insusceptible to uncleanness, except for Arabian ones. Rabbi Meir says: if they are tied up for a while, they are clean; but if they are tied with a permanent knot they are unclean. Rabbi Yose says: all tied up water skins are clean. The mishnah now begins to deal with water skins. If they have simply been tied up but not sewn shut, they are not fully usable and therefore are pure. They need to be sewn in order to hold in water well. The one exception is the Arabian water skin which was customarily tied tightly and not sewn. Rabbi Meir says that if the tie is temporary, meant to last only a short time, the skin is not considered a vessel and is pure. But if it is tied with a permanent tie, then it is a vessel and is susceptible. Rabbi Yose disagrees with both previous opinions. All water skins that are tied up are pure, even Arabian ones, and even ones that are permanently tied. A water skin needs to be sewn in order to be considered a vessel.

חוטמו (toe piece, knotted strapplngs of a shoe) – that goes up corresponding to the toes of the foot from in front of him.

טהור – [pure] from retroactive defilement, but it is susceptible to receive ritual defilement from here and onwards.

סוליים (sole, slipper) – the leather that is underneath the toes of the foot along. That it lacks a heel, and in the foreign language, SOLA.

האמום (shoe-makers last) – the frame of the shoe that is made from leather filled with hair.

ר' אליעזר מטהר – that he holds that the work of the shoe/foot-covering is not completed until it is detached from the shoe maker’s last.

וחכמים מטמאין – for they consider that the work was completed. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

כל חמתות צרורות (all tied up goatskin) – leather skins that were perforated with an incision that removes them from their defilement and ties up the incision.

טהורין – as they were, because he will eventually loosen the knot.

חוץ מקשר של ערביים – which is not easy to untie.

צרור שעה (tied up for a time) – a knot that is made according to the hour and stands to be loosened.

צרור עולם – a knot that is made to exist forever.

כל המתות צרורות טהורות (all tied up goatskins are pure) – whether an eternal knot or a temporary knot, and even of that of the Arabs. But the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher (see also Tractate Eduyot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1).

לשטיח (for a rug) – to stretch/spread on the ground and to sit upon it.

The following hides are susceptible to midras uncleanness: A hide which he intended to use as a rug, A hide used as an apron, A hide used as the lower covering of a bed, A hide used by a donkey-driver, A hide used by a flax-worker, A hide used by a porter, A hide used by a doctor, A hide used for a crib, A hide put over a child's chest, A hide for a cushion. A hide for a covering. All these are susceptible to midras uncleanness. For a hide to be subject to midras uncleanness it must be either sat, laid or leaned upon. All of the following hides fit this criterion. I shall explain the ones that seem to require some explanation. A hide used by a donkey-driver: While usually put over his clothing, sometimes he would sit on this hide. A hide used by a flax-worker: Placed in front of the flax-worker to protect him while he beats the flax. A hide used by a porter: The hide covers his shoulders. A hide used by a doctor: As an apron. A hide put over a child's chest: Like a bib. While the main use of these hides is not necessarily for sitting, leaning or lying down, they are sometimes used in this manner and therefore they are susceptible to midras impurity.

סקורטיא (leather coat, leather apron, table cover) – leather that the tanners wear at the time of their work.

A hide for wrapping up combed wool and a hide worn by a wool-comber: Rabbi Eliezer says it is susceptible to midras, But the sages say that it is susceptible to corpse uncleanness only. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the hide used to cover combed wool and the hide used to protect wool-worker are also susceptible to midras, because sometimes one might sit or lie on them. The sages disagree and say that these types of hides are not sat or laid upon and therefore are susceptible only to corpse impurity, which is true of all vessels.

קטבליא (hide spread over the bed-frame – see Tractate Kelim, Chapter 16, Mishnah 4) – leather that they spread over the bed and lie upon it.

עור החמר (hide of an ass driver) – this is our reading But we don’t have the reading of עור החמור/the hide of the ass. That is to say, the leather that the ass-driver places on his clothes when he loads up his ass.

עור הכתן (leather of the flax beater) – the leather that the flax artisans place before them in order that the hatchelled flax doesn’t stick to their clothing.

עור הכתף (the leather of the porter/carrier) – the porter places on his shoulder in order that the load/burden that is on his shoulder not damage him.

עור הרופא – the doctor of the societies places before him leather so that his clothing will not be soiled with the blood of the wounds.

עור העריסה (hide of the crib) – that the place on the crib of a small baby.

עור הלב של קטן – it was customary to gird leather on the loins of a young child opposite his heart , so that the cat will not strike him on his heart and he will die.

עור הכר והכסת – of a bed.

עור הסרוק (leather of the dealer in hatchelled wool) – the leather that the artisans of combers gird on their loins.

עור הסורק – artisans who comb flax.

ר' אליעזר אומר מדרס – and all the more so, someone who came in contact with someone defiled by a corpse. For it taught in the Mishnah in chapter בא סימן/The Sign comes [Tractate] Niddah, (Chapter 6), Folio 49a (Mishnah 3): “Whatever is susceptible to Midras/treading uncleanness is susceptible to corpse uncleanness.”

וחכמים אומרים טמא מת – but not corpse uncleanness, or they are not made to be sat upon. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

עב כסות (thick clothing) – felt-cloaks (i.e., thick, fulled or felted stuff made of wool and hair) that one made from them clothing. This is the thick clothing. And similarly, the thick purple, to cloth that is colored purple. This is what my teachers/Rabbis explained. But I heard, “thick clothing” hide that they cover up the clothing. Thick purple – is the hide that they cover up with purple.

A bag or wrapper for garments is susceptible to midras. Since these leather bags or wrappers are occasionally sat upon, they are susceptible to midras.

תכריך כסות (wrapper for garments) – hide that they wrap up the clothing.

A bag or wrapper for purple wool: Bet Shammai says: it is susceptible to midras, But Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible only to corpse uncleanness. Purple wool was more expensive than regular cloth. Due to its expense, Bet Hillel holds that one would not use a bag or wrapper of purple wool for sitting or lying upon. Bet Shammai disagrees and does not differentiate between wrappers and bags for regular clothing and wrappers or bags for purple wool.

תכריך ארגמן (wrapper for purple) – hide that they wrap up the purple

A hide which was made to be a covering for vessels is not susceptible to uncleanness, but for weights it is susceptible. Rabbi Yose says in the name of his father that it is pure. A hide that is simply used as a covering for regular vessels does not have a receptacle and therefore is free from impurity. However, a hide used as a covering for weights used on scales does have a receptacle, so it is not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose states in the name of his father, R. Halafta, that even hides used to cover weights are not susceptible to impurity.

חפוי – cover. The Aramaic translation of cover is חופאה/cover.

טהור – and such is taught in a Baraita, it is possible that I increase covering for vessels for defilement, as the inference teaches us (Leviticus 11:32): “any such article that can be put to use [shall be dipped in water,, and it shall remain unclean until evening],” excluding the covering of vessels.

למשקלות – but it is taught in the Mishnah above at the conclusion of the Chapter [16], “Every wooden vessel that has been divided into two is clean” (Mishnah 8): “This is the general rule: [That which is made for a case is unclean.] And that which is made for a cover is clean.” But the cover of weights is different, because it is made for receiving, and the weights itself are not a vessel. But the Halakah is according to the first Tanna/teacher.

שיש חסרון מלאכה – that there still is lacking action, but afterwards [the thought] is actualized.

Introduction Above, in 25:9 we learned that vessels can become susceptible to impurity by virtue of the fact that a person intends to use them in their current state, even though their manufacturing has not been entirely completed. Our mishnah limits that halakhah.

העוצבה (fur trimmed of its ends, robe, cover) – even though it is missing work, the though defiles it, because they are not strict on its missing work. And עוצבה/fur trimmed of its ends, robe, cover is the hide that covers the riding seat/saddle, which doesn’t require trimming the ends of a skin, for since it is made for a cover, we don’t worry about trimming the ends of a skin.

Whenever no act is lacking, intention alone causes a vessel to be susceptible to uncleanness, If a given article is in a physical state in which it can be used, it is susceptible to impurity as soon as a person decides to use it, even if its manufacturing has not been fully completed. Let's take a table for instance. If it was usable and the owner decided to not polish it and use it immediately, the table is susceptible.

But whenever an act is lacking, intention alone does not render it susceptible to uncleanness, except for a fur cover. But if the article cannot be used, then merely intending to use it does not render it susceptible to impurity. The exception to this rule is a fur cover, put over a saddle. This fur cover is susceptible as soon as a person decides to use it, even though he has not yet fully cut it into its proper shape. The reason for its "early" susceptibility is that it is not unusual for people to use unshaped pieces of fur to cover the saddle.

של בעל הבית – that are not made to sell them (i.e., the hides), and he makes from them beds and delphicas and tablets [for writing]. He intended for them for something that are appropriate for hm without the loss of work, they are susceptible to receive ritual impurity immediately.

The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. If a householder, a non-professional, owns a hide, as soon as he decides that it is ready for use it is susceptible to impurity (providing it is usable in its current state). However, the same is not true of a tanner. Even if he decides to use a hide before its processing is fully completed, it is still not susceptible to impurity for he is likely to change his mind and go back and finish the hide's processing. In other words, since the tanner is a professional, he is less likely to be satisfied with less than perfect results. Therefore, his intention is less final.

ושל עבדן (that belonging to a tanner) – that is made to sell, intention does not defile them, for he makes and in tends to sell them and the purchaser will make shoes from them, but their work had not yet been completed for this.

Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber do not become susceptible by mere intention. A "thief" is a person who surreptitiously steals something. His identity will not be known to those from whom he stole. A "robber" is someone who violently takes something in broad daylight. His identity will be known. According to the first opinion, if a thief steals something, the owners' will lose all hope of getting it back because they don't know who stole it. Therefore, the thief's intentions determine whether the article is susceptible to impurity. But if a robber robs something, they will have hope of recovering the item, and therefore his intention is not determinative.

של גנב מחשבה מטמאתן – that he acquired them through despair. For he (i.e., the first Tanna) holds that mere theft is despair of the honors, for they do not know from whom to make a claim.

Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief do not become susceptible by intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery. Rabbi Shimon reverses the reasoning expressed by the previous opinion. When a thief steals something, the owner hopes to get it back, because all he must do is discover who the thief is and he will be able to recover his item. But when a robber robs a person, right in front of their eyes and there was nothing they could do to stop it, the owner loses hope of recovering the item. [Note there is little faith in any form of law enforcement]. Therefore, a robber's intentions are determinative, and a thief's are not.

ושל גזלן מחשבה מטמאתן (but of a robber, intention does not make them susceptible to uncleanness) – for even though he thought of them (i.e., the hides) for something where there is no loss of work, for a mere robbery there is no despair of the owners, for since he knew who stole from him, he goes and makes a claim against him in court.

חילוף הדברים – (see also Talmud Bava Kamma 114a) – there is despair for a mere robbery. For according to his viewpoint, he (i.e., the robber) took from and it is fit and proper for he (i.e., the robber) is a strong/violent man and he despairs, but a mere theft, he (i.e., the owner) holds that the item I is found with the thief and he will make a claim against him in court and will not despair. But the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher.

עור שהוא טמא מדרס – as for example a rug and things similar to it.

If a hide had contracted midras uncleanness and its owner then intended it to be used for straps or sandals, it becomes clean as soon as he put the knife to it, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: it does not become clean until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths. The hide mentioned here is one that has already been designated for a use and then contracted midras uncleanness. The owner then decided to cut the hide up and use the leather for straps or sandals. Leather cut into straps for such use is pure (until it is attached to another vessel). According to Rabbi Judah, as soon as he begins to cut the leather up, it loses its status as a hide and it becomes pure. The other sages argue that it is not pure until it is reduced to a size of less than five handbreadths. A piece of hide less than five handbreadths in size is not considered usable (we will learn this in 27:2) and is pure. But simply beginning to cut the hide is not a sufficient act to free it from its impurity.

אף העושה מטפחת מן העור – which is impure through treading.

Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: even if one made a napkin from a hide it remains unclean, But if [he made one from] a covering it becomes clean. According to Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok, if one makes a small napkin out of a large hide used as a rug, the hide is still impure because a napkin is considered just a small rug. Merely reducing the size of a hide is not the type of physical change required to rid it of its impurity, because the leather is still being used in the same manner. However, if he changes a covering into a napkin he has changed the nature of the hide's usage. In this case, even though he changed it into another item that is susceptible to impurity (a napkin is susceptible), it loses its old impurity. While the new item will be susceptible, the impurity that was within the hide is gone.

טמאה – the towel/kerchief, for the towel/kerchief is similar to the rug, for sometimes he sits upon it. But if he cut the ritually impure chairs of hide and made of them towels/kerchiefs, since ) (it is something from vessels that were broken. But however, they are susceptible to receive ritual impurity from here onwards, as is taught in the Mishnah about in Chapter 24 [Mishnah 12].