Комментарий к Келим 28:13

שלש על שלש שנתנה בכדור – a cloth of three fingerbreadths by three-fingerbreadths that was placed within a ball, PLOTA in the foreign language.

[A piece of cloth] three [fingerbreadths] square that was stuffed into a ball or was itself made into a ball is clean.
But [a piece of cloth] three [handbreadths] square that was stuffed into a ball remains unclean.
If he made it into a ball itself, it is clean because the sewing reduces its size.
Section one: By making this small piece of cloth either into a ball or using it as stuffing for a ball, the cloth loses its importance and it becomes clean from impurity. Note that this does not mean that the ball is necessarily clean. It just means that the piece of cloth that used to be unclean has shed its impurity.
Section two: In contrast, if one takes a larger piece of cloth and puts it into a ball it is still susceptible to impurity because it is still significant. However, if he sews the cloth into a ball itself, it still loses its impurity because it loses its size. A ball that is made of a less than three handbreadths piece of cloth is not large enough to be susceptible to impurity.

או שעשאה כדור – that he took a cloth and wrapped it up round like a kind of ball, like the young children do, and sewed it.

טהורה – that it became voided when it it was placed in a ball, and all the more so, when he made a ball of it by itself that it became voided through sewing.

אבל שלשה על שלשה (but three – handbreadths—by three – handbreadths) – it was not voiced through its being placed within the ball, because it is preserved there. But if he made of it a ball by itself, it is ritually pure, because the sewing diminishes it, and it is pure from treading/Midras uncleanness. But it is impure in all of the other defilements according to the law of all three-handbreadths by three-handbreadth objects that were diminished.

לפוק\ (to fill up a gap) – to stop up holes that are in the bath house so that the heat doesn’t leave.

[A piece of cloth] less than three [handbreadths] square that was adapted for the purpose of stopping up a hole in a bath house, of emptying a cooking-pot or of wiping with it the mill stones, whether it was or was not kept in readiness for any such use, is susceptible to uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. According to Rabbi Eliezer, any time a worn-out piece of cloth that was too small to be impure was adapted for a specific use it goes back to being susceptible to impurity. The cloth might be used to stop up a hole in the floor of a bath-house. It might be used to hold a hot pot so that one could pour out its contents. Or it might be used to wipe up millstones. Rabbi Eliezer says that the cloth is impure whether or not it was previously designated for such usage. In other words, as long as it is being used, it is susceptible.

ולנער בו את הקדרה (to empty out the contents of the pot/dish) – to hold on to the pot in order to pour from it into a dish or into a tray.

Rabbi Joshua says: whether it was or was not kept in readiness it is pure. Rabbi Joshua completely disagrees and holds that since the cloth is less than three handbreadths and it is worn out, it is no longer susceptible.

בין מוכן בין שאינו מוכן (whether kept in readiness or not) – in the Chapter, “With what [wicks] do we kindle [Sabbath lights]” {Tractate Shabbat folio 29a--b, chapter 2) it proves that when he places it in a box, everyone doesn’t argue about it that it is ritually impure, for it is his intention. But when he throws it into the trash, everyone doesn’t argue about it that it is ritually pure, for he has voided it. Where they argue is where he suspended it upon a frame to spread clothes on, KOYLIYA in the foreign language, or left it behind the door. Rabbi Eliezer holds that whether he left it upon a frame to spread clothes on, that it appears as ready to throw it in the garbage, or whether he left it behind the door, that it appears that is not ready concerning leaving it in a box, it is always impure as long as he didn’t throw it into the garbage. But Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is always pure all the time that he did not put it in a box. But Rabbi Akiba holds that suspending it upon a fame to spread clothes on, it is [considered] ready and it is as if he placed it in a box and it is impure, but if he left it behind the door, it is [considered] that it is not ready, for it is as if he threw it into the garbage and it is ritually pure. But there (in Tractate Shabbat 29a-b), it concludes that Rabbi Akiba retracted in favor of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

Rabbi Akiba ruled: if it was kept in readiness it is susceptible, and if it was not kept in readiness it is pure. Rabbi Akiva mediates between these two warring sages. If it was designated for such usage, then it was intentionally not thrown away (see 27:12). In this case it is still susceptible to impurity. However, if it was not designated for such usage, then even using it in such a manner does not change the fact that the cloth was discarded. In such a case, it is not susceptible to impurity.

אספלנית (plaster) – a bandage/dressing that they make from milk, and wax and butter and [olive] oil and similar things. And they strike a plaster/rub a salve on the cloth or on the [leather] hide or they place it on the wound and it is repulsive, for the cloth nor the hide are appropriate any longer for sitting or for any other use.

If a bandage is made of cloth or leather it is pure. (Rabbi Yose says: with leather it is pure.) A piece of cloth or leather that is used as a bandage on a wound will not afterwards be used for another purpose. Therefore, it is pure. Serving as a bandage is not sufficient for it to be considered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose's words are not found in many manuscripts of the Mishnah and they are probably out of place here. There actual context is mishnah six.

מלוגמא (poultice/plaster) – a bandage/dressing that is made from flour and figs and similar things, that a person chews and places upon the wound. And an explanation [of the word] מלוגמא is a mouthful/quantity of liquid filling one cheek.

A poultice is pure if it is on cloth, but if on leather it is susceptible. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: even if it was on cloth it remains susceptible to uncleanness because it can be shaken off. If one puts a poultice on cloth, the cloth will no longer be used for another purpose. Therefore it is pure. However, if he puts it on leather, the leather can be cleaned off and reused. Therefore, the leather remains susceptible to impurity. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that even if put on cloth the poultice could be shaken off and the cloth reused. Therefore, the cloth also remains susceptible to impurity.

בבגד טהור – because the cloth is repulsive and is voided and is further not appropriate for use.

ובעור טמא – because the poultice does not cling on the hide like on the cloth, and the hide is not voided through this.

מפני שהיא ננערת (because it is shaken off) – after it dried up from upon the cloth, it is shaken off and is detached on its own from upon the cloth and all the soiling departs. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel.

מצויירות טהורות – for their form proves upon them that they are designated for Scrolls alone, and not for the use of a person, and all that is not for usage of a person, is ritually pure.

Covers of scrolls, whether they are decorated or not, are susceptible to uncleanness according to the view of Bet Shammai. According to Bet Shammai, one might take a scroll covering and convert it for another usage. Therefore, it is susceptible to impurity.

ואינן מצוירות – designated also for the rest of the usages, therefore they are ritually impure. But the School of Shammai who [states] that they defile, whether they are painted [with figures] or not, because coverings for [Torah] Scrolls are considered for the usage of humans, that they are made to be used by them always.

Bet Hillel says: those that are decorated are pure, but those that are not decorated are susceptible. Bet Hillel says that this is true only of an undecorated scroll cover. It might be converted to other usage. However, a decorated scroll cover is not susceptible because one would take such a beautiful scroll cover and use it for some other need. Note that this accords with the mishnah in 24:14.

אלו ואלו טהורות – for since they were designated for [Torah] scrolls, it is further not for human usage. But the Halakha is not according to Rabban Gamaliel.

Rabban Gamaliel says: both the former and the latter are pure. Rabban Gamaliel says that even undecorated scroll covers will not be used for another purpose. Therefore they are pure.

כיפה – a wrap that is on the head of a woman. And it has defilement through treading, for sometimes she sits upon it.

Introduction This mishnah deals with various cases where one cloth item that is susceptible to impurity is turned into a different item that is also susceptible to impurity. The question is: does it lose its earlier impurity?

ונתנו על הספר – if he designated it for a Scroll and wrapped it upon it (i.e., the Scroll).

If a head-wrap that had contracted midras uncleanness was wrapped around a scroll, it is released from midras uncleanness but it remains susceptible to corpse uncleanness. Head-wraps are susceptible to midras impurity for occasionally a person will use it for sitting. However, undecorated scroll covers are susceptible only to corpse uncleanness (see yesterday's mishnah). So when he changes the head-wrap to a scroll cover it loses its midras uncleanness but it is now susceptible to corpse uncleanness.

טהור מן המדרס – but it is impure regarding other defilements.

A skin that was made into a rug or a rug that was made into a skin becomes clean. A skin for carrying liquids is not in the same category as a rug. Therefore, if one changes a skin into a rug or vice versa, the vessel is pure. Note that it is susceptible to impurity; it only loses its old impurity.

חמת (waterskin) – a bottle made of [leather] hide.

A skin that was made into a [shepherd's] wallet or a [shepherd's] wallet that was made into a skin; Or a cushion cover that was made into a sheet or a sheet that was made into a cushion cover; Or a sheet cover that was made into a plain sheet or a plain sheet that was made into a sheet cover, remains unclean. In all of these cases he changes something to something else that is in the same general category. Therefore, the object retains its impurity.

שעשאו שטיח – a hide stretched on the ground to sit upon it. And a waterskin and a rug are both impure through treading/Midras, and even so, since they are different one from the other, and even without the change of action, it is like a vessel that is broken and is pure, but it is susceptible to receive defilement from here onwards.

This is the general rule: any object that has been changed into one of the same class remains unclean, but if into one of another class it becomes clean. This is the general rule that explains the distinction between the case found in section two and that found in section three.

כסת שעשאו מטפחת ומטפחת שעשאו כסת טהור (a bolster/cushion that one made into a wrap and a wrap that one made into a bolster/cushion is pure) – And we don’t have the reading of טמא/impure [as does the Mishnah]. And this is the reading of my Rabbis/teachers. And similarly, I found in an accurate Mishnah. And this is proved from the Tosefta (see Tosefta Kelim Bava Batra, Chapter 6, Halakha 1), and the reason that in all of them, it is pure, as is taught in the Mishnah close by (our Mishnah): “This is the general principle: Anything which one changed for [something] in its own category is impure, and for [something in] another category is pure./"זה הכלל: כל ששנהו לשמו – טמא, לשם אחר – טהור"’, and it explains in the Tosefta: for something in its own category – from a flat vessel to a flat vessel, as for example, from a rug to a wrap or from a wrap to a rug, and in another category, from a simple vessel to a receptacle or from a receptacle to a simply vessel, and also from one receptacle to another receptacle, everything that is a change that is not in its own category is ritually pure. And if so, the waterskin that was made into a bag that he changed it from one [kind of] receptacle to another kind of receptacle is also ritually pure. But if you raise the question, why didn’t they combine them and teach them [together] a waterskin that was made into a rug and a rug that was made into a waterskin at the same time, since all of them are ritually pure. But it is not difficult, because he needed to go back and teach [waterskin] another time, as it taught the waterskin that was made into a bag, and he would have had to teach a waterskin that was made into a rug or a bag, and he didn’t want to change fro the order of the other things. But most of the books have the reading of "טמא"/impure, and I don’t know how to resolve this “reading” correspondingly.

מטלית (a patch) – which is impure through treading, and one batched it onto a basket. But the basket is not something that can become impure by treading, but when he placed the patch on the basket, the basket was defiled, because it came in contact with the patch that is impure through treading, and this is contact of treading. But the patch, when the patching had been completed, the defilement of treading flew off from it, because it was voided concerning the basket and a basket is not suitable for treading uncleanness.

If a patch was sewn on to a basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness. The piece of cloth (the patch) discussed in today's mishnah was already defiled with midras impurity. Then someone used it to patch up a basket, thereby transforming it from a vessel that is sat upon to a vessel that is not sat upon. The patch loses its midras impurity. The entire basket, including the patch, is now impure by virtue of its contact with something that had midras impurity. This is first degree impurity and anything that touches it will now have second degree impurity. This is what the mishnah means when it states "it conveys one grade of uncleanness." And when terumah touches something with second degree impurity, it becomes "unfit," although it is not impure. This is the meaning of "one of unfitness."

מטמאה אחד ופוסלת אחד (renders unclean at first remove and renders unfit at one) – like the law of vessels that came in contact with treading uncleanness, and they explained, that it is taught in the Mishnah at the end of [Tractate] Zabim (Chapter 5, Mishnah 6): "הנוגע במשכב מטמא שנים ופוסל אחד"/If a person touched a bed (i.e., the uncleanness caused by an unclean person lying on a object) imparts uncleanness at two removes (at one step and this in turn at another)and renders [heave-offering] unfit at one further remove,” he explained imparting uncleanness at two removes and rendering [heave-offering] unit at one remove, that all the while that the vessel touches the [object] that is unclean through treading, we consider it as a primary source of ritual uncleanness regarding foods to make them first and second degree uncleanness for profane things and third-level of uncleanness for heave offering. But when he separated himself, it is like the offspring of uncleanness (i.e., acquired through contact with any primary source of uncleanness or derivative uncleanness of such) which makes it second-degree of ritual uncleanness for profane things and third-level uncleanness for heave offering alone, which is that it defiles by one degree and invalidates by one degree.

If it was separated from the basket, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, but the patch becomes clean. If he separates the patch from the basket, the basket retains its level of impurity, but the patch is pure. Note that it has shed its midras impurity (see 18:8).

הפרישה (if he removed/separated it) – the patch from the basket, the asked is an offspring of uncleanness, like it was prior to his removing it, but the patch is pure, for since he patched it on the basked, it became like the basket, and it is like a piece of the wall that he took from the basket that the piece is ritually pure. But however, if after its removal from the basket he considered it for sitting, it receives impurity from he onwards if had in it like the measure [for impurity].

If it was sewn on to cloth it conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. If he puts the patch on a piece of cloth, it doesn't lose its midras impurity and all of the cloth becomes impure with midras. This is because the function of the cloth has not changed. Something that has midras impurity is a "father of uncleanness" and conveys first degree uncleanness to things that come into contact with it. Therefore, this cloth conveys two degrees of uncleanness (father to first degree to second degree) and one degree of unfitness (second to third degree).

טלאה על הבגד (if he patched it on to the cloth) – not that it had been voided from the uncleanness of treading, for he defiles the cloth in two counts and invalidates it in one like the law of vessels that touch uncleanness through treading all the while that he did not remove it.

If it was separated from the cloth, it conveys one grade of uncleanness and one of unfitness, while the patch conveys two grades of uncleanness and one of unfitness. When it is removed from the cloth, the cloth's level of impurity is reduced. Now it only has "contact with midras" impurity, which is first degree. The patch, however, never changed its status, and therefore it still has midras impurity.

הפרישה מן הבגד – the law of cloth is like that of vessels that came in contact with [defilement] and then separated/removed it. It defiles at one remove and invalidates at one remove, for the patch, it is like it was, that it had never been voided, and defiles at two removes and invalidates at one.

The same law applies to a patch was sewn on to sacking or leather, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says that it is clean. Rabbi Yose says: if [it was sewn] on leather it becomes clean; but if on sacking it remains unclean, since the latter is a woven material. According to Rabbi Meir, it doesn't matter whether the cloth onto which the patch was sewn was made of cloth, sacking or leather. Rabbi Meir holds that sacking and leather are really types of cloth and therefore in all cases when the patch is removed, it retains its impurity. Rabbi Shimon holds that sacking and cloth are not types of cloth. Therefore, it is like patching a basket which is of a different type, and when he removes the patch it will be pure. Rabbi Yose holds that sacking is a sub-category of cloth because like cloth it is woven. However, leather is different from cloth and therefore, if used to patch a cloth and then removed, the patch is pure.

וכן הטולה (and similarly one who patches) – a patch.

על השק או על העור – like patching on the cloth and it is not voided [and remains unclean].

ר' שמעון מטהר – for he holds that the sack and the hide it is voided, for it is not of its kind. But Rabbi Yossi holds, that with a sack that is woven like it is not voided, but on a hide, since it is not woven, is voided. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

שלש על שלש שאמרו (three-fingerbreadths by three-fingerbreadths – that they spoke of) – that it is susceptible to corpse defilement and reptile and carrion.

The three ( square of which they have spoken do not include the hem, the words of Rabbi Shimon. But the sages say: exactly three [fingerbreadths] square. In 27:2 we learned that for a piece of cloth to be susceptible to impurity it must be at least three fingerbreadths square. According to Rabbi Shimon, this does not include the hem. Some commentators interpret this to mean that it doesn't include the strings that come out of the edges of the piece of cloth. The other rabbis disagree and hold that as long as the piece of cloth is at least three fingerbreadths square, the cloth is susceptible to impurity.

חוץ מן המלל – what the weaver leaves over at the top of he cloth, like the measure of two fingerbreadths, and it is branch/locks of the cloth, which is called מלל/hem. And since it is the warp/longitudinal direction alone and there is no woof/latitudinal direction, it does not combine for weaving. But my Teachers/Rabbis explain [the word] מלל, just as he hems and doubles the stitch in the place of he incision, because it is the manner of the threads to extend where they shouldn’t extend and the sewing is ruined.

If a patch was sewn on to a cloth by one side only, it is not considered as connected. If a patch is sewn on to the cloth and it is attached only at one side, then it is not considered to be attached to the cloth. If the cloth is impure, the patch remains pure and vice versa.

מכוונות (exactly)– and the hem is included in all of this.

If it was sewn on by two opposite sides, it is considered connected. If it was sewn on two opposite sides, it is sufficiently attached for it to be considered connected and for impurity to be conveyed from one to the other.

טלייה על הבגד מרוח אחת – the path is impure through treading and he sewed it on the the cloth in the middle from one direction [only], but from three directions, it is suspending and not attached to the cloth.

If it was sewn on the shape of a gamma: Rabbi Akiva says that the cloth is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. To be sewn on in the shape of a gamma means that it was sewn on two perpendicular sides. Rabbi Akiva considers this connection to be sufficient to convey impurity from the patch to the cloth and vice versa. But the sages say that if the patch is unclean, the cloth remains clean because this is not sufficient for it to be considered connected.

אינו חיבור- and the cloth is not impure through treading uncleanness.

Rabbi Judah stated: When does this apply? To a cloak, but in the case of an undershirt the patch is regarded as connected if it was sewn by its upper side, but if by its lower side it is not connected. Rabbi Judah says that the rule in section two applies only if the garment under discussion is a cloak that is worn above one's other garments. In such a case, a patch sewn on by one side will not stay well on the garment. But when it comes to an undershirt, if the patch is sewn to the shoulder part of the shirt, it will stay in place and therefore it is considered connected. But if it is sewn by one side only onto the lower side of the shirt, it will not stay in place and therefore it is not considered connected.

משתי רוחות זו כנגד זו (from two directions – one opposite the other) – as for example, that it is sewn from the east and the west, but it is not sewn from the north and south. Or its reverse. This is a connection and the cloth is impure through treading uncleanness.

כמין גאם – that it is sewn east and south, or west and north.

במה דברים אמורים – that it is not a connector other than from two directions/sides, one opposite the other.

בטלית – for it is not the manner of dress/clothing other than that wrapping upon it alone.

אבל בחלוק (but a shirt) – that we wear, is always a connector, unless the upper rim/hem is sewn. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

בגדי עניים – which are made from small individual pieces, and there isn’t in all of them one whole piece that has three [fingerbreadths] by three [fingerbreadths].

Poor men's clothes, though made up of pieces none of which is three [fingerbreadths] square are susceptible to midras uncleanness. Poor people's clothing is susceptible to midras uncleanness even if each piece is smaller than three fingerbreadths square. This is because poor people settle for whatever clothing they can find and therefore what they consider worthy of wearing might be thrown out by others.

הרי אלו טמאים מדרס – for since there is in all of the cloth as a whole three handbreadths by three handbreadths or more, the entire cloth is impure with treading uncleanness.;

If a cloak began to be torn, as soon as its greater part is torn [the pieces] are not regarded as connected. The two parts of the cloak are considered to be separate once the greater part of the cloak is torn. At this point, if one piece is impure, the other can remain pure.

כיון שנקרע רובה אינו חיבור – but if the one end is defiled, the other end is not defiled.

Exceptionally thick or thin materials are not governed by the prescribed minimum of three [fingerbreadths] square. If material is exceptionally thin or thick, it is not usable. Therefore, it is not subject to the usual rule that a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square is susceptible to impurity.

העבים והרכים – the most thick and huge clothing, such as the thick, full or felted stuff and the large ones. And the most soft and thin, such as that of silk and that which is hatchelled.

אין בהן משום שלש על שלש – and they are not defiled through corpse defilement nor the rest of the defilements until there they will have three-handbreadths or more, because [less than] three [fingerbreadths] by three [fingerbreadths] is not worth anything.

כסת הסבלין (the cushion which load-carriers wear on their heads) – that carry loads on their shoulders or on their heads, there is small cushion on their heads or upon their shoulders so that the load doesn’t damage them, and sometimes they sit upon it.

A porter's pad is susceptible to midras uncleanness. A porter's pad is what the porter places on his back to help him carry his load. Since he sometimes sits on it while resting, it is susceptible to midras impurity.

משמרת של יין אין בה משום מושב (the strainer for wine is not susceptible to sitting uncleanness) – for we don’t sit on it because of the sediment.

A wine filter is not susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. People don’t sit on wine filters, so they are not susceptible to uncleanness as seats.

סבכה של זקנה טמאה מושב (the head-dress/net of an old woman is not susceptible to sitting uncleanness) – because of what is taught in the chapter “Three Shields”/שלשה תריסין (Tractate Kelim, Chapter 24, Mishnah 16), that the head-dress/net of an elderly woman is defiled through corpse uncleanness, that is implies, but not because of seating, it is necessary to explain that there are two kinds of head-dress/nets for elderly women, one that is not appropriate for sitting up and it is defiled through corpse uncleanness, and the other head-dress/net, sometimes she sits upon it, and the Mishnah here comes t to teach that it is susceptible to sitting.

An old woman's hair-net is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. An old woman might sit occasionally on her hair net. Therefore, it is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. Note that this mishnah disagrees with a mishnah that we learned in 24:16.

חלוק של יוצאת החוץ – it is the Aramaic translation of a whore – a creature that goes out.

A prostitute's shirt which is woven like a net is not susceptible to uncleanness. A prostitute's shirt is not considered clothing. I guess it was simply too revealing. Therefore, it is not susceptible to uncleanness, just as her hair covering is not susceptible (see 24:16).

עשוי כדבכה – it has many windows like the making of a net and her skin can be seen outside.

A garment made of fishing net is not susceptible to uncleanness, but one made of its bag is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a garment is made out of a fishing net but is made double it is susceptible to uncleanness. The garment made of fishing net is not substantial enough to count as clothing, therefore it is not susceptible. But the bag at the bottom (see 23:5) is closed and therefore if one makes a garment out of it, the garment is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that if the fishing net is doubled over, then it too is substantial enough for a garment made of it to be susceptible.

מן החרם (from the net) – from the net-work. And his skin is seen, therefore it is pure.

מן זוטו (from the fishing net/solid web of network) – there is at the bottom of the netting a bit that is woven made in the cloth. And it is called זוטו של רשת /webbing of the net.

וכפלו (and doubled it up) – and he doubled up the netting and sewed it, and his skin is not seen from within it.

טמא – for it is considered a cloth. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

קורקורקתה (lower border of a web) – the hem and the bottom, like the rimmed bottom of the vessels.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with the susceptibility to impurity of a hair-net.

עד שיגמור את פיה (until he completes its hem) – its upper rim/hem, that does not descend into defilement until he completes all of its work.

A hair-net that one began to make from its upper hem remains pure until its bottom section is finished. If one began from its bottom section, it remains pure until its hem is finished. When making a hair-net, it is not considered completed until both the top hem and bottom hem are finished, and it doesn't matter whether one begins to sew from top to bottom or bottom to top.

שביס שלה (the band of the net) – from the language of “the bands and the enclosed places.” It is a painting that one makes on the hairnet for beauty. It stands on her forehead and surrounds it from eat to ear. And it is also considered on its own, that it is made to remove it from there, and to place it in another hairnet.

Its head band is susceptible to uncleanness in itself. The head band is considered a vessel independent of the rest of the hair-net and therefore is susceptible even if separate. Furthermore, it is not considered connected to the head band and if it is impure, the hair-net can still be pure.

טמאים משום חיבור – that if the hairnet is defiled, all the stings are defiled with it. For it were strings/threads without the hairnet, it would not be susceptible to receive ritual defilement.

Its strings are susceptible to uncleanness because they are connected. The strings which come out of the hair-net are considered connected, because they cannot be removed. Therefore, if the hair-net is impure, the strings are impure as well.

A hair-net that is torn becomes pure if it cannot contain the greater part of the hair. Once the hair-net is torn enough such that it cannot contain the greater part of the hair, it is no longer functional and it is not susceptible to impurity.

אם אינה מקבלת את רוב השער – of the head, it is pure/clean.