may be acquired and used, except for vessels of gold and silver, …

His statement, “may be acquired and used”: “may be acquired” is the predicate of the subject, namely, “every vessel.” The wording here is somewhat potentially misleading, because from the phrase, “may be acquired and used,” one might mistakenly suppose that it is an adjective rather than the predicate, and thus await the predicate. It would therefore have been preferable had he said: “Every pure vessel, even if valuable, may be acquired.” In any case, the meaning is clear.

His statement, “acquired and used”: there is a difference between acquisition and use. Acquisition means merely possessing it, whether for adornment, for use in cases of necessity, for buying and selling, and similar purposes.

Use, on the other hand, means actually making use of it—that is, using it for the purpose for which it is used.

Thus, acquiring such vessels is permissible, even if they exceed one’s immediate need. If someone has a teapot and wishes to buy another one, that is permissible. In other words, it is permissible to acquire it even if he does not presently use it, but acquires it because he may need it; he may sell it, someone may borrow it from him, what he has may become damaged, or guests may arrive for whom what he has is insufficient.

His statement, “except for vessels of gold and silver”: among the principles of legal theory is that “an exception is the criterion of generality.”

This means that when someone makes an exception from a general statement, everything other than the excluded case falls under the ruling. Accordingly, everything may be acquired except vessels of gold and silver.

Some jurists mentioned another exception, saying: except for a human bone.