Mikvaot - Chapter 6

Even if it does not enter the receptacle. See also Halachah 6.

Through man’s conscious effort. See Chapter 4, Halachot 3-5.

See the following halachah.

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 6:2. See also the notes to that halachah that distinguish between containers made of earth and earthenware containers.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 4:3), the Rambam explains that the term refers to plumbing pipes used to convey water from one place to another. At times, the pipe widens so that, when the other end is opened the water flows out with greater pressure. In other instances, a pipe is curved at the bottom and water collects there. Diagram

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaos 4:5; Parah 5:7), the Rambam speaks about a crevice in a mountain or a hollow in a rock, i.e., a receptacle that it is part of the natural setting. The standard published text of the latter source speaks even of a receptacle hewn into stone. For since the stone was left in its natural setting, it is not considered as a k'li. The Rambam does (ibid.:8), however, differentiate between a reservoir of rock in its natural setting and a rock that was removed from its natural setting and hollowed out to contain water.

Thus joining it permanently. See also the following two halachot.

As long as water flows out of the hole from below, regardless of its size, the container is no longer considered as a k’li after it is attached to the stone and the water it contains does not disqualify a mikveh.

Since the hole is being made from the side, it must be larger. As the Siftei Cohen 201:22 emphasizes, the hole must be made at the very bottom of the side of the container. Otherwise, there is a portion of the container that is still fit to hold liquids and this disqualifies it for use as a mikveh.
In his Kessef Mishneh and his Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 201, Rav Yosef Caro notes that the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch is larger than the measure necessary to disqualify a container mentioned in the following halachah. Rav Yosef Caro offers several possible resolutions. One of them is that here the hole was made after the trough was connected to the stone, implying that if it was made beforehand, a smaller measure would be sufficient. Alternatively, the container joined to the stone was itself made of stone. Since a stone container is not susceptible to ritual impurity, there is no concept of a hole which removes it from susceptibility to impurity, for stone containers are never impure. Hence, the hole must be the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch. Or, he suggests, perhaps this stringency is a safeguard, lest one join a container to a stone without making a hole in it.

Indeed, the Mishnah (Mikveot, loc. cit.) speaks of such a trough in Jerusalem and states that all the pure articles in Jerusalem were immersed in a mikveh whose water flowed through this trough (see Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., with regard to containers made from wood or bone, the hole must be large enough for pomegranates to fall through (Hilchot Keilim 6:2). If the container is made of metal, the hole must be large enough to prevent the container from performing its function (ibid. 11:1); and if it is made of earthenware, the hole must be large enough for olives to fall out (ibid. 19:1).
The Rambam’s ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:7. The Rama cites Rabbenu Asher and the Tur who require that the hole be as large as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch.

Although immersion in a container is unacceptable, making the hole and then affixing it in the ground causes the barrel or the trough to be removed from the category of keilim and therefore acceptable for immersion. While the Ra’avad accepts the idea that water that passes through such a trough is not considered as drawn, he objects to the leniency of immersing in the trough. The Kessef Mishneh, however, supports the Rambam’s ruling.
In fact, until a few centuries ago, it was common to make mikveot in this manner. A hole was dug in the ground above a natural spring. A wooden tub was taken, a hole was made in it, and then it was placed inside the hole in the ground (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Tikkunei Mikveh).

Pebbles and the like.

Because this is considered an indication that one is building with it, rather than leaving it as a container (Kessef Mishneh). See note 17.

The lime and gypsum form an effective means of plugging the hole and thus the trough could still be considered as a container. Since the trough exists as a separate entity, the water it contains is considered as drawn.

To affix it to the ground permanently.

As explained by the Kessef Mishneh and the Siftei Cohen 201:25, two factors are necessary to enable immersion: the trough must be nullified as a container because of the hole and it must be permanently affixed to the earth. The first law spoke of a situation where a hole in the ground was dug out and the trough placed inside, or at least permanently set there. This is only acceptable if the hole was plugged with lime and with building materials. The second law describes a situation where the trough is plugged with lime or with gypsum, but not with building materials. Here the trough is placed above the ground, but in a permanent place. Nevertheless, since it is permanently attached to the ground, it is acceptable.

Rabbenu Shimshon requires the tablet to have borders on all four sides. The Ma’aseh Rokeach, however, rules that having the border on three sides is sufficient to have it considered as a receptacle. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:35 accepts Rabbenu Shimshon’s position.

The borders cause the tablet to be considered as a container [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 4:2)]. The water that passes over it is thus considered as drawn.

The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). The Bayit Chadash interprets this to mean that the person stood the tablet up in a manner that the water would flow down the side that did not have a border.

Incidentally, this ruling sheds light on another principle relevant to constructing a mikveh. In his commentary to the above mishnah, Rabbenu Asher rules that if the water could not have reached the mikveh without the tablet being present, the mikveh is unacceptable, because the tablet is susceptible to ritual impurity· and the water must be able to flow into the mikveh without being assisted by anything susceptible to impurity. The Tosafot Yom Tov (gloss to Mikveot 5:2) states that, as evident from Chapter 9, Halachah 10, the Rambam does not accept this principle. The Siftei Cohen 201:105, however, differs, resolving the issue by differentiating between water coming from a spring and rainwater. Nevertheless, Shulchan Aruch, op. cit. 201:35 accepts Rabbenu Asher’s position.

Generally, as reflected by the following clause, we follow the rule that an object permanently attached to the earth is considered as subsumed to the earth and, like the earth, is not susceptible to ritual impurity. This instance, however, is an exception, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Hence, its status does not change afterwards.

While the pipe is attached to the earth, it is never considered as an independent k’li.

An earthenware receptacle is considered as a container even though it can hold less than a revi’it (see Hilchot Keilim 18:13). Nevertheless, here the crevice is being placed in the pipe to collect stones. Unless it is large enough to contain a revi’it, it will not serve that purpose effectively. Hence, a smaller crevice is insignificant (Mishnah Achronah)

They are, however, lying loosely there.

Becoming hard like cement [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaos 4:3)].

Because the pipe is no longer considered as a receptacle.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaos 6:4), the Rambam emphasizes that this leniency applies provided the water from the sponge or the bucket does not mix with the water of the mikveh, e.g., the bucket has a very narrow opening (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:16).

The sea is considered as a mikveh. Nevertheless, generally, it is forbidden to immerse inside a k’li. In this instance, there is room for leniency, as will be explained.

Even though these keilim are so large that they are not susceptible to ritual impurity, they are considered keilim and, hence, it is forbidden to immerse in them.

In such an instance, even though the water in these keilim is considered as a distinct entity, since it is joined to the sea by a hole of the proper size (see Chapter 8, Halachah 6), it is acceptable for immersion.

Because the water in these containers is considered as joined to the water of the sea [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 6:5)]. This applies even if the individual hole of the sack or the basket are not as large as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch. The Ram. a writes (Yoreh De’ah 201:9), that one may immerse keilim in a basket or sack as an initial preference and, indeed, this is a common practice.

In contrast to other containers, see Chapter 4, Halachah 4, 6:1.

The term the Rambam. uses refers to a broken piece of a utensil that is used as a base to catch fluids that drip from other utensils. See Hilchot Keilim 18:5.

As mentioned above, generally, immersion inside a k’li is unacceptable. Nevertheless, since the base is a broken utensil and it is inside the mikveh and open to its waters, this principle is not applied [the Commentaries of Rabbenu Asher and Rabbenu Shimshon (Mikveot 6:6)].

For earthenware containers impart impurity to liquids found within their inner space. They do not, however, impart impurity to keilim found within their inner space.

This impurity is, however, of Rabbinic origin and is not as severe as impurity of Scriptural origin.

I.e., to regain purity.

Even if portions of this body pass through the impure oven, he himself does not contract impurity, because an earthenware container does not impart impurity to human beings.

The implication is that after he immerses, if any part of his hands pass through the inner space of the oven, they contract impurity immediately (Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 8:1). Although in the first clause, the water does not contract impurity until it emerges from the water entirely, that is because the water that is on the k’li is considered as connected to the water in the mikveh. Hence until the k’li is removed from the water entirely, it does not contract impurity. The person’s hands, however, contract impurity as soon as a portion of them enter the space of the oven [Rabbenu Asher’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

Hilchot Keilim 1:3. Therefore even though the oven was submerged in the water, it remains impure.

Significantly, Rashi and other commentaries to Makkot 4a, the Rambam’s source, do not state “it is impossible...,” but “we suspect that....”

The commentaries all question this ruling, because seemingly, as soon as the water falls into the sea, it becomes part of the sea, just as drawn water poured into a mikveh becomes part of it and is acceptable for immersion, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 6. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the earlier ruling speaks about water poured into a mikveh. Since it was poured intentionally, it became mixed with the mikveh’s waters, while here, the barrel fell unintentionally. In their commentaries to Makkot, op. cit., the Ra’avad and the Ritva offer a novel interpretation explaining that since the drawn water is of a different type than the salt water of the sea, it is not considered as joined to it. See also the responsa of Chavot Ya’ir, responsum 107, which questions this ruling and offers advance praise to anyone who can resolve it.

This ruling has also attracted the attention of the commentaries, for although our Sages decreed that a person who immersed in drawn water imparts impurity to a loaf that is terumah, they did not issue such a decree regarding terumah that fell into drawn water. Rashi, op. cit., explains that the intent is that the impure person imparted impurity to the water and then that water imparted impurity to the loaf that is terumah (Ma’aseh Rokeach). It is, however, questionable if that is the Rambam’s intent.

This is speaking about a situation where there are no waves in the sea and the water remains in one place. If there are waves that cause it to be dispersed, the laws applying to a river would apply in this instance as well.

And the drawn water will be carried from the place it fell and mixed with the river as a whole.

The bracketed addition is necessary, for if there are 40 se’ah of acceptable water in the mikveh, the drawn water will never disqualify it.

Since the drawn water is not mixed with the water of the mikveh, it does not disqualify it.

It was common for bathhouses to have two adjoining pools, one filled with hot water and one with cold water [the gloss of R. Ovadiah of Bartenura (Mikvaos 6:11)]. See diagram.

But contains less than 40 se’ah (Siftei Cohen 201:53).

Certainly, the same ruling applies if the upper pool contains this amount of drawn water and the lower pool contains acceptable water [the gloss of R. Ovadiah of Bartenura (op. cit.)].

The calculation is evident from the figures mentioned at the conclusion of the halachah. There are 24 lugim in a se’ah. Thus 40 se’ah contains 960 lugim. 960 divided by three is 320.
The Rambam is speaking about a situation where the water level of both pools are the same, so there will not be water flowing from one into the other. The hole, however, is large enough for there to be three lugim of water from one pool touching the other water of the other pool.

According to Shiurei Torah, an egg is 57.6 cc, according to Chazon Ish, it is 100 cc.

While the other two contained water acceptable for a mikveh.

I.e., all three mikveot, for even the one that contained drawn water becomes acceptable because its waters come in contact with 40 se’ah of acceptable water [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 6:3); Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:55].

The statement “the mikvaos are pure” means that the water remains acceptable and also the third mikveh becomes acceptable, because it is considered as if it had been joined to the acceptable mikvaos. Needless to say, to immerse in any one of them individually, it is necessary that 20 more se’ah of acceptable water be added (Turei Zahav 201:67).

Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

This ruling does, however, involve a leniency, because the acceptable water in the pools on the sides is not disqualified. Even though it comprises less than 40 se’ah and it comes in contact with drawn water, it remains acceptable. The rationale appears to be that the drawn water is not poured into the pool of acceptable water. Instead, it flows along the surface outside the water. Hence, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 8, it does not disqualify the acceptable water. [This ruling represents a reversal of the Rambam’s thinking from the ruling in his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). There, he states that the water on the sides is disqualified.]