Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Here and in Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 15:1, the Rambam speaks of drawn water. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 1:1), however, he states that this applies only to natural water.

Hilchot Twn’at Ochalin, op. cit. Note the objection of the Ra’avad and the resolution offered by the Kessef Mishneh there.

Or to wash utensils used for challah [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:5).

Implied by the Rambam’s words is that immersion in such water is unacceptable. The Ra’avad states that if the bodies of water do not contain drawn water, one may immerse his hands even if there are less than 40 se’ah of water, provided the water is not drawn. In his Kessef Mishneh and his Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 159, Rabbi Yosef Caro states that the immersion of hands is acceptable only in a mikveh containing 40 se’ah of water that was not drawn or in a spring.

Hilchot Berachot 6:5.

In this, it possesses an advantage over the water in the first category.

Impure water can be purified by being brought into contact with a larger quantity of pure water. This concept — that hashakah is effective when the parent body of water is less than 40 se’ah — is a new idea (Ma’aseh Rokeach).

As described in the previous halachah.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that since the water from a sea and a river are not considered as “living water,” they are not in the same category as a spring. Hence, the laws applying to them differ from those applying to a spring as obvious from the following halachah.

This is also speaking about an instance when there are less than 40 se’ah in the pit that was dug.

And is acceptable for immersion even if it does not contain 40 se’ah, as stated in Halachah 8.

Who must immerse in “living water;” see Halachah 9, and Chapter 1, Halachah 5.

See Chapter 11.

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 8:7; 12:12.

This applies even if there is more drawn water than the water originally present in the spring (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:15). See also Siftei Cohen 201:42. See Halachah 11 where this law is illustrated. The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 201:9) mentions more stringent views which he recommends to follow as an initial preference. Nevertheless, he also fundamentally accepts the Rambam’s view.

Unlike a spring whose water imparts purity even when flowing.

In contrast to a mikveh whose water does not impart purity unless there are 40 se’ah.

From the Rambam’s wording [here, Halachah 8, and his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 1:7)], it can be inferred that a natural spring can impart purity to a human being even when it contains less than forty se’ah (Kessef Mishneh). Now, a man of ordinary size cannot immerse in less than forty se’ah of water. Nevertheless, a woman or a child could immerse in a smaller amount. There are other authorities who do not accept this principle. Their view is accepted by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:1. Nevertheless, all authorities agree that implements can be immersed in a spring even though it contains less than forty se’ah.

Since this water is not fit to drink, the spring is not categorized as “living water.”

When speaking of similar springs in Hilchot Parah 6:12, the Rambam also mentions “hot springs.”

The term used by the Rambam (and his source, Mikveot 1:8, et al.) literally means “crawling.” See Deuteronomy 32:24 which speaks of animals “crawling on the earth.”

I.e., the water sprinkled on a person afflicted with tzara’at must be living water. See Hilchot Tum’at Tzara’at 11:1.

See Hilchot Parah 6:1.

Needless to say, the entire body of the person or the entire article being immersed must be submerged in the water of the spring at the same time (Kessef Mishneh).

The Rambam’s wording implies that even if water is flowing out of the upper portion of a mikveh, if one immerses in the water that is collected, he or she is pure. See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:50.

This refers to a receptacle that is considered as a k'li, an independent container. If it was hewn into the stone itself, it does not disqualify the water as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 3.

For water contained in a k’li or that had been contained in a k’li is considered as drawn. Even though the water is in contact with the natural spring, as long as it is in the k’li, it is unacceptable.

And thus did not enter the receptacle and become disqualified.

The Siftei Cohen 201:33 concludes from the words of the Rama that he would postulate that the water is acceptable for immersion only if it is collected in a reservoir. While it is flowing, it is unacceptable. Nevertheless, the Siftei Cohen himself maintains that it is acceptable for immersion even when flowing.

I.e., makes water fit for immersion.

In contrast to a mikveh where, in certain situations, it is necessary that the point of contact be the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch.

Whether drawn water or water that is acceptable for a mikveh.

Because contact with the natural spring made its water fit for immersion, as in the previous clause.

For these require “living water.”

From the Rambam’s wording, it can be inferred that one must calculate how much water entered the pool and how much of that water flowed out with the water that was originally there. See Chapter 5, Halachah 6, and the commentaries to Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:20.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 5:2), the Rambam states that this law also applies when the water of the spring flows over the outer surface of a receptacle.

And it only purifies when collected in a reservoir and when there are 40 se’ah. Since it passes over the articles, its status declines.
The Turei Zahav 201:23 and the Siftei Cohen 201:35 clarify that this is speaking about a situation where all the water from the spring passes over the article and comes in contact with it. If some does not, it purifies it, as stated in the previous halachah. The Turei Zahav also explains the reason the water is disqualified even though it was never in a container and thus cannot be considered as “drawn” in the simple sense: Since all of the water passes over the article, the article is considered as having intervened between the spring and the water beyond the article. Thus that water is no longer considered as in contact with the spring that is its source.

Previously, it was stated that one may immerse in a chest or cabinet submerged in water. It is possible to distinguish between that instance and the law here as follows. There we are speaking about a container totally submerged in a body of water. Here, by contrast, we are speaking about a situation where the implement separates between the spring and the ground.
Therefore, the situation is comparable to immersing in a wave, as mentioned in Halachah 18.

There was not a large amount of water flowing from the spring and it did not have the power to flow forcefully into the ditches until other water was added to it.

Since the drawn water comes in contact with the water of the spring, it is considered like it, as stated in Halachah 6 [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 5:3)].
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the water of the spring does not purify entities immersed in it when flowing in those areas where its flow would not have reached had the water not been added. The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:2 cites the Rambam’s ruling, but the Siftei Cohen 201:11 states that most authorities follow the Ra’avad’s view.

I.e., in the previous clause, the water was not flowing powerfully, but it was flowing. In this clause, it was not flowing at all.

See Halachah 6 which describes this situation in the abstract.

This applies only when the majority of the water comes from the spring. If the majority is drawn water, it is unacceptable unless there are 40 se'ah collected in the reservoir. See Halachah 13.

See also Halachah 17.

For the water of a sea is not considered “living water.”
The commentaries note that in Hilchot Parah 6:10 (based on the Mishnah, Parah 8:8), the Rambam writes:
The Great Sea is considered like a mikveh and not like a spring. Therefore water to be sanctified may not be drawn from it. [Water from] all of the rivers is unacceptable to be sanctified to [serve as] the water for the [ashes of] the red heifer. Other seas or lakes are like springs.
The Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction in the Rambam’s wording as follows:
The Great Sea (the Mediterranean Sea or the ocean) is never considered like a spring with regard to these three purposes. Other seas and lakes are considered as natural springs and may be used for the three purposes mentioned above. Nevertheless, unlike a spring, they may be used for these purposes only when the water in those bodies is stationary; not when it is flowing.
(In his gloss to Halachah 18, the Kessef Mishneh explains that even the Mediterranean is considered as a spring with regard to ordinary immersion and purifies a person who immerses in it even when the water is flowing. See also Halachah 7, which states that a spring of salty water is not considered as “living water.” Seemingly, this would apply to an entire body of salt water.)

The bracketed addition is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 5:5) which states that this refers to rivers and streams that flow from natural springs.

It imparts purity while flowing even when there are less than 40 se’ah and it is acceptable for situations that require “living water.”

As would happen when there were heavy rains and even more so in areas where there was snow which melted and flowed into rivers.

This law is derived from the conduct of the father of the Sage, Shmuel, who would make enclosures of mats to enable his daughters to immerse in the fall when the rain would flow into the rivers to the extent that there was more rainwater than water from the river’s natural source (Nidah 65b). Significantly, in Chapter 1, Halachah 11, the Rambam learnt a different concept from that passage.
The Rambam’s ruling is quoted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:2. The Rama rules that it is proper to be stringent and follow this ruling. Nevertheless, he does fmd room for leniency if one immerses in a river even in the rainy season, since he maintains that it is unlikely that the amount of rainwater will be more than the water that flows from the river’s source.

Which as stated in Hilchot Keilim 1:8 is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

Although the Rambam uses the term mikveh here, his source (Mikveot 5:5) speaks of water that is dripping from a natural spring.

For a mikveh should be brought into being only by articles that are not susceptible to ritual impurity (ibid.).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Eduyot 7:4).

The person placed the nut shell there so that the water will flow onto the nut shell and from there to a different place (ibid.).

I.e., were the nut shell to be considered as a container, the water would be considered as “drawn.” Nevertheless, since the nut shell imparts its color to the objects with which it comes in contact, it is not fit to be used as a container and, hence, does not disqualify the water.

Because it is considered as if a reservoir has formed.
The commentaries question this ruling, because it appears that even though the containers are susceptible to ritual impurity, it is possible to construct a mikveh from them and several halachot, including the previous one, appear to run contrary to that conclusion. Indeed, on this basis, Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura explains that a similar statement in Mikveot 5:6, the Rambam’s source, follows the perspective of the School of Shammai and is not accepted as halachah.
The Rambam, however, does not consider the mikveh to have been formed by an entity that is susceptible to ritual impurity. The rationale is that, in this instance, the containers that are susceptible to ritual impurity are not bringing the water to the mikveh. They are merely preventing it from flowing away. See Halachah 13 above.

Because they were never totally submerged in the water. Only their outer edge served as a wall for it (the gloss of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Mikveot, op. cit.).

But not for the second tithe, terumah, or sacrificial foods. Such an immersion is acceptable for a woman who seeks to emerge from the nidah state.

Even though the wave is “flowing,” it still imparts purity, because, as stated in Halachah 12, seas are considered as natural springs and impart purity even when flowing. The question is asked: If seas are like natural springs, why are 40 se’ah required? A natural spring imparts purity regardless of the amount of water it contains.
Some commentaries (Turei Zahav 201:6) explain that 40 se’ah are required only for a person, because a smaller quantity of water will not cover a person’s body entirely. Others explain (Siftei Cohen 201:20) that since the wave has flowed out of the basin of the sea proper, greater stringency is required.

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 13:2; see also Chapter 1, Halachah 8, of the present halachot.

To partake of the second tithe, terumah, or sacrificial foods, or to take part in the purification process involving the ashes of the red heifer.

The Rambam is employing a kal vechomer, a fortiori reasoning. If water flowing on the earth is unacceptable, certainly water in the air is unacceptable. The commentaries have, however, raised questions regarding the inference, because it is acceptable to immerse in the flowing water of a sea (see Halachah 12 and the previous halachah).
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that, based on the interpretation offered in the notes there, that one may immerse in the flowing waters of other seas, but not in the flowing water of the Mediterranean Sea (or the ocean), it is possible to say that this halachah is speaking about the Mediterranean Sea. Nevertheless, if that was the Rambam's intent, he should have stated so explicitly. Furthermore, from the concluding clause in the halachah, it appears that water that is flowing is acceptable for immersion. Therefore he explains that the Rambam is speaking in general terms. Just like a spring which drips is unacceptable, so too, a wave in the air is unacceptable.
The Leshad HaShemen offers a different explanation: Since the wave was "separated" from the sea, the leniency of purifying while flowing does not apply and it is only when it is at rest that one may immerse in it.
(Most commentaries accept Rashi’s explanation (Chagigah 19a) that since purity is attained through immersion in a mikveh or a natural spring, any water used for immersion must resemble them and, like them, be in contact with the earth.)

Our translation follows the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text contains a slightly different version.