Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., are considered as objectionable and hence disqualify an immersion.

The fluid that collects on the eyelashes and in the comers of the eyes [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:2)]. See Halachah 20. See also Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:4. See also Turei Zahav 198:3 who mentions opinions that rule leniently for others, aside from a married woman.

Our translation is based on Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). The standard published text renders the term as a scab. See Halachah 20. Fluid secreted by a wound, by contrast, is not considered an intervening substance. See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:9 and commentaries.

See Halachah 20 and notes.

See Psalms 40:3.

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 198:14) writes that if a woman would object to the presence of such mud, it is considered an intervening substance.

Because they will not dissolve in water.

For, when moist, they will dissolve.

For they are more viscous and will not dissolve even when moist.

A limb or flesh that has been dislocated to the extent that it is no longer functional, but instead is like dead flesh.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Y osef Caro offers two interpretations for this law: a) since the limb is dislocated and non-functional, it is considered as if it is detached from the body. Nevertheless, since in fact, it is not detached, it is considered as intervening between the person’s flesh and the water; b) the intent is not that the limb is itself an intervening substance, but that an intervening substance on such a limb is considered significant.
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 298:22), however, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rambam’s words verbatim, seemingly, tending to the first interpretation.

For a man, by contrast, these stringencies do not apply (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:6).

See Chapter 1, Halachah 10. Here the term refers to the genital area. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaot 9:2), a woman frequently has vaginal secretions that she will consider objectionable. For a married woman, this is significant, for this might displease her husband.

The Turei Zahav 198:10 emphasizes that this applies to all married women, even one who is personally not fastidious about cleanliness.

Who is immersing for reasons connected with ritual purity alone, e.g., to partake of terumah or sacrificial food.

Fastened there to hold the portions of the bone in place.

Because they will prevent water from touching the flesh.

The Siftei Cohen 198:28 quotes the Bayit Chadash who rules that even loose bandages and metal plates are considered as intervening substances, because they prevent water from reaching the flesh.

Or the person’s hair and the water [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:1)]. See Hilchot Shabbat 19:6 where these laws are also mentioned.

Covering or intermingled with her own hair. See ibid.:9. See also Halachot 7 and 16 and the notes to them.

If, however, the strands of hair are coated with gold or are dirty, they are considered as intervening substances (Rama, Yoreh De’ah 198:4).

And hence, water will be able to seep below the strands.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaot 9:2), the Rambam explains that this refers to hairs that will become stuck together because of sweat and dirt.

From the Siftei Cohen 198:9, it appears that the rationale is that people find tangled hair in these places objectionable.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:8), this law was originally stated with regard to an arrow shot into a person’s flesh. Nevertheless, the concept has many contemporary applications with regard to surgical inserts into a person’s flesh.

Certainly, this applies if it is covered by flesh [Tur (Yoreh De’ah 198)]. This applies even if the arrow is visible under the skin (Turei Zahav 198:15; Siftei Cohen 198:17).

I.e., to regain purity, a person must immerse and then wait until nightfall.

For the person does not contract impurity from the arrow, as the Rambam proceeds to state.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit 20:1-2.

Human or animal.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that these cracks are considered as “hidden areas” of the body. As stated in the following halachah, although water need not enter these hidden areas, it must be possible for water to enter them.

Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

The Tosefta (Mikveot 8:5) states that such a situation actually occurred and five elders considered· the matter and ruled that the hairs were an intervening substance.

For we assume that it will be washed away in the water.
When quoting this law in his Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:45, R. Yosef Caro also mentions a more stringent view that disqualifies such an immersion unless the person rubs his feet or immerses in hot water.

For every portion of the surface of a person or an implement that is immersed must be in contact with the water of the mikveh.

When quoting this law in his Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.:28, R. Yosef Caro rules that if the person holding the person or the implement loosens his hand, the immersion is acceptable. As noted by the Turei Zahav 198:27 and the Siftei Cohen 198:35, although there are authorities who, like the Rambam rule stringently, in practice, the lenient view is accepted.

The Shulchan Aruch gives the rationale for this ruling: When immersed in the mikveh, the water on the hand of the holder becomes part of the mikveh. As emphasized by the Turei Zahav 198:28, it is not necessary that he dip his hand in the mikveh, for any water that comes in contact with the mikveh is considered as joined to it.

With this phrase, the Rambam was explaining why the immersion is unacceptable, even if the woman’s body was inspected after she emerged from the water and no trace of mud was found. As stated, it is possible that at the time her entire body was immersed, there was mud present and, afterwards, it was washed off.

In all these instances, the fear is that the water could not come in contact with every part of the woman’s hair or body.

For this reason, it is customary for a woman to brush — and floss — her teeth thoroughly before immersion. See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:24.

And thus may engage in intimacy with her husband.

As stated in Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:14-15, the spittle of a nidah (and that of a zav, a zavah, and a woman after childbirth) is a primary source of impurity and imparts impurity to all who come in contact with it. Hence, since the woman's spittle was on the coin and she came in contact with the coin, she contracts impurity (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., both a male and a female.

Note, however, the following halachah.

In contrast to the “hidden parts,” i.e., the genital area of a woman, as stated in Halachah 3. Unlike a woman, a man is less careful about the cleanliness of that area.

Produced as a result of sickness [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:4)].

As stated in Halachah 20, this leniency applies only when the secretion is moist. If it is dry and had changed color, it is considered as an intervening substance. See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions a statement in the Tosefta (Mikveot 6:5) which states that a loosely-hanging nail is not considered an intervening substance when its larger portion has been separated. Although there is room for the inference that when merely the lesser portion has been separated, it is considered an intervening substance, in that text, Rav Yosef Caro explains that the Rambam’s ruling can be reconciled with that source. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.:21, he rules that it is only when the larger portion of a nail has been separated that it is not considered as intervening.

In his gloss to the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:5, the Rama states that there is no difference whether the two hairs are tied with another hair or with themselves.

The Siftei Cohen 198:8 writes that even when a woman is not particular about such a situation, if people at large are, the knotted hair is considered an intervening substance.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 12.

This term refers to a ruling the Rambam reached through a process of deduction without any explicit prior Rabbinic source.
The Ra’avad states that the ruling of the Geonim should be adhered to. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro writes that, from the Talmudic sources, it is impossible to clarify which is the desired approach. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.:5, he accepts the approach of the Geonim.

We have used the commonly accepted translation of the term chofefet. It must, however, be noted that, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 7:3), the Rambam makes a distinction between being chofeif, which he translates as separating with one’s hand, and soreik, which he defines as meaning to comb out with a comb. It is, however, possible to explain that the term has different meanings, depending on the context. See also Halachah 18.

The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 199:3 has a slightly different conception of the optimum approach to following this ordinance:
As an initial preference, the combing out of her hair should be close to [a woman’s] immersion. A proper custom is for her to begin combing out her hair during the day and be involved in the combing until nightfall and then immerse.
The Turei Zahav 199:5 explains the reason why the Shulchan Aruch and others prefer that the preparations be carried out during the day. At night, the woman feels hurried and under pressure to immerse and will not comb out her hair thoroughly.

Because on the Sabbath, it is forbidden for a woman to comb out her hair.

The Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.:4 states that if a woman’s immersion is scheduled for Saturday night and thus it is impossible for her to comb out her hair during the day, she should comb out her hair on the night of her immersion. The Rama states that the desirable custom is for her to wash thoroughly on Friday and then comb out her hair briefly again on Saturday night.
Although it is not desirable, if it is necessary, e.g., because a festival comes directly before or directly after the Sabbath, a woman may comb out her hair even two or three days before her immersion. In such an instance, she should, however, take precautions that her hair does not become knotted or dirty afterwards. See Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.:6 for further details.

Or a man. Many of these laws are stated in the feminine form, because the most common halachically significant human immersion in the present age is that of a nidah.

I.e., washed and combed out her hair. In this instance, we have changed our translation of chafifah, because here the intent is that an intervening substance was found anywhere on the woman’s body, not only on her hair.

I.e., we assume that her preparations were thorough and there were no other intervening substances on her body at the time of immersion. Although the one substance did become attached to her body, that is considered a departure from the norm; she need not worry about other substances.
The Ra’avad protests the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that if the woman immersed directly after her preparations, she need not immerse again. Instead, it is assumed that her body was clean at the time of immersion and it was only afterwards that the intervening substance adhered to it. He further argues that if the immersion was not directly after the preparations, even if it was on the same day, if an intervening substance was found, the woman must both prepare and immerse again. If one intervening substance was found, it is possible that there might be others.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 199:10 follow the opinions that maintain that after a woman prepares herself for immersion, she must check her body to make sure that there are no intervening substances. Accordingly, they maintain that if she discovered an intervening substance after emerging from the mikveh, the immersion is considered valid, because it can be assumed that it adhered to her body afterwards. This applies as long as her immersion was carried out on the night (or day) that she prepared herself. Otherwise, she must immerse herself again. (The Shulchan Aruch also mentions the Rambam’s view, but appears to favor the first opinion.)

I.e., if her preparations had been made before the day preceding her immersion. In such an instance, we assume that, without her knowledge, an intervening substance adhered to her body between her preparation and the immersion.

For there might also be other intervening substances that adhered to her body without her knowledge.

We have used the common translation. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1), the Rambam defines the term as referring to a blue stone that becomes dissolved in water easily and which is used to clean hair and garments.

And the pieces of hair are intervening substances.

Our translation is based on the Aruch. Apparently, it was used as a soap.
Significantly, the standard published version of Nidah 66b, the Rambam’s source, state chol (sand), rather than ohel (oak sap). The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 199:2 follow the Rambam’s text.

The same law applies to other substances that snarl hair (Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.).

In his gloss to the Shulchan Aruch, op. cit., the Rama writes that these are all recommendations of initial preference. After the fact, if a woman washed her hair with these substances and saw that her hair was not tangled, her immersion is acceptable.

I.e., they are considered as intervening substances. Needless to say, if she washes her hands and checks them before immersion, the immersion is valid (Rama, Yoreh De’ah 199:13). If, however, she did not check her hands before immersion, the immersion is invalid, even if she checks them afterwards and does not see any intervening substances, for it is feared that the intervening substances fell off as she ascended (Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.). See also the notes to Halachah 22.

Within three days, the blood over the cut is still moist and has not hardened yet.

From an analysis of Mikveot 9:4, one of the Rambam’s sources, it appears that the blood coagulated over the wound is not the scab covering it, but blood that coagulated over the scab. In his Kessef Mishneh, R. Yosef Caro also follows such an understanding and, in this manner, resolves an objection of the Ra’avad. Such blood is an intervening substance with regard to involvement with pure foods, but not with regard to a woman’s relationship with her husband, as stated in Halachah 22.

In contrast to a moist secretion, as mentioned in Halachah 14.

Since it is unattractive, a woman will object to its presence and seek to remove it. Hence it is considered as an intervening substance.

This blue ointment serves both medicinal and decorative purposes.

Since it is not in the eye itself, it is not considered as decorative and is likely to be removed by a woman. Hence, it is considered as an intervening substance.

Because the movement of her eyes will cause the ointment to fall off. Thus nothing significant will remain (Rashi, Nidah 67a).

I.e., the points mentioned in Halachot 19-22.

The Rambam’s ruling is dependent on the version of Nidah 67a found in Rav Yitzchak Alfasi’s Halachot. The standard published text of that source, by contrast, has no allusion to such leniencies. The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:7-9, 198:38, and 199:13 does not accept this leniency.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, questioning why the Rambam equated the immersion of a convert to that of an impure person with regard to pure foods. The Kessef Mishneh substantiates the Rambam’s approach.

The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the gloss of Rashi and others to Chulin 10a, the Rambam’s source. Since the intervening substance was discovered on the person’s skin after he was involved with the intervening substance, there is reason to say it became attached to his skin only after the immersion and at the time of the immersion, he was pure.

The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 199:11 rules that if the person was involved with that substance after the immersion, we assume that the substance became attached to the person afterwards. The Siftei Cohen 199:16, however, maintains that the Rambam’s opinion is accepted by the majority of authorities.

Hence, since he was not certain that there were no intervening substances on his body before immersion, he is not considered to have emerged from impurity. For this reason, a woman in the nidah state should inspect her body before immersion. See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 199:6.

The Rambam alters the wording of his source, Mikveot 9:5, which mentions these substances adhering to a glass utensil. The Rambam does not mention glass, because, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3 (see also Hilchot Keilim 1:5), he maintains that glass utensils cannot be purified through immersion in a mikveh.

Since it will spoil the liquids, it is considered objectionable and, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 12, when the owner considers a substance objectionable, it is considered as intervening.

I.e., a craftsman who deals with tar. Since his hands will be filled with that substance, it is natural that some of it will stick to the outside of his utensils and he will not find it objectionable.

Because a private person would object to tar being found on such utensils and would not use it.

These utensils are used for hot substances. Hence even if the tar is on the outside, it will melt and that would be objectionable.

In Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 1:3, the Rambam defines this term as referring to the blood of a wild beast from India of universal renown which people everywhere use as a fragrance.
The Rambam is referring to a secretion of the abdominal gland of the male musk deer, a large animal that roams the mountains of Nepal and Tibet. The secretion is reddish brown, with a honeylike consistency and a strong fragrance. After the gland is cut open, the secretion hardens, assumes a blackish-brown color, and, when dry, becomes granular. As mentioned in the notes to that source, other commentaries define mor differently.

Our translation of this term is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Shabbat 12:4).

For even craftsmen will object to the presence of such substances.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:5), the Rambam states that this term refers to a small chair used to climb onto a large chair. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 12:2), the Rambam states that it refers to a small platform.

From the fact that he keeps these surfaces clean, it is apparent that the presence of intervening substances disturbs him.

As evidenced by the fact that he does not keep the surfaces clean.

Because he would find the presence of such substances objectionable.

For he is less particular about cleanliness and would not object to the presence of the foreign substances.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:5), the Rambam states that the term refers to a saddle placed on a donkey when burdens are loaded upon it.

As stated in Hilchot De’ot 5:9, the garments of a Torah scholar must be attractive and clean. The rationale is that an untidy appearance will dishonor not only him, but also the Torah with which he is associated.

Mikveot 9:6 uses the term bor. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states that it refers to a person who possesses neither wisdom, nor character development.

Because an ordinary person is not that careful about the cleanliness of his garments.

Whose garments will be soiled with sap.

Since the clothes of these individuals are soiled because of their work, they will not object to other substances.

Since his work will inevitably cause his clothes to be soiled with blood, he accepts its presence.

In this instance as well, since the person works with such substances, it is inevitable that they will be found on his clothes. Hence, he will accept their presence.

It is possible to say that even a person who works in such professions would object to having two types of stains on his garments.

For this would cause the upper portion of his foot to become soiled and a person would not accept that.

For only the sole of a person’s foot would be soiled and he is less likely to object to that.

Because there, they can soil the clothes of one who sits there.

Because they will not soil anyone’s clothes.

I.e., a booth with a seat that is placed on top of a camel or the like [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 4:3)].

We have used the interpretation of the Vilna Gaon to the Tosefta, Mikveot 7:2, even though it is difficult to understand.

Sometimes, a layer of cotton is placed on the bottom of a necklace to prevent it from irritating the skin.

The cotton plugs the bell so that it does not make noise.

For the water of the mikveh will penetrate the cotton and wash away the mud.

When hardened, the water will not wash away the mud. The commentaries have questioned why, in the first clause, the Rambam ruled that water will wash away hardened mud, and yet, in this clause, he rules that it will not.

Chapter 1, Halachah 12.

With openings at one of the ends.

In a way that the water would not enter them.

For the water to enter the inner space of the handles, it is necessary to move the utensil back and forth in the water [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:1)]. Diagram

Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaot 10:1). When the handles are bent in this manner, water cannot enter them.

The Tur and, apparently, the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 202:3, interpret the mishnah differently than the Rambam does.

For the air pocket will prevent the water from entering [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)]. Significantly, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 202:6, states that this applies only when the opening of the container is narrow.

Thus enabling the water to enter all parts of its cavity.

Thus preventing water from entering under the folds easily.

Otherwise, the air in these closed portions will prevent the water from entering.

I.e., it need not be removed from the animal. Instead, the animal can immerse in an acceptable body of water and, in that way, purify the collar. Diagram

In this way, the water will be able to come in contact with the bottom of the kettle instead of it being covered by the coals [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:2)].

Other than water.

The other liquids are not considered as part of the mikveh. On the contrary, they intervene between the water of the mikveh.

Thus the water in the container becomes considered as part of the water of the mikveh and hence causes the container to be purified.

Hilchot Tum’at Ochalin 2:21.

And thus the urine is considered part of the mikveh.

Since this water is holy, it does not become nullified to the water of the mikveh unless there is a majority of mikveh water.

As explained in Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 7:2, when the Sages decreed that impure liquids would impart impurity to containers, they decreed that only the outside of the containers would become impure, not the insides. Nevertheless, to regain purity, the container must be submerged in the mikveh entirely.

They are other liquids and thus would not become nullified to the water of the mikveh. Nevertheless, in this instance, since the appearance of the liquid in the container will be the same as water, there is room for leniency as the Rambam explains.

I.e., the wine or the milk is not considered as in intervening substance.
The Ra’avad raises an objection to the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that it follows a minority opinion in Zevachim 78b. The majority of the Sages, he maintains, follow a different understanding. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the passage appears to follow the Ra’avad’s understanding. Nevertheless, he offers an interpretation of that passage that would fit the Rambam’s ruling.

In which instance, the appearance of the liquids is not the same as that of the water. The Kessef Mishneh states that if the water of the mikveh diluted the liquids to the extent that their appearance is like water, the immersion is valid.

The fundamental principle here is that moist mud is not considered as an intervening substance, because the water penetrates through it. Since the mud is touching the water of the jug, the water from the mikveh is considered as having penetrated through to it. Thus the water in the jug is considered as part of the water of the mikveh.

See Psalms 40:3.

For the thick mud is considered as an intervening substance, preventing the water from the mikveh from reaching the water in the container.

Because the water from the mikveh is considered to have reached it. See also Chapter 8, Halachah 10, and notes.

If the clothes of poor people are tom, rather than have them mended professionally, they will simply tie knots where they are torn and wear them that way [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:3)].

And will mend them rather than leave them tied.

Because it can be assumed that they have them mended.

E. g., sheets and the like (ibid.).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:3), the Rambam explains that this refers to a situation where the cube is sewn to the strap. In such a situation, the water will not be able to reach the inner side of the ma’avarta, the opening through which the strand passes. Nevertheless, this does not invalidate the immersion.

This clause explains the rationale why such an immersion is acceptable. Since these articles are permanently attached, they are considered as joined and as one integral whole.

This is speaking about cloaks that open in the front, whose loops serve as button holes.

This is speaking about a cloak that one puts on by slipping it over his head. Afterwards, the loops on the shoulders are closed.

This is speaking about a sheet that is large and whose ends are crumpled. For the immersion to be effective, the sheet must be extended so that it can be exposed to water in its entirety.

Here also this phrase indicates the Rambam’s intent. When only one entity is involved, since it will not remain in its present state forever, but will either be stretched out and extended, it must be stretched out in that manner for immersion. Similarly, when two entities are involved, since one will be moved or the two will be separated from each other entirely, even while they are together they are not considered as a single, integral entity.

Woven from strands of reeds or branches.

Because it is likely that there are dregs of produce intervening between the strips of material.

For it is common to remove the stuffing of these pillows and cushions [the gloss of R. Ovadiah of Bartenura (Mikveot 10:2)].

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:2), the Rambam explains that this refers to a cushion used by merchants and storekeepers for support. It is sewed closed on all sides and its stuffing is never removed.

Used for sport (op. cit.). In this instance as well, the ball is never opened.

When clothes are immersed in water, any air that is trapped inside the fabric rises to the surface. When it is saturated with water entirely, the bubbles cease.

Even though the accessories are still attached to the article and have not been immersed in their entirety, the immersion of the article is valid, because the part of the accessory that is necessary has been immersed. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:5), the Rambam writes that when a chain is made up of interlocking links, even if the measure ends in the midst of the link, it is necessary to immerse it only up to that point. There is no need to immerse the entire link. Moreover, the remainder of the link is not considered as an intervening substance (see Turei Zahav 202:9).

Since the bucket is large, it would be difficult to pick it up with a longer chain.

See a parallel in Hilchot Keilim 9:15.

Since the large container is being immersed for its own sake, the water inside of it is considered as mikveh water and it purifies the other keilim contained within.

Two fingerbreadths, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 6. This is the measure of the opening required for joining two bodies of water together. Since the large k'li is placed on its side, it is considered as an entity unto itself and the water inside of it, as a separate body of water that must be joined to the mikveh through an opening of the above measure.

Since it is not necessary to immerse the larger k’li, the water inside of it is considered as a separate entity which must be joined to the water of the mikveh according to the standard requirements.

Whose opening is much larger than the mouthpiece of drinking pouch. Moreover, it does not hold liquids at all (Rama, Yoreh De’ah 201:9).

Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 12:1.

A person — and also a k’li.

The commentaries note that frequently the Talmud (Chagigah 11a, et al.) cites the source as Leviticus 15:5: “And he shall wash in water.” As mentioned previously, the Rambam often cites other verses than those cited by the Talmud as prooftexts if they appear to him as closer to the simple interpretation of the concepts (Y ad Malachi, K’lallei Rambam).

Our Sages (Chagigah 11a, et al.) also derive this concept from the verse cited in the previous note: “And he shall wash in water,” i.e., water that can contain his entire body. Apparently, the Rambam considers this citation as merely an asmachta, a support conceived by the Sages.
Even if a person is short and his or her body could be covered by a small measure, a mikveh is not effective unless it is of the above size (Siftei Cohen 201:3). The same measure is required for the immersion of implements.

A se’ah is 8.3 liter in modem measure according to Shiurei Torah and 16.2 liter according to Chazon Ish. When calculating the 40 se’ah that comprise a kosher mikveh, it is customary to follow the stringent view and require 650 liter.

The halachic definition of “drawn” is water separated from its source due to human activity (see Chapter 5, Halachah 7) or water which passed over or was contained within a receptacle as a result of conscious human activity (see Chapter 6, Halachah 1).

As the Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 201, writes, although there are many Rishonim who support the Rambam’s position, there are also many who differ and maintain that, even according to Scriptural Law, drawn water is invalid for a mikveh. This view is quoted by the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 201:3).

A log is 344 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and 600 cc. according to Chazon Ish.

As stated in Halachah 6, this applies only when there was less than 40 se’ah in the acceptable mikveh. Once there are 40 se’ah, one can add any amount of drawn water to it without disqualifying it.

According to the Rambam, the concept that follows is not derived from the verse. Instead, it is a Rabbinic ordinance. Nevertheless, the Sages found support for their ruling in the verse cited. This is referred to as an asmachta.

I.e., it is entirely a natural phenomenon.

It is only through human effort that a cistern will be filled.

Sifra to the above verse.

For the verse associated it with a spring.

I.e., by natural means. This is not required because the verse also associated it with a cistern.

I.e., even the Rabbis would accept such a mikveh.

If, however, he placed them on the roof to collect water, the water is unacceptable for use in a mikveh, as reflected by the following halachah (see Siftei Cohen 201:94).

And thus it could be said that the person had it in mind that they would become filled with water.

Without lifting them up, as stated at the conclusion of the halachah.

I.e., if it flows from the roof into a mikveh. Since the water was not lifted up by a person, it is not considered as drawn.

Because they were lifted up by a person.

A drainage pipe itself is usually not considered as a container, either because it does not have a receptacle or because it was affixed to the building before its receptacle was made ([the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 4:1)].

I.e., even when there were no clouds in the sky (ibid.).

See Hilchot Keilim 1:6.

Without lifting them up, as stated in the previous halachah.

Since it can be assumed that the drainpipe will conduct water, placing the receptacles there is considered equivalent to filling them by hand.

Since it is considered as if he gathered the water in the buckets, the fact that he spills it out without lifting them up is not significant.

And then claim to have forgotten them. This is one of the eighteen decrees passed on the eventful day when the students of the School of Shammai outnumbered the students of the School of Hillel and ordained rulings according to their more stringent approach (Shabbat 16b).

And threatening rain.

Since it is highly likely that it will rain in such a situation, it is considered as if he purposely filled the buckets with water.

One must, however, break the containers or turn them over without lifting them up, as stated in the previous halachah and in the final clause of this halachah.
Since the containers were placed there before the sky became overcast, the person’s action of placing the buckets there is not considered equivalent to filling them by hand.

Even though the person's intent was to have the buckets filled, since the sky cleared, he is considered to have diverted his attention and the water is acceptable (Kessef Mishneh). Other Rishonim offer a different interpretation of the passage in Shabbat on which the Rambam’s decision is based and their view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 201:41).

I.e., he was applying lime to seal the walls of the mikveh.

I.e., afterwards, rain descended, filling the mikveh and the container (Siftei Cohen 201:95).

Releasing the water into the mikveh. In this instance, turning the container over, even if one does not lift it up, is not sufficient, because there was more human involvement in the process of filling the container (Turei Zahav 201:52)

I.e., that they absorb the water so that they will not absorb other liquids stored in them afterwards (ibid.:53).

I.e., the water of the mikveh diffused through the walls of the container, filling it.

In contrast to the previous clause where it is necessary that some water remain in the mikveh, here none is required, because the person had no desire for the containers to become filled with water. On the contrary, this was against his will (ibid.:54).

I.e., one had begun collecting acceptable water in a mikveh, but the total quantity had not reached 40 se’ah. Thus the mikveh had not become acceptable.

Not only is the mikveh unacceptable for immersion, all of the water must be drained from the mikveh before acceptable water can be collected there again. See Chapter 5, Halachah 6.

Creating an acceptable mikveh.

For the addition of the extra drawn water does not disqualify the mikveh, even if the majority of the mikveh’s water is drawn (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:15).

This technique, referred to as zeriyah, is one of the methods through which the mikvaot commonly used for immersion are made. To explain: Most of the mikvaot in which people immerse today are not pools from rainwater or natural spring water. What is done? According to the method of zeriyah, a pool of rainwater comprising 40 se'ah is collected and then ordinary tap water is passed through that pool, causing it to overflow into a second mikveh pool as the Rambam states here. That second pool is used for immersion. The water is drained from it from time to time to prevent it from becoming filthy and then the pool is filled again through the above method. See also the notes to the following halachah.

Since the mikveh was acceptable, the addition of drawn water does not disqualify it.

As the Kessef Mishneh emphasizes, this last point reflects a difference of opinion between the Rambam and Rabbenu Asher. Rabbenu Asher and many other authorities who support his position maintain — and indeed the previous halachah would lead to this conclusion — that no matter how much water is added and subtracted, as long as there are always 40 se’ah of water in it, the mikveh is acceptable, since originally, it contained 40 se’ah of acceptable water.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro maintains that the Rambam also agrees that the mikveh is theoretically acceptable in this instance as well. Nevertheless, according to his view, the Sages (Yevamot 82b) disqualified such a mikveh as a Rabbinic safeguard, because of the impression it would create. In his Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:24, he accepts the opinion of Rabbenu Asher and those who support his perspective. Nevertheless, the Siftei Cohen 201:63 suggests following the stringencies of the Rambam’s view. In respect to his ruling and that of the Ra’avad who is even more stringent, there are authorities who prefer not to use the method of zeriyah (see note 42) to create an acceptable mikveh.

But not on a k’li (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:46). The water must flow on the ground for at least three handbreadths (ibid.:45).

If, however, initially, drawn water was caused to flow on the ground into a mikveh, before there were 20 se’ah of acceptable water there, this leniency is not applicable (Rama, Yoreh De’ah 201:44).

See Chapter 6 for a discussion of which conduits disqualify a mikveh and which do not.

As the Kessef Mishneh emphasizes, this represents a further leniency than the previous clause, because in this instance, the entire quantity of water was already designated as unacceptable before it was caused to flow.

See Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 201, who mentions this opinion in the name of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi.

Temurah 12b.

Which are not considered as receptacles.

See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 4:4), where, when discussing the law cited in the following halachah, he explains that it represents a refutation of the perspective of the sages of the west.

This represents a further leniency because the acceptable water did not exist as a separate entity before it became mixed with the drawn water.

Without flowing on the ground first.