Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Note the parallel in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 9:2.

As evident from the following clause, this refers to drawn water that fell into the acceptable water unintentionally. If less than three lugim of drawn water fall into a mikveh unintentionally, it is not significant even if later enough water to complete the measure of three lugim also falls into the mikveh.

This follows the Rambam’s interpretation of Mikveot 3:4. The Tur — and his opinion is cited by the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:15 — interprets the phrase as meaning, “intended to add three lugim.”

A dinar is a coin frequently used in the Talmudic era, with a mass equivalent to approximately 5 grams. See Hilchot Shekalim 1:3. The Rambam’s source, Mikvaot, 3:4 mentions a liquid measure instead, one kortov, which is equivalent to 1/64 of a log, almost 5.5 cc. according to Shiurei Torah and almost 9.5 cc according to Chazon Ish.

If, however, the mixture of water falls into the mikveh after flowing on the ground, more lenient rules apply, as explained in the conclusion of the previous chapter.

The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh, so that the Rambam's ruling here does not contradict his previous ruling stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 6. Our text is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version, trying to correct the difficulty cited by the Kessef Mishneh.

It must be removed from the mikveh before acceptable water could be added to make the mikveh fit for immersion.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 3:3), the Rambam explains that this refers to a person who washes his garment in a mikveh. When he removes it, the water is considered as drawn water (see the following halachah). Nevertheless, as long as the garment is touching the water, the water absorbed within it is considered as joined to the mikveh.

Even though one person did not pour the three lugim at one time, since they fell into the mikveh through a person’s intentional conduct, they disqualify it.

See Hilchot Keilim 13:10 for a description of this mechanism.

And would therefore disqualify the mikveh if it flows into it, for the mikveh will have less than 40 se’ah of water in it and three lugim will flow from the pillow or cushion.

With their openings faced down, so that the water will pour out and only a small amount will remain absorbed [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaot 7:6)].

For the water that drips from them is not considered as having been contained in a vessel.

The Rambam is speaking about a mikveh that is a natural cavern with three pockets. The main reservoir had not been filled with 40 se’ah of water, nor was it in contact with the water in the pockets.

And thus by the time it reached the third pocket of water, it was already an acceptable mikveh.

Because three lugim of drawn water will have been added to it, before it reached the sum of 40 se’ah.
Tosafot Yom Tov (in his gloss to Mikveot 2:5) raises the point that the Rambam. maintains (see Chapter 4, Halachah 1) that a mikveh of drawn water is acceptable according to Scriptural Law. Now, according to that perspective, the case under discussion involves a point of Rabbinic Law and generally, we follow the principle (Shabbat 34a, et al.): “When there is a doubt regarding a point of Rabbinic Law, we rule leniently.” Seemingly, then, the mikveh should be acceptable. (Indeed, the authorities who maintain that a mikveh of drawn water is unacceptable according to Scriptural Law use this mishnah as support for their position.) He explains that the mishnah uses this wording merely for semantic purposes and the Rambam is simply quoting the terminology of his source.

But together they contained 40 se’ah.

Because at the time the three lugim of drawn water came together, there already were 40 se’ah of acceptable water in the mikveh. ·

For only a log and a half had fallen into each of them.

The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 3:1).

Because when the three lugim fell into the original mikveh, all of its water is disqualified, as the Rambam proceeds to explain. For the mikveot to be acceptable, the procedure outlined in the second clause of the following halachah must be adhered to.

If, however, water from a spring flows into it, it immediately becomes acceptable (Kessef Mishneh).

As the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 201:22, based on the Beit Yosefs citation of the Ra’avad) explains, the intent is that not only must the original quantity of water flow out of the mikveh, but it must be taken into consideration that some of the water from the canal also flowed out with the unacceptable water. See Turei Zahav 201:32 and Siftei Cohen 201:56.

More specifically, the water in the mikveh, whether the drawn water or the water that was disqualified because of the drawn water.

Since there are less than three lugim of unacceptable water, they are not considered significant and they do not disqualify the rainwater that was added afterwards (Siftei Cohen 201:58).

As explained in Chapter 8 at length, when a body of unacceptable water is joined to an acceptable mikveh, the unacceptable water becomes fit for immersion. This technique is referred to as hashakah.
The commentaries (Turei Zahav 201:32, Siftei Cohen 201:56) explain that since the water was originally acceptable and the disqualifying factor is incidental, not coming as a result of intentional activity — as reflected in the wording three lugim fell in — the stringency mentioned in note 23 need not be adhered to and it is sufficient that the amount of water that was originally in the cistern flow out.

The bracketed addition is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 2:6).

I.e., the water is not considered as drawn, because it was not lifted up or removed from the mikveh entirely (ibid.).

At the edge of the mikveh, within three handbreadths of it. As such, it is considered as if the unacceptable water was poured directly into the mikveh. Were it further removed, there would be room for leniency, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 8.

Because lifting the mud up causes the water to be considered as “drawn.” This applies only when there are less than 40 se’ah of water in the mikveh.

There are commentaries (Rashba, Ra’avad) who maintain that this is referring to a legion of cavalry and the water was splashed by animals. The Rambam’s wording implies that even if the water was splashed by humans, it is acceptable. The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:39, follows the opinion of the other commentaries. (See the gloss of the Kessel Mishneh.)

I.e., as they were proceeding, without thinking of doing so, the people and/or the animals splashed water into the mikveh.

Since the water was not moved from its original place through willful activity on man’s part, it is not considered as drawn. Therefore it does not disqualify the mikveh.

Not only does water moved in such a manner not disqualify a mikveh, it can be used to comprise the measure of 40 se’ah that makes a mikveh acceptable.

Against the will of its owner.

I.e., one may use this water for a dough from which challah must be separated [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaot 1:5)]. Similarly, if challah and/or terumah come in contact with this water, they do not contract impurity. The rationale is that since there are less than three lugim of drawn water, the drawn water is considered is subsumed and insignificant within the acceptable water. Nor does the acceptable water become impure, because it is collected on the earth (and not in a container) and the impure water fell against the will of its owner (see Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin 15:1).

The Rambam’s ruling is apparently based on a different version of the Tosefta than the standard published text of that source. The Ra’avad, adhering to the standard version, therefore questions the Rambam’s ruling.

Unlike ordinary drawn water, the rules governing this water are more severe, because it is impure. As evident from the following clause, this stringency applies when the mixture of the original water and the impure water is more than 20 se’ah. In such an instance, the addition of the rainwater will not be significant, because it is only the first 40 se’ah of water that is significant and the majority of that water is unacceptable. If, however, there is less than 20 se’ah of the original mixture, the addition of the rainwater makes the mikveh acceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
Here also the Ra’avad differs and maintains that since the original water was not disqualified, it can be used as the basis for an acceptable mikveh in all instances.

For the mixture is considered impure. The commentaries question why this law is different than the first clause. Since the water fell against the will of its owner, seemingly, it should not change the status of the water in the mikveh. They explain that since the three lugim are sufficient to change the status of the mikveh with regard to its being fit to be used for a mikveh, they also change its status with regard to ritual impurity.

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

From the Tosefta cited above, it appears that the intent is that only slightly more than the original amount of water must flow out of the mikveh. We do not assume that some of the rainwater will be flowing out with the original water.

The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam's ruling, since there is seemingly no basis to differentiate between this and the previous clause. He explains that possibly because the amount of water necessary to complete the measure of a mikveh was so small, there was room for leniency.

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.]

The term the Rambam — and his source, Mikveot 7:3 — use literally means appearance. The intent is, however, color. See parallel rulings in Hilchot Berachot 6:7, Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 5:12.

As explained in Halachah 9, the intent is not that the water is permanently disqualified. Rather, while its color has changed, it is unacceptable for immersion. If it reverts to an ordinary color afterwards, it may be used for immersion.

As evident from Halachah 7, the color of the water must be changed due to the natural color of the liquids and not due to other factors.

This applies even if less than three lugim of the other substance change the color of the water.

I.e., they can be counted in the 40 se’ah required for an acceptable mikveh and their addition never disqualifies a mikveh, as explained in the following halachah.

Three lugim of them disqualify a mikveh and never are they counted in the 40 se’ah required for an acceptable mikveh, as stated in Halachah 4.

They are never counted in the 40 se’ah required for an acceptable mikveh, nor do they ever disqualify a mikveh, as stated in Halachah 5.

Moreover, if a pool containing drawn water freezes and becomes ice and then thaws, it is acceptable to be used for a mikveh (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:31).

Mud with the consistency of saliva [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 7:1)].

Even if snow or the like were collected with an implement, they do not disqualify a mikveh as long as they did not melt while in the implement (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:30). In practice, in recent years, mikveot have been made in places where rain does not descend by collecting snow from neighboring mountains with wire mesh shovels in a freezer truck and then shoveling it into the mikveh’s reservoir.

The Rambam mentions crushing the snow because snow takes up much more space than water does. From the Rambam’s words, it appears that he permits immersing in the snow before it melts. There are, however, authorities who rule stringently and forbid immersing in the snow until it melts (Rama, Yoreh De’ah 201:30; see also Siftei Cohen 201:71 who elaborates).

For these are basically considered as drawn water (Turei Zahav 201:34).

A dinar is a coin frequently used in the Talmudic era with a mass equivalent to approximately 5 grams; i.e., a very small amount. As in Chapter 5, although the Rambam’s source, Mikveot 7:3, mentions a kortov, a small liquid measure, the Rambam mentions a measure of weight.

In Halachah 1.

And thus was considered as acceptable.

Now these 40 se’ah are not made up entirely of the original water, but instead contain some of the other liquid that fell in. Nevertheless, since the mikveh was already classified as acceptable, it is not removed from that category.
As stated in Yevamot 82b and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:24, this leniency applies only up to half the measure of the mikveh. The rationale is that as long as the major portion of the mixture is acceptable water, the additional liquid is considered as batel, nullified. See Chapter 4, Halachah 7, and the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh there.

It is not considered as if wine or oil fell into the water, but rather filth. Hence the water is not disqualified (Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 201, in the name of the Ra’avad).

For it is considered as if drawn water fell into the mikveh (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 201:25).

Because it is only the color of natural liquids that disqualify a mikveh.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 7:3).

Even if the wine does not change the color of the water to that of wine, as long as it is no longer the natural color of water, it is unacceptable (Siftei Cohen 201:66).

The Turei Zahav 201:38 understands this phrase as implying that, in this situation, even if the mikveh contains more than 20 se’ah of acceptable water, one may not pour drawn water outside the mikveh and let it flow inside. Although generally this is acceptable (see Chapter 4, Halachah 8), in this instance, it is invalid, because it is possible that the amount of drawn water that is necessary to cause the color to revert is greater than the amount of acceptable water the mikveh originally contained.

I.e., the water is not disqualified in an ultimate sense, it is merely temporarily invalid.

And thus one may add as much water as one desires (see Chapter 4, Halachot 6-7, and notes).

Even the portion whose color did not change is unacceptable for immersion (Ra’avad).

If, however, the mikveh is larger and one immerses in 40 se’ah of water whose color did not change, the immersion is acceptable (Ra’avad, Siftei Cohen 201:67).

Possessing less than 40 se’ah of acceptable water.

Because the water is now considered as diluted wine.

We do not say that the other liquid is subsumed within the water and they become a single entity.

Implied is that it is liquids and not foods that can disqualify a mikveh, because they cause its color to change (Mishnah Achronah).