Rambam - 1 Chapter 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.