Si l'on place des récipients sous un tuyau [de drainage], qu'il s'agisse de gros récipients ou de petits récipients, ou même de récipients fabriqués à partir d'excréments, de récipients en pierre ou de récipients en terre, [si l'eau de pluie s'écoulait à travers le tuyau et y pénétrait] ils invalident un mikveh [un rassemblement d'eau recueilli par des moyens naturels et immergé pour purification; si les eaux s'écoulent à travers ces vaisseaux et dans un mikvé, elles l'invalident, puisqu'elles sont considérées comme des eaux tirées]. Que l'on les place [sous le tuyau de drainage] ou qu'on les oublie, [cela s'applique toujours], selon Beit Shammai. Et Beit Hillel la considère pure [c'est-à-dire que les eaux ne rendent pas un mikvé invalide de pouvoir purifier] dans le cas de celui qui oublie. Le rabbin Meir dit: ils ont voté [sur cette question], et Beit Shammai avait la majorité sur Beit Hillel. Et ils [Beit Shammai] conviennent dans le cas de quelqu'un qui oublie [les vases] dans une cour, que c'est [un mikvé dans lequel l'eau de pluie de ces vases a été versée] est pur. Le rabbin Yose dit: le désaccord tient toujours sa place.
Bartenura on Mishnah Mikvaot
המניח כלים תחת הצנור (one who puts vessels under the spout – which feeds a ritual bath) – a tube/spout (or a movable tube attached to the roof gutters) that rain waters enter through and descend through its mouth to the Mikveh/ritual bath. But here we are speaking of a wooden spout that was established and eventually hollowed out, for when it was established it did not have the law of a utensil upon it when it was detached.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot
If one put vessels under a water-spout, whether they be large vessels or small vessels or even vessels of dung, vessels of stone or earthen vessels, they make the mikveh invalid. Rain falls onto the roof and then comes down the water-spout and fills up the mikveh. Such rain is valid for use in the mikveh. The water-spout does not make it into drawn water. However, if after leaving the water-spout the rain water first passes through vessels it does invalidate the mikveh. This is true no matter what the vessels are, even if they are vessels that can't become impure. In other words, even though these vessels are not considered to be vessels such that they are susceptible to impurity, they are considered vessels such that they turn rain water into drawn water.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Mikvaot
ואחד כלים קטנים – that you should not say that they were not important (see also Tractate Kelim, Chapter 15, Mishnah 1).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot
It is all alike whether they were put there [purposely] or were [merely] forgotten, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel declare it clean in the case of one who forgets. According to Bet Shammai, it doesn't matter how these vessels got there. Even if he forgot them underneath the water spout, the water collected in them will invalidate the mikveh. Bet Hillel holds that if the water was not drawn with intent, then it doesn't disqualify the mikveh (see 2:6-7). Therefore, if he forgets the vessel under the spout, the water that flows through it does not disqualify the mikveh.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Mikvaot
אפילו כלי גללים – while they are not considered utensils with regard to ritual impurity, they are considered utensils to invalidate the Mikveh/ritual bath, even if he broke them or emptied them, for it is not similar to leaving jars/cannisters at the top of the roof to dry them out (see Tractate Mikvaot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 7).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot
Rabbi Meir said: they voted and Bet Shammai had a majority over Bet Hillel. Rabbi Meir says that the sages gathered together and ruled in favor of Bet Shammai. Since the halakhah is usually according to Bet Hillel, this seems to have been an especially memorable occasion (see also Shabbat 1:4).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Mikvaot
ובית הלל מטהרין בשוכח – In the first chapter of Tractate Shabbat in the Gemara (16b), their dispute is established (i.e., between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai) concerning when he left them (i.e., utensils) under the spout at the time when the clouds were gathering and then they dispersed and he forgot them (i.e., the leaving of the utensils under the spout) and then the clouds gathered once again, that the School of Shammai holds that because of the dispersal of the clouds his first intention/thought process was not nullified, for he revealed his intention that he wanted that they (i.e., rain waters) would fall into them. But the School of Hillel holds that his intention/thought process was nullified, for when the clouds dispersed, his attention was diverted, for he held that rain would not fall any longer. But when he left them (i.e., the utensils) underneath the spout at the time of the gathering of the clouds, and the rains were late to come, and he went off to his work and forgot them, everyone holds that since ab initio, it was for this that he intended, his intention/thought process was not nullified through his forgetting. But if he left them (i.e., the utensils) at the time when the clouds dispersed, everyone holds that they are ritually pure, for he did not intend ab initio for this.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot
Yet they agree in the case of one who forgets [and leaves vessels] in a courtyard that the mikveh remains clean. Rabbi Yose said: the controversy still remains as it was. Bet Shammai agrees that if he leaves vessels in the courtyard and they fill up with water that such water does not count as drawn water, for he certainly did not intend to draw water in such a manner. In contrast, if he forgot the vessels underneath the water spout, Bet Shammai fears that when he left the vessels there he intended to gather water. He only forgot them there at a later point. This is as if he put them there intentionally, therefore they invalidate the mikveh. Rabbi Yose disagrees with this. He holds that even if they were forgotten in the courtyard, Bet Shammai still holds that the water invalidates the mikveh.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Mikvaot
בשכח בחצר שהוא טהור – underneath the spout and it was filled from the dripping rain water and fell into the Mikveh/ritual bath. For specifically underneath the spout is where the School of Shammai disagrees, for he reveals his intention that he wanted that [the rain waters] would fall into them, but because of the dispersal [of the clouds], the first thought was not nullified. But if he leaves it in the courtyard [but not under the spout], even at the time when the gathering [of the clouds], it was not proven ab initio that his first pattern of thinking/intention was best, therefore, it (i.e., his thought) was nullified when they (i.e., the clouds) dispersed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Mikvaot
עדיין מחלוקת במקומה עומדת – it did not stand for a vote and the students of the School of Shammai were not greater [than those of the School of Hillel].
