Commento su Makhshirin 5:14

מי שטבל בנהר – and the water that is upon him makes him susceptible [for ritual impurity] for they (i.e., the waters) were acceptable/intentional.

One who immersed himself in a river and then there was in front of him another river and he crossed it, the second [water] purifies the first [water].
If his fellow pushed him in during exercise or his beast [pushed him in], the second [water] purifies the first [water].
But if [he did it] out of playfulness, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.
Section one: When he gets out of the first river, the water that remains on his body causes produce to be susceptible to impurity, because he intentionally went into the river to bathe. Then he has to cross another river but he doesn't need this river to bathe. The water from the second river does not cause susceptibility because he didn't want to get wet, he just wanted to cross. The water on him from the second river therefore purifies, or causes not to make susceptible, the water from the first river.
Section two: A person comes up out of the water after bathing. Then he gets pushed in again, either because he and his friend were exercising or his animal pushes him in. The second time in the river is not something he wanted, so this water "purifies" the water that was on him from the first time. Note that here he goes into the same river twice the water from the first time does cause susceptibility but the water from the second time does not.
However, if he and his friend were just playing around, then entering the water is something that they wanted. Therefore, this water too causes susceptibility. Again, it is all a matter of intent.

והיה לפניו נהר אחר, ועבר בו – but the waters that are upon him from the second river are into acceptable/intentional and do not make him susceptible [for ritual impurity].

טיהרו – the waters of the second river [purified him], waters that were brought up with him from the [initial] ritual immersion, and neither set of waters make him susceptible [for ritual impurity].

דחיו – he (i.e., the other person, who was inebriated) pushed him [into the water].

לשכרו – that his friend was inebriated and through his drunkenness pushed him and caused him to fall into the river.

וכן לבהמתו – that as a result of his drunkenness, he caused his [fellow’s] animal to fall into the river, and the waters of ritual immersions that were upon him and upon his animal were intentional.

טיהרו שניים – that were [upon him] through the drunkenness [of his fellow] and not acceptable/intentional.

את הראשונים –[the waters of the first river which were made insusceptible] which were not acceptable/intentional

ואם כמשחק – his fellow [in jest] pushed him into the river or his animal/beast, also the second waters are under the law of “when water is put” (Leviticus 11:38), and all of them (both the first and the second set of waters) are acceptable/intentional.

הנתזין (that splashed) – unintentionally.

One who swam in water, the water that splashed out does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if it was his intention to splash his friend, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Since the person did not intend to splash water, the water that is splashed out does not cause susceptibility. However, if he intends to splash the water on his friend, it does cause susceptibility.

העושה ציפור במים (if one make a “bird” in water – producing bubbles by blowing through a tube) – that raises up over the waters an effervescence like bubbles.

If one made a ‘bird’ in the water, neither [the water] that splashed out nor what remained in it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. A "bird" is according to Albeck some kind of floating toy. In this case, he didn't want water to splash out nor did he want water to get into his toy. So this water does not cause susceptibility. The water on the outside of the bird will cause susceptibility because he wanted the bird-toy to get wet.

הנתזין- through the making of bubbles.

ואת שבה – that is the water of the bubbles themselves. And there are those who have the reading:"העושה צנור במים" /He who makes a water pipe/duct/spout in the water, le the youths do like a kind of spout/duct of a reed or that of a hollow piece of wood to splash from it water in jest.

ואת שבה – the water that remains in the duct/spout.

ובללן שינוגבו – mixed/stirred all the fruit in water, that when the water would be scattered upon all the fruit/produce, they would be dried up and withered more quickly.

Produce onto which a leak [from a roof] fell and he mixed it up in order that it might become dry [quickly]: Rabbi Shimon says: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The water from the leaky roof itself doesn't make the produce susceptible to impurity because he didn’t want it there. However, according to Rabbi Shimon, if he mixed the produce up so that the water would be absorbed into it, the produce is susceptible. Although he didn't originally want the produce to get wet, he did want the water to be absorbed into it. This is sufficient intent for the produce to be susceptible. The other sages say that since he didn't want the produce to get wet in the first place, it is not susceptible.

וחכמים אומרים אינן בכי יותן – And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

לעמקו בכי יותן ולרחבו אינו בכי יותן – when a person measures the depth of a cistern with a reed, the mark/trace of the water is recognized until what point they reach, and through this, one knows its depth, therefore, he desires the liquid that is on the marking/trace. But regarding its width, he does not want the liquid that is in the marking. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiba, and Rabbi Tarfon retracted [his opinion] to teach according to his (i.e., Rabbi Akiba’s) words.

Introduction Our mishnah discusses one who uses a stick to measure a cistern. Does the water that comes up with the stick cause produce to be susceptible to impurity?

One who measures a cistern whether for its depth of for its breadth, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put' the words of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Tarfon says that since the stick will likely get wet, even if he is only measuring the breadth, in essence he wanted it to get wet. Without getting it wet, he would not have been able to measure the cistern. Therefore, no matter whether he is measuring the length or the depth, the water causes susceptibility.

But Rabbi Akiva says: if [it was measured] for its depth, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but if for its breadth, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Akiva says that only if he is measuring for depth does the water cause susceptibility for in this case he needs to see the mark that the water makes on the stick, i.e. how high it goes. When measuring for breadth, even though it gets wet, he doesn't need to see the mark and therefore it doesn't cause susceptibility.

לידע כמה מים יש בו – he desires the liquid that is on the tracing mark, as we have stated [in the previous Mishnah], therefore, they are under the law of “when water is put” (Leviticus 11:38). But to know if there is water within it, he does not a tracing mark of liquid.

If one put his hand or his foot or a reed into a cistern in order to check whether it had any water, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if to ascertain how much water it had, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. In the first case he just wants to see if there is any water in the cistern, but he doesn't need to see how deep the cistern is. Since he doesn't need to see the mark that it makes on his foot, hand or reed (see Rabbi Akiva's opinion in yesterday's mishnah), the water is not "to his will" and it doesn't cause susceptibility. However, if he does need to check how much water is in the cistern, then the water that comes up on his hand, foot or reed does cause susceptibility, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah.

ושבאבן – that is to say, that is on the stone also are pure, and there are not susceptible [to ritual -impurity].

If one threw a stone into a cistern to check whether it had any water, [the water] that was splashed up does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, and also [the water] that is on the stone is clean. In this case, he didn't want to bring up any water or cause any splash. He just wanted to hear the sound of the rock hitting the water. Therefore, the water that does come up and the water that is on the rock (if half of it is sticking out of the water) does not cause susceptibility.

החובט על השלח (he who beats upon a ]wetted [hide) – he strikes the leather after its washing in order to empty it of water.

One beats upon a hide: If outside the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; Inside the water, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The hide referred to in this mishnah was laundered, probably in a large body of water, and now the person is beating on it to get the dirty water out. If he does this outside of the body of water, then the water that sprays out does cause susceptibility, because he wants this water to come out. But if he stands in the water and hits on the hide, then he doesn't really care if the water comes out, because new water will come in. In other words, standing outside the water is a way to get it dry but standing inside the water will not make it dry.

השלח – the leather as it is when he strips it from the animal, it is called שלח/(wetted) hide/fresh skin. It is the Aramaic translation of ויפשיטו ואשלחו/and they will strip it and I will flay it.

Rabbi Yose says: even inside the water it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, because his intention was that the water should come off together with the filth. Rabbi Yose says that even if he is standing inside the water, the water that splashes out causes susceptibility because he does want that water to come out of the hide in order to clean the hide. Thus even though the hide remains wet, the water that comes out is something he wants.

שהוא מתכוין שיצאו עם הצואה – he intends that the water will flow out with the stains of excrement that were attached on them, therefore, it makes susceptible/fit [for ritual impurity] whatever that splashed from it and even when it is in the water. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

העקל (on the ballast) – place on the rims of the ship where water collects there that comes in through the cracks/fissures of the ship.

The water that comes up into a ship or into the bilge or on the oars does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.
The water that comes up in snares, nets, or in fishing nets does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if he shook them out it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’.
One who leads a ship out into the Great Sea in order to forge its bolts, or one who a nail out into the rain in order to forge it, or one who puts a brand out in the rain in order to extinguish it, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.
Sections one and two: In all of these cases, the water that comes up onto various parts of the boat or its accoutrements does not cause susceptibility. However, if he shakes them out to get the water out, the water does cause susceptibility because he wanted to move it.
Section three: In these cases someone put something into the water in order to achieve some goal: to forge the metal, to strengthen the wood of the boat, or to cool off a brand. Since in all of these cases he wanted it the item to get wet, the water does cause susceptibility.
The Great Sea refers to the Mediterranean.

אם ניער (if he shook it) – to remove the water that is upon him, like, a person who shakes out his garment.

לצרפה (to tighten it) – to check if the water enters into it or not. Another explanation: to strengthen it and to glaze/harden it/muzzle it, because when it is on the dry land, it split open on its own. And they bring it into the water in order that the water would steep in the water and would close up its fissures and cracks.

מסמר לגשמים לצרפו – to strengthen and to harden it/glaze it, when the waters would come upon it afer it had been heated in fire.

אוד (fire-brand/wooden poker) – wood hat part of it was consumed by fire.

קסיא של שלחנות (sheet spread over a set table to protect it from flies) – a covering that they would cover the table so that water or something of filth or excrement would fall upon the food.

[Water on] the covering of tables or on the matting of bricks does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; A person put a covering on a table or on a pile of bricks to protect them from the rain and sun. If the covering gets wet, the water does not cause susceptibility because he didn't want it there.

והשיפא של לבנים (shavings or mat used for covering bricks) – a matting of bulrushes or of reed-grass that they would cover on the bricks to protect them from rains. And theses are like so that the wall may not suffer from the rain which are not under the law of “when water is put” (Leviticus 11:38).

But if they were shaken, it does come under the law of ‘it water be put’. However, as in yesterdays' mishnah, if he shakes the coverings off to remove the water, then since he wanted to move the water, it does cause susceptibility to impurity.

אבל אם ניער – that he intended to rinse them, behold they are under the law of “when water is put.”

כל הנצוק טהור (an uninterrupted flow of a liquid poured from vessel to vessel is pure) – if he empties from a ritually pure vessel to an impure vessel, what is in the uppermost is ritually pure, for an uninterrupted flow of a liquid is not a connection, except for those which are considered, because the jet of a viscous mass, when poured out and stopped, bounds backwards (and the connection with eh mass in the unclean vessel is not suddenly severed – see also Tractate Taharot, Chapter 8, Mishnah 9: an uninterrupted flow, a current on slanting ground and…, are not considered a connection of the two liquids, either for communicating uncleanness or for producing cleanness), when the continuous flow is stopped, the remainder returns upwards.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the case of liquid being poured from a top vessel to a lower vessel. The lower vessel has impure liquids, or liquids that cause susceptibility. The mishnah rules that with a few exceptions the impurity of the lower vessel's liquids does not flow upwards to the higher vessel. We should note that while this seems to be a boring, technical subject, this very subject was the source of a bitter debate between the Pharisees and the Dead Sea Sect. The latter group wrote a letter called "Miktzat Maase Torah" or "The Halakhic Scroll" in which they complain that the leaders in Jerusalem are not observing Jewish law correctly. Among their complaints is the claim that those Jews in Jerusalem purify the "pouring flow" they use the same Hebrew word as is found in the Mishnah. In other words, archaeologists have found and reconstructed the historical basis of this Mishnah and what looked like simply another detail in a sea of details, was actually a real topic in the Second Temple period, one that was hotly contested by two rival groups. People split apart their communities over issues like this. I don't know if you find this fascinating, but I do! [This topic was also covered in Toharot 8:9].

חוץ מדבש הזיפים (except for the thick honey) – there are those who explain good and important honey, and because of its importance, they make it thick/viscid and mix into it worthless matter. But there are those who say, it is on account of the name of its place that it comes from Zif. It is like (Psalms 54:2): “When the Ziphites came and told Saul: [“Know David is hiding among us].”

A flow pouring [from one vessel to another] is clean, except [the flow] of honey of ziphim bees and honey batter. The upper liquids remain clean except in the case of honey. Since honey is thick, the rabbis consider it to be attached to the lower liquid.

והצפחת (or a tenacious batter dripped on a hot griddle/a sort of waffle) – food made from flour and הhoney and it is so soft that they are able to pour it and similar to it (Exodus 16:31): “it tasted like wafers in honey.”

Bet Shammai say: also [the flow of] thick pottage of split beans, because it thickens up backwards. Bet Shammai rules slightly more strictly. A thick pottage of split beans will also convey impurity from below to above.

המקפה (pulp/stiff mass of grist) – a cooked dish that is not soft nor hard but rather a formation of a coagulated substance/froth that is called מקפה.

של גריסין (a dish of pounded grains) – grounded/milled beans or beans in a mill

ושל פולים – complete that are not grist in the mill.

מפני שהיא סולדת לאחוריה (because it shrinks backward) – when the continuous flow is stopped, that continuous flow/jet returns that flows gently that part of it was in impure liquids that were in the lower vessel and were conducted in a channel above to liquids that are in the pure upper vessel, and it defiles everything that is in the upper vessel.

המערה מחם לחם – here also it is concerned with liquids that are in the upper vessel that empties from it which are pure/clean, and that the lower vessel that empties into it are impure.

Introduction Today's mishnah continues to deal with the purity of clean water that is being poured into impure water.

מצונן לחם טמא – that the lower [vessel] there brings up vapor to the upper cold vessel and defiles it, that the cloud [of vapor] that rises from the hot [in the lower vessel] is considered like liquid.

One who pours hot water into hot water, or cold water into cold water, or hot water [poured] into cold water remains clean; But from cold water into hot water, the [cold water] becomes unclean. If one pours from cold water into hot water, the heat of the impure hot water rises into the cold water and causes it to be impure. It seems that the sages think that the lower hot water might raise the temperature of the upper cold water. Since it has a physical effect, it also has a defiling effect. However, in all other cases, the upper water remains pure. In the case of hot water being poured into hot water, since the upper water will not rise in temperature due to the lower water, it remains pure. Again, simple contact through the flow does not cause the impurity to flow from below to above.

וכוחו של תחתון יפה (that the force of the lower was stronger) – that its heat is greater than that of the upper [vessel]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon, for since the upper [vessel] is hot, even though the lower [vessel] is hotter than it (i.e., the upper vessel), the activity of the lower [vessel] is not recognized in the upper [vessel] and does not defile it.

Rabbi Shimon says: even in the case of hot water poured into hot water it becomes unclean if the strength of the heat of the lower [water] is greater than that of the upper [water]. Rabbi Shimon says that if the lower one is hotter than the upper one, it too will defile the upper one, even if the upper one is also hot. The principle is that if the lower one could heat up the upper one, the impurity of the bottom contaminates the purity of the upper.

המגיסה בקדירה (she stirs the pot) – she turns with a spoon that is in her hand the cooked dish in the pot.

If a woman whose hands were clean stirred an unclean pot and her hands perspired, they become unclean. We can assume that the liquid on the woman's wet and sweaty hands comes from the liquid in the pot and therefore her hands are unclean.

אם הזיעה ידיה – from the vapor of the pot, her hands are made unclean/defiled as if she touched the liquid that is in the pot.

If her hands were unclean and she stirred a clean pot and her hands perspired the pot becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose says: only if her hands dripped. In this case, since her hands sweated due to the heat of the pot, we look at the hot liquid in the pot as if it was connected to the liquid in her hands. Just as the liquid on her hands is unclean, so too the liquid in the pot has become unclean. Rabbi Yose disagrees and doesn't consider the liquid in the pot to be connected to her hands. The liquid in the pot is impure only if the liquid from her hands drops back into the pot.

היו ידיה טמאות – if her hands sweated, the sweet is defiled on account of her hands and the pot is defiled, because the vapor makes a connection between the sweat that is on her hands to the liquids that are in the pot.

One who weighs grapes with a balance, the wine in the scale is clean until it is poured into a vessel. Behold, this is like baskets of olives and grapes when they are dripping [with sap]. A person weighs grapes by putting them into a basket on a balance. Some liquid, called here wine although it is not yet wine, drips out into the basket. This liquid is clean and does not cause susceptibility to impurity until it is poured into a vessel. This is because he doesn't want the liquids to come out while the grapes are still being weighed, just as he doesn't want the liquids to come out of olives or grapes while they are still in the basket (we will return to this subject in 6:8).

ר' יוסי אומר אם נטפו – the pot is not impure unless they dripped a drop at a time from the sweat that is in her hands into pot. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

היין שבכף טהור – and it doesn’t make it susceptible/fit [to receive ritual defilement], but it was not considered to be a liquid until he would empty it into the [other] vessel. And it is like he lacks a designation of liquids in regard to susceptibility [for ritual impurity, so also he lacks a designation of liquids regarding defilement and regarding wine poured as a libation.