Komentarz do Mikwaot 2:13

הטמא שירד לטבול. ספיקו טמא – that a person establishes his status but he has the presumption of [being in] ritual impurity.

An unclean man who went down to immerse himself:
If it is doubtful whether he did immerse himself or not;
And even if he did immerse himself, it is doubtful whether the mikveh contained forty seahs or not;
And if there were two mikvehs, one containing forty seahs but the other not containing forty seahs, and he immersed himself in one of them but he does not know in which of them he immersed himself,
In such a doubt he is unclean.
Today's mishnah deals with a case of an impure person who immersed himself in a mikveh in order to become pure, but it is unclear whether he did so in a manner that would purify him. In all such cases he is not considered clean. The reason is that his last determinable status was unclean. Therefore, he remains unclean until we can be sure that he is actually clean.
The mishnah is pretty straightforward, so there is no explanation below.

בין ברשות היחיד בין ברה"ר טמארות – even though that doubtful ritual impurity in the public domain, its doubt is presumed to be [a status] of ritual purity, this is doubtful ritual purity and not doubtful ritual impurity.

If a mikveh was measured and was found lacking [in its prescribed quantity], all things which had been purified in it, whether in private domain or in a public domain, are accounted unclean retroactively. If there is a mikveh that is assumed to be large enough to purify the person or things being immersed and then it turns out that the mikveh actually did not contain enough water, then everything purified in it is retroactively accounted impure. This is true even if this occurred in the public domain, where doubtful impurity is usually considered pure. The rule here is that the item or person immersed reverts back to its last established status, which in this case is impure.

בטומאה חמורה – it is a primary source of ritual impurity that defiles him from the Torah.

To what does this rule apply? To a serious uncleanness. However, this ruling, as well as the ruling in mishnah one, apply only to a type of impurity that is considered serious, for instance if he had contracted an impurity that would make him a "father of impurity." If it was of lesser origin then he is pure.

טומאה קלה – of the Rabbis.

But in the case of a lesser uncleanness, for instance if he ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids, or if his head and the greater part of his body entered into drawn water, or if three logs of drawn water fell on his head and the greater part of his body, and he then went down to immerse himself and he is in doubt whether he immersed himself or not, or even if he did immerse himself there is [still] a doubt whether the mikveh contained forty seahs or not, or if there were two mikvehs, one containing forty seahs and not the other, and he immersed himself in one of them but does not know in which of them he immersed himself, in such a doubt he is accounted clean. In all of the following cases his impurity is only of rabbinic origin. The mishnah gives a couple of examples of this. The first is when a person ate or drank something unclean. The second is concerning drawn water. The rabbis decreed that drawn water defiles if a person immerses his head and most of his body in them or if three log of drawn water falls on him (we shall learn more about this later). In both of these cases, the doubt is deemed pure because the impurity is only derabanan. The second part of this list is a repeat of the list in yesterday's mishnah. Yesterday's mishnah declared him impure if the source of impurity was a father of impurity. If it was of a lesser nature, then the doubtful case is ruled pure.

אכל אוכלים טמאים – he ate one-half of a piece from ritually impure food or drank a quarter [of a LOG] (i.e., the liquid measurement of the displacement of one-and-one-half eggs) of ritually impure liquid, his body is invalidated from consuming Terumah/heave-offering [if he is a Kohen], and all of this is explained in the first chapter of Tractate Shabbat (see Mishnah 4 in the Bartenura commentary in the first of the eighteen decrees).

Rabbi Yose considers him unclean, for Rabbi Yose says: anything which is presumed to be unclean always remains in a condition of unfitness until it is known that it has become clean; but if there is a doubt whether a person became unclean or caused uncleanness, it is to be accounted clean. Rabbi Yose says that even if the impurity was a lesser one, a person or thing remains in his presumptive status until we can be sure that he or it was purified in a proper mikveh. However, if the doubt is whether or not he ever became impure in the first place, or whether he ever defiled something else, for instance we don't know whether he ate unclean food, or we know that he ate unclean food but we don't know if he touched something else, then the doubt is ruled pure. This is because he, or the thing he might have defiled, did not have a presumptive status of being impure. In sum, the sages and R. Yose disagree as to what principle we invoke in these types of situations. According to the first opinion, if the impurity is serious we rule stringently and if it is lesser than we rule leniently. Rabbi Yose says that the principle is that a person retains his presumptive status.

ואפילו טבל – and now there are two causes for suspicion or doubt; perhaps he did not immerse [in a Mikveh] at all and even if he had immersed [in a Mikveh] perhaps prior to immersion it was lacking [enough water]. Nevertheless, his doubt [regarding his actions leaves him] in a status of being ritually pure.

רבי יוסי מטמא – and even with ritual impurity according to the Rabbis. Because a person is in the presumptive status of being ritually impure.

אבל ספיקו ליטמא ולטמא – as for example, if he at ritually impure [foods] or he didn’t eat, behold his doubt [of status] is to be considered ritually defiled. Or, he certainly ate ritually impure foods, but there is doubt if he made contact with a loaf of heave-offering or didn’t make contact with it, his doubtful status is to cause ritual impurity, that in these, Rabbi Yossi makes him ritually pure, for there is no presumption here of ritual impurity. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

ספק מים שאובים שטיהרו חכמים – In Tractate Tohorot, Chapter “He Who Threw Something Unclean [from Place to Place – chapter 4, Mishnah 7] there it teaches: “These are the doubtful conditions which the Sages declared clean: A doubt concerning drawn water [that falls into] the ritual bath.”

Introduction Drawn water that falls into a mikveh that has less than forty seahs of water is invalid and remains invalid even if more kosher water comes into the mikveh. In Toharot 4:7 we learned that if there is a doubt about whether drawn water went into the mikveh, the rabbis declared it clean. Our mishnah deals with what sort of case of doubt is pure and what case of doubt must be ruled impure.

ספק נפלו – three LOG (i.e., a LOG equals the volume of six eggs) of drawn water in a Mikveh missing [its full complement of forty Seah]/

The case of a doubt about drawn water which the sages have declared clean;
If there is a doubt whether [three logs of drawn water] fell into the mikveh or not, The first possible doubt is whether or not the three logs of drawn water fell into the mikveh in the first place.

ספק יש בהן ארבעים סאה – that is to say, there is doubt that it were forty Kosher Seah [of water] in the Mikveh/ritual bath prior to the drawn [waters] that fell in, for furthermore, the drawn [waters] do not invalidate it (i.e., since it is lacking the required forty Seah to begin with).

Or even if they did fall in, there is a doubt whether [the mikveh] contained forty seahs or not, If the mikveh contained forty seahs of valid water (not drawn) then even if three logs of drawn water fall in, the mikveh remains kosher. So the second level of doubt is whether or not the mikveh was large enough to nullify the three logs.

שיש לו במה יתלה – that it has a place to depend upon their falling that they did not cause it to become invalidated.

Or if there were two mikvehs one of which contained forty seahs and the other did not, and drawn water fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, In this case there are two mikvaot, one of which is large enough to nullify the three logs and we are not sure into which mikveh the logs fell.

שאין לו במה יתלה – that whichever way you turn, in which of them that it fell, it invalidates it, therefore, both of them are invalid. But that which we purify here – it is doubtful if is drawn water in the place where he has upon which to depend, that is because the [notion of] drawn [water] is from the Rabbbis. And it is taught in a Baraita in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Halakhic Midrash of SIfra on the Book of Leviticus: - see Leviticus 11:36): “However, a spring or cistern [in which water is collected shall be pure, but whoever touches a such a carcass in it shall be impure],” that just as a spring is in the hands of Heaven, so also is a ritual bath/Mikveh in the hands of heaven, it is a mere support but not an absolute proof.

In such a doubt it is accounted clean, because there exists [a possibility] on which we may depend [in declaring it clean]. In all of these cases, we can consider the mikveh clean. If the mikveh currently has less than 40 seahs, we can add more water. The reason that the doubt is considered clean is that there is a possibility that the mikveh or both mikvaot are valid.

If they both contained less than forty seahs, and [drawn water] fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, in such a doubt it is accounted unclean, because there exists no [possibility] on which we may depend [in declaring it clean]. In contrast, in this case one of the mikvaot is definitely invalid because neither had forty seahs. Therefore, we have to treat both mikvaot as if they are invalid.

בתחילה – [at first], there wasn’t any water in the Mikveh/ritual bath at all when a quarter [of a LOG] of drawn water fell into it, and afterwards, its measure was completed with rain water.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a quarter-log of drawn water in the beginning makes the mikveh invalid, and three logs on the surface of the water. According to Rabbi Eliezer there is a difference a case when drawn water falls into the mikveh before water is in the hole in the ground and after valid water has already been put in. If the drawn water falls in first, then all that has to fall in is a quarter of a log, which is a very small amount (about 125 grams). If the drawn water falls in at the end, on the surface of water that is already there, then there must be three logs to disqualify the mikveh.

על פני המים – after that there was a great deal of kosher water [in the Mikveh, drawn water fell into it].

But the sages say: both in the beginning and at the end, the measure [which makes the mikveh invalid] is three logs. The other sages rule more leniently. In either case there must be three logs to disqualify the mikveh.

וחכמים אומרים – and the Halakha is according to the Sages (and see Tractate Eduyot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3).

של לוג לוג – one LOG in each hole/indentation.

Introduction Picture a hole in the ground that is to be used for a mikveh. There is currently no water in the hole, but there are three cavities adjacent to the hole, each of which has in it one log of drawn water. If this water is part of the mikveh, it might invalidate the valid waters. Our mishnah deals with the potential validity of such a mikveh.

שלא הגיעו לגומא שלישית כשר – for it is like for him a complete Mikveh in which three LOG of drawn water fell into it that did not invalidate it, but here also, in a Mikveh/ritual bath of forty Seah prior to the [drawn] water arriving into the third hole/indentation, the Mikveh was not invalidated.

If there were three cavities in a mikveh each holding a log of drawn water, if it is known that forty seahs of valid water fell in before reaching the third cavity, [such a mikveh is] valid; otherwise it is invalid. As long as the forty seahs of valid water get into the mikveh before they are joined by the third log of drawn water, the mikveh is valid. As is always the case, less than three logs of drawn water do not invalidate a mikveh and three logs invalidates the mikveh only before there are already forty seahs of valid water. Since in this case, the forty seahs were in the mikveh before the third log of drawn water, the mikveh is valid.

סמוך למקוה – is like a kosher ritual bath/Mikveh that is adjacent to [water] that is drawn, that this stands/remains in its kosher/fit status and this [other body of water] remains in its invalid status, but here also, the water that is in the holes is like they are considered as standing on their own and not as combined/mixed. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Shimon declares it valid, since it resembles a mikveh adjoining another mikveh. If there is a mikveh of drawn water that is next to a mikveh of valid water that doesn't have forty seahs, the drawn water does not invalidate the valid water. So too, according to Rabbi Shimon, the cavities of drawn water that are next to the mikveh do not invalidate the other water in the mikveh.

המסנק (if one presses/scrapes up [the mud] against the sides of the pool) – like removing [to the corners] (see Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 20, Mishnah 4) – that he removes the mud to one side. But not that he detached the mud from the water, but rather within the water, he removed it to one side. For if he had removed it (i.e., the mud) from the water, it would be considered like it is drawn [water], and if they pulled from it three LOG, it invalidates the Mikveh. But this is specifically when there aren’t forty Seah in the Mikveh, this is when the three LOG of drawn water invalidates the Mikveh, but if there were forty Seah in it (i.e., the Mikveh), even all the drawn water in the world would not invalidate it.

If one scraped mud to the sides and then three logs [of water] were drawn out from it [from the mud], [the mikveh is still] valid. If one scraped some mud out of the bottom of a mikveh that doesn't have forty seahs of water in it, and then three logs of water dripped back into the mikveh from the scraped mud, the mikveh is still valid. The water that comes out of the mud is not considered to be "drawn water" such that it invalidates the mikveh.

ור' שמעון מכשיר – because he does not intend for drawing [water] but rather to remove the mud to another place. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

But if removed the mud away and three logs were drawn from it [into the mikveh] it becomes invalid. In this case he removed the mud from the mikveh and didn't just scrape it away to the sides. If the water again seeps out of the mud and goes back into the mikveh it does disqualify it. Such water is considered to be "drawn water."

Rabbi Shimon pronounces it valid, since there was no intention to draw [the water]. Water that one doesn't intend to draw out from somewhere doesn't count as drawn water in order to disqualify a mikveh. Rabbi Shimon considers the water that comes out of the mud to be unintended because his intention was to draw out the mud, not the water. However, the first opinion in the mishnah considers this water to be drawn because there was no way for him to draw out the mud without also drawing out the water.

לנגבן – The Aramaic translation of (Genesis 9:13): “the waters began to dry [from the earth],” for they had certainly dried, and specifically to dry them, that we did not intend for them to receive the water, therefore, they (i.e., the water) would not be made “drawn,” as it is written (Leviticus 11:36): “However, a spring or cistern [in which water is collected shall be pure,]” just as a spring does not have the grasp of the hand by a human, even a well/cistern that does not have the grasp of the hand by a human.

If one had left wine-jars on the roof to dry and they became filled with water:
Rabbi Eliezer says: if it was the season of rain and there was [in the cistern] a little water, one may break the jars; otherwise one may not break them.
Rabbi Joshua says: in either case one may break them or tilt them over, but one may not empty [them into the cistern].
This mishnah deals with rain water that collected in jars on the roof. Is this rain water considered to be "drawn water" such that it will disqualify the water in the cistern to be used as a mikveh.
Section one: The person left the jars on the roof to dry out so that he could use them for wine. Had he left them there with the purpose of gathering water the collected water would count as drawn water and could not be put into the mikveh.
Another complicating factor is that it's the rainy season so it looks like he might have left the jars up there intentionally to gather water (note that if it's not the rainy season, this scenario simply won't occur in Israel, when it's not the rainy season, it doesn't rain at all).
According to Rabbi Eliezer, if there's a little water in the cistern already, then he may break the jars and let the water flow into the cistern and the mikveh will be valid. This is because the water in the jars is not really drawn water, it just looks like drawn water. Therefore, there is room to be lenient when there is already some water in the cistern. However, if there is no water in the cistern, then he may not do so. As he was in mishnah four, Rabbi Eliezer is stringent when it comes to adding water to a cistern at the outset.
Section three: Rabbi Joshua is more lenient. First of all, there is no difference between letting the water flow in before there is other water there and after there is other water there. In both cases, one may either break the jar or even tilt it over and let the water flow into the cistern. The one thing he may not do is pick up the jars and pour them into the mikveh. Picking up the jars turns the water into drawn water which invalidates a mikveh, unless there are already in there 40 seahs of valid water.

אם עונת גשמים היא – that the heavens did not become knotted with clouds and that rain fell.

אם יש בו כמעט מים בבור – we have this reading [of "אם"/if], and we do not have the reading of "או"/or.

ישבר – the jars/cannisters [should be broken] and the water that is in them will fall to the cistern/pit. That this is the conducting of the water through a channel, since that within broken utensils, they (i.e., the water) fall to the cistern/pit.

ואם לאו – that it is not the rainy season, alternatively, that there is no water in the pit/cistern.

לא ישבר – for if it is not the rainy season, he would not be able to make a Mikveh/ritual bath from the water that is in the jars/cannisters alone, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that drawn waters, all of which or most of which were conducted through a channel is invalids. But when it is the rainy season, he would break it to channel these waters, and most of the Mikveh would be filled up from rain water. But when there isn’t any water in it (i.e., the Mikveh) at all, he should not break it, even though it is the rainy season, lest there fall from the water a quarter of a LOG into the pit/cistern prior to breaking it. But Rabbi Eliezer, according to his reasoning, who stated above (see Tractate Mikvaot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4), that a quarter of a LOG of water ab initio invalidates the Mikveh/ritual bath.

ר' יהושע אומר בין כך ובין כך ישבר – that he (i.e., Rabbi Yehoshua) holds that three LOGS [of drawn water] invalidate the Mikveh/ritual bath whether at the beginning or whether at the end, and not one-quarter of a LOG, and we do not suspect that perhaps three LOGS [of drawn water] will fall into the Mikveh/ritual bath prior to breaking [of the jar/cannister]. But even though it is not the rainy season, he should break it, for it is able to continue until [it reaches] the measurement of the Mikveh, for he holds that drawn [water] that continues throughout, is ritually pure. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

או יכפה (or turn it upside down) – that he turns the jars/cannisters that are on the roof upside down so that that the water doesn’t fall from inside them [directly] into the cistern/pit, but rather, that they should fall to one side, and from there continue to the pit/cistern.

אבל לא יערה – that if he raised/lifted up the jars/cannister and emptied them, they (i.e., the waters) would become like drawn water, for they have the grasp of the hand of a human.

הסייד – an artisan who plasters the pit/cistern with plaster/lime in order that it hold its waters, and his practice was to bring the lime/plaster in a common earthen vessel/pot , and that pit/cistern had kosher water in it but when the common earthen vessel/pot was sunk in the water and became filled up.

A plasterer forgot his lime-tub in a cistern and it became filled with water: if water flowed above it a little, it may be broken; and if not, it may not be broken, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. This is a similar situation to yesterday's mishnah. A plasterer, probably making the cistern, forgot his lime-tub in a cistern. Water then collected in the cistern, entered into the tub and then overflowed. The water in the tub now counts as if it was in the cistern. If he wants to make the cistern into a valid mikveh, he can break the tub and take it out. However, if the water has not overflowed the tub, then the water in it counts as drawn water. Therefore, he can't break the tub and let the water into the cistern.

אם היו המים צפים על גביו כל שהוא ישבר – so that the water not become drawn, for all the while that they are combined/mixed. But if he would raise the common earthen vessel/pot in his hand, they would stop and would become detached.

But Rabbi Joshua says: in either case it may be broken. Rabbi Joshua again rules leniently the water does not count as drawn water and does not disqualify the mikveh.

ואם לאו – that the waters did not float on top of it.

לא ישבר – and we are speaking of when it is not the rainy season. For if it was the rainy season, since there is water in the pit/cistern, he should break it.

רבי יהושע אומר בין כך ובין כך ישבר – for it is able to continue, as we explained above [in Mishnah 7].

המסדר קנקנים בבור ונתמלאו אף על פי שבלע הבור את מימיו – but water that is in the cistern/pit is none other than that which are in the jars/cannisters.

Introduction This is the final mishnah in the series concerning water that overflowed vessels into a mikveh. Note that in today's mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua do not disagree. This is a sign that Rabbi Eliezer agrees that in this case the water does not count as drawn water.

הרי זה ישבר – according to Rabbi Yehoshua that one-quarter [of a LOG of water] invalidates [the Mikveh] and he breaks the jars/canisters and makes a Mikveh at the outset.

If one had arranged wine-jars in a cistern and they became filled with water, even though the water of the cistern was all soaked up, they may be broken. The person put the jars in the cistern so that the walls of the jars would become saturated with water (I guess this is good for the jars). He did not intend for the inside of the jars to be filled up. Even if the water in the cistern completely disappears and all that is left is the water in the jars, the jars may be broken and the water let out into the mikveh. In this case, even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that this water doesn't count as drawn water.

רבי יהושע אומר בטיט ובמים – when the water floats on top of the mud/plaster/clay and even his feet are sunk in the mud/clay/plaster, they immerse objects, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, because the waters came first. But Rabbi Eliezer does not have this line of thought. But if he would immerse a small utensil in the water that floats on top of the mud/clay/plaster, in this Rabbi Eliezer admits that the immersion was acceptable, since it did not sink in the mud/clay at all and [they] combine to complete forty Seah. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with a mikveh whose forty seahs are a mixture of mud and water.

שהקנה יורד מאליו – that it is soft and worn out so much that if they would put in it a reed, it would sink in the mud/clay/plaster on its own.

A mikveh which contains forty seahs of water and mud [combined]: Rabbi Eliezer says: one may immerse objects in the water but one may not immerse them in the mud. But Rabbi Joshua says: in the water and also in the mud. Rabbi Eliezer says that one may immerse only in the water, but not in the mud. Rabbi Joshua is again lenient. He allows one to use such a mikveh.

מקום שאין קנה המדה עומד – the rod/reed that they measure with does not stand on its own with it, and this is not soft and worn out like at first.

In what kind of mud may objects be immersed? Mud over which water floats. Rabbi Joshua allows one to immerse in such a mikveh only if the water floats on top of the mud. If the mud floats on top of the water he agrees that it is not usable.

משקולת (plummet) – that which refers to builders/masons. And all of these measurements each one adds with the difficulty of the clay/plaster and its thickness, for the first is softer than all of them, and the second is harder than it, and the third is harder than it (i.e., the second), and similarly all of them.

If the water was on one side only, Rabbi Joshua agrees that objects may be immersed in the water but may not be immersed in the mud. Furthermore, if the water is not mixed up with the mud, he can't just immerse in the mud. He can immerse only in the water and it would seem that in such a case, the mud doesn't join together with the water.

בפי חבית – for its opening is narrow and small. But if the plaster/clay is so soft that it can spill and enter into the narrow mouth of the jar, the immersion has been successful.

Of what kind of mud have they spoken? Mud into which a reed will sink of itself, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [mud] in which a measuring-rod will not stand upright. Abba Elazar ben Dulai says: [mud] into which a plummet will sink. Rabbi Eliezer says: such as will go down into the mouth of a jar. Rabbi Shimon says: such as will enter into the tube of a water- skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: such as can be measured in a log measure. There are six different opinions as to what type of mud can be mixed in with the water such that it counts to bring the total to forty seahs, even for Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Meir says that the mud must be loose enough to let a reed sink into it on its own without being pushed down. Rabbi Judah says the mud must be loose enough such that measuring-rod won't stand on its own. Abba Elazar ben Dulai (never heard of him before) says that the mud must be thin enough so that a plummet will sink due to its weight. Rabbi Eliezer refers to a type of jar used to clean out a cistern. Such a jar has a thin mouth. If the mud will flow into such a jar, then it does not disqualify the water in the cistern. Rabbi Shimon refers to a water skin whose mouth is even narrower. The mud must be loose enough to flow into such a water skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says it must be measurable in a log measuring instrument. This also means it must be relatively loose mud.

שפופרת הנוד (the tube/mouthpiece of the leather bottle) – the tube of the reed that they place upon the mouth of the leather bottle when they pour into it. And the measure of the incision/hole of the tube of the reed that they place on the mouthpiece of the leather bottle, that it would return two mid-range fingers, which is the width of the two first fingers of the palm of the hand, but not the thumb.

הנמדד בלוג – all the time that it so soft that it can be measured by a LOG and this is the utensil that holds six eggs, it is measured with the Mikveh/ritual bath and they immerse in it. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.