Comentário sobre Machshirin 4:11

השוחה לשתות, בפיו ובשפמו הרי הן בכי יותן ( he who kneels down to drink) – that is the reason, because the waters do not enter into his mouth unless they touch his moustache first, therefore we consider them [as being under the law of “when water is put on” – Leviticus 11:38).

If one bent down to drink, the water which came up on his mouth or on his moustache comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But [what came up] on his nose or on his head or on his beard does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. When one drinks water from a river there is no way to avoid getting one's mouth or mustache wet. Therefore, the water that comes up on his mouth or mustache is, in a sense, something he wanted, because without it, he couldn't drink. It will therefore cause susceptibility. But he didn't need to get his nose, head or beard wet. Therefore, the water that comes up with these parts of the body does not cause susceptibility.

הממלא בחבית, המים העולים אחריה (he who draws water with a jug, the water which comes up on its outer parts) – they are [considered as under the law of] “when water is put on,” (Leviticus 11:38), for it is impossible that they can enter until they reach its outer parts. But if he placed it underneath the spout [when its waters splash forth], that which comes up on its outer parts is not [considered as under the law of] “when water is put on,” for it is possible for it (i.e., the water) to spout forth continuously that it will descend into it (i.e., the jug) and not touch its outer parts.

If one drew water with a jar, the water which came up on its outside, or on the rope which was wound round its neck, or on the rope which was needed for its use, comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. How much rope is needed for its use? Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: a handbreadth. When he lets the jar down into the cistern to bring up water, these parts of the jar/rope will certainly get wet. Therefore, the water on them will cause susceptibility. But he really only needs enough rope to lower the jug down into the cistern. Since he could lean down and fill the jug and only have a small bit of rope get wet, he doesn't really need the rest to become wet. Therefore, the water on the rest of the rope does not cause susceptibility.

מכונן על צוארה (the rope wound round its neck) – surrounding, like a ring that surrounds the neck of the jug. [The word] מכונן is the language of (Deuteronomy 32:6): “Fashioned you and made you endure.”

If he put the jar under the rain-pipe, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. In this case, he wants the water to fall into the bucket and if he were to place it correctly there would be no rain on the outside the bucket. Therefore, any water on the outside of the jar does not cause susceptibility.

נתנה – [put] for the jug.

תחת הצנור – to receive the water.

אינן בכי יותן – the waters that are on the outer parts and on the rope, for it is not satisfactory for him other than that the waters should fall into it (i.e., the jug) alone.

אפילו אב הטומאה – even if this person was a primary source of ritual impurity, and the liquids which came down upon him were defiled, but we stated above (Tractate Makhshirin, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1): “that impure liquids impart uncleanness whether intentionally and/or unintentionally,” nevertheless, they do not make fit for Levitical uncleanness, since the falling of rain waters upon him was unintentional/not acceptable.

If rain came down upon a person, even if he was unclean with a father of impurity, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; The assumption the Mishnah makes is that a person does not want water to come down on his head. Therefore, the rainwater that falls on him remains pure, even if he is totally impure by being a "father of impurity" (for instance, he came into contact with a dead body).

ואם ניער (but if he shook off – the rain) – like he shook off his garment [from the dust]” [Shabbat 147a and Rashi’s commentary]; that he shook his body to remove the rain from upon it.

But if he shook it off, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. However, once he shakes the water off his body, it now causes produce to be susceptible to impurity because it has been intentionally removed from its "source," which in this case, is his body.

בכי יותן – the water that falls from him are made fit for Levitical uncleanness.

If one stood under a rain-pipe to cool himself or to wash himself, [the water falling on him] is unclean if he is unclean; If he is clean, it [only] comes under the law of if water be put. In this case he intentionally wanted the water to fall on him. Therefore, if he is unclean, the water becomes unclean. It also causes produce to be susceptible to impurity (unclean water always causes produce to be susceptible, but it doesn't transmit impurity to non-sacred food). If he is clean then the water is not yet unclean in and of itself. However, because he wanted it to come onto his body, it does make produce susceptible. Again, we see here an excellent example of how intent dictates purity/impurity. If he intends to get wet, the water is impure or causes susceptibility.

להקר – to cool himself

או לידוח – to wash his body, as for example that he was dirty with plaster or with excrement/filthy matter.

בטמא – if he was an impure person.

טמאים – the waters [are impure]. But if they fell on the fruit and made them fit for Levitical uncleanness and defiled them as one.

ובטהור בכי יותן – and he makes them fit for Levitical uncleanness.

If one inclined a dish against a wall that it might be rinsed [by rainwater], it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Again, the whole issue here is intent, as it is generally in these mishnayot. If he intended for the dish to get rinsed off, then the water does cause susceptibility.

But if in order that the wall might not be damaged, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But if he only put the dish up against the wall so that it would protect the wall, then the water has not been "used" so it doesn't cause susceptibility.

חבית שירד הדלף לתוכה (the jug into which water leaking from the roof came down) – that re not acceptable/intentional, and within it (i.e., the jug) are fruit and he doesn’t want that they become fit to receive ritual defilement.

A jar into which a leak [from a roof] fell: Bet Shammai say: it should be broken. But Bet Hillel say: it may be emptied out. The roof leaks into a jar full of produce. Clearly this was not something that the owner would have wanted. Thus, at this point the water has not made the produce susceptible to impurity. The problem is how can he get the water out without then making the produce susceptible? According to Bet Shammai he really can't. Because once he tilts it over to the side the water will go from one side to the other and since this is something he wants, the produce will now be susceptible. The only way to get all the produce out without it becoming susceptible is to break the jar. Bet Hillel says that as long as the water is in the jar, it is not something he wants and it won't make the produce susceptible.

ישבר – that if he empties it out, he transfers the water from here to there intentionally and it is found that the fruit are made fit to receive ritual defilement.

But they agree that one may put out his hand and take produce from it and they are insusceptible to uncleanness. However, both houses agree that as long as he doesn't shift the water around to pour it out, the produce will not be susceptible. He can reach his hand in and take out produce and it will remain insusceptible.

ומודים – The School of Shammai [agrees] with the School of Hillel.

שהוא מושיט את ידו וכו' הן טהורין (that he puts his hand in – and takes pieces of fruit out – and they are not fit for uncleanness) – meaning to say, that they were not made fit through this.

הניתזין (that are splashing) – from it outwards.

Introduction Yesterday's mishnah dealt with water from a roof that falls into a jar of produce. Today's mishnah deals with water that falls into a tub.

והצפין (that which overflows the vessel) – above and goes outward. All of them are not [considered as] under the law of “when water is put” (Leviticus 11:38), because they are not done intentionally, and similarly the water that is inside of them.

A tub into which a like [from a roof] fell, the water which splashed out or ran over does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. The water in the tub and even the water that flows or splashes out of the tub does not cause susceptibility because in this case (unlike the case in section three) he didn't put it there in order to collect it.

נטלה לשפכה – that he did not pour them out in their place but rather he took the trough to pour the water out in another place, they are [considered as] under the law of “when water is put,” for they are done intentionally, since he did not pour them out immediately there in their place.

If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water: Bet Shammai say: it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. According to Bet Shammai, once he lifts up the tub in order to pour out the water, he gives significance to the water because he is thinking about what to do with it. Therefore, it will now cause susceptibility to impurity. Bet Hillel says that even in this case the water does not cause susceptibility.

ובית הלל אומרים – since he did not leave them there but took them to pour them, they are not [considered as] under the law of “when water is put.”

If one placed the tub in order that the leak [from the roof] should fall into it: Bet Shammai say: the water that splashes out or runs over comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. In this case, he intentionally put the tub under the roof so that the water would fall in. Both houses would agree that the water in the tub does cause susceptibility because that is where he intended the water to go. The houses disagree concerning the water that spills or splashes out. According to Bet Shammai since he wanted the water to go into the tub, the water that goes in and then splashes out does cause susceptibility. Bet Hillel says that since this water did not end up in the tub, where he wanted it to go, it does not cause susceptibility.

הניחה – if he left the trough there from the outset in order that the drippings from the roof would come down upon it.

If one moved the tub in order to pour out the water, both agree that it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once he lifts up the tub to pour out the water, the water retains its ability to cause susceptibility. The difference here is that he intentionally removed the water, whereas in section three it just spilled or splashed out.

אלו ואלו – The School of Shammai and the School of Hillel agree that even though that he took it and afterwards poured it out, they are under the law of “when water is put,” since he had already considered/intended it.

If one immersed vessels or washed his garment in a cavern, the water that came up on his hands comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; but what came up on his feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Eliezer says: if it was not possible for him to go down into the cavern without soiling his feet, what came up on his feet also comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Since he needed to get his hands wet to immerse the vessel, the water that clings to his hands does cause susceptibility. But theoretically he could immerse the vessel without getting his feet wet or dirty, so the water that clings to his feet does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Eliezer adds a caveat that if there was no way to immerse the vessel without getting his feet wet and dirty then the water that clings to his feet also causes susceptibility. As a reminder, when someone does something that will necessarily cause him or part of him, or even his things to get wet, the water that clings to him is something he desired because he knew that he would get wet. But if he didn't need to get wet, and also wouldn't have wanted to do so, then the contact with the water is not to his wishes and the water does not cause susceptibility.

מים העולים בידיו – that he washes [his clothing] with them, and it is satisfactory to him.

ברגליו – it is not satisfactory to him.

אא"כ נטנפו רגליו (unless his feet become muddy/soiled) – they are under the law of “when water is put,” anything that he would fill in a jar that is mentioned above, for water that comes up after it is under the law of “when water is put,” as it is explained above, because it is impossible for water to enter into it until they touch its outside (but the Halakha does not follow Rabbi Eliezer).

והם טהורין – even though an impure person stretched forth his hand and took it (i.e., the lupines), because they were not made fit/susceptible [for ritual impurity] in the water of the ritual bath, as it is written (Leviticus 11:34): “[as to any liquid that may be drunk,] it shall be become impure if it was inside any vessel,” just as a designated vessel which is detached and it makes fit/susceptible [for ritual impurity], even anything that is detached makes it fit/susceptible [for ritual impurity], excluding water that are in the pits/cisterns, ditches and caves that are not detached from the ground that do not make susceptible/fit [for ritual impurity] when do not make susceptible/fit [for ritual impurity] all the while that they are not detached.

A basket full of lupines placed in a mikveh, one may put out his hand and take lupines from it and they remain clean. In this case the basket was not put into the mikveh in order to rinse off the lupines. As long as the water in the mikveh remains connected to the mikveh it does not cause produce to become susceptible. And when he removes the lupines (a type of bean) he didn't want the water to come out with them (he didn't intend to rinse them off) so that water also does not cause susceptibility.

העלם מן המים (if he took them out of the water) – the lupines became fit/susceptible to receive ritual impurity in he detached waters.

But if he lifted them out of the water, those that touch the basket are unclean, but the rest of the lupines are clean. However, if he lifts the basket out of the water then the water on the sides of the basket does cause impurity because this water is something he would have wanted it cleans the sides of the basket. Therefore, any lupines that touch the sides of the basket are susceptible. The rest of the lupines are still not susceptible because the water that touched them is not something he wanted.

הנוגעים בקופה טמאים – that the basket is made first-degree of ritual uncleanness when an impure person touched it/came in contact with it, and the lupines that touch the basket are second-degree of ritual impurity.

If there was a radish in a cavern, a niddah may rinse it and leave it clean. But if she lifted it, however little, out of the water, it becomes unclean. The water in the cavern is still in its source. Therefore it does not cause susceptibility. A niddah could put the radish in the water and it would remain clean. However, as soon as she removes it, even a little bit, the water causes the radish to be susceptible to impurity because the water has been removed from it source, and this was something the woman would have wanted (she put it in there to rinse it off). Thus we see the difference in this mishnah between intentionally washing off, such as the case of the radish, and unintentional washing off. Only in the first case does the water that clings to the produce cause susceptibility.

ושאר כל הטורמסים – that do not touch the basket.

טהורים – for something that is second degree of ritual impurity does not make non-holy produce third-degree of ritual impurity.

נדה מדיחתו (a menstruant rinses it off) – and it is not susceptible to receive ritual impurity in water that is attached to the cave.

ידיו טהורות – for we don’t require intention for non-holy produce. But if they were fruits/produce for tithes, and all the more so for heave-offering/priest’s due, his hands are ritually impure as they were, until he would intend to ritually immerse his hands.

If produce fell into a channel of water, and one whose hands were unclean put out his hands and took it, his hands become clean and the produce [also] remains clean. By putting his hands into the channel of water, he has purified them, assuming that only his hands were unclean (like netilat yadayim). The produce has not been made susceptible to impurity because he didn't intentionally put the produce into the water.

והפירות טהורים – and they were not made susceptible [to receive ritual impurity] (as they fell of their own accord) for this was not considered falling.

But if his intention was that his hands should be rinsed, his hands become clean and the produce comes under the law of ‘if water be put.’ If he intends to rinse the produce off, the produce is clearly susceptible to impurity. His hands are in any case purified by having been put in the water.

ואם בשביל שיודחו ידיו (and if he gave thought that his hands should be rinsed off) – for he had intended to take the fruit/produce from the water, the fruit/produce is under the law of “when water is put,” (Leviticus 11:38), and they are fit/susceptible to receive ritual impurity from now on. For he had considered in this falling of fruit/produce to ritually wash his hands while lifting them up [out of the water], for these for him a liquid that ultimately will be intentional, and even though it is not intentional at the outset, they are under the law of “when water is put.”

ופשט אב הטומאה את ידיו לתוכה טמאה – for an earthenware vessel receives ritual defilement from a primary source of ritual impurity (i.e., a corpse) that touches him, his ritual immersion did not count, for even though he was in the ritual bath/Mikveh, because the waters that are in it (i.e., the dish) interpose between him and waters of the ritual bath/Mikveh.

If a pot full of water was placed in a mikveh, and a person who was unclean by a father of impurity put his hand into the pot, it becomes unclean. The pot in this mishnah is made of earthenware, which does not become pure by having been put in a mikveh. If a person who is a "father of impurity," meaning he has a high level of impurity (for instance, contact with a dead body or with a sheretz), puts his hand into the pot, he defiles the pot.

מגע טומאות טהורה – If it was not a primary source of ritual impurity that touched it, but rather a first-degree of ritual impurity, and he is called unclean [only by reason of] contact with unclean things, that is to say, he comes in contact with primary sources of ritual defilement, then the dish is ritually pure, for an earthenware vessel does not receive ritual defilement other than from a primary source of ritual defilement, and it is found that the dish was not defiled other than on account of impure liquids that were within it that had been defiled, and they go back and defile it, and because of this it does not defile, for the waters that were within it were dipped in the waters of a Mikveh/ritual bath and purified. But the rest of the liquids, as for example, wine, [olive] oil and milk, the ritual bath/Mikveh does not purify them, for they do not consider it the dipping of a vessel, filled with an unclean liquid, so as to make its surface level with the surface of the water into which it is dipped/contact between liquids (i.e., a ceremony of Levitical purification), therefore they return and defile the dish, for the Rabbis decreed upon liquids that they would defile, as a decree because of the liquid of a person afflicted with gonorrhea and/or a woman with a flux.

But if [he was unclean] by a "touch of defilement," the pot remains clean. However, if the person putting his hand in the pot has a lower degree of impurity, meaning he touched someone who is a "father of impurity," then the pot remains clean for such a person does not defile vessels. Only a "father of impurity" defiles vessels. The water remains clean as well, for the water is in the mikveh.

But any of the other liquids [contained in the pot] becomes unclean, for water cannot purify the other liquids. However, any other liquid that might be in the pot (oil, for instance) does become impure and then it will defile the pot. The water of the mikveh purifies only water, not other liquids (see Mikvaot 10:6). See also Kelim 8:4, where the irony of this situation was discussed.

הממלא בקילון (if one draws water with the swipe and bucket for drawing water) – when the water is collected in one place and they (i.e., people) request to bring it to another field, they make for them a path that these waters can come in, and the name of that path that these waters are conducted [in a channel] is called a קילון /swipe and bucket for אם drawing water/duct, and up to three days this swipe and bucket does not dry up from the waters that were conducted/flowing into it, and they make the produce/fruit that fell into it susceptible [for ritual impurity], for these were done intentionally.

If one drew water through a kilon (a pump-, it causes susceptibility to uncleanness for three days. A "kilon" is a pump-beam used to draw water from a deep well. If produce becomes wet through contact with water in the pump the produce is susceptible for up to three days after the pump has been used. For three days we can assume any water in there that was drawn from the well hasn't dried up and therefore it causes susceptibility. After three days, we can assume that the water pumped from the well dried up and that the water found in there currently came from elsewhere, and does not cause susceptibility.

רבי עקיבא אומר אם נגבו מיד – Rabbi Akiba does not argue with the first Tanna/teacher, for a mere קילון/swipe and bucket for drawing water does not dry until three days. And the first Tanna/teacher is speaking about a mere קילון/swipe and bucket. But this is found explicitly in the Tosefta (Tractate Makhshirin, Chapter 2, Halakha 9) that Rabbi Akiba admits that with a mere קילון/swape-pipe it is three days.

Rabbi Akiva says: if it was dried, it at once does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness; but if it was not dried, it causes susceptibility even for thirty days. Rabbi Akiva says that if we know that the kilon was dried, then even if produce comes into contact with water in there immediately thereafter, we can assume that the moisture was not from water drawn from the well. But if the kilon has not been dried, then the assumption is that the water in it was pumped from the well and it will cause susceptibility.

שנפו עליהם משקים – impure [liquids].

If [unclean] liquids fell upon wood and rain came down upon it and [the rain water] exceeded [the liquids] in quantity, they are clean. Two liquids fall on this wood rain and unclean liquids. Rain does not cause susceptibility to impurity, unless one wants something to get wet. Unclean liquids do cause susceptibility. If the rain water is greater in quantity than the unclean water, the wood remains pure.

אם רבו – the rain waters [were greater] than these [impure] liquids, they were nullified and purified.

If he took [the wood out] so that rain would come down upon it, they are unclean even though [the rain water] exceeded in quantity. If he wanted the wood to get wet, then the rainwater does cause it to be susceptible. Since unclean water fell on the wood, the wood is now unclean. We should note that others explain that the water wasn't unclean, just that it caused susceptibility to impurity. Therefore, the wood wouldn't be actually unclean. It would only be susceptible to impurity.

הוציאן כדי שירדו עליהם גשמים – that he reckoned them for rain [to fall upon them].

If [the wood] had absorbed unclean liquids, even if he took the wood outside in order that rain should come down upon it, it is clean. But one may not light the wood in an oven except with clean hands. Rabbi Shimon says: if the wood was moist and then he lit it, and the liquids that came out of it exceeded in quantity the liquids which it had absorbed, they become clean. In this case, the wood absorbed the unclean liquid and this liquid can no longer be seen. The wood was therefore never susceptible to impurity. When the rain comes down upon it, it is not defiled, even if he took the wood outside so that it would get wet. However, when he puts the wood into the oven to light it he should make sure his hands are pure. If his hands are impure, his hands will defile the liquids on the wood and then the liquid on the wood could defile the oven. Rabbi Shimon says that if the wood was moist (meaning freshly cut) and then he lit it in the oven and more water came out then the quantity that it absorbed from the impure water, then the impure water that comes out is considered clean. Don't even ask me how one would practically measure such a thing, I have no idea.

אע"פ שרבו טמאין – for the rain waters themselves were ritually defiled.

בלעו משקים טמאים – as for example, that the wood was dry from the outside, but within, the liquids were absorbed, even though that he took them outside in order that the rain would fall upon them, for he reckoned them for rain, and even so, they are ritually pure, for they did not come in contact with impure liquids, for they absorbed them.

לא יסיקם אלא בידים טהורות (he should kindle them only with clean hands)- so that the hands do not ritually defile the rain waters that were considered and they would return and defile the oven, for a liquid defiles a vessel. But with ritually pure hands, he is able to kindle them in the oven, and the oven is ritually pure, but we don’t say that ultimately the impure liquid that is absorbed will come out on account of the kindling, for the fire controls the wood and when the flame seizes them (i.e., the wood), the liquids cease inside them, and they don’t go out when they kindle them in the oven.

אם היו לחין (if they were wet/freshly cut) – these pieces of wood that had absorbed impure liquids and on account of their wetness/moisture, the liquids themselves came out from them, but if those liquids expunged the impure liquid that was absorbed and the liquids (i.e., the sap) were greater on their own than the absorbed [impure] liquid, [they are pure, according to Rabbi Shimon].

טהורין – that they nullified them. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.