Комментарий к Микваот 4:7

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.

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.

ואחד כלים קטנים – that you should not say that they were not important (see also Tractate Kelim, Chapter 15, Mishnah 1).

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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].

המניח טבלא תחת הצנור (he who leaves a tray/board underneath the spout) – to conduct the water into the Mikveh/ritual bath.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to deal with vessels placed under a water-spout and whether the water that flows from the roof, through the spout, into the vessel and then into the mikveh counts as drawn water to disqualify the mikveh.

אם יש לה לבזבז (if it has a vertical rim/edge – by which a flat utensil is made into a vessel-lie receptacle) – a rim around from the four directions in order that it will be for it a receptacle).

One who put a board under a water-spout: if it had a rim to it, it disqualifies the mikveh; otherwise it does not disqualify the mikveh. If the board had a rim to it, then it counts as a vessel. Water that gathers in it is considered drawn water that disqualifies a mikveh. Without a rim it is not a vessel and the water in it does not disqualify the mikveh.

פוסלת את המקוה – it would be for them drawn water, and because the spout itself does not invalidate the Mikveh, we are speaking of a spout that was established [first] and at the end, they hollow it/shape it into a receptacle.

If he made it stand upright to be rinsed, in neither case does it disqualify the mikveh. Here it is 100 per cent clear that he did not put the board under the water-spout to collect water, just to rinse the spout. Therefore, it does not count as drawn water.

זקפה לידוח (if he set it upright to rinse it) – in order that it should be rinsed from the filth that is in it,

it does not invalidate the Mikveh/ritual bath, for it doesn’t exist in the manner of its reception.

החוטט בצנור (if one makes a cavity in a water pipe – for the deposit of pebbles) – it is the manner of a water pipe to be open from two sides, and this does not invalidate the Mikveh/ritual bath unless he hollowed it out a small cavity in order to receive stones that prevent the passage of the water, and it (i.e., the Mishnah) is speaking of when he hallowed it out and at the end established it/made it permanent, for since, it had upon it the status of a utensil when it was detached, for the water passing through it was drawn [water] and invalidates the Mikveh.

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with cases where the water-spout itself is considered a vessel and therefore any water that flows from it would disqualify the mikveh.

ובשל חרס – it is not considered a utensil until it has a receptacle of one-quarter [of a LOG].

If one makes a hollow in a water-spout to collect pebbles, its water disqualifies the mikveh; In the case of a wooden [spout] if it holds even a little, But in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it will hold a quarter-log. Rabbi Yose says: also in the case of an earthenware [spout] if it holds even a little: they have spoken of "a quarter-log" only in the case of broken sherds of an earthenware utensil. The hollow was made to collect the pebbles and prevent them from continuing through the spout and clogging it up. However, this makes the water-spout itself into a vessel and the water that flows through it will, or at least might, disqualify the mikveh. The size of the hollow that will turn it into a vessel depends on the material in which it was made. If it was made of wood, the receptacle can be of any size, even the smallest size, and it causes the wood to be considered a receptacle. Since wood is the more expensive material, it seems that it is easier for wood to be considered a vessel. If it is of earthenware, it must hold at least a quarter-log. However, Rabbi Yose disagrees and says that even earthenware need hold only a minimal amount. Rabbi Yose acknowledges that there is an old halakhah concerning earthenware and the measurement of a quarter-log. However, this measurement deals with broken earthenware vessels they are still considered vessels as long as they can hold a quarter-log. But if the earthenware vessel is unbroken, it need hold only a minimal amount to be considered a vessel.

לא אמרו רביעית אלא בשברי החרס – specifically with an earthenware utensil after it was broken we require that he broken piece holds one-quarter [of a LOG], but from its outset, even a little bit/anything is considered a utensil, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

If the pieces of gravel moved about inside [the hollow], it disqualifies the mikveh. If dirt went down into it and was pressed down, [the mikveh continues to be] valid. The mishnah now deals with the question of when is the hollow considered to be full such that it no longer turns the water-spout into a vessel. If the pieces of gravel are still moving around, then it is not full. However, if dirt has been pressed down into it, then it is considered full and water that flows through the spout will not disqualify the mikveh.

מתחלחלים (thrown about) – [the stones/pebbles] are rolling about within the receptable, and they are not crushed/ground in it even though that it was filled with them, but rather they move about here and there. It is the language of (Esther 4:4) “And the queen was greatly agitated.”

If the spout was narrow at each end and wide in the middle, it does not disqualify [the mikveh] invalid, because it had not been made to gather anything in it. Although water might gather in such a spout, whose ends are narrow and middle is wide, the middle was not designed to hold water, just to let it pass through. Its water will not disqualify the mikveh.

פוסלין את המקוה – for its receiving was not invalidated.

ירד לתוכו – into the receptacle.

עפר ונכבש (dirt and it was pressed tight) – the dirt was settled and made nicely fastened and the water passes over it. The [Aramaic] Targum of (Numbers 20:19): “We will keep to the beaten track,” – we will go up on the paved path.

כשר – for there isn’t a receptacle here.

סילון (pipe/duct/tube) -and a water spout and tube/spout, are one.

שהוא צר מכאן ומכאן – from its two mouths, from the place where the water enters into it and from the place that it does down from it into the Mikveh.

ורחב באמצע – nevertheless, it is not considered for receiving all the while that he didn’t shape the receptacle to receive the stones.

מים שאובים – which are invalid for a Mikveh.

Drawn water and rain water which were mixed together in a courtyard or in a cavity or on the steps of a cave: If the greater part was valid, the whole is valid; And if the greater part is invalid, the whole is invalid. If they were equal in quantity, the whole is invalid. The "cavity" referred to here is a depression in the ground close to the mikveh, but not part of the mikveh. The steps of the cave are those that lead down into the mikveh (if you're ever in an archaeological site in Israel you will see those all over the place). Thus in all three of these cases the waters that are mixed together have not yet arrived at the mikveh. This is important because if the drawn water had flowed directly into the mikveh and there were not forty seahs of valid water in the mikveh, the mikveh would be invalid. In the cases listed here, as long as the majority is rain water, which is valid for use in the mikveh, the entire mikveh is valid.

ומי גשמים – that are kosher.

When [does this apply]? When they were mingled together before they arrived at the mikveh. The leniency in the above section applies only if they are mingling such that they cannot be recognized as coming from different sources before they get to the mikveh.

שנתערבו בחצר או בעוקה – (that combined in a courtyard or a pit/trough) – in a hole that water gathered in there, or on the steps of the cave, and from there, they continued and descended to the Mikveh.

If [the drawn water] flowed into the [rain] water: it was known that there fell in forty seahs of valid water before there came in three logs of drawn water, [the mikveh is] valid; otherwise it is invalid. However, if the drawn water is recognizable as it flows into the rain water (for instance the drawn water has a different color), then for the mikveh to be valid we must be sure that there were forty seahs of valid water in the mikveh before three logs of drawn water got in. As a reminder, once forty seahs of valid water (not drawn water) are in the mikveh, it is not invalidated by the addition of drawn water.

אם רוב מן הכשר – as for example that twenty-one Seah of them were rain water and nineteen of them were drawn water, it is kosher/fit.

היו מקלחין בתוך המים – that they didn’t descend to the Mikveh by conducting water through a channel through the path of the courtyard and the pit/trough and the ascent of the cave, but rather from the utensils themselves they would splash in an uninterrupted flow into the Mikveh.

ואם לאו פסול – that three LOGS of drawn water invalidate [the Mikveh] when they fell into the Mikveh not by the conducting of water through a channel. But the path of conducting of water through a channel did not invalidate until most of the water is drawn [water], even the drawn waters on their own that did not mix/combine with the kosher [waters], do not invalidate by the conducting of water through a channel other than with a majority. As for example, a Mikveh that has in it twenty-one Seah of rain water, fills with a carrier/porter and channels through it nineteen Seah of drawn waters and it is fit, for the majority are kosher waters. And such is the Halakha.

השקת (a grooved stone to receive and carry off the overflow of a well, sink, trough) – a hollowed-out stone that is on the rim of the spring. And the water enters into it through a cavity/hole in its wall, and provide water for the cattle in it.

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with the water gathered either in a trough found inside a rock, or with some sort of containing vessel made out of the stone of such a trough.

אין ממלאים ממנה (see also Tractate Parah, Chapter 5, Mishnah 7) – [and they don’t draw from it] water for the waters of purification (which were mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, which was used to purify people and vessels that became ritually impurity with impurity imparted by a corpse).

In the case of a trough in a rock: One may not fill up [the hatat waters] from it, nor may the [hatat waters] be consecrated in it, nor may one sprinkle from it. And it does not require a tightly stopped-up covering, And it does not invalidate the mikveh. While the trough is still in the rock, it doesn't count as a vessel. There are three areas of consequence to this. The first is that it can't be used for various parts of the preparation of the "hatat waters" those waters into which the ashes of the red heifer are mixed. This same mishnah can be found in Parah 5:7. Secondly, since it is not a vessel it does not need a tightly-fitting cover to protect its contents from becoming impure if found in a tent (an ohel) with a dead body. Third, the water in it is not considered drawn water such that it doesn't disqualify a mikveh.

ואין מקדשין בה – they don’t places the ashes of the heifer on the water that is in it, for it is not considered a utensil. But here, we are speaking of an attached rock that was hollowed out/made into a receptacle, and even something detached that was attached and then ultimately hollowed out/made into a receptacle, since it did not have upon it the designation/status of a utensil while detached, it is not considered a utensil.

If it was a vessel and had been joined to the ground with lime: One may fill up the hatat waters from it and the hatat waters may be consecrated in it, and one may sprinkle from it, And it requires a tightly stopped-up covering; And it invalidates the mikveh invalid. If he cut the trough out of the rock and made a vessel out of it, all of the opposite is true. Now it is a vessel so it can be used for the hatat waters but not for the mikveh.

ואינה צריכה צמיד פתיל (and it doesn’t require being closely covered with a lid) – if it is in the tent of a dead person (i.e., corpse), it saves what is inside it with a covering alone without being closely covered with a lid, because it is not considered a utensil but rather like a cistern or a subterranean masoned store-room, that saves what is in it with a covering alone.

If a hole was made in it below or at the side so that it could not contain water in however small a quantity, it is valid. And how large must the hole be? Like the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Yehudah ben Batera said: it happened in the case of the trough of Yehu in Jerusalem that there was a hole in it like the tube of a water-skin, all the pure things in Jerusalem were made using it. But Bet Shammai sent and broke it down, for Bet Shammai say: [it remains a vessel] unless the greater part of it is broken down. A trough can be nullified from being a vessel by having a hole in it the size of the tube of a water-skin. This is about two fingers in width. Since it can no longer contain water, it is no longer considered a vessel. Rabbi Yehudah ben Batera relates a story that happened during the Second Temple period in Jerusalem. The water in this trough was used to in the mikvaot of Jerusalem and everything that went through those mikvaot was considered pure. Until Bet Shammai came along, that is. Bet Shammai holds that the trough remains a vessel until the greater part is broken. So Bet Shammai actually sent for the trough and had it broken down to accommodate their purity stringencies. The mishnah does not say how Bet Hillel responded, but I am sure they were not happy.

ואינה פוסלת את המקוה – if rain water fell from inside it to a Mikveh, they are not considered drawn waters to invalidate the Mikveh/ritual bath.

וכמה יהא הנקב – to neutralize it from the law of being a utensil s that it does not invalidate the Mikveh from the reason of drawn [water].

כשפופרת הנאד (like the tube – i.e., mouthpiece – of the leather bottle) – and its measurement is that they would be two fingers of the hand closest to the thumb that return in their width at the extension within the incision.

וכל טהרות של ירושלים נטבלים על גבה – that they immerse within it and make them pure, but there weren’t forty Seah [of water] in the grooved stone/trough [to receive and carry off the overflow] but rather a complete Mikveh was at its side and the waters of the grooved stone/trough mix with it through the incision in the tube/mouthpiece [of the leather bottle].

עד שתפחת רובה – even if there is in the incision like that of a tube of a leather bottle, it always has the status/designation of a utensil upon it until its greater part will be broken down.