meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכשירין
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Makhshirin
  
  Introduction
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Any liquid which was desired at the beginning  though it was not desired at the end, or which was desired at the end though it was not desired at the beginning, comes under the law of "if water be put."  For a liquid to make produce susceptible to impurity its contact with the produce has to be desired either at the beginning or the end. The "beginning" is when the liquid came into being, or was separated from its natural source. Rainfall begins when it comes from the sky. If while the rain is falling a person says or thinks to himself that he wants to use the water for some purpose, then the rain is "desired." Alternatively, if he is happy that the rain fell on his produce, then the rain is desired. "Not desired at the end" means that too much rain fell on his produce. If it was desired at the end but not in the beginning means that at first he was not happy with the fact that water was falling on his produce. But then, at the end, he saw that this was good and he was happy. All's well that ends well, as they say. In either case, the produce is susceptible to impurity. It would only not be susceptible if he was never happy that it got on his produce.
  Unclean liquids render unclean whether [their action] is desired or is not desired.  Unclean liquids, those that have already been defiled in some way, make produce susceptible whether or not their contact is desired.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If one shook a tree in order to cause food or something unclean  to fall down from it, [the rain water dropping down from it] does not come  under the law of ‘if water be put.'  Since his intention was not to bring the rain down from the tree, but rather food or something else, such as an impure thing, the water that falls down does not cause produce to be susceptible to impurity. He doesn't want this water to fall down.
  If [he shook the tree] in order to cause liquids to fall down from it: Bet Shammai says: both [the liquids] that fall down and [the liquids] that remain  [on the tree] come under the law of ‘if water be put.' But Bet Hillel say: [the liquids] that fall down come under the law of ‘if water be put’, but [the liquids] that remain [on the tree] do not come under the law of ‘if water be put,' because his intention was that [the liquids] should drop down from all the tree.  In this case, he shook the tree in order to cause the rain water to fall down. Bet Shammai rules that even the water that remains in the tree now causes produce to be susceptible because he wanted that water to fall down. In other words, even if his intention is not fulfilled, the water still causes impurity because he wanted it. Bet Hillel says that only the water that falls causes susceptibility because in the end, this is the water that he wanted.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If one shook a tree  and it fell on another tree, or a branch and it fell on another branch, and under them were seeds or vegetables [still] joined to the ground: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  Bet Shammai holds that even though the water fell on produce that was still attached to the ground, the water is now sufficient to make other produce susceptible to impurity. In other words, since the water has been intentionally removed from its original place, it now makes produce susceptible. Note that the produce on which it fell is not susceptible because produce attached to the ground is never susceptible. Bet Hillel holds that since the water fell on produce attached to the ground, it is not yet sufficient to make food susceptible. However, if after this the water fell subsequently onto other trees or other branches the water becomes ready to make food susceptible to impurity.
  R. Joshua said in the name of Abba Yose Holikofri a man of Tivon:   Be surprised if there is any liquid that according to the Torah causes susceptibility to uncleanness except one put it on with intention, for it is said: "If water be put upon the seed."  Rabbi Joshua holds that liquid causes produce to be susceptible only if it was intentionally put on to food. This is because he reads the verb "be put upon" with different vocalization, which yields, "if one puts upon." In Hebrew the former is "ki yutan" whereas the latter is "ki yiten" the only difference between the two is in vocalization.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If one shook a bundle of vegetables and [water] dropped down from the upper [side] to the lower [side]: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  According to Bet Shammai, even if the water only moves from part of the bundle to another part, it still causes the water to make the produce susceptible to impurity. In contrast, Bet Hillel again rules leniently. Since the water has not left the bundle, it does not yet cause produce to be susceptible.
  Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: if one shakes a stalk, do we fear lest water drops from one leaf on the other leaf? Bet Shammai said to them: a stalk is only one, but a bundle has many stalks.  Bet Hillel argues with Bet Shammai from what they perceive to be an analogous case. If one has a stalk of some sort of produce and one shakes it and water drops from one leaf to another, all agree that the water has not yet been separated from its source such that it causes susceptibility to impurity. So too, if one shakes a bunch of produce it does not yet cause susceptibility. Bet Shammai says that the two situations are different, for when it comes to the stalk, it is only one piece of produce. The bundle contains many pieces of produce, and therefore we can perceive of the water as having left its original place and moving to another.
  Bet Hillel said to them: behold, if one lifted a sack full of produce and put it beside the river, do we fear lest water drops from the upper [side] to the lower [side]?  Bet Hillel again argues against Bet Shammai. When one brings a sack of produce to the river so that water will soak out of the sack and flow into the river, we do not consider the produce to be susceptible because water flowed from the upper side of the bag to the lower side. So too, in the case of a bunch of produce, even if water flows from one part to the other, it is not susceptible.
  But if he lifted two sacks and placed them one upon the other, the lower [sack] comes   under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Yose says: the lower [sack] remains insusceptible to uncleanness.  However, Bet Hillel agrees that if the water flows from one sack to the other, that it does cause the lower sack to be susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose says that even in this case the water does not cause susceptibility because it has not yet been separated from its totality.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If one rubbed a leek or pressed his hair or his garment, Rabbi Yose says: the liquid which came out comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but the liquid that remained does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because his intention was that the liquid should come out of all of it. There are two scenarios in this mishnah. In the first he rubs off water that fell onto a leek. The second is that he squeezed out his hair or his garment to get the liquid out of them. According to Rabbi Yose in both of these cases the liquid that comes out of his hair has been separated from its source so it can now cause food to be susceptible to impurity. However, the water that remains on the leek, hair or garment does not make food susceptible to impurity because his intention was only upon the water that would come out. This fits the opinion of Bet Hillel in mishnah two.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If one blew on lentils in order to test whether they were good: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  According to Rabbi Shimon, the moisture that comes out of a person's mouth when he blows on the lentils does not count as a liquid. But the sages say it is a liquid and therefore the lentils are susceptible to impurity.
  If one ate sesame with his finger, with regard to the liquid that was on his hand: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  A person wets his finger so he can eat sesame seeds by having them stick to his finger. Again, Rabbi Shimon does not consider this to be liquid such that the seeds are susceptible to impurity, but the other sages do.
  If one hid his fruit in water from thieves, it does not come  under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once it happened that the men of Jerusalem hid their fig cakes in water from the robbers, and the sages declared that they were not susceptible to uncleanness.  This person hid his produce in water only to protect it from thieves. Since he didn't really want the produce to get wet, it is not susceptible to impurity. The mishnah even includes a story of such a case occurring and the sages ruling that the produce remained insusceptible to impurity.
  If one put his fruit in the stream of a river to make it come down with him, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  Again, this person didn't want his produce to get wet, he just wanted to put it in the stream so that he could transport it. The produce remains insusceptible to impurity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with sweat when does it cause something to be susceptible to uncleanness and when does it not.
  The sweat of houses, of cisterns, of ditches and caverns does not cause  susceptibility to uncleanness.  Sweat from buildings and other structures, meaning the moisture formed on their outsides, has not been moved by a person and therefore it does not cause susceptibility to impurity.
  A man's perspiration does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness.  Human perspiration similarly does not cause susceptibility.
  If a man drank unclean water and perspired, his perspiration does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness.  The sweat that comes out of his body is not accorded the same status as the unclean water from which it comes, because he already ingested it. It counts as sweat and therefore it does not cause susceptibility.
  If he entered into drawn water and perspired, his perspiration causes susceptibility to uncleanness.  In this case, since he didn't ingest the water but rather bathed in it, his sweat is considered as if it came from the drawn water. Therefore, it causes susceptibility.
  If he dried himself and then perspired, his perspiration does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness.  If he then dries himself, he has gotten rid of the water from the drawn water and his sweat is considered to be from his body. Therefore, it no longer causes susceptibility.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  The sweat of an unclean bath is unclean,  The sweat that comes from an unclean bath of water has the same status as the water in the bath. It is unclean. It also causes susceptibility, for unclean liquids always cause susceptibility.
  But that of a clean bath comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.  The sweat of a clean bath is not inherently unclean, but it does cause susceptibility to impurity.
  If there was a pool in a house, the house sweats because of it if the pool was unclean, the sweat of all the house which was caused by the pool is unclean.  The purity of the sweat of a house with a pool in it depends upon the purity of the water in the pool. If the pool is unclean, then the sweat is unclean and will cause susceptibility. If the pool is clean, the sweat of the house is considered as coming from the pool and it will cause susceptibility. This is different from general sweat from a house which does not cause susceptibility, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Two pools, the one clean and the other unclean: The sweat near the unclean pool is unclean, And the sweat near the clean pool is clean, And what is at equal distance [from both pools] is unclean.  Things that sweat and are closer to the unclean pool are considered unclean, for we assume that the sweat came from the unclean pool. The same is true in the opposite case. If something was right in the middle of the two, the ruling is stringent due to the doubt, and the sweat must be considered unclean.
  Unclean iron was smelted with clean iron: If the greater part [came] from the unclean iron, it is unclean; If the greater part [came] from the clean iron, it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean.  The mishnah now goes on to consider other cases which have the same literary structure as section one. This structure will continue through the end of the chapter, and will cover topics that diverge from the main topic at hand the ability of liquids to cause susceptibility to impurity. The first topic at hand concerns pure and impure iron that have been smelted together. The status follows the majority and if they are of equal amount, the rule is stringent.
  Pots owned by Israelites and non-Jews used for passing water: If the greater part is from the unclean [urine], it is unclean; If the greater part is from the clean [urine], it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean.  Jewish urine is considered clean but gentile urine is considered impure due to rabbinic law (see Niddah 4:3). In this case, if the mixture is equal, then the rule is lenient because the impurity of gentile urine is only derabanan (bet you never thought you'd be reading about that!).
  Waste-water, in which rain had fallen: If the greater part consisted of the unclean water, it is unclean; If the greater part consisted of clean water, it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean.  Waste-water is assumed to be impure. Again, the rule follows the majority and if they are of equal amount the rule is stringent.
  When [is this the case]? When the waste-water came first; but if the rain water came before [the waste-water], it is unclean whatever the quantity [of the rain water].  The above is true if the waste-water was there first. In such a case, the rainwater went into the vessel against his wishes and therefore this water is not susceptible to impurity. If there is a majority of rainwater the whole vessel will be pure. However, if the rainwater went in first, then he was probably collecting it, and it went in to his desire. In such a case, the rainwater is susceptible to impurity. When any amount of waste-water falls in, it will defile it.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If one flattened out his roof or washed his garment and rain came down upon it:  There are two situations in this mishnah. The first is that one is flattening out his roof and he pours out waste water at on the completed roof to smooth it out. The second is laundering a garment. In both of these cases the water being used is impure. This water is then mixed in with rain water and the question is whether the water is impure such that when it falls on food it would defile it.
  If the greater part consisted of the unclean water, it is unclean; If the greater part consisted of the clean water, it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean.  As in the previous cases, the status of the water follows the majority. If it is half and half, then we rule strictly and it is unclean.
  Rabbi Judah says: if the dripping increased, [it is clean].  If the dripping from the roof or the laundered garment increased after the rain flow, then we can assume that the rain water was greater than the impure water from flattening the roof or laundering the garment. In this case, any water that subsequently comes from the roof or garment will be considered pure.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  A Jew is not permitted to benefit from work done for another Jew on Shabbat, but a Jew can benefit from work done for a non-Jew on Shabbat. If a Jew does forbidden work on Shabbat and another Jew wants to benefit from that work, he/she must wait after Shabbat however long it would take for that work to be done. For instance, if I make a roast on Shabbat (Heaven forbid!) and then my wife (who is Jewish) wants to eat it, she must wait after Shabbat however long it would take to make that roast.
  Our mishnah deals with a case where we don't know whether the work that was done on Shabbat was done for Jews or non-Jews.
  We should note that it doesn't matter who did the work Jew or non-Jew. What matters is whether the work was done for a Jew or for a non-Jew.
  This mishnah begins a series of mishnayot, all of which deal with a city in which there are some Jewish and some non-Jewish inhabitants.
  A city in which Israelites and non-Jews dwell together and there was a bathhouse working on Shabbat:  In this city there is a bathhouse that operates on Shabbat and the question is whether a Jew can go and bathe there immediately after Shabbat in water that was heated on Shabbat.
  If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, one may bathe in it immediately [after the conclusion of the Shabbat]; If the majority were Israelites, one must wait until the water can be heated; If they were half and half, one must [also] wait until the water can be heated.  If the majority of the residents of the city were non-Jews, then we can assume the water was heated on behalf of a non-Jew and one can bathe there right after Shabbat. If the majority were Jews then the water was probably heated for a Jew. In such a situation if the Jew bathed there immediately after Shabbat he would be deriving benefit from work done for a Jew on Shabbat. Therefore, he must wait a sufficient time after Shabbat for the water to have been heated. Then he can take a bath (always nice to take a bath after Shabbat). Again, if the amount of Jews and non-Jews is equivalent, the rule is strict.
  Rabbi Judah says: if the bathhouse was small and there was there a [non-Jewish] authority, one may bathe in it immediately   [after the conclusion of Shabbat].  If there was a small bathhouse and there was a non-Jewish, probably Roman, government located there, we can assume the water was heated for them (it's good to be the king, or the king's messengers). In this case a Jew could bathe there immediately after Shabbat, even if the majority of the city were Jews.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah, dealing with a city in which Jews and Gentiles live mixed.
  If one found in that city vegetables sold [on Shabbat]:  The person finds vegetables in such a city and doesn't know whether they were picked that day and transported by a Jew or by a non-Jew. If they were picked by a Jew then they are prohibited because it is prohibited for a Jew to pick vegetables on Shabbat.
  If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, one may buy them immediately   [after the conclusion of Shabbat]; If the majority were Israelites, one must wait until [vegetables] can arrive from the nearest place; If they were half and half, one must [also] wait until [vegetables] can arrive from the nearest place;  This is the same as the clauses found in yesterday's mishnah.
  If there was there a [non-Jewish] authority, one may buy them immediately [after the conclusion of Shabbat].  As in yesterday's mishnah, we learn here that if there are some non-Jewish authorities in town we can assume that the special resources (vegetables, warm bath water) were designated for them. In this case, the Jew can buy the vegetables immediately after Shabbat.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If one found [an abandoned] child there:  The mishnah continues to deal with a city composed of both non-Jews and Jews. A child is found, abandoned by his parents and we need to know whether to assume that the child is Jewish or not.
  If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, it is considered a non-Jew;  If the majority were non-Jews then in certain ways the child is treated as if s/he were non-Jewish. According to mishnaic commentaries based on the Talmud, we treat the child as non-Jewish and we are allowed to feed him/her non-kosher food.
  If the majority were Israelites, it is considered an Israelite;  If the majority were Israelites, the child is treated like a Jew. According to commentaries this means that we are obligated to return lost objects to the child (when s/he grows up and owns things), which as we learned in Bava Metzia and we will see again in tomorrow's mishnah, is obligatory only to fellow Jews.
  If the majority were Israelites, it is considered an Israelite;  If the town is evenly split, the child is considered Jewish. Again, the commentators limit this to a case of damages. If this child's ox damages a fellow Jew's ox, the child's ox only pays half damages, if it is an attested danger. Note that the ramifications of the child being considered Jewish were limited to monetary matters. The Talmud says that when it comes to matters of personal status, such as marital law, the child is considered to be a "doubtful Jew." If he marries a Jewish woman, she is potentially married and would require a divorce document to marry someone else. He/she is not fully considered an Israelite until conversion.
  If they were half and half, it is also considered an Israelite.  Rabbi Judah says that it is not logical to simply follow the majority of people in the city. We need to look at who most likely abandoned their kids. So if the majority of abandoners are Jews, then the kid is considered a Jew, even if the majority of the town is non-Jews.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  If one found there lost property,  The issue here is finding lost property. The rabbis obligated one to declare lost property that was found and return it to the owner if the owner could identify it. These halakhot are found in the second chapter of Bava Metzia. This obligation is only to a fellow Jew. One is not obligated to return property to a non-Jew, at least not according to the Mishnah. Later halakhah rectified this discrimination, as it did in many cases.
  If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, he need not proclaim it;  If the majority was not Jewish, then he need not proclaim that he found a lost object because he can assume that it belonged to a non-Jew.
  If the majority were Israelites, he must proclaim it;  If the majority were Jews he must proclaim it and if a Jew claims it, he would have to return it to him. This would make for quite an awkward situation if he proclaimed it and then it turned out to belong to a non-Jew.
  If they were half and half, he must [also] proclaim it.  If the split is 50/50 he must assume that it could belong to a Jew and he must proclaim it.
  If one found bread there we must consider who form the majority of the bakers.  The second half of the mishnah deals with bread that is found in the mixed city. The rabbis prohibited Jews from eating bread made by Gentiles, not because the bread is impure or not kosher, but in order to prevent assimilation. The first criterion is to follow the majority of bakers, as has been the rule in most of the previous mishnayot.
  If it was bread of clean flour, we must consider who form the majority of those who eat bread of pure flour.  However, if the bread is of a special kind, such as bread made of clean flour, we need to look at who makes clean flour bread. This is more expensive so it will be made probably by the upper class.
  Rabbi Judah says: if it was coarse bread, we must consider who form the majority of those who eat coarse bread.  Today coarse bread is the most expensive type of bread, but back then (and probably not too long ago), it was for the poorer folk. So Rabbi Judah adds that if the bread is of poor quality, i.e. it is coarse, then we can assume it was made by someone poor and we follow the majority of poor people.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  If one found meat there, we follow the majority of the butchers.  A piece of meat is found lying somewhere in this mixed city. Today, most of us would not really consider eating a piece of meat just found lying around, even those of us who don't keep kosher. But back then meat was exceedingly rare and if it looked good enough to eat, why not. The mishnah says that if the majority of butchers slaughter their meat in a kosher manner, then a Jew can eat the meat. Note that the meat is assumed to come from a butcher because normal people did not store meat in their homes. So we don't need to know who were the majority of the people.
  If it was cooked meat, we follow the majority of those who eat cooked meat.  I find this section very interesting. At first sight, one might wonder who doesn't eat cooked meat? Do some people eat raw meat? However, when we think about it, the mishnah shows us something interesting about meat consumption in those days. Most people probably didn't eat meat at all. Only wealthy people would be considered "those who eat cooked meat." So to figure out from whom the meat likely fell, we must consider who composes the majority of the wealthy people who eat cooked meat.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with finding produce in the mixed city and determining whether it needs to be tithed or not. Produce that has not been tithed generally may not be eaten once it is brought into one's home. However, under certain circumstances one may eat it while on the road.
  Produce that might or might not have been tithed is called demai. We'll discuss some of these rules here but for a fuller exposition, look at the Introduction to Demai, as well as the Introduction to Maasrot.
  If one found produce on the road: If the majority [of the inhabitants] gathered produce into their homes, he is exempt [from tithes]; If [the majority gathered it] for selling in the market, he is liable [for tithes]; If they were half and half, the produce is demai.  According to Maasrot 1:5 if a person was carrying produce to his home, he may eat of the produce untithed until he gets home. But if he was bringing it to market, it cannot be eaten untithed as long as the processing has been finished (which it assumedly has if it's being brought to the market). So what we need to determine here is whether the produce was being brought to market or being brought home. As with the other mishnayot, so too here we follow a majority. If the majority was bringing the produce to the market, then he must tithe what he found even if he is only eating of them in an extemporaneous fashion and not as part of a meal. In other words, we assume that this produce was being brought to market in which case all further eating is prohibited. If there is no majority, then the produce is deemed demai. He must tithe them even if he wants to eat them before he gets home.
  A granary into which both Israelites and non-Jews put their produce, If the majority were non-Jews, [the produce must be considered] certainly untithed; If the majority were Israelites, [it must be considered] demai; If they were half and half, [it must be considered] certainly untithed, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: even if they were all non-Jews, and only one Israelite put his produce into the granary, [it must be considered] demai.  There is a granary full of grain and we need to know whether it has been tithed or not. If the majority are non-Jews then we can be sure it has not been tithed. A Jew who eats such grain must certainly tithe it. If the majority are Israelites, then it might have been tithed. We can't know for sure because some Jews, perhaps many Jews, do not tithe. Therefore it is demai, which means that one must take out terumah, terumat maaser (the terumah taken from tithes) and maaser sheni. These must be removed because an Israelite cannot eat them. However, he does not have to take out first tithe or poor tithe, because these can be eaten by an Israelite (see Intro to Demai). If the numbers are evenly split, then Rabbi Meir assumes that it certainly hasn't been tithed. The sages disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that even if only one Jew puts grain into the granary, all of the grain must be considered demai and not certainly untithed produce. The sages hold that grain grown on land owned by non-Jews is not liable for tithes. If the granary was only non-Jewish grain, he wouldn't be obligated to tithe it at all. However, since one Jew puts his grain in there he must treat it as demai, because the sages hold that Jewish grain is not annulled in a greater quantity of non-Jewish grain.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  During the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the sabbatical cycle second tithe is taken out from produce. This tithe must be consumed in Jerusalem, or at least exchanged for money and separated in Jerusalem. In the third and sixth years the poor tithe is taken out and given to the poor. Seventh year produce is holy and it is forbidden to conduct business with it (i.e. sell it for a profit).
  Our mishnah deals with produce from the second year which are mixed with third year produce or other such mixtures.
  Makhshirin
  If the produce of the second year  exceeded in quantity the produce of the third year, or the produce of the third year exceeded the produce of the fourth year, or the produce of the fourth year exceeded the produce of the fifth year, or the produce of the fifth year exceeded the produce of the sixth year, or the produce of the sixth year exceeded the produce of the seventh year, or the produce of the seventh year exceeded the produce of the year after the conclusion of the seventh year, we follow the majority.
  If half and half, the rule is stringent.
    The rule here is quite simple we follow the majority of the produce. Note that some of these possibilities are not really important, since the produce of those two years has the same status. For instance, if fourth and fifth year produce are mixed up, it doesn't matter because one takes second tithe from both. The mishnah just runs through the whole list of possibilities.
  If the mixture is evenly split, we follow the strictest possibility. So if we are not sure if second tithe or poor tithe should be taken out he would have to take out both, and bring the second tithe to Jerusalem (or redeem it for money) and give the poor tithe to the poor. If there is a possibility that the produce is sabbatical year produce, then it all must be treated with the appropriate sanctity and one could not engage in business with it.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter three (finally) returns to the subject of our tractate when does contact with liquid cause food to be susceptible to impurity?
  If a sack full of produce was put by the side of a river or by the side of the mouth of a cistern  or on the steps of a cavern, and [the produce] absorbed water, all [the produce] which absorbed the water comes  under the law of ‘if water be put’.  A person put a sack of produce near a source of wetness, either a river, a cistern or a cavern in order for it to stay moist. The produce in the sack, even the side of the sack that didn't really get all that wet, has been made susceptible to impurity. This is because he wanted the produce to get wet.
  Rabbi Judah says: all [the produce] which faced  the water comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but all [the produce] which did not face the water does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  Rabbi Judah limits the susceptibility to the side of the sack that actually faced the water. This side absorbed the water so it is susceptible. The other side didn't really absorb any water so it is not susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A jar full of produce which was put into liquids, or a jar full of liquids was put into produce and [the produce] absorbed, all [the produce] which absorbed comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.  The jar is made of earthenware which will easily absorb water. It doesn't matter whether the jar has liquids and it is put into the produce or the jar has produce and it is put into liquids in all of these cases the produce that has absorbed any liquid is susceptible to impurity. This is true even of pulse (mostly beans) which is less absorbent than other produce such as grain.
  Concerning what liquids were they speaking? Water, wine and vinegar; but all the other liquids  do not cause susceptibility to uncleanness.  This halakhah is limited to two of the 7 liquids that cause susceptibility: water and wine (vinegar is made of wine). The other liquids (we will see the full list in 6:4 dew, oil, blood, milk and honey are the other five) are thicker and will not be as easily absorbed. Therefore, they won't cause the produce to be susceptible.
  Rabbi Nehemiah says pulse is insusceptible, because pulse does not absorb [liquids].  Rabbi Nehemiah says that pulse put in such a jar is not susceptible to impurity because it is less likely to absorb the liquid. In other words, whereas the previous opinion only limited the thicker, less absorbable liquids, Rabbi Nehemiah adds that the thicker less absorbent produce doesn't become susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  One who drew hot bread off the side of an oven and put it upon the mouth of a jar of wine:  The bread mentioned here must be bread that was mixed with fruit juice which does not cause flour to be susceptible to impurity. [If the bread was already susceptible because it had been mixed with water, then this mishnah is not an issue].
  Rabbi Meir declares it susceptible to uncleanness;  Rabbi Meir says that the hot bread, no matter the kind, will draw wine out of the barrel and therefore it is susceptible to impurity.
  But Rabbi Judah declares it insusceptible.  Rabbi Judah says that the bread does not draw off the wine and therefore it is not susceptible.
  Rabbi Yose declares it insusceptible in the case of wheat bread and susceptible in the case of barley bread, because barley absorbs [liquids].  Rabbi Yose distinguishes between wheat bread, which is less absorbent and barley bread which is more absorbent. Only the latter is susceptible to impurity.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If one sprinkled [the floor of] his house [with water] and put wheat therein and it became moist: If [the moisture came] from the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if [the moisture came] from the stones [on the floor], it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  In mishnaic times people would sprinkle their floors with water in order to keep down the dust. A person did this and then put wheat on the floor (or it just got there somehow) and the wheat got moist. If the moisture came from the water he sprinkled on the floor then the wheat is susceptible to impurity because a person put the water there. If the moisture came from moisture that naturally accumulated on the floor then it is not susceptible to impurity because no one put that water there.
  If one washed his garment in a tub and put wheat therein and it became moist: If [the moisture came] from the water, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if [the moisture came] of itself, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  The same rule basically applies to someone who puts wheat in a laundry trough (after he has completed the laundry). If the wheat became moist due to the water that he put there, the wheat is susceptible.
  If one put [produce] in sand for it to become moist, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. It happened with the men of Mahoz   that they used to moisten [their produce] with sand, and the sages said to them: if you have always acted in this manner, you have never prepared your food in purity.  In this case, although no one put the water into the sand, since he intended the produce to become wet, it is susceptible. In other words, from this mishnah we can see two possibilities for when liquid causes susceptibility to impurity. 1) If a person put the liquid where it currently is. 2) If he wanted the produce to come into contact with the liquid. As long as one of these is true, the produce is susceptible. Evidently, the people of Mahoz, a sandy region (see Mishnah Arakhin 3:2), were doing this their whole lives without knowing that this would cause their food to be susceptible. Poor guys!
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If one moistened [produce] with drying clay: Rabbi Shimon says: if there was still in it dripping liquid, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if there was not, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  Rabbi Shimon says that in this case the produce is susceptible only if the drying clay is sufficiently wet that it actually drips. If not, it is not susceptible.
  If one sprinkled his threshing-floor with water, he need not be concerned lest wheat be put there and it become moist.  The assumption is that by the time he puts wheat down on his threshing floor it will already be dry enough such that the wheat will not become moist and susceptible to impurity. This is probably because a threshing floor is outside, while the house is obviously inside.
  If one gathered grass with the dew still on it in order to moisten wheat with it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, But if his intention was for this purpose, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  The intention here was to moisten the produce with the moisture from the grass. The dew was incidental to his intentions so it doesn't cause the produce to be susceptible. However, if he intended to use the dew to make the produce moist, it does become susceptible.
  If one carried wheat to be milled and rain came down upon it and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped [on his way].  In this case the produce is only susceptible if he was happy that the rainwater came down upon it. The produce is not automatically susceptible because he didn't put it there actively. Rabbi Judah says that there is simply no way a person won't be happy if the rainwater comes down on his wheat. I'm assuming this makes it easier to mill. Therefore, we can't gauge its susceptibility by whether he is happy. Rather, in order for it to be susceptible he must actively do something to make it susceptible, such as stop walking so that more rain can come down upon the wheat before he brings it to the mill.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If his olives were put on the roof and rain came down upon them and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.  According to the first opinion the olives are susceptible to impurity as long as the person is happy that the rainwater came upon them. If he wanted them to stay dry, they are not susceptible. Again, his inner thoughts are what determine the susceptibility of the produce.
  Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he plugged up the gutter or if he shook the water [onto the olives].  As he did in yesterday's mishnah, Rabbi Judah says that a person will always be happy when rainwater comes upon his olives. Therefore, in order for them to be susceptible he must physically do something to get the rainwater on them. There are two possibilities. Either he stops up the gutter so that the roof fills up with water, or he shakes water onto the olives.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to deal with situations in which Rabbi Judah says that one can't help but be happy about his produce getting wet.
  If donkey-drivers were crossing a river and their sacks [filled with produce] fell into the water and they were happy about it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if they turned over [the sacks].  If the donkey drivers were happy about their produce getting wet, it is susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah responds that since they will obviously be happy about the produce getting wet, there must be something more. For the produce to be susceptible he must turn over the sack so it gets wet.
  If one's feet were full of clay, similarly, the feet of his beast, and he crossed a river and he was happy about it, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped and rinsed off his [feet] or those of his [domesticated] beast.  If he is happy about his feet or his animal's feet getting wet (and thereby cleaned off) by the river then the water that is on them will make produce susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says that the water on his or his domesticated beast's feet does not make produce susceptible unless he stops in the river to wash off his feet.
  But with an unclean [beast] it always causes   susceptibility to uncleanness.  However, when it comes to unclean animals, it doesn't matter whether he stops to wash his feet or not. The water will in any case make produce susceptible because he will always be happy about his feet or his animal's feet getting cleaned by the river. I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck. Albeck states that the difference between clean and unclean animals, and why one must wash off the feet of the former for the water to make produce susceptible, is not clear. The meaning of this mishnah has been lost.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  If one lowered wheels or the gear of oxen into water at the time of the hot east wind in order that they might become tightened, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’.  The person brings some wooden wheels or oxen gear down to the river to soak them in water so that they will tighten (seems like this means to expand, thereby tightening the parts) because it is so dry outside.  The water that clings to them when he removes them will cause susceptibility to impurity. This is because he intended to use this water.
  If one took down a beast to drink, the water which came up on its mouth comes   under the law of ‘if water be put’, but that which came up on its feet does not come  under the law of ‘if water be put’. If he intended that its feet should be washed, even the water that came up on its feet comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. At the time of footsoreness or of threshing it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness.  In this case he intended the water to go into the mouth of his beast, so it does causes susceptibility. But if he didn't intend to wash off the animal's feet, then the water attached to the feet does not cause susceptibility. However, there are two occasions in which we assume that he wanted the feet to be washed off. First, if the animal has some affliction, "footsoreness," then he must have wanted its feet to be washed off. Alternatively, when he is using the animal for threshing, it can be assumed that he wanted to cool down its feet and the water causes susceptibility.
  If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor took it down, even though his intention was that its feet should be washed, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention.  These three categories of people are not legally capable of having intent. Therefore, in order for them to make the water cause susceptibility they would have to actually do something to the water, like put it in a bucket and then use it to wash the animal's feet. Merely being happy that it washed off the animal's feet is not sufficient.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  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).
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  [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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  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].
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to deal with the purity of clean water that is being poured into impure water.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  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.
  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.
  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).
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  One who carries his produce up to the roof because of maggots, and dew came down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if he intended for this to happen, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  This person carries his produce up to the roof because he hopes that the maggots that got into his produce will go out there. He doesn't intend for the produce to become wet. Therefore, the dew that comes down on it does cause it to be susceptible to impurity. However, if he intentionally brings it up to the roof so that it will get wet, it does cause susceptibility.
  If a deaf-mute, or a person not of sound senses, or a minor carried it up, although he expected that dew should come down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention.  This section is one of the clearest statements with regard to intent found in the entire Mishnah. These three categories of people are understood as not having the mental awareness sufficient for their action to have intent (we have seen this many times throughout the Mishnah). Therefore, we judge their actions by themselves, without resort to assumptions of intent. Since bringing produce up to the roof is not sufficient for it to become susceptible to impurity, the produce remain unsusceptible.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  One who carries up to the roof bundles [of vegetables] or cakes of figs or garlic so as to keep them fresh, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.  Since he carried his vegetables or other such items up to the roof only to let them air out and not so that they would get wet, they do not become susceptible to impurity if dew falls on them.
  All bundles [of vegetables] in the market places are unclean. Rabbi Judah declares them clean if they are fresh. Rabbi Meir said: Why did they declare them unclean? Only because of liquid from the mouth.  The assumption is that the sellers in the marketplace moisten their vegetables to keep them fresh and make them look more appetizing (supermarkets still do this with their mist machines). In the marketplace impure people might touch them. Therefore, when one buys vegetables from the market, one has to assume that they are impure. Rabbi Judah says that sellers don't throw water over fresh vegetables, so they are considered clean because they were never made susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir disagrees as to why they declared bundles of vegetables to be unclean. Bundles come untied and when they do a person uses his mouth to moisten the ties so they can be retied. The assumption is that the person who does this is impure and this moisture from the mouth is what causes them to be defiled. So even fresh ones, ones that have never had water put on them, are impure.
  All coarse and fine flours of the market places are unclean.  The wheat used to make flour is moistened before it is ground up. This moistening causes it to be susceptible to impurity. In the marketplace we have to assume that anyone might have touched the flour, including impure people. Therefore, it must be assumed to be impure. Outside of the marketplace impure people won't necessarily be touching the flour so it remains pure.
  Crushed wheat, groats, and pearl-barley are unclean everywhere.  These crushed grains are frequently touched, unlike flour and fine flour which not as many people will touch. Since people touch them everywhere, not just in the market, they are always considered impure.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  All eggs are presumed to be clean except those of sellers of liquids. But if they sold with them dry produce, they are clean.  Eggs sold anywhere are presumed to be clean unless they are sold by sellers who also sell liquids. If the person also sells liquids we can assume that he touched the eggs with wet hands. This would have made them susceptible to impurity. Then when an impure person in the marketplace touched them, they would become defiled. We should note again that defiled eggs can be eaten. The only real relevance would be for a person who only wants to eat pure food. However, if the person who sold liquids sold the eggs near dry food we can assume he would dry his hands off first because he wouldn't want the dry food to get wet. Therefore the eggs can be assumed not to have come into contact with liquid.
  All fish are presumed unclean.  While alive, fish are not susceptible to impurity (this is true of all animals). However, when a fisher kills the fish there is still water on it. This water causes it to be susceptible to impurity. When impure people touch the fish, it becomes impure.
  Rabbi Judah says: pieces of aylatit and Egyptian fish which arrives in a basket, and Spanish tunny, these may be presumed clean.  According to Rabbi Judah, these types of fish live long after they have been caught. By the time they die there will be no water left on them. Since they are not again moistened, they were not made susceptible to impurity.
  All kinds of brine may be presumed unclean.  The brine that comes out of fish is mixed with water. This makes it susceptible to impurity. Since we can assume that an impure person touched it, it is assumed to be impure.
  Concerning all these an am ha-aretz may be trusted when he declares them to be clean, except in the case of small fish, since they are usually stored with any am ha-aretz.  In all of the cases discussed above, eggs, fish and brine, an am haaretz, a person who doesn't generally observe the laws of purity, is believed to say that the food has not come into contact with water and therefore it has not become susceptible to impurity. The only exception is small fish which, according to the mishnah, are often left with another am haaretz. Since the am haaretz who says they are clean cannot know if the other am haaretz defiled them or got them wet, we can't believe the first am haaretz.
  Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: clean brine into which water fell in any quantity must be deemed unclean.  If there is brine that we know to be clean because there is no water in it and then even the smallest amount of water falls in, that small amount of water makes the brine susceptible. We might have thought that since the brine is also liquid, the small amount of water is nullified. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov teaches that it is not.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Finally, when we're at last nearing the end of the tractate Makhshirin, the Mishnah lists the liquids that cause susceptibility to impurity. This is the subject of the remainder of the tractate.
  I should note that there are various midrashim and explanations as to why some liquids cause impurity whereas others do not.
  There are seven liquids:   dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk and bees’ honey.  If one of these seven liquids comes into contact with food, it makes the food susceptible to impurity.
  Hornets’ honey does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness and may be eaten.  Hornet's honey is not in the same category as bees' honey. Only the latter causes susceptibility. However, any honey is kosher the only kosher food to come from an unkosher animal.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with sub-categories of the seven arch-categories found above in mishnah four.
  Derivatives of water are: the liquids that come from the eye, from the ear, from the nose and from the mouth, and urine, whether of adults or of children, whether [its flow is] conscious or unconscious.  Various liquids emitted from the body are categorized as water.
  Derivatives of blood are: blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are clean, and blood from bloodletting for drinking.  The blood referred to in mishnah four is the blood that comes out of an animal when it is kosherly slaughtered. The mishnah adds that blood from bloodletting that he intends to give to another animal to drink also causes susceptibility. In all of these cases he wanted or needed the blood to come out of the animal or person. However, blood that simply comes out due to injury is not desirable and therefore does not cause susceptibility.
  Whey is like milk,  Whey, the milky substance left after making cheese, is considered to be like milk and does cause susceptibility.
  And the sap of olives is deemed like oil, since it is never free from oil, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: even though it contains no oil.  The sap that comes out of olives causes susceptibility. Rabbi Shimon says that this is because we can be assured that there is some oil in it. Rabbi Meir says that even if we know that there is no oil in it, it still causes susceptibility because a person wants this sap to come out of his olives.
  The blood of a sheretz is like its flesh, it causes uncleanness but does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness, and there is nothing else like it.  Blood of a sheretz causes impurity as does the flesh of the sheretz. However, it does not cause susceptibility to impurity. This means that if this blood falls on food that is not yet susceptible, the food remains pure. The blood of a sheretz is unique in that it is the only blood that joins with the flesh to create the minimum measure that causes impurity. In other words, if there is a lentil's worth of flesh and blood there is enough sheretz to cause impurity.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  The following cause uncleanness and also susceptibility [to uncleanness];  The fluids in this mishnah are both impure and they make food susceptible to impurity. Two for the price of one!
  The flow of a zav, his spittle, his semen and his urine;  A zav is a person with some sort of unnatural genital flow (i.e. not semen and not menstrual blood). If a zav emits the fluids listed here they cause food to become impure immediately, even if it hadn't previously come into contact with water.
  A quarter-log of blood from a corpse, and the blood of a menstruant.  Both of these types of blood cause impurity and susceptibility.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: semen does not cause susceptibility.  Rabbi Eliezer holds that semen does not cause susceptibility. Therefore food will have to first be made susceptible for contact with semen to cause it to be impure.
  R. Elazar ben Azariah says: the blood of a menstruant does not cause susceptibility.  Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah hold that menstrual blood does not cause susceptibility.
  Rabbi Shimon says: the blood of a corpse does not cause susceptibility, and if it fell on a gourd, he can scrape it off, and it remains clean.  Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient and he holds that even the blood of a corpse doesn't cause susceptibility. The Talmud explains that in all of these cases since the substance is referred to by two words (shikhvat zera is the Hebrew for semen, dam niddah for menstrual blood and dam hamet for blood of a corpse) the fluid doesn't cause susceptibility. Only fluids referred to by one word blood, milk, etc. cause susceptibility.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  The following cause neither uncleanness nor susceptibility to uncleanness:  These liquids don't cause either susceptibility or uncleanness.  Some of them are still pretty yucky though.
  Sweat, rotten secretion, excrement, blood issuing with any of these, liquid [issuing from a child born in the] eight month. Rabbi Yose says: except its blood.  Rotten secretion is something like pus. Blood that comes out with pus or with excrement doesn't cause impurity or susceptibility. The rabbis considered a child born at 8 months to be one who would surely die. The child is in a sense considered dead even before he actually dies (remember they had no way to really care for such children). Liquid such as urine and spittle that comes from the child before he dies does not cause impurity or susceptibility, as it would for a viable child. Rabbi Yose says that the blood of such a child does cause impurity.
  [The discharge from the bowels of] one who drinks the water of Tiberias even though it comes out clean.  I guess drinking the waters of Tiberias will make you sick. While the water causes susceptibility once it passes through a person's body and comes out the other end (not as urine) even if it simply passed right through him, it doesn't cause susceptibility.
  Blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are unclean, and blood from bloodletting for healing.  As we learned in mishnah five, only the blood from slaughtering a clean animal causes susceptibility. Also blood from a bloodletting that he wants to let another animal drink. If he is just bloodletting for healing then it doesn't cause susceptibility.
  Rabbi Eliezer declares these unclean.  Rabbi Eliezer holds that all of these liquids do cause susceptibility.
  Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: the milk of a male is clean.  Evidently men can occasionally secrete small amounts of milk from their breasts. Rabbi Elazar says that such milk is pure it doesn't cause susceptibility.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Last mishnah of Makhshirin and the longest!
  The argument here is over whether cow's milk renders produce susceptible even when its flow wasn't desired.
  A woman's milk renders unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, but the milk of cattle renders unclean only if [its flow is] desired.  This section lays down the rule concerning milk from a woman and milk from cattle. The rule is stricter with regard to the former even if she didn't desire its flow, it still causes susceptibility. When it comes to cattle milk (milk from a cow, sheep or goat) it causes susceptibility only if he wanted it.
  Rabbi Akiva said: there is a kal vehomer argument here: if a woman's milk, which is specifically for infants, can render unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, all the more should the milk of cattle, which is for infants and adults, should render unclean both when [its flow is] desired and when it is not desired.  The remainder of the mishnah is a long argument between the sages and Rabbi Akiva, who wishes to prove that cattle milk causes susceptibility even when its flow was not desired. He proves his point by saying that there is a kal vehomer argument, one made from by analogizing from the stricter to the more lenient case. Human milk is only for infants and nevertheless it causes susceptibility in all cases. All the more so should cattle milk which is for both human infants and human adults, cause susceptibility in all cases.
  They said to him: No; a woman's milk renders unclean when [its flow is] not desired, because the blood issuing from her wound is unclean; but how could the milk of cattle render unclean when [its flow is] not desired, seeing that the blood issuing from its wound is clean?  The other rabbis show that the rules governing a human are sometimes stricter than those governing an animal. Blood from a human wound causes susceptibility whereas blood from an animal wound does not. Therefore, there is no "kal" lenient or "homer" stringent when comparing humans to animals. The rules are simply different.
  He said to them: I am stricter in the case of milk than in the case of blood, for if one milks for healing, [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood for healing, [the blood] is clean.  Rabbi Akiva responds by finding saying that the rules governing milk are more stringent than the rules governing blood. One who milks not because someone needs to drink the milk but just to get the milk out for health reasons, the milk does not cause susceptibility. But one who blood lets for health reasons, the blood is clean. Therefore, we should be strict with regard to milk it causes susceptibility even if it was not desired.
  They said to him: let baskets of olives and grapes prove it; for liquids flowing from them are unclean only when [the flow is] desired, but when [the flow is] not desired they are clean.  The other rabbis resort to another analogy the liquids that flow from grapes and olives while they are still in the basket before they begin to be pressed. Such liquid doesn't cause susceptibility because he doesn't desire it. So too when it comes to cattle, if the milk comes out and is not wanted, it doesn't cause susceptibility.
  He said to them: No; if you say [thus] of baskets of olives and grapes which are at first a solid food and at the end become a liquid, could you say [the same] of milk which remains a liquid from beginning to end?  Of course, Rabbi Akiva has an answer. Olives and grapes are turning from solid food into liquid food and therefore when liquid comes out that he doesn't want, it doesn't cause susceptibility. The same cannot be said with milk which is always a liquid.
  Thus far was the argument.  That was the end of the historical argument between Rabbi Akiva. In sections 8 and 9, Rabbi Akiva begins to argue with his students, including Rabbi Akiva.
  Rabbi Shimon said: from here on in we used to argue before him: let rain water prove it, for it remains a liquid from beginning to end, and renders unclean only when [its flow is] desired.  Rabbi Shimon argues that rainwater should prove that milk renders unclean only when he desires its flow. Rainwater causes susceptibility only when he wanted it to get his food wet. Therefore, cattle milk, which is also a liquid from beginning to start, should do the same.
  But he said to us: No; if you say [thus] of rain water, it is because most of it is intended not for human usage but for the soil and for trees, whereas most milk is intended for human usage.  Rabbi Akiva points out that since most cattle milk is for human consumption, it is always considered a liquid, even when it wasn't desired. Rain is mostly not for drinking it is for watering the ground and for the trees. Therefore, cattle milk causes susceptibility no matter what. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Makhshirin! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Makhshirin was probably the most obscure topic you could ever imagine what liquids make food susceptible to impurity. I'll admit, it's not the topic you've dreamed about learning. Still there was one thing I found very interesting throughout the whole tractate the role that intent plays in matters of purity and impurity. As we've seen over and over again, things are pure or impure not just based on what happens to them, but based on the intent of the human being who owned the object or who performed the activity. The central halakhah in this tractate is that food is susceptible only if the person wanted it to come into contact with the liquid. Indeed, this opens a window to one of the largest issues in the entire mishnah how human intent actually affects the world. The rabbis believed that humans could affect the world not just by what they did but by their intent while doing it. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Zavim.