meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה מקואות
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Mikvaot
  
  Introduction
  
  Today most people are familiar with the "mikveh" usually translated as a "ritual bath." In modern halakhah it is mostly used for conversion and by women immersing after their menstrual period. Some men also have a custom of going to the mikveh but that is more as a custom. 
  Most people are not all that familiar with the laws of the mikveh which can be quite complicated. This is the topic of our tractate—what exactly constitutes a mikveh and who needs to immerse in a mikveh in order to become pure. 
  The Torah states that a zav, a person who has had an abnormal genital discharge must  "bathe his body in fresh water; then he shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). The "fresh water" is understood as a living stream, in Hebrew a "maayan." In contrast, people with other forms of impurity must only "bathe his whole body in water" (Leviticus 15:16). This latter requirement is understood to be bathing in a mikveh. We shall talk throughout the tractate about what differentiates a "mikveh" from a "maayan" a living stream, how large a mikveh must be, and how the water must get into the mikveh. For now, I will merely quote the verses below that refer to what the rabbis call a "mikveh." We shall reference these as we continue to learn.  Good luck with learning Mikvaot!
  Leviticus 11 31 Those are for you the unclean among all the swarming things; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening. 32 And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean: be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack — any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain unclean until evening; then it shall be clean.
  Leviticus 15 13 When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge, he shall count off seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in fresh water; then he shall be clean…16 When a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water and remain unclean until evening. 
  Numbers 31 22"This is the ritual law that the Lord has enjoined upon Moses: 22 Gold and silver, copper, iron, tin, and lead 23 — any article that can withstand fire — these you shall pass through fire and they shall be clean, except that they must be cleansed with water of lustration; and anything that cannot withstand fire you must pass through water. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Mikvaot begins with a list of "six degrees" of the purity of mikvaot. [We should note that many tractates begin with numbers. For instance, Shabbat, Shevuot, Kiddushin, Ohalot, etc. It seems that the tannaim liked starting mishnayot in this way].
  "Mikveh" here refers to any water gathered in the ground.
  Our mishnah deals with laws concerning water gathered in pools that don't have forty seah in them. This shall be the topic of the first five mishnayot of the chapter.
  There are six degrees of mikvaot, each superior to the other.  This is the introduction to the entire first chapter.
  The water of pools [smaller than 40 seah]    if an unclean person drank of it and then a clean person drank of it, he becomes unclean;  If an unclean person came and drank from a pool of water, and then a clean person came and drank from the same water, the clean person becomes unclean. This is because it is possible that the clean person drank from the exact water that the unclean person touched. Although water that is still "connected to the ground" by virtue of it being in a pool cannot become impure (see Leviticus 11:36) the mishnah considers the water that was removed from the pool and then put back in by the unclean person to be separate from the other water. This already-defiled water does not mix back in with the pool and become nullified. When the clean person removes some water, this water is now detached from the ground and since there will be some of the unclean water with it, all of the water is defiled. The water then defiles the clean person by contact.
  If an unclean person drank of it and then drew water from it in a clean vessel, [the vessel] becomes unclean;  Similarly, a clean vessel is defiled by contact with this water. Again, the water inside does not become nullified.
  If an unclean person drank of it and then a loaf of terumah fell in: If he washed [his hands] in it, it becomes unclean; But if he did not wash [his hands] in it, it continues clean.  In this case a loaf of bread falls in and then someone takes it out. If the person who took it out first washed his hands off in the water, then he hands are unclean and he will defile the loaf. If, however, he does not first wash his hands off, then the loaf remains clean. The reason is a bit complicated. The water in the pool cannot become impure until it has been removed from the pool. When he removes this water, the clean water is greater in quantity than the unclean water and therefore the unclean water is nullified. In this case, we don't say that the unclean water defiles the clean water, as we said in section two because we hold that the unclean water has been absorbed by the loaf. Since this water cannot be seen, it is considered to be nullified by the clean water. I realize that this is complicated. Just remember I didn't write it.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and then a clean person drank [out of the pit], he becomes unclean.If one drew water [from it] in an unclean vessel and then drew water from it in a clean vessel, it becomes unclean.If one drew water [from it] in an unclean vessel and a loaf of terumah fell in: If he washed [his hands] in it, it becomes unclean; But if he did not wash [his hands] in it, it is clean.This mishnah is basically the same exact mishnah as yesterday's mishnah, except the water in the pool is defiled not by a person drinking directly from it but by a person filling up an unclean vessel from it.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If unclean water fell into it and a clean person drank of it, he becomes unclean.If unclean water fell into it and then water was drawn from it in a clean vessel, it becomes unclean.If unclean water fell into it and a loaf of terumah fell in: If he washed [his hands] in it, it becomes unclean; But if he did not wash [his hands] in it, it is clean.Rabbi Shimon says: it becomes unclean whether he washed in it or whether he did not wash in it.The first three sections of today's mishnah are the same as the first two mishnayot, except in today's case, the water in the pool was defiled because someone poured unclean water into the pool. In the last section of today's mishnah, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the laws in section three (concerning the loaf) all first three mishnayot.Section four: Rabbi Shimon holds that the water was not fully absorbed into the loaf. There will be at least a drop that remains on the loaf. This drop will defile the entire loaf.  The same would be true in the situations in the previous two mishnayot.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If a corpse fell into it or an unclean person walked in it, and a clean person drank of it, he is clean.  The water that is in the pool is not susceptible to impurity. It became impure in the cases discussed in the previous three mishnayot because someone took out some of the water and then put it back in. In contrast, if a corpse falls in or an unclean person walks in it, none of the water has been taken out and then put back in. Therefore, if a clean person comes and drinks from it, it remains pure.
  The same rule applies to the water of pools, the water of cisterns, the water of ditches,  the water of caverns, the water of rain flows which have stopped, and mikvehs  of less than forty seahs.  The rules that were found in the first three mishnayot and the beginning of this mishnah apply to all bodies of water that are less than forty seahs. [A seah is assumed to be about 12 liters, so we're talking about 480 liters, or about 126 gallons]. The "water of rain flows which have stopped" refers to water that has flown down from a mountain, but has stopped flowing. If it still flows, then the rule is different (we will see this in mishnah six).
  They are all clean during the time of rain;  Rain water does not receive impurity. Therefore, when the rains are still falling, all of the small bodies of water mentioned in section two are pure. Even if someone had defiled this water, the rain waters nullify the impure water.
  When the rain has stopped those near to a city or to a road are unclean, and those distant remain clean until the majority of people pass [that way].  If the rain has stopped, then we need to figure out whether the water is pure or not. If the body is close to the city or to a path, then we have to assume that people drank from there and since people might be impure, the water must be treated as impure. But if the body of water is far from the city or the path, then we can assume that it is pure until we know that many people have gone there.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is the last mishnah that deals with the water found in pools that are less than forty seahs. The mishnah refers to a pool of water that had been made unclean and now rain has started to flow back into it. The question is at what point the pool becomes clean again.
  When do they become clean?Bet Shammai say: when their contents have been increased [by more than the original quantity] and they overflow.  Bet Shammai rules most strictly. In order for the pool to become clean again, the new water that has come in from the rain must be more than the original water that remained and the contents must also overflow.
  Bet Hillel say: when their contents have been increased [by more than their original quantity] even if they do not overflow.  Bet Hillel says that the pool need not overflow.
  Rabbi Shimon says: when they overflow although their contents have not been so   increased.  Rabbi Shimon rules even more leniently. If the pool was almost full and then it rained and it overflowed, the pool is clean even if there is only a small amount of rainwater.
  [These] are valid [for preparing dough] for hallah and for the washing of the hands.  The water in the pool is now completely clean. The mishnah emphasizes how pure the water is by stating that one could even use it to prepare hallah or two wash one's hands. The same is true for preparing terumah. In other words, the water is not at all impure.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Superior to such [water] is the water of rain flows which have not stopped.If an unclean person drank of it and then a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and water was then drawn from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If an unclean person drank of it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hand in it, it is clean.If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and then a clean person drank [out of the pool], he is clean. If one drew water from it in an unclean vessel and a loaf of terumah fell [into the pool], even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean.If unclean water fell into it and a clean person drank of it, he is clean. If unclean water fell into it and one drew water from it in a clean vessel, it is clean. If unclean water fell into it and a loaf of terumah fell in, even if he washed his hands in it, it is clean.[All such water] is valid for terumah and for the washing of the hands.Today's mishnah is basically a repeat of mishnayot 1-3 except here we deal with rainwater that continues to flow into the pool. This rain will continuously nullify the water that has been defiled and put back into the pool. Thus, this water cannot become impure (although water taken out of it can be made impure).The commentary to this mishnah would be the same as that found in mishnayot 1-3 so I have not repeated it from there. Section two is parallel to mishnah one, section three is parallel to mishnah two, and section four is parallel to mishnah three. Section five is similar to the end of yesterday's mishnah. It notes that this water is pure enough that it can be used in the preparation of terumah.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah talks about the next two bodies of water that have greater purity than the pool consisting of renewed rainwater.
  Superior to such [water] is [the water of] the mikveh containing forty seahs, for in it people may immerse themselves and immerse other [things].  One level superior to the pool of flowing rainwater is the mikveh, a pool that has forty seahs of water that have not been drawn. A person can immerse in a mikveh in order to become pure and he can also immerse things (such as vessels) in a mikveh in order to purify them.
  Superior to such [water] is [the water of] a spring whose own water is little but has been increased by a greater quantity of drawn water. It is equivalent to the mikveh in as much as it may render clean by standing water, and to an [ordinary] spring in as much as one may immerse in it whatever the quantity of its contents.  Greater purity is accorded to spring water. A mikveh does not purify when its water is trickling on the ground. All forty seahs have to be gathered in one place for it to purify. In contrast, a spring generally purifies even if its water is trickling on the ground. However, in the case in our mishnah since the spring waters have been augmented with drawn water, they don't purify unless they have been gathered together, i.e. they are standing. In this way it is similar to the mikveh. This spring is similar to an ordinary spring, one whose water has not been augmented with drawn water, in that the fresh spring water purifies even if there are less than forty seahs. In contrast, a mikveh, water that has been gathered (we shall learn how in subsequent mishnayot) only purifies if there are forty seahs.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with the two bodies of water that have the highest degree of purity.
  Superior to them are "smitten waters" which can purify even when flowing [on the ground].  "Smitten waters" is a term used to refer to a spring whose water has somehow been despoiled. Either the water is salty or it is not cold because it is standing. These waters are purer than the spring whose standing waters have been augmented with drawn water because the water of this spring purifies even when the water is flowing on the ground. However, it still does not count as "living waters" which is the purest form of water. Indeed, "smitten waters" literally could be translated as "killed waters" which is the opposite of "living waters."
  Superior to them are "living waters" for in them there is immersion for zavim and sprinkling for metzoraim, and they are valid for the preparation of the hatat waters.  "Living waters" are fresh water in the spring. This is the level of purity required for the immersion of a zav, a person with an abnormal genital discharge (see Leviticus 15:13). The metzora is a person who had some sort of skin disease (we learned about this in Negaim; see Leviticus 14). This is also the type of water required to make the "hatat waters" the waters into which are put the ashes of the red heifer (see Leviticus 19:16; we learned about this in Parah).
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  An unclean man who went down to immerse himself:If it is doubtful whether he did immerse himself or not;And even if he did immerse himself,  it is doubtful whether the mikveh contained forty seahs or not;And if there were two mikvehs, one containing forty seahs but the other not containing forty seahs, and he immersed himself in one of them but he does not know in which of them he immersed himself,In such a doubt he is unclean.Today's mishnah deals with a case of an impure person who immersed himself in a mikveh in order to become pure, but it is unclear whether he did so in a manner that would purify him. In all such cases he is not considered clean. The reason is that his last determinable status was unclean. Therefore, he remains unclean until we can be sure that he is actually clean.The mishnah is pretty straightforward, so there is no explanation below.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a mikveh was measured and was found lacking [in its prescribed quantity], all things which had been purified in it, whether in private domain or in a public domain,  are accounted unclean retroactively.  If there is a mikveh that is assumed to be large enough to purify the person or things being immersed and then it turns out that the mikveh actually did not contain enough water, then everything purified in it is retroactively accounted impure. This is true even if this occurred in the public domain, where doubtful impurity is usually considered pure. The rule here is that the item or person immersed reverts back to its last established status, which in this case is impure.
  To what does this rule apply?  To a serious uncleanness.  However, this ruling, as well as the ruling in mishnah one, apply only to a type of impurity that is considered serious, for instance if he had contracted an impurity that would make him a "father of impurity." If it was of lesser origin then he is pure.
  But in the case of a lesser uncleanness, for instance if he ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids, or if his head and the greater part of his body entered into drawn water, or if three logs of drawn water fell on his head and the greater part of his body,   and he then went down to immerse himself and he is in doubt whether he immersed himself or not, or even if he did immerse himself there is [still] a doubt whether the mikveh contained forty seahs or not, or if there were two mikvehs, one containing forty seahs and not the other, and he immersed himself in one of them but does not know in which of them he immersed himself, in such a doubt he is accounted clean.  In all of the following cases his impurity is only of rabbinic origin. The mishnah gives a couple of examples of this. The first is when a person ate or drank something unclean. The second is concerning drawn water. The rabbis decreed that drawn water defiles if a person immerses his head and most of his body in them or if three log of drawn water falls on him (we shall learn more about this later). In both of these cases, the doubt is deemed pure because the impurity is only derabanan. The second part of this list is a repeat of the list in yesterday's mishnah. Yesterday's mishnah declared him impure if the source of impurity was a father of impurity. If it was of a lesser nature, then the doubtful case is ruled pure.
  Rabbi Yose considers him unclean, for Rabbi Yose says: anything which is presumed to be unclean always remains in a condition of unfitness until it is known that it has become clean; but if there is a doubt whether a person became unclean or caused uncleanness, it is to be accounted clean.  Rabbi Yose says that even if the impurity was a lesser one, a person or thing remains in his presumptive status until we can be sure that he or it was purified in a proper mikveh. However, if the doubt is whether or not he ever became impure in the first place, or whether he ever defiled something else, for instance we don't know whether he ate unclean food, or we know that he ate unclean food but we don't know if he touched something else, then the doubt is ruled pure. This is because he, or the thing he might have defiled, did not have a presumptive status of being impure. In sum, the sages and R. Yose disagree as to what principle we invoke in these types of situations. According to the first opinion, if the impurity is serious we rule stringently and if it is lesser than we rule leniently. Rabbi Yose says that the principle is that a person retains his presumptive status.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Drawn water that falls into a mikveh that has less than forty seahs of water is invalid and remains invalid even if more kosher water comes into the mikveh. In Toharot 4:7 we learned that if there is a doubt about whether drawn water went into the mikveh, the rabbis declared it clean. Our mishnah deals with what sort of case of doubt is pure and what case of doubt must be ruled impure.
  The case of a doubt about drawn water which the sages have declared clean;If there is a doubt whether [three logs of drawn water] fell into the mikveh or not,  The first possible doubt is whether or not the three logs of drawn water fell into the mikveh in the first place.
  Or even if they did fall in, there is a doubt whether [the mikveh] contained forty seahs or not,  If the mikveh contained forty seahs of valid water (not drawn) then even if three logs of drawn water fall in, the mikveh remains kosher. So the second level of doubt is whether or not the mikveh was large enough to nullify the three logs.
  Or if there were two mikvehs one of which contained forty seahs and the other did not, and drawn water fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell,  In this case there are two mikvaot, one of which is large enough to nullify the three logs and we are not sure into which mikveh the logs fell.
  In such a doubt it is accounted clean, because there exists [a possibility] on which we may depend [in declaring it clean].  In all of these cases, we can consider the mikveh clean. If the mikveh currently has less than 40 seahs, we can add more water. The reason that the doubt is considered clean is that there is a possibility that the mikveh or both mikvaot are valid.
  If they both contained less than forty seahs, and [drawn water] fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, in such a doubt it is accounted unclean, because there exists no [possibility] on which we may depend [in declaring it clean].  In contrast, in this case one of the mikvaot is definitely invalid because neither had forty seahs. Therefore, we have to treat both mikvaot as if they are invalid.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Rabbi Eliezer says: a quarter-log of drawn water in the beginning makes the mikveh invalid, and three logs on the surface of the water.  According to Rabbi Eliezer there is a difference a case when drawn water falls into the mikveh before water is in the hole in the ground and after valid water has already been put in. If the drawn water falls in first, then all that has to fall in is a quarter of a log, which is a very small amount (about 125 grams). If the drawn water falls in at the end, on the surface of water that is already there, then there must be three logs to disqualify the mikveh.
  But the sages say: both in the beginning and at the end, the measure [which makes the mikveh invalid] is three logs.  The other sages rule more leniently. In either case there must be three logs to disqualify the mikveh.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Picture a hole in the ground that is to be used for a mikveh. There is currently no water in the hole, but there are three cavities adjacent to the hole, each of which has in it one log of drawn water. If this water is part of the mikveh, it might invalidate the valid waters. Our mishnah deals with the potential validity of such a mikveh.
  If there were three cavities in a mikveh each holding a log of drawn water, if it is known that forty seahs of valid water fell in before reaching the third cavity, [such a mikveh is] valid; otherwise it is invalid.  As long as the forty seahs of valid water get into the mikveh before they are joined by the third log of drawn water, the mikveh is valid. As is always the case, less than three logs of drawn water do not invalidate a mikveh and three logs invalidates the mikveh only before there are already forty seahs of valid water. Since in this case, the forty seahs were in the mikveh before the third log of drawn water, the mikveh is valid.
  Rabbi Shimon declares it valid, since it resembles a mikveh adjoining another mikveh.  If there is a mikveh of drawn water that is next to a mikveh of valid water that doesn't have forty seahs, the drawn water does not invalidate the valid water. So too, according to Rabbi Shimon, the cavities of drawn water that are next to the mikveh do not invalidate the other water in the mikveh.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If one scraped mud to the sides and then three logs [of water] were drawn out from it [from the mud], [the mikveh is still] valid.  If one scraped some mud out of the bottom of a mikveh that doesn't have forty seahs of water in it, and then three logs of water dripped back into the mikveh from the scraped mud, the mikveh is still valid. The water that comes out of the mud is not considered to be "drawn water" such that it invalidates the mikveh.
  But if removed the mud away and three logs were drawn from it [into the mikveh] it becomes invalid.  In this case he removed the mud from the mikveh and didn't just scrape it away to the sides. If the water again seeps out of the mud and goes back into the mikveh it does disqualify it. Such water is considered to be "drawn water."
  Rabbi Shimon pronounces it valid, since there was no intention to draw [the water].  Water that one doesn't intend to draw out from somewhere doesn't count as drawn water in order to disqualify a mikveh. Rabbi Shimon considers the water that comes out of the mud to be unintended because his intention was to draw out the mud, not the water. However, the first opinion in the mishnah considers this water to be drawn because there was no way for him to draw out the mud without also drawing out the water.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If one had left wine-jars on the roof to dry and they became filled with water:Rabbi Eliezer says: if it was the season of rain and there was [in the cistern] a little water, one may break the jars; otherwise one may not break them.Rabbi Joshua says: in either case one may break them or tilt them over, but one may not empty [them into the cistern].This mishnah deals with rain water that collected in jars on the roof. Is this rain water considered to be "drawn water" such that it will disqualify the water in the cistern to be used as a mikveh.Section one: The person left the jars on the roof to dry out so that he could use them for wine. Had he left them there with the purpose of gathering water the collected water would count as drawn water and could not be put into the mikveh.Another complicating factor is that it's the rainy season so it looks like he might have left the jars up there intentionally to gather water (note that if it's not the rainy season, this scenario simply won't occur in Israel, when it's not the rainy season, it doesn't rain at all).According to Rabbi Eliezer, if there's a little water in the cistern already, then he may break the jars and let the water flow into the cistern and the mikveh will be valid. This is because the water in the jars is not really drawn water, it just looks like drawn water. Therefore, there is room to be lenient when there is already some water in the cistern. However, if there is no water in the cistern, then he may not do so. As he was in mishnah four, Rabbi Eliezer is stringent when it comes to adding water to a cistern at the outset.Section three: Rabbi Joshua is more lenient. First of all, there is no difference between letting the water flow in before there is other water there and after there is other water there. In both cases, one may either break the jar or even tilt it over and let the water flow into the cistern. The one thing he may not do is pick up the jars and pour them into the mikveh. Picking up the jars turns the water into drawn water which invalidates a mikveh, unless there are already in there 40 seahs of valid water.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  A plasterer forgot his lime-tub in a cistern and it became filled with water: if water flowed above it a little, it may be broken; and if not, it may not be broken, the words of Rabbi Eliezer.  This is a similar situation to yesterday's mishnah. A plasterer, probably making the cistern, forgot his lime-tub in a cistern. Water then collected in the cistern, entered into the tub and then overflowed. The water in the tub now counts as if it was in the cistern. If he wants to make the cistern into a valid mikveh, he can break the tub and take it out. However, if the water has not overflowed the tub, then the water in it counts as drawn water. Therefore, he can't break the tub and let the water into the cistern.
  But Rabbi Joshua says: in either case it may be broken.  Rabbi Joshua again rules leniently the water does not count as drawn water and does not disqualify the mikveh.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  This is the final mishnah in the series concerning water that overflowed vessels into a mikveh. Note that in today's mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua do not disagree. This is a sign that Rabbi Eliezer agrees that in this case the water does not count as drawn water.
  If one had arranged wine-jars in a cistern and they became filled with water, even though the water of the cistern was all soaked up, they may be broken. The person put the jars in the cistern so that the walls of the jars would become saturated with water (I guess this is good for the jars). He did not intend for the inside of the jars to be filled up. Even if the water in the cistern completely disappears and all that is left is the water in the jars, the jars may be broken and the water let out into the mikveh. In this case, even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that this water doesn't count as drawn water.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a mikveh whose forty seahs are a mixture of mud and water.
  A mikveh which contains forty seahs of water and mud [combined]: Rabbi Eliezer says: one may immerse objects in the water but one may not immerse them in the mud. But Rabbi Joshua says: in the water and also in the mud.  Rabbi Eliezer says that one may immerse only in the water, but not in the mud. Rabbi Joshua is again lenient. He allows one to use such a mikveh.
  In what kind of mud may objects be immersed? Mud over which water floats.  Rabbi Joshua allows one to immerse in such a mikveh only if the water floats on top of the mud. If the mud floats on top of the water he agrees that it is not usable.
  If the water was on one side only, Rabbi Joshua agrees that objects may be immersed in the water but may not be immersed in the mud.  Furthermore, if the water is not mixed up with the mud, he can't just immerse in the mud. He can immerse only in the water and it would seem that in such a case, the mud doesn't join together with the water.
  Of what kind of mud have they spoken? Mud into which a reed will sink of itself, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [mud] in which a measuring-rod will not stand upright. Abba Elazar ben Dulai says: [mud] into which a plummet will sink. Rabbi Eliezer says: such as will go down into the mouth of a jar. Rabbi Shimon says: such as will enter into the tube of a water- skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: such as can be measured in a log measure.  There are six different opinions as to what type of mud can be mixed in with the water such that it counts to bring the total to forty seahs, even for Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Meir says that the mud must be loose enough to let a reed sink into it on its own without being pushed down. Rabbi Judah says the mud must be loose enough such that measuring-rod won't stand on its own. Abba Elazar ben Dulai (never heard of him before) says that the mud must be thin enough so that a plummet will sink due to its weight. Rabbi Eliezer refers to a type of jar used to clean out a cistern. Such a jar has a thin mouth. If the mud will flow into such a jar, then it does not disqualify the water in the cistern. Rabbi Shimon refers to a water skin whose mouth is even narrower. The mud must be loose enough to flow into such a water skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says it must be measurable in a log measuring instrument. This also means it must be relatively loose mud.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Rabbi Yose says: two mikvehs neither of which contains forty seahs and a log and a half [of drawn water] fell into this one and a log and a half into this one, and then they are mixed together, they remain valid, since they had never  been called as invalid. But if there is a mikveh holding less than forty seahs, and three logs [of drawn water] fell into it, and it was then divided into two,  it is invalid, since it had already been called invalid.  According to Rabbi Yose, if the mikveh was never declared invalid because a full three logs of drawn water fell in at one time, then it remains valid even if it turns out that there are three logs of drawn water in it. This is what occurs in the first scenario. The opposite is true in the second scenario. Even though the mikveh was split into two and now in each mikveh there are less than three logs of drawn water, since it was originally declared invalid, both mikvaot remain invalid.
  Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, for Rabbi Joshua used to say: any mikveh containing less than forty seahs into which three logs [of drawn water] fell and from which a kortov was withdrawn becomes valid, since the three logs have also been diminished.  Rabbi Joshua says that both mikvaot are valid because neither mikveh now contains three logs of drawn water. This matches his general opinion that a mikveh into which exactly three logs of drawn water have been put can be made valid by removal of even a kortov, 1/64 of a log of water. Since this tiny bit of water will have some drawn water mixed in with it, there will now be less than three logs of drawn water in the mikveh. Therefore it is valid.
  But the sages say: it always remains invalid until the amount of its former contents and a little more are removed.  The other sages disagree with Rabbi Joshua. They hold that once a mikveh is disqualified because it has three logs of drawn water it cannot be made valid until an amount equal to and a little bit more than its original contents (the amount that was in it before the three logs were put in) is removed.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's. It explains how a mikveh that has been disqualified because three logs fell into it can again become valid.
  How so? If there was a cistern in a courtyard and three logs [of drawn water] fell into it, it will always remain invalid until the whole of it is removed and a little more, or until [another mikveh containing] forty se'ahs is placed in the courtyard, so that the higher mikveh is rendered valid by the lower.  The mishnah provides two ways to revalidate a mikveh that has been declared invalid because of three logs of drawn water. The first is to remove all of the water and then allow new valid water to flow in. This is the solution we saw in yesterday's mishnah. The second way of validating the mikveh can work if there are two cisterns in the courtyard, one higher than the other. The higher one is the one that has been made invalid. He can add water to this cistern so that it overflows and the water will flow down into the lower cistern which also has less than forty seahs of water. The water flowing from the upper cistern will cause the lower one to have more than forty seahs and it will be pure. By virtue of its connection with the lower cistern which is valid, the higher cistern is also validated as a mikveh. We shall learn of this principle below in 6:8.
  Rabbi Elazer ben Azariah declares it invalid unless the [new mikveh] is stopped up.  Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says he must stop up the upper mikveh, and then the bottom mikveh will fill up with forty seahs of valid water that he has allowed to flow into the courtyard and then he can attach the two mikvaot. But if he doesn't stop up the upper mikveh, then the invalid water will flow into the lower mikveh and it too will be invalid.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If a cistern is full of drawn water and a channel leads into it and out of it, it continues to be invalid until it can be reckoned that there does not remain in it three logs of the former [water].  The water flowing through the channel is valid to be used as a mikveh. It will validate the cistern full of drawn water when we can assume that the channel has flushed out most of the drawn water, leaving no more than three logs worth in the cistern.
  If two men each poured a log and a half [of drawn water] into a mikveh, or if one wrung out his clothes and so poured in [water] from several places, or if one emptied out a water-jug and so poured in [water]from several places, Rabbi Akiva declares it valid, But the sages declare it invalid. Rabbi Akiva said: they did not say "if they poured in," rather "if one poured in." But they said: they said neither thus nor thus, but rather "if there fell in three logs [of drawn water]."  Rabbi Akiva says that for three logs of drawn water to invalidate a mikveh, they must all come from one source made in one pouring. Separate pourings do not join together to invalidate the mikveh. The water-jug to which he refers seems to have multiple spouts, so if one person pours in, it gets there in several pouring. The other sages disagree. Three logs of drawn water invalidate the mikveh even if they come from multiple sources. Both Rabbi Akiva and the sages derive their halakhah from a precise understanding of their received oral tradition. Rabbi Akiva's mishnah reads "If one poured into a mikveh three logs of drawn water he invalidates it." Rabbi Akiva reads this mishnah precisely it is invalid only if one poured three logs in. If two or more together poured three logs into the mikveh, it is not invalid. The other sages have a different reading in their older mishnah. There mishnah reads "if there fell in…" There is no difference how these three logs got in. Their very presence invalidates the mikveh. As an aside, this is one of the most interesting examples I have come across of two sages arguing over the wording of an ancient mishnah. It is a clear example of the fact that prior to the generation of Rabbi Akiva there already existed an oral Torah upon which each sage could base his argument.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's mishnah. It continues to deal with logs of drawn water that fell from different vessels joining together to disqualify a mikveh.
  [If the three logs of drawn water fell in] from one vessel or from two or from three, they combine together; but if from four, they do not combine together.  As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, the sages hold that the three logs can fall in from multiple sources and still disqualify the mikveh. However, if they fall in from four different vessels, since each vessel does not contain a full log (assuming equal distribution) they do not disqualify the mikveh.
  If a man who had a seminal issue was sick and nine kavs of water fell on him, or if there fell on the head and the greater part of the body of a clean person three logs of drawn water from one vessel or from two or from three, they combine together; but if from four, they do not combine together.  The mishnah now addresses a similar issue where there is a difference between three and four.  There are two situations here. The first is a sick person who can't immerse in a mikveh. He is allowed to have nine kavs of drawn water poured on him to purify him from the impurity that is a result of a seminal emission. The second situation is a pure person upon whom fall three logs of drawn water this water is considered impure and will defile him. In both of these cases, if the amount falls on his head and the greater part of his body from three different sources, they combine together to purify the man who had the seminal emission or to defile the clean person. But if from four different sources, they do not have any effect.
  In what case does this apply?   When the second began before the first finished.  The pouring from different vessels joins together if the second vessel began to be poured before the first was completed. If not, they are considered separate episodes of pouring.
  And in what case does [the other statement] apply? When there was no intention to increase it. But if there was an intention to increase it, if only a kortov in a whole year, they combine together to add up to the three logs.  This section limits the cases where the separate pourings do not join, either because they were from four vessels or because the first pouring stopped before the second began. That is only true when one poured into the mikveh by accident. If one poured the drawn water into the mikveh on purpose then it disqualifies the mikveh no matter how long it takes to get the three logs into the mikveh, even if it takes a whole year, the mikveh is invalidated.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  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.
  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.
  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).
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  [Water from] a spring which is made to pass over into a trough becomes invalid.  The trough that is set into the rock in the ground is considered a vessel. Therefore, when they direct the water from the spring into and through the trough, it gains the status of "drawn water" and cannot be used for a mikveh. The trough in this case is not above the spring, as it was in the case in 4:5.
  If it was made to pass over the edge in any quantity, [what is] outside [the trough] is valid, for [the water of] a spring purifies however little its quantity.  In this case, most of the waters from the spring pass into the trough but some go over the edge, outside of the trough. Even if the part of the spring that goes outside of the trough is only the smallest amount, it still validates the remainder of the water, because the living waters of the spring purify the drawn water from the trough even in the smallest amount. The only thing one couldn't do in this case is immerse directly into the water in the trough.
  If it is made to pass over into a pool and then is stopped, the pool counts as a mikveh.  If the spring is made to flow into a pool and then the spring is stopped up, the pool becomes a mikveh. When there are forty seahs in the mikveh, it will purify.
  If it is made to flow again, it is invalid for zavim and for those with skin disease and for the preparation of the hatat waters until it is known that the former [water] is gone.  If he lets the spring flow again the water that immediately flows after the point at which it had been stopped cannot be used for those people who require "living waters" zavim, people with tzaraat (skin disease) and for preparing that hatat waters (red heifer waters). The spring cannot be used until the water that had been temporarily stopped is gone, because once the water was stopped, it is no longer living waters.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If it was made to pass over the outside of vessels or over a bench: Rabbi Judah says: behold it remains as it was before. Rabbi Yose says: behold it is like a mikveh, except that one may not immerse anything above the bench. In this case, the spring was made to pass over movable vessels or over a bench. Rabbi Judah says that the status of the spring has not changed. This means that the water still counts as "living waters" and even zavim, etc. can immerse in them. Such people can immerse in the spring after it has passed over the vessels or bench, just not in the part of the spring that directly passes over the vessels. Rabbi Yose says that now that the spring has passed over vessels the status is that of a mikveh. There will need to be forty seahs for the person to immerse but these are not "living waters" so zavim and those who require living waters cannot immerse there. And one cannot immerse directly over the bench or vessels themselves because while the water is there it counts as drawn water.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If [water from] a spring that flows into many channels was increased in quantity so that it was made to flow in abundance, it remains as it was before.  The spring here flows gently and splits into many little channels. The Hebrew word used to describe this is "nadal" which is the Hebrew word for centipede! If he added drawn water to such a spring, it still counts as a spring and one can immerse in it or in its small tributaries.
  If it was standing and its quantity was increased so that it was made to flow, it becomes equal to a mikveh in that it can purify in standing water, and to a spring in that one may immerse [objects] therein however small its quantity.  This spring is completely standing still and not flowing into little rivulets like the one in section one. It is like a mikveh in that a mikveh need not be flowing for it to effect purification. And it is also like a spring in that it need not be forty seahs in order for it to be valid for immersion.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with the status of the seas do they count as a mikveh or as living waters?
  The exact same mishnah is found in Parah 8:8. Most of my commentary is the same as it was there.
  All seas are equivalent to a mikveh, for it is said, "And the gathering ( of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir.  According to Rabbi Meir the seas are considered to be like a mikveh and not like a flowing spring, which can be used for the red cow, for zavim (those with unusual genital discharge) and for metzoraim (those with scale disease), all of whom require "living waters." In contrast to the rules governing a spring, for a mikveh to purify the water must be gathered into one place and it cannot be running. The seas are treated like a mikveh and therefore its waters purify only when they are gathered in one place. Rabbi Meir learns this from a midrash on the word "gathering" which is in Hebrew, mikveh. Genesis calls the seas a mikveh and therefore they are subject to the same rules as a mikveh and not to the rules of a live spring.
  Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a mikveh, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas.  In contrast, Rabbi Judah limits this to the ocean, which in his case is the Mediterranean. Other seas are treated like springs and purify even when they are running. He explains that Genesis states "seas" not because it refers to all seas as a mikveh. Rather the Mediterranean is "seas" because it contains many different seas. One interpretation of this is that a fish that is caught in Akko does not have the same taste as a fish that is caught in Sidon!
  Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.  Rabbi Yose says that all seas can purify when they are running none have the same restrictions as do a mikveh. However, the seas are not considered to be "living waters" as would be a spring. Therefore, none of the seas can be used for any of the rituals that requires "living waters" the red cow, zavim and metzoraim. 
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Flowing water is considered like a spring and dripping water is considered like a mikveh.  If one sees flowing water, then one can assume it comes from a spring and it can be treated like spring water for matters of purity. But if the water is dripping slowly on the ground, then it probably came from rain water and it must be treated like a mikveh. There will need to be forty seahs for it to be a source of purity.
  Rabbi Zadok   testified that if flowing water exceeded dripping water [with which it was mixed] it was valid [as flowing water].  If most of the water comes from flowing water, then it counts as flowing water and there need not be forty seahs for it to be purificatory.
  If dripping water became flowing water, its flow may be blocked by a stick or by a reed or even by a zav or a zavah, and then one may go down and immerse oneself in it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: one may not stop the flow of water with anything which is liable to uncleanness.  There is a stream of dripping water which one directed downhill such that it now became flowing water and it now flows into a river or wadi. If one wants to gather some of in is a specific place so that he can fully immerse in it, he can put a stick or reed to stop the water up. Even a zav or a zavah who require living water can direct the flow of this water and immerse in it. Rabbi Yose says that if one wants to immerse in flowing water one can't stop the flow with anything that is liable to uncleanness. All the more so, a zav or zavah cannot use such water because it is no longer considered living water. This principle was stated in Parah 6:4.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If a wave was separated [from the sea] and was forty seahs, and it fell on a man or on vessels, they become clean.  The wave that was separated from the sea is equivalent to a spring; thus one can immerse in it even when it is flowing. But it is also similar to the mikveh in that it must contain forty seahs. So if one put vessels in such a wave, the vessels would be pure.
  Any place containing forty seahs is valid for immersing oneself and for immersing other things.  Any hole in the ground that has forty seahs of water that has not been drawn is valid for a mikveh. One can immerse in it and one can immerse vessels in it as well.
  One may immerse in trenches or in ditches or even in a donkey-track whose water is connected in a valley.  This section illustrates the previous one. As long as there are forty seahs and the water was not drawn, one can immerse in water found anywhere. One can immerse even in donkey tracks found in a valley whose little puddles have been connected so that together they add up to 40 seahs.
  Bet Shammai say: one may immerse in a rain torrent. But Bet Hillel say: one may not immerse. They agree that one may block its flow with vessels and immerse oneself in it, but the vessels with which the flow is blocked are not thereby [validly] immersed.  According to Bet Shammai, if the from the start to the end of the rain flow there are 40 seahs of water, one can immerse in them. In other words, one doesn't even need any shape to the water whatsoever. As long as the source is rain (if the source was from the ground this would not be a mikveh but a spring) the water can serve as a mikveh. Bet Hillel says that the water must be gathered together for it to count as mikveh. After all, that is the meaning of the word "mikveh" gathered waters. Bet Hillel agrees that one may fence off the flow of rain water with vessels and thereby create a mikveh out of flowing rain water. But the vessels themselves don't count as having been immersed because the outside of the vessel is not touching the mikveh that has been formed on the inside and the water that flows outside is not valid for use as a mikveh.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Anything which is joined with [the water of] a mikveh is like a mikveh.  A small body of water which is joined with a valid mikveh takes on the properties of the mikveh and can be used as such, even if it doesn't contain forty seahs.
  One may immerse in holes of a cavern  and in crevices of a cavern  just as they are.  This is an example of the principle in section one.  One may use the holes in the sides of a cavern in which a mikveh is found, even if they are not connected to the mikveh itsel by a hole the size of the tube of a water-skin.
  The pit of a cavern, one may not immerse in it unless it had a hole as big as the tube of a water-skin.  This pit is dug out next to the mikveh in the cavern and is not part of the cavern itself. For this pit to be used as part of the mikveh it must be attached to the mikveh by a hole at least as wide as the tube of a water-skin. This same measure was mentioned in 4:5 concerning attaching a trough to a mikveh.
  Rabbi Judah said: when [is this the case]? When it stands by itself;  but if it does not stand by itself, one may immerse in it just as it is.  Rabbi Judah limits this to a case when the pit stands on its own. If the pit does not stand on its own, but rather is leaning on the walls of the mikveh, then it is considered part of the mikveh and one can immerse in it even if it is not attached by a hole the size of the tube of a water-skin.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a bucket was full of utensils and they were  immersed, they become clean;  If one fully immerses a bucket into a mikveh, and in the bucket there are vessels that he wishes to purify, the vessels become clean. The waters of the mikveh enter the bucket and therefore even if the mouth of the bucket is narrower than the tube of a water-skin, all of the vessels count as being in the bucket.
  But if [the bucket] was not immersed, the water in the bucket is not considered as joined  [with the water of the mikveh] unless it be joined [by means of a hole in the bucket which is as big] as the tube of a water-skin.  If he didn't put the entire bucket into the vessel, just part of it, and the waters of the mikveh entered the vessel through a hole in the vessel, then that hole must be as big as the tube of a water-skin. As we have seen, this is the size that allows the waters of the mikveh to be joined with another container.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Three mikvehs, two of which held twenty seahs [of valid water] and the third held twenty seahs of drawn water, and that holding drawn water was at the side: If three persons went down and immersed themselves in them and [the water of the three mikvehs] joined, the mikvehs are clean and they that immersed themselves become clean.  When the three people go down into the three mikvaot the water level rises and the water from each mikveh is mixed with the others. Since the mikveh with the invalid drawn water is at the side, this is a case where the two mikvaot with the valid water are mixed together first and then they together validate the drawn water from the third mikveh.
  If the one holding the drawn water was in the middle and three persons went down and immersed themselves in them and [the water of the three mikvehs] joined, the mikvehs continue as they were before and they that immersed themselves are as they were before.  If the mikveh with the invalid water is in the middle, then none of the mikvaot are rendered valid because the drawn water invalidates them both. However, the water is not invalidated because we don't know for sure that three logs of drawn water have gone in to the other mikvaot. If he were to subsequently fill one of these mikvaot, it would become valid. The people that immersed remain impure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If a sponge or a bucket containing three logs of water fell into a mikveh, they do not make it invalid, because they have only said: "if three logs fell in." This mishnah is a great example of how some later rabbis read and expound upon statements made by earlier sages. The earlier sages said that if three logs of drawn water fall into a mikveh that doesn't have forty logs of water, they render it invalid. The rabbis of our mishnah say that there must be three actual logs of water that fall into the mikveh, not a sponge or a bucket containing three logs of water. Note that the mouth of the bucket must be thinner than the tube of a water-skin. If not, we are in the situation in mishnah two of this chapter and we consider the two sources to be joined.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  A chest or a box which is in the sea: one may not immerse in them unless they have a hole as large as the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Judah says: in the case of a large vessel [the hole should be] four handbreadths, and in a small one [the hole should be as large as] the greater part of it.  The chest or box is floating on the water and water is entering through cracks. The question is whether the water in the box counts as if it was in the sea, in which case there is certainly sufficient water to immerse in it. The first opinion rules that a hole in the box the size of the tube of a water-skin is sufficient for the water in the box to count as mixed in with the waters of the sea. Rabbi Judah rules more stringently. He says that if the box is large, meaning that the majority of the box is more than four handbreadths, then the hole must be at least four handbreadths for the water to be considered mingled. If the box is smaller than that, than the hole must be at least the greater part of the size of the box. Basically, the box must have a pretty big hole relative to its size.
  If there was a sack or a basket [in the sea], one may immerse in them as they are, since the water is mixed together. If they are placed under a water-spout, they do not make the mikveh invalid. And they may be immersed and brought up in the ordinary way.  The sack and the basket are not at all water-proof, therefore their rules are different from those governing the box or chest. If they are in the sea, they count as being part of the sea and they don't need a hole in order to be able to immerse in them. If they are placed under a water-spout they don't cause the water to be considered "drawn water" as would vessels that are made to hold water. Finally, since the water in them doesn't count as "drawn water" one could immerse them in a mikveh containing exactly forty seahs of water and then pick them up again. The water that will gather in the basket and then fall back into the mikveh does not count as "drawn water" which would disqualify the mikveh.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah brings up some interesting cases in which a person can become pure and be made impure at virtually the same time.
  If there was a broken [earthenware] vessel in the mikveh and utensils were immersed in it, they become clean from their [former] uncleanness but are again rendered unclean because of the earthenware vessel. But if water flowed above it in any quantity, they are clean.  An impure broken earthenware vessel is floating on top of a mikveh or the sea. Water is entering it from its sides. If one immerses vessels in this broken vessel they are clean. This means that the water in the vessel does not count as "drawn water" because the vessel is broken. However, there is a problem (isn't there always?). An earthenware vessel cannot become pure by virtue of immersing it in a mikveh. [Earthenware vessels must be broken to become pure]. Therefore, this broken vessel is still impure. When one pulls out the vessel he is immersing, the water that comes up with it will immediately become impure by being in the airspace of the impure earthenware vessel. That water will then defile the vessel being immersed, as liquids always do. However, if the earthenware vessel is fully immersed in the water of the mikveh, then the water above it is pure because it is part of the mikveh. Thus if he immerses the vessel on top of the earthenware vessel, when he takes it out, it will be pure.
  If [water of] a spring flowed forth from an oven and a man went down and immersed himself in it, he is clean but his hands become unclean. But if [the water was as] high above the oven as the height of his hands, his hands also are clean.  An impure earthenware oven is set or even attached to the ground, as was the custom with ovens. Suddenly, a spring bursts forth from the ground through the oven (thereby ruining the pot roast, but that's another issue.)  One can immerse in the spring inside the oven. However, his hands which will be inside the oven's airspace when he comes out, will be defiled. But if the water flows over the oven by at least the height of his hands, then when he comes out, his hands will be immersed in this water. If this is the case, they will remain pure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah talks about how two mikvaot can be joined together such that if each has less than forty seahs of water, we can consider them both together so that they have forty seahs.
  Mikvaot can be joined together [if their connection is as big] as the tube of a water-skin in thickness and in space, in which two fingers can be fully turned round.  The hole connecting the two mikvaot must be the size the tube of a water-skin, which is two fingerbreadths in width. As the mishnah explains, one must be able to put one's fingers in the tube and fully turn them around.
  If there is a doubt [whether it is as big] as the tube of a water skin or not, it is invalid, because [this is a mitzvah] from the Torah.  If someone immerses in one of these mikvaot, and it alone has less than forty handbreadths and he is not sure whether the connection with the other mikveh is as big as the tube of a water-skin, he remains impure. This is because the mitzvah to immerse in the mikveh is from the Torah and in cases of doubt concerning toraitic impurity, the law is strict.
  The same applies also to the olive's bulk of a corpse and the olive's bulk of carrion and the lentil's bulk of a sheretz.  If there is a doubt whether a piece of corpse is the bulk of an olive, which is the size required to defile, or a piece of carrion (of an impure animal) is the size of an olive or a dead sheretz (creepy-crawly thing) is the size of a lentil, in all of these cases the law is stringent and that which it touched is considered impure. Again, this type of defilement is from the Torah.
  Anything which remains in [the space measuring] the tube of a water-skin lessens [its measure]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if it is any water creature whatsoever, [the mikvaot] remain clean.  If something remains in the hole that connects the two mikvaot, it reduces the size of the hole. If it is less than the size of a water-tube, the two mikvaot are not considered connected. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that if there is some sort of water-creature, perhaps a water-worm of some sorts, in the hole, it does not reduce the size of the hole. If someone immerses, he will be clean.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah teaches how one can use one valid mikveh to make valid another mikveh valid.
  Mikvaot may be made clean [by joining drawn water from] a higher [mikveh to valid water] from a lower [mikveh or drawn water from] a distant [mikveh to valid water] in a [mikveh] near at hand.  If there are two mikvaot on the sides of sloped ground, one can make the higher mikveh valid by having it touch (literally, kiss) the lower mikveh. If the two mikvaot are on equal ground, one can similarly make the one valid by having it touch the other mikveh. The mishnah will now demonstrate how.
  How so? One brings a pipe of earthenware or of lead and puts his hand beneath it till it is filled with water; then he draws it along till [the two waters] touch   even if it be by a hair's breadth it is sufficient.  He takes some pipe made of either earthenware or lead and puts one end in the higher (invalid) mikveh. Then he closes up the other end of the pipe with his hand and draws it along until the water in the pipe touches the lower mikveh. Even if only a little bit of water touches the lower mikveh, the waters of the upper mikveh are validated.
  If in the higher [mikveh] there were forty seahs and nothing in the lower, one may draw water and carry it on the shoulder and place it in the higher [mikveh] till forty seahs have flowed down into the lower [mikveh].  In this case there are forty seahs of valid water in the upper mikveh but nothing in the lower mikveh. He can draw more water and carry it to fill up the upper mikveh because once it has forty valid seahs, no amount of drawn water renders it invalid. Then he can use a pipe to let water flow from the upper mikveh to the lower mikveh. In this way he can essentially use drawn water to fill the lower mikveh. Pretty neat!
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  If a wall between two mikvaot had a perpendicular crack, [their waters] may be reckoned together; [If it was cracked] horizontally, they cannot be reckoned together, unless there is at one place [a hole as big] as the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Judah says: the rule is reversed.  According to the first opinion, perpendicular cracks between the walls that runs add up together, such that if all of the cracks add up to the size of the tube of a water-skin, then the two mikvaot can be reckoned together to reach the requisite 40 seahs. However, if the crack runs horizontally, then there must be at least the size of the tube of a water-skin at one single point for the two mikvaot to be joined. Rabbi Judah says the reverse horizontal cracks do join together to add up the requisite size of a whole, but perpendicular cracks do not join together.
  If there is a breach from one [mikveh] to the other, [they can be reckoned together] if the height is as [the thickness of] the skin of garlic and the breadth like the tube of a water-skin.  For a breach to serve to connect two mikvaot that have a wall separating them, the breach must have a very minimum height, only as high as the skin of a piece of garlic. However, it must be as wide as the tube of a water-skin.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a bathtub that has a pipe leading out of it for drainage. The bathtub itself seems to have been filled up with collected rainwater, such that the water in it could be valid as a mikveh. However, the pipe has a stopper on the outside and putting the stopper into the end of the pipe causes the water in the stopper to be considered drawn water. The question is: does this drawn water invalidate the valid water in the tub?
  The outlet of a bath-basin: if it is in the center, it renders [the bath] invalid [as a mikveh]; but if it is at the side, it does not render it invalid, because then it is like one mikveh adjoining another mikveh, the words of Rabbi Meir.  According to Rabbi Meir, if the outlet is in the middle of the bathtub, the drawn water in it causes the entire bathtub to be invalid. However, if the outlet is at the end of the tub then the mikveh remains valid because this is considered like a mikveh of drawn water which is invalid, which is next to a mikveh of valid water. As we learned in 2:5, such a mikveh is not invalidated.
  But the sages say: if the bath- basin can contain a quarter-log of [water] before it reaches the outlet, it is valid; but if not, it is not valid.  According to the sages, if there is a quarter-log of water in the basin before any water drains out the outlet, then the mikveh is valid for this is the minimum measure from the Torah (as determined by the sages) for a valid mikveh. In such a case, we would have a valid mikveh next to an invalid mikveh. But if not, then the water in the bath-basin cannot count as a mikveh.
  Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: if the outlet can contain any amount of [water], it is invalid.  Rabbi Eliezer considers the water in the outlet to be water in a vessel that is in a mikveh, which means that there is drawn water in the mikveh. No matter the size or position of the outlet, the mikveh is invalid.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a pool of cool water that people were accustomed to immerse in after bathing in the hot waters of the bathhouse. The waters in the bathhouse were definitely drawn water, so one would need to purify after emerging from the hot bath.
  The ‘purifier' in the bathhouse: the bottom was full of drawn [water] and the top full of valid [water], if [the space] in front of the hole can contain three logs it is invalid [as a mikveh]. How large must the hole be to contain three logs? 1/320th   of the pool, the words of Rabbi Yose.  There are two pools next to each other, one elevated above the other. The bottom one contains drawn water and the top is full of valid water. The two pools are connected by a hole. If the hole can contain three logs (the amount of drawn water that invalidates a mikveh) then we look at it as if the water from the lower pool has gone into the upper pool and its waters are invalid to use as a mikveh. If a normal pool has forty seahs, which is equivalent to 960 logs of water (1 seah=24 logs) then three logs are 1/320th of the size of a normal mikveh.
  But Rabbi Elazar says: even if the bottom [pipe] was full of valid [water] and the top [pipe] full of drawn [water] and by the hole's side were three logs, [the bath is] valid, for they have only said: "if three logs fell in."  Rabbi Elazar says that three logs invalidate a mikveh only if they fall in. They do not invalidate a mikveh in a case such as we have here, because in this case there was invalid water standing next to valid water and connected by a hole. This same literal reading of the older tradition was found above in mishnah four.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Some materials raise the mikveh up [to the required quantity] and do not make it invalid.Some make it invalid and do not raise it up [to the required quantity];And some neither raise it up [to the required quantity] nor make it invalid.These raise it up to the required quantity and do not make the mikveh invalid. Snow, hail, frosted dew, ice, salt, and thin mud.Rabbi Akiva said: Rabbi Ishmael once argued against me saying; snow does not raise up the mikveh [to its required quantity]. But the men of Madeba  testified in his name that he had once told them: go and bring snow and with it prepare a mikveh from the outset.Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: hailstones are like drawn water.How do they raise it up [to the required quantity] and not render it invalid? If the mikveh contained forty seahs less one, and a se'ah of them  fell in and made up [the required quantity], they thus make up [the required quantity] but do not render it invalid.Sections 1-3: These sections serve as an introduction to the next few mishnayot which will explain each section and case, one at a time.Section four: If one of the following materials falls into a mikveh that does not have forty seahs, and with the addition of the material the mikveh now has forty seahs, the mikveh is valid. In addition, if any of these materials fall into a mikveh, they do not invalidate it, even if they were put into a vessel. In other words, these materials can only benefit and not harm the mikveh.Section five: Rabbi Akiva says that Rabbi Ishmael tried to argue that snow does not count in raising the mikveh up to its requisite amount. However, his argument failed because some men from Madeba (a city in Jordan, there is a famous mosaic map of the Holy Land there) testified that Rabbi Ishmael once told them to fill up a mikveh with snow, even though he wasn't sure if this was valid.We should note that this is a very interesting and unique case where one rabbi testifies that another rabbi argued a position with which he did not agree.Section six: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that hailstones are treated like water. If they have been drawn in a vessel and then they were put into a mikveh, they render the mikveh invalid.Section seven: This section explains how any of these substances can raise a mikveh up to the requisite quantity.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  These invalidate the mikveh and do not raise it up to [the required quantity]: Drawn water, whether clean or unclean, water that has been used for pickling or for boiling, and grape-skin wine before it becomes vinegar. How do they make the mikveh invalid and do not raise it up [the required quantity]? If a mikveh contained forty seahs less a kortov, and a kortov of these fell into it, it does not raise it up [the required quantity]; And if there were three logs of any of these, they would invalidate the mikveh.  The mishnah now explains the types of materials that do invalidate a mikveh. As we have learned many times, drawn water certainly invalidates a mikveh, at least one that doesn't already have forty seahs of valid water. This is true regardless of whether the water is pure or impure. Similarly, water that has been used for pickling or for boiling invalidates the mikveh. Grape-skin wine is really water with a little bit of flavor in it. This type of wine invalidates a mikveh only before it turns into vinegar. Grape-skin wine that has fermented into vinegar is dealt with in section two. If one of these substances falls into a mikveh and thereby raises the level of the mikveh to forty seahs, it does not cause the mikveh to have the requisite amount. And if three logs or more fall in, they invalidate the mikveh.
  But other liquids, and the juice of fruits, brine, and liquid in which fish has been pickled, and grape-skin wine that has fermented sometimes raise it up to [the required quantity] and sometimes do not raise it up. How so? If a mikveh contained forty seahs less one, and a seah of any of these fell in it, it does not raise it up to [the required quantity]. But if the mikveh contained forty seahs and a se'ah of any of these was put in and one seah was removed, the mikveh is still valid.  Other liquids like milk, wine and the liquids listed here are neutral they neither raise the level nor invalidate the mikveh. If the mikveh has less than forty seahs and a seah of one of these substances spills in, it does not raise it up to the requisite level. But if the mikveh has the requisite level and one of these falls in and then one seah is removed, the mikveh remains valid because when the seah of the liquid fell in, there were already forty seahs. In this way, the liquid can, in a sense, aid in raising the mikveh to the requisite level.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with various ways in which a change in the color of the water of the mikveh can render it invalid.
  If he rinsed in the mikveh baskets of olives or baskets of grapes and they changed its color, it remains valid.  Changing the color of the water renders it invalid only if something of substance falls into the mikveh, such as grapes or olives. However, the color from the baskets that are rinsed in the mikveh does not count as a substance and therefore it does not render the mikveh invalid.
  Rabbi Yose says: dye-water renders it invalid by a quantity of three logs, but not merely by changing its color.  Dye water is treated like drawn water. It renders the mikveh invalid but only if there are three logs of it. A smaller amount does not render the mikveh invalid, even if it changes the color of the water
  If wine or the sap of olives fell into it and changed its color, it becomes invalid.  Since these do count as substances, they do render the mikveh invalid if there is enough to change the color of the water.
  What should one do [to make it valid again]?   One should wait until the rain falls and the color reverts to the color of water.  This section teaches how one can "fix" a mikveh that became invalid because it was colored. This mikveh does not have forty seahs of water. One can wait until the rain falls and enough water goes in so that the color returns to the normal color of water. Note that this might take a while in Israel, where rain does not fall for about half of the year (May-October).
  If it contained forty seahs, water may be drawn and carried on the shoulder and put into it until the color reverts to that of water.  If the mikveh already has forty seahs it is even easier to fix it if the color has changed. One can simply fill up a bucket with drawn water and add it to the mikveh, because drawn water does not invalidate a mikveh that already has forty seahs of valid water.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If wine or the sap of olives fell into the mikveh and changed the color of a portion of the water, if there is not a portion [of the mikveh] that has forty seahs with the color of water, one may not immerse in there. If the wine or sap from olives changed one part of the mikveh, meaning somehow the color stayed on one side, then one cannot immerse in the mikveh unless the remaining side that still has the color of water has at least forty seahs. I'm not really sure how practical this is (the color would assumedly dissipate pretty quickly throughout the mikveh), but it does teach a principle. The colored water is not usable as a mikveh but it doesn't disqualify the mikveh. Therefore, we can effectively ignore the fact that there is colored water on one side of the mikveh such water doesn't count, but doesn't disqualify.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If a kortov of wine fell into three logs of water and its color became like that of wine, and the water then fell into a mikveh, it does not render it invalid.  Wine doesn't disqualify a mikveh. Drawn water does. So what do we do with a mixture of the two? According to the mishnah, if the color is like wine, then the water is treated like wine. It is interesting to note that since in the time of the Mishnah people usually drank their wine mixed with water, a cup of wine/water would probably be in their eyes, wine, not water mixed with wine. In other words, if it has the color of wine, its wine.
  If there were three logs of water less a kortov into which a kortov of milk fell, and their color remained like the color of water, and then they fell into a mikveh, they do not render it invalid. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: everything goes by the color.  In this case, a little bit of milk, which does not disqualify the mikveh, falls into almost three logs of drawn water, which are not quite sufficient to disqualify the mikveh. There are now three logs of what looks like drawn water, but since there are not actually three logs of drawn water, the mikveh is not disqualified. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees with this case. Since the color is that of water, the substance must be treated as water which does disqualify the mikveh.  This would make the rule in section two consistent with that in section one.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If a mikveh contained forty seahs exactly and two persons went down and immersed themselves one after the other, the first becomes clean but the second remains unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the feet of the first were still touching the water, the second also becomes clean.  When the first person exits the mikveh, he will inevitably remove some water with him. The mikveh will now have less than forty seahs of water, so the second person to immerse will not become pure. Rabbi Judah says that if the feet of the first person are still in the mikveh, we consider all of the water on his body to still be in the mikveh. In such a case, the second person to immerse is pure.
  If one immersed a thick cloak and when he drew it out a part was still in contact with the water [and then another person immersed himself in the mikveh], he becomes clean.  This matches Rabbi Judah's opinion from above. As long as part of the thick cloak is still in the water, the water that is on or soaked up by the cloak counts as if it was still part of the mikveh.
  A pillow case or a cushion of leather, as soon as it is taken out of the water by its open ends the water which still remains in it is drawn water. How should one do it? One should immerse them and draw them up by their lower edges.  The pillow case and leather cushion both have a receptacle. Therefore, as soon as they are immersed in the mikveh and some of the open ends are removed, the water in them is considered drawn water. This would disqualify the mikveh if it wasn't large enough, meaning if there wasn't forty seahs of valid water. The way to fix this problem is to immerse the pillow case or leather cushion with the open side down, such that when he pulls them out, there is no water inside. Simple problem, simple solution!
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  If he immersed a bed in it, even though its legs sink into the thick mud, it still becomes clean because the water touched them before [the mud].  Since the legs of the bed are immersed in the mikveh's waters before they sink into the mud at the bottom of the mikveh, they are clean. Note that this mikveh has at least forty seahs of water. Furthermore, immersing only in water thick with mud would not suffice to make something clean (see mishnah one of this chapter).
  The water of a mikveh which is shallow, one may press down even bundles of sticks, even bundles of reeds, so that the level of the water may rise, and then go down and immerse oneself.  This mikveh is shallow but still has exactly forty seahs of water. The problem is that the water is too shallow to immerse his whole body. He may take bundles of wood or reeds and place them on the sides of the mikveh to create a narrower deeper space. He is allowed to do this even though water will creep into the sides of the mikveh in between the spaces within the bundles of the wood or reeds and thereby reduce the volume of the other water in the mikveh. The mishnah teaches that the water in these spaces counts in constituting the requisite forty seahs for a mikveh.
  If an [unclean] needle is placed on the step [leading down to a mikveh] in a cavern, and the water is put in motion, once a wave has passed over it, [the needle] becomes clean.  The wave of water that reaches up from the mikveh and immerses the unclean needle is sufficient to purify the needle.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with mikvaot that are found and with whether one can assume that they have been filled with rainwater and are valid or that they have been filled with drawn water and are invalid.
  The land of Israel is clean and its mikvaot are clean.  The rabbis declared that merely being in the land of the other nations defiles. The land of Israel, on the other hand, is clean. Similarly, if one sees a mikveh in Israel and is not sure if it is valid or not, the presumption is that it too is valid.
  The mikvaot of the nations outside the land are valid for those who had a seminal emission even though they have been filled by a pump-beam;  According to rabbinic legend/law, Ezra decreed that men who have had a seminal emission must immerse in a mikveh before they study Torah or pray (this is no longer observed). A mikveh found outside of the land of Israel can be assumed to be valid for such a purpose for this immersion is mandated only by rabbinic law. This is true even if it had been filled with a pump-beam, which would mean that it is certainly drawn water. However, the mikveh is not valid for other types of immersions that are toraitic in origin.
  Those in the land of Israel: when outside the entrance [to the city] are valid even for menstruants, and those within the entrance [to the city] are valid for those who had a seminal emission but invalid for all [others] who are unclean.  Mikvaot found outside of the city can be assumed to have been filled with rain water or some other natural water. Mikvaot in the city are assumed to have been filled with drawn water and are invalid. With that in mind, if one finds a mikveh outside of the city gates, anyone can immerse there, even a menstruant, whose obligation to immerse is from the Torah. But if one finds a mikveh inside the city, it is only valid for men who have had a seminal emission, whose obligation is derabanan, from the rabbis.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: those which are near to a city or to a road are unclean because of laundering; but those at a distance are clean.  Rabbi Eliezer adds that mikvaot found near the city or near a road may have been used for laundering. During the laundering water would have been put into the mikveh and this creates the presumption that the mikveh is invalid.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah and tomorrow's deal with what constitutes a seminal emission such that a man must go to the mikveh. I know, you're thinking, doesn't a man know when one has had a emission? I would imagine that this is generally the case. But the rabbis talk about everything like this. They also talk about how a woman can distinguish between menstrual blood and blood from another source, even though most women probably can tell the difference. This is simply part of the way the rabbis talk.
  These are the men who had a seminal emission who require immersion:  The men listed below require immersion even though we are not one hundred per cent sure that they have had a seminal emission.
  If he noticed that his urine issued in drops or was murky: At the beginning  he is clean; In the middle and at the end, he is unclean; From the beginning to the end, he is clean.  The liquid being emitted is not like urine, which generally doesn't come out in drops, as does semen. But then again, it is not like semen, which is usually white not murky. What is it? If the stream begins this way, he is clean, for this is not considered semen. It is probably just problematic urination (yes, we've heard of this problem on radio ads). If it occurs at the middle or end of his urination, then it is considered semen for it is unusual for urine to begin normally and then turn into murky drops. If it occurs from the beginning to the end, then that's just the way he urinates. Hopefully, things will get better.
  If it was white and viscous, he is unclean. Rabbi Yose says: what is white counts like what is murky.  If the issue was white and viscous, meaning in clumps, not little drops, then it is semen and he is unclean. Rabbi Yose says that even if it is white, if he sees such a type of emission at the beginning, he is pure, the same as is true with murky liquid.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If he emitted thick drops from his member, he is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar Hisma.  Thick drops are characteristic of semen (I refuse to disclose my sources on this one). Therefore, if he emits thick drops, even at the beginning of the stream (see yesterday's mishnah), he is unclean.
  If one had sexual dreams in the night and arose and found his flesh heated, he is unclean.  His flesh is a euphemism for his penis (see Leviticus 15:2, every language seems to have an abundance of these words). If he has sexual dreams at night and he wakes up and finds his flesh warm, he can assume that he had an emission, even if he doesn't find any other signs.
  If a woman discharged semen on the third day, she is clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Ishmael says: sometimes there are four time periods, and sometimes five, and sometimes six. Rabbi Akiva says: there are always five.  Semen defiles not only the man, but also a woman with whom he has had sexual intercourse (see Leviticus 15:18). The question asked here is how long the semen that is inside her counts as semen such that it defiles her. According to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, by the third day the semen inside her has deteriorated enough such that it doesn't count as semen. If she has some discharge, she is not impure. A time period is either a day or a night. Rabbi Ishmael holds that a woman who has discharge on the third day is impure, but one who has discharge on the fourth day is pure. Therefore, sometimes there can be four time periods in which she is impure. For instance if she has relations on late Sunday afternoon, the discharge is impure through Wednesday morning, which is four full time periods (Sunday night, Monday day, Monday night, Tuesday day). But if she has relations at the beginning of Sunday morning, then Sunday day counts as another time period, and there are five. And if she has relations on Saturday night at the beginning of the night, then Saturday night counts as one of the time periods, and there will be six time periods. Rabbi Akiva says that the time is set by the number of periods between the time she had relations and the time that she discharges the semen. If she discharges within five time periods, she is impure.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If a non-Jewish woman discharged semen from an Israelite, it is unclean. If an Israelite woman discharged semen from a non-Jewish man, it is clean.  In general, non-Jews were considered to be outside the scope of the Israelite purity laws. Only semen from an Israelite is considered halakhically unclean. Therefore, the religion of the woman who discharged the semen is irrelevant; only the religion of the man has any relevance.
  If a woman had intercourse and then went down and immersed herself but did not   sweep out the house, it is as though she had not immersed herself.  "Sweeping out the house" is a euphemism for a woman cleaning herself out after sexual relations with a man. If she does not clean herself out, the semen defiles her when she immerses from the mikveh.
  If a man who had a seminal emission immersed himself but did not first pass urine, he again becomes unclean when he passes urine. Rabbi Yose says: if he was sick or old he is unclean, but if he was young and healthy he remains clean.  Urinating will flush out the semen that remains in the man. Therefore, he should urinate before he immerses in the mikveh. If he does not, he remains unclean. Rabbi Yose says that this is so only with an old or sick person, who evidently does not ejaculate with quite as much vigor. A young healthy male expels all of the semen and therefore does not need to urinate in order to clear himself out.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is about things that block the water of the mikveh from having full contact with the body such that proper immersion occurs. The Hebrew term for this is "hatzitzah."
  If a menstruant placed coins in her mouth and went down and immersed herself, she becomes clean from her [former] uncleanness, but she becomes unclean on account of her spittle.  The coins that are found in a menstruant's mouth do not block her from becoming clean from her impurity, because one does not need to immerse the inside of one's mouth. However, she is made unclean immediately by the spittle that is found on the coins. This spittle is considered to have separated from her and landed on the coins and from there it re-defiles the woman.
  If she put her hair in her mouth or closed her hand or pressed her lips tightly, it is as though she had not immersed herself.  While she need not cleanse the inside of her mouth, she does need to cleanse her hair, the palms of her hands and the outside parts of her lips. If she prevents the water from getting to these spots, then she remains impure.
  If a person held on to another man or to vessels and immersed them, they remain unclean; but if he had washed his hand before in the water, they become clean. Rabbi Shimon says: he should hold them loosely that water may enter into them.  By holding on tightly to the other person or to vessels, he blocks the water from reaching the spots where he is holding them. Therefore, the person he is holding or the vessels remain unclean. However, if he washed his hands in the mikveh before he immerses, then the water that is on his hands joins the water that is in the mikveh and there is no blockage. Rabbi Shimon says that this is not sufficient. He should let his hands hold them loosely so that water comes between his hands and the vessels or the other person.
  The hidden or wrinkled parts of the body do not need that water should enter into them.  The hidden parts include, for instance, the inside of one's mouth or the inside one's ears. The wrinkled parts might include a wrinkle of fat, or something of that nature. These parts do not need to come into contact with water.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The ninth chapter deals completely with the issue of what blocks immersion.
  Today's mishnah begins with what blocks immersion for a person. The end of the chapter (5-7) deals with what blocks immersion in vessels.
  The following block [immersion] in the case of a person: threads of wool, threads of flax and the ribbons on the heads of girls.  If a girl wears threads of wool, flax or other types of ribbons in her hair, they block her immersion.
  Rabbi Judah says: those of wool or of hair do not interpose, because water enters through them.  According to Rabbi Judah, threads of wool or hair do not block the water from entering. Therefore, her immersion is successful
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  The matted hair on the heart and on the beard and on a woman's hidden parts; pus outside the eye, hardened pus outside a wound and the plaster over it, dried-up juice, clots of excrement on the body, dough under the finger nails, sweat-crumbs, miry clay, potter's clay, and road-clay.What is meant by 'miry clay’? This means the clay in pits, for it is written: "He lifted me out of the miry pit, the slimy clay" (Psalms 40:3)."Potter's clay" according to its literal sense. Rabbi Yose declares potter's clay clean, but clay for putty unclean.And "road-clay."These become like road-side pegs in these [kinds of clay] one may not immerse oneself nor immerse [other things] with them;But in all other clay one may immerse when it is wet.One may not immerse oneself with dust [still] on one's feet.One may not immerse a kettle with soot [on it] unless he scraped it.Section one: This section is a list of things that block successful immersion.Most of these are self-explanatory. Sweat-crumbs are formed on your hands when they are dirty and you rub them together and little balls are formed (this is actually quite a clever description of those little things).The various types of clay are explained in the continuation of the mishnah.Section two: Miry clay is clay found in pits the word comes from the verse in Psalms.Sections three and four: These seem to be self-explanatory.Section five: All of these types of clay become like "road-side pegs." This refers to a person who walks in mud and has around his legs cakes of mud. One is not allowed to immerse with these types of clay on him, nor can one immerse vessels with this type of mud on them.Section six: Other types of mud do not block immersion, as long as they are wet.Section seven: The dust on one's feet does not block immersion.Section eight: Before one immerses a kettle, one must scrape off the soot. The words "unless he scraped it" can also refer to the dust on one's legs.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with clumps of matted hair that do not block successful immersion from occurring.
  The following do not block: the matted hair of the head and of the armpits and of a man's hidden parts.  These types of matted hair do not block successful immersion from occurring, in contrast with those found in yesterday's mishnah which do. Note that male pubic hair does not block immersion, whereas female pubic hair does.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: it is the same with a man or a woman: if it is something which one finds annoying, it blocks; but if it is something which one does not find annoying, it does not interpose.  Rabbi Eliezer issues a more egalitarian ruling. No matter the gender, if the person finds the matted hair annoying, then it blocks immersion. This same general rule is found in mishnah seven. Rabbi Eliezer differs from the other sages in that he applies it also to pubic hair.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues the list of things that do not block immersion.
  Pus within the eye, hardened pus within a wound, juice that is moist, moist excrement on the body, excrement inside the finger nail, and a dangling finger nail and the downy hair of a child.  All of the things listed here do not cause immersion to be blocked. Note that some of these should be contrasted with the list in mishnah one, for instance moist excrement, which does not block, and dry excrement, which does.
  [These] are not liable to uncleanness   and do not cause uncleanness.  In addition, all of the items listed above are not considered to be attached to the body. Thus if the body became impure, these things remain pure. And if these things contracted impurity, the rest of the body remains pure.
  The membrane which forms over a wound is liable to uncleanness and causes uncleanness.  In contrast, the scab of a wound is part of the body and its purity status goes along with the rest of the body. If it contracts impurity, a person's whole body is impure and if the body is defiled, it too is defiled.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with cases in which pitch and myrhh stains block the successful immersion of vessels. The general rule is quite obvious if the person would want to remove the stain of pitch or myrrh, then it blocks immersion. But if we can assume that they don't care, then they do not.
  In the case of vessels the following block: pitch and myrrh;  The entire mishnah deals with when pitch and myrrh (the sap that comes from the myrrh tree), block successful immersion.
  In the case of glass vessels, whether inside or outside;  Glass vessels are the most precious and expensive of all vessels. If pitch or myrrh were to be found anywhere, inside or outside of these vessels, the person would wish to have it removed. Therefore they block immersion.
  On a table or on a board or on a couch; On those that are [usually] kept clean they block; On those that are allowed to remain dirty they do not block.  If the table is generally kept clean, then one would want to remove the pitch or myrrh. Therefore, they do block immersion. If the table is allowed to remain dirty, then one doesn't care if there is pitch or myrrh on it. Since one doesn't care about it, it doesn't block immersion.
  They block in the case of beds belonging to householders, but they do not block on beds belonging to a poor person.  A normal householder would care if there was pitch or myrrh on his bed. Therefore, if the bed belongs to a householder, pitch and myrrh block immersion. But a poor person is probably used to having a bed with some dirt on it. For him, pitch and myrrh do not block immersion.
  They block on the saddle of a house-holder, but they do not block on the saddle of a dealer in water-skins.  Again, a regular house-holder cares that there shouldn't be pitch or myrrh on his saddle. But those who deal in water-skins are used to the presence of pitch and myrrh. Therefore, they don't block the successful immersion of his saddle.
  They block in the case of a pack-saddle. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [only if the stain is as big] as an Italian issar.  On a pack-saddle, they always block immersion. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that the stain must have a minimum size that of a coin called the Italian issar.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah talks about when such types of stains block the successful immersion of vessels.
  On clothing: if on one side [only] they do not block. But [if found] on two sides they do block.  If the stain can be seen on only one side of the clothing, it does not block. But if the stain can be seen on both sides of the clothing then it is a deeper stain and it must be removed before the clothing can be successful immersed.
  Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Ishmael: on one side also.  According to Rabbi Judah, even if the stain can only be seen on one side of the clothing, it blocks immersion.
  Rabbi Yose says: in the case of builders they block if on one side, but in the case of the ditch-digger only if on both sides.  Rabbi Yose says that when it comes to builders, their clothing cannot be immersed even if the stain can be seen only on one side . According to this interpretation (others interpret the mishnah to refer to bathhouse attendants), builders take care that their clothes shouldn't have any stains on them, and therefore they would wish to remove this stain. But ditch-diggers (this is the interpretation suggested by Albeck others read "the uncultured") do not care if their clothing is stained on one side. Therefore, it blocks immersion only if the stain can be seen on both sides.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  They do not block in the case of aprons belonging to workers in pitch, potters, or trimmers of trees. Rabbi Judah says: the same applies also to summer fruit-driers.  Since these people don't care how dirty their aprons become, stains never block successful immersion.
  This is the general rule: if it is something which one cares enough [to remove], it blocks; but if it is something which one does not care enough [to remove], it does not block.  This is the general rule that basically explains the entire chapter. If the person is assumed to want to remove the stain from his clothing, vessel or himself, then it does block immersion. But if he doesn't care that it's there, then the person or article/vessel can be immersed even with the substance on it.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Any handles of vessels which have been fixed not in their usual manner, or, if fixed in their usual manner, have not been fixed firmly, or, if fixed firmly, have been broken, they block.  Handles of vessels that have not been attached properly, or were attached properly but broke, block successful immersion. However, if the handle is properly attached to the vessel, it does not block immersion.
  If a vessel was immersed with its mouth downwards, it is as though it had not been immersed.  If the vessel is immersed with its mouth downwards, water will not fully enter it. Therefore, the immersion does not count.
  If immersed in the regular manner but without the attachment, [it becomes clean] only if turned on its side.  The attachment referred to here seems to be some sort of drainage pipe placed on the side of the vessel. If he immerses it in the normal manner, the water will not enter this attachment. Therefore, it is not pure until he immerses it on its side so that water will enter the drainage pipe.
  If a vessel is narrow at each end and broad in the center, it becomes clean only if turned on its side.  The water will enter this vessel only if it is immersed on its side.
  A flask which has its mouth turned inwards becomes clean only if a hole is made at the side.  Water will not enter this vessel through its mouth, therefore to successfully immerse it he must make a hole in its side.
  An inkpot of laymen becomes clean only if a hole is made at the side. The inkpot of Joseph the priest had a hole at its side.  The inkpot used by laypeople will not allow water into its mouth, if it is immersed. Therefore, one must make a hole in it to allow the water in. It would seem that the inkpots of professional scribes were made differently. Joseph the priest seems to have been well-known for making a permanent hole in his inkpot so that it would be easy to immerse. Assumedly, when using it, he would plug it up temporarily.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A bolster and a cushion of leather it is necessary that the water enter inside them.  This section lists coverings which one regularly puts stuff in and takes stuff out of. Therefore, the insides must be immersed as well as the outsides.
  A round cushion or a ball or a bootmaker's last or an amulet or a phylactery, it is not necessary that the water enter inside them.  In contrast, these items have something inside of them which is not customarily removed. Therefore, they do not need to be opened up in order to be immersed.
  This is the general rule: any article the filling of which is not usually taken out and put in may be immersed unopened.  This is the general rule that explains the distinction between the items in sections one and two.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  The following do not require that the water shall enter inside them:Knots [in the clothes] of a poor man,or in tassels,or in the thong of a sandal,or in a head-tefillin if it is fastened tightly,or in an arm-tefillin if it does not move up or down,or in the handles of a water-skin,or in the handles of a wallet.This mishnah lists things that don't require the water of the mikveh to enter into them in order to be cleansed.Section one: The poor man will not undo the knots, therefore water need not enter inside the knot.Section two: Tassels on the fringes of garments are not generally undone.Section three: This is the knot that attaches the sandal to attach the forefoot. The straps on the other side would be tied and untied but the thong part would not.Section four: As we know, straps are attached to the tefillin. If the strap is attached tightly to the head tefillin, it does not need to be loosened to be immersed in the mikveh.Section five: If the strap on the arm-tefillin is tight enough so that the box doesn't move up and down on its own, then the water need not go inside the connection between the two. This is a lesser connection then the connection required for the head-tefillin because the arm-tefillin must be adjusted in order to put it on one's arm.Sections six and seven: One never removes these handles. Therefore, water need not enter in between the handle and the skin or wallet.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  The following require that water shall enter inside them:The knot in an undergarment which is tied to the shoulder.The hem of a sheet must be stretched out.And the knot of head tefillin if it is not fastened tightly,Or of the arm-tefillin if it moves up and down.And the laces of a sandal.Clothes which are immersed when they have just been washed must be kept immersed until they bubble up; But if they are immersed when already dry, they must be kept immersed until they throw up bubbles and then cease to bubble up.Today's mishnah is the opposite of yesterday's. It deals with situations in which water does need to come into contact with the insides of knots or other such cases.Section one: The undergarment was attached to the shoulders by a knot. Since this knot would regularly be undone, it needs to allow water inside when immersed.Section two: Before one immerses the hem of a sheet which has wrinkles and folds in it, one must stretch it out so that the water comes into contact with every part.Sections three and four: These were explained in yesterday's mishnah.Section five: While the thong of a sandal did not need to let the water inside it, the laces are regularly undone. Therefore, they need to be undone to allow water in and out.Section six: The mishnah requires a sign that the water has come into contact with the clothes for the immersion to be efective. If the clothes are already wet, then all that needs to happen is for the clothes to sort of bubble up, meaning they pop up to the surface.If they are already dry, then the clothes must first bubble up and then stop bubbling up to the surface. Only this is a sign that they have been successfully immersed.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Any handles of vessels which are too long and which will be cut short, need only be immersed up to the point of their proper measure. Rabbi Judah says: [they are unclean] until the whole of them is immersed.  If the handle of a vessel is too long and is supposed to be cut off, but has not yet been cut off, it needs to be immersed only up to the point at which it will be cut off. We consider the remainder of the handle as if it had already been cut off. Rabbi Judah says that since the extra part of the handle is connected to the part that will remain, he must immerse the whole thing.
  The chain of a large bucket, to the length of four handbreadths, and a small bucket, to the length of ten handbreadths, and they need only be immersed up to the point of their proper measure. Rabbi Tarfon says: it is not clean unless the whole of the chain-ring is immersed.  Up until four cubits, the chain of a large bucket is considered to be its handle. But longer than that, it is not necessary for the bucket and is not considered to be part of it. Therefore, it doesn't need to be immersed beyond four cubits. The small bucket must be immersed up until 10 handbreadths because it is lowered using this chain into the well. (See Kelim 14:3). Rabbi Tarfon adds that if the proper measure (4 or 10) ended in the middle of a chain ring, then the whole ring must be immersed. A bit nit-picky, but no one's asking my opinion, are they?
  The rope bound to a basket is not counted as a connection unless it has been sewn on.  A rope attached to a basket is not considered to be connected to the basket, so it need not be immersed with the basket.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  The first half of our mishnah discusses the purification of impure water through a process known as "kissing." This is when the edge of a vessel with impure water is brought up and allowed to "kiss" or "touch" a body of purifying water.
  The second half deals with immersing a vessel that has some sort of liquid already in it.
  Bet Shammai say: hot water may not be immersed in cold, or cold in hot, foul in fresh or fresh in foul. But Bet Hillel say: it may be immersed.  According to Bet Shammai, when one does "kissing" in order to purify  water, both the pure and the impure water must be the same. If one is of a different temperature or a different quality from the other, then the immersion doesn't work. It is as if by having the waters touch, they become one body and this can only be true if they are of the same quality. Bet Hillel says that this is not essential. To Bet Hillel, all water is the same, be it foul or fresh, cold or hot.
  A vessel full of liquids which one immersed, it is as if it has not been immersed. If it was full of urine, this is reckoned as water. If it contained hatat waters, [it is unclean] unless the water [of the mikveh which enters the vessel] exceeds the hatat waters.  Liquids other than water cannot be immersed in order to purify them. Therefore, a vessel full of liquid cannot be immersed. If the vessel is not full, however, it can be immersed because the water that enters swishes around and has contact with the whole vessel. Interestingly, urine is treated like water in this manner. A vessel can be immersed even if full of water. Hatat waters are the waters used in the red heifer purification ritual. If the vessel needs to be purified then the waters of the mikveh that enter the vessel must be greater than the hatat waters that are already in the vessel. In other words, the law is more stringent here than it is with other types of liquids.
  Rabbi Yose says: even if a vessel with the capacity of a kor  contains but a quarter-log, it is as if it had not been immersed.  Rabbi Yose adds that it doesn't matter how large the vessel is---if there is even a small amount of liquid in it, it cannot be immersed. Rabbi Yose seems to be speaking about all liquids, not just water. Whereas the previous opinion allowed the immersion of vessels with liquids in them, as long as the vessel wasn't full, Rabbi Yose is stricter. The vessel must be completely empty.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  All foods combine together to make up the half of a half-loaf which makes the body unfit.  One who eats a impure food that is equivalent in volume to 1/4 of a loaf of bread (=volume of two eggs) is disqualified from eating terumah. If one eats several different types of impure food, they combine together to disqualify him (note that he is not impure, just disqualified).
  All liquids combine together  to make up the quarter-log which makes the body unfit.  Similarly, different types of liquid combine together to constitute the quarter-log of liquid that is required to disqualify a person from eating terumah.
  This is more of a stringency in the case of one who drinks unclean liquids than in the case of the mikveh, for in this case they have made all other liquids like water.  The mishnah now notes, as it likes to do, that this makes the rules governing the drinking of unclean liquids more stringent than the rules governing a mikveh. For when it comes to a mikveh, only three logs of drawn water disqualify it. Other liquids do not. But when it comes disqualifying a person from eating terumah, where all liquids can join together.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  The last mishnah in Mikvaot! This mishnah deals with purifying things that have been swallowed up in the body.
  If one ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids and then he immersed and then vomited them up, they are still unclean because they did not become clean in the body.  The unclean foods or liquids that were in a person's body while he immersed in the mikveh, and then were subsequently vomited up, do not become clean. There are two reasons for this. First of all, they did not come into contact with the waters of the mikveh. Second, unclean food and liquid cannot be purified in a mikveh.
  If one drank unclean water and immersed and then vomited it up, it is clean because it became clean in the body.  In contrast, the water that he swallows is purified in his body. This is not because the water came into contact with the mikveh, but rather because water is immediately purified upon swallowing.
  If one swallowed a clean ring and then went into the tent of a corpse, if he sprinkled himself once and twice and immersed himself and then vomited it up, behold, it remains as it was before.  A person has swallowed a pure ring (I'm sure this has happened to someone you know). He then goes into a tent with a corpse in it and becomes impure. He goes through the purification ritual and has the hatat waters sprinkled on him on the third and seventh day, and thereby becomes pure. Then he vomits up the ring. The ring is clean as it was before (well, at least ritually clean, I hope he washes it off first). Not because it was purified in the mikveh, but because it was never defiled in his body.
  If one swallowed an unclean ring, he may immerse himself and eat terumah. If he vomited it up, it is unclean and it renders him unclean.  The impure ring that he swallowed does not become pure in the mikveh, but neither does it disqualify him from eating terumah. In other words, it is ignored. If he vomits it up, the ring remains unclean and will now disqualify him from eating terumah.
  If an arrow was stuck into a man, it blocks so long as it is visible. But if it is not visible, he may immerse himself and eat terumah.  An arrow stuck in a person blocks him from being able to immerse, as long as it is visible (although he might consider having it removed first). If it has fully entered his body and can no longer be seen from the outside, then he may immerse. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Mikvaot! 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 Mikvaot is one of the tractates of Seder Toharot that does have some practical significance in the modern world. Mikvaot are still used in the modern world, by women immersing after the menstrual periods, by those converting to Judaism and by men who have taken upon various immersion customs. I hope that learning the tractate has given you an appreciation of what a mikveh actually is, what disqualifies a mikveh and what disqualifies a valid immersion in a mikveh. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Niddah.