Immersion Pools

All impure entities - whether humans or keilim, whether they contracted a severe impurity of Scriptural origin or whether they contracted Rabbinic impurity - regain purity only through immersion in water that is collected in a pool in the ground.

Whenever the Torah mentions washing one's flesh or laundering one's garments from impurity, the intent is solely the immersion of the entire body or article in a mikveh. The phrase, Leviticus 15:11: "And he did not wash his hands in water," also refers to the immersion of the entire body. This also applies to other impure people. If one immersed himself entirely with the exception of the tip of his little finger, he is still ritually impure. Although all of these matters have their source in the Oral Tradition, Leviticus 11:32 does state: "He shall enter water; he remains impure until the evening and then he becomes pure." This rule is then applied with regard to all those impure: They must enter water.

All keilim that contract impurity can be purified through immersion in a mikveh with the exception of an earthenware container, a glass k'li, and a reed mat. With regard to an earthenware container, Leviticus 11:33 states: "You shall break it," implying that its purification comes only through breaking it. Even if it was joined to the earth, even affixed to it with a nail, and even if it was filled with lime or gypsum, it retains its impurity until it is broken. Our Sages considered glass keilim like earthenware containers in this respect.

A reed mat is not included among the keilim that are susceptible to other types of impurity. Since it does not have a receptacle, it is not in the category of the wooden keilim mentioned by the Torah. Nevertheless, since it is fit to lie upon, it was included among the keilim susceptible to midras impurity according to Scriptural Law. Now since there is no explicit mention of its association with purity and impurity in the Torah and yet, it was included among the articles that contract impurity, it was not included with regard to purification through immersion in a mikveh. For only keilim mentioned in the Torah can be purified in a mikveh. A reed mat can be purified only by being torn to the extent that there remain less than six handbreadths by six handbreadths.

A zav can be purified only through immersion in a stream, for Leviticus 15:13 states that he must immerse "in living water." A zavah and other persons and keilim that are impure may immerse or be immersed in a mikveh.

All those obligated to immerse may immerse during the day with the exception of a nidah and a woman after childbirth. They must immerse at night, as we explained with regard to the laws of nidah. One who has a seminal emission may immerse throughout the entire day from the beginning of the night. This is derived from Deuteronomy 23:12 which states: "And it shall be that toward evening, he shall immerse in water." This teaches that he may immerse and continue in his state from the beginning of the night until the night falls the following day.

All those who immerse should immerse their entire bodies while naked at one time. If the person has hair, all of his hair must be immersed; it is considered as part of his body according to Scriptural Law. Whenever impure individuals immersed while wearing clothes, the immersion is acceptable, because the water passes through the clothes and they do not intervene. Similarly, if a nidah immerses in her clothes, she is permitted to resume relations with her husband.

All those who immerse must have the intent to purify themselves through immersion. If one did not have such an intent, the immersion is acceptable with regard to ordinary foods. Even a nidah who immerses without intent, e.g., she fell into water or descended into water to cool off, is permitted to her husband. Nevertheless, with regard to terumah and sacrificial food, she is not considered pure until she immerses with the proper intent.

When a person ties his hands and feet and is seated in an irrigation canal, if the water covers his body entirely, he is pure. When a person jumps into a mikveh, it is reprehensible. When one immerses in a mikveh twice, it is reprehensible. When one tells a friend: "Place your hand upon me in the mikveh," it is reprehensible.

Water from the mikveh need not seep into the non-visible portions or the creases of a person's body, as implied by the verse: "And he did not wash his hands in water." It can be inferred that it is necessary only that visible portions of the body be in contact with the water. Nevertheless, the non-visible portions must be fit for water to reach them without there being any intervening substances upon them. Therefore, our Sages instructed: At home, a person should always teach that a woman should rinse between the folds of her body and then immerse. A woman should immerse as she stands normally when weaving or when nursing her child.

A woman should not immerse in a harbor, because she will be embarrassed because of the inhabitants of the city and will not immerse properly. If mats were erected as a screen for the purpose of modesty, she may immerse in a harbor. A woman should not immerse while standing on an earthenware container, on a basket, or the like, because she will be afraid of falling and the immersion will not be acceptable.

When either a human or a k'li is immersed, there should not be any intervening substance between them and the water. If there is an any intervening substance between them and the water - for example, there was dough or mud clinging to the flesh of a person or the substance of a k'li - the person or the k'li is impure as it was originally and the immersion is invaild. According to Scriptural Law, if there is an intervening substance covering the larger portion of the person's body or the larger portion of the k'li, the immersion is invalid, provided he objects to the intervening substance and would like to remove it. If, however, he does not object to it and does not pay attention whether it would be removed or not, it is not considered an intervening substance, even if it covers the major portion of the person or the k'li. Similarly, if it covers less than half a person's body, it is not considered as an intervening substance even if he objects to it. According to Rabbinic decree, any intervening substance that one objects to invalidates an immersion even if it covers only the lesser portion of the person's body. This is a decree, lest such a substance cover the greater portion of the person's body. And any intervening substance that covers the larger portion of the person's body disqualifies the immersion even if he does not object to it. This is a decree, lest a substance that one objects to cover the greater portion of his body. Thus if even a drop the size of a mustard seed of an intervening substance, e.g., dough, tar, or the like, was on a person's flesh or on the substance of a k'li, and he objects to it, his immersion is disqualified. If he does not object to it, the immersion is acceptable unless the intervening substance covers the major portion of the k'li or the person, as explained.

These are the substances that intervene for a person: the secretion outside the eye, the fluid outside a wound that crusts, dried blood over a wound, a bandage over a wound, crusts of filth on one's flesh, dough or mud under one's nails, particles of mud or dough that collect on one's flesh, thick mud, potters' clay, and mud that is found in the thoroughfares at all times, even in the summer. All of these substances intervene. Other mud does not intervene when wet, because it will dissolve in the water. When it is dry, it is considered as an intervening substance.

When the following: honey, ink, milk, blood, and the sap of berry bushes, fig trees, wild fig trees, and carob trees are dry, they are considered intervening substances. When they are moist, they are not. The sap of other fruits are considered as intervening substances whether moist or dry. Blood that sticks to the flesh, even if it is moist, is considered an intervening substance. A loosely hanging limb or flesh is considered an intervening substance.

A woman's hidden area is considered to have intervening substances present unless she washes before her immersion, because that portion of the body is always sweaty and dust collects there and intervenes. To whom does the above apply? To a married woman. Different rules apply for an unmarried woman. Since she is not concerned about the cleanliness of that area, it is not considered to have intervening substances present.

The following rules apply to bandages on a wound, metal plates on a broken bone, necklaces, noserings, choker necklaces, and rings. When they are firm and cling to the flesh, they are considered as intervening substances. If they are loose, they are not considered as intervening substances.

Strands of wool, strands of flax, and straps that women tie to their heads as adornments are intervening substances, because they separate between the body and the water. Strands of hair are not considered intervening substances, because water penetrates through them, even when they are not loose.

Strands tied around one's neck, even of flax, are not considered as intervening substances, because a woman does not strangle herself with them. Tight necklaces, e.g., choker necklaces and necklets, are intervening substances, because a woman chokes herself with them to look fat.

Hair over the heart that became tangled and matted and similarly, matted hairs of the beard are intervening substances.

When an arrow is stuck in a person's flesh, if it is visible, it is considered an intervening substance. If it is not visible, he may immerse in a mikveh and partake of terumah in the evening even though the arrow itself is impure. Similarly, if a person swallowed an impure ring and immersed, he is pure. If he vomited it out after immersing, he contracts impurity, because of contact with it. For, as we explained, any entities swallowed within the body of a living being, do not impart impurity or contract impurity. If pebbles or splinters enter the cracks on the soles of a person's feet, they are considered as intervening substances.

When there is a bandage, a compress, or a dressing over the hidden parts of a person's body, they are considered as intervening substances. The rationale is that even though water need not enter these parts, they must be fit for water to enter them and not have any intervening substances upon them, as we explained. If there was one or two hairs that were outside the wound, but their tips were stuck to the wound, there were two hairs with mud or filth stuck to their tips, or there were two hairs from one's upper eyelashes that were perforated and hairs from one's lower eyelashes were threaded through them, they are considered an intervening substance.

A person should not immerse with dust on his feet. If, however, he did, the dust is not an intervening substance.

When one holds another person or an implement and immerses them, they remain impure. This applies even if he loosens his hand and allows water to reach the person or the article being immersed. This is a decree, lest he not loosen his hand. If he rinses his hand in water first, the immersion is acceptable.

When a woman slings her infant son over her back and immerses, the immersion is not acceptable, for perhaps there was mud on the infant's feet or hands and it became attached to his mother at the time of her immersion and intervened between her body and the water, but it fell off after she emerged.

When a woman who was a nidah put her hair in her mouth, clenched her fists, pursed her lips, or a bone was discovered between her teeth, it is as if she did not immerse. This applies to other impure individuals as well. If she placed coins in her mouth and descended and immersed, she is purified from nidah impurity, but she is impure because of her spittle. Thus she is a primary derivative of impurity, like one who touched the spittle of a nidah. The same laws apply with regard to a zav.

These are the substances that do not intervene for a human: the matted hair of the head, the arm pits, and the hidden parts of a man, the secretions of the eye, the scab above a wound, moist drops of filth on his skin, filth that is under a nail, a loose-hanging nail, and the thin hair that is on the skin of a child. All of these substances are not considered as intervening.

If two or more hairs are knotted in a single knot, they are not considered to be an intervening substance, because the water can go through them. If one hair is knotted, it is considered an intervening substance if the person is meticulous about it. If he is not meticulous about it, he can immerse unless most of his hair is tied hair by hair individually. This is the teaching of the Geonim. It appears to me that a person's hair is like his body with regard to immersion and isn't a body of its own so that one could say "most of the hair." Rather, even though all of a person's hair knotted hair by hair, if he is not meticulous regarding it, his immersion is acceptable unless [the hairs] are combined with another intervening substance on his body and they are found [to cover] most of his body, as we have explained. [The same rule applies] equally to a niddah or to other impure [people] who have hair on their heads.

Ezra ordained that a woman should comb out her hair and then immerse. If it is possible for her to comb out her hair at night and immerse immediately thereafter, it is praiseworthy. In a pressing situation or when there is a question of sickness, she may comb out her hair - say - on Friday and immerse Saturday night.

The following rules apply when a woman immersed and then an intervening substance was found upon her that disqualified her immersion. If she immersed on the same day that she prepared herself, she does not have to prepare herself again. Instead, she may remove the intervening substance and immerse again immediately. If not, she must prepare herself a second time and then immerse.

A woman should not comb out her hair with natron, because it causes the hairs to snap, nor with oak sap, because it snarls the hair. Instead, she should use hot water, even water heated in the sun, because it hardens the hair and enables it to be combed out. Cold water, by contrast, tangles the hair and causes it to contract and thus become intertwined.

When a nidah gave cooked food to her son and then immersed, the immersion is invalid because of the fatty substances on her hand.

The following laws apply if a woman scratched her skin to the extent that it bled and then immersed. If the immersion was within three days of the bleeding, the place of the scratches is not considered as intervening. After three days, it is considered as intervening because the blood coagulates there, like a scab on the wound. Similar concepts apply with regard to secretion in the eye. If it is dry and has begun to change color, it is considered as an intervening substance for a nidah.

Blue ointment in the eye is not considered as an intervening substance. If it is outside the eye, it is considered as an intervening substance. If her eyes open and close frequently, even the ointment outside the eye, it is not considered as an intervening substance.

If, while immersing, a woman opened her eyes to a great extent or closed them very firmly, the immersion is not acceptable. With regard to what does the above apply? With regard to immersion to partake or touch pure foods. With regard to permitting intimacy with her husband, by contrast, she is permitted even if she gave cooked food to her son, she had an old scratch, there was blue ointment above her eye, or she opened her eyes very widely or closed them tightly. The rationale is that all of these matters and other similar ones are considered as intervening only according to Rabbinic Law and the Sages ordained their decree with regard to pure foods, but not with regard to intimacy. Whenever a substance is considered as intervening for a nidah with regard to pure foods, it is considered as intervening for other impure people with regard to pure foods and as intervening for a convert when immersing during conversion.

When a person immersed and after he ascended an intervening substance was found upon his body, even though he was involved with that substance for the entire day after the immersion, he is considered as impure unless he says: "I know with certainty that this substance was not upon me before the immersion." The rationale is that since he was categorized as impure, he is presumed to remain in that state until it is known for certain that he regained purity.

These are the substances that intervene with regard to the immersion of keilim: Pitch, mortar, and the like. When tar is on a cup or a bottle, it is considered an intervening substance if it is on the inside. If it is on the outside, it is not an intervening substance. When does the above apply? To a k'li in a craftsman's shop. When one belongs to a homeowner, whether the tar is on the inside or on the outside, it is an intervening substance. When there is tar on a large pot or on a bowl, whether it is on the inside or on the outside, whether it belongs to a homeowner or comes from a craftsman's shop, it is considered as intervening.

Musk and black earth are considered as intervening substances, whether in a cup, a bottle, a large pot, or a bowl, whether it belongs to a homeowner or comes from a craftsman's shop. If pitch or mortar and the like are found on a counter-top, on a table, or on a small chair and they are clean, the foreign substances are considered as intervening, because the owner objects to their presence. If the surfaces are dirty, the foreign substances are not considered as intervening, because he does not object to their presence.

If such substances were on the bed of an ordinary homeowner, they are considered intervening. If they were found on the bed of a poor person, they are not considered as intervening. If they were found on the saddle placed on a donkey belonging to an ordinary homeowner, they are considered intervening. If found on the wineskins placed on a donkey, they are not considered as intervening; on both sides of its saddle-blanket, they are considered intervening.

If pitch, mortar, or the like were found on the clothes of Torah scholars, even on one side, they are considered as intervening substances, because they are careful to keep their clothes clean. If such substances are found on both sides of the clothes of unlearned people, they are considered as intervening. If they are only on one side, they are not considered as intervening.

If such substances were found on the handkerchiefs of men who work with tar, potters, or tree-pruners, they are not considered intervening substances.

When there is blood on the garments of a butcher, it is not considered as an intervening substance, because he does not object to its presence.

When oily substances are found on the garments of one who sells such substances, they are not considered as intervening. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If a butcher also sold oily substances and both blood and oily substances were found on his clothes, there is an unresolved question whether they are considered as intervening, because there are two stains, or whether they are not considered as intervening, since this is his work and hence he does not object to their presence.

If tar, mortar, or the like were present on the inside of a sandal, on its upper surface, it is intervening; on its lower surface, it is not intervening. If they were found on a bench, on the upper surface or on the sides, they are intervening. On the lower surface, they are not intervening.

Spots of filth on a chair and a carriage top that have been laundered, whether in the inside or on the outside, whether below or on the sides, are not intervening, because the water will wash them away. Filth coming from dregs left in a cup and a bottle, cotton on the inside of a necklace or inside a bell, and mud or dough on the handle of a hatchet or a rake are not considered as intervening. Should they harden, they are considered as intervening.

It is clear that whenever we have said that tar, mortar, or the like do not intervene for keilim, the rationale is that the owner does not object to their presence. Therefore, if the larger portion of the k'li was covered with tar, mortar, or the like, its immersion is invalid, even though the owner does not object, as we explained. There is no difference in this context regarding any particular type of k'li. Instead, all keilim are the same in this regard.

Whenever the handles of a k'li are hollow and were inserted into a mikveh upside down, they were inserted in the ordinary manner, but they were not thoroughly washed out, or they were of metal and they were bent out of shape, their immersion is invalid.

When one turned the opening of a container upside down and immersed it, it is as if it was not immersed, because the water will not enter it entirely. If a utensil has a portion into which water will not enter unless it is tilted to its side, its immersion is not valid until it is tilted to its side.

When a utensil is narrow on either side and wide in the center, it does not regain purity unless one turns it on its side in the water.

When the rim of the opening of a bottle is turned over, it does not regain purity unless one turns it on its side in the water.

An inkwell does not regain purity until a hole was made at its side so that water can enter its curved portions.

When the collar of an animal was loose and it contracted impurity, it can be immersed in its place.

A person should not immerse a kettle with its coals unless he moves the coals with his hands.

When a container was filled with liquids and immersed in a mikveh, it is as if it was not immersed. If the container was filled with water and one immersed it in a mikveh, the water and the container regain purity simultaneously. The rationale is that water can be purified in a mikveh, as we explained in Hilchot Tum'at Ochalin. If there was urine in the container, it is considered as if it were water. The following rules apply to a container holding water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. If the greater portion of the container was empty, so that the quantity of mikveh water would be greater than that of the water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, the container is pure. If not, it is impure, as if the water is another liquid that intervenes between the substance of the container and the water of the mikveh.

When the inside of a container was pure, but the outside was impure, it was filled with white wine or milk, and immersed in a mikveh, the ruling depends on which is the greater quantity. If the greater portion of the container was empty so that there would be more water than milk or wine, it is pure. This leniency is granted, because the impurity is of Rabbinic origin. If it contained red wine or other liquids, the immersion is not effective.

The following law applies to a container that is filled with impure water which had its opening closed with moist mud which was extending into the water of the container. If one immersed it, it is pure. If it was closed with thick mud, it is as if it was not immersed. Similarly, if a ring was placed in a brick of moist mud and immersed, it is pure. If the brick is made from thick mud, it is as if it was not immersed.

Water need not penetrate through the following articles for their immersion to be effective: a) knots in the clothes of poor people as a rule; if they are particular about them, they are intervening; by contrast, as a rule, knots in the garments of homeowners, intervene; if they are not particular about them, they do not intervene: b) knots in the fringes of clothes that became tied unintentionally: c) the loops of sandals: d) the head tefilah when its cube is firmly attached to its strand; e) the arm tefilah when it does not move up and down freely: f) the handles of a leather drinking pouch or a satchel; and g) any similar entity that is tied or sewed and will not be untied in the future.

Water must be able to penetrate the following articles for their immersion to be effective: a) the knots in the openings of a cloak which are made like loops; b) the knots that serve as loops on the shoulder; c) the border of a sheet that must be extended: d) the head tefilah when its cube is not attached to its strand: e) the arm tefilah when it moves up and down freely: f) the laces of a sandal; and knots in the fringes of clothes that were tied by humans; and g) any similar entity that will be laid open or extended. With regard to baskets used in winepresses and olivepresses, if the strands of material that make up the basket are firm, one must scratch out around them. If they are loose, one must shake them out. For their immersion to be effective, water must penetrate into leather pillows and cushions.

Water does not have to penetrate into the inner space of a round leather cushion, a ball, a mold, an amulet, and tefillin for their immersion to be valid. This is the general principle: Whenever it is not common to remove and insert entities in the inner space of an object, it may be immersed while closed.

When one immerses clothes that have been laundered, the water must penetrate through them to the extent that air bubbles arise. If they were immersed while dry, they must remain in the water until air bubbles arise and then cease arising.

Whenever the accessories of a k'li are longer than necessary and one will ultimately cut them off, one may immerse them to the extent necessary. What is implied? For the chain of a large bucket, the measure is four handbreadths; for a small one, ten handbreadths. It is necessary to immerse only this much of the chain, the remainder is pure.

When one placed other keilim in an impure k'li and immersed them together, the immersion is effective for all of them, even if the opening of the k'li is very narrow. The rationale is that the water is able to enter it and since the immersion is acceptable for the larger k'li, it is also acceptable for the keilim inside of it. If he inclined it on its side and immersed it, the immersion is not acceptable for the keilim inside of it unless the opening is as wide as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch. Similarly, if the larger k'li is pure and one placed impure keilim and immersed them together, the immersion is not acceptable for the keilim inside of it unless the opening is as wide as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch. When does the above apply? With regard to terumah, but with regard to consecrated food, keilim should not be immersed inside pure keilim at all, even if they were in a basket or a storage bin, as explained in its place.

According to Scriptural Law, it is permissible to immerse in any collected body of water, as implied by Leviticus 11:36: "a gathering of water," i.e., any gathering, provided it contains enough water for the entire body of a human being to immerse in it at one time. Our Sages measured this figure as a cubit by a cubit by a height of three cubits. This measure contains 40 se'ah of water. According to Scriptural Law, the water is acceptable whether drawn or not.

According to Rabbinic Law, water that is drawn is invalid for immersion. Moreover, if there was a body of water that was not drawn and three lugim of drawn water fell into it, the entire body of water is invalidated. Although the disqualification of drawn water is a Rabbinic decree, our Sages explained it based on an association found in a Biblical verse. Leviticus, op. cit., states: "Only a spring, a cistern, or a gathering of water shall be pure." Based on a comparison of the terms used in the verse, they explained: The water of "a spring" is not dependent on man's activity at all. The water of "a cistern" is entirely dependent on man's activity, for it contains drawn water entirely. Our Sages said: The "gathering of water" should not be entirely made up of drawn water like a cistern, nor need it come entirely from the hand of heaven. Instead, if it came into being partially through human effort, it is acceptable.

What is implied? When a person places barrels on top of a roof to dry, but it rained and they became filled with water, even though it is during the rainy season, he may break the barrels or turn them over and the water collected from them is acceptable for immersion. Even though all of this water had been contained in vessels, the mikveh is acceptable, because the person did not fill it up by hand. Therefore if he lifted up the barrels and overturned them, all of the water in them is considered as drawn.

When a person places containers under a drainage pipe at any time and any season, both small containers and large containers, even containers of stone and the like that are not susceptible to ritual impurity, if they became filled with rainwater, the water is not acceptable for a mikveh. Even if he turned them over or broke them, the water collected from them is considered as drawn in every respect. For the containers were filled as a result of his intent, since it can be assumed that a drainpipe will conduct water. Even if one forgot containers under a drainpipe, the water is unacceptable for a mikveh. Our Sages issued a decree against one who forgot, lest a person place them there intentionally. Similarly, if one placed containers in a courtyard when the sky was densely cloudy and they became filled with rainwater afterwards, the water inside of them is unacceptable for a mikveh, since they were filled as a result of his intent. Moreover, our Sages issued a decree against one who forgot containers in a courtyard, lest a person place them there intentionally. If one placed containers in a courtyard when the clouds were dispersed and then the sky became cloudy and the containers became filled with rainwater, the water is acceptable for a mikveh, like that in containers left on top of a roof to dry. Similarly, when one left containers in a courtyard when the sky was densely cloudy, the clouds dispersed, and then became dense again and the containers became filled with rainwater, the water is acceptable. If he breaks the containers or turns them over, the water collected from them is acceptable for a mikveh.

When one who applies lime forgot a large container in a mikveh and it became full with water, even if only a small quantity of water remained in the mikveh and the majority of the water of the mikveh is in the container, he may break the container in its place. Thus the entire mikveh will be acceptable. Similarly, when one arranged containers in a mikveh to seal them and they became filled with water, even though the mikveh absorbed its water and no water remained except the water in the containers, one may break the containers. The water that collects from them forms an acceptable mikveh.

How do three lugim of drawn water invalidate a mikveh? If there were less than 40 se'ah of acceptable water in a mikveh and three lugim of water fell in, making the entire amount 40 se'ah, all of the water is disqualified for use. If, however, there are 40 se'ah of water that was not drawn in a mikveh and then one drew water with a pitcher and poured it into the mikveh throughout the entire day, it is acceptable. Furthermore, when there are two mikveot, one above the other, and the upper mikveh had 40 se'ah of acceptable water and one was drawing water by hand and pouring it into that mikveh until the amount of water increased to the extent that 40 se'ah overflowed and descended into the lower mikveh, the lower mikveh is acceptable.

When a mikveh contained exactly 40 se'ah and one added a se'ah of drawn water and then removed a se'ah of water from it, the mikveh is acceptable. Similarly, if he added a se'ah of drawn water and removed a se'ah of water from the mikveh, the mikveh is acceptable provided the greater portion of the original water remained.

Drawn water does not disqualify the water of a mikveh when three lugin fall in unless they fall into the mikveh from a container. If, by contrast, the drawn water flows on the ground outside the mikveh and continues streaming until it descends into the mikveh, it does not disqualify the mikveh unless it constitutes half or more of the original 40 seah of water. If, however, the majority of the original 40 se'ah of water was acceptable, the mikveh is acceptable. What is implied? When a mikveh contains a little bit more than 20 se'ah of acceptable water, one drew water and poured it outside the mikveh, and then the water flowed and descended into the mikveh, it is acceptable, even if it reached a total of 1000 se'ah. This applies whether the water flowed on the ground or through a conduit or the like that does not disqualify a mikveh. The rationale is that drawn water that was caused to flow is acceptable if the majority of 40 se'ah water is acceptable. Similarly, if there was a little more than 20 se'ah of rainwater on an enclosed roof and one drew water by hand and poured less than 20 se'ah of water into the water, the entire quantity is unacceptable. Nevertheless, if one opened the drainage pipe and caused all the water to flow into one place, it constitutes an acceptable mikveh. The rationale is that when an entire quantity of drawn water was caused to flow, it is acceptable, provided the majority of the water was acceptable.

Some of the scholars of the west ruled that since the Sages declared "An entire quantity of drawn water that was caused to flow is pure," it is not necessary that the majority of the water be acceptable. Instead, the perspective that required both a majority of acceptable water and that it be caused to flow are the words of only one Sage and they were already rebutted, for the conclusion of the passage states: "An entire quantity of drawn water that was caused to flow is pure." According to the words of the scholars of the west, if one would fill a container with water and pour it out and the water would flow to one place where it collects, it would be an acceptable mikveh. Similarly, all the pools in our bathhouses would be kosher mikveot, for all the water they contain was drawn and then flowed through pipes. Never have we seen anyone who performed such a deed, i.e., ruling that such pools are acceptable for immersion.

The following laws apply when rainwater and drawn water were mixed together in a courtyard and flowed into a cavity or they were mixed together on the steps leading to an underground cavern and then descended into the cavern. If the majority of the water was acceptable, the mikveh is acceptable. If the majority of the water was unacceptable, it is unacceptable. When does the above apply? When they became mixed together before they reached the mikveh, but instead, flowed and descended together. If, however, the acceptable water and the unacceptable water were descending directly into the mikveh, different rules apply. If it is known that 40 se'ah of acceptable water fell into the mikveh before three lugim of drawn water, the mikveh is acceptable. If not, it is unacceptable.

When three lugim of drawn water fall into a mikveh - whether from one k'li or from two or three keilim - they can be combined to reach a quantity that disqualifies the mikveh, provided the water begins descending from the second before it concludes descending from the first. If descends from four keilim, the water from them is not combined. When does the above apply? When one did not intend to increase the amount of water in the mikveh. If, however, one intended to increase the amount of water in the mikveh, even if a dinar-size measure was added each year, they are all combined to reach the sum of three lugim, whether the drawn water was present there before the acceptable water, the acceptable water was present there before the drawn water, or they both fell into the mikveh at the same time. Since three lugim of water fell into 40 se'ah combining with the acceptable water to reach that amount or into less than 40 se'ah of water, the entire amount is invalidated and considered as drawn.

When two people each poured a log and a half into a mikveh, or one wrung out his garment and lifted it up, causing the water it contained to fall from several places, it invalidates a mikveh. A similar ruling applies when one pours from a distributor that causes water to pour from several places at the same time.

When one immerses a pillow or a cushion of leather into a mikveh that has exactly 40 se'ah, when he lifts their edges out of the water, the water inside of them is considered as drawn water. What should he do? He should immerse them and lift them up by their ends. With regard to a basket and a sack, he should immerse them and lift them up in the ordinary manner without showing any concern.

The following law applies to a mikveh that had three pockets of drawn water with a log in each of the pockets and then acceptable water fell into it. If it is known that 40 se'ah of acceptable water fell into it before the water reached the third pocket, it is acceptable, If not, it is disqualified.

When there are two mikveot, neither containing 40 se'ah, a log and a half fell into each one of them, and then the mikveot became mixed together, they are acceptable. The rationale is that neither one of them had been designated as unacceptable. If, by contrast, three lugim of drawn water fell into a mikveh that does not contain 40 se'ah [of acceptable water and afterwards, it was divided into two, even though enough acceptable water was added to each one to constitute an acceptable mikveh, they are invalid. The rationale is that whenever a mikveh is disqualified, all of its contents are considered as drawn water. It is as if all of the water had been drawn with a container.

When a cistern is filled with drawn water and a canal of rainwater flows into it and out of it, it is still considered as unacceptable until it can be calculated that not even three lugim of the drawn water that originally was in the cistern remain. When three lugim of unacceptable water fall into a mikveh containing less than 40 se'ah of acceptable water, all of its contents are disqualified. Even if afterwards, he added enough acceptable water until the measure of 40 se'ah is reached, the mikveh remains invalid until all the water that was contained within it flows out and less than three lugim of the drawn water remain. What is implied? A mikveh contains 20 se'ah of rainwater and a se'ah of drawn water fell into it. Afterwards, more acceptable water was added to it. It remains unacceptable until one knows that the 20 se'ah it originally contained and more than five and a quarter kabbin of the added water flowed out and less than three lugim of the entire quantity remain. Similarly, if one made a mikveh that contains 40 se'ah of acceptable water and joined it to this invalid mikveh, the acceptable water purifies the unacceptable water.

If one was moving mud from the bottom of the mikveh to the sides and, as a result, three lugim of water flowed into the mikveh, it remains acceptable. If one was removing the mud and lifted it up by hand, separating it from the mikveh and placing it on the mikveh's sides and three lugim flowed into the mikveh from it, they disqualify it.

When a legion is passing from one place to another - or similarly, an animal is passing from one place to another - and three lugim of water was splashed into a mikveh by their hands and feet, it is acceptable. Moreover, even if they made a mikveh in this manner initially, it is acceptable.

When a mikveh does not contain 40 se'ah and less than three lugim of impure, drawn water fell into it, the water is acceptable with regard to challah and terumah and one may use it for the ritual washing of hands. It is, however, invalid to be used as the base for the collection of water for an acceptable mikveh. If rainwater descended upon it to the extent that the rainwater constituted the majority of the mixture, the mixture is acceptable to be used as the base for the collection of water for an acceptable mikveh. When three lugim of impure, drawn water fell into it, the water is unacceptable for challah and terumah. One may not use it for the ritual washing of hands, nor may it be used as the base for the collection of water for an acceptable mikveh. If rainwater descended upon it to the extent that the rainwater constituted the majority of the mixture, the mixture is acceptable with regard to challah and terumah and one may use it for the ritual washing of hands. It is, however, invalid to be used as the base for the collection of water for an acceptable mikveh until all of the original water that became considered as drawn flowed out and less than three lugim of it remained. Similarly, if there was a mikveh that contained only a dinar-size measure less than 40 se'ah and three lugim of impure, drawn water fell into it, the water is unacceptable for challah and terumah. One may not use it for the ritual washing of hands, nor may it be used as the base for the collection of water for an acceptable mikveh. If less than three lugim of water fell into it - even if the water was all impure - and then a dinar-size measure of rainwater fell into it, causing it to comprise a complete measure of 40 se'ah, it is acceptable. Just as it is considered as pure with regard to immersion, it is considered pure in every respect.

Whenever water passes over keilim that contain a receptacle or water falls into them, it is considered as drawn water and disqualifies a mikveh, provided that the receptacle was made to serve that purpose. Even containers that are not susceptible to ritual impurity, e.g., stone containers and containers made from earth, disqualify water.

Whenever a k'li was not made with the intent that it serve as a receptacle, even though it does serve as a receptacle, the water it contains does not disqualify a mikveh, for example, large pipes through which water flows. Even though they are wide in the middle and serve as receptacles, the water they contain does not disqualify a mikveh. This applies whether they were made of metal or of earthenware.

The water contained in a trough in a stone does not disqualify a mikveh, because the trough is not a k'li. If, however, one joins a k'li to a stone, water contained in it disqualifies a mikveh, even if it was joined with cement. If one made a hole from below or one as wide as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch in the trough from the side, it is acceptable and water contained within it does not disqualify a mikveh.

When a person takes a large barrel or a large kneading trough and makes a hole large enough to purify it from susceptibility to impurity, and then permanently affixes it within the ground, making it into a mikveh, it is acceptable. Similarly, if one plugged the hole with lime and with building materials, this does not disqualify the barrel and the water collected within forms an acceptable mikveh. If one plugged it with lime or with gypsum, the water it contains makes a mikveh unacceptable, unless it was permanently affixed to the earth or made part of a building. If it was taken and placed on the surface of the earth or on lime and mud was smeared on its sides, it is acceptable to use as a mikveh.

The following laws apply when one places a tablet under a drainage pipe and water flows over it into a mikveh. If the tablet had borders on its sides, this water would disqualify the mikveh. If not, it does not disqualify it. If one stood the tablet upright on its point, at an angle under the drainage pipe to wash it, even though it has borders, it does not disqualify the water, because in this position, it was not intended to serve as a receptacle.

The following laws apply when one carves a place in a pipe for pebbles that are carried with the water to collect so that they will not descend together with the water. If it was a wooden pipe and he carved out even the slightest hollow, it disqualifies the water, because all of the water passes through a utensil that was made to serve as a receptacle. This applies even if one permanently affixed the pipe to the earth after he carved out the hollow. The rationale is that the pipe had already been considered as a k'li when it was unattached. If, by contrast, it was permanently affixed to the earth and then he carved out the receptacle, it does not disqualify the water. If the pipe was made from earthenware, it does not disqualify the water unless the hollow is large enough to contain a revi'it. Even though the hollow in the pipe becomes filled with the pebbles that dribble into it, it remains a disqualifying factor. It is not considered as having been stopped up. If earth or pebbles descended into the hollow and stopped it up, because they were compressed there, the water is acceptable.

When either a sponge or a bucket that contains three lugim of drawn water falls into a mikveh, it does not disqualify it. For it was said only that three lugim of water that fall into it disqualify it, not a container into which drawn water had fallen.

When there is a closet or a chest in the sea, one may not immerse in them unless they have a hole the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch. If there was a sack or a basket in the sea, one may immerse in them. Similarly, if one places a sack or a basket under a drainage pipe, the water that flows through them does not disqualify a mikveh.

When one immersed keilim over an impure base for a container that was placed inside a mikveh, even though the edge of the base extends above the water, the keilim are purified from their impurity. If, however, one lifts them up from the water into the inner space of the base, the water that is on the keilim contracts impurity because it is within the inner space of the base. The water in turn imparts impurity to the keilim. Similarly, if a spring emerges from under an earthenware oven and a person descended and immersed in it, he is pure, but his hands contract impurity from the inner space of the oven unless the water extends above the oven for at least the height of his hands. Thus when he immersed, his hands will be above the oven. The difficulties arise, because earthenware keilim do not regain purity through immersion in a mikveh, as we explained.

When a barrel full of water falls into a sea, even into the Mediterranean Sea, one who immerses there is not considered to have immersed. The rationale is that it is impossible that there will not be three lugim of water from the barrel in one place. If a loaf of terumah falls there, it becomes impure. It contracts impurity due to contact with drawn water, for the water is standing there. If such a situation would take place in a river or the like, one would be able to immerse there, since it flows.

When there was a pool of drawn water next to a mikveh that contains less than 40 seah, even though it is touching the water of the mikveh, it does not disqualify it, because it is like a mikveh next to a mikveh. If the pool of the drawn water was in the middle of the mikveh, it disqualifies it.

The following rule applies when there are two pools of water, one above the other, they are separated by a wall, and the upper one is filled with acceptable water, but the lower one is filled with drawn water, and there is a hole in the wall between the upper pool and the lower one. If there are three lugim of drawn water opposite the hole, the upper pool is disqualified. The rationale is that it is considered as if the hole was in the center of the upper pool, not at its side.

How large must the hole be for there to be three lugim there? Everything depends on the quantity of water contained in the pool. If the lower pool contains 40 se'ah, the hole must be 1/320th of the pool. If the pool contains 20 se'ah, the hole must be 1/160th of the pool. Continue calculating according to this ratio for other amounts. A se'ah is six kabbin, a kab is four lugim, and a log is the size of six eggs.

The following laws apply when there are three mikveot, each containing exactly 20 se'ah, next to each other, and one [of those on the side contained drawn water. If three people descended and immersed themselves, causing all the water to rise and mix on the floor outside the mikveot, both the mikveot and the people who immersed themselves are pure. The rationale is that the entire amount totaled 60 se'ah, of which 40 se'ah of acceptable water came from two pools located next to each other. And drawn water does not disqualify a mikveh that contains 40 se'ah, as we explained. If the pool containing drawn water was in the middle and they descended and immersed themselves, causing the water to rise and the mikveot thus to become joined, the status of the mikveot is the same as it was previously and those who immersed themselves are impure as they were previously. The rationale is that 40 se'ah of acceptable water did not mix together, because their pools were not located next to each other, for the pool of drawn water separates between them.

A mikveh is not disqualified, neither because of a change of its water's taste, nor a change of its smell, only because its color changes. Any substance that may not be used to constitute a mikveh initially disqualifies one, if it causes its color to change. What is implied? Wine, milk, blood, or other liquids that are classified as fruit juices do not disqualify a mikveh if three lugim of them fall into it, because it was only said that three lugim of drawn water disqualify a mikveh. They do, however, disqualify it if they change the color of its water. Even when a mikveh contains 100 se'ah and a log of wine or fruit juice falls into it and changes its color, it is unacceptable. Similarly, if a mikveh contains 20 se'ah or less of acceptable water and a se'ah of wine or fruit juice fell into it without changing its color, the water is acceptable as it was beforehand. The se'ah of wine or fruit juice, however, is not counted in the measure of the mikveh. If another 20 se'ah of acceptable water were added to the original 20, it is an acceptable mikveh.

There are substances that cause a mikveh to be considered acceptable and do not disqualify it; others that disqualify it and do not cause it to be considered acceptable, and others that neither cause it to be acceptable nor disqualify it.

These are the substances that cause a mikveh to be considered acceptable and do not disqualify it: snow, hail, sleet, ice, salt, and flowing mud. What is implied? When a mikveh contains 39 se'ah of water and a se'ah of one of these substances falls into it, the mikveh is acceptable and complete. Thus they cause a mikveh to be considered acceptable and do not disqualify it. Even if one brought 40 se'ah of snow initially and placed them in a cavity and crushed it there, the mikveh is complete and acceptable.

These are the substances that disqualify a mikveh and never cause it to be considered acceptable: drawn water, whether pure or impure, water that was used for pickling, water that was used for cooking, a mixture of water and grape dregs before they become vinegar, and beer. What is implied? When a mikveh contains 40 se'ah minus the weight of a dinar and the weight of a dinar of one of these liquids falls into it, it is not included in the measure of a mikveh and does not complete it. If three lugim of one of these liquids falls into a mikveh, it disqualifies it.

These are the substances that neither disqualify a mikveh, nor cause it to be considered acceptable: other liquids, fruit juice, fish brine, fish oil, and a mixture of water and grape dregs that became vinegar. What is implied? If there was a mikveh that contained 39 se'ah and a se'ah of these liquids fell into it, it does not cause it to be acceptable. Nevertheless, the water the mikveh contains is acceptable as it was beforehand, for these liquids disqualify a mikveh only if they change its color, as explained.

There are times when the latter liquids cause a mikveh to be considered as acceptable. What is implied? A mikveh contained 40 se'ah, a se'ah of these liquids fell in, and then a se'ah was removed from the mikveh's waters. The 40 se'ah that remain still constitute an acceptable mikveh.

When one washed baskets used to collect olives or grapes in a mikveh, causing the water's color to change, it is acceptable.

Water of dyes disqualify a mikveh if three lugim fall in, but do not disqualify it because they changed its color.

When wine, black fluid from olives, or other fruit juices fall into a mikveh and change the color of its water, disqualifying it, how can it be rectified? If the mikveh contains less than 40 se'ah, one should wait until rain descends and changes its color back to water's natural color. If the mikveh contains 40 se'ah of acceptable water, one may fill buckets and pour water into it until its color reverts to water's natural color. If wine, the black fluid from olives, or the like falls into a mikveh and changes the color of some of its water, if it does not have 40 se'ah of water whose color has not changed, one should not immerse in it. Even if it contains 40 se'ah, if one immerses in a place whose color has changed, his immersion is invalid. Even if a barrel of wine was broken and fell into the Mediterranean Sea and the color of the water in that place is the color of wine, one who immerses in that place is not considered to have immersed.

When even a dinar-sized portion of wine fell into three lugim of drawn water and change their color, so that they are all the color of wine and then they fell into a mikveh they do not disqualify it, unless they change its color.

When there are three lugim minus a dinar-sized portion of water and milk or fruit juice falls into the water, but its color remains that of water, it does not disqualify a mikveh if it falls into it. A mikveh is not disqualified unless three lugim of drawn water fall into it that were not mixed with any other liquid or with fruit juice.

When the color of a mikveh changes on its own accord without anything falling into it, it is acceptable. It is only disqualified if its color changed due to another liquid.

Any body of water that is in contact with a mikveh, is considered as the mikveh itself and it can be used for immersion. When cavities that are next to the opening of a mikveh or the footprints left by animals share a point of contact with the water of the mikveh that is as large as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch, they may be used for immersion.

Cavities at the side of the mikveh or crevices at the side of mikveh may be used for immersion even if they have only the slightest point of contact with the water of the mikveh.

When a needle was placed on the steps leading to a mikveh, one may move his hand back and forth in the water to create waves. Once the wave passes over the needle, it regains purity.

The following laws apply to a hidden reservoir in a mikveh: If the ground that separates between the mikveh and the reservoir is sturdy and capable of remaining over the course of time, one may not use the water in the reservoir for immersion unless it shares a point of contact with the mikveh as large as the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch. If it is not capable of remaining for an extended period, one may immerse in its water as long as it shares any contact whatsoever with the water of the mikveh.

When the wall between two mikveot is cracked in half, the two mikveot are considered as joined. If together they contain 40 se'ah, either of them may be used for immersion. If the wall is cracked horizontally, they are not considered as joined unless there is a point of contact the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch. If the water is joined above the wall, they are considered as joined provided there is a layer of water even as thin as a garlic peel connecting them over the width of a space the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch.

How large is the measure of a hole the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch? A circle with a diameter the width sufficient to enable two average-sized fingers of an ordinary person to rotate within it. The fingers mentioned do not refer to the thumb, but to the first two of the four on the palm of one's hand. Any entity present in the hole the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch reduces that measure. This applies even to entities that were created from the water. If there is a doubt whether a hole is the size of the mouthpiece of a drinking pouch or not, the mikveot are not considered as joined. The rationale is that the primary obligation to immerse is Scriptural. And whenever the primary obligation is Scriptural, even when the measure stated is conveyed by the Oral Tradition, we rule stringently when there is an unresolved doubt regarding its measure.

Mikveot may be purified from each other, an upper mikveh from a lower one and a far-away mikveh from one that is close. What is implied? An earthenware or lead pipe - for pipes do not disqualify a mikveh - is brought and inserted into the acceptable mikveh. One places his hand under it until it becomes full and then takes it and connects it so that the water in the pipe will become intermingled with the water of the other mikveh. Even if the point where they become intermingled is only a hairsbreadth, it is sufficient. Then the two mikveot connected by the pipe are considered as one.

The following rules apply when there are three cavities in a wadi, the higher one and the lower one contain only 20 se'ah, the middle one contains 40 se'ah, and a current of rain water flows through the wadi. Although the current of water flows into the cavities and out of them, it does not join the cavities as one. Hence, only the middle one is acceptable for immersion. The rationale is that water that is flowing does not join mikveot unless it collects in one place.

Soft mud from which a cow drinks may be measured as part of a mikveh. If it is so thick that a cow would not drink from it, it should not be measured as part of it.

When a mikveh contains 40 se'ah of water and mud, one may immerse in both the mud and the water. In which mud may one immerse? In soft mud over which water collects. If the water was on one side and the soft mud on the other side, one may immerse in the water, but not in the mud.

Any substance that was created from the water, e.g., red worms, is acceptable for immersion. One may immerse in the eye of a giant fish.

When a mikveh contains exactly 40 se'ah of water and two people descended and immersed, one after the other, the first is pure and the second remains impure. The rationale is that some of the water contained in the original 40 se'ah was removed. This stringency applies even in the feet of the first person were still in the water when the second immerses. If one immersed a thick sponge or the like in such a mikveh and lifted it up, as long as part of the sponge is touching the water, one who immerses afterwards is pure. The rationale is that all of the water is considered as intermingled. When one immerses a bed or the like, even though he pushed its legs into the thick mud on the bottom of the mikveh until the water covers it from above, it is pure. The rationale is that it does not become sunk in the water until it becomes immersed in the water first. When one immerses a large pot in a mikveh with a limited amount of water, it is impure, as it was beforehand, because the water will splash out of the mikveh. Thus the mikveh will be less than 40 se'ah. What should he do? He should lower it via its opening, turn it over in the mikveh, immerse it, and lift it up by its base, so that the water inside will not become "drawn," and return to the mikveh and disqualify it.

When the water in a mikveh is dispersed, one may press even bundles of straw and bundles of reeds into the water from the sides until the water level will rise and one can descend and immerse within.

There are six categories of mikveot, one superior to another. The first is the water of pit, cisterns, storage trenches, storage caverns, and the like, where water is collected on the earth. Even though the water was "drawn" and even though there were less than 40 se'ah, since the water only contracts impurity through willful activity, as we explained, the prevailing assumption is that it is pure. It is fit to use such water to make dough from which challah must be separated or to wash one's hands, provided he washes his hands with a container, as we explained.

On a superior level is rainwater that has not ceased flowing, i.e., the rain is still descending and the mountains are still gushing with water and that water flows down and collects on the ground. It is not "drawn;" however, there are not 40 se'ah. Such water is acceptable for terumah, for the washing of hands, and for the immersion of water that became impure. If the rains ceased descending, but the water was still flowing from the mountains, such water is still considered in this category. If water is no longer flowing from mountains and they are not gushing, it is considered as water collected in a pit.

When one digs at the side of the sea, a river, or a swamp, and water from these bodies flows into the pit that was dug, the water is considered like water that has not ceased flowing.

When one digs at the side of a spring, as long as the water emerges because of the spring, even though at times, its flow is interrupted, but then it flows again, it is considered as a spring. If it ceased flowing entirely, it is considered as water collected in a pit.

On a superior level is a mikveh that contains 40 se'ah of water that was not drawn. Every person can immerse in such a mikveh to regain purity except a male zav. All impure keilim and hands that must be immersed to touch sacrificial foods are immersed in such a mikveh, as we explained.

On a superior level is a natural spring whose water is minimal and drawn water was added to it. The laws governing it resemble those governing a mikveh in that it does not impart purity through immersion in the water that flows from it, only in water that is collected and stationary in a reservoir. And they resemble those governing a natural spring in that even the smallest amount of its water imparts purity. For there is no minimum measure required for the water of a natural spring. Even the slightest amount can impart purity.

On a superior level is a natural spring in which drawn water was not mixed, but its water was spoiled; it was bitter or salty. It imparts purity when its water is flowing, i.e., the water emerges and streams forth from the spring.

On a superior level is a natural spring whose water is "living water." In such springs alone may male zavim immerse and from them alone water may be taken for the purification of a person afflicted with tzara'at and for the sanctification of the water used for the ashes of the red heifer. What are the differences between the laws governing a natural spring and a mikveh? A mikveh does not impart purity unless it contains 40 se'ah of water, while even the smallest amount of water from a natural spring imparts purity. And the water of a mikveh imparts purity only if it is collected in a reservoir. Any water flowing out from it does not impart purity. The water of a natural spring, by contrast, imparts purity when flowing. Also, immersion in a mikveh is not effective for zavim, while a zav may immerse in a natural spring of "living water."

When the waters of a spring flow outward and into a receptacle in a stone and afterwards emerge from the receptacle and flow further, all of the water in the receptacle and all that flowed out of it is unacceptable for immersion. If some of the water from the spring - even the slightest amount - was flowing over the edge of the receptacle, the water outside the receptacle is acceptable for immersion. The rationale is that a natural spring purifies water as long as it shares even the slightest amount of contact with it. When water from a natural spring was flowing into a pool that was filled with water and collects there, that pool is considered as a mikveh. If the water flows outside the pool, that water is not acceptable for the purification of zavim and those afflicted with tzara'at or for the sanctification of the water for the ashes of the red heifer until one is certain that all of the collected water that was originally in the pool has flowed out.

When the waters of a spring flow over articles that do not have a receptacle, e.g., a table, a bench, or the like, the water is considered as a mikveh, provided one does not immerse above the articles themselves.

When there was a natural spring with small irrigation ditches flowing out from it and one poured water into the spring so that the water in the ditches would increase and flow powerfully, the water is considered as a spring in all regards. If the water of the spring was stationary and not flowing and one added water until it flowed into the irrigation ditches, the water that flows into those ditches is comparable to a mikveh in that it imparts purity only when collected in a reservoir and it is comparable to a spring in that even the slightest amount imparts purity.

All of the seas impart purity despite the fact that their water is flowing, but they are invalid for the purification of zavim and persons afflicted with tzara'at and for the sanctification of the water used for the ashes of the red heifer.

Water that flows from a natural spring is considered as an extension of the spring in all contexts. Water that drips from a spring, even though the dripping is continuous, is considered only as a mikveh and does not impart purity unless there are 40 se'ah standing in one place. Such water is not acceptable for the purification of zavim and those afflicted with tzara'at or for the sanctification of the water for the ashes of the red heifer. If the water flowing from the spring becomes mixed with water dripping from it, it is considered like a stream in all respects. If, however, the amount of the water of the stream that was dripping was greater than that which was flowing, or if an amount of rainwater greater than the water in a river flowed into it, the water does not impart purity when flowing, only when in a reservoir. Therefore one must use a mat or the like to surround the portion of the river where the water is mixed until the water will be gathered in a single place so that one can immerse in it.

When one caused water that was dripping to flow, e.g., one placed a smooth earthenware tablet next to a mikveh whose water was dripping and thus the water was flowing as it descended down the tablet, it is acceptable. Any article that is susceptible to impurity, even by Rabbinic decree, should not be used as a conduit for water.

When one uses the external green shell of a nut to change the direction of the flow of water the water is acceptable as water from a spring, as it was before. It is not disqualified, because a fresh nut shell which imparts color is not considered as a container.

When rainwater is cascading down a hill, flowing as it descends, even though there are more than 40 se'ah of water from the beginning of the torrent to its end, it is not acceptable for immersion while it is flowing. It must be collected in a reservoir containing 40 se'ah. If one surrounded the water with containers, having them serve as partitions, i.e., walls for a body of water to collect, and 40 se'ah of rainwater flowed into it and collected there, it is acceptable for immersion. The containers with which one surrounded the water are not considered to have been immersed.

When a wave becomes separated from the sea and falls on a person or on keilim, they are pure for ordinary purposes, provided the wave contains 40 se'ah, for a person who immerses does not have to have a specific intent, as we explained in Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah. If the person focused his intent on purifying himself for a specific level of purity, and was waiting in anticipation of the wave falling upon him, he is considered to have purified himself for the activity for which he desired to purify himself.

One may not immerse in a wave when it is in the air before it falls on the earth even if it contains 40 se'ah of water. The rationale is that just as we do not immerse in water that is flowing, how much more so do we not immerse in water that is in the air. When the two ends of a wave are touching the earth, we can immerse in it. We do not, however, immerse in its crest, because that water is in the air.

What is meant by an unresolved doubt regarding drawn water that our Sages ruled as pure? A mikveh about which one was unsure whether drawn water fell into it. Or even if one was certain that drawn water fell into it, but was in doubt whether there were three lugim or not. Or even when one was certain that there were three lugim of drawn water, but there was a doubt whether the mikveh into which the water fell contained 40 se'ah or not. In all instances, the mikveh is acceptable.

The following law applies when there are two mikveot, one containing 40 se'ah and one containing a lesser amount. Three lugim of drawn water fell into one of them, but it is not known into which they fell. Because of the doubt, we rule that the acceptable mikveh is pure, because there is a factor on which one can rely. If they both contained less than 40 se'ah and three lugim fell into one of them, they are both disqualified, because there is no factor on which one can rely. If the drawn water fell into one, it would be disqualified and if it fell into the other, it would be disqualified.

When one left a mikveh empty, and returned and found it full, it is acceptable, for there is an unresolved doubt whether the water for this mikveh was drawn.

When a pipe carried water into a mikveh, but there is a mill next to it, if there is a doubt whether water flowed into the mikveh from the pipe or from the mill, it is unacceptable, because the disqualifying factor is evident. If, however, the mikveh contains a majority of acceptable water, it is acceptable because the doubt involves drawn water and there is an acceptable mikveh whose presence had been established.

All of the mikveot found in the lands of the nations are invalid for immersion, for we operate under the presumption that the water is drawn. All of the mikveot found in Eretz Yisrael, in the cities, within the gates are assumed to be invalid, because the inhabitants of the cities wash their garments in them and pour drawn water into them at all times. All of the mikveot found in Eretz Yisrael outside the gates of a city are presumed to be pure. For it is assumed that they came from rainwater.

In all the following situations, when an impure person descends to purify himself and: a) there is a doubt whether he immersed or did not immerse, b) even if it was known that he immersed, but there is a doubt whether the mikveh contained 40 se'ah or not, or c) there were two mikveot, one containing 40 se'ah and one that did not contain 40 se'ah, he immersed in one of them and did not know in which one he immersed, he is impure because of the doubt. The rationale is that we presume that the impure person is impure until it is certain that he immersed in the proper manner. Similarly, if a mikveh was measured and it was discovered that it did not contain the required amount of water, whether the mikveh was located in the public domain or a private domain, all of the pure articles that were immersed in it are considered as impure retroactively until a time when it was measured and it was complete. When does the above apply? When the immersion was intended to purify the person or the article from severe impurity. When, however, the immersion was because of a light impurity, e.g., one ate impure foods or drank impure beverages, his head and the majority of his body entered drawn water, or three lugim of drawn water fell on his head and on the majority of his body, since the primary aspect of these types of impurity are Rabbinical in origin, he is pure despite the doubt, as we explained. Even though the person is in doubt whether he immersed or not, the mikveh in which he immersed was discovered to be lacking afterwards, or other doubts of this nature arise, he is pure.

When there were two mikveot, one kosher and one unacceptable, a person immersed in one to purify himself from a severe type of impurity, and touched pure foods, their status is questionable. If he immersed in the second mikveh as well and touched pure foods, the status of the first remains questionable as before and the second ones are pure. If these two batches of foods touch each other, the status of the first remain questionable and the second should be consigned to fire. This ruling also applies if in the interim he contracted impurity from a light source of impurity, as we explained, immersed in the second mikveh and touched pure foods. If, however, he immersed in one of the mikveot because of a light impurity and then touched pure foods and then contracted a severe type of impurity, immersed in the second, and then touched pure foods, the first batch are pure and the status of the second is questionable. If these two batches of foods touch each other, the first should be consigned to fire and the status of the second remains the same as before. The following rules apply if one of two mikveot contained 40 se'ah of acceptable water and the other was filled entirely with drawn water and two people immersed in them without knowing which one immersed in the acceptable mikveh and which immersed in the unacceptable one. One of the two had contracted a severe type of impurity and one had contracted a light type of impurity. They both touched pure foods. The status of the foods touched by the one who immersed because of a severe type of impurity is questionable, but those touched by the one who immersed because of the light type of impurity are pure. In the situation described in the above clause, if one person was impure and descended to immerse and the other was pure and descended merely to cool off, pure foods touched by the one who descended to immerse in one of them are of questionable status, as we explained. And the one who descended to cool off is pure as he was previously. The rationale is that this is a doubt concerning drawn water, for the question is: perhaps he immersed in the pool of drawn water when he cooled off and thus contracted impurity.

The following rules apply when there are two mikveot, each containing 20 se'ah, one of drawn water and one of acceptable water. If a person cooled off in one of them and then touched pure foods, they are considered pure. If afterwards, he cooled off in the second and touched pure foods, they should be consigned to fire. For his head and the larger greater of his body certainly entered drawn water, as we explained.

We already explained that washing one's hands and/or immersing them is a Rabbinic requirement. Hands that must be immersed may be immersed solely in an acceptable mikveh that contains 40 se'ah. For only in a place where a person immerses his body may he immerse keilim and hands. When, however, hands need only to be washed, if they were immersed in the water of a mikveh, they are pure. If they were immersed in drawn water, whether in a container or on the earth, the person's hands are not purified. Instead, drawn water poured from a container must fall upon his hands. For hands may only be washed from containers and using human effort, as we explained in Hilchot Berachot.

Any substance that intervenes for one's entire body when immersing also intervenes for one's hands, both when immersing them and when washing them. Any substance that is included in the measure of a mikveh, e.g., flowing mud, is also included in the measure of a revi'it required for the washing of hands. Everyone who washes his hands must rub them together.

When a person washes both of his hands to partake of terumah, he must wash them a second time with other water to remove the water that is on his hands. For the water with which he washed them first - it is called the first water - contracted impurity from his hands. Therefore if a loaf of bread that was terumah fell into the water with which one first washed his hands, it contracts impurity. If it fell into the water of the second washing, it does not contract impurity. If one poured the water of the first washing and the second washing into one place and a loaf that was terumah fell there, it contracts impurity. If one washed one's hands with the first water, an intervening object was found on his hands, and he removed it and washed again, his hands are impure as they were before, because the second water imparts purity only to what remains of the first water on his hands.

Hands contract impurity and are purified until the joint. What is implied? One washed his hands the first time until the joint. The second time, he washed them, the water poured beyond the joint, his hands are pure. The rationale is that the second water is pure. If, when he washed his hands the first time and the second time, the water poured beyond the joint and it returned to his hand, his hand contracts impurity. The rationale is that the first water that poured beyond the wrist contracted impurity because of his hand. The second water does not purify the water outside the joint. Hence, since the water that was beyond the joint returned to his hand, it imparts impurity to it.

If the first time, he washed one hand and changed his mind and washed both his hands together the second time, they are impure. The rationale is that the second water contracts impurity because of the hand that was not washed the first time and then they impart impurity to the other hand. If he washed both his hands the first time and washed only one hand the second time, that one is pure. If he washed one hand and then rubbed it against his other hand which was not washed at all, the water upon the washed hand contracts impurity because of the unwashed hand and then imparts impurity to the hand which was washed. If he rubs it on his head or against the wall, it is pure.

If one washes both hands with one washing, they are pure. We do not say that it is like washing one hand with the water that descended from the other hand. Moreover, even four or five people, one next to each other or one on top of the other, may wash in this manner, as long as they hold their hands open so that the water can flow over the entire hand.

If one washed a portion of his hand and then washed the rest of his hand, his hand is impure as it was originally. If there is enough water to impart moisture to another substance on the portion of the hand washed first [while the other part was being washed, the hand] is pure. When does the above apply? To the water of the first washing. With regard to the second washing, one may wash a portion of his hand and then wash again, adding to the portion washed.

The minimum measure of water with which one may wash one's hands initially is a revi'it for each and every person for both their hands. No less than this measure is acceptable, as explained with regarding to washing before partaking of bread. With regard to the second washing, by contrast, two people may wash their hands with a revi'it, and half a log may be used for three or four. And from a log, even 100 may wash. The rationale is that the second water does not come to purify, but merely to wash off the first water.

When there was a container that held a revi'it of water that was acceptable for the washing of hands and one added to it a small amount of water that is not acceptable for that purpose, the mixture is acceptable. If one removed the amount of water he added from the container and there remained only a revi'it as there was originally, it is unacceptable. The rationale is that water that is unacceptable made up the measure of the revi'it.

Any water that is deemed unacceptable for the first washing is unacceptable for the second washing. Any container that may not be used for the first washing is also unacceptable for the second washing. Just as the water of the first washing must be poured by human effort, so too, must the water of the second washing.

We already explained in Hilchot Berachot all of the factors that could disqualify water for the washing of hands and what makes them acceptable, all of the containers that may be used for the washing of the hands and those that may not be used, Just as any doubt regarding the washing of hands is considered as pure with regard to partaking of ordinary food, as explained there, so too, with regard to terumah, any doubt regarding the washing of hands is considered as pure.

It is a clear and apparent matter that the concepts of purity and impurity are Scriptural decrees and they are not matters determined by a person's understanding and they are included in the category of chukim. Similarly, immersion in a mikveh to ascend from impurity is included in the category of chukim, because impurity is not mud or filth that can be washed away with water. Instead, the immersion is a Scriptural decree and requires the focusing the intent of one's heart. Therefore our Sages said: "When one immersed, but did not intend to purify himself," it is as if he did not immerse. Although it is a Scriptural decree, there is an allusion involved: One who focuses his heart on purifying himself becomes purified once he immerses, even though there was no change in his body. Similarly, one who focuses his heart on purifying his soul from the impurities of the soul, which are wicked thoughts and bad character traits, becomes purified when he resolves within his heart to distance himself from such counsel and immerse his soul in the waters of knowledge. And Ezekiel 36:25 states: "I will pour over you pure water and you will be purified from all your impurities and from all your false deities, I will purify you."