Siman 202

The immersion of vessels, whether from impurity to purity which is not practiced in our time, or the immersion of new vessels as explained in siman 120, is like the immersion of a person in a mikveh of forty se'ah or in a spring even if it does not have forty se'ah. And even according to the one who holds that for a person forty se'ah is required, nevertheless, in a spring it is not required, as written at the beginning of siman 200, see there. It is only required that the entire vessel be covered by the water at one time, and immersion in halves is invalid just as it is for a person. However, even in a spring, at least a revi'it of water is required and no less than this, even if the vessel would be covered by less than this, such as needles and pipes [as seen from Tosafot Nazir 38a, beginning with "Bar," who wrote that nevertheless a revi'it of a spring is not nullified; but at the end of their words, due to a difficulty, they wrote that it is the same even with less than a revi'it, see there. However, we do not find anywhere the importance of the name "water" in less than a revi'it, and as taught in the Mishnah in chapter 10 of Mikvaot [mishnah 6], Rabbi Yose says: Even a vessel that holds a kor and has only a revi'it in it, it is as if he did not immerse, see there. And there it has no relevance to a revi'it at all, but rather because of the importance of the name "water." And the intention of Tosafot in Nazir there at the end of their words is that therefore the revi'it of a spring is not considered because by the letter of the law even less is permitted, meaning, but because of importance it is not applicable with less than this. And that which is taught in chapter 1 of Mikvaot [mishnah 7] and in Torat Kohanim, Parshat Shemini, that a spring purifies with "any amount," in relation to forty se'ah, a revi'it is called "any amount." And you should know that this is so, for according to those who hold that even for a person forty se'ah is not required in a spring, perforce "any amount" is not literal, for we require that the entire body be covered, as the Tosafot Yom Tov wrote there. Furthermore, Tosafot in Shabbat 63b wrote that even "any amount" has a measure, see there. Nevertheless, I do not decide with certainty that it is so, and there is room to doubt this; and examine this carefully]:

Just as a chatzitzah invalidates the immersion of a person, so too it invalidates in vessels, and all the laws of chatzitzah that were explained in Niddah in siman 198 exist also in vessels. And we learned in Mikvaot [Chapter 9, Mishnah 5]: These constitute a chatzitzah in vessels: pitch and myrrh on a glass vessel, whether from the inside or from the outside. And "myrrh" is a clinging clay similar to pitch. And the Tur wrote: Since glass is very smooth, other things do not constitute a chatzitzah upon it because they do not adhere to it, but in other vessels, everything adheres and constitutes a chatzitzah. Thus far his words. And according to his words, the intent of the Tanna is to teach us a leniency in glass vessels and a stringency in other vessels. However, the Semag wrote that this is the explanation: Even pitch and myrrh, which do not constitute a chatzitzah in other vessels because it is the way to coat them with pitch, nevertheless in a glass vessel they constitute a chatzitzah, and certainly other things that constitute a chatzitzah in all vessels constitute a chatzitzah in a glass vessel. Thus far his words. And according to this, he takes a stringency in glass vessels, and the reason is because with a glass vessel one is very particular about cleanliness. And for the halachah, we certainly take the stringency of both explanations [and see Shach, subsection 1].

And one should not ask: surely regarding chatzitzah the matter depends on fastidiousness, as it is stated in the Gemara in several places that a thing about which one is fastidious constitutes a chatzitzah; if so, let us see this man, if he is fastidious about it, it is a chatzitzah, and if he is not fastidious, it is not a chatzitzah. For it is not so, as we have already explained in siman 198 that anything which it is the way of the world to be fastidious about, even though he is not fastidious, it constitutes a chatzitzah, see there. And likewise the opposite: if he is fastidious, it constitutes a chatzitzah even though the majority of the world is not fastidious. And it was explained there that from the Torah there is no chatzitzah except on its majority and where one is fastidious, and the rabbis decreed on its majority even if one is not fastidious, and on its minority where one is fastidious, see there. And such is the law regarding vessels; therefore, anything which it is the way to be fastidious about constitutes a chatzitzah, and if not, it does not constitute a chatzitzah unless it covered its majority.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: The soot attached to a cauldron from the outside is like the wall of the vessel, and this is its normal way, and it does not constitute a chatzitzah. Thus far his words. However, that which is attached from the inside constitutes a chatzitzah if he is fastidious about it [Taz, subsection 3]. And I wonder about our teacher, the Rema, for we have learned in the ninth chapter of Mikvaot, at the end of mishna 2: One may not immerse a kumkum with charcoal unless he rubbed it. And a kumkum is a copper vessel in which water is heated, and because of the smoke, charcoal forms around it [Bartenura]. And this is exactly like a cauldron, for what is the difference to me between a kumkum and what is the difference to me between a cauldron? And the Rambam wrote this law in chapter 3, law 17, with a slight change of wording, and this is his wording: A person may not immerse a kumkum with the charcoal in it unless he rubbed it. Thus far his words. And he wrote "with the charcoal in it," and he follows his reasoning in his Commentary on the Mishnah, where he explained that one extinguishes charcoal inside it within the water that is in it, and therefore he must rub the charcoal inside it and move them from place to place so that they do not stick to each other and constitute a chatzitzah; see there. And for this reason, he was precise to say "with the charcoal in it." And I found that the Rosh in his commentary there agreed with the explanation of the Rambam and wrote, and this is his wording: And so it stands to reason, that it does not refer to the soot attached to the kumkum from the outside, for a person is not fastidious about it, etc. Thus far his words. And according to this, the words of our teacher, the Rema, are well-settled. Nevertheless, according to the explanation of the Bartenura it is not so, for it constitutes a chatzitzah [and I wonder why the Rema did not write this law regarding a kumkum, and it requires further study regarding the commentators and the Tosafot Yom Tov who did not remark on this at all].

Nevertheless, there is reason to doubt even according to the ruling of our teacher, the Rema, if the majority of the vessel is covered with soot whether it constitutes a chatzitzah. For we maintain that regarding the majority, even if he does not care, it constitutes a chatzitzah, as the Rambam wrote there, and this is his wording: It is a clear matter that everywhere we said regarding pitch and clay and the like that they do not constitute a chatzitzah on vessels because he does not care, it is for this reason: if the majority of the vessel was covered in pitch or clay and the like, the immersion is not effective for it. Even though he does not care, there is no distinction in this matter among any of the vessels; rather, all vessels are equal in this matter. Thus far his words. And if so, here too it should constitute a chatzitzah, and why did he not clarify this? However, from his words and from the words of the Rosh that we cited, who wrote that it is considered like the wall of the vessel, it implies that even on the whole of it, it does not constitute a chatzitzah, and this is not within the category of "cares" or "does not care," but rather it is exactly like the wall of the vessel. And one must deliberate on this regarding the halakhah.

It was taught in the Tosefta of Mikvaot, chapter 7: Gypsum that is in a cup or a flask—from the inside it is a chatzitzah, from the outside it is not a chatzitzah. In what case does this apply? From the house of the craftsman. But from the house of a homeowner, whether from the inside or from the outside, it is a chatzitzah. In a platter or a bowl, whether from the inside or from the outside, whether from the house of the craftsman or from the house of a homeowner, it is a chatzitzah. Myrrh and gum, whether in a cup, a flask, a bowl, or a platter, whether from the inside or from the outside, whether from the house of the craftsman or from the house of a homeowner, these are a chatzitzah. Smears of dregs that are in a cup or a flask, and the mud and dough that are on an ax or a shovel, are not a chatzitzah; if they hardened, these are a chatzitzah. Thus far his words. The Rambam wrote them in chapter 3 of Mikvaot, and one must look into the Tur and Shulchan Aruch who did not bring them, for there are meal vessels here, which is practiced in this time regarding the immersion of new vessels [and in the Beit Yosef he brought this, see there]. And gypsum, I do not know if it is "gapsim" which is a type of lime, or like chapter 4 of Shabbat, "gefet" of olives or of sesame, which is their waste. And the difference between a craftsman and a homeowner is that in a cup and a flask, the craftsman is not fastidious regarding the outside. And myrrh we have already explained, and gum is "goma," and this is the sap of trees [Gittin 19b].

The handles of vessels that are made together with the vessel, such as the handles of coal-pans where the handle is of metal like the vessel itself and the like, behold, it is like the body of the vessel and requires immersion with the vessel itself, whether regarding impurity or regarding the immersion of new vessels. And handles that are of another material that does not require immersion, such as a knife where the handle is of wood and the like, for the wood does not require immersion, nevertheless, when it is together with the handle it does not constitute an interposition, and one is permitted to immerse the knife as it is with the handle; for since it is made to be within it always, it is like a single piece and this is not an interposition. Therefore, this is specifically when the handle was inserted well and remains permanently. But handles of vessels that are not meant to be permanent, such as if he inserted them not in their usual manner and must perforce remove it from the vessel, or if he did not insert it entirely, or if he inserted it entirely and it broke inside the cavity of the vessel where one inserts the handle and he must perforce remove it from there and make another handle, it constitutes an interposition, and he shall remove the handle and immerse the vessel alone. And in this there is no distinction whether the handle is not of the same material as the vessel or of the same material as the vessel, for even in such a case it interposes, since he will remove it from there.

And the handles of vessels that broke along the length of the handle, not within the cavity of the vessel where one inserts the handle, if they serve a purpose similar to their original function, they do not constitute a chatzitzah, for what do we care if the handle is short or long? And even though it is possible that he will decide to remove it and make another, nevertheless, since it is fit for permanent use, it does not constitute a chatzitzah. But if it is so short that it is impossible to use it, he will necessarily remove it, and consequently it is a chatzitzah. And it was taught in the Tosefta there: All handles of vessels that he inserted in their normal manner do not constitute a chatzitzah; if he placed pitch or wax either in the place of the hole or in the place of the flow, they do not constitute a chatzitzah. If he inserted them not in their normal manner, they constitute a chatzitzah; if he placed pitch or wax either in the place of the hole or in the place of the flow, they constitute a chatzitzah. Thus far its words. And it appears that this is the explanation: there are times when one inserts a handle into the vessel, holes still remain, or even if they are not complete holes, nevertheless, when they pour liquid into the vessel, it will flow into the handle because it is not tightened well. Therefore, they seal it with pitch and wax so that the handle will be well-tightened. Therefore, in a case where the handle is not a chatzitzah, they also are not a chatzitzah, and when the handle is a chatzitzah, such as when he inserted them not in their normal manner, they also constitute a chatzitzah. And even if he removed the handle from the vessel and the pitch remained on the rim of the vessel, it constitutes a chatzitzah [and the Rash explained "nitzok" as a ring upon the handle and they seal it].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: A sickle whose handle broke from the rim and inward does not form a chatzitzah because it is like a hidden place; from the rim and outward, if it serves a function similar to its original work, it does not form a chatzitzah, and if not, it forms a chatzitzah. If he bound it with papyrus or with a cord, then it forms a chatzitzah; if he attached it with resin, it does not form a chatzitzah. Thus far his words. And this is from the Tosefta there, and this is the explanation: for a sickle is a professional tool, as we learned in Beitza [31a], one may not split wood with an ax, nor with a saw, nor with a sickle, see there. And from Rashi there it implies that this is what is called a "dolet," whose head is sharp and they pierce wide holes with it, see there. And it has a large wooden handle, and they insert the iron deep into the wood, and the wood is thick. Therefore, even when it is broken in its interior, if it is whole on the outside, they can perform work with it. And when it is broken on the outside, if the break is not deep, they can perform work with it; but when the break is deep, it is impossible to perform work with it. And there are those who tie the break with papyrus or with a cord, and it is not a permanent thing, therefore it forms a chatzitzah. But if he attached it with resin, which is gum, it is strong and endures. However, I wonder why our teacher, the Beit Yosef, had to write this, for it is not a meal vessel but a professional tool, and the immersion is for impurity and purity which is not practiced in our times. And there are many laws of chatzitzah regarding garments and vessels in impurity and purity, and the Rambam wrote them in chapter 3, but in our times this is not relevant. And it seems to me that because we find in tractate Kelim at the beginning of chapter 13, "a hand-sickle and a harvest-sickle," and they explained that a hand-sickle is made to break bones with it, see there, and this is a meal vessel and requires immersion for new vessels, and therefore he wrote it in the Shulchan Aruch.

A vessel whose mouth was turned downward and one immersed it in water—if its mouth is narrow, and even if it is somewhat wide, provided it is not very wide like wide bowls and cups, and he did not turn its mouth upward, the immersion is not effective for it, because the water will not reach its bottom even if he immerses it entirely in the water, unless its mouth is upward and he leaves it in the water until the water enters the entire vessel from within. And similarly, a vessel that is narrow on this side and that side and wide in the middle, such as bottles made in this manner, the water likewise does not enter inside to all sides of the vessel unless he tilts it on its side. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8 that any vessel whose mouth is narrow must be left in the water until it is filled, or he should fill it with water before he immerses it in the mikveh. Thus far his words. That is to say, that the water inside the vessel shall connect to the water in the mikveh and there will be a connection (hashakah), and the water in the vessel will also be considered as the water of the mikveh. And even if the hole is not like the width of a flask's neck (k'shfoferet hanod), it is a connection; for even though the connection of water to water requires specifically the width of a flask's neck, nevertheless, regarding the immersion of the vessel itself, it is a connection even with less [Shach, subsection 7]. And similarly, even if the hole is like the width of a flask's neck or more, if it is not so wide in a manner that the water enters it immediately, he must leave it in the water until it is filled as has been written, or fill it with water and connect it to the water of the mikveh [ibid.].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 9: Handles of vessels that are long and one intends to trim them, he immerses until the place where he intends to trim them and it is sufficient. Thus far his words. That is to say, the place of the cut is not a chatzitzah because it is a concealed place and does not constitute a chatzitzah [Taz, subsection 9]. There is a question regarding this: behold, we maintain that even though a concealed place does not require the entry of water, nevertheless we require that it be fit for the entry of water, and here it is not fit for the entry of water. Indeed, our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot in Chullin [73a, s.v. matbil], wrote that here we are dealing with handles made like links, such as those iron chains made like rings, where the water will enter between link and link; see there. However, the Rosh wrote in chapter 10 of Mikvaot, Mishnah 5, that in the Tosefta it is implied that regarding the concealed places of vessels we are not concerned at all with chatzitzah. Thus far his words. That is to say, even being fit for the entry of water is not required because a person is not fastidious there [Bartenura there]. Our teacher Shimshon wrote similarly there, and the proof is from the law of a sickle that has been explained; see there.

And know that Rashi in Chullin there wrote, and this is his wording: That which is destined to be cut off does not require immersion, for it is considered as if it were already cut off. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Bartenura in Mikvaot there, and this is his wording: One immerses them until the point of the measurement, and the rest does not require immersion, for everything that is standing to be cut is considered as if it were already cut, and it does not constitute a chatzitzah for the place of the cut itself, for the hidden parts of vessels do not require the entry of water etc. even if it is fit for the entry of water, they do not require it etc. Thus far his words. And I wonder, for this reasoning that "everything that is standing to be cut is considered as if it were already cut" is like that which we say elsewhere according to Rabbi Shimon, that "everything that is standing to be redeemed is considered as if it were already redeemed" and "everything that is standing to be sprinkled is considered as if it were already sprinkled," and we do not rule like Rabbi Shimon but rather like the Rabbis, as is known. Furthermore, why do they need this reason? Since the hidden parts of vessels do not require being fit for the entry of water, if so, what does it matter to us if it is considered as if it were cut or not? Therefore, it appears to me that the Bartenura copied the wording of Rashi and provided an explanation for it, that his intention is not because it is considered as if it were cut, but rather to say that it is considered as if it were cut because it does not require being fit for the entry of water there. And they were forced to this because in the Gemara of Chullin it wanted to say for another matter as a stringency that it is considered as if it were cut, and the Gemara wanted to depend this on this Mishnah of the handles of vessels and rejected it, see there. And in order not to deviate from the wording of the Gemara, they wrote thus, meaning that according to the conclusion one does not need this. [And know that in the version of the Mishnah, the first Tanna holds that one immerses until the measurement and Rabbi Yehuda requires immersing all of it, and therefore the Rambam and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch ruled like the first Tanna; but in Chullin in the Gemara there, the version is that Rabbi Meir says until the measurement and the Sages say one immerses all of it, see there. and if so, one should have ruled like the Sages, for it says there "according to whom? according to Rabbi Meir," see there, and it requires a bit of study, and delve into it].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6: It is permitted to immerse a vessel inside another vessel if the opening of the outer one is like the "tube of a wineskin" [and for that vessel it is not necessary, as has been written], and he should be careful that the inner vessel is loose within the outer vessel. Therefore, one should not thrust knives into a bucket and immerse them, for the immersion will not be effective for their tips. Similarly, if the inner vessel is heavy and rests within the outer one, the immersion will not be effective for it in the place where it rests. See above, siman 201, section 9. Thus far his words. That is to say, that there it was explained that if the outer vessel also requires immersion, even if its opening is not like the "tube of a wineskin" it is permitted, for since the immersion is effective for the outer one, it is also effective for the inner one; see there. And this is only regarding the "tube of a wineskin" perforation, but regarding the weight of the vessel, it is all one, for in any case we require that the water reach the bottoms of the vessels. And if the inner one weighs down upon the outer one, the immersion will not be effective for both of them: for the outer one it will not be effective because the water will not reach its bottom from the inside, and for the inner one the water will not reach its bottom from the outside. The Laws of Niddah and Mikvaot are completed with the help of Heaven.