QUESTION: The Gemara relates that there was a Shokes, or trough, in Yerushalayim that was used for immersing vessels to be used with Taharos, known as "the Trough of Yehu." The trough was filled with water and was connected to a Mikvah by way of a hole which had the diameter of a "Shefoferes ha'Nod."

RASHI (DH Shokes) explains that the trough was a hollowed-out stone situated beneath a pipe which brought water to the hollow stone from the mountains. He explains (DH Na'asim Al Gabah) that the trough did not contain forty Se'ah of water, but it was connected to an adjacent "Mikvah Shalem" (a complete Mikvah with forty Se'ah). Rashi then writes, "and [the water] of the spring the Shokes (sic) mixed by way of the hole that was like a Shefoferes ha'Nod."

Rashi's words are unclear. What does Rashi mean when he mentions a "spring" ("Ma'ayan")? Does he mean the Mikvah next to the Shokes, and his intention is to say that the Mikvah's source was a natural spring ("The water of the spring [adjacent to the Shokes] and the [water in the] Shokes mixed...")? If this is Rashi's intention, why does Rashi (and the Gemara) call it a "Mikvah Shalem" with forty Se'ah? A natural spring is valid for the immersion of utensils with any amount of water, and it is not called a "Mikvah." Moreover, how does Rashi know that the water next to the Shokes came from a spring? (ARUCH LA'NER)

If, on the other hand, Rashi refers to the water inside the trough when he mentions a "spring" and he means that the water in the trough came from a spring in the mountain and not from a flow of rainwater ("The water of the spring in the Shokes mixed [with the adjacent Mikvah]..."), the same questions arise. If the water in the trough came from a spring, then the trough was valid for Tevilah even without forty Se'ah of water, but Rashi writes that it was invalid for Tevilah because it held only twenty Se'ah. Moreover, how does Rashi know that the water in the trough came from a spring? (YASHRESH YAKOV)

The Gemara continues and says that when two Mikva'os are attached to each other by a hole with the width of a Shefoferes ha'Nod, they are considered to join together to be one Mikvah. Rashi (DH Eiruv Mikva'os) explains that this Halachah refers to a Mikvah which lacks the minimum Shi'ur of a Mikvah, which is situated next to a Mikvah which contains the proper Shi'ur (forty Se'ah) of water. When the waters mix, the Mikvah with less than forty Se'ah becomes a complete Mikvah by virtue of its connection to the complete Mikvah next to it.

Why does Rashi explain the case of two Mikva'os connected to each other as a case in which one Mikvah has a full Shi'ur of forty Se'ah and the other lacks the full Shi'ur? Even if both Mikva'os lack the minimum Shi'ur and contain only twenty Se'ah each, the hole joins them to form a complete Shi'ur of a Mikvah! (ARUCH LA'NER)

(a) The RITVA understands that Rashi means to say that the water in the Mikvah next to the trough was the water of a natural spring (like the first interpretation mentioned above). The Ritva, however, disagrees with Rashi's explanation because of the reasons mentioned above. The Ritva adds that in order to connect the water of a trough (Mikvah) to spring water (Ma'ayan), the hole between the two must be larger than the size of a Shefoferes ha'Nod. (The opinion of the Ritva is based on the Yerushalmi.)

(b) Perhaps Rashi refers to the water inside the trough when he mentions a "spring" (like the second interpretation mentioned above). The Mishnah in the end of the fourth chapter of Mikva'os discusses the Trough of Yehu. The first Mishnah in the following chapter begins, "A spring which was directed to the trough is not valid for Tevilah. If the spring flowed over the edge of the trough, it becomes valid for Tevilah...." Rashi apparently understands that the Mishnah in chapter five refers to the same trough as the one mentioned in the previous Mishnah (which ascribes no name to it, but which the Gemara here calls "the Trough of Yehu"). The Mishnah there is the source for Rashi's assertion that the water in the Trough of Yehu came from a spring.

Even though its water was springwater, the trough was not valid for Tevilah with less than forty Se'ah because the springwater did not flow into the trough at all times. In order for a trough to be joined to a spring, the water must flow into it constantly. If the water does not flow into the trough constantly, it is considered cut off from the spring and has the status of an ordinary Mikvah. In the case of the Trough of Yehu, the water stopped flowing on occasion, and therefore it was valid only if it contained forty Se'ah.

Perhaps Rashi mentions that the springwater flowed from a "pipe" from the mountains to teach that there was a second reason to invalidate the trough for Tevilah had it not been connected to another Mikvah. The reason is that the water inside the trough is "Mayim She'uvin" (water drawn to the Mikvah via a Kli such as a pipe, which is invalid water for a Mikvah). Rashi says that the water came to the trough through a pipe because the Mishnah in Mikva'os (end of chapter four) implies that the trough contained "Mayim She'uvin" (as the ME'IRI here writes).

(Rashi could have given another explanation for how the water inside the trough was "Mayim She'uvin": When a trough is not a hollowed-out stone but a vessel that was attached to the ground after it was formed into a usable vessel, any water inside that vessel is considered "Mayim She'uvin," as the Mishnah in Mikva'os teaches (ibid.). Perhaps Rashi does not give this explanation because the Mishnayos in Mikva'os in the beginning of chapter five (which Rashi understands to refer to the Trough of Yehu) imply that the trough was not a vessel but a hollow stone.)

This approach explains why Rashi (DH Eiruv Mikva'os) writes that a hole connects two Mikva'os when one of the Mikva'os contains a full forty Se'ah of water and the other lacks that minimum amount. In the case of the Trough of Yehu, the water in the trough was "Mayim She'uvin." As such, it was invalid for Tevilah and could not join with another incomplete Mikvah (of twenty Se'ah) to make a total of forty Se'ah. "Mayim She'uvin" may be added to a complete Mikvah which already contains forty Se'ah, but it cannot supplement the Shi'ur of a Mikvah which lacks forty Se'ah. Rashi gives as an example an invalid Mikvah which is joined to one which contains forty Se'ah, because that case parallels the case of the trough discussed in the Mishnah. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok related that his father once sent olives with him to Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani. Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani did not want to eat them because he was afraid they were Tamei (and he had the practice of eating Chulin Al Taharas ha'Kodesh). Rebbi Elazar's father assured him that the olives were not Tamei, even though they were wet and looked as though they had become fit to become Tamei (Huchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah). He said that they were wet only because the drainage hole of the barrel of olives, through which the unwanted secretion of the olives usually flowed out, became blocked. Since he had punctured the barrel to show that he did not want the olives to become wet, the juice was not able to make them Huchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah.

Why did Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani think that the olives were Tamei in the first place? It was the fact that the olives were wet and were apparently Huchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah.

RASHI (DH she'Hen Lachin) explains that Rebbi Yochanan feared that an Am ha'Aretz may have touched the outside of the barrel of olives and thereby rendered the olives inside Tamei mid'Rabanan.

Rashi's words are difficult to understand. What does he mean that the fear was that an Am ha'Aretz might have made the olives Tamei by touching the outside of the barrel? An earthenware vessel (or its contents) does not become Tamei when an object of Tum'ah touches the outer side of its wall, as the Mishnah (Kelim 2:1) explicitly states. Why does Rashi explain that Rebbi Yosi ha'Chorani was concerned that an Am ha'Aretz may have touched the outside of the barrel, if such contact does not render the barrel or its contents Tamei? (RITVA, RASHASH)

Moreover, why does Rashi not explain simply that Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani feared that an Am ha'Aretz touched the olives themselves and made them Tamei? Alternatively, since Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani suspected that Rebbi Tzadok sent him olives that were Tamei and that Rebbi Tzadok was not meticulous about guarding fruit from Tum'ah, perhaps he feared that Rebbi Tzadok himself made them Tamei (by touching them while he was Tamei)! Why does Rashi explain that Rebbi Yochanan was concerned specifically that an Am ha'Aretz touched the barrel of olives? (TOSFOS DH Amar Li)

ANSWER: The ARUCH LA'NER proposes the following explanation for the words of Rashi.

The Aruch la'Ner points out a more fundamental question on the words of the Gemara. Why did Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani suspect Rebbi Tzadok of sending Tamei fruit to him? Rebbi Tzadok was a Kohen who ate Terumah all the time, and he was certainly meticulous to eat Chulin while Tahor. Why, then, did Rebbi Yochanan suspect him of sending something that could become Tamei?

The Rishonim suggest different answers to this question. TOSFOS cites the RI who answers that Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani knew beyond a doubt that an Am ha'Aretz had handled the olives. Since the olives were wet, he saw no way that they could be Tahor. He did not suspect Rebbi Tzadok of being careless with their Taharah; he just did not understand how the olives could possibly be Tahor. Rebbi Tzadok explained to him that the olives were not Tamei and their wetness was not a sign that they had become fit to become Tamei. They were wet merely because the drainage hole in the barrel became blocked. (This appears to be the intention of the ME'IRI as well.)

TOSFOS, however, understands Rashi differently. Tosfos writes that according to Rashi, Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani did suspect that Rebbi Tzadok had let the olives become Tamei, but not because Rebbi Tzadok was careless with their Taharah. Rather, he assumed that Rebbi Tzadok conducted himself according to the rulings of Beis Shamai (as he was a Talmid of Beis Shamai), and that Rebbi Tzadok treated the barrel of olives as Tahor even though it had no drainage hole in it. Beis Shamai maintains that the juice of olives never makes the olives fit to become Tamei, and thus it is not necessary to make a hole in the barrel to drain out the juice. Accordingly, Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani understood that Rebbi Tzadok considered the olives Tahor. Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani, however, followed the view of Beis Hillel who maintains that the juice of olives does render the olives fit to become Tamei.

This answer is problematic in light of the subsequent words of the Gemara. The Beraisa ends by saying that "even though he (Rebbi Tzadok) was a Talmid of Beis Shamai, he conducted himself in all areas like Beis Hillel." The Gemara asks that if all of the Talmidim of Beis Shamai conducted themselves in practice in accordance with Beis Hillel and not Beis Shamai, the Beraisa teaches nothing new when it says that Rebbi Tzadok conducted himself in practice like Beis Hillel. According to Tosfos' explanation, however, the Gemara should ask a stronger question on the words of the Beraisa: if nobody followed the rulings of Beis Shamai in practice, why did Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani suspect that Rebbi Tzadok's olives were Tamei? (TOSFOS MAHARAM)

The Aruch la'Ner explains that Rashi answers this question by suggesting a new understanding of the incident. Rebbi Yochanan suspected Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok of following not the opinion of Beis Shamai, but of following his own opinion. (When the Beraisa says that "he was the Talmid of Beis Shamai," perhaps it refers not to Rebbi Tzadok but to Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani, a Talmid of Beis Shamai who conducted himself like Beis Hillel (Sukah 28a, "Rebbi Yochanan ben ha'Choranis").)

In Chagigah (20a), the Tana'im disagree about the status of Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh and whether such Chulin is treated like Kodesh, Terumah, or Chulin. Although the Mishnah there implies that such Chulin is treated like Kodesh, Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok disagrees and says that it is treated like Terumah.

Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani and Rebbi Tzadok undoubtedly treated their Chulin with the Taharah of Kodesh, a common practice among the Tana'im (see Chagigah 18b). The Gemara in Chagigah (22b) teaches that when a Tamei liquid touches the outside of a utensil, only the outside of the utensil becomes Tamei and not the inside of the utensil. This is true, however, only for utensils which contain Chulin and Terumah. In the case of a utensil which contains Kodesh, whenever the outside of the utensil becomes Tamei the inside also becomes Tamei.

Accordingly, Rashi's words may be understood as follows. When Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani received the olives from Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok, he was concerned that Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok may have allowed an Am ha'Aretz to touch the outside of the barrel while it was wet. He knew that Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok maintained that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh has the status of Terumah for which contact with the outside of the utensil does not render the inside Tamei, and thus the olives inside remain Tahor. Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani himself maintained that Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh has the status of Kodesh; just as contact with the outside of the barrel renders the inside of the barrel Tamei when the barrel contains Kodesh, it also renders the inside of the barrel Tamei when the barrel contains Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh (Chagigah 21b). Therefore, the olives inside the barrel, according to Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani's own view, were Tamei.

This approach explains why Rashi writes that Rebbi Yochanan feared that an Am ha'Aretz had touched the outside of the barrel and made it Tamei mid'Rabanan. He feared that an Am ha'Aretz had touched a liquid on the outside of the barrel which is able to be Metamei a utensil (Shabbos 15b). The reason why Rashi does not write that Rebbi Yochanan was afraid that an Am ha'Aretz had touched the inside of the barrel (and the olives themselves) is that he knew that Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok would not have permitted an Am ha'Aretz to touch the inside of the barrel; such contact certainly would have rendered the olives Tamei. Similarly, Rebbi Yochanan ha'Chorani did not suspect that Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok himself made the olives Tamei, because he certainly treated them with Taharah.

(The Aruch la'Ner points out that if this indeed is the intent of Rashi, it emerges that Rashi follows the opinion of the RAMBAM. Rashi here writes that the barrel in this case was a Kli Cheres, and yet it was able to become Tamei from the outside. The Rambam (Hilchos Avos ha'Tum'ah 7:3) rules that the outside of a Kli Cheres can become Tamei mid'Rabanan, like the outside of other types of utensils (in contrast to the view of the Ra'avad there).)