Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,255
edits
Modern Mikvaot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Two borot using zeriya
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
== Two borot using zeriya == | == Two borot using zeriya == | ||
[[Image:Mikva_two_borot_zeriya.png|right|300px|Two borot (Chatom Sofer, Chazon Ish)]] | [[Image:Mikva_two_borot_zeriya.png|right|300px|Two borot (Chatom Sofer, Chazon Ish)]] | ||
# Chatom Sofer 214 holds that the best way to make a mikveh is to use zeriya. | # Chatom Sofer (YD 203, 212, 214) holds that the best way to make a mikveh is to use zeriya. One positive is that there’s no question of fulfilling the opinion of [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=11651#p=437&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Rabbenu Yerucham (26:5 226a)] to have continuous hashaka. [Another benefit is that hashaka with sheuvim is questionable (Tosfot Rid and Kesef Mishna) and zeriya is firmly established.] | ||
# The downside of such an approach is natan seah vnatal seah (Rambam and Raavad against Rash and Rosh) and some hold that this issue is solved since there’s no obvious act of taking away water (Ramban, Bet Yosef). In fact, Chazon Ish (Likutim 3) recommended doing just a bor zeriya and bor tevila. He held that this is kosher and the best option. However, The Divrei Chaim disputes this point and shows that the Raavad would invalidate the mikveh because of natan seah vnatal seah even if it isn’t evident. | |||
## Maharshag YD 65 defends Chatom Sofer about problems of natan seah vnatal seah. He suggests doing zeriya into pit two and spill over into tevilah pit then hashaka once with pristine hashaka bor. He says that the issue of natan seah doesn’t apply to the tevilah bor since the drawn water was added to the other pit and only overflowed there. | ## Maharshag YD 65 defends Chatom Sofer about problems of natan seah vnatal seah. He suggests doing zeriya into pit two and spill over into tevilah pit then hashaka once with pristine hashaka bor. He says that the issue of natan seah doesn’t apply to the tevilah bor since the drawn water was added to the other pit and only overflowed there. | ||
## Mishna Halachot 10:146 said that zeriya in second pit is only effective if it is first still and then spilled over. Cheshev Sofer YD 13 said that was the minhag to do. | ## Mishna Halachot 10:146 said that zeriya in second pit is only effective if it is first still and then spilled over. Cheshev Sofer YD 13 said that was the minhag to do. | ||
## Satmer Rav in Divrei Yoel 69 said you can do zeriya with bor al gabi bor and have it overflow into bor tevilah. Mishna Halachot 10:146 said it is pasul since the katafras makes it not connected to a mikveh and zochlin is invalid for zeriya so both mikvehs become invalid. | ## Satmer Rav in Divrei Yoel 69 said you can do zeriya with bor al gabi bor and have it overflow into bor tevilah. Mishna Halachot 10:146 said it is pasul since the katafras makes it not connected to a mikveh and zochlin is invalid for zeriya so both mikvehs become invalid. | ||
## Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 writes that you shouldn’t just do zeriya because of natan seah vnatal seah. In Igrot Moshe 1:112 he writes that it isn't really necessary to be concerned for the Raavad and so this is kosher technically speaking. | ## Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 writes that you shouldn’t just do zeriya because of natan seah vnatal seah. In Igrot Moshe 1:112 he writes that it isn't really necessary to be concerned for the Raavad and so this is kosher technically speaking. | ||
#Chazon Ish (Lukkutim 3:1) held that the pipe with tap water should be higher than the hashaka pipe connecting the bor zeria and bor tevila. Otherwise while filling the bor zeriya, the water in the bor zeriya would immediately be overflowing into the bor tevila. The issue with that if water is leaving the bor zeriya then its water is considered zochlin. It is questionable if hashaka can be accomplished to zochlin water. However, if the tap water pipe is lower than the hashaka pipe, then first the tap water would go into the bor tevila while there is 40 seah of stationary water. According to Rosh, that bottom water below the area where it is leaving isn't considered zochlin. Therefore, it is fine to rely on those who allow hashaka to zochlin water since according to Rosh it isn't zochlin at all. | |||
#Chazon Ish (Tinyana 4:10) wrote that if Raavad is strict to require 40 seah of original rainwater then he would also require continuous hashaka (like Tzemech Tzedek). However, if Raavad is only based on marit ayin that temporary hashaka is fine. He holds that we're only strict for the opinion of Raavad because of marit ayin. Chazon Ish (Likkutim 3) repeats this but isn't certain if the two issues of Raavad and Rabbenu Yerucham are related. | |||
== Two borot using hashaka == | == Two borot using hashaka == | ||
| Line 36: | Line 39: | ||
## Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe 1:112) writes that this mikveh is technically kosher and it isn't necessary to be strict for the Rabbenu Yerucham. | ## Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe 1:112) writes that this mikveh is technically kosher and it isn't necessary to be strict for the Rabbenu Yerucham. | ||
## Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 approves of this type of mikveh to solve the issue for Rambam and Raavad since momentary hashaka works for natan seah vnatal seah. However, the Tzemech Tzedek 171 argues that this doesn’t actually solve the Rambam and Raavad either because they certainly would accept Rabbenu Yerucham as they fundamentally need the presence of 21 seah. [Problematically, the Divrei Chaim 201:20 himself makes the same point as the Tzemech Tzedek.] Because of this point, Rabbi Moshe Bick (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) convinced the Satmer rebbe to hold like the Chabad mikveh. | ## Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 approves of this type of mikveh to solve the issue for Rambam and Raavad since momentary hashaka works for natan seah vnatal seah. However, the Tzemech Tzedek 171 argues that this doesn’t actually solve the Rambam and Raavad either because they certainly would accept Rabbenu Yerucham as they fundamentally need the presence of 21 seah. [Problematically, the Divrei Chaim 201:20 himself makes the same point as the Tzemech Tzedek.] Because of this point, Rabbi Moshe Bick (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) convinced the Satmer rebbe to hold like the Chabad mikveh. | ||
## Chazon Ish (Likkutim 3) has technical problems with this type of mikveh because (1) the hashaka pit isn't changed and gets very dirty. It isn't proper to use dirty water for a mitzvah of tevilah, (2) someone might make a mistake and empty the hashaka pit, (3) chlorine might be added to the hashaka pit to mitigate the bad smell and if there's two much chlorine it could invalidate the bor hashaka. | |||
== Three borot using hashaka == | == Three borot using hashaka == | ||
| Line 41: | Line 45: | ||
# One to connect one time and one to keep open. Mishna Halachot 10:146 writes that’s the minhag of Ungar and Galisiya was like Divrei Chayim to build 3 pits, two for hashaka, one that was temporary and one that was continuous. He answered the Tzemech Tzedek by saying that although the Raavad would agree with Rabbenu Yerucham that’s only for a mikveh made completely with drawn water, but not for a mikveh that is just invalid because of natan seah vnatal seah. That can be fixed with a momentary hashaka. Divrei Yatziv YD 117 agrees that the minhag is to have 3 pits, one open all the time and one opened only momentarily. | # One to connect one time and one to keep open. Mishna Halachot 10:146 writes that’s the minhag of Ungar and Galisiya was like Divrei Chayim to build 3 pits, two for hashaka, one that was temporary and one that was continuous. He answered the Tzemech Tzedek by saying that although the Raavad would agree with Rabbenu Yerucham that’s only for a mikveh made completely with drawn water, but not for a mikveh that is just invalid because of natan seah vnatal seah. That can be fixed with a momentary hashaka. Divrei Yatziv YD 117 agrees that the minhag is to have 3 pits, one open all the time and one opened only momentarily. | ||
## Maharshag 1:66 also rejected the Tzemech Tzedek’s equation (between Raavad and Rabbenu Yerucham) and temporary hashaka is a good solution for Raavad. Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 agrees that temporary hashaka is a good solution for Raavad's concern. Nonetheless, Igrot Moshe YD 1:111 writes that he thinks it is a mistake to have two hashaka pits since there's no advantage to that. | ## Maharshag 1:66 also rejected the Tzemech Tzedek’s equation (between Raavad and Rabbenu Yerucham) and temporary hashaka is a good solution for Raavad. Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 agrees that temporary hashaka is a good solution for Raavad's concern. Nonetheless, Igrot Moshe YD 1:111 writes that he thinks it is a mistake to have two hashaka pits since there's no advantage to that. | ||
## Chazon Ish (Likkutim 3) does not recommend using a bor hashaka mikveh because of practical problems. | |||
== Bor al gabi bor == | == Bor al gabi bor == | ||
| Line 59: | Line 64: | ||
#Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe YD 1:112) writes that it is possible to satisfy all of the opinions by using a bor zeriya and bor hashaka. The tap water goes into the bor tevila and overflows into a bor tevila. That bor tevila has hashaka to the bor hashaka. Even though the Raavad would disapprove of the bor tevila since the original rainwater becomes depleted quickly, that is solved with the bor hashaka that is untouched and remains closed, besides one time after the bor tevila water is replaced. The reason for the bor zeriya is to fulfill the opinion of the Rabbenu Yerucham, who holds that the hashaka has to be continuous. Rav Moshe holds that this solution works for everyone since Rabbenu Yerucham cannot hold like the Raavad and vice versa. He also held that having more borot than this is just a waste of money. | #Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe YD 1:112) writes that it is possible to satisfy all of the opinions by using a bor zeriya and bor hashaka. The tap water goes into the bor tevila and overflows into a bor tevila. That bor tevila has hashaka to the bor hashaka. Even though the Raavad would disapprove of the bor tevila since the original rainwater becomes depleted quickly, that is solved with the bor hashaka that is untouched and remains closed, besides one time after the bor tevila water is replaced. The reason for the bor zeriya is to fulfill the opinion of the Rabbenu Yerucham, who holds that the hashaka has to be continuous. Rav Moshe holds that this solution works for everyone since Rabbenu Yerucham cannot hold like the Raavad and vice versa. He also held that having more borot than this is just a waste of money. | ||
#Maharshag 1:65-66 also recommended this solution of having a bor hashaka and a bor zeriya. Originally, he wrote that this bor hashaka was only opened temporarily, but in the next teshuva he writes that it is better to keep the connection to the bor hashaka open all the time. | #Maharshag 1:65-66 also recommended this solution of having a bor hashaka and a bor zeriya. Originally, he wrote that this bor hashaka was only opened temporarily, but in the next teshuva he writes that it is better to keep the connection to the bor hashaka open all the time. | ||
#Chazon Ish (Likkutim 3) argued that this type of mikveh has no advantage over a regular bor zeriya and bor tevila mikveh. His reason is that if Raavad is strict to have pristine rainwater that isn't accomplished by having the bor hashaka untouched since overtime that water will become diffused and exchanged. | |||
