Mikvaot: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 04:25, 14 June 2024

Niddah and Zavah

A mikveh is effective to purify a niddah, zavah, and baal keri but a zav specifically needs to dip in a mayan.^[1]
Tevilah of a niddah is from the Torah.^[2]

Mikveh

Minimum Measurement of Mikveh

A mikveh requires 40 seah at a minimum.^[3] The size of 40 seah is measured by 1 amah x 1 amah x 3 amot.^[4] A person who goes to the mikveh needs to go in it completely at one time and be completely covered by the water at one time.^[5]
The minimal amount of a mikveh theoretically is 332 liters but the practice is to use double or triple that amount.^[6]
A person who is large and can’t fit in a mikveh of 40 seah needs to dip in a larger mivkeh.^[7]
A mikveh that has 40 seah and is flat but a person can lie down in it and be covered by water at one time is a kosher mikveh.^[8]
There needs to be 40 seah the entire time one goes in the mikveh but if as one goes into a mikveh some water spills out and there’s less than 40 seah then the mikveh is unfit.^[9]
Mud can count for a mikveh if it is so thin that a cow would drink it. Some say that this can simply be determined by experimenting with a cow. Some say that there is a fixed measure and chazal established that as a stringency it would be need to be so thin that if a straw would be placed on top of it it would fall in.^[10] It is possible to dip in the thin mud in the mikveh as long as there is water covering the mud.^[11]
Any creature that grows in the water such as fish can count towards the mikveh^[12] if it is liquified.^[13]

Doubt if there was 40 seah

A kosher mikveh with 40 seah, which many people used and then was measured and there was 40 seah afterwards there is no doubt that it was kosher the entire time and there’s no concern that it decreased to less than 40 seah and was refilled. Nonetheless, it is proper to check that it has 40 seah before using it. If it is known that it naturally decreased to less than 40 seah at some points it is a concern and is only kosher if it was checked before being used. ^[14]
A kosher mikveh with 40 seah, which after many people used was measure to be less than 40 seah is invalid and anyone who dipping in it at a time when it wasn’t known if it had 40 seah has to go to the mikveh again.^[15]

Water out of the Mikveh Counting to Mikveh

If two people go in a mikveh that was exactly 40 seah only the dipping of the first person is valid since once the drops of water on the body of the first person exit the mikveh the mikveh is incomplete. However, if the first person is still standing in the mikveh and then the second person dips according to some rishonim the second person’s dipping was effective. The halacha is that it isn’t.^[16]
A thick cloth dipped in a mikveh as long as it is partially touching the mikveh all of the water inside the cloth is considered connected.^[17] Once it is removed from the mikveh the water in it is considered sheuvim.^[18]

Holes and Pits Near the Miveh

Any small hole near the mikveh pit is considered part of the mikveh and connected if there is a hole the size of two fingerbreadths in diameter between the hole and the mikveh.^[19]
A crevice very close to a mikveh which would naturally fill up with water when the mikveh is filled up with water is considered part of the mikveh if there’s a hole of any size connecting that crevice with the mikveh.^[20] It is possible to be dip a vessel in that crevice.^[21]
A crevice very close to a mikveh with a wall between it and the mikveh, if it doesn’t naturally fill up with water when the mikveh is full, if the wall is so thin that it would collapse if a person would dip in it that crevice is considered part of the mikveh. Nonetheless it needs to have a reviyit in order to dip a vessel inside it.^[22] However, if that wall is sturdy and could stand up on its own the crevice is considered connected only if there’s a hole between the crevice and the mikveh the size of two fingerbreadths in diameter.^[23]

Splashing to Extend the Mikveh

If a person is in a mikveh and splashes water out of a mikveh to cover a vessel that’s sitting near a mikveh if that water remains connected to the mikveh that vessel is considered dipping in the mikveh. However, if that splash disconnects from the mikveh before the vessel is submerged the dipping of the vessel is invalid unless there is 40 seah in the splash alone.^[24]

Mayan

Mayan Dug next to a River

If someone digs and finds a live spring that is considered a mayan according to most opinions.^[25]
If someone digs next to a river and finds a spring, many hold that isn't considered a mayan, but rather it is like a mikveh.^[26]

Minimum Measurement of Mayan

A mayan is different than a mikveh in that it purifies utensils even with the smallest amount^[27] and can also purify when it is moving. For a person who is going to purify themselves in a mayan it requires 40 seah just like a mikveh but the water of a mayan can still be moving.^[28]
If a mayan was less than 40 seah and more drawn water was added, some say that it is in fact invalid since a mayan needs 40 seah for a person to go in it and since its requisite amount was completed with drawn water it is invalid.^[29] Others hold that it is kosher.^[30]

Mayan with Majority Drawn or Rain Water

A mayan which has a majority of drawn water only is effective to purify someone if it is stationary and not moving.^[31]
A mayan which has a majority of rainwater is only effective to purify someone if it is stationary.^[32]
If in a mayan there is a majority of rainwater compared to the spring water it is unfit if it is moving.^[33]
There is a dispute if a majority of rainwater invalidates a spring if that rainwater was added directly into the original pit of the spring. One should strict about such a case.^[34] Shach follows Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, while on a Torah level Taz follows Raavad, except that he holds that there's a gezera regarding rivers.^[35]

			Added into ikar mayan		Added into extension of mayan
Rishonim	Minority rainwater where it was moving	Minority rainwater where it was standing	Majority rainwater where it was moving	Majority rainwater where it was standing	Majority rainwater where it was moving	Majority rainwater where it was standing
Rash	Even zochlin	(Even zochin, BY. Only eshborin, DM)	Only eshborin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin
Raavad, Raah	Even zochlin	Even zochlin	Even zochlin	Only eshborin	Even zochlin	Only eshborin
R’ Pinchas Halevi	Even zochlin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin
Ramban, Ran	Even zochlin	(Even zochlin)	Even zochlin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin
Rambam according to Ran	Even zochlin	Only eshborin	Even zochlin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin
Rambam according to Bet Yosef	Even zochlin	Even zochlin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin	Only eshborin

Mayan with Minority Drawn or Rain Water

If a mayan or area that flows from a mayan has a majority of spring water and a minority of rainwater or drawn water, it is kosher as a mayan even while it is moving.^[36] Some say that it is only kosher as a mayan in the places where it naturally flowed as a spring. However, if the rainwater or drawn water widened the mayan or made it flow in new places, those places are only kosher as a mikveh.^[37]

Spring Water Disconnected from the Spring

Water that was dribbling down a mountain is considered like a mikveh and not a spring unless it flows continuously.^[38]
Water that was dribbling down a mountain and was drawn together so that it should flow using a cane or anything else that is susceptible to tumah is invalid for a mikveh.^[39]
If a mikveh is created with something that is susceptible to tumah even rabbinic tumah is considered invalid as a mikveh.^[40]

Spring Water that Stopped Moved or Was Interrupted

A spring that flowed into a mikveh, whether it was filled up originally or not, is considered like a spring.^[41]
If the water streaming from a spring was interrupted it isn’t considered like a spring; instead it is like a mikveh and invalid if it is moving.^[42] If that water which was disconnected from the spring is reconnected to the spring, there is a dispute if it reattains the status of a spring.^[43]
If drawn water was added to a spring it is valid even if there is a majority of spring water. However, if there is a majority of drawn water it is only fit while it is still and not moving.^[44]

Rivers

A person shouldn’t go to the mikveh in a river. If there’s no mikveh available there’s what to rely on to go to the mikveh in a river.^[45] Before a person relies on such a leniency they need to consult with their rabbi.^[46]

Oceans

All oceans are like a mayan to dip in them even though the water is moving.^[47]
One may not dip or immerse utensils for tevilat kelim in the tip of a wave but one may do so in the wave that broke and reconnected.^[48] Some say that the wave only purifies if there’s 40 seah in it.^[49] If the wave detached from the sea and is still moving it is invalid for dipping or immersing utensils in.^[50]

Zochlin

Only a mayan purifies whether the water is moving or stationary,^[51] but a mikveh is biblically^[52] invalid if the water is moving.^[53]
What is considered if the water is moving? Some held that it is considered moving even if it isn’t recognizable. Some held that it isn’t considered moving even if there’s movement but the entire mikveh is gushing like a spring. The majority opinion is that it is considered moving only if it is recognizably moving. A minor leak which drains the mikveh slowly but isn’t noticeable by looking at the water surface is permitted and the mikveh is valid.^[54]

Zochlin with water going into the mikveh

If water is flowing into a mikveh but water isn’t flowing out there’s a dispute whether that is considered zochlin.^[55]

Zochlin while the mikveh is filling up

If the water is filled up to where the hashaka hole and when the woman dips in the mikveh, some water is displaced and partially fills up the hashaka hole and the water spills into the bor zeriya or bor hashaka. That movement of water could be considered zochlin and invalidate the mikveh.^[56] What are the solutions?
1. Chazon Ish YD 123:1 has solution to put the pipe where water comes in lower down. Chelkat Yakov 10:3:53:2, 58:2 and Minchat Yitzchak 2:23 accept this Chazon Ish and actually implemented it in their mikvaot. However, Mikveh Mayim v. 1 p. 27 quotes Rav Greenwald from Papo who holds that this solution is worse. The water coming in from the pipe below makes it zochlin since all of the water can be seen rising and overflowing. Also, it is worse since the zechila is from below 40 seah. Mey Hashilo'ach p. 27.
2. Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe YD 1:112) held that this isn't an issue at all since zochlin can create hashaka. Rav Aharon Kotler (mishnat rebbe aharon 24:8, 25:1) agrees. Chazon Ish kama 3:2, however, Maharsham 1:122 is machmir about this.

Zochlin from Mikveh to Mikveh

Rav Shlomo Kluger has 3 reasons that he thinks that there's no issue of zochlin from mikveh to mikveh. Bet Shlomo adds another 2 reasons:
1. It is only considered zochlin if the water is leaving the mikveh and flowing beyond the mikveh. If, however, the water is leaking from the mikveh and going into a contained area that isn't zochlin. Most achronim disagree with this.^[57]
2. If the waters are connected a tiny bit that automatically connects the mikvaot from the Torah. Even though on a rabbinic level the mikvaot aren't connected without a shifoferet hanod, for purposes of zochlin they're considered one mikveh. Bet Shlomo^[58] rejects this nuance and holds that shifoferet hanod is from the Torah.
3. Since the water isn't recognizably moving out of the mikveh, that isn't considered zochlin at all according to Shulchan Aruch YD 201:51. Bet Shlomo agrees with this point.^[59]
4. Bet Shlomo has another argument that if the two mikvaot will always have 40 seah and the only water that's moving from one to the other won't diminish the 40 seah in the mikveh that is being used for tevila, that's kosher according to Shulchan Aruch YD 201:50.
5. Bet Shlomo also explains that according to Shach 201:30 there's no issue of zochlin because of the movement of the water based on the person who is currently tovel (dipping). He says that this factor is questionable as he proves from Tashbetz, Maharik, and Nodeh Beyehuda.
If pipe is not completely full: If the two mikvaot have a pipe the size of a shifoferet hanod but it isn't completely full of water, when somone is tovel there is some water that moves from one mikveh to the other due to water displacement, many poskim would consider the mikveh invalid because of zochlin.^[60]
If pipe is completely full: If the two mikvaot are connected with a shifoferet hanod of stationary water, then Rav Shlomo Kluger, Rav Efraim Zalman Margoliyot, Gur Aryeh Yehuda, and Bet Shlomo^[61] hold that there's no zechila from mikveh to mikveh. No one would invalidate that mikveh except Rav Elazar Landau.^[62]
1. However, some achronim are extremely machmir about this question and hold that even if the pipe is completely filled with water to consider the water moving through the pipe from one bor to the other bor to be considered zochlin. To avoid this, the hashaka pipe should be closed at the time of the tevila.^[63] Most achronim disagree and hold that this is not an issue.^[64]
Bor al gabi bor: Chelkat Yakov^[65] writes that there's no issue of zochlin from one mikveh to another mikveh if there is a bor al gabi bor with water that is stationary one on top of the other.
If there are holes smaller than shifoferet hanod:
1. If the two mikvaot are not connected with a shifoferet hanod and only connected with a tiny amount of water, but the connection between the two mikvaot is completely underwater, then both Rav Shlomo Kluger and Bet Shlomo allow this.^[66] Since the movement between the two mikvaot isn't noticeable there's no zechila.^[67]
2. If the two mikvaot are not connected with a shifoferet hanod and only connected with a tiny amount of water, and the connection between the two mikvaot is above the water so that it is possible to see the water spilling one to the other, Rav Shlomo Kluger is lenient to consider that not zochlin, but most poskim disagree.^[68]

Zochlin that isn’t recognizable

If there’s a tiny crack in the mikveh if the water draining is so minimal that it isn’t noticeable the mikveh is still fit.^[69] There are some poskim who are more strict and invalidate a mikveh with any drainage.^[70] On the other hand, there are those who are more lenient and would allow a leaky mikveh as long as it isn’t completely moving like a spring. This opinion is not accepted by the poskim.^[71]
1. Some poskim hold that as long as it isn't recognizable that the water is moving on top of the mikveh. Even if you know that there is water leaking out it is still kosher.^[72]
2. Other poskim hold that it is only kosher if it is dribbling out slowly. But if you know that it is leaking out in a stream or leaking quickly it is a problem.^[73]
3. Most poskim hold that it is only allowed after the fact and not initially.^[74]

Zochlin above 40 seah

If there’s a crack in the mikveh and the crack is above the point where the walls would contain 40 seah anyway, some rishonim hold it is valid, while others don’t. According to the lenient view, it is only acceptable to dip in the area below the crack.^[75] Ashkenazim are strict.^[76]
Some rishonim hold that if there's always 40 seah it is acceptable to be tovel in that water even though some water is leaving.^[77] The poskim do not follow this approach.

Zochlin within the mikveh

Water that is moving within the mikveh is kosher and not considered zochlin at all.^[78]

Zochlin because of a person dipping

Water which splashed out of a mikveh and bounces off the walls and is going to return to the mikveh isn’t considered zochlin since it is only caused by a person and is going to return.^[79]
If when a woman goes into a mikveh some of the water splashes out of the mikveh, even if there’s more than 40 seah left in the mikveh, some say that the mikveh is unfit since it is zochlin. However, others say that it is fit.^[80]

Zochlin because of a filter

Some say that if the filter in the mikveh was running when a woman went in the mikveh it is unfit since it is considered zochlin and others held it is fit.^[81] With regards to the question of sheuvim, it depends on whether the filter is a kli. It depends on the actual type of filter.^[82]
1. Rav Meir Posen's filter (in the mikveh filter) is accepted by Rabbi Wosner, Rav Nissim Karelitz, and Rav Ovadia. The filter should be off when someone is tovel. However, Rav Wosner and Rav Ovadia hold that it is technically acceptable even while it is on.^[83] Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shternbuch opposed using filters in a mikveh even if it is off.^[84]
2. An out of the mikveh filter should not be used while it is on. Even after the filter is turned off it should not be used since it causes a major issue of sheuvim.^[85]

Sheuvim

Deoritta or Derabbanan

If the entirety of the mikveh or a majority^[86] of it is sheuvim (drawn water) it is invalid. Some poskim hold that it is biblically invalid^[87] and others hold that it is only rabbinically invalid.^[88]
1. Some rishonim think that it is biblically invalid if it is filled up with water that was drawn with a kli that are susceptible to tumah or a person's kli that is susceptible to tumah and only rabbinically invalid if it is filled up with water that was drawn in a kli that isn’t susceptible to tumah.^[89]
2. Some rishonim think that if it was filled up intentionally a person it is biblically invalid, but if it was filled in kelim by themselves it is only invalid rabbinically.^[90]
Ashkenazim hold that it is a biblical invalidation, while Sephardim hold it is only rabbinic.^[91]

Intention

Water in a vessel is only considered drawn if it was gathered in the vessel intentionally.^[92]
Water that entered a vessel without the owner realizing isn’t considered sheuvim. If a person left a vessel under a gutter to collect water when it was cloudy then the water collected in the vessel is sheuvim. If the vessel is placed there when it is sunny or when it was cloudy but afterwards the clouds cleared and then it rained, the water insider isn’t sheuvim.^[93]
When drawing water out of a mikveh and there’s a concern that some of the water will fall back into the mikveh as one is drawing out the water such that 3 lug of drawn water might fall into the mikveh that is lacking and invalidate it. In such a case unless all of the water is removed, if there’s 3 lug of water left it would invalidate the mikveh made on top of it. To avoid this concern one can either draw out the water with a vessel that has a hole of any size such that it couldn’t hold water or empty the mikveh and make sure it is dry before refilling it.^[94]
According to most poskim, there’s no concern when drawing out water from a spring which isn’t susceptible to the invalidation of sheuvim. However, some are concerned for that and as such require using a vessel that has a hole and can’t hold water or to empty the mikveh completely until it is dry before refilling it. Ashkenazim are strict about this question.^[95]
If there’s a receptacle in the pipe it isn’t considered filled in unless there is a permanent addition to the pipe.^[96]
If rainwater collected in jugs that were placed on the roof to dry the water inside can be used for a mikveh if the jugs are broken in their spot or pushed over. If they are picked up to pour them out the water is invalid.^[97]
If a container that held cement was placed in a pit for construction and forgotten there and rainwater collected inside it can be broken in its spot and the water isn’t sheuvim. If they are picked up or pushed over the water is sheuvim.^[98]
If porous jugs were placed in a pit with water in it in order that the walls of the jugs become cleansed and water entered into the jugs they can be broken but not pushed over.^[99]

What is a Vessel for Sheuvim?

A vessel of any size can create sheuvim even if it is larger than 40 seah.^[100]
A vessel of any material that can hold water is considered a vessel to create sheuvim, whether or not that material would be susceptible to tumah.^[101]
A flat board which has no rim or has a partial rim but couldn’t hold any water at all wouldn’t create sheuvim which water that passed over it.^[102]
If a vessel is in a position in which it can’t contain any water even though if it were sitting normally it would hold water doesn’t create shuevim.^[103]
Shingles on the roof aren’t considered vessel to create shuevim since they weren’t made to hold water.^[104]
When dipping a pillow in the mikveh, the pillow would make the water inside of it sheuvim once it is picked up out of the mikveh.^[105]
If a vessel couldn’t hold water on its own but would hold water if propped up by other things it wouldn’t create sheuvim. - see bet yosef 201:34 it is kosher

Pipes

Pipes that have no receptacle don’t create sheuvim.^[106]
Pipes which have a receptacle of any size create sheuvim and invalidate a mikveh.^[107] If the pipe has a receptable in one section any water flowing over any part of the pipe is sheuvim.^[108]
Pipes which didn’t have any receptacle when it was detached from the ground and after it was attached a receptacle is created is valid, but if the receptacle is created before it is attached it is invalid.^[109]
Pipes which widen and thin out in order to manipulate the water pressure and speed don’t invalidate the mikveh as the receptacle wasn’t made to hold water.^[110]
A bent pipe that could hold water is valid. There is a minority opinion that it is invalid. Some say that it is invalid only if the angle created is less than 90 degrees and water could be held in that bend, however, a bent pipe that is 90 degrees or more and just directs the water flow doesn’t create sheuvim. Others explain that according to the strict opinion any bent pipe is an issue even to direct water flow. A possible solution is to have one pipe flow into another pipe at an angle but not actually connect them and make them into one pipe.^[111]
A pipe which was attached to the ground and got a indentation because it rotted in one place is kosher according to most poskim, but invalid according to some poskim.^[112]

Pipes Made to be Attached to the Ground

A vessel that was made to be attached to the ground is considered a vessel and makes the water sheuvim.^[113]

Vessel Attached to the Ground

If an unformed vessel was attached to the ground and then turned into a vessel that could hold water it doesn’t make the water it contains drawn (sheuvim).^[114]
If an vessel was able to hold water and then was attached to the ground it would make the water inside drawn (sheuvim).^[115]
A vessel that was punctured with a hole a diameter of two fingerbreadths and was attached to the ground is a valid mikveh. Even if the hole is then filled after it is attached to the ground it is still valid.^[116]

3 Lug of Drawn Water

If 3 lug fall into a mikveh that is lacking 40 seah it is invalid.^[117]
A mikveh that was invalidated by having 3 lug of sheuvim fall in remains invalid even if the mikveh is later split in two and rainwater is added to one of them. Since the mikveh was completed with an invalidation it is as though all of the water is invalid.^[118]
If 1.5 lug fell into 20 seah of rainwater and another 1.5 fell into another 20 seah of rainwater and then these waters connect they are valid since the complete invalidation of 3 lug was never applicable to either one of them.^[119]
If a pit is full of drawn water it is only fixed to be used for a mikveh once enough rainwater enters so that according to our calculation there’s none of the original drawn water besides something minimal less than 3 lug.^[120] The way this is calculated is by the use of two methods: 1) whatever proportion of the mikveh is drawn water that is the proportion of it that exits, or 2) by assuming that all the water that exits the mikveh is half drawn water and half rainwater. We are strict for the stringencies of each method.^[121]
If a mikveh less than 40 seah is invalidated with 3 lug of drawn water it can be fixed by having a bit more than 40 seah of rainwater enter and that amount exit.^[122] Some say that this is only effective if the rainwater exits by overflowing and not if it is drawn out.^[123]
If a mikveh that is invalid completely mixes with a mikveh that is valid, they are both considered valid.^[124]
If less than 3 lug of drawn water fall into a mikveh that is lacking 40 seah the mikveh is nonetheless invalid, until the more rainwater is added to complete the 40 seah and the drawn water doesn’t contribute to the measure of 40 seah.^[125] It doesn’t matter whether the drawn water is added in the beginning or at the end as long as the mikveh is lacking 40 seah.^[126]

Which Water Invalidates the Mikveh

Three lug of drawn water only invalidates the mikveh if it is a complete 3 lug or more and it looks like water. Less than 3 lug of drawn water together with some milk that fell into a lacking mikveh doesn’t invalid it. Water mixed with red^[127] wine that looks like wine doesn’t invalidate the lacking mikveh even if more than 3 lug entered.^[128]
Colored water invalidates a mikveh if there is 3 lugin of drawn colored water added to a incomplete mikveh.^[129]

Sheuvim for a Mayan

A spring that has drawn water added and the drawn water is in the majority it is only valid as a mikveh and not if it is moving. Some say that this is only if the drawn water was added to a still spring but if it was added to a moving spring the spring is still considered a spring, however, the halacha is strict in all cases to consider the spring with a majority drawn water to be like a mikveh.^[130]
If there was less than 40 seah in mayan and water added and then removed and made into mikveh is it kosher.^[131]

Sheuvim for a Mikveh

A pit that was filled up with rainwater but it wasn’t 40 seah and nearby there were three small holes filled up with drawn water and then the water from the pit subsumes the drawn water in the holes. If it is known that the pit had 40 seah of rainwater before the drawn was added it is fit. If not, it is invalid.^[132]

Sheuvim without a Vessel, Drawn by a Person

Water that is poured by a person into a mikveh even if it wasn't in a kli is still invalid like sheuvim.^[133]
See the Tefisat_Yedey_Adam page for details.

If the Status of a Mikveh Is in Question Because of Sheuvim

If there’s a doubt if the water became sheuvim the mikveh is kosher. According to Ashkenazim it is only kosher if the doubt is whether 3 lugim entered it but not if the question is whether it is completely made of sheuvim.^[134]
If a person saw that a mikveh was empty and later came back and it was full he can assume that it was filled up with rainwater because most people involved with making mikvaot are experts.^[135]
If there’s two mikvaot each of which with less than 40 seah and 3 lugim of sheuvim fell into one of them and one doesn't know which one it fell into, they are both invalid.^[136] If the mikveh was then completed with rainwater so that it had 40 seah, one shouldn’t go into the mikveh but after the fact if one did one can rely on the fact that it was kosher.^[137]
If there’s two mikvaot each of which with less than 40 seah and 3 lugim of sheuvim fell into one of them and one does know which one it fell into, and then another 3 lugim of sheuvim falls into one of them, one can assume that it fell into the invalid one and the other is kosher after you add rainwater so that it has 40 seah of rainwater.^[138]
If there’s two mikvaot each of which with less than 40 seah and 3 lugim of sheuvim fell into one of them and one doesn’t know which one it fell into, and then another 3 lugim of sheuvim falls into one of them and one does know which one it fell into, one can’t assume that the second set of sheuvim fell into the same one that the first 3 lugim fell into and therefore both are invalid.^[139]
If there were two mikvaot one with more than 40 seah and one with less than 40 seah and 3 lugim of sheuvim fell into one of them, and one doesn't know which one it fell into, they are both valid after adding more rainwater so that they both certainly have more than 40 seah of rainwater. ^[140]
If there were two mikvaot one which was invalid with sheuvim and one which was valid but lacking and 3 lugim fell into one of them one can assume it fell into the invalid one and the valid one is kosher after more rainwater is added so that it has 40 seah.^[141]
If there’s rainwater which flowed into a mikveh and there’s a doubt if it went through a vessel next to the mikveh before entering the mikveh it is invalid unless there was majority of a kosher mikveh in the mikveh to begin with.^[142]

Tefisat Yadey Adam Grama

The main discussion of Tefisat Yedey Adam is on its own page.
If the water was drawn into a mikveh using an indirect or delayed reaction according to some poskim it is valid as it wasn’t drawn by a person directly, while according to other it is invalid since it created artificially and not naturally.^[143]

Zeriya

If sheuvim is poured into a complete mikveh and no sheuvim water is removed it is kosher, even if more than 40 seah of sheuvim is added. This is true even if as a result of the sheuvim being added, water overflows and exits the complete mikveh.^[144] However, there is a minority opinion who holds that it is invalid once a majority of the original water leaves, even if it just leaves by overflowing.^[145]
If sheuvim is poured into a complete mikveh, some rishonim say that the sheuvim water remains sheuvim as long as the sheuvim stayed in one place. Once they got mixed around in the mikveh they become like mikveh water.^[146]
If sheuvim is poured into a complete mikveh and then the sheuvim water flowed into another mikveh, some rishonim hold that the sheuvim water is still kosher as a mikveh.^[147] Others hold that after the zeriya water flowed into another mikveh they're no longer kosher. It is good to be strict for this view.^[148]
Chatom Sofer YD 2:211 s.v. v'l'inyan distinguishes between zeriya of water into other water and just connecting them through hashaka.

Natan Seah Vnatal Seah

If a complete mikveh has drawn water put in and removed consecutively such that a majority of 40 seah of the original water was removed according to some rishonim it is completely valid, while according to others it is invalid. We are strict to avoid this but in extenuating circumstances if there’s no other mikveh available we can be lenient.^[149]
Some say that the issue of natan seah vnatal seah is solved by having water flow into the mikveh and flow out since it isn’t similar to drawing water out with a vessel. Other disagree.^[150]
Some say that the issue of natan seah vnatal seah is solved by having water flow along the ground (hamshacha) for 3 tefachim before it enters the mikveh.^[151]
Some say that the issue of natan seah vnatal seah is solved by having a temporary hashaka.^[152] Others hold that this doesn't solve anything.^[153]
Some say that the issue of natan seah vnatal seah is solved by pouring in hot water on top of cold water and only removing the hot water from on top.^[154]

Snow and Ice

Snow or ice that was carried in a vessel or pipe isn’t considered drawn water after it melts. However, because some rishonim are strict one shouldn’t create a mikveh initially from tap water that was frozen and melted.^[155]
In extenuating circumstances, it is possible to create a mikveh by freezing tap water, placing it in a mikveh, and having it melt. This should not be relied upon without consulting a great posek.^[156]
Using an ice machine to create ice is a discussion in the poskim. Some hold it is invalid even after the fact,^[157] however, others hold it is acceptable in an extenuating circumstance.^[158]
Moving snow with something that is susceptible to tumah isn’t an issue.^[159]

Hamshacha

Why does hamshacha work? Some rishonim hold that hamshacha makes the water like water coming out of the ground. Since it is water from the ground it is no longer sheuvim. That approach requires that the water run on top of ground that can absorb.^[160] Some rishonim hold that hamshacha is just a way of separating the water from the kli. Water isn't considered sheuvim as long as it doesn't enter the mikveh directly from a kli. Once it runs along something else it isn't considered sheuvim from a kli anymore.^[161]

Does Hamshacha work for a Completely Shevuim Mikveh?

A mikveh that has 20 seah and a bit^[162] of rainwater and the rest of the mikveh is filled up with drawn water that was drawn along the ground is kosher.^[163]
A mikveh that was made completely with drawn water that was drawn along the ground according to a minority opinion is kosher but that opinion isn’t accepted and therefore, such a mikveh is invalid.^[164]
If drawn water mixes into a majority of rainwater and there’s hamshacha afterwards the mikveh is valid.^[165]
Even if drawn water is only invalid midrabbanan, hamshacha on all of all 40 seah does not make it valid.^[166]

Type of Ground Necessary for Hamshacha

Hamshacha needs to be the length of 3 tefachim.^[167]
According to Ashkenazim, hamshacha needs to be on ground that could absorb water. According to Sephardim it isn’t necessary.^[168]
Whether hamshacha must be done on top of dirt or can be done on top of a kli attached to the ground is a dispute.^[169]
Cement absorbs water and is fit for hamshacha.^[170]
A spring that filled up a mikveh and during the summer it dried out, if a nearby pit is filled up with water and that water drained into the ground and the spring is filled up with that water from the pit the spring can be used as a kosher mikveh.^[171]

Hamshacha in the Direction of the Mikveh

Some poskim hold that hamshacha is only effective if it is poured away from the mikveh but if a person poured water in the direction of the mikveh even if there is hamshacha it is invalid.^[172]

Hashaka

It is possible to validate an entire pit of drawn water by connecting with a mikveh momentarily,^[173] however, some say that the connection needs to remain open for the drawn water to remain fit.^[174] There is a minority opinion that hashaka doesn't work at all for sheuvim,^[175] but it is completely rejected from the halacha.^[176]
According to some poskim, one can’t add sheuvim water to a mikveh which has 40 seah but is very shallow so that a person couldn’t go to the mikveh in it. According to these poskim until the mikveh is fit to dip in one shouldn’t add sheuvim.^[177]

Size of Hashaka Hole

According to Ashkenazim, the connection between the rainwater pit and sheuvim pit has to be a hole that has a diameter of 2 fingerbreadths that can turn around, while according to Sephardim a hole of any size would suffice.^[178] That is for hashaka to sheuvim. However, in order to join two pits, both of which aren't 40 seah, or one which is 40 seah and one that isn't, it is certainly necessary to have a hole with a diameter of 2 fingerbreadths.^[179]
The 2 fingerbreadths are measured by the middle fingers and not the thumb or pinky.^[180]

Hashaka with Sheuvim

In order to create a connection between a mikveh and a pit of drawn water and validate all of the water, the hole connecting the two needs to be the size of a shifoferet hanod. The shifoferet hanod is two fingerbreadths turned in a circle.^[181]
The shifoferet hanod hole is only effective if it is complete full of water.^[182]
If the hole might be the size of a shifoferet hanod but it is unclear it is an invalid connection between mikvaot.^[183]
If there’s something blocking the transference of water stuck in the hole it is invalid.^[184]
A lot of small holes don’t add up to be one hole that would connect mikvaot.^[185]
A connection between drawn water and a mayan also requires a shifiret hanod.^[186]

A Momentary Hashaka

A momentary hashaka according to most poskim is enough to validate the drawn water. However, because there are some who disagree it is preferable to be strict.^[187]

Hashaka with Zochlin

If the kosher rainwater pit is moving and the other pit of sheuvim water is stationary, some rishonim hold that there is hashaka to validate the sheuvim water. Others hold that it is invalid and there's no hashaka as long as the kosher water is moving.^[188]
Seemingly, the Mishna (Mikvaot 6:8) is a clear proof that zochlin can make zeriya for sheuvim water. There, a person is pouring in sheuvim water into a kosher mikveh and the water overflows into another mikveh. The mishna says that the bottom mikveh is kosher. The top mikveh is zochlin as it is overflowing but still it creates zeriya. Har Tzvi (YD 174) answers that the case of the Mishna is where after he made the water overflow he added a pipe for hashaka. Chazon Ish (Tanina 3:12) tries to answer that the case is where he pours the sheuvim in with a lot of strength so that all of the sheuvim remains in the top mikveh and the only thing that overflows is the kosher water.

Hashaka between Shuevim or Mey Geshamim and a Mayan

The Mishna^[189] clearly states that a mayan which has a majority of sheuvim water is treated like a mikveh that it can only purify while standing still (eshborin). The Raah^[190] is bothered why this is the case if hashaka works to purify sheuvim water to become non-sheuvim in a mikveh. He answers that in fact hashaka is relevant to convert sheuvim water into mayan water to purify even will moving (zochlin). He explains that the Mishna means that in the place where the mayan flowed originally it is still a mayan, but in the places where it expanded or went further than before the sheuvim was added it is treated as a mikveh. However, the rest of the rishonim firmly disagree with this view and do not accept hashaka of sheuvim with a mayan.^[191]
Several explanations are provided why hashaka doesn't work here:
1. Ritva^[192] explains that hashaka with sheuvim only works since sheuvim is really rabbinic even if there's a majority of sheuvim the mikveh is still kosher from the Torah. Since it is rabbinic the rabbis allowed added a lot of sheuvim to a complete mikveh even if the result will be that there is more sheuvim than mikveh water. However, zochlin is a Torah invalidation of mikveh water and so it can't be fixed with hashaka.
2. Trumat Hadeshen^[193] writes that the reason hashaka works for sheuvim is because sheuvim is only invalid since it is detached from the ground. Hashaka reattaches to a mikveh and makes it like it is touching the ground. However, zochlin is a different invalidation that the Torah stated and for that hashaka doesn't help.
There is no distinction between sheuvim water and rain water for this discussion of hashaka with a mayan.^[194]
Does bitul of rov help to purify sheuvim water in a mayan? Several rishonim hold that bitul is helpful to allow sheuvim water or rain water in a mayan to become acceptable like mayan water.^[195] Within these rishonim they argue whether it is possible to have kama kama batel, consecutive bitul of a little bit at a time. Some rishonim hold that it is batel a little at a time^[196] and others hold it isn't.^[197]

Hashaka with Mikveh that doesn’t have 40 seah

If there’s drawn water next to a mikveh that is lacking 40 seah and the drawn water is connected with a small hole that doesn’t invalidate the mikveh because that drawn water is merely touching the mikveh and not mixed in it.^[198] The hole has to be small enough that from the hole to the opposite wall the amount of water that would be contained in such a cylinder or box is less than 3 lug. If the hole was the size that opposing it is 3 lug of water then the drawn water invalidates the mikveh. ^[199] If the mikveh has 40 seah it is kosher.^[200]
If there was drawn water in the middle of a lacking mikveh it would invalidate the mikveh.^[201]

Placement of Hashaka Hole

The hashaka hole should be placed high enough that below it there is 40 seah in the rainwater mikveh.^[202]

Hashaka of Different Types of Water

Some say that one can’t do hashaka of a rainwater mikveh to a spring.^[203]
Hashaka to ice according to some poskim is valid.^[204]

Joining Mikveh or Using Hashaka with Katafras

Water running down a slope is katafras and is considered not connected for a mikvah. Therefore, even if there are 40 seah of rainwater on the slope that water doesn't joint together to be considered a kosher mikvah.^[205]
Some rishonim define katafras as moving water.^[206]
A river isn’t considered katafras.^[207]
The Divrei Chaim holds that hashaka is invalid unless it is in the horizontal direction and invalid if it is vertical or slanted. However, most poskim disagree and validate such a mikveh with a vertical hashaka hole. Nonetheless, ideally the hashaka hole should be straight. If the hashaka hole is slanted or vertical it is valid.^[208]
The water on the steps are connected to the water in the mikveh even if it isn’t 40 seah.^[209] According to those who think that the stairs aren’t connected with the mikveh one should avoid having the hashaka hole on the stairs.^[210]
Some rishonim who hold that sheuvim is only derabbanan hold that katafras is a connection to purify sheuvim.^[211]
Some say that if water is in a pipe that is on a slant connecting two mikvaot that isn't katafras because the top water will eventually end up in the bottom mikvah.^[212]

Connecting Pits of Water into One Mikveh

If there are three pits of twenty seah each, the middle one filled with drawn water and the others rainwater, and three people dip in these pits so that they overflow and connect, they are just as unfit as they were beforehand.^[213]
There are three pits on a slope, the with twenty seah, the bottom with twenty seah, and the middle with forty seah. If there is water streaming between them, according to some rishonim we say that the bottom one is connected with the middle one, while the halacha follows the rishonim who say that only the middle pit is valid.^[214]
If there are three pits of twenty seah each, one side one filled with drawn water and the others rainwater, and three people dip in these pits so that they overflow and connect, they are all considered fit since they combine together when the people went inside and the two pits of rainwater connected.^[215] Practically, each pit of twenty seah isn’t fit until another twenty seah is added because a complete mikveh is forty seah.^[216]
If there are two pits of twenty seah, one with drawn water, one with rainwater and they connect they remain as they were beforehand.^[217]
A mikveh on top of a mikveh can be joined to be one mikveh if there is a hole the size of two fingerbreadths in diameter between them.^[218]

Tevilah in and on a Kli

One may not go to mikveh in a kli and that is invalid biblically.^[219]
Biblically one may not dip in a vessel.^[220]
A moving mikveh on the back of a truck is questionable.^[221]

A vessel attached to the ground with and without a hole

If the vessel attached to the ground and is connected to a mikveh or mayan through a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths it is biblically considered connected to the mikveh or mayan, but nonetheless rabbinically one may not dip in such a vessel.^[222]
If there’s water going into a vessel it is invalid to be used for tevilah and the water that dribbles out of the vessel is also invalid.^[223]
If there’s a vessel that can contain 3 lug that’s built into the floor of the mikveh in the middle it invalidates the mikveh since it is seen as though all of the water above the vessel is contained in the vessel and drawn water invalidates a mikveh. However, if the vessel is build into the side of the mikveh it is kosher since the drawn water in the vessel merely touches the mikveh and doesn’t invalidate it.^[224] This is only invalid if the mikveh has less than 40 seah.^[225]
If there’s a vessel built into the bottom of the mikveh used to keep in all of the water in the mikveh and if it is drained there will be no more water in the mikveh then it is invalid even if there’s 40 seah since it is all drawn water.^[226]
Even a kli larger than 40 seah is invalid to be used to hold the water of the mikveh.^[227]
If there’s a vessel which has a hole of two fingerbreadths and through it there’s a connection to a spring and there’s water exiting the vessel, the vessel is invalid as a mikveh and the water that exiting the vessel is also invalid.^[228]
If there’s a vessel with a rim which water from a spring is flowing into and also out of all of the water is fit as a spring since the water on the rim connects the water in the vessel with the water in the vessel and makes it valid.^[229]
A person can immerse a vessel inside another vessel even if the outer vessel has a mouth smaller than a two fingerbreadth diameter as long as the immersion is effective for both the inner and outer vessel. In this case the immersion is only effective if the outer vessel mouth’s is vertical and not horizontal. However, if the immersion is only effective for the inner vessel then it is only effective if the mouth of the outer vessel has a two fingerbreadth diameter.^[230]
If the outer vessel is obligated in tevilat kelim rabbinically and the inner one biblically then the inner vessel isn’t considered as though it had tevilah unless the opening of the mouth is two fingerbreadths in diameter. ^[231]
A person can immerse inside of a bag that is porous.^[232]
In theory a woman may immerse while wearing her clothing if they are loose. In an extenuating circumstance she may immerse while wearing socks and shoes.^[233]

Punctured on the Bottom

If a vessel is punctured on the bottom, according to some rishonim even if it has a tiny hole it isn’t considered a vessel and doesn’t create drawn water. The poskim don’t accept this opinion.^[234] If can hold even a little bit of water it is a vessel and invalid.^[235]
If a vessel is punctured on the bottom, according to most opinions if the hole has the diameter of two fingerbreadths it isn’t a vessel and doesn’t create drawn water. It is even kosher to immerse in that vessel. This is accepted by the halacha. However, some rishonim explain that even though such a vessel isn’t considered a vessel for drawn water it is still considered a vessel such that one may not immerse in it. Many rishonim disagree and the halacha follows their lenient opinion.^[236] If can hold even a little bit of water it is a vessel and invalid.^[237]
1. If the vessel attached to the ground and is punctured by a hole on the bottom of the mikveh with a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths, whether that hole was made before or after the vessel was attached to the ground,^[238] then it can be used for a mikveh. It isn’t a vessel to create drawn water and also one may even dip in such a vessel since it isn’t considered a vessel once it has a hole and is attached to the ground.^[239]
If a vessel is punctured on the bottom, according to all opinions if the hole has a diameter of a pomegranate it isn’t a vessel and doesn’t create drawn water. Additionally, all agree that a person can immerse in such a vessel.^[240] If can hold even a little bit of water it is a vessel and invalid.^[241]

A Vessel Floating in the Mikveh

A vessel not attached to the ground floating in the mikveh doesn’t invalidate it and the water inside it isn’t considered drawn water.^[242]
A sponge which was filled up with 3 lug of drawn water or a bottle with a small opening and it was filled with 3 lug of water if that sponge or bottle fall into a mikveh which is lacking 40 seah, they don’t invalidate it since the water is inside them isn’t connected to the mikveh. If the water were to be squeezed out of the sponge or spilled out of the bottle it would invalidate the mikveh.^[243]
If there is a clothing partially in the mikveh and a person squeezes water out of it into the mikveh it is considered drawn water to invalidate a mikveh with 3 lug. Some say that this is only the case if it is completely picked up out of the mikveh, while others say it is even if it is partially out of the water.^[244]

On the Back of Vessels

If water flows over the back of vessels the water is valid as a mikveh, meaning that it is valid when it is 40 seah and stopped.^[245] However, one may not immerse on top of any type of vessels.^[246]
If part of the water is flowing over an inverted vessel and part of it isn’t and they are all connected then all of the water is valid as a spring.^[247]

A vessel created before or after it was attached to the ground

A pipe that was chiseled out and then attached to the ground is invalid for a mikveh^[248] unless a hole on the bottom with a diameter of two fingerbreadths is made in it.^[249]
A stone or cement that was attached to the ground and then chiseled out to be used as a pipe or vessel isn't considered a vessel and doesn’t create drawn water.^[250] Some say that one may even dip in such a vessel while others hold that one may not actually dip in such a vessel.^[251]

A vessel inside the mikveh

If the vessel is built into the bottom of the mikveh or mayan, even though some rishonim hold that one may dip in such a mikveh or mayan, the halacha is that one may not dip in such of a mikveh or mayan rabbinically.^[252]
If the vessel is inside of a mikveh or mayan and has a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths some rishonim say that it is fit to go inside of that vessel that is surrounded by water on all sides but the halacha is that it is ineffective.^[253]
One may not go to mikveh standing on top of a kli. ^[254]

Building a Mikveh so It Isn’t a Vessel

Reinforced concrete with metal rods in the cement is a discussion in the poskim if it is acceptable.^[255]
It is permitted to make a mikveh with stones that are attached to the ground isn’t considered a vessel even though the complete mikveh could hold water.^[256]
Making a mikveh with cement is acceptable. Even though it is appears to be one unit after it dries as though it was a vessel, it is considered building a structure and not creating a vessel. Also, the cement frame can’t be lifted up as a unit like a vessel.^[257]
A complete vessel such as a bathtub which was a vessel before it was attached to the ground is an invalid mikveh.^[258]
A mikveh made of pre-made cement slabs, one per wall and one for the floor, is questionable.^[259]
Some mikvaot are made by starting with a cement floor. Then a cement piece with four walls and a divider is placed on top of the floor to establish the mikveh with a hashaka mikveh. Some poskim are weary of using such a mikveh, while others are lenient.^[260]

A Colored Mikveh

From the Torah or Rabbinic

A mikveh whose water changed colors from the original look of the water even if it doesn’t look like wine or another liquid^[261] is invalid. There is a dispute whether this invalidation is rabbinic or biblical.^[262]

What Types of Color Changes Invalidate a Mikveh?

A mikveh that changed colors on its own is valid.^[263]
A colored mikveh is only invalid if the actual coloring agent is added to the mikveh such as wine or dye, but not if it is only colored because of something else such as colored or dirty water.^[264]
A mikveh that was incomplete and wine was added so that the color of all of it changed then even if drawn water is then added it isn’t invalidated because of drawn water. The reason is that while it is a colored mikveh it isn't considered like a mikveh and drawn water doesn’t invalidate it. Afterwards, if more kosher water is added such that the whole mikveh returns to the original color it is fit.^[265] If the drawn water is added in order to change the mikveh back to the color of water, some say that it is invalid,^[266] while others hold that it is kosher if more rainwater is added to complete the requisite 40 seah.^[267]
Some poskim hold that a mikveh that is incomplete and invalidated because 3 lug or more of drawn water was added can be fixed as follows: wine is added so that the entire mikveh changes the look of wine, then more water is added until its original color returns. However, many poskim hold that this isn’t solution doesn’t work.^[268] Even the lenient opinion can be relied upon if the original invalidation was only rabbinic and not biblical.^[269]
It is permitted to add chlorine powder to a complete mikveh if it doesn’t change its color.^[270]
If part of the mikveh changed colors that area doesn’t count towards the mikveh, but if there’s 40 seah that is unchanged it is a kosher mikveh, if one dips in the area that didn’t change colors.^[271]
A colored mikveh is invalid even if the color changes after it has 40 seah.^[272]
If water changed colors because of smoke from being heated up is invalid according to some poskim.^[273]

Fixing a Colored Mikveh

A colored mikveh can be fixed by having it connected to a spring.^[274]
A colored mikveh can be fixed by having more water added to it to change its color back to regular water. If the mikveh has 40 seah the water added can even be drawn water.^[275]

A Colored Mayan

Many rishonim hold that a mayan cannot be invalidated with a change in color.^[276] However, others hold it is invalidated by a change in color.^[277]

Creation of a Mikveh through Something Susceptible to Tumah

A mikveh may not be created by the use of something that is susceptible to tumah otherwise it is invalid.^[278] This invalidation is biblical and applies to mikveh.^[279]
If the mikveh that was created with something that is susceptible to tumah and is invalid is connected to a mayan it is fixed and made valid again. However, some hold that it is still invalid.^[280]
If 3 lugin are held by something that that is susceptible to tumah, according to some poskim that could invalidate an incomplete mikveh.^[281] However, some poskim argue that this invalidation is only an issue if it is the majority of the mikveh.^[282]
A flat wooden board without edges that is used to direct water into a mikveh if the water would have flowed that way anyway it is valid, if not, some poskim say it is valid and others hold it is invalid.^[283] The poskim are only strict if the wooden board was used to service people and utensils such as a tray, table, and bed board.^[284]
Metal nails aren't mekabel tumah.^[285]

Attached to the ground

A flat metal utensil is susceptible to tumah unless it is made to be attached to the ground and is attached to the ground.^[286]
If a new metal piece (such as a pipe) is bought brand new and it isn't clear if it was made to be used for the ground, some say that it isn't mekabel tumah since it was made with no intentions at all. The intention of the buyer establishes it as something to be used for the ground.^[287] Others are lenient for another reason if it is unclear why the piece was made we can follow the intention of the buyer for another reason.^[288]
If a pipe is built into the ground and cement poured upon it so it is part of the wall, it isn't mekabel tumah.^[289]
A drain made out of metal should be made from new metal, made in order to be attached to the ground, and then attached to the ground with hinges so it is never detached.^[290]

If the water would have reached the mikveh anyway

If the mikveh is created with something that is susceptible to tumah, but the water would have flowed that way anyway to create the mikveh, the mikveh is valid.^[291]
If the water flows over something that is susceptible to tumah but the water afterwards flows over wood, dirt, or something that isn’t susceptible to tumah at all the resultant mikveh is kosher.^[292] Some say that this is only true if the water would have flowed into the mikveh without the vessel that is susceptible to tumah.^[293]

Stopping Water from Exiting

If a vessel that is susceptible to tumah is used to plug up a hole in the mikveh the entire mikveh is invalid because without that plug the mikveh would be invalid as the water would flow up and having the plug there is considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah.^[294]
If a vessel that is susceptible to tumah is used to repair a mikveh when the mikveh is completely valid but without the repair there is a concern it will later become invalid, the mikveh is valid.^[295]

If Water is Attached to the Mikveh or Spring

If the water flows over something that is susceptible to tumah the water is invalid for a mikveh, however, if the water is attached to a complete mikveh or a spring, some rishonim hold it is valid but others hold it is still invalid.^[296]

If there's a break between the item susceptible to tumah and the mikveh

If the item that is susceptible to tumah, such as a metal pipe, isn't directly touching the mikveh and the water from the pipe first goes onto something else before going into the mikveh, it is valid.^[297]
If the metal pipe goes into the airspace of the mikveh, the water is invalid even though the water traveled through the airspace of the mikveh before going into the water of the mikveh.^[298]

Indirectly using something that is susceptible to tumah

Using a vessel which is susceptible to tumah even if it is only indirectly holding the water is a problem. ^[299]

Trust Regarding the Maintenance of a Mikveh

Non-Jewish Owned Mikveh

If a non-Jew owns a mikveh if you know that there was always at least 21 seah some say that you can be lenient to rely on the non-Jew who says that it was completed with rainwater. Many poskim hold that you can’t be lenient.^[300]

Individual Jew

An Jewish individual is trusted regarding the status of the mikveh if it is in his hands to fix it.^[301]

Assessing the Status of an Unknown Mikveh

If someone finds a man made pit of water in Israel outside of a city it is assumed to be rainwater and a kosher mikveh, but in the Diaspora it is assumed to be a non-kosher mikveh. Nowadays the assumption that it is a kosher mikveh doesn't even apply in Israel.^[302]
If you know that a natural pit filled with water such as in a field it is assumed to be rainwater and is a valid mikveh.^[303]

Modern Mikvaot

See the Modern_Mikvaot page for the six types of modern mikvaot and relevant diagrams.

Sources

↑ Even though there is an opinion that Rashi Shabbat 65 s.v. vsaver cites that a zavah needs to dip in a mayan and a mikveh is insufficient, Rashi rejects it in several places based on a Tosefta Zavim 3:1. See Rashi Bechorot 58b s.v. mikveh. Shaarei Teshuva of the Geonim 164 written by Rav Natronai Goan holds that a zavah. Tosefta Megillah 1:11 explicitly holds that a Zavah doesn’t need a mayan. The Ramban Vayikra 15:11 points out that the simple explanation of the pesukim is that a zavah can’t go in a mikveh and needs a mayan but that isn’t the explanation of chazal. Rav Yakov Emden in Yavetz responsa 88 defends the teacher of Rashi by saying we don’t follow the Tosefta. See Aruch Lener Niddah 67a who provides another defense of this approach. Either way, this opinion was rejected by many poskim. Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5 and Rosh ad loc. hold that a zavah doesn’t need a mayan. Bet Yosef YD 200:1 quotes the Rambam Mikveh 1:5, Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 1), Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 200:1 conclude that a zavah is purified by a mikveh. The Bach 200:2 explains that really this opinion is only rabbinic and it is supported by Nedarim 40b. Either way, the Bach concludes that it was rejected by all of the poskim.
↑ Chulin 31a, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 197:1. Rishonim Mikvaot (Miyulim Lhaarot Bahag 1) writes that although the text of Bahag implies that the tevilah of niddah is only derabbanan, this is impossible because Bahag later writes that it is learned from a hekesh. All the rishonim and achronim conclude that tevilah of niddah is from the Torah and either there is a mistake in the text of Bahag or he meant something else. They quote Anfei Yehuda who says that Bahag meant tevilah bizmano is only derabbanan and they suggest he means that tevilah of niddah in mayim chayaim is only derabbanan.
↑ Rivash 294 clarifies that this minimum size of 40 seah is from the Torah.
↑ The Gemara Avoda Zara 75b derives from Torah that a mikveh requires 40 seah at a minimum, which is measured by 1 amah x 1 amah x 3 amot. The same idea is found in Eruvin 4b and Torat Kohanim Shemini 9.
↑ Bet Yosef YD 198:1 cites the Sifra Emor 4:7 which derives from the pasuk Vayikra 22:6 that a person is only purified by going to the mikveh if one is completely covered by the water at one time. That is codified by Shulchan Aruch 198:1.
↑ Rav Chaim Noeh in Shiurei Torah (3:29 p. 257) writes that since there’s a 24 log in a seah, 4 reviyot in a log, and 27 dirham in a reviyit, each of which is 3.2 grams of water in a mikveh of 40 seah there is 24*4*27*3.2*40=331,776 grams = 331.8 liters. He says that since perhaps the water measures of the Rambam are slightly different in other waters he says it is sufficient to add 3% which is another 10 liters, altogether 342 liters is certainly sufficient. However, the minhag is to use double or quadruple that amount.
↑ Aruch Hashulchan 201:10 writes that obviously if there's a large person who can't fit in a mikveh for 40 seah needs to dip in a mikveh that's larger than 40 seah. Darkei Teshuva 201:2 asks that it seems that 40 seah is a halacha lmoshe msinai in all cases and having more is only rabbinic. Rav Schachter in Bet Yosef Shaul v. 2 writes that the Aruch Hashulchan is right.
↑ Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef YD 200:1
↑ Tashbetz 1:17 cited by Bet Yosef YD 200:1, Tosfot Yoma 31a s.v. amah
↑
The Mishna Mikvaot 2:10 establishes that thin mud can count for a mikveh. The mishna provides six definitions of how thick that is. The Gemara Zevachim 22a says another measure altogether; it says that if the mud is so thin that a cow would drink it it is considered water for a mikveh. Rambam Mikvaot 8:9 and Smag Asin 248 rule like the Gemara Zevachim. However, the Smak 294 rules like the Mishna. Yet, the Rash Mikvaot 2:10 and Tosfot Sukkot 19b explain that the Mishna’s six opinions are merely describing more precisely the measure of what a cow would drink. The Bet Yosef 201:32 understood the Rash to mean that we should simply follow the Gemara and that would correspond with the Mishna. That’s why he writes that the Rambam agrees with the Rash (Divrei Yosef p. 244). However, the text of the Rash (unlike what the Bet Yosef quoted) actually states that the measures that the mishna gave are objective and we couldn’t just measure ourselves with a cow today because the determination of exactly was is normal drinking of a cow was established by chazal in his dispute.
- According to the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch we should measure the mud with a cow today. But according to the Rash and Smak we would follow the most stringent opinion of the mishna which is that it is only thin if a straw would be placed in it and it would fall in. The Divrei Yosef explains the Shulchan Aruch, while the Bear Hagolah 201:72 and Chelkat Binyamin 201:470 follow the Rash.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 2:10, Rambam Mikvaot 8:10, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:32
↑ Gemara Zevachim 22a establishes that anything which grows in the water can be used for a mikveh. The Rambam Mikvaot 8:11 rules that the eye of a fish can be used for a mikveh. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:33 codifies this.
↑ Chelkat Binyamin 201:468 writes that the creatures can only possibly be considered part of the mikveh if they are liquified. He cites the Aruch Hashulchan 160:16. See also Rashi Zevachim 22a.
↑ Ran responsa 66 explains that with a pit in the ground with water it is possible for the water level to change naturally. If it is known that would naturally decreases to below 40 seah and then increases again it is a problem for the one going in the mikveh unless they know at the time when they’re going to the mikveh that there’s 40 seah. The reason is that a chazaka established kosher status, which naturally changes doesn’t count as a chazaka (Kiddushin 79a). If it happens that it decreases and increases naturally but it isn’t known that it ever decreased to less than 40 seah there’s no problem and one can rely on the original chazaka of the mikveh. Yet, it is proper to check that the mikveh has 40 seah before going to the mikveh since it is possible to check in advance a person shouldn’t rely on a chazaka (pesachim 4a). Shulchan Aruch 201:65 codifies the Ran. Taz 201:85 adds that it is usually sufficient to know that there’s 40 seah afterwards to permit all of previous dippings and it isn’t necessary to know that it was 40 seah to begin with. Shaarei Mikavot 201:275 is only lenient for rabbinic tumahs.
↑ Niddah 2b, Rambam Mikvaot 10:6, Shulchan Aruch 201:65
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 7:6 presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis if the second person who goes to mikveh while the first person is still standing in the mikveh had a valid dipping. Rabbi Yehuda holds it is valid since the water on his body is considered connected to the mikveh based on the principle of gud achit. However, the rabbis hold that gud achit doesn’t apply to Mikvaot. Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 and Tur 201:62 hold like Rabbi Yehuda, while the Rambam Mikvaot 8:12 and Raavad Baalei Hanefesh (cited by Bet Yosef 201:62) hold like the rabbis. Shulchan Aruch 201:62 follows the Rambam.
↑ Rambam Mikvaot 8:12 implies that a cloth that is partially touching a mikveh the water inside is considered connected to the mikveh. The Rivash 292 explains that the water in the cloth is considered connected to the mikveh even though we don’t hold of gud achit since part of the cloth is still in the water all of the absorbed water is considered a connected unit together with the water. Shach 201:131 agrees. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:63 codifies the Rambam.
↑ Tosefta Mikavot 3:2 establishes that a cloth removed from a mikveh makes the water in it sheuvim. Divrei Dovid p. 454 quotes the Tiferet Yisrael Boaz 6:6 who explained that the water is absorbed in the cloth unlike a reed basket or vessel with many holes that can’t hold water. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:63 codifies the Tosefta.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 5:7 states that all small holes or animal footprints are connected to the mikveh. The Rosh explains that they are connected if there’s a small hole of two fingerbreadths connecting them to the mikveh. Rambam Mikvaot 8:1 and Shulchan Aruch 201:57 agree.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 6:1, explanation of the Rosh, Shulchan Aruch 201:58
↑ Pri Deah (Siftei Levi 201:125) explaining Shulchan Aruch 201:58
↑ The Rambam Pirush Mishnayot 6:1 writes that if the wall is thin and can’t stand up on its own the crevice is part of the mikveh. He implies that it is possible to dip a vessel in there even if it doesn’t have a reviyit. The Shach 201:127 rules that it is obvious that the crevice needs a reviyit to purify a vessel. The Pri Deah (Siftei Levi 201:125) cites a Raavad that supports the Shach.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 6:1, explanation of the Rosh, Shulchan Aruch 201:59
↑ The Rama 201:57 quotes the Rosh who learns from the mishna that a splash is connected to a mikveh but once it is detached it is invalid unless it is 40 seah. The Shach 201:123 and Taz 201:74 explain that it isn’t considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah when the person pushes the water to extend to the vessel because (1) that extension is attached to the mikveh and according to the Rosh there’s no issue of water being transferred by something that is susceptible to tumah if it is all connected to the mikveh and (2) the water being splashed out isn’t directly touching the hand and that small separation is sufficient that it isn’t considered water that was drawn by something that is susceptible to tumah Maharit YD 17 adds similarly that it isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam since you only pushed the water in the mikveh and that water pushed other water which eventually left the mikveh. Since the water one touched was attached to the mikveh and the water which left isn’t koach adam (but koach sheni) it isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam.
↑ Maharik holds that a well dug in the ground and water is found is considered like a mayan. He is disagreeing with Rash Mikvaot 1. Mishkenot Yakov 45 agrees with Maharik.
↑ Tosefta MIkvaot 1:6 writes that someone who digs next to a river or ocean is considered like mey tamsiyut (water leaching from the ground) and not a mayan. Rambam codifies this. However, Rama 201:52 seems to rule otherwise based on Ravyah that water next to a river has the status of a mayan. Mishkenot Yakov 45 writes that we follow the Tosefta. Also, he writes that in the European countries it is impossible to know whether the well is dug too close to the river whether it is a mayan or mikveh. Therefore, our mikvaot should be treated as a mikveh and not mayan. Gidulei Tahara (Shaayla 2 s.v. umah) presents 6 factors of how to determine if the spring is a real spring or it is from river water. The main 3 factors are: 1) Spring water comes from between rocks. 2) Spring water goes up from below and river water comes from the side. 3) Spring water is consistent and continuous. Lechem 201:74 quotes this.
↑ Torat Kohanim 9
↑ Rosh (Mikvaot no. 2) cites the Ri as holding that a mayan only purifies a kli with any amount but a person requires 40 seah. The Rosh agrees with the Ri. However, The Rambam Mikvaot 4:8 and Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh ch. 3 s.v. vhani mili) argue that a mayan is effective with any amount even for a person. Rashba (Torat Habayit 30b, Shaar Hamayim 11) agrees with the Rambam and Raavad. Shulchan Aruch 201:1 rules like the Ri.
↑ Rabbi Moshe ben Chisday (Mordechai 747) holds that a mayan becomes invalid if 3 lugin of sheuvim are added to the mayan. Rosh (Bava Kama 7:33), Mordechai (Shevuot 746) quoting a teshuva of baalei hatosfot, and Ritva Macot 4a s.v. od citing Tosfot agree with Rabbi Moshe ben Chisday. Gra 201:45 quotes this Rosh. Rash (Mikvaot 5:2) implies this as well, according to the Ri. Maharik 56 explains that their opinion is based on the fact that a mayan requires 40 seah for a person to be tovel in it (according to Ri). Therefore, a mayan without 40 seah isn't considered a complete mikveh and hashaka doesn't work. Rama 201:40 is strict for this opinion. Trumat Hadeshen is strict for this opinion, though it seems it is primarily because he thought that this was the view of Shiltot. (However, Shiltot really writes nothing about this and it seems that it became attributed to Shiltot from the vague presentation of Mordechai.)
↑ Mordechai Mikvaot 746 at the end cites a dispute about this point in which the Rav Chaim Ben Chisday ruled it was invalid, but the Mordechai didn’t understand why that would be the case and Rabbenu Simcha also was lenient. Maharam Rotenberg (Prague 217) and Rosh responsa 30:3-4 hold that it is kosher. Maharik 56 proves that Maharam, Rabbenu Simcha, Or Zaruah, Rambam, Raavad, Rosh, Rashba, and Tur all hold that the mayan is still valid. Bet Yosef 201:15 cites these sources. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:15 and 201:40 is lenient about this question.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, Rabbenu Chananel Shabbat 65b, Ramban Shabbat 65b in the name of Rabbenu Chananel
↑ Rashi Shabbat 65b s.v. vsaver
↑
- The Trumat Hadeshen 254 is bothered why a mikveh can transform sheuvim but a mayan doesn’t change moving rainwater isn’t mayan water. He explains that generally there’s no such thing as transforming water because it was mixed. For sheuvim when water is put in the mikveh it is like it is being reattached to the ground and that is the mechanism how it is transformed. Chazon Ish YD Mikvaot 3:2:16 explains the Trumat Hadeshen to mean that hashaka is invalid for zochlin since that is a biblical law that limits the leniency of moving water to where it naturally moved and not rainwater that was added to a river. The only exception to that is that actual spot of the spring which has a greater power to transform the rainwater and it is as though the spring grew.
- Some question the Trumat Hadeshen’s limitation of Hashaka (connecting invalid water to a mayan) with three precedents (Mikveh Tahara 201:10).
  - Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 11 40a) writes that connecting a mikveh to a mayan purifies it of its invalidation of the water changing colors even if the mayan doesn’t actually make the mayan change back to regular water. Shulchan Aruch 201:28 cites this.
  - Rashba ibid. also says that connecting an invalid mikveh to a mayan makes it valid if the mikveh was sheuvim. Shulchan Aruch 201:11 cites this.
  - Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 writes that a mikveh that was made with something that was susceptible to tumah is invalid but can be fixed by connected it to a mayan. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 cites this.
- The Bach 201:5 answers that since the invalidation of zochlin is biblical and sheuvim is rabbinic they allowed hashaka for sheuvim. The Ritva Nedarim 13b also answers this question that way.
- The Taz 201:3 disagrees with the Trumat Hadeshen’s premise and instead concludes that really a mayan can transform rainwater into mayan water but there’s a rabbinic restriction lest a person go to the mikveh that’s completely rainwater and is moving. Knesset Hagedola 201:1 and Gidulei Tahara 201:6 also assume this way that even if there’s a majority of rainwater in a river it is biblically kosher. Shaarei Mikvaot p. 7 writes that the achronim don’t accept the Taz.
↑
The Mishna Mikvaot 5:3 establishes that a mayan which was filled with a majority of rainwater has the status of a mikveh and is only fit if it isn’t moving. Rav (Nedarim 40b) is concerned that the same is true of every river. On this topic there are several approaches explained by the Ran Nedarim 40b and Bet Yosef 201:2:
- Rash holds that if there is a majority of drawn water, the mayan is invalid when moving.
- Raavad Mikvaot 9:11 explains that if the river was moving when a majority of rainwater entered it is still fit. However, in the areas of the river which expanded because of the rainwater are unfit.
- Maharik 115 explains that the majority of rainwater is only fit if that area of the river was originally moving when the rainwater entered. This is accepted by the Shach 201:11.
- Rambam Mikvaot 9:11 explains that the majority of the rainwater makes the whole river unfit if it entered the river or spring anywhere besides the original pit of the spring. Shulchan Aruch 201:2 accepts the Rambam. The Kesef Mishna 9:11 and Bet Yosef 201:15 explain that the Rambam would validate a majority of rainwater that entered the river in any part that was originally moving just like if rainwater entered the original pit of the spring. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:7 writes that the Shulchan Aruch follows this opinion since he quoted the opinion of the Rambam. Divrei Yosef p. 34-35 agrees in interpreting Shulchan Aruch. See Divrei Chayim 201:8 who rejects this interpretation of the Rambam, otherwise most rivers would be fit and the Rambam quotes Rav’s concerns of going to mikveh in a river.
- Rishonim ask why Mikvaot 5:3 states that if drawn water is added to a mayan and it was previously moving, it remains a mayan. The mishna implies that this is true even if there is a majority of drawn water. However, Mikvaot 5:5 implies that if there is a majority of rainwater in a mayan, the mayan only purifies if it is standing still. Ran answers that even if there's a majority of drawn or rainwater it remains a mayan in the place where it was previously moving. However, if it wasn't previously moving it only purifies if it is standing still. Ramban answers that if the water was added to the primary pit of the mayan it is kosher as a mayan. However, if the water was added to the extensions of the mayan it only purifies if it is standing. Rav Pinchas Halevi answers that if there is a majority of drawn or rainwater it only purifies if it is standing. Also, if a minority of drawn or rainwater it only purifies in the place that it was previously moving.
↑ Shach (201:31-2 and Nekudat Hakesef to Taz 201:19) holds that hashaka to a mayan doesn't make the water kosher b'zochlin. However, Taz (201:3 and 19) holds that it does, except there is a gezerah regarding rivers. Prisha 201:21 also accepts this general approach. Fundamentally, Shach is like Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, while Taz is like Raavad. The proofs that hashaka to a mayan makes the rainwater or sheuvim into a mayan are from Mikvaot 5:1, as quoted in Shulchan Aruch 201:8 and 10. (1) Shulchan Aruch 201:8 says that spring water which went over a kli is sheuvim but if some water went over the rim of the kli and isn't sheuvim, that water can purify the sheuvim water. Shach 201:33 answers that it has the status of a spring since the water originated from a spring and was never completely disconnected. (2) Shulchan Aruch 201:10 says that a spring which is connected to a pool of rainwater makes the rainwater into spring water. Shach 201:32 answers that it is only like a spring when majority of the water in the pool is from the spring.
↑ Mishna (Mikvaot 1:7, 5:5), Rash (Mikvaot 5:5), Nedarim 40b, Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 9:6), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:2
↑ Shach 201:11 quotes Maharik and agrees. He supports Maharik from Rash and Rosh (Mikvaot 5:5). However, Rambam (as understood by Ran) makes no such distinction. Even within Rash and Rosh, Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 1:4) argues that Rash is only strict about drawn water but is not strict about rainwater. Fundamentally, he writes that someone who is lenient unlike Shach has what to rely upon.
↑ Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:13. The Shaarei Mikvaot 201:66 cites the Maharik who holds that the Rambam holds that spring water which is broken from the spring is still treated like a spring explains this Rambam Pirush Mishnayot. He says that water which was flowing and reached a mikveh pool as a spring is considered a spring even if the stream is interrupted, however, an interrupted stream of a spring that didn’t reach a mikveh isn’t considered anything but a mikveh and not a spring.
↑ Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:14
↑ Rambam Pirush Mishnayot 5:5 explains that Rabbi Yosi holds that even something which is susceptible to rabbinic tumah causes the mikveh to be invalid if it is used to create the mikveh. We follow Rabbi Yosi. Shulchan Aruch 201:14 accepts the Rambam. See Shach 201:104 that after the fact the mikveh would be valid.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 5:1 establishes that a spring which flowed into a pool and was stopped has a status of a mikveh. The Tur 201:10 infers that if it wasn’t interrupted it is considered like a spring. Shulchan Aruch 201:10 agrees.
↑ The Bet Yosef 201:10 writes that it seems from the Rosh and Rash (Mikvaot 5:1) that if the pool was originally empty and was filled with spring water it is considered like a spring even when the stream from the spring to the pool is interrupted. He suggests this possibility in the Rambam Mikvaot 9:9, but he points out that the Rambam Pirush Mishnayot doesn’t sound like this. Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot 5:5) is explicit that water that dripped out of a spring and is disconnected from the spring is like a mikveh. Maharik 156 understands from many rishonim that disconnected spring water is like a spring. In any event, the Raavad (cited by the Bet Yosef 201:10 by Maharik 156) and Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim 11) hold explicitly that if the water from the spring was interrupted it is considered like a mikveh completely. The Shulchan Aruch 201:10 rules like the Raavad and Rashba. Shach 201:29, Chatom Sofer 209 and Hagahot Perisha 201:21 accept this approach. With respect to the Hagahot Perisha’s proof the Shach 201:34 and Taz 201:23 disagree.
↑ Maharik 156 holds that the spring water which was disconnected and reconnected does not reattain the status of a spring. Darkei Moshe 201:13 quotes this. However, this is contradicted by the simple understanding of the Mishna Mikvaot 5:1 that once the spring is reconnected it reattains the status of a spring. This simple understanding is supported by the Rash, Rosh, Raavad, and Tur. However, according to Shach 201:31, this Mishna isn't a proof about this point since it is only like a spring to purify in any quantity but not while it is moving. However, Prisha 201:21 holds that a spring which was disconnected and reconnected has the status of a spring to purify in any quantity and zochlin.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, Rashba (Shaar Hamayim ch. 11), Shulchan Aruch and Rama 201:11. Shach 201:33 explains that the reason that it is only effective when it is stopped is because the drawn water isn’t converted into spring water and is only effective when stopped.
↑
The Gemara Bechorot 55b cites a dispute between Rav and Shmuel whether a river is a kosher mayan or it is invalid since there might be more rainwater than springwater. If there’s more rainwater it is considered a mikveh but it would be invalid since the river is moving. Rav was strict and Shmuel lenient. Shmuel thought that automatically there’s more water from the spring than rainwater in the river. Rabbenu Tam (Sefer Hayashar 256) and Tosfot Bechorot s.v. ein quoting Rabbenu Tam ruled leniently like Shmuel. However, the Rambam Mikvaot 9:13 and Rosh Mikvaot no. 10 citing the Maharam (Tashbetz Katan ch. 493) and Rif that we follow Rav. Shulchan Aruch 201:2 follows the Rambam.
- Trumat Hadeshen 254 and Maharik 115 write that there was a minhag to follow Rabbenu Tam to go to mikveh in a river. The Trumat Hadeshen only defends the minhag if there’s no other mikveh and there’s a concern that people won’t go to mikveh at all. Darkei Moshe 201:3 cites that the Mahari Vayil 70 and Binyamin Zeev 154 provide further support for this minhag. Rama 201:2 concludes that if there’s no kosher mikveh available one doesn’t have to stop someone who relies on Rabbenu Tam to go to mikveh in a river.
- The Bet Yosef 201:2 s.v. vgam clearly specifies that if someone knows that the river is at its lowest level and isn’t increased because of rainwater it is fit even according to the Rav. Shach 201:15 only mentions going in a small river that you know it didn’t increase because of the rainwater.
- Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:2 holds that even Rabbenu Tam would be strict if it is obvious that the river increased in size because of rain. However, the Bet Yosef argues that clearly the Ran Nedarim 40b s.v. ulinyan and Rosh responsa 31 don’t think so. Shach 201:14 rules like the Bet Yosef.
↑
- Memaakim Siman 4 p. 32 writes that in the ghetto in WWII it was permitted to rely on the Rama since there was no mikveh available.
- Chatom Sofer YD 2:202 discusses a community which doesn’t have a mikveh but there is a nearby river. If the women would go to the mikveh in the river they’d go at the proper time. However, if the women had to travel to another town to go to a mikveh they’d have to go to mikveh during the day so that they could travel back that afternoon and night. The Rabbi suggested that they go to the mikveh in the other town during the day and rely on those who are lenient since they can’t return to their house before the night. However, the Chatom Sofer responded that going to mikveh in a river is less of a leniency than going to mikveh during the day and the minhag has what to rely upon. Interestingly, he even mentions that going to mikveh in a river fulfills the opinion of the Rabbenu Halevi that a zavah needs to dip in a mayan.
↑ The Mishna Parah 8:8 and Mikvaot 5:4 cites a dispute between the tenayim whether the oceans have a status of a spring or mikveh. Rabbi Yosi holds that they have the status of a spring besides for purposes of mayim chayim. Rashi Shabbat 109a explains that Rabbi Yosi doesn't distinguish between the Mediterranean sea and other oceans. See the Bet Yosef 201:5 at length who explains that the Rambam Mikvaot 9:12 agrees with Rashi with respect to someone going in the mikveh even though he does have a distinction for the Mediterranean sea for the purposes of mayim chayim. The Shulchan Aruch YD 201:5 rules that oceans are fit for dipping even if they’re moving. Chazon Ish (Parah 13:13) argues with Bet Yosef and holds that Rambam holds that an ocean is like a mikveh and invalid where it is moving.
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 5:6 writes that a wave that is 40 seah purifies a person or utensils. The Tosefta Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that one may only dip in the edge of the wave that broke or landed and not the tip of the wave that is hanging above the sea. The reason the Tosefta explains is because one may not dip or immerse utensils in the air. Rashi Chagiga 19a s.v. shein explains that the Torah only permitted going to mikveh or a mayan in water that was attached to the ground. Tosfot Chullin 31b s.v. ditnan agrees that this requirement is biblical. Bet Yosef 201:5 explains the Rambam Mikvaot 9:18 that the issue with dipping or immersing in a wave above the sea is a rabbinic one lest one come to be lenient with the invalidation of moving water in a mikveh. Taz 201:7 writes Rashi’s reason for why it is forbidden to dip or immerse in the air.
↑
The Mishna Mikvaot 5:6 did mention that the wave was 40 seah that was purifying people and utensils. Why does it need 40 seah if it is a spring? The Rashba Torat Habayit proves from here the opinion of Rabbenu Tam that a person dipping in a spring must have 40 seah and the mentioning of 40 seah was only for the purpose of the person and not the utensils.
- However, the Taz 201:6 and Gra 201:6 explain that it isn’t a proof for Rabbenu Tam because it is possible that really 40 seah was only mentioned as a practical consideration that 40 seah is necessary for a person to be enclosed by the water. According to the Rashba, the Bet Meir 201:5 writes that if the wave didn’t completely detach from the sea it would seem that 40 seah isn’t necessary since the wave combines with the rest of the sea.
- Shach 201:20 explains that in general it is always necessary to have 40 seah in the wave otherwise the wave appears to be unlike a spring.
↑ The Maharik 115 proves from the Mishna Mikvaot that permitted immersion in a wave that even water disconnected from a spring is considered like a spring. However, once it stops once it is invalid. The Shach 201:30 accepts the Maharik specifically with respect to the ocean. The Bet Meir 201:5 explains that according to the Maharik who holds that water from a spring that were detached from a spring have the status of a spring as long as they are moving we can explain the Mishna Mikvaot 5:6 as referring to a wave that completely detached from the sea. Lechem Vsimla 201:21 explains that the Shach agrees with the Maharik. The Shaarei Mikvaot 201:29 quotes the Lechem Vsimla. Rav Chaim Soloveitchik on Mikvaot 9:6 explains that the Rambam agrees with the Maharik. However, the Maharik isn’t accepted as the Bet Meir points out.
↑ Ramban Shabbat 65b clarifies that the a mayan can purify if it is moving and certainly if it is stationary. Shach 201:7 agrees.
↑
Being that the invalidation of zochlin is in Torat Kohanim as a derivation of a pasuk it should be biblical. That is the opinion of the Trumat Hadeshen 254, Maharik 115, Bet Yosef 201:3, and Rama 201:2. The Darkei Moshe 201:7 explains that the issue of rainwater in a mikveh moving is considered a biblical invalidation, but the concern of having a majority of rainwater in a river is only rabbinic.
- However, the Bet Yosef 201:3 seems to understand the Mordechai to mean that zochlin is only rabbinic. Chatom Sofer YD 2:202 proves that the Yereyim (ch. 26) and Maharam (cited by Mordechai) hold that zochlin is only rabbinic. Furthermore, he posits that this is the view of Ran, Rosh, and Rashba. Mahari Asad 5:211 proves that Rashi Chullin 31b s.v. chardelit holds zochlin is rabbinic. Peni Yehoshua Shabbat 65b s.v. BTosfot shema writes that the rishonim who hold that sheuvim is rabbinic also hold that zochlin is rabbinic. Tzemech Tzedek 164:5 makes a compromise in explaining the Rosh that biblically only if the mikveh is moving like a spring but rabbinically it is a problem even if there's a hole in the mikveh and water is draining. Imrei Yosher 130 agrees.
- Chazon Ish 134:3 (Tinyana 7:3) writes that this opinion of the Chatom Sofer is totally incorrect and may not be included as a factor to be lenient. Divrei Chayim 5 and Chibur Ltahara 2:38 agree and answer the Chatom Sofer’s proofs.
↑ Torat Kohanim Shemini 9:3, Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, Rashi Shabbat 65b s.v. vsaver
↑
- Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains that if there’s water coming out of a crack in a wall the mikveh is invalid since it is moving. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 11 and responsa 31:4 writes that a crack in a wall isn’t considered zochlin. It is only considered zochlin if the water is gushing like a spring is. Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 agrees. Darkei Moshe 201:26 explains that the Mordechai and Agur are strict like the Rash.
- Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim 2) writes that a mikveh is valid even if the water is draining slowly because otherwise every pit would be invalid since the earth absorbs the water slowly. Rather if the drainage isn’t recognizable it is valid. Shulchan Aruch 201:51 cites the Rashba.
- Gra 201:96 argues that according to the Rosh the invalidation of a mikveh is objective and even if it isn’t recognizable it is invalid. Rav Chaim in his letter and Rav Shternbuch are strict for the Gra.
↑ Divrei Chayim Mikvaot 201:5 and Maharam Shik YD 205 hold that if there's water going into the mikveh it is invalid because of zochlin. However, the Lechem Vsimla 15 quoting the Mey Shiloach 2:8 holds that it isn't considered zochlin at all as long as there's 40 seah in the mikveh besides the water coming in. Arugat Habosem YD 211-2 is lenient even to include the water coming in towards the 40 seah.
↑ Chazon Ish (Likkutim 6:2 s.v. haya, YD 127:2 s.v. haya) himself raised the issue but limited it to where the water would be pouring out of the hole from bor tevila into the bor zeriya or bor hashaka and the water is arched. However, if the water is just dribbling down the side of the walls and not arched then it isn't considered zochlin. He leaves it with tzarich iyun, indicating that he wasn't certain about this point. Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Igrot Vereshimot Kehilat Yakov v. 4 siman 10 p. 26) writes that this leniency of the Chazon Ish is difficult to accept and should not be relied upon.
↑ Rav Kluger's proof for this is Rama YD 201:52. Bet Shlomo YD 2:52, Simla 201:94, Maharam Shik YD 205, and Maharsham 3:239 disagree with this logic of Rav Kluger. Maharam Shik's proof is from Rash Mikvaot 4:4 that zochlin into a house is a problem, as well as Rivash 292 according to Chatom Sofer YD 209. Tashbetz 3:34 also seems to be a very clear proof against Rav Shlomo Kluger.
↑ YD 2:51-52
↑ Bet Shlomo (YD 2:51 s.v. vlibi and af) adds to this argument based on Shulchan Aruch YD 201:13 that water isn't considered zochlin unless it is streaming out and not if it is just dripping. Maharam Shik YD 205 seems to agree.
↑ Rav Shlomo Kluger (Shaarei Tahara 39) is lenient, but the poskim including Tashbetz 3:34, Maharam Shik YD 205, Bet Shlomo 2:51 disagree with this and hold it is invalid.
↑ Bet Shlomo 2:51 s.v. vma and lechen. Rav Kluger quoted Rav Zalman Efraim Margoliyot and Gur Aryeh Yehuda.
↑ Maharam Shik YD 205 also holds this is kosher. It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, each of which theoretically suffice independently.
↑ Simla 201:94 holds that it is considered zochlin if water is going from one mikveh to another mikveh even though the pipe is full of water. He seems like he's only discussing a case where there's no shifoferet hanod connecting the mikvaot.
↑ Rav Shlomo Kluger (Shirei Tahara 39, Mey Niddah, and Haelef Lecha Shlomo YD 233) explains that there's no zochlin from one mikveh to the other since the water remains stationary in either bor and returns back to the other bor. The Satmer Rebbe (Divrei Yoel 75) agreed that there's no zochlin from one mikveh to the other if the pipe is full of water. Rav Moshe Bick (Taharat Yom Tov v. 18 p. 373-4) quoted the Satmer Rebbe as laughing about this question and holding that it isn't an issue of zochlin even if the pipe isn't full. Because if that was considered zochlin, it should be zochlin even if the pipe is full of water. The solution to that would be to insist that the hashaka hole be closed up, but that no one heard was critical. Bet Shlomo YD 51 writes that Rabbi Elazar Landua challenged the validity of a mikveh where the water is moving from one mikveh to the other, while someone is tovel and the pipe is full with a shifoferet hanod of water. Bet Shlomo quotes that Rav Shlomo Kluger laughed about this question and thought obviously it isn't considered zochlin since the water isn't leaving anywhere. Bet Shlomo agreed that it is kosher. Rav Kluger went further and held it was kosher even if it isn't connected with a shifoferet hanod, but Bet Shlomo didn't agree with that point.
↑ 3:54:6
↑ Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:272:8 argues that the poskim allow this only bedieved and not initially.
↑ It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, each of which theoretically suffice independently. Maharam Shik YD 205 seems to agree. Minchat Yitzchak 1:147:9-12 is concerned for this type of zechila if it is unrecognizable because of Gra. However, if it is above 40 seah then he writes everyone agrees that it is kosher. Chelkat Yakov YD 112:6 seems to be even stricter and is concerned for zechila that's unrecognizable through the minimal hole between two mikvaot.
↑ It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 4, and 5, but since Bet Shlomo disagrees with 1 and 2 and 4 and 5 are both subject to a dispute, Bet Shlomo holds that they should avoid this.
↑
The Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 2) writes that as long as the movement of the mikveh is so minimal that it isn’t noticeable it is fit. Otherwise how could a mikveh dug in a dirt hole be fit since the dirt allows water through. The Shulchan Aruch 201:51 follows the Rashba.
- Chatom Sofer YD 2:211 holds like the Rashba and Shulchan Aruch.
- Shaarei Tzion 3:26 argues that Gra never said that it was pasul. Either Gra 201:96 is a typo or written by a mistaken student. He proves thoroughly that there's no way to hold that an unrecognizable zechila is invalid.
- Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 298 accepts Shulchan Aruch. He quotes Nodeh Beyehuda, Chatom Sofer, Maharsham, Maharshag, Divrei Malkiel, and others who agree with Shulchan Aruch.
↑ The Gra 201:97 argues with Shulchan Aruch that any movement invalidates a mikveh. Mishnat Rebbe Aharon (Kotler 1:24:8) explains the Gra’s argument. There’s two reasons why moving water is invalid for a mikveh; the moving water could be a biblical invalidation without any reason (Mordechai and Rashba) or it could be that moving water is like it isn’t connected and there’s no 40 seah (Rivash and Rosh). If so, if there’s a hole in the mikveh above the 40 seah mark and certainly 40 seah will remain, according to the first approach, it is invalid, but according to the second it is valid. Another application of this question is if the movement of the water isn’t noticeable. According to the first approach, it is valid if the movement isn’t noticeable since that is the degree by which movement is measured. But according to the second one, it is invalid even if the movement isn’t noticeable. Chazon Ish (Tinyana 8:4, Likutim 3:4) explains Gra differently. He explains that according to Rosh only the water that itself is moving out of the mikveh is considered zochlin. Everything else isn't zochlin. Rashba's question was how is it possible to make a kosher mikveh in the ground without any zechila. Rashba answered that non-noticeable movement isn't zechila. However, Rosh would answer that it isn't an issue if there's slightly more than 40 seah since all of the water that is currently not leaving the pit is counted for the mikveh. Since Rosh has another answer to Rashba's question he doesn't have to accept his conclusion.
↑
The Tashbetz 1:17 s.v. uma writes that the Rambam doesn’t accept the opinion of the Rash that any hole in a mikveh invalidates the mikveh since it makes the mikveh water moving which is invalid. Rabbenu Yerucham writes similarly. This seems to align with the Rosh (Hilchot Mikvaot no. 12 and responsa 31:4) who writes that only a mikveh that is moving like a spring is invalid. Meil Tzedaka and Bayi Chayi adopt this position. However, the Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:50 accepts the Rash, Mordechai, and Rashba that even a hole invalidates the mikveh. Nodeh Beyehuda 142:5, Meir Netivim 11, and Imrei Yosher 130 agree and reject the lenient opinion of the Meil Tzedaka.
- Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 298 rules like Shulchan Aruch that a not recognizable zechila is valid. Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein that a non-recognizable zechila is valid in a case where there’s not another mikveh and going to mikveh shouldn’t be pushed off because of it.
- Chazon Ish (Tinyana 8:4, Likutim 3:4) holds like Rosh that any movement that isn't gushing like a spring is kosher. He argues that this is also the intention of Gra 96 and Shulchan Aruch. However, the many achronim (Chelkat Binyamin 201:718 citing Nodeh Beyehuda 137 s.v. vnachzor and Divrei Chayim 15 s.v. od) refute this understanding of Shulchan Aruch. Gra 90 himself flatly rejects this theory.
↑ Rav Yitzchak Elchanan (Ayin Yitzchak YD 22)
↑ Imrei Yosher 1:127, Shaarei Tzion 3:26. Imrei Yosher also quotes Bet Shlomo 2:72, Tzemech Tzedek, and Divrei Chayim as strict about this question.
↑ Chelkat Binyamin (fnt. 2218) quotes many poskim who hold that one shouldn't rely upon unrecognizable zechila initially, including: Igrot Moshe, Achiezer, and Ayin Yitzchak.
↑ Maharak 156 is clear that Rosh allows being tovel in the area below the crack. He has a nuance that even though the area above the crack is zochlin and not fit to be tovel in, it is still included in the water of the mikveh in order to make hashaka to sheuvim water.
↑ The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains the mishna to mean that if there’s a crack in the wall of the mikveh the mikveh is invalid because the water that’s dripping out makes the water in the mikveh considered moving, which is zochlin. The Rosh there discusses the Rash and posits that the Rash wouldn’t invalidate the mikveh if the crack is above the point where the walls would contain 40 seah below the crack. The Tur 201:50 writes that although some held that if the crack is above the point of 40 seah the mikveh is invalid the Rosh was lenient. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 is lenient like the Rosh but the Rama quotes the other opinion. The Gra explains that the Rash, Mordechai, and Rashba hold like the stringent opinion. Maharik 115 thinks that Raavad holds like the lenient view.
↑ Bayi Chayey YD 198
↑ Rivash 292, Tashbetz 3:34, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:730 citing Chazon Ish Kama 5
↑ The Rivash responsa 292 writes that if a woman goes into the mikveh and some water is displaced and returns to the mikveh it isn’t considered zochlin. Bet Yosef 201:62, Rama 201:50 and Shach 201:30 and 120 accept the Rivash. Shach 201:120 presents the Rivash as saying that as long as the movement isn’t because of the natural force of the water (gravity or momentum from a spring) it isn’t considered zochlin. Maharik 156 clearly disagrees with this Rivash. The Mishna 6:3 discusses a case where there are 3 pits each of 20 seah, 2 of which are rainwater. When 3 people are tovel in the pits so that the water overflows, the 2 pits of 20 combine and the sheuvim pit is purified. Why isn't that overflowing water considered zochlin? (1) Maharik 156 answers that the water originated from a spring so it is considered like a spring even after it is disconnected. (2) Maharik also answers that according to Rosh it isn't zochlin since the person is tovel below the area where the water is moving. (3) Rivash 292 answers that it isn't zochlin since the water came out because of the person being tovel and is going to return. (4) Shach 201:30 answers that the pits were actual springs and not disconnected spring water. Dagul Mirvava is bothered by that Shach since a spring purifies with any quantity.
↑ The Meil Tzedaka 39-41 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:3 states that a mikveh in which water splashes out when the woman goes in is unfit since it is considered zochlin. The Rivash only said it was fit when water was displaced when a woman went in and returns on its own because of the edges of the mikveh. However, the Shach 201:30 implies that it is fit even in such a case since the mikveh isn’t leaking on its own, water is just leaving when a person goes in it and that isn’t considered zochlin as long as 40 seah is left. The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:6 are strict. Tashbetz 3:34 is clear that this is a problem. Pitchei Mikvaot 8:8 writes that some are lenient.
↑ Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 336 writes that even while the filter is running the mikveh is fit and it isn’t considered zochlin. (1) Firstly, the water that goes into the filter returns to the mikveh and regarding such a case the Rivash 292 and Rama 201:50 write that it isn’t considered zochlin. (2) Secondly, even if the water in the filter is considered zochlin that doesn’t affect the rest of the mikveh if it is still 40 seah. That idea is based on Rambam Mikvaot 8:8. (3) Lastly, the Mikveh Tahara p. 68 writes that movement within the water isn’t considered zochlin, only movement because of water entering and exiting the mikveh is zochlin. Igrot Moshe YD 110 and Shevet Halevi 9:187 and 11:213 are lenient about zochlin in a mikveh based on the first consideration. Rabbi Meir Posen (Or Meir v. 2 p. 542) is lenient for two reasons: (1) The water is coming from the mikveh and going back into the mikveh (Rivash 292). (2) The water is all within the mikveh and the water in the mikveh is considered part of the mikveh. Once that's the case there's no zochlin within the mikveh (Rivash). It is considered connected even without a shifoferet hanod because (a) it isn't a kli at all and the mikveh isn't a kli so it is connected and (b) the only way to access the water in the filter is through the mikveh. These are reasons why it is connected even with any size. (3) The water being drawn out from the mikveh and going back in are all underwater and it is like zochlin from mikveh to mikveh that's all underwater (Bet Shlomo 2:51, Chazon Ish Likkutim 6).
↑
Rav Moshe in Igrot Moshe YD 110 writes that the pool filters are a kli and therefore an issue of sheuvim. Even though the water is added back into a mikveh of 40 seah it is an issue of natal seah vnatan seah, which is removing some drawn water and replacing it, which is an issue (Shach 201:23). Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 337 comes to the conclusion that the in-mikveh filters aren’t an issue of sheuvim since they essentially a straight pipe and not a kli. He cites the Shema Shlomo 5:14. However, see Betzel Hachachma 4:98.
- Igrot Moshe writes that the filter is considered mekabel tumah if it could hold liquids had it not been attached to the ground and if it can’t then it isn’t mekabel tumah but it still creates sheuvim.
- Rabbi Meir Posen (Or Meir v. 2 p. 538) describes his filter at great length. He explains that it doesn't make sheuvim since there's several connections between it and the mikveh with a connection of a shifoferet hanod. Also, it doesn't make sheuvim since the filter can't hold any water.
↑ Or Meir v. 2 p. 530-549, Rav Wosner in Shevet Halevi 11:213. Rav Karelitz is quoted in Or Meir. Rav Ovadia's opinion is found in Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 337.
↑ Birur Din Hafilterim (pp. 7-8 and p. 56) quotes Rav Dovid Aryeh Morgenstern that Rav Elyashiv opposed using filters in mikvaot since it is a new thing and could cause problems. Rav Shternbuch in Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:270-272 strongly opposes the filters. Rabbi Shreiber in Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:272 writes that the filters are a problem of (1) Sheuvim because it is a kli kibbul to hold dirt. It is worse than the standard natal seah v'natan seah because it doesn't go through the bor zeriya, which Bet Yosef says is kosher. (2) Zochlin while it is working because there's no shifoferet hanod and also the water is moving so katafras isn't connected to a mikveh. Even when it isn't working it is zechila sheina nikeret and lechatchila it should be avoided. Rabbi Rosen responds to these claims (1) that the filter cannot hold water so it doesn't make sheuvim. (2) The filter is considered within the mikveh so zochlin isn't an issue. Also, the water is going into the filter and coming back so it isn't zochlin.
↑ Igrot Moshe 110 writes that a filter in a swimming pool invalidates the mikveh since it makes the water sheuvim. Even though there's hashaka, still there's an issue of natal seah v'natan seah for the Rambam. In terms of zochlin while the filter is on Rav Moshe is lenient based on Rivash. Rav Moshe considers the water that went through the filter sheuvim since the filter was made with a receptable that is meant to hold water. Har Tzvi 177 also considers the water sheuvim for an entirely different reason. He writes that all of the water is sheuvim even if it wasn't in any receptable that holds water. His reason is that since a person turned on the electricity it is like a person took the water and poured it into the mikveh with his hands. That invalidates the water because of tefisat yad adam (SA 201:15 and 39). See Kinyan Daat Mikvaot 201:39:1 who notes that this approach of Har Tzvi seems to disagree with Rabbi Akiva Eiger.
↑ It is clear from Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam), Rash (Mikvaot 2:3), and Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a) that even those who hold sheuvim is deoritta agree that is only if the majority is sheuvim. However, Rabbenu Tam (Sefer Hayashar 671:6) holds that 3 lugin of sheuvim is deoritta from a halacha l'moshe m'sinai if it is added before any other water.Ramban (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) and Rosh (Mikvaot n. 1) also quote this from Rabbenu Tam.
↑ Rabbenu Tam (Tosfot Pesachim 17b, Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam), Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam), Rashi (Chagiga 11a s.v. bmayim and Pesachim 16a s.v. yeheyeh, as understood by Teshuvot Rid 1), Tosfot (Chagiga 11a s.v. bmey), Rosh (Mikvaot n. 1), Tur 201:3, Rama Y.D. 201:3
↑
Ri (Tosfot Pesachim 17b s.v. elah), Rambam Mikvaot 4:2 (as understood by Kesef Mishna, Kriyat Sefer, and Ran Bava Batra 66b), and Ramban (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) explaining the Rif and Geonim. Rivash 294 implies sheuvim is derabbanan. Rabbenu Gershom (Bava Batra 66b) quotes both opinions if it is deoritta or not.
- A major part of this discussion is how to understand the Torat Kohanim which invalidates a mikveh filled up with water drawn on one's shoulder. (1) Rash (Mikvaot 2:3) writes that those who hold that sheuvim is derabbanan hold that the Torat Kohanim is just an asmachta. (2) Rabbenu Tam (Tosfot Bava Batra 66a) who holds that sheuvim is deoritta holds that this Torat Kohanim is discussing sheuvim. (3) Raavad (cited by Ramban b"b 66b) holds that the Torat Kohanim invalidates tefisat yedey adam on a Torah level. Raavad in Baalei Hanefesh 3:4 quotes this opinion but in later editions of Baalei Hanefesh rejects it. In the 5720 version of Baalei Hanefesh, that opinion is not omitted altogether.
- Netsiv (Emek Sheylah 96 s.v. v'iy amshechinun) writes that he thinks that Shiltot holds sheuvim is derabbanan
↑ Rash Mikavot 2:3 writes that if the water was drawn by something that's susceptible to tumah it is biblically invalid based on Zevachim 25b. However, if it was filled with kelim that aren't susceptible to tumah it is only rabbinically invalid. Yad Ramah b"b 66b agrees. However, in Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam) agrees with Rabbenu Tam that sheuvim is deoritta. Shaarei Mikavot (Shaar Hatziyun 4) writes that the Lechem Vsimla think that the Rash retracted at the end, while the Radvaz and Minchat Yitzchak hold that the Rash didn’t retract. Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) quotes this Rash.
↑ Raavad cited by Ramban (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) and Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani)
↑ Rama 201:3 writes that sheuvim is biblical. The Shulchan Aruch 201:53 implies that it is only rabbinic. Aruch Lechem 201:53 writes that this is the opinion of Shulchan Aruch. Divrei Yosef p. 398 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:18 agree. Chelkat Binyamin 201:920 writes that it is a dispute between the Shach and Taz whether Shulchan Aruch holds that it is biblical or rabbinic. However, Taz 201:81-82 (as clarified by Pri Deah) clearly indicates that he agrees that Shulchan Aruch holds it is rabbinic.
↑
Mishna Mikvaot 2:7 and 4:1, Rash (Mikvaot 2:7), Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 4:3), Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:34.
- Rashi Shabbat 16b s.v. bchetzer seems to hold that water is only sheuvim if his intent is clear to others. Seemingly, this is strange. The reason his intent matter is because if it is intentionally collected it is considered b'yedey adam, made by people, unlike a mayan. But why should it need to be clear to others? Sfat Emet Shabbat 16b notes that Rashi's explanation is difficult. Rabbi Yehuda (Mishna Machshirin 3:6 and Mishna Parah 2:4) holds you need to have a maaseh to be megaleh your daat for your daat to count. Rabbis hold that daat without maaseh is daat.
- See Raavad (cited by Ramban b"b 66b s.v. shani) who holds that water emptied from a kli to a mikveh by itself is also invalid rabbinically.
↑ The Gemara Shabbat 16b states that everyone agrees if the vessel was placed outside when it was cloudy that the rainwater it collects is sheuvim, but if the vessel was placed when it was sunny it isn’t sheuvim. There’s a dispute when the vessel was placed when it was cloudy but then the clouds cleared and returned before it rained. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:41 rule that this gemara is relevant to someone who puts a vessel underneath a gutter or just generally in a courtyard outside to collect rainwater. The Rambam Mikvaot 4:4, however, understood it is only relevant to collecting water of a vessel in the field and not under the gutter. A vessel under a gutter is always considered set up to collect water which would create sheuvim. He writes this in his explanation of the Mishna (Mikvaot 4:1) as well. Chelkat Binyamin 201:608 is strict for Rambam.
↑ Rosh responsa 30:4 writes that in order to avoiding the mikveh becoming invalid as water is drawn from it, one should let it completely dry or use a vessel with a hole of any size. Mordechai Shavuot n. 746, Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim ch. 11), Smak 294, and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 agree. Shulchan Aruch 201:40 codifies this practice.
↑ The Rosh responsa 30:4 writes that there’s no need to be concerned for sheuvim in a spring. Maharik 56 writes that one should be strict to be concerned for the opinion that a spring is invalid with shuevim. He isn’t strict after the fact. Trumat Hadeshen 258 is much more concerned for that opinion. Bet Yosef argues with the Trumat Hadeshen. Shulchan Aruch 201:40 codifies the Rosh, but Rama quotes the Trumat Hadeshen.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 states that if a pipe has a receptacle it isn’t considered filled in if a rock or dirt gets lodged in the receptacle making the pipe smooth. The Rash and Rosh explains that since the rock or dirt isn’t tightly held in the receptacle it isn’t considered part of the pipe. The Rambam explains that it isn’t considered part of the pipe unless it harden like cement in that receptacle. Shulchan Aruch 201:36 codifies this mishna.
↑
Mishna Mikvaot 2:7 records a dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer if the rainwater inside the jugs left on the roof is considered sheuvim since they weren’t planned to collect water. Rabbi Eliezer is strict unless there’s already water in the pit, while Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient. The halacha is Rabbi Yehoshua. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:42 codifies Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion.
- See Yereyim 26 who has an interesting reading that the water is only kosher if collected in jugs that were attached to the roof and not if they were detached.
↑ The Rosh Mikvaot 2:8 writes that unlike the case of the jugs that were left out to dry in the case where they were brought there not to collect water at all and can be knocked over, the case of where a container initially held cement is considered partially that there is involvement of a person in having the container hold water. Therefore, in the case of the jugs drying they can be pushed over but in the case of a container used for holding cement that was forgotten in the pit can not be pushed over. Taz 201:52 and Shach 201:95 agree. The Bet Yosef 201:42 infers from the Rosh and Rambam that the container placed in the pit for construction can only be broken to have the water contribute to the mikveh if it are surrounded by water. He reasons that it is considered more of an involvement of a person than in the case of a jug left on the roof to dry. Taz 201:94 agrees. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:43 codifies the explanation of the Rosh.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 2:9. The Bet Yosef 201:43 infers that the jugs can only be broken but not pushed over since the jugs were placed there to accept water and is considered more of an intention of collecting water unlike jugs left to dry. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:43 codifies this Mishna.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 4:1 states that a vessel big or small can create sheuvim. Tosfot Shabbat 16b writes that even if the vessel is larger than 40 seah which would render it not susceptible to tumah would still create sheuvim. Rosh Mikvaot n. 5 agrees. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:34 codifies this.
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 4:1 writes that a vessel of stone or dung is called a vessel with respect to sheuvim. The Rash and Rosh point out that even though these materials wouldn’t be susceptible to tumah nonetheless the vessel which would hold water does create sheuvim. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:34 codifies this.
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 4:2 establishes that a tray only creates sheuvim if it has a rim that could contain water. This is codified by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:35.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 4:2, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:35. The Mishna (Mikvaot 4:2) establishes that a tray with a rim creates sheuvim when positioned normally but not when turned on its side so it can be cleaned from dirt. Rambam (Mikvaot 6:5) codifies this mishna and explains that it doesn't create sheuvim since it wasn't made to collect water. Shiltei Giborim b"b 35b understands that Rambam means it doesn't create sheuvim since the kli wasn't made originally to collect water. He explicitly learns that positioning a kli in a way that doesn't collect water isn't a create that it doesn't create sheuvim. However, Shaarei Knesset Hagedola (Hagahot Hatur 201:30) argues that Rambam indeed meant that the positioning matters; when it is positioned in a way that it can't collect water it doesn't create sheuvim even if it actually holds some water. Maaseh Roke'ach (Hilchot Mikvaot 6:5) also explains that the tray with a rim is meant to hold water. This also seems evident in Pirush Mishnayot of Rambam (Mikvaot 4:2 and Kelim 2:3). Gulot Ayilot (Mikvaot 4:2) explains like Shiltei Giborim that the tray isn't meant to collect water. That's why when it is on its side it doesn't create sheuvim. However, when it is placed to collect water it makes sheuvim since it is specifically intentionally engineered to draw water into a mikveh. Therefore, according to Shiltei Giborim and Gulot Ayilot, a kli that is meant to hold water creates sheuvim even if it is in a position that it isn't meant to hold water. However, according to Shaarei Knesset Hagedola the water isn't sheuvim.
↑ Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim) writes that shingles on the roof don’t create sheuvim since they weren’t made to hold water (Mishna Mikvaot 4:3). This is codified by the Shulchan Aruch YD 201:37.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 6:5, Rambam Mikvaot 5:3
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 4:3, Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:36
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that a pipe which has a receptacle is invalid. If it made of earthenware it only creates sheuvim if it can hold a reviyit of water but if it is wood any amount is sufficient. Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:36 codify this.
↑ Rosh (Mikvaot n. 6) implies that only water that flows over the receptable is sheuvim, however, Tur 201:36 implies that any water that goes over any part of the pipe is made into sheuvim. Shach 201:77 originally assumes like Rosh, but in Nekudat Hakesef retracts and holds like Tur. There he explains that even Rosh might mean like the Tur. Bach thinks that Tur and Rosh are saying the same thing, but is unsure what they're saying.
↑ Gemara Bava Batra 66a establishes that a stone isn’t considered a vessel unless it has a receptacle. If that receptacle was created only after it was attached to the ground it isn’t considered a vessel with respect to that it doesn’t create drawn water. Ran and Ramban Bava Batra 65b, Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:36, and Shach 201:21 codify this distinction.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that a pipe which has a thin part and widens doesn’t create sheuvim since it wasn’t made to hold water but just to manage the water pressure. Rambam Mikvaot 6:2 codifies this Mishna. Even though the Raavad 8:7 disagrees with the Rambam about bent pipes regarding the pipe that widens he doesn’t disagree with the Rambam. Divrei Chaim 201:33 and Rav Chaim Mikvaot 6:4 note that even Raavad holds from this Mishna that a pipe used to create water pressure is not considered sheuvim. Raavad in a teshuva (Baalei Hanefesh p. 157 fnt. 31) writes that the Mishna is discussing a depression in the pipe and not a pipe that just widens on the sides. This is also evident from the picture of Rambam in Pirush Mishnayot. However, Gra (Eliyahu Rabba 4:3) explains the Mishna to be about a pipe that has no depression. Otherwise if there was a depression it automatically creates sheuvim.
↑
The Raavad Mikvaot 8:7 cites the Tosefta 5:4 that holds that bent pipes create sheuvim. He explains that even though they aren’t susceptible to tumah they nonetheless create sheuvim. Kesef Mishna (Mikvaot 8:7) disagrees because the bent pipes weren't made to hold water and shouldn't make sheuvim (Mishna Mikvaot 4:3). Rash (Mikvaot 6:8) and Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8) interpret the Tosefta to be discussing a case where the bend makes the pipe have a receptacle to hold water.
- Do we hold like the Raavad? The Raavad isn’t quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Rama, Shach, or Taz. Chelkat Binyamin 539 quotes the Bet Shlomo 2:66 who is strict.
- What does the Raavad do about the Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 established that any pipe which wasn’t meant to hold water even if it has a receptacle doesn’t create sheuvim? Rav Chaim (Mikvaot 6:4) explains that the Raavad is only relevant to dipping in a pipe as a mikveh or using the pipe to connect two mikvot that are lacking. The explanation is that when connecting mikvaot anything used to connect them is necessary for that section to be kosher even if he were to be tovel in that section. However, the bent pipe doesn't actually make it sheuvim. Divrei Chaim 201:33 explains that the Raavad only meant that if the bent pipe is meant to hold to water is it invalid even if it originally wasn’t meant to hold anything. Gidulei Tahara 9 also limits the Raavad to where the bent pipe has some way of holding something, albeit in a temporary fashion. But a pipe just used to redirect water doesn't make sheuvim. Rabbi Buckwald (Baalei Hanefesh p. 157 fnt. 32) prefers the Gidulei Tahara's explanation in light of what he writes in Baalei Hanefesh and his teshuvot. However, Rav Aryeh Leib Malin (73 s.v. vnireh, 2:71:2) understands the Raavad to mean that since the bent pipe is useful in that it can direct water flow it creates sheuvim. Chelkat Binyamin 201:529 cites the dispute between those who limit the Raavad and those who apply it generally. Mikveh Mayim v. 3 p. 206 quotes Taharat Mayim who argues with Rav Aryeh Leib. Mikveh Mayim's conclusion is not to use pipes that are made in the shape of a L.
↑ Hagahot Mordechai (Kiddushin 560) quotes one opinion who is strict to say that if a pipe gets a depression because the pipe rotted in one place it is invalid. That depression makes it a kli and the water flowing in that pipe is sheuvim. However, Rabbenu Shemarya argued that it is kosher since he didn't intend that the rotting would make it a kli. Maharik 56 writes that the minhag is like Rabbenu Shemarya but he was personally strict for the strict opinion. Bet Yosef 201:36 argues with the strict opinion since the pipe wasn't made into a kli intentionally. Rama 201:36 codifies this opinion. Chatom Sofer YD 201 disagrees and holds based on Chullin 13a that the pipe with a depression that happened on its own is completely invalid. Likutei Haarot on Chatom Sofer quotes Chesed Lavraham who strongly disagrees with Chatom Sofer.
↑
The Gidulei Tahara 5 argues that pipes that were built to be attached to the ground don’t make the water sheuvim. The Chatom Sofer 205 rejects such an idea and clarifies that even though it isn’t considered a vessel for purposes of tumah it is considered a vessel for purposes of sheuvim.
- Pipes made to be attached to the ground Nodeh Beyehuda 137 says it is sheuvim. Divrei yosef p 257 from Chidushei Rav Aryeh Leib Malin 72 writes that it is only if it is completely serving the ground and that’s how he answers the Lechem Vsimla’s question but a pipe built and then connected.
↑ Gemara Bava Batra 65b, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:34
↑ Gemara Bava Batra 65b, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:34
↑ Chatom Sofer 206 explains that once the vessel is punctured and attached to the ground even if the hole is later filled in it doesn’t invalidate the mikveh. The vessel is considered attached and then completed and that is a valid mikveh.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:19
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:19
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:19
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:6, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:20. The Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 101) explained that since the water is completely drawn it is invalid and isn’t considered a mikveh at all can only be fixed once we calculate that all of it besides less than 3 lug has been removed. However, for a mikveh that was invalidated with 3 lug is considered an invalid mikveh which can be fixed by having rainwater added so that 40 seah and a little bit flow out of the mikveh. The reason is that we consider it as though the original water left and was replaced. This is quoted by the Bet Yosef 201:20, Rama 201:22, Taz 201:32, and Shach 201:56.
↑ Raavad cited by Bet Yosef 201:20, Shach 201:56
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Tosefta Mikvaot 1:9 (Sukermandel), Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:6, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:20-21
↑ Agudah cited by Shach 201:57
↑ Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:6, Shulchan Aruch 201:21
↑
- Tosefta Mikvaot 1:7 (Sukermandel) states that if less than 3 lug of drawn water fall into a mikveh lacking 40 seah it is still possible to use it for a mikveh if more rainwater is added.
- Tosefta Mikvaot 1:12 states that if a mikveh has a little less than 40 seah and less than 3 lug of drawn water are added the mikveh is valid once that amount of rainwater that was lacking originally is added. Therefore, the Rashba (Torat Habayit ch. 6) writes that less than 3 lug of drawn water doesn’t contribute to the measure of the water but doesn’t invalidate the mikveh either. Rash Mikvaot 1:5, Tur 201:39 and Shulchan Aruch 201:22 follow the Rashba. Shach 201:59 agree.
- Teshuvat Rid 62 s.v. adoni harav ani writes that if there’s a mikveh of 40 seah lacking a bit that is completed with drawn water it is unfit. The drawn water doesn’t complete the mikveh and it is like fruit juice which doesn’t count for the mikveh at all. Since the measure of 40 seah is biblical unless there’s 40 seah the drawn water that falls into it isn’t nullified. His conclusion that it is biblically invalid but he is writing to his teacher who thought it was only rabbinically invalid since there is nullification.
- However, the Rambam Mikvaot 5:9 had a text in Tosefta 1:7 that read that it is invalid. His opinion is that if the less than 3 lug of drawn water added was tameh then it invalidates the mikveh unless it is added before 20 seah of rainwater was added to the mikveh or it is added when there’s a little less than 40 seah of rainwater was added to the mikveh. If it is added before 20 seah then the other 20 seah nullifies the tameh drawn water and the mikveh is valid. If it is added after there’s already 40 seah minus a bit it is considered a nearly complete mikveh that isn’t invalidated with tameh water. See Bet Yosef 201:22 for explanation of the Rambam. Raavad disagrees with Rambam.
↑ Bach 201:27 holds that drawn water doesn’t count towards the 40 seah at all whether it is added in the middle or at the end. Shach 201:58 and Chelkat Binyamin 201:338 agree. Avnei Nezer YD 177 argues that perhaps if the invalid water enters earlier than the last bit of the mikveh it also helps complete the mikveh. [His proof is from Rash Mikvaot 3:1. Teshuvat Rid 62 might agree.] In conclusion he isn’t lenient.
↑ Taz 201:33 makes the point that only red wine has a different color than water but not white wine.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 7:5 records a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yochanan Ben Nuri whether we only view the color of the water or also its measure. The Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 20 rules like the Rabbis that it depends both on color and measure. The Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 7:10-11, Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 94, and Tur 201:23 agree. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:23 codifies this Mishna.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 states that colored water can be considered drawn water. The Gemara Macot 3b explains that the coloring can be ignored and essentially it is water. This is codified by the Rambam Mikvaot 7:8, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:25.
↑
- The Mishna 1:7 establishes that a spring which has a majority of drawn water is considered like a mikveh in that it can purify with any amount but like a mikveh that it can’t purify while moving. However, the Mishna Mikvaot 5:3 establishes that if a spring has drawn water added to it it remains a valid spring unless it was stopped and is now moving. The rishonim have various explanations to these two mishnayot and here are the main four approaches.
- The Rosh explains that as long as the stream from the spring is moving any drawn water added to it doesn’t affect it, however, if it is stopped then if a majority of drawn water is added and that added water makes it start moving it is invalid. The Rambam agrees. The Ran however, explains that the Rambam would only validate the added drawn water into moving spring water if the drawn water is added at the hole of the spring and not further downstream. The Bet Yosef 201:15 disagrees and lines up the Rambam and Rosh.
- The Rash explains that if the drawn water is added to the stream from the spring it is still valid. However, if a person dug new branches or channels to the spring those are considered like a mikveh and not a spring.
- The Raavad explains that if the drawn water added to the natural spring then anywhere where the natural stream would be flowing is considered a spring. But the areas that would naturally be stagnant or non-existent and now flow because of the addition of drawn water they are considered to only be kosher like a mikveh.
- The Tur 201:15 just writes that a spring with a majority of drawn water is fit and doesn’t explain if it is fit if it is moving or not. The Bet Yosef wonders why the Tur omitted that important piece of information. Shulchan Aruch 201:15 follows the language of the Tur. The Taz 201:26 explains that we hold like the Rambam and Rosh that if the spring was originally moving where the drawn water entered it is like a spring and is fit even where it is moving. However, if it is was still when drawn water entered it is only fit as a mikveh when it is still. The Shach 201:42, on the other hand, simply writes that we follow the Rambam and Rosh that it is unfit if it is moving. He doesn’t explain if it depends on whether the water entered when it was moving or not. In fact, the Shach 201:33 also doesn’t distinguish. The Shaarei Mikvaot 201:59, Divrei Yosef p. 138, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:237 explain that the Rama and Shach are strict even where it was moving originally.
↑ Rabbenu Yerucham cited by Bet Yosef 201:15 writes that if there was a spring that didn’t have 40 seah and drawn water was added to it, then the water was detached and went into a pit it is considered a valid mikveh even though originally it was drawn water it remains fit after becoming part of the spring. The Shach 201:41 writes that it is preferable to be strict. Nodeh Beyehuda 2:141 and Chatom Sofer YD 212 are lenient. Chelkat Binyamin 201:236 is strict, though he notes that the Chatom Sofer YD who was lenient. Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 is lenient even initially.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 2:5, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:4, Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 1. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 1 asks why is the mikveh invalid if you’re unsure when the 3 lug of drawn water entered. He proves from that question that drawn water must be a biblical concern. Tosfot Yom Tov 2:5 disagrees with the entire reading of the Rosh. However, the Lechem Vsimla 201:16 s.v. veheneh harosh (cited by Divrei Yosef p. 155) answers for the Rambam that since the doubt is only about something that can be investigated it isn’t a valid doubt to be lenient though drawn water is only rabbinic. Chatom Sofer YD 216 explains that the reason that the three holes combine to invalidate the mikveh with 3 lug of water is because they are inside the bigger pit and as such they combine together.
↑ Shach 201:46
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 2:3, Rambam Mikvaot 10:1, Shulchan Aruch 201:67
↑ Rambam Mikvaot 10:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:69
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 2:3, Rambam Mikvaot 10:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:68
↑ Tosefta Mikvaot 2:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:73
↑ Tosefta Mikvaot 2:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:72
↑ Tosefta Mikvaot 2:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:72
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 2:3, Rambam Mikvaot 10:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:68
↑ Tosefta Mikvaot 2:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:73
↑ Tosefta Mikvaot 2:1, Rambam Mikvaot 10:4, Shulchan Aruch 201:70
↑ Divrei Yosef p. 147-8 cites the Drush Vchidush of Rabbi Akiva Eiger p. 170, Zichron Yosef YD 13, and Maharit 17. Divrei Yosef supports this approach by saying that as long as the water isn’t naturally drawn into the mikveh it is invalid.
↑ Rash, Rambam, Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8)
↑
Why is a mikveh kosher if someone adds sheuvim to it but natan seah v'natal seah is invalid?
- Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 1:5) concludes that there is no difference. Indeed, if he adds so much sheuvim such that the result is that there is a majority of sheuvim compared to the kosher mikveh water, it is invalid. Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8) quotes this view. [Raavad (Buckwald edition, fnt. 12) notes that this edition of Raavad is found only in the second out of three editions and it seems that he retracted]
- However, Rash (Mikvaot 7:2) and Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 7) understand that natan seah vnatal seah is about fruit juice and not sheuvim.
- Alternatively, Raavad suggested that natan seah vnatal seah only applies if you actively remove water and not if the rainwater flows out by itself.
↑
Gemara Macot 4a states that if a barrel of sheuvim water falls into an ocean and someone is tovel there, they're tameh like someone who bathed in 3 lugin of sheuvim. The rishonim wonder why the sheuvim water isn't made kosher because of zeriya.
- Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan (cited by Ritva 4a s.v. vhanachon) answers that fresh water and salt water don't mix and so zeriya is ineffective. Kehilat Yakov (Macot 5) argues that Rambam agrees with Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan.
- Raavan 28 answers that the gemara discussing someone who was tovel there immediately after the sheuvim fell in. That's why there's a concern that the sheuvim are still in one place and retain the status of sheuvim. However, after a half hour or hour the sheuvim get mixed up with the rest of the ocean and are no longer considered sheuvim. Kesef Mishna (Hilchot Mikvaot 6:10) agrees. He says that when pouring sheuvim into a mikveh it gets mixed right away. In Macot, it didn't get mixed right away since the water seeped out of a barrel that fell into the ocean.
- Tosfot (Macot 4a s.v. amar) explains that the correct text of the gemara should read that it is a barrel of wine and so there's no question about sheuvim at all.
↑ Rabbenu Yerucham (225d) cited by Bet Yosef 201:15
↑ Shach 201:41
↑
The Rash (Mikvaot 7:2) and Rosh (Hilchot Mikvaot n. 1) hold that once there is a complete mikveh of 40 seah it can’t be invalidated by adding drawn water. The concept that the mishna invalidates a mikveh when something is consistently removed and replaced (natan seah vnatal seah) is referring to fruit juice and not drawn water. Rabbenu Tam (Sefer Hayashar 671) and Tosfot Rid (Bava Batra 66b) agree with this understanding of the Mishna. The Gemara Yevamot 82b adds that natan seah vnatal seah is only an issue after one removed a majority of the mikveh. The Teshuvat Rid 62, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch 201:24 accept the Rosh. Gra 201:59 agrees with Shulchan Aruch.
- However, the Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 7:6) understood the mishna to be speaking about drawn water and not fruit juice. Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a), Rabbenu Gershom (Bava Batra 66b), Raavan (Teshuva 28), and Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 88) agree with Rambam's understanding of the mishna. Rashbatz 1:17 writes that we should avoid the dispute if it is easily avoidable. Rashbetz 3:12 writes that we should avoid this unless it is an extenuating circumstance. Shach 201:63 is strict. Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 writes that in extenuating circumstances it is possible to rely on S”A against Rambam. Chelkat Binyamin 201:377 agrees.
- Mishkenot Yakov YD 46 writes that Rashi, Tosfot, Rashbam, Rambam, Raavad, Rabbenu Chananel and Aruch hold that natan seah vnatal seah is an issue for sheuvim and we should avoid the issue. However, he quotes that the minhag wasn't to be machmir for this and he seems to accept that as acceptable just not ideal.
↑
Why is natan seah vnatal seah an issue? Bet Yosef 201:24 explains that the Rambam held that such a mikveh is invalid lest someone seeing this thinks that one can use a completely drawn mikveh. This is supported by the Ramban (Bava Batra 65b s.v. v’iy kasha) and Ran (Bava Batra 66b s.v. leolam). Ran writes that it is only an issue of marit ayin, but the fundamentally it is fine if the rain water depletes. The Divrei Chaim 201:20 argues that the Raavad held it is an invalidation since the original rainwater must remain at all times. Certain leniencies can be extrapolated from the Bet Yosef since the concern is only of onlookers. See Chatom Sofer 214. Har Tzvi 176 held like the Bet Yosef. Chelkat Binyamin 201:377 writes that Bet Yosef’s explanation is primary. Gidulei Tahara 26 writes that it is biblically invalid. Shevet Halevi 4:121 argues that it is only a rabbinic issue even according to the Raavad. Maharsham 1:135 agrees.
- Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 disagrees with the Chatom Sofer. He writes that natan seah and natal seah isn’t necessarily solved with putting in water through a pipe and having it flow out since it doesn’t look like it isn’t leaving. Firstly, it could be that the gezerah was in all cases and secondly, according to the Raavad it is problem intrinsically of removing the original rainwater.
↑ Igrot Moshe YD 1:111 and 1:119 writes that one can use hamshacha even initially to pour water into a mikveh and even if water will flow out that wouldn’t be considered natan seah vnatal seah at all since hamshacha converts the water. However, Raavad 1:5 and Tashbetz 1:17 and 3:12 are clear that hamshacha doesn't solve this issue of natan seah vnatal seah. Birkei Yosef 201:44 quotes the Tashbetz about this. Rav Moshe disagrees with Tashbetz and Birkei Yosef.
↑ Igrot Moshe YD 2:94, Divrei Chaim CM 1:37, Maharshag YD 65-66
↑ Divrei Chayim (Mikvaot seif 20 in fnt. 20) writes that Raavad holds like Rabbenu Yerucham. Tzemech Tzedek (responsa 171), Rav Moshe Bick (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27), and Satmer Rebbe (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) agree.
↑ Chatom Sofer YD 214
↑
The Mishna Mikvaot 7:1 states that ice and snow contribute to the mikveh but don’t invalidate it. The mishna records a story in which Rabbi Yishmael allowed the town of Meyva to create a mikveh with snow.
- Can it still be frozen? Rosh Mikvaot n. 18 writes that snow counts towards a mikveh even if it didn’t melt. Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 109), Rabbenu Yerucham (26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:31), and Rabbenu Shemaryahu (Mordechai Shabbat n. 332) agree. However, Rabbenu Eliezer (Mordechai Shabbat n. 332) argues that the snow has to be melted to count for a mikveh. Also, Rabbenu Simcha (Mordechai) for other reasons held that the snow must have melted. Bet Yosef 201:30 explains that the Rambam agrees with the Rosh and Raavad and Rabbenu Eliezer and Rabbenu Simcha are a minority opinion. Nonetheless, we are concerned for their opinion on biblical issues. Shulchan Aruch 201:30 implies that the snow is kosher while it is still frozen. Rama writes that some are strict to only permit the snow after it melts. Shach 201:71 argues that many rishonim hold that the snow must have melted and all rishonim agree that it needs to have melted to create a complete mikveh. Toldot Yitzchak 24 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:21 agrees. Chelkat Binyamin 201:460 is strict.
- Does it need to be compacted? The Rosh and Raavad hold that the snow needs to be compact so that if it’ll melt it will still remain 40 seah because water takes up less space than snow. While the snow is frozen it counts for 40 seah in its current volume. Shulchan Aruch 201:30, Shach 201:72, and Taz 201:40 accept the Rosh.
- Does the fact that it is drawn invalid it? The Rosh Mikvaot n. 18 and Raavad p. 109 say that it doesn’t invalidate as drawn water since it isn’t water when it was drawn.
- Can a complete mikveh be made of snow? The Rambam Mikvaot 7:3, Rosh, and Tur 201:30 hold that it is possible to make a complete mikveh of snow. However, Rashi Sukkot 19b and Raavad hold that it can’t be used to create a complete mikveh but only to add to a mikveh with a majority of kosher water. Shulchan Aruch 201:30 only quotes the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh that the snow can be used to create a complete mikveh. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Shach 201:71) mentions that the Raavad argues.
↑ Chatom Sofer 200 holds that it is possible to create an entire mikveh from ice that was melted. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 319 is lenient to allow freezing tap water and creating a mikveh that way if there’s no other available option to make a mikveh with rain.
↑ Rav Elyashiv (Ashrei Haish YD 35:1) and Satmer rebbe (Shevet Halevi 8:204) hold that one cannot make a mikveh using an ice machine. Imrei Yosher 1:148 argues that one shouldn’t use machine made ice for a mikveh for several reasons: 1) According to the first explanation of the Smag you can’t use ice that melts that once was sheuvim unless you also add 40 seah afterwards. Even though the Shach holds like the second explanation of the Smag, the Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla are strict. 2) According to the Tzlach you can’t use water for a mikveh if the water is tameh even if it isn't carried with a kli that has tumah and we’re all tameh today. 3) perhaps the machine making ice is considered tefisat yaday adam. Even though according to the Raavad there’s no issue of sheuvim, we’re concerned for the Baal Hameor also (Chatom Sofer 200). Even though perhaps the Baal Hameor is only strict for snow but not ice but still it isn’t clear he’d allow sheuvim of ice if it was put in a vessel after it was frozen. 4) One version of the Raavad and the Sefer Eshkol held that you can’t ice that melts for a mikveh. Even though it isn’t accepted we should be concerned when anyway there’s reason to be strict.
↑ Rav Ovadia Yosef (Taharat Habayit v. 3 pp. 318-336) writes that in extenuating circumstances it is permissible to make a mikveh from ice made in an ice machine. He quotes that this is also the view of Rav Kook (Daat Kohen 94) and Ben Ish Chai (Rav Poalim YD 2:24). This is also the view of Rav Chaim Ozer (Achiezer 3:33:2, 4:39). Fundamentally, this is dependent on the two views in rishonim in understanding the Tosefta (Taharot 2:3) that a mikveh which was sheuvim and froze and then melts is considered sheuvim. Rosh understands that it isn't sheuvim at all and is kosher as a mikveh. Smag, however, quotes one opinion who holds that it doesn't invalidate the mikveh as sheuvim but is still not kosher unless there's 40 seah of rainwater afterwards. Rav Ovadia is lenient to follow Rosh, because that is the view of Shulchan Aruch, Rama (Darkei Moshe), Shach (201:74) and others. Even though Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla hold like Smag, Rav Ovadia is lenient like most poskim. He cites Levush Mordechai 25 as holding that a mikveh made from an ice machine is invalid since the water was sheuvim before it became ice. Rav Ovadia cites Shevet Halevi 2:102 and Yaskil Avdi YD 2:34 as holding like the lenient view. Chazon Ish (Tinyana 6:3) writes that it is hard to be lenient on this question. Igrot Moshe 1:120 does not offer an opinion on this question. Shevet Halevi 8:204 and Mikveh Mayim (v. 1 p. 198) hold that a mikveh made with an ice machine is kosher. Shevet Halevi only allows on condition that the ice is brought in kelim with holes in them and also there's hamshacha after the ice is made.
↑ Chatom Sofer 1:200 explains that there’s no issue of hava al yaday tumah for snow since it isn’t mekabel tumah. He says that the basis for all of mikvaot is that the water of the mikveh is tahor and automatically remains tahor as long it is connected to the ground. Because it is tahor and stays tahor it can purify other things as well.
↑ Yereyim as explained by Brisker Rav (Temurah 12a)
↑
Rambam (Mikvaot 4:8) holds that water which runs along a pipe (that doesn't make sheuvim) is also hamshacha since the water didn't come directly from a kli into the mikveh.
- Brisker Rav (Temurah 12a) explains that Raavad agrees fundamentally with Rambam that hamshacha separates sheuvim from the kli but disallows having hamshacha on top of a pipe. If it isn't on top of ground it isn't considered detached from the kli that made it sheuvim.
- Rash (Mikvaot 2:7) also implies that he holds of this approach. He writes that sheuvim seeping out of a broken kli is considered hamshacha. Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Kama 4:1) explains that it is considered hamshacha since the water didn't come directly from a kli. (Rambam (Mikvaot 4:4) holds that sheuvim seeping out of a broken kli isn't hamshacha.) Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 8:13) seems to understand Rash differently and explains that it is based on hamshacha of a tiny distance and not because of the breaking. Torat Refael p. 363 explains that Rash a third way; the action of breaking the kli makes it not sheuvim.
↑ Rash (Mikvaot 2:8) writes that it is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov and Rabbi Eliezer whether hamshacha on something that's completely sheuvim and then it enters into a majority of rainwater. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov holds it is necessary to have the sheuvim mix with the majority rainwater (reviya) and then hamshacha, while Rabbi Eliezer holds that isn't necessary. Seemingly, Rash would not follow Rabbi Eliezer. Also, Tashbetz 1:17 holds that one should be strict for Rashi Nazir 38a who holds that it is necessary to have 21 seah before the hamshacha. Bet Yosef 201:44 and Shulchan Aruch argue that a simply majority of the 40 seah is necessary and nothing more. This is the view of Rambam (Mikvaot 4:4).
↑
Most all rishonim hold that hamshacha doesn't work for a completely sheuvim mikveh, but works if majority of the water is rainwater. These rishonim include: Ri Migash (responsa 49), Rambam (Mikvaot 4:9), Tosfot (Temurah 12b), Rosh Mikvaot n. 7, Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh Shaar 1), Baal Hameor (Baalei Hanefesh Shaar 1 n. 3), Or Zaruah 1:335, Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 7, Teshuvot Hameyuchasot Lramban 226), Rivash (83 and 125), and Tashbetz 1:49.
- According to the simple reading of the Gemara Temurah 12a there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov and Rabbanan whether hamshacha works for the entire mikveh or just the minority of the mikveh. Most rishonim rule like Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov. Some rishonim held that we follow Rabbanan and validated a mikveh that was made completely of drawn water. This is based on how Rashi, Rabbenu Gershom, Ri, and Rash understood the gemara. Rabbenu Shmuel Mlunil (Tosfot Temurah 12b) has another reading of the gemara in which hamshacha on the complete mikveh only works if 40 seah of rainwater comes in afterwards.
- Rambam: The Rambam (Mikvaot 4:9) writes that some rabbis of the west ruled that hamshacha works for the entire mikveh. He disagrees and writes that it is completely incorrect. In his commentary on the mishna (Mikvaot 4:4) it is evident that he didn't think anyone in the gemara or mishna held that. Kesef Mishna understands that according to Rambam, everyone agrees that it is necessary to have a majority rainwater and hamshacha. The dispute was whether hamshacha is effective if the sheuvim fell into the mikveh without hamshacha. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov holds that hamshacha is ineffective after it was already mixed in the mikveh, while Rabbanan hold that is kosher. Bottom line, Rambam holds that majority of rainwater and hamshacha is necessary.
- Rif: The Ran Shevuot 5b s.v. maleh explains that the Rif and Rash hold that hamshacha works for the entire mikveh. Rashba 3:228 and Ramban b”b 65b also explain the Rif in the same way. The Bet Yosef 201:44 argues in fact the Rif agreed with the Rambam. Baal Hameor (Baalei Hanefesh Shaar 1 n. 3) also understood Rif this way. Shulchan Aruch 201:44 codifies the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh.
- Rash (Mikvaot 4:4) explains that opinion of the Mishna is that hamshacha only works if the drawn water mixes with rainwater before they fall into the mikveh. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov in the Tosefta however doesn’t require that. Rash (Mikvaot 2:3) holds that hamshacha works from the Torah for the whole mikveh. Rosh Mikvaot n. 7 discusses this question and concludes leniently.
↑ Shulchan Aruch YD 201:44. See previous note. Is hamshacha on all of the 40 seah invalid mideoritta or miderabbanan? Shevet Halevi 2:103 holds that it is only pasul midrabbanan. He quotes that this is the view of Radvaz 1:85, Divrei Chaim, and Bet Shlomo 2:62. However, Shevet Halevi also quotes Imrei Esh 86 who holds that it is pasul mideoritta. Minchat Yitzchak 1:146:4 quotes Maharsham 3:145 who holds that it is only pasul miderabbanan. Minchat Yitzchak seems to accept this opinion. See Imrei Yosher 2:67 who seems to accept this approach of Maharsham but only if the hamshacha is done on ground and not cement.
↑ The Rambam Mikvaot 4:8 writes that hamshacha on a complete mikveh is effective if there was originally a majority of rainwater and then drawn water fell in and then hamshacha occurred. The Bet Yosef 201:44 explains that the Rambam is based on his reading of Temurah 12a that Rabbanan hold hamshacha works for a complete mikveh. He explains that it only means that it works if originally there was a majority of rainwater and then drawn water entered and then the entire mikveh moved. Shulchan Aruch 201:44 follows the Rambam. Rash (Mikvaot 2:7) understands that the Mishna allows hamshacha even if the sheuvim came in first and then the majority rainwater afterwards.
↑ Shevet Halevi 2:103
↑ Shulchan Aruch 201:45. The Kol Bo 86 quotes the Ri who held that hamshacha needs to be a distance of 3 tefachim otherwise it is lavud. Rivash 83 and 125 agrees. Rashba 5:60 holds hamshacha is effective in any amount. Tashbetz 1:49 writes that even though it seems that lavud is irrelevant to hamshacha which is a rule of walls, since the Ri was strict we can’t be lenient. Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyanya 8:13) writes that Rash holds hamshacha is kosher with any distance. However, in Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Kama 6:9) he rejects this explanation. Shulchan Aruch 201:45 is strict.
↑
Shulchan Aruch 201:46 and Rama. Rambam (Mikvaot 8:4) and Raavad (quoted by Bet Yosef 201:46) hold that hamshacha on a pipe is effective, even though it doesn't absorb water. However, the Mordechai (Shevuot n. 645) quotes the Yereyim and Rokeach who hold that hamshacha is only effective on dirt that could absorb water. Rash (Mikvaot 2:2 and 2:8) might imply that hamshacha doesn't need ground that could absorb. Shulchan Aruch is lenient, while Rama is strict.
- The Brisker Rav (Chidushei HaGriz Temurah 12a s.v. vheneh) writes that those who held that you need 3 tefachim is because sheuvim is only rabbinic and it needs to be separated from a kli. However, those who held that you need ground that is water penetrable could hold that sheuvim is deoritta and it doesn’t need to be 3 tefachim.
↑ The Mikveh Yisrael explains that there’s a dispute between the Raavad and Rambam whether the water needs to come into contact with the ground or even a vessel that is attached to the ground or even a vessel that isn’t susceptible to tumah is sufficient. Shevet Halevi 4:120 argues that there’s no dispute but any vessel that has a receptacle isn’t fit for hamshacha even if it isn’t susceptible to tumah. Shevet Halevi 4:120 explains that the water needs to actually come in contact with the ground and if the water is gushing quickly over the ground most of it doesn’t have hamshacha.
↑ Maharshag 1:65 citing experts writes that cement is water penetrable. Chazon Ish (Likkutim 3:1) agrees. Chelkat Binyamin 201:668 writes that the poskim hold cement works for hamshacha. Minchat Yitzchak 1:142 agrees with Maharshag about cement. However, the Divrei Yatziv 117 writes that it is preferable not to use cement since some question if it can absorb water (see Darkei Teshuva 201:206, 215). Mishneh Halachot 16:49 cites this. Pitchei Mikvaot (ch. 6 fnt. 4) quotes Cheshev Haefod who questions that cement should actually be considered absorbent. His reason is that the factor behind being absorbent is that hamshacha makes the water like the water leached from the ground, however, that isn't the case regarding cement. Also, he raises the issue that hamshacha should have to be upon dirt that is connected to the earth and water could leach out of and not dirt on top of something that can't absorb water. For example, a hamshacha ramp on the second floor of a building, even if it is all connected to the ground still isn't fit for this criteria of being ground that is absorbent. Cheshev Haefod concludes that since we only use hamshacha as a chumra today it is fine to use cement and fine to use it even on a second floor. Mikveh Mayim (R' Yirmiyahu Katz) writes that some cements absorb water and some do not. Maharshag 66 notes that even though stones can also absorb, albeit very slowly, they can invalid for hamschach according to Mordechai and Rama. Nonetheless, Maharshag claims that water gets absorbed faster in cement than in stone. [Note that Mordechai and Rama also invalidate wood because it doesn't absorb quickly.]
↑ Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:47. The Rosh responsa 31:11 is lenient about a spring that was refilled with water from a nearby pit since the water in the pit that was absorbed in the ground would certainly be met up with a greater quantity of natural spring water and as such there is hamshacha with a majority of spring water. Also, the spring isn’t invalidated with drawn water. So even though it appears to have dried up it couldn’t completely dry up. Shach and Taz are lenient for Ashkenazim even they wouldn’t hold of the second reason of the Rosh.
↑ Aruch Hashulchan 201:99 and 104 notes that Rash (Mikvaot 2:7) writes that for hamshacha it is necessary to pour the water away from the mikveh. He explains that pouring the water directly towards the mikveh is too much human involvement and is considered b'yedey adam. With this he explains why Mishna 2:7 mentions turning over a vessel and Mishnayot 2:8-9 don't. See Rosh, Bet Yosef, and Taz who answer his question differently.
↑ Rashba, Rosh, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52
↑ Rabbenu Yerucham cites a dispute. Shach 201:112 writes that it is good to be strict. Chatom Sofer YD 212 writes that the mikveh in his town for many years built by established rabbis relied on the opinions that a momentary connection is sufficient. Gidulei Tahara 10 holds that temporary hashaka is very problematic and shouldn't be relied on even after the fact. He infers from Rash, Rambam, and Raavad that they hold it is invalid. Kehilat Yakov (Macot siman 5) shows that Rashi holds that temporary hashaka doesn't work. Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 clearly implies like Rosh that temporary hashaka works. Bet Efraim YD 53 suggests that those who are strict explain that the mishna is based on bitul and not hashaka. Bet Shlomo 2:63 suggests that the mishna means that the waters are only temporarily kosher, for example, if people went into the pits again. This explanation is found in Rivash 294.
↑ Tosfot Rid 15 s.v. vehachaver Ri. Bedek Habayit 201:29 seems to understand Rambam to hold that hashaka is invalid to purify sheuvim water.
↑ Rosh Bava Kama 7, Ramban Bava Batra 65b
↑ The Raah (Bedek Habayit Bayit 7 Shaar 7) writes that since the water in the mikveh is shallow and one couldn’t go to the mikveh in it, adding sheuvim would invalidate it. However, the Rashba in Mishmeret Habayit argues. Ginat Veradim YD 4:1 and Shiurei Bracha 201:15 are lenient. Chatom Sofer YD 212 and Maharam Shik YD 192 are concerned for the Raah. Emek Sheilah 48 writes that the Taz on 66 agrees to it. Chelkat Binyamin 201:896 is strict. Chelkat Binyamin 201:750 is strict whether it is a hashaka or a zeriya of sheuvim to a shallow water mikveh. Chatom Sofer 212 and Maharam Shik are strict even for a mayan that's shallow but Chelkat Binyamin (Tziyunim 2857) quotes Mahari Asad who is lenient for a mayan. Lechem 201:251 writes that to accommodate the Raah they should use hamshacha. Taharat Yisrael 201:66 agrees.
↑ Rash (Taharot 8:9), Meiri (Mikvaot 6:1) quoting Rash, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52. Teshuvat Rid 15 s.v. vehachaver writes that a connection of two fingerbreadths is insufficient for converting drawn water to be usable. It is only for connecting two incomplete mikvaot is it sufficient. He says even though he understands why it should work there’s no clear proof that is the case. Shevet Halevi 4:121:2 writes that is implausible to suggest that the Raavad held that hashaka doesn’t work for drawn water because it is against all of the rishonim. Beis Yosef 201:53 and Darkei Moshe note that although Rash writes that for sheuvim derabbanan a hole that's of any size is sufficient, but Rosh and Rambam hold that shifoferet hanod is always necessary. Rama quotes this stringent opinion of Rosh and Rambam. Bach explains that Rosh holds shifoferet hanod is necessary even for a case of sheuvim derabbanan. If so, there's a reason never to use a hole that's smaller than a shifoferet hanod. However, Shach argues that even Rosh and Rama agree that for sheuvim derabbanan it is sufficient to have a hole that's any size. Simla 201:98 and Gidulei Tahara 201:42 disagree with Shach and maintain that Rosh and Rambam insistent on a hole of shifoferet hanod in all cases of sheuvim. According to Bach, Simla, and Gidulei Tahara one shouldn't use a hole smaller than shifoferet hanod for anything. This is supported by Rosh's comment on Mikvaot 6:8 and Tosfot Harosh Gittin 16a. However, see Minchat Yitzchak 1:147:9 citing Satmer Rebbe and Chelkat Yakov YD 112 who do use holes of any size for sheuvim derabbanan issues, like Shach.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 6:7, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52
↑ Rash (Mikvaot 6:7)
↑
The Rosh Mikvaot n. 15 writes that in order to connect two pits of water in order to create a complete mikveh or to validate drawn water a hole the size of a shifoferet hanod is necessary. The Rash (Mikvaot 6:8 and Taharot 8:9) holds that only for connecting incomplete mikvaot is a shifoferet hanod necessary, but in order to validate drawn water a hole the size of a needle is sufficient since in his opinion drawn water is only rabbinic. Rashba (Shaar Hamayim Shaar 10) agrees.
- The Darkei Moshe 201:26* writes that the Rambam agrees with the Rosh. See, however, the Pirush Mishnayot of Rambam Mikvaot 6:8 which sounds like the Rash and the Aruch Hashulchan 201:177 in fact writes that the Rambam agrees with the Rash. Yet, the Aruch Hashulchan 201:181 explains that the Rambam is strict for another reason.
- Shulchan Aruch 201:53 holds like the Rashba, however, Rama 201:53 agrees with the Rosh. The Shach 201:117 explains that if the invalidation is only rabbinic such as if there’s a minority of drawn water even the Rama would permit a hole that is of any size. But the Taz 201:64 explains that the Rama is strict even if the invalidation is certainly rabbinic. Aruch Hashulchan 201:181 and Chelkat Binyamin 201:786 are strict to always require a shifoferet hanod.
↑
Shach 201:110.
- The Rash Taharot 8:9 explains that there is a contradiction whether a hole of a shifoferet hanod is necessary to connect mikvaot (Mikvaot 6:7, Yevamot 15a) or any water that is wet enough to wet something that could in turn wet something else (Taharot 8:9, Gittin 16a). Rabbenu Tam answered that if the hole is physically a shifoferet hanod even if the water traveling through is only enough to create a second derivative wetness that is sufficient. Having a large hole that isn’t completely full of water establishes a connection between the mikvaot. Similarly, the Mishna Mikvaot 6:9 states that a overflow from one mikveh to another requires a thickness of a onion peel but a width of a shifoferet hanod. The Rash explains that mishna is also discussing the thickness of the area where the overflow could occur but the actual water needs to transfer is only the amount that would create a second derivative wetness. This explanation is supported by Mishna Parah 5:8 which mentions the overflow of an onion peel but not the width of a shifoferet hanod. Lastly, he clarifies that while Rabbi Yehuda only needs a water that would create a second derivative wetness, the Rabbis need a onion peel thick of water to transfer to connect the mikvaot. Finally, the Rash suggests an approach in opposition to the Rabbenu Tam in which the entire hole needs to be full of water. Raavad cited by Bet Yosef 201:54 quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Tam.
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 6:7 writes that a hole that isn’t clearly a shifoferet hanod is invalid because the size of a shifoferet hanod is biblical. Shulchan Aruch 201:52 codifies this.
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 6:7 establishes that if there’s something in the hole even something that grows in the water it would restrict using the hole to connect the mikvaot. Rambam Mikvaot 6:11 and Shulchan Aruch 201:52 codify this.
↑ The Gemara Chagiga 22a implies that small holes do add up to constitute one large hole of a shifoferet hanod. Ravyah 988 and Mordechai Shevuot n. 646, however, explain that the holes only don’t add up to connect incomplete mikvaot but they can add up to validate drawn water. Shulchan Aruch and Rama Y.D. 201:52 codify the Mordechai, Chacham Tzvi 40, Levushei Sarad 206, Dagul Mirvava 201:53 and Mishkenaot Yaakov 45 disagree with Ravyah. Levushei Sarad proves from Rashi (Chagiga 22a), Rash (Mikvaot 6:8), Ri, and Rosh disagree with Ravyah.
↑ Rash and Rosh (Mikvaot 5:2), Chelkat Binyamin 201:173. Bet Yosef 201:9 infers from Rambam, Rosh, and Tur that they hold this as well. However, Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 3) holds that a hashaka to a mayan can be accomplished with a connection of any amount. However, Rashba (teshuva 3:228) also assumes shifoferet hanod is necessary for hashaka with a mayan. Chazon Ish (Tinyanya 3:3) questions why we don't pasken like this Rashba since there's a tosefta that supports his opinion.
↑ The Rosh responsa 31:2 writes that a momentary hashaka is sufficient to convert the sheuvim into kosher mikveh water forever. One of his proofs is Mishna (Mikvaot 6:3). Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 writes that some said it was invalid and others said it was valid. Shulchan Aruch 201:53 follows the Rosh, but the Shach 201:112 writes that it is better to be strict for the stringent opinion to have a continuous hashaka between the rainwater and the drawn water.
↑
Or Zaruah 1:335-6 quotes Rabbenu Simcha who holds that a hashaka from 40 seah of moving rainwater to sheuvim is invalid since it was moving. However, he also quotes that Rabbi Yitzchak Bar Shmuel argues that it is valid as long as it has 40 seah. Rash (Mikvaot 3:3 and 5:2) and Rosh (Bava Kama 7:3) hold like this Rabbi Yitzchak Bar Shmuel about this point. Rid (teshuva 15 s.v. uma sh'hiksheti) clearly disagrees with Rabbi Yitzchak Bar Shmuel and seems to accept Rabbenu Simcha. To summarize, there is a clear machloket in the rishonim if hashaka works to 40 seah of moving rainwater.
- Igrot Moshe YD 1:113 writes that if a mikveh is kosher and moving it is still possible to have a connection to a kosher mikveh to permit it. Even though a moving mikveh isn’t fit for tevilah it is a kosher mikveh to permit another mikveh. His proof is from the Rash (Mikvaot 3:3 and 5:2) who says that if rainwater of 40 seah is coming into a mikveh and there’s water pouring out of the mikveh that is an acceptable way to validate the mikveh. Bet Yosef 201:20 and Shach 201:55 cite this Rash. Pri Deah (S"D 201:55) is also of this opinion.
- Chazon Ish (Tinanya 8:1) holds that a zochlin mikveh is invalid and cannot create hashaka to purify sheuvim. His proof is from the concept of mey tamsiyot shelo pasku. He understands from Raavad that it requires a reviyit to be kosher and therefore it needs the status of a mikveh which is stationary for hashaka to be operative. He reiterates his opinion in Kama 3:12 and Tinyanya 3:12. Chazon Ish 3 is strict and suggests either having the zeriya hole above where the water enters or having a plug. Additionally, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:96 is strict based on the Maharit 2:18. Mishneh Halachot 10:156 is strict. He quotes Maharam Shik 198 who is also strict.
- Chelkat Yakov 111 is strict but it isn’t an issue if a little water at the end comes in while it is moving since a majority of mikveh was already kosher with standing zeriya.
↑ Mikvaot 1:7
↑ Ritva (Nedarim 13a) quotes the Raah
↑
Tosfot Bechorot 55b s.v. ein and Ritva (Nedarim 13a) quoting Ramban, Raavad, and Rav Pinchas Halevi, brother of Raah, all hold that hashaka of sheuvim and a mayan does not make the sheuvim into mayan water. Their explanation is based on Nedarim 40b and Mikvaot 1:7 which indicates that once there is a majority of sheuvim or rain water in a mayan, it is no longer considered a mayan to purify with zochlin. The evidence for Raah, who holds that hashaka makes rainwater into a mayan, is from Mikvoat 5:3 which implies that a flowing mayan which is expanded with sheuvim is still a considered a mayan.
- Ramban answers that Mikvaot 5:3 is discussing where the sheuvim is added directly into the mayan. That effectively converts the sheuvim into mayan water, but if the sheuvim or rain water is added anywhere else downstream hashaka is ineffective and it is not considered mayan water.
- Rabbi Pinchas answers that a majority of mayan water can nullify the sheuvim or rain water to become like mayan water. Nonetheless, on a rabbinic level they disallowed using a mayan with a minority of rain water in the places where it expanded or continued further than where it flowed previously because of a concern that it appears that tevila is acceptable in zochlin of mikveh water. That's the explanation in Mikvaot 5:3 which is discussing where there isn't a majority of mayan water. However, Mikvaot 1:7 and Nedarim 40b are discussing where there is a majority of rain water in which case hashaka doesn't help to make it into mayan water.
- Mikvaot 5:2 according to Kesef Mishna (Hilchot Mikvaot 9:6) considers rainwater that was connected to a mayan to be like a mayan. Several explanations are given for this cited by Moreshet Moshe 5:2: Taz 201:3 holds like Raah that essentially hashaka converts rainwater to become a mayan, but here there is a gezera that the rainwater won't be connected properly (katafras). Similarly, Lechem Vsimla 201:1 s.v. vnireh answers that there's marit ayin to use this rainwater since it appears like he's using rainwater that's moving. However, Gidulei Tahara 13 and Aruch Hashulchan 201:52 explain that if there is majority of rainwater in the entire river then it is no longer a mayan and hashaka doesn't work to make it into a mayan, but if there's a majority of rainwater in one spot and that is conencted to an uncontaminated mayan hashaka converts it into a mayan.
↑ Nedarim 13b
↑ Trumat Hadeshen 254
↑ Trumat Hadeshen 254
↑ Rabbenu Tam and Tosfot Bechorot 55b s.v. ein, Rabbi Pinchas Halevi (brother of Raah, cited by Ritva Nedarim 13a), Shach 201:32
↑ Rabbenu Tam cited in Tosfot Bechorot 55b s.v. ein
↑ Ritva Nedarim 13b holds that kama kama batel is irrelevant to rain or a growth of kilayim since it is natural for it to continue. It is different than someone pouring which he could decide to stop at any moment. See also Ramban Bava Batra 2a for the same type of idea.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 6:10 states that a mikveh next to another mikveh doesn’t invalidate it. Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 6:11 based on the mishna writes that if there’s drawn water connected to a mikveh it doesn’t invalidate it. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:18 codifies the Rambam.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 6:11 states that if there’s a pit of drawn water connected to a mikveh it invalidates the mikveh if the hole holds 3 lug. The Rambam Mikvaot 6:12-13 and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:18 quote this Mishna. Chelkat Binyamin 201:302 explains that the measure of 3 lug is measured by the amount of water that would be contained in the area opposite the hole from the wall with the hole until the opposite wall.
↑ Bet Yosef 201:17, Shach 201:53, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:85
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 6:10, Shach 201:52
↑ Chelkat Yakov 111 writes that the hole for the hashaka should be placed at least 80 cm from the ground of the tevilah mikveh because of a concern of the Raah who holds that water which is so shallow that it can’t be dipped in can’t be a kosher mikveh and sheuvim can’t be added to it. It seems that the Raah would also invalidate the hashaka to a mikveh which has 40 seah which is shallow and is unfit for dipping. However, the Pitchei Mikvaot p. 315 writes that according to the Raah it isn’t clear that he would invalidate a hashaka to a shallow mikveh. Even if he would, it is only an issue to do hashaka to a shallow mikveh but hashaka of a full mikveh to a shallow mikveh is fit.
↑ The Raah (Shitah Mikubeset Beitzah 18a) holds that water which is of different types can’t have hashaka. Chatom Sofer YD 212 and Maharam Shik YD 192 are strict for the Raah.
↑ The Chelkat Binyamin Biurim 201:30 s.v. ad p. 169 quotes the Gidulei Tahara responsa 12 who writes that if a mikveh has a lot of ice and is unfit for tevilah can’t be used for hashaka according to the Raah who says that you can’t add sheuvim to a mikveh which is unfit for dipping since it is shallow. Chelkat Binyamin questions this since the ice is going to melt on its own and it isn’t similar to a shallow mikveh which is unfit as it is. Rabbi Simon said that he heard that Rav Moshe Feinstein allowed the swimming pool of Luban, Russia as a mikveh since the drawn tap water had hashaka to ice underneath the pool.
↑ Rash and Rosh (Mikvaot 5:6)
↑ Rivash 292 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 defines katafras as moving water, zochlin. Or Zaruah (1:336) quoting Rabbenu Simcha and Tosfot Rid (Gittin 16b) agree that katafras is synonymous with zochlin. Divrei Chaim 2:97 argues. Maharsham (2:59 and 3:100), and Igrot Moshe 3:65 reject the Divrei Chaim.
↑
The Ravyah (cited by Mordechai Shevuot 746) asks why it is possible to dip in a river if it is considered katafras.
- The Ravyah answers that katafras is a connection for the water below the slope since the water is going to flow down but not up the slope. Therefore, in a river anywhere one is dipping is valid if there’s 40 seah upstream. A proof is the Tosefta Mikvaot 3:4 that has a case of three pits on a slope, the top and bottom are 20 seah and middle is 40 seah that the middle and bottom are certainly valid. Tosfot Gittin 16a s.v. nisok agrees. Darkei Moshe 201:6 agrees. This approach holds that katafras is a connection together with gud achit. The Bet Yosef argues that this answer isn’t the halacha since we don’t hold that there’s a connection between the lower pit or upper pit using gud asik or achit at all (Rambam Mikvaot 8:8).
- Bet Yosef 201:54 answers that there’s 40 seah of each side of the slope and so it is valid even though there’s no connection of katafras.
↑ Shevet Halevi 3:133 writes that even if a hashaka hole is slanted downward it isn't katafras since the only issue is a rabbinic one after there was zeriya. Even according to the Raavad (by natal seah) it is acceptable since there's hamshacha. After both of those there's hashaka which is at most needed on a rabbinic level. Katafras isn't an issue if water is only invalid rabbinically. Also, the Imrei Yosher 1:101 and 2:167 argues with the Divrei Chaim and holds that katafras isn't an issue if the water is still. We can rely on the Imrei Yoshar and all the more so with other factors. Also, Gidulei Tahara (Nachal 201:45) discusses that katafras can’t mean that it needs to be totally flat but he leaves the precise degree of incline unresolved.
↑
From many places it is obvious that the stairs are included in the mikveh:
- Rash Mikvaot 7:7 explains that the vessel sitting on a stair can be included in the mikveh if you splash and the water submerges the vessel. Rambam Pirush Mishnayot agrees.
- Shulchan Aruch YD 198:31 writes that one may be tovel on top of stone stairs in the mikveh. This is based on the Rashba (responsa 828).
- Mishna Mikvaot 7:6 says that according to Rabbi Yehuda the water on a person’s body while his feet are in the mikveh are connected to the mikveh. The case is clearly where his body is out of the water and feet are in the mikveh and presumably it is stairs or a shallow area.
- The Divrei Chaim 2:97 writes that the stairs aren’t connected with the mikveh and one may not be tovel there. Chelkat Yakov YD 111 writes that the Divrei Chaim is completely contradicted by Shulchan Aruch. He writes that perhaps the Divrei Chaim only meant to be strict if the stairs are slanted towards the inside of the mikveh so that no water could remain on them unless the mikveh was full. Either way, he thinks the Divrei Chaim is totally wrong. He ends by quoting a testimony that the Divrei Chaim retracted before he died.
↑ Betzel Chachma 3:80:3
↑ Rash (Mikvaot 6:8), Meiri (Mikvaot 6:1)
↑ The Mishna (Mikvaot 6:8) allows connecting two mikvaot one above the other on a mountain with a pipe. Why isn't that katafras? Rash answers that katafras isn't a problem for sheuvim. Tosfot Yom Tov (Mikvaot 6:8) based on Tosfot Gittin 16a answers that since the water will definitely flow from the upper mikvah to the bottom one it isn't katafras.
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 states that if there are three pits of twenty seah each and the drawn water one is in the middle and three people go in the mikveh the pits are just as unfit as they were beforehand. The Rosh and Rash explain that drawn water doesn’t invalidate the others since it entered through hamshacha and there was a majority of rainwater in the pit in which it fell into. Yet, they aren’t valid since the two pits of rainwater didn’t connect. Shulchan Aruch 201:55 codifies this mishna. Shach 201:121 quotes the Rosh. Taz 201:69 adds another reason to be lenient in that he explains that the water isn’t going to completely move from one pit to another.
↑ The Tosefta Mikvaot 3:4 describes a case of three pits on a hill with the middle one being a complete mikveh and the one and top bottom being incomplete mikvaot. If there’s a stream of rainwater connecting the pits, Rabbi Meir validates the top pit, Rabbi Yosi the bottom one, and the rabbis just the middle one. Rambam Mikvaot 8:8 follows the rabbis that there's never a connection of katafras even with the principles of gud achit or gud asik. Tosfot Gittin 16a s.v. hanisok, Mordechai Shevuot n. 746, and Darkei Moshe 201:6 hold that katafras can be a connection together with gud achit. (Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 and Tur 201:62 might support this opinion.) Shulchan Aruch 201:60 codifies the Rambam.
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 establishes that if there are three pits of twenty seah each and the drawn water is on the side and three people dipped in the pits which overflowed they are all valid. The Rosh and Rash explain that since the rainwater pits connect there was a complete mikveh and all of the drawn water can’t invalidate it. In fact the drawn water becomes valid with a momentary hashaka. The Rosh and Rash explain that we’re not concerned that the drawn water entered one of the rainwater pits before the rainwater pits connected since it would only invalidate it if all of the twenty seah of drawn water preceded any of the rainwater. Otherwise the drawn water is purified with hamshacha as it is drawn along the ground into the other pits and nullified in its minority by the rainwater pit. Shulchan Aruch 201:55 codifies this mishna.
↑ Shach 201:120, Taz 201:67
↑ Tosefta Mikvaot 3:5, Rash Mikvaot 6:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:56
↑ The Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 6:1 explains that a mikveh on top of a cavity that contains water if the wall between the two is sturdy they are only connected if there’s a hole between the two with a diameter of two fingerbreadths. However, if the wall is so thin that it would collapse if a person would dip in the mikveh the cavity is connected to the mikveh as long as there’s a tiny hole between the mikveh and the cavity. The Shulchan Aruch 201:59 codifies the general idea of the mishna.
↑ Tosfot Pesachim 17b s.v. elah
↑ Torat Kohanim 9, Rash (Mikvaot 2:3), Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. shani), Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:6, Gra 201:29
↑ Divrei Yosef Mikvaot p. 60 discusses the topic and points out that even if it isn’t a vessel it still isn’t considered as though one is immersing in water attached to the ground which the Torat Kohanim requires. (Bet Yosef 201:8 quotes the Mordechai Shavuot n. 745 and Roke’ach n. 377 who write that the mikveh made in a kli is invalid even if it is in a boat or is larger than 40 seah.) He is disputing the Mekor Niftach ch. 4 who permits it. Rambam and Shulchan Aruch 201:7 implies that even if a mikveh is detached from the ground but built with rocks it is kosher. Rav Moshe Bick and Helmetzer (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) wrote that it is impossible to make a moveable mikveh.
↑
The Rash (Mikvaot 5:2 cited by Bet Yosef 198:31) writes that since the vessel is attached to the mikveh or mayan with a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths it is biblically fit and considered a mayan or mikveh and not water of a vessel, however, since one is still dipping in a vessel there is a rabbinic restriction lest one come to dip in a vessel that isn’t attached to the mikveh. That is also the opinion of the Rosh Mikvaot no. 9 and Rambam Mikvaot 9:10. However, see the Ritva Macot 4a suggests that perhaps if the mikveh or mayan would have 40 seah it would indeed make the vessel fit. Finally, the Raah cited by the Ritva holds that a vessel that is attached to a mayan isn’t considered attached since mayan water is moving and the water in the vessel is static. The size of the connection of a vessel to a mikveh requiring a diameter of two fingerbreadths is based on the Gemara Yevamot 15a.
- Pri Deah (T”K 201:14) writes that the Rash holds that it is invalid rabbinically but the Raah holds it is biblically invalid.
↑
Chazon Ish YD 129:5 explains the Rosh in line with the Rash: once there is a vessel which one can’t dip inside of because of a rabbinic restriction the water that comes out of it is invalid as it is considered disconnected from the original mikveh. Chelkat Binyamin 201:151 agrees.
- Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:139 writes that such a mikveh is completely invalid and would require a person to go again and there is no room to defend a minhag to use such a mikveh even if that means saying that the people were violating an isur karet.
↑
Mishna Mikvaot 6:10, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:17
- The Rambam explains the mishna to mean that if the vessel is in the bottom of the mikveh it invalidates it because the water inside it is drawn water. That drawn water invalidates the mikveh only when it is in the middle of the mikveh but if the vessel would be against the wall on the side of the mikveh it wouldn’t invalidate it since it is like two mikvaot next to one another. Accordingly, the Bet Yosef 201:17 writes that if there’s 40 seah without the water in the vessel it is valid. Also Chelkat Binyamin 201:293 makes that obvious point that it is only invalid if the vessel holds 3 lug.
- The Rosh and Rash explain the Mishna to be speaking about a vessel in a mikveh which contains the water of the mikveh. All of the water above the vessel is considered contained by the vessel and is invalid. Accordingly, the Tiferet Yisrael (Yachin 77) writes that even if the mikveh later gets 40 seah it is still invalid.
↑ Shaarei Mikvaot 201:85 writes that this is only if there’s less than 40 seah, but if there’s more than 40 seah all of the water in the vessel next to the mikveh is purified.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 6:10 according to the Rash and Rosh. the Chelkat Binyamin 201:293 writes that we’re strict for this interpretation. Tiferet Yisrael (Yachin 77) writes that it is invalid even if there’s 40 seah.
↑ Mordechai, Rokeach cited by Bet Yosef 201:8, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:7 s.v. hari zeh against Chida (Birkei Yosef 201).
↑ The Rash Mikvaot 5:2 and Rosh Mikvaot no. 9 hold it is only rabbinically invalid. The Ritva Macot 4a s.v. veha citing the Raah seems to hold it is biblically invalid (Pri Deah T”K 201:14). The Bet Yosef 201:8:1 writes that the Rashba and Rash actually consider the water that left the vessel to be valid. The Hagahot Mordechai Kiddushin n. 560 quotes the Rav Chaim who permitted a mikveh with water that flowing out of the vessel. However, the Maharit 3 argues with the Bet Yosef’s understanding of the Rashba. In any event, Shulchan Aruch 201:8, Bach 201:13 and Shach 201:27 are strict.
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 5:1 states that if spring water flows into a vessel that has a rim it is still valid. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 9 explains that the reason the water in the vessel is fit when there’s a rim is because the water flowing on the rim connects the water from the spring with the water in the vessel. This is codified by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:8.
↑ The Gemara Chagiga 22a establishes that if the immersion is necessary for both vessels then since it is effective for the outer one it is automatically effective for the inner one. Rashi explains that just like tumah can spread from the outer one to the inner one through touch, so too tahara of a mikveh can transfer from the outer one to the inner one. However, if only the inner one needs immersion then the outer vessel serves as an interposition between the inner vessel and the mikveh unless the mouth has a two fingerbreadth diameter which connects the water in the vessel with the rest of the mikveh. The Tosefta Mikvaot 5:1 adds that the outer vessel’s immersion is only effective for the inner one if it is upright but not if it is on its side. The Rash Mikvaot 6:5 cites this Tosefta and explains that the water above the opening is considered connected to the water in the vessel but not the water on the side of a vessel that is horizontal. The Bet Yosef conjectures that the reason that the Rambam and others don’t distinguish between a mikveh and mayan for requiring a hole of a two fingerbreadth diameter like the Tosefta does is because the Rambam thought that it was against the mishna and we follow the mishna. Shulchan Aruch 201:9 cites the Gemara and Tosefta. The Machasit Hashekel 201:28 explains further that the water in the vessel connects with water add it and it isn’t considered immersion on top of a vessel, however, when the vessel is horizontal the water inside the vessel is considered on top of a vessel.
↑ Gidulei Tahara responsa 13, Tevilat Kelim 10:3
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 6:5 states that it is possible to immerse in a sackcloth bag which is porous. The Rash Mikvaot 6:5 explains that the holes of the bag connect the water inside the bag with the mikveh and no hole the size of two fingerbreadths is necessary. This is codified by the Rambam Mikvaot 6:8, Rama 201:9, and Shulchan Aruch 201:38.
↑ The Badei Hashulchan 198:46 biurim asks why a woman is allowed to immerse wearing clothing and that isn’t considered as though she is immersing on top of a vessel since her socks and shows are susceptible to tumah. He answers that either there’s no rabbinic restriction on clothing since it doesn’t appear to be a vessel or that the clothing are considered nullified to her and not considered a vessel. He concludes that one should only go to mikveh wearing socks and shoes in an extenuating circumstance. However, the Shaarei Tohar indeed is considered with this question and says a woman may not immerse while wearing socks and shoes.
↑ The Rash Mikvaot 4:5 and Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 8 understand that there’s an argument between the Mishna and Tosefta whether a hole of a tiny amount is sufficient to invalidate the vessel and make it is valid for a mikveh. Since the Gemara Yevamot 15a holds like the Tosefta that’s the halacha. In any event, the Shulchan Aruch and Rama 201:7 don’t accept the opinion of the Rash and Rosh. Rabbi Akiva Eiger responsa 40 considered their opinion as a factor in a particular case.
↑ Tosefta Mikvaot 4:4, Shach 201:22
↑ The Bet Yosef 201:7 cites the Rosh responsa 31:1, Rash Mikvaot 4:5, and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 226a who hold that one may not immerse inside a vessel even if it is punctured. Shulchan Aruch 201:7 rules like the Rambam that a vessel is fit for tevilah once the hole is the size that would render it pure. Meiri (Mikvaot 6:6) holds like Rambam, unlike Raavad. The Bet Yosef 201:7 s.v. veharambam p. 240 writes that the Rambam would only require a diameter of two fingerbreadths if the vessel is earthenware and doesn’t have any other minimum size to purify it or a vessel attached to a rock is more similar to a pipe hewn out of a rock and could be invalid if it is first hewn and then attached. But generally the Bet Yosef only requires a hole that would purify it. For example, the Taz 201:9 and Shach 201:23 explain that the size generally would be the diameter of a kezayit. The Tur and Rama 201:7 however are strict to require the hole to have the diameter of two fingerbreadths. This is based on the understanding of the Rash and Rosh that the Mishna required two fingerbreadths and the Tosefta only needed a tiny hole. To be strict for all opinions one should have a hole that has the diameter of two fingerbreadths. The Shulchan Aruch 201:40 agrees that initially one should have the diameter of two fingerbreadths. Shach 201:23 understands that in 201:7 Shulchan Aruch was writing the strict law but 201:40 was a stringency. However, Chelkat Binyamin 201:123 cites Rabbi Akiva Eiger who understands the distinction in Shulchan Aruch that he requires a tiny hole so that it isn’t a vessel for drawn water but he requires a hole with the diameter of two fingerbreadths to immerse in it.
↑ Tosefta Mikvaot 4:4, Shach 201:22
↑ Pitchei Teshuva 201:12 citing the Markevet Hamishna Mikvaot 6:4, Bear Yakov, Rabbi Akiva Eiger responsa 39. See Perisha 201:15 who writes that the Bet Yosef cites a dispute whether the hole after it was attached to the ground works. Divrei Yosef p. 66 cites the Chibur Tahara 4:3 who suggests that the Perisha understood that the Rambam’s opinion that attaching a vessel to the ground makes it less like a vessel but the Rosh holds that if it is attached to the ground it is more of a formed vessel and invalid if it is attached before it has a hole.
↑ Shach 201:24 clarifies that it isn’t considered a vessel at all and is fit both not to create drawn water but also to dip inside it. That is also the opinion of the Bet Yosef 201:7 s.v. umashe katav halokeach in explaining the Rambam. Shaarei Mikvaot (Biurim 201:7 s.v. hari) defends this approach of the Bet Yosef and Shach against the question of the Birkei Yosef. The Birkei Yosef is bothered that if the vessel is 40 seah it wouldn’t require any hole to break its status as a vessel since it is automatically not a vessel since it is so big. However, the Shaarei Mikvaot disagrees and explains that even if it isn’t susceptible to tumah it is still considered a vessel. That is also the opinion of the Chatom Sofer 206.
↑ Darkei Moshe 201:11 writes that even though the Rabbenu Yerucham, Rash, and perhaps Rosh hold that one may never immerse inside of a vessel even one that is punctured with a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths would agree that one can immerse in a vessel that is punctured with a hole the size of a pomegranate. The proof is from the pool of Shlomo and the Yerushalmi Yoma 2:8.
↑ Tosefta Mikvaot 4:4, Shach 201:22
↑ Shulchan Aruch 201:16, Chelkat Binyamin 201:285 and 201:293
↑
Mishna Mikvaot 6:4 writes that 3 lug in a sponge or bottle with a small opening doesn’t invalidate it. Rash explains that they only made a rabbinic restriction if the water is exposed but not if it is contained. The Rosh adds that even if the water in the sponge or bottle certainly mixes with the mikveh it doesn’t invalidate it unless all of its water exits. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:16 cites this halacha.
- Why does the water in the jug not invalidate the mikveh? Rash (Mikvaot 6:4) implies that the Mishna is not discussing the water in the jug and in fact it could invalidate the mikveh. Rather, the Mishna is discussing water absorbed in the walls of the jug not invalidating the mikveh. Rambam (Mikvaot 6:4) understood that the water in the jug does not invalidate the mikveh since it doesn't mix with the rest of the mikveh. Rosh (Mikvaot 6:4) agrees. Rambam and Rosh on Mishna add that the jug's mouth is thin, however, in Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 6:7) he doesn't mention this detail. Mishna Achrona (Mikvaot 6:4) explains that 3 lugin of sheuvim can never invalidate a mikveh by being connected to a mikveh. They only invalidate the mikveh if they're poured into it.
↑ Shach 201:46 writes that the Raavad holds that if the clothing is partially in the mikveh then water squeezed out of it isn’t considered drawn since it is still connected to the mikveh, however, the Rokeach holds that even if the clothing isn’t completely picked up nonetheless the water that is squeezed out of the clothing is considered drawn water. He cites the Levush who was strict for the Roke’ach.
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 5:2 writes that water that flowed over vessels according to Rabbi Yosi is like a mikveh. While the Rash explains that it is referring to a punctured vessel, the Rambam and Rosh explain that the water is flowing over an inverted vessel. The reason it is invalid is because there is a rabbinic restriction not to immerse on the back of a vessel lest one come to immerse in a vessel itself. Once they invalidated the water on top of the vessel all the water that flows beyond that point is considered disconnected from the original spring even if the water is one connected stream. Therefore, they treated the water beyond the vessel as a mikveh. Shach 201:34 and Taz 201:23 further elaborate on this explanation. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:12 accepts the Rambam.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 5:2, Rambam, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:12. The Shach 201:37 explains that really even a earthenware vessel is invalid on the back of the vessel as the Tur didn’t distinguish. That is in opposition to the opinion of the Bet Yosef 198:31 who explains that everyone would hold that the rabbinic restriction against immersing on the back of a vessel is specifically for vessels that are susceptible to tumah even on the backside excluding the earthenware one. In any event after the fact the Shach is lenient after the fact regarding earthenware vessels.
↑ The Bach 201:17 writes that just like we know that if a vessel has a rim that connects the water inside the vessel to the water outside the vessel and makes all of it fit as a spring (Mishna Mikvaot 5:1), all the more so this would be true of inverted vessels. Shach 201:34 and Taz 201:23 agree.
↑ Gemara Bava Batra 66a, Tur 201:7, Shach 201:21
↑ The Rambam’s opinion is that a hole the size that would render it not susceptible to tumah is sufficient to remove the status of vessel. The Rash and Rosh’s opinion is that a hole of any size is enough to render it a non-vessel. The Shulchan Aruch 201:7 follows the Rambam, but the Rama 201:7 writes that one should be strict to always have a hole the diameter of two fingerbreadths.
↑ Gemara Bava Batra 66a, Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:36, and Shach 201:21
↑ The Shach 201:21 writes that it is fit even to dip in such a stone vessel since it wasn’t a vessel when it was attached to the ground. However, the Nodeh Beyehuda and Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Pitchei Teshuva 9) argue that the gemara only made such a distinction with respect to drawn water which is only rabbinic, however, with respect to dipping in a vessel there is no distinction. The Chatom Sofer sides with the Shach and proves that this is also the opinion of the Tur and Rambam.
↑ The Gemara Niddah 65b established that one may not immerse in a mikveh on top of a plank of wood because of a concern that one will be afraid to immerse and not immerse properly. The Raavad explains that the wooden planks aren’t susceptible to tumah but if they were then there would be another issue; that is, there is a general problem to immerse on top of vessels lest one could to immerse in a vessel outside of a vessel. The Rambam and Rosh understand the gemara differently. The Bet Yosef 198:31 explains that they hold that there’s no rabbinic restriction to dip on top of a vessel if the vessel doesn’t have a receptacle, or it is turned over, or it is surrounded by water. The Taz holds by the opinion of the Rambam but Shulchan Aruch and Shach accept the Raavad.
↑ Based on the Raavad (Shaar Hatevilah cited by Bet Yosef 198:31) and Shulchan Aruch 198:31 a woman may not immerse on top of any vessel which is susceptible to tumah even tumat medres, which includes items are are designated for sitting and standing. The Rash Mikvaot 5:2 distinguishes whether the vessel is attached to the ground or not and says that there is only a rabbinic restriction to immerse on top of a vessel that is attached to the ground. The Bet Yosef 198:31 infers from the Rosh that he disagrees with that distinction. Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:138 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 198:19 doesn’t accept the Rash. Rabbi Akiva Eiger 1:40 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:10 accepts that distinction in a particular case with other factors.
↑
Raavad Baalei Hanefesh siman 1 writes that a woman may not go to mikveh on top of a kli that is mekabel tumah. She can go on top of a kli cheres since it does't have tumah on its backside. Mishna Mikvaot 5:2 states that mayan water that goes into or over a kli is unfit for a mikveh. The Raavad explains that this is based on a prohibition lest a person go to mikveh in a kli. Rashba Torat Habayit Hakatzar 30a and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 198 agree. Ran Shevuot 6b s.v. isha cites the Raavad. Similarly, the Rash Mikvaot 5:2 limits the issue of going to mikveh in a kli to where the kli is attached to ground because it might be used as an unfit mikveh but if it is detached from the ground there's no restriction. The Bet Yosef understands the Rosh Mikvaot 9 as disagreeing with this idea.
- However, the Rosh Mikvaot 32 and Rambam Mikvaot 1:11 don't mention this restriction of the Raavad. They might have understood the mishna differently. Bet Yosef 198:31 explains the Rambam that a mikveh is only unfit if in the creation of the mikveh all of the water went over a kli on its way to the mikveh whether that kli has a receptacle or not. Rabbinically it is invalid to go to the mikveh over a kli even if it doesn't have a receptacle and even that water after it has come out of that kli is only a mikveh and not a mayan. But going to mikveh on top of a kli in the mikveh is fit. Alternatively, the restriction was only for a kli without a receptacle but an overturned kli with a receptacle is permitted since it is evident that it isn't being used for a mikveh. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 198:31 rules like the Raavad.
↑ Chelkat Binyamin 147 citing Minchat Yitzchak 2:22, 4:41. However, Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 228 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein as permitting having metal rods in the cement.
↑ Tzemech Tzedek 172 explains that any mikveh with walls and a floor that are all attached to the ground which couldn’t be picked up in one piece isn’t considered a vessel. He explains that otherwise every mikveh would be invalid according to the Nodeh Beyehuda who holds that a vessel which was created in material which was already attached to the ground is invalid to dip inside of. Rather the entire structure of the mikveh isn’t considered a vessel since it couldn’t be lifted up in one piece.
↑
*According to the Chatom Sofer if you create a vessel while is attached to the ground it is considered a kosher mikveh. However, according to Rabbi Akiva Eiger if it is a vessel even though it was created while it is attached the ground it isn’t a vessel for sheuvim but it is a vessel to disallow dipping in it as a mikveh. According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger how can you build a mikveh? Shouldn’t the plastering or cementing of the rocks together be considered creating a vessel attached to the ground?
- Bet Shlomo 2:70 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 2:13 hold that it isn’t considered a vessel when the pieces are being built into the ground and come together. That is considered building a structure and not a vessel. Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 writes that the Nodeh Beyehuda 2:142 s.v. vod and Divrei Chaim 201:36 agree.
- Similarly, Igrot Moshe YD 1:108 writes that making a mikveh with cement isn’t considered a vessel because it couldn’t be picked up as a vessel and would fall apart. He continues that it is only an issue if it is considered by people to be a vessel created when it was attached just like it is a detached vessel. But since the cement mikveh people don’t see it as a vessel but as a structure it isn’t an issue at all. He explains that even if the cement is painted and decorated it is still permitted since because know it is a mikveh and not a vessel.
- Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 is lenient. The Darkei Teshuva 201:206 quotes many achronim who hold that using cement to hold rocks together to create a mikveh doesn’t invalidate the mikveh since that is the normal way to build a building and not the way to create a vessel. Maharsham 1:35 and 1:145 is hesitant to be lenient since the cement holds the rocks together and forms it as a vessel which is invalid for a mikveh. Maharsham 2:102 is lenient if there’s no other option since the cement can’t be removed and it is therefore considered a building and not a vessel.
↑ Rama 201:7. Depends on the discussion of pipes meant to be attached to the ground.
↑ Igrot Moshe YD 2:95 writes that if a mikveh is made with cement pieces that were one slab per wall and one for the floor it would be invalid. He explains that the Rashba 1:800 and Rama 201:7 who write that if the mikveh is made from multiple rocks it is valid is only if it is made of multiple rocks while it is attached to the ground and there needs to be multiple rocks for each wall and not a single slab. Hesitantly he suggests that the wall is similar to a vessel since it is a single item that is a significant piece of the complete mikveh and takes on the status of a mikveh even though it is only a one wall. Chelkat Binyamin 201:145 agrees.
↑ Rav Chaim Kalman Gutman in Ginat Veradim 3:25 p. 66 writes that a mikveh made by placing a cement floor and piece of cement with the four walls added on top is problematic. Firstly, it is considered a vessel since it is just two stones attached together and not many stones. Even though it couldn’t be picked up by a person it is considered a vessel since it was designed to be built that way. Rav Avraham Schreiber in Ginat Veradim 9:2 p. 258 argues that it isn't considered a vessel according to all of the poskim. According to the Tzemech Tzedek 172, it isn't a vessel since it couldn't be lifted as one piece. According to the Maharsham, a connection of rocks can't form a vessel. According many others, it was made in the way of building a structure and not a vessel.
↑ The Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111 writes that the mikveh is invalid as long as the water changes colors from what its original appearance even if it doesn’t look like wine. Shach 201:66 agrees.
↑ The Torat Kohanim Shemini 9:4 cited by Bet Yosef 201:30 learns from a pasuk that a colored mikveh is invalid. Chelkat Binyamin 201:391 cites a dispute between the Raavad and Ramban, Rashba, and Ritva whether it is a rabbinic or biblical invalidation respectively. Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 2) and Rashba hold it is only rabbinic. Mishkenot Yakov 45 and Igrot Moshe 120:8 s.v. vayin hold it is biblical. Chazon Ish 5:12 holds it is rabbinic. Divrei Chayim YD 2:102 quotes Mabit and Tosfot Yom Tov who hold it is biblical.
↑ Rambam Mikavot 7:12, Shulchan Aruch 201:27
↑ Shulchan Aruch 201:27
↑ Raavad Mikvaot 7:12 based on Tosefta Mikvaot 5:8 writes that while the water was invalid because of having its color changed it can’t become invalid as drawn water since it isn’t considered water at all. Afterwards once more water is added and its original color returns it is fit. Rama 201:29 codifies the Raavad.
↑ Igrot Moshe YD 1:120:7 understands from Rama that the mikveh which isn't 40 seah and is discolored cannot be made valid with drawn water. Rama only meant that if drawn water is added and the mikveh remains discolored it is valid if later rain water is added.
↑ Chelkat Binyamin 201:434 based on Chazon Ish (Kama 8:10) and Gidulei Tahara. In Tziyunim 1401 he disagrees with Igrot Moshe. According to Chazon Ish, it is kosher even if the 3 lugin of drawn water is added and it turns back to the color of water before the mikveh reaches 40 seah it is kosher. Behind this dispute is that Igrot Moshe holds that a 40 seah mikveh of colored water creates hashaka, while Chazon Ish (Kama 8:9) argues that there's no hashaka to colored water.
↑ Chelkat Binyamin 201:432 cites a dispute between the Chazon Ish Mikvaot 5:13 and the Maharsham 3:11 whether it is possible to fix a mikveh by changing its color and then returning its color. The Maharsham held that it is possible to fix since once it turns into colored water the invalidation of drawn water doesn’t count and when its color returns it is a kosher mikveh. Bet Shlomo 1:171, Bet Yitzchak 2:41, and others agreed. However, the Chazon Ish held that the only time drawn water doesn’t invalidate a colored mikveh is if it colored the mikveh prior to the drawn water entering. However, once a mikveh is invalid because of drawn water it remains invalid.
↑ Chelkat Binyamin 201:432 writes that one can only use the solution of the Maharsham if the invalidation was rabbinic but if it is biblical it doesn’t work since the entire concept of having the waters change colors is only rabbinic to begin with according to many poskim.
↑ Rav Moshe Feinstein (Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229), Mikveh Mayim p. 87
↑ Rambam Mikvaot 7:9, Shulchan Aruch 201:26
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 establishes that if the mikveh is 40 seah and its color changed it is invalid. Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111 clarifies this point. Shulchan Aruch 201:25 agrees.
↑ Mishkenot Yakov 44 invalidates such water based on Gemara Sotah 15b. However, Pitchei Teshuva 201:19 disagrees and holds it is like water which changed colors by itself.
↑ Rashba Shaar Hamayim 11 cited by Bet Yosef 201:28, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:28
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 states that a mikveh that has 40 seah and its water changed colors is invalid unless water is added and that water can even be drawn. The Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111, Rambam Mikvaot 7:9, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:25 agree.
↑ Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 2:19), Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 11), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:28. The Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 establishes that colored or dirty water doesn’t invalidate the mikveh because of a change of color. Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111 explains that unless the actual coloring agent such as wine or dye is added to the mikveh it doesn’t invalidate it because of a change of color. Shulchan Aruch 201:27 generally accepts the Raavad. Shach 201:64 quotes the Raavad. Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 5:12) writes that Raavad is only lenient because he thinks that a change in color is only a pasul derabbanan.
↑ Tosfot Macot 4a s.v. amar, Rid 15 (cited by Biyurim Lrashba fnt. 244). This is also implied from Tosefta 5:9 that it is invalid. Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Raavad 2:19 notes this Tosfot. Mishkenot Yacov 45 argues with Raavad on the basis of Sotah 15b and Chullin 85a. Chelkat Binyamin says that most poskim accept Shulchan Aruch but we should be machmir for Mishkenot Yakov.
↑ Mishna Mikvaot 6:4, Zevachim 25b, Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:48. The Bet Yosef 201:48 explains that in fact the entire concept that if there’s something susceptible to tumah in the creation of the mikveh it is invalid is only the opinion of the Rash and Rosh, but the Rambam completely disagrees. Rambam holds that this is only an invalidation for mayan and not mikveh. We follow the Rash and Rosh.
↑
Rash (Mikvaot 2:3 and 5:5), Rashi (Zevachim 25b s.v. havayatan), Rosh (Mikvaot n. 11), Rabbenu Tam (Teshuvot V'psakim Mchachmei Ashkenaz Utzarfat 307), and Tur 201:48. Chatom Sofer 199:5 and Chazon Ish (Mikvaot 3:17) hold this invalidation of creating a mikveh through something that was susceptible to tumah is biblical since it is learned from a pasuk. Chelkat Binyamin 201:679 agrees. (See, however, Ritva (Bava Batra 66a s.v. vha) who seems to understand that this biblical derivation only applies to kelim but not anything which is susceptible to tumah such as a person.)
- Not all rishonim agree that this is a pasul at all for mikveh. Yereyim 26 writes that the derivation of Zevachim 25b only applies to a mayan but not a mikveh. Mordechai (Shevuot 746, cited by Bet Yosef 201:48) quotes this Yereyim as well as Rabbenu Shmuel who agrees. Bet Yosef 201:48 and Mishna Achrona (Parah 6:4) add that Rambam also holds like this. See also Lechem Vsimla (201:16:5 s.v. harambam). However, Rashi (Zevachim 25b s.v. havaytan) writes that the gemara is relevant even to a mikveh.
↑ The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 writes that hashaka works for a mayan to be connected a mikveh and transform it into a kosher one. Specifically, he says that it can remove the invalidation of being created with something susceptible to tumah. The Bet Yosef 201:49 infers from the Rashba 3:228 that it is ineffective. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 follows the Rosh but also quotes Rashba who is strict. Shach 201:105 arguing with the Hagahot Perisha in fact states that this connection only needs to be temporary in order to validate the mikveh. See Minchat Yitzchak 1:146:12 who quotes Kav Mayim Chayim who argues that even Rashba would accept the view of Rosh if there is a connection of shifoferet hanod. Chelkat Binyamin implies otherwise.
↑ Chelkat Binyamin 201:510 quoting Simla 83 and the implication of Shach 201:100
↑ Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 3:17)
↑ The Rosh Mikvaot n. 5 writes that if a board without edges is used to direct water into a mikveh it is valid if the water would have entered anyway, otherwise it is invalid because the mikveh was created by use of something that is susceptible to tumah (Mikvaot 5:5). The Bet Yosef 201:35 suggests that either the case is where the wooden board is susceptible to tumah since it used to have an edge and that edge was removed or that since flat wooden vessels are rabbinically susceptible to tumah that invalidates the mikveh. The Taz 201:43 and Shach 201:76 offer another answer such that the flat wooden board is designated for a use making it susceptible to tumah. They disagree with the concept of the Bet Yosef that vessels that are rabbinically susceptible to tumah invalidate the mikveh. However, the Chazon Ish Mikvaot 7:5 agrees with the Bet Yosef that we’re strict about something that is rabbinically susceptible to tumah. Chelkat Binyamin 201:511 cites the two approaches.
↑
Which wooden utensils are susceptible to tumah?
- Service people and utensils: The Mishna Kelim 16:1 establishes that a wooden tray, table, or bed are susceptible to tumah. The Rambam Kelim 4:1 clarifies that any flat wooden utensil is susceptible to tumah only if it services people and utensils such as a table which a person eats from and also it is used to hold other utensils. However, a flat wooden utensil which doesn’t service people and other utensils doesn’t have any tumah. That distinction is made by the Tosefta Kelim 13 and Torat Kohanim Shemini 6:4. Aruch Hashulchan 201:87 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 7:5 agree.
- What level of tumah does it have?
  - Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a s.v. le’olam) holds it doesn’t have tumah at all. The gemara backed down from any idea of flat wooden utensils having tumah unless they are susceptible to midras if they are designated for sitting, leaning, or standing on. (It is a dispute if flat wooden utensils can have midras, see Taz 201:31 and Tosfot Shabbat 44b.) Maharam Paduah responsa 31 writes that we hold like the Rashbam and Rashi (Sukkah 15a s.v. amar) agrees.
  - Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. vshani) holds that they have rabbinic tumah and the pasuk that the Torat Kohanim cited is only an asmachta. Tosfot (Eruvin 31a s.v. bpeshutei) agrees. The Mishna Lmelech (Kelim 4:1) and Korban Netanel Sukkah 1:29:300 explain that the Rambam agrees. The Korban Netanel (Sukkah 1:29:300) writes that the Rosh also holds it is rabbinic. This approach of the Tosfot, Rambam, and Rosh is well accepted. The Mishna Achrona Kelim 16:2 writes that mefarshim all hold it is only rabbinic. Aruch Hashulchan YD 201:87, Chazon Ish YD 134:5, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:511 holds like it.
  - Rashba Bava Batra 66b s.v. veha’amar quotes an opinion that it is biblically tameh. In fact the Torat Kohanim learns that this category of flat wooden utensils is tameh from a pasuk. Tosfot Sukkah 5a s.v. misgarto and Menachot 96b s.v. livrei explain that the gemara Menachot actually asks whether items that service people land utensils have tumah biblically or rabbinically and leaves it unresolved.
- Are wide flat wooden utensils tameh? Tosfot Sukkah and Menachot in one answer say that a large flat baker’s tray is rabbinically susceptible to tumah because it is so wide and useful like a utensil with a receptacle. Tosfot (Eruvin 31a s.v. bpeshutei) quotes the Ri as agreeing. This idea is based on Rashi Menachot 96b s.v. tameha. Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. vyesh) quotes some who say that any tray which serves utensils and not people is susceptible to rabbinic tumah. Shach 201:45 writes that flat wooden utensils aren’t susceptible to rabbinic tumah.
- Is a cane susceptible to tumah? The Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot Mikavot 5:5) writes that even though it has no receptacle it is still tameh rabbinically. The Chazon Ish (Mikvaot 7:5) explains that it has tumah because it services people and utensils or alternatively it has a small receptacle. However, the Rosh (Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5 and Hilchot Mikvaot n. 11) hold that a cane doesn’t have tumah at all. Tosfot Yom Tov (Mikvaot 5:5) and Simla 201:84 point out this dispute.
↑ Mishna Kelim 11:3, Rambam Kelim 9:2, Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:137
↑ Dagul Mirvava on 201:48, Mikveh Mayim p. 153 and 169 citing Igrot Moshe. Nodeh Beyehuda 137, Chatom Sofer 217-218, Igrot Moshe 1:115-6 hold that the kli needs to be both (1) mechuber l'karka and (2) made to be meshamesh karka so that it isn't mekabel tumah. However, Gidulei Tahara (cited by Mikveh Mayim p. 181) holds that it is sufficient for it to be mechuber l'karka even if it isn't made to be attached to the ground.
↑ Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:137 holds that the buyer can have intention to use it for the ground based on Mishna Lmelech Kelim 2 since a kli made with no intention is not mekabel tumah.
↑ Igrot Moshe Y.D. 1:115 is lenient because of breira since a piece of metal is only mekabel tumah midrabbanan once it is attached to the ground if it wasn't made for the ground (Yad Ramah). Since it is only a rabbinic issue it is fine to say that the intention of the piece was made for can be clarified retroactively.
↑ Igrot Moshe 1:115
↑ Igrot Moshe YD 1:116
↑ Rosh (Mikvaot 4:2), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:35, Shach 201:103. However, Chazon Ish YD 135:2 disagrees with Rosh. Chelkat Binyamin 201:680 writes that we shouldn't rely on Rosh about this question.
↑ The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 explains that if there’s a separation between the vessel that is susceptible to tumah and the mikveh it is kosher. His proof is that Zevachim 25b considered to permit the mikveh because of the airspace in which the water was flowing. Shulchan Aruch 201:48 codifies the Rosh.
↑ Chatom Sofer 199
↑ The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains that a plug that prevents water from exiting a mikveh that otherwise would be invalid as the water is flowing is invalid since the plug is considered like creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah. The Rosh Mikvaot 11 disagrees. Tur 201:50 explains that the Rosh argues that preventing water from escaping isn’t an issue, it is only an issue to gather water into a mikveh using something that is susceptible to tumah. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 cites both opinions.
↑ The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 writes that if a mikveh is currently valid and there is a concern that water is being absorbed in the ground boards can be nailed down. If the nails are new then they aren’t susceptible to tumah since they are being used to service the ground from the beginning of their use. However, if they are old nails they are susceptible to tumah but nonetheless they can be used. His reason is that since the mikveh is currently valid continuing to keep it valid isn’t considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah. Pitchei Teshuva 201:35 quotes this. Chatom Sofer YD 204 agrees. He answers why this is different from Tosfot Sukkah 10a. Divrei Chaim YD 1:44 disagrees with Nodeh Beyehuda. Dovev Meisharim 1:90 quotes this Divrei Chayim.
↑
The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 understands that the water that flows over something is susceptible to tumah is purified if it is attached to a mikveh or spring. He explains that it is like hashaka for sheuvim that can purify an entire mikveh. However, the Rashba 3:228 (as understood by Bet Yosef 201:49) disagrees. The Darkei Moshe 201:25 adds that the Mordechai also disagrees with the Rosh. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 mentions both the opinions of the Rosh and Rashba. The Gra 201:89 is strict.
- According to the Rosh, why is hashaka is effective on water in a vessel that is susceptible to tumah (Shulchan Aruch 201:49) but not for sheuvim while it is in the vessel that has a receptacle (Shulchan Aruch 201:8)? The Taz 201:59 explains that the reason that hashaka doesn’t work for sheuvim in a vessel is because of a gezerah that one might use that vessel as a mikveh even when it is detached from the mikveh. However, here the gezerah doesn’t apply since one isn’t going to dip inside a vessel that susceptible to tumah which doesn’t have a receptacle. The Bet Yosef 201:49 writes that only for real sheuvim hashaka doesn't work but for water that flowed over something that doesn’t have a receptacle could have hashaka. Divrei Yosef p. 358 explains that since there’s a gezerah that water in a vessel is sheuvim even if there’s hashaka, then no hashaka will be able to change its status. However, water that flowed over something that was susceptible to tumah can be converted with hashaka. See Chelkat Binyamin fnt. 2316 writes that the Bet Yosef might agree with the Taz.
↑ Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:48
↑ Chatom Sofer YD 214, Chelkat Binyamin on 201:48 holds that the airspace over the mikveh is like the mikveh itself. See, Chazon Ish YD 135:2 s.v. ktav, who might imply otherwise.
↑ Ben Ish Chai (Hod Yosef 71) proves from Rambam Parah 6:8 that havaya al yadey dvar mekabel tumah is a problem even if it is only grama and used to help along the water.
↑ The Rosh responsa writes that if a non-Jew owns a mikveh we can’t rely on him because the mikveh might have become lacking and he completed it with drawn water. Shulchan Aruch 201:4 accepts the Rosh. The Taz and Bach understood Shulchan Aruch to mean that we’re relying on the concept of a doubt on a rabbinic issue. However, the Shach and Gra 24 write that the Shulchan Aruch means only to be lenient if there’s no way for the non-Jew to mess up the mikveh such as if the only way to add water to the mikveh if by adding water through the roof in which case it would be valid since majority of the water is rainwater and some of it traveled on the ground. Chazon Ish Mikvaot 10:6 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:24 explains that really it is based on having a doubt about a rabbinic issue but only if a majority of the mikveh is valid anyway to offset the issue that it is likely that the non-Jew tampered with it.
↑ Maharik 115, cited by Bet Yosef 201:57(2)
↑ The Mishna Mikvaot 8:1 establishes that a pit of water found outside a city in Israel is assumed to be from rainwater and not used for laundry and therefore kosher, but inside the city it is assumed that it is used for laundry and therefore drawn water which is invalid for a mikveh. In the Diaspora it is always assumed to be drawn since they aren't concerned about this. This is also found in the Tosefta Mikvaot 6:1 and codified by the Rambam Mikvaot 10:5. Bet Yosef 201:74 comments that today even in Israel the lenient assumption to consider a pit of water outside a city to be a mikveh doesn't apply since the Jews don't rule Israel. Shulchan Aruch 201:74 rules accordingly that any pit found with water is presumed to be invalid. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:302 adds that today a man made pit with water is invalid even in Israel leven where Jews live since there are many pools of drawn water for many reasons.
↑ Shach 201:150, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:302

[1] Even though there is an opinion that Rashi Shabbat 65 s.v. vsaver cites that a zavah needs to dip in a mayan and a mikveh is insufficient, Rashi rejects it in several places based on a Tosefta Zavim 3:1. See Rashi Bechorot 58b s.v. mikveh. Shaarei Teshuva of the Geonim 164 written by Rav Natronai Goan holds that a zavah. Tosefta Megillah 1:11 explicitly holds that a Zavah doesn’t need a mayan. The Ramban Vayikra 15:11 points out that the simple explanation of the pesukim is that a zavah can’t go in a mikveh and needs a mayan but that isn’t the explanation of chazal. Rav Yakov Emden in Yavetz responsa 88 defends the teacher of Rashi by saying we don’t follow the Tosefta. See Aruch Lener Niddah 67a who provides another defense of this approach. Either way, this opinion was rejected by many poskim. Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5 and Rosh ad loc. hold that a zavah doesn’t need a mayan. Bet Yosef YD 200:1 quotes the Rambam Mikveh 1:5, Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 1), Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 200:1 conclude that a zavah is purified by a mikveh. The Bach 200:2 explains that really this opinion is only rabbinic and it is supported by Nedarim 40b. Either way, the Bach concludes that it was rejected by all of the poskim.

[2] Chulin 31a, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 197:1. Rishonim Mikvaot (Miyulim Lhaarot Bahag 1) writes that although the text of Bahag implies that the tevilah of niddah is only derabbanan, this is impossible because Bahag later writes that it is learned from a hekesh. All the rishonim and achronim conclude that tevilah of niddah is from the Torah and either there is a mistake in the text of Bahag or he meant something else. They quote Anfei Yehuda who says that Bahag meant tevilah bizmano is only derabbanan and they suggest he means that tevilah of niddah in mayim chayaim is only derabbanan.

[3] Rivash 294 clarifies that this minimum size of 40 seah is from the Torah.

[4] The Gemara Avoda Zara 75b derives from Torah that a mikveh requires 40 seah at a minimum, which is measured by 1 amah x 1 amah x 3 amot. The same idea is found in Eruvin 4b and Torat Kohanim Shemini 9.

[5] Bet Yosef YD 198:1 cites the Sifra Emor 4:7 which derives from the pasuk Vayikra 22:6 that a person is only purified by going to the mikveh if one is completely covered by the water at one time. That is codified by Shulchan Aruch 198:1.

[6] Rav Chaim Noeh in Shiurei Torah (3:29 p. 257) writes that since there’s a 24 log in a seah, 4 reviyot in a log, and 27 dirham in a reviyit, each of which is 3.2 grams of water in a mikveh of 40 seah there is 24*4*27*3.2*40=331,776 grams = 331.8 liters. He says that since perhaps the water measures of the Rambam are slightly different in other waters he says it is sufficient to add 3% which is another 10 liters, altogether 342 liters is certainly sufficient. However, the minhag is to use double or quadruple that amount.

[7] Aruch Hashulchan 201:10 writes that obviously if there's a large person who can't fit in a mikveh for 40 seah needs to dip in a mikveh that's larger than 40 seah. Darkei Teshuva 201:2 asks that it seems that 40 seah is a halacha lmoshe msinai in all cases and having more is only rabbinic. Rav Schachter in Bet Yosef Shaul v. 2 writes that the Aruch Hashulchan is right.

[8] Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef YD 200:1

[9] Tashbetz 1:17 cited by Bet Yosef YD 200:1, Tosfot Yoma 31a s.v. amah

[10] The Mishna Mikvaot 2:10 establishes that thin mud can count for a mikveh. The mishna provides six definitions of how thick that is. The Gemara Zevachim 22a says another measure altogether; it says that if the mud is so thin that a cow would drink it it is considered water for a mikveh. Rambam Mikvaot 8:9 and Smag Asin 248 rule like the Gemara Zevachim. However, the Smak 294 rules like the Mishna. Yet, the Rash Mikvaot 2:10 and Tosfot Sukkot 19b explain that the Mishna’s six opinions are merely describing more precisely the measure of what a cow would drink. The Bet Yosef 201:32 understood the Rash to mean that we should simply follow the Gemara and that would correspond with the Mishna. That’s why he writes that the Rambam agrees with the Rash (Divrei Yosef p. 244). However, the text of the Rash (unlike what the Bet Yosef quoted) actually states that the measures that the mishna gave are objective and we couldn’t just measure ourselves with a cow today because the determination of exactly was is normal drinking of a cow was established by chazal in his dispute.
According to the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch we should measure the mud with a cow today. But according to the Rash and Smak we would follow the most stringent opinion of the mishna which is that it is only thin if a straw would be placed in it and it would fall in. The Divrei Yosef explains the Shulchan Aruch, while the Bear Hagolah 201:72 and Chelkat Binyamin 201:470 follow the Rash.

[11] According to the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch we should measure the mud with a cow today. But according to the Rash and Smak we would follow the most stringent opinion of the mishna which is that it is only thin if a straw would be placed in it and it would fall in. The Divrei Yosef explains the Shulchan Aruch, while the Bear Hagolah 201:72 and Chelkat Binyamin 201:470 follow the Rash.

[11] Mishna Mikvaot 2:10, Rambam Mikvaot 8:10, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:32

[12] Gemara Zevachim 22a establishes that anything which grows in the water can be used for a mikveh. The Rambam Mikvaot 8:11 rules that the eye of a fish can be used for a mikveh. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:33 codifies this.

[13] Chelkat Binyamin 201:468 writes that the creatures can only possibly be considered part of the mikveh if they are liquified. He cites the Aruch Hashulchan 160:16. See also Rashi Zevachim 22a.

[14] Ran responsa 66 explains that with a pit in the ground with water it is possible for the water level to change naturally. If it is known that would naturally decreases to below 40 seah and then increases again it is a problem for the one going in the mikveh unless they know at the time when they’re going to the mikveh that there’s 40 seah. The reason is that a chazaka established kosher status, which naturally changes doesn’t count as a chazaka (Kiddushin 79a). If it happens that it decreases and increases naturally but it isn’t known that it ever decreased to less than 40 seah there’s no problem and one can rely on the original chazaka of the mikveh. Yet, it is proper to check that the mikveh has 40 seah before going to the mikveh since it is possible to check in advance a person shouldn’t rely on a chazaka (pesachim 4a). Shulchan Aruch 201:65 codifies the Ran. Taz 201:85 adds that it is usually sufficient to know that there’s 40 seah afterwards to permit all of previous dippings and it isn’t necessary to know that it was 40 seah to begin with. Shaarei Mikavot 201:275 is only lenient for rabbinic tumahs.

[15] Niddah 2b, Rambam Mikvaot 10:6, Shulchan Aruch 201:65

[16] The Mishna Mikvaot 7:6 presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis if the second person who goes to mikveh while the first person is still standing in the mikveh had a valid dipping. Rabbi Yehuda holds it is valid since the water on his body is considered connected to the mikveh based on the principle of gud achit. However, the rabbis hold that gud achit doesn’t apply to Mikvaot. Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 and Tur 201:62 hold like Rabbi Yehuda, while the Rambam Mikvaot 8:12 and Raavad Baalei Hanefesh (cited by Bet Yosef 201:62) hold like the rabbis. Shulchan Aruch 201:62 follows the Rambam.

[17] Rambam Mikvaot 8:12 implies that a cloth that is partially touching a mikveh the water inside is considered connected to the mikveh. The Rivash 292 explains that the water in the cloth is considered connected to the mikveh even though we don’t hold of gud achit since part of the cloth is still in the water all of the absorbed water is considered a connected unit together with the water. Shach 201:131 agrees. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:63 codifies the Rambam.

[18] Tosefta Mikavot 3:2 establishes that a cloth removed from a mikveh makes the water in it sheuvim. Divrei Dovid p. 454 quotes the Tiferet Yisrael Boaz 6:6 who explained that the water is absorbed in the cloth unlike a reed basket or vessel with many holes that can’t hold water. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:63 codifies the Tosefta.

[19] Mishna Mikvaot 5:7 states that all small holes or animal footprints are connected to the mikveh. The Rosh explains that they are connected if there’s a small hole of two fingerbreadths connecting them to the mikveh. Rambam Mikvaot 8:1 and Shulchan Aruch 201:57 agree.

[20] Mishna Mikvaot 6:1, explanation of the Rosh, Shulchan Aruch 201:58

[21] Pri Deah (Siftei Levi 201:125) explaining Shulchan Aruch 201:58

[22] The Rambam Pirush Mishnayot 6:1 writes that if the wall is thin and can’t stand up on its own the crevice is part of the mikveh. He implies that it is possible to dip a vessel in there even if it doesn’t have a reviyit. The Shach 201:127 rules that it is obvious that the crevice needs a reviyit to purify a vessel. The Pri Deah (Siftei Levi 201:125) cites a Raavad that supports the Shach.

[23] Mishna Mikvaot 6:1, explanation of the Rosh, Shulchan Aruch 201:59

[24] The Rama 201:57 quotes the Rosh who learns from the mishna that a splash is connected to a mikveh but once it is detached it is invalid unless it is 40 seah. The Shach 201:123 and Taz 201:74 explain that it isn’t considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah when the person pushes the water to extend to the vessel because (1) that extension is attached to the mikveh and according to the Rosh there’s no issue of water being transferred by something that is susceptible to tumah if it is all connected to the mikveh and (2) the water being splashed out isn’t directly touching the hand and that small separation is sufficient that it isn’t considered water that was drawn by something that is susceptible to tumah Maharit YD 17 adds similarly that it isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam since you only pushed the water in the mikveh and that water pushed other water which eventually left the mikveh. Since the water one touched was attached to the mikveh and the water which left isn’t koach adam (but koach sheni) it isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam.

[25] Maharik holds that a well dug in the ground and water is found is considered like a mayan. He is disagreeing with Rash Mikvaot 1. Mishkenot Yakov 45 agrees with Maharik.

[26] Tosefta MIkvaot 1:6 writes that someone who digs next to a river or ocean is considered like mey tamsiyut (water leaching from the ground) and not a mayan. Rambam codifies this. However, Rama 201:52 seems to rule otherwise based on Ravyah that water next to a river has the status of a mayan. Mishkenot Yakov 45 writes that we follow the Tosefta. Also, he writes that in the European countries it is impossible to know whether the well is dug too close to the river whether it is a mayan or mikveh. Therefore, our mikvaot should be treated as a mikveh and not mayan. Gidulei Tahara (Shaayla 2 s.v. umah) presents 6 factors of how to determine if the spring is a real spring or it is from river water. The main 3 factors are: 1) Spring water comes from between rocks. 2) Spring water goes up from below and river water comes from the side. 3) Spring water is consistent and continuous. Lechem 201:74 quotes this.

[27] Torat Kohanim 9

[28] Rosh (Mikvaot no. 2) cites the Ri as holding that a mayan only purifies a kli with any amount but a person requires 40 seah. The Rosh agrees with the Ri. However, The Rambam Mikvaot 4:8 and Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh ch. 3 s.v. vhani mili) argue that a mayan is effective with any amount even for a person. Rashba (Torat Habayit 30b, Shaar Hamayim 11) agrees with the Rambam and Raavad. Shulchan Aruch 201:1 rules like the Ri.

[29] Rabbi Moshe ben Chisday (Mordechai 747) holds that a mayan becomes invalid if 3 lugin of sheuvim are added to the mayan. Rosh (Bava Kama 7:33), Mordechai (Shevuot 746) quoting a teshuva of baalei hatosfot, and Ritva Macot 4a s.v. od citing Tosfot agree with Rabbi Moshe ben Chisday. Gra 201:45 quotes this Rosh. Rash (Mikvaot 5:2) implies this as well, according to the Ri. Maharik 56 explains that their opinion is based on the fact that a mayan requires 40 seah for a person to be tovel in it (according to Ri). Therefore, a mayan without 40 seah isn't considered a complete mikveh and hashaka doesn't work. Rama 201:40 is strict for this opinion. Trumat Hadeshen is strict for this opinion, though it seems it is primarily because he thought that this was the view of Shiltot. (However, Shiltot really writes nothing about this and it seems that it became attributed to Shiltot from the vague presentation of Mordechai.)

[30] Mordechai Mikvaot 746 at the end cites a dispute about this point in which the Rav Chaim Ben Chisday ruled it was invalid, but the Mordechai didn’t understand why that would be the case and Rabbenu Simcha also was lenient. Maharam Rotenberg (Prague 217) and Rosh responsa 30:3-4 hold that it is kosher. Maharik 56 proves that Maharam, Rabbenu Simcha, Or Zaruah, Rambam, Raavad, Rosh, Rashba, and Tur all hold that the mayan is still valid. Bet Yosef 201:15 cites these sources. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:15 and 201:40 is lenient about this question.

[31] Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, Rabbenu Chananel Shabbat 65b, Ramban Shabbat 65b in the name of Rabbenu Chananel

[32] Rashi Shabbat 65b s.v. vsaver

[33] 
The Trumat Hadeshen 254 is bothered why a mikveh can transform sheuvim but a mayan doesn’t change moving rainwater isn’t mayan water. He explains that generally there’s no such thing as transforming water because it was mixed. For sheuvim when water is put in the mikveh it is like it is being reattached to the ground and that is the mechanism how it is transformed. Chazon Ish YD Mikvaot 3:2:16 explains the Trumat Hadeshen to mean that hashaka is invalid for zochlin since that is a biblical law that limits the leniency of moving water to where it naturally moved and not rainwater that was added to a river. The only exception to that is that actual spot of the spring which has a greater power to transform the rainwater and it is as though the spring grew.

Some question the Trumat Hadeshen’s limitation of Hashaka (connecting invalid water to a mayan) with three precedents (Mikveh Tahara 201:10).
Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 11 40a) writes that connecting a mikveh to a mayan purifies it of its invalidation of the water changing colors even if the mayan doesn’t actually make the mayan change back to regular water. Shulchan Aruch 201:28 cites this.

Rashba ibid. also says that connecting an invalid mikveh to a mayan makes it valid if the mikveh was sheuvim. Shulchan Aruch 201:11 cites this.

Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 writes that a mikveh that was made with something that was susceptible to tumah is invalid but can be fixed by connected it to a mayan. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 cites this.

The Bach 201:5 answers that since the invalidation of zochlin is biblical and sheuvim is rabbinic they allowed hashaka for sheuvim. The Ritva Nedarim 13b also answers this question that way.

The Taz 201:3 disagrees with the Trumat Hadeshen’s premise and instead concludes that really a mayan can transform rainwater into mayan water but there’s a rabbinic restriction lest a person go to the mikveh that’s completely rainwater and is moving. Knesset Hagedola 201:1 and Gidulei Tahara 201:6 also assume this way that even if there’s a majority of rainwater in a river it is biblically kosher. Shaarei Mikvaot p. 7 writes that the achronim don’t accept the Taz.

[35] The Trumat Hadeshen 254 is bothered why a mikveh can transform sheuvim but a mayan doesn’t change moving rainwater isn’t mayan water. He explains that generally there’s no such thing as transforming water because it was mixed. For sheuvim when water is put in the mikveh it is like it is being reattached to the ground and that is the mechanism how it is transformed. Chazon Ish YD Mikvaot 3:2:16 explains the Trumat Hadeshen to mean that hashaka is invalid for zochlin since that is a biblical law that limits the leniency of moving water to where it naturally moved and not rainwater that was added to a river. The only exception to that is that actual spot of the spring which has a greater power to transform the rainwater and it is as though the spring grew.

[36] Some question the Trumat Hadeshen’s limitation of Hashaka (connecting invalid water to a mayan) with three precedents (Mikveh Tahara 201:10).
Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 11 40a) writes that connecting a mikveh to a mayan purifies it of its invalidation of the water changing colors even if the mayan doesn’t actually make the mayan change back to regular water. Shulchan Aruch 201:28 cites this.

Rashba ibid. also says that connecting an invalid mikveh to a mayan makes it valid if the mikveh was sheuvim. Shulchan Aruch 201:11 cites this.

Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 writes that a mikveh that was made with something that was susceptible to tumah is invalid but can be fixed by connected it to a mayan. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 cites this.

[37] Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 11 40a) writes that connecting a mikveh to a mayan purifies it of its invalidation of the water changing colors even if the mayan doesn’t actually make the mayan change back to regular water. Shulchan Aruch 201:28 cites this.

[38] Rashba ibid. also says that connecting an invalid mikveh to a mayan makes it valid if the mikveh was sheuvim. Shulchan Aruch 201:11 cites this.

[39] Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 writes that a mikveh that was made with something that was susceptible to tumah is invalid but can be fixed by connected it to a mayan. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 cites this.

[40] The Bach 201:5 answers that since the invalidation of zochlin is biblical and sheuvim is rabbinic they allowed hashaka for sheuvim. The Ritva Nedarim 13b also answers this question that way.

[41] The Taz 201:3 disagrees with the Trumat Hadeshen’s premise and instead concludes that really a mayan can transform rainwater into mayan water but there’s a rabbinic restriction lest a person go to the mikveh that’s completely rainwater and is moving. Knesset Hagedola 201:1 and Gidulei Tahara 201:6 also assume this way that even if there’s a majority of rainwater in a river it is biblically kosher. Shaarei Mikvaot p. 7 writes that the achronim don’t accept the Taz.

[34] The Mishna Mikvaot 5:3 establishes that a mayan which was filled with a majority of rainwater has the status of a mikveh and is only fit if it isn’t moving. Rav (Nedarim 40b) is concerned that the same is true of every river. On this topic there are several approaches explained by the Ran Nedarim 40b and Bet Yosef 201:2:
Rash holds that if there is a majority of drawn water, the mayan is invalid when moving.

Raavad Mikvaot 9:11 explains that if the river was moving when a majority of rainwater entered it is still fit. However, in the areas of the river which expanded because of the rainwater are unfit.

Maharik 115 explains that the majority of rainwater is only fit if that area of the river was originally moving when the rainwater entered. This is accepted by the Shach 201:11.

Rambam Mikvaot 9:11 explains that the majority of the rainwater makes the whole river unfit if it entered the river or spring anywhere besides the original pit of the spring. Shulchan Aruch 201:2 accepts the Rambam. The Kesef Mishna 9:11 and Bet Yosef 201:15 explain that the Rambam would validate a majority of rainwater that entered the river in any part that was originally moving just like if rainwater entered the original pit of the spring. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:7 writes that the Shulchan Aruch follows this opinion since he quoted the opinion of the Rambam. Divrei Yosef p. 34-35 agrees in interpreting Shulchan Aruch. See Divrei Chayim 201:8 who rejects this interpretation of the Rambam, otherwise most rivers would be fit and the Rambam quotes Rav’s concerns of going to mikveh in a river.

Rishonim ask why Mikvaot 5:3 states that if drawn water is added to a mayan and it was previously moving, it remains a mayan. The mishna implies that this is true even if there is a majority of drawn water. However, Mikvaot 5:5 implies that if there is a majority of rainwater in a mayan, the mayan only purifies if it is standing still. Ran answers that even if there's a majority of drawn or rainwater it remains a mayan in the place where it was previously moving. However, if it wasn't previously moving it only purifies if it is standing still. Ramban answers that if the water was added to the primary pit of the mayan it is kosher as a mayan. However, if the water was added to the extensions of the mayan it only purifies if it is standing. Rav Pinchas Halevi answers that if there is a majority of drawn or rainwater it only purifies if it is standing. Also, if a minority of drawn or rainwater it only purifies in the place that it was previously moving.

[43] Rash holds that if there is a majority of drawn water, the mayan is invalid when moving.

[44] Raavad Mikvaot 9:11 explains that if the river was moving when a majority of rainwater entered it is still fit. However, in the areas of the river which expanded because of the rainwater are unfit.

[45] Maharik 115 explains that the majority of rainwater is only fit if that area of the river was originally moving when the rainwater entered. This is accepted by the Shach 201:11.

[46] Rambam Mikvaot 9:11 explains that the majority of the rainwater makes the whole river unfit if it entered the river or spring anywhere besides the original pit of the spring. Shulchan Aruch 201:2 accepts the Rambam. The Kesef Mishna 9:11 and Bet Yosef 201:15 explain that the Rambam would validate a majority of rainwater that entered the river in any part that was originally moving just like if rainwater entered the original pit of the spring. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:7 writes that the Shulchan Aruch follows this opinion since he quoted the opinion of the Rambam. Divrei Yosef p. 34-35 agrees in interpreting Shulchan Aruch. See Divrei Chayim 201:8 who rejects this interpretation of the Rambam, otherwise most rivers would be fit and the Rambam quotes Rav’s concerns of going to mikveh in a river.

[47] Rishonim ask why Mikvaot 5:3 states that if drawn water is added to a mayan and it was previously moving, it remains a mayan. The mishna implies that this is true even if there is a majority of drawn water. However, Mikvaot 5:5 implies that if there is a majority of rainwater in a mayan, the mayan only purifies if it is standing still. Ran answers that even if there's a majority of drawn or rainwater it remains a mayan in the place where it was previously moving. However, if it wasn't previously moving it only purifies if it is standing still. Ramban answers that if the water was added to the primary pit of the mayan it is kosher as a mayan. However, if the water was added to the extensions of the mayan it only purifies if it is standing. Rav Pinchas Halevi answers that if there is a majority of drawn or rainwater it only purifies if it is standing. Also, if a minority of drawn or rainwater it only purifies in the place that it was previously moving.

[35] Shach (201:31-2 and Nekudat Hakesef to Taz 201:19) holds that hashaka to a mayan doesn't make the water kosher b'zochlin. However, Taz (201:3 and 19) holds that it does, except there is a gezerah regarding rivers. Prisha 201:21 also accepts this general approach. Fundamentally, Shach is like Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, while Taz is like Raavad. The proofs that hashaka to a mayan makes the rainwater or sheuvim into a mayan are from Mikvaot 5:1, as quoted in Shulchan Aruch 201:8 and 10. (1) Shulchan Aruch 201:8 says that spring water which went over a kli is sheuvim but if some water went over the rim of the kli and isn't sheuvim, that water can purify the sheuvim water. Shach 201:33 answers that it has the status of a spring since the water originated from a spring and was never completely disconnected. (2) Shulchan Aruch 201:10 says that a spring which is connected to a pool of rainwater makes the rainwater into spring water. Shach 201:32 answers that it is only like a spring when majority of the water in the pool is from the spring.

[36] Mishna (Mikvaot 1:7, 5:5), Rash (Mikvaot 5:5), Nedarim 40b, Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 9:6), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:2

[37] Shach 201:11 quotes Maharik and agrees. He supports Maharik from Rash and Rosh (Mikvaot 5:5). However, Rambam (as understood by Ran) makes no such distinction. Even within Rash and Rosh, Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 1:4) argues that Rash is only strict about drawn water but is not strict about rainwater. Fundamentally, he writes that someone who is lenient unlike Shach has what to rely upon.

[38] Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:13. The Shaarei Mikvaot 201:66 cites the Maharik who holds that the Rambam holds that spring water which is broken from the spring is still treated like a spring explains this Rambam Pirush Mishnayot. He says that water which was flowing and reached a mikveh pool as a spring is considered a spring even if the stream is interrupted, however, an interrupted stream of a spring that didn’t reach a mikveh isn’t considered anything but a mikveh and not a spring.

[39] Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:14

[40] Rambam Pirush Mishnayot 5:5 explains that Rabbi Yosi holds that even something which is susceptible to rabbinic tumah causes the mikveh to be invalid if it is used to create the mikveh. We follow Rabbi Yosi. Shulchan Aruch 201:14 accepts the Rambam. See Shach 201:104 that after the fact the mikveh would be valid.

[41] Mishna Mikvaot 5:1 establishes that a spring which flowed into a pool and was stopped has a status of a mikveh. The Tur 201:10 infers that if it wasn’t interrupted it is considered like a spring. Shulchan Aruch 201:10 agrees.

[42] The Bet Yosef 201:10 writes that it seems from the Rosh and Rash (Mikvaot 5:1) that if the pool was originally empty and was filled with spring water it is considered like a spring even when the stream from the spring to the pool is interrupted. He suggests this possibility in the Rambam Mikvaot 9:9, but he points out that the Rambam Pirush Mishnayot doesn’t sound like this. Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot 5:5) is explicit that water that dripped out of a spring and is disconnected from the spring is like a mikveh. Maharik 156 understands from many rishonim that disconnected spring water is like a spring. In any event, the Raavad (cited by the Bet Yosef 201:10 by Maharik 156) and Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim 11) hold explicitly that if the water from the spring was interrupted it is considered like a mikveh completely. The Shulchan Aruch 201:10 rules like the Raavad and Rashba. Shach 201:29, Chatom Sofer 209 and Hagahot Perisha 201:21 accept this approach. With respect to the Hagahot Perisha’s proof the Shach 201:34 and Taz 201:23 disagree.

[43] Maharik 156 holds that the spring water which was disconnected and reconnected does not reattain the status of a spring. Darkei Moshe 201:13 quotes this. However, this is contradicted by the simple understanding of the Mishna Mikvaot 5:1 that once the spring is reconnected it reattains the status of a spring. This simple understanding is supported by the Rash, Rosh, Raavad, and Tur. However, according to Shach 201:31, this Mishna isn't a proof about this point since it is only like a spring to purify in any quantity but not while it is moving. However, Prisha 201:21 holds that a spring which was disconnected and reconnected has the status of a spring to purify in any quantity and zochlin.

[44] Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, Rashba (Shaar Hamayim ch. 11), Shulchan Aruch and Rama 201:11. Shach 201:33 explains that the reason that it is only effective when it is stopped is because the drawn water isn’t converted into spring water and is only effective when stopped.

[45] The Gemara Bechorot 55b cites a dispute between Rav and Shmuel whether a river is a kosher mayan or it is invalid since there might be more rainwater than springwater. If there’s more rainwater it is considered a mikveh but it would be invalid since the river is moving. Rav was strict and Shmuel lenient. Shmuel thought that automatically there’s more water from the spring than rainwater in the river. Rabbenu Tam (Sefer Hayashar 256) and Tosfot Bechorot s.v. ein quoting Rabbenu Tam ruled leniently like Shmuel. However, the Rambam Mikvaot 9:13 and Rosh Mikvaot no. 10 citing the Maharam (Tashbetz Katan ch. 493) and Rif that we follow Rav. Shulchan Aruch 201:2 follows the Rambam.
Trumat Hadeshen 254 and Maharik 115 write that there was a minhag to follow Rabbenu Tam to go to mikveh in a river. The Trumat Hadeshen only defends the minhag if there’s no other mikveh and there’s a concern that people won’t go to mikveh at all. Darkei Moshe 201:3 cites that the Mahari Vayil 70 and Binyamin Zeev 154 provide further support for this minhag. Rama 201:2 concludes that if there’s no kosher mikveh available one doesn’t have to stop someone who relies on Rabbenu Tam to go to mikveh in a river.

The Bet Yosef 201:2 s.v. vgam clearly specifies that if someone knows that the river is at its lowest level and isn’t increased because of rainwater it is fit even according to the Rav. Shach 201:15 only mentions going in a small river that you know it didn’t increase because of the rainwater.

Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:2 holds that even Rabbenu Tam would be strict if it is obvious that the river increased in size because of rain. However, the Bet Yosef argues that clearly the Ran Nedarim 40b s.v. ulinyan and Rosh responsa 31 don’t think so. Shach 201:14 rules like the Bet Yosef.

[59] Trumat Hadeshen 254 and Maharik 115 write that there was a minhag to follow Rabbenu Tam to go to mikveh in a river. The Trumat Hadeshen only defends the minhag if there’s no other mikveh and there’s a concern that people won’t go to mikveh at all. Darkei Moshe 201:3 cites that the Mahari Vayil 70 and Binyamin Zeev 154 provide further support for this minhag. Rama 201:2 concludes that if there’s no kosher mikveh available one doesn’t have to stop someone who relies on Rabbenu Tam to go to mikveh in a river.

[60] The Bet Yosef 201:2 s.v. vgam clearly specifies that if someone knows that the river is at its lowest level and isn’t increased because of rainwater it is fit even according to the Rav. Shach 201:15 only mentions going in a small river that you know it didn’t increase because of the rainwater.

[61] Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:2 holds that even Rabbenu Tam would be strict if it is obvious that the river increased in size because of rain. However, the Bet Yosef argues that clearly the Ran Nedarim 40b s.v. ulinyan and Rosh responsa 31 don’t think so. Shach 201:14 rules like the Bet Yosef.

[46] 
Memaakim Siman 4 p. 32 writes that in the ghetto in WWII it was permitted to rely on the Rama since there was no mikveh available.

Chatom Sofer YD 2:202 discusses a community which doesn’t have a mikveh but there is a nearby river. If the women would go to the mikveh in the river they’d go at the proper time. However, if the women had to travel to another town to go to a mikveh they’d have to go to mikveh during the day so that they could travel back that afternoon and night. The Rabbi suggested that they go to the mikveh in the other town during the day and rely on those who are lenient since they can’t return to their house before the night. However, the Chatom Sofer responded that going to mikveh in a river is less of a leniency than going to mikveh during the day and the minhag has what to rely upon. Interestingly, he even mentions that going to mikveh in a river fulfills the opinion of the Rabbenu Halevi that a zavah needs to dip in a mayan.

[63] Memaakim Siman 4 p. 32 writes that in the ghetto in WWII it was permitted to rely on the Rama since there was no mikveh available.

[64] Chatom Sofer YD 2:202 discusses a community which doesn’t have a mikveh but there is a nearby river. If the women would go to the mikveh in the river they’d go at the proper time. However, if the women had to travel to another town to go to a mikveh they’d have to go to mikveh during the day so that they could travel back that afternoon and night. The Rabbi suggested that they go to the mikveh in the other town during the day and rely on those who are lenient since they can’t return to their house before the night. However, the Chatom Sofer responded that going to mikveh in a river is less of a leniency than going to mikveh during the day and the minhag has what to rely upon. Interestingly, he even mentions that going to mikveh in a river fulfills the opinion of the Rabbenu Halevi that a zavah needs to dip in a mayan.

[47] The Mishna Parah 8:8 and Mikvaot 5:4 cites a dispute between the tenayim whether the oceans have a status of a spring or mikveh. Rabbi Yosi holds that they have the status of a spring besides for purposes of mayim chayim. Rashi Shabbat 109a explains that Rabbi Yosi doesn't distinguish between the Mediterranean sea and other oceans. See the Bet Yosef 201:5 at length who explains that the Rambam Mikvaot 9:12 agrees with Rashi with respect to someone going in the mikveh even though he does have a distinction for the Mediterranean sea for the purposes of mayim chayim. The Shulchan Aruch YD 201:5 rules that oceans are fit for dipping even if they’re moving. Chazon Ish (Parah 13:13) argues with Bet Yosef and holds that Rambam holds that an ocean is like a mikveh and invalid where it is moving.

[48] The Mishna Mikvaot 5:6 writes that a wave that is 40 seah purifies a person or utensils. The Tosefta Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that one may only dip in the edge of the wave that broke or landed and not the tip of the wave that is hanging above the sea. The reason the Tosefta explains is because one may not dip or immerse utensils in the air. Rashi Chagiga 19a s.v. shein explains that the Torah only permitted going to mikveh or a mayan in water that was attached to the ground. Tosfot Chullin 31b s.v. ditnan agrees that this requirement is biblical. Bet Yosef 201:5 explains the Rambam Mikvaot 9:18 that the issue with dipping or immersing in a wave above the sea is a rabbinic one lest one come to be lenient with the invalidation of moving water in a mikveh. Taz 201:7 writes Rashi’s reason for why it is forbidden to dip or immerse in the air.

[49] The Mishna Mikvaot 5:6 did mention that the wave was 40 seah that was purifying people and utensils. Why does it need 40 seah if it is a spring? The Rashba Torat Habayit proves from here the opinion of Rabbenu Tam that a person dipping in a spring must have 40 seah and the mentioning of 40 seah was only for the purpose of the person and not the utensils.
However, the Taz 201:6 and Gra 201:6 explain that it isn’t a proof for Rabbenu Tam because it is possible that really 40 seah was only mentioned as a practical consideration that 40 seah is necessary for a person to be enclosed by the water. According to the Rashba, the Bet Meir 201:5 writes that if the wave didn’t completely detach from the sea it would seem that 40 seah isn’t necessary since the wave combines with the rest of the sea.

Shach 201:20 explains that in general it is always necessary to have 40 seah in the wave otherwise the wave appears to be unlike a spring.

[68] However, the Taz 201:6 and Gra 201:6 explain that it isn’t a proof for Rabbenu Tam because it is possible that really 40 seah was only mentioned as a practical consideration that 40 seah is necessary for a person to be enclosed by the water. According to the Rashba, the Bet Meir 201:5 writes that if the wave didn’t completely detach from the sea it would seem that 40 seah isn’t necessary since the wave combines with the rest of the sea.

[69] Shach 201:20 explains that in general it is always necessary to have 40 seah in the wave otherwise the wave appears to be unlike a spring.

[50] The Maharik 115 proves from the Mishna Mikvaot that permitted immersion in a wave that even water disconnected from a spring is considered like a spring. However, once it stops once it is invalid. The Shach 201:30 accepts the Maharik specifically with respect to the ocean. The Bet Meir 201:5 explains that according to the Maharik who holds that water from a spring that were detached from a spring have the status of a spring as long as they are moving we can explain the Mishna Mikvaot 5:6 as referring to a wave that completely detached from the sea. Lechem Vsimla 201:21 explains that the Shach agrees with the Maharik. The Shaarei Mikvaot 201:29 quotes the Lechem Vsimla. Rav Chaim Soloveitchik on Mikvaot 9:6 explains that the Rambam agrees with the Maharik. However, the Maharik isn’t accepted as the Bet Meir points out.

[51] Ramban Shabbat 65b clarifies that the a mayan can purify if it is moving and certainly if it is stationary. Shach 201:7 agrees.

[52] Being that the invalidation of zochlin is in Torat Kohanim as a derivation of a pasuk it should be biblical. That is the opinion of the Trumat Hadeshen 254, Maharik 115, Bet Yosef 201:3, and Rama 201:2. The Darkei Moshe 201:7 explains that the issue of rainwater in a mikveh moving is considered a biblical invalidation, but the concern of having a majority of rainwater in a river is only rabbinic.
However, the Bet Yosef 201:3 seems to understand the Mordechai to mean that zochlin is only rabbinic. Chatom Sofer YD 2:202 proves that the Yereyim (ch. 26) and Maharam (cited by Mordechai) hold that zochlin is only rabbinic. Furthermore, he posits that this is the view of Ran, Rosh, and Rashba. Mahari Asad 5:211 proves that Rashi Chullin 31b s.v. chardelit holds zochlin is rabbinic. Peni Yehoshua Shabbat 65b s.v. BTosfot shema writes that the rishonim who hold that sheuvim is rabbinic also hold that zochlin is rabbinic. Tzemech Tzedek 164:5 makes a compromise in explaining the Rosh that biblically only if the mikveh is moving like a spring but rabbinically it is a problem even if there's a hole in the mikveh and water is draining. Imrei Yosher 130 agrees.

Chazon Ish 134:3 (Tinyana 7:3) writes that this opinion of the Chatom Sofer is totally incorrect and may not be included as a factor to be lenient. Divrei Chayim 5 and Chibur Ltahara 2:38 agree and answer the Chatom Sofer’s proofs.

[73] However, the Bet Yosef 201:3 seems to understand the Mordechai to mean that zochlin is only rabbinic. Chatom Sofer YD 2:202 proves that the Yereyim (ch. 26) and Maharam (cited by Mordechai) hold that zochlin is only rabbinic. Furthermore, he posits that this is the view of Ran, Rosh, and Rashba. Mahari Asad 5:211 proves that Rashi Chullin 31b s.v. chardelit holds zochlin is rabbinic. Peni Yehoshua Shabbat 65b s.v. BTosfot shema writes that the rishonim who hold that sheuvim is rabbinic also hold that zochlin is rabbinic. Tzemech Tzedek 164:5 makes a compromise in explaining the Rosh that biblically only if the mikveh is moving like a spring but rabbinically it is a problem even if there's a hole in the mikveh and water is draining. Imrei Yosher 130 agrees.

[74] Chazon Ish 134:3 (Tinyana 7:3) writes that this opinion of the Chatom Sofer is totally incorrect and may not be included as a factor to be lenient. Divrei Chayim 5 and Chibur Ltahara 2:38 agree and answer the Chatom Sofer’s proofs.

[53] Torat Kohanim Shemini 9:3, Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, Rashi Shabbat 65b s.v. vsaver

[54] 
Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains that if there’s water coming out of a crack in a wall the mikveh is invalid since it is moving. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 11 and responsa 31:4 writes that a crack in a wall isn’t considered zochlin. It is only considered zochlin if the water is gushing like a spring is. Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 agrees. Darkei Moshe 201:26 explains that the Mordechai and Agur are strict like the Rash.

Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim 2) writes that a mikveh is valid even if the water is draining slowly because otherwise every pit would be invalid since the earth absorbs the water slowly. Rather if the drainage isn’t recognizable it is valid. Shulchan Aruch 201:51 cites the Rashba.

Gra 201:96 argues that according to the Rosh the invalidation of a mikveh is objective and even if it isn’t recognizable it is invalid. Rav Chaim in his letter and Rav Shternbuch are strict for the Gra.

[77] Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains that if there’s water coming out of a crack in a wall the mikveh is invalid since it is moving. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 11 and responsa 31:4 writes that a crack in a wall isn’t considered zochlin. It is only considered zochlin if the water is gushing like a spring is. Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 agrees. Darkei Moshe 201:26 explains that the Mordechai and Agur are strict like the Rash.

[78] Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim 2) writes that a mikveh is valid even if the water is draining slowly because otherwise every pit would be invalid since the earth absorbs the water slowly. Rather if the drainage isn’t recognizable it is valid. Shulchan Aruch 201:51 cites the Rashba.

[79] Gra 201:96 argues that according to the Rosh the invalidation of a mikveh is objective and even if it isn’t recognizable it is invalid. Rav Chaim in his letter and Rav Shternbuch are strict for the Gra.

[55] Divrei Chayim Mikvaot 201:5 and Maharam Shik YD 205 hold that if there's water going into the mikveh it is invalid because of zochlin. However, the Lechem Vsimla 15 quoting the Mey Shiloach 2:8 holds that it isn't considered zochlin at all as long as there's 40 seah in the mikveh besides the water coming in. Arugat Habosem YD 211-2 is lenient even to include the water coming in towards the 40 seah.

[56] Chazon Ish (Likkutim 6:2 s.v. haya, YD 127:2 s.v. haya) himself raised the issue but limited it to where the water would be pouring out of the hole from bor tevila into the bor zeriya or bor hashaka and the water is arched. However, if the water is just dribbling down the side of the walls and not arched then it isn't considered zochlin. He leaves it with tzarich iyun, indicating that he wasn't certain about this point. Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Igrot Vereshimot Kehilat Yakov v. 4 siman 10 p. 26) writes that this leniency of the Chazon Ish is difficult to accept and should not be relied upon.

[57] Rav Kluger's proof for this is Rama YD 201:52. Bet Shlomo YD 2:52, Simla 201:94, Maharam Shik YD 205, and Maharsham 3:239 disagree with this logic of Rav Kluger. Maharam Shik's proof is from Rash Mikvaot 4:4 that zochlin into a house is a problem, as well as Rivash 292 according to Chatom Sofer YD 209. Tashbetz 3:34 also seems to be a very clear proof against Rav Shlomo Kluger.

[58] YD 2:51-52

[59] Bet Shlomo (YD 2:51 s.v. vlibi and af) adds to this argument based on Shulchan Aruch YD 201:13 that water isn't considered zochlin unless it is streaming out and not if it is just dripping. Maharam Shik YD 205 seems to agree.

[60] Rav Shlomo Kluger (Shaarei Tahara 39) is lenient, but the poskim including Tashbetz 3:34, Maharam Shik YD 205, Bet Shlomo 2:51 disagree with this and hold it is invalid.

[61] Bet Shlomo 2:51 s.v. vma and lechen. Rav Kluger quoted Rav Zalman Efraim Margoliyot and Gur Aryeh Yehuda.

[62] Maharam Shik YD 205 also holds this is kosher. It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, each of which theoretically suffice independently.

[63] Simla 201:94 holds that it is considered zochlin if water is going from one mikveh to another mikveh even though the pipe is full of water. He seems like he's only discussing a case where there's no shifoferet hanod connecting the mikvaot.

[64] Rav Shlomo Kluger (Shirei Tahara 39, Mey Niddah, and Haelef Lecha Shlomo YD 233) explains that there's no zochlin from one mikveh to the other since the water remains stationary in either bor and returns back to the other bor. The Satmer Rebbe (Divrei Yoel 75) agreed that there's no zochlin from one mikveh to the other if the pipe is full of water. Rav Moshe Bick (Taharat Yom Tov v. 18 p. 373-4) quoted the Satmer Rebbe as laughing about this question and holding that it isn't an issue of zochlin even if the pipe isn't full. Because if that was considered zochlin, it should be zochlin even if the pipe is full of water. The solution to that would be to insist that the hashaka hole be closed up, but that no one heard was critical. Bet Shlomo YD 51 writes that Rabbi Elazar Landua challenged the validity of a mikveh where the water is moving from one mikveh to the other, while someone is tovel and the pipe is full with a shifoferet hanod of water. Bet Shlomo quotes that Rav Shlomo Kluger laughed about this question and thought obviously it isn't considered zochlin since the water isn't leaving anywhere. Bet Shlomo agreed that it is kosher. Rav Kluger went further and held it was kosher even if it isn't connected with a shifoferet hanod, but Bet Shlomo didn't agree with that point.

[65] 3:54:6

[66] Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:272:8 argues that the poskim allow this only bedieved and not initially.

[67] It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, each of which theoretically suffice independently. Maharam Shik YD 205 seems to agree. Minchat Yitzchak 1:147:9-12 is concerned for this type of zechila if it is unrecognizable because of Gra. However, if it is above 40 seah then he writes everyone agrees that it is kosher. Chelkat Yakov YD 112:6 seems to be even stricter and is concerned for zechila that's unrecognizable through the minimal hole between two mikvaot.

[68] It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 4, and 5, but since Bet Shlomo disagrees with 1 and 2 and 4 and 5 are both subject to a dispute, Bet Shlomo holds that they should avoid this.

[69] The Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 2) writes that as long as the movement of the mikveh is so minimal that it isn’t noticeable it is fit. Otherwise how could a mikveh dug in a dirt hole be fit since the dirt allows water through. The Shulchan Aruch 201:51 follows the Rashba.
Chatom Sofer YD 2:211 holds like the Rashba and Shulchan Aruch.

Shaarei Tzion 3:26 argues that Gra never said that it was pasul. Either Gra 201:96 is a typo or written by a mistaken student. He proves thoroughly that there's no way to hold that an unrecognizable zechila is invalid.

Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 298 accepts Shulchan Aruch. He quotes Nodeh Beyehuda, Chatom Sofer, Maharsham, Maharshag, Divrei Malkiel, and others who agree with Shulchan Aruch.

[95] Chatom Sofer YD 2:211 holds like the Rashba and Shulchan Aruch.

[96] Shaarei Tzion 3:26 argues that Gra never said that it was pasul. Either Gra 201:96 is a typo or written by a mistaken student. He proves thoroughly that there's no way to hold that an unrecognizable zechila is invalid.

[97] Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 298 accepts Shulchan Aruch. He quotes Nodeh Beyehuda, Chatom Sofer, Maharsham, Maharshag, Divrei Malkiel, and others who agree with Shulchan Aruch.

[70] The Gra 201:97 argues with Shulchan Aruch that any movement invalidates a mikveh. Mishnat Rebbe Aharon (Kotler 1:24:8) explains the Gra’s argument. There’s two reasons why moving water is invalid for a mikveh; the moving water could be a biblical invalidation without any reason (Mordechai and Rashba) or it could be that moving water is like it isn’t connected and there’s no 40 seah (Rivash and Rosh). If so, if there’s a hole in the mikveh above the 40 seah mark and certainly 40 seah will remain, according to the first approach, it is invalid, but according to the second it is valid. Another application of this question is if the movement of the water isn’t noticeable. According to the first approach, it is valid if the movement isn’t noticeable since that is the degree by which movement is measured. But according to the second one, it is invalid even if the movement isn’t noticeable. Chazon Ish (Tinyana 8:4, Likutim 3:4) explains Gra differently. He explains that according to Rosh only the water that itself is moving out of the mikveh is considered zochlin. Everything else isn't zochlin. Rashba's question was how is it possible to make a kosher mikveh in the ground without any zechila. Rashba answered that non-noticeable movement isn't zechila. However, Rosh would answer that it isn't an issue if there's slightly more than 40 seah since all of the water that is currently not leaving the pit is counted for the mikveh. Since Rosh has another answer to Rashba's question he doesn't have to accept his conclusion.

[71] The Tashbetz 1:17 s.v. uma writes that the Rambam doesn’t accept the opinion of the Rash that any hole in a mikveh invalidates the mikveh since it makes the mikveh water moving which is invalid. Rabbenu Yerucham writes similarly. This seems to align with the Rosh (Hilchot Mikvaot no. 12 and responsa 31:4) who writes that only a mikveh that is moving like a spring is invalid. Meil Tzedaka and Bayi Chayi adopt this position. However, the Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:50 accepts the Rash, Mordechai, and Rashba that even a hole invalidates the mikveh. Nodeh Beyehuda 142:5, Meir Netivim 11, and Imrei Yosher 130 agree and reject the lenient opinion of the Meil Tzedaka.
Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 298 rules like Shulchan Aruch that a not recognizable zechila is valid. Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein that a non-recognizable zechila is valid in a case where there’s not another mikveh and going to mikveh shouldn’t be pushed off because of it.

Chazon Ish (Tinyana 8:4, Likutim 3:4) holds like Rosh that any movement that isn't gushing like a spring is kosher. He argues that this is also the intention of Gra 96 and Shulchan Aruch. However, the many achronim (Chelkat Binyamin 201:718 citing Nodeh Beyehuda 137 s.v. vnachzor and Divrei Chayim 15 s.v. od) refute this understanding of Shulchan Aruch. Gra 90 himself flatly rejects this theory.

[100] Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 298 rules like Shulchan Aruch that a not recognizable zechila is valid. Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein that a non-recognizable zechila is valid in a case where there’s not another mikveh and going to mikveh shouldn’t be pushed off because of it.

[101] Chazon Ish (Tinyana 8:4, Likutim 3:4) holds like Rosh that any movement that isn't gushing like a spring is kosher. He argues that this is also the intention of Gra 96 and Shulchan Aruch. However, the many achronim (Chelkat Binyamin 201:718 citing Nodeh Beyehuda 137 s.v. vnachzor and Divrei Chayim 15 s.v. od) refute this understanding of Shulchan Aruch. Gra 90 himself flatly rejects this theory.

[72] Rav Yitzchak Elchanan (Ayin Yitzchak YD 22)

[73] Imrei Yosher 1:127, Shaarei Tzion 3:26. Imrei Yosher also quotes Bet Shlomo 2:72, Tzemech Tzedek, and Divrei Chayim as strict about this question.

[74] Chelkat Binyamin (fnt. 2218) quotes many poskim who hold that one shouldn't rely upon unrecognizable zechila initially, including: Igrot Moshe, Achiezer, and Ayin Yitzchak.

[75] Maharak 156 is clear that Rosh allows being tovel in the area below the crack. He has a nuance that even though the area above the crack is zochlin and not fit to be tovel in, it is still included in the water of the mikveh in order to make hashaka to sheuvim water.

[76] The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains the mishna to mean that if there’s a crack in the wall of the mikveh the mikveh is invalid because the water that’s dripping out makes the water in the mikveh considered moving, which is zochlin. The Rosh there discusses the Rash and posits that the Rash wouldn’t invalidate the mikveh if the crack is above the point where the walls would contain 40 seah below the crack. The Tur 201:50 writes that although some held that if the crack is above the point of 40 seah the mikveh is invalid the Rosh was lenient. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 is lenient like the Rosh but the Rama quotes the other opinion. The Gra explains that the Rash, Mordechai, and Rashba hold like the stringent opinion. Maharik 115 thinks that Raavad holds like the lenient view.

[77] Bayi Chayey YD 198

[78] Rivash 292, Tashbetz 3:34, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:730 citing Chazon Ish Kama 5

[79] The Rivash responsa 292 writes that if a woman goes into the mikveh and some water is displaced and returns to the mikveh it isn’t considered zochlin. Bet Yosef 201:62, Rama 201:50 and Shach 201:30 and 120 accept the Rivash. Shach 201:120 presents the Rivash as saying that as long as the movement isn’t because of the natural force of the water (gravity or momentum from a spring) it isn’t considered zochlin. Maharik 156 clearly disagrees with this Rivash. The Mishna 6:3 discusses a case where there are 3 pits each of 20 seah, 2 of which are rainwater. When 3 people are tovel in the pits so that the water overflows, the 2 pits of 20 combine and the sheuvim pit is purified. Why isn't that overflowing water considered zochlin? (1) Maharik 156 answers that the water originated from a spring so it is considered like a spring even after it is disconnected. (2) Maharik also answers that according to Rosh it isn't zochlin since the person is tovel below the area where the water is moving. (3) Rivash 292 answers that it isn't zochlin since the water came out because of the person being tovel and is going to return. (4) Shach 201:30 answers that the pits were actual springs and not disconnected spring water. Dagul Mirvava is bothered by that Shach since a spring purifies with any quantity.

[80] The Meil Tzedaka 39-41 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:3 states that a mikveh in which water splashes out when the woman goes in is unfit since it is considered zochlin. The Rivash only said it was fit when water was displaced when a woman went in and returns on its own because of the edges of the mikveh. However, the Shach 201:30 implies that it is fit even in such a case since the mikveh isn’t leaking on its own, water is just leaving when a person goes in it and that isn’t considered zochlin as long as 40 seah is left. The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:6 are strict. Tashbetz 3:34 is clear that this is a problem. Pitchei Mikvaot 8:8 writes that some are lenient.

[81] Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 336 writes that even while the filter is running the mikveh is fit and it isn’t considered zochlin. (1) Firstly, the water that goes into the filter returns to the mikveh and regarding such a case the Rivash 292 and Rama 201:50 write that it isn’t considered zochlin. (2) Secondly, even if the water in the filter is considered zochlin that doesn’t affect the rest of the mikveh if it is still 40 seah. That idea is based on Rambam Mikvaot 8:8. (3) Lastly, the Mikveh Tahara p. 68 writes that movement within the water isn’t considered zochlin, only movement because of water entering and exiting the mikveh is zochlin. Igrot Moshe YD 110 and Shevet Halevi 9:187 and 11:213 are lenient about zochlin in a mikveh based on the first consideration. Rabbi Meir Posen (Or Meir v. 2 p. 542) is lenient for two reasons: (1) The water is coming from the mikveh and going back into the mikveh (Rivash 292). (2) The water is all within the mikveh and the water in the mikveh is considered part of the mikveh. Once that's the case there's no zochlin within the mikveh (Rivash). It is considered connected even without a shifoferet hanod because (a) it isn't a kli at all and the mikveh isn't a kli so it is connected and (b) the only way to access the water in the filter is through the mikveh. These are reasons why it is connected even with any size. (3) The water being drawn out from the mikveh and going back in are all underwater and it is like zochlin from mikveh to mikveh that's all underwater (Bet Shlomo 2:51, Chazon Ish Likkutim 6).

[82] Rav Moshe in Igrot Moshe YD 110 writes that the pool filters are a kli and therefore an issue of sheuvim. Even though the water is added back into a mikveh of 40 seah it is an issue of natal seah vnatan seah, which is removing some drawn water and replacing it, which is an issue (Shach 201:23). Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 337 comes to the conclusion that the in-mikveh filters aren’t an issue of sheuvim since they essentially a straight pipe and not a kli. He cites the Shema Shlomo 5:14. However, see Betzel Hachachma 4:98.
Igrot Moshe writes that the filter is considered mekabel tumah if it could hold liquids had it not been attached to the ground and if it can’t then it isn’t mekabel tumah but it still creates sheuvim.

Rabbi Meir Posen (Or Meir v. 2 p. 538) describes his filter at great length. He explains that it doesn't make sheuvim since there's several connections between it and the mikveh with a connection of a shifoferet hanod. Also, it doesn't make sheuvim since the filter can't hold any water.

[113] Igrot Moshe writes that the filter is considered mekabel tumah if it could hold liquids had it not been attached to the ground and if it can’t then it isn’t mekabel tumah but it still creates sheuvim.

[114] Rabbi Meir Posen (Or Meir v. 2 p. 538) describes his filter at great length. He explains that it doesn't make sheuvim since there's several connections between it and the mikveh with a connection of a shifoferet hanod. Also, it doesn't make sheuvim since the filter can't hold any water.

[83] Or Meir v. 2 p. 530-549, Rav Wosner in Shevet Halevi 11:213. Rav Karelitz is quoted in Or Meir. Rav Ovadia's opinion is found in Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 337.

[84] Birur Din Hafilterim (pp. 7-8 and p. 56) quotes Rav Dovid Aryeh Morgenstern that Rav Elyashiv opposed using filters in mikvaot since it is a new thing and could cause problems. Rav Shternbuch in Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:270-272 strongly opposes the filters. Rabbi Shreiber in Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:272 writes that the filters are a problem of (1) Sheuvim because it is a kli kibbul to hold dirt. It is worse than the standard natal seah v'natan seah because it doesn't go through the bor zeriya, which Bet Yosef says is kosher. (2) Zochlin while it is working because there's no shifoferet hanod and also the water is moving so katafras isn't connected to a mikveh. Even when it isn't working it is zechila sheina nikeret and lechatchila it should be avoided. Rabbi Rosen responds to these claims (1) that the filter cannot hold water so it doesn't make sheuvim. (2) The filter is considered within the mikveh so zochlin isn't an issue. Also, the water is going into the filter and coming back so it isn't zochlin.

[85] Igrot Moshe 110 writes that a filter in a swimming pool invalidates the mikveh since it makes the water sheuvim. Even though there's hashaka, still there's an issue of natal seah v'natan seah for the Rambam. In terms of zochlin while the filter is on Rav Moshe is lenient based on Rivash. Rav Moshe considers the water that went through the filter sheuvim since the filter was made with a receptable that is meant to hold water. Har Tzvi 177 also considers the water sheuvim for an entirely different reason. He writes that all of the water is sheuvim even if it wasn't in any receptable that holds water. His reason is that since a person turned on the electricity it is like a person took the water and poured it into the mikveh with his hands. That invalidates the water because of tefisat yad adam (SA 201:15 and 39). See Kinyan Daat Mikvaot 201:39:1 who notes that this approach of Har Tzvi seems to disagree with Rabbi Akiva Eiger.

[86] It is clear from Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam), Rash (Mikvaot 2:3), and Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a) that even those who hold sheuvim is deoritta agree that is only if the majority is sheuvim. However, Rabbenu Tam (Sefer Hayashar 671:6) holds that 3 lugin of sheuvim is deoritta from a halacha l'moshe m'sinai if it is added before any other water.Ramban (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) and Rosh (Mikvaot n. 1) also quote this from Rabbenu Tam.

[87] Rabbenu Tam (Tosfot Pesachim 17b, Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam), Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam), Rashi (Chagiga 11a s.v. bmayim and Pesachim 16a s.v. yeheyeh, as understood by Teshuvot Rid 1), Tosfot (Chagiga 11a s.v. bmey), Rosh (Mikvaot n. 1), Tur 201:3, Rama Y.D. 201:3

[88] Ri (Tosfot Pesachim 17b s.v. elah), Rambam Mikvaot 4:2 (as understood by Kesef Mishna, Kriyat Sefer, and Ran Bava Batra 66b), and Ramban (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) explaining the Rif and Geonim. Rivash 294 implies sheuvim is derabbanan. Rabbenu Gershom (Bava Batra 66b) quotes both opinions if it is deoritta or not.
A major part of this discussion is how to understand the Torat Kohanim which invalidates a mikveh filled up with water drawn on one's shoulder. (1) Rash (Mikvaot 2:3) writes that those who hold that sheuvim is derabbanan hold that the Torat Kohanim is just an asmachta. (2) Rabbenu Tam (Tosfot Bava Batra 66a) who holds that sheuvim is deoritta holds that this Torat Kohanim is discussing sheuvim. (3) Raavad (cited by Ramban b"b 66b) holds that the Torat Kohanim invalidates tefisat yedey adam on a Torah level. Raavad in Baalei Hanefesh 3:4 quotes this opinion but in later editions of Baalei Hanefesh rejects it. In the 5720 version of Baalei Hanefesh, that opinion is not omitted altogether.

Netsiv (Emek Sheylah 96 s.v. v'iy amshechinun) writes that he thinks that Shiltot holds sheuvim is derabbanan

[121] A major part of this discussion is how to understand the Torat Kohanim which invalidates a mikveh filled up with water drawn on one's shoulder. (1) Rash (Mikvaot 2:3) writes that those who hold that sheuvim is derabbanan hold that the Torat Kohanim is just an asmachta. (2) Rabbenu Tam (Tosfot Bava Batra 66a) who holds that sheuvim is deoritta holds that this Torat Kohanim is discussing sheuvim. (3) Raavad (cited by Ramban b"b 66b) holds that the Torat Kohanim invalidates tefisat yedey adam on a Torah level. Raavad in Baalei Hanefesh 3:4 quotes this opinion but in later editions of Baalei Hanefesh rejects it. In the 5720 version of Baalei Hanefesh, that opinion is not omitted altogether.

[122] Netsiv (Emek Sheylah 96 s.v. v'iy amshechinun) writes that he thinks that Shiltot holds sheuvim is derabbanan

[89] Rash Mikavot 2:3 writes that if the water was drawn by something that's susceptible to tumah it is biblically invalid based on Zevachim 25b. However, if it was filled with kelim that aren't susceptible to tumah it is only rabbinically invalid. Yad Ramah b"b 66b agrees. However, in Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam) agrees with Rabbenu Tam that sheuvim is deoritta. Shaarei Mikavot (Shaar Hatziyun 4) writes that the Lechem Vsimla think that the Rash retracted at the end, while the Radvaz and Minchat Yitzchak hold that the Rash didn’t retract. Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) quotes this Rash.

[90] Raavad cited by Ramban (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) and Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani)

[91] Rama 201:3 writes that sheuvim is biblical. The Shulchan Aruch 201:53 implies that it is only rabbinic. Aruch Lechem 201:53 writes that this is the opinion of Shulchan Aruch. Divrei Yosef p. 398 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:18 agree. Chelkat Binyamin 201:920 writes that it is a dispute between the Shach and Taz whether Shulchan Aruch holds that it is biblical or rabbinic. However, Taz 201:81-82 (as clarified by Pri Deah) clearly indicates that he agrees that Shulchan Aruch holds it is rabbinic.

[92] Mishna Mikvaot 2:7 and 4:1, Rash (Mikvaot 2:7), Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 4:3), Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:34.
Rashi Shabbat 16b s.v. bchetzer seems to hold that water is only sheuvim if his intent is clear to others. Seemingly, this is strange. The reason his intent matter is because if it is intentionally collected it is considered b'yedey adam, made by people, unlike a mayan. But why should it need to be clear to others? Sfat Emet Shabbat 16b notes that Rashi's explanation is difficult. Rabbi Yehuda (Mishna Machshirin 3:6 and Mishna Parah 2:4) holds you need to have a maaseh to be megaleh your daat for your daat to count. Rabbis hold that daat without maaseh is daat.

See Raavad (cited by Ramban b"b 66b s.v. shani) who holds that water emptied from a kli to a mikveh by itself is also invalid rabbinically.

[127] Rashi Shabbat 16b s.v. bchetzer seems to hold that water is only sheuvim if his intent is clear to others. Seemingly, this is strange. The reason his intent matter is because if it is intentionally collected it is considered b'yedey adam, made by people, unlike a mayan. But why should it need to be clear to others? Sfat Emet Shabbat 16b notes that Rashi's explanation is difficult. Rabbi Yehuda (Mishna Machshirin 3:6 and Mishna Parah 2:4) holds you need to have a maaseh to be megaleh your daat for your daat to count. Rabbis hold that daat without maaseh is daat.

[128] See Raavad (cited by Ramban b"b 66b s.v. shani) who holds that water emptied from a kli to a mikveh by itself is also invalid rabbinically.

[93] The Gemara Shabbat 16b states that everyone agrees if the vessel was placed outside when it was cloudy that the rainwater it collects is sheuvim, but if the vessel was placed when it was sunny it isn’t sheuvim. There’s a dispute when the vessel was placed when it was cloudy but then the clouds cleared and returned before it rained. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:41 rule that this gemara is relevant to someone who puts a vessel underneath a gutter or just generally in a courtyard outside to collect rainwater. The Rambam Mikvaot 4:4, however, understood it is only relevant to collecting water of a vessel in the field and not under the gutter. A vessel under a gutter is always considered set up to collect water which would create sheuvim. He writes this in his explanation of the Mishna (Mikvaot 4:1) as well. Chelkat Binyamin 201:608 is strict for Rambam.

[94] Rosh responsa 30:4 writes that in order to avoiding the mikveh becoming invalid as water is drawn from it, one should let it completely dry or use a vessel with a hole of any size. Mordechai Shavuot n. 746, Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim ch. 11), Smak 294, and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 agree. Shulchan Aruch 201:40 codifies this practice.

[95] The Rosh responsa 30:4 writes that there’s no need to be concerned for sheuvim in a spring. Maharik 56 writes that one should be strict to be concerned for the opinion that a spring is invalid with shuevim. He isn’t strict after the fact. Trumat Hadeshen 258 is much more concerned for that opinion. Bet Yosef argues with the Trumat Hadeshen. Shulchan Aruch 201:40 codifies the Rosh, but Rama quotes the Trumat Hadeshen.

[96] Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 states that if a pipe has a receptacle it isn’t considered filled in if a rock or dirt gets lodged in the receptacle making the pipe smooth. The Rash and Rosh explains that since the rock or dirt isn’t tightly held in the receptacle it isn’t considered part of the pipe. The Rambam explains that it isn’t considered part of the pipe unless it harden like cement in that receptacle. Shulchan Aruch 201:36 codifies this mishna.

[97] Mishna Mikvaot 2:7 records a dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer if the rainwater inside the jugs left on the roof is considered sheuvim since they weren’t planned to collect water. Rabbi Eliezer is strict unless there’s already water in the pit, while Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient. The halacha is Rabbi Yehoshua. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:42 codifies Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion.
See Yereyim 26 who has an interesting reading that the water is only kosher if collected in jugs that were attached to the roof and not if they were detached.

[134] See Yereyim 26 who has an interesting reading that the water is only kosher if collected in jugs that were attached to the roof and not if they were detached.

[98] The Rosh Mikvaot 2:8 writes that unlike the case of the jugs that were left out to dry in the case where they were brought there not to collect water at all and can be knocked over, the case of where a container initially held cement is considered partially that there is involvement of a person in having the container hold water. Therefore, in the case of the jugs drying they can be pushed over but in the case of a container used for holding cement that was forgotten in the pit can not be pushed over. Taz 201:52 and Shach 201:95 agree. The Bet Yosef 201:42 infers from the Rosh and Rambam that the container placed in the pit for construction can only be broken to have the water contribute to the mikveh if it are surrounded by water. He reasons that it is considered more of an involvement of a person than in the case of a jug left on the roof to dry. Taz 201:94 agrees. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:43 codifies the explanation of the Rosh.

[99] Mishna Mikvaot 2:9. The Bet Yosef 201:43 infers that the jugs can only be broken but not pushed over since the jugs were placed there to accept water and is considered more of an intention of collecting water unlike jugs left to dry. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:43 codifies this Mishna.

[100] Mishna Mikvaot 4:1 states that a vessel big or small can create sheuvim. Tosfot Shabbat 16b writes that even if the vessel is larger than 40 seah which would render it not susceptible to tumah would still create sheuvim. Rosh Mikvaot n. 5 agrees. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:34 codifies this.

[101] The Mishna Mikvaot 4:1 writes that a vessel of stone or dung is called a vessel with respect to sheuvim. The Rash and Rosh point out that even though these materials wouldn’t be susceptible to tumah nonetheless the vessel which would hold water does create sheuvim. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:34 codifies this.

[102] The Mishna Mikvaot 4:2 establishes that a tray only creates sheuvim if it has a rim that could contain water. This is codified by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:35.

[103] Mishna Mikvaot 4:2, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:35. The Mishna (Mikvaot 4:2) establishes that a tray with a rim creates sheuvim when positioned normally but not when turned on its side so it can be cleaned from dirt. Rambam (Mikvaot 6:5) codifies this mishna and explains that it doesn't create sheuvim since it wasn't made to collect water. Shiltei Giborim b"b 35b understands that Rambam means it doesn't create sheuvim since the kli wasn't made originally to collect water. He explicitly learns that positioning a kli in a way that doesn't collect water isn't a create that it doesn't create sheuvim. However, Shaarei Knesset Hagedola (Hagahot Hatur 201:30) argues that Rambam indeed meant that the positioning matters; when it is positioned in a way that it can't collect water it doesn't create sheuvim even if it actually holds some water. Maaseh Roke'ach (Hilchot Mikvaot 6:5) also explains that the tray with a rim is meant to hold water. This also seems evident in Pirush Mishnayot of Rambam (Mikvaot 4:2 and Kelim 2:3). Gulot Ayilot (Mikvaot 4:2) explains like Shiltei Giborim that the tray isn't meant to collect water. That's why when it is on its side it doesn't create sheuvim. However, when it is placed to collect water it makes sheuvim since it is specifically intentionally engineered to draw water into a mikveh. Therefore, according to Shiltei Giborim and Gulot Ayilot, a kli that is meant to hold water creates sheuvim even if it is in a position that it isn't meant to hold water. However, according to Shaarei Knesset Hagedola the water isn't sheuvim.

[104] Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim) writes that shingles on the roof don’t create sheuvim since they weren’t made to hold water (Mishna Mikvaot 4:3). This is codified by the Shulchan Aruch YD 201:37.

[105] Mishna Mikvaot 6:5, Rambam Mikvaot 5:3

[106] Mishna Mikvaot 4:3, Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:36

[107] The Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that a pipe which has a receptacle is invalid. If it made of earthenware it only creates sheuvim if it can hold a reviyit of water but if it is wood any amount is sufficient. Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:36 codify this.

[108] Rosh (Mikvaot n. 6) implies that only water that flows over the receptable is sheuvim, however, Tur 201:36 implies that any water that goes over any part of the pipe is made into sheuvim. Shach 201:77 originally assumes like Rosh, but in Nekudat Hakesef retracts and holds like Tur. There he explains that even Rosh might mean like the Tur. Bach thinks that Tur and Rosh are saying the same thing, but is unsure what they're saying.

[109] Gemara Bava Batra 66a establishes that a stone isn’t considered a vessel unless it has a receptacle. If that receptacle was created only after it was attached to the ground it isn’t considered a vessel with respect to that it doesn’t create drawn water. Ran and Ramban Bava Batra 65b, Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:36, and Shach 201:21 codify this distinction.

[110] Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that a pipe which has a thin part and widens doesn’t create sheuvim since it wasn’t made to hold water but just to manage the water pressure. Rambam Mikvaot 6:2 codifies this Mishna. Even though the Raavad 8:7 disagrees with the Rambam about bent pipes regarding the pipe that widens he doesn’t disagree with the Rambam. Divrei Chaim 201:33 and Rav Chaim Mikvaot 6:4 note that even Raavad holds from this Mishna that a pipe used to create water pressure is not considered sheuvim. Raavad in a teshuva (Baalei Hanefesh p. 157 fnt. 31) writes that the Mishna is discussing a depression in the pipe and not a pipe that just widens on the sides. This is also evident from the picture of Rambam in Pirush Mishnayot. However, Gra (Eliyahu Rabba 4:3) explains the Mishna to be about a pipe that has no depression. Otherwise if there was a depression it automatically creates sheuvim.

[111] The Raavad Mikvaot 8:7 cites the Tosefta 5:4 that holds that bent pipes create sheuvim. He explains that even though they aren’t susceptible to tumah they nonetheless create sheuvim. Kesef Mishna (Mikvaot 8:7) disagrees because the bent pipes weren't made to hold water and shouldn't make sheuvim (Mishna Mikvaot 4:3). Rash (Mikvaot 6:8) and Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8) interpret the Tosefta to be discussing a case where the bend makes the pipe have a receptacle to hold water.
Do we hold like the Raavad? The Raavad isn’t quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Rama, Shach, or Taz. Chelkat Binyamin 539 quotes the Bet Shlomo 2:66 who is strict.

What does the Raavad do about the Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 established that any pipe which wasn’t meant to hold water even if it has a receptacle doesn’t create sheuvim? Rav Chaim (Mikvaot 6:4) explains that the Raavad is only relevant to dipping in a pipe as a mikveh or using the pipe to connect two mikvot that are lacking. The explanation is that when connecting mikvaot anything used to connect them is necessary for that section to be kosher even if he were to be tovel in that section. However, the bent pipe doesn't actually make it sheuvim. Divrei Chaim 201:33 explains that the Raavad only meant that if the bent pipe is meant to hold to water is it invalid even if it originally wasn’t meant to hold anything. Gidulei Tahara 9 also limits the Raavad to where the bent pipe has some way of holding something, albeit in a temporary fashion. But a pipe just used to redirect water doesn't make sheuvim. Rabbi Buckwald (Baalei Hanefesh p. 157 fnt. 32) prefers the Gidulei Tahara's explanation in light of what he writes in Baalei Hanefesh and his teshuvot. However, Rav Aryeh Leib Malin (73 s.v. vnireh, 2:71:2) understands the Raavad to mean that since the bent pipe is useful in that it can direct water flow it creates sheuvim. Chelkat Binyamin 201:529 cites the dispute between those who limit the Raavad and those who apply it generally. Mikveh Mayim v. 3 p. 206 quotes Taharat Mayim who argues with Rav Aryeh Leib. Mikveh Mayim's conclusion is not to use pipes that are made in the shape of a L.

[149] Do we hold like the Raavad? The Raavad isn’t quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Rama, Shach, or Taz. Chelkat Binyamin 539 quotes the Bet Shlomo 2:66 who is strict.

[150] What does the Raavad do about the Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 established that any pipe which wasn’t meant to hold water even if it has a receptacle doesn’t create sheuvim? Rav Chaim (Mikvaot 6:4) explains that the Raavad is only relevant to dipping in a pipe as a mikveh or using the pipe to connect two mikvot that are lacking. The explanation is that when connecting mikvaot anything used to connect them is necessary for that section to be kosher even if he were to be tovel in that section. However, the bent pipe doesn't actually make it sheuvim. Divrei Chaim 201:33 explains that the Raavad only meant that if the bent pipe is meant to hold to water is it invalid even if it originally wasn’t meant to hold anything. Gidulei Tahara 9 also limits the Raavad to where the bent pipe has some way of holding something, albeit in a temporary fashion. But a pipe just used to redirect water doesn't make sheuvim. Rabbi Buckwald (Baalei Hanefesh p. 157 fnt. 32) prefers the Gidulei Tahara's explanation in light of what he writes in Baalei Hanefesh and his teshuvot. However, Rav Aryeh Leib Malin (73 s.v. vnireh, 2:71:2) understands the Raavad to mean that since the bent pipe is useful in that it can direct water flow it creates sheuvim. Chelkat Binyamin 201:529 cites the dispute between those who limit the Raavad and those who apply it generally. Mikveh Mayim v. 3 p. 206 quotes Taharat Mayim who argues with Rav Aryeh Leib. Mikveh Mayim's conclusion is not to use pipes that are made in the shape of a L.

[112] Hagahot Mordechai (Kiddushin 560) quotes one opinion who is strict to say that if a pipe gets a depression because the pipe rotted in one place it is invalid. That depression makes it a kli and the water flowing in that pipe is sheuvim. However, Rabbenu Shemarya argued that it is kosher since he didn't intend that the rotting would make it a kli. Maharik 56 writes that the minhag is like Rabbenu Shemarya but he was personally strict for the strict opinion. Bet Yosef 201:36 argues with the strict opinion since the pipe wasn't made into a kli intentionally. Rama 201:36 codifies this opinion. Chatom Sofer YD 201 disagrees and holds based on Chullin 13a that the pipe with a depression that happened on its own is completely invalid. Likutei Haarot on Chatom Sofer quotes Chesed Lavraham who strongly disagrees with Chatom Sofer.

[113] The Gidulei Tahara 5 argues that pipes that were built to be attached to the ground don’t make the water sheuvim. The Chatom Sofer 205 rejects such an idea and clarifies that even though it isn’t considered a vessel for purposes of tumah it is considered a vessel for purposes of sheuvim.
Pipes made to be attached to the ground Nodeh Beyehuda 137 says it is sheuvim. Divrei yosef p 257 from Chidushei Rav Aryeh Leib Malin 72 writes that it is only if it is completely serving the ground and that’s how he answers the Lechem Vsimla’s question but a pipe built and then connected.

[153] Pipes made to be attached to the ground Nodeh Beyehuda 137 says it is sheuvim. Divrei yosef p 257 from Chidushei Rav Aryeh Leib Malin 72 writes that it is only if it is completely serving the ground and that’s how he answers the Lechem Vsimla’s question but a pipe built and then connected.

[114] Gemara Bava Batra 65b, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:34

[115] Gemara Bava Batra 65b, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:34

[116] Chatom Sofer 206 explains that once the vessel is punctured and attached to the ground even if the hole is later filled in it doesn’t invalidate the mikveh. The vessel is considered attached and then completed and that is a valid mikveh.

[117] Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:19

[118] Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:19

[119] Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:19

[120] Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:6, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:20. The Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 101) explained that since the water is completely drawn it is invalid and isn’t considered a mikveh at all can only be fixed once we calculate that all of it besides less than 3 lug has been removed. However, for a mikveh that was invalidated with 3 lug is considered an invalid mikveh which can be fixed by having rainwater added so that 40 seah and a little bit flow out of the mikveh. The reason is that we consider it as though the original water left and was replaced. This is quoted by the Bet Yosef 201:20, Rama 201:22, Taz 201:32, and Shach 201:56.

[121] Raavad cited by Bet Yosef 201:20, Shach 201:56

[122] Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Tosefta Mikvaot 1:9 (Sukermandel), Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:6, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:20-21

[123] Agudah cited by Shach 201:57

[124] Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:6, Shulchan Aruch 201:21

[125] 
Tosefta Mikvaot 1:7 (Sukermandel) states that if less than 3 lug of drawn water fall into a mikveh lacking 40 seah it is still possible to use it for a mikveh if more rainwater is added.

Tosefta Mikvaot 1:12 states that if a mikveh has a little less than 40 seah and less than 3 lug of drawn water are added the mikveh is valid once that amount of rainwater that was lacking originally is added. Therefore, the Rashba (Torat Habayit ch. 6) writes that less than 3 lug of drawn water doesn’t contribute to the measure of the water but doesn’t invalidate the mikveh either. Rash Mikvaot 1:5, Tur 201:39 and Shulchan Aruch 201:22 follow the Rashba. Shach 201:59 agree.

Teshuvat Rid 62 s.v. adoni harav ani writes that if there’s a mikveh of 40 seah lacking a bit that is completed with drawn water it is unfit. The drawn water doesn’t complete the mikveh and it is like fruit juice which doesn’t count for the mikveh at all. Since the measure of 40 seah is biblical unless there’s 40 seah the drawn water that falls into it isn’t nullified. His conclusion that it is biblically invalid but he is writing to his teacher who thought it was only rabbinically invalid since there is nullification.

However, the Rambam Mikvaot 5:9 had a text in Tosefta 1:7 that read that it is invalid. His opinion is that if the less than 3 lug of drawn water added was tameh then it invalidates the mikveh unless it is added before 20 seah of rainwater was added to the mikveh or it is added when there’s a little less than 40 seah of rainwater was added to the mikveh. If it is added before 20 seah then the other 20 seah nullifies the tameh drawn water and the mikveh is valid. If it is added after there’s already 40 seah minus a bit it is considered a nearly complete mikveh that isn’t invalidated with tameh water. See Bet Yosef 201:22 for explanation of the Rambam. Raavad disagrees with Rambam.

[166] Tosefta Mikvaot 1:7 (Sukermandel) states that if less than 3 lug of drawn water fall into a mikveh lacking 40 seah it is still possible to use it for a mikveh if more rainwater is added.

[167] Tosefta Mikvaot 1:12 states that if a mikveh has a little less than 40 seah and less than 3 lug of drawn water are added the mikveh is valid once that amount of rainwater that was lacking originally is added. Therefore, the Rashba (Torat Habayit ch. 6) writes that less than 3 lug of drawn water doesn’t contribute to the measure of the water but doesn’t invalidate the mikveh either. Rash Mikvaot 1:5, Tur 201:39 and Shulchan Aruch 201:22 follow the Rashba. Shach 201:59 agree.

[168] Teshuvat Rid 62 s.v. adoni harav ani writes that if there’s a mikveh of 40 seah lacking a bit that is completed with drawn water it is unfit. The drawn water doesn’t complete the mikveh and it is like fruit juice which doesn’t count for the mikveh at all. Since the measure of 40 seah is biblical unless there’s 40 seah the drawn water that falls into it isn’t nullified. His conclusion that it is biblically invalid but he is writing to his teacher who thought it was only rabbinically invalid since there is nullification.

[169] However, the Rambam Mikvaot 5:9 had a text in Tosefta 1:7 that read that it is invalid. His opinion is that if the less than 3 lug of drawn water added was tameh then it invalidates the mikveh unless it is added before 20 seah of rainwater was added to the mikveh or it is added when there’s a little less than 40 seah of rainwater was added to the mikveh. If it is added before 20 seah then the other 20 seah nullifies the tameh drawn water and the mikveh is valid. If it is added after there’s already 40 seah minus a bit it is considered a nearly complete mikveh that isn’t invalidated with tameh water. See Bet Yosef 201:22 for explanation of the Rambam. Raavad disagrees with Rambam.

[126] Bach 201:27 holds that drawn water doesn’t count towards the 40 seah at all whether it is added in the middle or at the end. Shach 201:58 and Chelkat Binyamin 201:338 agree. Avnei Nezer YD 177 argues that perhaps if the invalid water enters earlier than the last bit of the mikveh it also helps complete the mikveh. [His proof is from Rash Mikvaot 3:1. Teshuvat Rid 62 might agree.] In conclusion he isn’t lenient.

[127] Taz 201:33 makes the point that only red wine has a different color than water but not white wine.

[128] Mishna Mikvaot 7:5 records a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yochanan Ben Nuri whether we only view the color of the water or also its measure. The Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 20 rules like the Rabbis that it depends both on color and measure. The Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 7:10-11, Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 94, and Tur 201:23 agree. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:23 codifies this Mishna.

[129] Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 states that colored water can be considered drawn water. The Gemara Macot 3b explains that the coloring can be ignored and essentially it is water. This is codified by the Rambam Mikvaot 7:8, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:25.

[130] 
The Mishna 1:7 establishes that a spring which has a majority of drawn water is considered like a mikveh in that it can purify with any amount but like a mikveh that it can’t purify while moving. However, the Mishna Mikvaot 5:3 establishes that if a spring has drawn water added to it it remains a valid spring unless it was stopped and is now moving. The rishonim have various explanations to these two mishnayot and here are the main four approaches.

The Rosh explains that as long as the stream from the spring is moving any drawn water added to it doesn’t affect it, however, if it is stopped then if a majority of drawn water is added and that added water makes it start moving it is invalid. The Rambam agrees. The Ran however, explains that the Rambam would only validate the added drawn water into moving spring water if the drawn water is added at the hole of the spring and not further downstream. The Bet Yosef 201:15 disagrees and lines up the Rambam and Rosh.

The Rash explains that if the drawn water is added to the stream from the spring it is still valid. However, if a person dug new branches or channels to the spring those are considered like a mikveh and not a spring.

The Raavad explains that if the drawn water added to the natural spring then anywhere where the natural stream would be flowing is considered a spring. But the areas that would naturally be stagnant or non-existent and now flow because of the addition of drawn water they are considered to only be kosher like a mikveh.

The Tur 201:15 just writes that a spring with a majority of drawn water is fit and doesn’t explain if it is fit if it is moving or not. The Bet Yosef wonders why the Tur omitted that important piece of information. Shulchan Aruch 201:15 follows the language of the Tur. The Taz 201:26 explains that we hold like the Rambam and Rosh that if the spring was originally moving where the drawn water entered it is like a spring and is fit even where it is moving. However, if it is was still when drawn water entered it is only fit as a mikveh when it is still. The Shach 201:42, on the other hand, simply writes that we follow the Rambam and Rosh that it is unfit if it is moving. He doesn’t explain if it depends on whether the water entered when it was moving or not. In fact, the Shach 201:33 also doesn’t distinguish. The Shaarei Mikvaot 201:59, Divrei Yosef p. 138, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:237 explain that the Rama and Shach are strict even where it was moving originally.

[175] The Mishna 1:7 establishes that a spring which has a majority of drawn water is considered like a mikveh in that it can purify with any amount but like a mikveh that it can’t purify while moving. However, the Mishna Mikvaot 5:3 establishes that if a spring has drawn water added to it it remains a valid spring unless it was stopped and is now moving. The rishonim have various explanations to these two mishnayot and here are the main four approaches.

[176] The Rosh explains that as long as the stream from the spring is moving any drawn water added to it doesn’t affect it, however, if it is stopped then if a majority of drawn water is added and that added water makes it start moving it is invalid. The Rambam agrees. The Ran however, explains that the Rambam would only validate the added drawn water into moving spring water if the drawn water is added at the hole of the spring and not further downstream. The Bet Yosef 201:15 disagrees and lines up the Rambam and Rosh.

[177] The Rash explains that if the drawn water is added to the stream from the spring it is still valid. However, if a person dug new branches or channels to the spring those are considered like a mikveh and not a spring.

[178] The Raavad explains that if the drawn water added to the natural spring then anywhere where the natural stream would be flowing is considered a spring. But the areas that would naturally be stagnant or non-existent and now flow because of the addition of drawn water they are considered to only be kosher like a mikveh.

[179] The Tur 201:15 just writes that a spring with a majority of drawn water is fit and doesn’t explain if it is fit if it is moving or not. The Bet Yosef wonders why the Tur omitted that important piece of information. Shulchan Aruch 201:15 follows the language of the Tur. The Taz 201:26 explains that we hold like the Rambam and Rosh that if the spring was originally moving where the drawn water entered it is like a spring and is fit even where it is moving. However, if it is was still when drawn water entered it is only fit as a mikveh when it is still. The Shach 201:42, on the other hand, simply writes that we follow the Rambam and Rosh that it is unfit if it is moving. He doesn’t explain if it depends on whether the water entered when it was moving or not. In fact, the Shach 201:33 also doesn’t distinguish. The Shaarei Mikvaot 201:59, Divrei Yosef p. 138, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:237 explain that the Rama and Shach are strict even where it was moving originally.

[131] Rabbenu Yerucham cited by Bet Yosef 201:15 writes that if there was a spring that didn’t have 40 seah and drawn water was added to it, then the water was detached and went into a pit it is considered a valid mikveh even though originally it was drawn water it remains fit after becoming part of the spring. The Shach 201:41 writes that it is preferable to be strict. Nodeh Beyehuda 2:141 and Chatom Sofer YD 212 are lenient. Chelkat Binyamin 201:236 is strict, though he notes that the Chatom Sofer YD who was lenient. Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 is lenient even initially.

[132] Mishna Mikvaot 2:5, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:4, Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 1. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 1 asks why is the mikveh invalid if you’re unsure when the 3 lug of drawn water entered. He proves from that question that drawn water must be a biblical concern. Tosfot Yom Tov 2:5 disagrees with the entire reading of the Rosh. However, the Lechem Vsimla 201:16 s.v. veheneh harosh (cited by Divrei Yosef p. 155) answers for the Rambam that since the doubt is only about something that can be investigated it isn’t a valid doubt to be lenient though drawn water is only rabbinic. Chatom Sofer YD 216 explains that the reason that the three holes combine to invalidate the mikveh with 3 lug of water is because they are inside the bigger pit and as such they combine together.

[133] Shach 201:46

[134] Mishna Mikvaot 2:3, Rambam Mikvaot 10:1, Shulchan Aruch 201:67

[135] Rambam Mikvaot 10:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:69

[136] Mishna Mikvaot 2:3, Rambam Mikvaot 10:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:68

[137] Tosefta Mikvaot 2:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:73

[138] Tosefta Mikvaot 2:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:72

[139] Tosefta Mikvaot 2:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:72

[140] Mishna Mikvaot 2:3, Rambam Mikvaot 10:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:68

[141] Tosefta Mikvaot 2:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:73

[142] Tosefta Mikvaot 2:1, Rambam Mikvaot 10:4, Shulchan Aruch 201:70

[143] Divrei Yosef p. 147-8 cites the Drush Vchidush of Rabbi Akiva Eiger p. 170, Zichron Yosef YD 13, and Maharit 17. Divrei Yosef supports this approach by saying that as long as the water isn’t naturally drawn into the mikveh it is invalid.

[144] Rash, Rambam, Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8)

[145] Why is a mikveh kosher if someone adds sheuvim to it but natan seah v'natal seah is invalid?
Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 1:5) concludes that there is no difference. Indeed, if he adds so much sheuvim such that the result is that there is a majority of sheuvim compared to the kosher mikveh water, it is invalid. Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8) quotes this view. [Raavad (Buckwald edition, fnt. 12) notes that this edition of Raavad is found only in the second out of three editions and it seems that he retracted]

However, Rash (Mikvaot 7:2) and Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 7) understand that natan seah vnatal seah is about fruit juice and not sheuvim.

Alternatively, Raavad suggested that natan seah vnatal seah only applies if you actively remove water and not if the rainwater flows out by itself.

[195] Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 1:5) concludes that there is no difference. Indeed, if he adds so much sheuvim such that the result is that there is a majority of sheuvim compared to the kosher mikveh water, it is invalid. Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8) quotes this view. [Raavad (Buckwald edition, fnt. 12) notes that this edition of Raavad is found only in the second out of three editions and it seems that he retracted]

[196] However, Rash (Mikvaot 7:2) and Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 7) understand that natan seah vnatal seah is about fruit juice and not sheuvim.

[197] Alternatively, Raavad suggested that natan seah vnatal seah only applies if you actively remove water and not if the rainwater flows out by itself.

[146] Gemara Macot 4a states that if a barrel of sheuvim water falls into an ocean and someone is tovel there, they're tameh like someone who bathed in 3 lugin of sheuvim. The rishonim wonder why the sheuvim water isn't made kosher because of zeriya.
Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan (cited by Ritva 4a s.v. vhanachon) answers that fresh water and salt water don't mix and so zeriya is ineffective. Kehilat Yakov (Macot 5) argues that Rambam agrees with Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan.

Raavan 28 answers that the gemara discussing someone who was tovel there immediately after the sheuvim fell in. That's why there's a concern that the sheuvim are still in one place and retain the status of sheuvim. However, after a half hour or hour the sheuvim get mixed up with the rest of the ocean and are no longer considered sheuvim. Kesef Mishna (Hilchot Mikvaot 6:10) agrees. He says that when pouring sheuvim into a mikveh it gets mixed right away. In Macot, it didn't get mixed right away since the water seeped out of a barrel that fell into the ocean.

Tosfot (Macot 4a s.v. amar) explains that the correct text of the gemara should read that it is a barrel of wine and so there's no question about sheuvim at all.

[199] Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan (cited by Ritva 4a s.v. vhanachon) answers that fresh water and salt water don't mix and so zeriya is ineffective. Kehilat Yakov (Macot 5) argues that Rambam agrees with Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan.

[200] Raavan 28 answers that the gemara discussing someone who was tovel there immediately after the sheuvim fell in. That's why there's a concern that the sheuvim are still in one place and retain the status of sheuvim. However, after a half hour or hour the sheuvim get mixed up with the rest of the ocean and are no longer considered sheuvim. Kesef Mishna (Hilchot Mikvaot 6:10) agrees. He says that when pouring sheuvim into a mikveh it gets mixed right away. In Macot, it didn't get mixed right away since the water seeped out of a barrel that fell into the ocean.

[201] Tosfot (Macot 4a s.v. amar) explains that the correct text of the gemara should read that it is a barrel of wine and so there's no question about sheuvim at all.

[147] Rabbenu Yerucham (225d) cited by Bet Yosef 201:15

[148] Shach 201:41

[149] The Rash (Mikvaot 7:2) and Rosh (Hilchot Mikvaot n. 1) hold that once there is a complete mikveh of 40 seah it can’t be invalidated by adding drawn water. The concept that the mishna invalidates a mikveh when something is consistently removed and replaced (natan seah vnatal seah) is referring to fruit juice and not drawn water. Rabbenu Tam (Sefer Hayashar 671) and Tosfot Rid (Bava Batra 66b) agree with this understanding of the Mishna. The Gemara Yevamot 82b adds that natan seah vnatal seah is only an issue after one removed a majority of the mikveh. The Teshuvat Rid 62, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch 201:24 accept the Rosh. Gra 201:59 agrees with Shulchan Aruch.
However, the Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 7:6) understood the mishna to be speaking about drawn water and not fruit juice. Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a), Rabbenu Gershom (Bava Batra 66b), Raavan (Teshuva 28), and Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 88) agree with Rambam's understanding of the mishna. Rashbatz 1:17 writes that we should avoid the dispute if it is easily avoidable. Rashbetz 3:12 writes that we should avoid this unless it is an extenuating circumstance. Shach 201:63 is strict. Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 writes that in extenuating circumstances it is possible to rely on S”A against Rambam. Chelkat Binyamin 201:377 agrees.

Mishkenot Yakov YD 46 writes that Rashi, Tosfot, Rashbam, Rambam, Raavad, Rabbenu Chananel and Aruch hold that natan seah vnatal seah is an issue for sheuvim and we should avoid the issue. However, he quotes that the minhag wasn't to be machmir for this and he seems to accept that as acceptable just not ideal.

[205] However, the Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 7:6) understood the mishna to be speaking about drawn water and not fruit juice. Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a), Rabbenu Gershom (Bava Batra 66b), Raavan (Teshuva 28), and Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 88) agree with Rambam's understanding of the mishna. Rashbatz 1:17 writes that we should avoid the dispute if it is easily avoidable. Rashbetz 3:12 writes that we should avoid this unless it is an extenuating circumstance. Shach 201:63 is strict. Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 writes that in extenuating circumstances it is possible to rely on S”A against Rambam. Chelkat Binyamin 201:377 agrees.

[206] Mishkenot Yakov YD 46 writes that Rashi, Tosfot, Rashbam, Rambam, Raavad, Rabbenu Chananel and Aruch hold that natan seah vnatal seah is an issue for sheuvim and we should avoid the issue. However, he quotes that the minhag wasn't to be machmir for this and he seems to accept that as acceptable just not ideal.

[150] Why is natan seah vnatal seah an issue? Bet Yosef 201:24 explains that the Rambam held that such a mikveh is invalid lest someone seeing this thinks that one can use a completely drawn mikveh. This is supported by the Ramban (Bava Batra 65b s.v. v’iy kasha) and Ran (Bava Batra 66b s.v. leolam). Ran writes that it is only an issue of marit ayin, but the fundamentally it is fine if the rain water depletes. The Divrei Chaim 201:20 argues that the Raavad held it is an invalidation since the original rainwater must remain at all times. Certain leniencies can be extrapolated from the Bet Yosef since the concern is only of onlookers. See Chatom Sofer 214. Har Tzvi 176 held like the Bet Yosef. Chelkat Binyamin 201:377 writes that Bet Yosef’s explanation is primary. Gidulei Tahara 26 writes that it is biblically invalid. Shevet Halevi 4:121 argues that it is only a rabbinic issue even according to the Raavad. Maharsham 1:135 agrees.
Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 disagrees with the Chatom Sofer. He writes that natan seah and natal seah isn’t necessarily solved with putting in water through a pipe and having it flow out since it doesn’t look like it isn’t leaving. Firstly, it could be that the gezerah was in all cases and secondly, according to the Raavad it is problem intrinsically of removing the original rainwater.

[208] Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 disagrees with the Chatom Sofer. He writes that natan seah and natal seah isn’t necessarily solved with putting in water through a pipe and having it flow out since it doesn’t look like it isn’t leaving. Firstly, it could be that the gezerah was in all cases and secondly, according to the Raavad it is problem intrinsically of removing the original rainwater.

[151] Igrot Moshe YD 1:111 and 1:119 writes that one can use hamshacha even initially to pour water into a mikveh and even if water will flow out that wouldn’t be considered natan seah vnatal seah at all since hamshacha converts the water. However, Raavad 1:5 and Tashbetz 1:17 and 3:12 are clear that hamshacha doesn't solve this issue of natan seah vnatal seah. Birkei Yosef 201:44 quotes the Tashbetz about this. Rav Moshe disagrees with Tashbetz and Birkei Yosef.

[152] Igrot Moshe YD 2:94, Divrei Chaim CM 1:37, Maharshag YD 65-66

[153] Divrei Chayim (Mikvaot seif 20 in fnt. 20) writes that Raavad holds like Rabbenu Yerucham. Tzemech Tzedek (responsa 171), Rav Moshe Bick (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27), and Satmer Rebbe (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) agree.

[154] Chatom Sofer YD 214

[155] The Mishna Mikvaot 7:1 states that ice and snow contribute to the mikveh but don’t invalidate it. The mishna records a story in which Rabbi Yishmael allowed the town of Meyva to create a mikveh with snow.
Can it still be frozen? Rosh Mikvaot n. 18 writes that snow counts towards a mikveh even if it didn’t melt. Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 109), Rabbenu Yerucham (26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:31), and Rabbenu Shemaryahu (Mordechai Shabbat n. 332) agree. However, Rabbenu Eliezer (Mordechai Shabbat n. 332) argues that the snow has to be melted to count for a mikveh. Also, Rabbenu Simcha (Mordechai) for other reasons held that the snow must have melted. Bet Yosef 201:30 explains that the Rambam agrees with the Rosh and Raavad and Rabbenu Eliezer and Rabbenu Simcha are a minority opinion. Nonetheless, we are concerned for their opinion on biblical issues. Shulchan Aruch 201:30 implies that the snow is kosher while it is still frozen. Rama writes that some are strict to only permit the snow after it melts. Shach 201:71 argues that many rishonim hold that the snow must have melted and all rishonim agree that it needs to have melted to create a complete mikveh. Toldot Yitzchak 24 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:21 agrees. Chelkat Binyamin 201:460 is strict.

Does it need to be compacted? The Rosh and Raavad hold that the snow needs to be compact so that if it’ll melt it will still remain 40 seah because water takes up less space than snow. While the snow is frozen it counts for 40 seah in its current volume. Shulchan Aruch 201:30, Shach 201:72, and Taz 201:40 accept the Rosh.

Does the fact that it is drawn invalid it? The Rosh Mikvaot n. 18 and Raavad p. 109 say that it doesn’t invalidate as drawn water since it isn’t water when it was drawn.

Can a complete mikveh be made of snow? The Rambam Mikvaot 7:3, Rosh, and Tur 201:30 hold that it is possible to make a complete mikveh of snow. However, Rashi Sukkot 19b and Raavad hold that it can’t be used to create a complete mikveh but only to add to a mikveh with a majority of kosher water. Shulchan Aruch 201:30 only quotes the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh that the snow can be used to create a complete mikveh. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Shach 201:71) mentions that the Raavad argues.

[214] Can it still be frozen? Rosh Mikvaot n. 18 writes that snow counts towards a mikveh even if it didn’t melt. Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 109), Rabbenu Yerucham (26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:31), and Rabbenu Shemaryahu (Mordechai Shabbat n. 332) agree. However, Rabbenu Eliezer (Mordechai Shabbat n. 332) argues that the snow has to be melted to count for a mikveh. Also, Rabbenu Simcha (Mordechai) for other reasons held that the snow must have melted. Bet Yosef 201:30 explains that the Rambam agrees with the Rosh and Raavad and Rabbenu Eliezer and Rabbenu Simcha are a minority opinion. Nonetheless, we are concerned for their opinion on biblical issues. Shulchan Aruch 201:30 implies that the snow is kosher while it is still frozen. Rama writes that some are strict to only permit the snow after it melts. Shach 201:71 argues that many rishonim hold that the snow must have melted and all rishonim agree that it needs to have melted to create a complete mikveh. Toldot Yitzchak 24 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:21 agrees. Chelkat Binyamin 201:460 is strict.

[215] Does it need to be compacted? The Rosh and Raavad hold that the snow needs to be compact so that if it’ll melt it will still remain 40 seah because water takes up less space than snow. While the snow is frozen it counts for 40 seah in its current volume. Shulchan Aruch 201:30, Shach 201:72, and Taz 201:40 accept the Rosh.

[216] Does the fact that it is drawn invalid it? The Rosh Mikvaot n. 18 and Raavad p. 109 say that it doesn’t invalidate as drawn water since it isn’t water when it was drawn.

[217] Can a complete mikveh be made of snow? The Rambam Mikvaot 7:3, Rosh, and Tur 201:30 hold that it is possible to make a complete mikveh of snow. However, Rashi Sukkot 19b and Raavad hold that it can’t be used to create a complete mikveh but only to add to a mikveh with a majority of kosher water. Shulchan Aruch 201:30 only quotes the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh that the snow can be used to create a complete mikveh. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Shach 201:71) mentions that the Raavad argues.

[156] Chatom Sofer 200 holds that it is possible to create an entire mikveh from ice that was melted. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 319 is lenient to allow freezing tap water and creating a mikveh that way if there’s no other available option to make a mikveh with rain.

[157] Rav Elyashiv (Ashrei Haish YD 35:1) and Satmer rebbe (Shevet Halevi 8:204) hold that one cannot make a mikveh using an ice machine. Imrei Yosher 1:148 argues that one shouldn’t use machine made ice for a mikveh for several reasons: 1) According to the first explanation of the Smag you can’t use ice that melts that once was sheuvim unless you also add 40 seah afterwards. Even though the Shach holds like the second explanation of the Smag, the Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla are strict. 2) According to the Tzlach you can’t use water for a mikveh if the water is tameh even if it isn't carried with a kli that has tumah and we’re all tameh today. 3) perhaps the machine making ice is considered tefisat yaday adam. Even though according to the Raavad there’s no issue of sheuvim, we’re concerned for the Baal Hameor also (Chatom Sofer 200). Even though perhaps the Baal Hameor is only strict for snow but not ice but still it isn’t clear he’d allow sheuvim of ice if it was put in a vessel after it was frozen. 4) One version of the Raavad and the Sefer Eshkol held that you can’t ice that melts for a mikveh. Even though it isn’t accepted we should be concerned when anyway there’s reason to be strict.

[158] Rav Ovadia Yosef (Taharat Habayit v. 3 pp. 318-336) writes that in extenuating circumstances it is permissible to make a mikveh from ice made in an ice machine. He quotes that this is also the view of Rav Kook (Daat Kohen 94) and Ben Ish Chai (Rav Poalim YD 2:24). This is also the view of Rav Chaim Ozer (Achiezer 3:33:2, 4:39). Fundamentally, this is dependent on the two views in rishonim in understanding the Tosefta (Taharot 2:3) that a mikveh which was sheuvim and froze and then melts is considered sheuvim. Rosh understands that it isn't sheuvim at all and is kosher as a mikveh. Smag, however, quotes one opinion who holds that it doesn't invalidate the mikveh as sheuvim but is still not kosher unless there's 40 seah of rainwater afterwards. Rav Ovadia is lenient to follow Rosh, because that is the view of Shulchan Aruch, Rama (Darkei Moshe), Shach (201:74) and others. Even though Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla hold like Smag, Rav Ovadia is lenient like most poskim. He cites Levush Mordechai 25 as holding that a mikveh made from an ice machine is invalid since the water was sheuvim before it became ice. Rav Ovadia cites Shevet Halevi 2:102 and Yaskil Avdi YD 2:34 as holding like the lenient view. Chazon Ish (Tinyana 6:3) writes that it is hard to be lenient on this question. Igrot Moshe 1:120 does not offer an opinion on this question. Shevet Halevi 8:204 and Mikveh Mayim (v. 1 p. 198) hold that a mikveh made with an ice machine is kosher. Shevet Halevi only allows on condition that the ice is brought in kelim with holes in them and also there's hamshacha after the ice is made.

[159] Chatom Sofer 1:200 explains that there’s no issue of hava al yaday tumah for snow since it isn’t mekabel tumah. He says that the basis for all of mikvaot is that the water of the mikveh is tahor and automatically remains tahor as long it is connected to the ground. Because it is tahor and stays tahor it can purify other things as well.

[160] Yereyim as explained by Brisker Rav (Temurah 12a)

[161] Rambam (Mikvaot 4:8) holds that water which runs along a pipe (that doesn't make sheuvim) is also hamshacha since the water didn't come directly from a kli into the mikveh.
Brisker Rav (Temurah 12a) explains that Raavad agrees fundamentally with Rambam that hamshacha separates sheuvim from the kli but disallows having hamshacha on top of a pipe. If it isn't on top of ground it isn't considered detached from the kli that made it sheuvim.

Rash (Mikvaot 2:7) also implies that he holds of this approach. He writes that sheuvim seeping out of a broken kli is considered hamshacha. Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Kama 4:1) explains that it is considered hamshacha since the water didn't come directly from a kli. (Rambam (Mikvaot 4:4) holds that sheuvim seeping out of a broken kli isn't hamshacha.) Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 8:13) seems to understand Rash differently and explains that it is based on hamshacha of a tiny distance and not because of the breaking. Torat Refael p. 363 explains that Rash a third way; the action of breaking the kli makes it not sheuvim.

[224] Brisker Rav (Temurah 12a) explains that Raavad agrees fundamentally with Rambam that hamshacha separates sheuvim from the kli but disallows having hamshacha on top of a pipe. If it isn't on top of ground it isn't considered detached from the kli that made it sheuvim.

[225] Rash (Mikvaot 2:7) also implies that he holds of this approach. He writes that sheuvim seeping out of a broken kli is considered hamshacha. Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Kama 4:1) explains that it is considered hamshacha since the water didn't come directly from a kli. (Rambam (Mikvaot 4:4) holds that sheuvim seeping out of a broken kli isn't hamshacha.) Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 8:13) seems to understand Rash differently and explains that it is based on hamshacha of a tiny distance and not because of the breaking. Torat Refael p. 363 explains that Rash a third way; the action of breaking the kli makes it not sheuvim.

[162] Rash (Mikvaot 2:8) writes that it is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov and Rabbi Eliezer whether hamshacha on something that's completely sheuvim and then it enters into a majority of rainwater. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov holds it is necessary to have the sheuvim mix with the majority rainwater (reviya) and then hamshacha, while Rabbi Eliezer holds that isn't necessary. Seemingly, Rash would not follow Rabbi Eliezer. Also, Tashbetz 1:17 holds that one should be strict for Rashi Nazir 38a who holds that it is necessary to have 21 seah before the hamshacha. Bet Yosef 201:44 and Shulchan Aruch argue that a simply majority of the 40 seah is necessary and nothing more. This is the view of Rambam (Mikvaot 4:4).

[163] Most all rishonim hold that hamshacha doesn't work for a completely sheuvim mikveh, but works if majority of the water is rainwater. These rishonim include: Ri Migash (responsa 49), Rambam (Mikvaot 4:9), Tosfot (Temurah 12b), Rosh Mikvaot n. 7, Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh Shaar 1), Baal Hameor (Baalei Hanefesh Shaar 1 n. 3), Or Zaruah 1:335, Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 7, Teshuvot Hameyuchasot Lramban 226), Rivash (83 and 125), and Tashbetz 1:49.
According to the simple reading of the Gemara Temurah 12a there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov and Rabbanan whether hamshacha works for the entire mikveh or just the minority of the mikveh. Most rishonim rule like Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov. Some rishonim held that we follow Rabbanan and validated a mikveh that was made completely of drawn water. This is based on how Rashi, Rabbenu Gershom, Ri, and Rash understood the gemara. Rabbenu Shmuel Mlunil (Tosfot Temurah 12b) has another reading of the gemara in which hamshacha on the complete mikveh only works if 40 seah of rainwater comes in afterwards.

Rambam: The Rambam (Mikvaot 4:9) writes that some rabbis of the west ruled that hamshacha works for the entire mikveh. He disagrees and writes that it is completely incorrect. In his commentary on the mishna (Mikvaot 4:4) it is evident that he didn't think anyone in the gemara or mishna held that. Kesef Mishna understands that according to Rambam, everyone agrees that it is necessary to have a majority rainwater and hamshacha. The dispute was whether hamshacha is effective if the sheuvim fell into the mikveh without hamshacha. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov holds that hamshacha is ineffective after it was already mixed in the mikveh, while Rabbanan hold that is kosher. Bottom line, Rambam holds that majority of rainwater and hamshacha is necessary.

Rif: The Ran Shevuot 5b s.v. maleh explains that the Rif and Rash hold that hamshacha works for the entire mikveh. Rashba 3:228 and Ramban b”b 65b also explain the Rif in the same way. The Bet Yosef 201:44 argues in fact the Rif agreed with the Rambam. Baal Hameor (Baalei Hanefesh Shaar 1 n. 3) also understood Rif this way. Shulchan Aruch 201:44 codifies the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh.

Rash (Mikvaot 4:4) explains that opinion of the Mishna is that hamshacha only works if the drawn water mixes with rainwater before they fall into the mikveh. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov in the Tosefta however doesn’t require that. Rash (Mikvaot 2:3) holds that hamshacha works from the Torah for the whole mikveh. Rosh Mikvaot n. 7 discusses this question and concludes leniently.

[228] According to the simple reading of the Gemara Temurah 12a there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov and Rabbanan whether hamshacha works for the entire mikveh or just the minority of the mikveh. Most rishonim rule like Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov. Some rishonim held that we follow Rabbanan and validated a mikveh that was made completely of drawn water. This is based on how Rashi, Rabbenu Gershom, Ri, and Rash understood the gemara. Rabbenu Shmuel Mlunil (Tosfot Temurah 12b) has another reading of the gemara in which hamshacha on the complete mikveh only works if 40 seah of rainwater comes in afterwards.

[229] Rambam: The Rambam (Mikvaot 4:9) writes that some rabbis of the west ruled that hamshacha works for the entire mikveh. He disagrees and writes that it is completely incorrect. In his commentary on the mishna (Mikvaot 4:4) it is evident that he didn't think anyone in the gemara or mishna held that. Kesef Mishna understands that according to Rambam, everyone agrees that it is necessary to have a majority rainwater and hamshacha. The dispute was whether hamshacha is effective if the sheuvim fell into the mikveh without hamshacha. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov holds that hamshacha is ineffective after it was already mixed in the mikveh, while Rabbanan hold that is kosher. Bottom line, Rambam holds that majority of rainwater and hamshacha is necessary.

[230] Rif: The Ran Shevuot 5b s.v. maleh explains that the Rif and Rash hold that hamshacha works for the entire mikveh. Rashba 3:228 and Ramban b”b 65b also explain the Rif in the same way. The Bet Yosef 201:44 argues in fact the Rif agreed with the Rambam. Baal Hameor (Baalei Hanefesh Shaar 1 n. 3) also understood Rif this way. Shulchan Aruch 201:44 codifies the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh.

[231] Rash (Mikvaot 4:4) explains that opinion of the Mishna is that hamshacha only works if the drawn water mixes with rainwater before they fall into the mikveh. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov in the Tosefta however doesn’t require that. Rash (Mikvaot 2:3) holds that hamshacha works from the Torah for the whole mikveh. Rosh Mikvaot n. 7 discusses this question and concludes leniently.

[164] Shulchan Aruch YD 201:44. See previous note. Is hamshacha on all of the 40 seah invalid mideoritta or miderabbanan? Shevet Halevi 2:103 holds that it is only pasul midrabbanan. He quotes that this is the view of Radvaz 1:85, Divrei Chaim, and Bet Shlomo 2:62. However, Shevet Halevi also quotes Imrei Esh 86 who holds that it is pasul mideoritta. Minchat Yitzchak 1:146:4 quotes Maharsham 3:145 who holds that it is only pasul miderabbanan. Minchat Yitzchak seems to accept this opinion. See Imrei Yosher 2:67 who seems to accept this approach of Maharsham but only if the hamshacha is done on ground and not cement.

[165] The Rambam Mikvaot 4:8 writes that hamshacha on a complete mikveh is effective if there was originally a majority of rainwater and then drawn water fell in and then hamshacha occurred. The Bet Yosef 201:44 explains that the Rambam is based on his reading of Temurah 12a that Rabbanan hold hamshacha works for a complete mikveh. He explains that it only means that it works if originally there was a majority of rainwater and then drawn water entered and then the entire mikveh moved. Shulchan Aruch 201:44 follows the Rambam. Rash (Mikvaot 2:7) understands that the Mishna allows hamshacha even if the sheuvim came in first and then the majority rainwater afterwards.

[166] Shevet Halevi 2:103

[167] Shulchan Aruch 201:45. The Kol Bo 86 quotes the Ri who held that hamshacha needs to be a distance of 3 tefachim otherwise it is lavud. Rivash 83 and 125 agrees. Rashba 5:60 holds hamshacha is effective in any amount. Tashbetz 1:49 writes that even though it seems that lavud is irrelevant to hamshacha which is a rule of walls, since the Ri was strict we can’t be lenient. Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyanya 8:13) writes that Rash holds hamshacha is kosher with any distance. However, in Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Kama 6:9) he rejects this explanation. Shulchan Aruch 201:45 is strict.

[168] Shulchan Aruch 201:46 and Rama. Rambam (Mikvaot 8:4) and Raavad (quoted by Bet Yosef 201:46) hold that hamshacha on a pipe is effective, even though it doesn't absorb water. However, the Mordechai (Shevuot n. 645) quotes the Yereyim and Rokeach who hold that hamshacha is only effective on dirt that could absorb water. Rash (Mikvaot 2:2 and 2:8) might imply that hamshacha doesn't need ground that could absorb. Shulchan Aruch is lenient, while Rama is strict.
The Brisker Rav (Chidushei HaGriz Temurah 12a s.v. vheneh) writes that those who held that you need 3 tefachim is because sheuvim is only rabbinic and it needs to be separated from a kli. However, those who held that you need ground that is water penetrable could hold that sheuvim is deoritta and it doesn’t need to be 3 tefachim.

[237] The Brisker Rav (Chidushei HaGriz Temurah 12a s.v. vheneh) writes that those who held that you need 3 tefachim is because sheuvim is only rabbinic and it needs to be separated from a kli. However, those who held that you need ground that is water penetrable could hold that sheuvim is deoritta and it doesn’t need to be 3 tefachim.

[169] The Mikveh Yisrael explains that there’s a dispute between the Raavad and Rambam whether the water needs to come into contact with the ground or even a vessel that is attached to the ground or even a vessel that isn’t susceptible to tumah is sufficient. Shevet Halevi 4:120 argues that there’s no dispute but any vessel that has a receptacle isn’t fit for hamshacha even if it isn’t susceptible to tumah. Shevet Halevi 4:120 explains that the water needs to actually come in contact with the ground and if the water is gushing quickly over the ground most of it doesn’t have hamshacha.

[170] Maharshag 1:65 citing experts writes that cement is water penetrable. Chazon Ish (Likkutim 3:1) agrees. Chelkat Binyamin 201:668 writes that the poskim hold cement works for hamshacha. Minchat Yitzchak 1:142 agrees with Maharshag about cement. However, the Divrei Yatziv 117 writes that it is preferable not to use cement since some question if it can absorb water (see Darkei Teshuva 201:206, 215). Mishneh Halachot 16:49 cites this. Pitchei Mikvaot (ch. 6 fnt. 4) quotes Cheshev Haefod who questions that cement should actually be considered absorbent. His reason is that the factor behind being absorbent is that hamshacha makes the water like the water leached from the ground, however, that isn't the case regarding cement. Also, he raises the issue that hamshacha should have to be upon dirt that is connected to the earth and water could leach out of and not dirt on top of something that can't absorb water. For example, a hamshacha ramp on the second floor of a building, even if it is all connected to the ground still isn't fit for this criteria of being ground that is absorbent. Cheshev Haefod concludes that since we only use hamshacha as a chumra today it is fine to use cement and fine to use it even on a second floor. Mikveh Mayim (R' Yirmiyahu Katz) writes that some cements absorb water and some do not. Maharshag 66 notes that even though stones can also absorb, albeit very slowly, they can invalid for hamschach according to Mordechai and Rama. Nonetheless, Maharshag claims that water gets absorbed faster in cement than in stone. [Note that Mordechai and Rama also invalidate wood because it doesn't absorb quickly.]

[171] Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:47. The Rosh responsa 31:11 is lenient about a spring that was refilled with water from a nearby pit since the water in the pit that was absorbed in the ground would certainly be met up with a greater quantity of natural spring water and as such there is hamshacha with a majority of spring water. Also, the spring isn’t invalidated with drawn water. So even though it appears to have dried up it couldn’t completely dry up. Shach and Taz are lenient for Ashkenazim even they wouldn’t hold of the second reason of the Rosh.

[172] Aruch Hashulchan 201:99 and 104 notes that Rash (Mikvaot 2:7) writes that for hamshacha it is necessary to pour the water away from the mikveh. He explains that pouring the water directly towards the mikveh is too much human involvement and is considered b'yedey adam. With this he explains why Mishna 2:7 mentions turning over a vessel and Mishnayot 2:8-9 don't. See Rosh, Bet Yosef, and Taz who answer his question differently.

[173] Rashba, Rosh, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52

[174] Rabbenu Yerucham cites a dispute. Shach 201:112 writes that it is good to be strict. Chatom Sofer YD 212 writes that the mikveh in his town for many years built by established rabbis relied on the opinions that a momentary connection is sufficient. Gidulei Tahara 10 holds that temporary hashaka is very problematic and shouldn't be relied on even after the fact. He infers from Rash, Rambam, and Raavad that they hold it is invalid. Kehilat Yakov (Macot siman 5) shows that Rashi holds that temporary hashaka doesn't work. Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 clearly implies like Rosh that temporary hashaka works. Bet Efraim YD 53 suggests that those who are strict explain that the mishna is based on bitul and not hashaka. Bet Shlomo 2:63 suggests that the mishna means that the waters are only temporarily kosher, for example, if people went into the pits again. This explanation is found in Rivash 294.

[175] Tosfot Rid 15 s.v. vehachaver Ri. Bedek Habayit 201:29 seems to understand Rambam to hold that hashaka is invalid to purify sheuvim water.

[176] Rosh Bava Kama 7, Ramban Bava Batra 65b

[177] The Raah (Bedek Habayit Bayit 7 Shaar 7) writes that since the water in the mikveh is shallow and one couldn’t go to the mikveh in it, adding sheuvim would invalidate it. However, the Rashba in Mishmeret Habayit argues. Ginat Veradim YD 4:1 and Shiurei Bracha 201:15 are lenient. Chatom Sofer YD 212 and Maharam Shik YD 192 are concerned for the Raah. Emek Sheilah 48 writes that the Taz on 66 agrees to it. Chelkat Binyamin 201:896 is strict. Chelkat Binyamin 201:750 is strict whether it is a hashaka or a zeriya of sheuvim to a shallow water mikveh. Chatom Sofer 212 and Maharam Shik are strict even for a mayan that's shallow but Chelkat Binyamin (Tziyunim 2857) quotes Mahari Asad who is lenient for a mayan. Lechem 201:251 writes that to accommodate the Raah they should use hamshacha. Taharat Yisrael 201:66 agrees.

[178] Rash (Taharot 8:9), Meiri (Mikvaot 6:1) quoting Rash, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52. Teshuvat Rid 15 s.v. vehachaver writes that a connection of two fingerbreadths is insufficient for converting drawn water to be usable. It is only for connecting two incomplete mikvaot is it sufficient. He says even though he understands why it should work there’s no clear proof that is the case. Shevet Halevi 4:121:2 writes that is implausible to suggest that the Raavad held that hashaka doesn’t work for drawn water because it is against all of the rishonim. Beis Yosef 201:53 and Darkei Moshe note that although Rash writes that for sheuvim derabbanan a hole that's of any size is sufficient, but Rosh and Rambam hold that shifoferet hanod is always necessary. Rama quotes this stringent opinion of Rosh and Rambam. Bach explains that Rosh holds shifoferet hanod is necessary even for a case of sheuvim derabbanan. If so, there's a reason never to use a hole that's smaller than a shifoferet hanod. However, Shach argues that even Rosh and Rama agree that for sheuvim derabbanan it is sufficient to have a hole that's any size. Simla 201:98 and Gidulei Tahara 201:42 disagree with Shach and maintain that Rosh and Rambam insistent on a hole of shifoferet hanod in all cases of sheuvim. According to Bach, Simla, and Gidulei Tahara one shouldn't use a hole smaller than shifoferet hanod for anything. This is supported by Rosh's comment on Mikvaot 6:8 and Tosfot Harosh Gittin 16a. However, see Minchat Yitzchak 1:147:9 citing Satmer Rebbe and Chelkat Yakov YD 112 who do use holes of any size for sheuvim derabbanan issues, like Shach.

[179] Mishna Mikvaot 6:7, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52

[180] Rash (Mikvaot 6:7)

[181] The Rosh Mikvaot n. 15 writes that in order to connect two pits of water in order to create a complete mikveh or to validate drawn water a hole the size of a shifoferet hanod is necessary. The Rash (Mikvaot 6:8 and Taharot 8:9) holds that only for connecting incomplete mikvaot is a shifoferet hanod necessary, but in order to validate drawn water a hole the size of a needle is sufficient since in his opinion drawn water is only rabbinic. Rashba (Shaar Hamayim Shaar 10) agrees.
The Darkei Moshe 201:26* writes that the Rambam agrees with the Rosh. See, however, the Pirush Mishnayot of Rambam Mikvaot 6:8 which sounds like the Rash and the Aruch Hashulchan 201:177 in fact writes that the Rambam agrees with the Rash. Yet, the Aruch Hashulchan 201:181 explains that the Rambam is strict for another reason.

Shulchan Aruch 201:53 holds like the Rashba, however, Rama 201:53 agrees with the Rosh. The Shach 201:117 explains that if the invalidation is only rabbinic such as if there’s a minority of drawn water even the Rama would permit a hole that is of any size. But the Taz 201:64 explains that the Rama is strict even if the invalidation is certainly rabbinic. Aruch Hashulchan 201:181 and Chelkat Binyamin 201:786 are strict to always require a shifoferet hanod.

[251] The Darkei Moshe 201:26* writes that the Rambam agrees with the Rosh. See, however, the Pirush Mishnayot of Rambam Mikvaot 6:8 which sounds like the Rash and the Aruch Hashulchan 201:177 in fact writes that the Rambam agrees with the Rash. Yet, the Aruch Hashulchan 201:181 explains that the Rambam is strict for another reason.

[252] Shulchan Aruch 201:53 holds like the Rashba, however, Rama 201:53 agrees with the Rosh. The Shach 201:117 explains that if the invalidation is only rabbinic such as if there’s a minority of drawn water even the Rama would permit a hole that is of any size. But the Taz 201:64 explains that the Rama is strict even if the invalidation is certainly rabbinic. Aruch Hashulchan 201:181 and Chelkat Binyamin 201:786 are strict to always require a shifoferet hanod.

[182] Shach 201:110.
The Rash Taharot 8:9 explains that there is a contradiction whether a hole of a shifoferet hanod is necessary to connect mikvaot (Mikvaot 6:7, Yevamot 15a) or any water that is wet enough to wet something that could in turn wet something else (Taharot 8:9, Gittin 16a). Rabbenu Tam answered that if the hole is physically a shifoferet hanod even if the water traveling through is only enough to create a second derivative wetness that is sufficient. Having a large hole that isn’t completely full of water establishes a connection between the mikvaot. Similarly, the Mishna Mikvaot 6:9 states that a overflow from one mikveh to another requires a thickness of a onion peel but a width of a shifoferet hanod. The Rash explains that mishna is also discussing the thickness of the area where the overflow could occur but the actual water needs to transfer is only the amount that would create a second derivative wetness. This explanation is supported by Mishna Parah 5:8 which mentions the overflow of an onion peel but not the width of a shifoferet hanod. Lastly, he clarifies that while Rabbi Yehuda only needs a water that would create a second derivative wetness, the Rabbis need a onion peel thick of water to transfer to connect the mikvaot. Finally, the Rash suggests an approach in opposition to the Rabbenu Tam in which the entire hole needs to be full of water. Raavad cited by Bet Yosef 201:54 quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Tam.

[254] The Rash Taharot 8:9 explains that there is a contradiction whether a hole of a shifoferet hanod is necessary to connect mikvaot (Mikvaot 6:7, Yevamot 15a) or any water that is wet enough to wet something that could in turn wet something else (Taharot 8:9, Gittin 16a). Rabbenu Tam answered that if the hole is physically a shifoferet hanod even if the water traveling through is only enough to create a second derivative wetness that is sufficient. Having a large hole that isn’t completely full of water establishes a connection between the mikvaot. Similarly, the Mishna Mikvaot 6:9 states that a overflow from one mikveh to another requires a thickness of a onion peel but a width of a shifoferet hanod. The Rash explains that mishna is also discussing the thickness of the area where the overflow could occur but the actual water needs to transfer is only the amount that would create a second derivative wetness. This explanation is supported by Mishna Parah 5:8 which mentions the overflow of an onion peel but not the width of a shifoferet hanod. Lastly, he clarifies that while Rabbi Yehuda only needs a water that would create a second derivative wetness, the Rabbis need a onion peel thick of water to transfer to connect the mikvaot. Finally, the Rash suggests an approach in opposition to the Rabbenu Tam in which the entire hole needs to be full of water. Raavad cited by Bet Yosef 201:54 quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Tam.

[183] The Mishna Mikvaot 6:7 writes that a hole that isn’t clearly a shifoferet hanod is invalid because the size of a shifoferet hanod is biblical. Shulchan Aruch 201:52 codifies this.

[184] The Mishna Mikvaot 6:7 establishes that if there’s something in the hole even something that grows in the water it would restrict using the hole to connect the mikvaot. Rambam Mikvaot 6:11 and Shulchan Aruch 201:52 codify this.

[185] The Gemara Chagiga 22a implies that small holes do add up to constitute one large hole of a shifoferet hanod. Ravyah 988 and Mordechai Shevuot n. 646, however, explain that the holes only don’t add up to connect incomplete mikvaot but they can add up to validate drawn water. Shulchan Aruch and Rama Y.D. 201:52 codify the Mordechai, Chacham Tzvi 40, Levushei Sarad 206, Dagul Mirvava 201:53 and Mishkenaot Yaakov 45 disagree with Ravyah. Levushei Sarad proves from Rashi (Chagiga 22a), Rash (Mikvaot 6:8), Ri, and Rosh disagree with Ravyah.

[186] Rash and Rosh (Mikvaot 5:2), Chelkat Binyamin 201:173. Bet Yosef 201:9 infers from Rambam, Rosh, and Tur that they hold this as well. However, Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 3) holds that a hashaka to a mayan can be accomplished with a connection of any amount. However, Rashba (teshuva 3:228) also assumes shifoferet hanod is necessary for hashaka with a mayan. Chazon Ish (Tinyanya 3:3) questions why we don't pasken like this Rashba since there's a tosefta that supports his opinion.

[187] The Rosh responsa 31:2 writes that a momentary hashaka is sufficient to convert the sheuvim into kosher mikveh water forever. One of his proofs is Mishna (Mikvaot 6:3). Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 writes that some said it was invalid and others said it was valid. Shulchan Aruch 201:53 follows the Rosh, but the Shach 201:112 writes that it is better to be strict for the stringent opinion to have a continuous hashaka between the rainwater and the drawn water.

[188] Or Zaruah 1:335-6 quotes Rabbenu Simcha who holds that a hashaka from 40 seah of moving rainwater to sheuvim is invalid since it was moving. However, he also quotes that Rabbi Yitzchak Bar Shmuel argues that it is valid as long as it has 40 seah. Rash (Mikvaot 3:3 and 5:2) and Rosh (Bava Kama 7:3) hold like this Rabbi Yitzchak Bar Shmuel about this point. Rid (teshuva 15 s.v. uma sh'hiksheti) clearly disagrees with Rabbi Yitzchak Bar Shmuel and seems to accept Rabbenu Simcha. To summarize, there is a clear machloket in the rishonim if hashaka works to 40 seah of moving rainwater.
Igrot Moshe YD 1:113 writes that if a mikveh is kosher and moving it is still possible to have a connection to a kosher mikveh to permit it. Even though a moving mikveh isn’t fit for tevilah it is a kosher mikveh to permit another mikveh. His proof is from the Rash (Mikvaot 3:3 and 5:2) who says that if rainwater of 40 seah is coming into a mikveh and there’s water pouring out of the mikveh that is an acceptable way to validate the mikveh. Bet Yosef 201:20 and Shach 201:55 cite this Rash. Pri Deah (S"D 201:55) is also of this opinion.

Chazon Ish (Tinanya 8:1) holds that a zochlin mikveh is invalid and cannot create hashaka to purify sheuvim. His proof is from the concept of mey tamsiyot shelo pasku. He understands from Raavad that it requires a reviyit to be kosher and therefore it needs the status of a mikveh which is stationary for hashaka to be operative. He reiterates his opinion in Kama 3:12 and Tinyanya 3:12. Chazon Ish 3 is strict and suggests either having the zeriya hole above where the water enters or having a plug. Additionally, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:96 is strict based on the Maharit 2:18. Mishneh Halachot 10:156 is strict. He quotes Maharam Shik 198 who is also strict.

Chelkat Yakov 111 is strict but it isn’t an issue if a little water at the end comes in while it is moving since a majority of mikveh was already kosher with standing zeriya.

[261] Igrot Moshe YD 1:113 writes that if a mikveh is kosher and moving it is still possible to have a connection to a kosher mikveh to permit it. Even though a moving mikveh isn’t fit for tevilah it is a kosher mikveh to permit another mikveh. His proof is from the Rash (Mikvaot 3:3 and 5:2) who says that if rainwater of 40 seah is coming into a mikveh and there’s water pouring out of the mikveh that is an acceptable way to validate the mikveh. Bet Yosef 201:20 and Shach 201:55 cite this Rash. Pri Deah (S"D 201:55) is also of this opinion.

[262] Chazon Ish (Tinanya 8:1) holds that a zochlin mikveh is invalid and cannot create hashaka to purify sheuvim. His proof is from the concept of mey tamsiyot shelo pasku. He understands from Raavad that it requires a reviyit to be kosher and therefore it needs the status of a mikveh which is stationary for hashaka to be operative. He reiterates his opinion in Kama 3:12 and Tinyanya 3:12. Chazon Ish 3 is strict and suggests either having the zeriya hole above where the water enters or having a plug. Additionally, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:96 is strict based on the Maharit 2:18. Mishneh Halachot 10:156 is strict. He quotes Maharam Shik 198 who is also strict.

[263] Chelkat Yakov 111 is strict but it isn’t an issue if a little water at the end comes in while it is moving since a majority of mikveh was already kosher with standing zeriya.

[189] Mikvaot 1:7

[190] Ritva (Nedarim 13a) quotes the Raah

[191] Tosfot Bechorot 55b s.v. ein and Ritva (Nedarim 13a) quoting Ramban, Raavad, and Rav Pinchas Halevi, brother of Raah, all hold that hashaka of sheuvim and a mayan does not make the sheuvim into mayan water. Their explanation is based on Nedarim 40b and Mikvaot 1:7 which indicates that once there is a majority of sheuvim or rain water in a mayan, it is no longer considered a mayan to purify with zochlin. The evidence for Raah, who holds that hashaka makes rainwater into a mayan, is from Mikvoat 5:3 which implies that a flowing mayan which is expanded with sheuvim is still a considered a mayan.
Ramban answers that Mikvaot 5:3 is discussing where the sheuvim is added directly into the mayan. That effectively converts the sheuvim into mayan water, but if the sheuvim or rain water is added anywhere else downstream hashaka is ineffective and it is not considered mayan water.

Rabbi Pinchas answers that a majority of mayan water can nullify the sheuvim or rain water to become like mayan water. Nonetheless, on a rabbinic level they disallowed using a mayan with a minority of rain water in the places where it expanded or continued further than where it flowed previously because of a concern that it appears that tevila is acceptable in zochlin of mikveh water. That's the explanation in Mikvaot 5:3 which is discussing where there isn't a majority of mayan water. However, Mikvaot 1:7 and Nedarim 40b are discussing where there is a majority of rain water in which case hashaka doesn't help to make it into mayan water.

Mikvaot 5:2 according to Kesef Mishna (Hilchot Mikvaot 9:6) considers rainwater that was connected to a mayan to be like a mayan. Several explanations are given for this cited by Moreshet Moshe 5:2: Taz 201:3 holds like Raah that essentially hashaka converts rainwater to become a mayan, but here there is a gezera that the rainwater won't be connected properly (katafras). Similarly, Lechem Vsimla 201:1 s.v. vnireh answers that there's marit ayin to use this rainwater since it appears like he's using rainwater that's moving. However, Gidulei Tahara 13 and Aruch Hashulchan 201:52 explain that if there is majority of rainwater in the entire river then it is no longer a mayan and hashaka doesn't work to make it into a mayan, but if there's a majority of rainwater in one spot and that is conencted to an uncontaminated mayan hashaka converts it into a mayan.

[267] Ramban answers that Mikvaot 5:3 is discussing where the sheuvim is added directly into the mayan. That effectively converts the sheuvim into mayan water, but if the sheuvim or rain water is added anywhere else downstream hashaka is ineffective and it is not considered mayan water.

[268] Rabbi Pinchas answers that a majority of mayan water can nullify the sheuvim or rain water to become like mayan water. Nonetheless, on a rabbinic level they disallowed using a mayan with a minority of rain water in the places where it expanded or continued further than where it flowed previously because of a concern that it appears that tevila is acceptable in zochlin of mikveh water. That's the explanation in Mikvaot 5:3 which is discussing where there isn't a majority of mayan water. However, Mikvaot 1:7 and Nedarim 40b are discussing where there is a majority of rain water in which case hashaka doesn't help to make it into mayan water.

[269] Mikvaot 5:2 according to Kesef Mishna (Hilchot Mikvaot 9:6) considers rainwater that was connected to a mayan to be like a mayan. Several explanations are given for this cited by Moreshet Moshe 5:2: Taz 201:3 holds like Raah that essentially hashaka converts rainwater to become a mayan, but here there is a gezera that the rainwater won't be connected properly (katafras). Similarly, Lechem Vsimla 201:1 s.v. vnireh answers that there's marit ayin to use this rainwater since it appears like he's using rainwater that's moving. However, Gidulei Tahara 13 and Aruch Hashulchan 201:52 explain that if there is majority of rainwater in the entire river then it is no longer a mayan and hashaka doesn't work to make it into a mayan, but if there's a majority of rainwater in one spot and that is conencted to an uncontaminated mayan hashaka converts it into a mayan.

[192] Nedarim 13b

[193] Trumat Hadeshen 254

[194] Trumat Hadeshen 254

[195] Rabbenu Tam and Tosfot Bechorot 55b s.v. ein, Rabbi Pinchas Halevi (brother of Raah, cited by Ritva Nedarim 13a), Shach 201:32

[196] Rabbenu Tam cited in Tosfot Bechorot 55b s.v. ein

[197] Ritva Nedarim 13b holds that kama kama batel is irrelevant to rain or a growth of kilayim since it is natural for it to continue. It is different than someone pouring which he could decide to stop at any moment. See also Ramban Bava Batra 2a for the same type of idea.

[198] Mishna Mikvaot 6:10 states that a mikveh next to another mikveh doesn’t invalidate it. Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 6:11 based on the mishna writes that if there’s drawn water connected to a mikveh it doesn’t invalidate it. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:18 codifies the Rambam.

[199] Mishna Mikvaot 6:11 states that if there’s a pit of drawn water connected to a mikveh it invalidates the mikveh if the hole holds 3 lug. The Rambam Mikvaot 6:12-13 and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:18 quote this Mishna. Chelkat Binyamin 201:302 explains that the measure of 3 lug is measured by the amount of water that would be contained in the area opposite the hole from the wall with the hole until the opposite wall.

[200] Bet Yosef 201:17, Shach 201:53, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:85

[201] Mishna Mikvaot 6:10, Shach 201:52

[202] Chelkat Yakov 111 writes that the hole for the hashaka should be placed at least 80 cm from the ground of the tevilah mikveh because of a concern of the Raah who holds that water which is so shallow that it can’t be dipped in can’t be a kosher mikveh and sheuvim can’t be added to it. It seems that the Raah would also invalidate the hashaka to a mikveh which has 40 seah which is shallow and is unfit for dipping. However, the Pitchei Mikvaot p. 315 writes that according to the Raah it isn’t clear that he would invalidate a hashaka to a shallow mikveh. Even if he would, it is only an issue to do hashaka to a shallow mikveh but hashaka of a full mikveh to a shallow mikveh is fit.

[203] The Raah (Shitah Mikubeset Beitzah 18a) holds that water which is of different types can’t have hashaka. Chatom Sofer YD 212 and Maharam Shik YD 192 are strict for the Raah.

[204] The Chelkat Binyamin Biurim 201:30 s.v. ad p. 169 quotes the Gidulei Tahara responsa 12 who writes that if a mikveh has a lot of ice and is unfit for tevilah can’t be used for hashaka according to the Raah who says that you can’t add sheuvim to a mikveh which is unfit for dipping since it is shallow. Chelkat Binyamin questions this since the ice is going to melt on its own and it isn’t similar to a shallow mikveh which is unfit as it is. Rabbi Simon said that he heard that Rav Moshe Feinstein allowed the swimming pool of Luban, Russia as a mikveh since the drawn tap water had hashaka to ice underneath the pool.

[205] Rash and Rosh (Mikvaot 5:6)

[206] Rivash 292 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 defines katafras as moving water, zochlin. Or Zaruah (1:336) quoting Rabbenu Simcha and Tosfot Rid (Gittin 16b) agree that katafras is synonymous with zochlin. Divrei Chaim 2:97 argues. Maharsham (2:59 and 3:100), and Igrot Moshe 3:65 reject the Divrei Chaim.

[207] The Ravyah (cited by Mordechai Shevuot 746) asks why it is possible to dip in a river if it is considered katafras.
The Ravyah answers that katafras is a connection for the water below the slope since the water is going to flow down but not up the slope. Therefore, in a river anywhere one is dipping is valid if there’s 40 seah upstream. A proof is the Tosefta Mikvaot 3:4 that has a case of three pits on a slope, the top and bottom are 20 seah and middle is 40 seah that the middle and bottom are certainly valid. Tosfot Gittin 16a s.v. nisok agrees. Darkei Moshe 201:6 agrees. This approach holds that katafras is a connection together with gud achit. The Bet Yosef argues that this answer isn’t the halacha since we don’t hold that there’s a connection between the lower pit or upper pit using gud asik or achit at all (Rambam Mikvaot 8:8).

Bet Yosef 201:54 answers that there’s 40 seah of each side of the slope and so it is valid even though there’s no connection of katafras.

[286] The Ravyah answers that katafras is a connection for the water below the slope since the water is going to flow down but not up the slope. Therefore, in a river anywhere one is dipping is valid if there’s 40 seah upstream. A proof is the Tosefta Mikvaot 3:4 that has a case of three pits on a slope, the top and bottom are 20 seah and middle is 40 seah that the middle and bottom are certainly valid. Tosfot Gittin 16a s.v. nisok agrees. Darkei Moshe 201:6 agrees. This approach holds that katafras is a connection together with gud achit. The Bet Yosef argues that this answer isn’t the halacha since we don’t hold that there’s a connection between the lower pit or upper pit using gud asik or achit at all (Rambam Mikvaot 8:8).

[287] Bet Yosef 201:54 answers that there’s 40 seah of each side of the slope and so it is valid even though there’s no connection of katafras.

[208] Shevet Halevi 3:133 writes that even if a hashaka hole is slanted downward it isn't katafras since the only issue is a rabbinic one after there was zeriya. Even according to the Raavad (by natal seah) it is acceptable since there's hamshacha. After both of those there's hashaka which is at most needed on a rabbinic level. Katafras isn't an issue if water is only invalid rabbinically. Also, the Imrei Yosher 1:101 and 2:167 argues with the Divrei Chaim and holds that katafras isn't an issue if the water is still. We can rely on the Imrei Yoshar and all the more so with other factors. Also, Gidulei Tahara (Nachal 201:45) discusses that katafras can’t mean that it needs to be totally flat but he leaves the precise degree of incline unresolved.

[209] From many places it is obvious that the stairs are included in the mikveh:
Rash Mikvaot 7:7 explains that the vessel sitting on a stair can be included in the mikveh if you splash and the water submerges the vessel. Rambam Pirush Mishnayot agrees.

Shulchan Aruch YD 198:31 writes that one may be tovel on top of stone stairs in the mikveh. This is based on the Rashba (responsa 828).

Mishna Mikvaot 7:6 says that according to Rabbi Yehuda the water on a person’s body while his feet are in the mikveh are connected to the mikveh. The case is clearly where his body is out of the water and feet are in the mikveh and presumably it is stairs or a shallow area.

The Divrei Chaim 2:97 writes that the stairs aren’t connected with the mikveh and one may not be tovel there. Chelkat Yakov YD 111 writes that the Divrei Chaim is completely contradicted by Shulchan Aruch. He writes that perhaps the Divrei Chaim only meant to be strict if the stairs are slanted towards the inside of the mikveh so that no water could remain on them unless the mikveh was full. Either way, he thinks the Divrei Chaim is totally wrong. He ends by quoting a testimony that the Divrei Chaim retracted before he died.

[290] Rash Mikvaot 7:7 explains that the vessel sitting on a stair can be included in the mikveh if you splash and the water submerges the vessel. Rambam Pirush Mishnayot agrees.

[291] Shulchan Aruch YD 198:31 writes that one may be tovel on top of stone stairs in the mikveh. This is based on the Rashba (responsa 828).

[292] Mishna Mikvaot 7:6 says that according to Rabbi Yehuda the water on a person’s body while his feet are in the mikveh are connected to the mikveh. The case is clearly where his body is out of the water and feet are in the mikveh and presumably it is stairs or a shallow area.

[293] The Divrei Chaim 2:97 writes that the stairs aren’t connected with the mikveh and one may not be tovel there. Chelkat Yakov YD 111 writes that the Divrei Chaim is completely contradicted by Shulchan Aruch. He writes that perhaps the Divrei Chaim only meant to be strict if the stairs are slanted towards the inside of the mikveh so that no water could remain on them unless the mikveh was full. Either way, he thinks the Divrei Chaim is totally wrong. He ends by quoting a testimony that the Divrei Chaim retracted before he died.

[210] Betzel Chachma 3:80:3

[211] Rash (Mikvaot 6:8), Meiri (Mikvaot 6:1)

[212] The Mishna (Mikvaot 6:8) allows connecting two mikvaot one above the other on a mountain with a pipe. Why isn't that katafras? Rash answers that katafras isn't a problem for sheuvim. Tosfot Yom Tov (Mikvaot 6:8) based on Tosfot Gittin 16a answers that since the water will definitely flow from the upper mikvah to the bottom one it isn't katafras.

[213] The Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 states that if there are three pits of twenty seah each and the drawn water one is in the middle and three people go in the mikveh the pits are just as unfit as they were beforehand. The Rosh and Rash explain that drawn water doesn’t invalidate the others since it entered through hamshacha and there was a majority of rainwater in the pit in which it fell into. Yet, they aren’t valid since the two pits of rainwater didn’t connect. Shulchan Aruch 201:55 codifies this mishna. Shach 201:121 quotes the Rosh. Taz 201:69 adds another reason to be lenient in that he explains that the water isn’t going to completely move from one pit to another.

[214] The Tosefta Mikvaot 3:4 describes a case of three pits on a hill with the middle one being a complete mikveh and the one and top bottom being incomplete mikvaot. If there’s a stream of rainwater connecting the pits, Rabbi Meir validates the top pit, Rabbi Yosi the bottom one, and the rabbis just the middle one. Rambam Mikvaot 8:8 follows the rabbis that there's never a connection of katafras even with the principles of gud achit or gud asik. Tosfot Gittin 16a s.v. hanisok, Mordechai Shevuot n. 746, and Darkei Moshe 201:6 hold that katafras can be a connection together with gud achit. (Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 and Tur 201:62 might support this opinion.) Shulchan Aruch 201:60 codifies the Rambam.

[215] The Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 establishes that if there are three pits of twenty seah each and the drawn water is on the side and three people dipped in the pits which overflowed they are all valid. The Rosh and Rash explain that since the rainwater pits connect there was a complete mikveh and all of the drawn water can’t invalidate it. In fact the drawn water becomes valid with a momentary hashaka. The Rosh and Rash explain that we’re not concerned that the drawn water entered one of the rainwater pits before the rainwater pits connected since it would only invalidate it if all of the twenty seah of drawn water preceded any of the rainwater. Otherwise the drawn water is purified with hamshacha as it is drawn along the ground into the other pits and nullified in its minority by the rainwater pit. Shulchan Aruch 201:55 codifies this mishna.

[216] Shach 201:120, Taz 201:67

[217] Tosefta Mikvaot 3:5, Rash Mikvaot 6:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:56

[218] The Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 6:1 explains that a mikveh on top of a cavity that contains water if the wall between the two is sturdy they are only connected if there’s a hole between the two with a diameter of two fingerbreadths. However, if the wall is so thin that it would collapse if a person would dip in the mikveh the cavity is connected to the mikveh as long as there’s a tiny hole between the mikveh and the cavity. The Shulchan Aruch 201:59 codifies the general idea of the mishna.

[219] Tosfot Pesachim 17b s.v. elah

[220] Torat Kohanim 9, Rash (Mikvaot 2:3), Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. shani), Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:6, Gra 201:29

[221] Divrei Yosef Mikvaot p. 60 discusses the topic and points out that even if it isn’t a vessel it still isn’t considered as though one is immersing in water attached to the ground which the Torat Kohanim requires. (Bet Yosef 201:8 quotes the Mordechai Shavuot n. 745 and Roke’ach n. 377 who write that the mikveh made in a kli is invalid even if it is in a boat or is larger than 40 seah.) He is disputing the Mekor Niftach ch. 4 who permits it. Rambam and Shulchan Aruch 201:7 implies that even if a mikveh is detached from the ground but built with rocks it is kosher. Rav Moshe Bick and Helmetzer (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) wrote that it is impossible to make a moveable mikveh.

[222] The Rash (Mikvaot 5:2 cited by Bet Yosef 198:31) writes that since the vessel is attached to the mikveh or mayan with a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths it is biblically fit and considered a mayan or mikveh and not water of a vessel, however, since one is still dipping in a vessel there is a rabbinic restriction lest one come to dip in a vessel that isn’t attached to the mikveh. That is also the opinion of the Rosh Mikvaot no. 9 and Rambam Mikvaot 9:10. However, see the Ritva Macot 4a suggests that perhaps if the mikveh or mayan would have 40 seah it would indeed make the vessel fit. Finally, the Raah cited by the Ritva holds that a vessel that is attached to a mayan isn’t considered attached since mayan water is moving and the water in the vessel is static. The size of the connection of a vessel to a mikveh requiring a diameter of two fingerbreadths is based on the Gemara Yevamot 15a.
Pri Deah (T”K 201:14) writes that the Rash holds that it is invalid rabbinically but the Raah holds it is biblically invalid.

[307] Pri Deah (T”K 201:14) writes that the Rash holds that it is invalid rabbinically but the Raah holds it is biblically invalid.

[223] Chazon Ish YD 129:5 explains the Rosh in line with the Rash: once there is a vessel which one can’t dip inside of because of a rabbinic restriction the water that comes out of it is invalid as it is considered disconnected from the original mikveh. Chelkat Binyamin 201:151 agrees.
Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:139 writes that such a mikveh is completely invalid and would require a person to go again and there is no room to defend a minhag to use such a mikveh even if that means saying that the people were violating an isur karet.

[309] Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:139 writes that such a mikveh is completely invalid and would require a person to go again and there is no room to defend a minhag to use such a mikveh even if that means saying that the people were violating an isur karet.

[224] Mishna Mikvaot 6:10, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:17
The Rambam explains the mishna to mean that if the vessel is in the bottom of the mikveh it invalidates it because the water inside it is drawn water. That drawn water invalidates the mikveh only when it is in the middle of the mikveh but if the vessel would be against the wall on the side of the mikveh it wouldn’t invalidate it since it is like two mikvaot next to one another. Accordingly, the Bet Yosef 201:17 writes that if there’s 40 seah without the water in the vessel it is valid. Also Chelkat Binyamin 201:293 makes that obvious point that it is only invalid if the vessel holds 3 lug.

The Rosh and Rash explain the Mishna to be speaking about a vessel in a mikveh which contains the water of the mikveh. All of the water above the vessel is considered contained by the vessel and is invalid. Accordingly, the Tiferet Yisrael (Yachin 77) writes that even if the mikveh later gets 40 seah it is still invalid.

[311] The Rambam explains the mishna to mean that if the vessel is in the bottom of the mikveh it invalidates it because the water inside it is drawn water. That drawn water invalidates the mikveh only when it is in the middle of the mikveh but if the vessel would be against the wall on the side of the mikveh it wouldn’t invalidate it since it is like two mikvaot next to one another. Accordingly, the Bet Yosef 201:17 writes that if there’s 40 seah without the water in the vessel it is valid. Also Chelkat Binyamin 201:293 makes that obvious point that it is only invalid if the vessel holds 3 lug.

[312] The Rosh and Rash explain the Mishna to be speaking about a vessel in a mikveh which contains the water of the mikveh. All of the water above the vessel is considered contained by the vessel and is invalid. Accordingly, the Tiferet Yisrael (Yachin 77) writes that even if the mikveh later gets 40 seah it is still invalid.

[225] Shaarei Mikvaot 201:85 writes that this is only if there’s less than 40 seah, but if there’s more than 40 seah all of the water in the vessel next to the mikveh is purified.

[226] Mishna Mikvaot 6:10 according to the Rash and Rosh. the Chelkat Binyamin 201:293 writes that we’re strict for this interpretation. Tiferet Yisrael (Yachin 77) writes that it is invalid even if there’s 40 seah.

[227] Mordechai, Rokeach cited by Bet Yosef 201:8, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:7 s.v. hari zeh against Chida (Birkei Yosef 201).

[228] The Rash Mikvaot 5:2 and Rosh Mikvaot no. 9 hold it is only rabbinically invalid. The Ritva Macot 4a s.v. veha citing the Raah seems to hold it is biblically invalid (Pri Deah T”K 201:14). The Bet Yosef 201:8:1 writes that the Rashba and Rash actually consider the water that left the vessel to be valid. The Hagahot Mordechai Kiddushin n. 560 quotes the Rav Chaim who permitted a mikveh with water that flowing out of the vessel. However, the Maharit 3 argues with the Bet Yosef’s understanding of the Rashba. In any event, Shulchan Aruch 201:8, Bach 201:13 and Shach 201:27 are strict.

[229] The Mishna Mikvaot 5:1 states that if spring water flows into a vessel that has a rim it is still valid. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 9 explains that the reason the water in the vessel is fit when there’s a rim is because the water flowing on the rim connects the water from the spring with the water in the vessel. This is codified by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:8.

[230] The Gemara Chagiga 22a establishes that if the immersion is necessary for both vessels then since it is effective for the outer one it is automatically effective for the inner one. Rashi explains that just like tumah can spread from the outer one to the inner one through touch, so too tahara of a mikveh can transfer from the outer one to the inner one. However, if only the inner one needs immersion then the outer vessel serves as an interposition between the inner vessel and the mikveh unless the mouth has a two fingerbreadth diameter which connects the water in the vessel with the rest of the mikveh. The Tosefta Mikvaot 5:1 adds that the outer vessel’s immersion is only effective for the inner one if it is upright but not if it is on its side. The Rash Mikvaot 6:5 cites this Tosefta and explains that the water above the opening is considered connected to the water in the vessel but not the water on the side of a vessel that is horizontal. The Bet Yosef conjectures that the reason that the Rambam and others don’t distinguish between a mikveh and mayan for requiring a hole of a two fingerbreadth diameter like the Tosefta does is because the Rambam thought that it was against the mishna and we follow the mishna. Shulchan Aruch 201:9 cites the Gemara and Tosefta. The Machasit Hashekel 201:28 explains further that the water in the vessel connects with water add it and it isn’t considered immersion on top of a vessel, however, when the vessel is horizontal the water inside the vessel is considered on top of a vessel.

[231] Gidulei Tahara responsa 13, Tevilat Kelim 10:3

[232] The Mishna Mikvaot 6:5 states that it is possible to immerse in a sackcloth bag which is porous. The Rash Mikvaot 6:5 explains that the holes of the bag connect the water inside the bag with the mikveh and no hole the size of two fingerbreadths is necessary. This is codified by the Rambam Mikvaot 6:8, Rama 201:9, and Shulchan Aruch 201:38.

[233] The Badei Hashulchan 198:46 biurim asks why a woman is allowed to immerse wearing clothing and that isn’t considered as though she is immersing on top of a vessel since her socks and shows are susceptible to tumah. He answers that either there’s no rabbinic restriction on clothing since it doesn’t appear to be a vessel or that the clothing are considered nullified to her and not considered a vessel. He concludes that one should only go to mikveh wearing socks and shoes in an extenuating circumstance. However, the Shaarei Tohar indeed is considered with this question and says a woman may not immerse while wearing socks and shoes.

[234] The Rash Mikvaot 4:5 and Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 8 understand that there’s an argument between the Mishna and Tosefta whether a hole of a tiny amount is sufficient to invalidate the vessel and make it is valid for a mikveh. Since the Gemara Yevamot 15a holds like the Tosefta that’s the halacha. In any event, the Shulchan Aruch and Rama 201:7 don’t accept the opinion of the Rash and Rosh. Rabbi Akiva Eiger responsa 40 considered their opinion as a factor in a particular case.

[235] Tosefta Mikvaot 4:4, Shach 201:22

[236] The Bet Yosef 201:7 cites the Rosh responsa 31:1, Rash Mikvaot 4:5, and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 226a who hold that one may not immerse inside a vessel even if it is punctured. Shulchan Aruch 201:7 rules like the Rambam that a vessel is fit for tevilah once the hole is the size that would render it pure. Meiri (Mikvaot 6:6) holds like Rambam, unlike Raavad. The Bet Yosef 201:7 s.v. veharambam p. 240 writes that the Rambam would only require a diameter of two fingerbreadths if the vessel is earthenware and doesn’t have any other minimum size to purify it or a vessel attached to a rock is more similar to a pipe hewn out of a rock and could be invalid if it is first hewn and then attached. But generally the Bet Yosef only requires a hole that would purify it. For example, the Taz 201:9 and Shach 201:23 explain that the size generally would be the diameter of a kezayit. The Tur and Rama 201:7 however are strict to require the hole to have the diameter of two fingerbreadths. This is based on the understanding of the Rash and Rosh that the Mishna required two fingerbreadths and the Tosefta only needed a tiny hole. To be strict for all opinions one should have a hole that has the diameter of two fingerbreadths. The Shulchan Aruch 201:40 agrees that initially one should have the diameter of two fingerbreadths. Shach 201:23 understands that in 201:7 Shulchan Aruch was writing the strict law but 201:40 was a stringency. However, Chelkat Binyamin 201:123 cites Rabbi Akiva Eiger who understands the distinction in Shulchan Aruch that he requires a tiny hole so that it isn’t a vessel for drawn water but he requires a hole with the diameter of two fingerbreadths to immerse in it.

[237] Tosefta Mikvaot 4:4, Shach 201:22

[238] Pitchei Teshuva 201:12 citing the Markevet Hamishna Mikvaot 6:4, Bear Yakov, Rabbi Akiva Eiger responsa 39. See Perisha 201:15 who writes that the Bet Yosef cites a dispute whether the hole after it was attached to the ground works. Divrei Yosef p. 66 cites the Chibur Tahara 4:3 who suggests that the Perisha understood that the Rambam’s opinion that attaching a vessel to the ground makes it less like a vessel but the Rosh holds that if it is attached to the ground it is more of a formed vessel and invalid if it is attached before it has a hole.

[239] Shach 201:24 clarifies that it isn’t considered a vessel at all and is fit both not to create drawn water but also to dip inside it. That is also the opinion of the Bet Yosef 201:7 s.v. umashe katav halokeach in explaining the Rambam. Shaarei Mikvaot (Biurim 201:7 s.v. hari) defends this approach of the Bet Yosef and Shach against the question of the Birkei Yosef. The Birkei Yosef is bothered that if the vessel is 40 seah it wouldn’t require any hole to break its status as a vessel since it is automatically not a vessel since it is so big. However, the Shaarei Mikvaot disagrees and explains that even if it isn’t susceptible to tumah it is still considered a vessel. That is also the opinion of the Chatom Sofer 206.

[240] Darkei Moshe 201:11 writes that even though the Rabbenu Yerucham, Rash, and perhaps Rosh hold that one may never immerse inside of a vessel even one that is punctured with a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths would agree that one can immerse in a vessel that is punctured with a hole the size of a pomegranate. The proof is from the pool of Shlomo and the Yerushalmi Yoma 2:8.

[241] Tosefta Mikvaot 4:4, Shach 201:22

[242] Shulchan Aruch 201:16, Chelkat Binyamin 201:285 and 201:293

[243] Mishna Mikvaot 6:4 writes that 3 lug in a sponge or bottle with a small opening doesn’t invalidate it. Rash explains that they only made a rabbinic restriction if the water is exposed but not if it is contained. The Rosh adds that even if the water in the sponge or bottle certainly mixes with the mikveh it doesn’t invalidate it unless all of its water exits. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:16 cites this halacha.
Why does the water in the jug not invalidate the mikveh? Rash (Mikvaot 6:4) implies that the Mishna is not discussing the water in the jug and in fact it could invalidate the mikveh. Rather, the Mishna is discussing water absorbed in the walls of the jug not invalidating the mikveh. Rambam (Mikvaot 6:4) understood that the water in the jug does not invalidate the mikveh since it doesn't mix with the rest of the mikveh. Rosh (Mikvaot 6:4) agrees. Rambam and Rosh on Mishna add that the jug's mouth is thin, however, in Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 6:7) he doesn't mention this detail. Mishna Achrona (Mikvaot 6:4) explains that 3 lugin of sheuvim can never invalidate a mikveh by being connected to a mikveh. They only invalidate the mikveh if they're poured into it.

[332] Why does the water in the jug not invalidate the mikveh? Rash (Mikvaot 6:4) implies that the Mishna is not discussing the water in the jug and in fact it could invalidate the mikveh. Rather, the Mishna is discussing water absorbed in the walls of the jug not invalidating the mikveh. Rambam (Mikvaot 6:4) understood that the water in the jug does not invalidate the mikveh since it doesn't mix with the rest of the mikveh. Rosh (Mikvaot 6:4) agrees. Rambam and Rosh on Mishna add that the jug's mouth is thin, however, in Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 6:7) he doesn't mention this detail. Mishna Achrona (Mikvaot 6:4) explains that 3 lugin of sheuvim can never invalidate a mikveh by being connected to a mikveh. They only invalidate the mikveh if they're poured into it.

[244] Shach 201:46 writes that the Raavad holds that if the clothing is partially in the mikveh then water squeezed out of it isn’t considered drawn since it is still connected to the mikveh, however, the Rokeach holds that even if the clothing isn’t completely picked up nonetheless the water that is squeezed out of the clothing is considered drawn water. He cites the Levush who was strict for the Roke’ach.

[245] The Mishna Mikvaot 5:2 writes that water that flowed over vessels according to Rabbi Yosi is like a mikveh. While the Rash explains that it is referring to a punctured vessel, the Rambam and Rosh explain that the water is flowing over an inverted vessel. The reason it is invalid is because there is a rabbinic restriction not to immerse on the back of a vessel lest one come to immerse in a vessel itself. Once they invalidated the water on top of the vessel all the water that flows beyond that point is considered disconnected from the original spring even if the water is one connected stream. Therefore, they treated the water beyond the vessel as a mikveh. Shach 201:34 and Taz 201:23 further elaborate on this explanation. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:12 accepts the Rambam.

[246] Mishna Mikvaot 5:2, Rambam, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:12. The Shach 201:37 explains that really even a earthenware vessel is invalid on the back of the vessel as the Tur didn’t distinguish. That is in opposition to the opinion of the Bet Yosef 198:31 who explains that everyone would hold that the rabbinic restriction against immersing on the back of a vessel is specifically for vessels that are susceptible to tumah even on the backside excluding the earthenware one. In any event after the fact the Shach is lenient after the fact regarding earthenware vessels.

[247] The Bach 201:17 writes that just like we know that if a vessel has a rim that connects the water inside the vessel to the water outside the vessel and makes all of it fit as a spring (Mishna Mikvaot 5:1), all the more so this would be true of inverted vessels. Shach 201:34 and Taz 201:23 agree.

[248] Gemara Bava Batra 66a, Tur 201:7, Shach 201:21

[249] The Rambam’s opinion is that a hole the size that would render it not susceptible to tumah is sufficient to remove the status of vessel. The Rash and Rosh’s opinion is that a hole of any size is enough to render it a non-vessel. The Shulchan Aruch 201:7 follows the Rambam, but the Rama 201:7 writes that one should be strict to always have a hole the diameter of two fingerbreadths.

[250] Gemara Bava Batra 66a, Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:36, and Shach 201:21

[251] The Shach 201:21 writes that it is fit even to dip in such a stone vessel since it wasn’t a vessel when it was attached to the ground. However, the Nodeh Beyehuda and Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Pitchei Teshuva 9) argue that the gemara only made such a distinction with respect to drawn water which is only rabbinic, however, with respect to dipping in a vessel there is no distinction. The Chatom Sofer sides with the Shach and proves that this is also the opinion of the Tur and Rambam.

[252] The Gemara Niddah 65b established that one may not immerse in a mikveh on top of a plank of wood because of a concern that one will be afraid to immerse and not immerse properly. The Raavad explains that the wooden planks aren’t susceptible to tumah but if they were then there would be another issue; that is, there is a general problem to immerse on top of vessels lest one could to immerse in a vessel outside of a vessel. The Rambam and Rosh understand the gemara differently. The Bet Yosef 198:31 explains that they hold that there’s no rabbinic restriction to dip on top of a vessel if the vessel doesn’t have a receptacle, or it is turned over, or it is surrounded by water. The Taz holds by the opinion of the Rambam but Shulchan Aruch and Shach accept the Raavad.

[253] Based on the Raavad (Shaar Hatevilah cited by Bet Yosef 198:31) and Shulchan Aruch 198:31 a woman may not immerse on top of any vessel which is susceptible to tumah even tumat medres, which includes items are are designated for sitting and standing. The Rash Mikvaot 5:2 distinguishes whether the vessel is attached to the ground or not and says that there is only a rabbinic restriction to immerse on top of a vessel that is attached to the ground. The Bet Yosef 198:31 infers from the Rosh that he disagrees with that distinction. Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:138 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 198:19 doesn’t accept the Rash. Rabbi Akiva Eiger 1:40 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:10 accepts that distinction in a particular case with other factors.

[254] Raavad Baalei Hanefesh siman 1 writes that a woman may not go to mikveh on top of a kli that is mekabel tumah. She can go on top of a kli cheres since it does't have tumah on its backside. Mishna Mikvaot 5:2 states that mayan water that goes into or over a kli is unfit for a mikveh. The Raavad explains that this is based on a prohibition lest a person go to mikveh in a kli. Rashba Torat Habayit Hakatzar 30a and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 198 agree. Ran Shevuot 6b s.v. isha cites the Raavad. Similarly, the Rash Mikvaot 5:2 limits the issue of going to mikveh in a kli to where the kli is attached to ground because it might be used as an unfit mikveh but if it is detached from the ground there's no restriction. The Bet Yosef understands the Rosh Mikvaot 9 as disagreeing with this idea.
However, the Rosh Mikvaot 32 and Rambam Mikvaot 1:11 don't mention this restriction of the Raavad. They might have understood the mishna differently. Bet Yosef 198:31 explains the Rambam that a mikveh is only unfit if in the creation of the mikveh all of the water went over a kli on its way to the mikveh whether that kli has a receptacle or not. Rabbinically it is invalid to go to the mikveh over a kli even if it doesn't have a receptacle and even that water after it has come out of that kli is only a mikveh and not a mayan. But going to mikveh on top of a kli in the mikveh is fit. Alternatively, the restriction was only for a kli without a receptacle but an overturned kli with a receptacle is permitted since it is evident that it isn't being used for a mikveh. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 198:31 rules like the Raavad.

[344] However, the Rosh Mikvaot 32 and Rambam Mikvaot 1:11 don't mention this restriction of the Raavad. They might have understood the mishna differently. Bet Yosef 198:31 explains the Rambam that a mikveh is only unfit if in the creation of the mikveh all of the water went over a kli on its way to the mikveh whether that kli has a receptacle or not. Rabbinically it is invalid to go to the mikveh over a kli even if it doesn't have a receptacle and even that water after it has come out of that kli is only a mikveh and not a mayan. But going to mikveh on top of a kli in the mikveh is fit. Alternatively, the restriction was only for a kli without a receptacle but an overturned kli with a receptacle is permitted since it is evident that it isn't being used for a mikveh. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 198:31 rules like the Raavad.

[255] Chelkat Binyamin 147 citing Minchat Yitzchak 2:22, 4:41. However, Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 228 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein as permitting having metal rods in the cement.

[256] Tzemech Tzedek 172 explains that any mikveh with walls and a floor that are all attached to the ground which couldn’t be picked up in one piece isn’t considered a vessel. He explains that otherwise every mikveh would be invalid according to the Nodeh Beyehuda who holds that a vessel which was created in material which was already attached to the ground is invalid to dip inside of. Rather the entire structure of the mikveh isn’t considered a vessel since it couldn’t be lifted up in one piece.

[257] *According to the Chatom Sofer if you create a vessel while is attached to the ground it is considered a kosher mikveh. However, according to Rabbi Akiva Eiger if it is a vessel even though it was created while it is attached the ground it isn’t a vessel for sheuvim but it is a vessel to disallow dipping in it as a mikveh. According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger how can you build a mikveh? Shouldn’t the plastering or cementing of the rocks together be considered creating a vessel attached to the ground?
Bet Shlomo 2:70 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 2:13 hold that it isn’t considered a vessel when the pieces are being built into the ground and come together. That is considered building a structure and not a vessel. Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 writes that the Nodeh Beyehuda 2:142 s.v. vod and Divrei Chaim 201:36 agree.

Similarly, Igrot Moshe YD 1:108 writes that making a mikveh with cement isn’t considered a vessel because it couldn’t be picked up as a vessel and would fall apart. He continues that it is only an issue if it is considered by people to be a vessel created when it was attached just like it is a detached vessel. But since the cement mikveh people don’t see it as a vessel but as a structure it isn’t an issue at all. He explains that even if the cement is painted and decorated it is still permitted since because know it is a mikveh and not a vessel.

Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 is lenient. The Darkei Teshuva 201:206 quotes many achronim who hold that using cement to hold rocks together to create a mikveh doesn’t invalidate the mikveh since that is the normal way to build a building and not the way to create a vessel. Maharsham 1:35 and 1:145 is hesitant to be lenient since the cement holds the rocks together and forms it as a vessel which is invalid for a mikveh. Maharsham 2:102 is lenient if there’s no other option since the cement can’t be removed and it is therefore considered a building and not a vessel.

[348] Bet Shlomo 2:70 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 2:13 hold that it isn’t considered a vessel when the pieces are being built into the ground and come together. That is considered building a structure and not a vessel. Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 writes that the Nodeh Beyehuda 2:142 s.v. vod and Divrei Chaim 201:36 agree.

[349] Similarly, Igrot Moshe YD 1:108 writes that making a mikveh with cement isn’t considered a vessel because it couldn’t be picked up as a vessel and would fall apart. He continues that it is only an issue if it is considered by people to be a vessel created when it was attached just like it is a detached vessel. But since the cement mikveh people don’t see it as a vessel but as a structure it isn’t an issue at all. He explains that even if the cement is painted and decorated it is still permitted since because know it is a mikveh and not a vessel.

[350] Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 is lenient. The Darkei Teshuva 201:206 quotes many achronim who hold that using cement to hold rocks together to create a mikveh doesn’t invalidate the mikveh since that is the normal way to build a building and not the way to create a vessel. Maharsham 1:35 and 1:145 is hesitant to be lenient since the cement holds the rocks together and forms it as a vessel which is invalid for a mikveh. Maharsham 2:102 is lenient if there’s no other option since the cement can’t be removed and it is therefore considered a building and not a vessel.

[258] Rama 201:7. Depends on the discussion of pipes meant to be attached to the ground.

[259] Igrot Moshe YD 2:95 writes that if a mikveh is made with cement pieces that were one slab per wall and one for the floor it would be invalid. He explains that the Rashba 1:800 and Rama 201:7 who write that if the mikveh is made from multiple rocks it is valid is only if it is made of multiple rocks while it is attached to the ground and there needs to be multiple rocks for each wall and not a single slab. Hesitantly he suggests that the wall is similar to a vessel since it is a single item that is a significant piece of the complete mikveh and takes on the status of a mikveh even though it is only a one wall. Chelkat Binyamin 201:145 agrees.

[260] Rav Chaim Kalman Gutman in Ginat Veradim 3:25 p. 66 writes that a mikveh made by placing a cement floor and piece of cement with the four walls added on top is problematic. Firstly, it is considered a vessel since it is just two stones attached together and not many stones. Even though it couldn’t be picked up by a person it is considered a vessel since it was designed to be built that way. Rav Avraham Schreiber in Ginat Veradim 9:2 p. 258 argues that it isn't considered a vessel according to all of the poskim. According to the Tzemech Tzedek 172, it isn't a vessel since it couldn't be lifted as one piece. According to the Maharsham, a connection of rocks can't form a vessel. According many others, it was made in the way of building a structure and not a vessel.

[261] The Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111 writes that the mikveh is invalid as long as the water changes colors from what its original appearance even if it doesn’t look like wine. Shach 201:66 agrees.

[262] The Torat Kohanim Shemini 9:4 cited by Bet Yosef 201:30 learns from a pasuk that a colored mikveh is invalid. Chelkat Binyamin 201:391 cites a dispute between the Raavad and Ramban, Rashba, and Ritva whether it is a rabbinic or biblical invalidation respectively. Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 2) and Rashba hold it is only rabbinic. Mishkenot Yakov 45 and Igrot Moshe 120:8 s.v. vayin hold it is biblical. Chazon Ish 5:12 holds it is rabbinic. Divrei Chayim YD 2:102 quotes Mabit and Tosfot Yom Tov who hold it is biblical.

[263] Rambam Mikavot 7:12, Shulchan Aruch 201:27

[264] Shulchan Aruch 201:27

[265] Raavad Mikvaot 7:12 based on Tosefta Mikvaot 5:8 writes that while the water was invalid because of having its color changed it can’t become invalid as drawn water since it isn’t considered water at all. Afterwards once more water is added and its original color returns it is fit. Rama 201:29 codifies the Raavad.

[266] Igrot Moshe YD 1:120:7 understands from Rama that the mikveh which isn't 40 seah and is discolored cannot be made valid with drawn water. Rama only meant that if drawn water is added and the mikveh remains discolored it is valid if later rain water is added.

[267] Chelkat Binyamin 201:434 based on Chazon Ish (Kama 8:10) and Gidulei Tahara. In Tziyunim 1401 he disagrees with Igrot Moshe. According to Chazon Ish, it is kosher even if the 3 lugin of drawn water is added and it turns back to the color of water before the mikveh reaches 40 seah it is kosher. Behind this dispute is that Igrot Moshe holds that a 40 seah mikveh of colored water creates hashaka, while Chazon Ish (Kama 8:9) argues that there's no hashaka to colored water.

[268] Chelkat Binyamin 201:432 cites a dispute between the Chazon Ish Mikvaot 5:13 and the Maharsham 3:11 whether it is possible to fix a mikveh by changing its color and then returning its color. The Maharsham held that it is possible to fix since once it turns into colored water the invalidation of drawn water doesn’t count and when its color returns it is a kosher mikveh. Bet Shlomo 1:171, Bet Yitzchak 2:41, and others agreed. However, the Chazon Ish held that the only time drawn water doesn’t invalidate a colored mikveh is if it colored the mikveh prior to the drawn water entering. However, once a mikveh is invalid because of drawn water it remains invalid.

[269] Chelkat Binyamin 201:432 writes that one can only use the solution of the Maharsham if the invalidation was rabbinic but if it is biblical it doesn’t work since the entire concept of having the waters change colors is only rabbinic to begin with according to many poskim.

[270] Rav Moshe Feinstein (Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229), Mikveh Mayim p. 87

[271] Rambam Mikvaot 7:9, Shulchan Aruch 201:26

[272] The Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 establishes that if the mikveh is 40 seah and its color changed it is invalid. Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111 clarifies this point. Shulchan Aruch 201:25 agrees.

[273] Mishkenot Yakov 44 invalidates such water based on Gemara Sotah 15b. However, Pitchei Teshuva 201:19 disagrees and holds it is like water which changed colors by itself.

[274] Rashba Shaar Hamayim 11 cited by Bet Yosef 201:28, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:28

[275] Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 states that a mikveh that has 40 seah and its water changed colors is invalid unless water is added and that water can even be drawn. The Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111, Rambam Mikvaot 7:9, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:25 agree.

[276] Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 2:19), Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 11), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:28. The Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 establishes that colored or dirty water doesn’t invalidate the mikveh because of a change of color. Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111 explains that unless the actual coloring agent such as wine or dye is added to the mikveh it doesn’t invalidate it because of a change of color. Shulchan Aruch 201:27 generally accepts the Raavad. Shach 201:64 quotes the Raavad. Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 5:12) writes that Raavad is only lenient because he thinks that a change in color is only a pasul derabbanan.

[277] Tosfot Macot 4a s.v. amar, Rid 15 (cited by Biyurim Lrashba fnt. 244). This is also implied from Tosefta 5:9 that it is invalid. Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Raavad 2:19 notes this Tosfot. Mishkenot Yacov 45 argues with Raavad on the basis of Sotah 15b and Chullin 85a. Chelkat Binyamin says that most poskim accept Shulchan Aruch but we should be machmir for Mishkenot Yakov.

[278] Mishna Mikvaot 6:4, Zevachim 25b, Tur and Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:48. The Bet Yosef 201:48 explains that in fact the entire concept that if there’s something susceptible to tumah in the creation of the mikveh it is invalid is only the opinion of the Rash and Rosh, but the Rambam completely disagrees. Rambam holds that this is only an invalidation for mayan and not mikveh. We follow the Rash and Rosh.

[279] Rash (Mikvaot 2:3 and 5:5), Rashi (Zevachim 25b s.v. havayatan), Rosh (Mikvaot n. 11), Rabbenu Tam (Teshuvot V'psakim Mchachmei Ashkenaz Utzarfat 307), and Tur 201:48. Chatom Sofer 199:5 and Chazon Ish (Mikvaot 3:17) hold this invalidation of creating a mikveh through something that was susceptible to tumah is biblical since it is learned from a pasuk. Chelkat Binyamin 201:679 agrees. (See, however, Ritva (Bava Batra 66a s.v. vha) who seems to understand that this biblical derivation only applies to kelim but not anything which is susceptible to tumah such as a person.)
Not all rishonim agree that this is a pasul at all for mikveh. Yereyim 26 writes that the derivation of Zevachim 25b only applies to a mayan but not a mikveh. Mordechai (Shevuot 746, cited by Bet Yosef 201:48) quotes this Yereyim as well as Rabbenu Shmuel who agrees. Bet Yosef 201:48 and Mishna Achrona (Parah 6:4) add that Rambam also holds like this. See also Lechem Vsimla (201:16:5 s.v. harambam). However, Rashi (Zevachim 25b s.v. havaytan) writes that the gemara is relevant even to a mikveh.

[373] Not all rishonim agree that this is a pasul at all for mikveh. Yereyim 26 writes that the derivation of Zevachim 25b only applies to a mayan but not a mikveh. Mordechai (Shevuot 746, cited by Bet Yosef 201:48) quotes this Yereyim as well as Rabbenu Shmuel who agrees. Bet Yosef 201:48 and Mishna Achrona (Parah 6:4) add that Rambam also holds like this. See also Lechem Vsimla (201:16:5 s.v. harambam). However, Rashi (Zevachim 25b s.v. havaytan) writes that the gemara is relevant even to a mikveh.

[280] The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 writes that hashaka works for a mayan to be connected a mikveh and transform it into a kosher one. Specifically, he says that it can remove the invalidation of being created with something susceptible to tumah. The Bet Yosef 201:49 infers from the Rashba 3:228 that it is ineffective. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 follows the Rosh but also quotes Rashba who is strict. Shach 201:105 arguing with the Hagahot Perisha in fact states that this connection only needs to be temporary in order to validate the mikveh. See Minchat Yitzchak 1:146:12 who quotes Kav Mayim Chayim who argues that even Rashba would accept the view of Rosh if there is a connection of shifoferet hanod. Chelkat Binyamin implies otherwise.

[281] Chelkat Binyamin 201:510 quoting Simla 83 and the implication of Shach 201:100

[282] Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 3:17)

[283] The Rosh Mikvaot n. 5 writes that if a board without edges is used to direct water into a mikveh it is valid if the water would have entered anyway, otherwise it is invalid because the mikveh was created by use of something that is susceptible to tumah (Mikvaot 5:5). The Bet Yosef 201:35 suggests that either the case is where the wooden board is susceptible to tumah since it used to have an edge and that edge was removed or that since flat wooden vessels are rabbinically susceptible to tumah that invalidates the mikveh. The Taz 201:43 and Shach 201:76 offer another answer such that the flat wooden board is designated for a use making it susceptible to tumah. They disagree with the concept of the Bet Yosef that vessels that are rabbinically susceptible to tumah invalidate the mikveh. However, the Chazon Ish Mikvaot 7:5 agrees with the Bet Yosef that we’re strict about something that is rabbinically susceptible to tumah. Chelkat Binyamin 201:511 cites the two approaches.

[284] Which wooden utensils are susceptible to tumah?
Service people and utensils: The Mishna Kelim 16:1 establishes that a wooden tray, table, or bed are susceptible to tumah. The Rambam Kelim 4:1 clarifies that any flat wooden utensil is susceptible to tumah only if it services people and utensils such as a table which a person eats from and also it is used to hold other utensils. However, a flat wooden utensil which doesn’t service people and other utensils doesn’t have any tumah. That distinction is made by the Tosefta Kelim 13 and Torat Kohanim Shemini 6:4. Aruch Hashulchan 201:87 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 7:5 agree.

What level of tumah does it have?
Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a s.v. le’olam) holds it doesn’t have tumah at all. The gemara backed down from any idea of flat wooden utensils having tumah unless they are susceptible to midras if they are designated for sitting, leaning, or standing on. (It is a dispute if flat wooden utensils can have midras, see Taz 201:31 and Tosfot Shabbat 44b.) Maharam Paduah responsa 31 writes that we hold like the Rashbam and Rashi (Sukkah 15a s.v. amar) agrees.

Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. vshani) holds that they have rabbinic tumah and the pasuk that the Torat Kohanim cited is only an asmachta. Tosfot (Eruvin 31a s.v. bpeshutei) agrees. The Mishna Lmelech (Kelim 4:1) and Korban Netanel Sukkah 1:29:300 explain that the Rambam agrees. The Korban Netanel (Sukkah 1:29:300) writes that the Rosh also holds it is rabbinic. This approach of the Tosfot, Rambam, and Rosh is well accepted. The Mishna Achrona Kelim 16:2 writes that mefarshim all hold it is only rabbinic. Aruch Hashulchan YD 201:87, Chazon Ish YD 134:5, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:511 holds like it.

Rashba Bava Batra 66b s.v. veha’amar quotes an opinion that it is biblically tameh. In fact the Torat Kohanim learns that this category of flat wooden utensils is tameh from a pasuk. Tosfot Sukkah 5a s.v. misgarto and Menachot 96b s.v. livrei explain that the gemara Menachot actually asks whether items that service people land utensils have tumah biblically or rabbinically and leaves it unresolved.

Are wide flat wooden utensils tameh? Tosfot Sukkah and Menachot in one answer say that a large flat baker’s tray is rabbinically susceptible to tumah because it is so wide and useful like a utensil with a receptacle. Tosfot (Eruvin 31a s.v. bpeshutei) quotes the Ri as agreeing. This idea is based on Rashi Menachot 96b s.v. tameha. Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. vyesh) quotes some who say that any tray which serves utensils and not people is susceptible to rabbinic tumah. Shach 201:45 writes that flat wooden utensils aren’t susceptible to rabbinic tumah.

Is a cane susceptible to tumah? The Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot Mikavot 5:5) writes that even though it has no receptacle it is still tameh rabbinically. The Chazon Ish (Mikvaot 7:5) explains that it has tumah because it services people and utensils or alternatively it has a small receptacle. However, the Rosh (Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5 and Hilchot Mikvaot n. 11) hold that a cane doesn’t have tumah at all. Tosfot Yom Tov (Mikvaot 5:5) and Simla 201:84 point out this dispute.

[379] Service people and utensils: The Mishna Kelim 16:1 establishes that a wooden tray, table, or bed are susceptible to tumah. The Rambam Kelim 4:1 clarifies that any flat wooden utensil is susceptible to tumah only if it services people and utensils such as a table which a person eats from and also it is used to hold other utensils. However, a flat wooden utensil which doesn’t service people and other utensils doesn’t have any tumah. That distinction is made by the Tosefta Kelim 13 and Torat Kohanim Shemini 6:4. Aruch Hashulchan 201:87 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 7:5 agree.

[380] What level of tumah does it have?
Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a s.v. le’olam) holds it doesn’t have tumah at all. The gemara backed down from any idea of flat wooden utensils having tumah unless they are susceptible to midras if they are designated for sitting, leaning, or standing on. (It is a dispute if flat wooden utensils can have midras, see Taz 201:31 and Tosfot Shabbat 44b.) Maharam Paduah responsa 31 writes that we hold like the Rashbam and Rashi (Sukkah 15a s.v. amar) agrees.

Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. vshani) holds that they have rabbinic tumah and the pasuk that the Torat Kohanim cited is only an asmachta. Tosfot (Eruvin 31a s.v. bpeshutei) agrees. The Mishna Lmelech (Kelim 4:1) and Korban Netanel Sukkah 1:29:300 explain that the Rambam agrees. The Korban Netanel (Sukkah 1:29:300) writes that the Rosh also holds it is rabbinic. This approach of the Tosfot, Rambam, and Rosh is well accepted. The Mishna Achrona Kelim 16:2 writes that mefarshim all hold it is only rabbinic. Aruch Hashulchan YD 201:87, Chazon Ish YD 134:5, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:511 holds like it.

Rashba Bava Batra 66b s.v. veha’amar quotes an opinion that it is biblically tameh. In fact the Torat Kohanim learns that this category of flat wooden utensils is tameh from a pasuk. Tosfot Sukkah 5a s.v. misgarto and Menachot 96b s.v. livrei explain that the gemara Menachot actually asks whether items that service people land utensils have tumah biblically or rabbinically and leaves it unresolved.

[381] Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a s.v. le’olam) holds it doesn’t have tumah at all. The gemara backed down from any idea of flat wooden utensils having tumah unless they are susceptible to midras if they are designated for sitting, leaning, or standing on. (It is a dispute if flat wooden utensils can have midras, see Taz 201:31 and Tosfot Shabbat 44b.) Maharam Paduah responsa 31 writes that we hold like the Rashbam and Rashi (Sukkah 15a s.v. amar) agrees.

[382] Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. vshani) holds that they have rabbinic tumah and the pasuk that the Torat Kohanim cited is only an asmachta. Tosfot (Eruvin 31a s.v. bpeshutei) agrees. The Mishna Lmelech (Kelim 4:1) and Korban Netanel Sukkah 1:29:300 explain that the Rambam agrees. The Korban Netanel (Sukkah 1:29:300) writes that the Rosh also holds it is rabbinic. This approach of the Tosfot, Rambam, and Rosh is well accepted. The Mishna Achrona Kelim 16:2 writes that mefarshim all hold it is only rabbinic. Aruch Hashulchan YD 201:87, Chazon Ish YD 134:5, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:511 holds like it.

[383] Rashba Bava Batra 66b s.v. veha’amar quotes an opinion that it is biblically tameh. In fact the Torat Kohanim learns that this category of flat wooden utensils is tameh from a pasuk. Tosfot Sukkah 5a s.v. misgarto and Menachot 96b s.v. livrei explain that the gemara Menachot actually asks whether items that service people land utensils have tumah biblically or rabbinically and leaves it unresolved.

[384] Are wide flat wooden utensils tameh? Tosfot Sukkah and Menachot in one answer say that a large flat baker’s tray is rabbinically susceptible to tumah because it is so wide and useful like a utensil with a receptacle. Tosfot (Eruvin 31a s.v. bpeshutei) quotes the Ri as agreeing. This idea is based on Rashi Menachot 96b s.v. tameha. Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. vyesh) quotes some who say that any tray which serves utensils and not people is susceptible to rabbinic tumah. Shach 201:45 writes that flat wooden utensils aren’t susceptible to rabbinic tumah.

[385] Is a cane susceptible to tumah? The Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot Mikavot 5:5) writes that even though it has no receptacle it is still tameh rabbinically. The Chazon Ish (Mikvaot 7:5) explains that it has tumah because it services people and utensils or alternatively it has a small receptacle. However, the Rosh (Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5 and Hilchot Mikvaot n. 11) hold that a cane doesn’t have tumah at all. Tosfot Yom Tov (Mikvaot 5:5) and Simla 201:84 point out this dispute.

[285] Mishna Kelim 11:3, Rambam Kelim 9:2, Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:137

[286] Dagul Mirvava on 201:48, Mikveh Mayim p. 153 and 169 citing Igrot Moshe. Nodeh Beyehuda 137, Chatom Sofer 217-218, Igrot Moshe 1:115-6 hold that the kli needs to be both (1) mechuber l'karka and (2) made to be meshamesh karka so that it isn't mekabel tumah. However, Gidulei Tahara (cited by Mikveh Mayim p. 181) holds that it is sufficient for it to be mechuber l'karka even if it isn't made to be attached to the ground.

[287] Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:137 holds that the buyer can have intention to use it for the ground based on Mishna Lmelech Kelim 2 since a kli made with no intention is not mekabel tumah.

[288] Igrot Moshe Y.D. 1:115 is lenient because of breira since a piece of metal is only mekabel tumah midrabbanan once it is attached to the ground if it wasn't made for the ground (Yad Ramah). Since it is only a rabbinic issue it is fine to say that the intention of the piece was made for can be clarified retroactively.

[289] Igrot Moshe 1:115

[290] Igrot Moshe YD 1:116

[291] Rosh (Mikvaot 4:2), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:35, Shach 201:103. However, Chazon Ish YD 135:2 disagrees with Rosh. Chelkat Binyamin 201:680 writes that we shouldn't rely on Rosh about this question.

[292] The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 explains that if there’s a separation between the vessel that is susceptible to tumah and the mikveh it is kosher. His proof is that Zevachim 25b considered to permit the mikveh because of the airspace in which the water was flowing. Shulchan Aruch 201:48 codifies the Rosh.

[293] Chatom Sofer 199

[294] The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains that a plug that prevents water from exiting a mikveh that otherwise would be invalid as the water is flowing is invalid since the plug is considered like creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah. The Rosh Mikvaot 11 disagrees. Tur 201:50 explains that the Rosh argues that preventing water from escaping isn’t an issue, it is only an issue to gather water into a mikveh using something that is susceptible to tumah. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 cites both opinions.

[295] The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 writes that if a mikveh is currently valid and there is a concern that water is being absorbed in the ground boards can be nailed down. If the nails are new then they aren’t susceptible to tumah since they are being used to service the ground from the beginning of their use. However, if they are old nails they are susceptible to tumah but nonetheless they can be used. His reason is that since the mikveh is currently valid continuing to keep it valid isn’t considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah. Pitchei Teshuva 201:35 quotes this. Chatom Sofer YD 204 agrees. He answers why this is different from Tosfot Sukkah 10a. Divrei Chaim YD 1:44 disagrees with Nodeh Beyehuda. Dovev Meisharim 1:90 quotes this Divrei Chayim.

[296] The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 understands that the water that flows over something is susceptible to tumah is purified if it is attached to a mikveh or spring. He explains that it is like hashaka for sheuvim that can purify an entire mikveh. However, the Rashba 3:228 (as understood by Bet Yosef 201:49) disagrees. The Darkei Moshe 201:25 adds that the Mordechai also disagrees with the Rosh. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 mentions both the opinions of the Rosh and Rashba. The Gra 201:89 is strict.
According to the Rosh, why is hashaka is effective on water in a vessel that is susceptible to tumah (Shulchan Aruch 201:49) but not for sheuvim while it is in the vessel that has a receptacle (Shulchan Aruch 201:8)? The Taz 201:59 explains that the reason that hashaka doesn’t work for sheuvim in a vessel is because of a gezerah that one might use that vessel as a mikveh even when it is detached from the mikveh. However, here the gezerah doesn’t apply since one isn’t going to dip inside a vessel that susceptible to tumah which doesn’t have a receptacle. The Bet Yosef 201:49 writes that only for real sheuvim hashaka doesn't work but for water that flowed over something that doesn’t have a receptacle could have hashaka. Divrei Yosef p. 358 explains that since there’s a gezerah that water in a vessel is sheuvim even if there’s hashaka, then no hashaka will be able to change its status. However, water that flowed over something that was susceptible to tumah can be converted with hashaka. See Chelkat Binyamin fnt. 2316 writes that the Bet Yosef might agree with the Taz.

[398] According to the Rosh, why is hashaka is effective on water in a vessel that is susceptible to tumah (Shulchan Aruch 201:49) but not for sheuvim while it is in the vessel that has a receptacle (Shulchan Aruch 201:8)? The Taz 201:59 explains that the reason that hashaka doesn’t work for sheuvim in a vessel is because of a gezerah that one might use that vessel as a mikveh even when it is detached from the mikveh. However, here the gezerah doesn’t apply since one isn’t going to dip inside a vessel that susceptible to tumah which doesn’t have a receptacle. The Bet Yosef 201:49 writes that only for real sheuvim hashaka doesn't work but for water that flowed over something that doesn’t have a receptacle could have hashaka. Divrei Yosef p. 358 explains that since there’s a gezerah that water in a vessel is sheuvim even if there’s hashaka, then no hashaka will be able to change its status. However, water that flowed over something that was susceptible to tumah can be converted with hashaka. See Chelkat Binyamin fnt. 2316 writes that the Bet Yosef might agree with the Taz.

[297] Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:48

[298] Chatom Sofer YD 214, Chelkat Binyamin on 201:48 holds that the airspace over the mikveh is like the mikveh itself. See, Chazon Ish YD 135:2 s.v. ktav, who might imply otherwise.

[299] Ben Ish Chai (Hod Yosef 71) proves from Rambam Parah 6:8 that havaya al yadey dvar mekabel tumah is a problem even if it is only grama and used to help along the water.

[300] The Rosh responsa writes that if a non-Jew owns a mikveh we can’t rely on him because the mikveh might have become lacking and he completed it with drawn water. Shulchan Aruch 201:4 accepts the Rosh. The Taz and Bach understood Shulchan Aruch to mean that we’re relying on the concept of a doubt on a rabbinic issue. However, the Shach and Gra 24 write that the Shulchan Aruch means only to be lenient if there’s no way for the non-Jew to mess up the mikveh such as if the only way to add water to the mikveh if by adding water through the roof in which case it would be valid since majority of the water is rainwater and some of it traveled on the ground. Chazon Ish Mikvaot 10:6 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:24 explains that really it is based on having a doubt about a rabbinic issue but only if a majority of the mikveh is valid anyway to offset the issue that it is likely that the non-Jew tampered with it.

[301] Maharik 115, cited by Bet Yosef 201:57(2)

[302] The Mishna Mikvaot 8:1 establishes that a pit of water found outside a city in Israel is assumed to be from rainwater and not used for laundry and therefore kosher, but inside the city it is assumed that it is used for laundry and therefore drawn water which is invalid for a mikveh. In the Diaspora it is always assumed to be drawn since they aren't concerned about this. This is also found in the Tosefta Mikvaot 6:1 and codified by the Rambam Mikvaot 10:5. Bet Yosef 201:74 comments that today even in Israel the lenient assumption to consider a pit of water outside a city to be a mikveh doesn't apply since the Jews don't rule Israel. Shulchan Aruch 201:74 rules accordingly that any pit found with water is presumed to be invalid. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:302 adds that today a man made pit with water is invalid even in Israel leven where Jews live since there are many pools of drawn water for many reasons.

[303] Shach 201:150, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:302

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ==Mayan==
+===Mayan Dug next to a River===
+# If someone digs and finds a live spring that is considered a mayan according to most opinions.<ref>Maharik holds that a well dug in the ground and water is found is considered like a mayan. He is disagreeing with Rash Mikvaot 1. Mishkenot Yakov 45 agrees with Maharik. </ref>
+# If someone digs next to a river and finds a spring, many hold that isn't considered a mayan, but rather it is like a mikveh.<ref>Tosefta MIkvaot 1:6 writes that someone who digs next to a river or ocean is considered like mey tamsiyut (water leaching from the ground) and not a mayan. Rambam codifies this. However, Rama 201:52 seems to rule otherwise based on Ravyah that water next to a river has the status of a mayan. Mishkenot Yakov 45 writes that we follow the Tosefta. Also, he writes that in the European countries it is impossible to know whether the well is dug too close to the  river whether it is a mayan or mikveh. Therefore, our mikvaot should be treated as a mikveh and not mayan. Gidulei Tahara [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=48030#p=74&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= (Shaayla 2 s.v. umah)] presents 6 factors of how to determine if the spring is a real spring or it is from river water. The main 3 factors are: 1) Spring water comes from between rocks. 2) Spring water goes up from below and river water comes from the side. 3) Spring water is consistent and continuous. [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=8197#p=201&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Lechem 201:74] quotes this.</ref>
 ===Minimum Measurement of Mayan===
 # A mayan is different than a mikveh in that it purifies utensils even with the smallest amount<ref>Torat Kohanim 9</ref> and can also purify when it is moving. For a person who is going to purify themselves in a mayan it requires 40 seah just like a mikveh but the water of a mayan can still be moving.<ref> Rosh (Mikvaot no. 2) cites the Ri as holding that a mayan only purifies a kli with any amount but a person requires 40 seah. The Rosh agrees with the Ri. However, The Rambam Mikvaot 4:8 and Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh ch. 3 s.v. vhani mili) argue that a mayan is effective with any amount even for a person. [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=9023#p=117 Rashba (Torat Habayit 30b, Shaar Hamayim 11)] agrees with the Rambam and Raavad. Shulchan Aruch 201:1 rules like the Ri. </ref>
@@ Line 147: / Line 152: @@
 ==Zochlin==
-#Only a mayan purifies whether the water is moving or stationary<ref>Ramban Shabbat 65b clarifies that the a mayan can purify if it is moving and certainly if it is stationary. Shach 201:7 agrees.</ref>, but a mikveh is biblically<ref>Being that the invalidation of zochlin is in Torat Kohanim as a derivation of a pasuk it should be biblical. That is the opinion of the Trumat Hadeshen 254, Maharik 115, Bet Yosef 201:3, and Rama 201:2. The Darkei Moshe 201:7 explains that the issue of rainwater in a mikveh moving is considered a biblical invalidation, but the concern of having a majority of rainwater in a river is only rabbinic.
+#Only a mayan purifies whether the water is moving or stationary,<ref>Ramban Shabbat 65b clarifies that the a mayan can purify if it is moving and certainly if it is stationary. Shach 201:7 agrees.</ref> but a mikveh is biblically<ref>Being that the invalidation of zochlin is in Torat Kohanim as a derivation of a pasuk it should be biblical. That is the opinion of the Trumat Hadeshen 254, Maharik 115, Bet Yosef 201:3, and Rama 201:2. The Darkei Moshe 201:7 explains that the issue of rainwater in a mikveh moving is considered a biblical invalidation, but the concern of having a majority of rainwater in a river is only rabbinic.
 * However, the Bet Yosef 201:3 seems to understand the Mordechai to mean that zochlin is only rabbinic. [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=14664#p=165&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Chatom Sofer YD 2:202] proves that the Yereyim (ch. 26) and Maharam (cited by Mordechai) hold that zochlin is only rabbinic. Furthermore, he posits that this is the view of Ran, Rosh, and Rashba. Mahari Asad 5:211 proves that Rashi Chullin 31b s.v. chardelit holds zochlin is rabbinic. Peni Yehoshua Shabbat 65b s.v. BTosfot shema writes that the rishonim who hold that sheuvim is rabbinic also hold that zochlin is rabbinic. Tzemech Tzedek 164:5 makes a compromise in explaining the Rosh that biblically only if the mikveh is moving like a spring but rabbinically it is a problem even if there's a hole in the mikveh and water is draining. Imrei Yosher 130 agrees.
 * Chazon Ish 134:3 (Tinyana 7:3) writes that this opinion of the Chatom Sofer is totally incorrect and may not be included as a factor to be lenient. Divrei Chayim 5 and Chibur Ltahara 2:38 agree and answer the Chatom Sofer’s proofs.</ref> invalid if the water is moving.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14026&st=&pgnum=148 Torat Kohanim Shemini 9:3], Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, Rashi Shabbat 65b s.v. vsaver</ref>
@@ Line 155: / Line 160: @@
 * Gra 201:96 argues that according to the Rosh the invalidation of a mikveh is objective and even if it isn’t recognizable it is invalid. Rav Chaim in his letter and Rav Shternbuch are strict for the Gra.</ref>
 ===Zochlin with water going into the mikveh===
-# If water is flowing into a mikveh but water isn’t flowing out there’s a dispute whether that is considered zochlin. <ref>Divrei Chayim Mikvaot 201:5 and Maharam Shik YD 205 hold that if there's water going into the mikveh it is invalid because of zochlin. However, the Lechem Vsimla 15 quoting the Mey Shiloach 2:8 holds that it isn't considered zochlin at all as long as there's 40 seah in the mikveh besides the water coming in. Arugat Habosem YD 211-2 is lenient even to include the water coming in towards the 40 seah.</ref>
+# If water is flowing into a mikveh but water isn’t flowing out there’s a dispute whether that is considered zochlin.<ref>Divrei Chayim Mikvaot 201:5 and Maharam Shik YD 205 hold that if there's water going into the mikveh it is invalid because of zochlin. However, the Lechem Vsimla 15 quoting the Mey Shiloach 2:8 holds that it isn't considered zochlin at all as long as there's 40 seah in the mikveh besides the water coming in. Arugat Habosem YD 211-2 is lenient even to include the water coming in towards the 40 seah.</ref>
-===Zochlin from Mikveh to Mikveh===
+===Zochlin while the mikveh is filling up===
-Packet 11
+# If the water is filled up to where the hashaka hole and when the woman dips in the mikveh, some water is displaced and partially fills up the hashaka hole and the water spills into the bor zeriya or bor hashaka. That movement of water could be considered zochlin and invalidate the mikveh.<ref>Chazon Ish (Likkutim 6:2 s.v. haya, YD 127:2 s.v. haya) himself raised the issue but limited it to where the water would be pouring out of the hole from bor tevila into the bor zeriya or bor hashaka and the water is arched. However, if the water is just dribbling down the side of the walls and not arched then it isn't considered zochlin. He leaves it with tzarich iyun, indicating that he wasn't certain about this point. Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Igrot Vereshimot Kehilat Yakov v. 4 siman 10 p. 26) writes that this leniency of the Chazon Ish is difficult to accept and should not be relied upon. </ref> What are the solutions?
-Igrot Kehilat Yakov v. 4 siman 10 is machmir against Chazon Ish 127:2 s.v. haya
+## Chazon Ish YD 123:1 has solution to put the pipe where water comes in lower down. Chelkat Yakov 10:3:53:2, 58:2 and Minchat Yitzchak 2:23 accept this Chazon Ish and actually implemented it in their mikvaot. However, Mikveh Mayim v. 1 p. 27 quotes Rav Greenwald from Papo who holds that this solution is worse. The water coming in from the pipe below makes it zochlin since all of the water can be seen rising and overflowing. Also, it is worse since the zechila is from below 40 seah. Mey Hashilo'ach p. 27.
+## Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe  YD 1:112) held that this isn't an issue at all since zochlin can create hashaka. Rav Aharon Kotler (mishnat rebbe aharon 24:8, 25:1) agrees. Chazon Ish kama 3:2, however, Maharsham 1:122 is machmir about this.
+=== Zochlin from Mikveh to Mikveh ===
+#Rav Shlomo Kluger has 3 reasons that he thinks that there's no issue of zochlin from mikveh to mikveh. Bet Shlomo adds another 2 reasons:
+##It is only considered zochlin if the water is leaving the mikveh and flowing beyond the mikveh. If, however, the water is leaking from the mikveh and going into a contained area that isn't zochlin. Most achronim disagree with this.<ref>Rav Kluger's proof for this is Rama YD 201:52. Bet Shlomo YD 2:52, Simla 201:94, Maharam Shik YD 205, and Maharsham 3:239 disagree with this logic of Rav Kluger. Maharam Shik's proof is from Rash Mikvaot 4:4 that zochlin into a house is a problem, as well as Rivash 292 according to Chatom Sofer YD 209. Tashbetz 3:34 also seems to be a very clear proof against Rav Shlomo Kluger.</ref>
+##If the waters are connected a tiny bit that automatically connects the mikvaot from the Torah. Even though on a rabbinic level the mikvaot aren't connected without a shifoferet hanod, for purposes of zochlin they're considered one mikveh. Bet Shlomo<ref>YD 2:51-52</ref> rejects this nuance and holds that shifoferet hanod is from the Torah.
+##Since the water isn't recognizably moving out of the mikveh, that isn't considered zochlin at all according to Shulchan Aruch YD 201:51. Bet Shlomo agrees with this point.<ref>Bet Shlomo (YD 2:51 s.v. vlibi and af) adds to this argument based on Shulchan Aruch YD 201:13 that water isn't considered zochlin unless it is streaming out and not if it is just dripping. Maharam Shik YD 205 seems to agree.</ref>
+##Bet Shlomo has another argument that if the two mikvaot will always have 40 seah and the only water that's moving from one to the other won't diminish the 40 seah in the mikveh that is being used for tevila, that's kosher according to Shulchan Aruch YD 201:50.
+##Bet Shlomo also explains that according to Shach 201:30 there's no issue of zochlin because of the movement of the water based on the person who is currently tovel (dipping). He says that this factor is questionable as he proves from Tashbetz, Maharik, and Nodeh Beyehuda.
+#'''If pipe is not completely full''': If the two mikvaot have a pipe the size of a shifoferet hanod but it isn't completely full of water, when somone is tovel there is some water that moves from one mikveh to the other due to water displacement, many poskim would consider the mikveh invalid because of zochlin.<ref>Rav Shlomo Kluger (Shaarei Tahara 39) is lenient, but the poskim including Tashbetz 3:34, Maharam Shik YD 205, Bet Shlomo 2:51 disagree with this and hold it is invalid.</ref>
+#'''If pipe is completely full''': If the two mikvaot are connected with a shifoferet hanod of stationary water, then Rav Shlomo Kluger, Rav Efraim Zalman Margoliyot, Gur Aryeh Yehuda, and Bet Shlomo<ref>Bet Shlomo 2:51 s.v. vma and lechen. Rav Kluger quoted Rav Zalman Efraim Margoliyot and Gur Aryeh Yehuda.</ref> hold that there's no zechila from mikveh to mikveh. No one would invalidate that mikveh except Rav Elazar Landau.<ref>Maharam Shik YD 205 also holds this is kosher. It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, each of which theoretically suffice independently.</ref>
+##However, some achronim are extremely machmir about this question and hold that even if the pipe is completely filled with water to consider the water moving through the pipe from one bor to the other bor to be considered zochlin. To avoid this, the hashaka pipe should be closed at the time of the tevila.<ref>Simla 201:94 holds that it is considered zochlin if water is going from one mikveh to another mikveh even though the pipe is full of water. He seems like he's only discussing a case where there's no shifoferet hanod connecting the mikvaot. </ref> Most achronim disagree and hold that this is not an issue.<ref>Rav Shlomo Kluger (Shirei Tahara 39, Mey Niddah, and Haelef Lecha Shlomo YD 233) explains that there's no zochlin from one mikveh to the other since the water remains stationary in either bor and returns back to the other bor. The Satmer Rebbe (Divrei Yoel 75) agreed that there's no zochlin from one mikveh to the other if the pipe is full of water. Rav Moshe Bick (Taharat Yom Tov v. 18 p. 373-4) quoted the Satmer Rebbe as laughing about this question and holding that it isn't an issue of zochlin even if the pipe isn't full. Because if that was considered zochlin, it should be zochlin even if the pipe is full of water. The solution to that would be to insist that the hashaka hole be closed up, but that no one heard was critical.
+Bet Shlomo YD 51 writes that Rabbi Elazar Landua challenged the validity of a mikveh where the water is moving from one mikveh to the other, while someone is tovel and the pipe is full with a shifoferet hanod of water. Bet Shlomo quotes that Rav Shlomo Kluger laughed about this question and thought obviously it isn't considered zochlin since the water isn't leaving anywhere. Bet Shlomo agreed that it is kosher. Rav Kluger went further and held it was kosher even if it isn't connected with a shifoferet hanod, but Bet Shlomo didn't agree with that point.</ref>
+#'''Bor al gabi bor''': Chelkat Yakov<ref>3:54:6</ref> writes that there's no issue of zochlin from one mikveh to another mikveh if there is a bor al gabi bor with water that is stationary one on top of the other.
+#'''If there are holes smaller than shifoferet hanod''':
+##If the two mikvaot are not connected with a shifoferet hanod and only connected with a tiny amount of water, but the connection between the two mikvaot is completely underwater, then both Rav Shlomo Kluger and Bet Shlomo allow this.<ref>Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:272:8 argues that the poskim allow this only bedieved and not initially.</ref> Since the movement between the two mikvaot isn't noticeable there's no zechila.<ref>It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, each of which theoretically suffice independently. Maharam Shik YD 205 seems to agree. Minchat Yitzchak 1:147:9-12 is concerned for this type of zechila if it is unrecognizable because of Gra. However, if it is above 40 seah then he writes everyone agrees that it is kosher. Chelkat Yakov YD 112:6 seems to be even stricter and is concerned for zechila that's unrecognizable through the minimal hole between two mikvaot.</ref>
+##If the two mikvaot are not connected with a shifoferet hanod and only connected with a tiny amount of water, and the connection between the two mikvaot is above the water so that it is possible to see the water spilling one to the other, Rav Shlomo Kluger is lenient to consider that not zochlin, but most poskim disagree.<ref>It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 4, and 5, but since Bet Shlomo disagrees with 1 and 2 and 4 and 5 are both subject to a dispute, Bet Shlomo holds that they should avoid this.</ref>
 ===Zochlin that isn’t recognizable===
 # If there’s a tiny crack in the mikveh if the water draining is so minimal that it isn’t noticeable the mikveh is still fit.<ref> The [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=9023#p=76 Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 2)] writes that as long as the movement of the mikveh is so minimal that it isn’t noticeable it is fit. Otherwise how could a mikveh dug in a dirt hole be fit since the dirt allows water through. The Shulchan Aruch 201:51 follows the Rashba.
-* Chatom Sofer YD 2:211 holds like the Rashba and Shulchan Aruch.</ref> There are some poskim who are more strict and invalidate a mikveh with any drainage.<ref> The Gra 201:97 argues with Shulchan Aruch that any movement invalidates a mikveh. Mishnat Rav Aharon Kotler explains the Gra’s argument. There’s two reasons why moving water is invalid for a mikveh; the moving water could be a biblical invalidation without any reason or it could be that moving water is like it isn’t connected and there’s no 40 seah. If so, if there’s a hole in the mikveh above the 40 seah mark and certainly 40 seah will remain according to the first approach it is invalid but according to the second it is valid. Another application of this question is if the movement of the water isn’t noticeable. According to the first approach it is valid if the movement isn’t noticeable but according to the second one it is invalid even if it isn’t noticeable.
+*Chatom Sofer YD 2:211 holds like the Rashba and Shulchan Aruch.
-</ref> On the other hand, there are those who are more lenient and would allow a leaky mikveh as long as it isn’t completely moving like a spring. This opinion is not accepted by the poskim.<ref>The Tashbetz writes that the Rambam doesn’t accept the opinion of the Rash that any hole in a mikveh invalidates the mikveh since it makes the mikveh water moving which is invalid. Rabbenu Yerucham writes similarly. This seems to align with the Rosh no. 12 who writes that only a mikveh that is moving like a spring is invalid. Meil Tzedaka and Bayi Chayi adopt this position. However, the Shulchan Aruch 201:50 accepts the Rash that even a hole invalidates the mikveh. Nodeh Beyehuda 142:5, Meir Netivim 11, and Imrei Yosher 130 agree and reject the lenient opinion of the Meil Tzedaka.
+*Shaarei Tzion 3:26 argues that Gra never said that it was pasul. Either Gra 201:96 is a typo or written by a mistaken student. He proves thoroughly that there's no way to hold that an unrecognizable zechila is invalid.
-* Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 298 rules like Shulchan Aruch that a not recognizable zechila is valid. Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein that a non-recognizable zechila is valid in a case where there’s not another mikveh and going to mikveh shouldn’t be pushed off because of it.</ref>
+*Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 298 accepts Shulchan Aruch. He quotes Nodeh Beyehuda, Chatom Sofer, Maharsham, Maharshag, Divrei Malkiel, and others who agree with Shulchan Aruch. </ref> There are some poskim who are more strict and invalidate a mikveh with any drainage.<ref> The Gra 201:97 argues with Shulchan Aruch that any movement invalidates a mikveh. Mishnat Rebbe Aharon (Kotler 1:24:8) explains the Gra’s argument. There’s two reasons why moving water is invalid for a mikveh; the moving water could be a biblical invalidation without any reason (Mordechai and Rashba) or it could be that moving water is like it isn’t connected and there’s no 40 seah (Rivash and Rosh). If so, if there’s a hole in the mikveh above the 40 seah mark and certainly 40 seah will remain, according to the first approach, it is invalid, but according to the second it is valid. Another application of this question is if the movement of the water isn’t noticeable. According to the first approach, it is valid if the movement isn’t noticeable since that is the degree by which movement is measured. But according to the second one, it is invalid even if the movement isn’t noticeable. Chazon Ish (Tinyana 8:4, Likutim 3:4) explains Gra differently. He explains that according to Rosh only the water that itself is moving out of the mikveh is considered zochlin. Everything else isn't zochlin. Rashba's question was how is it possible to make a kosher mikveh in the ground without any zechila. Rashba answered that non-noticeable movement isn't zechila. However, Rosh would answer that it isn't an issue if there's slightly more than 40 seah since all of the water that is currently not leaving the pit is counted for the mikveh. Since Rosh has another answer to Rashba's question he doesn't have to accept his conclusion.
+</ref> On the other hand, there are those who are more lenient and would allow a leaky mikveh as long as it isn’t completely moving like a spring. This opinion is not accepted by the poskim.<ref>The Tashbetz 1:17 s.v. uma writes that the Rambam doesn’t accept the opinion of the Rash that any hole in a mikveh invalidates the mikveh since it makes the mikveh water moving which is invalid. Rabbenu Yerucham writes similarly. This seems to align with the Rosh (Hilchot Mikvaot no. 12 and responsa 31:4) who writes that only a mikveh that is moving like a spring is invalid. Meil Tzedaka and Bayi Chayi adopt this position. However, the Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:50 accepts the Rash, Mordechai, and Rashba that even a hole invalidates the mikveh. Nodeh Beyehuda 142:5, Meir Netivim 11, and Imrei Yosher 130 agree and reject the lenient opinion of the Meil Tzedaka.
+*Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 298 rules like Shulchan Aruch that a not recognizable zechila is valid. Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein that a non-recognizable zechila is valid in a case where there’s not another mikveh and going to mikveh shouldn’t be pushed off because of it.
+*Chazon Ish (Tinyana 8:4, Likutim 3:4) holds like Rosh that any movement that isn't gushing like a spring is kosher. He argues that this is also the intention of Gra 96 and Shulchan Aruch. However, the many achronim (Chelkat Binyamin 201:718 citing Nodeh Beyehuda 137 s.v. vnachzor and Divrei Chayim 15 s.v. od) refute this understanding of Shulchan Aruch. Gra 90 himself flatly rejects this theory.</ref>
+## Some poskim hold that as long as it isn't recognizable that the water is moving on top of the mikveh. Even if you know that there is water leaking out it is still kosher.<ref>Rav Yitzchak Elchanan (Ayin Yitzchak YD 22)</ref>
+## Other poskim hold that it is only kosher if it is dribbling out slowly. But if you know that it is leaking out in a stream or leaking quickly it is a problem.<ref>Imrei Yosher 1:127, Shaarei Tzion 3:26. Imrei Yosher also quotes Bet Shlomo 2:72, Tzemech Tzedek, and Divrei Chayim as strict about this question. </ref>
+## Most poskim hold that it is only allowed after the fact and not initially.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin (fnt. 2218) quotes many poskim who hold that one shouldn't rely upon unrecognizable zechila initially, including: Igrot Moshe, Achiezer, and Ayin Yitzchak.</ref>
 ===Zochlin above 40 seah===
-# If there’s a crack in the mikveh and the crack is above the point where the walls would contain 40 seah anyway, some rishonim hold it is valid, while others don’t. According to the lenient view, it is only acceptable to dip in the area below the crack.<ref>Maharak 156 is clear that Rosh hold allows being tovel in the area below the crack. He has a nuance that even though the area above the crack is zochlin and not fit to be tovel in, it is still included in the water of the mikveh in order to make hashaka to sheuvim water.</ref> Ashkenazim are strict.<ref> The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains the mishna to mean that if there’s a crack in the wall of the mikveh the mikveh is invalid because the water that’s dripping out makes the water in the mikveh considered moving, which is zochlin. The Rosh there discusses the Rash and posits that the Rash wouldn’t invalidate the mikveh if the crack is above the point where the walls would contain 40 seah below the crack. The Tur 201:50 writes that although some held that if the crack is above the point of 40 seah the mikveh is invalid the Rosh was lenient. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 is lenient like the Rosh but the Rama quotes the other opinion. The Gra explains that the Rash, Mordechai, and Rashba hold like the stringent opinion. Maharik 115 thinks that Raavad holds like the lenient view.</ref>
+# If there’s a crack in the mikveh and the crack is above the point where the walls would contain 40 seah anyway, some rishonim hold it is valid, while others don’t. According to the lenient view, it is only acceptable to dip in the area below the crack.<ref>Maharak 156 is clear that Rosh allows being tovel in the area below the crack. He has a nuance that even though the area above the crack is zochlin and not fit to be tovel in, it is still included in the water of the mikveh in order to make hashaka to sheuvim water.</ref> Ashkenazim are strict.<ref> The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains the mishna to mean that if there’s a crack in the wall of the mikveh the mikveh is invalid because the water that’s dripping out makes the water in the mikveh considered moving, which is zochlin. The Rosh there discusses the Rash and posits that the Rash wouldn’t invalidate the mikveh if the crack is above the point where the walls would contain 40 seah below the crack. The Tur 201:50 writes that although some held that if the crack is above the point of 40 seah the mikveh is invalid the Rosh was lenient. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 is lenient like the Rosh but the Rama quotes the other opinion. The Gra explains that the Rash, Mordechai, and Rashba hold like the stringent opinion. Maharik 115 thinks that Raavad holds like the lenient view.</ref>
+# Some rishonim hold that if there's always 40 seah it is acceptable to be tovel in that water even though some water is leaving.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=624&pgnum=299 Bayi Chayey YD 198]</ref> The poskim do not follow this approach.
+=== Zochlin within the mikveh ===
+# Water that is moving within the mikveh is kosher and not considered zochlin at all.<ref>Rivash 292, Tashbetz 3:34, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:730 citing Chazon Ish Kama 5</ref>
 ===Zochlin because of a person dipping===
 # Water which splashed out of a mikveh and bounces off the walls and is going to return to the mikveh isn’t considered zochlin since it is only caused by a person and is going to return.<ref>The Rivash responsa 292 writes that if a woman goes into the mikveh and some water is displaced and returns to the mikveh it isn’t considered zochlin. Bet Yosef 201:62, Rama 201:50 and Shach 201:30 and 120 accept the Rivash. Shach 201:120 presents the Rivash as saying that as long as the movement isn’t because of the natural force of the water (gravity or momentum from a spring) it isn’t considered zochlin. Maharik 156 clearly disagrees with this Rivash.
@@ Line 180: / Line 213: @@
 (4) Shach 201:30 answers that the pits were actual springs and not disconnected spring water. Dagul Mirvava is bothered by that Shach since a spring purifies with any quantity. </ref>
-# If when a woman goes into a mikveh some of the water splashes out of the mikveh, even if there’s more than 40 seah left in the mikveh, some say that the mikveh is unfit since it is zochlin. However, others say that it is fit.<ref>The [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=1087#p=120&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Meil Tzedaka 39-41] cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:3 states that a mikveh in which water splashes out when the woman goes in is unfit since it is considered zochlin. The Rivash only said it was fit when water was displaced when a woman went in and returns on its own because of the edges of the mikveh. However, the Shach 201:30 implies that it is fit even in such a case since the mikveh isn’t leaking on its own, water is just leaving when a person goes in it and that isn’t considered zochlin as long as 40 seah is left. The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:6 are strict. Pitchei Mikvaot 8:8 writes that some are lenient. </ref>
+# If when a woman goes into a mikveh some of the water splashes out of the mikveh, even if there’s more than 40 seah left in the mikveh, some say that the mikveh is unfit since it is zochlin. However, others say that it is fit.<ref>The [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=1087#p=120&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Meil Tzedaka 39-41] cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:3 states that a mikveh in which water splashes out when the woman goes in is unfit since it is considered zochlin. The Rivash only said it was fit when water was displaced when a woman went in and returns on its own because of the edges of the mikveh. However, the Shach 201:30 implies that it is fit even in such a case since the mikveh isn’t leaking on its own, water is just leaving when a person goes in it and that isn’t considered zochlin as long as 40 seah is left. The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:6 are strict. Tashbetz 3:34 is clear that this is a problem. Pitchei Mikvaot 8:8 writes that some are lenient. </ref>
 ===Zochlin because of a filter===
-# Some say that if the filter in the mikveh was running when a woman went in the mikveh it is unfit since it is considered zochlin and others held it is fit.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 336 writes that even while the filter is running the mikveh is fit and it isn’t considered zochlin. Firstly, the water that goes into the filter returns to the mikveh and regarding such a case the Rama 201:50 writes that it isn’t considered zochlin. Secondly, even if the water in the filter is considered zochlin that doesn’t affect the rest of the mikveh if it is still 40 seah. That idea is based on Rambam Mikvaot 8:8. Lastly, the Mikveh Tahara p. 68 writes that movement within the water isn’t considered zochlin, only movement because of water entering and exiting the mikveh is zochlin. Igrot Moshe YD 110 was lenient based on the first consideration. </ref> With regards to the question of sheuvim, it depends on whether the filter is a kli. It depends on the actual type of filter.<ref>Rav Moshe in Igrot Moshe YD 110 writes that the pool filters are a kli and therefore an issue of sheuvim. Even though the water is added back into a mikveh of 40 seah it is an issue of natal seah vnatan seah, which is removing some drawn water and replacing it, which is an issue (Shach 201:23). Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 337 comes to the conclusion that the in-mikveh filters aren’t an issue of sheuvim since they essentially a straight pipe and not a kli. He cites the Shema Shlomo 5:14. However, see Betzel Hachachma 4:98.
+# Some say that if the filter in the mikveh was running when a woman went in the mikveh it is unfit since it is considered zochlin and others held it is fit.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 336 writes that even while the filter is running the mikveh is fit and it isn’t considered zochlin. (1) Firstly, the water that goes into the filter returns to the mikveh and regarding such a case the Rivash 292 and Rama 201:50 write that it isn’t considered zochlin. (2) Secondly, even if the water in the filter is considered zochlin that doesn’t affect the rest of the mikveh if it is still 40 seah. That idea is based on Rambam Mikvaot 8:8. (3) Lastly, the Mikveh Tahara p. 68 writes that movement within the water isn’t considered zochlin, only movement because of water entering and exiting the mikveh is zochlin. Igrot Moshe YD 110 and Shevet Halevi 9:187 and 11:213 are lenient about zochlin in a mikveh based on the first consideration. Rabbi Meir Posen (Or Meir v. 2 p. 542) is lenient for two reasons: (1) The water is coming from the mikveh and going back into the mikveh (Rivash 292). (2) The water is all within the mikveh and the water in the mikveh is considered part of the mikveh. Once that's the case there's no zochlin within the mikveh (Rivash). It is considered connected even without a shifoferet hanod because (a) it isn't a kli at all and the mikveh isn't a kli so it is connected and (b) the only way to access the water in the filter is through the mikveh. These are reasons why it is connected even with any size. (3) The water being drawn out from the mikveh and going back in are all underwater and it is like zochlin from mikveh to mikveh that's all underwater (Bet Shlomo 2:51, Chazon Ish Likkutim 6).  </ref> With regards to the question of sheuvim, it depends on whether the filter is a kli. It depends on the actual type of filter.<ref>Rav Moshe in Igrot Moshe YD 110 writes that the pool filters are a kli and therefore an issue of sheuvim. Even though the water is added back into a mikveh of 40 seah it is an issue of natal seah vnatan seah, which is removing some drawn water and replacing it, which is an issue (Shach 201:23). Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 337 comes to the conclusion that the in-mikveh filters aren’t an issue of sheuvim since they essentially a straight pipe and not a kli. He cites the Shema Shlomo 5:14. However, see Betzel Hachachma 4:98.
-* Igrot Moshe writes that the filter is considered mekabel tumah if it could hold liquids had it not been attached to the ground and if it can’t then it isn’t mekabel tumah but it still creates sheuvim.</ref>
+*Igrot Moshe writes that the filter is considered mekabel tumah if it could hold liquids had it not been attached to the ground and if it can’t then it isn’t mekabel tumah but it still creates sheuvim.
+*Rabbi Meir Posen (Or Meir v. 2 p. 538) describes his filter at great length. He explains that it doesn't make sheuvim since there's several connections between it and the mikveh with a connection of a shifoferet hanod. Also, it doesn't make sheuvim since the filter can't hold any water.</ref>
+## Rav Meir Posen's filter (in the mikveh filter) is accepted by Rabbi Wosner, Rav Nissim Karelitz, and Rav Ovadia. The filter should be off when someone is tovel. However, Rav Wosner and Rav Ovadia hold that it is technically acceptable even while it is on.<ref>Or Meir v. 2 p. 530-549, Rav Wosner in Shevet Halevi 11:213. Rav Karelitz is quoted in Or Meir. Rav Ovadia's opinion is found in Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 337.</ref> Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shternbuch opposed using filters in a mikveh even if it is off.<ref>Birur Din Hafilterim (pp. 7-8 and p. 56) quotes Rav Dovid Aryeh Morgenstern that Rav Elyashiv opposed using filters in mikvaot since it is a new thing and could cause problems. Rav Shternbuch in Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:270-272 strongly opposes the filters. Rabbi Shreiber in Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:272 writes that the filters are a problem of (1) Sheuvim because it is a kli kibbul to hold dirt. It is worse than the standard natal seah v'natan seah because it doesn't go through the bor zeriya, which Bet Yosef says is kosher. (2) Zochlin while it is working because there's no shifoferet hanod and also the water is moving so katafras isn't connected to a mikveh. Even when it isn't working it is zechila sheina nikeret and lechatchila it should be avoided. Rabbi Rosen responds to these claims (1) that the filter cannot hold water so it doesn't make sheuvim. (2) The filter is considered within the mikveh so zochlin isn't an issue. Also, the water is going into the filter and coming back so it isn't zochlin. </ref>
+## An out of the mikveh filter should not be used while it is on. Even after the filter is turned off it should not be used since it causes a major issue of sheuvim.<ref>Igrot Moshe 110 writes that a filter in a swimming pool invalidates the mikveh since it makes the water sheuvim. Even though there's hashaka, still there's an issue of natal seah v'natan seah for the Rambam. In terms of zochlin while the filter is on Rav Moshe is lenient based on Rivash. Rav Moshe considers the water that went through the filter sheuvim since the filter was made with a receptable that is meant to hold water. Har Tzvi 177 also considers the water sheuvim for an entirely different reason. He writes that all of the water is sheuvim even if it wasn't in any receptable that holds water. His reason is that since a person turned on the electricity it is like a person took the water and poured it into the mikveh with his hands. That invalidates the water because of tefisat yad adam (SA 201:15 and 39). See Kinyan Daat Mikvaot 201:39:1 who notes that this approach of Har Tzvi seems to disagree with Rabbi Akiva Eiger. </ref>
 ==Sheuvim==
@@ Line 193: / Line 229: @@
 ##Some rishonim think that it is biblically invalid if it is filled up with water that was drawn with a kli that are susceptible to tumah or a person's kli that is susceptible to tumah and only rabbinically invalid if it is filled up with water that was drawn in a kli that isn’t susceptible to tumah.<ref>Rash Mikavot 2:3 writes that if the water was drawn by something that's susceptible to tumah it is biblically invalid based on Zevachim 25b. However, if it was filled with kelim that aren't susceptible to tumah it is only rabbinically invalid. Yad Ramah b"b 66b agrees. However, in Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam) agrees with Rabbenu Tam that sheuvim is deoritta. Shaarei Mikavot (Shaar Hatziyun 4) writes that the Lechem Vsimla think that the Rash retracted at the end, while the Radvaz and Minchat Yitzchak hold that the Rash didn’t retract. Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) quotes this Rash.</ref>
 ##Some rishonim think that if it was filled up intentionally a person it is biblically invalid, but if it was filled in kelim by themselves it is only invalid rabbinically.<ref>Raavad cited by Ramban (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) and Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani)</ref>
-# Ashkenazim hold that it is a biblical invalidation, while Sephardim hold it is only rabbinic.<Ref>Rama 201:3 writes that sheuvim is biblical. The Shulchan Aruch 201:53 implies that it is only rabbinic. Aruch Lechem 201:53 writes that this is the opinion of Shulchan Aruch. Divrei Yosef p. 398 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:18 agree. Chelkat Binyamin 201:920 writes that it is a dispute between the Shach and Taz whether Shulchan Aruch holds that it is biblical or rabbinic. </ref>
+# Ashkenazim hold that it is a biblical invalidation, while Sephardim hold it is only rabbinic.<ref>Rama 201:3 writes that sheuvim is biblical. The Shulchan Aruch 201:53 implies that it is only rabbinic. Aruch Lechem 201:53 writes that this is the opinion of Shulchan Aruch. Divrei Yosef p. 398 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:18 agree. Chelkat Binyamin 201:920 writes that it is a dispute between the Shach and Taz whether Shulchan Aruch holds that it is biblical or rabbinic. However, Taz 201:81-82 (as clarified by Pri Deah) clearly indicates that he agrees that Shulchan Aruch holds it is rabbinic.  </ref>
 ===Intention===
@@ Line 214: / Line 250: @@
 # If a vessel is in a position in which it can’t contain any water even though if it were sitting normally it would hold water doesn’t create shuevim.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 4:2, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:35. The Mishna (Mikvaot 4:2) establishes that a tray with a rim creates sheuvim when positioned normally but not when turned on its side so it can be cleaned from dirt. Rambam (Mikvaot 6:5) codifies this mishna and explains that it doesn't create sheuvim since it wasn't made to collect water. Shiltei Giborim b"b 35b understands that Rambam means it doesn't create sheuvim since the kli wasn't made originally to collect water. He explicitly learns that positioning a kli in a way that doesn't collect water isn't a create that it doesn't create sheuvim. However, Shaarei Knesset Hagedola (Hagahot Hatur 201:30) argues that Rambam indeed meant that the positioning matters; when it is positioned in a way that it can't collect water it doesn't create sheuvim even if it actually holds some water. Maaseh Roke'ach (Hilchot Mikvaot 6:5) also explains that the tray with a rim is meant to hold water. This also seems evident in Pirush Mishnayot of Rambam (Mikvaot 4:2 and Kelim 2:3). Gulot Ayilot (Mikvaot 4:2) explains like Shiltei Giborim that the tray isn't meant to collect water. That's why when it is on its side it doesn't create sheuvim. However, when it is placed to collect water it makes sheuvim since it is specifically intentionally engineered to draw water into a mikveh. Therefore, according to Shiltei Giborim and Gulot Ayilot, a kli that is meant to hold water creates sheuvim even if it is in a position that it isn't meant to hold water. However, according to Shaarei Knesset Hagedola the water isn't sheuvim. </ref>
 # Shingles on the roof aren’t considered vessel to create shuevim since they weren’t made to hold water.<Ref>Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim) writes that shingles on the roof don’t create sheuvim since they weren’t made to hold water (Mishna Mikvaot 4:3). This is codified by the Shulchan Aruch YD 201:37.</ref>
-# When dipping a pillow in the mikveh it would make the water sheuvim once it is picked up out of the mikveh.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 6:5, Rambam Mikvaot 5:3</ref>
+# When dipping a pillow in the mikveh, the pillow would make the water inside of it sheuvim once it is picked up out of the mikveh.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 6:5, Rambam Mikvaot 5:3</ref>
 # If a vessel couldn’t hold water on its own but would hold water if propped up by other things it wouldn’t create sheuvim.  - see bet yosef 201:34 it is kosher
 ===Pipes===
 # Pipes that have no receptacle don’t create sheuvim.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 4:3, Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:36</ref>
-# Pipes which have a receptacle of any size create sheuvim and invalidate a mikveh.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that a pipe which has a receptacle is invalid. If it made of earthenware it only creates sheuvim if it can hold a reviyit of water but if it is wood any amount is sufficient. Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:36 codify this.</ref>
+# Pipes which have a receptacle of any size create sheuvim and invalidate a mikveh.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that a pipe which has a receptacle is invalid. If it made of earthenware it only creates sheuvim if it can hold a reviyit of water but if it is wood any amount is sufficient. Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:36 codify this.</ref> If the pipe has a receptable in one section any water flowing over any part of the pipe is sheuvim.<ref>Rosh (Mikvaot n. 6) implies that only water that flows over the receptable is sheuvim, however, Tur 201:36 implies that any water that goes over any part of the pipe is made into sheuvim. Shach 201:77 originally assumes like Rosh, but in Nekudat Hakesef retracts and holds like Tur. There he explains that even Rosh might mean like the Tur. Bach thinks that Tur and Rosh are saying the same thing, but is unsure what they're saying. </ref>
 # Pipes which didn’t have any receptacle when it was detached from the ground and after it was attached a receptacle is created is valid, but if the receptacle is created before it is attached it is invalid.<Ref>Gemara Bava Batra 66a establishes that a stone isn’t considered a vessel unless it has a receptacle. If that receptacle was created only after it was attached to the ground it isn’t considered a vessel with respect to that it doesn’t create drawn water. Ran and Ramban Bava Batra 65b, Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:36, and Shach 201:21 codify this distinction.</ref>
-# Pipes which widen and thin out in order to manipulate the water pressure and speed don’t invalidate the mikveh as the receptacle wasn’t made to hold water.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that a pipe which has a thin part and widens doesn’t create sheuvim since it wasn’t made to hold water but just to manage the water pressure. Rambam Mikvaot 6:2 accepts this. Even though the Raavad 8:7 disagrees with the Rambam about bent pipes regarding the pipe that widens he doesn’t disagree with the Rambam. Divrei Chaim 201:33 and Rav Chaim Mikvaot 6:4 make this point.</ref>
+# Pipes which widen and thin out in order to manipulate the water pressure and speed don’t invalidate the mikveh as the receptacle wasn’t made to hold water.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that a pipe which has a thin part and widens doesn’t create sheuvim since it wasn’t made to hold water but just to manage the water pressure. Rambam Mikvaot 6:2 codifies this Mishna. Even though the Raavad 8:7 disagrees with the Rambam about bent pipes regarding the pipe that widens he doesn’t disagree with the Rambam. Divrei Chaim 201:33 and Rav Chaim Mikvaot 6:4 note that even Raavad holds from this Mishna that a pipe used to create water pressure is not considered sheuvim. Raavad in a teshuva (Baalei Hanefesh p. 157 fnt. 31) writes that the Mishna is discussing a depression in the pipe and not a pipe that just widens on the sides. This is also evident from the picture of Rambam in Pirush Mishnayot. However, Gra (Eliyahu Rabba 4:3) explains the Mishna to be about a pipe that has no depression. Otherwise if there was a depression it automatically creates sheuvim.</ref>
-# A bent pipe that could hold water is valid. There is a minority opinion that it is invalid. Some say that it is invalid only if the angle created is less than 90 degrees and water could be held in that bend, however a bent pipe that is 90 degrees or more and just directs the water flow doesn’t create sheuvim. Others explain that according to the strict opinion any bent pipe is an issue even to direct water flow. A possible solution is to have one pipe flow into another pipe at an angle but not actually connect them and make them into one pipe.<ref>The Raavad Mikvaot 8:7 cites the Tosefta 5:4 that holds that bent pipes create sheuvim. He explains that even though they aren’t susceptible to tumah they nonetheless create sheuvim. Kesef Mishna (Mikvaot 8:7) disagrees because the bent pipes weren't made to hold water and shouldn't make sheuvim (Mishna Mikvaot 4:3). Rash (Mikvaot 6:8) and Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8) interpret the Tosefta to be discussing a case where the bend makes the pipe have a receptacle to hold water.
+# A bent pipe that could hold water is valid. There is a minority opinion that it is invalid. Some say that it is invalid only if the angle created is less than 90 degrees and water could be held in that bend, however, a bent pipe that is 90 degrees or more and just directs the water flow doesn’t create sheuvim. Others explain that according to the strict opinion any bent pipe is an issue even to direct water flow. A possible solution is to have one pipe flow into another pipe at an angle but not actually connect them and make them into one pipe.<ref>The Raavad Mikvaot 8:7 cites the Tosefta 5:4 that holds that bent pipes create sheuvim. He explains that even though they aren’t susceptible to tumah they nonetheless create sheuvim. Kesef Mishna (Mikvaot 8:7) disagrees because the bent pipes weren't made to hold water and shouldn't make sheuvim (Mishna Mikvaot 4:3). Rash (Mikvaot 6:8) and Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8) interpret the Tosefta to be discussing a case where the bend makes the pipe have a receptacle to hold water.
-* Do we hold like the Raavad? The Raavad isn’t quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Rama, Shach, or Taz. Chelkat Binyamin 539 quotes the Bet Shlomo 2:66 who is strict.
+*Do we hold like the Raavad? The Raavad isn’t quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Rama, Shach, or Taz. Chelkat Binyamin 539 quotes the Bet Shlomo 2:66 who is strict.
-* What does the Raavad do about the Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 established that any pipe which wasn’t meant to hold water even if it has a receptacle doesn’t create sheuvim? Rav Chaim (Mikvaot 6:4) explains that the Raavad is only relevant to dipping in a pipe as a mikveh or using the pipe to connect two mikvot that are lacking. The explanation is that when connecting mikvaot anything used to connect them is necessary for that section to be kosher even if he were to be tovel in that section. However, the bent pipe doesn't actually make it sheuvim. Divrei Chaim 201:33 explains that the Raavad only meant that if the bent pipe is meant to hold to water is it invalid even if it originally wasn’t meant to hold anything. Gidulei Tahara 9 also limits the Raavad to where the bent pipe has some way of holding water. However, Rav Aryeh Leib Malin (73 s.v. vnireh, 2:71:2) understands the Raavad to mean that since the bent pipe is useful in that it can direct water flow it creates sheuvim. Chelkat Binyamin 201:529 cites the dispute between those who limit the Raavad and those who apply it generally.</ref>
+*What does the Raavad do about the Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 established that any pipe which wasn’t meant to hold water even if it has a receptacle doesn’t create sheuvim? Rav Chaim (Mikvaot 6:4) explains that the Raavad is only relevant to dipping in a pipe as a mikveh or using the pipe to connect two mikvot that are lacking. The explanation is that when connecting mikvaot anything used to connect them is necessary for that section to be kosher even if he were to be tovel in that section. However, the bent pipe doesn't actually make it sheuvim. Divrei Chaim 201:33 explains that the Raavad only meant that if the bent pipe is meant to hold to water is it invalid even if it originally wasn’t meant to hold anything. Gidulei Tahara 9 also limits the Raavad to where the bent pipe has some way of holding something, albeit in a temporary fashion. But a pipe just used to redirect water doesn't make sheuvim. Rabbi Buckwald (Baalei Hanefesh p. 157 fnt. 32) prefers the Gidulei Tahara's explanation in light of what he writes in Baalei Hanefesh and his teshuvot. However, Rav Aryeh Leib Malin (73 s.v. vnireh, 2:71:2) understands the Raavad to mean that since the bent pipe is useful in that it can direct water flow it creates sheuvim. Chelkat Binyamin 201:529 cites the dispute between those who limit the Raavad and those who apply it generally. Mikveh Mayim v. 3 p. 206 quotes Taharat Mayim who argues with Rav Aryeh Leib. Mikveh Mayim's conclusion is not to use pipes that are made in the shape of a L. </ref>
+# A pipe which was attached to the ground and got a indentation because it rotted in one place is kosher according to most poskim, but invalid according to some poskim.<ref>Hagahot Mordechai (Kiddushin 560) quotes one opinion who is strict to say that if a pipe gets a depression because the pipe rotted in one place it is invalid. That depression makes it a kli and the water flowing in that pipe is sheuvim. However, Rabbenu Shemarya argued that it is kosher since he didn't intend that the rotting would make it a kli. Maharik 56 writes that the minhag is like Rabbenu Shemarya but he was personally strict for the strict opinion. Bet Yosef 201:36 argues with the strict opinion since the pipe wasn't made into a kli intentionally. Rama 201:36 codifies this opinion. Chatom  Sofer YD 201 disagrees and holds based on Chullin 13a that the pipe with a depression that happened on its own is completely invalid. Likutei Haarot on Chatom Sofer quotes Chesed Lavraham who strongly disagrees with Chatom Sofer.</ref>
 ===Pipes Made to be Attached to the Ground===
@@ Line 279: / Line 315: @@
 ===Tefisat Yadey Adam Grama===
 #The main discussion of [[Tefisat Yedey Adam]] is on its own page.
-# If the water was drawn into a mikveh using an indirect or delayed reaction according to some poskim it is valid as it wasn’t drawn by a person directly, while according to other it is invalid since it created artificially and not naturally.<ref>Divrei Yosef p. 147-8 cites the Drush Vchidush of Rabbi Akiva Eiger p. 170, Zichron Yosef YD 13, and Maharit 17. Hod Yosef 71 writes that even if it is just a grama it is still invalid. His proof is Rambam Parah 6:8. Divrei Yosef supports this approach by saying that as long as the water isn’t naturally drawn into the mikveh it is invalid.</ref> See Igrot Moshe YD 120:5 and Minchat Yitzchak 3:39:20.
+# If the water was drawn into a mikveh using an indirect or delayed reaction according to some poskim it is valid as it wasn’t drawn by a person directly, while according to other it is invalid since it created artificially and not naturally.<ref>Divrei Yosef p. 147-8 cites the Drush Vchidush of Rabbi Akiva Eiger p. 170, Zichron Yosef YD 13, and Maharit 17. Divrei Yosef supports this approach by saying that as long as the water isn’t naturally drawn into the mikveh it is invalid.</ref>
 ===Zeriya===
@@ Line 287: / Line 323: @@
 * Alternatively, Raavad suggested that natan seah vnatal seah only applies if you actively remove water and not if the rainwater flows out by itself.</ref>
 #If sheuvim is poured into a complete mikveh, some rishonim say that the sheuvim water remains sheuvim as long as the sheuvim stayed in one place. Once they got mixed around in the mikveh they become like mikveh water.<ref>Gemara Macot 4a states that if a barrel of sheuvim water falls into an ocean and someone is tovel there, they're tameh like someone who bathed in 3 lugin of sheuvim. The rishonim wonder why the sheuvim water isn't made kosher because of zeriya.
-* Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan (cited by Ritva 4a s.v. vhanachon) answers that fresh water and salt water don't mix and so zeriya is ineffective.
+*Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan (cited by Ritva 4a s.v. vhanachon) answers that fresh water and salt water don't mix and so zeriya is ineffective. Kehilat Yakov (Macot 5) argues that Rambam agrees with Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan.
 *Raavan 28 answers that the gemara discussing someone who was tovel there immediately after the sheuvim fell in. That's why there's a concern that the sheuvim are still in one place and retain the status of sheuvim. However, after a half hour or hour the sheuvim get mixed up with the rest of the ocean and are no longer considered sheuvim. Kesef Mishna (Hilchot Mikvaot 6:10) agrees. He says that when pouring sheuvim into a mikveh it gets mixed right away. In Macot, it didn't get mixed right away since the water seeped out of a barrel that fell into the ocean.
-* Tosfot (Macot 4a s.v. amar) explains that the correct text of the gemara should read that it is a barrel of wine and so there's no question about sheuvim at all.</ref>
+*Tosfot (Macot 4a s.v. amar) explains that the correct text of the gemara should read that it is a barrel of wine and so there's no question about sheuvim at all.</ref>
 #If sheuvim is poured into a complete mikveh and then the sheuvim water flowed into another mikveh, some rishonim hold that the sheuvim water is still kosher as a mikveh.<ref>[https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=20319#p=93&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Rabbenu Yerucham (225d)] cited by Bet Yosef 201:15</ref> Others hold that after the zeriya water flowed into another mikveh they're no longer kosher. It is good to be strict for this view.<ref>Shach 201:41</ref>
 #Chatom Sofer YD 2:211 s.v. v'l'inyan distinguishes between zeriya of water into other water and just connecting them through hashaka.
 ===Natan Seah Vnatal Seah===
-# If a complete mikveh has drawn water put in and removed consecutively such that a majority of 40 seah of the original water was removed according to some rishonim it is completely valid, while according to others it is invalid. We are strict to avoid this but in extenuating circumstances if there’s no other mikveh available we can lenient.<ref>The Rash (Mikvaot 7:2) and Rosh (Hilchot Mikvaot n. 1) hold that once there is a complete mikveh of 40 seah it can’t be invalidated by adding drawn water. The concept that the mishna invalidates a mikveh when something is consistently removed and replaced (natan seah vnatal seah) is referring to fruit juice and not drawn water. Rabbenu Tam (Sefer Hayashar 671) and Tosfot Rid (Bava Batra 66b) agree with this understanding of the Mishna. The Gemara Yevamot 82b adds that natan seah vnatal seah is only an issue after one removed a majority of the mikveh. The Teshuvat Rid 62, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch 201:24 accept the Rosh. Gra 201:59 agrees with Shulchan Aruch.
+# If a complete mikveh has drawn water put in and removed consecutively such that a majority of 40 seah of the original water was removed according to some rishonim it is completely valid, while according to others it is invalid. We are strict to avoid this but in extenuating circumstances if there’s no other mikveh available we can be lenient.<ref>The Rash (Mikvaot 7:2) and Rosh (Hilchot Mikvaot n. 1) hold that once there is a complete mikveh of 40 seah it can’t be invalidated by adding drawn water. The concept that the mishna invalidates a mikveh when something is consistently removed and replaced (natan seah vnatal seah) is referring to fruit juice and not drawn water. Rabbenu Tam (Sefer Hayashar 671) and Tosfot Rid (Bava Batra 66b) agree with this understanding of the Mishna. The Gemara Yevamot 82b adds that natan seah vnatal seah is only an issue after one removed a majority of the mikveh. The Teshuvat Rid 62, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch 201:24 accept the Rosh. Gra 201:59 agrees with Shulchan Aruch.
-* However, the Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 7:6) understood the mishna to be speaking about drawn water and not fruit juice. Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a), Rabbenu Gershom (Bava Batra 66b), Raavan (Teshuva 28), and Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 88) agree with Rambam's understanding of the mishna. Rashbatz 1:17 writes that we should avoid the dispute. Shach 201:63 is strict. Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 writes that in extenuating circumstances it is possible to rely on S”A against Rambam. Chelkat Binyamin 201:377 agrees. </ref>
+*However, the Rambam (Hilchot Mikvaot 7:6) understood the mishna to be speaking about drawn water and not fruit juice. Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a), Rabbenu Gershom (Bava Batra 66b), Raavan (Teshuva 28), and Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 88) agree with Rambam's understanding of the mishna. Rashbatz 1:17 writes that we should avoid the dispute if it is easily avoidable. Rashbetz 3:12 writes that we should avoid this unless it is an extenuating circumstance. Shach 201:63 is strict. Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 writes that in extenuating circumstances it is possible to rely on S”A against Rambam. Chelkat Binyamin 201:377 agrees.
+*[https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=37575#p=174&fitMode=fitwidth Mishkenot Yakov YD 46] writes that Rashi, Tosfot, Rashbam, Rambam, Raavad, Rabbenu Chananel and Aruch hold that natan seah vnatal seah is an issue for sheuvim and we should avoid the issue. However, he quotes that the minhag wasn't to be machmir for this and he seems to accept that as acceptable just not ideal.</ref>
 # Some say that the issue of natan seah vnatal seah is solved by having water flow into the mikveh and flow out since it isn’t similar to drawing water out with a vessel. Other disagree.<ref>
 Why is natan seah vnatal seah an issue? Bet Yosef 201:24 explains that the Rambam held that such a mikveh is invalid lest someone seeing this thinks that one can use a completely drawn mikveh. This is supported by the Ramban (Bava Batra 65b s.v. v’iy kasha) and Ran (Bava Batra 66b s.v. leolam). Ran writes that it is only an issue of marit ayin, but the fundamentally it is fine if the rain water depletes. The Divrei Chaim 201:20 argues that the Raavad held it is an invalidation since the original rainwater must remain at all times. Certain leniencies can be extrapolated from the Bet Yosef since the concern is only of onlookers. See Chatom Sofer 214. Har Tzvi 176 held like the Bet Yosef. Chelkat Binyamin 201:377 writes that Bet Yosef’s explanation is primary. Gidulei Tahara 26 writes that it is biblically invalid. Shevet Halevi 4:121 argues that it is only a rabbinic issue even according to the Raavad. Maharsham 1:135 agrees.
 * Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 disagrees with the Chatom Sofer. He writes that natan seah and natal seah isn’t necessarily solved with putting in water through a pipe and having it flow out since it doesn’t look like it isn’t leaving. Firstly, it could be that the gezerah was in all cases and secondly, according to the Raavad it is problem intrinsically of removing the original rainwater.</ref>
-# Some say that the issue of natan seah vnatal seah is solved by having water move along the ground for 3 tefachim before it enters the mikveh.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 writes that one can use hamshacha even initially to pour water into a mikveh and even if water will flow out that wouldn’t be considered natan seah vnatal seah at all since hamshacha converts the water.</ref>
+# Some say that the issue of natan seah vnatal seah is solved by having water flow along the ground (''hamshacha'') for 3 tefachim before it enters the mikveh.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 1:111 and 1:119 writes that one can use hamshacha even initially to pour water into a mikveh and even if water will flow out that wouldn’t be considered natan seah vnatal seah at all since hamshacha converts the water. However, Raavad 1:5 and Tashbetz 1:17 and 3:12 are clear that hamshacha doesn't solve this issue of natan seah vnatal seah. Birkei Yosef 201:44 quotes the Tashbetz about this. Rav Moshe disagrees with Tashbetz and Birkei Yosef.</ref>
+# Some say that the issue of natan seah vnatal seah is solved by having a temporary hashaka.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:94, Divrei Chaim CM 1:37, Maharshag YD 65-66</ref> Others hold that this doesn't solve anything.<ref>Divrei Chayim (Mikvaot seif 20 in fnt. 20) writes that Raavad holds like Rabbenu Yerucham. Tzemech Tzedek (responsa 171), Rav Moshe Bick (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27), and Satmer Rebbe (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) agree.</ref>
+# Some say that the issue of natan seah vnatal seah is solved by pouring in hot water on top of cold water and only removing the hot water from on top.<ref>Chatom Sofer YD 214</ref>
 ===Snow and Ice===
@@ Line 307: / Line 346: @@
 * Does the fact that it is drawn invalid it? The Rosh Mikvaot n. 18 and Raavad p. 109 say that it doesn’t invalidate as drawn water since it isn’t water when it was drawn.
 * Can a complete mikveh be made of snow? The Rambam Mikvaot 7:3, Rosh, and Tur 201:30 hold that it is possible to make a complete mikveh of snow. However, Rashi Sukkot 19b and Raavad hold that it can’t be used to create a complete mikveh but only to add to a mikveh with a majority of kosher water. Shulchan Aruch 201:30 only quotes the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh that the snow can be used to create a complete mikveh. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Shach 201:71) mentions that the Raavad argues.</ref>
-# In extenuating circumstances it is possible to create a mikveh by freezing tap water, placing it in a mikveh, and having it melt. This should not be relied upon without consulting a great posek.<ref>Chatom Sofer 200 holds that it is possible to create an entire mikveh from ice that was melted. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 319 is lenient to allow freezing tap water and creating a mikveh that way if there’s no other available option to make a mikveh with rain.</ref>
+# In extenuating circumstances, it is possible to create a mikveh by freezing tap water, placing it in a mikveh, and having it melt. This should not be relied upon without consulting a great posek.<ref>Chatom Sofer 200 holds that it is possible to create an entire mikveh from ice that was melted. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 319 is lenient to allow freezing tap water and creating a mikveh that way if there’s no other available option to make a mikveh with rain.</ref>
-# Using an ice machine to create ice is a discussion in the poskim.<ref>Imrei Yosher 1:148 argues that one shouldn’t use machine made ice for a mikveh for several reasons: 1) According to the first explanation of the Smag you can’t use ice that melts that once was sheuvim unless you also add 40 seah afterwards. Even though the Shach holds like the second explanation of the Smag, the Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla are strict. 2) According to the Tzlach you can’t use water for a mikveh if the water is tameh even if it isn't carried with a kli that has tumah and we’re all tameh today. 3) perhaps the machine making ice is considered tefisat yaday adam. Even though according to the Raavad there’s no issue of sheuvim, we’re concerned for the Baal Hameor also (Chatom Sofer 200). Even though perhaps the Baal Hameor is only strict for snow but not ice but still it isn’t clear he’d allow sheuvim of ice if it was put in a vessel after it was frozen. 4) One version of the Raavad and the Sefer Eshkol held that you can’t ice that melts for a mikveh. Even though it isn’t accepted we should be concerned when anyway there’s reason to be strict.</ref>
+# Using an ice machine to create ice is a discussion in the poskim. Some hold it is invalid even after the fact,<ref>Rav Elyashiv (Ashrei Haish YD 35:1) and Satmer rebbe (Shevet Halevi 8:204) hold that one cannot make a mikveh using an ice machine. Imrei Yosher 1:148 argues that one shouldn’t use machine made ice for a mikveh for several reasons: 1) According to the first explanation of the Smag you can’t use ice that melts that once was sheuvim unless you also add 40 seah afterwards. Even though the Shach holds like the second explanation of the Smag, the Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla are strict. 2) According to the Tzlach you can’t use water for a mikveh if the water is tameh even if it isn't carried with a kli that has tumah and we’re all tameh today. 3) perhaps the machine making ice is considered tefisat yaday adam. Even though according to the Raavad there’s no issue of sheuvim, we’re concerned for the Baal Hameor also (Chatom Sofer 200). Even though perhaps the Baal Hameor is only strict for snow but not ice but still it isn’t clear he’d allow sheuvim of ice if it was put in a vessel after it was frozen. 4) One version of the Raavad and the Sefer Eshkol held that you can’t ice that melts for a mikveh. Even though it isn’t accepted we should be concerned when anyway there’s reason to be strict.</ref> however, others hold it is acceptable in an extenuating circumstance.<ref>Rav Ovadia Yosef (Taharat Habayit v. 3 pp. 318-336) writes that in extenuating circumstances it is permissible to make a mikveh from ice made in an ice machine. He quotes that this is also the view of Rav Kook (Daat Kohen 94) and Ben Ish Chai (Rav Poalim YD 2:24). This is also the view of Rav Chaim Ozer (Achiezer 3:33:2, 4:39). Fundamentally, this is dependent on the two views in rishonim in understanding the Tosefta (Taharot 2:3) that a mikveh which was sheuvim and froze and then melts is considered sheuvim. Rosh understands that it isn't sheuvim at all and is kosher as a mikveh. Smag, however, quotes one opinion who holds that it doesn't invalidate the mikveh as sheuvim but is still not kosher unless there's 40 seah of rainwater afterwards. Rav Ovadia is lenient to follow Rosh, because that is the view of Shulchan Aruch, Rama (Darkei Moshe), Shach (201:74) and others. Even though Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla hold like Smag, Rav Ovadia is lenient like most poskim. He cites Levush Mordechai 25 as holding that a mikveh made from an ice machine is invalid since the water was sheuvim before it became ice. Rav Ovadia cites Shevet Halevi 2:102 and Yaskil Avdi YD 2:34 as holding like the lenient view. Chazon Ish (Tinyana 6:3) writes that it is hard to be lenient on this question. Igrot Moshe 1:120 does not offer an opinion on this question. Shevet Halevi 8:204 and Mikveh Mayim (v. 1 p. 198) hold that a mikveh made with an ice machine is kosher. Shevet Halevi only allows on condition that the ice is brought in kelim with holes in them and also there's hamshacha after the ice is made. </ref>
 # Moving snow with something that is susceptible to tumah isn’t an issue.<ref>Chatom Sofer 1:200 explains that there’s no issue of hava al yaday tumah for snow since it isn’t mekabel tumah. He says that the basis for all of mikvaot is that the water of the mikveh is tahor and automatically remains tahor as long it is connected to the ground. Because it is tahor and stays tahor it can purify other things as well. </ref>
@@ Line 331: / Line 370: @@
 * The Brisker Rav (Chidushei HaGriz Temurah 12a s.v. vheneh) writes that those who held that you need 3 tefachim is because sheuvim is only rabbinic and it needs to be separated from a kli. However, those who held that you need ground that is water penetrable could hold that sheuvim is deoritta and it doesn’t need to be 3 tefachim. </ref>
 # Whether hamshacha must be done on top of dirt or can be done on top of a kli attached to the ground is a dispute.<ref>The Mikveh Yisrael explains that there’s a dispute between the Raavad and Rambam whether the water needs to come into contact with the ground or even a vessel that is attached to the ground or even a vessel that isn’t susceptible to tumah is sufficient. Shevet Halevi 4:120 argues that there’s no dispute but any vessel that has a receptacle isn’t fit for hamshacha even if it isn’t susceptible to tumah. Shevet Halevi 4:120 explains that the water needs to actually come in contact with the ground and if the water is gushing quickly over the ground most of it doesn’t have hamshacha.</ref>
-# Cement absorbs water and is fit for hamshacha.<ref>Maharshag 1:65 citing experts writes that cement is water penetrable. Chelkat Binyamin 201:668 writes that the poskim hold cement works for hamshacha. Minchat Yitzchak 1:142 agrees with maharshag about cement. However, the Divrei Yatziv 117 writes that it is preferable not to use cement since some question if it can absorb water. Mishneh Halachot 16:49 cites this.</ref>
+# Cement absorbs water and is fit for hamshacha.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1278&st=&pgnum=259 Maharshag 1:65] citing experts writes that cement is water penetrable. Chazon Ish (Likkutim 3:1) agrees. Chelkat Binyamin 201:668 writes that the poskim hold cement works for hamshacha. Minchat Yitzchak 1:142 agrees with Maharshag about cement. However, the Divrei Yatziv 117 writes that it is preferable not to use cement since some question if it can absorb water (see Darkei Teshuva 201:206, 215). Mishneh Halachot 16:49 cites this. Pitchei Mikvaot (ch. 6 fnt. 4) quotes Cheshev Haefod who questions that cement should actually be considered absorbent. His reason is that the factor behind being absorbent is that hamshacha makes the water like the water leached from the ground, however, that isn't the case regarding cement. Also, he raises the issue that hamshacha should have to be upon dirt that is connected to the earth and water could leach out of and not dirt on top of something that can't absorb water. For example, a hamshacha ramp on the second floor of a building, even if it is all connected to the ground still isn't fit for this criteria of being ground that is absorbent. Cheshev Haefod concludes that since we only use hamshacha as a chumra today it is fine to use cement and fine to use it even on a second floor. Mikveh Mayim (R' Yirmiyahu Katz) writes that some cements absorb water and some do not. Maharshag 66 notes that even though stones can also absorb, albeit very slowly, they can invalid for hamschach according to Mordechai and Rama. Nonetheless, Maharshag claims that water gets absorbed faster in cement than in stone. [Note that Mordechai and Rama also invalidate wood because it doesn't absorb quickly.]</ref>
 # A spring that filled up a mikveh and during the summer it dried out, if a nearby pit is filled up with water and that water drained into the ground and the spring is filled up with that water from the pit the spring can be used as a kosher mikveh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:47. The Rosh responsa 31:11 is lenient about a spring that was refilled with water from a nearby pit since the water in the pit that was absorbed in the ground would certainly be met up with a greater quantity of natural spring water and as such there is hamshacha with a majority of spring water. Also, the spring isn’t invalidated with drawn water. So even though it appears to have dried up it couldn’t completely dry up. Shach and Taz are lenient for Ashkenazim even they wouldn’t hold of the second reason of the Rosh.</ref>
@@ Line 338: / Line 377: @@
 ==Hashaka==
-# It is possible to validate an entire pit of drawn water by connecting with a mikveh momentarily,<ref>Rashba, Rosh, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52</ref> however, some say that the connection needs to remain open for the drawn water to remain fit.<ref>Rabbenu Yerucham cites a dispute. Shach 201:112 writes that it is good to be strict. Chatom Sofer YD 212 writes that the mikveh in his town for many years built by established rabbis relied on the opinions that a momentary connection is sufficient. </ref>
+# It is possible to validate an entire pit of drawn water by connecting with a mikveh momentarily,<ref>Rashba, Rosh, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52</ref> however, some say that the connection needs to remain open for the drawn water to remain fit.<ref>Rabbenu Yerucham cites a dispute. Shach 201:112 writes that it is good to be strict. Chatom Sofer YD 212 writes that the mikveh in his town for many years built by established rabbis relied on the opinions that a momentary connection is sufficient. Gidulei Tahara 10 holds that temporary hashaka is very problematic and shouldn't be relied on even after the fact. He infers from Rash, Rambam, and Raavad that they hold it is invalid. Kehilat Yakov (Macot siman 5) shows that Rashi holds that temporary hashaka doesn't work. Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 clearly implies like Rosh that temporary hashaka works. Bet Efraim YD 53 suggests that those who are strict explain that the mishna is based on bitul and not hashaka. Bet Shlomo 2:63 suggests that the mishna means that the waters are only temporarily kosher, for example, if people went into the pits again. This explanation is found in Rivash 294.   </ref> There is a minority opinion that hashaka doesn't work at all for sheuvim,<ref>Tosfot Rid 15 s.v. vehachaver Ri. Bedek Habayit 201:29 seems to understand Rambam to hold that hashaka is invalid to purify sheuvim water. </ref> but it is completely rejected from the halacha.<ref>Rosh Bava Kama 7, Ramban Bava Batra 65b</ref>
-# According to some poskim one can’t add sheuvim water to a mikveh which has 40 seah but is very shallow so that a person couldn’t go to the mikveh in it. According to these poskim until the mikveh is fit to dip in one shouldn’t add sheuvim.<ref>The Raah (Bedek Habayit Bayit 7 Shaar 7) writes that since the water in the mikveh is shallow and one couldn’t go to the mikveh in it, adding sheuvim would invalidate it. However, the Rashba in Mishmeret Habayit argues. Ginat Veradim YD 4:1 and Shiurei Bracha 201:15 are lenient. Chatom Sofer YD 212 and Maharam Shik YD 192 are concerned for the Raah. Emek Sheilah 48 writes that the Taz on 66 agrees to it. Chelkat Binyamin 201:896 is strict. Chelkat Binyamin 201:750 is strict whether it is a hashaka or a zeriya of sheuvim to a shallow water mikveh.</ref>
+# According to some poskim, one can’t add sheuvim water to a mikveh which has 40 seah but is very shallow so that a person couldn’t go to the mikveh in it. According to these poskim until the mikveh is fit to dip in one shouldn’t add sheuvim.<ref>The Raah (Bedek Habayit Bayit 7 Shaar 7) writes that since the water in the mikveh is shallow and one couldn’t go to the mikveh in it, adding sheuvim would invalidate it. However, the Rashba in Mishmeret Habayit argues. Ginat Veradim YD 4:1 and Shiurei Bracha 201:15 are lenient. Chatom Sofer YD 212 and Maharam Shik YD 192 are concerned for the Raah. Emek Sheilah 48 writes that the Taz on 66 agrees to it. Chelkat Binyamin 201:896 is strict. Chelkat Binyamin 201:750 is strict whether it is a hashaka or a zeriya of sheuvim to a shallow water mikveh. Chatom Sofer 212 and Maharam Shik are strict even for a mayan that's shallow but Chelkat Binyamin (Tziyunim 2857) quotes Mahari Asad who is lenient for a mayan. Lechem 201:251 writes that to accommodate the Raah they should use hamshacha. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8159&st=&pgnum=169 Taharat Yisrael] 201:66 agrees.</ref>
 ===Size of Hashaka Hole===
-# According to Ashkenazim, the connection between the rainwater pit and sheuvim pit has to be a hole that has a diameter of 2 fingerbreadths, while according to Sephardim a hole of any size would suffice.<ref>Rash (Taharot 8:9), Meiri (Mikvaot 6:1) quoting Rash, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52. Teshuvat Rid 15 s.v. vehachaver writes that a connection of two fingerbreadths is insufficient for converting drawn water to be usable. It is only for connecting two incomplete mikvaot is it sufficient. He says even though he understands why it should work there’s no clear proof that is the case. Shevet Halevi 4:121:2 writes that is implausible to suggest that the Raavad held that hashaka doesn’t work for drawn water because it is against all of the rishonim.</ref> That is for hashaka to sheuvim. However, in order to join two pits, both of which aren't 40 seah, or one which is 40 seah and one that isn't, it is certainly necessary to have a hole with a diameter of 2 fingerbreadths.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 6:7, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52</ref>
+# According to Ashkenazim, the connection between the rainwater pit and sheuvim pit has to be a hole that has a diameter of 2 fingerbreadths that can turn around, while according to Sephardim a hole of any size would suffice.<ref>Rash (Taharot 8:9), Meiri (Mikvaot 6:1) quoting Rash, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52. Teshuvat Rid 15 s.v. vehachaver writes that a connection of two fingerbreadths is insufficient for converting drawn water to be usable. It is only for connecting two incomplete mikvaot is it sufficient. He says even though he understands why it should work there’s no clear proof that is the case. Shevet Halevi 4:121:2 writes that is implausible to suggest that the Raavad held that hashaka doesn’t work for drawn water because it is against all of the rishonim.
+Beis Yosef 201:53 and Darkei Moshe note that although Rash writes that for sheuvim derabbanan a hole that's of any size is sufficient, but Rosh and Rambam hold that shifoferet hanod is always necessary. Rama quotes this stringent opinion of Rosh and Rambam. Bach explains that Rosh holds shifoferet hanod is necessary even for a case of sheuvim derabbanan. If so, there's a reason never to use a hole that's smaller than a shifoferet hanod. However, Shach argues that even Rosh and Rama agree that for sheuvim derabbanan it is sufficient to have a hole that's any size. Simla 201:98 and Gidulei Tahara 201:42 disagree with Shach and maintain that Rosh and Rambam insistent on a hole of shifoferet hanod in all cases of sheuvim. According to Bach, Simla, and Gidulei Tahara one shouldn't use a hole smaller than shifoferet hanod for anything. This is supported by Rosh's comment on Mikvaot 6:8 and Tosfot Harosh Gittin 16a. However, see Minchat Yitzchak 1:147:9 citing Satmer Rebbe and Chelkat Yakov YD 112 who do use holes of any size for sheuvim derabbanan issues, like Shach. </ref> That is for hashaka to sheuvim. However, in order to join two pits, both of which aren't 40 seah, or one which is 40 seah and one that isn't, it is certainly necessary to have a hole with a diameter of 2 fingerbreadths.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 6:7, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52</ref>
 # The 2 fingerbreadths are measured by the middle fingers and not the thumb or pinky.<ref>Rash (Mikvaot 6:7)</ref>
@@ Line 353: / Line 394: @@
 # If the hole might be the size of a shifoferet hanod but it is unclear it is an invalid connection between mikvaot.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 6:7 writes that a hole that isn’t clearly a shifoferet hanod is invalid because the size of a shifoferet hanod is biblical. Shulchan Aruch 201:52 codifies this.</ref>
 # If there’s something blocking the transference of water stuck in the hole it is invalid.<ref> The Mishna Mikvaot 6:7 establishes that if there’s something in the hole even something that grows in the water it would restrict using the hole to connect the mikvaot. Rambam Mikvaot 6:11 and Shulchan Aruch 201:52 codify this.</ref>
-#  A lot of small holes don’t add up to be one hole that would connect mikvaot.<ref>Chagiga 22a implies that small holes do add up to constitute one large hole of a shifoferet hanod. The Mordechai Shevuot n. 646, however, explains that the holes only don’t add up to connect incomplete mikvaot but they can add up to validate drawn water. Shulchan Aruch 201:52 codifies the Mordechai, but the Pitchei Teshuva 201:38 quotes the Chacham Tzvi 40 and Levushei Sarad 206 who disagree. </ref>
+#  A lot of small holes don’t add up to be one hole that would connect mikvaot.<ref>The Gemara Chagiga 22a implies that small holes do add up to constitute one large hole of a shifoferet hanod. Ravyah 988 and Mordechai Shevuot n. 646, however, explain that the holes only don’t add up to connect incomplete mikvaot but they can add up to validate drawn water. Shulchan Aruch and Rama Y.D. 201:52 codify the Mordechai, Chacham Tzvi 40, [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9382&st=&pgnum=798 Levushei Sarad 206], Dagul Mirvava 201:53 and Mishkenaot Yaakov 45 disagree with Ravyah. Levushei Sarad proves from Rashi (Chagiga 22a), Rash (Mikvaot 6:8), Ri, and Rosh disagree with Ravyah.  </ref>
 #  A connection between drawn water and a mayan also requires a shifiret hanod.<ref>Rash and Rosh (Mikvaot 5:2), Chelkat Binyamin 201:173. Bet Yosef 201:9 infers from Rambam, Rosh, and Tur that they hold this as well. However, Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 3) holds that a hashaka to a mayan can be accomplished with a connection of any amount. However, Rashba (teshuva 3:228) also assumes shifoferet hanod is necessary for hashaka with a mayan. Chazon Ish (Tinyanya 3:3) questions why we don't pasken like this Rashba since there's a tosefta that supports his opinion.</ref>
@@ Line 364: / Line 405: @@
 *Chazon Ish (Tinanya 8:1) holds that a zochlin mikveh is invalid and cannot create hashaka to purify sheuvim. His proof is from the concept of mey tamsiyot shelo pasku. He understands from Raavad that it requires a reviyit to be kosher and therefore it needs the status of a mikveh which is stationary for hashaka to be operative. He reiterates his opinion in Kama 3:12 and Tinyanya 3:12. Chazon Ish 3 is strict and suggests either having the zeriya hole above where the water enters or having a plug. Additionally, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:96 is strict based on the Maharit 2:18. Mishneh Halachot 10:156 is strict. He quotes Maharam Shik 198 who is also strict.
 *Chelkat Yakov 111 is strict but it isn’t an issue if a little water at the end comes in while it is moving since a majority of mikveh was already kosher with standing zeriya.</ref>
+# Seemingly, the Mishna (Mikvaot 6:8) is a clear proof that zochlin can make zeriya for sheuvim water. There, a person is pouring in sheuvim water into a kosher mikveh and the water overflows into another mikveh. The mishna says that the bottom mikveh is kosher. The top mikveh is zochlin as it is overflowing but still it creates zeriya. Har Tzvi (YD 174) answers that the case of the Mishna is where after he made the water overflow he added a pipe for hashaka. Chazon Ish (Tanina 3:12) tries to answer that the case is where he pours the sheuvim in with a lot of strength so that all of the sheuvim remains in the top mikveh and the only thing that overflows is the kosher water.
 ===Hashaka between Shuevim or Mey Geshamim and a Mayan===
@@ Line 400: / Line 442: @@
 #Some say that if water is in a pipe that is on a slant connecting two mikvaot that isn't katafras because the top water will eventually end up in the bottom mikvah.<Ref>The Mishna (Mikvaot 6:8) allows connecting two mikvaot one above the other on a mountain with a pipe. Why isn't that katafras? Rash answers that katafras isn't a problem for sheuvim. Tosfot Yom Tov (Mikvaot 6:8) based on Tosfot Gittin 16a answers that since the water will definitely flow from the upper mikvah to the bottom one it isn't katafras.</reF>
+=== Connecting Pits of Water into One Mikveh ===
+# If there are three pits of twenty seah each, the middle one filled with drawn water and the others rainwater, and three people dip in these pits so that they overflow and connect, they are just as unfit as they were beforehand.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 states that if there are three pits of twenty seah each and the drawn water one is in the middle and three people go in the mikveh the pits are just as unfit as they were beforehand. The Rosh and Rash explain that drawn water doesn’t invalidate the others since it entered through hamshacha and there was a majority of rainwater in the pit in which it fell into. Yet, they aren’t valid since the two pits of rainwater didn’t connect. Shulchan Aruch 201:55 codifies this mishna. Shach 201:121 quotes the Rosh. Taz 201:69 adds another reason to be lenient in that he explains that the water isn’t going to completely move from one pit to another.</ref>
+# There are three pits on a slope, the with twenty seah, the bottom with twenty seah, and the middle with forty seah. If there is water streaming between them, according to some rishonim we say that the bottom one is connected with the middle one, while the halacha follows the rishonim who say that only the middle pit is valid.<ref> The Tosefta Mikvaot 3:4 describes a case of three pits on a hill with the middle one being a complete mikveh and the one and top bottom being incomplete mikvaot. If there’s a stream of rainwater connecting the pits, Rabbi Meir validates the top pit, Rabbi Yosi the bottom one, and the rabbis just the middle one. Rambam Mikvaot 8:8 follows the rabbis that there's never a connection of katafras even with the principles of gud achit or gud asik. Tosfot Gittin 16a s.v. hanisok, Mordechai Shevuot n. 746, and Darkei Moshe 201:6 hold that katafras can be a connection together with gud achit. (Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 and Tur 201:62 might support this opinion.) Shulchan Aruch 201:60 codifies the Rambam.</ref>
+# If there are three pits of twenty seah each, one side one filled with drawn water and the others rainwater, and three people dip in these pits so that they overflow and connect, they are all considered fit since they combine together when the people went inside and the two pits of rainwater connected.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 establishes that if there are three pits of twenty seah each and the drawn water is on the side and three people dipped in the pits which overflowed they are all valid. The Rosh and Rash explain that since the rainwater pits connect there was a complete mikveh and all of the drawn water can’t invalidate it. In fact the drawn water becomes valid with a momentary hashaka. The Rosh and Rash explain that we’re not concerned that the drawn water entered one of the rainwater pits before the rainwater pits connected since it would only invalidate it if all of the twenty seah of drawn water preceded any of the rainwater. Otherwise the drawn water is purified with hamshacha as it is drawn along the ground into the other pits and nullified in its minority by the rainwater pit. Shulchan Aruch 201:55 codifies this mishna.</ref> Practically, each pit of twenty seah isn’t fit until another twenty seah is added because a complete mikveh is forty seah.<ref>Shach 201:120, Taz 201:67</ref>
+# If there are two pits of twenty seah, one with drawn water, one with rainwater and they connect they remain as they were beforehand.<ref>Tosefta Mikvaot 3:5, Rash Mikvaot 6:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:56</ref>
+# A mikveh on top of a mikveh can be joined to be one mikveh if there is a hole the size of two fingerbreadths in diameter between them.<ref>The Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 6:1 explains that a mikveh on top of a cavity that contains water if the wall between the two is sturdy they are only connected if there’s a hole between the two with a diameter of two fingerbreadths. However, if the wall is so thin that it would collapse if a person would dip in the mikveh the cavity is connected to the mikveh as long as there’s a tiny hole between the mikveh and the cavity. The Shulchan Aruch 201:59 codifies the general idea of the mishna.</ref>
 ==Tevilah in and on a Kli==
 # One may not go to mikveh in a kli and that is invalid biblically.<ref>Tosfot Pesachim 17b s.v. elah</ref>
 # Biblically one may not dip in a vessel.<ref>Torat Kohanim 9, Rash (Mikvaot 2:3), Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. shani), Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:6, Gra 201:29</ref>
-# A moving mikveh on the back of a truck is questionable.<ref>Divrei Yosef Mikvaot p. 60 discusses the topic and points out that even if it isn’t a vessel it still isn’t considered as though one is immersing in water attached to the ground which the Torat Kohanim requires. (Bet Yosef 201:8 quotes the Mordechai Shavuot n. 745 and Roke’ach n. 377 who write that the mikveh made in a kli is invalid even if it is in a boat or is larger than 40 seah.) He is disputing the Mekor Niftach ch. 4 who permits it. Rambam and Shulchan Aruch 201:7 implies that even if a mikveh is detached from the ground but built with rocks it is kosher. </ref>
+# A moving mikveh on the back of a truck is questionable.<ref>Divrei Yosef Mikvaot p. 60 discusses the topic and points out that even if it isn’t a vessel it still isn’t considered as though one is immersing in water attached to the ground which the Torat Kohanim requires. (Bet Yosef 201:8 quotes the Mordechai Shavuot n. 745 and Roke’ach n. 377 who write that the mikveh made in a kli is invalid even if it is in a boat or is larger than 40 seah.) He is disputing the Mekor Niftach ch. 4 who permits it. Rambam and Shulchan Aruch 201:7 implies that even if a mikveh is detached from the ground but built with rocks it is kosher. Rav Moshe Bick and Helmetzer (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) wrote that it is impossible to make a moveable mikveh. </ref>
 ===A vessel attached to the ground with and without a hole===
 # If the vessel attached to the ground and is connected to a mikveh or mayan through a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths it is biblically considered connected to the mikveh or mayan, but nonetheless rabbinically one may not dip in such a vessel.<ref>The Rash (Mikvaot 5:2 cited by Bet Yosef 198:31) writes that since the vessel is attached to the mikveh or mayan with a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths it is biblically fit and considered a mayan or mikveh and not water of a vessel, however, since one is still dipping in a vessel there is a rabbinic restriction lest one come to dip in a vessel that isn’t attached to the mikveh. That is also the opinion of the Rosh Mikvaot no. 9 and Rambam Mikvaot 9:10. However, see the Ritva Macot 4a suggests that perhaps if the mikveh or mayan would have 40 seah it would indeed make the vessel fit. Finally, the Raah cited by the Ritva holds that a vessel that is attached to a mayan isn’t considered attached since mayan water is moving and the water in the vessel is static. The size of the connection of a vessel to a mikveh requiring a diameter of two fingerbreadths is based on the Gemara Yevamot 15a.
@@ Line 443: / Line 491: @@
 # One may not go to mikveh standing on top of a kli. <ref>Raavad Baalei Hanefesh siman 1 writes that a woman may not go to mikveh on top of a kli that is mekabel tumah. She can go on top of a kli cheres since it does't have tumah on its backside. Mishna Mikvaot 5:2 states that mayan water that goes into or over a kli is unfit for a mikveh. The Raavad explains that this is based on a prohibition lest a person go to mikveh in a kli. Rashba Torat Habayit Hakatzar 30a and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 198 agree. Ran Shevuot 6b s.v. isha cites the Raavad. Similarly, the Rash Mikvaot 5:2 limits the issue of going to mikveh in a kli to where the kli is attached to ground because it might be used as an unfit mikveh but if it is detached from the ground there's no restriction. The Bet Yosef understands the Rosh Mikvaot 9 as disagreeing with this idea.
 * However, the Rosh Mikvaot 32 and Rambam Mikvaot 1:11 don't mention this restriction of the Raavad. They might have understood the mishna differently. Bet Yosef 198:31 explains the Rambam that a mikveh is only unfit if in the creation of the mikveh all of the water went over a kli on its way to the mikveh whether that kli has a receptacle or not. Rabbinically it is invalid to go to the mikveh over a kli even if it doesn't have a receptacle and even that water after it has come out of that kli is only a mikveh and not a mayan. But going to mikveh on top of a kli in the mikveh is fit. Alternatively, the restriction was only for a kli without a receptacle but an overturned kli with a receptacle is permitted since it is evident that it isn't being used for a mikveh. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 198:31 rules like the Raavad.</ref>
+=== Building a Mikveh so It Isn’t a Vessel ===
+# Reinforced concrete with metal rods in the cement is a discussion in the poskim if it is acceptable.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 147 citing Minchat Yitzchak 2:22, 4:41. However, Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 228 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein as permitting having metal rods in the cement.</ref>
+# It is permitted to make a mikveh with stones that are attached to the ground isn’t considered a vessel even though the complete mikveh could hold water.<ref>Tzemech Tzedek 172 explains that any mikveh with walls and a floor that are all attached to the ground which couldn’t be picked up in one piece isn’t considered a vessel. He explains that otherwise every mikveh would be invalid according to the Nodeh Beyehuda who holds that a vessel which was created in material which was already attached to the ground is invalid to dip inside of. Rather the entire structure of the mikveh isn’t considered a vessel since it couldn’t be lifted up in one piece.</ref>
+# Making a mikveh with cement is acceptable. Even though it is appears to be one unit after it dries as though it was a vessel, it is considered building a structure and not creating a vessel. Also, the cement frame can’t be lifted up as a unit like a vessel.<ref>*According to the Chatom Sofer if you create a vessel while is attached to the ground it is considered a kosher mikveh. However, according to Rabbi Akiva Eiger if it is a vessel even though it was created while it is attached the ground it isn’t a vessel for sheuvim but it is a vessel to disallow dipping in it as a mikveh. According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger how can you build a mikveh? Shouldn’t the plastering or cementing of the rocks together be considered creating a vessel attached to the ground?
+*Bet Shlomo 2:70 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 2:13 hold that it isn’t considered a vessel when the pieces are being built into the ground and come together. That is considered building a structure and not a vessel. Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 writes that the Nodeh Beyehuda 2:142 s.v. vod and Divrei Chaim 201:36 agree.
+*Similarly, Igrot Moshe YD 1:108 writes that making a mikveh with cement isn’t considered a vessel because it couldn’t be picked up as a vessel and would fall apart. He continues that it is only an issue if it is considered by people to be a vessel created when it was attached just like it is a detached vessel. But since the cement mikveh people don’t see it as a vessel but as a structure it isn’t an issue at all. He explains that even if the cement is painted and decorated it is still permitted since because know it is a mikveh and not a vessel.
+*Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 is lenient. The Darkei Teshuva 201:206 quotes many achronim who hold that using cement to hold rocks together to create a mikveh doesn’t invalidate the mikveh since that is the normal way to build a building and not the way to create a vessel. Maharsham 1:35 and 1:145 is hesitant to be lenient since the cement holds the rocks together and forms it as a vessel which is invalid for a mikveh. Maharsham 2:102 is lenient if there’s no other option since the cement can’t be removed and it is therefore considered a building and not a vessel.</ref>
+# A complete vessel such as a bathtub which was a vessel before it was attached to the ground is an invalid mikveh.<ref>Rama 201:7. Depends on the discussion of pipes meant to be attached to the ground.</ref>
+# A mikveh made of pre-made cement slabs, one per wall and one for the floor, is questionable.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:95 writes that if a mikveh is made with cement pieces that were one slab per wall and one for the floor it would be invalid. He explains that the Rashba 1:800 and Rama 201:7 who write that if the mikveh is made from multiple rocks it is valid is only if it is made of multiple rocks while it is attached to the ground and there needs to be multiple rocks for each wall and not a single slab. Hesitantly he suggests that the wall is similar to a vessel since it is a single item that is a significant piece of the complete mikveh and takes on the status of a mikveh even though it is only a one wall. Chelkat Binyamin 201:145 agrees.</ref>
+# Some mikvaot are made by starting with a cement floor. Then a cement piece with four walls and a divider is placed on top of the floor to establish the mikveh with a hashaka mikveh. Some poskim are weary of using such a mikveh, while others are lenient.<ref>Rav Chaim Kalman Gutman in Ginat Veradim 3:25 p. 66 writes that a mikveh made by placing a cement floor
+and piece of cement with the four walls added on top is problematic. Firstly, it is considered a vessel since it is just two stones attached together and not many stones. Even though it couldn’t be picked up by a person it is considered a vessel since it was designed to be built that way. Rav Avraham Schreiber in Ginat Veradim 9:2 p. 258 argues that it isn't considered a vessel according to all of the poskim. According to the Tzemech Tzedek 172, it isn't a vessel since it couldn't be lifted as one piece. According to the Maharsham, a connection of rocks can't form a vessel. According many others, it was made in the way of building a structure and not a vessel.</ref>
 ==A Colored Mikveh==
-# A mikveh whose water changed colors from the original look of the water even if it doesn’t look like wine or another liquid<ref>The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&pgnum=111 Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111] writes that the mikveh is invalid as long as the water changes colors from what its original appearance even if it doesn’t look like wine. Shach 201:66 agrees.</ref> is invalid. There is a dispute whether this invalidation is rabbinic or biblical.<ref>The Torat Kohanim Shemini 9:4 cited by Bet Yosef 201:30 learns from a pasuk that a colored mikveh is invalid. Chelkat Binyamin 201:391 cites a dispute between the Raavad and Ramban, Rashba, and Ritva whether it is a rabbinic or biblical invalidation respectively. Igrot Moshe 120:8 s.v. vayin holds it is biblical. Chazon Ish 5:12 holds it is rabbinic. </ref>
+=== From the Torah or Rabbinic ===
+# A mikveh whose water changed colors from the original look of the water even if it doesn’t look like wine or another liquid<ref>The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&pgnum=111 Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111] writes that the mikveh is invalid as long as the water changes colors from what its original appearance even if it doesn’t look like wine. Shach 201:66 agrees.</ref> is invalid. There is a dispute whether this invalidation is rabbinic or biblical.<ref>The Torat Kohanim Shemini 9:4 cited by Bet Yosef 201:30 learns from a pasuk that a colored mikveh is invalid. Chelkat Binyamin 201:391 cites a dispute between the Raavad and Ramban, Rashba, and Ritva whether it is a rabbinic or biblical invalidation respectively. Raavad ([https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=14483#p=110&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Shaar Hamayim 2]) and Rashba hold it is only rabbinic. Mishkenot Yakov 45 and Igrot Moshe 120:8 s.v. vayin hold it is biblical. Chazon Ish 5:12 holds it is rabbinic. Divrei Chayim YD 2:102 quotes Mabit and Tosfot Yom Tov who hold it is biblical. </ref>
+=== What Types of Color Changes Invalidate a Mikveh? ===
+# A mikveh that changed colors on its own is valid.<ref>Rambam Mikavot 7:12, Shulchan Aruch 201:27</ref>
+# A colored mikveh is only invalid if the actual coloring agent is added to the mikveh such as wine or dye, but not if it is only colored because of something else such as colored or dirty water.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 201:27</ref>
+# A mikveh that was incomplete and wine was added so that the color of all of it changed then even if drawn water is then added it isn’t invalidated because of drawn water. The reason is that while it is a colored mikveh it isn't considered like a mikveh and drawn water doesn’t invalidate it. Afterwards, if more kosher water is added such that the whole mikveh returns to the original color it is fit.<ref>Raavad Mikvaot 7:12 based on Tosefta Mikvaot 5:8 writes that while the water was invalid because of having its color changed it can’t become invalid as drawn water since it isn’t considered water at all. Afterwards once more water is added and its original color returns it is fit. Rama 201:29 codifies the Raavad. </ref> If the  drawn water is added in order to change the mikveh back to the color of water, some say that it is invalid,<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 1:120:7 understands from Rama that the mikveh which isn't 40 seah and is discolored cannot be made valid with drawn water. Rama only meant that if drawn water is added and the mikveh remains discolored it is valid if later rain water is added.</ref> while others hold that it is kosher if more rainwater is added to complete the requisite 40 seah.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 201:434 based on [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14338&st=&pgnum=368 Chazon Ish (Kama 8:10)] and Gidulei Tahara. In Tziyunim 1401 he disagrees with Igrot Moshe. According to Chazon Ish, it is kosher even if the 3 lugin of drawn water is added and it turns back to the color of water before the mikveh reaches 40 seah it is kosher. Behind this dispute is that Igrot Moshe holds that a 40 seah mikveh of colored water creates hashaka, while Chazon Ish (Kama 8:9) argues that there's no hashaka to colored water.</ref>
+# Some poskim hold that a mikveh that is incomplete and invalidated because 3 lug or more of drawn water was added can be fixed as follows: wine is added so that the entire mikveh changes the look of wine, then more water is added until its original color returns. However, many poskim hold that this isn’t solution doesn’t work.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 201:432 cites a dispute between the Chazon Ish Mikvaot 5:13 and the Maharsham 3:11 whether it is possible to fix a mikveh by changing its color and then returning its color. The Maharsham held that it is possible to fix since once it turns into colored water the invalidation of drawn water doesn’t count and when its color returns it is a kosher mikveh. Bet Shlomo 1:171, Bet Yitzchak 2:41, and others agreed. However, the Chazon Ish held that the only time drawn water doesn’t invalidate a colored mikveh is if it colored the mikveh prior to the drawn water entering. However, once a mikveh is invalid because of drawn water it remains invalid.</ref> Even the lenient opinion can be relied upon if the original invalidation was only rabbinic and not biblical.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 201:432 writes that one can only use the solution of the Maharsham if the invalidation was rabbinic but if it is biblical it doesn’t work since the entire concept of having the waters change colors is only rabbinic to begin with according to many poskim.</ref>
+# It is permitted to add chlorine powder to a complete mikveh if it doesn’t change its color.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229), Mikveh Mayim p. 87</ref>
+# If part of the mikveh changed colors that area doesn’t count towards the mikveh, but if there’s 40 seah that is unchanged it is a kosher mikveh, if one dips in the area that didn’t change colors.<ref>Rambam Mikvaot 7:9, Shulchan Aruch 201:26</ref>
 # A colored mikveh is invalid even if the color changes after it has 40 seah.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 establishes that if the mikveh is 40 seah and its color changed it is invalid. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&pgnum=111 Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111] clarifies this point. Shulchan Aruch 201:25 agrees.</ref>
+# If water changed colors because of smoke from being heated up is invalid according to some poskim.<ref>Mishkenot Yakov 44 invalidates such water based on Gemara Sotah 15b. However, Pitchei Teshuva 201:19 disagrees and holds it is like water which changed colors by itself. </ref>
+=== Fixing a Colored Mikveh ===
 # A colored mikveh can be fixed by having it connected to a spring.<ref>Rashba Shaar Hamayim 11 cited by Bet Yosef 201:28, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:28</ref>
 # A colored mikveh can be fixed by having more water added to it to change its color back to regular water. If the mikveh has 40 seah the water added can even be drawn water.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 states that a mikveh that has 40 seah and its water changed colors is invalid unless water is added and that water can even be drawn. The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&pgnum=111 Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111], Rambam Mikvaot 7:9, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:25 agree.</ref>
-# A spring isn’t susceptible to the invalidation of having its water change colors.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 establishes that colored or dirty water doesn’t invalidate the mikveh because of a change of color. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&pgnum=111 Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111] explains that unless the actual coloring agent such as wine or dye is added to the mikveh it doesn’t invalidate it because of a change of color. Shulchan Aruch 201:27 generally accepts the Raavad. Shach 201:64 quotes the Raavad.</ref>
-# If part of the mikveh changed colors that area doesn’t count towards the mikveh but if there’s 40 seah that is unchanged it is a kosher mikveh if one dips in the area that didn’t change colors.<ref>Rambam Mikvaot 7:9, Shulchan Aruch 201:26</ref>
+=== A Colored Mayan ===
-# A mikveh that changed colors on its own is valid.<ref>Rambam Mikavot 7:12, Shulchan Aruch 201:27</ref>
-# A colored mikveh is only invalid if the actual coloring agent is added to the mikveh such as wine or dye, but not if it is only colored because of something else such as colored or dirty water.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 201:27</ref>
+# Many rishonim hold that a mayan cannot be invalidated with a change in color.<ref>Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 2:19), Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 11), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:28. The Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 establishes that colored or dirty water doesn’t invalidate the mikveh because of a change of color. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&pgnum=111 Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111] explains that unless the actual coloring agent such as wine or dye is added to the mikveh it doesn’t invalidate it because of a change of color. Shulchan Aruch 201:27 generally accepts the Raavad. Shach 201:64 quotes the Raavad. Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 5:12) writes that Raavad is only lenient because he thinks that a change in color is only a pasul derabbanan.</ref> However, others hold it is invalidated by a change in color.<ref>Tosfot Macot 4a s.v. amar, Rid 15 (cited by Biyurim Lrashba fnt. 244). This is also implied from Tosefta 5:9 that it is invalid. Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Raavad 2:19 notes this Tosfot. Mishkenot Yacov 45 argues with Raavad on the basis of Sotah 15b and Chullin 85a. Chelkat Binyamin says that most poskim accept Shulchan Aruch but we should be machmir for Mishkenot Yakov.</ref>
-# A mikveh that was incomplete and wine was added so that the color of all of it changed then even if drawn water is then added it isn’t invalidated because of drawn water because while it is invalid as a colored mikveh being drawn doesn’t invalidate it. Afterwards if more water is added such that the whole mikveh returns to the original color it is fit.<ref>Raavad Mikvaot 7:12 based on Tosefta Mikvaot 5:8 writes that while the water was invalid because of having its color changed it can’t become invalid as drawn water since it isn’t considered water at all. Afterwards once more water is added and its original color returns it is fit. Rama 201:29 codifies the Raavad.</ref>
-# Some poskim hold that a mikveh that is incomplete and invalidated because 3 lug or more of drawn water was added can be fixed as follows: wine is added so that the entire mikveh changes the look of wine, then more water is added until its original color returns. However, many poskim hold that this isn’t solution doesn’t work.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 201:432 cites a dispute between the Chazon Ish Mikvaot 5:13 and the Maharsham 3:11 whether it is possible to fix a mikveh by changing its color and then returning its color. The Maharsham held that it is possible to fix since once it turns into colored water the invalidation of drawn water doesn’t count and when its color returns it is a kosher mikveh. Bet Shlomo 1:171, Bet Yitzchak 2:41, and others agreed. However, the Chazon Ish held that the only time drawn water doesn’t invalidate a colored mikveh is if it colored the mikveh prior to the drawn water entering. However, once a mikveh is invalid because of drawn water it remains invalid.</ref> Even the lenient opinion can be relied upon if the original invalidation was only rabbinic and not biblical.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 201:432 writes that one can only use the solution of the Maharsham if the invalidation was rabbinic but if it is biblical it doesn’t work since the entire concept of having the waters change colors is only rabbinic to begin with according to many poskim.</ref>
-# It is permitted to add chlorine powder to a complete mikveh if it doesn’t change its color.<ref>Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229</ref>
 ==Creation of a Mikveh through Something Susceptible to Tumah==
@@ Line 461: / Line 532: @@
 * Not all rishonim agree that this is a pasul at all for mikveh. Yereyim 26 writes that the derivation of Zevachim 25b only applies to a mayan but not a mikveh. Mordechai (Shevuot 746, cited by Bet Yosef 201:48) quotes this Yereyim as well as Rabbenu Shmuel who agrees. Bet Yosef 201:48 and Mishna Achrona (Parah 6:4) add that Rambam also holds like this. See also Lechem Vsimla (201:16:5 s.v. harambam). However, Rashi (Zevachim 25b s.v. havaytan) writes that the gemara is relevant even to a mikveh.</ref>
 # If the mikveh that was created with something that is susceptible to tumah and is invalid is connected to a mayan it is fixed and made valid again. However, some hold that it is still invalid.<ref>The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 writes that hashaka works for a mayan to be connected a mikveh and transform it into a kosher one. Specifically, he says that it can remove the invalidation of being created with something susceptible to tumah. The Bet Yosef 201:49 infers from the Rashba 3:228 that it is ineffective. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 follows the Rosh but also quotes Rashba who is strict. Shach 201:105 arguing with the Hagahot Perisha in fact states that this connection only needs to be temporary in order to validate the mikveh. See Minchat Yitzchak 1:146:12 who quotes Kav Mayim Chayim who argues that even Rashba would accept the view of Rosh if there is a connection of shifoferet hanod. Chelkat Binyamin implies otherwise.</ref>
+# If 3 lugin are held by something that that is susceptible to tumah, according to some poskim that could invalidate an incomplete mikveh.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 201:510 quoting Simla 83 and the implication of Shach 201:100</ref> However, some poskim argue that this invalidation is only an issue if it is the majority of the mikveh.<ref>Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 3:17)</ref>
 # A flat wooden board without edges that is used to direct water into a mikveh if the water would have flowed that way anyway it is valid, if not, some poskim say it is valid and others hold it is invalid.<ref>The Rosh Mikvaot n. 5 writes that if a board without edges is used to direct water into a mikveh it is valid if the water would have entered anyway, otherwise it is invalid because the mikveh was created by use of something that is susceptible to tumah (Mikvaot 5:5). The Bet Yosef 201:35 suggests that either the case is where the wooden board is susceptible to tumah since it used to have an edge and that edge was removed or that since flat wooden vessels are rabbinically susceptible to tumah that invalidates the mikveh. The Taz 201:43 and Shach 201:76 offer another answer such that the flat wooden board is designated for a use making it susceptible to tumah. They disagree with the concept of the Bet Yosef that vessels that are rabbinically susceptible to tumah invalidate the mikveh. However, the Chazon Ish Mikvaot 7:5 agrees with the Bet Yosef that we’re strict about something that is rabbinically susceptible to tumah. Chelkat Binyamin 201:511 cites the two approaches.</ref> The poskim are only strict if the wooden board was used to service people and utensils such as a tray, table, and bed board.<ref>
 Which wooden utensils are susceptible to tumah?
-* Service people and utensils: The Mishna Kelim 16:1 establishes that a wooden tray, table, or bed are susceptible to tumah. The Rambam Kelim 4:1 clarifies that any flat wooden utensil is susceptible to tumah only if it services people and utensils such as a table which a person eats from and also it is used to hold other utensils. However, a flat wooden utensil which doesn’t service people and other utensils doesn’t have any tumah. That distinction is made by the Tosefta Kelim 13 and Torat Kohanim Shemini 6:4. Aruch Hashulchan 201:87 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 7:5 agree.
+*Service people and utensils: The Mishna Kelim 16:1 establishes that a wooden tray, table, or bed are susceptible to tumah. The Rambam Kelim 4:1 clarifies that any flat wooden utensil is susceptible to tumah only if it services people and utensils such as a table which a person eats from and also it is used to hold other utensils. However, a flat wooden utensil which doesn’t service people and other utensils doesn’t have any tumah. That distinction is made by the Tosefta Kelim 13 and Torat Kohanim Shemini 6:4. Aruch Hashulchan 201:87 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 7:5 agree.
-* What level of tumah does it have?
+*What level of tumah does it have?
-** Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a s.v. le’olam) holds it doesn’t have tumah at all. The gemara backed down from any idea of flat wooden utensils having tumah unless they are susceptible to midras if they are designated for sitting, leaning, or standing on. (It is a dispute if flat wooden utensils can have midras, see Taz 201:31 and Tosfot Shabbat 44b.) Maharam Paduah responsa 31 writes that we hold like the Rashbam and Rashi (Sukkah 15a s.v. amar) agrees.
+**Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a s.v. le’olam) holds it doesn’t have tumah at all. The gemara backed down from any idea of flat wooden utensils having tumah unless they are susceptible to midras if they are designated for sitting, leaning, or standing on. (It is a dispute if flat wooden utensils can have midras, see Taz 201:31 and Tosfot Shabbat 44b.) Maharam Paduah responsa 31 writes that we hold like the Rashbam and Rashi (Sukkah 15a s.v. amar) agrees.
-** Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. vshani) holds that they have rabbinic tumah and the pasuk that the Torat Kohanim cited is only an asmachta. Tosfot (Eruvin 31a s.v. bpeshutei) agrees. The Mishna Lmelech (Kelim 4:1) and Korban Netanel Sukkah 1:29:300 explain that the Rambam agrees. The Korban Netanel (Sukkah 1:29:300) writes that the Rosh also holds it is rabbinic. This approach of the Tosfot, Rambam, and Rosh is well accepted. The Mishna Achrona Kelim 16:2 writes that mefarshim all hold it is only rabbinic. Aruch Hashulchan YD 201:87, Chazon Ish YD 134:5, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:511 holds like it.
+**Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. vshani) holds that they have rabbinic tumah and the pasuk that the Torat Kohanim cited is only an asmachta. Tosfot (Eruvin 31a s.v. bpeshutei) agrees. The Mishna Lmelech (Kelim 4:1) and Korban Netanel Sukkah 1:29:300 explain that the Rambam agrees. The Korban Netanel (Sukkah 1:29:300) writes that the Rosh also holds it is rabbinic. This approach of the Tosfot, Rambam, and Rosh is well accepted. The Mishna Achrona Kelim 16:2 writes that mefarshim all hold it is only rabbinic. Aruch Hashulchan YD 201:87, Chazon Ish YD 134:5, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:511 holds like it.
-** Rashba Bava Batra 66b s.v. veha’amar quotes an opinion that it is biblically tameh. In fact the Torat Kohanim learns that this category of flat wooden utensils is tameh from a pasuk. Tosfot Sukkah 5a s.v. misgarto and Menachot 96b s.v. livrei explain that the gemara Menachot actually asks whether items that service people land utensils have tumah biblically or rabbinically and leaves it unresolved.
+**Rashba Bava Batra 66b s.v. veha’amar quotes an opinion that it is biblically tameh. In fact the Torat Kohanim learns that this category of flat wooden utensils is tameh from a pasuk. Tosfot Sukkah 5a s.v. misgarto and Menachot 96b s.v. livrei explain that the gemara Menachot actually asks whether items that service people land utensils have tumah biblically or rabbinically and leaves it unresolved.
-* Are wide flat wooden utensils tameh? Tosfot Sukkah and Menachot in one answer say that a large flat baker’s tray is rabbinically susceptible to tumah because it is so wide and useful like a utensil with a receptacle. Tosfot (Eruvin 31a s.v. bpeshutei) quotes the Ri as agreeing. This idea is based on Rashi Menachot 96b s.v. tameha. Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. vyesh) quotes some who say that any tray which serves utensils and not people is susceptible to rabbinic tumah. Shach 201:45 writes that flat wooden utensils aren’t susceptible to rabbinic tumah.
+*Are wide flat wooden utensils tameh? Tosfot Sukkah and Menachot in one answer say that a large flat baker’s tray is rabbinically susceptible to tumah because it is so wide and useful like a utensil with a receptacle. Tosfot (Eruvin 31a s.v. bpeshutei) quotes the Ri as agreeing. This idea is based on Rashi Menachot 96b s.v. tameha. Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. vyesh) quotes some who say that any tray which serves utensils and not people is susceptible to rabbinic tumah. Shach 201:45 writes that flat wooden utensils aren’t susceptible to rabbinic tumah.
-* Is a cane susceptible to tumah? The Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot Mikavot 5:5) writes that even though it has no receptacle it is still tameh rabbinically. The Chazon Ish (Mikvaot 7:5) explains that it has tumah because it services people and utensils or alternatively it has a small receptacle. However, the Rosh (Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5 and Hilchot Mikvaot n. 11) hold that a cane doesn’t have tumah at all. Tosfot Yom Tov (Mikvaot 5:5) and Simla 201:84 point out this dispute.</ref>
+*Is a cane susceptible to tumah? The Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot Mikavot 5:5) writes that even though it has no receptacle it is still tameh rabbinically. The Chazon Ish (Mikvaot 7:5) explains that it has tumah because it services people and utensils or alternatively it has a small receptacle. However, the Rosh (Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5 and Hilchot Mikvaot n. 11) hold that a cane doesn’t have tumah at all. Tosfot Yom Tov (Mikvaot 5:5) and Simla 201:84 point out this dispute.</ref>
+# Metal nails aren't mekabel tumah.<ref>Mishna Kelim 11:3, Rambam Kelim 9:2, Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:137</ref>
+===Attached to the ground===
+# A flat metal utensil is susceptible to tumah unless it is made to be attached to the ground and is attached to the ground.<ref>Dagul Mirvava on 201:48, Mikveh Mayim p. 153 and 169 citing Igrot Moshe. Nodeh Beyehuda 137, Chatom Sofer 217-218, Igrot Moshe 1:115-6 hold that the kli needs to be both (1) mechuber l'karka and (2) made to be meshamesh karka so that it isn't mekabel tumah. However, Gidulei Tahara (cited by Mikveh Mayim p. 181) holds that it is sufficient for it to be mechuber l'karka even if it isn't made to be attached to the ground. </ref>
+# If a new metal piece (such as a pipe) is bought brand new and it isn't clear if it was made to be used for the ground, some say that it isn't mekabel tumah since it was made with no intentions at all. The intention of the buyer establishes it as something to be used for the ground.<ref>Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:137 holds that the buyer can have intention to use it for the ground based on Mishna Lmelech Kelim 2 since a kli made with no intention is not mekabel tumah. </ref> Others are lenient for another reason if it is unclear why the piece was made we can follow the intention of the buyer for another reason.<ref>Igrot Moshe Y.D. 1:115 is lenient because of breira since a piece of metal is only mekabel tumah midrabbanan once it is attached to the ground if it wasn't made for the ground (Yad Ramah). Since it is only a rabbinic issue it is fine to say that the intention of the piece was made for can be clarified retroactively. </ref>
+# If a pipe is built into the ground and cement poured upon it so it is part of the wall, it isn't mekabel tumah.<ref>Igrot Moshe 1:115</ref>
+# A drain made out of metal should be made from new metal, made in order to be attached to the ground, and then attached to the ground with hinges so it is never detached.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 1:116</ref>
 ===If the water would have reached the mikveh anyway===
-# If the mikveh is created with something that is susceptible to tumah but the water would have flowed that way anyway to create the mikveh, the mikveh is valid.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:35, Shach 201:103</ref>
+# If the mikveh is created with something that is susceptible to tumah, but the water would have flowed that way anyway to create the mikveh, the mikveh is valid.<ref>Rosh (Mikvaot 4:2), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:35, Shach 201:103. However, [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&st=&pgnum=336 Chazon Ish YD 135:2] disagrees with Rosh. Chelkat Binyamin 201:680 writes that we shouldn't rely on Rosh about this question. </ref>
 # If the water flows over something that is susceptible to tumah but the water afterwards flows over wood, dirt, or something that isn’t susceptible to tumah at all the resultant mikveh is kosher.<ref>The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 explains that if there’s a separation between the vessel that is susceptible to tumah and the mikveh it is kosher. His proof is that Zevachim 25b considered to permit the mikveh because of the airspace in which the water was flowing. Shulchan Aruch 201:48 codifies the Rosh.</ref> Some say that this is only true if the water would have flowed into the mikveh without the vessel that is susceptible to tumah.<ref>Chatom Sofer 199</ref>
 ===Stopping Water from Exiting===
 # If a vessel that is susceptible to tumah is used to plug up a hole in the mikveh the entire mikveh is invalid because without that plug the mikveh would be invalid as the water would flow up and having the plug there is considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah.<ref>The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains that a plug that prevents water from exiting a mikveh that otherwise would be invalid as the water is flowing is invalid since the plug is considered like creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah. The Rosh Mikvaot 11 disagrees. Tur 201:50 explains that the Rosh argues that preventing water from escaping isn’t an issue, it is only an issue to gather water into a mikveh using something that is susceptible to tumah. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 cites both opinions.</ref>
 # If a vessel that is susceptible to tumah is used to repair a mikveh when the mikveh is completely valid but without the repair there is a concern it will later become invalid, the mikveh is valid.<ref>The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 writes that if a mikveh is currently valid and there is a concern that water is being absorbed in the ground boards can be nailed down. If the nails are new then they aren’t susceptible to tumah since they are being used to service the ground from the beginning of their use. However, if they are old nails they are susceptible to tumah but nonetheless they can be used. His reason is that since the mikveh is currently valid continuing to keep it valid isn’t considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah.
-Pitchei Teshuva 201:35 quotes this. Chatom Sofer YD 204 agrees.</ref>
+Pitchei Teshuva 201:35 quotes this. Chatom Sofer YD 204 agrees. He answers why this is different from Tosfot Sukkah 10a. Divrei Chaim YD 1:44 disagrees with Nodeh Beyehuda. Dovev Meisharim 1:90 quotes this Divrei Chayim. </ref>
 ===If Water is Attached to the Mikveh or Spring===
 # If the water flows over something that is susceptible to tumah the water is invalid for a mikveh, however, if the water is attached to a complete mikveh or a spring, some rishonim hold it is valid but others hold it is still invalid.<Ref>The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 understands that the water that flows over something is susceptible to tumah is purified if it is attached to a mikveh or spring. He explains that it is like hashaka for sheuvim that can purify an entire mikveh. However, the Rashba 3:228 (as understood by Bet Yosef 201:49) disagrees. The Darkei Moshe 201:25 adds that the Mordechai also disagrees with the Rosh. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 mentions both the opinions of the Rosh and Rashba. The Gra 201:89 is strict.
 * According to the Rosh, why is hashaka is effective on water in a vessel that is susceptible to tumah (Shulchan Aruch 201:49) but not for sheuvim while it is in the vessel that has a receptacle (Shulchan Aruch 201:8)? The Taz 201:59 explains that the reason that hashaka doesn’t work for sheuvim in a vessel is because of a gezerah that one might use that vessel as a mikveh even when it is detached from the mikveh. However, here the gezerah doesn’t apply since one isn’t going to dip inside a vessel that susceptible to tumah which doesn’t have a receptacle. The Bet Yosef 201:49 writes that only for real sheuvim hashaka doesn't work but for water that flowed over something that doesn’t have a receptacle could have hashaka. Divrei Yosef p. 358 explains that since there’s a gezerah that water in a vessel is sheuvim even if there’s hashaka, then no hashaka will be able to change its status. However, water that flowed over something that was susceptible to tumah can be converted with hashaka. See Chelkat Binyamin fnt. 2316 writes that the Bet Yosef might agree with the Taz.</ref>
+===If there's a break between the item susceptible to tumah and the mikveh===
+# If the item that is susceptible to tumah, such as a metal pipe, isn't directly touching the mikveh and the water from the pipe first goes onto something else before going into the mikveh, it is valid.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:48</ref>
+# If the metal pipe goes into the airspace of the mikveh, the water is invalid even though the water traveled through the airspace of the mikveh before going into the water of the mikveh.<ref>Chatom Sofer YD 214, Chelkat Binyamin on 201:48 holds that the airspace over the mikveh is like the mikveh itself. See, Chazon Ish YD 135:2 s.v. ktav, who might imply otherwise. </ref>
 ===Indirectly using something that is susceptible to tumah===
-# Using a vessel which is susceptible to tumah even if it is only indirectly holding the water is a problem. <ref>Hod Yosef 71 shows from Rambam Parah 6:8 that havaya al yadey dvar mekabel tumah is a problem even if it is only koach sheni and used to help along the water.</ref>
+# Using a vessel which is susceptible to tumah even if it is only indirectly holding the water is a problem. <ref>Ben Ish Chai (Hod Yosef 71) proves from Rambam Parah 6:8 that havaya al yadey dvar mekabel tumah is a problem even if it is only grama and used to help along the water.</ref>
+==Trust Regarding the Maintenance of a Mikveh==
-==Connecting Pits of Water that Overflow==
+=== Non-Jewish Owned Mikveh ===
-# If there are three pits of twenty seah each, the middle one filled with drawn water and the others rainwater, and three people dip in these pits so that they overflow and connect, they are just as unfit as they were beforehand.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 states that if there are three pits of twenty seah each and the drawn water one is in the middle and three people go in the mikveh the pits are just as unfit as they were beforehand. The Rosh and Rash explain that drawn water doesn’t invalidate the others since it entered through hamshacha and there was a majority of rainwater in the pit in which it fell into. Yet, they aren’t valid since the two pits of rainwater didn’t connect. Shulchan Aruch 201:55 codifies this mishna. Shach 201:121 quotes the Rosh. Taz 201:69 adds another reason to be lenient in that he explains that the water isn’t going to completely move from one pit to another.</ref>
-# If there are three pits of twenty seah each, one side one filled with drawn water and the others rainwater, and three people dip in these pits so that they overflow and connect, they are all considered fit since they combine together when the people went inside and the two pits of rainwater connected.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 establishes that if there are three pits of twenty seah each and the drawn water is on the side and three people dipped in the pits which overflowed they are all valid. The Rosh and Rash explain that since the rainwater pits connect there was a complete mikveh and all of the drawn water can’t invalidate it. In fact the drawn water becomes valid with a momentary hashaka. The Rosh and Rash explain that we’re not concerned that the drawn water entered one of the rainwater pits before the rainwater pits connected since it would only invalidate it if all of the twenty seah of drawn water preceded any of the rainwater. Otherwise the drawn water is purified with hamshacha as it is drawn along the ground into the other pits and nullified in its minority by the rainwater pit. Shulchan Aruch 201:55 codifies this mishna.</ref> Practically, each pit of twenty seah isn’t fit until another twenty seah is added because a complete mikveh is forty seah.<ref>Shach 201:120, Taz 201:67</ref>
-# If there are two pits of twenty seah, one with drawn water, one with rainwater and they connect they remain as they were beforehand.<ref>Tosefta Mikvaot 3:5, Rash Mikvaot 6:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:56</ref>
-==A Hole on top of a Hole==
-# A mikveh on top of a mikveh if there is a hole the size of two fingerbreadths in diameter is considered connected.<ref>The Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 6:1 explains that a mikveh on top of a cavity that contains water if the wall between the two is sturdy they are only connected if there’s a hole between the two with a diameter of two fingerbreadths. However, if the wall is so thin that it would collapse if a person would dip in the mikveh the cavity is connected to the mikveh as long as there’s a tiny hole between the mikveh and the cavity. The Shulchan Aruch 201:59 codifies the general idea of the mishna.</ref>
-# There are three pits on a slope, the with twenty seah, the bottom with twenty seah, and the middle with forty seah. If there is water streaming between them, according to some rishonim we say that the bottom one is connected with the middle one, while the halacha follows the rishonim who say that only the middle pit is valid.<ref> The Tosefta Mikvaot 3:4 describes a case of three pits on a hill with the middle one being a complete mikveh and the one and top bottom being incomplete mikvaot. If there’s a stream of rainwater connecting the pits, Rabbi Meir validates the top pit, Rabbi Yosi the bottom one, and the rabbis just the middle one. Rambam Mikvaot 8:8 follows the rabbis that there's never a connection of katafras even with the principles of gud achit or gud asik. Tosfot Gittin 16a s.v. hanisok, Mordechai Shevuot n. 746, and Darkei Moshe 201:6 hold that katafras can be a connection together with gud achit. (Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 and Tur 201:62 might support this opinion.) Shulchan Aruch 201:60 codifies the Rambam.</ref>
-==A non-Jewish owned Mikveh==
 # If a non-Jew owns a mikveh if you know that there was always at least 21 seah some say that you can be lenient to rely on the non-Jew who says that it was completed with rainwater. Many poskim hold that you can’t be lenient.<ref>The Rosh responsa writes that if a non-Jew owns a mikveh we can’t rely on him because the mikveh might have become lacking and he completed it with drawn water. Shulchan Aruch 201:4 accepts the Rosh. The Taz and Bach understood Shulchan Aruch to mean that we’re relying on the concept of a doubt on a rabbinic issue.
 However, the Shach and Gra 24 write that the Shulchan Aruch means only to be lenient if there’s no way for the non-Jew to mess up the mikveh such as if the only way to add water to the mikveh if by adding water through the roof in which case it would be valid since majority of the water is rainwater and some of it traveled on the ground.
 Chazon Ish Mikvaot 10:6 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:24 explains that really it is based on having a doubt about a rabbinic issue but only if a majority of the mikveh is valid anyway to offset the issue that it is likely that the non-Jew tampered with it.</ref>
-==Assessing the Status of an Unknown Mikveh==
+=== Individual Jew ===
+# An Jewish individual is trusted regarding the status of the mikveh if it is in his hands to fix it.<ref>Maharik 115, cited by Bet Yosef 201:57(2)</ref>
+=== Assessing the Status of an Unknown Mikveh ===
 # If someone finds a man made pit of water in Israel outside of a city it is assumed to be rainwater and a kosher mikveh, but in the Diaspora it is assumed to be a non-kosher mikveh. Nowadays the assumption that it is a kosher mikveh doesn't even apply in Israel.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 8:1 establishes that a pit of water found outside a city in Israel is assumed to be from rainwater and not used for laundry and therefore kosher, but inside the city it is assumed that it is used for laundry and therefore drawn water which is invalid for a mikveh. In the Diaspora it is always assumed to be drawn since they aren't concerned about this. This is also found in the Tosefta Mikvaot 6:1 and codified by the Rambam Mikvaot 10:5. Bet Yosef 201:74 comments that today even in Israel the lenient assumption to consider a pit of water outside a city to be a mikveh doesn't apply since the Jews don't rule Israel. Shulchan Aruch 201:74 rules accordingly that any pit found with water is presumed to be invalid. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:302 adds that today a man made pit with water is invalid even in Israel leven where Jews live since there are many pools of drawn water for many reasons.</ref>
 # If you know that a natural pit filled with water such as in a field it is assumed to be rainwater and is a valid mikveh.<ref>Shach 201:150, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:302</ref>
-==Building a Mikveh so it isn’t a vessel==
-# Reinforced concrete with metal rods in the cement is a discussion in the poskim if it is acceptable.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 147 citing Minchat Yitzchak 2:22, 4:41. However, Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 228 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein as permitting having metal rods in the cement.</ref>
-# It is permitted to make a mikveh with stones that are attached to the ground isn’t considered a vessel even though the complete mikveh could hold water.<ref>Tzemech Tzedek 172 explains that any mikveh with walls and a floor that are all attached to the ground which couldn’t be picked up in one piece isn’t considered a vessel. He explains that otherwise every mikveh would be invalid according to the Nodeh Beyehuda who holds that a vessel which was created in material which was already attached to the ground is invalid to dip inside of. Rather the entire structure of the mikveh isn’t considered a vessel since it couldn’t be lifted up in one piece.</ref>
-# Making a mikveh with cement is acceptable. Even though it is appears to be one unit after it dries as though it was a vessel, it is considered building a structure and not creating a vessel. Also, the cement frame can’t be lifted up as a unit like a vessel.<ref>
-* According to the Chatom Sofer if you create a vessel while is attached to the ground it is considered a kosher mikveh. However, according to Rabbi Akiva Eiger if it is a vessel even though it was created while it is attached the ground it isn’t a vessel for sheuvim but it is a vessel to disallow dipping in it as a mikveh. According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger how can you build a mikveh? Shouldn’t the plastering or cementing of the rocks together be considered creating a vessel attached to the ground?
-* Bet Shlomo 2:70 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 2:13 hold that it isn’t considered a vessel when the pieces are being built into the ground and come together. That is considered building a structure and not a vessel. Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 writes that the Nodeh Beyehuda 2:142 s.v. vod and Divrei Chaim 201:36 agree.
-* Similarly, Igrot Moshe YD 1:108 writes that making a mikveh with cement isn’t considered a vessel because it couldn’t be picked up as a vessel and would fall apart. He continues to it is only an issue if it is considered by people to be a vessel created when it was attached just like it is a detached vessel. But since the cement mikveh people don’t see it as a vessel but as a structure it isn’t an issue at all. He explains that even if the cement is painted and decorated it is still permitted since because know it is a mikveh and not a vessel.
-* Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 is lenient. The Darkei Teshuva 201:206 quotes many achronim who hold that using cement to hold rocks together to create a mikveh doesn’t invalidate the mikveh since that is the normal way to build a building and not the way to create a vessel. Maharsham 1:35 and 1:145 is hesitant to be lenient since the cement holds the rocks together and forms it as a vessel which is invalid for a mikveh. Maharsham 2:102 is lenient if there’s no other option since the cement can’t be removed and it is therefore considered a building and not a vessel.</ref>
-# A complete vessel such as a bathtub which was a vessel before it was attached to the ground is an invalid mikveh.<ref>Rama 201:7. Depends on the discussion of pipes meant to be attached to the ground.</ref>
-# A mikveh made of pre-made cement slabs, one per wall and one for the floor, is questionable. <ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:95 writes that if a mikveh is made with cement pieces that were one slab per wall and one for the floor it would be invalid. He explains that the Rashba 1:800 and Rama 201:7 who write that if the mikveh is made from multiple rocks it is valid is only if it is made of multiple rocks while it is attached to the round and there need to be multiple rocks for each wall and not a single slab. Hesitantly he suggests a reason is that it is similar to a vessel when such a significant piece of the complete mikveh is a single piece and takes on the status of a mikveh even though it is only a wall and not a complete vessel. Chelkat Binyamin 201:145 agrees.</ref>
-# Some mikvaot are made by starting with a cement floor. Then a cement piece with four walls and a divider is placed on top of the floor to establish the mikveh with a hashaka mikveh. Some poskim are weary of using such a mikveh, while others are lenient.<ref>Rav Chaim Kalman Gutman in Ginat Veradim 3:25 p. 66 writes that a mikveh made with a cement floor and piece of cement with the four walls is added on top is problematic. Firstly, it is considered a vessel since it is just two stones attached together and not many stones. Even though it couldn’t be picked up by a person it is considered a vessel since it was designed to be built that way. Rav Avraham Schreiber in Ginat Veradim 9:2 p. 258 argues that it isn't considered a vessel according to all of the poskim. According to the Tzemech Tzedek 172 it isn't a vessel since it couldn't be lifted as one piece. According to the Maharsham a connection of rocks can't form a vessel. According many others it was made in the way of building a structure and not a vessel.</ref>
-==Going to a hot mikveh==
-# Theoretically, Sephardim hold that a mikveh should be cold and if hot water is added it is invalid. However, Ashkenazim are lenient to permit a hot mikveh.<ref>The Mordechai Mikvaot n. 750 quotes the Rash who wrote that a hot water mikveh is invalid because of a rabbinic concern that they become confused with a bathhouse which is completely invalid. He also cites Rabbenu Tam as agreeing with the Rash. However, the Hagahot Mordechai 9a is lenient. Shulchan Aruch 201:75 is strict not to use a warm mikveh, but the Rama is lenient. He adds that one should really be strict unless there's a minhag to be lenient.</ref> Today the minhag of all communities is to be lenient.<ref>Shaarei Mikvaot 201:304 writes that the minhag of Sephardim is also to go to warm mikvaot (Rav Poalim YD 4:15) because (1) we're weaker than we were before and if it was cold some women wouldn't go to mikveh (Chatom Sofer YD 214), (2) everyone knows that a warm mikveh isn't a bathhouse and there's no concern people will get them confused and even though generally a gezerah doesn't expire whent he reason expires some say that is only for a takana of chazal and not a gezerah (Maharsham 3:140 based on Magen Avraham 9).</ref> It is permitted to have a radiator in the walls of the mikveh heat up the water since it is clear how it is being heated.<ref>Minchat Yitzchak 7:85 cited by Shaarei Mikvaot 201:305</ref>
-#There is no issue of going to mikveh in the hot springs of Tevariya even though they are hot.<ref>Mordechai Mikvaot n. 750 citing the Ravyah, Rama 201:75</ref>
-# Going to a warm mikveh Friday night, Sephardim advise going ben hashemashot<ref>Chacham Tzvi 11, Taharat Habayit, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:306</ref>, while Ashkenazim advise going at night itself.<ref>Igrot Moshe OC 1:126:6 follows the Korban Netanel who says that there's no gezerah baalanim in a mikveh. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:306 points out that the Ashkenazi poskim didn't allow going to mikveh during ben hashemashot.</ref>
-==Showering after going to the mikveh==
-# Ashkenazim hold that the women shouldn't bathe or shower immediately after going to the mikveh.<ref>The Mordechai Mikvaot n. 750 cites the Ravyah who says that the minhag is not to bathe or shower after going to the mikveh because of the gezerah that showering in drawn water makes a person tameh (Shabbat 14a). The Mordechai completely rejects this stringency considering that the gezerah was stated only for taharot and not niddah and it was only a tumah going forward but didn't invalidate going to the mikveh. He adds that the Maharam was lenient. The Rama 201:50 cites the minhag to be strict.</ref> Sephardim are lenient.<ref>Shaarei Mikvaot 201:307 writes that since Shulchan Aruch holds mikveh for niddah doesn't need a kavana since it is chullin he wouldn't hold of the stringent minhag not to bathing or showering afterwards.</ref>
-# How long does the prohibition apply according to Ashkenazim? Some say it is for an entire day until the next night.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:96. Rav Schachter</ref> Some are lenient once she came home and touched her husband.<ref>Shevet Halevi 5:125 writes that even though the Or Zaruah sounds like she can't bathe for the entire day sincce the others don't mention that it is enough to be strict immediately after tevilah. Once she went home and touched her husband her tevilah was effective and it is impossible for a later bath to undo the tevilah.</ref> Some allow once he gets home even if they didn't touch.<ref>Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Mareh Kohen p. 108) and Tzitz Eliezer 11:64:13-14. Tzitz Eliezer adds that she shouldn't shower her entire body at once.</ref>
-# The minhag of not bathing or showering after going to mikveh doesn't apply to a man going to mikveh for keri.<ref>Shaarei Mikvaot 201:307 citing Yabia Omer YD 8:19:2</ref> A baal keri can go in a mikveh of 40 seah of drawn water.<ref>Tzitz Eliezer 11:64:15, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:307</ref>
-==How to do Tevilat Kelim==
-# You can dip a large vessel in a mikveh that is just 40 seah specifically by doing the following: put it in the mikveh upside down, turn it over in the mikveh, turn it over again and remove it upside down. The reason it needs to be put in upside down is so that the water of the mikveh isn’t displaced and spilled out of the mikveh. The reason it needs to be removed upside down is so that the water isn’t removed from the mikveh making it less than 40 seah.<ref>The Tosfeta Mikvaot 7:6 explains the procedure of how to dip a large vessel in a mikveh which is just 40 seah. The vessel is dipped in upside down and removed upside down. The Rash explains that it is placed in upside down so that the water in the vessel doesn’t become sheuvim. The Bet Yosef 201:63 explains that either the water in a vessel in the middle of the mikveh does become sheuvim even though the water is connected to the rest of the mikveh or it doesn’t but there’s a concern that as the water streams into the mikveh it’ll pause and the water in the vessel will be disconnected from the mikveh and therefore sheuvim. The Divrei Yosef p. 452 points out that this corresponds to the Rosh and Rash in Bet Yosef 201:8 whether a detached vessel in a mikveh creates sheuvim. The Rash holds it doesn’t and the Rosh holds it does. However, it is difficult that the Bet Yosef there explains the Rambam like the Rosh and here the Rambam fits with the Rash. The Chelkat Binyamin 201:870 writes that we’re concerned from the understanding of the Bet Yosef in the Rash that maybe it’ll become disconnected but not for the possibility that it is really sheuvim. However, the Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 8:12 and Tur 201:63 explain that the reason it needs to be put in upside down is because otherwise it is going to cause water to splash out of the mikveh making it invalid.</ref>
-==Procedure and Position for Dipping in the Mikveh==
-# A person shouldn’t dip in a mikveh that the water is so deep or so shallow. Instead it should be filled to the point that it is a half amah above the belly of a person.<ref>Rashba responsa 818 writes that a person shouldn’t dip in a mikveh unless it is filled up to a hafla maha above one’s belly. Rama 201:66 quotes this.</ref>
-# If is shallower than that if there’s no other available options a person can dip in such a mikveh by lying down horizontally but not by bending over so much. Bending over would cause a person to have unnatural folds and pockets which would be considered an interposition between the body and the water.<ref>Rashba responsa cited by Darkei Moshe 201:28* writes that if the water is too shallow to bend over sightly and dip in the mikveh a person should lie down horizontally in the mikveh. They should not bend over too much otherwise that would create unnatural folds in the skin invalidating the dipping. Rashbetz 1:17 and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 agree. The Rama 201:66 codifies the rashba.</ref> Some permit going to the mikveh lying down even initially.<ref>Pitchei Mikvaot 1:14 citing Shulchan Aruch Harav and Tikunei Hamikveh</ref>
-# A mikveh with water that is spread out and can’t be used for dipping in its current state it is permissible to put down wood so that the water congregates on one side of the mikveh.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 7:7 establishes that if the mikveh has sufficient water but it isn’t possible to go in it because it is too shallow, a person could block up part of the mikveh so that the water level rises. The mishna says that a person can use wood sticks for this purpose. The Rash explains that the water between the sticks is still connected to the mikveh. However, if one breaks up the whole mikveh in two then the other half of the mikveh wouldn’t contribute to the 40 seah of the mikveh. Shulchan Aruch 201:66 codifies this mishna.</ref>
-# If a person needed to go to the mikveh and doesn’t know if they went to mikveh or whether they completely submerged or whether the mikveh had 40 seah he must go to the mikveh again since his tameh status remains until he surely went to the mikveh.<ref>Rambam Mikvaot 10:6, Shulchan Aruch 201:71</ref>
-# It is possible to dip in a stream of water from a spring if one completely submerges themselves in it.<ref>Tosefta Mikvaot 8:1, Rambam Mikvaot 1:9, Bet Yosef 198:35, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:61</ref>
-# If a person jumps into a mikveh with a lot of water that will contain more than 40 seah even after water splashes out the dipping is valid.<ref>The Tosefta 5:10 states that a person who jumps into the mikveh is disgraceful. The Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 25 explains that the Tosefta is discussing a mikveh with the requisite amount of 40 seah. By jumping in some of the water inevitably will leave and there won’t remain a complete mikveh. The Rivash 293 explains that the reason the Tosefta doesn’t say that the dipping is invalid is because it is possible that the water that splashed didn’t separate from the rest of the mikveh water before the person was completely covered and submerged. But since it could be invalid if some of the water splashes out before he is completely submerged that’s why it is discouraged. Shulchan Aruch 201:62 codifies this.</ref>
-# Some say that a person shouldn’t dip in the mikveh twice, one is sufficient and doing it twice will make a person more likely not to take each one seriously. Others defend the practice of dipping twice.<ref>The Tosefta Mikvaot 5:10 establishes that a person shouldn’t dip twice. The Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 25 and Tur 201:62 explain that we’re discussing a mikveh which is exactly 40 seah. If so there’s a concern that during the first dipping the person won’t be careful to be completely submerged and then by the time he dips a second time perhaps some of the water splashed out and the mikveh is invalid. However, the Rivash 293 explains that the Rambam Mikvaot 8:12 understood the Tosefta to mean that in general a person should dip twice because there’s a concern that those watching will assume that he’s going to cool off and not to purify himself and it could lead to a mistake with trumah if he touches it and they assume that you don’t need kavana to purify oneself for trumah. The Darkei Moshe 201:27 writes that we’re not concerned for that opinion today when we don’t have trumah. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:262 writes that the minhag is to teach woman to be tovel multiple times like the Rosh unlike the Rambam. </ref>
-==Trust regarding the status of a Mikveh==
-# An individual is trusted regarding the status of the mikveh if it is in his hands to fix it.<ref>Maharik 115, cited by Bet Yosef 201:57(2)</ref>
 ==Modern Mikvaot==

Anonymous

Search

Mikvaot: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 04:25, 14 June 2024

Niddah and Zavah

Mikveh

Minimum Measurement of Mikveh

Doubt if there was 40 seah

Water out of the Mikveh Counting to Mikveh

Holes and Pits Near the Miveh

Splashing to Extend the Mikveh

Mayan

Mayan Dug next to a River

Minimum Measurement of Mayan

Mayan with Majority Drawn or Rain Water

Mayan with Minority Drawn or Rain Water

Spring Water Disconnected from the Spring

Spring Water that Stopped Moved or Was Interrupted

Rivers

Oceans

Zochlin

Zochlin with water going into the mikveh

Zochlin while the mikveh is filling up

Zochlin from Mikveh to Mikveh

Zochlin that isn’t recognizable

Zochlin above 40 seah

Zochlin within the mikveh

Zochlin because of a person dipping

Zochlin because of a filter

Sheuvim

Deoritta or Derabbanan

Intention

What is a Vessel for Sheuvim?

Pipes

Pipes Made to be Attached to the Ground

Vessel Attached to the Ground

3 Lug of Drawn Water

Which Water Invalidates the Mikveh

Sheuvim for a Mayan

Sheuvim for a Mikveh

Sheuvim without a Vessel, Drawn by a Person

If the Status of a Mikveh Is in Question Because of Sheuvim

Tefisat Yadey Adam Grama

Zeriya

Natan Seah Vnatal Seah

Snow and Ice

Hamshacha

Does Hamshacha work for a Completely Shevuim Mikveh?

Type of Ground Necessary for Hamshacha

Hamshacha in the Direction of the Mikveh

Hashaka

Size of Hashaka Hole

Hashaka with Sheuvim

A Momentary Hashaka

Hashaka with Zochlin

Hashaka between Shuevim or Mey Geshamim and a Mayan

Hashaka with Mikveh that doesn’t have 40 seah

Placement of Hashaka Hole

Hashaka of Different Types of Water

Joining Mikveh or Using Hashaka with Katafras

Connecting Pits of Water into One Mikveh

Tevilah in and on a Kli

A vessel attached to the ground with and without a hole

Punctured on the Bottom

A Vessel Floating in the Mikveh

On the Back of Vessels

A vessel created before or after it was attached to the ground

A vessel inside the mikveh

Building a Mikveh so It Isn’t a Vessel

A Colored Mikveh

From the Torah or Rabbinic

What Types of Color Changes Invalidate a Mikveh?

Fixing a Colored Mikveh

A Colored Mayan

Creation of a Mikveh through Something Susceptible to Tumah

Attached to the ground

If the water would have reached the mikveh anyway

Stopping Water from Exiting

If Water is Attached to the Mikveh or Spring

If there's a break between the item susceptible to tumah and the mikveh