Mikvaot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m
Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"
(Created page with "==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.<ref>Even though there is an opinion that...") |
m (Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical") |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Niddah and Zavah== | ==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.<ref>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. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=30774&st=&pgnum=49 Shaarei Teshuva of the Geonim 164] written by Rav | # A mikveh is effective to purify a niddah, zavah, and baal keri but a zav specifically needs to dip in a mayan.<ref>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. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=30774&st=&pgnum=49 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.</ref> | ||
==Mikveh’s Minimum Measurements== | ==Mikveh’s Minimum Measurements== | ||
# A mikveh requires 40 seah at a minimum. The size of 40 seah is measured by 1 amah x 1 amah x 3 amot.<ref>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 [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14026&st=&pgnum=148 Torat Kohanim Shemini 9]. </ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> | # A mikveh requires 40 seah at a minimum. The size of 40 seah is measured by 1 amah x 1 amah x 3 amot.<ref>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 [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14026&st=&pgnum=148 Torat Kohanim Shemini 9]. </ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 31: | ||
# A mayan which has a majority of rainwater is only effective to purify someone if it is stationary.<ref>Rashi Shabbat 65b s.v. vsaver</ref> | # A mayan which has a majority of rainwater is only effective to purify someone if it is stationary.<ref>Rashi Shabbat 65b s.v. vsaver</ref> | ||
==Zochlin== | ==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 | #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 agree. 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 mikveh 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. 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 Tosfot's opinion is that zochlin is rabbinic. Tzemech Tzedek 164:5 makes a compromise in explaining the Rosh that | * 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. 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 Tosfot's opinion is 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 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> | * Chazon Ish 134:3 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> | ||
# 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.<ref> | # 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.<ref> | ||
| Line 44: | Line 45: | ||
===Zochlin that isn’t recognizable=== | ===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 Rashba 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. | # 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 Rashba 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 | * 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. | ||
</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. | </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. | ||
* 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 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> | ||
| Line 80: | Line 81: | ||
===Spring Flooded with Rainwater=== | ===Spring Flooded with Rainwater=== | ||
# If in a mayan there is a majority of rainwater compared to the springwater it is unfit if it is moving.<ref> | # If in a mayan there is a majority of rainwater compared to the springwater it is unfit if it is moving.<ref> | ||
* 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 | * 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). | * 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 (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. | ** 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. | ** 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 | * 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 | * 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.</ref> | ||
# 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. <ref>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: | # 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. <ref>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: | ||
* 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 increased because of the rainwater are unfit. | * 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 increased because of the rainwater are unfit. | ||
| Line 102: | Line 103: | ||
===Oceans=== | ===Oceans=== | ||
# All oceans are like a mayan to dip in them even where they are moving.<ref>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 even though Rabbi Yehuda did. 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.</ref> | # All oceans are like a mayan to dip in them even where they are moving.<ref>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 even though Rabbi Yehuda did. 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.</ref> | ||
# 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.<ref>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 | # 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.<ref>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.</ref> Some say that the wave only purifies if there’s 40 seah in it.<ref>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. | * 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.</ref> If the wave detached from the sea and is still moving it is invalid for dipping or immersing utensils in.<ref> 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. | * 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.</ref> If the wave detached from the sea and is still moving it is invalid for dipping or immersing utensils in.<ref> 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. | ||
| Line 109: | Line 110: | ||
==Sheuvim== | ==Sheuvim== | ||
# If the entirety of the mikveh or a majority of it is sheuvim (drawn water) it is invalid. Some poskim hold that it is | # If the entirety of the mikveh or a majority of it is sheuvim (drawn water) it is invalid. Some poskim hold that it is biblically invalid<ref>Rabbenu Tam (Tosfot Pesachim 17b, Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam), Rashbam Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam, Rashi Pesachim 16a s.v. yeheyeh (as understood by Teshuvot Rid 1), Tur 201:3 quoting the Rosh, Rama Y.D. 201:3</ref> and others hold that it is only rabbinically invalid.<ref>Ri (Tosfot Pesachim 17b s.v. elah), Rambam Mikvaot 4:2, Ramban (Bava Batra 65 s.v. shani) explaining the Rif and Geonim</ref> 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 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 cited by Bet Yosef 201:3. 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.</ref> | ||
# Ashkenazim hold that it is a | # 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. The Divrei Yosef p. 398 writes that this is the opinion of Shulchan Aruch. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:18 agrees. 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> | ||
===Intention=== | ===Intention=== | ||
# Water in a vessel is only considered drawn if it was gathered in the vessel intentionally.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 4:1, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:34</ref> | # Water in a vessel is only considered drawn if it was gathered in the vessel intentionally.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 4:1, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:34</ref> | ||
| Line 157: | Line 158: | ||
* 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 1:7 (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. | * 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 | * 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.</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> | * 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.</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
===Which Water Invalidates the Mikveh=== | ===Which Water Invalidates the Mikveh=== | ||
| Line 171: | Line 172: | ||
# If there was less than 40 seah in mayan and water added and then removed and made into mikveh is it kosher.<ref> 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. Chelkat Binyamin 201:236 is strict though he notes the Chatom Sofer YD 212 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:15 who was lenient. Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 is lenient even initially.</ref> | # If there was less than 40 seah in mayan and water added and then removed and made into mikveh is it kosher.<ref> 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. Chelkat Binyamin 201:236 is strict though he notes the Chatom Sofer YD 212 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:15 who was lenient. Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 is lenient even initially.</ref> | ||
===Sheuvim for a Mikveh=== | ===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.<ref>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 | # 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.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
===Sheuvim without a Vessel, Drawn by a Person=== | ===Sheuvim without a Vessel, Drawn by a Person=== | ||
| Line 194: | Line 195: | ||
# 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. 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 Mivkaot 7:6 understood the mishna to be speaking about drawn water. Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 88) agreed. 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> | # 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. 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 Mivkaot 7:6 understood the mishna to be speaking about drawn water. Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 88) agreed. 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> | ||
# 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> | # 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 Bavtra 65b s.v. v’iy kasha. 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 | 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 Bavtra 65b s.v. v’iy kasha. 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> | * 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 hamshach converts the water.</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 hamshach converts the water.</ref> | ||
| Line 200: | Line 201: | ||
===Snow and Ice=== | ===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.<ref>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. | # 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.<ref>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 ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&pgnum=109 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 | * Can it still be frozen? Rosh Mikvaot n. 18 writes that snow counts towards a mikveh even if it didn’t melt. Raavad ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&pgnum=109 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 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. | * 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. | ||
| Line 208: | Line 209: | ||
# 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> | # 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> | ||
==Hamshacha== | ==Hamshacha== | ||
# Cement absorbs water and is fit for hamshacha.<ref>Maharshag 1:65 citing experts writes that cement is water penetrable. 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. | # Cement absorbs water and is fit for hamshacha.<ref>Maharshag 1:65 citing experts writes that cement is water penetrable. 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. | ||
| Line 238: | Line 238: | ||
# The shifoferet hanod hole is only effective if it is complete full of water.<ref>Shach 201:110. | # The shifoferet hanod hole is only effective if it is complete full of water.<ref>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.</ref> | * 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.</ref> | ||
# 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 | # 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> | # 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>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> | ||
| Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
# Hashaka to ice according to some poskim is valid.<ref>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. </ref> | # Hashaka to ice according to some poskim is valid.<ref>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. </ref> | ||
==Tevilah in and on a Kli== | ==Tevilah in and on a Kli== | ||
# One may not go to mikveh in a kli and that is invalid | # 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 cited by Gra 201:29, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:6</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. </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. </ref> | ||
===A vessel attached to the ground with and without a hole=== | ===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 | # 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. | ||
* Pri Deah (T”K 201:14) writes that the Rash holds that it is invalid rabbinically but the Raah holds it is | * Pri Deah (T”K 201:14) writes that the Rash holds that it is invalid rabbinically but the Raah holds it is biblically invalid. </ref> | ||
# 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.<ref>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. | # 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.<ref>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. </ref> | * 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. </ref> | ||
| Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
# 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.<ref>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.</ref> | # 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.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
# Even a kli larger than 40 seah is invalid to be used to hold the water of the mikveh.<ref>Mordechai, Rokeach cited by Bet Yosef 201:8, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:7 s.v. hari zeh against Chida (Birkei Yosef 201).</ref> | # Even a kli larger than 40 seah is invalid to be used to hold the water of the mikveh.<ref>Mordechai, Rokeach cited by Bet Yosef 201:8, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:7 s.v. hari zeh against Chida (Birkei Yosef 201).</ref> | ||
# 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.<ref>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 | # 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.<ref>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. </ref> | ||
# 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.<ref> 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.</ref> | # 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.<ref> 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.</ref> | ||
# 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.<ref> 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.</ref> | # 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.<ref> 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.</ref> | ||
# If the outer vessel is obligated in tevilat kelim rabbinically and the inner one | # 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. <ref>Gidulei Tahara responsa 13, Tevilat Kelim 10:3</ref> | ||
# A person can immerse inside of a bag that is porous.<ref>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.</ref> | # A person can immerse inside of a bag that is porous.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
# 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.<ref>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.</ref> | # 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.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
| Line 299: | Line 299: | ||
==A Colored Mikveh== | ==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 | # 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> | ||
# 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> | # 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> | ||
# 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 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 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> | # 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> | # 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 mikveh that changed colors on its own is valid.<ref>Rambam Mikavot 7:12, Shulchan Aruch 201:27</ref> | # 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 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> | # 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 | # 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> | # 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== | ==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.<Ref>Mishna Mikvaot 6:4, Zevachim 25b, Shulchan Aruch 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. We follow the Rash and Rosh.</ref> This invalidation is | # A mikveh may not be created by the use of something that is susceptible to tumah otherwise it is invalid.<Ref>Mishna Mikvaot 6:4, Zevachim 25b, Shulchan Aruch 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. We follow the Rash and Rosh.</ref> This invalidation is biblical.<Ref>Chatom Sofer 199:5 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 3:17 hold it is biblical since it is learned from a pasuk. Chelkat Binyamin 201:679 agrees.</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.<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. 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.</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.<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. 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.</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 | # 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? | 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. 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 | ** 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. This idea is based on Rashi Menachot 96b s.v. tameha. Rashba Bava Batra 66b 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 | * 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 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 5:5 and Simla 201:84 point out this dispute. | * 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 5:5 and Simla 201:84 point out this dispute.</ref> | ||
</ref> | |||
===If the water would have reached the mikveh anyway=== | ===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 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>Shulchan Aruch 201:35, Shach 201:103</ref> | ||
| Line 336: | Line 336: | ||
===Indirectly using something that is susceptible to tumah=== | ===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>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> | ||
==Connecting Pits of Water that Overflow== | ==Connecting Pits of Water that Overflow== | ||
# 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, 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> | ||
