Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,220
edits
Mikvaot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Natan Seah Vnatal Seah
| Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
===Natan Seah Vnatal Seah=== | ===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. The | # 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. Tosfot Rid (Bava Batra 66b) agrees. 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 and not fruit juice. Rashbam (Bava Batra 66a), Rabbenu Gershom (Bava Batra 66b), and Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 88) agree with Rambam. 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 biblically invalid. Shevet Halevi 4:121 argues that it is only a rabbinic issue even according to the Raavad. Maharsham 1:135 agrees. | 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. | ||
