Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,220
edits
Mikvaot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Zeriya
(→Zeriya) |
|||
| Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
===Zeriya=== | ===Zeriya=== | ||
# If sheuvim is poured into a complete mikveh and no sheuvim water is removed it is kosher, even if more than 40 seah of sheuvim is added. This is true even if as a result of the sheuvim being added, water overflows and exits the complete mikveh.<ref>Rash, Rambam, Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8)</reF> However, there is a minority opinion who holds that it is invalid once a majority of the original water leaves, even if it just leaves by overflowing.<ref>Why is a mikveh kosher if someone adds sheuvim to it but natan seah v'natal seah is invalid? | # If sheuvim is poured into a complete mikveh and no sheuvim water is removed it is kosher, even if more than 40 seah of sheuvim is added. This is true even if as a result of the sheuvim being added, water overflows and exits the complete mikveh.<ref>Rash, Rambam, Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8)</reF> However, there is a minority opinion who holds that it is invalid once a majority of the original water leaves, even if it just leaves by overflowing.<ref>Why is a mikveh kosher if someone adds sheuvim to it but natan seah v'natal seah is invalid? | ||
* [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=14483#p=104&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 1:5)] concludes that there is no difference. Indeed, if he adds so much sheuvim such that the result is that there is a majority of sheuvim compared to the kosher mikveh water, it is invalid. Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8) quotes this view. | * [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=14483#p=104&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 1:5)] concludes that there is no difference. Indeed, if he adds so much sheuvim such that the result is that there is a majority of sheuvim compared to the kosher mikveh water, it is invalid. Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8) quotes this view. [Raavad (Buckwald edition, fnt. 12) notes that this edition of Raavad is found only in the second out of three editions and it seems that he retracted] | ||
* However, Rash (Mikvaot 7:2) and [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=9023#p=105 Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 7)] understand that natan seah vnatal seah is about fruit juice and not sheuvim. | * However, Rash (Mikvaot 7:2) and [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=9023#p=105 Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 7)] understand that natan seah vnatal seah is about fruit juice and not sheuvim. | ||
* Alternatively, Raavad suggested that natan seah vnatal seah only applies if you actively remove water and not if the rainwater flows out by itself. </ref> | * Alternatively, Raavad suggested that natan seah vnatal seah only applies if you actively remove water and not if the rainwater flows out by itself.</ref> | ||
===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. 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> | # 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> | ||
