Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,220
edits
Mikvaot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Zochlin
| Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
==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 biblically<ref>Being that the invalidation of zochlin is in Torat Kohanim as a derivation of a pasuk it should be biblical. That is the opinion of the Trumat Hadeshen 254, Maharik 115, Bet Yosef 201:3, and Rama 201:2. The Darkei Moshe 201:7 explains that the issue of rainwater in a mikveh moving is considered a biblical invalidation, but the concern of having a majority of rainwater in a river is only rabbinic. | #Only a mayan purifies whether the water is moving or stationary<ref>Ramban Shabbat 65b clarifies that the a mayan can purify if it is moving and certainly if it is stationary. Shach 201:7 agrees.</ref>, but a mikveh is biblically<ref>Being that the invalidation of zochlin is in Torat Kohanim as a derivation of a pasuk it should be biblical. That is the opinion of the Trumat Hadeshen 254, Maharik 115, Bet Yosef 201:3, and Rama 201:2. The Darkei Moshe 201:7 explains that the issue of rainwater in a mikveh moving is considered a biblical invalidation, but the concern of having a majority of rainwater in a river is only rabbinic. | ||
* However, the Bet Yosef 201:3 seems to understand the Mordechai to mean that zochlin is only rabbinic. Chatom Sofer YD 2:202 proves that the Yereyim (ch. 26) and Maharam (cited by Mordechai) hold that zochlin is only rabbinic. Furthermore, he posits that this is the view of Ran, Rosh, and Rashba. Mahari Asad 5:211 proves that Rashi Chullin 31b s.v. chardelit holds zochlin is rabbinic. Peni Yehoshua Shabbat 65b s.v. BTosfot shema writes that the rishonim who hold that sheuvim is rabbinic also hold that zochlin is rabbinic. Tzemech Tzedek 164:5 makes a compromise in explaining the Rosh that biblically only if the mikveh is moving like a spring but rabbinically it is a problem even if there's a hole in the mikveh and water is draining. Imrei Yosher 130 agrees. | * However, the Bet Yosef 201:3 seems to understand the Mordechai to mean that zochlin is only rabbinic. [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=14664#p=165&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Chatom Sofer YD 2:202] proves that the Yereyim (ch. 26) and Maharam (cited by Mordechai) hold that zochlin is only rabbinic. Furthermore, he posits that this is the view of Ran, Rosh, and Rashba. Mahari Asad 5:211 proves that Rashi Chullin 31b s.v. chardelit holds zochlin is rabbinic. Peni Yehoshua Shabbat 65b s.v. BTosfot shema writes that the rishonim who hold that sheuvim is rabbinic also hold that zochlin is rabbinic. Tzemech Tzedek 164:5 makes a compromise in explaining the Rosh that biblically only if the mikveh is moving like a spring but rabbinically it is a problem even if there's a hole in the mikveh and water is draining. Imrei Yosher 130 agrees. | ||
* Chazon Ish 134:3 (Tinyana 7:3) writes that this opinion of the Chatom Sofer is totally incorrect and may not be included as a factor to be lenient. Divrei Chayim 5 and Chibur Ltahara 2:38 agree and answer the Chatom Sofer’s proofs.</ref> invalid if the water is moving.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14026&st=&pgnum=148 Torat Kohanim Shemini 9:3], Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, Rashi Shabbat 65b s.v. vsaver</ref> | * Chazon Ish 134:3 (Tinyana 7:3) writes that this opinion of the Chatom Sofer is totally incorrect and may not be included as a factor to be lenient. Divrei Chayim 5 and Chibur Ltahara 2:38 agree and answer the Chatom Sofer’s proofs.</ref> invalid if the water is moving.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14026&st=&pgnum=148 Torat Kohanim Shemini 9:3], Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, Rashi Shabbat 65b s.v. vsaver</ref> | ||
# 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> | ||
