Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,210
edits
Mikvaot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Type of Ground Necessary for Hamshacha
| Line 344: | Line 344: | ||
* The Brisker Rav (Chidushei HaGriz Temurah 12a s.v. vheneh) writes that those who held that you need 3 tefachim is because sheuvim is only rabbinic and it needs to be separated from a kli. However, those who held that you need ground that is water penetrable could hold that sheuvim is deoritta and it doesn’t need to be 3 tefachim. </ref> | * The Brisker Rav (Chidushei HaGriz Temurah 12a s.v. vheneh) writes that those who held that you need 3 tefachim is because sheuvim is only rabbinic and it needs to be separated from a kli. However, those who held that you need ground that is water penetrable could hold that sheuvim is deoritta and it doesn’t need to be 3 tefachim. </ref> | ||
# Whether hamshacha must be done on top of dirt or can be done on top of a kli attached to the ground is a dispute.<ref>The Mikveh Yisrael explains that there’s a dispute between the Raavad and Rambam whether the water needs to come into contact with the ground or even a vessel that is attached to the ground or even a vessel that isn’t susceptible to tumah is sufficient. Shevet Halevi 4:120 argues that there’s no dispute but any vessel that has a receptacle isn’t fit for hamshacha even if it isn’t susceptible to tumah. Shevet Halevi 4:120 explains that the water needs to actually come in contact with the ground and if the water is gushing quickly over the ground most of it doesn’t have hamshacha.</ref> | # Whether hamshacha must be done on top of dirt or can be done on top of a kli attached to the ground is a dispute.<ref>The Mikveh Yisrael explains that there’s a dispute between the Raavad and Rambam whether the water needs to come into contact with the ground or even a vessel that is attached to the ground or even a vessel that isn’t susceptible to tumah is sufficient. Shevet Halevi 4:120 argues that there’s no dispute but any vessel that has a receptacle isn’t fit for hamshacha even if it isn’t susceptible to tumah. Shevet Halevi 4:120 explains that the water needs to actually come in contact with the ground and if the water is gushing quickly over the ground most of it doesn’t have hamshacha.</ref> | ||
# Cement absorbs water and is fit for hamshacha.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1278&st=&pgnum=259 Maharshag 1:65] citing experts writes that cement is water penetrable. Chelkat Binyamin 201:668 writes that the poskim hold cement works for hamshacha. Minchat Yitzchak 1:142 agrees with | # Cement absorbs water and is fit for hamshacha.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1278&st=&pgnum=259 Maharshag 1:65] citing experts writes that cement is water penetrable. Chazon Ish (Likkutim 3:1) agrees. Chelkat Binyamin 201:668 writes that the poskim hold cement works for hamshacha. Minchat Yitzchak 1:142 agrees with Maharshag about cement. However, the Divrei Yatziv 117 writes that it is preferable not to use cement since some question if it can absorb water (see Darkei Teshuva 201:206, 215). Mishneh Halachot 16:49 cites this. Pitchei Mikvaot (ch. 6 fnt. 4) quotes Cheshev Haefod who questions that cement should actually be considered absorbent. His reason is that the factor behind being absorbent is that hamshacha makes the water like the water leached from the ground, however, that isn't the case regarding cement. Also, he raises the issue that hamshacha should have to be upon dirt that is connected to the earth and water could leach out of and not dirt on top of something that can't absorb water. For example, a hamshacha ramp on the second floor of a building, even if it is all connected to the ground still isn't fit for this criteria of being ground that is absorbent. Cheshev Haefod concludes that since we only use hamshacha as a chumra today it is fine to use cement and fine to use it even on a second floor. Mikveh Mayim (R' Yirmiyahu Katz) writes that some cements absorb water and some do not. Maharshag 66 notes that even though stones can also absorb, albeit very slowly, they can invalid for hamschach according to Mordechai and Rama. Nonetheless, Maharshag claims that water gets absorbed faster in cement than in stone. [Note that Mordechai and Rama also invalidate wood because it doesn't absorb quickly.]</ref> | ||
# A spring that filled up a mikveh and during the summer it dried out, if a nearby pit is filled up with water and that water drained into the ground and the spring is filled up with that water from the pit the spring can be used as a kosher mikveh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:47. The Rosh responsa 31:11 is lenient about a spring that was refilled with water from a nearby pit since the water in the pit that was absorbed in the ground would certainly be met up with a greater quantity of natural spring water and as such there is hamshacha with a majority of spring water. Also, the spring isn’t invalidated with drawn water. So even though it appears to have dried up it couldn’t completely dry up. Shach and Taz are lenient for Ashkenazim even they wouldn’t hold of the second reason of the Rosh.</ref> | # A spring that filled up a mikveh and during the summer it dried out, if a nearby pit is filled up with water and that water drained into the ground and the spring is filled up with that water from the pit the spring can be used as a kosher mikveh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:47. The Rosh responsa 31:11 is lenient about a spring that was refilled with water from a nearby pit since the water in the pit that was absorbed in the ground would certainly be met up with a greater quantity of natural spring water and as such there is hamshacha with a majority of spring water. Also, the spring isn’t invalidated with drawn water. So even though it appears to have dried up it couldn’t completely dry up. Shach and Taz are lenient for Ashkenazim even they wouldn’t hold of the second reason of the Rosh.</ref> | ||
