Anonymous

Mikvaot: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia

Mikvaot (view source)

Revision as of 18:21, 29 January 2024

7,368 bytes added ,  29 January
→‎Tefisat Yadey Adam Grama
 
(45 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 152: Line 152:


==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. [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.
* 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>  
Line 160: Line 160:
* Gra 201:96 argues that according to the Rosh the invalidation of a mikveh is objective and even if it isn’t recognizable it is invalid. Rav Chaim in his letter and Rav Shternbuch are strict for the Gra.</ref>
* Gra 201:96 argues that according to the Rosh the invalidation of a mikveh is objective and even if it isn’t recognizable it is invalid. Rav Chaim in his letter and Rav Shternbuch are strict for the Gra.</ref>
===Zochlin with water going into the mikveh===
===Zochlin with water going into the mikveh===
# If water is flowing into a mikveh but water isn’t flowing out there’s a dispute whether that is considered zochlin. <ref>Divrei Chayim Mikvaot 201:5 and Maharam Shik YD 205 hold that if there's water going into the mikveh it is invalid because of zochlin. However, the Lechem Vsimla 15 quoting the Mey Shiloach 2:8 holds that it isn't considered zochlin at all as long as there's 40 seah in the mikveh besides the water coming in. Arugat Habosem YD 211-2 is lenient even to include the water coming in towards the 40 seah.</ref>
# If water is flowing into a mikveh but water isn’t flowing out there’s a dispute whether that is considered zochlin.<ref>Divrei Chayim Mikvaot 201:5 and Maharam Shik YD 205 hold that if there's water going into the mikveh it is invalid because of zochlin. However, the Lechem Vsimla 15 quoting the Mey Shiloach 2:8 holds that it isn't considered zochlin at all as long as there's 40 seah in the mikveh besides the water coming in. Arugat Habosem YD 211-2 is lenient even to include the water coming in towards the 40 seah.</ref>
===Zochlin from Mikveh to Mikveh===
===Zochlin while the mikveh is filling up===
# If the water is filled up to where the hashaka hole and when the woman dips in the mikveh, some water is displaced and partially fills up the hashaka hole and the water spills into the bor zeriya or bor hashaka. That movement of water could be considered zochlin and invalidate the mikveh.<ref>Chazon Ish (Likkutim 6:2 s.v. haya, YD 127:2 s.v. haya) himself raised the issue but limited it to where the water would be pouring out of the hole from bor tevila into the bor zeriya or bor hashaka and the water is arched. However, if the water is just dribbling down the side of the walls and not arched then it isn't considered zochlin. He leaves it with tzarich iyun, indicating that he wasn't certain about this point. Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Igrot Vereshimot Kehilat Yakov v. 4 siman 10 p. 26) writes that this leniency of the Chazon Ish is difficult to accept and should not be relied upon. </ref> What are the solutions?
# If the water is filled up to where the hashaka hole and when the woman dips in the mikveh, some water is displaced and partially fills up the hashaka hole and the water spills into the bor zeriya or bor hashaka. That movement of water could be considered zochlin and invalidate the mikveh.<ref>Chazon Ish (Likkutim 6:2 s.v. haya, YD 127:2 s.v. haya) himself raised the issue but limited it to where the water would be pouring out of the hole from bor tevila into the bor zeriya or bor hashaka and the water is arched. However, if the water is just dribbling down the side of the walls and not arched then it isn't considered zochlin. He leaves it with tzarich iyun, indicating that he wasn't certain about this point. Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Igrot Vereshimot Kehilat Yakov v. 4 siman 10 p. 26) writes that this leniency of the Chazon Ish is difficult to accept and should not be relied upon. </ref> What are the solutions?
## Chazon Ish YD 123:1 has solution to put the pipe where water comes in lower down. Chelkat Yakov 10:3:53:2, 58:2 and Minchat Yitzchak 2:23 accept this Chazon Ish and actually implemented it in their mikvaot. However, Mikveh Mayim v. 1 p. 27 quotes Rav Greenwald from Papo who holds that this solution is worse. The water coming in from the pipe below makes it zochlin since all of the water can be seen rising and overflowing. Also, it is worse since the zechila is from below 40 seah. Mey Hashilo'ach p. 27.
## Chazon Ish YD 123:1 has solution to put the pipe where water comes in lower down. Chelkat Yakov 10:3:53:2, 58:2 and Minchat Yitzchak 2:23 accept this Chazon Ish and actually implemented it in their mikvaot. However, Mikveh Mayim v. 1 p. 27 quotes Rav Greenwald from Papo who holds that this solution is worse. The water coming in from the pipe below makes it zochlin since all of the water can be seen rising and overflowing. Also, it is worse since the zechila is from below 40 seah. Mey Hashilo'ach p. 27.
## Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe  YD 1:112) held that this isn't an issue at all since zochlin can create hashaka. Rav Aharon Kotler (mishnat rebbe aharon 24:8, 25:1) agrees. Chazon Ish kama 3:2, however, Maharsham 1:122 is machmir about this.  
## Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe  YD 1:112) held that this isn't an issue at all since zochlin can create hashaka. Rav Aharon Kotler (mishnat rebbe aharon 24:8, 25:1) agrees. Chazon Ish kama 3:2, however, Maharsham 1:122 is machmir about this.  
#Chelkat Yakov 3:54:6 writes that there's no issue of zochlin from one mikveh to another mikveh if there is a bor al gabi bor with water that is stationary one on top of the other.
 
#Some achronim are extremely machmir about this question and hold that even if the pipe is completely filled with water to consider the water moving through the pipe from one bor to the other bor to be considered zochlin. To avoid this, the hashaka pipe should be closed at the time of the tevila.<ref>Simla 201:94 holds that it is considered zochlin if water is going from one mikveh to another mikveh even though the pipe is full of water. </ref> Most achronim disagree and hold that this is not an issue.<ref>Rav Shlomo Kluger (Shirei Tahara 39, Mey Niddah, and Haelef Lecha Shlomo YD 233) explains that there's no zochlin from one mikveh to the other since the water remains stationary in either bor and returns back to the other bor. The Satmer Rebbe (Divrei Yoel 75) agreed that there's no zochlin from one mikveh to the other if the pipe is full of water. Rav Moshe Bick (Taharat Yom Tov v. 18 p. 373-4) quoted the Satmer Rebbe as laughing about this question and holding that it isn't an issue of zochlin even if the pipe isn't full. Because if that was considered zochlin, it should be zochlin even if the pipe is full of water. The solution to that would be to insist that the hashaka hole be closed up, but that no one heard was critical.
=== Zochlin from Mikveh to Mikveh ===
#Rav Shlomo Kluger has 3 reasons that he thinks that there's no issue of zochlin from mikveh to mikveh. Bet Shlomo adds another 2 reasons:
##It is only considered zochlin if the water is leaving the mikveh and flowing beyond the mikveh. If, however, the water is leaking from the mikveh and going into a contained area that isn't zochlin. Most achronim disagree with this.<ref>Rav Kluger's proof for this is Rama YD 201:52. Bet Shlomo YD 2:52, Simla 201:94, Maharam Shik YD 205, and Maharsham 3:239 disagree with this logic of Rav Kluger. Maharam Shik's proof is from Rash Mikvaot 4:4 that zochlin into a house is a problem, as well as Rivash 292 according to Chatom Sofer YD 209. Tashbetz 3:34 also seems to be a very clear proof against Rav Shlomo Kluger.</ref>
##If the waters are connected a tiny bit that automatically connects the mikvaot from the Torah. Even though on a rabbinic level the mikvaot aren't connected without a shifoferet hanod, for purposes of zochlin they're considered one mikveh. Bet Shlomo<ref>YD 2:51-52</ref> rejects this nuance and holds that shifoferet hanod is from the Torah.
##Since the water isn't recognizably moving out of the mikveh, that isn't considered zochlin at all according to Shulchan Aruch YD 201:51. Bet Shlomo agrees with this point.<ref>Bet Shlomo (YD 2:51 s.v. vlibi and af) adds to this argument based on Shulchan Aruch YD 201:13 that water isn't considered zochlin unless it is streaming out and not if it is just dripping. Maharam Shik YD 205 seems to agree.</ref>
##Bet Shlomo has another argument that if the two mikvaot will always have 40 seah and the only water that's moving from one to the other won't diminish the 40 seah in the mikveh that is being used for tevila, that's kosher according to Shulchan Aruch YD 201:50.
##Bet Shlomo also explains that according to Shach 201:30 there's no issue of zochlin because of the movement of the water based on the person who is currently tovel (dipping). He says that this factor is questionable as he proves from Tashbetz, Maharik, and Nodeh Beyehuda.
#'''If pipe is not completely full''': If the two mikvaot have a pipe the size of a shifoferet hanod but it isn't completely full of water, when somone is tovel there is some water that moves from one mikveh to the other due to water displacement, many poskim would consider the mikveh invalid because of zochlin.<ref>Rav Shlomo Kluger (Shaarei Tahara 39) is lenient, but the poskim including Tashbetz 3:34, Maharam Shik YD 205, Bet Shlomo 2:51 disagree with this and hold it is invalid.</ref>
#'''If pipe is completely full''': If the two mikvaot are connected with a shifoferet hanod of stationary water, then Rav Shlomo Kluger, Rav Efraim Zalman Margoliyot, Gur Aryeh Yehuda, and Bet Shlomo<ref>Bet Shlomo 2:51 s.v. vma and lechen. Rav Kluger quoted Rav Zalman Efraim Margoliyot and Gur Aryeh Yehuda.</ref> hold that there's no zechila from mikveh to mikveh. No one would invalidate that mikveh except Rav Elazar Landau.<ref>Maharam Shik YD 205 also holds this is kosher. It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, each of which theoretically suffice independently.</ref>
##However, some achronim are extremely machmir about this question and hold that even if the pipe is completely filled with water to consider the water moving through the pipe from one bor to the other bor to be considered zochlin. To avoid this, the hashaka pipe should be closed at the time of the tevila.<ref>Simla 201:94 holds that it is considered zochlin if water is going from one mikveh to another mikveh even though the pipe is full of water. He seems like he's only discussing a case where there's no shifoferet hanod connecting the mikvaot. </ref> Most achronim disagree and hold that this is not an issue.<ref>Rav Shlomo Kluger (Shirei Tahara 39, Mey Niddah, and Haelef Lecha Shlomo YD 233) explains that there's no zochlin from one mikveh to the other since the water remains stationary in either bor and returns back to the other bor. The Satmer Rebbe (Divrei Yoel 75) agreed that there's no zochlin from one mikveh to the other if the pipe is full of water. Rav Moshe Bick (Taharat Yom Tov v. 18 p. 373-4) quoted the Satmer Rebbe as laughing about this question and holding that it isn't an issue of zochlin even if the pipe isn't full. Because if that was considered zochlin, it should be zochlin even if the pipe is full of water. The solution to that would be to insist that the hashaka hole be closed up, but that no one heard was critical.


Bet Shlomo YD 51 writes that Rabbi Elazar Landua challenged the validity of a mikveh where the water is moving from one mikveh to the other, while someone is tovel and the pipe is full with a shifoferet hanod of water. Bet Shlomo quotes that Rav Shlomo Kluger laughed about this question and thought obviously it isn't considered zochlin since the water isn't leaving anywhere. Bet Shlomo agreed that it is kosher. Rav Kluger went further and held it was kosher even if it isn't connected with a shifoferet hanod, but Bet Shlomo didn't agree with that point.</ref>
Bet Shlomo YD 51 writes that Rabbi Elazar Landua challenged the validity of a mikveh where the water is moving from one mikveh to the other, while someone is tovel and the pipe is full with a shifoferet hanod of water. Bet Shlomo quotes that Rav Shlomo Kluger laughed about this question and thought obviously it isn't considered zochlin since the water isn't leaving anywhere. Bet Shlomo agreed that it is kosher. Rav Kluger went further and held it was kosher even if it isn't connected with a shifoferet hanod, but Bet Shlomo didn't agree with that point.</ref>
#'''Bor al gabi bor''': Chelkat Yakov<ref>3:54:6</ref> writes that there's no issue of zochlin from one mikveh to another mikveh if there is a bor al gabi bor with water that is stationary one on top of the other.
#'''If there are holes smaller than shifoferet hanod''':
##If the two mikvaot are not connected with a shifoferet hanod and only connected with a tiny amount of water, but the connection between the two mikvaot is completely underwater, then both Rav Shlomo Kluger and Bet Shlomo allow this.<ref>Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:272:8 argues that the poskim allow this only bedieved and not initially.</ref> Since the movement between the two mikvaot isn't noticeable there's no zechila.<ref>It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, each of which theoretically suffice independently. Maharam Shik YD 205 seems to agree. Minchat Yitzchak 1:147:9-12 is concerned for this type of zechila if it is unrecognizable because of Gra. However, if it is above 40 seah then he writes everyone agrees that it is kosher. Chelkat Yakov YD 112:6 seems to be even stricter and is concerned for zechila that's unrecognizable through the minimal hole between two mikvaot.</ref>
##If the two mikvaot are not connected with a shifoferet hanod and only connected with a tiny amount of water, and the connection between the two mikvaot is above the water so that it is possible to see the water spilling one to the other, Rav Shlomo Kluger is lenient to consider that not zochlin, but most poskim disagree.<ref>It is possible to argue that this is kosher based on reasons: 1, 2, 4, and 5, but since Bet Shlomo disagrees with 1 and 2 and 4 and 5 are both subject to a dispute, Bet Shlomo holds that they should avoid this.</ref>


===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 [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=9023#p=76 Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 2)] 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 [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=9023#p=76 Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 2)] 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 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.  
*Chatom Sofer YD 2:211 holds like the Rashba and Shulchan Aruch.
</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.
*Shaarei Tzion 3:26 argues that Gra never said that it was pasul. Either Gra 201:96 is a typo or written by a mistaken student. He proves thoroughly that there's no way to hold that an unrecognizable zechila is invalid.
* 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 accepts Shulchan Aruch. He quotes Nodeh Beyehuda, Chatom Sofer, Maharsham, Maharshag, Divrei Malkiel, and others who agree with 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 Rebbe Aharon (Kotler 1:24:8) 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 (Mordechai and Rashba) or it could be that moving water is like it isn’t connected and there’s no 40 seah (Rivash and Rosh). 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 since that is the degree by which movement is measured. But according to the second one, it is invalid even if the movement isn’t noticeable. Chazon Ish (Tinyana 8:4, Likutim 3:4) explains Gra differently. He explains that according to Rosh only the water that itself is moving out of the mikveh is considered zochlin. Everything else isn't zochlin. Rashba's question was how is it possible to make a kosher mikveh in the ground without any zechila. Rashba answered that non-noticeable movement isn't zechila. However, Rosh would answer that it isn't an issue if there's slightly more than 40 seah since all of the water that is currently not leaving the pit is counted for the mikveh. Since Rosh has another answer to Rashba's question he doesn't have to accept his conclusion. 
</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 1:17 s.v. uma 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 (Hilchot Mikvaot no. 12 and responsa 31:4) 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 Y.D. 201:50 accepts the Rash, Mordechai, and Rashba 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.
*Chazon Ish (Tinyana 8:4, Likutim 3:4) holds like Rosh that any movement that isn't gushing like a spring is kosher. He argues that this is also the intention of Gra 96 and Shulchan Aruch. However, the many achronim (Chelkat Binyamin 201:718 citing Nodeh Beyehuda 137 s.v. vnachzor and Divrei Chayim 15 s.v. od) refute this understanding of Shulchan Aruch. Gra 90 himself flatly rejects this theory.</ref>
## Some poskim hold that as long as it isn't recognizable that the water is moving on top of the mikveh. Even if you know that there is water leaking out it is still kosher.<ref>Rav Yitzchak Elchanan (Ayin Yitzchak YD 22)</ref>
## Other poskim hold that it is only kosher if it is dribbling out slowly. But if you know that it is leaking out in a stream or leaking quickly it is a problem.<ref>Imrei Yosher 1:127, Shaarei Tzion 3:26. Imrei Yosher also quotes Bet Shlomo 2:72, Tzemech Tzedek, and Divrei Chayim as strict about this question. </ref>
## Most poskim hold that it is only allowed after the fact and not initially.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin (fnt. 2218) quotes many poskim who hold that one shouldn't rely upon unrecognizable zechila initially, including: Igrot Moshe, Achiezer, and Ayin Yitzchak.</ref>  


===Zochlin above 40 seah===
===Zochlin above 40 seah===
# If there’s a crack in the mikveh and the crack is above the point where the walls would contain 40 seah anyway, some rishonim hold it is valid, while others don’t. According to the lenient view, it is only acceptable to dip in the area below the crack.<ref>Maharak 156 is clear that Rosh allows being tovel in the area below the crack. He has a nuance that even though the area above the crack is zochlin and not fit to be tovel in, it is still included in the water of the mikveh in order to make hashaka to sheuvim water.</ref> Ashkenazim are strict.<ref> The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains the mishna to mean that if there’s a crack in the wall of the mikveh the mikveh is invalid because the water that’s dripping out makes the water in the mikveh considered moving, which is zochlin. The Rosh there discusses the Rash and posits that the Rash wouldn’t invalidate the mikveh if the crack is above the point where the walls would contain 40 seah below the crack. The Tur 201:50 writes that although some held that if the crack is above the point of 40 seah the mikveh is invalid the Rosh was lenient. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 is lenient like the Rosh but the Rama quotes the other opinion. The Gra explains that the Rash, Mordechai, and Rashba hold like the stringent opinion. Maharik 115 thinks that Raavad holds like the lenient view.</ref>
# If there’s a crack in the mikveh and the crack is above the point where the walls would contain 40 seah anyway, some rishonim hold it is valid, while others don’t. According to the lenient view, it is only acceptable to dip in the area below the crack.<ref>Maharak 156 is clear that Rosh allows being tovel in the area below the crack. He has a nuance that even though the area above the crack is zochlin and not fit to be tovel in, it is still included in the water of the mikveh in order to make hashaka to sheuvim water.</ref> Ashkenazim are strict.<ref> The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains the mishna to mean that if there’s a crack in the wall of the mikveh the mikveh is invalid because the water that’s dripping out makes the water in the mikveh considered moving, which is zochlin. The Rosh there discusses the Rash and posits that the Rash wouldn’t invalidate the mikveh if the crack is above the point where the walls would contain 40 seah below the crack. The Tur 201:50 writes that although some held that if the crack is above the point of 40 seah the mikveh is invalid the Rosh was lenient. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 is lenient like the Rosh but the Rama quotes the other opinion. The Gra explains that the Rash, Mordechai, and Rashba hold like the stringent opinion. Maharik 115 thinks that Raavad holds like the lenient view.</ref>
# Some rishonim hold that if there's always 40 seah it is acceptable to be tovel in that water even though some water is leaving.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=624&pgnum=299 Bayi Chayey YD 198]</ref> The poskim do not follow this approach.
=== Zochlin within the mikveh ===
# Water that is moving within the mikveh is kosher and not considered zochlin at all.<ref>Rivash 292, Tashbetz 3:34, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:730 citing Chazon Ish Kama 5</ref>
===Zochlin because of a person dipping===
===Zochlin because of a person dipping===
# Water which splashed out of a mikveh and bounces off the walls and is going to return to the mikveh isn’t considered zochlin since it is only caused by a person and is going to return.<ref>The Rivash responsa 292 writes that if a woman goes into the mikveh and some water is displaced and returns to the mikveh it isn’t considered zochlin. Bet Yosef 201:62, Rama 201:50 and Shach 201:30 and 120 accept the Rivash. Shach 201:120 presents the Rivash as saying that as long as the movement isn’t because of the natural force of the water (gravity or momentum from a spring) it isn’t considered zochlin. Maharik 156 clearly disagrees with this Rivash.
# Water which splashed out of a mikveh and bounces off the walls and is going to return to the mikveh isn’t considered zochlin since it is only caused by a person and is going to return.<ref>The Rivash responsa 292 writes that if a woman goes into the mikveh and some water is displaced and returns to the mikveh it isn’t considered zochlin. Bet Yosef 201:62, Rama 201:50 and Shach 201:30 and 120 accept the Rivash. Shach 201:120 presents the Rivash as saying that as long as the movement isn’t because of the natural force of the water (gravity or momentum from a spring) it isn’t considered zochlin. Maharik 156 clearly disagrees with this Rivash.
Line 190: Line 213:


(4) Shach 201:30 answers that the pits were actual springs and not disconnected spring water. Dagul Mirvava is bothered by that Shach since a spring purifies with any quantity. </ref>
(4) Shach 201:30 answers that the pits were actual springs and not disconnected spring water. Dagul Mirvava is bothered by that Shach since a spring purifies with any quantity. </ref>
# If when a woman goes into a mikveh some of the water splashes out of the mikveh, even if there’s more than 40 seah left in the mikveh, some say that the mikveh is unfit since it is zochlin. However, others say that it is fit.<ref>The [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=1087#p=120&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Meil Tzedaka 39-41] cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:3 states that a mikveh in which water splashes out when the woman goes in is unfit since it is considered zochlin. The Rivash only said it was fit when water was displaced when a woman went in and returns on its own because of the edges of the mikveh. However, the Shach 201:30 implies that it is fit even in such a case since the mikveh isn’t leaking on its own, water is just leaving when a person goes in it and that isn’t considered zochlin as long as 40 seah is left. The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:6 are strict. Pitchei Mikvaot 8:8 writes that some are lenient. </ref>
# If when a woman goes into a mikveh some of the water splashes out of the mikveh, even if there’s more than 40 seah left in the mikveh, some say that the mikveh is unfit since it is zochlin. However, others say that it is fit.<ref>The [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=1087#p=120&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Meil Tzedaka 39-41] cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:3 states that a mikveh in which water splashes out when the woman goes in is unfit since it is considered zochlin. The Rivash only said it was fit when water was displaced when a woman went in and returns on its own because of the edges of the mikveh. However, the Shach 201:30 implies that it is fit even in such a case since the mikveh isn’t leaking on its own, water is just leaving when a person goes in it and that isn’t considered zochlin as long as 40 seah is left. The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:6 are strict. Tashbetz 3:34 is clear that this is a problem. Pitchei Mikvaot 8:8 writes that some are lenient. </ref>


===Zochlin because of a filter===
===Zochlin because of a filter===
# Some say that if the filter in the mikveh was running when a woman went in the mikveh it is unfit since it is considered zochlin and others held it is fit.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 336 writes that even while the filter is running the mikveh is fit and it isn’t considered zochlin. Firstly, the water that goes into the filter returns to the mikveh and regarding such a case the Rama 201:50 writes that it isn’t considered zochlin. Secondly, even if the water in the filter is considered zochlin that doesn’t affect the rest of the mikveh if it is still 40 seah. That idea is based on Rambam Mikvaot 8:8. Lastly, the Mikveh Tahara p. 68 writes that movement within the water isn’t considered zochlin, only movement because of water entering and exiting the mikveh is zochlin. Igrot Moshe YD 110 was lenient based on the first consideration. </ref> With regards to the question of sheuvim, it depends on whether the filter is a kli. It depends on the actual type of filter.<ref>Rav Moshe in Igrot Moshe YD 110 writes that the pool filters are a kli and therefore an issue of sheuvim. Even though the water is added back into a mikveh of 40 seah it is an issue of natal seah vnatan seah, which is removing some drawn water and replacing it, which is an issue (Shach 201:23). Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 337 comes to the conclusion that the in-mikveh filters aren’t an issue of sheuvim since they essentially a straight pipe and not a kli. He cites the Shema Shlomo 5:14. However, see Betzel Hachachma 4:98.
# Some say that if the filter in the mikveh was running when a woman went in the mikveh it is unfit since it is considered zochlin and others held it is fit.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 336 writes that even while the filter is running the mikveh is fit and it isn’t considered zochlin. (1) Firstly, the water that goes into the filter returns to the mikveh and regarding such a case the Rivash 292 and Rama 201:50 write that it isn’t considered zochlin. (2) Secondly, even if the water in the filter is considered zochlin that doesn’t affect the rest of the mikveh if it is still 40 seah. That idea is based on Rambam Mikvaot 8:8. (3) Lastly, the Mikveh Tahara p. 68 writes that movement within the water isn’t considered zochlin, only movement because of water entering and exiting the mikveh is zochlin. Igrot Moshe YD 110 and Shevet Halevi 9:187 and 11:213 are lenient about zochlin in a mikveh based on the first consideration. Rabbi Meir Posen (Or Meir v. 2 p. 542) is lenient for two reasons: (1) The water is coming from the mikveh and going back into the mikveh (Rivash 292). (2) The water is all within the mikveh and the water in the mikveh is considered part of the mikveh. Once that's the case there's no zochlin within the mikveh (Rivash). It is considered connected even without a shifoferet hanod because (a) it isn't a kli at all and the mikveh isn't a kli so it is connected and (b) the only way to access the water in the filter is through the mikveh. These are reasons why it is connected even with any size. (3) The water being drawn out from the mikveh and going back in are all underwater and it is like zochlin from mikveh to mikveh that's all underwater (Bet Shlomo 2:51, Chazon Ish Likkutim 6).  </ref> With regards to the question of sheuvim, it depends on whether the filter is a kli. It depends on the actual type of filter.<ref>Rav Moshe in Igrot Moshe YD 110 writes that the pool filters are a kli and therefore an issue of sheuvim. Even though the water is added back into a mikveh of 40 seah it is an issue of natal seah vnatan seah, which is removing some drawn water and replacing it, which is an issue (Shach 201:23). Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 337 comes to the conclusion that the in-mikveh filters aren’t an issue of sheuvim since they essentially a straight pipe and not a kli. He cites the Shema Shlomo 5:14. However, see Betzel Hachachma 4:98.
* Igrot Moshe writes that the filter is considered mekabel tumah if it could hold liquids had it not been attached to the ground and if it can’t then it isn’t mekabel tumah but it still creates sheuvim.</ref>
*Igrot Moshe writes that the filter is considered mekabel tumah if it could hold liquids had it not been attached to the ground and if it can’t then it isn’t mekabel tumah but it still creates sheuvim.
*Rabbi Meir Posen (Or Meir v. 2 p. 538) describes his filter at great length. He explains that it doesn't make sheuvim since there's several connections between it and the mikveh with a connection of a shifoferet hanod. Also, it doesn't make sheuvim since the filter can't hold any water.</ref>
## Rav Meir Posen's filter (in the mikveh filter) is accepted by Rabbi Wosner, Rav Nissim Karelitz, and Rav Ovadia. The filter should be off when someone is tovel. However, Rav Wosner and Rav Ovadia hold that it is technically acceptable even while it is on.<ref>Or Meir v. 2 p. 530-549, Rav Wosner in Shevet Halevi 11:213. Rav Karelitz is quoted in Or Meir. Rav Ovadia's opinion is found in Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 337.</ref> Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shternbuch opposed using filters in a mikveh even if it is off.<ref>Birur Din Hafilterim (pp. 7-8 and p. 56) quotes Rav Dovid Aryeh Morgenstern that Rav Elyashiv opposed using filters in mikvaot since it is a new thing and could cause problems. Rav Shternbuch in Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:270-272 strongly opposes the filters. Rabbi Shreiber in Teshuvot Vehanhagot 5:272 writes that the filters are a problem of (1) Sheuvim because it is a kli kibbul to hold dirt. It is worse than the standard natal seah v'natan seah because it doesn't go through the bor zeriya, which Bet Yosef says is kosher. (2) Zochlin while it is working because there's no shifoferet hanod and also the water is moving so katafras isn't connected to a mikveh. Even when it isn't working it is zechila sheina nikeret and lechatchila it should be avoided. Rabbi Rosen responds to these claims (1) that the filter cannot hold water so it doesn't make sheuvim. (2) The filter is considered within the mikveh so zochlin isn't an issue. Also, the water is going into the filter and coming back so it isn't zochlin. </ref>
## An out of the mikveh filter should not be used while it is on. Even after the filter is turned off it should not be used since it causes a major issue of sheuvim.<ref>Igrot Moshe 110 writes that a filter in a swimming pool invalidates the mikveh since it makes the water sheuvim. Even though there's hashaka, still there's an issue of natal seah v'natan seah for the Rambam. In terms of zochlin while the filter is on Rav Moshe is lenient based on Rivash. Rav Moshe considers the water that went through the filter sheuvim since the filter was made with a receptable that is meant to hold water. Har Tzvi 177 also considers the water sheuvim for an entirely different reason. He writes that all of the water is sheuvim even if it wasn't in any receptable that holds water. His reason is that since a person turned on the electricity it is like a person took the water and poured it into the mikveh with his hands. That invalidates the water because of tefisat yad adam (SA 201:15 and 39). See Kinyan Daat Mikvaot 201:39:1 who notes that this approach of Har Tzvi seems to disagree with Rabbi Akiva Eiger. </ref>


==Sheuvim==
==Sheuvim==
Line 203: Line 229:
##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 or a person's kli that is 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 writes that if the water was drawn by something that's susceptible to tumah it is biblically invalid based on Zevachim 25b. However, if it was filled with kelim that aren't susceptible to tumah it is only rabbinically invalid. Yad Ramah b"b 66b agrees. However, in Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam) agrees with Rabbenu Tam that sheuvim is deoritta. 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. Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) quotes this Rash.</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 or a person's kli that is 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 writes that if the water was drawn by something that's susceptible to tumah it is biblically invalid based on Zevachim 25b. However, if it was filled with kelim that aren't susceptible to tumah it is only rabbinically invalid. Yad Ramah b"b 66b agrees. However, in Tosfot (Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam) agrees with Rabbenu Tam that sheuvim is deoritta. 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. Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) quotes this Rash.</ref>
##Some rishonim think that if it was filled up intentionally a person it is biblically invalid, but if it was filled in kelim by themselves it is only invalid rabbinically.<ref>Raavad cited by Ramban (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) and Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani)</ref>
##Some rishonim think that if it was filled up intentionally a person it is biblically invalid, but if it was filled in kelim by themselves it is only invalid rabbinically.<ref>Raavad cited by Ramban (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani) and Rashba (Bava Batra 66b s.v. shani)</ref>
# 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. Aruch Lechem 201:53 writes that this is the opinion of Shulchan Aruch. Divrei Yosef p. 398 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:18 agree. 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>
# 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. Aruch Lechem 201:53 writes that this is the opinion of Shulchan Aruch. Divrei Yosef p. 398 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:18 agree. 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. However, Taz 201:81-82 (as clarified by Pri Deah) clearly indicates that he agrees that Shulchan Aruch holds it is rabbinic.  </ref>


===Intention===
===Intention===
Line 234: Line 260:
# A bent pipe that could hold water is valid. There is a minority opinion that it is invalid. Some say that it is invalid only if the angle created is less than 90 degrees and water could be held in that bend, however, a bent pipe that is 90 degrees or more and just directs the water flow doesn’t create sheuvim. Others explain that according to the strict opinion any bent pipe is an issue even to direct water flow. A possible solution is to have one pipe flow into another pipe at an angle but not actually connect them and make them into one pipe.<ref>The Raavad Mikvaot 8:7 cites the Tosefta 5:4 that holds that bent pipes create sheuvim. He explains that even though they aren’t susceptible to tumah they nonetheless create sheuvim. Kesef Mishna (Mikvaot 8:7) disagrees because the bent pipes weren't made to hold water and shouldn't make sheuvim (Mishna Mikvaot 4:3). Rash (Mikvaot 6:8) and Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8) interpret the Tosefta to be discussing a case where the bend makes the pipe have a receptacle to hold water.
# A bent pipe that could hold water is valid. There is a minority opinion that it is invalid. Some say that it is invalid only if the angle created is less than 90 degrees and water could be held in that bend, however, a bent pipe that is 90 degrees or more and just directs the water flow doesn’t create sheuvim. Others explain that according to the strict opinion any bent pipe is an issue even to direct water flow. A possible solution is to have one pipe flow into another pipe at an angle but not actually connect them and make them into one pipe.<ref>The Raavad Mikvaot 8:7 cites the Tosefta 5:4 that holds that bent pipes create sheuvim. He explains that even though they aren’t susceptible to tumah they nonetheless create sheuvim. Kesef Mishna (Mikvaot 8:7) disagrees because the bent pipes weren't made to hold water and shouldn't make sheuvim (Mishna Mikvaot 4:3). Rash (Mikvaot 6:8) and Meiri (Mikvaot 6:8) interpret the Tosefta to be discussing a case where the bend makes the pipe have a receptacle to hold water.
*Do we hold like the Raavad? The Raavad isn’t quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Rama, Shach, or Taz. Chelkat Binyamin 539 quotes the Bet Shlomo 2:66 who is strict.
*Do we hold like the Raavad? The Raavad isn’t quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Rama, Shach, or Taz. Chelkat Binyamin 539 quotes the Bet Shlomo 2:66 who is strict.
*What does the Raavad do about the Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 established that any pipe which wasn’t meant to hold water even if it has a receptacle doesn’t create sheuvim? Rav Chaim (Mikvaot 6:4) explains that the Raavad is only relevant to dipping in a pipe as a mikveh or using the pipe to connect two mikvot that are lacking. The explanation is that when connecting mikvaot anything used to connect them is necessary for that section to be kosher even if he were to be tovel in that section. However, the bent pipe doesn't actually make it sheuvim. Divrei Chaim 201:33 explains that the Raavad only meant that if the bent pipe is meant to hold to water is it invalid even if it originally wasn’t meant to hold anything. Gidulei Tahara 9 also limits the Raavad to where the bent pipe has some way of holding something, albeit in a temporary fashion. But a pipe just used to redirect water doesn't make sheuvim. Rabbi Buckwald (Baalei Hanefesh p. 157 fnt. 32) prefers the Gidulei Tahara's explanation in light of what he writes in Baalei Hanefesh and his teshuvot. However, Rav Aryeh Leib Malin (73 s.v. vnireh, 2:71:2) understands the Raavad to mean that since the bent pipe is useful in that it can direct water flow it creates sheuvim. Chelkat Binyamin 201:529 cites the dispute between those who limit the Raavad and those who apply it generally.</ref>
*What does the Raavad do about the Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 established that any pipe which wasn’t meant to hold water even if it has a receptacle doesn’t create sheuvim? Rav Chaim (Mikvaot 6:4) explains that the Raavad is only relevant to dipping in a pipe as a mikveh or using the pipe to connect two mikvot that are lacking. The explanation is that when connecting mikvaot anything used to connect them is necessary for that section to be kosher even if he were to be tovel in that section. However, the bent pipe doesn't actually make it sheuvim. Divrei Chaim 201:33 explains that the Raavad only meant that if the bent pipe is meant to hold to water is it invalid even if it originally wasn’t meant to hold anything. Gidulei Tahara 9 also limits the Raavad to where the bent pipe has some way of holding something, albeit in a temporary fashion. But a pipe just used to redirect water doesn't make sheuvim. Rabbi Buckwald (Baalei Hanefesh p. 157 fnt. 32) prefers the Gidulei Tahara's explanation in light of what he writes in Baalei Hanefesh and his teshuvot. However, Rav Aryeh Leib Malin (73 s.v. vnireh, 2:71:2) understands the Raavad to mean that since the bent pipe is useful in that it can direct water flow it creates sheuvim. Chelkat Binyamin 201:529 cites the dispute between those who limit the Raavad and those who apply it generally. Mikveh Mayim v. 3 p. 206 quotes Taharat Mayim who argues with Rav Aryeh Leib. Mikveh Mayim's conclusion is not to use pipes that are made in the shape of a L. </ref>
# A pipe which was attached to the ground and got a indentation because it rotted in one place is kosher according to most poskim, but invalid according to some poskim.<ref>Hagahot Mordechai (Kiddushin 560) quotes one opinion who is strict to say that if a pipe gets a depression because the pipe rotted in one place it is invalid. That depression makes it a kli and the water flowing in that pipe is sheuvim. However, Rabbenu Shemarya argued that it is kosher since he didn't intend that the rotting would make it a kli. Maharik 56 writes that the minhag is like Rabbenu Shemarya but he was personally strict for the strict opinion. Bet Yosef 201:36 argues with the strict opinion since the pipe wasn't made into a kli intentionally. Rama 201:36 codifies this opinion. Chatom  Sofer YD 201 disagrees and holds based on Chullin 13a that the pipe with a depression that happened on its own is completely invalid. Likutei Haarot on Chatom Sofer quotes Chesed Lavraham who strongly disagrees with Chatom Sofer.</ref>  
# A pipe which was attached to the ground and got a indentation because it rotted in one place is kosher according to most poskim, but invalid according to some poskim.<ref>Hagahot Mordechai (Kiddushin 560) quotes one opinion who is strict to say that if a pipe gets a depression because the pipe rotted in one place it is invalid. That depression makes it a kli and the water flowing in that pipe is sheuvim. However, Rabbenu Shemarya argued that it is kosher since he didn't intend that the rotting would make it a kli. Maharik 56 writes that the minhag is like Rabbenu Shemarya but he was personally strict for the strict opinion. Bet Yosef 201:36 argues with the strict opinion since the pipe wasn't made into a kli intentionally. Rama 201:36 codifies this opinion. Chatom  Sofer YD 201 disagrees and holds based on Chullin 13a that the pipe with a depression that happened on its own is completely invalid. Likutei Haarot on Chatom Sofer quotes Chesed Lavraham who strongly disagrees with Chatom Sofer.</ref>  


Line 289: Line 315:
===Tefisat Yadey Adam Grama===
===Tefisat Yadey Adam Grama===
#The main discussion of [[Tefisat Yedey Adam]] is on its own page.
#The main discussion of [[Tefisat Yedey Adam]] is on its own page.
# If the water was drawn into a mikveh using an indirect or delayed reaction according to some poskim it is valid as it wasn’t drawn by a person directly, while according to other it is invalid since it created artificially and not naturally.<ref>Divrei Yosef p. 147-8 cites the Drush Vchidush of Rabbi Akiva Eiger p. 170, Zichron Yosef YD 13, and Maharit 17. Hod Yosef 71 writes that even if it is just a grama it is still invalid. His proof is Rambam Parah 6:8. Divrei Yosef supports this approach by saying that as long as the water isn’t naturally drawn into the mikveh it is invalid.</ref> See Igrot Moshe YD 120:5 and Minchat Yitzchak 3:39:20.
# If the water was drawn into a mikveh using an indirect or delayed reaction according to some poskim it is valid as it wasn’t drawn by a person directly, while according to other it is invalid since it created artificially and not naturally.<ref>Divrei Yosef p. 147-8 cites the Drush Vchidush of Rabbi Akiva Eiger p. 170, Zichron Yosef YD 13, and Maharit 17. Divrei Yosef supports this approach by saying that as long as the water isn’t naturally drawn into the mikveh it is invalid.</ref>  


===Zeriya===
===Zeriya===
Line 321: Line 347:
* Can a complete mikveh be made of snow? The Rambam Mikvaot 7:3, Rosh, and Tur 201:30 hold that it is possible to make a complete mikveh of snow. However, Rashi Sukkot 19b and Raavad hold that it can’t be used to create a complete mikveh but only to add to a mikveh with a majority of kosher water. Shulchan Aruch 201:30 only quotes the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh that the snow can be used to create a complete mikveh. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Shach 201:71) mentions that the Raavad argues.</ref>
* Can a complete mikveh be made of snow? The Rambam Mikvaot 7:3, Rosh, and Tur 201:30 hold that it is possible to make a complete mikveh of snow. However, Rashi Sukkot 19b and Raavad hold that it can’t be used to create a complete mikveh but only to add to a mikveh with a majority of kosher water. Shulchan Aruch 201:30 only quotes the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh that the snow can be used to create a complete mikveh. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Shach 201:71) mentions that the Raavad argues.</ref>
# In extenuating circumstances, it is possible to create a mikveh by freezing tap water, placing it in a mikveh, and having it melt. This should not be relied upon without consulting a great posek.<ref>Chatom Sofer 200 holds that it is possible to create an entire mikveh from ice that was melted. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 319 is lenient to allow freezing tap water and creating a mikveh that way if there’s no other available option to make a mikveh with rain.</ref>
# In extenuating circumstances, it is possible to create a mikveh by freezing tap water, placing it in a mikveh, and having it melt. This should not be relied upon without consulting a great posek.<ref>Chatom Sofer 200 holds that it is possible to create an entire mikveh from ice that was melted. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 319 is lenient to allow freezing tap water and creating a mikveh that way if there’s no other available option to make a mikveh with rain.</ref>
# Using an ice machine to create ice is a discussion in the poskim. Some hold it is invalid even after the fact,<ref>Satmer rebbe (Shevet Halevi 8:204) was machmir not to use an ice machine. Imrei Yosher 1:148 argues that one shouldn’t use machine made ice for a mikveh for several reasons: 1) According to the first explanation of the Smag you can’t use ice that melts that once was sheuvim unless you also add 40 seah afterwards. Even though the Shach holds like the second explanation of the Smag, the Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla are strict. 2) According to the Tzlach you can’t use water for a mikveh if the water is tameh even if it isn't carried with a kli that has tumah and we’re all tameh today. 3) perhaps the machine making ice is considered tefisat yaday adam. Even though according to the Raavad there’s no issue of sheuvim, we’re concerned for the Baal Hameor also (Chatom Sofer 200). Even though perhaps the Baal Hameor is only strict for snow but not ice but still it isn’t clear he’d allow sheuvim of ice if it was put in a vessel after it was frozen. 4) One version of the Raavad and the Sefer Eshkol held that you can’t ice that melts for a mikveh. Even though it isn’t accepted we should be concerned when anyway there’s reason to be strict.</ref> however, others hold it is acceptable in an extenuating circumstance.<ref>Rav Ovadia Yosef (Taharat Habayit v. 3 pp. 318-336) writes that in extenuating circumstances it is permissible to make a mikveh from ice made in an ice machine. He quotes that this is also the view of Rav Kook (Daat Kohen 94) and Ben Ish Chai (Rav Poalim YD 2:24). This is also the view of Rav Chaim Ozer (Achiezer 3:33:2, 4:39). Fundamentally, this is dependent on the two views in rishonim in understanding the Tosefta (Taharot 2:3) that a mikveh which was sheuvim and froze and then melts is considered sheuvim. Rosh understands that it isn't sheuvim at all and is kosher as a mikveh. Smag, however, quotes one opinion who holds that it doesn't invalidate the mikveh as sheuvim but is still not kosher unless there's 40 seah of rainwater afterwards. Rav Ovadia is lenient to follow Rosh, because that is the view of Shulchan Aruch, Rama (Darkei Moshe), Shach (201:74) and others. Even though Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla hold like Smag, Rav Ovadia is lenient like most poskim. He cites Levush Mordechai 25 as holding that a mikveh made from an ice machine is invalid since the water was sheuvim before it became ice. Rav Ovadia cites Shevet Halevi 2:102 and Yaskil Avdi YD 2:34 as holding like the lenient view. Chazon Ish (Tinyana 6:3) writes that it is hard to be lenient on this question. Igrot Moshe 1:120 does not offer an opinion on this question. Shevet Halevi 8:204 and Mikveh Mayim (v. 1 p. 198) hold that a mikveh made with an ice machine is kosher. Shevet Halevi only allows on condition that the ice is brought in kelim with holes in them and also there's hamshacha after the ice is made. </ref>
# Using an ice machine to create ice is a discussion in the poskim. Some hold it is invalid even after the fact,<ref>Rav Elyashiv (Ashrei Haish YD 35:1) and Satmer rebbe (Shevet Halevi 8:204) hold that one cannot make a mikveh using an ice machine. Imrei Yosher 1:148 argues that one shouldn’t use machine made ice for a mikveh for several reasons: 1) According to the first explanation of the Smag you can’t use ice that melts that once was sheuvim unless you also add 40 seah afterwards. Even though the Shach holds like the second explanation of the Smag, the Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla are strict. 2) According to the Tzlach you can’t use water for a mikveh if the water is tameh even if it isn't carried with a kli that has tumah and we’re all tameh today. 3) perhaps the machine making ice is considered tefisat yaday adam. Even though according to the Raavad there’s no issue of sheuvim, we’re concerned for the Baal Hameor also (Chatom Sofer 200). Even though perhaps the Baal Hameor is only strict for snow but not ice but still it isn’t clear he’d allow sheuvim of ice if it was put in a vessel after it was frozen. 4) One version of the Raavad and the Sefer Eshkol held that you can’t ice that melts for a mikveh. Even though it isn’t accepted we should be concerned when anyway there’s reason to be strict.</ref> however, others hold it is acceptable in an extenuating circumstance.<ref>Rav Ovadia Yosef (Taharat Habayit v. 3 pp. 318-336) writes that in extenuating circumstances it is permissible to make a mikveh from ice made in an ice machine. He quotes that this is also the view of Rav Kook (Daat Kohen 94) and Ben Ish Chai (Rav Poalim YD 2:24). This is also the view of Rav Chaim Ozer (Achiezer 3:33:2, 4:39). Fundamentally, this is dependent on the two views in rishonim in understanding the Tosefta (Taharot 2:3) that a mikveh which was sheuvim and froze and then melts is considered sheuvim. Rosh understands that it isn't sheuvim at all and is kosher as a mikveh. Smag, however, quotes one opinion who holds that it doesn't invalidate the mikveh as sheuvim but is still not kosher unless there's 40 seah of rainwater afterwards. Rav Ovadia is lenient to follow Rosh, because that is the view of Shulchan Aruch, Rama (Darkei Moshe), Shach (201:74) and others. Even though Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla hold like Smag, Rav Ovadia is lenient like most poskim. He cites Levush Mordechai 25 as holding that a mikveh made from an ice machine is invalid since the water was sheuvim before it became ice. Rav Ovadia cites Shevet Halevi 2:102 and Yaskil Avdi YD 2:34 as holding like the lenient view. Chazon Ish (Tinyana 6:3) writes that it is hard to be lenient on this question. Igrot Moshe 1:120 does not offer an opinion on this question. Shevet Halevi 8:204 and Mikveh Mayim (v. 1 p. 198) hold that a mikveh made with an ice machine is kosher. Shevet Halevi only allows on condition that the ice is brought in kelim with holes in them and also there's hamshacha after the ice is made. </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>
# 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>


Line 351: Line 377:


==Hashaka==
==Hashaka==
# It is possible to validate an entire pit of drawn water by connecting with a mikveh momentarily,<ref>Rashba, Rosh, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52</ref> however, some say that the connection needs to remain open for the drawn water to remain fit.<ref>Rabbenu Yerucham cites a dispute. Shach 201:112 writes that it is good to be strict. Chatom Sofer YD 212 writes that the mikveh in his town for many years built by established rabbis relied on the opinions that a momentary connection is sufficient. Gidulei Tahara 10 holds that temporary hashaka is very problematic and shouldn't be relied on even after the fact. He infers from Rash, Rambam, and Raavad that they hold it is invalid. Kehilat Yakov (Macot siman 5) shows that Rashi holds that temporary hashaka doesn't work. </ref> There is a minority opinion that hashaka doesn't work at all for sheuvim,<ref>Tosfot Rid 15 s.v. vehachaver Ri. Bedek Habayit 201:29 seems to understand Rambam to hold that hashaka is invalid to purify sheuvim water. </ref> but it is completely rejected from the halacha.<ref>Rosh Bava Kama 7, Ramban Bava Batra 65b</ref>
# It is possible to validate an entire pit of drawn water by connecting with a mikveh momentarily,<ref>Rashba, Rosh, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52</ref> however, some say that the connection needs to remain open for the drawn water to remain fit.<ref>Rabbenu Yerucham cites a dispute. Shach 201:112 writes that it is good to be strict. Chatom Sofer YD 212 writes that the mikveh in his town for many years built by established rabbis relied on the opinions that a momentary connection is sufficient. Gidulei Tahara 10 holds that temporary hashaka is very problematic and shouldn't be relied on even after the fact. He infers from Rash, Rambam, and Raavad that they hold it is invalid. Kehilat Yakov (Macot siman 5) shows that Rashi holds that temporary hashaka doesn't work. Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 clearly implies like Rosh that temporary hashaka works. Bet Efraim YD 53 suggests that those who are strict explain that the mishna is based on bitul and not hashaka. Bet Shlomo 2:63 suggests that the mishna means that the waters are only temporarily kosher, for example, if people went into the pits again. This explanation is found in Rivash 294.  </ref> There is a minority opinion that hashaka doesn't work at all for sheuvim,<ref>Tosfot Rid 15 s.v. vehachaver Ri. Bedek Habayit 201:29 seems to understand Rambam to hold that hashaka is invalid to purify sheuvim water. </ref> but it is completely rejected from the halacha.<ref>Rosh Bava Kama 7, Ramban Bava Batra 65b</ref>
# According to some poskim, one can’t add sheuvim water to a mikveh which has 40 seah but is very shallow so that a person couldn’t go to the mikveh in it. According to these poskim until the mikveh is fit to dip in one shouldn’t add sheuvim.<ref>The Raah (Bedek Habayit Bayit 7 Shaar 7) writes that since the water in the mikveh is shallow and one couldn’t go to the mikveh in it, adding sheuvim would invalidate it. However, the Rashba in Mishmeret Habayit argues. Ginat Veradim YD 4:1 and Shiurei Bracha 201:15 are lenient. Chatom Sofer YD 212 and Maharam Shik YD 192 are concerned for the Raah. Emek Sheilah 48 writes that the Taz on 66 agrees to it. Chelkat Binyamin 201:896 is strict. Chelkat Binyamin 201:750 is strict whether it is a hashaka or a zeriya of sheuvim to a shallow water mikveh.</ref>
# According to some poskim, one can’t add sheuvim water to a mikveh which has 40 seah but is very shallow so that a person couldn’t go to the mikveh in it. According to these poskim until the mikveh is fit to dip in one shouldn’t add sheuvim.<ref>The Raah (Bedek Habayit Bayit 7 Shaar 7) writes that since the water in the mikveh is shallow and one couldn’t go to the mikveh in it, adding sheuvim would invalidate it. However, the Rashba in Mishmeret Habayit argues. Ginat Veradim YD 4:1 and Shiurei Bracha 201:15 are lenient. Chatom Sofer YD 212 and Maharam Shik YD 192 are concerned for the Raah. Emek Sheilah 48 writes that the Taz on 66 agrees to it. Chelkat Binyamin 201:896 is strict. Chelkat Binyamin 201:750 is strict whether it is a hashaka or a zeriya of sheuvim to a shallow water mikveh. Chatom Sofer 212 and Maharam Shik are strict even for a mayan that's shallow but Chelkat Binyamin (Tziyunim 2857) quotes Mahari Asad who is lenient for a mayan. Lechem 201:251 writes that to accommodate the Raah they should use hamshacha. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8159&st=&pgnum=169 Taharat Yisrael] 201:66 agrees.</ref>
===Size of Hashaka Hole===
===Size of Hashaka Hole===
# According to Ashkenazim, the connection between the rainwater pit and sheuvim pit has to be a hole that has a diameter of 2 fingerbreadths, while according to Sephardim a hole of any size would suffice.<ref>Rash (Taharot 8:9), Meiri (Mikvaot 6:1) quoting Rash, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52. Teshuvat Rid 15 s.v. vehachaver writes that a connection of two fingerbreadths is insufficient for converting drawn water to be usable. It is only for connecting two incomplete mikvaot is it sufficient. He says even though he understands why it should work there’s no clear proof that is the case. Shevet Halevi 4:121:2 writes that is implausible to suggest that the Raavad held that hashaka doesn’t work for drawn water because it is against all of the rishonim.</ref> That is for hashaka to sheuvim. However, in order to join two pits, both of which aren't 40 seah, or one which is 40 seah and one that isn't, it is certainly necessary to have a hole with a diameter of 2 fingerbreadths.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 6:7, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52</ref>
# According to Ashkenazim, the connection between the rainwater pit and sheuvim pit has to be a hole that has a diameter of 2 fingerbreadths that can turn around, while according to Sephardim a hole of any size would suffice.<ref>Rash (Taharot 8:9), Meiri (Mikvaot 6:1) quoting Rash, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52. Teshuvat Rid 15 s.v. vehachaver writes that a connection of two fingerbreadths is insufficient for converting drawn water to be usable. It is only for connecting two incomplete mikvaot is it sufficient. He says even though he understands why it should work there’s no clear proof that is the case. Shevet Halevi 4:121:2 writes that is implausible to suggest that the Raavad held that hashaka doesn’t work for drawn water because it is against all of the rishonim.
 
Beis Yosef 201:53 and Darkei Moshe note that although Rash writes that for sheuvim derabbanan a hole that's of any size is sufficient, but Rosh and Rambam hold that shifoferet hanod is always necessary. Rama quotes this stringent opinion of Rosh and Rambam. Bach explains that Rosh holds shifoferet hanod is necessary even for a case of sheuvim derabbanan. If so, there's a reason never to use a hole that's smaller than a shifoferet hanod. However, Shach argues that even Rosh and Rama agree that for sheuvim derabbanan it is sufficient to have a hole that's any size. Simla 201:98 and Gidulei Tahara 201:42 disagree with Shach and maintain that Rosh and Rambam insistent on a hole of shifoferet hanod in all cases of sheuvim. According to Bach, Simla, and Gidulei Tahara one shouldn't use a hole smaller than shifoferet hanod for anything. This is supported by Rosh's comment on Mikvaot 6:8 and Tosfot Harosh Gittin 16a. However, see Minchat Yitzchak 1:147:9 citing Satmer Rebbe and Chelkat Yakov YD 112 who do use holes of any size for sheuvim derabbanan issues, like Shach. </ref> That is for hashaka to sheuvim. However, in order to join two pits, both of which aren't 40 seah, or one which is 40 seah and one that isn't, it is certainly necessary to have a hole with a diameter of 2 fingerbreadths.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 6:7, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52</ref>
# The 2 fingerbreadths are measured by the middle fingers and not the thumb or pinky.<ref>Rash (Mikvaot 6:7)</ref>
# The 2 fingerbreadths are measured by the middle fingers and not the thumb or pinky.<ref>Rash (Mikvaot 6:7)</ref>


Line 366: Line 394:
# 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 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>The Gemara Chagiga 22a implies that small holes do add up to constitute one large hole of a shifoferet hanod. Ravyah 988 and Mordechai Shevuot n. 646, however, explain that the holes only don’t add up to connect incomplete mikvaot but they can add up to validate drawn water. Shulchan Aruch and Rama Y.D. 201:52 codify the Mordechai, Chacham Tzvi 40, [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9382&st=&pgnum=798 Levushei Sarad 206], Dagul Mirvava 201:53 and Mishkenaot Yaakov 45 disagree with Ravyah. Levushei Sarad proves from Rashi (Chagiga 22a), Rash (Mikvaot 6:8), Ri, and Rosh disagree with Ravyah. </ref>
#  A connection between drawn water and a mayan also requires a shifiret hanod.<ref>Rash and Rosh (Mikvaot 5:2), Chelkat Binyamin 201:173. Bet Yosef 201:9 infers from Rambam, Rosh, and Tur that they hold this as well. However, Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 3) holds that a hashaka to a mayan can be accomplished with a connection of any amount. However, Rashba (teshuva 3:228) also assumes shifoferet hanod is necessary for hashaka with a mayan. Chazon Ish (Tinyanya 3:3) questions why we don't pasken like this Rashba since there's a tosefta that supports his opinion.</ref>
#  A connection between drawn water and a mayan also requires a shifiret hanod.<ref>Rash and Rosh (Mikvaot 5:2), Chelkat Binyamin 201:173. Bet Yosef 201:9 infers from Rambam, Rosh, and Tur that they hold this as well. However, Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 3) holds that a hashaka to a mayan can be accomplished with a connection of any amount. However, Rashba (teshuva 3:228) also assumes shifoferet hanod is necessary for hashaka with a mayan. Chazon Ish (Tinyanya 3:3) questions why we don't pasken like this Rashba since there's a tosefta that supports his opinion.</ref>


Line 377: Line 405:
*Chazon Ish (Tinanya 8:1) holds that a zochlin mikveh is invalid and cannot create hashaka to purify sheuvim. His proof is from the concept of mey tamsiyot shelo pasku. He understands from Raavad that it requires a reviyit to be kosher and therefore it needs the status of a mikveh which is stationary for hashaka to be operative. He reiterates his opinion in Kama 3:12 and Tinyanya 3:12. Chazon Ish 3 is strict and suggests either having the zeriya hole above where the water enters or having a plug. Additionally, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:96 is strict based on the Maharit 2:18. Mishneh Halachot 10:156 is strict. He quotes Maharam Shik 198 who is also strict.
*Chazon Ish (Tinanya 8:1) holds that a zochlin mikveh is invalid and cannot create hashaka to purify sheuvim. His proof is from the concept of mey tamsiyot shelo pasku. He understands from Raavad that it requires a reviyit to be kosher and therefore it needs the status of a mikveh which is stationary for hashaka to be operative. He reiterates his opinion in Kama 3:12 and Tinyanya 3:12. Chazon Ish 3 is strict and suggests either having the zeriya hole above where the water enters or having a plug. Additionally, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:96 is strict based on the Maharit 2:18. Mishneh Halachot 10:156 is strict. He quotes Maharam Shik 198 who is also strict.
*Chelkat Yakov 111 is strict but it isn’t an issue if a little water at the end comes in while it is moving since a majority of mikveh was already kosher with standing zeriya.</ref>
*Chelkat Yakov 111 is strict but it isn’t an issue if a little water at the end comes in while it is moving since a majority of mikveh was already kosher with standing zeriya.</ref>
# Seemingly, the Mishna (Mikvaot 6:8) is a clear proof that zochlin can make zeriya for sheuvim water. There, a person is pouring in sheuvim water into a kosher mikveh and the water overflows into another mikveh. The mishna says that the bottom mikveh is kosher. The top mikveh is zochlin as it is overflowing but still it creates zeriya. Har Tzvi (YD 174) answers that the case of the Mishna is where after he made the water overflow he added a pipe for hashaka. Chazon Ish (Tanina 3:12) tries to answer that the case is where he pours the sheuvim in with a lot of strength so that all of the sheuvim remains in the top mikveh and the only thing that overflows is the kosher water.


===Hashaka between Shuevim or Mey Geshamim and a Mayan===
===Hashaka between Shuevim or Mey Geshamim and a Mayan===
Line 413: Line 442:
#Some say that if water is in a pipe that is on a slant connecting two mikvaot that isn't katafras because the top water will eventually end up in the bottom mikvah.<Ref>The Mishna (Mikvaot 6:8) allows connecting two mikvaot one above the other on a mountain with a pipe. Why isn't that katafras? Rash answers that katafras isn't a problem for sheuvim. Tosfot Yom Tov (Mikvaot 6:8) based on Tosfot Gittin 16a answers that since the water will definitely flow from the upper mikvah to the bottom one it isn't katafras.</reF>
#Some say that if water is in a pipe that is on a slant connecting two mikvaot that isn't katafras because the top water will eventually end up in the bottom mikvah.<Ref>The Mishna (Mikvaot 6:8) allows connecting two mikvaot one above the other on a mountain with a pipe. Why isn't that katafras? Rash answers that katafras isn't a problem for sheuvim. Tosfot Yom Tov (Mikvaot 6:8) based on Tosfot Gittin 16a answers that since the water will definitely flow from the upper mikvah to the bottom one it isn't katafras.</reF>


=== Connecting Pits of Water into One Mikveh ===
# 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>
# There are three pits on a slope, the with twenty seah, the bottom with twenty seah, and the middle with forty seah. If there is water streaming between them, according to some rishonim we say that the bottom one is connected with the middle one, while the halacha follows the rishonim who say that only the middle pit is valid.<ref> The Tosefta Mikvaot 3:4 describes a case of three pits on a hill with the middle one being a complete mikveh and the one and top bottom being incomplete mikvaot. If there’s a stream of rainwater connecting the pits, Rabbi Meir validates the top pit, Rabbi Yosi the bottom one, and the rabbis just the middle one. Rambam Mikvaot 8:8 follows the rabbis that there's never a connection of katafras even with the principles of gud achit or gud asik. Tosfot Gittin 16a s.v. hanisok, Mordechai Shevuot n. 746, and Darkei Moshe 201:6 hold that katafras can be a connection together with gud achit. (Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 and Tur 201:62 might support this opinion.) Shulchan Aruch 201:60 codifies the Rambam.</ref>
# If there are three pits of twenty seah each, one side one filled with drawn water and the others rainwater, and three people dip in these pits so that they overflow and connect, they are all considered fit since they combine together when the people went inside and the two pits of rainwater connected.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 establishes that if there are three pits of twenty seah each and the drawn water is on the side and three people dipped in the pits which overflowed they are all valid. The Rosh and Rash explain that since the rainwater pits connect there was a complete mikveh and all of the drawn water can’t invalidate it. In fact the drawn water becomes valid with a momentary hashaka. The Rosh and Rash explain that we’re not concerned that the drawn water entered one of the rainwater pits before the rainwater pits connected since it would only invalidate it if all of the twenty seah of drawn water preceded any of the rainwater. Otherwise the drawn water is purified with hamshacha as it is drawn along the ground into the other pits and nullified in its minority by the rainwater pit. Shulchan Aruch 201:55 codifies this mishna.</ref> Practically, each pit of twenty seah isn’t fit until another twenty seah is added because a complete mikveh is forty seah.<ref>Shach 201:120, Taz 201:67</ref>
# If there are two pits of twenty seah, one with drawn water, one with rainwater and they connect they remain as they were beforehand.<ref>Tosefta Mikvaot 3:5, Rash Mikvaot 6:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:56</ref>
# A mikveh on top of a mikveh can be joined to be one mikveh if there is a hole the size of two fingerbreadths in diameter between them.<ref>The Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 6:1 explains that a mikveh on top of a cavity that contains water if the wall between the two is sturdy they are only connected if there’s a hole between the two with a diameter of two fingerbreadths. However, if the wall is so thin that it would collapse if a person would dip in the mikveh the cavity is connected to the mikveh as long as there’s a tiny hole between the mikveh and the cavity. The Shulchan Aruch 201:59 codifies the general idea of the mishna.</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 biblically.<ref>Tosfot Pesachim 17b s.v. elah</ref>
# One may not go to mikveh in a kli and that is invalid biblically.<ref>Tosfot Pesachim 17b s.v. elah</ref>
Line 456: Line 491:
# One may not go to mikveh standing on top of a kli. <ref>Raavad Baalei Hanefesh siman 1 writes that a woman may not go to mikveh on top of a kli that is mekabel tumah. She can go on top of a kli cheres since it does't have tumah on its backside. Mishna Mikvaot 5:2 states that mayan water that goes into or over a kli is unfit for a mikveh. The Raavad explains that this is based on a prohibition lest a person go to mikveh in a kli. Rashba Torat Habayit Hakatzar 30a and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 198 agree. Ran Shevuot 6b s.v. isha cites the Raavad. Similarly, the Rash Mikvaot 5:2 limits the issue of going to mikveh in a kli to where the kli is attached to ground because it might be used as an unfit mikveh but if it is detached from the ground there's no restriction. The Bet Yosef understands the Rosh Mikvaot 9 as disagreeing with this idea.  
# One may not go to mikveh standing on top of a kli. <ref>Raavad Baalei Hanefesh siman 1 writes that a woman may not go to mikveh on top of a kli that is mekabel tumah. She can go on top of a kli cheres since it does't have tumah on its backside. Mishna Mikvaot 5:2 states that mayan water that goes into or over a kli is unfit for a mikveh. The Raavad explains that this is based on a prohibition lest a person go to mikveh in a kli. Rashba Torat Habayit Hakatzar 30a and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 198 agree. Ran Shevuot 6b s.v. isha cites the Raavad. Similarly, the Rash Mikvaot 5:2 limits the issue of going to mikveh in a kli to where the kli is attached to ground because it might be used as an unfit mikveh but if it is detached from the ground there's no restriction. The Bet Yosef understands the Rosh Mikvaot 9 as disagreeing with this idea.  
* However, the Rosh Mikvaot 32 and Rambam Mikvaot 1:11 don't mention this restriction of the Raavad. They might have understood the mishna differently. Bet Yosef 198:31 explains the Rambam that a mikveh is only unfit if in the creation of the mikveh all of the water went over a kli on its way to the mikveh whether that kli has a receptacle or not. Rabbinically it is invalid to go to the mikveh over a kli even if it doesn't have a receptacle and even that water after it has come out of that kli is only a mikveh and not a mayan. But going to mikveh on top of a kli in the mikveh is fit. Alternatively, the restriction was only for a kli without a receptacle but an overturned kli with a receptacle is permitted since it is evident that it isn't being used for a mikveh. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 198:31 rules like the Raavad.</ref>
* However, the Rosh Mikvaot 32 and Rambam Mikvaot 1:11 don't mention this restriction of the Raavad. They might have understood the mishna differently. Bet Yosef 198:31 explains the Rambam that a mikveh is only unfit if in the creation of the mikveh all of the water went over a kli on its way to the mikveh whether that kli has a receptacle or not. Rabbinically it is invalid to go to the mikveh over a kli even if it doesn't have a receptacle and even that water after it has come out of that kli is only a mikveh and not a mayan. But going to mikveh on top of a kli in the mikveh is fit. Alternatively, the restriction was only for a kli without a receptacle but an overturned kli with a receptacle is permitted since it is evident that it isn't being used for a mikveh. Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch 198:31 rules like the Raavad.</ref>
=== Building a Mikveh so It Isn’t a Vessel ===
# Reinforced concrete with metal rods in the cement is a discussion in the poskim if it is acceptable.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 147 citing Minchat Yitzchak 2:22, 4:41. However, Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 228 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein as permitting having metal rods in the cement.</ref>
# It is permitted to make a mikveh with stones that are attached to the ground isn’t considered a vessel even though the complete mikveh could hold water.<ref>Tzemech Tzedek 172 explains that any mikveh with walls and a floor that are all attached to the ground which couldn’t be picked up in one piece isn’t considered a vessel. He explains that otherwise every mikveh would be invalid according to the Nodeh Beyehuda who holds that a vessel which was created in material which was already attached to the ground is invalid to dip inside of. Rather the entire structure of the mikveh isn’t considered a vessel since it couldn’t be lifted up in one piece.</ref>
# Making a mikveh with cement is acceptable. Even though it is appears to be one unit after it dries as though it was a vessel, it is considered building a structure and not creating a vessel. Also, the cement frame can’t be lifted up as a unit like a vessel.<ref>*According to the Chatom Sofer if you create a vessel while is attached to the ground it is considered a kosher mikveh. However, according to Rabbi Akiva Eiger if it is a vessel even though it was created while it is attached the ground it isn’t a vessel for sheuvim but it is a vessel to disallow dipping in it as a mikveh. According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger how can you build a mikveh? Shouldn’t the plastering or cementing of the rocks together be considered creating a vessel attached to the ground?
*Bet Shlomo 2:70 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 2:13 hold that it isn’t considered a vessel when the pieces are being built into the ground and come together. That is considered building a structure and not a vessel. Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 writes that the Nodeh Beyehuda 2:142 s.v. vod and Divrei Chaim 201:36 agree.
*Similarly, Igrot Moshe YD 1:108 writes that making a mikveh with cement isn’t considered a vessel because it couldn’t be picked up as a vessel and would fall apart. He continues to it is only an issue if it is considered by people to be a vessel created when it was attached just like it is a detached vessel. But since the cement mikveh people don’t see it as a vessel but as a structure it isn’t an issue at all. He explains that even if the cement is painted and decorated it is still permitted since because know it is a mikveh and not a vessel.
*Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 is lenient. The Darkei Teshuva 201:206 quotes many achronim who hold that using cement to hold rocks together to create a mikveh doesn’t invalidate the mikveh since that is the normal way to build a building and not the way to create a vessel. Maharsham 1:35 and 1:145 is hesitant to be lenient since the cement holds the rocks together and forms it as a vessel which is invalid for a mikveh. Maharsham 2:102 is lenient if there’s no other option since the cement can’t be removed and it is therefore considered a building and not a vessel.</ref>
# A complete vessel such as a bathtub which was a vessel before it was attached to the ground is an invalid mikveh.<ref>Rama 201:7. Depends on the discussion of pipes meant to be attached to the ground.</ref>
# A mikveh made of pre-made cement slabs, one per wall and one for the floor, is questionable. <ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:95 writes that if a mikveh is made with cement pieces that were one slab per wall and one for the floor it would be invalid. He explains that the Rashba 1:800 and Rama 201:7 who write that if the mikveh is made from multiple rocks it is valid is only if it is made of multiple rocks while it is attached to the round and there need to be multiple rocks for each wall and not a single slab. Hesitantly he suggests a reason is that it is similar to a vessel when such a significant piece of the complete mikveh is a single piece and takes on the status of a mikveh even though it is only a wall and not a complete vessel. Chelkat Binyamin 201:145 agrees.</ref>
# Some mikvaot are made by starting with a cement floor. Then a cement piece with four walls and a divider is placed on top of the floor to establish the mikveh with a hashaka mikveh. Some poskim are weary of using such a mikveh, while others are lenient.<ref>Rav Chaim Kalman Gutman in Ginat Veradim 3:25 p. 66 writes that a mikveh made with a cement floor and piece of cement with the four walls is added on top is problematic. Firstly, it is considered a vessel since it is just two stones attached together and not many stones. Even though it couldn’t be picked up by a person it is considered a vessel since it was designed to be built that way. Rav Avraham Schreiber in Ginat Veradim 9:2 p. 258 argues that it isn't considered a vessel according to all of the poskim. According to the Tzemech Tzedek 172 it isn't a vessel since it couldn't be lifted as one piece. According to the Maharsham a connection of rocks can't form a vessel. According many others it was made in the way of building a structure and not a vessel.</ref>


==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 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. Raavad and Rashba hold it is only rabbinic. Mishkenot Yakov 45 and Igrot Moshe 120:8 s.v. vayin hold it is biblical. Chazon Ish 5:12 holds it is rabbinic. Divrei Chayim YD 2:102 quotes Mabit and Tosfot Yom Tov who hold it is biblical. </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>
=== From the Torah or Rabbinic ===
# 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 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. Raavad ([https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=14483#p=110&fitMode=fitwidth&hlts=&ocr= Shaar Hamayim 2]) and Rashba hold it is only rabbinic. Mishkenot Yakov 45 and Igrot Moshe 120:8 s.v. vayin hold it is biblical. Chazon Ish 5:12 holds it is rabbinic. Divrei Chayim YD 2:102 quotes Mabit and Tosfot Yom Tov who hold it is biblical. </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>
=== What Types of Color Changes Invalidate a Mikveh? ===
# 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 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. The reason is that while it is a colored mikveh it isn't considered like a mikveh and drawn water doesn’t invalidate it. Afterwards, if more kosher 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> If the  drawn water is added in order to change the mikveh back to the color of water, some say that it is invalid,<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 1:120:7 understands from Rama that the mikveh which isn't 40 seah and is discolored cannot be made valid with drawn water. Rama only meant that if drawn water is added and the mikveh remains discolored it is valid if later rain water is added.</ref> while others hold that it is kosher if more rainwater is added to complete the requisite 40 seah.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 201:434 based on [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14338&st=&pgnum=368 Chazon Ish (Kama 8:10)] and Gidulei Tahara. In Tziyunim 1401 he disagrees with Igrot Moshe. According to Chazon Ish, it is kosher even if the 3 lugin of drawn water is added and it turns back to the color of water before the mikveh reaches 40 seah it is kosher. Behind this dispute is that Igrot Moshe holds that a 40 seah mikveh of colored water creates hashaka, while Chazon Ish (Kama 8:9) argues that there's no hashaka to colored water.</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. The reason is that while it is a colored mikveh it isn't considered like a mikveh and drawn water doesn’t invalidate it. Afterwards, if more kosher 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> If the  drawn water is added in order to change the mikveh back to the color of water, some say that it is invalid,<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 1:120:7 understands from Rama that the mikveh which isn't 40 seah and is discolored cannot be made valid with drawn water. Rama only meant that if drawn water is added and the mikveh remains discolored it is valid if later rain water is added.</ref> while others hold that it is kosher if more rainwater is added to complete the requisite 40 seah.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 201:434 based on [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14338&st=&pgnum=368 Chazon Ish (Kama 8:10)] and Gidulei Tahara. In Tziyunim 1401 he disagrees with Igrot Moshe. According to Chazon Ish, it is kosher even if the 3 lugin of drawn water is added and it turns back to the color of water before the mikveh reaches 40 seah it is kosher. Behind this dispute is that Igrot Moshe holds that a 40 seah mikveh of colored water creates hashaka, while Chazon Ish (Kama 8:9) argues that there's no hashaka to colored water.</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 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>
# 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>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229), Mikveh Mayim p. 87</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 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>
# If water changed colors because of smoke from being heated up is invalid according to some poskim.<ref>Mishkenot Yakov 44 invalidates such water based on Gemara Sotah 15b. However, Pitchei Teshuva 201:19 disagrees and holds it is like water which changed colors by itself. </ref>
 
=== Fixing a Colored Mikveh ===
# 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 mayan ===
=== A Colored Mayan ===


# Many rishonim hold that a mayan cannot be invalidated with a change in color.<ref>Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 2:19), Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 11), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:28. Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 5:12) writes that Raavad is only lenient because he thinks that a change in color is only a pasul derabbanan.</ref> However, others hold it is invalidated by a change in color.<ref>Tosfot Macot 4a s.v. amar, Rid 15 (cited by Biyurim Lrashba fnt. 244). This is also implied from Tosefta 5:9 that it is invalid. Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Raavad 2:19 notes this Tosfot. Mishkenot Yacov 45 argues with Raavad on the basis of Sotah 15b and Chullin 85a. Chelkat Binyamin says that most poskim accept Shulchan Aruch but we should be machmir for Mishkenot Yakov.</ref>
# Many rishonim hold that a mayan cannot be invalidated with a change in color.<ref>Raavad (Shaar Hamayim 2:19), Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 11), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:28. 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. Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 5:12) writes that Raavad is only lenient because he thinks that a change in color is only a pasul derabbanan.</ref> However, others hold it is invalidated by a change in color.<ref>Tosfot Macot 4a s.v. amar, Rid 15 (cited by Biyurim Lrashba fnt. 244). This is also implied from Tosefta 5:9 that it is invalid. Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Raavad 2:19 notes this Tosfot. Mishkenot Yacov 45 argues with Raavad on the basis of Sotah 15b and Chullin 85a. Chelkat Binyamin says that most poskim accept Shulchan Aruch but we should be machmir for Mishkenot Yakov.</ref>


==Creation of a Mikveh through Something Susceptible to Tumah==
==Creation of a Mikveh through Something Susceptible to Tumah==
Line 478: Line 530:
* Not all rishonim agree that this is a pasul at all for mikveh. Yereyim 26 writes that the derivation of Zevachim 25b only applies to a mayan but not a mikveh. Mordechai (Shevuot 746, cited by Bet Yosef 201:48) quotes this Yereyim as well as Rabbenu Shmuel who agrees. Bet Yosef 201:48 and Mishna Achrona (Parah 6:4) add that Rambam also holds like this. See also Lechem Vsimla (201:16:5 s.v. harambam). However, Rashi (Zevachim 25b s.v. havaytan) writes that the gemara is relevant even to a mikveh.</ref>
* Not all rishonim agree that this is a pasul at all for mikveh. Yereyim 26 writes that the derivation of Zevachim 25b only applies to a mayan but not a mikveh. Mordechai (Shevuot 746, cited by Bet Yosef 201:48) quotes this Yereyim as well as Rabbenu Shmuel who agrees. Bet Yosef 201:48 and Mishna Achrona (Parah 6:4) add that Rambam also holds like this. See also Lechem Vsimla (201:16:5 s.v. harambam). However, Rashi (Zevachim 25b s.v. havaytan) writes that the gemara is relevant even to a 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. However, some hold that it is still invalid.<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 but also quotes Rashba who is strict. 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. See Minchat Yitzchak 1:146:12 who quotes Kav Mayim Chayim who argues that even Rashba would accept the view of Rosh if there is a connection of shifoferet hanod. Chelkat Binyamin implies otherwise.</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. However, some hold that it is still invalid.<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 but also quotes Rashba who is strict. 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. See Minchat Yitzchak 1:146:12 who quotes Kav Mayim Chayim who argues that even Rashba would accept the view of Rosh if there is a connection of shifoferet hanod. Chelkat Binyamin implies otherwise.</ref>
# If 3 lugin are held by something that that is susceptible to tumah, according to some poskim that could invalidate an incomplete mikveh.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 201:510 quoting Simla 83 and the implication of Shach 201:100</ref> However, some poskim argue that this invalidation is only an issue if it is the majority of the mikveh.<ref>Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 3:17)</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 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>
# 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. 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.  
**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 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.  
**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. 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 s.v. 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.
*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 s.v. 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 (Mikvaot 5:5) and Simla 201:84 point out this dispute.</ref>
*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 (Mikvaot 5:5) and Simla 201:84 point out this dispute.</ref>
# Metal nails aren't mekabel tumah.<ref>Mishna Kelim 11:3, Rambam Kelim 9:2, Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:137</ref>
===Attached to the ground===
 
# A flat metal utensil is susceptible to tumah unless it is made to be attached to the ground and is attached to the ground.<ref>Dagul Mirvava on 201:48, Mikveh Mayim p. 153 and 169 citing Igrot Moshe. Nodeh Beyehuda 137, Chatom Sofer 217-218, Igrot Moshe 1:115-6 hold that the kli needs to be both (1) mechuber l'karka and (2) made to be meshamesh karka so that it isn't mekabel tumah. However, Gidulei Tahara (cited by Mikveh Mayim p. 181) holds that it is sufficient for it to be mechuber l'karka even if it isn't made to be attached to the ground. </ref>
# If a new metal piece (such as a pipe) is bought brand new and it isn't clear if it was made to be used for the ground, some say that it isn't mekabel tumah since it was made with no intentions at all. The intention of the buyer establishes it as something to be used for the ground.<ref>Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:137 holds that the buyer can have intention to use it for the ground based on Mishna Lmelech Kelim 2 since a kli made with no intention is not mekabel tumah. </ref> Others are lenient for another reason if it is unclear why the piece was made we can follow the intention of the buyer for another reason.<ref>Igrot Moshe Y.D. 1:115 is lenient because of breira since a piece of metal is only mekabel tumah midrabbanan once it is attached to the ground if it wasn't made for the ground (Yad Ramah). Since it is only a rabbinic issue it is fine to say that the intention of the piece was made for can be clarified retroactively. </ref>
# If a pipe is built into the ground and cement poured upon it so it is part of the wall, it isn't mekabel tumah.<ref>Igrot Moshe 1:115</ref>
# A drain made out of metal should be made from new metal, made in order to be attached to the ground, and then attached to the ground with hinges so it is never detached.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 1:116</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>Rosh (Mikvaot 4:2), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:35, Shach 201:103. However, Chazon Ish YD 135:2 disagrees with Rosh. Chelkat Binyamin 201:680 writes that we shouldn't rely on Rosh about this question. </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>Rosh (Mikvaot 4:2), Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:35, Shach 201:103. However, [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&st=&pgnum=336 Chazon Ish YD 135:2] disagrees with Rosh. Chelkat Binyamin 201:680 writes that we shouldn't rely on Rosh about this question. </ref>
# If the water flows over something that is susceptible to tumah but the water afterwards flows over wood, dirt, or something that isn’t susceptible to tumah at all the resultant mikveh is kosher.<ref>The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 explains that if there’s a separation between the vessel that is susceptible to tumah and the mikveh it is kosher. His proof is that Zevachim 25b considered to permit the mikveh because of the airspace in which the water was flowing. Shulchan Aruch 201:48 codifies the Rosh.</ref> Some say that this is only true if the water would have flowed into the mikveh without the vessel that is susceptible to tumah.<ref>Chatom Sofer 199</ref>
# If the water flows over something that is susceptible to tumah but the water afterwards flows over wood, dirt, or something that isn’t susceptible to tumah at all the resultant mikveh is kosher.<ref>The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 explains that if there’s a separation between the vessel that is susceptible to tumah and the mikveh it is kosher. His proof is that Zevachim 25b considered to permit the mikveh because of the airspace in which the water was flowing. Shulchan Aruch 201:48 codifies the Rosh.</ref> Some say that this is only true if the water would have flowed into the mikveh without the vessel that is susceptible to tumah.<ref>Chatom Sofer 199</ref>
===Stopping Water from Exiting===
===Stopping Water from Exiting===
# If a vessel that is susceptible to tumah is used to plug up a hole in the mikveh the entire mikveh is invalid because without that plug the mikveh would be invalid as the water would flow up and having the plug there is considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah.<ref>The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains that a plug that prevents water from exiting a mikveh that otherwise would be invalid as the water is flowing is invalid since the plug is considered like creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah. The Rosh Mikvaot 11 disagrees. Tur 201:50 explains that the Rosh argues that preventing water from escaping isn’t an issue, it is only an issue to gather water into a mikveh using something that is susceptible to tumah. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 cites both opinions.</ref>
# If a vessel that is susceptible to tumah is used to plug up a hole in the mikveh the entire mikveh is invalid because without that plug the mikveh would be invalid as the water would flow up and having the plug there is considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah.<ref>The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains that a plug that prevents water from exiting a mikveh that otherwise would be invalid as the water is flowing is invalid since the plug is considered like creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah. The Rosh Mikvaot 11 disagrees. Tur 201:50 explains that the Rosh argues that preventing water from escaping isn’t an issue, it is only an issue to gather water into a mikveh using something that is susceptible to tumah. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 cites both opinions.</ref>
# If a vessel that is susceptible to tumah is used to repair a mikveh when the mikveh is completely valid but without the repair there is a concern it will later become invalid, the mikveh is valid.<ref>The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 writes that if a mikveh is currently valid and there is a concern that water is being absorbed in the ground boards can be nailed down. If the nails are new then they aren’t susceptible to tumah since they are being used to service the ground from the beginning of their use. However, if they are old nails they are susceptible to tumah but nonetheless they can be used. His reason is that since the mikveh is currently valid continuing to keep it valid isn’t considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah.
# If a vessel that is susceptible to tumah is used to repair a mikveh when the mikveh is completely valid but without the repair there is a concern it will later become invalid, the mikveh is valid.<ref>The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 writes that if a mikveh is currently valid and there is a concern that water is being absorbed in the ground boards can be nailed down. If the nails are new then they aren’t susceptible to tumah since they are being used to service the ground from the beginning of their use. However, if they are old nails they are susceptible to tumah but nonetheless they can be used. His reason is that since the mikveh is currently valid continuing to keep it valid isn’t considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah.
Pitchei Teshuva 201:35 quotes this. Chatom Sofer YD 204 agrees.</ref>
Pitchei Teshuva 201:35 quotes this. Chatom Sofer YD 204 agrees. He answers why this is different from Tosfot Sukkah 10a. Divrei Chaim YD 1:44 disagrees with Nodeh Beyehuda. Dovev Meisharim 1:90 quotes this Divrei Chayim. </ref>


===If Water is Attached to the Mikveh or Spring===
===If Water is Attached to the Mikveh or Spring===
Line 501: Line 562:


# If the item that is susceptible to tumah, such as a metal pipe, isn't directly touching the mikveh and the water from the pipe first goes onto something else before going into the mikveh, it is valid.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:48</ref>
# If the item that is susceptible to tumah, such as a metal pipe, isn't directly touching the mikveh and the water from the pipe first goes onto something else before going into the mikveh, it is valid.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:48</ref>
# If the metal pipe goes into the airspace of the mikveh, the water is invalid even though the water traveled through the airspace of the mikveh before going into the water of the mikveh.<ref>Chatom Sofer YD 214, Chelkat Binyamin</ref>
# If the metal pipe goes into the airspace of the mikveh, the water is invalid even though the water traveled through the airspace of the mikveh before going into the water of the mikveh.<ref>Chatom Sofer YD 214, Chelkat Binyamin on 201:48 holds that the airspace over the mikveh is like the mikveh itself. See, Chazon Ish YD 135:2 s.v. ktav, who might imply otherwise. </ref>


===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>Ben Ish Chai (Hod Yosef 71) proves from Rambam Parah 6:8 that havaya al yadey dvar mekabel tumah is a problem even if it is only grama and used to help along the water.</ref>
 
==Trust Regarding the Maintenance of a Mikveh==
==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, one side one filled with drawn water and the others rainwater, and three people dip in these pits so that they overflow and connect, they are all considered fit since they combine together when the people went inside and the two pits of rainwater connected.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 6:3 establishes that if there are three pits of twenty seah each and the drawn water is on the side and three people dipped in the pits which overflowed they are all valid. The Rosh and Rash explain that since the rainwater pits connect there was a complete mikveh and all of the drawn water can’t invalidate it. In fact the drawn water becomes valid with a momentary hashaka. The Rosh and Rash explain that we’re not concerned that the drawn water entered one of the rainwater pits before the rainwater pits connected since it would only invalidate it if all of the twenty seah of drawn water preceded any of the rainwater. Otherwise the drawn water is purified with hamshacha as it is drawn along the ground into the other pits and nullified in its minority by the rainwater pit. Shulchan Aruch 201:55 codifies this mishna.</ref> Practically, each pit of twenty seah isn’t fit until another twenty seah is added because a complete mikveh is forty seah.<ref>Shach 201:120, Taz 201:67</ref>
# If there are two pits of twenty seah, one with drawn water, one with rainwater and they connect they remain as they were beforehand.<ref>Tosefta Mikvaot 3:5, Rash Mikvaot 6:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:56</ref>


==A Hole on top of a Hole==
=== Non-Jewish Owned Mikveh ===
# A mikveh on top of a mikveh if there is a hole the size of two fingerbreadths in diameter is considered connected.<ref>The Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 6:1 explains that a mikveh on top of a cavity that contains water if the wall between the two is sturdy they are only connected if there’s a hole between the two with a diameter of two fingerbreadths. However, if the wall is so thin that it would collapse if a person would dip in the mikveh the cavity is connected to the mikveh as long as there’s a tiny hole between the mikveh and the cavity. The Shulchan Aruch 201:59 codifies the general idea of the mishna.</ref>
# There are three pits on a slope, the with twenty seah, the bottom with twenty seah, and the middle with forty seah. If there is water streaming between them, according to some rishonim we say that the bottom one is connected with the middle one, while the halacha follows the rishonim who say that only the middle pit is valid.<ref> The Tosefta Mikvaot 3:4 describes a case of three pits on a hill with the middle one being a complete mikveh and the one and top bottom being incomplete mikvaot. If there’s a stream of rainwater connecting the pits, Rabbi Meir validates the top pit, Rabbi Yosi the bottom one, and the rabbis just the middle one. Rambam Mikvaot 8:8 follows the rabbis that there's never a connection of katafras even with the principles of gud achit or gud asik. Tosfot Gittin 16a s.v. hanisok, Mordechai Shevuot n. 746, and Darkei Moshe 201:6 hold that katafras can be a connection together with gud achit. (Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 and Tur 201:62 might support this opinion.) Shulchan Aruch 201:60 codifies the Rambam.</ref>
==A non-Jewish owned Mikveh==
# If a non-Jew owns a mikveh if you know that there was always at least 21 seah some say that you can be lenient to rely on the non-Jew who says that it was completed with rainwater. Many poskim hold that you can’t be lenient.<ref>The Rosh responsa writes that if a non-Jew owns a mikveh we can’t rely on him because the mikveh might have become lacking and he completed it with drawn water. Shulchan Aruch 201:4 accepts the Rosh. The Taz and Bach understood Shulchan Aruch to mean that we’re relying on the concept of a doubt on a rabbinic issue.
# If a non-Jew owns a mikveh if you know that there was always at least 21 seah some say that you can be lenient to rely on the non-Jew who says that it was completed with rainwater. Many poskim hold that you can’t be lenient.<ref>The Rosh responsa writes that if a non-Jew owns a mikveh we can’t rely on him because the mikveh might have become lacking and he completed it with drawn water. Shulchan Aruch 201:4 accepts the Rosh. The Taz and Bach understood Shulchan Aruch to mean that we’re relying on the concept of a doubt on a rabbinic issue.
However, the Shach and Gra 24 write that the Shulchan Aruch means only to be lenient if there’s no way for the non-Jew to mess up the mikveh such as if the only way to add water to the mikveh if by adding water through the roof in which case it would be valid since majority of the water is rainwater and some of it traveled on the ground.  
However, the Shach and Gra 24 write that the Shulchan Aruch means only to be lenient if there’s no way for the non-Jew to mess up the mikveh such as if the only way to add water to the mikveh if by adding water through the roof in which case it would be valid since majority of the water is rainwater and some of it traveled on the ground.  
Chazon Ish Mikvaot 10:6 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:24 explains that really it is based on having a doubt about a rabbinic issue but only if a majority of the mikveh is valid anyway to offset the issue that it is likely that the non-Jew tampered with it.</ref>
Chazon Ish Mikvaot 10:6 and Shaarei Mikvaot 201:24 explains that really it is based on having a doubt about a rabbinic issue but only if a majority of the mikveh is valid anyway to offset the issue that it is likely that the non-Jew tampered with it.</ref>


==Assessing the Status of an Unknown Mikveh==
=== Individual Jew ===
# An Jewish individual is trusted regarding the status of the mikveh if it is in his hands to fix it.<ref>Maharik 115, cited by Bet Yosef 201:57(2)</ref>
 
=== Assessing the Status of an Unknown Mikveh ===
# If someone finds a man made pit of water in Israel outside of a city it is assumed to be rainwater and a kosher mikveh, but in the Diaspora it is assumed to be a non-kosher mikveh. Nowadays the assumption that it is a kosher mikveh doesn't even apply in Israel.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 8:1 establishes that a pit of water found outside a city in Israel is assumed to be from rainwater and not used for laundry and therefore kosher, but inside the city it is assumed that it is used for laundry and therefore drawn water which is invalid for a mikveh. In the Diaspora it is always assumed to be drawn since they aren't concerned about this. This is also found in the Tosefta Mikvaot 6:1 and codified by the Rambam Mikvaot 10:5. Bet Yosef 201:74 comments that today even in Israel the lenient assumption to consider a pit of water outside a city to be a mikveh doesn't apply since the Jews don't rule Israel. Shulchan Aruch 201:74 rules accordingly that any pit found with water is presumed to be invalid. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:302 adds that today a man made pit with water is invalid even in Israel leven where Jews live since there are many pools of drawn water for many reasons.</ref>  
# If someone finds a man made pit of water in Israel outside of a city it is assumed to be rainwater and a kosher mikveh, but in the Diaspora it is assumed to be a non-kosher mikveh. Nowadays the assumption that it is a kosher mikveh doesn't even apply in Israel.<ref>The Mishna Mikvaot 8:1 establishes that a pit of water found outside a city in Israel is assumed to be from rainwater and not used for laundry and therefore kosher, but inside the city it is assumed that it is used for laundry and therefore drawn water which is invalid for a mikveh. In the Diaspora it is always assumed to be drawn since they aren't concerned about this. This is also found in the Tosefta Mikvaot 6:1 and codified by the Rambam Mikvaot 10:5. Bet Yosef 201:74 comments that today even in Israel the lenient assumption to consider a pit of water outside a city to be a mikveh doesn't apply since the Jews don't rule Israel. Shulchan Aruch 201:74 rules accordingly that any pit found with water is presumed to be invalid. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:302 adds that today a man made pit with water is invalid even in Israel leven where Jews live since there are many pools of drawn water for many reasons.</ref>  
# If you know that a natural pit filled with water such as in a field it is assumed to be rainwater and is a valid mikveh.<ref>Shach 201:150, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:302</ref>
# If you know that a natural pit filled with water such as in a field it is assumed to be rainwater and is a valid mikveh.<ref>Shach 201:150, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:302</ref>
==Building a Mikveh so it isn’t a vessel==
# Reinforced concrete with metal rods in the cement is a discussion in the poskim if it is acceptable.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 147 citing Minchat Yitzchak 2:22, 4:41. However, Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 228 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein as permitting having metal rods in the cement.</ref>
# It is permitted to make a mikveh with stones that are attached to the ground isn’t considered a vessel even though the complete mikveh could hold water.<ref>Tzemech Tzedek 172 explains that any mikveh with walls and a floor that are all attached to the ground which couldn’t be picked up in one piece isn’t considered a vessel. He explains that otherwise every mikveh would be invalid according to the Nodeh Beyehuda who holds that a vessel which was created in material which was already attached to the ground is invalid to dip inside of. Rather the entire structure of the mikveh isn’t considered a vessel since it couldn’t be lifted up in one piece.</ref>
# Making a mikveh with cement is acceptable. Even though it is appears to be one unit after it dries as though it was a vessel, it is considered building a structure and not creating a vessel. Also, the cement frame can’t be lifted up as a unit like a vessel.<ref>
* According to the Chatom Sofer if you create a vessel while is attached to the ground it is considered a kosher mikveh. However, according to Rabbi Akiva Eiger if it is a vessel even though it was created while it is attached the ground it isn’t a vessel for sheuvim but it is a vessel to disallow dipping in it as a mikveh. According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger how can you build a mikveh? Shouldn’t the plastering or cementing of the rocks together be considered creating a vessel attached to the ground?
* Bet Shlomo 2:70 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 2:13 hold that it isn’t considered a vessel when the pieces are being built into the ground and come together. That is considered building a structure and not a vessel. Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 writes that the Nodeh Beyehuda 2:142 s.v. vod and Divrei Chaim 201:36 agree.
* Similarly, Igrot Moshe YD 1:108 writes that making a mikveh with cement isn’t considered a vessel because it couldn’t be picked up as a vessel and would fall apart. He continues to it is only an issue if it is considered by people to be a vessel created when it was attached just like it is a detached vessel. But since the cement mikveh people don’t see it as a vessel but as a structure it isn’t an issue at all. He explains that even if the cement is painted and decorated it is still permitted since because know it is a mikveh and not a vessel.
* Chelkat Binyamin 201:144 is lenient. The Darkei Teshuva 201:206 quotes many achronim who hold that using cement to hold rocks together to create a mikveh doesn’t invalidate the mikveh since that is the normal way to build a building and not the way to create a vessel. Maharsham 1:35 and 1:145 is hesitant to be lenient since the cement holds the rocks together and forms it as a vessel which is invalid for a mikveh. Maharsham 2:102 is lenient if there’s no other option since the cement can’t be removed and it is therefore considered a building and not a vessel.</ref>
# A complete vessel such as a bathtub which was a vessel before it was attached to the ground is an invalid mikveh.<ref>Rama 201:7. Depends on the discussion of pipes meant to be attached to the ground.</ref>
# A mikveh made of pre-made cement slabs, one per wall and one for the floor, is questionable. <ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:95 writes that if a mikveh is made with cement pieces that were one slab per wall and one for the floor it would be invalid. He explains that the Rashba 1:800 and Rama 201:7 who write that if the mikveh is made from multiple rocks it is valid is only if it is made of multiple rocks while it is attached to the round and there need to be multiple rocks for each wall and not a single slab. Hesitantly he suggests a reason is that it is similar to a vessel when such a significant piece of the complete mikveh is a single piece and takes on the status of a mikveh even though it is only a wall and not a complete vessel. Chelkat Binyamin 201:145 agrees.</ref>
# Some mikvaot are made by starting with a cement floor. Then a cement piece with four walls and a divider is placed on top of the floor to establish the mikveh with a hashaka mikveh. Some poskim are weary of using such a mikveh, while others are lenient.<ref>Rav Chaim Kalman Gutman in Ginat Veradim 3:25 p. 66 writes that a mikveh made with a cement floor and piece of cement with the four walls is added on top is problematic. Firstly, it is considered a vessel since it is just two stones attached together and not many stones. Even though it couldn’t be picked up by a person it is considered a vessel since it was designed to be built that way. Rav Avraham Schreiber in Ginat Veradim 9:2 p. 258 argues that it isn't considered a vessel according to all of the poskim. According to the Tzemech Tzedek 172 it isn't a vessel since it couldn't be lifted as one piece. According to the Maharsham a connection of rocks can't form a vessel. According many others it was made in the way of building a structure and not a vessel.</ref>
==Going to a hot mikveh==
# Theoretically, Sephardim hold that a mikveh should be cold and if hot water is added it is invalid. However, Ashkenazim are lenient to permit a hot mikveh.<ref>The Mordechai Mikvaot n. 750 quotes the Rash who wrote that a hot water mikveh is invalid because of a rabbinic concern that they become confused with a bathhouse which is completely invalid. He also cites Rabbenu Tam as agreeing with the Rash. However, the Hagahot Mordechai 9a is lenient. Shulchan Aruch 201:75 is strict not to use a warm mikveh, but the Rama is lenient. He adds that one should really be strict unless there's a minhag to be lenient.</ref> Today the minhag of all communities is to be lenient.<ref>Shaarei Mikvaot 201:304 writes that the minhag of Sephardim is also to go to warm mikvaot (Rav Poalim YD 4:15) because (1) we're weaker than we were before and if it was cold some women wouldn't go to mikveh (Chatom Sofer YD 214), (2) everyone knows that a warm mikveh isn't a bathhouse and there's no concern people will get them confused and even though generally a gezerah doesn't expire whent he reason expires some say that is only for a takana of chazal and not a gezerah (Maharsham 3:140 based on Magen Avraham 9).</ref> It is permitted to have a radiator in the walls of the mikveh heat up the water since it is clear how it is being heated.<ref>Minchat Yitzchak 7:85 cited by Shaarei Mikvaot 201:305</ref>
#There is no issue of going to mikveh in the hot springs of Tevariya even though they are hot.<ref>Mordechai Mikvaot n. 750 citing the Ravyah, Rama 201:75</ref>
# Going to a warm mikveh Friday night, Sephardim advise going ben hashemashot<ref>Chacham Tzvi 11, Taharat Habayit, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:306</ref>, while Ashkenazim advise going at night itself.<ref>Igrot Moshe OC 1:126:6 follows the Korban Netanel who says that there's no gezerah baalanim in a mikveh. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:306 points out that the Ashkenazi poskim didn't allow going to mikveh during ben hashemashot.</ref>
==Showering after going to the mikveh==
# Ashkenazim hold that the women shouldn't bathe or shower immediately after going to the mikveh.<ref>The Mordechai Mikvaot n. 750 cites the Ravyah who says that the minhag is not to bathe or shower after going to the mikveh because of the gezerah that showering in drawn water makes a person tameh (Shabbat 14a). The Mordechai completely rejects this stringency considering that the gezerah was stated only for taharot and not niddah and it was only a tumah going forward but didn't invalidate going to the mikveh. He adds that the Maharam was lenient. The Rama 201:50 cites the minhag to be strict.</ref> Sephardim are lenient.<ref>Shaarei Mikvaot 201:307 writes that since Shulchan Aruch holds mikveh for niddah doesn't need a kavana since it is chullin he wouldn't hold of the stringent minhag not to bathing or showering afterwards.</ref>
# How long does the prohibition apply according to Ashkenazim? Some say it is for an entire day until the next night.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:96. Rav Schachter</ref> Some are lenient once she came home and touched her husband.<ref>Shevet Halevi 5:125 writes that even though the Or Zaruah sounds like she can't bathe for the entire day sincce the others don't mention that it is enough to be strict immediately after tevilah. Once she went home and touched her husband her tevilah was effective and it is impossible for a later bath to undo the tevilah.</ref> Some allow once he gets home even if they didn't touch.<ref>Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Mareh Kohen p. 108) and Tzitz Eliezer 11:64:13-14. Tzitz Eliezer adds that she shouldn't shower her entire body at once.</ref>
# The minhag of not bathing or showering after going to mikveh doesn't apply to a man going to mikveh for keri.<ref>Shaarei Mikvaot 201:307 citing Yabia Omer YD 8:19:2</ref> A baal keri can go in a mikveh of 40 seah of drawn water.<ref>Tzitz Eliezer 11:64:15, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:307</ref>
==How to do Tevilat Kelim==
# You can dip a large vessel in a mikveh that is just 40 seah specifically by doing the following: put it in the mikveh upside down, turn it over in the mikveh, turn it over again and remove it upside down. The reason it needs to be put in upside down is so that the water of the mikveh isn’t displaced and spilled out of the mikveh. The reason it needs to be removed upside down is so that the water isn’t removed from the mikveh making it less than 40 seah.<ref>The Tosfeta Mikvaot 7:6 explains the procedure of how to dip a large vessel in a mikveh which is just 40 seah. The vessel is dipped in upside down and removed upside down. The Rash explains that it is placed in upside down so that the water in the vessel doesn’t become sheuvim. The Bet Yosef 201:63 explains that either the water in a vessel in the middle of the mikveh does become sheuvim even though the water is connected to the rest of the mikveh or it doesn’t but there’s a concern that as the water streams into the mikveh it’ll pause and the water in the vessel will be disconnected from the mikveh and therefore sheuvim. The Divrei Yosef p. 452 points out that this corresponds to the Rosh and Rash in Bet Yosef 201:8 whether a detached vessel in a mikveh creates sheuvim. The Rash holds it doesn’t and the Rosh holds it does. However, it is difficult that the Bet Yosef there explains the Rambam like the Rosh and here the Rambam fits with the Rash. The Chelkat Binyamin 201:870 writes that we’re concerned from the understanding of the Bet Yosef in the Rash that maybe it’ll become disconnected but not for the possibility that it is really sheuvim. However, the Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 8:12 and Tur 201:63 explain that the reason it needs to be put in upside down is because otherwise it is going to cause water to splash out of the mikveh making it invalid.</ref>
==Procedure and Position for Dipping in the Mikveh==
# A person shouldn’t dip in a mikveh that the water is so deep or so shallow. Instead it should be filled to the point that it is a half amah above the belly of a person.<ref>Rashba responsa 818 writes that a person shouldn’t dip in a mikveh unless it is filled up to a hafla maha above one’s belly. Rama 201:66 quotes this.</ref>
# If is shallower than that if there’s no other available options a person can dip in such a mikveh by lying down horizontally but not by bending over so much. Bending over would cause a person to have unnatural folds and pockets which would be considered an interposition between the body and the water.<ref>Rashba responsa cited by Darkei Moshe 201:28* writes that if the water is too shallow to bend over sightly and dip in the mikveh a person should lie down horizontally in the mikveh. They should not bend over too much otherwise that would create unnatural folds in the skin invalidating the dipping. Rashbetz 1:17 and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 agree. The Rama 201:66 codifies the rashba.</ref> Some permit going to the mikveh lying down even initially.<ref>Pitchei Mikvaot 1:14 citing Shulchan Aruch Harav and Tikunei Hamikveh</ref>
# A mikveh with water that is spread out and can’t be used for dipping in its current state it is permissible to put down wood so that the water congregates on one side of the mikveh.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 7:7 establishes that if the mikveh has sufficient water but it isn’t possible to go in it because it is too shallow, a person could block up part of the mikveh so that the water level rises. The mishna says that a person can use wood sticks for this purpose. The Rash explains that the water between the sticks is still connected to the mikveh. However, if one breaks up the whole mikveh in two then the other half of the mikveh wouldn’t contribute to the 40 seah of the mikveh. Shulchan Aruch 201:66 codifies this mishna.</ref>
# If a person needed to go to the mikveh and doesn’t know if they went to mikveh or whether they completely submerged or whether the mikveh had 40 seah he must go to the mikveh again since his tameh status remains until he surely went to the mikveh.<ref>Rambam Mikvaot 10:6, Shulchan Aruch 201:71</ref>
# It is possible to dip in a stream of water from a spring if one completely submerges themselves in it.<ref>Tosefta Mikvaot 8:1, Rambam Mikvaot 1:9, Bet Yosef 198:35, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:61</ref>
# If a person jumps into a mikveh with a lot of water that will contain more than 40 seah even after water splashes out the dipping is valid.<ref>The Tosefta 5:10 states that a person who jumps into the mikveh is disgraceful. The Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 25 explains that the Tosefta is discussing a mikveh with the requisite amount of 40 seah. By jumping in some of the water inevitably will leave and there won’t remain a complete mikveh. The Rivash 293 explains that the reason the Tosefta doesn’t say that the dipping is invalid is because it is possible that the water that splashed didn’t separate from the rest of the mikveh water before the person was completely covered and submerged. But since it could be invalid if some of the water splashes out before he is completely submerged that’s why it is discouraged. Shulchan Aruch 201:62 codifies this.</ref>
# Some say that a person shouldn’t dip in the mikveh twice, one is sufficient and doing it twice will make a person more likely not to take each one seriously. Others defend the practice of dipping twice.<ref>The Tosefta Mikvaot 5:10 establishes that a person shouldn’t dip twice. The Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 25 and Tur 201:62 explain that we’re discussing a mikveh which is exactly 40 seah. If so there’s a concern that during the first dipping the person won’t be careful to be completely submerged and then by the time he dips a second time perhaps some of the water splashed out and the mikveh is invalid. However, the Rivash 293 explains that the Rambam Mikvaot 8:12 understood the Tosefta to mean that in general a person should dip twice because there’s a concern that those watching will assume that he’s going to cool off and not to purify himself and it could lead to a mistake with trumah if he touches it and they assume that you don’t need kavana to purify oneself for trumah. The Darkei Moshe 201:27 writes that we’re not concerned for that opinion today when we don’t have trumah. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:262 writes that the minhag is to teach woman to be tovel multiple times like the Rosh unlike the Rambam. </ref>
==Trust regarding the status of a Mikveh==
# An individual is trusted regarding the status of the mikveh if it is in his hands to fix it.<ref>Maharik 115, cited by Bet Yosef 201:57(2)</ref>


==Modern Mikvaot==
==Modern Mikvaot==
YitzchakSultan1
Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,210

edits

Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/32561...32738"