Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,210
edits
Mikvaot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Tefisat Yadey Adam Grama
| (21 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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 | ===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. | ||
# | |||
# | === 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=== | ||
| Line 184: | Line 197: | ||
===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 196: | 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=== | ||
| Line 212: | 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.< | # 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 298: | 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 | # 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 360: | 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. | # 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 375: | 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. | # 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 386: | 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 422: | 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 465: | 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== | ||
| Line 493: | 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=== | ===Attached to the ground=== | ||
| Line 527: | Line 565: | ||
===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 | # 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== | |||
== | === 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> | ||
==Modern Mikvaot== | ==Modern Mikvaot== | ||
