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
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 229: | 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 315: | 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 378: | Line 378: | ||
==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. 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> | # 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. 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. Taharat Yisrael agrees.</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 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. | # 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. | ||
| Line 442: | 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 524: | 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 558: | 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== | ==Trust Regarding the Maintenance of a Mikveh== | ||
