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
| (3 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 530: | 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 564: | 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== | ||
