Mikvaot

(diff) ← Older revision | Approved revision (diff) | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Niddah and Zavah

1. A mikveh is effective to purify a niddah, zavah, and baal keri but a zav specifically needs to dip in a mayan.[1]

Mikveh’s Minimum Measurements

1. A mikveh requires 40 seah at a minimum. The size of 40 seah is measured by 1 amah x 1 amah x 3 amot.[2] A person who goes to the mikveh needs to go in it completely at one time and be completely covered by the water at one time.[3]
2. The minimal amount of a mikveh theoretically is 332 liters but the practice is to use double or triple that amount.[4]
3. A person who is large and can’t fit in a mikveh of 40 seah needs to dip in a larger mivkeh.[5]
4. A mikveh that has 40 seah and is flat but a person can lie down in it and be covered by water at one time is a kosher mikveh.[6]
5. There needs to be 40 seah the entire time one goes in the mikveh but if as one goes into a mikveh some water spills out and there’s less than 40 seah then the mikveh is unfit.[7]
6. Mud can count for a mikveh if it is so thin that a cow would drink it. Some say that this can simply be determined by experimenting with a cow. Some say that there is a fixed measure and chazal established that as a stringency it would be need to be so thin that if a straw would be placed on top of it it would fall in.[8] It is possible to dip in the thin mud in the mikveh as long as there is water covering the mud.[9]
7. Any creature that grows in the water such as fish can count towards the mikveh[10] if it is liquified.[11]

Doubt if there was 40 seah

1. A kosher mikveh with 40 seah, which many people used and then was measured and there was 40 seah afterwards there is no doubt that it was kosher the entire time and there’s no concern that it decreased to less than 40 seah and was refilled. Nonetheless, it is proper to check that it has 40 seah before using it. If it is known that it naturally decreased to less than 40 seah at some points it is a concern and is only kosher if it was checked before being used. [12]
2. A kosher mikveh with 40 seah, which after many people used was measure to be less than 40 seah is invalid and anyone who dipping in it at a time when it wasn’t known if it had 40 seah has to go to the mikveh again.[13]

Water out of the Mikveh Counting to Mikveh

1. If two people go in a mikveh that was exactly 40 seah only the dipping of the first person is valid since once the drops of water on the body of the first person exit the mikveh the mikveh is incomplete. However, if the first person is still standing in the mikveh and then the second person dips according to some rishonim the second person’s dipping was effective. The halacha is that it isn’t.[14]
2. A thick cloth dipped in a mikveh as long as it is partially touching the mikveh all of the water inside the cloth is considered connected.[15] Once it is removed from the mikveh the water in it is considered sheuvim.[16]

Holes and Pits Near the Miveh

1. Any small hole near the mikveh pit is considered part of the mikveh and connected if there is a hole the size of two fingerbreadths in diameter between the hole and the mikveh.[17]
2. A crevice very close to a mikveh which would naturally fill up with water when the mikveh is filled up with water is considered part of the mikveh if there’s a hole of any size connecting that crevice with the mikveh.[18] It is possible to be dip a vessel in that crevice.[19]
3. A crevice very close to a mikveh with a wall between it and the mikveh, if it doesn’t naturally fill up with water when the mikveh is full, if the wall is so thin that it would collapse if a person would dip in it that crevice is considered part of the mikveh. Nonetheless it needs to have a reviyit in order to dip a vessel inside it.[20] However, if that wall is sturdy and could stand up on its own the crevice is considered connected only if there’s a hole between the crevice and the mikveh the size of two fingerbreadths in diameter.[21]

Splashing to Extend the Mikveh

1. If a person is in a mikveh and splashes water out of a mikveh to cover a vessel that’s sitting near a mikveh if that water remains connected to the mikveh that vessel is considered dipping in the mikveh. However, if that splash disconnects from the mikveh before the vessel is submerged the dipping of the vessel is invalid unless there is 40 seah in the splash alone.[22]

Mayan’s Minimum Measurements

1. A mayan is different than a mikveh in that it purifies utensils even with the smallest amount[23] and can also purify when it is moving. For a person who is going to purify themselves in a mayan it requires 40 seah just like a mikveh but the water of a mayan can still be moving.[24]
2. If a mayan was less than 40 seah and more drawn water was added some say that it is in fact invalid since a mayan needs 40 seah for a person to go in it and since its requisite amount was completed with drawn water it is invalid.[25] Others hold that it is kosher.[26]
3. A mayan which has a majority of drawn water only is effective to purify someone if it is stationary and not moving.[27]
4. A mayan which has a majority of rainwater is only effective to purify someone if it is stationary.[28]

Zochlin

1. Only a mayan purifies whether the water is moving or stationary[29], but a mikveh is biblically[30] invalid if the water is moving.[31]
2. What is considered if the water is moving? Some held that it is considered moving even if it isn’t recognizable. Some held that it isn’t considered moving even if there’s movement but the entire mikveh is gushing like a spring. The majority opinion is that it is considered moving only if it is recognizably moving. A minor leak which drains the mikveh slowly but isn’t noticeable by looking at the water surface is permitted and the mikveh is valid.[32]

Zochlin with water going into the mikveh

1. If water is flowing into a mikveh but water isn’t flowing out there’s a dispute whether that is considered zochlin. [33]

Packet 11

Zochlin that isn’t recognizable

1. If there’s a tiny crack in the mikveh if the water draining is so minimal that it isn’t noticeable the mikveh is still fit.[34] There are some poskim who are more strict and invalidate a mikveh with any drainage.[35] On the other hand, there are those who are more lenient and would allow a leaky mikveh as long as it isn’t completely moving like a spring. This opinion is not accepted by the poskim.[36]

Zochlin above 40 seah

1. 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. Ashkenazim are strict.[37]

Zochlin because of a person dipping

1. 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.[38]
2. If when a woman goes into a mikveh some of the water splashes out even if there’s more than 40 seah left in the mikveh some say that the mikveh is unfit since it is zochlin while others say that it is fit.[39]

Zochlin because of a filter

1. Some say that if the filter in the mikveh was running when a woman went in the mikveh it is unfit since it is considered zochlin and others held it is fit.[40] With regards to the question of sheuvim, it depends on whether the filter is a kli. It depends on the actual type of filter.[41]

Katafras

1. Some define katafras as moving water.[42]
1. A river isn’t considered katarfras.[43]

Ideally the hashaka hole should be straight. If the hashaka hole is slanted vertically it is nonetheless valid.[44]

1. The water on the steps are connected to the water in the mikveh even if it isn’t 40 seah.[45] According to those who think that the stairs aren’t connected with the mikveh one should avoid having the hashaka hole on the stairs.[46]

Spring Water Disconnected from the Spring

1. Water that was dribbling down a mountain is considered like a mikveh and not a spring unless it flows continuously.[47]
2. Water that was dribbling down a mountain and was drawn together so that it should flow using a cane or anything else that is susceptible to tumah is invalid for a mikveh.[48]
3. If a mikveh is created with something that is susceptible to tumah even rabbinic tumah is considered invalid as a mikveh.[49]

Spring Water that Stopped Moved or Was Interrupted

1. A spring that flowed into a mikveh, whether it was filled up originally or not, is considered like a spring.[50]
2. If the water streaming from a spring was interrupted it isn’t considered like a spring instead it is like a mikveh and invalid if it is moving.[51]
3. If drawn water was added to a spring it is valid even if there is a majority of spring water. However, if there is a majority of spring water it is only fit while it is still and not moving.[52]

Spring Flooded with Rainwater

1. If in a mayan there is a majority of rainwater compared to the springwater it is unfit if it is moving.[53]
2. There is a dispute if a majority of rainwater invalidates a spring if that rainwater was added directly into the original pit of the spring. One should strict about such a case. [54]

Rivers

1. A person shouldn’t go to the mikveh in a river. If there’s no mikveh available there’s what to rely on to go to the mikveh in a river.[55] Before a person relies on such a leniency they need to consult with their rabbi.[56]

Oceans

1. All oceans are like a mayan to dip in them even where they are moving.[57]
2. One may not dip or immerse utensils for tevilat kelim in the tip of a wave but one may do so in the wave that broke and reconnected.[58] Some say that the wave only purifies if there’s 40 seah in it.[59] If the wave detached from the sea and is still moving it is invalid for dipping or immersing utensils in.[60]

Sheuvim

1. If the entirety of the mikveh or a majority of it is sheuvim (drawn water) it is invalid. Some poskim hold that it is biblically invalid[61] and others hold that it is only rabbinically invalid.[62] 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 and only rabbinically invalid if it is filled up with water that was drawn in a kli that isn’t susceptible to tumah.[63]
2. Ashkenazim hold that it is a biblical invalidation, while Sephardim hold it is only rabbinic.[64]

Intention

1. Water in a vessel is only considered drawn if it was gathered in the vessel intentionally.[65]
2. Water that entered a vessel without the owner realizing isn’t considered sheuvim. If a person left a vessel under a gutter to collect water when it was cloudy then the water collected in the vessel is sheuvim. If the vessel is placed there when it is sunny or when it was cloudy but afterwards the clouds cleared and then it rained, the water insider isn’t sheuvim.[66]
3. When drawing water out of a mikveh and there’s a concern that some of the water will fall back into the mikveh as one is drawing out the water such that 3 lug of drawn water might fall into the mikveh that is lacking and invalidate it. In such a case unless all of the water is removed, if there’s 3 lug of water left it would invalidate the mikveh made on top of it. To avoid this concern one can either draw out the water with a vessel that has a hole of any size such that it couldn’t hold water or empty the mikveh and make sure it is dry before refilling it.[67]
4. According to most poskim there’s no concern when drawing out water from a spring which isn’t susceptible to the invalidation of sheuvim. However, some are concerned for that and as such require using a vessel that has a hole and can’t hold water or to empty the mikveh completely until it is dry before refilling it. Ashkenazim are strict about this question.[68]
5. If there’s a receptacle in the pipe it isn’t considered filled in unless there is a permanent addition to the pipe.[69]
6. If rainwater collected in jugs that were placed on the roof to dry the water inside can be used for a mikveh if the jugs are broken in their spot or pushed over. If they are picked up to pour them out the water is invalid.[70]
7. If a container that held cement was placed in a pit for construction and forgotten there and rainwater collected inside it can be broken in its spot and the water isn’t sheuvim. If they are picked up or pushed over the water is sheuvim.[71]
8. If porous jugs were placed in a pit with water in it in order that the walls of the jugs become cleansed and water entered into the jugs they can be broken but not pushed over.[72]

Rashi Shabbat 16b that your daat needs to be clear to others is a big chidush. Daat is relevant to sheuvim so that it is considered bdei adam but why should it need to be clear to others. Sfat Emet Shabbat 16b calls it a dochak but doesn’t explain it. Rabbi Yehuda holds you need to have a maaseh to be megaleh your daat for your daat to count. Machshirin 3:6. Mishna Parah 2:4. Rabbis hold that daat without maaseh is daat.

What is a Vessel for Sheuvim

1. A vessel of any size can create sheuvim even if it is larger than 40 seah.[73]/
2. A vessel of any material that can hold water is considered a vessel to create sheuvim, whether or not that material would be susceptible to tumah.[74]
3. A flat board which has no rim or has a partial rim but couldn’t hold any water at all wouldn’t create sheuvim which water that passed over it.[75]
4. If a vessel is in a position in which it can’t contain any water even though if it were sitting normally it would hold water doesn’t create shuevim.[76]
5. Shingles on the roof aren’t considered vessel to create shuevim since they weren’t made to hold water.[77]
6. When dipping a pillow in the mikveh it would make the water sheuvim once it is picked up out of the mikveh.[78]
1. If a vessel couldn’t hold water on its own but would hold water if propped up by other things it wouldn’t create sheuvim. - see bet yosef 201:34 it is kosher

Pipes

1. Pipes that have no receptacle don’t create sheuvim.[79]
2. Pipes which have a receptacle of any size create sheuvim and invalidate a mikveh.[80]
3. Pipes which didn’t have any receptacle when it was detached from the ground and after it was attached a receptacle is created is valid, but if the receptacle is created before it is attached it is invalid.[81]
4. Pipes which widen and thin out in order to manipulate the water pressure and speed don’t invalidate the mikveh as the receptacle wasn’t made to hold water.[82]
5. A bent pipe that could hold water is valid. There is a minority opinion that it is invalid. Some say that it is invalid only the angle created is less than 90 degrees and water could be held in that bend, however a bent pipe that is 90 degrees or more and just directs the water flow doesn’t create sheuvim. Others explain that according to the strict opinion any bent pipe is an issue even to direct water flow. A possible solution is to have one pipe flow into another pipe at an angle but not actually connect them and make them into one pipe.[83]

Pipes Made to be Attached to the Ground

1. A vessel that was made to be attached to the ground is considered a vessel and makes the water sheuvim.[84]

Vessel Attached to the Ground

1. If an unformed vessel was attached to the ground and then turned into a vessel that could hold water it doesn’t make the water it contains drawn (sheuvim).[85]
2. If an vessel was able to hold water and then was attached to the ground it would make the water inside drawn (sheuvim).[86]
3. A vessel that was punctured with a hole a diameter of two fingerbreadths and was attached to the ground is a valid mikveh. Even if the hole is then filled after it is attached to the ground it is still valid.[87]

3 Lug of Drawn Water

1. If 3 lug fall into a mikveh that is lacking 40 seah it is invalid even if the mikveh is later split in two and rainwater is added to one of them. Since the mikveh was completed with an invalidation it is as though all of the water is invalid.[88]
2. If 1.5 lug fell into 20 seah of rainwater and another 1.5 fell into another 20 seah of rainwater and then these waters connect they are valid since the complete invalidation of 3 lug was never applicable to either one of them.[89]
3. If a pit is full of drawn water it is only fixed to be used for a mikveh once enough rainwater enters so that according to our calculation there’s none of the original drawn water besides something minimal less than 3 lug.[90] The way this is calculated is by the use of two methods: 1) whatever proportion of the mikveh is drawn water that is the proportion of it that exits, or 2) by assuming that all the water that exits the mikveh is half drawn water and half rainwater. We are strict for the stringencies of each method.[91]
4. If a mikveh less than 40 seah is invalidated with 3 lug of drawn water it can be fixed by having a bit more than 40 seah of rainwater enter and that amount exit.[92] Some say that this is only effective if the rainwater exits by overflowing and not if it is drawn out.[93]
5. If a mikveh that is invalid mixes completely with a mikveh that is valid they are both considered valid.[94]
6. If less than 3 lug of drawn water fall into a mikveh that is lacking 40 seah the mikveh is nonetheless invalid until the more rainwater is added to complete the 40 seah and the drawn water doesn’t contribute to the measure of 40 seah.[95] It doesn’t matter whether the drawn water is added in the beginning or at the end as long as the mikveh is lacking 40 seah.[96]

Which Water Invalidates the Mikveh

1. Three lug of drawn water only invalidates the mikveh if it is a complete 3 lug or more and it looks like water. Less than 3 lug of drawn water together with some milk that fell into a lacking mikveh doesn’t invalid it. Water mixed with red[97] wine that looks like wine doesn’t invalidate the lacking mikveh even if more than 3 lug entered.[98]
2. Colored water invalidates a mikveh if there is 3 lugin of drawn colored water added to a incomplete mikveh.[99]

Sheuvim for a Mayan

1. A spring that has drawn water added and the drawn water is in the majority it is only valid as a mikveh and not if it is moving. Some say that this is only if the drawn water was added to a still spring but if it was added to a moving spring the spring is still considered a spring, however, the halacha is strict in all cases to consider the spring with a majority drawn water to be like a mikveh.[100]
2. If there was less than 40 seah in mayan and water added and then removed and made into mikveh is it kosher.[101]

Sheuvim for a Mikveh

1. A pit that was filled up with rainwater but it wasn’t 40 seah and nearby there were three small holes filled up with drawn water and then the water from the pit subsumes the drawn water in the holes. If it is known that the pit had 40 seah of rainwater before the drawn was added it is fit. If not, it is invalid.[102]

If the Status of a Mikveh Is in Question Because of Sheuvim

1. If there’s a doubt if the water became sheuvim the mikveh is kosher. According to Ashkenazim it is only kosher if the doubt is whether 3 lugim entered it but not if the question is whether it is completely made of sheuvim.[103]
2. If a person saw that a mikveh was empty and later came back and it was full he can assume that it was filled up with rainwater because most people involved with making mikvaot are experts.[104]
3. If there’s two mikvaot each of which with less than 40 seah and 3 lugim of sheuvim fell into one of them and one doesn't know which one it fell into, they are both invalid.[105] If the mikveh was then completed with rainwater so that it had 40 seah, one shouldn’t go into the mikveh but after the fact if one did one can rely on the fact that it was kosher.[106]
4. If there’s two mikvaot each of which with less than 40 seah and 3 lugim of sheuvim fell into one of them and one does know which one it fell into, and then another 3 lugim of sheuvim falls into one of them, one can assume that it fell into the invalid one and the other is kosher after you add rainwater so that it has 40 seah of rainwater.[107]
5. If there’s two mikvaot each of which with less than 40 seah and 3 lugim of sheuvim fell into one of them and one doesn’t know which one it fell into, and then another 3 lugim of sheuvim falls into one of them and one does know which one it fell into, one can’t assume that the second set of sheuvim fell into the same one that the first 3 lugim fell into and therefore both are invalid.[108]
6. If there were two mikvaot one with more than 40 seah and one with less than 40 seah and 3 lugim of sheuvim fell into one of them, and one doesn't know which one it fell into, they are both valid after adding more rainwater so that they both certainly have more than 40 seah of rainwater. [109]
7. If there were two mikvaot one which was invalid with sheuvim and one which was valid but lacking and 3 lugim fell into one of them one can assume it fell into the invalid one and the valid one is kosher after more rainwater is added so that it has 40 seah.[110]
8. If there’s rainwater which flowed into a mikveh and there’s a doubt if it went through a vessel next to the mikveh before entering the mikveh it is invalid unless there was majority of a kosher mikveh in the mikveh to begin with.[111]

1. 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.[112] see Igrot Moshe YD 120:5, Minchat Yitzchak 3:39:20

Natan Seah Vnatal Seah

1. If a complete mikveh has drawn water put in and removed consecutively such that a majority of 40 seah of the original water was removed according to some rishonim it is completely valid, while according to others it is invalid. We are strict to avoid this but in extenuating circumstances if there’s no other mikveh available we can lenient.[113]
2. Some say that the issue of natan seah vnatal seah is solved by having water flow into the mikveh and flow out since it isn’t similar to drawing water out with a vessel. Other disagree.[114]
3. Some say that the issue of natan seah vnatal seah is solved by having water move along the ground for 3 tefachim before it enters the mikveh.[115]

Snow and Ice

1. Snow or ice that was carried in a vessel or pipe isn’t considered drawn water after it melts. However, because some rishonim are strict one shouldn’t create a mikveh initially from tap water that was frozen and melted.[116]
2. In extenuating circumstances it is possible to create a mikveh by freezing tap water, placing it in a mikveh, and having it melt. This should not be relied upon without consulting a great posek.[117]
3. Using an ice machine to create ice is a discussion in the poskim.[118]
4. Moving snow with something that is susceptible to tumah isn’t an issue.[119]

Hamshacha

1. Cement absorbs water and is fit for hamshacha.[120]

The Mikveh Yisrael explains that there’s a dispute between the Raavad and Rambam whether the water needs to come into contact with the ground or even a vessel that is attached to the ground or even a vessel that isn’t susceptible to tumah is sufficient. Shevet Halevi 4:120 argues that there’s no dispute but any vessel that has a receptacle isn’t fit for hamshacha even if it isn’t susceptible to tumah. Shevet Halevi 4:120 explains that the water needs to actually come in contact with the ground and if the water is gushing quickly over the ground most of it doesn’t have hamshacha.

1. A mikveh that has 20 seah and a bit[121] of rainwater and the rest of the mikveh is filled up with drawn water that was drawn along the ground is kosher.[122]
2. A mikveh that was made completely with drawn water that was drawn along the ground according to a minority opinion is kosher but that opinion isn’t accepted and therefore, such a mikveh is invalid.[123]
3. If drawn water mixes into a majority of rainwater and there’s hamshacha afterwards the mikveh is valid.[124]
4. Hamshacha needs to be the length of 3 tefachim.[125]
5. According to Ashkenazim, hamshacha needs to be on ground that could absorb water. According to Sephardim it isn’t necessary.[126]
6. A spring that filled up a mikveh and during the summer it dried out, if a nearby pit is filled up with water and that water drained into the ground and the spring is filled up with that water from the pit the spring can be used as a kosher mikveh.[127]

Hashaka

1. It is possible to validate an entire pit of drawn water by connecting with a mikveh momentarily,[128] however, some say that the connection needs to remain open for the drawn water to remain fit.[129]
2. 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.[130]

Size of Hashaka Hole

1. According to Ashkenazim, the connection has to be a hole that has a diameter of 2 fingerbreadths, while according to Sephardim a hole of any size would suffice. [131]

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.

Hashaka with Sheuvim

1. In order to create a connection between a mikveh and a pit of drawn water and validate all of the water, the hole connecting the two needs to be the size of a shifoferet hanod. The shifoferet hanod is two fingerbeadths turned in a circle.[132]
2. The shifoferet hanod hole is only effective if it is complete full of water.[133]
3. If the hole might be the size of a shifoferet hanod but it is unclear it is an invalid connection between mikvaot.[134]
4. If there’s something blocking the transference of water stuck in the hole it is invalid.[135]
5. A lot of small holes don’t add up to be one hole that would connect mikvaot.[136]

A Momentary Hashaka

1. A momentary hashaka according to most poskim is enough to validate the drawn water. However, because there are some who disagree it is preferable to be strict.[137]

Hashaka with Zochlin

Igrot Moshe YD 1:113 writes that if a mikveh is kosher and moving it is still possible to have a connection to a kosher mikveh to permit it. Even though a moving mikveh isn’t fit for tevilah it is a kosher mikveh to permit another mikveh. His proof is from the Rash Mikvaot 3:3 who says that the rainwater pouring into a mikveh and there’s water pouring out of it is acceptable to validate the mikveh. Bet Yosef 201:20 and Shach 201:55 cite this. However, 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 3 is strict and suggests either having the zeriya hole above where the water enters or having a plug Chelkat Yakov 111 is strict but it isn’t an issue if a little water at the end comes while it is moving since a majority of mikveh was already kosher with standing zeriya.

Hashaka with Mikveh that doesn’t have 40 seah

1. If there’s drawn water next to a mikveh that is lacking 40 seah and the drawn water is connected with a small hole that doesn’t invalidate the mikveh because that drawn water is merely touching the mikveh and not mixed in it.[138] The hole has to be small enough that from the hole to the opposite wall the amount of water that would be contained in such a cylinder or box is less than 3 lug. If the hole was the size that opposing it is 3 lug of water then the drawn water invalidates the mikveh. [139] If the mikveh has 40 seah it is kosher.[140]
2. If there was drawn water in the middle of a lacking mikveh it would invalidate the mikveh.[141]

Placement of Hashaka Hole

1. The hashaka hole should be placed high enough that below it there is 40 seah in the rainwater mikveh.[142]

Hashaka of Different Types of Water

1. Some say that one can’t do hashaka of a rainwater mikveh to a spring.[143]
2. Hashaka to ice according to some poskim is valid.[144]

Tevilah in and on a Kli

1. One may not go to mikveh in a kli and that is invalid biblically.[145]
2. biblically one may not dip in a vessel.[146]
3. A moving mikveh on the back of a truck is questionable.[147]

A vessel attached to the ground with and without a hole

1. If the vessel attached to the ground and is connected to a mikveh or mayan through a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths it is biblically considered connected to the mikveh or mayan but nonetheless rabbinically one may not dip in such a vessel.[148]
2. If there’s water going into a vessel it is invalid to be used for tevilah and the water that dribbles out of the vessel is also invalid.[149]
3. If there’s a vessel that can contain 3 lug that’s built into the floor of the mikveh in the middle it invalidates the mikveh since it is seen as though all of the water above the vessel is contained in the vessel and drawn water invalidates a mikveh. However, if the vessel is build into the side of the mikveh it is kosher since the drawn water in the vessel merely touches the mikveh and doesn’t invalidate it.[150] This is only invalid if the mikveh has less than 40 seah.[151]
4. If there’s a vessel built into the bottom of the mikveh used to keep in all of the water in the mikveh and if it is drained there will be no more water in the mikveh then it is invalid even if there’s 40 seah since it is all drawn water.[152]
5. Even a kli larger than 40 seah is invalid to be used to hold the water of the mikveh.[153]
6. If there’s a vessel which has a hole of two fingerbreadths and through it there’s a connection to a spring and there’s water exiting the vessel, the vessel is invalid as a mikveh and the water that exiting the vessel is also invalid.[154]
7. If there’s a vessel with a rim which water from a spring is flowing into and also out of all of the water is fit as a spring since the water on the rim connects the water in the vessel with the water in the vessel and makes it valid.[155]
8. A person can immerse a vessel inside another vessel even if the outer vessel has a mouth smaller than a two fingerbreadth diameter as long as the immersion is effective for both the inner and outer vessel. In this case the immersion is only effective if the outer vessel mouth’s is vertical and not horizontal. However, if the immersion is only effective for the inner vessel then it is only effective if the mouth of the outer vessel has a two fingerbreadth diameter.[156]
9. If the outer vessel is obligated in tevilat kelim rabbinically and the inner one biblically then the inner vessel isn’t considered as though it had tevilah unless the opening of the mouth is two fingerbreadths in diameter. [157]
10. A person can immerse inside of a bag that is porous.[158]
11. In theory a woman may immerse while wearing her clothing if they are loose. In an extenuating circumstance she may immerse while wearing socks and shoes.[159]

Punctured on the Bottom

1. If a vessel is punctured on the bottom, according to some rishonim even if it has a tiny hole it isn’t considered a vessel and doesn’t create drawn water. The poskim don’t accept this opinion.[160] If can hold even a little bit of water it is a vessel and invalid.[161]
2. If a vessel is punctured on the bottom, according to most opinions if the hole has the diameter of two fingerbreadths it isn’t a vessel and doesn’t create drawn water. This is accepted by the halacha. However, some rishonim explain that even though such a vessel isn’t considered a vessel for drawn water it is still considered a vessel such that one may not immerse in it. Many rishonim disagree and the halacha follows their lenient opinion.[162] If can hold even a little bit of water it is a vessel and invalid.[163]
1. If the vessel attached to the ground and is punctured by a hole on the bottom of the mikveh with a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths, whether that hole was made before or after the vessel was attached to the ground,[164] then it can be used for a mikveh. It isn’t a vessel to create drawn water and also one may even dip in such a vessel since it isn’t considered a vessel once it has a hole and is attached to the ground.[165]
3. If a vessel is punctured on the bottom, according to all opinions if the hole has a diameter of a pomegranate it isn’t a vessel and doesn’t create drawn water. Additionally, all agree that a person can immerse in such a vessel.[166] If can hold even a little bit of water it is a vessel and invalid.[167]

A Vessel Floating in the Mikveh

1. A vessel not attached to the ground floating in the mikveh doesn’t invalidate it and the water inside it isn’t considered drawn water.[168]
2. If there is a clothing partially in the mikveh and a person squeezes water out of it into the mikveh it is considered drawn water to invalidate a mikveh with 3 lug. Some say that this is only the case if it is completely picked up out of the mikveh, while others say it is even if it is partially out of the water.[169]

On the Back of Vessels

1. If water flows over the back of vessels the water is valid as a mikveh, meaning that it is valid when it is 40 seah and stopped.[170] However, one may not immerse on top of any type of vessels.[171]
2. If part of the water is flowing over an inverted vessel and part of it isn’t and they are all connected then all of the water is valid as a spring.[172]

A vessel created before or after it was attached to the ground

1. A pipe that was chiseled out and then attached to the ground is invalid for a mikveh[173] unless a hole on the bottom with a diameter of two fingerbreadths is made in it.[174]
2. A stone or cement that was attached to the ground and then chiseled out to be used as a pipe or vessel isn't considered a vessel and doesn’t create drawn water.[175] Some say that one may even dip in such a vessel while others hold that one may not actually dip in such a vessel.[176]

A vessel inside the mikveh

1. If the vessel is inside of a mikveh or mayan some rishonim say that one may dip in such a mikveh or mayan but the halacha is that one may not dip in such of a mikveh or mayan rabbinically.[177]
2. If the vessel is inside of a mikveh or mayan and has a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths some rishonim say that it is fit to go inside of that vessel that is surrounded by water on all sides but the halacha is that it is ineffective.[178]
3. One may not go to mikveh standing on top of a kli. [179]

A Colored Mikveh

1. A mikveh whose water changed colors from the original look of the water even if it doesn’t look like wine or another liquid[180] is invalid. There is a dispute whether this invalidation is rabbinic or biblical.[181]
2. A colored mikveh is invalid even if the color changes after it has 40 seah.[182]
3. A colored mikveh can be fixed by having it connected to a spring.[183]
4. A colored mikveh can be fixed by having more water added to it to change its color back to regular water. If the mikveh has 40 seah the water added can even be drawn water.[184]
5. A spring isn’t susceptible to the invalidation of having its water change colors.[185]
6. If part of the mikveh changed colors that area doesn’t count towards the mikveh but if there’s 40 seah that is unchanged it is a kosher mikveh if one dips in the area that didn’t change colors.[186]
7. A mikveh that changed colors on its own is valid.[187]
8. A colored mikveh is only invalid if the actual coloring agent is added to the mikveh such as wine or dye, but not if it is only colored because of something else such as colored or dirty water.[188]
9. A mikveh that was incomplete and wine was added so that the color of all of it changed then even if drawn water is then added it isn’t invalidated because of drawn water because while it is invalid as a colored mikveh being drawn doesn’t invalidate it. Afterwards if more water is added such that the whole mikveh returns to the original color it is fit.[189]
10. Some poskim hold that a mikveh that is incomplete and invalidated because 3 lug or more of drawn water was added can be fixed as follows: wine is added so that the entire mikveh changes the look of wine, then more water is added until its original color returns. However, many poskim hold that this isn’t solution doesn’t work.[190] Even the lenient opinion can be relied upon if the original invalidation was only rabbinic and not biblical.[191]
11. It is permitted to add chlorine powder to a complete mikveh if it doesn’t change its color.[192]

Creation of a Mikveh through Something Susceptible to Tumah

1. A mikveh may not be created by the use of something that is susceptible to tumah otherwise it is invalid.[193] This invalidation is biblical.[194]
2. 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.[195]
3. 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.[196] The poskim are only strict if the wooden board was used to service people and utensils such as a tray, table, and bed board.[197]

If the water would have reached the mikveh anyway

1. If the mikveh is created with something that is susceptible to tumah but the water would have flowed that way anyway to create the mikveh, the mikveh is valid.[198]
2. If the water flows over something that is susceptible to tumah but the water afterwards flows over wood, dirt, or something that isn’t susceptible to tumah at all the resultant mikveh is kosher.[199] Some say that this is only true if the water would have flowed into the mikveh without the vessel that is susceptible to tumah.[200]

Stopping Water from Exiting

1. If a vessel that is susceptible to tumah is used to plug up a hole in the mikveh the entire mikveh is invalid because without that plug the mikveh would be invalid as the water would flow up and having the plug there is considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah.[201]
2. If a vessel that is susceptible to tumah is used to repair a mikveh when the mikveh is completely valid but without the repair there is a concern it will later become invalid, the mikveh is valid.[202]

If Water is Attached to the Mikveh or Spring

1. If the water flows over something that is susceptible to tumah the water is invalid for a mikveh, however, if the water is attached to a complete mikveh or a spring, some rishonim hold it is valid but others hold it is still invalid.[203]

Indirectly using something that is susceptible to tumah

1. Using a vessel which is susceptible to tumah even if it is only indirectly holding the water is a problem. [204]

Connecting Pits of Water that Overflow

1. 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.[205]
2. 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.[206] Practically, each pit of twenty seah isn’t fit until another twenty seah is added because a complete mikveh is forty seah.[207]
3. If there are two pits of twenty seah, one with drawn water, one with rainwater and they connect they remain as they were beforehand.[208]

A Hole on top of a Hole

1. A mikveh on top of a mikveh if there is a hole the size of two fingerbreadths in diameter is considered connected.[209]
2. 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.[210]

A non-Jewish owned Mikveh

1. 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.[211]

Assessing the Status of an Unknown Mikveh

1. 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.[212]
2. 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.[213]

Building a Mikveh so it isn’t a vessel

1. Reinforced concrete with metal rods in the cement is a discussion in the poskim if it is acceptable.[214]
2. 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.[215]
3. 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.[216]
4. A complete vessel such as a bathtub which was a vessel before it was attached to the ground is an invalid mikveh.[217]
5. A mikveh made of pre-made cement slabs, one per wall and one for the floor, is questionable. [218]
6. 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.[219]

Going to a hot mikveh

1. Theoretically, Sephardim hold that a mikveh should be cold and if hot water is added it is invalid. However, Ashkenazim are lenient to permit a hot mikveh.[220] Today the minhag of all communities is to be lenient.[221] It is permitted to have a radiator in the walls of the mikveh heat up the water since it is clear how it is being heated.[222]

There is no issue of going to mikveh in the hot springs of Tevariya even though they are hot.[223]

1. Going to a warm mikveh Friday night, Sephardim advise going ben hashemashot[224], while Ashkenazim advise going at night itself.[225]

Showering after going to the mikveh

1. Ashkenazim hold that the women shouldn't bathe or shower immediately after going to the mikveh.[226] Sephardim are lenient.[227]
2. How long does the prohibition apply according to Ashkenazim? Some say it is for an entire day until the next night.[228] Some are lenient once she came home and touched her husband.[229] Some allow once he gets home even if they didn't touch.[230]
3. The minhag of not bathing or showering after going to mikveh doesn't apply to a man going to mikveh for keri.[231] A baal keri can go in a mikveh of 40 seah of drawn water.[232]

How to do Tevilat Kelim

1. You can dip a large vessel in a mikveh that is just 40 seah specifically by doing the following: put it in the mikveh upside down, turn it over in the mikveh, turn it over again and remove it upside down. The reason it needs to be put in upside down is so that the water of the mikveh isn’t displaced and spilled out of the mikveh. The reason it needs to be removed upside down is so that the water isn’t removed from the mikveh making it less than 40 seah.[233]

Procedure and Position for Dipping in the Mikveh

1. A person shouldn’t dip in a mikveh that the water is so deep or so shallow. Instead it should be filled to the point that it is a half amah above the belly of a person.[234]
2. If is shallower than that if there’s no other available options a person can dip in such a mikveh by lying down horizontally but not by bending over so much. Bending over would cause a person to have unnatural folds and pockets which would be considered an interposition between the body and the water.[235] Some permit going to the mikveh lying down even initially.[236]
3. A mikveh with water that is spread out and can’t be used for dipping in its current state it is permissible to put down wood so that the water congregates on one side of the mikveh.[237]
4. If a person needed to go to the mikveh and doesn’t know if they went to mikveh or whether they completely submerged or whether the mikveh had 40 seah he must go to the mikveh again since his tameh status remains until he surely went to the mikveh.[238]
5. It is possible to dip in a stream of water from a spring if one completely submerges themselves in it.[239]
6. If a person jumps into a mikveh with a lot of water that will contain more than 40 seah even after water splashes out the dipping is valid.[240]
7. Some say that a person shouldn’t dip in the mikveh twice, one is sufficient and doing it twice will make a person more likely not to take each one seriously. Others defend the practice of dipping twice.[241]

Trust regarding the status of a Mikveh

1. An individual is trusted regarding the status of the mikveh if it is in his hands to fix it.[242]

Modern Mikvaot (see packet 15)

1. Chatom Sofer 214 holds that the best way to make a mikveh is to use zeriya. The benefit is that hashaka with sheuvim is questionable (Tosfot Rid and Kesef Mishna) and zeriya is firmly established. Another positive is that there’s no question of fulfilling the opinion of Rabbenu Yerucham to have continuous hashaka. The downside of such an approach is natan seah vnatal seah (Rambam and Raavad against Rash and Rosh) and that is solved since there’s no obvious act of taking away water (Ramban, Bet Yosef). The Divrei Chaim disputes this point and shows that the Raavad would invalidate the mikveh because of natan seah vnatal seah even if it isn’t evident. Chazon Ish held you should just do zeriya.
1. Maharshag YD 65 defends Chatom Sofer about problems of natan seah vnatal seah. He suggests doing zeriya into pit two and spill over into tevilah pit then hashaka once with pristine hashaka bor. He says that the issue of natan seah doesn’t apply to the tevilah bor since the drawn water was added to the other pit and only overflowed there.
2. Mishna Halachot 10:146 said that zeriya in second pit is only effective if it is first still and then spilled over. Cheshev Sofer YD 13 said that was the minhag to do.
3. Satmer Rav in Divrei Yoel 69 said you can do zeriya with bor al gabi bor and have it overflow into bor tevilah. Mishna Halachot 10:146 said it is pasul since the katafras makes it not connected to a mikveh and zochlin is invalid for zeriya so both mikvehs become invalid.
4. Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 writes that you shouldn’t just do pour zeriya because of natan seah vnatal seah.
2. Divrei Chaim responsa CM 1:37 holds that the best way to make a mikveh is to use hashaka. The downside is that to fulfill Rabbenu Yerucham we need the hashaka pit always open and to avoid natan seah vnatal seah we need to refill the rainwater pit frequently so that there remains a pristine minimum of 21 seah of rainwater. Being that the longer the hole between the mikveh’s is open the more water that is transferred the sooner the rainwater needs to be changed. The solution is that the hole should be opened only once to create the hashaka and then close it up. That isn’t concerned for the Rabbenu Yerucham but it is concerned for the Rambam and Raavad of natan seah vnatal seah. Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 approves of this type of mikveh since momentary hashaka works for natan seah vnatal seah. However, the Tzemech Tzedek 171 argues that this doesn’t actually solve the Rambam and Raavad either because they certainly would accept Rabbenu Yerucham as they fundamentally need the presence of 21 seah. [Problematically the Divrei Chaim 201:20 himself makes the same point as the Tzemech Tzedek.] Because of this point, Rabbi Moshe Bick (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) convinced the Satmer rebbe to hold like the Chabad mikveh.
1. 3 mikvaot. One to connect one time and one to keep open. Mishna Halachot 10:146 that’s the minhag of Ungar and Galisiya like divrei chayim with 3 pits. He answered the Tzemech Tzedek by saying that although the Raavad would agree with Rabbenu Yerucham that’s only for a mikveh made completely with drawn water but not for a mikveh that is just invalid because of natan seah vnatal seah. That can be fixed with a momentary hashaka. Maharshag 1:66 also rejected the Tzemech Tzedek’s equation. Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 would agree.
2. Divrei Yatziv YD 117 agrees that the minhag is to have 3 pits, one open all the time and one opened only momentarily.
3. The Satmer Rav in Divrei Yoel 69 had another solution. He held you can have a bor hashaka with a divider. It is a bor al gabi bor min hasad. It is a continuous connection between the bor tevilah and bor hashaka but there’s a third mikveh below and isn’t getting contaminated quickly. Chesed Yehoshua 2:57 agreed.
1. Chelkat Yakov held to do this with a tiny connection. Since the issue is only rabbinic then the hole doesn’t need to be a shifoferet hanod. That would mitigate the issue of natan seah vnatal seah. Teshuvot Vehanhagot didn’t like it because of zochlin. Shevet Halevi thought it isn’t zochlin.
2. Tzelemer Rav in Gedulot Merkachim YD 52 disapproved of the Satmer mikveh since it was katafras of the Divrei Chayim. It can be fixed if the top area independently has 40 seah. Mishna Halachot 10:146 s.v. haamnam quotes the Kloizenberger Rebbe who also disapproved of the bor al gabi bor min hasad because of katafras. In s.v. vdaah he writes that the bor al gabi bor on the side is invalid even if the top area has 40 seah since it is katafras and you can’t do any hashaka with katafras. Shevet Halevi says this is wrong because standing katafras isn’t pasul in hashaka. That’s a combination of wrong definitions.
4. Rashab (Pitchai Mikvaot 9:23 p. 327 cites the notes of the Rashab printed at the end of Shulchan Aruch Harav) holds that the best way to make a mikveh is to use a bor al gabi bor. The benefit is that it fulfills Rabbenu Yerucham and also natan seah vnatal seah because the transference of the water between the lower and upper mikveh is minimal. The Divrei Chaim 1:46 argued that the hashaka was invalid since it is considered katafras. Others argued that this was an incorrect explanation of katafras. Satmer Rebbe (packet 15 p24, Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) agrees with the Rashab that it is the best solution and having a hashaka bor is unnecessary. In practice the Satmer prefer bor al gabi bor min hasad (Divrei Yoel YD 80).
1. Imrei Yoshar 2:79 and Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe YD 3:65) held that katafras is only with a pipe in which the water is moving and not two pits one on top of the other. Divrei Chayim 1:46 himself held it was an issue.
2. The Pitchei Mikvaot p. 327 quotes the Klozenberger that a mikveh on top of a mikveh is kosher if there’s also a hashaka on the side. He cites the Betzel Chachma who says that it wouldn’t help since once it is katafras you can’t connect to it but the Pitchei Mikvaot didn’t understand how having an extra hashaka could possibly ruin the mikvah. Minchat Yitzchak 6:90 questions such a mikveh. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 228) said that if there are some lubavitch in the area it is best to make a bor al gabi bor with another bor hashaka on the side to satisfy everyone. He said that he didn’t believe that anyone who invalidate it.
3. Vishnitzer Rebbe held that the best mikveh is one that made with rainwater and isn’t changed except once a year. Packet 15 last pg nytimes

Sources

1. Even though there is an opinion that Rashi Shabbat 65 s.v. vsaver cites that a zavah needs to dip in a mayan and a mikveh is insufficient, Rashi rejects it in several places based on a Tosefta Zavim 3:1. See Rashi Bechorot 58b s.v. mikveh. Shaarei Teshuva of the Geonim 164 written by Rav Natronai Goan holds that a zavah. Tosefta Megillah 1:11 explicitly holds that a Zavah doesn’t need a mayan. The Ramban Vayikra 15:11 points out that the simple explanation of the pesukim is that a zavah can’t go in a mikveh and needs a mayan but that isn’t the explanation of chazal. Rav Yakov Emden in Yavetz responsa 88 defends the teacher of Rashi by saying we don’t follow the Tosefta. See Aruch Lener Niddah 67a who provides another defense of this approach. Either way, this opinion was rejected by many poskim. Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5 and Rosh ad loc. hold that a zavah doesn’t need a mayan. Bet Yosef YD 200:1 quotes the Rambam Mikveh 1:5, Rashba Shaar Hamayim 1, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 200:1 conclude that a zavah is purified by a mikveh. The Bach 200:2 explains that really this opinion is only rabbinic and it is supported by Nedarim 40b. Either way the Bach concludes that it was rejected by all of the poskim.
2. The Gemara Avoda Zara 75b derives from Torah that a mikveh requires 40 seah at a minimum, which is measured by 1 amah x 1 amah x 3 amot. The same idea is found in Eruvin 4b and Torat Kohanim Shemini 9.
3. Bet Yosef YD 198:1 cites the Sifra Emor 4:7 which derives from the pasuk Vayikra 22:6 that a person is only purified by going to the mikveh if one is completely covered by the water at one time. That is codified by Shulchan Aruch 198:1.
4. Rav Chaim Noeh in Shiurei Torah (3:29 p. 257) writes that since there’s a 24 log in a seah, 4 reviyot in a log, and 27 dirham in a reviyit, each of which is 3.2 grams of water in a mikveh of 40 seah there is 24*4*27*3.2*40=331,776 grams = 331.8 liters. He says that since perhaps the water measures of the Rambam are slightly different in other waters he says it is sufficient to add 3% which is another 10 liters, altogether 342 liters is certainly sufficient. However, the minhag is to use double or quadruple that amount.
5. Aruch Hashulchan 201:10 writes that obviously if there's a large person who can't fit in a mikveh for 40 seah needs to dip in a mikveh that's larger than 40 seah. Darkei Teshuva 201:2 asks that it seems that 40 seah is a halacha lmoshe msinai in all cases and having more is only rabbinic. Rav Schachter in Bet Yosef Shaul v. 2 writes that the Aruch Hashulchan is right.
6. Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef YD 200:1
7. Tashbetz 1:17 cited by Bet Yosef YD 200:1, Tosfot Yoma 31a s.v. amah
8. The Mishna Mikvaot 2:10 establishes that thin mud can count for a mikveh. The mishna provides six definitions of how thick that is. The Gemara Zevachim 22a says another measure altogether; it says that if the mud is so thin that a cow would drink it it is considered water for a mikveh. Rambam Mikvaot 8:9 and Smag Asin 248 rule like the Gemara Zevachim. However, the Smak 294 rules like the Mishna. Yet, the Rash Mikvaot 2:10 and Tosfot Sukkot 19b explain that the Mishna’s six opinions are merely describing more precisely the measure of what a cow would drink. The Bet Yosef 201:32 understood the Rash to mean that we should simply follow the Gemara and that would correspond with the Mishna. That’s why he writes that the Rambam agrees with the Rash (Divrei Yosef p. 244). However, the text of the Rash (unlike what the Bet Yosef quoted) actually states that the measures that the mishna gave are objective and we couldn’t just measure ourselves with a cow today because the determination of exactly was is normal drinking of a cow was established by chazal in his dispute.
• According to the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch we should measure the mud with a cow today. But according to the Rash and Smak we would follow the most stringent opinion of the mishna which is that it is only thin if a straw would be placed in it and it would fall in. The Divrei Yosef explains the Shulchan Aruch, while the Bear Hagolah 201:72 and Chelkat Binyamin 201:470 follow the Rash.
9. Mishna Mikvaot 2:10, Rambam Mikvaot 8:10, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:32
10. Gemara Zevachim 22a establishes that anything which grows in the water can be used for a mikveh. The Rambam Mikvaot 8:11 rules that the eye of a fish can be used for a mikveh. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:33 codifies this.
11. Chelkat Binyamin 201:468 writes that the creatures can only possibly be considered part of the mikveh if they are liquified. He cites the Aruch Hashulchan 160:16. See also Rashi Zevachim 22a.
12. Ran responsa 66 explains that with a pit in the ground with water it is possible for the water level to change naturally. If it is known that would naturally decreases to below 40 seah and then increases again it is a problem for the one going in the mikveh unless they know at the time when they’re going to the mikveh that there’s 40 seah. The reason is that a chazaka established kosher status, which naturally changes doesn’t count as a chazaka (Kiddushin 79a). If it happens that it decreases and increases naturally but it isn’t known that it ever decreased to less than 40 seah there’s no problem and one can rely on the original chazaka of the mikveh. Yet, it is proper to check that the mikveh has 40 seah before going to the mikveh since it is possible to check in advance a person shouldn’t rely on a chazaka (pesachim 4a). Shulchan Aruch 201:65 codifies the Ran. Taz 201:85 adds that it is usually sufficient to know that there’s 40 seah afterwards to permit all of previous dippings and it isn’t necessary to know that it was 40 seah to begin with. Shaarei Mikavot 201:275 is only lenient for rabbinic tumahs.
13. Niddah 2b, Rambam Mikvaot 10:6, Shulchan Aruch 201:65
14. The Mishna Mikvaot 7:6 presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis if the second person who goes to mikveh while the first person is still standing in the mikveh had a valid dipping. Rabbi Yehuda holds it is valid since the water on his body is considered connected to the mikveh based on the principle of gud achit. However, the rabbis hold that gud achit doesn’t apply to Mikvaot. Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 and Tur 201:62 hold like Rabbi Yehuda, while the Rambam Mikvaot 8:12 and Raavad Baalei Hanefesh (cited by Bet Yosef 201:62) hold like the rabbis. Shulchan Aruch 201:62 follows the Rambam.
15. Rambam Mikvaot 8:12 implies that a cloth that is partially touching a mikveh the water inside is considered connected to the mikveh. The Rivash 292 explains that the water in the cloth is considered connected to the mikveh even though we don’t hold of gud achit since part of the cloth is still in the water all of the absorbed water is considered a connected unit together with the water. Shach 201:131 agrees. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:63 codifies the Rambam.
16. Tosefta Mikavot 3:2 establishes that a cloth removed from a mikveh makes the water in it sheuvim. Divrei Dovid p. 454 quotes the Tiferet Yisrael Boaz 6:6 who explained that the water is absorbed in the cloth unlike a reed basket or vessel with many holes that can’t hold water. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:63 codifies the Tosefta.
17. Mishna Mikvaot 5:7 states that all small holes or animal footprints are connected to the mikveh. The Rosh explains that they are connected if there’s a small hole of two fingerbreadths connecting them to the mikveh. Rambam Mikvaot 8:1 and Shulchan Aruch 201:57 agree.
18. Mishna Mikvaot 6:1, explanation of the Rosh, Shulchan Aruch 201:58
19. Pri Deah (Siftei Levi 201:125) explaining Shulchan Aruch 201:58
20. The Rambam Pirush Mishnayot 6:1 writes that if the wall is thin and can’t stand up on its own the crevice is part of the mikveh. He implies that it is possible to dip a vessel in there even if it doesn’t have a reviyit. The Shach 201:127 rules that it is obvious that the crevice needs a reviyit to purify a vessel. The Pri Deah (Siftei Levi 201:125) cites a Raavad that supports the Shach.
21. Mishna Mikvaot 6:1, explanation of the Rosh, Shulchan Aruch 201:59
22. The Rama 201:57 quotes the Rosh who learns from the mishna that a splash is connected to a mikveh but once it is detached it is invalid unless it is 40 seah. The Shach 201:123 and Taz 201:74 explain that it isn’t considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah when the person pushes the water to extend to the vessel because (1) that extension is attached to the mikveh and according to the Rosh there’s no issue of water being transferred by something that is susceptible to tumah if it is all connected to the mikveh and (2) the water being splashed out isn’t directly touching the hand and that small separation is sufficient that it isn’t considered water that was drawn by something that is susceptible to tumah Maharit YD 17 adds similarly that it isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam since you only pushed the water in the mikveh and that water pushed other water which eventually left the mikveh. Since the water one touched was attached to the mikveh and the water which left isn’t koach adam (but koach sheni) it isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam.
23. Torat Kohanim 9
24. Torat Habayit 30b agrees with the Rambam and Raavad. Rosh Mikvaot no. 2 cites the Ri as holding that a mayan only purifies a kli with any amount but a person requires 40 seah. The Rambam Mikvaot 4:8 and Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh ch. 3 s.v. vhani mili) argue that a mayan is effective with any amount even for a person. The Rosh agrees with the Ri. Shulchan Aruch 201:1 rules like the Ri.
25. Ritva Macot 4a s.v. od citing Tosfot
26. Mordechai Mikvaot 746 at the end cites a dispute about this point in which the Rav Chaim Ben Chisday ruled it was invalid but the Mordechai didn’t understand why that would be the case and Rabbenu Simcha also was lenient. Rosh responsa 30:3 implies that it is kosher. Bet Yosef 201:15 cites these sources.
27. Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, Rabbenu Chananel Shabbat 65b, Ramban Shabbat 65b in the name of Rabbenu Chananel
28. Rashi Shabbat 65b s.v. vsaver
29. Ramban Shabbat 65b clarifies that the a mayan can purify if it is moving and certainly if it is stationary. Shach 201:7 agrees.
30. Being that the invalidation of zochlin is in Torat Kohanim as a derivation of a pasuk it should be biblical. That is the opinion of the Trumat Hadeshen 254, Maharik 115, Bet Yosef 201:3, and Rama 201:2 agree. The Darkei Moshe 201:7 explains that the issue of rainwater in a mikveh moving is considered a biblical invalidation but the concern of having a majority of rainwater in a mikveh is only rabbinic.
• However, the Bet Yosef 201:3 seems to understand the Mordechai to mean that zochlin is only rabbinic. Chatom Sofer YD 2:202 proves that the Yereyim (ch. 26) and Maharam (cited by Mordechai) hold that zochlin is only rabbinic. Mahari Asad 5:211 proves that Rashi Chullin 31b s.v. chardelit holds zochlin is rabbinic. Peni Yehoshua Shabbat 65b s.v. BTosfot shema writes that Tosfot's opinion is that zochlin is rabbinic. Tzemech Tzedek 164:5 makes a compromise in explaining the Rosh that biblically only if the mikveh is moving like a spring but rabbinically it is a problem even if there's a hole in the mikveh and water is draining. Imrei Yosher 130 agrees.
• Chazon Ish 134:3 writes that this opinion of the Chatom Sofer is totally incorrect and may not be included as a factor to be lenient. Divrei Chayim 5 and Chibur Ltahara 2:38 agree and answer the Chatom Sofer’s proofs.
31. Torat Kohanim Shemini 9:3, Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, Rashi Shabbat 65b s.v. vsaver
• Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains that if there’s water coming out of a crack in a wall the mikveh is invalid since it is moving. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 11 and responsa 31:4 writes that a crack in a wall isn’t considered zochlin. It is only considered zochlin if the water is gushing like a spring is. Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 agrees. Darkei Moshe 201:26 explains that the Mordechai and Agur are strict like the Rash.
• Rashba Torat Habayit Shaar 2 writes that a mikveh is valid even if the water is draining slowly because otherwise every pit would be invalid since the earth absorbs the water slowly. Rather if the drainage isn’t recognizable it is valid. Shulchan Aruch 201:51 cites the Rashba.
• 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.
32. 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.
33. The Rashba writes that as long as the movement of the mikveh is so minimal that it isn’t noticeable it is fit. Otherwise how could a mikveh dug in a dirt hole be fit since the dirt allows water through. The Shulchan Aruch 201:51 follows the Rashba.
• Chatom Sofer YD 2:211 holds like the Rashba and Shulchan Aruch.
34. The Gra 201:97 argues with Shulchan Aruch that any movement invalidates a mikveh. Mishnat Rav Aharon Kotler explains the Gra’s argument. There’s two reasons why moving water is invalid for a mikveh; the moving water could be a biblical invalidation without any reason or it could be that moving water is like it isn’t connected and there’s no 40 seah. If so, if there’s a hole in the mikveh above the 40 seah mark and certainly 40 seah will remain according to the first approach it is invalid but according to the second it is valid. Another application of this question is if the movement of the water isn’t noticeable. According to the first approach it is valid if the movement isn’t noticeable but according to the second one it is invalid even if it isn’t noticeable.
35. The Tashbetz writes that the Rambam doesn’t accept the opinion of the Rash that any hole in a mikveh invalidates the mikveh since it makes the mikveh water moving which is invalid. Rabbenu Yerucham writes similarly. This seems to align with the Rosh no. 12 who writes that only a mikveh that is moving like a spring is invalid. Meil Tzedaka and Bayi Chayi adopt this position. However, the Shulchan Aruch 201:50 accepts the Rash that even a hole invalidates the mikveh. Nodeh Beyehuda 142:5, Meir Netivim 11, and Imrei Yosher 130 agree and reject the lenient opinion of the Meil Tzedaka.
• Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 298 rules like Shulchan Aruch that a not recognizable zechila is valid. Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229 quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein that a non-recognizable zechila is valid in a case where there’s not another mikveh and going to mikveh shouldn’t be pushed off because of it.
36. 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.
37. 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 120:30 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.
38. The Meil Tzedaka 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 201:120 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.
39. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 336 writes that even while the filter is running the mikveh is fit and it isn’t considered zochlin. Firstly, the water that goes into the filter returns to the mikveh and regarding such a case the Rama 201:50 writes that it isn’t considered zochlin. Secondly, even if the water in the filter is considered zochlin that doesn’t affect the rest of the mikveh if it is still 40 seah. That idea is based on Rambam Mikvaot 8:8. Lastly, the Mikveh Tahara p. 68 writes that movement within the water isn’t considered zochlin, only movement because of water entering and exiting the mikveh is zochlin. Igrot Moshe YD 110 was lenient based on the first consideration.
40. Rav Moshe in Igrot Moshe YD 110 writes that the pool filters are a kli and therefore an issue of sheuvim. Even though the water is added back into a mikveh of 40 seah it is an issue of natal seah vnatan seah, which is removing some drawn water and replacing it, which is an issue (Shach 201:23). Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 337 comes to the conclusion that the in-mikveh filters aren’t an issue of sheuvim since they essentially a straight pipe and not a kli. He cites the Shema Shlomo 5:14. However, see Betzel Hachachma 4:98.
• Igrot Moshe writes that the filter is considered mekabel tumah if it could hold liquids had it not been attached to the ground and if it can’t then it isn’t mekabel tumah but it still creates sheuvim.
41. Rivash 292 cited by Bet Yosef 201:62 defines katafras as moving water, zochlin. Tosfot Rid Gittin 16b agrees. Divrei Chaim 2:97 argues. Maharsham 2:59, 3:100, Igrot Moshe 3:65 reject the Divrei Chaim.
42. The Ravyah (cited by Mordechai Shevuot 746) asks why it is possible to dip in a river if it is considered katafras.
• The Ravyah answers that katafras is a connection for the water below the slope since the water is going to flow down but not up the slope. Therefore, in a river anywhere one is dipping is valid if there’s 40 seah upstream. A proof is the Tosefta Mikvaot 3:4 that has a case of three pits on a slope, the top and bottom are 20 seah and middle is 40 seah that the middle and bottom are certainly valid. Tosfot Gittin 16a s.v. nisok agrees. Darkei Moshe 201:6 agrees. This approach holds that katafras is a connection together with gud achit. The Bet Yosef argues that this answer isn’t the halacha since we don’t hold that there’s a connection between the lower pit or upper pit using gud asik or achit at all (Rambam Mikvaot 8:8).
• Bet Yosef 201:54 answers that there’s 40 seah of each side of the slope and so it is valid even though there’s no connection of katafras.
43. Shevet Halevi 3:133 writes that even if a hashaka hole is slanted downward it isn't katafras since the only issue is a rabbinic one after there was zeriya. Even according to the Raavad (by natal seah) it is acceptable since there's hamshacha. After both of those there's hashaka which is at most needed on a rabbinic level. Katafras isn't an issue if water is only invalid rabbinically. Also, the Imrei Yosher 1:101 and 2:167 argues with the Divrei Chaim and holds that katafras isn't an issue if the water is still. We can rely on the Imrei Yoshar and all the more so with other factors. Also, Gidulei Tahara Nachal 201:45 discusses that katafras can’t mean that it needs to be totally flat but he leaves the precise degree of incline unresolved.
44. From many places it is obvious that the stairs are included in the mikveh:
• Rash Mikvaot 7:7 explains that the vessel sitting on a stair can be included in the mikveh if you splash and the water submerges the vessel. Rambam Pirush Mishnayot agrees.
• Shulchan Aruch YD 198:31 writes that one may be tovel on top of stone stairs in the mikveh. This is based on the Rashba (responsa 828).
• Mishna Mikvaot 7:6 says that according to Rabbi Yehuda the water on a person’s body while his feet are in the mikveh are connected to the mikveh. The case is clearly where his body is out of the water and feet are in the mikveh and presumably it is stairs or a shallow area.
• The Divrei Chaim 2:97 writes that the stairs aren’t connected with the mikveh and one may not be tovel there. Chelkat Yakov YD 111 writes that the Divrei Chaim is completely contradicted by Shulchan Aruch. He writes that perhaps the Divrei Chaim only meant to be strict if the stairs are slanted towards the inside of the mikveh so that no water could remain on them unless the mikveh was full. Either way he thinks the Divrei Chaim is totally wrong. He ends by quoting a testimony that the Divrei Chaim retracted before he died.
45. Betzel Chachma 3:80:3
46. Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:13. The Shaarei Mikvaot 201:66 cites the Maharik who holds that the Rambam holds that spring water which is broken from the spring is still treated like a spring explains this Rambam Pirush Mishnayot. He says that water which was flowing and reached a mikveh pool as a spring is considered a spring even if the stream is interrupted, however, an interrupted stream of a spring that didn’t reach a mikveh isn’t considered anything but a mikveh and not a spring.
47. Rambam Pirush Mishnayot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:14
48. Rambam Pirush Mishnayot 5:5 explains that Rabbi Yosi holds that even something which is susceptible to rabbinic tumah causes the mikveh to be invalid if it is used to create the mikveh. We follow Rabbi Yosi. Shulchan Aruch 201:14 accepts the Rambam. See Shach 201:104 that after the fact the mikveh would be valid.
49. Mishna Mikvaot 5:1 establishes that a spring which flowed into a pool and was stopped has a status of a mikveh. The Tur 201:10 infers that if it wasn’t interrupted it is considered like a spring. Shulchan Aruch 201:10 agrees.
50. The Bet Yosef 201:10 writes that it seems from the Rosh and Rash that if the pool was originally empty and was filled with spring water it is considered like a spring even when the stream from the spring to the pool is interrupted. He suggests this possibility in the Rambam Mikvaot 9:9 as does the Maharik 156 but he points out that the Rambam Pirush Mishnayot doesn’t sound like this. In any event, the Raavad (cited by the Bet Yosef 201:10) and Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim end of ch. 11) hold explicitly that if the water from the spring was interrupted it is considered like a mikveh completely. The Shulchan Aruch 201:10 rules like the Raavad and Rashba. Shach 201:29, Chatom Sofer 209, and Hagahot Perisha 201:21 accept this approach. With respect to the Hagahot Perisha’s proof the Shach 201:34 and Taz 201:23 disagree.
51. The Rashba (Shaar Hamayim ch. 11), Shulchan Aruch and Rama 201:11. Shach 201:33 explains that the reason that it is only effective when it is stopped is because the drawn water isn’t converted into spring water and is only effective when stopped.
• The Trumat Hadeshen 254 is bothered why a mikveh can transform sheuvim but a mayan doesn’t change moving rainwater isn’t mayan water. He explains that generally there’s no such thing as transforming water because it was mixed. For sheuvim when water is put in the mikveh it is like it is being reattached to the ground and that is the mechanism how it is transformed. Chazon Ish YD Mikvaot 3:2:16 explains the Trumat Hadeshen to mean that hashaka is invalid for zochlin since that is a biblical law that limits the leniency of moving water to where it naturally moved and not rainwater that was added to a river. The only exception to that is that actual spot of the spring which has a greater power to transform the rainwater and it is as though the spring grew.
• Some question the Trumat Hadeshen’s limitation of Hashaka (connecting invalid water to a mayan) with three precedents (Mikveh Tahara 201:10).
• Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 11 40a) writes that connecting a mikveh to a mayan purifies it of its invalidation of the water changing colors even if the mayan doesn’t actually make the mayan change back to regular water. Shulchan Aruch 201:28 cites this.
• Rashba ibid. also says that connecting an invalid mikveh to a mayan makes it valid if the mikveh was sheuvim. Shulchan Aruch 201:11 cites this.
• Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 writes that a mikveh that was made with something that was susceptible to tumah is invalid but can be fixed by connected it to a mayan. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 cites this.
• The Bach 201:5 answers that since the invalidation of zochlin is biblical and sheuvim is rabbinic they allowed hashaka for sheuvim. The Ritva Nedarim 13b also answers this question that way.
• The Taz 201:3 disagrees with the Trumat Hadeshen’s premise and instead concludes that really a mayan can transform rainwater into mayan water but there’s a rabbinic restriction lest a person go to the mikveh that’s completely rainwater and is moving. Knesset Hagedola 201:1 and Gidulei Tahara 201:6 also assume this way that even if there’s a majority of rainwater in a river it is biblically kosher. Shaarei Mikvaot p. 7 writes that the achronim don’t accept the Taz.
52. The Mishna Mikvaot 5:3 establishes that a mayan which was filled with a majority of rainwater has the status of a mikveh and is only fit if it isn’t moving. Rav (Nedarim 40b) is concerned that the same is true of every river. On this topic there are several approaches explained by the Ran Nedarim 40b and Bet Yosef 201:2:
• Raavad Mikvaot 9:11 explains that if the river was moving when a majority of rainwater entered it is still fit. However, in the areas of the river which increased because of the rainwater are unfit.
• Maharik 115 explains that the majority of rainwater is only fit if that area of the river was originally moving when the rainwater entered. This is accepted by the Shach 201:11.
• Rambam Mikvaot 9:11 explains that the majority of the rainwater makes the whole river unfit if it entered the river or spring anywhere besides the original pit of the spring. Shulchan Aruch 201:2 accepts the Rambam. The Kesef Mishna 9:11 and Bet Yosef 201:15 explain that the Rambam would validate a majority of rainwater that entering the river in any part that was originally moving just like if rainwater entered the original pit of the spring. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:7 writes that the Shulchan Aruch follows this opinion since he quoted the opinion of the Rambam. Divrei Yosef p. 34-35 agrees in interpreting Shulchan Aruch. See Divrei Chayim 201:8 who rejects this interpretation of the Rambam otherwise most rivers would be fit and the Rambam quotes Rav’s concerns of going to mikveh in a river.
53. The Gemara Bechorot 55b cites a dispute between Rav and Shmuel whether a river is a kosher mayan or it is invalid since there might be more rainwater than springwater. If there’s more rainwater it is considered a mikveh but it would be invalid since the river is moving. Rav was strict and Shmuel lenient. Shmuel thought that automatically there’s more water from the spring than rainwater in the river. Rabbenu Tam (Sefer Hayashar 256) and Tosfot Bechorot s.v. ein quoting Rabbenu Tam ruled leniently like Shmuel. However, the Rambam Mikvaot 9:13 and Rosh Mikvaot no. 10 citing the Maharam (Tashbetz Katan ch. 493) and Rif that we follow Rav. Shulchan Aruch 201:2 follows the Rambam.
• Trumat Hadeshen 254 and Maharik 115 write that there was a minhag to follow Rabbenu Tam to go to mikveh in a river. The Trumat Hadeshen only defends the minhag if there’s no other mikveh and there’s a concern that people won’t go to mikveh at all. Darkei Moshe 201:3 cites that the Mahari Vayil 70 and Binyamin Zeev 154 provide further support for this minhag. Rama 201:2 concludes that if there’s no kosher mikveh available one doesn’t have to stop someone who relies on Rabbenu Tam to go to mikveh in a river.
• The Bet Yosef 201:2 s.v. vgam clearly specifies that if someone knows that the river is at its lowest level and isn’t increased because of rainwater it is fit even according to the Rav. Shach 201:15 only mentions going in a small river that you know it didn’t increase because of the rainwater.
• Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:2 holds that even Rabbenu Tam would be strict if it is obvious that the river increased in size because of rain. However, the Bet Yosef argues that clearly the Ran Nedarim 40b s.v. ulinyan and Rosh responsa 31 don’t think so. Shach 201:14 rules like the Bet Yosef.
• Memaakim Siman 4 p. 32 writes that in the ghetto in WWII it was permitted to rely on the Rama since there was no mikveh available.
• Chatom Sofer YD 2:202 discusses a community which doesn’t have a mikveh but there is a nearby river. If the women would go to the mikveh in the river they’d go at the proper time. However, if the women had to travel to another town to go to a mikveh they’d have to go to mikveh during the day so that they could travel back that afternoon and night. The Rabbi suggested that they go to the mikveh in the other town during the day and rely on those who are lenient since they can’t return to their house before the night. However, the Chatom Sofer responded that going to mikveh in a river is less of a leniency than going to mikveh during the day and the minhag has what to rely upon. Interestingly, he even mentions that going to mikveh in a river fulfills the opinion of the Rabbenu Halevi that a zavah needs to dip in a mayan.
54. The Mishna Parah 8:8 and Mikvaot 5:4 cites a dispute between the tenayim whether the oceans have a status of a spring or mikveh. Rabbi Yosi holds that they have the status of a spring besides for purposes of mayim chayim. Rashi Shabbat 109a explains that Rabbi Yosi doesn't distinguish between the Mediterranean sea and other oceans even though Rabbi Yehuda did. See the Bet Yosef 201:5 at length who explains that the Rambam Mikvaot 9:12 agrees with Rashi with respect to someone going in the mikveh even though he does have a distinction for the Mediterranean sea for the purposes of mayim chayim. The Shulchan Aruch YD 201:5 rules that oceans are fit for dipping even if they’re moving.
55. The Mishna Mikvaot 5:6 writes that a wave that is 40 seah purifies a person or utensils. The Tosefta Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that one may only dip in the edge of the wave that broke or landed and not the tip of the wave that is hanging above the sea. The reason the Tosefta explains is because one may not dip or immerse utensils in the air. Rashi Chagiga 19a s.v. shein explains that the Torah only permitted going to mikveh or a mayan in water that was attached to the ground. Tosfot Chullin 31b s.v. ditnan agrees that this requirement is biblical. Bet Yosef 201:5 explains the Rambam Mikvaot 9:18 that the issue with dipping or immersing in a wave above the sea is a rabbinic one lest one come to be lenient with the invalidation of moving water in a mikveh. Taz 201:7 writes Rashi’s reason for why it is forbidden to dip or immerse in the air.
56. The Mishna Mikvaot 5:6 did mention that the wave was 40 seah that was purifying people and utensils. Why does it need 40 seah if it is a spring? The Rashba Torat Habayit proves from here the opinion of Rabbenu Tam that a person dipping in a spring must have 40 seah and the mentioning of 40 seah was only for the purpose of the person and not the utensils.
• However, the Taz 201:6 and Gra 201:6 explain that it isn’t a proof for Rabbenu Tam because it is possible that really 40 seah was only mentioned as a practical consideration that 40 seah is necessary for a person to be enclosed by the water. According to the Rashba, the Bet Meir 201:5 writes that if the wave didn’t completely detach from the sea it would seem that 40 seah isn’t necessary since the wave combines with the rest of the sea.
• Shach 201:20 explains that in general it is always necessary to have 40 seah in the wave otherwise the wave appears to be unlike a spring.
57. The Maharik 115 proves from the Mishna Mikvaot that permitted immersion in a wave that even water disconnected from a spring is considered like a spring. However, once it stops once it is invalid. The Shach 201:30 accepts the Maharik specifically with respect to the ocean. The Bet Meir 201:5 explains that according to the Maharik who holds that water from a spring that were detached from a spring have the status of a spring as long as they are moving we can explain the Mishna Mikvaot 5:6 as referring to a wave that completely detached from the sea. Lechem Vsimla 201:21 explains that the Shach agrees with the Maharik. The Shaarei Mikvaot 201:29 quotes the Lechem Vsimla. Rav Chaim Soloveitchik on Mikvaot 9:6 explains that the Rambam agrees with the Maharik. However, the Maharik isn’t accepted as the Bet Meir points out.
58. Rabbenu Tam (Tosfot Pesachim 17b, Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam), Rashbam Bava Batra 66a s.v. leolam, Rashi Pesachim 16a s.v. yeheyeh (as understood by Teshuvot Rid 1), Tur 201:3 quoting the Rosh, Rama Y.D. 201:3
59. Ri (Tosfot Pesachim 17b s.v. elah), Rambam Mikvaot 4:2, Ramban (Bava Batra 65 s.v. shani) explaining the Rif and Geonim
60. Rash Mikavot 2:3 cited by Bet Yosef 201:3. 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.
61. Rama 201:3 writes that sheuvim is biblical. The Shulchan Aruch 201:53 implies that it is only rabbinic. The Divrei Yosef p. 398 writes that this is the opinion of Shulchan Aruch. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:18 agrees. 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.
62. Mishna Mikvaot 4:1, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:34
63. The Gemara Shabbat 16b states that everyone agrees if the vessel was placed outside when it was cloudy that the rainwater it collects is sheuvim, but if the vessel was placed when it was sunny it isn’t sheuvim. There’s a dispute when the vessel was placed when it was cloudy but then the clouds cleared and returned before it rained. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:41 rule that this gemara is relevant to someone who puts a vessel underneath a gutter or just generally in a courtyard outside to collect rainwater. The Rambam Mikvaot 4:4, however, understood it is only relevant to collecting water of a vessel in the field and not under the gutter. A vessel under a gutter is always considered set up to collect water which would create sheuvim. Chelkat Binyamin 201:608 is strict for Rambam.
64. Rosh responsa 30:4 writes that in order to avoiding the mikveh becoming invalid as water is drawn from it, one should let it completely dry or use a vessel with a hole of any size. Mordechai Shavuot n. 746, Rashba Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim ch. 11, Smak 294, and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 agree. Shulchan Aruch 201:40 codifies this practice.
65. The Rosh responsa 30:4 writes that there’s no need to be concerned for sheuvim in a spring. Maharik 56 writes that one should be strict to be concerned for the opinion that a spring is invalid with shuevim. He isn’t strict after the fact. Trumat Hadeshen 258 is much more concerned for that opinion. Bet Yosef argues with the Trumat Hadeshen. Shulchan Aruch 201:40 codifies the Rosh, but Rama quotes the Trumat Hadeshen.
66. Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 states that if a pipe has a receptacle it isn’t considered filled in if a rock or dirt gets lodged in the receptacle making the pipe smooth. The Rash and Rosh explains that since the rock or dirt isn’t tightly held in the receptacle it isn’t considered part of the pipe. The Rambam explains that it isn’t considered part of the pipe unless it harden like cement in that receptacle. Shulchan Aruch 201:36 codifies this mishna.
67. Mishna Mikvaot 2:7 records a dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer if the rainwater inside the jugs left on the roof is considered sheuvim since they weren’t planned to collect water. Rabbi Eliezer is strict unless there’s already water in the pit, while Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient. The halacha is Rabbi Yehoshua. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:42 codifies Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion.
68. The Rosh Mikvaot 2:8 writes that unlike the case of the jugs that were left out to dry in the case where they were brought there not to collect water at all and can be knocked over, the case of where a container initially held cement is considered partially that there is involvement of a person in having the container hold water. Therefore, in the case of the jugs drying they can be pushed over but in the case of a container used for holding cement that was forgotten in the pit can not be pushed over. Taz 201:52 and Shach 201:95 agree. The Bet Yosef 201:42 infers from the Rosh and Rambam that the container placed in the pit for construction can only be broken to have the water contribute to the mikveh if it are surrounded by water. He reasons that it is considered more of an involvement of a person than in the case of a jug left on the roof to dry. Taz 201:94 agrees. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:43 codifies the explanation of the Rosh.
69. Mishna Mikvaot 2:9. The Bet Yosef 201:43 infers that the jugs can only be broken but not pushed over since the jugs were placed there to accept water and is considered more of an intention of collecting water unlike jugs left to dry. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:43 codifies this Mishna.
70. Mishna Mikvaot 4:1 states that a vessel big or small can create sheuvim. Tosfot Shabbat 16b writes that even if the vessel is larger than 40 seah which would render it not susceptible to tumah would still create sheuvim. Rosh Mikvaot n. 5 agrees. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:34 codifies this.
71. The Mishna Mikvaot 4:1 writes that a vessel of stone or dung is called a vessel with respect to sheuvim. The Rash and Rosh point out that even though these materials wouldn’t be susceptible to tumah nonetheless the vessel which would hold water does create sheuvim. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:34 codifies this.
72. The Mishna Mikvaot 4:2 establishes that a tray only creates sheuvim if it has a rim that could contain water. This is codified by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:35.
73. Mishna Mikvaot 4:2, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:35
74. Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim) writes that shingles on the roof don’t create sheuvim since they weren’t made to hold water (Mishna Mikvaot 4:3). This is codified by the Shulchan Aruch YD 201:37.
75. Mishna Mikvaot 6:5, Rambam Mikvaot 5:3
76. Mishna Mikvaot 4:3, Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:36
77. The Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that a pipe which has a receptacle is invalid. If it made of earthenware it only creates sheuvim if it can hold a reviyit of water but if it is wood any amount is sufficient. Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:36 codify this.
78. Gemara Bava Batra 66a establishes that a stone isn’t considered a vessel unless it has a receptacle. If that receptacle was created only after it was attached to the ground it isn’t considered a vessel with respect to that it doesn’t create drawn water. Ran and Ramban Bava Batra 65b, Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:36, and Shach 201:21 codify this distinction.
79. Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 establishes that a pipe which has a thin part and widens doesn’t create sheuvim since it wasn’t made to hold water but just to manage the water pressure. Rambam Mikvaot 6:2 accepts this. Even though the Raavad 8:7 disagrees with the Rambam about bent pipes regarding the pipe that widens he doesn’t disagree with the Rambam. Divrei Chaim 201:33 and Rav Chaim Mikvaot 6:4 make this point.
80. The Raavad Mikvaot 8:7 cites the Tosefta 5:4 that holds that bent pipes create sheuvim. He explains that even though they aren’t susceptible to tumah they nonetheless create sheuvim.
• Do we hold like the Raavad? The Raavad isn’t quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Rama, Shach, or Taz. Chelkat Binyamin 539 quotes the Bet Shlomo 2:66 who is strict.
• What does the Raavad do about the Mishna Mikvaot 4:3 established that any pipe which wasn’t meant to hold water even if it has a receptacle doesn’t create sheuvim? Rav Chaim Mikvaot 6:4 explains that the Raavad is only relevant to dipping in a pipe as a mikveh or using the pipe to connect two mikvot that are lacking. Divrei Chaim 201:33 explains that the Raavad only meant that if the bent pipe is meant to hold to water is it invalid even if it originally wasn’t meant to hold anything. Gidulei Tahara 9 also limits the Raavad to where the bent pipe has some way of holding water. However, Rav Aryeh Leib Malin 73 s.v. vnireh understands the Raavad to mean that since the bent pipe is useful in that it can direct water flow it creates sheuvim. Chelkat Binyamin 201:529 cites the dispute between those who limit the Raavad and those who apply it generally.
81. The Gidulei Tahara 5 argues that pipes that were built to be attached to the ground don’t make the water sheuvim. The Chatom Sofer 205 rejects such an idea and clarifies that even though it isn’t considered a vessel for purposes of tumah it is considered a vessel for purposes of sheuvim.
• Pipes made to be attached to the ground Nodeh Beyehuda 137 says it is sheuvim. Divrei yosef p 257 from Chidushei Rav Aryeh Leib Malin 72 writes that it is only if it is completely serving the ground and that’s how he answers the Lechem Vsimla’s question but a pipe built and then connected.
82. Gemara Bava Batra 65b, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:34
83. Gemara Bava Batra 65b, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:34
84. Chatom Sofer 206 explains that once the vessel is punctured and attached to the ground even if the hole is later filled in it doesn’t invalidate the mikveh. The vessel is considered attached and then completed and that is a valid mikveh.
85. Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:19
86. Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:19
87. Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:6, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:20. The Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 101) explained that since the water is completely drawn it is invalid and isn’t considered a mikveh at all can only be fixed once we calculate that all of it besides less than 3 lug has been removed. However, for a mikveh that was invalidated with 3 lug is considered an invalid mikveh which can be fixed by having rainwater added so that 40 seah and a little bit flow out of the mikveh. The reason is that we consider it as though the original water left and was replaced. This is quoted by the Bet Yosef 201:20, Rama 201:22, Taz 201:32, and Shach 201:56.
88. Raavad cited by Bet Yosef 201:20, Shach 201:56
89. Mishna Mikvaot 3:1, Tosefta Mikvaot 1:9 (Sukermandel), Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:6, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:20-21
90. Agudah cited by Shach 201:57
91. Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:6, Shulchan Aruch 201:21
• Tosefta Mikvaot 1:7 (Sukermandel) states that if less than 3 lug of drawn water fall into a mikveh lacking 40 seah it is still possible to use it for a mikveh if more rainwater is added.
• Tosefta Mikvaot 1:12 states that if a mikveh has a little less than 40 seah and less than 3 lug of drawn water are added the mikveh is valid once that amount of rainwater that was lacking originally is added. Therefore, the Rashba (Torat Habayit ch. 6) writes that less than 3 lug of drawn water doesn’t contribute to the measure of the water but doesn’t invalidate the mikveh either. Rash Mikvaot 1:5, Tur 201:39 and Shulchan Aruch 201:22 follow the Rashba. Shach 201:59 agree.
• Teshuvat Rid 62 s.v. adoni harav ani writes that if there’s a mikveh of 40 seah lacking a bit that is completed with drawn water it is unfit. The drawn water doesn’t complete the mikveh and it is like fruit juice which doesn’t count for the mikveh at all. Since the measure of 40 seah is biblical unless there’s 40 seah the drawn water that falls into it isn’t nullified. His conclusion that it is biblically invalid but he is writing to his teacher who thought it was only rabbinically invalid since there is nullification.
92. Bach 201:27 holds that drawn water doesn’t count towards the 40 seah at all whether it is added in the middle or at the end. Shach 201:58 and Chelkat Binyamin 201:338 agree. Avnei Nezer YD 177 argues that perhaps if the invalid water enters earlier than the last bit of the mikveh it also helps complete the mikveh. [His proof is from Rash Mikvaot 3:1. Teshuvat Rid 62 might agree.] In conclusion he isn’t lenient.
93. Taz 201:33 makes the point that only red wine has a different color than water but not white wine.
94. Mishna Mikvaot 7:5 records a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yochanan Ben Nuri whether we only view the color of the water or also its measure. The Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 20 rules like the Rabbis that it depends both on color and measure. The Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 7:10-11, Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 94, and Tur 201:23 agree. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:23 codifies this Mishna.
95. Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 states that colored water can be considered drawn water. The Gemara Macot 3b explains that the coloring can be ignored and essentially it is water. This is codified by the Rambam Mikvaot 7:8, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:25.
• The Mishna 1:7 establishes that a spring which has a majority of drawn water is considered like a mikveh in that it can purify with any amount but like a mikveh that it can’t purify while moving. However, the Mishna Mikvaot 5:3 establishes that if a spring has drawn water added to it it remains a valid spring unless it was stopped and is now moving. The rishonim have various explanations to these two mishnayot and here are the main four approaches.
• The Rosh explains that as long as the stream from the spring is moving any drawn water added to it doesn’t affect it, however, if it is stopped then if a majority of drawn water is added and that added water makes it start moving it is invalid. The Rambam agrees. The Ran however, explains that the Rambam would only validate the added drawn water into moving spring water if the drawn water is added at the hole of the spring and not further downstream. The Bet Yosef 201:15 disagrees and lines up the Rambam and Rosh.
• The Rash explains that if the drawn water is added to the stream from the spring it is still valid. However, if a person dug new branches or channels to the spring those are considered like a mikveh and not a spring.
• The Raavad explains that if the drawn water added to the natural spring then anywhere where the natural stream would be flowing is considered a spring. But the areas that would naturally be stagnant or non-existent and now flow because of the addition of drawn water they are considered to only be kosher like a mikveh.
• The Tur 201:15 just writes that a spring with a majority of drawn water is fit and doesn’t explain if it is fit if it is moving or not. The Bet Yosef wonders why the Tur omitted that important piece of information. Shulchan Aruch 201:15 follows the language of the Tur. The Taz 201:26 explains that we hold like the Rambam and Rosh that if the spring was originally moving where the drawn water entered it is like a spring and is fit even where it is moving. However, if it is was still when drawn water entered it is only fit as a mikveh when it is still. The Shach 201:42, on the other hand, simply writes that we follow the Rambam and Rosh that it is unfit if it is moving. He doesn’t explain if it depends on whether the water entered when it was moving or not. In fact, the Shach 201:33 also doesn’t distinguish. The Shaarei Mikvaot 201:59, Divrei Yosef p. 138, and Chelkat Binyamin 201:237 explain that the Rama and Shach are strict even where it was moving originally.
96. Rabbenu Yerucham cited by Bet Yosef 201:15 writes that if there was a spring that didn’t have 40 seah and drawn water was added to it, then the water was detached and went into a pit it is considered a valid mikveh even though originally it was drawn water it remains fit after becoming part of the spring. The Shach 201:41 writes that it is preferable to be strict. Chelkat Binyamin 201:236 is strict though he notes the Chatom Sofer YD 212 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:15 who was lenient. Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 is lenient even initially.
97. Mishna Mikvaot 2:5, Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:4, Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 1. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 1 asks why is the mikveh invalid if you’re unsure when the 3 lug of drawn water entered. He proves from that question that drawn water must be a biblical concern. Tosfot Yom Tov 2:5 disagrees with the entire reading of the Rosh. However, the Lechem Vsimla 201:16 s.v. veheneh harosh (cited by Divrei Yosef p. 155) answers for the Rambam that since the doubt is only about something that can be investigated it isn’t a valid doubt to be lenient though drawn water is only rabbinic. Chatom Sofer YD 216 explains that the reason that the three holes combine to invalidate the mikveh with 3 lug of water is because they are inside the bigger pit and as such they combine together.
98. Mishna Mikvaot 2:3, Rambam Mikvaot 10:1, Shulchan Aruch 201:67
99. Rambam Mikvaot 10:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:69
100. Mishna Mikvaot 2:3, Rambam Mikvaot 10:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:68
101. Tosefta Mikvaot 2:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:73
102. Tosefta Mikvaot 2:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:72
103. Tosefta Mikvaot 2:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:72
104. Mishna Mikvaot 2:3, Rambam Mikvaot 10:2, Shulchan Aruch 201:68
105. Tosefta Mikvaot 2:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:73
106. Tosefta Mikvaot 2:1, Rambam Mikvaot 10:4, Shulchan Aruch 201:70
107. Divrei Yosef p. 147-8 cites the Drush Vchidush of Rabbi Akiva Eiger p. 170, Zichron Yosef YD 13, Maharit 17, Hod Yosef 71 writes that even if it is just a grama it is still invalid. His proof is Rambam Parah 6:8. Divrei Yosef supports this approach by saying that as long as the water isn’t naturally drawn into the mikveh it is invalid.
108. The Rash Mikvaot 7:2 and Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 1 hold that once there is a complete mikveh of 40 seah it can’t be invalidated by adding drawn water. The concept that the mishna invalidates a mikveh when something is consistently removed and replaced (natan seah vnatal seah) is referring to fruit juice and not drawn water. The gemara Yevamot 82b adds that natan seah vnatal seah is only an issue after one removed a majority of the mikveh. The Teshuvat Rid 62, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch 201:24 accept the Rosh. Gra 201:59 agrees with Shulchan Aruch. However, the Rambam Hilchot Mivkaot 7:6 understood the mishna to be speaking about drawn water. Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 88) agreed. Rashbatz 1:17 writes that we should avoid the dispute. Shach 201:63 is strict. Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 writes that in extenuating circumstances it is possible to rely on s”a against rambam. Chelkat Binyamin 201:377 agrees.
109. Why is natan seah vnatal seah an issue? Bet Yosef 201:24 explains that the Rambam held that such a mikveh is invalid lest someone seeing this thinks that one can use a completely drawn mikveh. This is supported by the Ramban Bava Bavtra 65b s.v. v’iy kasha. The Divrei Chaim 201:20 argues that the Raavad held it is an invalidation since the original rainwater must remain at all times. Certain leniencies can be extrapolated from the Bet Yosef since the concern is only of onlookers. See Chatom Sofer 214. Har Tzvi 176 held like the Bet Yosef. Chelkat Binyamin 201:377 writes that Bet Yosef’s explanation is primary. Gidulei Tahara 26 writes that it is biblically invalid. Shevet Halevi 4:121 argues that it is only a rabbinic issue even according to the Raavad. Maharsham 1:135 agrees.
• Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 disagrees with the Chatom Sofer. He writes that natan seah and natal seah isn’t necessarily solved with putting in water through a pipe and having it flow out since it doesn’t look like it isn’t leaving. Firstly it could be that the gezerah was in all cases and secondly according to the Raavad it is problem intrinsically of removing the original rainwater.
110. Igrot Moshe YD 1:119 writes that one can use hamshacha even initially to pour water into a mikveh and even if water will flow out that wouldn’t be considered natan seah vnatal seah at all since hamshach converts the water.
111. The Mishna Mikvaot 7:1 states that ice and snow contribute to the mikveh but don’t invalidate it. The mishna records a story in which Rabbi Yishmael allowed the town of Meyva to create a mikveh with snow.
• Can it still be frozen? Rosh Mikvaot n. 18 writes that snow counts towards a mikveh even if it didn’t melt. Raavad (Baalei Hanefesh p. 109), Rabbenu Yerucham (26:5 cited by Bet Yosef 201:31), and Rabbenu Shemaryahu (Mordechai Shabbat n. 332) agree. However, Rabbenu Eliezer (Mordechai Shabbat n. 332) argues that the snow has to be melted to count for a mikveh. Also, Rabbenu Simcha (Mordechai) for other reasons held that the snow must have melted. Bet Yosef 201:30 explains that the Rambam agrees with the Rosh and Raavad and Rabbenu Eliezer and Rabbenu Simcha are a minority opinion. Nonetheless, we are concerned for their opinion on biblical issues. Shulchan Aruch 201:30 implies that the snow is kosher while it is still frozen. Rama writes that some are strict to only permit the snow after it melts. Shach 201:71 argues that many rishonim hold that the snow must have melted and all rishonim agree that it needs to have melted to create a complete mikveh. Toldot Yitzchak 24 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:21 agrees. Chelkat Binyamin 201:460 is strict.
• Does it need to be compacted? The Rosh and Raavad hold that the snow needs to be compact so that if it’ll melt it will still remain 40 seah because water takes up less space than snow. While the snow is frozen it counts for 40 seah in its current volume. Shulchan Aruch 201:30, Shach 201:72, and Taz 201:40 accept the Rosh.
• Does the fact that it is drawn invalid it? The Rosh Mikvaot n. 18 and Raavad p. 109 say that it doesn’t invalidate as drawn water since it isn’t water when it was drawn.
• Can a complete mikveh be made of snow? The Rambam Mikvaot 7:3, Rosh, and Tur 201:30 hold that it is possible to make a complete mikveh of snow. However, Rashi Sukkot 19b and Raavad hold that it can’t be used to create a complete mikveh but only to add to a mikveh with a majority of kosher water. Shulchan Aruch 201:30 only quotes the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh that the snow can be used to create a complete mikveh. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Shach 201:71) mentions that the Raavad argues.
112. Chatom Sofer 200 holds that it is possible to create an entire mikveh from ice that was melted. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 319 is lenient to allow freezing tap water and creating a mikveh that way if there’s no other available option to make a mikveh with rain.
113. Imrei Yosher 1:148 argues that one shouldn’t use machine made ice for a mikveh for several reasons: 1) According to the first explanation of the Smag you can’t use ice that melts that once was sheuvim unless you also add 40 seah afterwards. Even though the Shach holds like the second explanation of the Smag, the Gidulei Tahara and Lechem Vsimla are strict. 2) According to the Tzlach you can’t use water for a mikveh if the water is tameh even if it isn't carried with a kli that has tumah and we’re all tameh today. 3) perhaps the machine making ice is considered tefisat yaday adam. Even though according to the Raavad there’s no issue of sheuvim, we’re concerned for the Baal Hameor also (Chatom Sofer 200). Even though perhaps the Baal Hameor is only strict for snow but not ice but still it isn’t clear he’d allow sheuvim of ice if it was put in a vessel after it was frozen. 4) One version of the Raavad and the Sefer Eshkol held that you can’t ice that melts for a mikveh. Even though it isn’t accepted we should be concerned when anyway there’s reason to be strict.
114. Chatom Sofer 1:200 explains that there’s no issue of hava al yaday tumah for snow since it isn’t mekabel tumah. He says that the basis for all of mikvaot is that the water of the mikveh is tahor and automatically remains tahor as long it is connected to the ground. Because it is tahor and stays tahor it can purify other things as well.
115. Maharshag 1:65 citing experts writes that cement is water penetrable. Binyamin 201:668 writes that the poskim hold cement works for hamshacha. Minchat Yitzchak 1:142 agrees with maharshag about cement. However, the Divrei Yatziv 117 writes that it is preferable not to use cement since some question if it can absorb water. Mishneh Halachot 16:49 cites this.
116. Tashbetz 1:17 holds that one should be strict for Rashi Nazir 38a who holds that it is necessary to have 21 seah before the hamshacha. Bet Yosef 201:44 and Shulchan Aruch argue that a simply majority of the 40 seah is necessary and nothing more.
117. The Gemara Temurah 12a records a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov and Rabbanan whether hamshacha works for the entire mikveh or just the minority of the mikveh. Some rishonim held that we follow Rabbanan and validated a mikveh that was made completely of drawn water. The Rambam Mikvaot 4:9 writes that some rabbis of the west ruled that hamshacha works for the entire mikveh. He disagrees and instead rules like Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov since the Mishna Mikvaot 4:4 follows his opinion. The Tosfot Temurah 12b, Rosh Mikvaot n. 7, Raavad (cited by Bet Yosef 201:44), and Rivash 125 agree with the Rambam.
• The Rif: The Ran Shevuot 5b s.v. maleh explains that the Rif and Rash hold that hamshacha works for the entire mikveh. Rashba 3:228 and Ramban b”b 65b also explain the Rif in the same way. The Bet Yosef 201:44 argues in fact the Rif agreed with the Rambam. Shulchan Aruch 201:44 codifies the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh.
• The Rash Mikvaot 4:4 explains that opinion of the Mishna is that hamshacha only works if the drawn water mixes with rainwater before they fall into the mikveh. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yakov in the Tosefta however doesn’t require that. Rosh Mikvaot n. 7 discusses this question and concludes leniently.
118. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:44. See previous note.
119. The Rambam Mikvaot 4:8 writes that hamshacha on a complete mikveh is effective if there was originally a majority of rainwater and then drawn water fell in and then hamshacha occurred. The Bet Yosef 201:44 explains that the Rambam is based on his reading of Temurah 12a that Rabbanan hold hamshacha works for a complete mikveh. He explains that it only means that it works if originally there was a majority of rainwater and then drawn water entered and then the entire mikveh moved. Shulchan Aruch 201:44 follows the Rambam.
120. Shulchan Aruch 201:45. The Kol Bo 86 quotes the Ri who held that hamshacha needs to be a distance of 3 tefachim otherwise it is lavud. Rivash 83 agrees. Rashba 5:60 holds hamshacha is effective in any amount. Tashbetz 1:49 writes that even though it seems that lavud is irrelevant to hamshacha which is a rule of walls, since the Ri was strict we can’t be lenient. Shulchan Aruch 201:45 is strict.
121. Shulchan Aruch 201:46 and Rama. Raavad quoted by Bet Yosef 201:46 holds that hamshacha on a pipe is effective. However, the Mordechai (Shevuot n. 645) quotes the Yereyim and Rokeach who hold that hamshacha is only effective on dirt that could absorb water. Shulchan Aruch is lenient, while Rama is strict.
• The Brisker Rav (Chidushei HaGriz Temurah 12a s.v. vheneh) writes that those who held that you need 3 tefachim is because sheuvim is only rabbinic and it needs to be separated from a kli. However, those who held that you need ground that is water penetrable could sheuvim is deoritta and it doesn’t need to be 3 tefachim.
122. Shulchan Aruch 201:47. The Rosh responsa 31:11 is lenient about a spring that was refilled with water from a nearby pit since the water in the pit that was absorbed in the ground would certainly be met up with a greater quantity of natural spring water and as such there is hamshacha with a majority of springwater. Also, the spring isn’t invalidated with drawn water. So even though it appears to have dried up it couldn’t completely dry up. Shach and Taz are lenient for Ashkenazim even they wouldn’t hold of the second reason of the Rosh.
123. Rashba, Rosh, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52
124. 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.
125. 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.
126. The Shulchan Aruch YD 201:52
127. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 15 writes that in order to connect two pits of water in order to create a complete mikveh or to validate drawn water a hole the size of a shifoferet hanod is necessary. The Rashba Shaar Hamayim Shaar 10 holds that only for connecting incomplete mikvaot is a shifoferet hanod necessary, but in order to validate drawn water a hole the size of a needle is sufficient since in his opinion drawn water is only rabbinic. Rash Mikvaot 6:8 and Rash Taharot 8:9 agrees.
• The Darkei Moshe 201:26* writes that the Rambam agrees with the Rosh. See, however, the Pirush Mishnayot of Rambam Mikvaot 6:8 which sounds like the Rash and the Aruch Hashulchan 201:177 in fact writes that the Rambam agrees with the Rash. Yet, the Aruch Hashulchan 201:181 explains that the Rambam is strict for another reason.
• Shulchan Aruch 201:53 holds like the Rashba, however, Rama 201:53 agrees with the Rosh. The Shach 201:117 explains that if the invalidation is only rabbinic such as if there’s a minority of drawn water even the Rama would permit a hole that is of any size. But the Taz 201:64 explains that the Rama is strict even if the invalidation is certainly rabbinic. Aruch Hashulchan 201:181 and Chelkat Binyamin 201:786 are strict to always require a shifoferet hanod.
128. Shach 201:110.
• The Rash Taharot 8:9 explains that there is a contradiction whether a hole of a shifoferet hanod is necessary to connect mikvaot (Mikvaot 6:7, Yevamot 15a) or any water that is wet enough to wet something that could in turn wet something else (Taharot 8:9, Gittin 16a). Rabbenu Tam answered that if the hole is physically a shifoferet hanod even if the water traveling through is only enough to create a second derivative wetness that is sufficient. Having a large hole that isn’t completely full of water establishes a connection between the mikvaot. Similarly, the Mishna Mikvaot 6:9 states that a overflow from one mikveh to another requires a thickness of a onion peel but a width of a shifoferet hanod. The Rash explains that mishna is also discussing the thickness of the area where the overflow could occur but the actual water needs to transfer is only the amount that would create a second derivative wetness. This explanation is supported by Mishna Parah 5:8 which mentions the overflow of an onion peel but not the width of a shifoferet hanod. Lastly, he clarifies that while Rabbi Yehuda only needs a water that would create a second derivative wetness, the Rabbis need a onion peel thick of water to transfer to connect the mikvaot. Finally, the Rash suggests an approach in opposition to the Rabbenu Tam in which the entire hole needs to be full of water. Raavad cited by Bet Yosef 201:54 quotes the opinion of Rabbenu Tam.
129. 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.
130. 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.
131. Chagiga 22a implies that small holes do add up to constitute one large hole of a shifoferet hanod. The Mordechai Shevuot n. 646, however, explains that the holes only don’t add up to connect incomplete mikvaot but they can add up to validate drawn water. Shulchan Aruch 201:52 codifies the Mordechai, but the Pitchei Teshuva 201:38 quotes the Chacham Tzvi 40 and Levushei Sarad 206 who disagree.
132. The Rosh responsa 31:2 writes that a momentary hashaka is sufficient. One of his proofs is Mishna Mikvaot 6:3. Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 writes that some said it was invalid and others said it was valid. Shulchan Aruch 201:53 follows the Rosh, but the Shach 201:112 writes that it is better to be strict for the stringent opinion to have a continuous hashaka between the rainwater and the drawn water.
133. Mishna Mikvaot 6:10 states that a mikveh next to another mikveh doesn’t invalidate it. Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 6:11 based on the mishna writes that if there’s drawn water connected to a mikveh it doesn’t invalidate it. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:18 codifies the Rambam.
134. Mishna Mikvaot 6:11 states that if there’s a pit of drawn water connected to a mikveh it invalidates the mikveh if the hole holds 3 lug. The Rambam Mikvaot 6:12-13 and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:18 quote this Mishna. Chelkat Binyamin 201:302 explains that the measure of 3 lug is measured by the amount of water that would be contained in the area opposite the hole from the wall with the hole until the opposite wall.
135. Bet Yosef 201:17, Shach 201:53, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:85
136. Mishna Mikvaot 6:10, Shach 201:52
137. Chelkat Yakov 111 writes that the hole for the hashaka should be placed at least 80 cm from the ground of the tevilah mikveh because of a concern of the Raah who holds that water which is so shallow that it can’t be dipped in can’t be a kosher mikveh and sheuvim can’t be added to it. It seems that the Raah would also invalidate the hashaka to a mikveh which has 40 seah which is shallow and is unfit for dipping. However, the Pitchei Mikvaot p. 315 writes that according to the Raah it isn’t clear that he would invalidate a hashaka to a shallow mikveh. Even if he would, it is only an issue to do hashaka to a shallow mikveh but hashaka of a full mikveh to a shallow mikveh is fit.
138. The Raah (Shitah Mikubeset Beitzah 18a) holds that water which is of different types can’t have hashaka. Chatom Sofer YD 212 and Maharam Shik YD 192 are strict for the Raah.
139. The Chelkat Binyamin Biurim 201:30 s.v. ad p. 169 quotes the Gidulei Tahara responsa 12 who writes that if a mikveh has a lot of ice and is unfit for tevilah can’t be used for hashaka according to the Raah who says that you can’t add sheuvim to a mikveh which is unfit for dipping since it is shallow. Chelkat Binyamin questions this since the ice is going to melt on its own and it isn’t similar to a shallow mikveh which is unfit as it is. Rabbi Simon said that he heard that Rav Moshe Feinstein allowed the swimming pool of Luban, Russia as a mikveh since the drawn tap water had hashaka to ice underneath the pool.
140. Tosfot Pesachim 17b s.v. elah
141. Torat Kohanim cited by Gra 201:29, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:6
142. Divrei Yosef Mikvaot p. 60 discusses the topic and points out that even if it isn’t a vessel it still isn’t considered as though one is immersing in water attached to the ground which the Torat Kohanim requires. (Bet Yosef 201:8 quotes the Mordechai Shavuot n. 745 and Roke’ach n. 377 who write that the mikveh made in a kli is invalid even if it is in a boat or is larger than 40 seah.) He is disputing the Mekor Niftach ch. 4 who permits it.
143. The Rash (Mikvaot 5:2 cited by Bet Yosef 198:31) writes that since the vessel is attached to the mikveh or mayan with a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths it is biblically fit and considered a mayan or mikveh and not water of a vessel, however, since one is still dipping in a vessel there is a rabbinic restriction lest one come to dip in a vessel that isn’t attached to the mikveh. That is also the opinion of the Rosh Mikvaot no. 9 and Rambam Mikvaot 9:10. However, see the Ritva Macot 4a suggests that perhaps if the mikveh or mayan would have 40 seah it would indeed make the vessel fit. Finally, the Raah cited by the Ritva holds that a vessel that is attached to a mayan isn’t considered attached since mayan water is moving and the water in the vessel is static. The size of the connection of a vessel to a mikveh requiring a diameter of two fingerbreadths is based on the Gemara Yevamot 15a.
• Pri Deah (T”K 201:14) writes that the Rash holds that it is invalid rabbinically but the Raah holds it is biblically invalid.
144. Chazon Ish YD 129:5 explains the Rosh in line with the Rash: once there is a vessel which one can’t dip inside of because of a rabbinic restriction the water that comes out of it is invalid as it is considered disconnected from the original mikveh. Chelkat Binyamin 201:151 agrees.
• Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:139 writes that such a mikveh is completely invalid and would require a person to go again and there is no room to defend a minhag to use such a mikveh even if that means saying that the people were violating an isur karet.
145. Mishna Mikvaot 6:10, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:17
• The Rambam explains the mishna to mean that if the vessel is in the bottom of the mikveh it invalidates it because the water inside it is drawn water. That drawn water invalidates the mikveh only when it is in the middle of the mikveh but if the vessel would be against the wall on the side of the mikveh it wouldn’t invalidate it since it is like two mikvaot next to one another. Accordingly, the Bet Yosef 201:17 writes that if there’s 40 seah without the water in the vessel it is valid. Also Chelkat Binyamin 201:293 makes that obvious point that it is only invalid if the vessel holds 3 lug.
• The Rosh and Rash explain the Mishna to be speaking about a vessel in a mikveh which contains the water of the mikveh. All of the water above the vessel is considered contained by the vessel and is invalid. Accordingly, the Tiferet Yisrael (Yachin 77) writes that even if the mikveh later gets 40 seah it is still invalid.
146. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:85 writes that this is only if there’s less than 40 seah, but if there’s more than 40 seah all of the water in the vessel next to the mikveh is purified.
147. Mishna Mikvaot 6:10 according to the Rash and Rosh. the Chelkat Binyamin 201:293 writes that we’re strict for this interpretation. Tiferet Yisrael (Yachin 77) writes that it is invalid even if there’s 40 seah.
148. Mordechai, Rokeach cited by Bet Yosef 201:8, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:7 s.v. hari zeh against Chida (Birkei Yosef 201).
149. The Rash Mikvaot 5:2 and Rosh Mikvaot no. 9 hold it is only rabbinically invalid. The Ritva Macot 4a s.v. veha citing the Raah seems to hold it is biblically invalid (Pri Deah T”K 201:14). The Bet Yosef 201:8:1 writes that the Rashba and Rash actually consider the water that left the vessel to be valid. The Hagahot Mordechai Kiddushin n. 560 quotes the Rav Chaim who permitted a mikveh with water that flowing out of the vessel. However, the Maharit 3 argues with the Bet Yosef’s understanding of the Rashba. In any event, Shulchan Aruch 201:8, Bach 201:13 and Shach 201:27 are strict.
150. The Mishna Mikvaot 5:1 states that if spring water flows into a vessel that has a rim it is still valid. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 9 explains that the reason the water in the vessel is fit when there’s a rim is because the water flowing on the rim connects the water from the spring with the water in the vessel. This is codified by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:8.
151. The Gemara Chagiga 22a establishes that if the immersion is necessary for both vessels then since it is effective for the outer one it is automatically effective for the inner one. Rashi explains that just like tumah can spread from the outer one to the inner one through touch, so too tahara of a mikveh can transfer from the outer one to the inner one. However, if only the inner one needs immersion then the outer vessel serves as an interposition between the inner vessel and the mikveh unless the mouth has a two fingerbreadth diameter which connects the water in the vessel with the rest of the mikveh. The Tosefta Mikvaot 5:1 adds that the outer vessel’s immersion is only effective for the inner one if it is upright but not if it is on its side. The Rash Mikvaot 6:5 cites this Tosefta and explains that the water above the opening is considered connected to the water in the vessel but not the water on the side of a vessel that is horizontal. The Bet Yosef conjectures that the reason that the Rambam and others don’t distinguish between a mikveh and mayan for requiring a hole of a two fingerbreadth diameter like the Tosefta does is because the Rambam thought that it was against the mishna and we follow the mishna. Shulchan Aruch 201:9 cites the Gemara and Tosefta. The Machasit Hashekel 201:28 explains further that the water in the vessel connects with water add it and it isn’t considered immersion on top of a vessel, however, when the vessel is horizontal the water inside the vessel is considered on top of a vessel.
152. Gidulei Tahara responsa 13, Tevilat Kelim 10:3
153. The Mishna Mikvaot 6:5 states that it is possible to immerse in a sackcloth bag which is porous. The Rash Mikvaot 6:5 explains that the holes of the bag connect the water inside the bag with the mikveh and no hole the size of two fingerbreadths is necessary. This is codified by the Rambam Mikvaot 6:8, Rama 201:9, and Shulchan Aruch 201:38.
154. The Badei Hashulchan 198:46 biurim asks why a woman is allowed to immerse wearing clothing and that isn’t considered as though she is immersing on top of a vessel since her socks and shows are susceptible to tumah. He answers that either there’s no rabbinic restriction on clothing since it doesn’t appear to be a vessel or that the clothing are considered nullified to her and not considered a vessel. He concludes that one should only go to mikveh wearing socks and shoes in an extenuating circumstance. However, the Shaarei Tohar indeed is considered with this question and says a woman may not immerse while wearing socks and shoes.
155. The Rash Mikvaot 4:5 and Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 8 understand that there’s a argument between the Mishna and Tosefta whether a hole of a tiny amount is sufficient to invalidate the vessel and make it is valid for a mikveh. Since the Gemara Yevamot 15a holds like the Tosefta that’s the halacha. In any event, the Shulchan Aruch and Rama 201:7 don’t accept the opinion of the Rash and Rosh. Rabbi Akiva Eiger responsa 40 considered their opinion as a factor in a particular case.
156. Tosefta Mikvaot 4:4, Shach 201:22
157. The Bet Yosef 201:7 cites the Rosh responsa 31:1, Rash Mikvaot 4:5, and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 226a who hold that one may not immerse inside a vessel even if it is punctured. Shulchan Aruch 201:7 rules like the Rambam that a vessel is fit once the hole is the size that would render it pure. The Bet Yosef 201:7 s.v. veharambam p. 240 writes that the Rambam would only require a diameter of two fingerbreadths if the vessel is earthenware and doesn’t have any other minimum size to purify it or a vessel attached to a rock is more similar to a pipe hewn out of a rock and could be invalid if it is first hewn and then attached. But generally the Bet Yosef only requires a hole that would purify it. For example, the Taz 201:9 and Shach 201:23 explain that the size generally would be the diameter of a kezayit. The Tur and Rama 201:7 however are strict to require the hole to have the diameter of two fingerbreadths. This is based on the understanding of the Rash and Rosh that the Mishna required two fingerbreadths and the Tosefta only needed a tiny hole. To be strict for all opinions one should have a hole that has the diameter of two fingerbreadths. The Shulchan Aruch 201:40 agrees that initially one should have the diameter of two fingerbreadths. Shach 201:23 understands that in 201:7 Shulchan Aruch was writing the strict law but 201:40 was a stringency. However, Chelkat Binyamin 201:123 cites Rabbi Akiva Eiger who understands the distinction in Shulchan Aruch that he requires a tiny hole so that it isn’t a vessel for drawn water but he requires a hole with the diameter of two fingerbreadths to immerse in it.
158. Tosefta Mikvaot 4:4, Shach 201:22
159. Pitchei Teshuva 201:12 citing the Markevet Hamishna Mikvaot 6:4, Bear Yakov, Rabbi Akiva Eiger responsa 39. See Perisha 201:15 who writes that the Bet Yosef cites a dispute whether the hole after it was attached to the ground works. Divrei Yosef p. 66 cites the Chibur Tahara 4:3 who suggests that the Perisha understood that the Rambam’s opinion that attaching a vessel to the ground makes it less like a vessel but the Rosh holds that if it is attached to the ground it is more of a formed vessel and invalid if it is attached before it has a hole.
160. Shach 201:24 clarifies that it isn’t considered a vessel at all and is fit both not to create drawn water but also to dip inside it. That is also the opinion of the Bet Yosef 201:7 s.v. umashe katav halokeach in explaining the Rambam. Shaarei Mikvaot (Biurim 201:7 s.v. hari) defends this approach of the Bet Yosef and Shach against the question of the Birkei Yosef. The Birkei Yosef is bothered that if the vessel is 40 seah it wouldn’t require any hole to break its status as a vessel since it is automatically not a vessel since it is so big. However, the Shaarei Mikvaot disagrees and explains that even if it isn’t susceptible to tumah it is still considered a vessel. That is also the opinion of the Chatom Sofer 206.
161. Darkei Moshe 201:11 writes that even though the Rabbenu Yerucham, Rash, and perhaps Rosh hold that one may never immerse inside of a vessel even one that is punctured with a hole that has a diameter of two fingerbreadths would agree that one can immerse in a vessel that is punctured with a hole the size of a pomegranate. The proof is from the pool of Shlomo and the Yerushalmi Yoma 2:8.
162. Tosefta Mikvaot 4:4, Shach 201:22
163. Shulchan Aruch 201:16, Chelkat Binyamin 201:285 and 201:293</ref.
1. A sponge which was filled up with 3 lug of drawn water or a bottle with a small opening and it was filled with 3 lug of water if that sponge or bottle fall into a mikveh which is lacking 40 seah, they don’t invalidate it since the water is inside them isn’t connected to the mikveh. If the water were to be squeezed out of the sponge or spilled out of the bottle it would invalidate the mikveh.<Ref>Mishna Mikvaot 6:4 writes that 3 lug in a sponge or bottle with a small opening doesn’t invalidate it. Rash explains that they only made a rabbinic restriction if the water is exposed but not if it is contained. The Rosh adds that even if the water in the sponge or bottle certainly mixes with the mikveh it doesn’t invalidate it unless all of its water exits. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:16 cites this halacha.
164. Shach 201:46 writes that the Raavad holds that if the clothing is partially in the mikveh then water squeezed out of it isn’t considered drawn since it is still connected to the mikveh, however, the Rokeach holds that even if the clothing isn’t completely picked up nonetheless the water that is squeezed out of the clothing is considered drawn water. He cites the Levush who was strict for the Roke’ach.
165. The Mishna Mikvaot 5:2 writes that water that flowed over vessels according to Rabbi Yosi is like a mikveh. While the Rash explains that it is referring to a punctured vessel, the Rambam and Rosh explain that the water is flowing over an inverted vessel. The reason it is invalid is because there is a rabbinic restriction not to immerse on the back of a vessel lest one come to immerse in a vessel itself. Once they invalidated the water on top of the vessel all the water that flows beyond that point is considered disconnected from the original spring even if the water is one connected stream. Therefore, they treated the water beyond the vessel as a mikveh. Shach 201:34 and Taz 201:23 further elaborate on this explanation. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:12 accepts the Rambam.
166. Mishna Mikvaot 5:2, Rambam, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:12. The Shach 201:37 explains that really even a earthenware vessel is invalid on the back of the vessel as the Tur didn’t distinguish. That is in opposition to the opinion of the Bet Yosef 198:31 who explains that everyone would hold that the rabbinic restriction against immersing on the back of a vessel is specifically for vessels that are susceptible to tumah even on the backside excluding the earthenware one. In any event after the fact the Shach is lenient after the fact regarding earthenware vessels.
167. The Bach 201:17 writes that just like we know that if a vessel has a rim that connects the water inside the vessel to the water outside the vessel and makes all of it fit as a spring (Mishna Mikvaot 5:1), all the more so this would be true of inverted vessels. Shach 201:34 and Taz 201:23 agree.
168. Gemara Bava Batra 66a, Tur 201:7, Shach 201:21
169. The Rambam’s opinion is that a hole the size that would render it not susceptible to tumah is sufficient to remove the status of vessel. The Rash and Rosh’s opinion is that a hole of any size is enough to render it a non-vessel. The Shulchan Aruch 201:7 follows the Rambam, but the Rama 201:7 writes that one should be strict to always have a hole the diameter of two fingerbreadths.
170. Gemara Bava Batra 66a, Rosh Mikvaot n. 6, Rambam Mikvaot 6:6, Tur and Shulchan Aruch 201:36, and Shach 201:21
171. The Shach 201:21 writes that it is fit even to dip in such a stone vessel since it wasn’t a vessel when it was attached to the ground. However, the Nodeh Beyehuda and Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Pitchei Teshuva 9) argue that the gemara only made such a distinction with respect to drawn water which is only rabbinic, however, with respect to dipping in a vessel there is no distinction. The Chatom Sofer sides with the Shach and proves that this is also the opinion of the Tur and Rambam.
172. The Gemara Niddah 65b established that one may not immerse in a mikveh on top of a plank of wood because of a concern that one will be afraid to immerse and not immerse properly. The Raavad explains that the wooden planks aren’t susceptible to tumah but if they were then there would be another issue; that is, there is a general problem to immerse on top of vessels lest one could to immerse in a vessel outside of a vessel. The Rambam and Rosh understand the gemara differently. The Bet Yosef 198:31 explains that they hold that there’s no rabbinic restriction to dip on top of a vessel if the vessel doesn’t have a receptacle, or it is turned over, or it is surrounded by water. The Taz holds by the opinion of the Rambam but Shulchan Aruch and Shach accept the Raavad.
173. Based on the Raavad (Shaar Hatevilah cited by Bet Yosef 198:31) and Shulchan Aruch 198:31 a woman may not immerse on top of any vessel which is susceptible to tumah even tumat medres, which includes items are are designated for sitting and standing. The Rash Mikvaot 5:2 distinguishes whether the vessel is attached to the ground or not and says that there is only a rabbinic restriction to immerse on top of a vessel that is attached to the ground. The Bet Yosef 198:31 infers from the Rosh that he disagrees with that distinction. Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:138 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 198:19 doesn’t accept the Rash. Rabbi Akiva Eiger 1:40 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 201:10 accepts that distinction in a particular case with other factors.
174. 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.
175. The Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111 writes that the mikveh is invalid as long as the water changes colors from what its original appearance even if it doesn’t look like wine. Shach 201:66 agrees.
176. The Torat Kohanim Shemini 9:4 cited by Bet Yosef 201:30 learns from a pasuk that a colored mikveh is invalid. Chelkat Binyamin 201:391 cites a dispute between the Raavad and Ramban, Rashba, and Ritva whether it is a rabbinic or biblical invalidation respectively. Igrot Moshe 120:8 s.v. vayin holds it is biblical. Chazon Ish 5:12 holds it is rabbinic.
177. The Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 establishes that if the mikveh is 40 seah and its color changed it is invalid. Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111 clarifies this point. Shulchan Aruch 201:25 agrees.
178. Rashba Shaar Hamayim 11 cited by Bet Yosef 201:28, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:28
179. Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 states that a mikveh that has 40 seah and its water changed colors is invalid unless water is added and that water can even be drawn. The Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111, Rambam Mikvaot 7:9, Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 201:25 agree.
180. The Mishna Mikvaot 7:3 establishes that colored or dirty water doesn’t invalidate the mikveh because of a change of color. Raavad Baalei Hanefesh p. 111 explains that unless the actual coloring agent such as wine or dye is added to the mikveh it doesn’t invalidate it because of a change of color. Shulchan Aruch 201:27 generally accepts the Raavad. Shach 201:64 quotes the Raavad.
181. Rambam Mikvaot 7:9, Shulchan Aruch 201:26
182. Rambam Mikavot 7:12, Shulchan Aruch 201:27
183. Shulchan Aruch 201:27
184. Raavad Mikvaot 7:12 based on Tosefta Mikvaot 5:8 writes that while the water was invalid because of having its color changed it can’t become invalid as drawn water since it isn’t considered water at all. Afterwards once more water is added and its original color returns it is fit. Rama 201:29 codifies the Raavad.
185. Chelkat Binyamin 201:432 cites a dispute between the Chazon Ish Mikvaot 5:13 and the Maharsham 3:11 whether it is possible to fix a mikveh by changing its color and then returning its color. The Maharsham held that it is possible to fix since once it turns into colored water the invalidation of drawn water doesn’t count and when its color returns it is a kosher mikveh. Bet Shlomo 1:171, Bet Yitzchak 2:41, and others agreed. However, the Chazon Ish held that the only time drawn water doesn’t invalidate a colored mikveh is if it colored the mikveh prior to the drawn water entering. However, once a mikveh is invalid because of drawn water it remains invalid.
186. Chelkat Binyamin 201:432 writes that one can only use the solution of the Maharsham if the invalidation was rabbinic but if it is biblical it doesn’t work since the entire concept of having the waters change colors is only rabbinic to begin with according to many poskim.
187. Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 229
188. Mishna Mikvaot 6:4, Zevachim 25b, Shulchan Aruch 201:48. The Bet Yosef 201:48 explains that in fact the entire concept that if there’s something susceptible to tumah in the creation of the mikveh it is invalid is only the opinion of the Rash and Rosh but the Rambam completely disagrees. We follow the Rash and Rosh.
189. Chatom Sofer 199:5 and Chazon Ish Mikvaot 3:17 hold it is biblical since it is learned from a pasuk. Chelkat Binyamin 201:679 agrees.
190. 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. 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.
191. 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.
192. 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 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 5:5 and Simla 201:84 point out this dispute.
193. Shulchan Aruch 201:35, Shach 201:103
194. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 explains that if there’s a separation between the vessel that is susceptible to tumah and the mikveh it is kosher. His proof is that Zevachim 25b considered to permit the mikveh because of the airspace in which the water was flowing. Shulchan Aruch 201:48 codifies the Rosh.
195. Chatom Sofer 199
196. The Rash Mikvaot 5:5 explains that a plug that prevents water from exiting a mikveh that otherwise would be invalid as the water is flowing is invalid since the plug is considered like creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah. The Rosh Mikvaot 11 disagrees. Tur 201:50 explains that the Rosh argues that preventing water from escaping isn’t an issue, it is only an issue to gather water into a mikveh using something that is susceptible to tumah. Shulchan Aruch 201:50 cites both opinions.
197. The Nodeh Beyehuda 2:137 writes that if a mikveh is currently valid and there is a concern that water is being absorbed in the ground boards can be nailed down. If the nails are new then they aren’t susceptible to tumah since they are being used to service the ground from the beginning of their use. However, if they are old nails they are susceptible to tumah but nonetheless they can be used. His reason is that since the mikveh is currently valid continuing to keep it valid isn’t considered creating a mikveh with something that is susceptible to tumah. Pitchei Teshuva 201:35 quotes this. Chatom Sofer yd 204 agrees.
198. The Rosh Mikvaot n. 12 understands that the water that flows over something is susceptible to tumah is purified if it is attached to a mikveh or spring. He explains that it is like hashaka for sheuvim that can purify an entire mikveh. However, the Rashba 3:228 (as understood by Bet Yosef 201:49) disagrees. The Darkei Moshe 201:25 adds that the Mordechai also disagrees with the Rosh. Shulchan Aruch 201:49 mentions both the opinions of the Rosh and Rashba. The Gra 201:89 is strict.
• According to the Rosh, why is hashaka is effective on water in a vessel that is susceptible to tumah (Shulchan Aruch 201:49) but not for sheuvim while it is in the vessel that has a receptacle (Shulchan Aruch 201:8)? The Taz 201:59 explains that the reason that hashaka doesn’t work for sheuvim in a vessel is because of a gezerah that one might use that vessel as a mikveh even when it is detached from the mikveh. However, here the gezerah doesn’t apply since one isn’t going to dip inside a vessel that susceptible to tumah which doesn’t have a receptacle. The Bet Yosef 201:49 writes that only for real sheuvim hashaka doesn't work but for water that flowed over something that doesn’t have a receptacle could have hashaka. Divrei Yosef p. 358 explains that since there’s a gezerah that water in a vessel is sheuvim even if there’s hashaka, then no hashaka will be able to change its status. However, water that flowed over something that was susceptible to tumah can be converted with hashaka. See Chelkat Binyamin fnt. 2316 writes that the Bet Yosef might agree with the Taz.
199. Hod Yosef 71 shows from Rambam Parah 6:8 that havaya al yadey dvar mekabel tumah is a problem even if it is only koach sheni and used to help along the water.
200. 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.
201. 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.
202. Shach 201:120, Taz 201:67
203. Tosefta Mikvaot 3:5, Rash Mikvaot 6:3, Shulchan Aruch 201:56
204. 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.
205. 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.
206. 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. 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.
207. 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.
208. Shach 201:150, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:302
209. 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.
210. 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.
• 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.
211. Rama 201:7. Depends on the discussion of pipes meant to be attached to the ground.
212. 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.
213. 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.
214. The Mordechai Mikvaot n. 750 quotes the Rash who wrote that a hot water mikveh is invalid because of a rabbinic concern that they become confused with a bathhouse which is completely invalid. He also cites Rabbenu Tam as agreeing with the Rash. However, the Hagahot Mordechai 9a is lenient. Shulchan Aruch 201:75 is strict not to use a warm mikveh, but the Rama is lenient. He adds that one should really be strict unless there's a minhag to be lenient.
215. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:304 writes that the minhag of Sephardim is also to go to warm mikvaot (Rav Poalim YD 4:15) because (1) we're weaker than we were before and if it was cold some women wouldn't go to mikveh (Chatom Sofer YD 214), (2) everyone knows that a warm mikveh isn't a bathhouse and there's no concern people will get them confused and even though generally a gezerah doesn't expire whent he reason expires some say that is only for a takana of chazal and not a gezerah (Maharsham 3:140 based on Magen Avraham 9).
216. Minchat Yitzchak 7:85 cited by Shaarei Mikvaot 201:305
217. Mordechai Mikvaot n. 750 citing the Ravyah, Rama 201:75
218. Chacham Tzvi 11, Taharat Habayit, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:306
219. Igrot Moshe OC 1:126:6 follows the Korban Netanel who says that there's no gezerah baalanim in a mikveh. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:306 points out that the Ashkenazi poskim didn't allow going to mikveh during ben hashemashot.
220. The Mordechai Mikvaot n. 750 cites the Ravyah who says that the minhag is not to bathe or shower after going to the mikveh because of the gezerah that showering in drawn water makes a person tameh (Shabbat 14a). The Mordechai completely rejects this stringency considering that the gezerah was stated only for taharot and not niddah and it was only a tumah going forward but didn't invalidate going to the mikveh. He adds that the Maharam was lenient. The Rama 201:50 cites the minhag to be strict.
221. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:307 writes that since Shulchan Aruch holds mikveh for niddah doesn't need a kavana since it is chullin he wouldn't hold of the stringent minhag not to bathing or showering afterwards.
222. Igrot Moshe YD 2:96. Rav Schachter
223. Shevet Halevi 5:125 writes that even though the Or Zaruah sounds like she can't bathe for the entire day sincce the others don't mention that it is enough to be strict immediately after tevilah. Once she went home and touched her husband her tevilah was effective and it is impossible for a later bath to undo the tevilah.
224. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Mareh Kohen p. 108) and Tzitz Eliezer 11:64:13-14. Tzitz Eliezer adds that she shouldn't shower her entire body at once.
225. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:307 citing Yabia Omer YD 8:19:2
226. Tzitz Eliezer 11:64:15, Shaarei Mikvaot 201:307
227. The Tosfeta Mikvaot 7:6 explains the procedure of how to dip a large vessel in a mikveh which is just 40 seah. The vessel is dipped in upside down and removed upside down. The Rash explains that it is placed in upside down so that the water in the vessel doesn’t become sheuvim. The Bet Yosef 201:63 explains that either the water in a vessel in the middle of the mikveh does become sheuvim even though the water is connected to the rest of the mikveh or it doesn’t but there’s a concern that as the water streams into the mikveh it’ll pause and the water in the vessel will be disconnected from the mikveh and therefore sheuvim. The Divrei Yosef p. 452 points out that this corresponds to the Rosh and Rash in Bet Yosef 201:8 whether a detached vessel in a mikveh creates sheuvim. The Rash holds it doesn’t and the Rosh holds it does. However, it is difficult that the Bet Yosef there explains the Rambam like the Rosh and here the Rambam fits with the Rash. The Chelkat Binyamin 201:870 writes that we’re concerned from the understanding of the Bet Yosef in the Rash that maybe it’ll become disconnected but not for the possibility that it is really sheuvim. However, the Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 8:12 and Tur 201:63 explain that the reason it needs to be put in upside down is because otherwise it is going to cause water to splash out of the mikveh making it invalid.
228. Rashba responsa 818 writes that a person shouldn’t dip in a mikveh unless it is filled up to a hafla maha above one’s belly. Rama 201:66 quotes this.
229. Rashba responsa cited by Darkei Moshe 201:28* writes that if the water is too shallow to bend over sightly and dip in the mikveh a person should lie down horizontally in the mikveh. They should not bend over too much otherwise that would create unnatural folds in the skin invalidating the dipping. Rashbetz 1:17 and Rabbenu Yerucham 26:5 agree. The Rama 201:66 codifies the rashba.
230. Pitchei Mikvaot 1:14 citing Shulchan Aruch Harav and Tikunei Hamikveh
231. Mishna Mikvaot 7:7 establishes that if the mikveh has sufficient water but it isn’t possible to go in it because it is too shallow, a person could block up part of the mikveh so that the water level rises. The mishna says that a person can use wood sticks for this purpose. The Rash explains that the water between the sticks is still connected to the mikveh. However, if one breaks up the whole mikveh in two then the other half of the mikveh wouldn’t contribute to the 40 seah of the mikveh. Shulchan Aruch 201:66 codifies this mishna.
232. Rambam Mikvaot 10:6, Shulchan Aruch 201:71
233. Tosefta Mikvaot 8:1, Rambam Mikvaot 1:9, Bet Yosef 198:35, Shulchan Aruch YD 201:61
234. The Tosefta 5:10 states that a person who jumps into the mikveh is disgraceful. The Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 25 explains that the Tosefta is discussing a mikveh with the requisite amount of 40 seah. By jumping in some of the water inevitably will leave and there won’t remain a complete mikveh. The Rivash 293 explains that the reason the Tosefta doesn’t say that the dipping is invalid is because it is possible that the water that splashed didn’t separate from the rest of the mikveh water before the person was completely covered and submerged. But since it could be invalid if some of the water splashes out before he is completely submerged that’s why it is discouraged. Shulchan Aruch 201:62 codifies this.
235. The Tosefta Mikvaot 5:10 establishes that a person shouldn’t dip twice. The Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot n. 25 and Tur 201:62 explain that we’re discussing a mikveh which is exactly 40 seah. If so there’s a concern that during the first dipping the person won’t be careful to be completely submerged and then by the time he dips a second time perhaps some of the water splashed out and the mikveh is invalid. However, the Rivash 293 explains that the Rambam Mikvaot 8:12 understood the Tosefta to mean that in general a person should dip twice because there’s a concern that those watching will assume that he’s going to cool off and not to purify himself and it could lead to a mistake with trumah if he touches it and they assume that you don’t need kavana to purify oneself for trumah. The Darkei Moshe 201:27 writes that we’re not concerned for that opinion today when we don’t have trumah. Shaarei Mikvaot 201:262 writes that the minhag is to teach woman to be tovel multiple times like the Rosh unlike the Rambam.
236. Maharik 115, cited by Bet Yosef 201:57(2)