Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,248
edits
Mikvaot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Spring Water Disconnected from the Spring
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
* 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 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.</ref> | * 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.</ref> | ||
# 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. <ref>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: | # 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.<ref>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: | ||
* Rash holds that if there is a majority of drawn water, the mayan is invalid when moving. | * Rash holds that if there is a majority of drawn water, the mayan is invalid when moving. | ||
* 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 expanded because of the rainwater are unfit. | * 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 expanded 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. | * 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 entered 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. | * 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 entered 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. | ||
*Rishonim ask why Mikvaot 5:3 states that if drawn water is added to a mayan and it was previously moving, it remains a mayan. The mishna implies that this is true even if there is a majority of drawn water. However, Mikvaot 5:5 implies that if there is a majority of rainwater in a mayan, the mayan only purifies if it is standing still. Ran answers that even if there's a majority of drawn or rainwater it remains a mayan in the place where it was previously moving. However, if it wasn't previously moving it only purifies if it is standing still. Ramban answers that if the water was added to the primary pit of the mayan it is kosher as a mayan. However, if the water was added to the extensions of the mayan it only purifies if it is standing. Rav Pinchas Halevi answers that if there is a majority of drawn or rainwater it only purifies if it is standing. Also, if a minority of drawn or rainwater it only purifies in the place that it was previously moving.</ref> | *Rishonim ask why Mikvaot 5:3 states that if drawn water is added to a mayan and it was previously moving, it remains a mayan. The mishna implies that this is true even if there is a majority of drawn water. However, Mikvaot 5:5 implies that if there is a majority of rainwater in a mayan, the mayan only purifies if it is standing still. Ran answers that even if there's a majority of drawn or rainwater it remains a mayan in the place where it was previously moving. However, if it wasn't previously moving it only purifies if it is standing still. Ramban answers that if the water was added to the primary pit of the mayan it is kosher as a mayan. However, if the water was added to the extensions of the mayan it only purifies if it is standing. Rav Pinchas Halevi answers that if there is a majority of drawn or rainwater it only purifies if it is standing. Also, if a minority of drawn or rainwater it only purifies in the place that it was previously moving.</ref> Shach follows Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, while on a Torah level Taz follows Raavad, except that he holds that there's a gezera regarding rivers.<ref>Shach (201:31-2 and Nekudat Hakesef to Taz 201:19) holds that hashaka to a mayan doesn't make the water kosher b'zochlin. However, Taz (201:3 and 19) holds that it does, except there is a gezerah regarding rivers. Prisha 201:21 also accepts this general approach. Fundamentally, Shach is like Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, while Taz is like Raavad. | ||
The proofs that hashaka to a mayan makes the rainwater or sheuvim into a mayan are from Mikvaot 5:1, as quoted in Shulchan Aruch 201:8 and 10. | |||
(1) Shulchan Aruch 201:8 says that spring water which went over a kli is sheuvim but if some water went over the rim of the kli and isn't sheuvim, that water can purify the sheuvim water. Shach 201:33 answers that it has the status of a spring since the water originated from a spring and was never completely disconnected. | |||
(2) Shulchan Aruch 201:10 says that a spring which is connected to a pool of rainwater makes the rainwater into spring water. Shach 201:32 answers that it is only like a spring when majority of the water in the pool is from the spring. </ref> | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| | | | ||
| Line 122: | Line 128: | ||
===Spring Water that Stopped Moved or Was Interrupted=== | ===Spring Water that Stopped Moved or Was Interrupted=== | ||
# A spring that flowed into a mikveh, whether it was filled up originally or not, is considered like a spring.<ref>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.</ref> | # A spring that flowed into a mikveh, whether it was filled up originally or not, is considered like a spring.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
# 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.<ref>The Bet Yosef 201:10 writes that it seems from the Rosh and Rash (Mikvaot 5:1) 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, but he points out that the Rambam Pirush Mishnayot doesn’t sound like this. Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot 5:5) is explicit that water that dripped out of a spring and is disconnected from the spring is like a mikveh. Maharik 156 understands from many rishonim that disconnected spring water is like a spring. In any event, the Raavad (cited by the Bet Yosef 201:10 by Maharik 156) and [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=9023#p=118 Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim 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 | # 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.<ref>The Bet Yosef 201:10 writes that it seems from the Rosh and Rash (Mikvaot 5:1) 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, but he points out that the Rambam Pirush Mishnayot doesn’t sound like this. Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot 5:5) is explicit that water that dripped out of a spring and is disconnected from the spring is like a mikveh. Maharik 156 understands from many rishonim that disconnected spring water is like a spring. In any event, the Raavad (cited by the Bet Yosef 201:10 by Maharik 156) and [https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/reader/reader.aspx?sfid=9023#p=118 Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim 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.</ref> If that water which was disconnected from the spring is reconnected to the spring, there is a dispute if it reattains the status of a spring.<ref>Maharik 156 holds that the spring water which was disconnected and reconnected does not reattain the status of a spring. Darkei Moshe 201:13 quotes this. However, this is contradicted by the simple understanding of the Mishna Mikvaot 5:1 that once the spring is reconnected it reattains the status of a spring. This simple understanding is supported by the Rash, Rosh, Raavad, and Tur. However, according to Shach 201:31, this Mishna isn't a proof about this point since it is only like a spring to purify in any quantity but not while it is moving. However, Prisha 201:21 holds that a spring which was disconnected and reconnected has the status of a spring to purify in any quantity and zochlin. </ref> | ||
# 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 drawn water it is only fit while it is still and not moving.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, 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. </ref> | # 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 drawn water it is only fit while it is still and not moving.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 1:7, 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. </ref> | ||
