Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,283
edits
Modern Mikvaot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Bor al gabi bor
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
## 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. | ## 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. | ||
## 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. | ## 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. | ||
## Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 writes that you shouldn’t just do zeriya because of natan seah vnatal seah. In Igrot Moshe 1:112 he writes that it isn't really necessary to be concerned for the Raavad and so this is kosher technically speaking. | ## Igrot Moshe YD 2:94 writes that you shouldn’t just do zeriya because of natan seah vnatal seah. In Igrot Moshe 1:112, he writes that it isn't really necessary to be concerned for the Raavad and so this is kosher technically speaking. | ||
#Chazon Ish (Lukkutim 3:1) held that the pipe with tap water should be higher than the hashaka pipe connecting the bor zeria and bor tevila. Otherwise while filling the bor zeriya, the water in the bor zeriya would immediately be overflowing into the bor tevila. The issue with that if water is leaving the bor zeriya then its water is considered zochlin. It is questionable if hashaka can be accomplished to zochlin water. However, if the tap water pipe is lower than the hashaka pipe, then first the tap water would go into the bor tevila while there is 40 seah of stationary water. According to Rosh, that bottom water below the area where it is leaving isn't considered zochlin. Therefore, it is fine to rely on those who allow hashaka to zochlin water since according to Rosh it isn't zochlin at all. | #Chazon Ish (Lukkutim 3:1) held that the pipe with tap water should be higher than the hashaka pipe connecting the bor zeria and bor tevila. Otherwise while filling the bor zeriya, the water in the bor zeriya would immediately be overflowing into the bor tevila. The issue with that if water is leaving the bor zeriya then its water is considered zochlin. It is questionable if hashaka can be accomplished to zochlin water. However, if the tap water pipe is lower than the hashaka pipe, then first the tap water would go into the bor tevila while there is 40 seah of stationary water. According to Rosh, that bottom water below the area where it is leaving isn't considered zochlin. Therefore, it is fine to rely on those who allow hashaka to zochlin water since according to Rosh it isn't zochlin at all. | ||
#[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14338&st=&pgnum=387 Chazon Ish (Tinyana 4:10)] wrote that if Raavad is strict to require 40 seah of original rainwater then he would also require continuous hashaka (like Tzemech Tzedek). However, if Raavad is only based on marit ayin that temporary hashaka is fine. He holds that we're only strict for the opinion of Raavad because of marit ayin. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14338&st=&pgnum=412 Chazon Ish (Likkutim 3:6)] repeats this but isn't certain if the two issues of Raavad and Rabbenu Yerucham are related. | #[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14338&st=&pgnum=387 Chazon Ish (Tinyana 4:10)] wrote that if Raavad is strict to require 40 seah of original rainwater then he would also require continuous hashaka (like Tzemech Tzedek). However, if Raavad is only based on marit ayin that temporary hashaka is fine. He holds that we're only strict for the opinion of Raavad because of marit ayin. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14338&st=&pgnum=412 Chazon Ish (Likkutim 3:6)] repeats this but isn't certain if the two issues of Raavad and Rabbenu Yerucham are related. | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
== Bor al gabi bor == | == Bor al gabi bor == | ||
[[File:Bor_al_gabi_bor.png|right|300px|Two Borot (Rashab, Chabad)]] | [[File:Bor_al_gabi_bor.png|right|300px|Two Borot (Rashab, Chabad)]] | ||
# 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. Rav Moshe Bick, Helmetzer Rav, and Satmer Rebbe (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) agree with the Rashab that it is the best solution and having another hashaka bor is unnecessary. In practice, the Satmer | # 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. Rav Moshe Bick, Helmetzer Rav, and Satmer Rebbe (Taharat Yom Tov 8:27) agree with the Rashab that it is the best solution and having another hashaka bor is unnecessary. In practice, the Satmer Rebbe preferred bor al gabi bor min hasad (Divrei Yoel YD 80). | ||
## The Pitchei Mikvaot p. 327 quotes the Klozenberger Rav that a mikveh on top of a mikveh is kosher if there’s also a hashaka on the side. Shevet Halevi 3:132 approves of such a mikveh. Pitchei Mikvaot 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. Also, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Mesorat Moshe v. 2 p. 228) said that if there are some Lubavitcher chasidim 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 this. Yet, Minchat Yitzchak 6:90 questions such a mikveh. | |||
## 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. | |||
## The Viznitzer Rebbe [https://cdn.yutorah.net/_materials/packet-15-525913.pdf (Obituaries, New York Times, March 16, 2012, p. B10)] held the best mikveh is one that is just rainwater and doesn't use any hashaka or zeriya with any tap water. | ## The Viznitzer Rebbe [https://cdn.yutorah.net/_materials/packet-15-525913.pdf (Obituaries, New York Times, March 16, 2012, p. B10)] held the best mikveh is one that is just rainwater and doesn't use any hashaka or zeriya with any tap water. | ||
#Divrei Chayim (YD 1:46, 2:88, 2:97) held that a vertical pipe connecting two mikvaot is considered katafras, even though all of the water is stationary. His proof is from Rash (Mikvaot 4:4) and Rivash 292. Fundamentally, he holds that katafras and zochlin are two different things. Even though Rivash writes that katafras is zochlin, that doesn't mean zochlin is katafras. (Gra 201:6 however seems to have understood from Rivash that zochlin and katafras are the same.) Therefore, he held that zochlin depends on the water moving but katafras depends on the water being contained by a space that naturally would make the water not move. Imrei Yosher 1:101, Shoel Umeishiv 3:2:27, and Avnei Nezer YD 279:4 disagree completely with Divrei Chayim and hold that an upper mikveh on top of a lower mikveh connected by a pipe is kosher. His proofs are Rash (Mikvaot 3:1), Rambam (Taharot 8:9), and Rivash 292. He understands Rivash to mean that zochlin and katafras are the same issue. | |||
##Furthermore, Imrei Yosher 2:73:4 argues that Divrei Chayim would agree that a mikveh on top of another mikveh is kosher. He only invalidated two mikvaot one on top of the other with a big break in between filled with a pipe. However, two mikvaot with a board separating the two and connected by a shifoferet hanod is considered one mikveh for this purpose. Imrei Yosher 2:73:4 writes that even though he thinks Divrei Chayim is wrong, it is proper to be strict for his opinion when there's a pip connecting the two mikvaot but not if they're just split by a board. This is heavily implied by Divrei Chayim 2:88. Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe YD 3:65), Minchat Yitzchak 5:92, and Rav Ovadia (Taharat Habayit p. 316) hold like this distinction. Shevet Halevi 3:131 also holds that fundamentally a bor al gabi bor is kosher even for the Divrei Chayim, but in order not to introduce leniencies in mikvaot he advised against it. | |||
##However, Divrei Chayim 1:46 and 2:97 imply otherwise that every bor al gabi bor is invalid. 1:46 is discussing a mikveh on a mikveh and raises katafras. Also, 2:97 notes that there's katafras with being tovel on stairs. Mishna Halachot 10:147 is strict for this version of Divrei Chayim who makes no such distinction. He quotes the Tzelemer Rav, Chuster Rav, and Klausenberger Rav as being strict about this point. | |||
#What is the advantage of a bor al gabi bor? | |||
##Some say that bor al gabi bor is advantageous since the water transfer between the upper mikveh and lower mikveh is minimal, thereby mitigating the issue of natan seah vnatal seah. Minchat Yitzchak 5:92 quotes this concept from the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Mishna Halachot 10:147 quotes that the Rashab and Satmer rebbe held of this idea, but Tzelemer Rav did not. Igrot Moshe YD 3:65 writes that bor al gabi bor doesn't help for this issue because either way the water mixes (yesh bilah). | |||
##However, Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe 3:65) writes that bor al gabi bor is good because it validates the water with zeriya as opposed to hashaka, which some hold is preferable (based on Rabbenu Yerucham). | |||
== Bor al gabi bor min hasad == | == Bor al gabi bor min hasad == | ||
[[File:Three_borot_bor_al_gabi_bor.png|right|300px|Three borot (Satmer Rav)]] | [[File:Three_borot_bor_al_gabi_bor.png|right|300px|Three borot (Satmer Rav)]] | ||
# 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. | # 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. Minchat Yitzchak 5:92 liked this solution of Satmer Rav. | ||
## Chelkat Yakov 3:54:6 held to do this (bor al gabi bor in bor hashaka) with a tiny connection. Since the issue of natan v'natal seah 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. Chelat Yakov says that it isn't zochlin since the waters are resting on top of each other and not moving. Shevet Halevi also thought it isn’t zochlin. | ## Chelkat Yakov 3:54:6 held to do this (bor al gabi bor in bor hashaka) with a tiny connection. Since the issue of natan v'natal seah 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. Chelat Yakov says that it isn't zochlin since the waters are resting on top of each other and not moving. Shevet Halevi 3:132 also thought it isn’t zochlin. | ||
## 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 | ## 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 3:132 validates a bor al gabi bor with another hashaka bor on the side and would seem also to allow this mikveh. | ||
## Igrot Moshe YD 3:65 writes that bor al gabi bor min hasad is valid but unnecessary. He holds that a bor al gabi bor doesn't add anything because either way the water mixes around. However, he didn't think it is any issue of katafras even according to Divrei Chayim when it isn't the bor tevilah. Nonetheless, in a place where Satmer chasidim live or visit he recommends this mikveh because the Satmer Rav suggested it. | |||
== Three borot using hashaka and zeriya == | == Three borot using hashaka and zeriya == | ||
