Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,210
edits
Tefisat Yedey Adam: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Unintentional and Non-Beneficial
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
==Unintentional and Non-Beneficial== | ==Unintentional and Non-Beneficial== | ||
#Some rishonim hold that water drawn by a person is valid if it is unintentionally drawn into the mikveh.<ref> | #Some rishonim hold that water drawn by a person is valid if it is unintentionally drawn into the mikveh.<ref>Raavad in the version of Rabbi Buchwald p. 150 writes explicitly that water drawn by a person unintentionally doesn’t invalidate the mikveh. The proof for Raavad is Tosefta (Mikvaot 3) that the mikveh filled up by the army is kosher. Chelkat Binyamin on seif 15 quotes Chazon Ish in understanding Rambam agrees that drawn by a person unintentionally is kosher.</ref> However, the halacha is that it is invalid.<ref>Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 5) holds that if the water is brought there by the actions of a person it is invalid even if it is unintentional. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 201:39 codifies this opinion. The reason the water that is drawn by a person's foot is valid is because of hamshacha. This implies that it is invalid even though it is unintentional. Shach 201:46 and Taz 21:27 are both strict on water that a person unintentionally drew into a mikveh unlike the Bach 201:21 who is lenient. Chelkat Binyamin 201:250 is strict. Rosh Mikvaot n. 2 implies that he agrees with Rashba since he understands that a mikveh made by water splashing from animals is kosher but not for people, even though splashing the water only drew the water unintentionally. </ref> | ||
#If you are trying to carry the water out of the mikveh and some of it spills back into the mikveh it isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam since it is non-beneficial to have that water spill back into the mikveh.<ref>Shach 201:46 writes that since the water spilling back into the mikveh isn’t beneficial and isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8197&st=&pgnum=216 Lechem Vsimla (Simla 201:70)] explains the Shach to mean that it is negative that the water is spilling back. The Lechem Vsimla asks on the Shach and Chazon Ish YD 130:11 disagrees. Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 5) seems to be strict about this that even using a kli that has a hole to clean out a mikveh is considered tefisat yad adam. Shach is based on Shulchan Aruch who allowed that practice.</ref> | #If you are trying to carry the water out of the mikveh and some of it spills back into the mikveh it isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam since it is non-beneficial to have that water spill back into the mikveh.<ref>Shach 201:46 writes that since the water spilling back into the mikveh isn’t beneficial and isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8197&st=&pgnum=216 Lechem Vsimla (Simla 201:70)] explains the Shach to mean that it is negative that the water is spilling back. The Lechem Vsimla asks on the Shach and Chazon Ish YD 130:11 disagrees. Rashba (Shaar Hamayim 5) seems to be strict about this that even using a kli that has a hole to clean out a mikveh is considered tefisat yad adam. Shach is based on Shulchan Aruch who allowed that practice.</ref> | ||
