Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,231
edits
Tefisat Yedey Adam: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Grama
(→Grama) |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*The Rashba (Shaar Hamayim ch. 5 36a) writes that it isn’t because of sheuvim but it is another invalidation. He doesn’t explain further. | *The Rashba (Shaar Hamayim ch. 5 36a) writes that it isn’t because of sheuvim but it is another invalidation. He doesn’t explain further. | ||
*Taz 201:28 explains that Raavad holds it is another invalidation and not sheuvim. However, he understands that Rashba, Rosh, and Tur hold that it is a pasul of sheuvim. | *Taz 201:28 explains that Raavad holds it is another invalidation and not sheuvim. However, he understands that Rashba, Rosh, and Tur hold that it is a pasul of sheuvim. | ||
== Proofs == | |||
=== Proofs that it is a problem === | |||
* zilef byadav | |||
* ligyon | |||
* mesalek b'tit | |||
=== Proofs that it isn't an issue === | |||
* The Mishna Mikvaot 2:2 says that it is permitted to turn over a kli that has non-sheuvim water in it to go into the mikveh. Why isn't that ba al yedey adam? Maharam Shik 196 presents three answers to this question: | |||
** Rash says that it is hamshacha which only according to the opinion that hamshacha works for a mikveh that's completely sheuvim. | |||
** Rosh would answer that hamshacha for ba al yedey adam works even if it is hamshacha on everything. It isn't the same as sheuvim. | |||
** Rambam would answer that ba al yedey adam is only a problem if it comes directly from a person's hand and not if it comes from his koach (movement). | |||
** Chazon Ish (Mikvaot Tinyana 3:11, cited by Chelkat Binyamin 611) answers that it is kosher because by the time the water gets to the mikveh the koach of the adam has no effect. | |||
* molech umeyvey | |||
* 3 gumiyot | |||
===Nafka minah=== | ===Nafka minah=== | ||
| Line 35: | Line 53: | ||
==Grama== | ==Grama== | ||
#Many achronim hold that removing a spigot or something else that was preventing the water from entering the mikveh isn't considered tefisat yad adam and is not sheuvim or havaya al yedey dvar hamekabel tumah.<ref>Chatom Sofer YD 214 s.v. umay, [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1428&st=&pgnum=150 Maharash Engel 1:52], Taharat Mayim siman 24 quoting Darkei Teshuva 195, and Emek Sheylah YD 48, 57</ref> | |||
#Using a pump is considered grama and not tefisat yadey adam.<ref>Rabbi Akiva Eiger in Drush Vchidush writes that water pumped up by a person isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam since at the time of when one pulls up the pump nothing happens to the water directly. He calls it grama. This is quoted by the [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8197&st=&pgnum=215 Lechem Vsimla (210:145)] and Divrei Yosef p. 147-8. Zichron Yosef YD 13 is lenient regarding using a pump since it is a koach kocho which isn’t considered like a maaseh of a person.</ref> | #Using a pump is considered grama and not tefisat yadey adam.<ref>Rabbi Akiva Eiger in Drush Vchidush writes that water pumped up by a person isn’t considered tefisat yadey adam since at the time of when one pulls up the pump nothing happens to the water directly. He calls it grama. This is quoted by the [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8197&st=&pgnum=215 Lechem Vsimla (210:145)] and Divrei Yosef p. 147-8. Zichron Yosef YD 13 is lenient regarding using a pump since it is a koach kocho which isn’t considered like a maaseh of a person.</ref> | ||
#Melting ice with hot metal boards isn’t an issue of tefisat yadey adam since it is grama.<ref>Maharsham 1:200 writes that melting ice with hot metal boards isn’t tefisat yadey adam since it is a grama. Chatom Sofer 1:200, Maharam Shik 196, and Nachal Eshkol 53 agree.</ref> | #Melting ice with hot metal boards isn’t an issue of tefisat yadey adam since it is grama.<ref>Maharsham 1:200 writes that melting ice with hot metal boards isn’t tefisat yadey adam since it is a grama. Chatom Sofer 1:200, Maharam Shik 196, and Nachal Eshkol 53 agree.</ref> | ||
| Line 48: | Line 67: | ||
*However, the Bet Yosef 201:39 assumes that the two invalidations are the same and the Rash who says hamshacha on tefisat yadey adam holds in general that tefisat yadey adam is effective for everything. | *However, the Bet Yosef 201:39 assumes that the two invalidations are the same and the Rash who says hamshacha on tefisat yadey adam holds in general that tefisat yadey adam is effective for everything. | ||
*On the other hand, [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=450 the Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim ch. 5 36a)] writes that only if water is drawn by the feet of animal is it is valid but if a person draws water with his feet it is invalid even if it is drawn along the ground. Bet Yosef 201:39 cites this. Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot no. 2 cited by Bet Yosef 201:15:4 and Tur 201:15 agree. However, the Rash Mikvaot 2:8 and Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:8 seem to agree with the Raavad and don’t distinguish between people and animals and both are valid if it is drawn along the ground. See Taz 201:28 for a lengthy explanation of both approaches. | *On the other hand, [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=450 the Rashba (Torat Habayit Shaar Hamayim ch. 5 36a)] writes that only if water is drawn by the feet of animal is it is valid but if a person draws water with his feet it is invalid even if it is drawn along the ground. Bet Yosef 201:39 cites this. Rosh Hilchot Mikvaot no. 2 cited by Bet Yosef 201:15:4 and Tur 201:15 agree. However, the Rash Mikvaot 2:8 and Rambam Hilchot Mikvaot 5:8 seem to agree with the Raavad and don’t distinguish between people and animals and both are valid if it is drawn along the ground. See Taz 201:28 for a lengthy explanation of both approaches. | ||
*Bach 201:26 and Taz 201:28 write that we follow the Rosh. Therefore, it is only valid if there’s a majority of rainwater in the mikveh besides the water drawn on the ground by a person into it. Aruch Hashulchan 201:120 agrees. (Rama seems to be citing both the Raavad and Rosh but see the Taz.) Divrei Yosef p. 147 writes that the Shulchan Aruch 201:39 accepts the Rosh and Tur.</ref> while others say it is only valid if the majority of the mikveh wasn’t drawn by a person at all. We are strict.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&pgnum=317 Chazon Ish YD 129:10] argues that everyone agrees that if the water didn’t leave the ground it is valid even if it is drawn by a person. Chelkat Binyamin 201:270 presents both the approach of the Taz and Chazon Ish, but doesn’t offer a resolution. In the footnotes he cites the Taharat Yisrael 83 and Shach 201:50 as holding like the Chazon Ish. Similarly, Igrot Moshe YD 1:120:5 distinguishes between having the water not leave the ground in which case there’s no tefisat yadey adam and carrying the water and then placing it on the ground for hamshacha which is invalid to remove tefisat yadey adam. </ref> | *Bach 201:26 and Taz 201:28 write that we follow the Rosh. Therefore, it is only valid if there’s a majority of rainwater in the mikveh besides the water drawn on the ground by a person into it. Aruch Hashulchan 201:120 agrees. (Rama seems to be citing both the Raavad and Rosh but see the Taz.) Divrei Yosef p. 147 writes that the Shulchan Aruch 201:39 accepts the Rosh and Tur. | ||
*Taharat Mayim (siman 24) quotes Nachal Eshkol 53:3 who wants to be lenient based on Baal Hameor, Rash, Rambam, and Rosh who hold that hamshacha removes the issue of ba al yedey adam. He also quotes Zichron Yosef 13 also holding this as well. Maharam Shik YD 196 holds that hamshacha on its own is not enough to permit ba al yedey adam.</ref> while others say it is only valid if the majority of the mikveh wasn’t drawn by a person at all. We are strict.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&pgnum=317 Chazon Ish YD 129:10] argues that everyone agrees that if the water didn’t leave the ground it is valid even if it is drawn by a person. Chelkat Binyamin 201:270 presents both the approach of the Taz and Chazon Ish, but doesn’t offer a resolution. In the footnotes he cites the Taharat Yisrael 83 and Shach 201:50 as holding like the Chazon Ish. Similarly, Igrot Moshe YD 1:120:5 distinguishes between having the water not leave the ground in which case there’s no tefisat yadey adam and carrying the water and then placing it on the ground for hamshacha which is invalid to remove tefisat yadey adam. </ref> | |||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
[[Category:Mikvaot|Yoreh Deah]] | [[Category:Mikvaot|Yoreh Deah]] | ||
