Mikvaos, Siman 201, Shiur 8-9
03/05 – 03/12/19
Shiur 8 & 9:
1- The point of the last two shiurim have been the parameters of a well water- מעין. A well can also mean a water pond that is fed from an underground source.
In general, well water is the most powerful מטהר.
A- It needs only a drop to be ‘me’taher’. – מעין מטהר בכל שהוא.
B-I t does not need to be in a Mikvah אשבורן- meaning immersing oneself in water even while it is flowing from a well, line a stream, is nevertheless considered a kosher Tevilah.
. מעין מטהר בזוחלין
2- The discussion we had concerned water from a well that detached itself from the well.
Say a stream whose source comes out of the ground. The stream flows along and and in its path is a swimming pool. It ends up filling the pool and then continues to flow further along. The pool (and the water flowing beyond the pool) would have the full properties of a מעין , for both points A & B above.
Now what happens if somewhere between the source of this well water and the pool the stream is cut or blocked. The water continues to flow and fills up the pool.
From the simple reading of the Mishnah and the Mechaber in Seif 10 it would seem that the pool loses its מעין status and turns into a simple Mikvah requiring 40 סאה for kosher Tevilah, and the water would need to be stationary in the pool. Meaning that if it overflows the pool rim this overflow would not be Kosher at all.
3- The issue we discussed is the opinion of the מהרי”ק (and here) . His question, a fundamental point discussed by many when studying מקוואות, is the הלכה of a detached wave that falls upon a person that is standing on the beach. See Shiur 4.
Such a wave is in transit- it is moving/flowing. Nevertheless, despite it being detached from the ocean, is considered a full fledged מעין, despite it being ‘flowing water’ זוחלין.
But why, asks the Ma’Harik? Is not such a wave similar to a stream that was blocked? So why is the water of a blocked stream not considered a מעין while a detached wave is considered a מעין?
His conclusion is that indeed, water flowing from a stream (whose source is a will מעין) will always be considered well water – a מעין – even if detached. And if such a cut-off stream fills a pool this pool is still considered a מעין 100%.
The Mishna that seems to sat that a detached stream of well water that fills a pool in not considered a מעין the Ma’Harik says is talking about a pool that already full of water. Had it been empty it would indeed be considered a מעין!
So in concept, according to the Ma’Harik, a stream of water flowing from a well is considered well – מעין water even if fully detached. (Just like a wave).
4- Most other Poskim totally disagree. Their opinion is that well water to be considered a מעין must always be connected to its source.
So why is a detached wave considered a מעין? On this question the Sha”ch offers a few explanations. See below.
5- We learned the text of the Rebbe’s fascinating explanation of the famous reply of Moshiach to the בעל שם טוב –
. לכשיפוצו מעינותיך חוצה
Moshiach will come when the wellsprings of Chassidus will flow and spread. The Rebbe cites the opinions of the majority of the פוסקים above, that well water is only considered a מעין when fully connected to its source. He mentioned the Sha”ch and others.
6- We mentioned briefly the opinion of the צמח צדק that a wave is not considered זוחלין at all. More on this IY”h in future Shiurim.
Here is the text. We thank Dani Chitrik for the translation.
מַעְיָן שֶׁהֶעֱבִירוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי… בְרֵכָה וְהִפְסִיקוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא כְמִקְוֶה – Regarding a mayan that was led to pass over a pool and then it was stopped, it the mayan water in the pool is thereby considered to be like a mikvah.
מעיין שהמשיכו לבריכת מים שהם נקוים ועומדים, יש לו דין מעין; – A mayan that ran into a pool of water that is pooled and standing [still], has the rule of a mayan – It is Kosher even without 40 seah and while it’s in motion. ואם הפסיק ראש הקילוח, חזר להיות לה דין מקוה- However, if the flow has stopped thus it is no longer connected to the mayan, it returns to having the rules of a mikvah. – It must have 40 seah and is only kosher if stationary.
ואם חזר והמשיך קילוח המעין לתוכה, חזרה לדין מעין – And if the flow of the mayan is returned into it, it returns to having the rules of a mayan.
ל – להיות לה דין מקוה
שאינה מטהרת אלא במ’ סאה ובאשבורן. טור. – It is now considered a Mikvah in regard to not purifying unless there are 40 seah and the water must be stationary.
כתב מהרי”ק שורש קט”ו וקצ”ו דדוקא היכא דנחו המים במקוה וכבר נעשו אשבורן – The Mahari”k writes that the scenario of the Mishnah above, which mentioned this Halacha of turning a pool into a valid mayan when it is constantly trickling into the pool, was only in a case when the water have stopped moving inside a Mikve. And now, in order to “convert” the status of the pool back into a mayan one has to connect a stream from a mayan (that is still connected to its source) to flow into the pool.
אבל היכא דאכתי לא נחו ועדיין זוחלין אע”פ שהופסקו מהמעיין דין מעיין עליהם דלא פסק עדיין חיותן כיון דזוחלין – However, in a scenario where the mayan stream never stopped moving, it is considered a mayan. For its original strength never ceased from it, since it was always moving just as regular mayan.
וראיה מגל שנתלש לעיל סעיף ה – And his proof is from a wave that detaches from the sea. Although the wave is no longer connected to its source, if it fell on a person or vessel, their immersion is valid.
ואע”ג דכאן דין מקוה עליהן היינו משום שהבריכה מלאה מים אבל אם הבריכה היתה ריקנית ונתמלאה מהמעיין אע”פ שהופסק המעיין דין מעיין עליו עכ”ד – And although here in our Halacha it would seem that once detached it would be considered a mikvah. This is only because the pool was already full of water. However, if it were originally empty, and only then filled from the mayan, even if the trickle were stopped from its source, the mayan, it would still be considered a mayan.
[Additionally, what says in the Mishna that a mayan flow that has been stopped turns the pool into a Mikvah is talking about a pool that had already rain water in it]
אבל דעת הראב”ד שהביא שם דבכל ענין דין מקוה עליו – However, the Rava”d’s opinion that is brought down there in the Mahari”K, is that in all instances the pool and any detachment from a mayan’s source would make it have the status of a mikvah not a Mayan.
וכן דעת הרשב”א
בשער המים שהביא ב”י דאעפ”כ דין מקוה עליו וכן משמע פשט המשנה והפוסקים דאין חילוק וכן מוכח בפרישה שפירש דברי הטור בבריכה ריקנית – And so is the opinion of the Rashb”a and so it would seem from the Mishnah and poskim – that there would be no difference whether the pool was filled prior to the stream trickling into it or not. If there is a steady stream it would be considered a mayan and if not its considered a mikvah. And so it would seem from the Prisha that explains the Tur even in a case of an empty pool that were filled up. Once the trickle stops, it’s now considered a mikvah.
ומגל אין ראיה – And from a wave which detached from the ocean is no proof for the Mahari”k; דשאני התם– For there the din of a wave is different, since:
- שהגל נתלש מעצמו – the wave detached itself,
- וחיותו רב – and it has great strength
- וגם נתלש מהים גופיה – And it detached from the ocean itself
- וגם כן דרך זחילתו אף שנתלש – And, a wave detaching from the ocean is a natural movement, even though it is now disconnected
משא”כ הכא – Which is different from our case here.
ל״א דין מקוה כו
הקשה הפרישה סעיף כ”א מ”ש מטבילה בנהרות בעת הגשמים דפוסל ר”י והרמב”ם וסייעתו לעיל ס”ב – The Prisha asked: Why is our Halacha which permits converting this pool of water into a valid mayan different from what we learnt previously concerning rivers in the winter time. i.e. During the rainy season and at times when snow is melting into the rivers, and the majority is now rainwater rather than the flowing mayan water it is invalid to immerse in it according to the Rambam and others,
‘הא גם שם נמשך עם מי המקוה ולמה לא יהיה למי הגשמים תורת מקוה כמו כאן כו – For over there as well the waters combine with the mikvah waters, so why should they not have the laws of a mikvah just as here.
ותירוצו דחוק ורחוק – And his answer is far-fetched.
אבל לא קשה מידי דהתם לא פסיל אלא לטהר דרך זחילתן אבל באשבורן מותר– However it is indeed no question at all. For in our Halacha the concern is whether it’s a valid mikvah at all after the trickle stops – Because now that the trickle stopped, we need 40 seah and it must be stationary. However, over there we are only concerned about purification while it, the water, is moving. However, were it stationary it would be permissible as a mikvah.
דלא יהא אלא כולו מי גשמים וזה פשוט – For even if the river were entirely rainwater it would still require a stationary Mikva because rainwater must be contained in a Mikva as opposed to well water.
כ – יש לה דין מעיין
בטור כתב כל דין מעיין ופשוט שמטהר אפי’ בזוחלין – The Tur writes that it has all the laws of a mayan, ,and it is obvious, that it purifies even when it’s in motion like a mayan
ואיתא במשנה פרק ה’ דמקואות – And it says in the Mishnah chapter 5 of mikvaos
מעיין שהוא משוך ריבה עליו והמשיכו הרי הוא כמו שהיה. היה עומד וריבה והמשיכו שוה למקוה לטהר באשבורן ולמעיין להטביל בו כל שהוא – A spring that flows like a centipede i.e. with many smaller tributaries, if one added drawn water upon it and it continued flowing, it is thereby still as it was.
If it, the spring’s water was standing, and one added drawn waters upon it and it continued flowing, it is equivalent to a mikveh in that it purifies only while gathered in one place, and to a spring in that one can immerse objects in it in any amount of water.
הרי לפנינו – Thus we clearly see in this Mishnah an important point:
שיש חילוק בין מעיין משוך שאז הוה רבוי מי גשמים או שאובין שעליו כמעיין לכל דבר שבעולם – That there is a difference whether the mayan was initially flowing or whether it was originally stationary. For if the mayan was initially flowing then all added rainwater or drawn water that was added to it is now universally considered mayan water.
ובין מעיין עומד שלא הי’ מתחילה משוך כלל – However, when the mayan was initially stationary, it was not flowing at all אז אחר הרבוי הוי כמקוה לענין אשבורן – Then, after rainwater or drawn water was added, although that water is “converted” it is still considered as a mikvah regarding the law of it needing to be stationary.
ודין זה שמשך המעיין לבריכה דיש לבריכה כל דין מעיין – And this law in our Halachah where the mayan is trickling into the pool, and consequently the pool take on the full status of a mayan צ”ל דהמעיין היה משוך תחילה אלא שעכשיו הוסיף המשכתו להבריכה – Must be talking about a scenario in which the mayan was initially in motion, and now we trickled it into the pool.
אבל אם היה המעיין עומד תחילה והמשיכו לבריכה או שריבה עליו מים שאובים – However, if the original mayan was stationary, and was then trickled into the pool, or if one added drawn water to it
אע”פ שמהני ההמשכה לטהר השאובין לטבול בהם – Although trickling it into the pool purifies/converts the drawn water into Kosher immersion water to immerse in it
מ”מ לענין זחילה לא מהני ולא מטהר אלא באשבורן – Nonetheless, regarding the laws of the water being stationary or moving it does not help to convert it, and it does not purify unless its stationary. כי הוא עצמו לא היה זוחל תחילה – For it itself, the original mayan was not moving. And therefore, cannot convert moving water into Kosher immersion water. זה נראה לי ברור- This seems sure to me: