Mikvaos, Siman 201, Shiur 10 04/03/2019

Mikvaos, Siman 201, Shiur 10

March 03, 2019

1- We went through many topics, here is a brief recap.

In Seif 11 the topic was when a מעין touches a pool of מים שאובים. This connection changes the status of the pool into a מעין. Similar to the way most מקוואות have been built in the last few hundred years. A בור  of מים שאובים is ‘kashered’ by touching a בור of מי גשמים. Thus the בור turns into a kosher mikvah.


2- Seif 12 spoke about a מעין that flows over the back of a כלי. Another topic was the prohibition of not טובלין while standing on a כלי, due to the concern that one may come to טובל in the כלי.

Image result for back side of tile

back side of ceramic tile

We discussed the history of placing ceramic or marble tiles on the walls and the floor on a mikvah. When these tiles arrived in Europe about 200 years ago the issue was raised because of the grooves on the back of the tiles. If the groove can hold water then that side of the tile is considered a כלי. So when these tile are placed on the floor of the mikvah then the person standing on them is standing on the back of a כלי!

Image result for pompeii houses tile

ancient Italian  tile

Some  Poskim had no issue with this at all. And here they introduced a Halocho from Hilchos סוכה.

One cannot use any item that is a כלי  for סכך. Now a ladder is not considered a כלי since its side poles and rungs have no בית קיבול.  Meaning they cannot hold anything, such solids or water since they are flat pieces of wood.

Image result for bamboo window shades

Nevertheless some say one should not use a ladder as סכך . Why? Because the rungs were put into holes drilled into the beams (sides) of the ladder. The holes therefore designate the ladder as a כלי.

See here from the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. 629, 11. 


A ‘holeless’ ladder

But others responded since the holes were only hollow temporarily, and more  so, the holes are intended to be filled by the rungs. Therefore the entire ladder is not a כלי.

Based on the above, because the grooves on the tiles are made specifically to be filled with cement or plaster they are not to be designated as proper holes and a כלי.

Image result for butter backing tile

The short of it is that despite the above tiles used today have no grooves or lettering on the back of the tile.

3- From here we moved on to Seif 13 – concerning the plugging of a hole with something that is מקבל טומאה. Then to Seif  14 and 15 and the issue with 3 Lugin that fell into a Mikvah that has less than 40 So’h.

Image result for ‫שלשה לוגין מים ‬‎

We learnt the Mishnah in  עדיות concerning the three way Machlokes about the amount of מים שאובים that renders a Mikvah (that does not have 40 So’h) to be פסול.

Here is the Mishnah.

Mishnah Eduyot 1 ,3

הלל אוֹמֵר, מְלֹא הִין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, אֶלָּא שֶׁאָדָם חַיָּב לוֹמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבּוֹ.

Hillel says: A full hin [a measure equal to three kabin] of drawn water renders a ritual bath unfit. One is obligated to transmit [oral traditions] in the language of his master [which explains why Hillel talks of hin and not kav units.

וְשַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין. Shammai says: Nine kabin.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה,  But the Sages said: Not like the words of [Hillel] and not like the words of [Shammai],

אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנֵי גַרְדִּיִּים מִשַּׁעַר הָאַשְׁפּוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְהֵעִידוּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן, שְׁלֹשֶׁת לֻגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה, וְקִיְּמוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם:

Until two water drawers came from the dung gate in Jerusalem and testified in the names of Shama’ya and Avtalion: Three logim [a measure equal to a quarter of a hin] of drawn water render a ritual bath unfit; and the Sages upheld [Shama’ya and Avtalion’s] words.

  • 6 Eggs (Beitza) = 1 Lug .   4 Lug = 1 Kav.   6 Kav = 1 Se’ah.   3 Se’ah = 1 Eiphah
  • 1 Hin = 12 Lug or 3 Kav

4- We discussed the  various explanation on what the meaning of ‘One is obligated to transmit [oral traditions] in the language of his master’.

The Rambam’s peshat is that Shmaya and Avtalion being that they were גרים could not pronounce the letter ה. So when saying HIN they would say IN. Hillel, despite being able to pronounce it properly,  would pronounce it IN!

5- The Pesahat of the Gr”o that the word מלא, seems redundant. Shmaya and Avtalion would add the word מלא because by saying IN, (instead of HIN) it would seem that they were  saying that אין מים שאובין פוסלים את המקוה!!!! They therefore added the word מלא.

מְלֹא הִין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה.

Hillel, who was able to pronounce HIN, did not have to add the word מלא. But when repeating his masters, Shmaya and Avtalion, he would nevertheless use the word ,מְלֹא הִין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה  . The reason because:   One is obligated to transmit [oral traditions] in the language of his master’.

סעיף יא




מקוה מים שאובים שהמשיכו עליו מי מעין, – A mikvah filled with drawn/tap water that the waters of a spring have run into   אפילו מי המעין מועטים, – even if the waters of the spring are the minority המועטים של מעין מטהרין את השאובים המרובים, – the minority of the spring purifies the majority of drawn water, בין קדמו מי מעין לשאובים בין קדמו שאובים למעין – This ruling holds true whether the spring water preceded the drawn water or whether the drawn water preceded the spring water.


הגה: כמו שיתבאר למטה; – As will become clearer below;   ומכל מקום אין לטבול בו רק באשבורן, דלא עדיף מנהרות שרבו הנוטפים על הזוחלין (מהרי”ק) – and in any case one should immerse only in the mikvah which is stationary water, as this is no better than a river in which the majority is rain water more than the flowing spring water.



לב ומ”מ כו

בספר מע”מ תמה – The Madanei Hamelech מעדני מלך – דברי חמודות על הרא״ש asks  דאמאי בסעיף י’ בהומשך המעיין מטהר בזוחלין – Why is it that in Seif yud when a spring ran into a pool of water it would purify even in motion, whereas now, as the Ramo points out, one should immerse only in still water   ול”נ דהתם מיירי בשלא רבו הנוטפים וק”ל – And to me it seems simple that over there, in seif yud it is in a situation where the trickling water is not greater than the flowing [spring] water. Whereas in our seif the trickling water is greater than the flowing [spring] water and would thus need to be stationary.


ל״ג רק באשבורן כו

ולפי זה צ”ל  – According to this we must say דלעיל סעיף ח’ דאם מקלח על שפת הכלי מותר חוצה לה אפי’ המים שבתוכה מרובים  – That the case of Seif ches: if the spring leaks onto the edge of the vessel and into it, one may not immerse inside the vessel; but outside of it, it is allowed, even if the water inside is greater

היינו דוקא  באשבורן – Is only talking about a case where the water outside the vessel is now stationary. For if it were in motion, it would only be Kosher for immersion if the majority was spring water.

אבל פשט הדברים שם נראין שדין מעיין עליהם לכל דבר וכן משמע מדברי הב”ח ושאר אחרונים- However from the Bach and all other later commentators, it would seem that in any situation of Sief ches it would still be considered mayan and would even be Kosher when in motion.

 ואפשר לחלק דשאני התם כיון דהמים עצמן שבתוך הכלי הן גם כן מהמעיין וגם עתה המעיין מקלח לתוכן והם מחוברים למעיין מה שאין כן הכא ודוק – However, it is possible to differentiate that over there in Sief ches it is different. Since the water inside the vessel itself was from the mayan and also now the water is dripping into the vessel and they are connected to the mayan above it. Whereas over here in our Sief the original waters were drawn water and it is not currently connected to the spring even through an intermediary vessel.


כב. ומ”מ אין לטבול בו רק באשבורן.

זה מיירי ע”כ שהמעיין היה עומד בלי זחילה תחילה  – This is obviously in a situation where the mayan was originally stationary  דאם לא כן מותר אף בזוחלין – For if not, the mayan was originally flowing with movement, then even if the water was now flowing it would be permitted to immerse in it. For as the Taz explained earlier that the only reason we are worried about trickling water being greater than the river/mayan water is when we’re worried about the snow and rain melting it falls from high places near the edge of the river (but not directly from the actual river.) However, in our Seif when there is no such worry, even a small amount of mayan water will validate drawn water for immersion in flowing water.  כדאיתא במשנה שהבאתי לפני זה – As I brought down in the Mishna previously.


אלא דמ”ש כאן דלא עדיף מנהרות שרבו על הנוטפין כו’ הוא תמוה – However, this that is written here from the RamoAs this is no better than a river in which the majority is rain water more than the flowing water.” Is not understood (according to the way the Taz explained)   דההיא דנהרות על כרחך טעמא אחרינא אית ביה לאיסור  – For there by the rivers it is obviously a different reason why we are worried and is therefore invalid   דאם לא כן תקשה ההיא דנהרות על מעיין שהמשיכו לבריכה שנזכר בסעיף י’ כמה שכתוב שם – For if not, there is an obvious question as to why a Mayan in Seif yud is different than the case of the rivers.    וע”כ צריכין לחלק כמו שכתבתי בסעיף ב’ לעיל ע”ש – It is therefore obvious that we must differentiate between them as I wrote there in Seif beis.


סעיף יב


Mishnah 5:2

הֶעֱבִירוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי כֵלִים אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי סַפְסָל, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הוּא כְמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הוּא כְמִקְוֶה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַטְבִּיל עַל גַּבֵּי הַסַּפְסָל

If it the spring was led to pass over vessels or over a bench, Rabbi Yehuda says: it is thereby still as it was the status of the spring is unchanged.


Rabbi Yose says: it is thereby like a mikveh, so long as one does not immerse over the bench.


מעין שהעבירו על גבי אחורי כלים והמשיכו למקום אחר – A spring that was diverted over the undersides of vessels and ran on to another area    חזר להיות לו דין מקוה, ובלבד שלא יטבול על אחורי כלים ממש – returns to having the laws of a mikvah, on the condition that one does not immerse on the undersides of the vessels themselves.



כג. על גבי אחורי כלים

נראה דזה מיירי שהמעיין עובר כולו על גבי אחורי כלים ואין עובר כלל על צדדיו  – It seems that this situation is when the mayan flows completely on the underside of the vessel and not on the sides of the vessel דאם לא כן ודאי היה על הכל דין מעיין – For if not, if it were to partially go inside or on the side of the vessel, it would definitely still be considered a mayan   כמו בדין דמעיין מקלח על שפת הכלי שנזכר בסעיף ח’  – Just as the halacha mentioned in Seif ches concerning a spring that trickles onto the edge of a vessel.

והטעם דהוה כאן כמקוה אע”פ שאין כאן שאובין דהא אין עוברין תוך הכלי   – And the reason why this is so, i.e. the water is now considered like a mikvah and not like a mayan, even though there is no drawn water, as it did not pass through a vessel

– ורבי יהודה ס”ל באמת במשנה דהוי כמעיין – Which even Rabbi Yehudah in the Mishnah considered this water as mayan water.  אלא שרבי יוסי ס”ל דהוה כמקוה – And Rabbi Yosi holds that this water is considered like a mikvah. And this is the Halacha.

ונראה טעמו – The reasoning seems to be:כיון שהכלי מפסיק בין המעיין להמים היורדים מן על גביו של אחורי כלים נפסק שם מעיין ממנו – Since the vessel separates between the mayan and the water falling off the underside of the vessel, it is then that it looses it’s status as mayan water.

ולא יטבול על גבי אחורי כלים ממש – And one should not immerse on the undersides of the vessels themselves.  This is because:  דשם אין שום הפסק והיה ראוי להיות שם אפי’ דין מעיין  – Since over there, on the underside, there is no disconnect from the mayan, and therefore should have been considered as if it’s mayan water and would be kosher for immersion מ”מ פסלו לגמרי לטבול שם  – Nonetheless, it is prohibited from immersing there  מטעם גזירה שמא יטבול תוך כלי – As a gezierah, lest one comes to immerse inside the vessel itself. Although it should have been permitted, we prohibit it in case one would learn from immersing on the underside of a vessel to validate immersion inside a vessel.

וראיתי בפרישה דרך הג”ה וז”ל – And I saw that the Prisha writes: צ”ל דנפסק הקילוח מהמעיין דאם לא כן לא היה לה דין מקו’ אלא מעיין עכ”ל – We must say that our halacha over here is in a situation where the trickle was stopped from the mayan. For if not, it would not be considered a Mikvah rather a mayan  והוא טעות גמור דאם כן היאך אמר רבי יהודה בזה דהוה מעיין – And this is a mistake. For if so, what is the argument of the Mishnah where Rabbi Yehudah says it’s like a mayan and Rabbi Yosi argues…. Obviously if the trickle stopped it’s not like a mayan according to all opinions…

סעיף יג


Preface:                                                                Mishnah 5:5

הַזּוֹחֲלִין, כְּמַעְיָן. וְהַנּוֹטְפִים, כְּמִקְוֶה

Flowing water sources are like a spring and dripping water sources are like a mikveh.



מעין שיורד מההר טיפין טיפין בהפסק, – A spring that goes down from the mountain drop by drop with breaks in between drops   יש לו דין מקוה  – has the rules of a mikvah. It needs 40 seah and stationary water to be valid for immersion.   אלא אם כן יורד בקילוח בלא הפסק – However, if it is an unbroken trickle, the stream/trickle never stops it would then be considered like a mayan.


סעיף יד


Mishnah 5:5

נוֹטְפִים שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן זוֹחֲלִין, סוֹמֵךְ אֲפִלּוּ מַקֵּל, אֲפִלּוּ קָנֶה, אֲפִלּוּ זָב וְזָבָה, יוֹרֵד וְטוֹבֵל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר,

כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה, אֵין מַזְחִילִין בּו

הר”ש: כגון מקוה שנפרץ על שפתו ומימיו יוצאין וזוחלין, סוֹמֵךְ אֲפִלּוּ מַקֵּל, אֲפִלּוּ קָנֶה. סומכין ביד או ברגל וסותמין מקום יציאת המים, ועומדים במקום אחד ונעשין אשבורן ויורד הטמא וטובל.


Regarding a dripping source that was made into a flowing source i.e. if it was somehow breached, one may put even a stick, or even a reed, or even a zav or a zavah beside it the breach, in order to seal it off, and one may then descend and immerse as into a mikveh of gathered waters, this is according to Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yose says – anything which can be rendered impure even a person who is nota zav or a zavah, one cannot use it to stop the flowing.


נוטפין שעשאן זוחלין, – Dripping water, mentioned above that is only considered Kosher as a mikvah that became flowing water   כגון שסמך למקום המנטף טבלא של חרס חלקה והרי המים זוחלים ויורדים עליה  – Such as if next to the place that it was dripping there was a tablet of smooth clay and thus the trickle is now a stream of flowing  water thus making it into an unbroken trickle   הרי הם כשרים they are kosher as a mayan.


וכל דבר שמקבל טומאה, ואפילו מדברי סופרים, – And anything that is susceptible to impurity, and even only on a rabbinic level,    אין מזחילין בו. – one may not use it to create a streaming flow.


וזוחלין שקלחן בעלי אגוז, כשרים – And flowing water which was made to run in a stream through nut leaves ostensibly a vessel which is susceptible to impurity, is valid.