BS”D

Shiur 11- April 30, 2019

1- We began to learn Seif 15.

The fist part discusses the ‘power of a Kosher Mikvah”. Meaning that a proper Mikva –  [whether made Kosher by being a מעין  (even with just a trickle of water, כל שהוא) or 40 סאה  of rain water] – cannot become פסול by adding more water- even מים שאובים. This rule applies even if the מים שאובים that is added is by far greater in volume than the original amount of water that was in the Mikvah.

Here is the Shulchan Aruch:

סעיף טו

Mechaber

מקוה שיש בו ארבעים סאה, ומעין כל שהוא, יכול לשאוב כל מה שירצה ליתן לתוכה והם כשרים, אע”פ שהם רבים על המים שהיו בתוכה תחלה – A mikvah that has 40 seah, and a spring of any size, one may pour any amount of drawn water into them and they are kosher, even though the quantity is greater than the water originally in there.

2- So now we have a Mikvah that began with, say, 40 סאה  of rain water. Then one added 1000 (or more) סאה of tap water, this Mikvah is 100% Kosher.

Note: If one begins to take out water from this Mikvah, it becomes an issue, as we discussed in the past and will learn more about in the future.

Now, what happens if this Mikvah overflows into another pool? The Halachah is that this pool is considered a proper Mikvah.

 

3-The above is true if the original Mikvah is one with מים גשמים.  

What about a spring – a מעין? For example a well, that had water flowing at the bottom and one added 1000 gallons to raise the water level. Is this well is a proper Mikvah with all the properties of a מעין?

The Halachah is that it is not 100% a מעין. It would not be Kosher if it begins to overflow and its water is still flowing out of the second pool. – זוחלין.

Here is the ש”ך.

ש”ך

מא) והם כשרים

ואם הלכו אותן המים שהשליכו במעיין למקום חסר שלא היה בו כלום יש מתירים ג”כ לטבול בו עכ”ל רבינו ירוחם ומביאו ב”י – The Beis Yosef quotes Rabeinu Yerucham – That if after adding drawn water to a mayan this water then continued to fill an empty pit/hole that previously had nothing inside. There are those who validate it for immersion.  ומשמע דיש אוסרים והלכך טוב להחמיר – However it seems that there are those who invalidate it and therefore it is best to be stringent.

 מיהו נראה דדוקא במקוה חסר שלא היה בו כלום – However, it’s only best to be stringent when the pit/hole was completely empty beforehand  אבל במקוה חסר כל שהוא יותר ונשאר שם כ”א סאין אינו פוסל המקוה לכ”ע דרובא בהמשכה כשרה כדלקמן סעיף מ”ד – But if it was only a mikvah missing an small amount and there was at least 21 seah  it does not invalidate it according to all opinions as the majority was done through hamshacha that was kosher. As will be explained later in Seif 44:

4- So the overflow of this מעין is פסול בזוחלין. What about the other property of a מעין  which is that it does not need to be at least 40 סאה?  

That is the topic of the next ש”ך. He quotes sources that for טבילת כלים,  this מעין can indeed be used even if it has less than 40 סאה. So what we have is a new category of מעין.  

זוחלין: no.

כל שהוא : yes!

 

מב) אע”פ שהן רבים כו

וכתב ב”י בשם הרמב”ם והרא”ש מיהו נתבטל מהמעיין דין זוחלין אלא מטהר באשבורן דוקא – The Beis Yosef writes from the Ramba”m and Rosh – Although adding drawn water does not invalidate the mayan, in one regard it nonetheless cancels as a mayan – to validate immersion while in motion. Whereas a mayan is kosher while moving, this mayan only purifies when stationary.    וכ”כ הב”ח לדעת הטור וכ”כ בד”מ לדעת הטור ומביאו בהגהת דרישה סעיף כ”ה וכבר ביאר זה הרב בסעיף י”א – And so too the Bac”h writes in the name of the Tur and the Drisha brings it as well. As the Ramo already previously clarified in seif 11.

 

So now the question is why doesn’t the Shulchan Aruch mention this leniency of טבילת כלים not requiring 40 סאה? So the Sha”ch says something that is very fundamental – he answers that all of הלכות מקוואות are only referring to the Halachos of טומאה וטהרה. And since these Halachos are not practiced these days, there is no need to mention that כלים can be immersed in such a מעין that has less than 40 סאה.

 

However, טבילת כלים  for dishes and pots purchased from a non-Jew that requires a Mikvah immersion one does indeed need 40 סאה even in a well or spring- מעין!! As is mentioned in Shulchan Aruch Y”D 120.

Here is the Sha”ch.

ומ”מ מבואר דדין מעיין עליו לטבילת כלים בכל שהוא  – However it is regarded as a mayan to validate immersion for vessels with any amount, even less than 40 seah

והמחבר לא ביאר זה דהוי מעיין לטבילת כלים בכל שהוא וכן בכמה מקומות בסימן זה כגון בסעיף ב’ וסעיף ה’ וסעיף י’ וי”א ושאר מקומות היה לו לבאר ולא ביאר – Yet the Mechaber did not explain this ruling in regard to vessels, [which he should have] neither here nor in many places in this siman even when discussing this topic such as in seif , 5, 10, 11  והיינו משום דכיון דטומאה וטהרה אינו נוהג בינינו לא שייכא טבילת כלים האידנא – Because the laws of purity are not practiced by us, therefore there was no need to discuss laws regarding immersing vessels.

 ובכלים הנקחים מן העובדי כוכבים באמת קי”ל דצריך ג”כ מ’ סאה כמו אדם כמו שנתבאר בריש סי’ ק”כ ע”ש – And vessels that are purchased from gentiles need 40 seah just as with humans. As was explained in siman 120 see there.

5- We learnt the text of the Shulchan Aruch Y”D 120.

הקונה מהעובד כוכבים כלי סעודה של מתכו’ או של זכוכית או כלים המצופים באבר מבפנים אף על פי שהם חדשים צריך להטבילם במקוה או מעיין של ארבעים סאה (טור בשם סה”מ ועב”י): הגה י”א דכלים המצופים באבר אפילו בפנים יטבול בלא ברכה (ב”י בשם סמ”ק וארוך) וכן נוהגין:

One who acquires from an idol worshiper a meal vessel of metal or glass or vessels or covered in lead from the inside – even though they are new one must immerse them in a mikvah or a stream that is forty se’ot. GLOSS: There are those who says that vessels that are covered in lead even on the inside are immersed in a mikvah without a blessing, and this is our custom.

6- We discussed the pronunciation of the word אבר (Avur) and  מתכות (Matuchos).

We learned the Ta”z that explains the reasoning that we need to טובל  glass.

From there we digressed to the famous Machlokes between the Sefardim and Ashkenazim in regards to glass. Whereas the former hold that it is never בולע and the latter that it can never be Kashered!

We also discussed the properties of the new invention of Stainless Steel – invented in 1913 – which perhaps is not בולע.

See here Orach Chaim 451.

כלי זכוכית אפי’ מכניסן לקיום ואפילו משתמש בהם בחמין אין צריכים שום הכשר שאינם בולעים ובשטיפה בעלמא סגי להו. הגה ויש מחמירים ואומרים דכלי זכוכית אפי’ הגעלה לא מהני להו וכן המנהג באשכנז ובמדינות אלו (סמ”ג ואגור) וכן כלי כסף שיש בתוכן התוך זכוכית שקורין גשמעלצ”ט אין להגעילו אבל מבחוץ אינו מזיק. (תה”ד סימן קלב):

…Glass containers, even if one put [chametz] inside for an extended amount of time, and even if they are used with hot food, do not need any kashering, because they do not absorb. Normal washing is sufficient for them.

Rem”a: There are those who are stringent and say that even scouring does not work for glass objects, and such is the practice in Ashkenaz and in in these lands (Sma”k and Agur). Silver objects that have glass lining inside called “gishmaltzt” should not be scoured, but if it is on the outside, it does not damage [the kosher status of] the object (Trumat HaDeshen chapter 132).