quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

The rain water which ran down the sides of the wall from the roof top was conducted thence by the aid of grooves carved into the floor of the courtyard, until it emptied itself into the ablution.

David: is there any discussion of requiring a sloping grade to the floor? Or perhaps the bottom of the grooves were required to get deeper as it got closer to the mikvah?

I understand that there is a problem if any part of the conduits are flat, that water can collect, and disqualify the mikvah. Have I understood this correctly?

Rob,

I think the grooves in the floor are only for convenience sake. Rain water that had trickled down from a flat floor into the mikveh would not disqualify the mikveh. This can be inferred from the Gemara in Shabbat 16b. There, the Rabbis exposited on Mishnah Mikvaoth 4:1, where it says that if someone intended to collect rain water by setting a large vessel beneath the open sky (on a day when there was a forecast for rain), when those rains eventually come and fill up the vessel to the point where it overflows and runs along the floor, spilling itself into a mikveh that lay nearby, such waters would disqualify the mikveh. For such waters, although they ran along the floor, would have the same status as "drawn water" (מים שאובים) which disqualify a mikveh. The reason being that they originated from a vessel. Yet, had those same waters not fallen into the vessel at all, but only ran along the floor until they drained into the mikveh, this would have been fine.

Sincerely,
David

quote:

Yet, had those same waters not fallen into the vessel at all, but only ran along the floor until they drained into the mikveh, this would have been fine.

That is precisely my concern... if there is a dip in the ground which holds water like a puddle (envision an old paved driveway with several years of frosts and thaws) if rain water flows into such a standing puddle and then from there into the mikvah, is that any less bad than flowing over the surface of a filled vessel intended to catch rain water, and from there across the ground into the mikvah?

Is this the same thing as a warped nearly horizontal rain gutter which sags down and collects rain, and then when it rains again new rain water flows through the area of the warp and mixes with the putrid water and pushes some putrid water out?

Unless there is a principle to go with the majority of water, I am not sure how these are different, except that surely a driveway dip is connected permanently to the ground. Arguably a rain gutter is connected permanently to a roof of a house which is so connected to the ground.

I understand that in Israel some people install metal barrels on the roof to catch rain water or other water and heat them in the sun. Has there been any ruling as to whether such barrels are connected to ground or are stand along vessels?

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:

quote:

Originally posted by AharonBenjamin:
David are you a Yemanite Jew yourself?

A Jew I am; a Yemenite, not yet. I would have been proud and privileged to have been born a Yemenite Jew. I settled for second best, though. I married a Yemenite woman!

David

Good choice. Those are kein eyin hara, amazing people.

B"H

Rob,

Mishnah Mikvaoth 4:3 teaches us that if a plank was stationary on the rooftop, and one carved a groove into the wood for the conducting of water, even if the rain water had fallen and become stagnant within the nooks and cranies of the wood, this would NOT invalidate a mikveh. The problem arises when one takes a loose plank, carves a groove into the wood, and then fixes it on the roof. Such a plank would take on the name of a "vessel," rendering the rain waters that passed through it invalid. It is the same with metal gutters, &c.

So, to answer your question about the floor, since the floor is stationary, it matters very little to us if there be chips in the floor pavement into which water was collected. Moreover, had there even been a case where someone accidentally spilt a glass of regular drinking water into the mikveh, it would take at least 3 logs of drawn water to disqualify a mikveh, which same logs have the liquid capacity of 18 medium-sized eggs. (see: Shabbat 15a)

As for the "metal barrels," since they were first made as vessels and then installed upon the roof, these could not be used in collecting rain water for a mikveh. They could still use the water, however, for ordinary bathing.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

The problem arises when one takes a loose plank, carves a groove into the wood, and then fixes it on the roof. Such a plank would take on the name of a "vessel," rendering the rain waters that passed through it invalid. It is the same with metal gutters,

A metal gutter is just a C-shaped channel, and I think these days are fabricated from flat sheet metal in a roll... it is never designed to contain water, only to direct it.

Are you saying that there is a psak that no metal gutter channel can ever be used to channel water even if it is attached stationary to a house roof before it becomes capable of holding water?

And what about your stationary plank with grooves cut into it... if that plank, carved in place, is removed, for a repair underneath perhaps, and then replaced, or blew off in a big wind, did it pass through the intermediate state of being a stand alone vessel, and thus not permissible any longer to be a mikvah part?

B"H
I do recall seeing a pesak that said ordinary cylindrical pipes (open ended on both sides) are not considered vessels in the pure sense of the word, since they are not made to contain water. However, the gutters and drain pipes used today on our roofs have in addition to their cylindrical shapes, a rectangular shaped conduit that runs along the edge of the roof, and often closed at one end. These channels can very easily contain water. This, taken into account with the fact that they were fixed to the roof, and not carved from the roof, makes their use forbidden.
For this reason, they did not make use of drain pipes in Yemen.
David

David,
Can you give us the basic ABC rules on constructing a mikveh. I know this is a delicate process but you put up a post earlier showing how we could construct one. Those were the instructions. Can you enumerate the basic short form rules.

Quote "What do you mean there would be no problem with the food? If I can eat food from un-toyveled utensils just as well as toyveled utensils, why bother toyvel then?"

The Toyvelling is an obligation on the utensil. They places a fine not to use the utensil until the Mitzvah on it was fulfilled. But B'Dieved, we don't fine him that much to prohibit the food.

Quote "As to your question, "Can a large rain puddle do?" The first Mishnah in Mikvaoth speaks specifically about puddles of water (Heb. מי גבאים). There, we learn that these puddles usually do not hold forty seahs of water, and that they could only be used, say, for drawing-up water in a vessel to wash one's hands, etc. but not for immersing vessels. However, if one were to immerse vessels within them while it was raining, such an immersion (Tovila) would be considered valid. (see: Maimonides' Hilchot Mikwaoth)"

Where is that Rambam? All I found concerning this is Mishna 4 there that says while it rains the "Mei Gabayim" is Tahor. The Rambam explains that even if it was Tamei before, the Tahor rain is more than it and Mivatel (annuls) it. In YD 120:1 says that you can only Toivel in a Mikvah of 40 Sa'ah.

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:

quote:

6. If you can't toyvel them, is it permissible to sell them to a goy then borrow them for your use?

I know people who rely on this in order to avoid tovelling electronic things like toasters.

Question: Is it okay if the non-Jew is aware of this "loop hole" (as we see by Hilchos Shabbos that one is allowed to ask the Goy in certain conditions and ways of asking, to turn off a light or turn on the radiator for example, only if the Goy is not aware that it is forbidden [hope i'm making sense here])?

Secondly, what about the answer to the toiveling of electronics, by waiting 24-48 hours before using, once toiveled?

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
In YD 120:1 says that you can only Toivel in a Mikvah of 40 Sa'ah.

Rav Chaim,

Every posek agrees that not only a mikveh would render cleanness to persons and vessels, but also a running spring, or a lake, or an ocean, etc. The first Mishnah in Mikvaoth lists by grade the different bodies of water that are valid in immersions. Although, there, a puddle of water does not usually hold 40 seahs, and therefore one cannot immerse himself or vessels within it. During a rain storm, the situation becomes different according to Maimonides. In Hilkoth Mikvaoth 9:1, he writes:

ט' א
שש מעלות במקוות, זו למעלה מזו. הראשון מי גבאים, ומי בורות שיחין ומערות, וכיוצא בהן ממים המכונסין בקרקע. אף על פי שהן שאובין, ואף על פי שאין בהן ארבעים סאה--הואיל ואינן מיטמאין אלא לרצון, כמו שביארנו--הרי הן בחזקת טהורין וכשרים לעשות מהן עיסה הטבולה לחלה, וליטול מהן לידיים, והוא שייטול מהן בכלי, כמו שיתבאר.

Here, it is clear that one could draw water from such puddles to wash his hands. But we do not find any reference about immersing vessels within such puddles. Yet, had the puddle contained 40 seahs of rain water, it would have been valid to immerse vessels therein.
Obviously, my statement should be corrected to rather read: "...if one were to immerse vessels within them after a heavy rain fall that filled the puddles to a capacity of 40 seahs, such an immersion (Tovila) would be considered valid."

David

Quote""...if one were to immerse vessels within them after a heavy rain fall that filled the puddles to a capacity of 40 seahs, such an immersion (Tovila) would be considered valid."

I agree. But with those big puddles, your boots need to come up to your armpits

After seeing an interview on A7's Israeli Salad about an approach to building in-home mikvahs, I tried to find out more about practical matters.

Based on Reb David's description of an attached plank, I think this question is still worth asking:

If someone has an asphault shingle roof with slopes, and they build onto it some sort of rain collection system, perhaps using the lime approach described, is there anything about the water running over the roof shingles before getting to the collection system which would disqualify the water from being used in an in-home or at-home vessel mikvah or person mikvah?

A diverter and collector system in this fashion would be further up the roof slope than the metal or vinyl rain gutters I previously described, and could be at quite an angle within the roof slope that there is no chance of puddling.

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Quote""...if one were to immerse vessels within them after a heavy rain fall that filled the puddles to a capacity of 40 seahs, such an immersion (Tovila) would be considered valid."

I agree. But with those big puddles, your boots need to come up to your armpits

You don't need boots that reach the armpits - just wear a bodysuit!

quote:

Originally posted by rob:
If someone has an asphalt shingle roof with slopes, and they build onto it some sort of rain collection system, perhaps using the lime approach described, is there anything about the water running over the roof shingles before getting to the collection system which would disqualify the water from being used in an in-home or at-home vessel mikvah or person mikvah?

Rob,
Are shingles considered vessels to disqualify the mikveh? I would think that shingles are not considered vessels, and that once they were made stationary on the rooftop, you could easily plaster them in such a way as to conduct water to be used in a mikveh. You may want to ask a posek about this to be certain.

David

I don't believe that flat areas in the grooves themselves would disqualify the mikveh. The only problem I could see is that if the water could get "contaminated" thus making the water tameh, then it could be a problem.
Someone just asked me if a deep puddle from a rainstorm could be used for toveling (kalim). I don't know the answer to that, but I don't see, based on the simple explanations of toveling, that this would be a problem as long as it was pure rain water.
CHAIM

Once the Oylum is into Hilchus T’vilas Keilim, I’ll write some of the Sugyos.

YD 120:1

The Mishna/Gemarah in AZ 75b with the paraphrasing of Kollel Iyun Hadaf.

(a) (Mishnah): If one buys from a Nochri a utensil

used for food:

1. If it does not need to be Kashered, it suffices to

immerse it;

2. If boiling liquids are cooked in it, it is Kashered

through Hag'alah;

b) (Gemara - Beraisa): All of these must be immersed

in a Mikveh of 40 Sa'im

(c) Question: What is the source of this?

(d) Answer (Rava): "Kol Davar Asher Yavo ba'Esh

Ta'aviru ba'Esh *v'Taher*" - the Torah requires an

additional Taharah after Kashering.

(e) Question (Bar Kapara): Since it says "B'Mei Nidah

Yischata" (which refers to sprinkling with Mei Chatas

(water on which ashes of the Parah Adumah were put)),

perhaps one must sprinkle on it on the third and

seventh day!

(f) Answer: "Ach" excludes this (unless the vessel is

Tamei Mes).

(g) Question: If so, why does it say "B'Mei Nidah"?

(h) Answer: This teaches that he must immerse it in

water that a Nidah could immerse in, i.e. a Mikveh of

40 Sa'im.



The Yerushalmi says that the reason for the T’vila is to bring the utensil out of the Tumah of a Goy to the T’hara of a Yisrael.

This that we learn from "Mei Nidah", the Smak learns that even by a spring, where to remove Tumah from utensils doesn’t need a certain amount, over here for T’veilah for eating needs 40 Saah. Since by a spring, for a human (Nidah, needs 40 Sa’ah, so too utensils that are Toiveled for eating on.

For the material of the utensils are dealt in the following Gemarah.

(n) R. Yitzchak bar Yosef thought to immerse a vessel

made of dirt (that he bought from a Nochri).

(o) R. Ya'akov: The Parshah only discusses metal

vessels (nothing else need be immersed).

(p) (Rav Ashi): Since glass vessels can be (melted

and) made again if they break, they resemble metal

vessels, they require immersion.

Thus metal utensils are obligated from the Torah and glass Midirabannan.

Porcelain, although it’s smooth as glass, since it cannot be melted down and fixed, doesn’t need T’vila (Pischai T’shuva in the name of the Yaavetz)

If the utensils were subsequently was attached to the ground, it would still need T’vila (and since it’s impossible, it must be given to a Goy or broken to the point that it’s not considered a utensil anymore and a Yisroel fix it.) This is learnt from a Gemarah in Chulin 16 That regarding various Halachos that things that are detached and then attached has a Halacha of detached. So to by these utensils, they keep there status of a detached utensil though it’s attached to the ground.

The Gemarah in AZ continues

(q) (Rav Acha or Ravina): The law of an earthenware

vessel plated with lead is like the law of the

original vessel (earthenware, it need not be

immersed);

(r) (The other of Rav Acha and Ravina): It has the law

of the plating (metal, it must be immersed).

1. The Halachah is, it has the law of the plating.

There are three Shitos Rishonim in this

The Tosfos and Rosh says it depends on if the inside of the utensil has a metal plating, since that is what touches the food

The Mordichai says even the outside was plated, since the utensil is now a "metal plated utensil"

The Ran says that it needs to be completely plated from the inside and outside to be considered plated and make it loose the being of the middle which is earthenware.

The Halacha is to Toivel in all cases but not to make a Bracha unless it’s plate inside and out. If it’s not really plated, but just glazed, Rav Akiva Eiger says you should Toivel without a Bracha. (Shach says that you should L’chatchila Toivel with other utensils in order that their Bracha should also go on this utensil.)

quote:

Rav Akiva Eiger says you should Toivel without a Bracha. (Shach says that you should L’chatchila Toivel with other utensils in order that their Bracha should also go on this utensil.)

If one is in doubt as to whether a vessel has been toiveled, can one toivel it out of doubt with a bracha?

How about if one is certain it was previously toiveled, but is definitely of a type requiring a bracha for toivel, could such a vessel be toiveled with a bracha so that another which does not necessarily need to be toiveled can be toiveled without its own bracha?

quote:

If the utensils were subsequently was attached to the ground, it would still need T’vila (and since it’s impossible, it must be given to a Goy or broken to the point that it’s not considered a utensil anymore and a Yisroel fix it.)

Is this similar to the reasoning above for a movable object fastened permanently to the roof and subsequently carved out to be a rain channel?

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

Rav Akiva Eiger says you should Toivel without a Bracha. (Shach says that you should L’chatchila Toivel with other utensils in order that their Bracha should also go on this utensil.)

If one is in doubt as to whether a vessel has been toiveled, can one toivel it out of doubt with a bracha?

How about if one is certain it was previously toiveled, but is definitely of a type requiring a bracha for toivel, could such a vessel be toiveled with a bracha so that another which does not necessarily need to be toiveled can be toiveled without its own bracha?

Rob,

The answer to both these questions is an unequivocal "No."

There is a general rule about berakhoth (blessings): "Sefek berakhoth lahakel." "Dubious blessings are to be taken leniently," which, for all practical purposes, means that whenever there is a doubt about a requisite to make a tovilla (immersion) one does not make the beracha over it.

Another general rule about berakhoth is that we are admonished not to make an unnecessary blessing (Beracha lavatalah). For instance, a vessel that has already been immersed with its designated beracha, and nothing happened in the meantime to render that vessel unclean, one cannot come along and take it up again to be re-immersed alongside another vessel whose blessing was of a doubtful nature.

Sincerely,
David