- biur halacha explains (i think 328) that today going to the mikveh is worse and better. Worse, because it is more obvious that one is going to the mikveh since our minhag is not to bath on shabbos; and better because out tevilah doesn't accomplish anything halachically since a baal kery can learn and daven. Therefore, there is a great debate in poskim if today a baal kery is allowed to go dip.
- the biur halacha says that according to everyone it seems permissible if one became a baal kery on shabbos or y"t and his proof is our gemara that if one becomes tame on y"t then the braysa says (acc to rashi and tos) that one is allowed to go to mikveh.
- my question is, in our gemara the reason this is allowed is because becoming tameh on y"t for a dish is not common and chachamim didn't make a gzeira, but becoming a baal kery is common so it seems that he has no proof from our gemara. i mamash dont chap?
Monday, November 13, 2006
beitza 18 - man going to the mikvah today on shabbos
biur halacha and a question on him:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The gemara only comes onto the answer of not being common, in order to explain why we don't make a gezeira in all cases. but the distinction between becoming tameh on yom tov or before, is as rashi explains, we are more meikil if you had not possibility of being tovel before yom tov. therefore, according to rava that the issur is bec. of tikun kli, it obviously includes both shabbos and yom tov equally. so there is no need to say that we extend the gezeira from shabbos to yom tov, and the question of "umi gazrinan" from all the 5 cases doesn't begin and we do not have to come onto the answers of them being uncommon at all. therefore, the only reason to be meikil when something becomes tamei on yom tov is bec. it could not have been done before, and the same would apply to a ba'al keri as the biur halacha points out.
great point thanks, but you need another step (i think)
acc to reason 1 & 2 you need to come on to this answer of the gemara. so both acc to the rif and rosh we need the answers of the gemara because they hold of either 2 & 3 (rif) or 1 & 4 (rosh).
However, according to everyone the discussion was only on dishes since in those days a man was no problem. so today that a man going to mikveh might be a problem, still we will hold that if he became tame on y"t it is mutar, and we don't have that gzeira of erev y"t because the gemara never said that by a man.
maskim?
i would say it somewhat differently. reason 1 (carrying)and 2 (schita) don't apply to a man at all. reason 3 (shema yish'heh) tosafos also says does not apply to a man. the only reason that applies to a man is 4 (nir'ah kimisaken) which we are only matir based on nir'ah kimaikar. but just as we see that by a kli that became tameh on yom tov we override the concern of nir'ah kimisaken bec. it could not have been done before, so too by a man who saw keri on yom tov, (even without nir'ah kimeikar) we would override the issur of nir'ah kimisaken since it could not have been done before.
agreed! gevalt!
Rav Shlomo Zalman states that nireh kemsaken by a keli is a proof that the keli is a chefetz shel issur kein tumah and not just that tevila is a mitza akarkafta dgavra and before the mitzva, one cant use. Seemingly by a man, it would be a dovor poshut that its nireh kimsaken by a baal keri even more than the keli.
is there a sevara at all that mikvah for a baal keri is not a mesaken?
im not sure what you mean, are you refering to new dishes? that depends on mcahlokes rishonim and we are lenient.
the sevara by a man that he is not fixing is that in our days there is no halachik consequence to the dip as we hold you can daven and learn even with the tumah. (from the biur halacha)
i assume that he was refering to new dishes, which is a mitzvas aseh, and would not assur the food. the rosh is mechadesh that reason #4 of nir'ah kimisaken applies. it would seem that r' shlomo zalman was bothered why the reason should apply since there is really no consequence to the food - it would seem to simply be a mizvah on the person. He would conclude that although there is no consequence to the food, it is considered to be changing the status of the kli itself. however, the opinion of shulchan aruch that one may tovel keilim on shabbos, 323:7, can be simply understood, by saying that there is no change to the status of the kli, just to the persons right to use it (see biur halacha 323:7).
regarding a ba'al keri, it is clear from the biur halacha and m.b. that it is not a tikun since it is not required meikar hadin. It comes out that the more seriously you take the tevilla, the greater the problem to be tovel on shabbos.
correct - yes hes referring to new dishes and id agree with above if there is a chiyuv tevila it is more mesaken
Post a Comment