9. Question:Can we build into the keilim mikva a “safety net” to enable the retrieval of keilim that fall into the mikva? Discussion: The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah Siman 201 Se’if 51) discusses how to combine two mikva’os together, and writes that in order to combine a mikva that is possul (invalid) or choser (lacking the required shiur of 40 se’ah) to a kosher mikva (in order to render the mikva that is possul or choser a kosher mikva by virtue of the connection), the hole connecting the two mikva’os must be the size of a shfoferes hanod (i.e. a circular hole, the diameter of which must be the width of two fingers). The Shulchan Aruch also writes that regarding connecting a mikva choser to a kosher mikva it is possible to combine smaller holes that are each less than shfoferes hanod together, to create the required connection of shfoferes hanod. Although the Shulchan Aruch writes that it is possible to combine different holes that are each smaller than shfoferes hanod together, to create the required connection of shfoferes hanod (regarding connecting a mikva choser to a kosher mikva specifically) without dispute, and neither the Remo nor Taz or Shach argue on this ruling, various Acharonim (Rav Akiva Eiger, Dogul Mervovo, Pischei Teshuva s.k. 37) quote the Chacham Tzvi (Siman 40) who disputes the unanimous ruling of the Shulchan Aruch and maintains that different holes will not combine to create a shfoferes hanod. Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvos v’Hanhogos Volume 3 Siman 257) quotes these opinions and concludes that one should be stringent [in line with the view of the Chacham Tzvi] l’chatchilo, and not rely on combining smaller holes together. Returning to our situation of inserting a “safety net” into a keilim mikva in order to retain any utensil that accidentally falls into the mikva, if the safety net completely divides the mikva horizontally and there does not exist a shi’ur mikva above or below the safety net, the mikva will be possul if there is no hole the size of a shfoferes hanod either in the safety net or adjacent to the net, enabling a shfoferes hanod connection between the upper and lower bodies of water. This is because the Shulchan Aruch clearly rules regarding two mikva’os that are both choser that it is not possible to combine different smaller holes to create the required shfoferes hanod. The only way to validate the mikva in such a scenario is to pierce the safety net in even one place to create a hole the size of a shfoferes hanod. If, however, underneath the safety net there is a shi’ur mikva and above the net there is not a shi’ur mikva we return to the differing views quoted earlier, where the Shulchan Aruch allows smaller holes that combine to create a shfoferes hanod, whereas the Chacham Tzvi argues and requires a single hole the size of shfoferes hanod. Since tevilas keilim (of metal utensils, and according to the majority of Rishonim) is min hatorah, it would be prudent to follow the view of the Chacham Tzvi and ensure that there exists a single hole the size of a shfoferes hanod that connects the two bodies of water. One other point that should be mentioned regarding safety nets in keilim mikva’os, is that care also must be taken to ensure that the safety net does not contravene the halocho prohibiting tevila on top of a kli (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah Siman 198 Se’if 31). If the shape or formation of the safety net constitutes a kli, this will pose a serious issue and may invalidate the tevila. Instead, care should be taken to ensure that the safety net first of all contains a hole the size of shfoferes hanod, and second of all a basic net is used that does not constitute a kli (c.f. Teshuvos v’Hanhogos ibid). Conclusion: Regarding the insertion of a safety net into a keilim mikva to enable the retrieval of keilim that fall into the mikva, one should ensure that the safety net first of all contains a hole the size of shfoferes hanod, and second of all that a basic net is used that does not constitute a kli. |
Mikva’os
Leave a Reply