New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

Seawater immersion

שו”תCategory: Talmudic studySeawater immersion
asked 3 weeks ago

The Gemara in Tractate Makot (4) says regarding a barrel full of water that fell into the Great Sea, that one who bathed there did not incur a baptism. Some of the early scholars consider a barrel full of “wine” because there is a law of immersion in water, as opposed to wine.
But the Ritva cites the Rav, who cites Rabbi Moshe the preacher, that a barrel of fresh water that fell into the Great Sea, whose waters are salty, is not considered water because they do not mix with each other. Therefore, he rules out a barrel full of “water.”
His words seem puzzling, since the law of irrigation is like ‘sowing,’ meaning that the reason is not because they interfere with each other, but rather that they become connected, but everything remains in its place, like sowing.
(Even his argument that they should mix with each other is puzzling, as ultimately the molecular structure of seawater is the same as freshwater, except that it is a solution of H2O, sodium, etc., meaning that in terms of the mixture it is the same thing).
Is there a way to reconcile their words? Ultimately, it is a halachic issue whether or not there was a baptism, with the strict interpretation being based on an error in both reasoning and facts.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 3 weeks ago

In your opinion, the explanation of intervention is not clear at all. All the nomads interfere with each other.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In your opinion, the reasoning behind the interference is not clear at all. Any two liquids mix with each other (except water and oil perhaps). It is quite clear that the intention is that if they are not of the same type, they cannot be considered a single unit even if they are touching. Therefore, I see no problem with these explanations.

Yoyo replied 3 weeks ago

It's not clear to me, what defines ‘the same type’?
In the same way, one could say that pumped water is not the same type.
If it is a matter of fact (which is what the Ritva claims there), then sea water is ‘the same type’. And if it is a matter of halakhic law, then pumped water is also not ‘the same type’.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button