Talk:Mikveh

message: Toivelling?  Men using it after a "nocturnal emission?"  Going further into the phrase: "Some men, especially in Hasidic circles, also use the mikvah regularly, either daily, before Shabbat, or before certain Jewish holidays." would  be nice.  People do use the Mikveh, regularly, and the way the article looks now, you'd think it was a dead practice.
For Toivelling, I found a good article via Google:
http://www.northcliffshul.co.za/mikvah.htm
	— 
				
			<TALKJNDRLINETALK>     
	 23:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be a more direct source available for tevilas Ezra. JFW | T@lk 13:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tevila 

message: The correct name is Mikveh. I suggest we move the page there. DMTsurel 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to mikveh 

message: Currently section on this Boston organization has no sources other than its own web site. Previously the section made a number of claims about it, including that the organization has led to a renaissance in Mikva use among Conservative Jews. Removed those claims for the time being. As an FYI any mention of the organization at all requires verification including independent evidence of the organization's notability based on reliable sources. An organization's own web site can be used to present the organization's positions on issues, but not for claims about its notability, impact on society, etc. Will have to delete this whole section unless appropriate sources are found. Sorry about this. --Shirahadasha 07:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayim Hayyim-- Need sources 

message: I'm looking for the opportunity to link to a description of an ancient miqweh which includes the logic of the otsar to "refresh" the miqweh. Otsarim are to be seen at Masada, Gamla, etc. What should I do here, suggest an addition on the subject or produce a separate article? Thanks.
--Ihutchesson 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern mikvaot are "refreshed" as well. Things haven't changed, at least in the basic concepts, although the plumbing of course is differently constructed. --Shirahadasha 00:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My interest was in the otsar to do the refreshing. I need to expand what I've added to the Qumran article on the stepped cisterns, thought by many to be miqwa'ot. When the water supply is twice yearly run-off water from the hills, there will be need to refresh the miqwah somehow as the year progresses. Having the otsar seems to have been the standard method...  --Ihutchesson 13:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient miqwa'ot 

message: The article makes the following statement: "A mikvah must contain a minimum of forty se'ah of water, approximately 200 gallons or 750 liters." These values seem too high. According to the Weights and Measures article from the online Jewish Encyclopedia, a se'ah is "equal to six cabs, or 13,184.44 cu. cm." So, at approximately 13.2 liters per se'ah, this comes out to 528 liters or 140 U.S. liquid gallons. Other sources, including Wikipedia's article on se'ah, peg the measure at 7.33 liters (1/3 of a bath), which makes the mikvah even smaller at 293 liters. Anyway, I would appreciate someone justifying the 750 liter value. Tm19 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. Agree the articles present incompatible definitions. Will try to get this sorted out. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an argument between Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz (Chazon Ish) and R' Chaim Na'eh.  The Chazon Ish defined the set of measure in the talmud and mishna as the maximun reasonably possible.  He did this so there would be no doubt using his measure that one is fulfilling his obligations.  R' Chaim Na'eh on the other hand gave the most likely correct measure.  There is significant differences in these measures.  In this case 8.3*40=332 or 14.3*40=572 liters. In general, modern halakha will be stringent like the Chazon Ish measure for biblical laws and be lenient for rabbinical law like R' Chaim Na'eh. In this case, Mikvah is biblical and would probably require the greater measure. In this article someone (an IP address) used 5 gallons per seah which is incorrect. We have an article about Ancient Hebrew units of measurement, but the Hebrew one is better. Jon513 10:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. We're headed in the right direction. I would like to see the footnote in the article expanded a little more. The semi-casual reader might ask, for instance, why the stringent requirement was used. The explanation from Jon513 above is that this higher value is consistent with halakha. It might be better, however, to give a range of possible values, and then link to the corroborating Wikipedia entry. In addition, or alternately, it might be good to note the actual volume (in modern equivalents) of natural water used in contemporary mikvah. Tm19 03:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there is an article specifically on Seah, although currently it's a stub. Perhaps detail on various opinions about what a Seah is should go in the seah article and/or Ancient Hebrew units of measurement with only a range (maximum/minumum) going here and a reference to the other article(s) for additional detail. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. The frustrating thing is that the highest and lowest estimates we've kicked around so far diverge by a factor of 2. Saying that mikva'ot contain anywhere from 293 to 572 liters just doesn't seem very helpful. But maybe that's the nature of the beast, eh? Can anybody get a "real live" example from the local synagogue? Even citing a single case in Cleveland or Tel Aviv would be instructive before moving on to the the theoretical calculations by rabbis, archaeologists, etc. Tm19 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not suppose to be "helpful" to construct a mikvah, but to give an accurate idea of what a mikvah is.  In practice the smaller size is not relevant at all.  It is common place in the case of the mikvah to have the highest possible standards of construction.  Most minority opinions are adhered too in the case of mikvah even thought this is not the regular practice for other areas of halakha.  see  this page  (section "Building a Mikva to the Highest Halachic Standards") for a small sample of sources that say that how stringent construction of a mikvah is.  I do not think that there is any reason to use the lower estimate in this article since it is never used and that discussion of what is the "real" size of a se'ah belongs on another page.  Jon513 19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: By "helpful" I meant, "How could an intelligent but uninformed reader benefit the most from this article?" Such a reader, I would contend (since I'm one of them, well, at least uninformed!), has no idea about these measurements and the internal debates about conversion rates, etc. Your comments above, Jon513, are helpful. From this perspective, I suggest adding a sentence to the footnote along these lines: Although there are a range of conversion values for a seah, Jewish communities will tend to use more stringent standards in order to accommodate a wide range of traditions. See, for example, Howard Jachter, "The Building and Maintenance of Mikvaot." Accessed on March 22, 2007, from http://koltorah.org/ravj/12-1b%20The%20Building%20and%20Maintenance%20of%20Mikvaot%20-%20Part%201.htm  Tm19 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Clarification, the reason for stringency in Orthodox Judaism isn't "to accommodate a wide range of tradition", it's because the obligation of mikvah following niddah or zavah is considered a Biblical obligation and there's a general rule that Biblical obligations are interpreted strictly to ensure one has complied with them. There is particular stringency because immersion in a mikvah ends a women's niddah period, and sexual relations during niddah or zavah is one of the small number of Biblical obligations requiring Self-sacrifice under Jewish Law to avoid transgressing. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tm, I just sent you that link.  Perhaps we both found it, or you had it open and didn't reliaze it was from me. :).  I think that expanding the footnote to explain why the more striengent ruling is used is a good idea. I will do it in a few days if it is not done before than.  However, I think that adding a range of sizes to the main body of the text would be a bad idea.  As the smaller volume is not relied on at all for mikvah it would be missleading to state it; It would be like saying that some rabbis say that chicken fat can be eating with cheese (a minority opinion not observed in over 1500 years!).  The complete discussion of the size of a seah belongs in another artilce. Jon513 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume of Mikvah 

message: Need to discuss Zav/Zavah status (for a zavah, this is basically non-menstrual uteral blood, requires a 7 day waiting period and requires immersion -- it's similar to but technically distinct from niddah, involving normal menstrual blood). Orthodox Judaism requires immersion after zavah status. Conservative Judaism recently changed its viewpoint and put out a number of responsa on the subject, and its viewpoint is now somewhat different from Orthodox Judaism. While retaining the basic concept, they liberalized some of the technical details. In particular, the responsa either limited (e.g. by exempting bleeding due to fertility drugs) or effectively abolished Zavah status, and also reduced the time in the regular menstrual niddah state to a total of seven days rather than 11-12. The Niddah article currently has details but they haven't addressed here. Will get to this.  --Shirahadasha 14:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zavah status and [[Conservative Judaism]] 

message: As far as I know, all Hasidic groups use the mikveh daily, not just before Shabbos; and non-Hasidic Heradim are no more or less likely to use the mikveh before Shabbos than their Daat Leumi counterparts. 212.179.209.103 23:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be great of you could provide a source instead of speaking for experience. Jon513 13:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hasidic Mikvah going

message: A historical Mikvah was just unearthed in Barbados close the the Synagogue.
* Historic find in The City
CaribDigita (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found a story someone may- want to write more about. 

message: Is there any Proof that "generally have wiry curly hair, which is difficult to comb." this is based on what exactly?
in my Experience its Yemenites & ASHKENAZIM which tend to have an afro like texture, In fact the "Jewfro" is an Ashkenazi thing. (Think Gabe Kaplan)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.66 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sephardic Hair 

message: There is a discussion located here on the talk page of the Niddah article that applies to this article as well, as it discusses the inclusion of the external link www.mymikvahcalendar.com. Please use that discussion unless the content specifically applies to this article and not the Niddah article. -shirulashem (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.mymikvahcalendar.com link 

message: Regarding this revert, can someone explain why this article should somehow circumvent WP:SPAM?  Frank    talk  18:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you delete or make a statement that something circumvents WP:SPAM . Read the talk page before and discuss the subject. You obviously didn't read it! Also are you familiar with the definitions or the subject? I suspect no! Then let people who do know the subject do their work. --Ntb613 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to attack, nor to tell me what I "obviously" have or haven't read. The links are spam. You are required to "log in" or "sign up" to read the sites. Instead of attacking me, please explain how that isn't a WP:SPAM link. It has nothing to do with whether money is required; promotion is promotion, whether money exchanges hands or not.  Frank    talk  20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: In particular, please see WP:ELNO (links to avoid) #6, which reads: Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. You may note there's a footnote to that item, which states This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles. Since these are commercial sites, they would not be considered reliable sources, so if the article tried to cite them, it would also not be appropriate.  Frank    talk  20:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is a guideline and not a policy, it is advisory but not compulsory. If there's a policy about this, I was unable to find it. Is it unprecedented to go against a guideline if there is a consensus to do so? -shirulashem(talk) 20:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: In other words, we agree. -shirulashem(talk) 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Shirulashem - How is this done? How many do we need? Do you have a list of Jewish editors who would understand the subject that could be invited?- Ntb613 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The religion or ethnicity of the editors involved is not only irrelevant but looks a lot like WP:FORUMSHOPing. This discussion is about spam links and has nothing whatsoever to do with any religion or ethnicity.  Frank    talk  21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: As Frank mentions, the religion of the editors who will contribute to the discussion is irrelevant. What you could do, however, is leave a note on the talk page of WikiProject Judaism as a courtesy to the members of that WikiProject to let them know that feedback is being sought on an article that is of high-importance to them. However, there is certainly nothing here that would benefit from the input of people who have practical experience with the subject. -shirulashem(talk) 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is unknowable at this time whether or not the resolution of this issue would be benefitted by the input of those who have real life experience with the subject. But certainly anyone of any religious identity has equal standing in resolving this issue. Bus stop (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who has real life experience with this subject, I can tell you that the opinions of people with real life experience with this subject shouldn't carry more weight than those without it. :-D -shirulashem(talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shirulashem - I left a note on project Judaism page, Could you tell me if i did it in a right way? Ntb613 (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not precisely what I would've put, but I think it's fine. You also might want to take a look at this page to request additional input. -shirulashem(talk) 16:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam links 

message: move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikvah → Mikveh — The correct spelling (from Hebrew) is with "e". This is also the most common spelling in English. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support It seems the consensus among sources is to use a segol. Therefore, it should be renamed to Mikveh. -shirulashem(talk) 19:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Even if "a" were more common (but in the same order of usage), we should stick to the correct version. Debresser (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

text: * The argument of the last two editors is correct, and I have made it myself. See below for a Google search result indication that Mikveh is more widespread than Mikvah, and that we should make the move even according to those who cry "oppose". I have also searched Google, and came to the opposite conclusion, that Mikvah is indeed more used in English. But since this is by a factor of less than 2, we can by no means call this "a standard Anglicized name". What we are left with, therefore, is to choose the correct form of the word. Debresser (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  We would leave a redirect, of course. Debresser (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text: So far, a Google scholar search shows 1,950 results for Mikveh and 1,070 for Mikvah. -shirulashem(talk) 00:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support It seems the consensus among sources is to use a segol. Therefore, it should be renamed to Mikveh. -shirulashem(talk) 19:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if "a" were more common (but in the same order of usage), we should stick to the correct version. Debresser (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

text: * The argument of the last two editors is correct, and I have made it myself. See below for a Google search result indication that Mikveh is more widespread than Mikvah, and that we should make the move even according to those who cry "oppose". I have also searched Google, and came to the opposite conclusion, that Mikvah is indeed more used in English. But since this is by a factor of less than 2, we can by no means call this "a standard Anglicized name". What we are left with, therefore, is to choose the correct form of the word. Debresser (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  We would leave a redirect, of course. Debresser (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I think we need a volunteer to search and see which usage, in English, is more common. -shirulashem(talk) 00:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, a Google scholar search shows 1,950 results for Mikveh and 1,070 for Mikvah. -shirulashem(talk) 00:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I get that RM is not necessarily a democracy, but 3 against, 2 for (counting OP), and 1 for a third form was not a result to move when there was no actual evidence that mikveh is more common. (Here's some, but it only applies to American English: mikvah is rapidly becoming dominant in British; taken together it's a wash.) So—given that the page seems to use British English either by design or by forgetting to configure  properly—what was that about? — LlywelynII 15:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: If you're going to give the volume of a mikveh in liters, you should be giving the top-off amount in liters not pints and vice versa.
4.249.63.205 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  mixed measurements 

message: Ḥammān (Islamic baths) are a similar type of ritual purification bath house but it has not got it's own article.  The article Turkish bath exists but it's not generic enough.  Some editor that has much experience on this article and relevant sources already bookmarked able to flesh out a more generic article on Ḥammāns OR make Turkish bath generic enough to cover the whole subject.... possibly suggest a consensus on renaming Turkish bath to Hamman with a redirect from Turkish bath to Hamman? 24.241.69.99 (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ḥammān]]'s  

message: We've got the standard one, which is fine. We've got two forms of it which is probably unnecessary but could probably be explained. (Is the one on the right more ancient/traditional? It should be formatted to clarify that.) Now what are these?  The plural forms? If so, fine, but they should be formatted so that they precede their romanizations and readers can understand what they're looking at. Except not really fine, since Hebrew declension isn't really germane to the English-language page. There should be a  or yyy link to the Hebrew's Wiktionary entry for that kind of information. What we should have are the English plurals, which seem to be mostly standard ~s and sometimes mikvaot.
While we're at it, a lot of the first paragraph seems off-topic and could probably be improved. If we're keeping two separate Hebrew forms, three plurals, translits, translations, and explanations of the history of the word's usage, it's probably better that we just start explaining what the word normally means and shunt the rest into a #Name section, except for the most common modern Hebrew form. 
Given that we're (somehow) going with the version that doesn't match the sound at all, we probably ought to note that its English pronunciation is /mɪkvə/ (esp. US) or /mɪkfə/ (esp. UK) and not /mɪkvɛ/ or /mɪkfɛ/. — LlywelynII 15:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally am familiar only with "mikva'ot" (which is the correct form in both biblical and modern Hebrew) and in English and Yiddish "mikves" or "mikvas". These forms should remain in the article, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article uses several spellings. No matter which is used, I think it should at least be consistent throughout. Since this is a new word for me, I think someone else should do that update. Victor Engel (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Hebrew name

message: A "history" paragraph is sourly missing here. I added a bit to the lead to make a start.
The "otzar" and the fact that it is a modern invention is missing too (see Yonatan Adler (Ariel University), The myth of the ’ôṣār in Second Temple-period ritual baths: an anachronistic interpretation of a modern-era innovation, in Journal of Jewish Studies | vol. lxv | no. 2 | autumn 2014).Arminden (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs a rewrite, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mikveh before 100 BCE; apparition; what before & later evolution; "otzar" 

message: User:VanEman has added some material that is completely unfit for a lead. Statements like "Rabbi such and such pointed to the Bible to show such and such" are so unencyclopedical. He is also edit warring about it, as usual. I have restore the previous text, and added a reference to it. Debresser (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The banner on the article asks all of us to add specific references from reliable sources. I have done that and yet Debresser deletes them. It is important for us to have references that don't simply say "The Torah says..." but rather give chapter and verse. Readers need to be able to know where to find these references. Also, this article is primarily written from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism. References should not be deleted simply because they come from a woman rabbi of a stream of Judaism that the Orthodox might perceive as pagans. VanEman (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding your first point: I restored the previous (consensus) version, and added a source to it. Also, please appreciate, that not all sourced information is acceptable, depending on the quality of the source, and the placement of the specific information in the article. Regarding your second point: who said that that is the reason it was deleted? Please understand, that the fact that you mention this point only proofs that you are the one having a strong POV problem (which has been established in previous discussions as well). A third point you tactfully don't mention is that whatever your convictions are regarding these two points, you are not allowed to edit war about them, which is a big problem with you! Debresser (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Debresser Agree with you and keep up the work preventing these articles from being ruined. We need to go through the edits of that user in general.Caseeart (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Under Child Abuse, there is a missing space after a closing parenthesis. I can't remember where it is, but the Child Abuse section is pretty small, and it should be easy to find. Lou Sander (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks for pointing this out. -- -- -- 21:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo

message: Why does this article use the term "Jewish priest" instead of "Kohen"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, not good. We have an article Kohen! Debresser (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Debresser (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jewish priest" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mikveh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320161101/http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/docs/Mikveh_Introduction.doc to http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/docs/Mikveh_Introduction.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mikveh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122065116/http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1387 to http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1387
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090818174923/http://www.judianity.info/mikvah.html to http://www.judianity.info/mikvah.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330220450/http://dfg-science-tv.de/en/projects/rituals/2011-08-13 to http://dfg-science-tv.de/en/projects/rituals/2011-08-13
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The second paragraph of the Washington Post's article, quoted with only the above-indicated EDIT, is:
::"So what is a mikvah, anyway, and does it have anything to do with s*x? We explain."
If Tanach is a Primary Source and the Talmud is a Secondary Source, then is anything written in the past 200 years a Tertiary source?
The wording of the Scare Crow which I've copied/moved here (check with your friendly Comp Sci major for the difference) is-
::This article uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. 
Other situations on Wiki have clearly made the point: if the Native Americans had to be given their say on what Islam believes and
those who eat Davar Acher an opinion on Chasicic practices, then Wiki could not have articles on many of the topics which it covers.
If the article is incomplete, then perhaps it's because Wiki is not a manual. Taking a shower in any Brooklyn men's Mikvah is normal practice. Likewise in a woman's Mikvah.  I use Brooklyn as source of example since, outside of Israel, there probably is no other place on planet Earth with as many choices of Mikvah per (name your unit of measure). Pi314m (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Scare Crow & S*X

message: Don't normally edit wikipedia, but I was trying to find a source for the statement and the one listed in the references led me to a dead end. 
But on page 13 of this document: https://www.kollelmenachem.org/media/pdf/433/juNS4330495.pdf
It is a book I found about mikveh construction that restates something similar. Not sure how to add it as a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.18.124.157 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Debresser (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found another source for the "Selling Scrolls to afford a mikveh" statment