Chatzitza: Difference between revisions

# If a woman has an IUD inside it isn’t a chatzitza.<ref> Tzitz Eliezer 10:25:10 writes that a ring placed in the womb isn’t a chatzitza because it is deeper than where the man penetrates and is considered completely inside the body and not just a concealed area. Furthermore, they are left there for a long period of time and should be considered as though she doesn’t care. The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 303 quotes this regarding IUD.

* The Pitchei Teshuva 198:16 quotes the Nodeh Beyehuda YD 64 and Zichron Yosef YD 10 who hold that a ring that is inserted deep into the body to protect the womb isn’t a chatzitza since it is considered inside the body and not a concealed area that is sometimes exposed. The Chatom Sofer 192 provides another reason why this ring isn’t a chatzitza. He explains that since it stays there all the time and is only removed for doing the hefsek tahara or giving birth doesn’t make it like she’s concerned to have it removed in the first place as it is just removed to make space.</ref> A rav should be consulted about this shaylah.

===Eyes===

# Contact lenses should be removed before tevilah. After the fact some poskim write that they aren't a chatzitza, while others hold they are. A rav should be consulted.<ref>Chut Shani p. 279 writes that contacts lenses are a chatzitza whether they're hard or soft and are left in at night since they're not permanently part of the eye. Minchat Yitzchak 6:89 agrees. Shiurei Shevet Halevi 182:7:2 writes it seems that contact lenses aren't a chatzitza after the fact but he says he didn't check out the science to determine if the lenses stick tightly to the eye. Badei Hashulchan 198:296 is unsure if the lenses are tight enough to be a chatzitza. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 26-7 is lenient after the fact. Igrot Moshe YD 104 is lenient after the fact based on his opinion (in YD 1:98) that the concealed areas of the body can't have something stuck to them but could have something that would prevent water from entering that area. [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1093124 Rav Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 19, min 46-50)] quoted Badei Hashulchan and Igrot Moshe.</ref> According to Sephardim, soft lenses that which she wears all the time when she sleeps and showers, and are only removed after a moth or a number of days, can be left in during tevilah.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 27, Orot Hatahara p. 344. The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 325 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that contact lenses that a woman needs to wear after cataract surgery may be worn in the mikveh.</ref>

* Ben Ish Chai in Rav Poalim 2:27 is strict on the cotton in the ear because she wants it there to be tight. Rather he advises having another person wet their hands and not so tightly cover her ears while she's tovel.</ref>

===Teeth===

# A permanent filling which is fitted correctly isn't a chatzitza.<ref>Chut Shani p. 311, Shiurei Shevet Halevi 198:24:2, Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 137 unlike the Chachmat Adam 119:18</ref>

# A temporary filling is according to some poskim a chatzitza,<ref>Chut Shani p. 311 quoting the Chazon Ish that it is a chatzitza since it is going to be removed for medical reasons and isn't nullified to the body. He agrees that if the temporary filling is only put in and removed because it won't last (but isn't removed for dental work) it isn't a chatzitza. </ref> according to some poskim, isn't a chatzitza,<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 139, Orot Hatahara p. 349. Igrot Moshe 1:97 offers 3 reasons why a temporary filling isn't a chatzitza: 1) It is meant to stay there for a long fixed period of time (like Zichron Yosef). 2) The temporary filling is just put in for a time to close up the area and immediately after it is removed it will be replaced with a permanent filling. If the temporary filling would have lasted she would keep it longer but practically it needs to be replaced with a better filling. That isn't considered a chatzitza as she's not concerned about having the area open ever again. 3) The hole in the tooth is a unnatural hole and perhaps isn't included in the areas that have an issue of chatzitza. He concludes that the first reason is questionable and the third is new so they shouldn't be relied upon. [It is noteworthy that the second reason which is the primary reason of Rav Moshe doesn't apply if the temporary filling is put in so that work can be done there later as he writes in Igrot Moshe YD 2:88.]

# If a woman has a dye or a coloration on the skin such as if she was burned it isn't a chatzitza but if she could remove it she should.<ref> The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1120&st=&pgnum=423&hilite= Bet Dovid YD siman 98] and [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=812&pgnum=133 Ohel Yosef siman 40] hold that a dye on the hands isn't a chatzitza if it doesn't leave any substance above the skin level (based on the Rashba cited in Shulchan Aruch 198:17). For example, they were discussing a woman whose hands were dyed because of peeling nuts and were lenient because it couldn't be removed and it didn't leave any residue. This also seems to be the opinion of the Taz 198:17 citing the Roke'ach.  

* Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 28 is lenient on any coloration of the skin since it has no substance above the skin level. Nonetheless, he writes that initially it should be removed.</ref>

== Face ==