Anonymous

Bedika Cloths: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
No change in size ,  4 December 2020
m
Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"
m (Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical")
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:


==Differences between a Bedika Cloth and a Ketem==
==Differences between a Bedika Cloth and a Ketem==
# Unlike a ketem any blood even a minimal amount found on a bedika cloth renders the woman tameh.<ref>The achronim learn that blood found on a bedika cloth is like the woman actually saw blood and is certainly tameh. Most achronim consider the tumah on a bedika cloth to possibly be of Biblical tumah and not just rabbinic. One source that indicates that the tumah is Biblical is the gemara Niddah 14a which states that blood found on a bedika cloth renders the woman tameh niddah. Rashi s.v. tameh implies that this is a certain tumah. Regarding whether this is a Biblical concern, see the Pitchei Teshuva 183:1 who cites the Chavot Daat, Sidrei Tahara 183:2, and Peleti 190:1 who considers the blood on the bedika cloth to be Biblical. The Rambam (Isurei Biyah 9:1) is a strong proof that is of Biblical significance, while the Hagahot Maimoniyot (Isurei Biyah 4:20) implies that it is rabbinic. Shulchan Aruch Harav (Kuntres Acharon 183:2), Rabbi Akiva Eiger 1:62, Aruch Hashulchan 183:55, Badei Hashulchan 183:6, and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 17 hold that it is potentially Biblical even if she says that there was no hargasha. See Yabia Omer YD 8:16 where he clarifies that he agrees with the achronim that it is of Biblical concern unlike the Netah Shashuim who thinks that it is only rabbinic if there was no hargasha. Hear Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/872192/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-83-hargasha-today/ Niddah Shiur 83] at the end) who explains that according to his explanation of hargasha the bedika cloth is only rabbinic but nonetheless it doesn't have any leniencies of ketamim.</ref>
# Unlike a ketem any blood even a minimal amount found on a bedika cloth renders the woman tameh.<ref>The achronim learn that blood found on a bedika cloth is like the woman actually saw blood and is certainly tameh. Most achronim consider the tumah on a bedika cloth to possibly be of biblical tumah and not just rabbinic. One source that indicates that the tumah is biblical is the gemara Niddah 14a which states that blood found on a bedika cloth renders the woman tameh niddah. Rashi s.v. tameh implies that this is a certain tumah. Regarding whether this is a biblical concern, see the Pitchei Teshuva 183:1 who cites the Chavot Daat, Sidrei Tahara 183:2, and Peleti 190:1 who considers the blood on the bedika cloth to be biblical. The Rambam (Isurei Biyah 9:1) is a strong proof that is of biblical significance, while the Hagahot Maimoniyot (Isurei Biyah 4:20) implies that it is rabbinic. Shulchan Aruch Harav (Kuntres Acharon 183:2), Rabbi Akiva Eiger 1:62, Aruch Hashulchan 183:55, Badei Hashulchan 183:6, and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 17 hold that it is potentially biblical even if she says that there was no hargasha. See Yabia Omer YD 8:16 where he clarifies that he agrees with the achronim that it is of biblical concern unlike the Netah Shashuim who thinks that it is only rabbinic if there was no hargasha. Hear Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/872192/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-83-hargasha-today/ Niddah Shiur 83] at the end) who explains that according to his explanation of hargasha the bedika cloth is only rabbinic but nonetheless it doesn't have any leniencies of ketamim.</ref>
# Becoming tameh because of blood on a bedika cloth can create a veset unlike blood found as a ketem.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 190:54</ref>
# Becoming tameh because of blood on a bedika cloth can create a veset unlike blood found as a ketem.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 190:54</ref>


Anonymous user