Chatzitza: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→General Laws of Chatzitza
No edit summary |
|||
| (13 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
# After the fact, if a woman went to the mikveh wearing very loose clothing the tevilah is effective.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:46, Shach 198:56</ref> | # After the fact, if a woman went to the mikveh wearing very loose clothing the tevilah is effective.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:46, Shach 198:56</ref> | ||
# Mucus from the eye (rheum) is a chatzitza if it is outside of the eye or inside the eye and dried so that it started to turn green. However, if it is inside the eye and moist it isn't a chatzitza.<ref>Gemara Niddah 67a, Tosfot Niddah 67a s.v. lifluf, Shulchan Aruch YD 198:7. See, however, the Rosh (Mikvaot no. 25) who holds moist mucus isn't a chatzitza even outside the eye.</ref> | # Mucus from the eye (rheum) is a chatzitza if it is outside of the eye or inside the eye and dried so that it started to turn green. However, if it is inside the eye and moist it isn't a chatzitza.<ref>Gemara Niddah 67a, Tosfot Niddah 67a s.v. lifluf, Shulchan Aruch YD 198:7. See, however, the Rosh (Mikvaot no. 25) who holds moist mucus isn't a chatzitza even outside the eye.</ref> | ||
# Ink, milk, honey, and blood aren't chatzitzot if they are moist but are chatzitzot if they are dry.<Ref>Tosefta Mikvaot 6:5, Rosh Mikvaot no. 26, Shulchan Aruch YD 198:15</ref> Blood that congealed is a chatzitza.<Ref>Rambam (Mikvaot 2:2) writes that blood that congealed on the skin is a chatzitza. Even though the Bet Yosef cites the Smag who argues with the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch 198:16 rules like the Rambam. See Zevachim 35a which illustrates that moist blood isn't a chatzitza.</ref> | # Ink, milk, honey, and blood aren't chatzitzot if they are moist but are chatzitzot if they are dry.<Ref>Tosefta Mikvaot 6:5, Rosh Mikvaot no. 26, Shulchan Aruch YD 198:15</ref> Blood that congealed is a chatzitza.<Ref>Rambam (Mikvaot 2:2) writes that blood that congealed on the skin is a chatzitza. Even though the Bet Yosef cites the Smag who argues with the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch 198:16 rules like the Rambam. See Zevachim 35a which illustrates that moist blood isn't a chatzitza.</ref> | ||
## Some poskim hold that if the person doesn't want the liquid there then it is a chatzitza even though it is liquidy, however, there is what to rely upon to be lenient in extenuating circumstances.<ref>Rama YD 198:14 is strict for the opinion of the Yereyim and Roke'ach 377 that a liquid can also be a chatzitza if the person is makpid. However, the Tosfot Chullin 26b argues with the Yereyim. Chazon Ish YD 94:8 argues that the opinion of the Tosfot, Rabbenu Yonah, and Rambam disagree with the Yereyim and such is the strict halacha. Badei Hashulchan 198 is only lenient in a case of extenuating circumstances.</ref> | |||
==Positioning== | ==Positioning== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
==Medical Circumstances== | ==Medical Circumstances== | ||
# If an item is | # If an item is going to remain on the body for a long time and won't be removed earlier under any circumstance some poskim hold that it isn't considered a chatzitza.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 198:1 quoting the Zichron Yosef YD 10. The Orot Hatahara p. 336 quotes this and the several opinions that follow and sides with Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach.</ref> Poskim mention different times as to how long this has to be. Some say a half a year<Ref>Avnei Nezer YD 253:3</ref>, some say say 30 days<ref>Shaarei Tevilah 34:4 quoting Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach</ref>, some say 1 week<ref>Shaarei Tevilah 34:4 quoting Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach for an extenuating circumstance, Chelkat Yoav YD 30</ref>, and some say that it doesn't depend on any fixed amount of time but as long as there is some definitive time that it'll remain there.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 1:97</ref> A rav should be consulted about any such case as poskim don't rely upon this factor alone.<ref>The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 284 quotes numerous poskim who don't agree with the Zichron Yosef. Chut Shani p. 276 maintains that the Chatom Sofer, Nodeh Beyehuda, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, and Chazon Ish disagree with it. Igrot Moshe YD 1:97 and 2:88 doesn't rely on it.</ref> | ||
# A bandage is a chatzitza.<Ref>The Shulchan Aruch 198:23 writes that bandages are a chatzitza. It is based on the Rambam Mikvaot 2:4 who understood the Tosefta Mikvaot 6:4 as saying that bandages are a chatzitza. However, the Rash (Mikvaot 9:4) as well as the Rosh and Rashba according to the Bet Yosef 198;23 understood the Tosefta as referring to another topic and not chatzitza. Nonetheless, the Tur accepts the opinion of the Rambam possibly because he saw it as logical even though the Rosh didn’t explain the Tosefta like that.</ref> Some say that it is a chatzitza even if it is a loose bandage.<ref>The Rambam (Mikvaot 2:4 and Shulchan Aruch 198:23 hold that a loose bandage isn’t a chatzitza, however, the Shach 198:28 cites the Bach who disagrees and considers bandages to be a chatzitza even if they’re loose since water can’t enter them perfectly.</ref> | # A bandage or band-aid is a chatzitza.<Ref>The Shulchan Aruch 198:23 writes that bandages are a chatzitza. It is based on the Rambam Mikvaot 2:4 who understood the Tosefta Mikvaot 6:4 as saying that bandages are a chatzitza. However, the Rash (Mikvaot 9:4) as well as the Rosh and Rashba according to the Bet Yosef 198;23 understood the Tosefta as referring to another topic and not chatzitza. Nonetheless, the Tur accepts the opinion of the Rambam possibly because he saw it as logical even though the Rosh didn’t explain the Tosefta like that.</ref> Some say that it is a chatzitza even if it is a loose bandage.<ref>The Rambam (Mikvaot 2:4 and Shulchan Aruch 198:23 hold that a loose bandage isn’t a chatzitza, however, the Shach 198:28 cites the Bach who disagrees and considers bandages to be a chatzitza even if they’re loose since water can’t enter them perfectly. Orot Hatahara p. 350 follows Shulchan Aruch.</ref> | ||
# Dissoluble stitches (absorbable sutures) according to some poskim aren't a chatzitza.<ref>[http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/866901/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-40-chazara-of-chatzitza/ Rabbi Mordechai Willig (Niddah shiur 40, min 18-21)] based on Rashi Shabbat 15b, The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 328, Orot Hatahara p. 350, Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 65. Mareh Kohen p. 183 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach who agrees saying that dissoluble stitches aren't a chatzitza since they're going to dissolve and also because the woman wants them there.</ref> Others disagree and hold that they are a chatzitza.<ref>Chut Shani p. 276 for the reason that the stitches remain for a long period of time and a person is bothered by them since they're on the body.</ref> | |||
# Regular stitches are a chatzitza.<ref>The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 328, Igrot Moshe YD 2:87. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 65 is lenient in an extenuating circumstance if the stitches need to remain for a week based on Ketav Sofer 91. Orot Hatahara p. 338 and 350 is lenient after the fact for the reason that part of the string is inside the body and the part that is outside is very small such that a person wouldn't be concerned.</ref> | |||
# If a limb is hanging off the body it constitutes a chatzitza.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 198:22. The Bet Yosef 198:22 s.v. v’tzarich in his first explanation explains that since the limb isn’t deriving living off the body anymore it is like it is already detached and poses as a chatzitza to the area where it is attached. The Bach 198:21 explains that since it needs to be cut by a doctor it isn’t like it is already cut, therefore it is a chatzitza. See the Taz 198:22 for another explanation.</ref> | |||
# 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.</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> | |||
# If a woman has an eye ailment and for medical reasons can’t have it touch the water one solution that the poskim suggest is having another woman stand behind her when she goes to the mikveh and place her hand that was wetted beforehand over her eye not so tightly.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 198:15 cites the Shivat Tzion 42 who doesn’t like the solution of using a loose bandage to cover the eye since there is a concern that it’ll be made tight since that is in her best interest to protect her eye. Also, the solution of having her cover her own eye with her hand isn’t effective since raising her hand to cover her eye creates folds in the body which constitute a chatzitza. Therefore, he suggests having another person cover her eye so that it isn’t so tight and also such that she wetted her hands beforehand. </ref> For this type of question a person should consult a doctor and rabbi. | # If a woman has an eye ailment and for medical reasons can’t have it touch the water one solution that the poskim suggest is having another woman stand behind her when she goes to the mikveh and place her hand that was wetted beforehand over her eye not so tightly.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 198:15 cites the Shivat Tzion 42 who doesn’t like the solution of using a loose bandage to cover the eye since there is a concern that it’ll be made tight since that is in her best interest to protect her eye. Also, the solution of having her cover her own eye with her hand isn’t effective since raising her hand to cover her eye creates folds in the body which constitute a chatzitza. Therefore, he suggests having another person cover her eye so that it isn’t so tight and also such that she wetted her hands beforehand. </ref> For this type of question a person should consult a doctor and rabbi. | ||
===Ears=== | |||
# Many poskim are lenient about a gauze that the doctors say need to remain in the ear to avoid a serious medical complication. A rav should be consulted.<ref> | # Many poskim are lenient about a gauze that the doctors say need to remain in the ear to avoid a serious medical complication. A rav should be consulted.<ref> | ||
* Igrot Moshe YD 1:98 is lenient about a woman who needs a cotton smeared with Vaseline in the ear because a chasisa that isn't attached to the body but merely covers it and prevents water from penetrating it isn't a chatzitza in a concealed area (bet hastarim). See there at length where he uses this to explain the Raavad quoted in Shulchan Aruch 199:12. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 66 agrees. | * Igrot Moshe YD 1:98 is lenient about a woman who needs a cotton smeared with Vaseline in the ear because a chasisa that isn't attached to the body but merely covers it and prevents water from penetrating it isn't a chatzitza in a concealed area (bet hastarim). See there at length where he uses this to explain the Raavad quoted in Shulchan Aruch 199:12. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 66 agrees. | ||
| Line 35: | Line 44: | ||
* [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&st=&pgnum=263 Chazon Ish YD 94:8] is lenient for a woman who had a hole in her ear to place a cotton in the ear with oil on it since the oil is a liquid substance. His main discussion is regarding the oil and not the cotton. | * [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&st=&pgnum=263 Chazon Ish YD 94:8] is lenient for a woman who had a hole in her ear to place a cotton in the ear with oil on it since the oil is a liquid substance. His main discussion is regarding the oil and not the cotton. | ||
* 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> | * 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=== | ||
# | # Braces that can't be removed according to some poskim aren't a chatzitza, but according to many poskim they are a chatzitza if they are put in for aesthetic purposes and not if they are to prevent the teeth from falling out.<ref>Shiurei Shevet Halevi 198:24:2 writes that braces that can't be removed aren't a chatzitza. Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe YD 1:96 writes that if the braces are to prevent the teeth from falling out they aren't a chatzitza but if it is just for aesthetic purposes they are a chatzitza. Orot Hatahara p. 349 quotes Rav Elyashiv as agreeing. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 143 writes that braces aren't a chatzitza if they're needed to unite the teeth and prevent them from loosening.</ref> | ||
# 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.]</ref>, and according others if it is in for less than 28 days should be considered a chatzitza.<ref>Shiurei Shevet Halevi 198:24:2 explains that the temporary filling is coming to replace the natural tooth and is desired so it isn't a chatzitza, nonetheless, he is lenient unless it will remain there for 4 weeks. He adds that if the filling is protecting the root of the tooth there is more room to be lenient. However, if the filling was to protect the root and the doctor determined that for medical reasons temporary filling has to removed after a certain time, it will be a chatzitza after that time. </ref> | |||
# A silver or gold crown on a tooth isn't a chatzitza if it is temporary or permanent.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 143 writes that a crown isn't a chatzitza because it is a minority of the body, inside the mouth, and would hurt to remove it. Shiurei Shevet Halevi 198:24:2 writes that a crown isn't a chatziza unless it is a very temporary crown that is in for only a day or two. Chut Shani p. 312 holds that a crown isn't a chatzitza if it can't be removed.</ref> | |||
==Decorative Substances== | ==Decorative Substances== | ||
# Jewelry such as necklaces, rings, and earrings are a chatztiza.<ref>The Tosefta Mikvaot 6:4 writes that jewelry is a chatzitza. The Rosh (Mikvaot no. 26) quotes the Raavad who explains that the reason jewelry is a chatzitza even though it adorns the body is that since when she kneads dough or the like she’ll remove it, it is considered a chatzitza even now. The Shach 198:23 quotes the Raavad. The Shulchan Aruch 198:23 writes that jewelry is a chatzitza unless it is loose.</ref> Some poskim hold that if it is loose after the fact it isn’t a chatzitza.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 198:23 writes that if the jewelry is loose it isn’t a chatzitza. This is based on the Tosefta. However, the Pitchei Teshuva 198: | # Jewelry such as necklaces, rings, and earrings are a chatztiza.<ref>The Tosefta Mikvaot 6:4 writes that jewelry is a chatzitza. The Rosh (Mikvaot no. 26) quotes the Raavad who explains that the reason jewelry is a chatzitza even though it adorns the body is that since when she kneads dough or the like she’ll remove it, it is considered a chatzitza even now. The Shach 198:23 quotes the Raavad. The Shulchan Aruch 198:23 writes that jewelry is a chatzitza unless it is loose. | ||
* Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Hahagot Shulchan Aruch 198:6) points out that the Tashbetz 3:280 translates nezamim of the mishna as nose rings but holds that earrings aren't a chatzitza (which is supported by the gemara Shababt 59b). However, the Bach (responsa 41) holds that earrings are an issue even after the fact.</ref> Some poskim hold that if it is loose after the fact it isn’t a chatzitza.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 198:23 writes that if the jewelry is loose it isn’t a chatzitza. This is based on the Tosefta. However, the Pitchei Teshuva 198:13 quotes the Bet Hillel and Chamudei Doniel hold that even if the jewelry was loose it is a chatzitza. Nonetheless, the Sidrei Tahara 198:43 defends Shulchan Aruch as does the Bach (responsa 41) though he is strict by earrings. </ref> | |||
# Makeup should be removed before tevilah. <ref>The Rashba ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=401 Torat Habayit Hakatzar 32a]) writes that hair dye isn't a chatzitza for three reasons. 1) Since the women don't want to remove it it isn't considered a chatzitza if it doesn't cover a majority of the hair. 2) They actively want it there so that it becomes like part of the body. 3) As it is very thin it isn't considered an interposition between the body and the water at all. The Rashba (Meyuchasot LRamban no. 124) in a letter writes that the Ramban agreed with his opinion on this matter. The Rosh (Mikvaot no. 27), Rabbenu Yerucham (Netiv 26 ch. 5), Tur and Shulchan Aruch 198:17 agree. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch 198:17 even extend this to dye on the face as well. | # Makeup should be removed before tevilah. <ref>The Rashba ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=401 Torat Habayit Hakatzar 32a]) writes that hair dye isn't a chatzitza for three reasons. 1) Since the women don't want to remove it it isn't considered a chatzitza if it doesn't cover a majority of the hair. 2) They actively want it there so that it becomes like part of the body. 3) As it is very thin it isn't considered an interposition between the body and the water at all. The Rashba (Meyuchasot LRamban no. 124) in a letter writes that the Ramban agreed with his opinion on this matter. The Rosh (Mikvaot no. 27), Rabbenu Yerucham (Netiv 26 ch. 5), Tur and Shulchan Aruch 198:17 agree. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch 198:17 even extend this to dye on the face as well. | ||
* The Shach 198:21 and Badei Hashulchan 198:118 hold that the primary reasons for the leniency are 2 and 3. However, the Sidrei Tahara 198:33 argues that the reason that the chatzitza is so thin and doesn't leave a residue isn't the primary reason to be lenient. | * The Shach 198:21 and Badei Hashulchan 198:118 hold that the primary reasons for the leniency are 2 and 3. However, the Sidrei Tahara 198:33 argues that the reason that the chatzitza is so thin and doesn't leave a residue isn't the primary reason to be lenient. | ||
| Line 64: | Line 76: | ||
# One hair tied onto another hair or itself is a chatzitza. Two or more hairs tied as though they were one string into a knot on themselves or onto another hair isn't a chatzitza.<ref>Niddah 67a rules that two hairs tied aren't a chatzitza and one hair is a chatzitza. Bet Yosef 198:5 clarifies that two hairs tied together is considered like one hair tied onto another hair. Shulchan Aruch 198:5 rules that one hair is a chatzitza and two aren't. The Badei Hashulchan 198:31 explains that the two hairs which aren't a chatzitza applies if they're tied onto another hair or themselves but not if they're tied together.</ref> | # One hair tied onto another hair or itself is a chatzitza. Two or more hairs tied as though they were one string into a knot on themselves or onto another hair isn't a chatzitza.<ref>Niddah 67a rules that two hairs tied aren't a chatzitza and one hair is a chatzitza. Bet Yosef 198:5 clarifies that two hairs tied together is considered like one hair tied onto another hair. Shulchan Aruch 198:5 rules that one hair is a chatzitza and two aren't. The Badei Hashulchan 198:31 explains that the two hairs which aren't a chatzitza applies if they're tied onto another hair or themselves but not if they're tied together.</ref> | ||
# Hair lice should be removed with hot water and scratching with a nail. However, if she can’t remove them they are not a chatzitza.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:47</ref> | # Hair lice should be removed with hot water and scratching with a nail. However, if she can’t remove them they are not a chatzitza.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:47</ref> | ||
# Some communities have a practice to cut their hair after their wedding. Even though the hair is going to be cut it isn't a chatzitza when they go to the mikveh before the wedding.<ref>Chatom Sofer 195 holds that the hair isn't a chatzitza even though it is going to be cut (and should be a chatzitza according to the Raavan 326 cited by Shach 198:25) since it isn't going to be cut prior to the wedding. Igrot Moshe YD 2:88 argues with his proof but agrees with his position for another reason; since the hair is adorns a woman even though she's going to cut it because of a minhag it isn't like it is cut already.</ref> | |||
# A woman who has dandruff should wash her hair and remove what is normal to remove before going to the mikveh.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 198:356 explains that since a woman cleaned her hair to remove as much dandruff as she would normally remove it is considered like she doesn't care and isn't a chatzitza. If she finds a large piece of dandruff in her hair after tevilah and normally would have been concerned to remove it she should remove it and go to the mikveh again. [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/866901/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-40-chazara-of-chatzitza/ Rabbi Mordechai Willig (Niddah shiur 40, min 21-23)] said that the minhag is for a woman who has dandruff to go to the mikveh even if her preparations for the mikveh had to be separated by a day or two such as if the tevilah is the second night of Yom Tov after Shabbat. </ref> | |||
# A woman who usually shaves her legs before the mikveh and forgot, after the fact the tevilah is effective.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 198:148 based on Taz 198:21</ref> | |||
# The practice nowadays is that married women don't shave their pubic hair and it isn't considered a chatzitza.<ref>Chida in Shiurei Bracha 198:2, Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 25</ref> | |||
==Nails== | ==Nails== | ||
# The minhag is to cut the nails before tevilah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:18</ref> If she forgot to cut her nails before the tevilah she should cut them and go to the mikveh again<Ref>Rama 198:20</ref> without a bracha.<ref>Aruch Hashulchan 200:1, Badei Hashulchan 200:5</ref> If they were clean and she didn't realize until the next morning a rav should be consulted. <Ref>Taz 198:21 is lenient only after the fact if the nails were clean and she was with her husband, whereas the Shach 198:25 is strict even in such a case. Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 311 writes that a rav should be consulted. Binat Adam 119:14 and Ben Ish Chai (Shana Bet, Shemini no. 4) agree with the Taz. Taharat Habayit v.3 p. 85 cites the Tashbetz 3:58 who is a support for the Taz. | # The minhag is to cut the nails before tevilah.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:18 based on the Hagahot Shaarei Dura, Ravyah, Rosh and others that it is important to cut nails before tevilah since it is hard to clean them from any dirt.</ref> If she forgot to cut her nails before the tevilah she should cut them and go to the mikveh again<Ref>Rama 198:20 based on Hagahot Shaarei Dura since it is likely that there was dirt there and she missed it. The Shach 198:25 quotes the Raavan 326 who held that long nails are automatically a chatzitza since they are going to be cut soon anyway. However, the Ravyah (responsa 991) disagreed and held that long nails aren't a chatzitza if they're clean. Mordechai (Shevuot no. 751) cites the Ravyah. Shulchan Aruch YD 198:20 follows the Ravyah.</ref> without a bracha.<ref>Aruch Hashulchan 200:1, Badei Hashulchan 200:5</ref> If they were clean and she didn't realize until the next morning a rav should be consulted. <Ref>Taz 198:21 is lenient only after the fact if the nails were clean and she was with her husband, whereas the Shach 198:25 is strict even in such a case. Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 311 writes that a rav should be consulted. Binat Adam 119:14 and Ben Ish Chai (Shana Bet, Shemini no. 4) agree with the Taz. Taharat Habayit v.3 p. 85 cites the Tashbetz 3:58 who is a support for the Taz. | ||
* The Binat Adam 199:14 understood the Taz as saying that if the nail was clean after she came out of the mikveh even though she wasn't sure it was clean beforehand we're not concerned since it is only a safek derabbanan. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 84 quotes Rav Shlomo Kluger who discussed that the Taz would even being lenient if the nail was dirty after the tevilah but most achronim don't accept this even according to the Taz. | * The Binat Adam 199:14 understood the Taz as saying that if the nail was clean after she came out of the mikveh even though she wasn't sure it was clean beforehand we're not concerned since it is only a safek derabbanan. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 84 quotes Rav Shlomo Kluger who discussed that the Taz would even being lenient if the nail was dirty after the tevilah but most achronim don't accept this even according to the Taz. | ||
* The Sidrei Tahara 198:39 points out that the idea of the Taz that if she didn't know if her nails were clean before and she forgot to cut them she can be lenient since it is only a question of a safek derabbanan is subject to dispute. In Sidrei Tahara 199:40 he discusses at length if you could be lenient on a safek derabbanan if originally there was a chazaka of tumah. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 84 quotes achronim who support the idea of the Taz based on the Rash (Mikvaot 2:2) that since the tevilah worked on a Biblical level the derabbanan safek | * The Sidrei Tahara 198:39 points out that the idea of the Taz that if she didn't know if her nails were clean before and she forgot to cut them she can be lenient since it is only a question of a safek derabbanan is subject to dispute. In Sidrei Tahara 199:40 he discusses at length if you could be lenient on a safek derabbanan if originally there was a chazaka of tumah. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 84 quotes achronim who support the idea of the Taz based on the Rash (Mikvaot 2:2) that since the tevilah worked on a Biblical level the derabbanan safek is viewed independently of the original chazakah of tumah. See the Pri Hasadeh 4:104 who relies on this Rash regarding bandages. See Sidrei Tahara and Taharat Habayit (v. 3, pp. 85-6) for elaboration of this complex topic. | ||
* Sidrei Tahara 198:51 asks on the Taz that if she didn't know if her nails were clean before tevilah and just knows that they're clean now, doesn't that mean she didn't check and her tevilah would be invalid. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7700&st=&pgnum=159 Mishcha D'rabuta YD 198:8 (Rabbi Masud Alfasi, Chief Rabbi of Tunisia in 18th century)] accepts the Taz and explains that if she cleaned beforehand but we're just not sure if she checked really well that's where we say that safek derabbanan. Also, he writes that if she cut her nails within 3 or 4 days of the tevilah that is sufficient. </ref> According to Sephardim, if she forgot to cut her nails and they were clean she doesn't need to go to the mikveh again.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:18 rules that the nail itself isn't a chatzitza. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit (v. 3 p. 83) writes that she doesn't need to go again if she forgot to cut her nails as long as they were clean. However, the Ben Ish Chai (Shana Bet, Shemini no. 4) holds like the Rama that she should go again.</ref> | * Sidrei Tahara 198:51 asks on the Taz that if she didn't know if her nails were clean before tevilah and just knows that they're clean now, doesn't that mean she didn't check and her tevilah would be invalid. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7700&st=&pgnum=159 Mishcha D'rabuta YD 198:8 (Rabbi Masud Alfasi, Chief Rabbi of Tunisia in 18th century)] accepts the Taz and explains that if she cleaned beforehand but we're just not sure if she checked really well that's where we say that safek derabbanan. Also, he writes that if she cut her nails within 3 or 4 days of the tevilah that is sufficient. </ref> According to Sephardim, if she forgot to cut her nails and they were clean she doesn't need to go to the mikveh again.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:18 rules that the nail itself isn't a chatzitza. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit (v. 3 p. 83) writes that she doesn't need to go again if she forgot to cut her nails as long as they were clean. However, the Ben Ish Chai (Shana Bet, Shemini no. 4) holds like the Rama that she should go again.</ref> | ||
# If she cut her nails within the last 3 days that it is acceptable to be considered cut and not recognizable that they grew.<ref>Orot Hatahara p. 345 citing Chut Shani p. 302. See also [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7700&st=&pgnum=159 Mishcha D'rabuta YD 198:8 (Rabbi Masud Alfasi, Chief Rabbi of Tunisia in 18th century)].</ref> | # If she cut her nails within the last 3 days that it is acceptable to be considered cut and not recognizable that they grew.<ref>Orot Hatahara p. 345 citing Chut Shani p. 302. See also [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7700&st=&pgnum=159 Mishcha D'rabuta YD 198:8 (Rabbi Masud Alfasi, Chief Rabbi of Tunisia in 18th century)].</ref> | ||
| Line 74: | Line 90: | ||
## If a woman's finger is bloated making it is impossible to cut or clean under the nails and because the finger is bloated the dirt isn't seen it isn't a chatzitza.<ref>Mordechai Shevuot no. 748, Shulchan Aruch YD 198:19</ref> | ## If a woman's finger is bloated making it is impossible to cut or clean under the nails and because the finger is bloated the dirt isn't seen it isn't a chatzitza.<ref>Mordechai Shevuot no. 748, Shulchan Aruch YD 198:19</ref> | ||
# If she forgot to cut the toenails it isn't a chatzitza after the fact since women don't care about the look of their toenails as much as their fingernails.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 198:10 quoting Chamudei Doniel. Ben Ish Chai (Shana Bet, Shemini no. 4) agrees. Shiurei Shevet Halevi (cited by Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 91) is lenient despite the fact that the Raavan (cited by Shach 198:25) writes that there's no distinction between fingernails and toenails.</ref> | # If she forgot to cut the toenails it isn't a chatzitza after the fact since women don't care about the look of their toenails as much as their fingernails.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 198:10 quoting Chamudei Doniel. Ben Ish Chai (Shana Bet, Shemini no. 4) agrees. Shiurei Shevet Halevi (cited by Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 91) is lenient despite the fact that the Raavan (cited by Shach 198:25) writes that there's no distinction between fingernails and toenails.</ref> | ||
# If there's an ingrown toenail that the doctor has instructed that it grow out, it should be cleaned before going to the mikveh and it doesn't need to be cut.<ref>The Laws of Niddah v. 2, p. 313. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 92 based on the Chatom Sofer 195 that since it isn't going to be cut until the healing is finished it isn't a chatzitza now.</ref> | # If there's an ingrown toenail that the doctor has instructed that it grow out, it should be cleaned before going to the mikveh and it doesn't need to be cut.<ref>The Laws of Niddah v. 2, p. 313. He is lenient in extenuating circumstances even if it can't be totally cleaned based on the Chamudei Doniel cited by Pitchei Teshuva YD 198:10 that today women don't care about how their toenails look. Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 92 based on the Chatom Sofer 195 that since it isn't going to be cut until the healing is finished it isn't a chatzitza now.</ref> | ||
# A hangnail that is in its minority detached is a chatzitza but if it is in its majority detached it is a chatzitza.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:21</ref> The minhag is to do the tevilah again if she forgot to cut her nails and left a hangnail even if it was a majority detached.<ref>Shach 198:27, Bear Heitev 198:23</ref> | # A hangnail that is in its minority detached is a chatzitza but if it is in its majority detached it is a chatzitza.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:21</ref> The minhag is to do the tevilah again if she forgot to cut her nails and left a hangnail even if it was a majority detached.<ref>Shach 198:27, Bear Heitev 198:23</ref> | ||
# Artificial nails should be removed but after the fact aren't a chatzitza.<ref>Orot Hatahara p. 355 citing Taharat Habayit p. 101-112 and Chut Shani p. 299</ref> | # Artificial nails should be removed but after the fact aren't a chatzitza.<ref>Orot Hatahara p. 355 citing Taharat Habayit p. 101-112 and Chut Shani p. 299</ref> | ||
| Line 85: | Line 101: | ||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
{{Reflist|2}} | {{Reflist|2}} | ||
[[Category:Niddah]] | |||
