Chatzitza: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m
Text replacement - ". <ref>" to ".<ref>"
m (Text replacement - ". <ref>" to ".<ref>") Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
# A woman shouldn’t stand up very straight or bend over too much.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:35</ref> She should lean slightly forward so that her breasts don’t lie against her chest.<ref>Chachmat Adam 121:8, The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 393</ref> | # A woman shouldn’t stand up very straight or bend over too much.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:35</ref> She should lean slightly forward so that her breasts don’t lie against her chest.<ref>Chachmat Adam 121:8, The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 393</ref> | ||
# She should stand with her legs apart like she’s kneading dough.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:35</ref> | # She should stand with her legs apart like she’s kneading dough.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:35</ref> | ||
# She should hold her arms apart from her body like a woman would when weaving standing or when walking.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:35</ref> She should also raise her hands like someone weaving. <ref>Aruch Hashulchan 198:82, The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 393</ref> | # She should hold her arms apart from her body like a woman would when weaving standing or when walking.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 198:35</ref> She should also raise her hands like someone weaving.<ref>Aruch Hashulchan 198:82, The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 393</ref> | ||
# If she bent over or stood straightly some rishonim hold that it is invalid and therefore she should go again.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 198:35 writes that some say that the tevilah is invalid if she stands up straight or bends over too much. The Rashbetz (quoted by Bet Yosef 198:35) cites a dispute between the Raavad and Rambam whether the tevilah is valid after the fact, the Raavad holding it isn’t and the Rambam holding it is. The Shach 198:49 questions why the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t write that it certainly is ineffective based on his opinion elsewhere. See Aruch Hashulchan 198:83 who addresses this question.</ref> | # If she bent over or stood straightly some rishonim hold that it is invalid and therefore she should go again.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 198:35 writes that some say that the tevilah is invalid if she stands up straight or bends over too much. The Rashbetz (quoted by Bet Yosef 198:35) cites a dispute between the Raavad and Rambam whether the tevilah is valid after the fact, the Raavad holding it isn’t and the Rambam holding it is. The Shach 198:49 questions why the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t write that it certainly is ineffective based on his opinion elsewhere. See Aruch Hashulchan 198:83 who addresses this question.</ref> | ||
# A woman doesn’t need to open her mouth during tevilah. Yet she shouldn’t close her mouth too tightly, rather she should close her lips normally. If she closed her mouth or hands tightly or placed her hair in her mouth the tevilah is ineffective.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 8:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 198:38</ref> | # A woman doesn’t need to open her mouth during tevilah. Yet she shouldn’t close her mouth too tightly, rather she should close her lips normally. If she closed her mouth or hands tightly or placed her hair in her mouth the tevilah is ineffective.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 8:5, Shulchan Aruch YD 198:38</ref> | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
* 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. | * 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=== | ===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> | # 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=== | ===Ears=== | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
# 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. | # 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> | * 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. | ||
* Nonetheless, The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 294 writes that makeup must be removed since it is routinely removed and also it would run when the woman goes in the mikveh. The Mishmeret Hatahara (Rabbi Morgenstern, v. 2 p. 371 n. 229) agrees. | * Nonetheless, The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 294 writes that makeup must be removed since it is routinely removed and also it would run when the woman goes in the mikveh. The Mishmeret Hatahara (Rabbi Morgenstern, v. 2 p. 371 n. 229) agrees. | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
* [Rabbi Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/865540/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-30/ Niddah shiur 30, min 15-20] holds that a scab which hasn’t healed doesn’t need to be removed and it is enough to soften them by sitting in water until they soften and scratching isn’t necessary. Similarly, The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 282 writes that scabs which can be removed painlessly should be removed otherwise they should be softened. Additionally, acne should not be removed as it could leave a permanent scar, instead it should be softened. Badei Hashulchan 198:78 and 198:83 writes that the practice is to remove scabs even if they hurt but if it hurts a lot they should be softened in water and if the scabs won't soften she can they aren't a chatzitza and she can go to the mikveh. | * [Rabbi Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/865540/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-30/ Niddah shiur 30, min 15-20] holds that a scab which hasn’t healed doesn’t need to be removed and it is enough to soften them by sitting in water until they soften and scratching isn’t necessary. Similarly, The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 282 writes that scabs which can be removed painlessly should be removed otherwise they should be softened. Additionally, acne should not be removed as it could leave a permanent scar, instead it should be softened. Badei Hashulchan 198:78 and 198:83 writes that the practice is to remove scabs even if they hurt but if it hurts a lot they should be softened in water and if the scabs won't soften she can they aren't a chatzitza and she can go to the mikveh. | ||
* The basis for the leniency when it hurts to remove the scabs they don't constitute a chatzitza is based on the Mordechai (Shavuot 748) and Smak (no. 293) who say that if it is painful to remove the scabs they don't need to be removed since it isn't considered as though one wants them removed (makpid), though the minhag was still to remove them. The Kesav Sofer 91 explains that perhaps the minhag is based on the concern that makpid depends on the majority of people and since everyone has a different threshold for pain it is possible that others wouldn't consider it painful to remove and so it is still called makpid. The Shiurei Tahara 198:23 s.v. vetzarich lomar learns from the stringent practice of the Sar Mkusi and Maharik (cited by the Bach 198:10 and Taz 198:) that perhaps even if it is painful to remove something it is still called makpid. See however the Kesav Sofer 91 who disagrees with this proof.</ref> If one has scabs that are difficult to remove one should consult a rabbi before going to the mikveh. | * The basis for the leniency when it hurts to remove the scabs they don't constitute a chatzitza is based on the Mordechai (Shavuot 748) and Smak (no. 293) who say that if it is painful to remove the scabs they don't need to be removed since it isn't considered as though one wants them removed (makpid), though the minhag was still to remove them. The Kesav Sofer 91 explains that perhaps the minhag is based on the concern that makpid depends on the majority of people and since everyone has a different threshold for pain it is possible that others wouldn't consider it painful to remove and so it is still called makpid. The Shiurei Tahara 198:23 s.v. vetzarich lomar learns from the stringent practice of the Sar Mkusi and Maharik (cited by the Bach 198:10 and Taz 198:) that perhaps even if it is painful to remove something it is still called makpid. See however the Kesav Sofer 91 who disagrees with this proof.</ref> If one has scabs that are difficult to remove one should consult a rabbi before going to the mikveh. | ||
# Dry skin should be soaked and rubbed to remove any loose skin. Some say that women should not make it her practice to remove any hard skin with a pumice stone. <ref>The Laws of Niddah p. 349. Shiurei Shevet Halevi 198:22(4) writes that the reason why a woman shouldn't have a consistent practice to dry all hard skin is that if she does she so she must continue her practice and then if she forgets one time there is a serious question that should be asked to a rabbi. See Shevet Halevi 3:127.</ref> | # Dry skin should be soaked and rubbed to remove any loose skin. Some say that women should not make it her practice to remove any hard skin with a pumice stone.<ref>The Laws of Niddah p. 349. Shiurei Shevet Halevi 198:22(4) writes that the reason why a woman shouldn't have a consistent practice to dry all hard skin is that if she does she so she must continue her practice and then if she forgets one time there is a serious question that should be asked to a rabbi. See Shevet Halevi 3:127.</ref> | ||
# 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. | # 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> | * 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> | ||
