Chatzitza: Difference between revisions

# Anything a woman doesn't want to remain on her body all the today is considered a chatzitza.<ref>Gemara Bava Kama 82a explains that a Biblical chatzitza is something that covers a majority of the body and she wants it removed. However, if it is something that covers a minority of her body but she wants removed or something that covers a majority of her body even if she doesn't want it removed is a chatzitza on a rabbinic level.</ref>  

# 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>

# 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>

# 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>

# 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>

* 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.