Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,208
edits
Chatzitza: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Medical Circumstances
(→Teeth) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
==Medical Circumstances== | ==Medical Circumstances== | ||
# 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> | # 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 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> | # 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> | # 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 | # 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> unless the stiches need to be there for at least 30 more days from when she's going into the mikveh.<ref>Badei Hashulchan (198:23 Biurim s.v. b'egged), [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1093294 Rabbi Willig (Shiur 20, min 38)]</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 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. | # 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. | * 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. | ||
# A nuvaring should be removed for hefsek tahara, the first bedika the first night, the bedika on the 7th night of shiva nekiyim, as well as she goes to the mikveh.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1095409 Rav Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 27, min 59)] said that he holds that a nuvaring is a shayla of chatzitza for mikveh and bedikot. She should remove it for two hours a month and it is still effective. She should remove it for hefsek tahara right before sunset and for another bedika that night and that counts as bedika of the first day. Then she should remove it for bedika of the 7th day before sunset as well as when she goes to mikveh.</ref> | |||
===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. [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> | ||
# 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 45: | Line 46: | ||
* 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=== | ===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> | # 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. [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1095409 Rav Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 27, min 36)] cited some poskim as being lenient. </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 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> | # 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.] | ||
* The Binat Adam 12 holds that a filling is a chatzitza since the person doesn’t want to be there other than for the pain he would be in if not for the filling. Avnei Nezer YD 258 argues that something there for medicinal purposes is not a chatzitza and therefore fillings are not a chatzitza. Igrot Moshe YD 1:97 held fillings are not chatzitza even if it is temporary. </ref> | * The Binat Adam 12 holds that a filling is a chatzitza since the person doesn’t want to be there other than for the pain he would be in if not for the filling. Avnei Nezer YD 258 argues that something there for medicinal purposes is not a chatzitza and therefore fillings are not a chatzitza. Igrot Moshe YD 1:97 held fillings are not chatzitza even if it is temporary. </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> | # 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> | ||
# A false tooth is not a chatzitza.<ref>The Binat Adam 12 holds that a false tooth isn’t a chatzitza since it is desired to remain.</ref> | # A false tooth is not a chatzitza.<ref>The Binat Adam 12 holds that a false tooth isn’t a chatzitza since it is desired to remain.</ref> | ||
| Line 59: | Line 60: | ||
* 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. | ||
* Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 29 writes that makeup should be removed but isn't chatzitza after the fact. He also mentions that tattoos aren't a chatziza.</ref> | * Taharat Habayit v. 3 p. 29 writes that makeup should be removed but isn't chatzitza after the fact. He also mentions that tattoos aren't a chatziza.</ref> | ||
==Skin== | ==Skin== | ||
| Line 73: | Line 70: | ||
# 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> | ||
# There is a major dispute if a cast is a chatzitza.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1095409 Rav Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 27, min 29-40)] holds that a woman can go into the mikveh with a cast and even cover the cast with plastic so it doesn't get ruined. Har Tzvi YD 165 is strict and only lenient if the husband can't control his yetzer hara.</ref> | |||
== Face == | |||
# If a woman has makeup she shouldn't go to mikveh with the makeup on. For Friday night some poskim hold that it is forbidden to put on the makeup after the mikveh or even have a non-Jew put on the makeup after going to mikveh.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1094884 Rabbi Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 26, min 47-50)]</ref> | |||
==Hair== | ==Hair== | ||
| Line 82: | Line 84: | ||
# 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> | # 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> | # 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> | ||
# Standard conditioner isn't a chatzitza.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1094884 Rabbi Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 26, min 35-37)]</ref> Initially, she shouldn't use conditioner before tevila.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1094884 Rabbi Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 26, min 35-37)] quoting Pitchei Daat</ref> | |||
==Nails== | ==Nails== | ||
| Line 88: | Line 91: | ||
* 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. | * 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 an Ashkenazi woman forgot to cut her nails and it is Friday night, some poskim hold that she should clean her nails and then go to mikveh.<ref>Taz 198:21. [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1094161 Rabbi Mordechai Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 23)] holds that the primary halacha should follow the Taz. If she forgot to cut her nails and it is Shabbat, she should just clean them very well and go to mikveh. He said that in the part before it was recorded and hints to it again at min 17 and says it briefly at min 44. </ref> Other poskim hold that she should ask a non-Jew to cut the nails and then go to mikveh.<ref>Shach 198:25 and Nekudat Hakesef, Mishna Brurah 340:3</ref> If a non-Jew is not available it is possible to rely on the poskim who hold she can clean her nails and then go to mikveh.<ref>Mishna Brurah 340:3</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> | ||
# If there was dirt under a nail where the nail corresponds to the top of the finger it isn't considered a chatzitza, whereas if there's dirt on the top part of the nail which is beyond the finger it is a chatzitza.<ref>The Tosefta Mikvaot 6:5 distinguishes between whether the dirt is under the part of the nail that corresponds to the top of the finger which it wouldn't be a chatzitza and beyond that. The Rosh (Mikvaot no. 26) and Rashba (Torat Habayit Hakatzar 32a) hold like this Tosefta. The Rambam (Mikvaot 2:14), however, argues that the nail isn't a chatzitza either way. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch 198:18 rule like the Rosh.</ref> Dough or mud beneath the nail is always a chatzitza.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 9:2 writes that dough under the nail is a chatzitza. The Rambam (Mikvaot 2:1) equates mud with dough. The Rashba (Chullin 107, cited by Bet Yosef 198:18) explains that dough or mud stick and are a chatzitza but dirt which a woman removes easily isn't a chatzitza if she decided to leave it there and it was on the bottom of the nail corresponding to the finger. The Taz 198:19 rules that mud is a chatzitza under the nail. </ref> | # If there was dirt under a nail where the nail corresponds to the top of the finger it isn't considered a chatzitza, whereas if there's dirt on the top part of the nail which is beyond the finger it is a chatzitza.<ref>The Tosefta Mikvaot 6:5 distinguishes between whether the dirt is under the part of the nail that corresponds to the top of the finger which it wouldn't be a chatzitza and beyond that. The Rosh (Mikvaot no. 26) and Rashba (Torat Habayit Hakatzar 32a) hold like this Tosefta. The Rambam (Mikvaot 2:14), however, argues that the nail isn't a chatzitza either way. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch 198:18 rule like the Rosh.</ref> Dough or mud beneath the nail is always a chatzitza.<ref>Mishna Mikvaot 9:2 writes that dough under the nail is a chatzitza. The Rambam (Mikvaot 2:1) equates mud with dough. The Rashba (Chullin 107, cited by Bet Yosef 198:18) explains that dough or mud stick and are a chatzitza but dirt which a woman removes easily isn't a chatzitza if she decided to leave it there and it was on the bottom of the nail corresponding to the finger. The Taz 198:19 rules that mud is a chatzitza under the nail. </ref> | ||
| Line 93: | Line 97: | ||
# 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. 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> | # 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> If it is Shabbat and a nail is detached in its minority she can ask a non-Jew to cut the nail her nail and then go to the mikveh.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1094161 Rabbi Mordechai Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 23, min 17-19)]</ref> | ||
# Artificial nails should be removed | |||
=== Nail Polish and Artificial Nails === | |||
# Artificial nails should be removed before tevilah. After the fact, if she went to the mikveh with the artificial nails the tevilah is effective.<ref>Chut Shani (198:23 p. 299), The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 293, Orot Hatahara p. 355 citing Taharat Habayit p. 101-112</ref> | |||
# Gel nails initially should be removed before going to mikveh.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1094884 Rabbi Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 26, min 52)]</ref> | |||
# Nail polish should be removed before tevilah. If it can't be removed, the nail polish isn't a chatzitza unless it was only partially on the nail or cracked.<ref>The Rashba (Torat Habayit Hakatzar 32b) explains that dyes on the hands are decorative and don't constitute a chatzitza. Many rishonim agree with this and it is quoted in Shulchan Aruch YD 198:17. See above for more details. However, according to Ashkenazim the nail polish has to be removed initially as the Rama 198:1 writes that all chatzitzot should be removed. | |||
*Therefore, The Laws of Niddah v. 2 p. 293 writes that the nail polish should be removed, but if it can't be removed or she was already tovel without removing the polish and it remained intact, the nail polish isn't a chatzitza. This is only true if the nail polish was in a decorative manner such as that she'd be seen publicly like that it isn't a chatzitza but if it is cracked or only on partially it is an issue. [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1094884 Rabbi Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 26, min 45-55)] agreed. Mishmeret Hatahara (v. 2 p. 372) only accepts that it isn't a chatzitza if she always wears nail polish. | |||
*Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit (v. 3 p. 101) writes that the nails should be cut before tevilah, however, if a woman wants to grow them long and polish them and won't be agreeable to cut them, she should be allowed to go to the mikveh, but should be told politely that the minhag is to cut the nails before tevilah.</ref> If it can't be removed and it is cracked or partially removed, she should polish it again so it looks nice and then go to mikveh.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/1094884 Rabbi Willig (Chatzitza Shiur 26, min 53)]</ref> | |||
==Feet== | ==Feet== | ||
