16,374
edits
Ketamim: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Leniencies of Ketamim
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
* See the [Sefer Eshkol (Hilchot Niddah, v. 1 p. 70) http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31466&st=&pgnum=91] who writes that the reason that the Rif doesn't quote the halachot of ketamim is because it doesn't apply nowadays since we don't deal with taharot. The Raavad in [Baalei Hanefesh (Shaar Haketamim p. 64) http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=62] argues that nowadays ketamim still apply today. The poskim all accept the Raavad as is evident from Shulchan Aruch 190:1, yet the logic of the Eshkol supports the argument of the Chatom Sofer. | * See the [Sefer Eshkol (Hilchot Niddah, v. 1 p. 70) http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31466&st=&pgnum=91] who writes that the reason that the Rif doesn't quote the halachot of ketamim is because it doesn't apply nowadays since we don't deal with taharot. The Raavad in [Baalei Hanefesh (Shaar Haketamim p. 64) http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=62] argues that nowadays ketamim still apply today. The poskim all accept the Raavad as is evident from Shulchan Aruch 190:1, yet the logic of the Eshkol supports the argument of the Chatom Sofer. | ||
* Rabbi Forst in The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 189 writes that the poskim hold the size of a garis is the area of a circle with a diameter of 19mm or a penny. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 367 assumes 20mm.</ref> | * Rabbi Forst in The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 189 writes that the poskim hold the size of a garis is the area of a circle with a diameter of 19mm or a penny. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 367 assumes 20mm.</ref> | ||
## The needs for the size of a garis applies whether she saw the ketem on her body or a clothing, however, some are strict if the ketem is found on her body.<ref>The Rambam (as understood by the Maggid Mishna Isurei Biyah 9:6) holds that a ketem on the body is tameh in all circumstances even if it is smaller than a garis. However, the Tosfot (58a s.v. keshirah), Raavad (Isurei Biyah 9:6), Rashba (Torat Habayit 15b), and Ramban (Hilchot Niddah 4:4) argue that a ketem less than a garis on the body is tahor since it could be from a louse. Hagahot Maimoniyot (Isurei Biyah 9:1) explains that the Rambam holds that it is less common for there to be lice on the body as much it is common for there to be lice on clothing. Alternatively, the Rambam is strict since the likelihood is that if the blood is found on the body it is from her and not from the outside (See Maggid Mishna above). Shulchan Aruch YD 190:6 writes the anonymous opinion like the Tosfot and quotes the Rambam as well. The Bach 190:12 follows the Tosfot on this question but the Shach 190:9 argues that we should be strict for the Rambam.</ref> | ## The needs for the size of a garis applies whether she saw the ketem on her body or a clothing, however, some poskim are strict if the ketem is found on her body.<ref>The Rambam (as understood by the Maggid Mishna Isurei Biyah 9:6) holds that a ketem on the body is tameh in all circumstances even if it is smaller than a garis. However, the Tosfot (58a s.v. keshirah), Raavad (Isurei Biyah 9:6), Rashba (Torat Habayit 15b), and Ramban (Hilchot Niddah 4:4) argue that a ketem less than a garis on the body is tahor since it could be from a louse. Hagahot Maimoniyot (Isurei Biyah 9:1) explains that the Rambam holds that it is less common for there to be lice on the body as much it is common for there to be lice on clothing. Alternatively, the Rambam is strict since the likelihood is that if the blood is found on the body it is from her and not from the outside (See Maggid Mishna above). Shulchan Aruch YD 190:6 writes the anonymous opinion like the Tosfot and quotes the Rambam as well. The Bach 190:12 follows the Tosfot on this question but the Shach 190:9 argues that we should be strict for the Rambam. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 375, Igrot Moshe 4:17:7, and The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 195 are lenient.</ref> | ||
## Nonetheless, if there are two stains on the body less than a garis they combine together to be considered a garis to be tameh.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch 190:8 quotes the opinion of Tosfot (58a s.v. keshura) and the Raavad [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=72 (Baalei Hanefesh p. 74)] who hold that on the body the stains that are less than a garis can combine to be tameh. Though it isn't clear if the anonymous opinion in Shulchan Aruch disagrees with this opinion, as the opinion of the Rashba [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=374 (Torat Habayit 18b)] is that it is tahor, nonetheless the poskim are machmir. The Shach 190:9 is strict because anyways he holds like the Rambam, the Bach 190:12 is machmir, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 377 is machmir since either that is the opinion of Shulchan Aruch or it is the opinion of the majority of the rishonim, and The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 195 is strict.</ref> | |||
# If a ketem is found on something that doesn't contract tumah it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10</ref> | # If a ketem is found on something that doesn't contract tumah it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10</ref> | ||
# If a ketem is found on something colored it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10</ref> | # If a ketem is found on something colored it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10</ref> | ||
