16,374
edits
Ketamim: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Leniencies of Ketamim
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
## 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> | ## 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> | ## 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 two stains are found on a garment not connected they don't combine for a garis and if each is less than a garis they are tahor.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 190:8</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> The poskim clarify that off-white or light-beige is also white for these purposes. Additionally, many poskim hold that extremely light pastel colors are difficult to be considered colored, while others disagree.<ref>Shevet halevi YD 1:87 is strict regarding ketamim on yellow or other very light colored garments. However, Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 387 disagrees and holds that any colored garment doesn't have ketamim. The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205 writes that if it is off-white certainly it is considered white (as white garments of the days of chazal were probably not as white as those of today). Yet, extremely light pastel colors are difficult to classify and a woman should avoid wearing them.</ref> | ||
## If a garment is striped and the ketem is found partially on the white section and partially on the colored most poskim consider the area on the colored part to be ignored. However, if the ketem goes over a colored strip and is found on both sides on a white area those two white areas combine for the size of a garis.<ref>The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 394</ref> | |||
==A Tameh Ketem== | ==A Tameh Ketem== | ||
