16,374
edits
Ketamim: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
## The shape of the stain doesn't matter as long as its combine area is less than a garis.<Ref>Smag (Lavin no. 111) writes that even if the blood is spread out in a line it is still tahor if it is less than a garis. Shulchan Aruch YD 190:5 codifies this.</ref> | ## The shape of the stain doesn't matter as long as its combine area is less than a garis.<Ref>Smag (Lavin no. 111) writes that even if the blood is spread out in a line it is still tahor if it is less than a garis. Shulchan Aruch YD 190:5 codifies this.</ref> | ||
## Blood found on the body larger than a garis is tameh irrelevant of its shape.<ref>The Rashba [[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=374 (Torat Habayit 18b)], Rosh (Niddah 9:2), and Rambam (Isurei Biyah 9:9) understand that even though the Gemara Niddah 58a asks whether blood found in an odd shape on the body is tameh and the gemara leaves it unresolved, we are strict because the Briatta implies that we're stricter with a stain found on the body. This is codified by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 190:9.</ref> | ## Blood found on the body larger than a garis is tameh irrelevant of its shape.<ref>The Rashba [[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=374 (Torat Habayit 18b)], Rosh (Niddah 9:2), and Rambam (Isurei Biyah 9:9) understand that even though the Gemara Niddah 58a asks whether blood found in an odd shape on the body is tameh and the gemara leaves it unresolved, we are strict because the Briatta implies that we're stricter with a stain found on the body. This is codified by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 190:9.</ref> | ||
# If the ketem is found in a shape other than a circle the area is measure by the total area. If it is less than 2.83cm<sup>2</sup> according to the first opinion above and less than 3.14cm<sup>2</sup> according to the second opinion. An ellipse is measured by π*r<sub>1</sub>*r<sub>2</sub>, where r<sub>1</sub> is the larger radius and r<sub>2</sub> is the smaller radius, and a triangle by (h<sub>2</sub>*b)/2, where h<sub>2</sub> is height from the base and b is the base.<ref>Orot Hatahara p. 129</ref> | |||
# If a ketem is found on something that doesn't contract tumah it is tahor.<ref>The Mishna Niddah 59b cites a dispute between Tana Kama and Rabbi Nechemya whether something that's not mekabel tumah is susceptible to a ketem. Rabbi Nechemya holds that it is not. Tosfot Niddah 59a explains that the only reason that ketamim make a woman tameh is because the ketem itself is tameh because of the blood on it. However, something that isn't susceptible to tumah isn't susceptible to ketamim. The Rashba Niddah 57b s.v. amar provides another reason; since most clothing are mekabel tumah, chazal didn't make a gezerah on something that wasn't common. Most rishonim accept the opinion of Rabbi Nechemya including Rashba [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=384 (Torat Habayit 23b)], Rosh (Niddah 9:2), and Rambam (Isurei Biyah 9:7) in opposition to the Raavad [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=66 (Baalei Hanefesh p. 68)] who holds that we follow the Tana Kama. Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 are lenient like most rishonim.</ref> | # If a ketem is found on something that doesn't contract tumah it is tahor.<ref>The Mishna Niddah 59b cites a dispute between Tana Kama and Rabbi Nechemya whether something that's not mekabel tumah is susceptible to a ketem. Rabbi Nechemya holds that it is not. Tosfot Niddah 59a explains that the only reason that ketamim make a woman tameh is because the ketem itself is tameh because of the blood on it. However, something that isn't susceptible to tumah isn't susceptible to ketamim. The Rashba Niddah 57b s.v. amar provides another reason; since most clothing are mekabel tumah, chazal didn't make a gezerah on something that wasn't common. Most rishonim accept the opinion of Rabbi Nechemya including Rashba [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=384 (Torat Habayit 23b)], Rosh (Niddah 9:2), and Rambam (Isurei Biyah 9:7) in opposition to the Raavad [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=66 (Baalei Hanefesh p. 68)] who holds that we follow the Tana Kama. Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 are lenient like most rishonim.</ref> | ||
## For example, toilet paper isn't mekabel tumah and if a ketem is found on it, the ketem isn't tameh.<Ref>See Pitchei Teshuva 190:18 who cites a long discussion between the Nodeh Beyehuda, Chatom Sofer, and others if toilet paper of their day was mekabel tumah. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe 3:53) writes that our toilet paper is certainly not mekabel tumah since it is so thin that it falls apart and is unusable after it is used once. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 406 agrees.</ref> | ## For example, toilet paper isn't mekabel tumah and if a ketem is found on it, the ketem isn't tameh.<Ref>See Pitchei Teshuva 190:18 who cites a long discussion between the Nodeh Beyehuda, Chatom Sofer, and others if toilet paper of their day was mekabel tumah. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe 3:53) writes that our toilet paper is certainly not mekabel tumah since it is so thin that it falls apart and is unusable after it is used once. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 406 agrees.</ref> | ||
## Pads according to most poskim aren't mekabel tumah.<ref>Rabbi Mordechai Willig [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873350/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-94-tipin-tipin-ein-mitztarfin/ (Niddah Shiur 94 at the end)] holds that pads aren't mekabel tumah even if they are attached to the undergarments with an adhesive. Mishmeret Hatahara (ch. 3 fnt. 30) quotes Rav Elyashiv as saying that since the pads are meant to be attached to the undergarments they become part of the garment and are mekabel tumah and as such a ketem on them is tameh. | ## Pads according to most poskim aren't mekabel tumah.<ref>Rabbi Mordechai Willig [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873350/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-94-tipin-tipin-ein-mitztarfin/ (Niddah Shiur 94 at the end)] holds that pads aren't mekabel tumah even if they are attached to the undergarments with an adhesive. Mishmeret Hatahara (ch. 3 fnt. 30) quotes Rav Elyashiv as saying that since the pads are meant to be attached to the undergarments they become part of the garment and are mekabel tumah and as such a ketem on them is tameh. | ||
* The Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:105 held that the paper of his day which was made from worn out clothing is mekabel tumah because of being a thick cloth (levadim) even if it isn't woven. The source for this is the Rambam Kelim 1:11 and 22:2 and Tumat Tzarat 13:1, which in turn is based on Sifra Shemini 6:7:8 and Tosefta Negayim 5:1. Pads are made from cotton and as such aren't mekabel unless it is made into a thick cloth. Mishmeret Hatahara argues that even though the pads are thick they are't mekabel tumah since the Chatom Sofer 6:81 writes that a thick cloth is only mekabel tumah if it is made for a purpose of clothing but not if was made just to function as a piece of wood in order to clean or absorb liquid (Chullin 129a).</ref> | * The Nodeh Beyehuda YD 2:105 held that the paper of his day which was made from worn out clothing is mekabel tumah because of being a thick cloth (levadim) even if it isn't woven. The source for this is the Rambam Kelim 1:11 and 22:2 and Tumat Tzarat 13:1, which in turn is based on Sifra Shemini 6:7:8 and Tosefta Negayim 5:1. Pads are made from cotton and as such aren't mekabel unless it is made into a thick cloth. Mishmeret Hatahara argues that even though the pads are thick they are't mekabel tumah since the Chatom Sofer 6:81 writes that a thick cloth is only mekabel tumah if it is made for a purpose of clothing but not if was made just to function as a piece of wood in order to clean or absorb liquid (Chullin 129a).</ref> | ||
## Clothing which aren't made from wool or linen they aren't mekabel tumah if it is smaller than 3 by 3 [[tefachim]].<Ref>Rambam Kelim 22:1. Mishmeret Tahara (ch. 3 p. 30), Pri Deah (Introduction 3), Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 401. See Taharat Habayit who cites the opinion of the Bet Shlomo in explaining the Rash and Rosh Kelim 27:2 that even if other materials are even 3 by 3 etzbaot the cloth is tameh.</ref> | ## Clothing which aren't made from wool or linen they aren't mekabel tumah if it is smaller than 3 by 3 [[tefachim]].<Ref>Rambam Kelim 22:1. Mishmeret Tahara (ch. 3 p. 30), Pri Deah (Introduction 3), Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 401, and Orot Hatahara p. 129. See Taharat Habayit who cites the opinion of the Bet Shlomo in explaining the Rash and Rosh Kelim 27:2 that even if other materials are even 3 by 3 etzbaot the cloth is tameh.</ref> | ||
## Something attached to the ground, such as a toilet, isn't mekabel tumah and isn't susceptible to ketamim.<ref>Orot Hatahara p. 130-2</ref> | |||
# If a ketem is found on something colored it is tahor.<ref>The gemara Niddah 61b cites a machloket Rabbi Natan and Rabbanan whether colored garments have ketamim. Rashi (Niddah 61b) explains that there are no ketamim on colored garments since the blood isn't apparent on a colored garment. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 adds that in the days of chazal they would distinguish between different shades of red and so if the garment was colored that significantly change the ruling. Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 holds like those rishonim who pasken that colored garments don't have ketamim. The Beer Moshe 4:65 writes that a ketem on a colored garment that we know looks like blood is tameh. However, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 argues.</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 hold that they're also considered colored.<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 even yellow. Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873050/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-91-ketamim-on-the-tzivonim/ Niddah Shiur 91]) agrees. 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 ketem is found on something colored it is tahor.<ref>The gemara Niddah 61b cites a machloket Rabbi Natan and Rabbanan whether colored garments have ketamim. Rashi (Niddah 61b) explains that there are no ketamim on colored garments since the blood isn't apparent on a colored garment. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 adds that in the days of chazal they would distinguish between different shades of red and so if the garment was colored that significantly change the ruling. Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 holds like those rishonim who pasken that colored garments don't have ketamim. The Beer Moshe 4:65 writes that a ketem on a colored garment that we know looks like blood is tameh. However, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 argues.</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 hold that they're also considered colored.<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 even yellow. Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873050/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-91-ketamim-on-the-tzivonim/ Niddah Shiur 91]) agrees. 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> | ||
## Even if the ketem is found on an undergarment that is close to the body if it is colored it is tahor.<ref>The Chatom Sofer YD 161 writes that colored garments only prevent ketamim on the outer garments and not the undergarments. He is also concerned for those rishonim including the Hagahot Maimoniyot and Ramban who hold that a ketem on a colored garments renders the woman tameh to her husband, even though for taharot it doesn't. However, the Maharsham 1:81, Chazon Ish YD 89:4, and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 389 are lenient.</ref> | ## Even if the ketem is found on an undergarment that is close to the body if it is colored it is tahor.<ref>The Chatom Sofer YD 161 writes that colored garments only prevent ketamim on the outer garments and not the undergarments. He is also concerned for those rishonim including the Hagahot Maimoniyot and Ramban who hold that a ketem on a colored garments renders the woman tameh to her husband, even though for taharot it doesn't. However, the Maharsham 1:81, Chazon Ish YD 89:4, and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 389 are lenient.</ref> | ||
