|
|
| Line 57: |
Line 57: |
| # If a woman became tameh on three occasions in a row because of a ketem that doesn't create a veset.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 190:54 quoting the Raavad states that becoming tameh as a result of a ketem doesn't form a veset.</ref> A woman who doesn't have a veset and became tameh because of a veset doesn't need to count an onah beynonit from the time she became tameh because of a ketem.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 190:505. See Badei Hashulchan 190:506 that the same is true of the other vestot.</ref> | | # If a woman became tameh on three occasions in a row because of a ketem that doesn't create a veset.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 190:54 quoting the Raavad states that becoming tameh as a result of a ketem doesn't form a veset.</ref> A woman who doesn't have a veset and became tameh because of a veset doesn't need to count an onah beynonit from the time she became tameh because of a ketem.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 190:505. See Badei Hashulchan 190:506 that the same is true of the other vestot.</ref> |
| # Furthermore, seeing a tameh ketem doesn't interrupt an upcoming veset day. For example, if a woman saw on the 1st of Nissan and then a ketem on the 15th her veset for the 30th of Nissan (onah beynonit) remains in place.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 190:505</ref> | | # Furthermore, seeing a tameh ketem doesn't interrupt an upcoming veset day. For example, if a woman saw on the 1st of Nissan and then a ketem on the 15th her veset for the 30th of Nissan (onah beynonit) remains in place.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 190:505</ref> |
| ==Blood found on a Bedika Cloth==
| |
| # Unlike a ketem any blood even a minimal amount found on a bedika cloth renders the woman tameh.<ref>The achronim learn that blood found on a bedika cloth is like the woman actually saw blood and is certainly tameh. Most achronim consider the tumah on a bedika cloth to possibly be of Biblical tumah and not just rabbinic. One source that indicates that the tumah is Biblical is the gemara Niddah 14a which states that blood found on a bedika cloth renders the woman tameh niddah. Rashi s.v. tameh implies that this is a certain tumah. Regarding whether this is a Biblical concern, see the Pitchei Teshuva 183:1 who cites the Chavot Daat, Sidrei Tahara 183:2, and Peleti 190:1 who considers the blood on the bedika cloth to be Biblical. The Rambam (Isurei Biyah 9:1) is a strong proof that is of Biblical significance, while the Hagahot Maimoniyot (Isurei Biyah 4:20) implies that it is rabbinic. Shulchan Aruch Harav (Kuntres Acharon 183:2), Rabbi Akiva Eiger 1:62, Aruch Hashulchan 183:55, Badei Hashulchan 183:6, and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 17 hold that it is potentially Biblical even if she says that there was no hargasha. See Yabia Omer YD 8:16 where he clarifies that he agrees with the achronim that it is of Biblical concern unlike the Netah Shashuim who thinks that it is only rabbinic if there was no hargasha. Hear Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/872192/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-83-hargasha-today/ Niddah Shiur 83] at the end) who explains that according to his explanation of hargasha the bedika cloth is only rabbinic but nonetheless it doesn't have any leniencies of ketamim.</ref>
| |
| # Becoming tameh because of blood on a bedika cloth can create a veset.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 190:54</ref>
| |
|
| |
| ==Sources== | | ==Sources== |
| <references/> | | <references/> |
