3,231
edits
Ketamim: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→A Place that Does not Contract Tumah
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
===Location=== | ===Location=== | ||
====A Place that Does not Contract Tumah==== | ====A Place that Does not Contract Tumah==== | ||
# If a ketem is found on something that doesn't contract tumah it is tahor.<ref>The Mishna Niddah 59b cites a dispute between Tanna 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 Tanna 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.<br /> | ||
## 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 | * Shach 16 quotes Tosafot that if something is mikabel tumat negaim that counts as mikabel tumah even though it’s not mikabel tumat met. Pitchei teshuva 190:17 says this is machloket achronim. | ||
</ref> If a ketem is found on something that isn't mekabel tumah but is on top of something that is mekabel tumah according to some poskim is tameh, while according to other it is tahor.<ref>The Sidrei Tahara 190:93 at the end writes that it seems if a ketem is found on something that isn't mekabel tumah which is top of something that is mekabel tumah she is tameh. Since the idea of ketem making a woman tameh is based on the idea that the blood makes the cloth tameh so too it should make the woman tameh, however, when the ketem is on a cloth that isn't mekabel tumah it is tahor. Yet, when the cloth is on top of something that is mekabel tumah the ketem makes the woman tameh since the cloth would make the item holding it tameh through tumat masa. However, the Pri Deah (Introduction 4) and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 410 argue that the poskim never mentioned this concern and apparently weren't concerned. Badei Hashulchan 190:99 writes both opinions and supports the Pri Deah from the Shulchan Aruch Harav.</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 Nodah 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, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:11 agree.</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. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 405 seems to agree. 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. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 405 seems to agree. 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 | * The Nodah 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, 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> | ## 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>Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 405, Badei Hashulchan 190:105, Orot Hatahara p. 130-2</ref> | ## Something attached to the ground, such as a toilet, isn't mekabel tumah and isn't susceptible to ketamim.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 190:19, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 405, Badei Hashulchan 190:105, Orot Hatahara p. 130-2</ref> | ||
## Clothing made completely out of nylon or polyester aren't mekabel tumah but if it is stitched with even a thread of linen it is mekabel tumah.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 3:53 holds that nylon is tahor since it is made from petroleum from under the oceans. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 407 agrees but adds if there is any linen stitching it is mekabel tumah.</ref> Practically even if a clothing says it is "100% polyester" it is subject to ketamim since they almost certainly have some threads of cotton in them.<ref>The Laws and Concepts of Niddah ( | ## Clothing made completely out of nylon or polyester aren't mekabel tumah but if it is stitched with even a thread of linen it is mekabel tumah.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 3:53 holds that nylon is tahor since it is made from petroleum from under the oceans. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 407 agrees but adds if there is any linen stitching it is mekabel tumah.</ref> Practically, even if a clothing says it is "100% polyester" it is subject to ketamim since they almost certainly have some threads of cotton in them.<ref>The Laws and Concepts of Niddah (pg. 46) by Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky based on Taharat Habayit 8:11</ref> Some say that if the nylon is made into clothing it is mekabel tumah.<ref>Minchat Yitzchak 4:118 holds that even nylon is mekabel tumah once it is made into an article of clothing. Badei Hashulchan 190:107 agrees.</ref> | ||
====Colored Material==== | ====Colored Material==== | ||
# 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, Meil Tzedaka p. 62 and 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, Meil Tzedaka p. 62 and 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> | ||
