Anonymous

Ketamim: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia

Ketamim (view source)

Revision as of 19:13, 27 May 2018

951 bytes added ,  27 May 2018
→‎Leniencies of Ketamim
No edit summary
Line 26: Line 26:


==Leniencies of Ketamim==
==Leniencies of Ketamim==
# If a ketem is smaller than a ''garis'' it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:5</ref> The size of a garis is 19mm or the size of an American penny.<ref>The reason for this leniency is that it is common to find lice on the clothing and beds in the days of chazal and so a small amount of blood could be attributed to lice and not from her body. This is evident from the Gemara Niddah 58b. What about today when lice aren't as common? The Chatom Sofer 182 writes that the reason for the original institution of ketamim was because of taharot and even though we hold that it applies today even though the reason doesn't apply, we only apply the gezerah with the limitations that chazal would have had in their days. Therefore, concludes the Chatom Sofer, even though our lice are smaller than in the days of chazal we can continue to be lenient using their size of lice. Furthermore, Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe YD 3:46 fundamentally agrees but argues slightly differently; since chazal never stipulated that we are only lenient where lice are common it is evident that chazal only created a gezerah on a ketem that was larger than a garis. Since the original gezerah wasn't enacted upon a ketem smaller than a garis we can't add to that gezerah. Therefore, Badei Hashulchan 190:56 and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 391 conclude that we still use the leniency of a garis today even though lice aren't as common as it was in the days of chazal.
===Size===
* See the [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31466&st=&pgnum=91 Sefer Eshkol (Hilchot Niddah, v. 1 p. 70)] 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 [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=62 Baalei Hanefesh (Shaar Haketamim p. 64)] 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.  
# If a ketem is smaller than a ''garis'' it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:5. The reason for this leniency is that it is common to find lice on the clothing and beds in the days of chazal and so a small amount of blood could be attributed to lice and not from her body. This is evident from the Gemara Niddah 58b. What about today when lice aren't as common? The Chatom Sofer 182 writes that the reason for the original institution of ketamim was because of taharot and even though we hold that it applies today even though the reason doesn't apply, we only apply the gezerah with the limitations that chazal would have had in their days. Therefore, concludes the Chatom Sofer, even though our lice are smaller than in the days of chazal we can continue to be lenient using their size of lice. Furthermore, Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe YD 3:46 fundamentally agrees but argues slightly differently; since chazal never stipulated that we are only lenient where lice are common it is evident that chazal only created a gezerah on a ketem that was larger than a garis. Since the original gezerah wasn't enacted upon a ketem smaller than a garis we can't add to that gezerah. Therefore, Badei Hashulchan 190:56 and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 391 conclude that we still use the leniency of a garis today even though lice aren't as common as it was in the days of chazal.  
* 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>
* See the [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31466&st=&pgnum=91 Sefer Eshkol (Hilchot Niddah, v. 1 p. 70)] 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 [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=62 Baalei Hanefesh (Shaar Haketamim p. 64)] 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. </ref> According to some poskim, the size of a garis is 19mm or the size of an American penny.<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.</ref> Others write that it is the size of a circle with diameter of 20 millimeters.<ref> 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 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 [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=368 (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 [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=368 (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, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:20, 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.  
## 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>
Chacham Ovadia Yosef (taharat habayit 1:8:4, yabea omer 8:16:2) writes that this is limited to when the stains on the body are in the same general vicinity</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>
## If two stains are found on a garment and are not connected to each other, they don't combine for a garis and so if each is less than a garis they are tahor.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 190:8</ref> If two red spots are connected with white or brown, then the two red spots add up, but we don't include the brown or white in the measurement of a gris.<ref> Badei Hashulchan 190:79, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:29 </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>
# The thickness of the blood on the stain is not relevant. If it is very thick but doesn't cover surface area of penny, tahor. If it is really thin but does cover surface area of a penny, then tameh.<ref> Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:28 </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>
====Shape====
# 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>
# The shape of the stain doesn't matter as long as its combined 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. Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:18 agrees</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. Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:20 agrees</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>
===Location===
====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>
## 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. 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.
Line 43: Line 48:
## 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 (p. 46) by Rabbi Sobolofsky</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>  
## 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 (p. 46) by Rabbi Sobolofsky</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>  
## 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>
## 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>
====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>
## 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>
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/21054"