ד Hilchos Nida Rav Baruch Simon shlit
|
|  Yüklə 1.83 Mb.
|
שיעור #37 (Packet #28) – 2.18.09 Chatzitza V – Makeup, Hair Dye, etc. A. Gm Zevachim 98b – Dam on butcher’s clothes isn’t a chatzitza, and fats, etc on clothes of s/one who deals w/ that stuff, not chotzeitz. But what if he has both jobs and has both items on his clothes do we say he’s not makpid on both things? Teiku. B. רא"ש Mikvaos 27 – Women who put on makeup (tzeva l’noy), not a chatzitza b/c they put it there on purpose. And also, it has no mamashus, just chazusa b’alma (like a pen mark). And a woman whose job is to work w/ these colors, not makpedes b/c that’s darka b’kach and quotes the gm in Zevachim. Question will be what about when it only has one and not the other. Pen mark which has no mamashus but isn’t l’noy or makeup which has mamashus even though it’s l’noy. C. רשב"א thbk 32a – Dyes on women’s hands or in their hair, not chotzeitz b/c not only are they not makpidos, they continually renew it. And it becomes like part of the hair itself. And brings raya that had tevila by the paroches which was dyed w/ all kinds of colors. See that the colors became part of the begged, הה"נ by women’s hair. And also, there’s no mamashus. D. רשב"א שו"ת – says same vort again. 1. Beis Yosef quotes R’ Yerucham who has the same exact svara. E. טור 198:8 – K’chol in the eye is not chotzeitz, but on the outside of the eye it is chotzeitz. F. טור 198:17 – Dyes that women put on their faces and hair are not chotzeitz. 1. ב"ח 17 – This is different from case of kchol michutz l’ayin which is chotzeitz, even טור himself says that. So what’s the chiluk? B/c the kchol has mamashus whereas the dyes have no mamashus. Clearly assumes that you need both kulas: Decorative and No Mamashus. 2. Prisha 18 – Has same question. Brings answer of ב"ח, but then says that when טור say kchol is chotzeitz this is kchol that is supposed to go in the eye and she doesn’t want it on the outside. Mashma that the only problem is that it’s not l’noy, but אה"נ if it was l’noy wouldn’t be chotzeitz even though it has mamashus. (2 different answers seem to depend on this fundamental question of whether need both kulas or not). G. מאירי Hilchos Mikvaos Perek 9 – Eye makeup is not chotzeitz b/c they want it there davka. Then says kol shekein if it has no mamashus it’s not chotzeitz. But clearly saying just noy itself is a reason to be meikil. H. רמ' שו"ת 339 – These colors/makeup that only color the skin but don’t have mamashus aren’t chotzeitz. Mashma that need both kulas. (Agav: It’s b/c of רמ' שו"ת that we don’t go back to the beginning when find psul in sefer torah b/c רמ' holds that don’t need kosher sefer torah to be yotzei krias haTorah) I. שו"ע 198:17 – 1. מחבר: These colors that women put on their hair and hands and face not chotzeitz. And women whose business is w/ these things they aren’t chotzeitz. (Doesn’t say a svara, though) 2. רמ"א: הה"נ for s/one who is a butcher and always has blood on their hands, not chotzeitz b/c the majority of ppl in the profession are not makpid. a. ש"ך 21 – Says svara of רשב"א, R’ Yerucham, etc. that it’s considered like part of the hair and also ein bo mamash. Seems to require both svaros to be meikil. b. ט"ז 17- Quotes Rokeach quoted by BY about woman who touched bottom of pot and got soot on her hand and he paskened that it was not a chatzitza. ט"ז makes kal v’chomer to case of woman who comes out of mikva and finds soot on her back from the beis hamerchatz and says that since there’s no mamashus to that soot and it’s on part of body that isn’t as revealed as a hand so not makpedes anyways, no need to be toveles again. Clearly being meikil w/ only one svara (no mamashus) b/c this is not l’noy.
If only have the color of the ink but no mamashus, only chazusa, not chotzeitz, and says this is like the ש"ך 21. Interesting, b/c assuming that the ש"ך would agree that just not having mamashus is enough, which makes there be no machlokes ש"ך/ט"ז.
Keep them on for a long time and then when they fall off put on another one. If requirement of l’noy is enough, like the ט"ז, then no problem. However, acc to the Shiyurei Tahara that can’t rely on no mamashus alone, maybe can’t rely on noy alone either. Brings raya from case of ring to be meikil even acc to the Shiyurei Tahara: ראב"ד explains that ring is chotzeitz b/c will take it off b’shaas lisha, even though it’s l’noy. But if would not ever take it off, not a chatzitza, even though it’s only l’noy and it has mamashus. And even the Sidrei Tahara himself wanted to be meikil by rings for women who don’t take them off, just said a lo plug, but b’etzem agreed w/ the svara. So see that even he agrees that l’noy alone is enough if it’s going to stay there. However, if they already started to fall off then they are a chatzitza. Not recommending for women to do this, unless very nervous that her husband won’t like the way she looks otherwise. But if already has them will let her go to the mikva. - R’ Moshe is only saying that the Shiyurei Tahara holds that noy can stand alone. However, no mamashus cannot stand alone. That’s why he argued w/ the ט"ז. This could be a kula for nail polish if it’s really all on. If it’s mostly off or cracking, etc. where no longer l’noy then this is not a kula. However, we have seen that R’ Moshe is meikil w/ either kula. *R’ Abadie holds that each teretz of the רא"ש stands alone, so will allow just one of the kulas. Either ein bo mamashus or just l’noy [Limaaseh the same as R’ Moshe, not sure if its from the same svaros].
A. Gm Zevachim 19a – One louse is for sure chotzeitz, but what if it’s alive? Do we say that since it goes back and forth ribisa hu (haynu ribisei), or no, since she’s makpid it’s chotzeitz. Gm doesn’t have an answer. B. Rokeach Hilchos Chatzitza – Should try to get rid of lice w/ hot water. But if can’t get rid of it, consider it like dirt under the nails which not makpid on but try to get rid of mishum chumra. C. רמ' Klei Mikdash 10:6,7 – Din by bigdei kehuna that can’t have any chatzitza between body and the begadim, so have to be careful that no dirt or lice on body when wearing them. But if it was there, the avoda is kosher. Doesn’t pasul bidieved. D. שו"ע 198:47- Should try to get rid of the lice, but if you can’t remove them, not a chatzitza (Rokeach) 1. ש"ך 58 – Mashma that if you could get rid of it and you don’t, chotzeitz even bidieved. 2. Beiur HaGra 53 – Since it’s ribisei, and eina makpedes that’s why bidieved not a chatzitza. (Not clear what he would say if she could have gotten it off and didn’t).
A. Gm Zevachim 35a – Why did they leave the drainage system in the mikdash closed? Answers that shvach for the Kohanim to be walking in the blood. But why isn’t the dam a chatzitza btwn the kohanim’s feet and the floor of the azara (din that their feet have to touch the floor during the avoda)? Gm answers: Lach eino chotzeitz. 1. Yeraim- Mentioins two pshatim: a. It’s b/c ppl aren’t makpid on items that are wet. Therefore, if you are makpid then it is chotzeitz. b. Water gets through so b’etzem not a chatzitza. He thinks it’s a mistake b/c gm Chullin 26a (Mikva is mitaheir adam and keilim, but food and drink cannot become tahor in a mikva. However, if have tamei water and put it in the mikva and becomes mechubar to the mikva, tuma will go away, but won’t work for wine.) so temed (water pour on grape seeds, etc. basically water until it ferments), once it ferments can no longer do hashaka w/ mei mikva b/c water is heavier and it goes to the bottom and the wine part stays on top, hashaka won’t touch the water. So says the Yeraim, if the wine is penetrable why can’t the water reach the other water? Ela mai, the wine does block it. So must be that lach eino chotzeitz is din in hakpada. a. חזו"א quoted by R’ Abadie: E/one agrees that if have chatzitza b’kulo, don’t care whether you’re makpid or not. And the only thing that has to touch the floor of the azara is the foot of the kohein. Im kein, if you hold like the Yeraim, lach not being chotzeitz is only taluy on eino makpid but this is kulo so eino makpid won’t help, so it should be a chatzitza? (i). R’ Abadie: 2 Possible teirutzim: (See inside) (a) Haynu Ribisei could apply in different ways. B/c from case of lice see that it can mean that this is its natural place to be. And maybe by the case of the dam, since they are makpid that they want it to be there, also can be called haynu ribisei. (b) Maybe the leg is not called kulo. *If don’t assume like the Yeraim then no kasha at all. B/c it’s penetrable, like it’s not there. -R’ Abadie also mentions a hagdara of makpid: Doesn’t mean that you would eventually take it off l’kavod שבת or s/thing like that. It means that you would want to take it off right away if you could. And rings, since might take it off any moment to knead dough, considered makpid. B. שו"ע 198:14 – 1. מחבר: Certain kinds of dirt, cement, etc. are chotzeitz. But other kinds of these dirts, when wet, not chotzeitz, when dry chotzeitz. 2. רמ"א: If she is makpedes, then even davar lach is chotzeitz. C. מחבר 198:15 - ink, milk, honey, and other liquids, when dry chotzeitz, when wet not chotzeitz 1. ש"ך 19- This רמ"א is referring to both halacha 14 and 15. Mashma, that רמ"א is chosheish for the Yeraim in general.
1. Mishna L’Melech explains that this is mishum chatzitza between body and bigdei kehuna. 2. Birkei Yosef- If lach is eino chotzeitz what’s pshat in the Mishna L’melech? Explains that gm there also talks about if wind comes btwn his body and begadim that would be a problem, see that there is a special din of al bsaro. And this chidush is quoted from the Chida. 3. Shela – ppl should wash the makom hanachas tefillin (see inside). a. Shaarei Teshuva או"ח 27:6 – quotes this shela but says should be careful to dry off b/c of the teffilin and b/c of chatzitza (see inside).
*What if wearing something the water can penetrate when you go to mikva and makpid that this item shouldn’t get wet? Lichora, would have said that it’s not a chatzitza so who cares about whether I’m makpid or not. A. שבת 57a: Rabbosav Shel רש"י say chidush that this is still a chatzitza midirabanan. רש"י doesn’t understand b/c it’s not chotzeitz in the first place. B. 198:4 – רמ"א quotes this din of the Rabosav of רש"י that if have gold strings in hair, eve though they are loose, chatzitza if she is makpid that they shouldn’t get wet. 1. Shiyurei Tahara 198:13 – What about loose jewelery? Not going to be a chatzitza b/c the whole din isn’t a chatzitza in the first place, so not going to extend the ראב"ד’s chumra to this case as well.
A. Mishna Yadayim 2:2 – (In general wash two times b/c 1st time mitaheir the hands, but that water becomes tamei, so need 2nd netila to be mitaheir that water, but if use a reviis all at once no need for two netilos. But if have something on your hand (cast, etc) should be makpid to always use full reviis b/c otherwise when do 1st netila some water will go onto the cast, the 2nd netila won’t touch it, won’t be mitaheir that water and then that water will come back onto the hand and be mitamei it. RSBG – if have s/thing which is mibriyas hamayim on the hand, not a problem of chatzitza. B. מג"א (או"ח 162:17) – Explains possible stira in מחבר by explaining that if davar hagadel bayam is solid, then it’s a chatzitza, and only if its liquefied, that’s when it’s not a chatzitza. C. Aruch HaShulchan 162:28 – Thinks this מג"א is a chumra yiseira, like Rsb”g, B. R’ Telushkin – Can we make a bathing cap out of fish skin for woman who had brain surgery and can’t get her head wet? Says maybe can assume like the רמ' that the head is not a separate unit, so maybe only shayla of dirabanan. And this cap is mibriyas hamayim, so could say it’s not a chatzitza like RSBG. So he sent this to חזו"א who though that this whole kula only applies to cases where the thing is liquid, not when it’s now a solid. R’ Telushkin thought that the Aruch HaShulchan thought the idea of this kula only being when its liquid is chumra yeseira. *The חזו"א’s shita became somewhat more accepted.
A. Gm Nida 67a – Talks about different shmutz that comes out of the body, a type of scab which is not chotzeitz for 1st 3 days, but then is chotzeitz. Puss from the eye is only chotzeitz if its dry, meaning when it starts to get green. K’chol in the eye not chotzeitz, outside of eye is chotzeitz. R’ Yochanan: Opens her eyes too much or closes too tight, chotzeitz. 1. רי"ף – Don’t pasken like any of these halachos before reish lakish, all l’inyan taharos, but not makpid in terms of heter l’baala. 2. רמ' Mikvaos 2:22 – Quotes some of these dinim and also writes that only l’inyan taharos. 3. ראב"ד Baalei HaNefesh – quotes the רי"ף. And says that these first three things were said stam, s/one thought they were talking about nida, but really only talking about taharos.
1. רש"י- She shouldn’t have her legs together and arms against her body, rather have them relaxed like when she walks. C. שו"ע 198:35 – Shouldn’t be totally straight when toveles, shouldn’t be bent too much, rather bend a little so that her breasts are separated from the body, armpits are a little exposed like if she was sewing, and legs somewhat separate like when she walks regularly. And if she doesn’t do these things, good tevila. But yesh omrim that not a good tevila. ש"ך 49 –Bothered that the מחבר says bidieved alsa la tevila b/c that’s only acc to man d’amar that rejects all the other cases in the gm, but the מחבר didn’t reject them b/c he paskens that by kchol in the eye that it’s chotzeitz even bidieved? *Bidieved, if a woman didn’t do so, presumably follow the stam in שו"ע, that alsa la tevila (R’ Simon spoke to R’ Abadie who said that since limaaseh women are tovlos 2x, we can assume she got everything covered by the 2nd tevila. R’ Forst writes that a woman who is nervous water won’t get into every area should go into the water to her neck, wave her arms around, etc. to get everything covered and then do actual tevila [mayim makdimim]). *R’ Abadie thinks b’zman haze we are not makpid on scabs b/c ppl want them to be there until they fall off. Different than b’zman chazal where ppl didn’t want them. D. Mishna Mikvaos 7:7 – If being tovel a big kli and once the kli hits the bottom of the mikva, will be too heavy, so how will the water touch the underside of the kli? Mishna says hamayim mikadmin, so since water hits the bottom even before the whole kli is in, considered like the water hit it underneath as well, connected to rest of moisture in the mikva and considered surrounded by water. 1. שו"ע 198:30 – Woman doesn’t have to lift her feet when she’s in the mikva b/c we assume hamayim mikadmin. And this is as long as there’s no mud on the bottom. II. Min B’mino eino chotzeitz A. Mishna Mikvaos 8:5 – If someone is holding onto the person going into the mikva, not a good tevila. But if he first made his hand wet in the waters of the mikva, then not chotzeitz. B. Gm Succah 37b – person shouldn’t thrust his lulav in with the other minim b/c some of the leaves might fall off and be a chatzitza between the lulav and the arava or the hadas, but Rava holds not a problem b/c min b’mino eino chotzeitz. C. Shaarei Tevila 28- quotes שו"ת Avnei Nezer who asks, if min b’mino eino chotzeitz why should there be a problem of someone holding onto you in the mikva? Explains that mbm makes it as if the other person’s hand is k’man d’leisa, it doesn’t make it like guf echad. Therefore, even though k’man d’leisa, still the water didn’t touch that part that was covered up. III. Gzeiras Merchatzaos – standing on things that are מק"ט in the mikva A. gm 66b –shouldn’t stand on a kli cheres when going into the mikva b/c of gzeiros merchatzaos. רש"י- used to be keilim in the water of a merchatz. So nervous that if mikva starts to look like a merchatz will stop going to mikva and just go to the merchatz. Also can’t go on piece of wood either b/c don’t want woman standing on s/thing that she’ll be nervous she’ll fall off of, so won’t be toveles properly. 1. ראב"ד – Thinks there still is gzeiras merchatzaos, which is any time standing on s/thing which is mikabel tuma b/c looks like bathhouse which was full of keilim. Meakeiv bidieved. But inverted kli cheres is only mikabel tuma inside, so only have problem of fright. And gets this from Mishna keilim 5:? That shouldn’t be tovel on a chair b/c it’s mikabel tuma. 2. רשב"א Bayis HaKatzar – If go on s.thing that is mikable tuma pasuls the tevila even bidieved altz gzeiras merchatzaos. (Could be same problem of being toveles while wearing flip flops, if think synthetic things are mikabel tuma, or putting mat down on floor of ocean) 3. רמ' Mikvaos 1:11 – Doesn’t bring din of gzeiras merchatzaos. Just not to go in public or on basket b/c she’ll be afraid or embarrassed and won’t do proper tevila. a. Beis Yosef – see that רמ' didn’t hold from gzeiras merchatzaos. B. שו"ע 198:31- Shouldn’t be toveles while standing on anything that can be mikabel tumas medras b/c of gzeiras merchatzaos. And if she does so anyways lo alsa la tevila. And not even on top of kli cheres b/c might be nervous she’s going to fall off and won’t do a proper tevila, but if did anyways, alsa la tevila. Therefore, if there is a mikva w/ a ladder in it, even if its attached to the wall, if she’s touching it while she’s being toveles, not a good tevila b/c it’s made of pshutei kli eitz. And should make stairs of stone which are four tefachim wide so woman can stand w/out being afraid. *So many shaylas come up w/ being tovel in lakes and things like this, especially b/c of the gzeiras merchatzaos, so unless have a Rav haMachshir, a better idea to travel even far, to make sure things are done correctly (in Camp Morasha they have a whole booth set up in the middle of the lake). Go into mikva using a wooden ladder which is mikabel tuma. Have discussion about something which was already a kli, מק"ט, and then connect it to the ground. And women would lower themselves into the mikva and hold onto the ladder while she went under, is this problem of gzeiras merchatzaos. 1. ש"ך 45- quotes from Maharam Padwa that if made the ladder into the wall lichatchila, totally fine. 2. ט"ז 31 – Not happy with any heter to allow wooden beams in the mikva. But mentions that not all rishonim hold from gzeiras merchatzaos, like the רמ'. 3. Shiyurei Tahara – Connecting s/thing to the ground isn’t always mivatel the shem kli, but if you build s/thing on top of it also, mishna says that is mivatel the shem kli. Im kein, when build this ladder and then put water of mikva on top of it, k’ilu you built on top of it, now mivatel the shem kli. Being milamed zechus for the meikilim. שיעור #40 (Packet 31) Tevila II I. Mikva Lady A. רא"ש Mikvaos 28 – There needs to be a woman who watches to make sure all her hair goes under the water (Mikva Lady). *R’ Simon pointed out that there is no din that s/one has to check you after you do a chafifa, but the minhag has developed that way.
*R’ Simon wasn’t sure how practical this is. C. ראב"ד Baalei haNefesh- also mentions the two options: Mikva Lady or loose hairnet. D. שו"ע 198:40 - 1. מחבר: Need adult woman (12yrs old) watching her be toveles to make sure no hair gets left out of the water. And if there’s no one to watch her she should put her hair in a hairnet of sorts, etc. or some other loose tying. E. רע"א שו"ת 114 – Woman who was toveles on her own, doesn’t bring s/one to watch her or a hairnet. Case was where they were skeptical about this woman in the first place whether she’s really going to the mikva. Also, maybe she didn’t do a good chafifa. And quotes the טור that if she ties her hair up then alsa la tevila, mashma that if she doesn’t do so then lo alsa la tevila, has to be toveles again. He also thinks the ב"ח is mashma this way as well. See that רע"א thinks that it’s miakeiv even bidieved. *The only question is if this would be true even for a woman w/ shaved head or very short hair. צ"ע.
F. רמב"ן Hilchos Nida 25 – When it comes to chatzitzas, not appropriate to be looking for chumros and to be paseling her tevila b/c of sfeikos b/c ein l’davar sof. If you did the appropriate job you can assume its ok. (Important to discern if person asking question is asking a real question or if they are neurotic, OCD, etc. Need to know how to deal with these people as well)
A. Gm Chullin 31a – Nida who was toveles as a result of some ones (falls into river, pushed in). R’ Yehuda b’shem Rav: L’inyan her husband she is tehora, but in terms of teruma she’s אסורה. R’Yochanan- temeia for both. And w/in Rav, R’ Nosson would say even if she didn’t have kavana to go into a body of water, Chachamim: Have to at least have kavana to go in the water/swimming. But if friends push her in w/ kavana that will be enough according to e/one. 1. רמ' Mikvaos 1:8 - Lichatchila need kavana for tevila, but bidieved, paskens like R’ Nosson w/in Rav, even if she falls in the water, muteres l’baala. 2. Hagahos Ashri – Paskens like R’ Yochanan, even bidieved require kavana, but if friends would push her in then their kavana works for her. B. שו"ע 198:48- 1. מחבר: Nida who is toveles w/out kavana is muteres l’baala. 2. רמ"א: Yesh l’hachmir l’chatchila to have her go again. And then mentions din that woman should be tzanua about when she’s going to the mikva. (R’ Simon mentioned that s/times woman needs to, if do so in tzanua way, ok). Also has din that woman should meet mikva lady first when she comes out of mikva, not to meet a davar tamei (like a dog) when she comes out.
-Usually make brachos over l’asiyasan. A. Gm Pesachim 7b – All brachos are made over l’asiyasan, except for tevila. And says that come out of the mikva and then say the bracha. But when gm originally spoke about tevila presumably was only talking about convert (akasi gavra lo chazi). 1. תוס' Al – quotes ר"ח that this is davka on tevilas ger b/c he’s not Jewish yet, but not by women. ר"י- Don’t argue w/ women who make bracha afterwards b/c lo plug, so women also can make the bracha afterwards. 2. רי"ף 4a – Only by tevilas ger do you wait until afterwards, not other tevilos. 3. BaHag – Make bracha when she comes out by tevilas nida as well. 4. טור quotes ראב"ד that she should make the bracha while still wearing her robe just before she goes in, רא"ש said the same thing as well.
|