Ana səhifə

ד Hilchos Nida Rav Baruch Simon shlit


Yüklə 1.83 Mb.
səhifə2/15
tarix27.06.2016
ölçüsü1.83 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15

- But what about the fact that even Rebbi had made a takana that if woman bleeds 3 days has to wait 7 nekiyim anyways, and not just chumra of bnos yisrael. And e/one agrees that can’t be meikil on this?!

So the Galya Mesechta himself quotes תוס' in Beitza 6 who has discussion about gzeiros that are made for einam Bnei Torah, not for everyone, does it apply to e/one forever, or not. So Galya Mesechta says that might be the pshat by Rebbi’s gzeira as well.


B. Kuntrusei Shiurim (R’ Gustman) Kiddushin- He also has svaros to be meikil and then says he was happy to see that he found this in the Galya Mesechta as well. But himself writes that he’s writing lihalacha v’lo limaaseh. (R’ Simon heard that there were times when R’ Gustman was matir, but said this is a very sensitive issue, and has to be asked of someone with broad shoulders, and even heard stories from R’ Moshe, but he never wanted to publicize it).
R’ Abadie- thought that maybe nowadays w/ IVF/IUI, would maybe be less of a reason to be meikil. [I heard R’ Willig say in שיעור this same idea. He mentioned IUI].
C. Igros Moshe YD 1:93- Teshuva to R’ Eliezri who had spoken to R’ Moshe a number of times about this and told him he gets a lot of shaylas like this. And R’ Moshe writes to him that he has trouble answering these shaylas b/c very difficult to be meikil. R’ Eliezri said maybe for the man who has mitzvas Pru Urvu, easier to be meikil on the dirabanan, but woman who doesn’t have mitzvas Pru Urvu can we say chatei bishvil shetizke chavercha? R’ Moshe said that even for the man its not so simple. And at the end says that even though he has svaros lihakeil, doesn’t want to write them down.
D. שו"ת Beis Avi (R’ Libaus)- Woman is baalas teshuva, but husband is not yet frum, and woman wants to know if she can keep only doraysas in order to keep shalom bayis and then hopefully she can have hashpaa on him to become frum as well.

- Very intense about not being meikil on dinei dirabanan. Quotes a number of cases where chazal were machmir on ppl who were over just on dinei dirabanan. But says that for purposes of takanas haShavim could be it would be mutar.


E. Taharas Mayim (R’ Nissin Telushkin) siman 76- Makes haara that whenever have safeik by maros during 7 nekiyim, should ask the woman two questions:

1) Has she had 17 clean days before this period (meaning was she muteres libaala at least 10 days after being assura).

2) Also have to know that her period lasted less than 10 more days. If this is true, then based on mishna in eirechin, know that she is not safeik zava, and these 7 nekiyim of hers are for sure only midirabanan. Im kein, in certain situations could be more meikil. i.e. if have safeik about a mara, could say safeik dirabanan likula. [Heard from R’ Willig that he heard from R’ Moshe that should tell baalei teshuva doraysa’s first and then ease them into dirabanans].
שיעור #4 (packet 3)- 9.15.08/ 16 Elul 5768

Chaishinan Lihargasha?
-Whenever have dam in front of you always have to ask is this dam: 1) Reiya 2) Kesem or 3) Maka.

*Most common shayla that comes up in regards to this question is woman who urinates and wipes herself and sees blood on the tissue. Do we this is just a kesem and can have kulas of kesem or are we chosheish that maybe she had a hargasha but it was masked by the sensation of going to the bathroom and we have to assume this is a reiya mamash and she would be temeia.


I. Masked Hargasha

A. Gm Nida 57B- 3 scenarios that could make the hargasha questionable/ raise possibility of hargasha. Going to the bathroom, doing a bedika, tashmish.

There are two possbilities in how to read this gm, found in the Kreisi U’pleisi 183:1:

1. Mehalech #1: She did have a hargasha, but we say that it was really just hargasha’s mei raglayim. So if she was omedes, have another reason to assume its from the makor, so temeia, but when yosheves, no reason to assume this is dam from makor, so she is tehora. And same thing with bedika and tashmish. If we have another reason to assume it’s from her, then have a chashash. If not, then not chosheish. A Kula, she thought she had a hargasha, but we’ll say it was something else. Pleisi himself says this way is pshuto.

2. Mehalech #2: She says she didn’t feel anything, but we say she had a hargasha, but she didn’t realize it b/c the hargasha was masked by the other sensation. A Chumra. But this is more difficult to read into the gm.

 And this comes out as big נ"מ in our mei raglayim case: Are we chosheish that she had a hargasha or not? Depends how you read the gm.


B. Pleisi quotes a number of rishonim who he thinks read the gm the 2nd way:

1. Trumas haDeshen 47- Has shayla from man whose wife never has a hargasha and man wants to say why would we assume that davka this time she had a hargasha? She’s never had a hargasha in her whole life. Nevertheless, the Trumas HaDeshen says have to be chosheish that davka now she had a hargasha. His svara l’hachmir is hard for me to understand, but nevertheless, the fact that he thinks should be machmir, pleisi says see that he must be reading the 2nd pshat in the gm.


2. רמ' IB 9:1- woman who has no hargasha and finds dam in prozdor, b’chezkas sheba b’hargasha. Pleisi wants to say that this is b/c רמ' reads like 2nd pshat in gm that we assume she had a hargasha, but she didn’t realize it b/c there was hargashas eid.

(We have seen already that this is only one of 2 possible pshatim in the רמ')


C. Chavas Daas 190:1- Reads gm 2nd way as well. Will be machmir by all 3 cases. However, by a regular case of wiping, not after mei raglayim, if didn’t go inside, then will be meikil b/c nothing to mask the hargasha.
D. Pischei Teshuva 183:1- Quotes both sides. Doesn’t seem to be machria either way.
E. Badei haShulchan 190:33 Biurim- mentions that it may not be a discussion midirabanan at all, ela chashash doraysa. No chiyuv to look at the tissue, but if she does, he would be machmir.

*SheLa HaKadosh (Kedushas HaZivug) - Talks about different colors on maros. There are certain colors that are vaday tamei and some are vaday tahor, and then there are some borderline colors. And when it comes to kesamim, all dirabanan, then the safeik colors will go l’kula, but when it’s a reiya, will be machmir. So see that difference between reiya and kesamim will have serious נ"מ in terms of borderline colors.


[Mentioned Chachmas Adam 113:30 who seems to be assuming like the 2nd tzad in the gm as well. Mentions 2nd case of gm, checking bedika cloth later and finding mashuch or agul stain and is machmir.]
II. Svaros lihakeil (either b/c read gm like 1st tzad or for other reasons):

A. Hagahos Maimoniyos IB 4:20- discusses doing bedikos before/after tashmish. Says this is only for ppl who were asukim b’taharos, but not nec for heter l’baala b/c all women are muchzakim to be mutaros to their husbands. Says his rebbi (Maharam MeRutenberg) was makpid that women should not be machmir to be bodeik after tashmish b/c heim amru v’heim amru- the rabanan said that if there’s dam afterwards she’s assura, and they tell her not to be bodeik afterwards. And brings from Rashbam that shouldn’t do bedikos before or afterwards.

*Seems like he holds like the 1st pshat b/c assuming whole question is on dirabanan level, not worried that maybe there was a hargasha but she missed it.
B. Igros Moshe YD 4:?:13- Makes chiluk btwn woman who gets up before she’s totally finished and wipes as the last few drops are coming out and woman who totally finished. If getting up quickly, since basically finished, nothing holding back the dam from coming out, but since still something coming out, there is chashash of that sensation masking the hargasha. But when she totally finished, assume it’s a kesem. And R’ Simon heard b’shem R’ Furst, talmid of R’ Moshe, that we assume that women today take enough time, don’t really have to be worried about this.

- R’ Moshe is still assuming like the chumra tzad in the gm, but is meikil nonetheless.


C. Sidrei Tahara 183:2- From earlier poskim assume kesamim are only dirabanan, and didn’t make chilukim in these cases mentioned in the gm. Assuming like 1st pshat.
D. Neta Sha’ashuim YD 21- doesn’t understand the 2nd pshat quoted in the pleisi. Why understand the gm in this strange way which is not mashma in the lashon of the gm? So thinks there is no such thing as a masked hargasha.
E. Aruch HaShulchan 183:53-56 - Says pshat in the רמ' is not like this 2nd pshat in the gm. Ela, just means that if you see dam inside, that means that it must have been from the makor, but not that it nec came now, earlier, and assume that when it came out it was b’hargasha, and it was a while ago so she doesn’t know. However, when there is a reason to be tole, and not a case of bedika, then can be tole that this wasn’t a hargasha, just felt the mei raglayim, etc.
F. חזו"א Hilchos Nida siman 90- When the gm answered l’olam d’argasha, etc. that was only the ה"א. B/c the gm says at the end says she’s only temeia midirabanan b/c of kesem, even though אה"נ there was no hargasha. So this whole discussion isn’t even shayach to the maskana.
G. Neta Sha’ashuim makes another haara as well: Talks about case where find dam inside on the bedika cloth, says don’t need svara of masked hargasha, just say now its vaday migufa and assume that chezkas ba b’hargasha. However, says רמ'’s case of chazaka ba b’hargasha is only if she’s mesupak if she was margish or not b/c chazakas are used b’makom safeik. But when the woman is sure she didn’t have a hargasha then no need to rely on the chazaka. Ela, we can assume it has din of nida dirabanan. This is not the mainstream opinion.
**R’ Bick was always meikil in this case, and didn’t ask how long it was after she had been sitting down. R’ Abadie feels this way as well. And the best thing is that she shouldn’t look. It’s not a game b/c even if she looks she’s really tehora too, but why look and have to worry about it. And also, if woman looks and sees dam, then might get curious and might end up going inside, and that will be real problem.


  • And should always make sure it’s only an external wiping. But what’s the borderline between internal and external? Will depend on whether worrying about masked hargasha (pleisi’s tzad l’chumra) or just need to know its vaday migufa (Aruch HaShulchan), in which case doesn’t have to be as far in as a bedika.

  • R’ Abadie (YD 31) says as long as just regular wiping nothing to worry about, and Chassam Sofer (first teshuva in Hilchos Nida) also wants to be machmir that more than that we have to be chosheish, but regular wiping not worried.

Clarifications from end of שיעור:



  • Spoke about woman who wipes after going to the bathroom, and spoke about machlokes achronim. But what’s the whole discussion? The רמ' paskens that by the gm about standing and sitting, that always tehora?! R’ Simon wanted to be mechaleik that gm is talking about dam mixed with the mei raglayim as opposed to our case which is afterwards and say maybe she had a hargasha when she was going to the bathroom and didn’t feel it, and question is what about if she finds the dam afterwards (not clear to me).



שיעור #5 (packet 4)- 9.17.08/ 18 Elul 5768

שיעור HaKesem V’din Telia
I. Source of Din Kesamim

A. Gm Nida 57B- Shmuel’s case of badka karka olam, she is tehora, and end of that gm R’ Yirmiya miDifti says shmuel would be mode that she’s temeia dirabanan even though she had no hargasha.


B. רמ' IB 9:2- Midivrei sofrim, if see kesem on body or on clothing, even though no hargasha, did bedika and found nothing, temeia.

1. כ"מ- Why isn’t this case of kesem a sfeik sfeika? Safeik from her, safeik not, and even if it did come from her, safeik from cheder, safeik from aliya (will discuss why he’s saying sfeik sfeika when just talking about a dirabanan)?! כ"מ Answers:

(a) אה"נ meikar hadin could be that was true, but since nida is issur chamur, were machmir.

(b) Maybe only one safeik b/c assume it did come migufa.


*Normative shita is that kesamim only is referring to dam found outside (Neta Sha’ashuim wanted to say even bedika could be dirabanan with no hargasha, but not the mainstream psak).
II. שיעור of Kesem

A. Mishna 58b- talking about teliyos, and mentions that if she crushed a bug, can be tole on the dam of the bug. And asks, up to how much can you be tole on the bug? Up to a gris. And gris v’od, cannot be tole (unless some other reason for the teliya).



- But this is only on outside, once go inside no such teliya b/c gm 14A says that oso makom baduk hu (dachuk hu) etzel maacholes, bugs either are never in that area, or its too narrow and they can’t get in. So even a little bit of dam will assur her, even acc to those who hold that bedika would only be midirabanan b/c can’t be tole on maacholes once she goes inside.
B. What about today when we don’t have maacholos, we know this dam came from her?!

1. Sefer Ha’Eshkol (also called the ראב"ד) Hilchos Nida- רי"ף was mikatzer a lot in hilchos nida and didn’t write about kesamim at all?! Explains that maybe the רי"ף thought there was no din kesamim anymore b/c the whole din was only said when there were dinim of taharos and were machmir by kesamim l’inyan taharos, and to safeguard the dinim by taharos assured her libaala as well. But nowadays, since have no taharos, im kein, the issur libaala by kesamim shouldn’t apply either.


2. ראב"ד Baalei HaNefesh (Shaar HaKesamim) - attacks those who hold there are no kesamim bizman haze (“hevel hu b’yadam”). First of all, the minhag is that we are chosheish for kesamim. Then brings rayas from gm 58A that kesamim were said to be machmir al divrei torah, as a syag to issur nida, etc.

3. Chasam Sofer (teshuva 182) - In principle, the Eshkol is right, it really began as a safeguard for taharos. However, it’s a davar shebiminyan, so even though taharos are no longer nohagim, the din by nida still remains. And continues, that now we can understand why we have the heter of k’gris v’od even though the teliya is not really relevant at all anymore b/c there really shouldn’t be any din of kesamim at all anymore, but keep it b/c it’s a dsb”m, so only have to keep it as it was then and can use the kulas that applied then.

*However, in end of the day, we still don’t really have explanation for the רי"ף.

III. שיעור of Gris

A. רמ' IB 9:6- size of 3x3 lentils.

B. Chok U’Zman- quotes Meil Tzedaka that it’s 20mm, the size of a nickel. חזו"א thought the meil tzedaka was correct.

C. Igros Moshe YD 3:56:2- mentions penny. Many use this שיעור.

D. R’ Abadie thinks like the חזו"א and Meil Tzedaka.
IV. שיעור gris when dam is vaday migufa bli hargasha

A. שו"ת Meil Tzedaka 20- What if have something that’s vaday migufa, would think no telia b’maacholes. That’s true by bedika, but as long as not a bedika, since it’s only midirabanan still have the kula of gris v’od b/c lo gazru on dam less than gris v’od.


B. Sidrei Tahara 190:36- calls this yesod a milsa d’tmiha. Doesn’t think this is correct b/c this din was only when you could be tole on maacholes then. B/c thinks there are three categories: Reiya, Kesem, and Nida Dirabanan which doesn’t have kula of gris v’od (still has other kulas). This third category comes into play when have no hargasha but vaday migufa.
נ"מ: Wiping after hatalas Mei Raglayim

C. Igros Moshe YD 4:16- woman who wipes after mei raglayim, not doing a halachic act, not trying to wipe only oso makom, so in that case have a teliya ממ"נ b/c she places the tissue all over, so don’t have klal of oso makom baduk hu etzel maacholes.

- Might have said this was נ"מ between Meil Tzedaka and Sidrei Tahara. But R’ Moshe is saying that even acc to the Sidrei Tahara nothing to worry about.
D. שו"ת Cheishev Ha’Efod Siman 75 (R’ Padwa) - If find kesem on something that’s mikabel tuma and then takes something not mikabel tuma and wipes it off, now its on the tissue. No one would say it’s now tehora. Says that’s what’s going on by wiping after going to the bathroom b/c the dam is on her body and then just transfers it onto the tissue. So she shouldn’t have the kulas. However, he is mode that it’s only midirabanan, but also won’t get kula of eino mikabel tuma, or of k’gris v’od (lichora not tzivonim either b/c already was tamei on woman’s body).
E. Taharas Habayis (R’ Ovadya)- Argues with Cheshev Ha’Efod b/c says that this case is different b/c didn’t know about the kesem until it she sees it on the tissue. That’s the first time she finds the tissue.
Many Morei Hora’a work not like Cheshev Ha’Efod.
[- Shayla about woman who has fibroids and finds dam on diaphragm. One Rav had paskened it was a maka and could be tole b’maka. Cheshev haEfod holds that since it’s hormonal, not a maka. When R’ Simon was discussing this with R’ Ausch (Fallsburger Beis Din) he said that even they don’t hold from our Cheshev Ha’Efod by wiping after mei raglayim.]
V. Kesem on her Skin

A. רמ' IB 9:6- Only have din of k’gris on other things, but on skin ein la שיעור.

B. ראב"ד- not true, doesn’t matter where it’s found, have שיעור k’gris v’od. Has rayas from gm’s against the רמ'.

C. שו"ע 190:6- שיעור for kesem is no matter where it is, yesh omrim that only on begged, not on skin. (usually says stam and yesh omrim, halacha k’stam [two yesh omrim’s, follow the 2nd one]). Most poskim pasken this way.


VI. Tipin, Tipin

*שיעור of gris always has to be b’makom echad.

A. Gm 58A- Discussion about certain shapes. Gm then asks, what about tipin tipin, little drops. Gm says maybe that’s the case of al bsara tamei? Answers no, that’s only when the dam is streaking down.

B. 59A- tipin tipin ein mitztarfin.

- All rishonim ask, what’s going on here? Why didn’t the gm answer it’s kasha on 58A from the braisa on 59A.

1. ראב"ד Baalei HaNefesh (Kesamim 19)- 59A is talking about when its found on clothing, not mitztareif to שיעור gris. 58A is talking about on her body, and there will be machmir that they are mitztareif.

2. רשב"א Thb Kesamim 18A- thinks gm 58A is not talking about tzeiruf, ela those tippin are even a gris, but the shayla is whether or not this shape will be considered coming migufa or not. Never even uses lashon tzeiruf. 59A is talking about tzeiruf, and doesn’t matter whether on begged or on body.
C. שו"ע 190:8- First quote the רשב"א, and then the ראב"ד as a yesh omrim. And that is the way most poskim pasken. However, there are poskim who are machmir by both.

(Take a look in Chok Uzman has all the shitos)


R’ Zalman Nechemia’s Bechina has shayla about black kesem less than a gris.

Baalei HaNefesh- If kesem is not red, will not be tole b’maacholes b/c dam of maacholes is red. רע"א quotes this limaaseh.

- Chok Uzman quotes maaseh w/ Debretziner Rav who was giving שיעור in mountains and closed his gm on cockroach, and next day when opened the gm found black dam, and said from now on will be meikil on black kesem in mountains b/c can be tole on the cockroaches.



שיעור #6 (packet 5)- 9.22.08/ 23 Elul 5768

B’inyan Kesem al Gabei Tzivonim
- Have heter that kesem found on colored garment is not mitamei a woman. Have to understand why not. [Obviously, colored garments don’t help when dealing with nida doraysa, only when dealing with din dirabanan of kesem].
I. K’ein Doraysa?

 Like to say in general that kol d’tikun rabananan k’ein doraysa tikun. When Chazal make takanos, do so by borrowing similar ideas found in the Torah.


A. Mishna Negaim 11:3- Tumas Tzaraas, have a din that colored begadim cannot be mitamim b’negaim.

B. Chachmas Adam Nida 113:10- ???

C. Gm Shabbos 145b- Talmidei Chachamim in Bavel had to dress extra fancy b/c they were einam bnei Torah. רש"י- b/c they weren’t such big talmidei chachamim needed to do extra things to get kavod. Bechor Shor- explains that it was a zechus to get tzaraas b/c showed you were on such a high level, so why didn’t t’ch in bavel wear clothes that can be mikabel tzaraas? B/c they weren’t on such a high level to get tzaraas.
II. Source of Din Dirabanan

A. Gm Nida 61B- Brings machlokes amoraim whether or not tzivonim are mikabel kesamim. Tk- Mitamei, R’ Nosson Bar Yosef- eino mitamei. And the “heter” is b/c when they were gozer on certain things after a certain sakana so that shouldn’t come to excessive happiness, wanted to be gozer on tzivonim, and they said not to in order to allow women the heter of tzivonim.


B. רמ' IB 9:7- “lifikach tiknu” that women should wear tzivonim to save them from kesamim.
C. שו"ע 190:1- רמ"א: Women should wear tzivonim kdei l’hatzilam from kesamim.
D. שו"ת Chasam Sofer 161: If the whole din was only on the beggadim they were going to assur, and they decided to allow them to save women from kesamim, then this din should only apply to outer garments on which they would have been gozer. Weren’t going to assur wearing colored undergarments! So thinks the whole heter is only for outer garments.

*This chumra is generally not accepted.


E. חזו"א Hilchos Nida 88:4- does not accept this svara. Says this has been the din for hundreds of years, and now you’re saying that e/one’s been nichshal for all this time? Doesn’t make sense.
III. Svara Behind the Heter

A. רש"י Nida 61B- dam eino nikar bo. Can’t tell its dam.

B. Darkei Teshuva 190:10- quotes baal haTanya, has to be mare dam that dam is not nikar bo. Quotes Meil Tzedaka saying the same way as well. Has to be that dam is not nikar on this color.
C. Nida 19A- five different kinds of dam that is assur. 4 reds and 1 black. And bizman chazal they were able to be mavchin btwn different kinds of red.

1. רא"ש 2:4- Even bizman the gm there were some chachamim who didn’t like to pasken maaros b/c they didn’t feel they knew how to distinguish btwn different reds.

2. Chezkas Tahara (R’ Yechezkel Roth) - at the time of the gzeira they were still able to distinguish btwn different kinds of dam, and once dealing with kesem, and now its on a begged tzavua, really can’t know, so since its only dirabanan, we have this kula.
D. Chok Uzman 2:5- Not mechaleik between different colors, even light colors are ok, but darker colors are definitely preferred.

* R’ Simon: And this should be even the sheets she sleeps on, the towels she uses after a shower, it just makes things easier.

[During 7 nekiyim the Chassidim make sure that not only the undergarments but even the sheets should be white. And others hold that way as well, but R’ Simon does not think that’s necessary, only the undergarments need to be white.]
E. שו"ת Adnei Paz 87:20- talking about woman who is having trouble with kesamim and says should use tzivonim for e/thing and says any color would be ok as long as they’re not white. Quoted by Chok Uzman. This is based on diyuk from רמ' IB 9:7. And quotes R’ Moshe and Debretziner who both said any color is fine. (but there are those who think davka dark colors work). See Chok Uzman inside
F. Nitei Gavriel 73- better to wear garments that aren’t so dark b/c if there would be a big stain which would be nida doraysa might miss it. (I think R’ Forst says this as well, look it up).

- But, lichora, once it was found already, as long as not white or off-white, nichlal in the hter of tzivonim.


IV. Those who don’t hold from the heter at all

A. רמב"ן Hilchos Nida 4:6- Since dam is nikar bahem, tzivonim are not nitzol from kesamim.

B. Hagahos Maimoni- brings the Raavan and R’ Simcha who think that this discussion is not about heteira libaala, ela about being mitamei the begged.

C. Dagul Merivava 190:10- surprised that the שו"ע doesn’t even mention the dissenting opinion, and says that difficult to be meikil kineged these 3 gedolim.


V. Bigdei Tzivonim During 7 Nekiyim

A. Pischei Teshuva 190:22- quotes from Amudei Kesef that can’t use this heter during yimei libun.

B. שו"ת Maharsham 81, 82- Discusses possibility of woman wearing tzivonim even during 7 nekiyim for woman who has trouble getting full 7 nekiyim b/c w/out this will not be able to become muteres. Even though אה"נ generally the minhag is to wear white during those 7 days.

C. שו"ע 196:3, 4 רמ"א- ???

1. Pischei Teshuva-

D. Shevet HaLevi 190:9- Bimakom tzorech gadol will allow woman to wear tzivonim during 7 nekiyim (see inside).

E. Igros Moshe YD 2:78- Gave heter to woman who was staining to wear tzivonim during 7 nekiyim.

F. R’ Abadie mentioned to R’ Simon that maybe could get around this issue by having woman wear pad, which is livanim but also will be matzhil her from kesamim b/c assumes it’s em”t.


VI. What about when there’s some color, some white?

Three shitos in this shayla:

A. Chavas Daas 190:9- All one kesem, and part is on white, nikar, so that’s gilui milsa on the whole thing, so even though not full gris on white, will be machmir. (Chavas Daas).

*Also adds, that if have one kesem, and only part of it is mare tamei, since its all one kesem, then assume the whole kesem is tamei (lishitaso).


B. Aruch HaShulchan 190:44- Dam that’s on the white, if all one kesem, different parts on white will be mitztareif together, but part on the colored won’t be included to make a gris. שו"ת Meil Tzedaka 62- Also holds this way. The colored area is not ole l’שיעור kesem, but it is mitztareif the two parts on white together.

- Nitei Gavriel thinks this way (see inside) as well, but says that b’makom tzorech there is possibility to be meikil. R’ Bick used to pasken this way as well. This seems to be the more mainstream psak.


C. Whenever there are tzivonim it is mafsik totally, not even the white parts are mitztareif together.

1. שו"ע HaRav 190: ? – Quotes the Meil Tzedaka, but doesn’t quote that the two are mitztareif, just that its not ole.

2. Tzemach Tzedek- Bothered that the Rav didn’t quote the Meil Tzedaka appropriately. And thinks that the Baal haTanya must have disagreed with this meil tzedaka (see inside).

3. Emek She’eila YD 37- Also bothered by the same thing, also thought that Baal HaTanya was choleik.

R’ Ausch said they use this kula as does R’ Abadie.

VII. Transfering Kesamim from tzavua to eino tzavuas:

A. Kesem goes through colored sheets onto white mattress cover or Person has kesem on tzivonim and then touch it with a white cloth, now have kesem on white begged.


B’tzeil haChochma (brother of the Debreziner, Rav of Australia) 149- he talks about person who has a begged tzavua on one side and on the other side its white, and it seeped through from tzavua part to the white part. He is meikil. Holds that once it was on the tzivonim immediately gets the heter of tzivonim.

R’ Abadie (Ohr Yitzchak YD 31) - thinks these cases are all assur. B/c the whole heter is b/c its eino nikar, but now its nikar. And says that even if she touches it with a tissue would be assur b/c now its nikar its dam and now that kesem that was on a begged was actually dam, assur.

R’ Ausch- If the begged is white on one side, that’s called nefila on white (maybe sheets case would be like this as well), but from one to the other, that’s really a transfer and would be mutar.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət