Ana səhifə

ד Hilchos Nida Rav Baruch Simon shlit


Yüklə 1.83 Mb.
səhifə4/15
tarix27.06.2016
ölçüsü1.83 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15

רמ'- Bein omedes bein yosheves tehora. R’ Yossi is not worried that mei raglayim ever brings the dam, im kein, no reason to assume there’s a hargasha b/c this dam is dam maka always.

רא"ש- R’ Yossi argues only in the cases that R’ Meir assured. Therefore, by omedes and shoseses, will be machmir, but as long as yosheves or if omedes and maznekes, tehora. Apparently agrees that when the dam can be brought from the makor that we assume there was a hargasha, that’s why he assurs the case of omedes and shoseses. Only argues about when we say that meir raglayim goes back and brings dam.

ר"ח- R’ Yossi agrees w/ R’ Meir in e/ case, just thinks that it’s only temeia mishum kesem. R’ Yossi, then, never worries about masked hargasha b/c never assurs these cases midoraysa. Will agree that unless she’s yosheves and maznekes that the mei raglayim brings the dam, but that doesn’t cause a hargasha. That’s why even acc to the psak in שו"ע 191:1, if you hold that toilet and toilet water are both אמק"ט, nothing to worry about.

**Acc to this, will come out that ר"ח, who we are machmir like in 191, never is chosheish for a hargasha. Nevertheless, we know that there is a huge discussion in the achronim about whether we are chosheish l’hargasha in general or not. Could say that we are machmir for ר"ח in this case and machmir for the machmir tzad in the gm 57b in other cases. But when it comes to actual cases of mei raglayim, d’haynu the case of wiping that R’ Moshe deals with, why don’t we assume this whole din is only kesem? צ"ע.]


 R’ Simon addressed this in a later שיעור: Siman 191 is about when dam comes out w/ mei raglayim and want to know if this dam is from the urinary tract or not and how do we determine that? However, the question of when she finds dam on tissue, that’s after the mei raglayim is over, and we know it doesn’t come from urinary tract, question is are we chosheish for hargasha in that case. R’ Moshe actually addresses this nekuda in that teshuva about the tissue.

- Mentioned that acc to ר"ח only worried about kesem, never worried about masked hargasha. And added that the רמ', although he doesn’t talk about masked hargasha b/c assume its always masked hargasha, but it could be that when it comes out afterwards would be chosheish for masked hargasha.


שיעור #11 (Packet 6d)- 11.3.08/

Inyanei Kesamim- Assorted Topics
I. Chiyuv Bedika after finding a Kesem

A. Gm 13A- Kol haYad haMarbe livdok b’nashim meshubachas- sounds like a very good thing for women to be doing extra bedikos. Not talking about 7 nekiyim per se, anytime.



R’ Tendler in his book, Pardes Rimonim, writes that whenever woman finds a kesem, or certain reiyasa, know that some dam came out, even though there are kulas of kesem, should do a bedika to make sure there is no dam. R’ Dovid Feinstein holds this way as well. Hold that the kulas of kesamim only apply when you also did a bedika. R’ Elyashiv holds this way as well, as well as Chidushim U’Biurim of R’ Greinemen.

There is mesora in the other way, though. R’ Abadie, R’ Willig, R’ Bick, R’ Vozner, and many others hold that there is no such requirement to do bedikos when there is a reiyasa.

But acc to this tzad, what’s the pshat in this mishna?
B. רא"ש Nida 2:1- This mishna is talking about a woman who is asuka b’taharos, should do bedikos to make sure she’s not mitmamei the taharos. B/c if finds out much later that she’s temeia, will have to be mitamei all the taharos from last 24hrs (acc to that m”d in the gm beginning of Nida). However, if she’s not asuka b’taharos should not be doing bedikos so that her husband won’t be nervous and be poreish from her (shelo yihei libo nokfo v’poreish).
C. רמ' IB 8:11- Quotes this mishna, and says good to be doing bedikos even if has veses kavua b/c maybe dam will come shelo b’zman. However, during yimei ziva, doesn’t have to check b/c that’s not eis nidasa. *Assumes not like the רא"ש.
D. שו"ע 184:1- Whenever its not shaas tashmish, kol hamarbe livdok harei ze meshubach Not talking about ppl who are asukim b’taharos, so presumably not holding like the רא"ש.

196:9- quotes similar din w/ same idea. Like the רמ'.
E. Igros Moshe YD 4:18- Does woman have to wipe w/ livanim during 7 nekiyim? No. And doesn’t have to look at the tissue b/c doesn’t have to do more than is required of her during 7 nekiyim. And says even though we know that kol hamarbe livdok is meshubachas, pashut that is not talking about in the bathroom, and also only during yimei tahara, not during 7 nekiyim where chazal already instituted how many bedikos.

*Adds at the end that since nowadays we are not beikiim in maaros and we have to assur all reds miSafeik, and even certain other colors b/c of chumra b’alma. Im kein, if she does extra bedikos we will end up assuring her many times b/c of these chumros. Therefore, he says there is no maala to do extra bedikos nowadays.


Could argue that R’ Moshe isn’t talking about our case where there is a reiyasa, but מ"מ he is talking about why more bedikos in general is not a good idea. R’ Simon said R’ Abadie uses this svara as a reason not to require bedikos even in case of a reiyasa.
*Even those morei horaa who don’t think she has to be bodeik do often require the couple to be poreish for 12 or 24hrs to make sure there isn’t something brewing.
F. Cheshev HaEfod- Quotes the chidushim U’Biurim and says can’t believe it, says he was mishameish many gedolim of Yerushalayim and were never machmir to require a bedika. If woman came w/ a kesem and they had reason to be matir they would matir immediately w/out any hesitation (bli shum hisus). Thinks a Rav should not give a horaa that the woman should do a bedika before being matir. Ela, if the kesem is tehora she is tehora.
G. R’ Elyashiv (quoted in Otzros haTahara) - thinks that even though not mechuyeves to do a bedika even when the kesem is found on אמק"ט or tzivonim, etc. thinks its rauy v’ratzuy. Says that b’shaas haDchak there would be room to be meikil b/c limaaseh she didn’t have a hargasha. And during 7 nekiyim, chalila for a woman to not to a bedika b/c she just found a kesem that day and is nervous the bedika will be bad b/c in this case she is mechuyeves midina to do a bedika.

(Others, including the Shevet HaLevi, agree w/ R’ Elyashiv that it is a good idea to do a bedika, even though she is not mechuyeves)


*R’ Simon follows the meikilim in this area. Not only is there no chiyuv, it is not even advisable. And thinks that if find kesem around the time she is supposed to have her period, should be poreish for 12hrs. (Said he thinks R’ Willig holds 24hrs, but should check).

II. Kesem on the Husband’s Clothing

A. Pischei Teshuva 190:2- Not talking about something found on the cloth that used to wipe after tashmish b/c that’s pashut that it came from her. Quotes Panim Meiros: Says a chidush that if find on begged of the man, even if it’s white and larger than a gris, etc. not machmir b/c never find that we’re machmir on begged of the husband. But quotes kasha on Panim Meiros from a tosefta.

B. Tosefta Nida 6:12- If woman is in bed w/ her son (Chamia, will discuss), etc. and find kesem on him, temeia. And presumably talking about a/one, ל"ד the son.

Pischei Teshuva says that it seems that the Panim Meiros forgot this tosefta?!

C. שו"ת Maharsham 1:163- Tries to defend the panim Meiros: 2 strikes against the tosefta.

1. Seems to be meshabeshta b/c the words say Chamia, sounds like the father-in-law is in the bed, which is very difficult to understand.

2. Not quoted in Shas anywhere. And says that when have toseftas that weren’t brought, don’t pasken like them (even though the ש"ך says that as long as it doesn’t contradict s/thing in shas then would pasken like it).

D. Chachmas Adam 113:4- Paskens like the Panim Meiros.


**ממ"נ, R’ Simon quoted from R’ Abadie that we don’t assume like the Panim Meiros, and are dan on each case separately, no special rule that just b/c found on the husband then automatically tehora.

III. If Kesem gets lost

A. Chachmas Adam 113:29- If kesem gets lost before it was shown to the chacham, if she wasn’t sure if it had שיעור gris or not or if the color was red or not, since only midirabanan, can be meikil.

B. Binas Adam 111:5- When it comes to bedikos, woman is neemenes to say the mare was tehora and I lost it b/c in general women are neemanos on their bedikos (v’safra la). However, if she says she’s not sure, may have been red, have to be machmir misafeik.

C. שו"ת Maharsham Siman 214- Even by bedikos, if the woman knows it wasn’t red mamash, but was nervous maybe it was close to red (note l’admumis), since midin shas that is tahor, but we are machmir, so then if it got lost we can be meikil.

*R’ Simon said from R’ Abadie that each case has to be judged separately b/c there are a lot of factors involved.
IV. Stain that has Red on the Edges

- The middle of the stain is not red, only on the edges, and the size of the stain is more than a gris. So the question is, do we say that since the edge is red and clearly this whole stain came from the woman, then assume that this whole thing is a mare temeia or not?


A. שו"ת Meil Tzedaka 20- Thinks that can be meikil and be tole that this little part that is red is from maacholes, not mitztareif it with the rest of the stain.

B. רמ"א שו"ת – Is machmir in case of woman who sees stains often that are white and yellow, and also has some type of cuts that are motzi dam. It was clear that the white discharge came from her, so says that since we know the white came from her and the red is a ring around the white, clearly they came together, so is machmir. And wants to be machmir even when there’s a safeik whether the white and red are connected.

C. ט"ז 190:41- Argues with the svara of the רמ"א, and says can be tole if there is s/thing to be tole on. However, at the end, says he would agree to the רמ"א שו"ת in his case.

*Limaaseh, R’ Simon quoted from R’ Abadie that we assume that need a full שיעור of red k’gris v’od. Sounds more like the Meil Tzedaka.


V. Stain w/ darker edge

A. Aruch Hashulchan 188:14- has kula that if the rest of the mare from a bedika looks good, just the edges look like they might be red, have to be careful to make sure it’s not just the intensity of the gathering at the edges but really its not red (see inside).

*R’ Abadie pointed out that if the edge really is red, though, then have to be machmir, just that shouldn’t be fooled.

שיעור #12 (Packet 6e)- 11.05.08/ Cheshvan 5769

B’inyan Tipas Dam K’chardal
I. What is the שיעור for becoming a nida?

We have spoken so far about ribui dam vs no ribui dam, that was more in terms of how we know she had a hargasha. But meikar hadin, even tipas dam makes a woman a nida. And we have the chidush of Chumra d’R’ Zeira of tipas dam k’chardal makes her wait 7 nekiyim. But really the chumra is just that we treat all women as safeik zavos gedolos to require 7 nekiyim b/c already become nidos even w/ tipas dam. And this is why there’s no din of gris by bedika.


R’ Bleich told R’ Simon maaseh w/ R’ Henken. R’ Henken was being mesader a get and woman came in w/ a mare. And R’ Henken made a comment that a chardal is also a שיעור. Meaning, that true even less than a gris is temeia, but maybe need at least a chardal. (Obviously, can’t learn dinim from a story, but this is how the story goes). But the shayla is very important b/c often find little red dots on bedika cloths.
A. R’ Yona Brachos 22A (dapei רי"ף) – Svara for Chumra of R’ Zeira is that usually when see dam today, this is buildup of three days of bleeding, but wouldn’t say that on just a little drop, קמ"ל, that the gzeira is to be chosheish that even tipas dam k’chardal is a buildup of three days. Could be a smach to this idea that it has to have enough to say there was at least some buildup.

B. רמב"ן Hilchos Nida 1:18- Different svara: If woman sees a tipa during 7 nekiyim causes her to wait another 7 days, so not to be mechaleik they always wait 7 days. Acc to this svara, no reason to assume a שיעור of chardal.

1. ש"ך 183:3- K’chardal, and ה”ה pachos. Clearly saying even less than a chardal. Quoting from Hagahos Shaarei Dura.
II. Why does the ש"ך need a shaarei dura, isn’t it a b’feirushe mishna?

A. Mishna 40A- Talks about woman being mitamei from dam, keri, zav, etc and says mitamin b’kol shehu. [Teshuva MeAhava gives four answers to this question] 2 derachim to explain this mishna:

1. Not talking about dam, only the other substances:

a. Peirush Mishnayos רמ'- Mitamin b’kol shehu is going on the shichvas zera and ziva, but not on the dam.

b. Bartenura- Also says only about zera, etc. but not about the dam.

2. Talking about Dam as well:

a. Rashash- Pashut that it’s going on all the cases of the mishna. Acc to Rashash, though, our question comes back:

Dagul Merivava Tanina 183- Mishna is saying she becomes nida doraysa b’kol shehu, but who says that chumra of R’ Zeira that needs full 7 nekiyim like a zava gedola is also by kol shehu? Comes the ש"ך from Shaareis Dura that even for chumra R’ Zeira no din of chardal, even kol shehu.


III. Continuation of this discussion- 1 tipa vs 2 tippin, kula of the Bach/Sidrei Tahara.

A. Gm Nida 41B- If makor is mazia 2 tipin margolios (white dam drops), temeia. And gm says can’t mean real dam nida b/c this is not one of the 5 minei damim, ela this gives woman a tumas erev. And continues, this is davka if have 2 drops, but if only one, we can be tole that it came me’Alma.

(Presumably saying that not the derech for only one tipa to come from the makor, but 2 tippin now choshesh that it came from the makor l’inyan tuma)
B. Bach 183: Why did R’ Zeira say davka a chardal and not just say kol shehu? Thinks the chumra is coming to be machmir that even though by one tipa we could be tole that it’s a maka, nevertheless, we assume that this is from the makor. And lashon of tipa achas k’chardal just comes to emphasize even very little and only one tipa. K’chardal is just a way of saying very little. And chumra is not just to make her zava gedola, but also on the שיעור itself.

1. Sidrei Tahara 183:4- Acc to the Bach that this was the chumra, that was when that was the only safeik. However, if there is another tzad safeik could be meikil.

- This is where poskim talk about very small dot and having trouble telling what color it is (2 sfeikos), could have a kula based on the Bach and Sidrei Tahara. But not everyone agrees w/ this kula.
C. Node B’Yehuda (Tanina 101)- Gm says that not derech to have only one tipa come from the makor, and gm of bnos yisrael maybe is only when she feels it coming from the makor, but otherwise no chumra when only have one tipa. At the end, though, says that was what I thought when I was young, and no one should rely on this limaaseh.
E. Divrei Chaim YD 39- Discusses the Bach. Very intense that nowadays we can’t use pilpulim to come out w/ heterim like those before us did b/c they had bekius and charifus we don’t have. Therefore, follow pashtus haSugya, and if can be tole b’maka by checking, fine, but otherwise, should be machmir.
F. Taharas Yisrael 183:2- quotes that should be machmir even for one tipa, but quotes Pri Deia- meikil by tipa achas when no white discharge w/ it, but Divrei Chaim is machmir.
IV. Another tzad l’hakeil in this shayla

A. שו"ע 190:33- Woman who uses eid baduk, temeia if finds even a tipa k’chardal.



190:36- If woman uses eid she’eino baduk, even if put it away s/where safe, and then see there is dam on it, can be tole on maacholes up to k’gris v’od.

 So poskim discuss, if have something very small that find after the bedika maybe can be tole that it was there even before the bedika, she just didn’t see it. And this might be true even by our eidim which are considered baduk in general.


B. Darkei Teshuva 190:164/5- Quotes Zayis Raanan that has such a kula, that little spots that would only find w/ very close look beforehand can be tole they were there beforehand. Then quotes Divrei Nechemia who says the same thing as well.
C. Shiurei Shevet haLevi 190:33- Says heard similar svara from חזו"א, but says that bedika cloths that women buy nowadays generally don’t have this problem.
*R’ Simon told maaseh from Rav in Brooklyn who told him that woman was having trouble conceiving and was always finding little dots on her bedikas and her Rav was being machmir. When he finally got to see them, saw that really some were threads and matired her and she had a child and wrote him a letter thanking him.

*Debretziner told R’ Bick that little tiny dots like the size of a needlehead or a pencil, usually not dam b/c derech of dam to be mispasheit.

- Point being, that you have to be careful to make sure that these little dots are really dam, and need to know what the tzdadei kula are as well.

שיעור #13 (Packet 7)- 11.10.08/ 12 Cheshvan 5769

Prisha Samuch L’Vest
I. Din of Vestos in General

A. Metzora 15:31- “V’hizartem es bnei yisrael” to stay away from tuma.

1. רש"י- refers to prisha.
B. Gm Shvuos 18b- quotes the pasuk, and says from here that men should be poreish from their wives samuch l’vesta. And how long? Raba: Ona

1. רש"י- Either day or night. Depends when her veses is. If its day, be poreish that day. If at night, be poreish at night.


C. רמ' Shgagos 5:6- Man is w/ his wife shelo b’shaas vesta and she becomes nida in the middle, pturim from korban b/c they’re considered anusim. B/c a shogeg is s/one who should have checked to find out the situation but this guy had nothing to worry about. However, if they are together b’shaas veses and thinks he’ll sneak it in before she becomes a nida and then she sees dam, that’s shogeig, and chayavim b’korban.
D. רמ' IB 4:12/13- Assur to be w/ wife samuch l’vesta shema she’ll see dam, etc. and quotes this din of if she usually sees at night, assur at night. And same for day. But if onas havest comes and goes and she doesn’t see dam, mutaros to eachother at the end of the ona.

1. Hagahos Maimoni 9- Quotes from Aviasaf that some say that it depends on perfect day of the yr, meaning that it’s always 6am-6pm. No matter when neitz and shkia is. Not based on sha’os zmanios (Not generally accepted l’halacha).


II. Definition of Day/Night L’gabei Vestos

A. Chavas Daas 184:5 (not in packet) - Day is from neitz until shkia, and night is shkia until neitz. Meaning, that if woman sees dam after alos hashachar, if before shkia, we consider her veses at night (even though halachically day begins at alos b’toras vaday midoraysa and din of neitz is midirabanan to make sure you don’t do the mitzva at night by accident). So what’s different here? Vestos come w/ assumption about what effect nature has on the woman, so go based on when the sun actually rises. This is generally the accepted psak.


B. Sidrei Tahara 184:6- Thinks its davar tamuha
C. Aruch HaShulchan 184:27- Also not sure about this din. And comes out w/ chumra that if woman has veses for after alos and before neitz, should be machmir for both. Not generally accepted.
D. שו"ת Ohr Yitzchak (R’ Abadie) - Thinks it should be from alos until tzeis.

III. Chumras Ohr Zarua

A. Gm Nida 63b- If she sees at neitz, when veses comes, is she assura only at neitz, or the whole day and Rava adds onto R’ Yehuda’s din of that day that osa ona. And Says gm that this comes to teach us that אסורה this ona in which she usually sees, not the night beforehand.

B. Ohr Zarua- They have to be poreish not only that ona, but even the ona beforehand. So end up really keeping 24hrs of veses.
C. תוס' Rid- Samuch L’vesta means the ona before her veses. Im kein, if usually sees during day, have to be poreish night before (and assumption R’ Simon had was that its pashut to תוס' rid that also have to be poreish the actual ona itself).
D. Beis Yosef 184- Pushes aside the shitas Ohr Zarua, Ein Taam V’Shoresh L’dvarav.

[1. Agur, quoted by Bach, also says it’s a chumra yiseira]

E. Bach- Raui linhog b’chumra zo since w/out a doubt the Ohr Zarua had this kabala from zkeinav. And says this is how he had heard from time he was young, that a yarei lidvar Hashem is noheig this chumra.
F. שו"ע 184:2- מחבר: Shaas veses have to be poresh for one ona, and not shaar kreivos, only tashmish. Either day or night, depending when she sees, and mutar the whole ona beforehand. And doesn’t matter if she was koveia the veses 3x or only once.

*Does not quote the Ohr Zarua.

1. ש"ך 6- Says a svara to defend the Ohr Zarua: The gm is talking about women who usually see at 2pm on day 29 for i.e., so gm says chumra to be poreish the whole day and not just at that time. But nowadays, women fluctuate w/in the whole day. Im kein, the whole ona is shaas veses and samuch l’vesta for them is the night before. And quotes the Bach as well.
G. Letter written to R’ Kalman Kahana from חזו"א- since many achronim are meikil, ein l’hachmir for onas ohr zarua.

*R’ Simon tells especially young chasanim not to be machmir for onas ohr zarua. But there are some places where it’s mekubal to keep it.
H. שו"ת Teshuras Shai- Could be that Ohr Zarua was only shayach when women had vestos that were kavua, which they set by seeing 3 months in a row like that. But if woman would only see once or two times, like most women these days, no need to be machmir (presumably b/c not even clear if will see that day at all).

[If person was keeping ohr zarua and doesn’t want to keep it anymore, question if they need hataras nedarim or not]


I. Igros Moshe YD 3:48- writes that raui l’hachmir for Ohr Zarua as long as its not a makom tzorech.

IV. Vestos Doraysa/Dirabanan

A. Gm Nida 16A- Are vestos dirabanan or doraysa? רש"י- The chiyuv bedika for woman. Meaning, if doraysa, if doesn’t check right away then temeia, even if checks later and comes out tehora. If dirabanan, then if don’t do it, still tehora as long as dam didn’t come.


B. Gm Yevamos 62b- Ryb”l: Man has chiyuv to be pokeid his wife before he goes away on a trip and brings pasuk from Tanach. But then gm says don’t we have another pasuk? Gm anwers, coming to teach this din even samuch l’vesta.

1. רש"י- telling you that even though have din of vestos, this inyan of being pokeid one’s wife is doche this issur. Assumes that being pokeid means tashmish.

a. רשב"א Thb- This רש"י must be assuming that vestos are only dirabanan b/c if they were doraysa, can’t be doche the doraysa b/c of this inyan.

2. ר"ת- Not talking about tashmish. Means that if man is going to go away, should come home first to speak w/ his wife, divrei ritzui, etc. So what’s the pshat in the gm? Changes the girsa to Lo nitzricha ela l’ishto nida. And chidush is that he has to be extra careful to speak with her, etc.  Acc to ר"ת, no raya from this gm that vestos are dirabanan.

3. Nimukei Yosef- talking about woman who is nida, but 7 nekiyim are almost finished, and telling man that he should wait the one ona for her to go to mikva, then leave. But if would be more than an ona, don’t have to wait. And veses means time when she is actually nida.

4. ריטב"א Shvuos 19A- Thinks that samuch l’vesta is din doraysa for the ½ hr beforehand. And midirabanan אסור the whole ona. So kodem sheyatza l’derech, as long as not w/in that ½ hr, no problem.

C. שו"ע 184- מחבר paskens like רש"י. But רמ"א quotes all the other rishonim as well, so generally we assume that should not be doche veses b/c of this din.

D. Ohr Yitzchak- doesn’t think the whole din of chayav adam lifkod es ishto applies nowadays anyway b/c have communication, etc. Im kein, also thinks that should not be doche the veses on account of it.


[Gm Yuma- When the Babylonians came into the בהמ"ק, they saw the kruvim hugging eachother. And they made fun of the Jews that they have man and woman hugging in makom hamikdash. This is pshat in megillas Eicha: “Rau Ervasa”.

ריטב"א- We have kabala that when bnei yisrael do ritzono shel makom, kruvim face eachother, and when not doing ratzon hashem, then not facing, but here they are hugging and it was zman of churban? So explains that this was the punishment that they should mock us.


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


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