ד Hilchos Nida Rav Baruch Simon shlit
|
|  Yüklə 1.83 Mb.
|
שיעור #20 (Packet 14) – 12.03.08/ Harchakos #2- Eating Together I. Source of the issur, what is the issur? A. Mishna שבת 11A- Zav shouldn’t eat w/ a zava b/c of hergel aveira 1. רש"י- kol shekein a tahor w/ a zava. B. רמ' IB 11:18- Man and ishto nida shouldn’t eat from one plate. C. ראב"ד quotes from Sh’iltos that shouldn’t even eat on same table. D. רא"ש (שבת 1:32)- the tables they were talking about were these little tables that e/ person had their own, but when have our big tables, that’s not derech chiba. [Sh’iltos: Why do we cover the challahs? B/c really should make Kiddush w/out table in the room and then bring it out. But our tables are so big can’t hide them in side room, so hide the challah, k’ilu like the table isn’t there yet] E. רמב"ן Hilchos Nida 8:3- Shouldn’t eat at the same table, for sure not same plate, and if only have one table, she should have her own tablecloth as a heker. F. רשב"א Thb (7:1) 3b- shouldn’t eat at same table, defnitely not the same plate, but if put a heker that will be enough. II. What kind of heker is needed? A. Gm Chullin 107b- as long as not tefisa achas, mutar to eat basar and chalav at same table. 1. תוס' K’ein- 2 pshatim, one of which is that there should be some type of separation. B. Sefer HaTruma- As long as have some shinui or heker, like a loaf of bread or a pitcher between his plate and her plate. C. שו"ע 195:3- 1. מחבר: Man shouldn’t w/ his wife at the same table unless there is some kind of shinui, meaning something that separates between his plate or her plate, like a loaf of bread or a pitcher, or each one can eat on their own tablecloth. 2. רמ"א: Yesh Omrim that if they usually eat together from the same plate then eating at separate plates is enough of a heker. And Yesh Omrim that אסור for him to eat her leftovers just like its אסור for him to drink her leftover drink. a. ט"ז 1- the bread or pitcher is only a good heker if they aren’t using it as part of the meal, like the din by bb”ch. III. Other ppl at the table A. ריטב"א (שבת 13b) - If have other ppl from the family there (banav u’bnei beiso), no need for a heker. B. רא"ה (Bedek HaBayis) - As long as there are other ppl there, sitting between them, mutar. *Minhag is not to be makpid that they have to be sitting between them, as long as other ppl there. R’ Abadie- at Restaurant, should have heker, even though other ppl there, b/c really sitting by themselves, not w/ other ppl, more kiruv daas there. -But pashtus is that this is only a heter for shulchan echad, but not for k’ara achas. IV. Serving Plates A. Pischei Teshuva 195:5- quotes Maasas Binyamin that if other ppl are eating from this serving plate then mutar. However, says many machmirim argue on this. And Pischei teshuva thinks should be machmir in this case. Other ppl eating from the same plate doesn’t help. B. ט"ז 195:2- Bothered by “shtus gadol” that have little pieces of food on plate and man and woman both take from there, big mistake b/c that’s eating together [from kaara achas]! However, if the plate has big pieces and e/one has their own plate and place food there first, no problem. (Seems to be mechaleik that need both that the servings are big and that each person has their own plate, not just one or the other). *נ"מ: Big bowl of popcorn, etc. V. Wife’s Leftovers (Separate issur from Kaara Achas) A. Sefer Yeraim (Amud Arayos) - quotes story of tana d’bei Eliyahu of the talmid echad, and the din by zav and zava eating together, and is midayeik that its davka an issur for the man to eat w/ the woman and the man to drink with the woman. b/c lashon is lo yochal hazav im hazava, etc. Doesn’t say she shouldn’t eat w/ him. Therefore, only issur for man to eat his wife’s leftovers, but not the other way around. And it makes sense b/c the yetzer of a man is stronger than a woman, so more worried about him. B. Beis Yosef 195:4 (bedek habayis) – Quotes Orchos Chaim: mutar for him to eat her leftovers. C. Darkei Moshe 195:4- we have the issur even by achila. D. שו"ע 195:4- 1. מחבר: only brings issur of drinking what’s leftover from wife’s cup. Doesn’t mention achila (lishitaso). 2. רמ"א 195:3- mentions issur achila just like have the issur shesiya. a. ש"ך 8- Not just from the kuntrus, yesh omrim, like the רמ"א writes in darkei moshe, ela its in many rishonim. And really shesiya is learned from achila b/c all comes from that mishna in שבת which is talking about achila. b. Tifferes Yisrael 195:2- explains that shesiya is more chiba than achila b/c shesiya is always done one after the other, whereas achila can be done at the same time. Im kein, drinking leftovers is not any different than regular drinking together so not a good heker. משא"כ when eating only one after the other more of a heker, so could have had ה"א that davka shesiya of leftovers was אסור but not achila. E. Aruch HaShulchan 195:12- quotes Beis Yosef that doesn’t hold from issur of leftovers. And writes that really only have kiruv w/ shesiya. Not achila. F. Darkei Moshe 195:4- Leftovers is only a problem b’faneha, but if she leaves the room, then its mutar. *But assumption is not like the Aruch HaShulchan, but like the רמ"א. How do we define Leftovers? Igros Moshe YD 1:91- Woman had three things on the plate, only ate one of them. Says anything she didn’t eat at all is not considered leftovers. However, do have the problem of eating off same plate. So says should just put it on your own plate and avoid problem of kaara achas. Makes a chiluk that something that you would never eat off s/one else’s plate, only to your wife, that’s considered problem of kaara achas. However, if would give it to s/one else who wasn’t your wife, then not considered kaara achas and meikar hadin you could eat it off her plate. R’ Abadie has this same definition as well. Depends on what ppl usually do to define leftovers. R’ Moshe makes the same chiluk in terms of defining leftovers in 3:10:3. (Fill in).
A. רמ"א 195:4- By drinks, says that if he doesn’t know, she doesn’t have to tell him its her leftovers. And if move the leftover drink into another cup also no issur. 1. ט"ז 195:4- All the kulas that apply to drinks apply to foods. Presumably saying that one could move leftover food to his own plate and that would be fine B. שו"ת Ohr Yitzchak- Something that is considered shiyurei maachal cannot be transferred (If it’s s/thing only husband and wife would share, the transfer doesn’t help). C. Chachmas Adam- only has the chiluk by drink b/c since you’re switching it your cup now nikar and no chiba, but not meikil by food. D. Sefer Suga BaShoshanim 6:8-10 – Thinks same heter applies to food as it do6es to drinks. Switching it to another cup or plate is enough. However, he says this only applies to types of foods that generally require a kli (plate), otherwise it doesn’t help. And in the footnote he deals with the question of whether this would be true by one piece of s/thing solid, like a piece of meat and assumes that acc to the מחבר and the רמ"א if man would move the leftovers of her piece of meat that it would be mutar (like the ט"ז). E. Igros Moshe YD 1:91- clearly assumes not like the ט"ז b/c he writes that once the issur is b/c of shiyurei maachal there is no takana, and the only reason he allows the man to take the potatos from the wife’s plate is b/c they aren’t defined as shiyurei maachal. [And in YD 3:10:3 says that when the ט"ז was meikil by foods that s/one eating after the woman but before the man, and moving it to another kli, he meant davka by foods that are like drinks, like rice, where all the little pieces are mushed together.] [Igros Moshe YD 1:92- Sharing servings for one. Quotes ט"ז 195:1 that they shouldn’t use bread or pitcher that they’re using at the meal as a heker, mashma, though, that they can share the bread and the pitcher during the meal. Explains that this is b/c its made to be used by many ppl, so as long as each put into their own kli, no problem of kaara achas. And he makes the same diyuk from ט"ז 195:2 who is upset about minhag for man and ishto nida to eat from plate w/ little pieces on it, and says that davka when we’re dealing w/ a plate w/ big pieces, that the derech is for ppl to take and put on their own plate, that’s not a problem. However, something that is the derech for only one person to eat it, problem of kaara achas for them to share it even if they each put it into their own kli (sharing a soda can, sharing a roll, sharing a serving for one). R’ Eider (p.171) assumes from R’ Moshe that if he would cut the roll in half first and then give her half, then that would be ok.] [Badei HaShulchan 195:55- assumes l’hakeil like the ט"ז. R’ Forst Vol II. p. 72 “Most poskim do not differentiate between solid and liquid leftovers”. He doesn’t mention R’ Moshe in the note, but assumes that most poskim would agree with the ט"ז.] *Nevertheless, R’ Simon said the assumption is not like the ט"ז and that switching the food to another plate will only work if the food is not defined as shiyurei maachal. [**Important to keep in mind that we’re talking about two different issurim: Kaara achas and Shiyurei Maachal. And even when one doesn’t apply the other might.] שיעור #21 (Packet 15) – 12.10.08 Harchakos #3 - Sitting Together and Sleeping in Same Bed, etc. I. Source of the Din A. Gm שבת 13A- Can man and wife sleep in same bed w/ clothes on (which would be big shinui b/c ppl used to go to sleep w/out clothes)? Gm brings comparison to bb”ch having them on same table together, and then brings hekesh of eishes ish to ishto nida, אסור to sleep w/ either one in same bed, even w/ clothing. Maskana in the gm is not entirely clear, but in the end of the day we are machmir, אסור to sleep in same bed. B. מחבר 195:6- Shouldn’t sleep in same bed w/ ishto nida, even if both of them are wearing clothes and they aren’t touching eachother.
A. שבת 13B – back to the story of the talmid chacham, she says he slept w/ her b’kiruv basar. Gm explains that doesn’t really mean kiruv basar, ela that it was one bed. Or there was s/thing separating between them, she was wearing some type of garment. 1. רש"י- That one bed was wide, so he thought it was mutar. 2. תוס' dh Mita- What about the case of Palti who slept in the same bed w/ Michal bas Shaul who was possibly married to Dovid? 2 answers: a. Since he was farther away from her was no problem (very wide bed). b. Maybe he really held like Shaul that she wasn’t married to Dovid, but was just being machmir not to have bia w/ her. B. Mordechai שבת 238- if legs of one bed are touching the other, they can’t sleep even him in one bed and her in the other. C. ב"ח 195:6- Even though no issur yichud, but in same bed, warming eachother, problem. However, if the bed is very wide and they won’t come to touch each other, not problem me’ikar hadin. However, since the Mordechai says beds shouldn’t touch, then for sure one wide bed is now אסור, even if each person has their own bedding. *There is an Ohr Zarua that says that dam besulim is only issur nida l’inyan bia, not for other harchakos, in which case there would be a sniff l’hakeil for couple after their wedding who are stuck w/ only one bed, but not even quoted in the Beis Yosef. D. R’ Yerucham – As long as they each have their own linens (not sharing sheet underneath) wide bed would be ok (could be he didn’t have the Mordechai). E. Gm Eruvin 63B- if person sleeps in the kila where man and woman are sleeping, bad news. But if ishto nida, then maybe its good? But gm says no, they don’t need a guard. 1. רש"י- Kila means the same room. 2. שו"ת Maharam Alshakar 90- Pashut pshat in kila, means a canopy. Gm seems to be saying that the man and woman were allowed to sleep under the same canopy. Was asked are they allowed to sleep in such a thing when they’re in nida, and answers yes, based on this gm, but only shayla in the gm was could some other person sleep under there. F. Tashbeitz 58- Also says that if the bed is wide, mutar to sleep in the same bed. *R’ Simon seemed skeptical as to whether we would ever employ these rishonim and allow couple to sleep on same, very wide bed, even b’shaas hadchak gadol.
(Node B’Yehuda- once a din is not in the gm, hard to bring rayos either way, so really have to look at how the kadmonim were noheig) A. Sefer Kav HaYashar 17 – Brings maaseh of man who had dream that his feet were covered w/ dung, and he went to the Arizal, and he told me that his bed is too close to his wife’s when they sleep and must be that your blanket touched her bed, and sure enough he was right, and the man then separated the bed more. B. Sefer Taharas Yisrael 195:6:27 – if the beds are connected to the wall, not touching eachother, not a problem, but should be separated enough that if in middle of the night, would stretch out their arms, they wouldn’t be able to touch. C. Shevet HaLevi 195:6:2- Also says that if connected to common wall not a problem, but better not to, altz a midas chassidus. But says that meikar hadin, just need to be separated a kol shehu. Says that lichatchila should have an ama, some put a table inbetween. And based on pasuk in tehilim 128 Eshticha K’gefen poriya b’yarktsei beisecha, that beds should be on separate sides of the room, and some used to sleep in different rooms, but that’s not the minhag. *But limaaseh, chacham einav b’rosho. **Sometimes person in situation where they’re a guest and stuck w/ beds that are connected, R’ Abadie thought that if they can separate the mattresses that would be ok b’shaas hadchak.
1. Pischei Teshuva 11- Sefer Mekor Chaim: Only problem of beds touching is when they’re side-by-side, they can see eachother. But if they’re head-to-toe or head-to-head, can even touch. But the minhag is like the רמ"א, and as long as separated kol shehu, מותר. Then Piskei teshuva himself says that רמ"א was only talking about mitos that don’t have boards surrounding them, but ours that have boards surrounding them could touch. But minhag is not like this pischei teshuva and our metzius may not even fit his kula anyways. IV. Sitting/Lying on the other person’s bed A. ראב"ד Baalei HaNefesh – Quotes from R’ Hai, is woman who sees dam besulim treated like real nida? Says yes, 7 nekiyim and the whole thing. However, the bed that she’s sleeping on is not tamei like it is by normal nida. And ראב"ד doesn’t understand what this means b/c we’re not noheig tuma/tahara bizmaneinu? So explains that he meant that it’s generally אסור to sleep in bed of nida, even if she’s not in the bed b/c of hergel. But woman who is only safeik nida, no such issur. B. רי"ף שו"ת 297- Woman who goes into mayim sheuvim before 7 nekiyim, is there still tumas mishkav u’Moshav? Answers that mayim sheuvim doesn’t help for her nida status. However, in terms of being marchik from her mishkav and moshav, which we do as a zecher to zman hamikdash, then no need to be marchik if she went into this mayim sheuvim mikva. R’ Ovadia Yosef brings from here that see that they had concept of being marchik from mishkav umoshav even b’zman the rishonim. Im kein, the diyuk of the ראב"ד seems to be more mechudash, and really this is probably what R’ Hai was talking about. *Nevertheless, we have accepted the ראב"ד (he probably didn’t have the רי"ף). C. רשב"א Thb Hakatzar 4a- Also quotes din that shouldn’t be in the same bed, even when she’s not there. D. ב"ח 195:5- Thinks the issur is only sleeping in her bed w/ no clothes, but just to sit there no problem if she’s not there. E. שו"ע 195:5- מחבר: Quotes the din, even just sitting. 1. ש"ך 11- quotes the ב"ח, who argues that sitting is mutar, [has girsa even b’faneha]. 2. ט"ז 6- Kol shekein that she shouldn’t sleep in his bed b/c even more problems of hirhur for him if he sees her lie down and get up from his bed. But she can sit on his bed b/c not worried about her hergel [i. Pischei Teshuva 8- Her lying on his bed is only a problem b’fanav b/c the whole issue is that it will cause hirhurim for him] *R’ Abadie- if need to sleep in her bed for some tzorech, thought that if remove her sheets and put new sheets, that would be enough for him to now sleep in her bed. But most poskim do not say this. V. Sitting together- Safsal Hamisnadneid [A. Mordechai שבת 237- Quotes Tzafnas Paneach b’shem רש"י: אסור to sit on a long bench together.] Trumas haDeshen 251 – Can man and woman sit in same wagon to go from one city to the next? Says its mutar. B/c אה"נ sitting on bench together is romantic, but since it’s like public transportation, many other non-Jews and others on this wagon, no problem. And even if today it’s only him and her, it’s not derech chiba. And even a bench, mutar to sit on it together as long as connected to the walls of the house. But if its not mechubar, then there’s a problem. However, to go on a trip w/ ishto nida derech tiyul to gardens, etc. Lo brirna l’hatir This is source of issur of safsal hamisnadneid. Discussion in poskim what exactly this means. *R’ Abadie- only if the moving of the seat is pronounced, like seesaw, but not when its just a small movement that you feel. Igros Moshe YD 2:77- VI. Going on Trips A. 195:5- רמ"א: Quotes this Trumas HaDeshen. Says shouldn’t sit on safsal hamisnadneid, and also shouldn’t go together in one wagon if not going for tzrachim, like to gardens, etc. But if going from one city to the other for some purpose mutar, and even though they’re sitting together no problem as long as don’t touch. B. Igros Moshe YD 2:83- Wants to be mechaleik that the issur is an issur of one bench b/c might come to touch, but no issur per se of going on a trip/walk if walking together. And says that driving in a car is even better than going in a wagon b/c not really any nidnud b/c the whole issur is talking about going in a small boat or s/thing like that where there’s a lot of movement. And if want to be machmir to put s/one inbetween, not such a good idea, unless they are her brother or his sister b/c it’s squishy in the back and now have this guy touching your wife. C. Aruch HaShulchan 195:19/20- Says the issur of safsal hamisnadneid is that b/c of the movement they may come to touch, that’s why placing another person inbetween them solves the problem b/c won’t touch. And in terms of tiyul, going for a tzorech is fine, even by themselves in the wagon, but just for a trip, אסור b/c there is serious kiruv daas. And even Leilech l’tayeil b’yachad is אסור for this reason. Thinks there is an issur of tiyul aside from the issur of safsal hamisnadneid. *R’ Abadie thinks that if it’s romantic, and secluded, would be a problem, but if there are a lot of ppl around, etc. מותר. R’ Forst (II. p.50) assumes this way as well. *R’ Simon thinks rowboating is problem b/c of the movement. [Igros Moshe YD 2:77- Also about sitting in car. Says that since it’s so heavy, even if it would move b/c of her movement, no problem b/c considered mechubar, like the Trumas Hadeshen. And it must mean mechubar even though it might move a little b/c otherwise who cares if it’s mechubar or not? *R’ Tuckman was wondering if can extend this to couches, move a little. At the same time, not clear if couch would be considered mechubar, and cushions definitely aren’t mechubar.] שיעור #22 (Packet 16)- 12.11.08 Harchakos #4 – Histaklus B’Mikomos Mechusim, Mezigas Hakos, Shiluach Kos shel Bracha, Making Beds. I. Histaklus A. Gm Nedarim 20A- Looking at women brings one to aveira, and if one stares at the heel of a woman will have children who are not proper. R’ Yosef: referring to ishto nida. Reish Lakish: Heel means oso makom. Pashut pshat is that one of the harchakos is not to look at oso makom when she is a nida. Mashma, that when not in nida this would not be אסור. Also mashma that מותר to look at other places even when she’s a nida. 1. ראב"ד Baalei HaNefesh (Shaar haPrisha 1:5)- 2 ways to read the gm: a. R’ Yosef: אסור to look at heel of ishto nida. Reish Lakish: only אסור to look at oso makom of ishto nida. b. R’ Yosef: Looking at heel when she is nida is אסור. Reish Lakish: Even when not nida אסור to look at oso makom, but not commenting on ishto nida. And not arguing. E/one agrees about both statements, just question is what is the statement here coming to teach. But says we can’t know which way is correct, so have to machmir. אסור to look at ishto nida even her heel (and all other mikomos mechusim), and אסור to look at oso makom even when not in nida. 2. רמ' IB 21:4- Man can look at his wife when she’s a nida, even though get pleasure from that, and even though she’s an erva, just shouldn’t have kalus רא"ש, schok w/ her. a. ראב"ד: But not the makom hester shela. b. מ"מ- Sounds like רמ' thinks that מותר to look at mikomos mechusim when ishto nida. And didn’t have to tell you that its אסור to look at oso makom b/c that’s included in kalus רא"ש.
1. מחבר: 2. רמ"א:
D. ט"ז 198:14- Discussing scabs l’inyan chatzitza b’mikva. There is shita that have to remove scabs even if it will hurt. And quotes two maasim that the Maharak would make his wife stand in front of him to make sure there she took off the scabs, and the Sar MiKutzi used to do as well. E. Node B’Yehuda (Tanina 122) – Man and Woman only Jews in a town, can man be the mikva lady and can he help her into the mikva? In terms of histaklus, the shoel wanted to say it was מותר b/c since they’re involved in the tahara process not worried that will come to aveira b/c lo shavka heteira v’achil issura. Just like gm pesachim that shouldn’t hold chametz on Pesach shema you might eat it, but to burn it you’re allowed to pick it up. And in terms of histaklus the Node B’Yehuda agrees b/c of the ט"ז. In terms of negia, though, he’s not so sure. B/c acc to the Beis Yosef, negia of ishto nida might be yeihareig v’al yaavor acc to the רמ'. At the same time, the ש"ך argued on the Beis Yosef and the minhag is like the ש"ך. And this isn’t derech chiba, so only אסור midirabanan b/c of harchakos, so should have the svara here as well to be meikil. But not so sure b/c could be we’re worried more by negia, more than by chametz, etc. and could be even those gedolim just held like the רמ' acc to the מ"מ by histaklus that only אסור to look at oso makom and don’t have this heter at all. *In the end, says its not mistaber that can’t wait those 10 seconds for her to go into the mikva, so says that if there’s no other way, then can be meikil, but is not so excited about the negia. 1. Hagaha of Son of Nb”y- no raya from the gedolim b/c could be they were looking at their wives only after they went to the mikva, in which case have no raya from them. *In terms of defining mikomos hamechusim, R’ Simon suggested that should tell women to cover their arms and legs, same amount as they would outdoors, pants would be fine (if that becomes an issue, then there is room to be more meikil, but said that should start with that klal). II. Mezigas HaKos A. רשב"א thb 4a- Just like she can’t do mezigas hakos, he can’t do it for her either. And also, there is an issur for him to send a kos yayin to his wife. What about Kiddush? - Shelo b’fanav is מותר. So best solution is if give every person their own cup e/ kos is considered kos shel bracha (b/c all wine on table is considered kos shel bracha), so pour her a cup also, no problem. (not sure b/c this might be shiluach) - Don’t pour for her, or she can drink from your cup, but can’t send it to her. Just put it down. - Pour into 4 little cups after make Kiddush and she can just take one b/c didn’t designate one for her. But doesn’t help if she’s the only one there. B. Sh’iltos 96- Shmuel sent a cup of wine to his wife and would not receive it. Why not? Could be just b/c she was a nida. C. Meseches Kala: If send a kos shel bracha to woman who is not your wife chayav misa b/c yetzer hara raba alav. 1. רשב"א thb- extends this issur to ishto nida as well. D. שו"ת Divrei Yoel (Satmar Rav) YD 64- (*Minhag Chassidim is that e/one makes Kiddush, but ikar hadin by misnagdim is that one person makes for e/one b/c b’rov am hadras melech. R’ Simon said he doesn’t even ask if a/one else wants to make Kiddush) 2 Separate issurim: Mezigas haKos and Shiluach. The issur meziga we don’t find in the gm, and only the רשב"א says it applies for him to her as well. And even to have problem of meziga need both meziga and hoshata. And the רשב"א himself only thinks its an issur if pour the water into the wine, which no one does. So the only one who thinks there is an issur for the man thinks the issur is in a way we never do, so pouring wine into a cup would be מותר even acc to the רשב"א. Im kein, the whole issur doesn’t start. And in terms of shiluach hakos, also not found in the gm. And explains that this din is that if woman is not w/ you and you send her a gift, send her kos yayin, show you’re thinking about her, etc. Just like have the idea of shaloch manos davka al yidei shliach b/c shows you’re thinking about the person even when you’re away, משא"כ when you’re sitting at your table. Im kein, thinks no issur meziga or shiluach. *Limaaseh, ppl are machmir not like the Satmar Rav, but don’t have to get all upset about ppl who are not noheig this way. E. Shevet HaLevi 195:14:5- Can pour into another cup and she just takes it. And if there are others there, pour into a number of cups and she can take one. Other Beverages/Food F. ב"ח 195:9- Quotes from Maharash Ostreich that it’s not appropriate that men allow the women to serve them when they’re in nida. 1. ש"ך 195:13- quotes this ב"ח, and says maybe this is only hoshata, not meziga and hoshata. And even the רשב"א only assured by wine. But other drinks should be fine. And serving plate is totally fine, but to bring plate specifically for him is אסור, and im kein should be אסור for other drinks as well, from the Sefer haTruma. *Lihalacha, many are meikil that is only by wine. R’ Abadie included. Pouring other drinks can be meikil. But there are poskim who are machmir. But seemingly a chumra b/c chazal said mezigas hakos. III. Making the Bed A. שו"ע 195:11- She shouldn’t make the bed, but only problem in front of him. If he’s not there, מותר. |