Ketamim - Revision history

YitzchakSultan1: /* Different Locations on the Body */

2025-06-19T15:28:43Z

Different Locations on the Body

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:28, 19 June 2025
Line 69:		Line 69:
	## If upon waking up, she found a stain on her pajamas, a ketem on the upper part of the clothing is also tameh since the pajamas move all around. The same would apply to bedding such as a blanket or sheet<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:14, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:17</ref>		## If upon waking up, she found a stain on her pajamas, a ketem on the upper part of the clothing is also tameh since the pajamas move all around. The same would apply to bedding such as a blanket or sheet<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:14, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:17</ref>
	## If the ketem is found on the sleeve that could reach that area if she were to bend over it is tameh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:13, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:16</ref>		## If the ketem is found on the sleeve that could reach that area if she were to bend over it is tameh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:13, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:16</ref>
	# If the ketem was found on a garment which wasn't checked that it was clean from stain beforehand a ketem found on it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:39</ref> However, if it was laundered in between it is considered like it was checked and a ketem found on it afterwards is tameh since the laundry would remove the stain.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 446, Badei Hashulchan 190:354, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:15</ref>		# If the ketem was found on a garment which wasn't checked that it was clean from stain beforehand a ketem found on it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:39</ref> However, if it was laundered in between it is considered like it was checked and a ketem found on it afterwards is tameh since the laundry would remove the stain.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 446, Badei Hashulchan 190:354, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:15</ref>

			==== If the ketem moved ====

			# A ketem which moved from one item that wasn't mekabel tumah to another item that is mekabel tumah, or from a colored item to a white item, some poskim write that's not an issue. Since it was found in a place where it was tahora it remains such.<ref>Betzel Hachachma 5:149, Hashulchan Hashalem 2:21, Otzar Halachot (siman 190 fnt. 41)</ref> However, if they first found it in the way that it was already transferred from one place to the other she's tameha.<ref>Hashulchan Hashalem 2:21</ref>

	==If Her Ketem is Tameh==		==If Her Ketem is Tameh==

YitzchakSultan1: /* A Place that Does not Contract Tumah */

2024-06-05T04:10:17Z

A Place that Does not Contract Tumah

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:10, 5 June 2024
Line 48:		Line 48:
	## Clothing which aren't made from wool or linen they aren't mekabel tumah if it is smaller than 3 by 3 [[tefachim]].<Ref>Rambam Kelim 22:1. Mishmeret Tahara (ch. 3 p. 30), Pri Deah (Introduction 3), Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 401, and Orot Hatahara p. 129. See Taharat Habayit who cites the opinion of the Bet Shlomo in explaining the Rash and Rosh Kelim 27:2 that even if other materials are even 3 by 3 etzbaot the cloth is tameh.</ref>		## Clothing which aren't made from wool or linen they aren't mekabel tumah if it is smaller than 3 by 3 [[tefachim]].<Ref>Rambam Kelim 22:1. Mishmeret Tahara (ch. 3 p. 30), Pri Deah (Introduction 3), Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 401, and Orot Hatahara p. 129. See Taharat Habayit who cites the opinion of the Bet Shlomo in explaining the Rash and Rosh Kelim 27:2 that even if other materials are even 3 by 3 etzbaot the cloth is tameh.</ref>
	## Something attached to the ground, such as a toilet, isn't mekabel tumah and isn't susceptible to ketamim.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 190:19, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 405, Badei Hashulchan 190:105, Orot Hatahara p. 130-2</ref>		## Something attached to the ground, such as a toilet, isn't mekabel tumah and isn't susceptible to ketamim.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 190:19, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 405, Badei Hashulchan 190:105, Orot Hatahara p. 130-2</ref>
	## Clothing made completely out of nylon or polyester aren't mekabel tumah but if it is stitched with even a thread of linen it is mekabel tumah.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 3:53 holds that nylon is tahor since it is made from petroleum from under the oceans. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 407 agrees but adds if there is any linen stitching it is mekabel tumah.</ref> Practically, even if a clothing says it is "100% polyester" it is subject to ketamim since they almost certainly have some threads of cotton in them.<ref>The Laws and Concepts of Niddah (pg. 46) by Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky based on Taharat Habayit 8:11</ref> Some say that if the nylon is made into clothing it is mekabel tumah.<ref>Minchat Yitzchak 4:118 holds that even nylon is mekabel tumah once it is made into an article of clothing. Badei Hashulchan 190:107 agrees.</ref>		## Clothing made completely out of nylon or polyester aren't mekabel tumah but if it is stitched with even a thread of linen it is mekabel tumah.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 3:53 holds that nylon is tahor since it is made from petroleum from under the oceans. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 407 agrees but adds if there is any linen stitching it is mekabel tumah.</ref> Practically, even if a clothing says it is "100% polyester" it is subject to ketamim since they almost certainly have some threads of cotton in them.<ref>The Laws and Concepts of Niddah (pg. 46) by Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky based on Taharat Habayit 8:11. Taharat Habayit is based on Rambam (Kelim 1:3) that one thread of mekabel tumah makes the entire clothing mekabel tumah. However, Shiurei Shevet Halevi p. 170 writes that as long as the majority of the clothing is made from material that isn't mekabel tumah the entire clothing isn't makebel tumah. Chok Uzman (ch. 2 fnt. 32 p. 106-107) quotes this from Rav Chaim Pinchas Sheinberg as well. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46157&st=&pgnum=139 Rav Pessin (Temurat Ayil 52)] agreed. However, Chok Uzman explains that this approach only makes sense if the part that's mekabel tumah is mixed in completely with the part that's not mekabel tumah. However, if it is sewn together and the part that has material which is mekabel is recognizable, then everyone agrees it is mekabel tumah. His example is nylon tights with a cotton lining is mekabel tumah according to everyone. He explains that this lenient approach is based on the Mishna Lmelech.</ref> Some say that if the nylon is made into clothing it is mekabel tumah.<ref>Minchat Yitzchak 4:118 holds that even nylon is mekabel tumah once it is made into an article of clothing. Badei Hashulchan 190:107 agrees.</ref>

	====Colored Material====		====Colored Material====

Unknown user: Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"

2020-12-02T18:47:10Z

Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"

Unknown user: Text replacement - ". " to "."

2020-07-15T00:09:33Z

Text replacement - ". <ref>" to ".<ref>"

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:09, 15 July 2020
Line 56:		Line 56:
	However, the Maharsham 1:81, Chazon Ish YD 89:4, and Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 389, Shu"t Yabea Omer YD 3:3), Rav Zvi Sobolofsky (Laws and Concepts of Niddah pg. 48), Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:12 are lenient.</ref>		However, the Maharsham 1:81, Chazon Ish YD 89:4, and Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 389, Shu"t Yabea Omer YD 3:3), Rav Zvi Sobolofsky (Laws and Concepts of Niddah pg. 48), Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:12 are lenient.</ref>
	# If a garment is striped and the ketem is found partially on the white section and partially on the colored most poskim consider the area on the colored part to be ignored. However, if the ketem goes over a colored strip and is found on both sides on a white area, those two white areas combine for the size of a garis.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 190:20 quoting the Meil Tzedaka, The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 394, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:14</ref>		# If a garment is striped and the ketem is found partially on the white section and partially on the colored most poskim consider the area on the colored part to be ignored. However, if the ketem goes over a colored strip and is found on both sides on a white area, those two white areas combine for the size of a garis.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 190:20 quoting the Meil Tzedaka, The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 394, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:14</ref>
	# If it’s found on a garment that was colored but now faded and is bleached white, it should be shown to rabbi. <ref>Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:13 </ref>		# If it’s found on a garment that was colored but now faded and is bleached white, it should be shown to rabbi.<ref>Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:13 </ref>
	======Practice to Wear Colors======		======Practice to Wear Colors======
	# Since a stain found on a colored garment is considered to be tahor, women should generally wear colored garments during their pure time.<ref>Rambam Isurei Biah 9:7, Rama 190:10, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:12, Taharat Habayit 1:8:6<br />		# Since a stain found on a colored garment is considered to be tahor, women should generally wear colored garments during their pure time.<ref>Rambam Isurei Biah 9:7, Rama 190:10, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:12, Taharat Habayit 1:8:6<br />

Dlhanon: /* A Tameh Ketem */

2018-05-29T21:26:07Z

A Tameh Ketem

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:26, 29 May 2018
Line 71:		Line 71:
	# If the ketem was found on a garment which wasn't checked that it was clean from stain beforehand a ketem found on it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:39</ref> However, if it was laundered in between it is considered like it was checked and a ketem found on it afterwards is tameh since the laundry would remove the stain.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 446, Badei Hashulchan 190:354, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:15</ref>		# If the ketem was found on a garment which wasn't checked that it was clean from stain beforehand a ketem found on it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:39</ref> However, if it was laundered in between it is considered like it was checked and a ketem found on it afterwards is tameh since the laundry would remove the stain.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 446, Badei Hashulchan 190:354, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:15</ref>

	==A Tameh ~~Ketem~~==		==If Her Ketem is Tameh==
	# If a ketem is tameh and she was previously tahor she is now tameh and requires a hefsek tahara after waiting 5 days, according to Ashkenazim, and 4 days, according to Sephardim. After hefsek tahara she requires seven clean days known as shiva nekiyim with the requisite checks before she can go to mikveh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:1 rules that if a woman sees a ketem that is tameh she requires a hefsek tahara and needs to have seven clean days afterwards. Rama adds that we treat the ketem like her seeing her regular period for all intents and purposes. Additionally, the Rama 197:11 writes that after seeing a ketem a woman needs to wait 5 days. While the Shach 196:21 questions whether it is necessary to wait these days prior to shiva nekiyim if they didn't have tashmish within the last 4 days~~. However~~, he concludes by quoting the Levush who says that the minhag is to be strict like the Rama. </ref>		===Becoming Tehora Again===
			# If a ketem is tameh and she was previously tahor she is now tameh and requires a hefsek tahara after waiting 5 days, according to Ashkenazim, and 4 days, according to Sephardim. After hefsek tahara she requires seven clean days known as shiva nekiyim with the requisite checks before she can go to mikveh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:1 rules that if a woman sees a ketem that is tameh she requires a hefsek tahara and needs to have seven clean days afterwards. Rama adds that we treat the ketem like her seeing her regular period for all intents and purposes. Additionally, the Rama 197:11 writes that after seeing a ketem a woman needs to wait 5 days. While the Shach 196:21 questions whether it is necessary to wait these days prior to shiva nekiyim if they didn't have tashmish within the last 4 days, he concludes by quoting the Levush who says that the minhag is to be strict like the Rama. </ref>
			===Veset===
	# If a woman became tameh on three occasions in a row because of a ketem that doesn't create a veset.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 190:54 quoting the Raavad states that becoming tameh as a result of a ketem doesn't form a veset.</ref> A woman who doesn't have a veset and became tameh because of a veset doesn't need to count an onah beynonit from the time she became tameh because of a ketem.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 190:505. See Badei Hashulchan 190:506 that the same is true of the other vestot.</ref>		# If a woman became tameh on three occasions in a row because of a ketem that doesn't create a veset.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 190:54 quoting the Raavad states that becoming tameh as a result of a ketem doesn't form a veset.</ref> A woman who doesn't have a veset and became tameh because of a veset doesn't need to count an onah beynonit from the time she became tameh because of a ketem.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 190:505. See Badei Hashulchan 190:506 that the same is true of the other vestot.</ref>
	# Furthermore, seeing a tameh ketem doesn't interrupt an upcoming veset day. For example, if a woman saw on the 1st of Nissan and then a ketem on the 15th her veset for the 30th of Nissan (onah beynonit) remains in place.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 190:505</ref>		# Furthermore, seeing a tameh ketem doesn't interrupt an upcoming veset day. For example, if a woman saw on the 1st of Nissan and then a ketem on the 15th her veset for the 30th of Nissan (onah beynonit) remains in place.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 190:505</ref>

	==Sources==		==Sources==
	<references/>		<references/>
	[[Category:Niddah]]		[[Category:Niddah]]

Dlhanon: /* Different Locations on the Body */

2018-05-29T21:19:37Z

Different Locations on the Body

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 29 May 2018
Line 69:		Line 69:
	## If upon waking up, she found a stain on her pajamas, a ketem on the upper part of the clothing is also tameh since the pajamas move all around. The same would apply to bedding such as a blanket or sheet<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:14, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:17</ref>		## If upon waking up, she found a stain on her pajamas, a ketem on the upper part of the clothing is also tameh since the pajamas move all around. The same would apply to bedding such as a blanket or sheet<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:14, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:17</ref>
	## If the ketem is found on the sleeve that could reach that area if she were to bend over it is tameh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:13, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:16</ref>		## If the ketem is found on the sleeve that could reach that area if she were to bend over it is tameh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:13, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:16</ref>
	# If the ketem was found on a garment which wasn't checked that it was clean from stain beforehand a ketem found on it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:39</ref> However, if it was laundered in between it is considered like it was checked and a ketem found on it afterwards is tameh since the laundry would remove the stain.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 446</ref>		# If the ketem was found on a garment which wasn't checked that it was clean from stain beforehand a ketem found on it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:39</ref> However, if it was laundered in between it is considered like it was checked and a ketem found on it afterwards is tameh since the laundry would remove the stain.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 446, Badei Hashulchan 190:354, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:15</ref>

	==A Tameh Ketem==		==A Tameh Ketem==

Dlhanon: /* Different Locations on the Body */

2018-05-29T21:13:02Z

Different Locations on the Body

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:13, 29 May 2018
Line 62:		Line 62:

	====Different Locations on the Body====		====Different Locations on the Body====
	# If the ketem is found only on the woman's body it is only tameh if it is found on the inside part of the legs where they would touch when standing with legs together, heel, toes, or on the fingers or knuckles. Blood on the upper part of the body is tahor unless she woman laid down with her feet up.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:11. Shach 190:17 accepts Shulchan Aruch's assertion regarding toes that a ketem found on any of them makes her tameh while the Taz 190:11 is lenient if the ketem is found on the top of the foot beyond the toes further out than the area parallel to the big toe. </ref>		# If the ketem is found only on the woman's body it is only tameh if it is found on the inside part of the legs where they would touch when standing with legs together, heel, toes, or on the fingers or knuckles. Blood on the upper part of the body is tahor unless she woman laid down with her feet up, or did exercises, aerobics, headstands or other activities that can cause blood to appear on the upper body.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:11, Taharat Habayit 1:8:13, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:19. Shach 190:17 accepts Shulchan Aruch's assertion regarding toes that a ketem found on any of them makes her tameh while the Taz 190:11 is lenient if the ketem is found on the top of the foot beyond the toes further out than the area parallel to the big toe. </ref>
	# If the ketem is found both on her body and ~~also~~ on her clothing, if she has a valid reason to suspect that ketem came from an outside source such as if she walked through a butcher's market the ketem is tahor, otherwise it is tameh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:11 based on Mishna Niddah 58b, Gemara Niddah 58b, Rashba, and Rambam</ref>		# If the ketem is found both on her body and on her clothing, if she has a valid reason to suspect that ketem came from an outside source such as if she walked through a butcher's market the ketem is tahor, otherwise it is tameh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:11 based on Mishna Niddah 58b, Gemara Niddah 58b, Rashba, and Rambam. Shach 190:23 however, writes that we do not attribute to any outside sources during the first 3 days of shiva nekiim.</ref>
	## If there is a ketem on her lower body and she has a wound on her neck or a bloody nose such that blood could fall on that spot lower on the body the ketem is tahor, however, if the wound is on the shoulder then the ketem can't be attributed to the wound.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:11</ref>		## If there is a ketem on her lower body and she has a wound on her neck or a bloody nose such that blood could fall on that spot lower on the body the ketem is tahor, however, if the wound is on the shoulder then the ketem can't be attributed to the wound.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:11</ref>
	# If the ketem is only found on the clothing, if it is found by the area of the waist and below it is tameh. If it is on any clothing that is worn above the waist it is tahor because the stain wouldn't have come from her since it is above the waist. However, if she laid down with her feet up and there is a concern that the blood ended up on the upper part of her clothing the ketem is only tameh if it is found both on her clothing and her body but if it is just found on her clothing it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:12 based on Gemara Niddah 57b, Rashba and Raavad. </ref>		# If the ketem is only found on the clothing, if it is found by the area of the waist and below it is tameh. If it is on any clothing that is worn above the waist it is tahor because the stain wouldn't have come from her since it is above the waist. However, if she laid down with her feet up and there is a concern that the blood ended up on the upper part of her clothing the ketem is only tameh if it is found both on her clothing and her body but if it is just found on her clothing it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:12 based on Gemara Niddah 57b, Rashba and Raavad. Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:16 agrees. </ref>
	## If she found a stain on her pajamas ~~after she went to sleep~~ a ketem on the upper part of the clothing is also tameh since the pajamas move all around.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:14</ref>		## If the stain is on the outside of her clothing, she is pure unless it is likely for uterine blood to be there like on a spot that touches that area when she puts on the garment or takes it off.<ref> Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:16 </ref>
	## If the ketem is found on the sleeve that could reach that area if she were to bend over it is tameh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:13</ref>		## If upon waking up, she found a stain on her pajamas, a ketem on the upper part of the clothing is also tameh since the pajamas move all around. The same would apply to bedding such as a blanket or sheet<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:14, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:17</ref>
			## If the ketem is found on the sleeve that could reach that area if she were to bend over it is tameh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:13, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:16</ref>
	# If the ketem was found on a garment which wasn't checked that it was clean from stain beforehand a ketem found on it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:39</ref> However, if it was laundered in between it is considered like it was checked and a ketem found on it afterwards is tameh since the laundry would remove the stain.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 446</ref>		# If the ketem was found on a garment which wasn't checked that it was clean from stain beforehand a ketem found on it is tahor.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 190:39</ref> However, if it was laundered in between it is considered like it was checked and a ketem found on it afterwards is tameh since the laundry would remove the stain.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 446</ref>

Dlhanon: /* Colored Material */

2018-05-27T19:41:53Z

Colored Material

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:41, 27 May 2018
Line 51:		Line 51:

	====Colored Material====		====Colored Material====
	# If a ketem is found on something colored it is tahor.<ref>The Gemara Niddah 61b cites a machloket Rabbi Natan and Rabbanan whether colored garments have ketamim. Rashi (Niddah 61b) explains that there are no ketamim on colored garments since the blood isn't apparent on a colored garment. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 adds that in the days of chazal they would distinguish between different shades of red and so if the garment was colored that significantly change the ruling. Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 holds like those rishonim who pasken that colored garments don't have ketamim. The ~~Beer~~ Moshe 4:65 writes that a ketem on a colored garment that we know looks like blood is tameh. However, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 argues.</ref> The poskim clarify that off-white or light-beige is also white for these purposes. Additionally, many poskim hold that extremely light pastel colors are difficult to be considered colored, while others hold that they're also considered colored.<ref> Shevet Halevi YD 1:87 is strict regarding ketamim on yellow or other very light colored garments. However, Meil Tzedaka p. 62 and Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 387 ~~disagrees~~ and holds that any colored garment doesn't have ketamim even yellow. Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873050/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-91-ketamim-on-the-tzivonim/ Niddah Shiur 91]) ~~agrees~~. The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205 writes that if it is off-white certainly it is considered white (as white garments of the days of chazal were probably not as white as those of today). Yet, extremely light pastel colors are difficult to classify and a woman should avoid wearing them.</ref>		# If a ketem is found on something colored it is tahor.<ref>The Gemara Niddah 61b cites a machloket Rabbi Natan and Rabbanan whether colored garments have ketamim. Rashi (Niddah 61b) explains that there are no ketamim on colored garments since the blood isn't apparent on a colored garment. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 adds that in the days of chazal they would distinguish between different shades of red and so if the garment was colored that significantly change the ruling. Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 holds like those rishonim who pasken that colored garments don't have ketamim. The Be'er Moshe 4:65 writes that a ketem on a colored garment that we know looks like blood is tameh. However, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 argues.</ref>
	## Even if the ketem is found on an undergarment that is close to the body, if the garmet is colored, the stain is tahor.<ref>~~The Chatom~~ Sofer YD 161 ~~writes~~ that colored garments only prevent ketamim on the outer garments and not the undergarments. He is also concerned for those rishonim including the Hagahot Maimoniyot and Ramban who hold that a ketem on a colored garments renders the woman tameh to her husband, even though for taharot it doesn't. However, the Maharsham 1:81, Chazon Ish YD 89:4, and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 389 are lenient.</ref>		# The poskim clarify that off-white or light-beige is also white for these purposes. Additionally, many poskim hold that extremely light pastel colors are difficult to be considered colored, while others hold that they're also considered colored.<ref> Shevet Halevi YD 1:87 is strict regarding ketamim on yellow or other very light colored garments. However, Meil Tzedaka p. 62 and Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 387 disagree and holds that any colored garment doesn't have ketamim, even yellow. Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873050/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-91-ketamim-on-the-tzivonim/ Niddah Shiur 91]) and Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky (Laws and Concepts of Niddah pg. 48) agree. The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205 writes that if it is off-white certainly it is considered white (as white garments of the days of chazal were probably not as white as those of today). Yet, extremely light pastel colors are difficult to classify and a woman should avoid wearing them.</ref>
	## If a garment is striped and the ketem is found partially on the white section and partially on the colored most poskim consider the area on the colored part to be ignored. However, if the ketem goes over a colored strip and is found on both sides on a white area, those two white areas combine for the size of a garis.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 190:20 quoting the Meil Tzedaka, The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 394, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:14</ref>		# Even if the ketem is found on an undergarment that is close to the body, if the garmet is colored, the stain is tahor.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 190:21 quotes the Chatam Sofer YD 161 that colored garments only prevent ketamim on the outer garments and not the undergarments. He is also concerned for those rishonim including the Hagahot Maimoniyot and Ramban who hold that a ketem on a colored garments renders the woman tameh to her husband, even though for taharot it doesn't. Nishmat Avraham 190:2 quotes that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was machmir for this.
			However, the Maharsham 1:81, Chazon Ish YD 89:4, and Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 389, Shu"t Yabea Omer YD 3:3), Rav Zvi Sobolofsky (Laws and Concepts of Niddah pg. 48), Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:12 are lenient.</ref>
			# If a garment is striped and the ketem is found partially on the white section and partially on the colored most poskim consider the area on the colored part to be ignored. However, if the ketem goes over a colored strip and is found on both sides on a white area, those two white areas combine for the size of a garis.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 190:20 quoting the Meil Tzedaka, The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 394, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:14</ref>
			# If it’s found on a garment that was colored but now faded and is bleached white, it should be shown to rabbi. <ref>Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:13 </ref>
			======Practice to Wear Colors======
			# Since a stain found on a colored garment is considered to be tahor, women should generally wear colored garments during their pure time.<ref>Rambam Isurei Biah 9:7, Rama 190:10, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:12, Taharat Habayit 1:8:6<br />
			* Badei Hashulchan 190:117 writes that some rabbis recommend wearing colors even during 7 nekiim if the woman has serious staining problems</ref>

	====Different Locations on the Body====		====Different Locations on the Body====

Dlhanon: /* Colored Material */

2018-05-27T19:30:56Z

Colored Material

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 27 May 2018
Line 52:		Line 52:
	====Colored Material====		====Colored Material====
	# If a ketem is found on something colored it is tahor.<ref>The Gemara Niddah 61b cites a machloket Rabbi Natan and Rabbanan whether colored garments have ketamim. Rashi (Niddah 61b) explains that there are no ketamim on colored garments since the blood isn't apparent on a colored garment. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 adds that in the days of chazal they would distinguish between different shades of red and so if the garment was colored that significantly change the ruling. Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 holds like those rishonim who pasken that colored garments don't have ketamim. The Beer Moshe 4:65 writes that a ketem on a colored garment that we know looks like blood is tameh. However, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 argues.</ref> The poskim clarify that off-white or light-beige is also white for these purposes. Additionally, many poskim hold that extremely light pastel colors are difficult to be considered colored, while others hold that they're also considered colored.<ref> Shevet Halevi YD 1:87 is strict regarding ketamim on yellow or other very light colored garments. However, Meil Tzedaka p. 62 and Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 387 disagrees and holds that any colored garment doesn't have ketamim even yellow. Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873050/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-91-ketamim-on-the-tzivonim/ Niddah Shiur 91]) agrees. The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205 writes that if it is off-white certainly it is considered white (as white garments of the days of chazal were probably not as white as those of today). Yet, extremely light pastel colors are difficult to classify and a woman should avoid wearing them.</ref>		# If a ketem is found on something colored it is tahor.<ref>The Gemara Niddah 61b cites a machloket Rabbi Natan and Rabbanan whether colored garments have ketamim. Rashi (Niddah 61b) explains that there are no ketamim on colored garments since the blood isn't apparent on a colored garment. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 adds that in the days of chazal they would distinguish between different shades of red and so if the garment was colored that significantly change the ruling. Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 holds like those rishonim who pasken that colored garments don't have ketamim. The Beer Moshe 4:65 writes that a ketem on a colored garment that we know looks like blood is tameh. However, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 argues.</ref> The poskim clarify that off-white or light-beige is also white for these purposes. Additionally, many poskim hold that extremely light pastel colors are difficult to be considered colored, while others hold that they're also considered colored.<ref> Shevet Halevi YD 1:87 is strict regarding ketamim on yellow or other very light colored garments. However, Meil Tzedaka p. 62 and Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 387 disagrees and holds that any colored garment doesn't have ketamim even yellow. Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873050/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-91-ketamim-on-the-tzivonim/ Niddah Shiur 91]) agrees. The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205 writes that if it is off-white certainly it is considered white (as white garments of the days of chazal were probably not as white as those of today). Yet, extremely light pastel colors are difficult to classify and a woman should avoid wearing them.</ref>
	## Even if the ketem is found on an undergarment that is close to the body if it is colored it is tahor.<ref>The Chatom Sofer YD 161 writes that colored garments only prevent ketamim on the outer garments and not the undergarments. He is also concerned for those rishonim including the Hagahot Maimoniyot and Ramban who hold that a ketem on a colored garments renders the woman tameh to her husband, even though for taharot it doesn't. However, the Maharsham 1:81, Chazon Ish YD 89:4, and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 389 are lenient.</ref>		## Even if the ketem is found on an undergarment that is close to the body, if the garmet is colored, the stain is tahor.<ref>The Chatom Sofer YD 161 writes that colored garments only prevent ketamim on the outer garments and not the undergarments. He is also concerned for those rishonim including the Hagahot Maimoniyot and Ramban who hold that a ketem on a colored garments renders the woman tameh to her husband, even though for taharot it doesn't. However, the Maharsham 1:81, Chazon Ish YD 89:4, and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 389 are lenient.</ref>
	## If a garment is striped and the ketem is found partially on the white section and partially on the colored most poskim consider the area on the colored part to be ignored. However, if the ketem goes over a colored strip and is found on both sides on a white area those two white areas combine for the size of a garis.<ref>The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 394</ref>		## If a garment is striped and the ketem is found partially on the white section and partially on the colored most poskim consider the area on the colored part to be ignored. However, if the ketem goes over a colored strip and is found on both sides on a white area, those two white areas combine for the size of a garis.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 190:20 quoting the Meil Tzedaka, The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 394, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:14</ref>

	====Different Locations on the Body====		====Different Locations on the Body====

Dlhanon: /* A Place that Does not Contract Tumah */

2018-05-27T19:27:42Z

A Place that Does not Contract Tumah

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 27 May 2018
Line 40:		Line 40:
	===Location===		===Location===
	====A Place that Does not Contract Tumah====		====A Place that Does not Contract Tumah====
	# If a ketem is found on something that doesn't contract tumah it is tahor.<ref>The Mishna Niddah 59b cites a dispute between Tanna Kama and Rabbi Nechemya whether something that's not mekabel tumah is susceptible to a ketem. Rabbi Nechemya holds that it is not. Tosfot Niddah 59a explains that the only reason that ketamim make a woman tameh is because the ketem itself is tameh because of the blood on it. However, something that isn't susceptible to tumah isn't susceptible to ketamim. The Rashba Niddah 57b s.v. amar provides another reason; since most clothing are mekabel tumah, chazal didn't make a gezerah on something that wasn't common. Most rishonim accept the opinion of Rabbi Nechemya including Rashba [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=384 (Torat Habayit 23b)], Rosh (Niddah 9:2), and Rambam (Isurei Biyah 9:7) in opposition to the Raavad [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=66 (Baalei Hanefesh p. 68)] who holds that we follow the Tana Kama. Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 are lenient like most rishonim.</ref>		# If a ketem is found on something that doesn't contract tumah it is tahor.<ref>The Mishna Niddah 59b cites a dispute between Tanna Kama and Rabbi Nechemya whether something that's not mekabel tumah is susceptible to a ketem. Rabbi Nechemya holds that it is not. Tosfot Niddah 59a explains that the only reason that ketamim make a woman tameh is because the ketem itself is tameh because of the blood on it. However, something that isn't susceptible to tumah isn't susceptible to ketamim. The Rashba Niddah 57b s.v. amar provides another reason; since most clothing are mekabel tumah, chazal didn't make a gezerah on something that wasn't common. Most rishonim accept the opinion of Rabbi Nechemya including Rashba [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8922&st=&pgnum=384 (Torat Habayit 23b)], Rosh (Niddah 9:2), and Rambam (Isurei Biyah 9:7) in opposition to the Raavad [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=66 (Baalei Hanefesh p. 68)] who holds that we follow the Tana Kama. Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 are lenient like most rishonim.<br />
	## For example, toilet paper isn't mekabel tumah and if a ketem is found on it, the ketem isn't tameh.<Ref>See Pitchei Teshuva 190:18 who cites a long discussion between the ~~Nodeh~~ Beyehuda, Chatom Sofer, and others if toilet paper of their day was mekabel tumah. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe 3:53) writes that our toilet paper is certainly not mekabel tumah since it is so thin that it falls apart and is unusable after it is used once. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 406 ~~agrees~~.</ref>		* Shach 16 quotes Tosafot that if something is mikabel tumat negaim that counts as mikabel tumah even though it’s not mikabel tumat met. Pitchei teshuva 190:17 says this is machloket achronim.
			</ref> If a ketem is found on something that isn't mekabel tumah but is on top of something that is mekabel tumah according to some poskim is tameh, while according to other it is tahor.<ref>The Sidrei Tahara 190:93 at the end writes that it seems if a ketem is found on something that isn't mekabel tumah which is top of something that is mekabel tumah she is tameh. Since the idea of ketem making a woman tameh is based on the idea that the blood makes the cloth tameh so too it should make the woman tameh, however, when the ketem is on a cloth that isn't mekabel tumah it is tahor. Yet, when the cloth is on top of something that is mekabel tumah the ketem makes the woman tameh since the cloth would make the item holding it tameh through tumat masa. However, the Pri Deah (Introduction 4) and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 410 argue that the poskim never mentioned this concern and apparently weren't concerned. Badei Hashulchan 190:99 writes both opinions and supports the Pri Deah from the Shulchan Aruch Harav.</ref>
			## For example, toilet paper isn't mekabel tumah and if a ketem is found on it, the ketem isn't tameh.<Ref>See Pitchei Teshuva 190:18 who cites a long discussion between the Nodah Beyehuda, Chatom Sofer, and others if toilet paper of their day was mekabel tumah. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe 3:53) writes that our toilet paper is certainly not mekabel tumah since it is so thin that it falls apart and is unusable after it is used once. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 406, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:11 agree.</ref>
	## Pads according to most poskim aren't mekabel tumah.<ref>Rabbi Mordechai Willig [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873350/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-94-tipin-tipin-ein-mitztarfin/ (Niddah Shiur 94 at the end)] holds that pads aren't mekabel tumah even if they are attached to the undergarments with an adhesive. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 405 seems to agree. Mishmeret Hatahara (ch. 3 fnt. 30) quotes Rav Elyashiv as saying that since the pads are meant to be attached to the undergarments they become part of the garment and are mekabel tumah and as such a ketem on them is tameh.		## Pads according to most poskim aren't mekabel tumah.<ref>Rabbi Mordechai Willig [http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873350/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-94-tipin-tipin-ein-mitztarfin/ (Niddah Shiur 94 at the end)] holds that pads aren't mekabel tumah even if they are attached to the undergarments with an adhesive. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 405 seems to agree. Mishmeret Hatahara (ch. 3 fnt. 30) quotes Rav Elyashiv as saying that since the pads are meant to be attached to the undergarments they become part of the garment and are mekabel tumah and as such a ketem on them is tameh.
	* The ~~Nodeh~~ Beyehuda YD 2:105 held that the paper of his day which was made from worn out clothing is mekabel tumah because of being a thick cloth (levadim) even if it isn't woven. The source for this is the Rambam Kelim 1:11 and 22:2 and Tumat Tzarat 13:1, which in turn is based on Sifra Shemini 6:7:8 and Tosefta Negayim 5:1. Pads are made from cotton and as such aren't mekabel unless it is made into a thick cloth. Mishmeret Hatahara argues that even though the pads are thick they are't mekabel tumah since the Chatom Sofer 6:81 writes that a thick cloth is only mekabel tumah if it is made for a purpose of clothing but not if was made just to function as a piece of wood in order to clean or absorb liquid (Chullin 129a).</ref>		* The Nodah Beyehuda YD 2:105 held that the paper of his day which was made from worn out clothing is mekabel tumah because of being a thick cloth (levadim) even if it isn't woven. The source for this is the Rambam Kelim 1:11 and 22:2 and Tumat Tzarat 13:1, which in turn is based on Sifra Shemini 6:7:8 and Tosefta Negayim 5:1. Pads are made from cotton and as such aren't mekabel unless it is made into a thick cloth. Mishmeret Hatahara argues that even though the pads are thick they are't mekabel tumah since the Chatom Sofer 6:81 writes that a thick cloth is only mekabel tumah if it is made for a purpose of clothing but not if was made just to function as a piece of wood in order to clean or absorb liquid (Chullin 129a).</ref>
	## Clothing which aren't made from wool or linen they aren't mekabel tumah if it is smaller than 3 by 3 [[tefachim]].<Ref>Rambam Kelim 22:1. Mishmeret Tahara (ch. 3 p. 30), Pri Deah (Introduction 3), Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 401, and Orot Hatahara p. 129. See Taharat Habayit who cites the opinion of the Bet Shlomo in explaining the Rash and Rosh Kelim 27:2 that even if other materials are even 3 by 3 etzbaot the cloth is tameh.</ref>		## Clothing which aren't made from wool or linen they aren't mekabel tumah if it is smaller than 3 by 3 [[tefachim]].<Ref>Rambam Kelim 22:1. Mishmeret Tahara (ch. 3 p. 30), Pri Deah (Introduction 3), Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 401, and Orot Hatahara p. 129. See Taharat Habayit who cites the opinion of the Bet Shlomo in explaining the Rash and Rosh Kelim 27:2 that even if other materials are even 3 by 3 etzbaot the cloth is tameh.</ref>
	## Something attached to the ground, such as a toilet, isn't mekabel tumah and isn't susceptible to ketamim.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 405, Badei Hashulchan 190:105, Orot Hatahara p. 130-2</ref>		## Something attached to the ground, such as a toilet, isn't mekabel tumah and isn't susceptible to ketamim.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 190:19, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 405, Badei Hashulchan 190:105, Orot Hatahara p. 130-2</ref>
	## Clothing made completely out of nylon or polyester aren't mekabel tumah but if it is stitched with even a thread of linen it is mekabel tumah.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 3:53 holds that nylon is tahor since it is made from petroleum from under the oceans. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 407 agrees but adds if there is any linen stitching it is mekabel tumah.</ref> Practically even if a clothing says it is "100% polyester" it is subject to ketamim since they almost certainly have some threads of cotton in them.<ref>The Laws and Concepts of Niddah (p. 46) by Rabbi Sobolofsky</ref> Some say that if the nylon is made into clothing it is mekabel tumah.<ref>Minchat Yitzchak 4:118 holds that even nylon is mekabel tumah once it is made into an article of clothing. Badei Hashulchan 190:107 agrees.</ref>		## Clothing made completely out of nylon or polyester aren't mekabel tumah but if it is stitched with even a thread of linen it is mekabel tumah.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 3:53 holds that nylon is tahor since it is made from petroleum from under the oceans. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 407 agrees but adds if there is any linen stitching it is mekabel tumah.</ref> Practically, even if a clothing says it is "100% polyester" it is subject to ketamim since they almost certainly have some threads of cotton in them.<ref>The Laws and Concepts of Niddah (pg. 46) by Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky based on Taharat Habayit 8:11</ref> Some say that if the nylon is made into clothing it is mekabel tumah.<ref>Minchat Yitzchak 4:118 holds that even nylon is mekabel tumah once it is made into an article of clothing. Badei Hashulchan 190:107 agrees.</ref>
	## If a ketem is found on something that isn't mekabel tumah but is on top of something that is mekabel tumah according to some poskim is tameh, while according to other it is tahor.<ref>The Sidrei Tahara 190:93 at the end writes that it seems if a ketem is found on something that isn't mekabel tumah which is top of something that is mekabel tumah she is tameh. Since the idea of ketem making a woman tameh is based on the idea that the blood makes the cloth tameh so too it should make the woman tameh, however, when the ketem is on a cloth that isn't mekabel tumah it is tahor. Yet, when the cloth is on top of something that is mekabel tumah the ketem makes the woman tameh since the cloth would make the item holding it tameh through tumat masa. However, the Pri Deah (Introduction 4) and Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 410 argue that the poskim never mentioned this concern and apparently weren't concerned. Badei Hashulchan 190:99 writes both opinions and supports the Pri Deah from the Shulchan Aruch Harav.</ref>
	====Colored Material====		====Colored Material====
	# If a ketem is found on something colored it is tahor.<ref>The Gemara Niddah 61b cites a machloket Rabbi Natan and Rabbanan whether colored garments have ketamim. Rashi (Niddah 61b) explains that there are no ketamim on colored garments since the blood isn't apparent on a colored garment. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 adds that in the days of chazal they would distinguish between different shades of red and so if the garment was colored that significantly change the ruling. Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 holds like those rishonim who pasken that colored garments don't have ketamim. The Beer Moshe 4:65 writes that a ketem on a colored garment that we know looks like blood is tameh. However, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 argues.</ref> The poskim clarify that off-white or light-beige is also white for these purposes. Additionally, many poskim hold that extremely light pastel colors are difficult to be considered colored, while others hold that they're also considered colored.<ref> Shevet Halevi YD 1:87 is strict regarding ketamim on yellow or other very light colored garments. However, Meil Tzedaka p. 62 and Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 387 disagrees and holds that any colored garment doesn't have ketamim even yellow. Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873050/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-91-ketamim-on-the-tzivonim/ Niddah Shiur 91]) agrees. The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205 writes that if it is off-white certainly it is considered white (as white garments of the days of chazal were probably not as white as those of today). Yet, extremely light pastel colors are difficult to classify and a woman should avoid wearing them.</ref>		# If a ketem is found on something colored it is tahor.<ref>The Gemara Niddah 61b cites a machloket Rabbi Natan and Rabbanan whether colored garments have ketamim. Rashi (Niddah 61b) explains that there are no ketamim on colored garments since the blood isn't apparent on a colored garment. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 adds that in the days of chazal they would distinguish between different shades of red and so if the garment was colored that significantly change the ruling. Shulchan Aruch YD 190:10 holds like those rishonim who pasken that colored garments don't have ketamim. The Beer Moshe 4:65 writes that a ketem on a colored garment that we know looks like blood is tameh. However, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 393 argues.</ref> The poskim clarify that off-white or light-beige is also white for these purposes. Additionally, many poskim hold that extremely light pastel colors are difficult to be considered colored, while others hold that they're also considered colored.<ref> Shevet Halevi YD 1:87 is strict regarding ketamim on yellow or other very light colored garments. However, Meil Tzedaka p. 62 and Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 387 disagrees and holds that any colored garment doesn't have ketamim even yellow. Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/873050/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-91-ketamim-on-the-tzivonim/ Niddah Shiur 91]) agrees. The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 205 writes that if it is off-white certainly it is considered white (as white garments of the days of chazal were probably not as white as those of today). Yet, extremely light pastel colors are difficult to classify and a woman should avoid wearing them.</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 2 December 2020
Line 9:		Line 9:
	===Masked Hargasha===		===Masked Hargasha===
	# There are also a few occurrences which Chazal state could be confused with a hargasha. Therefore, if blood is found at one of these times according to many poskim there is a concern that there was a hargasha even if she didn't feel one. These examples include: going to the bathroom, doing an internal bedika, and having relations<ref>Niddah 57b, Pitchei Teshuva 183:1 citing the Chavot Daat 190 and Sidrei Tahara</ref>		# There are also a few occurrences which Chazal state could be confused with a hargasha. Therefore, if blood is found at one of these times according to many poskim there is a concern that there was a hargasha even if she didn't feel one. These examples include: going to the bathroom, doing an internal bedika, and having relations<ref>Niddah 57b, Pitchei Teshuva 183:1 citing the Chavot Daat 190 and Sidrei Tahara</ref>
	## According to many poskim if a ketem is found within a short time period after going to the bathroom or relations there is a concern that the ketem is really a result of a hargasha and as such it is tameh on a ~~Biblical~~ level, in which case there are no leniencies of ketamim. However, other poskim aren't concerned about this.<ref>The Sidrei Tahara 190:36 and 190:67 is concerned that there was a hargasha when she went to the bathroom or had relations and didn't feel the hargasha as the Gemara Niddah 57b discusses. If so, a ketem found afterwards is potentially deoritta and if so there are no leniencies of ketamim. This is codified in the Badei Hashulchan 190:104. However, Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 411 quotes the Pardes Rimonim who argues since the earlier poskim didn't mention this distinction. Furthermore, it might be an unlikely concern and she already has a chazaka of being tahora. Therefore, Rav Ovadia concludes that a ketem after these occurrences is treated like any other ketem. Rabbi Mordechai Willig (Niddah Shiur 93, 100) agreed with Rav Ovadia.		## According to many poskim if a ketem is found within a short time period after going to the bathroom or relations there is a concern that the ketem is really a result of a hargasha and as such it is tameh on a biblical level, in which case there are no leniencies of ketamim. However, other poskim aren't concerned about this.<ref>The Sidrei Tahara 190:36 and 190:67 is concerned that there was a hargasha when she went to the bathroom or had relations and didn't feel the hargasha as the Gemara Niddah 57b discusses. If so, a ketem found afterwards is potentially deoritta and if so there are no leniencies of ketamim. This is codified in the Badei Hashulchan 190:104. However, Rav Ovadia Yosef in Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 411 quotes the Pardes Rimonim who argues since the earlier poskim didn't mention this distinction. Furthermore, it might be an unlikely concern and she already has a chazaka of being tahora. Therefore, Rav Ovadia concludes that a ketem after these occurrences is treated like any other ketem. Rabbi Mordechai Willig (Niddah Shiur 93, 100) agreed with Rav Ovadia.
	* Chazon Ish 90:1 is lenient regarding a ketem after urination but not relations.</ref>		* Chazon Ish 90:1 is lenient regarding a ketem after urination but not relations.</ref>
	## If a woman sees blood on toilet paper or in the toilet after going to the bathroom, she should consult with a doctor and rabbi. Some poskim hold that the blood on the toilet paper isn’t an issue of a ketem since the toilet paper isn’t mekabel tumah. Additionally, the blood in the water or on the toilet isn’t an issue of ketem since they aren’t mekabel tumah. Other poskim hold that we can't employ the leniencies of ketamim since she saw this ketem right after going to the bathroom and perhaps this blood came with a hargasha and she didn’t realize.<ref>Sidrei Tahara and Chavot Daat are concerned that any time a woman sees blood when she goes to the bathroom there’s a concern that there was a hargasha and she didn’t realize. This is based on their understanding of the Gemara Niddah 57b. See Machasit Hashekel 190:1 for the two ways of reading of this gemara. Some poskim argue that we're not concerned for a hargasha since it isn't common and she has a chazaka of being tahora. See Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 411. Regarding toilet paper being mekabel tumah see further based on Igrot Moshe 3:53. Regarding the water in the toilet bowl, Rabbi Willig cited the Taharat Yisrael who was lenient since the water is connected to the water in the reservoir. </ref>		## If a woman sees blood on toilet paper or in the toilet after going to the bathroom, she should consult with a doctor and rabbi. Some poskim hold that the blood on the toilet paper isn’t an issue of a ketem since the toilet paper isn’t mekabel tumah. Additionally, the blood in the water or on the toilet isn’t an issue of ketem since they aren’t mekabel tumah. Other poskim hold that we can't employ the leniencies of ketamim since she saw this ketem right after going to the bathroom and perhaps this blood came with a hargasha and she didn’t realize.<ref>Sidrei Tahara and Chavot Daat are concerned that any time a woman sees blood when she goes to the bathroom there’s a concern that there was a hargasha and she didn’t realize. This is based on their understanding of the Gemara Niddah 57b. See Machasit Hashekel 190:1 for the two ways of reading of this gemara. Some poskim argue that we're not concerned for a hargasha since it isn't common and she has a chazaka of being tahora. See Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 411. Regarding toilet paper being mekabel tumah see further based on Igrot Moshe 3:53. Regarding the water in the toilet bowl, Rabbi Willig cited the Taharat Yisrael who was lenient since the water is connected to the water in the reservoir. </ref>
Line 18:		Line 18:

	===Hargasha Nowadays===		===Hargasha Nowadays===
	# Most women today do not feel the hargasha described by earlier poskim.<ref>Shev Yakov 40, Teshurat Shay 457, The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 70, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:4</ref> All the poskim conclude that nonetheless woman today are tameh on a ~~Biblical~~ level for a few reasons.<Ref>The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 74 fnt. 15, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:9 says when a woman menstruates we assume she had a hargasha. Therefore, even if she seemingly experienced no hargasha, she is rendered impure min hatorah.</ref>		# Most women today do not feel the hargasha described by earlier poskim.<ref>Shev Yakov 40, Teshurat Shay 457, The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 70, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:4</ref> All the poskim conclude that nonetheless woman today are tameh on a biblical level for a few reasons.<Ref>The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 74 fnt. 15, Shoshanat Ha'amakim 1:9 says when a woman menstruates we assume she had a hargasha. Therefore, even if she seemingly experienced no hargasha, she is rendered impure min hatorah.</ref>
	# Some poskim hold that feeling an ache or the like prior to or during having a period, which is common, is a type of hargasha.<Ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe YD 4:17:12, Maharam Shik YD 177, 184 based on Rambam Isurei Biyah 8:2. Mishmeret Hatahara (ch. 1 fnt. 15) quotes Rav Elyashiv as saying that we're concerned for this type of hargasha nowadays when feeling a hargasha isn't common.</ref>		# Some poskim hold that feeling an ache or the like prior to or during having a period, which is common, is a type of hargasha.<Ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe YD 4:17:12, Maharam Shik YD 177, 184 based on Rambam Isurei Biyah 8:2. Mishmeret Hatahara (ch. 1 fnt. 15) quotes Rav Elyashiv as saying that we're concerned for this type of hargasha nowadays when feeling a hargasha isn't common.</ref>
	# Some poskim hold that today we do have the same types of hargasha though we just don't realize it.<Ref>Aruch Hashulchan YD 190:61, Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe 4:17:12. The Laws of Niddah v. 1 Appendix A cites Chatom Sofer 177 as agreeing with this approach.</ref>		# Some poskim hold that today we do have the same types of hargasha though we just don't realize it.<Ref>Aruch Hashulchan YD 190:61, Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe 4:17:12. The Laws of Niddah v. 1 Appendix A cites Chatom Sofer 177 as agreeing with this approach.</ref>
	# Some poskim hold that if she knew that the blood came from her body she is a Niddah on a ~~Biblical~~ level.<ref>Sidrei Tahara 190:93 in understanding Rashi and Tosfot. See also Maharam Lublin (responsa 2).</ref>		# Some poskim hold that if she knew that the blood came from her body she is a Niddah on a biblical level.<ref>Sidrei Tahara 190:93 in understanding Rashi and Tosfot. See also Maharam Lublin (responsa 2).</ref>
	# Some poskim hold that every woman is automatically tameh on a ~~Biblical~~ level. If she usually has a hargasha and one time doesn't then she's not tameh on a ~~Biblical~~ level, however, since woman today never have a hargasha they are automatically tameh on a ~~Biblical~~ level.<ref>Rav Elyashiv in Kovetz Teshuva 1:84</ref>		# Some poskim hold that every woman is automatically tameh on a biblical level. If she usually has a hargasha and one time doesn't then she's not tameh on a biblical level, however, since woman today never have a hargasha they are automatically tameh on a biblical level.<ref>Rav Elyashiv in Kovetz Teshuva 1:84</ref>
	# Some poskim hold that today the hargasha is defined by a normal type of seeing blood for a period, which is usually a normal amount of blood. However, if a woman is on a Mirena IUD she might still be a niddah on a ~~Biblical~~ level even if she only sees a drop each month since for her that is the normal way of her period.<ref>[http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/872192/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-83-hargasha-today/ Rabbi Mordechai Willig (Niddah Shiur 83) on YUTorah.org] and in his notes to The Laws and Concepts of Niddah by Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky pg. 311</ref>		# Some poskim hold that today the hargasha is defined by a normal type of seeing blood for a period, which is usually a normal amount of blood. However, if a woman is on a Mirena IUD she might still be a niddah on a biblical level even if she only sees a drop each month since for her that is the normal way of her period.<ref>[http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/872192/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-83-hargasha-today/ Rabbi Mordechai Willig (Niddah Shiur 83) on YUTorah.org] and in his notes to The Laws and Concepts of Niddah by Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky pg. 311</ref>

	==Leniencies of Ketamim==		==Leniencies of Ketamim==