The laws of chafifah and of the examination of the hidden places — study and pilpul
סימן קצ״ט
מהות החפיפה ושיעורה, חפיפה סמוך לטבילה, התרי קולי, ובדיעבד ותולין
עיון, פלפול, שיטות הראשונים והאחרונים
⚡ For lomdim and talmidei chakhamim ⚡
✦ ❖ ✦
Pilpul and in-depth study
Sugyot, sources, the underlying chakira, machlokot of the Rishonim and the Acharonim,
nafka minot for practice, and examination of the shitot
Subject:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קצ״ט — thirteen seifim
with the nosei kelim: ש״ך (שפתי כהן) · ט״ז (טורי זהב) · פתחי תשובה · באר היטב
Foundation of the sugya in Shas:
נדה ס״ו ע״ב (the neter, hot water, and the בית הקמטים ובית הסתרים) · נדה ס״ח ע״א (the two הלכתא on chafifah by day and by night) · בבא קמא פ״ב ע״א (the takanah of Ezra) — chafifah as the hekhsher of the tevilah, so that nothing shall interpose
Written and edited by:
הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT
📑 Table of Contents
Opening of the sugya — what chafifah is and what its measure is: rinsing the hidden places with water, combing the hair, examining the body; chafifah ≠ bedikah (seifim 1–2)
Hot water, neter and "tafel" — the tangling of the hair, cold water against hot water, the neter, and the case of wine for a sick woman (seif 2)
Chafifah close to the tevilah — "one does not distance the chafifah from the tevilah" and the worthy custom of beginning while it is still day (seif 3)
The time of the chafifah on Shabbat and Yom Tov — the night after Shabbat, Shabbat night, Yom Tov; and the rule תרי קולי בהדדי לא מקילינן (seifim 4–7)
Bedi'avad — a chafifah that is not contiguous — the whole body (the water must reach it) against the hidden places (it need not), and the nafka mina bedi'avad (seifim 8–9)
A chatzitzah found after the tevilah — תולין — the onah, and imputing it to the kind she handled (seifim 10–13)
summary: she must rinse her armpit and her hidden places with water, comb the hair of her head well so that the hairs do not stick to one another, examine herself and her flesh, and check her whole body close to the time of her tevilah so that there be upon her nothing repulsive that interposes; and she washes her whole body and rinses it with hot water at the time of the chafifah of her body and her hair.
A point of reading, and it bears on everything that follows: the words ולא בשאר משקין are given by Sefaria in small type, in parentheses, and followed by their source — מהרי״ק שורש קנ״ט — that is, in the form of a gloss inserted inside the seif, and not in the body of the Mechaber, who never cites his sources within the text of the Shulchan Arukh. We therefore call it "the parenthesis of the seif" and not "the Mechaber", and we do not make it say more than it says.
1. Opening of the sugya — what chafifah is and what its measure is
The foundation — three acts in the preparation for tevilah
This siman is built as the direct continuation of the previous one: siman 198 set out the things that interpose; this one sets out the act of preparation that removes them — the חפיפה. Three acts are included in it: (a) rinsing and washing — the armpit, the hidden places, and then the whole body; (b) combing — so that the hairs do not stick to one another; (c) examining and checking — herself, her flesh, and her whole body. The foundation of all three is one: that nothing remain interposing between her flesh and the water at the hour of the tevilah. It is the practical fulfilment of the כל גופה of the previous siman: the water must reach the entire body at once.
The underlying chakira — is chafifah a washing or an examination? What is the heart of chafifah: the act of washing (softening and removing filth), or the act of checking (making sure that nothing interposes)? The difference is not academic:
First side — chafifah is a washing: its essence is to wash and rinse with water, and to comb the hair so that it does not tangle; the examination is then only an adjacent obligation.
Second side — chafifah includes the examination: "and she checks her whole body" belongs to the very body of the chafifah, and seif 8 will say of the examination of the body that it is davar Torah.
The Mechaber's own language shows that both are required, and that they are nevertheless two distinct obligations: this is why, bedi'avad (seif 8), he separates the woman who "did not do chafifah at all" from the one who "did chafifah and did not examine" — neither has fulfilled her tevilah, but for two different reasons. Chafifah (the washing) and the examination are therefore two dinim, and each on its own is me'akev.
"With water, and not with other liquids" — the definition of the washing (seif 1). The parenthesis of the seif specifies that the rinsing of the hidden places is done with water and not with other liquids. The reason must be understood: if the purpose of the rinsing were only to remove filth, what would it matter which liquid were used? It is here that what chafifah is comes to light — not a cleaning, but a hekhsher of the tevilah: its entire object is that nothing foreign remain on the flesh. The Taz gives the reason plainly, and it is a material one: another liquid leaves its moisture inside the fold, and the stain of that liquid remains there.
« דכשנשאר לחלוחיתו בתוך הקמט ישאר שם כתם המשקה » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ב)
The yesod of the Shakh — what is takanah and what is Torah.
The Shakh sets out, in a single sentence, the framework of the entire siman, and it is not the one people assume: the takanah of Ezra bears only on the chafifah of the hair; washing and rinsing the whole body is a stringency that has been adopted as a custom — and it is precisely for that reason that one is lenient on several points of the chafifah. But the obligation to examine her whole body so that nothing interposes is from the Torah.
In other words: the two acts that the chakira above sets against one another do not stand on the same footing. The washing comes from a takanah and a minhag; the examination comes from the verse.
« הסכמת הפוסקים דתקנת עזרא אינו אלא בחפיפת שער אלא שנהגו להחמיר לחוף ולהשתטף כל הגוף להכי מקילינן בכמה דברים בחפיפה אבל מה שצריכה לעיין בכל גופה שלא יהא דבר חוצץ מדאורייתא הוא » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ב)
קושיא — if the examination is from the Torah, why does the Gemara count chafifah among the takanot of Ezra? The Gemara itself raises the question: a takanah of Ezra? but it is an obligation of the Torah! — since the verse requires that nothing interpose.
תירוץ — the Torah requires examining; Ezra added the washing. The Gemara's answer holds in a few words: what is from the Torah is to examine, lest a hair be knotted. Ezra came and added the act of washing and rinsing, which guards against what an examination might miss. The Shakh's division comes straight out of this, and with it the reason why one is lenient about the modalities of the chafifah and never about the examination.
The Taz turns the chakira around: the chafifah is the examination. The Taz reads the seif and is astonished: taken literally, the Mechaber first requires an examination of the whole body and then a chafifah of the whole body — and why should the chafifah alone not suffice, since in washing she checks at the same time, and there is no greater checking than that? He adds an argument that decides the matter: if seeing were required, what would she do about her head and about the places she cannot see? It was never demanded that she show herself to a companion for the chafifah and the examination — only for the tevilah, where another woman stands over her. His conclusion: touch counts as examination, and the examination of the Torah is fulfilled by it. The end of the seif is therefore not a second act but the explanation of the first.
« אלא דבר פשוט שעל ידי המשמוש שפיר הוה עיון דבר תורה » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ד)
« ודבר פשוט שאם היא מעיינת ובודקת עצמה בשעת החפיפה דיה בכך ואין צריך בדיקה מיוחדת דוקא » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ד)
נפקא מינה. If one follows the Taz, a woman who examines and checks during the chafifah needs no separate bedikah. If one reads the seif as two successive acts, she needs both. Both readings stand before the reader, and we do not decide between them. And for practice — ask your Rav, your kallah teacher, or the balanit.
Rishonim and Acharonim on the opening of the siman. The foundation of chafifah is in the takanah of Ezra (בבא קמא פ״ב ע״א) and in the sugya of נדה ס״ו ע״ב. The Rambam (הל׳ מקואות פ״ב) and the Rashba, cited by the Tur and by the Beit Yosef, set out the chafifah and the bedikah; the Shakh cites them at ס״ק א to establish that the takanah bears on every place where there is hair, and not on the head alone. The Maharik (שורש קנ״ט) is the source of the parenthesis about water. The Taz (ס״ק א) brings the Beit Yosef's difficulty and the Darkhei Moshe's answer, drawn from the Mordekhi in the name of the רא״ם — a siglum the Taz does not expand — which distinguishes קמטים from בית הסתרים. And for practice — ask your Rav or your kallah teacher.
« עזרא ובית דינו תקנו שתהא חופפת בכל מקום שער שבה במים חמים וסורקת אותן או מפספסת אותן בידיה יפה יפה » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק א)
2. Hot water, neter and "tafel" — the tangling of the hair
summary: the chafifah of a place where there is hair is not done with cold water, because it tangles the hair, but with hot water — and water warmed by the sun suffices. She does not wash with neter, called tafel in Arabic, because it cuts the hair which then tangles again, nor with ohel, nor with anything that tangles the hair. The Rama adds that all this is lekhatchilah: if she washed with neter or something similar and saw for herself that her hairs are neither knotted nor tangled, it is permitted. And a woman whom the physicians have instructed to wash her head only with wine: one asks the physicians whether the wine tangles the hair.
The chakira — the measure of chafifah: to clean, or to make the hair fit for tevilah? Why is neter set aside, when it cleans better than water? It is here that the root of chafifah where there is hair comes to light: its object is that the hair not become tangled — for if it tangles, the water no longer reaches the point of attachment and the hair interposes, exactly like the braid of the previous siman. Hence the three lines of the seif:
מים קרים — tangle the hair → set aside.
מים חמין, and even water warmed by the sun — soften and do not tangle → valid.
נתר and אהל — cut the hair, which then tangles again → set aside.
The criterion is therefore not "how much it cleans" but "does the hair remain free and untangled" — which is the condition for the water to reach it. And it is from this that the Rama's gloss follows: bedi'avad, if she washed with neter and saw that her hairs are not tangled, it is permitted, because the purpose was achieved.
« וכל זה לכתחלה אבל אם חפפה בנתר וכיוצא בו וראתה בעצמה שאין שערות שלה קשורים ומסובכין שרי » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ט:ב)
The Shakh narrows the Rama's היתר, and it must be heard. One might think that the Rama now permits washing with neter whenever one checks afterwards. The Shakh says the opposite: shari means "for this one time, since she has already done it, and she need not repeat her chafifah" — but not that she may rely on this to wash with neter in the future. He shows that the Maharik himself permitted only wine and those liquids of which the Shas and the poskim did not say that they tangle; as for neter, ohel and cold water, of which they did say it, verification by the eyes does not overturn the word of the chakhamim. It is the same principle as at siman 57: what the Sages declared, our eyes do not undo.
« פי׳ שרי פעם זה כיון דכבר עשתה ואין צריך לחזור ולחוף אבל שתסמוך על זה לחוף שוב בנתר ואהל ומים קרים לא » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ד)
The sick woman's wine — examining the facts comes before the ruling (Rama). The Rama here opens a remarkable door: a woman whom the physicians have instructed to wash with wine — one asks the physicians, and if they say that the wine does not tangle, one relies on them; and if they are not expert in the matter, let her first test it on herself. The din here therefore depends on reality: there is no intrinsic prohibition on wine, only a concern that it may tangle; once it is established that it does not tangle, it is permitted. And from this a broader yesod: the list of "things that tangle the hair" is not a closed list but an assessment of fact — except, precisely, for what the Shas and the poskim have named, which the Shakh withdraws from the test.
« יש לשאול לרופאים אם היין מסבך השערות ואם אומרים שאינו מסבך יש לסמוך עליהן » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ט:ב)
« ואם אין הרופאים בקיאין בדבר יש לאשה לנסות לעצמה תחילה אם היין אינו מסבך השערות » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ט:ב)
Why a personal test, and not a general judgment? The Shakh raises the objection and answers it: why should we not determine once and for all whether wine tangles the hair? Because the nature of hair is not the same in everyone — and he says so in the name of the physicians and the men of science of his day. The answer is stronger than it appears: it makes the measure of chafifah an individual measure, and this is why the Rama requires a test on herself, three times according to what the Shakh reports from the Maharik.
« יש לומר דאין טבע שערות של כל אדם שוה וכמ״ש חכמי הרופאים וחכמי המחקר » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ה)
נפקא מינה.
The chafifah of the hair with hot water lekhatchilah, and not with cold water, which tangles (seif 2).
The Shakh notes that the neter of his own day — what is called soap in the vernacular — is not covered by the prohibition, because it does not tangle and on the contrary removes grime; he adds that this is the custom and that it is regarded as a mitzvah. Modern products are judged by the same question: do they leave the hair free and untangled? A question to put to a Rav or to the balanit.
A woman who, for medical reasons, cannot perform her chafifah in the usual way → a question to put to a Rav, on the model of the wine in the Rama.
And for practice — ask your Rav, your kallah teacher, or the balanit.
Rishonim and Acharonim on the materials of the chafifah. The Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah (פ״ב דכלים), identifies the נתר and the טפל; the Rivash gives the vernacular word גריד״א. The Maharik (שורש קנ״ט) is the source of the Rama's היתר bedi'avad. The Shakh (ס״ק ג–ה) fixes the limits of that היתר, rules on the neter of his day, and explains why the test must be a personal one. The Pitchei Teshuvah brings the teshuvot of the Acharonim on the materials of chafifah and on the chafifah of a sick woman. And for practice — ask your Rav or your kallah teacher.
3. Chafifah close to the tevilah — "one does not distance it"
summary: the chafifah must lekhatchilah be close to the time of her tevilah; and the worthy custom is that she begin while it is still day, occupy herself with her chafifah until nightfall, and then immerse. It is likewise a worthy custom that, although she has already done her chafifah, she take a comb with her to the mikveh and comb there. The Rama adds that in a pressing need — if she must do her chafifah by day, or if it is impossible for her to do it by day and she must do it at night — she may do so, provided she does not hurry home and performs her chafifah properly. The Rama's source is the Beit Yosef in the name of the poskim and of the Rambam, and the seif writes שא״א in abbreviation.
The yesod — "the tevilah must follow immediately upon the chafifah".
The Gemara states the requirement in so many words, and the seif comes from it: the tevilah must be contiguous with the chafifah. The reason is plain: the longer the time between the two, the greater the concern that she has soiled herself again, or that something interposing has attached itself after the chafifah.
Hence the מנהג כשר: to begin while it is still day and continue until nightfall, so that there be no interval between the end of the chafifah and the tevilah; and, although she has already done her chafifah, to take a comb to the mikveh and comb there again, immediately before immersing.
The machloket that governs all the rest — Rashi against the She'iltot. The Taz recalls that the Tur brings a divergence here, and it is this that explains the shape of the "worthy custom":
Rashi — it is better that the chafifah be done by day before her tevilah, and not at night, because at night she hurries home and will not perform her chafifah properly.
The She'iltot — it is better that it be done at night, so that it be contiguous with the tevilah.
The two do not set two foreign values against one another: one guards the quality of the chafifah, the other its proximity. The Taz concludes that this is why the worthy custom was adopted as the Shulchan Arukh copies it here — begin by day and finish at nightfall: it gives both the time to do it well and the contiguity.
« דלרש״י מוטב שתהיה החפיפה ביום שלפני טבילתה ולא בלילה לפי שממהרת לביתה ולא תחוף יפה » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ה)
« ובשאלתות פי׳ שמוטב שתהיה בלילה כדי שיהיה סמוך לטבילתה ע״כ נהגו המנהג הכשר כמו שהעתיק כאן בש״ע » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ה)
The Gemara lays down two הלכתא that contradict one another — and the answer governs seifim 4 to 7. The Gemara first concludes "a woman does her chafifah by day and immerses at night", then immediately "a woman does her chafifah only at night", and asks how one halakhah can contradict the other. Its answer is a division of circumstance, not of principle: one holds where it is possible, the other where it is not. This is exactly the framework of seifim 4 to 6, which settle each configuration of the calendar; and it is also what allows the Rama to permit both directions in a pressing need.
What the Shakh draws from the sugya, and where he departs. The Shakh writes that in his view the whole sugya goes like Rashi and those who follow him: it is better that the chafifah be by day where it is possible. He draws a consequence for the calendar — when the night of tevilah falls at the close of Shabbat, or at the close of a Yom Tov that follows Shabbat, she does her chafifah on erev Shabbat and immerses at the close of Shabbat, since it is possible for the chafifah to be by day and on a weekday. But when three days separate the chafifah from the tevilah — two days of Yom Tov followed by Shabbat, or the two days of Rosh Hashanah on Thursday and Friday with a tevilah at the close of Shabbat — the distance becomes excessive, and there she does her chafifah on the very night of her tevilah. This is how he reads the Gemara's division between the possible and the impossible.
« ול״נ מכולה סוגיא דש״ס… כדעת רש״י וסייעתו דיותר טוב שהחפיפה תהיה ביום היכא דאפשר » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ו)
The Shakh and the custom of his country — and what it says about the seif. On the comb taken to the mikveh, the Shakh notes that in his lands the custom is to do everything at the bathhouse itself — rinsing, chafifah, washing and combing — immediately before the tevilah, and he approves of that custom. This sheds light on the sense of the "worthy custom": the comb taken along is not an act of added piety but the practical answer to the requirement of contiguity; where everything can be done on the spot, the requirement is met in full.
« ובמדינות אלו נוהגות להשתטף ולחוף ולרחוץ ולסרוק הכל בבית המרחץ סמוך מיד לטבילה ונכון הוא » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ז)
The exact scope of the Rama's היתר, according to the Shakh and the Taz. The Rama permits a chafifah by day alone, or by night alone, in a pressing need. The Shakh specifies that this phrase is not a formula: by day only, when it is impossible to do the chafifah at night — for instance when the gentiles have a festival that night and allow no fire to be lit in any house, or for any other impediment; and by night only, when an impediment makes the day impossible. But as soon as she can do it both by day and by night, let her do both. The Taz gives an example of the same order — that she must set out on a journey and will have no hot water at night — and adds a point that is not a small one: even when she has done her chafifah by day, the examination and checking of her whole body before the tevilah remain due at night.
« אבל כל שאפשר ביום ובלילה תחוף ביום ובלילה ופשוט הוא » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ח)
« ברור הוא דבלילה צריכה עיון ובדיקה בכל גופה קודם הטבילה » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ו)
נפקא מינה.
Lekhatchilah — do the chafifah close to the tevilah, and according to the worthy custom begin by day and continue until nightfall (seif 3).
Even after she has done her chafifah — comb again at the mikveh, close to the time of the tevilah (seif 3).
In a pressing need, a chafifah by day alone or by night alone is permitted, provided she performs it properly and does not hurry (Rama, seif 3) — and the Shakh restricts "pressing need" to true impossibility.
And for practice — ask your Rav, your kallah teacher, or the balanit.
Rishonim and Acharonim on contiguity. The foundation is the sugya of נדה ס״ח ע״א, with its two הלכתא and their division between the possible and the impossible. The Tur brings the divergence of Rashi and the She'iltot, and the Taz (ס״ק ה) shows that the worthy custom of the Shulchan Arukh comes out of it. The Beit Yosef, in the name of the poskim and of the Rambam (פ״ב דמקואות), is the explicit source of the Rama's gloss. The Shakh (ס״ק ו–ח) establishes the reading of the sugya, the custom of his lands, and the scope of שעת הדחק. And for practice — ask your Rav or your kallah teacher.
4. The time of the chafifah on Shabbat and Yom Tov — “תרי קולי בהדדי לא מקילינן”
summary: if her tevilah falls at the close of Shabbat and it is impossible for her to do her chafifah while it is still day, she does it on the very night of her tevilah; the Rama adds that it is nevertheless a fine custom that she wash well on erev Shabbat, and that at the close of Shabbat she repeat her chafifah and comb a little. If her tevilah comes up on Shabbat night, she does her chafifah by day. If the night of her tevilah falls at the close of Shabbat and it is Yom Tov, she does her chafifah on erev Shabbat; likewise, if two days of Yom Tov fall on Thursday and Friday and the night of her tevilah falls on Shabbat night, she does her chafifah on Wednesday and ties up her hair so that it does not become disordered. And where there is fear of immersing at night, there is no room to permit a chafifah from erev Shabbat with a tevilah on Shabbat day.
The chakira — what is the order of precedence between the need of the tevilah and the integrity of the chafifah? Seifim 4 to 7 resolve a collision: the chafifah wants to be close to the tevilah and wants to be by day, when it is convenient to perform it; the tevilah, for its part, has its time at night, and there are nights on which chafifah is impossible. The decision changes according to the configuration:
Tevilah at the close of Shabbat, chafifah impossible during Shabbat → she does her chafifah בליל טבילתה, although it is not by day (seif 4).
Tevilah on Shabbat night → she does her chafifah ביום, on the eve, although it is not immediately contiguous (seif 5).
Yom Tov, or two days of Yom Tov → she does her chafifah on erev Shabbat or on Wednesday, and ties up her hair so that it does not become disordered (seif 6).
One sees, then, that sometimes the chafifah is distanced from the tevilah in order that it may be done by day, and sometimes the chafifah is done at night — according to which of the two requirements can be given up.
« וכן אם חלו ב׳ ימים טובים ביום חמישי וששי וחל ליל טבילתה בליל שבת תחוף ביום רביעי בשבת ותקשור שערותיה כדי שלא יתבלבלו » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ט:ו)
The yesod — “תרי קולי בהדדי לא מקילינן” (seif 7).
This is a foundational rule in hora'ah: when one is faced with two distinct leniencies, one does not join them together in a single act.
The case: there are places where there is fear of immersing at night, and where one would wish both to immerse by day and to do the chafifah already on the eve. But that requires two leniencies at once:
• קולא דסרך בתה — to permit a tevilah by day, and not at night as its law requires.
• וקולא דהרחקת חפיפה מטבילה — to permit a chafifah distant from the tevilah.
Each taken alone has perhaps been permitted — but the two together, "we do not act leniently".
The definition of “תרי קולי” — joining doubts is not joining leniencies. One must look closely: “תרי קולי בהדדי לא מקילינן” is not the rule of sefek sefeka, where two doubts are joined in order to be lenient. There, one joins two doubts about reality, and each increases the probability; here, one would be joining two lenient practices — the tevilah by day and the distancing of the chafifah — each of which is a surrender of a lekhatchilah requirement, and whose combination clarifies nothing at all: it merely piles up. This is the reason for the rule: a leniency granted under pressure for a determined need is not stretched to carry a second one, lest the act drift away entirely from the required conduct. Therefore, where there is fear of immersing at night, she will immerse by day — one leniency — but will do her chafifah close to the tevilah, without joining the second.
What the Rama adds at seif 4, and why the Taz does not see in it a double chafifah. The Rama recommends that, when the tevilah falls at the close of Shabbat, she wash well on erev Shabbat and, at the close of Shabbat, perform a light chafifah and combing. The Taz explains that even according to the She'iltot, who hold that the essence of the chafifah is at night and would therefore require a full chafifah, this light chafifah suffices here — because the chafifah of erev Shabbat joins with it. The Shakh, for his part, writes that according to the line he laid down at ס״ק ו this is the very din and not a mere custom: let her wash and do her chafifah well on erev Shabbat, and repeat it at the close of Shabbat.
« וכבר כתבתי בסק״ו דכך הוא עיקר הדין שתרחוץ ותחוף היטב בע״ש ותרחוץ ותחוף במ״ש ג״כ » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ט)
The days in between — and why the Shulchan Arukh says so only at seif 6. The Rama, at seif 6, requires her to take care, during the days that separate the chafifah from the tevilah, against all filth, and to avoid touching cooked foods or giving them to her small children if they are of the sort that stick. The Taz notes that this care is due whenever the chafifah is distant, and that it was not repeated at seif 5 for a reason of custom only: women who immerse on Shabbat night do not leave the bathhouse before immersing. The Shakh says the same. The principle is therefore general and the placement of the reminder is contingent.
« גם תזהר כו׳ קאי אכל מקום שהחפיפה מרוחקת מהטבילה יום או יומים » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק י)
« גם תזהר בימים שבין החפיפה לטבילה מכל טנופת ושלא ידבק בה שום דבר » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ט:ו)
And if it is impossible for her to take care? The Rama answers within the same gloss: if she cannot — having no one to act in her place, or needing to touch those foods at mealtime — there is no cause for concern; let her only wash her hands each time, so as not to come to a chatzitzah. The rule is therefore not a prohibition on handling, but a requirement of cleanliness maintained until the tevilah.
« ואם אי אפשר לה ליזהר כגון שאין לה מי שיעשה במקומה או שצריכה ליגע בהן בשעת אכילה אין לחוש ומ״מ תרחוץ ידיה כל פעם שלא תבא לידי חציצה » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ט:ו)
The end of seif 6 is the Mechaber's, and it closes the circle. After the Rama's gloss, the text of the seif resumes in its own name: at the hour of the tevilah, let her examine and check well her whole body and the hair of her head so that nothing interpose, and let her rinse her hidden places with hot water, even on Yom Tov; and let her clean her teeth well at the time of the tevilah so that no crumbs, no meat and no bone remain. The Shakh here discusses at length the relation between the Mechaber and the Tur, and concludes that according to all she must examine and check both at the time of the chafifah and at the time of the tevilah. The Shakh further specifies that the permission to rinse with hot water on Yom Tov applies only to the hidden places, not to the whole body.
« ובשעת טבילה תעיין ותבדוק היטב כל גופה ושערות ראשה שלא יהא דבר חוצץ » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ט:ו)
« וא״כ לכ״ע צריכה לעיין ולבדוק בשעת חפיפה ובשעת טבילה » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק י״א)
« בית הסתרים כו׳ ביו״ט. אבל לא כל הגוף » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק י״ב)
נפקא מינה.
Tevilah at the close of Shabbat → chafifah that very night; and it is a fine custom to wash well on erev Shabbat and then perform a light chafifah at the close of Shabbat (Mechaber and Rama, seif 4) — the Shakh sees in it the din itself.
Tevilah on Shabbat night → chafifah by day, on the eve (seif 5).
Yom Tov, or two days of Yom Tov → chafifah on the eve of the festival, tying up the hair; and care against all filth during the days in between (Mechaber and Rama, seif 6).
Where there is fear of immersing at night → one does not join the leniency of a daytime tevilah to that of distancing the chafifah (seif 7) — a question to put to a Rav.
And for practice — ask your Rav, your kallah teacher, or the balanit.
Rishonim and Acharonim on the time of the chafifah. The Tur is the source of the "fine custom" of washing on erev Shabbat and repeating the chafifah at the close of Shabbat (Rama's gloss, seif 4). The care during the days in between comes from the Rosh, the Semag and the Sefer HaTerumah, whom the Beit Yosef cites (seif 6). The Taz (ס״ק ז–י) explains the joining of the two chafifot and the scope of that care; at ס״ק ט he brings the Beit Yosef's discussion of the Tur, and at ס״ק י an objection from his father-in-law the Bayit Chadash, which he declares astonishing because the halakhah is settled that a prior examination suffices bedi'avad, as the Shulchan Arukh lays down at seif 8. The Shakh (ס״ק ו–י״ב) establishes his reading of the sugya, the rule of the two examinations, and the division between the hidden places and the whole body on Yom Tov. See also above, siman 197. And for practice — ask your Rav or your kallah teacher.
5. Bedi'avad — a chafifah that is not contiguous; the whole body against the hidden places
summary: on ordinary days — and all the more so on Yom Tov — if she did her chafifah and examined herself by day and immersed on the night of another day, her tevilah is valid bedi'avad, although the chafifah and the bedikah were not contiguous with the tevilah. But if she did no chafifah at all, her tevilah is not valid, even if she examined herself; and there is no need to say that if she did her chafifah where there is hair without examining the rest of her body, her tevilah is not valid — for the examination of the body is a matter of the Torah. That applies to all the rest of the body; but as for the hidden places, since they do not require that the water reach them, if she did not examine them beforehand, and examined them afterwards and found nothing in them, her tevilah is valid.
Two notes on this block. Seif 8 contains, between "even if she examined herself" and "there is no need to say", a clause that the ellipsis passes over and that deserves to be read: even if she did her chafifah immediately after the tevilah, combed, and found no knotted hair, her tevilah is not valid. And the edition followed by Sefaria reads at that point מיד אחד הטבילה — a digitization typo for אחר; we note it without correcting it.
« ואפילו חפפה מיד אחד הטבילה וסרקה במסרק ולא מצאה שום נימא קשור לא עלתה לה טבילה » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ט:ח)
« שאני אומר שמא בשעת טבילה היה קשור ועכשיו ניתר או נישר עם המסרקת » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק י״ג)
The central chakira — the whole body against the hidden places: must the water reach them, or must they only be able to be reached? This is the theoretical heart of the siman. The parts of the body divide in two, and the difference comes from the very root of tevilah:
All the rest of the body — ביאת מים must actually take place; hence the requirement to examine before the tevilah, and the seif's qualification: the examination of the body is a matter of the Torah.
The hidden places — folds and armpits — שאין צריכים לביאת מים: it is enough that they be fit to receive the water, that is, that nothing interpose in them.
And the nafka mina bedi'avad (seif 9) is a large one: for the rest of the body, if she did not examine beforehand, her tevilah is not valid, for a chatzitzah may have prevented the water from reaching; but for the hidden places, if she did not examine them beforehand and examines them after the tevilah without finding anything, her tevilah is עלתה — since the water need not reach them but only be able to, and the later examination establishes that it could.
קושיא of the Taz — if fitness is required, why does one not examine? The Taz asks: since the Gemara concludes that a place fit to receive the water is nevertheless required, why does seif 9 content itself with a later examination? And his question grows stronger at seif 12, where one is lenient in the hidden places even when an interposing object has been found.
תירוץ of the Taz — what is hidden is not in the way of a chatzitzah. His answer: since the place is hidden, nothing ordinarily comes to lodge there; there is therefore no cause for concern — except in a case where the matter is established, as at seif 12. A presumption of fact here takes the place of verification, and it is this, and not a lower requirement in principle, that explains the two leniencies.
« ונראה דכיון שהוא נסתר אין דרך לבוא שם דבר החוצץ מ״ה אין בזה חשש אם לא במידי דמוכח » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק י״א)
"She did no chafifah at all" against "she did chafifah without examining" — two me'akev factors (seif 8). The Mechaber distinguishes three bedi'avad cases: (a) she did her chafifah and examined herself by day, and immersed on the night of another day — her tevilah is valid, although it was not contiguous; (b) she did no chafifah at all — her tevilah is not valid, even if she examined herself; (c) she did her chafifah where there is hair without examining the rest of her body — her tevilah is not valid, because the examination of the body is a matter of the Torah. This confirms the yesod of section 1: chafifah and examination are two distinct obligations and each is me'akev — one is the law of the hair, the other that of the body, and the latter is davar Torah.
Why the examination alone does not replace the chafifah — the Ran's answer, cited by the Shakh. The question poses itself: if she examined herself close to the tevilah, why should a non-contiguous chafifah not suffice? The Shakh cites the Ran, who puts it in those very terms and answers: perhaps she did not examine carefully enough — whereas with the chafifah there is no such concern. In other words, the chafifah is not merely an obligation alongside the examination: it is also what guards the examination against its own weakness.
« י״ל שמא לא עיינה יפה יפה אבל בחפיפה ליכא למיחש להכי » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ט״ו)
The yesod — "close to the tevilah" is a lekhatchilah requirement, the examination is me'akev.
Comparing seif 3 with seif 8 yields a sharp refinement: the requirement סמוך לטבילה is only lekhatchilah, and bedi'avad the tevilah is valid even with a distant chafifah — she did her chafifah by day and immersed on the night of another day.
But the chafifah and the examination themselves are not a first-choice requirement: they are me'akev. A woman who did no chafifah at all, or who did not examine her body, has not fulfilled her tevilah, even bedi'avad.
Hence: the time (contiguity) is a lekhatchilah hiddur; the act (chafifah and examination) is a complete me'akev.
נפקא מינה.
Chafifah and examination by day, tevilah on the night of another day → valid bedi'avad (seif 8).
No chafifah at all, or chafifah without examining the body → not valid, for the examination of the body is a matter of the Torah (seif 8); and a chafifah performed afterwards changes nothing.
Hidden places not examined beforehand, examined after the tevilah with nothing found → valid (seif 9).
And for practice — ask your Rav, your kallah teacher, or the balanit.
Rishonim and Acharonim on bedi'avad. The foundation of שֶׁעִיּוּן הַגּוּף הוּא דָּבָר תּוֹרָה is in the Gemara of Bava Kamma cited above, and the division of the hidden places in נדה ס״ו ע״ב with Rabbi Zeira's rule about what is fit. The Rambam (הל׳ מקואות פ״ב) and the Rosh set out the chafifah and the examination. The Taz (ס״ק י״א) poses the קושיא of fitness and answers it. The Shakh (ס״ק י״ג–ט״ו) explains why a later chafifah does not help, and cites the Ran's answer. And for practice — ask your Rav or your kallah teacher.
6. A chatzitzah found after the tevilah — תולין במין שנתעסקה בו
summary: she did her chafifah, examined herself and immersed, and on coming up an interposing object was found upon her. If she immersed within the onah in which she did her chafifah, she needs no further tevilah; if not, she does. That applies when she did not handle that same kind after the tevilah; but if she handled it between the tevilah and the bedikah, she needs no further tevilah, for I impute the object to the kind she handled. If, however, she did no chafifah before the tevilah, one does not impute. And a woman who did her chafifah before the tevilah and, between the chafifah and the tevilah, handled interposing things, has not fulfilled her tevilah, even if she checked herself immediately afterwards.
The chakira — “תולין”: a doubt of chatzitzah, and how it is resolved. When an interposing object is found upon her as she comes up from the mikveh, there is a doubt as to when it attached itself: before the tevilah — it interposed, and the tevilah is not valid — or after — it did not interpose, and the tevilah is valid. By what is the doubt resolved? By two instruments:
The chazakah of the chafifah and the examination (seif 10) — since she did her chafifah well and examined herself beforehand, she has a presumption that nothing was upon her at the hour of the tevilah; and if something is found, one תולין that it attached itself afterwards — provided she immersed within the onah of her chafifah.
Imputation to the kind she handled (seif 11) — if, after the tevilah, she handled the very kind that was found, one imputes the object to that handling, and she needs no further tevilah.
The תולין is therefore built upon a presumption joined to a proximate cause; and without the prior chafifah, one does not impute at all (end of seif 11).
The Gemara's two versions, and why the Shakh asks that both be held. The Gemara itself gives two readings of Rava's statement: one divides according to the contiguity of chafifah and tevilah, the other according to the day — the onah. And it asks what separates them: the difference is the case of a chafifah done by day and a tevilah done at night. The Shulchan Arukh followed the second reading and wrote בתוך עונה. The Shakh notes that there are poskim, among them the Ra'avad in his Hassagot, who divide not by the onah but by contiguity; he adds that their divergence depends on the version of the text, and concludes that one should be stringent according to both opinions. This, then, is a case in which the machloket is not decided but added together.
« ומחלקותם תלוי בגירסא ויש להחמיר כשתי הדעות » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק י״ד)
"Within the onah", and the Rambam's opinion that the Mechaber cites (seif 10). The Mechaber specifies that only if she immersed within the onah of her chafifah does she need no further tevilah; and the Rama adds that even a chafifah done towards evening with a tevilah at the beginning of the night counts as two onot. The Mechaber then cites the opinion of the Rambam — and such is also the view of Rabbenu Yerucham — that in either case she needs a further tevilah; only that the one need not repeat her chafifah, and the other must. Here is the machloket:
Opinion
Within the onah
In two onot
The Mechaber (unattributed opinion)
no further tevilah
a further tevilah
The Rambam and Rabbenu Yerucham
a further tevilah, without repeating the chafifah
a further tevilah, repeating the chafifah
And the root of the divergence: how far does the presumption — chafifah and examination — reach in order to impute? For the unattributed opinion, within the onah the presumption is complete and exempts; for the Rambam, an interposing object was after all found, there is a re'uta here, and a further tevilah is required in any case.
« ולהרמב״ם בין כך ובין כך צריכה טבילה אחרת אלא שזו אינה צריכה לחזור לחוף וזו צריכה » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ט:י)
« אף על פי שהיתה החפיפה סמוך לטבילה כגון שחפפה ביום סמוך לערב וטבלה בתחילת הלילה הואיל והיה בשתי עונות » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ט:י)
The Shakh opens a wider machloket on imputation itself (ס״ק ט״ז). On seif 11, the Shakh reports that the Bayit Chadash rules like the "great ones" whom the Rashba cites, and like the Rambam: even if she handled that same kind, one does not impute leniently unless she says "it is clear to me that it was not upon me at the hour of the tevilah". He adds that such is also the Rashba's view in his Chiddushim, and that the Tosafot, the Mordekhi and the Agudah imply that there is no difference according to whether she handled that kind or not. In his eyes, then, hardly any lenient opinion remains on this point but the Tur as the Rashba reads him — and the Rashba himself inclines to stringency. We report the discussion and do not decide it.
« דאפי׳ נתעסקה באותו המין אין תולין להקל עד שתאמר ברי לי שלא היה עלי בשעת טבילה » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק ט״ז)
The Taz and the three divisions of seif 11. The Taz raises the objection that many put: the end of seif 11 says that if she did no chafifah before the tevilah one does not impute — but seif 8 has already taught that without chafifah the tevilah is not valid, even if nothing was found! His answer introduces three cases, and it lights up the whole section: (a) she immersed within the onah of her chafifah — no further tevilah; (b) there is a gap of one onah — a further tevilah is required, unless she afterwards handled that kind, and there is then only a single onah between chafifah and tevilah; (c) the gap is far greater — she did her chafifah on erev Shabbat and immersed at the close of Shabbat — and such a chafifah is not called "before the tevilah" but "distant from it": the later handling then helps not at all. It is of this third case that the end of the seif speaks. The Shakh, for his part, reads the same sentence differently and holds it to be brought along by the opening of the seif, in the name of the Prishah.
« אבל אם יש ביניהם הרבה כגון שחפפה בע״ש וטבלה מוצ״ש דחפיפה זו לא מיקרי קודם טבילה כלל אלא רחוק ממנה אז לא מהני נתעסקה אח״כ » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק י״ב)
« כדי נסבה דכבר נתבאר בסעיף ח׳ דאם לא חפפה לא עלתה לה טבילה אפילו לא נמצא עליה דבר חוצץ אלא איידי דרישא נקיט לה » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק י״ז)
The hidden places within “תולין” — a further leniency (seif 12). The division between the whole body and the hidden places returns here, as at seif 9. For the rest of the body, one imputes only if she handled the kind that was found after the tevilah and had done her chafifah beforehand. But as for the בית הסתרים, even if she did not examine them before the tevilah, nor after, until she handled an interposing thing — and some of that same kind is then found in them — תולין להקל. The reason for this further leniency is the Taz's own at seif 9: what is hidden is not in the way of a chatzitzah, and the re'uta there is therefore far lighter. The Shakh notes here that the Rokeach disagrees, and refers to what he wrote at siman 198.
« אם לא עיינה אותם קודם טבילה ואחר טבילה גם כן לא עיינה עד שנתעסקה בדבר החוצץ ואחר כך נמצא בהם מאותו המין תולין להקל » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ט:י״ב)
The yesod — the limit of “תולין”: having handled interposing things between the chafifah and the tevilah (seif 13).
Until here we have seen when one imputes leniently. But there is a limit:
a woman who did her chafifah and who, between the chafifah and the tevilah, handled interposing things — or gave her son a cooked food liable to stick to her — has not fulfilled her tevilah, even if she checked herself immediately afterwards and found nothing upon her, for I say: it fell from her as she came up out of the water.
מיהו — and this is the Rama's gloss: if she checked herself before the tevilah, after that handling, and saw that nothing had stuck to her, she needs no further tevilah. Here is the exact definition of “תולין”: one imputes favourably only where there is a presumption of a check close to the tevilah; as soon as she has handled interposing things after the check, the presumption is removed.
« שאני אומר בעלייתה מהמים נפל ממנה וצריכה טבילה אחרת » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ט:י״ג)
« מיהו אם בדקה עצמה קודם טבילה וראתה שלא נדבק בה שום דבר אינה צריכה טבילה אחרת » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ט:י״ג)
The garment and the child — where the line runs exactly (end of seif 13). The Rama adds that she may put on her clothes between the chafifah and the tevilah, but that she should not take an infant to herself. The Shakh explains the difference in the name of the Bayit Chadash: a garment is not like the food given to the child, because it is not usual for there to be on clothes something moist liable to stick to a woman's body. And he cites from the same Bayit Chadash the symmetrical case: if the child was holding a cooked food, or was soiled with mud, and she took him in her bare arms and then immersed without examining herself, her tevilah is not valid — for it resembles the food given to the child. The line is therefore not "with or without contact" but "what sticks and what does not".
« דלא דמי לנתנה תבשיל שאין רגילות להיות על הבגדים דבר לח לידבק בגוף האשה » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ט ס״ק כ״א)
נפקא מינה.
An interposing object found on coming up, and she immersed within the onah of her chafifah → according to the unattributed opinion, no further tevilah; according to the Rambam, a further tevilah (seif 10). The Shakh adds the Ra'avad's opinion, which divides by contiguity, and asks that both be held — a question to put to a Rav.
She handled after the tevilah the kind that was found, having done her chafifah beforehand → one imputes, and she needs no further tevilah (seif 11); the Shakh reports the opinion that further requires her to say "it is clear to me".
Hidden places → one imputes leniently even without a prior examination (seif 12); and the Rokeach disagrees, according to the Shakh.
She handled interposing things between the chafifah and the tevilah → not valid; unless she checked herself before the tevilah (Mechaber and Rama, seif 13).
And for practice — ask your Rav, your kallah teacher, or the balanit.
Rishonim and Acharonim on “תולין”. The sugya is in נדה ס״ו ע״ב, with its two readings and their נפקא מינה. The Rambam, cited by the Beit Yosef at seif 10, and Rabbenu Yerucham hold the opinion that "in either case she needs a further tevilah". The source of the Rama's היתר at seif 13 is in the Hagahot Sha'arei Dura, the Mordekhi, and the Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba. The Taz (ס״ק י״א–י״ב) poses the קושיא of the hidden places and the three divisions of seif 11. The Shakh (ס״ק י״ד–כ״א) brings the Ra'avad, the Bayit Chadash, the Rashba, the Tosafot, the Mordekhi and the Agudah, and notes the Rokeach's disagreement. See also above, siman 198, on the laws of chatzitzah. And for practice — ask your Rav or your kallah teacher.
The overall chakira of the siman. What is chafifah, and how are the rules of its time and of its bedi'avad determined?
What chafifah is — three acts: washing (with water and not with other liquids), combing, and examining; and the chafifah (the washing of the hair) is not the bedikah (the examination of the body), and each is me'akev (sections 1 and 5). The Shakh adds the ranking: the takanah of Ezra bears on the hair, the examination comes from the Torah; and the Taz holds that the touch of the chafifah already counts as examination.
The measure of chafifah — hot water, so that the hair not tangle, and not neter or tafel; it is a requirement aimed at a result and assessed in fact — hence the test of the wine for the sick woman (section 2) — except for what the Shas and the poskim have named, which the Shakh withdraws from the test.
Close to the tevilah — contiguity lekhatchilah, and the worthy custom of beginning by day (section 3); this is only a first-choice requirement, and bedi'avad the tevilah is valid (section 5). The shape of the custom comes out of the divergence of Rashi and the She'iltot.
The time on Shabbat and Yom Tov — close of Shabbat, Shabbat night, Yom Tov; and “תרי קולי בהדדי לא מקילינן” — the leniency of סרך בתה and that of distancing the chafifah (section 4).
The whole body against the hidden places — the rest of the body needs the water to reach it, the hidden places only to be fit for it — and the nafka mina bedi'avad (sections 5 and 6).
"One imputes to the kind she handled" — a presumption of chafifah and checking joined to a proximate cause; within the onah; and on condition that she did not handle interposing things between the chafifah and the tevilah (section 6). Several Acharonim restrict this imputation, and the question remains under discussion.
נפקא מינה for practice — what the seifim lay down, and not a ruling of this page.
She must wash her whole body, rinse the hidden places with water — and not with other liquids, according to the parenthesis of the seif — and comb her hair (seif 1).
The chafifah of the hair with hot water, and not with neter or tafel, which tangle; and bedi'avad, if the hair is not tangled, it is permitted (Mechaber and Rama, seif 2) — the Shakh restricting that היתר to the occasion already past.
The chafifah close to the tevilah lekhatchilah — with the worthy custom of beginning by day, and of combing again at the mikveh (seif 3).
On Shabbat and Yom Tov — according to the configuration (close of Shabbat, Shabbat night, Yom Tov); and one does not join two leniencies — a daytime tevilah and a distanced chafifah (seifim 4 to 7).
Bedi'avad — chafifah and examination by day, tevilah on the night of another day → valid; but no chafifah at all, or no examination of the body → not valid (seifim 8 and 9).
An interposing object found after the tevilah → one imputes within the onah and to the kind she handled; but if she handled interposing things between the chafifah and the tevilah → not valid (Mechaber and Rama, seifim 10 to 13).
And for practice — ask your Rav, your kallah teacher, or the balanit. This page sets out shitot; it decides nothing.
the moisture of another liquid stays in the fold and leaves its stain there (Taz ס״ק ב)
Chafifah of the hair
with hot water, even warmed by the sun; not with cold water
cold water tangles the hair
Neter ("tafel") and ohel
set aside lekhatchilah
they cut the hair, which then tangles again
Combing and examination of the body
me'akev — "the examination of the body is a matter of the Torah"
that nothing repulsive interpose
Table — the time of the chafifah (contiguity, Shabbat and Yom Tov)
The case
The time of the chafifah
Seif
In the ordinary way
close to the tevilah — from daytime until nightfall (lekhatchilah)
ס״ג
Tevilah at the close of Shabbat
that very night; and a fine custom to wash on erev Shabbat
ס״ד
Tevilah on Shabbat night
by day, on erev Shabbat
ס״ה
Yom Tov / two days of Yom Tov
on the eve of the festival, tying up the hair
ס״ו
Where there is fear of immersing at night
one does not join: daytime tevilah + distanced chafifah
ס״ז
Table — the whole body against the hidden places
The point
All the rest of the body
The hidden places
The rule of the tevilah
the water must actually reach it
it need not — it is enough that they be fit for it
Examination (seifim 8–9)
no examination beforehand → not valid ("a matter of the Torah")
examination afterwards, nothing found → valid
Imputation (seifim 11–12)
one imputes only if she had done her chafifah and handled afterwards
one imputes leniently even without a prior examination
Table — central machlokot and definitions of the siman
Subject
Shitah / first side
Shitah / second side
The time of the chafifah (seif 3)
Rashi — better by day, so that she do it properly
She'iltot — better at night, for contiguity
"Close to the tevilah" (seifim 3 and 8)
lekhatchilah only — bedi'avad valid
worthy custom by day, and combing again
Joining two leniencies (seif 7)
“תרי קולי בהדדי לא מקילינן”
סרך בתה / distancing of the chafifah — each on its own
Interposing object found within the onah (seif 10)
the Mechaber's unattributed opinion — no further tevilah
Rambam and Rabbenu Yerucham — a further tevilah
The criterion of the division (seif 10, Shakh ס״ק י״ד)
the onah, according to the text of the seif
contiguity, according to the Ra'avad — and one holds both
Imputing to the kind (seif 11, Shakh ס״ק ט״ז)
one imputes as soon as she handled it
one imputes only if she says "it is clear to me"
Having handled interposing things (seif 13)
not valid — "as she came up it fell from her"
if she checked herself before the tevilah — valid (Rama)
Table — the sources of the sugya
Gemara and Mishnah: נדה ס״ו ע״ב (the neter and hot water, the בית הקמטים ובית הסתרים and the rule of fitness, the interposing object found on coming up with its two readings) · נדה ס״ח ע״א (the two הלכתא on day and night, and the requirement of contiguity) · בבא קמא פ״ב ע״א (the takanah of Ezra, and the division between what is from the Torah and what is takanah)
Rishonim: רש״י · שאלתות · רמב״ם (הל׳ מקואות פ״ב ; פירוש המשנה כלים פ״ב) · מהרי״ק (שורש קנ״ט) · ריב״ש · רא״ש · ראב״ד · רבינו ירוחם · רשב״א · ר״ן · מרדכי · תוספות · אגודה · רוקח · סמ״ג · ספר התרומה · הגהות שערי דורא · טור · בית יוסף
Acharonim: רמ״א · ט״ז (טורי זהב — twelve entries on this siman) · ש״ך (שפתי כהן — twenty-one entries on this siman) · ב״ח · פרישה · דרישה · עט״ז · משאת בנימין · באר היטב · פתחי תשובה · באר הגולה · ביאור הגר״א
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן קצ״ט · Level 2 — Lamdan · פלפול ועיון בדיני חפיפה ובדיקת בית הסתרים daattorah.com
⚠️ This content is written for study and examination only. For any practical application (לְמַעֲשֶׂה) — ask your Rav, your kallah teacher, or the balanit. This page sets out shitot and decides nothing.