The Torah says that one is not permitted to go to mikvah with a chatzitzah on one’s body. The definition of chatzitzah m’doraysa (see Sukkah 6) is something which covers most of the body (rubo) and which one is makpid on, which one would prefer removed. If a chatzitzah covers only part of the body and one is makpid on it, or it covers most of the body but one is not makpid (i.e. it fulfills only on of the two conditions of the Torah’s definition of chatzitzah), it is a chatzitzah m’derabbanan – one is Rabbinically prohibited from going to mikvah until such a chatzitzah is removed. The Rama writes that minhag yisrael is to be stringent about all chatzitzos and even remove that which is a miyut v’aino makpid, something that covers only a small area and which a person does not care about. For this reason women are very careful to remove anything, no matter how small, that would block contact between the mikvah water and their body during tevilah.
The gemara (Zevhacim 19) questions whether a kohein can wear tefillin shel yad on his arm while wearing bigdei kehunah and doing avodah. Rashi interprets the gemara’s dilemma as a question of whether tefillin constitutes yitur begadim, adding an extra garment to bigdei kehunah, which is prohibited. Tosfos, however, understands the question of the gemara as one of chatzitzah. The Torah commands that bigdei kehunah be worn directly on the body with no separation – do tefillin constitute a separation which violates this law? The gemara concludes that in fact tefillin shel yad may not be worn by a kohein.
The Ohr Samaiach (Issurei Biya ch. 4) is troubled by the gemara’s conclusion. With respect to mikvah the Torah defines chatzitzah as something which covers most of the body and which one would want removed – anything smaller or less obtrusive is not prohibited. Yet, with respect to bigdei kehunah the gemara assumes that even tefillin is a chatzitzah, even though tefillin is not a separation that covers most of the body. On what basis do we apply different standards to the definition of chatzitzah in these two different cases?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"bsaro" vs. "kol bsaro"?
ReplyDeleteI can't help thinking that this is somehow related to your earlier post about the machlokes between Rashi and other Rishonim about the source of chatzitza by tefillin. Some Rishonim derived the issur from bigdei k'huna...aval achshav ein dati tzlula liha'amek bo
ReplyDelete>>>"bsaro" vs. "kol bsaro"?
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I thought the word 'kol' was used to learn chatzaitzah by hair, but 'besaro' alone teaches chatzitzah by the body.
Bill, I think you are on the right track, but unfortunately ain da'ati tzelula either and I haven't quite worked out an answer yet...
It could be that since Tosafot hold that there is a din of chatzitza by the tefillin shel yad, they maintain that there is already a positive phenomenon of "levisha" going on which precludes full levisha of the bigdei kehuna. Any levisha occuring on the left arm - including hanachat tefillin - would necessarily conflict with the levishat bigdei kehuna that is "superimposed" on it.
ReplyDeleteThis is a different concept than chatzitza by mikveh; over there, the question is whether the person's body has been completely immersed in water or not, and chatzitza is a problem because it interferes with immersion. It doesn't create a positive quality of levisha like tefillin; it simply stops water from having contact with certain surfaces of the body. The extent of its interference is thus measured by the standard of rov and makpid.
By contrast, Rashi, who doesn't apply chatzitza to tefillin shel yad, simply maintains that it is an additional "kishut" that constitutes yitur begadim.
I was thinking along those lines as well. By way of comparison, the gemara also has a din of holding lulav directly in one's hand and not with a glove. Even though the gemara uses the term chatzitzah, it seems that that is a function of the mitzvah of lekicha, not a seperate psul. However, Tosfos (Sukkah 37a d"h d'baina) sounds like he rejects that chiluk.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought about this post for a while and i think perhaps if we ask What is the problem of chatzitzah? If you don't want it then it separates you mentally from the mitzva in front of you. If it covers ROV then it separates you physically thereby taking you away from the mitzva. And so by mikvah the Torah tells us both dividers must be present in order for the mikva to fail you. Mikva requires kavana and washing the whole body. As does bigdei kahuna require attention and the whole body. But so does teflin. One can not be maysiach daas, one may not ignore his teflin for a moment. Kedushas teflin demand from a Jew total attention, therefore the reality is teflin are the greatest deflection of begdai kahuna. As begdei kahuna would be for tefilin. both require the person to be present and that is not possible, no one can give all of his attention to both. by definition tefillin is the greatest chatzitzah . The Torah demands that they both be chatzitzahas. Tefilin are not just the arm and the head also the whole body as indicated by kuf naki and also lman tiyeyah Toras Hashem bficha. but thats not true with only the shel rosh on. it needs both the shel yad and shel rosh to require your full attention and be a problem for the bigdei kahuna
ReplyDelete