What's Going On - Barriers to Immersion - Splinters, mud, nails Most of the poskim understand that the term "visible" used in Seif 11 means that the splinter of metal or wood is only partially embedded in the skin and that there is some amount of splinter that is either at skin level or above. Thus, a splinter thatis actually covered by skin is not considered to be a barrier. I think that a good rule of thumb is that if the splinter can be grasped by tweezers (even if there isn't enough leverage to actually remove it) without excessive digging into the skin, then it would be a barrier. A similar issue arises for stitches. Rav Wozner has ruled that stitches that are self-dissolving do not constitute a barrier, while ones that must be removed manually do. He rules that cutting the stitch open without removing it would be inadequate; since there must be some thread left above skin level so that it can eventually be removed, the stitch would then exactly correspond to the rules of this seif. Regarding mud, the Bach rules that since we are unable to differentiate among the various types of mud, we should consider all mud to be a barrier regardless of its source. The Mishnah Berurah 161:10 holds that only the three muds mentioned are a barrier but that others are not. Nevertheless, he does not dispute the law of the Bach here and suggests that we are simply more strict in a niddah circumstance than in ordinary hand-washing. The halacha of Seif 17 contrasts with that of Seif 8. In our case the basic halacha is that the various types of dyes described here have no physical substance and that they therefore do not constitute a barrier. The kchol mentioned in Seif 8 is a heavier substance. Alternatively, the Rashba suggests that these dyes are used for cosmetic purposes and that therefore a woman wants to have them on her. Therefore, since she is not "concerned" in the halachic sense, it would not be a barrier. The prevailing custom and practice is for women to their finger and toenails prior to immersion. One does not need to cut them down so far that her cuticles bleed, but rather should cut them as far as possible, minimally to the point where any blackness in her nails is removed and maximally to the point that the nail and skin meet. The Shulchan Aruch appears to hold that the reason for trimming nails is to remove the possibility of there being dirt that would not be removed. The Bach comments that there are poskim who maintain that the primary issue is not dirt under the nail, but the nail itself. This dispute would clearly have ramifications in halacha. The Taz maintains that it is clear from the language of the Rama that his concern is dirt. The Shach, in an opinion very similar to the Bach's, maintains that the problem is the nail itself because of the concept of Kol ha'omed l'kotzetz k'katzutz dami - that anything that is ultimately going to be cut is considered as having been already cut. Therefore, the fact that the nail is still present means that it is acting as barrier against the part of the nail that will remain. If one's immersion is on the last day of a 3-day yom tov, the woman obviously will not be able to cut her nails prior to immersing. She therefore should trim her nails before yom tov and simply examine her nails to assure that there is no dirt under them. If a woman forgot to trim her nails before yom tov, there is an argument between the Shach and the Taz of what to do. The Taz permits immersion and the Shach prefers that she have a non-Jew trim the for her. There is a further argument about whether or not the non-Jew is allowed to use nail cutting implements or not; it appears that the Shach grudgingly permits the use of the implements. Similarly, on Chol HaMoed, when nail cutting is prohibited, the Taz follows his view and permits immersion provided the nails are clean and the Shach ends up with a situation in which immersion could be delayed for up to a week because of the underlying issue of being unable to remove something that constitutes a barrier. He acknowledges this, admits that the view that he follows is by no means universally accepted and permits the woman to immerse.
|