In comparison with many intrauterine contraceptives, the diaphragm is "readily removable" by the female user between uses. Would an inserted diaphragm be considered a chatzizah for mikvah immersion? If not, would some be machmir to remove it in any case, despite no water reaching that area? If yes, then why?

  • 3
    The common practice is to be strict to remove absolutely everything where feasible. Do you have some reason to think this would be different? (It's fine to ask about the Bedieved case; I just don't understand why you think to ask about the Lechatchila case.) – Double AA Feb 12 '19 at 14:34
  • 2
    That's not true. No water enters the mouth during immersion. (and: gross!) The lips just shouldn't be pressed too tightly together as to unnecessarily wrinkle any skin around the mouth. Shulchan Arukh YD 198:38 אינה צריכה לפתוח פיה כדי שיכנסו בה המים, ולא תקפוץ אותה יותר מדאי, ואם קפצה, לא עלתה לה טבילה, אלא תשיק שפתותיה זו לזו דיבוק בינוני: The issue of temporary fillings is just are they more similar to a permanent false tooth (not a chatzitza) or to a popcorn stuck in your teeth (chatzitza). – Double AA Feb 12 '19 at 14:48
  • 1
    I don't have material here for an answer. Maybe someone does somehow distinguish diaphragms from popcorn. The question just seems off by not acknowledging the obvious reason one might remove something that isn't sticttly speaking a chatzitza: we always remove anything when feasible [to avoid questions or whatever] – Double AA Feb 12 '19 at 14:58
  • 2
    This question has been addressed as long as such contraceptives were available. See Pische Teshuva 198:16. (Obviously contemporary poskim deal with additional specifics and broader scope (e.g. R. Ovadiah Yosef, Taharat HaBayit vol. 3), this is simply pointing to the “classics” addressing the question. – Oliver Feb 12 '19 at 15:51
  • 2

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .