36 replies to this topic

[qgh]

No offense, but I think that is more accurate.

No offense, but I wouldn't trust the gemara for sex advice.

Since you don't like that comment that was made or dont feel comfortable it is necessary for you to make an accusation. Very typical Orthodox / Haredi defense. Why not also acuse the person making that comment of being reform/ apikores .....

[sal]

I think in this case we are dealing with a combination of minhagim and gzerot on gzerot that were not even instituted by the Sanhedrin.

1. 7 Nekiim that are kept to day for nida is a minhag started by women who lived in the fields. It lated became halacha to klal Israel.

That is not entirely correct. Only the 7th day is because of chumra d'rab zeira. All derabanans have to first be accepted by the masses. This is no different than any derabanan.

2. The 72 hours that is being discussed in now a gzeira on top of this minhag. There way to avoid the 72 hours for shfichat zera. Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I remember the Rambam does not mention this requirement to wait 72 hours in all cases before counting 7 Nekeim.

That is not entirely correct. A woman can't start the 7 clean days within 3 days from sex. its only a chumra if she did not have sex prior to bleeding.

3. The extra 5th day which was added by Ashkenazim (in case 72 hours which overlap the 4th day is bein hashmashot and therefore will require an additional 5th day is an additional gzera for a very rare situation.

correct, but I hope you realize that when something was paskened because of a geder its stronger then a regular psak. Although you may not like it the torah gives authority to rabbis to make gedarim.

To summarize : A nida today( whom by Tora law is only required to count a total of sever days with out any clean days

that is not correct. Since not all uterine blood renders a woman tomai. Hence she is a safek d'oraisa for at least six of the days.

or having to worry about when to start counting these days) is required medrabanan to observe the 7 clean days of Zava. Just in case there were relations just before becoming Nida and there was shfichat Zera which is Tamei for 72 hours one has to count 4 days (as it overlaps the 4th day) before starting to count the 7 clean days of Zava (for her Nida). Now if it is possible that is was bein hashmashot so we should add an additional day to the 72 hours and end up with 5 days.

Why does that bother you?

Since you don't like that comment that was made or dont feel comfortable it is necessary for you to make an accusation. Very typical Orthodox / Haredi defense. Why not also acuse the person making that comment of being reform/ apikores .....

Someone who does not believe in chazal is regarded as an apikores. At least if you accept the gemara as authentic judaism.

[TimeRebbe]

There are natural herbs for that...

Progesterone remedies such as Aygestin can be used to better regulate periods if there are problems

[qgh]

That is not entirely correct. Only the 7th day is because of chumra d'rab zeira. All derabanans have to first be accepted by the masses. This is no different than any derabanan.

Depends how you undersand Hetkin Rav Yehuda Basadot (Rabi enacted in Sados) -- did he initially just enact for women in the Sados ,or did he enact for everyone becuase of the women in the Sados. Just looked at Steinsaltz he understands it as for the women who live in the Sados.
Either way in later generation the 7th day also added and was accepted by the masses. I am not questioning the validity of Rabi Zeira;s humra. It is halacha.

That is not entirely correct. A woman can't start the 7 clean days within 3 days from sex. its only a chumra if she did not have sex prior to bleeding.

Well there is a machloket on that. Seems to me that this is a humra that came later. Nidda 41b-42A does not clearly conclude that all women automatically will have plitat zeira and it does not say anywhere in the Gmara does it say that all women have to wait after relations any days before counting clean days because of the possibility of pitat Zera.
The Rambam understand this Gmara in Hilchot Terumot (I realize that some other Rishonim understood it differently than the Rambam)

הלכות תרומות פרק ז


ז המשמשת מיטתה--אם לא נתהפכה בשעת תשמיש--טובלת, ואוכלת בתרומה לערב; ואם נתהפכה בשעת תשמיש--הרי זו אסורה לאכול בתרומה כל שלושה ימים, שאי אפשר לה שלא תפלוט ותהיה טמאה כמו שיתבאר במקומו.

Interestingly in Hilchot Issurei Biah the Rambam clearly says that if she sees one day of blood she starts counting immediately the next day 7 nekeim. He does NOT even say that if she had relations prior to bleeding she have to wait 3 days. Clearly that is a possibility. He does say in the same chapter that if is she does see a plitat Zera it effects her count.

הלכות איסורי ביאה פרק יא

אם ראתה יום אחד, סופרת אחריו שבעה, וטובלת בליל שמיני שהוא ליל שני שלאחר ימי נידתה, ומותרת לבעלה.

Thus this is a humra (of waiting 4 or 5 days prior to counting nekeim) came later and was not agreed upon all Rishonim.
Now if she did not even have relations prior to bleeding it is an additional humra to this humra.

correct, but I hope you realize that when something was paskened because of a geder its stronger then a regular psak. Although you may not like it the torah gives authority to rabbis to make gedarim.

Correct. As above I am not arguing that we should not follow halachot drabanan. WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW HALACHA. I am voicing my opinion that I think we have added humrot on humrot and we went a little too far. I have voiced other problems with these humrot in other threads (these humrot have prevented some women from becoming pregnant which I believe is a major problem )

that is not correct. Since not all uterine blood renders a woman tomai. Hence she is a safek d'oraisa for at least six of the days.

Not all uterine blood renders a woman tomei. However in most cases we there is no reason to have a safek. Remember this humra was enacted because of women living in the fields.

Why does that bother you?

I am bothered by ridiculous humrot just as I am bothered by ridiculous or far-fetched kulot or kulot that are not connected with reality. As I have stated before I believe Rabinical Halacha is meant to be connected with reality and to be logical.
Besides the fact that it bothers me , I also believe it turns away many whom do believe and are looking for spirituality.

[Shaina]

Can I just say how adorable it is to see newly married (and almost married) guys talking about hormonal and natural methods of regulating women's cycles?

[Rentsy]

http://www.yutorah.o...ate_(Aygestin®)

[Kalashnikover_Rebbe]

Can I just say how adorable it is to see newly married (and almost married) guys talking about hormonal and natural methods of regulating women's cycles?

Meh KR has been talking about this for as long as he could talk....

[israeli4ever]

Since you don't like that comment that was made or dont feel comfortable it is necessary for you to make an accusation. Very typical Orthodox / Haredi defense. Why not also acuse the person making that comment of being reform/ apikores .....

you're tarring with a veeery broad brush. And you couldn't possibly back up that obnoxious and uncalled for accusation if your life depended on it.

[sal]

Depends how you undersand Hetkin Rav Yehuda Basadot (Rabi enacted in Sados) -- did he initially just enact for women in the Sados ,or did he enact for everyone becuase of the women in the Sados. Just looked at Steinsaltz he understands it as for the women who live in the Sados.
Either way in later generation the 7th day also added and was accepted by the masses. I am not questioning the validity of Rabi Zeira;s humra. It is halacha.



Well there is a machloket on that. Seems to me that this is a humra that came later. Nidda 41b-42A does not clearly conclude that all women automatically will have plitat zeira and it does not say anywhere in the Gmara does it say that all women have to wait after relations any days before counting clean days because of the possibility of pitat Zera.
The Rambam understand this Gmara in Hilchot Terumot (I realize that some other Rishonim understood it differently than the Rambam)


Thus this is a humra (of waiting 4 or 5 days prior to counting nekeim) came later and was not agreed upon all Rishonim.
Now if she did not even have relations prior to bleeding it is an additional humra to this humra.

Correct. As above I am not arguing that we should not follow halachot drabanan. WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW HALACHA. I am voicing my opinion that I think we have added humrot on humrot and we went a little too far. I have voiced other problems with these humrot in other threads (these humrot have prevented some women from becoming pregnant which I believe is a major problem )

I don't understand why you think that pru urvu is any greater mitzva then lo sasor. Do you really believe that you have a greater sensitivity to this than the rema?
You seem to choose priorities based on convenience.
As far as I know there is a simple solution for one who can't become pregnant because of the five days. She may render herself tomai before her period by telling her husband that she is tomai. In that case she can start counting five days from that day and does not have to wait five days from the beginning of her period. Don't pasken from me A rov should be consulted about this.

Not all uterine blood renders a woman tomei. However in most cases we there is no reason to have a safek. Remember this humra was enacted because of women living in the fields.

This chumra is because we no longer can differentiate between the four shades of red that are tomai and the other shades of red that are tahor.

I am bothered by ridiculous humrot just as I am bothered by ridiculous or far-fetched kulot or kulot that are not connected with reality. As I have stated before I believe Rabinical Halacha is meant to be connected with reality and to be logical.
Besides the fact that it bothers me , I also believe it turns away many whom do believe and are looking for spirituality.

So you find chumras that the rabbis in the past thought necessary as ridiculous? You want me to agree with that? So the rabbis of the past found these gedarim and chumros necessay and connected with reality and you don't. Please tell me why I should take you seriously.
I'm not referring to the ones that you can argue that the circumstances changed with time. The 5 days nor 7 clean days has changed at all with time. They are no less relevant today then before.
It is because of this reason I disagree with you even on the chumras that you can argue that the circumstances are different. Since even when the circumstases are the same you argue that they were out of touch.

[qgh]

I don't understand why you think that pru urvu is any greater mitzva then lo sasor. Do you really believe that you have a greater sensitivity to this than the rema?
You seem to choose priorities based on convenience.
As far as I know there is a simple solution for one who can't become pregnant because of the five days. She may render herself tomai before her period by telling her husband that she is tomai. In that case she can start counting five days from that day and does not have to wait five days from the beginning of her period. Don't pasken from me A rov should be consulted about this.

I am not referring to the 5 days. (I was just pointing out that the 5 days are an extra humra on all the humrot we alrleady have) With regards to Pru Urvu I referring to the 7 clean days. The 7 clean days prevent some women who have short cylces from becoming pregnant because ovulation occurs before the 7 clean days are over. The Rema was not aware of this problem. The Mechaber was not aware of this either and neither was the Rambam or Hazal.
Since this problem was not known in the past there was no solution and they did not even know they needed a solution.
Today the solution is for these healthy and 100% fertile women to take hormones in order to change the natural cycle they have. This solution works to solve the problem as long as the woman know they have this problem. Are there risks with this medical solution? Who knows.

This chumra is because we no longer can differentiate between the four shades of red that are tomai and the other shades of red that are tahor.

This explanation came later. We do this humra because it has been done for almost 2000 years. In most cases when a woman has her normal period in the normal time there is no safek that she is Nida.

So you find chumras that the rabbis in the past thought necessary as ridiculous? You want me to agree with that? So the rabbis of the past found these gedarim and chumros necessay and connected with reality and you don't. Please tell me why I should take you seriously.
I'm not referring to the ones that you can argue that the circumstances changed with time. The 5 days nor 7 clean days has changed at all with time. They are no less relevant today then before.
It is because of this reason I disagree with you even on the chumras that you can argue that the circumstances are different. Since even when the circumstases are the same you argue that they were out of touch.

The reality has changed. As above we today understand what the physiology of the menstrual cycle and are aware that the 7 clean days is very problematic. I am quite sure that if Hazal would have been aware of this they would not have allowed this humra. I am saying this because of the respect I have for Hazal.

[Snag]

The reality has changed. As above we today understand what the physiology of the menstrual cycle and are aware that the 7 clean days is very problematic. I am quite sure that if Hazal would have been aware of this they would not have allowed this humra. I am saying this because of the respect I have for Hazal.

What if Chazal, the Rambam, and the Mechaber were alive today, you made them aware of the physiological realities, yet they maintained their position, regardless. Would your respect for them then fail?

[qgh]

What if Chazal, the Rambam, and the Mechaber were alive today, you made them aware of the physiological realities, yet they maintained their position, regardless. Would your respect for them then fail?

Hard to answer a hypothetical question. I mean if the Rambam and Hazal were alive today would they pasken based on their method of paskening or would they pasken based on how todays Rabanim pasken? We don't know. I mean the Rambam paskened in a very different way than the Mechaber did and many later poskim did. Hazal argued based on logic as well as massoret. The Rambam as well as almost all other Rishonim took all the sources from Hazal and the Geonim and arrived at what they believed was the proper psak and the truth.
The Mechaber had a system of paskening based on how the RIF, Rambam and the Rosh pasekend and taking a majority opinon. He offcourse had exceptions to that rule. Very often the minhag that he saw was practiced in his area was what he paskened. This was very different than how the Rambam paskened. The poskim today see to follow a system that is closer to the Mechaber than the earlier poskim such as the Rambam.

[Red Hare]

I thought that rabbonim COULD differentiate?

[sal]

The reality has changed. As above we today understand what the physiology of the menstrual cycle and are aware that the 7 clean days is very problematic. I am quite sure that if Hazal would have been aware of this they would not have allowed this humra. I am saying this because of the respect I have for Hazal.

Or because you have respect for your opinion.

There are plenty of derabanans that we don't begin to understand. Eruv tavshilin, netilas yadayim and in hilchos tuma there are lots more.
If you don't understand those I see no reason to accept your reasons over hear either.

[qgh]

Or because you have respect for your opinion.

I don't understand what you mean. I am stating that in the past they did not understand the phsyiology of the menstrual cycle the way we do today. I don't think anyone would argue that.
They did not realize and were not aware that because of the 7 Nekeim some women won't be able to get pregnant.

There are plenty of derabanans that we don't begin to understand. Eruv tavshilin, netilas yadayim and in hilchos tuma there are lots more.
If you don't understand those I see no reason to accept your reasons over hear either.

We went thorught this before. When the Gmara tells us the reason behind Rabinical law , I see no reason to believe we don't understand it. I am not sure why you bring those examples. and what you are referring to . I would rather not change subjects but I do think we understand the reasons for some of the mitsvot you mention. I may not know everything (or the reason for every little detail) and I don't claim to know everything. All I am saying is that when a reason is given and it is logical we do understand it.
In the case of the 7 Nekeeim or the 5 days prior to the 7 Nekeeim we know the reason.

[sal]

I don't understand what you mean. I am stating that in the past they did not understand the phsyiology of the menstrual cycle the way we do today. I don't think anyone would argue that.
They did not realize and were not aware that because of the 7 Nekeim some women won't be able to get pregnant.





We went thorught this before. When the Gmara tells us the reason behind Rabinical law , I see no reason to believe we don't understand it. I am not sure why you bring those examples. and what you are referring to . I would rather not change subjects but I do think we understand the reasons for some of the mitsvot you mention. I may not know everything (or the reason for every little detail) and I don't claim to know everything. All I am saying is that when a reason is given and it is logical we do understand it.
In the case of the 7 Nekeeim or the 5 days prior to the 7 Nekeeim we know the reason.

You misunderstood me. You seem to think had they known what we now know they would not have said that. Although I can't rule that out, I have no reason to think its true either. There are plenty of extreme examples where we see the rabbis really believed making sure that one person doesn't transgress by mistake is very important. I don't remember the case right now, but they disallowed a woman from getting married because maybe someone else will make a mistake.
They forbade shofar on shabos for that reason. Point is you don't take it as seriously as they do. So I see no reason to think that because you think something it therefor follows that the rabbis would have agreed.

[qgh]

You misunderstood me. You seem to think had they known what we now know they would not have said that. Although I can't rule that out, I have no reason to think its true either. There are plenty of extreme examples where we see the rabbis really believed making sure that one person doesn't transgress by mistake is very important. I don't remember the case right now, but they disallowed a woman from getting married because maybe someone else will make a mistake.
They forbade shofar on shabos for that reason. Point is you don't take it as seriously as they do. So I see no reason to think that because you think something it therefor follows that the rabbis would have agreed.

I don't for sure what they would say or wouldn't say. I can only go by what we have. I don't think Hazal generaly went to extremes. They were quite logical and clearly connected to reality. There may be cases where that is not clear. We may not always be aware of the situation that existed 2000 years ago and there may be some question marks. However the Gmara makes it very clear why something was done I believe that was the reason.
I do take the cocept of a fence seriously and I also have great respect for Hazal. That is the reason I believe they would not pasken rediculous humrot and would go to extremes when not necessary.

I replied to your example of shofar. In this case it is not clear that they forbade shofar on shabat for the reason mentioned in the Bavli. The Yerushalmi gives a different view and says it was not a mitsva to blow shofar on Shabat outside the Mikdash. Although we pasken by the Bavli we are not discussing the psak here (as the yerushalmi and bavli agree that you don't blow shofar on shabat) but rather the reason for not doing something and it may very well be that the Yerushalmi was correct. (It also happens to be more consistent with the Mishna in this case)