A Woman who Gave Birth: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
Line 12: Line 12:
==Onset of Niddah before Birth==
==Onset of Niddah before Birth==
# Even if the doctor checks and sees that the cervix is 2 centimeters or more open in the 8th or 9th month the woman is still tahor if there wasn't any birth pangs yet.<ref>Shevet Halevi 4:106 writes that even though it is often the case that a woman's cervix opens up already in the sixth or seventh month, especially if it is her fourth baby or more, she is nonetheless tahora. Based on the Nodeh Beyehuda 116 he writes that since nothing came out when the cervix opened the woman remains tahora. This fits with the Chavot Daat 194:1. Taharat Habayit v. 2 p. 57 in discussing this topic cites the Bet Sharim who understands the Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot Niddah 21a) as a proof to the Chavot Daat. See, however, Igrot Moshe YD 2:76 who writes that if it were true that a woman's cervix opened in the last few weeks before the birth she would be automatically tameh. He just argues that it can't be the case since the poskim never discussed this problem. Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (Darkei Tahara p. 110) writes that if the cervix is 4cm open she is tameh. See [http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/symptoms-and-solutions/dilation-and-effacement.aspx whattoexpect.com] about early labor dilation of up to 3cm in up to weeks before the birth. [http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/incompetent-cervix/ americanpregnancy.org] for some medical discussion of the risks of a weakened cervix. </ref>
# Even if the doctor checks and sees that the cervix is 2 centimeters or more open in the 8th or 9th month the woman is still tahor if there wasn't any birth pangs yet.<ref>Shevet Halevi 4:106 writes that even though it is often the case that a woman's cervix opens up already in the sixth or seventh month, especially if it is her fourth baby or more, she is nonetheless tahora. Based on the Nodeh Beyehuda 116 he writes that since nothing came out when the cervix opened the woman remains tahora. This fits with the Chavot Daat 194:1. Taharat Habayit v. 2 p. 57 in discussing this topic cites the Bet Sharim who understands the Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot Niddah 21a) as a proof to the Chavot Daat. See, however, Igrot Moshe YD 2:76 who writes that if it were true that a woman's cervix opened in the last few weeks before the birth she would be automatically tameh. He just argues that it can't be the case since the poskim never discussed this problem. Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (Darkei Tahara p. 110) writes that if the cervix is 4cm open she is tameh. See [http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/symptoms-and-solutions/dilation-and-effacement.aspx whattoexpect.com] about early labor dilation of up to 3cm in up to weeks before the birth. [http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/incompetent-cervix/ americanpregnancy.org] for some medical discussion of the risks of a weakened cervix. </ref>
# If a woman has birth pains and thought she was in labor but it was a false alarm, most poskim are lenient to assume that she isn't tameh.<ref> The Nachalat Shiva 2:9 (cited by Pitchei Teshuva 194:8) writes that if a woman thought she was in labor she is automatically  tameh since once a woman sits on the birthing stool it is considered as though the cervix opened and once it opens automatically blood comes out. Most poskim disagree for one of two reasons: (1) The Chavot Daat 194:1 argues that we only assume that blood automatically comes out when the cervix opens if something actually came out. Since it was a false alarm and don't know anything came out we can assume no blood came out. Nodeh Beyehuda 116 agrees. (2) The Sidrei Tahara 194:25 argues the signs for giving birth includes her not being able to walk, however, since it was a false alarm and we see that she can walk afterwards, we know that she wasn't really in labor such that the cervix opened. Chatom Sofer 179 agrees. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe YD 2:76) prefers the reason of the Sidrei Tahara but the Shiurei Shevet Halevi 194:2:4 seems to side with the Chavot Daat.</ref>
# If a woman has birth pains and thought she was in labor but it was a false alarm, most poskim are lenient to assume that she isn't tameh.<ref> The Nachalat Shiva 2:9 (cited by Pitchei Teshuva 194:8) writes that if a woman thought she was in labor she is automatically  tameh since once a woman sits on the birthing stool it is considered as though the cervix opened and once it opens automatically blood comes out. Most poskim disagree for one of two reasons: (1) The Chavot Daat 194:1 argues that we only assume that blood automatically comes out when the cervix opens if something actually came out. Since it was a false alarm and don't know anything came out we can assume no blood came out. Nodeh Beyehuda 116 agrees. (2) The Sidrei Tahara 194:25 argues the signs for giving birth includes her not being able to walk, however, since it was a false alarm and we see that she can walk afterwards, we know that she wasn't really in labor such that the cervix opened. Chatom Sofer 179 agrees. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe YD 2:76) prefers the reason of the Sidrei Tahara but the Shiurei Shevet Halevi 194:2:4 seems to side with the Chavot Daat. Taharat Habayit v.
2 p. 50-3 is lenient.</ref>
# Once she feels birth pains so much that she calls the doctor and birth is imminent that she needs to sit on birthing stool she is considered a niddah.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:75 based on Sidrei Tahara 194:25. Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (Darkei Tahara p. 110) argues that she isn't automatically a niddah when she can't walk, is sitting on the birthing stool, or has contractions 5 minutes apart but they do have the status of a veset.</ref>
# Once she feels birth pains so much that she calls the doctor and birth is imminent that she needs to sit on birthing stool she is considered a niddah.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:75 based on Sidrei Tahara 194:25. Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (Darkei Tahara p. 110) argues that she isn't automatically a niddah when she can't walk, is sitting on the birthing stool, or has contractions 5 minutes apart but they do have the status of a veset.</ref>
# The husband may stay in the birthing room to provide emotional support but he is forbidden to see the actual birth since he is forbidden to see the areas which are usually clothed uncovered when she is a niddah. Furthermore, he may never see that are of a woman uncovered. It is equally forbidden for the to watch looking through glass.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:75. Darkei Tahara p. 111 seems to assume that the husband can be at the door but not in the room.</ref>
# The husband may stay in the birthing room to provide emotional support but he is forbidden to see the actual birth since he is forbidden to see the areas which are usually clothed uncovered when she is a niddah. Furthermore, he may never see that are of a woman uncovered. It is equally forbidden for the to watch looking through glass.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 2:75. Darkei Tahara p. 111 seems to assume that the husband can be at the door but not in the room.</ref>
# Some say that the water breaking doesn't render her a niddah but it has the status of a veset.<ref>Darkei Tahara p. 110</ref>
# Some say that the water breaking doesn't render her a niddah but it has the status of a veset.<ref>Darkei Tahara p. 110. Badei Hashulchan 194:30 writes that the poskim consider a woman to be a niddah after the water breaks. However, Taharat Habayit v. 2 p.
54 argues that it doesn't mean she is tameh automatically unless there is blood in the water. He quotes the Mahachavat Hatahara p.
121 in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as being lenient.</ref>


==Sources==
==Sources==
<references/>
<references/>

Revision as of 22:08, 13 April 2017

The Torah says that after giving birth to a baby boy the mother is tameh for seven days automatically. For a girl she is tameh for fourteen days. On a torah level after seven or fourteen days she can go to mikveh and begin a new period of time called ‘yemey tohar’. For the next thirty three days for a baby boy or sixty six days for a baby girl, any blood that a woman sees then is tahor.[1] However, when a woman gives birth if she sees blood she is tameh as a zavah, as a result of Rabbi Zeira’s stringency.[2] Once she is a zavah she remains tameh until she can get seven clean days.[3] Furthermore, even if no blood came out when she gave birth she is rendered a zavah based on the principle that there must have been some blood if the uterus opened to give birth. Therefore, today all women who give birth are a niddah until they can have shiva nekiyim and go to the mikveh. These shiva nekiyim have to be free of any blood, whether they are in the first seven or fourteen days or afterwards.[4]

Shiva Nekiyim after Giving Birth

  1. Practically, every woman who gives birth is tameh until she has the regular process of waiting before the shiva nekiyim, the hefsek tahara, shiva nekiyim and mikveh.[5]
  2. There is a practice that a woman wouldn’t go to the mikveh until she has seven clean days and also waited 40 days after having a boy or 80 days after having a girl. Today this minhag isn’t widespread.[6]
  3. If a woman had shiva nekiyim and went to mikveh and then saw blood within the days of purity (33 for a boy and 66 for a girl), the minhag of all of klal yisrael is that we treat her as tameh like a niddah for all purposes.[7]
  4. The couple is permitted to one another the night of the 41st day for a baby boy and the 81st for a baby girl.[8]

Onset of Niddah before Birth

  1. Even if the doctor checks and sees that the cervix is 2 centimeters or more open in the 8th or 9th month the woman is still tahor if there wasn't any birth pangs yet.[9]
  2. If a woman has birth pains and thought she was in labor but it was a false alarm, most poskim are lenient to assume that she isn't tameh.[10]
  3. Once she feels birth pains so much that she calls the doctor and birth is imminent that she needs to sit on birthing stool she is considered a niddah.[11]
  4. The husband may stay in the birthing room to provide emotional support but he is forbidden to see the actual birth since he is forbidden to see the areas which are usually clothed uncovered when she is a niddah. Furthermore, he may never see that are of a woman uncovered. It is equally forbidden for the to watch looking through glass.[12]
  5. Some say that the water breaking doesn't render her a niddah but it has the status of a veset.[13]

Sources

  1. ↑ Vayikra 12:2-5. Based on the Mishna Niddah 30a, Bet Yosef 194:1 writes that it is obvious that even according to the opinion that it is possible for the uterus to open without blood agrees that a woman who gives birth is tameh.
  2. ↑ Rosh Niddah 4:2 writes that today all women who give birth are a zavah. The Tur 194:1 explains that since we hold that if the uterus opens it is impossible for blood not to come out and Rabbi Zeira's (Niddah 66a) stringency was to be strict about any blood that a woman sees to treat her like a zavah.
  3. ↑ Niddah 66a
  4. ↑ Tur 194:1, Shulchan Aruch YD 188:3
  5. ↑ Rambam (Isurei Biyah 11:5), Rosh Niddah 4:2, Tur 194:1, Shulchan Aruch 194:1.
    • Rava (Niddah 37a) holds that a woman who doesn't see blood during the first seven or fourteen days can count those for the shiva nekiyim. Abaye argues that the seven or fourteen days of tumah automatically don't count for the shiva nekiyim. Rabbenu Tam (cited by Tosfot s.v. Abaye) rules like Abaye. The Rosh (Niddah 4:1) writes that the Bahag, Rav Sadya Goan, Shiltot, Rabbenu Chananel, Rif, and Rashi side with Rava. He agrees with these geonim unlike the opinion of Rabbenu Tam. Shulchan Aruch 194:1 codifies the opinion of the Rosh.
  6. ↑ The Rambam (Isurei Biyah 11:15) writes that the Kaarites had a practice to abstain from their wife the entire period of yemey tahara but it is incorrect. The Maharik 144 writes that those who have the practice and claim that it is based on a legitimate source they may keep their practice, otherwise it should be abolished. The Rivash 40 writes that if the minhag was really based on a rabbi who was strict so that the people don't come to be lenient about niddah it is legitimate, however, if it is based on a mistake that they think it is forbidden then we should abolish the minhag. The Bet Yosef 194:1 comments that the Rambam could agree with this but he assumed that it was more likely based on a mistake than a major stringency. Several explanations have been proposed for the minhag including the following:
    • The Maharik suggested that the minhag is based on a stringency not to come to be lenient about hilchot Niddah. The Darkei Moshe cites the Maharil as agreeing with this reason. Levush 194:1 adds that since it is very common for a woman who gave birth to see blood during these days, there is a concern she'll see blood but not realize. He admits that this reason is weak since blood that they see during yemey tohar is really tahor.
    • The Agudah (Pesachim 113b) writes that the minhag is based on the opinion of the Bahag so as not to forget that the night of the 41st and 81st day the couple is forbidden to each other, therefore, they didn't go to mikveh beforehand. The Bach 194:3 accepts this approach.
    • The Darkei Moshe 194:3 writes that the minhag is based on the opinion of Rabbenu Tam that whether or not she sees during the days of tumah they can't be counted for shiva nekiyim. Furthermore, as long as she hasn't gone to mikveh the days of yemey tohar also can't count for shiva nekiyim. According to Rabbenu Tam it is necessary to go to the mikveh twice, once to remove the tumah of birth and another to remove the tumah of zavah after shiva nekiyim. Since we don't go to mikveh twice for this purpose the minhag was to refrain from going to mikveh for 40 days for a boy and 80 days for a girl. In fact, according to this reason the minhag should be to go to the mikveh twice, but it is enough to be strict for the Rabbenu Tam in the main days of tumah and tahara. The Darkei Moshe concludes that it seems that according to this reason they should be strict to start the shiva nekiyim only after the 40 or 80 days. * Halacha: The Rama 194:1 writes that in a place where they have the minhag one shouldn't break the minhag, however, in places were they don't there's no reason to be strict. While the Bach 194:3 holds that it is forbidden to break this minhag in a place where they have it and someone who does will be punished, the Taz 194:3 argues that there's no good reason for the minhag, many people don't keep it, and there's no punishment for breaking the minhag.
  7. ↑ The Ramban (Hilchot Niddah 7:16-18) holds that this practice is based on the stringency of Rabbi Zeira that we treat all blood like tameh zavah blood. However, the Rosh (Niddah 4:2), Rambam (Isurei Biyah 11:5), Rif (cited by Hagahot Maimoniyot 11:1), and Shiltot (no. 85) and hold that the blood during yemey tohar is tahor from the gemara but it was a later geonic minhag to be strict in some places. In fact, the Rambam (Isurei Biyah 11:5-6) and Tur 194 write that in France and Germany the minhag was to be lenient. However, already from the times of the Agur (no. 1372 cited by Bet Yosef) he writes that he never heard of anyone being lenient about this. The Bet Yosef and Rama 194:1 write that the minhag of all klal yisrael today is to treat blood during the days of yemey tohar like tameh blood.
  8. ↑ The Gemara Pesachim 113b writes that a woman is forbidden to her husband the night of the 41st for a baby boy and 81st for a girl after having a baby. The Rashbam explains that since the Torah permits a couple to one another even if there is blood during the days of yemey tohar they forget when that period ends and be lenient about niddah blood even afterwards. Therefore, the rabbis said that they should refrain from one another the night of the end of that period so that they remember that there's a difference before and after. The Rosh 3:5 writes that this restriction only applies to those who are lenient about blood during yemey tohar. The Raavad (End of Shaar Tikkun Vestot p. 63) agrees and rejects the opinion of the Bahag that this night is automatically forbidden like a veset. Taz 194:2 writes that since we are all strict about blood during yemey tohar today this halacha doesn't apply to us anymore and so Shulchan Aruch left it out.
  9. ↑ Shevet Halevi 4:106 writes that even though it is often the case that a woman's cervix opens up already in the sixth or seventh month, especially if it is her fourth baby or more, she is nonetheless tahora. Based on the Nodeh Beyehuda 116 he writes that since nothing came out when the cervix opened the woman remains tahora. This fits with the Chavot Daat 194:1. Taharat Habayit v. 2 p. 57 in discussing this topic cites the Bet Sharim who understands the Rambam (Pirush Mishnayot Niddah 21a) as a proof to the Chavot Daat. See, however, Igrot Moshe YD 2:76 who writes that if it were true that a woman's cervix opened in the last few weeks before the birth she would be automatically tameh. He just argues that it can't be the case since the poskim never discussed this problem. Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (Darkei Tahara p. 110) writes that if the cervix is 4cm open she is tameh. See whattoexpect.com about early labor dilation of up to 3cm in up to weeks before the birth. americanpregnancy.org for some medical discussion of the risks of a weakened cervix.
  10. ↑ The Nachalat Shiva 2:9 (cited by Pitchei Teshuva 194:8) writes that if a woman thought she was in labor she is automatically tameh since once a woman sits on the birthing stool it is considered as though the cervix opened and once it opens automatically blood comes out. Most poskim disagree for one of two reasons: (1) The Chavot Daat 194:1 argues that we only assume that blood automatically comes out when the cervix opens if something actually came out. Since it was a false alarm and don't know anything came out we can assume no blood came out. Nodeh Beyehuda 116 agrees. (2) The Sidrei Tahara 194:25 argues the signs for giving birth includes her not being able to walk, however, since it was a false alarm and we see that she can walk afterwards, we know that she wasn't really in labor such that the cervix opened. Chatom Sofer 179 agrees. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe YD 2:76) prefers the reason of the Sidrei Tahara but the Shiurei Shevet Halevi 194:2:4 seems to side with the Chavot Daat. Taharat Habayit v. 2 p. 50-3 is lenient.
  11. ↑ Igrot Moshe YD 2:75 based on Sidrei Tahara 194:25. Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (Darkei Tahara p. 110) argues that she isn't automatically a niddah when she can't walk, is sitting on the birthing stool, or has contractions 5 minutes apart but they do have the status of a veset.
  12. ↑ Igrot Moshe YD 2:75. Darkei Tahara p. 111 seems to assume that the husband can be at the door but not in the room.
  13. ↑ Darkei Tahara p. 110. Badei Hashulchan 194:30 writes that the poskim consider a woman to be a niddah after the water breaks. However, Taharat Habayit v. 2 p. 54 argues that it doesn't mean she is tameh automatically unless there is blood in the water. He quotes the Mahachavat Hatahara p. 121 in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as being lenient.
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=A_Woman_who_Gave_Birth&oldid=19093"