Anonymous

A Woman who Gave Birth: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
Mishmeret Hatahara v. 2 p. 155 (Rabbi Moshe Karp, Kriyat Sefer) writes that today the minhag in his areas is to be lenient.</ref> Sephardim do not have to follow this minhag and even if they did they can do a hatarat nedarim.<ref>Taharat Habayit (v. 2 p. 28) shows that the primary minhag of Sephardim is to be lenient like Shulchan Aruch. He cites numerous sources to show that the poskim held that this minhag was weak and possibly based on the Karaites as the Rambam writes. Therefore, the Bet Yosef's opinion was unless we know that it was based on a practice to be strict on hilchot niddah, we can assume that it was a practice based on a mistake. In Baghdad, Egypt, and Tunisia the minhag was to be lenient. Even for Morocco and India where there was a minhag to be strict, Rav Ovadia holds that they don't need to uphold this minhag since we don't know that it began with rabbinic approvals and was completely accepted. Additionally even the Ben Ish Chai (Rav Paalim YD 2:23) writes that it wasn't an accepted minhag in Baghdad and even someone who has this minhag can nullify it with hatarat nedarim.</ref>
Mishmeret Hatahara v. 2 p. 155 (Rabbi Moshe Karp, Kriyat Sefer) writes that today the minhag in his areas is to be lenient.</ref> Sephardim do not have to follow this minhag and even if they did they can do a hatarat nedarim.<ref>Taharat Habayit (v. 2 p. 28) shows that the primary minhag of Sephardim is to be lenient like Shulchan Aruch. He cites numerous sources to show that the poskim held that this minhag was weak and possibly based on the Karaites as the Rambam writes. Therefore, the Bet Yosef's opinion was unless we know that it was based on a practice to be strict on hilchot niddah, we can assume that it was a practice based on a mistake. In Baghdad, Egypt, and Tunisia the minhag was to be lenient. Even for Morocco and India where there was a minhag to be strict, Rav Ovadia holds that they don't need to uphold this minhag since we don't know that it began with rabbinic approvals and was completely accepted. Additionally even the Ben Ish Chai (Rav Paalim YD 2:23) writes that it wasn't an accepted minhag in Baghdad and even someone who has this minhag can nullify it with hatarat nedarim.</ref>
# If the woman already went to the mikveh and she is tahor, even though the gemara prohibits them to one another on the night of the 41st day for a baby boy and the 81st for a baby girl, today this prohibition doesn't apply since we are strict on dam tohar.<ref>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 [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=61 (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. Badei Hashulchan 194:15 agrees but adds that a person who wants to be strict will be blessed.</ref>
# If the woman already went to the mikveh and she is tahor, even though the gemara prohibits them to one another on the night of the 41st day for a baby boy and the 81st for a baby girl, today this prohibition doesn't apply since we are strict on dam tohar.<ref>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 [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=61 (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. Badei Hashulchan 194:15 agrees but adds that a person who wants to be strict will be blessed.</ref>
# If the amniotic sac comes out after a healthy birth up to 23 days after the birth (not including the day of the sac coming out) it isn't considered another birth, however, she is tameh as a result of it for 7 days. However, if it came out later it is considered another birth and she is tameh 14 days like she gave birth to a girl.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 194:4, Badei Hashulchan 194:50</ref>
==Miscarriages==
==Miscarriages==
# A woman who miscarries a fetus that is less than 41 days old she is tameh like a niddah but doesn't have the regular tumah of birth, which for a girl is 14 days.<Ref>The Mishna Niddah 30a establishes that both for a boy and a girl a fetus less than 41 days old isn’t considered a birth for the purposes of making the mother tameh. The Rashba (Torat Habayit 28b) cites a dispute between the Raavad and the Baal Hameor whether we say that she is nonetheless tameh as a niddah since the uterus must have opened when she miscarried. The Rashba sides with the Raavad who is strict. The Shulchan Aruch YD 194:2 follows the opinion of the Raavad.</ref>
# A woman who miscarries a fetus that is less than 41 days old she is tameh like a niddah but doesn't have the regular tumah of birth, which for a girl is 14 days.<Ref>The Mishna Niddah 30a establishes that both for a boy and a girl a fetus less than 41 days old isn’t considered a birth for the purposes of making the mother tameh. The Rashba (Torat Habayit 28b) cites a dispute between the Raavad and the Baal Hameor whether we say that she is nonetheless tameh as a niddah since the uterus must have opened when she miscarried. The Rashba sides with the Raavad who is strict. The Shulchan Aruch YD 194:2 follows the opinion of the Raavad.</ref>
# There is a major dispute from when to count the 40 days. Some poskim write that we begin counting from when she last went to mikveh, while many others are concerned that perhaps the count should begin earlier and we wouldn’t know from when to begin. A rabbi must be consulted.<ref>The Pitchei Teshuva 194:3 cites the Avodat Hagershuni 21 as holding that we can count the period of 41 days from the last period since we know that if she was pregnant beforehand she wouldn’t have had her period. However, the Chavot Daat 194:2 argues that since halachically it is possible for a pregnant woman to see her period within the first trimester we can’t count the 40 days from the last period. The Sidrei Tahara 194:7 and Chatom Sofer 169 agree. Nodeh Beyehuda EH 69 agrees with the Chavot Daat that a woman can see period when she is pregnant. Chachmat Adam 115:20 and Shiurei Shevet Halevi (p. 244) side with the Avodat Hagershuni, however, the most achronim follow the Chavot Daat including the Aruch Hashulchan 194:24, Badei Hashulchan 194:28, Mishmeret Hatahara v. 2 p. 167, and Taharat Habayit v. 2 p. 49. </ref> If the couple had a test showing that they were not pregnant before the last tevilah, then according to some poskim they can count the 40 days from the last tevilah.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 2 p. 49, Shiurei Shevet Halevi p. 244</ref>  
# There is a major dispute from when to count the 40 days. Some poskim write that we begin counting from when she last went to mikveh, while many others are concerned that perhaps the count should begin earlier and we wouldn’t know from when to begin. A rabbi must be consulted.<ref>The Pitchei Teshuva 194:3 cites the Avodat Hagershuni 21 as holding that we can count the period of 41 days from the last period since we know that if she was pregnant beforehand she wouldn’t have had her period. However, the Chavot Daat 194:2 argues that since halachically it is possible for a pregnant woman to see her period within the first trimester we can’t count the 40 days from the last period. The Sidrei Tahara 194:7 and Chatom Sofer 169 agree. Nodeh Beyehuda EH 69 agrees with the Chavot Daat that a woman can see period when she is pregnant. Chachmat Adam 115:20 and Shiurei Shevet Halevi (p. 244) side with the Avodat Hagershuni, however, the most achronim follow the Chavot Daat including the Aruch Hashulchan 194:24, Badei Hashulchan 194:28, Mishmeret Hatahara v. 2 p. 167, and Taharat Habayit v. 2 p. 49. </ref> If the couple had a test showing that they were not pregnant before the last tevilah, then according to some poskim they can count the 40 days from the last tevilah.<ref>Taharat Habayit v. 2 p. 49, Shiurei Shevet Halevi p. 244</ref>  
# A miscarriage where the fetus was more than 40 days old makes the woman tameh for 14 days automatically since it could be that the fetus was a girl.<ref> The Mishna (Niddah 30a) establishes that only if the fetus has a form of a human is she tameh but if it is the form of an animal she is tahor. Many details are discussed in the gemara and rishonim (see Bet Yosef 194:2), however, practically the Raavad ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=12 Baalei Hanefesh p. 14]) writes that today we aren’t experts in how to check what is the form of a human and we consider all fetuses after 40 days to make her tameh like a regular birth. Rashba (Torat Habayit Hakatzar 27a) agrees. The Shach 194:3 even writes that today we aren’t experts to check if the fetus was a boy or girl to know if she is tameh 7 or 14 days and so we always consider her tameh for 14 days. Badei Hashulchan 194:43 codifies this as halacha and adds that we don’t rely on our evaluation about genders unless it is very visibly obvious.</ref> A rabbi should be consulted.
# A miscarriage where the fetus was more than 40 days old makes the woman tameh for 14 days automatically, irrelevant of its form, since it could be that the fetus was a girl.<ref> The Mishna (Niddah 30a) establishes that only if the fetus has a form of a human is she tameh but if it is the form of an animal she is tahor. Many details are discussed in the gemara and rishonim (see Bet Yosef 194:2), however, practically the Raavad ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8785&st=&pgnum=12 Baalei Hanefesh p. 14]) writes that today we aren’t experts in how to check what is the form of a human and we consider all fetuses after 40 days to make her tameh like a healthy birth. Rashba (Torat Habayit Hakatzar 27a) and Shulchan Aruch 194:3 agree. The Shach 194:3 even writes that today we aren’t experts to check if the fetus was a boy or girl to know if she is tameh 7 or 14 days and so we always consider her tameh for 14 days. Badei Hashulchan 194:43 codifies this as halacha and adds that we don’t rely on our evaluation about genders unless it is very visibly obvious.</ref> A rabbi should be consulted.
 
# If a woman miscarried and the amniotic sac came out after the birth it is considered another birth since it is unusual for the sac to come out afterwards if it is a miscarriage.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 194:4</ref>
==Onset of Niddah before Birth==
# If the amniotic sac came out before the birth, whether it is a healthy birth or a miscarriage, she is tameh immediately though as she gave birth.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 194:5. If the amniotic sac came out attached to the fetus, see Badei Hashulchan 194:5 s.v. yatzah.</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. 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>
# 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. 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/>
[[Category:Niddah|Lifecycles|Shabbat]]