Harchakot of Niddah: Difference between revisions

'''Harchakot''' (Hebrew: הרחקות, tran. ''separations'') are supplementary Rabbinic restrictions intended to prevent a couple from excessive intimacy which could lead them to Biblically forbidden conduct during the niddah period. Couples tend to have a certain level of familiarity, routine, and habitual rapport, therefore, the Sages - with their psychological understanding and insight - saw the need for these additional restrictions. Accordingly, these precautions only apply to married couples and does not pertain to interactions with women whom a man invariably may not touch.<ref>Shabbat 13a, Responsa Rosh (no. 47) and Responsa Rashba (vol. 1, no. 1188). See Rama (Even HaEzer 21:5) for various modesty ethics that must be practiced while interacting with women in general. </ref>  

These precautions commence with the wife's menstruation and extend until the culmination of her purification process: immersion.<ref>Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yorei Deah 195:1), Torat HaTaharah (p. 95), Taharat Yosef (3:1) </ref> This prohibition remains even if a woman reached menopause, when she no longer experiences menstrual cycles, and in the past has not followed the requisite steps to purification; she must unfetter herself with a count of [[Hefsek Tahara and Shiva Nekiyim|hefsek taharah, seven clean days,]] and immersion.<ref>Taharat Yosef (3:2)  

#Moreover, the couple must refrain from touching the others outfit that is being worn (e.g., one spouse cannot remove dirt off the other's coat while he/she is wearing it). This is prohibited even if the other can not feel the touch. They must also also prevent their outfits from touching. These restrictions apply only to garments worn, one may however touch the other's clothing while not worn.<ref>Rashbatz (Responsa Tashbetz, vol. 3, no. 58), Pitchei Teshuva (Yoreh Deah 195:3), Darchei Tahara (pg. 41), Taharat Habayit (vol. 2, pg. 86) </ref>

#The laws of [[Yichud]] prohibit the seclusion of a man and a woman forbidden to each other, with the goal to obviate the two from improper intimate behavior. These laws do not apply to married couples during the menstruation periods, and they may be secluded in private quarters.<ref>Sanhedrin 37a, Rav Kahana's discussion with an heretic. Tosfos (v.s. HaTorah) explain that this is because the two will anyhow be permitted to each other in due course, Yichud is not problematic. Alternatively, the Rosh (Hilchot Niddah, Siman 2) explains that in order to make marital life possible and practical by allowing husband and wife to live together, our Sages derived that their seclusion is permissible. See Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer 22:1).</ref> However, if a bride is a niddah at her wedding, the law is different, where the newlyweds may not even be left alone together, particularly at night, until the completion of her purification.<ref>Ketubot 4a: "A groom whose wife began to menstruate at the time of the wedding, he sleeps among the men and she sleeps among the women, until she becomes ritually pure." Shulchan Aruch 192:3; Taharat Habayit (vol. 1, pp. 488-492). In such circumstance, a competent Halachic authority should be consulted.

#Couples dining often suggests intimacy. The Rabbis therefore called for caution in such an intimate setting, forming the restriction of eating at the same table without a physical reminder (often called: "heker") of the niddah status. Examples of such reminders include: placing an object or food item on the table that is not normally kept there and will not be used during the meal,<ref>Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 195:3), Taharat Habayit (vol. 1, pg. 119). See also The Laws of Niddah (Rabbi Nacson, pg. 33)  

*What this dispute might be based on? The Sidrei Tahara 195:7 explains that there's two concerns of eating at the same table. The first is that merely eating together is a symbol of endearment. The second is that by eating together at the table they might come to share food on the same plate as we find by eating milk and meat at the same table. He tries to show that this was a dispute between the Raah and Rashba and that the Rosh was concerned for both approaches. According to the first approach, the Sidrei Tahara concludes, that having something unusual on the table is ineffective since either way their eating together will still cause endearment. But according to the second approach as long as there is something unusual on the table they will remember not to share food.</ref> eating on separate place-mats (if they do not regularly do so) and the changing of seats if if they typically have designated places.<ref>The Rabbenu Yerucham (cited by Bet Yosef 195:3) rules that it is permitted to eat at the same table while seated different from where they typically sit. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 153:6 and Taharat Habayit (vol. 2, pg. 119) hold like Rabbenu Yerucham. See Badei Hashulchan (195:37) however who writes that some are strict not to rely on this leniency.</ref> Sitting far apart from each other on a long table also serves as a sufficient reminder.<ref>Taharat Habayit (vol. 2, pg. 110), The Laws of Niddah (Rabbi Nacson, pg. 33)</ref>

#According to some authorities, this requirement is not needed when dining accompanied by other adults or with children old enough to be embarrassed by intimate behavior.<ref>Masat Binyamin (112, quoted by the Pitchei Teshuva 195:3) considers the presence of others as a heker. Shiurei Bracha (195:11), Taharat Habayit (vol. 2, pg. 110), Darkei Tahara (pg. 44) rule this way as well. Rabbi Mordechai Willig ([http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/877146/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/niddah-shiur-125-eating-at-the-same-table/ Niddah Shiur 125]) is lenient regarding this as well.

#According to some authorities, drinking or noshing on a small snack does not mandate a reminder.<ref>[[Responsa Tzitz Eliezer (vol. 18, no. 23)]],  The Laws of Niddah (Rabbi Nacson, pg. 33)</ref>