Baruch,

I've been thinking a bit about this dilemma. Since it is almost impossible to be a nidda and be ovulating at the same time, what are the halachic issues associated with checking when a 21 cycle woman is ovulating and then letting her take the mikveh at that time, regardless of the count of days?

Since the counting of days is a tool to ensure that she is not a nidda when she comes together with her husband, ovulation itself ensures that she isn't. In fact, ovulation is the antithesis of nidda. The intent of the gedolim in adding the chumra was to make sure nidda and ovulation were strictly separated. Halacha had to be standardized, however, if a woman's cycle did not comply with the chumra, it had to be taken on an individual basis. The scientific process evolves and so something that may seem like a great scientific innovation may become the greatest danger in a subsequent generation.

However, based on what we know, an argument can be made that your "religious gynecologist" friend could be exaggerating a little. Based on what we don't know, DiEthy Stilbesterol is one example of a drug whose effects showed up in the offspring of women 25 years after they had taken it. So the use of drugs and substances unncessarily is a bad practice, even if we think they are safe today.

Avi

Rav Chaim
First of all lets stick to the subject. If you have something to add to our Har Habayith discussion add it to that thread.
This discussion is completely different.

In the case of Har Habayit I clearly called out on everyone to go and pray on Har Habayit. I quoted Rishonim. The issue was simple. According to Chazal and all Rishonim there is no problem with going to Har Habayit. There was no chidus that I raised.

In this discussion I raised an halachic dilema. It was actually raised by a religous Gynecologist recetnly. I brought it to this forum. I NEVER called on anyone to drop Derabanan Halacha. I am NOT a posek and never claimed to be one. The chumra of counting 7 clean days is accepted by all. I am not quoting any rishonim or achronim to support dropping the chumra.

A dilema was raised and you simply ignore it. I am glad that Vitamins worked for your wife but unfortunately that is not a solution as it wont solve the problem in the majority of cases. The solution today is hormones.

This has nothing to do with charedi or Zionist Rabbis as all the Rabbis have the same view on it today. And the responses that the Gynecologist who raised the issue recieved from Zionist Rabbis were very harsh and along the lines of your answer.

The topic is important and needs to be discussed. I hope that Rabbis will have the courage to reaxamine this chumra.

I have the utmost respect for Chazal and derabanan halachas. Perhaps even more than you.

You see Hazal always used common sense when they decided on derabanan halacha. Today we have knowledge in medicine that in many cases they didn't. Thus they are not at fault for making a Gzera that is problematic.
All of Derabanan gzeras are for the well being of the Jewish people and to safe guard the Tora.

Once it is realized that this gzera is problematic and has prevented many women in the last 1500 years from bearing children than Rabbis should have the courage to question it.

Continuing to keep it in the name of Chazal and making women take hormones in order to keep it is actually disrespectful to chazal in my opinion.

Avi,

The solution you raise is actually in line with what the Gynecologist said. You are in a sense claiming that the Gzera needs to be reaxamined at least in certain cases.

You see thier two possible solutions.

1. continue the Gzera and take hormones to fix the problem.

2. Reaxime the Gzera itself.

Your solution would mean not counting 7 clean days and therefore not keeping the Gzera itself.
From an halachic opint of view the days of Nida and Zava are not dependent on ovulation.
It is true that according to biblical law ovulation won't occur during the time of Nida regardless of the length of a normal menstrual cycle, and this is no conincidence.
All you need to do is go back to biblical law and everything will work out.

Once Rabbis would be willing to recognize that the Gzera is problematic at least in certain cases than it won't be hard to fix.

They will need to emphasize and become experts on rare problems that may occur regarding different types of bloods. There will still need to be chumras in certain cases where there is a safek.


I raised a medical problem with this gzera regarding certain women who have short menstral cycles but there is more problems with it as well.

In the long run when the temple will be rebuilt a Zava will need to bring a korban (sacrifice) to the temple. Thus it is important to differentiate between Zava and Nida.

Rabanans cannot be reversed in our days. We don't have any Beis Din that is Gadol in Chachma and Minyan, so it's useless.

Se Avoda Z. 36a as paraphrase by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

1. (Mishnah): A Beis Din cannot nullify the enactment of another Beis Din, unless it is bigger in Chachmah and number.

That's why the Rabanan don't have the "courage" to reexamine these Gezeiros. to have courage you need to lack fear. The Rabanan have fear---of heaven. Thus they can't reexamine them based on the demands on certain individuals.

That's why i link all the Shitos together. They're all in-your-face that the rabbis should all bend to your demands or else they're just a bunch of spineless individuals. As I proved from this that the Rabanan know what they're doing, and maybe certain individuals who admit they're not Poskim, but just overly opinionated people, should be a little more humbler and with a more respectful tone when they refer to the Rabanan.

Baruch and Rav Chaim,

I'm not advocating that the geizera be nullified or changed. I'm saying that the gezeira should always be observed according to its intent. For those women whose cycles are not in compliance with the chumra the intent can always be accomplished using ovulation as the benchmark rather than niddah as the benchmark....and even then, only for the conception cycle. The intent of the geizera (complete and total separation between niddah and ovulation....and also to maximize the probability of conception) is not violated. The gedolim knew what they were doing and it does not need to be changed. They established a standard cycle of 28 days and their calculatitons are based on that standard. If ovulation could have been determined with certainty those days it could have been used too, for women with anomalous but normal cycles. If it's observed according to its intent, not simply according to mechanics "by wrote", the problem goes away. There are many geizerot we observe according to their intent, this won't be anything new. The posek of a woman with a 21 day cycle should be able to posek according to the geizera's intent, fulfilling an important mitzvah, without violating the geizera. This looks like a regulatory issue, not a legislative one, i.e. a local posek can take care of it. It doesn't need to go anywhere beyond that.

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:
R' David, I think it is clear that according to all opinions it is explictly mentioned in the Torah that a Niddah is for at least 7 days. If, for example, she saw blood on day 1 and then the flow stopped, she still has to wait until after the 7th day before being able to go to the Mikveh.

Your words are also, with respect, somewhat confusing. You refer to the lady doing a hefsek tahara, which is usually understood to mean the check that there is no blood before beginning the Shiva Nekiyim, and then immediately going to the Mikveh. The Rabbi's psak you posted talked about beginning the Shiva Nekiyim even within the first 7 days of Niddus. So clearly we have a misunderstanding here.

The bottom line is that the lady must wait at least 7 days.

Rebbe Yisroel, and our friend, Baruch,

Today, as you said, all women must wait at least seven days after the cessation of their blood in order to be permitted unto their husbands. This is correct.

What I was saying, though, is that from a biblical point alone, there is a difference between a "Niddah" (menstruant) and a "Zavah" (a woman who has an irregular flow of blood during the eleven days that would ordinarily succeed her monthly period). The "Niddah," according to the Torah, does not have to count seven clean days, neither does she have to continue in her impure state of "Niddah" for a minimum of seven days. Rather, she's a "Niddah" for as long as she sees blood. If her blood flow is only two days, she immerses herself immediately afterwards and is, forthwith, permitted unto her husband. If her blood flow lasted five days, when it ceases she immerses herself and is immediately permitted unto her husband. Usually a woman's natural purgation does nor exceed seven days.

Today, however, we treat every woman as if she had been a "Zavah" and require her to wait seven clean days beginning with the cessation of her blood.

Look again at the poskim and you will see that all agree here to what I have said.

With best wishes,
David

Baruch,
In keeping with David's point above, the use of hormones actually makes a normal 21 day cycle woman into a 28 day cycle "presumed" Zavah....even though that's not the intent. Much can be said about this scenario....!
Avi

quote:

The "Niddah," according to the Torah, does not have to count seven clean days, neither does she have to continue in her impure state of "Niddah" for a minimum of seven days. Rather, she's a "Niddah" for as long as she sees blood. If her blood flow is only two days, she immerses herself immediately afterwards and is, forthwith, permitted unto her husband. If her blood flow lasted five days, when it ceases she immerses herself and is immediately permitted unto her husband.

Sorry, R' David, but that's just not correct. A Niddah is for at least 7 days, irrespective of how short her period was. See Vayikra 15: 19 and Rashi there.

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:
Sorry, R' David, but that's just not correct. A Niddah is for at least 7 days, irrespective of how short her period was. See Vayikra 15: 19 and Rashi there.

Unfortunately, Rebbe Yisroel, Rashi is not halacha. I can show you a whole array of poskim who write just the contrary, that a "Niddah," from the standpoint of the Torah, is only as long as she continues to see blood, and no more. Look again very closely at the responsum of Rabbi Badihi.

David

David Ben-Abraham,

Even According to Torah Law a Nida needs to wait seven days even if she sees only one day of blood.

This is explicitely written in the written Torah.

ויקרא פרק טו
וְאִשָּׁה כִּי-תִהְיֶה זָבָה, דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ--שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּהְיֶה בְנִדָּתָהּ

Rashi, Ramban and almost all Rishonim have the same shitta regarding the determination the days of Nida or Zava. (The Rambam has a different Shita which was rejected by all others)

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
Unfortunately, Rebbe Yisroel, Rashi is not halacha. I can show you a whole array of poskim who write just the contrary, that a "Niddah," from the standpoint of the Torah, is only as long as she continues to see blood, and no more. Look again very closely at the responsum of Rabbi Badihi.

David

R' David, I did look very closely at what he wrote (or, at least, your translation) and I still maintain you are wrong. Please show me where Rabbi Badihi supports you.

Rav Chaim,

I actually don't see why there can't be formed a Sanhedrin today.
(I am not referring to the status of the Sanhedrin that was formed but just asking why it can't be formed)

In certain cases where a Gzera is problematic as this one is. Causing healthy kosher women to not be able to bear children or today to take hormones in order to do so is a good reason for Rabbis to have courage to even change a derabanan even with no Sanhedrin.

Avi wrote:

quote:

I'm saying that the gezeira should always be observed according to its intent.

Avi,

You have to understand Rav Chaim's point. A Gzera's intentions in not important. With out a Sanhedrin we can't change it even if the intent is not relavent anymore. Such is the case with many other Gzeras.

My point is that in this case the Gzera is very problematic. It isn't just the intent that is a problem. It may put healthy woman at a health risk. For years it has prevented fertile women from bearing children.
That was certainly not the intent.
And since today Men only have one wife and are dependent on them to have children, this Gzera is interfering with the mitzva of Pru Urvu.

Thus the Rabbis should have the courage to deal with it.

Many other Gzeras today don't make sense, but they aren't problematic like this one is.
For this Gzera I don't think we have to wait for a Sanhedrin due to its serious consequences.

I do however think that a Sanhedrin needs to be established in order for Judaism to be connected with reality.
The Tora's intentions with derabanan halachas are for them to make sense and to be determined by the Chachamim of the age. With no Sanhedrin we are stuck with Gzerot that were made 1500 years ago, and often don't fulfil their initial intention.

Baruch,

IMHO, I don't think there is any problem with the geizera. I don't think it even needs to go to gedolim. I think it can be resolved by a woman and her posek and gynecologist. The gezeira doesn't put a woman at risk, it's the desire to conceive that does.....only if hormones are used. Ultimately, the risk is between potentially violating a geizera (which a woman can do very easily) or potentially getting harmed by hormones (which she and her gynecologist can do very readily) in order to conceive. Whether the posek and gynecologist hold according to "intent" or "by wrote" that's a separate issue altogether. What other risks does a woman assume with a pregnancy? Again, based on what we know, I would have to say your "religious gynecologist" friend is exaggerating a little. Risk associated with pregnancy cannot be completely eliminated and this is the price a woman is having to pay for being observant. The rabbonim still made the right call and gave choices between risks.

However, judging by the discourse and disagreement on this thread, we definitely need a Beit Din HaGadol. In this regard I am 100% in agreement with you. Whether it's the newly reconstituted one or not, we are in great need of one for situations just like this. Halacha was intended to be dispensed with the oversight of the Beit Din HaGadol. Practically all our halachot have evolved in the galut, without the benefit of a beit Din HaGadol, when they were really intended to evolve in Eretz Yisrael. So changes would be inevitable.

Avi

I believe a prior posting in this thread stated that nidah was the opposite of ovulation. I have been thinking since then about what bothers me about that expression.

While I can sort of understand that in a waveform plot of fertility, that there could well be a 180 degree phase shift between start of fertility and and of fertility on a monthly periodic basis, I think the statement seems to make more of a philosophical statement... and one for which another Torah principle stands conflicting.

When a baby boy is born, the mother is impure for one month, and when a baby girl is born, the mother is impure for two months.

The explanation my rabbi gave for why this is included explaining that we are supposed to emulate Hashem, and anything having to do with mortality (birth or death) is the opposite, not emulating Hashem, who has no mortality.

In the case of a mother giving birth to a boy, that is one "dose" of mortality.

In the case of a mother giving birht to a girl (who will give birth in the future) that is a double dose of mortality.

And any step away from emulating Hashem is impurity.

These were the points I recall the rabbi explaining.

In that context, is the the opposite of niddah, taking into account various significant dimensions, something a little different?

May Hashem Help the Jewish People establish a Beit Din Gadol that will be accepted by all soon.

Rob,
The laws of impurity after giving birth is different from Nida. It doesn't have to do with menstrual cycle.



"A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be impure for seven days... and on the eighth day his foreskin will be removed, and for thirty-three days she will sit with the
blood of purity... And if she gives birth to a female, she will be impure for two weeks, the time of her bleeding, and she will then sit with the blood of purity for sixty-six days." [Vayikra 12:2-5].


On a biblical level after the birth of a son the mother is impure as a Nida for seven days. After those seven days she has a different status for 33 days. She can't go to the temple, but is allowed to her husband even if she has blood. On a rabinical level she needs to count seven clean days after the blood ceased. She still does not have to wait 33 days if the blood ceased.
For a female it is 2 weeks in the status of a nida and 66 days with the status she can't go to the temple.

Baruch,
To make a back handed concession to you; if a community developed and began to propagate a genetic anomaly whereby their women all had 21 day cycles, the geizera would become a national crisis. The local gedolim would have to do something about it, even without a Beit Din HaGadol, for the survival of the community. We are not there yet.
Avi

Yes we don't have a national crisis, and it may turn out that taking hormones isn't a big deal.
However it may turn out that it is. Is it ok to put even a small percentage of woman at risk?
(possibly a serious risk)


There is more problems than just the use of hormones. Women don't always know about this problem. It is true that Bride teachers can help by informing everyone about this potential problem. Also Gynecologists should inquire about this. But there may still be women who go on for a long period of time unaware of this problem. Also this problem may sometimes occur with women with 22 or 23 day cycles.

There is also the emotional aspect. Many women don't get pregnant so easily , do we want to add another stressor.
For some women it may take longer to begin with to get pregnant.


I would like to stress that despite all the Sfekot that Rav Chaim brings, the vast majority of women who don't have irregular bleeding, are not in the status of Zava on a biblical level.

I am not saying that we should drop this Gzera just like that. All I am saying is that we must realize that the Gzera is problematic.
And as I said before it seems to me that it won't be compatible with Jewish Halacha anyways, when the Temple gets rebuilt.

Quote "I actually don't see why there can't be formed a Sanhedrin today. "

I already quoted the Gemara that a Beis Din cannot over rule another Beis Din to change their Gezairos unless they are greater in Chachma than the ones that made the gezaira. This is impossible to create a beis Din today that even comes close to the Beis Din of Chazal. Thus NOBODY has authority to overturn it and doing so would be against the Torah and Halacha. So, in light of the Gemara P'suka that I brought, how can you change ANYTHING?

Again to quote the Gemara for those that missed it the first time
Avoda Z. 36a as paraphrase by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

1. (Mishnah): A Beis Din cannot nullify the enactment of another Beis Din, unless it is bigger in Chachmah and number.