Can a Cohen marry a bat niddah? Are Cohens generally restricted from marrying baalot teshuva because of the possibility that they may be b'not niddah?
Asked
Active
Viewed 2,738 times
17
-
2We're all Benei Niddah somewhere up the line. – Double AA Feb 13 '12 at 23:01
-
5Can you please provide some source or reason why you think this might be a problem? – Seth J Feb 13 '12 at 23:05
-
reb Moshe has a teshuvah on this not for cohen in general why would a Cohen be different? – simchastorah Feb 13 '12 at 23:12
-
@Seth J, I am asking a priori. I know the questions about who is pagum for a cohen can get very messy, and hence, interesting. I have a guess as to the answer, but I'd like to see sources. – SAH Feb 13 '12 at 23:29
-
@DoubleAA source? – y.lub Feb 17 '15 at 01:14
-
@y.lub law of large numbers? – Double AA Feb 17 '15 at 01:22
-
Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/37686/kohanim-dating-baalot-teshuva?lq=1 – SAH Dec 03 '15 at 23:42
-
How can you know if some Jewish girl is bat niddah? you cannot prove this..her parents might or may not tell? – Ana Jul 22 '16 at 12:26
2 Answers
33
The Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 4:13 says that a ben or bat niddah is 'pagum' (defective). The Beit Shemuel, Chelkat Mechokek and Gra (the major commentaries there) all say that this does not exclude them from marrying a kohein.
-
An explicit source! Very nice. +1. I had thought the answer would be "we don't find an isur". – msh210 Feb 13 '12 at 23:20
-
Now that I'm researching this myself...it seems that the Rama Mipano also mentioned it. – SAH Feb 13 '12 at 23:40
-
This is probably the most surprising commentless downvote I have ever received. – Double AA Jul 06 '12 at 00:44
-
-
4
-
15
I've never seen any restriction brought down in halacha that would prohibit a Cohen from marrying a Bat Niddah.
Moreover, the application of Ben/Bat Niddah has been severly downplayed by 20th century poskim.
The Steipler Gaon: The concern regarding a ben niddah's character is merely statistical. If an individual shows good character, he is obviously an exception and the warning can be ignored.
Another opinion cited by the Steipler Gaon: The blemish of ben niddah is hereditary for an infinite number of generations, not just one, and in fact all of us are likely to have it (or some other blemish) somewhere back in our lineage. So we're all on equal ground and have no reason not to marry each other.
Rav Moshe Feinstein: In many cases we can't be certain the mother was truly a niddah mide'oraita, because maybe she went swimming after her period in a body of water that qualifies as a mikvah, and thereby became tehorah. (Rav Moshe does not discuss the fact that she would most likely have been wearing a tight-fitting bathing suit at the time.)
(All of the above quotes come verbatim from here , although I have learned them originally elsewhere)
The last point about not being a "niddah mide'oraita" is significant: Technically, a woman must have r'iah (seeing) AND hargasha (an internal sensation) to qualify as an actual niddah. It could very well be that in our times, no woman is ever a Torah-level niddah.
So one on hand, we still treat the prohibition of sleeping with a niddah very seriously, because even the possibility of kares (spiritual excision) is a serious matter.
On the other hand, AFTER THE FACT, there are many reasons to say that no one is truly a ben/bat niddah nowadays.
-
6Unlikely that even a tight fitting bathing suit is a chatzitza mideoraita. – Double AA Feb 13 '12 at 23:31
-
2Also, this comment thread is not the right forum necessarily, but suffice to say that there is much basis to saying that any natural feeling that each women feels is her 'hargasha' and therefore all women are niddot deorayta. (consider for example the argument from silence in the gemara and rishonim about defining hargasha rigorously.) Kullot like you mention regarding the definition of niddah should never ever be put into practice. – Double AA Feb 13 '12 at 23:38
-
To buttress @DoubleAA's point about a bathing suit: "any impure people who immerse wearing clothing - their immersion is effective, because since the water can enter through [the clothes], they do not constitute a chatzitzah" (Rambam, Hil. Mikvaos 1:7) - he goes on to mention that this applies to a niddah too. Now, bathing suits are generally not waterproof, so the same consideration would presumably obtain too. – Alex Feb 14 '12 at 00:15
-
2@Alex Even without discussing how tight is tight, a chatzitza is only a problem deorayta if it covers the majority of her body and she doesn't want it there. – Double AA Feb 14 '12 at 00:43
-
@DoubleAA poskim rely on the fact that most niddah is d'rabbanan every single day. Some poskim wanted to say that we "assume" a woman had a hargasha but didn't feel it if she experiences a normal flow - but the majority hold that she has to actually feel the hargasha, and that hargasha today is rare. Following a law d'rabbanan is just as important as a d'oraisa - but it allows poskim today to give lenient rulings in cases of doubt. http://www.shemayisrael.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/samples/shiur%202.pdf – Feb 14 '12 at 09:05
-
@DoubleAA moreover, and back to the point of this question, it certainly allows us to say that no Jew alive today is an actual ben/bat niddah, and therefore, no other Jew is allowed to discriminate against them, by refusing to consider a date with a Baal Tshuvah, or to deny a Baal Tshuvah any given honor or position within a synagogue or any communal position of prominence. – Feb 14 '12 at 09:07
-
@Will You don't have to convince me of the benefits of removing an issur deorayta. :-| I am not saying that we assume they all had hargasha. I'm saying that whatever they normally feel is their hargasha. Notice how most of the discussion on your link is from achronim. If hargasha was the key to niddah being a deorayta, and it was rare, why didn't the rishonim discuss it more carefully? Better yet, why didn't the Talmud? It seems like a really important detail. (And I don't buy a "women's bodies have changed" argument and I doubt you do too.) [cont...] – Double AA Feb 14 '12 at 17:42
-
[cont...] Clearly hargasha is whatever the woman normally feels and it could vary from woman to woman. There a teshuvat haradbav that says like me btw (no exact reference at the moment; sorry) but I don't want to get too much into the sources. Puk chazi: go ask a bunch of women what feelings they get. It will probably vary somewhat and that's normal biologically and halachically! – Double AA Feb 14 '12 at 17:42
-
If any poskim use your svara, good for them and go ask them; we are not paskining here. But suffice to say that I don't buy it, and am therefore extremely cautious about leaving this discussion unqualified here on the internet. I think you can understand my concerns. – Double AA Feb 14 '12 at 17:42
-
@DoubleAA Read page 15 of the PDF I linked to above. Rambam is a rishon, not an acharon. – Feb 14 '12 at 19:38
-
-
@Will Also follow up and see the Rambam he quotes. It's not at all clear the Rambam is defining the only type of hargasha, let alone the fact that he defines it derech agav in the middle of a perek. The way you talk about it it should be perek alef halacha bet. – Double AA Feb 14 '12 at 19:43
-
Note as well that going swimming in the ocean probably wouldn't work even Deorayta without at least a Hefsek Tahara. – Double AA Apr 27 '16 at 15:36