2

If one is careful and keeps the 7 deoraita days of nida but not the additional zav (chumra) days, is this a problem? Is there a punishment? (I understand this is not for everyone and especially those who are confused about the counting.) Thank you.

alice fine
  • 880
  • 5
  • 14
  • 1
    If the rabbis thought that the confusion was not a universal issue, they would have stipulated exceptions or they would not have made this stringecy. Assuming you happen to not make a mistake, deuteronomy 17:11 mentions a torah prohibition against disobeying the rabbinate in the context of a capital offense, though I am unsure of the details of that. –  Sep 22 '13 at 21:18
  • 2
    I have this feeling that you're not going to be convinced by answers that you read online. I think you should talk to a rav face to face. – Chanoch Oct 04 '13 at 00:23
  • 2
    the talmud in berachos 1st perek says that violating a d'rabanan is punishable by mita b'yedei shamayim – ray Oct 08 '13 at 21:05

2 Answers2

8

I really wouldn't call them "chumra" days. They're rabbinically required. And they protect you in case any period is at all funny, you could wind up in a zava situation -- or nida-still-within-the-seven -- without knowing it (in which case mikva and everything accomplishes nothing, it would still be liable to Karet.) It's not just about being "careful." If you're not incredibly knowledgeable, a lot of problems can easily happen.

In theory if a person was lucky and in their situation turned out to be a simple nida start-to-finish, ending correctly at 7 days, then they would have violated the rabbinic prohibition to always wait seven clean days. The Torah commands us to follow the rabbinic enactments, though it's debated by the commentaries whether every rabbinic prohibition therefore carries this Biblical command as well, or whether it simply applies to the general framework.

Generally speaking, intentionally violating a rabbinic prohibition could have been punishable by lashes. (The Talmud talks about lashes for rabbinic prohibitions, but the commentaries have different understandings about how many lashes and in what circumstances; a lot may have been up to the rabbis judging each case. No rabbinic court today uses corporeal punishment, so the takeaway is simply: "don't mess with these rules!") Today we would simply recommend the standard course of repentance -- avoid the sin, regret it, confess it to G-d, commit to avoiding it again.

An unintentional violation should be fixed by educating yourself and ensuring it doesn't happen again, but doesn't bear any other punishment or guilt. (This came up in the context of a woman who discovered she'd been mistakenly counting 6 clean days instead of 7.)

Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
4

The Talmud in Shabbos 13a-b (translated here) brings the following:

The following breita was taught in the academy of Eliyahu: It happened that there was one student who learned much Mishnah and learned much scripture and spent much time serving Torah scholars, but he died at half his years. His wife would take his tefillin, bring them around the houses of prayer and houses of study and say to [the people there]: “It is written in the Torah: For this is your life and the length of your days. Therefore, my husband who learned much Mishnah, and learned much scripture, and spent much time serving Torah scholars, why did he die at half his years?” And no one would answer her anything. I once visited her and she told me the whole story. I asked her: “My daughter, during the days of your niddah, what did he do with you?” She answered me: “God forbid! He did not touch me, even on my little finger!”

I asked her: “During the days of your white [clothing] what did he do with you?” She answered: “He ate with me, drank with me and slept with me without clothing, but he did not even think about the other thing [sexual relations].” I said to her: “Blessed is God who killed him, because [your husband] did not show respect towards the Torah, for the Torah says: You shall not approach a woman in her time of ritually impure nidah.”

The first Tosfos on 13b quotes Rabbeinu Tam as saying that she went to the Mikva after 7 days to be Tahor biblically, and then again after 7 clean days for the Rabbinic prohibition. This is why the student thought it was permitted. Either way, everything listed there is a Rabbinic prohibition, and his result was "he died at half his years."

(As a side point, one reason for why she went to the Mikva twice I have seen suggested that the first time was so that she could deal with Taharos - she could make food that was a Tahor, and the second time was to satisfy the Rabbinic requirement for marital relations).

Yishai
  • 31,937
  • 1
  • 62
  • 130
  • They are very different kinds of rabbinic prohibitions. Surely not all rabbinic prohibitions are the same – Double AA Oct 03 '13 at 22:10
  • 1
    @DoubleAA, I don't follow. If anything, it makes the point even stronger, as what is listed is more lenient than actually just being intimate after 7 days. – Yishai Oct 03 '13 at 22:24
  • 1
    You're case talks about violating lo tikrivu with a deoraita niddah. That's bad. Even if it's only meant as an asmachta, then it's still violating the spirit of the law, which is bad. In the OP's case, all that's being violated is a gezeira that doesn't seem to apply so much in that case because she knows how to count. Not Torah violations. No spirit of Torah violations. So while both cases are "rabbinic violations", I submit the case you cite is more stringent than the OP's. Hence we can't learn the punishment from your case to the OP's. – Double AA Oct 04 '13 at 14:27
  • I don't think "spirit of the law" is in a different category than a Rabbinic decree. You certainly have to justify that distinction. In any event, according to those that she was not a Nidda Deoraita, it is exactly on point. – Yishai Oct 04 '13 at 14:36
  • I didn't say it's a different category. I said it's the kind of rabbinic decree which one would expect to be treated harsher upon violation than a theoretical decree which is irrelevant or even counterproductive now. (Not to say one should violate such a decree...) If there are opinions who understand your cited gemara as referring to Niddah derabanan then they should be included in your answer. – Double AA Oct 04 '13 at 14:59
  • @DoubleAA, as I wrote: "I forget where I saw it, but one understanding of this gemarrah is that she went to the Mikva after 7 days." And by making the distinction, you are making different categories, something that requires justification. – Yishai Oct 04 '13 at 15:29
  • You have a very weak definition of "category" apparently. IAE, we can never know what sins are worse or not in God's eyes, particularly when there is no statutory punishment. All we have is our logic, and I think here my logic is very sound. Don't you? Remember, you're the one who's trying to make a Kol vaChomer here. – Double AA Oct 04 '13 at 15:36
  • @DoubleAA, We certainly can't know which is worse, which is not an argument for distinction, it is an argument for treating them as equally problematic. – Yishai Oct 04 '13 at 15:55
  • 1
    No, it is an argument for not comparing. If you aren't willing to use logic to try to support your comparison, then don't compare at all. The logic doesn't have to be a proof, but it does need to make someone seriously think you might be right. – Double AA Oct 04 '13 at 15:59
  • @DoubleAA, I simply can't address an argument which says that since we can't know which aveiros are worse than others, we should treat them differently. It simply doesn't compute for me. – Yishai Oct 04 '13 at 16:16
  • 1
    Take it up with the mishna :) It's not that we must treat them differently. We just can't learn from one to the other. – Double AA Oct 04 '13 at 16:19
  • @Yishai This doesn't seem relevant to the OP. The assumption in this gemmara is clearly that the woman is still biblically niddah. To say that this refers to an instance where the woman went to the mikveh and is now only rabbinically niddah makes absolutely no sense - from when would al titkarev apply to rabbinic niddah, and who gets mitah b'yadai shamayim for violating a rabbinic decree? – Robert S. Barnes Oct 06 '13 at 15:26
  • @RobertS.Barnes, If she was still biblically Niddah, that doesn't explain the students behavior - why would Levienim be different in his mind? The Posuk isn't spelling out a punishment in any event (lying under the same blanket is not Chayav Kosreis) so one way or another it is not from the posuk, and violating a Rabbinic decree is subject to Misah B'yadai Shamayim. http://www.chabad.org/dailystudy/tanya.asp?tdate=9/27/2013#footnote10a – Yishai Oct 07 '13 at 14:52
  • @DoubleAA, the Mishna is talking about learning out the Din. That isn't in dispute. You are making claims about one violation of a clear Rabbinic decree being less severe than another, even though the purpose is to avoid the same specific problem. And even worse, you are saying a case where you may violate the Torah prohibition without knowing it is more lenient than where at least you know that you didn't. As I said, it doesn't compute for me. – Yishai Oct 07 '13 at 14:54
  • @Yishai The statement is "mere hyperbole". The Alter Rebbe is not a source I think most people would accept as a source of halacha ( outside of the Chasidic world I mean. ) The story is meant to teach a lesson - not to confer an actual event, that's what explains the student's behaviour. It's target are amai haaretz who might think that once she's no longer bleeding she's not "really" niddah and that going to the mikveh is only a formality. Of course that's just my personal opinion. – Robert S. Barnes Oct 07 '13 at 16:09
  • "for the Torah says: You shall not approach a woman in her time of ritually impure nidah". It seems obvious that she had not gone to mikveh since ,if she had, she would not be "in her time of ritually impure nidah"-but rather either pure from nidah or a zaava. The gemara says "nidah" so it is because she had not gone to the mikveh that he got punished.(not for breaking a rabinical prohibition when she was not deoraita nida) – alice fine Oct 07 '13 at 16:32
  • @RobertS.Barnes, I guess you didn't bother to check the Ecilopidia talmudis reference. I can't convince someone who just closes their mind. BTW - every woman who goes to a Mikva that is heated is relying on a chiddush of the Alter Rebbe. – Yishai Oct 07 '13 at 17:38
  • @alicefine, no she would be nidda - Rabbinically. That is the point. The verse doesn't apply literally, in any event, as none of what he did violates it. – Yishai Oct 07 '13 at 17:42
  • @Yishai I read the article you linked and it's footnotes - it says: Note of the Rebbe: “At first glance [the question arises], what is the Alter Rebbe letting us know [that is novel]? The answer: He is clearly expressing his dissent from the opinions that this statement is intended to be taken as mere hyperbole. This seems to indicate that the normative understanding is that this is hyperbole. – Robert S. Barnes Oct 07 '13 at 19:46
  • @RobertS.Barnes, actually it is a Machlokes. It isn't the normative understanding, it is just one opinion, which the Alter Rebbe is rejecting. The opinions are collected in the sources in that footnote. – Yishai Oct 07 '13 at 20:14
  • @DoubleAA, I'm not re-reading all the comments to ascertain, but I think the inclusion of Rabbeinu Tam as a source eliminates our discussion above. If you agree, feel free to delete the obsolete comments. – Yishai Jun 03 '15 at 18:35