R. Karo stayed up all night and was studying with his student R. Shlomo Alkabtz (author of Lecha Dodi) and the following occurred:
Rav Yosef Karo and I agreed to stay up all night on Shavuot… we did not sleep for one minute… and when we began to study the Mishna.. we heard the voice of the Divine Presence, [with a feeble voice] speaking through Yosef Karo: ‘May you be blessed; return to your studies, do not stop for one minute, and go to Eretz Yisrael… Do not have pity on your vessels [material goods], because you will be sustained by “the upper realms”… so hurry to Eretz Yisrael, because I will be your sustainer, and I will provide for you and the peace of your house.’ And we all raised up a great cry of joy, when we heard the Divine Presence, her voice pleading with us…
Thus, feel the Divine and give Him honor… and God will cause your hearts to merit becoming one with the Holy Land, to work it together, Amen.
Well, I must admit my experience was not QUITE like that. Still, I second the motion regarding moving to EY!
הראוני תשובה מפורסמת להתיר לנשים נשואות לגלות את שערן ברשות הרבים בזמן הזה, מאת הרב יוסף משאש. כעת גם יצא תרגום חדש של התשובה לאנגלית באתר FORTHODOXY כאן, במטרה ללמוד ממנה הלכה (לא למעשה). להלן תגובתי:
ראשית, ללמוד מתשובה שנועדה לעשות שלום ואיכפל ללמד זכות אינו מן המידה. והרי יש תשובות להתיר עירובין תמוהים, איסור חדש, ביטול כמה מצוות, נעלי עור בת”ב, “שטר שבת”, וכו’, אך לא משם מתחילים את דרישת האמת. ואמנם יתכן שיש מרגניתא תותה בספרים או תשובות שנכתבו מתוך לחץ וליחידים, אבל יש לבכר מחוסרי ההנחה שאם נהגו כלל ישראל איזה דבר, ודאי יש היתר, מה שאינו. (ואין לדחות מלשון התשובה הבוטח, כי בא להרגיע.) והרי כתב בעצמו שתוכחות לא הועילו. ובכל התשובה כותב דברים נגד כל הראשונים וכל הפוסקים כולם, ואין זה הלכה למעשה. וכל התשובה הזו נוגעת רק לסוגית דומה ובת דומה, סוטה כ”ז א’.
ואכן, תשובה זו של “לימוד זכות” בעלמא תמוהה בכל פינה, אף שהרב משאש עצמו ירא וחכם.
בעניין רש”י, לפי שני הפירושים לא מוזכר כאן היתר לגלות בזה”ז לא מדאורייתא ולא בדת יהודית. המנהג לא משנה דבר, אלא בטלה דעתם. הגע עצמך, האם לפי הרב משאש אם מהרה יבנה המקדש לא יפרע הכהן את הסוטה?! האמת היא, שעצם מה שמגלים ראשה כדי לנוולה בפריצות היא חרפה גדולה, כמו שאמרו בבא קמא “מיכלמו ליה ומיכלם”, שהוא בזיון גם לאשה זאת שעשתה להתנאות בפני בועלה. ואין שום סתירה בין מה שרואים בגילוי שיער יופי, כמו שהוא האמת, ואדרבא היא הנותנת, שזהו היופי שאסרה תורה, ושהיה בלב הנשים לגלותו רק בבית, עד שפרצו וגילוהו גם בחוץ בעבירה.
לפי פירוש ראשון ברש”י כתובות, עושים לה כך לנוולה בפריצות, כי ערוה היא חרפה “חוץ למקומו”, כמפורש בכמה מקראות, וטבע אנוש לא משתנה לעולם. ולפי פירוש אחרון, הלא היה בזמן כתיבת התורה מנהג ברור לכסות שערן לריחוק מעריות, ואחר כך באה התורה וקבעה מנהגן למחייב מדאורייתא. והרב אין לו אפילו תנא דמסייע אחד מבין האחרונים או הראשונים, ורש”י גופיה סיים “וכן עיקר” על פירוש בתרא. “דרך בנות ישראל” מועיל לתת שיקול לחז”ל רק להחמיר בכיסוי קלתא במקום המתאים, אבל לא לנו להקל כרצוננו. ודברי רבי עקיבא לא נוגעים לכאן, דהתם דיני ממונות, ובודאי רשאי אדם לבייש את עצמו, אבל יש איסור מפורש של תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל גם עליה עצמה.
שוב יאמר שחכמים חולקים על ר”י, אבל אין לזה שום ראיה בגמרא, ואדרבא השתיקה מורה שזה הלכה פסוקה לכו”ע. ומה שאומר ש”פריעה” רוצה לומר התרת קלעים קושטא, אך אינו נוגע לכאן, כי הכונה בלשון גם לגילוי סתר בעלמא, ועל תרגום זה לבד דיברה הגמרא שם, וכמוכח מן ההמשך “בת לאברהם אבינו”.
ובקמחית לפי הבבלי מוכח שהוא רק מידת חסידות לכסות בתוך הבית, אבל בחוץ מאן דכר שמיה, וגם משם משמע שבחוץ אסור לה לגלות שערה מן הדין. ומה שהתירו לקרוא כנגדה אינו ראיה, כי התם דרבנן והכא דאורייתא. והיתר יוצא מצמתן מקורו בראשונים ז”ל, כגון הרמב”ן והרשב”א בשבת ס”ד, ואינו ענין לכאן. ואין צורך בהרהור כאש בנעורת שבא לקרי, רק הוא גדר ערוה ע”י מיעוט יופיה בר”ה.
ואי אפשר להשתמש בטעמי המצוות כדי לעוקרם, אלא הטעמים מחילים את המצוה על עוד ועוד מקרים, כמו שבת סוף כ”ג א’ בפאה. ורק בעניין “בגד אדום” יש לחלק בין הזמנים, וכמו שאמר החזון איש זצ”ל שבזמן רב אדא ברכות כ’ א’ בגד אדום היה נחשב לפריצות ושוב לא ולכן שרי כעת, ושמא יש להתיר נמי שיער פרוע בזמן הזה (ודומה להיתר גילוי במשקים כעת אולי, ואכמ”ל).
In 2012, Barack Obama warned that the United States would fall into a depression if Ron Paul’s plan to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget were enacted.
Wait, I beg your pardon. It wasn’t Obama who warned that budget cuts would lead to a depression.
It was Mitt Romney.
Romney went on to become the nominee of the self-described free-market party.
An ideological rout is complete when both sides of respectable opinion take its basic ideas for granted. That’s how complete the Keynesian victory has been.
In fact, Keynesianism had swept the boards a decade before Romney was even born.
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, the seminal treatise by John Maynard Keynes, appeared during the Great Depression, a time when a great many people were beginning to doubt the merits and resilience of capitalism. It was a work of economic theory, but its boosters insisted that it also offered practical answers to urgent, contemporary questions like: how had the Depression occurred, and why was it lasting so long?
The answer to both questions, according to Keynes and his followers, was the same: not enough government intervention.
Now as Murray N. Rothbard showed in his 1963 book America’s Great Depression, and as Lionel Robbins and others had written at the time, the Depression had certainly not been caused by too little government intervention. It was caused by the world’s government-privileged central banks, and it was prolonged by the various quack remedies that governments kept trotting out.
But that wasn’t a thesis governments were eager to hear. Government officials were rather more attracted to the message Keynes was sending them: the free market can lead to depressions, and prosperity requires more government spending and intervention.
Let’s say a brief word about the book that launched this ideological revolution. If I may put it kindly, the General Theory was not the kind of text one might expect to sweep the boards.
Paul Samuelson, who went on to become one of the most notable American popularizers of Keynesianism, admitted in a candid moment that when he first read the book, he “did not at all understand what it was about.” “I think I am giving away no secrets,” he went on, “when I solemnly aver – upon the basis of vivid personal recollection – that no one else in Cambridge, Massachusetts, really knew what it was all about for some twelve to eighteen months after publication.”
The General Theory, he said,
is a badly written book, poorly organized; any layman who, beguiled by the author’s previous reputation bought the book, was cheated of his five shillings. It is not well suited for classroom use. It is arrogant, bad-tempered, polemical, and not overly generous in its acknowledgments. It abounds in mares’ nests and confusions.… In short, it is a work of genius.
Murray N. Rothbard, who after the death of Ludwig von Mises was considered the dean of the Austrian School of economics, wrote several major economic critiques of Keynes, along with a lengthy and revealing biographical essay about the man. The first of these critiques came in the form of an essay written when Murray was just 21 years old: “Spotlight on Keynesian Economics.” The second appeared in his 1962 treatise Man, Economy and State,and the third as a chapter in his book For a New Liberty.
Murray minced no words, referring to Keynesianism as “the most successful and pernicious hoax in the history of economic thought.” “All of the Keynesian thinking,” he added, “is a tissue of distortions, fallacies, and drastically unrealistic assumptions.”
Beyond the problems with the Keynesian system were the unfortunate traits of Keynes himself. I will let Murray describe them to you:
The first was his overweening egotism, which assured him that he could handle all intellectual problems quickly and accurately and led him to scorn any general principles that might curb his unbridled ego. The second was his strong sense that he was born into, and destined to be a leader of, Great Britain’s ruling elite….
The third element was his deep hatred and contempt for the values and virtues of the bourgeoisie, for conventional morality, for savings and thrift, and for the basic institutions of family life.
While a student at Cambridge University, Keynes belonged to an exclusive and secretive group called the Apostles. This membership fed his egotism and his contempt for others. He wrote in a private letter, “Is it monomania – this colossal moral superiority that we feel? I get the feeling that most of the rest [of the world outside the Apostles] never see anything at all – too stupid or too wicked.”
As a young man, Keynes and his friends became what he himself described as “immoralists.” In a 1938 paper called “My Early Beliefs,” he wrote:
We entirely repudiated a personal liability on us to obey general rules. We claimed the right to judge every individual case on its merits, and the wisdom to do so successfully. This was a very important part of our faith, violently and aggressively held, and for the outer world it was our most obvious and dangerous characteristic. We repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdom. We were, that is to say, in the strict sense of the term, immoralists.
Keynes was 55 years old when he delivered that paper. And even at that advanced stage of his life he could affirm that immoralism is “still my religion under the surface.… I remain and always will remain an immoralist.”
In economics, Keynes exhibited the same kind of approach he had taken toward philosophy and life in general. “I am afraid of ‘principle,’” he told a parliamentary committee in 1930. That, of course, is the attitude of anyone who craves influence and the exercise of power; principle would only get in the way of these things.
Thus, Keynes supported free trade, then turned on a dime in 1931 and became a protectionist, then during World War II favored free trade again. As Murray puts it, “Never did any soul-searching or even hesitation hobble his lightning-fast changes.”
The General Theory broke down the world’s population into several groups, each with its own characteristics. Here Keynes was able to vent his lifelong hatreds.
First, there was the great mass of consumers, dumb and robotic, whose consumption decisions were fixed and determined by outside forces, such that Keynes could reduce them to a “consumption function.”
Then there was a subset of consumers, the bourgeois savers, whom Keynes especially despised. In the past, such people had been praised for their thrift, which made possible the investment that raised living standards. But the Keynesian system severed the link between savings and investment, claiming that the two had nothing to do with each other. Savings were, in fact, a drag on the system, Keynes said, and could generate recessions and depressions.
Thus, did Keynes dethrone the bourgeoisie and their traditional claim to moral respectability. Thrift was foolishness, not wisdom.
The third group was the investors. Here Keynes was somewhat more favorable. The activities of these people could not be reduced to a mathematical function. They were dynamic and free. Unfortunately, they were also given to wild, irrational swings in behavior and outlook. These irrational swings set the economy on a roller coaster.
And now we arrive at a fourth and final group. This group is supremely rational, economically knowledgeable, and indispensable to economic stability. This group can override the foolish decisions of the others and keep the economy from falling into depressions or inflationary excess.
You probably won’t be shocked to learn that the far-seeing wizards who comprise Keynes’s fourth group are government officials.
To understand exactly what Keynes expected government officials to do, let’s say a brief word about the economic system Keynes developed in the General Theory. His primary claim is that the market economy is given to a chronic state of underemployment of resources. If it is not to descend into and remain mired in depression, it requires the wise supervision and interventions of the political class.
Again, we may safely reject the possibility that the political classes of the Western world embraced Keynesianism because politicians had made a profound study of the works of Keynes. To the contrary, Keynesianism appealed to two overriding motivations of government officials: their need to appear indispensable, and their urge to wield power. Keynesianism dangled these ideas before the political class, who in turn responded like salivating dogs. There wasn’t anything more romantic or dignified to it than that, I am sorry to report.
By the early 1970s, however, Keynesian economics had suffered a devastating blow. Or, to adopt Murray’s more colorful phrase, it had become “dead from the neck up.”
Keynesianism could not account for the stagflation, or inflationary recession, that the U.S. experienced in the ’70s.
It was supposed to be the role of the Keynesian planners to steer the economy in such a way as to avoid the twin threats of an overheating, inflationary economy and an underperforming, depressed economy. During a boom, Keynesian planners were to “sop up excess purchasing power” by raising taxes and taking spending out of the economy. During a depression, Keynesians were to lower taxes and increase government spending in order to inject spending into the economy.
But in an inflationary recession, this entire approach had to be thrown out. The inflationary part meant spending had to be reduced, but the recession part meant spending had to be increased. How, Murray asked, could the Keynesian planners do both at once?
They couldn’t, of course, which is why Keynesianism began to wane in the 1970s, though it has made an unwelcome comeback since the 2008 financial crisis.
Murray had dismantled the Keynesian system on a more fundamental level in Man, Economy, and State. He showed that the relationships between large economic aggregates that Keynesians posited, and which were essential to their system, did not hold after all. And he exploded the major concepts employed in the Keynesian analysis: the consumption function, the multiplier, and the accelerator, for starters.
Now, why does any of this matter today?
The errors of Keynes have empowered sociopathic political classes all over the world and deprived the world of the economic progress we would otherwise have enjoyed.
Japan is a great example of Keynesian devastation: the Nikkei 225, which hit 38,500 in 1990, has never managed to reach even half that level since. A quarter century ago the index of industrial production in Japan was at 96.8; after 25 years of aggressive Keynesian policy that gave Japan the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world, the index of industrial production is…still 96.8.
The United States, meanwhile, has had sixteen years of fiscal stimulus or preposterously low-interest rates, all of which Keynesians have cheered. The result? Two million fewer breadwinner jobs than when Bill Clinton left office.
No amount of stimulus ever seems to be quite enough. And when the stimulus fails, the blinkered Keynesian establishment can only think to double down, never to question the policy itself. But there is an alternative, and it’s the one Murray N. Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises championed: the Austrian School of economics and its analysis of the pure market economy.
Against the entire edifice of establishment opinion, the Mises Institute stands as a rebuke. To the dissidents, to the intellectually curious, to those inclined to be skeptical of so-called experts who have brought us nothing but ruin, the Mises Institute has been a beacon.
We have trained an entire generation of Austrian scholars, journalists, and financial professionals. We put in the hard work so that when a catastrophe like the 2008 crisis occurred, an Austrian response was ready.
But with your help, we can do so much more. The Keynesians are pretending they have everything under control, but we know that’s a fantasy. An even greater opportunity than 2008 awaits us, and we want to help guide public opinion and train a cadre of bright young scholars for that day. With your help, we can, at last, awaken from the Keynesian nightmare.
As the Korean translator of an Austrian text put it, “Keynes must die so the economy may live.” With your help, we can hasten that glorious day.
A woman who emits seed during her days of counting (the “shiv’a nekiyim“): If it is within six ‘onoth (time periods defined as either from sunrise to sunset or sunset to sunrise, in essence three full days) of when she engaged in intercourse, it invalidates that day (of the emission). Therefore, one who engages in intercourse, sees blood (unrelated to the prior relations) and then performs hefseq tohara, may not begin to count her shiv’a nekiyim until six full ‘onoth [pass from the time she had intercourse] lest she emit seed [therefrom]. Therefore, she does not start counting until the fifth day from when she engaged in intercourse. For example, if she engaged in intercourse Saturday night, she would not begin her count until Thursday, as we hold that seed does not spoil until six ‘onoth have passed, i.e. a full 72 hours.
The Rema brings even stricter opinions. This halacha is considered a staple of modern day nidda observance; this website is an example of the mainstream rabbinic approach to the concept. Note the over riding assumption that a woman must wait a certain amount of time before she can start her nekiyim.
The question I always had with this halacha was, “Why not let her take that chance? Either she’ll start nekiyim ASAP, and she will not emit seed, or if she starts early and does emit, then let her ruin that first day of the count. Why should we assume the worst and make her delay the start of nekiyim?”
Some years ago, R’ Schachter came to speak at Lander College. The first time was to sit on a panel with Rabbi Lau, Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, and Rabbi Tendler, and discuss Religious Zionism in the post-Zionist era, and the other time was with Rabbi Belsky, Rabbi Genack, and Rabbi Slifkin to discuss the kashrus of exotic species. I do not specifically recall which event it was, because the personal discussion we had was after the event and downstairs in the main beis medrash. There, Rabbi Daniel Freund and I spoke to him about the presentation we had recently attended on the topic of helping halachically infertile couples. We suggested that the “Humra D’ Rabbi Zera” could be avoided. Here is Maimonides’s explanation of the rule (Issurei Bi’a 11:4, Touger edition):
In addition, Jewish women accepted a further stringency upon themselves. They accepted the custom that wherever Jews live, whenever a Jewish woman discovers [uterine] bleeding, even if she does not discover more than a drop the size of a mustard seed and the bleeding ceases immediately, she must count seven “spotless” days. [This stringency applies] even if she discovered the bleeding during her “days of niddah.”
Whether the bleeding continued for one day, two days, an entire seven days, or longer, when the bleeding ceases, she counts seven “spotless” days as is required of a major zavah and immerses on the night of the eighth day despite the fact that there is a doubt whether she is a zavah. Or she may immerse during the day on the eighth day in a pressing situation, as explained. Afterwards, she is permitted to her husband.
We argued that because keeping this stringency causes many women to avoid intimacy while they are ovulating, every husband should nullify his wife’s assumed vow to keep this rule the day they marry. (See Hilchoth Nedarim, 11-13) After all, if he knew at the time of his marriage that her observance of this stricture would make them childless, he would certainly want her not to keep it.
Rabbi Schachter answered that Rabbi Zera’s rule has more force than a private vow, and such is the answer every other rabbi has given me. He claimed it would take a bona fide Sanhedrin to undo such a law. I still maintain that it should not, as no where does it say that Rabbi Zera’s stringency was an enactment of the Sanhedrin. It is as the Gemara has it: “the daughters of Israel dealt strictly with themselves.”
Rabbi Schachter then offered that there is a further issue with regard to halachic infertility. He claimed that doctors had told him that it was a matter of solid fact that women did not emit seed from their wombs after intercourse, although seed that does not get beyond the cervix routinely exits the birth canal. Thus, the basis of the above law from Yoreh Deah is removed.
The problem though, was that that law had a solid basis in the following Mishna, which itself was based on a clear understanding of a verse from the Torah (Shabbath 9:3):
Whence is it [to be inferred] that a woman who emits semen on the third day [after coitius] is unclean? From the text, “And be ready against the third day.” (Exodus 19:11)
When Moses transmitted this command to the people (Exodus 19:15) he added the caveat, “do not approach a woman.” This shows that Moses himself established a three day quarantine for the people in preparation for the Revelation at Sinai, presumably because the women needed three days to make sure that they would be free of any remaining seed from prior relations. As Rashi says on that verse,
Do not go near a woman: [to have intimacy with her] for all these three days [of preparation], in order that the women may immerse themselves on the third day and be pure to receive the Torah. If they have intercourse within the three days, the woman could [involuntarily] emit semen after her immersion and become unclean again. After three days have elapsed [since intercourse], however, the semen has already become putrid and is no longer capable of fertilization, so it is pure from contaminating the [woman] who emits it. — [from Shab. 86a]
It should be noted that the standard of purity for receiving the Torah was different from the one discussed in Yoreh De’ah, but the point remains the same. Seed might come back some days later, and there are apparently halachic consequences.
Or so it seems.
Recently Rabbi Bar Hayim wrote the following. Note points 5 and 6, and then 7, where he brings Maimonides’s ruling in straight contradiction to the rule of the Shulhan Aruch, above.
Hilkhoth Nida – Basic Concepts and Requirements in Brief
Yom 5, 21-10-65 — 21 Teveth 5773 — 03-01-2013
Questions
This is a very frustrating mitzvah for me! Although we do keep it fully. I’m so confused about many things regarding Taharat Mishpacha. Isn’t it true that when a woman is Niddah (or a Zava?), the first seven days are d’oreita, and the seven clean days are actually a machloket? Why is it that women can forgo the first seven days but never the second? The seven clean days seems so excessive to me!
In your view, must a woman wait 4 or 5 days before doing a hefsek tahara?
Is a moch dachuk necessary? I learned that it was a chumrah and never did them, personally.
I realize some of these things are “Sephardi v. Ashkenazi” and I’d like to know where you stand.
I also tend to have issues with staining and have trouble getting clean bedikot the first few days of the seven, so I’m always seeking out ‘leniencies.’
Response
Shalom
Very good news…
Regarding your other questions: Min HaTora, a menstruating woman (i.e. at the usual time for her menstrual cycle) is ttame for 7 days, whether she saw blood for 1 day or up to and including 7 days. She must then peform a b’dhiqa, and at night, i.e. the beginning of the 8th day, she goes to the miqwe. Those 7 days are known as Y’me Nida. Where the bleeding continued beyond the initial 7 days, see below no.3.
If, however, blood is seen during the 11 days following those first 7 days (which occurred at the time of her usual menstrual cycle), it becomes more complicated. If she saw blood for 1 or 2 days, she must wait one clean day for every day of bleeding, and then go to the miqwe after performing a b’dhiqa. If she saw blood for 3 consecutive days, she must wait for the bleeding to cease, perform a b’dhiqa, and count 7 Clean Days before going to the miqwe on the night of the 8th day. Min HaTora, it is only in this case that a woman must count 7 Clean Days. These 11 days are known as Y’me Ziva, because only during these days can a woman become a Zava. After those 11 Y’me Ziva, i.e. after 18 days from the beginning of the usual menstrual cycle, any bleeding is considered Nida and not Ziva. (This is the view of all Rishonim. The view often attributed to Rambam is based on a corrupt text (as found, for example, in the very inaccurate Vilna edition) and is quite impossible. For the correct text, see MT Hilkhoth Isure Biya 6:5).
All of the above is min HaTora. Due to the possibility of confusion, the Hakhamim decreed that all bleeding be considered to have occurred during the 11 Y’me Ziva, which means that normal, menstrual bleeding that lasts 3 or more days must be followed by 7 clean days.
In addition, the Talmud informs us that Jewish women took upon themselves the added stringency of always counting 7 Clean Days after seeing even a drop of blood and no matter for how long the bleeding lasted (TB B’rakhoth 31a, M’ghila 28b and Nida 66a). See Rambam’s MT Hilkhoth Isure Biya 11:4,
These humroth (strictures) are understood by many today to be problematic. The humroth mentioned above can frequently result in ‘Halakhic infertility’, i.e. the woman missing her window of opportunity for conception due to ovulation occuring during the Seven Clean Days. This is a very serious issue on a number of levels, not the least of which is the demographic future of the Jewish people. On a different note, I have heard serious, God-fearing Jews state that the lengthy abstinence (usually 12 days or more) from marital relations can have a negative impact on the marriage. These issues cannot be swept under the carpet. I assume that when a critical mass within ‘Am Yisrael wake up and establish a Beth Din Gadhol, as is our duty according to the Tora (see Rambam’s MT Hilkhoth Sanhedrin 1:4), these issues will feature prominently on the agenda.
It is not necessary to wait 4 or 5 days before performing an Hephseq Tahara and starting to count the 7 Clean Days. If the menstrual bleeding lasted only 1-3 days and a b’diqa is performed and found to be clean, one may begin counting the 7 Clean Days immediately. See Rambam’s MT Isure Biya 11:13 and Hilkhoth Nida of Ra’ah 1:2.
A Mokh Dahuq (see Shulhan ‘Arukh YD 196:1) – a humra based on the recommendation of the Rashba (but not a requirement) and not mentioned by Hazal or other Rishonim – is unnecessary. (This is one more example of R. Yoseph Karo z’l not following the rules that he himself laid down in the introduction to his Beth Yoseph commentary on the Tur, in which he states that he will follow the unanimous or majority opinion of three Rishonim: Riph, Rambam and Rosh. None of these Rishonim require a Mokh Dahuq.)
May HASHEM bless you in all things
Rabbi Bar Hayim is not the first Rabbi who has ruled that mokh dahuq is unnecessary. Rabbi Elazar Raz told me that because it causes undue irritation for many women, it should not be done at all. Other observant OB/Gyn’s have concurred.
Now, the question can be asked against Maimonides: does he not hold of the Mishna’s understanding of the verse concerning Moses’s three day quarantine? The answer is NO. He does not exactly understand the verse as Rashi or the Babylonian sages understood it, and therefore does not hold of the Shulhan Aruch’s rule. How do I know? Because of what he wrote concerning Moses’s decision in the Guide to the Perplexed (3:33, Freidlander translation):
The Law is also intended to give its followers purity and holiness; by teaching them to suppress sensuality, to guard against it and to reduce it to a minimum, as will be explained by us. For when God commanded [Moses] to sanctify the people for the receiving of the Law, and said, “Sanctify them today and tomorrow” (Exod. xix. 10), Moses [in obedience to this command] said to the people, “Come not at your wives” (ibid. ver. 15).Here it is clearly stated that sanctification consists in absence of sensuality.
That is, the quarantine was for the sake of spiritual preparation in anticipation of the Revelation, not because of some technical rule.
I will now anticipate a problem. Doesn’t Maimonides himself write in his commentary to that Mishna along the same lines as the Gemara cited by Rashi? The answer is yes, but with an important additional detail. “We shall explain this further in the eighth chapter of Miqwa’oth.” The reference is to Miqwa’oth 8:3-4 (Blackman edition):
If one discharges thick drops from the membrum virile, he is unclean, according to the view of R. Eliezer Chisma. If one experienced impure thoughts in the night [during sleep], and on rising found his body heated, he is unclean.~If [a woman] emitted seed on the third day [after copulation], she is clean according to the opinion of R. Eliezer ben Azariah. R. Ishmael says, Sometimes there are [in those two days] four ‘onoth, sometimes five, at other times six [‘onoth]. R. Akiba says, [They are] always five [periods]
Thus, it seems that the Mishnayoth in both Shabbath and Miqwa’oth are not discussing the ramifications of a uterine seminal discharge. Recall that with regards to hilchoth nidda, the concern is with uterine discharges of blood. Urethral or vaginal discharges are by definition not inducing of tum’ath nidda, and in the halacha from Yoreh De’ah above, the concern is with semen that exits the uterus, which would be similar to uterine blood (but not entirely), whereas these mishnayoth are discussingtuma’th qeri, the contamination induced by contacting normal semen, which can be eliminated by washing and subsequent immersion in the ritual bath. Semen within the uterus can not, by definition, be washed out.
Thus, even if Moses was concerned about quarantining the people for three days prior to the revelation, it was not because the women needed time to let whatever seed they had within their wombs to spoil. Rather, he wanted to make sure that no matter who had a chance or not to bathe prior to the revelation, no woman would have any traces of semen left on her anywhere not within her womb.
(This is a good opportunity to recall that although the Midrash claims that the Israelites had a constant and bountiful water source wherever they travelled in the wilderness, the simple meaning of numerous verses in scripture is that they did not. Rather, they had to always make sure to camp near some source of water, and also to take enough with them when they were on the move. Thus, it is likely that not all of the millions of Israelites would have had an opportunity to immerse or bathe within a day of the Revelation. Think about everyone in the family having to shower Friday afternoon. It has to be coordinated. How much more so for an entire nation in the desert.)
In conclusion: The Talmud does not necessarily assume that women could potentially emit seed from their wombs within three days of intercourse, R’ Schachter’s doctors are on to something, and Maimonides had good reason to not hold of the Shulhan Aruch’s halacha, above, because even according to the Shulhan Aruch it is possible for a woman to start her seven clean days ASAP as long as she both finishes menstruating and thoroughly cleans her cleans her genitals before trying to obtain a clean check.
