Siman 185 Seifim 1-2
- A man cannot engage in relations with a woman who has a status of being impure until she tells him "I have immersed" after sufficient days have passed that it is possible for her to have counted and immersed (BY). She is believed even if clothes are dirty with blood and she asserts "I was in the meat market" or 'I was handling birds", or the like.(BY quoting Rosh and R. Yerucham).
- If she has established herself as impure in her neighborhood by wearing the unique clothing for menstruation, she is considered definitely impure.
What's going on?
In the previous Siman, we dealt with a case in which we do not know if the woman menstruated. Consequently, she retained her status of purity until we ascertained otherwise. The beginning of this Siman deals with the opposite case, one in which we know that she is impure but enough time has passed for her to have immersed and we do not know whether she did. In Seif 11, we developed the idea that because of a “double doubt,” a man need not ascertain specifically that his wife is pure. By extension, in the absence of the double doubt, he is not permitted to approach her without a specific representation.
However, once the woman gives us that representation, she is believed even if certain evidence would indicate otherwise. There are, however, certain types of contradictory evidence that would undermine her assertion of purity.
There is a view that the woman must specifically state that she is pure.[1] This requirement for a specific oral statement with an explanation is contemporary Halacha.
The husband is forbidden to question her determination of impurity by suggesting that she miscounted or something similar.[2]
A woman is believed in her assertion of purity for 2 reasons. The first is that the Torah specifically tells us “She shall count for herself,” meaning that she is entrusted with the duty of counting and track of her status.[3] Second, there is a general principle in Halacha called “eid echad ne’eman b’issurin” – that one witness alone is believed when it comes to testimony regarding prohibitions.
Apparently, at some time women had a custom of wearing special clothing during menstruation; thus neighbors would know when the woman is menstruating. This was important at the time we observed the laws of purity connected with foods of elevated holiness. The clothing would let people know that she was impure and could therefore not handle and not eat such food. It is appropriate even today for a woman to have unique clothing for her period of impurity, although it need not be recognizable as such.[4]A woman who wears these clothes is making a declaration of impurity that cannot be undone, regardless of the excuse that she offers.
R. Leib MiPrague explains that the reason for this rule is that even though her husband might know of her excuse and understand it, the neighbors who have seen her do not know about the excuse and are in no position to judge its merits.[5] Therefore, we prohibit retraction of the implicit claim of impurity made by the clothing. Similarly, if a woman made a public oral declaration of impurity, she also may not retract it[6].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|