What's Going On - After the Wedding
At first, this siman appears odd.  We have previously learned the laws of attribution of blood and we have learned that we will consider bleeding to be non-uterine if the woman has an internal injury that could be the source of the blood.  Clearly, the injury caused by the tearing of the hymen should fall into the same category as the type of injury we studied in the past.  In this case, not only do we not attribute bleeding to the initial penetration, but we assert that even if there is no bleeding at all, the woman is nonetheless impure because we might not have seen the blood!

To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen an explanation of this issue that is totally satisfying.  The most reasonable explanation that I have seen is that, in truth, there should be no such thing as attribution due to an internal injury because it is entirely possible that the flow that we are attributing to the injury was in fact was uterine blood.  However, if we would insist on such an extreme position we would have large groups of women with various internal injuries, such as scrapes in the vaginal canal, who would never be permitted to have intercourse with their husbands.  The single exception in the leniency of attribution is in this specific instance, since we know that the injury sustained, because it is going to heal relatively quickly,  is not going to be one that would be excessively restrictive for the couple.

Nevertheless, there are some leniencies involved in the observance of what is otherwise a chumra (strictness).  First, we learned earlier that if a woman experiences a flow of blood during intercourse, the man is required to not move at all, wait for his erection to subside and then withdraw. In our case the husband may continue and complete intercourse.  Further, is the man does not withdraw after his intial ejaculation, he can continue to engage in further intercourse.  Once he withdraws either voluntarily or as a result of the loss of erection, he can no longer have sexual intercourse with her.

There are a number of related issues not dealt with in our Siman, but are relevant to a couple's initial sexual encounter.

Interestingly, the Rosh discusses a special blessing that one should make after the initial intercourse.  The blessing is as follows:

Baruch Atta ... asher tzag egoz b'gan eden shoshanas ha'amakim bal yimshol zar b'maayan chasum al kain ayeles ahovim zera kodesh shamra b'taharah chok lo efera.  Baruch .... habocher b'zaro shel avraham.

Bless who has established the nut in Gan Eden, the rose of the valley that no stranger had a hold over the sealed spring; therefore, beloved doe, holy seed she kept her purity, her status didn't alter. Blesses the one who has chosen the offspring of Abraham (translation from Shema Yisrael Hilchos Niddah p. 520)

The custom today is to not recite the blessing at all.  Some however, will recite it without the name of God in the relevant places.

We have so far understood, at least by implication, that the reference to completion of intercourse refers to ejaculation.  The Gemara however, defines 3 separate stages of intercourse. The first called "Nishikas HaEver", or the "touching of the limb" is achieved when the head of the penis first touches the vaginal canal. (Contact with the vaginal lips is not considered).  The second, Ha'aroa, which means "penetration", is at the moment that the entire head of the penis has penetrated.  The third "G'Mar Biah" (conclusion of contact) means any amount of penetration beyond the second stage.

This provides us with some additional issues to deal deal with in our halacha.  The siman does not specify for us the extent of penetration required to trigger the application of this law.  The key point appears to be stage 2 - haroa. If there is no bleeding at the initial contact described in stage one and prior to further penetration the couple separates, these laws do not apply and she remains pure in any event.  With haroa if there is any bleeding at all she is impure and if there is none she remains pure.  However, with full penetration, regardless of the presence of blood, even if there is no ejaculation, the woman is considered impure.  The final clause regarding ejaculation appears counter-intuitive. The stated reason for making a woman impure is that perhaps there is some blood that has been covered by a drop of semen.  Therefore, one would assume that in the absence of semen the rule shouldn't take effect, thereby rendering her pure if there is no bleeding and no ejaculation.  I conjecture that the reason for not making this distinction is because of the halachic concept of lo plug - making no distinction - and that the general halacha of imposing impurity in case of full penetration is applied to all circumstances.

We have learned previously that if a couple does not have intercourse after the wedding and she becomes a niddah, there are various rules that they need to adhere to that are designed to prevent yichud.  Apparently, one crosses the line for this rule at haroa. If there has been this minimal type of penetration, then they are considered as any married couple and may be alone together in spite of their not having had complete intercourse.  If the extent of penetration was only neshikas ever then they may not stay together.

At times, the woman might be a virgin but yet not have an intact hymen.  This can result either from surgical removal of the hymen or through some other cause (referred to in halacha as "mukatz etz" - injury from a tree.) At these occasions it is possible, if not likely, that a woman will experience bleeding as a result of the surgery or puncture.  The answer depends on whether one takes a view that the decree of virginal blood was made, as I suggest above, because of the possibility of concurrent uterine bleeding or because the rabbinic decree is that blood from an injury to the hymen is in itself impure.  Rav Moshe Feinstein has ruled that blood from the removal of the membrane or a puncture does not make a woman impure.  Theoretically then, a woman may have relations the very same day that she has the surgery.

A corresponding question is the status of a woman who, when she gets married, is a virgin but is known not to have a hymen.  Rav Moshe in this case has ruled that, assuming there is no blood, the woman remains pure.

The final issue relating to virgin brides is blood from subsequent intercourse.  This case is covered in the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 187 Seif 13. Briefly, the halacha dictates that if there is bleeding at the second act of intercourse, the blood is deemed to be from continued hymeneal bleeding.  Once the woman has had intercourse with no bleeding whatsoever, then any subsequent bleeding during intercourse will render her a niddah. The Rama adds a requirement that the subsequent bleeding must be accompanied by pain.  if there is no pain, the blood is considered to be niddah blood. A related case of second intercourse with no bleeding, but with pain - mainstream halacha requires the woman to check the sheets only and not perform any internal self-examination.  There are opinions on the stricter side that would require her to perform an internal check.  Additionally, there are opinions on the lenient side that no check whatsoever should be performed under the assumption that women can experience pain during her first months of sexual activity.

 

Back to Summary
Back one page
Forward one page
Have a question?