What's Going On - During the Niddah Period

Seif 5 is the first of 2 that deal with restrictions relating to beds and sleeping arrangements. While the Shulchan Aruch makes no comment about rules relating to a woman, the Bach rules that a woman is also not permitted to sleep in the man's bed, but  poskim hold that she is permitted to sit on it.  Further, according to these poskim she can even sleep in his bed, if he is not present.  The Pischei Tshuvah holds that if the woman is out of town for a  period of several days, the husband is permitted to sleep in her bed during that time.  Personally, I fund the ruling problematic.  Although there is clearly no risk of forbidden relations if she is not home,  it would appear to me that the issue of arousal and masturbation would still be present. The Seif also takes up the issue of sitting on couches and benches.  The general rule seems to be that if the bench or sofa can easily move, then they are prohibited from sitting on it together.  There is a possible leniency if there is a third person in between them.  The poskim speculate as to the reason for the prohibition.  One school of thought is that sitting together is an act of affection and the other that sitting together raises the possibility of physical contact.  On the issue of sitting together on a bus, it appears that the seats would be considered "attached" because they don't move in relation to the bus.  It is the bus itself that is moving.  The rule here would really depend upon one's understanding of the reason for the prohibition.  If it is there because of displays of affection, since the experience of sitting on a bus is generally not an amorous adventure, there would be little problem.  However, if the underlying reason for the prohibition is to avoid physical contact, then sharing a seat on the bus would clearly be included in the prohibition. Rav Moshe rules leniently on this issue, while others are strict.  The  Trumas HaDeshen holds that the only type of seat that is prohibited is a swing similar to that in a gazebo.

There is a leniency available for them to ride together if the travel is for his business.  The idea is that he is involved in his work and does not have time to be amorous.  It would follow, though, that if she were the one on business, with him coming along, this leniency would not apply.  Shaarei Tohar disagrees with the leniency altogether.

Seif 6 continues the discussion of sleeping arrangements.  The accepted halacha is that the couple may not sleep together in the same bed under any circumstances.  Tosfos however rules that the prohibition applies only when they are next to each other, but if the bed is so large that they are rather far apart, it would be permitted.  Unfortunately, all of the poskim reject this view.

The Rama adds that the separate beds that they sleep cannot be touching each other.  Specifically, the double beds that share a single headboard would be prohibited.  The basin understanding of the Rama is that any distance whatsoever would satisfy the halachic requirement.  There have been several standards established over the years by subsequent poskim.  the narrowest distance among these opinions is a distance such that the covers of the beds will not come into contact and the largest is one cubit (app. 60 cm). Rav Wozner writes that in the relatively small bedrooms in modern Israel, one can rarely permit a space of a cubit.  He suggests using one of the intermediat4e measurements, i.e. a space large enough for a person to walk through  or a distance so that each one's extended arm cannot reach the other bed.  In extreme circumstances, one can follow the simple understanding of the Rama.

There are various views about separating beds if they share a common headboard.  The majority view appears to hold that it might work so long as the is a significant distance along the length of the bed and at least a small distance at the head of the bed.  Rav Wozner suggests that a couple not use connected double beds even if one person sleeps in a separate room during the prohibited time because of ma'aaris ayin.

The next 3 Seifim deal with issues related to her dress during the niddah time.  The Tazi (2) notes that the punishment for violating the law of not looking at one's wife in an immodest state is that he will have unworthy children.  The phrase "ankle" is, according to some poskim, euphemistic for "vagina".

The Smak notes that a woman is permitted to sleep on her husband's sheets but should refrain from sleeping on another man's  linens as she might become pregnant from semen left on the man's sheets.  He questions this law, asking what the problem could be, since there would be no violation of any law if she would become pregnant in that manner.  He suggests that the reason for the prohibition is to avoid potential issues of incestuous relationships in the future resulting from unknowing half-siblings marrying.  This incidentally has other ramifications, such as in adoption; generally we do not like to adopt a Jewish baby whose ancestry is unknown to us for the same reason.

Rav Wozner notes that "covered" portions of the body as meant to include her har, even when she is in the house.  Drisha (2) notes that the prohibition extends only to those parts of the body that she would normally cover when he is alone int he home with her husband and specifically does not include those parts of her body that she covers exclusively for outside of the home.  Rav Wozner also discourages men from being present during childbirth, permitting his presence only during contractions to help provide support for his wife.

On a related note, he points out that artificial insemination during the niddah  period is prohibited because of the "p'gam" or "wound" that conception during impurity causes to the child.  He notes that artificial insemination with donor sperm is absolutely prohibited.  Although doing so is not considered adultery, deliberate impregnation with another man's semen is nevertheless a Torah level prohibition.

Gufay Halachos notes that language in Seif 8 implies that wearing distinctive garments is a not a requirement for the woman, but is merely suggested.  He explains that we do not force the woman to do something that is entirely related to her husband and has no relevance for herself (since she, presumably, does not have problems seeing herself in ordinary clothes).  If she chooses not to wear other garments, she is not even violating the principle of lifnei iver.

Rav Wozner, quoting the Toras HaShlamim explains that the reason for the suggestion to have unique clothing is to avoid negative responses to her wearing clothing from her time of bleeding during the time that she is permitted to her husband.

While the halacha permits a woman to wear makeup during her niddah period, Avos d'Rebbe Noson discourages it.  It says "A woman who makes herself unattractive during her niddah state will have the spirit of the sages resting on her; a woman who does not make herself unattractive during her niddah state will not have the spirit of the sages resting on her." The poskim understand this to apply if the woman's marriage will not be adversely effected by doing so.