Exchange on Menstrual Practices

Joel ben Isaac

Question: Please, my teacher, explain to me something in relation to the Gemara in b. Ketubbot [4a]:

And similarly, a groom whose wife began to menstruate at the time of the wedding, he sleeps among the men, and she sleeps among the women, etc.

Does the same apply to the days of her white garments, that is, during the seven clean days?¹ If the rationale here is that we are concerned that, if in the case of a fully menstruating woman, he might be overcome by his urges [and sleep with her], then all the more so we should be concerned that he might take lightly the seven days, which women accept upon themselves [merely] as a stringency.

It is stated in Yevamot chapter 4 [37b] that when R. Naḥman came to Shakhnetziv, he would issue a public announcement, “Which woman will be my wife for the day?”² And the Gemara there raised a difficulty: Did not Rava say that a woman who accepted a marriage offer must wait seven clean days? The Gemara proceeds to answer that such sages would send messengers ahead of time to inform the women of the sage’s impending arrival; alternatively, [it might be that] R. Naḥman merely intended to be secluded with the woman.

Now, this second answer implies that seclusion is permitted. However, I heard in the name of Rabbenu Tam that when the Gemara mentions this “seclusion,” it is referring to a situation where there are other people present with them, as she has the presumptive status of a menstruating woman. But many act loosely in these matters, and they have nothing upon which to base their behavior.

Ephraim of Regensburg

Answer: This is one of those cases where the custom of your ancestors is not in accordance with the Torah, as they were lenient about the days of white garments, and regarding one who behaves thusly Elijah said, “Blessed be the Omnipresent who killed him” [see b. Shabbat 13b]. Rather, the days of her white garments and her time as a menstruating woman are considered equivalent, right until her immersion in a ritual bath, and they both can lead to punishment by excision.

Indeed, from your own comments I realize that you maintain that the prohibition of the days of her white garments is merely due to uncertainty, and it applies only by rabbinic law. Heaven forbid! Any woman who sees a single drop of blood is a menstruating woman, and one is liable [to punishment] for having relations with her during the days of her white garments as well. This remains the case until she immerses, even if she neglects to do so for a good while. If she saw blood for three days straight, she is a full-fledged zavah [a woman who has intermenstrual bleeding; see Leviticus 15:25–30] or a menstruating woman, until she immerses. It is proper to be stringent regarding the days of white garments, as she might think that she is pure and will thereby come to violate a prohibition punishable by excision. Consequently, there is no difference between [the days of] menstruation and the days of white garments.

As for that case [ . . . ], when you said that those sages merely intended to be in seclusion [meyaḥadi] with the woman, in my opinion this does not mean actual seclusion [yiḥud], in the same house, but means, rather, designation [yiḥudi]. In other words, the women were made ready for them, so that if those sages had wanted, they could have told them to purify themselves and immerse, as “there is no comparison [between one who has bread in his basket and one who does not have bread in his basket]” [b. Yoma 74b].

Furthermore, you should have asked about the following, as the Gemara states:

All tasks that a woman performs for her husband, a menstruating woman performs for her husband, except for pouring his drink into his cup, [making his bed, and washing his face, hands, and feet]. [b. Ketubbot 13b]

Now even though a menstruating woman is permitted to seclude herself with her husband, the sages decreed that he may not accept a poured cup from her, nor eat with her from the same plate, nor drink with her. If so, the same should certainly apply to other forbidden relations, and even to single women. It should be prohibited to receive a cup from them or to drink and eat with them. If even secluding oneself with them is prohibited, all the more so these practices should be forbidden. And yet it happens that a man will eat and drink with a married woman and accept a cup from her.

In addition, I have observed in my place and other locales that a man will seclude himself with his betrothed, even if she is of age and even if she is menstruating, and he will play with her, and yet it is stated in Ketubbot [4b] that if a married man has not had intercourse [yet with his wife,] it is prohibited for him to be secluded with his menstruating wife. I have further heard that in certain places a groom will separate from his wife after [the first] intercourse for three nights but no more—the reason for this puzzles me greatly. On the contrary, he should be permitted for three nights and even four nights, if her time to emit blood has not arrived, and afterward he should be forbidden, and yet these people do the opposite. And you are silent about this whole practice; you cover it up and say nothing.

Ephraim ben Isaac.

Joel ben Isaac

My response: It seems to me that the reason for the difference between a menstruating wife and other forbidden women is that the pouring of the cup and those other practices can naturally lead to intercourse [see b. Ketubbot 4b], and as a husband is permitted to be secluded with his wife, he is greatly tempted to sleep with her. This is not the case for other forbidden relations; since he does not seclude himself with them, he will not have intercourse with them in any case.

As for your question about how a man may be secluded with his betrothed even when she is menstruating, and yet if a husband has not had intercourse with his wife, he is prohibited to be secluded with her, the two cases are not comparable. A betrothed man does not think about intercourse until he enters the wedding canopy, and therefore the sages did not decree against his seclusion. This is because he is not overcome by his urges, due to the principle of “set about with lilies.”³ By contrast, the sages did decree in a case where the man has brought his wife into the wedding canopy, as its main purpose is to enable them to engage in intercourse [legally].

However, it appears to me that even if the betrothed woman is not menstruating, he is nevertheless forbidden to seclude himself with her. For we learned in the first chapter of Ketubbot [7b]:

The sages taught: We recite the blessing of the groom in the house of the grooms [at the time of the actual wedding]. R. Judah said: Even in the house of the betrothal. Abaye said: And the sages taught this [statement of R. Judah] in Judea, because [it was the custom there that] he would be secluded with her.

In other words, we are concerned that if he were to be secluded with her, he might have relations with her, and a bride without the blessing of the groom is forbidden to her husband like a menstruating woman. And Rashi explains similarly. Accordingly, when we recite in the blessing, “and prohibited to us are those women who are betrothed,” this phrase means that the sages decreed against seclusion with an unmarried woman, and they also decreed regarding a betrothed woman until she enters the wedding canopy, and Rashi explains likewise. All these sources imply that it is prohibited for the man to be secluded with his betrothed bride without the blessing of the groom.

As for your comment about the custom of a groom separating from his wife for three nights, my early predecessors already spoke to those people and corrected them, and the God-fearing among them ceased this practice. And I personally can testify about my father-in-law, R. Eliezer ben R. Nathan, and my teacher, R. Samuel ben Natronay, that their custom in this situation was to wait seven clean days [after the first intercourse], as is the law for all menstruating women and zavot, and they prevented many from error in this matter. And we too follow their practice and encourage all those who will listen to advice to do likewise.