"Niddah"--the 12-days-of-no-touching thing

[Jewess]

Another good side-effect: you have to learn how to really communicate with your spouse. When you're niddah, you can't just distract yourself from the argument with angry sex. (Or non-angry sex, for that matter.) Sometimes it's so easy to try to end a conflict without actually resolving. A hug is a really good example. Studies on conflict resolution and body language are super interesting because it shows how touch can be a determinative thing sometimes. But in Judaism, it's a cerebral, legalistic religion, so why would we shy away any excuse for a good, logical argument with our spouse?? :P

Totally true here.

Basically, in Judaism there is a blessing that a couple becomes both friends and lovers. The lover aspect comes from the sexual aspect of a married couple's relationship, and honestly, sex is an easy fix but it doesn't actually fix much, nor does touch, even if it feels nice. For 2 weeks out of every month or so, if there are conflicts you actually have to verbally and intellectually make up with each other, work on conflict resolution, instead of a pat "kiss and make up" or "make up sex". And not just fighting. Since you can't always be sexual with your spouse, for part of the time every so often (when in nidda), you're pretty much forced to connect on an intellectual and heart to heart basis, and not just via sex, so it forces the relationship to become that much more complex and multidimensioned.

I actually look forward to nidda times in a way because I find that our conversations end up being much deeper, and we become more romantic and lovey dovey, and we really, really, really connect on a great and satisfying level, and reminds me of how things were with him when we were dating and engaged. Then when mikva night comes around, it wasn't just the lack of touch and wanting to have sex that gets me excited to be with him, its the fact that we've just really invested on the emotional side of our relationship for the past 2 weeks or so, so that makes the physical side that much more special when it resumes.

[takers401]

During the times of the temple, if anyone, male or female, was in contact with a dead person, that means either touching the dead person, or being under the same roof as the person when he or she died, the person would become tamei meis (t). He'd then go through a process of waiting 7 days, immersing in the mikva, and then become sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer. (Or something along those lines. I'm not so well versed in this area.) Once he goes through that process, he is tahor (ritually pure) again.

Does this apply to hospitals? By that I mean that if you're visiting a friend at a hospital and someone on another floor happens to die (that you do or don't know about), are you under obligation to follow these rules? Or is it just the physical home that this applies to? Just curious to know the answer. Thanks!

[lexiloumarie]

Does this apply to hospitals? By that I mean that if you're visiting a friend at a hospital and someone on another floor happens to die (that you do or don't know about), are you under obligation to follow these rules? Or is it just the physical home that this applies to? Just curious to know the answer. Thanks!

It only applied in the times of the temple, we can't do sacrifices without it and I'm pretty sure the red heifers were killed in the temple first. Either way, we have certain practices regarding death (shiva being the well known), but ritual impurity is not one that I've ever heard observed.

[Jewess]

Does this apply to hospitals? By that I mean that if you're visiting a friend at a hospital and someone on another floor happens to die (that you do or don't know about), are you under obligation to follow these rules? Or is it just the physical home that this applies to? Just curious to know the answer. Thanks!

Yes it does. Cohanim, preists, are actually not supposed to go into hospitals unless absolutely necessary because they're forbidden to be in the same building as a dead person.

In Israel, the religious hospitals put a sign on the door if there is a dead person in the building so a Cohen can know not to enter.

But in practicality, everyone today is considered tamei meis, because there is no red heifer, so unless you're a Cohen, this law is not applicable.

[oolong]

I'm going to bring it up again here. How do you think the Dixons observe this? Because they aren't trying to be Jewish, and they aren't trying to be Christian. They're just trying to follow whatever it says in the Torah (whatever the heck English translation they use). So, for example, they can eat meat and dairy together, they simply can't boil a young animal in the milk of its own mother (literally). So, cheeseburgers cool, baby goat in goat milk soup not cool (... hmm, unless the milk came from another goat that wasn't that particular goat's mother?).

Obviously, Jews still follow some of the ritual impurity type things even though there is no Temple. But what about the Dixons? How do they decide what is possible and what is not possible because of the absence of the Temple, without using halacha to guide them? I'm really curious!

[OrangeTulips]

I'm going to bring it up again here. How do you think the Dixons observe this? Because they aren't trying to be Jewish, and they aren't trying to be Christian. They're just trying to follow whatever it says in the Torah (whatever the heck English translation they use). So, for example, they can eat meat and dairy together, they simply can't boil a young animal in the milk of its own mother (literally). So, cheeseburgers cool, baby goat in goat milk soup not cool (... hmm, unless the milk came from another goat that wasn't that particular goat's mother?).

Obviously, Jews still follow some of the ritual impurity type things even though there is no Temple. But what about the Dixons? How do they decide what is possible and what is not possible because of the absence of the Temple, without using halacha to guide them? I'm really curious!

I think they're the only ones who could answer that question!

[Sola]

actually several people have pointed out that this usually can make it hard to conceive. On the video clibby has linked they say 7 days after the period ended. So if your period is longer than 7 days, you're already past day 14 of your cycle, and as other people pointed out, it can be better do actually have intercourse the day before or a couple days before, so that the sperm have time to reach the egg before it becomes non viable (bt 24 and 48 hours).

Women with longer cycles may not have any problem, but women with shorter cycles may have more problems!

You're also more likely to conceive a boy too.

'Male' sperm are fast swimmers but dont last long. Having sex on ovulation day or the day after is more likely to conceive a boy. 'Female' sperm are slower but live longer and have more stamina (nothing changes ha!). If you have sex on day 11 or 12 you will more likely conceive a girl.

[demgirl]

I honestly have a hard time with this. As others have said, I don't have a problem with religion, if it doesn't hurt people, so if Orthodox Jews want to follow no touching and spiritual nidda rules, that's fine with me. And I understand that my perception of "unclean" or "spiritually impure" isn't the same as the religious meaning -- but, at its heart, it still sounds to me like, "Women are dirty. They are somehow less than men, because they can be made so spiritually lacking that it is an offense to God to even touch their skin." And to deny a woman who has lost a baby to a miscarriage the comfort of her husband's touch? That just seems cruel. I understand I'm coming from a totally different perspective on this and I really have no issue with people practicing it. It just doesn't make sense to me personally.

ETA: I don't have a horse in the race on the STD risks increase if you have your period debate, but I will say I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to state that it's true given the evidence available. Self-reports are not scientific studies. It seems more accurate to say that there is some indication it may be true, and in some ways it seems to fit common sense, but there is little scientifically acceptable evidence that shows causation. At best, it seems there may be some correlation, but I can't see any causation proof in those studies.

[emmiedahl]

The English words have that connotation, but the Hebrew ones do not.

But I am a Reform Jew whose husband is free to touch me when I have miscarriages or rub my back when I am having cramps. So, while I can wax on and on about how certain mitzvot can be meaningful and the idea behind them is so wonderful, obviously there are ones that I don't personally observe.

[demgirl]

I understand the Hebrew words are different -- I'm not sure I'm expressing myself well. It's not so much what the words mean, but how the actions seem and how they would make me, personally, feel. Which is all I'm saying -- it would make me unhappy, and possibly even resentful. If it makes others fulfilled, or happy, or adds to their marriage, then obviously it works for them.

[emmiedahl]

demgirl, I think it would make me resentful as well. I know people who keep those commandments happily and see them as very meaningful. I think the rules tend to over-sexualize touch; sometimes our husbands touch us out of compassion or to comfort us. I imagine that men and women when the OT was written had very different relationships and that women did not expect their husband to be their best friend.

If this were a meaningful law to me, I would keep it. But, for me at least, it would be too hard. I would feel neglected and dirty. I guess it's a cultural thing; I was not raised Orthodox, I saw my parents touch all the time.

[Rachel333]

It seems incredibly sad that a husband can't hug his wife after a miscarriage.

Honestly, it was rules like this that made me question my faith more than anything else. When I would read the Bible, I'd read all those laws in the Old Testament, many of which seemed very anti-woman, and it bothered me a lot. Christians don't believe you have to still follow those rules, but they believe that God really did require people to follow them at one time.

I've since read some things explaining those rules from a less literal viewpoint, but the Old Testament is still what bothers me most about the Bible. There are a lot of things I like a lot about the more liberal branches of Judaism, but Orthodox Judaism seems really harmful to me.

[OrangeTulips]

It seems incredibly sad that a husband can't hug his wife after a miscarriage.

Honestly, it was rules like this that made me question my faith more than anything else. When I would read the Bible, I'd read all those laws in the Old Testament, many of which seemed very anti-woman, and it bothered me a lot. Christians don't believe you have to still follow those rules, but they believe that God really did require people to follow them at one time.

I've since read some things explaining those rules from a less literal viewpoint, but the Old Testament is still what bothers me most about the Bible. There are a lot of things I like a lot about the more liberal branches of Judaism, but Orthodox Judaism seems really harmful to me.

All depends on perspective, and orthodox Jews have one that is very different from the perspective of secular America.

As for the touching stuff, there is a wide variety of observance there. But because it is such a personal thing, you generally don't talk about it except maybe with your closest friend. There are people who still do "innocuous" touch, but there is no way to know how many. And there is no way to know if people drop the touching prohibition during a particularly bad time. But I think looking at it that way buys in to the assumption that there must be something wrong with the rule. I don't think there is, and people have been doing it for hundreds or thousands of years and thought it was valuable enough to teach their children. While it won't comfort people who don't understand this mitzvah, it's not like there is any shortage of people to hug you, such as family, your children, and female friends.

But people are people. And this is one of the hardest mitzvahs to understand and follow. While it makes logical sense to me, it's still hard to accept emotionally. But just because I want something doesn't mean it's good for me to have it. I understand that many people here are atheists, but if a person feels that G-d has declared a law for them, there is also the preliminary assumption that G-d has decided it is for your best interest. And like a child, we don't always understand the rules our parents have created. That reason isn't going to make any sense to someone who doesn't believe in G-d, but that just means we have to agree to disagree and hope that maybe we understand each other a little better.

[Guest Anonymous]

I can see how women see things as being sexist because I did too, but feminism has had many definitions, and it all depends on your perspective. Mine changed and I saw things in a new light instead of the secular American perspective, which I think it extremely sexist instead of empowering. But...that's life. We all have our own perspective, so we have to respect each other and accept our differences.

No, just the one. Your perspective changing doesn't change the definition of a word. Feminism - the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. That's it.

I'm glad for you to be able to choose whatever life you want for yourself, but just because you decide you like it and think it's best for you doesn't make your choice feminist and other choices sexist. Frankly I have a hard time even parsing this. The "secular American perspective" probably does tend towards sexism as a whole, which is why feminists advocate to change it so that we will eventually have equality.

ETA: Just because secular society is sexist doesn't mean that religious society isn't. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and probably most religions tend to be sexist. Certainly one can work from the inside to change it, but it's disingenous to pretend that it isn't there.

[liltwinstar]

Seems to me that, as others have said, this practice is rooted in an older/different interpretation of what marriage means. That's not necessarily a bad thing - I don't want to judge someone else's marriage - but it seems like it would be a hard thing, given modern marriages and relationships. I know that at some points throughout history, birth was seen as a woman's domain - so a woman who experienced miscarriage would be comforted by her female friends, not necessarily by her husband, right?

That said, when I went to Orthodox Christian Church (Russian), I was barred from the sacraments during my time of month. Obviously there's no one checking up on you, but it's expected that you refrain from the sacraments and other behaviors (such as kissing the cross) of your own will - even during Easter, which is considered the holiest day of the year. I was not a fan of that practice, to put it mildly, and it did make me feel like an outsider in the community. Plus, it's embarrassing since everyone knows *why* you're not kissing the cross, etc. At least in Jewish practice, no one else knows what's going on, but I don't think it's something that I could ever accept. As a general rule, I tend to think that religion should stay out of people's bedrooms.

[demgirl]

No, just the one. Your perspective changing doesn't change the definition of a word. Feminism - the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. That's it.

I'm glad for you to be able to choose whatever life you want for yourself, but just because you decide you like it and think it's best for you doesn't make your choice feminist and other choices sexist. Frankly I have a hard time even parsing this. The "secular American perspective" probably does tend towards sexism as a whole, which is why feminists advocate to change it so that we will eventually have equality.

ETA: Just because secular society is sexist doesn't mean that religious society isn't. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and probably most religions tend to be sexist. Certainly one can work from the inside to change it, but it's disingenous to pretend that it isn't there.

Also, I'm not sure that this is a purely "secular American" (whatever that is) perspective. I think you could be religious and have a similar perspective. Or non-American. Or both.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Just because secular society is sexist doesn't mean that religious society isn't. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and probably most religions tend to be sexist. Certainly one can work from the inside to change it, but it's disingenous to pretend that it isn't there.

I'd have to agree, and there are certainly plenty of places to find insider debate over the matter, if one is interested.

It seems to me that one common take on the whole thing by all of the "religions of the book" is to say that the various restrictions are women are really due to (or proof of) their higher more elevated status, more holy status, more important duties so they're exempted from various commitments (though some would see those commitments as privileges, which causes conflict) etc. But, I have to admit as a secular person that a lot of it comes across as rationalization to me, people trying to make what is an old tradition mesh with modern secular first world societal mores.

But the various interpretations of women needing to be covered all the time so that they will not be looked upon as sexual objects as that terrible secular sex-drenched society wishes to do - perhaps that one seems the best example to me, and one that crosses the various flavors of fundiedom.

[Jewess]

It seems incredibly sad that a husband can't hug his wife after a miscarriage.

I have to say, fortunately I've never experienced a miscarriage, and I can't imagine how hard that would be...

However, for those who are God believers, those who believe that God wants what is best for us and gave us these laws to follow because it is good for our soul, we do what He said even when its hard, and even when we'd rather not.

[RR88]

It is longer than 12 days for many women. I, too, believe that these laws sexualize the most innocuous of contact, just as an obsession with modesty sexualizes women.

[shesinsane]

I would imagine that if you grew up being careful to never touch unrelated males, not touching your spouse for a week could be relaxing, sort of a return to the famliarity of childhood. But it's just my guess, I was raised Reform and never learned about such things. I had heard of mikvahs, but only because a boy in Hebrew school said he wanted to be a lifeguard at a mikvah when he grew up, and the embarassed teacher had to tell us all what a mikvah was.

As was pointed out on the first page of this thread, different couples observe differently. A couple may purchase a bed that pulls apart so they can insure no accidental touching in their sleep, but no one's going to demand proof that the beds were separated when she was on her period. As far as I see, the obsession with public declarations of purity and fertility that the fundies are so fond of aren't that popular with Orthodox Jews.

[fluttershies]

Even with the explanation about periods being a time of lack of life, that still raises issues - what about infertile couples or couples who don't want children? What about single women who want to have sexual activity? What about lesbian couples? At this point in time, I'm not sure that I want kids. That doesn't mean I am lacking. A woman's worth coming from her reproductive ability seems incredibly anti-woman.

I also agree with RR88, it sexualises totally non-sexual contact. Where's the distinction between affection and sexual contact?

[adidas]

Just to be sure I understand this, is the root of this practice in the belief that the woman is "unclean" during this time?

TIA!

From memory the root of the word is 'defiled'. I know it's only wikipedia but the information seems to be accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumah

We need a real Jew to answer this, but yes. However, the concept of "unclean" is not really the same as we think when we hear the word "unclean" I think. It is a spiritual matter, and less of an ew-periods-are-icky matter (although I guess it may have come out of this to some extent). Aren't men also "unclean" in this manner when they ejaculate, so you are pretty much unclean until some point if you have had sex or a wet dream as well? I think it's more like unclean = not in the right state for certain spiritual practices.

But again, I'm not Jewish and don't know much about how modern Jews actually practice this. I'm just a huge fan of the Torah. And who knows how Lina et. al do it because as we have seen, so far "how real modern Jews do it" is not necessarily what they are going for.

Yes, the men are unclean after ejaculation. They are supposed to go to the Mikveh after they do that (the male Mikveh is separate to the female Mikveh).

I first heard about Niddah through AnnaMatrix, and I looked some stuff up about it. What I read kind of freaked me out. I remember reading about a woman having to go to her rabbi, and insert a little white piece of cotton into her vagina, remove it and let him look at it to ensure she is over her period. I know for me when I'm nearly over it ends as a little spotting which can last for a couple of days. Well that's partly what that white cloth is for, and they have to let the rabbi decipher if it's from her period or just a vaginal fluid. And based on what he decides about it, will dictate if she is clean or not.

Please someone correct me if this is inaccurate or a too simplified explanation.

It has already been covered, but yes. The bedikah cloth is shown to the rabbi. I have friends who only wear black underwear (and they use black pantyliners) on the last few days of their menstrual cycle so that they can say with a clean conscience that they didn't see any blood on their underwear.

I get tired of the ortho line that they aren't being sexist and are actually pro-woman. How in the world does this mitzvah put control into the woman's hands? We have no control over when we get our periods. If we wanted to have sex during that time of month or shortly after, we couldn't. We don't have control except in when we'd go to the mikveh afterwards, so I guess if you DIDN'T want sex you'd have control....but that's it. If you want sex you're out of luck. I don't see how that's pro-woman.

I didn't like the video either. I think she tamed the issue and went off on a tangent. If you're going to follow it, be honest. It is what it is.

It seems incredibly sad that a husband can't hug his wife after a miscarriage.

Not only that, it extends to childbirth as well. I have an ultra orthodox acquaintance who has unassisted births by herself in her bathroom because of the vaginal bleeding during childbirth.

[longskirtlotsakids]

Wow. Just read through this whole thread, and what I am going to say is going to be offensive- but as an atheist, I am just so amazed at the the level of additional stress people inflict on themselves in the name of religion. Periods are pains in the butt just by existing- to electively raise them to this level of complexity in a life is just astounding. Dealing with all of those sanitary products is enough! That shit is expensive!

I am so, so happy that I eschewed any semblance of any god and work on the bounds of human behavior and compassion.

I read a sex column where the boyfriend hated "period week" because it was also "no sex week". THe advisor told them to call it it "blowjob week" and that they would both like it better. Now that is my cute little code to let him know not to go south.

Man, the shit women go through. Insane. I mean, letting a man decide based on the shade of a discharge? How about making a man come in to the Rabbi and spread his cheeks and being declared dingleberry free before hitting on any woman? Now THAT makes some sense.

[QAF_Rocks]

Wow. Just read through this whole thread, and what I am going to say is going to be offensive- but as an atheist, I am just so amazed at the the level of additional stress people inflict on themselves in the name of religion.

Amen, if you'll pardon the pun. I also don't understand how women can happily accept all these (very unequal!) restrictions based on... what? Tradition? Maybe some traditions aren't worth following, like the ones that say men and women are "impure" because of their bodily functions. I find the whole concept of purity sickening, to be quite honest.

[Koala]

Amen, if you'll pardon the pun. I also don't understand how women can happily accept all these (very unequal!) restrictions based on... what? Tradition? Maybe some traditions aren't worth following, like the ones that say men and women are "impure" because of their bodily functions. I find the whole concept of purity sickening, to be quite honest.

Couldn't agree more.