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

[defrauding]

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).

I can't answer your question --as OrangeTulips said, only the Dixons know the answer -- but thank you for asking it. Thinking about how Karaite Jews approach menstruation (since they reject rabbinic interpretation) led me to discover a book titled The Stains of Culture: An Ethno-Reading of Karaite Jewish Women. Here's a brief description:

A minority within Judaism, the Karaites are known as a ‘reading community’—one that looks to the Bible as the authority in all areas of life, including intimate relations and hygiene. Here Ruth Tsoffar considers how Egyptian Kariates of the San Francisco Bay Area define themselves, within both California culture and Judaism, in terms of the Bible and its bearing on their bodies. Women’s perspectives play a large role in this ethnography; it is their bodies that are especially regulated by rules of cleanliness and purity to the point where their biological cycles—menstruation, procreation, childbirth, lactation—determine their place in the community.

[2xx1xy1JD]

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.

No, you don't HAVE to go to the rabbi. Women check themselves, and determine whether or not they are still having menstrual bleeding. However, if it's an iffy situation (like staining at the end), she can put the cloth into an envelope, write her phone number on the envelope, and discreetly drop it off with a rabbi (who may never see her face to face). They are training more and more women to do this, to avoid the embarrassment of going to men. Still, the rabbis or female advisors are strictly advisors, and the women decides if she has a question and wants to use them as a resource.

I know that rabbis are sometimes consulted to see if there is room to be lenient - for example, if someone is not conceiving because they assume that you have to wait 7 days after the last tiny spot.

[RR88]

Why does God care in the first place if a woman with spotty underwear passes the salt shaker to her husband?

[Sunnichick31]

Why does God care in the first place if a woman with spotty underwear passes the salt shaker to her husband?

This. I can't even begin to wrap my brain around it.

[Artemis]

I was taught that you shouldn't have sex while you're on your period, and for three days after it ends, because you can transmit disease to your partner through the menstrual blood and that you are more susceptible to catching disease as well. But I'm not sure how legitimate that is, because it was my great-grandmother who told me this, and while I love her, she had some pretty weird ideas about relationships and how they're supposed to work.

This view is quite Victorian - very commonly cited in Victorian pornography. Taboos on sex during menstruation tend to be have been derived from the blood's perceived power as a life-giving fluid, originally, (Greek and Roman medical/scientific authors believed that the foetus was formed from 'a coagulum of menstrual blood' which became translated into male fear of contact with something so powerful, and then soemthing taboo and/or 'unclean'.

I've read somewhere that in some shamanic practices, very powerul shamans would have intercourse with menstruating women, and that although this carried 'risk' it conferred greater power on the men. I need to try and find the link to reference this properly however.

[Koala]

This. I can't even begin to wrap my brain around it.

I can't either.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Tons of posts and not a lot of time, but I'll try my best!

1. When we ask "why do Jews have the niddah rule?", you need to understand that there is a distinction between the Official Religious Reason, and speculation based on cultural assumptions or side benefits that may happen to exist.

The Official Religious Reason is that the rule is given in Leviticus (avoid sex for 1 week after getting your period, and avoid sex for 7 days after bleeding stops if you have other bleeding), and was expanded in the Talmud (Oral Law consisting of tons of rabbinic debate and discussion, which was finally written down around the year 400). The original 7 days of no-sex grew to a minimum of 12 days, out of concern that women couldn't always be sure if there period was just a period, or if it was an early miscarriage instead. The no-touching part comes from the line in Leviticus that says that a man "shall not go near", and it's basically intended to avoid touch leading to sex.

This commandment is considered to be a "supra-rational" one, for which no obvious, logical explanation exists.

Now, outreach organizations will come up with reasons (suggesting that it's great for marriages, good for health, etc.), but I know others who really can't stand that approach. They say that the only real reason to do it is because it's a commandment, period. Part of the concern is that if you sell people on the other reasons, they will stop keeping the commandment once it becomes hard, or think that there is something wrong with them if it doesn't instantly make life wonderful.

2. Translation of terms like "tumah" is really, really difficult. I really HATE the common translations that are used, because "impure" and "unclean" really are words with negative associations. For me, I had to do some deeper reading with other interpretations and do some research, to figure out not only what "tumah" means, but also what is does NOT mean. Being in a state of "tumah" is not a sin - only breaking the rules associated with the state of tumah is sinful. "Tumah" is sometimes associated with being a part of very positive commandments, such as having a baby or burying a dead body. It seems to be related to the life/death nexus, since it's associated with not just menstruation, but also ejaculation, miscarriage, childbirth and death. Bodies of water are connected with birth and re-birth in many ancient traditions.

3. The no-touch rule: yes, there are a list of forbidden activities and categories of touch. However, there is also a general rule that all of this gets suspended in cases of a threat to life, and there are also some other leniencies. Personally, we take a lenient approach when it comes to childbirth and miscarriage - we'll avoid anything that's sexual, but hubby will take his cues from me and if I was in a state that I clearly felt that I NEEDED touch, then we touched. Physical and mental health come first, as far as I'm concerned.

4. I do find the practice to be meaningful and empowering, most of the time. More later....

[QAF_Rocks]

I can't either.

I can't even get my brain to the point where I would see the sense in following a bunch of rules just because some ancient people wrote them down in a book. I understand that they believe the book is supernatural, and thus these things are required of them, but I can only see it as following rules for absolutely no logical reason.

It's one thing if you want to wear a scarf on your head because you think it looks pretty. It's another thing if you do it because you believe a god commands you to do it. It's one thing if you wear skirts because you find pants uncomfortable. It's another if you're doing it because you're taught a god wants you to help stop men from having sexual thoughts. It's one thing if you stay at home with your children because you love the idea of taking care of them. It's another if you do it because you're taught that it's the only correct choice that a god wants women to make.

There's just no way I would cede control of my body to a bunch of old men simply because they claim it's what a god wants me to do. What gives this book or those men authority over me? It's my body, my relationship, and my life! And of course it's always women who get the short end of the stick. In fundie Judaism (and Islam, and Christianity), men aren't being commanded to perform and submit to invasive physical inspections.

[Artemis]

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.

However it isn't necessary not to touch for two weeks either a) to connect on an intellectual and heart to heart basis or b) to have deep conversations and romantic closeness.

I find your clear assumption that people who don't practice niddah are more likely to have 'make up sex' or 'angry sex' really quite insulting, not to mention prejudiced and arrogant. For some of us, marriage involves 'conflict resolution without resorting to sex', 'deep conversations' and 'romantic closeness' every day of the month not just 2 weeks out of the month. I personally have never engaged in 'make-up sex' or 'angry sex', but although I am not happy with the idea of coercion implicit in 'angry sex' I see no reason why 'make-up sex' is such a bad idea once the issues that caused the problem are worked out. It could be a loving and positive way of affirming committment, not the intellectually dishonest cop-out you imply. It's really rather unkind of you to assume that lovers not of your religion are so shallow.

There is no inherent moral superiority in your practice of niddah, but there is a fairly biased implied moral superiority in your attitude toward those of us who don't practice it.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I can't even get my brain to the point where I would see the sense in following a bunch of rules just because some ancient people wrote them down in a book. I understand that they believe the book is supernatural, and thus these things are required of them, but I can only see it as following rules for absolutely no logical reason.

It's one thing if you want to wear a scarf on your head because you think it looks pretty. It's another thing if you do it because you believe a god commands you to do it. It's one thing if you wear skirts because you find pants uncomfortable. It's another if you're doing it because you're taught a god wants you to help stop men from having sexual thoughts. It's one thing if you stay at home with your children because you love the idea of taking care of them. It's another if you do it because you're taught that it's the only correct choice that a god wants women to make.

There's just no way I would cede control of my body to a bunch of old men simply because they claim it's what a god wants me to do. What gives this book or those men authority over me? It's my body, my relationship, and my life! And of course it's always women who get the short end of the stick. In fundie Judaism (and Islam, and Christianity), men aren't being commanded to perform and submit to invasive physical inspections.

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to persuade anyone to take this on. You are quite right that there is a difference between doing something because you see it as a commandment, vs. doing something because you feel like it.

I will just point out, though, that this particular practice really isn't about men having control over women's bodies at all. If anything, it limits men and gives sexual control to women.

In this system, a woman prior to marriage will actually need to learn something about her anatomy, and she will have had to figure out how to insert a piece of cloth into her vagina, 2x/day for seven days. Nobody is doing this for her - she can always ask questions, but she's doing this on her own. Throughout the marriage, she'll be the one to announce when she's off-limits, and when sex is ok again. There's no arguing with this. If SHE isn't sure about something, she can ask a rabbi or female advisor, but that's her call. There's no concept of a woman's body actually belonging to her husband. There are times that a husband won't be able to have sex, and it takes positive actions on the woman's part to restart the sex.

[fluttershies]

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to persuade anyone to take this on. You are quite right that there is a difference between doing something because you see it as a commandment, vs. doing something because you feel like it.

I will just point out, though, that this particular practice really isn't about men having control over women's bodies at all. If anything, it limits men and gives sexual control to women.

In this system, a woman prior to marriage will actually need to learn something about her anatomy, and she will have had to figure out how to insert a piece of cloth into her vagina, 2x/day for seven days. Nobody is doing this for her - she can always ask questions, but she's doing this on her own. Throughout the marriage, she'll be the one to announce when she's off-limits, and when sex is ok again. There's no arguing with this. If SHE isn't sure about something, she can ask a rabbi or female advisor, but that's her call. There's no concept of a woman's body actually belonging to her husband. There are times that a husband won't be able to have sex, and it takes positive actions on the woman's part to restart the sex.

How is it empowering for women who want to have sex while in tumah but can't because of rules some guy wrote? It all assumes that women don't want to initiate sex and that tumah gives them a break, which isn't a very healthy approach towards sexuality. It also assumes that women in sexual relationships with other women don't exist.

[2xx1xy1JD]

How is it empowering for women who want to have sex while in tumah but can't because of rules some guy wrote? It all assumes that women don't want to initiate sex and that tumah gives them a break, which isn't a very healthy approach towards sexuality. It also assumes that women in sexual relationships with other women don't exist.

This system isn't about women being under the sexual control of a particular man, but it is about both men and women being subject to religious rules. The short answer, then, is that someone who practices this isn't going to see the rules as coming from "some guy", but rather from the Ultimate Force Behind the Universe. Some people will find the rules easier than others - for some, it will be a welcome break, while others may find it very hard to abstain.

Judaism in general doesn't say much about women having sexual relationships with women. I don't see niddah prohibitions applying.

[fluttershies]

This system isn't about women being under the sexual control of a particular man, but it is about both men and women being subject to religious rules. The short answer, then, is that someone who practices this isn't going to see the rules as coming from "some guy", but rather from the Ultimate Force Behind the Universe. Some people will find the rules easier than others - for some, it will be a welcome break, while others may find it very hard to abstain.

Judaism in general doesn't say much about women having sexual relationships with women. I don't see niddah prohibitions applying.

Being seen as being from God doesn't make it empowering though, which is what I was getting at. It just means that women are under the sexual control of God/rabbinic law rather than a particular person. It still has a narrow and unhealthy view of female sexuality, and sexuality in general. It still takes away bodily autonomy. No rule that does that can be empowering.

And niddah assumes women are married to men. It's not so much that I'm bothered that the laws might apply to women who are having sex with other women (although niddah applying at all bothers me), it's that they are rendered invisible, as are single and infertile/childfree women. That is incredibly sexist - a woman's worth is determined by her reproductive ability. After all, tumah would be a better time for a woman not wanting to have children to have sex, because it is less likely (I know it's not impossible) for her to concieve, but what a woman actually wants doesn't seem to be important according to these laws.

[RR88]

Shoving bediqa cloths twice a day up one's vagina because it's required doesn't seem to give women much control.

[QAF_Rocks]

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to persuade anyone to take this on. You are quite right that there is a difference between doing something because you see it as a commandment, vs. doing something because you feel like it.

I will just point out, though, that this particular practice really isn't about men having control over women's bodies at all. If anything, it limits men and gives sexual control to women.

If a woman is taught that she must do this, that it's not a choice, then how is that giving her sexual control? She has to perform these invasive rituals on herself regardless if she wants to or not, and you can't tell me that every woman is happy to do this.

There's also the matter of indoctrination, coercion and social pressure. For adult converts, it may be empowering because those women freely choose to enter into this restrictive life as adults. But what of little girls who are raised in this environment? What if they don't want to do these rituals because they find them invasive or frightening or upsetting? What happens to an ultra-orthodox girl who decides she doesn't want to go to the mikvah, or keep kosher, or follow some of the other laws? She's told she must do these things to be a good Jew, to be part of her religious circle. That's not empowering. That's being forced to do something you don't want to do, because a god, a book, or a man tells you to do it.