Mayim Rabim

Okay, the way we usually do the wine thing is he drinks, puts it down, I pick it up. BUT, he makes kiddush not me. The answer to you is easy... Make kiddush, pour your portion into a second cup, drink from second cup. Poof, the remainder of the contents in the first cup are not your remainders, because you never drank from it, and now he can. Another much sillier solution is to drink, put the cup down, and walk out of the room (to wash), at which point he can finish what's in your cup.

There, now aren't you glad you asked? I fixed everything. ;-)

That said, I feel and share your pain. It's hard. Sometimes it's very very hard. We too have forgotten our "reminder" until well into the meal, had to grab something back as the other reached for it, stood there feeling awkward because a hug seemed in order but was currently forbidden. We always ask for two beds (in a hotel, that's two doubles, and how many beds we actually use is up to us!) which was a little strange the time we insisted that we needed two beds when visiting relatives, and they gave us their room b/c it was the only one big enough for that... it had a king sized bed and a sofa. At the time, I was "nursing clean," so we felt pretty silly and just slept on the king sized bed. All three of us, actually. (Baby too.)

And I get snappy too, although I hadn't realized the connection before now. (Thanks.) I just blame it on hormones.

I wish I could help... I will say it gets, well, not easier, but more part of the general rhythm of your life. But it's still hard, and I empathasize completely.

P.S. I think somehow serving your husband or taking something directly from him (and lightly brushing his hand as you do?) is supposed to be enticing, and we've all become desensitized by living in society the way we do. (Where people barely wear clothes and kisses have become a "casual" touch.) It's kind of a shame.

I realized very early on that I become a complete witch somewhere at the midpoint of the niddah period. I have just resigned myself to this, and some months it's easier than others. The harchakot are the absolute worst part of this for me, and I don't think a month goes by without me asking my husband "Can we quit this religion?" You are very right about the set boundaries being easier, I ultimately feel the same way. (Usually when I am not a niddah, though.)

I liked how you mentioned the hiding, though I personally see it as something that is just between my husband and myself. But I don't go crazy with making sure people don't figure out my status, as some other people do.

i know that this is going to be hard for us.. we weren't shomer negiah from the start.. i get very "grouchy" as is.. he's having a rougher time coming to terms with it.. i am curious to see how it will grow our relationship together.. we try practicing some of the harchakot and i just hope it'll be easier when we do have time each month together instead of how life is now...

I keep having the feeling I'm missing something with the wine vs. grape juice issue... why would it make a difference? But I've looked in all my English-language source books ("A Time to Refrain," "Halachos of Niddah" both the Artscroll and Feldheim titles by that name) and I'm not finding anything that would make wine different from grape juice.

The only issue seems to be his drinking her leftovers, which would apply to grape juice as well, and the solutions I suggested should work for both. The only reference I'm finding states explicitly that a wife may "send" her husband a cup of wine, although he may not do the same for her, and she can even serve it to him with a deviation.

So either pour him out a portion before you drink, or pour yourself out your portion before you drink, and you can share a cup of wine for Kiddush.

(I did find a reference that says if he can still see her, it doesn't count as leaving the room... don't know how your living space is set up, but often you can still see the people going to wash from the table, so that other option might not work after all.)

Harchakot are so complicated, and what's a problem in one direction often isn't in the other... I think we all need a "refresher" course, even those who haven't had breaks in observance of T"H due to pregnancy, etc.! Or to read a book such as "A Time To Refrain," which is just the harchakot, no other laws of niddah.

I was taught by my kallah teacher that, when the wife is niddah, she cannot pour out wine specifically designated for her husband at all. That is, if we have guests here and I were to say Kiddush and pour wine into several small cups, he may take one of those cups, but if it's only the two of us I cannot pour out a cup for him even before drinking.

Where did you find the reference to a wife "sending" her husband a cup of wine? I'd like to see it for myself. :) (Said in a curiosity sort of way, not an I-don't-believe-you sort of way.)

Halachos of Niddah (in Hebrew, Sefer Hilchos Niddah) by Rabbi Shimon D. Eider, (Feldheim Publishers) volume beis, page 182.

"The wife may send a cup to her husband
36. The issur of לשלוח לה את הכוס (sending her the cup) prohibits only the husband from passing or sending a cup of wine to his wife (רלב). There is no prohibition against the wife sending a cup of wine to her husband (רלג). We have learned previously that she may even place the cup in front of him -- if a deviation is used."

The footnotes are in Hebrew...(that's what the resh-lamed-beis and resh-lamed-gimel are.) and are mostly rosh HaTevos (acronyms) so he's probably just citing his sources.

What you describe is exactly what I was told about the husband designating a cup of wine, but it doesn't seem to apply in the other direction. Can you get in touch with your kallah teacher and ask her to confirm? Or consult your local Rav? Because there's no point in causing yourself tsuris (troubles) if you don't need to.

"P.S. I think somehow serving your husband or taking something directly from him (and lightly brushing his hand as you do?) is supposed to be enticing, and we've all become desensitized by living in society the way we do. (Where people barely wear clothes and kisses have become a "casual" touch.) It's kind of a shame."

This is deeply misguided. The harchakot were enacted for the society in which chazal were living. who knows, if there was a sanhedrin today, they might get rid of them and enact new ones.
michaela is right. in our society, some activities are desexualized - serving food is just not a come-on anymore (maybe it is in saudi arabia). Observing the harchakot in the 21st century US ironically, might highlight sexuality, rather than minimizing it, because it reminds the couple of what they "can't" do and nidah and hence sex, in what would otherwise be a neutral context. The harchakot were intended to desexualize, and today many find they highlight sexuality instead of minimizing it. It can make things harder, not easier. So what? There are many takanot like that, that were not enacted for our society, and that we are essentially stuck with.
The fact that this is so is a function of galut. Does anyone doubt that we observe yom tov sheyni shel goliyot on a day that is not yom tov, and we know nowadays is not yom tov?
This is a bit like saying that hair is inherently attractive and that is why there are laws for married women to cover their hair. That gets the process backwards. In chazal's time, all married women covered their hair - chazal formalized this into a legal requirement, because women who didn't cover their hair were generally trying to pass for single. In their society, walking around with uncovered hair was the equivalent of taking off a wedding ring in a bar. Sotah notwithstanding, there's little reason to think chazal would have enacted full hair covering if women, gentile and jewish, weren't already covering their hair, or that they'd have enacted such rules in 21st cent. USA.

This entire idea - seeing timeless, inherent messages in rabbinic measures - is misguided. It gets the process wrong. Chazal reacted to the society they were in, and the only "spiritual" message that is present when people perceive conflicts between rabbinic laws and contemporary society is that we live in galut, without sanhedrin, and therefore, part of the daily experience of observant jews is to be tied to rituals that are not in sync with their emotions, experiences, culture.

This tendency to make every rabbinic rule a "meaningful" experience, expressing timeless thoughts, disregards the halachic process, and more importantly, disregards and wishes away the experience of galut. The galut experience *is* that much we do makes no sense for our times.

This trend to new agey spiritualizing of rabbinic "Fence" laws is a trend that derives from Oprah, from conservative xianity, from our general culture that insists that every action has to reflect our true inner state - and it is increasingly sold as the religious experience to strive for. We can only reach that alignment between inner state and experience if we pretend that our life today is like life in chazal's times - that women have the same role in society - and so what then follows are prescriptions for ensuring that. But chazal intended no comment on the status quo - they weren't trying to say that it's good or bad to be turned on when someone passes the salt - they just noted that the behaviors of passing food, sitting on the same couch, etc, were sexualized behaviors in their culture, and responded accordingly. There was no value judgement attached, and it's wrongheaded to attach it.

Athena, you make some fascinating points, and I partly agree and partly disagree with you.

On the one hand, I personally think it's really important to remember that we do what we do because it's the halacha, not because of what it "means." Why is it important to remember this? At least two reasons. One, most "reasons" that are suggested for keeping halacha are vulnerable to being refuted, and you don't want people to think the halacha itself has been refuted. Two, you don't want people to run away with the idea and think they should add things on to the halacha for the same "reason." I see this especially with regard to restrictions on women. I know there are technical ones that are built into halacha, but it seems to me they've been not only apologized for, but celebrated, to the point where women became restricted in ways they were never required to be.

On the other hand, the practice of trying to find meaning in the mitzvot is not some kind of new-age practice, it goes back all the way to the times of the same rabbis who instituted these laws. As stated, it is a risky practice - and as you point out, susceptible to ideas from contemporary culture that have might have nothing to do with the original intent, or with Judaism at all. But it's also an understandable effort, and even an admirable one. It *might* be true, as you suggest, that we are supposed to live the fact that much of our practice is meaningless, and accept that as part of our mourning for all we've lost. But isn't it very human to strive to find meaning? And if it adds depth to someone's practice to think "I do this because it's written in the Gemara, but it also has other layers of meaning for me", if it inspires them, why should it be condemned?

For this reason, but also in general, I'd suggest that you try to find another way to phrase your disagreement than labelling others' opinions "wrongheaded." We all come from different religious backgrounds here, and have different approaches to the practice of and philosophy behind T"H. I think we have to go the extra mile in fostering an atmosphere of mutual respect.

By the way, although I'm intrigued, I'm not entirely convinced of your logic. If the reason these harchakot are meaningless is that we're in Galut, are you suggesting that all these behaviors would become re-sexualized, if only we were redeemed? How does that follow?

Athena, you've lost me. What is the connection with Oprah? (I know she has a talk show, but that's about all... I don't watch tv.)

Anyway, Oprah aside, I think you took my comment the wrong way. I didn't mean to imply that Chazal were forcing sexuality down our throats by instituting harchakos that would force us to think of certain actions that way. I agree with you in that they were enacted because at the time these things were arousing.

My comments were directed at "how fall we have fallen." I did not grow up Orthodox, and in high school thought nothing of kissing male friends on the cheek in greeting, or hugging them when we said good-bye. I still think it's a shame that hugs and kisses have become casual touch. Hugs and kisses should be arousing!

Isn't sharing a plate of food enticing? Think of the spaghetti scene from the (animated!) "Lady and the Tramp." Sipping one milkshake from two straws is definitely date behavior. I've been told that some shomer negiah (careful about touching the opposite sex) high schoolers from co-ed day schools often "sneak a feel" by purposely brushing hands when passing an object from hand to hand. Yes you can be extra careful when passing something to your spouse during niddah, but it's far easier to put it down for the other to pick up. Throwing the car keys directly from one person to the other, which is also forbidden during niddah? Well, you've got me there. I don't find that sexy... there's no actual contact.

I don't disagree that were the harkakos enacted today, they might be different. But I hesitate to decide what should and shouldn't be considered arousing based on contemporary society.

Oh, and by the way, my mother told me when I was younger that boys like long hair, and I should keep it long if I wanted boys to notice me. So maybe hair is inherently sexy! And I don't think Chazal, enacting laws today, would say, well, everyone bares their bellybuttons and wears sheer blouses over mint green bras, so that must be tzinusdik (modest). There are basic guidelines that have little to do with contemporary society, which bares too much and shows too much, and makes every effort to desexualize and desensitize its members.

And yes, that is my opinion, not an undisputed fact, but I would rather live in a world where sexuality is a private matter between husband and wife, not shouted on every billboard and flaunted by every woman walking down the street. And if for that to truly happen I have to wait for Mashiach (Messiah) and the geulah (final redemption), then I'll pray ever harder for both to come, soon, in our time.

"For this reason, but also in general, I'd suggest that you try to find another way to phrase your disagreement than labelling others' opinions "wrongheaded.""

You're right, I really apologize. I've been ODing lately on spiritualized reasons for rabbinic enactments.

"I see this especially with regard to restrictions on women. I know there are technical ones that are built into halacha, but it seems to me they've been not only apologized for, but celebrated, to the point where women became restricted in ways they were never required to be."

This is part of what I am reacting to (generally - I don't mean to imply that this sentiment was present in the original post here). I see this in some of the texts on tzniut, and the like - the infamous work by R. Falk on tzniut strikes me as an example of this.

I would distinguish between spirit of the law for d'oreita obligations and takanot d'rabbanon for the obvious reasons. (Of course there are also many rabbinic obligations where the "spirit of law" seems timeless. I suppose following the rambam's view that some mitzvot were intended to wean away from avoda zora, not all mitzvot d'oriesa are timeless either, but I think the view that d'oreisa obligations always contain multiple spiritual benefits is compelling.)

"If the reason these harchakot are meaningless is that we're in Galut, are you suggesting that all these behaviors would become re-sexualized, if only we were redeemed?"

I don't mean that they are meaningless. Just that they weren't intended as a comment on what "ideally" should be viewed as eroticism, but more in response to what *was* considered erotic. My point about harchokot is that, as a function of galut, we simply can't know one way or the other whether the cultural norms they are based on are viewed as universal ideals. It could be that the exact same harchakot would be re-institutionalized as ideal - but it could be that a re-established sanhedrin would enact totally different ones. I think a certain amount of not knowing - feeling distant from knowing god's will - is the galut experience.

I don't object to finding personal meaning, and I shouldn't rant so much. I think that when people DO experience takanot as out of line with their experience, that they shouldn't feel compelled to force their emotions in line, because I think that dissonance is an authentic spiritual reaction, perhaps even the ideal reaction or the real spirit of *some* rabbinic laws today.

Desde:

"But I hesitate to decide what should and shouldn't be considered arousing based on contemporary society."
I agree. My point was that one can't really use harchakot to decide what "ought" to be arousing either.

I think tznius may be a bit different, because some of the values are universal - some things must be covered in all societies - but beyond that, there's only an obligation to conform to local mores. Maybe there is an ideal in the absolute requirements that are not dependent on local practice.

Tzniut is probably a useful example. I'm not sure to what extent halachot of tzniut, as practiced, can speak to universals, because requirements of tznius vary from culture to culture, with Jewish women obligated to wear the veil in cultures where Gentile women do, and not obligated to wear shoes when Gentile women don't, etc. Who's to say what the cultural ideal should be, in areas where halacha leaves a lot dependent on cultural norms? So much of what strikes us as immodest or modest is subjective, or based on arbitrary sensibilities that we've grown accustomed to. In some RW charedi circles, ankle length skirts are viewed as "bohemian" and designed to attract attention. I don't get that - I think the more fabric, the more modest. Maybe the burqa really is the ideal in modesty. Or maybe it is oppressive and evil - how can we determine that? As I mentioned above, a lot of what I'm reacting to is extrapolating beyond the givens, a sort of devotion to the spirit of the law, that I think I see in contemporary Orthodoxy.

I do think that segregated societies generally sensitize people to the erotic, and I think that is largely positive. It probably has downsides too, but overall, I think traditional emphasis on modesty is very beneficial. (BTW, I think throwing car keys is mildly fliratious, LOL , depending I guess how it's done.)
Maybe the difference in my reaction is that I grew up in fairly RW circles, and take some of the emphasis or highlighting of sexuality for granted, and see the Orthodox community as overinvesting in recent years in emphasizing the spirit of the law thing, beyond what seems justified.

I apologize again for the tone of my original comment.

So it seems we mainly agree after all... so what was all that about "wrong headed" and "misguided"? (Said in a light, teasing tone)

Apology accepted.

Ankle length skirts are immodest? What are you supposed to wear? Straight or a-line mid-calf length skirts, marked at exactly the midline? All suits (with slits appropriately replaced with kick pleats) all the time?

Well, some people think snoods are immodest (since they draw attention: You wouldn't believe, or maybe you would! how many people stop me to ask if I'm muslim, or assume that I am, because of the snood) and some think sheitels are (too easily confused with real hair and less obvious that you're married). I think a lot of people are getting carried away with the whole tzinus thing. On the details, I mean.

Nitpicking doesn't serve any purpose, you know? And "cultural norms" seem to vary by block in some neighborhoods.

Spirit of the law is important... as someone once told me, "in Judaism, the letter of the law is the spirit of the law..." but once again, I think we're getting stuck in the details. Thanks for sharing your perspective, Athena. It's been rather enlightening, as most of the discussions on mayimrabim seem to be.

Athena, I'm impressed by both your returning to apologize and your distinction between the attempt to attribute reasons to rabbinic laws vs. biblical laws. As you point out, there are probably exceptions, but it's a very coherent position.
In an odd way it seems like it should be the other way around - one might think it's wrong or beyond our grasp to ask why Gd wants us to do something, but we should be able to figure out human reasoning. But once you explain that you're not talking about whether something has a reason, but whether that reason is timeless, it makes perfect sense.

This is an article (in Hebrew) that puts some order into the halachot of harchakot. It explains what is d'oraita, tanaitic, amoraim, rishonim, achronim.
It does not pasken about any of the practices but is meant to be a guide for Rabbis (or others) that need to give psak on this topic.

Kobi

Kobi - that article looks really interesting. Where/what is it from?

Michaela, I know this is not a practical issue for you yet, but just FYI -- I think one well-known Yeshiva University posek holds that it's okay to pass a baby from one to the other if you need to. The reasoning is that a baby can be considered a choleh she'ein bo sakanah (someone who is ill though not in any danger), for whom many of the harchakot can be put aside when there's a need. But it's a fairly recent psak, and although many YU rabbis have adopted it, it's not accepted across the board. So not every kallah teacher is aware of it or presents it.

My memory may be getting a little fuzzy by now, especially since I haven't been lucky enough to need this particular bit of information yet. If you already know that your posek says passing a baby is a problem -- or if you would not follow a posek from Yeshiva University -- that's that. But if you're interested in following this up, feel free to email me for his name.

FWIW, we've figured out a way to take care of the wine issue:

Whenever we have guests, he makes Kiddush, holding the cup closest to the side of the table where I sit, and he pours off the right number of little cups for everyone at the table (including me) before he drinks from the big cup. I pass the cups to everyone else. That prevents anyone from figuring out that I can't drink from his cup, and no single cup that he pours is "designated" for me.

He's been studying Hilchos Niddah in Kollel for a while already, so I can usually ask him most of my questions without needing to call a Rav. (He still has to drop off Bedikas, though, but he's figured out the schedules of all the local Rabbis so he knows where to find them and when.) Boy does it help that he knows his stuff!

Hmmm.. I will question the theory of harkokas not being arousing. I remember an episode that occured after a record breaking 4 months of niddah (no one should know of it) The kids couldn't understand why Tatti and Mommy were having so much fun tossing a towel to each other. The spark of electricity that passes with the passed set of car keys. The fingers brushing as we pass the baby. I highly recommend the Rabbi Manis Friendman book- "Why people don't blush anymore." It has some very nice insights on this topic.