Responsa for Niddah 33:47
ות"ח מאפיל בכסותו ומשמש
This is no difficulty, since the latter refers to flax while the former refers to garments of flax. And if you prefer I might reply: Both refer to garments of flax but the latter deals with new ones while the former deals with old ones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The more they are washed the more suitable they are for the purpose. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A lived normally with his wife L for some time. Later, however, L detected discharges of blood during copulation on three occasions. Should L "examine herself" (Niddah 66a, with a lead tube, in order to discover whether the blood flows from the interior of the womb or from the walls of the vagina) or must A divorce her immediately? In case of divorce, is L entitled to her ketubah?
A. Rashi and Ri hold opposite views on this subject. We are not at liberty to disregard Rashi's view and, therefore, can not permit A to live with L even if an "examination" will produce favorable results. However, we must make the following distinction: If the three acts of copulation during which blood
was detected were consecutive, A must divorce L forthwith; but, if they were not consecutive and between each act there were other acts during which no trace of blood was detected, A is permitted to live with L. If the copulations during which blood was detected, occurred on specific dates, or at regular intervals, A must refrain from copulation on such dates. Moreover, if A is not anxious to remarry, and is willing to allow L to live away from him in another district and to deal with her through an intermediary or only in the presence of a third party, he does not have to divorce her. In case of divorce, however, L is entitled to the Ikkar-ketubah and to her dowry, but she cannot collect the additional jointure, since some authorities are of the opinion that under the circumstances she is not entitled to the additional jointure.
This Resp. is addressed to "my relative Rabbi Baruch ha-Kohen."
SOURCES: Am II, 49; Rashba I, 839, 40; Pr. 625; Mord. Niddah, 735; Hag. Maim., Isurei Biah 8, 3. Cf. Sefer ha Terumah 106–7; Maharil, Responsa 173.
A. Rashi and Ri hold opposite views on this subject. We are not at liberty to disregard Rashi's view and, therefore, can not permit A to live with L even if an "examination" will produce favorable results. However, we must make the following distinction: If the three acts of copulation during which blood
was detected were consecutive, A must divorce L forthwith; but, if they were not consecutive and between each act there were other acts during which no trace of blood was detected, A is permitted to live with L. If the copulations during which blood was detected, occurred on specific dates, or at regular intervals, A must refrain from copulation on such dates. Moreover, if A is not anxious to remarry, and is willing to allow L to live away from him in another district and to deal with her through an intermediary or only in the presence of a third party, he does not have to divorce her. In case of divorce, however, L is entitled to the Ikkar-ketubah and to her dowry, but she cannot collect the additional jointure, since some authorities are of the opinion that under the circumstances she is not entitled to the additional jointure.
This Resp. is addressed to "my relative Rabbi Baruch ha-Kohen."
SOURCES: Am II, 49; Rashba I, 839, 40; Pr. 625; Mord. Niddah, 735; Hag. Maim., Isurei Biah 8, 3. Cf. Sefer ha Terumah 106–7; Maharil, Responsa 173.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy