Q&A: Desire Blood
Desire Blood
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’m trying to understand the relevance nowadays of the decree concerning desire blood.
I came up with the following sources — and for the moment let’s set aside the question of whether relations before marriage are permitted or forbidden (the law of a concubine, etc.), and assume that there are people who do this and who also make sure to immerse in a ritual bath even though they are not married. The question is only about desire blood and not about other kinds of bleeding.
From the Talmudic Micro-Pedia:
If she was asked to have intercourse immediately, the later authorities (Acharonim) disagreed about this:
Some say that we are not concerned about desire, and they were only concerned where she was asked to marry after some time (Taz there, subsec. 1).
And some say that one should not distinguish in this way, but for any intercourse that is not in the context of marriage they were not concerned about desire, because desire connected with marriage is greater (Havot Da’at there, subsec. 1).
From Peninei Halakha:
“Some say that a couple who lived together for a long time without a halakhic marriage, and merited to repent, and afterward were moved to marry properly with a huppah and kiddushin—even if her cycles had already ceased, and even if she had already become purified from her menstruation, she must purify herself for the marriage by means of an initial examination, seven clean days, and immersion (Laws of Family Purity 9:4). However, the Jewish law follows the opinion of most halakhic decisors, that she does not need to immerse, since because they were in a stable relationship, no special desire is aroused in anticipation of the marriage (Ashrei Ha-Ish 26:36; Shevet Ha-Kehati 6:317).”
Meaning, based on this:
1. A couple who want to be together without marriage — there is no issue of desire blood.
2. A couple marrying after they have already had relations with each other — there is no issue of desire blood.
3. A couple marrying without having had relations beforehand — in any case immersion is already part of the standard procedure before the wedding (and certainly there is more than a month between the marriage proposal and the wedding).
So in today’s reality, is the concept of desire blood practically relevant only when the couple want to have relations for the first time after the marriage proposal…? (That seems like a pretty unlikely scenario to me, but I couldn’t think of another scenario that isn’t included in the three possibilities above…)
Answer
As far as I’m concerned, this depends on the medical facts. Is there really blood that comes out because of desire, or not? If not, then this whole decree is based on a mistake. If so, then one should follow the accepted parameters of Jewish law.
Regarding this, you brought the various opinions, and I don’t understand what the question is.
Discussion on Answer
You yourself wrote what follows from it. I don’t understand what the question is. If indeed you adopt all these approaches, then that is what comes out.
Of course there is. In practice I’ve encountered these questions.
Joshua — can you elaborate?
The Schlesinger Institute wrote that something like this could happen because of mood changes, although in terms of the wording of the decree that makes no difference at all, because even if no blood is seen, she still has to count and immerse out of concern that maybe there was blood and they didn’t see it—which I also don’t understand: how could that be, and since when do we make decrees about something that isn’t seen? Or maybe with the style of clothing and hygienic practices in the past, there was a greater chance that they wouldn’t notice a small amount of bleeding, which doesn’t seem likely nowadays in my opinion. What does the Rabbi actually think about that?
Though my original question was whether there is really any practical difference at all from this decree, or whether in modern conduct it just isn’t relevant in practice.