Q&A: Holding a laboring woman's hand during childbirth
Holding a laboring woman's hand during childbirth
Question
Hello honored Rabbi, I saw that nowadays they forbid holding a laboring woman's hand during childbirth (some say that in a case of real necessity it can be done with a "glove").
I wanted to ask the Rabbi a few questions on this topic: after all, we see that for a woman in labor one may desecrate the Sabbath even in order to calm her mind (for example, to turn on the light even though she is blind), whereas regarding a laboring woman, the prohibition against holding her hand is rabbinic according to Nachmanides. And even if we follow Maimonides, who holds that it is Torah-level, the Shakh says that even according to Maimonides, contact that is not contact of desire is rabbinic. And in fact we see that they permitted desecrating the Sabbath even for the woman's emotional need, and to bring a doula [(birth support person), according to the ruling of Rabbi Avraham Yosef]. So why, in the case of holding her hand, where it is clear to us that this is at least for calming her mind, if not more than that, do they not permit it, even though it is only rabbinic?
Answer
The only difference is the possibility that this falls under the category of secondary prohibitions connected to forbidden sexual relations (a menstruant woman), regarding which it was said: "If he speaks with her from behind a fence, he should not speak with her." The Ran's view is that even with rabbinic secondary prohibitions, the rule of "be killed rather than transgress" applies. But it seems to me that there is broad room to be lenient in such a case against the Ran, especially with touch that is not affectionate. Also because the Ran's words are far from universally accepted and not very reasonable. And also because a menstruant woman is different from the other forbidden sexual relationships in several respects. And even if we are in doubt whether to forbid it or not, one should rule leniently because of danger to life. The burden of proof is on the one who forbids.
Of course, this is when it is very, very important to the laboring woman and there is concern that she may lose her mental stability. If she just happens to want it, I would not permit it. I oppose sweeping permissions just because it is written in the Talmud or because some halakhic decisor said so. Everything depends on the circumstances.
The emotional need is not some special category. The Sages assessed that emotional need (calming her mind) can also reach the point of danger to life, and therefore they permitted it. That is all.
Discussion on Answer
Not true. In the case of a doctor there is not even a rabbinic prohibition (because he is occupied with his work), and therefore it is not considered a secondary prohibition connected to forbidden sexual relations.
With all due respect, I don't understand what the problem is with squeezing my wife's hand while she is giving birth.
This religion is terribly hard for me—what is this severe prohibition?
Why would God not want me to hold my wife's hand while she is giving birth?
Sometimes I just don't understand.
Sometimes it's simply hard for me to believe.
You understand everything else, Yossi? Do you understand why we don't eat pork? And why we observe the forbidden labors of the Sabbath? As Mr. Churchill already said about this: I did not promise you a rose garden (a religion that would be easy for you).
For many years already, the faithful of Israel have not held hands during childbirth, and as far as I know, not a single case has ever been documented of a woman losing her mental stability because of it.
You're right, Michi, but my heart isn't willing to admit it.
And how does your heart cope with the prohibition on a mamzer entering the congregation? With the obligation to give up one's life for sanctification of God's name? With the law that a priest's wife who was raped must divorce him? I don't really understand why specifically holding a laboring woman's hand is what got to you, but the ways of the heart are wondrous…
If this is a secondary prohibition, then we would have to say that a doctor is also forbidden to touch her. After all, even "be killed rather than transgress" would apply, so clearly no one is worried about that… so why do they still forbid it if the woman asks for it, even though she knows that strictly speaking it is forbidden? This is exactly like any other law.