Q&A: Menstrual Cycles
Menstrual Cycles
Question
A. Nowadays, since most women do not have fixed menstrual cycles, is there still a need to be concerned for the monthly cycle and the interval-based cycle under the law of a non-fixed cycle? After all, the whole concern with a non-fixed cycle is that perhaps it will become established, but today, when we see that it does not repeat itself, is there still a need for concern? And this seems similar to a skipping cycle, where until it is established we are not concerned.
B. What is the Rabbi's view about the monthly cycle being determined according to the Hebrew month? The whole justification for this is what the Shakh brings from the Jerusalem Talmud about virginity returning, that the religious court changes reality.
Answer
A. I am not familiar with the data—how many women never have an established cycle. Perhaps it would be possible to change things on the assumption that this is indeed true of all women. However, this brings us into the question of: when the reason no longer applies, does the enactment nevertheless remain in force? And also, something established by formal count requires another formal count to permit it.
B. The Jerusalem Talmud has nothing to do with what the Shakh puts into its mouth there. Simply speaking, this is about a formal determination, not a claim that a religious court determines physiological reality. That is simply nonsense.
Discussion on Answer
A. This is a law brought by all the halakhic decisors. Talmudic law is binding. Does it have the status of the Great Court? See Tur 477. But even if not, its repeal has to be done in the same way as its enactment: just as the Talmud was accepted by the entire body of the sages of Israel, so too its repeal must be accepted by such a forum.
B. I did not understand the argument. Here too it could be formal. Besides, it is possible that the moon has an influence, and that the date in the month affects the woman.
Thank you for the quick answer.
A. Does every law stated by an amora in the Talmud have the status of an enactment? Because seemingly Rav Pappa said that after one time we are concerned, and maybe that does not have the formal status of an enactment. I am only asking, not asserting.
B. You can make your claim that it is only a formal matter regarding virginity returning—that the boundary of three years is not really exactly three precise years day for day, but approximately, and the precise determination is formal. But regarding the monthly cycle, it is supposed to recur every month on the same day, and perhaps even at the same hour. If so, here the physiological reality corresponds to the rabbinic laws, because whether the month is full or deficient, it is supposed to come on the same date of the month.