Talk:Niddah

message: There seems to be a fair amount of identical text between this article and http://www.beingjewish.com/cycle/niddah.html I dont know which came first or which copied the other  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.4.250 (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: plagiarism?

message: I have radically reduced the amount of links. Some linked articles were off the topic (this is on Niddah, not on sexuality in Judaism). Others were multiple links to the same resource. I have linked to the main resource pages, effectively reducing duplicates.<BR>
Niddah probably needs no more than three links. Wikipedia is not a link repository. JFW | T@lk 10:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing the links

message: I made one deletion: "Jews do not make jokes about private bedroom matters."  Oh yes they do. Not only do non-Orthodox Jews sometimes make jokes, but so do many Orthodox Jews I have known, including Modern Orthodox and Lubavitch. And a (stunningly beautiful) non-Jewish ex-girlfriend of mine worked for a couple of summers in the Satmar Hasidic community, and was privy to (and sometimes the subject of) many such jokes. (For some reason, since she was non-Jewish, and pretty, the men didn't seem to think that regular laws of tzniout applied.)  Maybe we can say that Jewish law codes hold that one does not make jokes about private bedroom matters; that would be more accurate. RK
:Anectodal and suspect evidence is not a basis for editing a Wikipedia article.38.117.213.19 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews and bedroom jokes

message: Currently all the sections are the same level, even some with similar subject matter aren't grouped.  I won't be hurt by any changes, just stubbing-out a grouping to get it started.
— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>    
:On the whole, I personally try to avoid level 4 headers. Good work, though. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation 

message: "As society has rediscovered the importance of spirituality,"
Huh?? Cite some examples of society's rediscoverance of spirituality. I see no evidence of it here...perhaps you are living in another society... Or did you mean Jewish society? I am not qualified to comment on that, but I would assume the spirituality of the Jewish community is not that different from the community of the U.S. (or any other nation) as a whole.
:It is indeed a rather bold speculation. JFW | T@lk 08:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spirituality?

message: I suppose as a purely practical matter a woman can't be niddah on her wedding day and night. But how is she to know far enough ahead of time to plan the wedding whether or not she's going to be niddah on a particular day? —Angr 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Happens all the time. Orthodox women try to take their cycles into account in planning their wedding day, but irregularities happen. A women who marries while a niddah can't consummate the marriage until after niddah ends and she immerses. Not the best situation, but part of being an Orthodox Jew.  Best, --Shirahadasha 05:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if she's niddah, she can't even touch her husband, right? How can they hold hands during the ceremony, or kiss at the end, or dance at the reception? (I don't know if any of those are customary at Orthodox weddings anyway, but if they are...) —Angr 05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to tzniut, at least some Orthodox couples refrain from even the mildest PDA anyhow, so it's not a "problem" from that standpoint.  I've definitely seen Jewish weddings where the bride and groom don't kiss, as well as ones where they do, I'm not sure that there's a "standard" other than the levels of modesty demanded by the couple's particular community.  -- Batshua 07:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You have not heard it, but it is true. And the problem with birth control inherent in such pills is taken care of by the rabbinical tradition that (with rare exeptions) "a woman does not get pregnant from the first intercourse". Apart from that, I'd like to correct you on 2 points: Chabad chasidim also typically wait only a few months between the engagement and the chuppah; all the calculations of the girl are messed up by her anticipation of the marriage, which wrecks havoc on her menstrual cycle. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  At the wedding? 

message: I'm surpised that no-one here has mentioned that when a Jewish bride is a Niddah at her wedding the entire ceremony is called a "Chupat Niddah" (it's not a desirable scenario, and is generally avoided, because the bride and groom do not go home together after their wedding, a rather unfortunate outcome for both) and that therefore many Orthodox women who are engaged to be married go to a doctor and receive a precsription for a dosage of a safe oral contraceptive pill that stops their menstrual period for a month or two during which time the actual marriage is scheduled to be held. They stop taking the pill a few days after the wedding night when, in most cases, the bride becomes a Niddah due to losing her virginity after her hymen is broken and dam betulim ("hymenal" bleeding) ensues (in the majority of cases, first-time Orthodox brides are assumed to be virgins.) The percentage of women who do this in the Haredi community is quite high and it is ok'd by most Haredi rabbis. This is nothing new, it's been practiced since the pill was introduced on a mass commercial scale in the 1960s, and was shown to have very few side-effects, especially if taken for a very short duration of a few months. IZAK 09:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not heard it, but it is true. And the problem with birth control inherent in such pills is taken care of by the rabbinical tradition that (with rare exeptions) "a woman does not get pregnant from the first intercourse". Apart from that, I'd like to correct you on 2 points: Chabad chasidim also typically wait only a few months between the engagement and the chuppah; all the calculations of the girl are messed up by her anticipation of the marriage, which wrecks havoc on her menstrual cycle. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Chupas Niddah versus the pill

message: ===Content from article===
nb: meta-commentary like this always belongs on the talk page. I'm redirecting the article to Niddah, per the merge tag. -- phoebe/(talk)  01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. "Family purity" is a quasi-translation of the hebrew Tahara, ritual purity, and has a well-established meaning of those aspects of ritual purity that apply within families. Because of this well-established meaning, there was a proposal in Conservative Judaism (described in the Niddah article) to stop using the term "family purity" and substitute "family holiness".  If you have reliable sources that some people use the term differently, the article can mention this. An analogous case is the Kashrut articles, where the "Eco-Kosher" view that the term "Kashrut" shouldn't be limited to dietary laws but should encompass views of ethical relations with the environment as a whole was found notable enough to warrant a brief mention. Perhaps this may also be so regarding the view of Taharat HaMishpacha you espouse. Currently, however, no sources have been produced to confirm it, and the Conservative proposal for a conscious change of terminology tends to confirm the opposite. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: old comments merged from [[Talk:Jewish laws of family purity]]

message: nb: meta-commentary like this always belongs on the talk page. I'm redirecting the article to Niddah, per the merge tag. -- phoebe/(talk)  01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. "Family purity" is a quasi-translation of the hebrew Tahara, ritual purity, and has a well-established meaning of those aspects of ritual purity that apply within families. Because of this well-established meaning, there was a proposal in Conservative Judaism (described in the Niddah article) to stop using the term "family purity" and substitute "family holiness".  If you have reliable sources that some people use the term differently, the article can mention this. An analogous case is the Kashrut articles, where the "Eco-Kosher" view that the term "Kashrut" shouldn't be limited to dietary laws but should encompass views of ethical relations with the environment as a whole was found notable enough to warrant a brief mention. Perhaps this may also be so regarding the view of Taharat HaMishpacha you espouse. Currently, however, no sources have been produced to confirm it, and the Conservative proposal for a conscious change of terminology tends to confirm the opposite. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content from article

message: *Shalom bayit (peace and harmony in the relationship between husband and wife)
*Role of women in Judaism
:I respectfully disagree. "Family purity" is a quasi-translation of the hebrew Tahara, ritual purity, and has a well-established meaning of those aspects of ritual purity that apply within families. Because of this well-established meaning, there was a proposal in Conservative Judaism (described in the Niddah article) to stop using the term "family purity" and substitute "family holiness".  If you have reliable sources that some people use the term differently, the article can mention this. An analogous case is the Kashrut articles, where the "Eco-Kosher" view that the term "Kashrut" shouldn't be limited to dietary laws but should encompass views of ethical relations with the environment as a whole was found notable enough to warrant a brief mention. Perhaps this may also be so regarding the view of Taharat HaMishpacha you espouse. Currently, however, no sources have been produced to confirm it, and the Conservative proposal for a conscious change of terminology tends to confirm the opposite. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: There are a lot of mistakes and inaccuracies in this area of the article. For example running water is never required. This seems to be a common misconception. I will slowly fix the errors.Benignuman 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that although outside the topic of Rabbinic Judaism, Falashan Jews required immersion in running water among other special niddah practices, although I understand that upon immigration to Israel their practices have become more assimilated. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That will be worth noting indeed, as soon as you can bring a source for that information. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  rabbinic literature 

message: What with documentery hypothesis stuff. Most people never heard of the priestly code and the holiness code (didn't it used to be just the P document?) and it is irelevant to the subject of niddah. Why not just discuss leviticus where all this is written. Why is this viewed as two codes anyway one is the description of the reality of niddah and one is the laws and punishments related to it. It sounds like just two chapters of the same code?Benignuman 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of Wikipedia editors seem to have a fetish of taking every reference to the Bible and turning it into a reference to one of the documents in the Documentary hypothesis. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priestly code? 

message: The current article is written in classical historic fashion of "Bible", "Rabbinic literature" and "Modern Judaism". The result is that the Orthodox laws of Niddah are more or less arbitrarily divided between the latter two categories. There are still traces of a binary divide between "Orthodox Judaism" and "Progressive Judaism": in this area Conservative Judaism is distinctly different from both in theory (although less so in practice). 
My suggestion would be to restructure the article by beginning with the Biblical rules, outline the role of the Talmud and classical commentaries, then outline the classical rules in one place, then discuss contemporary Orthodox practices, then outline the Conservative movement's views, then Reform etc. Will await comments before any attempt at rearrangement. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The current, as it has been for quite a while, reads much like an Orthodox Jewish manual, not an NPOV encyclopedia article.  Also, encyclopedic content has repeatedly been deleted, and subtle attacks on non-Orthodox interpretations of Judaism have been substituted.  Not good.  I have tried to improve the article by including some discussion with references on historical study, and on the responsa within the Conservative movement. (Much of it had been in the article before, and was deleted.) RK (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring article 

message: What is the correct usage?
#I am niddah.
#I am a niddah.
#I am in niddah.
If we understand the hebrew, niddah is a descriptive.  As such option 1 is correct, similar to "I am white". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.162.23 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 July 2009
:I'm not sure about the technical answer to your question, but in everyday conversation I think either of the first 2 would be ok. I think the second one is actually more common. -shirulashem (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first: "I am niddah." Debresser (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammer 

message: There is a dispute regarding the inclusion of an external link to www.mymikvahcalendar.com. I don't think it's clear cut, but I'm inclined to allow the link for a few reasons:
#As per WP:NOTLINK, "[Wikipedia is not a] mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." This link is useful, it is content-relevant, and there aren't excessive links on the page.
#Seems to meet all of WP:ELNO (it DOES provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it was a featured article, it's not a website that requires payment, etc.)
#The guidelines in WP:SPAMMER seem to all be OK.
Personally, I can't stand extraneous external links, but in this case I think it belongs. -shirulashem (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this opinion. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.mymikvahcalendar.com link 

message: The statement "It initially was a custom of the pious, not a law for all" is not correct. However, it WAS initially a law for all: "The Biblical requirement of niddah is 7 days from the beginning of the menstrual period" (see "Duration of menstruation and niddah status"). I corrected the statement accordingly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrrhmayde (talk • contribs) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Orthodox historical study of the seven extra days

message: This paragraph has an incomplete ending: Either the word "concerning" should be deleted or someone add the appropriate ending to: "The term is overwhelmingly used in Judaism to refer to the rules of Jewish law concerning..." What? Paleocon44 (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this before, but didn't look into it. After reading this post I looked it up and saw that one word somehow got lost in one of the revisions. Fixed. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIDDAH 

message: I've noticed that a lot of references to Niddah practice on this page are to the Mishneh Torah.  These are certainly not valid sources for what people do today, which is the implication of how they're placed.  They're certainly legit primary sources for the halacha, but not really the best even for that, as far as contemporary halacha lemaaseh is concerned.  Head's up -- as such, I plan to delete them soon with tags for appropriate sources. Savant1984 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I retract that on further consideration and looking at it.  They still aren't the best refs for halacha lemaaseh, but in context they're not bad and I shan't delete them.  Anyone know where to find strikethrough in the new interface? Savant1984 (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also think they are good enough, since they are the factual basis for many modern halachot, and use clear and concise language. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mishneh Torah References 

message: In Religious response to ART, the Judaism section is structured to include all opinions (and cites conservative responsa on Niddah).  I'd like to see something similar here.  The challenge (as pointed out above) is partly that there is a much larger body of information from the orthodox perspective.  User:Savant1984's comment on the Judaism discussion board is a valid one but I'm not sure how to best implement it.  Can people propose a structure here and once there is consensus on the structure, implement it in the article?  Joe407 (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think here the way I did it makes sense to me: in the section on practical law, we have the law presented with disputes noted and ideological labels as appropriate.  In areas where there's broader difference between the movements -- e.g., institutional responses to mamzerut -- I think it makes sense to have wholly different sections.  Here, though, it would just be awkward and redundant.  Savant1984 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I also think the way I did it makes sense. There is a speial section for it. I argued this in detail above, please see there. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interest of keeping this discussion from going totally all over the place on the page, I'm going to continue it above as well. Savant1984 (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-orthodox opinions and practice 

message: Noticing the extensive page length, I propose creation of the additional pages (Niddah (Halachic detail) (for all nuances relating to the Issur aspect -harchakot etc. -as opposed to the Tumah and Taharah aspect) and Stringency of Rabbi Zeira for specifics already listed on this page and for more information that is lacking. 
In addition, there seem to be a few concepts repeating themselves (at times even more than twice).  I have placed a "under construction" template on the page and invite others to help remove redundant content.
--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment I see no reason to trim this article. There are guidelines for when an article should be split, and we haven't reached them here. In addition, the subject is presented here in its entirety, and splitting it into smaller article would mean loosing part of the present article's clarity. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just created Stringency of Rabbi Zeira as a redirect to Rabbi Zeira's stringency (created 18/Dec/13‎ by ). I do propose creation of separate pages on Tevilah and Family purity (both currently redirects) as in the Hebrew Wikipedia. -- -- -- 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "Ritual washing in Judaism" article at the moment combines washing the hands and immersing oneself in a Mikveh. These two issues should be split, and the latter could be called "Tvilah". On a sidenote, I think that according to WP:HEBREW it should be spelled without the "e", just Tvilah. I don't think 'Niddah" and "Family purity" should be separate articles, although I am open to hear your arguments, but I do think that "Niddah" should be a redirect to "Family purity", rather than the other way around. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page length and redundancy 

message: I have deleted the following sentence: "Because the leaking of semen nullifies the counting of a "clean" day, the Sages enacted that the counting of seven days not begin until a minimum of 72 hours has passed".
To the good of my knowledge, the keri has not much  to do with zavah..(or nidah for that matter)--The soft voice of Judaism (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true nevertheless. The connection is that the sages worried that perhaps a drop of blood might be conceiled in the semen. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed, now that u mention it i do recall s/t to that effect.  but perhaps we could reword to make the difference understood (as not to confuse with rashi about שלשה ימים אל תגשו אל אשה that we r concerned about ופולטת שכבת זרע מחמת טומאת קרי.
btw, the etymology of niddah that was here yesterday seemed okay to me..no reason to revert --The soft voice of Judaism (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The issue is not so much whether it is correct. It is simply superfluous. The article at present gives a simple and correct etymology, choosing the most relevant occurrence, and no more is needed. It is only confusing, superfluous, and also original research mostly, to give an overview of all occurrences of the this word-root. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  (jumps up on soapbox and picks up megaphone) Adding my 2c, providing inline references to scholarly sources will (hopefully) ensure material stays on the page for longer and hopefully solve some arguments. Just saying....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted sentence