1

I was looking at Sefer HaRaavyah with regard to a couple of subjects pre-Pesah.

As I was paging through, I saw that he seems to be poseq that the halakhah regarding be'ilah rishonah (the initial act of consummating the marriage) and the [usual] attendant bleeding does not require her to separate from her husband completely as in a usual state of nidduth. Rather, they must sleep clothed and abstain from tashmish only.

This was shocking since I had always understood that after a newlywed couple is intimate for the first time, they must separate as if she is a niddah with all of the required and traditional harHaqoth.

Does anyone posken like or similar to the Raavyah today - halakhah le-maaseh?

5
  • Even shulchan arukh is meikil about sleeping on her bed. YD 193 or so. – Double AA Mar 11 '15 at 22:15
  • 5
    @DoubleAA ...when she is not in the bed (Sh"A, Tur and B"Y). – Fred Mar 11 '15 at 23:39
  • @DoubleAA but the question was if anybody holds like that today. To be fair, if the SA is meikil, I'm sure there are those out there now who are meikil as well. – Daniel Mar 11 '15 at 23:39
  • @fred that's still a deviation from the usual harchakot as the mechaber notes there. – Daniel Mar 11 '15 at 23:40
  • @Daniel That may be because she is bechazkas tahorah from dam tashmish that we are noheg to treat as tamei, whereas every other time is a safek dam niddah. That gives a lot more room to be meikil in this specific case. – Isaac Kotlicky Mar 12 '15 at 0:37
6

The Shulchan Aruch in סימן סג - בעילת מצוה וברכתו clearly says we do not Pasken like that.

א: מֻתָּר לִבְעֹל בְּתוּלָה בְּשַׁבָּת. הַבּוֹעֵל אֶת הַבְּתוּלָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּעַל בְּעִילַת מִצְוָה פּוֹרֵשׁ מִיָּד, אֲפִלּוּ הִיא קְטַנָּה שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִרְאוֹת וְלֹא רָאֲתָה. וּמִיהוּ, אוֹתָהּ בְּעִילָה גּוֹמֵר כְּדַרְכּוֹ בְּאֵבֶר חַי. וַאֲפִלּוּ בָּדְקָה וְלֹא מָצְאָה דָּם, טְמֵאָה, שֶׁמָּא רָאֲתָה טִפַּת דָּם כְּחַרְדָּל וְחִפָּהוּ שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע. וּצְרִיכָה שֶׁתִּפְסוֹק בְּטָהֳרָה וְתִבְדֹּק כָּל שִׁבְעָה. וְלֹא תַּתְחִיל לִבְדֹּק עַד יוֹם חֲמִישִׁי לְשִׁמּוּשָׁהּ, כִּשְׁאָר אִשָּׁה שֶׁשִּׁמְּשָׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאֲתָה. וְנוֹהֵג עִמָּהּ כִּשְׁאָר נִדָּה, לְעִנְיַן הַרְחָקָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּדָּה גְּמוּרָה אָסוּר לוֹ לִישֹׁן עַל מִטָּתָהּ אֲפִלּוּ כְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ בַּמִּטָּה, וְהַכַּלָּה מֻתָּר לוֹ לִישֹׁן בְּאוֹתוֹ מִטָּה לְאַחַר שֶׁעָמְדָה מֵאֶצְלוֹ, אֲפִלּוּ בְּסָדִין שֶׁהַדָּם עָלָיו.‏

It would be amazing to find anybody paskening against that today.

So I spent time locating this quote of yours, and it seems that ראביה himself agrees - as you can see at the bottom of page 205 he says:

עד כאן יסודו: ואני לא ידעתי מנין לו שפסק דאינו פורש לגמרי ממנה אלא כל אחד בכסותו, טפי נראה לי דלגמרי פורש, כדין נדה, שהיא צריכה נקיים וטבילה.‏

Your quote is from him quoting somebody else - I can't figure out who.

-1

I believe Rabbi Abadi has a long teshuva about honeymoons and trying to be melamed zchus on people that take honeymoons after their weddings. I beleive he concludes that there are a couple conditions that must be met for her not to be assur.

2
  • "there are a couple conditions that must be met for her not to be assur" does anyone disagree with that? Also, his argument surrounds her not being a Niddah. This question is seeking leniencies in how to treat the couple even though she is a Niddah. – Double AA Jul 3 '18 at 18:24
  • 1
    He does not pasken like the Raavyah, which was what the question was about. That being said, he tries to find cases where this Halacha does not apply at all. – רבות מחשבות Jul 3 '18 at 18:36

You must log in to answer this question.