Until daf 14, there was constant concern for lebo nokfo and reduced peru urvu, even for an event that happened 24 hours ealier or maybe much longer. Now the Mishna discusses a bedika for the husband right after tashmish and there is no concern whatsoever for lebo nokfo, while at the same breath it discusses a chiyuv chatos. Why was there until now a concern for lebo nokfo and now it somehow became irrelevant?
Avrohom Meyer Kohn, Los Angeles, CA USA
1. The Tosfos Yom Tov on the Mishnah here writes that according to Rashi and the Bartenura, the Mishnah is referring to a woman who occupies herself with Taharos food. Such a woman is required to examine herself after Tashmish to ensure that she did not have a flow of Dam as a result of Tashmish (see Rashi to 11b, DH Migo), which would cause her to be Metamei the Taharos food that she touches. The concern of "Libo Nokfo" is not strong enough to push aside the need for a Bedikah which is required by Halachah and is not merely a Chumra. According to this, a woman who does not deal with Taharos food does not require a Bedikah for Tashmish at all, and therefore it is forbidden for her to examine herself in order to avoid "Libo Nokfo."
2. This is also stated by the Rosh at the beginning of the second chapter. He writes that the Mishnah (13a) which teaches that it is praiseworhty to check a lot is only discussing a woman who deals with Taharos, while, in contrast, a woman who does not deal with Taharos should not check herself a lot in order to avoid "Libo Nokfo." The Gemaras that you mentioned that are concerned about "Libo Nokfo" are discussing scenarios in which a Bedikah is not required by Halachah.
3. Another way of understanding why "Libo Nokfo" applies only in cases where there is no obligation to examine may be seen in the words of Rabeinu Chananel, cited by the Chidushei ha'Ramban (12a, end DH v'Ha d'Baya). He writes that the husband knows that an examination is not required by Halachah merely for relations with her husband. Therefore, if the husband sees his wife checking, he does not think that she is merely being stringent on herself but rather he assumes that she must have had a feeling of bleeding. Accordingly, the husband thinks that she must have seen blood on the Bedikah cloth and afterwards the cloth was lost, and he separates himself from his wife and Peru u'Revu is thus reduced. This is why Chazal said that if the Halachah does not require a Bedikah, it must not be done.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Dear Rabbi Bloom,
Thank you so much for writing.
I see that I did not make myself clear. Your comments discuss the wife making a bedika, and, as you write, per Rashi etc it refers to Taharos (and to the Rambam, as quoted in the Artscroll, it applies even to non-Taharos). My question is that we have a concern for peru urvu/lebo nokfo under certain circumstances. In the prior Gemoras, there was an argument if we apply that even where the wife makes the bedika - maybe the husband will see her making the bedika and there will be lebo nokfo. Maybe the wife will be more discreet and husband will never be aware. Maybe we should be concerned or not, in cases of sofaik - that was the machlokas, as I understand it. All of those Gemoros discussed the wife making a bedika, and the possible impact it may have on her husband. On daf 14, there seems to have been a total switch in mentality. We obligate the husband, for the first time in this mesechta, to make his own bedika, with an overhanging chiyuv chatas - and there seems to be no concern at all about lebo nokfo. This seems strange - when his wife was discreetly making a bedika, out of his sight and presence, even then some were concerned about lebo nokfo and now, on daf 14, there seems to be no worries at all about the effect of his own bedika. Until daf 14, lebo nokfo was very much a concern, even when husband was out of sight; on daf 14, lebo nokfo is a non-issue even when husband is doing it himself!!
Any thoughts would be very appreciated.
Avrohom Meyer Kohn
1. We learn from here that Chazal did not want the wife to have secrets that she does not share with her husband. In fact, it must be that Chazal did not consider the possibility of a discreet Bedikah on the part of the wife, because had they considered such a possibility there would have been no problem in the Gemara of "Libo Nokfo."
2. Yes, it is true that on Daf 14 there is a total change in reasoning. This is because we are know discussing a Bedikah that the Halachah requires and is not merely one that is being done because of a Chumrah. When the Bedikah is required by the Halachah, we are not concerned about Peru u'Revu, because the fear of a Chiyuv Chatas from the Isur Kares of Nidah is more important than the positive Mitzvah to bear children. This is also why we require the husband to make a Bedikah. When the husband is not required by the Halachah to make a Bedikah but it is merely a Chumrah, the Mishnah (13a) says that it is bad for him to do so, but when the Bedikah is necessary according to the Halachah the husband also must do it.
Reb Avrohom Meyer, thank you again for your very good Kashyos.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom