2001 A.Y. (After Yoatzot)

Posted by eden at 04:23 AM on July 15, 2005

My goodness, look at all the rebukes to this old request for an online niddah posek! Four in a row, with increasingly admonitory tone. It just goes to show you, I think, that many men have no idea how uncomfortable asking questions can be for a woman.

Yes, we do what we need to do for the sake of keeping the halacha, and yes, the rabbis are only in this l'sheym shamayim (for the sake of Heaven), and ok, in the end we get over it and it's fine. But it's not like it comes naturally! There's no need to lecture us about it.

It took a little while for others to pipe up that an online system for asking niddah questions already existed. It has one of the limitations the naysayers pointed out, namely, a stain does have to be physically seen by someone. But the concept on the whole is quite workable, the value should be obvious to anyone browsing the site, and there was no need to scoff so much.

And it's no coincidence it was created with female consultants, not male. Presumably, many of the same women who are uncomfortable asking a rabbi face to face, would also be more comfortable asking a woman than a man. Whoever came up with the concept, clearly gets it.

Besides, even if such a thing didn't exist, I think they've misunderstood as well as misjudged the question. It's one thing if you know your rabbi in a rabbi-congregant sort of way; it's another altogether if you socialize with him regularly. Or how about if you've married into his family? I wouldn't want to send someone my underwear and then have dinner with him that evening. There are certainly arguments for going to someone you don't know quite that well.

Grrrrr. I assume they meant well, but it ticks me off.

Comments

On July 20, 2005 at 06:27 PM, frombeneath said:

Ah, this is my issue. My rabbi is a young guy, one with whom we socialize. We hang out, go to movies, go for pizza, etc. I can just imagine the scenario: he and my husband walking down the street, both trying to avoid staring at the window of the lingerie shop they are walking past, when the rabbi says, "oh, that reminds me: about your wife's shayla? It's okay."

Grrr, indeed.

And what's wrong with scanning a cloth? I think that's kind of a cool idea...

On July 20, 2005 at 07:45 PM, Desde said:

It would be if you could guarantee that the picture on your monitor is the same color as on the original. Doesn't always work that way, though.

On July 20, 2005 at 11:07 PM, eden said:

hahahaha!!! I'm sorry, fB, I feel badly for you, but that mental picture is too funny. :)

If it makes you feel any less squeamish, whenever I have to send underwear, I always just cut out the square of cloth where the stain is -- I don't send anything that identifies it visually as underwear (although of course I write what it is on the envelope). It sacrifices the pair, but it's SO worth it.

Desde is right, both the scanner and the monitor would alter the color without a doubt. Considering the care the rabbis take to view our shailahs only in sunlight or fluorescent light, because those have the least tint of red in them, it would be a serious shame.

It would be very cool if we could, though...

On July 21, 2005 at 05:04 PM, frombeneath said:

I was making a joke about scanning, actually. Although, if we can have Shaspod, why can't we have Underscan? heehee

It would be just so typical for me that if we could scan our cloths, my rabbi would have a monitor that had an overly-strong red hue, and everything would come back, "no" On the other hand, I could photoshop dark stains into light ones...Ah, the possibilities! (Oh, I know, I know: bad, bad me.)

Discuss this post on our message boards.