on shaky ground
OK, I know this shouldn't bother me as much as it does -- misconceptions about the "biological" reasons for many mitzvot have floated around, it's not unique to taharat hamishpacha -- but if I have to see this particular misconception one more time I may scream:
Two weeks after a woman has begun to menstruate, she is most fertile and likely to conceive. At the same time, a man who has abstained from sex for two weeks will have an increased sperm count. Thus, observing this period of separation can increase the likelihood of conception.I found nearly the same language repeated here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Worst of all was this explanation:
The fertility benefits of this practice are obvious and undeniable. In fact, it is remarkable how closely these laws parallel the advice given by medical professionals today. When couples are having trouble conceiving, modern medical professionals routinely advise them to abstain from sex during the two weeks around a woman's period (to increase the man's sperm count at a time when conception is not possible), and to have sex on alternate nights during the remaining two weeks.That is a LIE. Doctors most certainly do not advise men to abstain for two weeks when a couple is trying to conceive. While the first explanation is more correct, in that a man's total sperm count does increase the longer he abstains, this strategy has severely diminishing returns: there will be more sperm, but fewer and fewer of them will be able to swim.
All the doctors my husband and I have seen recommend that men abstain only 3 days before trying to conceive, and certainly not more than 5. A recent study suggests that perhaps that recommendation should be reduced to 2 days.
Likewise, as you probably know because I've mentioned it so many times, for a sizable minority of women, mikvah night is too late to conceive.
Now, there is probably a way to formulate this idea which is true. Namely: if a woman is able to go to mikvah on Day 12, and if she doesn't ovulate until Day 14, by the time she has intercourse the second time, the husband's sperm should have had a chance to replenish themselves before her ovulation window is over. It still would probably not be true that this "maximizes" fertility -- ideally, healthy sperm should be there a day before ovulation, not the same day -- but it should work fine in most cases.
However, the cycles of some women simply don't fit this picture. From a biological point of view, they would be more likely to get pregnant if they were allowed to have relations starting at about Day 7 of their cycle. Maybe this explanation would have held more water back in the days when women kept only 7 days of niddut.
The only other thing I can think of is that perhaps, in its original form, this explanation was meant to highlight the fact that at least couples who practice taharat hamishpacha are likely to have relations sometime around ovulation; otherwise they might go for months accidentally (or deliberately) having relations only at times when conception is not possible.
But I hope it's clear why I think this sort of explanation for T"H, and for mitzvot in general, is so dangerous. It's not enough that infertile women like me are denied what are popularly considered the relationship benefits of T"H; we're denied the "obvious and undeniable" fertility benefits as well. Hearing these explanations over and over is enough to make me quite angry. And if I wasn't clear on the fact that the halacha is simply because it is, regardless of whether it works out to our harm or benefit, it might be enough to cause a serious crisis of faith as well.
I appreciate the desire to find understandable reasons for keeping the mitzvot; it's a very old and respected endeavor. I also know that, especially in this age of kiruv (religious outreach), apologetics are everywhere. I've been moved and enriched by many of them myself. But when the "reasons" are vulnerable to being disproved by science -- such as alleged health benefits for keeping kashrut, or even brit milah -- then in my firm opinion, they're doing more harm than good.
Comments
Have women's bodies/cycles changed due to nutrition/weakness etc over the years? Because it used to be the way you described...maybe not for everyone at every month, but that's the way it was or it was supposed to be............
Have women's bodies/cycles changed due to nutrition/weakness etc over the years? Because it used to be the way you described...
How do you know?
Regardless, I wouldn't be upset if this were an ancient, outdated explanation I found somewhere. In centuries past the rabbis might not have known as much about biology as we do, or as you suggest, biology might even have changed.
The problem is, these are contemporary figures who are giving this explanation. And they should certainly know better.
Truthfully, I don't know that much about reproduction or biology.
But if this is the way HaShem set up the world, I can only think that this is the way He wants it.
Two weeks after a woman has begun to menstruate, she is most fertile and likely to conceive. At the same time, a man who has abstained from sex for two weeks will have an increased sperm count. Thus, observing this period of separation can increase the likelihood of conception.
Could it be that this is the norm? For couples have infertility issues it would be different, but for most of society, what is stated above would be true?
Could it be that this is the norm? For couples have infertility issues it would be different, but for most of society, what is stated above would be true?
And what are we, chopped liver? ;-)
I know you didn't mean that. But let me put that another way. Let's say what you're suggesting was true. As far as I know, it's not - there is no known benefit to the sperm from abstaining for more than 72 hours, and as for ovulation, a recent study says "In only about 30% of women is the fertile window entirely within the days of the menstrual cycle identified by clinical guidelines - that is, between days 10 and 17. Most women reach their fertile window earlier and others much later." But let's say it is.
The explanation could then be rephrased this way: Keeping T"H will help you conceive, unless you need help, in which case, sorry, you're out of luck.
How does that make it any better?
No, not chopped liver. If so, I myself am chopped liver as I am also infertile, and have been for many years.
I don't believe we are ever out of luck. Our fertility is completely out of our hands. We have no control over our situation and rely completely on Hashem. So doing what pleases him (keeping TH) can only be a good thing, whether or not (according to science) it helps us to conceive or not.
Right. That's my point... it's a mistake to explain T"H as an aid to fertility. We have to keep it whether it helps us get pregnant or not.
And for some of us, it sure doesn't.
I'm so thankful that you wrote this essay. It needs to be said. I was knowledgeable enough about my body to know prior to marriage that if I decided to observe taharat hamishpachah, I would experience "halachic infertility." I was able to find a wise and reasonable rabbi help me deal with it in order to both follow the halacha and maximize my fertility potential. But I often think about how many young women do NOT understand how their bodies work and who seek counsel from rabbis who are ignorant and whose psaks are misleading and harmful.
If just one infertile Orthodox woman reads this essay and is helped, it will be worth it.
Thank you for this essay. My sister-in-law is always going on about how T"H is a conspiracy to keep her constantly pregnant. For her it works that way. I am unable to conceive for other reasons, but I still find it irritating that her healthy, fortuitous cycle is a curse to her.
This is a particularly painful subject for people suffering from halachik infertility . . . It makes me want to scream when people use this mistaken reasoning for the laws of t"h, and they don't realize how the opposite may be true.