Mfcttrf

What are the problems in teaching guitar via Skype?

Different PCB color ( is it different material? )

What does the 0>&1 shell redirection mean?

What does it mean when you think without speaking?

How to make the POV character sit on the sidelines without the reader getting bored

Preserving culinary oils

How to prevent bad sectors?

Looking after a wayward brother in mother's will

Why the lack of hesitance to wear pads on the sabbath?

What is the intuition behind uniform continuity?

Is it possible to change original filename of an exe?

Can't connect to Internet in bash using Mac OS

If Sweden was to magically float away, at what altitude would it be visible from the southern hemisphere?

Is having a hidden directory under /etc safe?

What does "Marchentalender" on the front of a postcard mean?

Possible nonclassical ion from a bicyclic system

What are the slash markings on Gatwick's 08R/26L?

Select row of data if next row contains zero

What are the benefits of cryosleep?

Why don't I have ground wiring on any of my outlets?

Mother abusing my finances

Can a wire having a 610-670 THz (frequency of blue light) AC frequency supply, generate blue light?

Is there an evolutionary advantage to having two heads?

Is floating in space similar to falling under gravity?

Why the lack of hesitance to wear pads on the sabbath?

Why swim fully clothed?Why do women wear ponytail elastics on Shabas?Sabbath vs. Lunar SabbathWhy is a shepherd's sack better than a treasuress's ring?How can we say women can't receive s'micha when they already have?בא במחתרת,‎ לפקח עליו את הגל and חזקה שהורעהMay a woman wear a jeweled key pin on Shabbat in an area that has no eruv?Pirkei drabbi Eliezer questionsIf one buys clothing or jewelry for his wife for simchas Yom-Tov, and she wears them on Shabbos before YT, and again on YT, is he מקיים the mitzvah?Does Chazakah work to consider someone a Jew?

6

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 301:13, and commentaries state that if a woman wears something only in order that her clothes don't get dirty from her menstrual blood, then that thing is not considered clothing (it doesn't protect her, only her clothes) and she may not go outside with it on the sabbath without an eruv; but that if she is wearing it also so that the blood doesn't go on her own skin and dry and cause her pain, then it's considered clothing (it protects her) and she may go outside with it.

I've never heard of this distinction made practically. As far as I know (which I'll admit is not very far), no woman hesitates to go out of doors on the sabbath with a pad or tampon or liner, thinking first whether there's enough flow to pain her when it dries. Rather, women go outside.

My question is why this is so.

• Is it because it's accepted that all flows are enough to pain people? (Perhaps people nowadays are less pain-tolerant.)


• Or is that (to the extent I'm right that women aren't careful) the women are simply wrong and should be more careful?


• Or what?

halacha shabbat women hotzaa-carrying-reshuyot blood

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

msh210♦msh210

48.9k1192295

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Is the SA talking only about physical pain, or can the language there include other discomfort like (significant) embarrassment (which I can testify would occur without the protections in question)?
  
  – Monica Cellio♦
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Surmising some "historical" aspect going on, perhaps. I don't think that many of the types of women's protection products used today were available at the time this halacha was written.
  
  – DanF
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Are brides not always taught not to go out with a Mokh Dachuk without an Eruv? I'd guess 2.
  
  – Double AA♦
  8 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @MonicaCellio, it seems to me like it's referring to physical pain. It specifically excludes dirtying clothes (which I'd think could be assumed to cause embarrassment, though maybe those days were different).
  
  – msh210♦
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @double the moch dachuk is a bigger problem not for clothes and not for bleeding because the flow has ceased
  
  – kouty
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 5 more comments

6

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 301:13, and commentaries state that if a woman wears something only in order that her clothes don't get dirty from her menstrual blood, then that thing is not considered clothing (it doesn't protect her, only her clothes) and she may not go outside with it on the sabbath without an eruv; but that if she is wearing it also so that the blood doesn't go on her own skin and dry and cause her pain, then it's considered clothing (it protects her) and she may go outside with it.

I've never heard of this distinction made practically. As far as I know (which I'll admit is not very far), no woman hesitates to go out of doors on the sabbath with a pad or tampon or liner, thinking first whether there's enough flow to pain her when it dries. Rather, women go outside.

My question is why this is so.

• Is it because it's accepted that all flows are enough to pain people? (Perhaps people nowadays are less pain-tolerant.)


• Or is that (to the extent I'm right that women aren't careful) the women are simply wrong and should be more careful?


• Or what?

halacha shabbat women hotzaa-carrying-reshuyot blood

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

msh210♦msh210

48.9k1192295

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Is the SA talking only about physical pain, or can the language there include other discomfort like (significant) embarrassment (which I can testify would occur without the protections in question)?
  
  – Monica Cellio♦
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Surmising some "historical" aspect going on, perhaps. I don't think that many of the types of women's protection products used today were available at the time this halacha was written.
  
  – DanF
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Are brides not always taught not to go out with a Mokh Dachuk without an Eruv? I'd guess 2.
  
  – Double AA♦
  8 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @MonicaCellio, it seems to me like it's referring to physical pain. It specifically excludes dirtying clothes (which I'd think could be assumed to cause embarrassment, though maybe those days were different).
  
  – msh210♦
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @double the moch dachuk is a bigger problem not for clothes and not for bleeding because the flow has ceased
  
  – kouty
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 5 more comments

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 301:13, and commentaries state that if a woman wears something only in order that her clothes don't get dirty from her menstrual blood, then that thing is not considered clothing (it doesn't protect her, only her clothes) and she may not go outside with it on the sabbath without an eruv; but that if she is wearing it also so that the blood doesn't go on her own skin and dry and cause her pain, then it's considered clothing (it protects her) and she may go outside with it.

I've never heard of this distinction made practically. As far as I know (which I'll admit is not very far), no woman hesitates to go out of doors on the sabbath with a pad or tampon or liner, thinking first whether there's enough flow to pain her when it dries. Rather, women go outside.

My question is why this is so.

• Is it because it's accepted that all flows are enough to pain people? (Perhaps people nowadays are less pain-tolerant.)


• Or is that (to the extent I'm right that women aren't careful) the women are simply wrong and should be more careful?


• Or what?

halacha shabbat women hotzaa-carrying-reshuyot blood

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

msh210♦msh210

48.9k1192295

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

msh210♦msh210

48.9k1192295

share|improve this question

asked 9 hours ago

msh210♦msh210

48.9k1192295

asked 9 hours ago

msh210♦msh210

48.9k1192295

asked 9 hours ago

msh210♦msh210

48.9k1192295

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

6

At Yoatzot.org here, they answer as follows:

If the sole purpose is to protect the woman's clothing, the sanitary napkin should not be worn. But generally speaking, most women are also concerned about discomfort or irritation. Embarrassment may be construed as a type of discomfort.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

רבות מחשבותרבות מחשבות

15.2k131125

add a comment | 

6

At Yoatzot.org here, they answer as follows:

If the sole purpose is to protect the woman's clothing, the sanitary napkin should not be worn. But generally speaking, most women are also concerned about discomfort or irritation. Embarrassment may be construed as a type of discomfort.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

רבות מחשבותרבות מחשבות

15.2k131125

add a comment | 

6

At Yoatzot.org here, they answer as follows:

If the sole purpose is to protect the woman's clothing, the sanitary napkin should not be worn. But generally speaking, most women are also concerned about discomfort or irritation. Embarrassment may be construed as a type of discomfort.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

רבות מחשבותרבות מחשבות

15.2k131125

add a comment | 

At Yoatzot.org here, they answer as follows:

If the sole purpose is to protect the woman's clothing, the sanitary napkin should not be worn. But generally speaking, most women are also concerned about discomfort or irritation. Embarrassment may be construed as a type of discomfort.

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

רבות מחשבותרבות מחשבות

15.2k131125

share|improve this answer

answered 8 hours ago

רבות מחשבותרבות מחשבות

15.2k131125

answered 8 hours ago

רבות מחשבותרבות מחשבות

15.2k131125

answered 8 hours ago

רבות מחשבותרבות מחשבות

15.2k131125