{ "language": "en", "title": "Responsa Benei Banim", "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org", "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation", "actualLanguage": "en", "languageFamilyName": "english", "isBaseText": false, "isSource": false, "direction": "ltr", "heTitle": "שו\"ת בני בנים", "categories": [ "Responsa", "Modern" ], "text": { "Volume I": { "Approbations and Letters": [], "Introduction": [], "": [ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "1. The husband's presence in the delivery room, and comfort measures for a birthing mother, and natural birth", "2. b\"h 20 Tamuz 5737 (July 6, 1977)", "3. To the Rabbi of one settlement", "4. Regarding your question about a husband who wants to be present in the delivery room, which is a question that is raised often in recent times, and several events have come to me as well. In my humble opinion, if there is no need for the husband to be there, we should not permit him to, because he could easily come to look at the private body parts, and we tell a Nazirite, \"Go, go, travel, travel, do not come close to a vineyard.\" Even though the Responsa Iggrot Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 3:95 he wrote briefly that he does not see any prohibition in this situation, on the condition that he does not look as the baby emerges, etc. even by way of a mirror, we should not use this as a general permission, His Honor knows the nature of his own congregation. But if he knows someone who is certainly able to handle it, then it is possible to permit. There are different types of situations, as in many hospitals, they tie down a woman's legs to a kind of stirrup, so she is immobilized, and they cover everything with a sheet except for the place where the baby will emerge, and then it is easier to be careful not to look, since the husband stands by her head. This is unlike in a natural birth in some places, where they do not tie down the woman's legs, but rather she holds her legs up by her knees and pulls strongly when the contractions push out the baby, and all of her is revealed from the waist down.", "5. But if the woman is afraid (NOTE: One Rabbi has written about this in a quarterly that it is more correct to call a woman's fear \"willpower\" or \"forceful will\" rather than fear, but it seems that he is trying to make a generalization on the basis of women that he knows, in a situation that the Sages have established to be life-threatening, and it is not correct, because there are other women who do have a great amount of fear over being alone, so the judge has to evaluate each situation. He also wrote there that if women know that their husbands are not halachically permitted to enter during the delivery, etc. that they will not even begin to consider fearing. Respectfully, they might not ask the halachic question, but where has their fear gone? Following this logic, in the Gemara's case of a blind woman, we should say that it is forbidden to ask for someone to light a candle for her when her friends do not need the candle, then she should not ask. He also brought evidence from earlier generations, when the husband was not present, which is no good evidence, because she was surrounded by her female relatives and friends, which is not the case today. Study Tractate Sotah 21b, \"how is this? etc,\" in the case where a woman is drowning in a river and a man says, \"it's not appropriate to look at her and save her.\") and therefore wants her husband to be present with her, we do not need to find grounds to permit him to be with her in the delivery room, and in my humble opinion, he is obligated to be there, because of the threat to her life, as our Sages z\"l upheld the fear of a birthing mother to be a danger to life, and we even violate Shabbat to prevent her fear, as we said in Tractate Shabbat 128b in the Mishna, \"We may assist birth for a woman on Shabbat, and call a midwife for her from one place to another, and break Shabbat for her, etc.\" The Gemara asks, \"After the tannaitic teaching that 'we may assist birth for a woman on Shabbat, and call a midwife for her from one place to another,' what does 'and we violate Shabbat for her' add?\" and answers, \"It includes that which the Sages taught- if she needs a candle, her friend lights a candle for her, and if she needs oil, her friend brings her oil, etc.\" They challenged that this is too obvious, and responded that it is necessary to teach it for a case of a blind woman, as we might have thought that since she cannot see, it would be forbidden to light her a candle, so it comes to teach us that it is still comforting to her, thinking, \"If anything happens, my friend will see and help me.\" Thus- even lighting a candle on Shabbat for a woman who cannot see the candle, and is only concerned for a possible complication is permitted, in order to comfort her mind, even though she has no physical benefit from it, and the rule is the same here, where she fears being without her husband, he is obligated to be with her, and this, in short, is the halacha. ", "6. However, there are many questions on this topic, and in order to clarify the topic of comforting the mind of the birthing woman, there is a need to elaborate. First, look closely at that beraita- \"Our Sages taught- if she needs a candle, her friend lights a candle for her, and if she needs oil, her friend brings her oil by hand, and if this is not enough, she brings it in her hair, and if this is not enough, she brings it in a container.\" In the Gemara, they challenge this, \"Take out this part, because it is forbidden to bring it in her hair, because it requires squeezing,\" and they responded, \"Rava and Rav Yosef both said- The action of forbidden squeezing cannot be done on hair. Rav Ashi said- Even if you think hair is squeezable, she can still bring it in a container using her hair, because as much as it is possible to deviate from the normal way of carrying, we deviate.\" From here, we learn that we need to do things for the woman who is giving birth on Shabbat using abnormal methods. Furthermore, the beraita mentioned this deviation in the context of bringing oil, and did not mention deviation in lighting the candle, which makes it seem that only bringing oil requires deviation, and Rav Ashi too, speaks about bringing the oil. Except, the Tur writes in ch. 330 \"We light a candle for her, and in any case, as much as it is possible to deviate from the normal way, we deviate.\" In his words, the \"deviating\" is also referring back to lighting the candle, and not just bringing the oil. Similarly the Meiri writes in accordance with the Tur's phrasing, and it seems that they pick up on specificity in what Rav Ashi said, \"as much it is possible to deviate from the normal way, we deviate,\" in the plural form, indicating that it is speaking not just about the one friend bringing the oil, but about everyone. But necessarily the Rambam's opinion differs, as he wrote in Laws of Shabbat 2:11, \"And if she needs oil or other similar things, we bring it to her, but as much as it is possible to deviate from the normal way, we deviate while bringing it, for example, her friend brings it in a container hanging from her hair. But if this is not possible, she brings it in the normal way.\" Here he has added words \"while bringing it,\" which proves that only in that case would we deviate. The SM\"aG wrote similarly, using the same words in Laws of Shabbat, Negative Rules 65, and it appears that the SMa\"K, KolBo, and Eshkol agree as well. In the SMa\"K Mitzvah 221 is written, \"If she needs a candle, we light it for her, even if she is blind, and if she needs oil, her friend brings it, but as much as it is possible for her to deviate from the normal way, she does.\" He specifically teaches this in the phrasing of Rav Ashi, changing from plural to singular female, referring to the one who brings the oil, in contrast to the phrasing of \"we light the candle.\" This is not to say that there is never a deviation to be made in lighting a candle, because it is certainly possible for two friends to light it at once, as the Rambam wrote in Laws of Shabbat 1:15, or it is possible to light it with the back of the hand, or other kinds of deviations. Given this, we need to understand the opinion of the Rambam and his group, which follows the simplest read of the beraita- why is bringing (oil), which is done with a deviation, different from lighting (the candle) or other forbidden labors which are done for a birthing mother?", "7. Secondly, we must understand how a birthing mother is different from other kinds of people with dangerous illnesses, whose cases do not mention the concern for deviation in the Talmud, for example, in Tractate Avoda Zara 28b, regarding a problematic eye, that we may bring medicine for it through the public domain, without mentioning deviations. The Rambam, too, mentioned deviation only regarding a birthing mother, and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch mention deviation only about a birthing mother in ch. 330 but not about an ill person in ch. 328. They even write, \"A birthing mother is like a person with a dangerous illness, and we violate Shabbat for her...but in any case, as much as it is possible to deviate from the normal way, we deviate,\" and from the words \"but in any case\" it is proven that the birthing mother is not like someone with a dangerous illness. Only the Ramban, in Torat HaAdam, in the section on Danger, he writes, \"We learn from this regarding all the needs of the ill person, even if they are in danger, where it is possible to do forbidden labor in an abnormal way, so that Shabbat will not be violated, we deviate, to avoid violating Shabbat.\" The ReM\"A wrote similarly in 328:12 in the name of the Or Zarua, and in their opinion, there is no difference between a birthing mother and an ill person, in contradistinction to the opinion of the Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch, who follow the simplest read of the Gemara. ", "8. The Maggid Mishneh offers a resolution to this in Laws of Shabbat ch. 2, ibid, saying that the reason for this distinction appears to be that the pain of the birthing mother and her contractions are like a natural thing for her, and fewer than one in a thousand die from giving birth, and therefore they were stricter, requiring deviation in the places where it is possible, while they were not as strict with an ill person, and all the Achronim quote this. It is not sufficient, in my humble opinion, because, why does it matter that it is natural, given that it is also dangerous? If it is because fewer than one in a thousand die, we have written from Rabeinu Tam in the Hagahot Mordechai on Tractate Shabbat 464 that there are several things that we can observe are not deadly, and even so the Sages gave leniencies for them. Even the words of Maggid Mishneh are surprising, saying that fewer than one in a thousand birthing mothers die- this is something contradicted by our instincts, and even in our day, more than one in a thousand are endangered, how much more so in their day?! (From edits/errata: n.b. See Tosafot on Tractate Ketubot 83b, \"Death is common, because most of the time, they are put into danger while birthing.\") ", "9. In the MaHaRSHa\"L's glosses on the SMa\"G, Laws of Shabbat, he offered a solution to the Rambam's words, saying that the reason that we introduce deviation into acts we do for a birthing mother, is that these acts are unrelated to danger, because even if there never were these items, the ill person would not be endangered because of it, while in the earlier case regarding an ill person, if they had not done that thing, he would have been in life-threatening danger. This aligns with the Gemara; which challenges, \"what does 'and we violate Shabbat for her' add?\" and answers, \"It includes the candle...the candle is too obvious,\" and responded, \"it is necessary to teach it for a case of a blind woman...\" If the oil was related to a life-threatening danger, it would have challenged \"this is too obvious\" about the oil too, the way it challenged the candle. From the lack of challenge, we can learn what is excluded from this- that oil is not one of the items that are so necessary that we should break Shabbat for them. But regarding anything that is necessary, and that is depended on in a life-threatening danger- it is a mitzvah to be quick, and to do it not in an abnormal way at all. This is how, in my opinion, the Rambam and the SMa\"G could be solved using the words of the MaHaRSha\"L, and according to his words, there is no distinction between the case of a birthing mother and an ill person in the Rambam's opinion, and bringing oil just is not related to life-threatening danger, which is why she brings it in an abnormal way. I do not understand his words, since, did the Rambam not conclude with, \"But if this is not possible, she brings it in the normal way\"? And, too, the Gemara's, \"as much as it is possible to deviate,\" sounds like it means that if it is not possible, we bring it without a deviation, through the public domain, and if there was no life-threatening danger connected to bringing the oil, how was it permitted to break Shabbat for her? And, too, when reading with this gloss, the beraita's phrasing becomes difficult- \"if she needs a candle, her friend lights a candle for her, and if she needs oil, her friend brings her oil,\" makes it sound like they are both stated about the same kind of situation, and it is a stretch to interpret the first one to be about a life-threatening danger, and the second case not about a non-life-threatening danger. And regarding the challenge, when the Gemara should have raised, \"this is too obvious\" about the oil also, in my humble opinion, this does not deserve a \"this is too obvious\" challenge, since the Rambam and SMa\"G's opinions really seem to mean that she does need to bring the oil in an abnormal way, which is different from the candle. ", "10. Thirdly, we must understand, how is a birthing mother different from someone with a life-threatening illness, given that there is no permission mentioned in the Gemara to settle the mind, except for birthing mother? Similarly, the Rishonim cite the ruling about settling the mind about a birthing mother and not an ill person. Even according to the Ramban, in the Torat HaAdam, who wrote that \"based in the treatment of a birthing mother, we can learn that in order to settle the mind of a regular ill person, we violate Shabbat in the ways that relate to danger,\" the birthing mother is still different from someone with a dangerous illness, because it seems that the ill person requires assessment as to what are items that related to danger. (NOTE: This aligns with the responsa attributed to the RaShB\"A ch. 281, but in the Responsa of the RaShB\"A vol. 4 ch. 245, in the name of the RA\"H, it seems he aligns with the TaShBe\"Tz.) However, for a birthing mother, the Sages established that she can be endangered by fear, as the Tosafot write in Tractate Shabbat ibid. Only the Ta\"ShBe\"Tz vol. 1 ch. 54 wrote uncited that \"even to settle the mind of an ill person, even if it is not necessary for his health, but only to settle his mind, we light a candle even if he is blind and will not benefit from the light, and the rule is the same for other forbidden labors, which an ill person might comfort himself with, which we do for him on Shabbat.\" The same appears from the responsa of the RaDBa\"Z, vol. 4 ch. 66. ", "11. The Rambam rules on settling the mind of an ill person on Shabbat in three locations. The first one is regarding a birthing mother, as he wrote in Laws of Shabbat Ch.2 Law 11, \"A birthing mother who is bending down to give birth is in life-threatening danger, and we violate Shabbat for her, call her a midwife from one location to another, cut the umbilical cord and tie it, and if she needs a candle when she is crying out during labor, we light the candle for her even if she is blind, because it settles her mind to have a candle even though she cannot see it, and if she needs oil or things like that, we bring them to her, and as much as it is possible to deviate from the normal way we, deviate while bringing them, for example, her friend might bring a container hanging from her hair, but if this is not possible, she brings it the normal way.\" The Rambam wrote the words \"bending down to give birth\" and wrote the words \"crying out during labor.\" It is obvious that a woman cries out due to contractions for a long time, sometimes a day or two days, before she bends down to give birth, and, as is written in the Beur Halacha ch. 330 titled \"and we light\" and the Responsa Iggrot Moshe Orach Chaim vol. 1 ch. 132, see those, which is unlike what is written in the Aruch HaShulchan Ch. 330:4. Although the Issur V'Heter 59:2 includes \"crying out during labor\" with \"bending down to give birth,\" the SMa\"G and Kolbo and Orchot Chaim all differentiate in their phrasing between \"bending down to give birth\" and contractions, and follow the simplest read of the Rambam, which is also attested to by our observations. According to this, we violate Shabbat to settle the mind of a birthing mother quite a long time before the birth. ", "12. Necessarily, then, according to the Rambam, our violation of Shabbat for her when she is crying out during labor is just to settle her mind, but not for her physical needs, and his language specifically indicates, \"A birthing mother who is bending down to give birth is in life-threatening danger, etc.,\" meaning that while she has not yet bent down to give birth, she is not in life-threatening danger, aside from what is necessary to settle her mind, and we will explain the reason for this presently. Thus we can reason as well, given that according to the Rambam's position, we violate Shabbat for her for any reason, already from the time her labor begins, then why does the Gemara take the trouble of explicating when the womb has opened enough to violate Shabbat for her, for which the Amoraim give three signs in Shabbat 129a? Doesn't crying out during labor precede all of these? So why would it matter when the womb opens? We are forced to say that the Gemara went through this trouble to address the minority of a minority of women who do not suffer at all with their contractions. However, certainly at the time that she is only crying out during labor, we should permit violating Shabbat to settle her mind, and at the time she is only bending down to give birth, too, because then she is like an ill person in every respect. Thus the challenge of the Magen Avraham 330:2 is settled, as he challenged, \"Why does the Gemara need to give the reason that we light the candle to settle her mind? Don't we need to light the candle so that her friends can see what she needs?\" Truly, we would not violate Shabbat for that, but only in order to settle her mind. And as for the idea that the friends need to see when the womb has opened, see the Responsa Iggrot Moshe vol. 1 ibid. In my humble opinion, in order to know when the womb has opened, they do not need a candle, because the three signs are 'from when her friends carry her by her limbs,' 'from when the blood flows down,' and 'from when she sits on the birthing stool,' and all of these can be observed even in the dark. It is true that what we call the 'opening of the womb' for purposes of violation of Shabbat for a birthing mother is not the same 'opening of the womb' from the topic of menstrual prohibition. (NOTE: The Rambam's opinion is that the 'opening of the womb' does not refer to blood, but rather to the time when something is emerging from the womb during the birth process, and not before the birth, even if the womb is already open. See his Commentary on the Mishna Tractate Nidda at the beginning of chapter 3, where he wrote, \"It is impossible for the womb to open without blood- at the point that something is emerging from the womb, it is impossible for this to happen, without some blood emerging.\" And the Rambam follows his own position from Tractate Ohalot 7:4, \"A woman who was struggling during childbirth and they moved her from house to house- the first house is doubtfully impure, and the second is definitely impure. Rabbi Yehuda says: In what case? When she is carried by her limbs. But if she could still walk, the first one is pure, because once her womb has opened, she has no opportunity to walk.\" The Rambam interpreted that, \"The first house is doubtfully impure, as perhaps, her womb opened there and the offspring came out stillborn and the house became impure,\" and he similarly interprets Rabbi Yehuda's statement, \"If she was too weak to walk, etc. it is possible that the womb has opened and the offspring has come out.\" In the Rambam's interpretation, the phrase 'opening of the womb' in the Mishna includes also the passage of the offspring through the cervix to the birth canal. See the Tosfot Yom Tov. This accords with the opinion of the Halachot Gedolot in Laws of Circumcision, the Halachot of Rabbi Abba brought in the Otzar HaGaonim on Tractate Shabbat ibid, and this is how they said it, \"A pregnant woman who cannot walk- it is known that the fetus has put his head out into the birth canal, as once the womb has opened, there is no opportunity to walk.\" It is explained there that the Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishna in Nidda wrote according to the position of the Gaonim, but according to his own in Ohalot, that the opening of the womb means that something comes out of it, and this is why they say that it is not possible for the womb to open without blood, when something is coming out of the womb. This is also what appears from the Eshkol in Laws of Nidda, where he wrote, \"It is not possible for a miscarried fetus to emerge without blood, etc. and Rava thinks that a small piece can emerge with no blood.\" He connects the blood to something emerging, and not to the womb opening. This is not the same as the discussion of 'opening of the womb' in Tractate Shabbat, and similarly in several contexts we have found distinction between the language of the Tanaim and the language of the Amoraim, and even the phrase 'opening of the womb' in Tractate Shabbat is not exactly the same, but rather means 'at a time when the womb is open,' Notice there that at first Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel, \"A parturient, the whole time that the womb is open...\" and they explained in the Gemara about this, \"From when does the womb open and until when is the womb open?\" ", "13. The second location in the Rambam is in the context of forbidden sorcery, as he wrote in the Laws of Foreign Worship 11:11, \"If someone was bitten by a snake or scorpion, it is permissible to whisper over the site of the bite, even on Shabbat, in order to settle his mind and strengthen his heart. Even though this practice achieves nothing, since he is in danger, they permitted it to him in order to prevent his mind from tearing him apart.\" The Kesef Mishneh interpreted there that they permitted it for him from the angle of Shabbat, even though useless speech is forbidden on Shabbat. The Achronim understood that the Rambam is speaking about the Torah prohibtion of sorcery, and therefore they had extreme difficulty with these words of the Rambam's, and see the Minchat Chinuch Mitzvah 512, for if they permit a negative Torah prohibition in order to save a life, of course they should permit useless speech on Shabbat, which is a Rabbinic-level prohibition, making this an unnecessary teaching. What I have to write about this topic, in my own humble opinion, I will write later, if it please God (Section 45) because this is not the right place for it. ", "14. The third location in the Rambam is in the context of someone imminently dying, as he wrote in the Laws of Acquisitions and Gifts 8:2, \"Someone imminently dying who commanded, saying: Give this and this to Ploni- whether it is a weekday or Shabbat, whether he wrote it or did not write it, they acquire it all when he dies, of all that he gave them, and they do not require formal acquisition, etc. so that his mind will not tear him apart, knowing that his words are not being upheld. Therefore, if he says, 'acquire it from me' we acquire it from him even on Shabbat, because this act of acquisition is unnecessary.\" And the language of preventing tearing-apart of the mind as written here is equivalent to the settling of the mind, as the Rambam has written in Laws of Foreign Worship ch. 11 in the laws about sorcery that we cited above. They are also equated in the Responsa of the RaDBa\"Z vol. 4 ch. 66, cited above. The Rambam's position as he interpreted it, writing that we acquire it from him because this act of acquisition is unnecessary, shows that if there was a need for the act of acquisition, they would not permit it on Shabbat, even in order to prevent his mind from tearing him apart, because the acquisition is similar to business transactions, as the Lechem Mishneh explained there in Law 4, and like the Maor's position in Tractate Bava Batra 156b. For this reason, we must understand why in the Laws of Foreign Worship, in the case of someone bitten by a snake, the Rambam permits at minimum a Rabbinic-level prohibition of useless speech, but in the the case of someone imminently dying, who is also ill and in danger, he did not permit even a Rabbinic-level Shabbat prohibition (acquiring a gift). See the Pnei Yehoshua on Tractate Gittin 77b, titled \"Tosafot\" where he wrote in another context that the Rabbinic-level prohibitions of Shabbat are treated more stringently because they are a fence protecting Biblical forbidden labors, but this reason does not accord with the Rambam's words about someone bitten by a snake, where he made the permission dependent on the reasoning that he is in danger. ", "15. In my humble opinion, there are two types of \"tearing apart of the mind.\" The first type is when the ill person is afraid for his body, that perhaps he might die, which is what the Rambam wrote about, regarding someone bitten by a snake: \"in order to settle his mind and strengthen his heart\" which is phrased as preventing fear, as is written in Joshua 11, \"to strengthen their heart to face war, etc.\" The second type is when the ill person is distressed and worried that his words will not be upheld, in matters unrelated to his body, which is written about regarding someone imminently dying, \"so that his mind will not tear him apart, knowing that his words are not being upheld.\" In the second type, there is no life-threatening danger at all, and for this reason the Rambam did not even permit Rabbinic-level acts of acquisition, in a place where an act of acquisition would be necessary. Through this, we have also gained according to the other Rishonim, who disagree with the Rambam, and think, like the Rashbam in Tractate Bava Batra, that even in places where an act of acquisition is necessary, it is permissible to make acquisition from someone who is imminently dying, in order for his mind not to tear him up, because even they only permitted Rabbinic-level violations of Shabbat and not Biblical prohibitions, because this is not true life-threatening danger. See (Shulchan Aruch) Orach Chaim 306:9, indicating that someone who is ill and overpowered by the world who tells them to send for his relatives, they are permitted to send for them through a non-Jewish intermediary on Shabbat. Als0 see 339:4, indicating that someone who is imminently dying is permitted to issue a divorce on Shabbat, so that his mind will not tear him apart. In all of these, they only permitted him Rabbinic-level prohibitions, but not for the Jew to travel himself, or for the relatives to travel on Shabbat, or similarly not to write the bill of divorce on Shabbat, see Achronim there. Since the tearing apart of the mind of the ill person and the person who is imminently dying is the second type that we mentioned, where he is afraid not for his body but for his words to be upheld, therefore there is nothing life-saving that would allow violation of Shabbat. This is unlike what indicated by the Levush 306:3, see there in Eliyahu Zuta section 4. ", "16. What emerges from these locations is that the Rambam codifies a permission to violate Shabbat's Biblical prohibitions in order to settle the mind of only a birthing mother and did not write similarly for an ill person, and even regarding someone who was bitten by a snake, he wrote about only useless speech. This proves that settling the mind is not life-saving, even though the bite is dangerous and he is afraid for his body. This is similarly proven in the Lechem Mishneh there in Laws of Foreign Worship 11:12, where he wrote that even though they permitted whispering over the site of the bite, they certainly did not permit him to whisper over the bite if it would have been possible to instead recite a verse from the Torah, see there. If settling the mind over a bite through whispering were life-saving, what would be the relevance that it would have been possible to recite a verse from the Torah? The whispering would still be permissible, and the verse would be forbidden. Moreover, the verse itself would have to be permissible as well, as the Tosafot wrote in Tractate Shevuot 15b, and as was ruled in the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 179:5. But in the Rambam's opinion, certainly the whispering is not life-saving, even though it comes to settle the mind of the person who has been bitten. Given this, we must understand how a birthing mother is different from other people with life-threatening illnesses: that settling her mind is truly life-saving. There is also a contradiction according to the Maggid Mishneh in either of two directions- for if they did not permit violating Shabbat for a birthing mother except in an abnormal way, because it is the natural way, why did they permit specifically for her violation of Shabbat to settle her mind? ", "17. In my humble opinion, blessed is the One who provided some of His wisdom to those who fear Him! For the Sages recognized how a birthing mother is different from someone with a life-threatening illness: an ill person just needs to rest and eat what he is given, etc. and his healing is in the hands of Heaven and the hands of other people, as opposed to the birthing mother, who must herself expel the offspring, which is hard labor, which is incomparable to any other challenge in the life of a man or woman, as is known. If she pushes when she should be resting, or does not push when she should push, she would be exhausting her strength and endangering herself, and she requires a settled mind, in order to listen to the instructions of the midwife or expert during the birth. If she did not have a settled mind during the time of the contractions, she also will not during the time she bends down to give birth. Thus a woman exhausts her strength if she does not have the emotional calm to rest during the contractions while she is experiencing pains. (NOTE: n.b. Also, fear strengthens pain, as written in the Moreh Nevuchim vol. 3 ch. 49 regarding circumcision.) This explains the Rambam's position, that we may violate Shabbat for her when she is crying out during labor, quite some time before the birth, because of the eventuality that she must expel her offspring. ", "18. The Sages' words need no reinforcement, and the Rambam was an expert doctor, however, I will write what I see after saying all this. In the research literature, a cohort of birthing mothers was divided into two groups. The first group was tracked during labor by machines measuring every minute the maternal and fetal heart rate etc., while in the second group each woman was tracked during labor by nurses standing next to the birthing mother from the time of contractions to the time of birth. The second group experienced a significant reduction of episodes of bleeding and c-sections in the birthing mother, as compared to the first group, and they explained this as the women having more settled minds, because of the nurses standing near them. Everything on this topic is known by those who know about birth, and this is why our Sages z\"l established that settling the mind of a birthing mother is really life-saving, and overrides Biblical Shabbat prohibitions, which is different from the standard treatment for any other ill person, as accords with the simplest read of the Gemara, and the conclusion of most Rishonim and the Rambam. Even though today they are able to extract the offspring with forceps or through a c-section, the ruling has not changed due to this, because every one of these methods introduces additional danger to the mother or infant, and doctors and the health-conscious are careful to avoid them. ", "19. However, the woman herself during labor has not yet entered life-threatening danger, and it is possible that this is what the Maggid Mishneh meant when he wrote \"that the pain of the birthing mother and her contractions are like a natural thing for her,\" speaking about the time of her contractions, when, truly, \"fewer than one in a thousand die,\" as he wrote later, except, his phrasing is not quite correct, as he wrote, \"during birth,\" and earlier used the term \"birthing mother,\" see there. Therefore, we break Shabbat for her in an abnormal way in a place where that is possible, since she is not like an ill person who is already in danger. Further, for any other ill person, we would violate Shabbat for his physical needs, but for a birthing mother, we violate it also to settle her mind. If you contend that perhaps requiring things do be done in an abnormal way will lead to them being not done at all- this is not something that is urgent. And if you contend that it would not provide her with a settled mind- when she knows that they will get her whatever she needs, that will settle her mind. And if you contend that people might come to confuse her case with that of another kind of ill person in life-threatening danger, and do things for him too through abnormal ways- these cases are not similar, since she is not in danger, since that begins only when her womb opens, which happens later. Additionally, according to the Rambam's position in Laws of Shabbat 2:3, \"regarding other types of ill people, we do not violate Shabbat using women as intermediaries, so that they will not view Shabbat lightly.\" In that case, for birthing mothers, since we would in an ideal case want the Shabbat violations to be done by women, since all the needs of birthing mothers were done by women in Talmudic times, it would be appropriate for them to do them in an abnormal way, to indicate not to learn from this case to other ill people. ", "20. The Beraita mentioned deviating from the normal way only regarding bringing oil and not regarding lighting the candle, and this aligns with the opinions of the Rambam, SMa\"G and KolBo. Even the opinions of the SMa\"K and Eshkol are this way, as I wrote above. Although the SMa\"K and Eshkol do not record the Rambam's other distinction, that between someone \"crying out during labor\" and someone \"bending down to give birth,\" it is obvious in my humble opinion that there is a great difference between the acts of transporting and lighting, because transporting is not in the birthing mother's presence, so why would she mind if the friend brings it in an abnormal way? But the lighting, which is in her presence, it would be opposite, and if her friends light a candle in an abnormal way, how much more would the birthing mother not have a settled mind, when she sees them being so \"pious\" not to violate Shabbat for her, which is why they are doing things abnormally! She would fear even more, worrying that they might not do for her what she needs. Therefore, all acts of labor that are done in the presence of the birthing mother must be done with no deviation from the normal way. This is opposed to transporting, which is out in public and not in her presence, as the Rambam specifically wrote \"while she brings it\" specifically. Even if she is blind and cannot see how they light it, in any case, perhaps she might sense that her friends are acting in an abnormal way, as the Magen Avraham wrote in 330 ibid., and it will not settle her mind. However, in my humble opinion, if we knew that she would not notice the deviation, we truly would light for a blind woman in an abnormal way, because the distinction between lighting and transporting was stated in the Beraita, and the Beraita was discussing a sighted woman, not a blind woman, and the rule for a blind woman was learned from the extra word in the Mishna's phrasing, where this distinction was not mentioned. ", "21. The position of the Rambam and co., that we violate Shabbat for her during her contractions in order to settle her mind, because of the eventuality that she must be able to expel the offspring, has apparent basis in the Mishna, which teaches, \"and call a midwife for her from one place to another, and break Shabbat for her,\" and calling a midwife for her occurs a great while before the birth, as the Achronim have written, that if they wait until the womb opens, the midwife would not arrive in time. Given this, \"we violate Shabbat for her,\" which they said, refers to also during the contractions, because of the eventual result, according to the Rambam, and they learned from this in the Gemara about settling her mind. " ] ], "Essays": [], "Miscellanea": [] }, "Volume II": { "Approbations": [], "Introduction": [], "": [], "Essays": [], "Miscellanea": [] }, "Volume III": { "Responsa by Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin": [], "Introduction": [], "": [], "Essays": [], "Miscellanea": [] }, "Volume IV": { "Introduction": [], "": [], "Essays": [] } }, "schema": { "heTitle": "שו\"ת בני בנים", "enTitle": "Responsa Benei Banim", "key": "Responsa Benei Banim", "nodes": [ { "heTitle": "חלק ראשון", "enTitle": "Volume I", "nodes": [ { "heTitle": "הסכמות ומכתבים", "enTitle": "Approbations and Letters" }, { "heTitle": "פתח דברים", "enTitle": "Introduction" }, { "heTitle": "", "enTitle": "" }, { "heTitle": "מאמרים", "enTitle": "Essays" }, { "heTitle": "שונות", "enTitle": "Miscellanea" } ] }, { "heTitle": "חלק שני", "enTitle": "Volume II", "nodes": [ { "heTitle": "הסכמות", "enTitle": "Approbations" }, { "heTitle": "פתח דברים", "enTitle": "Introduction" }, { "heTitle": "", "enTitle": "" }, { "heTitle": "מאמרים", "enTitle": "Essays" }, { "heTitle": "שונות", "enTitle": "Miscellanea" } ] }, { "heTitle": "חלק שלישי", "enTitle": "Volume III", "nodes": [ { "heTitle": "מקצת תשובות הגמו\"ז זצלה\"ה", "enTitle": "Responsa by Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin" }, { "heTitle": "פתח דברים", "enTitle": "Introduction" }, { "heTitle": "", "enTitle": "" }, { "heTitle": "מאמרים", "enTitle": "Essays" }, { "heTitle": "שונות", "enTitle": "Miscellanea" } ] }, { "heTitle": "חלק רביעי", "enTitle": "Volume IV", "nodes": [ { "heTitle": "פתח דברים", "enTitle": "Introduction" }, { "heTitle": "", "enTitle": "" }, { "heTitle": "מאמרים", "enTitle": "Essays" } ] } ] } }