Halakhah su Genesi 29:41

R. Yitzchak Ya'akov Weisz, Teshuvot Minḥat Yizḥak, I, no. 125, sec. 7, adduces evidence supporting the view that even a bride lacking a uterus must undergo immersion in a mikveh. Genesis 29:31 describes Rachel as an "akarah." Rashi, Yevamot 42b and Sotah 25b, states that the term "akarah" does not simply mean "barren" but is derived from the Hebrew verb "akor" meaning "to uproot" or "to pluck out" and is used to describe a woman who is sterile because she lacks a uterus. Accordingly, a miracle was necessary in order to effect an anatomical change so that Rachel might conceive. Yet, Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De'ah 192:3, states that Laban's motive in directing Jacob to wait a week following his marriage to Leah before marrying Rachel (Genesis 29:27) was a concern for fulfilling the halakhic requirement that a bride deem herself to be a niddah and wait the statutory seven-day period before immersing herself in a mikveh (and not because of the reason given by the Palestinian Talmud, Mo'ed Katan 1:7, cited by Tosafot, Mo'ed Katan 8b, to the effect that "one should not mingle one celebration with another celebration" and hence if one sister marries, the second sister should not marry until the week-long nuptial celebrations of the first sister have been completed). Subsequent to Laban's duplicity in substituting Leah in place of Rachel, a new agreement was reached between Laban and Jacob for an additional seven years of labor in return for the hand of Rachel in marriage. The negotiation of that agreement was tantamount to a new proposal of marriage which again required a waiting period of seven days. However, since Rachel lacked a uterus and hence it would have been impossible for her to become a niddah, this concern would not have been cogent unless the rabbinic edict applies to all women without exception. Minḥat Yizḥak, however, rejects this argument and states that Rachel may have undergone a partial hysterectomy which left a portion of her uterus intact and, accordingly, she might yet have been capable of experiencing menstruation. Rabbi Schneebalg notes that Scripture describes Rachel as an akarah only after it reports her marriage to Jacob. Failure to disclose Rachel's barrenness may well have been part of Laban's duplicity. Hence, Jacob may have been unaware of Rachel's condition prior to their marriage and, therefore, may have erroneously insisted upon the seven-day waiting period.

R. Yitzchak Ya'akov Weisz, Teshuvot Minḥat Yizḥak, I, no. 125, sec. 7, adduces evidence supporting the view that even a bride lacking a uterus must undergo immersion in a mikveh. Genesis 29:31 describes Rachel as an "akarah." Rashi, Yevamot 42b and Sotah 25b, states that the term "akarah" does not simply mean "barren" but is derived from the Hebrew verb "akor" meaning "to uproot" or "to pluck out" and is used to describe a woman who is sterile because she lacks a uterus. Accordingly, a miracle was necessary in order to effect an anatomical change so that Rachel might conceive. Yet, Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De'ah 192:3, states that Laban's motive in directing Jacob to wait a week following his marriage to Leah before marrying Rachel (Genesis 29:27) was a concern for fulfilling the halakhic requirement that a bride deem herself to be a niddah and wait the statutory seven-day period before immersing herself in a mikveh (and not because of the reason given by the Palestinian Talmud, Mo'ed Katan 1:7, cited by Tosafot, Mo'ed Katan 8b, to the effect that "one should not mingle one celebration with another celebration" and hence if one sister marries, the second sister should not marry until the week-long nuptial celebrations of the first sister have been completed). Subsequent to Laban's duplicity in substituting Leah in place of Rachel, a new agreement was reached between Laban and Jacob for an additional seven years of labor in return for the hand of Rachel in marriage. The negotiation of that agreement was tantamount to a new proposal of marriage which again required a waiting period of seven days. However, since Rachel lacked a uterus and hence it would have been impossible for her to become a niddah, this concern would not have been cogent unless the rabbinic edict applies to all women without exception. Minḥat Yizḥak, however, rejects this argument and states that Rachel may have undergone a partial hysterectomy which left a portion of her uterus intact and, accordingly, she might yet have been capable of experiencing menstruation. Rabbi Schneebalg notes that Scripture describes Rachel as an akarah only after it reports her marriage to Jacob. Failure to disclose Rachel's barrenness may well have been part of Laban's duplicity. Hence, Jacob may have been unaware of Rachel's condition prior to their marriage and, therefore, may have erroneously insisted upon the seven-day waiting period.