שאלות ותשובֿות אויף שמות 1:16

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? It would be 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. Rather certainly, the time that she is crying out during labor is one thing, when we should permit violating Shabbat to settle her mind, and the time she is bending down to give birth is another thing, when 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?" See there. Truly, we would not violate Shabbat for that [at that stage in labor] except to settle her mind. And as for the idea that the friends need to see when the womb has opened, and 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 felt even in the dark. Of course, 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' concerning blood, was only said about 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 fetus 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 [thus] clear that what the Rambam wrote in his Commentary on the Mishna in Nidda was according to the position of the Gaonim, and 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. But 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?"