| |||||
- 
- ב"ה - Today in Judaism - Today is Monday, 7 Tevet, 5778 · December 25, 2017Torah Reading:
Vayechi: Genesis 47:28 - 48:9
Vayechi: Genesis 47:28 Ya‘akov lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years; thus Ya‘akov lived to be 147 years old. 29 The time came when Isra’el was approaching death; so he called for his son Yosef and said to him, “If you truly love me, please put your hand under my thigh and pledge that, out of consideration for me, you will not bury me in Egypt. 30 Rather, when I sleep with my fathers, you are to carry me out of Egypt and bury me where they are buried.” He replied, “I will do as you have said.” 31 He said, “Swear it to me,” and he swore to him. Then Isra’el bowed down at the head of his bed.
48:1 Awhile later someone told Yosef that his father was ill. He took with him his two sons, M’nasheh and Efrayim. 2 Ya‘akov was told, “Here comes your son Yosef.” Isra’el gathered his strength and sat up in bed. 3 Ya‘akov said to Yosef, “El Shaddai appeared to me at Luz in the land of Kena‘an and blessed me, 4 saying to me, ‘I will make you fruitful and numerous. I will make of you a group of peoples; and I will give this land to your descendants to possess forever.’ 5 Now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Efrayim and M’nasheh will be as much mine as Re’uven and Shim‘on are. 6 The children born to you after them will be yours, but for purposes of inheritance they are to be counted with their older brothers.
7 “Now as for me, when I came from Paddan, Rachel died suddenly, as we were traveling through the land of Kena‘an, while we were still some distance from Efrat; so I buried her there on the way to Efrat (also known as Beit-Lechem).”
8 Then Isra’el noticed Yosef’s sons and asked, “Whose are these?” 9 Yosef answered his father, “They are my sons, whom God has given me here.” Ya‘akov replied, “I want you to bring them here to me, so that I can bless them.”
---
Today's Laws & Customs:
• Sanctification of the Moon
Once a month, as the moon waxes in the sky, we recite a special blessing called Kiddush Levanah, "the sanctification of the moon," praising the Creator for His wondrous work we call astronomy.
Kiddush Levanah is recited after nightfall, usually on Saturday night. The blessing is concluded with songs and dancing, because our nation is likened to the moon—as it waxes and wanes, so have we throughout history. When we bless the moon, we renew our trust that very soon, the light of G‑d's presence will fill all the earth and our people will be redeemed from exile.
Though Kiddush Levanah can be recited as early as three days after the moon's rebirth, the kabbalah tells us it is best to wait a full week, till the seventh of the month. Once 15 days have passed, the moon begins to wane once more and the season for saying the blessing has passed.
Links:
Brief Guide to Kiddush Levanah: Thank G‑d for the Moon!
More articles on Kiddush Levanah from our knowledgebase.
Daily Quote: The Torah commands that "No leaven, nor any honey, shall be offered by fire to G-d" (Leviticus 2:11). Ultra-sweet honey and ultra-sour leaven, are opposite extremes; G-d does not like extremes. (Chassidic master Rabbi Mendel of Kotz)
Daily Torah Study:
Chumash: Vayechi, 2nd Portion Genesis 48:10-48:16 with Rashi
• English / Hebrew Linear Translation
• Video Class
• Daily Wisdom (short insight)
Genesis Chapter 48
10Now Israel's eyes had become heavy with age, [to the extent that] he could not see. So he drew them near to him, and he kissed them and embraced them. יוְעֵינֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ כָּֽבְד֣וּ מִזֹּ֔קֶן לֹ֥א יוּכַ֖ל לִרְא֑וֹת וַיַּגֵּ֤שׁ אֹתָם֙ אֵלָ֔יו וַיִּשַּׁ֥ק לָהֶ֖ם וַיְחַבֵּ֥ק לָהֶֽם:
11And Israel said to Joseph, "I had not expected to see [even] your face, and behold, God has shown me your children too." יאוַיֹּ֤אמֶר יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אֶל־יוֹסֵ֔ף רְאֹ֥ה פָנֶ֖יךָ לֹ֣א פִלָּ֑לְתִּי וְהִנֵּ֨ה הֶרְאָ֥ה אֹתִ֛י אֱלֹהִ֖ים גַּ֥ם אֶת־זַרְעֶֽךָ:
I had not expected: Heb. לֹא פִלָלְתִּי. I dared not entertain the thought that I would see your face again. פִלָלְתִּי is a word meaning thought, similar to“Bring counsel, deliberate thought (פְלִילָה)” (Isa. 16:3).
לא פללתי: לא מלאני לבי לחשוב מחשבה שאראה פניך עוד. פללתי לשון מחשבה, כמו (ישעיה טז ג) הביאי עצה עשי פלילה:
12And Joseph took them out from upon his [Jacob's] knees, and he prostrated himself to the ground. יבוַיּוֹצֵ֥א יוֹסֵ֛ף אֹתָ֖ם מֵעִ֣ם בִּרְכָּ֑יו וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ לְאַפָּ֖יו אָֽרְצָה:
And Joseph took them out from upon his [Jacob’s] knees: After he (Jacob) had kissed them, Joseph took them off his (Jacob’s) knees to sit them down, this one to the right and this one to the left, [to make it easier for his father] to lay his hands upon them and bless them.
ויוצא יוסף אתם: לאחר שנשקם הוציאם יוסף מעם ברכיו כדי לישבם, זה לימין וזה לשמאל לסמוך ידיו עליהם ולברכם:
and he prostrated himself to the ground: when he moved backward from before his father.
וישתחו לאפיו: כשחזר לאחוריו מלפני אביו:
13And Joseph took them both, Ephraim at his right, from Israel's left, and Manasseh at his left, from Israel's right, and he brought [them] near to him. יגוַיִּקַּ֣ח יוֹסֵף֘ אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם֒ אֶת־אֶפְרַ֤יִם בִּֽימִינוֹ֙ מִשְּׂמֹ֣אל יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאֶת־מְנַשֶּׁ֥ה בִשְׂמֹאל֖וֹ מִימִ֣ין יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיַּגֵּ֖שׁ אֵלָֽיו:
Ephraim at his right, from Israel’s left: If one comes toward his friend, his right is opposite his friend’s left. Since he (Manasseh) is the firstborn, he should be placed on the right for the blessing. — [from Peskita Rabbathi ch. 3]
את אפרים בימינו משמאל ישראל: הבא לקראת חברו ימינו כנגד שמאל חברו, וכיון שהוא הבכור מיומן לברכה:
14But Israel stretched out his right hand and placed [it] on Ephraim's head, although he was the younger, and his left hand [he placed] on Manasseh's head. He guided his hands deliberately, for Manasseh was the firstborn. ידוַיִּשְׁלַח֩ יִשְׂרָאֵ֨ל אֶת־יְמִינ֜וֹ וַיָּ֨שֶׁת עַל־רֹ֤אשׁ אֶפְרַ֨יִם֙ וְה֣וּא הַצָּעִ֔יר וְאֶת־שְׂמֹאל֖וֹ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ מְנַשֶּׁ֑ה שִׂכֵּל֙ אֶת־יָדָ֔יו כִּ֥י מְנַשֶּׁ֖ה הַבְּכֽוֹר:
He guided his hands deliberately: Heb. שִׂכֵּל. As the Targum renders: אַחְכִּמִינוּן, he put wisdom into them. Deliberately and with wisdom, he guided his hands for that purpose, and with knowledge, for he knew [full well] that Manasseh was the firstborn, but he nevertheless did not place his right hand upon him.
שכל את ידיו: כתרגומו אחכמינון, בהשכל וחכמה השכיל את ידיו (לכך, ומדעת), כי יודע היה כי מנשה הבכור, ואף על פי כן לא שת ימינו עליו:
15And he blessed Joseph and said, "God, before Whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked, God Who sustained me as long as I am alive, until this day, טווַיְבָ֥רֶךְ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֖ף וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הָֽאֱלֹהִ֡ים אֲשֶׁר֩ הִתְהַלְּכ֨וּ אֲבֹתַ֤י לְפָנָיו֙ אַבְרָהָ֣ם וְיִצְחָ֔ק הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ הָֽרֹעֶ֣ה אֹתִ֔י מֵֽעוֹדִ֖י עַד־הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה:
16may the angel who redeemed me from all harm bless the youths, and may they be called by my name and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, and may they multiply abundantly like fish, in the midst of the land." טזהַמַּלְאָךְ֩ הַגֹּאֵ֨ל אֹתִ֜י מִכָּל־רָ֗ע יְבָרֵךְ֘ אֶת־הַנְּעָרִים֒ וְיִקָּרֵ֤א בָהֶם֙ שְׁמִ֔י וְשֵׁ֥ם אֲבֹתַ֖י אַבְרָהָ֣ם וְיִצְחָ֑ק וְיִדְגּ֥וּ לָרֹ֖ב בְּקֶ֥רֶב הָאָֽרֶץ:
the angel who redeemed me: The angel who was usually sent to me in my distress, as the matter is stated: “And an angel of God said to me in a dream, ‘Jacob!…I am the God of Bethel’ ” (Gen. 31:11-13). - [after Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel]
המלאך הגאל אתי: מלאך הרגיל להשתלח אלי בצרתי, כענין שנאמר (בראשית לא יא - יג) ויאמר אלי מלאך הא-להים בחלום יעקב וגו' אנכי האל בית אל:
bless the youths: Manasseh and Ephraim.
יברך את הנערים: מנשה ואפרים:
and may they multiply…like fish: [Just] like fish, which proliferate and multiply, and are unaffected by the evil eye. — [from Onkelos and Gen. Rabbah 97:3]
וידגו: כדגים הללו שפרים ורבים ואין עין [הרע] שולטת בהם:
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 39 - 43
• Hebrew text
• English text
Chapter 39
David's prayer bewailing his suffering. But it is not suffering itself that pains him, rather he is saddened by its disturbing his Torah study. For man's days are few, "and if not now, when (will he study)?" for he may die, today or tomorrow. He therefore requests that his suffering be removed, to enable him to study Torah and acquire a place in the World to Come.
1. For the Conductor, for yedutun,1 a psalm by David.
2. I said that I would guard my ways from sinning with my tongue; I would guard my mouth with a muzzle, [even] while the wicked one is before me.
3. I became mute with stillness, I was silent [even] from the good, though my pain was crippling.
4. My heart grew hot within me, a fire blazed in my utterance, as I spoke with my tongue.
5. O Lord, let me know my end and what is the measure of my days, that I may know when I will cease.
6. Behold, like handbreadths You set my days; my lifetime is as naught before You. But all is futility, all mankind's existence, Selah.
7. Only in darkness does man walk, seeking only futility; he amasses riches and knows not who will reap them.
8. And now, what is my hope, my Lord? My longing is to You.
9. Rescue me from all my transgressions; do not make me the scorn of the degenerate.
10. I am mute, I do not open my mouth, for You have caused [my suffering].
11. Remove Your affliction from me; I am devastated by the attack of Your hand.
12. In reproach for sin You chastened man; like a moth, You wore away that which is precious to him. All mankind is nothing but futility, forever.
13. Hear my prayer, O Lord, listen to my cry; do not be silent to my tears, for I am a stranger with You, a sojourner like all my forefathers.
14. Turn from me, that I may recover my strength, before I depart and I am no more.
FOOTNOTES
1.A musical instrument (Metzudot).
Chapter 40
The psalmist speaks of the numerous wonders that God wrought for the Jewish people, asking: "Who can articulate His might? I would relate and speak of them, but they are too numerous to recount!" He created the world and split the sea for the sake of Israel, [yet] He desires no sacrifices, only that we listen to His voice.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. I put my hope in the Lord; He turned to me and heard my cry.
3. He raised me from the turbulent pit, from the slimy mud, and set my feet upon a rock, steadying my steps.
4. He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn to our God; multitudes will see and fear, and will trust in the Lord.
5. Fortunate is the man who has made the Lord his trust, and did not turn to the haughty, nor to those who stray after falsehood.
6. You have done much, O You, Lord my God-Your wonders and thoughts are for us; none can compare to You; should I relate or speak of them, they are too numerous to recount!
7. You desired neither sacrifice nor meal-offering, but [obedient] ears You opened for me; You requested neither burnt-offering nor sin-offering.
8. Then I said, "Behold, I come with a Scroll of the Book written for me."1
9. I desire to fulfill Your will, my God; and Your Torah is in my innards.
10. I proclaimed [Your] righteousness in a vast congregation; behold I will not restrain my lips-O Lord, You know!
11. I did not conceal Your righteousness within my heart; I declared Your faithfulness and deliverance; I did not hide Your kindness and truth from the vast congregation.
12. May You, Lord, not withhold Your mercies from me; may Your kindness and truth constantly guard me.
13. For countless evils surround me; my sins have overtaken me and I cannot see; they outnumber the hairs of my head, and my heart has abandoned me.
14. May it please You, Lord, to save me; O Lord, hurry to my aid.
15. Let those who seek my life, to end it, be shamed and humiliated together; let those who desire my harm retreat and be disgraced.
16. Let those who say about me, "Aha! Aha!" be desolate, in return for their shaming [me].
17. Let all those who seek You exult and rejoice in You; let those who love Your deliverance always say, "Be exalted, O Lord!”
18. As for me, I am poor and needy; my Lord will think of me. You are my help and my rescuer; my God, do not delay!
FOOTNOTES
1.Upon recovery, David expresses thanks, not through sacrifices, by dedicating himself to Torah (Radak).
Chapter 41
This psalm teaches many good character traits, and inspires one to be thoughtful and conscientious in giving charity-knowing to whom to give first. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the sick one, providing him with his needs.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by David.
2. Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the poor, [for] the Lord will save him on the day of evil.
3. The Lord will guard him and keep him alive; he will be praised throughout the land; You will not deliver him to the desires of his enemies.
4. The Lord will support him on the bed of illness; You will turn him over in his bed all throughout his sickness.
5. I said, "Lord, be gracious to me! Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You!”
6. My foes say that evil [awaits] me: "When will he die, and his name perish?”
7. And if one comes to see [me], he speaks insincerely, for his heart gathers iniquity for himself, and when he goes out he speaks of it.
8. Together they whisper against me-all my enemies; against me they devise my harm, [saying]:
9. "Let his wickedness pour into him; now that he lies down, he shall rise no more.”
10. Even my ally in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has raised his heel over me.
11. But you, Lord, be gracious to me and raise me up, and I will repay them.
12. With this I shall know that You desire me, when my enemies will not shout gleefully over me.
13. And I, because of my integrity, You upheld me; You set me before You forever.
14. Blessed is the Lord, the God of Israel, to all eternity, Amen and Amen.
Chapter 42
This psalm awakens the hearts of the Children of Israel who do not feel the immense ruin, loss, and bad fortune in their being exiled from their Father's table. Were they wise, they would appreciate their past good fortune in coming thrice yearly, with joy and great awe, to behold God during the festivals, free of adversary and harm. May God place mercy before us from now to eternity, Amen Selah.
1. For the Conductor, a maskil1 by the sons of Korach.
2. As the deer cries longingly for brooks of water, so my soul cries longingly for You, O God!
3. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When will I come and behold the countenance of God?
4. My tears have been my bread day and night, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
5. These do I recall, and pour out my soul from within me: how I traveled [to Jerusalem] in covered wagons; I would walk leisurely with them up to the House of God, amid the sound of rejoicing and thanksgiving, the celebrating multitude.
6. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him for the deliverances of His countenance.
7. My God! My soul is downcast upon me, because I remember You from the land of Jordan and Hermon's peaks, from Mount Mitzar.2
8. Deep calls to deep3 at the roar of Your channels; all Your breakers and waves have swept over me.
9. By day the Lord ordains His kindness, and at night His song is with me, a prayer to the God of my life.
10. I say to God, my rock, "Why have You forgotten me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?”
11. Like a sword in my bones, my adversaries disgrace me, when they say to me all day, "Where is your God?”
12. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
FOOTNOTES
1.A psalm intended to enlighten and impart knowledge. (Metzudot)
2.My heart aches when I remember the pilgrims from lands east of Jordan, and those from distant Hermon and Mitzar, who would travel to Jerusalem for the festivals (Radak)
3.Before one misfortune has ended, another is already upon us; as if one calls the other to come (Metzudot).
Chapter 43
A significant prayer concerning the magnitude of the troubles we have suffered at the hands of the impious nations. May it be God's will to send Moshiach and Elijah the Prophet, who will lead us to the Holy Temple to offer sacrifices as in days of old.
1. Avenge me, O God, and champion my cause against an impious nation; rescue me from the man of deceit and iniquity.
2. For You are the God of my strength; why have You abandoned me? Why must I walk in gloom under the oppression of the enemy?
3. Send Your light and Your truth, they will guide me; they will bring me to Your holy mountain and to your sanctuaries.
4. Then I will come to the altar of God-to God, the joy of my delight-and praise You on the lyre, O God, my God.
5. Why are you downcast, my soul, and why do you wail within me? Hope to God, for I will yet thank Him; He is my deliverance, [the light of] my countenance, and my God.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 8
• English Text (Lessons in Tanya)
• Hebrew Text
• Audio Class: Listen | Download
• Video Class
Monday, Tevet 7, 5778 · December 25, 2017
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 8
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Yehoshua B. Gordon Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Manis Freidman Listen • Download MP3
ועוד זאת במאכלות אסורות, שלכך נקראים בשם איסור
There is an additional aspect in the matter of forbidden foods, for which reason they are calledissur (“bound” and attached):
מפני שאף מי שאכל מאכל איסור בלא הודע, לשם שמים, לעבוד ה׳ בכח אכילה ההיא
Even if one ate a forbidden food unwittingly and his intention in eating was for the sake of heaven, i.e., in order to serve G‑d with the energy derived from it;
(Had the food been permitted, the very act of eating for the sake of heaven would suffice to extract the good from the evil of the food’s vitality, as explained above. In this instance, however, forbidden food was eaten for the sake of heaven.)
וגם פעל ועשה כן, וקרא והתפלל בכח אכילה ההיא
moreover, even if he actually carried out his intention, having studied and prayed with the energy derived from that food;
(Again, had the food been permitted and the person studied and prayed with the energy provided by the food, the energy would be elevated to Sanctity. But because the food was forbidden —)
אין החיות שבה עולה ומתלבשת בתיבות התורה והתפלה כמו ההיתר
the vitality contained in it does not ascend or become clothed in the words of Torah and prayerthat he studies and prays with the energy of that food as is the case with permitted foods,
מפני איסורה בידי הסטרא אחרא משלש קליפות הטמאות
because it is held captive in the power of the sitra achra of the three unclean kelipot which do not permit the energy of the food to be elevated to Sanctity.
ואפילו הוא איסור דרבנן, שחמורים דברי סופרים יותר מדברי תורה כו׳
This is so even if it is forbidden by reason of a Rabbinic prohibition, for1 “the words i.e., the prohibitions of the Scribes are even more stringent than the words of the Torah.”
ולכן, גם היצר הרע וכח המתאוה לדברים האסורים הוא שד משדין נוכראין, שהוא יצר הרע של אומות העולם, שנפשותיהם משלש קליפות הטמאות
Therefore, the yetzer hara (evil impulse) and the force that lusts after forbidden things is also2“one of the non-Jewish demons,” which is the yetzer hara of the nations, whose souls are derived from the three unclean kelipot.
They therefore lust after forbidden matters, since the forbidden matters, too, derive their energy from the three unclean kelipot.
מה שאין כן היצר הרע וכח המתאוה לדברים המותרים, למלאות תאותו, הוא שד משדין יהודאין, לפי שיכול לחזור לקדושה כדלעיל
On the other hand, the evil impulse and the craving force after permissible things even when done solely to satisfy one’s craving in which case, as mentioned earlier, even the permissible matter descends into the utter evil of the three unclean kelipot; still it is3 “one of the Jewish demons”; it is, as it were, a Jewish evil impulse, for it (the vitality of a permitted thing) can be reverted to holiness, as was explained above.4
Since the food itself is permissible, therefore, though it was eaten to satisfy bodily desire, it can still be elevated to holiness (when the person returns to the study of Torah and the service of G‑d). The yetzer hara for forbidden matters, however, is intrinsically un-Jewish, i.e., essentially foreign to the Jew’s character. As explained elsewhere, one acquires this “foreign” yetzer hara by immersing himself in “permitted” pleasures. These so coarsen him that he begins to lust after prohibited matters as well — a desire totally unnatural for the Jew.
אך מכל מקום קודם שחזר לקדושה הוא סטרא אחרא וקליפה
Although the vitality of permitted foods eaten out of bodily desire can revert to holiness through the person’s repentance, nevertheless, before it has reverted to holiness it is sitra achra and kelipah,
וגם אחר כך הרשימו ממנו נשאר דבוק בגוף
and even afterwards (after the person repented and elevated the energy of the food to holiness) a trace of it remains attached to the person’s body,
להיות כי מכל מאכל ומשקה נעשה תיכף דם ובשר מבשרו
since each item of food and drink that one ingests immediately becomes blood and flesh of his flesh.
Since the food which became his flesh and blood was evil at the time of consumption — having been eaten for the sake of bodily pleasure — a trace of the kelipah remains in the body even after the person has repented and elevated the vitality of the food to holiness.
ולכן צריך הגוף לחיבוט הקבר, לנקותו ולטהרו מטומאתו שקיבל בהנאת עולם הזה ותענוגיו, מטומאת קליפת נוגה ושדין יהודאין
That is why the body must undergo the “Purgatory of the Grave” (a specific punishment for the body5 ) in order to cleanse it and purify it of the uncleanness which it had received from the enjoyment of mundane things and pleasures, which are from the impurity of the kelipat nogahand of the “Jewish demons” (i.e., the “Jewish yetzer hara” which desires permitted matters);
אלא אם כן מי שלא נהנה מעולם הזה כל ימיו
unless one had never derived enjoyment from this world all his life (i.e., either he actually derived no enjoyment, or his enjoyment was not of this world, since all his actions were completely for the sake of mitzvotand holiness),
כרבינו הקדוש
as was the case with Rabbeinu HaKadosh (Rabbi Judah the Prince, who said at the time of his demise that he had had no enjoyment of this world even to the extent of his “small finger”).
He who never derived pleasure from this world all his life need not undergo the “Purgatory of the Grave.” However, anyone who has not attained this level must undergo this punishment to purify his body of the uncleanness received from the enjoyment of mundane pleasures.
* * *
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | Mishnah, Sanhedrin 88b; Bamidbar Rabbah 14:12. |
| 2. | Zohar III, 253a; 277a. |
| 3. | Zohar III, 253a; 277a. |
| 4. | Ch. 7. |
| 5. | See Zohar II, 151a, and especially Rabbi Chayim Vital, end of Sefer HaGilgulim, and Sefer HaKavanot, p. 55b. |
• Sefer Hamitzvot:
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassMonday, Tevet 7, 5778 · December 25, 2017
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
AUDIO & VIDEO CLASSES
• VIDEO CLASS: Rabbi Mendel Kaplan Watch • Listen
• AUDIO CLASS: Rabbi Berel Bell Listen • MP3 Download
Negative Commandment 348
Bestiality (for a man)
"And with no animal shall you cohabit"—Leviticus 18:23.
It is forbidden for a man to engage in sexual relations with an animal.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Bestiality (for a man)
Negative Commandment 348
Translated by Berel Bell
The 348th prohibition is that we are forbidden from having sexual relations with an animal, whether it be male or female.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "do not perform any sexual act with an animal."
One who transgresses this prohibition intentionally is punished by s'kila; if he does not receive stoning,2 he is punished by kares; and if it was done unintentionally, he must bring a sin-offering.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 18:23.
2.E.g. there were no witnesses.
Negative Commandment 349
Bestiality (for a woman)
"And a woman shall not stand in front of an animal to cohabit with it"—Leviticus 18:23.
It is forbidden for a woman to engage in sexual relations with an animal.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Bestiality (for a woman)
Negative Commandment 349
Translated by Berel Bell
The 349th prohibition is that women are forbidden from allowing animals to have sexual relations with them.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "A woman shall not give herself to an animal and allow it to mate with her."
This counts as a separate commandment distinct from the previous one. [The proof of this is that] the prohibition on males from having relations with animals does not itself prohibit women from allowing animals to have relations with them, would it not be for a separate prohibition.
In the first chapter of Kerisus,2 our Sages say, "there are 36 mitzvos in the Torah which are punishable by kares." They enumerate them, and include both a man and a woman committing bestiality. [These are counted separately,] even though the Sages only enumerate general categories, as we explained in our commentary.3 We have therefore proven that this mitzvah counts as a separate prohibition.
One who transgresses this prohibition intentionally is punished by stoning; if it was done intentionally but there was no acceptable testimony, she receives kares; and if it was done unintentionally, she must bring a sin-offering.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ibid.
2.Ch.1, Mishneh 1.
3.In his Commentary to the Mishneh, the Rambam comments on the prohibition of having relations with a woman and her daughter, which is listed as one of the 36. Although relations with a woman and her granddaughter, etc. are also prohibited, the Mishneh just lists the one general idea of "parents" and "offspring" — counting it as just one of the 36 categories. Nevertheless, the two mitzvos mentioned here are listed separately, and count as two of the 36.
Negative Commandment 350
Male Homosexuality
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; this is an abomination"—Leviticus 18:22.
It is forbidden for a man to engage in homosexual relations.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Male Homosexuality
Negative Commandment 350
Translated by Berel Bell
The 350th prohibition is that [a male] is forbidden from having relations with another male.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not lie with a man as you would with a woman, since this is a disgusting perversion." The same prohibition is repeated a second time,2 "there shall not be a prostitute among Jewish men."
This is the proper explanation of the repetition — that it was added to give additional stress, not to give a separate prohibition for the passive partner. From the statement, "do not lie," one derives the prohibition for both parties.
In3 tractate Sanhedrin,4 it is explained that Rabbi Yishmael is the one who interprets the verse, "there shall not be a prostitute" as a prohibition to the passive partner. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yishmael, one who both has relations with a male and allows a male to have relations with him in the same helam5 must bring two sin-offerings. But Rabbi Akiva says, "[a separate verse] is not necessary [to make a prohibition on the passive partner]. The Torah says, 'do not lie (lo sishkav) with a man' — it can also be read, 'do not allow another to lie with you (lo sishacheiv).' " Therefore, according to him, one who both has relations with a male and allows a male to have relations with him in the same helam must only bring one sin-offering. The reasoning given is "lo sishkav and lo sishacheiv are one prohibition," and according to him, "there shall not be a prostitute" comes only to add stress. This is similar to the prohibition,6 "do not commit adultery," which is the same prohibition of a married woman,7 "do not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife." We explained many similar cases in the Ninth Introductory Principle.
One who transgresses this prohibition [intentionally] is punished by stoning; if it was done intentionally but he did not receive stoning, he receives kares; and if it was done unintentionally, he must bring a sin-offering.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 18:22.
2.Deut. 23:18.
3.The Rambam now proceeds to prove that this counts as only one prohibition, and not two.
4.54b.
5.Literally, a "concealment." One brings a sin-offering only if the transgression was done unintentionally. If one does the same prohibited act many times without realizing that the act was forbidden, only one sin-offering is brought.
This is known as helam echad, one concealment. However, if two different prohibitions are done, even in the same helam, two offerings must be brought.
6.N347.
7.Lev. 18:20.
Negative Commandment 351
Father-Son Incest
"You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father"—Leviticus 18:7.
It is forbidden for a man to engage in homosexual relations with his father. One who does so transgresses two prohibitions: the general prohibition against homosexuality as well as this specific prohibition.
Full text of this Mitzvah »
Father-Son Incest
Negative Commandment 351
Translated by Berel Bell
The 351st prohibition is that one is forbidden from having [homosexual] relations with one's father.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "do not commit a sexual offense against your father."
One who transgresses this prohibition also is punished by stoning. One who has relations with his father is therefore guilty of homosexual relations2 and of relations with one's father.
In tractate Sanhedrin,3 the verse "do not commit a sexual offense against your father" is explained as meaning, "literally, your father."4 On this they ask, "but this is already prohibited from the verse, 'do not lie with a man'! They answer, "[this verse comes] to make him guilty of two offenses, like Rav Yehudah said, 'a non-Jew who has relations with his father is guilty of two offenses.' " There they explain, "it is sensible to say that Rav Yehudah was really referring to the law of a Jew who has done the act unintentionally, and who must bring a sacrifice. He used the expression, "non-Jew" as a euphemism."5 Therefore, if he had relations with his father unintentionally, he would bring two sin-offerings just as one who unintentionally committed two types of sexual prohibitions. This is not the case with [homosexual relations with] another male, where only one sin-offering would be brought.
FOOTNOTES
1.Lev. 18:7.
2.N350 above.
3.54a.
4.Rather than translating "a sexual offense against your father" as incest with one's mother, which would automatically be an offense against one's father.
5.Rav Yehudah didn't even want to mention a Jew in reference to such an act.
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter A Day: Tzitzit Tzitzit - Chapter Three
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassTzitzit - Chapter Three
1
A garment to which the Torah obligates a person to attach tzitzit [must meet the following requirements]:
a) it must have four - or more than four - corners;
b) it must be large enough to cover both the head and the majority of the body of a child who is able to walk on his own in the marketplace without having someone else accompany him and watch him;
c) it must be made of either wool or linen alone.
א
כסות שחייב אדם לעשות בה ציצית מן התורה היא כסות שיש לה ארבע כנפים או יותר על ארבע ותהיה מדתה כדי שיתכסה בה ראשו ורובו של קטן המתהלך לבדו בשוק ואינו צריך אחר לשומרו ולילך עמו ותהיה הכסות של צמר או של פשתן בלבד:
Commentary on Halachah 1
2
In contrast, a garment made of other fabrics - for example, clothes of silk, cotton, camels' wool, hares' wool, goats' wool, and the like - are required to have tzitzit only because of Rabbinic decree, in order to show regard for the mitzvah of tzitzit.
[These garments require tzitzit only] when they are four-cornered - or have more than four corners - and are of the measure mentioned above.
[The motivating principle for this law] is that all the garments mentioned in the Torah without any further explanation refer to those made of either wool or linen alone.
ב
אבל טלית של שאר מינין כגון בגדי משי ובגדי צמר גפן ובגדי צמר גמלים וצמר ארנבים ונוצה של עזים וכיוצא בהן אין חייבין במצות ציצית אלא מדברי חכמים כדי להזהר במצות ציצית והוא שתהיה מרובעת או יותר על ארבע ויהיה שיעורה כשיעור שאמרנו שכל הבגדים האמורים בתורה סתם אינם אלא צמר ופשתים בלבד:
Commentary on Halachah 2
3
"On the four corners of your garments" (Deuteronomy 22:12): This applies to a garment which possesses four corners, but not to one which possesses only three. Perhaps, [it comes to include] a four-cornered garment and [to exclude] a five-cornered garment? The Torah continues: "with which you cover yourself." This includes even a five- (or more) cornered garment.
Why do I obligate a garment of five corners and exempt a garment of three corners? Neither has four corners [as required by the above verse]. Because a five-cornered garment has four corners.
Accordingly, when one attaches tzitzit to a garment with five or six corners, one should attach the tzitzit only to the four corners which are farthest apart from each other from among these five or six corners, as [implied by the phrase,] "On the four corners of your garments."
ג
על ארבע כנפות כסותך בעלת ארבע ולא בעלת שלש אם כן בעלת ארבע ולא בעלת חמש תלמוד לומר אשר תכסה בה אפילו בעלת חמש או יותר על זה ולמה אני מחייב בעלת חמש ופוטר בעלת שלש ושתיהן אינן בעלי ארבע כנפות מפני שיש בכלל החמש ארבע לפיכך כשהוא עושה ציצית לבעלת חמש או שש אינו עושה אלא לארבע כנפים המרוחקות זו מזו מאותן החמש או השש בלבד שנאמר על ארבע כנפות כסותך:
Commentary on Halachah 3
4
If a garment is made of cloth and its corners of leather, it requires tzitzit. If the garment is of leather and its corners are of cloth, it does not require tzitzit. The determining factor is the makeup of the garment itself.
A garment belonging to two partners requires [tzitzit], as [implied by Numbers 15:38]: "On the corners of their garments." The term "your garments" [(Deuteronomy 22:12), which is interpreted as an exclusion,] excludes only a borrowed garment, since a borrowed garment does not require tzitzit for thirty days. Afterwards, it does require them.
ד
כסות של בגד וכנפיה של עור חייבת היא של עור וכנפיה של בגד פטורה שאין הולכין אלא אחר עיקר הכסות כסות של שני שותפין חייבת שנאמר על כנפי בגדיהם לא נאמר כסותך אלא למעט שאולה שהטלית השאולה פטורה מן הציצית שלשים יום מכאן ואילך חייבת:
Commentary on Halachah 4
5
For a garment of wool, the white strands should be made of wool. For a garment of linen, the white strands should be made of linen. For garments of other [fabrics], the white strands should be made from the same fabric as the garment itself. For example, silk strands should be used for a silk garment, strands of goats' wool should be used for garments of goats' wool.
If one desired to make white strands of wool or linen for [garments of] any type [of fabric], one may, because [strands of] wool and linen can fulfill the obligation [of tzitzit] for garments made of their own fabric or for garments made of other fabrics. In contrast, [strands made] from other fabrics can fulfill the obligation [of tzitzit] only for garments made of their own fabric.
ה
כסות של צמר עושין לבן שלה חוטי צמר וכסות של פשתן עושין לבן שלה חוטי פשתן ממינה ושאר בגדים עושין לבן של כל מין ומין ממינו כגון חוטי משי לכסות משי וחוטי נוצה לכסות נוצה ואם רצה לעשות לבן לכל שאר מינים מצמר או מפשתים עושה מפני שהצמר והפשתן פוטרין בין במינן בין שלא במינן ושאר מינין במינן פוטרין שלא במינן אין פוטרין:
Commentary on Halachah 5
6
What is the ruling regarding making woolen strands for a garment of linen or linen strands for a garment of wool - even though we are speaking only of the white strands without techelet?
One might think that it should be permitted, because sha'atnez is permitted to be used for tzitzit, as evident from the fact that techelet is made using woolen strands, and yet it should be placed on a linen garment. Nevertheless, this is not done.
Why? Because it is possible to make the white strands from the same fabric as [the garment]. Whenever [a conflict exists] between the observance of a positive commandment and the adherence to a negative commandment, [the following rules apply]: If it is possible to observe both of them, one should. If not, the observance of the positive commandment supersedes the negative commandment. In the present instance, however, it is possible to observe both of them.
ו
ומה הוא לעשות חוטי צמר בכסות של פשתן או חוטי פשתן בכסות של צמר אע"פ שהוא לבן לבדו בלא תכלת בדין הוא שיהא מותר שהשעטנז מותר לענין ציצית שהרי התכלת צמר הוא ומטילין אותה לפשתן ומפני מה אין עושין כן מפני שאפשר לעשות הלבן שלה ממינה וכל מקום שאתה מוצא עשה ולא תעשה אם יכול אתה לקיים את שתיהן הרי מוטב ואם לאו יבא עשה וידחה את לא תעשה וכאן אפשר לקיים את שתיהן:
Commentary on Halachah 6
7
Techelet should not be attached to a linen garment. Rather, one should [make the tzitzit] from white threads of linen alone. This is not because [the prohibition against] sha'atnez supersedes [the mitzvah of] tzitzit, but rather it is a Rabbinical decree [imposed] lest one wear the garment at night, when one is not required to wear tzitzit, and thus violate a negative commandment when the performance of a positive commandment is not involved.
[This is because] the obligation to wear tzitzit applies during the day, but not at night [as can be inferred from Numbers 15:39]: "And you shall see them." [The mitzvah applies only] during a time when one can see. [Nevertheless,] a blind man is obligated to wear tzitzit. Even though he does not see them, others see him [wearing them].
ז
כסות של פשתן אין מטילין בה תכלת אלא עושין הלבן בלבד של חוטי פשתן לא מפני שהציצית נדחית מפני השעטנז אלא גזירה מדבריהם שמא יתכסה בה בלילה שאינה זמן חיוב ציצית ונמצא עובר על לא תעשה בעת שאין שם מצות עשה שחובת הציצית ביום ולא בלילה שנאמר וראיתם אותו בשעת ראייה וסומא חייב בציצית אף על פי שאינו רואה אחרים רואין אותו:
Commentary on Halachah 7
8
A person is permitted to wear tzitzit at night, both during the weekdays and on the Sabbath, even though this is not the time when the mitzvah should be fulfilled, provided he does not recite a blessing.
When should the blessing over tzitzit be recited in the morning? When [the sun has risen so] that one can differentiate between the strands of techelet and those which are white.
Which blessing should be recited upon it? "Blessed are you, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to wrap ourselves with tzitzit." Whenever a person wraps himself in tzitzit during the day, he should recite the blessing before doing so.
No blessing should be recited on the tzitzit when making them, because the ultimate purpose of the mitzvah is that one should wrap oneself in [a tallit].
ח
מותר לאדם ללבוש ציצית בלילה בין בחול בין בשבת ואע"פ שאינו זמנה ובלבד שלא יברך ומאימתי יברך על הציצית בשחר משיכיר בין תכלת שבה ללבן שבה וכיצד מברך עליה ברוך אתה יי' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להתעטף בציצית וכל זמן שמתעטף בה ביום מברך עליה קודם שיתעטף ואינו מברך על הציצית בשעת עשייתה מפני שסוף המצוה הוא שיתעטף בה:
Commentary on Halachah 8
9
It is permissible to enter a lavatory or a bathhouse [wearing] tzitzit. If one of the strands of white or techelet becomes torn, it may be discarded in a garbage dump, because tzitzit is a mitzvah which does not confer sanctity on the article itself.
It is forbidden to sell a garment with tzitzit to a gentile until he removes the tzitzit, not because the garment possesses a measure of holiness, but because we are concerned that he will dress in it, and [unknowingly,] a Jew will accompany him, thinking that he is a fellow Jew, and the gentile may kill him.
Women, servants, and minors are not required by the Torah to wear tzitzit. It is, however, a Rabbinical obligation for every child who knows how to dress himself to wear tzitzit in order to educate him to fulfill mitzvot.
Women and servants who wish to wrap themselves in tzitzit may do so without reciting a blessing. Similarly, regarding the other positive commandments which women are not required to fulfill, if they desire to fulfill them without reciting a blessing, they should not be prevented from doing so.
A tumtum and an androgynous are obligated in all positive commandments because of the doubt [about their status]. Therefore, they fulfill [all these positive commandments] without reciting a blessing.
ט
ומותר להכנס בציצית לבית הכסא ולבית המרחץ נפסקו לו חוטי לבן או תכלת זורקו באשפה מפני שהיא מצוה שאין בגופה קדושה ואסור למכור טלית מצוייצת לכותי עד שיתיר ציציותיה לא מפני שיש בגופה קדושה אלא שמא יתעטף בה ויתלוה עמו ישראל וידמה שהוא ישראל ויהרגנו נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורין מן הציצית מן התורה ומדברי סופרים שכל קטן שיודע להתעטף חייב בציצית כדי לחנכו במצות ונשים ועבדי' שרצו להתעטף בציצית מתעטפים בלא ברכה וכן שאר מצות עשה שהנשים פטורות מהן אם רצו לעשות אותן בלא ברכה אין ממחין בידן טומטום ואנדרוגינוס חייבין בכולן מספק לפיכך אין מברכין אלא עושין בלא ברכה:
Commentary on Halachah 9
10
What is the nature of the obligation of the commandment of tzitzit? Every person who is obligated to fulfill this mitzvah, if he wears a garment requiring tzitzit, should attach tzitzit to it and then wear it. If he wears it without attaching tzitzit to it, he has negated [this] positive commandment.
There is, however, no obligation to attach tzitzit to a garment which requires tzitzit, as long as it remains folded in its place, without a person wearing it. It is not that a garment requires [tzitzit]. Rather, the requirement is incumbent on the person [wearing] the garment.
י
היאך חיוב מצות הציצית כל אדם שחייב לעשות מצוה זו אם יתכסה בכסות הראוי לציצית יטיל לה ציצית ואח"כ יתכסה בה ואם נתכסה בה בלא ציצית הרי ביטל מצות עשה אבל בגדים הראויים לציצית כל זמן שלא יתכסה בהן אדם אלא מקופלים ומונחים פטורין מן הציצית שאינה חובת הטלית אלא חובת האיש שיש לו טלית:
Commentary on Halachah 10
11
Even though a person is not obligated to purchase a tallit and wrap himself in it so that he must attach tzitzit to it, it is not proper for a person to release himself from this commandment. Instead, he should always try to be wrapped in a garment which requires tzitzit so that he will fulfill this mitzvah.
In particular, care should be taken regarding this matter during prayer. It is very shameful for a Torah scholar to pray without being wrapped [in a tallit].
יא
אף על פי שאין אדם מחוייב לקנות לו טלית ולהתעטף בה כדי שיעשה בה ציצית אין ראוי לאדם חסיד שיפטור עצמו ממצוה זו אלא לעולם ישתדל להיות עטוף בכסות המחוייבת כציצית כדי שיקיים מצוה זו ובשעת התפלה צריך להזהר ביותר גנאי גדול הוא לתלמידי חכמים שיתפללו והם אינם עטופים:
Commentary on Halachah 11
12
A person should always be careful regarding the mitzvah of tzitzit, because the Torah considered it equal to all the mitzvot and considered them all as dependent on it, as [implied by Numbers 15:39]: "And you shall see them and remember all the mitzvot of God."
יב
לעולם יהא אדם זהיר במצות ציצית שהרי הכתוב שקלה ותלה בה כל המצות כולן שנאמר וראיתם אותו וזכרתם את כל מצות יי':
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters A Day: Issurei Biah Issurei Biah - Chapter Nine, Issurei Biah Issurei Biah - Chapter Ten, Issurei Biah Issurei Biah - Chapter Eleven
English Text | Hebrew Text
Audio: Listen | Download | Video ClassIssurei Biah - Chapter Nine
1
According to Scriptural Law,1 a woman does not become impure as a niddah or a zavah until she experiences a physical sensation,2 menstruates, and discovers blood which emerges within her flesh as we explained.3 She becomes impure from the time she menstruates and onward only.4
If she does not experience a physical sensation, but conducts an internal examination, and discovers bleeding within the vaginal channel, we operate under the presumption that it was accompanied by a physical sensation,5 as explained previously.6
א
אין האשה מתטמאה מן התורה בנדה או בזיבה עד שתרגיש ותראה דם ויצא בבשרה כמו שביארנו ותהיה טמאה מעת שתראה ולהבא בלבד ואם לא הרגישה ובדקה ומצאה הדם לפנים בפרוזדור ה"ז בחזקת שבא בהרגשה כמו שביארנו:
2
According to Rabbinic Law, whenever a woman discovers a bloodstain on her flesh7 or on her clothes,8 she is impure, as if she discovered bleeding within [the vaginal channel] on her flesh. [This applies] even if she did not experience a physical sensation [and] even if she conducted an internal examination and did not discover bleeding.9 This impurity is [because of our] doubt;10 perhaps the stain came from uterine bleeding.
ב
ומדברי סופרים שכל הרואה כתם דם על בשרה או על בגדיה אף ע"פ שלא הרגישה אף על פי שבדקה עצמה ולא מצאה דם ה"ז טמאה וכאילו מצאה דם לפנים בבשרה וטומאה זו בספק שמא כתם זה מדם החדר בא:
3
Similarly, according to Rabbinic Law: Whenever a woman discovers bleeding at a time other than her veset11 and whenever she discovers a bloodstain, she is impure retroactively for 24 hours.12 If she conducted an internal examination within this time and discovered that she was pure, she is impure retroactively until the time of the inspection.13
Although she is impure retroactively, she does not cause a man who engages in relations with her to become impure, as we explained.14 Nor may she begin counting her "days of niddah" or counting because of the stain except from the time she discovered the bleeding or the stain.
Whenever a woman discovers a stain, her reckoning [of her veset] is confused. For it is possible that the bleeding came from the uterus and her veset must be recalculated.15
ג
וכן מד"ס שכל הרואה דם בלא עת וסתה וכל הרואה כתם טמאה למפרע עד כ"ד שעות ואם בדקה בתוך זמן זה ומצאה טהור טמאה למפרע עד זמן בדיקה ואע"פ שהיא טמאה למפרע מדבריהם אינה מטמאה את בועלה למפרע כמו שביארנו ואינה מונה לנדתה או לכתמה אלא מעת שתראה הדם או שמצאה הכתם וכל הרואה כתם ה"ז מקולקלת (למנינה) שמא מן החדר בא ונתקלקלה וסתה:
4
When a woman discovers bleeding at the time of her veset, she does not become impure retroactively. Instead, [the impurity begins] at the time [of discovery]. Similarly, a woman who is pregnant, nursing, a virgin,16 or elderly do not become impure retroactively.
What is meant by a pregnant woman? A woman whose pregnancy has become obvious, i.e., she is three months pregnant.17 What is meant by a woman who is nursing? A woman within 24 months of childbirth, even if her child died, she weaned him, or gave him to a nursemaid.18
ד
הרואה דם בשעת וסתה אינה מטמאה למפרע אלא בשעתה בלבד וכן מעוברת ומניקה בתולה וזקנה דיין שעתן ואינן מטמאות למפרע איזו היא מעוברת משיוכר עוברה והוא ג' חדשים מניקה כל כ"ד חדש אפילו מת בנה או גמלתו או נתנתו למניקה:
5
[The term] "virgin" refers to a girl who has never menstruated even through she experienced uterine bleeding because of marriage19 or because of birth.20
The term "elderly woman" refers to a woman who did not menstruate for 90 days near her old age.21 When is she considered elderly? When she is called an old woman [by others] and she does not protest.
[The laws that apply when] a pregnant, nursing, or elderly woman [discovers] a stain are the same as when she discovers bleeding. She does not become impure retroactively. With regard to a virgin who has never menstruated and who is still a minor, a stain that is discovered is pure until she menstruates on three successive months.
ה
בתולה כל שלא ראתה דם מימיה אף על פי שראתה מחמת נישואין או מחמת לידה זקנה כל שעברו עליה צ' יום סמוך לזקנתה ואי זו היא זקנה כל שקוראין לה זקנה ואינה מקפדת מעוברת ומניקה וזקנה כתמן כראייתן ואינו מטמא למפרע בתולה שלא ראתה דם מימיה ועדיין היא קטנה כתמה טהור עד שתראה דם שלש וסתות:
6
What is the difference between a stain which is found on a woman's flesh and one found on her clothing? There is no minimum measure for a stain found on a woman's flesh.22 A stain on a garment, by contrast, does not render a woman impure unless it is the size of half a Cilikean bean (a gris)23 which is equivalent to a square large enough to contain nine lentils, i.e., three rows of three. If it is smaller than this, she is pure.24
If [a stain] is composed of small spots, they are not considered as a single entity.25 If it is extended, it is considered as a single entity.26
ו
מה בין כתם הנמצא על בשרה לכתם הנמצא על בגדה שהכתם הנמצא על בשרה אין לו שיעור והנמצא על הבגד אינו מטמא עד שיהיה כגריס הקילקי שהוא מרובע שיש בו כדי תשע עדשות שלש על שלש היה פחות משיעור זה טהור נמצא טיפין טיפין אין מצטרפות היה ארוך הרי זה מצטרף:
7
[When] a stain is discovered on an article that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, the woman is pure and she need not be concerned about it.
What is implied? If a woman sat on a utensil made of stone,27 earth, animal dung, on fish skin, on the outside of an earthenware utensil,28 or on a cloth that is smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths29 and blood was discovered on the above, she is pure. Even if she inspected earth,30 then sat on it, and when she arose, a stain was discovered, she is pure. For our Sages did not decree that a woman would be impure when a stain was discovered on an article that is not susceptible to ritual impurity.31 Nor did they decree [that a stain discovered on an article susceptible to ritual impurity renders a woman] impure unless that article is white.32 If, however an article is colored, we are not concerned with a stain. For this reason, our Sages ordained that a woman should wear colored garments33 so that she be protected from problems arising due to stains.
ז
כתם שנמצא ע"ד שאינו מקבל טומאה טהור ואינה חוששת לו כיצד ישבה על כלי אבנים כלי אדמה וכלי גללים או על עור הדג או על כלי חרש מגבו או על בגד שאין בו ג' אצבעות על ג' אצבעות ונמצא עליהן דם טהורה אפילו בדקה הקרקע וישבה עליה ונמצא כתם על הקרקע כשעמדה הרי זו טהורה שכל שאינו מקבל טומאה לא גזרו על כתם שימצא בו ולא במקבל טומאה אלא א"כ היה לבן אבל כלי צבעונין אין חוששין לכתם הנמצא בהן לפיכך תקנו חכמים שתלבש האשה בגדי צבעונין כדי להצילה מדין הכתמים:
8
[A woman] does not become impure because of a bloodstain found on every place on her body, only due to those found opposite her genital area.
What is implied? If a stain is found on her heel, she is impure. For perhaps she touched her genital area when she sat.34 Similarly, she is impure if a stain was found on her calves or on the inner side of her ankles, [the portions of her legs] that will touch each other when she stands with her feet and calves together. If it is found on the tip of her toe, she is impure. Perhaps [blood] dripped from the uterus to her foot when she walked.
Similarly, if blood is found in any place where her menstrual blood could have spattered when she walked, she is impure. Similarly, if blood is found on her hands, even on the backs of her fingers, she is impure. For the hands are active.35 If, however, blood is found on the outer or side portions of her calves and, needless to say, if it is found from her thighs upward,36 she is pure. For this is certainly blood that was spattered on her from another place.37
ח
לא בכל מקום שנמצא הדם על בשרה תטמא משום כתם עד שימצא כנגד בית התורפה כיצד נמצא על עקיבה טמאה שמא נגע בבית תורפה בעת ישיבתה וכן אם נמצא על שוקה או על פרסותיה מבפנים והם המקומות הנדבקות זו בזו בעת שתעמוד ותדבוק רגל לרגל ושוק לשוק הרי זו טמאה נמצא על ראש גודל רגלה טמאה שמא נטף מן החדר על רגלה בעת שהלכה וכן כ"מ שאפשר שינתז עליו דם נדתה כשתהלך ונמצא שם דם טמאה וכן אם נמצא הדם על ידיה אפילו על קשרי אצבעות ידיה טמאה שהידים עסקניות הן אבל אם נמצא הדם על שוקה ועל פרסותיה מבחוץ או מן הצדדין ואין צריך לומר אם נמצא מן הירכים ולמעלה הרי זו טהורה שאין זה אלא דם שניתז עליה ממקום אחר:
9
When a bloodstain that is found on a woman's body is long like a strand or round, or made up of small drops, the length of the stain was across the width of her thigh, it looks like it came from below upward,38 since it is opposite her genital area, she is impure. We do not say: Had it dripped from her body, it would not be found in such a form.39 Instead, we are stringent with regard to all blood that is found in these places, even though there is a doubt concerning it.
ט
הכתם הנמצא על בשרה שהוא ארוך כרצועה או עגול או שהיו טפין טפין או שהיה אורך הכתם על רוחב יריכה או שהיה נראה כאילו הוא ממטה למעלה הואיל והוא כנגד בית תורפה הרי זו טמאה ואין אומרים אילו נטף מן הגוף לא היה כזה שכל דם הנמצא במקומות אלו מחמירין בו אע"פ שהוא ספק:
10
A stain that is found below the belt on a woman's garment40 renders her impure.41 If it is above the belt, she is pure. If it is found on her sleeve, if it could reach her genital area,42 she is impure. If not, she is pure.
י
הכתם הנמצא על החלוק שלה מחגורה ולמטה טמאה מחגורה ולמעלה טהורה נמצא על בית יד שלה אם מגיע כנגד בית תורפה טמאה ואם לאו טהורה:
11
If she would remove her garment and cover herself with it at night, she is impure wherever blood is found.43 Similarly, if blood is found anywhere on her girdle, she is impure.
יא
היתה פושטתו ומתכסה בו בלילה כל מקום שימצא בו דם טמאה וכן האזור שלה כל מקום שימצא בו הדם טמאה:
12
If a woman wears one tunic for three days or more during a time that is not part of her "days of niddah" and inspected it and discovered three stains or one stain that contains the measure of three stains,44 there is a doubt whether she is a [major] zavah.45 For it is possible that each day, she stained the garment.46
Similarly, if she wore three garments that had been inspected47 for three days in her "days of zivah" and discovered a stain in each of them, there is a doubt whether she is a [major] zavah.48 [This applies] even if the stains are one opposite the other.49
יב
היתה לובשת חלוק אחד ושהה עליה שלשה ימים או יתר בלא עת נדתה ובדקה ומצאה עליו שלשה כתמים או כתם אחד גדול שיש בו שיעור שלשה כתמים הרי זו ספק זבה שמא כתם נטף ממנה בכל יום וכן אם לבשה שלשה בגדים בדוקים ושהו עליה שלשה ימים בימי זיבתה ומצאה כתם בכל אחד מהן אף על פי שזה כנגד זה הרי זו ספק זבה:
13
[The following rules apply if] she found one stain that did not contain the measure of three stains.50 If she inspected herself throughout bein hashamashot51 of the first day and found that she was pure, but did not inspect her clothes and on the third day, discovered this stain which is not the measure of three stains, she need not worry about being a zavah.52
If she did not inspect herself throughout bein hashamashot, she must suspect that she is a zavah. [The rationale is that] she did not inspect her garment and continued wearing it for three days during her "days of zivah."53
יג
מצאה כתם אחד שאין בו כדי שלשה כתמים אם בדקה עצמה כל בין השמשות של יום ראשון ומצאה טהור ולא בדקה חלוקה וביום השלישי מצאה זה הכתם שאינו כשלשה כתמים אינה חוששת לזיבות ואם לא בדקה עצמה כל בין השמשות הואיל ולא בדקה חלוקה ושהה עליה שלשה ימים בימי זיבתה חוששת לזיבות ואע"פ שאין הכתם כדי שלשה כתמים:
14
If she discovered a stain on her garment on one day and then experienced bleeding for two successive days or experienced bleeding for two [successive] days and discovered a stain on the third day, there is a doubt whether she is a [major] zavah.54
יד
מצאה כתם על חלוקה היום וראתה דם אח"כ שני ימים זה אחר זה או שראתה שני ימים וביום השלישי ראתה כתם הרי זו ספק זבה:
15
When a woman discovers a stain and then discovers bleeding, she associates the stain with the bleeding for a 24-hour period.55 [This applies] whether she inspected herself at the time she discovered the stain and found herself to be pure or whether she did not inspect herself. If, however, she discovers one stain after another stain within 24 hours, she does not associate one stain with the other unless she carried out an inspection in the interim. If, however, she carried out an inspection and found herself to be pure between [the discovery of the first] stain and the second, they should not be associated with regard to the counting of zivut.56
טו
הרואה כתם ואחר כך ראתה דם תולה כתמה בראייתה כל מעת לעת בין שבדקה עצמה בעת שמצאה הכתם ומצאתה טהור בין שלא בדקה אבל הרואה כתם אחר כתם בתוך עשרים וארבע שעות אינה תולה כתם בכתם אא"כ בדקה ביניהם שאם הפסיקה טהרה בין הכתמים אין מצטרפין למנין זיבות:
16
What is implied? She discovered a stain on Friday during the first hour of the day and then she discovered menstrual bleeding at any time until the first hour of the day on the Sabbath, she does not count [her impurity] from [the time she discovered] the stain. Instead, she associates the stain with the bleeding. [This applies] even if she did not inspect herself [after discovering the stain] and did not know whether she was impure or not. Thus if she discovers bleeding on Sunday and on Monday, she is a [major] zavah.57
If, however, she discovered bleeding during the second hour on the Sabbath, she is considered as if she was impure for two days: Friday because of the stain she discovered and the Sabbath because of the bleeding, because there are more than 24 hours between them. Hence, if she discovers bleeding on Sunday, she must suspect that she is a zavah.58
טז
כיצד ראתה כתם ערב שבת בשעה ראשונה מן היום אף ע"פ שלא בדקה עצמה ולא ידעה אם טהורה היא אם טמאה וראתה דם אח"כ עד שעה ראשונה מיום השבת אינה מונה לכתם אלא תולה הכתם בראייה ואם ראתה באחד בשבת ובשני בשבת תהיה זבה ראתה דם ביום שבת בשעה שנייה הרי זו טמאה שני ימים ערב שבת שמצאה בו הכתם ובשבת שראתה הדם שהרי אין שניהם בתוך מעת לעת ואם ראתה הדם באחד בשבת חוששין לזיבות:
17
[The following rules apply if] she did not experience bleeding on the Sabbath, but instead discovered a stain during the first hour on the Sabbath. If she inspected herself on Friday and discovered that she was pure, she only counts from [the time of] the later stain [that was discovered] on the Sabbath, because they both were discovered within the same 24 hour period. If she did not inspect herself and did not know whether or not she was in fact pure between the two, she begins counting from Friday. Thus if she discovers bleeding on Sunday, she must suspect that she is a zavah.59
יז
לא ראתה דם בשבת אבל ראתה כתם אחר בשעה ראשונה מיום השבת אם בדקה עצמה בערב שבת ומצאה טהור אינה מונה אלא לכתם אחד שהוא ביום השבת הואיל ושניהם בתוך מעת לעת ואם לא בדקה ולא ידעה אם הפסיקה טהרה ביניהן אם לא הפסיקה הרי זו מונה לע"ש ואם ראתה באחד בשבת חוששת לזיבות:
18
If she discovered the second stain during the second hour of the Sabbath day, she is considered as impure for two days, for the two are not within the same 24 hour period. [This applies] whether she inspected herself or did not inspect herself. [In such a situation,] if she discovers bleeding on Sunday after 24 hours have passed, she must suspect that she is a zavah.60
[The following laws apply if] she discovered a third stain during the first hour on Sunday. If she inspected herself and discovered that she was pure, they are not considered as coming in succession61 and she need not suspect that she is a zavah. If she does not carry out such an inspection, she must suspect that she is a zavah.62
יח
ראתה הכתם השני בשעה שנייה מיום שבת בין בדקה בין לא בדקה הרי זו טמאה שני ימים שהרי אין שניהם בתוך מעת לעת ואם ראתה באחד בשבת אחר מעת לעת חוששת לזיבות ראתה בשעה ראשונה מיום אחד בשבת כתם שלישי אם הפסיקה טהרה ביניהן אין מצטרפין ואינה חוששת לזיבות ואם לא בדקה חוששת לזיבות:
19
[The following rules apply] whenever there is a stain that causes a woman to be considered impure and there is a factor to which she could attribute the stain, saying: "The stain came because of this factor."63 If [the stain] is found on a garment, she is pure. For our Sages did not say that one should rule stringently regarding these matters, only leniently.64 If the stain is found on her flesh, she is impure because of the doubt and she may not attribute the stain to the external factor.65 If she has a greater reason to attribute a stain on her flesh [t an outside factor] than one on her clothes,66 she may attribute even a stain on her flesh [to the factor] and she is pure despite the doubt.
יט
כל כתם שאמרנו שהיא טמאה בגללו אם יש לה דבר לתלות בו ולומר שמא כתם זה מדבר פלוני הוא אם נמצא על הבגד הרי זו טהורה שלא אמרו חכמים בדבר להחמיר אלא להקל ואם נמצא על בשרה ספיקו טמא ואינה תולה בו ואם היה לה לתלות בבשרה יתר מחלוקה אף על בשרה תולה וספיקו טהור:
20
What is implied? If she slaughtered an animal, a beast, or a fowl, became occupied with stains, sat next to people who were, or passed through a marketplace of butchers and blood was found on her outer garment, she is pure. She may attribute the stain to these factors for it is [likely] to have come from them.
כ
כיצד שחטה בהמה או חיה או עוף או שנתעסקה בכתמים או שישבה בצד העוסקין בהן או שעברה בשוק של טבחים ונמצא דם על חלוקה טהורה ותולה בדברים אלו שמהן בא הכתם:
21
[The following rules apply if] the stain was found on her flesh alone. If the stain is at her belt or lower, she is impure.67 If she turned upside down and flipped,68 even [a stain] from her belt and above renders her impure.69 For if the blood had come from slaughtering or from the market, it would also have been found on her garments. Since it was found on her flesh and not on her garments, she is impure.
כא
נמצא הכתם על בשרה בלבד אם הכתם מחגור ולמטה טמאה ואם נתהפכה וקפצה אפילו מחגור ולמעלה טמאה שאילו היה דם זה מן השחיטה או מן השוק היה לה שימצא גם על בגדיה והואיל ונמצא על בשרה ולא בבגדה טמאה:
22
If she has a wound, even if it is covered by a scab, if it could be opened and discharge blood70 and blood was found on her flesh, she may attribute the stain to her wound.71 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
כב
היתה בה מכה אע"פ שחיתה אם יכולה להתגלע ולהוציא דם ונמצא דם על בשרה תולה במכה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
23
When a stain is found on both her garments and her flesh, she may attribute it with all [the external factors] possible.72 And she may explain that [the stain was caused by] a louse, for perhaps when she sat down, a louse was killed and this blood came from the louse.73
Until when [does the above apply]? [When the stain is no larger than] a gris. If, however, the stain is larger than a gris, she may not attribute it to a louse. [This applies] even if there is a crushed louse on the stain. Since the stain is larger than a gris, she may not attribute it to a louse.74
כג
נמצא הכתם על בגדיה ובשרה כאחד תולה בכל שיש לה לתלות ותולה במאכולת שמא בעת שישבה נהרגה מאכולת ודם זה דם מאכולת הוא ועד כמה עד כגריס אבל אם מצאה הכתם יתר מכגריס אינה תולה במאכולת ואפילו היתה מאכולת רצוצה בכתם הואיל והוא יתר מכגריס אינה תולה במאכולת:
24
Similarly, she may attribute the stain to her son or her husband.75If they were occupied with blood, their hands were soiled, or they had a wound, she may attribute the stain to them saying that they touched her without her knowing it and the blood came from them.76
כד
וכן תולה בבנה ובבעלה אם היו עסוקין בדם או שהיו ידיהן מלוכלכות או שהיתה בהן מכה תולה בהן ואומרת הן נגעו בה והיא לא ידעה ודם זה מחמת הוא:
25
We do not consider the possibility that blood was [transferred] from one place to another to attribute a stain to it. What is implied? If a woman had a wound on her shoulder and a stain was discovered on her calf,77 we do not say: Maybe she touched the wound with her hand and then touched this other portion of her body.78 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. We attribute neither stains on her body, nor those on her garment [to such wounds].79
כה
אין מחזיקין דם ממקום למקום לתלות בו כיצד היתה לה מכה בכתיפה ונמצא כתם על שוקה אין אומרין שמא בידיה נגעה במכה ונגעה במקום זה וכן כל כיוצא בזה אין תולין בו בין בגופה בין בחלוקה:
26
[The following laws apply when] two women were occupied with [slaughtering] one fowl and it contained only an amount of blood equal in size to a sela. If a stain the size of a sela is found on both of them, they are both impure.80
If a woman was occupied with blood that could produce a stain no larger than a gris and a stain the size of two grisim was found on her, she may attribute a gris to the blood with which she was occupied with and a gris to a louse.81 If, however, the stain was larger than two grisim, she is impure.
כו
שתי נשים שנתעסקו בצפור אחד ואין בו אלא כסלע דם ונמצא על כל אחת משתיהן כתם כסלע שתיהן טמאות נתעסקה בדם שאי אפשר שיהיה ממנו כתם אלא כגריס ונמצא עליה כתם כשני גריסין הרי זו תולה כגריס בדם שנתעסקה בו ובגריס במאכולת נמצא הכתם יתר מכשני גריסין טמאה:
27
If she was occupied with red [blood], she may not attribute a black [stain] to it. If she was occupied with a fowl that had many different colors of blood and one of them was found on her, she may attribute [the stain] to [the fowl].
If she was wearing three outer garments, if there is an external factor to which she could attribute [a stain], she may attribute even [a stain] on the bottom garment to it.82 If she [knows of] no external factor to attribute it to, she may not attribute it to any factor, even if it is found only on the upper one.83
What is implied? If she passed through a butcher's market place, even if the stain is found only on the bottom garment, she may attribute it to the blood of the butcher's. If she did not pass through a butcher's market or the like, even if the stain is only on the upper garment, she is impure. If she is in doubt whether or not she passed through [such a place] or whether or not she was occupied [with an object that could produce a stain], she may not attribute it [to an external factor].84
כז
נתעסקה באדום אין תולה בו שחור נתעסקה בעוף שיש בו מיני דם הרבה ונמצא עליה מראה אחד מהן תולה בו היתה לובשת שלשה חלוקות אם יכולה לתלות תולה אף בתחתון ואם אינה יכולה לתלות אינה תולה אף בעליון כיצד עברה בשוק של טבחים אף על פי שנמצא הכתם על התחתון לבדו תולה בדם הטבחים לא עברה בשוק הטבחים וכיוצא בו אע"פ שנמצא הכתם בעליון לבדו הרי זו טמאה ספק עברה ספק לא עברה ספק נתעסקה ספק לא נתעסקה אינה תולה:
28
When a city has pigs [that roam freely] or [such animals] enter it at all times, [a woman] need not be concerned with stains that are found on her outer garment.85
כח
עיר שיש בה חזירים או שהם באין לה תמיד אין חוששין לכתמיה הנמצאין בחלוקה:
29
When a woman lent her garment to a niddah, whether a Jewess or a gentile woman,86 and then put it on before checking it,87 she can attribute a stain she finds upon it to the niddah who wore it.88
[Similarly,] if she lent [a garment] to a minor zavah on a day that she is impure,89 one who is experiencing [the post-birth] blood of purity,90 or to [a woman who was] a virgin and is experiencing [hymeneal] bleeding [which is] pure, she may attribute the stain to them.91
[A different ruling applies,] however, if she lent [a garment] to a minor zavah on the day she is watching or a major zavah during her seven "spotless" days, put it on before checking it and then discovered a stain. [In such an instance,] the halachic status of both is impaired., the lender and the borrower. For perhaps this one caused the stain or perhaps the other did.92
If she lent [the garment] to a woman who is watching herself because of the discovery of a stain, she may not attribute the stain to her. [The rationale is that] we do not attribute one stain to another.93
כט
האשה שהשאילה חלוקה לנדה בין עכו"ם בין ישראלית וחזרה ולבשה אותו קודם בדיקה ומצאה עליו כתם ה"ז תולה בנדה שלבשה אותו השאילה אותו לזבה קטנה ביום הטמא שלה או ליושבת על דם טוהר או לבתולה שדמיה טהורין ה"ז תולה בה אבל אם השאילה אותו לזבה קטנה ביום השמור או לזבה גדולה בז' ימים נקיים וחזרה ולבשה אותו קודם בדיקה ונמצא עליו כתם שתיהן מקולקלות השואלת והמשאלת אותה שמא מזו שמא מזו השאילה אותו ליושבת על הכתם אינה תולה בה שאין תולין כתם בכתם:
30
[The following law applies when a woman] inspected her outer garment and then inspected herself94 and discovered that she was pure and afterwards, lent that garment to a colleague. If the borrower wore the garment and then a stain was discovered upon it when she returned it, the borrower is impure. She cannot attribute the stain to the owner, because the owner inspected it before she lent it to her.
ל
בדקה חלוקה ובדקה עצמה ונמצאת טהור והשאילה החלוק לחבירתה ולבשתו ונמצא עליו כתם כשהחזירתו לה השואלת טמאה ואינה תולה בבעלת החלוק שהרי בדקה אותו קודם שתשאילהו לה:
31
[The following laws apply when] a tall woman wears an outer garment belonging to a short woman and a stain is discovered upon it. If [the place where the stain is located] reaches her genital area, she is impure.95 If it does not, she is pure, because [it is probable] that the stain came from the short woman.
לא
ארוכה שלבשה חלוקה של קצרה ונמצא בו כתם אם מגיע כנגד בית התורפה טמאה ואם לאו טהורה שכתם זה של קצרה הוא:
32
When three woman wore one garment in succession and afterwards, a stain was found upon it, [they are all impure].96 Similarly, if they slept in one bed together97 and a blood [stain] was found under one, they are all impure.98
If one of them inspected herself immediately99 and found herself impure, the [other] two are pure.100
לב
שלש נשים שלבשו חלוק אחד זו אחר זו ואחר כך נמצא עליו כתם וכן אם ישנות במטה אחת כאחת ונמצא דם תחת אחת מהן כולן טמאות ואם בדקה אחת מהן עצמה מיד ומצאה עצמה טמאה הרי השתים טהורות:
33
[The following principle applies when, in the above situation, the women] all inspected themselves and discovered that they were pure. A woman who is not likely to discover bleeding may attribute the stain to one who is likely to discover bleeding. Thus the one who is unlikely [to discover bleeding] will be pure and the one who is likely will be impure.
What is implied? If one of the woman is pregnant and another is not pregnant, the pregnant101 woman is pure102 and the one who is not pregnant is impure. If one was nursing103 and one was not nursing, the one who is nursing is pure.104 If one is an elderly woman,105 and one is not elderly, the elder woman is pure.106 If one has not experienced menstrual bleeding107 and one has, the one who has no experience is pure.108 If they are all pregnant, all elderly, all nursing, or all have not experienced menstrual bleeding, they are all impure.109
לג
בדקו כולן ומצאו עצמן טהורות תולה מי שאינה ראויה לראות דם במי שהיא ראויה ותהיה שאינה ראויה טהורה והראויה טמאה כיצד היתה אחת מעוברת ואחת אינה מעוברת המעוברת טהורה ושאינה מעוברת טמאה מניקה ושאינה מניקה המניקה טהורה זקנה ושאינה זקנה הזקנה טהורה בתולה ושאינה בתולה הבתולה טהורה היו כולן מעוברות כולן זקנות כולן מניקות כולן בתולות הרי כולן טמאות:
34
[The following laws apply when] three women ascended from the foot of a bed,110 and went to sleep. If a blood[stain] was discovered under the middle one, all three are impure.111 If [a stain] was discovered under112 the innermost one, she and the woman to her side are impure and the outermost one is pure.113 If [the stain] was under the outermost, she and the woman to her side are impure and the innermost is pure. If, however, they did not ascend from the foot of the bed, and thus they have no order, if a blood[stain] is discovered under any one of them, they are all impure.
לד
ג' נשים שעלו דרך מרגלות המטה וישנו כולן ונמצא דם תחת האמצעית שלשתן טמאות תחת הפנימית היא ושבצדה טמאות והחיצונה טהורה תחת החיצונה היא ושבצדה טמאות והפנימית טהורה ואם לא עלו דרך מרגלות המטה שהרי אין להם סדר ונמצא דם תחת אחת מהן כולן טמאות:
35
When does the above apply? When the woman all inspected themselves and found themselves to be pure. Thus none of them could attribute [the stain] to the other as we explained. If, however, one of them inspected herself and discovered that she was pure, the woman who is pure can attribute the stain to the one who did not check, and that woman is impure.
לה
בד"א שבדקו כולן ומצאו טהור ולא תוכל אחת מהן לתלות בחבירתה כמו שביארנו אבל אם בדקה אחת ומצאה עצמה טהורה וחבירתה לא בדקה תולה הטהורה בזו שלא בדקה והרי זו שלא בדקה טמאה:
36
Whenever a stain is found on a garment and there is no external source to attribute it to, it, [nevertheless,] does not cause a woman to be considered impure until it is proven to be blood.114 If a doubt arises for [the experts]115 whether [a stain] was blood or [simply] red dye, they [wash the stain] with [the following] seven cleaning agents in order. If it is washed away or its color becomes weaker,116 it is a bloodstain and [the woman] is considered impure. If the stain remains the same color, it is a dye and [she] is pure.117
לו
כל כתם שנמצא על הבגד שאין לה במה יתלה אינו מטמא עד שיודע שהוא דם ואם נסתפק להם שמא הוא דם או צבע אדום מעבירין עליו שבעה סמנין אלו על הסדר אם עבר או כהה עינו הרי זו כתם דם וטמאה ואם עמד כמות שהוא הרי זה צבע וטהורה:
37
These are the seven cleaning agents in the order [in which they should be used]: the saliva of a person who has not eaten, beans that have been chewed, urine that has become sour, lye,118 natron,119 cumin powder,120 and bleach.121 [The garment] must be rubbed three times with each cleansing agent and it must be passed back and forth while being rubbed.
If a person did not use these cleansing agents in the above order or used them all at once, his deeds are of no consequence.122 If he used the last substances before the first ones, the fact that he used the last ones - i.e., the first ones in the proper order - is significant. He may then use [merely] the last ones - which he used first - so that he will have used all seven in order.
לז
ואלו הן השבעה סמנים על סדרן:
רוק תפל ולעיסת גריסין של פול ומי רגלים שהחמיצו ובורית ונתר וקימוניא ואשלג וצריך לכסכס שלש פעמים על כל סם וסם ומוליך ומביא בכל כסכוס העבירן שלא על הסדר או שהעבירן כאחד לא עשה כלום הקדים האחרונים לראשונים אלו שהעביר באחרונה שהן הראשונים עלו לו וחוזר ומעביר אחריהם אחרונים שהקדים עד שיעברו השבעה על הסדר:
38
What is meant by "the saliva of a person who has not eaten"? [Saliva taken from a person who did not eat from the beginning of the night and slept the second half of the night and gave this saliva before he ate the next morning. [Moreover,] he must not have spoken excessively for the first three hours of the day. If, however, a person arose and repeated his studies before three hours of the day passed, his saliva is not placed in this category. For speaking nullifies the power of the saliva and causes it to be like water.
What is meant by beans that have been chewed? Beans that have been chewed thoroughly until a large quantity of saliva has been mixed with them. What is meant by urine that has soured? Urine that is three days old or more.
לח
אי זהו רוק תפל שלא טעם כלום מתחלת הלילה והיה ישן מחצי הלילה האחרון למחר קודם שיאכל נקרא רוק תפל והוא שלא יצא רוב דבורו עד שלש שעות ביום ואם השכים ושנה פרקו קודם שלש שעות אין זו רוק תפל שהדבור מבטל חוזק הרוק ומחזירו כמים ואי זו הוא לעיסת גריסין הוא שילעוס הגריסין עד שיתערב עם הפול רוק הרבה מפיו ואי זהו מי רגלים שהחמיצו אחר שלשה ימים או יתר:
39
[The following laws apply to] any woman who becomes impure because of a stain. If she discovers the stain during her "days of niddah," she must consider herself a niddah because of the doubt. She must remain [impure] for seven days and immerses herself on the eighth night. Afterwards, she is permitted to her husband.
If she discovered [the stain] during her "days of zivah," because of the doubt, she must consider herself as a minor zavah or a major zavah as clarified in this chapter.123 She must remain [impure] for one day if she is a minor zavah or count seven "spotless" days if there is a doubt whether she is a major zavah.
All this stems from Rabbinic decree as we explained.124 Therefore if a man engages in relations with such a woman in conscious violation, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct125 and he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice.126
לט
כל אשה שהיא טמאה משום כתם אם מצאה הכתם בימי נדתה הרי זו ספק נדה ויושבת עליו שבעה ימים וטובלת בליל שמיני ואח"כ תהיה מותרת לבעלה ואם מצאה אותו בימי זיבתה הרי זו ספק זבה גדולה או קטנה כמו שנתבאר בפרק זה ויושבת יום אחד אם היתה קטנה או שבעת ימים נקיים אם היתה גדולה מספק והכל מדברי סופרים כמו שביארנו לפיכך הבא עליה בזדון מכין אותו מכת מרדות ופטורין מקרבן:
FOOTNOTES
1.
In contrast to Rabbinic Law as defined by the following halachah.
The Turei Zahav 190:1 interprets the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh as stating that even if we are certain that a woman experienced uterine bleeding, if she did not experience the physical sensations that accompany menstruation, she is not impure according to Scriptural Law.
2.
The physical sensation described here is not the heaviness, nausea, or stomach contractions which sometimes precipitate a woman's menstrual bleeding. [These sensations are also halachicly significant, but are related to another aspect of the niddah laws - the determination of vesetos, the time when her menstruation could be expected to begin (see Chapter 8, Halachah 2).] Instead, here the intent is either: a) an awareness of the opening of the uterus, or b) shivers or shudders as in a state of shock. Certain authorities also speak of a third sensation: that of a flow of moisture in the uterine channel. See the commentaries to Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 183:1). It must be emphasized that today, many authorities rule that a woman is unable to identify these sensations.
3.
Chapter 5, Halachah 2.
4.
I.e., according to Scriptural Law, she does not become impure retroactively.
5.
Carrying out the internal examination, however, prevented her from feeling that sensation.
6.
Chapter 5, Halachah 5, which states that the discovery of bleeding in the vaginal channel renders her impure.
7.
As clarified in Halachah 8.
8.
As clarified in Halachot 9-11.
9.
We do not say that the fact that she did not discover any internal signs of bleeding indicates that the bleeding originated elsewhere.
10.
Since we are speaking about a Rabbinic institution and there is doubt involved, there is some room for leniency as will be explained.
The Kessef Mishneh questions why we do not consider this a question of multiple doubt (s'fek s'feika) in which case we rule leniently. In this instance, it is possible that the blood came from her flesh and it is possible that it came from an outside source. And even if it came from her flesh, it is possible it came from the uterus and it is possible it came from the ovaries.
The Kessef Mishneh offers two resolutions: a) because of the serious nature of the prohibition involved, our Sages were stringent despite the multiple doubt;
b) when the woman has no outside factors to which the blood can be attributed, our Sages ruled stringently and maintained that it is considered as if the bleeding is definitely from her flesh. Thus there is only one doubt: whether the bleeding comes from the uterus or the ovaries.
Kin'at Eliyahu offers a third resolution: Essentially, there is one question involved? Did the bleeding originate in the uterus or elsewhere? Where elsewhere - the ovaries or an outside source - does not multiply the doubt involved.
11.
If she discovers bleeding at the time of her veset, we assume that she began menstruating then, since that is when she ordinarily menstruates, as stated in the following halachah. Otherwise, we assume she began menstruating beforehand.
12.
I.e., any articles that she touched within that time are considered as if they are ritually impure. We assume that she began menstruating before she discovered the bleeding and therefore consider her impure retroactively.
13.
I.e., we reduce the time of impurity from 24 hours, because she conducted an internal examination in the interim. Nevertheless, we still follow the basic premise that she is considered impure retroactively.
14.
Chapter 8, Halachah 13. Note Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:8 which states that although the man who engages in relations with her is not governed by the severe rules that apply to one who had relations with a niddah, he is still considered ritually impure for touching the woman.
15.
As stated in Chapter 8, a woman must calculate the day on which she is expected to begin menstruated. In this instance, she cannot do so, for she does not know whether to begin counting anew from the time she discovered the stain or perhaps her original cycle has not changed.
16.
These terms are defined in this and the following halachah. The rationale is that these women are not expected to menstruate. Hence, we do not show concern for the possibility that they menstruated at an earlier time.
17.
Even if she discovers her pregnancy earlier, she must take the bleeding into consideration until three months.
18.
Conversely, although a woman continues nursing beyond this times, she is not granted this leniency (Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 4:1).
19.
I.e., hymeneal bleeding.
20.
As stated in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 4:3, this principle applies the first two times she menstruates.
21.
I.e., once three months pass without her menstruating, we assume that she will no longer menstruate according to a set pattern.
22.
She becomes impure no matter how small it is.
23.
A gris is half a bean. Cilik is a place where beans grow very large [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 17:112)]. Most contemporary experts consider this to be the size of an American dime.
24.
It is possible that the blood came from a louse that was inadvertently killed (see Halachah 23). Since the question is one of Rabbinic Law, we rule leniently and consider the woman pure. When, however, the stain is on her flesh, we rule stringently, because lice are not usually found on one's flesh (Kessef Mishneh).
The distinction between a stain on one's body and on one's clothes is not accepted by all authorities. Ra'avad, Ramban, and Rashba differ and maintain that there is no difference between the two. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:6) quotes both opinions without stating which one is favored.
25.
I.e. unless one of the spots is the size of a gris, the woman is considered pure. We are not concerned with the combined area of the spots.
26.
In this instance, if the combined area of the stain is the size of a gris, the woman is considered as impure.
27.
All of the following are examples of articles that are not susceptible to ritual impurity. The Rambam discusses all of these types of utensils in Hilchot Keilim. Commenting on the citation of this law in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:10), the Rama (and Pitchei Teshuvah 190:19) also give the example of a toilet seat as an article that is not susceptible to ritual impurity.
28.
For an earthenware utensil only contracts ritual impurity from its inside.
29.
A cloth of this size is considered too small to serve any purpose and hence, is not considered as a garment or utensil.
30.
And found there were no bloodstains on it.
31.
As mentioned above, the designation of a woman as impure because of a stain that is discovered is a Rabbinic decree. When our Sages instituted the decree, they allowed for leniency in certain instances.
32.
Niddah 61b relates that originally our Sages thought to prohibit women from wearing colored garments as part of the mourning customs introduced because of the destruction of the Temple. Afterwards, they reconsidered and recommended that they wear such garments as the Rambam explains.
33.
On days other than her seven "spotless" days.
34.
In the Talmudic era, people would sit on rugs on cushions on the ground and when sitting in this manner, it is possible that a woman's foot will touch her genital area.
35.
And it is possible that unknowingly, she touched a place on her body where there was menstrual blood (Maggid Mishneh).
36.
When restating this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:11) uses the wording "if it is found above her genital area." It also states that if a woman lifted her legs above her waist, she is impure even if a stain is found on the upper portion of her body.
37.
I.e., we assume that the blood came from an external source. For it is not ordinary that her menstrual blood would spatter to these portions of her body.
38.
I.e., the shape of the stain appeared to indicate that the blood was spattered upward, rather than dripped downward.
39.
I.e., even when the shape of the stain appears to indicate that it came from an external source, as long as its position leaves open the possibility that it came from uterine bleeding, we rule stringently.
40.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:12) rules that this law applies even when the stain is found on only the external part of her garment.
41.
For the possibility exists that it came as a result of uterine bleeding. See Halachot 19-20 which explain that when there is justified reason to suspect that the stain came from an external source, she is pure, even though the stain is found on the lower portion of her garment.
42.
Even when she bends (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba).
43.
Because it is possible that she and the blanket both shifted position while she was sleeping.
44.
I.e., it is three times the size of a gris.
45.
She must wait seven "spotless" days before engaging in relations. She brings the sacrifice required of a zavah, but because of the doubt concerning her status, it is not eaten.
46.
Three stains are sufficient to render her a major zavah. She is not, however, definitely given this status, for it is possible that the three stains came on one day.
47.
I.e., she wore the three garments at the same time, one on top of the other.
48.
For it is possible that she experienced bleeding on three successive days.
49.
And thus it is likely that the three stains came from the same bleeding. Nevertheless, since we are not certain of this, she is considered a zavah because of the doubt.
50.
I.e., it is smaller than three times the size of a gris.
51.
Bein hashamashot refers to the time between sunset and the appearance of the stars. The intent is not that a woman should continue to inspect herself throughout this entire time. Instead, what is meant is that she should insert a small cloth into her vagina and leave it there for this entire time.
52.
For she will have verified that she had not experienced bleeding on the first day.
53.
Since she was wearing the garment for three days, the possibility exists that she experienced bleeding for three days, but all the stains were in the same place.
54.
Since on one of the days, she became impure because of a stain without feeling the physical sensations associated with menstruation, her impurity is not of Scriptural status. For to be considered as a zavah according to Scriptural Law, she must experience these physical sensations.
55.
If the bleeding was discovered within 24 hours of the stain, we assume that the stain came about because of the subsequent bleeding and therefore she is governed by the same laws that would apply had she experienced only the bleeding as stated in Halachah 16.
56.
The Rambam's ruling is dependent on his understanding of Niddah 53b. The Ra'avad does not accept the Rambam's interpretation of this passage and harshly dismisses the Rambam's conclusions. The Maggid Mishneh both supports and explains the Rambam's position.
57.
But if she does not discover blood on Monday, she is not a major zavah, i.e., we pay no attention to the stain that she discovered on Friday.
(Any time the term zavah is mentioned subsequently in this chapter, she is considered as a zavah.)
58.
She is not definitely placed in that category, because one of the days is associated with a stain, as stated in Halachah 14.
59.
Because she experienced either a stain or bleeding on three consecutive days..
60.
Because she experienced either a stain or bleeding on three consecutive days..
61.
I.e., instead of being concerned that she discovered stains on three consecutive days, she associates the stain of the Sabbath and that of Sunday and counts them only as one.
62.
For each of the stains is considered individually.
63.
The principles mentioned in this halachah are illustrated in the halachot that follow.
64.
Since the impurity associated with a stain is a matter of Rabbinic Law, we follow the principle: Whenever there is a doubt involved a matter of Rabbinic Law, we rule leniently [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:18)].
65.
Since the stain is found on her flesh and not on her clothes, we assume that it is more likely to come from the uterus than from an external factor.
66.
E.g., she has a wound on her flesh.
67.
Provided the stain is found on a portion of her body from which the blood could have dripped from the uterus as stated in Halachah 8.
68.
This phrase was not found in the texts of the Mishneh Torah possessed by the Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh. Therefore they raised objections to the Rambam's ruling.
69.
Ordinarily, however, such a stain does not alter her status even though it is found on her flesh alone.
70.
E.g., if it was scratched [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:18)].
71.
And thus her status does not change. Note, however, Halachah 25.
72.
For we can assume that it came from the outside first to her garments and then to her flesh. Hence she may attribute the blood to any of the factors mentioned in Halachah 20, as if the blood was found on her garments alone.
73.
This applies even if she did not see that she killed a louse. If she knows that she killed an insect and it is possible that it produced a stain larger than a gris, she may attribute the stain to that [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 8:2)].
74.
For it is an accepted principle that a louse contains no more than a gris of blood. Hence if the stain is larger, that is an indication that the blood came from another source. Note Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:28) which rules leniently and explains that it is possible that there were two lice here, one which she killed previously and the one which is found crushed on her garment.
75.
As indicated by the Rambam's explanation, even if she did not know that they touched her with soiled hands, if their hands were soiled, she may assume that this is the fact. For it is likely for a husband to touch his wife and a child to touch his mother.
76.
If, however, their hands are not soiled, we do not attribute a stain to them unless the blood could have spattered upon her [Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:19)].
77.
It is highly improbable that blood dripped from her shoulder to her calf.
78.
There are instances where we postulate that a person's hands are active and the possibility exists that one transferred impurity from one place to another. Nevertheless, this concept is used only to lead to a stringency, not as a source for leniency.
79.
The Maggid Mishneh states that if it is possible that the garment passed over the wound when it was removed, we can attribute a stain on a garment to such a wound. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:16) quotes this conclusion.
80.
Since the fowl did not contain enough blood to produce two stains of this size, we assume that one came from another source and attribute it to menstrual bleeding. Since we don't know which of the women was soiled by the fowl and which was not, we rule that they are both impure.
The Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De'ah 190) rules that this law applies only when the two women come to inquire about their status together. If they come one after the other, he rules that they are both considered pure. The Turei Zahav 190:17 differs, maintaining that although the ruling of the Bayit Chadash has parallels in other contexts, the logic should not be applied in this instance. The Nekudot HaKessef, however, accepts the ruling of the Bayit Chadash.
81.
As stated in Halachah 23. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 190:26) states that although there are opinions which rule that a woman is impure in such an instance, we follow the more lenient view, for the entire issue is one of Rabbinic Law.
82.
Although there is reason to say that if the stain came from the outside, it would certainly be found on the outer garment as well, we still rule leniently, because there is the possibility that the outer garment was raised up at the time the blood was spattered.
83.
Thus had the stain come from the woman's body, it would be far more likely to be found on the lower garment.
84.
Although we rule leniently in questions involving stains, that is when we know that there is definitely a factor that could cause a stain involved. In this instance, we are not certain that there is indeed such a factor involved.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:22) adds that this ruling applies only in a city where there is a set place for butchering and the like. In places where these activities are carried out in many different places, a woman can attribute a stain to such a factor even if she is not certain that she passed such a place.
85.
For the pigs eat small crawling animals and spatter their blood on passersby. Needless to say in most modern cities, this law does not apply.
86.
According to Scriptural Law, the laws of niddah do not apply to gentile woman, but according to Rabbinic Law, every gentile women is considered as if she is a niddah. The Maggid Mishneh quotes opinions which maintain that even if the gentile woman is not known to be a niddah, the stain can still be attributed to her, because her halachic status is that of a niddah. This opinion is also reflected in the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:41). Even according to this conception, the gentile woman must be of the age that it is possible that she will experience menstrual bleeding. See Halachah 33 for further clarification regarding the fundamental principle on which this halachah is based.
87.
The Rambam's wording teaches us another concept: We are not concerned about stains on clothing unless the clothes were checked first (Maggid Mishne).
88.
Since the niddah and the gentile woman are already impure and will not suffer any difficulty if the stain is attributed to them, we indeed consider them as the source of the bleeding.
89.
The day on which she experienced uterine bleeding.
90.
This was the law in the era of the Talmud when the laws of "the blood of purity" were observed after childbirth. As will be explained in Chapter 11 and notes, at present, this leniency is no longer observed.
91.
In all these instances, attributing the stain to the borrower does not change her halachic status. The minor zavah is impure and the woman after childbirth and the virgin are pure regardless of the stain.
As stated in Chapter 11, the concept of a minor zavah does not apply in the present age and instead, she is considered as equivalent to a major zavah. Hence a stain can certainly be attributed to her. The laws concerning a woman with hymeneal bleeding or a woman after childbirth are different, for in the present age, we do not consider such woman as ritually pure. Instead, uterine bleeding - and even a stain - renders them ritually impure. Accordingly, since the status of these woman will be impaired because of the discovery of the stain, there is reason to assume that it should not be attributed to them alone, but instead, both the borrower and the lender should be considered impure as in the following clause. {See the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 190) which cites such views.} The commentaries explain, however, that according to the Rambam, this law applies even in the present era. Indeed, it is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:42) and the Shulchan Aruch only quotes laws that apply in the present era.
The Siftei Cohen 190:54 explains that even though the halachic status of these women changed in the present era, their physical tendency did not change. They frequently experience uterine bleeding and hence, we attribute the stain to them.
92.
Both the lender and the borrower are not likely to experience uterine bleeding and for both, it will impair their halachic status. Since we do not know which one is responsible for the stain, both share the resulting halachic liability.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) differ with the Rambam's ruling and maintain that the owner of the garment is pure. Since the status of the woman who is seeking to attain ritual purity is already impaired when compared to that of the owner, the stain is attributed to her alone despite the fact that her status will become further impaired by this ruling.
93.
Although a woman is considered impure because of a stain, we do not consider it a certain enough sign of uterine bleeding to attribute another stain to it.
94.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:40) omits mention of the fact that the woman inspected herself as well as her garment.
95.
I.e., the owner is definitely impure; in this instance, the borrower is also impure, because it is possible that the stain comes from her.
96.
Since there is no reason to attribute the stain to one more than the other and they all share the same halachic status, they are all considered as impure.
97.
With their bodies intertwined [see Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:50) based on Niddah 61a].
98.
Based on Niddah, loc. cit., the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) interpret this as referring to an instance when the woman all climbed into the bed from the same side. See Halachah 34.
99.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh interpret this as meaning that she inspected herself within the same day or night as the stain was discovered. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:51) states that the inspection must be made immediately thereafter.
100.
For we assume that the woman who found herself impure is the source of the stain.
The commentaries question if this clause applies only with regard to the bed or also with regard to the garment. The Maggid Mishneh asserts that it applies to the garment as well. The Kessef Mishneh, however, argues against his position.
101.
See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context.
102.
For she is unlikely to experience uterine bleeding.
103.
For we assume that the woman who found herself impure is the source of the stain.
The commentaries question if this clause applies only with regard to the bed or also with regard to the garment. The Maggid Mishneh asserts that it applies to the garment as well. The Kessef Mishneh, however, argues against his position.
104.
See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context.
105.
See Halachah 5 for the definition of this term in the present context.
106.
See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context.
107.
This is the meaning of the term betulah in this context. See Halachah 5.
108.
See Halachah 4 for the definition of this term in the present context.
109.
Since there is no reason to favor one over the other, we rule stringently with regard to all of them.
110.
And thus each one did not pass over the place where the other slept. See the notes to Halachah 32.
111.
Because either of the woman on the sides could have shifted position slightly and the blood have come from her.
112.
If, however, the stain was discovered on the top sheet, they are all impure, because the top sheet is likely to shift position during their sleep.
113.
For it is unlikely that one twisted and turned to that degree.
114.
The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's words as follows: If a stain that appears to be blood is discovered, a woman must consider herself impure. If, however, there is a question in the minds of the experts whether or not she is truly impure, they could verify the woman's status through the test the Rambam mentions. It is not, as the Ra'avad appeared to understand that the Rambam maintained, that a woman should not consider herself impure unless she verified that the stain was blood through the process described. This interpretation is quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:31). See also Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav, ch. 4.
115.
I.e., the sages to whom women would turn to determine whether a stain was blood or not.
116.
See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:6).
117.
The Ra'avad also differs with the Rambam concerning this point, maintaining that the seven cleansing agents are used to help purify a garment, not to determine whether a woman is pure. As explained in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav, loc. cit., the Rambam also appreciates the role of these cleansing agents in restoring the ritual impurity of a garment. If, however, the cleansing agents are not effective, it becomes obvious that the stain is not blood. Hence, not only the garment, but also the woman is considered as pure.
118.
We have given the popular translation. In his edition of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:6), Rav Kappach identifies the Arabic term used by the Rambam as a cleaning agent made from the plant "althaea officinalis."
119.
Again, we have used the common translation. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1), the Rambam defines the term is referring to a blue stone that becomes dissolved in water easily and which is used to clean hair and garments.
120.
Again, we have used the common term. Rav Kappach (loc. cit.) defines the Arabic term used by the Rambam as referring to a plant known as anabis setifera.
121.
Rav Kappach (loc. cit.) defines the Arabic term used by the Rambam as referring to a plant known as saponaria officinalis.
122.
I.e., the fact that the stain remains is not considered evidence that it is not blood.
Note Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 190:31) which states that because we are unsure of the identity of some of these seven cleansing agents, we do not employ this examination process in the present age.
123.
Halachot 12-18.
124.
Halachah 2.
125.
The punishment given for violating a Rabbinic commandment.
126.
If he engaged in relations with her inadvertantly.
Issurei Biah - Chapter Ten
1
Every woman who gives birth is impure like a niddah, even if she did not suffer uterine bleeding.1 [This applies whether] a woman gives birth to a living child or one which is still born, and even is she miscarries [and discharges a fetus]. If [the fetus is] male, she remains impure [for seven days as is required after giving birth to] a male.2 If it is female, she remains impure [for fourteen days as is required after giving birth to] a female.
[The above applies,] provided the form [of the fetus] is complete. And the form of a fetus will never become complete in less than forty days. [This applies] to both a male and a female.
א
כל יולדת טמאה כנדה ואע"פ שלא ראתה דם ואחד היולדת חי או מת או אפילו נפל אם זכר יושבת לזכר ואם נקבה יושבת לנקבה והוא שתגמר צורתו ואין צורת הולד נגמרת לפחות מארבעים יום אחד הזכר ואחד הנקבה:
2
If a woman miscarries within forty days, she is not impure because of birth.3 [This applies] even on the fortieth day.
If a woman miscarried on the forty-first day after relations,4 there is a doubt whether she is considered as having miscarried.5 [Hence,] she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female and those applying to a niddah.6 If the human form could be barely detected in the fetus without it being clear and obvious, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.7 This is called a developed8 embryo.
ב
והמפלת בתוך ארבעים יום אינה טמאה לידה אפילו ביום ארבעים הפילה ביום ארבעים ואחד מאחר התשמיש הרי זו ספק יולדת ותשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה היתה צורת האדם דקה ביותר ואינה ניכרת בעליל הרי זו תשב לזכר ולנקבה וזהו הנקרא שפיר מרוקם:
3
What is meant by a developed embryo? At the beginning of the formation of the human body, it is the size of a lentil. His two eyes are like the two eyes9of a fly, [slightly] separate from each other. His two nostrils are like two eyes of a fly that are close to each other. Its mouth is a hairsbreadth open and its hands and feet are not distinct.
If its form becomes more defined than this, but it still cannot be distinguished as either male or female, we do not check it in water, but in oil. For the oil will burnish it. One should bring a wood chip with a smooth edge and use it to probe the genital area [of the fetus] from above downward. If there is an obstruction, it can be determined as male.10 If the genital area appears like a split barley corn, it is a female and need not be checked. A woman is not granted the leniency of "the blood of purity" for such underdeveloped embryos; the fetus must have hair on its head.
ג
אי זה הוא שפיר מרוקם תחלת ברייתו של אדם גופו כעדשה שתי עיניו כשתי טיפי זבוב מרוחקות זו מזו שני חוטמיו כשתי טיפי זבוב מקורבות זה לזה פיו פתוח כחוט השערה וחיתוך ידים ורגלים אין לו נתבארה צורתו יתר מזה ועדיין אינו ניכר בין זכר לנקבה אין בודקין אותו במים אלא בשמן שהשמן מצחצחו ומביא קיסם שראשו חלק ומנענע באותו מקום מלמעלה למטה אם מסכסך בידוע שהוא זכר ואם ראה אותו מקום כשעורה סדוקה הרי זו נקבה ואינה צריכה בדיקה וכל אלו הרקימות של נפלים אין נותנין להן ימי טוהר עד שישעיר הולד:
4
When a woman discharges a white mass and when cut open a bone is found within, she is impure, because of birth.11 If she discharges an embryo filled with water, blood, worms,12 or flesh, since it is not developed,13the woman need not suspect [that she is impure] because of birth.14
ד
הפילה חתיכה לבנה אם נקרעה ונמצא בה עצם הרי זו טמאה לידה הפילה שפיר מלא מים מלא דם מלא גנונים מלא בשר הואיל ואינו מרוקם אינה חוששת לולד:
5
When a child is born through Cesarean section, the mother is not impure because of birth. She [need] not [observe] the days of impurity, [nor is she granted] days of purity. [This is derived from Leviticus 12:2]: "When a woman will conceive and give birth to a male...." [The laws of that passage apply] only when she gives birth from the place she conceives.
When a woman has difficulties in giving birth and [ultimately,] gives birth through Cesarean section, the blood from the birth throes which emerges from the womb is considered as the blood of zivah or the blood of niddah.15 The blood that emerges from the operation is itself impure.16 If no blood emerged from the womb, the woman is pure. Although the blood that emerges from the operation is impure, the woman does not become impure unless she suffers bleeding from her vagina.17
ה
יוצא דופן אין אמו טמאה לידה ואין לה ימי טומאה וימי טהרה שנאמר אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר עד שתלד ממקום שמזרעת המקשה וילדה ולד דרך הדופן הרי דם הקושי הבא דרך הרחם זיבות או נדה ודם היוצא דרך הדופן טמא ואם לא יצא דם דרך הרחם הרי האשה טהורה אף על פי שהדם שיצא מדפנה טמא שאין האשה טמאה עד שיצא מדוה דרך ערותה:
6
When a fetus is cut up inside a woman's womb,18 whether it emerged according to the order of the limbs, e.g., first a foot emerged, then a calf, and then a thigh, or it emerged in an abnormal order, the woman is not considered impure until the majority of the body emerges.19 If its entire head comes out intact, it is as if the majority [of the body] emerged.20 If it was not cut up and it emerged in the ordinary manner, it is considered as having been born when its forehead emerges, even though it was cut up afterwards.21
ו
נחתך הולד במעיה ויצא אבר אבר בין שיצא על סדר האיברים כגון שיצאה הרגל ואחריה השוק ואחריה הירך בין שיצא שלא על הסדר אינה טמאה לידה עד שיצא רובו ואם יצא ראשו כולו כאחד הרי זה כרובו ואם לא נחתך ויצא כדרכו משתצא רוב פדחתו הרי זה כילוד אף ע"פ שנחתך אח"כ:
7
If a fetus sticks out its hand22 [from the womb] and then returns it, its mother is impure due to birth as a result of Rabbinic decree.23 The woman does not receive "days of purity" until the entire fetus - or [at least] the majority - emerges as we stated.24
ז
הוציא העובר את ידו והחזירה אמו טמאה לידה מדברי סופרים ואין לה ימי טוהר עד שיצא הולד כולו או רובו כמו שאמרנו:
8
[The following laws apply when] a woman miscarries and discharges something resembling an animal, beast, or fowl.25 If its face resembles that of a human,26it is considered as a birth even though the remainder of the body resembles an animal, beast, or fowl. If it is male, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male. If it is female, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a female. If it cannot be determined whether it is male or female, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.
If its face does not resemble that of a human, it is not considered as a fetus and its mother is not impure due to birth.27 [This applies] even though the remainder of the body resembles that of a human, its hands and feet resemble those of a human, and it is male or female.
ח
המפלת כמין בהמה חיה או עוף אם היו פניו כפני אדם הרי זה ולד אם זכר תשב לזכר ואם נקבה תשב לנקבה ואם אינו ניכר בין זכר לנקבה תשב לזכר ולנקבה אע"פ ששאר הגוף דומה לבהמה או לחיה או לעוף ואם אין פניו כצורת פני האדם אף על פי ששאר הגוף גוף אדם שלם וידיו ורגליו ידי ורגלי אדם והרי הוא זכר או נקבה אינו ולד ואין אמו טמאה לידה:
9
What is meant by the human form of a face? That the forehead, eyebrows, eyes, cheeks, and the contour of the jaw share the human form. Even if the mouth, the ears, and the nose resemble that of an animal or a beast, [the fetus] is considered as a birth.
ט
אי זו היא צורת פני האדם שיהיה המצח והגבינין והעינים והלסתות וגבות הזקן כצורת האדם אבל הפה והאזנים והאף אע"פ שהן כשל בהמה וחיה ה"ז ולד:
10
When a woman miscarries and discharges something resembling a snake, the mother is impure due to birth.28 [The rationale is that] the form of its eye is round like that of a human. When a woman miscarries and discharges a human form that has wings of flesh, the mother is impure due to birth.
[The following rules apply when a fetus] is created with one eye and one thigh. If they are on the side, it is considered as half a human and the mother is impure due to birth. If they are in the center, the mother is pure, because this is another creature.
י
המפלת דמות נחש אמו טמאה לידה מפני שגלגל עיניו עגול כשל אדם המפלת דמות אדם שיש לו כנפים של בשר אמו טמאה לידה נברא בעין אחת וירך אחת אם היו מן הצד הרי הוא כחצי אדם ואמו טמאה לידה ואם היו באמצע אמו טהורה שהרי זו בריה אחרת:
11
[The following laws apply when a fetus] is created with its windpipe closed, its body lacking [form] from the navel downward, but instead is a mass of flesh, its skull being merely a mass of flesh, its face was amorphous and its features could not be distinguished, it has two backs and two backbones, the contours of the head of the fetus she discharged could not be distinguished, or the contours of its hand could not be distinguished, the mother is not impure due to birth.29
If, however, she miscarried and discharged a hand or a foot that was cut off, we operate under the assumption that it came from a complete fetus and it is included in the sum of the majority of its limbs.30
יא
נברא ושט שלו אטום או שהיה חסר מטיבורו ולמטה והרי הוא אטום או שהיתה גלגלתו אטומה או שהיו פניו טוחות ואין בהן הכר פנים או שיש לו שני גבין ושתי שדרות או שהפילה בריית ראש שאינו חתוך או יד שאינו חתוך כל נפל מאלו אינו ולד ואין אמו טמאה לידה אבל אם הפילה יד חתוכה ורגל חתוכה הרי חזקתה מולד שלם ומצטרפין לרוב איבריו:
12
There are times when from the remainder of the blood from which a fetus is formed will coagulate and form a mass that resembles the tongue of an ox. It is wound around a portion of the fetus and is called a sandal. A sandal will never be formed without a fetus. If a similar mass is formed without a fetus, it is not called a sandal.Most fetuses will not have a sandal with them.
There are times when a pregnant woman will receive a blow on her stomach and the fetus will be damaged and will become like this sandal. There are time when the [resulting sandal] will retain its facial features and there are times when the fetus will dry up and change its appearance and blood from elsewhere will coagulate upon it to the extent that its facial features cannot be recognized.
Accordingly, when a woman miscarries and discharges a male fetus together with a sandal, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female. For perhaps this sandal was a female fetus. [The Sages] ruled stringency and considered her impure due to a [female] fetus even though it did not possess any facial features. [The rationale is that] she is impure due to birth regardless because of the fetus [discharged] with it.
יב
פעמים יקפה משאר הדמים שנוצר מהם האדם חתיכה כמו לשון השור ותהיה כרוכה על מקצת הולד והיא הנקראת סנדל ולעולם לא יעשה סנדל זה אלא עם ולד אבל חתיכה שנוצרה לבדה בלא ולד אינה נקראת סנדל ורוב העוברים לא יהיה עמהם סנדל ופעמים יכה המעוברת דבר על בטנה ויפסד העובר ויעשה כסנדל זה ופעמים ישאר בו הכר פנים ופעמים ייבש הולד וישתנה ויקפאו עליו הדמים עד שלא ישאר בו הכר פנים לפיכך המפלת זכר וסנדל עמו אף על פי שאין הכר פנים לסנדל הרי זו תשב לזכר ולנקבה שמא סנדל זה נקבה היה וחומרא החמירו בו לטמאה בו משום ולד אע"פ שאין בו צורת פנים הואיל והיא טמאה לידה מפני הולד שעמו:
13
The thick membrane that is like a goatskin in which the fetus is formed and which surrounds the fetus and the sandal - if there is a sandal with it - is called the placenta. When the time comes for the fetus to emerge, it tears it and emerges. At the beginning of its creation, it resembles a thread of the woof that is hollow like a trumpet and thick like the craw of a chicken. A placenta must be at least a handbreadth in size.31
יג
החותלת העבה שהיא כמו חמת שבתוכה נוצר הולד והיא מקפת אותו ואת הסנדל אם היה עמו סנדל וכשיגיע זמנו לצאת קורע אותה ויוצא היא הנקראת שליא ותחלת ברייתה דומה לחוט של ערב וחלולה כחצוצרת ועבה כקרקבן התרנגולים ואין שליא פחותה מטפח:
14
When [a woman] miscarries and discharges a placenta, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female. [The intent is] not that a placenta is a fetus, but there will not be a placenta without a fetus.
If she discharged a fetus and then discharged a placenta, we show concern about the placenta and it is considered as a fetus. We do not say: "This is the placenta of the fetus that miscarried." For we associate the discharge of the placenta only with a viable birth.
Accordingly, if the woman gave birth to a viable child and then discharged a placenta - even after 23 days32 - we assume that [the placenta] came as a result of the child. We do not suspect that there was a second fetus. [Instead, we assume] that the child tore through the placenta and emerged.
יד
המפלת שליא תשב לזכר ולנקבה לא שהשליא ולד אלא שאין שליא בלא ולד הפילה נפל ואחר כך הפילה שליא חוששין לשליא והרי הוא כולד אחר ואין אומרין זו שלית הנפל שאין תולין את השליא אלא בולד של קיימא לפיכך אם ילדה ולד של קיימא והפילה שליא אפילו אחר כ"ג יום תולין אותו בולד ואין חוששין לולד אחר שהולד קרע השליא ויצא:
15
[When a woman] discharges a placenta and afterwards bears a viable child, we suspect that the placenta came as the result of another fetus.33 We do not associate it with the child that was born afterwards, for it is not usual for the placenta to emerge before the fetus.34
If a portion of the placenta emerges on Sunday and a portion emerges on Monday, we count [her days of impurity] from the first day and we count her days of purity only from the second day as a stringency.35
טו
הפילה שליא תחילה ואח"כ ילדה ולד של קיימא חוששין לשליא שהיא ולד אחר ואין תולין אותה בולד הבא אחריה שאין דרכה של שליא לצאת לפני הולד יצאת מקצת השליא ביום הראשון ומקצתה בשני מונין לה מיום הראשון ואין נותנין לה ימי טהרה אלא מיום שני להחמיר:
16
If [a woman] miscarries and discharges something resembling an animal, beast, or fowl and a placenta is connected to it, we do not suspect that there is [another] fetus.36 If they are not connected to [the placenta], we treat it with severity as if there were two fetuses. For we say that maybe the fetus that was carried in this placenta became effaced, and maybe the placenta of this fetus that appears like an animal or beast became effaced.37
טז
הפילה דמות בהמה חיה ועוף ושליא קשורה בו אין חוששין לולד ואם אינה קשורה בו מטילין עליה חומר שתי ולדות שאני אומר שמא נימוח שפיר מרוקם שהיה בשליא זו ושמא נימוחה השליא של שפיר זה שהוא דמות בהמה וחיה:
17
In all instances when we are concerned that [the emergence of] a placenta [indicates that a fetus emerged previously], a woman is not given days of purity.38
[The following laws apply to] every [woman] who miscarries and discharges something that does not resemble a human fetus39 or a fetus that is within 40 days of conception whose form has thus not been completed.40 If [the emergence of] the fetus was accompanied by bleeding, the woman is either a niddah or a zavah.41 If it emerged dry, without any bleeding, she is pure.42
יז
כל אלו שחוששין לשליא אין נותנין להן ימי טוהר וכל מי שהפילה דבר שאינו ולד או שפיר בתוך ארבעים יום שעדיין לא נגמרה צורתו אם יצא עמו דם הרי זו נדה או זבה ואם יצא יבש בלא דם הרי זו טהורה:
18
When a woman gives birth to twins - a boy and a girl - she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a female.43 If she gives birth to a tumtum44 or an androgynus,45 she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.46 If she gives birth to twins, one that is male and one that is a tumtum or an androgynus, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.47 If one [of the twins] is female and one is a tumtum or an androgynus, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a female.48 For the gender of a tumtum and an androgynus is a matter of doubt: Maybe they are male or maybe female.49
יח
מי שילדה זכר ונקבה תאומים תשב לנקבה ילדה טומטום או אנדרוגינוס תשב לזכר ולנקבה ילדה תאומים אחד זכר והשני טומטום או אנדרוגינוס תשב לזכר ולנקבה האחת נקבה והשני טומטום או אנדרוגינוס תשב לנקבה בלבד שהטומטום והאנדרוגינוס ספק הן שמא זכר הן שמא נקבה:
19
When a woman is known to be pregnant miscarries and it is not known what she miscarried, e.g., she passed a river and miscarried there, miscarried into a pit, or miscarried and a beast dragged away the fetus, we assume that she discharged a human fetus.50 Hence, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female.51 If, however, she was not known to be pregnant, miscarried, and did not know what she miscarried, she is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female and those applying to a niddah.52
יט
האשה שהוחזקה מעוברת וילדה ואין ידוע מה ילדה כגון שעברה לנהר והפילה שם או שהפילה לבור או שהפילה וגררתו חיה הרי זו בחזקת שהפילה ולד ותשב לזכר ולנקבה אבל אם לא הוחזקה מעוברת והפילה ואין ידוע מה הפילה ה"ז ספק יולדת ותשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה:
20
What are the laws that apply wherever we said: "She is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female"? She is forbidden to her husband for fourteen days like a woman who gives birth to a female. The status of the first seven is definite;53 that of the latter seven is doubtful.54
We do not grant her any "days of purity" beyond the fortieth day [from the birth] as is the law with regard to one who gives birth to a male.55 If she discovers menstrual bleeding between the fortieth and eightieth days from birth, it is not "pure blood."56 Instead, because of the doubt, we consider it as niddah bleeding, or zivah bleeding if it comes in the "days of zivah," as we explained.57
Similarly, if she discovers [uterine bleeding] on the eighty-first day alone, she is considered as a niddah because of the doubt.58 She must observe the seven days of niddah. [The rationale is that] perhaps she gave birth to a female and her "days of niddah" do not begin until after the conclusion [of the days of purity], as we explained.59
כ
כל מקום שנאמר תשב לזכר ולנקבה כיצד דינה תהיה אסורה לבעלה י"ד יום כיולדת נקבה שבעה הראשונים ודאי והשבעה האחרונים ספק ואין נותנין לה ימי טוהר אלא עד ארבעים יום כיולדת זכר ואם ראתה דם אחר הארבעים עד שמונים אינו דם טוהר אלא ספק דם נדה או ספק דם זיבות אם בא מימי הזיבה כמו שביארנו וכן אם ראתה דם יום אחד ושמונים בלבד הרי זו ספק נדה ותשב שבעת ימי הנדה שמא נקבה ילדה שאין לה וסת נדות עד אחר מלאות כמו שביארנו:
21
What are the laws that apply wherever we said: "She is governed by the laws that apply to the birth of a male and a female and those applying to a niddah"? She is forbidden to her husband for fourteen days like a woman who gives birth to a female. If she discovers blood on the eighty-first day, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah.60
Similarly, if she discovered uterine bleeding on the seventy-fourth day and the eighty-first day, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah.61 Similarly, if she discovered [uterine bleeding] on the forty-first day, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah even though she discovered bleeding on the thirty-fourth day. She is forbidden to her husband until the forty-eighth day, as is the law for a woman who gives birth to a male.62
We do not grant her any "pure days" at all, like a niddah. [The following rules apply with regard to] any bleeding that she discovers from the day on which she miscarried until the eightieth day beginning from seven days after she miscarried. If it is discovered in her "days of niddah, she is a niddah, because of the doubt. And if it is discovered in her "days of zivah," she is a zavah, because of the doubt. For throughout the days after birth, [the previous patterns concerning] the expected times of menstruation do not apply.63
Similarly, if she discovers uterine bleeding on the eighty-first day, her situation is still problematic and she must consider herself a niddah because of the doubt as explained [above]. [This applies] even if she discovers bleeding for only one day. When she establishes a pattern of menstruation after eighty days, her difficulties will cease and she will be either definitely a niddah or definitely a zavah.64 Similarly, from the time she miscarried for seven days, she will be definitely impure [like] a niddah65 if she miscarried in the midst of her days of niddah, as we explained.66
כא
כל מקום שנאמר תשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה כיצד דינה תהיה אסורה לבעלה י"ד יום כיולדת נקבה ואם ראתה דם ביום אחד ושמונים הרי זו ספק נדה וכן אם ראתה ביום ע"ד וביום פ"א הרי זו ספק נדה וכן אם ראתה ביום ארבעים ואחד אף על פי שראתה ביום ל"ד הרי זו ספק נדה ואסורה לבעלה עד ליל ארבעים ושמונה כיולדת זכר ואין נותנין לה ימי טוהר כלל כנדה והרי היא כמי שלא ילדה וכל דם שתראה מיום שהפילה עד פ' יום אם בא בימי נדתה ה"ז ספק נדה מאחר השבעה מיום שהפילה ואם בא בימי זיבתה הרי זו ספק זבה שכל ימי מלאת אין בהן וסת וכן אם ראתה ביום אחד ושמונים עדיין היא מקולקלת ותהיה ספק נדה כמו שביארנו אע"פ שלא ראתה אלא יום אחד וכשיקבע לה הוסת אחר השמונים יסור קילקולה ותחזור להיות נדה ודאית או זבה ודאית וכן מיום שהפילה עד ז' ימים ותהיה נדה ודאית אם הפילה בתוך ימי נדתה כמו שביארנו:
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Chapter 5, Halachah 13, the Rambam rules that when a woman discharges a piece of flesh from the vagina, it must be accompanied by bleeding. For discharging that piece of flesh is not considered as giving birth. With regard to giving birth (or miscarrying), however, the Torah deems a woman is impure, whether or not the birth is accompanied by bleeding.
2.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 2.
3.
A miscarriage is usually accompanied by uterine bleeding. Thus the woman will become impure (as a niddah or as a zavah). However, the unique laws that apply to childbirth do not apply to her.
Even if she had conceived previously, until she reaches the fortieth day, the embryo is not given the halachic status of a fetus and none of the laws applying to childbirth apply.
4.
I.e., the forty-first day after she immersed herself in the mikveh and engaged in relations that night.
5.
I.e., it is possible that she conceived after engaging in relations that night, but we are not certain. Hence, her status is doubtful.
6.
Since it is possible that the fetus was male, it is possible that it was female, and it is possible that it was not considered a fetus in the halachic sense at all, the woman must take all these possibilities into consideration. See Halachah 21 which defines the laws incumbent on a woman in this situation.
7.
In this instance, it is clear that the embryo had developed into a fetus. Hence the laws that apply to ordinary uterine bleeding need not be considered. Nevertheless, since we are uncertain whether the fetus is male or female, the woman must take both of these factors into consideration. See Halachah 20 which describes the laws that a woman must follow in such a situation.
8.
Rekem, the root of the term merukam, means "embroidered." Implied is that the form of the embryo is beginning to take shape.
9.
Alternatively, as two drops of a fly's discharge.
10.
For ultimately, the male organ will grow there.
11.
For we assume that the mass was a dead fetus. The fact that it contains a bone indicates that it had developed sufficiently to acquire the features mentioned in the previous halachah. Obviously, certain factors had caused the fetus to be crushed and the features obliterated.
12.
Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 3:3) which interprets the Hebrew as referring to "flesh that appears to be cut in the form of worms."
13.
I.e., developed to the point it possesses the features mentioned in the previous halachah.
14.
Moreover, if there is no apparent blood on the discharge, she is not impure as a niddah (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.; see also Chapter 5, Halachah 13).
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3) states that in the present age, we follow the approach of the Rashba who rules that we are not knowledgeable enough to make the fine distinctions necessary to define when an embryo is developed or not. Hence, a woman should always consider herself impure because of birth.
15.
Depending on the day of her cycle on which the blood emerged.
Although the Torah considered the blood that emerges during birth pure (Chapter 6, Halachah 1), that apples when the woman gives birth in an ordinary manner, and not when she gives birth by Cesarean section (Rashi, Niddah 41a).
16.
The blood itself is impure, because the uterus itself is impure and it conveys impurity on the blood. Therefore anyone who touches the blood is impure until the evening. The blood does not, however, convey impurity on the woman unless it comes into contact with her after it emerges from her body.
17.
Niddah, loc. cit., derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 20:18.
18.
I.e., the woman was unable to birth the baby and the doctors saw that to save the woman's life, the fetus would have to be killed and taken out limb by limb.
19.
I.e., the point brought out by this halachah is not whether the woman becomes impure, but when the impurity takes effect. The Siftei Cohen 194:9 states that the law stated by the Rambam applies according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic decree, she is impure as soon as one limb emerges.
20.
Although the Mishnah (Niddah 3:5) uses the phrase "the majority of the head," the Rambam maintains that the entire head must emerge for this law to apply. See the Maggid Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh.
21.
I.e., complications arouse and it was necessary to cut up the fetus to remove it from the womb entirely.
22.
The Maggid Mishneh questions whether the same laws apply with regard to a foot. The Tur states that they do, while the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:11) quotes the Rambam's ruling verbatim.
23.
Although Genesis 38:28 states: "And when she was giving birth, he stuck out a hand," Niddah 28a rules that this should not be interpreted as an implication that sticking out a hand is considered as giving birth. Instead, according to Scriptural Law, the woman does not become impure until the majority of the body of the fetus emerges.
24.
I.e., as implied by the previous halachah.
25.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 3:2), the Rambam explains that although it is abnormal for a woman to discharge a fetus with such an appearance, there are exceptional situations from time to time. These and the forms mentioned in the following halachot are definite possibilities.
26.
As defined in the following halachah.
27.
The Maggid Mishneh states that this law also applies in the present era, as indicated by Chapter 11, Halachah 12. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro differs, citing the Ra'avad and the Ramban and explaining that the Rabbis of the present era did not feel that they were expert enough to determine if the face of a fetus resembled that of a man or not. Hence they ruled that woman is impure. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3), he follows this approach.
Note also Halachah 17 which states that if the discharge of such a fetus is accompanied by bleeding, the woman is impure even if the fetus does not resemble a human.
28.
The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, noting that in the previous two halachot, he stated that for a fetus to be considered as having a human form, it must have the majority of a human facial form intact, not merely the eyes. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam's ruling, explaining that the eye of a snake resembles that of a human much more closely than that of other animals. Hence, there is room for the Rambam's ruling.
29.
This ruling is based on Niddah23b which states that any fetus that is created in a manner that is not fit for its soul to be created (i.e., it is not viable) does not cause the mother to be impure due to birth. Since a fetus with these defects would not live, the mother is not impure. See the Kessef Mishneh which questions the details of certain of the examples cited by the Rambam.
30.
As stated in Halachah 6, when the majority of the limbs of a fetus emerge, the mother is considered as impure due to birth. The present halachah is stating that if previously many of the limbs of a fetus emerged and then the mother discharged this cut off hand or foot, it is not considered as part of a separate fetus, but instead, part of the fetus that already emerged. Hence, if together with the limbs that previously emerged, it equals the majority of the fetus, the woman is impure (Maggid Mishneh).
From Rabbi Akiva Eiger's interpretation of Niddah 28a, the source for this halachah, the following explanation can be given. When a woman discharges a cut off hand or foot, even if we have not seen the remainder of the fetus, we assume that she discharged them already. Hence, she is considered impure. We do not suspect that maybe the fetus she discharged was not viable.
31.
Implied is a leniency. If a woman discharges something resembling a placenta, but which is smaller than a handbreadth, she is not impure due to birth. The Maggid Mishneh quotes Ramban and Rashba who rule that in the present age, we are stringent and rule her impure even if it is smaller than a handbreadth lest an error be made.
32.
Based on Niddah 27a, it appears that this is the maximum number of days granted between a birth and the emergence of the placenta.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro notes that there are authorities who maintain that the 23 days include the day of the birth, while the Rambam maintains that the day of the birth is not included. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3), he quotes the Rambam's ruling.
33.
I.e., the woman had been carrying two fetuses. The emergence of the fetus indicates that she had miscarried and discharged one previously.
34.
Since the fetus is carried within the placenta, in a viable birth, the placenta will never emerge before the fetus carried within it.
35.
I.e., as soon as the first portion of the placenta emerges, the woman becomes impure. Nevertheless, her days of purity do not begin until the appropriate time (7 or 14 days) passes after the second day. And they end after 40 or 80 days from the first day, not from the second day.
36.
As stated in Halachah 8, the discharge of these type of creatures does not render the woman impure. When she discharges a placenta that is connected to them, we assume that they were carried within the placenta. Hence, just as they do not render the woman impure, the placenta also does not.
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:7) cites this law without qualification, the Siftei Cohen 194:7 states that just as we are stringent in the present era with regard to the law stated in Halachah 8, we are stringent with regard to this law and rule that the woman is impure.
37.
I.e., we are concerned with the possibility that the woman was carrying two fetuses. Although only one fetus - the animal-formed one - and one placenta emerged, we suppose that originally there was another fetus and another placenta and they were effaced. We assume that the fetus that was effaced was ordinary and hence, the woman is considered as impure.
38.
I.e., the forty or eighty day period when uterine bleeding does not render a woman impure is not granted in this situation, for we suspect that perhaps the woman never in fact gave birth.
39.
As mentioned in Halachah 8.
40.
As mentioned in Halachah 2.
41.
The ruling depends on the day of her personal cycle on which the woman miscarries: Is it one of the days of niddah or one of the days of zivah?
42.
This ruling depends on our Sages' statement (Niddah 21a) that it is possible for the uterus to open without the woman experiencing any bleeding.
This statement is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Talmud and there are some Rishonim who follow the other position and therefore rule that the woman is impure. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:2) follows this view and rules that even if the woman does not notice any bleeding, she must assume that bleeding did in fact take place.
43.
I.e., she must observe 14 days of impurity and then is given 66 days of purity. We do not restrict her to 26 days because of the birth of the boy.
44.
A person whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus it is impossible to determine his or her gender.
45.
A person who has both male and female sexual organs. There is an unresolved halachic question with regard to the classification of such a person's gender.
46.
Since there is a doubt concerning the issue, the woman must observe the stringencies resulting from either option.
47.
Since it is possible that the tumtum or the androgynus is - or is considered as - a female, the woman must also take the laws governing the birth of a female into consideration.
48.
For even if the tumtum or androgynus was considered as a male, there would be no need for any further severity as stated at the beginning of the halachah.
49.
In particular, there is a difference between the two. With regard to a tumtum, the child has a specific gender, we simply are not able to identify it. With regard to an androgynus, by contrast, the doubt involves the child's halachic status.
50.
And not one of the forms mentioned in Halachah 8.
51.
Because we do not know the gender of the fetus, she must take both possibilities into consideration.
52.
For it is possible that she was less than 40 days pregnant, in which instance the fetus is not considered as being born, and she is governed by the laws applying to a niddah, as stated in Halachah 2.
53.
For even if the fetus was male, she would be impure for this time.
54.
For we do not know that the fetus was female.
55.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 3:3), the Rambam explains the rationale for this ruling. There is a question of Scriptural Law involved. Whenever doubt arises in such a situation, we follow the more stringent approach.
56.
As would be the ruling was she to have given birth to a female. As explained in Chapter 11, Halachah 6, today
57.
In Chapter 7, Halachah 12, the Rambam writes that "that any bleeding that a woman discovers after the completion of the days associated with childbirth marks the beginning of her days of niddah." Accordingly, the first time a woman in such a situation discovers uterine bleeding between the fortieth and eightieth day after birth, there is a doubt whether she is a niddah. If she discovers bleeding a second time, the question of whether the doubt involves the niddah or zivah state depends on the day when the bleeding is discovered.
58.
I.e., she is not merely a minor zavah.
Apparently, the Rambam's intent is speaking about a woman who discovered uterine bleeding between the fortieth and eightieth day after birth and then a second time on the eighty-first day and according to the niddah-zivah cycle, the eighty-first day is a day of zivah. (For example, she discovered uterine bleeding previous on the seventieth day.). In that instance, there is a doubt whether she is considered a niddah, for if the fetus was female, this would be considered the beginning of the niddah cycle, or a zavah, for if the fetus was male, her cycle would have begun earlier. See the following halachah and notes.
According to this interpretation, however, the word "alone" which the Rambam adds appears to be in error.
59.
Chapter 7, Halachah 12.
60.
The Rambam is speaking about a situation when a woman discovers uterine bleeding for the first time after a miscarriage. Ordinarily, her niddah cycle would start at that time. Nevertheless, since the possibility exists that her miscarriage did not involve a fetus, she must continue her previous reckoning of the "days of niddah" and the "days of zivah."
61.
If the fetus was male, the bleeding on the seventy-fourth day would have been considered the beginning of her "days of niddah" and the eighty-first day, the beginning of her "days of zivah." Thus she would be only a minor zavah. Nevertheless, there is also a possibility that the fetus was female. In such an instance, any bleeding before the eighty-first day is insignificant and the eighty-first day begins the niddah cycle. Hence we rule more stringently and consider her a niddah, because of the doubt.
62.
This would be the law were we certain that she had miscarried a male fetus. Her status is doubtful, for it is possible that her miscarriage is not considered a birth at all. In that instance, the bleeding would be either niddah or zivah bleeding, depending on her cycle.
63.
I.e., were we to know for certain that she had given birth, there would be no concept of days of niddah and days of zivah. Hence, in the present situation, although the woman must observe the stringencies of niddah and zivah, it is only because of the doubt.
64.
Depending on the day of her cycle on which the bleeding is discovered.
65.
Either because of the miscarriage or because the bleeding is considered as blood of niddah. Either way, she is definitely impure for seven days.
66.
In Halachah 20.
Issurei Biah - Chapter Eleven
1
All of what was said with regard to [the laws of] niddah, zivah, and childbirth applies with regard to Scriptural Law. [The Jews] would follow these laws when the Supreme Sanhedrin held sessions and it included great sages who were familiar with [the types of] blood. If a doubt arose [for the lesser judges] with regard to the discovery of blood or the days of niddah and zivah, they could ascend to the Supreme Sanhedrin and ask them. As the Torah promised concerning them [Deuteronomy 17:8]: "If a matter of judgment is unknown to you concerning one type of blood or another, or one judgment and anotherו [you shallו ascend to the place that Godו shall choose]."1
["Concerning one type of blood or another"] means "between the blood of niddah and the blood of zivah. In that era, Jewish women would be careful concerning this matter and would pay attention to their monthly patterns and would always count the "days of niddah" and the "days of zivah."
א
כל שאמרנו בנדה וזבה ויולדת הוא דין תורה וכמשפטים אלו היו עושין כשהיו ב"ד הגדול מצויין והיו שם חכמים גדולים שמכירים הדמים ואם נולד להם ספק בראיות או בימי נדה וזיבה יעלו לב"ד וישאלו כמו שהבטיחה תורה עליהן שנאמר כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט בין דם לדם בין דין לדין בין דם נדה לדם זיבה ובאותן הימים היו בנות ישראל נזהרות מדבר זה ומשמרות וסתותיהן וסופרות תמיד ימי הנדה וימי הזיבה:
2
It is very difficult to keep track of the counting of the dates. Many times doubts will arise. For even if a woman discovered bleeding on the day she was born, she must begin counting the "days of niddah" and the "days of zivah," as we explained.2 Therefore a girl cannot become impure as a zavah until she is ten days old. For if she discovered bleeding on the day that she was born, she would be a niddah for seven days. [Then to be a zavah, she would have to discover bleeding] on the three days directly following the "days of niddah." Thus [she would be] ten days [old].
Thus we learned that she begins counting the "days of niddah" and the "days of zivah" from the first time she discovers uterine bleeding throughout her entire life. [This applies] even if [the first time] she discovers bleeding is when she is a minor.
ב
וטורח גדול יש במנין הימים ופעמים רבות יבואו לידי ספק שאפילו ראתה הבת דם ביום הלידה מאותו היום מתחילין למנות לה ימי נדה וימי זיבה כמו שביארנו ולפיכך לא תטמא הבת בזיבה אלא בת י' ימים שאם ראתה ביום שנולדה הרי זו נדה שבעת ימים ושלשת ימים סמוך לנדתה הרי י' ימים הנה למדת שמתחילת ראייה מתחלת למנות ימי נדה וימי זיבה כל ימיה ואפילו ראתה והיא קטנה:
3
During the era of the Sages of the Gemara, many doubts arose with regard to the appearance of blood3 and the reckoning of the pattern of menstruation. For it was not within the potential of all women to calculate the "days of niddah" and the "days of zivah." Therefore our Sages ruled stringently concerning this matter and decreed that a woman should consider all her days as "days of zivah" and consider any bleeding that she discovers as zivah bleeding because of the doubt.4
ג
ובימי חכמי הגמרא נסתפק הדבר הרבה בראיית הדמים ונתקלקלו הוסתות לפי שלא היה כח בכל הנשים למנות ימי נדה וימי זיבה לפיכך החמירו חכמים בדבר זה וגזרו שיהו כל ימי האשה כימי זיבתה ויהיה כל דם שתראה ספק דם זיבות:
4
In addition, Jewish women accepted a further stringency upon themselves. They accepted the custom that wherever Jews live, whenever a Jewish woman discovers [uterine] bleeding, even if she does not discover more than a drop the size of a mustard seed and the bleeding ceases immediately, she must count seven "spotless" days.5 [This stringency applies] even if she discovered the bleeding during her "days of niddah."6
Whether the bleeding continued for one day, two days, an entire seven days, or longer, when the bleeding ceases, she counts seven "spotless" days as is required of a major zavah and immerses on the night of the eighth day despite the fact that there is a doubt whether she is a zavah.7 Or she may immerse during the day on the eighth day in a pressing situation, as explained.8 Afterwards, she is permitted to her husband.
ד
ועוד החמירו בנות ישראל על עצמן חומרא יתירה על זה ונהגו כולם בכ"מ שיש ישראל שכל בת ישראל שרואה דם אפילו לא ראתה אלא טיפה כחרדל בלבד ופסק הדם סופרת לה ז' ימים נקיים ואפילו ראתה בעת נדתה בין שראתה יום אחד או שנים או השבעה כולן או יתר משיפסוק הדם סופרת שבעת ימים נקיים כזבה גדולה וטובלת בליל שמיני אף על פי שהיא ספק זבה או ביום שמיני אם היה שם דוחק כמו שאמרנו ואחר כך תהיה מותרת לבעלה:
5
Similarly, every women who gives birth in the present age is considered as one who gives birth while a zavah and she must count seven "spotless" days, as we explained.9
It is the commonly accepted custom in Babylon, in "the cherished land,"10Spain, and the West,11 that if a woman discovers bleeding in the days after childbirth,12 she must count seven "spotless" days after the bleeding stopped. [This applies] even if she first counted seven "spotless" days and immersed [after giving birth].
We do not grant her any pure days at all. Instead, whenever a woman discovers bleeding whether it is bleeding associated with childbirth or "pure blood," it is all impure. She must count seven "spotless" days after the bleeding ceases.
ה
וכן כל היולדת בזמן הזה הרי היא כיולדת בזוב וצריכה שבעת ימים נקיים כמו שביארנו ומנהג פשוט בשנער ובארץ הצבי ובספרד ובמערב שאם ראתה דם בתוך ימי מלאת אע"פ שראתה אחר שספרה שבעת ימים נקיים וטבלה הרי זו סופרת שבעת ימים נקיים אחר שיפסוק הדם ואין נותנין לה ימי טוהר כלל אלא כל דם שתראה האשה בין דם קושי בין דם טוהר הכל טמא וסופרת שבעת ימים נקיים אחר שיפסוק הדם:
6
This law was instituted in the era of the Geonim. They decreed that there be no concept of "pure" blood. For the stringency that women accepted upon themselves in the era of the Sages of the Talmud applies only to a woman who discovers bleeding that would render them impure. [In this instance, they accepted the custom of] waiting seven days. Blood which she discovers during her "days of purity" after counting [seven "spotless" days], by contrast, is not a matter of concern [according to Scriptural Law]. For the days of purity are not subject [to concern] with regard to niddah or zivah as we explained.13
ו
ודין זה בימי הגאונים נתחדש והם גזרו שלא יהיה שם דם טוהר כלל שזה שהחמירו על עצמן בימי חכמי הגמרא אינו אלא ברואה דם שהוא טמא שיושבת עליו ז' נקיים אבל דם שתראה בימי טוהר אחר ספירה וטבילה אין לחוש לו שאין ימי טוהר ראויין לא לנדה ולא לזיבה כמו שביארנו:
7
We have heard that in France,14 even today, relations are allowed [despite] "pure" bleeding as was the law in the Talmudic era after [the woman] counts [seven "spotless" days] and immerses herself because of the impurity resulting from giving birth in the zivah state. This matter is dependent on local custom.15
ז
ושמענו שבצרפת בועלים על דם טוהר כדין הגמרא עד היום אחר ספירה וטבילה מטומאת יולדת בזוב ודבר זה תלוי במנהג:
8
Similarly, [stringencies were adopted] with regard to the laws of hymeneal bleeding in the present age. Even if a minor is below the age when she could be expected to menstruate and never discovered uterine bleeding, [her husband] must separate after engaging in the relations which are a mitzvah.16
Whenever she discovers hymeneal bleeding,17 she is impure. When the bleeding ceases, she must count seven "spotless" days [before immersing herself].
ח
וכן דין דם בתולים בזמן הזה שאפילו היתה קטנה שלא הגיע זמנה לראות ולא ראתה דם מימיה בועל בעילת מצוה ופורש וכל זמן שתראה הדם מחמת המכה הרי היא טמאה ואחר שיפסוק הדם סופרת ז' ימים נקיים:
9
Moreover, whenever a girl is asked to marry and consents, she must count seven "spotless" days after she consents to marry.18 Afterwards, [she immerses and] becomes permitted to her husband.19 [The rationale is that] she might have desired a man and released a drop [of blood] without being aware of it. Whether she is a mature woman or a minor, she must wait seven "spotless" days after she consents to marry. Afterwards, she immerses and may engage in relations.
ט
יתר על זה כל בת שתבעוה להנשא ורצתה שוהה שבעת ימים נקיים מאחר שרצתה ואחר כך תהיה מותרת להבעל שמא מחמודה לאיש ראתה דם טיפה אחת ולא הרגישה בה בין שהיתה האשה גדולה בין שהיתה קטנה צריכה לישב ז' נקיים מאחר שרצתה ואח"כ תטבול ותבעל:
10
All of these matters are additional stringencies that have been practiced by Jewish women from the era of the Sages of the Talmud [onward]. One should never deviate from it. Therefore every women who consents when asked to marry should not marry until she counts [these days] and immerses herself. If she marries a Torah scholar, she may marry immediately and then count after marriage and immerse. [The rationale is that] a Torah scholar will know that she is forbidden and observe [the restriction]. He will not approach her until she immerses.20
י
וכל הדברים האלו חומרא יתירה שנהגו בה בנות ישראל מימי חכמי הגמרא ואין לסור ממנה לעולם לפיכך כל אשה שרצתה כשתבעוה להנשא לא תנשא עד שתספור ותטבול ואם נשאת לתלמיד חכם מותרת להנשא מיד ותספור מאחר שנשאתו ותטבול שתלמיד חכם יודע שהיא אסורה ונזהר מזה ולא יקרב לה עד שתטבול:
11
The laws applying to [the discovery of] stains in the present era [follow the principles] we explained.21 There is no innovation in this regard, not are there any [new] customs. Instead, any stain which we ruled was pure, is considered pure. And when [a woman discovers] any of the stains which we ruled were impure - [even] of the stain was not of the size that would generate concern for zivut - she must count seven ["spotless"] days, after the day of the discovery of the stain. For the discovery of a stain is not identical with the discovery of bleeding.22
יא
דין הכתמים בזמן הזה כמו שביארנו ואין בדבר חידוש ולא מנהג אלא כל כתם שאמרנו שהיא טהורה הרי היא טהורה וכל כתם שאמרנו טמאה (אם אין בכתם שיעור כדי לחוש לזיבות) סופרת שבעת ימים מיום שנמצא בו הכתם ואם היה שיעור הכתם כדי לחוש לזיבות סופרת שבעת ימים מאחר יום שנמצא בו הכתם שאין הרואה דם כרואה כתם:
12
All the statements we made concerning a woman who miscarried [and discharged a creature that does not resemble a human fetus]23 and [hence] is pure also apply in the present age.24
Similarly, when a woman discovers a white or green blood-like secretion25or if she discharges a red mass of flesh that is not accompanied by bleeding,26she is pure even in the present age. For the stringency involves only one who discovers impure bleeding and the above are not considered as impure bleeding.
יב
וכן כל מה שאמרנו ביולדת שאמו טהורה הרי היא טהורה בזמן הזה וכן האשה שראתה לובן או דם ירוק או שהשליכה חתיכה אדומה שאין עמה דם הרי היא טהורה אף בזמן הזה שלא החמירו אלא ברואה דם טמא [ואין זה דם טמא]:
13
Similarly, if she had a wound from which blood was flowing27 or blood was released with her urine,28 she is pure. Innovations [in practice] were made only with regard to all women who discover impure bleeding as explained [above] and also that all different shades of blood are considered impure.29
יג
וכן אם היתה בה מכה והיה הדם שותת ממנה או שבא הדם עם מימי רגלים ה"ז טהורה ולא נתחדש דבר אלא ספירת שבעת ימים נקיים לכל רואה דם טמא כמו שאמרנו ושיהיו כל מראה דמים טמאים:
14
In certain places, the practice is that a woman must consider herself a niddah for seven days even though her bleeding lasted only one day. [Then] after these seven, she must count seven "spotless" days. This is not a [proper] custom.30 Instead, it is an error on the part of the one who ruled in this manner and is not worthy of being given any consideration.31 Instead, [the law is that if a woman experiences] one day of menstrual bleeding, she should count seven "spotless" days afterwards and immerse on the night [following] the eighth day,32 which is the second day after her ["days of] niddah." She is [then] permitted to her husband.
יד
זה שתמצא במקצת המקומות שהנדה יושבת שבעת ימים בנדתה אף ע"פ שלא ראתה דם אלא יום אחד ואחר השבעה תשב שבעת ימים נקיים אין זה מנהג אלא טעות הוא ממי שהורה להם כך ואין ראוי לפנות לדבר זה כלל אלא אם ראתה יום אחד סופרת אחריו ז' (נקיים) וטובלת בליל ח' שהוא ליל שני שלאחר נדתה ומותרת לבעלה:
15
Similarly, in certain places, the practice is - and support for this is found in the responsa of some of the Geonim - for a woman who gives birth to a male not to engage in relations until the conclusion of forty days and for one who gives birth to a female [to refrain] until after eighty days33 even though they discovered bleeding only during the [first] seven days. This is not a [proper] custom. Instead, these responsa are in error and indeed [the observance of this practice] in these places is of a heretical nature.34 They learned this interpretation from the Sadducees.35 It is a mitzvah to compel [these people] to remove [this improper custom] from their hearts and to return them to [the observance of] the words of the Sages who require only the counting of seven "spotless" days as explained.
טו
וכן זה שתמצא במקצת מקומות ותמצא תשובות למקצת הגאונים שיולדת זכר לא תשמש מטתה עד סוף ארבעים ויולדת נקבה אחר שמונים ואף על פי שלא ראתה דם אלא בתוך השבעה אין זה מנהג אלא טעות הוא באותן התשובות ודרך אפיקורוסות באותן המקומות ומן הצדוקין למדו דבר זה ומצוה לכופן כדי להוציא מלבן ולהחזירן לדברי חכמים שתספור ז' ימים נקיים בלבד כמו שביארנו:
16
A woman does not ascend from her state of ritual impurity and cease being considered as an ervah until she immerses herself in a mikveh that is halachicly acceptable while there are no substances intervening between her flesh and the water.36 In Hilchot Mikveot, we will explain what defines a mikveh as acceptable and what disqualifies it, the manner in which one should immerse, and the laws concerning intervening substances.
If, by contrast, she washes in a bath - even if all the water in the world passes over her - her state is the same after washing as before washing [and a man who engages in relations with her is liable] for kereit. For there is no way of ascending from a state of ritual impurity to one of purity except through immersing in the waters of a mikveh, a spring, or a sea which is like a spring, as will be explained in Hilchot Mikveot.
טז
אין האשה עולה מטומאתה ויוצא מידי ערוה עד שתטבול במי מקוה כשר ולא יהיה דבר חוצץ בין בשרה ובין המים ובהלכות מקואות יתבאר המקוה הכשר והפסול ודרך הטבילה ומשפטי החציצה אבל אם רחצה במרחץ אפילו נפלו עליה כל מימות שבעולם הרי היא אחר הרחיצה כמות שהיתה קודם הרחיצה בכרת שאין לך דבר שמעלה מטומאה לטהרה אלא טבילה במי מקוה או במעיין או בימים שהם כמעיין כמו שיתבאר בהלכות מקואות:
17
In the present age, although the seven "spotless" days [are observed only because of] doubt,37 if a woman immerses herself during them, it is as if she did not immerse herself.38 If she immerses herself on the seventh day,39the immersion is valid even though it is forbidden to do so at the outset, lest one engage in relations on the seventh day after the immersion.40 [The rationale is that] she immersed in the appropriate time even were she to have definitely been a zavah.41
יז
כל ז' ימים נקיים שבזמן הזה אע"פ שהן ספק אם טבלה בהן כאילו לא טבלה ואם טבלה בשביעי אף על פי שאסור לעשות כן לכתחלה שמא יבוא לבעול בשביעי אחר הטבילה הואיל וטבלה בזמנה אפי' היתה זבה ודאית הרי זו עלתה לה טבילה:
18
It is forbidden to a person to embrace his wife during these seven "spotless" days. [This applies] even if she is clothed and he is clothed.42 He should not draw close to her, nor touch her, not even with his pinky. He may not eat together with her from the same plate.43 The general principle is he must conduct himself with her during the days she is counting as he does in her "days of niddah." For [relations with her] are still punishable by kereit until she immerses herself, as we explained.44
יח
ואסור לאדם שידבק באשתו בשבעת ימים נקיים אלו ואע"פ שהיא בכסותה והוא בכסותו ולא יקרב לה ולא יגע בה אפילו באצבע קטנה ולא יאכל עמה בקערה אחת כללו של דבר ינהוג עמה בימי ספירה כמו שינהוג בימי נדה שעדיין היא בכרת עד שתטבול כמו שביארנו:
19
A niddah may perform any task which a wife would perform for her husband except washing his face, hands, and feet, pouring him a drink, and spreading out his bed in his presence.45 [These were forbidden as] decrees, lest they come to sin.46
For this reason, she should not eat with him from the same plate, nor should he touch her flesh, lest this lead to sin. Similarly, she should not perform these three tasks for him during her seven "spotless" days. It is permitted for a woman to adorn herself during her "days of niddah," so that she does not become unattractive to her husband.
יט
כל מלאכות שהאשה עושה לבעלה נדה עושה לבעלה חוץ מהרחצת פניו ידיו ורגליו ומזיגת הכוס והצעת המטה בפניו גזירה שמא יבוא לדבר עבירה ומפני זה לא תאכל עמו בקערה אחת ולא יגע בבשרה מפי הרגל עבירה וכן בשבעת ימים נקיים לא תעשה לו שלש מלאכות אלו ומותר לאשה להתקשט בימי נדתה כדי שלא תתגנה על בעלה:
FOOTNOTES
1.
I.e., to the Temple in Jerusalem. See Hilchot Mamrim, chs. 1 and 4, which discuss the authority of the Supreme Sanhedrin and how it served as the final governing body for Jewish Law.
2.
Chapter 4, Halachah 4.
3.
As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 7-12, in the Talmudic era, our Sages felt capable of distinguishing between different shades of red and were able to identify some shades as pure and others as impure. In the Rambam's era and certainly in later ages, the Rabbis felt incapable of making such distinctions.
4.
The Maggid Mishneh relates that the Rambam did not clarify his statements concerning this Rabbinic ordinance because it was only a temporary measure. It does not reflect Scriptural Law, nor does it reflect Rabbinic Law as practice, because it was later supplanted by the stringency Jewish women accepted upon themselves as stated in the following halachah.
To explain: Niddah 66a relates that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi ordained that any woman who discovers uterine bleeding should wait six "spotless" days before immersing herself . If, however, she discovers bleeding for three consecutive days, she must wait seven "spotless" days. Thus if the bleeding had come in her days of niddah, she would have waited the seven days required by Scriptural Law (the day she discovered the bleeding and the six "spotless" days). And if the bleeding had come in her days of zivah, all that is required by Scriptural Law is for her to wait one spotless day. This is the ordinance to which the Rambam referred.
5.
The stringency implied by this practice is that even if bleeding is sighted for only one day, the woman counts seven "spotless" days.
6.
According to Scriptural Law, there is no need for her to count seven "spotless" days in such a situation. Instead, she may immerse after the seventh day regardless. Nevertheless, women accepted this stringency upon themselves.
7.
I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a zavah may immerse herself during the day on the seventh day. She need not wait until evening. Nevertheless, since a niddah is required to wait until the evening to immerse herself, women standardized their conduct and ordained that all immersion be performed at night unless there are extenuating circumstances. Note, however, Halachah 17.
8.
Chapter 4, Halachah 8.
9.
Chapter 7, Halachah 5.
According to Scriptural Law, if a women is not a zavah when she gives birth, she may immerse herself after seven or fourteen days, even if she was bleeding the entire time. In the Talmudic era, however, it became customary to observe the stringency described by the Rambam. The rationale is that since every discovery of bleeding renders her a zavah, she is always considered as having given birth in that state (Maggid Mishneh).
When quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:1) emphasizes that this practice does not supplant Scriptural Law. Thus if a woman counts seven "spotless" days directly after giving birth to a girl, she must still wait the fourteen days required by the Torah before immersing.
10.
Eretz Yisrael.
11.
Morocco and North Africa.
12.
The Hebrew term used by the Rambam has a specific meaning, the days between the seventh and fortieth days after a woman gives birth to a male or the days between the fourteenth and eightieth days after she gives birth to a female.
13.
Chapter 7, Halachah 7.
14.
Whose halachic tradition differed from that of the Sephardic community in many particulars.
15.
The Rambam is referring to one of the principles mentioned in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah: Laws ordained by the Sages of the Talmud must be accepted universally throughout the Jewish community. Laws ordained by later authorities are subject to the halachic review of the local authorities.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 194:1) writes that it has already become universal Jewish practice to forbid relations when a woman discovers bleeding during her days of purity.
16.
I.e., the first time the couple engage in relations. As explained in Chapter 5, Halachot 18-25, according to Scriptural Law, hymeneal bleeding does not represent any difficulty for it is not at all related to niddah or zivah. Hence, according to Talmudic Law, when the wife is a minor, the couple may engage in relations until the hymeneal bleeding ceases. Even a girl who gets married at the age of twelve is granted certain leniency. The later Rabbis, however, required all couples to separate because of hymeneal bleeding.
The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that the groom may complete relations and withdraw while erect even if he knows that bleeding has commenced. Although our Rabbis ordained this stringency, they did not apply it to the first time the couple engaged in relations.
He also states that even if no bleeding is discovered, if the bride was a virgin, we assume that there was a slight amount of blood that was not noticed and rule that she is impure. These laws are quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 193:1).
17.
I.e., if all the hymeneal blood was not released during the first time the couple engaged in relations and bleeding was discovered after subsequent relations.
18.
The day after she consents is the first of these seven days. If she becomes engaged and there is a considerable time between the engagement and the marriage, the days are counted from the time wedding preparations are made in earnest (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 192:1-2).
19.
This stringency applies to a young girl who never menstruated or an older girl who already experienced seven "spotless" days after her last menstruation.
20.
The Kessef Mishneh and the Maggid Mishneh maintain that the Rambam would agree that not only relations, but also remaining alone with one's wife is forbidden in this situation. The Ra'avad and the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 192) infer that the Rambam is not paying heed to this prohibition. Hence, they differ with his ruling.
21.
In Chapter 9.
22.
The Rambam is saying that for a stain a woman is not required to make a hefsek taharah or count seven days. Instead, it is sufficient for her to count six "spotless" days as described in Halachah 3 and notes. For as he explains, the discovery of a stain is not the same as the discovery of bleeding.
The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the laws applying to the discovery of bleeding also apply with regard to the discovery of a stain. The Maggid Mishneh offers theoretical support for the Rambam's approach, but states that since other Rishonim follow the Ra'avad's view, we should be stringent and accept it. This opinion is followed by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 188:3, 190:1).
23.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 15; Chapter 10, Halachah 8.
24.
The Rambam maintains that the Rabbis did not issue a decree concerning such a situation, nor was this included in the stringency which Jewish women accepted upon themselves. The Ra'avad differs, explaining that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable concerning the distinctions between the forms which our Sages made. Hence, because of the doubt, we rule that a woman is impure after any miscarriage.
In this instance as well, the Ra'avad's view is accepted by the Ramban and the Rashba and is cited as halachah by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:3).
25.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 6. This ruling is accepted by all authorities.
26.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 13. This ruling is also disputed by the Ra'avad and other Rishonim. For they maintain that it is impossible for the uterus to open without there being any bleeding. This view is accepted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 194:2).
27.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 20.
28.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 17. Other Rabbis also do not require stringency with regard to these matters in the present age.
29.
As stated in Halachah 3, the later Rabbis felt incapable of distinguishing between different shades of red as the Sages of the Talmud were capable of doing.
30.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 196:11) also mentions the practice cited by the Rambam. He also negates it saying: "There is not reason for the practiceו. A person who is lenient earns a reward and hastens his [involvement in] the mitzvah."
31.
Although the halachic authorities are unanimous in their support of the Rambam's ruling. The custom he quotes has a Rabbinic source in Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat Metzora, sec. 7.
32.
The Rama (loc. cit.) mentions that the Ashkenazic custom is not to begin counting seven until thje fifth day after the woman discovered menstrual bleeding.
33.
By this practice, they distort the meaning of Leviticus, ch. 12, as interpreted in Chapter 4, Halachah 5.
34.
For as indicated by the association with the Sadducees, they undermine the authority of the Oral Law.
35.
A deviant sect which tried to sway our people from Jewish practice by denying the authority of the Oral Law.
36.
For an immersion can be disqualified when there are substances intervening between one's flesh and the waters of a mikveh. See Hilchot Mikveot 1:7 and the laws that follow.
37.
As explained in Halachot 3 and 4 and notes.
38.
Since a niddah or a zavah does not change her state if she immerses herself before the required time, we apply this same ruling to a woman in the present age.
39.
I.e., after sunrise.
40.
We fear that she may discover uterine bleeding after engaging in relations, but before nightfall, and thus nullify the entire seven "spotless" days. In that instance, her immersion is of no consequence.
41.
For according to Scriptural Law, a zavah may immerse at this time, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 11. And if the woman is a niddah, she may certainly immerse according to Scriptural Law, for the time of her impurity has passed.
42.
This and the following restrictions were imposed lest they lead to relations, as the Rambam states in the following halachah.
43.
The Ra'avad states: "Our custom is that [they may not eat] even on the same table." The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 195:3) quotes the Ra'avad's ruling, but offers the following leniency. One may place an object between the two to make a distinction.
44.
In Halachah 16.
45.
Implied is that if he is not present, she may make his bed. Outside his presence, making his bed is a household task. In his presence, it could suggest an invitation for intimacy. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, ch. 195) and commentaries for a further delineation of stringencies that must be observed until a woman purifies herself.
46.
I.e., relations.
Hayom Yom:
• English Text | Video Class
Monday, Tevet 7, 5778 · 12/25/2017
"Today's Day"
Tuesday, Tevet 7, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Vayigash, Shlishi with Rashi.
Tehillim: 39-43.
Tanya: consequently, this world (p. 23)...end of ch. 5. (p. 25).
To avert chibut hakever ("Purgatory of the grave")1 recite words of Torah, Tehillim, etc., for one sixth of the day.2 To merit purity of the soul that obviates kaf hakela ("the hollow of a sling"),3 spend as much of the day as possible in reciting Mishna, Tanya and Tehillim by heart.
FOOTNOTES
1.Tanya p. 29 and p. 33. This and kaf hakela (below) are processes of purgatory undergone by the soul after death.
2.Namely, four hours.
3.Tanya p. 33. See Supplementary Footnotes, (p. 124 in the printed version).
Daily Thought:
Getting Ahead with Failure
There is only one thing that can put you further ahead than success, and that is surviving failure.
When you are successful, you are whole and complete. That is wonderful, but you cannot break out beyond your own universe.
When you fail, you are broken. You look at the pieces of yourself lying on the ground and say, “This is worthless.”
Now you can escape. The shell is broken, the defining shell of a created being. Now there are no limits to how tall you can grow.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment