Siman 63

The virgin, when the time of her wedding arrives, shall prepare herself for the purity of the first marital act, and her father shall warn her to be vigilant all her days regarding the openings of her menstruation, and that this is the greatest transgression if she does not guard the openings of the niddah state, and that there is a prohibition of karet in this if she treats this lightly, and she will lose her world, this world and the world to come, when she does not guard properly and will blemish her seed forever, and she is close to punishment at the hands of Heaven, as we learned in a Mishnah: For three transgressions women die at the time of their childbirth, for not being careful regarding niddah, etc. [Shabbat 31b], and when she is careful in this properly, her reward is very great and happy is her lot in this world and the next. And her mother or her female relatives shall teach her the methods of the bedikot and the proper caution in her bedikot and her purity, and that during the days of her niddah state she shall distance herself from her husband, not to give him anything from her hand to his hand or from his hand to her hand, and that she shall not eat with him from one bowl, according to all the laws explained in Yoreh Deah siman 195, see there.

Eight days before her chuppah, even if she stands in her days of purity and even if the time of her veset has not yet arrived because she has never seen blood, she shall perform an examination toward evening with a clean moch to insert into that place and examine in the holes and crevices, and it is better that she leave the moch there all of twilight and at the beginning of the night she shall remove it from there, and if it is clean of blood she shall begin to count seven nekiyim and examine herself every single day twice, and at the very least she shall perform one examination during these seven days as has been explained there in siman 196, and she shall go to the tevilah before the chuppah and before her tevilah she shall examine herself and if she finds herself clean of blood she shall immerse and recite the blessing over the tevilah, and afterward she shall enter the chuppah and the first intercourse of the mitzvah, and on the day that she ceases in purity she shall wear white, that is a clean garment according to the custom of the kosher women, the seed of our father Abraham whose ancestors stood at Mount Sinai and their impurity ceased.

And if she remains in the days of her impurity and will be not pure at the time of the chuppah, she must be careful with the chatan according to the law of a niddah with her husband and even more stringently than her, for while a niddah is permitted to be in seclusion with her husband, as the Torah testified regarding us that we will not come to a transgression, Heaven forbid, she is forbidden to be in seclusion with her husband; rather, he sleeps among the men and she sleeps among the women. And the reason is because he has not yet had relations and their inclination overcomes them and we fear a transgression, Heaven forbid, and they shall not be in seclusion together even during the day in one room until the time of her purity.

And even an elderly widow whose menstrual cycle has already ceased requires a hefsek taharah and to count seven nekiyim, and thus our Sages, of blessed memory, said [Niddah 66a]: If she was requested for marriage and she consented—she must observe seven nekiyim, whether she is an adult or a minor, whether she is young or elderly, for we concern ourselves that perhaps due to desire she saw blood and did not feel it, and she counts seven from the day following the day of the request; and even if she examined herself and was found to be tahorah, we do not pay heed to this for the aforementioned reason. And if the time of her chuppah was set and due to some cause the chuppah was delayed and they set another time—the previous seven are voided and she must perform a hefsek taharah and count seven days from the time of the second setting, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 192 with further detailed laws regarding this, see there.

One who has intercourse with a virgin for the intercourse of the mitzvah, once he has completed his intercourse he must separate immediately, even if she is a minor whose time to see has not arrived and she has never yet seen blood, and even an adult whose virginity is exhausted, for we fear perhaps a bit of niddah blood was mixed with the virginity blood. And even though even with a mature woman, when she finds blood at the time of intimacy, if she has a wound she attributes it to her wound, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 187, and behold there is no greater wound than this, nevertheless, since this intercourse was handed over to all, one must be stringent. Furthermore, that which we attribute to a wound is in order not to forbid her to her husband forever, but regarding that which she will need to purify herself, we are not concerned. And even if she examined and did not find blood—she is impure, for perhaps she saw a drop of blood like a mustard seed and the semen covered it, as there must necessarily be blood because of the virginity, and perforce the semen covered the blood. Therefore, this is specifically if he had complete intercourse, but if he only performed ha'ara'ah with her and separated and she did not find blood, there are those who are lenient. And that intercourse he completes in his usual manner without concern, and likewise he is permitted to separate from her even with a live organ, even though one who finds blood at the time of intercourse is forbidden to separate with a live organ, as his exiting is a pleasure to him like his entering, and he must wait until the organ dies, as is written there in siman 185 that one who separates with a live organ is liable for karet; nevertheless, in this case we are not concerned since the essence of the matter is only a mere stringency.

This law that has been explained is from the law of the Gemara, and thus the sages, of blessed memory, said [Niddah 65b]: Rava and Shmuel both say the halakha is that one performs the intercourse of the mitzvah and separates. And according to the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 5 of Issurei Biah, from the law of the Gemara this applies only to a bogeret whose menstrual period has already arrived; but regarding a ketanah whose time to see blood has not yet arrived, it is from the stringency of the daughters of Israel who were stringent upon themselves, as he wrote there in chapter 11. And the Rambam explained that as long as she sees blood due to the wound she is impure, meaning even during the second and third immersion. Furthermore, as long as her virginity is not exhausted and she finds virginal blood, she is impure. However, during the second intercourse after her purification from the first, if she did not find blood, she is pure, and we do not concern ourselves with the covering of the seed, for it is not a necessity that she will see further virginal blood, unlike the first time as I have written. And one cannot say that if so, regarding a bogeret even the first time we should not be concerned if she did not find blood since a bogeret's virginity is exhausted, for in truth our eyes see that even one who is very old has virginal blood, and in a bogeret her opening is not as closed as in a ketanah and a naarah [see Ketubot 36b: Rashi s.v. H"G and in Tosafot there].

After the intercourse of the commandment, she shall wait until the fifth day from her cohabitation like any other woman who cohabited and afterwards saw blood, and then she shall perform a cessation of purity towards evening with a proper examination and the wearing of white garments, and she shall count seven clean days and examine all seven days, and afterwards at night she shall go to immersion. During these days, he behaves with her as with a complete niddah regarding the matter of distancing, but she is permitted to be in seclusion with him like other women since he has already cohabited with her. In this matter, it is more lenient than a complete niddah, for with a complete niddah it is forbidden for him to sleep on her bed even when she is not in the bed, and likewise to sit on her bed is forbidden; however, regarding the bride after the intercourse of the commandment, it is permitted for him to sleep in her bed after she has risen from the bed, even on the sheet that has the blood upon it, and all the more so to sit on her bed when she is not sitting upon it, as is written there in siman 193. And some say that also regarding this matter it is more lenient than other niddah, for we attribute her stain even during the first three days, which is not the case with a complete niddah, as is written there in siman 196. And there are those who are stringent in this, that even with a stain we are stringent in this although stains are of rabbinic origin, and there the detailed laws of this are explained [see Be'er Sheva subsection 3].

In the Gemara the halacha was decided that it is permitted to have initial relations with a virgin on Shabbat, and there is no concern in this regarding a chovel, nor regarding opening an entrance, nor regarding causing her pain. And even though he extracts blood and it is a chaburah, and every chaburah involves the liability of taking a soul, and he also opens an entrance, and opening an entrance on Shabbat is liable due to boneh, nevertheless there is no prohibition in this. For certainly if the blood of virginity were absorbed in the walls of the womb and its exit was through a chaburah like all blood in human flesh, chaburah would apply to this; however, this blood is stored like a deposit gathered and standing, and it is not absorbed, but rather the entrance is locked before it and they open it for it and it exits. And he does not intend for the opening, and even though it is a pesik reisha, for the entrance is opened perforce, nevertheless for all labors of Shabbat the liability is only for one who improves and not for one who damages, for all who damage are exempt. And this entrance is a damage for him, for a virgin is more significant than a non-virgin. And even according to the one who holds that one who damages through a chaburah is liable, nevertheless since it is stored, this is not a chaburah. Furthermore, the Rambam in chapter 8 of Shabbat ruled that one who damages through a chaburah is exempt, see there. And even though all exemptions of Shabbat are "exempt but forbidden," nevertheless in a place of a mitzvah they did not decree. Furthermore, this is not a pesik reisha, as will be explained [the Drisha and Bach in Orach Chaim siman 280, for according to the conclusion of the sugya we establish that it is stored and the entrance comes on its own, see there].

Furthermore, even if we were to say that blood is connected to its source and it is a complete opening and not destructive, this would only apply if it were a pesik reishei and he intended to extract the blood and open the opening. But in truth, he only intends for his own pleasure and his intention is not for the blood or the opening, and since he does not intend for this, we hold that a thing which is unintended is permitted. And this is not a pesik reishei, for many times it is possible that he may tilt during his entry and not open the opening and not extract the blood; and even if he is not an expert in tilting, nevertheless, it can happen on its own. And since there is no necessity for this, it automatically follows that its law is like an unintended act and it is not a pesik reishei [this is the approach of the Rishonim who explain "most are experts in tilting," meaning this is known to most people that it is possible to tilt even for one who is not an expert, and not like the Babylonians who believe that one must be an expert in tilting, Shita Mekubetzet Ketubot 6a in the name of many of our teachers; and consequently, what the Hagahot Ashri, the Agudah, and the Shelah wrote is set aside, and so wrote the Taz in Orach Chaim there, and it is a complete permission ab initio].

The Ba'al Halachot Gedolot wrote at the beginning of the laws of ketubot that after the first cohabitation, when he finds the betulim, he is required to recite a blessing. This is his wording: And when he brings out the cloth, he is obligated to recite a blessing; if there is a cup and myrtle, he recites over it "borei peri hagefen" and "atzei besamim," and then "Blessed are You, Hashem, King of the universe, Who placed a nut in the Garden of Eden, a rose of the valleys, so that no stranger shall rule over a sealed fountain; therefore, the hind of loves has guarded in purity and has not breached the law. Blessed is He Who chooses the seed of Abraham." Thus far his words. And he compared her to a nut, for just as in a nut the food is covered until the time of its breaking, so too the daughters of Israel, their betulim are enclosed until her marriage. And "rose of the valleys"—because Israel is compared to a rose, and it hints at the blood, for they guard themselves during the time of their niddah from being intimate with their husbands, as it is written, "hedged about with roses" (Sanhedrin 37a). And the rest of the matters are understood. And he concludes with the seed of Abraham, the first father, who in the greatness of his love for Hashem kept the entire Torah before it was given, and especially in matters of the impurity of niddah, as is famous in the Aggadah on the verse "Knead it, and make cakes" (Genesis 18:6). And some say that one should not recite this blessing as it is not found in the Gemara, and some say to recite it without the Name and Sovereignty and also without a cup; and nowadays we are not careful regarding this blessing. And in ancient times the custom was to make a feast of fish after the be'ilat mitzvah so that they should be fruitful and multiply like fish, for therefore it is called be'ilat mitzvah, because from then on she is fit to conceive, as a woman does not conceive from the first cohabitation. And now they do not practice this feast, and there are places where they distribute cheese.

One does not recite the blessing of shehecheyanu upon marrying a woman [Shach Yoreh Deah siman 28]. And it appears to me the reason is that shehecheyanu is not relevant to this, but rather the blessing of ha-tov ve-ha-metiv, since the joy belongs to both of them, just as when his wife gives birth to a male child he recites ha-tov ve-ha-metiv, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 223, and it is a blessing to Hashem who did good for them. And behold, there is a blessing like this within the marriage blessings, "Who created man etc." and "and prepared etc." for this is a blessing to Hashem for him and for her, and likewise the blessing "grant great joy." And if so, ha-tov ve-ha-metiv is superfluous. And one could further say regarding this reason, that behold, regarding the blessing of erusin one does not recite shehecheyanu because there is no completion of joy in it, and at the time of the marriage one does not recite it because it already began from the erusin. Therefore, even when the erusin and the marriage are as one, one does not recite the blessing; since they are two separate things and it is possible to perform erusin a long time before the marriage, as was the practice in the time of the sages of the Talmud, the blessing of shehecheyanu was not instituted for this.

When the intercourse of the mitzvah is delayed until after the seven days of feasting and they make a meal on the night of her immersion, it is simple that one should not recite the seven blessings nor "Asher Bara." There is one who says to say then "She-hasimcha b'ma'ono" – and even for this there is no basis according to the law, but since there is no mention of the Name [of God] in this, we do not mind. However, it is better not to make a meal at all then, for it is the way of the children of Israel to conceal the time of their immersion, and it is not similar to when the mitzvah is on the day of her chuppah; therefore, they should not make a meal at all [see Pitchei Teshuva siman 62, subsection 20]. And also those who are accustomed that the chatan should betroth her then anew before witnesses, there is no sense or reason for this, for even according to the opinion of the Rambam, kiddushin of a niddah are valid, and so too regarding a chuppah of a niddah we do not rule like him. And as I have written in siman 55 and siman 62, even the Rambam admits regarding our chuppot that they are effective even in her niddah state; see there.