Siman 183

The niddah is like all the forbidden relations in the Torah, and one who performs an act of ha'ara with her is liable for karet, as it is written in Parshat Kedoshim [Leviticus 20:18]: "And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness—he has made bare her fountain, etc., both of them shall be cut off from among their people." Behold, that with ha'ara alone, even if he did not complete his cohabitation, they are liable for karet. Her prohibition is written in Parshat Acharei Mot [ibid. 18:19]: "And unto a woman in the niddah of her uncleanness you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness." There is no difference regarding a niddah between an unmarried woman and a married woman, between an adult and a minor, or between a virgin and a non-virgin. One who cohabits with a minor of three years and one day who is fit for cohabitation, if she is a niddah, he is liable for karet. Do not wonder how it is possible for a minor to be a niddah, for more than this we learned in Niddah [43b]: An infant girl one day old contracts uncleanness as a niddah; at ten days old she contracts uncleanness as a zavah; see there. This is regarding the matter of uncleanness and purity, but regarding cohabitation, as long as she is less than three years and one day, she is not fit for cohabitation and the status of cohabitation does not apply to this, and this matter is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai [ibid. 45a].

The Rambam wrote in chapter 4 [halacha 1] of Issurei Biah: From the oral tradition they learned that there is no difference between an adult and a minor regarding the impurity of niddah and zavot; and one who has relations with a niddah throughout all seven days, even if she only saw on the first day; and one who has relations with a woman who gave birth to a male throughout all seven days, or with a woman who gave birth to a female throughout all fourteen days, or with a zavah all the days of her discharge and her counting—even a maidservant, even a freedwoman—all are subject to kareth, as it is said regarding a niddah, "she shall be in her niddah state seven days" [ibid. 15:19], and regarding a zavah it is said, "all the days of her impure discharge shall be as the days of her niddah state" [ibid. 15:25], and regarding a woman who gave birth to a male He says, "as the days of the niddah state of her infirmity she shall be impure" [ibid. 12:2], and regarding a woman who gave birth to a female, "she shall be impure for two weeks, as in her niddah state" [ibid. 12:5]. Thus far his words. And the purification of these is when they have immersed after the time in a mikveh of forty seah.

But if they immersed within the days of impurity, the immersion is nothing and they remain impure as they were. Similarly, if they did not immerse after their days of impurity, even if many years passed, they remain impure as they were, and one who has relations with them is liable for karet. This is the wording of the Rambam there [Law 3]: In what case is it said that the impurity is dependent on the days? When she immersed in the waters of a mikveh after the counted days. But a niddah, a zavah, and a woman after childbirth who did not immerse in the waters of a mikveh—one who has relations with any of them, even after several years, is liable for karet, for the Scripture made it dependent on days and immersion, as it is said, "And they shall wash in water." This is a paradigm for all who are impure, that one remains in his impurity until he immerses. Thus far his words. And regarding the niddah herself it is written [ibid. 15:21], "And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water," and this refers to immersion; all the more so that she herself requires immersion. And this is what is written [ibid. 15:33], "And she that is sick in her niddah," meaning she shall remain in her niddah status until she enters the water. And this is also that which is written regarding the purging of Midianite vessels, "nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of niddah," and our sages of blessed memory expounded: in water that a niddah immerses in, which is forty se'ah [from Tosafot and the Rishonim]. And the prophet said [Zechariah 13:1], "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David for purification and for niddah," meaning that in the place of the Temple a spring will be opened from which they will take living water for the water of purification of the ashes of the red heifer and for the immersion of a niddah.

For it is a great principle in the entire Torah that tumah does not pass without tevilah. And behold, even regarding light tumot, namely the evening tumah of sheratzim, it is written in Shemini [ibid. 11:32]: "it shall be brought into water, and it shall be tamei until the evening, and then it shall be tahor." And similarly regarding the evening tumah of semen, it is written in Metzora [ibid. 15:18]: "and they shall bathe in water and be tamei until the evening." And all the more so regarding the seven-day tumah of a niddah, a zavah, and a yoledet. Therefore, the Torah was non-specific regarding a niddah, for it is a kal vachomer from evening tumah. And therefore it intentionally wrote regarding a zavah non-specifically, "and she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be tahor," and the purification is in water, as the verses above prove. And only regarding a zav is it written explicitly [ibid. 15:13]: "And when the zav is purified from his discharge... and he shall bathe his flesh in living water and be tahor," because a zav requires living water, while the niddah, the zavah, and the yoledet suffice with the water of a mikveh; therefore it specified only regarding a zav. And such is the way of the Torah, to rely on the Oral Torah in all the mitzvot. Therefore, also regarding all types of evening tumah in Shemini and in Metzora, it is written only "and he shall be tamei until the evening" and no more, and it relied on what it revealed in one place, "and then it shall be tahor." And so too here regarding a niddah, it relied on what it wrote regarding one who touches her, "and he shall bathe in water," and it is a kal vachomer for her herself. And anyone who doubts the Oral Torah has no portion in the God of Israel.

Even though nowadays there is no practical difference between a niddah and a zavah, and furthermore, in the time of the Gemara the daughters of Israel took a stringency upon themselves that even if they see a drop of blood like a mustard seed they sit for seven clean days, and they called this a "fixed halacha" [Berakhot 31a], nevertheless, we will explain according to the law of the Torah what is a niddah and what is a zavah. For behold, two portions are written in Metzora regarding this matter. In the first portion it is written [ibid. 15:19]: "And if a woman has a discharge, her discharge in her flesh being blood, she shall be in her niddah state for seven days," etc. And this means whether she saw for one moment or whether she saw for all seven days, she immerses on the seventh day at night, which is facing the eighth day, and she is pure. And she does not need to count seven clean days, only that she must cease in purity on the seventh day before twilight, and at night she immerses. And this is the law of niddah:

And in the second portion [ibid. 15:25] it is written: "And if a woman has a discharge of her blood for many days not at the time of her niddah, or if she has a discharge beyond her niddah, all the days of her impure discharge shall be as the days of her niddah; she is impure," etc. "And if she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be pure." This is a zavah, from whom blood flows not at the time of her niddah—meaning, during the fixed menstrual cycle for women—whether it continued from the time of her niddah sightings, meaning she saw all seven days of niddah and did not cease from seeing even after the passing of the seven days, and this is "or if she has a discharge beyond her niddah," meaning it continued consecutively; or whether she ceased from seeing at the end of the seven days and after a day or two or more she saw blood, and in this she is a zavah according to the laws that will be explained. And when she is a complete zavah, she requires seven clean days after the blood has ceased, and afterwards she shall be purified in the waters of a mikveh.

And our Sages, of blessed memory, received as a halacha to Moshe from Sinai that there are eleven days of zivah between niddah and niddah. That is to say, any of the eleven days following the seven days of niddah, if she saw blood during them, she has the status of a zavah. But after the eleven days, we return her to the days of niddah. And such is the law of the zavah as the tradition came to Moshe from Sinai: that if she saw one day within the eleven days, she is called a minor zavah, and she is a "shomeret yom kineged yom." That is to say, she must wait the day of the seeing, and she must cease in purity before twilight, and wait the entire night and part of the following day [see Bach]. She is able to immerse after sunrise, but she is forbidden in relations lest she see today as well, and it will turn out that she was impure retroactively. For this reason, some say that she should also not immerse in the morning [see there]. And behold, if she did not see on the following day until the night corresponding to the third day, she is pure. And this is the meaning of "shomeret yom kineged yom," meaning that she shall guard the day of the seeing along with the following day. But if she saw on the second day, she is impure, but even then she is only a minor zavah and guards a day against the third day like the first day that was explained. But if she saw again on the third day, since she saw for three days, she becomes a major zavah, and she will never be pure until she ceases in purity before twilight and afterwards counts seven clean days. After this, she immerses on the night corresponding to the eighth day and is pure. And if she saw on one of the seven days, she contradicts the entire count she has counted and requires seven other clean days. Even if she waited many years, she is not purified without immersion after seven clean days. And by the law, she is able to immerse on the morning of the seventh day, but there is no benefit, for perhaps she will see during the day and contradict the count. And so the Sages taught [Shabbat 121a]: The zav and the zavah, their immersion is by day; the niddah and the woman after childbirth, their immersion is by night. And when she saw after the eleven days, or if she saw after seven clean days, she is a niddah, and her law is as we have stated regarding a niddah, and so it goes forever.

And even though all of this is a halacha to Moshe from Sinai, nevertheless the sages, of blessed memory, also derived it from verses. And so we have learned in Torat Kohanim, Parshat Metzora: "And if a woman has a discharge of her blood for many days" (Leviticus 15:25). Rabbi Mona says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: "Days" implies two. I might think "many days" refers to a great number if they are numerous? But it already says "many," so it must only speak of a few days. And how many are they? You must say three. I might think "many" means ten? It says "days" and it says "many"; just as "days" refers to the minimum of days, which is two, so too "many" refers to the minimum of many, which is three. I might think two and three, which is five? But does it say "days and many"? It only says "many days." How so? These "many" shall be more than two. And how many are they? You must say three. I might think one who sees three days at the beginning shall be a zava? And how do I fulfill "And if a woman has a discharge etc." regarding one who sees one day etc.? The verse teaches: "beyond the time of her niddah," after her niddah etc. I only know close to her niddah; from where do I know distant from her niddah? The verse teaches: "or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her niddah" [it appears that previously one must say the verse teaches "not in the time of her niddah" as at the end of Niddah, see there]. I only know one day distant from her niddah; from where do I know to include distant three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten? You say: just as we find regarding the fourth day that it is fit for the counting of clean days when she ceased after the three days, and fit for ziva to combine with two and three when she did not see on the first day—for one day distant was included as we wrote—so too I include up to ten, which are also fit for the counting of the first three, for until ten there are seven clean days, and they are fit for ziva. And from where do I know to include eleven, which is fit only for ziva and not for the counting of the first three because seven days have already passed? The verse teaches: "not in the time of her niddah," meaning even distant by many days. I might think I include even twelve? You say no. And what did you see to include eleven etc.? I include eleven which is fit for the counting of "or if she has a discharge." Thus far his words. Meaning that "or if she has a discharge" includes the fourth day, and the eleventh day is the seventh day to it [and they said in the Gemara at the end of Niddah 73a: according to Rabbi Akiva it is from verses, according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah it is halacha].

And behold, the matter is understood of itself that when she saw only on the tenth day and on the eleventh day, it is impossible for her to be a zava gedola, since a complete zava only occurs with three days, and if she were to see on the twelfth day, it does not join with the preceding ones, for the eleven days between niddah and niddah have already concluded. For it is well understood that when she saw three days previously, she is forever after a zava; however, this is not the case when she saw only two days, and all the more so when seeing on the eleventh day alone. Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the tenth and the eleventh: for if she saw on the eleventh alone, she does not need to observe the following day at all, but rather she immerses and at night she is permitted to her husband, for even if she sees afterwards, it does not join with the preceding and until now she was pure. But if she saw on the tenth day, she requires observation for the following day, since it is within the days of ziva; if she sees on the eleventh day, she is impure retroactively, and therefore she is compelled to wait until the night of the eleventh day. And see what I wrote in section 11.

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 6, law 12: A minor zava who immersed on the night of the day of guarding, or a major zava who immersed on the night of the seventh day, it is as if she did not immerse, and she is like a nidda who immersed within seven days. One who has relations with a major zava on the seventh day of the counting after she immersed, or with a minor zava on the day of guarding after she immersed, is exempt from karet, since she immersed at a time fit for her immersion and she is pure. However, for this woman, it would be a corrupt practice, for her relations and her touch are dependent. How so? If the day was completed after the immersion and she did not see blood, behold, everything she touched after her immersion is pure, and for relations with her after the immersion they are not liable for anything. But if she saw blood on this day after she immersed, she is found to be a zava retroactively, and everything she touched retroactively is tamei, and she and the one who had relations with her are liable for a sacrifice. Therefore, she is forbidden to her husband until the evening, so that she does not come into a state of doubt. Thus far his words.

And that which we wrote, that if she saw on the eleventh day she immerses at night and is permitted, this is from the Torah; but by rabbinic decree they forbade this. And when she immersed at night and engaged in relations, she is exempt only from the sacrifice, but she renders the one who has relations with her impure and her touch is impure, and even if she did not see at all, for they decreed regarding the eleventh day because of all other days and treated her like one who is completely impure, only a sacrifice is impossible to obligate by rabbinic decree. And even if she performed a watching for the twelfth day and immersed on the twelfth day, nevertheless the sages decreed that she should not engage in relations until the night, to equate it to the other days; and if one did so, he is a glutton. However, regarding impurity they did not decree, since she performed a watching, and therefore even if she saw afterwards she is not impure retroactively, as this is the beginning of niddah. [And this is explained in the Mishnah in Niddah 72a according to Beit Hillel, and so wrote the Rambam there in laws 17 and 18, and the objection of the Ra'avad is not understood, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote, see there and examine carefully.] [And the Tur holds that on the twelfth day she is permitted, see there, and now there is no practical difference in this]:

And know that regarding the primary calculation of the days of niddah and zivah, the Rambam, of blessed memory, has a puzzling approach which all the early authorities rejected and treated his words as an error. For behold, Rashi and Tosafot and all our teachers are in agreement on the matter, that after a woman becomes a zavah, she does not return to her days of niddah until she observes seven clean days; and when does she become a zavah? When she sees blood for three consecutive days after the seven days of niddah in which she actually saw blood. But the Rambam wrote in chapter 6 [halacha 4]: All seven days for which a veset is established at their beginning are those called the days of her niddah, whether she saw blood during them or did not see blood. And for what reason are they called days of niddah? Because they are designated for niddah, and any blood she sees during them shall be considered niddah blood. And all eleven days after the seven are those called the days of her zivah, whether she saw blood during them or did not see blood. And why are they called days of zivah? Because they are designated for zivah, and any blood she sees during them shall be considered zivah blood. And be careful with these two terms, which are "the days of her niddah" and "the days of her zivah." All the days of a woman, from the day she establishes a veset until she dies or until she establishes a veset for another day such that the first veset is uprooted, she shall always count seven from the beginning of the days of the veset, and after them eleven, and after them seven, and after them eleven. And she must be careful with the count so that she will know at the time she sees blood whether she saw it during the days of niddah or during the days of zivah, for all the days of a woman are thus: seven days of niddah and eleven days of zivah, unless she loses the count through childbirth, as will be explained. Thus far his words. And besides this itself being a wondrous matter, they raised difficulties against him from several sugyot. And it is a wonder that it appears this was a tradition in his hand from the time of the Geonim, for his approach is found written in the name of Rav Sherira Gaon in Midrash Tanchuma at the end of Parshat Metzora, see there. And I have set my heart to settle the difficulties with the help of Heaven, but first we shall explain, with the help of Heaven, what compelled him to this.

And first I ask of the goodness of all our holy teachers, for in several places in the Shas they were concerned for the doubt lest she stands in the days of zivah, such as the sugya of one who is mistaken in the first chapter of Arachin, and likewise in the enactment of Rabbi in the fields as will be explained, that the concern is lest she is a zavah; and likewise regarding the essence of the enactment of the daughters of Israel who were stringent upon themselves to always sit seven clean days due to the concern of zivah. But in the entire Torah we follow the majority or the presumptive status, and all the more so when there are two things together, a majority and a presumptive status. For the majority of women have fixed periods from thirty days to thirty days, or slightly less or slightly more, and even a minority of a minority we do not find women who have sightings from ten days to ten days, and all the more so in less than this. And likewise, all the days of zivah are in a presumptive status of purity, as we learned [38b]: All eleven days are in a presumptive status of purity. And if so, why must we be concerned for the days of zivah at all? However, according to the system of the Rambam, that she must count all her days—seven days of niddah and eleven days of zivah—even if she did not see, for in this certainly an error is common, as she must always know the calculation from the beginning of her sighting until the end of her days, it is well.

Furthermore, I have a difficulty, for behold, regarding the enactment of the daughters of Israel, the Rishonim, of blessed memory, wrote that we are concerned lest she saw in the outer chamber and the walls of the womb held it back. And how is it possible to say so? For according to this, we would have to say that ten days prior she already saw in the outer chamber, for with less than this, why would she require seven clean days? For even if she saw for nine days, it would be seven days of niddah and two days of zivah, and she would still be a zavah ketanah and would not require seven clean days. Perforce, they were concerned lest she saw in the outer chamber ten days ago—namely, that she saw on the first day, and afterwards saw again on the eighth and ninth, and in all of these the walls of the womb held it back, and on the tenth day she saw a drop like a mustard seed. Is there anything more wondrous than this from the perspective of logic? And also, this is against the entire sugya at the beginning of Niddah, where they were more stringent for taharot than for her husband, as is known; and behold, even regarding taharot there, they were not concerned for the holding back of the womb except for a twenty-four hour period, as is explained there. But according to the Rambam, it works out well, because she does not know which days she is standing in, and if this is only the third day of the holding back of the womb, she is a zavah. And even though for more than a twenty-four hour period there is no concern at all, nevertheless the stringency comes from another side, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

For the essence of the stringency was because of actual seeing, in the manner of women who see three days one after another, and there are some who see slightly more, and regarding these it is obvious that there is reason to be concerned lest they stand in the days of zivah according to the long calculation. And for this, the daughters of Israel were stringent upon themselves not to differentiate, in order to be stringent in every case. And because in truth it is something that is not common, for most women see three or four or five days as is known, but according to all our teachers, even with a seeing of three days, and four, and five, and six, and seven, and eight, and nine, there is no place to be stringent at all. And these are the very words of the Rambam in chapter 11, law 3, and this is his wording: And in the days of the sages of the Gemara, the matter of seeing blood became very doubtful because not all women had the strength to count the days of niddah and the days of zivah; therefore they were stringent etc. And furthermore, the daughters of Israel were stringent upon themselves with an additional stringency etc. Thus far his words. Behold, this is explicitly like our words.

And more than this is difficult for me regarding that which we say [66a]: Rabbi enacted regarding the fields: if she saw one day, she shall sit six [more]; if two, she shall sit six; if three, she shall sit seven clean days, see there. And it is difficult, for if she saw one day, is she not impure for seven days according to the Torah as the law of a niddah? And why is this necessary for an enactment? And Rashi indeed explained: according to the law of the Torah, and perhaps she is in the days of niddah. Thus far his words. Meaning, even if she knew that she is in the days of zivah and is only a shomeret yom, nevertheless he enacted that she shall sit like the days of niddah. And it is difficult, for since she stands in the days of zivah, perforce not long ago she was a niddah and immersed at the end of seven and became pure, and if so, how is she in the days of niddah? But according to the Rambam it works well, for she never saw previously at all, but according to her long calculation she stands in the days of zivah, and perhaps she erred.

And likewise regarding that which he ordained, "two, she shall sit six and they," and Rashi explained [d.h. "two, she shall sit"] perhaps the first is the end of zivah and the second is the beginning of niddah, see there. And it is difficult, for Rabbi certainly was not concerned with the standing of the walls of the womb like the daughters of Israel who were concerned for this, for if he were concerned for this, he should have required seven clean days. And if so, if we say that the first is the end of zivah, it is necessarily so that ten days prior she sat ten days of niddah, and how could she completely forget what occurred ten days prior? For it was not long ago that she immersed and became pure for her husband. And likewise regarding that which he ordained, if she saw three she shall sit seven clean days because perhaps they are days of zivah, and perforce eight days prior the days of niddah ended, and how could she completely forget this? Is there anything more wondrous than this?

And behold, because of this, our teachers the Tosafists explained [starting with the words "Two she shall sit"] regarding this case of one who saw on two days: perhaps on the first day she saw green blood, see there. But if so, it is difficult in the opposite direction; for if we are to be concerned for such things—to err between one blood and another—Rabbi should have ordained that even if she saw for one day she should sit seven nekiyim, for perhaps she saw blood for two days previously and she thought it was pure blood, when in truth it was impure blood. For just as one can err from pure to impure, so too one must be concerned for the reverse. Furthermore, even according to their words, the difficulty regarding three days is still not resolved. But according to the Rambam, everything is well understood, for since it depends on a long calculation, we are rightly concerned that perhaps she erred.

And now we shall resolve the difficulties that they raised against him. And thus the Rishonim questioned his position, for according to his words, there could be zivah without niddah when they are the days of zivah according to the calculation. And also according to his words, when she saw on the final days of the eleven days, the days of niddah begin even when she has not counted seven clean days, as he wrote in chapter 7, at the end of law 10. This is his wording: Since she became pure from her zivah, even though she is impure with another impurity, such as the impurity of childbirth or the impurity of niddah or the impurity of tzaraat, she counts during them, and these impurities and their like do not contradict the counting. The days of her childbirth and the days of her niddah, if she did not see blood during them, behold these count for her toward the counting of seven clean days; and if she saw blood during them, the days of the seeing do not count for her, but they do not contradict all the days, etc., for nothing contradicts everything except for sightings of zivah, but these contradict their day alone. Thus far his words.

And this is against the sugya of one who errs in Arachin [8a], for there it is explicit that as long as the zavah has not sat seven nekiyim, she is always a zavah. For if it were not so, regarding that which we say there—that when she saw one day, or two, or three, she opened seventeen; and when she saw four days, she opened sixteen; and when she saw five days, she opened fifteen; and always when she saw one day, it continues to decrease by one day more—and the reason is because of "from what do you wish" [mi-mah nafshakh]: if the days on which she saw are days of niddah, surely the eighteen days of niddah and zivah ended earlier; and if the first two are the end of the days of zivah and the rest are days of niddah, it also ends at this number. And even though one could say perhaps the first three days are days of zivah and the rest are days of niddah, and according to this one day would be missing, it is impossible to say so; for if she saw three days in zivah, she will never return to her niddah until she counts seven nekiyim, as Rashi and Tosafot wrote there; see there well.

And now, regarding the words of the Rambam, the difficulty returns to its place. Furthermore, the Ramban raised many difficulties against him, for his words are contrary to several sugyot in Tractate Niddah, such as on page 39a where we say: If she was accustomed to seeing on the fifteenth day from her immersion, etc. And we say there that this fifteenth is from her immersion, which is the twenty-second from her seeing; see there. And now, how could she establish a vest in this manner? For she does not establish a vest during the days of zivah. According to this calculation, the second time she sees, which is the forty-fourth from the first seeing, it would be exactly the beginning of the zivah; examine and you will find that it is so. The Acharonim also raised a difficulty that according to him, one cannot find a vest of the month, for the thirtieth day would be days of zivah; that is, seven days of niddah and eleven days of zivah and seven days of niddah, which is twenty-five, and it turns out that until thirty-six days it would be days of zivah. They also raised many other difficulties and arguments against him [and the Chavot Da'at and the Pardes Rimonim descended to rescue, and they rescued but a little; see there].

And in my humble opinion, there is no difficulty at all, and we shall first present two introductions. The first: they have already sensed this [Chavat Da'at and P'ri Toar], for behold, he ruled that during the days of her zivah she does not establish a veset; however, this is specifically during the days of zivah immediately following the actual niddah period in which she saw niddah blood. But adjacent to the days of niddah when she did not see niddah blood during them, she does establish a veset. For so it is explained from his words in chapter 8, law 9, where he wrote: A woman does not establish a veset for herself within the days of her niddah in which she saw, etc., and similarly a woman does not establish a veset during the days of her zivah, which are the eleven days, but she does establish a veset during the days of her niddah in which she does not see, etc. Thus far his words. And it is clear that what he wrote, that she does not establish a veset during the days of her zivah, refers to the days of zivah that follow the days of niddah in which she saw, and it refers back to the preceding. But when she did not see niddah, she establishes a veset during the days of her zivah according to the calculation. And although many and great ones did not understand his intention so, the truth is self-evident, as we shall explain with the help of Heaven.

And I am hereby bringing a clear proof for this, for in the Gemara [11a] R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish disagree, as Resh Lakish holds that she establishes a vest in her days of zivah and not in her days of niddah, and R. Yochanan holds that she also establishes in her days of niddah, see there. Behold, it is explicit that she is more likely not to establish a vest in her days of niddah than in her days of zivah. And since the Rambam ruled that in days fit for niddah she establishes a vest, all the more so that she establishes in days fit for zivah. And that which she does not establish in days fit for zivah when she saw niddah beforehand, this is because of the niddah she saw beforehand, for then she is removed from blood all eleven days which are the days of zivah, and regarding this we learned in the Mishnah that all eleven days are in a state of presumptive purity. But in days of zivah that are according to the calculation of the days of niddah and zivah, she certainly establishes. And according to this, the difficulty of the Ramban is answered, as to how she establishes a vest on the twenty-second day from her seeing, and likewise the difficulty of the later authorities regarding the establishment of a new vest, to answer that since she did not see niddah blood beforehand, she properly establishes a vest. And it is clear with the help of Heaven.

And the second introduction to settle the sugya of one who errs: for behold, all the Rishonim hold that a veset of the body is a veset unto itself and a veset of days is a veset unto itself, as will be explained in siman 189, see there. However, the Rambam holds that there is no veset of days without a veset of the body. This is his wording at the beginning of chapter 8: There is a woman who has a veset, and there is a woman who does not have a veset, but rather she does not feel anything in herself until the blood emerges, etc. And this is one who has a veset: she has a fixed day, etc. and before the blood comes she feels in herself that she yawns or sneezes, etc. Thus far his words. And the Maggid Mishneh wrote, this is his wording: And from the words of our teacher it appears that he explains that the vesetot of her body are the occurrences that follow the fixed veset of days, etc. But all the commentators explained that they are two distinct vesetot: a veset of days and a veset of the body without known days. Thus far his words.

And behold, the Rambam wrote in chapter 6, law 6, that all the days of a woman, from the day a vest set is established for her until she dies or until she uproots the vest for another day, she shall always count seven etc., and after them eleven etc. Thus far his words. It follows from this that a woman who has a vest on Rosh Chodesh Nisan and afterwards her vest changed to another day, if before she saw on the other day she had a vest ha-guf, her vest has changed; but if she did not have a vest ha-guf, her vest has not changed at all, and she must calculate the days of niddah and zivah from the days of the first vest. The blood that she saw is not a change of vest, but a mere occurrence, and she shall calculate: if she is in the days of niddah from the first vest, she is a niddah, and if they are in the days of zivah from the first vest, she is a zavah.

And according to this, that which is in Arachin is well-settled, for there it is regarding establishing a fixed veset. And behold, this woman who saw for four or five days and does not know at what time she stands, nevertheless, in any event, all the blood she saw during these days is of one type, since she did not have a veset ha-guf in the middle of the days. And according to this, if she saw for four days, her opening is indeed sixteen, for even if three days were days of zivah and the fourth was blood of niddah, nevertheless the veset does not begin on the fourth day such that we would require seventeen days, since before the fourth day she did not have a veset ha-guf; and so too regarding all the days. And it is clear with the help of Heaven. [And besides this, there is support for his approach from page 54a, "this means the days of her niddah etc. are counted etc.," and the Tosafot were forced to say it deals with a zavah ketanah, but according to the Rambam it is settled simply. And that which they questioned from Arachin, "she uses a fourth of her days" from twenty-eight days, the Rambam himself already settled them as the Maggid Mishneh wrote in chapter 7. And also on page 11a, "I saw her from a closed fountain," is settled simply according to his approach; see there well and examine it.]:

It is found that according to the law of the Torah, a niddah who saw blood all seven days is permitted to have relations on the night of the eighth after she immerses; and a zavah ketanah guards one pure day and immerses and is permitted to have relations in the evening; and a zavah gedolah counts seven clean days and immerses and is permitted to have relations on the night of the eighth. And there is no time between one niddah period and another except eleven days alone, and during those eleven days she will be a zavah ketanah by seeing one day or two days, and a zavah gedolah by seeing three days. And specifically three days one after the other, but with an interruption—for example, if she saw within the eleven days on day one and day two, and on day three she did not see, and on day four she saw—she is only a zavah ketanah, for we require three days in order. And all sightings that she sees in one day are only as one sighting. And this is the difference between a zav and a zavah: for the zav becomes impure with three sightings even in one day and becomes a complete zav, and the zavah becomes impure only with three days and not with three sightings in one day or in two days. For regarding this it is written: "And this shall be his impurity in his flux: whether his flesh run with his flux, or his flesh be stopped from his flux," etc. The verse made it dependent on three sightings and did not write "days." But regarding a zavah it is written [Leviticus 15:25]: "And if a woman has an issue of her blood many days." And thus our Sages, of blessed memory, said [Bava Kamma 24a]: The verse made the zav dependent on sightings and the zavah on days. And also the zav becomes impure by days like a zavah, as it is written: "And for him that hath an issue, for the male and for the female," comparing the male to the female; but the opposite is not so, for regarding the zav it is written "and this," which implies to exclude this and not another [ibid.], and that is that the zavah does not become impure by sightings without days.

A woman who saw blood at the end of the seven days of her niddah period during bein hashemashot, and saw on the ninth and on the tenth, she is a doubtfully-determined zavah, for perhaps the first sighting was on the night of the eighth, and it turns out that she saw for three consecutive days. And similarly, if she saw blood on the ninth and on the tenth of her days of zivah, and at the end of the eleventh day during bein hashemashot she saw a third sighting, she is also a doubtfully-determined zavah, for perhaps the third sighting was on the eleventh day, and it constitutes three sightings on three consecutive days within her days of zivah. The law of a doubtfully-determined zavah is like a certain zavah regarding tumah and immersion for her husband, and only a sacrifice she is unable to bring because of the doubt. And for all this she brings a sacrifice, but the chatat is not eaten, as the Rambam wrote in the first chapter of Mechusrei Kapparah; see there.

And so too, any woman who erred and did not know the time of her veset and does not know in which days she stands, whether in the days of niddah or in the days of zivah, and she saw blood, she is concerned for all the concerns according to the law of a doubtful zavah. And if she saw for one day or two, she sits for the completion of seven, lest she is a niddah. And if she saw for three days, she sits seven clean days, lest she stands in the days of zivah. And how shall she come to a rectification so that she will know when are the days of niddah and when are the days of zivah? Concerning this, the sages taught in the Mishnah of Arachin [8a]: There is no opening for one who has erred less than seven and not more than seventeen. And "opening" means that she will come to the openings of niddah and zivah with clarity, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

How so? The woman who erred, who said, "On another day I saw a discharge and I do not know if it was during the days of niddah, and I must sit seven days, or if it was during the days of zivah and I am only a shomeret yom," she opens seventeen. That is to say, when she sits seventeen pure days, then when she sees on the eighteenth, she returns to her niddah status. For in any case, she has emerged from doubt; for if this day that she saw was of the days of niddah, even if it was the first of her niddah, behold seven days of niddah and eleven days of zivah have passed. But if she sees even on the seventeenth alone, she is still corrupted, for perhaps this day is the last of zivah, or perhaps it is of the days of niddah. And similarly, when she saw two days, she requires seventeen, for with less she is still in doubt, as I have written. And similarly, if she saw three days, she requires seventeen, for perhaps the first two days are of the days of zivah and the third is the beginning of niddah, or perhaps all of them are of the days of zivah, or all of them are of the days of niddah; therefore she requires seventeen days to emerge from the doubt. But if she saw four days, sixteen days are sufficient to emerge from the doubt; for in any case, if all of them were of the days of zivah, behold seven clean days have passed for her, and similarly if they were of the days of niddah, since sixteen days passed for her afterward without a sighting, there is no concern here. For if she were a zavah, behold she sat seven clean days, and if she were a niddah, three days belong to the days of niddah and thirteen remain for the days of zivah. And one cannot say that perhaps three were days of zivah and the fourth was from niddah, for it is impossible for it to be so; since she saw three days of zivah, she never returns to her niddah status until she sits seven clean days. But with less than this it is not effective, for if she sees on the sixteenth day, there is still reason to doubt that perhaps two were of the days of zivah and two were of the days of niddah, and she is impure as a niddah for five more days, and only ten days remain for the days of zivah, and if so, perhaps the sixteenth is the last of the days of zivah. And for this reason, we require sixteen clean days, and fourteen is not sufficient—even though there are eleven days of zivah in this—because of the concern that the first two days were perhaps days of zivah, and therefore she requires two more days, which is sixteen.

And from four and above, for every day more that she sees, one day is reduced from her opening. How so? If she saw for five days, her opening is fifteen; six, her opening is fourteen; seven, her opening is thirteen; eight, her opening is twelve; nine, her opening is eleven; ten, her opening is ten; eleven, her opening is nine; twelve, her opening is eight; thirteen, her opening is seven. And the reason is simple, for the general principle of the matter is that regarding a sighting of ziva, one need only be in doubt regarding the first two days; for if we say that three were days of ziva, behold she requires seven clean days, and it is impossible for the other days to be days of nidda. Therefore, if she saw for five days, in any case the last three days are days of nidda if the first two days were days of ziva, and she requires four more days for her nidda state, and there remain from the fifteen eleven days of ziva. And with six, the last four days can be days of nidda and she requires three more days; there remain from the fourteen days eleven for days of ziva. And with seven days, five remain for her nidda state and she requires two more days; there remain from the thirteen eleven days of ziva. And when she saw eight, she requires one day for her nidda state; there remain from the twelve eleven. And when she saw nine, behold in any case all the days of nidda have passed over her if the first two days were days of ziva, and therefore eleven days of purity, which are days of ziva, are sufficient. And with ten, behold the last day remains for days of ziva, and ten are sufficient. And with eleven, two days remain for days of ziva, and nine are sufficient. And twelve, three days remain, and eight are sufficient. And thirteen, four days remain for ziva, and seven are sufficient. And less than this is impossible, for behold she requires seven clean days; and even if you say regarding all these sightings that they are all days of ziva, behold seven clean days are also sufficient. And this is what the sages said: there is no opening for a woman who is mistaken of less than seven and no more than seventeen. And with this number, even if she sees for one hundred days or one thousand days, seven clean days are sufficient. And these are the laws of the woman who is mistaken who returns to clarity [and the Maggid Mishneh at the end of chapter 8 pressed himself to understand the opinion of the Rambam, see there; and we have already explained in section 26 that it works well according to the explanation of the Rambam with good taste and knowledge, see there].

And similarly, a woman who saw a stain during the days appropriate for zivah, the openings of her niddah status are disrupted. And thus the sages taught in the Mishnah [52b]: One who sees a stain, she is disrupted and must be concerned for zivah. This is the wording of the Rambam, chapter 9, law 12: If she was wearing one shift and it remained upon her for three days or more outside the time of her niddah, and she examined it and found upon it three stains, or one large stain that has the measure of three stains, she is a doubtful zavah, for perhaps a stain dripped from her each day. And similarly, if she wore three checked garments and they remained upon her for three days during her days of zivah, and she found a stain on each of them, even if they are one opposite the other, she is a doubtful zavah. If she found one stain that does not have enough for three stains, if she examined herself every bein hashemashot of the first day and found it pure, but did not examine her shift, and on the third day she found this stain which is not like three stains, she need not be concerned for zivah. But if she did not examine herself every bein hashemashot, since she did not examine her shift and it remained upon her for three days during her days of zivah, she must be concerned for zivah, even though the stain is not enough for three stains. Thus far his words. And the reason is that every seeing of bein hashemashot is like a seeing of two days, because there is a doubt regarding bein hashemashot whether it belongs to the preceding day or to the coming day or to both of them, and it is possible that she saw for a long duration during bein hashemashot and it is a seeing of two days. And know that this is specifically when the stain has the measure of two stains, for in this we concern ourselves that she saw during two periods of bein hashemashot and it is a seeing of three days and she becomes a zavah. And so it is proven from Rashi [53a, s.v. "v'lo", see there]. But if it does not even have the measure of two stains, there is no concern for a complete zavah. And I wonder at the Rambam that he did not explain this. And it is simple that two seeings with a stain, or two stains with one seeing, constitutes a doubtful zavah.

And know that this which we require that there be the measure of three stains, this is to make her now a doubtful zavah, for with less than this, since there is not enough for three stains, there is no concern regarding a sighting of three days and she is only a minor zavah. However, regarding the disruption of the count from the openings of her niddah, it is simple that even with the measure of one stain the count is disrupted. And this is what the Tanna taught: "One who sees a stain, she is disrupted and concerned for zov." And he teaches two things: "she is disrupted" even with one sighting, as Rashi wrote [52b, s.v. harei zu]. This is his wording: She does not know the opening of her niddah, when the eleven days will begin, etc., for she does not know when she saw. Thus far his words. And "concerned for zov" if three days of zivah passed over her according to the explanation of Rashi. And I wonder at the Rambam that he did not explain this, and perhaps because in this chapter he does not deal with one who is mistaken, and in the Commentary on the Mishnah he explained so, see there [however, according to his system it is not so difficult, for the days are known to be days of zivah, but regarding the impurity there is a doubt, which is not the case according to the system of Rashi, and examine this].

Just as one who errs regarding the days of the openings of her niddah requires a calculation, as has been explained, so too if her manner of seeing is unusual, even though she does not err and knows the openings of her niddah, she nevertheless requires a calculation. How so? A woman whose manner is to see all her days one day impure and one day pure, and she sees during the day and not at night, she is not permitted for tashmish except for the eighth day, which is after the seven days of her niddah and she does not see on it because she saw on the seventh. Also, the entire night following the eighth day she is permitted, for she will not see until the next day during the day. Aside from this, she has four nights out of eighteen days, for this woman will never be a zavah gedolah since she does not see three consecutive days, and she is always within the eleven days, only a zavah ketanah and a shomeret yom. Therefore, on the ninth when she sees, she shall observe the tenth day and immerse and engage in tashmish at night, and she will see on the eleventh and observe the twelfth and engage in tashmish at night—behold two nights—and she will see on the thirteenth and observe the fourteenth and engage in tashmish at night—behold three nights—and she will see the fifteenth and observe the sixteenth and engage in tashmish in the evening—behold four—and she will see on the seventeenth and observe the eighteenth. Behold the eighteen days are completed, and she engaged in tashmish four nights aside from the eighth and its night. And if she engages in tashmish on the night after the eighteenth, it is not from the calculation of the eighteen, for this calculation is only until eighteen, as on the nineteenth day when she sees, she is a niddah, for the eleven days of zivah have already concluded. Then this calculation begins again: she shall engage in tashmish on the eighth and its night, and four nights out of eighteen days, and so forever. This is when her seeing is during the day, but in this manner when her way is to see at night, she has only the eighth day after niddah alone, but the four nights she does not have, for on every night after the day of observation she is destined to see and is forbidden in tashmish [Niddah 54a and in the Rambam chapter 7 halakhah 14].

And if it was her way to always see two impure days and two pure days, she may engage in relations on the eighth day, which is of her two pure days, and on the seventh she is forbidden, as it is of the seven days of niddah, and she immerses in the evening and may engage in relations all of the eighth day. And on the ninth and tenth she will see, and she shall observe the eleventh day and immerse in the evening and engage in relations the entire twelfth day. And afterwards she will see on the thirteenth and fourteenth and observe the fifteenth and immerse in the evening and engage in relations on the sixteenth. And she will see on the seventeenth and eighteenth and observe the nineteenth, for even the eleventh day requires observation by rabbinic decree, as I wrote in section 11. Therefore, on the twentieth she can engage in relations, for she does not see on it. And afterwards on the twenty-first and twenty-second when she sees, she returns to her niddah status, and the order will likewise be as we have said, and so forever, as is understood.

But if it was her way to see three impure days and three pure days, she has no permission except for two days, the eleventh and the twelfth. For she is like one who sees on the seventh, eighth, and ninth; the seventh day belongs to the niddah period, and the eighth and ninth are from the eleven days, and she requires one day of guarding. She shall guard the tenth day and may have tashmish on the eleventh and twelfth. But afterward, she is forbidden in tashmish forever, for when she sees three days afterward, she becomes a zavah gedolah and requires seven clean days, and this woman only ever has three clean days. And so too, if she always sees four impure days and four pure days, she has no permission except for one day, and that is on the eighth day after her niddah period, and afterward she is forbidden forever because she does not have seven clean days, as I have written. And if it was her way to see five impure days and five pure days, she may have tashmish for three days of the five pure days, for two days belong to the days of niddah, and afterward she never has tashmish because she does not have seven clean days. If it was her way to see six impure days and six pure days, she may have tashmish for five days of the pure days, for the first belongs to the seven days of niddah, and then she never has tashmish again because she does not have seven clean days.

Therefore, if it was her way to see seven impure days and seven pure days, she may engage in relations for a quarter of the days out of twenty-eight days, which are the seven pure days that follow the days of niddah. However, when the seven pure days are completed—which are fourteen days including the impure days—and she saw thereafter for seven days until the twenty-first day and counts clean days until the twenty-eighth, she will not be able to engage in relations on the twenty-ninth. For she returns to her days of niddah according to the opinion of our teachers, that after seven clean days, when she sees, she is a niddah, and it also returns as before, that she engages in relations during the second seven, and so it is forever. But according to the system of the Rambam, she does not return to her niddah status on the twenty-ninth, for in his opinion the calculation always follows seven days of niddah and eleven days of zivah. If so, on the twenty-ninth day, she stands within the days of zivah. Therefore, according to his opinion, that which they said in the Gemara, "she engages in relations for a quarter out of twenty-eight days," is only for the first time, when she engages in relations during the second week that follows the first week in which she was a niddah, but afterward the calculation changes.

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 7, law 20: If she was seeing seven etc. she may have relations during the first week adjacent to her niddah etc. and all her days she has relations eighteen days in eighteen weeks. How so? The fifth week she is a zavah; the sixth week, which is pure for her counting; the seventh week, a zavah; the eighth, for counting; the ninth week, in which she sees five days of it as days of niddah and two as days of zivah, she watches one day from the tenth pure week and has relations for six days; the eleventh week, in which she sees two from the end of the days of her zivah and five from the beginning of the days of niddah, and she has relations for five days from the twelfth pure week; the thirteenth week, a zavah, and the fourteenth week, for counting; and similarly the fifteenth week, a zavah, and the sixteenth week, for counting; the seventeenth week, a zavah, and the eighteenth week, for counting; and she counts in this manner forever etc. Thus far his words. And he explains there that if she had not seen according to this order, she would have relations four times eighteen, and this is what the sages said, "she has relations a quarter," meaning, if she had not seen according to this order. And that which they said, "out of twenty-eight days," the intention is regarding the first time, as I have written. And it appears more likely that in his version, "out of twenty-eight days" was not written in the Gemara, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote; see there. And see at the end of section 40.

If she would see eight impure days and eight pure days, she may cohabit fifteen days out of forty-eight days. That is to say, regarding the first eight, the eighth is of the days of zivah, and from the second eight pure days, she shall count the first day for guarding and cohabit seven days; behold sixteen days have passed. And regarding the third eight impure days, two of them belong to the days of zivah, namely the seventeenth and the eighteenth, and the six days are the beginning of niddah. And regarding the fourth eight which are pure, the first day shall complete the days of niddah and she shall cohabit seven days, and there remain four more days for the days of zivah. Therefore, regarding the fifth eight, behold she is a zavah gedolah from the days of zivah in which she sees, and she requires seven clean days. Consequently, regarding the sixth eight pure days, seven are for counting and one is for cohabitation; behold forty-eight days have passed and she cohabited during them fifteen days. And on the forty-ninth day when she sees, it will be the beginning of niddah, and she will also return to this order that we have stated. This is according to the explanation of all our teachers, but according to the Rambam, there must be a different intention, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

For behold, this calculation is aligned even according to the opinion of the Rambam, for he proceeds according to the order of the days of niddah and zivah. However, the use of fifteen days within forty-eight days is only during the first forty-eight days and no more, for the forty-ninth day according to his system is within the days of zivah until the fifty-fourth day, which is three times eighteen days—seven for niddah and eleven for zivah—and consequently the order must necessarily change. The Maggid Mishneh already explained that from the forty-ninth day until the completion of one hundred and forty-four days, which are a cycle of eighteen weeks, she shall only use twelve days: one in the eighth of the eights, and one in the tens, and one in the twelves, and one in the fourteens, and one in the sixteens, and seven from the eighteens which are the cycle of eighteen weeks—seven cycles of eighteen days—and afterward it returns to as it was at first, see there. [And the explanation is simple: since her seeing is eight days, when it cycles eight times the cycle is completed, and the days of niddah and zivah which are eighteen days, and since it cycles eight times eighteen, it returns to as it was at first, and examine this.] [And regarding one who sees seven, the cycle is eighteen times seven, and therefore he wrote the calculation there for eighteen weeks; but it is a wonder that regarding the law of eight, the Rambam wrote there: "it is found that she uses fifteen days in every forty-eight," see there, and it is not so, and before the Maggid Mishneh the version was not thus, see there, and so is the primary version, and examine this.]

If she would see nine impure days and nine pure days, she may engage in relations for eight days in every eighteen days forever. How so? Of the nine impure days, seven of them are niddah and two are zivah, and therefore from the nine pure days she observes one day and eight days she may engage in relations, and so on forever. If she would see ten impure days and ten pure days, the days of her relations will be according to the number of the days of her zivah. How so? The ten impure days are seven of niddah and three of zivah, and from the ten pure days, seven clean days and three for relations. And so too with more than ten, even forever; for example, if she sees one hundred impure days and one hundred pure days, the impure days are seven days of niddah and ninety-three days of zivah, and from the one hundred pure days, seven clean days and ninety-three for relations, and so too with a thousand, as is understood.

And all these laws do not apply in this time, for after hearts have diminished and Israel has been scattered to the four corners of the world, it is impossible for every woman to track the openings of her niddah and her zivah. Therefore, even in the time of the Shas, the daughters of Israel followed the practice of sitting seven clean days for every drop of blood, and among us, all of them are of uncertain zivah status and it is impossible to be purified without seven clean days. Nevertheless, we have explained the laws for the sake of "He shall magnify the Torah and make it glorious," to understand the openings of niddah and zivah according to the principles of the Torah's laws. Therefore, the Rambam, of blessed memory, also cited them even though they do not apply in practice now.

A woman from whose source blood emerged, whether by accident, such as through jumping or because a doctor opened the opening of her source and blood emerged through this, or whether by will, meaning according to the nature of the woman herself, she is impure. And so we learned in Torat Kohanim: "And if a woman has a discharge," one might think that even if she has a discharge from anywhere she should be impure; the Torah says, "And she has uncovered the source of her blood," teaching that the blood is only from the source. One might think that any appearance of discharge that she discharges she should be impure; the Torah says, "blood," etc. Thus far its words. And from where do we know that she is impure even by accident? From that which is written [Leviticus 15:25], "if a discharge of her blood flows," implying however it flows, even by accident [Gemara 36b]. And I have additional explanation to add: for behold, the zav does not contract impurity by accident, as we learned at the beginning of tractate Zavim, and we derive this from that which is written regarding the zav, "when he has a discharge from his flesh" [ibid. 15:2], we derive: and not due to his accident, meaning from the nature of his flesh. And since regarding the zavah the Torah wrote, "blood shall be her discharge in her flesh," and the Torah changed and did not write "from her flesh" as with the zav, learn from this that even by accident she is impure. And even though from "in her flesh" we derive that she contracts impurity internally as externally, as will be explained, nevertheless we automatically hear from the fact that it did not write "from her flesh" to learn from it that even by accident she contracts impurity.

Even though regarding all impurities that emerge from the human body, such as one who had a seminal emission or a zav, they do not transmit impurity until their impurity emerges to the outside, nevertheless, regarding a niddah and a zavah, they become impure from the moment the blood is uprooted from the source, even if it has not yet emerged to the outside and is in the outer chamber; for although the walls of the womb held it back, she is nevertheless impure, as it is written: "her discharge in her flesh be blood," meaning that while the blood is still flowing within the flesh, it is already considered as having emerged to the outside. And when it emerges to the outside, nothing new has occurred other than her ability to perform an examination, for when the blood is inside, an examination is not applicable, as is understood. And the reason for the matter is that since the primary impurity of the blood is in the source, therefore, once it has emerged from the source, she immediately becomes impure; and what does it matter to me if the blood emerged to the outside or if it is still between the walls of her womb, since it has been uprooted from the source.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 5 [law 3]: The sages spoke in a parable regarding a woman. The womb in which the fetus is formed is called the "makor," and it is from there that the blood of niddah and zavah emerges, and they call it the "cheder" because it is the innermost part. The entire neck of the womb—which is the long place whose opening constricts during pregnancy so that the fetus does not fall out, and opens wide at the time of birth—they call the "prozdor," meaning that it is the vestibule to the womb. At the time of the completion of cohabitation, the organ enters the prozdor and does not reach its inner head, but rather remains a small distance from it according to the fingers. Above the cheder and the prozdor, between the cheder and the prozdor, is the place where the two eggs of the woman are located and the pathways in which her seed is ripened; this place is called the "aliyah." There is like an opening from the aliyah to the roof of the prozdor, and this opening they call the "lul." The organ enters further than the lul at the time of the completion of cohabitation.

Blood that comes from the cheder is entirely tamei, except for blood of purity which the Torah purified and blood of hardship as will be explained. Blood of the aliyah is entirely tahor, for it is like blood of a wound in the intestines or in the liver or in the kidney and the like. Blood found in the prozdor: if it is found from the lul and inward, it is tamei, for its presumption is that it is from the cheder, and one is liable for it regarding entry to the Mikdash, and one burns terumah and kodashim because of it, and we do not say perhaps it descended from the aliyah by way of the hole, for the majority of blood found here is from the cheder. If the blood was found in the prozdor outside the hole, its tumah is in doubt, perhaps it came from the cheder or from the aliyah and dripped through the hole; therefore, one does not burn terumah and kodashim because of it, and one is not liable for it regarding entry to the Mikdash. Thus far the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory. And it must be said that the appearance of the blood from the aliyah is identical to the appearance of the blood in the cheder, for if not so, would it not be possible to recognize it [Tosafot 17b s.v. Vedam]? And nevertheless, the Torah purified it, for it only declared tamei blood that is in the mekor [ibid.]. And furthermore, even if it is not of the same category as the blood of the mekor, nevertheless in appearances they can be completely identical, for even regarding blood of a wound we learned in Niddah [66a] that if the blood of her wound was different from the blood of her seeing, etc., and it implies explicitly that it is possible that it is not different. And all the more so regarding blood of the aliyah, even though it is not of the same matter as the blood of the cheder. And one should not ask why we are in doubt regarding blood of the aliyah and the prozdor, for from the Torah a woman does not become tamei except with a sensation as will be explained, and if so, either way: if she felt a sensation she is tamei, and if not, she is always tahora. For it is not so, as sensation is only regarding the law of the days of her niddah and that she should be forbidden to her husband, but blood of the mekor is always tamei even when she did not feel a sensation, for we established that "the place of the mekor is tamei" even regarding other blood that comes from the mekor, and all the more so the blood of the mekor itself. And even the one who holds "the place of the mekor is tahor," this is regarding other blood and not regarding the blood of the mekor itself. Therefore, only entry to the Mikdash and the burning of terumah and kodashim were mentioned here, and not regarding the matter of her prohibition to her husband [as mentioned above]. [And the difficulty of the Noda BiYehudah, Kama, Yoreh Deah, siman 55, s.v. Ve'af shema'aleh, is answered; see there].

All of our teachers, the Rishonim and the Acharonim, agreed that according to the Torah, a woman is not impure when blood exits from her unless the blood exited with a sensation, meaning that she felt in her body as if the womb opened, as will be explained. However, without a sensation, even if the blood exited from the womb, the woman is not impure according to the Torah, as is explained in Niddah [57b]: Shmuel said, she checked the ground and sat upon it and found blood upon it, she is pure, as it is said, "in her flesh," until she feels in her flesh; see there. And there is no one who disagrees on this, and so all the poskim ruled.

And one of the great authorities wishes to innovate in this matter, that Rashi, of blessed memory, does not hold this way, and also his desire is to say that the Tosafot also disagree in this [Sidrei Taharah siman 190, subsection 93]. And there is in all his words no foundation to create a new dispute among the poskim in a matter that all our teachers did not conceive of. And because this matter is a great principle in all the laws of niddah, it is therefore necessary to clarify this. And his primary foundation is that there in the Gemara, the Shas raises several difficulties against Shmuel from Mishnayot and Beraitot, that even without hargashah she is temeiah, and from the primary laws of ketamim one can raise difficulties against Shmuel according to what the Shas thought, that Shmuel purifies even miderrabanan. Rather, from ketamim it is possible to say that since much time has passed, perhaps she felt at the time of the act and did not realize it [Tosafot ibid., starting with "HaRoah"], and therefore the sages declared her temeiah. And therefore it asks from similar matters, such as from the examination of an ed and from a woman who is relieving herself and found blood, for there too we declare her temeiah. And the Shas concludes: Rav Yirmiyah of Difti said, Shmuel admits that she is temeiah miderrabanan. And Rashi explained [58a, starting with "Miderrabanan"]: Perhaps she felt and did not realize it. Thus far his words. And his intention, it appears to me, is that to Rashi, of blessed memory, it did not seem correct to say that the sages would decree even when there was certainly no hargashah, for why should the sages forbid a matter that the Torah explicitly permitted? Rather, it is certain that the sages decreed lest there was hargashah. And even though this is from a recent time, nevertheless, since the matter was handed over to all women, and they are of light mind, and in the hargashah itself there are several errors, such as the sensation of urine, the sensation of the ed of the examination, the sensation of the organ which is called in the language of the Shas "shemesh," for they could err and think that the sensation is from these things, and in truth there was a sensation of the blood. And this matter is explained throughout tractate Niddah, and therefore the sages were stringent in every case. And the Tosafot there indeed disagreed with Rashi, and this is their wording: The Kuntres explained that we hang it on the possibility that perhaps she felt and did not realize it; but it does not seem so, for even if it is established for her that she did not feel, she is temeiah since she saw blood of niddah. Thus far their words. And this is the opinion of most of the great Rishonim. And in truth, in my opinion, even Rashi, of blessed memory, does not disagree with this, and also according to him, in every case she is temeiah miderrabanan, but he explained the reason for why the sages decreed. But in truth, even according to Rashi, in every case she is temeiah, for the rabbis did not differentiate in this.

And afterward the Gemara says [58a]: Rava Ashi said, Shmuel is the one who spoke in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah, as we learned in a Mishnah: Rabbi Nehemiah says, any object that is not susceptible to tumah is not susceptible to ketamim. And Rashi explained [s.v. Rav Ashi]: Rav Ashi said the reason of Shmuel, who said above "she checked the ground of the world" etc., is not because of hargashah, but rather he holds like Rabbi Nehemiah who said that the sages did not mention the decree of a ketam only regarding an object that is susceptible to tumah; therefore, all these refutations are not a difficulty, for Shmuel was not dealing with hargashah at all. Thus far his words. And from this, that great authority emerged to say that according to the conclusion, per the resolution of Rav Ashi—for the halakhah is like him—Shmuel was not dealing with hargashah at all, and if so, the entire law of hargashah is nullified according to the conclusion of the Gemara; and this is the essence of his words:

And in truth, another intention is hidden in the words of Rashi in my humble opinion when we are precise, for how is it possible to say that Rava was not dealing with hargashah at all, when Rava explicitly said, "as it is stated 'in her flesh'—until she feels in her flesh"? Several great authorities have already labored over this in responsa. However, the truth is that Rashi, of blessed memory, intentionally wrote the reason of Shmuel who said above, "she examined the ground of the world, etc." And it must be understood what Rashi innovated in this, for it is obvious that Rav Ashi stands upon the words of Shmuel. Rather, this is the explanation: for Rashi, the answer of Rav Yirmeyah was difficult, who answered, "Shmuel admits she is impure rabbinically." And from this wording it implies, seemingly, that Shmuel only stated the Torah law, and it is very puzzling, for how could Shmuel say she is pure since she is impure rabbinically? For Shmuel is stating the law! And for this, Rashi, of blessed memory, comes to inform us that Rav Ashi explains the matter of Rav Yirmeyah, and the two answers need one another. That is, certainly Rav Yirmeyah spoke the truth that Shmuel admits she is impure rabbinically even without hargashah, and with this all the difficulties are answered, but the words of Shmuel himself have no explanation. And for this, Rav Ashi comes to answer Shmuel's words as well. and this is the explanation: Shmuel said, "she examined the ground of the world, etc., she is pure, as it is stated 'in her flesh'—until she feels in her flesh," meaning, since from the Torah one requires hargashah, and the sages only decreed upon ketamim and upon everything that comes without hargashah, and they only decreed upon something that is susceptible to tumah; therefore, like the ground which is not susceptible to tumah, they did not decree upon the ketamim. And Shmuel was forced to this, for if not so—if from the Torah one did not need hargashah at all—what difference is there to me if it is ground or if it is another thing? And this is what Rashi explained: the reason of Shmuel who said, "she examined the ground of the world, etc.," is not because of hargashah but like Rabbi Nehemiah. Meaning, that which Shmuel purified regarding the ground is not because of hargashah, for rabbinically one does not need hargashah, but rather his reason is like Rabbi Nehemiah. And this is what Rashi, of blessed memory, concludes: that Shmuel was not dealing with hargashah at all, meaning that this law which Shmuel innovated regarding the ground is not because of hargashah, for behold, rabbinically one does not need hargashah. And that which Shmuel said, "as it is stated 'in her flesh'—until she feels in her flesh," he is giving the reason; meaning, since from the Torah one needs hargashah, but the sages decreed, and therefore they did not decree on a thing that is not susceptible to tumah. And it is clear with the help of Heaven.

And all these words of ours, our teachers the authors of the Tosafot wrote them with brevity. This is the wording of the Tosafot there [d.h. Moda Shmuel]: And Rav Ashi also admits that according to Shmuel, where she did not feel it, she is tahora according to the Torah and temea according to the Rabbis; rather, he comes to explain that when it is found on the ground, she is tahora even according to the Rabbis. Thus far their words. And when you examine their words closely, you will find that they intended everything we have explained. And also Rashi, of blessed memory, his intention is so, but he wrote it in precise language according to his holy way, to also resolve the words of Rav Yirmiyah, as we have written.

And furthermore, the proofs he brought from several places in Rashi and Tosafot, from whose words it is proven that she is teme'ah through seeing and they did not mention hargashah, are not proofs at all. For every seeing, unspecified, is with hargashah, as such is the way of seeing blood—that it comes with hargashah. For this reason the Torah purified that which is without hargashah, because that is not the way of seeing. And even regarding the primary decree of ketamim, where they were concerned that perhaps it is from her body, the intention is that she saw and felt but did not pay attention and forgot, or she imagined it was a different hargashah. And this matter we learned from the words of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, at the beginning of this sugya, who wrote that for this reason it does not challenge Shmuel from ketamim, because there is a long time from the moment of laundering, and say that she felt and was not aware of it. Thus far their words. But in one who actually sees, and at the time of the act she felt no hargashah at all, she is certainly tehorah from the Torah and only teme'ah by rabbinic decree. But regarding unspecified seeings, she is teme'ah even from the Torah, for presumably it came with hargashah like the way of most seeings [and the Chochmat Adam in Binat Adam and the Pardes Rimonim also rejected the words of the Sidrei Taharah, see there].

And also from the words of the Rambam all these are explained, as he wrote at the beginning of chapter 9: A woman does not become impure from the Torah as a niddah or a zavah until she feels and sees blood and it exits into her flesh as we have said, and she shall be impure from the time she sees and only from then on. And if she did not feel, but examined herself and found blood inside in the prozdor, she is in the legal presumption that it came with a feeling, as we have explained. And from the words of the scribes, any woman who sees a blood stain on her flesh or on her clothes, even though she did not feel, and even though she examined herself and did not find blood, she is impure, as if she found blood inside in her flesh. And this impurity is in doubt, lest this stain came from the blood of the cheder. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that from the Torah she does not become impure without a feeling; only by rabbinic decree did they rule so, even if it certainly was without a feeling, and this is the decree of stains. But a standard seeing of blood, even from the Torah she is impure, for there is a legal presumption that it came with a feeling. And that which he wrote, "And if she did not feel, but examined herself and found blood inside in the prozdor, she is in the legal presumption that it came with a feeling," thus far his words, requires explanation; for if she certainly did not feel, how did it come with a feeling?

And it appears to me that this is the explanation when we examine closely why it was necessary to say, "and she found the blood inside in the prozdor, etc." Briefly, it should have said, "and if she did not feel and saw blood, she is presumed to have had a feeling." Rather, certainly his intention is that if it was an actual seeing—meaning that blood flowed from her body and she says that she did not feel at all—her impurity is not from the Torah but only rabbinic, for it is not relevant to say regarding this "presumed to have had a feeling" since she states explicitly that she feels nothing at all. However, regarding a bedikah, one may certainly say so, and that is when she checked and found the blood inside in the prozdor; and if so, it has already been uprooted from the mekor. And for this we say that at that moment when it was uprooted from the mekor, she certainly felt but did not pay attention. And this is what it means when it says, "and if she did not feel," meaning that she says now that she has no feeling, and nevertheless, if she checked and found the blood inside in the prozdor, she is presumed to have had a feeling; meaning, previously, when it was uprooted from the mekor to the prozdor, there was a feeling and she did not pay attention. But if now there was an actual seeing from the mekor without a feeling, her impurity is only rabbinic. [And with this it is settled with good reason on page 18a regarding that which Rav Chiya taught, "blood found in the prozdor, they are liable for entering the Mikdash, etc.," for several of the great authorities wondered why he left out the primary law of a niddah to her husband, as I wrote at the end of section 46, see there. And now it is settled simply, for he states a greater novelty: it is not only necessary to say regarding her husband, for in any event she is forbidden rabbinically even without a feeling, but even for entering the Mikdash one is liable for a sacrifice, and intentionally for karet, and one burns terumah because of it, because we say that certainly there was a feeling previously, even though she says that she does not feel now, as I have written; and examine this well].

And with this, a great doubt that the great later authorities were uncertain of is resolved for us: whether, if she found blood by means of an examination, her impurity is from the Torah since it was without a sensation, or if we say that there was a sensation and she thought the sensation was from the cloth with which she examined. They investigated this at length. However, according to what we explained regarding the intent of the Rambam, there is no doubt at all in this, for it is known that all the examinations a woman performs do not reach the actual source except by chance and for a moment due to the distance of the place, because the source is deep in the body. As the Rambam wrote in chapter 5 [halacha 4], that at the time of the completion of cohabitation the organ enters the vestibule, and as I wrote in section 45, see there. A woman's examination is until the place the organ enters, as is written in siman 196. If so, there, when she found blood, it had already been uprooted from the source, and we say that there certainly was a sensation then, and we do not require a sensation at the time of the examination. All of this investigation is in vain, and she is certainly impure from the Torah [as appears to my humble opinion to be clear with the help of Heaven].

And according to this, the matter is clear that the inquiry regarding hargashah is specifically concerning that which we fear she saw just now, for then certainly if she did not experience a hargashah, she is tahorah according to the Torah. But in the case of a woman who examines herself and found blood, she is certainly teme'ah according to the Torah, because the examination is in the prozdor, and we say that even if she does not experience a hargashah now, the blood was already there from some time ago when it descended there from the makor and the walls of the womb held it, and then she certainly experienced a hargashah but did not pay attention. Therefore, regarding that statement of Shmuel where the Shas asks there from three places: from a woman who relieves herself and saw blood, where we attribute it to the blood going with the urine from the makor, the Gemara rightly inquired whether she experienced a hargashah or did not experience a hargashah, for regarding this moment we are in doubt concerning the descent of the blood from the makor. And the second, from an ed under the pillow where she examined immediately after tashmish and found blood on the ed, where we inquire if she saw the blood at the time of tashmish, we rightly deliberate whether she experienced a hargashah or did not experience a hargashah, for regarding this brief time we fear the seeing of blood from the makor. And the third, when found on her ed immediately after tashmish, and in the language of the Gemara "otyom," meaning immediately after tashmish, where they are both liable for a korban, the Shas also rightly inquired if there was a hargashah or not, for regarding that time we are in doubt concerning her seeing from the makor. [And according to this, the entire doubt that the great authorities doubted in this sugya regarding a general examination is gone, for it is not comparable at all. And know that the matter of hargashah at the beginning of Niddah page 3a, which says regarding the reasoning of Shammai "since a woman experiences a hargashah in herself" and Hillel "she believes it is the hargashah of urine," see there, is not related at all to the law of this hargashah; for there it is regarding a rabbinic law in the tumah of twenty-four hours in Niddah, and the inquiry regarding the hargashah is regarding yesterday, as Rashi explained in the entry "margeshet," and this is his wording: "And since she did not experience a hargashah from yesterday etc.," see there. And only regarding a rabbinic law do we say so, but not regarding a Torah law, for regarding a Torah law we say that she certainly experienced a hargashah yesterday, as is explained from the Rambam, and examine this carefully.] [And the hargashah at the beginning of the second chapter is a different matter, see there and examine this carefully.]

And what is the nature of the sensation? Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in siman 188 and at the beginning of siman 190, wrote that she senses that the opening of the womb has opened; that is to say, she knows that the opening of the womb has opened. This is the opinion of Rashi at the beginning of Niddah, who wrote: "She senses," meaning she knows within herself when blood departs from her. Thus far his words. The explanation is that when the blood goes from her hidden from her knowledge, like pus that goes from the opening of a wound, where it is possible that a person does not know at all at the time the pus goes, and similar to this is called "without sensation." "Sensation" is called when it is necessary that the person knows of it, like the urinating of water, for when a person urinates, he senses in his body how the water departs. Therefore, the Shas says: "She thought it was the sensation of water," and similarly it is confused with the sensation of an ed or the sensation of the organ, for in all of them the intent is that the body senses the performance of all these. We find the term "sensation" applied to knowledge, as in Megillah [15b]: "What did Esther see that she invited Haman? Perhaps the Omnipresent will sense and perform a miracle for us." And similarly in Midrash Rabbah, Parshat Noach, on the verse "On this very day Noach entered," etc., and similarly in Parshat Lech Lecha on the verse "On this very day Abraham was circumcised," the Midrash expounds: Why was it on the "very day"? So that everyone would know, and even so they would not have the power to protest. And the Midrash says regarding this, this is its wording: "Whoever senses it, let him speak," meaning whoever senses and knows of this and it is against his will, let him protest and see if it is in his power to protest.

And from the wording of the Rambam in chapter 5, law 17, who wrote: A woman who urinated and blood emerged etc. and even if her body felt it and trembled, she need not be concerned, for it is the sensation of urine. Thus far his words. And he interprets the term "sensation" as a type of trembling, a kind of shock. According to this, one may interpret the term "sensation" as in "Why do the nations rage [regshu]" [Psalms 2:1], and similarly "In the house of God we walked with the throng [beragesh]" [Psalms 55:15], and as in Daniel [6:12] "Then these men assembled [hargishu]," for all of them are from the language of gathering, but in a large gathering of people a noise is made. From this language the sages, of blessed memory, expounded in Shabbat [105b] that the mountain "shook [ragash] over them" to kill them, see there. Here too, it appears that when the time for the descent of the blood arrives, all the limbs tremble. However, according to this, it is very difficult, for if so, how is it possible to err between the sensation of urine, or the sensation of an examination cloth, or the sensation of the organ? For in all of these, all of this is not applicable, as is understood.

And I saw one who explains the intent of the Rambam, that he intended with this sensation that which he wrote in chapter 8 [law 2], that before the blood comes she will feel herself yawning and sneezing, etc. And it does not seem so to me at all, for if so, it is obvious that this has no connection to the sensation of urine and the cloth and the organ. And furthermore, for there itself the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote that this is only regarding a woman who has a fixed period, but when she does not have a fixed period, she will not feel herself until the blood emerges; see there. Therefore, it seems clear to me that the intent of the Rambam is also like the explanation of Rashi, that all the sensations mentioned in the Gemara, and that this is a requirement of the Torah, are nothing but a slight sensation, and that is the sensation of the body that the body feels, as "every living creature feels" is common in the language of the sages. And that which he wrote here, "even if her body felt and trembled," he said this as a greater novelty, and this is what he is saying: it is not only necessary to say regarding an ordinary sensation, but even with a strong sensation we also attribute it to the sensation of urine—meaning, the blood is blood from a wound and not blood from the source, because it is impossible for blood from the source to come together with urine, as is explained at the beginning of the chapter "HaIsha" [Niddah 59b]. Therefore, even with a strong sensation such as this, we attribute everything to the urine and the wound within it. And according to this, the Rambam also holds like Rashi regarding the essential definition of the sensation.

The matter of sensation is understood simply, as the Tosafot wrote [4a, s.v. ve-ha] that the place is closed, and when the blood exits it opens, and she should have sensed it; thus far their words. This is why the Gemara compares it to the sensation of urine and that she has a bit of pain, for so we say at the beginning of Niddah [3a]: This is the reasoning of Shammai, since a woman senses it within herself; and Hillel [holds] she thinks it is the sensation of urine. And it asks: But according to Shammai, what of one who is asleep? And it answers: One who is asleep will also wake up due to her pain, just as it is with the sensation of urine; thus far the wording of the Gemara. And the pain is at the time of the opening of the mouth of the womb, just as at the time of the beginning of discharging urine, in which every person can sense that when the body is full of urine and they must necessarily exit, the person has a bit of pain like a small sting until he begins to discharge them. For this is because the source from which the urine exits has a closed mouth, and when the time for their exit arrives, the source opens and the person senses it even in his sleep, and through this he will wake from his sleep to go urinate. Exactly so is the seeing of blood, which the Gemara compares one to the other.

And know that it is found in a responsum of one of the great authorities [Shev Yaakov siman 9 in the name of Maharshashach] who investigated this with expert women, and they said to him that regarding the nature of it, there are some of them who feel the opening of the mouth of the womb, and there are some of them who do not feel this sensation, but rather only the sensations of the flowing of niddah blood—all of them feel it. Thus far his words. And vanity shall open the mouths of these women, for they do not know what they are saying, and our teachers are more faithful to us than they are. And also, they are not lying in their words, but rather they do not understand. And know that regarding every superfluous matter in the body that the body must expel, the Holy One, Blessed be He, implanted in the nature of the body that when the time for their outward expulsion arrives, the exit orifices—which until now were closed—shall then open, and for the purpose of expelling the superfluity they open and exit outward, such as the exit of feces and urine and nasal mucus. And in a woman there is also added the blood from the womb for the expulsion of superfluities, and this is why the Gemara compares it to the sensation of urine, because they are adjacent to one another, and this is like that. And this is a necessity, that the womb must open, for it is entirely impossible in any other way. And at the time of the opening there is a sensation and a bit of pain, to the extent that because of this one would even awaken from his sleep, according to the words of our teachers, of blessed memory.

And just as with men, if we ask several people how you feel at the start of urinating, the intelligent one who understands a matter will say that he feels that the place has opened and the urine is exiting and he feels relief, while one who does not understand will only say that he feels that the urine is beginning to exit; so too these women do not understand this. But it is simple that for all of them it is so, only it is also understood that not all natures are equal. There are those for whom the opening is easy and there are those for whom the opening is difficult, just as in childbirth there are women who give birth easily and there are those who give birth with difficulty, and there is no difference except between much and little. But all of them have the sensation of the opening of the source at the start of their seeing, unless she has a sickness in the ligaments of the womb; when the ligaments have weakened, then it is possible that the blood exits without sensation. And just as with urine, when the bladder has weakened one urinates and does not feel, and for this one needs medicines to strengthen the ligaments as we have seen several times, so too regarding the seeing of blood. But in health, all of them have this sensation, and those who do not understand or whose nature is easy say that they feel only the flow of niddah blood, but in truth this is exactly this sensation.

And know that there are several of the great later authorities who innovated regarding this, saying that hargashah is neither the trembling of her body as everyone understood the opinion of the Rambam as we explained in section 59, nor the sensation of the opening of the mouth of the womb, but rather it is called hargashah when there is a sensation of the flow of something moist upon her flesh [Noda BiYehudah Kama Yoreh Deah siman 55 and Chasam Sofer beginning of siman 190 and Pardes Rimonim]. And behold, in truth, it is all one matter as we will explain with the help of Heaven; however, because it is a great fundamental in the laws of niddah, it is therefore necessary to bring the main points of their proofs and to respond to them, for the primary view is according to the words of our teachers, the early authorities.

There is one who brought proof: why does the Shas not raise a difficulty against Shmuel, who requires a sensation, from the Mishnah stating that blood found in the prozdor is impure in a case of doubt? And it should be difficult whichever way you look at it: if she felt a sensation, there is no doubt here; and if she did not feel a sensation, there is also no doubt, for she is pure according to the Torah. Rather, it is certain that a sensation is the flowing of a moist substance, and if so, it can be said that she felt the flowing of a moist substance and the doubt is whether it is from the mekor or from the aliyah [Noda BiYehudah there]. And behold, the great authorities have already rejected his words in several ways; however, according to what we explained in section 54, one should not investigate the sensation at all regarding blood found in the prozdor, because we say that the blood was already uprooted yesterday, and at that time there was a sensation and she forgot, and now a sensation is not required; see there, for we have proven this from the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory.

And there is one who brought a proof from the impurity of "twenty-four hours" at the beginning of Niddah, where we say there that the reason is that the walls of the womb held back the blood. And if you should think that sensation only occurs with the opening of the source, if so, it is difficult either way: if she senses that her source is opening now, how is it possible to say that this blood exited yesterday? And if she did not sense it, behold she is completely pure. Rather, certainly the flowing of a moist substance is called a sensation, and therefore it is possible that yesterday it was also flowing, only she thought that this was the sensation of urine [Chavat Da'at there]. And I wonder greatly at such words, for if so, there is a greater wonder, as there are many interpretations in the Gemara regarding the reason for "twenty-four hours" that the sages decreed for terumah and holy items, and one of them is due to the reason of sensation: for Shammai holds that since she did not sense it, she is pure, and Hillel holds that she thought it was the sensation of urine, see there. And if so, according to all the other interpretations, they do not hold of sensation at all? I am astonished. Rather, the clarification of the matter is as follows: that all the interpretations hold that by reason of sensation, one certainly cannot purify her, for perhaps there was a sensation yesterday and she forgot it, like the reasoning of the Tosafot that we wrote regarding stains. And even if there was a sensation during her seeing now, we fear lest there was also a sensation yesterday, for this is only a stringency that they applied to terumah and holy items. And the interpretation of sensation holds that they disagree regarding this itself: whether we fear that there was a sensation yesterday or not, see there in Rashi [starting with "sensing"].

And also the other proofs they brought are not proofs at all, and regarding the essence of the matter, I wonder at them, for if the hargashah is the flowing of a moist substance, it is understood by all that no pain is relevant to this, yet in the Gemara it explicitly says, "due to her pain she wakes up." Furthermore, what expression of hargashah is there in the flowing of a moist substance? And perhaps you will say that the hargashah is at the time of the beginning of their exit from the makor; indeed, it is so, and this is truly the opening of the mouth of the makor. And there are some among them who wanted to say that even if the hargashah was only in the prozdor it is called hargashah [Noda BiYehudah], and those of this opinion have already rejected his words as well, see there. And they themselves admitted that the hargashah must necessarily be in the makor, and if so, they admit that this is only at the beginning of the exit from the makor, for afterwards, once the blood is traveling, it is not relevant to call it hargashah in the makor, as is understood by any person of sense, just as with urine. And if so, when you examine it closely, even they themselves will be forced to admit that this is truly the opening of the mouth of the makor. And this is what we wrote in section 63, that it is all one thing. According to this, the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, stand, that hargashah is the opening of the mouth of the makor, and the Rambam also holds so as I have written, and such is the primary ruling in halachah.

At the beginning of Niddah, the sages decreed regarding a woman who saw blood that she renders terumah and holy items impure retroactively for a twenty-four hour period or from examination to examination, as the Rambam explained in chapter 9, law 3. This is his wording: And so too, by the words of the scribes, any woman who sees blood not at the time of her veset, and any woman who sees a stain, is impure retroactively for up to twenty-four hours; and if she examined herself within this time and found herself pure, she is impure retroactively until the time of the examination. And even though she is impure retroactively by their words, she does not render the one who had relations with her impure retroactively, and she does not count for her niddah status or for her stain except from the time that she saw the blood or the stain that she found, etc. One who sees blood at the time of her veset does not render items impure retroactively, but only from her time alone. And so too, a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, a virgin, and an elderly woman—their time is sufficient for them and they do not render items impure retroactively. Who is a pregnant woman? From when her fetus is recognizable, which is three months. A nursing woman is all twenty-four months, even if her son died or she weaned him or gave him to a wet-nurse. Thus far his words. And the fact that he did not write that the impurity is only for terumah and holy items is because he explained this in chapter 3 of Laws of Those Who Defile Couch and Seat, see there. However, if she found a stain, even if she has a veset and it was at the time of her veset, her stain is impure retroactively [for so we establish in the Gemara 4b in the second establishment, see there; but regarding the four women, even their stain does not render items impure retroactively, as the Rambam concludes there: a virgin, etc., an elderly woman, etc., a pregnant woman and a nursing woman—their stain is like their seeing, etc. Thus far his words, see there].

And know that in the third chapter of Laws of Those Who Defile Couch and Seat, law 8, the Rambam wrote that for all women whose time is sufficient for them, their ketam is like their seeing and they do not render them impure retroactively. Thus far his words. According to this, even regarding a woman who has a veset, at the time of her veset her ketam also would not render impure retroactively. Yet here he explicitly wrote only regarding the four women that their ketam is like their seeing, and not regarding a woman who has a veset. In the Gemara [5a], Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus and the Rabbis disagreed on this, for according to the Rabbis her ketam renders impure retroactively, see there. And it appears that the halacha follows the Rabbis, as the halacha follows the many against the individual, and this is as he ruled here. If so, his words contradict one another, and it requires great study. [And see there in the Gemara that Rabbi Chanina disagreed with Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Dosa with the Rabbis, and the Rabbis hold like Rabbi Meir; and it is possible that there his opinion is to rule like Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus against Rabbi Meir to be lenient regarding ketamim, but how did he rule here to the contrary?]