Siman 184

The majority of women have a fixed vest, such that at that time she sees blood, and the majority of them are from thirty days to thirty days. Upon the arrival of the time of their vest, they are obligated to examine themselves with the examination of a cloth, perhaps she will see blood upon the examination. There is a dispute in the Gemara [16a] whether vestot are de-oraita or de-rabbanan. That is to say, this examination that they required the woman to examine herself at the time of her vest: is it a matter of the Torah, a law given to Moses at Sinai, for "the way comes in its time," and if the day of her vest arrived and she did not examine herself, we hold her to be impure [Rashi 9a s.v. vestot], and even if she examined herself after the time of her vest and found herself pure [ibid. 16a and the Rosh at the beginning of Niddah], she is also impure, for she certainly saw; or are vestot de-rabbanan, and therefore if she examined herself and found herself pure afterward, she is pure, for from the Torah we do not say "the way comes in its time," and she is only obligated to be examined afterward, and if she is found impure she is impure, and if she is found pure she is pure [ibid.]. All the poskim, the earlier and the later, ruled that vestot are de-rabbanan [so ruled the Tosafot ibid. s.v. ve-Rav Nachman, and the Rosh ibid., and the Ran in the second chapter of Shevuot, and the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, and the Ra'ah ibid., and the Rambam in chapter 8 halakha 14, and the Ra'avad, and the Semag, and the Mordekhai, and so it is explicit in the Bahag and in the She'iltot parashat Metzora, and so ruled the Or Zarua HaGadol at the end of siman 355 and brought this in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel, see there].

It is further stated in the Gemara [63b]: "And you shall separate the children of Israel from their impurity" (Leviticus 15:31); from here Rabbi Yirmeya said: a warning to the children of Israel that they should separate from their wives near their veset. And how much? Rava said: an onah. And the reason this is expounded regarding the matter of a niddah is because it is adjacent to the verse "and she that is sick in her niddah" [Rashi]. The specific laws of separation and the duration of the onah will be explained ahead. And behold, seemingly, since it is expounded from a verse, it implies that it is from the Torah; however, our teachers did not write so. The Tosafot wrote in Yevamot [62b s.v. chayav] that according to the one who says vestot are rabbinic, if so, near her veset is also rabbinic. Thus far their words. And the Rashba wrote similarly in Torat HaBayit in the gate of vestot, and this is his wording: The sages made a fence for the matter and forbade that onah in which she is accustomed to see, and they supported it upon the verse as it is said, "And you shall separate," etc. Thus far his words. And the Ran wrote similarly in the second chapter of Shevuot, and this is his wording: For that which is required to separate one onah near her veset, even though the Gemara brings it from a verse, it is a mere asmachta, for we establish that vestot are rabbinic. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad [sic] wrote similarly, as the Rosh brought him in chapter 9, siman 27, and this is his wording: And some say since vestot are rabbinic, all the more so near her veset; see there that such is his opinion. And the She'iltot wrote similarly there, as he ruled vestot are rabbinic, and this is his wording: And they must be concerned, and she requires an examination, and if she did not examine she is pure, and if it is because of "And you shall separate," it is a mere asmachta. Thus far his words.

It must be understood how it is possible to say that vestatot are rabbinic and from the Torah we do not concern ourselves with it; for behold, the majority of women see at the time of their vest, and every woman is established in the presumption that she will see at the time of the vest, and how can we not concern ourselves from the Torah with a majority and a presumption? And one cannot say that we establish her in a presumption of purity because of the time prior to the vest, for you have no presumption more prone to change than this. And behold, a minor who has reached the completion of her years, we say there is a presumption that she brought signs, and only by rabbinic decree do we concern ourselves regarding chalitzah until she is examined [Niddah 46a]. And at the end of Kiddushin we say that on the day that completes six years she does not have a presumption of na'arut, see there; and all the more so in a case such as this. And I saw that there is one who wishes to say it is because the presumption of the vest is prone to change in the days of her old age [Chavat Da'at end of siman 183], and these are astonishing words, for what is the relevance of the days of her old age to the days of her youth? And the Tosafot at the beginning of Gittin wrote explicitly that a niddah is called "established in a state of prohibition" only after her seven days of niddut have passed, and when it is in her power to immerse it is not called "established in a state of prohibition," but regarding the time of her niddut, it is obvious that it is called "established in a state of prohibition."

And the reason must be that the primary dispute regarding whether vestot are from the Torah or from the Rabbis was stated in the Gemara concerning the time afterward—if she examined herself and found she was tahora, we establish her status based on her presumption of tahora if vestot are from the Rabbis, as I wrote in section 1. And in this, there is certainly no concern from the Torah since she did not experience a sensation, and from the Torah she is not temea without a sensation. Only the one who holds that vestot are from the Torah holds that we say she certainly saw with a sensation in the manner of women and did not notice. But we rule that vestot are from the Rabbis, and from the Torah one need not fear that perhaps she experienced a sensation and did not notice. Since she did not experience a sensation, and also after the time of the vest she examined herself and found she was tahora, she is certainly tahora; it is only from the Rabbis that they were concerned for the time of the vest even when she did not experience a sensation. [And with this, what Rashi and the Rosh wrote is understood, that according to the one who holds vestot are from the Torah, this is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai, as I wrote in section 1. And seemingly, why is this Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai necessary? Rather, it is because she did not experience a sensation; therefore the Halacha was stated that she certainly experienced a sensation and did not notice. But we do not rule accordingly. And look closely at this]:

But if so, this would be well when the time of the vest passed and she did not feel, but before the time of the vest, why should we not be concerned from the Torah that when the time of the vest arrives she will feel and see in her usual manner, because she is established in this and it constitutes a majority and a presumption? And according to this, the prohibition of the period adjacent to her vest is from the Torah. And granted that it is possible that from the Torah one need not be concerned for an entire ona before the vest, but regarding the time of the vest itself, it certainly appears that it is from the Torah.

And behold, even in the generations before us, one great authority innovated to say that even though vestot are rabbinic, nevertheless, the time near her vest is from the Torah for another reason: for after the vest we say that she did not see because we establish her on her chazakah, but before the vest, where we concern ourselves that perhaps she will see, in this we do not remove her now from her previous chazakah. This is like what we say in Gittin [28a]: we do not concern ourselves "perhaps he died," but we do concern ourselves "perhaps he will die," see there [Noda BiYehudah, siman 55]. And behold, besides the fact that the entire foundation of the reason for vestot—that they did not concern themselves with them from the Torah—is due to the reason of chazakah, and we have already clarified that she has no chazakah, but on the contrary, she is established as one who sees at the time of her vest; and also, "perhaps she will see" is not similar to "perhaps he will die," for there it is necessarily so, as the end of man is to die, but "perhaps she will see" is not a necessity, for perhaps her blood will be completely restrained, or she will become pregnant, or perhaps she has already conceived and her blood is removed, and so too with everything similar to this, and there is no comparison between them [and the Pardes Rimmonim in the introduction at the end of letter 7 rejected his words for another reason: for there in Gittin one must be precise that we concern ourselves "perhaps he will die" and we cast aside his chazakah of being alive because we do not remove him now from his chazakah, but nevertheless, how do we forbid her from eating terumah and nullify her current chazakah of permissibility? And one must say that since he wrote the get, her chazakah of permissibility was weakened, and here this is not applicable, as is understood, and there is room to deliberate on this; but according to what I wrote, this is not necessary, and examine it closely]:

But in truth, all of this is unnecessary, for there is no presumption of permissibility here at all; on the contrary, at the time of her veset, she is under a presumption of prohibition. It is only after the veset that one could say that since she did not feel a sensation, she is permitted by Torah law. However, prior to the veset, it is obvious that even by Torah law one must be concerned for the time of the veset, lest she feel a sensation and see blood. And it appears to me in my humble opinion that this is indeed the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, for in chapter 8 he ruled that vesetot are rabbinic, yet in chapter 4, law 12, he wrote: And it is forbidden for a man to come upon his wife near her veset, lest she see blood during the time of tashmish, as it is said, "And you shall separate the children of Israel," etc. Thus far his words. It is known his holy way that regarding a matter which is rabbinic, he explains explicitly that it is from their words; and since he did not explain so, hear from it that he holds that it is a complete derasha. The reason is as we have explained. And also in the opinion of the Behag it appears so, for he cited this derasha and did not write that it is a mere asmakhta as the She'iltot wrote.

And so it appears to me that this is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam in Yevamot [62b] regarding that which the sages, of blessed memory, said, that one who goes out on a journey must visit his wife even when it is near her vest. Rabbeinu Tam wrote that this is not with tashmish but rather with pleasing words; see there in Tosafot [s.v. Chayav] who wrote in his name: And in Shevuot it is proven that near her vest is from the Torah, from "And you shall separate," etc. Thus far his words. And afterwards the Tosafot wrote: And if so, even according to the one who says vestot are rabbinic, and if so, near her vest is also rabbinic, nevertheless why should it be permitted, etc. Thus far their words. And the commentators understood that this is all from the words of Rabbeinu Tam, but in my humble opinion it is clear that it is not so, for Rabbeinu Tam holds that near her vest is from the Torah according to everyone, even the one who holds vestot are rabbinic. However, the Tosafot on their own, following their system that this is rabbinic, wrote that nevertheless the ruling of Rabbeinu Tam is true, that even if it were rabbinic, why would we permit it in this case. For according to the words of the commentators, one must say that what was written previously, that near her vest is from the Torah, is according to the one who holds vestot are from the Torah; and besides the fact that the language does not imply this, how is it possible to say that he would bring a proof for the law from one whose opinion is not the halakha? And there is a clear proof for this from the words of the great Or Zarua, siman 358, who brought the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam that it is forbidden in tashmish, and wrote, this is his wording: Firstly, from Shevuot it is proven that near her vest is from the Torah, etc. And furthermore, it says "and these words apply to a voluntary matter," and would we uproot "And you shall separate the children of Israel" for the sake of a voluntary matter? On the contrary, let the voluntary matter be set aside, etc., and let these two verses be fulfilled, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he did not mention that it is rabbinic according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam.

It also appears to me that the opinion of the Rosh is so, for he wrote explicitly in Yevamot, chapter 6, siman 10, and this is his wording: And this "visitation" is impossible to be through intercourse, for near her veset one is obligated to separate by Torah law, and how could they permit etc. Thus far his words. And I saw that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, understood that the Rosh holds that it is rabbinic because of his words in Niddah, chapter 9, siman 27, and he wondered at his words in Yevamot. And several of the great ones pressed themselves to reconcile the words of the Rosh in Yevamot so that they would agree with his words in Niddah there. And I wonder greatly at this, for his words in Niddah there are not his words at all, but rather the words of the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, as I wrote in section 2, and the Rosh brought his words there for another matter and it does not touch upon the essence of this law at all. And in Yevamot is his primary opinion. And also in the Tur there is no hint that this is rabbinic; on the contrary, since he agrees with the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, it implies that he holds like him. And if so, according to what we have explained, it is a dispute of the authorities in this law whether near her veset is by Torah law or rabbinic. And we explained that the words of those who hold it is rabbinic are not understood—why should we not be concerned by Torah law in a matter where there is a majority and a chazakah? And should we say that they too admit that at the actual time of the veset it is forbidden by Torah law, and that which they wrote that it is rabbinic refers to the duration of the onah—this is not implied. Furthermore, there are those who wrote explicitly that even at the time of the veset it is permitted by Torah law [as the Rashba wrote in Torat HaBayit in the name of the Ra'avad, see there].

And know that I have seen in the Ra'ah in the book Bedek HaBayit regarding the laws of vestot strange matters on this subject, and this is his wording there: This verse of "And you shall separate" refers to this onah before her veset, and according to the one who says vestot are rabbinic, the prohibition of this onah before her veset is rabbinic, and the verse refers to the prohibition of the onah after her veset even though she did not see [blood], and this is why the sages permitted one who sets out on a journey to visit his wife, and presumably this implies even through intercourse, and because this onah before her veset is rabbinic, the sages permitted it for one who sets out, etc. Thus far his words. And the Rashba in Mishmeret HaBayit there wrote concerning him that he erred in this, and he did not explain his words; see there.

And in truth, it is not understood how after the vest should be more stringent than before, at the actual time of the vest; on the contrary, it is explained in the Gemara that if she checked after the vest and found herself tahora, she is completely tahora, even rabbinically, as will be explained in this siman. And particularly according to the reason we explained, it is much more stringent before the vest than after the vest, for after the vest there is a leniency from the fact that she did not feel a sensation, which is not the case before the vest, as I have written.

It appears to me regarding his opinion and the opinion of all our teachers who hold that near her vest is permitted by Torah law, that the matter is as follows: certainly there is a majority and a presumption toward prohibition, and nevertheless there is no concern for this by Torah law. For behold, the Torah trusted every woman regarding her days of niddah and her days of purity, and if so, in any case it is permitted for him to come upon her; for if she feels, will she not tell him and he will withdraw? And if she does not feel, she is permitted to him. And that we should suspect perhaps at the time of cohabitation she will feel, one need not suspect this beforehand by Torah law. And in truth, if it should be so, he would be liable for a sin offering, as is stated in the second chapter of Shevuot, for the Rishonim already explained there that even if by Torah law one need not withdraw near her vest, nevertheless he is not called "under duress" but rather "unintentional" and is liable for a sin offering. And he is also not called "intentional," since by Torah law one need not be concerned for the slight moment during cohabitation. It follows that what our teachers wrote, that it is rabbinic, is not because by Torah law she is presumed to be pure, for certainly it is not so; rather, the reason is that as long as she does not feel, it is permitted for him to come upon her, and if she feels beforehand she will tell him and he will withdraw. And that we should suspect that through the act of cohabitation the feeling will be aroused, we do not suspect this by Torah law, even if by rabbinic law there is a concern for this. And that we should suspect that in the middle of cohabitation she will see, one need not suspect by Torah law for a slight moment, and if perhaps it should be so, they will be considered as unintentional and bring a sin offering.

And this is what appears to me regarding the opinion of our teachers; and even though there is a concern that he might come upon her while she is sleeping, this is not common, and it is impossible that she would not wake slightly from her sleep. And that which was stated in the Gemara, that when she is under the presumption of purity he is permitted to come upon her while she is sleeping, our teachers also explained that it does not mean literally sleeping, and it will be explained with the help of Heaven in this siman. Therefore, the opinion of the Ra'ah is also thus, except that he holds that all of this is before the time of the veset and the hour of the veset; but after the time of the veset, there is a concern even from the Torah that perhaps she already felt it at the time of the veset and was unaware. And just as we wrote this reasoning according to the one who holds that vestot are from the Torah, so too he holds regarding after the time of the veset according to everyone.

The Tur wrote: Most women have vestot to see at a known time, each according to her time, and the standard vest is from thirty days to thirty days. Thus far his words. That is to say, if she did not establish a vest for herself and saw only one time, then presumably she will not see until thirty days, according to the way of most women. And he may have relations with her until the thirtieth day, according to the law of one who has a fixed vest, for he may have relations with her not during the time of her vest [Bach and Shach subsection 2]. And she does not require a bedikah within the thirty days [Sidrei Taharah and Chavat Da'at]. And that which will be explained, that a woman who does not have a vest always requires a bedikah, this is when she has been established as not having a vest, and not at the beginning of her seeing [ibid.]. And so is the primary law, not like the one who disagrees on this [see Kreiti U'Pleiti].

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1: Most women have vestot to see at a known time, such as from twenty to twenty days or from thirty to thirty days. Thus far his words. And it is not understood why he specified these two vestot; for it is well understood regarding from thirty to thirty, as this is the standard vest as the Tur wrote, but regarding from twenty to twenty, what is he coming to teach us? It is obvious that if she established a vest for herself for twenty days, that this is her established vest, and the same applies to less or more. And it is true that in the Gemara [9b] there is one who said that a standard vest is from twenty to twenty, and one who said from thirty to thirty, but we conclude there that they do not disagree, and everyone holds that a standard vest is from thirty to thirty, and the one who says from twenty to twenty intends to exclude the days of impurity—seven days of niddah and three days of zivah—see there. And in truth, in his great work he enumerates many, from fifteen to fifteen and from twenty-five to twenty-five, see there; so why did he specify here in the Shulchan Aruch only from twenty to twenty?

And it appears to me that he informed us of a great matter in this, that with less than twenty days she does not establish a veset. For behold, we maintain [39a] that a woman does not establish a veset for herself during her days of zivah, and so wrote the Rambam in chapter 8. Therefore, the Rashba wrote in Torat HaBayit that she does not establish a veset for herself from fifteen to fifteen, see there. And until the nineteenth day from her seeing, the days of zivah continue—seven days of niddah and eleven days of zivah. And this is why he was precise that only from twenty to twenty does she establish a veset, and the same applies from nineteen to nineteen, but he took the whole number and was not concerned about one day. However, his primary intention was that until nineteen days she does not establish a veset. And how is the law if she sees from fifteen to fifteen or from eighteen to eighteen? The Ra'avad in the book Ba'al HaNefesh and the Ba'al HaMaor disagreed on this, and it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 189, for there is its primary place.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote that a woman who has a fixed veset may have relations with her husband not at the time of her veset, and she does not require a bedikah before relations; furthermore, she should not be stringent upon herself to check herself, neither before relations nor after relations, so that his heart should not knock him and he withdraw. However, not at the time of relations, anyone who increases bedikot is praiseworthy. Thus far their words. And that which they wrote previously regarding only before relations is because, according to the opinion of the Rambam, even one who has a fixed veset must check after relations, and most of the poskim disagree with him, as will be explained in siman 186, and there several detailed laws regarding this will be explained with the help of Heaven.

This is the wording of the Tur: And any woman who has a fixed veset, he may come upon her not at the time of her veset as he desires, and she does not require a bedikah; on the contrary, she should not perform a bedikah before tashmish so that his heart will not strike him and he will withdraw. However, anyone who increases bedikot not at the time of tashmish, this is praiseworthy. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, "he may come upon her etc. as he desires," the commentators explained that his intention is whether she is awake or asleep [Bach and Taz, subsection 1], and as he wrote at the end of the siman regarding one who arrives from a journey. But in my humble opinion it is not so, for if so, he should have explained it as he explained it there; furthermore, here there is no novelty in this, and also the language does not imply such. And it appears to me that his intention is as he wrote with similar language to this in Even HaEzer siman 25, for there he explained that at the time of the onah there is an obligation upon him, and not at the time of the onah there is no obligation, and nevertheless he may come at any time he desires, see there. And here too he comes to teach us, lest you say that since the primary reason she should not perform a bedikah is so that his heart will not strike him and he will withdraw, and I would have said that this is only at the time of the onah, but not at the time of her onah what do we care if he withdraws? For this he comes to teach us that he may come upon her as he desires, meaning even not at the time of her onah, and nevertheless she should not be stringent and perform a bedikah so that his heart will not strike him and he will withdraw.

And that which he was precise to say, "she should not check before tashmish," implies ostensibly that after tashmish she should check, like the opinion of the Rambam. And if so, why did he conclude, "but anyone who checks frequently not at the time of tashmish, this is praiseworthy"? Behold, according to the opinion of the Rambam, she requires a bedikah even at the time of tashmish, after the tashmish. Rather, certainly he does not hold like the Rambam. And if so, why did he only say "before tashmish"? And some say that he spoke as a "rabbuta," that even before tashmish she should not check, and all the more so after tashmish [Bach, and so it is implied from Darkhei Moshe, ot 1]. And in my humble opinion it is not so; for while it is true that there are some of the Rishonim who hold so, that what they said in the Gemara, "she shall not check lest his heart smite him and he separate," refers to after tashmish, so that he will not separate another time, but before tashmish it is a mitzvah to check [Hagahot Maimoniot chapter 4 in the name of Rash and Or Zarua as written in Darkhei Moshe there]; however, the Tosafot did not explain it so [Yevamot s.v. "ba'ei"], and also the opinion of the Rambam is not so. And it seems to me that the measure of his words is thus: that first he wrote "and she does not need a bedikah," meaning neither before tashmish nor after tashmish, and not like the opinion of the Rambam, and this is according to the law. And afterwards he says, "and on the contrary, she should not check before tashmish," meaning that on the contrary, even if she wishes to be stringent, we do not allow her to be stringent before tashmish, lest his heart smite him and he separate now. But after tashmish, when she wishes to check, we allow her, for behold, this is the opinion of the Rambam according to the law. And afterwards he says that not at the time of tashmish, one who checks frequently, this is praiseworthy.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that at the time of her vest, he must separate from her for one onah; if it is during the day, he separates from her that entire day, even if the vest is at the end of the day, and she is permitted immediately on the night following it. And if the vest is at the beginning of the day, it is forbidden all that day and permitted on the night before it, even close to daybreak. And such is the law if the vest is at night: she is forbidden all that night and permitted at the end of the day before it, even if the vest is at the beginning of the night; and similarly, she is permitted on the day following it, even if the vest is at the end of the night. For thus our sages, of blessed memory, received: that the time of the vest is one onah, day or night, for this entire onah is prone to seeing blood, and it does not depend on the length of the day and the night or the shortness of the day and the night. And even though we find in Niddah [65b] regarding the blood of virginity and in the thirteen [years] that it also depends on one onah, and it is explained there that it is twelve hours, see there, nevertheless here it is impossible to say so; for if so, when she sees at midday, she would necessarily be forbidden also at night, either before it or after it, and in the Gemara [63b] it is explicitly explained to the contrary [Taz, subsection 2]. Rather, certainly here the tradition came that it depends only on the day or the night, whether short or long. Sometimes it will be more than twelve hours, such as in the days of Tammuz when she sees at the beginning of the day, or in the nights of Tevet when she sees at the beginning of the night; and sometimes it will be only a very minimal time, when she sees at the end of the day or at the end of the night. And some say that we require twelve hours, and some say that also the onah before the vest is forbidden, but their words were rejected [see the Beit Yosef and the Minchat Yaakov there who cited the opinion of the Or Zarua to require twelve hours and the opinion of the Agudah regarding a full twenty-four hour period, and the Shach, subsection 7, exerted himself to uphold their words with forced arguments, but all the great later authorities, the Minchat Yaakov, the Sidrei Taharah, and the Chavot Daat agreed with the Beit Yosef and the Taz, and such is the primary ruling].

Regarding the prohibition of the period adjacent to her vestes, there is no difference between a vestes established by one occurrence and one established three times. This prohibition of the season adjacent to her vestes applies only to actual tashmish, but other types of closeness are permitted. There is one who wishes to prohibit even hugging and kissing, but this is not the primary view, and one who is stringent, a blessing shall come upon him [Shach subsection 6, and so wrote the Acharonim]. Similarly, the prohibition of the period adjacent to her vestes applies only to an adult woman, meaning one who has reached the days of her girlhood and has produced signs, for then her time to see has arrived. However, with a minor who has not reached her years, or even if she reached them but did not produce signs, there is no need to separate adjacent to her vestes as long as she has not established it three times. Likewise, with an elderly woman whose blood has ceased and she subsequently saw, there is no need to separate adjacent to her vestes when she has not established it three times. Some say that even during the time of her actual vestes there is no need to separate [Taz subsection 6], and some say that during the time of her actual vestes one must separate [Shach subsection 20]. The primary view is like the first opinion [see Chavat Da'at subsection 11 and Minchat Yaakov in Torat HaShelamim; and the Perisha in subsection 2 sought to press the words of the Rosh, but it does not appear so, see there and examine carefully].

And so too, separation close to the vest is only regarding a vest of days; however, regarding a vest that depends on a bodily change, such as if her way is to see at the time she yawns or sneezes and all such cases, and she feels the change some time beforehand, she does not need to separate close to her vest, but rather only at the time of the vest itself. And if the vest depends on days and a bodily change, such as if on every Rosh Chodesh if she yawns her vest will arrive, but not on another day, and similarly on Rosh Chodesh without a yawn her vest will not arrive, she must separate the entire period according to the law of a vest of days alone [as is implied from Shach, subsection 8]. And some say that even in such a case she does not need to separate except at the time of the vest itself, since it depends also on a bodily change [Taz in siman 189, subsection 39]. And even though after the time of the vest its law is like days alone, as will be explained in siman 189, nevertheless before the vest there is no concern, just as with a bodily change alone, for it is not her way to see on this day without the bodily change. And in siman 189 more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven; see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of section 2 that a woman who changes her veset to precede by two or three days or to delay, when the time of her veset arrives, one must separate from her two or three days before or after. Thus far his words. And there is one who wrote regarding his intention that what he wrote—that one must separate two or three days—the intention is not that one must separate all three days, for it has already been explained in siman 189 that we follow only the beginning of the veset; rather, the intention concerns the matter of separation near the veset, that she must be concerned and separate also before the veset that she changed [Shach siman 189, siff katan 39]. But it is impossible to say so, for if so, what is he teaching us? This is an explicit Mishnah [63b] and was explained in siman 189. Rather, this is the explanation, as the Ra'avad wrote in the book Ba'al HaNefesh, and this is his wording: Because it is the common occurrence among women to change their veset by two or three days, and sometimes she distances and sometimes she brings it closer and they return to their place; and since this is so, it is not proper to consider all the days of the veset as secondary to the beginning of the veset, for perhaps the days that are now within the days of the veset were already the beginning of the veset, and even though they are now in the middle of the veset, they have not lost their initial status; therefore, she requires uprooting three times for all the days of the veset. Thus far his words. And these are the very words of our teacher, the Rema [see Chavat Da'at]. And it is not similar to siman 189 at the end of section 13, for there the beginning of the veset is clear; see there.

And according to this, the primary novelty of this law is that even though we maintain that when she changed the time of her veset twice and on the third time returned to her original status, we completely nullify the two previous sightings, as is written in siman 189—this is when the times are distant from each other by many days. However, regarding a day or two adjacent to the first veset, we do not consider this a change, and the third time we do not consider that she returned to her original status; rather, it is all one veset. All three days, sometimes she begins from the first, sometimes from the second, and sometimes from the third, because such is the way of women. And that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that she must separate two or three days before or after it, the intention is not before all the sightings; rather, this is the explanation: that if she delayed the second time to the second day and the third time to the third day, nevertheless, she must separate even on the third time from the first day. And so too, when she preceded by a day or two days earlier, she must separate even when she preceded by two days the two days that follow it. And even if on the third time she saw according to the previous veset, this is not an uprooting of the first two vesetot; rather, it is one veset because such is the way of women. [And the Pri De'ah in subsection 9 wrote at length to reject the words of the Chavot Da'at from the wording of the Rema and from siman 189, where we maintain that when she changed twice and afterwards on the third time she had the previous veset, the two previous vesetot are nullified, see there. And according to what I have written, there is no difficulty at all, for with proximity of days we do not say so, because such is the way of women. And also the wording of the Rema we have settled in its place, and the matters are clear with the help of Heaven; and delve into it].

And know that the words of the Ra'avad that we brought, the intention is that she saw during the change two days or three before or after it, and all three days she saw, as is clear from his words that we brought. But in the words of our teacher, the Rema, there is no necessity for this, as it can be said that during the change she saw only one day. And indeed, there are some of the great authorities who explained his words in this manner, meaning that this woman has a veset every month, but for twenty-seven days she is always tahorah, and afterwards sometimes she sees on the twenty-eighth, sometimes on the twenty-ninth, and sometimes on the thirtieth day. And we say that this is not a change, but rather that such is her way, and it turns out that all three days are the time of her veset, and therefore she must always separate during all of them [Kereti U-Peleti and Noda Bi-Yehudah siman 46]. And certainly this too is true, and the reason is as we explained, that on days close to one another it is not called a change [and the Chavot Da'at there lengthily contradicted the words of the Noda Bi-Yehudah, and I do not know why, for this is also according to the explanation of the Chavot Da'at, except that he explained that she saw all three days and they explained that she saw only one day, but the reason is one according to our words. And one should not raise a difficulty to our words from that which is explained in Niddah [64a], that even on adjacent days it is a change, as it says there: she was accustomed to seeing on the fifteenth day and she changed to the sixteenth etc. and she changed to the seventeenth, see there; this is certainly so if it only happened by chance and this day remained afterwards as a fixed pattern, it is a change and we say that her veset has changed. But when such is always her way, sometimes on the fifteenth, sometimes on the sixteenth, and sometimes on the seventeenth, it is all called one veset because such is the way of women according to the reasoning of the Ra'avad. And therefore in the Mishnah there, it distances the change from the fifteenth to the twentieth, and likewise in the Baraita there from the twentieth to the thirtieth, see there, for in such a case in every instance it is called a change, as appears to me].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 4: If she is accustomed to seeing at sunrise and it is not well established for her whether it was before sunrise or after it, she is only forbidden during the day. Thus far their words. And the reason is that until sunrise we maintain her status of purity, but during the day she is certainly impure. And the same law applies if she saw during twilight, she is only forbidden during the night for this reason [Shach, subsection 13]. And there are those who are stringent to forbid due to the doubt in both periods, but since vestot are rabbinic, one should not be so stringent, and so the Acharonim wrote. However, they wrote that our women are not so expert in recognizing the fixed hour that they see, and consequently, if it is at the beginning of the day or the beginning of the night, they are forbidden also from one period prior [Atzei Levonah], for their doubt is due to a lack of their knowledge to be precise regarding the fixed hour. And any doubt that is due to a lack of knowledge is not considered a doubt, as is explained in the rules of double doubt in siman 110 [it appears to me].

And know that one must understand that which is common in the language of the Shas and the poskim regarding the matter of vestot, "before sunrise" and "after sunrise." For behold, we maintain that for all matters it is called day from amud hashachar. One must say that it is because the seeing of the vest depends on the sun; but if so, it should have also said in the evening "before sunset" and "after sunset," and they did not write so. In the Gemara and in the poskim, the language of bein hashemashot is common, and this is after sunset before actual night, just as for all matters. There is one who says that in truth the intention of the poskim is regarding before sunset [Chavat Da'at subsection 5 and see Peri Radikal], but it does not imply so. In the entire tractate of Niddah, when the Shas says bein hashemashot, it is literally before night, for in the Shas it is regarding the distinction between niddah and zavah, and also the Shas [53a] is precise between the bein hashemashot of Rabbi Yehuda and the bein hashemashot of Rabbi Yossi, see there. And in truth, in the Mishnah and Gemara the language of sunrise was not mentioned except according to the one who maintains that vestot depend on hours, as we learned in the Mishnah [63b]: Rabbi Yossi says, even days and hours are vestot; if she was accustomed to seeing with the sunrise, see there. And Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the vest depends on the onah and not on the hour—and so we maintain—we say in truth in the Gemara there: she is accustomed to seeing at the end of the night, she is accustomed to seeing at the beginning of the day, see there; and this is from amud hashachar [and this is the intention of Rashi in the Mishnah there, s.v. Rabbi Yehuda, see there and examine it carefully]. Also in the Rambam this language of sunrise is not found, and only the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, in the book Ba'al HaNefesh wrote this language in these laws, and his words were written by the Rosh and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in this siman, section 4 and section 5. Therefore, it appears to me to say that the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, adopted the habit of the language of the Mishnah, and the intention is regarding the beginning of the day from amud hashachar. And they wrote the language of sunrise as the Rosh wrote in the first chapter of Berakhot, siman 9, regarding the matter of Kriat Shema. This is his wording: In the language of the world, it is called night before the sunrise, see there. And also the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah wrote there, and this is their wording: Because the essence of the day is only from the sunrise, etc. And for the halacha, one should be stringent in both directions.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch further wrote in section 5: If she is accustomed to seeing a flow from before sunrise until after sunrise, she is forbidden during the night and during the day for the duration that it extends. Thus far their words. And the reason is that since she certainly saw at the end of the night, we follow the beginning of the veset and we say that the essence of the veset is at night, except that its time extends further into a portion of the day, and therefore she is also forbidden during that portion of the day [Taz, subsection 8]. And likewise, if she is accustomed to seeing from before nightfall and it extends also into the night, she is forbidden the entire day and also during that portion of the night according to the time that it extends into it (Shach, subsection 15; and what he wrote to be even more stringent according to what he wrote in subsection 7, we have already explained in section 2 that the primary view there is like the Taz).

He further wrote that if the veset extends for two or three days, whether she flows or drips, she only needs to separate during the first onah of the veset, and once the onah has passed and she has not seen, she is permitted. Thus far his words. And it is not similar to the previous law where she is forbidden also during the second onah according to the duration that it extends, for there it is a small matter and is considered like the veset itself; but here, it is impossible for it to be a single seeing for all two or three days, but rather they are additional bloods, and once the primary seeing has departed, the addition has also departed [Shiftei Da'at subsection 16]. And furthermore, in truth, even in the previous law it is only a mere stringency, as is proven from the words of the Tur, see there. And in truth, many hold even there that the prohibition is only at night, and only the Ra'avad was stringent in this; and since it is a short time, we are not concerned for it, whereas here, which is a long time, we establish it upon the essential law [as mentioned above, and the hesitation of the Taz in subsection 70 is settled, regarding from where he knows to make such a distinction, see there].

And know that regarding this law, that one need only be concerned for the beginning of the veset, it is not agreed upon by all the poskim. The Tur wrote in the name of the Ramban, and this is his wording: And so wrote the Ramban, that she must be concerned for all the days of the duration of the veset, for each and every day is a veset unto itself; and even if the first day was uprooted, she is concerned for the remaining days until they are all uprooted. And the Re'zer HaLevi wrote that she need only separate for the first onah of the veset, and once the onah has passed and she did not see, she is permitted; and to this my father, our teacher, the Rosh, of blessed memory, agreed. Thus far his words. And so it is in the Shulchan Aruch as I have written, not according to the opinion of the Ramban, of blessed memory, and so we establish the law.

And with this it is answered why the great later authorities [Shach subsection 40 and Chavat Daat subsection 7] raised a clamor regarding the law that was explained, that when the vestet extends for several days, she only needs to separate for the first onah. For behold, the Tur wrote in siman 189 in the name of the Ramban that although according to the law a woman does not establish a vestet for herself during the days of zivah, nevertheless, nowadays she does establish one because we are not experts in distinguishing between the days of niddah and the days of zivah, and between impure blood and pure blood, and all of our women are like those who are mistaken and she must be concerned for each and every blood from the duration of the days of the vestet; and we are concerned lest during the first it was pure blood or during the days of zivah, and the second is impure blood and during the days of niddah, and likewise with the third and the fourth, and she must be concerned for all the days of the vestet. And if so, how did they write now as the law that one need only be concerned for the beginning of the vestet? This is the essence of their difficulty; see there.

However, it is not so; for while it is certainly true that in this time a woman establishes a vest even during her zivah days because they are like those who are mistaken, nevertheless, that which the Ramban wrote—that she must be concerned for all the days of the vest—is not for this reason. For even according to the one who holds that a woman establishes a vest for herself during her zivah days, she nonetheless does not establish it from an open fountain, as is explained in the Gemara. And since she sees for ten or three days that it flows or drips, you have no greater open fountain than this. Rather, the Ramban does not say so for this reason, but because he follows his own reasoning that one must be concerned for the entire duration of the vest, as he wrote. And since we do not rule accordingly, it follows that in this law as well one need not be concerned for all the days. You should know that this is so, for most of our women, when the time of the vest arrives, see for three, four, or five days a little each day, and everyone is accustomed to practice perishah close to her vest; once the day of the vest passes, they are again permitted to their husbands. According to the words of the great authorities, we would have to wait five days sometimes, and according to the Ramban, it truly must be so. However, we do not practice so, because we rule that one only needs to be concerned for the beginning of the vest [Pardes Rimonim, subsection 47, and his words are correct; the great authorities lengthily discussed this in vain and multiplied difficulties because they made these dependent on one another, but it is not so; and examine this carefully].

If her vestah arrived during the days of her pregnancy once her fetus is recognizable—which is three months—or during the days of her nursing—which are twenty-four months from when the child is born, even if she gave her son to a wet nurse or the child died—she does not need to separate near her vestah, and even during her vestah they are permitted without a bedikah, for they are under the presumption of being removed from blood. However, if she saw one time during the days of her pregnancy or during the days of her nursing, she must be concerned. And some say specifically with three times, but it is not the primary view; rather, even with one time she must be concerned, as will be explained in siman 189, and so the Acharonim agreed. And know that in Even HaEzer siman 13 there is a dispute whether the intercalated month is included in the twenty-four months or not, and apparently here too it is so. And some say that here all agree that it is not included, for since the reason she is removed from blood during the days of her nursing is because her limbs are disjointed until twenty-four months, as our sages of blessed memory wrote, if so, beyond this measure she is not disjointed, and what relevance does the intercalated year have here [Kereiti U'Pleiti].

The sages taught in the Mishnah [39a]: Rabbi Meir says, if she was in a hiding place because of bandits or a siege [Rashi], and the time of her veset arrived and she did not examine herself, she is tahorah because trembling causes the blood to depart. This is the wording of the Tur: A woman who was hiding in a hiding place due to fear, and her veset arrived, she must be concerned for it even if she did not have a kavua veset; if the day passed and she did not examine herself, she is permitted because trembling causes the blood to depart. Thus far his words. And he thus inferred from the language of the Mishnah that only ex post facto is she tahorah, but initially she requires an examination like all women who require an examination at the time of their veset, even for a veset that is not kavua. And they questioned him, for in the Gemara [9a] a pregnant woman is compared to one who was in a hiding place, and if so, why does a pregnant woman not require an examination initially while here it is only ex post facto? And they answered that the Tur holds that they are not comparable, for a pregnant woman is in a status of total departure of blood, as we see that their blood has departed; but in a hiding place it is not so clear to us, for we see many women who, even though they were in a hiding place, did not change their manner [Beit Yosef and Shach subsection 21; and see Bach who wrote that the Tur had a different version of the text in the Gemara; and see Taz subsection 12 who wrote that the Tur's reason is that perhaps at the time she attends to her husband the fear will pass, see there. And the later authorities have already found difficulty with his words, and to me it is difficult, for at the end of Niddah it distinguishes between fear and terror, and so it is in Sotah 20b, and fear is for a long duration, so how can we be concerned for this].

And I am greatly astonished by these words, to say the opposite of the reasoning of the Shas, for the Shas likens them and we should differentiate? And if it is because there are those who even in hiding did not change their function, is it not so that even regarding pregnant women there are such cases? Rather, they spoke regarding the majority. And regarding the essence of their difficulty with the Tur, I do not understand, for in truth, for one who is precise with the wording of the Tur, even regarding a pregnant woman he holds it is only ex post facto. This is his wording there previously: And if her vest reached during the days of her pregnancy etc. she does not need to separate near her vest, and similarly after the vest she is permitted even though she did not perform a bedikah. Thus far his words. Behold, he explicitly wrote the language of ex post facto. And in the Gemara there, which says regarding both of them that they do not require a bedikah, that means ex post facto, meaning that the bedikah is not a prerequisite, as is proven from the wording of the Mishnah. And this is the opinion of the Tur. And it seems to me that the custom among women is also thus, that they perform a bedikah even during the days of their pregnancy until they are established in the cessation of the vest, and similarly in the beginning of the days of their nursing.

And more than this, I wonder at the poskim who did not note that in the Rambam this law is not found at all—neither the law of "she was in a hidden place" nor the law of a pregnant or nursing woman who does not require a bedika at the time of her vest. And it is clear that his reason is that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Meir, as he wrote in the commentary on the Mishnah, and so wrote the Bartenura; see there. And since in the Gemara they derived the law of a pregnant woman from "a hidden place," it follows that in this as well the halacha does not follow him. According to this, in his opinion, all of them require a bedika at the time of their vest.

The opinion of the Rashba is the exact opposite of the opinion of the Rambam, for he holds that the fact that according to R. Meir she requires an examination ab initio is because he holds that vestot are from the Torah, as is found in the Gemara [16a]. However, for us, who hold that vestot are rabbinic, even ab initio she does not require an examination. He holds that the halacha follows R. Meir since the Amoraim discussed according to his view, and also we do not find explicitly in the Mishnah anyone who explicitly disagrees with him; see there. This is the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8, who wrote: If she was hiding in a hiding place due to fear and the time of her veset arrived, she does not concern herself with it. Thus far his words. And even ab initio, as he wrote in his great work. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And some say specifically if the veset passed and she did not examine herself and did not feel anything, she is tahora without an examination, but ab initio she requires an examination. Thus far his words. This is the opinion of the Tur. I wonder why they did not clarify that this is only regarding continuous fear, but regarding sudden fear, on the contrary, it leads to seeing blood, as the sages expounded in Megillah [15a] on "And the queen was exceedingly grieved," teaching that she became a niddah; and it asks from "trembling" and answers "fright loosens." See there. (And know that the author of Ein Mishpat cited the law of trembling and a pregnant woman in the Rambam and erred in this, for trembling is not found at all, and regarding a pregnant woman he only wrote regarding the matter that their time is sufficient and for taharot, and its primary source is in Hilkhot Mishkav U-Moshav chapter 4, and not regarding the matter of examination at the time of the veset. Similarly, the one who cited in the Shulchan Aruch cited on the words of the Rema that it is so in the Beit Yosef, and it is not so, for this is the opinion of the Tur as I wrote; and delve into this.)

All other women who are not pregnant or nursing, and are not elderly, and are not in hiding, are obligated to examine themselves when the time of their vesten arrives, and the examination is in the holes and crevices. Nevertheless, if the vesten passed and she did not examine herself and did not feel anything, she is tahora, for we establish that vestetot are rabbinic. Nevertheless, there are those who say she is forbidden to her husband until she examines herself afterward, and so it implies explicitly in the Gemara [16a] that the sages hold she must be examined; see there. However, this is for one who has a fixed vesten or the thirtieth day for ordinary women even though it is not fixed, and such is the custom. But for a woman who is known to have no fixed vesten, she initially requires an examination at the time of her vesten according to the manner of her non-fixed vesten; but if the time passed and she did not examine herself and did not feel anything, she does not require an examination even initially since her vesten is not fixed. And know that there are those who are stringent to say regarding a woman who has a fixed vesten and the time passed and she did not examine herself, she is temea unless she examined herself immediately after the time of her vesten; but afterward, even if she examined herself and was found to be tahora, she is temea. And this is not the primary view; rather, even after a long time, if she examined herself and was found to be tahora, she is tahora. And it is a simple matter that if she has a fixed hour for her vesten, she only requires an examination at that hour; and even though the separation is the entire onah, nevertheless the examination is only at that hour. However, if she does not have a fixed hour within this onah, she requires an examination the entire onah, and that is to place a moch dachuk in that place for the entire duration of the onah and to see afterward if there is blood upon it. And so too if her way is to vary by two or three days, she must place a moch dachuk all that time. And all this is initially, as I have written.

If she examined herself at the time of her veset and the ed was lost and she did not see it, she is teme'ah, and we say that she saw on the ed with a sensation; and even though she says she did not feel it, we say that she thought it was the sensation of the ed [ibid.]. And all the more so if she threw away the ed without looking or was negligent in its disposal, that she is forbidden [ibid.]. And all the more so if her veset is dependent on bodily occurrences and she had those occurrences at the time of her veset, even if she examined and found it tahorah, she is teme'ah, for certainly the blood fell to the ground. And likewise, if she urinated at the time of her veset, it could also be said that she felt a sensation and thought it was the sensation of urine, and if so, she is teme'ah even if she examined and found it tahorah. Nevertheless, it does not seem correct to say so, for it is not the way of the blood of the source to come with urine, as I wrote in siman 191; therefore, if she examined afterward and found it tahorah, she is tahorah.

And know that even though we say that when the time of the veset has passed and she did not examine herself and did not feel anything she is tahora, nevertheless, regarding the uprooting of the veset we do not say so. That is to say, if it happened three times that the time of the veset arrived and she did not examine herself and did not feel anything, the veset is not uprooted by this unless she examined herself at the time of her veset or immediately after the time of her veset according to the measure that will be explained in siman 190 regarding women who attribute their discharge to one another, see there; for regarding the uprooting of the veset we do not rely on the fact that she did not feel anything. [See Chavat Da'at, subsection 10, who wrote that if during the three times she did not examine herself and did not feel anything, and on the fourth time she examined herself and felt something, the sightings combine with the previous one to establish a veset, see there. And it requires further study, for how can we combine them with the previous one? Behold, these three times we hold her to be tahora, and granted that the veset was not uprooted by this, nevertheless it is at least an interruption. Therefore one should be stringent, and delve into this.]

It is stated in Yevamot [62b]: A man is obligated to visit his wife when he goes out on a journey, etc. Rava said: This is only necessary close to her veset. And how much? etc. An onah. And these words apply to a voluntary matter, but for a matter of a mitzvah, they are preoccupied. And Rashi explained that this visiting is with tashmish, for the sages permitted it even close to her veset, as we maintain that vesetot are rabbinic. And the Tosafot disagree on this, for even if it is rabbinic, why would they permit it? Therefore, Rabbeinu Chananel explained that this is only appeasement with words and other types of affection, but with actual tashmish it is forbidden. And if he goes for a matter of a mitzvah, he does not need even this, for one who is engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from a mitzvah, and furthermore, perhaps he will linger with her in appeasements and be nullified from the mitzvah. And in the Tur he brought both opinions. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 10, wrote it without specification, and from the words of our teacher, the Rema, it is implied that the primary view is like the opinion of Rashi, and one who is stringent like Rabbeinu Tam, a blessing shall come upon him; see there.

And it appears to me that the Rambam holds like Rabbeinu Tam, for behold, in the Rambam this law is not found in any place, and it is not his way to omit an explicit Gemara; and he also holds that vestot are rabbinic as he wrote in chapter 8, and if so, why did he omit this law? Rather, it is certain that he holds like Rabbeinu Tam, and this enters into the category of laws that one must honor his wife, and he already wrote this general law in chapter 14 of Ishut; see there. And besides this, there are those who explained an entirely different explanation, and this is the explanation: A man is obligated etc. Rav Yosef said: It is only necessary close to her vest, meaning close to the vest of her immersion, for he is obligated to wait if she is not pure until she becomes pure. And how long shall he wait for her immersion? An onah. And for a d'var mitzvah he need not wait, for perhaps in the meantime the mitzvah will be spoiled [see Nimukei Yosef there]. And in truth, according to the explanation of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, I do not understand what he asked: "And how much is close to her vest?" Is it that we do not know that an onah is called "close to her vest"? And this matter does not belong there. Furthermore, if the intention is regarding tashmish or regarding appeasement, why should we fear that he will be preoccupied with this and the mitzvah will be spoiled? But according to this explanation it is well-settled; since he must wait some time, there is certainly a concern in this, as is understood [see Shach subsection 29, and it requires further study].

And know that one great authority permitted a woman to go for a tevilat mitzvah close to her vest, when she was unable to become pure beforehand, and the great ones of the world have already disagreed with him, and Heaven forbid to permit this. And there is one who says that despite all this she should go to the mikveh so that it will be possible for him to draw close to her with other types of affection, and this too is forbidden to do, for he will certainly not control his inclination and will violate a rabbinic prohibition, and according to several poskim it would be a Torah prohibition as I wrote in section 7, see there [and the Keneset HaGedolah siman 33 and the Noda BiYehudah and the Sidrei Taharah and the Chavot Da'at and the Ya'avetz disagreed with him, see Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 22].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11: A woman who has a fixed veset for days alone, and the time of her veset arrived, it is forbidden to have relations with her until he asks her. And if she does not have a fixed veset, the thirtieth day from her seeing is like the arrival of the time of her veset. And if she delayed after the veset a duration in which she could count and immerse, he may have relations with her and does not need to ask. Thus far his words. And it is very wonderous why he omitted what the Tur wrote, that he may have relations with her whether she is awake or asleep, and even when he arrives from a journey, see there, for so it is in the Gemara [15a]. And so it is in the Rambam, chapter 4, see there. And the Tur added further, whether she is a minor or an adult, meaning "minor" is not literal but rather young in years, and we do not say that she is ashamed to immerse; and this too is in the Gemara there. And on the Rambam there is no difficulty, because he did not write this law at all, that if she delayed a time in which she could count and immerse he does not need to ask, and his reason will be explained before us; but on our teacher, the Beit Yosef, it is difficult.

And it appears to me that he therefore omitted this, as he follows his own approach in his great work, that what they said "whether awake or asleep" refers to the laws of niddah; but regardless, it is forbidden to cohabit when she is asleep until he wakes her, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 240. And he does not hold by what the Tosafot there answered, that it refers to one who is dozing but not asleep, awake but not awake, see there. And since this is so, it follows that he did not need to clarify this law, for there is no difference between whether he was in his house or coming from a journey; for the primary novelty of coming from a journey is regarding one who is asleep, that he does not know what happened with her, and even so it is permitted. But regarding one who is awake, there is no novelty at all, as is understood, for she is able to tell him, and the primary permission informs us that he does not need to ask her. And if so, since she is awake, there is no difference, as I have written. And that which he omitted a minor, it appears to me because he holds like the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel and Rabbeinu Tam in the Tosafot there, that the intention is not a child but a woman who has given birth, see there. And this does not need clarification, for the entire essence of this law only refers to when he left her pure, but when he left her impure, in any case it is forbidden for him to cohabit with her without asking, even if the days have passed in which she was able to immerse [and so wrote the Bach, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote this law at the beginning of siman 185, see there].

And it is simple that that which he wrote, "and the time of her veset arrived it is forbidden etc.," the intention is not the actual time of her veset, for regarding this a question is of no avail, as it is forbidden even near her veset. Rather, this is the explanation: that the time of her veset passed and she is awake and lying next to him or he comes to her, and I would have said that since she says nothing to him, presumably she checked and was found to be tahora; however, we do not rely on this, and he is obligated to ask her if she is tahora, and she responds "I am tahora," and presumably she checked herself. And it appears that it is better that he should ask her if she checked at the time of her veset or at least after the time of her veset. And know that it is implied from his words that this is specifically regarding a fixed veset or regarding the standard thirty days; but if she has a non-fixed veset and the time of the non-fixed veset passed, she is permitted to him when she did not feel anything even without a בדיקה, as I wrote in section 38, and automatically there is no need to ask her if she is tahora when she remains silent while lying next to him and she is awake. But when she is sleeping, it is simple that it is forbidden when the days in which she could become tahora have not passed, for the essence of the permit is that regarding a non-fixed veset we rely on the fact that she did not feel anything and does not require a בדיקה, and when she is sleeping, from where would he know that she did not feel anything [and so wrote the Perisha, subsection 30]. And all the more so when the time of her veset has not arrived, or regarding a standard woman before thirty days, that there is no need for any question, whether she is awake or sleeping. Therefore they wrote, "and the time of her veset arrived" [see Shach, subsection 30].

And know that the Rambam in chapter 4, law 9, wrote, and this is his wording: All women who have a fixed veset are presumed to be pure for their husbands until she says to him, "I am impure," or until she is established as a niddah among her neighbors. If her husband went to another province and left her pure, when he returns he does not need to ask her; even if he found her sleeping, he is permitted to have relations with her not during the time of her veset, and he does not fear that perhaps she is a niddah. And if he left her as a niddah, she is forbidden to him until she says to him, "I am pure." Thus far his words. And he did not write what they said in the Gemara, that if days passed in which she was able to immerse and become pure, she does not require asking when he left her pure, even when her veset had already arrived. And he only permitted when he comes not during the time of her veset, meaning when the time of her veset has not yet arrived. And the Maggid Mishneh explained that his intention is that only not during the time of her veset is she permitted, whether before the veset or after the veset, even if the days in which she could become pure have not yet passed, and like the one who holds this way in the Gemara there because we establish that vesetot are rabbinic. And already the Kesef Mishneh there wondered about him, how it is possible to say this, for we establish that it is forbidden near her veset even if vesetot are rabbinic, and all the more so during the time of her veset; and if so, how is it possible to permit without asking after the time of the veset when she is sleeping, and let us say perhaps she actually felt it? And he, of blessed memory, explained that in truth the intention of the Rambam is specifically when the days passed in which she was able to become pure, see there. And his explanation is even more wonderous, for if so, he should have explained this novelty as they explained it in the Gemara. Furthermore, for behold he wrote explicitly "not during the time of her veset," and it implies clearly only not at the time of the veset, either before or also afterward like the words of the Maggid Mishneh, but not specifically after many days so that she would be able to immerse. And his words require further study.

And in my humble opinion it seems clear that, on the contrary, the Rambam is stringent in this, for if the time of her veset has merely arrived, he is forbidden without asking even when she is able to purify herself. And he explains that in this there is a dispute in the Gemara and he ruled like the one who is stringent. For this is the wording of the Shas there: Resh Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesi'ah, and this is when he came and found her within the days of her period, etc. And afterwards, further on it is stated there: Rabbi Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, a woman who has a veset, her husband calculates the days of her veset and comes upon her, for she has certainly immersed and there is no need to ask her [Rashi]. And he holds that Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Resh Lakish, for Resh Lakish says specifically when he came and found her within the days of her period, meaning when the time of her veset has not yet arrived, but when the time of her veset has arrived, it is forbidden in any case. And even though we hold like Rabbi Yochanan over Resh Lakish, nevertheless here, since Resh Lakish does not say it of his own but in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesi'ah, the halakha is not like Rabbi Yochanan.

And it further appears to me that there is another reason for the words of the Rambam, and it is the primary reason even for the halacha. For behold, in the Gemara they said regarding the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda that we say she certainly immersed because of a double doubt: perhaps she did not see, and if you say she did see, perhaps she immersed; see there. And the great authorities asked: behold, we maintain regarding a double doubt that wherever it is possible to clarify, we clarify, and if so, why should he not clarify by asking her? [Minchat Yaakov, beginning of siman 185]. And there is one who answered based on the reason of a presumption, for he left her with a presumption of being pure [ibid.]. But it is impossible to say so, for when the time of her veset arrived, her presumption of purity was nullified, and on the contrary, she has a presumption of prohibition, as I wrote in section 7. And there is one who answered because it is a rabbinic doubt, and in a double doubt we follow the lenient view [Kereti U'Peleti]. And this too is not clear, for since the concern is perhaps she saw at the time of her veset, it is like a Torah doubt [Pardes Rimonim, sub-section 31]. And there is one who answered that in truth our teacher, the Rema, ruled in siman 110 regarding a double doubt that one does not need to clarify; see there in section 9. And even according to the one who disagrees on this, as I wrote in siman 110 at the end of section 91, see there, nevertheless, when there is exertion in the clarification, certainly one does not need to clarify, and here there is exertion to wake her [ibid.]. But it is not understood to call this by the name "exertion," and furthermore, it implies that one does not need to ask at all, even when she is awake.

However, I ask another question, for behold, we see common occurrences every day in all the dispersions of Israel that when the husband is away, the woman does not go for tevilah. How then can the Shas say that perhaps she performed tevilah, for we are witnesses that women do not conduct themselves so? According to the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, we are forced to say that when she anticipates his arrival, she performs tevilah even before he arrives from the journey, and it is possible that even now this is the custom. But the Rambam explains that Rabbi Yochanan only stated this law in their time when they were occupied with taharot, and then they would perform tevilah even not in the presence of the husband for the sake of taharot. So too, according to the one who says tevilah in its proper time is a mitzvah, one should act accordingly. But in this time, when there are no taharot and we hold that tevilah in its proper time is not a mitzvah, it is obvious that even Rabbi Yochanan admits that it is forbidden without inquiry.

And there is clear proof for this from the Yerushalmi, the second chapter of Niddah [halacha 4], where this law of R. Yochanan is also brought, that she calculates the days of her vest, see there. And the Yerushalmi says regarding this: R. Chanina said, this implies that it is forbidden for a woman to remain in her impurity. Thus far his words. Meaning, that even though her husband is not in his house, she must immerse when she has become pure. And this is certainly either because of taharot or because immersion in its proper time is a mitzvah. Therefore, the Rambam did well to omit this law, for in our times she does not immerse and does not need to immerse when he is not in the city. And it is clear with the help of Heaven, for so the Mordechai in the second chapter of Shevuot [siman 742] brings this Yerushalmi and explains it because immersion in its proper time is a mitzvah, see there. And so wrote the Tur at the beginning of siman 197, see there. And consequently, for us it is forbidden without a question. And I am wondered at our teachers who did not remark anything on this, and it requires further study.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, further wrote in section 12: If she had a veset for days and for one of the vesetot of the body, such as jumping or the like, since her veset is dependent on an action, we say perhaps she did not jump and did not see; however, she is concerned for the average interval, which is thirty days. Thus far his words. And his intention is not for every type of veset of the body like yawning or sneezing and the like, for certainly in such a case she is concerned only for the time of the veset and not for the average interval, as will be explained in siman 189 [Shach, subsection 32]. Rather, his intention is also for a veset dependent on an action, such as if she ate garlic and saw, or peppers and saw, for we say perhaps she did not eat and did not see [Minchat Yaakov, Kereti U'Peleti, and Sidrei Taharah]. And so too even regarding vesetot of the body not caused by an action, if the veset is not fixed to a certain day—such as on Rosh Chodesh she yawns and sees, and there are several Rosh Chodesh days where she did not yawn and did not see, and likewise several days not on Rosh Chodesh where she yawned and did not see, but rather her veset is in this manner: that whenever she yawns on Rosh Chodesh she sees—certainly with such a veset she does not need to be concerned for Rosh Chodesh, for there are several Rosh Chodesh days where she did not yawn and did not see. Therefore, she must be concerned for the average interval [Chavat Daat, subsection 15]. And in all these cases, he does not need to ask her even if she did not wait the duration in which she could count and immerse [Shach, subsection 33], and even if she is awake, for so wrote the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, see there. And it is not similar to what was written in section 46, that regarding one who is awake he must ask even with a veset that is not fixed, for here, where it is dependent also on a veset of the body, it is more likely that perhaps she did not jump at all, and she only needs to be concerned for the average interval which is thirty days. And then it is forbidden for him to come upon her after the average interval until he asks her [see Shach, subsection 34, who wrote: "or if she waited the duration in which she could count and immerse," thus far his words; and this is all according to the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and not according to the opinion of the Rambam that we wrote in section 49].