Siman 189

There are many types of vestot; there is a fixed vest and there is one that is not fixed, and there is a difference between a fixed one and one that is not fixed. There are times that are not fit for establishing vestot even if she saw multiple times, namely the days of zivah and the days of niddah when she sees from an open source, and likewise the days of her pregnancy and her nursing. There are times that even if she has a fixed vest, she is removed from the vest during these days and does not concern herself with it, namely during the days of her pregnancy and her nursing, for then her blood is removed; and likewise an elderly woman who has already ceased from seeing, and all the more so when she is still a child who has not yet reached the time of seeing blood. All the details of these laws will be explained in this siman with the help of Heaven, and in section 76 it will be explained that they are not similar to one another; see there.

There are five types of vestot. The first is the vest of days, for example, if she is always accustomed to seeing on Rosh Chodesh, or on the second of the month, or on the third, etc. And this is the vest ha-beinoni, for most women are accustomed to seeing from thirty days to thirty days. And likewise when she is accustomed to seeing on the first day of the week, or on the second day, etc. And included in this is when she is always accustomed to seeing only at a certain hour. The second is the vest of intervals, for example, if she is accustomed to seeing every 20 days or every 25 days and the like, where the seeing is not fixed for her on a certain day of the month or of the week, but rather when she intervals a number of days. The third is the vest of skipping, meaning that she always skips one day, for example, if her seeing is on the first of Nisan, and the second of Iyar, and the third of Sivan, and the fourth of Tammuz, and so she always skips one day. And also in the vest of intervals there is a vest of interval with skipping, for example, if she is accustomed to seeing after 20 days, and afterwards after 21 days, and afterwards after 22 days. And likewise a vest of skipping when she decreases, for example, if she sees on the 15th of Nisan, and the 14th of Iyar, and the 13th of Sivan, and so too in intervals in this manner. And included in this is also the vest of alternation, meaning that it was her way to see every month and now she alternated and sees every two months. And all of these are vestot that depend on time.

And the fourth is the veset of the body, which is a veset dependent on an action, such as when she sees [blood] every time she yawns or sneezes, and included in this is the veset of jumping, such as whenever she jumps she sees blood, and this is called a veset of compulsion. And the fifth is the combined veset, meaning that it is dependent on days and on an action, such as whenever she jumps or sneezes and yawns on a certain day she sees [blood], but when it is not on that certain day she does not see [blood], and similarly on that certain day when she does not jump or when she does not yawn and sneeze she does not see [blood]. And according to the opinion of the Rambam, there is no veset of the body at all without a fixed time, and most of the poskim disagree with him. And the Rashba divides between a veset of the body, meaning yawning and sneezing, and a veset of jumping, for regarding a veset of jumping he agrees with the Rambam that it specifically requires a fixed day, and the Ba'al HaMaor disagrees even in this, as will be explained in this siman with the help of Heaven. And it is a great principle that every veset is only established with three times and is only uprooted with three times, but to be concerned, she is concerned even with one time, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 1: Any woman who does not have a fixed vest must be concerned for the thirtieth day from her seeing, which is the average interval for most women; and if she has a fixed vest at a known time, from twenty to twenty or from twenty-five to twenty-five, she must be concerned for the known time. Thus far their words. And she is forbidden to have relations for the entire vest interval, as was written in siman 184, see there. And that which they wrote, "must be concerned for the thirtieth day," its meaning is at the completion of thirty days, and she must be concerned for the thirty-first day [Shach, subsection 30], for thirty days is from the beginning of a seeing until the beginning of another seeing, as most women see at the end of the interval, for all thirty days are called "within the days of her interval," and after thirty days she requires an examination [Rashi, 15a, s.v. "within"].

And regarding that which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote below in section 13, that a woman who saw [blood] must be concerned for the veset of the new month, etc., see there, and here they wrote that she must be concerned for the 30th day, some say that this is the same thing. That is to say, the 30th day is the veset of the month. And even though if so, sometimes there will not be 30 days—for example, if she sees on the 15th of Iyar, which is a deficient month, and she is concerned for the 15th of Sivan according to the days of the month, and behold there are only 29 days here—nevertheless, this is the ona beinonit. For thus the Holy One, Blessed be He, created nature, that it follows the days of the month, and we do not care whether it is a full or deficient month [Shach there]. And there are some of the great authorities who agreed to this [Minchat Yaakov, subsection 21]. And so it is implied from the words of the Rashba in Mishmeret HaBayit, the Gate of Vestot, where he wrote there that even in matters of the body we follow the sanctification of the month by the beit din below, as they expounded in the Yerushalmi on the verse, "I will cry unto God Most High; unto God that performeth all things for me," that a virgin three years and one day old who had intercourse, her virginity does not return; but if the beit din intercalated the year, her virginity returns. And here too regarding vestot, so it is. See there.

But many of the poskim disagree with this and hold that in truth they are two separate things and she must be concerned for both of them; and if she saw on the 15th of Iyar, she is concerned for the 15th of Sivan because of the veset of the month and for the 16th of Sivan because of the veset beinoni, and she must always be concerned for both of them until she establishes a veset three times [Bach, and Taz subsection 14, and Kereti u-Peleti subsection 15, and Chakham Tzevi siman 114, and see Sidrei Taharah subsection 12 who was uncertain about this]. However, in the Rambam the law of onah beinonit is not found at all, and likewise the Ra'avad in the book Ba'alei HaNefesh did not mention this, as there is no necessity for this in the Shas [for Rashi there inferred from what is written there, "and it is that he came and found her within the days of her onah," meaning until thirty, and so wrote the Ramban and the Rashba; but the Rambam and the Ra'avad would explain it according to its plain meaning, within the days of her veset, and so wrote the Kereti u-Peleti, see there].

However, regarding the essence of the matter, I do not understand, in my humble opinion, for vestot are rabbinic based on the reason that most women are established to see at the time of their vest, and most women, their vest is from thirty days to thirty days; if so, why did they concern themselves at all with the vest of the month? And if most women see according to the vest of the month, why did they further concern themselves with the thirtieth day? And if we say that within the majority there are those who see on the thirtieth day and there are those who see on the day of the month, from where do we have this to say so? For in the Gemara this is not explained, and from where do they have this to say so? Furthermore, if our teachers, the Rishonim, had said this, there would be room to say that they received it thus from the Geonim; but in all the words of our teachers, we find only that they said to be concerned for the vest habeinoni. And the Tur himself previously wrote concerning the vest habeinoni and afterwards concerning the vest of the month, and did not mention that one must be concerned for both of them. And how can we say that their intention was to be concerned for two days? Therefore, it appears more like the first opinion, that it is one and the same. And if it did not appear to our teachers that this should be dependent on the time of the sanctification of the month, we shall say the opposite: that the vest is for the thirtieth day, and those who wrote the language of "month" also intended this, and they employed a habit of language because an ordinary month is thirty days. And it requires further study.

There is a clear proof for this, for the Rashba at the beginning of the Gate of Vestot wrote in the general rules that for vestot that are not fixed, she must be concerned, and the entire matter there before and after this deals with the days of the month. And at the end of the gate, he wrote in the specific laws, and this is his wording: Now we shall explain one who does not have a fixed vest, if she needs to be concerned for the average interval which is thirty days, etc., we have already written, etc., and even though it is not fixed, she must be concerned for it, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that what he wrote at the beginning of his words, he explains here. [And the Chakham Tzevi made from this a difficulty against the Shach, and the Havat Da'at in subsection 12 labored to settle it, see there. And I wonder, for on the contrary, from this there is a complete proof for the Shach, except that one could say the opposite, that the primary concern is the thirtieth day as I wrote; however, this is a clear proof that there is no need to be concerned for two days. Another proof the Havat Da'at brought in his name, that regarding the average vest they ruled in siman 184 that when the interval passed she requires a bedikah, whereas regarding the vest of the month they ruled in this siman, section 4, that when it is not fixed, if it passed and she did not perform a bedikah, she remains without a bedikah, see there. and I am utterly amazed, for in section 4 the vest of the month is not mentioned at all in the Shulchan Arukh, but rather the average vest, and vice versa. And this is his wording: And the average interval which is thirty days, its law is like a fixed vest. Thus far his words. And this is as in siman 184. And I examined the Chakham Tzevi himself, and in all his lengthy words I did not find any refutation of the Shach, of blessed memory, except in that which he disagrees with him regarding what the Shach wrote that the concern is for the thirty-first day, he brings from the language of the poskim that it implies the concern is only for the thirtieth day, see there. And this is true, and only from the language of Rashi on page 15a does it appear like the Shach, and the Chakham Tzevi was pressed to explain it, see there. However, the Havat Da'at there agreed in this with the Shach and disagrees with the Chakham Tzevi, see there, and regarding the two days he agreed with him; but in my humble opinion it does not appear so, and examine it closely].

There are two distinctions between a fixed veset and a veset that is not fixed: for a fixed veset established by three times is not uprooted except by three times, and as long as she has not uprooted it three times, she must be concerned for it. But with one that is not fixed, even though she must be concerned for it, nevertheless it is uprooted even by one time; for when she changed from this veset one time, she need not be concerned for it. And even if she saw two times, it is uprooted by one time and she is no longer concerned for it [see Taz subsection 3, and it is simple]. There is another distinction: for a fixed one, even though its period passed and she did not feel anything, she is forbidden to have relations until she examines herself and finds she is pure. But with one that is not fixed, if the time of the veset arrived and she did not examine herself and did not see anything, she is permitted after its period has passed. And that which was explained in siman 186, that one who has no veset requires an examination before relations according to several poskim, that is when she has no veset at all; but here we are dealing with one who has a veset, but she changed to another time and has not yet fixed it three times [Taz subsection 5]. And some say that even at the beginning of her establishing it she is permitted, even though she did not yet have a veset, but there it is dealing with one who has no veset at all and at every hour she is presumed to see, but here she has a veset, only it is not fixed [Nekudot HaKesef]. And that which was explained regarding one that is not fixed, that when she did not examine herself she is permitted, this is regarding other types of vesetot; but that which she must be concerned for the average period, which is thirty days, its law is like a fixed veset and she is forbidden until she examines herself, as I wrote in siman 184. However, regarding uprooting, one time is sufficient like any veset that is not fixed [Minchat Yaakov].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: If she established a veset for hours and not for days, she is only concerned for her specific hour, and this veset is uprooted in one instance even without a bedikah. Thus far his words. The explanation of these matters: for example, if she saw three times on days that are not consistent, such as on the first of Nisan, the fourth of Iyar, and the ninth of Sivan, where the law is that she is concerned for the last of them according to the law of a veset that is not established; and in all three times she saw them all at one hour, such as an hour before midday or the like, then she is only concerned on the ninth of Tammuz for this hour and not a full onah [Chavat Da'at, subsection 1]. And when the hour passed and she did not perform a bedikah and did not see, she is permitted. The reason is simple: since the day is not established, if so, there is no establishment of a day at all such that we should say she will specifically see on this day at this hour; if so, it is like any other veset that is not established, which is uprooted in one instance and she is permitted without a bedikah [ibid., and also the words of the Taz, subsection 4, must be explained thus; see there and examine carefully].

How is a consistent veset of days established? For example, if she saw three times on the first day of the week, or three times on the first day of the month, she has established a veset for every first day of the week or for the first day of the month, and so too for similar cases. And even though the months are one full and one deficient, and the days between each seeing are not equal, nevertheless, the establishment of the month is the cause [Tosafot 64a s.v. Itmar, and so wrote the Rashba in Torat HaBayit and the Ra'avad]. According to this, in a month that has two days of Rosh Chodesh, she is concerned for the second day of Rosh Chodesh, from which the counting of the month begins, for the first day is the thirtieth of the previous month. And it appears to me that the same law applies if she saw three times on the eve of Rosh Chodesh, that she also establishes a veset for every eve of Rosh Chodesh; and even though they are not equal, for in a full month the eve of Rosh Chodesh is not the last day of the month and in a deficient month it is the last day, nevertheless, the establishment of the eve of Rosh Chodesh is the cause. Furthermore, on the contrary, they are equal in the count of the days of the month, for all eves of Rosh Chodesh are on the twenty-ninth of the month.

And know that the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 6 is as follows: If she saw three times on the first of the week, or on the fifth of the week, or on the first of Nisan and on the first of Iyar and on the first of Sivan, she has established for herself a veset, etc., and on the first of the month even if one is full, etc. Thus far their words. And behold, Nisan and Sivan have one day of Rosh Chodesh because the months before them are deficient, and Iyar has two days of Rosh Chodesh because Nisan is full. And from their wording, it implies explicitly that she saw on the second day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar, for this day is called the first of Iyar. But if she saw on the first day of Rosh Chodesh, a veset is not established for every Rosh Chodesh, for it is not the first of Iyar but rather the thirtieth of Nisan. And according to this, when she saw on the eve of Rosh Chodesh Nisan, and the first day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the eve of Rosh Chodesh Sivan, she has established for herself a veset for every eve of Rosh Chodesh; for the first day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar is the last day of Nisan, just like the eve of Rosh Chodesh Nisan which is the last of Adar, and similarly the eve of Rosh Chodesh Sivan is the last of Iyar. And according to this, she would establish for herself a veset on every eve of Rosh Chodesh in a deficient month, but in a full month her veset would be the first day of Rosh Chodesh, and anything like this should have been explained. Furthermore, according to this, the days are not equal, neither in their number nor in their names. Therefore, it appears to me that they employed a common phrasing, and their intention is that any day that bears upon it the name Rosh Chodesh constitutes an establishment for Roshei Chodashim [and so it appears from the Shach, subsection 13, see there and examine carefully] and see what I wrote in section 28.

And that which they wrote, that if she saw three times on the first day of the week or on the fifth day of the week, she establishes for herself a vest for every first day of the week or every fifth day of the week, the commentators explained that the intention is not that she saw every week, but rather her seeing was every three weeks on the first day of the week or on the fifth day of the week, and she establishes for herself a vest for every three weeks on the first or on the fifth therein [Bach and Shach subsection 14]. And their reasoning appears to be that it should not be explained as every week, for according to the law of the Gemara, a woman does not establish for herself a vest during the days of zivut when she saw from an open spring, as the Tur wrote later in this siman. Therefore, they explained specifically every three weeks, for then the days of zivut have concluded, as the days of zivut continue until eighteen days from the beginning of her seeing, as written in siman 183 [and so wrote the Perishah, letter 8]. However, according to us, she does establish for herself a vest, as the Tur wrote later, and therefore in the Shulchan Aruch this law was not mentioned at all. And it is possible that their reasoning is because it is not common at all for a woman to see every week or every two weeks, and furthermore, one who sees every week would never be pure for her husband; and see in section 15.

A veset ha-haflagah is defined when her sightings are neither on consistent days of the week nor on consistent days of the month, but rather are consistent in their interval of the number of days, for example, if she sees every twenty days or every twenty-five days and the like. It is understood of itself that the establishment of such a veset requires her to see four times so that there will be three equal intervals, and the first time is not counted because the status of an interval does not apply to it. The status of an interval begins from the second sighting, and it is not similar to a veset of the month or a veset of the week where the first is also counted because the status of the veset applies to it. Likewise, regarding the matter of being concerned at the first sighting, in a veset ha-haflagah the concern is from the second sighting onward; for example, if she saw at the end of twenty days from the first sighting, she is concerned from here on for every twentieth day from her sighting.

And know that there is reason to doubt regarding a vest haflagah when it is equal to the days of the week, for example, if she sees every twenty-second day and the twenty-second day is always the same day of the week, how we should judge it. Behold, it is certain that in such a case even the first time is part of the count since it is the same day of the week, and this is the law in section 13. However, when she has seen four times, what name does this vest have: a vest hashavua or a vest haflagah? And there is a practical legal difference, for example, if on the fifth seeing she sees two or three days before the time of the fixed pattern; if you call it a vest hashavua, she must be concerned for this day according to the law of a vest kavua, for as long as it has not been uprooted three times, she is concerned for it. But if you call it a vest haflagah, there is no concern after two or three days, but rather after twenty-two days, for that is the time of her haflagah. And there are further differences according to the laws that will be explained. And there is one who is in doubt about this [Kereti U-Peleti subsection 8], and there is one for whom it is obvious that we follow the vest haflagah [Chavat Da'at subsection 4]. And so it appears primary, for the seeing of most women is in equal haflagot and not on the same day of the week [and also the opinion of the Kereti U-Peleti leans more toward this, see there].

How is a veset of skipping established? This veset exists both regarding a veset of the month and regarding a veset of interval. How so regarding a veset of the month? For example, if she saw on the 15th of Nisan, and on the 16th of Iyar, and on the 17th of Sivan, she has not yet established a veset until she sees again on the 18th of Tammuz. For since they are not on the same day and were distanced one day from each other, its law is like a veset of interval, where the first sighting is not part of the count, for you call it a veset of skipping, and at the first sighting she had not yet skipped. There are those who disagree on this and hold that regarding skipping, even the first sighting is part of the count, and she must be concerned for the 18th of Tammuz and the 19th of Av, and so on forever. The reason is that since this veset bears the name of the month, there are three vestot during the days of the month, and what does it matter to us if this one was distanced from that one by one day? This is a dispute in the Gemara [64a]. Some poskim rule leniently and some poskim rule stringently. One should be concerned for the words of those who are stringent because this is the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel, all of whose words are a tradition from the mouths of the Geonim. According to this, she must be concerned for two days: for the 17th of Tammuz because of the veset of the month, according to the law of a veset of the month where she is concerned even for one time, and for the 18th of Tammuz because of the veset of skipping according to the "there are those who disagree." [And the Chavot Da'at wrote in subsection 5 that when she saw on the 18th of Tammuz and must be concerned for the 19th of Av and the 20th of Elul, and so on forever, even if she did not see on the 19th of Av, nevertheless she must be concerned for the 20th of Elul; this requires further study, and delve into it.]

And even according to the first opinion, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7, and this is his wording: However, if she had a veset before she began, and afterwards she changed and saw with a skip three times, she has established a veset of skipping, because even the first one she saw with a skip, for she skipped from the veset established for her. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that if she had an established veset previously, and the veset was on the fourteenth of the month, and afterwards she changed to the fifteenth, and afterwards to the sixteenth, and afterwards to the seventeenth, she has established a veset of skipping. And we do not say that the fourteenth is not of the count of the skipping, for we cast it after the established veset from before, and there remain only three times of skipping. Just as we say in the Gemara there, according to the one who holds that three times is sufficient, we do not join the previous established veset of the fourteenth to the three times, see there [where it says "it is different for one who admits"]. And if so, according to the one who holds that four times are required, we would also not join them; nevertheless, we hold that we do join them. And the reason is because the primary reason that we do not count the first is because the name "skipping" is not upon it, and in such a case, the name "skipping" is indeed upon it because of the previous veset [Shach subsection 18, and this is how one must say regarding the intent of the Taz subsection 7, except that he was not precise in his words to illustrate with a new veset but rather with an interval, and examine it closely].

A veset of skipping in intervals, how so? For example, if she saw today, and saw a second time at the end of thirty days, and a third at thirty-one, and a fourth at thirty-two, she has established a veset for skipping of intervals; and that is to say that afterwards she must be concerned for thirty-three, and afterwards for thirty-four, and so on forever. And here everyone agrees that four sightings are required, as is the law of intervals. On the contrary, there are those who say that according to the first opinion in section 16, that for a veset of skipping of the month four sightings are required, we require for a veset of skipping of intervals five sightings [Taz subsection 6 and Shach subsection 8]. And the reason seems to be that the first sighting has upon it neither the name of interval nor the name of skipping, and the second has upon it only the name of interval, for skipping does not exist until the third, and for this two more sightings are required. And that which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 5 did not mention this is because they are dealing with a case where she had a prior veset every twenty-nine days, for in such a case only four sightings are required as has been written [Bach]. However, this itself should have been explained, just as this was explained in the previous law in section 7, see there.

There is no difference regarding skips, whether she distanced them significantly or slightly; that is to say, whether the skip was only one day—30, 31, 32, as we have written—or whether she skipped two days, such as if she saw on the 30th, 32nd, 34th, and 36th, she is concerned thereafter for the 38th and the 40th, and so on forever. The same law applies to three days or more. The Rashba wrote thus in Torat HaBayit, not like the one who disagrees on this. It appears that the same applies to the matter of skipping the month. And know that there is one who says that also regarding skipping with a reduction the law is so; that is to say, if she saw at the end of 30, and thereafter on the 29th, and thereafter on the 28th, and thereafter on the 27th, she is concerned thereafter for the 26th, 25th, and 24th, and so on forever [Shach, subsection 9]. And there is one who hesitates regarding this, for if so, she would continue to reduce until she sees every day, and this matter is impossible [Kereti U-Peleti, subsection 6]. However, it is explicitly stated thus in the book Ba'alei HaNefesh of the Ra'avad, see there. And it appears to me that the reduction is only until eighteen days and no more, because there the eleven days between niddah and niddah conclude, during which she is held in a presumption of purity.

If she saw three times in three months with a skip, and returned and saw in three months with these skips, and likewise a third time she returned and saw three times with these skips, this is a fixed veset for a skip to return in a cycle always in this manner. For example, if she saw on the 15th of Nisan, the 16th of Iyar, and the 17th of Sivan, and returned and saw on the 15th of Tammuz, the 16th of Av, and the 17th of Elul, and again returned and saw on the 15th of Tishrei, the 16th of Marheshvan, and the 17th of Kislev, she has established for herself a veset with a skip forever, to be concerned for the 15th of this month, the 16th of the second month, and the 17th of the third, and afterwards she returns also to the 15th, 16th, and 17th, and so on forever. And seemingly, according to the first opinion in section 16, four months are required here as well, and there is one who wrote this explicitly [Perishah]. However, from the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 8, it does not imply so, for if it were so, they should not have been so silent; therefore, it appears more likely like the one who says that here everyone agrees that even the first seeing is part of the count, since it was tripled three times in a triad, which is like three times on the same day in a month [Shach, subsection 20]. And in my humble opinion, it appears that regarding the first time of the triads, the intention is that she had a veset previously, for in such a case everyone agrees as has been explained, and in the second and third triads this is not necessary, as it is understood that all three times are as one since they are triads, and automatically it is like one day in all the months collectively [and what the Taz wrote in subsection 10, perhaps according to what I wrote it was not possible to write in two times, and delve into this].

If she saw on the first of Nisan, the first of Sivan, and the first of Av, she has established for herself a vesta for Rosh Chodesh with skipping, and here everyone agrees that three times is sufficient since they are all on one day, on Rosh Chodesh [Shach, subsection 22]. There are those who disagree on this, but it is not the primary view [see Taz, subsection 11]. So too it is explained in Ba'al HaNefesh by the Ra'avad, of blessed memory. This is also the law when she saw three times every three Rosh Chodesh, and so too forever. The general rule of these matters is that the three times must all be equal, but if one time is not equal—for example, if she saw on the first of Nisan, the first of Iyar, and the first of Tammuz, but did not see on the first of Sivan—she has not established a vesta. Similarly, if she saw on the 15th of Nisan, the 16th of Iyar, and the 18th of Sivan, she has not established a vesta, since she skipped two days in the third instance, as she did not see until the 18th of the month. Even if she had an established vesta on the 14th day prior to this, it is not a vesta [Shach, subsection 24, and so it is implied in the Gemara 64b, see there]. Likewise, even if she saw on the 19th of Tammuz it is nothing, since the skips are not equal across the three times [ibid., subsection 23], unless she saw again on the 20th of Av. It is also simple that if between these days there are equal intervals, it would be a vesta of interval if there were three intervals [ibid.].

A veset of skipping is not similar to other vesatot for which she must be concerned even with a single occurrence, as has been explained. Regarding a veset of skipping, it is not so, as the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 11. This is his wording: If she skipped once or twice, she is not concerned for the skipping; even though she is concerned for other vesatot with a single occurrence, she is not concerned for a veset of skipping until she establishes it. Thus far his words. And even if she had an established veset previously on the day before the first occurrence, nevertheless it is nothing, for it is considered part of the previous veset and there remain only two occurrences [ibid. subsection 25].

What is the nature of a veset of skipping? For example, she skipped one month. Therefore, one cannot say that she saw on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, Rosh Chodesh Sivan, and Rosh Chodesh Av, for from where do we know to call this skipping? Perhaps it is her way to see every two months. Rather, it is called a veset of skipping, for example, if it was her way to see every month and she saw in Shevat, Adar, and Nisan, and now she skipped to two months, as she saw in Sivan and in Av. And seemingly, if we count Nisan toward the previous veset, there are only two skippings here, just as we said regarding a veset of jumping. Nevertheless, regarding skipping it is not so, and we count Nisan as well, and it becomes three times with skipping. The reason is that granted, regarding a veset of jumping where the days are not equal, it is like an interval where the first is not of the count, but regarding skipping where they are all on the same day, the first is also of the count [Taz, subsection 12]. And some say that this is specifically when she has not yet established a veset for herself with three times every month, having seen only on Rosh Chodesh Adar and Rosh Chodesh Nisan; but if she also saw on Rosh Chodesh Shevat, Nisan is not of the count, and we cast it after the established veset [Shach, subsection 26, and it is possible that the Taz also holds this and did not see fit to explain]. And some say there is a doubt in this [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 11], and a proof for this is from Bava Kamma [37b] regarding an ox that gored, see there. However, here it is possible to say that since all women's way is to see every thirty days, and so too here, Nisan is not of the count; since this is like ordinary women, it is not to be counted within the skippings. Nevertheless, the law requires further study [and also the Kereti U-Peleti in subsection 14 wondered at the Shach and wrote that it is a doubt, but wrote that since it is a rabbinic doubt we follow the lenient view and we only count it as a veset of skipping and do not follow the stringency of both sides, see there and examine carefully].

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 12: The established pattern of skipping—the first appearance is part of the count according to everyone, even though she distanced her appearances. However, regarding the concern of her vestah at the beginning, it is equal to skipping, in that she only concerns herself from Rosh Chodesh to the Rosh Chodesh adjacent to it. For example, if she saw on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, she concerns herself for Rosh Chodesh Iyar. If she did not see until Rosh Chodesh Sivan, she concerns herself for Rosh Chodesh Tammuz adjacent to it. If she did not see on Rosh Chodesh Tammuz, she does not concern herself for Rosh Chodesh Av, even though they are an interval of two months similar to the first interval, because the interruption of the second month canceled the appearance of the first month, and the appearance of the third month is the beginning of a vestah, and she concerns herself for the adjacent Rosh Chodesh and no more. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: Even though regarding every vestah of interval we concern ourselves even when she did not establish it three times, this is regarding other intervals; but regarding intervals of months, since most women see every month, we do not consider it an interval but rather a cancellation [and so it appears from Shach, subsection 27]. And there is one who wants to say that it deals with when one is full and one is lacking, and the other two months were both full or both lacking, and the intervals are not equal such that she should concern herself for Rosh Chodesh Av, and in truth she concerns herself for the second of Av. And this is found only in the winter days, for Cheshvan and Kislev are sometimes full and sometimes lacking, and in the Shulchan Aruch where it is written "solar months," it is not precise [Chavat Da'at, subsection 19]. And the forced nature of this is clear, and the main point is as I wrote [and all this follows the opinion of those who say that vestah of the month and the average vestah are two things, as I wrote in section 6; but according to the Shach, that the primary thing is the vestah of the month, it works out well according to its plain meaning, for therefore we do not concern ourselves here with the interval, and examine this carefully].

All establishments of vesatot for days must have all sightings occur in the same onah—all of them during the day or all of them at night. But if some of them were at night and some were even during the day following that night, which are one day, nevertheless she has not established a veset, and she only concerns herself with the last one according to the law of a veset that is not established, for which she must be concerned. This is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 13: A woman does not establish a veset for herself even if she saw three months one after another unless they are all in the same onah, during the day or at night. And if she saw three times during the day and the fourth at night, or three times at night and the fourth during the day, she is concerned during the day and at night because of the concern of the first [established] veset and because of the concern of the second, which is the last. And if she saw twice during the day and twice at night not in order, and did not establish one of them three times, or if she saw the first during the day and the last three at night, or the first at night and the last three during the day, or three in this one and three in that one, she is concerned with the last one alone. Thus far his words. [And all these matters are understood according to the laws that have been explained and that will be explained, but the phrase "not in order" is not understood and is as if redundant; and examine this carefully].

And it appears to me clear that this law, that all of them must be in one season in all vestot of times, is so even regarding a vest haflagah. If she saw today during the day, and at the end of twenty days also during the day, until four times, she has established a vest for herself. But if in the second, third, or fourth time she saw at the end of twenty days at night, there is no establishment of a vest haflagah here at all, and she is concerned only for the last one for an onah beinonit. And that which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote "three months," they took one of them as an example, and the same applies to all vestot, as is proven from the source of the law in the book Ba'al HaNefesh of the Ra'avad [brought in the Beit Yosef]. This is his wording: The vestot that are dependent on days etc. she is only concerned during the day etc. Thus far his words. Behold, it refers to all vestot of time. And one cannot say that a vest haflagah is considered by seasons of haflagah, such that if she saw today during the day and after twenty at night it is considered how many seasons are in them and she should be concerned thus at the completion of the number of seasons; for it is impossible to say so, as the entire count of vestot is by days and not by seasons. Furthermore, if so, this rule that the sightings must all be equal, all during the day or all at night, would be nullified, and they should have explained it. Furthermore, if it follows seasons, on the contrary, it would be specifically the opposite; for example, when today she saw during the day and at the end of twenty at night, when she is concerned for the number of seasons, the calculation will come out specifically to the day, and afterwards specifically to the night, and so it repeats in a cycle. And if so, it would be that in a vest haflagah, when the first two times are not equal, the rule would be the opposite, and how is it possible to say so? And I saw one of the great ones who wrote that in a vest haflagah we are not concerned for the time of the season [Noda BiYehudah, Tinyana, Yoreh Deah, siman 83], and I am wondered by this. And in my humble opinion, the main point appears as I have written [see there, for the questioner challenged him: if she sees during the day and in the first haflagah at night, that she must be concerned for that season, and he challenged this, see there; and I am very wondered, for certainly in such a case there is no need to be concerned at all for the haflagah but only for an onah beinonit, and delve into this].

And know that our teacher, the Rema, in section 13, wrote at length regarding the matter of concerns for vestot, and his source is from the words of the Ramban that the Tur brought, and the dispute regarding this has increased. Therefore, I am compelled to first bring the words of the Tur in the name of the Ramban. This is his wording: A veset of the month, she is concerned for it at its beginning after one time. But for a veset of the interval, it is impossible to be concerned for it until she sees a second sighting, for she does not know to which day she is spacing. It results that you say: one who sees on the day of Rosh Chodesh Nisan is concerned for Rosh Chodesh Iyar. If she saw on it, she is concerned for Rosh Chodesh Sivan. If she saw on it, a veset for the beginnings of months was established. If she did not see on Rosh Chodesh Sivan, the veset of Rosh Chodesh is uprooted, and she is concerned for the second of Sivan; perhaps she will see and establish a veset for an interval from thirty-one to thirty-one, for the sightings of Rosh Chodesh Nisan and Iyar are equal in interval to the sighting of the second of Sivan, since Nisan is full and Iyar is deficient. Thus far his words. And learn from this that that which he said, "concerned for Rosh Chodesh Iyar, if she saw on it she is concerned etc.," his intention is for the second day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar, for this is the primary Rosh Chodesh, as from it the counting of Iyar begins. But the first day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar is the thirtieth day of Nisan, as is known. And so wrote one of the great commentators [Bach].

And he added to say that even though if she saw on the first of Nisan, and on the first day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and on Rosh Chodesh Sivan, a vest has been established for her for Rosh Chodesh, this is the reason: since she saw twice on a complete Rosh Chodesh, we attribute the vest also to the first day of Rosh Chodesh, and we say that the day called Rosh Chodesh causes her seeing. However, to be concerned for it ab initio we are not concerned, but she is concerned for the second day of Rosh Chodesh [ibid.]. But there are those who explained that she is also concerned for both days of Rosh Chodesh Iyar [Prisha, sign 23], and this is as we wrote in section 12, see there. And there is no definitive proof in the matter, but from the silence of the wording of the poskim it implies that every day of Rosh Chodesh is entirely like a complete Rosh Chodesh. And so it stands to reason, for in truth every month does not reach a completeness of days, as every month is twenty-nine days, twelve hours, and seven hundred and ninety-three chalakim. For this reason we make a full month and a deficient month, and every first day of Rosh Chodesh, in most of them, there is a portion of it from the coming month, only we do not calculate it in the account. And this is what the sages, of blessed memory, said in Megillah [5a]: From where do we know that we do not calculate hours for months, etc., according to the explanation of the Rambam at the beginning of chapter 8 of Kiddush HaChodesh, see there. And also according to the explanation of Rashi in Megillah there, this is proven, see there. But in essence, even the first day of Rosh Chodesh, a portion of it belongs to the coming Rosh Chodesh, and if so, it is obvious that regarding vestot, which follows after the time of the moon's fullness and its deficiency, that it is like the second Rosh Chodesh, and so it should be ruled in my humble opinion.

And that which he wrote, that if she did not see she must be concerned for the second of Sivan due to the concern of a vest haflagah, his intention is not that other than this she need not be concerned; for it is obvious that as long as a vest has not been established for her through three times, she must be concerned for the vest ha-beinoni, which is the thirtieth day or Rosh Chodesh according to the opinions that were explained above. Rather, his intention is that she must also be concerned for the second day [Beit Yosef]. And that which he wrote, that the vest of Rosh Chodesh was uprooted, this is its explanation: that a fixed vest was uprooted from there and its law is like one that is not fixed [ibid.].

The Tur further wrote in the name of the Ramban: And she must always be concerned for these concerns, for the day of the month and for the interval, until she establishes one of them according to its law three times. How so? If she saw on the first of Nisan and on the twentieth of it, she is concerned for the first of Iyar because of the Rosh Chodesh of Nisan. And if she did not see, she is concerned for the ninth of it for the interval of twenty. If she saw on the ninth of it or did not see, she is concerned for the twentieth of Iyar, lest she establish a veset according to the days of the month, for she saw on the twentieth of Nisan. And so she is concerned for both of them until she establishes a veset of interval with four sightings, or a veset of the month with three sightings, or after one is purified through a single uprooting [so it should be, see Beit Yosef]. Thus far his words.

It must be understood: since he wrote regarding the first of Iyar that if she did not see, she is concerned for the ninth of it for the haflagah interval of twenty, it is explicitly clear that if she did see, she is not concerned for the ninth of it for the haflagah of twenty. If so, why did he say later: if she saw on the ninth of it or did not see, she is concerned for the twentieth of Iyar, etc.? And it must be said that the veset of the chodesh is different; since it is the average veset for most women, we are therefore always concerned for it even if she saw eleven days prior, until she establishes another fixed veset. However, for a veset haflagah, there is no concern except when there was no other seeing within the time of the haflagah. But where there was another seeing, such as if she saw on the first of Iyar, then there is no haflagah of twenty days here from the twentieth of Nisan until the ninth of Iyar, for she saw in the middle. And even though, if so, when she saw on the ninth of Iyar, why is she concerned for the twentieth of Iyar because of the twentieth of Nisan—behold, she saw in the middle of the month and there is no chodesh here? For it is not comparable; for as long as we can attribute the veset of the chodesh even in a distant way—namely, to say that in the middle extra blood was added to her and it was not like the matter of a veset for a time—we attribute it so. But regarding haflagah, we do not say "an addition of blood," since it is not the way of most women to see by a haflagah of days [and this is the primary intention of the Beit Yosef, the Bach, and the Perishah; and see Shach subsection 31, the Kereti U'Peleti, and the Sidrei Taharah who agreed to this].

And that which he wrote afterwards, "and so too she must be concerned for both of them until she establishes etc.," certainly it is so; however, all of this is when another sighting did not intervene between them, for then there is no difference between a veset of the month and a veset of haflagah. But where another sighting intervened, there is a difference between the month and haflagah for the reason we have explained.

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote: A woman who saw a discharge is concerned for the veset of the month and for the interval until she establishes the veset of the month three times, or the veset of the interval four times, or until one of them is uprooted. How so? If she saw on the first of Nisan and on the 20th of it, she is concerned for the first of Iyar because of Rosh Chodesh Nisan. If she saw on the first of Iyar or did not see on it, she is concerned for the 9th of Iyar, which is the 20th day from the sighting on the 20th day that she saw. If she saw on the 9th of Iyar or did not see, she is concerned for the 20th of Iyar, lest she established for herself a veset on the 20th of the month, for behold, she saw on the 20th of Nisan. And so she is always concerned until she establishes one veset according to its law, for then she is not concerned for the second that was not established, or until one of them is uprooted, then she is not concerned for it even though the second was not established. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote explicitly that she is concerned for the 9th of Iyar even though she saw on Rosh Chodesh Iyar, for just as regarding the veset of the month one is concerned even though she saw in the middle and we attribute it to an addition of blood, so too regarding the veset of the interval. [And the Taz, subsection 18, agreed with our teacher, the Rema, but most of the poskim disagree with him as I have written, and it appears so for the halacha, for they are many, and furthermore, vesetot are rabbinic and we follow the lenient path in its doubt; so it appears in my humble opinion]:

And that which they wrote, that she is always concerned until she establishes one veset according to its law, meaning that the second was not established; and you find this where the new veset was established but not the veset ha-haflagah, such as if she saw on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, and Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the fourteenth of Iyar, and the twenty-eighth of Iyar, and on Rosh Chodesh Sivan—behold, the new veset was established three times, and the haflagah was only two times, from Rosh Chodesh to the fourteenth and from the fourteenth to the twenty-eighth [Taz, subsection 19]. And similarly you find this when a veset ha-haflagah was established with four times and the monthly one was not established three times, such as if she saw on the first of Nisan, and on the sixteenth of it, and on the second day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the sixteenth of Iyar—behold, there was haflagah four times and the month twice [Bach]. And there is one who depicted it in this manner: Rosh Chodesh Nisan, and the fourteenth, and the twenty-eighth, and Rosh Chodesh Iyar, and the twelfth of it [Taz, ibid.]. And this is only according to the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, that one is concerned for haflagah even if there was a sighting in the middle, and not according to the opinion of most poskim. And that which they wrote, "or until one of them is uprooted," this is simple: when the month or the time of haflagah arrived and she did not see, for this veset is canceled for her even though the second has not yet been established. And know that according to the law of the Gemara, that one does not establish a veset during the days of zivah, you do not find that she establishes a veset of haflagah with four times in less than seventy-two days—four times eighteen—and if so, perforce three Rosh Chodesh dates passed for her if the first sighting was on Rosh Chodesh, as has been explained.

He further wrote that she does not concern herself with a veset of skipping until she establishes it. How so? If she saw on the 15th of Nisan, she concerns herself with the 15th of Iyar; if she did not see, she does not concern herself with the 16th of it. If she saw on the 16th, she concerns herself with the 16th of Sivan and does not concern herself with the 17th of it [if she did not see on the 16th]. If she saw on the 17th of it, she concerns herself with the 17th of Tammuz and does not concern herself with the 18th of it [as above]. If she saw on the 18th of Tammuz, she has established for herself a veset of skipping for the days of the month, and she concerns herself with the 19th of Av. And so too in this manner regarding intervals and skippings, for there is no difference between them, except some say that in skipping a month, the first sighting is included in the count, as has been explained. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, that she does not concern herself with the 17th of Sivan even though ostensibly there is a veset of interval here after she saw once with an interval, however, since Nisan is full and Iyar is short, it turns out that from the 15th of Nisan until the 16th of Iyar is 32 days, and from the 16th of Iyar until the 17th of Sivan is 31 days [Shach, subsection 34]. But if so, according to this, should she not have to concern herself with the 18th of Sivan, which is also an interval of 32 days? And he should have explained this. But it is possible that because here he is dealing only with skippings, he did not see fit to explain the law of interval, and it requires further study.

And that which he wrote, "And so too in this manner regarding intervals and skips, etc.," this is the explanation: that she skipped in the interval, meaning she saw on the first of Nisan and saw on the twentieth of it, she is concerned for the interval of twenty, which is the ninth of Iyar, aside from the fact that she must be concerned on Rosh Chodesh because of the veset of the month. And if she skipped to the twenty-first day, meaning she saw on the tenth of the month and on Rosh Chodesh she did not see, she is concerned for Rosh Chodesh Sivan, which is the twenty-first day from the tenth of Iyar. However, she must also be concerned for the twentieth of Iyar because of the veset of the month, as she saw on the twentieth of Nisan. If Rosh Chodesh Sivan arrived and she did not see, she is permitted on the second day of Sivan and does not need to be concerned for an interval with a skip. And if she skipped to the twenty-second day, she is concerned for the twenty-second day, which is the twenty-third of Sivan. If this day arrived and she did not see, she is permitted on the following day, which is the twenty-fourth of Sivan. And this depends on the opinions that were explained in section 18, see there, and there is no need to explain further. [Note 32 in the Shach, Taharat HaKodesh, and it refers to what follows regarding if she saw on the fifteenth of Nisan and her seeing continued, etc., as written in the glosses of Yeshuot Yaakov, and his difficulty in section 37 was answered by the Minchat Yaakov, subsection 25].

He further wrote: If she saw on the 15th of Nisan and her seeing continued for four days, and on the 16th of Iyar she saw and her seeing continued for three days, and in Sivan she began to see on the 17th of the month—some say that she must be concerned for a skipping vest and for a fixed vest, for she has established it three times on the 17th of the month. And some say that there is no fixed vest here at all, for we always follow the beginning of the seeing, and such is the primary ruling. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matter is that the first opinion holds that even though there is certainly a skipping vest here, since the beginning of the seeing was in skips—and he does not enter here into the dispute of whether we require four times for a skip or if three times suffices, and for the one who requires four times, we would add another month and say that in Sivan she began on the 17th and it continued for two days, and in Tammuz she began to see on the 18th of the month. Therefore, he intentionally wrote regarding Nisan that her seeings continued for four days, though in truth three would suffice, meaning until the 17th, but because for four times we would need another month and to continue until the 18th [and with this all the difficulties of the Taz in subsection 24 are answered, see there and examine carefully]. And even though there is a skipping vest here, nevertheless she must also be concerned for the fixed vest, since there was one day of equal seeing in all the vestot, namely the 17th day, for regarding a fixed vest three times certainly suffices. And even though it is not entirely equal, since in Sivan the 17th was the beginning and in Nisan and Iyar it was not the beginning, nevertheless there is no difference, since we follow the entire duration of the vest, it is all considered like a beginning. And the "some say" hold that we only follow the beginning regarding vestot, and if so, there is only a skipping vest here and nothing more.

And that which he wrote, that this is the primary ruling—that one always follows the beginning of the seeing—there is proof for this law from what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in siman 184, section 6: that if the vestat continues for two or three days, whether she flows or drips, she only needs to separate for the first onah, see there. And we explained it there in section 29, see there, and we brought that the Ramban disagrees with this law, and the Meor holds thus, and the Rosh holds like the Meor. And even in this time the law is so, not like the great later authorities who raised a difficulty, that in this time when a woman establishes a vestat during the days of zivah, one should forbid the entire time of the seeing. And we explained there in section 32 that these are not dependent on one another, see there. And there are also those who raised a difficulty against this law from what our teacher, the Rema, wrote there in section 2: that a woman who changes her vestat to be earlier by two or three days, etc., one must separate from her two or three days prior, see there; consequently, we are concerned for the entire time of the seeing. And we explained there in section 24 that these matters are not related to one another [and the words of the Shach in subsection 39 require further study, as I wrote there in section 23; and see the Kereti U-Peleti and Sidrei Taharah who raised a difficulty against this law, and according to what I wrote there, it is well understood; and delve into this].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 14: If she was accustomed to seeing on the twentieth day and has a fixed vaset in this, and she changed to the thirtieth day, both this and that are forbidden. And when the twentieth day from the sighting of the thirtieth arrives, she is forbidden because of the first vaset, and if she does not see on it, she is concerned for the 30th day. If she changed twice to the 30th day, both this and that are forbidden. If she changed three times to the 30th day, the 20th day is permitted and the 30th day is forbidden. And if after she changed once or twice to the 30th day, she saw at the end of 20, the vaset of 20 returned to its place and the thirty is permitted. Thus far their words. Meaning that after the second 30th day, she saw on the 20th after the 30th, immediately the 30th is uprooted, even though the third 30th day on which she did not see has not yet arrived and perhaps she will see; nevertheless, the 30th is uprooted and the 20th is established [from Ma'adanei Yom Tov chapter 9, letter 27]. And this is also the opinion of the Rambam, chapter 8, halacha 8, and the Ra'avad in the book Ba'al HaNefesh. And the reason is that whenever the fixed vaset returns to its place, there is no need to be concerned for the non-fixed one, even though the third time of this non-fixed vaset has not yet arrived [and so wrote the Kereti U-Peleti and the Sidrei Taharah, subsection 19, and they wrote that it is explicitly explained thus in Hilkhot Niddah of the Ramban who agreed to this view; and even though the Razah in the book Ba'al HaNefesh disagrees on this, as he reads in the Gemara regarding the third time "the 30th day and she did not see," and they read according to our version and disagree with the Shach, subsection 40, who did not agree with the Ma'adanei Yom Tov, see there and examine carefully].

And there is one who raised a difficulty regarding this, that if so, why do we need to have a fixed vaset for the twentieth; even without this, when she saw twice on the thirtieth and the third time on the twentieth, behold the thirtieth day is permitted according to the law of a vaset that is not fixed, which is uprooted by one time [Shach ibid.]. However, in truth it is not so, for certainly it is not yet uprooted in a vaset that is not fixed until the third thirtieth day arrives and she does not see, and we only count the thirtieth from the sighting of the twentieth and not from the second thirtieth [like the reasoning of Rav Papa at the end of the fourth chapter, and Rav Huna disagrees with him and we establish the law like Rav Huna]. And when she previously had a fixed vaset for the twentieth, there is no need to be concerned for the third thirtieth [like the Re'ah there]. And not only that, but even if three times passed from the fixed vaset in which she did not see at all, or she saw at different times in which the fixing of a vaset is not applicable, when the first vaset returned, it returned to its fixed status. But when she fixed three times for another day, the first is completely uprooted and the second becomes a fixed vaset, and even if she saw afterwards on the first vaset one or two times, its law is like one that is not fixed.

And all these matters are clarified from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 15 and section 16, and this is his wording: If she changed her sightings and did not make them equal, such as if she changed one time to the 30th day, the second to the 32nd, and the third to the 34th, the first veset is uprooted and she has no veset at all; and if she returned to see on the day of the first veset, it returns to its first fixed status, and she is always concerned for it until it is uprooted from her three times. And the same law applies to her ceasing from seeing for three periods and afterwards she returned to see on the day of the first veset, and similar to this. The law of uprooting a veset of Rosh Chodesh, how so? If she was accustomed to seeing on Rosh Chodesh, and Rosh Chodesh passed over her and she did not see, she is concerned for Rosh Chodesh until three Rosh Chodesh days pass over her; if three Rosh Chodesh days passed over her and she did not see, she is not concerned for them; if she returned and saw on Rosh Chodesh, the veset returns to its place. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that a veset of intervals and a veset of Rosh Chodesh are equal regarding these laws. And one should not say that in the sightings of 30, 32, and 34 it should be a veset of intervals, for it is not so, as there are only two intervals here, and she only needs to be concerned for the veset ha-beinoni and also she is concerned for the 34th day which is the last interval. And he did not need to clarify this because they already clarified this, that she is always concerned for the new veset and for the veset of the interval until she fixes one of them, as is written in section 30 and section 33. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote this law in section 2, and therefore he did not see fit to elaborate here. [And what he wrote regarding "ceasing etc. and afterwards she returned to see on the first veset etc." means after the cessation of three periods she saw and returned and saw according to the measure of her interval that she was accustomed to seeing, for otherwise you would not find it in a veset of intervals, and examine this carefully].

There is a difference between a veset haflagah and a veset hachodesh, for regarding a veset hachodesh it has been explained that even if Rosh Chodesh passed and she did not see, she remains concerned for Rosh Chodesh until three Roshei Chodashim have passed. However, regarding haflagah this is not applicable; for example, if her haflagah was for thirty-two days and she did not see at that time, it is not applicable to say that she should be concerned for thirty-two, for if so, her seeing would be at sixty-four days from the time she did not see [Shach, subsection 45]. Rather, when she sees, she shall be concerned for thirty-two thereafter. It is not similar to a veset hachodesh where she is concerned for Rosh Chodesh, because with the month, the day is the cause, therefore we are not concerned with the continuation of time, which is not the case with haflagah. And there is one who opines that even with haflagah she must be concerned as with Rosh Chodesh, but it is not the primary view [see Taz, subsection 31 and Chavot Daat, subsection 20, and the primary view is like the Shach].

All of this applies to vestot established by times, but there are three types of vestot that are based on bodily occurrences. The first is via bodily occurrences that are not caused by her own action, such as when she yawns, sneezes, or the like, and through this she sees blood. The second is a bodily occurrence caused by an action, such as whenever she jumps she sees blood, or the like. The third is via eating, such as when by eating sharp things she sees blood, like garlic, onion, or the like. And behold, eating garlic and onions, even though it is explained in the Gemara [63b], nevertheless the Rambam in chapter 8 did not mention this at all, and likewise the Tur; see there.

And regarding the Rambam, of blessed memory, there is no difficulty at all, for he holds that even the first veset, where she yawns and sneezes, is not a veset at all without days, as he wrote at the beginning of chapter 8: There is a woman etc. and this is one who has a veset, she who has a fixed day etc. and before the blood comes she feels herself yawning and sneezing etc. Thus far his words. Behold, this is not a veset on its own, for there is no veset of the body without a veset of time, and if so, all the more so regarding the eating of garlic, it would not be a veset on its own. Furthermore, he ruled regarding a veset through jumping that it is not a veset, as will be explained, and consequently the same applies to the eating of garlic. But all the poskim disagree with him and hold that a veset from bodily occurrences that are not through an action is a veset on its own, and his opinion was not brought at all in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. [And it appears to me that they disagree in the interpretation of the Mishnah 63a: Any woman who has a veset, her time is sufficient, and these are the vesetot: she yawns etc. see there; for the Rambam would interpret "who has a veset" as referring to a veset of days as at the beginning of Niddah, and according to this it is one matter; but all our teachers would interpret that it refers to a veset of the body, and so wrote the Bartenura, see there, for he wrote that it is not like above, and examine this.] But regarding the Tur it is difficult, and they have already wondered about him and about the Rashba for omitting the veset of eating. And regarding the Rashba the reason is simple, for he holds that it is like jumping, and jumping alone is not a veset according to him, as he wrote explicitly in Torat HaBayit. But the Tur, who holds that a veset of jumping is a veset, it is difficult [Beit Yosef]. Furthermore, the Rosh wrote explicitly in chapter 9 that a veset of garlic and onions is like sneezing and yawning, and the Tur always follows his system. And some have answered that he rejected this law from the halacha [ibid.] or that he was in doubt regarding this law [Bach]; and besides the forced nature of this, how is it possible that he would disagree with his father and not mention him?

And in my humble opinion it appears that behold, the view of the Rosh and the Mordechai is that all hot things cause the seeing, and this is the first opinion that our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 23, see there. And the Tur wrote: sneezes, etc., or if the pains of fever seized her, etc. Thus far his words. And this is not explicitly stated in the Gemara, and perhaps this is included in what we learned in the Mishnah: a kind of chills seize her, see there. And fever is a heat in the body, and automatically, also through the eating of hot things there is also from this a heat of the body, and these are included in these words of his. And according to this, he stands exactly in the position of the Rosh. And perhaps the Rosh also learned this from the expression "chills" (tzmarmurot), which is an expression of heat, like "chilling fever" (eishta tzmira) in several places in the Shas.

The Tur ruled that a veset of jumping is established when she jumped three times and saw [blood], and it becomes a veset such that any time she jumps she must be concerned. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 17, ruled according to the opinion of the Rambam and the Rashba that with jumping alone without days, it never becomes a veset. This is the opinion of the majority of the poskim, for even though regarding yawning and sneezing they disagree with the Rambam, in this they agree with him, because a veset that occurs through an action is like an accident, and regarding an accident, the establishment of a veset is not applicable. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: Any veset that is established due to an accident, such as if she jumped and saw [blood], even if she saw [blood] through it several times, if she did not establish them for days, it is not a veset, for she saw [blood] because of the accident. Thus far his words. From this language, it is implied that this is not a veset at all even to be concerned for it. And so it is explicitly explained from the words of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, who wrote regarding a combined veset of yawnings and days, and this is his wording: For whenever the day arrived and she did not yawn, or she yawned not on that day, she is not concerned for it, just as we said regarding the veset of jumpings. Thus far his words. It is explicitly explained that one is not concerned at all, and so it is explained from the words of the Maggid Mishneh; see there.

Therefore, I am astonished at our teacher, the Rema, who wrote regarding this: "And nevertheless, she must be concerned for it as for a veset that is not fixed," thus far his words. His source is from the Hagahot Maimoniot, see there. It appears that this is a minority opinion, and the essence of the matter is not understood, for what concern is relevant here? It is understandable regarding all the vestot that are not fixed, for which we are concerned because perhaps they will become fixed vestot when they repeat three times; but in this case, where it will never be a fixed veset, what is the relevance of being concerned for it? What concern is there in this? Furthermore, if so, what benefit do we have from the fact that this is not a veset, since she must be concerned for it? One must say that the practical difference is regarding uprooting, that it does not require three times to uproot it. But in such a case, the poskim should have explained and not left it vague. And there is a clear proof for this, for the Rashba wrote there that she must be concerned for the average interval [the Beit Yosef cited him at the end of siman 184], and he should have said that she must be concerned for this veset and also for the average interval; rather, it is certainly so that for this veset there is no concern at all.

And there is further proof from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 18, who wrote: If she jumped on a known day, such as on Rosh Chodesh or on the first day of the week, and saw on it, and this occurred on three Roshei Chodesh or on three first days of the week, she has established a vest for herself, and she must be concerned for every time she jumps at that time. And if afterwards the first day of the week arrived and she did not jump, or she jumped on the second day of the week, she need not be concerned, for she only established it for jumps on the first day of the week. Thus far his words. And according to the words of our teacher, the Rema, behold, for jumps alone three times she should be concerned; and you must say that his intention is regarding the matter of uprooting a vest, that in such a case three times are required to uproot it, whereas for jumps alone, uprooting one time is sufficient [and so it appears from the Shach, sub-section 50]. But if so, the essence of this law is missing from his words. Rather, it is certainly so that for jumps alone there is no concern at all, even after three times, for anything that is due to an ones is not a vest at all.

And behold, the great later authorities were even more stringent and wrote regarding the words of our teacher, the Rema, who was stringent to be concerned for leaps after three times, and they were stringent that even with a leap of two times—for example, if she leaped and after twenty days returned and leaped—she must be concerned for the veset ha-haflagah, for if she leaps again at the end of twenty days from the second sighting, she is concerned. For her seeing from twenty to twenty with a leap should not be worse than her seeing from twenty to twenty without a leap; and because she leaped, should it be worse? Behold, now too she leaped [Shach subsection 48, and Sidrei Taharah subsection 22, and Chavot Daat subsection 32]. And in my humble opinion, these words are astonishing, for certainly a leap makes it worse, because the blood comes via an accident and there is no reason for haflagah here at all. It is well understood regarding haflagah without a leap that it is proper to be concerned, for behold, we see that it is her way to see at this interval; but when she leaped, there is no proof that it is her way to see at this interval, for behold, her sighting is due to the accident of the leap. And if it is because she also leaped now, behold, there is no regularity to leaps, and there is no proof from one time to the next, for behold, for this reason she does not establish a veset with leaps even after many times.

And there are those who brought a proof from the words of the Ra'avad in the book Ba'alei HaNefesh, who wrote that these vestot established by jumping or eating, just as they are established by three times, so too she is concerned for them at the beginning of their establishment; for if she jumped and saw on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, and jumped and saw on Rosh Chodesh Iyar, she is concerned for the jumping, etc. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that just as with jumping on a known day she establishes a veseit with three times, so too with one seeing. And in my humble opinion, they are not similar to one another, for the veseit of the month, which is the veseit habeinoni, she certainly must be concerned for, since even without this she must be concerned for the veseit habeinoni, and we rightly say that the jumping does not spoil it; but what relevance is there to a veseit of haflagah? [The Sidrei Taharah brought this proof]. Therefore, the words of our teacher, the Rema, and the commentators require further study [and nevertheless, in practice, Heaven forbid that I should disagree].

There are times when through jumping she will establish a veset for days without jumping. How so? She jumped on the first day of the week and saw blood, and after twenty days she jumped on the first day of the week, and after nineteen days she jumped on the Sabbath day and did not see blood, and after the Sabbath she saw without jumping; behold, every first day of the week after twenty days is established, for it is known that the day caused it for her and not the jumping, and this day has already been established three times. And so too anything similar to this. And even though regarding a yawn in such a case it will be explained that she established a veset for her only for a yawn on this day, and we say that the yawn of yesterday caused her seeing, nevertheless, regarding jumping, which is an accident, we do not say so. Thus ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 17. But in truth, the Ramban, the Rashba, and the Tur disagree on this and hold that here too the law is like a yawn, and she established a veset for her only for jumping on this day, and we say that the jumping of yesterday caused this. And in the Gemara [11a] there is a dispute regarding this, and it is a wonder regarding our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, that they did not bring their opinion at all [Shach, subsection 49].

And it is simple that we only attribute it to a jumping of yesterday and not to the day before it, and all the more so from much earlier than this. And similarly, if all three times the jumpings were on the day of yesterday, we do not attribute them to them at all, but rather to today [Chavat Daat]. And it appears to me that even when the first time the seeing was on the day of the jumping and the other two were a day before, we do not attribute it to the jumping but rather to the days, for the Sages, of blessed memory, precisely said [ibid.] that only on the third time do we attribute it. And similarly, it is simple that if the jumpings of the three times were all at one hour, we are only concerned for that hour. And all these laws also apply to yawns, which will be explained.

Vesatot that occur through bodily incidents not caused by an action have different laws. And what are these vesatot? For example, if she yawns—and this is like a person who stretches his arms due to heaviness, or like a person who opens his mouth due to heaviness, which is called "genetzen," or like a person who emits a sound through the throat, which is called "grebtzen," for all of these are included in yawning. For any sense of bodily change, once it is established, becomes a sign of the awakening of the displacement of the blood, and she must be concerned for it. And so too if she sneezes from below, or feels pain in the pit of her stomach or in her lower abdomen, or if she is seized by the chills of fever, or if her head and limbs feel heavy upon her. And in the Gemara it also considers one who flows with impure blood from within pure blood, but for us there is no pure blood; nevertheless, even for us, when she flows with blood from within pus—for such is her way, that first she flows with pus and afterwards blood—the pus becomes a vesat. And in all of these, if one of them should happen to her three times and she saw blood, she has established a vesat for herself, such that every time she experiences them she is forbidden from tashmish. And this does not have a fixed day, unlike the opinion of the Rambam, as I wrote in section 44.

And know that the intention in all of these is not regarding one time, nor two times, nor three; meaning, it is not because she yawns or sneezes a few times in a day that we are concerned for this. Rather, when she yawns many times on this day and saw blood, and similarly sneezes many times on this day and saw blood, and did so three times on three separate days, it becomes a vesta—that whenever she yawns or sneezes excessively, she must be concerned for a vesta. For these yawns and sneezes a few times are the way of human beings, and so too regarding everything we have enumerated. Therefore, we said that the intention is that she did so in abundance, and then there is a day to be concerned for a vesta after three times, whenever this occurs without dependence on time, as has been explained.

These vestot are not similar to the vest of jumping, which is not a vest because it is an accident caused by an action, as opposed to these which come on their own naturally, and thus certainly constitute a vest even without a fixed day. However, if one of these vestot comes at a known time, such as if she yawned on this Rosh Chodesh and saw blood, and likewise until three Rosh Chodesh occurrences or four times at an interval of twenty to twenty or more, she establishes for herself a vest for the time and the physical symptom together. This means that on every such day when she has this symptom, she must be concerned and shall not have relations. But if the time arrived and the symptom did not come, or if the symptom came and the time did not arrive, she is not concerned.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 19 that this is specifically when she established a veset for both of them together, but initially she is concerned for each one individually because she does not know which of them she will establish; and as has been explained above regarding a veset of skipping and days, or from an interval and with days. Thus far his words. And it is simple, for a veset of a bodily occurrence is like a veset of days according to most poskim. And when she established it for both of them together, some say that then, when the time arrived and both did not come together, she is not concerned at all even as a veset that is not established, neither for the veset of the occurrence nor for the veset of the day [Shach, subsection 56]. And some say that she is certainly concerned for the day as a veset that is not established [Chavat Daat, subsection 26], for so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 25. This is his wording: If one of these comes at a known time, then she is certainly forbidden the entire onah of the veset, just as for a veset of days alone. Thus far his words. And according to this, it must be said that that which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote, that in a case where she established it for both of them together, if the time arrived and the sensation did not come etc. she is not concerned, thus far his words, this means that she is not concerned as an established veset, such that if the time passed and she did not examine herself she is permitted, and so the Rosh wrote explicitly; but to be concerned for this onah as a veset that is not established, she is certainly concerned [and so wrote the Beit Yosef and the Bach]. For so the Rashba explained in Torat HaBayit, that for a veset of yawning alone she is not concerned until the yawning begins, but when it is composed of both of them, she is forbidden that entire onah even though the yawning has not yet begun; see there [and the words of the Shach are truly astonishing, and he himself wrote almost explicitly so in subsection 61; see there and examine closely].

If she yawned two times on Rosh Chodesh and saw, and afterwards she yawned not on Rosh Chodesh and saw, the matter is clarified that Rosh Chodesh does not cause the veset, but rather the yawning, and she has established a veset for yawning alone. And similarly, if on the third time she saw on Rosh Chodesh without yawning, the matter is clarified that the yawning is not the cause, but rather the Rosh Chodesh, and she has established a veset for Rosh Chodesh alone. But if she yawned two times on Rosh Chodesh, and on the third time she yawned on the twenty-ninth of the month and did not see, and on Rosh Chodesh she saw without yawning, she has established for herself a veset for the yawning of Rosh Chodesh, and we say that the yawning of yesterday caused the seeing of Rosh Chodesh. And in this everyone agrees, and it is not similar to the jumpings of section 51 for the reason we explained there. And know that this which we wrote, that she yawned on the twenty-ninth and saw on Rosh Chodesh, this is when Rosh Chodesh is one day, or when it is two days and she saw on the first day of Rosh Chodesh and not on the second day of Rosh Chodesh, for it is only effective for the previous day, as I wrote in section 52 regarding jumpings, and the same law applies to yawning.

If she yawned on Rosh Chodesh and saw, and then yawned again during the days of the month, she must be concerned for that yawning and is forbidden from engaging in relations until she examines herself. For every veset, whether of days or of the body, one must be concerned for it after one occurrence, and there is a concern lest she establish a veset for yawning without a known time. And if she examined herself and found that she did not see, she is no longer concerned for the yawning alone, but she is concerned for Rosh Chodesh lest she establish it for Rosh Chodesh; for even without this, it is the veset habeinoni for which every woman must be concerned before she has established for herself a fixed veset. But for the yawning, there is no need to be concerned, as it was uprooted in one instance according to the law of a veset that is not fixed [see Shach, subsection 60].

And know that this wording that we wrote, that if she yawned again during the days of the month she is concerned and is forbidden to have relations until she examines herself, so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 21. And they raised a difficulty regarding this, for we hold that regarding a veset that is not established, if the veset passed and she did not examine herself, she is permitted without an examination. Therefore they wrote that a veset of yawning is more stringent, for since it is the nature of a woman to yawn at the time of her seeing or close to it, it is like a visible flaw before us, and she is forbidden even afterwards until she examines herself [Taz subsection 38 and Chavat Da'at]. And the matter is wondrous, to be more stringent regarding a veset of the body than a veset of the days, for they explicitly wrote in section 26 that they have one law; see there. And from all the Rishonim it does not appear so. And it seems more likely like the one who explains that it means ab initio, that ab initio she is forbidden to have relations until she examines herself [Prisha sign 65]. And furthermore, it is possible to say that regarding a veset of the days, where the concern is the entire onah, the matter is clearly recognizable that when the onah has passed she is permitted; but regarding a veset of the body, where the concern is only for their time, as will be explained with the help of Heaven, and when the hour that she was accustomed to yawn has passed she is permitted. And if so, here too, when she yawned again she is concerned, for this is the explanation: when she yawned again, at this hour she is concerned, and when the hour has passed she is permitted. And this is certain, that it is impossible to be exact, and how could we permit her without an examination, for during the time of hours error is common, but not so regarding a veset of the day, for between day and night people do not err, as it is stated in the first chapter of Pesachim. And therefore the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch correctly say that she is forbidden until she examines herself, meaning if she desires to have relations after this hour; but if she waits several hours, she is permitted without an examination. And in practice, it requires further study, since the Acharonim agreed to be stringent and wrote that this is her hargashah [so wrote the Sidrei Taharah subsection 27 and the Ma'ayan Ganim in chapter 9 in the Chiddushim sign 11].

And such is the law regarding days: if she yawned today and yawned at the end of twenty days, if she yawns even not on the twentieth day, she must be concerned for that yawning, lest she establish a veset for yawning alone. If she yawned within twenty days and did not see, she no longer needs to be concerned for yawning alone, but she must be concerned for the end of twenty days. And similarly, she must be concerned for the fixed day of the month on which she yawned, lest she establish a veset for days. And similarly, she must be concerned for the veset ha-beinoni, which is thirty days [In the Shulchan Aruch, section 22, "thirty" is written regarding this law, see there; and we wrote "twenty" intentionally so as not to err, for the concern of thirty is due to the veset ha-beinoni, and on another day one need not be concerned for this day, and examine this closely]:

All these vestot that are established by bodily occurrences that we have explained—one occurrence does not establish with another. That is to say, we do not combine to the three times a yawn with a sneeze; rather, whenever she yawned three times or sneezed three times and saw [blood], she has established a vest. But if she yawned one time and saw, and sneezed two times and saw, we do not combine them with one another, and so too anything similar to this. Thus the Rishonim agreed, and the reason is simple, for in one woman it is unlikely that all the occurrences would happen to her together; rather, this one has this occurrence and that one has that occurrence, and if so, how could we combine them with one another? And there is room to doubt if in the first time she had two occurrences, such as a yawn and a sneeze, and afterwards over a period of time she yawned alone or sneezed alone, if she must be concerned. And it appears that she does not need to be concerned when it was not exactly like the first time. Nevertheless, one must deliberate on this, for perhaps this occurrence was the primary one. See what I wrote in section 67.

One leniency regarding a veset of the body as opposed to a veset of days was taught by the sages in the Mishnah [63b], for regarding a veset of days it has already been explained that even if the veset is at the beginning of the day or at the end of the day, she must be concerned for the entire day. However, regarding vestot of the body, one is only concerned for their specific time, meaning the hour she is accustomed to this veset coming to her. How so? If she was accustomed to seeing blood at the time of the beginning of this veset, meaning at the beginning of the yawning, she is immediately forbidden for the entire duration of the yawning, for perhaps the primary one is the second or third yawn, and so too for the future until the yawning passes [see Chavat Da'at subsection 30]. But if she was accustomed to seeing at its end, she is only forbidden at its end, for since she has established a chazakah that she does not see blood until she yawns for an hour or two beforehand, she certainly will not see before then [ibid.]. And when the yawning has passed and she did not see, she is permitted even though she still stands within the onah, meaning within the day or within the night, for it is not similar in this to a veset of days, as I have written.

And regarding this law, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 24: In what case are these things said? When the entire sighting is contained within the veset, but if the entire sighting is not contained within the veset, but rather continues also after the veset, she is forbidden from the beginning of the veset until the end of one onah. Thus far their words. And even though it was explained in siman 184 regarding a veset that continues for several days that we only follow the beginning of the veset, and even according to the one who is stringent there, he was only stringent to forbid according to the time of the veset that continues into the second onah, see there, this is specifically regarding two separate onot, for every onah—meaning day or night—is a time unto itself. But when the interior of the veset and after the veset are in one onah, since the sighting extended after the veset, the entire onah is seized by it [the Ra'avad in the book Ba'alei HaNefesh]. And there are further distinctions in this law from the law of siman 184 [see Beit Yosef and Shach subsection 62]. And it has already been explained that if one of these comes at a known time, she is forbidden for the entire onah like plain days [see Taz subsection 39 and Nekudat HaKesef, and their words are forced; and see Kereti U'Peleti and Minchat Yaakov that in truth the Ra'avad does not hold so, but in the Shulchan Aruch they did not bring his opinion, see there; and the words of the Shach subsection 61 have no understanding at all, as written by the Kereti U'Peleti and the Sidrei Taharah, and delve into this].

All the laws of bodily vesatot are like the vesatot of days; for just as she is concerned for a vesat of days after one occurrence, so too she is concerned for a bodily vesat after one occurrence. How so? If she yawned once and saw, when she yawns another time, she is concerned for it. And just as a vesat of days that is not established is uprooted by one occurrence—for even if she saw twice on a known day, if the third time arrived and she did not see, it is entirely uprooted—so it is with a bodily vesat. And just as a vesat of days established by three occurrences requires three uprootings and an examination, so it is with a bodily vesat established in the body. And from when is its uprooting? From when this incident occurs and she does not see. And if the incident of the bodily vesat was at a known time and was an established vesat, it is not uprooted unless this incident occurs three times at its time and she did not see. But by the incident alone without the time, or the time alone wherein she did not see, it is not uprooted. And this means that if three established days passed over her and she did not yawn and did not see, nevertheless, if she yawned afterward on that established day, she is concerned as long as she has not established another established vesat for herself. But as long as she did not yawn, it is certain that she is no longer concerned, since that day passed three times and she did not yawn and did not see [see Chavot Daat, subsection 42].

There is reason to doubt whether other occurrences are considered the uprooting of a veset; for example, if she had a fixed veset for yawning every Rosh Chodesh, and afterwards she saw on Rosh Chodesh by means of sneezing, and afterwards she saw by means of sneezing from below on Rosh Chodesh, and afterwards she saw on Rosh Chodesh by means of the lower abdomen, and similar cases. Do we say that since we do not join one occurrence to another regarding a fixed veset, as I wrote in section 61, it is automatically considered also an uprooting of the veset? Or perhaps regarding the uprooting of a veset it is not considered an uprooting, since these too are occurrences of the body? And it requires further study.

And likewise, there is one who is uncertain, according to what has been explained, that a bodily vest is like a vest of days, and a vest of jumping alone is not a vest except with days, as I wrote in section 46, if one combines a vest of jumping with a bodily vest as well—that is, she jumped and yawned and saw blood, and she did so three times, but when she jumped alone or yawned alone she did not see—whether we say that she established a vest for herself, such that whenever she jumps and yawns she is forbidden, just as with jumping on a known day. And even though in the Gemara [11a] jumping and days are explained, it cited one of them, and the same applies to jumping and yawning; or perhaps they do not combine and this is not a vest. Thus far his words.

And so too one should be in doubt regarding two things from the occurrences of the body, whether we are concerned for one [of them]; for example, if she yawned and sneezed three times and saw blood, whether she established a vest for herself specifically for yawning and sneezing, but for one of them she need not be concerned, or perhaps she is concerned even for one of them. And behold, this is certain: that if there occurred within the time before she established the vest a yawn alone or a sneeze alone and she did not see blood, she certainly did not establish [a vest] for one of them. And the doubt is if this did not occur within the time of establishing the vest, if afterwards one of them occurred, whether she should be concerned for this or not. And it appears that we require exactly according to the action that was at the time of the establishment and not in another manner, and so too regarding the previous doubt.

It has already been explained in section 43 that in the Gemara [63b] there is another type of veset through eating, such as if she ate garlic and saw, or ate peppers and saw. All the poskim did not mention this, and we exerted effort there to provide a reason for this, see there. However, our teacher, the Rema, mentioned this in section 23, and this is his wording: If she ate garlic and saw, ate onion and saw, or ate peppers and saw, some say she has established a veset for herself to see through any eating of hot things. And some say that whenever she sees through food, its law is like seeing through jumping or other actions she performs, which is called seeing through an accident, and she does not establish a veset except with the days. And some say its law is like a veset she sees through a physical occurrence in her body, and she establishes it even without equal days. Thus far his words.

And one should not ask according to the latter opinion that this is a vest of the body, if so, why regarding a vest of the body do we not combine one with another, such as a yawn with a sneeze, yet regarding eating we combine garlic, onion, and peppers? For they are not comparable; regarding occurrences, each occurrence is a matter unto itself, but regarding eating, where the proof is via the heating of the body from this eating, if so, what does it matter to me if it is garlic, or if it is onion or peppers, since they all heat the body? For it is for this reason that the first opinion holds that she has established a vest for all hot things, even if not from these three things. Nevertheless, it appears that even this is specifically when the establishment of the vest was via these three species, but if the establishment was via one of them, she has not established a vest for other foods, for perhaps this body is only affected by this species. However, when she established it via three species, she has established it for all species, just as in Bava Kamma, when [an ox] gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel, it becomes muad for all species [Bava Kamma 37b].

There is one who says that even though from these three types of foods she established a veset for all hot things, nevertheless, if she ate other hot things three times and did not see, the veset is not uprooted from these three types. However, if she ate one of these types three times and did not see, the veset is uprooted from all types [Chavat Da'at section 29]. There is also a proof for this from a mu'ad in Bava Kamma there [37b]. And there is a doubt if she ate garlic and saw, and ate another hot type and did not see, and ate onion and saw, and peppers and saw, whether the other type that she ate and did not see is an interruption and she did not establish a veset for these three things, or since the Gemara counted them, perhaps they have more heat than all other hot things in the world. And regarding one type in such a case, there is certainly no doubt, such as if she ate garlic three times and saw, even though in the meantime she ate onion and did not see, nevertheless she established a veset for garlic, for we see that her body is affected only by this type. The doubt is only if the establishment was by means of three types, whether another type interrupts between them, and it requires further study.

According to the law of the Gemara, a woman does not establish a vest during her days of niddah or her days of zivah, as will be explained. It is stated in the Gemara [11a] that specifically from an "open spring" she does not establish it during her days of niddah, but from a "closed spring" she does establish it; see there, for this refers only to her days of niddah, but during her days of zivah she does not establish it even from a closed spring. However, the Tur wrote, and this is his wording: According to the law of the Talmud, a woman does not establish a vest neither during the days of niddah nor during the days of zivah. How so? If she saw on the first of the month and on the fifth of it, which is within the days of niddah for the first seeing, even if she conducted herself so three times, she has not established a vest for the fifth of the month, but rather for the first of the month. And similarly, if she saw on the first of the month and on the fifteenth of it, she has not established a vest for the fifteenth, as it is within the days of zivah. In what case does this apply? When she saw the first seeing from an open spring, as I have explained. But if she saw it from a closed spring—for example, if she saw twice on Rosh Chodesh, and on the third time she saw on the twenty-fifth of the month and on Rosh Chodesh—even though the third seeing was within her days of niddah for the seeing of the twenty-fifth of the month, she establishes it on Rosh Chodesh, because the first two were from a closed spring, and the seeing of the twenty-fifth of the month was due to excess blood that increased within her and hurried to come; and she must also be concerned for the day of the earlier seeing, lest she is establishing a different vest. Thus far the words of the Tur. [And this fact that she does not establish it during the days of zivah at all is according to the words of Shmuel on 39a].

And this is according to the approach of Rashi and Tosafot and all our teachers regarding the laws of niddah and zavah; therefore, they were forced to struggle with the interpretation of "a closed fountain," that it refers to the first two sightings. However, according to the Rambam, who holds that a woman counts the days of niddah and the days of zavah all her days, whether she saw or did not see, as I wrote in siman 183, the interpretation is simple: it is called "an open fountain" when she actually saw, for then she does not establish a veset during her niddah days; and "a closed fountain" is when she did not actually see, but rather according to the calculation she stands within her niddah days, for then she establishes a veset. And so it is explained from his words in chapter 8, law 9, see there; and see what I wrote in siman 183.

All of this was in the time of the Gemara, but nowadays the Tur wrote in the name of the Ramban that since it is the custom not to distinguish between the days of niddah and the days of zivah—meaning that for every drop of blood they sit seven clean days according to the law of a zavah—the same applies regarding the establishment of a veset, there is no distinction. Therefore, if she saw from the fifteenth to the fifteenth day, she has established a veset for herself. Thus far his words. For this reason, our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, omitted this entire law. However, I am astonished, for if so, this stringency will lead to a great leniency; for example, if she has a veset every twenty days and it is a fixed veset, and afterward she sees three times from the fifteenth to the fifteenth, she would uproot the first veset, yet this is not a veset at all according to the essential law of the Torah, so how can it uproot the first fixed veset? And perhaps you will say that in truth, in such a case the first is not uprooted; if so, our teachers should have explained this law in any event. It requires further study.

And regarding the law, I have indeed seen one who ruled accordingly, that for leniency we do not say even in this time that it shall be called a vest in the days of niddah and zivah [Shach, subsection 71]. And there is one who disagrees in this [Minchat Yaakov, and see Kereti U'Peleti, subsection 30] and gave a reason that if so, they must calculate the days of niddah and zivah, and behold, the entire essence of the stringency that the daughters of Israel took upon themselves was for the purpose of not calculating the days of niddah and zivah. And in my humble opinion, this is no comparison at all, for they only need to know that any vest that comes in less than nineteen days to nineteen days is not a vest for leniency.

It appears to me that this is indeed the opinion of the Ra'avad in the book Ba'al HaNefesh regarding the matter of establishing a vestet within a vestet, as the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 32. This is his wording: Sometimes a woman establishes for herself a vestet within a vestet. How so? She saw three times on Rosh Chodesh, and the fourth time on the twentieth [so it should be, as the Shach wrote in subsection 72] of the month and on Rosh Chodesh, and similarly on the fifth and sixth times; behold, she has established two vestetot. Thus far his words. Meaning, a vestet on every Rosh Chodesh and another vestet on every twentieth of the month. And it is difficult: why is it relevant to call this a vestet within a vestet? Let us say that this woman has a vestet of intervals, for she sees once at twenty days and once at ten days, since she established it in this manner three times, on the fourth, fifth, and sixth. Rather, it is certainly because in ten days it is impossible to establish a vestet, as they are within the days of zivah, and according to the essential law one would not need to be concerned for this; however, as a stringency we say that she establishes it even during the days of zivah, but the primary vestet is from thirty days to thirty days, and therefore they call it a vestet within a vestet. [And see the Shach, subsection 72, who brought the wording of the Ra'avad, and our words should be aligned with his intention; and the Taz, subsection 47, and the Derishah read "on the second of the month" and were very pressed, see there; and the main point is like the Shach, and examine it closely].

It has already been explained at the beginning of the siman that there are women who do not have a fixed veset like other women, and they are four women: a virgin who has not reached twelve years and one day, which is the time of her naarut, or she has reached her years but has not brought signs; and an elderly woman who has ceased from seeing; and a pregnant woman; and a nursing woman. And they are not similar to one another, for the majority of virgins and elderly women have no time of seeing at all, and nevertheless, if they establish a veset three times, they are like all other women, for regarding this one we see that the time of her seeing has arrived, and regarding this one we see that her blood has not departed. However, in certain details there is a difference between them and other women. But a pregnant woman and a nursing woman, who due to the fetus are in a state of presumption of the departure of blood and not because of their years, have no veset at all, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

How is it with a betulah? And it is not specifically a betulah, but rather even a married woman, if she has not reached her years even if she brought signs, or if she reached her years and was examined and signs were not found in her, she does not have the status of one who sees and she has no veset she-eino kavua. That is to say, that regarding other women they are concerned even for a veset she-eino kavua, yet this one, even if she saw one time or two times, is not concerned at all, and we say it is a mere occurrence. However, when she saw three times on a specific day of the month, or four times in a veset of intervals, she has established for herself a veset like all women, for it has been revealed that she has entered the category of seeing; and so too with all types of vesetot.

Nevertheless, there is a difference between her and an adult woman, for with an adult woman, once she has established a veset through three occurrences, we require that she uproot it three times at the time of the veset she established. For example, if she established a veset for every two months, we require that three periods of two months pass for her without seeing blood. But this girl only requires that three average onot of thirty days pass for her without seeing blood, and she has uprooted the veset entirely and is not concerned at all for the previous veset and has returned to her former status, and we say that some happenstance occurred regarding her seeing blood. Furthermore, even if she returned to seeing blood afterward at those times she was accustomed to seeing previously, she is not concerned until she returns and establishes it three times, because she is not prone to blood, and it was revealed that the first three times were happenstance; therefore, even now her law is as if she only now began to see blood.

And some say that specifically in this case, but if her seeing was three times in short intervals and she ceased from seeing for three such short intervals as she had seen, if she afterwards saw in that interval even one time, she is concerned for her seeing or for a medium interval like other women; specifically when she ceased for ninety days, which is three medium intervals, for we have seen that the nature ceased from her like other women, then we say that the first sightings were accidents. But in short intervals, her law is like other women [Shach subsection 66 and Derisha]. But from the words of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit in the Gate of Vestot it does not appear so, for he wrote, and this is his wording: A minor who has not reached her time etc. and we conclude that the same applies if she saw in short intervals after three initial intervals passed over her, because she is removed from blood and returned to her former status as if she had not seen from the beginning, for now it is revealed that those first three sightings were an accident, and therefore until she returns again to see three sightings etc. and the first veset is as if it is not, and she is not concerned for it until she sees another three sightings. Thus far his words. And so it appears from the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 31 regarding an old woman, who wrote: If she returned to see in short intervals that she was accustomed to etc. she returns to her first fixed status etc. even with one time she returns to her former status etc. and in this the law of the old woman is more stringent than the law of the minor etc. Thus far his words. And why did they not explain that in short intervals even with one she is concerned? And it requires investigation; and even though there is a distinction to be made, nevertheless they should have explained it.

That which we have said, that when she has ceased for three average onot she does not concern herself with the first veset at all, if after she ceased for this duration—meaning ninety days—she saw, and again after ninety days she saw once more, and a third time after ninety days she saw once more, it is revealed that the first skipping was not a cessation of blood but rather a change of veset to once every ninety days, and she has established for herself a veset of haflagah. And one should not ask that we maintain that for a veset of haflagah four times are required so that there will be three haflagot, for the truth is that here too there are four haflagot, as we count the first skipping when she ceased until the ninety days as the first time, since it is now revealed that such is her veset. And it is simple that this is specifically when all the sightings were aligned from ninety to ninety and the like, such that they did not decrease or increase this sighting from another; but if she decreased or increased in one of them such that the sightings were not aligned, they do not combine with one another until she sees four aligned sightings.

And she is called an elderly woman whenever she has reached the years of old age such that they call her "mother" to her face, or even if they do not call her so, but she is fit to be called "mother"—and in our language, a father's mother or a mother's mother—and if they were to call her so to her face she would not object and is not concerned by this at all. Such an elderly woman, for whom three average intervals passed since she grew old and she did not see, behold she is one whose blood has ceased, and she is not concerned for her previous vest. And even if she saw again during an average interval, her law is like the law of a young girl who has not reached her time to see, for until three times she is not concerned, as she does not need to be concerned for a vest that is not fixed, like young girls. But if she returned to see during short intervals as she was accustomed to seeing during them, she has returned to her original fixedness even with one time regarding other vests, and regarding a gap, two times, if the gap was like before when she was accustomed to seeing with such a gap; for it has been revealed that the initial cessation was not a cessation but an accident. And in this, the law of the elderly woman is more stringent than a young girl, for regarding a young girl, after she stopped for three average intervals, even if she saw afterwards during short intervals as she used to see before, she is not concerned when she did not see three times; but an elderly woman is concerned even with one time, for regarding her it was revealed that she has not ceased at all, which is not the case with a young girl whom we must establish through sightings [and for this reason I cast doubt on the words of the Shach and the Perishah in section 79, although I have no complete proof from the Rashba and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, see there, and also from the Gemara there is no proof, and examine this closely].

And similarly, a pregnant woman from the time her fetus is recognizable, which is three months into her pregnancy, and a nursing woman for all twenty-four months after the birth of the child, do not establish a vest. A pregnant woman before three months establishes a vest, even if we know she is pregnant, because before the fetus is recognizable her head and limbs are not heavy upon her [Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba] and she is not in the status of one whose blood is removed. This is not the case after the recognition of the fetus. And a nursing woman, even if the child died or she gave her son to a wet-nurse, nevertheless does not establish a vest for all twenty-four months. For this status of a nursing woman as one whose blood is removed is not due to the milk alone, but because her limbs are disjointed at the time of her giving birth and do not return to their place until twenty-four months, and consequently because of this she is in the status of one whose blood is removed and they do not establish a vest. And although it is the opinion of the Ramban that they do establish a vest, as the Tur wrote in his name, nevertheless all our teachers do not hold so [and his opinion was not brought in the Shulchan Aruch, as the Shach wrote in subsection 73].

There is a stringency regarding a pregnant woman and a nursing woman over a virgin and an elderly woman, and there is a stringency regarding a virgin and an elderly woman over a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. How so is the stringency regarding a pregnant woman and a nursing woman? For regarding a virgin and an elderly woman, we explained that they do not concern themselves with a veset that is not fixed, and therefore they do not concern themselves with one or two sightings. However, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman concern themselves with a sighting that she sees, in the same manner that one concerns herself with a veset that is not fixed. The reason is that a girl and an elderly woman have no blood at all by nature, but a pregnant woman and a nursing woman have blood by nature, but the fetus or the milk obstructs it. And even though there are those who disagree and hold that they do not concern themselves [see Beit Yosef], nevertheless, we hold that they do concern themselves:

And there is a stringency regarding a virgin and an elderly woman more than a pregnant woman and a nursing woman, for regarding a virgin and an elderly woman, when they have seen three times they establish a veset, but a pregnant woman and a nursing woman do not concern themselves with the first veset. And even if they had an established veset and it arrived during this time, she does not require a bedikah and is permitted to her husband. And even if they are flowing with blood and see during those seasons that they were accustomed to see in, they do not concern themselves afterward, and we say that it was a chance occurrence. And the reason is also simple: for a virgin and an elderly woman do not have blood by nature, and yet these have seen, and we say that this one's time has arrived and this one's time has not yet ceased. But a pregnant woman and a nursing woman who have blood, but the fetus obstructs them, and it is impossible in any other way at all for such is the formation of man, if so, it is necessary that there was some chance occurrence in their seeing, and how could they establish a veset?

The days of pregnancy and nursing have passed, she returns to be concerned for her previous vestan. How so? If she had a vestat hayamim, if her vestat was on Rosh Chodesh, she is concerned for the first Rosh Chodesh that she encounters, and so too anything similar to this, even if she has not yet seen at all. And it follows that when she had a vestat haflagah, it is impossible for her to be concerned until she sees one time, and then she is concerned for her haflagah in the manner she was accustomed to separate. And regarding a vestat of a fixed day like Rosh Chodesh and its like, even if she did not see on the first Rosh Chodesh, she is concerned for the second, and if even then she did not see, she is concerned for the third [Beit Yosef]. If three Rosh Chodesh periods passed and she did not see, she is no longer concerned. And there are those who say that she is not concerned at all for the first Rosh Chodesh until she sees one time on Rosh Chodesh as she was accustomed to see previously, and then it becomes for her like a vestat kavua even though she saw only one time [see Shach, subsection 75]. And it is simple that specifically when she had a vestat kavua before the pregnancy she is concerned for it, but if she had a vestat she-eino kavua, she is not concerned for it at all. And know that a nursing woman after twenty-four months, even though she is still nursing, she is like all other women and is not in the legal status of one whose blood is removed [Gemara 9a].