Siman 192

We find in Niddah [66a], Rava said: If she was requested to be married and she consented, she must sit seven clean days, for perhaps due to the desire of longing she saw blood [Rashi], and the blood of longing is impure. And even if she examined herself at the time of the request and found herself pure, it is of no avail, because we fear perhaps she saw a drop of blood like a mustard seed and did not sense it and it was lost. And there is no distinction between an adult and a minor who never saw blood [Gemara], for perhaps the greatness of the desire of longing stirred the source out of its usual time. And there is no distinction between a virgin and a widow or a divorcee; and not only that, but even one who remarries his divorcee also has this law, and even if she stands in her days of purity it is of no avail.

And this confirmation is rabbinic, for according to the Torah, even if she saw, as long as she did not feel, she is not impure [the Maggid Mishneh, chapter 11]. And know that from the words of the Rambam, chapter 11, law 10, it is implied that all of this is from the stringencies that the daughters of Israel adopted for themselves, like the stringency of R. Zera to sit for seven clean days for every drop of blood. And seemingly this is proven from that which Rava said "seven clean days," and if you were to think that it was prior to this stringency, if so, why seven clean days? It would be enough for us to judge her as a niddah and not as a zavah. Rather, certainly after this stringency, they were stringent in this as well. But it is impossible to say so, for in Yoma [18b] it challenges from this regarding blood, see there; and behold, in the days of Rav, the stringency of R. Zera had not yet spread, for Rav preceded R. Zera by a great deal, and in the days of Rava it had certainly spread, as the Rosh wrote at the end of the laws of mikvaot [and with this the difficulty of the Ma'adanei Yom Tov in Niddah chapter 10, end of section 4, letter 2 is answered, and the intent of the Rosh refers to Rav in Yoma, and he did not see fit to elaborate].

And certainly it was an ancient enactment, and also the intention of the Rambam must be that he did not mean that they established all the enactments together, and he did not concern himself with elaborating since for the law there is no practical difference. And Rava, who mentioned seven clean days, did so because in his days the enactment of Rabbi Zeira had already spread. And it can further be said as the Rosh wrote in chapter 10, at the end of siman 4, that for this reason he forbids seven clean days because we concern ourselves every day lest she see, for the closer she is to marriage, her heart stirs and she desires him, and we always concern ourselves lest she see; see there. And for those who disagree with him on this, as will be explained, we shall say like the first excuse. And the time of this enactment was not known to us, and there is one who says that it was enacted at the time of the decree of ketamim, that she should be impure even without a sensation [Taz, subsection 1], and I do not know what one matter has to do with the other. [And in my humble opinion, it seems possible to learn from the marriage of Rachel to Yaakov, as it is written: "Complete the week of this one," and they were very careful regarding niddah, as it is written: "I cannot rise before you, for the way of women is upon me" etc. and the Yerushalmi in the first chapter of Moed Katan, halacha 7, learns from this that one does not mix one joy with another joy, but our Shas in Moed Katan 9 learns from another verse, see there. And in this it is not relevant to say that one does not learn a matter from before the giving of the Torah, as it is stated in the Yerushalmi, chapter Ve-Elu Megalchin, halacha 5, regarding mourning, for if so, the Yerushalmi would contradict itself; rather, a matter that depends on logic, like mixing one joy with another, so that his heart will be free for one joy, we do learn, as the Pnei Moshe wrote there. And here too, it is a matter that depends on logic, that the desire awakens the blood, and they were careful in this as I have written, and delve into this.] [And the difficulty of the Taz from Tamar and Ruth, and likewise one could ask from Bat-Sheva, is not a difficulty at all, for there is no desire except in marriage, for she has a great desire that the name of a married woman be called upon her, as the Chavot Daat wrote in subsection 1, and the language of the Shas implies this: "they requested her to be married." And there are many other excuses for this.]

This is the wording of the Tur: My father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that there are some among the great authorities who wrote that she requires neither a hefsek taharah nor an examination at all during the days of counting, neither at their beginning nor at their end; rather, as long as she waited seven days after the claim, she immerses and is pure. But this is not clear; rather, she requires an examination every day of the counting, but she does not need to perform a hefsek taharah. Even though she did not examine herself on the day of the claim to perform a hefsek taharah, she counts seven days from the following day and examines herself every day. And so wrote the Ramban. Thus far his words. And the "some among the great authorities who wrote" are the Ra'avad and the Rashba, for it is explained thus in Torat HaBayit, that she requires neither a hefsek taharah nor an examination at all; see there.

The few who are lenient explained that since this woman did not see any blood at all, but rather we are concerned lest she saw due to desire and it was lost, if so, this seeing is minimal. Certainly, she has ceased in purity, and it is sufficient for you with this stringency that you are concerned lest she saw and the blood ceased immediately, and you should not forbid her like one who saw with certainty whose source is open; for she is certainly clean of all blood since she did not see at all [Beit Yosef and Bach]. Aside from this, it is difficult to understand the essence of the enactment: for since we are concerned that due to desire she saw blood even though she stands in a presumption of purity, and now, whichever way you look at it—if we say that the way of desire is only that at that moment of the conclusion she is liable to see and no more, if so, why is an examination required every day and why does she require a cessation in purity and that we should examine her close to nightfall? Behold, it should be sufficient that she count seven clean days from the following day, since she is in a presumption of purity and the concern is only for one time and no more. And if we say that the concern is for the entire time until the chuppah, that there is reason to fear in all these days and hours lest she see, if so, it is obvious that neither a cessation in purity nor an examination is effective, for behold, at every moment there is reason to fear lest with the removal of her hands she saw, and there are no seven clean days here. Rather, it is certainly as I wrote, that the desire is for that moment and no more; if so, nothing is needed [except for what the Rashba brought as proof from the Gemara there 66a from the son of Ravina and the daughter of Rav Chaviva, that according to his version and interpretation the father of the daughter did not know this law until the chuppah, see there; but this is not decisive, for the Rosh there brought another version that it became known to him before the seven clean days, and even according to the version of the Rashba there is no proof, as the Mordechai wrote in the second chapter of Shevuot, that the interpretation is the opposite, that Ravina said this to Rav Ashi, and see there in the Maharsha and the Maharam, and delve into this].

The approach of those who are stringent is thus: that certainly there is a concern for the entire time lest she see, and the closer she is to the time of the chuppah, the more her heart yearns and desires him, and we are always concerned lest she see, as I wrote in section 3. But nevertheless, how can we be more stringent upon her than one who saw with certainty, for whom a bedikah every day in the morning and evening is sufficient, and ex post facto one or two bedikot during the seven nekiyim are sufficient for her? How then can we be more stringent in this case? Therefore, even the hefsek taharah requires the same as one who saw with certainty. Indeed, several of the great authorities hold this way, except that the Rosh said that in this matter he agrees with those who are lenient, for it automatically constitutes a hefsek taharah; that is to say, since it is a minimal seeing, it is certain that she ceased in taharah even if she did not perform a bedikah. Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, established the law according to the opinion of the Rosh, and this is what they wrote: that ab initio she requires a bedikah every day; however, ex post facto, if she only checked herself once during the seven days, it is sufficient. Thus far his words. And even according to those who are stringent in siman 196 that even ex post facto she requires two bedikot, see there, nevertheless they did not see fit to be stringent here, and in such a case, according to everyone, one bedikah is sufficient [and see Shach, subsection 2].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2 that these seven days are counted from the time she relies on her decision and prepares herself for the chuppah, even if she has not yet been betrothed. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And one should bring the immersion as close to the initial obligatory intercourse as possible, and the custom is to immerse the bride on Wednesday night even though she will not have intercourse before the conclusion of Shabbat; however, one should not distance the immersion from the intercourse more than this. And if she does not have intercourse on the conclusion of Shabbat, she must check herself every day until the initial obligatory intercourse. And this is specifically ab initio, but ex post facto one should not be stringent if she checked only once during the seven. And every groom should ask the bride before he touches her if she observed seven clean days. Thus far his words. And these matters require explanation:

For behold, the ruling of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is from the words of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, and we have already written that he holds that the concern of desire is only at the time of the conclusion and no more. According to this, there would be room to say that even if they concluded that the chuppah would be for a long time, such as after twelve months, the desire would be then and no more, and if so, she would only need to observe the clean days then, and close to the chuppah she would not need this; it comes to teach us that it is not so. Even according to his view, desire only exists from the time of preparation for the chuppah and not at the time of setting the date for a distant time, for then there is no desire. And all the more so according to the view of the Rosh. Conversely, even according to the view of the Rosh, there is no difference between whether she was betrothed or was not betrothed, so that you should not say that according to the view of the Rosh she needs the clean days specifically after the kiddushin, for it is not so, and all the more so according to the view of the Rashba.

However, there is a great practical difference between the Rashba and the Rosh, for according to the Rashba, the chimud is only at the time of the completion of the preparation for the chuppah and no more. According to this, even if more time passed until the chuppah—for example, they completed the preparation two weeks or more prior—she counts the nakiim immediately then, and subsequently there is no need for an examination close to the chuppah; and certainly if he did not have intercourse immediately after the chuppah, it is of no concern to us. Whereas according to the method of the Rosh, the chimud exists throughout the entire time, and on the contrary, as long as the time is closer to the event, she is more agitated, as he wrote. If so, she specifically needs the nakiim to be truly close to the chuppah. And likewise, if he did not have intercourse immediately, the chimud continues until the time of intercourse. If so, there is room to say that for us, since we rule like the Rosh, it is of no avail at all if the chuppah was not truly at the conclusion of the nakiim and the consummation close to the chuppah; and if time passed, she requires further nakiim and a new immersion due to the concern of a discharge of chimud.

And regarding this, our teacher, the Rema, comes to say that it is not so, for certainly, ab initio, one should bring the tevilah close to the be'ilat mitzvah as much as possible; that is to say, not only close to the chuppah, but even close to the be'ilah, meaning that the be'ilah should not be drawn out far from the chuppah. However, ex post facto, there is no hindrance in this, provided she performs a bedikah every day until the be'ilah, and ex post facto, even this is not a hindrance. And the reason is as I have written, that it is impossible to be more stringent in this than in a case of certain seeing. And behold, in ancient times the custom was that she would immerse on Tuesday night and the be'ilah would be on Saturday night, and since it is difficult to nullify the custom, we therefore rely on this even ab initio, but in any event, it should not be drawn out more than this. And if it is drawn out, she should be careful in any event to perform a bedikah every day, for whatever we can rectify, we rectify. However, even this, ex post facto, is not a hindrance for the reason that has been explained. And that which he wrote, that the chatan should ask the kallah, the custom is not so among us, and we rely on the shoshvinim and shoshvinot, and they inform the chatan; so wrote the Acharonim.

All these laws apply when they are clear of blood, such as a minor, and likewise an elderly woman or a pregnant woman if it is conceivable that she would marry during the days of her pregnancy, such as one who became pregnant from this groom himself and like one who remarries his divorcee. However, an adult virgin who marries, who has already seen blood and is a complete nidda, it is obvious that she requires by the letter of the law a hefsek tahara and an examination every day, as I wrote in siman 196. However, even if she stands in her days of tahara, she requires new clean days when she has resolved to marry during her days of tahara, according to the laws that have been explained.

When they set the time of the marriage for a certain day and she counted the clean days, and afterwards, due to some reason or dispute, the time of the marriage was postponed to the future, the clean days that she counted are voided. Afterwards, when they set the time of the marriage, it is a new himud and she requires seven clean days. The great authorities [Bach, Taz, and Shach subsection 6] agreed that this is specifically when, at that same standing where the time of the marriage was postponed, they did not set another time, but rather said that it could not be at the time they had set; for then we concern ourselves that she did not examine herself well and her himud was lost, and afterwards when they set a new time it is a new himud, and therefore the previous clean days are not effective, and even if she immersed it is nothing, and she requires clean days and immersion anew. However, if at that same standing where they postponed the previous time they set another time not very distant from this previous time, she should only be careful to examine herself every day and does not require clean days anew, and similarly if she immersed she does not require another immersion, unlike the one who is stringent even in such a case. And it appears to me simple that if they set a distant time, such as a month away and certainly more, that certainly in any case the previous ones are voided and she requires clean days and immersion anew.

It is a simple matter that if on the day of the wedding a dispute arose between the parties and they cancelled the shiddukh, even though afterwards, after a day or two, they returned and were reconciled, it constitutes a new chimud and the previous ones are voided, and she requires immersion and new nekiyim. However, if it was not cancelled entirely, but rather a dispute arose regarding the dowry or regarding other details, and the groom says that he does not want the shiddukh and the bride's side pursues him and the groom returned and was reconciled, even if it lasted a day or two, she does not require new nekiyim, for she did not divert her mind [ibid.]. And it appears to me that if it is the opposite—when the bride said that she is cancelling the shiddukh and the groom's side pursues her and she returned and was reconciled—that it constitutes a new chimud if she had previously truly resolved in her heart to cancel the shiddukh. Therefore, if she says that she did not truly desire its cancellation but only did so in order to extract some matter from him for her benefit, she is believed [it appears to me].

If the chuppah was on the way and the bride arrived at the designated time and the groom did not arrive, there is one who says that if he delayed on his way for a day or two and did not give notice to the bride, the prior agreements are voided because the bride assumed he cancelled the shidduch. And they disagreed with this, for it is not so, as she certainly sits and awaits his arrival and says that some cause arose, but she will not attribute it to the cancellation of the shidduch. [The Taz there is stringent and the Shach in subsection 7 is lenient, and so wrote in the Responsa Meishiv Arav, and one should not be stringent in these laws. And that which the Shach wrote, "and on the next day a messenger arrived etc.," it was a case that occurred thus in the Responsa Meishiv Arav and not as a requirement, for if not so, it would have been voided since yesterday; rather, it means to say that certainly if for two or three days he did not arrive at the designated time and there is no notice from him, certainly her heart beats and despair overcomes her, but certainly within the duration of one day nothing is required; so it appears in my humble opinion, and examine it closely].

It is a simple matter that if the shiddukh was cancelled due to a dispute and immediately another groom came and agreed to marry her, she requires a new counting of clean days and a new immersion, for with a different groom a new desire is awakened. Furthermore, even if after she agreed to the second, the first one changed his mind and she entered the huppah with him, the previous ones are voided and she requires a new counting of clean days and immersion. However, if upon the cancellation of the first no other groom came, and on that same day they returned and agreed to one another, there is one who says that she does not require a new counting of clean days [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 10, and several other great authorities]. And specifically when they stood for a day or two in the cancellation of the shiddukh, as I wrote in section 13, she requires a new counting of clean days, but not on that same day; and even if the cancellation was during the day and the agreement was at night, we have no concern with it, for she has not yet despaired.

An incident occurred involving a certain widow who had a limited time set in the conditions with the groom for the marriage, but the groom told her that it was possible he would move the marriage earlier, and so he did. She said that she relied on this and counted seven clean days and immersed, and he had relations with her. Certainly, she acted not according to the law, for she did not have absolute clarity until his arrival, and then a new desire was awakened, and she should have counted seven clean days from then. Nevertheless, since it is after the fact, they are not to be separated from one another, since the concern of desire is only rabbinic [Taz at the end of this siman]. And an incident occurred involving a bride who requested of the groom's father to hasten the marriage, and he replied that he agreed to this, but he needed to travel to his home to ask for their consent, and if they agreed, he would send a messenger to the bride to inform her, and so he did. The matter is simple: she must count the seven clean days from the day of the messenger's arrival. But if he promised her and told her that he was certain that his household would also agree to this, she may count the seven clean days immediately [Noda BiYehuda, Second Edition, siman 115]. And so with all similar matters, it is upon the teacher to understand and be discerning in this.

The Torah permitted yichud with his wife while she is a niddah, and we do not fear a mishap, Heaven forbid, as was written in siman 195. However, this is specifically when he has cohabited with her once, for his inclination is not so powerful; but if he has not yet cohabited with her, such as if he married her while she was a niddah or if she became a niddah before cohabitation, it is forbidden for him to be in yichud with her. Furthermore, even if she was tahorah and he did not cohabit with her for several nights and afterwards she became a niddah, even though we see that his inclination is not powerful, as he was in yichud with her for several nights and did not cohabit, nevertheless it is now forbidden to be in yichud with her, for the evil inclination burns more intensely regarding a prohibition. Aside from this, he commits a transgression by not cohabiting while she was tahorah, and this is also the way of the evil inclination; it is proper to rebuke those who do this, for they cause evil to their souls and come to the point of wasting seed, and the punishment is great [see the Taz, subsection 7, who ruled accordingly, and so too the Shach in subsection 11; although he wrote this for the reason of custom, it is all one, and all the great authorities agreed thus; and study this carefully].

This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 4: If he transgressed and married her within this time, and similarly a groom whose bride became a niddah before he had intercourse with her, he may not be secluded with her; rather, he sleeps among the men and she sleeps among the women. And some say if she was pure when he married her and he did not have intercourse with her and she became a niddah afterward, he does not require guarding further, and one who is stringent, a blessing shall come upon him. And one should not distinguish in this between a young man and a widower, or a virgin and a widow. And some say that she is forbidden to be secluded with him during the day just as at night, and there is no need for two guards, only either he among the men or she among the women, and if they do not sleep in another room, no guarding is required at all. And some say that at night two guards are required and during the day it is permitted to be secluded. And the custom is to take a young boy to stay with the groom and a young girl to stay with the bride, and they do not seclude themselves during the day without a young boy or a young girl. Thus far their words. And we have already written that the great later authorities forbade seclusion even when he was able to have intercourse and did not, for the prohibition strengthens the inclination further. And that which they wrote "if he transgressed and married her" is because according to the Rambam a chuppat niddah is forbidden, as I wrote in Even HaEzer in siman 61.