Siman 194

A woman who gives birth is impure like a niddah even if she did not see blood, whether she gave birth to a living child or she gave birth to a dead child, and even if she miscarried a fetus. And even according to the one who holds that it is possible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood—nevertheless, the Torah declared her impure, as it is written [Leviticus 12:2]: "If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be impure seven days; as in the days of her menstrual infirmity she shall be impure." And regarding a woman who gives birth to a female, it is written: "she shall be impure two weeks, as in her menstruation." The Torah equated her to a niddah whether blood issued from her or whether it did not issue.

And there is a question on this according to the one who holds that it is impossible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood: why did the Torah need to render her impure because of childbirth, for even without this she is impure because of niddah [Tosafot Keritot 10b]? And this is not a question, for regarding a female it was necessary to write that she is impure for double the time of a niddah, and consequently it was necessary to write regarding a male as well, for otherwise I would have rendered her impure regarding a male as with a female through a kal vachomer from the days of purity, which are more numerous for a female [ibid.]. And furthermore, if it were only because of niddah, then if she gave birth on the seventh day of her niddah and the blood ceased at night, she would be pure regarding niddah; and similarly, if she gave birth on the third or fourth day of her niddah, then because of niddah she would only be impure until the completion of seven days from the start of her niddah, as I wrote in siman 183, but because of the offspring she is impure for seven days from her childbirth [and there are further ways to answer this, and see Sidrei Taharah subsection 1].

By Torah law, if she gave birth during her days of niddah, she is pure immediately after seven days and immerses and is permitted to her husband for thirty-three days thereafter, as is explicit in the Torah, for even if she sees blood it is "blood of purity," and with a female it is sixty-six days of purity; and only regarding the eating of kodashim is her status like one who immersed that day; but to her husband she is pure, and even if she did not cease seeing blood from the seven to after the seven for a male, and from the fourteen to after the fourteen for a female. Nevertheless, she is pure, for even though the blood emerged from the impure source, the Torah purified it during these days, and so our sages, of blessed memory, said [35a]: It is one source; the Torah declared it impure and the Torah declared it pure.

And if she gave birth during the days of zivah, she must observe seven clean days according to the law of a zavah if she saw blood [Tur]. As long as her blood has not ceased, she does not have blood of purity; rather, any blood she sees is like the blood of zivah. But if she counted seven clean days, and in the case of a female the fourteen days were completed and she immersed, and afterwards she saw blood within the forty days for a male or eighty for a female, this is blood of purity. And know that every zavah is obligated in a korban as written in parashat Metzora, but in the case of a zavah who gave birth, she does not bring the korban after the seven clean days, but rather after forty for a male and eighty for a female, and then she brings the korban of a zavah and the korban of a woman who gave birth together, because her status is like a tevul yom until the completion of the days of purity and she is forbidden from sacred items, as is explicit in parashat Tazria regarding a woman who gives birth.

And nowadays, all our women are considered as those who give birth while in a state of zivah, for they have been stringent regarding a drop of blood like a mustard seed to sit seven clean days, and all the more so regarding childbirth, and even regarding a dry birth. And similarly, we do not have relations based on the blood of purity, as will be explained. Nevertheless, we shall explain according to the essential law of the Torah. And know that the tradition has come that the Torah purified pain adjacent to childbirth [Niddah 36b]. And the explanation of the matter is that it is written regarding a zavah: "And if a woman has a discharge of her blood for many days out of the time of her niddah, etc." [Leviticus 15:25], for this refers to a zavah as I wrote in siman 183. But regarding a niddah, it is written previously: "blood shall be her discharge in her flesh," and it does not write "her blood." And for this the tradition has come that a zavah is not impure except through her blood that is due to herself and not due to the fetus, but regarding a niddah, she is impure in all manners. And we shall explain the matters in detail with the help of Heaven:

This is the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of chapter 7 of Issurei Biah: A pregnant woman who began to feel pain and the pangs of labor seized her, and blood began to emerge before she gave birth—that blood is called the blood of hardship (keshi). And what is its law? If it came during the days of her niddah, it is the blood of niddah and she is impure as a niddah. And if it came during the days of her zivah, she is pure, as it is said regarding a zavah, "when the flow of her blood flows" [so it should be, and in the printed Rambam "her flow shall be blood" was printed in error]; by oral tradition they learned "her blood"—from herself and not on account of the fetus. And this is provided that she gives birth to a live offspring, but if she miscarried, there is no hardship for stillborns. And even if the blood was streaming and descending with the pangs and the pain fourteen days before she gave birth, this is blood of hardship and is pure. But if it began fifteen days or more before the birth, this is the blood of zivah and she gives birth in a state of zivah [and he ruled according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in the Mishnah there, that there is no hardship for more than two weeks; and even though in Yevamot 72b Rava was in doubt as to whom the halakhah follows, nevertheless, since to Shmuel it was simple, see there, he ruled accordingly; and see Tosafot Yom Tov].

In what case are these words said? When the labor pains and the birth pangs and the suffering did not cease, but rather she continues to struggle until she gives birth. However, if she saw blood for three days during her zivah days with birth pangs and labor pains, and the suffering ceased for her and she remained at ease for twenty-four hours or more, even though the blood did not cease and even though the birth pangs and labor pains returned afterward, she is a zavah. For if the blood were due to the fetus, the suffering would not have ceased for her, and therefore if she gave birth afterward, she is one who gives birth while in a state of zivah. But when she did not cease from the suffering for twenty-four hours, but rather for less than this, it is called "due to hardship" and she is pure, for the blood is due to the fetus; and this fact that she was slightly relieved is because such is the way of all types of pains, to rest slightly from the pain, and it is not because the pain has completely departed.

It is a great principle in this law that the Merciful One purified a woman regarding zov for pain adjacent to childbirth. However, tranquility adjacent to childbirth—meaning that she was at ease and had rest from the pain for a twenty-four hour period adjacent to childbirth—the Torah declared her impure. Therefore, if she saw one day without pain and two with pain and gave birth, or even two without pain and one day with pain and gave birth, or a day with pain and a day without pain and a day with pain and gave birth, she is not one who gives birth as a zavah and is pure. But if she saw one day with pain and two without pain and gave birth, or even two with pain and one without pain and gave birth, or a day without pain and a day with pain and a day without pain and gave birth, behold, she is one who gives birth as a zavah and is impure. And know that just as we said that there must be one full day without pain, so too conversely, there must be one full day adjacent to childbirth with pain, for then she is pure. But with less than a full day, this is not considered the pain of hardship adjacent to childbirth, but rather the pain of the birth itself, for which the Torah did not grant purity; for if it were not so, you would have no woman who gives birth as a zavah [so it is written in the Gemara and in the Rambam there] [and I saw one who did not write so, and I am astonished].

The Rambam wrote there in law 4: If the third day of her seeing fell on the day of birth, even if the entire day was in ease, she is not one who gives birth in zivah, for the day of birth is adjacent to the labor. Thus far his words. The Maggid Mishneh explained that this is an elaboration of what they said in the Gemara there: whenever her labor occurred on her third day, even if the entire day was in ease, she is not one who gives birth in zivah. Rashi explained that as long as she labored for one hour on the third day, even if the entire day was in ease and she was relieved from the night of the fourth until the completion of one hour for the twenty-four hour period, she is not one who gives birth in zivah, for we require ease during the entire third day to bring her to zivah. Thus far his words. But regarding the Rambam, it appears to me that he does not hold this way, for he does not distinguish between the third day and another day; rather, when there is a twenty-four hour period adjacent to the birth, labor is pure and ease is impure, as is clear from his wording that we brought in section 7, where he wrote: if she saw blood for three days or more, etc., see there. And from the words of the Maggid Mishneh it implies that the Rambam explains that as long as the beginning of the third day was in pain, even though the entire day besides the beginning was in ease, this is called labor, for we require a full twenty-four hour period as we have explained.

But even this is not implied by his words, for if so, the primary point would be missing from the text. And it appears to my humble opinion that the Rambam holds that the day of birth, even if it is with ease, nevertheless is not considered to be joined to the three days of zivah if the two preceding days were with difficulty. For the day of birth is not joined to zivah, and specifically if three days of zivah occurred beforehand—then the day of birth is certainly considered, if it was with ease, to be called a "woman who gives birth while in a state of zivah," but not to join the days of zivah. And he explains that this is what they said in the Gemara there: "Any woman whose labor occurred on her third day," etc., meaning if the third day of her zivah is the day of birth and it is adjacent to the two preceding days which were with difficulty, she is not a "woman who gives birth while in a state of zivah" [and what the Maggid Mishneh wrote previously, that you have no greater constraint than birth, requires further study, and his words are not clear to me, see there and delve into it].

It is stated in the Gemara at the beginning of the chapter HaMapelet (Niddah 21b): It was taught in a baraita: If she had labor pains for two days and on the third she miscarried and does not know what she miscarried—behold, this is a case of uncertain birth and uncertain zivah—she brings an offering and it is not eaten. Rabbi Yehoshua says: She brings an offering and it is eaten, because it is impossible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood. See there. Rashi explained that it is an uncertain birth because perhaps she miscarried a fetus and there is no zivah here because it was labor pain adjacent to birth [and according to Rashi’s explanation it must be said that there was some labor pain on the day of birth]. And if there was no fetus and she saw blood, behold she is a definite zavah. And if there was no fetus and she also saw no blood, there is neither birth nor zivah here. Therefore, she brings an offering due to the uncertainty and it is not eaten, for perhaps there is neither birth nor zivah here and the melikah would be a nevelah. Thus far his words. According to this, following that which we hold that there is no opening of the womb without blood, we hold like Rabbi Yehoshua that she brings an offering and it is eaten regardless: whether because of birth or because of zivah. And the Rambam wrote there: If she saw blood for two days and on the third she miscarried and it is not known what she miscarried, behold she is an uncertain zavah and an uncertain woman who has given birth. Thus far his words. And he ruled like the first Tanna, following his own reasoning, as he holds that it is possible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood, as he wrote in chapter 5, see there [Maggid Mishneh; and see Kesef Mishneh, and his words are very difficult, see there and delve into it].

This is the wording of the Rambam [Chapter 7, Law 5]: What is the law of a woman who gives birth while in a state of zivah? She must observe seven clean days and immerse in the evening, and afterward she is permitted to her husband, and afterward she will have blood of purity and she brings the sacrifice of a zavah and the sacrifice of a woman who has given birth. Therefore, if she gave birth to a male, even if the blood ceased on the day of birth, she counts seven clean days and immerses. And if she gave birth to a female and counted seven clean days and they were completed along with the fourteen days of birth or after them, she immerses and is permitted to her husband. And if the days of counting were completed within the fourteen days, she is forbidden to her husband until the night of the fifteenth. How so? Suppose she saw blood for three days and counted seven clean days, that is ten, and she is still forbidden to her husband until the night of the fifteenth, for all fourteen days she is like a niddah. And why do we not require the woman who gives birth while in a state of zivah to count seven days apart from the seven of a male and apart from the fourteen of a female? Because the days of her birth and the days of her niddah in which she does not see blood count toward her counting of seven. Thus far his words. And such is the opinion of the Tur, as will be explained. And so wrote Rashi in a responsa [Tosafot 37a, s.v. Abbaye]. However, the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam is that the days of birth in which she does not see blood do not count toward the counting [ibid.]. And most of the poskim hold like Rashi and the Rambam, and so our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, ruled without qualification in section 1; see there [see Shach, subsection 4, and his words are puzzling].

A woman who gives birth while in a state of ziva whose bleeding has not ceased does not have dam tohar, because it is all ziva, for it is one fountain for the days of impurity and for the days of purity, as has been written. If so, the ziva has not yet ceased from her. According to this, for us, since we judge every woman as one who gives birth while in a state of ziva, she cannot become pure as long as her bleeding has not ceased, even in a place where they have marital relations during the period of dam tohar. However, if she counted seven clean days and the fourteen days for a female were completed and she immersed, and afterwards she saw blood within the forty days for a male or eighty for a female, this is dam tohar. And if she counted seven clean days and did not immerse, and afterwards she saw blood during the days of purity, she may immerse and she is permitted to her husband according to Torah law, because all the days of purity are not fit for either nidda or ziva even when she has not immersed. But the blood itself is impure even during the days of purity as long as she has not immersed after the clean days, for it is one fountain as has been written, and without immersion the blood is not purified.

The sages taught in the Mishnah [38b]: One who experiences labor pains within the eighty days of a female, all blood that she sees is pure until the fetus emerges. That is to say, when she conceived during the days of purity, or when one fetus was delayed after its fellow for two and a half months—one having its form completed in the middle of the seventh month and one having its form completed at the end of the ninth [Rashi, s.v. "HaMakshah"]. The blood that she sees during labor, even though there is no labor for miscarried fetuses, nevertheless, the blood of labor is no worse than the blood of ease, which is pure within the period of fullness [Tosafot]. And she is pure until she discharges the fetus, and when she discharges it, she shall be impure with the impurity of childbirth; if she discharged a male, the impurity of a male, and if a female, she is impure fourteen days. And she counts the days of impurity and the days of fullness from the second fetus. Even if they were twins and she discharged one fetus today and after several days she discharged the second, she counts everything according to the second [Bava Kamma 11a].

The Rambam wrote there in law 10: A zavah whose flow ceased and she began to count seven clean days, and birth-pangs blood came to her during the clean days, it does not negate the count and it counts toward the tally of seven. And similarly, if she gave birth during the clean days, the birth does not negate the count, and the days of birth count toward her tally of seven even though she is impure during them, as it is said, "And if she be cleansed of her flow"—once she is cleansed of her flow, even though she has another impurity such as birth, niddah, or tzaraat, she counts during them and they do not negate the counting. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad disagreed with him, that birth-pangs blood does not negate but does not count toward the tally; see there. And the truth is that in the Gemara [37a] it is stated only regarding the matter that it does not negate. And the opinion of the Rambam, it appears to me, is that he holds that this is dependent on that; for since it is written, "And if she be cleansed of her flow and she shall count for herself etc.," if so, automatically, since we derive "from her flow" and not from another impurity, if so, automatically "and she shall count for herself" is also so—that in any place where she is cleansed of her flow, she counts for herself. [And furthermore, since regarding birth we establish the law according to Rava there, that it does not negate and it counts toward the tally, if so, in all of them it is so; see there. And birth-pangs blood is not considered blood at all because it comes by way of pain].

The days of her childbirth and the days of her niddah, if she did not see blood during them, behold these count for her toward the counting of the seven clean days as has been written. And if she saw blood during them, the days of the seeing do not count for her, yet they do not negate all the days; rather, she completes the days she counted when she ceases from the seeing of blood, for nothing negates everything except for the seeings of zivah, but these negate their day alone [the Rambam]. And this is similar to a seminal emission in a zav which does not negate, and also this day does not count. And let it not be difficult for you regarding what we wrote, that any place that does not negate counts, for that is when there is no seeing of blood here; but with a seeing of niddah and childbirth, how is it possible that they should count toward the clean days? Behold they are not clean. [And this is what the Rambam was precise to say, "they negate their day alone," meaning to say that it is not by reason of negation, but because it is impossible to count them in the tally of the clean days. And so wrote Rashi there, 37a, regarding a seminal emission, that this is not called negation; see there and examine carefully].

According to what has been explained, that through the blood of labor one does not come to a state of zivah, therefore the sages of blessed memory said [38a]: It was taught, Rabbi Meir used to say: There is one who experiences labor for one hundred and fifty days and the status of a zavah does not arise from them. How so? Two days not during her niddah period, and seven days of niddah, and two days after the niddah, and fifty days that the fetus purifies, and eighty days for a female, and seven days of niddah, and two days after the niddah; see there. And Rabbi Meir holds in the Mishnah there that labor can last fifty days, but for us, as we hold it is fourteen days, it is possible to be only one hundred and fourteen days, and so wrote the Rambam there; see there.

This is the wording of the Tur: And a woman who gives birth during her days of zivah, if she sees blood during her birth, she requires seven clean days from blood, and the days of purity in which she sees blood do not count toward the counting even though they are pure. And nowadays, all women who give birth are considered as those who give birth in a state of zivah, for we establish that it is impossible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood. Therefore, they require seven clean days. Thus far his words. That is to say, since now they have been stringent that even if they see a drop of blood like a mustard seed they sit seven clean days like a full zavah, and we establish that it is impossible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood, unlike the Rambam, if so, automatically all women who give birth have the status of those who give birth in a state of zivah, and without seven clean days they will never be pure, even in a place where they have marital relations during the days of pure blood. And according to this, all the laws that were explained are not relevant now, and every woman who gives birth requires seven clean days.

He further wrote: And if she does not see within the seven of the days of birth, they count toward the counting of seven nekiyim. Even if she gave birth to a female and did not see during the first seven days, and they counted for her toward the counting of zivah, and she saw during the second seven days, she does not negate [the count], and she immerses after fourteen even if she did not cease [bleeding]. But the Ramban wrote that she negates [the count] and requires seven nekiyim from the time she ceases. And my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote according to the first opinion. Thus far his words. And behold, also from the words of the Rambam that we brought, it is proven like the Rosh. And the reasoning of the Ramban is that since she saw during the second seven, and regarding a female all fourteen days are days of tumah, it is all as one long day, and any blood that she sees during them, even if she saw at the end of the fourteen, it is as if she saw at the beginning of the fourteen. [And one should not say that the intent of the Ramban is according to our custom that we do not have relations upon dam tohar, for if so, who would disagree with him according to the chumra of R. Zeira? However, according to what the Bach wrote in the name of the Rosh, that regarding the seeing of the second days they did not accept the chumra of R. Zeira because they only accepted this chumra in a case where the seeing causes niddut or zivut, and days of tumah do not cause anything, if so, one can settle the words of the Ramban according to their plain meaning, that he wrote this for us, and the Rosh also in this disagrees with him. And so it appears primary, for if not so, the words of the Ramban are not understood in their reasoning; and delve into this.] [See Taz, subsection 1, and his difficulty can be answered; and delve into this.]

In places where they would engage in relations upon the blood of purity, the sages, of blessed memory, warned [Pesachim 113a] to separate from one's wife on the night of the forty-first for a male and the night of the eighty-first for a female even if she did not see blood. The reason for the matter is that since the woman became accustomed to not being concerned with the seeing of blood during the days of purity, we therefore fear that out of habit she will also see now and not be concerned. According to this, in this time when we do not engage in relations upon the blood of purity, this separation is not necessary, for she has not become accustomed to the seeing of blood; for if she were to see even during the days of purity, she would require tevilah. And in truth, we have never heard to be concerned for this in this time. [And there are those who wrote to be concerned even in this time because of the reason of the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot, who wrote that it is like the time of her veset; and the Taz in subsection 2 already wrote that there is no one who is concerned for it, and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch his words were not brought at all because they are not understood. And in my humble opinion, it appears that the intent of the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot is also like all the poskim, only that in his time they would engage in relations upon the blood of purity, and therefore he called this the time of her veset, meaning to say that she must separate even without seeing blood as in the time of her veset, and delve into this.]

All these matters are by Torah law, and thus they practiced as long as Israel was in its place and there were great batei din agreed upon by all Israel. But after the dispersion, due to our many sins, they were forced to be stringent in all this. Just as the daughters of Israel were stringent regarding a drop of blood like a mustard seed to sit for it seven clean days, so too regarding blood of hardship and regarding every woman who gives birth, to treat her as one who gives birth while in a state of zivah. Furthermore, the Geonim were stringent not to have relations during the days of pure blood, as the Rif wrote in the second chapter of Shevuot and the Rambam in chapter 11. However, in their days there were still places that practiced regarding pure blood according to Torah law, as the Rambam wrote there. But now, in all the dispersions of the exile, we do not have relations during the days of pure blood.

The reason for this stringency appears from the words of the Rif there, that this is due to the stringency of the daughters of Israel, see there. However, it is not understood what one has to do with the other, for here it is entirely pure. Nevertheless, his intention appears like that which the Ran wrote there in the name of the Ramban, that it so appears even according to the words of the Gemara: that just as they were concerned for a mistake regarding the openings of the niddah period—for which reason the daughters of Israel were stringent, as has been explained in siman 183—so too there is a concern if they conduct themselves with the days of purity, lest they come to err regarding those cases of uncertain births where they sit for them for a male, for a female, and for a niddah, as will be explained, lest they also conduct themselves with this leniency regarding them and come to a prohibition of karet. And since this is a matter handed over to all, it is therefore necessary to be stringent in this.

And there are places where they were accustomed to be exceedingly stringent, not to immerse at all within forty days for a male and eighty for a female. The Rambam, of blessed memory, protests against this and wrote in chapter 11, law 15, that this is an erroneous custom and they learned this matter from the Sadducees, and it is a mitzvah to compel them and return them to the words of the sages, that she should immerse after the counting of seven clean days, see there. That is to say, the Sadducees interpret that which is written, "she shall continue in the blood of her purification" etc., that she is also forbidden to her husband until the completion of the days of purification. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that one should not permit it in a place where they were accustomed to be stringent, but in a place where there is no custom, one should not be stringent at all; rather, immediately when she has not seen blood after seven days for a male and fourteen for a female and has counted seven clean days, she is permitted to her husband, etc. Thus far his words. And several of the great authorities were not pleased with this matter that he wrote, that one should not permit it in a place where they were accustomed to be stringent, since the Rambam calls this heresy. And although they exerted themselves to give reasons for this custom [see Bach and Shach], nevertheless, they are all incorrect reasons and one must abolish this custom [Taz and Kereti U'Peleti]. And several great authorities abolished this custom [see Kereti U'Peleti, for he abolished this custom in Metz, and the Gaon Chakham Tzevi in Hamburg, and the Geonim in Prague; and now it seems to me that this custom does not exist in any place, and after seven days for a male and fourteen for a female, if she is only able to count seven clean days, she shall count and go to the mikveh and is permitted to her husband].

The sages taught in the Mishnah [30a]: One who miscarries on the fortieth day need not be concerned for a fetus; on the forty-first day, she shall sit for a male, for a female, and for a niddah. And so wrote the Rambam in chapter 10, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And it must be understood: how does she know that it is on the fortieth day? For if it is because she immersed and counts from her immersion, as is implied by the commentary of Rashi, let us be concerned lest she conceived before then, unless her husband had not come upon her for three months; for if she had been pregnant before, the fetus would have been recognizable. And there is one who says that even if her husband had come upon her previously, since she went to immersion, she therefore saw niddah blood, and if she were pregnant, her blood would have been suspended [see Ha-Gra siman 21]. And several great authorities have already refuted this, for her blood is not suspended before the recognition of the fetus [Sidrei Taharah subsection 7 and Rabbi Y. Miller in She'eilot Ya'akov part 1]. And behold, she even establishes a veset before the recognition of the fetus, as was written in siman 189 [Chavat Da'at subsection 2]. And certainly the intention of the Mishnah and the poskim is as I have written, such as where he did not come upon her within three months; but otherwise, she is concerned as a stringency. And it appears to me that for this reason the Tur was precise in his wording, as he wrote: "Therefore, if she knows clearly that she miscarried within this time, she is pure from the impurity of birth." Thus far his words. And his intention is according to our words. [And the explanation of "she shall sit for a male, for a female, and for a niddah" will be explained below in section 57].

And one who miscarries within forty days, even though she does not concern herself with the possibility of a fetus, nevertheless she is impure as a niddah even if she did not see blood, for we hold that it is impossible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood. And since she miscarried something, perforce her womb opened and it is not without blood. And even though it could be said that before forty-one days it is merely water and the opening of the womb does not apply to this at all, and also the opinion of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit inclines this way, nevertheless he himself concluded that the Ra'avad was stringent in this and said that it is no less than a piece of flesh, regarding which we say that there is an opening of the womb. And he wrote that it is proper to be concerned for his words, see there [see Beit Yosef].

The Rambam wrote in chapter 10, law 2: If the human form was extremely thin and not clearly recognizable, she sits for a male and for a female, and this is what is called a "shafir merukam." What is a "shafir merukam"? The beginning of its creation from blood; its body is like a lentil, its two eyes are like two drops of a fly distant from one another, its two nostrils are like two drops of a fly close to one another, its mouth is open like a hair, and it has no distinct cutting of hands and feet. And if its form was more clarified than this but it is still not recognizable between male and female, they do not examine it with water but rather with oil, for the oil polishes it; and he brings a splinter whose head is smooth and moves it in that place from top to bottom—if it snags, it is certainly a male, and if he saw that place like a split barley, it is a female and requires no examination. And all these embroideries of fetuses, we do not give them days of purity until the fetus develops hair. Thus far his words. And so they said in the Gemara [25b] that even though one whose power is great like Shmuel and is expert in the formation of fetuses and knows well that this is a complete fetus according to the forms that were explained, nevertheless, most are not expert in this. Therefore, Shmuel commanded Rav Yehuda his student that she only suspects for days of impurity in such a case, but to give days of purity, one does not give until the fetus develops hair, for that is a complete fetus. And for us, who do not have marital relations based on blood of purity, there is no practical difference in this at all.

He further wrote [ibid. halakha 4]: If she discharged a white piece, if it was torn and a bone was found within it, she is impure with the impurity of childbirth. If she discharged a gestational sac full of water, full of blood, full of various colors, or full of flesh, since it is not formed, she does not concern herself with a fetus. Thus far his words. It is clear from this that if it is not white, she is not impure with the impurity of childbirth. However, the Ramban wrote that we are not experts in appearances. Therefore, the Tur wrote, and this is his wording: And so too one who discharges a piece, whether white or of other appearances, and there is a bone in it, or a hand, or a foot, or a sandal, or a fetus whose esophagus is closed, or a creature that has two backs and two spines—in all of these she has the days of impurity of a female, and she requires seven clean days because of zivah. And regarding the laws of the gestational sac, we are not experts; therefore, one who discharges a gestational sac or a placenta in any case, we assign her the days of impurity. And regarding the days of purity, there is no practical difference, since we do not practice having relations based on the blood of purity, etc. Thus far his words. And it is a great principle that whenever she concerns herself with a fetus, she may not immerse until after she counts seven clean days; and also if she immerses before fourteen days, it is nothing, for we are concerned that perhaps it is a female, and immersion during the days of impurity is nothing.

One who discharges something like a species of domestic animal, wild beast, or bird—if its face is like a human face, this is a child, for the primary factor depends on the features of the face, and we do not concern ourselves with the rest of the body that resembles a domestic animal or a wild beast or a bird. Therefore, if it is recognizable that this is a male, she shall sit for a male, and if a female, she shall sit for a female. If it is not recognizable between male and female, she shall sit the days of impurity for a female and the days of purity for a male. But if the face is not like a human form, even though the rest of the body is a complete human body and its hands and feet are human hands and feet and it is a male or female, it is not a child, and its mother is not impure with the impurity of childbirth by Torah law.

What is the form of a human face? They said in the Gemara [23b]: The forehead, the eyebrows—meaning the brows of the eyes—the eyes, the jaws, and the chin, which are the lower cheeks. However, in the Gemara there is a dispute whether the pairs, such as the eyes etc., require that both be of human form or if one of them is sufficient. The Rambam ruled that two are required, and some say that one of them is sufficient [Maggid Mishneh there in the name of "some say"]. But the mouth, the ears, and the nose have the status of the rest of the body, and it does not hinder if they are not of human form. For us, there is no practical difference, as I have written, because we are not experts in forms.

The Rambam wrote [Chapter 10, Law 10]: One who discharges the likeness of a snake, its mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth because the ball of its eye is round like that of a human. One who discharges the likeness of a human that has wings of flesh, its mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth. If it was created with one eye and one thigh, if they were on the side, it is like half a human and its mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth, but if they were in the middle, its mother is pure, for this is a different creature. Thus far his words. And his words are astonishing, for since he ruled previously regarding the twins that we require all of them, if so, what benefit is there that the ball of its eye is round like that of a human? Behold, we require the entire form of the face. And the Ra'avad already challenged him, see there. And also, what benefit is one eye and one thigh? And those who say this in the Gemara certainly hold that we do not require the entire form of a human, but according to what he ruled, that we require the entire form, it is difficult. And more difficult than this: in the Gemara [23a] it is explicitly explained that one who discharges the likeness of a snake, its mother is not impure with the impurity of childbirth except according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that we do not require the form of a human; but according to the one who holds that we require the form of a human, she is not impure with the impurity of childbirth. And the Rambam rules thus, so how did he rule in this case that she is impure with the impurity of childbirth?

It appears to me that his reasoning is because we find in the Gemara [24b] that one person issued a practical ruling that with the form of a snake it is impure with the impurity of childbirth, and Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua sent for him to rebuke him, and afterward Rabbi Yehoshua remembered that he himself had ruled so for him on the grounds that its eyeball is round like that of a human; see there. Behold, it appears explicitly that even though ostensibly the law of a snake is like that of domestic and wild animals—for which reason Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua wanted to rebuke him, like the simple implication of the Gemara earlier [on 23a]—and afterward they remembered that a snake is not similar to all of them and they ruled so as a practical halacha, we learn from this that a snake is distinct from all of them. And the reason for the matter is that even though before the sin it was included in the category of wild animals, as it is written, "And the snake was more cunning than any beast of the field etc.," nevertheless after the sin it is not among them but is a creeping animal [Tosafot ibid. s.v. Letani], and therefore its law is distinct from all of them. And one who discharges the form of a human that has wings, the intention is that in all matters it has the form of a human except that wings were added to it; and one born with one eye and one thigh, he holds that even though we require two eyes, this is when its entire body is the form of a wild or domestic animal, but when it has a thigh like a human, it completes with this the deficiency of the second eye [however, in the Gemara 23b Rava said this, and Rava holds earlier that one eye is sufficient, see there; and if so, for us it is not so, but it appears the Rambam holds that according to everyone it is so, and it requires further study].

He further wrote: A creature that was created and its esophagus is closed, or if it was missing from its navel and below and it is closed, or if its skull was closed, or if its face was smeared and it has no facial recognition, or if it has two backs and two spines, or if she discharged a creation of a head that is not defined or a hand that is not defined—any fetus from these is not a child and its mother is not impure with the impurity of childbirth. However, if she discharged a defined hand and a defined leg, the presumption is that it is from a complete child, and they combine to constitute the majority of its limbs. Thus far his words.

And all of his words are astonishing, for that which he wrote, "missing from its navel and below," they said this in the Gemara [23a] according to the one who holds that a treifah can live; but according to the one who holds that a treifah cannot live, until the knee is sufficient, see there. And we, indeed, rule that a treifah cannot live [as is well known]. Furthermore, why did he omit what is stated there, "and its esophagus is perforated, she is impure with childbirth," see there [ibid.]? Furthermore, why did he omit what is stated there, "one who discharges something like a palm branch, whose hands and feet are on its shoulders and from below it is without form, its mother is pure," see there [ibid.]? Furthermore, regarding that which he wrote concerning a severed hand and a severed foot, why did he omit what they said in the Gemara [28a] that we do not give her days of purity lest she distanced her birth, meaning, perhaps several days passed since the majority of the fetus emerged limb by limb [Rashi, s.v. "omer"], and if so, perhaps several days of her purity have passed [the Maggid Mishneh].

And that which appears correct in my humble opinion regarding the reasoning of the Rambam, of blessed memory, is that indeed according to the explanation of Rashi and Tosafot, it is not understood how this matter relates to terefot; is a fetus born prematurely not a terefah even when it is entirely complete? For it does not live. Furthermore, regarding one eye and one thigh, it was explained that it is impure with the impurity of childbirth; do you have a greater terefah than this, where the second thigh is missing? Certainly, they only followed this: if it has the form of a human, it is impure with the impurity of childbirth. And that which Rava said there, that if its esophagus is blocked it is pure, and if it is perforated it is impure, is not because he maintains that a terefah can live as per the explanation of Rashi and Tosafot, see there, but rather because with a perforation it has, in any event, the form of a human, but not with a blockage. Therefore, when the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote that if its esophagus is blocked it is pure, it is automatically proven that if it is not blocked it is impure, whatever it may be, and he did not see fit to elaborate on this.

And also, that which Rashi explained, "its skull is sealed" as meaning missing, did not seem correct to the Rambam, for "sealed" is a term of closure and not a term of deficiency; and he explains another explanation in the Gemara. This is the wording of the Shas: Our Rabbis taught: One who discharges a sealed body, its mother is not impure with the impurity of childbirth. And what is a sealed body? Rabbi says: To the extent that if it were removed from a living being, it would die. And how much etc. Rabbi Zakkai says: Until the knee. Rabbi Yannai says: Until its orifices. Rabbi Yochanan etc. until the place of its navel. Between Rabbi Zakkai and Rabbi Yannai, there is the difference of a treifah that can live. Between Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yochanan, there is the difference of Rabbi Elazar's ruling: if a thigh was removed etc. Rav Papa said: The dispute is from below to above, but from above to below, even any amount, she is pure. And so said Rav Giddel in the name of Rav Yitzchak: One who discharges that whose skull is sealed is pure. And Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav Yitzchak: One who discharges something like the heart of a palm branch is pure. Thus far the wording of the Shas; and see there in Rashi and Tosafot.

The Rambam explains that one who discharges an opaque body, meaning that the entire body is opaque and there is no distinction between limb and limb, she is tahora. The Gemara asks: and how much is an opaque body? Meaning, certainly when the entire body from head to foot is complete but lacks distinction of limbs, she is temea with the impurity of childbirth, for it has the form of a human. Rather, it certainly deals with a case where it is not complete; if so, how much is it? To this Rabbi says: enough that it could be removed, etc. Meaning, if up to this measure it is opaque, she is tahora, but if at this measure, which if removed from a living being it would die, it is not opaque, she is temea with the impurity of childbirth even though it is a treifa. And it asked: and how much is "removed," etc.? Rabbi Zera says: up to the knee. Meaning, that when it has up to the knee and it is opaque, she is tahora, but if the knee is distinct, she is temea. Rabbi Yannai says: up to its orifices; if it is opaque, she is tahora, but when the orifices are distinct, she is temea. Rabbi Yochanan said: up to its navel. Meaning, that if it is only up to its navel, she is tahora, for up to its navel there is no incision in the body. It emerges that the Rambam certainly admits that even up to the knee it is tahora if it is opaque, but he did not see fit to be lengthy and took a definitive matter, as he was precise in his pure wording: "or if it was missing from its navel and below and it is opaque." Thus far his words. Meaning, that up to its navel it is opaque, for it has no incision at all. And that which they said in the Gemara, "but from above to below, even any amount, she is tahora," this is the explanation: even if any amount is opaque, meaning that only its head is opaque even when the entire body is distinct, and as he concludes: "one who discharges... or its skull was opaque, she is tahora," meaning even when the entire body is distinct.

And that which he omitted "a palm branch" is because he explains that the intention is that it is like a palm tree and there is no separation of limbs, and this is exactly "not separated" which will be explained, and they are one and the same. And that which he mentioned a hand that is not separated with a head that is not separated, it appears to me that it is a printing error and it should say a body that is not separated, for so it is in the Gemara [24b]. And "not separated" is not "sealed," for "sealed" can be that the limbs are separated, meaning recognizable like cracks, only it is sealed in that it has no cavity, and therefore if the entire body is made thus, she is impure, for in any case it is a complete body and she is impure; and only if the sealing is from its navel or from its knee or from its orifices is she pure as I have written. But "not separated" is called when no distinction is recognizable in it at all, and therefore even in its entire body she is pure, and this is "a palm branch" as I have written.

And that which he wrote, "but if she discharged a severed hand and a severed leg," meaning two limbs that have separation in the fingers, and if so, even though limbs are nothing, nevertheless since they are severed, they certainly came from a complete body. And this is what he says, "behold, its presumption is a complete fetus," and they combine to form the majority of its limbs. Thus far his words. And this is the explanation: that if afterwards more limbs emerged and it is recognizable that its entire body emerged, we give her days of impurity and days of purity from the time of the emergence of the hand and the leg. And if nothing emerged afterwards, we say that previously it emerged through the dissolution of blood, and consequently we give her only days of impurity and not days of purity because of the doubt, for perhaps she distanced her birth. [And according to this, everything is settled; and delve into it].

A cesarean birth—its mother is not impure with the impurity of childbirth, and she has neither days of impurity due to the birth nor days of purity, as it is written: "If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male," implying that she must give birth from the place where she conceives. Furthermore, even the blood of labor pains, which the Torah purified from zivah as has been explained, applies only when she gives birth through the womb; but if she was in labor and gave birth through the side, the blood of labor pains that comes through the womb is considered niddah or zivah according to the days in which she stands. Nevertheless, the blood that exits from the side is also impure, for since the blood was in the source, even though it exited through another place, we hold that the source makes its place impure—meaning, since it touched the source, the blood is impure [Niddah 41b]. However, the woman is not impure unless the blood exits through the source, and so our sages of blessed memory said [ibid.]: From where do we know that a woman is not impure until her malady exits through her genital path? As it is said: "And a man who etc." see there. And know that "the source makes its place impure" applies only regarding the blood of niddah itself; but blood from a wound or blood from her body that is not red which touched the source, in this we hold that the source makes its place pure. For there are two disputes: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi disagree regarding blood from a wound [Niddah 16a], and we hold like Rabbi that it is pure; and Rabbi Shimon and the Sages disagree regarding the blood of niddah itself [Niddah 41b], and we hold like the Sages that it is impure. This is clear from the words of the Rambam, who here in chapter 10, law 5, ruled that it is impure, and likewise in chapter 1 of Mishkav U'Moshav, law 9, see there; whereas in chapter 8 of the Laws of Forbidden Intercourse, law 14, and in chapter 1 of Mishkav, law 8, he ruled that it is pure. This is also clear from the words of Rashi [Niddah 41b, s.v. Rabbanan; and the gaon Noda BiYehudah, Tanina, Yoreh Deah siman 97, labored over this in vain, see there].

If the fetus was cut in her womb and emerged limb by limb, whether it emerged according to the order of the limbs—for example, the foot emerged, followed by the lower leg, followed by the thigh—or whether it emerged not according to the order, she is not impure with the impurity of childbirth until its majority has emerged. And if its entire head emerged at once, this is like its majority. And if it was not cut and emerged in its normal way, from the time the majority of its forehead emerged, it is considered born even if it was cut afterward. And even if it did not emerge literally to the outside, but rather outside the vestibule, it is also considered born. And this fact that she is not impure with the impurity of childbirth without its majority, this is according to Torah law; however, according to rabbinic law, she is impure with the impurity of childbirth even with one limb when it emerges. Therefore, if the fetus extended its hand and retracted it, she is impure with the impurity of childbirth according to rabbinic law. And consequently, this is only regarding the days of impurity, but they do not give her days of purity until the whole of it emerges, or its majority, or its head, as I have written. And according to what we establish that it is impossible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood, she is impure as a niddah even according to Torah law with one limb [see Shach, subsection 9]. And the Rambam in chapter 10, law 7, who did not mention this, is because he follows his own reasoning, as he holds that it is possible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood, as has been written several times.

The Rambam wrote there in law 12: Sometimes a piece will congeal from the blood from which a person is formed, like a bull's tongue, and it will be wrapped around part of the fetus, and this is what is called a sandal. A sandal is never formed except with a fetus, but a piece that is formed alone without a fetus is not called a sandal. Most fetuses do not have a sandal with them. Sometimes something strikes the pregnant woman on her womb and the fetus is damaged and becomes like this sandal; sometimes a recognizable face remains in it, and sometimes the fetus dries up and changes and the blood congeals upon it until no recognizable face remains in it. Therefore, one who discharges a male and a sandal with it, even though there is no recognizable face to the sandal, she shall sit for a male and for a female, lest this sandal was a female. They applied a stringency to it to render her impure due to a fetus even though it has no form of a face, since she is impure from childbirth because of the fetus that is with it. Thus far his words. That is to say, in truth, that which we concern ourselves with a female because of the sandal is not by strict law, for it has been explained that without a form we do not concern ourselves with a fetus, and all the more so regarding a sandal; rather, they were stringent to concern themselves with the sandal since she is anyway impure because of the other fetus.

He further wrote: The thick pouch, which is like a vessel within which the fetus is formed and it surrounds it and the sandal-fetus if there was a sandal-fetus with it, and when its time comes to emerge, it tears it and emerges—this is what is called the placenta. The beginning of its formation is similar to a thread of a warp, and it is hollow like trumpets and thick like the gizzard of roosters, and there is no placenta less than a handbreadth. Thus far his words. And the Maggid Mishneh wrote that now, in this current time, we declare it impure even with less than a handbreadth, so that the matter should not come to an error. Thus far his words. And according to what we hold, that there is no opening of the womb without blood, and "pure blood" is not practiced among us, in any case she is impure in every instance. Nevertheless, there is a practical difference, for we are concerned for the impurity of a female and she will not be able to become pure within the fourteen days. And so too with all the concerns that we are concerned for a fetus, there is a practical difference regarding this even among us, for without this, if the blood ceased, she would have been able to count seven clean days and become pure, and now, until fourteen days pass, she is unable to become pure [see Shach subsection 3, and this is his intention, see there].

One who discharges a placenta shall sit for both a male and a female; not because the placenta is an embryo, but because there is no placenta without an embryo, and the embryo was certainly dissolved. We are not concerned for niddah since there was certainly an embryo. So it is in the Mishnah [24b], and so the Rambam wrote there. And it must be understood: is a placenta superior to a fetus that does not have human form? It must be said that it is certainly superior, for since there is a placenta, the form was certainly completed as a human, but afterwards it was dissolved; for so it was established by our sages of blessed memory. And so it is explicitly explained from the Mishnah following it, see there [that Rabbi Shimon holds the embryo was dissolved and the Rabbis do not hold so; and examine this carefully].

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.] that it is the way of the shilya to emerge after the offspring, but not before the offspring. Therefore, if it occurred that the shilya emerged first and afterwards an offspring emerged, we do not say perhaps the shilya is from an offspring that follows it; rather, it is certainly another offspring. Therefore, if the offspring is male, we are concerned for a female as well because of the shilya, and we give her fourteen days as days of tumah. And so too regarding a nefel, we do not attribute even the shilya that follows it to the nefel, for it is not the way of the shilya to emerge except after a viable offspring. Therefore, if the nefel was male, we are concerned for a female as well because of the shilya, as I have written. And if the offspring or the nefel is female, there is no practical difference regarding the shilya. And regarding the law, there is no practical difference, for in any event there is no practical difference for us, as we do not practice the days of tohar, as I have written.

But a placenta that comes after a fully formed fetus, we attribute the placenta to the fetus and we do not fear that perhaps it is another fetus, because with every fetus there must necessarily be a placenta with the fetus. And even if many days elapsed until the placenta emerged after the fetus, nevertheless we attribute it to the fetus, for certainly the fetus tore the placenta and emerged. The Rambam wrote there that we attribute the placenta to the fetus until after twenty-three days. And in the Gemara [27a] it is stated: Rabbah bar bar Chana said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: It happened that they attributed the placenta to the fetus until twenty-three days. Rav Yosef said to him: You told us until twenty-four. And the Rambam ruled like him [Kesef Mishneh] because there is no dispute in this, but rather Rav Yosef reminded him what he himself had said, until twenty-four days. And this is the intent of the Rambam who wrote "until after twenty-three," which is twenty-four. And the reason the Rambam did not write the language "until twenty-four" was so as not to err by saying "until" and including the day itself. Or perhaps in this the Rambam corrected the words of the Shas, for seemingly it is difficult: how could Rabbah bar bar Chana have confused twenty-four with twenty-three? Rather, this is the explanation: Rabbi Yochanan said to Rabbah bar bar Chana "until after twenty-three," and he forgot the word "after," and Rav Yosef reminded him. And this is why he said "You told us until twenty-four," meaning that you told us "until after twenty-three," which automatically is until twenty-four. Therefore, the Rambam wrote this language.

However, one must wonder about this, for in the Gemara there we conclude that according to the one who holds that a woman who gives birth at nine months does not give birth in partial months, we attribute the placenta for up to thirty-three days, see there. And the Rambam ruled in the first chapter of Yibbum that the fetus does not leave the status of a nefel until it is born at nine complete months, see there. And the reason is because a woman who gives birth at nine months does not give birth in partial months, as is written in Even HaEzer siman 156, see there. And according to this, he should have ruled here up to thirty-three days. But the truth is that our teacher, the Rema, in Even HaEzer there wondered about this, for we see with our own eyes that they give birth in partial months, see there. Therefore, the Rambam was concerned in both places for the more stringent view, and the law explained there is rabbinic, see there, and therefore they were stringent in this matter there. And so it must be said regarding the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch section 4, who also wrote this law, and there they also wrote like the Rambam, see there. [And the Sidrei Taharah in subsection 14 offered another answer, but his words were not clear to me; and likewise what he wrote in subsection 15 regarding the twenty-three days requires further study, and our words are clear with the help of Heaven, and delve into it.]

If she discharged the form of a domestic animal, a wild beast, or a bird, and a placenta is tied to it, we do not concern ourselves with a fetus—lest there be one inside the placenta—because since it is tied to it, it is of them. And if its ear is tied to it, the Rambam wrote there that we impose upon her the stringency of two fetuses, for I say perhaps a formed fetus that was in this placenta dissolved, and perhaps the placenta of this fetus, which is the form of a domestic animal or a wild beast, dissolved. Thus far his words. And his words are puzzling, for while it is true that in the Gemara there is also this wording [26a], in truth Rashi explained that this is according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that one who discharges the form of a domestic animal is considered a fetus; but according to the Rabbis, for whom this does not have the law of a fetus, the concern of two fetuses is not relevant. Rather, we only concern ourselves with this placenta, lest there was a fetus in it, and as for the placenta of the form of the domestic animal, one could say it dissolved. And if so, the Rambam, who rules like the Rabbis, how could he write the wording of the stringency of two fetuses? And it appears to me that for the Rambam, it was difficult to establish it not according to the halacha, and therefore he explains that this is even according to the Rabbis, such as where the facial features are those of a human, for in such a case it is a fetus, as has been explained. And Rashi, of blessed memory, holds that in such a case we attribute the placenta to it just as with a complete fetus, even if it is not tied; and the Rambam, of blessed memory, holds that only with a complete fetus do we attribute it, and not with the form of a domestic animal even if the facial features are those of a human.

The Rambam wrote: All those for whom we are concerned for a shilya, we do not give them days of purity. Thus far his words. And his intention is clear regarding a shilya that is with a child or a miscarriage, where we are concerned for the shilya on its own, such as if it emerged before the child, or a shilya with a miscarriage, or with a beast, animal, or bird, where we are concerned for the shilya on its own; it is only as a stringency, that we give her the days of impurity of a female, but days of purity we do not give her based on the shilya. And the days of purity are according to the other offspring, and if the other has no days of purity at all, such as a miscarriage that has not yet completed forty days or the likeness of a beast, this woman has no days of purity at all. But his intention is not regarding one who discharges only a shilya, for he already wrote that one who discharges a shilya shall sit for a male and for a female, which means the days of impurity of a female and the days of purity of a male, and behold she has days of purity. Rather, certainly his intention is as we have written. He further wrote that anyone who miscarried something that is not an offspring, or a gestational sac within forty days whose form is not yet completed, if blood emerged with it, she is a niddah or a zavah, and if it emerged dry without blood, she is pure. Thus far his words. And this is according to his view in chapter 5, where he ruled that it is possible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood. But according to us, as we hold that it is impossible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood, in any case she is impure as a niddah if she is in her niddah days, or a zavah if she is in her zavah days.

One who gave birth to twins, a male and a female, shall sit for the female, for whenever there is a female, she has her days of purity and certainly the days of impurity, and automatically the days of the male are swallowed within them. If she gave birth to a tumtum or an androgyne, she shall sit for a male and for a female because they are matters of doubt. If she gave birth to twins, one a male and the second a tumtum or an androgyne, she shall sit for a male and for a female, also for the reason that has been explained. And if one is a female and the second is a tumtum or an androgyne, she shall sit for the female alone, for even if they are males, the law is such, as has been explained. And it appears to me that even according to the one who holds in the Gemara that an androgyne is a distinct creation, nevertheless he has the days of purity of a male, since we have not found in the Shas that there is a practical difference regarding this matter.

A woman who was established as pregnant and gave birth, and it is not known what she birthed—such as if she crossed a river and miscarried there, or if she miscarried into a pit, or if she miscarried it and a wild beast dragged it away—she is in the legal status of one who miscarried a fetus, and she shall sit for a male and for a female. But if she was not established as pregnant and miscarried, and it is not known what she miscarried, she is a case of a doubtful birth, and she shall sit for a male, for a female, and for a niddah. And a placenta, part of which emerged on the first day and part of which emerged on the second day, we count for her from the first; however, regarding the days of purity, we calculate from the second to be stringent [Bava Kamma 11a], and that is to say that the blood she sees on the fifteenth is still impure, for perhaps it is the fourteenth and she is a female.

And know that our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, raised a difficulty in several places regarding the laws that have been explained, that we are concerned for everything to be stringent, yet there are several laws that contain a sefek sefeika. For example, in the law that was explained, where we calculate the fourteenth from the second and she is temeiah on the fifteenth according to the first, there is a sefek sefeika: perhaps the majority emerged on the first day, and perhaps it is a male. They answered that if she sees on the forty-first day, we would also permit her due to a sefek sefeika to the contrary: perhaps the majority did not emerge on the first day, and furthermore, perhaps it is a female and the taharah continues until eighty. Since they contradict one another, we do not follow the sefek sefeika [ibid. s.v. de-ka]. And there are places where this answer will not suffice. However, from the words of the poskim it appears that they did not follow a sefek sefeika in these laws because these are matters entrusted to women and the unlearned, and they would not know how to be precise with a sefek sefeika and would come to purify the temeiah [and so wrote the Sidrei Taharah subsection 11]. Also from the words of the Tosafot themselves in Niddah [29a s.v. teshev] this is explained; see there well.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 12: If a woman was struggling to give birth and she heard the voice of the child, it is considered as born, for it is impossible that it did not extend its head outside the prozdor. Thus far their words. And this is an explicit Gemara in Niddah [42b]. However, in the Rambam I did not find this law, and also in chapter 1 [halacha 15] of Milah, where he wrote: If the fetus extended its head from its mother's womb during twilight, etc., he did not mention this law that by hearing a voice it is considered as born. In the Gemara there they said this also regarding the matter of milah, see there. His reason for omitting this is hidden from me, and I have not seen anyone who has been aroused by this. Furthermore, he did not mention that outside the prozdor is considered as born, and also regarding milah he did not mention the prozdor as in the Gemara, and it requires great study. [And it is a strained explanation to say that because the primary law of the prozdor is in Chullin 72a according to Rabbi Ishmael and not according to Rabbi Akiva, and the halacha follows Rabbi Akiva, see there; for does Rabbi Akiva disagree on this? Rather, according to him this is not necessary, see there and examine closely.]

There is one of the great authorities who ruled regarding a woman who sat on the birthstool and was seized by pangs and labor pains, and they called for a midwife and thought she would give birth immediately, and afterwards the pangs and labor pains passed and she continued for about a month until she gave birth; and he ruled that she is forbidden to her husband, for sitting on the birthstool is considered like the opening of the womb, as is proven in Shabbat [129a] where they said: From when is the opening of the womb? From the time she sits on the birthstool, see there. And we maintain that it is impossible for there to be an opening of the womb without blood [Responsa Noda BiYehuda siman 9]. However, several great authorities took issue with him, for this would only be considered an opening of the womb if she gave birth afterwards; but since a long time elapsed, the matter was revealed that it was an error and she was not sitting on the birthstool at all, and only pains seized her. And it is an explicit Mishnah in the seventh chapter of Ohalot that from the opening of the womb it is impossible for her to walk, see there. Therefore, they rejected this ruling and she is permitted to her husband [Kereiti U-Peleiti in this siman, and Shevut Yaakov in the book Solet LeMincha, and Sidrei Tahara subsection 25, and the Noda BiYehuda in the book Teshuvah MeAhavah siman 114, and the author of Teshuvah MeAhavah], and so one should rule.

The Bach, of blessed memory, in this siman brought a responsum of the Mahariw in the name of the Raviah regarding an infant who cried out in its mother's womb, and its mother was not in difficult labor and she felt and sensed that the head had not emerged outside the prozdor and that it was still resting inside the cheder, and afterwards on the third day it was born; and he ruled that one counts from the day of birth and not from the day of the cry. For even though it is explained in the Gemara there that when it cries it has certainly extended its head outside the prozdor, this is when the mother does not contradict it; but when she says clearly that it has not yet extended its head, she is believed. And in the Gemara there they did not ask the mother because she was preoccupied with her pain and did not have the ability to sense this, but here, where she was not in difficult labor and did not have pain, she is believed; see there. And if it is a tradition, we shall accept it, for seemingly from the language of the Gemara it implies that it is impossible to be otherwise, and this entire matter requires further study. And in any case, from this, and likewise from the Rambam's omission of this law, it appears explicitly that this matter was not certain to our teachers, and perhaps there is a contradiction to this from some place [and see Noda BiYehudah, Tanina, Yoreh Deah, siman 120, who ruled to prohibit in such a case].

The Rashba wrote in Torat HaBayit: Regarding one who gives birth to twins, one counts for her from the latter child, whether for the days of impurity or for the days of purity. How so? If she gave birth to a female before sunset and another female after sunset, one counts two weeks for her from the second birth, and such is the law for the days of purity. The same applies to one who gives birth to two males. If she gave birth to a female before sunset and a male after sunset, one counts for her from the female, because the days of impurity and the days of purity of a male are included within the days of the female. If she gave birth to a female before sunset and a miscarriage after sunset, and it is not known if it was a male or a female, one follows the stringencies in these matters: one counts two weeks from the miscarriage, lest it was a female, and the days of purity from the first [and not eighty days from the second], lest the miscarriage was a male. Such is the law when she gave birth to a male before sunset and a miscarriage after sunset: she counts two weeks from the latter, lest it was a female, and the days of purity from the male. Thus far his words. And he brought proof from Keritot [9b], see there.

And behold, since it has been explained here that she must sit for a male and for a female, and there are those who must sit for a male, for a female, and for a niddah, therefore it is necessary to explain the laws in this matter. This is the wording of the Rambam at the end of chapter 10: Everywhere it is said "she shall sit for a male and for a female," how is her law? She shall be forbidden to her husband for fourteen days like one who gives birth to a female: the first seven certainly, and the second seven out of doubt. And they do not give her days of purity except until forty days like one who gives birth to a male. And if she saw blood after the forty until eighty, it is not blood of purity, but rather doubtfully blood of niddah or doubtfully blood of zivah if it came during the days of zivah. And similarly, if she saw blood on the eighty-first day alone, behold she is a doubtful niddah, and she shall sit the seven days of niddah, lest she gave birth to a female, who has no established vest for niddah until after the completion of the period.

And every case where it is said she sits for a male and for a female and for a nidda, how is her law? She shall be forbidden to her husband for fourteen days like one who gives birth to a female. And if she saw blood on the eighty-first day, she is a doubtful nidda. And similarly, if she saw on the seventy-fourth day and on the eighty-first day, she is a doubtful nidda. And similarly, if she saw on the forty-first day, even though she saw on the thirty-fourth day, she is a doubtful nidda and is forbidden to her husband until the night of the forty-eighth like one who gives birth to a male. And we do not give her days of purity at all, like a nidda, and she is as if she did not give birth. And any blood that she sees from the day she miscarried until eighty days, if it comes during her nidda days, she is a doubtful nidda, etc. Thus far his words.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, elaborated on this according to his system regarding the days of niddah and zivah, that it depends only on the days and not on the sightings, and she always counts the days of niddah and the days of zivah from the day of her giving birth. But according to the system of most of the poskim, it does not depend on this but rather on actual sightings, as we explained in siman 183. Those cases of doubt will never emerge into a state of certainty unless, after the eighty days of the one who miscarried, she observes eighteen clean days, and then she returns to her days of niddah. But without this, she is always in the category of a doubtful niddah or a doubtful zavah, as is understood. And now there is no practical difference in all these laws, because for us there is no distinction between a niddah and a zavah, and for all of them they observe seven clean days, and also we do not have pure blood. We only explained according to the essential law of the Gemara, and may He magnify the Torah and make it glorious.