Siman 195

It is known that a niddah is like all the forbidden relations, for all forbidden relations are punishable by kareth, and likewise a niddah is punishable by kareth. Regarding the matter of distancing from her, she is not equal to all other forbidden relations. There are matters in which they were more stringent with her than with all other forbidden relations, such as giving into her hand or taking from her hand and the like, as will be explained before us. And there are matters in which they were more lenient with her, such as that it is permitted to benefit from looking at her, whereas with all other forbidden relations it is simple that even gazing is prohibited. Likewise regarding yichud, for with all other forbidden relations it is prohibited to be in seclusion, but with his wife who is a niddah, it is permitted. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said [Sanhedrin 37a]: "Hedged about with lilies"—the Torah testified concerning us that even with a hedge of lilies they will not make a breach; that is to say, with a light warning and a slight separation, they separate themselves from transgression [Rashi]. And when she says, "I have seen something like a red lily," he immediately separates from her [Tosafot].

And the reason is as the Rosh wrote at the end of Niddah in the abridged laws of Niddah: From the time of her seeing until she immerses, she must distance herself somewhat from her husband in matters that are possible, for the Torah forbade yichud with all arayot, and Niddah is also under the penalty of kareth like all other arayot, but the matter is difficult to separate from yichud with his wife who is a niddah, and they found a hint from the Scripture to permit it, etc. And because he is constantly in yichud with her, they made a fence and a safeguard so that he will remember her niddut. Thus far his words. And furthermore, the truth is that for all of them there is a proper reason, and the Torah descended to the depth of the inclination's mind, for a matter that he has never tasted, his inclination burns like fire. Therefore, even with his wife who is a niddah when he has not yet cohabited, such as if she began her niddah immediately after the chuppah, it is forbidden to be in yichud with her, as is found at the beginning of Ketubot, because his inclination overpowers him greatly. This is not the case when he has cohabited, for his inclination does not overpower him. Therefore, with all arayot, yichud and looking are forbidden, which is not the case with his wife who is a niddah, and he will not come through this to a stumbling block, Heaven forbid, and for this matter it is called "he has bread in his basket." Therefore, against this, because in any event he is constantly with her, the sages were compelled to make the distancings in matters that are possible, for if not so, the closeness when he is constantly with her would lead them to a stumbling block, as the Rosh wrote.

Therefore, a person is obligated to distance himself from his wife during the days of her niddah until she immerses, and there is no difference between the days of her niddah and the days of her whitening; even if she did not go to the mikveh for a long time, she is a complete niddah and remains in her state of niddah until she enters the waters of a mikveh. In ancient times, there were those whose custom was to immerse two immersions: one after her niddah and the second after the days of her whitening [Tosafot Shabbat 12a, s.v. "In the days"], and therefore they were lenient regarding touching during the days of whitening since she had exited the Torah prohibition. But now, since she does not immerse until the days of her complete purity, she remains in her previous prohibition.

And he should not jest with her excessively, nor should he act lightheadedly with her through words if they lead to ervah, and all the more so lightheadedness in actions, lest he become accustomed to transgression. And thus they expounded in Avot De-Rabbi Natan [chapter 2]: "And to a woman in her menstrual impurity you shall not draw near"—one might think he may embrace her, and kiss her, and speak idle words with her, meaning words of habituation, therefore the verse says "you shall not draw near," meaning even things that lead to closeness, since it is not written "you shall not come upon her." But regarding yichud it is permitted, as we have explained.

And he shall not touch her even with a small finger, and therefore it is forbidden for him to give her anything from his hand to her hand, even a long object, due to the concern of touching, and the sages did not distinguish. And likewise, he shall not receive any object from her hand for this reason. And even to throw an object from his hand to her hand or from her hand to his hand is forbidden in any manner, whether the throwing is across a level distance or whether the throwing is upward or downward it is forbidden, for the sages made a distancing because he is with her constantly; therefore, extra caution is required so that they do not stumble. And likewise, she may not hold coals in a vessel in her hand while he warms himself by them; rather, she should place the vessel on the ground. And likewise, when she holds fire in her hand, he shall not ignite anything from it, such as a pipe of tobacco and the like, for the heat connects and there is an approach in this. And likewise, one may not take a child from her hand or she from his hand. And likewise, to touch her garments while she is wearing them is forbidden [see Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 3 in the name of the Tashbetz, and I wonder what relevance there is to "a living being carries itself," and what he wrote in subsection 2 in the name of the Noda BiYehudah that in a village where there is no other woman, the husband is permitted to stand at the time of her immersion and hold her because for a brief time we are not concerned about a mishap, see there, certainly it is so, for even if we were concerned even for a brief time, it can be said as we say in Pesachim 11a: he himself goes around to burn it, would he eat from it? See there, and here too it is so, and delve into this].

The sages taught in the Mishnah [Shabbat 11a]: A zav may not eat with a zavah because of the habit of transgression. That is to say, even though a pure person eating with a zavah is forbidden for another reason during the time of the Mishnah when they were careful to eat in purity, rather, even if he is also impure, it is forbidden because of the habit of transgression. Therefore, it is forbidden for a husband to eat together with his wife who is a niddah. The Rambam wrote at the end of chapter 11 that the prohibition is specifically when they eat from one bowl. The Ra'avad wrote that it is forbidden even at one table, and so the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled in section 3, see there. This was in their days when they had small tables and before each person was a separate table, but with us, where all the members of the household eat at one large table, this does not apply, and it appears that this is the opinion of the Rambam. However, these our teachers hold that in any event there must be some distinction between him and her, either that each eats on a separate cloth, or some other change, such as there being some object separating between him and her, such as bread or a pitcher and the like, for so it is proven in the Gemara [13b] there.

For there they said in the Gemara regarding two people, one eating meat and the other cheese on one table, that there must be a distinction between them when they know one another, lest one take from the other's. In my humble opinion, this is not a comparison, for there the food itself is forbidden to the other, but here the prohibition is not because of the food but because of intimacy, and when he takes from her food this is not intimacy, but rather when they eat together. Furthermore, there the foods are different from one another, therefore there is a concern, but when they eat one food in the manner of a man and his wife, why would he take from her? And it appears clear to me that this is the reasoning of the Rambam, of blessed memory. Also from the words of the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, it appears to me that it is not by the letter of the law, for he wrote: "We are accustomed even on one table," see there; behold, he attributed it to custom and not to the core of the law. However, from the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch it is implied that by the letter of the law it is so, and so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book in the name of the Ran, of blessed memory, that from the Gemara it is proven that it is forbidden, see there. And in my humble opinion it appears as I have written [and it seems to me that now people are not careful in this, and according to what I wrote it is well-settled].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say that this requirement for a separation between his bowl and her bowl is specifically when they do not eat from one bowl when she is pure; but if they eat from one bowl when she is pure, it is sufficient if she eats from a bowl by herself and no other היכר is necessary, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. That is to say, this itself constitutes a היכר. And know that the separation of the bread or the pitcher is only when they are not currently eating from this bread and are not currently drinking from this pitcher; but when they are eating and drinking from this, this is not a היכר. And there is another היכר, that she should uncover a bit of the table and place her bowl upon it, and this is the היכר: that he eats upon the tablecloth and she is without a tablecloth.

And there is one who says that the permission to eat from a separate bowl—when they would eat from one bowl while she was pure—is only when there are other members of the household eating with them at this table; but when there are no others with them, or if the others are eating at another table and they alone are eating at one table, even in such a case it is forbidden [Shach, subsection 7 in the name of the Bach]. And there is one who holds that when there are no more members of the household it is permitted, but only when there are members of the household and they are eating at another table it is forbidden [Shach, ibid.]. And so it stands to reason, that when there are others and they are eating alone by themselves, it is a way of affection even when each eats from his own bowl; but when there are no others at all, this is not a way of affection and it is permitted. And know that according to this, we would have to say that when they did not eat from one bowl while she was pure, they are forbidden to eat at one table even from a separate bowl and even when there are other others at the table, and it seems to me that this is not the practice [and it must be said either that they hold like the opinion of the Rambam that we cited, or that they understood the intention of our teacher, the Rema, that in any case there is no prohibition when there are other members of the household at the table. And know that the bowl mentioned here is a small bowl called a "teller" and not the large one called a "shissel" from which one pours into the small ones; and also the Taz, subsection 2, mentioned something similar to this for permission, see there. And to eat from one bowl such that he takes a piece and afterwards she, and afterwards he, etc., so that through this there would be a reminder that they do not take as one, is certainly forbidden as the Taz wrote there; but from a large bowl to take a portion from it to the small bowl—and like meat that they place many pieces on a "palomesak" and each one takes a portion from it to his "teller"—it is permitted; and also the Sidrei Taharah, subsection 7, disputed the Bach and the Shach, see there].

He shall not drink from the remnants of a cup from which she drank, as there is in this a semblance of affection. And even if he went back and filled the cup—for example, she drank half of it and he filled the cup—nevertheless it is forbidden, for in any event he drinks her remnants and there is in this an intimacy. And there is no permission unless another person intervenes between them, such as if she drank a portion and afterwards another person [drank], for then he also may drink; or if her remnants were poured into another cup, for then the intimacy is nullified, even if afterwards it was poured from the other back into the first cup. And so too, if she drank the entire cup, he may afterwards drink from this cup without rinsing, and some are accustomed to rinse, and certainly it is a proper custom [Beit Yosef], but we do not practice so [Shach, subsection 9] for the reason that there is no intimacy in this, as is understood [for if it were due to impurity and purity, this is not applicable nowadays; and if because the breath of her mouth is harmful, this is a separate matter and does not pertain to the prohibition of husband and wife; and examine this carefully].

This prohibition for him to drink the remnants of a cup from which she drank applies when she drank in his presence; however, if he does not know of this and comes and finds remnants in a cup and wishes to drink them, she is not obligated to tell him that these are her remnants, for in such a case "closeness" is not applicable. But if he knows of this, it appears that he should not drink even if she drank not in his presence, for in this there is closeness, as he shows her that her remnants are dear to him [as it appears from the wording of our teacher, the Rema, in section 4]. And if she drank from the cup even in his presence and went away, some say that it is permitted for him to drink the remnants, since she has already gone, there is no "affection" here. And this is more logical, since she does not know of it, "affection" is not applicable. And know that specifically he is forbidden to drink from her remnants, but she from his remnants is permitted in any case, for she does not habituate him to transgression; so wrote our teacher, the Rema, in section 4, see there. And I do not understand his words, for while it is true that she does not habituate him, nevertheless, since she drinks in his presence from his remnants and shows him affection, we should fear that he will habituate her to transgression. And it must be said that her drinking is not a way of affection, but only when he drinks from her remnants; but if so, there is no need for the reason that "she does not habituate him." And perhaps truly this is the intent, that in such a case there is no concern of habituating the matter [see Taz, subsection 5, who wrote the reason that "she does not habituate him," see there, and regarding the words of the Rema, it can be said as I have written].

Some say that it is forbidden for him to eat from the remnants of her food just as it is forbidden to drink from the remnants of her cup, and some say that it is a fortiori from drinking [Shach subsection 8]. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his book Bedek HaBayit, wrote explicitly that the remnants of food are permitted. The great Acharonim agreed to this, for granted that regarding drinking—where it is impossible to drink together from one cup—it is certainly a way of affection in this manner; but regarding eating, the very fact that they do not eat together serves as a reminder [Kereti U-Peleti and Sidrei Taharah subsection 8]. Furthermore, it is known that closeness in the custom of the world is through drinking and not through eating, as it is written, "And wine gladdens the heart of man," and likewise, "I will raise the cup of salvations" [and that which the Shach wrote as a proof from the Hagahot Maimoniot and the Mordechai in the first chapter of Shabbat is no proof at all, for they are dealing with eating together, as it is stated there, "ate with him etc.," see there and examine it closely].

And the mixing of the cup is forbidden for both of them to one another, for what greater affection is there? And similarly, to pour wine from a jug into the cup is forbidden for them to one another. And similarly, to pass the cup to one another is forbidden. But to pass the food, and all the more so to prepare the food, she is permitted even to do for him, for this is not the way of affection but rather the way of service [Taz, subsection 3]. And not only is mixing a cup forbidden, but even to send her a cup of wine is forbidden; it makes no difference if it is a cup of blessing or if it is another cup, if the cup is designated for her. But if everyone drinks from that same cup and she drinks after them, it is permitted. And mixing is only forbidden in his presence.

And likewise, she is forbidden to make his bed in his presence, specifically the spreading of sheets and the cover, as this is a way of affection. And all the more so it is forbidden for him to do so for her, and the poskim did not mention this because it is not the way of a man to make the beds. However, the arranging of the pillows and the blankets, which is a labor and is not a way of affection, is permitted. And this is in his presence, but not in his presence it is permitted, even the spreading of sheets and the cover, for when not in his presence there is no affection here. And likewise, she is forbidden to pour water for him to wash his face, his hands, and his feet, even if she does not touch him, and even if it is cold water. And all the more so according to our practice that we are stringent even with throwing, as I wrote in section 5, that this is forbidden; and it is an a fortiori argument that he shall not pour for her. But bringing water in a vessel or pouring into the vessel and he washes with them is permitted, for this is not affection.

The sages stated a general rule [Ketubot 61a]: All labors that a wife performs for her husband, a nidda performs for her husband, except for pouring the cup, preparing the bed, and washing his face, hands, and feet. We have already explained this. It is explained in the Gemara regarding the handing of the cup that when she does so by means of a change it is permitted, such as if she switches the cup from her right hand, with which she carries the cup, to her left hand and places it before him, or if she does not place the cup on the table but rather on a pillow or a cushion or another place, it is permitted. Since she creates a distinction, there is no intimacy here and there is no concern regarding this. Some have written that even handing food in a bowl is forbidden to her when the food is for the husband alone [Bach and Shach subsection 13]. However, we have already written in section 12 that with food there is no intimacy, and on the contrary, this is the way of service and it is permitted [Taz and Sidrei Tahara subsection 18 and Kereti U-Peleti]. [Rashi explained regarding the distinction that it refers to the days of her purification and when there were two immersions, see there].

He shall not sleep with her in a bed even if each is in their garment and they do not touch one another, and even if each has their own bedding, and even if they lie in two beds, if the beds touch one another it is forbidden and there must be a separation between them. However, when the beds are separated from one another it is permitted in one room, for the Torah permitted yichud with a niddah as was written at the beginning of this siman. And even if the two beds are surrounded by a curtain called a "par-heing" it is permitted; on the contrary, our sages, of blessed memory, said in Eruvin [63b]: Anyone who sleeps in a chamber in which a man and his wife dwell, regarding him the verse says, "The women of My people you cast out from their pleasant houses" [Micah 2]. And even when she is a niddah, where there is no nullification of marital relations, nevertheless the woman is ashamed to lie there, and also they cannot speak matters of modesty that are between a man and his wife and they suffer from this. Furthermore, it is a way of honor for a woman when she lies in her husband's room [our teacher Yehonatan and the Maharsha], as they can derive pleasure from one another through sight. And it is permitted for him to look at her in the revealed places of her body even though he derives pleasure from looking at her, but at the covered places of her body he shall not look, and even at her heel he should not look. [This is his wording in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 7, and ostensibly it is against the Gemara in Nedarim 20a which explains there that "her heel" refers to the place of the ervah, see there. However, the Ra'avad in the book Ba'al HaNefesh explained that this refers to a pure woman, but regarding a niddah it is not proper to look even at her actual heel. And so it is clarified from the words of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, and the Beit Yosef and the Bayit Chadash and the Derisha pressed themselves on this, see there. And according to the words of the Ra'avad it is settled simply; and see Sidrei Taharah subsection 14].

There is one who wrote in this language: that a bed of wood or of stone construction is permitted when he is in his bed and she is in her bed [Shach subsection 11 in the name of the Maharam Alashkar]. The Acharonim wrote that there is no understanding of this [Sidrei Taharah subsection 13 and the glosses of Rav Baruch Fraenkel]. And it appears to me that the intention is as follows: just as exists in the houses of soldiers, which is called "koortz la'aretz," and it is like a wide bed along the entire length of the wall, and there are partitions between each place, even though they are all connected as one, nevertheless this is not like one bed. And he may sleep in one place and she in another place, since there is a recognizable partition between each place, provided that they are not adjacent to one another but rather with the partition of one place. And this is a bed of wood. And there are those from the building itself that protrude like balconies to lie upon them as well, in the form that has been explained, and this is a bed of stone construction.

He shall not sit on the bed designated for her even not in her presence, and all the more so to lie there. And some say that regarding sitting there is no concern, and only to lie down is forbidden due to impure thoughts [Shach subsection 10 in the name of the Bach]. And it is obvious that to lie on the bedding designated for her is forbidden [Chochmat Adam] for the reason that has been explained. And so it is explained from the words of the Rosh in the Abridged Laws of Niddah, that only lying down is forbidden but sitting is permitted; see there. And if she is permitted to lie in his bed, the later authorities disagreed, as some permit [Minchat Yaakov] and some forbid [Taz subsection 6] because he will have impure thoughts when she lies down and when she rises. And according to this, not in his presence is certainly permitted.

Regarding sitting on a long bench: when he or she is sitting upon it, it is forbidden for the second person to sit upon it because it wobbles and is like touching. However, on heavy beams that do not wobble, or a heavy bench, and similarly on a large chair called a "kanapa," both are permitted to sit upon it. There are those who permit even a light bench when another person intervenes between them. One should not refute this from the case of a zav and a pure person who sat on a light object, where the pure person becomes impure as stated in Tractate Zavim; this is because regarding a zav, his shifting of an object conveys impurity, but here shifting is not prohibited, only touching. Therefore, when another person intervenes, they certainly will not touch one another, but when another does not intervene, it is possible that through the wobbling they will touch one another [as it appears to me].

And if they need to travel in a wagon for their needs it is permitted even though it jolts, because this is not like actual touching, and therefore they are permitted as long as they do not touch one another even with their clothes, even though there is no one else with them but they alone, and the same law applies to a ship. And all this is when they travel for their needs, but for the sake of a mere excursion, and similarly to gardens and orchards, it is forbidden, for when they travel for an excursion there is much closeness of mind and we concern ourselves with a mishap, and also they did not permit this for a mere excursion; and even to go for a walk together is not proper for this reason.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: It is proper for her to designate garments for the days of her niddah so that they both will always remember that she is a niddah. Thus far his words. And in section 9 he wrote: With difficulty they permitted her to adorn herself during the days of her niddah, but only so that she does not become repulsive to her husband. Thus far his words. And they questioned him: Behold, at the end of the chapter "Af Al Pi," a different reason is explicit in the Gemara regarding garments for the days of her niddah, which is so that she does not become repulsive to her husband; and Rashi explained that when he sees her during the days of her purity in the garments she wore during the days of her niddah, she will be repulsive to him. From where did he derive the reason of "remembrance"? [The Minchat Yaakov and the Kereti U'Peleti, and they were pressed in this, see there]. And in my humble opinion, it appears that for this reason our teacher, the Beit Yosef, placed these two laws adjacent to one another, for in truth these two passages of Gemara contradict one another. For there they said she should wear garments designated for the days of her niddah so that she does not become repulsive to him, and they also said [ibid. 64b]: She was established as a niddah among her neighbors, etc., and Rashi explained that they saw her wearing niddah garments, and presumably she wears inferior and unadorned garments during her niddah. And this is the opposite of the words of the Gemara in Shabbat [64b]: "And she that is sick in her niddah"—the early elders said that she should not apply kohl, etc., and should not adorn herself in colored garments, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: If so, you make her repulsive to her husband, etc., see there. Behold, it is the opposite: that by not going about adorned during the days of her niddah, she will become repulsive in his eyes. And if you say that she should adorn herself during the days of her niddah with other adornments, this is not logical, for not everyone is wealthy.

The essence of the matter is this: there are different temperaments among men. There is one who, when he sees his wife adorned during her days of niddah as she is during her days of purity, she becomes repulsive to him when he remembers her days of niddah. And there is one for whom she does not become repulsive through this, but rather the opposite—when he sees her during her days of niddah in simple garments, she becomes repulsive to him. Therefore, the choice is in the hands of each individual to act according to his will. Therefore, in the chapter "Af Al Pi," which deals with one who maintains his wife through a third party, the sages, of blessed memory, said that she can compel him to give her old garments for her days of niddah so that she does not become repulsive in his eyes; meaning, she can say that she knows him to be a man of this nature. And in Shabbat, Rava said the opposite: if she follows a general rule in this, she becomes repulsive to her husband; meaning, according to the natures of many men. Therefore, from this perspective, there is no fixed law. Consequently, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and likewise the Tur, placed these two laws adjacent to one another. And this is what he wrote: "It is proper," etc., "so that they will remember," etc. Meaning, it is proper to choose this path in order to remember her days of niddah, because in truth they only permitted it with difficulty, etc. However, we cannot compel him if this is against his nature, for it was for this reason that Rava permitted it. But if it is not against his nature, it is good that they choose this path for themselves so that they remember her days of niddah.

If she applies a good scent to her body or her clothes, it is obvious that it is forbidden for him to derive pleasure from the scent of her body or her clothes, and there is no greater provocation of the yetzer hara than this. However, regarding the remnants of her scent when it remains in a vessel, there is no concern, as there is no intimacy in this. And to hear the sound of her singing, it appears also that it is forbidden, for it provokes the yetzer hara through this. And know that all these distances must be kept whether during the days of her niddah status, or during the days of her white garments, or if she saw a ketam, and there is no trace of a distinction in this. [And the words of our teacher, the Rema, in section 14 I have omitted, for all the great authorities have already cried out against this and made it a printing error, as the Shach wrote in subsection 17 and the Taz in subsection 10, and he himself also did not conclude thus, see there.]

If he is sick and has no one to serve him besides her, she is permitted to serve him, for since he is sick he will not lead her to transgression, and the woman does not lead to transgression. However, she must be as careful as she possibly can to avoid washing his face, hands, and feet, and making the bed in his presence, for these lead greatly to intimacy. In the pouring of the cup there is not such great closeness. And it appears that if there is a necessity even for washing and making the bed, such that it is impossible without it, it is also permitted for the reason that has been explained; and so wrote the Acharonim.

But when she is ill and she is a niddah, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote at the end of this siman, and this is his wording: A woman who is ill and she is a niddah, it is forbidden for her husband to touch her in order to serve her, such as to raise her up, to lay her down, or to support her; and if her husband is a doctor, it is forbidden for him to feel her pulse. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding the first law that there are those who say that if she has no one else to serve her, everything is permitted, and so we practice if she has a great need for it. Thus far his words. And regarding the second law, when her husband is a doctor, etc., he wrote, and this is his wording: And according to what I have written, that we practice permissively if she needs him to serve her as I have written, it is permitted to feel her pulse if there is no other doctor and she needs him and there is danger in her illness. Thus far his words.

The explanation of the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, is that both of them hold that in a place of danger it is permitted. And even though our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book is uncertain that perhaps according to the opinion of the Rambam, who holds that every type of closeness with arayot is forbidden by the Torah, one should not permit even in a place of danger, see there; nevertheless, here in the Shulchan Aruch it was simple to him that it is so, for so wrote the Ramban and the Radbaz in a responsum. And the reason for the matter is that even though at the end of the chapter "Ben Sorer U'moreh" the sages forbade every type of closeness and said "let him die and not transgress," see there, this is because he committed a transgression and developed a morbid passion, see there. Furthermore, whenever one is engaged in his craft, we have no concern with it. And behold, the matter is simple for permission regarding an expert physician who examines every hidden place if it is necessary for that [as a physician], because he is engaged in his craft [and this is the intent of the Shach in subsection 20, and several great ones agreed with him, and in vain did the Beit Shmuel in Even HaEzer siman 20 subsection 1 dispute him, see there and delve into it].

And all these laws refer to a situation where there is no danger, and therefore when she is ill, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, prohibited and our teacher, the Rema, permitted because this is not within the category of forbidden sexual relations since he acts by way of service and not for desire. And this is what he wrote, "and so is the custom if she needs etc." and he did not write a place of danger. And regarding the feeling of the pulse which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, prohibited, it also refers to a situation where there is no danger, and this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that it is permitted when there is no one else and there is danger etc., meaning that in this even our teacher, the Beit Yosef, admits, for behold his source is from the Beit Yosef, see there. But according to our teacher, the Rema, it is possible that it is permitted even when there is no danger just as he permitted previously, but he wrote that all the more so in a place of danger it is permitted according to everyone [so it appears to me]. And there are those who wrote that he should place a thin item upon the place of the pulse [and this is what the Shach wrote there, that the simple custom is to feel the pulses of a married woman etc. see there, because he is engaged in his craft]. And nevertheless, when there is no danger, it is prohibited for a husband to feel the pulse of his wife who is a niddah [Shach there], for even though with all others they are accustomed to feel since he does not intend for any intimacy, nevertheless with his wife it automatically constitutes intimacy [Hagahot Rav Baruch Fraenkel]. [And so it is implied from the Chavot Daat subsection 13, that the Beit Yosef also refers to a situation where there is no danger, see there].

And know that regarding all that has been explained—that in her presence it is forbidden and not in her presence it is permitted, such as drinking from the remnants of a cup and the like—if he began not in her presence and in the middle of the drinking she arrived, he does not need to stop. And drinking refers specifically to something of importance, such as wine and the like. And there are those who wrote that a woman during the days of her niddah should not go to a cemetery [according to Pitchei Teshuvah, subsection 19], and it is correct. And in Orach Chaim, siman 88, there are opinions whether a niddah is permitted to enter a beit knesset to pray; and the custom of the women is that during the days of her niddah she does not go, except for the High Holy Days, and during the days of her whitening she goes; see there.