Siman 196

It has already been explained that the daughters of Israel adopted the practice of sitting seven clean days even for a drop of blood like a mustard seed, because every sighting of blood is a doubt of zivah, and a zavah requires seven clean days as it is written: "But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean" in the waters of a mikveh. Therefore, she is obligated to know through a thorough examination that she has ceased from seeing blood, as it is written: "But if she be cleansed of her issue," meaning that she must know with certainty that she has been cleansed of her issue, and that is by examining herself very thoroughly. As long as she has not examined herself, even if a long time has passed and she afterwards examined herself and found herself clean, she remains in the presumption of impurity until this time, since she did not examine herself beforehand [Mishnah Niddah 68a]. And conversely, if she examined herself on the seventh day and found herself clean, and after some time she examined herself and found herself impure, she remains in the presumption of purity until this time [ibid.].

The day she examines herself and finds herself tahora is called the hefsek tahara, and from the following day she begins to count the seven nekiyim. But the day on which she ceases, even if she ceased in the morning—for example, if she examined herself in the morning, at noon, and at bein hashemashot and she is tahora—if on that same day she saw in the morning or on the preceding night, the day does not count toward the tally of the nekiyim for two reasons. One, since she saw within this twenty-four hour period, it is not a complete day of tahara, and the Torah said "seven days," meaning seven complete days she shall be in tahara [and on page 33a there is a proof for this, see there]. And in this we do not say that since part of the day was clean, part of the day is like the whole of it, for if so, we would say to the contrary: that the part of the day in which she saw is like the whole of it. Furthermore, all seven days must be equal in their tahara, meaning all of them completely clean. And the second reason is that since there was no hefsek tahara on the preceding day, she cannot come to the counting of seven nekiyim as we have written [and one should not raise the difficulty of why Rava there was required to reject this principle of "part of the day is like the whole of it" because of the contradiction of semen, see there, for it could be said as we have written, for in several places we say this toward the side of leniency, such as in mourning and in Nazir 6a, see there and examine carefully].

And know that regarding the time of the examination for the hefsek taharah, there is confusion among the poskim, and therefore it is necessary to explain. In Niddah [68a] we learned: Rabbi Yehuda says, anyone who did not separate in purity from the afternoon and onwards, she remains in the status of impurity [even if she examined in the morning or at noon and found herself pure, it is of no avail, for perhaps she saw afterwards]. And the sages say, even on the second day of her niddah status, if she examined and found herself pure, and at twilight she did not separate etc., she remains in the status of purity [meaning, that even an examination in the morning and on the second day of her niddah status is effective, and all the more so on the third and fourth, etc.]. And the halacha follows the sages. However, regarding the examination of the first day, it implies explicitly that it is not effective, since her source is open, and therefore they said "on the second day of her niddah status" and not on the first.

And in a Baraita in the Gemara it was taught: They said to Rabbi Yehuda, if her hands were placed in her eyes the entire bein hashemashot [meaning, that she was checking this entire time] you speak well [for in this we have escaped the concern that perhaps she saw afterward]; now, we say that with the removal of her hands she saw. What difference is there to me if she performed the hafrasha in purity on the seventh from the Mincha and onward, and what difference is there to me if she performed the hafrasha in purity on the first? And the Gemara asks: On the first, is there anyone who says so? And it answers: Yes, and was it not taught [calmly]: Rabbi said, I asked Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon etc. a niddah who checked herself on the seventh day in the morning and found herself pure, and at bein hashemashot she did not perform the hafrasha etc. what is the law? He said to me: Behold, she is in the presumption of purity. The sixth, fifth, fourth, third, second, what is the law? They said to me: It is no different. Regarding the first, I did not ask, and I erred that I did not ask. Is it not that all of them stand in a presumption of impurity? And since it stopped, it stopped; on the first as well, since it stopped, it stopped. And originally, what did he think such that he did not ask? Since the source was presumed open; meaning, and it was obvious to him that it is not effective. And afterward he retracted, for there is no difference between the open source of the first day and the presumption of impurity of the other days, even though on the other days her source is not open.

Our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, raised a difficulty regarding R. Yose against R. Yose, for here he says that a morning separation is effective, whereas above [53a] R. Yose said: If these, a niddah who did not separate in purity from the afternoon and onwards, would she not be in a status of impurity? This implies that a separation from the afternoon and onwards is required. They answered that there it deals with a case where she separated on the day she saw in the morning, and here it deals with a case where she checked in the morning and found herself pure, etc. Thus far their words. Behold, according to their words it is explicit that what was explained here, that a morning checking is effective, is when she did not see previously on that same day; but when she saw on that day, all agree that she requires a separation specifically from the afternoon and onwards. And so Rashi explained above regarding the words of R. Yose, and this is his wording: She would not be in a status of impurity and does not immerse in the evening, even though she separated in purity in the morning; this implies that once she saw, she is in the status of one who returns to see for the entire day until the end of the day, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, this is explicitly like the words of the Tosafot. And these opinions of our teachers were not brought at all, neither in the Tur nor in the Shulchan Aruch [and the Chavot Da'at in subsection 1 has already noted this].

And ostensibly the words of our teachers are very puzzling, for if so, what was the question of Rabbi regarding the first day, and why did he also retract and hold that the first day is like all the days? Behold, on the first day it is obvious that it is not effective, for she saw on that very day. And there is one who wrote that the question was not regarding the first day as with the other days, but rather if it is effective from the afternoon and onwards [Maharsha ibid.], but it does not appear so, for if so, Rabbi should have specified, and from the silence of his words it appears that the first day is equal to the other days. And it appears to me that certainly even regarding the first day Rabbi says that the morning examination is effective, but it deals with a case where she saw at night. And the Tosafot already wrote in Pesachim [81a s.v. "ei nami"] that according to Rabbi Yose counting at night is not considered counting, see there. It follows that regarding seeing, the day is distinct from the night in the sense that it should not be considered like an open spring. And also from this passage it is proven so, for they only mentioned the morning examination, and why did they not mention a night examination? Rather, it is certain that regarding counting and seeing, the day is distinct from the night [so it appears to me].

The Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 6 has another approach to this, as he wrote there in law 20: A niddah who examined herself during the days of her niddah status and found that the blood had ceased, and even if it ceased on the second day of her niddah status, etc., all those days that she did not examine herself, she is in a state of presumed purity, etc., and the first day of niddah, even though she found herself pure on it, she is like one who found impurity, for the entire first day the source is presumed to be open. Thus far his words. Behold, he has extended the matters, for on all the days it is effective at whatever time she examines herself and it is a cessation of purity even though she saw blood previously, for he did not mention at all that it is specifically when she did not see blood on that day, and he did not mention any specific time for her examination, for it is explicitly explained that even the morning is effective. And more than this, it appears that even a nighttime examination is effective, for if not so, he should have specified, and he holds that that which we learned "morning" is not specific, and it took the common way of the matter, for at night she lies in bed, and when she rises from her bed in the morning, it is her way to examine. And on the first day, even twilight is not effective, for if not so, he should have specified.

And his opinion is clarified, that he ruled according to the anonymous Mishnah that it is only effective in the second and not in the first, and he was not concerned for the Baraita of Rabbi who said, "I erred that I did not ask," etc. Or, it is possible that even for Rabbi it was not so certain as a matter of law and he had a doubt, and only that he retracted because he did not ask in any event [and this is the opinion of the Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit, see there]. Nevertheless, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book that even according to the Rambam it is effective if the examination cloth remained placed in her womb until the night, see there, for this is not in the category of an examination but rather removes it from all doubt, just as the sages said to Rabbi Yosei: "Had her hands been in her eyes all through twilight, it would be well," etc.

But the opinion of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit [House 7, Gate 5] is that even on the first day, a morning examination is effective when she examined and found herself pure, see there; because he holds that the halacha follows Rabbi who retracted what he did not ask, and it was clear to him that the first day is equal to the other days, see there. For since he said "I erred," calling this an error, it implies that this is the law. And the Rosh disagrees with him in Bedek HaBayit, see there.

The opinion of the Rosh is not clear to us, for he wrote in the Short Laws of Niddah: And when she sees a drop of blood like a mustard seed, she must sit for it seven clean days, and after the blood ceases, she shall examine herself very well, etc., and this examination shall be at twilight on the day she ceases from seeing, etc. Thus far his words. And ostensibly, he ruled like Rabbi Yehuda, and this is something that is impossible to rule like an individual against the many, and the commentators have already labored in the understanding of his words [see Beit Yosef, Ma'adanei Yom Tov, and Bach]. And there is one who wrote that he ruled like Rashi and the Tosafot, that on the day she sees, all agree that the examination must specifically be at twilight, meaning before twilight [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 9]. And in my humble opinion it is not so, for if it were so, he should have clarified that when she did not see on that day, a morning examination is effective. And a clear proof for this is that in chapter 9, siman 5, he wrote, and this is his wording: Therefore, women nowadays who are of uncertain status as zavot must cease in purity to examine themselves so that it is known that her source is closed. Thus far his words. And he did not mention twilight at all.

The primary view is like the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, for in the abridged work he did not descend to the depth of the law, but only to instruct the daughters of Israel regarding what they should do, and he wrote the good and preferred way. Therefore, in chapter 9, he wrote the essential law: that whenever she examines herself it is effective, and even if she saw blood on that same day, according to the opinion of the Rambam and the Rashba. And if you ask, if so, why did he not instruct them to keep the examination cloth inside the womb until nightfall, since this examination removes all doubt? This is not a difficulty at all, for he did not wish to burden the daughters of Israel; for this is also evident in the Mishnah, where the sages said to Rabbi Yehuda: "If only her hands were in her eyes all through twilight, etc." This implies explicitly that this is a difficult thing. Also, from the plain sense of his words, it implies that it is effective even on the first day, according to the opinion of the Rashba. [And that which he wrote there, "as Rav said, that she must establish a cessation in purity on her third day, etc.," he employed the language of Rav because a zavah only exists with three days, and Rav spoke according to Torah law. But the Rosh, who is dealing with our practice, even on the first day it is so; for if not so, he should have explained that on the first day it is not effective. Furthermore, regarding the "first" in the Baraita and the "second" in the Mishnah, it would also be after three days according to the principles of the laws of zavah. And delve into this.]

The Tur and the Shulchan Arukh did not bring the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot at all, and even the opinion of the Rambam they did not bring explicitly, but rather they alluded to his opinion as will be explained. This is the wording of the Tur: The seven days that the zavah counts begin from the morrow of the day in which she ceased, and this is her law: if she sees two days or three and ceased seeing, she examines herself on the day she ceased so that she may cease in purity. And the Rashba wrote: if she examined herself in the morning etc. behold she is pure; if she saw only one day and ceased, and examined herself and found herself pure, behold she is in the status of purity. And there are those who are stringent in this due to doubt, since her source is open. And from the wording of my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, it appears that she must cease in purity at twilight etc. Thus far his words.

And behold, regarding that which he wrote, "if she sees two days or three," they wondered about him, for from whichever way you look at it, this is neither according to the law of the Torah, which requires specifically three days for a zavah, nor according to our practice, for even with one time she requires seven clean days. And they answered that this is according to the law of the Torah when she saw one sighting at twilight, which is considered as two days, and together it is three days [Bach in the Kuntres Acharon and Sidrei Taharah]. And I wonder: did not the Tur write according to our practice and not according to the law of the Torah? And there is one who answered that because he wrote afterwards regarding the bedikah on the second day—since regarding the first day there is a dispute—therefore it must necessarily be two days [Perishah]. But according to this, why did he write "or three"? And it appears to me that he was forced to this so that we should not say that they only ruled leniently regarding the morning bedikah now because she was not established in the flowing of blood, since we sit seven clean days for one sighting; but if she was established by seeing twice, according to the one who holds that twice constitutes a chazakah, or three, according to the one who holds that twice does not constitute a chazakah but only three, we should not be lenient regarding the morning bedikah. He comes to teach us that even when she was established we are lenient, for according to the law of the Mishnah it must necessarily be three sightings, and nevertheless the sages said that the morning bedikah is sufficient; therefore we also do not act stringently in this.

And that which he wrote, that regarding the first day there are those who are stringent, his intention is to the Rambam, for according to him even an examination at twilight is not effective as has been written. And regarding what he wrote concerning the opinion of the Rosh, the commentators of the Tur understood that he holds that according to the Rosh this is so according to the core law, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, rejected his words, see there. And I wonder greatly at this, for how is it possible to say so, behold in the ninth chapter regarding the core law the Rosh did not mention this at all as has been written. Therefore, it is more comfortable to say that the Tur also understood the intention of the Rosh like our teacher, the Beit Yosef, but because the Rashba wrote according to the core law and the Rosh was stringent in practice, therefore he wrote the opinion of the Rosh that one should conduct oneself so in practice.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1: The seven days that the zavah counts begin from the morrow of the day on which she ceased [bleeding]. And this is her procedure: if she sees for two or three days and ceases to see, she examines herself on the day she ceased so that she may cease in purity. And this examination shall be close to bein hashemashot. And a man should always teach within his house that she should examine herself on the day of her cessation of purity with a moch dachuk, and that it should remain there for the entire duration of bein hashemashot, for this examination removes all doubt. Thus far his words. And in section 2 he wrote: If she saw for only one day and ceased on that same day, she must examine herself with a moch dachuk, and it should remain there for the entire duration of bein hashemashot. Thus far his words.

And behold, in section 1, he was not concerned at all to write the primary law that he concluded in his great work, that on the other days, according to all the poskim, an examination of the morning and its evening suffices; for since the Rosh wrote this in the summary of the laws of niddah, that this is how the woman should conduct herself, to examine close to bein hashemashot, he did not wish at all to mention that according to the law an examination of the morning suffices. And all the more so since according to what we explained for the method of Rashi and Tosafot, even according to the primary law it is required specifically close to bein hashemashot. And it appears to me in my humble opinion that nevertheless, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, admits that ex post facto, if she examined in the morning, it is effective. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote on his words which required close to bein hashemashot, and this is his wording: And so we practice ab initio, but ex post facto, even if she did not examine herself except in the morning and found herself pure, it suffices. Thus far his words. And he does not disagree with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, but rather he explained his intention. And even according to Rashi and Tosafot, when she did not see on that day, it is simple that an examination of the morning suffices. But without an examination for the hefsek taharah, even if she knows clearly that it has been several days since she saw, it is nothing, and it is forbidden for her to count the clean days without an examination.

But regarding what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, "And a person should always teach within his home etc. with a compressed absorbent cloth and that it should remain there the entire duration of bein hashemashot etc." Thus far his words. I am astonished: since even the previous law regarding the examination close to bein hashemashot is a mere stringency according to his view, how could he impose a stringency upon a stringency, that it must remain there the entire duration of bein hashemashot? And it is true that our teacher, the Rema, emended his words "that a person should always teach" and this is his wording: "to be stringent ab initio." Thus far his words. Nevertheless, how can we be stringent even ab initio with a stringency upon a stringency? For we do not find the likes of this [and the Yerushalmi in the first chapter of Pesachim, halacha 4, asks: "And is there a fence for a fence?" See there]. Furthermore, what is our teacher, the Rema, teaching us? For even our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote this in the language of a stringency ab initio. And it appears to me that their intention is that certainly for us, the stringency of the examination close to bein hashemashot is sufficient; rather, it is because the custom in their time was that the absorbent cloth should remain the entire duration of bein hashemashot, as is evident from the words of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, who wrote this is his wording: "And all the more so now that they have become accustomed to a compressed absorbent cloth etc." See there. And this phrasing of "a person should always teach etc." is also from the words of the Rashba in the Short Torat HaBayit, as cited in his large work; see there. Behold, it is explicit that even the Rashba, of blessed memory, who is lenient—that even on the first day an examination in the morning is sufficient—nevertheless wrote this because such was the custom in his days. And this custom grew from the fact that every husband taught his wife to do so, and since they practiced this of their own accord, may a blessing come upon them. And the intention of our teacher, the Rema, is that even the husband to his wife should not say that this is from the essential law, so as not to cause her to stumble if she is unable to do so and would then abstain from procreation. Therefore, he should teach her that this is only a stringency ab initio, and if she cannot leave it the entire duration of bein hashemashot, she should perform an examination close to bein hashemashot [so it appears to me].

And that which he wrote in section 2, that if she saw one day she requires an examination throughout the entire bein hashemashot, he wrote this according to the essential law following the opinion of the Rambam, who forbids entirely on the first day; but in such a case he admits. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote also regarding this, and this is his wording: And post facto, if she examined herself close to bein hashemashot and found herself pure, even though the moch was not with her throughout the entire bein hashemashot, it is sufficient; but a morning examination is not effective since she only saw one day. Thus far his words. And his reason is because according to the Rashba, the Rosh, and the Tur, by law an examination close to bein hashemashot is sufficient, one need not be concerned post facto for the opinion of the Rambam; but a morning examination, which is only according to the opinion of the Rashba, is not effective even post facto.

And there is a question regarding this in what the poskim wrote, that the examination is adjacent to bein hashemashot; for behold, Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishnah, who is stringent, only said "from the mincha and onwards," see there. And even if we explain it as from mincha ketana [and in Niddah 63b Rashi explained from midday], there are still two and a half hours until night. And even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds in the fourth chapter of Berakhot that from plag hamincha it is considered night, there is still an hour and a quarter [see Sidrei Tahara, subsection 9]. However, Rashi, of blessed memory, explained regarding Rabbi Yehuda "bein hashemashot," see there. And it must be said that his intention was from the end of the mincha [ibid.]. And so it is implied from the response of the sages to Rabbi Yehuda: "If so, her hands should be in her eyes all of bein hashemashot," etc. And it appears to me that it is all one, for the primary intention of Rabbi Yehuda was to examine as late as one possibly can; but who can be so precise as to do so slightly before bein hashemashot? Therefore, he established a time from the mincha and onwards, which for him was an hour and a quarter before night, and to examine within this time. And consequently, for us, for whom it is two and a half hours until night, it is impossible to establish it so, and therefore it was necessary for the poskim to write bein hashemashot, meaning adjacent to it, slightly before, or a half hour or an hour before, according to one's ability.

And it appears in my humble opinion that since it has been clarified that according to the essential law the hefsek taharah examination may be in the morning, and even according to the opinion of the Rambam it is only ineffective on the first day, and even according to the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot it is only ineffective in the morning on the day that she saw as we have explained; and if so, these women of ours who do not begin to count seven nekiyim until the sixth day from her seeing due to the concern of discharge of semen as will be explained in this siman, and it is known that most women only see for two or three days, one may simply rely on her performing her hefsek taharah even in the morning according to all the poskim. And only if she saw within the days of her counting, for then she begins to count seven nekiyim immediately, must one be careful that she should cease close to darkness. And in all this it appears to me that there is no difference between an actual seeing and the finding of a ketam, for everything the rabbis ordained, they ordained similar to the Torah law [I later saw that the Shach wrote likewise in subsection 6 in the name of the Ma'ayan Ganim, and such is the primary ruling].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 that there are those who say that if the congregation prayed Maariv and it is still very much day, she cannot perform a bedikah or put on white garments to begin counting from the following day, since the congregation has already made it night [and even though she has not yet prayed Maariv. Shach]. And there are those who say it is permitted even if the congregation has made it Shabbat. And we are accustomed to be careful ab initio, but ex post facto there is no concern. And some women are accustomed that if she performed the hefsek before Barechu and saw a ketam or blood again during the days of her counting, then they perform the hefsek even after Barechu if she became disqualified close to evening, and they consider this matter as ex post facto, and one should not protest against them, for they received this from some sage who instructed them, and it is a custom of the meticulous. Thus far his words. And there is one who says that when she also prayed Maariv, even ex post facto it is not effective [Shach, subsection 4 in the name of his father]. And there are those who say there is no difference [ibid.]. And there is one who says to follow this until twenty-four hours, and when the day is long we consider day and night equal, and therefore after six hours past midday we consider it night [ibid.]. And already the great Acharonim have rejected these words, and their mind is not at ease with the essence of this law, for what is the connection between prayer and her counting? And is it so that if they pray Maariv on Shabbat before nightfall, melakhah would be permitted? Heaven forbid! And so too regarding all the Festivals and Yom Kippur, and so too on the eve of Pesach regarding the eating of matzah, it must be specifically at night even though they prayed while it was still day. And the Maharshal in a responsum [cited in the Taz, Orach Chaim, end of siman 668] wrote that this which we add from the profane to the holy is not for the purpose of making it night; see there. And we do not find this stringency in the poskim except regarding mourning later in siman 375, and even there the Acharonim were lenient, and also mourning is not comparable to a niddah, as is explained there [in the Shach, see there]. Therefore, among us the simple custom is that until nightfall she may perform a bedikah and begin counting from the following day, and also on the eve of Shabbat she should do so. And all the more so regarding the matter that we do not begin counting until the sixth day from her intercourse, as will be explained, and she saw after the Maariv prayer while it is still day, that she can include it in the sum of the six days [and this is the intent of the Taz, subsection 1 in the name of the Rashal, though he did not explain it well, as wrote the Dagul Mervavah and the Sidrei Taharah, and they and other great ones agreed to all the matters we have explained].

On the day she ceases to see [blood] and examines herself as has been explained, she shall wash her body well, for perhaps some stain remains on her body and she will later be disqualified by it when she finds it, and specifically her lower parts. And she shall wear a shift that has been checked for her, so that if she sees more, the blood will be recognizable on her shift; and she shall check the shift for stains and wear it. And at night on her bed, she shall place sheets that have been checked for stains, and from the following day she shall begin to count seven clean days. And so have all the upright daughters of Israel practiced, and one must not deviate. However, in a time of pressing need, such as when she is on a journey or in other circumstances of preoccupation, all of this is not a hindrance; rather, she shall wash her lower parts with a little water, examine herself with a thorough examination, and check her shift for stains. And there are women who err, thinking that the primary thing is the wearing of clean white [garments] and the examination is secondary, as I have heard; therefore, it is an obligation to inform them that without an examination it is nothing. [And if it is a time of pressing need where she does not even have anything with which to wash her lower parts, and also cannot check the shift, even this is not a hindrance; she examines herself and it is sufficient. And so the Acharonim have concluded]:

And aside from the examination of the hefsek taharah, from which the next day she begins to count seven clean days, she must examine herself on each day of the seven clean days with two examinations: one in the morning upon rising from her bed, and the second close to bein hashemashot. However, post facto, if she did not examine herself during all seven days except for one examination alone aside from the examination of the hefsek taharah—whether she examined herself on the first of the clean days, or whether she examined herself on the seventh day of the clean days, or whether she examined herself on one of the middle days—the clean days are credited to her and she immerses, since she made a hefsek taharah and examined herself then. For if she did not make a hefsek taharah, such as if she did not examine herself at all on the day of the cessation of her seeing, she is forever in a status of ritual impurity, even if many days passed and even if she is subsequently found to be pure. And all the more so if she examined herself at the cessation of her seeing and was found to be impure, for the primary thing is the examination of the hefsek taharah, as we have explained several times [and in siman 199 section 19 it will be explained how she should act regarding the hefsek taharah on Saturday night].

And if she did not examine herself even once during all of the seven days, she is forbidden to go to immersion, for how does she know that they are clean? And the Torah said, "and she shall count for herself seven days," meaning that she must count them in purity. And it is well when she examined herself once during the seven days, for we establish her with a presumption of purity for all the days, and we say that just as she was found pure in this examination, so too is she presumed to be in purity all seven days. But when she did not examine herself at all, there is no presumption of purity here and there are no clean days at all; therefore, the seven clean days are completely void. And if she examines herself on the eighth day and is found pure, she has only the eighth day, and she shall count it as the first of her counting and complete six more days upon it, and then she shall go to the mikveh to purify herself for her husband. And perhaps you will say: how can she count the eighth day as the first of the clean days, given that she did not perform a hefsek taharah on the preceding day? For it is not so, as she already performed a hefsek taharah seven days prior, and it is no flaw that she extended the day of the hefsek taharah from the counting of the seven clean days. However, this is only ex post facto, but initially it is forbidden for a woman to do so; rather, she must examine herself during the seven days adjacent to the day of the hefsek taharah. And the examinations should be by the light of day and not by the light of a candle, for nighttime vision sometimes misleads. And ex post facto it is effective even by the light of a candle, for it is unlikely that she would err from an impure appearance to a pure appearance.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4 that there are those who say she must perform a bedikah on the first day of the seven and on the seventh day, and one should not be lenient. Thus far his words. This means that fewer than two bedikot, aside from the bedikah of the hefsek taharah, is not effective even ex post facto. And it is not specifically the first and seventh, but rather that there must be two bedikot. In truth, the matter is puzzling, for the Rambam in chapter 6, the Ra'avad in the book Ba'al HaNefesh, the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, the Rosh, and the Tur all ruled that one bedikah during the clean days is sufficient, aside from the bedikah of the hefsek taharah, according to Rav who holds this way in the Gemara [69a]. However, the Smag was concerned that perhaps the halakhah follows Rabbi Hanina in the Gemara there, who disagrees with Rav and holds that two are required, see there [and also the Sefer HaTerumah, Ra'avan, Rash, and Hagahot Maimoniot are in doubt, and nevertheless, their doubt does not override the certainty of our teachers for whom it was obvious].

Therefore, it appears to me that we must certainly not deviate from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote that one should not be lenient; on the contrary, most women perform a bedikah twice every day. However, in our time, there are many women who are afflicted and suffer in their internal chambers, in the navel, and with wounds inside the womb, such that the bedikah is very difficult for them, and they attribute the bedikot that are not pure to the afflictions and the wounds, and only with great difficulty do they find clean bedikot. Therefore, we instruct them according to the essential law: that she should have a pure bedikah on the day of her hefsek taharah and one bedikah during the seven days. We instruct thus as a practical ruling. But without any bedikah at all, Heaven forbid to be lenient. This is also clear from the words of the great later authorities in their responsa [and so it is implied by the Sidrei Taharah, subsection 18].

The Tur wrote: All these examinations, whether the examination of the hefsek taharah or the examinations of all seven days, she should not examine with a black cloth, nor a red one, nor with a new linen cloth even if it is clean and white because it is hard; rather, with clean and soft wool, or cotton, or an old linen cloth that is clean and soft. And she shall insert it into the holes and crevices until the place that the organ of cohabitation reaches. And if she did not do so, it is nothing but a mere wiping and she has not fulfilled the requirement of examination. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, complained about what the Tur wrote, that she should insert the examination until the place that the organ of cohabitation reaches, for it is entirely impossible to insert so deeply. And if she exerts herself to insert so deeply, she will harm herself with scratches by means of the examination and will produce blood by means of the scratches she makes in her flesh. And so say the wise among the women, and the elders who were in his days complained about this examination; see there. And there are those who wrote that in truth the Tur's intention was not precisely "until the place etc.," but rather he wrote this merely as an enhancement, and the requirement is only that she insert into the holes and crevices and not a mere wiping from within [Bach and see Derishah], for this is the essence of the difference between wiping and examination [in Niddah 12a: "The cloth they spoke of was for wiping and not for examination," and Rashi explained: "For examination—into the holes and crevices," see there].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who understood that the Tur wrote this as a requirement, therefore ruled in the Shulchan Aruch, section 6, like the Tur, and added that if it is very difficult for her to insert it to such a depth, at least the bedika of the hefsek tahara and the bedika of the first day of the seven should be until the place that the shemesh dash. Thus far his words. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote on his words, and this is his wording: And if she did not do so in the bedika of the first day, she should do so in the bedika of the rest of the days; however, ex post facto, if she did not do so at all, but only checked herself well in the crevices and cracks deeply to the best of her ability, even though she did not reach the place that the shemesh dash, it is sufficient for her. Thus far his words. And this is according to the opinion of those who wrote in the previous section that the Tur also did not state this as a requirement.

There are women who, due to childbirth or another cause, have pieces of the uterus fall, and they make for them rings of wax or soft bone—and they call this a "beigela"—and they insert them very deep into the uterus. If she is able to remove it from the uterus, she certainly must do so. However, if she is unable because it is a danger for her to remove it, then she can perform a bedika by inserting the moch into the prozdor deeply and leaving it there for the entire duration of bein hashemashot, and she shall check in all places. And even though she cannot check the place of the ring, nevertheless we do not fear that the place of the ring obstructs the blood, for if there were blood under the ring, it would flow from there. And at the beginning of Niddah they said that a moch, on account of sweat, shrinks, and there are places for the blood to exit, see there; and all the more so the ring, which is smooth, and the blood would flow from there. And the bedika that we explained, that she should leave it for the entire duration of bein hashemashot, this is only for the bedika of the hefsek taharah and one time during the seven nekiyim which is required by law, but for the rest of the bedikot she does not need this, but rather she shall check according to her ability. And thus several great authorities concluded in their responsa.

A woman who is blind may examine herself and show the examination cloth to her friend. A deaf woman who hears but does not speak, or speaks but does not hear, is like one with all her senses; she examines and sees for herself. But if she neither hears nor speaks, and likewise the shoteh or one whose mind is deranged due to illness, others must examine them and establish vestot for them so that they may be permitted to their husbands. They themselves cannot be relied upon for anything, as they have no da'at at all. If a vest was established for them by others, they are like all other women and are permitted to their husbands except at the time of their vest. If a vest was not established for them, a median vest is established for them, which is from thirty days to thirty days. Any woman who increases examinations, whether during the days of her counting or during the days she does not see, this is praiseworthy. [However, a woman who has a wound in that place where it is attributed to the wound, she should not examine except for what is required by the law, as has been explained].

The seven clean days must be completely clean, and if she sees even at the end of the seventh day, she nullifies the entire count even according to Torah law, and she requires another seven clean days, as it is written: "And she shall count for herself seven days, and after she shall be clean." And this "after" is superfluous, for it should have written: "And she shall count for herself seven days and be clean." Rather, what is "after"? After all of them, so that impurity shall not intervene between them. And if she sees after the seven, according to Torah law she is at the beginning of her niddah period, but for us she is still a zavah and requires another seven clean days. And so it is always: whenever she sees, she requires seven clean days.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in sections 10 and 11 that during the first three days of the days of counting, if she found a ketam, we do not attribute it leniently as we attribute other ketamim, for the first three days must be completely clean. However, afterwards, its law is like any other ketam, and such is the custom. And specifically a ketam that is the size of a gris and more [so it should be said], but less than a gris and more, she attributes it to a louse even during the first three days. And the same law applies if she had a wound on her body and she knows that it bleeds, she attributes it to it even for more than a gris and more. However, we are not lenient during the first three days to attribute it to a wound that is not known to bleed, or to other things to which we attribute a ketam, as was explained above in siman 190. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is that even though these days must be completely clean, meaning that we must be certain that no blood issued from her, and consequently, when she saw a ketem, the clean days are nullified for her just as with an actual seeing—since the concern of a ketem is due to a seeing, as written in siman 190—nevertheless, when there is something to which the ketem can be attributed, we attribute it. For the clean days are no worse than the days of taharah, in which we attribute. However, during the first three days, when she has not yet established a status of taharah, it is not similar to the days of taharah where she has already established her status of taharah. Therefore, during them, we do not attribute except to a certain matter, and not by way of attribution, such as with a ketem less than a k'gris. Furthermore, this is like a certain matter because of a louse. Furthermore, for if not so, you would have no woman who could become taharah for her husband. And so too with a known wound that is emitting blood, it is like a certain matter, for it is necessary that there be blood from this wound. And there is one who wrote that the reason is because she is established as having an open fountain [see Be'er HaGolah], but it is not so, for an open fountain is only on the first day, as has been explained. The primary reason is because she has not yet established a status of taharah. And there is one who is stringent regarding a wound even when it is known to emit blood [Shach, subsection 13], and several great authorities have already refuted him.

However, regarding these women of ours who begin counting on the sixth day from her seeing, it appears to me in my humble opinion that since three days have passed, we attribute even during the first three days of the clean days [and so wrote in the glosses of Rav B.P.]. And the ruling of our teacher, the Rema, refers to one who saw within the days of her counting. And similarly, if she sits regarding a ketem, one should be lenient even during the first three days [D.G.M.R.]. And it seems to me that now the custom among a baal hora'ah is not to ask regarding the attribution of a ketem which of the days she is currently in, and ostensibly they should have asked, perhaps it is within the first three days; but according to what we have written, it is well. And if it is because perhaps she saw within the days of her counting, this matter is not common, as is known, and therefore they do not ask at all.

It is a known matter that just as a zavah requires seven clean days, so too the zav, as it is written in the Torah. And a zav who saw a seminal emission within the clean days voids one day [Niddah 37a]. And similarly, a zavah who discharged semen, her law is like a zav who saw a seminal emission, for it is one and the same matter, and she voids one day [ibid. 42a]. And although the Rashba in Torat HaBayit brought in the name of the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, that this is only for matters of purity and not for her husband, and the opinion of the Rashba also inclines toward this and he wrote that for this reason the Rif did not bring this law, nevertheless, the opinion of our teachers the Tosafists, and Rabbeinu Yonah, and the Rosh, and the Tur is that this is also for her husband. And so ruled our teachers the authors of the Shulchan Aruch and they did not bring the opinion of the Ra'avad at all, and they wrote that such is the custom in all of France and Ashkenaz [Beit Yosef], and so we hold.

The Rambam in chapter 6 also holds that she contradicts even for her husband, see there; however, he holds in chapter 5 of Hilkhot Avot HaTumot that she is only permitted when she discharged within three onot of her cohabitation, which is a twenty-four hour period and a half of a twenty-four hour period, for an onah is twelve hours. But all the poskim hold that even when she discharged within six onot she contradicts [and this depends on the dispute of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah and the Rabbis in Shabbat chapter 9, see there], and after this time, even if she discharged something like shikhvat zera, it has already become putrid and is like mere dust and like putrid water.

And due to the reason of this concern, our women do not begin to count the clean days until the fifth day or the sixth day from her cohabitation. This is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 11: One who discharges semen during the days of her counting, if it is within six seasons of her cohabitation, she negates that day. Therefore, one who cohabits and afterwards saw blood and then ceased, she does not begin to count seven clean days until six full seasons have passed over her, lest she discharge. Therefore, she does not begin to count until the fifth day from her cohabitation; for example, if she cohabited on Saturday night, she does not begin to count until Thursday, for we hold that semen does not putrefy until six full seasons of twenty-four hours have passed over it. And if she cohabited on Saturday night and discharged on Wednesday night before the time of her cohabitation on Saturday night, she still stands within the sixth season of her cohabitation and it negates. Consequently, Thursday shall be the first of her counting, and she shall cease on Wednesday towards evening, and Thursday counts toward the number. Thus far his words. That is to say, another fourth day was added because perhaps three full twenty-four hour periods were not completed.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this that there are those who wrote that one must wait one more day, namely, that she should not begin to count until the sixth day, and that will be the first day of her counting; for we concern ourselves that perhaps she had relations on the first day during twilight and will think it is day when it is possible it is night, and if she begins to count from the fifth day, it will be within six seasons of her relations. Therefore, one must add one more day, for from now on it is impossible to come to an error. And so they practice in all these provinces, and one should not change. And there are women who practiced the stringency to wait even further until seven days, but there is no reason for the matter; and the one who is stringent, let him be stringent, and the one who is lenient is rewarded for hastening himself to the mitzvah. And there are those who wrote that now one should not distinguish between whether she had relations with her husband or did not have relations, and every woman who sees even a ketam must wait five days including the day she saw it, and she shall perform the hefsek taharah towards evening and count seven nekiyim. And so they practice in these provinces and one should not change. Thus far his words. And there are great stringencies in this, but because the women have already practiced this and the custom has spread throughout all the dispersions of Israel, therefore, Heaven forbid one should change, and "one who breaks a fence, a snake shall bite him."

However, after all the stringencies that have been explained, nevertheless it appears that this is only, at any rate, when her husband is in the city, where it is possible to come to intercourse. But when he is not in the city, these stringencies are not relevant, for what would she discharge since there is no intercourse here at all? And so wrote one of the great authorities [Bach]. But the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch wrote that even in this there is no distinction, for in every case they accepted upon themselves this stringency [Taz subsection 7 and Shach subsection 20], and such is the widespread custom in all the dispersions of Israel. And there is one who wished to be even more stringent, that even if she saw before her intercourse after her immersion, she should wait to count seven clean days until five or six days [Noda BiYehuda Tinyana siman 125] on the grounds that she is fit for cohabitation; and there is no reason for this matter, and several great authorities have already rejected these words. And this is exactly like one who saw during the days of her counting, who begins to count immediately when she ceases on the following day, and so is the primary law [Sidrei Tahara subsection 39 and Minchat Yaakov and Ma'aseh Rokeach]. And we consider it day until night, even if the congregation has already prayed the evening prayer, and even if she also prayed [Shach subsection 19]. And the bride after the initial obligatory intercourse can count from the fifth day of her intercourse, since this is not blood of niddah but only blood of virginity [Taz subsection 5; and see Shach subsection 20 who wrote that even a bride does not count seven clean days until the fifth day of her seeing even though the groom has not yet come to the city etc. Thus far his words. And it is not understood: what relevance is there for her regarding the discharge of semen, for she has not yet had intercourse? And the Dagul Mervava already wondered at him. And also what the Dagul Mervava wrote, that this is regarding the first seeing etc., see there, I also do not understand, for what of it? And it seems to me that the custom is not so, and the bride, whenever she is pure, performs a hefsek tahara and counts seven clean days. And know that everywhere we said "she saw during the days of her counting," the same applies if she saw during the five or six days between the seeing and the days of counting; since she saw after she was separated from her husband, there is no longer a concern of discharging semen here, and delve into this].

Since all of these are extra stringencies, but they have become the custom, therefore we sometimes find that for a certain need they were lenient in this. There was an incident involving a woman who was on the fourth day of her niddah period, but she had not had relations with her husband on the night prior to her seeing blood, and they permitted her to wear white garments on the fourth day and to begin counting from the fifth day. For if she were to begin counting from the sixth day, then her immersion would have fallen on the Sabbath night following a Yom Tov, and she would have distanced her immersion from her chafifah [Shelah and Minchat Yaakov]. And there is one who wrote that in such a case, even if she had had relations, one should permit her to count from the fifth day [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 42]. And deduce from this to other matters where there is a great need, that she is able to count from the fifth day of her seeing and her relations:

If she erred in the counting of the days of the seven nekiyim and immersed early, a day or two before, and had relations with her husband, she is obligated to complete the day or the two days and separate herself from her husband and immerse once more. However, she cannot complete this immediately because of the concern of the discharge of semen since she had relations; therefore, she shall wait three days and complete the day or the two days and immerse. And here they were not stringent to require four days or five days and to count from the sixth day, since it is merely an accidental occurrence and an uncommon matter; therefore, three days are sufficient, and she performs a hefsek taharah and counts from the fourth day what she was missing from the nekiyim. But if she counted seven nekiyim, yet the immersion was not proper and she had relations and needs to immerse another time, she immerses immediately, and there is no concern here of the discharge of semen, for after seven nekiyim there is no contradiction at all. And one should not ask according to this why we required her, when she was missing one day from the nekiyim, to wait three days—behold, on the second day it will be after seven nekiyim—for in that case we fear she will discharge also on the first day and contradict, and the nekiyim will not have been completed [Shach, subsection 23]. And more than this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work in the name of the Rosh, that if she erred and immersed on the night of the seventh and had relations, on the seventh day she immerses immediately with a wait of one day, for even on the seventh day itself, the discharge of semen no longer contradicts. Furthermore, it appears to me that if she erred not in the seven nekiyim but rather in the five days between her seeing and her relations and the start of the counting of the seven nekiyim, and she was early by a day or two, we have no concern with it, and what she did is done, since these are extra stringencies [and it appears to me that for the lack of a day or two even from the counting of the seven nekiyim, if she did so inadvertently, she does not require repentance; however, if she is close to being intentional, one should impose upon her some repentance].

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote at the end of this siman: A woman who had intercourse and afterwards saw blood and it ceased, and she wishes to count from the day following her seeing, she should wipe that place very well with a cloth or a garment to discharge all the seed, or she should wash with hot water and they will discharge all the seed. And some say that we are not experts in this time, and one should not rely on this, and such is the custom; for it has already been explained that we are accustomed to wait even if she did not have intercourse at all, so as not to differentiate between one counting and another, all the more so in such a case. And anyone who breaks the fence in these matters in a place where they are accustomed to be stringent, a snake shall bite him. Thus far his words. And for this reason, there are women who are accustomed not to go to the bathhouse for three days after the immersion, because most of them conceive after their immersion, and if she goes to the bathhouse, the water will cause her to discharge the seed, and the destruction of the seed is like the loss of a soul. And for this reason, it is proper that a woman be careful not to turn over after intercourse with her back above and her belly below, because in this way she will also discharge the seed. And likewise, she should not walk much during these three days, for this also discharges seed. And any woman who is careful in all these, a blessing shall come upon her. [See Shach, subsection 25, that if she forgot a day of the seven clean days, perhaps it is possible to rely on washing with hot water so that she need not wait the three days, see there; and what the Pitchei Teshuva wrote in subsection 14 in the name of the Tiferet L'Moshe, when another woman contradicts her regarding the count of the seven clean days, see there, there is no doubt in this that she is believed, since the Torah believed her, see there and delve into this.]