Siman 197

The niddah, the zavah, and the woman after childbirth do not emerge from their impurity without immersion; for even if they remained for several years without immersion, one who has relations with them is liable for karet unless they immersed properly. This means that she immersed her entire body at one time, without a chatzitzah on her body, and in a proper mikveh that contains forty seah, and that the water is not drawn, and at the proper time—which is after the days of her counting. If she immersed within the days of her counting, the immersion is not effective for her and it is as if she did not immerse, except for on the seventh day, for according to the opinion of the Rambam the immersion is effective for her, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. The purification of the mikveh is explicit in the Torah, as we explained regarding this at the beginning of siman 183; see there.

And behold, in the Shas there is a dispute in several places whether immersion in its time is a mitzvah or not, and the great later authorities also disagreed regarding this, as the Tur wrote that Rabbeinu Chananel ruled immersion in its time is a mitzvah and Rabbeinu Tam ruled that it is not a mitzvah. And there is a practical legal difference for several matters regarding immersion on Tisha B'Av and on Yom Kippur. And one should not ask that in our time there is no immersion in its time at all, since we are stringent for all who see niddah like zavot in the counting of seven clean days, and also this begins on the sixth day of her cohabitation as has been explained in the previous siman, and if so, there is no immersion in its time according to the essential law of the Torah; for it is not so, since we have accepted upon ourselves these stringencies such that until this time she is not purified, this time is called immersion in its time [Beit Yosef].

And regarding this matter, there is a practical legal difference if the husband is not in his home; for if immersion in its time is a mitzvah, she must immerse even when he is not in his home, and if it is not a mitzvah, she does not need to immerse until his arrival. It is known that among us, they do not immerse when the husband is not in his home, and it follows that we hold as the halacha that it is not a mitzvah, and therefore single women also do not immerse [see the Beit Yosef]. However, it is certain that even according to the one who says it is not a mitzvah, nevertheless, when the husband is in his home, it is certainly a mitzvah and an obligation upon the woman to go to immersion when she has become pure, and not to delay even a single night without permission, and her punishment is great if she delays the immersion [see the Beit Yosef in the name of the Zohar].

The Bahag wrote in the laws of niddah that if it happens that the fifth and sixth days are yom tov, such that it is impossible to perform chafifah on them, and the time of tevilah is Friday night, she performs chafifah on Wednesday and immerses on Friday night because tevilah in its proper time is a mitzvah. Thus far his words. The Mordechai inferred from his wording that were it not that tevilah in its proper time is a mitzvah, she would be forbidden to immerse on Shabbat. And he ruled there accordingly, that according to Rabbeinu Tam, who holds it is not a mitzvah, she is forbidden to immerse on Shabbat, and according to the one who holds it is a mitzvah, it is permitted; see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, already wondered at these words of his, for we explicitly established in the second chapter of Beitzah that a person is permitted to immerse from his impurity on Shabbat and it does not appear like one who is fixing, because it appears like one who is cooling himself, and so we have established in Orach Chaim siman 326; see there. In truth, in my humble opinion, there is no proof at all from the Bahag, for his intention was that were it not a mitzvah, we would not permit distancing the tevilah from the chafifah to such an extent. And even according to the words of the Mordechai, the Terumat HaDeshen [siman 255] wrote that when her husband is in town, even Rabbeinu Tam admits that this is a mitzvah as has been written, and the Mordechai is speaking of when her husband is not in town; see there.

And regarding the core matters where they were stringent concerning immersion on Shabbat without a mitzvah, even though it is a settled halakhah that a person appears as if he is cooling himself, it is found in the responsa of the Maharil [brought in Minchat Chinuch, siman 326, subsection 8]. This is his wording: Women act properly by not immersing when it is not their time on Shabbat, for for this reason it is a widespread custom not to wash in cold water, as it is relevant to decree because of squeezing, etc. Thus far his words. And similarly in Terumat HaDeshen there, where they asked him regarding a woman who could have immersed previously whether she is permitted to immerse on Shabbat, he replied, and this is his wording: It appears that according to the implication of the Talmud there is no concern in the matter, etc., because he appears as if he is cooling himself, etc. However, I have heard from many women who maintain a prohibition in the matter to immerse on Shabbat in such a case. And the Mordechai wrote at the end of Niddah, etc., and it can be pushed aside, for that which Rabbeinu Tam prohibited immersing on Shabbat was when her husband was not present, etc., but if her husband is in town, he also admits that it is permitted because of the mitzvah of fulfilling the marital obligation, etc. In our case, since it was possible for her yesterday, it is not permitted. And even though it is proven in the second chapter of Beitzah that that which is permitted, etc., is even where it is possible to immerse on a weekday, nevertheless it appears that now in our time, when everyone is careful not to wash at all on Shabbat even to cool themselves, etc., if so, one cannot say that a person appears as if he is cooling himself, for they are careful regarding cooling themselves, etc. Thus far his words.

And they wrote explicitly that even though according to the essential law it is permitted, nevertheless, since according to the custom that one does not wash on Shabbat at all, this permission is automatically removed as it appears like cooling oneself, and it is only permitted in a place of a mitzvah, namely a mitzvah immersion whose time arrived today. Nevertheless, it is difficult, for is it because she was able to immerse beforehand that there is now no mitzvah in her immersion so that the husband may fulfill the mitzvah of onah? However, from his words it is evident that the custom among the women was such, that when they were able to immerse before Shabbat, they forbade upon themselves the immersion on Shabbat. And perhaps their intention was that if we permit it for them even in such a case, many women would leave their immersion until Shabbat because it is then more convenient for them, as is explained from the language of the question in the Terumat HaDeshen. This is his wording: And her desire is to immerse on the night of Shabbat because then it is easy for her to find washing, etc. Thus far his words. Therefore, they made a fence so as not to cancel the immersion in its time on a weekday, for if they delay the immersion until Shabbat, she is forbidden to immerse on Shabbat.

And according to these matters, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 regarding what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, that if her husband is in the city it is a mitzvah to immerse at its proper time so as not to cancel procreation even for one night, thus far his words. And he wrote, and this is his wording: And she is permitted to immerse on Friday night if she was unable to immerse before then, and specifically if her husband is in the city, but otherwise it is forbidden. And if it was possible for her to immerse before then, such as if it was after childbirth [and she delayed because of her weakness] or if her husband was not in the city and he arrived on the eve of Shabbat, some say she is forbidden to immerse, and so they practiced in some places. But in a place where there is no custom, one should not be stringent. And in a place where they practiced to be stringent, she should also not immerse on Saturday night, for since it was possible for her to immerse before then, we do not distance the immersion from the chafifah [according to the opinion of Rashi that it is forbidden to perform chafifah at night, see in siman 199]. And so too a widow, who is forbidden to immerse her first immersion on Friday night because it is forbidden to have the first intercourse on Shabbat [due to acquisition, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 339], and even with a seclusion fit for intercourse during the day which some permit [see Taz subsection 6, nevertheless the Magen Avraham wrote there subsection 11 in the name of the Maharil that there is a danger of death in this, see there], she is also forbidden to immerse on Saturday night. And some are lenient and permit immersing on Saturday night since she did not immerse on Shabbat due to a concern of a prohibition, thus far his words. And some say that this only refers to a widow [Taz subsection 17], and some say that it refers to all of them, that it is permitted on Saturday night [Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of Makom Shmuel], and so it appears to be the primary view.

And it appears clearly that the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, is that his mind inclines that in every case she is permitted to immerse on Shabbat, but he wrote as he did because of the custom, and therefore in a place where there is no custom it is permitted. And there are those who took issue with him and hold that when she could have immersed beforehand, it is forbidden in every place to immerse on Shabbat [Bach and Taz, subsection 4]. However, in truth his words are correct, for such is the primary ruling [Shach, subsection 3, and in Nekudot HaKesef he elaborated, see there]. And such is the simple custom among us, that all of them immerse on the nights of Shabbat, even when she could have immersed before Shabbat. And similarly, when she immersed and requires another immersion, such as if she found some chatzitzah or forgot a nail or encountered an impure thing, she may immerse on Shabbat a second and third time [see Shach, subsection 1]. And especially in our time, when many men immerse on Shabbat in the morning even not due to the impurity of keri, and many consider this a mitzvah and an obligation according to the hidden wisdom as is known, it is certainly simple that a woman for her husband may immerse in every case.

By Torah law, the zavah may immerse even on the seventh day and does not need to wait until the night, and even though if she sees blood until the night she will contradict all the clean days as written in siman 196, nevertheless from the perspective of the immersion she is permitted to immerse, for it is written, "And she shall count for herself seven days and after she shall be pure," since she has completed her counting she shall be pure [Rashi, Pesachim 90b], and on the seventh her counting has concluded. And if she truly sees, she will contradict and the counting and the purity will be nullified, and she is like one who did not immerse and requires other clean days and another immersion. But the niddah, her immersion is nothing until the night after the seven days of her niddah state, for it is written, "Seven days she shall be in her niddah state," she shall be in her niddah state all seven, and a woman who gives birth is compared to a niddah [Gemara ibid.], meaning that all seven days until their conclusion she is in her niddah state, and a woman who is impure who immersed, the immersion is nothing. Therefore, she must necessarily immerse at night after the seven days of her niddah state, and a woman who gives birth is compared to a niddah for it is written, "As the days of her niddah sickness she shall be impure." And this is only in its time, but not in its time, such as on the next day on the eighth, she immerses whether by day or by night, since the seven days of her niddah state have already concluded.

All of this is according to Torah law, but the sages forbade a zavah from immersing on the seventh day so that she should not come to a mishap; for perhaps the husband will imagine that since she immersed she is pure and will cohabit with her during the day, and afterwards she will see [blood] and contradict the clean days and the immersion, and it will turn out that he cohabited with a zavah which is subject to karet. Therefore, she shall not immerse until the night [Niddah 67b]. And similarly, a niddah who immerses not at her proper time, the sages forbade her from immersing during the day; even though it is permitted according to Torah law as has been explained, nevertheless, her daughter or her relative who is with her together will see from her that she immerses during the day, and she will not know how to distinguish between the seventh day and other days, and she will come to immerse on the seventh day of her niddah state when the immersion is nothing. Therefore, the sages forbade a niddah such that she shall not immerse even not at her proper time during the day, but only at night. And this is what they said in the Gemara [ibid.]: A niddah, whether at her proper time or not at her proper time, does not immerse except at night because of the "attachment of her daughter," as we have explained, and it is not specifically her daughter, as is understood.

Now, ostensibly, this prohibition applies only to a niddah, for if her daughter were to immerse on the seventh day, it would be of no effect; however, a zavah should be able to immerse on the eighth day, for even if her daughter were to immerse on the seventh day, the immersion is valid, and there is only a concern if she sees blood afterward, as has been explained. However, our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote that it is so regarding a zavah as well, and they brought proof from that which is stated: that several Amoraim enacted in their locales that due to some reason where women are unable to go out for immersion at night—such as because of wild animals, or because of thieves, or because of the cold—they should immerse on the eighth day during the day, see there. And in their days, the enactment of the daughters of Israel had already spread, that for every drop of blood they sit seven clean days; this implies explicitly that without an extenuating circumstance, one should not immerse on the eighth day even for a zavah, see there. And so ruled the Rashba, the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, section 3, see there.

This is the wording of the Tur: Nowadays, even though our women are in a state of doubtful zavot and are fit to immerse on the seventh day, they are nevertheless forbidden to immerse on the seventh day because of a decree, lest her husband cohabit with her after her immersion and she then sees a discharge and negates her count, resulting in him having cohabited with a zavah. Furthermore, even if she wishes to wait until the eighth day or the ninth day to immerse, she cannot because of the "attachment of her daughter," etc. And Rabbeinu Tam used to say that it is not necessary to be so stringent and wait until it grows dark on the eighth day, but rather she may immerse close to nightfall and arrive at her home after it has grown dark, for then there is no longer the "attachment of her daughter." And the Rashbam used to say that she must wait with her immersion until it grows dark, etc., for there is still the "attachment of her daughter," as she will estimate based on the departure from the house of immersion, etc. And where there is a case of duress, such as if she is afraid to immerse at night because of the cold or fear of thieves and the like, she is able to immerse on the eighth day while it is still day. But on the seventh day she may not immerse while it is still day, even though there is duress. Thus far his words. And so it is written in the Shulchan Aruch; see there.

And know that our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, did not mention at all the dispute between Rabbeinu Tam and the Rashbam. From the words of the Tur, it is implied that Rabbeinu Tam was lenient only on the eighth day, but on the seventh day he agrees with the Rashbam, since he wrote "until it grows dark on the eighth day," implying that only on the eighth day was he lenient. However, from the words of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot [67b, s.v. "mishum"], it is clear that according to Rabbeinu Tam it is permitted even on the seventh day. And in truth, the reasoning of the Tur is not understood, for even on the seventh day there is no concern at all when she comes to her house after it has grown dark, as is understood. And in my humble opinion, it appears that the intention of the Tur is also not regarding the eighth day, for if so, he should have written: "And Rabbeinu Tam etc. that she does not need etc. and to wait on the eighth day until it grows dark." Since he wrote "until it grows dark from the eighth day," it proves that on the contrary, it refers to the seventh, that she does not need to wait until it grows dark on the eighth day—meaning, that from the time the seventh day grows dark, it is the eighth day [see Shach, subsection 6, who understood it simply; and see Responsa Oneg Yom Tov, siman 20, and Chacham Tzevi, siman 11, who also wrote that from Tosafot it is explicit that according to Rabbeinu Tam it is so even on the seventh day. And so it appears from the Rosh, who wrote without qualification that according to Rabbeinu Tam etc., and that which he concluded, "and then there is no concern for the attachment of her daughter," thus far his words, this is its explanation: it is not only that essentially there is no concern for herself, but even for her daughter we do not fear that she will precede more than her mother; for if it entered your mind that Rabbeinu Tam is lenient only on the eighth day, he should not have written without qualification but should have specified. This appears to me clear with the help of Heaven, and delve into it].

Regarding the halacha, it is implied from the words of the Rosh that he holds like Rabbeinu Tam, since he wrote: "And the Rashbam was stringent that she should not immerse until it is dark, and Rabbeinu Tam would say that it is not necessary to be so stringent, etc." Thus far his words. Since he calls the words of the Rashbam a mere stringency and wrote the words of Rabbeinu Tam last, learn from this that he holds accordingly for the halacha. And so wrote the Agur, that the custom in Ashkenaz is to immerse close to darkness, see there. And from this there is also proof that Rabbeinu Tam holds accordingly even on the seventh day, since he wrote that the custom is so, and immersion on the eighth day is not so common, and from his words it is explicitly implied that it refers to all immersions. [And with this the words of the Agur brought by the Beit Yosef are understood, who wrote that those women who immerse during the day must hide it from their husbands, etc., and the Beit Yosef wondered about this; but the truth is that it refers to the seventh day as the Bach wrote, and he follows his reasoning. And the Beit Yosef brought the words of the Smag who wrote that it is proper to be stringent like the Rashbam, see there; learn from this also that according to the law he inclines toward the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam. And according to this, daughters of the villages who come to the city to the mikveh and it is difficult for them to travel at night outside the city, behold on the eighth day it is obvious that she can immerse during the day for this is like a complete necessity; but even on the seventh day it is proper to consider relying on the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam since she will not arrive at her home until night. Therefore, on the eve of Shabbat and the eve of a Yom Tov, she is certainly forbidden on the seventh day, for she is forced to arrive before night. And know that even according to the Rashbam, if the chafifah and the washing are in a bathhouse, it is obvious that she must leave her home while it is still day, and he is concerned when the chafifah and the washing are in her home, as the Shach wrote in subsection 6; and reflect on this.]

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that brides who immerse before the chuppah may immerse during the day, for they do not come to the groom until the night; but after the chuppah, their law is like other women. Thus far his words. That is to say, even for the first immersion, because she comes to her home immediately after the immersion. And there is one who interpreted his words that this refers specifically to the eighth day, but on the seventh day, even a bride before the chuppah should not immerse during the day [Shach, subsection 9]. But many disagreed with this, for regarding a bride, since she is unable to come to the groom before the night, there is no concern here at all, and even on the seventh day it is permitted [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 11, and Pri Megadim, and Dagul Mervavah]. And it appears to me that according to these great authorities, as long as she is unable in any way to come before the night, even a fully married woman, the law is so—for example, if she is distant from her husband a journey of half a day or more, such that they necessarily will not reach one another until the night—it is possible to rely on this in a time of pressing need even on the seventh day, for there is no concern here. And also the "attachment of her daughter" is not applicable when they are distant from one another, and the daughter will not learn from this, just like a bride, and see what I wrote in the previous section; and one should deliberate on this.

And this is certainly a simple matter: when the immersion must be at night or close to darkness according to the opinions that have been explained, the intention is to actual night and not to the Maariv prayer that the congregation prays while it is still day, and all the more so on Shabbat when they pray early. And even according to those who are stringent in siman 196 regarding the counting of the seven clean days to consider this as night—they said so as a stringency and not as a leniency. And all the more so since even as a stringency we do not rule accordingly, as I wrote there. And if she did so, she must immerse another time if it was on the seventh day according to those who hold that on the seventh day immersion during the day is not effective, as will be explained before us with the help of Heaven.

Even though it is also forbidden on the eighth day to immerse during the day as I have written, nevertheless, if she transgressed and immersed during the day of the eighth, the immersion is valid for her and she does not require another immersion. However, on the seventh day, when she immersed during the day, the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 6 is that post facto the immersion is valid for her and she does not require another immersion; for since the prohibition is only due to a mere decree and not from the core of the law, when she has acted post facto, what she has done is done. And we are not concerned that perhaps she is a niddah according to the law of the Torah, such that even post facto the immersion would not be valid for her, for that is not so; for that applies to the seventh day, but we who cease with a state of purity, automatically her seventh day is the eighth from her seeing, and if so, even for a niddah it is permitted from the Torah [Bach]. And also the opinion of the Rashba inclines toward the Rambam, and so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch. However, some say that one should be concerned for those who hold that immersion on the seventh day during the day is not effective, as the Tur wrote that there are those who hold she requires another immersion, see there. And it is good to be stringent in a place where it is possible [Shach subsection 11] and there is no great burden. But if it is not possible or there is a great burden, it is simple that the primary view is like the Rambam, since they ruled thus without qualification in the Shulchan Aruch, and presumably she acted inadvertently. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that nevertheless she should not have relations even on the eighth until nightfall, and she should hide her immersion from her husband until nightfall. Thus far his words. [But in a case of doubt whether it was day or night, it is simple that we have no concern with it. And regarding that which the Rema ruled that she should hide etc. and not have relations etc., the Beit Yosef wrote that it is an excessive stringency, see there, and nevertheless he did not disagree with him. And behold, the Acharonim have written at length regarding the law of immersing in hot water on Shabbat, and now the common custom is to permit it with no one opening their mouth to protest, and particularly when it is not hot but only lukewarm and their warmth is slight, it is simple that it is permitted.]