Siman 199

Three things a woman is obligated to do prior to immersion. The first, which is by Torah law, is to examine and feel all parts of the body and the head, so that there shall not be upon her any thing that constitutes a chatzitzah, and [to see] if there are no knots in the hair (Bava Kamma 82a) or any dirt. For behold, it is written: "And he shall wash his flesh in water," that there shall not be a thing intervening between his flesh and the water; "and his flesh" [includes] that which is secondary to his flesh, and what is that? Hair (ibid.). Behold, it is necessary to examine this. And Ezra enacted that a woman must wash her head and every place of hair on her body (ibid.). Rashi explained washing as being with a comb, see there. However, from that which we learned in a Mishnah in Nazir (42a), "A Nazirite washes and rubs but does not comb," it is explicitly clear that washing is not with a comb. And Rashi himself explained in Shabbat (81a), "washes—smoothes his hair," see there. And so wrote the Bartenura: "rubs with his hand," and regarding "combing" he explained "with a comb," see there. And in Shabbat (50b), Rashi explained: "washes with natron and sand," see there.

And it appears to me that the term chafifah includes all things, for the primary definition of chafifah is an expression of rubbing, as Rashi explained in Berakhot [6a], see there. And this can be done through several means: either by rubbing with the hands, or with natron and sand and the like, or with a comb. And here, he was forced to explain it as being with a comb, for the language of the Gemara in Bava Kamma there is as follows: Min HaTorah one must examine [the hair] lest it be knotted, or if there is anything repulsive because of chatzitzah, and upon this Ezra enacted chafifah, see there. And since it does not say "he also enacted chafifah," it implies explicitly that when he enacted chafifah, one no longer requires examination of the head. And if we were to say that one should rub with his hands, granted that he would feel dirt with his hands, but the knotting of some hairs he certainly would not feel, as is understood. Therefore, he explained it as being with a comb, for the comb checks everything.

But in the Yerushalmi at the end of the second chapter of Pesachim, which the Tosafot cited in Niddah [66b], it says: a niddah washes and combs and immerses, see there. It is explained that washing is distinct and combing is distinct, and she must do both things. This is the precision of the wording of the Tur, who wrote: and that she should wash the hair of her head and that she should comb it well with a comb so that they do not stick to one another, for this is the enactment of Ezra, that she should wash at the time of immersion. Thus far his words. Behold, he required both things, and it appears from his wording that the enactment of Ezra includes everything, the washing and the combing. This is as I wrote, that in truth everything is included in washing. This is also the intention of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1, who began, and this is his wording: She must etc. and comb the hair of her head well with a comb etc. Thus far his words. And afterward he wrote: and she shall wash her entire body etc. Thus far his words. And her head is also included, and it turns out that he also required washing and combing. And such is the primary law and the custom of the daughters of Israel.

And the third thing the sages ordained is that the woman must rinse her hidden places and her folds, such as the armpit, the pubic area, the nostrils, the mouth, the ears, and the like, with water. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.]: A person should always teach within his house that a woman should rinse her folds with water. And the wording of the Tur is: her folds and all her hidden places, see there. And specifically with water and not with other liquids, because all liquids besides water have a thick moisture and stickiness that will adhere to her folds and constitute a chatzitzah; therefore, specifically water is required. For this reason, our sages, of blessed memory, were precise to say "with water." And regarding the rest of the body, it appears that other liquids are also permitted since there are no folds there. [And the Bach and the Sidrei Taharah, subsection 3, cast doubt entirely upon this precision regarding water, and in the Rashba in the short Torat HaBayit this mention of "with water" is absent, and likewise in the laws of the Ramban; however, since the Maharik and the Rema ruled accordingly, it is forbidden to change. Therefore, regarding the entire body, there is certainly no concern, and thus wrote the Chamudei Daniel as cited in the Pitchei Teshuvah, see there.]

This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 1: She must rinse her armpit and her hidden places with water and not with other liquids, and comb the hair of her head well with a comb so that her hairs are not stuck to one another. And so too, the woman must examine herself and her flesh, and she checks her entire body close to her immersion so that there should not be any repulsive thing upon her that constitutes a chatzitzah. And she shall wash her entire body and rinse with hot water at the time of the washing of her body and her hair. Thus far their words. And as for why they specified the armpit separately, when everything is included in "hidden places" [see the Beit Yosef], it seems to me that it is because according to several of our teachers there is no chatzitzah in the armpit, as we explained in siman 198, section 21. And their opinion is also such, as is written there. And if so, seemingly why must she rinse the armpit since it does not constitute a chatzitzah? However, we explained there that this is regarding a minority of it, but regarding a majority of it, it does constitute a chatzitzah, and so too when she is fastidious. And there we elaborated on this, and therefore they specified the armpit in particular.

And regarding that which they wrote, "and to comb the hair of her head well with a comb," etc., which implies only the hair of the head and not hair in other places of the body, it can be said that because in other places the hairs are few in quantity and quality, it is not a necessity to comb them specifically with a comb, and washing with the hands is sufficient for them; this is not the case with the hairs on the head, which are many in quantity and quality. And their reasoning seems to me to be because there are some of our teachers who hold that Ezra's enactment of washing was only for the head, as the Tur wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Tam. And it appears that this is also the opinion of the Rambam, for even though he mentioned washing without qualification in the second chapter of Mikvaot, nevertheless, from his prior words it is explicitly explained that it refers only to the head; see there [and so wrote the Beit Yosef]. And there are some of our teachers who, even among those who hold that his enactment refers to the entire body, nevertheless hold that it is not strictly required, as the Tur wrote in the name of the Ramban. This is his wording: And Ezra and his beit din enacted that she should wash every place of hair upon her with hot water and comb them or separate them with her hands very well. Thus far his words. Behold, he did not require combing as an absolute requirement even for the head. Therefore, even though they were stringent according to the opinion of Rashi specifically with a comb, they only saw fit to be stringent regarding the head and not regarding other places where there is hair [see Shach subsection 1 who labored over this, and according to what I have written it is settled simply; and delve into it].

And that which they wrote, "and so too the woman must examine herself and her flesh," the wording is not understood; however, there is a missing part here and it should be: "examine herself in her hair and in her flesh." And so it is in the short Torat HaBayit [Siman 9, subsection 5]. And it comes to teach us that even though she combs the head with a comb, and so too she must wash her entire body, as they conclude, "and she shall wash her entire body," nevertheless, the primary examination which is from the Torah cannot be nullified. Therefore, she shall first examine with her hands and her eyes through an examination of her hair and her flesh. And there is one who wrote that examination is not necessary and washing alone is sufficient, and he wrote that the end of the sentence is an explanation of the beginning [Taz, subsection 4]. But it is impossible to say so, for they mentioned the combing of the head previously, and even so they wrote of examination of the head, for this is the matter itself as we explained according to the words of the Torat HaBayit [and so wrote the Sidrei Taharah there, not like the Taz]. And perhaps for this reason they wrote that she should rinse with hot water at the time of washing her body and her hair, and this was not mentioned at all in the Gemara, and this is only a custom that the daughters of Israel practiced, as the Tur wrote, see there. And it is possible to say that they practiced this by law, because it is impossible to nullify the examination which is from the Torah, as I wrote, and how shall she perform the examination? For this, she washes her head and her flesh in hot water, and automatically at the time of washing in hot water she examines and removes all filth, and examines her head as is customary, and the hot water itself cleans the body and the head, and you have no finer examination than this [it appears to me].

They further wrote in section 2: The chafifah in a place of hair should not be with cold water because they entangle the hair, but rather with hot water; however, even with water heated by the sun it is sufficient. And she should not wash with neter, which is called in Arabic "tafal," and in the vernacular "creda," and in our language "krait," because it cuts the hair and it returns and becomes entangled; nor with ohal, which is also a type of neter, because it entangles the hair; and not with any things that entangle the hair. Thus far their words. But our soap, which is called "seife," is permitted for washing as it does not entangle, and on the contrary, it cleans the filth; and so we practice and consider this a mitzvah [Shach, subsection 3].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that all this is ab initio, but if she shampooed with natar or the like and saw for herself that her hairs are not knotted or tangled, it is permitted. Thus far his words. That is to say, for this one time it is permitted since she already performed it, and she does not need to return and shampoo; however, to rely on this for the future is forbidden [ibid. subsection 4 in the name of the Maharik]. The Levush wrote that she is permitted even for the future, and his reasoning appears to be because we have seen that the nature of this woman is such that natar does not tangle her hair. But his words were rejected, for it is not similar to other liquids, as will be explained, which are sometimes permitted, for those were not mentioned in the Gemara; however, natar and ohel were mentioned in the Gemara [66b].

He further wrote that a woman whom the doctors commanded not to wash her head with water, but only with wine, one must ask the doctors if the wine entangles the hair. If they say that it does not entangle, one may rely upon them. If the doctors are not experts in the matter, the woman must test herself first to see if the wine does not entangle the hair. Thus far his words. That is to say, her hair, if the wine does not entangle it, because not all natures are equal [ibid. subsection 5], and therefore this is not a permission for another woman. The test shall be three times [ibid.], for then she is established in the fact that her hair does not become entangled in wine. And regarding her they were lenient because this is not mentioned in the Gemara as has been written. According to this, cold water, which was mentioned in the Gemara as a prohibition, the test would not be effective for the future, but only for this time, like natron in the previous section [it appears to me]:

The chafifah and the inspection must be adjacent to the immersion so that in the interim no chatzitzah will occur. However, according to the method of Rashi [67b], even so, she should not perform chafifah on the night of her immersion, for since she is in a hurry to immerse and return to her home, it is likely that she will not inspect well and will act with haste. Therefore, it is better that she perform chafifah and inspect during the day and act with deliberation, and leave the bathhouse, and at night go to the mikveh; in such a short time, she can easily guard herself from chatzitzah. However, if it is not possible to perform the chafifah during the day, such as when her immersion falls on the conclusion of Shabbat or a Yom Tov, then she must of necessity perform the chafifah at night. And this is what they said in the Gemara [68a]: The halakhah is a woman performs chafifah by day and immerses at night; and the halakhah is a woman should only perform chafifah at night. There is a difficulty between one halakhah and the other halakhah! It is not a difficulty: this is where it is possible, and this is where it is not possible. When it is possible to perform chafifah during the day, such as on weekdays, she is obligated to perform chafifah only during the day so that she does not rush herself. But when it is not possible during the day, such as when her immersion is on the conclusion of Shabbat or a Yom Tov, then she must of necessity do everything at night.

And in the She'iltot of Rav Achai Gaon [siman 96] he ruled to the contrary, that everything one can do to bring the chafifah closer to the tevilah is better, and she should perform the examination and the chafifah only at night, and he is not concerned that perhaps she will act with haste, and she should not do it during the day and leave the bathhouse because there is concern for a chatzitzah in the interim. However, when it is not possible to wash at night, such as when her tevilah falls on the night of Shabbat or Yom Tov, then she must of necessity perform the chafifah during the day. And this is what they said in the Gemara: "This is when it is possible, this is when it is not possible," meaning, when it is possible to wash at night she is obligated to wash only at night, and when it is not possible at night, such as when it falls on the night of Shabbat or Yom Tov, she should wash during the day. And according to both opinions it is only an obligation ab initio and not an absolute requirement, for in a case where it is not possible we change the practice, and if it were an absolute requirement, she should have left the tevilah for the following day. And so too in a case of duress, it contradicts even the ab initio requirement according to the opinion of Rashi to wash at night, as is proven in the Gemara there [from the incident of the wife of the Reish Galuta, see there; and therefore the Tur wrote according to both opinions the language "it is better," see there, and see the Beit Yosef and the Bach, and only ab initio is there a prohibition for Rashi at night and for the She'iltot during the day, and examine this carefully].

And the women are accustomed to satisfy both opinions, in that they come while it is still day to the bathhouse and engage in the washing, rinsing, and combing until nightfall and then she immerses. This is even better according to the She'iltot, for he only prohibited during the day when she goes from the bathhouse to her home between the washing and the immersion, for we concern ourselves with a chatzitzah; however, when she remains for the entire process in the bathhouse, it is certainly much better. This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3, and this is his wording: Washing must initially be adjacent to her immersion, and the proper custom is that she begins to wash while it is still day and engages in washing until it grows dark, and then she immerses. And it is likewise a proper custom that even though she washed, she should take a comb with her to the place of immersion and comb there. Thus far his words. That is to say, in his days she would comb the hair in her home, therefore he said that nevertheless it is a proper custom to take the comb to the place of immersion and wash once more; but among us, she does nothing in her home and does everything in the bathhouse [and so wrote the Shach in subsection 7, that even in his days the custom was so, as in our time, see there].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that in a case of pressing need where she must perform chafifah during the day, or if it is impossible for her to perform chafifah during the day and she must perform chafifah at night, she may do so, provided that she does not hurry home and performs chafifah properly. Thus far his words. That is to say, in a case of pressing need where she must perform chafifah only during the day because at night she will not be able to perform chafifah—for example, if she is traveling and there is no place to perform chafifah where she is going to the mikveh, or any other unavoidable circumstance where she is compelled to do everything while it is still day and depart, and at night she will go for the tevilah—it is permitted even according to the She'iltot, and before the tevilah she shall examine her body. Or the reverse, that while it is still day it is entirely impossible for her and she must do everything at night, it is permitted also according to Rashi, as we have explained. Only in this manner, she must ensure that she does not hurry and performs chafifah properly. And there are those who wrote that in such a case she should ensure to stay a full hour in the bathhouse so that she does not hurry [see Shach, subsection 6, in the name of the Rashal].

According to the matters that have been explained, if during the day the husband was not in his home and he arrived at night, she may—even according to Rashi—perform chafifah, wash, and comb at night and immerse, for she is like one under duress. This is certainly the case if her immersion falls on the conclusion of Shabbat or a Yom Tov, where it is impossible for her to perform chafifah while it is yet day; she shall do everything on the night of the immersion. Nevertheless, it is a beautiful custom that she should wash and comb well on Erev Shabbat and Erev Yom Tov, and on the conclusion of Shabbat and Yom Tov she should again perform chafifah and comb a little. There is one who forbids this, for it is an absolute law according to the system of Rashi, as such appears to be the system of the Shas [Shach, subsection 9]. However, if she did not do so, one should not delay the immersion because of this, and she shall do everything on the night of her immersion. And if her immersion happened to occur on the night of Shabbat or Yom Tov, it is obvious that even according to the She'iltot she shall do everything during the day. And if she goes from the bathhouse after the chafifah before the immersion, she must be careful of any oily substance and any type of adhesive and the like, and it is simple [Taz, subsection 8].

Sometimes the chafifah, the washing, and the combing must necessarily be more than a full day distant from the immersion, such as when her immersion falls on the conclusion of Shabbat and it is a Yom Tov, where she must necessarily do everything on Erev Shabbat. And likewise if Yom Tov is on Friday and her immersion falls on Shabbat night, where she is forced to do everything on Thursday. And sometimes they will extend more than two days, such as when two days of Yom Tov fall on Thursday and Friday and her immersion night is Shabbat night, where she is forced to do everything on Wednesday. And likewise when two days of Yom Tov fall on Sunday and Monday and her immersion falls on Sunday night, as she must do everything on Erev Shabbat.

However, in this manner, when extending a day or two, great caution is required. That is, she must be careful during the day or the two days between the chafifah and the tevilah from any filth and that nothing should become stuck to her. She should also be careful from the labor of cooked foods and from giving them to her small children if the foods are of the things that stick to the hands, if it is at all possible for her to be careful that she herself does not do this. And if it is impossible for her to be careful, such as if she has no one who can do it in her place or if she needs to touch them at the time of eating, there is no concern; she should only be careful to wash her hands each time so that she does not come to a state of chatzitzah. And a small boy or girl should not sleep with her in bed because most of them have dirty feet and it will come upon her body.

And at the time of her immersion, she shall examine and check her entire body and the hair of her head thoroughly, so that there shall be no thing that intervenes. She shall rinse the hidden places with hot water that was heated, even on Yom Tov; and on Shabbat, with hot water that was heated from the eve of Shabbat, for it is permitted to wash her face, her hands, and her feet with them, but not her entire body, as written in Orach Chaim siman 326. And all the more so, it is permitted to wash the hidden places with them. She may also rinse her entire body, meaning to pour a vessel of lukewarm water over her entire body, for with cold water it is permitted even for her entire body, as written there, and lukewarm is considered cold, for she cannot endure completely cold water. And likewise, she shall clean between her teeth well before the immersion so that no crumbs, nor meat, nor bone remain, and this is an absolute requirement. And afterward, she shall immerse in the mikveh.

And know that any woman whose immersion falls on the night following Shabbat, where she is obligated to wear white garments on the preceding Shabbat day as written in siman 196, how shall she act? She shall wear them and spread the sheet in her usual manner, and she shall wash only the pubic area and between her thighs with hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat, and similarly on Yom Tov with hot water that was heated from the eve of Yom Tov, and she shall be careful regarding squeezing. And some have written that in their days they did not practice wearing white garments on Shabbat, and some wrote the reason is because they do not wish to immerse on the night following Shabbat in order to distance the immersion from the chafafah [Shach, subsection 12]. And it seems to me that even in our time there are those who do not immerse on the night following Shabbat, and there are those who do immerse, and such is the primary view, to hasten oneself toward the mitzvah. And why should we cancel a mitzvah immersion for a matter that is explicitly permitted in the Gemara and the poskim? Therefore, it is better that she immerse on the night following Shabbat and wear the white garments on Shabbat as I have written. And I have heard that because it is difficult for our women to immerse in a cold mikveh, and on the night following Shabbat the mikveh is cold, it is impossible for her to immerse. And this is certainly so: if she is unable to immerse because of the cold, she is forced to leave it for Sunday; but the woman who does immerse, her reward is great, as is understood [so it appears to me].

It has already been explained in siman 197 that on the eighth day we permit immersion even during the day due to extenuating circumstances when she is unable to immerse at night, see there. The poskim wrote that this permission is only when she does not distance the immersion from the chafifah; but when distancing the immersion, as has been explained when a Yom Tov falls on Erev Shabbat or at the conclusion of Shabbat, she is forbidden to immerse during the day even on the eighth day. They wrote the reason is because since each one is a leniency on its own—the leniency of immersion by day and the leniency of distancing the immersion from the chafifah—we do not apply two leniencies together. And so they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 7, see there. And know that the woman who immerses on the night of Shabbat or Yom Tov must be careful regarding the squeezing of hair [see the Beit Yosef in the name of the Kol Bo that for this reason one should forbid immersion on the night of Shabbat, and the Beit Yosef rejected this, for the Rambam in chapter 9 of Shabbat ruled that there is no squeezing regarding hair, see there; but nevertheless there is at least a prohibition, and therefore one must be careful as I have written].

These three matters that have been explained—examination of the body from the Torah, washing which Ezra enacted, and rinsing the hidden places which the sages commanded—two of them are obstructive even ex post facto, namely examination and washing. Therefore, if she examined and did not wash, even if she checked with a comb after the immersion and no knotted hair or any chatzitzah was found, the immersion is nothing and she requires another immersion, for the enactment of Ezra is as stringent as Torah law. Certainly this is so regarding washing the head without examination of the body; but if she washed her head and body, the examination is automatically included in this, as is understood. Therefore, even if she did not perform the third matter, namely rinsing the hidden places, and afterwards she examined them and found nothing, it is not obstructive, for this is of rabbinic origin. Furthermore, since from the Torah the entry of water is not required there, but only that it be fit for the entry of water, we are not stringent regarding them when nothing that constitutes a chatzitzah was found. If something was found, it is obvious that the immersion is nothing, as I have written. Similarly, we are lenient ex post facto if the washing was not adjacent to the immersion, namely even on weekdays, and certainly on Yom Tov; if she examined and washed herself today and immersed on the night of the first day, the immersion is effective for her if she checked herself after the immersion and nothing was found upon her, even though the washing and examination were not adjacent to the immersion [Tur in the name of the Rashba and in the Shulchan Aruch section 8, and he brings proof from what will be explained nearby, and examine this carefully].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 10: If she combed her hair and examined herself, and upon her ascending there was found upon her a thing that intervenes, if she immersed within the same period that she combed, she does not require another immersion; and if not, she requires another immersion, etc. And in section 11 they wrote: In what case are these words said? When she did not occupy herself with that same species after immersion; but if she occupied herself with it between immersion and examination, she does not require another immersion, for I attribute it to the species with which she occupied herself. But if she did not comb before immersion, we do not attribute it to it even though she occupied herself with it after immersion. Thus far their words. And all of their words are perplexing, for while it is true that the Rashba wrote thus in the short Torat HaBayit, it is explicitly explained from the words of the Tosafot in Niddah [66b, s.v. "im" according to the first resolution, see there] that even when she occupied herself, she must also say, "it is clear to me that there was no intervening thing upon me at the time of immersion." And the Rashba himself wrote thus in his novellae to the first chapter of Chullin [page 10a], and likewise in the long Torat HaBayit he did not mention this, see there. And they have already wondered at his words [Shach subsection 16, and Sidrei Taharah subsection 27, and Tiferet LeMoshe]. And there are those who explained the Rashba with another explanation [see Sidrei Taharah there].

The primary rule for the law is that if after the immersion a chatzitzah was found upon her, she requires another immersion even if she was occupied with that same substance after the immersion, unless she knows with certainty that at the time of the immersion this was not upon her. And perhaps this is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote in section 10 regarding what the author wrote, that if not she requires another immersion, and this is his wording: Even though the washing was close to the immersion, such as if she washed during the day close to evening and immersed at the beginning of the night, since it was in two seasons. Thus far his words. And this is the explanation: It is not only necessary to say that if the immersion was not truly close to the washing that she requires another immersion, but even if it was truly close—which is like one who says "it is clear to me that there was no chatzitzah upon me at the time of immersion"—nevertheless, since it was in two seasons, as the washing was at the end of the day and the immersion at the beginning of the night, she also requires another immersion since it was in two seasons; meaning, this is not considered like "it is clear to me." And he did not write this in the language of a dispute because this can also be reconciled in the wording of the author, who wrote "if within the season that she washed she immersed etc.," meaning within the season and also close, even though in truth his intention is not so, as is explained from the Tur and from his words in the Beit Yosef, see there. Nevertheless, since in the Shulchan Aruch it can be interpreted thus with difficulty, he did not write it in the language of a dispute, and such is his way in many places. [And know that that which they wrote "and upon her ascending from the immersion etc." the intention is not literally upon her ascending, for if so it is obvious that in every case she requires another immersion, but rather it means after she ascended; and examine this carefully].

And also the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 2 of Mikvaot is so, for he wrote there at the end of the chapter: One who immersed and ascended and a separating object was found upon him, even if he was occupied with that same species the entire day, he remains in his impurity until he says, "I know with certainty that this was not upon me prior to the immersion." Since he was established as impure, leave the impure one in his impurity until you know with certainty that he is pure. Thus far his words. And previously in law 17 he wrote: If she immersed and ascended and a separating object was found upon her, if she immersed on the same day that she performed chafifah, she does not need to perform chafifah a second time, but rather returns and immerses immediately alone; and if not, she must perform chafifah a second time and immerse. Thus far his words. And the first law is from Chullin [10a] and the second is from Niddah [66b]. And the Tosafot raised a difficulty from one upon the other, and it appears that the Rambam answers that in Niddah it is only regarding the matter of chafifah, but for immersion, in every case she requires another immersion until she says, "I know with certainty," etc. And it appears to me that the difficulty of the Tosafot is only according to the "there are those who say" in Niddah there, for the first version that is adjacent can be explained as being like "I am certain," see there carefully and examine it. [And that which was written in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch "if she did not perform chafifah" requires further study; and see Turei Zahav subsection 12 and Shach subsection 17].

And all this is in all revealed places, but in concealed places, if she did not examine them before immersion and after immersion she also did not examine until she occupied herself with a substance that constitutes a chatzitzah, and afterwards some of that same kind was found, we attribute it to be lenient for the reason that was explained in section 21. And there are those who are stringent even in this [see Shach, subsection 19].

And if she performed chafifah before immersion, and between the chafifah and the immersion she occupied herself with things that intervene, or she gave her son food that is prone to stick to her, her immersion is not valid, even if she checked herself immediately after her immersion and did not find any intervening substance upon her, for I say that upon her ascending from the water it fell from her, and she requires another immersion. And the same law applies if the feet of the infant were soiled with mud, or if there was in his hand a sticky food and she took him in her arms while she was naked and immersed without inspection, she requires another immersion. However, if she afterwards checked herself before immersion and saw that nothing stuck to her, she does not require another immersion. But she is permitted to wear her clothes between chafifah and immersion, and she should not take an infant to her, for it is not the way for a moist substance to be stuck upon clothes, and lice and fleas do not stick to the body and the water enters through them.