Metamme'ey Mishkav uMoshav - Chapter 3

As Leviticus 15:24 states: “If a man will lie with her, her nidah [impurity] will be imparted to him,” as cited in the following halachah.

Either the person who had relations with the nidah carried a person who was pure or one who was pure carried him.

See Chapter 8 for a description of the way impurity is imparted in this manner. See also Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:7.

See Chapter 6, Halachot 1-2, for a description of this subject.

More particularly, there is a difference in the degree of impurity imparted, as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachah.

As explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 6:7, this term refers to a woman who experienced one day of zivah bleeding. She must immerse in a mikveh and experience one day without uterine bleeding before she regains ritual purity. Needless to say, the laws mentioned in this halachah apply when a man is intimate with a woman who experiences two days of zivah bleeding.

For in many contexts, the two are considered as equivalent.

Our translation is based on Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 1:10. In almost all halachic contexts, there is no difference between the two actions.

Needless to say, the laws apply if the woman is past majority.

I.e., his impurity is considered as a derivative. The fact that he engaged in intimate relations does not cause him to be considered as a primary source of impurity.

In this instance as well, physical intimacy does not cause one to be considered as a primary source of impurity.

Since the woman does not have a fixed time at which she menstruates, the possibility of her experiencing uterine bleeding is not confined to a specific day. It is possible the bleeding began before she noticed it and thus at that time, she was impure and imparted impurity to other articles. In narrowing down the time during which it is possible that she was impure, we adhere to the following guidelines. We know that she was pure at the time of the first inspection, so we do not consider articles that she touched before that as impure. Nevertheless, since we do not know when she began to experience uterine bleeding, we rule stringently and maintain that any article she touched after the first inspection becomes impure.

We are not that stringent to consider the woman as impure from the time of her last vaginal inspection. Nevertheless, we do consider the possibility that the bleeding began 24 hours before that inspection and consider her impure from that time onward.

According to the Rambam (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 4:16; other authorities rule more leniently), a woman who does not have a fixed time at which she menstruates must make a vaginal inspection before she engages in intimacy and afterwards.

I.e., she does not have to consider herself impure retroactively from beforehand. It is necessary to emphasize this point because one might think that the semen absorbed in the inspection cloth will prevent blood from being detected [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nidah 1:1)].

The rationale is that since her attention is focused on intimacy, it is possible that the inspection was not meticulous (Nidah Sa).

Since she has a fixed time at which she menstruates, it is assumed that she menstruates at that time and there is no need to consider her impure retroactively.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam states that this leniency applies only to pure articles that she touches, but not to couches or chairs on which she sits or lies. They do contract impurity retroactively. Here he does not make such a distinction.

For we presume that she began to menstruate at the expected time.

It is suspected that menstruation will begin at the expected time. Nevertheless, if there is no evidence that this indeed happened, it is not presumed that she menstruated and all signs of the bleeding disappeared. Instead, we assume that she did not menstruate at the expected time or afterwards.

From the Rambam’s wording here and more specifically in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 8:1-2, it appears that he maintains that for a woman to establish a veset, two factors are necessary: a) that there be a fixed monthly pattern when menstruation begins, and b) the onset of menstruation be preceded by physical symptoms. The other halachic authorities do not rule in this manner. They maintain that either of these two factors is independently powerful enough to establish a veset (Maggid Mishneh). Their view is followed by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah, ch. 189).

Our translation of this and the following terms is based on Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 9:8). There are other commentaries who offer different interpretations.

This is referring to an instance when she carried out an inspection at the end of the appointed time and discovered bleeding. In such a situation, it is assumed that she followed her ongoing pattern and menstruated at the beginning of this time period.

For we assume that she followed her established pattern.

As evident from the following halachah, this refers to a woman who does not have a fixed time when she menstruates.

On her flesh or on her clothing for which there is a reasonable possibility that it resulted from uterine bleeding. See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, ch. 9, for details.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that from a comparison to Halachah 4, we find greater stringency with regard to such a stain than a woman who actually experiences bleeding, for here, the Rambam does not put a 24 hour limit on the impurity she imparts. Rav Yosef Corcus explains the rationale for this difference: A woman who experiences uterine bleeding will most likely become aware of her status. Hence, there is no reason to impose stringencies for more than a day. If, however, all that was detected was a stain, it is possible that the impurity went unnoticed for a longer period. It must, however, be noted that in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 9:3, the Rambam states explicitly that there is a 24 hour limit with regard to a stain as well.

From Nidah 56b, it appears that this applies when the woman explicitly says that she did not check the garment before washing it. If she does not make such statements, it is assumed that an inspection was made before it was washed (Kessef Mishneh).

And thus it is likely a recent occurrence.

I.e., a woman who menstruates at a fixed time and the four categories of women mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

A surface upon which one sits or lies that is touched by such a woman becomes a primary category of impurity and imparts impurity to others.

Such a utensil does not contract impurity when found in a house impure because of the presence of a human corpse. It does, however, contract impurity when moved by a zav, a zavah, or the like (see Chapter 8, Halachah 3).

Since it is uncertain when the bleeding began, he is not considered to have contracted this severe impurity to him. Note a parallel in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 8:13.

I.e., he personally becomes impure, but he does not become a source of impurity for others, nor does his impurity last for a minimum of seven days.

Our translation follows authentic manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah and is also favored by the Kessef Mishneh. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version.

Although it is not definitively known that the bloodstain was a result of uterine bleeding, his impurity is given this status.
The above applies when the two were intimate after the bloodstain was discovered. If, however, a man was intimate with such a woman shortly before the bloodstain was discovered, he is not considered as one who was intimate with a nidah.

This impurity comes as a result of Rabbinic decree. Although Genesis 38:28 states: “And when she was giving birth, he stuck out a hand,” Niddah 28a rules that this should not be interpreted as an implication that sticking out a hand is considered as giving birth. Instead, according to Scriptural Law, the woman does not contract impurity until the majority of the body of the fetus emerges. Since the gender of the fetus was not determined, the woman is given the impurity associated with the birth of a female.

In Halachot 4, 7-8.

As described in Halachot 5-6.

It is possible, but we are not certain, that the woman experienced uterine bleeding at this time.

When terumah and sacrificial food contract impurity of Scriptural origin, they must be destroyed by fire. Otherwise, it is forbidden to destroy them according to Scriptural Law. Hence, even were they to contract impurity of Rabbinic origin, according to Scriptural Law, they are considered as pure, and it is forbidden to destroy them.

They are not eaten, nor are they burnt. Instead, they are left until they contract a more severe form of impurity or, in the cases of sacrificial foods, become disqualified because the time during which they must be eaten has passed.

There were certain pious individuals who maintained ritual purity in all situations and would partake of all foods, even ordinary foods, only when they conformed to the stringencies of ritual purity associated with sacrificial foods. Others were slightly less dutiful and relaxed the standards somewhat, keeping only the stringencies associated with terumah which are slightly more lenient than those associated with sacrificial foods. See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 11:9 and notes.

And thus there will be a difference whether the challah to be separated will be pure or impure.

And our Sages did not impose their decrees in such a situation.

But not beforehand. See Halachah 8 and notes.

As mentioned in the beginning of this halachah.