Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

See Chapter 7, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 2,5.

Niddah 96b states: “It [comes from] one source. [Here,] the Torah ruled it impure, and [here,] the Torah ruled it pure.”

I.e., this is speaking about a woman who has a regular day of the month or interval at which she menstruates.

I.e., in addition to the impurity associated with niddah, ordinary menstrual bleeding, the Torah establishes a category of impurity when a woman suffers uterine bleeding at times other than the days she is a niddah. This category is referred to as zivah. A woman enters this category when she suffers uterine bleeding between the day following the seven days associated with her ordinary menstrual bleeding and the eighteenth day following those days.

As will be explained, according to the Rambam, the definition of days as “the days of niddah” is not dependent on whether a woman actually menstruates or not, but on the day when, according to the schedule established previously, she could be expected to menstruate.

As occurs after birth, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2.

The simple meaning of the Rambam’s words is that the same 18 day pattern - 7 days niddah, 11 days zivah - continues throughout a woman’s life whether or not she menstruates on those days or not. When she menstruates she must see whether she is in the midst of the days of niddah or the days zivah and follow the appropriate laws.

Chapter 7, Halachah 2.

The distinctions between a minor zavah and a major zavah are discussed in the following halachah.

As indicated in the following two halachot, the intent is that for the day(s) she is impure, she must observe one “spotless” day.

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1, for a description of this sacrifice.

I.e., take note if there is any bleeding. It is sufficient to check and see on the following morning if there are any signs of bleeding.

She may not, however, touch any articles that are ritually pure or engage in relations with her husband until nightfall, as explained in Halachot 13 and 14.

If, however, there are signs of bleeding, her immersion is disqualified retroactively and it is as if she were impure for the entire day.

Lest she discover uterine bleeding and become impure retroactively.

The one day is sufficient. There is no need for two days, one for each of the impure days.

See Rabbi Akiva Eiger who questions whether the Rambam would accept the immersion of a woman who immerses herself between dawn (alot hashachar) and sunrise.

I.e., the immersion must be made after sunrise.

Even if she later discovers uterine bleeding and is therefore considered impure, they are not considered to have transgressed intentionally, because at the time, the woman was potentially in a state of ritual purity.

I.e., as stated in the following halachah, she can retroactively be considered impure.

For inadvertently violating the transgression against relations with a zavah.

If, however, the bleeding is not discovered until after nightfall, she is considered to have regained ritual purity and then become impure anew as a minor zavah.

I.e., it is not only that she loses the one day; all of the days that she had counted previously are also invalidated. The seven “spotless” days must be consecutive [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 196:10)].

I.e., she engaged in relations with a man and then discharged his semen from her vagina. This is speaking about a situation in which the couple engaged in relations when forbidden. Alternatively, she engaged in relations before becoming a zavah and discharged the semen after entering that state of impurity. For the semen to render her impure, it must be less than three full days old. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 196:11).

See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 3 :2.

As stated in Halachot 5 and 6, there are only eleven days of zivah. Afterwards, the days of niddah begin again.

See Halachah 4 which states: “Any blood discovered during these days is considered as the blood of niddah.” Thus she will have only discovered blood on two days of zivah. That is not sufficient to render her a major zavah.

I.e., we do not say that her menstrual bleeding is extended. Instead, this bleeding is considered as a new phase, governed by different laws.

For she is required to wait for one “spotless” day before engaging in relations (Ra’avad). The Maggid Mishneh explains that this is a Rabbinic requirement.

Needless to say, however, she is forbidden to engage in such relations.

By Rabbinic Law as stated in Halachah 14 and notes. She may, however, touch articles that are ritually pure, as stated in Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 5:8.

Since she immersed herself, her previous impurity departs and any new bleeding is not associated with the bleeding of zivah as the Rambam continues to explain.

The period between sunset and the appearance of three stars, unresolved if this time is considered as the conclusion of the previous day, the beginning of the following day, or a separate time of its own. See Hilchot Shabbat 5:4.

I.e., she is certainly a minor zavah.

She must count seven “spotless” days before engaging in relations. Also, she brings a sacrifice, but it is not eaten, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:6.

On the first day, however, such an inspection is of no consequence, for as the Rambam states at the conclusion of the halachah, on the first day, we assume that she will continue to bleed.

I.e., uterine bleeding.

I.e., we do not consider her to have bled for the entire time from the time she first inspected herself until the time that she discovered the bleeding.

I.e., we say that the uterine bleeding did not begin until it was discovered. This reflects a general principle: Once uterine bleeding is known to have stopped, we do not think that it has begun again until it is discovered. The Maggid Mishneh explains that this law applies whether the woman immersed herself or not.

For perhaps she had continued bleeding from the conclusion of her days of niddah until shortly before she made an inspection. We have no way of knowing either way and hence, give her the status of a zavah because of the doubt.

Although we do not have certain evidence that she continued to bleed for this entire time, we operate under that assumption for the reason the Rambam mentions.

From the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 196:2) and the notes of the Dagul Merkavah, it would appear that if the woman’s flow stops in the late afternoon of the first day, it is considered to have ceased.

After making a hefsek taharah, an inspection that determines that the bleeding has ceased on the previous afternoon, before sunset.

Nevertheless, at the outset, a woman should inspect herself twice on each of these seven days [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 196:4)].

I.e., despite the fact that she waited an extra day and did not immerse herself as soon as she was allowed, she is still considered as pure.

See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 196:4) which mentions a difference of opinion on this matter, quoting also the opinion of Sefer Mitzvot Gadol who maintains that one must make an inspection on both the first and the seventh day.

Who must also inspect himself and count seven “spotless” days. See Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 3.

As is required of a zavah.

Like a niddah who may not immerse herself during the day.

Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah I :6.

This law applied in the Talmudic era. As explained in Chapter 11, in subsequent generations, Jewish women accepted further stringencies upon themselves and such bleeding was considered as impure.

Even though there are only eleven “days of zivah” and thus some of this bleeding must come during her “days of niddah,” since the bleeding began during the “days of zivah,” she is granted an additional leniency. Niddah 38b derives this concept through Biblical exegesis.

As explained in Halachot 5-7.

I.e., the bleeding is considered as ordinary “blood of zivah.”

From the following halachah, the intent appears to be “on the next day,” i.e., on the fourth day of this sequence.

Since she gave birth on that day, she certainly experienced difficulty on it. For it is impossible to give birth without difficulty. Hence, the bleeding on the third day is attributed to the birth (Kiryat Sefer).

Since she gave birth on that day, she certainly experienced difficulty on it. For it is impossible to give birth without difficulty: Hence, the bleeding on the third day is attributed to the birth (Kiryat Sefer).

We are not sure if she discharged a fetus without bleeding or merely an extensive amount of bleeding.

In which instance, she is impure because of the birth. She must, however, count one “spotless” day before immersing herself, because of the two days on which she experienced bleeding.

I.e., seven days without uterine bleeding. This is extremely rare after birth. Hence it is undesirable for a woman to be given this status.

She must immerse herself on the fifteenth night. For within the fourteen days, she is considered as a niddah and her immersion is of no consequence (Kessef Mishneh).

Because of the birth of a female. We do not allow her to immerse herself during the day like a zavah.

Seemingly, that would be necessary, for she is impure at the time she is counting.

In Halachah 11.

For seven “spotless” days.

For once she immersed herself after counting seven “spotless” days, her bleeding is no longer impure, as reflected in the following halachah.

I.e., on the day(s) after the seven “spotless” days and the fourteen days associated with the birth of a female were completed.

Thus the fact that she discovered bleeding does not change her state.

See Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 5:2.

I.e., bleeding which precedes miscarriage renders a woman impure, while bleeding in the throes of childbirth does not.

The Rambam’s ruling is based on the concept that since this blood is not impure, there is no reason why it should interrupt her counting. It is only impure bleeding that nullifies a woman’s calculations.

Provided she does not discover bleeding on them. If, however, she discovers bleeding, as stated in the following halachah, her counting is not nullified, but the days cannot be counted as “spotless,” because this blood is impure (Maggid Mishneh).

An affliction which is popularly - though incorrectly - translated as leprosy.

With this statement, the Rambam is implying two points:
a) as mentioned above, a woman returns to her cycle of niddah at the advent of the appropriate day, regardless of whether she has counted seven “spotless” days or not. b) The seven “spotless” days need not be consecutive.
As mentioned in Chapter 6, the Ramban and others differ with the Rambam concerning these points (Maggid Mishneh). To reiterate, none of these points are at all relevant in the present day. For, as will be explained in· ch. 11, from the late Talmudic era onward, Jewish women accepted the practice of counting seven “spotless” days after any and all uterine bleeding.

Niddah 38a. By quoting this and the other instances mentioned until the end of the chapter, the Rambam is also supporting his interpretation of “the days of niddah” and “the days of zivah,” explaining these passages according to his conception of these principles.

I.e., the tenth and eleventh days of the days of zivah.

From this, we see that the three days of zivah bleeding must be consecutive. If they are interrupted by other days, even by days on which the woman suffers uterine bleeding, she is not considered as a zavah.

Between sunset and nightfall, at which time, there is, as explained above, a doubt whether it should be considered part of the previous day or the coming day.

Chapter 4, Halachah 6; Chapter 6, Halachot 9-11.

Provided of course, the bleeding ceases before nightfall.

Niddah 54a.

For as stated in the previous halachah, a woman may immerse herself and engage in relations directly after her “days of niddah” even if she discovered bleeding on the last day.

I.e., the nights, but not the days.

After eighteen days, the entire cycle repeats itself for her “days of niddah” begin again.

I.e., a minor zavah must watch one day for every impure day. Therefore the woman must watch the tenth day, because of the bleeding of the ninth, the twelfth day, because of the bleeding of the eleventh, etc. In addition to the day and the night preceding and following the eighth day, he is allowed to engage in relations only on the nights preceding the eleventh, thirteenth, fifteenth, and seventeenth days. For the days which precedes these nights are pure. The other nights were preceded by days in which she discovered uterine bleeding.

After the eighteenth day, she returns to her “days of niddah.” The Rambam, nevertheless, mentions the twentieth day, because she is permitted to engage in relations on that day. Although it is in her “days of niddah,’.’ since she does not discover bleeding, she is not rendered impure. Although the cycle does not repeat itself in exactly the same manner - i.e., her status in the second 18 days is opposite from the first - she may engage in relations the same number of nights.
She is not permitted to engage in relations on the eleventh, fifteenth, and nineteenth days, for these days must be watched because of the impurity of the preceding two days.

I.e., she will have discovered bleeding on the eighth and ninth days, rendering her a minor zavah and requiring that she watch one pure day.

After discovering blood on the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth days.

For she only has three “pure” days, before she bleeds again.

For the eighth day, the day immediately following her days of niddah is not impure.

For as explained in the previous halachah, she will never reach seven “spotless” days to purify herself from the state of zivah. This principle also applies in the following two halachot.

For the eighth, ninth, and tenth days are pure.

For the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth days are pure.

For the first four days of this week of impurity fall during her “days of zivah.”

After eighteen weeks, she returns to her original situation, discovering bleeding for her seven “days of niddah” and then begins the entire cycle again.

Since she discovered bleeding during only two days of zivah, she is not considered as a major zavah and is not required to count seven “spotless” days.

As is required of a minor zavah.

For the first two days are “days of niddah” that where preceeded by days on which she discovered bleeding. Hence she is forbidden to engage in relations on them.

For as stated above, every eighteen weeks, she returns to her original cycle.

A day and a fraction less.

Niddah 54a. This represents the Rarnbam’s understanding of that passage. As the Maggid Mishneh relates, the Ramban has a different conception of the meaning of”days of niddah” and “days of zivah.” According to his conception, our Sages’ words can be interpreted exactly.

The Maggid Mishneh notes that there is a difficulty, because the cycle does not renew itself after 48 days. Instead, it is not until 144 days that the cycle is renewed. Again, it is because of his interpretation of “days of niddah” and “days of zivah” that he somewhat contorts the interpretation of Niddah, loc. cit..

Hence she may not engage in relations on it. It nevertheless serves as a “spotless” day to release the prohibition from the two days of zivah bleeding.

In truth in the first 48 out of 144 as stated above.

In this instance, the Rambam’s interpretation also produce an effective calculation. For the woman’s physical cycle is renewed every eighteen days and precisely that time is duration of the cycle of niddah and zivah.

For she does not become a major zavah if she bleeds for two days.

In this instance, the pattern will always return to the same starting point, for in all instances, the woman will have three days of zivah among her impure days and seven “spotless” days among her pure days. She will thus always become a zavah and require seven “spotless” days to become pure. Even though in the subsequent cycles, the first day she discovers bleeding may not be one of her “days of niddah,” the same laws still apply.

We have made this addition so that the Rambam’s statements follow his interpretation of “days of zivah.” See the Maggid Mishneh.

I.e., the onset of menstruation is not associated with a specific physical symptom, as stated in Halachah 2.

From the Rambam’s wording, it appears 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 these two 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.

For these physical symptoms to be considered as a veset, they must be repeated three times before the onset of menstruation (Niddah 63a).

Chapter 4, Halachah 16. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, most other authorities differ with the Rambam with regard to these requirements.

The Tzemach Tzedek notes that Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:6 states that a woman may touch ritually pure articles during the time her veset is expected. It is only when she actually discovers bleeding that she transmits ritual impurity to these articles. He explains the difference between that law and the laws governing relations based on Shulchan Aruch HaRav 189:97 by saying that we fear that relations will cause menstruation to come earlier.

I.e., the seven “days of niddah” and the eleven “days of zivah.”

The commentaries have noted somewhat of a difficulty with the Rambam’s statements. As he stated in Chapter 6, according to his conception, the cycle of niddah and zivah begin again after eighteen days. Now what if a woman has a 20 day cycle or a 25 day cycle? According to the Rambam’s statements here it would seem that “days of niddah” and the “days of zivah” should be counted from the day of the veset, i.e., each 20 days or 25 days.

The Maggid Mishneh interprets this law as speaking about the intervals between the onset of menstruation (veset haflagah).

The twentieth is forbidden because as the Rambam continues to explain, once a veset has been established, it is not uprooted until it passes three times without the woman menstruating. The twenty-third is forbidden, because since she began menstruating on that day, we fear that she will begin menstruated upon it in the following month. See also Halachah 8.

For the same reasons as stated in the previous note.

I.e., she is no longer forbidden to engage in relations on that day.

According to the Maggid Mishneh, the “jumping” mentioned in the following clause illustrates this principle. The ‘’jumping” is an external factor that is not dependent on a woman’s internal physical pattern. Even if on three separate occasions, a woman menstruates as a result of”jumping,” she is not considered to have established a fixed veset. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De‘ah 189:17) quotes this principle. The Rama quotes the Hagahot Maimoniot which state that although the jumping is not regarded with the severity of a fixed veset, it is considered as an irregular veset. Until a situation passes when the woman does not menstruate after jumping, she is forbidden to engage in relations afterwards. The Tur rules that even an external factor can cause a veset if a pattern recurs on three consecutive occasions.

Perhaps “jumping” can be interpreted as “undergoing strenuous exercise” which could be considered as a cause for hastening the onset of menstruation.

I.e., the day of menstruation is not counted in the interval.

The Maggid Mishneh deals with question what would happen if the woman jumped and menstruated on Sunday for a third consecutive time. Would her veset be established for the interval only in connection with jumping? Or would the interval itself be considered as a veset?

Even though she jumped on the previous day, that jumping is not considered as significant and is not associated with her monthly pattern. Note the Maggid Mishneh ‘s explanation of the approach of the Rashba which differs.

There must be four months in the cycle, so that there are three months during which she advanced a day. In such a situation in the fifth month, she must expect to menstruate on the nineteenth.

For she did not increase a day in the fourth month.

I.e., on the seventeenth of the month. She does not have to be concerned with the fifteenth and the sixteenth. Since she did not begin menstruating on that day in the month which followed it, she need not be concerned· with it any longer.
This requirement applies to any woman who does not have a veset kevua, a fixed time when she is known to begin menstruating. According to the halachah at present, a woman
in such a situation must refrain from relations on three occasions: the day or the night of the date of the month on which she menstruated in the previous month, the day or the night which matches the interval between her onset of menstruation in the previous month and that of the month which preceded it, the day and the night of the thirtieth day since the onset of menstruation.

On one occasion.

On the fifteenth because of the existing pattern, and on the sixteenth because of her menstruation in the previous month. The point of this halachah is that when a woman deviates from an established veset, she must show concern both for that established veset and for the date (and interval) resulting from the previous month.

Because it must pass three times without her menstruating upon it.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions the Rambam's ruling. Seemingly, in this instance, since she increased by one day each month, she established a fixed veset according to that pattern. Thus in the following month, she must show concern over the nineteenth.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that in addition to showing concern for the nineteenth, the woman must show concern for the eighteenth, since this was the day on which her menstruation actually began. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:7), however, he does not mention this point.

The twentieth as a fixed veset and the twenty-second because of the deviation in the previous month.

And it must be bypassed on three new occasions to be uprooted. As long as the veset is not uprooted by being bypassed on three successive months, it becomes reaffirmed when the onset of menstruation recurs on it once.

According to the Rambam’ s interpretation of “days of niddah,” the interpretation of this ruling is straightforward. Once a woman has discovered bleeding in her “days of niddah,” she cannot establish a veset on any of her other days of niddah. According to the interpretation of the Ramban, the explanation is somewhat more complex. See the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. Similarly, with regard to the other instances mentioned in this halachah, the explanation according to the approach of the Ramban - which as stated previously is accepted as halachah by most authorities - the explanation differs from that of the Rambam.

The same laws would apply if she discovered bleeding only once during her “days of zivah” (without the phenomenon recurring three times). Perhaps the Rambam’s intent is to emphasize that even if the phenomenon recurs three timmes, it can be uprooted when it is bypassed once.

As described in the following halachah.

I.e., since it is unlikely that she will menstruate on these days, we treat any veset that has been established as an extraordinary event. Although she must take it into consideration, it can be uprooted easily.

Like a niddah, she is forbidden to engage in relations for seven days.

Our translation follows an emendation of the text based on authoritative manuscripts. See the Noda B‘Yehudah, Vol. II, Responsum 93, which explains this version.

I.e., because of the doubt concerning her status, she is given both the stringency applying to a niddah - she is forbidden for seven days after even one sighting of blood - and the stringency associated with a zavah - she must count seven “spotless” days if she sights bleeding for three consecutive days (Maggid Mishneh).

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 184:1) interprets the Rambam’s ruling as not applying immediately before relations. (For if she inspects herself before relations, her husband might think there is reason to refrain from relations.) At present, however, Rabbis have counseled woman not to inspect themselves unless there is a reason. For at times, the inspection itself can cause bleeding. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 16.

For it is unlikely for her to menstruate then.

When it is likely for her to menstruate.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text reads “If she forgot and did not...”

For we do not suspect that she became impure unless she actually discovers bleeding. Slightly different principles apply with regard to the veset on which she can be expected to begin menstruation arrives as explained in the following halachah and notes.

The initial and preferred course of conduct is that when a veset passes without a woman discovering uterine bleeding, she should inspect herself to ensure that this is so.

Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:5. There it is explained that since she discovered bleeding afterwards, we assume that she menstruated at the expected time and became impure.

A man who engages in relations with a niddah becomes impure. Nevertheless, a man who engaged in relations with a woman between the time of her veset and the time she discovered the bleeding is not placed in this category. For although we suspect that the woman became impure, there is no certainty that indeed this took place.

woman who is a niddah remains impure for seven days. These seven days do not begin from her veset, but from the time when she actually discovered the bleeding.

For although we suspect that menstruation will begin on the veset, if there is no evidence that this indeed happened, we do not assume that it did.

The basic principle upon which this law is based is stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 20. In this halachah, the Rambam is merely clarifying that the fact that a woman has a fixed veset does not change the basic position.

Chapter 3, Halachah 9. I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a woman is not impure until she actually discovers bleeding. Our Rabbis ordained that she should show concern for her veset, but they also limited the extent of that concern as reflected in the above laws.

Since she cannot see, she obviously cannot inspect the eid, the cloth used for the examination. The Rambam (based on Niddah 13b) is emphasizing that she is relied upon to carry out a thorough internal examination.

Who is considered the same as a mentally incapacitated individual. If, however, she is merely deaf or mute, she is considered as a mentally capable individual [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 196:8)].

For these women cannot be relied upon to carry out a proper internal examination themselves.

A word of clarification is necessary. Our Rabbis ordained a marriage arrangement for deaf-mutes. They did not, however, ordain such an arrangement for mentally or emotionally incapable individuals.

Although in this and the following halachah, the Rambam uses the term veset, the intent of the term in this context is reflected by our translation.

I.e., she must observe both the stringencies incumbent on a niddah and those incumbent on a zavah as the Rambam continues to explain.

Before purifying herself as is required of a niddah.

See the following halachah.

Days of niddah.

Days of zivah.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that according to the Rambam’s understanding of these terms, it is somewhat difficult. For as stated above, the Rambam maintains that from the first time a woman menstruates her “days of niddah” are set. Nevertheless, in this situation, the Rambam maintains that, rather than leave a woman in a situation where she is continuously in doubt, our Sages advised her to begin counting “her days of niddah” anew from the time she menstruated.

I.e., and therefore she must keep both sets of stringencies as mentioned above. The rationale for this ruling is that it is possible that the bleeding took place in her “days of zivah.” But, as the Rambam continues to explain, it is possible that this is not the case.

The same ruling obviously applies if she discovers bleeding for from five to eight days. It is unnecessary for the Rambam to state this, because it is readily apparent. The Rambam feels it necessary to mention nine days, because this includes a new concept: that we allow for the possibility that she was bleeding for all seven days of niddah. Thus in addition to these seven days, we add two days of zivah.

The same ruling obviously applies if she discovers bleeding for ten days. It is unnecessary to mention, for the rationale is the same as for eleven days.

And her “days of niddah” begin when they are completed.

The number of days necessary for her to be considered a major zavah.

I.e., this is sufficient for her to correct her reckoning.