Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

For there is no concept of marriage with regard to a male below the age of majority. The term liable in this context means “liable for execution” if the transgression was performed willfully or “liable for a sacrifice” if it was performed inadvertently.

A yevamah is a childless widow whom one of the brothers of the deceased is obligated to marry. Now, relations with a yevamah do not require the conscious intent of the brother who seeks to marry her (Hilchot Yibbum 2:3) and relations carried out by a nine year old are of consequence in certain contexts (Chapter 1, Halachah 14). Hence, one might think that by carrying out relations with the yevamah, the nine year old would acquire her as his wife. See also Hilchot Yibbum 5:18.

A deaf-mute is not considered of sufficient mental capacity to be responsible for his actions. Hence, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut 4:9, he cannot consecrate a woman according to Scriptural Law. Although according to Rabbinic Law, his consecration is binding, he is not held liable for execution or a sacrifice for violating a Rabbinic prohibition.

In this instance, the consecration is not binding even according to Rabbinic Law (ibid.).

As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 1, Halachah 15, there is an unresolved doubt with regard to the halachic status of an androgynus and a doubt with regard to the physiological makeup of a tumtum. Hence we cannot be certain whether the adulterer is engaging in relations with a woman whose marriage is halachically significant.

Since such women are not considered as capable of making responsible decisions, the man’s consecration is not effective according to Scriptural Law. And since the consecration is not effective according to Scriptural Law, there are no punishments that result from it. In particular, however, there is a difference between the two situations, for the consecration of a woman who is mentally or emotionally unstable is not effective at all. The consecration of a female deaf-mute, by contrast, is effective according to Rabbinic Law (Hilchat!shut, loc. cit,).

He is given the punishment due any adulterer, for the consecration is binding according to Scriptural Law (Hilchot Ishut 3:11). This is speaking about a situation where the couple later married. Otherwise, the adulterer would be stoned to death. Also, it is speaking about a situation where the child is over three years old. Otherwise, the relations are not significant.

Neither punishment, nor a sacrifice. For she is a minor and is not responsible for her conduct.

As the Rambam states in Hilchat Gerushin 11:14, a woman who engages in adulterous relations becomes forbidden to her husband.

Chapter 2, Halachah 4. The Ra’avad, both here and in Hilchot Sotah, differs with the Rambam, basing his objections on Yevamot 33b which states “The seduction of a minor is always considered equivalent to rape.” Since she is not responsible for her actions, her consent is of no significance. And if a woman is raped, she is permitted to her husband if he is not a priest (Hilchat Ishut 24:19).
The Maggid Mishneh admits that the question raised by the Ra’avad is substantial, but points to a passage in Ketubot 9a which appears to support the Rambam’s decision. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 178:3) cites both views without stating which to favor. The Beit Shmuel 178:3 states that the Ra’avad’s view is accepted by most authorities.

Mi’un refers to a means of terminating a Rabbinically originated marriage arrangement. When a girl’s father is not alive, our Sages gave her mother and/or her brothers the opportunity to consecrate her. This consecration is not binding according to Scriptural Law (see Hilchot Ishut 4:8, Hilchot Gerushin 11:1). Hence, an adulterer is not punished for relations with her. This law also applies to a deaf-mute and anyone else whose consecration is acceptable only according to Rabbinic Law (Rav David Arameah).

A priest is not allowed to remain married to a woman who engaged in forbidden relations, even if she was compelled to do so. Nevertheless, in this instance, she can end her marriage whenever she desires without a formal divorce, it is as if she were never married. Hence, her “adultery” is not of consequence.

A person born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship whom it is forbidden to marry.

See Chapter 12, Halachot 22-23, which explain that this term refers to a person descended from one of the seven Canaanite nations who converted. Such a person is forbidden to marry into the Jewish people.

When the prohibition against marriage is punishable by execution or karet, the marriage is not considered valid and there is no punishment for adultery. If, however, it is forbidden only by a negative prohibition, the marriage is binding.

For the Torah states the severe punishment only for the woman herself.

The term maiden has a specific halachic definition: a girl who at the age of 12 (or over) manifested signs of physical maturity. She remains in this category for six months (Hilchot Ishut 2:1).

But not married.

I.e., the six months mentioned above passed.

I.e., completed the marriage ceremony.

For from this time, she is no longer under her father’s control.

Although the verse speaks about “a consecrated maiden,” relations with even a younger girl are given the same punishment.

Since she is a minor, she is not responsible for her actions and is not subjected to any punishment.

I.e., she is given the more severe punishment.

Because after relations with the first, she is no longer a virgin. Hence, they are given the ordinary penalty for adultery.

For with regard to punishment, there is no difference between anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse.

In which instance, even if she had engaged in relations beforehand, her signs of virginity would return.

Ketubot 44a states that this concept is derived from a Scriptural reference. When speaking of this transgression, Deuteronomy 22:21 states: “He committed an abuse in Israel,” i.e., involving a native-born Jewess. In his Commentary to the Mishneh (Ketubot 4:3), the Rambam offers a different explanation, one which has raised questions among the commentaries.

See Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and Hilchot Na’arah, ch. 3, where this instance is discussed. A man enters into relations with his newly-wed wife and afterwards, claims she is not a virgin. Moreover, he produces witnesses who testify that the women committed adultery before entering into relations with him. If the testimony of the witnesses is not disproved, the woman is executed as the Rambam continues to explain.

Halachah 4. The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that once a woman enters the marriage canopy as a virgin, she is executed by strangulation as are all other married women. The difference of opinion centers on the interpretation of Ketubot 45a. Rashi and Tosafot also differ in their interpretation of that passage.

An ordinary case of adultery.

The daughter of a priest who committed adultery.

A consecrated maiden who committed adultery in her father’s house or a maiden about whom a malicious report was spread and it was discovered to be true.

As Ketubot 45a states, this is intended to dishonor her parents, as if to say: “See the offspring which you raised.”

As stated in Deuteronomy 22:23. This is a mark of dishonor for the city, a sign that the environment is not moral. The Rambam’s ruling follows his version of Ketubot 45a. Rashi (and the standard published text of that passage) follow a different version.
Or Sameach states that since the transgression did not take place in her father’s home, it is not fitting that he be dishonored in this fashion.

I.e., six months after she manifests signs of physical maturity.

As Hilchot Sanhedrin 13:1, 15:1, the place for stoning was a two storey building somewhat removed from the city.

Since she has already come of age, the laws governing her change and she is not stoned at her father’s house. If she were to commit adultery at this age, she would be executed by strangulation. Hence, when she is punished for the adultery she committed beforehand, her sentence is commuted somewhat and she is not executed at her parents’ home (Maggid Mishneh).
The Ra’avad and the Maggid Mishneh himself note that when a man spreads a malicious report about a woman and his statements are proved to be correct, the woman is executed at her father’s home. Although she already had relations with her husband, she is executed in the same place as before. This would indicate that her coming of age is also not significant. Rav Akiva Eiger explains that since when a malicious report was proven true, a woman is stoned to death even though she has already married her husband, it obviously is a different type of instance than an ordinary case of a maiden committing adultery.

For the verse mentions stoning her “at the entrance to your gates.” If the city is predominantly populated by gentiles, its entrance is not “your gates” (Tosafot, Sanhedrin 45b).

I.e., the optimum manner for the execution to be performed.

With regard to his obligation to bring a sin-offering for inadvertent transgression, see Hilchot Shegagot 5:1 which states that even though a person transgressed several times, as long as he does not become aware of his transgression, he is liable for only one sin offering. If he transgresses inadvertently again after he became aware of his first transgression(s), he must bring another sin-offering.

E. g., he had relations with his brother’s wife while she is in the niddah state, in which instance he is liable for relations with a married woman, relations with his brother’s wife, and relations with a woman in the niddah state.

Chapter 4, Halachah 2.

Chapter 17, Halachot 9-10.

Such a situation is possible when a Canaanite maidservant was owned by two partners. One released her from bondage and one did not. In this situation, she is obligated to serve her master one day and on the following day, she is free to do as she chooses.

In contrast to other Jewish men, a Hebrew servant is permitted to engage in relations with a Canaanite maid-servant. Hence, the fact that this woman is half a maid-servant will not represent a difficulty for him. And because, she is half a freed woman, he may consecrate her.

And since she was not freed, the Hebrew servant’s consecration of her is contingent on her freedom. Until she is freed, they are not fully married.

Chapter 4, Halachah 16.

Keritot 11a interprets this phrase as indicating that she - and not the man - should be given the above punishment.

See Hilchot Shegagot, ch. 9, which describes the particulars of this sacrifice.

Keritot 9a derives this concept through the principles of Biblical exegesis. If, however, he enters into relations with many different maid-servants, he is liable for each act (Ra’avad; Hilchot Shegagot 9:5).

The term literally means “complete relations.” Our translation is based on the definition given by the Rambam in Chapter 1, Halachah 10. It must, however, be noted that Tosafot, Yevamot 55b understands Rashi as interpreting the phrase “conclude relations” to mean “to ejaculate.” Support for that interpretation is brought from the fact that the prooftext from Leviticus speaks of “lying with her with seed.” Some have also pointed to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 2:5) for support for this interpretation.

For Keritot 11a teaches: Whenever the woman is lashed, he is required to bring a sacrifice. Whenever she is not punished, he is not liable. And she is not punished unless she is an adult who acts willfully.

And that is significant only with regard to vaginal intercourse.

This is the version of the standard printed text of the Mishneh Torah. Many authentic manuscripts and early printings state “they,” i.e., both the male and the female.

For they committed an immoral act which requires punishment lest they continue the pattern.

Since he is already nine years old, his sexual acts are of consequence. Hence, since she transgressed willfully, she is liable. And since she is liable, he is liable for a sacrifice. For a sacrifice is not punishment, but atonement. Although he is still a minor, atonement is still required. In Hilchot Shegagot 9:3, the Rambam clarifies: “It appears to me that he does not bring [the sacrifice] until he comes of age.”
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that a minor is never required to bring such a sacrifice, for this sacrifice is a punishment. And since the male is not liable, the female is also not liable.

In Halachah 15.

As will be explained, the term niddah refers to a woman who suffers vaginal bleeding at the expected time of her monthly period.

Although a woman usually does not begin menstrual bleeding until around the age of twelve. If, however, she does have menstrual bleeding before then, she is bound by the halachic consequences.

For if a woman bleeds for three consecutive days after the seven days associated with her menstrual period, she is considered as a zavah. The first three days this is possible is the eighth, ninth, and tenth days of her life. Although she can become impure from the day of her birth onward, punishment is not allotted for relations with her until she becomes three. For only at that age are relations with her significant, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 13.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.

Thus establishing an association between the two.

See Chapter 10.

A ritual bath that meets the qualifications for this purpose. If she immersed herself in an ordinary bath, by contrast, that is not acceptable as explained in Hilchot Mikveot.

If a niddah immerses herself during these days, however, the immersion is of no consequence.

Although relations with gentile women are forbidden, none of these particular transgressions apply according to Scriptural Law. For all the defined states of ritual purity and impurity apply only with regard to the Jewish people. The fact that a gentile woman experiences the same physical conditions is not of consequence.

I.e., this was a decree imposed to prevent intimate contact with them, regardless of their physical condition. See Hilchot Milam ‘ei Mishkav UMoshav 2:10.

As the Torah relates (Leviticus 12:2-4), after the birth of a male child a woman becomes impure for seven days. Afterwards, she immerses herself to regain ritual purity. For the next 33 days, even if she suffers uterine bleeding, her state does not change and she remains ritually pure.

As ibid.:5 states, similar concepts apply after a woman gives birth to a female except that she originally becomes impure for 14 days. Afterwards, she remains pure for 66 days.

Niddah 36a relates that there is one source of bleeding - the womb - for all 40 (or 80) days. It is just that during the first 7 (14), the Torah rules that this blood is impure and during the final 33 (66), the Torah rules that the blood is pure.

The Kessef Mishneh cites Chapter 7, Halachah 7, which states that the above applies only when a woman is not impure because of zavah bleeding before childbirth. If she is impure for such reasons, she must count seven “clean” days before she immerses herself and engages in relations with her husband.
Also, as will be explained (see Chapter 11, Halachot 5-6), at present the custom is not to observe the concept of blood of purity at all. Even if a woman gives birth, she must wait “seven clean days” after seeing any uterine bleeding.

I.e., she suffers uterine bleeding which would otherwise render her ritually impure.

At present when we do not make any distinctions between niddah and zivah, all women immerse themselves at night.

She cannot terminate the last day earlier by immersing herself in the daytime.

In Halachah 2.

A niddah or a woman after childbirth.

Although such problems are uncommon today, there are several examples - e.g., women living in new settlements in Israel’s West Bank - where these principles are relevant.

She should not, however, immerse herself on the seventh day even if she refrains from engaging in relations until nightfall [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 197:4)].

A fixed time when the onset of menstruation can be expected to begin, as will be explained. Since she has a fixed time when menstruation is expected, at other times, we assume that she remains ritually pure. If she does not have a fixed time when menstruation can be expected to begin, her husband must ask her concerning her state. He cannot make any assumptions (Maggid Mishneh, Kessef Mishneh).

By wearing clothes designated to be worn at this time.

Without inquiring about her ritual state.

Even if there were ample time for her to have become impure due to menstruation, to wait the prescribed period, and then to immerse herself, he may assume that she did that. Since she was pure when he left her, we may assume that all of the above transpired [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 184:11)].

Since he knows that she was ritually impure, he cannot assume that she changed her status. Instead, she must explicitly inform him of that change [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 185:1)].

And he must consider her as if she is actually ritually impure.
The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 185:3) states that if she corrects her statements immediately, her word is accepted.

The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 185:4) state that if she performed an act that indicated that she was impure, e.g., she wore the clothes that she wears in the niddah state, providing a valid explanation is not sufficient to clear the suspicions and she is considered impure.

E. g., “I originally made a mistake. I thought I was impure according to law and discovered that in fact I was pure,” “I did not have strength to engage in relations· and avoided them by giving this excuse” (Hagahot Maimoniot).

The Ramah (Yoreh De‘ah 185:5) states that if a person withdraws while erect because he is unfamiliar with the transgression involved, he should fast for 40 days to seek atonement. These fasts need not be consecutive. He should also give generously to charity.

I.e., if a person realized his transgression while involved in relations with other arayot, he should not withdraw while erect.

The Rama (loc. cit.) adds that he should be overcome with awe concerning the transgression which he faces.

The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De‘ah 184:2) state that it is only necessary to refrain from relations; other expressions of closeness are permitted. Even hugging and kissing are permitted (Siftei Cohen 184:6). This, however, represents the mere letter of the law. There are many authorities who are more stringent and forbid these expressions of closeness (ibid., Turei Zahav 184:3). In some communities, the custom is to observe all stringencies as if the woman was actually a niddah.

See ch. 8, which elaborates on this subject, speaking about a situation when women have a fixed veset or a veset that has not been firmly established.

The entire concept of vesetot, calculating the expected time when a woman will begin menstruating is a Rabbinic injunction. Hence the citation of a Scriptural verse is merely an asmachta, a support, and not a direct Scriptural command (Maggid Mishneh).

The Siftei Cohen 184:7 states that this applies only when a woman is accustomed to begin menstruating at a given time during the day or night. If, however, she does not have a fixed time when she begins menstruating, relations are also forbidden during the preceding day or night. This stringency is not, however, accepted by all authorities.

During the evening, however, she is permitted. Before entering into relations, the woman should carry out an internal examination to verify that she in fact did not begin menstruation [Tur, Rama (Yoreh De’ah 184:9)].

This ruling is mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 186:1) as a minority perspective. The prevailing view is that when a woman possesses a fixed veset, she and her husband need not carry out such inspections at all. If she does not possess a fixed veset, she and her husband should carry out these inspections before and after the first three times they engage in relations. If no blood is discovered, it is established that sexual relations does not cause the woman to menstruate. Hence, in the future, the couple can engage in relations without making these inspections.

Since they are worn-out, they are soft and pliable. It is possible for the woman to insert them into all the comers of the vagina.

In this way, any speck of blood will be noticeable. Needless to say, they must also be clean. Today, in many Jewish communities, special clothes are prepared for this purpose - and for other inspections which a woman must undergo - and are available from the local mikveh and at times, even in pharmacies.

Cotton may also be used [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 196:6)].

As the Rambam continues to explain, this applies even if she has a fixed veset.

The Ra’avad and Rav Moshe Cohen object to the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that the Rambam’s source, Niddah 11b, applies only with regard to the laws of ritual purity and not with regard to relations with one’s husband. Indeed, the Rambam himself appears to have equivocated back and forth concerning the issue. In the first draft (which is the standard printed text) of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 1 :7), he follows the position advanced by the Ra’avad. It is only in the Mishneh Torah and the final text of the Commentary to the Mishneh (see Rav Kappach’s translation) that he changes his mind.
Although the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 186:2) quotes the Rambam’s ruling here as a minority view, the prevailing opinion is that such an inspection is unnecessary. Moreover, a woman should not carry out such an inspection in the presence of her husband, lest he think that she became impure.

All these four types of women are unlikely to menstruate. Nevertheless, they must take the precaution suggested by the Rambam.

Who will suffer hymeneal bleeding after the first (or more) occasions of marital relations. See Chapter 5, Halachah 19.

I.e., a woman after childbirth, as described in Halachah 5.

Thus checking to see whether or not she is bleeding will serve no purpose. This bleeding does not, however, render her ritually impure or forbidden to her husband according to Scriptural Law.

If, however, the eid is clean, we assume that the eid she used at night had also been clean.

This is speaking about an eid that was known to be clean beforehand (Maggid Mishneh).

Since the stain is extended, we assume that the woman had touched a source of bleeding. As she moved the eid, the stain became extended.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 190:34) states that this applies only when the stain is smaller than a gris (see Chapter 9, Halachah 6). If it is larger than that measure, we do not assume that it comes from a louse, because it is unlikely that a louse will produce that much blood.

This applies even if there is no trace of the body of the louse. We assume that when she put the eid under the pillow, she killed the louse and that produced a rounded stain. If she placed the eid in a box or in any place where a louse is unlikely to be found, she is considered as impure even if the stain is round (Maggid Mishneh).

And afterwards, placed it in a safe place.

For the likelihood of her suffering vaginal bleeding is greater than that of her killing a louse when touching the eid to her thigh. The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam’s ruling as applying even if the stain is round. He notes that other authorities differ and apply the principles stated in the previous law. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De‘ah 190:35) quotes both opinions without stating which to follow.

This refers to an eid which we do not know if it were dirty or not. If, however, we know that the eid was dirty, she is not considered impure even if a large stain is found [Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 190:36)].

When a stain is larger than a gris, we assume that it will not have come from a louse.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 187:1) emphasizes that these laws apply only when the bleeding is noticed directly after intercourse. If there is an interval before she discovers the bleeding, these laws do not apply.

For an occurrence that takes place once or twice is not usually considered sufficient to establish a recurrent pattern.

I.e., on three consecutive occasions without there being an occasion where relations did not lead to vaginal bleeding in the interim (Siftei Cohen 187:3).

Instead, she must be divorced. She may, however, remarry as stated in the following halachah.
The reason she is required to divorce is that the recurrence of a factor three times establishes a chazzakah, a presumption that this factor will continue to recur in the future. Thus if she began bleeding on three successive occasions in the midst of relations with her husband, we assume that she will continue to do so in the future. Since she suffered vaginal bleeding during intercourse, those relations are considered as involving a severe transgression. On the first three occasions, she and her husband are not held responsible for this is obviously a deviation from the norm. If, however, a pattern is established, this is considered the norm and if she would bleed during relations in the future, the transgression would be considered as willful. To prevent that from happening, we require divorce. It must be emphasized that all this applies after the woman has ceased hymeneal bleeding. It is, however, possible for her to engage in relations several times at the beginning of her marriage and continue hymeneal bleeding. See the conclusion of Chapter 5.

And thus, it is assumed that the relations are the cause of the vaginal bleeding.

Note the Siftei Cohen 187:16 who offers several resolutions how this is possible despite the prohibition mentioned in Halachah 12.

Unless we know that the shades of blood are different, we assume that they are the same and attribute the bleeding to the wound (Maggid Mishneh; Siftei Cohen 187:19).

Note the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 187:5) who emphasizes the importance of adding the words “which bleeds.”

For we accept the possibility that the difficulty was particular to her first husband and would not affect her relations with other men.

Since the same condition recurred with three different men, a chazzakah is established and we assume that it will recur with all men.

She may check herself in this manner at any time in the process, even before being divorced by her first husband [Maggid Mishneh; see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 187:3)].

So that it will be smooth and will not scratch her.

For the swab was touched to the uterus without contact with any other part of the body.

And such bleeding does not render her impure.
Without minimizing the effectiveness of this method of checking devised by the Rabbis of the Talmud, today there are more effective medical tools available and it is possible to ascertain the source of a woman’s bleeding in that manner. A careful inspection by a doctor or nurse under the guidance of a Rav may - and should - be employed as soon as such problems occur.

Hilchot Ishut 25:8. The Rambam is implying that she cannot remarry her third husband. In Hilchot Ishut, he explains that when a man divorces a woman for this reason, the husband must know he may never remarry her, for otherwise it would be as if he gave the divorce conditionally. If she becomes healed, it would not be effective.

I.e., not only does a woman become impure when she suffers ordinary menstrual bleeding, she becomes impure when that bleeding appears to be brought on by an external cause.

And we assume the unusual exertion brought on the uterine bleeding.

Our Sages appreciated that sexual desire could produce uterine bleeding.

We have given a biological term for the metaphoric term used by our Sages which literally means “between the teeth.” For a woman to become impure, the blood must emerge from the upper portion of the vaginal channel and reach the lower portion, as explained in Halachah 5.

And blood there does not render a woman ritually impure.

Niddah 17b.

The term used by our Sages literally means “the neck of the uterus.”

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:4) where he describes these terms in greater detail, drawing on his medical knowledge.

Blood which flows after childbirth as mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 5.

Chapter 7, Halachah 2.

For it is forbidden to enter the Temple while ritually impure.

When terumah or sacrificial food becomes ritually impure, it is no longer fit for consumption and must be burned. If, however, it did not become impure, it is forbidden to burn it. The fact that we burn these objects after such a woman touches them indicates that she has become impure according to Scriptural Law.

She is, however, forbidden to enter the Temple and forbidden to touch terumah or sacrificial foods. Similarly, she is forbidden to engage in relations with her husband. This is particularly true in the present age. We rule stringently and forbid a woman to her husband no matter where the blood is discovered [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:7)].

In halachic terminology, the Hebrew term yarok can also mean yellow or golden. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 188:1) which discusses this issue.

Implied is that if the stain does not match any of these colors, even if it has a red tint, it does not render the woman impure. This, however, applied in Talmudic times when the Rabbis were able to carefully distinguish between different shades of red. At present, however, if a stain has a red tint, it should be considered impure. We do not attempt to make these fine distinctions (Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah, Niddah 2:7; Siftei Cohen 188:1).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Niddah 2:6), the Rambam explains that certain factors will turn red blood to black.

A region not far from the Mediterranean Coast, slightly northeast of present day Tel Aviv.

As mentioned above, in the present age, we rule stringently with regard to all shades of red. Nevertheless, this law applies with regard to secretions of other colors even in the ·present age. A sage can make a ruling based on a woman’s description. If, however, a secretion appears to be blood, but the woman protests that a sage ruled that such a secretion did not render her impure, her word is not accepted [Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 188:2)].

The commentaries to Niddah 21a interpret this as meaning that if the cup contains two luggin, it should not weigh more than a maneh. In this way, its walls will not be overly thick.

As mentioned above, in the present age, we rule that any stain that appears red is considered impure. Nevertheless, the technique used by the Rambam is valuable in determining whether a stain is considered as red or not.

This is not speaking about a woman who miscarries, but rather about one who has a problem about the degeneration of her internal organs, The Rambam, based on Niddah 21b, is stating that as long as the piece of flesh is not accotnpanied by blood, the woman’s difficulties do not render her ritually impure.
This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Talmud and not all Rishonim accept the Rambam’s ruling (see the objections of the Ra’avad and others). It is, however, accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 188:3), provided the piece of flesh is small If, however, it is large, the Shulchan Aruch rules that she is impure, because it is impossible for the uterus to open and discharge a large piece of flesh without expelling a certain amount of blood as well. The woman would become impure because of the expulsion of that blood.
(The Maggid Mishneh explains that the difference between the positions of the Rambam and the Ra’avad concern an issue of a larger scope: Is it possible for the uterus to open without bleeding or not? The Rambam rules that this is possible and hence, the woman is pure even if the piece is large. The Ra’ avad maintains that she is impure, because it is impossible for the uterus to open without bleeding.)

The Rambam’s opinion here is also contested by other Rishonim. The Tur (Yoreh De’ah 188), rules that even if the piece of flesh is accompanied by blood and the blood touches the woman’s body, she is not impure, for this is not the ordinary way in which a woman experiences uterine bleeding. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 188:3).

See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 188:6) which quotes the Ra’avad’s view that whenever a woman discovers a particle of dried blood, she is impure even if it does not dissolve. The Shulchan Aruch howeyer, also quotes the views of Ray Zerachiah HaLevi and Rabbenu Asher who maintain that even in such an instance, the ruling depends on whether the particle dissolves or not.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 194:3) follows the ruling of other Rishonim who maintain that in such a situation, we assume that these forms are the preliminary stages of a fetus. Hence, the woman is impure - as if she had miscarried - whether or not bleeding accompanies the expulsion of these forms.

See Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Yoreh De’ah 188:8) which emphasizes that according to the Shulchan Aruch, this is referring to a thin tube which can be inserted into the uterus without causing the uterus to open substantially. If, however, the tube is thick and the uterus must open substantially, that alone is sufficient to render a woman ritually impure.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) emphasizes that the leniency is not granted because the tube interposes between the blood and the woman’s flesh and therefore the literal meaning of the verse is not fulfilled. Instead, the reason is - as the Rambam clarifies beecaus this is not the ordinary manner in which women expel. bJood.

As the Rambam explains, we assume that the bleeding comes from the urinary tract and not the uterus. The Rambam’s view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De‘ah 191:1). The Tur and the Rama cite more stringent views. In practice, a woman with such a condition should consult a gynecologist for a precise determination of her medical condition and give this information to a Rav who - on this basis - will rule on her halachic status.

One might think that these physical sensations indicate the onset of menstruation.

It must be emphasized that all the laws that follow applied only in the Talmudic era. At present. the Jewish people have accepted upon themselves the stringency of considering even the slightest drop of blood as requiring a wait of seven “spotless” days. Accordingly, when a woman suffers hymeneal bleeding - even if she knows that it is not at all connected with her menstrual cycle, she is considered impure and must wait seven “spotless” days (Chapter 11, Halachot 4,8).
Note the comments of the Ra’avad and the Kessef Mishneh concerning when this stringency was adopted. Is it of Talmudic origin or was it originated in the post-Talmudic period?

Even if she menstruated, since she has not come of age, we assume that this is an abnormal occurrence which will not repeat itself.

A girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half who has already manifested signs of physical maturity.

Since she never menstruated before, we assume that she still is suffering hymeneal bleeding and not that she has begun to menstruate.

Since she menstruated before, we recognize the possibility that this is also menstrual blood. Hence, we require the couple to separate. The Ra’avad protests the Rambam’s ruling, noting that it follows the position of the School of Shammai, not the School of Hillel. The Maggid Mishneh supports the Rambam’s decision, noting that Niddah 65b mentions the opinions of two Amoraim which support this view, indicating that in this instance the opinion of the School of Shammai is followed.

I.e., she has reached the age of twelve and half and manifested signs of physical maturity at age twelve.

I.e., that night the couple may engage in relations as many times as they desire. Needless to say, if she has already menstruated, the couple must separate after the first time they engage in relations (Maggid Mishneh).

More specifically, days and nights as stated in the previous halachah.

And also, of course, that the woman has not begun to menstruate. If during the passage of time, she reaches full majority, she is given only one night from that time onward (Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

As stated in Halachah 19. Thus she is given three more opportunities to engage in relations.

Since she is sitting on a soft surface, the wound will not be aggravated.

Even though her bleeding is not consistent.

Hence she is deemed impure and forbidden to engage in relations with her husband.

Hence we do not apply all the stringencies mentioned in the conclusion of ch. 4.