Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

In Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 2:1, the Rambam states that this refers to a man who experiences “[a discharge of] semen that is released because of an internal sickness that affects the organs [of the body] in which it collects,” a condition somewhat similar to, but by no means identical with, gonorrhea. See Leviticus 15:2.

“[A woman] who experienced [uterine] bleeding for three consecutive days at a time other than the days when she usually menstruates” (Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1 : 6; Leviticus 1 5:25).

I.e., one who menstruates.

As stated in Leviticus 12:2, 5, a woman who gives birth to a male is impure for seven days and one who gives birth to a female is impure for fourteen days. Included in this category is also a woman who miscarries.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandments 99, 100, 104, and 106) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 166, 178, 181, and 182) include all of these commandments in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot.

See the definition of this term in Hilchot Tuma’at Meit 5:7. In this halachah, the Rambam mentions the impurity these individuals impart in general terms. In the subsequent chapters, he defines each of the processes through which impurity is imparted in detail.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zavim 4:6), the Rambam focuses on the meaning of the Hebrew term madaf, citing Nidah 4b which states that this term is rooted in the phrase (Leviticus 26:36): aleh nidaf, “a rustling leaf,” i.e., a movement that is not of substance. Similarly, we find the expression (Berachot 51a): raicho nodaif, “Its fragrance wafted,” which implies having a far-reaching effect.

A woman who discovers uterine bleeding for only one day or for two consecutive days during the days when she is not expected to menstruate (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 6:7).

A woman who discovers such bleeding for three consecutive days (ibid.).

If a man experiences only one zav emission, he contracts a lesser form of impurity (Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 2:6).

I.e., there are differences regarding the laws applying to a man or woman if she experienced bleeding for three days or for a lesser number or he had three emissions or two (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, op. cit.:8; Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, op. cit.). However, with regard to imparting impurity to others or to implements, the laws are the same.

I.e., from the moment a female child is born, she can contract nidah impurity if she menstruates. Needless to say, she does not contract this impurity until she actually menstruates.

In Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, op. cit.:2-6, the Rambam explains the concept of zivah, i.e., "experiencing [uterine] bleeding... at a time other than the days when she usually menstruates." From the first time a woman menstruates, she is considered to have established a fixed time when she will menstruate. The next seven days are considered as yemei Nidah, the days in which she is expected to menstruate. "Any blood that is discovered between one fixed time that a woman can be expected to menstruate and the next fixed time that she can be expected to menstruate is the blood of zivah. It is a halachah transmitted to Moses on Sinai that there are no more than eleven days between one menstrual bleeding and another." Thus this cycle continues every eighteen days (seven days of Nidah and eleven days of zivah). Now if an infant menstruates on the day she was born and then experiences uterine bleeding on the eighth, ninth, and tenth days, she could be considered as a major zavah.

In Chapter 3, it is explained that a man who has sexual relations with a woman in the nidah state contracts her impurity and himself becomes a source of impurity. In Halachah 6 of that chapter, it is explained that until a girl reaches the age of three, sexual relations with her are not significant and he does not contract that severe form of impurity.

I.e., if he experiences two or three different emissions that day.

I.e. Canaanite servants even before they are freed. Although non-Jews cannot contract impurity according to Scriptural Law (Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:13), Canaanite servants are considered to have left that category in this context. See Chapter 2, Halachah 10.

See Hilchot Ishut 2:14 for a more specific definition of these terms.

Even though there is no concept of such a person contracting ritual impurity because of the release of semen, he may contract ritual impurity because of a zav discharge.

The literal meaning of the terms used by the Rambam, quoting Zavim 2:1, is: "A woman does not become impure because of a white [discharge], nor a man because of a red [discharge]." This wording is also used in the following halachah.

A person whose gender is masked by a piece of flesh.

A person who possess both male and female genital organs. As explained in Hilchot Ishut 2:24-25, with regard to a tumtum, his gender is not known and with regard to an adrogynus, there is an unresolved halachic question how to classify such a person. Hence, the stringencies applying to both males and females are applied.

Based on the ruling in Halachah 6, since the gender of these individuals is undetermined, it cannot be said that they definitely contract impurity because of a discharge or bleeding. For this reason, when they purify themselves from this impurity, they bring a sacrifice, but it is not eaten (Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 3:7).

It is forbidden to partake of terumah and sacrificial food that contracted impurity and they must be burnt. On the other hand, it is forbidden to destroy terumah and sacrificial foods that are pure (Nidah 28a). Hence, in this situation, these foods may not be eaten for perhaps they have contracted impurity, nor may they be destroyed, for perhaps they have not.

For lashes if they entered intentionally, or for a sacrifice, if they entered unintentionally.

For the food has definitely contracted impurity.

This charge reflects the mitzvah to send impure people out from the Sanctuary in the desert — and later from the Temple. See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:1.

And since in this instance, there is a question concerning the person’s gender, the halachic consequences usually associated with this impurity do not apply.

And thus seemingly, he would contract impurity, from either one or the other. For touching such a secretion imparts impurity, as stated in the following halachah.

It must be emphasized that the person who touched the secretions must regard himself as impure and is forbidden to enter the Temple or touch or partake of sacrificial food. Nevertheless, he is not held liable for these transgressions, for the reason stated above.

The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's ruling, questioning why there should be a difference between another person touching these secretions and the tumtun or the androgynus touching the secretions. He maintains that the Rambam's ruling is based on a misunderstanding of the Tosefta (Zavim 2:1). The Ra'avad explains that the Tosefta is clarifying merely that if a tumtun or an androgynus touch a zav discharge and uterine bleeding from another person, they are liable if they enter the Temple or partake of sacrificial foods. There is no need, he maintains, to reach the ruling delivered by the Rambam to explain the Tosefta. The Kessef Mishneh agrees with the Ra'avad's understanding and maintains that possibly the Rambam's words could be interpreted that way.

The impurity contracted is, however, minor. The person can immerse that day and is pure after nightfall.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 5:7 which mentions “red, black, bright saffron, [the color of] muddy water, and [the color of] diluted wine.”

We have translated the term yarok as green, because that is the popular translation. In this context, however, the intent is often a saffron or yellow.

The Noda B’Yehudah (Vol. II, Yoreh De’ah, responsum 97) states that this halachah is referring to a woman who was already impure due to nidah or zivah bleeding. Hence, the only question is with regard to the status of the fluid itself: Does it impart impurity to foods or the like that it touches or not? And the Rambam proceeds, stating that it does not for the reasons he explains. The Noda B’Yehudah states that were the woman not to be impure, such a secretion would cause her to contract the lesser impurity mentioned in Halachah 1, because the uterus is a place of impurity.

As stated in Halachot 15-16, the saliva and other fluids secreted by a woman when she is in a state of impurity are impure and impart impurity to others. From this phrase, the Noda B’Yehudah (op. cit.) concludes that this entire halachah is speaking about a woman who was already impure due to Nidah or zivah bleeding.

I.e., rather than flow out through the vagina, it was released through the place of the incision.

The parenthetic additions are necessary, for a woman who suffers ordinary bleeding because of a wound in her uterus has not contracted the impurity associated with a niddah (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 8:14). For that impurity applies only to blood that is impure which collects in the uterus. Nevertheless, as evident from the halachot here, the intent there is not that the woman is entirely pure. She contracts the impurity that remains until the evening. The Rambam does not mention that there, because there he is focused primarily on purity vis-á-vis her relations with her husband (Noda B’Yehudah, op. cit.).

I.e., if the blood flows out without touching the outer portions of her body. The fact that it touched the inner portions of her body is not significant.

The rationale is that the uterus is a place of impurity. Since it will certainly have touched a portion of the woman’s body, she becomes impure. Her impurity is not, however, the severe impurity of nidah or zivah, but a lesser form.

Since the fluid emerged from the uterus, the woman contracts impurity when she discharges it. Although it is not considered blood and therefore does not render her impure for seven days, it does render her impure until the evening.

See Halachah 8 and notes.

It is not certain that it came from the uterus. Hence it does not render the woman impure (Nidah 41b).

As explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 2:6, when a person experiences one zav discharge, it is considered as a seminal discharge and he is not yet considered to have contracted the more severe zav impurity. If he has one other similar discharge, he is considered a lesser zav and if he has a third discharge, he is considered a zav in the complete sense of the term.

It does, however, impart impurity when touched, as semen does.

A child is considered as one below the age of thirteen. Now to consider a minor’s discharge as semen is somewhat questionable, for generally a minor, particularly one of a young age, is incapable of producing semen. Indeed, the Ra’avad questions the Rambam’s wording, noting that the semen of a minor imparts impurity only after the minor reaches the age of nine. (The Rambam states that concept in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 5:2.) He, nevertheless, explains that the Rambam’s fundamental thrust: that a minor can become impure because of a zav discharge is found in the Sifra.

In Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 2:10, the Rambam writes that this refers to an instance when "the time that elapsed from the beginning of the discharge until its end was as long as it takes to immerse oneself and dry or longer."

I.e. in contrast to others whose first discharge does not impart impurity when carried, as stated in the previous halachah, the laws pertaining to a zav discharge by a person afflicted with tzara’at are more stringent.

The Rambam’s ruling here sheds light on the manner he supports his rulings throughout the Mishneh Torah. The concept stated by the Rambam is found in Bava Kama 25a, except that there, our Sages use this logic only with regard to the semen of a zav, but not with regard to his urine. The impurity of that is derived in another source (Nidah 56a) through the exegesis of verses. The Rambam maintains that the rationale stated with regard to semen also applies with regard to urine and is more straightforward than the exegetic proofs. Hence he cites it.

See Halachah 14.

The Ra’avad agrees that they do not impart impurity when touched, but states that they do impart impurity when a revi’it of them is swallowed. The Rambam mentions this law in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 8:10-11.

Ibid. 7:2. See also Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 4:18.

And is only a derivative of impurity and not a primary source. We do not say that it becomes mixed with his saliva or urine.

As evident from Chapter 1, Halachah 15, this law also applies with regard to the saliva or the urine of any of the three women mentioned above.

The Ra’avad maintains that unlike flesh from a dead animal or a lizard (see Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 1:13, 4:12), these entities do not need to soak a full 24 hour period. The Kessef Mishneh acknowledges that there is a logical basis for the Ra’avad’s view, but maintains that the Rambam’s perspective is supported by Nidah 54b.

I.e., the water cooled over the course of the day.

Even without touching it. As explained in Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:6, when an object imparts impurity when carried, it also imparts impurity when moved even when it was not touched.

While spinning flax, a woman will often moisten the strands with her saliva to hasten the process. Nevertheless, unless it was known that the flax was still moist, we assume that the saliva dried.

Although some vapor from his mouth is deposited on the cup, it evaporates and nothing significant remains.

I.e., we assume that some of his saliva mixed with the liquid that remains in the cup.

Because the liquid from the mouth will not become mixed with a dry entity. The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling and maintains that in these cases as well, some of the liquid from the mouth of the zav will be deposited on these substances. The Kessef Mishneh, however, substantiates the Rambam’s ruling.

Apparently, the shells were cracked open by biting them.

I.e., according to Rabbinic Law, as stated in Halachah 10.

If the majority of people who bring these shells to the marketplace are Jewish, we assume they are pure. If the majority are gentile, we consider them impure

I.e., uterine bleeding of any of the three women mentioned in Halachah 1.

I.e., red wine in which the blood would not be distinct.

I.e., we estimate whether this volume of blood would be visible in a volume of water equal to the volume of the wine and/or pure blood.

From a zav or any of the three women mentioned.

I.e., we estimate whether this volume of saliva would be visible as a distinct entity in a volume of water equal to the volume of the pure saliva.

I.e., white wine or very strong red wine in which the urine would not be distinct.

As mentioned in Halachah 5, gentiles are considered as Zavim according to Rabbinic decree. Nevertheless, since this categorization is Rabbinic in origin, leniency is granted regarding mixtures of their urine and the like. Hence, as long as the majority of the mixture is pure, the entire mixture is considered as pure.

Our translation is based on authentic manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The version in the standard printed text reads “a urinal.” As mentioned in several sources, urine was used as a detergent in the Talmudic era.

And therefore impure.

It can be assumed that it was mixed with some of the impure urine that was originally there. The commentaries have questioned this ruling based on Halachah 6, for certainly, on the second occasion the urinal was washed, there was not enough impure urine to be visible as a distinct entity. Nevertheless, it can be explained that, in the instance described here, since the urine is intentionally being saved, it is considered as significant until it is washed out entirely.

And her urine would be pure.

Which concludes the immersion process for a woman and changes her status.

Which is impure.

Both males and females.

Since servants and maidservants have undergone certain elements of the conversion process, they are considered as Jews in certain contexts (see Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:11), among them, the laws of ritual purity and impurity. Needless to say, these laws apply to servants and maidservants who have been freed.

See Nidah 34a.

For from these ages onward, the child’s sexual activity is significant (see Chapter 3, Halachah 3, and Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 1:13).

See ibid. 22:5.

I.e., making this one distinction would make people conscious of the larger halachic difference.

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.

Our translation follows the version found in authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a different, and difficult to comprehend, version.

For lashes if one acted intentionally, or for a sacrifice, if one acted unknowingly.

In contrast, blood from a Jewish woman’s uterine bleeding imparts impurity even after it has dried, as stated in Halachah 1.

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.