Rambam - 1 Chapter 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.