Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Introduction to Hilchos Metamme'ey Mishkav uMoshav

Included in this text are four positive commandments. They comprise the following:
1) the laws of the impurity of a woman in her menstrual state;
2) the laws of the impurity of a woman who gave birth;
3) the laws of the impurity of a zavah;
4) the laws of the impurity of a zav.

These mitzvot are explained in the ensuing chapters.

A zav, a zavah, a woman in the nidah state, and a woman after childbirth: all these four types of individuals are primary sources of impurity. They impart impurity to implements through touching them and impart impurity to other persons by touching them or carrying them. They impart impurity to the objects on which they lie, sit, or ride and cause them to also be considered as a primary source of impurity. And they impart impurity to the objects above them.

Whether a woman is a minor zavah or a major zavah, whether her bleeding is natural or comes as a result of an outside cause, and whether a zav experienced two zav emissions or three, her or his impurity is the same with regard to imparting impurity to others.

An infant girl one day old can contract nidah impurity. At ten days old, she can contract zivah impurity. A female of three years old can impart impurity to a man with whom she engages in relations, as will be explained.

A male minor can contract zav impurity at the age of one day. Converts, servants, and natural-born Jews are all the same with regard to contracting the impurity of nidah and zivah.

A person who was castrated or one who is born sexually impotent may contract impurity because of a zav discharge like other men.

A woman does not contract impurity because of a zav discharge, nor does a man contract impurity because of reddish discharge. Instead, only a woman contracts impurity because of reddish discharge, and a man, because of a zav discharge.

The stringencies applying to both males and females are applied to a tumtum and an androgynus. They contract impurity because of a zav discharge like a man and because of uterine bleeding like a female. Their impure status is a matter of question. Hence terumah or sacrificial food that they touch is not burnt, nor are they held liable for entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food in a state of impurity. If a zav discharge and uterine bleeding is secreted from such a person at the same time, terumah or sacrificial food that they touch is burnt. Nevertheless, they are not held liable for entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food in a state of impurity, as Numbers 5:3: "Male and female alike shall you send forth." Implied is that the impurity of a male must be definitive and the impurity of the female must be definitive.

Similarly, even if one touches a zav discharge and uterine bleeding from such a person simultaneously, he is not liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity or for partaking of sacrificial foods in such a state. If a tumtum and an androgynus himself touched both a zav discharge and uterine bleeding that secreted from him, he is liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity.

Even the slightest amount of the blood of nidah, the blood of zivah, or the blood of a woman who gave birth imparts impurity when touched or carried, as implied by Leviticus 15:33: "A woman who suffers because of her nidah state and one who experiences a flow...." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught her secretion imparts impurity like she does.

We already explained with regard to the prohibition of a nidah, that there are five shades of impure bleeding experienced by a woman. If, however, she secretes a green blood-like discharge, it is pure. It does not resemble her saliva or other fluids that she discharges. The difference is that saliva collects and is discharged as drops, while this flows out and descends.

When a woman gives birth to a child through Cesarean section and uterine blood was released from her body together with the child, that blood is a primary source of impurity like the blood of nidah, childbirth, or zivah. The rationale is that the uterus is a place of impurity for all blood that emerges from it. The woman is ritually pure unless the blood flows out through her vaginal channel.

When the uterus of a woman is ripped away from its place and falls to the earth, the woman is impure until the evening. Similarly, if the uterus discharged two pearl-like drops of fluid, the woman is impure until the evening. She is, however, not a nidah unless she discharges one of the five types of blood that render her impure.

If a woman discharged one drop of a white fluid, she remains pure, for that certainly comes from outside the uterus.

The discharge of a zav is considered as a primary source of impurity like a zav himself, as implied by Leviticus 15:2: "His discharge is impure." Even the slightest amount of it imparts impurity when touched or when carried.

The first discharge of a zav does not impart impurity when carried. It is considered like semen. This applies whether it was discharged by an adult man or a male child. Similarly, any bed or seat on which such a person sat between the first discharge and the second discharge is pure, for one is not categorized as a zav until he experiences two discharges, as we explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah. If he experiences one discharge that lasts as long as two, only one who moves the last drop contracts impurity.

The first zav discharge of a person afflicted by tzara'at imparts impurity when touched or when carried, as implied by Numbers 5:2: "All those afflicted with tzara'at, every zav, and all those impure because of contact with a corpse." The verse establishes an association between a person afflicted with tzara'at and zav in the complete sense of the term. Just as the discharge of a zav in the complete sense of the term imparts impurity when carried, so too, even the first discharge of a person afflicted with tzara'at imparts impurity.

The saliva, semen, and urine of a zav - all three of them are a primary source of impurity according to Scriptural Law. Even the smallest amount of each of them imparts impurity when touched or carried. These concepts are derived as follows. With regard to the saliva of a zav, Leviticus 15:8 states: "When a zav will spit upon a pure person,... he shall be impure until the evening." And it is impossible that the urine or the semen of a zav will not have some drops of his zav discharge.

The same laws that apply to a zav apply also to a nidah, a woman after childbirth, and a zavah. The saliva and the urine of each of them is a primary source of impurity like that of a zav. Similarly, whenever the term zav is used in these laws, the intent is either a zav or one of the other three.

There are nine types of fluids produced by a zav. Three of them are primary sources of impurity: his saliva, his semen, and his urine. Even the slightest amount of them imparts ritual impurity to a person or an implement, as we explained.

Three of them are considered as a derivative of impurity: tears, blood from a wound, and a woman's milk. Each one of these is considered as an impure fluid that does not impart impurity to humans, but does impart to implements according to Rabbinic Law, as will be explained. And there are three which are pure: sweat, puss, and feces. The laws that apply to these three fluids from a zav and the others like him are the same as when these fluids that are discharged by an ordinary person who is pure.

His phlegm, spittle, and mucus are considered like saliva in all contexts and they are included in the term saliva. When blood flows from the male organ or from the mouth, it is considered as the blood of a wound. If a person sucks a wound and spits out the blood, it imparts impurity like saliva does. For it is impossible that the blood that he sucks will not have drops of saliva.

Uterine bleeding of a nidah, a zavah, or a woman in childbirth, imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry. Nevertheless, the discharge of a zav, his saliva, and his semen impart impurity only when moist. If, however, they are overly dry, they do not impart impurity.

To what extent must these substances be dry not to impart impurity? If they would return to their natural state after being soaked in lukewarm water for 24 hours, they impart impurity as if they were moist. If they would not return to their natural state after this, they are considered as having been dried out, even if the water was lukewarm at the outset even though it was not lukewarm at the end of the 24 hour period. All of these matters are part of the received tradition.

When flax was spun by a woman in the nidah state, one who moves it is pure. If it was moist, it imparts impurity because of the saliva from her mouth.

When a zav places his mouth on a cup and then changes his mind and decides not to drink from it, one who moves the cup remains pure. If the zav drank even the slightest amount from it, a person who moves it is impure because of the liquid from the mouth of the zav.

When a zav bites into a piece of bread or an onion, a person who moves them is considered pure. If he bites into a zucchini or a cucumber, one who moves them is impure, because of the liquid from the mouth of the zav which becomes mixed with them.

When the shells of beans and vetch were cut off by a gentile, one who moves them is impure, because gentiles are considered like zavim in all contexts, as will be explained. The ruling concerning shells in the marketplace depends on the majority.

When impure blood becomes mixed with water, the entire mixture is pure if there is no appearance of blood. If such blood becomes mixed with pure blood and/or with wine, we consider the wine and the blood as if they were water.

Similar laws apply if impure saliva becomes mixed with water. If the saliva remains a viscous entity as is its natural state, it is impure. If it is reduced to nothing in the water and it is no longer visible as a distinct entity, everything is pure. If it becomes mixed with other saliva, we consider the pure saliva as if it was water.

Similarly, when the urine of such an impure person becomes mixed with water, if it is no longer visible as a distinct entity, the entire mixture is pure. If not, it is impure. If it is mixed with wine or pure urine, we consider the wine or the pure urine as if it was water.

If the urine of a Jew becomes mixed with the urine of a gentile, the ruling is determined by the majority. What is implied? When there is a urinal into which both gentiles and Jews would urinate, if the majority of those who use the urinal are gentiles, all its contents are impure. If the majority are Jewish, all its contents are pure. If equal numbers use it, all its contents are impure. Similarly, if the urine of one gentile is mixed with the urine of one Jew, the ruling is determined by the majority.

Urine can be borrowed from Jews in all situations. We do not suspect that it is from a nidah, for Jewish women were not suspect to save their urine when in the nidah state.

When a urinal into which a zav or a zavah would urinate was washed once or twice, the fluid with which it was washed is deemed impure. After the third washing, whether it was washed with water or other urine, the fluid is pure, because it can be assumed that none of the impure urine remained.

When at the conclusion of the seven spotless days she is required to count, a zavah felt that she had already begun to urinate, but nevertheless contained herself, descended to a mikveh immersed herself, and only urinated after the immersion, the status of the urine is in doubt. It is unresolved whether we consider the urine as if it had emerged originally while she was a zavah or after it actually emerged when she is pure. Similarly, if a gentile woman who had already begun to urinate, but nevertheless contained herself, converted, immersed herself, and only urinated after the immersion, the status of the urine is in doubt. It is unresolved whether we consider the urine as if it had emerged originally and it is considered as the urine of a gentile woman or after it actually emerged, and is considered as the urine of a pure Jewish women.

Canaanite maidservants and servants contract impurity due to zivah, nidah, and childbirth, like Jews do. Gentiles, by contrast, do not contract impurity; not through zivah, nidah, or childbirth according to Scriptural Law, as can be inferred from Leviticus 15:2 which states: "Speak to the children of Israel and tell them: 'A man should he experience a discharge.'" Implied is that the children of Israel contract impurity through zivah, but not the gentiles.

Our Sages, however, decreed that all gentiles impart impurity like zavim in all contexts, both males and females, provided the male is nine years old or more and the female is three years old or more. They did not decree that children under these ages contract impurity, for the primary reason for the decree is that a Jewish child will not be involved in sodomy with gentiles and there is no concept of sexual intimacy for children of younger ages.

When this decree was instituted, they did not decree against the semen of a gentile. Instead, the semen of a gentile is pure, as is its status according to Scriptural Law. Why was a decree not instituted to render it impure? To make it known that the gentiles' impurity is of Rabbinic origin. For everyone knows that if their status as zavim was Scriptural in origin, their semen would be impure like the semen of a zav. And since they know a gentile's impurity is of Rabbinic origin, they will not burn terumah and sacrificial food to which they imparted impurity.

Thus we can infer that all of the following: a gentile male's zav discharge, a gentile woman's nidah blood, her zivah blood, and the blood that comes at childbirth, a gentile man and a gentile woman, even though they are pure from any uterine bleeding and discharges, the saliva of gentiles, their urine, the couches on which they lie, the saddles on which they ride, and one who has relations with a gentile woman are all primary sources of impurity according to Rabbinic Law.

Therefore, one is not liable for entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food if one contracted impurity from one of these sources, nor is terumah burnt if it contracted impurity from such a source. All of them do, however, impart impurity to people and implements through physical contact and impart impurity to a person when carried as a zav does in all contexts. It is just that the impurity is of Rabbinic origin, as stated above.

Blood from a gentile woman's uterine bleeding is considered as her saliva and her urine and it imparts impurity when moist, but not when dry.

A person who has intimate relations with a nidah is impure like she is. He is one of the primary sources of impurity according to Scriptural Law. He imparts impurity to keilim by touching them and imparts impurity to people through carrying, touching, and moving, and he imparts impurity to the surface on which he lies or rides like a nidah does.

The status of the impurity imparted by a man who was intimate with a nidah to a surface on which one lies or rides is not the same as that imparted by a nidah to a surface on which one lies or rides. For a surface on which one lies or rides that was stepped on by a nidah is a primary source of ritual impurity. In contrast, a surface on which one lies or rides that was stepped on by a man who was intimate with a nidah is a derivative of ritual impurity like keilim that he touched which do not impart impurity to other people or to other keilim, only to foods and liquids.

Why is the impurity that he imparts of a lesser status than the impurity that she imparts? Because with regard to a man who was intimate with a nidah, Leviticus 15:24 states: "Her nidah impurity will be imparted to him and he will be impure for seven days" and continues: "Any surface on which he lies shall be impure." Now, since it is stated: "Her nidah impurity will be imparted to him," would it not be obvious that he imparts impurity to a surface on which one lies? Why then was it stated? According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught that the Torah removed it from the severe category of impurity in which it imparts impurity to people and keilim and placed it in a lesser category in which a surface on which he lies is a derivative and does not impart impurity to people and keilim, only to foods and liquids like other derivatives of impurity.

A man contracts the impurity of one who is intimate with a nidah or a zavah when he is intimate with such a woman or if he is intimate with a woman who is watching one day because of a day of impurity, or a woman after childbirth, whether the two engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse, whether he inserted only the corona or inserted the entire male organ, and whether it was an adult male who was intimate with a minor or a male minor who was intimate with an adult woman.

When does the above apply? When the male involved is at least nine years old and the woman involved at least three years old. If, however, either is younger than this, the male does not contract the impurity of one who has relations with a nidah, only that of one who touches a woman in the nidah state. His impurity is thus considered a derivative; he is not a primary source. Similarly, one who sodomizes a zav is considered as one who touches a zav. Also, the same laws that apply to one who touches a zav apply to a woman who is intimate with such a person.

All of the following - nidah, a zavah, a woman who is watching one day because of a day of impurity, or a woman after childbirth even if she did not experience uterine bleeding - contract impurity retroactively for a twenty-four hour period or until the last vaginal inspection the woman made. This is referred to as the twenty-four period of a nidah.

What is implied? A woman who did not have a fixed time when she would menstruate was pure. She made a vaginal inspection in the morning and found that she was pure. At noon, she made another vaginal inspection and discovered blood. Accordingly, any ritually pure entities that she touched between the first inspection and the second inspection are impure retroactively. Similarly, if she made a vaginal inspection one day and found herself pure and made another inspection two or three days afterwards and discovered uterine bleeding, all of the articles she touched within twenty-four hours before the inspection during which she discovered the bleeding are considered as impure retroactively.

A checking cloth used after intimacy is considered as a vaginal inspection, but one used before intimacy is not, because she does not make a thorough inspection with it.

A woman who has a fixed time when she menstruates and discovers uterine bleeding at that time is impure only from that time onward. She is not impure retroactively. If the fixed time when she menstruates arrives and she did not inspect herself and then inspected herself after the passage of several days and discovered uterine bleeding, she is considered as impure retroactively and is assumed to be a nidah from the fixed time that she usually menstruates. This is the impurity associated with the fixed time for menstruation referred to universally.

If the woman discovered that she was pure when she inspected herself after her fixed time for menstruation, she is pure.

Whenever a woman has a fixed time during which she menstruates, she will also experience physical symptoms at the onset of menstruation, e.g., she will yawn, sneeze, feel heaviness and strain at the opening to her stomach and lower body, become overcome by trembling, or feel that her head and limbs are heavy, or the like.

There are women whose pattern is to experience bleeding immediately after one of these physical symptoms begins. And there are other women who will wait, and continue experiencing these symptoms for an hour or two and experience bleeding only at the end of the expected time. When a woman's pattern is to experience bleeding at the beginning of the expected time, any pure articles she touches during the expected time are impure. If her pattern is to experience bleeding at the end of the expected time, any pure articles she touches during the expected time are pure. She is only concerned about the articles she touched from the time she is accustomed to experience bleeding until she actually discovers bleeding.

When a woman discovers a bloodstain, she is retroactively impure until the time she made an inspection. Similarly, a garment on which a stain was discovered is retroactively impure.

Until when? Until such a time concerning which the woman says: "I checked this garment and it did not have a bloodstain." Even if she washed the garment, but did not inspect it, it is impure retroactively from before she washed it until the time when it was inspected. Even if a moist stain was found, she is considered impure retroactively until the time she made an inspection. The rationale is that there is reason to say that it was there previously and now water fell upon it and caused it to become moist.

A bloodstain discovered by any of the women who are impure only from the time they discover uterine bleeding onward is equivalent to the discovery of uterine bleeding and does not cause her to contract impurity retroactively.

Any of the women who contract impurity retroactively, whether they discovered uterine bleeding or a bloodstain, also impart impurity retroactively to surfaces upon which one lies or rides, causing them to impart impurity to a person or to garments. Similarly, their saliva and urine impart impurity retroactively. They even impart impurity retroactively to an earthenware container that is sealed closed.

They do not, however, impart the severe impurity associated with intimacy with a nidah to a man who is intimate with them. He is considered only as if he touched them. Whenever a woman discovers a bloodstain, a man who is intimate with her after she discovered the stain is considered impure as one who was intimate with a nidah.

When a fetus sticks out his hand from the womb of a pregnant woman, his mother contracts the impurity of a woman who gave birth.

The impurity of a woman whose fetus sticks out its hand, the impurity imposed retroactively for 24 hours or until the previous inspection that was mentioned, the impurity associated with the fixed time when a woman usually menstruates, and the ritual impurity associated with bloodstains are all Rabbinic decrees and were instituted because of a doubt. Therefore terumah and sacrificial foods are not burnt because of them. Instead, the ruling concerning them is held in abeyance. Similarly, the ruling concerning ordinary foods that were treated with the sanctity associated with sacrificial foods that contracted impurity from one of these sources is held in abeyance. Nevertheless, ordinary food that is treated with the sanctity associated with terumah and ordinary food from which challah has not yet been separated do not contract impurity from any of these sources, for they are Rabbinic decrees.

Thus one can conclude that: all of these women mentioned previously in this halachah, an object on which one lies or rides to which they imparted impurity, their saliva, their urine, one who is intimate with a woman who discovered a bloodstain after the bloodstain was discovered, one who was intimate with a woman after the fetus stuck out a limb and then returned it, are all primary sources of impurity according to Rabbinic decree.