Mikvaot - Chapter 2

I.e., are considered as objectionable and hence disqualify an immersion.

The fluid that collects on the eyelashes and in the comers of the eyes [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:2)]. See Halachah 20. See also Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:4. See also Turei Zahav 198:3 who mentions opinions that rule leniently for others, aside from a married woman.

Our translation is based on Rav Kappach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). The standard published text renders the term as a scab. See Halachah 20. Fluid secreted by a wound, by contrast, is not considered an intervening substance. See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:9 and commentaries.

See Halachah 20 and notes.

See Psalms 40:3.

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 198:14) writes that if a woman would object to the presence of such mud, it is considered an intervening substance.

Because they will not dissolve in water.

For, when moist, they will dissolve.

For they are more viscous and will not dissolve even when moist.

A limb or flesh that has been dislocated to the extent that it is no longer functional, but instead is like dead flesh.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Y osef Caro offers two interpretations for this law: a) since the limb is dislocated and non-functional, it is considered as if it is detached from the body. Nevertheless, since in fact, it is not detached, it is considered as intervening between the person’s flesh and the water; b) the intent is not that the limb is itself an intervening substance, but that an intervening substance on such a limb is considered significant.
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 298:22), however, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rambam’s words verbatim, seemingly, tending to the first interpretation.

For a man, by contrast, these stringencies do not apply (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:6).

See Chapter 1, Halachah 10. Here the term refers to the genital area. As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaot 9:2), a woman frequently has vaginal secretions that she will consider objectionable. For a married woman, this is significant, for this might displease her husband.

The Turei Zahav 198:10 emphasizes that this applies to all married women, even one who is personally not fastidious about cleanliness.

Who is immersing for reasons connected with ritual purity alone, e.g., to partake of terumah or sacrificial food.

Fastened there to hold the portions of the bone in place.

Because they will prevent water from touching the flesh.

The Siftei Cohen 198:28 quotes the Bayit Chadash who rules that even loose bandages and metal plates are considered as intervening substances, because they prevent water from reaching the flesh.

Or the person’s hair and the water [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:1)]. See Hilchot Shahbat 19:6 where these laws are also mentioned.

Covering or intermingled with her own hair. See ibid.:9. See also Halachot 7 and 16 and the notes to them.

If, however, the strands of hair are coated with gold or are dirty, they are considered as intervening substances (Rama, Yoreh De’ah 198:4).

And hence, water will be able to seep below the strands.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikvaot 9:2), the Rambam explains that this refers to hairs that will become stuck together because of sweat and dirt.

From the Siftei Cohen 198:9, it appears that the rationale is that people find tangled hair in these places objectionable.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 10:8), this law was originally stated with regard to an arrow shot into a person’s flesh. Nevertheless, the concept has many contemporary applications with regard to surgical inserts into a person’s flesh.

Certainly, this applies if it is covered by flesh [Tur (Yoreh De’ah 198)]. This applies even if the arrow is visible under the skin (Turei Zahav 198:15; Siftei Cohen 198:17).

I.e., to regain purity, a person must immerse and then wait until nightfall.

For the person does not contract impurity from the arrow, as the Rambam proceeds to state.

Hilchot Tum’at Meit 20:1-2.

Human or animal.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that these cracks are considered as “hidden areas” of the body. As stated in the following halachah, although water need not enter these hidden areas, it must be possible for water to enter them.

Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

The Tosefta (Mikveot 8:5) states that such a situation actually occurred and five elders considered· the matter and ruled that the hairs were an intervening substance.

For we assume that it will be washed away in the water.
When quoting this law in his Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:45, R. Yosef Caro also mentions a more stringent view that disqualifies such an immersion unless the person rubs his feet or immerses in hot water.

For every portion of the surface of a person or an implement that is immersed must be in contact with the water of the mikveh.

When quoting this law in his Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.:28, R. Yosef Caro rules that if the person holding the person or the implement loosens his hand, the immersion is acceptable. As noted by the Turei Zahav 198:27 and the Siftei Cohen 198:35, although there are authorities who, like the Rambam rule stringently, in practice, the lenient view is accepted.

The Shulchan Aruch gives the rationale for this ruling: When immersed in the mikveh, the water on the hand of the holder becomes part of the mikveh. As emphasized by the Turei Zahav 198:28, it is not necessary that he dip his hand in the mikveh, for any water that comes in contact with the mikveh is considered as joined to it.

With this phrase, the Rambam was explaining why the immersion is unacceptable, even if the woman’s body was inspected after she emerged from the water and no trace of mud was found. As stated, it is possible that at the time her entire body was immersed, there was mud present and, afterwards, it was washed off.

In all these instances, the fear is that the water could not come in contact with every part of the woman’s hair or body.

For this reason, it is customary for a woman to brush — and floss — her teeth thoroughly before immersion. See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:24.

And thus may engage in intimacy with her husband.

As stated in Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:14-15, the spittle of a nidah (and that of a zav, a zavah, and a woman after childbirth) is a primary source of impurity and imparts impurity to all who come in contact with it. Hence, since the woman's spittle was on the coin and she came in contact with the coin, she contracts impurity (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., both a male and a female.

Note, however, the following halachah.

In contrast to the “hidden parts,” i.e., the genital area of a woman, as stated in Halachah 3. Unlike a woman, a man is less careful about the cleanliness of that area.

Produced as a result of sickness [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:4)].

As stated in Halachah 20, this leniency applies only when the secretion is moist. If it is dry and had changed color, it is considered as an intervening substance. See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions a statement in the Tosefta (Mikveot 6:5) which states that a loosely-hanging nail is not considered an intervening substance when its larger portion has been separated. Although there is room for the inference that when merely the lesser portion has been separated, it is considered an intervening substance, in that text, Rav Yosef Caro explains that the Rambam’s ruling can be reconciled with that source. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.:21, he rules that it is only when the larger portion of a nail has been separated that it is not considered as intervening.

In his gloss to the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:5, the Rama states that there is no difference whether the two hairs are tied with another hair or with themselves.

The Siftei Cohen 198:8 writes that even when a woman is not particular about such a situation, if people at large are, the knotted hair is considered an intervening substance.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 12.

This term refers to a ruling the Rambam reached through a process of deduction without any explicit prior Rabbinic source.
The Ra’avad states that the ruling of the Geonim should be adhered to. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro writes that, from the Talmudic sources, it is impossible to clarify which is the desired approach. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.:5, he accepts the approach of the Geonim.

We have used the commonly accepted translation of the term chofefet. It must, however, be noted that, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 7:3), the Rambam makes a distinction between being chofeif, which he translates as separating with one’s hand, and soreik, which he defines as meaning to comb out with a comb. It is, however, possible to explain that the term has different meanings, depending on the context. See also Halachah 18.

The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 199:3 has a slightly different conception of the optimum approach to following this ordinance:
As an initial preference, the combing out of her hair should be close to [a woman’s] immersion. A proper custom is for her to begin combing out her hair during the day and be involved in the combing until nightfall and then immerse.
The Turei Zahav 199:5 explains the reason why the Shulchan Aruch and others prefer that the preparations be carried out during the day. At night, the woman feels hurried and under pressure to immerse and will not comb out her hair thoroughly.

Because on the Sabbath, it is forbidden for a woman to comb out her hair.

The Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.:4 states that if a woman’s immersion is scheduled for Saturday night and thus it is impossible for her to comb out her hair during the day, she should comb out her hair on the night of her immersion. The Rama states that the desirable custom is for her to wash thoroughly on Friday and then comb out her hair briefly again on Saturday night.
Although it is not desirable, if it is necessary, e.g., because a festival comes directly before or directly after the Sabbath, a woman may comb out her hair even two or three days before her immersion. In such an instance, she should, however, take precautions that her hair does not become knotted or dirty afterwards. See Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.:6 for further details.

Or a man. Many of these laws are stated in the feminine form, because the most common halachically significant human immersion in the present age is that of a nidah.

I.e., washed and combed out her hair. In this instance, we have changed our translation of chafifah, because here the intent is that an intervening substance was found anywhere on the woman’s body, not only on her hair.

I.e., we assume that her preparations were thorough and there were no other intervening substances on her body at the time of immersion. Although the one substance did become attached to her body, that is considered a departure from the norm; she need not worry about other substances.
The Ra’avad protests the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that if the woman immersed directly after her preparations, she need not immerse again. Instead, it is assumed that her body was clean at the time of immersion and it was only afterwards that the intervening substance adhered to it. He further argues that if the immersion was not directly after the preparations, even if it was on the same day, if an intervening substance was found, the woman must both prepare and immerse again. If one intervening substance was found, it is possible that there might be others.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 199:10 follow the opinions that maintain that after a woman prepares herself for immersion, she must check her body to make sure that there are no intervening substances. Accordingly, they maintain that if she discovered an intervening substance after emerging from the mikveh, the immersion is considered valid, because it can be assumed that it adhered to her body afterwards. This applies as long as her immersion was carried out on the night (or day) that she prepared herself. Otherwise, she must immerse herself again. (The Shulchan Aruch also mentions the Rambam’s view, but appears to favor the first opinion.)

I.e., if her preparations had been made before the day preceding her immersion. In such an instance, we assume that, without her knowledge, an intervening substance adhered to her body between her preparation and the immersion.

For there might also be other intervening substances that adhered to her body without her knowledge.

We have used the common translation. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keilim 2:1), the Rambam defines the term as referring to a blue stone that becomes dissolved in water easily and which is used to clean hair and garments.

And the pieces of hair are intervening substances.

Our translation is based on the Aruch. Apparently, it was used as a soap.
Significantly, the standard published version of Nidah 66b, the Rambam’s source, state chol (sand), rather than ohel (oak sap). The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 199:2 follow the Rambam’s text.

The same law applies to other substances that snarl hair (Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.).

In his gloss to the Shulchan Aruch, op. cit., the Rama writes that these are all recommendations of initial preference. After the fact, if a woman washed her hair with these substances and saw that her hair was not tangled, her immersion is acceptable.

I.e., they are considered as intervening substances. Needless to say, if she washes her hands and checks them before immersion, the immersion is valid (Rama, Yoreh De’ah 199:13). If, however, she did not check her hands before immersion, the immersion is invalid, even if she checks them afterwards and does not see any intervening substances, for it is feared that the intervening substances fell off as she ascended (Shulchan Aruch, op. cit.). See also the notes to Halachah 22.

Within three days, the blood over the cut is still moist and has not hardened yet.

From an analysis of Mikveot 9:4, one of the Rambam’s sources, it appears that the blood coagulated over the wound is not the scab covering it, but blood that coagulated over the scab. In his Kessef Mishneh, R. Yosef Caro also follows such an understanding and, in this manner, resolves an objection of the Ra’avad. Such blood is an intervening substance with regard to involvement with pure foods, but not with regard to a woman’s relationship with her husband, as stated in Halachah 22.

In contrast to a moist secretion, as mentioned in Halachah 14.

Since it is unattractive, a woman will object to its presence and seek to remove it. Hence it is considered as an intervening substance.

This blue ointment serves both medicinal and decorative purposes.

Since it is not in the eye itself, it is not considered as decorative and is likely to be removed by a woman. Hence, it is considered as an intervening substance.

Because the movement of her eyes will cause the ointment to fall off. Thus nothing significant will remain (Rashi, Nidah 67a).

I.e., the points mentioned in Halachot 19-22.

The Rambam’s ruling is dependent on the version of Nidah 67a found in Rav Yitzchak Alfasi’s Halachot. The standard published text of that source, by contrast, has no allusion to such leniencies. The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 198:7-9, 198:38, and 199:13 does not accept this leniency.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, questioning why the Rambam equated the immersion of a convert to that of an impure person with regard to pure foods. The Kessef Mishneh substantiates the Rambam’s approach.

The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the gloss of Rashi and others to Chulin 10a, the Rambam’s source. Since the intervening substance was discovered on the person’s skin after he was involved with the intervening substance, there is reason to say it became attached to his skin only after the immersion and at the time of the immersion, he was pure.

The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 199:11 rules that if the person was involved with that substance after the immersion, we assume that the substance became attached to the person afterwards. The Siftei Cohen 199:16, however, maintains that the Rambam’s opinion is accepted by the majority of authorities.

Hence, since he was not certain that there were no intervening substances on his body before immersion, he is not considered to have emerged from impurity. For this reason, a woman in the nidah state should inspect her body before immersion. See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 199:6.