Issurei Biah - Chapter Eight

I.e., the onset of menstruation is not associated with a specific physical symptom, as stated in Halachah 2.

From the Rambam’s wording, it appears 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 these two 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.

For these physical symptoms to be considered as a veset, they must be repeated three times before the onset of menstruation (Niddah 63a).

Chapter 4, Halachah 16. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, most other authorities differ with the Rambam with regard to these requirements.

The Tzemach Tzedek notes that Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:6 states that a woman may touch ritually pure articles during the time her veset is expected. It is only when she actually discovers bleeding that she transmits ritual impurity to these articles. He explains the difference between that law and the laws governing relations based on Shulchan Aruch HaRav 189:97 by saying that we fear that relations will cause menstruation to come earlier.

I.e., the seven “days of niddah” and the eleven “days of zivah.”

The commentaries have noted somewhat of a difficulty with the Rambam’s statements. As he stated in Chapter 6, according to his conception, the cycle of niddah and zivah begin again after eighteen days. Now what if a woman has a 20 day cycle or a 25 day cycle? According to the Rambam’s statements here it would seem that “days of niddah” and the “days of zivah” should be counted from the day of the veset, i.e., each 20 days or 25 days.

The Maggid Mishneh interprets this law as speaking about the intervals between the onset of menstruation (veset haflagah).

The twentieth is forbidden because as the Rambam continues to explain, once a veset has been established, it is not uprooted until it passes three times without the woman menstruating. The twenty-third is forbidden, because since she began menstruating on that day, we fear that she will begin menstruated upon it in the following month. See also Halachah 8.

For the same reasons as stated in the previous note.

I.e., she is no longer forbidden to engage in relations on that day.

According to the Maggid Mishneh, the “jumping” mentioned in the following clause illustrates this principle. The ‘’jumping” is an external factor that is not dependent on a woman’s internal physical pattern. Even if on three separate occasions, a woman menstruates as a result of”jumping,” she is not considered to have established a fixed veset. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De‘ah 189: 17) quotes this principle. The Rama quotes the Hagahot Maimoniot which state that although the jumping is not regarded with the severity of a fixed veset, it is considered as an irregular veset. Until a situation passes when the woman does not menstruate after jumping, she is forbidden to engage in relations afterwards. The Tur rules that even an external factor can cause a veset if a pattern recurs on three consecutive occasions.

Perhaps “jumping” can be interpreted as “undergoing strenuous exercise” which could be considered as a cause for hastening the onset of menstruation.

I.e., the day of menstruation is not counted in the interval.

The Maggid Mishneh deals with question what would happen if the woman jumped and menstruated on Sunday for a third consecutive time. Would her veset be established for the interval only in connection with jumping? Or would the interval itself be considered as a veset?

Even though she jumped on the previous day, that jumping is not considered as significant and is not associated with her monthly pattern. Note the Maggid Mishneh ‘s explanation of the approach of the Rashba which differs.

There must be four months in the cycle, so that there are three months during which she advanced a day. In such a situation in the fifth month, she must expect to menstruate on the nineteenth.

For she did not increase a day in the fourth month.

I.e., on the seventeenth of the month. She does not have to be concerned with the fifteenth and the sixteenth. Since she did not begin menstruating on that day in the month which followed it, she need not be concerned· with it any longer.
This requirement applies to any woman who does not have a veset kevua, a fixed time when she is known to begin menstruating. According to the halachah at present, a woman
in such a situation must refrain from relations on three occasions: the day or the night of the date of the month on which she menstruated in the previous month, the day or the night which matches the interval between her onset of menstruation in the previous month and that of the month which preceded it, the day and the night of the thirtieth day since the onset of menstruation.

On one occasion.

On the fifteenth because of the existing pattern, and on the sixteenth because of her menstruation in the previous month. The point of this halachah is that when a woman deviates from an established veset, she must show concern both for that established veset and for the date (and interval) resulting from the previous month.

Because it must pass three times without her menstruating upon it.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions the Rambam's ruling. Seemingly, in this instance, since she increased by one day each month, she established a fixed veset according to that pattern. Thus in the following month, she must show concern over the nineteenth.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that in addition to showing concern for the nineteenth, the woman must show concern for the eighteenth, since this was the day on which her menstruation actually began. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 189:7), however, he does not mention this point.

The twentieth as a fixed veset and the twenty-second because of the deviation in the previous month.

And it must be bypassed on three new occasions to be uprooted. As long as the veset is not uprooted by being bypassed on three successive months, it becomes reaffirmed when the onset of menstruation recurs on it once.

According to the Rambam’ s interpretation of “days of niddah,” the interpretation of this ruling is straightforward. Once a woman has discovered bleeding in her “days of niddah,” she cannot establish a veset on any of her other days of niddah. According to the interpretation of the Ramban, the explanation is somewhat more complex. See the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. Similarly, with regard to the other instances mentioned in this halachah, the explanation according to the approach of the Ramban - which as stated previously is accepted as halachah by most authorities - the explanation differs from that of the Rambam.

The same laws would apply if she discovered bleeding only once during her “days of zivah” (without the phenomenon recurring three times). Perhaps the Rambam’s intent is to emphasize that even if the phenomenon recurs three timmes, it can be uprooted when it is bypassed once.

As described in the following halachah.

I.e., since it is unlikely that she will menstruate on these days, we treat any veset that has been established as an extraordinary event. Although she must take it into consideration, it can be uprooted easily.

Like a niddah, she is forbidden to engage in relations for seven days.

Our translation follows an emendation of the text based on authoritative manuscripts. See the Noda B‘Yehudah, Vol. II, Responum 93, which explains this version.

I.e., because of the doubt concerning her status, she is given both the stringency applying to a niddah - she is forbidden for seven days after even one sighting of blood - and the stringency associated with a zavah - she must count seven “spotless” days if she sights bleeding for three consecutive days (Maggid Mishneh).

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 184:1) interprets the Rambam’s ruling as not applying immediately before relations. (For if she inspects herself before relations, her husband might think there is reason to refrain from relations.) At present, however, Rabbis have counseled woman not to inspect themselves unless there is a reason. For at times, the inspection itself can cause bleeding. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 16.

For it is unlikely for her to menstruate then.

When it is likely for her to menstruate.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text reads “If she forgot and did not...”

For we do not suspect that she became impure unless she actually discovers bleeding. Slightly different principles apply with regard to the veset on which she can be expected to begin menstruation arrives as explained in the following halachah and notes.

The initial and preferred course of conduct is that when a veset passes without a woman discovering uterine bleeding, she should inspect herself to ensure that this is so.

Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 3:5. There it is explained that since she discovered bleeding afterwards, we assume that she menstruated at the expected time and became impure.

A man who engages in relations with a niddah becomes impure. Nevertheless, a man who engaged in relations with a woman between the time of her veset and the time she discovered the bleeding is not placed in this category. For although we suspect that the woman became impure, there is no certainty that indeed this took place.

woman who is a niddah remains impure for seven days. These seven days do not begin from her veset, but from the time when she actually discovered the bleeding.

For although we suspect that menstruation will begin on the veset, if there is no evidence that this indeed happened, we do not assume that it did.

The basic principle upon which this law is based is stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 20. In this halachah, the Rambam is merely clarifying that the fact that a woman has a fixed veset does not change the basic position.

Chapter 3, Halachah 9. I.e., according to Scriptural Law, a woman is not impure until she actually discovers bleeding. Our Rabbis ordained that she should show concern for her veset, but they also limited the extent of that concern as reflected in the above laws.

Since she cannot see, she obviously cannot inspect the eid, the cloth used for the examination. The Rambam (based on Niddah 13b) is emphasizing that she is relied upon to carry out a thorough internal examination.

Who is considered the same as a mentally incapacitated individual. If, however, she is merely deaf or mute, she is considered as a mentally capable individual [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 196:8)].

For these women cannot be relied upon to carry out a proper internal examination themselves.

A word of clarification is necessary. Our Rabbis ordained a marriage arrangement for deaf-mutes. They did not, however, ordain such an arrangement for mentally or emotionally incapable individuals.

Although in this and the following halachah, the Rambam uses the term veset, the intent of the term in this context is reflected by our translation.

I.e., she must observe both the stringencies incumbent on a niddah and those incumbent on a zavah as the Rambam continues to explain.

Before purifying herself as is required of a niddah.

See the following halachah.

Days of niddah.

Days of zivah.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that according to the Rambam’s understanding of these terms, it is somewhat difficult. For as stated above, the Rambam maintains that from the first time a woman menstruates her “days of niddah” are set. Nevertheless, in this situation, the Rambam maintains that, rather than leave a woman in a situation where she is continuously in doubt, our Sages advised her to begin counting “her days of niddah” anew from the time she menstruated.

I.e., and therefore she must keep both sets of stringencies as mentioned above. The rationale for this ruling is that it is possible that the bleeding took place in her “days of zivah.” But, as the Rambam continues to explain, it is possible that this is not the case.

The same ruling obviously applies if she discovers bleeding for from five to eight days. It is unnecessary for the Rambam to state this, because it is readily apparent. The Rambam feels it necessary to mention nine days, because this includes a new concept: that we allow for the possibility that she was bleeding for all seven days of niddah. Thus in addition to these seven days, we add two days of zivah.

The same ruling obviously applies if she discovers bleeding for ten days. It is unnecessary to mention, for the rationale is the same as for eleven days.

And her “days of niddah” begin when they are completed.

The number of days necessary for her to be considered a major zavah.

I.e., this is sufficient for her to correct her reckoning.