Halakhah su Levitico 15:78

And understand for this reason the Torah describes the sanctification of the priests’ hands and feet, as Scripture says, “They shall wash their hands and feet, that they may not die.”⁹Ex 30:21. This washing Targum Onkelos (may his memory be a blessing) translates with a word that connotes holiness, even though in the other places where “they shall wash” is written, it is translated “they shall remove the dirt from” [va-yes’hun], but here he translated it “they shall sanctify” [va-yikadshun]. This is to explain that the priest used to sanctify his hand and his feet. With his right hand for his right foot and his left hand for his left foot, he would concentrate on “the ten” and make himself holy through their holiness, and draw upon the blessing from their blessedness, and with this thought in mind the priest would sanctify his hands and feet in the basin when he approached the altar. Thus the table is called an altar. For this reason they [the rabbis] were very severe with the punishment for someone who makes light of hand washing; he is to be “uprooted from the world.”¹⁰B.Sotah 4b. The severity of this punishment is because hand-washing hints at the thing upon which the whole world depends. So whoever makes light of “lifting” the hands (for washing) causes a washing that destroys the world. As it has been said, “wash before or be fed pig meat; wash after or a life might be lost.”¹¹B.Hullin 106a. Chavel explains this somewhat elliptical saying in his notes by bringing two stories. First, there was a Jewish shopkeeper who would sell kosher meat that he would cook and feed to a Jew, but when a gentile came into the store, he’d feed him trayf. But if a Jew came to eat and didn’t wash his hands, thinking he was a gentile, the storekeeper would feed him pig meat. As for the danger of not washing afterwards, Chavel retells the story of the man who entrusted his wife with purse of money, and then went out to the market without washing his hands after the meal. A wicked man came along who saw the husband give his wife the purse. He came to the woman and said to her, “Give me the purse that your husband gave you.” She replied to him, “Give me a sign” (i.e., that proved he know her husband and that he sent him). He told that he knew her husband just ate lentils (since he had seen them on her husband’s unwashed hands). So she gave him the purse. When her husband came home, she told him what happened, and he killed her! And this also was said about netilat yada’im: “whoever makes light of hand-washing will end up poor.”¹²B.Shabbat 62b. Wealth is accumulated by the work of one’s hands, and so it is written, “in all that you extend your hand to,”¹³Dt 15:10: “The Lord your God will bless you in all you do, and in all that you extend your hand to.” and blessings are linked to “the ten.” This is hinted at in “you shall surely set aside a tenth,”¹⁴Deut. 14:22. that is, “from ten [‘eser] so that you will become rich [tit-‘asher].¹⁵B.Ta’anit 9a, which interprets the Biblical Hebrew emphatic infinitive absolute construction: ‘iser te-‘aser (“you shall surely set aside a tenth”) as ‘eser te’asher (“ten will make you rich”), punning on the similar spelling and sound of ‘eser, “ten” and ‘osher, “wealth.” They proved that ‘osher –“wealth” – which is a shibboleth [“an ear of wheat” spelled with a shin] is from the ma’aser [“tithe” spelled with a sin] which is a sibboleth [that is, the letter shinin ma’aser is pronounced like the letter samekh in “sibboleth,” to hint that blessing and wealth is linked to “the ten” (the ten sefirot).¹⁶The point of the midrash is that ‘eser (ten) and ‘osher (wealth) are more or less equivalent, even though one is pronounced with an /s/, the other with a /sh/ sound. Of course this an allusion to the story in Judges 12 where the Gileadites used the word shibboleth as a password to distinguish their people from the Ephraimites, who could only pronounce it “sibboleth.” Though R. Bahya on the one hand seems to stress the interchangeability of shibboleth and sibboleth to make his point, I would not put it past him to be also hinting that knowing the equivalence of ‘eser, ‘osher, and the mystical secret of the connection between the ten sefirot and acquiring blessing is itself a sort of “shibboleth,” as it were. Having the wisdom to make these connections distinguishes the Torah scholars from those who don’t know or appreciate the secrets of the Torah and their benefits. Proof of this is in the birkat kohanim (the priestly) when they raise and extend their hands.¹⁷I.e., to draw down the blessings from the ten sefirot through their ten fingers. R. Bahya in effect implicitly associates the lifting of the ten fingers when to draw down blessing when one washes before eating at the table, to the blessings drawn down by the hereditary priests. It should become clear from this that the more a commandment requires this sort of thinking directed above, the greater the punishment for making light of it. This is like the issue of saying “Amen.” As great as one’s reward is for answering “Amen,” double is the punishment for making light of it. This is what our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash: “Everyone who is careful to answer “Amen” in this world deserves to answer “Amen” in the world to come.” David (peace be upon him) said, ‘Blessed is the Lord forever, Amen and Amen;’¹⁸Ps 89:53. ‘Amen’ in this world, and ‘Amen’ in the world to come. For everyone who answers ‘Amen’ deserves two worlds: this world and the world to come.¹⁹M. Tanhuma 96:7. And in the Temple, when The Name of God was spoken aloud as it is spelled, they did not answer “Amen.” But in the precincts of the Temple where it was not permitted to say it as it is spelled, they would say aloud “Amen” instead of The Name, because the word “Amen” hints at the letters of The Name.²⁰B. Berakhot 63a. The numerical equivalents for the names of God ADoNaY (65) and YHWH (26) when added together equal AMeN (91). Therefore, greater is the one who says “Amen” than the one making the blessing using a circumlocution for the actual name of God.²¹I.e., like saying “Adonai” instead of pronouncing YHWH. And everyone who makes light of saying “Amen,” their punishment is double in the circles of hell, that is, the circle called “a land whose light is darkness,”²²Job 10:22. which is lower She’ol. The prophet who spoke about those that make light of answering “Amen” referred to this when he said “They have forsaken Me, the Fount of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns which cannot even hold water.”²³Jer 2:13. But whoever answers “Amen” with its letters opens “the Fount” and draws out the flow of blessing. And accordingly the verse refers to those who make light of it when it says “hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns.” That is to say, they are punished with a double punishment, the one worse than the other.²⁴R. Bahya is picking up on the repetition of the word “cisterns” (be’erot) to hook his midrash. Thus you learn that the greater the reward is for doing something, the greater the punishment for not doing it. Now right after washing and drying his hands, he ought to eat, and so they said, “Right after washing his hands, ha-motzi’.²⁵B.Berakhot 52b, which actually says, “right after washing hands, the meal.”

Washing the hands, even though it is not explicitly commanded in the Torah, was given by our rabbis z”l the authority from a verse in the Torah, as it is written, “If one with a discharge, without having rinsed his hands in water, touches another person.”²⁶Lev. 15:11. In other words, this verse assumes that there was a requirement for the one with a discharge to wash his hands, but he didn’t do it. Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh said from here our rabbis z”l gave the command to wash hands the authority of the Torah. Washing hands, whether it’s before eating unconsecrated food or the terumah offering, is done up to where the wrist joint is connected to the palm of the hand.²⁷B. Hullin 106a-b, as understood by R. Bahya’s teacher, R. Shlomo ben Adret (according to Chavel). Chavel says he’s also following the R”IF (R. Yitzhak al-Fasi). Whatever applies to ritual immersion also applies to washing hands.²⁸Ibid., 106b. A person washing their hands in the morning can set the condition that it covers the whole day.²⁹Ibid., 106b-107a. Some have explained that this applies specifically to an exigent situation,³⁰E.g., Rabbenu Hananael, cited in R. Shlomo ben Adret in Torat Ha-Bayit 6.4 near the end.while others say even when it is not an exigent situation.³¹E.g., Maimonides and R. Shlomo ben Adret himself, ibid. One who washes his hands should not eat until he has wiped them dry, because anyone who eats without drying, it is as if he eats unclean bread, as it is said, “So shall the people of Israel eat their unclean bread.”³²Ez. 4:13; b.Sotah 4b. The word lahmam -“their bread”- is an acronym for lihot mayim – “wet with water.”³³I.e., “hands wet with water.” Ozar Geonim on b.Sotah 4b. Someone washing must raise their hands up, so that the water will not run back down below his wrists, and make his hands unclean all over again.³⁴B. Sotah 4b. Chavel says that this also means that one should only raise one’s hands after he’s dried them, so that the water above his wrists doesn’t drip back down afterwards and make his hands unclean again.

In order to understand the problem, we must first define the Biblical concepts of nidah and zavah.³For a full introduction to these concepts, see Rav Pinchas Kehati’s commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:1) and Badei Hashulchan (Introduction to 183). Nidah refers to a woman who sees menstrual blood on a day when she expects it to flow (Vayikra 15:19). This flow renders her ritually impure and prohibits relations with her husband for seven days. Even if she continues to see blood all seven days, she may go to the mikvah and purify herself immediately after they end. On the other hand, if a woman sees uterine blood at an unexpected time, then she becomes a zavah. If the bleeding persists for three consecutive days, she must wait until all bleeding ceases. She then counts seven days before she may visit the mikvah (Vayikra 15:25-28). Thus, once a zavah sees blood for three consecutive days, the total time that she remains impure will always last at least three days longer than the seven-day nidah period.

In order to understand the problem, we must first define the Biblical concepts of nidah and zavah.³For a full introduction to these concepts, see Rav Pinchas Kehati’s commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 2:1) and Badei Hashulchan (Introduction to 183). Nidah refers to a woman who sees menstrual blood on a day when she expects it to flow (Vayikra 15:19). This flow renders her ritually impure and prohibits relations with her husband for seven days. Even if she continues to see blood all seven days, she may go to the mikvah and purify herself immediately after they end. On the other hand, if a woman sees uterine blood at an unexpected time, then she becomes a zavah. If the bleeding persists for three consecutive days, she must wait until all bleeding ceases. She then counts seven days before she may visit the mikvah (Vayikra 15:25-28). Thus, once a zavah sees blood for three consecutive days, the total time that she remains impure will always last at least three days longer than the seven-day nidah period.

While describing the purification of a man who ejaculated semen, the Torah (Vayikra 15:16) teaches, “He shall immerse all of his flesh in water and remain unclean until the evening.” The Gemara (Eruvin 4b) derives from the words “all of his flesh” that nothing may separate between the person’s flesh and the water.²For analysis of the requirement that all one’s flesh immerse in the water, see Rav Elyakim Krumbein’s essay in Alon Shevut (140-141:92-101). The Gemara limits this problem of separating flesh from water to objects that meet two conditions: they must cover a majority of the body, and the person must object to their presence there (rubo umakpid).³“Objecting” to something’s presence means that one is bothered by its presence while engaging in normal activities, such as working, bathing, or shopping. If, however, one worries about its presence only at the time of tevilah (due to one’s piety), then the object is not a chatzitzah (see Rav Binyomin Forst’s The Laws of Niddah 2:274). It adds, however, that the Rabbis legislated to invalidate a tevilah even when only one of these conditions exists, lest people erroneously permit chatzitzot that meet both conditions. If an object touches only less than half of the body and one does not mind its presence (mi’ut ve’eino makpid), then it does not even constitute a chatzitzah on a rabbinic level since it meets neither condition.

That is that He commanded us that any man who is healed from a discharge offer a sacrifice. And this is the sacrifice of the zav; and he is lacking [full] atonement until he offers it. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, "When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge [...]. On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves" (Leviticus 15:13-14). (See Parashat Metzora; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Those with Incomplete Atonement 1-3.)

That He prohibited any impure person from entering the Sanctuary (the Tabernacle) - and everything that is similar to it for [all] the generations: All of the courtyard and from the Gate of Nikanor onwards, which is the courtyard of the Israelites. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "so that they shall not render their camp impure" (Numbers 5:3). And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 14b), they said, "One who entered the Temple [while] impure - a punishment is written and a prohibition is written: The punishment - 'he has rendered impure the Tabernacle of the Lord, and that soul shall be excised' (Numbers 19:13). The prohibition - 'so that they shall not render their camp impure.'" And in the Mekhilta: "'Command the Children of Israel to send away from the camp' - is with a positive commandment. But from where [do we know] it is [also] with a negative commandment? You can say, 'so that they shall not render their camp impure.'" And the prohibition about this content has already been repeated with different language; and that His, may He be exalted, saying about a woman who has given birth, "and she shall not come into the sanctuary" (Leviticus 12:4). And in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Section 1:1), they said, "Because it is stated (Leviticus 15:31), 'And you shall separate the Children of Israel,' I would understand - whether [one enters] from its front or from its back and he is impure, he is liable. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and she shall not come into the sanctuary.'"And there it is explained that the law of a woman who has given birth and the law of other impure people is the same with regards to this. And they [also] said in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12:13-14), about His saying "But if he does not wash and does not bathe his body" (Leviticus 17:16), "How is this? For [failure in] the bathing of his body, the punishment is excision, but for [failure in] the washing of his clothes, it is with forty [lashes]. And from where [do we know] that it is speaking here of his rendering the sanctuary and its consecrated objects impure? It prohibited and punished, etc." Behold it has been made clear that one who transgresses this negative commandment - if he was intentional, he is punished with excision; and if he was inadvertent, he must bring a variable offering, as we explained in Commandment 72 of the Positive Commandments. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the beginning of Shevuot and in Horayot. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 3.)

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Zevachim 20b) that one who goes out of the wall of the yard requires sanctification of the hands. And that if he sanctified his hands today, he needs to go back and sanctify [them] tomorrow - even if he did not sleep the whole night - as the hands are disqualified by [passing the night]. And that the commandment is ideally to wash the face, the hands and the feet in the morning; that it is a commandment to sanctify with the water of the basin (Zevachim 22b), and that if he sanctified [his hands] from one of the serving vessels, it is fit, ex post facto - but not from a non-sacred vessel, even ex post facto. And that they do not put their hands into [the water], but we pour it over their hands - and this is also the way of honor. But we do not require this regarding the [washing] of the hands for non-sacred foods - to [wash] from a vessel and not into it. As even though we require a vessel for the [washing] for the non-sacred, and the foundation of the matter is because we found [the requirement] for a vessel by [washing] for the sanctified - nonetheless it is with the sanctified that the [Torah] excluded it, but with the non-sacred, there is no exclusion. And even though the [washing] for the non-sacred is by extension of the priestly tithe - and as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 106a), "By extension of the priestly tithe" - still we do not make them the same in all of their laws. And [so] it is enough for us to obligate [washing] and a vessel for the non-sacred - by extension of the priestly tithe - and to leave the exclusion [derived from] "from it," that is said about it in its place. And even about the priestly tithe itself, its [washing] of the hands is rabbinic; as by Torah writ, one only finds purity for the entire body at once, and that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 106a) that the [washing] is [derived] from that which is written (Leviticus 15:11), "and he did not wash his hands, etc." - that is just a memory device (asmakhta). And so is it written in the Sefer HaMitzvot of Ramban, may his memory be blessed (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Shoresh 1, s.v. beteshuvah hashenit).

That is that He commanded us that we immerse in the mikveh waters, and that we then become pure from one of the various types of impurities with which we have become impure. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "and he shall bathe in water" (Leviticus 15:16). And it comes in the tradition that it is water that all of one's body can enter, and that is the measurement of a mikveh - unless the waters are running waters, which have no measurement; as is explained in the analysis of this commandment. And it is among the stipulations specifically for the zav, that the waters that purify him be running - as in the Torah, it says, "living waters" (Leviticus 15:13). And the intention of the statement that immersion is a positive commandment is not that anyone impure is obligated to perforce be purified, in the same way that anyone covered by a cloak must make tzitzit, or anyone with a home must make a parapet. Rather what is intended is the law of immersion - and that is that the Torah told us that anyone who wants to be purified from his impurity will only complete it with immersion in water; and he will then be purified. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 5:3) is, "'And he shall bathe [...] in water' (Leviticus 16:26) - I might think that it is a decree of the King (that he must immerse). [Hence] we learn to say, 'and then he may come to the camp' - from his impurity." This hints to the principle that we have explained - that the law is only that anyone who wants to become pure do this. That is the law, and that is the commandment - and not that he be obligated perforce to immerse. Rather, anyone who wants to remain impure and not enter the camp of the Divine Presence for a certain time is allowed [to do so]. And it has already appeared in the books of truth that one who becomes impure and immerses is purified, but he does not complete his purification until the sun goes down for him. And it also appears in the accepted tradition that when he immerses, his naked flesh must be in contact with the water itself and that there not be anything separating between him and the water. Behold this commandment has been explained to you - and that is the commandment of immersion; and it includes the regulations of the mikveh, the regulations of bathing and the regulations of one who has immersed that day (before sunset). And this law is explained in Tractate Mikvaot and in Tractate Tevul Yom. (See Parashat Metzora Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools 1-11)

That is that He commanded us that we immerse in the mikveh waters, and that we then become pure from one of the various types of impurities with which we have become impure. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "and he shall bathe in water" (Leviticus 15:16). And it comes in the tradition that it is water that all of one's body can enter, and that is the measurement of a mikveh - unless the waters are running waters, which have no measurement; as is explained in the analysis of this commandment. And it is among the stipulations specifically for the zav, that the waters that purify him be running - as in the Torah, it says, "living waters" (Leviticus 15:13). And the intention of the statement that immersion is a positive commandment is not that anyone impure is obligated to perforce be purified, in the same way that anyone covered by a cloak must make tzitzit, or anyone with a home must make a parapet. Rather what is intended is the law of immersion - and that is that the Torah told us that anyone who wants to be purified from his impurity will only complete it with immersion in water; and he will then be purified. And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 5:3) is, "'And he shall bathe [...] in water' (Leviticus 16:26) - I might think that it is a decree of the King (that he must immerse). [Hence] we learn to say, 'and then he may come to the camp' - from his impurity." This hints to the principle that we have explained - that the law is only that anyone who wants to become pure do this. That is the law, and that is the commandment - and not that he be obligated perforce to immerse. Rather, anyone who wants to remain impure and not enter the camp of the Divine Presence for a certain time is allowed [to do so]. And it has already appeared in the books of truth that one who becomes impure and immerses is purified, but he does not complete his purification until the sun goes down for him. And it also appears in the accepted tradition that when he immerses, his naked flesh must be in contact with the water itself and that there not be anything separating between him and the water. Behold this commandment has been explained to you - and that is the commandment of immersion; and it includes the regulations of the mikveh, the regulations of bathing and the regulations of one who has immersed that day (before sunset). And this law is explained in Tractate Mikvaot and in Tractate Tevul Yom. (See Parashat Metzora Mishneh Torah, Immersion Pools 1-11)

The commandment of the matter of impurity of a zav (one with a discharge) to be impure and to render impure: That a zav be impure and render others impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 15:2-3), "when there be any man with a discharge from his flesh, etc." And the explanation comes, "from his flesh," is meaning a flow from the orifice of the member. And [it is] as they, may their memory be blessed, expounded, "'When there be a discharge' - it is possible, a discharge from any place would be impure. [Hence,] we learn to say, 'from his flesh' and not all of his flesh. Once Scripture has distinguished between flesh and flesh, I have merited to learn out the law of impurity with a zav and with a zavah. Just like a zavah is from the place that she become impure, etc."

It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] since God, blessed be He, distanced us greatly from the excesses and commanded us to be holy and righteous regarding food and drink and in all other matters of man. And there is no doubt that the matter of a discharge happens to a person from his constantly leaving the straight path in his foods and drinks. And that putrid, disgusting and impure excess develops in his body, from this. And it is like they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 2b), "It is the way of excessive drinking to lead to discharge." And the Torah informed us that a man who has this in him is called impure; and impurity is a general name for anything disgusting and vile. And in our distancing ourselves from this, we acquire the trait of righteousness and balance in all of our dispositions and in all of our abilities. And it is from this matter that he is not impure from one appearance. As that fluid has not [yet] become so strong in his body. And [so,] this small amount is not an indication of his being very habituated to leave the straight path. And since that is so, it is not fitting to render him impure with a small amount - as a person is built in a way that it is impossible for him to prevent himself from not leaving the straight line at all. But in his leaving it much, he will then be called guilty; and it is fitting that he should be impure. And even though they, may their memory be blessed said (Mishnah Zavim 2:2), "There are seven ways a zav is examined: with regard to food; drink; a load; a jump; illness; a sight; or [improper] thoughts" - meaning to say if it happened to him because of this, he is not impure - our argument is not contradicted by this. As the matter is that we need to examine if his discharge was by way of a one-time event and he should not be made impure for that; or whether it has become strong in his body from a bad habit to which he has become accustomed many times, and [so,] it is fitting to render him impure. And so did Ramban, may his memory be blessed, write (in Ramban on Leviticus 15:11) and this is his language: "And the reason for the impurity of the discharge is because of its being a heavy illness, from the contagious illnesses." To here [are his words]. And if it were from the angle of an event - meaning to say from one of the [seven] well-known ways - it would not be a contagious disease, and it would not be fitting to render him impure. And we only do this inspection with the second appearance, as there is no impurity of discharge without two appearances, as we said. As so did the true explanation come to us.

The laws of the commandment [includes] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said that the zav imparts impurity to the [place of] sitting, laying and riding in five ways, and these are them: standing, sitting, laying, hanging from and leaning. And the understanding of riding is that it is that board which is a vessel that is made for riding (to hold on to it) that is called artson (Rashi on Leviticus 15:9). As we cannot say that we sit upon it - as if so, it would be [the same as] sitting - and this is an obvious thing. And the rest of its many details are elucidated in the tractate that is built upon it, and that is Tractate Zavim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Those Who Defile Bed or Seat 7).

The commandment of the matter of the impurity of semen, which is impure and renders impure: That semen be impure and render impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 15:16), "And if semen come out from a man."

The commandment of the matter of the impurity of the menstruant, that is impure and renders impure: That the menstruant be impure and render others impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 15:19), "and anyone who touches her shall be impure until the evening."

The commandment of the matter of the impurity of the zavah (woman with an irregular discharge), that is impure and renders impure: That the zavah be impure and render impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 15:25), "And a woman who discharges a discharge of her blood many days, etc." I have written a hint of the root of the commandment with the woman that has given birth (Sefer HaChinukh 166) - that the matter of distancing from them and their impurity is because of the illness that they have, which hurts many people; and all the more so, one who lays with her. As the hurt is greater, according to the greatness of the closeness.

The commandment of the sacrifice of the zavah when she is healed from her discharge: That the zavah offer her sacrifice after she is healed from her discharge - and it is two doves or two young pigeons, as it is stated (Leviticus 16:28-29), "And if she is purified from her discharge, etc. And on the eighth day, she shall take two doves, etc."

To not have intercourse with a menstruant woman: To not have intercourse with a woman when she is menstruant, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:19), "And to a woman in menstrual impurity, you shall not approach." And the time of her menstruation continues for seven days, as it is written (Leviticus 15:19), "seven days shall she be in her menstruation." And whether she [experiences blood] once during them or gushes all seven, she is a menstruant (Niddah 73a). And the entire time that she does not immerse (in a mikveh) - even after the seven - she is [considered] a menstruant; since the verse made it dependent upon days and immersion, as it is stated with impure people (Leviticus 15:18), "and they shall wash in water." And they, may their memory be blessed, said [that it is] a constructive paradigm (binyan av) to any impure one, that he is with his impurity until he immerses (see Rabbenu Bachya on Leviticus 15:19 in the name of the Geonim). And likewise, they, may their memory be blessed, also expounded (Shabbat 64b), "'Shall she be in her menstruation' - she shall be in her menstruation until she goes into water."

To not have intercourse with a menstruant woman: To not have intercourse with a woman when she is menstruant, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:19), "And to a woman in menstrual impurity, you shall not approach." And the time of her menstruation continues for seven days, as it is written (Leviticus 15:19), "seven days shall she be in her menstruation." And whether she [experiences blood] once during them or gushes all seven, she is a menstruant (Niddah 73a). And the entire time that she does not immerse (in a mikveh) - even after the seven - she is [considered] a menstruant; since the verse made it dependent upon days and immersion, as it is stated with impure people (Leviticus 15:18), "and they shall wash in water." And they, may their memory be blessed, said [that it is] a constructive paradigm (binyan av) to any impure one, that he is with his impurity until he immerses (see Rabbenu Bachya on Leviticus 15:19 in the name of the Geonim). And likewise, they, may their memory be blessed, also expounded (Shabbat 64b), "'Shall she be in her menstruation' - she shall be in her menstruation until she goes into water."

And it comes out that all women today are like a big zavah and need to count seven clean days, even with one appearance; and likewise any woman that found a [blood] stain in a place that it is fitting to be concerned about it. Even though stains are rabbinic (Niddah 58b) - as from Torah writ, a woman does not become impure until she feels impure blood herself, as it is stated (Leviticus 15:19), "blood flowing in her flesh," meaning that that she feels the impure blood in herself - nonetheless, the Sages were already stringent about stains and required the counting of seven [clean days] and a break of purity (hefsek tahara) for them. And therefore if she found a stain of the size that forbids in a place that it is fitting to be concerned about it, she also needs to sit seven clean days for it. And from when does a woman count her seven clean days? From the morrow of the day that the blood stopped completely. How is this? If she [experienced blood] for two or three days, she checks herself constantly. If the blood stopped on the second day or on the third day - even in the morning - she does not count her seven from that day in which the blood stopped, but rather she checks herself another time on the morrow and begins to count seven from that day. And what are these words speaking about? When she [experienced blood] two days or three or more. But if she only [experienced it] one day - even though she checked herself on that day and she had a break of purity, she does not count from the next day. As there is an assumption that the first day will be completely impure and the source is assumed to be open that whole day, and [so,] we are concerned lest her blood came back to her after her checking, and she was gushing the whole night. And [so] this second day from her [experiencing blood] is not from the number [of clean days]. And even if she checked herself from the evening, we are concerned lest with the removal of her hands [to check], she [experienced blood. This is] except if her hands were between her 'eyes' all of the twilight (bein hashmashot) - meaning to say that she checked herself and left the [checking cloth] inside while it was still day and it stayed there all of the twilight until the night - and she did not find blood on it at all. In such a way, it is possible that we should say that she starts counting from the next day (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 6:20).

And we are not so stringent with one who finds a stain to require her a day of a break of purity besides the day upon which she found the stain, as we said about one who [experienced blood] only one day. Rather, certainly since she checked herself after she found the stain and found it pure, she counts seven clean ones besides that day that she found the stain. [This is] meaning to say that she counts her tally from the morrow of the day upon which she found the stain, like the law of a woman who [experienced] blood two or three days, as we said above. From the outset, a woman needs an examination on each and every day of all seven days (Niddah 68b). But ex post facto, if she only checked on the first day - which is the morrow of the day she stopped [bleeding] - and she did not check again, even if several days after the seven passed, she checks herself at the time of immersion; and that is enough for her, as she already had a pause of purity before then. [If] she did not check herself on the first day, but rather only on the day of her stopping alone (the day before the first day), she checks herself on the seventh day; and that is enough for her, and [so] she immerses on the night of the eighth. [If] she did not check herself, neither on the first day nor on the seventh day - even if she checked herself on the night of the eighth - even though she made a pause of purity before then (before the first day), those seven days that passed do not count for her at all. As she did not check during them, not at the beginning and not at the end, and she needs to count seven clean days from the time that she checked. And it is possible that the essence of this matter is because the Torah commanded (Leviticus 15:28), "and she shall count for herself [...] and she shall become pure." And since she did not check - not at the beginning and not at the end - there is no counting here.

And the laws of the measure of the stain (Niddah 58b), and in which case it is attributed to a stain [from something else] and in which case it is not attributed [to it]. And one who has a wound in that place, if she attributes it to it until the wound heals. And the matter of what is the law of a girl minor who has had intercourse and has blood flow from her (Niddah 64b). And the blood of virginity (breaking the hymen), that the Sages determined to be like menstrual blood (Niddah 65b). And the many laws of the regular times, and the law of separation before her regular time, which is the [menstrual] period - meaning to say that day or that night that she is accustomed to [experiencing blood] upon it - is forbidden for sexual relations. [This is] from that which it is written (Leviticus 15:31), "And you shall separate the Children of Israel from their impurity," and the epalanation came that they should separate from their wives before their regular times. But after the period of the regular time has passed [without blood], they are permitted in sexual relations. And the matter of the distancing from the wife that they, may their memory be blessed, commanded (Shabbat 11a) regarding the matter of menstruation, in order that a man not stumble in sin - and it is that a man should not eat with his menstruant wife from the same tray, nor pass a thing from his hand to her hand (Shabbat 13a), nor speak to her about things that often cause sin nor similar to these things.

That we should not give from our seed to Molekh: That we should not give some of our sons, to pass them in front of an idol that people would make during the time of the giving of the Torah, the name of which was Molekh; as it is stated (Leviticus 18:21), "And from your seed, you shall not give to pass to Molekh" - meaning some of your seed. And the warning is repeated in a different place, as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:10), "There shall not be found in you, one who passes his son or his daughter in the fire." And so would they do - the father would hand him over to the priests for the sake of the abominations (idols), similar to that which is written about fit offerings (Leviticus 15:14), "and he shall give them to the priest." And it is possible that the priests would do a waving or a presentation in front of the Molekh, and they would give him back to the father afterwards. And they would burn a big fire in front of the Molekh and the father would take his son and pass him through the flame of the fire. And so did they say in Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7:10, "He is not liable until he gives [him] over to the priests and he takes him and passes him through. But the opinion of the rabbi, Rashi, may his memory be blessed (Rashi on Sanhedrin 64b, s.v. shragah) and Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 6:3), may his memory be blessed, is that he would not burn him, but rather the worship was to pass him through alone. And once he passed him as it was their way of passing, he is liable. And the opinion of Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (Ramban on Leviticus 18:21) is that he would pass him through the flame until his soul departs - and his proofs are in the commentary to the Pentateuch that he made.

And they, may their memory be blessed, said further as a reason for this (Yevamot 62b) that a Canaanite slave does not have relationship - meaning to say that behold, he is like a beast in this matter. And Scripture indicates this, from that which it is written (Genesis 22:5), "Sit here with (eem) the donkey" - and they, may their memory be blessed, expounded, "A people (am, which is spelled the same way as eem) similar to a donkey"; and they were the slaves of Avraham, our father. And nonetheless, they are [included] in the prohibition of males and beasts, according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed. And the reason is correct; as about this, it is not applicable to say [that] he has no relationship. And they are also forbidden from having intercourse with the married woman of an Israelite; as also about them is it not applicable to say [that] he has no relationship. And they are likewise forbidden with a menstruant, and even [in the case of] a maidservant - as [the latter] are liable for all of the punishments in the Torah. And explicitly did they, may their memory be blessed, expound (Sifra, Metzora Parashat Zavim, Section 5:1), "'And when a woman discharges' (Leviticus 15:19) - whether an Israelitess or whether a maidservant; whether a convert or a freed [maidservant]."

One who releases his slave transgresses a positive commandment (Lev 15:26) “forever you will make them work for you." it is permitted to free a slave for the sake of a Mitzvah, even a rabbinic one, for example if one was short a man in the synagogue for a making a minyan, if one only had 9 one should free his slave to make 10, and so forth. As well as a maid servant if it is customary for her to behave inappropriately with others we compel her master to free her, in order that the barrier be removed.

And if you shall ask, why did they, may their memory be blessed, obligate to count the seven [cycles of] seven from that which is written, "And you shall count for yourself"; and [yet] we have never seen that the zav counts the days of his counting, nor the zavah the days of her counting, and even though it is written about them, "and he shall count for himself" (Leviticus 15:13), "and she shall count for herself" (Leviticus 15:28) - besides that they are obligated to pay attention to the days, but not that they be obligated to count them orally and recite a blessing on their count - the answer to this thing is what I prefaced at the beginning of my book: that every matter of the Torah is dependent upon the traditionally received explanation. And for the one that does not know this, how many verses will appear to be the opposite of one another, and how many difficulties and contradictions will arise? But for the one that knows it clearly, he will see that all of 'its ways are the ways of pleasantness and all of its paths are peace' and truth. And so, the tradition came to us that the command of, "And you shall count for yourself," of Jubilee requires an oral counting; whereas the command of counting, written about the zav and the zavah, is only paying heed to the days - and such is the practice of all of Israel in every place. "And even though they are not prophets, they are the children of prophets." And similar to this matter is that which we found in the Torah about the expression, remembering. As remembering is written about Amalek, and remembering [is written] about the [incident] of Miriam, and remembering is also written about the matter of leaving Egypt: And the tradition came to us about the remembering of Egypt to do it orally - and as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Berakhot 21a), about the blessing of "True and firm" (which mentions the leaving of Egypt), "It is from Torah writ." But with the other rememberings, it is enough for us with just remembering of the heart and paying heed to the things.

And if you shall ask, why did they, may their memory be blessed, obligate to count the seven [cycles of] seven from that which is written, "And you shall count for yourself"; and [yet] we have never seen that the zav counts the days of his counting, nor the zavah the days of her counting, and even though it is written about them, "and he shall count for himself" (Leviticus 15:13), "and she shall count for herself" (Leviticus 15:28) - besides that they are obligated to pay attention to the days, but not that they be obligated to count them orally and recite a blessing on their count - the answer to this thing is what I prefaced at the beginning of my book: that every matter of the Torah is dependent upon the traditionally received explanation. And for the one that does not know this, how many verses will appear to be the opposite of one another, and how many difficulties and contradictions will arise? But for the one that knows it clearly, he will see that all of 'its ways are the ways of pleasantness and all of its paths are peace' and truth. And so, the tradition came to us that the command of, "And you shall count for yourself," of Jubilee requires an oral counting; whereas the command of counting, written about the zav and the zavah, is only paying heed to the days - and such is the practice of all of Israel in every place. "And even though they are not prophets, they are the children of prophets." And similar to this matter is that which we found in the Torah about the expression, remembering. As remembering is written about Amalek, and remembering [is written] about the [incident] of Miriam, and remembering is also written about the matter of leaving Egypt: And the tradition came to us about the remembering of Egypt to do it orally - and as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Berakhot 21a), about the blessing of "True and firm" (which mentions the leaving of Egypt), "It is from Torah writ." But with the other rememberings, it is enough for us with just remembering of the heart and paying heed to the things.

That an impure person not enter the entire Temple: That any impure person is prevented from entering the entire Temple - the likeness of which in the [future] generations is all of the yard from Nikanor Gate and inwards, which is the beginning of the yard of the Israelites - as it is stated (Numbers 5:3), "and they will not render your camps impure" - meaning to say the camp of the Divine Presence. And the proof of this being among the negative commandments is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara (Makkot 14b), "One who enters the Temple while impure [is liable for excision], as both the punishment and the warning are written [in the Torah.] The punishment is written (Numbers 19:13) 'the Tabernacle of God he has defiled and he shall be cut off.' The warning is written (Numbers 5:3) 'and they will not render your camps impure.'" And they also said in the Mekhilta (Sifrei Zuta on Bamidbar 5:3), "'Command the Children of Israel, and they shall send from the camp' - [that is] a positive commandment. From where do we derive [the] negative commandment? Since it is written, 'and they will not render your camps impure.'" And they said in Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Section 1 1), "Since it is stated (Leviticus 15:31), 'And you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanliness[...],' I might understand, whether from its midst or from its back," meaning to say that one who approaches the Temple from its back while he is impure would be liable for excision; "it is, therefore, written in respect to a yoledet (a woman after childbirth) (Leviticus 12:4), 'and into the sanctuary she shall not come,'" meaning to say the expression of coming is only about one who enters from the front. And there it is elucidated that the law of a yoledet and the other [cases of] impurity are the same regarding this.