דיני כלה הנכנסת לחופה. ובו ה׳ סעיפים: תבעוה לינשא ונתפייסה צריכה לישב ז׳ נקיים בין גדולה בין קטנה ואפי׳ בדקה עצמה בשעת תביעה ומצאה טהורה שמא מחמת חימוד ראתה טיפת דם כחרדל ולא הרגישה בו ומונה ז׳ ממחרת יום התביעה ואינה צריכה הפסק טהרה שאף על פי שלא בדקה ביום התביעה להפסיק בטהרה מונה מיום המחרת ז׳ נקיים ומיהו צריכה בדיקה תוך ז׳ (כל יום לכתחלה (ב״י בשם הרא״ש וב״ח שג״כ דעת רמב״ן) מיהו בדיעבד אם לא בדקה עצמה רק פעם אחת תוך ז׳ סגי) (ב״י והאחרונים):
Translation. Heading of the siman: "The laws of the kallah who enters the chuppah; and it contains five seifim." — She was asked in marriage and she consented: she must count seven clean days, whether she is an adult or a minor. And even if she examined herself at the time of the request and found herself pure, for perhaps, on account of chimud, she saw a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed without feeling it. She counts the seven from the day after the day of the request, and she does not need a hefsek taharah: although she did not examine herself on the day of the request in order to close in purity, she counts her seven clean days from the following day. Nevertheless, she must perform a bedikah during those seven days. Gloss of the Rema (what Sefaria renders in small type inside the seif): every day lechatchilah; however bedieved, if she examined herself only once during the seven, that suffices.
1. Introduction to the sugya — the gezeirah of dam chimud
The foundation — the concern of chimud and its reason
The foundation of the siman: every kallah who enters the chuppah — from the moment she was asked in marriage and consented — we are concerned that on account of chimud, that is, the excitement and the stirring that the request awoke in her, she saw a drop of blood, טיפת דם כחרדל, "the size of a mustard seed," without feeling it. The Sages therefore decreed that she sit seven clean days before the chuppah, like any niddah counting toward her purity, and that she enter the chuppah only after tevilah. And this gezeirah applies בין גדולה בין קטנה — adult and minor alike: even one who is not of an age to see is included in the concern (see below).
Root of the gezeirah — blood that is dislodged and not felt. It is the nature of emotion and excitement to stir the womb; and in the moment of that stirring the woman does not discern the drop, for there is no hargashah here — the sensation that ordinarily accompanies a niddah's seeing. Since there is thus no certain seeing but only a concern, this din does not depend on blood actually seen, but on a cause — the chimud and the request themselves; and that is why it applies even to one who examined herself and found herself pure.
Source of the din. The din of dam chimud is brought by the Mordechai (הלכות נדה) and the poskim, and both the Mechaber and the Rema fixed it as halachah. The Taz defines its standing: the gezeirah is rabbinic, and by Torah law such a woman would be entirely permitted, since even blood seen without hargashah does not render impure by Torah law.
« דזו היא מדרבנן דהם החמירו בגזירה זאת ומן התורה מותרת גמורה » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק א׳)
2. The chakirah on the gezeirah — "like a mustard seed," without hargashah and without hefsek taharah
This is the heart of the chakirah in the seif: is dam chimud certain blood, or a mere concern — and what is the nafka mina?
The chakirah — certain blood or a concern? If she examined herself and found herself pure, why should she sit seven clean days? There was no seeing here! Two sides to the matter: (a) perhaps dam chimud is certain blood, only that it cannot be detected by a bedikah, and it must be treated as a full seeing; (b) or perhaps it is merely a concern, a decree lest she saw, whose whole basis is the dignity of the kallah entering the chuppah in purity.
What the seif decides — she does not need a hefsek taharah. The Mechaber stresses that אינה צריכה הפסק טהרה. For any ordinary niddah, opening the seven clean days requires a hefsek taharah bedikah before sunset, testifying that her seeing has stopped. Here, even though she made no hefsek taharah at all, she counts from the following day. This proves that dam chimud is not like the seeing of a full niddah, which requires a hefsek; it is only a concern, and counting seven clean days from the following day suffices.
« הטעם שאינה מוחזקת בדם דהא לא ודאי ראתה » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק ב׳)
Why is she different, that she needs no hefsek? For a certain niddah, the hefsek taharah is the very foundation of the count: one cannot count clean days without knowing that the seeing has ceased. With dam chimud, since there is no known seeing but only a concern, there is nothing to "close" — it was never known that she saw at all; it is enough that she stop from the day of the request and count from the following day. Thus the very exemption from hefsek taharah reveals the character of the gezeirah: a concern, and not a seeing. And this is precisely the reason the Taz gives, cited above: she is not presumed to be established in blood, since she did not certainly see.
Adult and minor — both included:
The case
The din
The reason
Adult (of an age to see)
She sits seven clean days
She is subject to chimud and of an age to see — we are concerned for the drop of blood
Minor (not of an age to see)
She too sits seven clean days
Although she is not accustomed to see, they decreed upon her because of chimud, and did not distinguish between adult and minor
What the Acharonim understand here by "minor." The Acharonim — and the Sidrei Taharah in particular — dwell on the gader of the קטנה in this seif: the Mechaber's intent would not be a minor in the strict sense, but one who is not accustomed to see — and since she is subject to chimud, we are concerned for dam chimud in her case. The Toras HaShlamim, for his part, writes explicitly that the case under discussion is one who has never seen, and that with her there is only the concern of chimud. That is the novelty of the gezeirah: it depends neither on a veset nor on regular seeing.
« ונ״ל פשוט דכל זה מיירי בקטנה שלא ראתה מעולם » (תורת השלמים יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק ג׳)
What custom added to the seif. The Shach reports that in his day the custom was taken to make a hefsek taharah after all, even for a young woman, and to examine oneself on each of the seven clean days — and he attributes it to the Maharshal, cited by the Perishah and the Bach. The exemption of the seif therefore remains the din, and the custom the Shach reports comes on top of it; this page draws no practical conclusion from it.
« והאידנא נהגו להפסיק בטהרה אף לבתולה ובודקים כל ז׳ נקיים » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק א׳)
3. From the hour she settles her mind — from when do we count
« שבעת ימים הללו מונים אותה משעה שהיא סומכת בדעתה ומכינה עצמה לחופה אע״פ שלא נתקדשה עדיין » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ב:ב)
Translation. "These seven days are counted for her from the hour she settles her mind and prepares herself for the chuppah, even though she has not yet been betrothed (kiddushin)."
The foundation — the settling of the mind, not the kiddushin:
A great novelty in this seif: the count of the seven depends neither on kiddushin nor on a formal request, but on the moment she settles her mind — when she has resolved and begun to prepare herself for the chuppah. For what produces dam chimud is first of all the soul: the stirring and the anticipation of the chuppah — and this exists even before the kiddushin, from the moment her mind is set.
Chakirah — what is it that obligates: the request, or the mind? In seif 1 the Mechaber made the matter depend on the request and the consent ("she was asked in marriage and she consented"); here he makes it depend on the settling of the mind and the preparation for the chuppah — and there is no contradiction: the request and the consent are what awaken the chimud, while the settling of the mind is the measure of when the count begins. Nafka mina: where her mind was settled even without a formal request, she counts from that time.
Nafka mina as to when the count begins. Had we made the matter depend on the act of kiddushin, a betrothed woman not yet consecrated would have been exempt; but according to the gader "she settles her mind," once she has resolved and begun her preparations she begins to count, even though the chuppah is still far off and there has been no kiddushin. The Taz in fact explains why the count cannot be anchored at just any time: according to the Rashba, whom the Tur brings and the Taz cites here, a woman asked in marriage for twelve months hence has no chimud yet, and seven days counted now would avail her nothing — the chimud is at the hour she prepares herself for the chuppah. And the Shach adds, on the words "even though she has not yet been betrothed," that where she has already been betrothed the same din applies all the more.
« אלא בשעה שתכין עצמה לחופה שאז יש לה חימוד » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק ג׳)
« משמע דכל שכן אם כבר נתקדשה דצריכה לישב ז׳ נקיים סמוך לחופה » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק ג׳)
4. Tevilah close to be'ilat mitzvah — the Rema and the custom of Wednesday night
הגה ויש לסמוך הטבילה סמוך לבעילת מצוה בכל מה דאפשר (כך משמע במרדכי בשם רשב״ם ור״מ ורוקח בשם אביו ורבותיו ובהגהת מיימוני פי״א דהלכות א״ב) והמנהג לטבול הכלה ליל ד׳ אע״פ שלא תבעל קודם מוצאי שבת (מרדכי שם) אבל אין להרחיק הטבילה מן הבעילה יותר מזה ואם לא תבעל במוצאי שבת יש לה לבדוק עצמה בכל יום עד בעילת מצוה (שם בהג״ה ובתוספות פ״ק דיומא דף י״ח) ודוקא לכתחלה אבל בדיעבד אין להחמיר אם בדקה רק פעם אחת תוך ז׳ (ב״י) וכל חתן ישאל לכלה קודם שיגע בה אם שמרה שבעה נקיים (הגהת ש״ד):
Translation. "Gloss: and one should set the tevilah close to the be'ilat mitzvah as much as possible (so it appears in the Mordechai in the name of the Rashbam, of ר״מ and of the Rokeach in the name of his father and his teachers, and in the Hagahot Maimuni, chapter 11 of the laws of א״ב); and the custom is to immerse the kallah on Wednesday night, even though she will not be joined to him before the departure of Shabbos (Mordechai, ibid.), but one should not distance the tevilah from the union more than that. And if she will not be joined to him at the departure of Shabbos, she should examine herself every day until the be'ilat mitzvah; and this only lechatchilah, but bedieved one should not be stringent if she examined herself only once during the seven (Beis Yosef). And every chasan should ask the kallah, before he touches her, whether she kept the seven clean days (הגהת ש״ד)."
Three abbreviations that the Rema does not spell out, and that this page likewise does not spell out: ר״מ, one of the Rishonim whom the Mordechai cites there alongside the Rashbam and the Rokeach; א״ב, the section of the Hagahot Maimuni referred to at chapter 11; and ש״ד, the work whose gloss is cited at the end.
The foundation — the closeness of tevilah to the union:
The Rema brings in the name of the Rishonim (the Rashbam, ר״מ and the Rokeach) that one should set the tevilah close to the be'ilat mitzvah as much as possible — that the tevilah not be distant from the first union. And the reason is that she should not come, in the days between the tevilah and the chuppah, to a renewed concern of seeing; and that she enter the chuppah in a purity that is close at hand.
« לסמוך הטבילה סמוך לבעילת מצוה בכל מה דאפשר » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ב:ב)
The custom and the din — closeness against convenience:
The position
Content
Source
The Rema's basic din
To set the tevilah close to the be'ilat mitzvah as much as possible
Mordechai in the name of the Rashbam, of ר״מ and of the Rokeach
The custom
To immerse the kallah on Wednesday night, though she will not be joined to him before the departure of Shabbos
Mordechai, ibid.; Rema, seif 2
The limit
But one should not distance the tevilah from the union more than that
Rema, seif 2
How the custom is reconciled with the din. At first glance the custom of immersing on Wednesday night contradicts the basic din of setting the tevilah close to the union — since the chuppah is at the departure of Shabbos. Here the practical need enters: the order of the wedding and the preparation of the kallah. The Taz explains where that Wednesday comes from: in the time of the Talmud a virgin was married on the fourth day. In any case the Rema set a limit — אבל אין להרחיק הטבילה מן הבעילה יותר מזה — that it not be distanced beyond measure. The custom is thus a balance between the closeness of tevilah to the union on the one hand, and local custom and the needs of the kallah on the other; and the details of the timing are handed over to the kallah teacher and the local moreh hora'ah.
« כיון דבזמן התלמוד בתולה נישאת ליום הרביעי » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק ד׳)
The Acharonim. The Taz explains why the Rema's gloss requires a bedikah every day until the be'ilat mitzvah: according to the Beis Yosef, from the time she was asked in marriage until the union there is room to suspect that she may see on account of chimud. And he adds at once that this concern is not equal to that of seif 1, where the chimud at the moment of the request is at its strongest. The Acharonim — Sidrei Taharah, Chochmat Adam — discuss the details of this closeness and what there is to be concerned about when it is distanced, and the customs of various places as to the time of the tevilah are set out there. And in practice — ask your rav and the kallah teacher.
« ומ״מ אין חשש חימוד זה שוה לחשש חימוד דבסעיף א׳ » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק ה׳)
5. When the wedding is postponed — returning to the seven clean days
A sharp novelty: even though she has already sat seven clean days, if the wedding was postponed — she counts again.
The text of the Mechaber (seif 3)
אם דחו הנשואין מחמת איזה סיבה אף על פי שישבה שבעה נקיים צריכה לחזור ולישב ז׳ נקיים (ולטבול) כשיתפשרו לעשות הנשואין. (אע״פ שבדקה עצמה תמיד בימים שבינתיים לא מהני) (מרדכי הלכות נדה ובמהרי״ק שורש קנ״ט):
Translation. "If they postponed the wedding for some reason, even though she sat seven clean days, she must sit seven clean days again (and immerse) when they come to terms to hold the wedding. (Gloss: even though she examined herself constantly during the intervening days — it does not help.) (Mordechai, laws of niddah, and Maharik, shoresh 159.)"
A point of attribution: the word ולטבול, inserted in the middle of the Mechaber's text, is not his but a gloss of the Rema, which Sefaria marks with a <small> inside the seif (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ב:ג). The same is true of the sentence about the intervening bedikos.
The foundation — a chimud that renews itself:
The reason for the obligation to count again: dam chimud does not depend on one past seeing, but on a chimud that renews itself. When the wedding was postponed, the first chimud dissolved; and when they come to terms again to hold the wedding, a new chimud is awakened — and perhaps she again saw a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed. It follows that every setting of a new date for the chuppah gives rise to a new concern, requiring a new count.
Chakirah — why do the bedikos not help? But she examined herself constantly during the intervening days and found herself pure! Why should those bedikos not take the place of a new count? The Maharik (shoresh 159) and the Mordechai explain: the bedikos do not help, for the concern is for blood that cannot be detected by a bedikah — a drop like a mustard seed, without hargashah, which even a bedikah does not reveal. The bedikah is therefore no remedy for chimud; what the seif requires in order to dispel the concern is a fresh count of seven clean days.
The root of the matter — chezkas taharah against a concern that renews itself. One might have said that the bedikos establish her in a chezkas taharah; but a presumption of purity does not avail against a concern that cannot be clarified — for the whole concern is for blood that even a bedikah does not show. And since with each new date the chimud renews itself, the concern renews itself with it, and the earlier presumption does not decide it. From here a great principle: a matter that depends on a cause that renews itself — intervening examinations do not exempt from it. The Shach in fact defines the reach of the din: even if she already immersed, she begins again.
« ואפילו טבלה וכן הוא במרדכי בשם רשב״ם » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק ה׳)
Nafka mina — when does one count again? Whenever the wedding was postponed and they then came to terms on a new date, she counts seven clean days again and immerses again, and the intervening bedikos do not exempt her. From here too, the kallah does not begin her count long in advance, lest the wedding be postponed and she have to count again. The Acharonim discuss the precise extent of postponement that obliges a new count — the Bach, cited by the Shach, distinguishes a postponement left open from a mere change of date agreed upon in the same sitting; this page does not decide between them. And in practice — ask your rav and the kallah teacher.
6. Shemirah and the prohibition of yichud — the kallah who became a niddah before the first union
עבר וכנסה תוך זמן זה וכן חתן שפירסה כלתו נדה קודם שבא עליה לא יתייחד עמה אלא הוא ישן בין האנשים והיא ישנה בין הנשים: הגה יש אומרים אם היתה טהורה כשנשאה ולא בא עליה ופירסה נדה אח״כ אינה צריכה שימור עוד (ת״ה סימן רנ״ג והגהות אלפסי) והמחמיר תע״ב (ת״ה שם) ואין לחלק בזה בין בחור לאלמן או בתולה לאלמנה (ר׳ ירוחם נתיב כ״ו) יש אומרים שאסורה ליחד עמו ביום כמו בלילה ואין צריך להיות שתי שמירות רק הוא בין האנשים או היא בין הנשים (טור בשם הרא״ש) ואם אינם ישנים בחדר אחד אינם צריכים שימור כלל (ב״י בשם הרשב״א) וי״א דבלילה צריך שתי שמירות וביום מותר להתייחד (הראב״ד) והמנהג ליקח קטן אצל החתן וקטנה אצל הכלה ואין מתיחדין ביום בלא קטן או קטנה:
Translation. "He transgressed and married her within this period, and likewise a chasan whose kallah became a niddah before he came to her: he shall not be secluded with her; rather he sleeps among the men and she sleeps among the women. Gloss: there are those who say that if she was pure when he married her and he did not come to her, and she became a niddah afterward — she no longer needs shemirah (Terumas HaDeshen, siman 253, and Hagahot Alfasi); and one who is stringent, תע״ב (Terumas HaDeshen, ibid.). And one should not distinguish in this between a bachelor and a widower, or between a virgin and a widow (Rabbeinu Yerucham, nesiv 26). There are those who say that she is forbidden to be secluded with him by day as by night, and that two guards are not needed: it is enough that he be among the men or she among the women (Tur in the name of the Rosh); and if they do not sleep in one room they need no shemirah at all (Beis Yosef in the name of the Rashba); and there are those who say that at night two guards are needed and by day seclusion is permitted (Raavad). And the custom is to take a young boy to stay with the chasan and a young girl with the kallah, and they are not secluded by day without a boy or a girl."
The Rema here writes the abbreviation תע״ב and does not spell it out; this page likewise does not spell it out. Two points of attribution: everything following the word הגה is the Rema, not the Mechaber, and the views reported under "there are those who say" belong to the Rishonim the Rema names, not to himself.
The foundation — the severity of yichud between chasan and a niddah kallah:
Since he has not yet acquired her through union and his desire is at its height, we are concerned that he may not withstand the trial. Therefore a kallah who became a niddah before the first union is treated more severely than an ordinary wife who is a niddah: לא יתייחד עמה — he shall not be secluded with her; rather he sleeps among the men and she among the women, and a guard and a guardian are appointed. This is unlike the wife he has already been with, with whom seclusion is permitted even in her niddah state.
Chakirah — what is the particular concern before the first union? Why were they stringent specifically with a niddah kallah before the union, and not after it? The Shach states the foundation explicitly: after he has come to her, his yetzer no longer seizes him so strongly, since he has already been with her, and he is permitted to be secluded with her — whereas before the first union, desire and chimud prevail. This is what the Rishonim call לבו גס בה(רש״י גיטין פ״א ע״א): that familiarity arises only afterward. Accordingly this yichud was treated with the severity of yichud before marriage, and it requires shemirah.
« אבל בא עליה לא תקיף ליה יצריה כ״כ כיון דבעל ומותר לייחד עמה » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק ט׳)
Machlokes — when is shemirah required?
The position
The din
Source
The Mechaber
She became a niddah before the union — he shall not be secluded with her; a guard and a guardian
Mechaber, seif 4
"There are those who say" (reported by the Rema)
If she was pure when he married her, he did not come to her, and she became a niddah afterward — she no longer needs shemirah
Terumas HaDeshen, siman 253; Hagahot Alfasi
And one who is stringent
תע״ב
Terumas HaDeshen, ibid.; Rema, seif 4
The reasoning of the Terumas HaDeshen — she was pure at first. The Terumas HaDeshen (siman 253) distinguishes the woman who entered the chuppah already a niddah — he never had permission upon her, and his desire was never put to the test, and she requires shemirah — from the woman who was pure when he married her and became forbidden to him only afterward: he already had permission upon her and did not approach, and that itself shows that his desire does not seize him; she therefore no longer requires shemirah. The Shach gives the reason in precisely this form. The Taz, for his part, is not satisfied with the proof the Terumas HaDeshen draws from the ox that became mu'ad: he writes that the comparison does not hold, and maintains that by strict law there would be room to be stringent; the Shach, in the Nekudot HaKesef, casts doubt on that answer of the Taz — so the Toras HaShlamim reports. This page does not decide between them. And it is for this reason that the Rema, the matter resting on reasoning rather than on a clear din, wrote that one who is stringent, תע״ב.
« דהא חזינן דלא תקיף יצריה כיון שלא בא עליה עד השתא » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק י׳)
« ולע״ד שאין הנדון דומה לראיה » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק ז׳)
« עיין בט״ז שכתב דמדינא יש להחמיר והש״ך בנה״כ מפקפק על דבריו » (תורת השלמים יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק ז׳)
One should not distinguish between a bachelor and a widower (Rabbeinu Yerucham). One might have said that a widower — who has already been with a woman — does not have the desire that seizes a bachelor, and likewise a virgin as against a widow. Rabbeinu Yerucham (nesiv 26) established that אין לחלק בזה: every chasan whose kallah became a niddah before the first union, bachelor or widower, virgin or widow, is subject to one and the same din of shemirah. The Shach says expressly that this is the novelty of the gloss: one would have thought that with a widower, who has already been with a woman, the desire does not seize him — the Rema teaches that it is not so.
« דל״ת דבאלמן שבעל כבר לא תקיף יצריה קמ״ל » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק י״ב)
Nafka mina — the arrangements of the shemirah. When the kallah became a niddah before the first union, the chasan does not sleep alone with her: he among the men and she among the women, with a guard and a guardian. The Rema then reports several views as to the extent of that shemirah — by day as well as by night or by night alone, two guards or only one, and what applies when they do not sleep in one room — and the custom he concludes with is to take a young boy to stay with the chasan and a young girl with the kallah. The practical details — who the guards are, and how matters are conducted — are handed over to a moreh hora'ah, for this is a fine matter requiring concrete guidance. And in practice — ask your rav and the kallah teacher.
7. One who remarries his divorcée — the widening of the gader of chimud
« מחזיר גרושתו צריכה לישב שבעה נקיים » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ב:ה)
Translation. "One who remarries his divorcée — she must sit seven clean days."
The foundation — chimud even in the divorcée taken back:
Even one who remarries his divorcée — who was already his wife and whom he has known — she must sit seven clean days. At first glance there is no chimud of a new kallah here at all! Yet in the restoration of the marriage too there is a stirring and a chimud, and perhaps on account of it she saw a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed. From here that the gader of chimud is broad: it applies not only to a virgin kallah entering her first chuppah, but to every renewal of a marriage bond.
Chakirah — how far does the gader of chimud reach? Since one who remarries his divorcée is included in the din, there is room to inquire: is the obligation because the case genuinely resembles that of a kallah (a full stirring, like that of the request), or is it an extension — every renewal of a marriage bond, however faint, falling within the gezeirah of chimud? Nafka mina for other comparable cases of renewed closeness. In fact the Mechaber extended the din explicitly only to one who remarries his divorcée; the remaining cases are handed over to a moreh hora'ah. The Toras HaShlamim leans toward the extension: he writes that it appears to him the same applies to one who divorced her while she was pregnant and takes her back, for although a pregnant woman is presumed to be free of blood, we are nevertheless concerned that she may have seen on account of chimud.
The Acharonim. The Taz writes on this seif that if he transgressed and married her within the period, shemirah is not required, since he has already been with her when she was his wife the first time and his desire no longer seizes him so strongly. The Sidrei Taharah, the Chochmat Adam and the Aruch HaShulchan discuss the gedarim of dam chimud in the details of various cases — among them one who remarries his divorcée, a woman widowed who returns to her husband, and renewed betrothals — and in essence the matter is handed over to the ruling of a chacham. And in practice — ask your rav.
« נראה דאם עבר וכנס תוך זמן דאין צריך שמירה כיון דכבר בעלה » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ב ס״ק ח׳)
The overall chakirah of the siman: what is the character of the gezeirah of dam chimud, and from when — and why — do we count?
Character of the gezeirah — a concern that a drop of blood like a mustard seed was seen without hargashah, and not a certain seeing; and therefore אינה צריכה הפסק טהרה.
Adult and minor — both included, for in the matter of chimud no distinction was drawn between one of an age to see and one who is not.
The time of the count — from the request and the consent, and practically from the hour she settles her mind and prepares herself for the chuppah.
Tevilah — close to the be'ilat mitzvah as much as possible; and the custom is Wednesday night, provided the tevilah is not distanced from the union more than that.
Postponement of the wedding — she counts again, for the chimud renews itself; and the bedikos do not help (Maharik).
Shemirah — she became a niddah before the first union; and the machlokes of the Terumas HaDeshen where she was pure at first.
One who remarries his divorcée — the widening of the gader of chimud to a renewal of the marriage bond.
Nafka mina for practice (as the seifim and their commentaries report it):
The kallah sits seven clean days even though she examined herself and found herself pure, and she does not need a hefsek taharah — though she must perform a bedikah during the seven (Mechaber, seif 1); and the Shach reports that the custom was taken to make a hefsek after all (ש״ך ס״ק א׳).
One counts from the hour she settles her mind and prepares herself for the chuppah, even before the kiddushin (Mechaber, seif 2).
The tevilah is close to the be'ilat mitzvah as much as possible; and the custom is Wednesday night, and not much earlier (Rema, seif 2).
The wedding was postponed — she counts seven clean days again and immerses, and the intervening bedikos do not help (Mechaber, seif 3; Maharik).
She became a niddah before the union — a guard and a guardian, and he shall not be secluded with her; and where she was pure at first it is a machlokes, and one who is stringent, תע״ב (Mechaber and Rema, seif 4).
One who remarries his divorcée — she sits seven clean days (Mechaber, seif 5).
And in practice — ask your rav and the kallah teacher.
She sits seven clean days, adult and minor alike; even if she examined herself and found herself pure
Mechaber, seif 1
Hefsek taharah
She does not need one; she counts from the following day — but she must perform a bedikah during the seven
Mechaber, seif 1
Beginning of the count
From the hour she settles her mind and prepares herself for the chuppah
Mechaber, seif 2
Tevilah
Close to the be'ilat mitzvah; custom of Wednesday night, not much earlier
Rema, seif 2; Mordechai in the name of the Rashbam and the Rokeach
The wedding was postponed
She counts seven clean days again and immerses; the bedikos do not help
Mechaber, seif 3; Maharik, shoresh 159
She became a niddah before the union
He shall not be secluded with her; a guard and a guardian
Mechaber, seif 4
She was pure and became a niddah afterward
There are those who say she no longer needs shemirah; one who is stringent, תע״ב
Rema, seif 4; Terumas HaDeshen 253
One who remarries his divorcée
She sits seven clean days
Mechaber, seif 5
Table — the central machlokos of the siman
The subject
First position
Second position
The time of the tevilah
The Rema's basic din — close to the be'ilat mitzvah as much as possible
The custom — Wednesday night, provided the tevilah is not distanced from the union more than that
Shemirah where she was pure and became a niddah afterward
The Mechaber — shemirah is required (he shall not be secluded with her)
Terumas HaDeshen, under "there are those who say" — she does not need it; and one who is stringent, תע״ב. The Taz disputes the Terumas HaDeshen's proof, and the Shach, in the Nekudot HaKesef, disputes the Taz
A bachelor as against a widower
There would have been room to distinguish (with a widower the desire would not seize him)
Rabbeinu Yerucham — one should not distinguish; one din of shemirah for all (and so the Shach explains the gloss)
The usefulness of bedikos when the wedding is postponed
There would have been room to say the bedikos establish her in a chezkas taharah
Maharik and Mordechai — they do not help, for the concern is for blood a bedikah does not show
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · Rav Yossef Haim Samama
Talmid chacham · teaches shiurim in halachah and chassidus Pilpul and study of the laws of the kallah who enters the chuppah · siman 192 (סימן קצ״ב) · ⚡ Level 2 — Lamdan daattorah.com
⚠️ This content is written for study and analysis only. For any practical ruling (למעשה) — ask your rav and the kallah teacher.