Siman 197 — Lamdan Level: the time of the tevilah, the night, and what daytime puts at risk
Time does not purify · tevilah in its time · the decree of sereikh bitah · duress · and what stands after the fact
סימן קצ״ז
אין טהרה אלא בטבילה, טבילה בזמנה, סרך בתה, אונס, ובדיעבד
עיון, פלפול, שיטות הראשונים והאחרונים
⚡ For lomdim and talmidei hakhamim ⚡
✦ ❖ ✦
Pilpul and in-depth study
Sugyot, sources, the underlying hakira, the ma’hlokot of the Rishonim and Aharonim,
the nafka minot for halakha and the examination of the shitot
The subject:
Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, siman 197 (five seifim)
with its nosei kelim: ש״ך (שפתי כהן) · ט״ז (טורי זהב) · פתחי תשובה
The foundation of the sugya in the Shas:
נדה ס״ז ע״ב — Rabbi Yohanan: whether in its time or not in its time, she immerses only at night, מִשּׁוּם סֶרֶךְ בִּתָּהּ; and, on the same page, the enactments of Rav Idi in Naresh, Rav Aha bar Yaakov in Papunya, Rav Yehuda in Pumbedita and Rava in Mehoza — lions, thieves, cold, the city gates — which are the matter of seif 4 · נדה ל׳ ע״א — the ma’hloket over טְבִילָה בִּזְמַנָּהּ מִצְוָה · the verse וְסָ֥פְרָה לָּ֛הּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִ֖ים וְאַחַ֥ר תִּטְהָֽר (ויקרא ט״ו:כ״ח), from which the Taz derives that the seventh day’s count is completed by מקצת היום ככולו
A note of method and restraint:
This sugya touches the body and the intimate; it is written with respect and modesty. Nothing written here is a ruling: it is study. Every practical application goes through a Rav, a morat kallah or the balanit.
Written and studied by:
הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
Opening of the sugya — one leaves impurity only through tevilah: time does not purify, karet, and the mikveh that is fit (seif 1)
Tevilah in its time and periyah u-reviyah — the mitzvah of immersing on the night of the eighth day, the Rama’s Friday-night leniency and its conditions, and the hafifah close to the tevilah (seif 2)
That she not immerse by day — sereikh bitah — the decree, and even the eighth and ninth day; and the hiddush of the kallot (seif 3)
Duress — on the eighth day, while it is still day, it is permitted; on the seventh, never (seif 4)
After the fact — the tevilah counted for her — even without duress; and she will not have relations before night and will conceal her tevilah (seif 5)
אין הנדה והזבה והיולדת עולות מטומאתן בלא טבילה שאפילו אחר כמה שנים חייב כרת הבא על אחת מהן אלא אם כן טבלו כראוי במקוה הראוי:
summary: the niddah, the zavah and the yoledet do not leave their impurity without tevilah; even after several years, one who comes upon any of them is liable to karet — unless they immersed as is fit, in the mikveh that is fit.
1. Opening of the sugya — one leaves impurity only through tevilah
The foundation — it is not time that purifies, it is the tevilah
The foundation of the siman: once the niddah — and likewise the zavah and the yoledet — has completed the days of her purification, she does not leave her impurity by the completion of the days itself, but by a tevilah performed as is fit. Two things are learned here. (a) Time does not purify: “even after several years” she remains in her impurity as long as she has not immersed, and the counting of days alone achieves nothing. (b) The severity of the prohibition: one who comes upon her before the tevilah is liable to karet, exactly like one who comes upon a niddah. And a tevilah as is fit, in the mikveh that is fit, is required — two conditions: the validity of the act of immersion, and the validity of the mikveh.
« אין הנדה והזבה והיולדת עולות מטומאתן בלא טבילה » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ז:א)
« שאפילו אחר כמה שנים חייב כרת הבא על אחת מהן » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ז:א)
« אלא אם כן טבלו כראוי במקוה הראוי » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ז:א)
The root — the act, and not the passage of time. For every impure person, what purifies is an act: the immersion. It is neither the disappearance of the cause of impurity nor the counting of days. But in the niddah there is something further: even though she has ceased to see, has counted her seven clean days and has become fit to immerse, she remains liable to karet until the tevilah; the nearness of the term changes nothing, and the principle that most of it is as all of it has no place here. This is why the Mehaber pushes the formulation to its limit — “even after several years”: there is no expiry here that would occur of itself; only the tevilah permits, and as long as she has not immersed she is in her full impurity in every respect.
חקירה — “the mikveh that is fit”: a condition of the act of tevilah, or a separate din? The Mehaber lays down two conditions — “that they immersed as is fit” and “in the mikveh that is fit”. Should we say that the validity of the mikveh (forty se’ah, water not drawn, water not flowing, and so on) is part of the act of immersion, or that it is an autonomous din of the laws of mikvaot (siman 201) which prevents the tevilah from outside? Nafka mina: she immersed in a mikveh later found invalid — do we hold that she did not immerse at all, or that she immersed and only the condition of the mikveh is missing?
The Taz, on the Mehaber’s own words, reads the two clauses as two faces of a single examination: “as is fit” means without a hatsitsah, and “the mikveh that is fit” means that forty se’ah are found there. The Arukh HaShulhan unfolds the same sentence into a list of conditions in which time also appears — and it is this third term that opens the rest of the siman.
« בלא חציצה ומקוה הראוי היינו שיש שם מ׳ סאין » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק א)
« אא״כ טבלו כראוי והיינו שטבלה כל גופה בבת אחת ובלא חציצה על גופה ובמקוה הראויה שיהא בה מ׳ סאה ושלא יהיו המים שאובין ובזמן הראוי » (ערוך השולחן יו״ד קצ״ז:א)
« ואם טבלה בתוך ימי ספירתה אין הטבילה עולה לה והוי כלא טבלה » (ערוך השולחן יו״ד קצ״ז:א)
The source of the sugya — נדה ס״ז ע״ב. The laws of the time of the tevilah and the rule “that she not immerse by day” have their root in the Shas, tractate Niddah, where Rabbi Yohanan’s statement about sereikh bitah and the enactments of the Amoraim in cases of danger are found. The Rishonim — the Rambam in Hilkhot Issurei Bi’ah, the Rosh, the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, the Tur — set out the gedarim of the mitzvah and of the decree, and the Beit Yosef gathered their shitot. The din of seif 1 — that one leaves impurity only through tevilah — is a foundation agreed by all. The detail of the mikveh’s validity is set out in siman 201, and that of the act of immersion in siman 198.
2. Tevilah in its time and periyah u-reviyah — and the Friday-night leniency
This is the practical heart of the siman: the mitzvah of tevilah in its time, the Friday-night leniency and its conditions, and the principle that one does not distance the tevilah from the hafifah.
לשון המחבר והרמ״א (סעיף ב')
אם בעלה בעיר מצוה לטבול בזמנה שלא לבטל מפריה ורביה אפילו לילה אחד: הגה ומותרת לטבול ליל שבת (ר"ח ור' אליה וא"ז ובה"ג וסה"ת וסמ"ג בשם ר' שמואל שהנהיג כך בתו) אם לא יכלה לטבול קודם לכן (ב"י ומרדכי בשם כמה רבוותא ע"ש) ודוקא אם בעלה בעיר אבל בלא"ה אסור (כן משמע בת"ה סי' רצ"ה) ואם היה אפשר לה לטבול קודם לכן כגון שהיה אחר לידה או שלא היה בעלה בעיר ובא בערב שבת י"א שאסורה לטבול (שם ובמהרי"ו בפסקיו סימן מ"ח כדעת ב"י) וכן נהגו במקצת מקומות אבל במקום שאין מנהג אין להחמיר ובמקום שנהגו להחמיר גם במוצאי שבת לא תטבול דמאחר שהיה אפשר לה לטבול קודם לכן אין מרחיקין הטבילה מן החפיפה (אגור ובמהרי"ל) וכן אלמנה שאסורה לטבול טבילה ראשונה בליל שבת משום דאסור לבא עליה ביאה ראשונה בשבת אסורה לטבול ג"כ במוצאי שבת (מהרי"ל) ויש מקילין ומתירין לטבול במ"ש הואיל שלא טבלה בשבת משום חשש איסור (בית יוסף):
summary: if her husband is in the city, it is a mitzvah to immerse in her time, so as not to suspend the mitzvah of periyah u-reviyah even for a single night. Gloss of the Rama: and she is permitted to immerse on Friday night — in the name of Rabbeinu Hananel, Rabbi Eliyahu, the Or Zarua, the Halakhot Gedolot, the Sefer HaTerumah and the Semag in the name of Rabbi Shmuel — if she could not immerse before; and that only if her husband is in the city, otherwise it is forbidden. And if she could have immersed before — for instance after childbirth, or her husband was not in the city and arrived on Friday — there are those who say she is forbidden to immerse, and such is the custom in some places; but where there is no custom there is no reason to be stringent, and where the custom is stringent she will not immerse on Saturday night either, since, having been able to immerse before, one does not distance the tevilah from the hafifah. And likewise, a widow forbidden her first tevilah on Friday night — because it is forbidden to come upon her a first time on Shabbat — will not immerse on Saturday night either; and there are those who are lenient and permit immersing on Saturday night, since she did not immerse on Shabbat on account of a concern of prohibition.
יסוד — tevilah in its time and the safeguarding of periyah u-reviyah.
When בעלה בעיר, and he can fulfil the mitzvah of onah and of periyah u-reviyah, the tevilah is not deferred even by one night: every night of delay is a possible suspension of periyah u-reviyah.
• בעלה בעיר — the condition of the mitzvah; if he is not in the city, there is nothing to hasten.
• בזמנה — the night of the eighth day, as soon as she has become fit.
• אפילו לילה אחד — to stress that no leniency is taken with delay.
חקירה — “tevilah in its time is a mitzvah”: a mitzvah in itself, or a condition of periyah u-reviyah? The formula comes from the Shas, where it is the subject of a ma’hloket: for some, tevilah in its time is a mitzvah, and Rabbi Yose beRabbi Yehudah says that it suffices for her to immerse last and that we do not say it is a mitzvah. The question passes whole to the Rishonim — the Arukh HaShulhan reports from the Tur that Rabbeinu Hananel rules it is a mitzvah and Rabbeinu Tam that it is not — and then to the Aharonim.
The Mehaber’s language, “so as not to suspend periyah u-reviyah”, leans towards the second branch. And the Taz says so expressly: the din of our seif holds even for one who maintains that tevilah in its time is not a mitzvah, for on account of periyah u-reviyah it is certainly a mitzvah. Nafka mina — and it is the one the Arukh HaShulhan points to: where there is no aspect of periyah u-reviyah, the husband not being at home. The Shakh rules there that the halakhah is that it is not a mitzvah, against the Bah who held stringently; and this is why the Mehaber hangs the whole din on “if her husband is in the city”.
« דר״ח פסק טביל׳ בזמנה מצוה ור״ת פסק דלאו מצוה » (ערוך השולחן יו״ד קצ״ז:ב)
« זהו אפילו למאן דס״ל בטור טבילה בזמנה לאו מצוה היא ומ״מ משום פריה ורביה ודאי מצוה היא » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ב)
« והב״ח כתב דיש להחמיר דחומרא זו היא מדינא כו׳ גם טבילה בזמנה מצוה » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ג)
« אלא הדבר ברור דקי״ל טבילה בזמנה לאו מצוה וכמ״ש כל הפוסקים » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ג)
« וזה ידוע שאצלנו אינן טובלות כשאין הבעל בביתו ונמצא דתפסינן להלכה דלאו מצוה » (ערוך השולחן יו״ד קצ״ז:ג)
« אבל כשהבעל בביתו הוי וודאי מצוה וחובה על האשה לילך לטבילה כשנטהרה ולא לעכב אפילו לילה אחת » (ערוך השולחן יו״ד קצ״ז:ג)
The Friday-night leniency and its conditions (Rama):
The situation
The din
The source
She could not immerse before, and her husband is in the city
She is permitted to immerse ליל שבת
רמ״א, in the name of ר״ח, ר׳ אליה, או״ז, בה״ג, סה״ת and סמ״ג; and the condition “if she could not” in the name of the ב״י and the מרדכי
Her husband is not in the city
She is forbidden to immerse on Friday night (there is no aspect of mitzvah)
רמ״א, as implied in ת״ה סי׳ רצ״ה
She could have immersed before (after childbirth / husband arrived on Friday)
There are those who say it is forbidden; and such is the custom in some places
רמ״א, following the view of the ב״י, and מהרי״ו בפסקיו סי׳ מ״ח
Where there is no custom
There is no reason to be stringent
רמ״א; and the Shakh: so the Beit Yosef ruled, and that is the essential halakhah
Where the custom is stringent
She will not immerse on Saturday night either
רמ״א, in the name of the אגור and the מהרי״ל
A widow whose first tevilah falls on Friday night
She does not immerse on Saturday night either; and there are those who are lenient
רמ״א, in the name of the מהרי״ל, and the lenient ones in the name of the בית יוסף
« וכן הב״י פסק דמותר לטבול בשבת בכל ענין וכן עיקר לדינא » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ג)
“One does not distance the hafifah from the tevilah” — what the formula actually serves to forbid. That is the order of the Taz and of the ש״ך ס״ק ה — אין מרחיקין החפיפה מן הטבילה; the ש״ך ס״ק ד states the same ground the other way round — מטעם שאין להרחיק הטבילה מן החפיפה. One would readily read this clause as the spring of the Friday-night permission. The Taz and the Shakh put it to quite another use: it is the reason for the stringency on Saturday night. The Taz explains that we take account of Rashi, brought by the Tur in siman 199, that the hafifah must be done by day, before the tevilah, and not at night; but here that is impossible since it is Shabbat, so that she would have to comb on Friday and there would be a distance between the hafifah and the tevilah. The Shakh says the same of Saturday night: she cannot comb on Shabbat, and the matter is not repaired by having her do the hafifah on Friday, for one does not distance the hafifah from the tevilah where it is possible. Worth noting, and worth signalling: the Taz’s lemma and the Shakh’s sentence write the formula in the reverse order from the Rama’s — the hafifah from the tevilah, where the Rama writes the tevilah from the hafifah.
The Shakh moreover raises a צריך עיון here: what, he asks, has this stringency to do with that one? And he answers that the Rama means the place where the custom has become not to immerse on Shabbat except exactly in its time.
The widow. The last part of the gloss no longer concerns the hafifah at all: a widow whose tevilah falls on Friday night does not immerse, because the first relation with her acquires the marriage — the Taz refers to Orah Hayim 339 and to Even HaEzer 63 — and so weddings are not made on Shabbat. The Rama adds that she will not immerse on Saturday night either, and then brings those who are lenient. The Taz specifies the reach of that leniency: it bears only on the case immediately preceding it, that of the widow, where she committed no negligence — and not on the earlier case, that of the woman who could have immersed before.
« אין מרחיקין החפיפה מן הטבילה » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ה)
« שצריכה לחוף ביום קודם טבילתה ולא בלילה וכאן אי אפשר כיון שהוא שבת א״כ צריכה לחוף בערב שבת ויהיה הרחקה בין החפיפה לטבילה » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ה)
And the ס״ק does not stop there: the Taz grants that after the fact a hafifah done at night would suffice — but, he says, only where the tevilah falls of itself on Saturday night, and not here, where she was remiss in having waited until then.
« אע״פ שפסק לקמן דבדיעבד סגי שתחוף היטב בלילה היינו בחל טבילתה דוקא במ״ש מה שאין כן כאן שפשעה מה שהמתינה עד מוצאי שבת » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ה)
« צריכה לחוף דוקא ביום ואין לתקן שתחוף בע״ש דאין מרחיקין החפיפה מן הטבילה היכא דאפשר וכ״פ הב״ח » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ה)
« צ״ע מאי ענין חומרא זו לזו » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ד)
« וכן אלמנה שאסורה לטבול טבילה ראשונה בליל שבת משום דאסור לבא עליה ביאה ראשונה בשבת » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ז:ב)
« לפי שקונה אותה בביאה זו » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ו)
« נ״ל דזה קאי דוקא על הא דסמוך ליה דהיינו בכונס אלמנה שמן הדין אסורה בשבת ואז היה חל זמן טבילתה והיא לא פשעה במידי » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ז)
נפקא מינה:
Her time falls on Friday night, her husband is in the city and she could not before → she immerses (Rama), with the hafifah on Friday.
Her husband is not in the city, or she is elderly — two cases in which the aspect of periyah u-reviyah is absent → she does not immerse on Friday night, nothing being there to push it aside.
She could have immersed before and distanced herself → it depends on the custom of the place; where they are stringent, she does not immerse on Saturday night either.
A widow whose first tevilah falls on Friday night → neither on Friday night nor, according to the Rama, on Saturday night; and there are those who are lenient on this second point.
What counts as “could not”: the Shakh reports from the Maharam of Lublin that a woman who immersed on Thursday night and afterwards found that her tevilah was not valid is deemed under duress; and the Pithei Teshuvah reports from the Noda BiYehudah the case of a woman who was delayed and was held to be inadvertent.
The question of the Friday hafifah and immersion on Friday night or a festival night → a question for a Rav / a morat kallah.
And in practice — ask your Rav / your morat kallah / the balanit.
« דמי שטבלה בליל ו׳ ואחר כך מצאה שלא טבלה כראוי כגון שמצאה לכלוך תחת הצפורן מותרת לטבול ליל שבת כי אונסא הוא ואין לדמותה ליולדת » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק א)
« נחשבת שוגגת ומותרת לטבול ליל שבת » (פת״ש יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ג)
The Aharonim on this seif. The Taz extends over it from ס״ק ב to ז: the mitzvah despite the view that tevilah in its time is not one (ס״ק ב), the Friday-night leniency (ס״ק ג, where he reports that his father-in-law the Bayit Hadash — מו״ח — sets aside the proof the Tur draws from the Yerushalmi), the case of the new mother from תרומת הדשן סימן רצ״ה (ס״ק ד), the hafifah (ס״ק ה) and the widow (ס״ק ו–ז). The Shakh occupies ס״ק א to ה, and it is at ס״ק ג that he rules, against the Bah, that tevilah in its time is not a mitzvah. The Pithei Teshuvah gathers on this single seif his ס״ק א to ח, where he names among others the Hatam Sofer, the Hemdat Tzvi, the Noda BiYehudah, the Even HaShoham, the Makom Shmuel, and further the Dagul MeRevava and the Levushei Srad at ס״ק ד, the Hut HaShani at ס״ק ה. The Arukh HaShulhan sets out the ma’hloket and the custom at his seifim ב to ח. And in practice — ask your Rav / your morat kallah.
3. That she not immerse by day — the decree of sereikh bitah and the hiddush of the kallot
אסורה לטבול ביום ז' ואפילו אם ממתנת מלטבול עד יום ח' או ט' אינה יכולה לטבול ביום משום סרך בתה (פי' דבוק הבת וקורבתה לעשות כמעשה האם שתטבול ביום כמוה ולא תבחין שאמה לאחר שבעה טבלה ולא בשביעי עצמו): הגה והכלות הטובלות קודם החופה יכולות לטבול ביום דהא לא באין אצל החתן עד הלילה אבל אחר החופה דינן כשאר נשים (מהרי"ל):
summary: she is forbidden to immerse on the seventh day; and even if she waits to immerse until the eighth or the ninth, she cannot immerse by day, because of sereikh bitah. An explanatory gloss printed inside the text — this small type is not the Rama’s but an explanation of the term: the daughter’s attachment and closeness, which lead her to do as her mother does and to immerse by day like her, without discerning that her mother immersed after the seven and not on the seventh itself. Gloss of the Rama: and the kallot who immerse before the huppah may immerse by day, since they do not come to the hatan until night; but after the huppah, their din is that of other women.
יסוד — the decree of sereikh bitah.
By the underlying din, once the seven clean days have passed, it would have been natural that she could immerse even on the eighth day, by day. But the Sages decreed that she should not immerse by day — it is the heading of the siman itself, שלא תטבול האשה ביום —, and even on the eighth and the ninth — because of sereikh bitah:
• the daughter who sees her mother immerse by day will say that she too may immerse by day;
• and she will not discern that her mother immersed לאחר שבעה, and she will come to immerse on the seventh day itself, which is a day on which she is not yet entitled to.
This is why they forbade immersion by day in every circumstance, so that no damage should arise.
« אסורה לטבול ביום ז׳ ואפילו אם ממתנת מלטבול עד יום ח׳ או ט׳ אינה יכולה לטבול ביום משום סרך בתה » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ז:ג)
What the Taz places under the decree — and it is not what one assumes. The Taz distinguishes two figures. For a niddah who would immerse on her seventh day without having counted clean days, the Torah itself requires night, for her matter depends on whole days. But a zavah, who counts seven clean days, falls under מקצת היום ככולו: having counted part of the seventh day in purity, she could immerse even by day, and the Taz derives it from the verse ואחר תטהר — after the act, she is pure. It is therefore the Sages who forbade immersion by day, lest she have relations while it is still day, then see blood on that same day, and the count be undone retroactively, so that he will have come upon her in prohibition. And since our women are treated as doubtful zavot and count seven clean days, they always have at least eight days and would have had grounds to immerse by day — and yet they do not, because of sereikh bitah. The decree is thus not the consequence of an unfinished count: it is laid on top of a permission that existed.
« אבל זבה שסופרת ז׳ נקיים בספירה אמרינן מקצת היום ככולו כיון שספרה מקצת יום השביעי בנקיות טובלת אפילו ביום » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ח)
« אלא שחכמים אסרו לטבול ביום שמא תשמש בעוד יום ואח״כ בו ביום תראה ותסתור למפרע נמצא שבא עליה באיסור » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ח)
חקירה — what is the extent of the decree of sereikh bitah? This decree is a matter of what is seen and what is learned: that the daughter not learn to immerse on the seventh day. Its extent must be examined: is it a general decree over every immersion by day — and therefore even the eighth and the ninth, where there is no concern at all for herself — or is it measured to the place of the concern? The Mehaber’s language, “even if she waits until the ninth”, indicates a general decree, which the Sages did not divide by days.
The Shakh says it outright, and that is the answer: even a woman who has no daughter is subject to the same din, for no division was made. He adds that “or the ninth” means “or more”. He also draws from it a limit in the other direction, and these are his words: we have not found the decree of sereikh bitah except as regards immersion by day — it does not extend, therefore, to obliging a woman who must re-immerse after two or three days to begin seven clean days again. And he tightens it further: even immersing just before nightfall so as to come home once night has fallen is forbidden, according to the view of the Rashbam and those who follow him.
Nafka mina: wherever the concern of sereikh bitah is not met at all — the kallot — a hiddush appears, and that is what follows.
« ואפי׳ אין לה בת דינא הכי דלא פלוג ופשוט הוא » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ח)
« ולא מצינו גזרה דסרך בתה אלא לענין טבילה ביום » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ח)
« או יותר כדמשמע בפוסקים ופשוט הוא » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ז)
« משמע אפילו שתטבול סמוך לחשכה ותבא לביתה משתחשך אסור כדעת רשב״ם וסייעתו » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ו)
The hiddush of the kallot (Rama) — where sereikh bitah has no purchase. The Rama innovates that the kallot who immerse before the huppah may immerse by day. His reason: the whole decree rests on sereikh bitah — that a daughter should not learn to immerse on the seventh day; but the kallah, although she immerses by day, comes to the hatan only at night, so that the concern of damage does not exist in her case, and no daughter learns a forbidden permission from her. The decree is therefore suspended on its reason: where the reason is not met, it falls. But after the huppah her din is that of other women in every respect, and the Shakh specifies that this holds even where it is her first tevilah for this husband.
The Shakh nevertheless restricts the hiddush: it holds, he says, only for us, among whom the kallot do not immerse on the seventh day. The Pithei Teshuvah reports that the Dagul Mervavah objects to the Shakh on this point and writes that in pressing need it seems one may be lenient even on the seventh day — provided the huppah is not set up until the stars come out. Both readings are before the reader, and we do not decide between them.
« והכלות הטובלות קודם החופה יכולות לטבול ביום דהא לא באין אצל החתן עד הלילה » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ז:ג)
« אבל אחר החופה דינן כשאר נשים » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ז:ג)
« נראה דהיינו דוקא לדידן שהכלות אינן טובלות בז׳ » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק ט)
« כלומר אם טובלת אחר החופה אע״פ שהיא טבילה הראשונה לבעלה זה דינה כשאר נשים » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק י)
« בדגמ״ר שהשיג ג״כ על הש״ך בזה וכתב דבשעת הדחק נראה להקל אף ביום ז׳ » (פת״ש יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק י)
The kallah — before the huppah and after:
The situation
The din
The reason
Kallah before the huppah
She is permitted to immerse ביום
She comes to the hatan only at night — there is no sereikh bitah; and, for the Shakh, only among us, where kallot do not immerse on the seventh day
A woman after the huppah / other women
She is forbidden to immerse by day (even the eighth and the ninth)
Their din is that of other women — we are concerned for sereikh bitah, even for one who has no daughter
The Aharonim on this seif. On seif 3 the Taz holds only one entry, ס״ק ח — but it is the one that carries the whole foundation of the decree. The Shakh holds ס״ק ו to י here: the Rashbam’s stringency (ס״ק ו), “or more” (ס״ק ז), the decree even without a daughter and its limit (ס״ק ח), the restriction of the hiddush of the kallot (ס״ק ט) and the kallah after the huppah (ס״ק י). The Pithei Teshuvah holds ס״ק ט and י here, where he reports the Sidrei Taharah, the Hatam Sofer and the Dagul Mervavah. The Arukh HaShulhan treats all this matter at his seifim ט to ט״ו. And in practice — ask your Rav / your morat kallah.
4. Duress — the eighth day before night, and never the seventh
היכא דאיכא אונס כגון שיראה לטבול בלילה מחמת צנה או פחד גנבים וכיוצא בו או שסוגרין שערי העיר יכולה לטבול בשמיני מבעוד יום אבל בשביעי לא תטבול מבעוד יום אף על גב דאיכא אונס:
summary: where there is duress — for instance that she fears to immerse at night because of the cold, or out of fear of thieves, or because the city gates are being closed — she may immerse on the eighth day while it is still day; but on the seventh she will not immerse while it is still day, even where there is duress.
יסוד — the hierarchy of duress.
In a case of duress — cold, fear of thieves, the closing of the city gates and the like — they were lenient, but not equally for every day:
• בשמיני — under duress, she may immerse while it is still day (whereas ordinarily it is forbidden by day).
• בשביעי — never will she immerse while it is still day, even under full duress.
The Mehaber’s examples are not figures of speech: they take up the enactments that the Gemara reports in the name of the Amoraim, each for his own city — the cold in Pumbedita, the thieves in Papunya, the gates in Mehoza — to which the Gemara adds the lions of Naresh, which the Mehaber does not take up.
« היכא דאיכא אונס כגון שיראה לטבול בלילה מחמת צנה או פחד גנבים וכיוצא בו או שסוגרין שערי העיר יכולה לטבול בשמיני מבעוד יום » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ז:ד)
« אבל בשביעי לא תטבול מבעוד יום אף על גב דאיכא אונס » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ז:ד)
חקירה — why does duress permit the eighth and not the seventh? Immersion by day was forbidden because of sereikh bitah (§3); and under duress we find a division between the eighth and the seventh. Where that division comes from must be examined, and the answer is sought in what the Taz established at ס״ק ח.
On the eighth day the count is complete; only the decree of sereikh bitah remains, and it is that decree which was relaxed in a place of duress. On the seventh there is more: the day is not over, and the concern the Taz states — that she have relations while it is still day, then see blood on the same day, and the count be undone retroactively — is still entire. It is therefore not that her tevilah would be void: the Taz teaches on the contrary that in strict law a zavah who has counted part of the seventh day could immerse even by day. It is that the relaxation of duress, which suffices to lift a decree, does not suffice to lift that concern.
We put this forward as a reading of the Taz, not as a ruling, and we do not decide: the Aharonim discuss both the measure of duress and the reach of the seventh-day stringency. The Pithei Teshuvah reports from the Hamudei Daniel that at first sight duress would help only if it applies to all the women of the city; and on the seventh day he refers to the Sidrei Taharah in the name of the Bah and to the Hatam Sofer. The question remains open.
« לכאורה נראה דלא מהני אונס אלא אם האונס לכל הנשים שבעיר » (פת״ש יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק י״א)
נפקא מינה:
Duress on the eighth day (fear, cold, closing of the gates) → she is permitted to immerse while it is still day.
Duress on the seventh day → she is forbidden to immerse by day even under duress.
What is the measure of the duress that permits — danger, security, mikveh hours — and must it be common to all the women of the city, as the Hamudei Daniel consider → a question for a Rav.
And in practice — ask your Rav / your morat kallah / the balanit.
The Aharonim on this seif. It must be said plainly: on seif 4 the Taz and the Shakh have no entry. The anchors Sefaria places in the text of the Shulhan Arukh give, for this seif, among others the Pithei Teshuvah at ס״ק י״א and י״ב, the Torat HaShelamim ס״ק ט, the Be’er HaGolah and the Bi’ur HaGra. It is to the Pithei Teshuvah that one must go: ס״ק י״א for the measure of duress after the Hamudei Daniel, ס״ק י״ב for the seventh day, where he refers to the Sidrei Taharah ס״ק י״ג in the name of the Bah and to a responsum of the Hatam Sofer. The substance of the matter is at Taz ס״ק ח, which is anchored to the preceding seif but illuminates this one. And in practice — ask your Rav / your morat kallah.
אם עברה וטבלה בח' ביום בלא אונס אפילו הכי עלתה לה טבילה וכן אם עברה וטבלה בז' ביום עלתה לה טבילה: הגה ומכל מקום לא תשמש אפילו בשמיני עד הלילה ותסתיר טבילתה מבעלה עד הלילה (ב"י בשם האגור):
summary: if she transgressed and immersed on the eighth day, by day, without duress — the tevilah nevertheless counted for her; and likewise if she transgressed and immersed on the seventh day, by day, the tevilah counted for her. Gloss of the Rama: and in any case she will not have relations, even on the eighth day, before night, and she will conceal her tevilah from her husband until night.
יסוד — bediavad against lekhatehillah.
Although it is forbidden to immerse by day (§3), if she עברה וטבלה by day — the tevilah counted for her, and she does not have to re-immerse:
• on the eighth day, by day, without duress — it counted (although she transgressed the decree);
• and even on the seventh day, by day — עלתה לה טבילה after the fact.
And in any case the Rama adds a סייג: she will not have relations before night, and she will תסתיר טבילתה from her husband until night.
« אם עברה וטבלה בח׳ ביום בלא אונס אפילו הכי עלתה לה טבילה » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ז:ה)
« וכן אם עברה וטבלה בז׳ ביום עלתה לה טבילה » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ז:ה)
« ומכל מקום לא תשמש אפילו בשמיני עד הלילה ותסתיר טבילתה מבעלה עד הלילה » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ז:ה)
חקירה — how can a tevilah done on the seventh day, by day, count? This is the question the seif calls for, and it has an answer in the sources, and then a ma’hloket.
The answer is the one the Arukh HaShulhan reports in the name of the Rambam: after the fact the tevilah counted and she needs no other, since the prohibition is only a decree and not the underlying din — and what was done is done. He adds in the name of the Bah that among us, who make the hefsek betaharah, her seventh day is already the eighth from the sighting, so that even for a niddah it would be permitted by Torah law. So the Beit Yosef ruled in the Shulhan Arukh.
But the Shakh reports the Bah himself ruling stringently, following the Maharil, the Hagahot Maimoniyot and the Hagahat Sha’arei Dura in the name of the Maharam: on the seventh day the tevilah did not count and a second tevilah is required at night — and “it is good to be stringent where it is possible”, since such, he writes, is also the opinion of the ראב״ד, of the הגהות מיימוניות and of the ר״א in the name of the שאילתות — this last abbreviation the Shakh does not expand, and neither do we. The Arukh HaShulhan takes up that stringency and frames it: good where it is possible and without great trouble, but where it is not possible or there is great trouble, the essential halakhah is like the Rambam. We do not decide: this is a question for a Rav.
« דעת הרמב״ם בפ״ו דבדיעבד עלתה לה טבילה וא״צ טבילה אחרת דכיון דאין האיסור אלא משום גזירה בעלמא ולא מעיקר הדין » (ערוך השולחן יו״ד קצ״ז:י״ז)
« והב״ח פסק להחמיר כמהרי״ל והג״מ והגהת ש״ד בשם מהר״ם דביום ז׳ לא עלתה לה טבילה וצריכה טבילה שנית בלילה » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק י״א)
« וטוב להחמיר במקום שאפשר » (ערוך השולחן יו״ד קצ״ז:י״ז)
“And she will conceal her tevilah” — why this סייג. The Rama requires not only that she wait for night, but that she conceal her tevilah from her husband. The reason speaks for itself: if the husband knows she has already immersed by day, he will come to be lenient and have relations before night — the tevilah having counted for her — and we would find ourselves precisely in the daytime relation which the decree sought to prevent. She therefore conceals, until night comes and all is in order. The seif thus completes the decree: the tevilah counts after the fact, but the relation remains forbidden by day, and the concealment makes a fence before the stumbling.
It is worth adding that this stringency was not unanimous: the Arukh HaShulhan reports that the Beit Yosef holds it to be an excessive stringency — while not disagreeing with the Rama. And the Pithei Teshuvah, at the last ס״ק of the siman, reports from the Hamudei Daniel that if the day was overcast and there is doubt as to the moment of the tevilah, or she immersed at bein hashemashot, she need not be stringent nor re-immerse.
« כתב הב״י שחומרא יתירא היא » (ערוך השולחן יו״ד קצ״ז:י״ז)
« אם הוא יום מעונן וכדומה ויש ספק אם טבלה ביום או בלילה או שטבלה בין השמשות אינה צריכה להחמיר ולטבול שנית » (פת״ש יו״ד קצ״ז ס״ק י״ג)
נפקא מינה:
She immersed on the eighth day, by day, without duress → עלתה לה טבילה; she does not re-immerse.
She immersed on the seventh day, by day → for the Mehaber it counted as well; but the Shakh reports the stringent ones who require a second tevilah at night, and the Arukh HaShulhan writes that it is good to be stringent where it is possible.
In every case — she will not have relations before night, and she will conceal her tevilah from her husband (Rama).
Doubt about the moment — an overcast day, bein hashemashot → the Pithei Teshuvah reports that there is no reason to be stringent.
In practice — a woman who immersed by day in error → a question for a Rav, whether to wait for night or to re-immerse.
And in practice — ask your Rav / your morat kallah / the balanit.
The Aharonim on this seif. On seif 5 the Taz has no entry — his last ס״ק, the eighth, is anchored to seif 3. The Shakh holds a single entry here, ס״ק י״א, and it is the one that carries the whole ma’hloket over the seventh-day tevilah. The Pithei Teshuvah holds ס״ק י״ג here. The Arukh HaShulhan treats the entire seif at his seif י״ז, where he sets the Rambam, the Bah, the Rashba, the Beit Yosef and the Shakh’s stringency side by side. And in practice — ask your Rav / your morat kallah.
The overall hakira of the siman: what is the fitting time of the tevilah, and what are the gedarim of the permission and of the limit?
One leaves impurity only through tevilah — time does not purify; karet until the tevilah; “as is fit, in the mikveh that is fit”, to which the Arukh HaShulhan adds “and at the fitting time” (§1).
Tevilah in its time — a mitzvah, or a condition of periyah u-reviyah: a ma’hloket of the Shas taken up by Rabbeinu Hananel and Rabbeinu Tam; the Shakh and the Arukh HaShulhan hold that it is not a mitzvah in itself, and the Taz that through periyah u-reviyah it certainly is one when the husband is in the city; the Friday-night leniency and its conditions; and the hafifah (§2).
Sereikh bitah — a general decree over immersion by day, even the eighth and the ninth, and even for one who has no daughter; it falls where its reason is not met, with the kallot, with the Shakh’s restriction and the Dagul Mervavah’s objection (§3).
Duress — it permits the eighth day before night, where only the decree remains; it does not permit the seventh, where the concern of stirah stated by the Taz persists; and the measure of duress is disputed (§4).
After the fact — the tevilah counted even on the seventh according to the Mehaber, the prohibition being only a decree; the Shakh reports the stringent ones; and in any case no relations before night, and she conceals her tevilah (§5).
נפקא מינה for practice (following the line of the Shulhan Arukh and its nosei kelim):
She leaves her impurity only through a tevilah done as is fit, in the mikveh that is fit; time alone does not purify (Mehaber seif 1).
Her husband is in the city → it is a mitzvah to immerse in her time, so as not to suspend periyah u-reviyah (Mehaber seif 2; Taz ס״ק ב).
She could not before and her husband is in the city → she is permitted on Friday night; and if she could and distanced herself → according to the custom of the place, the Shakh holding that where there is no custom there is no reason to be stringent (Rama seif 2; Shakh ס״ק ג).
She is forbidden to immerse by day — even the eighth and the ninth — because of sereikh bitah; and the kallot before the huppah may (Mehaber and Rama seif 3; Shakh ס״ק ח–ט).
Under duress — she immerses on the eighth while it is still day; but on the seventh she will not immerse by day, even under duress (Mehaber seif 4; Pithei Teshuvah ס״ק י״א–י״ב).
She transgressed and immersed by day, even on the seventh → the tevilah counted for her according to the Mehaber, and there are those who are stringent; and in any case no relations before night, and she conceals her tevilah (Mehaber and Rama seif 5; Shakh ס״ק י״א).
And in practice — ask your Rav / your morat kallah / the balanit.
She does not leave impurity without tevilah; time does not purify; karet until she immerses as is fit in the mikveh that is fit
מחבר ס״א
Tevilah in its time
Her husband is in the city — it is a mitzvah to immerse in her time, so as not to suspend periyah u-reviyah even for one night
מחבר ס״ב · ט״ז ס״ק ב
The Friday-night leniency
She could not before and her husband is in the city — permitted on Friday night; she could and distanced herself — according to the custom; one does not distance the tevilah from the hafifah
רמ״א ס״ב · ש״ך ס״ק ג–ה · ט״ז ס״ק ג–ה
The widow
First tevilah on Friday night — she does not immerse, the first relation acquiring the marriage; nor, for the Rama, on Saturday night, and there are those who are lenient
רמ״א ס״ב · ט״ז ס״ק ו–ז
Sereikh bitah
She is forbidden to immerse by day — even the eighth and the ninth, and even without a daughter; the kallot before the huppah may
מחבר ורמ״א ס״ג · ט״ז ס״ק ח · ש״ך ס״ק ו–י
Duress
On the eighth, before night, it is permitted; on the seventh, never, even under duress
מחבר ס״ד · פת״ש ס״ק י״א–י״ב
After the fact
She transgressed and immersed by day (even the seventh) — it counted; no relations before night, and she conceals her tevilah
מחבר ורמ״א ס״ה · ש״ך ס״ק י״א
Table — the central ma’hlokot and leniencies of the siman
The subject
First shitah
Second shitah
Is tevilah in its time a mitzvah
ר״ח — it is a mitzvah; and so the ב״ח, who draws a stringency from it
ר״ת — it is not; and so rule the ש״ך (ס״ק ג) and the ערוך השולחן (ס״ג)
Immersing on Friday night when she could have immersed before
ב״י in the Rama — forbidden; and such is the custom in some places
Where there is no custom — no stringency; and the ש״ך: so the Beit Yosef ruled, and that is the essential halakhah
Immersion by day
Other women — forbidden (sereikh bitah), and even without a daughter (ש״ך ס״ק ח)
A kallah before the huppah — permitted by day (רמ״א), with the ש״ך’s restriction at ס״ק ט and the דגול מרבבה’s objection (פת״ש ס״ק י)
Duress and immersion by day
The eighth — permitted before night
The seventh — forbidden even under duress; and the measure of duress is disputed (פת״ש ס״ק י״א)
She transgressed and immersed on the seventh, by day
רמב״ם, רשב״א and the שולחן ערוך — it counted, the prohibition being only a decree
The chain the ש״ך lists — מהרי״ל · הג״מ · הגהת ש״ד בשם מהר״ם · ראב״ד · ר״א בשם השאילתות — a second tevilah is required at night (ש״ך ס״ק י״א)
Concealing the tevilah and waiting until night
רמ״א — she will not have relations before night and will conceal her tevilah
The ב״י holds it an excessive stringency, without disagreeing with the Rama (ערוך השולחן סי״ז)
Table — the sources of the sugya
Gemara: נדה ס״ז ע״ב — Rav and Rabbi Yohanan on immersion at night and sereikh bitah; the enactments of Rav Idi, Rav Aha bar Yaakov, Rav Yehuda and Rava, which are the cases of duress of seif 4; and the sugya of the hafifah and the tevilah · נדה ל׳ ע״א — the ma’hloket over טבילה בזמנה מצוה · ויקרא ט״ו:כ״ח — וספרה לה … ואחר תטהר
Rishonim: רש״י · רשב״ם · רבינו תם · רמב״ם (הלכות איסורי ביאה, פ״ד and פ״ו) · ראב״ד · רשב״א (תורת הבית) · רא״ש · הגהות מיימוניות · ר״ח · בה״ג · סה״ת · סמ״ג · ר׳ אליה and או״ז · מהרי״ל · טור · בית יוסף
Aharonim: רמ״א · ש״ך · ט״ז · ב״ח · פתחי תשובה · סדרי טהרה · דגול מרבבה · ערוך השולחן · תרומת הדשן · מהרי״ו · אגור · מהר״ם מלובלין · נודע ביהודה · חתם סופר · חמודי דניאל
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן קצ״ז · Level 2 — Lamdan · פלפול ועיון בדיני זמן הטבילה daattorah.com
⚠️ This content is written for study and examination only. Nothing written here is a ruling. For any practical application (לְמַעֲשֶׂה) — ask your Rav, your morat kallah or the balanit.