ates under the Order of Nashim (“Women,” the law of marriage). It is quite clear though that he does so against tradition, since in Order Tohorot he notes that “here it is common to write Tractate Niddah. I have however already written it in Seder Nashim.” The manuscript is easily accessibly here.
[8] Mira Balberg, Purity, Body and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014) illustrates that the Tannaim think about the “self” and his or her relation to other people and the world through the halakhot of impurity.
[9] This is likely the reason for later developments extending the nature of the niddah taboo to quasi-sexual behavior (as opposed to just intercourse) or merely potentially erotic behavior between husband and wife, that take on a life their own in the halakhic literature of the medieval period. However, neither the Torah nor even tannaitic halakhic literature regulates this significantly. The Talmud mentions but a few rulings and minhagim. For instance, it attributes to the Amora Rav Huna the ruling that a wife still does all the work for her husband she is expected to do, except for “mixing the wine, making the bed, and washing his face, hands, and feet” (b. Ketubot 61a), which we may speculate, are acts with potentially erotic connotations.
[10] The Yerushalmi contains a talmudic discussion for the first three chapters only. There is some scholarly discussion about the remark by the Tosafist on b. Niddah 66a (s.v. ve-tivdoq) that refers to a talmudic discussion in the Yerushalmi on the seventh chapter of Niddah (dam ha-Niddah), but we do not have any record of that chapter or the preceding ones.
[11] Maimonides therefore treats the laws of niddah under his category of Hilkhot Issurei Bi’ah (Prohibited Sexual Relations), Chapters 4-11, in his Sefer Kedushah (holiness or sanctity) in the Mishneh Torah. Much as he, of course, preserves the rabbinic language of impurity, he thereby recategorizes the main characteristic under which hilkhot niddah should be considered. The euphemistic phrase of taharat ha-mishpaha (family purity), that emerged in the nineteenth century, has more to do with the controversy between emerging Orthodoxy and Reform Judaism than with the halakhic terminology of rabbinic texts. See Jonah Steinberg, “From a ‘Pot of Filth’ to a ‘Hedge of Roses’ and Back: Changing Theorizations of Menstruation in Judaism,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 13:2 (1992), 5-26.
[12] Whether Leviticus 15 assumes that women need to wash themselves as part of a purification process or not has been extensively debated. See, for instance, Zev Farber, “The Purification of a Niddah: The Torah Requirement,” TheTorah.com (2014); Yitzhaq Feder,“The Purification of a Niddah: The Legal Responsibility of a Reader,” TheTorah.com (2014); Isaac Sassoon, “The Purification of a Niddah: When Silence Matters,” TheTorah.com (2014).
[14] For the unhealthy male emission, zav, the Torah specifies the need for fresh or running water (מים חיים), otherwise, the Torah never describes what form washing for impurity must take. In fact, scholars generally assume that washing in the biblical period was not in a bath, and that the mikvah is almost certainly a development in Second Temple times influenced by Roman baths. For more on this see, Hayah Katz, “Biblical Purification: Was It Immersion?” TheTorah.com (2014); Yonatan Adler, “On the Origins of Tevilah (Ritual Immersion),” TheTorah.com (2017).
[15] Admittedly, Lev 18:19 does use the term “menstrual impurity” (בְּנִדַּת טֻמְאָתָהּ), but it is still a leap to assume that the sexual transgression is about an abstract status of impurity as opposed to the concrete issue of contact with menstrual blood.
[16] This elision creates a unique situation in niddah. In general, sex with an impure person extends impurity from the impure person to the other but is not forbidden.
[17] This “retroactive impurity” is a radical innovation, with no basis in biblical law. For a discussion of this, see my, Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000).
[18] In contrast, Shammai denies the existence of retroactive impurity and declares that impurity only begins the moment she notices that she has begun menstruating (Hebrew דיה שעתה). The Sages suggest a compromise position: they cap the retroactivity at twenty four hours (מעת לעת), or the most recent check, whichever is closer to the time she realizes that she had been menstruating.
[19] The purpose of the first two wiping cloths will be discussed shortly.
[20] The fact that the Mishnah contains texts with conflicting viewpoints is not unusual; the Mishnah was compiled from materials reflecting different stages in rabbinic thinking with little to no attempt at making the materials cohere and present a united front.
[21] While these descriptions of women who check before or after sex sounds like a reference to a pre-existing practice, as if (some) women simply do this, this may be more of a reflection of a rabbinic ideal than a popular practice.
ויקרא טו:טז וְאִישׁ כִּי תֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם אֶת כָּל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב… טו:יח וְאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע וְרָחֲצוּ בַמַּיִם וְטָמְאוּ עַד הָעָרֶב.
Lev 15:16 When a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water and remain unclean until evening… 15:18 And if a man has carnal relations with a woman, they shall bathe in water and remain unclean until evening.
Professor Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert is Associate Professor of Jewish Studies in the Department of Religious Studies at Stanford University and is (returning) Director of Stanford’s Taube Center of Jewish Studies. She received her Ph.D. from Berkeley GTU, Center for Jewish Studies. She is the author of Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions of Biblical Gender, and co-editor of The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature and Talmudic Transgressions.
The Decalogue: Are Female Readers Included?
// Qt
#include <QtCore/QTimer>
#include <QtNetwork/QTcpSocket>
// Hb
#include <HbGlobal.h>
#include <HbLogService.h>
// Local
#include <com/tcp/HbTcpServer.h>
#include <com/tcp/HbTcpSocket.h>
#include <com/tcp/HbTcpSocketHandler.h>

using namespace hb::tools;
using namespace hb::log;
using namespace hb::network;

HbTcpSocketHandler::HbTcpSocketHandler(HbTcpServer* server) : HbSocketHandler() {
    Q_ASSERT(server);
    mServer = server;
}

HbTcpSocketHandler::~HbTcpSocketHandler() {
    reset();
}

HbTcpServer* HbTcpSocketHandler::server() const {
    return mServer;
}

void HbTcpSocketHandler::init() {
    HbSocketHandler::init();
}

void HbTcpSocketHandler::reset() {
}

void HbTcpSocketHandler::onNewPendingConnection(qint32 socket_descriptor) {
    if (!canHandleNewConnection()) {
        qWarning() << QString("Handler