Siman 187 — A Woman Who Bleeds From Relations (רואה מחמת תשמיש): Makor or Wound, Diagnosing the Source, and the Rama's Leniency
Distinguishing the source of the blood — uterine makor or wound / sides (מכה / צדדין) — to discover and understand
יורה דעה · סימן קפ״ז
דין רואה מחמת תשמיש
🌱 Introduction Level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
A first approach to Siman 187: the 14 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, the vocalized Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. A woman bleeds from relations (machmat tashmish): does she become niddah? And, if it recurs, does this blood come from the makor (the uterus) or from a wound / the sides (מכה / צדדין)? The whole siman seeks to diagnose the source and to be lenient wherever possible. A topic that is at once medical and halachic: every concrete decision is made with the Rav and a physician.
Topic: A woman who bleeds from relations — makor or wound, diagnosing the source, ne'emanut, the Rama's leniency Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קפ״ז
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
A note before reading. This siman touches on marital intimacy and on a woman's health. Its register here is deliberately sober and clinical. None of the situations described is to be ruled upon by oneself: bleeding connected with relations is both a medical and a halachic question. The rule throughout this siman is to consult a Rav fluent in the laws of niddah AND a physician (gynecologist) — never self-diagnosis.
📑 Study plan
1.The Mehaber's text: the 14 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Context: why this blood poses a twofold problem (niddah + prohibition to the husband)
4.Diagnosing the source: the makor / wound / veset table
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries
6.The Rama's gloss (הגה) — the leniency "אין אנו נוהגין להוציאה"
7.The chazaka of three times: why three times, and the sequence of husbands
8.Modern practical cases: contact bleeding, the tube of yesterday / medicine today
9.Synthesis and comprehension questions
1. The Mehaber's text — the 14 seifim
Siman 187 deals with a precise and delicate case within the laws of niddah: a woman who bleeds from the very act of relations (machmat tashmish), immediately afterward. This blood poses a twofold problem: on the one hand it renders her niddah; on the other, if it recurs, the concern that it comes from the makor (the uterus) would forbid her to this husband. The whole siman therefore seeks to distinguish the source of the blood — makor (uterus) versus wound / sides (מכה / צדדין) — and to be lenient whenever possible. The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds his glosses (הגה), including the major leniency of the siman: today we no longer compel divorce. Let us discover the seifim by groups.
Group A — The chazaka of three times and diagnosing the source (seifim 1-3)
Seif 1 — Three times in a row, the sequence of husbands, and the Rama's leniency
A woman who bleeds from relations, immediately — within the time it takes "to reach her hand under the pillow, take an examination cloth (עֵד) and wipe herself" (the measure of immediacy) — and this three times in a row (all the more so if blood was found on his cloth three times): she becomes forbidden to this husband; she separates and marries another. If, with the second, she again bleeds from relations three times in a row → forbidden to him too; she separates and marries a third. And if, with the third as well, it recurs three times → she marries no one further and remains forbidden to all until an examination (בדיקה) (seif 2). Gloss of the Rama: some say "we do not have the practice of making her leave (i.e. compelling divorce)" (ein anu nohagin lehotzi'ah).
The central idea:three consecutive times (a chazaka of three) are needed to establish that this bleeding is not chance, but the sign of a makor that reacts to relations. The sequence of husbands (first → second → third) tests whether the issue lies with her or with the combination with this husband — for, as the Taz notes, אֵין כָּל הָאֶצְבָּעוֹת שָׁווֹת ("not all are alike"): each husband's body differs. And above all: the Rama rules the major leniency of the siman — today we no longer compel divorce.
Seif 2 — How she examines: the tube examination (בדיקת שפופרת), diagnosing makor / sides
How does she examine? One takes a שפופרת — a hollow tube (here of lead) to the measure of the organ — whose rim is smoothed; into it one places a מכחול (a probe) tipped with מוֹך (wadding), and inserts it as far as the place that relations reach. If blood appears on the tip → it is known to come from the makor (the uterus) → she is forbidden. If not → it is known to come from the sides (צדדין) → she is permitted. (And even today one may rely on this examination.)
The heart of the siman: everything turns on where the blood comes from. The tube isolates the sides (צדדין) from the depth (makor): if the blood is only on the sides, it is not uterine bleeding and does not forbid her to the husband. The Mehaber stresses that "even today" one relies on this diagnosis. This is precisely the logic continued nowadays by medical examination: determining the source. In practice, this diagnosis is carried out by a physician and a Rav — never by oneself.
Seif 3 — Examining while still with the first husband; the role of pain (צער / כאב)
If she wishes to examine herself while still with the first husband, after having bled three times → she is entitled to, and she is permitted to him (if the examination confirms it). Some (yesh omrim) hold that she is forbidden to the first from the third act onward, even with an examination. Gloss of the Rama: one relies on the first opinion to be lenient; and if she felt distress and pain (צער וכאב) during relations, then by all opinions one relies on the examination even with the first husband (Ritzva) — for pain points to a wound, not the makor.
Why pain changes everything:pain during relations points to a wound (מכה) rather than to uterine bleeding. This is a clinical indication the halacha takes seriously: where, without pain, some hesitate to permit the first husband by a mere examination, the presence of pain produces unanimity in relying on the examination. But the assessment of this pain and its meaning belongs to the Rav and the physician.
Group B — What one may "attribute" (תולין): veset, wound, ne'emanut (seifim 4-7)
Seif 4 — Relations close to the veset → one attributes to the veset
If she had relations close to her veset (the expected date of her period), we attribute her sighting to her veset and do not count her as "bleeding from relations." That blood is the regular blood of her period, which would have appeared anyway; it therefore does not enter the chazaka of three times of bleeding from relations.
The first "attribution" (תולין): before concluding "from relations," one looks for another known cause of the blood. If relations fall on the eve of the period, the obvious cause is the veset, not the act. This is the siman's first tool of leniency: not to impute to relations a blood that has its own explanation.
Seif 5 — A wound at that place (מכה) → one attributes; the Rama's double doubt (ספק ספיקא)
If there is a wound (מכה) at that place, one attributes the blood to her wound. But if the blood of the wound differs (מְשֻׁנֶּה, in color) from the blood of her sightings → one does not attribute it to the wound. Gloss of the Rama: all this for a woman who has a fixed veset (וסת קבוע); then, outside the days of the veset, one may attribute to the wound even without knowing for certain that it bled. Likewise, if she has no fixed veset and there is doubt (makor or sides) → one attributes to the wound by a double doubt (ספק ספיקא): perhaps from the sides; and even if from the makor, perhaps from the wound. But if it is known that it comes from the makor, even with a wound in the makor, one does not attribute to the wound (without a fixed veset), unless she knows for certain the wound bleeds.
ספק ספיקא — "double doubt": a principle of leniency in which two independent uncertainties combine and, together, permit. Here (Rama): perhaps the blood comes from the sides (then permitted); and even if from the makor, perhaps from the wound (then also permitted). This stacking tilts toward the permissive.
Seif 6 — Ne'emanut: "I have a wound" / "I am sure this is not from the makor"
A woman is believed (ne'emenet) to say "I have a wound at the place from which this blood comes"; likewise if she says "I am sure (bari li) that this blood does not come from the makor" → she is believed, and tehora (pure).
The woman's ne'emanut: the halacha recognizes that a woman knows her own body. Her statement — "I have a wound," or "I am certain this is not uterine" — carries real halachic weight and can suffice to declare her pure. This ne'emanut is nonetheless exercised within a framework: it is the Rav who assesses its scope in each situation, often informed by the medical finding of a wound.
Seif 7 — A single trace, on one side, with localized pain
If, whenever she examines all the folds (חורים וסדקים), she finds a trace only in one place, on the side (צדדין) → one may attribute it to a wound on that side. All the more so if, touching that exact spot during the examination, she feels a slight pain there, and nowhere else.
Location and targeted pain are converging indications: a trace always at the same lateral spot, painful to the touch only there, points to a local wound — hence blood from the sides, not the makor. Establishing this localization is typically a matter of medical examination, which the Rav takes into account.
Group C — Treatment (רפואה), healing, and "in our time" (seifim 8-10)
Seif 8 — Treatment: before or after the matter is established
If she wishes to seek treatment: it must be before the matter is established (before the chazaka of three times). Afterward, some are in doubt whether one may rely on the treatment to resume conjugal life. One opinion permits if a Jewish physician told her "you are healed." And if the woman sees that the bleeding has stopped through the treatments and it is evident they worked, one may rely even on a non-Jewish physician.
The place of medicine: the siman itself joins halacha and healing. As long as the chazaka is not established, treatment resolves the question. Once established, the halacha demands more assurance — a physician's finding, and visible proof that the treatment succeeded. This is a direct illustration of the fact that this domain is managed with a physician and a Rav.
Seif 9 — Sudden fright, a clot of blood (חררת דם), and "in our time"
If she was suddenly frightened and a clot of blood (חררת דם) fell from her, and she healed → she is permitted to her husband. But if she again bleeds from relations, even once → it is known that she did not heal. And in our time, one no longer permits by this means (this "healing" through fright — Ramban and Raavad). Nevertheless, one does not separate the woman from her husband after such a "healing," until she has had relations that return her to her former trouble.
"In our time": this seif shows that the halacha distinguishes what once held from what we adopt in practice today. One no longer relies on certain "remedies" of old — yet, conversely, modern medicine can diagnose the source precisely (seif 2). Any concrete application belongs to the Rav, together with the physician.
Seif 10 — Bleeding at the time of relations; the night of immersion; skipping; the Rama's gloss
She who bleeds at the time of relations is permitted a second time once she is purified; nevertheless, one is concerned once after her sighting. For example: if she bled once or twice on the night of her immersion (the ritual bath), at the next immersion she abstains on the night of immersion — but not at the third, for as long as no veset is fixed, one is concerned only once. Gloss of the Rama: but if she bled three times, each time at the first act of relations after her immersion → she is forbidden to her husband, as if she had bled three times in a row — for it is impossible for her to immerse and resume relations, since she bleeds each time after her immersion.
Skipping and "only once": without a fixed pattern (veset), an isolated bleeding creates only a one-time concern, not a lasting prohibition. But the Rama highlights the grave case: bleeding that is systematic at the first act after each immersion amounts, in effect, to a chazaka — since the woman can never resume conjugal life. Managing the count of days and abstentions belongs to the Rav.
Group D — A veset of bleeding from relations, a trustee, the virgin, and the impossibility of immersion (seifim 11-14)
Seif 11 — After six months; the veset specific to bleeding from relations
A woman who bled from relations and who, after half a year, again bleeds from relations → she is permitted to her husband, for she has not fixed a pattern (neither by three identical vestot nor by skipping); nevertheless, she is concerned about the last time, once. But if she has fixed a veset of bleeding "from relations" by three times at a regular interval → she is permitted between the vestot, but abstains on the days of the veset until that veset is "uprooted" three times.
A veset that is not one: two bleedings six months apart do not form an established pattern → permitted. But if bleeding from relations recurs at a regular interval three times, it becomes itself a veset: the woman abstains on the expected days, without being forbidden the rest of the time. Calculating these dates is the Rav's province.
Seif 12 — One may delay separation only through a trustee (שליש), and with witnesses
For one who bleeds from relations three times (and must therefore separate from this husband), it is forbidden to keep her (to delay the separation) — even if he no longer intends to have relations with her — unless he agrees to keep her through a trustee (שליש), and he goes to her only in the presence of witnesses (עדים).
This seif describes the former regime in which separation was required: the spouses were kept from being alone together. In light of the Rama's leniency (אין אנו נוהגין להוציאה, seif 1), today divorce is no longer compelled; the couple is accompanied by a Rav and, for the medical aspect, by a physician.
Seif 13 — The virgin (בתולה); the blood of the first acts (דם בתולים)
For one who has the first acts with a virgin (בתולה) and she bleeds: one always presumes it is hymeneal blood (דם בתולים) (the natural blood of the first acts), until one act without bleeding; if thereafter she bleeds three times from relations → she enters the chazaka of bleeding from relations. Gloss of the Rama: and even if the bleeding has not stopped a single time, if there is no pain at all during relations → she is like all women and one does not attribute it to hymeneal blood (Maharam Padua). And if it is a man who bleeds (through the male organ) during relations → the woman attributes it to him (Rashba); and see above, Siman 190 (seif 20).
Hymeneal blood: at the very first acts, the blood is naturally ascribed to the virgin's situation, not to uterine bleeding. The Rama qualifies this by pain: with no pain at all, one can no longer invoke hymeneal blood. And he recalls that bleeding may come from the man — in which case the woman is not at issue. All these discernments belong to the Rav and the physician.
Seif 14 — She who cannot immerse → she separates (תצא)
A woman who has wounds and lesions such that she cannot immerse (טבילה) (and so remains lastingly prevented) → she separates from her husband (תצא), so as not to prevent him from the duty of being fruitful and multiplying (פריה ורביה).
This extreme seif concerns a situation of persistent lesions making immersion impossible over time. Far from any mechanical application, such a case depends on a medical assessment (are the lesions treatable?) and on a rabbinic decision case by case. The rule of the whole siman applies here more than ever: never self-diagnosis — the Rav and the physician together.
2. Context — the twofold problem of this blood
The neighboring simanim deal with menstruation (niddah), stains (כתמים), vestot and examinations. Siman 187 isolates a particular and weighty case: a blood that appears from the very act of relations. The question is no longer merely "is she niddah for this cycle?" but "does this blood threaten conjugal life itself?".
The two problems raised
Problem
Nature
What the siman seeks
(a) She becomes niddah
Purity status for that moment
Like any blood: she purifies herself afterward
(b) If it recurs (3×)
Concern of blood from the makor provoked by relations
Distinguish makor / wound; be lenient; no longer compel divorce (Rama)
The transversal idea: everything is a matter of source and cause. Where does the blood come from — makor (uterus) or sides / wound (צדדין / מכה)? And is there another cause to attribute it to (veset, wound, hymeneal blood, the man)? Each seif is a tool for answering, and most lean toward leniency — provided the diagnosis is reliable, that is, made with a physician and a Rav.
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 187, one must master a small technical vocabulary describing the source of the blood, the way to establish it, and what one may attribute it to.
רואה מחמת תשמיש — "one who bleeds from relations": a woman who bleeds immediately on the occasion of relations. This is the whole subject of the siman. The concern is serious only if it recurs three times (a chazaka).
מקור vs צדדין — the uterine source (makor) vs the sides (צדדין). Blood from the makor renders her niddah and may forbid her to the husband; blood from the sides (or from a wound) is not niddah blood in this regard. The entire diagnosis aims to decide between the two (seif 2).
בדיקת שפופרת — the tube examination: a שפופרת (tube) isolates the sides from the depth; a probe (מכחול) tipped with wadding (מוֹך) brings back, or not, blood from the makor. This is the source diagnosis described in seif 2 — in principle, the direct forerunner of today's medical examination.
מכה — a wound / lesion at that place. A wound that bleeds explains the blood without its coming from the makor: one "attributes" (תולין) the blood to it (seifim 5-7). Pain during relations is an indication of a wound.
תולין / וסת — to "attribute" the blood to another known cause: to the veset if relations are near the period (seif 4), to a wound (seifim 5-7), or to hymeneal blood (seif 13). To attribute is to be lenient.
נאמנות — the credence given to the woman's word: "I have a wound," or "I am sure this is not from the makor" → she is believed and tehora (seif 6). A real ne'emanut, exercised within the framework the Rav sets.
Two structural notions:חזקה (three times) — three consecutive times are needed to "establish" the phenomenon; and בזמן הזה — "in our time," signaling that practice has evolved (one no longer relies on a certain old remedy — seif 9 — but, conversely, one now has modern medical diagnosis).
4. Diagnosing the source — the makor / wound / veset table
The whole siman comes down to one question: where does the blood come from, and to what can it be attributed? Here are the paths of leniency, from the simplest to the most technical.
Situation
Attributed to
Typical outcome
Relations close to the veset (seif 4)
To the veset (expected period)
🟢 Not counted as bleeding from relations
Wound (מכה) at that place (seif 5)
To the wound (if the blood is not different)
🟢 Permitted (the Rama's double doubt if in doubt)
She says "I have a wound" / "not from the makor" (seif 6)
To her ne'emanut
🟢 Believed → tehora
Trace on one side only + targeted pain (seif 7)
To a local wound
🟢 Attributed to the sides
Tube examination: blood on the tip (seif 2)
To the makor
🔴 Forbidden
Tube examination: nothing on the tip (seif 2)
To the sides
🟢 Permitted
This table describes the logic of the siman, not a personal course of action. Determining whether there is a wound, whether the blood is different, where it truly comes from — all this requires today a gynecological examination, then a rabbinic decision. Never self-assessment.
5. The Shach and the Taz — the great commentators
In Yoreh De'ah, the Shulchan Aruch is never read alone. Two great commentaries accompany it on every page: the Shach and the Taz; and in the laws of niddah the rich Pitchei Teshuva joins them. These are the reference commentators of Yoreh De'ah (no Mishna Berura here, which comments only on Orach Chaim).
The Shach (ש״ך) — an acronym of שפתי כהן, Siftei Kohen, by Rabbi Shabtai haCohen (Lithuania, 17th century). The reference commentary on Yoreh De'ah, of great analytical depth. On our siman (s.k. 1) he defines the measure of "immediately" (the immediacy of seif 1).
The Taz (ט״ז) — an acronym of טורי זהב, Turei Zahav, by Rabbi David haLevi Segal (Poland, 17th century). On seif 1 (s.k. 2-3) he explains the sequence of husbands: אין כל האצבעות שוות — "not all are alike."
The Taz explains why she separates and then marries another husband: "not all are alike" (אין כל האצבעות שוות) — perhaps with another husband she will not bleed, for the bleeding depends on the combination of relations, and not on her alone. This is why the sequence of husbands is a genuine test: it checks whether the cause lies with the woman or with the interaction.
A key entry from the Pitchei Teshuva
Pitchei Teshuva — the Noda BiYehuda and diagnosing the source
The Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 1 onward) cites abundantly the Noda BiYehuda, who refines the cases: for instance a fixed veset established later opens a path of leniency, or situations of heavy flow (שפע דם) — "all according to what the eyes of the decisor see" (hakol lefi re'ut einei hamoreh). One sees here that the final decision is, by its very nature, case-specific and rabbinic.
One sees the method: the Shach, the Taz and the Pitchei Teshuva do not repeat the Mehaber — they clarify the mechanism (the measure of "immediately," the logic of the sequence of husbands) and open fine paths of leniency that require a decisor. This is exactly what one deepens at the Lamdan level, then in the ruling of the Daat HaRav & Halacha lema'asse level.
6. The Rama's gloss (הגה) — the leniency "אין אנו נוהגין להוציאה"
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the Mehaber's text glosses that reflect practice and steer the ruling. His most striking contribution in our siman is a major leniency.
On seif 1 — divorce is no longer compelled
Gloss of the Rama: וי״א שאין אנו נוהגין להוציאה — "some say we do not have the practice of making her leave (compelling divorce)." This is the great practical reversal of the siman: where the letter of the Mehaber required separation after three times, the practice ruled by the Rama is no longer to compel divorce. The couple is accompanied, and the diagnosis of the source (often by medical examination) seeks to permit the husband.
On seif 5 — the double doubt and the fixed veset
Gloss of the Rama: תלינן במכה מכח ספק ספיקא — when there is no fixed veset and one is in doubt (makor or sides), one attributes to the wound by a double doubt. And with a fixed veset, one may attribute to the wound, outside the days of the veset, even without certainty that it bled. So many openings toward the permissive.
On seif 3 — relying on the examination, especially with pain
Gloss of the Rama: ויש לסמוך אסברא ראשונה להקל — one relies on the first opinion to be lenient; and if she felt pain (צער וכאב), then by all opinions one relies on the examination even with the first husband. Pain, a sign of a wound, reinforces the leniency.
On seif 13 — pain and hymeneal blood
Gloss of the Rama: even if the virgin's bleeding has not stopped, if there is no pain at all, she is like all women (Maharam Padua) — and one may also attribute the blood to the man (Rashba). The Rama thus refines when one can no longer invoke hymeneal blood.
The thread running through the Rama's glosses: to be lenient with discernment. No longer compel divorce (seif 1), broaden attribution to the wound (seif 5, double doubt), rely on the examination especially in case of pain (seifim 3 and 13). Each time, the concrete application belongs to the Rav, with the physician for the diagnosis.
7. The chazaka of three times — why three times, and the sequence of husbands
Seif 1 — the heart of the siman — deserves a pause. Why exactly three times, and why this strange "sequence of husbands"?
Why three times (a chazaka)? Once may be chance; twice, a coincidence. It is the repetition three consecutive times that "establishes" that this is a real phenomenon — a makor reacting to relations — and not an isolated accident. Below three, one merely "is concerned" on a one-time basis (seif 10), without a lasting prohibition.
Why the sequence of husbands? Bleeding "from relations" depends on the encounter between two bodies. As the Taz says, אין כל האצבעות שוות: another husband may not provoke this bleeding. The sequence (first → second → third) therefore serves to test whether the cause lies with the woman alone: only after all three have produced the same result is she "forbidden to all until an examination."
Stage
Finding
Consequence (letter of the Mehaber)
3× with the first husband
A chazaka with him
Forbidden to this husband; she may marry another
Then 3× with the second
A chazaka with him too
Forbidden to him; a third
Then 3× with the third
The cause lies with her
Forbidden to all until an examination (seif 2)
The Rama's leniency changes the letter:אין אנו נוהגין להוציאה — separation is no longer compelled. But the logic of the chazaka and the examination remains: it is what, through diagnosing the source, seeks to permit the husband. And this diagnosis is made with the Rav and the physician.
8. Modern practical cases
How does this siman shed light on situations today? Here are four reference points — it being understood that every concrete conclusion belongs to the Rav and the physician.
Case 1 — Contact bleeding (post-coital)
Bleeding connected with relations is first a medical question: the cervix, a polyp, an ectropion, a fragile mucosa… are frequent causes, and most often benign. It is also a halachic question. The gynecologist and the Rav together establish whether the source is a wound / the sides (and not the makor) — hence, very often, the leniency. Never self-assessment.
Case 2 — The tube examination of yesterday, the medical diagnosis of today
Seif 2 describes the שפופרת: a tube to isolate the source of the blood. The principle spans the centuries — determining whether the blood comes from the makor or the sides — but the instrument has changed: today it is the gynecological examination that plays this role. The Mehaber already said "even today": diagnosing the source remains the key. Its performance belongs to the physician, its halachic interpretation to the Rav.
Case 3 — The Rama's leniency: divorce is no longer compelled
The old letter required separation after three times; the practice ruled by the Rama (אין אנו נוהגין להוציאה) is no longer to compel divorce. In practice, the couple is accompanied by a Rav, and the diagnosis of the source (with the physician) seeks to permit conjugal life. The practical conclusion belongs to the Rav and the physician.
Case 4 — The woman's ne'emanut
Seif 6 recognizes a real ne'emanut: "I have a wound," or "I am sure this is not from the makor." This word carries halachic weight. But its scope is assessed within the framework the Rav sets, often supported by the medical finding of a wound. Here too: Rav and physician, never alone.
The thread running through the four cases: bleeding connected with relations is, almost always, an occasion for leniency — but only after a reliable diagnosis of the source. This diagnosis is neither intuitive nor personal: it is made with a physician (gynecologist) and a Rav fluent in the laws of niddah. This is the constant rule of the entire siman.
9. Synthesis of Siman 187
The essentials of Siman 187 in a few sentences:
Bleeding from relations three times in a row creates a chazaka; formerly, separation and the sequence of husbands (seif 1).
The Rama rules the major leniency: אין אנו נוהגין להוציאה — divorce is no longer compelled (seif 1).
Diagnosing the source — the tube examination — distinguishes makor (forbidden) from sides (permitted); "even today" (seif 2).
Pain (צער / כאב) points to a wound and reinforces the leniency (seifim 3, 7, 13).
One attributes (תולין) the blood to another cause: to the veset (seif 4), to a wound (seif 5, the Rama's double doubt), to hymeneal blood (seif 13).
The woman is believed (ne'emenet): "I have a wound" / "not from the makor" → tehora (seif 6).
Treatment: before the chazaka; afterward, more assurance (physician); in our time one no longer relies on certain old remedies (seifim 8-9).
Bleeding that is systematic after each immersion, or a veset of bleeding from relations, have their own rules (seifim 10-11).
Extreme cases: trustee + witnesses if one delays (seif 12); she separates (תצא) if immersion is lastingly impossible (seif 14).
Memory table
Situation
Tendency
Bleeding from relations 3× in a row, source unclear
🔴 Concern of blood from the makor (formerly: separation)
Rama: in our time
🟢 Divorce no longer compelled; the couple is accompanied
Tube / examination: blood from the makor
🔴 Forbidden
Tube / examination: sides, or a wound, or pain
🟢 Permitted (one attributes)
Relations close to the veset
🟢 Attributed to the veset (not from relations)
"I have a wound" / "not from the makor"
🟢 Believed → tehora
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
Why are three times (a chazaka) needed? What does the sequence of husbands test (seif 1, Taz)?
What is the major leniency of the Rama (seif 1)? How does he phrase it in Hebrew?
Describe the בדיקת שפופרת: what does it distinguish, and which outcome forbids / permits (seif 2)?
Why does pain (צער / כאב) change the ruling (seifim 3, 7, 13)?
To what causes may one attribute (תולין) the blood (seifim 4, 5, 13)?
What is the Rama's ספק ספיקא in seif 5?
What is the woman's נאמנות (seif 6)? Within what framework is it exercised?
What does medicine "בזמן הזה" change (seifim 2, 8-9)?
What do seifim 12 and 14 say (trustee / witnesses; she separates), and why are they reread in light of the Rama?
Why, throughout this siman, must one consult both a Rav and a physician?
To go further
If you want to deepen this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul, the yesod of makor / sides, the mechanics of the tube (Taz), the logic of the Rama's double doubt (seif 5), ne'emanut (seif 6) and the Noda BiYehuda's nuances (Pitchei Teshuva)
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (makor / wound / veset), the golden rules, and quick memorization of the 14 seifim
⚖️ Level 4 — Daat HaRav (Chabad) & Halacha lema'asse: the Chabad mesorah (at the level of principle) and the practical ruling (Beit Yossef, Rama, Shach, Sidrei Tahara, Chochmat Adam, Aruch haShulchan, Noda BiYehuda, Taharat haBayit, Shevet haLevi…)
The sources for this level can be consulted on Sefaria: