Siman 187 — A Woman Who Bleeds From Relations (רואה מחמת תשמיש): Makor or Wound, Diagnosing the Source, and the Rama's Gloss
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 gloss 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) — seifim 1, 3, 5 and 13
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
A note on reading. The Hebrew blocks in this section carry the text of the Shulchan Arukh verbatim, seif by seif and in the order of the book, as the edition gives it — including the source references in parentheses and the glosses of the Rama. What follows each block is a translation and an explanation of our own writing, never the source text.
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 one on seif 1, which widens the criterion of machmat tashmish. 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 gloss
דיני אשה הרואה דם מחמת תשמיש. ובו י"ד סעיפים: אשה שראתה דם מחמ' תשמיש מיד בכדי שתושיט ידה לתחת הכר או לתחת הכסת ותטול עד לבדוק בו ותקנח עצמה משמשת ג"פ אם בכל ג"פ רצופים ראתה דם (וכ"ש אם מצאה ג"פ דם על עד שלו) (מרדכי וכן כ' ב"י בשם תרומת הדשן וסמ"ג וכן מוכח בש"ס) . אסורה לשמש עם בעל זה אלא תתגרש ותנשא לאחר נשאת לאחר וראתה דם מחמת תשמיש ג"פ רצופים אסורה לשמש גם עם אותו בעל אלא תתגרש ותנשא לשלישי ואם גם עם השלישי ראתה דם מחמת תשמיש ג"פ רצופים לא תנשא לאחר אלא אסורה לכל עד שתבדוק: הגה וי"א שאין אנו בקיאין איזה מיקרי מחמת תשמיש כי אין בקיאין בשיעור הנזכר ולכן כל שרואה ג"פ סמוך לתשמיש מקרי לדידן מחמת תשמיש ונאסרה על בעלה (ב"י בשם הראב"ד שכ"כ בשי"א) ואלו ג"פ צריכים להיות רצופים אבל אם לא היו רצופים לא נאסרה על בעלה (ב"י בשם הרמב"ם וכ"כ הרשב"א סימן תתל"ט ומהרי"ו נ"ג וכן כתב המחבר בסמוך) ואין חילוק בין אם ראתה ג"פ מיד שנשאה ובין נתקלקלה אח"כ וראתה ג"פ (מרדכי ריש ה"נ ובתשובת הרשב"א סימן תתל"ט ובתוס') וכל זה לא מיירי אלא בראתה סמוך לתשמיש אבל אם לא ראתה סמוך לתשמיש לא נאסרה על בעלה ומותרת לו לאחר טהרתה תמיד (ב"י בשם סה"ת וסמ"ג ופשוט בש"ס ופוסקים) ודינה כמי שאין לה וסת:
Heading of the siman — The laws of the woman who bleeds on account of relations (דיני אשה הרואה דם מחמת תשמיש); and it contains fourteen seifim.
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 that we are no longer expert in recognizing what is called on account of relations, since we are not expert in the measure of immediacy stated above; therefore, for us, any woman who bleeds three times close to relations is called one who bleeds on account of relations, and she becomes forbidden to her husband. And these three times must be consecutive: if they were not consecutive, she is not forbidden to her husband. And there is no difference between one who bled three times from the moment she married and one who became disordered afterward and bled three times. And all this applies only if she bled close to relations; but if she did not bleed close to relations, she is not forbidden to her husband and remains always permitted to him after her purification — her status being that of a woman who has no veset.
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, לפי שאין כל אצבעו׳ שוו׳ (ט״ז יורה דעה קפ״ז ס״ק ב) ("not all are alike"): each husband's body differs. The Rama, in his gloss, settles the reach of the criterion: since we are no longer expert in the measure of immediacy, we treat as on account of relations any bleeding that occurs close to relations — which tightens the criterion — while requiring in return that the three times be consecutive, and leaving outside the rule the woman who did not bleed close to relations.
Seif 2 — How she examines: the tube examination (בדיקת שפופרת), diagnosing makor / sides
כיצד בודקת נוטלת שפופרת (פירוש קנה חלול של עופרת) של אבר ופיה רצוף לתוכה ונותנת בתוכה מכחול ובראשו מוך ומכנסת אותו באותו מקום עד מקום שהשמש דש נמצא דם על ראשו בידוע שהוא מן המקור ואסורה ואם לאו בידוע שהוא מן הצדדין ומותרת. (ב"י מהרמב"ם) (ואף בזמן הזה יש לסמוך אבדיקה זו) (טור וב"י לדעת הרמב"ם והרא"ש ורשב"א ורי"ף וכן כתב הר"ן והר"ם פדואה סימן י'):
How does she examine? One takes a שפופרת — a hollow tube of lead (שפופרת של אבר, which the gloss in the seif explains as קנה חלול של עופרת) — whose rim is turned inward; 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. A gloss inserted in the seif, in the name of the Tur and the Beit Yosef, 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)
אם רוצה לבדוק עצמה בעודה תחת הראשון אחר ששמשה שלש פעמים הרשות בידה ומותרת לו ויש אומרים שאסורה לראשון מתשמיש שלישי ואילך אפילו בבדיקה: הגה ויש לסמוך אסברא ראשונה להקל (טור וב"י בשם הסכמת הפוסקים והגהות מיימוני) ואם הרגישה צער וכאב בשעת תשמיש לכ"ע יש לסמוך אבדיקה בבעל הראשון (שם בהג"ה בשם ריצב"א):
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
אם שמשה סמוך לוסתה אנו תולין ראייתה משום וסתה ולא חשבינן לה רואה מחמת תשמיש:
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)
אם יש מכה באותו מקום תולין בדם מכתה ואם דם מכתה משונה מדם ראייתה אינן תולים בדם מכתה: הגה וכל זה באשה שיש לה וסת קבוע ואז יכולין לתלות שלא בשעת וסתה במכתה אע"פ שאינה יודעת בודאי שמכתה הוציאה דם (כך משמע בפסקי מהרא"י סימן מ"ז ובהגהות ש"ד) וכן אם אין לה וסת קבוע והוא ספק אם הדם בא מן המקור או מן הצדדין תלינן במכה מכח ספק ספיקא ספק מן הצדדים או מן המקור ואת"ל מן המקור שמא הוא מן המכה אבל אם ידוע שבא מן המקור אע"פ שיש לה מכה במקור אינה תולה במכה אם אין לה וסת קבוע אלא אם כן יודעת בודאי שמכתה מוציאה דם (כן משמע במרדכי ה"נ ובהג"מ פי"א דא"ב ועיין ס"ק כ"ב) ומ"מ בשעת וסתה או מל' יום לל' יום אינה תולה במכתה דאל"כ לא תטמא לעולם (ג"ז שם ובב"י בשם סמ"ג וסמ"ק) וכתמים תולה בה בכל ענין (במרדכי):
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. Nevertheless, on the days of her veset, or from thirty days to thirty days, she does not attribute it to her wound — for otherwise she would never become temei'a. As for stains (כתמים), she attributes them to the wound in every case.
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"
נאמנת אשה לומר מכה יש לי באותו מקום שהדם יוצא ממנה וכן אם אומרת ברי לי שאין דם זה בא מן המקור נאמנת וטהורה (מהרי"ו סימן כ"ה):
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
אם כל זמן שהיא בודקת בכל החורים והסדקים אינה מוצאת כתמים כי אם במקום אחד בצדדין יש לתלות שממכה שבאותו צד בא וכל שכן אם מרגשת בשעת בדיקה כשנוגעת בצד המקום ההוא כואב לה קצת ובשאר חורין וסדקים אינה מרגשת כאב כלל:
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
אם תרצה להתרפאות צריך שיהיה קודם שתתחזק אבל לאחר שתתחזק יש מסתפקים אם מותר לסמוך על הרפואה לשמש אח"כ ויש מי שמתיר אם אמר לה רופא ישראל נתרפאת ואם תראה האשה שפסק דם וסתה וראייתה על ידי הרפואות וניכר שהועילו יש לסמוך אף על עובד כוכבים:
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"
הפחידוה פתאום ונפל ממנה חררת דם ונתרפאת מותרת לבעלה ואם חזרה וראתה מחמת תשמיש אפי' פעם אחת בידוע שלא נתרפאת ובזמן הזה אין מתירין ע"י רפואה זו (הרמב"ן וראב"ד בס' ב"ה) ומיהו אין מוציאין אותה מבעלה אחר רפואה זו עד שתבעל ותחזור לקלקולה (ראב"ד שם):
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
הרואה דם בשעת תשמיש מותרת לשמש פעם שנית כשתטהר מיהו מיחש חיישינן חדא זימנא אחר ראייתה כגון ראתה פעם אחת או פעמים בליל של טבילתה כשתגיע טבילה אחרת (צריכה לפרוש) ליל של טבילתה ואין צריך לפרוש ליל של טבילה שלישית דכל מידי דלא קבעה וסת לא חייש אלא חדא זימנא: הגה ואם ראתה ג"פ בכל פעם בביאה ראשונה שאחר טבילתה אסורה לבעלה כאלו ראתה ג"פ רצופים שהרי אי אפשר לה לטבול ולשמש עמו שהרי היא רואה כל פעם אחר טבילתה (תשובת רשב"א סי' תתל"ט מביאה ב"י) ואם אירע לה שראתה ג"פ בביאה ראשונה שאחר לידתה או ראתה אחר כל לידה ג' פעמים ובינתיים לא ראתה יש שכתבו להקל להתירה לבעלה כי תלינן הראיה בחולשתה עדיין מכח לידתה שהוכו הצדדין מכח הלידה ולכן רואה סמוך ללידה ולא אח"כ ותלינן בלידה כמו שתלינן במכה (הגהות ש"ד סימן מ"ז ותשובת רבי יוחנן) וכל זה אם כבר עברה ושמשה בין לידות הראשונות שהוחזקו ביאות של היתר אחר ביאות של איסור אבל אם ראתה ג"פ רצופין אחר לידה לא תלינן בלידה אלא צריכה בדיקת השפופרת (כך משמע שם) מיהו כ"מ שצריכה בדיקה אם עברה ושמשה ולא ראתה מותרת דתשמיש זה שלא ראתה בו עדיף מבדיקת השפופרת כנ"ל (ד"ע):
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. And if it happened that she bled three times at the first act of relations following her childbirth, or bled three times after each childbirth with nothing in between → some have written to be lenient and to permit her to her husband, for we attribute the bleeding to the weakness still remaining from her childbirth, the sides (צדדין) having been bruised by the birth; this is why she bleeds close to the birth and not afterward, and we attribute it to the birth as we attribute it to a wound. And all this provided that she had already had relations between the earlier births, so that permitted acts were established after forbidden ones; but if she bled three times in a row after a birth, we do not attribute it to the birth, and she requires the tube examination (בדיקת השפופרת). However, wherever an examination is required, if she had relations and did not bleed → she is permitted, for that act in which she did not bleed is better than the tube examination.
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
אשה שראתה מחמת תשמיש ולאחר חצי שנה חזרה וראתה מחמת תשמיש מותרת לבעלה שהרי לא קבעה בג' וסתות שוים ולא בדילוג מיהו חוששת לאחרון פעם א' וכשיגיע חצי שנה מיום ראיית דם האחרון אסורה עונה אחת ואם קבעה וסת לראיית דם מחמ' תשמיש שלשה זימני וסת שוה מותרת לשמש בין וסת לוסת אך ימי הוסת פורשת עד שיעקר שלש פעמים:
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: when half a year arrives from the day of her last sighting, she is forbidden for one onah. 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
הרואה מחמת תשמיש ג"פ אסור להשהותה אף אם אינו רוצה לבא עליה אלא א"כ רוצה להשהותה ע"י שליש ולא ילך אצלה אלא בעדים:
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 stands within the framework set in seif 1: where separation is required, the spouses are kept from being alone together — hence the third party (שליש) and the witnesses. How this rule applies today is not settled here: it is a question for the Rav, with a physician for the medical aspect.
Seif 13 — The virgin (בתולה); the blood of the first acts (דם בתולים)
הבועל את הבתולה כמה פעמים וראתה דם מחמת תשמיש לעולם מחזקינן שהם דם בתולים עד שתשמש פעם אחת ולא תראה דם מחמת תשמיש ואם אח"כ תראה שלש פעמים מחמת תשמיש הוחזקה להיות רואה דם מחמת תשמיש: הגה ואפילו אם לא פסקה לראות פעם א' אם אין לה צער כלל בשעת תשמיש הרי היא ככל הנשים ולא תלינן בדם בתולים (תשו' מהר"ם פדואה סימן י') מי שיוצא דם ממנו דרך פי האמה ושמש האשה תולה בו (ב"י בשם תשובת הרשב"א) וע"ל סימן ק"ץ (סעיף כ'):
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 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)
אשה שיש לה מכות ופצעים שאינה יכולה לטבול תצא מתחת בעלה כדי שלא יבטל מפריה ורביה:
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; attribute (תולין) to another cause where possible
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: לפי שאין כל אצבעו׳ שוו׳ (ט״ז יורה דעה קפ״ז ס״ק ב) — "not all are alike."
A key entry from the Taz
Taz — the sequence of husbands: not all are alike
summary — a condensation, not the full text of the Shulchan Arukh
תִּתְגָּרֵשׁ וְתִנָּשֵׂא לְאַחֵר — לְפִי שֶׁאֵין כָּל אֶצְבָּעוֹת שָׁווֹת, וְשֶׁמָּא עִם בַּעַל אַחֵר לֹא תִּרְאֶה; שֶׁהָרְאִיָּה תְּלוּיָה בְּעִנְיַן הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ וְלֹא בָּהּ לְבַדָּהּ.
The Taz explains why she separates and then marries another husband: "לפי שאין כל אצבעו׳ שוו׳" (ט״ז ס״ק ב) — 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
summary — a condensation, not the full text of the Shulchan Arukh
עַיֵּין בְּנוֹדָע בִּיהוּדָה : אִם קָבְעָה אַחַר כָּךְ וֶסֶת קָבוּעַ — יֵשׁ צַד לְהָקֵל; וְכֵן דָּן בְּעִנְיַן שֶׁפַע דָּם וְכַיּוֹצֵא, וְהַכֹּל לְפִי רְאוּת עֵינֵי הַמּוֹרֶה.
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) — seifim 1, 3, 5 and 13
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the Mehaber's text glosses that reflect Ashkenazi practice. In our siman they do not all point the same way: the gloss on seif 1 tightens the criterion, while those on seifim 3, 5 and 13 open paths of attribution.
On seif 1 — we are no longer expert in the measure, so the criterion widens
Gloss of the Rama: "וי״א שאין אנו בקיאין איזה מיקרי מחמת תשמיש כי אין בקיאין בשיעור הנזכר ולכן כל שרואה ג״פ סמוך לתשמיש מקרי לדידן מחמת תשמיש ונאסרה על בעלה" (הגה, שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קפ״ז:א) — "and some say that we are not expert in what is called 'from relations', for we are not expert in the measure mentioned; therefore, for us, any woman who sees three times close to relations is deemed to see 'from relations', and she becomes forbidden to her husband." The gloss widens the prohibition: lacking expertise in the Mehaber's measure of immediacy — the time to reach one's hand under the pillow and wipe — we can no longer use it to exclude a case, and mere proximity to relations suffices.
The Rama at once sets three limits to this widening, all in the same seif 1:
the three times must be consecutive: "ואלו ג״פ צריכים להיות רצופים אבל אם לא היו רצופים לא נאסרה על בעלה" (הגה, שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קפ״ז:א);
there is no difference whether she saw from the start of the marriage or later: "ואין חילוק בין אם ראתה ג״פ מיד שנשאה ובין נתקלקלה אח״כ וראתה ג״פ" (הגה, שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קפ״ז:א);
and all of this concerns only one who sees close to relations: "וכל זה לא מיירי אלא בראתה סמוך לתשמיש אבל אם לא ראתה סמוך לתשמיש לא נאסרה על בעלה ומותרת לו לאחר טהרתה תמיד" (הגה, שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קפ״ז:א) — her status is then that of a woman with no veset.
What this siman does not say. The Mehaber writes in seif 1 "אסורה לשמש עם בעל זה אלא תתגרש ותנשא לאחר" (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קפ״ז:א), and the Rama's gloss on that same seif does not soften it: on the contrary, it widens the criterion. How this rule applies today is not treated in this siman, and this page does not rule on it: that belongs to the Rav, with the physician for diagnosing the source.
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 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 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 Rama's glosses do not all point the same way: on seif 1 he widens the criterion of machmat tashmish, for lack of expertise in the measure, while requiring the three times to be consecutive; on seifim 5, 3 and 13 he opens paths of attribution instead (double doubt with the wound, reliance on the examination, especially in case of pain). 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, לפי שאין כל אצבעו׳ שוו׳ (ט״ז יורה דעה קפ״ז ס״ק ב): 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)
What the Rama changes in seif 1: no longer able to measure the immediacy the Mehaber requires, we deem machmat tashmish any sighting that occurs close to relations — the criterion is therefore wider, and the chazaka forms more readily. What remains is the examination: it is what, through diagnosing the source, may open toward the permissive. 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 Rama already noted, glossing seif 2, "ואף בזמן הזה יש לסמוך אבדיקה זו" (הגה, שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קפ״ז:ב) — "and even in this time one may rely on this examination": diagnosing the source remains the key. Its performance belongs to the physician, its halachic interpretation to the Rav.
Case 3 — The Rama's gloss on seif 1: a widened criterion
The Mehaber sets a very narrow threshold of immediacy — the time to reach one's hand under the pillow and wipe. The Rama writes that we are no longer expert in that measure, and that consequently any sighting occurring close to relations, three consecutive times, falls under the rule: the criterion is therefore wider than the letter of the Mehaber, not narrower. What this concretely implies for a couple today is not to be read in this siman and is decided only with a Rav, the diagnosis of the source being made with a 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 first a question of source — everything turns on diagnosing the source — the paths of attribution (veset, wound, sides, hymeneal blood) open toward the permissive only once that diagnosis has been reliably made. 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's gloss on seif 1 widens that criterion: no longer expert in the measure of immediacy, we deem machmat tashmish any sighting that occurs close to relations — provided the three times are consecutive.
Diagnosing the source — the tube examination — distinguishes makor (forbidden) from sides (permitted); and the Rama gloss adds that one relies on it "even in this time" (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; the Mehaber prescribes separation (seif 1)
Rama (seif 1): the measure of immediacy is no longer mastered
🔴 Any sighting close to relations falls under the rule — widened criterion
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)?
Does the Rama's gloss on seif 1 widen or narrow the criterion of machmat tashmish, and on what grounds?
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 within which framework set in seif 1 do they stand?
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: