Red and black forbidden, white and green pure — and the rule of showing the bedikah to a Rav
יורה דעה · סימן קפ״ח
דִּינֵי מַרְאוֹת הַדָּם
🌱 Foundations Level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
A first approach to Siman 188: the 6 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, vocalized Hebrew text and a fluent English translation. Everything depends on the color of the blood. By Torah law, only five shades render טמא; the Sages were stringent — for fear of confusing one דם with another — forbidding every shade tending toward red and permitting every shade with no trace of redness (Shach). Hence today's major practical rule: one never judges a color oneself; one shows the בדיקה to a מורה הוראה.
Subject: The colors of blood — red/black טמא, white/green טהור, the נאמנות, the תליה במכה, the שרייה Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קפ״ח
Compilation: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study plan
1.The Mehaber's text: the 6 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Context: why everything depends on the color (5 מראות from the Torah, the Sages' decree)
5.The Shach, the Taz and the Pitchei Teshuva: who they are, a few key entries
6.The Rama's gloss (הגה)
7.תליה במכה / שרייה: attributing to a wound, distinguishing blood from a בריה
8.Modern practical cases: showing the בדיקה, the colors, the תליה במכה, the מפלת
9.Synthesis and comprehension questions
1. The Mehaber's text — the 6 seifim
Siman 188 opens the דיני מראות הדם: the colors of blood. The Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) establishes which shades render the woman טמאה and which leave her טהורה, then treats her נאמנות (her word), blood that does not emerge in the ordinary way (שפופרת, חתיכה, נעקר מקור), and the soaking test (שרייה) that distinguishes true דם from a mere בריה (formation of matter). The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds his glosses (הגה). Let us discover the seifim by groups. A sensitive subject: all that follows is study — a real בדיקה is always shown to a Rav.
Every red shade — whether very dark or deep — is טמא; and likewise every black shade. Only the white shade is טהור, as well as the green shade (ירוק) — even like the color of wax or gold, and all the more so green like the leek or grasses (Mordekhi) — and the shade called in the vernacular בלוא (blue) falls within the category of green. And even if there is in it thickness of blood (סמיכות) and it is very dense, and even if she felt her מקור open, examined at once, and found these shades (white/green) — she is טהורה. (The Mehaber's own view, against the Terumat haDeshen.)
The central idea: everything turns on the color. The טמא side covers all shades of red (light and dark) and black (which the Sages treat as altered red). The טהור side is limited to white and green in all its shades (wax, gold, leek, grass, and the "blue" assimilated to green). Neither the thickness of the blood, nor the speed of the examination, nor the sensation of the מקור opening changes this verdict: only the shade decides.
Seif 2 — נאמנות: "כזה ראיתי ואבדתיו"; but "חכם טיהר" does not suffice
The woman is believed (נאמנת) to say "I saw such a shade and lost it" (כזה ראיתי ואבדתיו): if she describes a white or green shade → טהור. But if she brings before us a blood that we hold to be טמא — or even if we are in doubt whether it is טמא or טהור — and she says "such-and-such a חכם declared pure for me a blood like this one" → we do not rely on her (it must be shown again).
Two situations to distinguish. As long as there is no blood before us, her word suffices to declare a white/green shade pure: we believe her about the color she saw. But once a real blood is here — held to be טמא or merely doubtful — her word reporting that "a חכם permitted a similar case" does not overturn the status: this particular blood must be shown and judged, not set aside on hearsay.
Group B — Blood that does not emerge in the ordinary way (seif 3)
If she inserted a tube (שפופרת) and drew out blood with it → טהורה, since this is not the ordinary way of seeing. Likewise, if she saw blood in a piece (חתיכה) — even split, the blood being in the cracks to the point of touching her flesh → טהורה, since it is not usual to see in this way. Likewise, a woman whose מקור has become detached (נעקר מקור) and from whom pieces of flesh fall into the בית החיצון → טהורה. Gloss of the Rama:even if she sees blood, as long as the pieces are in her בית החיצון → טהורה, for we attribute the blood to that piece (תלינן הדם) since we know with certainty that her מקור became detached and that it comes from a מכה (wound) — so it emerges from the Tour, Rabbenu Yerucham and the Rosh.
תליה במכה — attributing to a wound. Blood is טמא only when it comes from the מקור in the ordinary way. Three cases neutralize this: blood drawn by a tube (seen artificially), blood lodged in a piece, and the case where one knows that the מקור became detached — then all blood seen is attributed to that known מכה, and not to an ordinary flow. This is the direct continuation of the laws of the מכה (cf. Siman 187).
Group C — The blood, the בריה and the soaking test (seifim 4-5)
Seif 4 — All blood טמא; the form of a בריה and the שרייה in lukewarm water
All blood that comes out of the woman, moist or dry, → טמאה. Moreover: even if there emerges from her a form of a בריה (a formation of matter) — like peels (קליפות), hairs (שערות), or red יבחושים (a kind of small grubs/clots) → טמאה — provided that they dissolve within a מעת לעת (24 hours) when one soaks them in lukewarm water (פושרים), the water remaining lukewarm for the whole of the 24 hours. The measure (שיעור) of lukewarmness: like water drawn in summer from the river or the spring, set in a house whose warmth heats it — such is the measure of "lukewarm."
שרייה — the soaking test: one soaks the suspect matter in lukewarm water (פושרים) for 24 hours. If it dissolves, it was indeed blood (a דם takes this form yet remains blood) → טמאה. If it does not dissolve, it is another matter (a true בריה issuing from a מכה) → see the next seif.
Seif 5 — Undissolved = טהור (except a לחלוח דם); the חזקה after 3 times
To what does all this apply? That if the matter did not dissolve → טהורה, provided it is completely dry, with no blood at all; but if there is upon it any moisture of blood (לחלוח דם) → טמאה. Gloss of the Rama: and the same holds if part dissolved or was crushed and part not → טמאה (Pisqei Maharai, sim. 47). However, it seems to me that if she examined 3 times all that she saw and it did not dissolve at all → she no longer needs to examine what she sees afterward in this manner, since it has been established (חזקה) that these matters are not blood, but come from a מכה (wound) in her body.
The test's verdict, and its moisture. A matter that does not dissolve after 24 hours of שרייה is not blood → טהורה — except if a לחלוח דם remains on it, the slightest bloody seepage, which renders it טמאה. The Rama adds a simplification: after three concordant examinations (nothing dissolves), a חזקה is established — one now holds that these matters come from a מכה, and one ceases to have to repeat the test.
Group D — The test's scope: מפלת or חתיכת דם (seif 6)
Seif 6 — The שרייה applies only to a מפלת; a חתיכת דם is טמא
To what does the requirement of a בדיקה by שרייה apply? To a מפלת (an expulsion) in the form of peels and hairs. But a חתיכת דם (a piece of blood), even hard and not dissolving, → טמאה (the test does not save it). And some say (יש אומרים) that this too requires a בדיקה by שרייה, if it is a small piece the size of a thin tube (שפופרת קנה דק), the finest of the fine. (The Mehaber's own view.)
The boundary of the test. The שרייה makes sense only for a מפלת of matters that resemble blood without being it (peels, hairs): one then verifies their nature. But a true piece of blood remains טמא even if it is hard and does not dissolve — its bloody origin is manifest. The יש אומרים qualifies: a very small piece (the size of a thin tube) still deserves the test, its status being less obvious.
2. Context — why everything depends on the color
All of niddah rests on a principle: the woman is טמאה only from a דם issuing from the מקור. But what is a דם? By Torah law, only five shades (חמש מראות) render טמא. The Sages were stringent — for fear of confusing one דם with another — forbidding everything tending toward red and permitting everything with no trace of redness (Shach). That is why, no longer being experts at distinguishing the shades, we no longer judge ourselves: one shows the בדיקה to a מורה הוראה.
The siman's major questions
Question
Where?
Typical answer
Which colors render טמא / טהור?
Seif 1
Red (all shades) + black → טמא; white + green → טהור
The woman's word (נאמנות)
Seif 2
Believed for "כזה ראיתי"; not for "חכם טיהר" on a טמא/doubtful one
Dissolves in 24h → טמא; undissolved (dry) → טהור except לחלוח דם
The test's scope (מפלת / חתיכת דם)
Seif 6
שרייה for a מפלת; a חתיכת דם → טמא
The cross-cutting idea: everything is a matter of color and of origin. The shade says whether it is a forbidden דם (red/black) or not (white/green); the origin says whether the blood comes from the מקור in the ordinary way (טמא) or from a מכה / an unusual route (טהור). And the soaking test (שרייה) decides, for a בריה, whether the matter is blood or not.
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 188, one must master a short vocabulary describing the colors, the blood's origin, and the test that distinguishes them.
מראות הדם — The colors of blood: the shade of the blood determines the status. By Torah law five shades render טמא; in practice the Shach sums it up: everything tending toward red is forbidden, everything with no trace of redness is permitted.
אדום / שחור — Red / black: the טמא side. Red in all its shades (light or dark) and black (treated as altered red).
לבן / ירוק — White / green: the טהור side. White, and green in all its shades (wax, gold, leek, grass) — the "בלוא / blue" shade being ranked with green.
נאמנות — The woman's word: she is believed to describe a shade she saw and lost ("כזה ראיתי ואבדתיו"). But before a real blood held to be טמא or doubtful, her word reporting that "a חכם permitted" does not suffice (seif 2).
תליה במכה — Attributing to a wound: when one knows there is a מכה (a wound, a detached מקור, pieces), one attributes the blood seen to that known wound rather than to an ordinary flow → טהורה (seif 3).
שפופרת — The tube: blood drawn by a tube is not seen "in the ordinary way" → טהורה. It also serves as a measure: a חתיכת דם the size of a thin tube (seif 6).
בריה / שרייה — Formation / soaking: a "בריה" (peels, hairs, יבחושים) that dissolves within 24 hours in lukewarm (פושרים) water was in fact blood → טמא; if it does not dissolve → טהור (except a לחלוח דם). The שרייה is this test (seifim 4-6).
Two words that will recur:לחלוח דם ("a moisture of blood") — the slightest bloody seepage on the matter renders it טמאה despite the test; and חזקה — after 3 concordant examinations, the origin of the מכה is held established and one ceases to test (seif 5).
4. The colors — the טמא / טהור table
All of seif 1 sums up in a table. One looks at the shade and reads the status. The boundary (brown, beige, yellow…) is subtle and remains the Rav's affair.
Shade
Category
Status
Red — all shades (light, dark, deep)
אדום
🔴 טמא
Black
שחור (altered red)
🔴 טמא
White
לבן
🟢 טהור
Green — wax, gold, leek, grass
ירוק
🟢 טהור
"בלוא / blue"
assimilated to ירוק
🟢 טהור
The logic in one sentence: everything tending toward red (up to black) is טמא; everything with no trace of redness (white, green, blue) is טהור. Neither the thickness of the blood, nor the sensation of the מקור opening, nor the speed of the examination moves this boundary: only the color decides.
The practical point (Shach, and seif 1): the intermediate shades (brown, beige, yellow, pale pink…) do not appear in this binary table — they are precisely the terrain of doubt. That is where today's rule comes in: one does not judge oneself, one shows the Rav.
5. The Shach, the Taz and the Pitchei Teshuva
In Yoreh De'ah, the Shulchan Aruch is never read alone. Three commentaries structure the study of the laws of niddah: the Shach and the Taz (the classical nossei kelim), and the Pitchei Teshuva, which gathers the responsa of the Acharonim. There is no Mishna Berura here, which comments only on Orach Chaim.
The Shach (ש״ך) — short for שפתי כהן, Siftei Kohen, by Rabbi Shabtai haCohen (Lithuania, 17th century). The reference commentary on Yoreh De'ah.
The Taz (ט״ז) — short for טורי זהב, Turei Zahav, by Rabbi David haLevi Segal (Poland, 17th century). Often in dialogue — and sometimes in disagreement — with the Shach.
The Pitchei Teshuva (פתחי תשובה) — by Rabbi Avraham Tzvi Hirsch Eisenstadt (19th century), who condenses the responsa of the Acharonim keyed to each seif.
A key entry of the Shach
Shach s.k. 1 — this is the cornerstone of the siman. The Shach explains that five shades (חמש מראות) render טמא by Torah law, but that the Sages were stringent "so as not to err between one דם and another" (שלא לטעות בין דם לדם): they forbade everything tending toward red (אסרו כל הנוטה לאדמימות) and permitted everything that cannot be suspected of redness (הכשירו כל שאין לספקו באדמימות). This is the key that turns a list of five shades into the practical rule of red/black versus white/green.
A key entry of the Pitchei Teshuva
The Pitchei Teshuva opens several fine paths: s.k. 1 (the Givat Shaul on a כתם seen at night versus by day, and moist versus dry); s.k. 2 (the debate over the ירוק — של״ה, מהר״ם מינץ, רש״ל: "אין להקל במהירות," do not hasten to be lenient); s.k. 6 (the woman does not rely even on herself — it must be shown); s.k. 11 (the Meir Nativ: the חזקה after three times). For the חתיכות and the נעקר מקור (s.k. 7), he cites a "Tzemach Tzedek" — this is the earlier Tzemach Tzedek (R. Menachem Mendel Krochmal), not to be confused with the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch.
One sees the method: the Shach, the Taz and the Pitchei Teshuva do not repeat the Mehaber — they explain the mechanism (five shades + the Sages' decree) and open fine paths (day/night, moist/dry, the debate over green) that call for a decisor. This is exactly what is deepened at the Lamdan level, then in the ruling of the Daat HaRav & Halacha lema'asse level.
6. The Rama's gloss (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) sharpens the practice on two points of our siman.
On seif 3 — תליה במכה even if she sees blood
Gloss of the Rama: אפילו ראתה דם, כל זמן שהחתיכות בבית החיצון שלה — טהורה, דתלינן הדם בחתיכה זו… ומחמת מכה היא — "even if she sees blood, as long as the pieces are in her בית החיצון she is טהורה, for we attribute the blood to that piece… it comes from a מכה." The Rama spells out the logic of the תליה במכה: the certainty that the מקור became detached authorizes attributing all the blood seen to that known wound.
On seif 5 — part dissolved → טמא; but חזקה after 3 times
Gloss of the Rama: והוא הדין אם נתמעכו או נימוחו קצתן… דטמאה… מיהו נראה לי דאם בדקה ג״פ… שוב אינה צריכה לבדוק — "and the same holds if part was crushed or dissolved… she is טמאה… however it seems to me that if she examined 3 times… she no longer needs to examine." The Rama is stringent (partial dissolution suffices to render טמא) and then lenient (the חזקה after three tests exempts from the rest).
The Rama carefully distinguishes the base din (the Mehaber) from the practice: he anchors the תליה במכה (seif 3), is stringent on partial dissolution, but offers the leniency of the חזקה after three concordant examinations (seif 5).
7. תליה במכה / שרייה — attributing, and distinguishing blood from a בריה
Seifim 3 through 6 — the "diagnostic" heart of the siman — deserve a pause. Two mechanisms are interwoven here: attributing the blood to a מכה, and testing the nature of a matter.
Where does this blood come from? From the מקור, in the ordinary way → טמא. From an unusual route (שפופרת), lodged in a piece, or attributable to a known מכה (נעקר מקור) → טהור (seif 3).
Is it really blood? Does a בריה (peels, hairs) dissolve within 24 hours of lukewarm שרייה? Yes → it was blood, טמא. No → טהור, except a לחלוח דם (seifim 4-5).
Case
Test / rule
Status
Blood by שפופרת / in a חתיכה / נעקר מקור
תליה במכה (seif 3)
🟢 טהורה
A בריה that dissolves in 24h (lukewarm שרייה)
positive שרייה (seif 4)
🔴 טמאה (it was blood)
A בריה not dissolved, completely dry
negative שרייה (seif 5)
🟢 טהורה
Not dissolved but with a לחלוח דם
seif 5
🔴 טמאה
3 examinations without dissolution
חזקה (Rama, seif 5)
🟢 No longer needs to test
חתיכת דם (a true piece of blood), even hard
seif 6
🔴 טמאה
The שרייה serves only for a מפלת of ambiguous matters (peels, hairs); a true piece of blood remains טמא, the test does not save it — except, per the יש אומרים, if it is minuscule (the size of a thin tube). All this remains a subject to show to the Rav.
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply today? Here are four situations illuminated by our siman. The golden rule: one never judges oneself — one shows the Rav.
Case 1 — A doubtful stain on the בדיקה cloth
A stain of uncertain color (brown, beige, yellow…) appears on a בדיקה cloth. This is precisely the subtle boundary of seif 1: neither plainly red, nor plainly white/green. Today's rule is clear: one never decides oneself — one keeps the cloth and shows it to a מורה הוראה, who examines the color in good light. For the halacha lema'asse, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — The question of the color
Red (all shades) and black → טמא; white and green → טהור (seif 1). But between the two, the boundary is subtle: the lighting, the drying, the moisture (Pitchei Teshuva s.k. 1, s.k. 3: day/night, moist/dry) alter perception. Only a seasoned Rav knows how to read the real shade. For the halacha lema'asse, consult your Rav.
Case 3 — Bleeding attributed to a wound (תליה במכה)
A known wound (a gynecological procedure, a fragile מקור, pieces — seif 3) may allow the blood seen to be attributed to that מכה rather than to an ordinary flow → טהורה. But the existence and the extent of the מכה are not to be presumed: they are established with a physician and decided with the Rav (connection with Siman 187). For the halacha lema'asse, consult your Rav.
Case 4 — A מפלת (miscarriage)
A מפלת — an expulsion of matter, sometimes in the form of peels or hairs (seifim 4-6) — is a grave subject that combines the colors, the soaking test (שרייה), and the laws of the woman after childbirth (cf. Siman 194). One performs no test oneself: one keeps what can be kept and immediately consults a מורה הוראה (and a physician). For the halacha lema'asse, consult your Rav.
The common thread of the four cases: color and origin are criteria for study — never tools for personal decision. A doubtful stain, an intermediate color, a תליה במכה, a מפלת: in each case one keeps, one does not judge, and one shows the בדיקה to a Rav, who knows the details of fact.
9. Synthesis of Siman 188
The essence of Siman 188 in a few sentences:
Everything depends on the color: red (all shades) and black → טמא; white and green (wax, gold, leek, grass; "בלוא" = green) → טהור (seif 1).
The woman is believed to say "כזה ראיתי" (white/green → טהור); but on a real blood held to be טמא or doubtful, "חכם טיהר" does not suffice (seif 2).
Blood by a שפופרת, lodged in a חתיכה, or a case of נעקר מקור → טהורה: we attribute it to the מכה (seif 3).
All blood, moist or dry → טמא; a form of a בריה → טמא if it dissolves within 24h of lukewarm שרייה (seif 4).
Not dissolved and dry → טהור, except a לחלוח דם → טמא; חזקה after 3 examinations (seif 5).
The שרייה applies only to a מפלת of peels/hairs; a חתיכת דם → טמא (seif 6).
Memory table
Situation
Status
Red shade (all shades) or black
🔴 טמא
White or green shade (and "בלוא")
🟢 טהור
"כזה ראיתי" (white/green) — her word
🟢 טהור — believed
"חכם טיהר" on a טמא / doubtful blood
🔴 We do not rely — show it
שפופרת / חתיכה / נעקר מקור
🟢 טהורה — תליה במכה
A בריה dissolved in 24h (שרייה)
🔴 טמאה
A בריה not dissolved, dry (without a לחלוח דם)
🟢 טהורה
A חתיכת דם, even hard
🔴 טמאה
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
Which colors render טמא, which טהור (seif 1)? Where does the "בלוא" shade fall?
What is the principle of the Shach (five מראות + the Sages' decree)? What does it change in reading seif 1?
When is the woman believed (seif 2)? Why does "חכם טיהר" on a real blood not suffice?
Explain the תליה במכה. Which three cases trigger it (seif 3)? What does the Rama specify?
What is the שרייה? When is a בריה טמאה (seif 4)?
What does a לחלוח דם change (seif 5)? What is the חזקה after three times?
Does the שרייה apply to a חתיכת דם (seif 6)? What does the יש אומרים say?
Why, today, does one never judge a color oneself? To whom does one show the בדיקה?
To go further
If you want to deepen this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul of the five מראות and the Sages' decree, the debate over the ירוק (של״ה, מהר״ם מינץ), the logic of the תליה במכה and the שרייה, anchored in the sugyot of Niddah
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (colors טמא/טהור, שרייה), the golden rules, and quick memorization of the 6 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, Taz, Sidrei Tahara, Chochmat Adam, Aruch haShulchan, Taharat haBayit, Shevet haLevi…)
The sources for this level can be consulted on Sefaria: