Siman 188 — Lamdan level: the colours of blood, the Sages’ safeguard, and the soaking test
Five impure bloods in the Torah, two permitted colours, and an expertise of the eye we no longer have
סימן קפ״ח
ה׳ מראות וגזרת חכמים, אדום ושחור, לבן וירוק, ובדיקת השרייה
עיון, פלפול, שיטות הראשונים והאחרונים
⚡ For lomdim and talmidei hakhamim ⚡
✦ ❖ ✦
Pilpul and in-depth study
Sugyot, sources, the underlying hakira, the mahlokot of the Rishonim and Aharonim,
the nafka minot for halakha and the examination of the shitot
The subject:
Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, siman 188 (six seifim)
with its nos’ei kelim: ש״ך (שפתי כהן) · ט״ז (טורי זהב) · פתחי תשובה
The foundation of the sugya in Shas:
נדה י״ט ע״א — the five impure bloods, and black as a red that was “struck” · נדה כ״א ע״א — the mishna המפלת: a husk, a hair, dust, red gnats · נדה כ״ב ע״ב — how long the soaking lasts · רמב״ם הלכות איסורי ביאה פרק ה׳
A note on method and restraint:
This sugya touches the body and the intimate; it is written with respect and modesty. Every practical application goes through a Rav, and the bedika is shown to a moreh hora’ah — never diagnosed by oneself.
Written and studied by:
הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
Opening the sugya — the five Torah colours, the Sages’ safeguard, and the principle of “not erring between one blood and another” (ש״ך ס״ק א)
The reds and the black — how the impure colours are divided, and why the faint is impure like the deep (seif 1; ט״ז ס״ק א)
White and green — wax, gold, leek and grass, and the mahloket over green (מהר״ם מינץ, של״ה, רש״ל, פ״ת ס״ק ב; ש״ך ס״ק ב–ג)
The expertise of the eye, and our own time — why one shows a hakham, lamplight and daylight, moist and dry (ט״ז ס״ק א; פ״ת ס״ק א, ג, ה, ו)
The credibility of “I saw one like this” — and its limit once the blood has been held impure (seif 2; ט״ז ס״ק ג–ד; ש״ך ס״ק ז)
Tube, piece and the bayit ha-hitzon — blood that does not come by the way of seeing, and attribution to the uprooted makor (seif 3; ט״ז ס״ק ה)
Attribution to a wound, and the soaking test — the form of a creature, gnats, and the full-day bedika in lukewarm water (seifim 4–5)
A piece of blood, and the limit of soaking — what is a creature and what is blood, and the hazaka of three times (seif 6; ש״ך ס״ק ט״ז–י״ז; פ״ת ס״ק ז, י״א)
דיני מראות הדם. ובו ו׳ סעיפים: כל מראה אדום בין אם היא כהה הרבה או עמוק טמאים וכן כל מראה שחור ואין טהור אלא מראה לבן וכן מראה ירוק אפי׳ כמראה השעוה או הזהב וכ״ש הירוק ככרתי או כעשבים (מרדכי) (וכן מראה שקורין בל״א בלו״א בכלל ירוק הוא) ואפי׳ יש בו סמיכות דם והוא עב הרבה ואפילו הרגישה שנפתח מקורה ובדקה מיד ומצאה מראות הללו טהורה. (ד״ע דלא כת״ה סימן רמ״ו דמגמגם בזה): הגה וכן עיקר (ב״י וטור) דלא כיש מחמירין לטמאה אם יש בו סמיכות והוא עב (ת״ה סימן רמ״ו) (ואם הרגישה שנפתח מקורה ובדקה מיד ולא מצאה כלום ע״ל סימן ק״ץ):
summary: every red colour is impure, whether very faint or very deep, and so is every black colour. Only white and green are pure — green in all its shades, even the dullest, the colour of wax or of gold, and all the more so the frank green of leek or grass. The Mehaber adds that neither a thick consistency of blood nor a hargasha followed by an immediate bedika renders those two colours impure. The two glosses in small type are the Rama’s: he confirms that such is the rule, against those who rule impure as soon as there is thickness, and he refers to siman 190 for a woman who felt her makor open and found nothing.
One point of reading, and it governs all that follows: what Sefaria gives in small type inside the seif is the Rama, not the Mehaber. That is true of the closing gloss, and true as well of the parenthesis about the German word — וכן מראה שקורין בל״א בלו״א בכלל ירוק הוא(רמ״א יו״ד קפ״ח:א): it is not part of the Mehaber’s text, and one therefore cannot make the Mehaber himself rule on that shade.
1. Opening the sugya — the five colours and the Sages’ safeguard
The foundation of the siman: the impurity of a nidda depends on the colour of the blood. The mishna teaches that there is Torah impurity only in a closed number of colours; everything else is pure by Torah law. But the Sages tightened the matter, because we no longer know how to tell one shade from another, and their decree widened the field on both sides at once: they forbade everything that inclines toward red, and they declared pure everything in which not the least redness can be suspected. From this the whole siman follows: the rule we practise is not the narrow rule of the Torah, but the widened rule of the Sages.
יסוד — the words of the Shach (ס״ק א). This is the cornerstone of the entire siman. In one sentence the Shach sets out both the Torah position and the decree: the Torah renders impure only five kinds of colour, and the Sages forbade whatever inclines toward redness, while declaring pure those in which redness cannot even be suspected. In other words, they did not move the boundary to one side: they removed the middle ground, the very ground where error becomes possible.
« מן התורה אינה טמאה אלא ה׳ מיני מראות וחכמים החמירו שלא לטעות בין דם לדם ואסרו כל מראה הנוטה לאדמימות והכשירו כל מראה שאין לספקו באדמומית כלל » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק א)
חקירה — does the Sages’ decree add an impurity, or remove a doubt? The gader of this stringency is worth examining. Did they create a new impurity upon colours the Torah holds pure, as with any rabbinic gezera? Or did they create nothing at all, but merely recognise that the instrument of discernment is lost to us, forbidding the doubtful as a doubt, lest it be one of the five? The nafka mina is sharp: on the first side there is a rabbinic law here, and its doubt would go toward leniency; on the second there is only a stringency of Torah doubt. The Shach’s words — he writes that the decree is so that one not err between one blood and another — incline toward the second side. We report the hakira and do not decide it; the Pithei Teshuva, at פ״ת ס״ק ט, will in fact reason further on as though the matter were a doubt (see section 7).
The impure side of the seif: every red and every black, from the faintest to the deepest.
How the impure colours divide. The Mehaber binds together two headings of impurity: (a) every red colour, whether very faint or deep; (b) every black colour. Yet in the gemara black is not a red of another kind: R. Hanina teaches that black is red, only that it was struck — and it is this that makes five where the verse yields only four. The impure black therefore belongs, at its root, to the same “that which inclines toward red”, and that is why the Mehaber holds them together.
« כל מראה אדום בין אם היא כהה הרבה או עמוק טמאים » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:א)
« וכן כל מראה שחור ואין טהור אלא מראה לבן » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:א)
קושיא — why should the faint be impure? At first sight the faint, which has no frank redness left, is closer to the pure than to the impure — and it is the deep that is full-fledged blood. Why does the seif put them on the same footing?
תירוץ — it is not the intensity, it is the inclination. On the Shach’s foundation, the matter turns not on the strength of the red but on the very fact of inclining toward it. A faint red is still a red, and the doubt remains that it is one of the five colours. Hence the Sages forbade whatever inclines toward redness, strong or weak; and only a colour in which no redness at all can be suspected — white, green — leaves the field of doubt.
The Taz and the thickness of the blood (ט״ז ס״ק א). The Taz leans on the end of the seif — where the Mehaber writes that even a thick consistency of blood does not render impure — to reject a stringency the Bayit Hadash — מו״ח, his father-in-law — had found in manuscripts in the name of Mahari Margaliot: that a thick white discharge after bathing would be impure, blood being apt to whiten under the effect of the bath. The Taz answers that neither Talmud nor poskim gives the least hint of it, and that the seif itself permits thick white without distinguishing whether or not she bathed beforehand. He concludes explicitly that this is an excessive stringency, that one who wishes to be strict may be so for himself, and that one does not teach it to others.
« ואפי׳ יש בו סמיכות דם והוא עב הרבה » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:א)
« וכן מבואר לקמן בסעיף זה דמתיר בלובן בסמיכות והוא עב ולא מחלק בין אם רחצה בחמין קודם לזה » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק א)
« ובגמרא אמרינן על מראה שחור שהיא אדום אלא שלקה » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק א)
The Taz’s ס״ק ב sits on the Rama, not on the Mehaber. The lemma misleads, and one must be careful: the Taz’s ס״ק ב addresses the words “thickness, and it is very thick” as they occur in the Rama’s gloss, not in the body of the Mehaber. What the Taz adds there is an extension of white: even a white that is not wholly white — like a white cloth on which dust has fallen, so that its whiteness is dulled — remains permitted, since such a dulling does not come from a colour of redness. The Shach, at his ס״ק ב, writes the same in his own name and adds that he has seen the practice, against the Terumat HaDeshen, who hesitated.
« אם אינו לבן לגמרי אלא כמראה בגד לבן שנפל עליו אבק שהוכהה לבנותו מותר דאין שחרורית כזה בא ממראה אדמומית » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ב)
« ואפילו אינו לבן לגמרי אלא כמראה בגד לבן שנפל עליו אבק שהוכהה לבנוניתו טהורה » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ב)
יסוד — the two pure colours.
Only two colours leave the field of impurity: white and green. And green in all its shades — even dull and muted, the colour of wax or the colour of gold, and all the more so the frank green of leek or grass. The reason is the Shach’s: these are colours in which no inclination toward red can be suspected, and that is precisely what the decree declares pure.
« וכן מראה ירוק אפי׳ כמראה השעוה או הזהב וכ״ש הירוק ככרתי או כעשבים » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:א)
The parenthesis adding the shade named in German belongs to the Rama and not to the Mehaber; we said so above, and it must be said again here, because it is over green that the Aharonim divided.
The mahloket over green (פתחי תשובה ס״ק ב):
Shita
On green
Source
The Mehaber
Green is pure without reservation, down to the shade of wax and of gold
מחבר ס״א
מהר״ם מינץ, in a responsum, in the name of the Gedolim
דאסרינן גם בירוק
פ״ת ס״ק ב
רש״ל, as reported by the של״ה
He does not rule leniently: he leaves the matter בירוק צ״ע — under examination — because of the Maharam Mintz’s responsum
פ״ת ס״ק ב
של״ה (practical conduct)
Not to rule leniently in haste if it is the colour of wax, still less the colour of gold, unless other considerations prove it is not nidda blood; found by hargasha — be strict; found without hargasha as a ketem — there is room to be lenient
פ״ת ס״ק ב
סדרי טהרה, cited there
The Aharonim omitted this stringency, a sign that they do not hold by it; still, a ba’al nefesh may be strict with himself as the case appears
פ״ת ס״ק ב
« ורש״ל כתב בירוק צ״ע כי מהר״ם מינץ כתב בתשובה בשם הגדולים דאסרינן גם בירוק ע״כ אין להקל במהירות אם הוא כמראה השעוה ומכ״ש כמראה הזהב » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ב)
« ואם מצאה מראה הירוק הזה ע״י הרגשה נ״ל להחמיר ואם בלי הרגשה מצאה כתם בזה יש להקל » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ב)
« והאחרונים השמיטו זה אלמא דלא ס״ל הכי מ״מ בעל נפש יחמיר לעצמו לפי ראות הענין » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ב)
The root of the division. The plain sense of the Mehaber permits green absolutely, wax and gold included. The Aharonim’s reservation bears not on the din but on recognition: the Maharam Mintz reports, in the name of the Gedolim, that green too is forbidden; the Rashal, reporting him, does not venture leniency and writes tzarikh iyun; the Shelah draws from this a graded conduct, according to whether there was hargasha or not. It is therefore not a dissent from the Mehaber but a practical safeguard in discernment — the very foundation of “one shows a hakham” in the next section. And for practice — ask your Rav.
The Shach and green that reddens as it dries (ש״ך ס״ק ג). The Shach reports a stringency of the Bayit Hadash: green is pure only if it stays green from beginning to end; if it changes after the ketem has dried and turns red at its edges, it is impure — the blood, torn from the body, would have been “struck” and turned green, then in drying would have returned somewhat to its first colour. The Bayit Hadash concluded that a moreh hora’ah should rule nothing while the matter is still moist. The Shach writes that the practice is not so, resting on the principle that one does not establish a defect that is not before us, as was said of the colours of the intestines in the chapter Elu Trefot.
« כ׳ הב״ח דהיינו כשנשאר ירוק מתחלתו ועד סופו אבל כשנשתנה לאחר שנתייבש הכתם ונעשה אדום בקצותיו טמאה » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ג)
« ואין נוהגין כן ונראה דאחזוקי ריעותא לא מחזקינן » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ג)
4. The expertise of the eye, and what remains of it
This is the practical axis of the whole siman: since we are no longer expert, a woman does not judge for herself but shows the bedika to a moreh hora’ah.
חקירה — why show a hakham in particular? If the impurity depends on a colour the eye can see, why should a woman not decide for herself when she sees a frank green? Because the expertise of the eye — telling a dull red from a muted green, a “struck” black from a mere stain — has left us. The pivot is therefore not in the colour alone but in the one who looks at it: an expert moreh hora’ah is required, and one does not rely on an untrained eye.
The points of discernment, as the commentaries argue them:
The point
What the source says
Source
Night and day
The Giv’at Shaul: a ketem that appeared an impure colour at night and which, by day and once dry, appears a pure colour — there is room to be lenient and declare it pure. The Sidrei Tahara restricts this: only if there was doubt at night; if the night viewing had established it as certainly impure, one is not lenient. The Levushei Srad adds a reservation in the other direction: if, after seeing it by day, one sees it again an hour later changed from its first colour, there is ground to forbid
גבעת שאול סי׳ ס״ג, ס״ט, לבושי שרד — פ״ת ס״ק א
Moist and dry
The Bayit Hadash wished to wait for drying; the Taz refutes him at length and concludes that no one heeds that stringency. The Pithei Teshuva reports that other Aharonim set it aside as well, with the Sidrei Tahara — the siglum מ״י he uses he never expands —, and that the Hakham Tzvi goes further: even if the moreh saw the matter moist and pure and after drying it proves impure, she is pure, for we always follow the state at the moment it left the body, whether to forbid or to permit. The Shevut Yaakov disputes this, and the She’ilat Yaavetz inclines to stringency
ט״ז ס״ק א; פ״ת ס״ק ג
Relying on oneself
The Sidrei Tahara: even on herself she may not rely — for instance when she knows that a hakham declared a like case pure; she must show it to a hakham now as well. The Torat HaShelamim adds that even if she brings the first blood and says “this one is like the one the hakham declared pure for me” — where there is no longer any fear that she erred in the resemblance — one still does not rely on her
ס״ט ותוה״ש — פ״ת ס״ק ו
« דכתם שבלילה נדמה למראה טמא וביום שהוא יבש נראה שהוא מראה טהור יש להקל ולטהר » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק א)
« אבל היכא דאיתחזקא לודאי טמא ע״י ראייתה בלילה אע״ג דחזרה וראתה ביום ויש לו מראה טהור אין להקל » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק א)
« דאפילו אם ראה המורה כשהיה לח והיה לו מראה טהור ואח״כ כשנתייבש נמצא מראה טמא טהורה ואזלינן תמיד בתר יציאה מן הגוף הן לטמא או לטהר » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ג)
« דאפילו על עצמה אינה יכולה לסמוך בזה כגון שיודעת שכזה טיהר לה החכם וצריכה להראות גם עתה לחכם » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ו)
The Taz, the lamp, and the judge’s eye (ט״ז ס״ק א). The Taz’s long discussion repays reading, for it supplies the underlying reason for the whole table. Against the stringency that would wait for drying he invokes an explicit baraita: a hakham shall not say “had it been moist it would certainly have been impure”, but rather we say that a judge has only what his eyes see. He adds the episode of Rabbi, who saw a blood by night and ruled it impure, then by day and ruled it pure — and the gemara draws from it that retrospective doubt has no purchase. Rashi ties this to Rabbi’s examining by lamplight, which shows, says the Taz, that it was a full examination, valid for leniency as well. His conclusion is plain: no one heeds that stringency.
« לא יאמר חכם אלו היה לח היה ודאי טמא אלא אמרי׳ אין לו לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק א)
« ע״כ נראה דלית מאן דחש לאותה חומרא שלא לראות כשהוא לח » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק א)
A red dot inside a ketem of pure colour (גבעת שאול, פ״ת ס״ק ה). The case put to the Giv’at Shaul: a woman felt her makor open, checked at once in her shift and found there a large ketem of pure colour, with, inside the ketem, something like a small red dot the size of a mustard seed; and the shift had not been checked beforehand. Was the hargasha to be attached to the impure colour or to the pure one? He wrote that she is pure: the hargasha is attached to the pure colour, and the red dot — smaller than a bean — to an insect bite. The Pithei Teshuva immediately adds that at the end of that responsum it is reported, in the name of the Gaon R. Mordechai of Tykocin, that he cast doubt on this ruling. The matter therefore remains disputed, and the Pithei Teshuva refers to siman 190. We report, and we do not decide.
נאמנת אשה לומר כזה ראיתי ואבדתיו ואם הוא מראה לבן או ירוק טהור אבל אם הביאה לפנינו דם והחזקנוהו בטמא או אפילו נסתפקנו אם הוא טמא או טהור והיא אומרת חכם פלוני טיהר לי כיוצא בזה אין סומכין עליה:
summary: a woman is believed when she says “I saw one like this and I lost it” — and if it is a white or green colour, it is pure. But if she brought before us a blood that we held impure, or even merely doubtful, and she says “such-and-such a hakham declared a like case pure for me”, we do not rely on her.
יסוד — two forms of credibility that only look alike.
The seif distinguishes two situations one takes for neighbours and which are far apart:
• “I saw one like this and I lost it” — there is no blood before us at all; everything rests on her testimony about the colour. Since she is believed concerning her own body and nothing contradicts her, if she describes white or green she is pure. The Taz notes, moreover, that “or green” in the seif refers to the one she lost, and not to anything else.
• The blood was held impure, or merely doubtful — the blood is before us, we saw it and judged it; and she comes to uproot our judgment by the testimony of another hakham. We do not rely on her.
« נאמנת אשה לומר כזה ראיתי ואבדתיו » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ב)
« פי׳ אותו שאבדה » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ג)
קושיא — why believed in the first case and not in the second? In both she testifies about a colour we can no longer examine: in the first “I lost it”, in the second “such a hakham declared it pure for me”. What makes the difference?
תירוץ — it is not a matter of credibility but of what has already been established. In the first case there is no blood before us and nothing has been established; her testimony therefore stands unopposed. In the second, we have already seen the blood and held it impure — or doubtful — on our own examination; invoking another hakham is a statement beyond verification, and it does not remove the doubt already born before us. The Taz gives the reason plainly: it may be that she herself is in doubt and supposed it pure, since there is a defect before us — and we too are in doubt.
« לפי שאפשר שיש לה ספק וסברה שהוא טהור כיון שיש ריעותא לפנינו שגם לנו יש ספק » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ד)
The Shach widens, then reopens (ש״ך ס״ק ז). The Shach first applies the seif to a woman who has a doubt about her own blood and would rely on her fellow — who had shown her hers, saying “I showed one like it to such a hakham, and he declared it pure”: she is not to rely on it, and so Rashi explained. But he at once adds a qualification that changes the reach of the seif: it emerges that if she says “this blood, this ketem, the hakham declared pure for me”, she is believed — and he refers to siman 185. The dividing line is therefore not between “with testimony” and “without testimony”, but between an alleged resemblance and the identity of the object.
« וכן אשה זו שמסופקת בדם שלה אין לה לסמוך על חברתה שהראתה לה דמה » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ז)
« מיהו משמע דאם אומרת דם זה או כתם זה טיהר לי החכם נאמנת » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ז)
נפקא מינה. If the Shach’s qualification holds, a woman who brings before us the same blood already shown is believed, while one who brings a similar blood is not. But the Torat HaShelamim, reported by the Pithei Teshuva at ס״ק ו, restricts even that: even when she brings the first blood, so that an error of resemblance can no longer be feared, one does not rely on her. Both readings stand before the reader, and we do not adjudicate between them.
הכניסה שפופרת והוציאה בה דם טהורה וכן אם ראתה דם בחתיכה אפי׳ היא מבוקעת והדם בבקעים בענין שנוגע בבשרה טהורה כיון שאין דרך לראות כן וכן אשה שנעקר מקור שלה וכמין חתיכות בשר נופלים בבית החיצון טהורה: הגה אפילו ראתה דם כל זמן שהחתיכות בבית החיצון שלה טהורה דתלינן הדם בחתיכה זו הואיל וידעינן ודאי שנעקר מקורה ומחמת מכה היא (כן משמע בטור ורבינו ירוחם והרא״ש): והוא שהטילה החתיכות במים פושרין ולא נמוחו ודוקא חתיכות קטנות דומיא דשפופרת אבל חתיכה גדולה טמאה אפילו לא ראתה כלום לפי שאי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם אפילו בנפל שלא נגמרה צורתו:
summary: she inserted a tube and drew blood out in it — pure. Likewise if she saw blood in a piece, even a split one with the blood in the clefts so that it touches her flesh — pure, since this is not the ordinary way of seeing. Likewise a woman whose makor became uprooted and from whom pieces of flesh fall into the bayit ha-hitzon — pure. Gloss of the Rama: even if she saw blood, so long as the pieces are in her bayit ha-hitzon she is pure, for we attribute the blood to that piece, since we know with certainty that her makor was uprooted and that it comes from a wound. The Mehaber then resumes: and that is on condition that she cast the pieces into lukewarm water and they did not dissolve, and only for small pieces, like the tube; but a large piece renders impure even if she saw nothing at all, since there is no opening of the kever without blood.
יסוד — blood that does not come by the way of seeing.
Three cases, one foundation: the blood that renders impure is that which is seen in the way women see, issuing from the makor to the bayit ha-hitzon in its ordinary course. But blood that comes otherwise:
• the tube — she inserted a tube and the blood came out in it, without touching the flesh in the manner of an ordinary sighting;
• the split piece — the blood is in the clefts, though it touches her flesh;
• the uprooted makor — pieces of flesh fall, and it is known that the makor was uprooted.
« הכניסה שפופרת והוציאה בה דם טהורה » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ג)
« כיון שאין דרך לראות כן » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ג)
« וכן אשה שנעקר מקור שלה וכמין חתיכות בשר נופלים בבית החיצון טהורה » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ג)
The Rama’s hiddush — attaching the blood to the piece. The Rama adds something considerable here: even if she saw blood, so long as the pieces are in the bayit ha-hitzon she is pure, for we attach the blood to that piece — since we know with certainty that her makor was uprooted, and that it comes from a wound. The uprooting of the makor is therefore itself a wound, and any blood that now issues attaches to it. This is the bridge to the foundation of attribution to a wound in siman 187.
« אפילו ראתה דם כל זמן שהחתיכות בבית החיצון שלה טהורה » (רמ״א יו״ד קפ״ח:ג)
חקירה — attribution to a wound: removal of a doubt, or a positive permission? The gader of “it comes from a wound” is worth examining. Is it the removal of the makor’s hazaka — since the makor was uprooted, the blood no longer comes from it — or a positive attribution, like the blood of a wound, which is no nidda blood at all? The nafka mina appears when the makor returns to its place: on the first side, once there are no more pieces, the makor’s hazaka returns and the blood renders impure; on the second, once it is proved that the wound bleeds, one attributes to it even afterwards. The Rama’s words — he writes “so long as the pieces are in the bayit ha-hitzon” — incline toward the first side.
The Taz: a sound ruling on an unsound reason (ט״ז ס״ק ה). The Taz writes that as to the din the Rama wrote well — but that his reason does not settle. For here we permit even genuine nidda blood, the blood that the piece of the makor carried with it into the bayit ha-hitzon; and the Torah forbade only the case where the makor remains in its place and the blood issues from it. When the makor itself conducts the blood, this is not the way of seeing that the Torah forbade. From this the Taz draws a consequence the Rama does not write: since the reason is the strangeness of the sighting and not attribution to a wound, the ruling would hold even at the time of the vesset — unlike what the Rama lays down at seif 5 for the case of soaking. The Taz concludes, against the Bayit Hadash, that he sees no difference between the moment of the fall and after it.
« ונ״ל אע״פ שלענין דין יפה כתב רמ״א מכל מקום אין טעם שלו מתיישב » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ה)
« דלא אסרה תורה אלא כשהמקור נשאר במקומו והדם יוצא ממנו מה שאין כן כאן שהמקור עצמו מוליך הדם עמו ואין זה דרך ראייה שאסרה תורה » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ה)
« ולפי זה אפילו הוא בשעת ווסתה מותר זה הדין כיון שראייתה משונה » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ה)
נפקא מינה — and it is not settled. The Shach, at his ס״ק ט, holds on the contrary that at the moment of the fall into the bayit ha-hitzon she must have checked and seen no blood at all. The Pithei Teshuva, at ס״ק ח, sets the two sides side by side: in the name of the Taz and the Havot Daat, the permission holds only if the piece fell at the time of the vesset — but if it fell earlier and at the time of the vesset she saw blood, she is impure; and the Shach, at ס״ק ח, is strict even when she sees blood in a piece uprooted from her makor at the time of the vesset, whereas if the pieces fall without blood she is pure in all opinions. And for practice — ask your Rav.
« אלא דוקא בעינן דבשעת נפילתה לבית החיצון בדקה ולא ראתה שום דם כלל » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ט)
« ובש״ך ס״ק ח׳ החמיר בזה אף אם רואה דם בחתיכה שנעקר ממקורה בשעת וסתה אבל כשהחתיכות נופלות ממנה בלא דם טהורה לכ״ע » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ח)
What the Pithei Teshuva says of this case, and why he says it (פ״ת ס״ק ז). On “her makor” in the seif, the Pithei Teshuva explains nothing: he lines up a long file of responsa — Shevut Yaakov, Tzemah Tzedek, Hinukh Beit Yehuda, Shav Yaakov, Be’er Yaakov, Hakham Tzvi, Penei Yehoshua, Zikhron Yosef, She’ilat Yaavetz, Noda BiYehuda, Brit Avraham, Me’il Tzedaka, Shemen Rokeah, Tiferet Tzvi, Hatam Sofer, Mishkenot Yaakov — and then explains why he reports none of them at length: a matter of this kind is not entrusted to every moreh, but to the great ones of the generation, as the Noda BiYehuda writes. A page of study therefore does not replace a question asked here. ⚠️ The “Tzemah Tzedek” of that list is the earlier Tzemah Tzedek, R. Menahem Mendel Krochmal, of the seventeenth century — and not the third Rebbe of Lubavitch, who bears the same title.
« ומפני שדבר זה וכיוצא בו לא ניתן רשות לכל מורה לפסוק הדין בזה כ״א לגדולי הדור » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ז)
כל דם היוצא מן האשה בין לח בין יבש טמאה ולא עוד אלא אפי׳ יצא ממנה צורת בריה כמין קליפות או כמין שערות או כמין יבחושים אדומים טמאה והוא שיהיו נמוחים בתוך מעת לעת על ידי ששורים אותם במים פושרים ויהיו המים פושרים כל משך מעת לעת שהם בתוכו ושיעור החימום כמו מים שנשאבו בקיץ מהנהר או מהמעין ועמדו בבית שחום הבית מחממתן וכחימום של אלו כך הוא שיעור פושרים בימות החורף (וסתם פושרים אינן חמין יותר מחמימות הרוק (ב״י בשם ריטב״א פ׳ המפלת)) ואם הם קשים כל כך שאינם נמוחים בתוך מעת לעת טהורה אפילו הם נמוחים על ידי מיעוך שממעכן בצפרניו (ואם מעכבן בצפרניו ולא נימוחו טהורה ואין צריך לבדוק ע״י שריה). (המ״מ פ״ה וכ״כ הב״י בשם הרשב״א):
במה דברים אמורים שאם לא נמוחו טהורה בזמן שהם יבשים גמורים שאין עמהם דם כלל אבל אם יש עליהם שום לחלוח דם טמאה: הגה והוא הדין אם נתמעכו או נימוחו קצתן וקצתן לא נימוחו דטמאה (פסקי מהרא״י סימן מ״ז) מיהו נראה לי דאם בדקה ג״פ כל מה שראתה ולא נימוחו כלל שוב אינה צריכה לבדוק מה שהיא רואה אח״כ כדרך זה שהרי הוחזקה שדברים אלו אינן דם רק באים ממכה שבגופה ודוקא באשה שיש לה וסת ושלא בשעת וסתה כמו שנתבאר גבי מכה לעיל סימן קפ״ז:
summary of seif 4: all blood that issues from a woman, moist or dry, renders her impure; and more than that, even if there issued from her the form of a creature — like husks, like hairs, like red gnats — she is impure, provided they dissolve within twenty-four hours when soaked in lukewarm water, the water remaining lukewarm the whole time they are in it. The Mehaber gives the measure of that warmth: water drawn in summer from the river or the spring and left in a house whose warmth heats it. The parenthesis in small type, from the Beit Yosef in the name of the Ritva, adds that ordinary lukewarm is no warmer than saliva. And if they are so hard that they do not dissolve within twenty-four hours, she is pure — even if they dissolve under the crushing of the nails. The last parenthesis is the Rama’s: if she crushed them with her nails and they did not dissolve, she is pure and has no need of the soaking test.
summary of seif 5: what precedes — that they did not dissolve and she is pure — holds when they are wholly dry and there is no blood with them at all; but if there is upon them the least moisture of blood, she is impure. Gloss of the Rama: likewise if they were crushed, or if part dissolved and part did not, she is impure (Piskei Mahara’i, siman 47). And the Rama adds on his own account: it seems to me that if she checked three times everything she saw and nothing dissolved at all, she no longer needs to check what she will see afterwards in this manner, for it is established that these things are not blood but come from a wound in her body — and that only in a woman who has a vesset, and not at the time of her vesset, as was explained concerning a wound above, in siman 187.
יסוד — soaking tests the nature of the thing.
A great rule: all blood that issues from a woman, moist or dry, renders her impure. And even what issues in the form of a creature — husks, hairs, red gnats — raises the concern that it is congealed blood that has taken a shape. How is this to be known? By soaking: the thing is soaked in lukewarm water for twenty-four hours. If it dissolves, it is blood, and she is impure; if it does not, it is a creature and not blood, and she is pure. Soaking is thus a test of the nature of the thing: blood melts, a creature holds.
« כל דם היוצא מן האשה בין לח בין יבש טמאה » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ד)
« אפי׳ יצא ממנה צורת בריה כמין קליפות או כמין שערות או כמין יבחושים אדומים טמאה » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ד)
« והוא שיהיו נמוחים בתוך מעת לעת על ידי ששורים אותם במים פושרים » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ד)
The mishna in Nidda gives the test in the plainest terms, and the gemara fixes its duration:
Wholly dissolved within twenty-four hours in lukewarm water
It is blood — impure
מחבר ס״ד
Wholly dry, with no blood upon it, and does not dissolve
It is a creature and not blood — pure
מחבר ס״ה
So hard that it does not dissolve, even if it dissolves under the nail
Pure; and per the Rama, crushed with the nails without dissolving, she no longer needs the soaking
מחבר ורמ״א ס״ד
There is upon it the least moisture of blood
Impure — the moisture proves there is blood there (ט״ז ס״ק ז)
מחבר ס״ה; ט״ז ס״ק ז
Part dissolved and part did not
Impure
רמ״א ס״ה (פסקי מהרא״י)
« בזמן שהם יבשים גמורים שאין עמהם דם כלל » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ה)
« אבל אם יש עליהם שום לחלוח דם טמאה » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ה)
“The least moisture of blood” — and why it is a separate rule (ט״ז ס״ק ז). The Taz notes that the argument “this is not the ordinary way of seeing” has no place here: once there is blood, it is proved that these things too are blood, though they did not dissolve; and besides, it may well be the ordinary way of a woman to see thus at times. The Shach, at ס״ק ט״ו, gives the distinction by which one will not confuse this seif with seif 3: there the blood is within the clefts of the piece, here the moisture is upon it. That is why purity holds only in the absence of any blood.
« ולא שייך כאן אין דרכה של אשה לראות בכך דכאן ודאי אמרינן כיון דיש דם מוכח דגם הנהו הם דם אע״פ שלא נימוחו » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ז)
« דהתם הדם הוא בתוך החתיכות אלא שהוא בבקעים מה שאין כן הכא שהלחלוח הדם הוא ע״ג החתיכות » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ט״ו)
The hazaka of three times — and the Shach’s tzarikh iyun (רמ״א ס״ה; ש״ך ס״ק ט״ז; פ״ת ס״ק י״א). The Rama innovates: a woman who sees such things — husks and hairs — and has checked three times without anything dissolving no longer needs to check what she will see afterwards in this manner, for it is established that these things are not blood but come from a wound in her body. Then he restricts: and that only in a woman who has a vesset, and not at the time of her vesset, as in siman 187. But the Shach, at his ס״ק ט״ז, halts on that restriction with a tzarikh iyun: it is found in no posek, and the parallel with siman 187 does not hold — for there she sees manifest blood, whereas here she sees only dry things, so that even at the time of her vesset she should be pure. He then reports the Appei Ravrevei, who reasons the same way: since the main reason is that it is not blood but a creature, she is pure even at the time of her vesset. The Pithei Teshuva, at ס״ק י״א, brings in the name of the Amudei Kesef — by the author of the Me’ir Nativ — an answer that removes the Shach’s difficulty: the hazaka of three times holds even if she saw blood along with them, and one then attributes to the wound as to an ordinary wound, from one vesset to the next; and the Rama’s restriction bears only on the case where she saw genuine blood with them. The question remains open in the commentaries, and we do not decide it; for practice — ask your Rav.
« שהרי הוחזקה שדברים אלו אינן דם רק באים ממכה שבגופה » (רמ״א יו״ד קפ״ח:ה)
« ודוקא באשה שיש לה וסת ושלא בשעת וסתה » (רמ״א יו״ד קפ״ח:ה)
« צ״ע דלא נמצא בשום פוסק דמחלק הכא בין שעת וסת או לא » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ט״ז)
« אבל הכא הרי אינה רואה דם אלא דברים יבשים והלכך אפילו בשעת וסתה טהורה וצל״ע » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ט״ז)
« כיון שעיקר הטעם דאינו דם רק בריה טהורה אף בשעת וסתה » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ט״ז)
« ונראה דאף שראתה אח״כ דם עמו טהורה דע״י ג״פ הוחזקה דמכה בגופה ותלינן בה כמו במכה דעלמא בין וסת לוסת » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק י״א)
A safek sfeka over lost grains (פ״ת ס״ק ט). The Pithei Teshuva reports, under the siglum בי״ע (siman קכ״ז, read as Beit Yaakov), the case of a woman who saw grains and lost them without testing whether they would dissolve: he permits by a safek sfeka — a doubt whether they were red, and granting they were, a doubt whether they would have dissolved; and even were she to say she saw them red, it remains that some red colours are pure and that we can no longer tell them apart, which is enough to make a doubt. The Sidrei Tahara objects that this is no true safek sfeka, the two doubts being one and the same — nidda blood or not. Note that this reasoning presupposes the second side of our opening hakira: that the prohibition of the intermediate colours is a matter of doubt, not a newly created impurity.
« דאשה שראתה קרטין ונאבדו בלא בדיקה אם נימוחו דמותר מטעם ס״ס » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ט)
« כיון שיש מראה אדום שהוא טהור אלא שאין אנו בקיאין חשיב ספיקא » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ט)
בד״א שצריך בדיקה בשריה במפלת כמין קליפות ושערות אבל חתיכת דם אע״פ שקשה ואינו נימוח טמאה וי״א שגם לזה צריך בדיקה בשריה אם היא חתיכה קטנה כשיעור שפופרת קנה דק שבדקים (ד״ע):
summary: what was said — that the soaking test is required — applies only to one who drops things like husks and hairs; but a piece of blood, though hard and not dissolving, renders impure. And there are those who say that this too requires the soaking test, if it is a small piece, of the measure of a reed tube, the finest of the fine.
יסוד — the limit of the test.
Not everything is tested by soaking. The Mehaber sets a bound: the test applies only to one who drops husks and hairs — things of which it is not known whether they are blood or a creature, and which therefore call for a test. But a piece of blood, whose form is the form of blood, renders impure without a test, though hard and not dissolving: we know it is blood. Soaking is therefore the test of doubt alone, and not of what the form of the thing already decides.
« במפלת כמין קליפות ושערות » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ו)
« אבל חתיכת דם אע״פ שקשה ואינו נימוח טמאה » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ו)
The mahloket over the small piece:
Shita
On a piece of blood
Source
The Mehaber (first opinion)
A piece of blood renders impure without soaking — even hard and not dissolving
מחבר ס״ו
יש אומרים
A small piece — of the measure of the finest of tubes — also requires the soaking test
מחבר ס״ו
The Shach (ס״ק י״ז)
The Yerushalmi, at the start of the chapter HaMapelet, proves plainly like the first opinion; and the language of the Shas points the same way. He wonders that the great ones struggled over this
ש״ך ס״ק י״ז
« וי״א שגם לזה צריך בדיקה בשריה אם היא חתיכה קטנה כשיעור שפופרת קנה דק שבדקים » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ו)
« ובירושלמי ריש פרק המפלת מוכח להדיא כסברא הראשונה ותמהני על מה נתחבטו הגדולים בזה » (ש״ך יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק י״ז)
The root of the division — what decides, the form or the size? For the first opinion, it is the form of the piece of blood that decides: whatever has the form of blood renders impure without a test. For the “there are those who say”, in a small piece the form no longer suffices to make things clear — it might be a small husk — and the rule of soaking returns. They therefore differ on the foundation: is soaking a means of proof applied to every doubt, smallness being a doubt — or a rule proper to one who drops husks and hairs, so that a piece of blood, even small, is always blood? The Shach, as we saw, holds like the first opinion. And for practice — ask your Rav.
The measure of the tube, and where seif 3 meets it (ט״ז ס״ק ו; ש״ך ס״ק י״ב). Both the Taz and the Shach explain, at seif 3, that “like the tube” means the finest of the fine, and refer to the end of our siman — that is, to this seif 6. The two places therefore hold together: the measure that limits the permission of small pieces at seif 3 is the very one that, at seif 6, triggers the requirement of soaking according to the “there are those who say”.
« פירוש דק שבדקין וכמ״ש סוף הסימן » (ט״ז יו״ד קפ״ח ס״ק ו)
« ודוקא חתיכות קטנות דומיא דשפופרת אבל חתיכה גדולה טמאה » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ח:ג)
The hakira that runs through the siman: where does the boundary of impurity in colours lie, and who decides it in our time?
The five colours and the Sages’ decree — five bloods by Torah law; the Sages forbade whatever inclines toward red and declared pure whatever cannot be suspected of redness (ש״ך ס״ק א).
Red and black impure, white and green pure — and the reservation over green bears on recognition, not on the din: the Maharam Mintz forbids in the name of the Gedolim, the Rashal leaves the matter under examination, the Shelah grades it, the Sidrei Tahara notes that the Aharonim omitted it (פ״ת ס״ק ב).
The expertise of the eye — one shows a hakham; and the Sidrei Tahara holds that she may not even rely on what a hakham told her about a like case (פ״ת ס״ק ו). On moist and dry, the Taz sets aside the Bayit Hadash’s stringency (ט״ז ס״ק א), and the commentaries remain divided (פ״ת ס״ק ג).
Attribution to the uprooted makor — the Rama attaches the blood to the piece because the uprooting is a wound; the Taz approves the ruling and rejects the reason, holding that it is the strangeness of the sighting that permits (ט״ז ס״ק ה) — hence his consequence regarding the time of the vesset, which the Shach and the Pithei Teshuva do not follow (ש״ך ס״ק ט; פ״ת ס״ק ח).
The soaking test — it distinguishes blood from a creature; a moisture of blood renders impure (ט״ז ס״ק ז); and three times establish a hazaka, whose restriction by the Rama remains under the Shach’s tzarikh iyun (ש״ך ס״ק ט״ז; פ״ת ס״ק י״א).
What follows for practice — and each line names the commentary that carries it:
In our time one does not judge a doubtful colour oneself: one shows the bedika to a moreh hora’ah (ש״ך ס״ק א; פ״ת ס״ק ו).
The Giv’at Shaul is lenient for a ketem seen impure at night and pure by day; the Sidrei Tahara admits this only if the night left a doubt, and the Levushei Srad adds a reservation in the other direction (פ״ת ס״ק א). These opinions stand before the moreh, and we single out none of them.
On moist and dry, the Taz sets aside waiting for the drying; the Hakham Tzvi goes further and always follows the state at the moment it left the body; the Shevut Yaakov and the She’ilat Yaavetz incline otherwise (ט״ז ס״ק א; פ״ת ס״ק ג).
An uprooted makor, pieces in the bayit ha-hitzon — the blood is attached to the wound and she is pure, so long as the pieces are there (רמ״א ס״ג); the Shach further requires a bedika at the moment of the fall (ש״ך ס״ק ט), and the Pithei Teshuva sets the opinions side by side regarding the time of the vesset (פ״ת ס״ק ח).
For one who drops husks and hairs — soaking in lukewarm water for twenty-four hours: dissolved → impure, undissolved and wholly dry → pure (מחבר ס״ד–ה).
Checked three times without dissolving — it is established that this is not blood, and she need no longer check in this manner; the Rama restricts this to a woman who has a vesset, not at the time of her vesset (רמ״א ס״ה), the Shach places that restriction under tzarikh iyun (ש״ך ס״ק ט״ז), and the Me’ir Nativ offers the answer that saves it (פ״ת ס״ק י״א).
The Pithei Teshuva finally recalls that the matter of the uprooted makor is not entrusted to every moreh, but to the great ones of the generation (פ״ת ס״ק ז).
And for practice — ask your Rav, and in questions of taharat hamishpaha also a certified yoetzet halakha. One never diagnoses a colour of blood oneself.
Pure — even a white dulled like a cloth covered with dust
מחבר ס״א; ש״ך ס״ק ב; ט״ז ס״ק ב
Green (wax, gold, leek, grass)
Pure per the Mehaber; the Aharonim are not quick to be lenient in the dull shades
מחבר ס״א; פ״ת ס״ק ב
A doubtful colour
It is shown to a moreh hora’ah; on light and on drying, the commentaries are divided
ט״ז ס״ק א; פ״ת ס״ק א, ג, ו
Uprooted makor, pieces in the bayit ha-hitzon
The blood is attached to the piece — pure
רמ״א ס״ג; ט״ז ס״ק ה; ש״ך ס״ק ט
Husks and hairs dissolved by soaking
It is blood — impure
מחבר ס״ד
Undissolved, wholly dry
It is a creature — pure
מחבר ס״ה
A piece of blood, hard, not dissolving
Impure without soaking; and if small — for the “there are those who say”, it requires soaking
מחבר ס״ו; ש״ך ס״ק י״ז
Table — the divisions of the siman
The subject
Shita א׳
Shita ב׳
Leniency in green
The plain sense of the Mehaber — green is pure without reservation, even the colour of wax
Maharam Mintz (in the name of the Gedolim): green too is forbidden; Rashal leaves צ״ע; Shelah grades it (פ״ת ס״ק ב)
The gader of the Sages’ decree
A new rabbinic impurity upon the other colours
The removal of discernment and the prohibition of the doubt (the language of ש״ך ס״ק א; the reasoning of the בי״ע in פ״ת ס״ק ט)
Green that reddens as it dries
The Bayit Hadash: impure, and one does not rule while it is moist
The Shach: the practice is not so — one does not establish an absent defect (ש״ך ס״ק ג; ט״ז ס״ק א)
“Such a hakham declared it pure for me”
She is not believed once the blood was held impure or doubtful (מחבר ס״ב; ט״ז ס״ק ד)
The Shach: if she says it of this blood, she is believed (ש״ך ס״ק ז) — and the תוה״ש restricts even that (פ״ת ס״ק ו)
The reason for the permission at the uprooted makor
The Rama: it is a wound, and the blood is attached to it
The Taz: the sighting is foreign to the ordinary way — hence even at the time of the vesset (ט״ז ס״ק ה)
The Rama’s restriction on the hazaka of three times
The Rama: only for one who has a vesset, and not at the time of the vesset
The Shach: tzarikh iyun, no posek so distinguishes (ש״ך ס״ק ט״ז); the Me’ir Nativ saves it otherwise (פ״ת ס״ק י״א)
The small piece of blood
The Mehaber: impure, the form decides
The “there are those who say”: small, it requires soaking — and the Shach holds like the first opinion (ש״ך ס״ק י״ז)
Table — the sources of the sugya
Gemara: נדה י״ט ע״א (the five impure bloods; black, a red that was struck) · נדה כ״א ע״א (the mishna המפלת: husk, hair, dust, red gnats) · נדה כ״ב ע״ב (the duration of soaking in lukewarm water)
Rishonim: רמב״ם (איסורי ביאה פרק ה׳) · רא״ש · רשב״א · ריטב״א (פרק המפלת, via the בית יוסף) · רבינו ירוחם · מרדכי · טור · פסקי מהרא״י (סימן מ״ז)
Aharonim, as the commentaries of the siman name them: בית יוסף · רמ״א · ש״ך · ט״ז · פתחי תשובה · באר הגולה · תורת השלמים · מהר״ם מינץ · של״ה · מהרש״ל · ב״ח · גבעת שאול · לבושי שרד · סדרי טהרה · חכם צבי · שבות יעקב · שאילת יעב״ץ · בי״ע · חינוך בית יהודה · צמח צדק הקדמון (קרוכמל) · מהר״ם מלובלין · נודע ביהודה · חתם סופר · חכמת אדם · חוות דעת · אפי רברבי · מאיר נתיב (עמודי כסף)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן קפ״ח · Level 2 — Lamdan · פלפול ועיון בדיני מראות הדם daattorah.com
⚠️ This content is written for study and examination only. For any practical ruling (לְמַעֲשֶׂה) — ask your Rav, and in questions of taharat hamishpaha also a certified yoetzet halakha. One never diagnoses a colour of blood oneself: the bedika is shown to a moreh hora’ah.