The Rabbinic decree, the ke-gris measure, the attributions, and the heter of colored garments
יורה דעה · סימן ק״צ
דִּינֵי כְּתָמִים וּבְדִיקַת הָאִשָּׁה
🌱 Foundations Level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
A first approach to Siman 190, the largest of the Laws of Niddah: its 54 seifim, grouped into 9 families, with representative vocalized Hebrew and a fluent English translation. Why does a stain of blood (כֶּתֶם) render impure when the Torah only forbids through the הַרְגָּשָׁה (the sensation)? The role of the Sages decree (כתם דרבנן), of the כְּגְרִיס וְעוֹד measure, of the place and shape of the stain, of an object שאינו מקבל טומאה, of the attributions (תליות), and of the great heter of colored garments (בגדי צבעונים).
Subject: Stains (כתמים) — the Sages decree, the כגריס measure, attributions, colored garments Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ק״צ
Compilation: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study plan
1.The Mehaber text: the 54 seifim, grouped into 9 thematic families
2.Context: why stains come after the הרגשה (183) and the מראות (188)
4.The שיעור כגריס ועוד: the table of the measure and the non-combination of drops
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries (the Taz is very developed here)
6.The glosses of the Rama (הגה)
7.בגדי צבעונים: the great heter and its practical reach today
8.Modern practical cases: colored undergarments, showing the stain to a Rav, תליות, surfaces not concerned
9.Synthesis and comprehension questions
1. The Mehaber text — the 54 seifim in 9 families
Siman 190 is the largest of the Laws of Niddah: 54 seifim. Rather than running through them one by one, we have grouped them into 9 families that follow the order of the Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) and the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles). The guiding principle is stated already in seif 1: the Torah only renders impure through the הרגשה (the sensation of the flow); but the Sages decreed (גזרו) over the stain (כתם) found on the body or the garment, even without a הרגשה. The whole siman flows from this rabbinic decree — and precisely because it is rabbinic, so many leniencies (קולות) are possible in it: the measure, the place, the attributions, the color of the garment.
Family 1 — The foundation: הרגשה דאורייתא vs כתם דרבנן (seifim 1-4)
Seif 1 — The Torah requires a הרגשה; the Sages decree over the stain
By Torah law, a woman does not become impure and is not forbidden to her husband until she senses (תַּרְגִּישׁ) that blood has come out of her body (שיצא דם מבשרה). But the Sages decreed (גזרו) over the stain (כֶּתֶם) found on her body or her garments: she is impure and forbidden to her husband even without having sensed anything (אף על פי שלא הרגישה). And since the entire law of the stain is rabbinic (מדבריהם), they introduced many leniencies (הקלו בו בכמה דברים).
The founding idea of the whole siman: two levels must be distinguished. The niddah de-oraita of Siman 183 presupposes a הרגשה — the woman feels the flow. The כֶּתֶם of Siman 190 is altogether different: it is a stain discovered without any sensation; it renders impure only by a rabbinic decree (גזרת חכמים). This rabbinic nature explains the whole tenor of the siman: a stain too small, a place that does not concern, a surface not subject, an external cause, a colored garment — so many leniencies the law tolerates, since "ספקא דרבנן לקולא".
Seifim 2-4 — תינוקת/קטנה; שופעת ומזלפת; חזקת שלוש עונות
The Sages did not decree for a תִּינוֹקֶת not yet of an age to see (שלא הגיע זמנה לראות): namely a girl under 12, even if she already has two hairs (שתי שערות); and likewise a girl over 12 who, when examined, has not produced two hairs. — A woman who flows for several days (שׁוֹפַעַת) or drips drop after drop without interruption (מְזַלֶּפֶת): this is only a single sighting (ראיה אחת) until she stops; but if she stopped a little and saw again three times, she is now established as one who sees blood (מֻחְזֶקֶת בְּדָמִים) and her stain is impure. — A girl not yet of age who saw three times and then ceased for the equivalent of three onot, that is 90 days, returns to her prior status and her stain is pure — until she sees three times again.
The exemptions from the decree: the rabbinic decree over stains weighs only on a woman of an age and established to see. The תינוקת/קטנה (under 12, or without two hairs) is exempt; a single continuous flow counts as one ראיה; and a חזקה of three sightings is needed to be "established," just as 90 days — שלוש עונות of cessation are needed to lose it. The general logic: as long as the woman is not presumed a source of menstrual blood, the stringency of the stain is not applied.
Family 2 — The measure: כגריס ועוד, the louse, non-combination (seifim 5-8)
Seifim 5-6 — The measure of כְּגְרִיס וְעוֹד (≈ 9 lentils, a 3×3 square)
They only decreed over the stain if it reaches כִּגְרִיס וְעוֹד (the size of a "gris" bean and a little more); and the measure of the גריס is that of 9 lentils (כְּט׳ עֲדָשׁוֹת), arranged in a 3×3 square (Tur), a lentil itself being roughly 4 hairs wide. This requirement of a measure applies to a stain on the garment as on the body; according to another opinion (יש אומרים), it applies only to a stain on the garment — a stain found on the body itself, in places of concern, has no minimum measure (renders impure even below it).
The threshold of the decree: a stain smaller than כְּגְרִיס וְעוֹד (a little more than ~9 lentils, a square of about 3 cm) does not render impure — one of the great leniencies of the siman. The "ועוד" ("and a little more") is not decorative: it is what serves to absorb the drop attributable to a louse (כינה), as we shall see. The dispute between the Mehaber and the יש אומרים concerns the stain on the body itself: for some, there one is concerned even with no minimum measure.
Seifim 7-8 — תליה ל-פשפש (up to כתורמוס); drops are not combined
If she killed a louse/bug (פִּשְׁפֵּשׁ) or smelled its odor, she attributes (תּוֹלָה) the stain to that insect up to the size of a כַּתֻּרְמוֹס (a lupine, a bitter legume — far larger than a lentil). — If the stain, in a single spot, does not reach כגריס ועוד, even if there are many small contiguous drops that, added together, would exceed the גריס, she is pure: for we attribute each separate drop to a louse (תּוֹלִין כָּל טִיפָּה בְּכִנָּה) — there must be כגריס ועוד in one continuous piece.
Two decisive leniencies: (1) the תליה ל-פשפש — a crushed insect can "explain" a stain up to the (generous) size of a lupine; (2) the non-combination of drops: separate droplets are not added together, since each may come from a different louse. There must therefore be כגריס ועוד in one continuous piece for the decree to apply. This shows how far the law seeks, from the outset, not to render impure.
Family 3 — The place and shape of the stain (seifim 9, 11-15)
Seifim 9, 11 — כנגד בית התורפה; only where it could come מן המקור
A stain found on her body — long like a strap, round, or in droplets — since it is opposite בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה (the genital area, called by modesty "the place of shame"), renders impure. — But the stain does not render impure wherever it is found: only where it is possible that it came there מן הַמָּקוֹר (from the uterine source). How so? On her heel (עֲקֵבָהּ) → impure; likewise along the length of her shin or the inner side of her feet — places that touch one another when she stands.
The logic of place: the decree only applies if the stain could have come from the womb (מן המקור). Opposite the genital area (כנגד בית התורפה), on the heel, on the inner sides of the legs (which can touch that area) → there is concern. A stain on the upper body, where uterine blood cannot reach, will not raise the same concern. The shape (strap, round, drops) changes nothing: it is the location that decides.
Seifim 12-15 — The garment below the belt; the head-covering (מעפורת); two women
A stain found on the garment below the belt (למטה מהחגור) or at the level of the belt → impure, even on the outer side, and with no distinction between front, back or the sides since garments turn this way and that (חוזרין הנה והנה). — If she removed the garment and covered herself with it at night, a stain anywhere renders impure (the garment could reach everywhere). Likewise a stain on the מַעֲפֹרֶת (head-covering/wrap) that covers her head, or with which she girds herself. — Two women who covered their heads with one garment → both are impure.
From the body to the garment: the same logic — "could the stain have come from the source?" — extends to the garment. Below the belt → there is concern (the garment sweeps the area, front and back). A garment one turns or covers oneself with at night raises concern everywhere. The מעפורת worn now as a covering, now as a belt, enters the doubt. And two women sharing one garment: the stain cannot be attributed to one rather than the other → both are impure.
Family 4 — דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה: the floor and the toilet (seif 10)
Seif 10 — No decree on what is not subject to טומאה
A stain found on an object that is not subject to טומאה (דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה) — they did not decree. How so? If she examined the bare ground (קַרְקַע עוֹלָם), or the toilet bowl (בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא) which is not subject to טומאה, or any object that is not מקבל טומאה, sat upon it and found blood on it → she is pure.
דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה — "an object not subject to טומאה": the decree of stains bears only on things capable of contracting טומאה (garments, vessels…). On the bare ground, on the toilet bowl (ceramic attached to the floor, not movable) and similar surfaces, there is no concern of a stain: the woman remains pure. This is one of the most practical heterim of the siman.
Why this exemption? The decree of stains was modeled on the categories of טומאה: it applies only to what "receives" טומאה. The ground and the toilet bowl, by their nature, are not subject to it — so the decree does not reach them. Concretely, a stain noticed on the bowl does not, in itself, fall under the stringency of stains (subject to the precise conditions, to be verified with a Rav).
Family 5 — The תליות: attributing the stain to an external cause (seifim 16-31)
Seifim 18-19 — Since stains are דרבנן, we attribute to anything possible
Since stains are דרבנן, we are lenient and the woman attributes (תּוֹלָה) the stain to any possible cause. How so? If she slaughtered an animal, a beast or a fowl, if she handled stains, if she sat beside people who handle them, or if she passed through the butchers market (שׁוּק שֶׁל טַבָּחִים) and blood was found on her garments → she attributes it to that. And just as she attributes to herself, she attributes to her son and her husband if they handled stains or have a wound (מַכָּה), since they tend to touch her.
The heart of the chapter of attributions: the wording of seif 18 — כיון שכתמים דרבנן מקילין בהם ותולה בכל דבר שיכולה לתלות — is the key to this whole family. A wound (מכה), external blood (passing the butchers market, handling meat or fowl), a cause on the husband or child: all of these can "attach" the stain to a non-uterine origin. Seifim 22-31 refine this: matching colors (red on red, black on black), fowl (whose blood varies), and the role of the louse (כינה / מאכולת) in computing the measure.
Seifim 23-24, 28 — The color must match; the fowl; the crushed louse
If she handled something red and a black stain is found, or the reverse, we do not attribute (the color does not match); but red on red, black on black → she attributes. — If she handled a fowl (תַּרְנְגֹלֶת), she may attribute a red, black or saffron (כַּרְכּוֹמִי) stain, since slaughter blood is red, the blood of its limbs black, the blood of its innards saffron. — A woman who finds on her garment about two גריסין with a crushed louse in it (כִּנָּה מְעוּכָה) → pure: one גריס certainly comes from the crushed louse, the other is attributed to another louse.
The discipline of attributions: attribution is not a blank check. There must be a matching color (אדום באדום) and a real and present cause (a louse actually crushed, a fowl actually handled). It is precisely because these conditions are fine that the concrete decision belongs to the Rav, who knows whether the תליה holds.
Family 6 — בגדי צבעונים: they only decreed over white
They only decreed over the stain for a white garment (בֶּגֶד לָבָן); but on a colored garment (בִּגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִים), a stain found does not render impure. Therefore the established custom of the daughters of Israel is to wear colored garments (תַּקָּנַת בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִלְבּוֹשׁ בִּגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִים), in order to spare themselves the minutiae of stains.
בגדי צבעונים — "colored garments": the Sages only decreed over the stain for white, where a blood stain is sharp and recognizable. On a colored fabric, the stain is not distinct → the decree does not apply. Hence the very widespread custom, to this day, of wearing colored undergarments (and colored liners) to avoid most stain problems.
The most current heter of the siman: in contemporary practice, it is family 6 that has the greatest reach. Wearing colored undergarments and liners (non-white) removes from the outset most stain questions, since the decree weighs only on white. Caution: this heter has its conditions (the days of בדיקה and of הפסק טהרה require, on the contrary, well-examined white — cf. 196); its use must therefore be regulated with a Rav.
Family 7 — בדיקת הכתם, examination and doubts (seifim 32-43)
If she found a stain with nothing to attribute it to, and there is doubt (מסופק): is it blood or dye? — in former times one passed over it seven agents (ז׳ סַמָּנִים): if the stain held fast, it was dye → pure. The Mehaber notes: today we no longer have the use of the seven agents. — But a woman who examines herself with an עֵד הַבָּדוּק (a previously verified cloth) and finds blood on it, even a drop like a mustard grain (כְּחַרְדָּל), is impure — for the עד בדוק has no minimum measure: it counts as a ראיה, not as a mere stain.
A found stain (כתם) vs an active examination (עד הבדוק): these must be distinguished. A chance stain on a garment falls under the lenient regime of stains (measure, place, תליות). But when the woman actively examines herself with a verified cloth (עד הבדוק) and finds blood, this is no longer a כתם: the slightest drop renders her impure, like a real sighting (cf. seif 54). Seifim 34-43 develop this theme: a עד placed under the pillow, lent to another woman, the distinction מגליד/מקדיר (which of the two traced the stain), etc.
Examination is a matter for a Rav. The color (blood or dye, cf. the מראות of Siman 188), the size (כגריס), the place, the type of support (a chance garment or an עד בדוק): all these parameters combine. Before a doubt, one never decides alone — one shows the stain to a Rav, who examines and rules.
Family 8 — מי רגלים, water and laundering
The doubt linked to water, urine or the laundering of the garment
This family gathers the fine points where the stain is mixed with water, urine (מֵי רַגְלַיִם) or a laundering. Example (seif 46): a garment worn during the days of niddah and then laundered (נִתְכַּבֵּס), taken up again in a state of purity without examination. If it was laundered by a Jewish woman (יִשְׂרְאֵלִית) who is absent and cannot be questioned, there is a presumption (חֲזָקָה) that she checked it at the laundering, and one does not attribute the stain to her. Laundering, water and urine thus alter the weight of a stain and the presumptions one may form.
Water, urine and laundering introduce fine nuances of purity: a stain diluted with water or urine, or a garment already laundered, is not read like a pure stain. The Mehaber's general rule applies here too: one seeks, as far as possible, a presumption (חזקה) or a תליה that permits leniency — always within the rabbinic framework of the siman, and always to be confirmed with a Rav.
Family 9 — Additional laws & conduct (seifim 20, 44-54)
Seifim 20, 53-54 — איש שיוצא ממנו דם; stains and וסת; the principle דרבנן לקולא
A man prone to bleeding (איש שיוצא ממנו דם) through the urinary tract: if, at the time of union, blood is found on the woman's עד, she attributes it to her husband (תּוֹלָה בְּבַעְלָהּ) — cf. Siman 187. — Stains do not establish a וֶסֶת (a fixed cycle): if she found a stain on Rosh Chodesh, even three times, this neither establishes nor uproots a וסת — except for the stains of an עֵד הַבָּדוּק, which render impure in any amount and count as real sightings in every respect.
The cross-cutting principle of the siman: because stains are דרבנן, one is generally more lenient (ספקא דרבנן לקולא) — hence the abundance of leniencies: the measure (כגריס), the place (מן המקור), the surfaces (מקבל טומאה), the תליות, and above all the בגדי צבעונים. The great exception remains the עד הבדוק: there one no longer speaks of a כתם but of a ראיה, and the slightest drop counts. This tension — general leniency, stringency over the active examination — is the central teaching of the whole Siman 190.
2. Context — where this siman stands
The Laws of Niddah open (Siman 183) with niddah de-oraita: a woman becomes impure when she senses (הרגשה) the flow of blood. The following simanim deal with the blood itself: its colors (the מראות, Siman 188), the blood of union (Siman 187), the doubt (Siman 185). Siman 190 then addresses a question of an entirely different order: the stain (כתם) discovered without any sensation. It is no longer the Torah that speaks, but a rabbinic decree (גזרת חכמים). And because the decree is rabbinic, it is accompanied by a whole system of leniencies — the proper subject of this siman, the longest of the entire tractate.
The cross-cutting idea: everything flows from the rabbinic nature of the decree. Measure, place, surface, external cause, color of the fabric — so many doors the law leaves open so as not to render impure, except at an active examination with an עד הבדוק.
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 190, one must master a small vocabulary that describes what renders impure, how a stain is measured, and under what conditions it can be set aside.
הרגשה — The sensation: the physical perception of the flow of blood. It is what renders impure by Torah law (דאורייתא), as laid down in Siman 183. Without it, one is only at the rabbinic level of the stain.
כתם — The stain: a blood stain discovered on the body or the garment without a הרגשה. It renders impure only by a rabbinic decree (גזרת חכמים) — hence all the leniencies of the siman.
כגריס ועוד — The minimum measure: "like a גריס bean and a little more" — about 9 lentils arranged in a square (3×3). Below it, the decree does not apply. The "ועוד" serves to absorb the drop attributable to a louse (seifim 5-8).
תליה — The attribution: attaching the stain to a possible external cause (wound/מכה, blood from the butchers market, insect/כינה…). Broadly permitted "since stains are דרבנן," conditioned on matching color and a real cause (seifim 16-31).
מן המקור — "from the source": the stain causes concern only if it could have come from the womb — opposite בית התורפה, below the belt, etc. Elsewhere, uterine origin being impossible, the concern falls away (seifim 9, 11-15).
דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה — An object not subject to טומאה: the floor, the toilet bowl and similar surfaces are not reached by the decree; a stain noticed there does not render impure (seif 10).
בגדי צבעונים — Colored garments: they only decreed over white; on a colored fabric the stain does not render impure. Hence the custom of wearing colored undergarments (family 6).
עד הבדוק — The verified cloth: a cloth examined before the internal examination. A stain found on it is not a כתם but counts as a ראיה: the slightest drop renders impure (seifim 33, 54).
The great axis to retain: the chance stain (כתם) falls under a lenient regime — measure, place, תליות, color of the fabric. The active examination with an עד הבדוק falls under a strict regime — every drop counts. Holding this distinction is to keep the thread of the entire siman.
4. The שיעור כגריס ועוד — the measure and the combination
Seifim 5-8 sum up in a table. The question is: does the stain reach כגריס ועוד in one continuous piece? — and can a part be attributed to an insect?
Situation
Reasoning
Result
Stain < כגריס ועוד (in one piece)
Below the threshold of the decree
🟢 Pure (no decree)
Stain ≥ כגריס ועוד in one piece
The decree applies
🔴 Impure (unless תליה / place / color)
Several separate drops (combined > גריס)
Each drop תלויה בכינה
🟢 Pure (not combined)
Louse (פשפש) crushed / smelled
תליה up to כתורמוס (lupine)
🟢 Attributed to the insect
Stain on the body (per יש אומרים)
In places of concern
🟡 May have no minimum measure
The logic in one sentence: the decree only bites from כגריס ועוד in one continuous piece. Below that, or in scattered drops, or attributable to an insect → pure. The "ועוד" and the תליה לכינה are the two levers by which the law avoids, as far as it can, rendering impure.
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 (the standard nossei kelim in Yoreh De'ah; there is no Mishna Berura here, which only comments on Orach Chaim). On our siman, the Taz is especially developed (on the measure, the place, the תליות, the צבעונים, the מקבל טומאה).
The Shach (ש״ך) — an abbreviation of שפתי כהן, Siftei Kohen, by Rabbi Shabtai haCohen (Lithuania, 17th century). It is the standard commentary on Yoreh De'ah, of great analytical depth; in Niddah it is often complemented by the Sidrei Tahara and the Chochmat Adam.
The Taz (ט״ז) — an abbreviation of טורי זהב, Turei Zahav, by Rabbi David haLevi Segal (Poland, 17th century). Often in dialogue — and sometimes in disagreement — with the Shach. On Siman 190 he details the measure (כגריס), the תליות and the reach of the heter of colored garments.
A key entry of the Taz
Taz — the rabbinic nature of the stain and the scope of the leniencies
The Taz stresses the guiding principle: the stain being entirely rabbinic (מדבריהם), the Sages introduced many leniencies — in the measure (כגריס), the place (מן המקור), the attribution (תליה) and the color of the garment (צבעונים) — according to the general rule ספקא דרבנן לקולא (a rabbinic doubt is decided leniently).
The Shach clarifies the boundary of the siman: the stains of an עד הבדוק do not fall under the decree of stains; they render impure in any amount and count as real sightings in every respect. No law of measure nor of תליה for them — this is the strict counterpart to the whole lenient system of the siman (cf. seif 54). In Niddah one complements this with the Sidrei Tahara and the Pitchei Teshuva (responsa of the Acharonim).
One sees the method: the Shach and the Taz do not repeat the Mehaber — they draw out the principle (כתם דרבנן → leniencies; but עד בדוק → ראיה) and mark out the conditions. This is exactly what is deepened at the Lamdan level, and what contemporary poskim (Sidrei Tahara, Chochmat Adam, Taharat haBayit, Shevet haLevi) apply in practice.
6. The glosses of the Rama (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the Mehaber's text glosses that reflect Ashkenazi custom and refine the practice. Here are his most striking interventions in our siman.
On the measure and the color — stringencies and refinements
The Rama refines the contours of the measure (כגריס ועוד) and of the color of garments. He recalls, regarding the examination of the עד, that once one examines with an עד הבדוק, the slightest stain renders impure (seifim 33, 35: וכן עיקר) — the stringency of the active examination.
On the floor and the toilet — דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה
On seif 10, the Rama (in the name of the Mordechi, citing the Sma"g and the Sma"k) includes the toilet bowl (בית הכסא) among the objects not subject to טומאה: a stain noticed there does not fall under the decree. This is a heter of great practical reach.
On the תליות — tilting the doubt toward leniency
On seifim 16-31, the Rama follows and refines the general movement: כיון שכתמים דרבנן מקילין בהם — one readily attributes to a wound, to external blood, to an insect, as soon as the color matches and the cause is real. He frames the borderline cases (two women, a lent עד, מגליד/מקדיר).
The Rama carefully distinguishes the lenient reach of the decree (measure, place, תליות, צבעונים, surfaces) from the stringency of the active examination (עד הבדוק, which renders impure in any amount). This is the very balance of the siman — and the reason the practice always requires a Rav.
7. בגדי צבעונים — the most current heter
Family 6 deserves a pause, for it is the one with the greatest practical reach today. Why does a colored garment remove most stain problems?
The reasoning is simple: the decree targeted the stain that is sharp and recognizable on white. On a colored fabric, a blood stain is not distinct → there is no matter for the decree. Hence:
A stain found on a colored undergarment does not, as a rule, render impure.
Hence the very widespread custom of wearing colored undergarments and liners day to day.
This heter removes from the outset most chance stain questions.
But beware the limits: this heter applies to the chance stain. It does not apply to the days when the halacha specifically requires a well-examined white cloth — the הֶפְסֵק טָהֳרָה and the בדיקות of the seven days (cf. Siman 196), which call for a white, clean, verified fabric. Regulating the concrete use of colors (when yes, when no) therefore belongs to the Rav.
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply today? Here are four common situations illuminated by our siman.
Case 1 — Wearing colored undergarments (בגדי צבעונים)
This is the major practical application of the siman. Since they only decreed over the stain for white, wearing colored undergarments and liners removes most chance stain questions. But the days of הפסק טהרה and of בדיקה require, on the contrary, examined white (cf. 196). To set concretely when to wear color and when not, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — Showing a doubtful stain to a Rav
Before a stain, three parameters intersect: the size (does it reach כגריס ועוד?), the color (blood or dye? cf. the מראות of Siman 188), the location (could it have come מן המקור?). These criteria are not judged alone: one shows the stain to the Rav, who examines the support, the color and the place, and rules. For the halacha lema'asse, consult your Rav.
Case 3 — Attributing a stain to an external cause (תליות)
A wound (מכה), a passage through the kitchen or the butchers market, the handling of meat or fowl, a crushed insect: so many possible תליות, "since stains are דרבנן." Still, the color must match and the cause must be real. The validity of a תליה is verified case by case. For the halacha lema'asse, consult your Rav.
Case 4 — Surfaces not concerned (the floor, the toilet)
A stain noticed on the floor or on the toilet bowl falls under the category דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה: the decree of stains does not apply. This does not allow one to conclude on one's own in every case (a cloth, a movable seat, etc. differ). For the halacha lema'asse, consult your Rav.
The common thread of the four cases: before fearing, ask the questions of the siman — what size? what color? what place? what support? is there a תליה? But, since stains are דרבנן, the practice holds many leniencies — and their application always requires a Rav, who knows the details of fact.
9. Synthesis of Siman 190
The essence of Siman 190 in a few sentences:
The Torah only renders impure through the הרגשה; the כתם is only a rabbinic decree (דרבנן), hence its many leniencies (family 1).
Basic exemptions: תינוקת/קטנה, a continuous flow = a single ראיה, חזקת שלוש עונות (90 days).
The decree only bites at כגריס ועוד in one piece; drops are not combined; תליה ל-פשפש up to כתורמוס (family 2).
It only applies where the stain could come מן המקור (כנגד בית התורפה, below the belt) (family 3).
The floor and the toilet (שאינו מקבל טומאה) are outside the decree → pure (family 4).
One attributes (תליות) to an external cause — מכה, blood from the butchers market, insect — if the color matches (family 5).
בגדי צבעונים: they only decreed over white → wearing color removes most questions (family 6).
The examination (עד הבדוק) is strict: the slightest drop renders impure; water, urine and laundering nuance the presumptions (families 7-8).
Additional laws: איש שיוצא ממנו דם, stains do not establish a וסת — and the great principle: כתמים דרבנן → לקולא (family 9).
Memory table
Situation
Typical status
Stain < כגריס ועוד (in one piece)
🟢 Pure (below the threshold of the decree)
Stain on a colored garment (צבעוני)
🟢 Pure (לא גזרו אלא בלבן)
Stain on the floor / the toilet
🟢 Pure (אינו מקבל טומאה)
Stain attributable (color + real cause)
🟢 תליה → pure
Stain ≥ כגריס, white, מן המקור, no תליה
🔴 Impure (show to the Rav)
Blood on an עד הבדוק (active examination)
🔴 Impure in any amount (ראיה)
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
What is the difference between הרגשה (Torah) and כתם (Sages)? Why does the כתם allow so many leniencies (seif 1)?
Who is exempt from the decree: the תינוקת/קטנה? What does חזקת שלוש עונות (90 days) mean (seifim 2-4)?
What is the measure כגריס ועוד? Why are separate drops not combined (seifim 5-8)?
What is the תליה ל-פשפש up to כתורמוס (seif 7)?
Why does the stain cause concern only מן המקור (כנגד בית התורפה)? And below the belt (seifim 9, 11-15)?
Why are the floor and the toilet outside the decree (seif 10)?
Under what conditions does a תליה to an external cause hold (color, real cause) (seifim 16-31)?
Explain the heter of בגדי צבעונים and its limits (הפסק טהרה, 196).
Why is the עד הבדוק strict (every drop) while the כתם is lenient (seifim 33, 54)?
What is the cross-cutting principle of the siman, and what does the Taz say on the rabbinic nature of stains?
To go further
If you wish to deepen this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul, the nature of the decree (כתם דרבנן vs הרגשה דאורייתא), the logic of the שיעור כגריס (כינה), the hierarchy of the תליות and the reach of the heter of צבעונים, anchored in the sugyot of Niddah
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (measure, place, surfaces, תליות, colors), the rules of thumb and the quick memorization of the 54 seifim grouped into 9 families
⚖️ Level 4 — Daat HaRav (Chabad) & Halacha lema'asse: the Chabad mesorah (the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch) and the practical ruling (Beit Yosef, Rama, Shach, Taz, Sidrei Tahara, Chochmat Adam, Aruch haShulchan, Taharat haBayit, Shevet haLevi) on stains and colored garments
The sources for this level can be consulted on Sefaria: