Sugyot, sources, the underlying chakirah, machlokot of Rishonim and Acharonim,
nafka minot for halakhah and examination of the shitot
The subject:
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah, siman 193 — a single se'if
with its nosei kelim: Shach (שפתי כהן), Taz (טורי זהב), Ba'er Hetev
Roots of the sugya:
דם בתולים · the be'ilat mitzvah and separating · the Maharal of Prague, cited by the Taz, on counting from the fifth day · the Tur and the Beit Yosef in the name of most poskim
Edited and studied by:
Rav Yossef Haim Samama · DAAT
📑 Contents
Opening the sugya — the be'ilat mitzvah, and tum'ah even where she saw no blood (a single se'if)
דם בתולים — dam niddah or the blood of a wound? — the root of the tum'ah and the reason « וחיפהו שכבת זרע »
He completes, then separates at once · באבר חי — the Taz ס״ק א, the Shach ס״ק א, and the Raavad opposite them
The Rama's leniencies against most poskim — mere הערה, no blood seen, and the בעל נפש
Hefsek taharah and the seven days — examining on each of the seven
Counting from the fifth day — the Taz in the name of the Maharal of Prague, against siman 196
Harchakot and the leniency of the bed — why the bed is eased here
דין דם בתולים. ובו סעיף אחד: הכונס את הבתולה בועל בעילת מצוה וגומר ביאתו ופורש מיד. אפי׳ היא קטנה שלא הגיע זמנה לראות ולא ראתה ואפילו בדקה ולא מצאה דם טמאה, שמא ראתה טיפת דם כחרדל וחיפהו שכבת זרע: הגה ויש מקילין אם לא ראתה דם (הגהות מיימוני בשם איכא מ״ד) ונהגו להקל אם לא גמר ביאה רק הערה בה ולא ראתה דם, אבל אם בא עליה ביאה ממש צריך לפרוש ממנה אע״פ שלא ראתה דם (טור וב״י בשם רוב הפוסקים), ובעל נפש יחוש לעצמו שלא לשחוק בתינוקות. וצריכה שתפסוק בטהרה ותבדוק כל שבעה, ולא תתחיל למנות עד יום ה׳ לשימושה. ונוהג עמה בכל דיני נדה לענין הרחקה אלא שנדה גמורה אסור לו לישן על מטתה אפי׳ כשאינה במטה וזו מותר לו לישן באותה מטה לאחר שעמדה מאצלו ואפי׳ בסדין שהדם עליו:
A running rendering, for reading only; the Hebrew above alone is authoritative. One who marries a virgin performs the be'ilat mitzvah, completes the union and separates at once. Even if she is a minor whose time to see has not come and who has not seen, and even if she examined herself and found no blood — she is teme'ah, for perhaps she saw a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed and the semen covered it. The Rama's gloss: there are those who are lenient if she saw no blood (Hagahot Maimoniyot in the name of "there is one who says"); and the practice has become to be lenient if he did not complete the union but only approached her and she saw no blood; but if he was truly with her, he must separate from her even though she saw no blood (Tur and Beit Yosef in the name of most poskim) — and the בעל נפש will take care for himself. She must make a hefsek taharah and examine herself on each of the seven days, and she shall not begin to count until the fifth day from her union. He conducts himself with her according to all the laws of niddah as regards the harchakot, except that a full niddah forbids him to sleep on her bed even when she is not in it, whereas here he is permitted to sleep in that same bed once she has risen from beside him — and even on the sheet on which the blood lies.
1. Opening the sugya — the be'ilat mitzvah and the tum'ah of dam betulim
The yesod — she is teme'ah even without having seen blood
The yesod of the siman is a single sentence: one who marries a virgin performs a be'ilat mitzvah, and since דם בתולים ordinarily accompanies the first union, we are concerned that she saw. Therefore, even with no blood actually seen, she is teme'ah — perhaps she saw a טיפת דם כחרדל that remained invisible, because חיפהו שכבת זרע. And this stringency holds for the minor no less than for the woman who examined herself and found nothing: the tum'ah here does not depend on a recognisable sighting, but on the union itself, which the blood of betulim accompanies.
« אפי׳ היא קטנה שלא הגיע זמנה לראות ולא ראתה ואפילו בדקה ולא מצאה דם טמאה » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ג)
The root of the stringency — the chazakah of dam betulim. For any other niddah there is no tum'ah without blood having been seen. Here the Mehaber innovates: she is teme'ah even with no recognisable sighting, because the first union ordinarily comes with dam betulim, and the semen covers the drop and keeps it from being seen. A negative examination therefore does not establish taharah: the very object of the concern is blood that cannot be seen. The preceding siman (192) offers a neighbouring form — there too one is concerned for a drop the size of a mustard seed that went unfelt — but there the concern arises from chimud, and here from the act itself.
« שמא מחמת חימוד ראתה טיפת דם כחרדל ולא הרגישה בו » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ב:א)
Source of the din. The heading of the siman is brief — דין דם בתולים. ובו סעיף אחד(שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ג) — and everything is held in one se'if. Questions press upon it, and they are the ones this page follows: is dam betulim niddah-blood or the blood of a wound; when does he separate, and how; from which day does she count; and in what way are the harchakot eased.
2. דם בתולים — dam niddah or the blood of a wound?
This is the heart of the siman's chakirah: what is the nature of dam betulim, and why does it render her teme'ah?
The chakirah — dam niddah or the blood of a wound? Where does dam betulim come from? Two sides present themselves. (א) Perhaps it is the blood of a wound, coming from the tearing itself — and the blood of a wound does not render teme'ah by strict law. (ב) Or perhaps it is dam niddah: the opening of the source at the first union dislodged actual niddah-blood. The nafka mina is large: if it is the blood of a wound, there is only a stringency and a safeguard here; if it is dam niddah, the tum'ah is complete.
What the Mehaber's wording suggests. The Mehaber does not state the chakirah; he settles it in fact, through the obligations he imposes — separating, hefsek taharah, seven days. And above all, the reason he gives does not bear on the blood of betulim but on a drop that is not seen: שמא ראתה טיפת דם כחרדל וחיפהו שכבת זרע(שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ג). The concern, then, is not only for the blood of the tearing, but for a blood that comes with it and is hidden. This is an inference drawn from the wording of the se'if, not a written ruling: it is presented as such.
« וחיפהו שכבת זרע » — why the examination does not help. Were the tum'ah simply a matter of blood having been seen, a negative examination would have lifted it. The Mehaber therefore supplies a reason: the semen covered it. The Taz asks precisely why that reason was needed here and not where the Shulchan Arukh treats chimud — and his answer is concrete: there she walks about, הולכת אנה ואנה ובודאי אין שייך לבקש בשום מקום אם יצא ממנה דם(ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק ג). Here, by contrast, a reason was needed, because there was somewhere to look.
« שהיא שוכבת במטה ואפשר לראות אם יש בסדין שתחתיה דם » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק ג)
A wider yesod follows. Wherever a cause conceals the sighting, a negative examination no longer suffices to establish taharah. The Taz does not write this in those terms — he reasons about the sheet and what may be sought upon it; the generalisation belongs to the study, and is to be taken as such. Note too that the printed Taz refers to כמו שאמר ריש סימן קצ״ג לענין חימוד ולא הרגישה בו(ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק ג) — whereas the discussion of chimud, with that same « ולא הרגישה בו », stands at siman 192, se'if א.
Adult and minor — both within the rule:
The case
The din
The reason
An adult (of an age to see)
Teme'ah on account of the be'ilat mitzvah
The first union ordinarily comes with dam betulim
A minor (whose time to see has not come)
She too is teme'ah
The se'if says so expressly — אפי׳ היא קטנה — and draws no distinction
Among the Acharonim. The Acharonim who accompany this siman — first among them the Shach and the Taz, both cited here with their ס״ק, and then the Ba'er Hetev who summarises them — attend chiefly to the manner of separating and to the day of the count; the later comprehensive works of hilkhot niddah (Sidrei Taharah, Chokhmat Adam) treat the subject at length, and this page ascribes no position to them, not having checked their text against its source.
הכונס את הבתולה בועל בעילת מצוה וגומר ביאתו ופורש מיד
That is: he is permitted to complete the first union, and thereafter he separates from her at once — for from that first union onward she is teme'ah on account of dam betulim.
The yesod — "completes", and then separates.
The Mehaber does not say that he separates the moment she might have seen: he first גומר ביאתו, and then פורש מיד. The reason for the permission to complete lies in the union itself being a mitzvah; and once it is completed she is teme'ah, and he separates without delay.
How does he separate — באבר חי or באבר מת:
Shitah
The manner of separating
Source
Taz ס״ק א
"He completes" means באבר חי; so wrote the Tur, and this holds even if she was seeing blood during that very union
ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק א
Shach ס״ק א
The same conclusion: he is permitted to separate באבר חי and need not wait — "so the poskim have agreed"
ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק א
The Raavad, opposite
The Shach closes his ס״ק by setting aside the Raavad by name — ודלא כהראב״ד
ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק א
« פי׳ באבר חי כך כתב הטור והיינו אע״פ שהיתה רואה דם בשעת אותו תשמיש » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק א)
« אע״פ שהדם שותת ויורד וה״ה דמותר לו לפרוש באבר חי ואין צריך להמתין עד שימות האבר » (ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק א)
The link with the din of « נטמאתי » (siman 185). At siman 185, se'if ד, the Shulchan Arukh treats the woman who sees blood in the middle of the union and tells her husband "I have become teme'ah": if he separates at once he is liable to karet, because his withdrawal is a pleasure to him as his entry was; he digs the nails of his feet into the ground, remains still until the ever is dead, and separates באבר מת. Here, in be'ilat mitzvah, the conclusion runs the other way: he completes, then separates — and according to the Taz and the Shach, באבר חי.
« היה משמש עם הטהורה ואמרה לו נטמאתי ופירש מיד חייב כרת שיציאתו הנאה לו כביאתו » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ה:ד)
« נועץ צפרני רגליו בארץ ושוהה בלא דישה עד שימות האבר ופורש באבר מת » (שו״ע יו״ד קפ״ה:ד)
The kashya — and it stays open. One is tempted to say the difference is simple: at 185 she definitely saw blood, here there is only a concern. But the Taz shuts that door precisely: his permission to separate באבר חי holds, he writes, even if she was seeing blood during that very union. The distinction between the two simanim therefore cannot rest on the doubtfulness of the sighting alone; it rests on something proper to the be'ilat mitzvah, and the Acharonim discuss it. This page does not decide.
The Ba'er Hetev. On this point the Ba'er Hetev only reports the Shach, whom he quotes word for word and closes with « עכ״ל הש״ך » (באר היטב יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק א): he adds no position of his own. And in practice — ask your Rav and the chatan-rav.
This is the central machloket of the siman: when, if at all, is there room to be lenient where no blood was seen?
The Rama's gloss
הגה ויש מקילין אם לא ראתה דם (הגהות מיימוני בשם איכא מ״ד) ונהגו להקל אם לא גמר ביאה רק הערה בה ולא ראתה דם, אבל אם בא עליה ביאה ממש צריך לפרוש ממנה אע״פ שלא ראתה דם (טור וב״י בשם רוב הפוסקים), ובעל נפש יחוש לעצמו שלא לשחוק בתינוקות.
Three degrees follow one another in this gloss, and it matters not to confuse them: a reported lenient opinion, a received and bounded practice, and a stringency upheld in the name of most poskim — and then, in closing, a word for the one who wishes to guard himself.
The three degrees of the Rama's gloss:
The case
The din
Source given by the Rama
"There are those who are lenient" — no blood seen
There are those who are lenient if she saw no blood
הגהות מיימוני בשם איכא מ״ד
Mere הערה, no blood seen
ונהגו להקל — the union was not completed and she saw no blood
The Rama, in the name of the practice
A true union, even with no blood seen
צריך לפרוש — he must separate, though she saw no blood
טור וב״י בשם רוב הפוסקים
The root of the machloket — chazakah against a recognisable sighting. Those who are lenient hold that the whole tum'ah here arises from a concern that she saw: where she examined herself and saw nothing, the concern falls away. Most poskim hold that in ביאה ממש the examination does not decide — dam betulim certainly accompanies a completed union, and the semen covers it. The Rama follows most poskim for a true union, and is lenient only for the mere הערה without blood seen, where the presumption that she saw is absent.
« ובעל נפש יחוש לעצמו ». Even where the Rama is lenient, he closes by writing that the בעל נפש will take care for himself — that is, will not rely on the leniency. The gloss does not stop there: it continues with words that editions often cut short — שלא לשחוק בתינוקות. Every particular of the matter — whether there was mere הערה or a completed union, and whether room for leniency remains — is exceedingly fine, and belongs to the moreh hora'ah, the chatan-rav and the morat kallah. And in practice — ask your Rav.
5. Hefsek taharah and the seven days — examining on each of the seven
The Mehaber's wording — « וצריכה שתפסוק בטהרה ותבדוק כל שבעה »
וצריכה שתפסוק בטהרה ותבדוק כל שבעה
Summary: a hefsek taharah as for any niddah, and examination through the seven clean days.
The yesod — here a hefsek is required, unlike the blood of chimud.
An important distinction separates this siman from siman 192. For the blood of chimud the Mehaber writes ואינה צריכה הפסק טהרה(שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ב:א). Here, for dam betulim, she must make a hefsek taharah and examine herself on each of the seven days, as any niddah does.
The chakirah — why a hefsek here and not there? At siman 192 the Mehaber exempts from hefsek taharah, and here he requires it: what separates them? The ground of the distinction appears to be this: in the blood of chimud there is no sighting before us at all, only the concern that she saw a drop out of desire — there is nothing to "interrupt"; whereas in dam betulim, since the first union ordinarily comes with a sighting, she is treated as one who has certainly seen, and she needs a hefsek in order to open the seven clean days. The very requirement of a hefsek thus reveals that dam betulim is held closer to a certain sighting than the blood of chimud is. Note, however, that siman 192 likewise imposes the seven clean days — תבעוה לינשא ונתפייסה צריכה לישב ז׳ נקיים(שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ב:א) — so that the difference bears on the hefsek, not on the count.
6. Counting from the fifth day — the Taz in the name of the Maharal of Prague
The Mehaber's wording — « ולא תתחיל למנות עד יום ה׳ לשימושה »
ולא תתחיל למנות עד יום ה׳ לשימושה
Summary: she begins counting the seven clean days only from the fifth day reckoned from the be'ilat mitzvah.
The yesod — the concern for an emission of semen.
The reason she does not count immediately is given at siman 196: so long as an emission of שכבת זרע remains possible, it would annul the day on which it occurs, and the count would be undone. The Shulchan Arukh there fixes the measure — דקי״ל אין שכבת זרע מסריח עד שיעברו עליו שש עונות שלימות מעת לעת(שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ו:י״א) — whence the rule of the fifth day.
« לפיכך אינה מתחלת לספור עד יום ה׳ לשמושה » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ו:י״א)
The fifth day of the be'ilat mitzvah against the sixth of the niddah of our times:
The case
Start of the count
Source
An ordinary niddah who had relations
By strict law the fifth day; and "there are those who have written" that one waits a further day, that is the sixth — and this, writes the Taz, has become the practice
שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ו:י״א with the Rama's gloss there; ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק ד
Be'ilat mitzvah (the kallah, first union)
She counts already from the fifth day of her union and does not wait for the sixth
ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק ד בשם מהר״ל מפראג
« ויש שכתבו שיש להמתין עוד יום א׳ דהיינו שלא תתחיל למנות עד יום הששי » (רמ״א יו״ד קצ״ו:י״א)
The Taz's chiddush in the name of the Maharal of Prague (ס״ק ד). At first sight this kallah too ought to count only from the sixth day, like any niddah nowadays who has had relations. The Taz reports in the name of the Maharal of Prague that a distinction is to be drawn, and his formulation is precise: he first states what the practice is — דאע״פ דהשתא נהוג עלמא דהנדה מתחלת למנות מיום הששי כמבואר סי׳ קצ״ו(ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק ד) — and then excepts the first union from it.
« מצאתי בשם מהר״ל מפראג » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק ד)
« מ״מ במתחלת למנות אחר ביאה ראשונה של בתולים מתחלת למנות מיום ה׳ וכן הורה הלכה למעשה » (ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק ד)
The chakirah — whence the difference between the fifth day and the sixth? The Taz gives no reason: he reports the matter in the name of the Maharal, adds וכן הורה הלכה למעשה(ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק ד), and refers to what he himself wrote elsewhere — ועיין סי׳ קצ״ו סעיף י״א(ט״ז יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק ד). The lamdan will therefore look for the reason, and will look for it in the standing of the sixth day itself: at siman 196 the sixth day is not the Mehaber's din but a "there are those who have written" that became the practice. A received stringency may not have been extended to the kallah — but that is an explanation of study, and the Taz does not write it. Note further that the Shach, on this very word of the se'if, writes simply כדין נדה לקמן סי׳ קצ״ו סי״א(ש״ך יו״ד קצ״ג ס״ק ב), adding nothing about a gap between the kallah and the niddah. The question remains open.
The Mehaber's wording — « ונוהג עמה בכל דיני נדה לענין הרחקה »
ונוהג עמה בכל דיני נדה לענין הרחקה אלא שנדה גמורה אסור לו לישן על מטתה אפי׳ כשאינה במטה וזו מותר לו לישן באותה מטה לאחר שעמדה מאצלו ואפי׳ בסדין שהדם עליו
The yesod — all the harchakot of a niddah, save one.
After the be'ilat mitzvah the chatan conducts himself with her ונוהג עמה בכל דיני נדה לענין הרחקה(שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ג): the distancings between a man and his wife who is a niddah apply between them as well. Yet there is here one single leniency, absent with a full niddah: the din of the bed. A full niddah forbids him to sleep on her bed even when she is not in it; here he is permitted to sleep in that same bed once she has risen, and even on the sheet on which the blood lies.
« וזו מותר לו לישן באותה מטה לאחר שעמדה מאצלו ואפי׳ בסדין שהדם עליו » (שו״ע יו״ד קצ״ג)
The chakirah — why was the bed eased precisely? Since all the harchakot of a niddah are observed, why does the din of the bed step outside the rule? The Shulchan Arukh gives no reason: he states the difference and stops. The lamdan will propose that a bed forbidden even in her absence is a distancing of a different order from the others, and that it was not extended here. It must be said plainly that this is an explanation of study: neither the Mehaber nor the Taz nor the Shach explains himself on this point in this siman.
« ואפילו בסדין שהדם עליו ». This is a further chiddush: even the sheet on which the blood of betulim lies does not forbid him the bed. The wording of the se'if is categorical here, and one notes that it bears on the bed and on the sheet, not on the woman's status: she remains teme'ah and bound to the hefsek and the seven days. To infer from this that dam betulim is not niddah-blood at all would go beyond what the se'if writes; the question raised in section 2 remains, here too, open. And in practice — ask your Rav.
Among the Acharonim. The comprehensive works of hilkhot niddah (Sidrei Taharah, Chokhmat Adam, Arukh HaShulchan) treat at length the harchakot in be'ilat mitzvah and the leniency of the bed; this page ascribes no formulation to them, not having checked their text against its source. What is cited here is cited from the Mehaber, the Rama, the Taz, the Shach and the Ba'er Hetev, each with its reference.
The siman's overall chakirah: what is the nature of dam betulim, and why, and in what respect, is it treated as niddah?
The character of the tum'ah — she is teme'ah even with no blood seen, because חיפהו שכבת זרע; and one is concerned that niddah-blood came with the blood of betulim.
He separates at once — he completes his union and separates, and according to the Taz ס״ק א as to the Shach ס״ק א, באבר חי — the Shach setting the Raavad aside by name; and the link with the din of « נטמאתי » (siman 185) remains to be clarified.
The Rama's leniencies — one is lenient for mere הערה with no blood seen; but for a true union he must separate, according to most poskim, and the בעל נפש will take care for himself.
Hefsek taharah — she must make a hefsek and count the seven, unlike the blood of chimud (siman 192): a sign that it is held close to a certain sighting.
Counting from the fifth day — for the be'ilat mitzvah from יום ה׳ (Taz in the name of the Maharal of Prague), and not the sixth as for the niddah of our times (siman 196).
Harchakot and the leniency of the bed — all the laws of niddah, save that the bed is permitted to him once she has risen, and even on the sheet on which the blood lies.
Nafka mina in practice, as it emerges from the sources cited here:
One who marries a virgin — she is teme'ah even with no blood seen; he completes his union and separates at once (Mehaber; Taz ס״ק א; Shach ס״ק א).
The Rama's leniency bears on mere הערה with no blood seen; in a true union he must separate even with no blood seen (Rama in the name of the Tur and the Beit Yosef in the name of most poskim), and the בעל נפש will take care for himself.
She must make a hefsek taharah and examine herself on each of the seven days (Mehaber).
She does not count before the fifth day from her union — and not the sixth, as for the niddah of our times (Taz ס״ק ד in the name of the Maharal of Prague; see siman 196, se'if י״א).
Harchakot as for any niddah, save that he is permitted to sleep in that same bed once she has risen, and even on the sheet on which the blood lies (Mehaber).
And in practice — ask your Rav and the morat kallah.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · Rav Yossef Haim Samama
Talmid chakham · teacher of halakhah and chassidut Pilpul and iyun on the din of dam betulim and the be'ilat mitzvah · siman 193 · ⚡ Level 2 — Lamdan
⚠️ This content is written for study and iyun alone, in modest and respectful terms. For any practical ruling (לְמַעֲשֶׂה) — ask your Rav, the chatan-rav and the morat kallah.