Siman 187

A woman who has established a chazakah three times to be one who sees blood due to tashmish—meaning that the tashmish causes her to see blood—is forbidden to her husband unless it becomes known that the blood is not from the mekor but rather from the sides, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. And according to the words of the Rambam at the end of chapter 4, it is an illness in her body, for so he wrote there: and she is forbidden to marry until she is healed from this illness. Thus far his words. And so he wrote in chapter 25 of Ishut, law 9, regarding the matter of the ketubah: that she shall leave without a ketubah. In what case does this apply? When she was like this at the beginning of her marriage; but if this illness happened to her after she was married, etc., he shall divorce her and give the ketubah. Thus far his words. Behold, he calls this matter an illness. And so too in the language of the Shas [66:]: That woman who came before Rabbi, etc., Rabbi said: "This one has been healed." See there. And healing is from an illness, as is understood.

And I have seen some of the great later authorities who consider this matter a vest that is established through an action, like one who jumped and saw blood or ate garlic and saw blood. They bring proof from the wording of the Tosafot there [d.h. Venemenet] who wrote: And the Ri explains that even Rabbi admits that regarding one who sees blood due to tashmish, she requires three times to be established, similar to that which was mentioned above, etc., such as if she ate garlic or peppers, where even according to Rabbi she requires three times. Thus far his words. And they compared this to a vest of eating garlic. But it is no proof at all, for the Tosafot said "similar to," meaning just as with a vest through an action one requires three times even according to Rabbi, so too this seeing that comes through an action requires three times. And there is one who brought proof from the wording of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, Sha'ar HaPerishah, who also wrote, and this is his wording: In all of them we read, she performs tashmish the first, second, and third time; and the Baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that with two times it is not an establishment, and we rule like him, for it is included among the vestot, and the halacha was decided like him regarding vestot in Yevamot. Thus far his words. And there is no proof from this, for the Rashba said that regarding the matter of establishment it is included among the vestot where the halacha was decided like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. On the contrary, from this there is proof that it is not a vest, for if it were not so, even according to Rabbi she would require three times here, as is explained in the Gemara [63b], "for that which the sages did not count," meaning that regarding vestot that are not from the vest of days or the vest of the body, according to everyone one requires three times. And why did the Rashba need to say that we rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rather, it is certainly because this is not a vest at all, but rather he says that since regarding vestot we rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and this also is within the subject of niddah, therefore it also requires three times.

Furthermore, if we say that this is a veset, then we should permit her during the days of her pregnancy and the days of her nursing even when she is established as seeing blood due to tashmish, according to the law of all vesatot which are suspended from the veset during the days of pregnancy and nursing. And we have not heard such a thing from any of the poskim. Furthermore, it is among the laws of vesatot that when she establishes herself for a veset after three times, the previous veset is canceled, as I wrote in siman 189. If so, even if she was established to see blood due to tashmish and was separated from her husband, if she subsequently establishes a veset of days or a veset of the body three times, the previous veset should be canceled and she should be permitted to her husband. If so, why did the sages, of blessed memory, require a divorce? Let us wait, perhaps she will establish another veset. [And the Gaon, the Noda BiYehudah, established this firmly in all his responsa, that this is a complete veset, and based on this he actually permitted in the second edition in siman 88, in a case of great need, to rely on a veset that she establishes afterward; see there. And the Gaon, the Chavot Daat, already cried out like a crane against this in subsection 3, and this is his wording: Heaven forbid to rely on him in this, for she was not forbidden solely due to the reason of veset, but rather due to the reason of the concern that perhaps she "fills and overflows," etc. Thus far his words. And he partially agreed, but in my humble opinion even this is not so, as will be explained with the help of Heaven].

Furthermore, how could the name "veset" apply to this? For in all types of vesatot, there is a permitted time between one veset and another, and there is a time "near the veset," but here none of this is applicable, as she is entirely prohibited, as is understood. And it appears to me that whichever of the great authorities called this by the name "veset," it was only in a casual sense, meaning that her seeing of blood is at the time of tashmish, and "veset" is a term denoting time; but not to compare this in any matter to any law of the laws of vesatot. Rather, this woman has a malady in her body, such as a weakness in the tendons of the makor or in the ligaments of the womb, or another matter, such that through tashmish the opening of the makor opens and the blood exits [and I believe I saw this in the book of one of the great authorities many years ago, and it is not currently in my memory].

And I have seen one who is uncertain whether a woman who is established as seeing blood due to tashmish is forbidden by the Torah or only by rabbinic law. And the basis of the doubt is that since this is based on the law of vestot, if so, according to our established rule that vestot are rabbinic, she should be permitted by the Torah. And even according to the one who holds that vestot are from the Torah, she did not experience a sensation, and even if she did experience a sensation, one may attribute it to the sensation of the organ. And according to the Rambam that a doubt regarding a Torah law is resolved leniently by the Torah, if so, there is only a rabbinic prohibition here. And they further delved into this [see the Piskei Teshuva in his introduction] [and what is written in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 10 to be concerned for the vest, this refers to the time and not to the essence, and it will be explained in section 74].

In my humble opinion, it appears that there is no doubt here at all, for certainly the prohibition is from the Torah, as is implied by the plain meaning of the Shas and the poskim. For we have already clarified that this is not in the category of vestot at all, and this does not pertain to that which we establish that vestot are rabbinic. And even when she did not feel that her womb opened, nevertheless we say that since most blood comes with a sensation, as we explained in siman 183, we therefore follow the majority and say that she certainly felt it. And that which in her opinion she did not feel is because she thought that this was a sensation of the organ; for just as we say at the beginning of the chapter "HaIsha" that she can err regarding a sensation from a discharge for that of an organ, so too it can be the opposite. Therefore, even though regarding a sacrifice they are exempt when the blood is found after some time, this is because she did not find it immediately, and we are concerned regarding the matter of a sacrifice; but when she saw at the time of the act, we say that she certainly felt it, and she would not be able to know at the time of the act if this was the sensation of the blood or the organ. And this is not a doubt, for the majority of them feel when they see. And there is no permission unless it is clarified that the blood is from the sides, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch: A woman who saw blood due to tashmish immediately, within the time it takes to extend her hand beneath the bolster or beneath the cushion and take a cloth to examine herself and wipe herself, she may engage in tashmish three times. If in all three consecutive times she saw blood, and all the more so if she found blood three times on his cloth, she is forbidden to engage in tashmish with this husband; rather, she must be divorced and may marry another. If she married another and saw blood due to tashmish three consecutive times, she is forbidden to engage in tashmish also with that husband; rather, she must be divorced and may marry a third. And if also with the third she saw blood due to tashmish three consecutive times, she shall not marry another, but rather is forbidden to everyone until she examines herself. Thus far their words.

The explanation of the matters is that it is only called "due to intercourse" when she certainly saw at the time of intercourse, which is to say, either she felt at the time of the act that blood was flowing from her, or even if she immediately wiped with an ed and found blood on the ed, for in this case there is a liability for a sin offering near her veset, as I wrote in siman 185, section 25. And even if she delayed a small amount of time, enough to reach her hand under the lamp and take an ed to wipe with, and she found blood, it is also called "due to intercourse," because in such a case, even though there is no liability for a sin offering near her veset, there is a liability for a suspenseful guilt offering. And that which we wrote there, that he is not liable for a suspenseful guilt offering, that is because we require "one piece from two pieces," but there is a liability for a suspenseful guilt offering within this measure of time, and it is like a doubt of chelev or a doubt of fat; therefore, it is called "due to intercourse" and she is forbidden after three times, as it is a doubt regarding a Torah law, and from this is a proof for what I wrote in section 6. However, after this measure of time, she is tahora, and even though it could be said that she saw earlier, nevertheless it is not called "seeing due to intercourse" [Shach, sub-section 1]. And all the more so if she checked immediately and did not find blood, and afterward she checked and found blood, even if it was only the time to reach her hand, etc., it is not called "seeing due to intercourse" since she did not find blood immediately [ibid.].

And all this is when it is found on her witness-cloth, but if it is found on his witness-cloth, even if found after some time, it is called "due to intercourse," for they are liable for a sin-offering near the time of her menstrual onset in such a case, as I wrote there. And there is room for doubt if she examined herself immediately and did not find blood, and on his witness-cloth blood was found, if it is called "due to intercourse" and she is forbidden since it was found on his, and we say that the fact that she did not find it was because she did not examine well; or perhaps we say that the blood is his from another cause, for perhaps the blood was from him. Regarding a sacrifice, it is simple that they are exempt in such a case, but regarding the prohibition, there is room for doubt. And it appears that in such a case she is permitted, and we attribute it to blood that issued from him as a red discharge, for there are times when a red discharge issues from a man, as is explained at the end of the fourth chapter of Niddah [to exclude a man from redness]. But when she did not examine immediately, we do not attribute it to him, because it is an uncommon matter, and we always attribute it to the common, as I wrote in siman 3, see there. Therefore, when she did not examine immediately, if it is found on his witness-cloth, even after some time, it is called "due to intercourse," and there is also a liability for a sacrifice, as I wrote.

It is a simple matter that in all three times it is necessary that it be immediately, as has been written. And if on two times she saw immediately, and on the third time she found it after a period of time, we do not count this time; she immerses after she becomes pure and engages in relations, and if she did not find it then, she is permitted. And so too, if on the first time she saw immediately, and on the second time after her purification she did not see, the first time is nullified. And if afterwards she even saw two times, she is permitted until she sees a third time, for the first is not in the count. And know that all this refers to the seeing of actual blood, but when she found a ketem on her shift after relations, and even if he found a ketem, and even many times, this is not in the category of one who sees due to relations. And so too, if it is known that he has a disease where blood flows from him from the mouth of the organ, we attribute everything to him and she is permitted, unless she feels that blood flows from her. And know that all that they forbade in the Gemara and in the poskim regarding engaging in relations a first, second, and third time, the intention is that she engages in relations each time after she counts seven clean days and purifies herself, and it is simple [see Be'er Heitev and Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 3].

There are those who ask that regarding a woman who said she saw blood three times due to tashmish and we forbid her to her husband, why should we believe her? Let us say that she has set her eyes on another, as in the end of Nedarim regarding one who says "I am impure to you because I strayed," see there. And this is no question at all: first, because she does not ruin herself in such a case, for even the other man will not marry her upon hearing this—that she is prone to seeing blood due to tashmish. Furthermore, regarding matters of niddah, the Torah believed her in whatever she says, whether to purify or to defile, and it is not in our power to say perhaps she is lying since the Torah believed her. Therefore, also the opposite: a woman who came to the sage and said "I saw three times due to tashmish," and after a time the sage investigated her in detail as to when she found it, and she said to him that one time she found the blood after a period of time, she is believed and is permitted. And this is not "returning and testifying," for she is clarifying her words and is not retracting her words, as in the language of people it is called "seeing due to tashmish" even when she found the blood after an hour. And we have already written that one who sees due to tashmish is forbidden even during the time of pregnancy and nursing; when she saw three times due to tashmish, she is called one who sees due to tashmish and is forbidden. And so agreed some of the great authorities [see Chavat Da'at and Pitchei Teshuvah].

It is a simple matter that within the three times, the first time is also counted [Taz and Shach subsection 2, and Kereti U-Peleti]. And there is one who says that three times are required besides the first [Minchat Yaakov subsection 2 in the name of the Ra'avad]. And his reasoning is that he holds that before tashmish a bedikah is not required for ordinary women even when she does not have a veset, as is written in siman 186; and if so, the first time when she found [blood] after tashmish, we say that the blood was already there even before tashmish, and this is not one who sees blood due to tashmish [Kereti U-Peleti subsection 3]. But this is not the primary view, for if so, we would be forced to say that all the laws of one who sees blood due to tashmish apply specifically when she performed a bedikah before tashmish, and this is not found anywhere. On the contrary, it is proven explicitly that if she found it immediately after tashmish she is forbidden, and we do not attribute it to before tashmish. Rather, the primary reason is simple: since during the first time there was no obligation upon her to perform a bedikah and see, and she was not anxious regarding this, we say that presumably it was after some time, for this is not in the category of one who sees blood due to tashmish as has been written. However, if she says that she found it immediately, certainly we also combine the first time, and there is no dispute here [Pardes Rimmonim subsection 2].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 that there are those who say we are not experts in determining what is called "due to intercourse," for we are not experts in the aforementioned measure. Therefore, anyone who sees blood three times close to intercourse is called, according to us, "due to intercourse," and she is forbidden to her husband. These three times must be consecutive, but if they were not consecutive, she is not forbidden to her husband. There is no difference whether she saw blood three times immediately when she married or whether she became impaired afterward and saw blood three times. All this only speaks of where she saw blood close to intercourse, but if she did not see blood close to intercourse, she is not forbidden to her husband and is permitted to him after her purification always, and her law is like one who has no veset. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is that even for us there is a distinction between if she saw blood proximate to tashmish or not proximate, as he wrote at the end of his words. However, this is according to the common speech of people regarding "proximate" and "distant," for the measure explained of "the time it takes to extend her hand under the pillow, etc." is a very small measure, a few counted moments, and in common speech even afterwards is called "proximate." Therefore, if it is called proximate only according to common speech, one must forbid it, for perhaps it was truly proximate according to the law, and it is a doubt regarding a Torah matter and we rule stringently. But nevertheless, if the sage clearly understands according to her words that it was not proximate according to the law, it appears to me that one should not forbid it even for us. And there is one who is uncertain if we apply this stringency to forbid her to the whole world when she has established a chazakah with three men, for there is no logic to forbid her because of the stringency [Shach, subsection 7].

And in my humble opinion, it appears that even from the first husband it is impossible to remove her due to the stringency, for the sages were very concerned not to remove a woman from her husband unless it is due to the essence of the law or due to a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition where according to the law we follow the stringent view. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, did not mention a stringency according to his usual way, but rather stated the law. Therefore, he mentioned at the end that if she did not see close to tashmish, she is not forbidden to her husband. And seemingly it is difficult: what is he coming to teach us? Rather, this is his intention: that you should not say that we apply a mere stringency to her, for certainly if it becomes clear to the scholar that this was not close, Heaven forbid to remove her from her husband. Rather, it is among the impossibilities for the woman to be precise regarding a few moments, and therefore it is necessary to remove her from her husband, and automatically also to forbid her to the whole world since it is impossible to establish the matter, and it is a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition. And according to this, he stated two things: that if in the language of people it is not called close, it is obvious that she is permitted; and if in the language of people it is close and also we are not experts—meaning that it is impossible for the scholar to clarify from her words that it was not close according to the essence of the law—automatically she is forbidden [so it appears in my humble opinion, and this is also a proof to what I wrote in section 6, that it is a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition, for if not so, in a doubt regarding a rabbinic prohibition we would not be stringent; and delve into this].

And know that regarding what he wrote, that these three times must be consecutive, I do not know what this comes to teach us, for the Mechaber also wrote specifically "consecutive." And it appears to me that this is what he means to say: that you should not say that this requirement for them to be consecutive applies only when there was one cohabitation in between where she did not find blood at all, but if she found blood, only not in proximity to the cohabitation, although it is not joined to the previous instance, nevertheless it also does not interrupt between the previous instance and what follows since she also found blood now. To this he says that "these three times," meaning even these three times that are in proximity, must also be consecutive. And that which he says, that there is no difference between whether she saw immediately after marriage or if she became impaired afterward, his intention is as follows: that even though regarding the ketubah there is a difference, as is written in Even HaEzer siman 116, that if she became impaired afterward she has a ketubah, nevertheless regarding the prohibition there is no difference. And because in the Rif the version is "she married and saw due to cohabitation," see there, he comes to teach us that it is not meant precisely, and "she married" which the Rif said, and so it is in the Tosefta, is because of the ketubah. And know that "immediately after marriage" is found either when she was not a virgin or when the hymeneal blood had already ceased, and it will be explained below in section 92.

According to the opinion of Rashi [60a], when she has seen blood three times due to tashmish, she is forbidden to him even if she wishes to perform the bedikah that will be explained, and they only permitted this bedikah after the third husband so that she should not be forbidden to the whole world. However, the Tosafot, the Rosh, the Ramban, and the Rashba disagree with him and hold that if she wishes to perform a bedikah after the three times of the first husband, it is permitted; rather, the sages were stating a permission, that to a second and third husband she is permitted without a bedikah for the reason that will be explained. The primary view follows this opinion, and one may rely upon it to be lenient. It is a simple matter that even according to the opinion of Rashi, she is permitted to perform a bedikah with the first husband before she has established a chazakah of three times, except that in this case, if the bedikah results in a prohibition, she will cause harm to herself as she will be forbidden to him and to the whole world. Likewise, if she feels pain and suffering during tashmish, even according to the opinion of Rashi she may rely on a bedikah with the first husband even after seeing blood three times, for in this case there is proof that she has some wound or illness [see Shach, subsection 14, who wished to be stringent according to the opinion of Rashi, but all the Acharonim have already refuted him; and from the Rambam at the end of chapter 4 there is no proof, for he employed the language of the Shas according to his way, and furthermore, the majority of the poskim permit it].

And in the Gemara there it asks: and let her examine herself during the third cohabitation of the first husband? According to the explanation of Rashi, it asks why she must be divorced, and according to the Tosafot, it asks why she is permitted to the second without an examination. And it answers: because not all fingers are equal, and it calls the organ a "finger," meaning to say that we say the finger of the first caused her to see, and therefore she is permitted to the second without an examination; and according to Rashi, therefore she was required to be divorced, for perhaps with the second husband she will not require an examination, and therefore they did not permit an examination for the first, for perhaps she will not perform the examination properly and will stumble into the prohibition of karet, and they did not permit this examination except when she is forbidden to the whole world and there is no other choice. And afterward it asks: and let her examine herself during the first cohabitation of the third husband? Meaning to say, after the first cohabitation, after she was established as a hazakah with three fingers. And it answers: because not all strengths are equal, meaning to say that even in one man, the strength of this cohabitation is not similar to the strength of another cohabitation, and perhaps this cohabitation was with great strength and therefore she saw, and therefore she must be established as a hazakah with three fingers, and each finger with three strengths.

How does she examine? The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 2: She takes a tube of lead, which is a hollow reed of lead, and the same applies to other metals except for iron, and the same applies to wood which is not fit for this because they scratch the flesh. The mouth of the tube is folded into it, meaning that one should fold the lead at its mouth and bend it inward so that it will be smooth on the outside. She places a brush inside it with a cloth at its head. A brush is a thin splinter that is inserted into a tube, which they use to apply blue dye to the eyes, and with the brush they take the dye from within the reed [Rashi at the end of the first chapter of Succot]. She inserts it into that place where the attendant threshes. If blood is found on its head, it is known that it is from the source and she is forbidden. And if not, meaning that it was not found on its head, even if it was also not found on the sides, it is known that it is from the sides and she is permitted. Thus far his words. [And there is no need to find a cause in the sides, as is clear from the wording of the Rambam at the end of chapter 4, who wrote "from the pressure of the sides"].

There is one who asked: what proof is this when the blood is found on the sides and not on its head? For we hold that blood found in the prozdor is tamei, as it certainly descended from the mekor, and if so, perhaps before she inserted the tube, the blood descended from the mekor to the prozdor, and therefore when she inserted the tube and removed it, the blood that was in the prozdor was found on the sides [Pardes Rimonim and so wrote the Chavat Da'at siman 191, subsection 8]. And this is no question at all, for if so, how is it possible that no moisture of blood remained in the mekor itself, and she should have found blood also on its head? And so wrote one of the great early authorities [the Gaon Moreinu HaRav Shmuel Hertz, son of the Bach, in Responsa Geonei Batra'ei siman 28]. And there is one who wrote that it is possible for the blood to descend through holes and cracks and not touch the moch [Chavat Da'at ibid.]. And I wonder, for the sages relied on this bedikah so as not to leave a daughter of Israel an agunah, and how can we fear a remote concern to make her an agunah? For even if it is possible for it to be so, nevertheless, the vast majority of the blood goes through the mekor [and the proof that he brought from the beginning of Niddah, where the Gemara asks "one who uses a moch, what is there to say?" and answers that due to perspiration it shrinks, and there is a place for the blood to exit, and certainly it means that no blood was found on the moch, thus it is possible for it to be so, see there. And I wonder: is there an obligation there to see the moch on its head? Is it not placed constantly in the rechem? And furthermore, even if it were so that it is possible in a remote reality, this is regarding the tumah of twenty-four hours, which is only a stringency for terumah and kodashim, as the Tosafot wrote at the beginning of Niddah, and what relevance does it have to a bedikah which is according to the law for her husband? And delve into this].

And there is one who asked what proof there is from a tube, for perhaps through the organ she sees blood due to desire, and with a tube there is no desire [Maharatz Chajes]. And this too is no question at all. First, for the concern of desire is only a rabbinic concern, as I wrote in siman 192. Furthermore, desire is only with a new husband, as is explained there. Furthermore, regarding desire, the concern is for before he comes to her, as I wrote there, and at the time of the act, she already has the desire. And you should know that this is so, for behold, the Sages permitted her more to marry another than to check under the first, as has been explained. And if it should enter your mind that in this there is a concern of desire, if so, the Sages should have distanced her from marrying a new husband, for the essence of desire is in this. Rather, it is certainly that this is not a matter of desire [and what the Tosafot wrote on 87b, starting with the words "No," Rava actually disagrees, see there].

However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, raised a significant difficulty: how can we permit her when blood was not found even on the sides? For there is reason to fear that perhaps it is from the source, and the reason blood was not found on its tip was because it was not as thick as the shamash, as not all fingers are equal, or because she did not insert it with force, as not all strengths are equal, as has been explained. And he answered that we do not say "not all fingers" and "not all strengths are equal" except to be lenient and not to be stringent, because the majority of women do not see blood due to tashmish; therefore, whatever we can attribute to a permit, we attribute, since there is a basis for the matter in that blood was not found on the tip of the machol. Thus far his words.

And there is one who wondered at his difficulty, for how is it possible to say that not all fingers and strengths are equal when she has already been established with all fingers and all strengths? And he was forced to resolve this because this is a completely different type [Chavat Da'at subsection 3, difficulty 4]. However, in truth it is simple, for perforce we see that the tube is not similar to the fingers, as with the fingers blood was found in all of them, and in it none was found at all. And the difficulty of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is a powerful difficulty from two aspects: One, that according to the approach of the Tosafot she is permitted to check after the three times of the first one, and regarding this it is certainly difficult—what does the checking avail when blood is found neither at its tip nor on the sides? Let us say not all fingers are equal. And the second, even if the checking is after the third, perforce it is not similar to the fingers as I have written. And aside from this, it is from the perspective of logic: the tube is not similar to the fingers, for with them there is friction and with it there is no friction. And it is a great logical point that the friction causes the seeing, for through friction the mouth of the womb is opened [and the Noda BiYehuda, siman 43, was very pressed in this, and so too the glossator in Kesef Mishneh; and according to our words it is well-settled, and delve into it].

However, even the resolution of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is not understood in this matter, wherein he resolved that we do not say "they are not equal" except for leniency and not for stringency because the majority of women do not see blood due to intercourse; therefore, we attribute it to permission since there is a basis for the matter as it was not found on its head, see there. And it is difficult, for perforce this woman has left the category of the majority of women even if we say the blood is from the sides, for the majority of women do not see blood even from the sides. Furthermore, what is this "basis for the matter" that it was not found on its head? For likewise there is a basis for the matter to the contrary, since it was not found on the sides. And if it was established for our sages of blessed memory to attribute it more to the sides than to the source, if so, why do they require the inspection of a tube? Let us attribute it for leniency to "from the sides," for from the tube there is no proof at all.

And it appears to me regarding his intention according to what we explained above in siman 29, section 28, that even in a matter where there is a deficiency, if it is possible to say that this deficiency does not forbid—for example, where water was found in the head and it is not known if the brain surrounds it and it is kosher, or if it does not surround it and it is treifah—we say that since the majority of animals are kosher, presumably this animal is also from the majority. And even though it has perforce departed from the majority, for in the majority of animals no water is found at all, nevertheless, this deficiency does not remove it from the majority since it is possible to attribute it and say that this deficiency does not forbid, for we say that the brain surrounds the water; not like the one who disagrees on this, see there. And so too it is here, and we say even without the examination of the tube that certainly the blood is from the sides, because the majority of women do not see blood during tashmish. And even though perforce there is a deficiency in her and she has departed from the general rule of the majority of women as I have written, nevertheless, this deficiency does not remove her from the general rule of the majority since it is possible to attribute it to a permitted cause and say that the blood is from the sides. And the examination of the tube is the opposite, for perhaps the blood will be found on its head and the prohibition will be clarified, and this is obvious that she is obligated to clarify. But when it is not found on its head, we attribute it to the sides because of the majority, even though it was not clarified with absolute clarity.

And there is one who answers that even when it was not found on the sides, it is called a complete clarification, for that which the sages, of blessed memory, said—that not all fingers and not all strengths are equal—only applies to blood of the sides. However, regarding blood of the source, they are all equal, for on the sides, when the finger is thick there is more pressure, and when it comes with strong force there is also more pressure, but regarding blood of the source there is no distinction [Bach]. And the explanation of the matters is that it is known that the finger does not reach the source except by chance and a mere touch, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 5, law 4, see there. Therefore, opposite the source everything is equal, and if she were seeing from the source by means of the fingers, she would also see by means of the tube, since the finger also does not reach there. This is not the case regarding the sides, where the fingers press; there, there is a distinction between finger and finger and between strength and strength, and therefore blood is not found now on the sides of the tube because it is not similar to the finger [Noda BiYehuda siman 46 from the responsa of the Gr"ch, and the Sm"g does not hold of this reasoning, and it will be explained in section 35].

Even many and great ones rejected this resolution entirely, for if so, after three times with the first, why do we remove her from the first so that she may marry a second? What benefit is there in this? For whichever way you look at it: if we forbid her to the first because of the concern of the blood, perhaps it is from the source, how is she permitted to the second? For she will certainly see with the second as well, since regarding the blood of the source all fingers are equal. And if we permit her to the second and say that with him she will not see, then perforce the blood is from the sides, for in this the fingers are not equal; if so, let us permit her to the first. And what benefit is there in the second more than in the first, since the primary concern is perhaps it is blood of the source, and in this all are equal? [And in the responsa of the Imrei Shefer of Maharshak he wrote that these are words of error, and the Chelkat Mechokek raised this difficulty to the Bach himself in the responsa Gevurot Anashim siman 34, and the Minchat Yaakov achieved nothing, as the Sidrei Taharah wrote, see there].

In my humble opinion, the resolution is clear and the matter is as follows: certainly, without a clarification that it is from the sides, it is impossible to permit her through a mere assumption, to assume that it is from the sides, for regarding a prohibition of karet, it is necessary to clarify. The clarification is through one of these two: either when blood is not found on the head of the object that she inserts deep into that place in its width, and this matter is only possible via a tube, as is understood. This examination is used in a place where there is no other examination, and as long as there is another examination, we do not resort to this examination which is performed by women, for perhaps they will not perform it properly. However, when there is no choice, it is necessary to rely on women regarding the examination of the tube; and furthermore, a tube in general has no similarity to a living organ.

And there is another examination that is more clarified, and that is by means of the act itself; for if it should occur for us that she does not see blood in one act, then it is certainly clarified that the blood is from the sides, and therefore she did not see in this act because there was not so much force or because the finger was not similar to the previous one. For if it should enter your mind that the blood was from the source, she would see in any act whatsoever. Therefore, first we tell her husband that he should come upon her three times after her purification, and if only the third time she does not see blood, it is clarified that the blood is from the sides, and therefore she did not see now because he did not come upon her with force as in the first two times. But when she saw even on the third time, there is no longer an assessment through this husband, since she has been established through all his strengths. Therefore, according to the system of Rashi, she is compelled to be divorced and to attempt the assessment with a second husband, and we do not permit for her the examination of the tube because of the reason we explained. And according to the system of the Tosafot, we permit it for her if she desires, so as not to remove a woman from her husband; however, if she does not desire the examination of the tube, she shall be divorced and marry another.

And when she marries another and does not see blood with him, it is clarified that her blood which was with the first was from the sides, and therefore she did not see blood with the second because his finger is not similar to the finger of the first. And so that the first should not protest that had he known the blood was from the sides he would not have divorced her, therefore they inform him before the divorce that she is forbidden to him forever, as is written in Even HaEzer siman 10, so that he should not protest against the get. And even if she sees blood with him also two times, if on the third time she does not see blood, it is clarified that the blood was from the sides, and because the finger of this one is not similar to the first, therefore she did not see blood; and that which she saw during the first two times was because he came upon her with force. And if she saw blood also on the third time, she must perforce be divorced also from this one according to the method of Rashi, or according to her will according to the method of the Tosafot, and she shall marry a third. And if she does not see blood with him even only on the third time, it is clarified that all her blood was from the sides, and therefore she did not see blood with him on the third time because his finger is not similar to those of the two preceding him; and that which she saw during the first two times also with him was because he came upon her with force. And all this is from the foundation that we established, that had the blood been from the source, she would perforce see blood from every cohabitation, however it may be.

Therefore, when she has seen three times even with the third husband, there is no other choice and we rely on the examination of the women with a tube in that which it is not found on its head, for then it is also clarified that all the blood was from the sides, and with all men she is established to see from the sides. Nevertheless, she is permitted to marry and shall not be concerned for the blood that she will see, since it has been clarified that it is blood from the sides; for if you were to think it is from the source, she would necessarily have seen it even by means of the tube, but regarding the sides there is a distinction between a tube which has no living spirit and fingers, as is understood. [And I saw in the Peri Raanan in the opening to this siman that he brought what the Bach replied to the Helkat Mechokek on this difficulty in the Responsa of the New Bach, siman 39, and there is no understanding of his words, and the Peri Raanan labored in distant ways to settle them; and according to what I have written, we can settle his intention according to our words, see there and examine carefully].

And know that from the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory, at the end of chapter 4, I learned another answer to the difficulty of our teacher, the Beit Yosef. This is the wording of the Rambam there: How does she examine etc. she brings a tube etc. and inserts the tube as far as she is able, and she inserts into the tube a painting-stick with a compress placed on its head, and she pushes it until the compress reaches the neck of the womb, and she removes the compress; if it is found etc. and if nothing is found on the compress, it is known that the blood she sees is from the pressure of the sides etc. Thus far his words. And it is very difficult: why did he change from the wording of the Shas which says, "she brings a tube and within it a painting-stick and a compress" etc., for it is explicitly explained that first she inserts the painting-stick with the compress into the tube, and afterwards she inserts the tube into that place, as the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch and all the poskim wrote. And why did he change to say that first she inserts the tube into that place while it is empty, and afterwards she inserts the painting-stick with the compress into the tube and pushes etc.? And what compelled him to this? And it is also a difficult labor, as is understood.

And it is clear to me that he intentionally changed this, for he also found it difficult to understand what kind of bedikah this is; for it is well and good if you find blood on the sides of the tube, that is a bedikah, but when you do not find it, what kind of bedikah is it? This is like the difficulty raised by our teacher, the Beit Yosef. Therefore, he explained the matter in this manner, for it is a simple matter that there is no comparison between the tube and the finger, which possesses pressing and a spirit of life, as I have written. Therefore, the Rambam, of blessed memory, advised according to his great wisdom to perform pressing even with the painting-stick, and that is to knock it until the neck of the womb, which is like the pressing of the finger, and of necessity it will bring out blood from the mekor through this knocking just like the pressing of the finger. And the knocking is impossible to perform except in this manner, for if we insert the tube while it is with the painting-stick, will it not scratch the walls of the womb when we knock it forcefully? Necessarily, she must insert the tube with her hand gently, and afterwards, if she knocks on the painting-stick, it will scratch the sides of the tube and not the sides of the womb. It turns out that regarding the sides, there is no bedikah here since there is no pressing here, and it is not similar at all to the finger. The bedikah is only regarding the mekor, where they knock in the manner that the finger knocks and presses there, and perhaps more than that. And if it is not found on its head, the matter is clarified that the blood is from the pressure of the sides, and in the tube there is no pressure, and therefore blood was not found on the sides. And intentionally the Rambam concluded "it is known etc. from the pressure of the sides" to indicate all of our words, and he explains that this is the intent of the Shas as well, for it is not explained at all in the Shas when she inserts the tube into that place, see there. And it is clear with the help of Heaven. [And I found in the Minchat Yaakov, subsection 8, that he addressed the wording of the Rambam and wrote that his reason is that otherwise, when she removes the tube, the moch at its head will necessarily be stained from the sides when she removes the tube, see there. And I find it difficult, for even so, regarding the insertion, why does it need to be divided into two times? It would be sufficient that when she comes to remove it, she should remove only the painting-stick and not the tube. And the main point is, when she removes it with her hand, why would the moch lean toward the sides? According to what I wrote, it is a necessity according to the law, and delve into it.] And there is a dispute among the great Acharonim whether this bedikah is effective also to purify the current blood such that she does not need seven clean days and is not impure at all, or whether the sages established this bedikah only so as not to forbid her forever, but not to purify this blood; and even though one depends on the other, nevertheless, it is enough not to forbid her forever. And it seems the primary view is like the opinion of those who are stringent, that regarding this blood that she finds, she certainly must observe seven clean days. And some say that if it is not found even on the sides of the tube, she certainly must observe seven clean days, but if it is found on the sides, it has been clarified that the blood is from the sides and she is completely pure. And so it is proper to rule. [In all the responsa they spoke of this, and all the proofs are not decisive neither for permission nor for prohibition, and from the perspective of logic, it appears like the latter opinion.]

There is one who says that an elderly woman who has already ceased to see and began to see due to tashmish, and she feels distress and pain in her womb, does not require an examination with a tube [Shevut Yaakov, siman 68], for the presumption of her purity assists her that this is certainly from the sides. And there is one who hesitated regarding this [Arugat HaBosem]. And it appears to me that this is a strong presumption, since she has already ceased to see and also feels distress and pain, one may rely on this. However, if even in her youth she saw due to tashmish, one should not be lenient regarding her [ibid.].

And know that this reasoning which we wrote in section 26, that several of the great authorities agreed that only regarding the sides do we say "not all fingers are equal" and not regarding the source, see there, is not agreed upon by the Rishonim. For the Semag, at the end of the laws of niddah, after he brought the dispute between Rashi and the Ri, the author of the Tosafot, whether she is permitted to perform the examination after three times with the first husband, and he agreed with the explanation of the Ri that it is permitted, wrote, and this is his wording: And that which he did not specify the examination for the first, etc., it appears that it is for the sake of good advice, for now she is permitted to the second without an examination due to the reason of a double doubt: perhaps the blood did not come from the source but from the sides, and even if it came to the first from the source, perhaps it will not come to the second, for not all fingers are equal, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, the Semag says explicitly that even regarding the source we say "not all fingers are equal." And according to the opinion of the great authorities who hold this reasoning, we explained the reason they permitted her to the second in section 29, see there. And there is one who says that this which they permitted for one who sees blood due to tashmish to another husband or by means of an examination, this is regarding a small amount of seeing, but when she sees in abundance, which is certainly from the source, she is not permitted either to another or by an examination [Noda BiYehuda, Second Edition, siman 93], because there is no double doubt here. And certainly it is so, for even if not for the reason of a double doubt, as long as it is certainly from the source, she has no remedy until she is healed. Nevertheless, she must be established in this three times, for if not so, perhaps it is an accident.

A woman who saw blood due to tashmish three times and became pregnant and gave birth, it is permitted for her to engage in tashmish during the days of purity after she becomes pure [section 9], for during the days of purity we are not concerned with the seeing of blood, and consequently if she does not see then due to tashmish, she is permitted to her husband [ibid.]. And there is one who hesitates regarding this because the days of purity do not uproot a vest for the days of impurity [Noda BiYehuda Tinyana, siman 95]. And all this is according to those who hold that this is a complete vest and the essence of the prohibition is due to the laws of vest. According to this, even if she did not see during all the days of the duration of nursing, it does not avail to permit her afterward [ibid.]. And so too regarding several matters pertaining to the laws of vestot, and we have already written at the beginning of this siman what appears to me in my humble opinion regarding this, see there.

It has already been explained that when she emerged pure through the examination, we no longer concern ourselves with the blood she might see through tashmish, and we attribute it to being from the sides. There is one who disagrees regarding this [Sidrei Taharah]. And there is one who distinguishes: that if in the examination no blood was found at all, then she is forbidden if she saw afterwards three times; but if it was found on the sides, then she need not concern herself with any blood she sees afterwards [Noda BiYehudah siman 46]. And so it appears primary for the law. And conversely, if it was found on the head of the moch, she is forbidden forever, even if they performed several examinations afterwards and no blood was found at all, or it was found on the sides; for since it was clarified once that she sees from the mekor, she no longer has a remedy except through medical treatments. And there is one who wishes to forbid even through medical treatments in such a case [ibid.], and it is an excessive stringency. And all this is when the examination was after the third husband and it was found on the head of the moch; but when the examination was after the first and it was found on the head of the moch, nevertheless she is permitted to the second [Chavat Da'at subsection 5] when she examined herself afterwards and no blood was found on its head. And even according to the reasoning we wrote, that regarding the mekor it is not relevant to say "all fingers are equal," and if so there is no difference between the first and the second, nevertheless it appears to me that in any case, since it was afterwards revealed through the second examination that no blood was found, then granted that for the first it is impossible to permit her, but for the second we can say that she will not see through him, just as she did not see through the second examination.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 that even in this time one may rely on this examination; thus far his words. And he required this because the Ra'avad in the book Ba'al HaNefesh wrote that nowadays we do not rely on this examination to permit her, and furthermore, the daughters of Israel have already decreed upon themselves to sit seven clean days even for a drop of blood like a mustard seed. And the Rosh rejected his words, for behold, the Rif brought this in his laws; and what relevance is this to the stringency of the daughters of Israel, for that was entirely regarding blood from the source that they were stringent, and not regarding blood from the sides, as the Tur wrote; see there. [And in truth, the words of the Ra'avad are puzzling, and many have already labored over them. And it appears to me that he stated two points: that we are not experts in the examination, and furthermore, etc., meaning, it is obvious that regarding the matter of purifying this blood so that she should not sit seven clean days, there is certainly no reason, for they took it upon themselves to be like absolute zavot even though it is certainly not so; and if so, in this too one should be stringent in any case, even if we say that the examination is effective so that she need not separate from her husband, but this blood is impossible to purify, as I wrote in section 33; see there.]

It is stated in the Gemara ibid.: And if she has a veset, she attributes it to her veset. Rashi explained: If she has a veset for this discharge, such that she does not see every time due to tashmish but only periodically, she attributes it to her veset and performs tashmish without a bedikah between veset and veset. Thus far his words. Meaning, since we see that she has a fixed time for her seeing through tashmish, automatically this becomes like a veset, such that she is permitted between veset and veset. And one should not ask according to those who hold that regarding blood of the source all fingers are equal and all strengths are equal, as I wrote in section 26, if so, in such a case it has been clarified that it is not blood of the source, for if it were blood of the source there would be no distinction between one time and another just as there is no distinction between one finger and another; for it can be said that they are not comparable to one another, for since this woman has this ailment at a fixed time, then at the fixed time there is no distinction between one finger and another, but when it is not the fixed time, she is like all women and the nature of her source is not aroused to flow blood through tashmish except at the time fixed for her [and also from this there is proof for what I wrote at the beginning of this siman, that it is not related to vesetot, for specifically in such a case Rashi explained that it is a veset and not in any other manner].

But the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch explain a different explanation in this, and this is their wording: If she cohabited close to her veset, we attribute her seeing to her veset and we do not consider her one who sees on account of tashmish. Thus far their words. Meaning, if she transgressed and cohabited close to her veset, this time does not enter into the count, and we attribute the seeing to the veset [Shach, subsection 16]. And some say that this does not deal with one who cohabited in a forbidden manner, but rather in a permitted manner, such as when her veset was at the beginning of the day and she cohabited at the end of the night [Darei Polei]. For even though regarding the permission of tashmish it is not called "close to her veset," nevertheless, when it occurred that she saw blood during this tashmish, we attribute it to the veset. And it appears that according to this explanation, we attribute the entire onah adjacent to the onah of the veset; that is, when her veset is at the beginning of the day or the end of the day, we attribute the entire night preceding it to the veset. And there are those who rejected this explanation, for since regarding the permission of tashmish it is not called "close to the veset," if so, also regarding attribution we do not attribute [Shach, ibid.]. But many of the great authorities upheld this explanation, and certainly it is so, for behold, her source is full and stands ready to open immediately after this onah; if so, with a slight touch it is possible that her source opened. And on the contrary, it is necessary to say so, for if it were at the time of her veset itself, it is obvious that this is not in the category of one who sees on account of tashmish, for behold, they are liable for a chatat, and what would the Shas be teaching us [Kereiti U-Peleiti, subsection 4]?

And know that there are some whose words slightly imply that specifically in the hour adjacent to the time of the vest, such as if her vest is in the morning and she cohabited at the end of the night, we attribute it to the vest, but not a bit earlier than that [ibid. and the gloss of Rav B.P.]. And in my humble opinion, this does not seem correct, for if so, when her vest is in the middle of the day, and certainly at the end of the day, you would not find this law; and in any such case, it should have been explicitly stated. Rather, it is certain that just as regarding the prohibition of cohabitation adjacent to the vest the entire onah is considered as one moment, so too regarding this attribution to the vest, the onah adjacent to it is considered entirely as one moment, and we attribute the entire onah to the vest [and so it appears from the wording of the Perishah subsection 11, see what he wrote]. And even if she saw twice due to cohabitation and on the third time she saw in this manner, we do not combine it, but rather we attribute it to the vest. Nevertheless, regarding the matter of cohabitation adjacent to the vest, her law is no different from all other women, and when her vest is in the morning, she is permitted to cohabit at the end of the night in the future. And even though she now has a negative presumption in this regard because she saw due to the vest, we say perhaps it is a coincidence [ibid.], unless she sees in this manner three times, for then we would prohibit her when the time of her vest arrives even in the preceding onah [as appears to me in these laws].

And know that even though Rashi and the poskim are divided in the explanation of the Sugya regarding this matter of attributing it to her veset, nevertheless, regarding the halacha they do not disagree [Beit Yosef]. And there is one who is uncertain if we also say this law regarding an ona beinonit, to attribute it to being near her veset [Kereti U-Peleti]. And according to what is apparent, we certainly attribute it, for we see that our sages, of blessed memory, permitted it if there is only something to attribute it to. And the reason is because most women do not see blood due to tashmish, and also in order not to remove a woman from her husband. And if so, why should an ona beinonit be worse regarding this matter, for most women have an ona beinonit from thirty to thirty days? And so too one should attribute it to a veset when she saw three times due to tashmish and every tashmish was distant from the other by an equal interval, such as twenty days, and afterwards she established for herself three times a veset from twenty to twenty; we also attribute the three previous times that she saw due to tashmish to the veset that she has now established for herself [Chavat Da'at, section 109].

And behold, in the Mordechai, he explained regarding that which she attributes to her veset an entirely different explanation. This is his wording at the beginning of Shevuot: And if she has a veset, a fixed time when she sees blood, she attributes it to her veset, for she can say this blood that she sees is pure since her veset has not yet arrived, and she attributes it to her wound, for she can say it is from her wound, etc. Thus far his words. And these are bewildering matters, for if so, the law of one who sees blood due to tashmish would only apply to a woman who does not have a fixed veset, and how is it possible to say this? And some say that this matter of attributing it to her wound also refers to this, meaning that when she has a veset, she attributes it to her wound; for if she has such a wound that is not fit to attribute to, nevertheless, when she has a veset, she attributes it to it [Taz, subsection 8]. And this too is bewildering, for these are matters that have no measure; what is the relevance of a wound that is not fit to attribute to? One way or the other: if it can produce blood, in any case we attribute to it, and if it cannot produce blood, how can we attribute to it because she has a veset? However, it can be said that when she does not have a veset, we require that she know that her wound produces blood, and when she has a veset, there is no need to know this with certainty [see Bach], for in this there is a dispute as will be explained with the help of Heaven. However, if so, the main point is missing from the text.

In my humble opinion, it appears the intention of the Mordechai is that the explanation of Rashi and the explanation of the poskim did not seem correct to him, for according to them, this blood is impure in any event. However, the term "attributes" (tola) in every place is to purify this blood, like the attribution of ketamim. And so too in this very law, in what they said, "she attributes it to her wound," that the blood is pure, and here too it is so. And this is what they said, "she attributes it to her veset," that she can say this blood that she sees is pure, etc., meaning that she attributes it to purify the blood with whatever she can attribute it to, such as pain or another cause to which she can attribute it. And that which they said, "she attributes it to her veset," these are two things: she attributes the blood to another matter, and "to her veset" is the reason for this, meaning because of her veset. And afterwards it says, "and she attributes it to her wound," that when she has a wound she can attribute it in any manner, even when she does not have a veset, when she knows that her wound emits blood, or even when she does not know, according to the opinions that will be explained.

It appears to me that this is the opinion of the Mahariw, brought by our teacher, the Rema, in section 6. This is his wording: And so if she says, "It is clear to me that this blood did not come from the mekor," she is believed and is tahora. Thus far his words. The great authorities cried out against this like a crane, for there is no reality to this, as even that which is found on the sides and in the vestibule is generally tamei blood, for its presumption is that it descends from the mekor, unless she says that she knows the root of the blood came only from the sides, and it is remote that she would know this when there is no wound. Therefore they wrote that one should not rely on this ruling [Responsa Pnei Yehoshua, and Minchat Yaakov, and Dagul Mervavah, and Chavot Daat sub-section 12]. But I say that this itself is the method of the Mordechai, and his intention is when she has a fixed vest, and she has some basis upon which she is able to attribute it when it is clear to her that it is not from the mekor, and the primary basis for the permission is because she has a fixed vest. And even though from the arrangement of the wording of our teacher, the Rema, it is not explicitly explained as such, nevertheless, so it appears in my humble opinion [and the Responsa of the Mahariw is not under my hand now].

It is stated in the Gemara ibid.: And if she has a wound in that place, she attributes it to her wound, etc. And if the blood of her wound is different from the blood of her seeing, she does not attribute it. And a woman is believed to say, "I have a wound in the source from which the blood emerges." And there is in this matter a great dispute between our teachers, the Rishonim and the Acharonim, regarding that which they said, "she attributes it to her wound": whether we specifically require it to be known that this wound emits blood, or even in an unspecified case we say that it presumably emits blood and we attribute it to it. And the wording of the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch follows the wording of the Shas and they left their words unspecified; see there. And it implies that we do not require that she know that her wound emits blood.

However, from the words of the Rambam in another place, it is to be learned that he requires that we know it produces blood, for in chapter 11, after he brought the stringencies practiced in this time and the laws that even in this time have not changed, he wrote in law 13, and this is his wording: And so too if she had a wound and the blood was flowing from it, or if the blood came with urine, she is tahora and nothing has been renewed etc. Thus far his words. Meaning, because there are those among the early authorities who hold that now one should not rule her tahora based on a wound, and this is also the opinion of the Ramban as is written there in the Hagahot Maimoniot, and to this the Rambam says that it is not so, but rather even now we rely on a wound; however, in any case, he wrote explicitly "and the blood was flowing from it" [and see what I wrote in section 53].

And this is the opinion of Sefer HaTerumah and the Hagahot Maimoniot, and there in letter 8 he wrote, and this is his wording: And in Sefer HaTerumah he wrote that a woman who has a wound in that place and does not know if it discharges blood or not, etc., she may not attribute it to the wound, for it was taught "she is believed," etc., implying specifically that when the blood emerges from the wound she may attribute it, but if she is in doubt she may not attribute it. Thus far his words. And the Mordechai wrote similarly, and this is his wording: A woman is believed to say "I have a wound in that place from which blood emerges"; specifically when she knows that the blood emerges from the wound may she attribute it to it, but from doubt she may not attribute it, etc. Thus far his words. And their precision is from the fact that the Shas concludes: "I have a wound in the source from which the blood emerges," implying explicitly that she must know that blood emerges from the wound. And even though in the first clause it says plainly that if she has a wound she may attribute it to the wound, and it does not conclude "from which blood emerges," it is possible to say that it relies on the latter clause. Furthermore, it is possible to say that in the first clause the explanation is when others see the wound, and automatically since they see it, they see that it is prone to blood, such as if it has much redness and red pus. But in the latter clause, when she says "I have a wound in that place" and she is unable to see it except by the feel of her hands, therefore she must know clearly that blood emerges from it, such as if she checked with a cloth on the actual place of the wound and found blood, or that with her finger she found blood when she touched the place of the wound. And behold, in the Tosefta it does not conclude this "from which the blood emerges," see there; however, the Shas explains it so for the reason that has been explained [so it appears to me according to this system].

But the Rashba, of blessed memory, in Torat HaBayit, the Gate of Ketamim, wrote the opposite, and this is his wording: And it stands to reason that even if she does not actually feel that the blood is flowing and descending from the wound, first, because her eyes are not between her wound, and it is impossible for her to know except through an examination with a tube, etc. And there it certainly implies that one who sees blood due to a wound does not require an examination with a tube, as it is taught there, etc., and a woman is believed to say she has a wound from which the blood is flowing and descending, etc. Consequently, she attributes it to her wound as a matter of course. And that which it teaches, "she is believed... from which the blood is flowing and descending," it does not mean she is believed to say that it is flowing and descending from it, but rather, in contrast to what was said, "if she has a wound she attributes it to her wound," it means that we do not need to know clearly that she has a wound, but rather she herself feels the wound and is believed to say she has a wound where there is blood, and she attributes it to her wound, for I say the blood is flowing and descending from it. And in the Tosefta I did not find, etc. Thus far his words.

And it is not understood what he wrote, that it is impossible for her to know except through an examination with a tube; is she then unable to examine with her finger or with a cloth to touch the location of the wound and see if there is the color of blood upon it? And perhaps this is what he meant: that it is impossible for her to know except through an examination, and there it implies that no examination is required at all, for if it were not so, the Tanna should have specified that she attributes it to the wound when she examines. And that which he says "examination with a tube" is because in the Gemara there is an examination with a tube, but his primary intention is that since without an examination it is impossible for her to know, and there it implies that no examination at all is required [so it appears to me].

Behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and all the commentators of the Tur explained the words of the Rashba as we have explained, that he holds that we ordinarily attribute it to a wound even if we do not know at all if this wound emits blood, for ordinarily every wound emits blood. And there are some of the great authorities who say that even the Rashba only said that she does not need to know that blood is emitting from the wound now, but in this he agrees, that she must know that this wound is capable of emitting blood [Shach, subsection 24, and Chakham Tzevi in Responsa 46]. And several of the great authorities have already written that this is not so in the intention of the Rashba [and the primary difficulty of the Chakham Tzevi is from the Mishnah regarding one who sees stains, where the students of Rabbi Akiva looked at one another regarding what Rabbi Akiva instructed, if it can be opened, etc., and certainly regarding blood. And the Noda BiYehuda, Siman 41, wrote that there is no carpenter who can dismantle it, and it is no difficulty at all, for there the wound had already healed and a crust had formed upon it, see there (and so wrote the Kereti U-Peleti, subsection 5, and I found that the Rashba himself explained thus there previously, and this is his wording: Regarding stains, and if she has a wound and it can be opened and emit blood, even though a crust has now formed upon it and it is not dripping, etc., and it happened that a woman came before Rabbi Akiva, etc. Thus far his words, see there)].

And there are those who raised a difficulty against this reasoning, for how is it possible to be lenient when we do not know at all that her wound emits blood? And they exerted themselves to construct a double doubt and raised a difficulty regarding this, that many times there is no double doubt, and they spoke at length concerning this. In my humble opinion, this is not necessary at all, for the primary basis for the permit is the reason written by our teacher, the Beit Yosef, regarding the testing with a tube—that they relied on this test because the majority of women do not see blood due to intercourse, as I wrote in section 24. And even though there is a negative indication before us, we explained in section 25 that the negative indication does not impair the majority; see there. And all the more so when there is a wound, where the negative indication is to be attributed to the wound, it is obvious that one must follow the majority and say that the seeing is due to the wound. To what is this comparable? To a wolf that came and took the intestines, and afterwards many punctures were found, where we attribute the punctures to the wolf since there is something to which they can be attributed. And here too, it is so. [And although the Rashba permits even during the time of her veset, as is explained in Torat HaBayit there, it can be said that he holds that since vestot are Rabbinic and there is something to which the blood can be attributed, therefore he established her status on her presumption of purity; see there, for he wrote so. And indeed, we do not rule like the Rashba in this, as will be explained. But regarding the essence of the Rashba's ruling, there is no difficulty at all, and similarly other precision-points that they questioned in the Responsa are correct according to our words, and delve into this.]

And there are those who wish to say that certainly regarding the matter of not forbidding her to her husband, it is not necessary to know that her wound emits blood; however, to purify this blood so that she does not sit seven clean days, we specifically require knowing that her wound emits blood [Kereiti U-Peleiti there, and Sha'ar Ephraim, and Panim Me'irot]. And it is a great reasoning, for with this the language of the Gemara is settled, which first said plainly "she attributes it to her wound" and afterward said "and she is believed etc. that blood emerges from it," for the first is regarding the matter that she should not be considered as one who sees due to intercourse, and the afterward is regarding the matter of the purity of the blood. And it appears to me that the opinion of the Rambam is also thus, and therefore at the end of chapter 4, which deals with the matter of one who sees due to intercourse, he wrote plainly "she attributes it to her wound," and in chapter 11 where he wrote "behold she is pure," he required that the blood be flowing from her [and the Shach wrote this reasoning in subsection 20, see there, and it is a clear reasoning].

And behold, our teacher, the Rema, decided in this dispute, and this is his wording: And all this is regarding a woman who has a fixed veset, and then they may attribute [the blood] not during the time of her veset to her wound, even though she does not know for certain that her wound is discharging blood; and likewise if she does not have a fixed veset and it is a doubt whether the blood comes from the mekor or from the sides, we attribute it to a wound [based on] a double doubt: a doubt whether it is from the sides or from the mekor, and if you say it is from the mekor, perhaps it is from the wound. But if it is known that it comes from the mekor, even though she has a wound in the mekor, she does not attribute it to the wound if she does not have a fixed veset, unless she knows for certain that her wound is discharging blood. And nevertheless, during the time of her veset or from thirty days to thirty days, she does not attribute it to her wound, for if not so, she would never be impure. And regarding ketamim, she attributes it to it in every case. Thus far his words.

And regarding these words of his, many great authorities have labored; some have rejected his words [see Turei Zahav subsection 10 and Shach subsection 22] and some have upheld his words [such as Kereti U-Peleti subsection 6 and Minchat Yaakov subsection 20]. Also, in the explanation of his words, they labored to align his words with the sources from which he drew. In my humble opinion, in several places he established his opinion in the Shulchan Aruch according to his own view in his adjudication between the poskim, and here too it seems clear to me that it is his own adjudication. Such is his great opinion: that there is no difference in this law between the matter of not removing her from her husband due to seeing blood as a result of tashmish, and the matter of purifying the blood so that she need not sit seven nekiyim. Therefore, he concluded that during the time of her veset, she does not attribute it to her wound, etc. And if it were regarding the matter of not removing her from her husband, even if we do not attribute it to her wound, this is not one who sees blood as a result of tashmish since it is the time of her veset, as I wrote in section 40. Furthermore, one cannot say that he is speaking only regarding the purification of the blood and not regarding the matter of seeing blood as a result of tashmish, for he is referring to the words of the Mechaber, and the essence of these laws is regarding this matter. Rather, it is certain that he is speaking of both, and they are equal in his view, for one is dependent upon the other.

And according to his opinion, it is so: that regarding the fact that the sages were lenient to attribute [blood] to a wound, there are times when we attribute it even when we do not know that her wound emits blood, and there are times when one must specifically know that her wound emits blood. How so? For example, when there is an additional leniency regarding the wound, such as when she has a fixed veset and it is now not during her veset time, such that she has a presumption of purity; or even if she does not have a fixed veset, but there is a sefek sefeika, for a sefek sefeika is superior to a presumption. And the sefek sefeika is when the location of the wound is unknown, whether it is in the makor or in the sides. And even though ostensibly it is all one category, for what does it matter to me if it is in the sides or in the makor, ultimately it is the blood of a wound and this is only one doubt—and indeed they challenged him so [Shach, subsection 22]—however, the great authorities have already explained that it is a complete sefek sefeika, for one doubt permits more than the other: for if it is from the sides, the blood is also pure, and if it is from the makor, the woman is pure but the blood is impure, for we established that the place of the makor is impure [Kereti U-Peleti and Noda Bi-Yehudah]. And also one should not ask that behold, this sefek sefeika is not reversible, for you cannot say "perhaps it is a wound, perhaps it is niddah, and if you say [it is a wound] etc.," for since this is the blood of niddah, then she is certainly impure. However, this too is well-settled even according to the one who requires a reversible sefek sefeika, for whenever you must investigate from where the blood came, it does not need to be reversible [Minchat Yaakov, subsection 20], as in the case of a mauled animal with a doubt upon a doubt, as is explained in siman 110 in the rules of sefek sefeika. And therefore, in a place where there is no other leniency like a presumption or a sefek sefeika, she must specifically know that her wound emits blood. And one should not say "behold there is a leniency from the side that most women do not see blood during tashmish," for it is not so; for if she is at her veset time, then on the contrary, most women see during their veset, and if she does not have a veset, she is also not among the majority of women, for behold, most women have a veset.

And regarding this, I say that therefore at the time of her veset or from thirty to thirty days, she does not attribute it to her wound; that is to say, even if she knows that her wound discharges blood [Shach subsection 26]. And even though vesetot are rabbinic—for which reason the Rashba purifies even at the time of her veset, as I wrote in section 52—nevertheless, our teacher, the Rema, does not hold so, for if so, she would never be tamei, as we would always attribute it to the wound, and this is impossible. However, according to the Rashba, one could say that she becomes tamei at the time she clearly feels that the opening of the uterus has opened, as is the way of most women at the time of their veset. And our teacher, the Rema, holds that it is impossible to rely on her sensation alone in a prohibition of karet, for for this reason the rabbis prohibited even when she does not feel it herself, as written in siman 183, because regarding sensations there can be many errors, as she may think it is a different sensation. And the Rashba holds that when there is a wound it is different. However, it is a simple matter that even our teacher, the Rema, admits that when she feels now at this moment that the blood is exiting from her wound, that even at the time of her veset she is tahor [ibid.]. And even though one could say that niddah blood is also mixed in this, nevertheless, they were not concerned to such an extent. [The Shach in subsection 22 took issue with the Rema, for from the Sefer HaTerumah it is explicitly explained that even when it is not known if it is from the uterus, one must specifically know that the wound discharges blood, from that which he wrote "that she examined herself," and this is also the intent of the Sha'arei Dura in what he wrote. And I wonder, for even if it is so, does not the Rema decide from his own reasoning? And behold, this is their dispute with the Rashba, and in this he decided like the Rashba. Furthermore, in the Sha'arei Dura it is certainly like the words of the Rema, as the Kereti U'Peleti wrote in subsection 6. However, in my humble opinion, also in the Sefer HaTerumah the intent is like the Rema, and that which he wrote "that she examined in that place," it appears to me that the intent is that she examined in the uterus, and the wound is also in the uterus, see there. And that which the Taz lengthened in subsection 10, the Shach already rejected in the Nekudot HaKesef, and so the later authorities agreed that the words of the Taz are stammering in this subsection. And also the Noda BiYehudah in siman 41 and siman 47 wrote that the essence is like the words of the Rema, see there. And so wrote the Minchat Yaakov, and the Chavot Da'at lengthened on this and his words were not clarified to me, and also the Sidrei Taharah took issue with him, see there. But regarding what the Shach wrote in subsection 20, that this is only regarding one who sees on account of tashmish and not to purify the blood, see there, and as I wrote in section 53, it could be so; nevertheless, it appears to me that one who relies also in this on the Rema has not lost, for his reasonings are clear and pure, and delve into this.]

And know that all these laws were clarified regarding one who sees blood due to tashmish, and it is clear that the same applies even without seeing blood due to tashmish, but rather that she is unable to become pure for her husband because at all times she finds her bedikot soiled with blood; in such a case one should also rule according to these laws, for if she has some wound, we attribute it to the wound when it is not the time of her veset. And one who does not have a veset, we also attribute it [to the wound] when there is a doubt whether it is from the sides or from the mekor. And it appears to me in my humble opinion that even according to the one who holds regarding one who sees blood due to tashmish that one may not rely on the wound to permit the blood, nevertheless, regarding a bedikah it is more lenient, as this is not like an actual seeing due to tashmish in my humble opinion, as I will explain with the help of Heaven:

For behold, our sages, of blessed memory, said at the beginning of the chapter "HaRo'eh" that she is liable to mistake the sensation of the opening of the womb for the sensation of the organ, and likewise for the sensation of the cloth, see there. For this reason, we wrote in section 6 that one who sees blood due to tashmish may be impure according to the Torah, as the blood comes with a sensation and she reasoned that this was the sensation of the organ, see there. Also during a bedikah this mistake can occur, as she reasoned that this was the sensation of the cloth. However, regarding "due to tashmish" it is understandable, as this can only happen one time, as is known, for upon her seeing blood he separates from her until her purification. In any case, it cannot happen more than three times, for after three times it is clarified whether she is pure or impure, as has been explained. And these three times occur at distant intervals, as each one is removed from the other until she becomes pure, and it is certainly possible that during these three times there was a sensation and she mistook it for the sensation of the organ. But regarding bedikot, where she checks herself several times a day and checks herself many days one after another, is it possible to say that every time her womb opened? Behold, in not one in a thousand women will the opening of the womb occur many times in one day and over many days. And it is obvious that in many bedikot there was no opening of the womb for her, and they reveal the status of the other bedikot, just as with one who sees blood due to tashmish, when she does not see blood one time due to tashmish she is purified. According to this, in bedikot there is certainly no Torah prohibition here. And this is what we said, that it is possible that even one who is stringent regarding seeing blood due to tashmish—that one should not rely on the wound—could agree regarding bedikot. In any case, it is certain that it is no worse than it, and if so, we can simply rely on the ruling of our teacher, the Rema [and I saw one who says that bedikot are worse than "due to tashmish," and it is certain that this is not so, and in all the responsa of our teachers they learned one from the other and equated them to one another].

And know that there is one who wrote that during the days of her whitening she is not in a status of presumptive purity [Noda BiYehudah]. But the giants of the world have already refuted him, for it is clear that if she only ceased once in purity after her seeing, she is called one who stands in a status of presumptive purity, even though she has not yet become pure. It is only regarding a doubt of immersion that she stands in a status of presumptive impurity—meaning, because she was not purified through immersion—but regarding the seeing of blood, she stands in a status of presumptive purity. And it is an explicit Mishnah [68:]. Moreover, we learned there [68a] regarding the seven days of a niddah, where she is certainly impure and in a presumption of seeing, nevertheless, if she examined herself on the second day of her niddah status and found herself pure, and after a time she examined herself and found herself impure, she is in a status of presumptive purity. See there, for the status of presumptive purity regarding the seeing of blood is a completely different matter; for if only once blood was not found in her examination, she is in a status of one whose blood has ceased [like the reasoning of the Gaon Rav Chaim Kohen in Noda BiYehudah, siman 63]. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote this explicitly in his great book in siman 196 in the name of the Ramban, that during the days of her whitening she stands in a status of presumptive purity. See there. [And the proof of the Noda BiYehudah from Tosafot Zevachim 29a is no proof at all, for there it deals with the matter of complete fitness similar to consecrated items; and so wrote the Chavat Daat, subsection 5, see there. And the Tosafot who refuted Rashi there did not refute the essence of his words, for certainly this is called a status of presumptive purity, but rather they said that for this matter of complete fitness it is not called a status of presumptive purity, see there, and as I wrote regarding immersion; and delve into this.]

And according to this, the matter is clear regarding a woman who is unable to purify herself for her husband because she always finds redness in her bedikot: if she was examined by a doctor or by women and they found in her womb some wound, bruise, or lesion, even though it is not known if it discharges blood, nevertheless, when it is not during the time of her veset—even if she does not have a fixed veset—she attributes it to her wound. And even if she stands in her days of tumah, if upon reaching the days of her white garments she performed a hefsek taharah by examining herself in the crevices and cracks and was found pure; for if not so, she would be in a status of presumed impurity, and one does not attribute it to a wound against a presumption. However, once she has performed a hefsek taharah, she is considered for this matter as being in a status of presumed purity, and all the impure bedikot, and certainly her ketamim, are attributed to the wound. She requires only one more pure bedikah until she goes to the mikveh, since ex post facto one bedikah is sufficient in addition to the bedikah of the hefsek taharah, as it is stated in the Mishnah in Niddah [68b]: A zav and a zavah who examined themselves on the first day and found it pure, and on the seventh day and found it pure, etc., Rabbi Eliezer says they are in a status of presumed purity. And they ruled in the Gemara there that the halakhah follows Rabbi Eliezer. And Rav said there: their beginning even if not their end; meaning, that one bedikah is sufficient during all seven days of her white garments. And even though we hold in siman 196 that ideally she must examine herself every day, nevertheless, where it is not possible, it is considered ex post facto as written there. She may perform this bedikah whenever she wishes, and if she achieves only one pure bedikah during these seven days on whichever day it may be, it is sufficient, and she should not pay attention to the rest of her bedikot and ketamim, for everything is attributed to the wound. And so one should instruct. [And likewise, a woman for whom they placed leeches in her womb to draw blood for medical reasons, and it is impossible for the openings of the places where the leeches bit to heal because the flesh there is thin, soft, and moist, and consequently in all her bedikot she produces blood on the bedikot—she should also act as I have written: a bedikah of hefsek taharah and one bedikah during the seven days of her white garments].

And all this is when they find in her a wound or a lesion or a bruise, but if she only feels a general pain, the great authorities disagreed. Some say that pain is like a wound, and some say that pain is not like a wound. And it appears to me to decide that certainly pain is not like a wound, for what proof is there from the pain? Perhaps the pain is in her womb or in that place above the opening of the uterus, and because of the pain the blood exited through the uterus, and it is complete niddah blood; for what does it matter to me if the blood exits through the uterus with pain or without pain, ultimately blood that descends from the uterus is niddah blood. However, if they examined her in the sides and found another place in the sides that when they touch there it pains her greatly, and it is clearly evident that the pain is in the sides, if an expert physician or an expert midwife says that through such pain it is possible that it produces blood occasionally, it is possible that one may rely on this. And it depends on the vision of the eyes of the posek to understand and to discern from their words whether to attribute it to the pain or not, if there is in that place an appearance of redness or the like [so it appears to me]. And regarding ketamim, she attributes them to the pain [Noda BiYehudah, Mahadura Tinyana, siman 100].

And that which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote, that if the blood of her wound is different from the blood of her seeing, we do not attribute it to the blood of her wound, thus far their words; and it is the language of the Gemara [66a]. That is to say, if the blood descending from the wound is different in its appearance from the blood of her seeing that occurs through tashmish, it is impossible to attribute the blood of tashmish to the wound, for we see that they are not equal in appearance. And the poskim agreed that this is specifically when we see that they are not equal, but there is no obligation to see if they are equal, for in an ordinary case we say that they are equal [Rosh and Rashba and Ran and Maggid Mishneh in Shach subsection 19]. And this is certainly so if both are before us, for we are obligated to see if they are equal, since it is easy to clarify and every person can recognize this, and anything that can be clarified, we clarify [Taz subsection 9 and Perisha]. And one should not ask that from this language it implies explicitly that there is blood from the wound, and how did we say that even though we do not know if her wound produces blood we attribute it to the wound, for how is it relevant in such a case to say that the blood of her wound is different? For one can say that this is what it means: that if there is blood in the wound and it is different, we do not attribute it to it; but if there is no blood, it is also valid, for we attribute it by saying that there is blood in the wound [see Chavot Daat subsection 5 who wrote that specifically regarding one who sees from the Torah we say so because one can say the tashmish clouded them, but when it is not from the heat of tashmish one must clarify that they are equal, see there; and it requires further study, for the Rishonim wrote the reason is because of the chazakah of taharah as written in the Shach subsection 19, and from where did he innovate another reason? And also the Pri Toar stammered against him in this. And the inference from Tosafot 65b, their first answer, the Pri Toar answered that this is after four nights when the time of her attribution has passed, and here when she has a wound it is like within the time of her attribution, see there in Taz subsection 9 and delve into it].

And regarding that which has been explained, that a woman is believed to say "I have a wound in that place from which the blood issues," our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6 that likewise, if she says "it is clear to me that this blood does not come from the source," she is believed and is tahora. Thus far his words. And there is one who wondered at this, for how is it possible for her to know? For if it is because it was found on the sides, perhaps it descended from the source, unless she says that it is clear to her that the root of the blood is from the sides, and it is remote that she would know this when she does not have a wound. Therefore, there are those who wrote that one should not rely on this alone, but only to make it a secondary factor for another permit [Chavat Da'at subsection 12 and Responsa Pnei Yehoshua]. And there are also those who wondered about him, for the source of the law is from the Mahariw, and he did not decide the law definitively in this [Dagul Mervavah and Minchat Yaakov]. And this is not a precise point, for in the case of the Mahariw it was possible to clarify, for there it dealt with one who urinates with blood, and it is possible to clarify through an examination that will be explained in siman 191; but here it is impossible to clarify, and of necessity she must be believed, for the Torah believed her [Kruhti Palti subsection 7]. And that which they questioned, how it is possible for her to know, the answer is simple: for if it were not established for her, she would not say it. And you find that it is established for her, for example, that she always finds the blood in a specific place on the sides always [Sidrei Tahara on the Taz subsection 11]. And you find several ways, such as if she has some pain on the sides that she feels the blood is issuing from there, or some scratch or the like. And after the Torah believed her, how is it possible for us to nullify her credibility? And if you say she is not an expert, most women are experts, and especially since of necessity in all this she says clearly that she had no sensation, and if so, there is no doubt of a Torah prohibition here. And even though it could be said that she is mistaken regarding the sensation, nevertheless, if she says so clearly, who can contradict her? Therefore, the ruling of our teacher, the Rema, is true and firm.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: If, whenever she examines all the cavities and crevices, she does not find stains except in one place on the sides, it is to be attributed to a wound in that place from which it comes. And all the more so if she feels during the examination that when she touches the side of that place it pains her slightly, and in the rest of the cavities and crevices she feels no pain at all. Thus far his words. And this is the very same law that our teacher, the Rema, wrote previously, except that our teacher, the Rema, says [this] when she says plainly, "It is clear to me that it is not from the source," and when we investigate her she will say all this or the like. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also says this law in reverse: that she does not say, "It is clear to me that it is not from the source," but rather she says these things—that during all the times of her examination she only finds [it] on one cloth—we say to her that according to these words of yours, this blood is not from the source.

And know that there are those who wrote that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is dealing in this law with a case where it is known that she has a wound, and it refers back to what was stated above, except that above deals with when it is known with certainty that her wound emits blood, and here it comes to teach us that based on these matters we attribute it to a wound even when we do not know with certainty that her wound emits blood [Noda BiYehuda siman 46, and this is the opinion of the Taz subsection 10]. And this is according to the opinion that requires that she know her wound emits blood; but it has already been clarified that the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is not so, and we do not require that she know her wound emits blood, since he wrote it without qualification as I wrote in section 46. And it is impossible to say that he is dealing here with a case where she has a known wound; and furthermore, if so, the previous words of our teacher, the Rema, would disagree with this, and our teacher, the Rema, should have glossed his words in the language of a dispute. Rather, it is certain that his intention as well is that from this we shall judge that she certainly has some wound or bruise on this side, or a pain, whose law is like a wound. And furthermore, according to their words, the main point is missing, and according to what I wrote it is well-settled [and so wrote the Pri Toar subsection 12].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: If she wishes to be healed, it must be before the status is established; but after it is established, there are those who are uncertain if it is permitted to rely on the medical treatment to engage in tashmish afterward. And there is one who permits if a Jewish doctor told her "you have been healed." And if the woman sees that her menstrual blood and her sightings have ceased by means of the medical treatments, and it is evident that they were effective, one may rely even on a non-Jew. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matter is that even though we rely on a doctor even regarding a prohibition of karet, such as a doctor who commands a sick person to eat on Yom Kippur or chametz on Pesach, it can be said that there the matter is substantiated, for we see that he is sick; and furthermore, conversely, there is a concern of danger to life. But here, where on the contrary she stands in a status of a prohibition of karet, for she saw three times by means of tashmish, how can we believe a doctor to engage in tashmish ab initio? Where have we found that a doctor is believed through his wisdom to remove a matter from its established status? Therefore, even upon a Jewish doctor it is difficult to rely, for a single witness is not believed to remove a matter from a status of prohibition in a matter that is not in his power, as written in siman 127.

And nevertheless, it is only a doubt, for one could say the opposite: since the Torah gave permission to a physician to heal, and this matter is an illness and certainly there are cures for it, it is as if the Torah believed him when he says "you have been cured." There is no difference between a Jewish physician and a non-Jewish one; if he is merely an expert, we rely on him because he will not damage his professional reputation. Therefore, it is a legal doubt, and regarding this he says that there is one who permits in the case of a Jewish physician. That is to say, with a Jewish physician there is an additional side for leniency, for a single witness is trusted to remove something from a status of prohibition in a matter that is within his power, and here we consider it within his power since he is an expert and certainly there is a cure for this. So too, if she sees that the medicines worked for her, such that her vestal blood and her seeing ceased, it is like a basis for the matter, and she can rely even on a non-Jewish physician. This is similar to how we rely on a physician regarding a sick person to feed him chametz on Pesach and on Yom Kippur [so it appears to me in his explanation], and especially since this is a matter that is destined to be revealed.

And there is one who wrote that if we saw that this doctor gave medicine to a woman who saw [blood] twice, and on the third time her husband cohabited with her and she did not see blood, another woman may rely on the doctor even after three times [Bach and Shach subsection 28] and she is permitted to cohabit on the fourth time. Many have raised objections to this, for since the first woman was not yet established [as a nidda], by what means is he established as a doctor such that another woman may rely on him after her established prohibition [Chavat Daat subsection 13 and Rav Poalim and Pitchei Teshuva]. And there is one who answered because according to Rabbi, an established status is created with two times, and if so, according to Rabbi she was already established; therefore we rely on this because there are matters where we rule like Rabbi [Pri Rash in the Shach ibid.]. And according to this, we would say that they specifically said "two times." And in my humble opinion, it seems simple that we have already explained that it is not clear that we do not rely on doctors, for therefore they wrote the language "there are those who are uncertain" as I wrote in the previous section. Therefore, when there is some basis for the matter, we rely on the doctor. Therefore, even if she saw one time and the doctor healed her, it is a basis for the matter, and the second woman may rely on him even if she was established, and the other side is set aside. For since the Torah gave permission to a doctor to heal, the Torah gave him credibility in everything he says [so it appears to me in my humble opinion for the law but not for practical application, and one should deliberate on the matter].

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [Niddah 66a] that one who sees blood due to tashmish, and they startled her suddenly and a cake of blood fell from her—meaning a piece of blood—it is known that she has been healed. The Gemara brings two incidents: regarding a woman who came before Rabbi, and he commanded to startle her and a cake of blood fell from her, and Rabbi said, "This one has been healed"; and regarding a woman who came before Shmuel, and he commanded to startle her and nothing fell from her, and Shmuel said that she has no remedy, for she fills and scatters—meaning it is her way to be filled with blood and to scatter it at the time of tashmish, and she has no remedy, see there. And I do not know why the Rambam, of blessed memory, did not bring this law at all at the end of chapter 4, see there. And even if perhaps he holds that in this time we do not rely on this remedy, and such is the opinion of the Ramban as the Tur wrote, nevertheless, he should have brought it and written that we do not rely now on this remedy, and it requires further study.

And also regarding the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 9, who cited this law, one must wonder the opposite: why did they not cite the stringency that if it did not fall from it, it has no remedy? For from this wording it implies that no repair is effective for it anymore. And perhaps because they wrote that now we do not rely on this remedy, and the reason seems to be because we are not experts in the manner of the fright, therefore even for a stringency we should not rely on it. Or it is possible that they hold that the intention of "it has no remedy" refers to this specific cure, but there are other cures for it, and perhaps the inspection of a tube is also effective. All this requires further study.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: If they startled her suddenly and a clot of blood fell from her, she is healed and is permitted to her husband; but if she saw blood again due to tashmish even one time, it is known that she was not healed. In this time, we do not permit her by means of this remedy. However, we do not remove her from her husband after this remedy until she has tashmish and returns to her corrupted state. Thus far his words. And the reason that even one time she returns to her corrupted state is because it appears that the startling did not affect her so much. And that which he wrote, "we do not permit in this time," this is its explanation: that ab initio one should not instruct this remedy, however, if she did so and it succeeded, it is well. Nevertheless, if she was divorced, we do not permit her to marry him even ex post facto [Shach and Taz, subsection 13], even when she was divorced not because of this, for if not so, even without this it would be forbidden to take her back. And if she jumped from the bed in a startle and much blood flowed from her, we do not permit her even ex post facto, for perhaps this is not a clot of blood, as a clot of blood implies something like a thick piece of blood [Noda BiYehuda, Second Edition, siman 93].

A woman who has the illness of hemorrhoids, which they call "gilderna oder," where blood flows from the anus, there is no relevance at all to attribute blood found in that place to this cause, for it does not come at all to the womb. One must not pay attention to the physicians who say that it is possible for this blood to come via the veins of the source, and vanity speaks from their mouths. An expert physician has already stated that hemorrhoids have no connection to that place [Noda BiYehudah, siman 45, and the Gilyon Maharsha, siman 187]. Similarly, a woman who has a rupture in the intestines where the intestines fall downward, the great authorities wrote that this wound is not presumed to produce blood [Responsa Pnei Yehoshua and Sidrei Taharah, siman 188]. The mnemonic for this matter is: we do not presume blood in the intestines. Even if a physician said that it emits blood due to a tearing of the membrane and that there are red veins, nevertheless, there is no logical basis to say that blood emerged from the rupture. And even if it were possible for blood to emerge, there is no place for this blood to enter the cavity of the prozdor, for the sides of the walls of the prozdor separate between them [Noda BiYehudah, siman 58]. And if perhaps through this the blood descends via the source, it is obvious that she is a complete niddah, for any blood that descends via the source, for whatever reason it may be, is niddah blood. A woman who has a rupture in the source itself where the source falls downward, which they call "parfall," will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 188 at length; see there.

It has already been explained at the beginning of this siman that several great authorities hold that one who sees blood due to tashmish is considered a vest like all other vestot. We explained there that this is not a matter of a vest, but rather that this woman has an illness that causes this, such that she sees blood at the time of tashmish, and it is a Torah prohibition. For if this were only a type of vest, we maintain that vestot are rabbinic, as I wrote in section 6. Nevertheless, this is regarding the essence of the seeing that occurs due to tashmish; however, it is still possible that this illness depends on a specific time, as the Rashba wrote in a responsum [brought in the Beit Yosef] regarding a woman who was accustomed to seeing blood due to tashmish every half year. Therefore, regarding the time, one must be concerned for a vest [and so it appears from the Shach, subsection 35, that tashmish itself without a fixed time is not a vest].

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 10: One who sees blood during tashmish is permitted to engage in tashmish a second time when she becomes pure; however, we are concerned one time after her seeing, for example, if she saw one time or two times on the night of her immersion, when the next immersion arrives she must abstain on the night of her immersion, but she does not need to abstain on the night of the third immersion, for anything that has not established a vest, we are only concerned one time. Thus far his words. And behold, in the essence of this law there is no novelty, and it follows the foundation of the approach of Rashi who explained that which they said in the Gemara, "and if she has a vest she attributes it to her vest," that its explanation is that if she has a fixed time for her seeing due to tashmish, it is like a vest and she is permitted to engage in tashmish between vest and vest, as we explained in section 39. Rather, the novelty in this law is that we attribute it to the time of her immersion, perhaps this is the vest; that is to say, perhaps the immersion causes her to see due to tashmish, and that is that her entire period of immersion is prone to seeing due to tashmish, and this is caused by a vest of exertion or eating garlic and the like, and consequently she must abstain on the night of her immersion and engage in tashmish on the day after the immersion.

Nevertheless, it is not clarified what category of veset applies to this, for in siman 189 it is explained that a veset caused by an accident, such as jumping, is not a veset at all to be concerned for after one time, unless it is also combined with days, such as if every Rosh Chodesh that she jumps she sees blood, for then she is concerned even after one time. And regarding a veset of the body, such as yawning or sneezing, and similarly with the eating of garlic or peppers, she is concerned for this alone after one time according to the opinion of the Tosafot; but according to the opinion of the Rashba, the eating of garlic and peppers is like a veset of accident caused by jumping, as will be explained there with the help of Heaven. Now, regarding these two things, the tashmish and the mikveh, if we compare them to jumping, then why is she concerned after one time? For is it possible that two accidents are superior to one accident? [And so wrote the Chavot Daat, subsection 14]. And if we compare them both to a veset of the body, then she would be forbidden in tashmish alone even without a mikveh, and you would never find a case where she could engage in tashmish a second time after the first seeing from tashmish, and this is explicitly stated in the Gemara to the contrary. And although it could be said that since through this we would forbid her forever, therefore we are not concerned for one time [and so wrote the Taz below, subsection 16], nevertheless, it certainly does not seem correct to say that tashmish is like a veset of the body, and certainly it is like a veset of jumping since it comes through an action [and so wrote the Shach below, subsection 35]. Furthermore, according to what we explained at the beginning of this siman, the essence of tashmish is not in the category of veset, but rather this is a mere illness. Furthermore, if mikveh were like a veset of the body, then she should be forbidden when she saw after the mikveh even without tashmish, and this is something we have never heard; and it is explicitly implied that she is concerned on the night of the mikveh because of the seeing from tashmish, but without tashmish she is not concerned [and so wrote the Chavot Daat there].

And it appears in my humble opinion that certainly neither the act of relations nor the mikveh are included in the category of bodily vestot, for both are through an action. Rather, in truth, the name "vest" in this matter is only a borrowed term, for what does illness have to do with a vest, as I wrote at the beginning of the siman? Rather, the matter is thus: that we see in this woman that she has some illness in her body and the cause is hidden from us, and therefore we fear perhaps the water causes her the illness, such that every time she goes into the water her sources are loosened, and therefore upon his entry she sees blood. For it is known that cold or hot water acts with a strong effect upon an illness, whether this way or that way. Therefore, this is no comparison at all to all matters of vestot, for this is an illness and not a vest, and we must be concerned for everything that the intellect necessitates. [And the Chavot Daat there disagrees with the Shach and holds that relations is a bodily vest, and his words are perplexing. And according to what I wrote, it is understood why the Beit Yosef changed from the source of the law that he brought in the Beit Yosef in the name of the Hagahot Maimoniot, for there it is written that she saw on the second night of her immersion, and he wrote "on the night of her immersion." And there are those who wished to emend also in the Shulchan Aruch like the name, as the Ba'er Heitev wrote in subsection 24 and the Pitchei Teshuvah in subsection 39. But according to our words, he changed this intentionally. And even though it is possible that the law is the same, nevertheless "on the night of her immersion" is more appropriate according to the reason we explained. And also the Sidrei Taharah was troubled by this in subsection 23, see there, and according to what I wrote it is settled; and delve into it.]

However, regarding that which he wrote, if she saw one time or two times on the night of her immersion, how is "two times" found? For from the first seeing she is forbidden. There is one who says that in truth the intention is when he transgressed and cohabited [Chavat Da'at, subsection 46], but it does not imply so, for if so, he should have explained it so. And for what does he need this at all? For if it is because of the novelty that even with two times one need not be concerned except for one time, this is a simple matter. Therefore, it appears to me that this is the explanation: for example, that the first time she saw due to cohabitation after her immersion, and the second time she saw after her immersion without cohabitation. And it comes to teach us that even in such a case she must separate during the next immersion. For although because of the second immersion she would not have needed to separate, nevertheless, it is also not called an interruption such that she should not be concerned for the first time. On the contrary, if she saw without cohabitation, all the more so would she have seen through cohabitation, since the first time was through cohabitation, and we say that the blood hastened to come.

And know that there is one who wishes to say that if she saw blood due to tashmish three times on the night of her tevilah, she is permitted to engage in tashmish afterwards on the second night after her tevilah, and we say that the tevilah caused it [Minchat Yaakov]. And Heaven forbid to say so, for if they spoke to be stringent because of the tevilah, would they speak to be lenient [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 23]? And it is a simple matter that the concern regarding tevilah is only on the night of her tevilah or on the following day, but on the third day, and certainly further than this, it is not related to the tevilah [Chavat Daat]. And there is one who wishes to say that on the night of tevilah, even if she did not see during the time of tashmish but rather after the tashmish, she must also be concerned due to the law of vestot [ibid.]. And in my humble opinion, this does not appear so from the words of the poskim, and this is not exactly similar to a veset as we have explained; specifically if she saw during the time of tashmish she must be concerned one time, and for the final law, it requires further study.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, further wrote in section 11: A woman who saw blood due to tashmish, and after half a year saw again due to tashmish, is permitted to her husband, for she has not established it with three equal vestot nor with a skipping pattern. However, she is apprehensive for the last one one time, and when half a year arrives from the day of the last seeing of blood, she is forbidden for one onah. And if she established a vaset for seeing blood due to tashmish three times as an equal vaset, she is permitted to engage in tashmish between vaset and vaset, but at the time of the vaset she separates until it is uprooted three times. Thus far his words. And this is exactly like the explanation of Rashi on "And if she has a vaset, she attributes it to her vaset." And the wording is not precise in what he said, "permitted to her husband, for she has not established etc.," for it is difficult: is it to say that if she established it she is forbidden to her husband? And if his intention is that she is permitted entirely even at the time of the vaset, behold he concludes that she is apprehensive one time for the last one, for this is a vaset of haflaga, as the first is not of the count, as I wrote in siman 189.

And it appears to me that he has informed us of a great matter in this, that a veset resulting from tashmish is not similar to all other vesetot in all matters except when it has been established three times, as we will explain with the help of Heaven. For behold, in the previous section, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that if she saw one time after her immersion, when the next immersion arrives she must separate on the night of her immersion, but on the night of the third immersion she does not need to separate. And it is difficult: why does she not need to separate on the night of the third immersion? Behold, there is no proof from the fact that she did not see on the night of the second immersion since she did not engage in tashmish. Rather, it is certainly that as long as she has not been established in seeing due to tashmish three times, we do not concern ourselves with the tashmish at all, but rather with the other matter that was with the tashmish, which is the mikveh, and we take that as the primary factor. Therefore, when she did not see the second time, even if she did not engage in tashmish, the veset is uprooted by this. And as he wrote in section 78 regarding the opposite case, that if at the second immersion she saw not due to tashmish, she is also forbidden at the third immersion because of the seeing that occurred at the time of tashmish the first time; see there. And the reason is entirely based on the foundation we have laid, that seeing due to tashmish is an illness and not a veset, and only when established three times is it necessary to forbid her.

And this itself he informs us in this section regarding the veset of intervals, for example, if she saw due to tashmish and after half a year she also saw due to tashmish, she is only concerned for the time alone; that is to say, when the half year arrives, she is forbidden during that season, and if she did not see then, she is completely permitted. For if we were to consider the tashmish as a type of veset, then there is no proof from the fact that she did not see after the last half year since she did not engage in tashmish; rather, we are not concerned for it at all. And this is why it says "she is permitted to her husband," meaning that after she is concerned for the time once and does not see, she is completely permitted. And so that you should not say that even with three times the law is so, for this he concludes: "And if she established a veset three times, she is permitted between veset and veset, but during the days of the veset she must separate until it is uprooted three times." That is to say, during the days of the veset she is forbidden forever, and even if three times pass and she does not see, nevertheless, when the time arrives she shall be forbidden, for she is forbidden at this time until it is uprooted three times, similar to one who saw three times, and that is through tashmish. And this cannot be found unless she transgressed and engaged in tashmish three times and did not see, for then it is completely uprooted; but without this, she is forbidden forever. For this veset that is due to tashmish does not have the law of a veset except with three times, as I have written. [And perhaps this is the intention of the Shach in subsection 34, and the Chavot Da'at in subsection 21 struggled with his words, see there and examine carefully].

Some say that regarding this veset of haflagah that has been explained, she also concerns herself with the veset of the month; that is to say, when she saw a second time due to tashmish after half a year, and this day was the 15th of Nisan, she concerns herself with the 15th of Iyar. And if she did not see then, she concerns herself with the veset of haflagah of half a year. And if she saw on the 15th of Iyar, she concerns herself with the 15th of Sivan, and the veset of haflagah is uprooted according to the laws that will be explained in siman 189. And so too, anyone who sees due to tashmish, even the first time, must concern herself with the veset of the month [Shach, subsection 35]. But regarding tashmish, she does not concern herself at all, for this came through an ones [ibid.]. And it must be said that we are dealing with one who has a veset, and the veset is either less than thirty to thirty days or more, for regarding this he said that she must concern herself from month to month; that is to say, until the time of the previous veset arrives and nullifies it, as written in siman 189. For if she does not have a veset, then even without this she must concern herself with the onah beinonit, which is from thirty to thirty. And so too, if she has a veset and the veset is from thirty to thirty like the way of most women, also without this she must concern herself with this day. Rather, it is certainly as we said, or even if the veset is from thirty to thirty, nevertheless the time of her veset is on another day, not on the 15th of the month, and therefore now she must concern herself with this day until the previous veset nullifies it [and with this all the difficulties of the Pleiti are settled, see there and examine carefully].

However, in my humble opinion, regarding the core matter that one who sees blood due to tashmish must also be concerned for the days of the month, this is not implied by any of the Rishonim. For if it were not so, in the Gemara and the poskim who wrote that one who sees blood due to tashmish may engage in tashmish a first, second, and third time, they should have clarified that she must be concerned for the time of the month. Rather, it is certain that the matter of seeing blood due to tashmish is unrelated to the general rules of vestot, for this is not a vest but rather an illness, as I have written. And that which we are concerned for a vest ha-haflagah, there is another reason for this: since we see that from this affliction from the first time onward she did not find blood until a distant time, and at that distance of time she saw again, in this case it is certainly appropriate to be concerned that perhaps the time is a factor. But in an ordinary case, we are not concerned for the time, and therefore the poskim did not mention anything of this [so it appears in my humble opinion].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 10 regarding the ruling of the author concerning one who sees blood on the night of her immersion, and this is his wording: And if she saw three times, each time during the first cohabitation after her immersion, she is forbidden to her husband as if she saw three consecutive times, for it is impossible for her to immerse and cohabit with him, since she sees every time after her immersion. Thus far his words. And his words are not understood at all; what is this that he says, "as if she saw three consecutive times," which implies that here they are not consecutive? But perforce they are consecutive, since she saw on the night of her immersion and he separated from her, and afterwards on the second night of immersion she also saw, and likewise on the third, and behold they are consecutive. And there is one who explained that this is what he means: as if she saw three consecutive times without immersion [Shach, subsection 30]; meaning, certainly here too they are consecutive, but because here all the sightings were on the night of immersion, I might have said that even though she saw three times on the nights of immersion, nevertheless she is only forbidden on the nights of immersion and afterwards she is permitted—as indeed there are some of the great authorities who hold so, as I wrote in section 79—to this he informs us that it is not so, for this is like three consecutive times without the night of immersions, such that she is forbidden to this [husband] forever, or until she performs an examination with a tube according to the method of the Tosafot in section 17, see there. [This appears to be the intention of the Shach and these are clear matters, and so it appears in the Sidrei Taharah, subsection 17, and such is the primary ruling; and the Pleiti in Tiferet Yisrael, subsection 14, exerted himself to uphold the words of the Minchat Yaakov according to the words of the Maor in the book Ba'al HaNefesh, and I wonder: even if it were so, is he not a lone opinion against all the Rishonim who did not see fit to write so? Therefore, the primary ruling is for prohibition as I wrote in section 79, and Heaven forbid one should be lenient in this, and delve into this.]

And there is one from whose words it is implied, for example, if she saw due to tashmish on the night of her tevilah, and afterwards on the second tevilah he separated from her on the night of her tevilah as has been explained, and afterwards on the third tevilah she engaged in tashmish on the night of her tevilah and saw, and afterwards on the fourth he separated from her on the night of her tevilah, and afterwards on the fifth she engaged in tashmish on the night of her tevilah and saw, it is as if she saw three consecutive times. Even though here there were permitted acts of tashmish in between—namely the acts of cohabitation that occurred not on the nights of the tevilot—nevertheless, since she saw three times on the nights of the tevilot, it is as if they were consecutive and she is forbidden forever [as is implied from the Be'er HaGolah and from the Taz, subsection 14]. But the great authorities did not agree to forbid her forever when there were permitted acts of cohabitation in between [Kereiti U-Pleiti subsection 10, and there are those who agreed to this, and the law requires further study]. And there is one who explained, for example, that he had cohabitation with her three times in one night and in the morning she found blood on all the edim [ibid. in the name of the Emek Sheilah]. But the main point is according to the first explanation, and thus the great authorities agreed [ibid. and the Chavot Da'at].

Our teacher, the Rema, further wrote: And if it happened to her that she saw three times during the first cohabitation after her birth, or she saw after every birth three times and in between she did not see, there are those who wrote to be lenient to permit her to her husband, for we attribute the seeing to her weakness still from the wound of her birth, as the sides were struck by the force of the birth, and therefore she sees close to the birth and not afterward; and we attribute it to the birth just as we attribute it to a wound. And all this is if she already transgressed and cohabited between the first births, such that permitted cohabitations were established after prohibited cohabitations. But if she saw three consecutive times after birth, we do not attribute it to the birth, but rather she requires an examination with a tube. However, in any place where she requires an examination, if she transgressed and cohabited and did not see, she is permitted, for this cohabitation in which she did not see is superior to the examination with a tube. Thus far his words.

And many things were said regarding this, and there are those who wished to emend his words [see Turei Zahav subsection 46 and Shach subsection 31]. And the clearest among them is that this is the explanation: If she saw three times during the first intercourse after her childbirth—meaning that she gave birth, became pure, and saw due to intercourse, etc.—and in the second birth she saw after intercourse, and similarly in the third birth, and in the interim she did not see—meaning that in each birth after the first time she did not see any more until the second birth, and similarly from the second to the third—for in this case all the intercourses were permitted. Since she only saw one time after the birth, we do not say that she must be divorced after the third birth, such that there is no intercourse after the fourth birth because she is established to see the first time after birth. We do not say this because since in the interim there were permitted intercourses, we attribute all three sightings to her weakness, and we say that now in the fourth birth the weakness has ceased like the way of all women. And that which he wrote that we attribute it to the birth in the same way we attribute it to a wound is not precise; or it is possible that even if she sees also in the fourth after birth, we are not concerned by it, for we attribute it to the circumstances in the same way we attribute it to a wound, and now it is like an actual wound. And so it appears primary.

And it further says, or if she saw after every birth three consecutive times and in between she did not see, meaning that after every birth she saw three consecutive times and in between she transgressed and had relations in prohibition; however, since in any event she did not see, she is also permitted to her husband. Even though she established a chazakah three times and in three births, nevertheless, since in any event she had relations—granted it was in prohibition, for it was forbidden for her to have relations—nonetheless, it was revealed that everything is due to the sides being struck because of the birth. And regarding this it says, and all this is if she transgressed and had relations, and it refers to this clause; for in the first clause, she indeed had relations in a permitted manner, as I wrote in the previous section. And the law is the same that he could have depicted this case in one birth, since she saw three times after the birth and transgressed and had relations and did not see, that she is permitted in the second birth; rather, he informs us of a greater novelty, that even three times in three births the law is also thus. And for this it says, but if she saw three times etc., meaning but if she saw three times after the birth and did not transgress and have relations and came to ask, we prohibit her and require her to have a check with a tube as in a case without birth, and we do not attribute it on our own to the sides being struck when there were no permitted acts of relations in between. And afterwards it says, however, any place that she requires etc., meaning that this provides a general rule for everything for which we required in this siman a check with a tube after three times: if she transgressed and had relations and did not see, it is like a check with a tube and even better than it. [So it appears to me to explain according to the words of the Shach in Nekudot HaKesef, who retracted what he wrote in Shach subsection 31, that the first clause also deals with three consecutive times; for if so, the first clause and the final clause are one and the same thing, and furthermore, it should have said that she saw three times in the first acts of relations and not in the first act of relations, and delve into this.]

It appears to me that it is a simple matter that if she saw three consecutive times after childbirth and did not pass and engage in relations, that if they examined her and found that her sides were struck due to childbirth, it is like a makkah and we attribute it to this. And it is possible that in this everyone agrees that we require knowledge that this damage emits blood; and even those who hold regarding a makkah that one does not need to know, and we attribute it to emitting blood by default, perhaps this is not similar to a makkah, for specifically when she engaged in relations and did not see blood do we see proven evidence that the blood is from the sides, and not by a mere observation that the sides were struck. This requires further study for the law.

One who sees blood due to tashmish three times, it is forbidden to keep her even if he does not wish to have relations with her, for we fear lest he have relations with her, unless he wishes to keep her by means of a third party and he will not go to her except with witnesses. And when they have separated from one another, meaning that he does not dwell in her vicinity, he does not need witnesses, for you have no witnesses greater than this, that they are distant. And if he has not yet fulfilled the commandment of pru u'rvu, he is obligated to divorce her and take another, or to perform for her a test with a tube and perhaps it will turn out well. And such is the law for any woman who is unable to become tahar for her husband, such as a woman who has blows and wounds such that she cannot immerse, she must leave from under her husband so that he will not be nullified from pru u'rvu. And in this time, when it is forbidden to divorce against her will and she does not wish to receive a get, he shall make an allowance by means of one hundred rabbis and with the permission of the government and take another, as is written in Even HaEzer siman 1.

Regarding a virgin, as long as the hymeneal blood has not ceased, the law of one who sees blood due to tashmish does not apply, for it is all from hymeneal blood, whether she is an adult or a minor. Therefore, one who has relations with a virgin several times and she saw blood due to tashmish, we always presume that it is hymeneal blood until she has relations one time with a complete cohabitation and does not see blood, for this is proof that her hymeneal blood has finished. Then, if she afterwards sees blood three times due to tashmish, she is established as one who sees blood due to tashmish. And if he did not have a complete cohabitation, there is no proof, as is understood. From the words of the Rambam, chapter 8, law 21, it is explained that for more than a year one does not attribute it to hymeneal blood; see there. And there are some of the great authorities who questioned the essence of this law when she is an adult after the time of her maturity, to attribute it for a long time to hymeneal blood unless she has pain; but ordinarily, it is difficult to say that it is all hymeneal blood, and five or six times is sufficient and no more. And it requires further study for the practical law.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even if she did not cease from seeing [blood] one time, if she has no pain at all during the time of tashmish, she is like all other women and we do not attribute it to blood of betulim. Thus far his words. And there is one who disagrees with him, but many of the great authorities agreed with his words, for as long as she has no pain, we do not attribute it for a long time to blood of betulim [and so wrote the Taz in subsection 17 and the Shach in subsection 37]. And he further wrote that one from whom blood issued through the urinary tract and he had tashmish with the woman, she attributes it to him. Thus far his words. And it is simple, and it will be further explained in this with the help of Heaven in siman 190. And know that a woman who claims that she is still a betulah and her blood is from blood of betulim is believed, for the Torah believed her in everything she says. Therefore, even if she married as a divorcee or a widow and says that the first [husband] did not have the strength of men or the like, in a manner that she is still a betulah and the bloods are blood of betulim, she is believed.