Siman 188

The sages taught in the Mishnah [19a]: Five types of blood are impure in a woman: the red, and the black, and like the bright crocus, and like earthy water, and like diluted wine; see there. For from the Torah, not all types of blood are impure, as it is written: "If a matter of judgment is hidden from you, between blood and blood," etc., meaning, between impure blood and pure blood. And from the Torah, nothing is impure except these five appearances which are very red, for even black is red, but it was stricken and spoiled and turned to blackness. And also, not every black is impure from the Torah, but rather that which is deep in blackness like ink, as will be explained. And these four are all red and differ in their redness.

The red, what is its appearance? It is like the first stream that emerges from the bloodletting of humans, and not the bloodletting of animals. And how does he compare them to one another? He places the blood in a cup and brings her blood close to the blood of the bloodletting in the cup and examines it. And the black is like dry ink. And like the tip of a crocus, how so? He brings a moist crocus in the clod of earth that is upon it, and takes from the clearest part of it, which is its middle stalk, for it is entirely like a stalk; and in each and every one there are three stalks, and in each stalk there are three leaves. And he brings the blood close to the middle leaf of the middle stalk and examines it and compares them to one another. And like earthy water, how so? He brings red earth—and in the time of the Gemara this was in the valley called Sikhni—and places water upon the earth. The earth should be in a vessel, and he places water upon it until the water rises above the dust like the thickness of a garlic peel. There is no measure for how much water and how much dust, rather as we have said. And he stirs the water with the dust while they are in the vessel, and compares the blood to this specifically when they are turbid; and if they became clear, he stirs them again.

All these appearances, if the appearance of the blood was like one of these, and all the more so if it was deeper than them, meaning more red, she is impure. If it was duller than them, meaning not as red as them, she is pure. And so too regarding black: if the blood was even more black than dry ink, she is impure; if it was duller than it, such as if it was like a black olive, or like the appearance of pitch, or like the appearance of a raven, she is pure. And this applies to these four appearances, but regarding the appearance of diluted wine, there is a different law: specifically like this appearance she is impure, but not like this appearance, even if it is deeper than it, she is pure. And what is like diluted wine? One part wine from the Sharon wine of the Land of Israel, raw and new, and two parts water. And that which says even if it is deeper than it she is pure, this refers to where the redness did not reach the level of the three types of red that have been explained; but if it reached one of them, she is impure [Rashi 20a, s.v. "deeper"].

And there is a question regarding this: behold, all four types of blood are red, only that this one is superior to that one. And as it appears from the wording of the Mishnah, blood from bloodletting is the first level and diluted is the last; if so, let it say "anything from diluted and above is tamei." And the Gemara asks similarly in Shevuot [10a] regarding the four appearances of negaim: "and let them say from the membrane of an egg and above is tamei," see there. And there the Gemara answers: "to tell you that anyone who is not expert in them and in their names may not examine the negaim," see there. And here too, it is possible to say so, that any sage who is not expert in them and in their names may not examine the bloods; for indeed, several of the sages of the Gemara were not experts in bloods, and for this reason, nowadays every appearance of redness is tamei, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. [And that which we questioned, that it should say "anything from diluted and above," is not such a difficulty, for in diluted, even that which is deeper than this is tahor, as I have written; but it could have said "anything from earthy water and above is tamei"].

It seems more correct to me to say that all these types of blood are entirely distinct levels from one another; meaning, not that this one is more deeply red than that one, but rather that it is an entirely different type of redness and they are not related to one another at all. And you should know that this is so, for if it were not so, behold we maintain that regarding all three types, if it is paler than this, it is pure. And if we say that they are all one level, only that this one is deeper than that one, if so, regarding the blood of bloodletting, why is it pure when it is paler than this? Let it be like the second or third level. Rather, it is certain that they are not of one type at all. And there is further proof from that which we maintain regarding the "mixed" color, that even if it is deeper than this, it is pure. And ostensibly this is against logic, for why should a deeper red be worse than one that is not as red? Rather, it is certain that the tradition was received thus, since it is written "her bloods, her bloods" twice, as is explained there in the Gemara, and they learned from this that there are four types of blood, and all of them are distinct types. And the tradition was received that regarding three of them, if it is paler than this, it is pure; and even though it is possible that in the essence of the redness it is still redder than the one below it, nevertheless, in this type of redness it is pure when it is paler. And regarding the "mixed" color, the tradition was received that specifically like this appearance it is impure, and not like another appearance, even if it is deeper than it [so it appears to me].

And I found a proof for our words from the Yerushalmi at the end of the second chapter of Niddah, and this is its wording: Shmuel said, anyone who does not know how to see pure bloods should not see impure bloods. Rav said, until he is expert in them and in their names. The words of Rabbi Yochanan said so: All pure bloods I know and all impure bloods I know; if it is the pure within the red, it is the impure within the "earthy water." One who does not know this does not know how to see, etc. Thus far its words. And this is the explanation: that Shmuel said that you should not say that the definition of pure and impure is only one definition in the quality of the redness, for which great expertise would not be required, but rather there are many types in this and many definitions in this, and therefore if he does not know the definitions of the pure ones, it follows that he does not know the definitions of the impure ones. And Rav said he must be expert in the five types of blood, in them and in their names, to know the definition of each one in its quality, and this is sufficient. And Rabbi Yochanan said that he is expert in both of them, and he is also expert that the pure which is of the first degree—meaning that it is fainter than the blood of a wound—is at the degree of redness that is in "earthy water," and nevertheless it is pure because this is a different type of redness, and in this type it is not impure except like the blood of a wound; and consequently, one who does not know this should not see bloods, lest he come to declare the pure impure. And this is exactly like our words. [And it appears to me that this is the intention of Rashi on page 20 in "diluted" in the heading beginning "deeper than this is pure": "if it is from that appearance," etc. Thus far his words. Meaning, if it is from the definition of this appearance, but from another definition it is impure in this appearance. And this is what he said: "but if it reddened greatly until it came into the category of one of the other appearances," etc. Thus far his words. And his intention is as I have written; see there and examine it closely.]

All the poskim wrote that now, due to our many sins, the hearts have diminished and we do not have the capacity to distinguish between one blood and another. Behold, even in the time of the sages of the Talmud, there were some sages who refrained from inspecting blood, as is explained in the Gemara at the end of the second chapter. All the more so nowadays, one should not declare pure any blood that tends toward a reddish appearance, as the Tur wrote. This is his wording: And nowadays, since expertise has diminished, they have returned to declaring impure anything that has a red appearance, whether it is very pale or deep, and likewise any black appearance. Nothing is pure except for two appearances, which are white and green—whether green like a leek or yellow like gold—even if it has the consistency of blood and is very thick. Thus far his words. And within "leek-green" are included two appearances that we call "green" and "blue," as we explained above in siman 38, section 10; see there. And "yellow like gold" is the appearance called "gelb," and the same law applies if it is like the appearance of wax, or an etrog, or the yolk of an egg [Shach, subsection 4]. There are some of the great authorities who wish to be stringent regarding the appearance of gold because it tends slightly toward redness, but this is not the primary view; one who wishes to be stringent may be stringent for himself but not for others, and all the later authorities omitted this matter [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 2]. And it is true that for a teacher whose eye is not keen and who is not expert in appearances, it is difficult for him to separate one from the other; however, one whose eye is keen and is expert in appearances can easily separate one from the other, and so one should rule.

And know that there is found regarding this matter a wondrous thing by one of the early authorities concerning that which they said in the Gemara at the beginning of the chapter "One may not stand," that the daughters of Israel took a stringency upon themselves that even if they see a drop of blood like a mustard seed, they sit for seven clean days. It is written in the commentary of the Ri on the Rif there in this wording: Some explain that the stringency was because the appearance of the blood was like the color of mustard; but this does not seem correct, for what stringency is this? For this is according to the law, as we explicitly maintain in tractate Niddah that blood like the appearance of mustard is impure, etc. Thus far his words. And besides the fact that this is not found in the entire tractate Niddah—for that which we learned in the Mishnah at the beginning of the chapter "One who comes forth through the side," that they are impure with any amount, even like a mustard seed and less than this, see there, it is not speaking regarding the appearance, but rather regarding the smallness of the quantity, as is explained; and furthermore, its primary teaching there is regarding a zav and one who had a seminal emission, see there—and aside from this, mustard is a yellow appearance, for mustard is what we call "senf." And they have already wondered at these words [the Ma'adanei Yom Tov there and in Niddah at the end of the second chapter and in Tinokot]. Therefore, not one of the poskim brought them, and certainly these words did not emerge from the mouth of an early Gaon [unless the mustard in his place was black or red, for there are two types of mustard, as we learned in the first chapter of Kilayim: mustard and Egyptian mustard].

One of the great authorities wrote that he found it written that blood that tends toward the color "brown," which is like the color of chestnut shells and the beverage "coffee," is tahor, and it goes without saying regarding a ketem, because it does not tend toward redness but rather toward blackness, and we have already learned: lighter than this is tahor [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 1]. And behold, it is certain that his intention is not to bring a complete proof from the Mishnah, for we are not experts in distinguishing between one appearance and another; and even though the essentials of the matter are regarding the appearance of red, because there are several gradations in red, nevertheless, from the language of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch it is implied that even regarding black we do not differentiate. However, their intention is as follows: behold, in the Mishnah we learned "black like ink," and they said in the Gemara [20a] "like an olive, like pitch, and like a raven is tahor," see there. And even though there is total blackness in them, nevertheless they are not like ink. And behold, in this we are certainly not experts now, and this is the intention of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. But that which tends toward the color "brown," which is not of their species at all and only tends slightly toward blackness, it is obvious that we should not be stringent without cause. And the intention of "he found it written" is as follows: "and we have already learned: lighter than this is tahor," meaning that only that which is lighter than ink is tahor according to the law, even if it is like an olive, like pitch, or like a raven. And granted that in this one should be stringent now, nevertheless regarding the color "brown," Heaven forbid to be stringent [as mentioned above, and with this all that was scrutinized in this matter is settled, and so one should rule].

A white appearance is pure even if it is not completely white, but rather like the appearance of a white garment upon which dust has fallen, such that its whiteness has been dimmed, it is pure [Beit Yosef and Shach subsection 2], and thus all poskim have practiced [ibid.]. And so too, the teacher must understand that sometimes when she checks with a soiled garment, the appearance seems like black; therefore, one must be precise to see if the blackness is in its essence or because of dirt and the like.

And know that in Megillah [14a] it is stated simply that one does not examine blood at night, and in Niddah at the end of the second chapter it is stated that one examines the blood specifically between the sun and the shadow of his hand, meaning he places his hand opposite the sun over the blood and creates a shadow, for in this manner the appearance is clear without error. And all the poskim did not mention this at all, and the reason is that specifically in their days, when they would distinguish between one blood and another, it was impossible to see at night; but nowadays, when every red appearance is forbidden and only white and green are kosher, there is no difference between night and day [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 1]. And proof for this is from Rashi in Megillah there, who wrote: "And does one show blood at night to see if it is tamei or tahor? Does one not need to distinguish its appearance, if it is from the five types of blood that are tamei in a woman?" Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that specifically for distinguishing between red and red, one specifically requires day.

And it is still not understood, for in Niddah there it is stated: Rabbi saw blood at night and declared it tamei; he saw it during the day and declared it tahor; he waited one hour, and again declared it tamei. And the Gemara explains there that at first he held it to be tamei when he saw it at night, and since he saw in the morning that it had changed, he said it was certainly tahor and it was at night that it was not seen well; since he saw that it changed back, he said this is tamei and it is merely fading, meaning its red appearance is passing away, see there. And it is difficult, for in the days of Rabbi they still distinguished between blood and blood, and how did Rabbi see at night? And it seems to me that Rabbi holds that this which we say, that one does not see at night, this is by the light of the moon, but by the light of a candle it is like the day. And a proof for this is from that which we say there: Rabbi examined by the light of a candle, see there. And this is the explanation: that even though one does not see blood at night, nevertheless by the light of a candle it is fine. And in Megillah there, it was regarding the incident of Abigail when she encountered David on the road, see there, and it was by the light of the moon and not by the light of a candle [see Sma, Choshen Mishpat siman 5, end of subsection 7, and it is a proof for our words, and delve into it].

And behold, even though it is explained from here that when the blood dries its redness diminishes, nevertheless it is stated there in the Gemara that the sage should not say, "If it were moist, it would certainly have been tamei," but rather a judge has only what his eyes see. And Rabbi, who was exacting in this, did so because he had seen it initially and declared it tamei; if so, he necessarily had to be exacting in this. But where he did not see it while it was moist and it did not appear to him as tamei, a judge has only what his eyes see [Rashi].

And from this I wonder at one of the poskim who wrote that when a white or green appearance comes before the teacher, he should not rule until it dries, for sometimes after it dries, red will be found at its edges [Bach]. And these are astonishing words, for on the contrary, from the Shas that we brought it is clear that as much as it dries, its redness diminishes. And so it is explicit in the Yerushalmi of Niddah at the end of the second chapter, that as much as it dries, its appearance fades; see there. And besides this, the poskim challenged him, for they explicitly said that a judge has only what his eyes see, and they rejected this law [Shach subsection 3 and Taz subsection 8]. And there are those who wished to uphold his words, but it is not the primary view. And besides this, one of the great ones challenged him, for the primary matter depends on how its appearance was at the time of its exit from the body [Chavat Da'at subsection 1 in the name of the Chacham Tzvi].

Behold, the reasoning of the one who is stringent in this matter appears to be because, ultimately, do our eyes not see that after some time it appears like red at the edges? And indeed, we have seen this several times. However, even this is well-settled, for it is understood that according to nature every moist thing has a slight movement until it dries completely. According to this, all the spread-out appearance—some of it was pushed against the other until the edges, and it turns out that at the edges all the depths of the moisture that were across its entire surface were joined together. Therefore, throughout the entire span its appearance faded, and at the edges they all joined and turned into a different appearance. However, in any event, this is not the primary appearance, but rather a collection from various places. For example, if we were to return and spread it out across its entire surface, the redness would not be seen at all; if so, why should we declare it tamei? And there is one who wrote the reason that the change of the air with the garment caused it to turn red [Sidrei Taharah], but it does not appear so, for if so, why did it cause it only at the edges? Rather, the primary reason is as I have written. [And according to the words of the Chakham Tzevi that we wrote, even this is not necessary, for the primary matter depends on the time of its exit from the body; however, we required this for those who disagree with this, for the Shevut Yaakov disagrees with the Chakham Tzevi as written in the Sidrei Taharah there. And according to what I have written, it is well-settled even without the words of the Chakham Tzevi. And delve into this.]

There is one who wrote that if the posek saw it at night and it appeared to him to be tamei, and he left it until the light of day and saw that it was tahor, we hang the matter on the lenient side to say that it was not seen well by him at night [Givat Shaul end of siman 63]. But this is not clear to me at all, for behold, in the Gemara it explains the opposite regarding the incident of Rabbi, and we say that its drying dimmed its appearance. Furthermore, behold we have clarified that by the light of a candle it is like the daytime. Therefore, it seems to me like what one of the great ones wrote [Sidrei Taharah subsection 90 and 93] that if he was in doubt at night he may rule it tahor during the day, but if at night it appeared to him as forbidden, it is impossible to permit it. And such is the primary ruling. And certainly even now it is proper to see specifically during the day, for several times I have seen through the senses that the appearance during the day is not similar to the appearance at night; however, in a case of necessity, he may see at night and rule according to what his eyes see.

There is furthermore one who wrote that a woman who saw a thick white appearance after she bathed in a bathhouse for two or three hours is impure, for it is the way of blood to become white after bathing [Bach]. These are astonishing words, as no hint of this is found in the Gemara or the poskim, and one who is stringent should be stringent for himself but should not rule thus for others [Taz, subsection 1]. The essence of the matter is astonishing, for even if it were so, nevertheless, ultimately when the blood exited the body it was pure. Did the Torah command us to investigate how the blood was prior to its exit from the body? For there are certainly many substances that, when eaten, cause a change in the body, and according to this we would need to be exacting regarding what she ate and what she drank beforehand. Rather, it is certain that we have nothing other than what our eyes see.

There is one who wishes to say that other colors which are neither in the category of pure nor in the category of impure—which depends on the dispute in siman 38 regarding the lung in such a case—here too one should certainly be stringent [Yad Shaul]. And it appears to me that this is not so; on the contrary, even according to the one who is stringent there, here he would admit [it is pure]. For the reason of the one who is stringent there is because the Gemara there enumerates the kosher colors, and he holds that it is specifically those, as I wrote there in section 15. But here, the Mishnah enumerated only the forbidden colors. Furthermore, there we decided to rule leniently; see there. Moreover, regarding the essence of the matter, there is no reason for this, for we disqualify anything that tends toward redness, so what further stringency should we apply? Consequently, anything that is not of a red or black appearance, whatever color it may be, is certainly pure.

And know that in all these matters there is no distinction between ketamim and an actual seeing of blood, even with a sensation. And it is simple that regarding an actual discharge of blood, the posek must be more exacting, and in a slight doubt one should be stringent regarding an actual seeing, which is from the Torah, and not regarding ketamim, which are rabbinic, for a doubt regarding a Torah law is for stringency and a doubt regarding a rabbinic law is for leniency. And if the doubt arises from a lack of knowledge, it is not a doubt, and one must be stringent, as is explained in siman 110 in the rules of double doubt, that any doubt from a lack of knowledge is not within the category of doubt; rather, if the doubt is for another reason, then one should be stringent regarding a seeing and lenient regarding ketamim [as mentioned above].

This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 1: And nothing is pure except for a white appearance, etc., and even if it has the thickness of blood and it is with much, and even if she felt that her womb opened and she examined immediately [so that she does not delay the duration of an examination in the holes and crevices, as is written in siman 190] and she found these appearances, she is pure. And such is the primary ruling, not like those who are stringent to declare her impure if it has thickness and it is thick. And if she felt that her womb opened and she found nothing, see above siman 190. Thus far their words. Meaning, even though when she found nothing we are stringent, this is because we say that certainly every sensation discharges something, and since she found nothing, there is a concern that she saw a small drop and it was lost; this is not the case when she saw pure fluids, where there is no place at all to be stringent. [The "those who are stringent" is the Terumat HaDeshen siman 246, and he explained the reason is because of those who err, see there, and these are things that have no measure] (according to the Pitchei Teshuva subsection 5 and it will be explained in siman 190):

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: A woman is believed to say, "I saw one like this and I lost it," and if it is a white or green appearance, it is tahor. But if they brought blood before us and we established it as tamei, or even if we were in doubt whether it is tamei or tahor, and she says, "Such-and-such a chacham ruled it tahor for me in a similar case," we do not rely upon her. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matter is that since the Torah believed her, as written in siman 185, and she is believed to say, "Such-and-such a chacham ruled this ketem tahor for me," as written there, therefore when the blood she saw is lost, she is also believed to say that it was of this appearance. And we examine the blood that she compares to the blood she lost; if it is white or green, it is tahor. And we also do not presume that she is mistaken in the comparison of one to the other. All this is when we do not see the blood she saw. But when we see the blood and we are in doubt regarding it, she is not believed to say that a certain chacham ruled one like this tahor for her. This is not because of a challenge to her credibility, but rather that we do not rely upon her understanding when there is a doubt before us, and certainly if we establish it as tamei. Similarly, a woman who is in doubt regarding her blood should not rely upon her friend who says, "Such-and-such a chacham ruled blood like this tahor for me" (Rashi, end of chapter 2), for as long as the blood is before us, it is forbidden to rely on such matters, and she is obligated to show it to a chacham (ibid.).

Just as in all laws of prohibited and permitted matters a sage may rule for himself, and we do not consider that when the matter concerns himself he will be lenient in this, Heaven forbid, so too may a sage examine his wife's blood and declare her pure or impure [Tosafot ibid.]. There is one who says that this is specifically when she stands in days of purity, but a ruling for permission when she is in a state of presumed impurity is forbidden for him to rule. For this reason, it is forbidden for a sage to rule for his wife regarding the law of immersion, for then she stands in a state of presumed prohibition [Chachmat Adam, Klal 95]. This is built upon the foundation that we wrote in siman 18, section 48, that some hold this way, see there. However, we have already explained there that all of our teachers do not hold this way, and every person is trusted regarding his own matters for himself even where there is a presumption of prohibition, and only regarding a firstborn is the law so, see there. Therefore, the sage may rule in every matter for his wife [and now I have seen that the Pri Chadash wrote so in the Shach, subsection 7, see there, and such is the primary ruling]:

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 3, wrote the law of the falling of the womb. And since the dispute has increased regarding this law, and in these generations and also in several generations before us, because of the weakness of the women, this matter is very common, and many of the greats of the generations have written at length in responsa, this one forbidding and that one permitting, and the matter touches upon the prohibition of karet, therefore it is necessary to explain this law at some length with the help of Heaven:

It is stated in the Gemara [21b]: One who sees blood in a tube—meaning she inserted a hollow reed into that place and extracted blood from the source—is tahora by a scriptural decree, as it is said: "blood shall be her flow in her flesh," and not in a tube; for specifically when it flows in her flesh, such that it exited via the walls of the womb, is she teme'ah. But not when it exited via the tube, and since the tube intervened between the flesh of the walls of the womb and the blood, she is tahora, even though it is absolute blood and from the source. No one disputes this law, and all the poskim ruled accordingly.

And behold, at the beginning of the chapter [titled] HaMapelet, we learned: One who discharges a piece [of flesh], if there is blood with it, she is impure, and if not, she is pure. Rabbi Yehuda says: In either case, she is impure. And the Gemara concludes that they disagree regarding whether it is possible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood; for the Rabbanan hold that it is possible for the opening of the source to open without blood, and therefore they hold that specifically when there is blood on its own, aside from the piece, she is impure. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is impossible for the opening of the source to occur without blood, and therefore she is always impure because there was certainly blood with the piece. And behold, the Rambam in chapter 5 ruled like the Rabbanan, but all of our teachers ruled like Rabbi Yehuda, and so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And their reason is because further on [page 66] Rava ruled accordingly; see there.

Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work that this case of a tube refers to a very thin tube, such that this is not called opening of the womb, for only with a large piece is there opening of the womb and not with a small one. And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote at the end of this siman: if it is a small piece the size of the thinnest of thin reed tubes. Thus far his words. And the Tur wrote similarly, see there. And I wonder how this law is relevant here, for behold, in a tube there is much blood, and nevertheless the Torah purified it because it is not "in her flesh." If so, how is it relevant to say it is impossible for the womb to open without blood, for behold, the Torah purified this blood? Granted, regarding the Mishnah of one who discharges a piece where the blood is separate, it is certainly relevant to say so, for if it is impossible for the womb to open without blood, she is automatically a niddah. But in a tube where there is much blood and the Torah purified it, how is this reasoning relevant? And I found one of the great authorities who raised this difficulty and wrote that in truth, in the Shulchan Aruch he retracted this [Chavat Daat, subsection 4]. And the matter is true, for regarding the law of a tube, he did not mention in the Shulchan Aruch that it requires a thin tube; but nevertheless, at the end of this siman he did indeed write so, as did the Tur, as I have written.

And behold, the Gemara raised a difficulty against this matter of the tube from that which Rava said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: One who cleaves a piece [of flesh], if there is collected blood in it, she is impure; and if not, she is pure. And why is she impure? Let it be similar to a tube. And it answers: How can you compare them? There, it is the way of a woman to see blood in a piece [of flesh]; here, it is not the way of a woman to see blood in a tube. And Rashi explained: It is the way of a woman to see blood in a piece [of flesh], therefore we read regarding her "in her flesh," for like-kind with like-kind does not form an interposition. Thus far his words. And it is not understood at all, for since it is a scriptural decree that when there is an intervention she is not impure, and in a piece [of flesh] it is not called an intervention for the reason that like-kind with like-kind does not form an interposition, if so, why does the Gemara need to say that this is her way and this is not her way? Is it dependent on her way? Is it not a scriptural decree? And it should have said thus: that in a piece [of flesh] it is "in her flesh" because like-kind with like-kind does not form an interposition. And it must be said that it is explaining the reason for the verse, that therefore the Torah required "in her flesh" because such is the way of the woman, and in a tube it is not her way and in a piece [of flesh] it is her way. But if so, why did Rashi need to say for the reason that like-kind with like-kind does not form an interposition? For it would be sufficient that such is her way. And it must be said that for this reason, that it does not form an interposition, it is called "her way."

And afterward the Gemara says: Shall we say that the matter of a tube is a dispute between Tannaim? For it was taught in a Baraita: One who discharges a piece of flesh, even if it is full of blood, if there is blood with it she is tamei, and if not she is tahor. For Rabbi Eliezer says: "In her flesh" (Leviticus 15:19), and not in a gestational sac and not in a piece of flesh. And the Sages say: This is not niddah blood, but rather the blood of the piece of flesh. But does not the first Tanna also rule it tahor? Rather, the difference between them is when it is "pali peluyei" [that there are rows upon rows of cracks on the outside of the piece of flesh and the blood is there]. The first Tanna holds: "In her flesh," and not in a gestational sac and not in a piece of flesh, and the same applies to a tube; and these words apply where it is smooth [the piece of flesh, and the blood is inside the piece], but if it is "pali peluyei" she is tamei. What is the reason? We read regarding it "in her flesh." And the Sages come to say that even though it is "pali peluyei," this is not niddah blood but rather the blood of the piece of flesh; however, certain niddah blood is tamei even in a tube. And Rashi, of blessed memory, explained that the Sages do not derive this from the language of the verse, and the reason they rule it tahor is because it is not niddah blood; therefore, there is no difference whether it is inside it or whether it is "pali peluyei" that touches the womb, it is tahor; but a tube, which is niddah blood, is tamei, etc. Thus far his words. That is to say, the essence of their dispute is thus: that Rabbi Eliezer holds that the blood in the piece of flesh is complete blood, and only the Torah excluded it because we require "in her flesh," and therefore blood in a tube and blood inside the piece of flesh does not transmit tumah by a decree of the Verse because it does not touch her flesh, and therefore if it is "pali peluyei" so that it touches her flesh, she is tamei. And the Sages say: "This is not niddah blood," etc., meaning they respond to Rabbi Eliezer that the verse does not imply this at all, but rather there is no need for a verse for this at all, for behold this is not niddah blood at all but rather the blood of the piece of flesh, and consequently even in "pali peluyei" it is tahor and in a tube it is tamei [as mentioned above regarding the intent of Rashi, of blessed memory, and the difficulty of the Tosafot is answered, but one must align this with their answer, see there and examine it closely].

And Abaye pushed back, that regarding a tube everyone agrees that she is pure, meaning, not like your reasoning that the Rabbis do not hold of the exposition of "in her flesh," for they certainly hold of it, and from this we exclude a tube. When they disagree, it is regarding a piece: one Master holds it is the way of a woman to see blood in a piece, and one Master holds it is not the way of a woman to see blood in a piece. And Rashi explained: when they disagree regarding a piece, it is where it is split open, for the first Tanna holds "in her flesh" comes to exclude the inside of a piece, but blood seen in the cracks is impure, for behold we read "in her flesh" regarding it; and the latter Rabbis hold even if it is split open she is pure, for this is not niddah blood, as it is not the way of a woman to see blood in a piece. Thus far his words.

The Tosafot raised a difficulty against the explanation of Rashi, for above his explanation of "it is not her way to see" was regarding a tube, meaning that even though this is absolute niddah blood, it is merely not her way to see in that manner; whereas here, the explanation of "it is not her way to see" is that it is not her way to see blood within a piece [of flesh], for this is not blood at all. The Ramban, of blessed memory, likewise raised a difficulty. The Rashba, of blessed memory, answered in his novellae that we find many times in the Shas a single expression used for two differing intentions; see there. However, he raised other difficulties against this explanation: for if so, it should only have disagreed regarding one that is split, and it should have been taught thus: "One who discharges a piece filled with blood, if it has cracks, she is impure, etc., and the Sages say: this is not niddah blood, etc." And furthermore, another difficulty, for the language does not imply so; see there.

And in my humble opinion, it appears that here too the intent of Rashi is as in the case of the tube, and this is the explanation: that the Rabbis hold that this is not niddah blood that defiles, for even though it is complete blood, nevertheless the Torah excluded it because it is not the way of women to see in this manner. And in this they disagree: for Rabbi Eliezer holds that the exclusion of "in her flesh" is that the blood must touch the flesh of the walls of the womb, and consequently, in a case of spots where it touches the walls of the womb, she is impure. But the Rabbis hold that the exclusion of "in her flesh" is anything that is not in the manner of the seeing of all women, which would be only blood reaching the flesh of the walls of the womb and not another thing with the blood. And one should not ask: since it is by virtue of a scriptural decree, why is it necessary to say it is by virtue of the reason that it is not the way of a woman to see blood in a piece? For this is not a question, as even above regarding the tube they used this language, and as I wrote in section 27, that he is explaining the reason for the verse; see there. And that which Rashi wrote, that "this is not niddah blood," his intent is that this is not niddah blood whose impurity the Torah decreed [and as the Tosafot wrote according to their interpretation; see there].

And proof for this is that Rava disagrees with Abaye and says that everyone agrees it is not the way of a woman to see blood in a piece, and here etc., see there. And "everyone" refers to Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis; and Rabbi Eliezer explicitly says this from the derivation of "in her flesh," and nevertheless he uses this phrasing. Consequently, for the Rabbis it is also so, for he said it to them in a single phrasing [and so wrote the Sidrei Taharah in his novellae, see there]. And if so, why should we change the intent of Abaye according to the Rabbis from the intent of Rava? Furthermore, I say that even according to what our teachers understood of the intent of Rashi, it is simple that this is all according to Abaye; but according to Rava, perforce its explanation is that the Torah excluded anything that is not like the way of the seeing of all women, and the halacha follows Rava. And according to this, a great law will be renewed for us according to the system of Rashi, as will be explained with the help of Heaven [and that is that Rashi would also hold like the system of the Rash of Coucy which the Rosh brought regarding the falling of the womb, as will be explained before us, and delve into this]:

Our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, explained regarding that of Abaye, and this is their wording: That they disagree concerning a piece shaped like a tube, which constitutes a chatzitzah between the blood and the flesh, for Rabbi Eliezer rules it impure since it is its way to emerge in this manner, and the Rabbis hold that even though it is niddah blood, it is not its way to be seen in this manner. And that which the Rabbis say, "this is not niddah blood," this is its explanation: it is not the niddah blood that the Scripture rendered impure; but in a perforated state, even the Rabbis rule it impure since it is niddah blood and it touches her flesh. Thus far their words. And see the Maharsha and Maharam who were precise with their words, and it does not affect the essence of the matter, see there. But in my humble opinion, I am unable to reconcile their holy words at all, for according to them, for the first Tanna, who is Rabbi Eliezer, in a piece like a tube he rules it impure; and how is it possible to say so? For it says explicitly: One who discharges a piece, even if it is full of blood, if there is blood with it, she is impure, and if not, she is pure. Behold, it is explicit that the blood inside the piece is of no effect unless there was blood with it independently, aside from the blood in the piece. and this requires great study. [And I found for the Pri Megadim in the sixth opening, letter 5, who asked similarly to this and was forced to answer that the meaning of "full of blood" is that the blood was absorbed in the flesh or that the piece was closed from above and is not similar to a tube, see there; and all these are matters that cannot be responded to, as is understood].

And it must be said that their intention is this: that even if there are drops of blood scattered throughout the piece, if it is not shaped like a tube—meaning that the piece is hollow in the middle and the cavity is full of blood—even according to Rabbi Eliezer it is tahor, because this is not the manner of seeing. And this is what the first Tanna says: "even though it is full of blood," meaning that it is full of scattered drops of blood, "if there is no blood with it," meaning if it is not shaped like a hollow tube where the blood is collected by itself inside the piece, it is tahora. And the Rabbis declare it tahor even in such a case, but in a perforated state they declare it tamei [and from the wording of the Maharam of Lublin it seems to me somewhat like this explanation, see there].

And behold, in any case, even according to the explanation of the Tosafot, if the piece is not shaped like a tube, even according to Rabbi Eliezer it is tahor even though there are drops of blood in the piece. And according to Rava, it appears to me according to their words that even in the case of scattered spots it is tahor according to everyone, like the previous reasoning of the Gemara according to the Rabbis; and Rava innovated that even according to Rabbi Eliezer it is so, and he disagrees with Abaye. For if it were not so, why did Rava press himself to establish their dispute in the case of "the source, its place is tamei"? Let him establish their dispute more simply in the case of scattered spots like the previous reasoning of the Gemara. And why did he need to establish it in a matter that is not of the subject at all? Rather, it is certain that he holds that regarding any blood that is in the piece, it is not the way of a woman to see in such a manner, and it is tahor.

The Rosh explained in the name of our teacher Shimshon, the author of the Tosafot, that this is the explanation according to Abaye: that they disagree in this, for Rabbi Eliezer holds it is the way of a woman to see blood in a piece, and since she saw in the manner that women are accustomed, she is impure. But the sages hold it is not the way of women to see blood in a piece, even if it is scattered, and since she did not see in the manner that women are accustomed, she is pure even though it is blood of niddah and the blood touches her flesh. And they disagree regarding the reasoning of the verse, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that "in her flesh" means that there should be no interposition between the blood and the walls of the womb, and therefore if it is scattered, she is impure. But the sages hold that "in her flesh" means in the manner that women are accustomed to see. And that which the sages say, "this is not blood of niddah," the meaning is that this is not the blood of niddah common to all women.

The Rosh wrote that for this reason, our teacher Shimshon permitted a woman whose womb was displaced and pieces of flesh like meat would fall into the outer chamber, and he purified her for her husband since it is not the way of women to see in this manner. Thus far his words. This law was brought in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, and upon this foundation all the permits were built regarding weak women who are unable to become pure because of a womb that was displaced from its location, which they call "prolapse," meaning that the womb fell from its location, as is explained in many responsa of early and later authorities, as we will explain with the help of Heaven. However, some of the great poskim challenged this, saying that even if this is the opinion of our teacher Shimshon, nevertheless, Rashi and the Tosafot do not hold accordingly, and how can we rely on a single opinion regarding a prohibition of karet? [Beit Shmuel and Shach, subsection 8]. Therefore, according to what we have explained, Rashi and the Tosafot also hold accordingly. This is not only according to our explanation of Rashi's intent which we wrote in section 31, but even according to what everyone understood of Rashi's words, this is all according to Abaye and not according to Rava, as we clearly proved in section 32. And similarly regarding the Tosafot, even according to Abaye we clarified that it specifically requires the appearance of a tube or being scattered, but drops of blood within the piece are nothing. And according to Rava, even according to the explanation of the Tosafot, he purifies in every case, as I wrote in section 35. If so, this permit of our teacher Shimshon also accords with the explanation of Rashi and the Tosafot. See what I wrote in section 49.

And behold, in any event, according to all the interpretations, this statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai—that one who discharges a piece [of flesh] should tear it, and if there is collected blood within it she is impure—is rejected. For even according to the interpretation of the Tosafot, this is only according to Rabbi Eliezer and not according to the Rabbis; and all the more so according to the interpretation of Rashi and the Rosh, and a fortiori according to Rava, as is clear. For this reason, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not write this statement. However, the Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 5, law 14, wrote: If she discharged a piece, she should tear it, and if there is collected blood within it, she is impure. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad indeed criticized him, and this is his wording: This too is not according to the halacha. Thus far his words. Meaning, that according to the conclusion [of the Talmudic discussion], this statement was rejected.

And it is clear that the Rambam stands legally in accordance with the approach of the Tosafot. For behold, later in law 17, he wrote the law of the tube, that she is tahora, as it is stated etc. "in her flesh," until she sees in her flesh in the manner that women see, and it is not the manner of a woman to see through a tube. Thus far his words. And previously, regarding the law of a torn piece in law 13, he wrote: One who discharges a piece, even if it is red, if there is blood with it she is temea, and if not, she is tahora; and even if the piece was torn and found to be full of blood, this one is tahora, for this is not niddah blood but the blood of the piece. Thus far his words. And in this, his intention is certainly like Rashi, that this is not niddah blood at all, and not like the explanation of the Tosafot from a scriptural decree. For if it were according to the words of the Tosafot, he should have written the reason "in her flesh" as he did regarding the tube, or at the very least written the law of the tube first and afterwards this law, and there would have been room to say that it refers back to what was above. But since he wrote the law of the tube afterwards, distant from this law, it is explicitly clear that this is not due to the reason of a scriptural decree like the tube, but rather that it is not niddah blood at all, but blood of flesh. And according to this, that which he wrote immediately afterwards, the law of a torn piece being tamei, perforce the reason is because in a torn piece the blood is open to the walls of the womb and it is like "folds upon folds," and this is properly niddah blood. And he follows the version in the Gemara "one who discharges a torn piece" and not the version of the books "tears it." And according to this, legally he holds like the Tosafot, only the Tosafot hold that even when the piece intervenes between the blood and the walls of the womb it is niddah blood, except that the Torah excluded it like a tube; whereas he holds that this is not niddah blood, but when it is torn and there is no intervention it is niddah blood. But legally he holds like the Tosafot, and he holds that Rava also holds so, and not as I wrote regarding the opinion of the Tosafot in section 35. [And the Ra'avad criticized him on the grounds that it is impossible for the source to open without blood, see there; but the Rambam rules like the Rabbanan that it is possible for the source to open without blood, as the Maggid Mishneh elaborated on this, see there, and as I wrote above in section 25].

Or it is possible to say in another manner, for indeed a reason is required as to why when there is an interruption it is not called dam niddah, and when there is no interruption it is called dam niddah. Furthermore, it appears that the Rambam was precise between the expression "full of blood" and the expression "collected blood." And this is as I wrote in section 34 according to the method of the Tosafot, that when there is no vacant space in the piece containing much blood, but rather it is entirely flesh and only drops of blood are found scattered throughout it, it is dam hatikhah and not dam niddah. This is not the case when there is a vacant space in it like a tube and it is full of blood, for then it is dam niddah. And that which he wrote, "a torn piece," his intention is not torn from the outside, but rather that in the middle of the piece there is a tear, meaning a vacant space, and there it is full of blood. And if we say so, his method is not like the method of the Tosafot, for according to the Tosafot in such a case it is tahor and according to the Rambam it is tamei; and conversely, without a vacant space, even with many perforations, it is possible according to the Rambam to be tahor, for we say that this is dam hatikhah, while according to the Tosafot it is tamei. And the Rambam derived it from the expression "agur," which is when the blood is gathered in one place, as in "He who gathers [oger] in the summer," etc. And there is a practical halachic difference between these interpretations.

And I have a proof to bring for this interpretation from the words of the Ramban that the Rashba cited. This is his wording: Abaye said, etc., one master holds that this is the view of the Sages, that it is the way of a woman to see blood in a piece, and therefore specifically in a case where it is "full" is she tahora, for it is not blood of nidda but rather blood of the piece; but in the case of "collected blood" she is temea, and this is exactly the view of Rabbi Yehuda who said if there is collected blood in it she is temea. And one master holds that this is the view of Rabbi Eliezer, that it is not the way of a woman to see blood in a piece, and therefore she is tahora as if she saw it through a tube. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that he distinguishes between the expression "full" and the expression "collected blood." And the Rashba disagrees with him, see there. However, in any event, the reasoning of the Ramban is such. Nevertheless, regarding the halacha, the Ramban certainly would not hold like the Rambam, for according to his interpretation, Rava said that everyone agrees it is not the way of a woman to see blood in a piece, and consequently in a case of "collected" it is tahor according to Rava, according to his interpretation, and the halacha follows Rava. However, in any event, according to the interpretation of the Ramban, of blessed memory, whether it is "full" or "collected" she is tahora, for "full" is tahora even according to Abaye, and in "collected" according to Rava it is also tahor. And according to this, one can uphold the ruling of our teacher Shimshon for the Rambam and also for the Ramban, that regarding the falling of the womb, "collected blood" is not applicable, but rather "full of blood." [And the Rashba interprets that they argue regarding a smooth piece and not regarding one that is peeled, and according to him, in a peeled one she is temea, but he himself rejected his interpretation, see there. And in any event, according to what we have explained, there is no contradiction from any of our teachers to the words of our teacher Shimshon; and on the contrary, Rashi and Tosafot also hold like our teacher Shimshon, as I wrote in section 32 and section 35, and also according to the Rambam and the Ramban it can be so, and examine this carefully].

And now we shall explain the ruling of our teacher Shimshon. This is the wording of the Rosh there: And our teacher Shimshon of Coucy explained that they disagree regarding this, etc. and the Rabbis hold that it is not the way of a woman to see blood in a piece, and even though it is split, since she did not see in the manner that women are accustomed, she is tahora, even though it is blood of nidda and the blood touches her flesh, etc. And so our teacher Shimshon performed a practical ruling in the case of a woman whose source was uprooted and something like pieces of meat would fall into her outer chamber, and he ruled her tahora for her husband since it is not the way of women to see in this manner. Thus far his words. And the wording of the Tur is in a different manner, and this is his wording: And so Shimshon performed a practical ruling in the case of a woman whose source was uprooted and something like pieces of meat would fall into her outer chamber, and she did not cease seeing as long as those pieces were in the outer chamber, and he ruled her tahora for her husband since it is not the way of a woman to be seeing thus. Thus far the words of the Tur.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work that from the wording of the Tur it is implied that she would see actual blood, and even so, our teacher Shimshon would rule it tahor because he attributed it to pieces in the outer chamber through which the blood was drawn; and since at the time it was uprooted it was not blood but rather in a piece, it is tahor. However, from the wording of the Rosh it is not implied so, but rather that species of pieces of flesh were emerging, and even though there was blood within the pieces and it was variegated, he would rule it tahor because it is not the way of a woman to see in this manner. But if she were to see blood directly without a piece, regarding this our teacher Shimshon did not speak, and it is possible that in such a case she is temeiah; for even though we attribute it to a wound as written in siman 187, this applies to a wound on the sides, but not to a wound in the source itself. Therefore, one must say that what the Tur wrote, "and she did not cease from seeing," does not refer to blood but rather to the pieces, meaning that she did not cease from seeing the pieces of flesh. Thus far his words. And he calls it "seeing" because within the pieces there is blood.

And behold, many and great ones raised a difficulty regarding what he wrote, that we do not attribute it to a wound that is in the source itself; for on the contrary, it was explained in siman 187 that we attribute it to a wound in the source, and it is an explicit Gemara: A woman is believed to say, "I have a wound in the source," etc. And if this is a certain wound, we certainly attribute it to it [the Rema in Darkhei Moshe, and the Bach, and the Ma'ayan Ganim there, and the Taz in subsection 5, and the Maharam of Lublin in Responsa siman 111]. And furthermore, if this is a wound, if so, why did the Rosh apply the ruling of the Ri in his commentary, and who would disagree on this [ibid.]? And they further raised a difficulty against him, that certainly the wording of the Rosh also indicates that she would see blood after the falling of the source.

And in truth, there is no difficulty at all regarding our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and his reasoning is clear and pure. And this is the explanation: For the Rash only permitted the blood that is inside the piece, even though it is discharged, but regarding blood that is with the piece, she is teme'ah, as we learned in the Mishnah: One who discharges a piece, if there is blood with it, she is teme'ah. And if so, also regarding the falling of the mekor, he certainly only purified the blood that is within the piece of the mekor even though it is discharged; but regarding the blood flowing from it, let it be like a piece that has blood with it. And granted, if we knew with certainty that the blood now flowing from her was absorbed within the mekor and afterwards descended from it, it is simple that we would purify her, for since it was tahor, it is impossible to make it tamei afterwards. But who is to say? Perhaps this blood was on the mekor from the outside, and it is like a piece that has blood with it. And that which he wrote, that we do not attribute it to a wound that is in the mekor itself—Heaven forbid that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, would err in this. And my intention is clear: that a wound in the mekor is only called such if the mekor is in its place and a wound formed there in the flesh of the mekor, for the wound is a separate matter. But if the mekor itself is the wound, it is not relevant to call it a wound even if it is not in its place, for ultimately the blood is from the mekor, and it is enough that we purify the blood that is inside the mekor, but not the blood flowing from the mekor [and many things were said in the responsa, and what I have written is the essential point, and examine it closely].

They further raised a difficulty against him from that which is stated in the chapter Yotze Dofen [41b]: Resh Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesiah: A womb that was uprooted and fell to the ground is impure, as it is said, "Because your filthiness was poured out, and your nakedness discovered." And it asks: For what [impurity]? If for the seven-day impurity, the Merciful One said "blood" and not a "piece." Rather, for the evening impurity; see there in Rashi: because she touched it during its exit. Thus far his words. And now, according to the explanation of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, it is an explicit Gemara that from the perspective of the falling of the womb she is not impure as a niddah; if so, why did he hang his ruling on his explanation? Rather, it is certainly that in his ruling there was also the descent of blood [Ma'asei HaMelech and Bach]. And I wonder about this, for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also says that there was blood, but he says that the blood was inside the piece of the womb and separated. And in the Gemara it is not explained that there was blood inside it; on the contrary, according to their explanation it is difficult, for since it is prohibited in the Gemara [stating] "the Merciful One said blood and not a piece," it implies explicitly that if there were blood, she would be impure. However, it can be said that this is the explanation: "the Merciful One said blood," meaning, when only blood descends from the source and not a piece, and from the piece the blood descends [see Bach what he wrote on this, and it requires further study, and delve into it]. And in the Rambam, this law is not found at all:

But our teacher, the Rema, and all our teachers, the later authorities, explained according to the plain meaning of the words of the Tur, that she would see actual blood after the falling of the source into the outer chamber. And this is the matter: that the woman stands in days of purity not at the time of her veset, and she knows clearly that before the falling of the source she did not see blood, and after the falling of the source she did not cease from seeing actual blood, and nevertheless she is pure. For certainly this blood comes from the piece of the source that fell and flows from this piece; and since at the time the blood was in the piece it was pure according to the explanation of the Rash even though it was separated, how could it become tamei afterward? And one need not be concerned and say that this blood descending from her is not from the piece of the source but from her body itself through the place of the source, for establish her on her previous status of chazakah, just as we attribute it to a wound in siman 187 even though we do not know that her wound emits blood. And all the more so in this case, where the senses testify that since the source is essentially blood, when it descends from its place, drops of blood drip from its flesh [this is the opinion of the later authorities].

And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in the Shulchan Aruch, section 3. This is his wording: If she inserted a tube, etc. And so too, if she saw blood in a piece [of skin], even if it is split and the blood is in the crevices in a manner that it touches her flesh, she is tahora, since it is not the way to see [blood] thus. And so too, a woman whose makor was uprooted and pieces like eagles' [wings] fall into the beit hachitzon, she is tahora. Thus far his words. And his intention is even though there is blood in the pieces of the makor, and it refers back to the above. And he did not mention that she saw blood, for he follows his reasoning in his great work, that in such a case she is temea. But our teacher, the Rema, added, and this is his wording: Even if she saw blood, as long as the pieces are in her beit hachitzon she is tahora, for we attribute the blood to this piece, since we know for certain that her makor was uprooted and it is due to a maka. Thus far his words. And his intention is as we explained, and that which he wrote "and it is due to a maka," his intention is not a literal maka, for if so, there would be no need for the reasoning of the Rash; rather, it means that we attribute it to the maka of the makor that fell from its place, just as we attribute to a maka in siman 187. And he did not descend here to this law, to judge the falling as a literal maka, for this is not clear as I have written. [And according to this, all that they questioned regarding the Rema is settled, and the Levush indeed used this language, see there. And also that which the Taz wrote in subsection 5, "all that she sees, even complete blood, etc.," his intention is not to blood that issues from her body, for Heaven forbid to say so; rather, it is as he explains afterward. This is his wording: For here they permitted even actual niddah blood that comes from that piece, meaning the niddah blood that is in that piece of the makor, that piece carried the niddah blood with it to the beit hachitzon, etc. Thus far his words. See there and examine closely].

And according to what we have explained, Rashi, Tosafot, the Rambam, and the Ramban also do not disagree with the ruling of our teacher Shimshon, and it is simple that according to Rava he is a son, as we have explained with the help of Heaven. And do not answer me from what the Rosh wrote there in siman 1 regarding the matter of "there is no opening of the womb without blood." This is his wording: And that which Rava said, etc., he is explaining their dispute. And so wrote the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, see there, which implies that Rava did not say this as halacha, for that is regarding the opening of the womb as they explained there, that if it were a large piece, it is automatically tamei because "there is no opening of the womb without blood." But with a small piece, similar to a tube, she is tahora because there is no opening of the womb here. And all the laws that were explained are regarding small pieces, as will be explained with the help of Heaven in the next section.

Regarding all the laws of discharging pieces in this siman, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 3 wrote that specifically small pieces similar to a tube are intended, but a large piece is tamei even if she saw nothing, for it is impossible for the womb to open without blood, and even with a fetus whose form was not completed. Thus far their words. And even though the entire sugya of the Shas in this matter deals with large pieces, as is also proven from what the Rosh wrote that Rava was only explaining their dispute as I wrote in the previous section, nevertheless, this is all according to the opinion of the sages in the Mishnah of "One who discharges" who hold that it is possible for the womb to open without blood. Indeed, the Rambam ruled so in practice, but we, who establish the law like Rabbi Yehoshua that it is impossible for the womb to open without blood, cannot rule according to the laws that were explained regarding a large piece, but only regarding a small one [Bach, and with this the difficulty of the Beit Yosef against the Rosh is answered, see there]. The general principle of the matter is that regarding the essential laws explained in the instruction of our teacher Shimshon, that in such a case the Torah did not render her tamei, this applies according to everyone; it is only regarding the actual size of the piece's volume that according to him it is impossible except with a small piece and not with a large one, for with a large one she is anyway tamei due to the opening of the womb. And even according to what we wrote in section 26 that regarding a tube it is not relevant to say so, see there, nevertheless, regarding a piece it is simple that it is so, for the Torah only permitted the blood of the piece and not the blood exiting from her body. Since with the discharge of a piece the womb must necessarily open and there is no opening of the womb without blood, behold the blood exits from her body through the place of the womb, and it is simple that she is tamei [and with the discharge of the womb itself, which is the "prolapse," this is obviously not relevant, and delve into this].

And know that there is one who wishes to say that this which we say, "it is impossible for the womb to open without blood," this is when it is opened by the exit of the fetus from within; but with an opening from without, such as by means of a tube or a doctor who inserted a vessel inside the source, in this we do not say "it is impossible for the womb to open without blood" [Tiferet LeMoshe]. And Heaven forbid to say so; on the contrary, it is more logical that through an opening from without, it more so causes the blood to descend from within than that which the exit of the fetus from within would cause, which descends according to its nature. And so it is proven from all the poskim who did not distinguish in this, for even regarding a tube they wrote that we require it to be exceedingly thin [and so wrote the Noda BiYehudah, second edition, at the end of siman 120, and the Sidrei Taharah in siman 188, subsection 26, and Heaven forbid to rule leniently in this; however, I heard from the mouth of an expert doctor that they do not insert their forceps except until the prozdor and not higher than that, and if so, "opening of the womb" does not apply to this, and this matter requires inquiry and investigation from the doctors].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, added in the Shulchan Aruch to say that she must place the pieces in lukewarm water, and if they do not dissolve, she is tahor. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that later in this siman it will be explained that any blood that exits from a woman, whether moist or dry, is tamei, even if she discharged something like peels or hairs, and specifically when they dissolve within twenty-four hours. If so, regarding these pieces, who is to say that they themselves are not dry blood? Therefore, she should place them in lukewarm water for twenty-four hours, and if they do not dissolve, then we see that they themselves are not blood; and if because of the blood that is on them, the Torah purified it, as has been explained. And in his great book he wrote, and this is his wording: However, it is possible that it is different here, for it was recognizable in them that they were pieces of flesh, only that there was blood inside them. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Aruch he omitted this and was concerned to be stringent. And behold, our teacher, the Rema, in the Darkei Moshe, took issue with him, for here it is known that her womb was uprooted; if so, even without an examination, it is known that this is not blood, see there [and the Shach cited him in subsection 11]. And I wonder about this, for certainly our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also does not say this law regarding the falling out of the womb, but rather regarding "she saw blood in a piece" that was explained; and even this, if it is visible to the eye that this is actual flesh, it does not require examination, and his words are in a case where there is a doubt, and in this his words are clear.

However, regarding the essence of the incident of our teacher Shimshon, how the incident occurred, there are some among the great Acharonim who disagreed with our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch. For according to their words, the incident was that the source had partially rotted and pieces of rotted flesh fell into the prozdor, and from those pieces the blood flowed, and our teacher Shimshon permitted it because this is the blood of pieces and not the blood of the womb. But if the blood had flowed from the womb, she would be tamei. And according to our teacher, the Beit Yosef, even with an ordinary flow of blood she is tamei, and according to our teacher, the Rema, she is tahora, for we attribute it to the pieces, as has been explained. However, in any case, this is how they interpret the words of our teacher Shimshon.

And they disagreed regarding this and say that the incident of our teacher Shimshon did not involve the rotting of the flesh of the makor nor the falling of pieces; rather, this is the common occurrence now among women, that because the womb stands above the prozdor and it is gathered like the omasum and the reticulum, and when the woman reaches a state of weakness, the folds spread out until the womb, which has at its head a sort of intestine, falls down near the place of urine, and it has an opening at the place where the blood exits, and it is the mouth of the womb, and from there the blood exits, and it is truly from the womb but not in its place. For the womb and the cheder in which the blood is located are above the prozdor, but in her weakness, a portion of the womb falls down into the prozdor, and they call this in the Ashkenazic tongue "vorfal," meaning that it fell from its place. And this is what the Rosh writes, that its makor was uprooted, meaning that its place is above and a portion of it was uprooted until it fell down into the outer chamber. However, nevertheless, it is connected to the entire womb and not that it was uprooted and separated from it as our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, thought. And there are no falling pieces here nor a wound, only a weakness in the womb whose folds spread out, and our teacher Shimshon ruled it pure because the womb is not in its place and this is not the way of seeing. And that which is written in the Tur, "and like pieces of flesh were falling etc.," is a printing error and it should say "and a piece," and the proof is that he did not write "were falling" in the plural, and so it is in our teacher Yerucham, see there. And consequently, there is no emission of water here since no piece was separated, and also "it is impossible for the mouth of the womb to open without blood" is not applicable here, for this is not a "petichet hakever" as the womb is closed as before, it only descended below, and at the time of tashmish, due to the heat, it returns somewhat upward. And it turns out that the ruling of the Rash was exactly "vorfal" which is common now among women due to their great weakness [Kereiti U'Peleiti subsection 2, and so they ruled in the responsa of Shevut Yaakov and Shev Yaakov and other great authorities].

However, there are several great authorities who disagree with this and hold that the fact that the mekor descends from its place is of no consequence and it is considered absolute niddah blood. For what boundary can you set for it? Behold, sometimes the mekor inclines from its place slightly to this side or to that side, as clever women say. And there are some physicians who say that this matter is not found at all, that the mekor descends from its place, and there are some who say that it is found but in a remote occurrence [Beit Yosef siman 58, and Tanyana siman 114, and Tiferet Zvi siman 22]. And there are those who wrote: how can we rely on the opinion of the Rash against Rashi and Tosafot [Mishkenot Yaakov siman 42 and other responsa]. But this we have already clarified with the help of Heaven, that all our teachers agree to this law:

And there is one who wrote that if it should enter one's mind to interpret the words of our teacher Shimshon not according to the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch because of the difficulties inherent in their interpretation [as written in the Responsa Meil Tzedakah], one should interpret it in such a case where the mekor was uprooted, but not in its entirety, rather that pieces were uprooted from it and those pieces went out to the beit hachitzon and are connected to the body of the woman, and from those pieces blood flows; for perhaps there are many arteries opening to the mekor to bring the blood to the mekor, and some artery remained in this piece that was uprooted from the body of the mekor, and it is not the way of a woman to see from a piece separated from the mekor. But when the entire mekor is in its integrity, only that it fell down, there is no reason to purify [Noda BiYehudah 60]. And it appears to me that in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch as well one should interpret thus, and that which they wrote "and like pieces of flesh fall to the beit hachitzon," their intention is not that they afterwards fell to the ground, but rather they fell to the beit hachitzon and are connected to her body. And that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, that she should cast the piece into lukewarm water, does not refer to the law of the mekor, but rather to that which preceded it, "if she saw blood in a piece."

And behold, that which the doctors said, that the falling of the womb is not found at all except in a remote case, they either did not know or they lied. In our times much is known of this, and it comes from the difficulty of childbirth or from a midwife who is not expert. And thus an expert doctor told me, that many times an instance of the falling of the womb came to his hand, and the doctors trouble themselves to return it to its place, and for this they make rings of soft bone to support the womb. And there are many, many details in this, and there are cases where small pieces of it are overcome by decay. And that which he says, that if so, what boundary shall you set for it, for sometimes the womb leans to this side or to that side—the boundary is simple: as long as the woman has no pain from this and walks as before, it is nothing. But as long as she suffers from this and her walking is with difficulty and she seeks doctors, certainly this is the falling of the womb.

And on the contrary, from the perspective of logic, one of the great authorities said that the prolapse is more lenient than the view of our teacher Samson according to the explanation of the early authorities, for in this case she did not see blood at all until the uterus fell into the outer chamber, and during the falling of the uterus it was flesh and not blood, and from the outer chamber the blood began to descend, and there is not a place of impurity at all [Pardes Rimonim on the Taz, subsection 5].

In general, this requires great expertise, and there are many errors in this matter, as is cited in the book of one of the great authorities: An incident occurred with a young woman who gave birth to a child, and after the child emerged from her womb, a large and thick piece emerged with the child. For several weeks the piece hung outside, and the doctors sought to cut it, but a certain expert midwife came and told them that this is the womb, and she inserted the piece back into her body. Since then, she has been unable to become pure for her husband due to the abundance of blood flowing from her, and she cannot walk normally until they insert a ring into the womb. She has a veset [Siman 69, subsection 4 in the Responsa of Lissa], and at the time of her veset she feels pain as is the way of women, but this is not so at the time the blood descends from the piece, for she feels no pain at all and says that she knows the blood is from the piece, and they permitted her. See there [ibid.].

And so the expert physician, who is a God-fearing man, told me that several times he saw that if there is some defect in the flesh of the source and its surroundings, such as decay or a scar, then the stains are numerous and it is not blood of niddah, but rather from the moisture of the place; and the source is red, and consequently the stains are red, and when she examines herself, there appears on the cloth a kind of redness. And so many cases came before me, and the women appointed over the questions told me that there are defects in the womb, and growths of flesh and hanging pieces, and this comes from their weakness, or because of a defect from childbirth, or because of heavy labor, and in most of them a kind of small wound is recognizable, and because of this all the examinations and all the stains appear as red.

Therefore, in these and similar cases, and specifically regarding the prolapse of the uterus in one manner or another which our teacher Samson, the author of the Tosafot, already permitted, and our teachers the Rosh and the Tur and the authors of the Shulchan Aruch agreed with him—and the great authorities who were concerned that this is against the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot—we have already clarified with the help of Heaven that Rashi and Tosafot, as well as the Rambam and the Ramban, also admit to this ruling: that anything which is not according to the manner of women's seeing, our holy Torah purified. And all the more so regarding bedikot and ketamim, that if according to the sight of the eyes of the teacher who is wise in Torah and God-fearing and understands the matter, that this woman has a malfunction in the uterus or in the surroundings of the uterus from a malfunction of the flesh and the like, and she cannot become pure for her husband, and she has a fixed vest for her purity—that when it is not during the time of her vest, she only must have one clean bedika of hefsek tahara, and also one clean bedika within the seven days of her counting, and she may immerse and become pure for her husband. And she should not look after the bedikot that are not clean or after her ketamim. And if the teacher's heart is not whole in this, he should deliberate with another teacher, and God stands in the congregation of God to assist him to rule according to the halacha, and from a man and his wife he shall receive a blessing.

And know that all this is when her dysfunction is in the womb itself, in the mekor or on the sides; but when they are in their place and her dysfunction is in the chambers of her abdomen, through which she sees blood constantly, there is no permit for this at all. And even though the blood is not equal to the blood of her veset, this is because it has not yet ripened properly and descends before its time; but nevertheless, in the end, since it descends through the mekor in its usual way, she is a complete niddah and subject to kareth, and Heaven forbid to be lenient in this with even any leniency whatsoever. And so too all her bedikot and her ketamim are impure, and one who is lenient in this permits a kareth prohibition, unless it is known that she has a wound in her abdomen from which the blood emerges, for this is not the blood of niddah at all [as the Rambam wrote, chapter 5, halacha 5].

And similarly, a rupture of the intestines that occurs in women—such a wound is not presumed to produce blood, and the mnemonic for this matter is: one does not presume blood in the intestines (Siftei Da'at ibid.). However, one physician said that despite all this, it produces blood due to the tearing of the membrane and the red veins that are in it (ibid.). And it is possible to distinguish between a prolapse of the intestines and a prolapse of the womb, which they call "vorfall," because a rupture of the intestines—this wound is always found from the sides, but the prolapse of the womb is in the middle of the outer chamber. Also, the intestines are green, and the womb, which is the "mother," is red (ibid.). And consequently, there is no place for this blood to come into the cavity of the prozdor, for the descent of the intestines is at the sides outside the prozdor, and the sides of the walls of the prozdor separate between them (Kereiti U'Peleiti siman 188).

The sages taught in the Mishnah [beginning of chapter 3]: One who discharges something like a rind, like a hair, like dust, or like red gnats [mosquitoes], she shall cast them into water; if they dissolved, she is impure, and if not, she is pure. And it is stated in a Baraita in the Gemara [22b]: It was taught, Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok said: My father brought two cases from Tiv'in to Yavne. A case occurred with a woman who was discharging something like red rinds, and they came and asked my father, and my father asked the sages, and the sages asked the doctors. They said to them: This woman has a wound inside her womb from which she discharges these rinds; she shall cast them into water; if they dissolved, she is impure. And again, a case occurred with a woman who was discharging something like red hairs, etc., and they said to them: She has a mole inside her womb from which she discharges, etc.; cast them into water; if they dissolved, she is impure. See there.

And because a great principle regarding questions of women depends on this matter—whether it is permitted to rely on the words of doctors or not, and there are those who forbid and those who permit, and in my humble opinion it is clearly permitted—therefore I am compelled to explain this. For behold, the Rosh, in a responsum sent to the Rashba [Klal 2, Siman 18], raised a difficulty, and this is his wording: And it is difficult to me, since it comes on account of a wound, why is she temeiah? For behold, we say one who sees blood on account of a wound, etc., is tehorah, and they only disagree regarding blood that comes by way of the mekor; it follows that even though the blood comes from the mekor, she is tehorah since it comes on account of a wound. Thus far his words. And we have not found the response of the Rashba to this. And by force of this, great authorities [Maharam Lublin in a responsum and others] judged that one does not rely on doctors, and therefore they did not believe the doctors who said she has a wound, for had they believed them, they would not have required her to place it in water. And there are those who say that one relies on doctors, and so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book in Siman 187.

And it appears to me that the Rosh, according to his reasoning, rightly raised the difficulty, but according to the Rashba, according to his reasoning, it is not a difficulty at all. For the Rosh in HaMapelet, siman 3, brought the dispute of the Ra'avad and the Ma'or regarding dry blood, whether it requires being dissolved; for the Ra'avad holds that one who sees dry blood is impure even if it was not dissolved, and the Ma'or holds that it must specifically be dissolved, as with scales and hairs. And he wrote that the Rashba ruled like the Ra'avad, and he rejects his proofs and rules like the Ma'or, see there. And these two opinions were brought in the Shulchan Aruch in this siman, section 6.

And in the Gemara [22] it is stated: Rabbi Yitzchak bar Chanina asked of Rabbi Abba: Dry blood, what is its status regarding "if it flows" etc.? Until it flows [moist], yes; dry, no? Or perhaps it is just the way of the matter? He said to him: You have learned it: The blood of a niddah and the flesh of a corpse impart impurity whether moist or dry. He said to him: Moist that became dry, I do not ask; where I ask is dry from its inception. And it objects: This too you have learned: One who discharges something like a husk etc., she shall cast it into water; if they dissolved, she is impure. And it objects: If so, even without dissolving? Rabbah said: When they did not dissolve, it is a distinct entity. And it objects: And is there such a thing? And it answers: Yes, as it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok said: Two incidents etc., and they asked the physicians, and they said: She shall cast it into water. Thus far the words of the Gemara.

And it is not understood why he did not resolve it for him immediately from the Mishnah in HaMapelet, which precedes by far "the blood of a niddah" and "the flesh of a corpse," and especially since from "the blood of a niddah" there is no proof at all, as he challenged him: "moist that became dry is not a question for me." And furthermore, why did he challenge: "If so, let him challenge our Mishnah" [the Shach in subsection 17 also noted this]. And furthermore, that he challenged: "And is there such a case?" and Rashi explained: "Is there a case where she would discharge scales and hairs?" see there. And how does this challenge relate to his question? Let him challenge our Mishnah. And there are further nuances in this sugya, and according to the approach of the Ra'avad and the Rashba, all is well, as we will explain with the help of Heaven:

And this is the explanation: that Rabbi Yitzchak bar Chanina asked Rabbi Ammi regarding this law of the Ra'avad, whether the law of dry blood is like pieces which require that they dissolve or not. Therefore, he did not resolve it for him from "one who discharges [a shape]," for behold, this itself was his question. And he resolved it for him from the Mishnah of "the blood of a niddah." And this is the explanation: since we see that even dry [substance] is called blood, if so, it follows that one who sees dry blood does not require that it dissolve. And he rejected it, for there is no proof from that which was moist and became dry. And he resolved it for him from "one who discharges [a shape]," meaning that in "one who discharges" it is explained that when it emerged dry from her body, even so we declare her impure if it dissolved; and regarding the blood of a niddah, it is proven that afterwards, when it becomes dry, it also does not depart from the category of blood. If so, it follows that one who sees dry blood is impure even when it did not dissolve. And to this he challenged: if so, even when it did not dissolve as well, and why is its law changed from dry blood? But without his words, I would have said that even regarding dry blood it is so according to the opinion of the Ma'or. And he answered: when it did not dissolve, it is a distinct entity; meaning, that if we knew clearly that this was a type of blood, it would not require placing in water, but the placing in water clarifies whether this is a type of blood or is not a type of blood at all but rather a distinct entity. And to this he rightly challenged: is there such a case? Meaning, that a woman would discharge types of entities. But on our Mishnah it is not a difficulty, for it can be said that it is not a distinct entity but a type of blood, yet it requires that it dissolve, according to the opinion of the Ma'or and the Rosh [and see Sidrei Taharah section 5].

And for this, he brings from the baraita of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, where they asked the physicians and they said that she has a wound in her intestines from which she casts out the husks. And the intention is not that the wound is in that same place, like that of section 64 where we attribute it to a wound, but rather the wound is inside the intestines in her abdomen, and from this the husks emerge. And regarding this the sages said: Let her cast them into water; if they dissolved, it is a sign that this is a type of blood, and if they did not dissolve, this is not a type of blood at all but rather a distinct entity. And if so, on the contrary, they believed the physicians, for if not so, they should have ruled it tamei even if they did not dissolve, according to the law of dried blood. And if so, the difficulty of the Rosh to attribute it to a wound is not difficult, for the wound was not in the womb as I have written. And this is not a complete wound to be tahor in every case, for this is only a disorder in the intestines since it is not recognizable to all, and it is not similar to what I wrote at the end of section 62.

The Rosh certainly holds that we rely on doctors, for his entire primary difficulty is based on this reason. It also seems to me that the Sugya of the Gemara can be settled according to his words: that Rabbi Yitzchak bar Chanina did not ask about dry blood when she saw it, for in that case it certainly requires being dissolved, and therefore he did not say "one who sees dry blood, what is the law?" Rather, this is the explanation: that he asks regarding the Mishnah of "one who discharges a piece," if there is blood with it she is impure, and similarly in "one who discharges something like fish," see there, what is the law if the blood was found dry? And he did not inquire whether it requires being dissolved, for it certainly requires it; rather, on the contrary, perhaps even when dissolved she is pure, and it is not similar to "one who discharges shells and hairs" where if it is dissolved she is impure, for perhaps they themselves are not complete blood but inside them is complete liquid blood. And he resolves it for him from the Mishnah of "the blood of the Niddah," and one cannot say that from there there is no proof since it was previously liquid, and he resolves it for him from "one who discharges shells etc." for it is difficult: from where do we know that previously there was liquid inside them? Rather, it is certain that even that which is dry, when it is dissolved, she is impure. And it asks: "If so, even when it is not dissolved as well," meaning, according to your words that even that which was dry from its inception, when dissolved, is impure, if so, why do I need to place it in water so that it shall be dissolved? Even if it is not dissolved as well, for regarding that which was liquid and became dry, there is more reason for it to be called blood, as it says previously. And since even in that which was dry from its inception it is called blood when dissolved, if so, even if it is not dissolved as well it should have been called blood; for how is it possible that at the time of its exit it does not need to be liquid, which is then the primary seeing, and afterwards we should require it to be liquid? For it seems more logical to require it to be complete blood at the time of its exit than afterwards. And it answers that when it is not dissolved it is a distinct entity; meaning, that which we require it to be dissolved is in order to know if it is a type of blood at all, and had we known that it is a type of blood, we would not require it to be dissolved. And so too with all dry blood, when it cannot be smeared, we say that this is not a type of blood at all, as the Rosh wrote there. And regarding this it asks: "And is there such a case etc."

And the difficulty of the Rosh is this: that since it is possible that this is not a type of blood at all but merely scales, a distinct entity from the nature of the wound in her intestines, if so, why do we require an examination at all? For behold, regarding one who actually sees blood in chapter 4, page 66, when she has a wound, we attribute it to the wound; even though it is possible that this blood is from the source, nevertheless, since she is not at the time of her vesat and she has a chazakah of taharah, we attribute it to her wound. So too, let us attribute it to her wound that is inside her intestines and say that this is a distinct entity and not a type of blood at all. And should you say that whatever can be clarified we clarify, it is impossible to say so, for behold, regarding the wound there, the Rosh wrote explicitly concerning what they said—that if the blood of her wound is different, we do not attribute it to the wound—that as long as it is not clarified to us to the contrary for a prohibition, we attribute it to the wound. And so the Rashba wrote in Torat HaBayit, and we explained this in siman 187, section 63, that specifically when both are before us must one clarify, but without this, there is no need to clarify because of the chazakah of taharah, see there. And why did they require clarification here to place it in water for twenty-four hours? Let her stand on her chazakah of taharah. And according to this, even the Rosh would not interpret here that the wound was in that place. And in any event, from the Rashba according to his view and from the Rosh according to his view, we have to learn that this law was clear to them: that we rely on the doctors in what they say, and like the reasoning of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in siman 187, not like the opinion of those who disagree. And so is the essential law.

This is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 4: Any blood that exits from the woman, whether moist or dry, is tamei. And not only this, but even if there exited from her the form of a creature, like scales, or like hairs, or like red gnats, she is tamei, provided that they would dissolve within a twenty-four hour period by soaking them in lukewarm water, and the water must be lukewarm for the entire duration of the twenty-four hour period that they are within it. The measure of the heat is like water that was drawn in the summer from the river or from the spring and stood in the house, such that the heat of the house warms them; and in the warmth of these, such is the measure of lukewarm in the winter days [and the warmth of lukewarm is not hotter than the warmth of saliva]. And if they are so hard that they do not dissolve within a twenty-four hour period, she is tehorah, even if they dissolve by means of crushing, where one crushes them with his fingernails. Thus far their words. And it follows that when one crushed them with his fingernails and they were not smeared, she is tehorah, and there is no need to check by means of soaking, for since they did not dissolve with the fingernails, all the more so they will not dissolve with soaking. And it is a wonder that they omitted "like dust" which we learned in the Mishnah of HaMapelet (see Sidrei Taharah, subsection 6, what he wrote regarding this, and what he wrote that it is an "all the more so" is not sufficient, see there; and in the Rambam "dust" is present, see there). And it is simple that all this deals with a minor where "opening of the womb" is not relevant, and likewise when there is no concern of birth in this, for if there is a concern of birth in this, it is obvious that she is tamei for two weeks lest it be a female, as below in siman 194 [Shach, subsection 13].

And that which we said, that if it was not mashed it is tahora, in what case does this apply? At a time when they are completely dry, such that there is no blood with them at all. But if there is any moisture of blood upon them, she is temea. And the same law applies if some of them were crushed or dissolved and some of them were not crushed and not dissolved, that she is temea. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: However, it seems to me that if she examined three times everything that she saw and they did not dissolve at all, she no longer needs to examine what she sees afterward in this manner, for it has been established that these things are not blood but rather come from a wound in her body; and specifically in a woman who has a vest, and not at the time of her vest, as has been explained regarding a wound above in siman 187. Thus far his words.

And there is one who questioned why she is temeiah when there is a moisture of blood, for since the substance of the hairs are not warts that dissolve, if so, she must certainly have a wound according to the words of the doctors. And if so, granted that it is like a wound that is not known if it discharges blood, in any case, regarding a woman who has a veset and it is not during the time of her veset, we should have declared her tehorah as in siman 187 [Chavat Da'at subsection 6, and he was pressed in this, see there]. And all this is because they imagined that the wound was in that place, but it is not so. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, was precise to say "from a wound that is in her body," and in siman 187 he calls it "a wound that is in that place." And we have already clarified that both according to the Rashba and according to the Rosh, the doctors said that she has a wound in her body and not in that place—as I wrote in section 70 according to the Rashba and in section 72 according to the Rosh. And even though several of the lesser ones did not grasp it so, nevertheless, as stated above is the primary view. Therefore, if there is only moisture, she is temeiah, and it is not similar to blood that is in a piece [of flesh] where even if it is split it is tehorah, for there the blood is within the piece, only that it is in the fissures, and the manner of seeing is not thus, as I wrote above; but here, the moisture is upon its surface, and the manner of seeing is thus [see Shach subsection 156].

And also regarding what he wrote, that it is specifically not during the time of her vest, they challenged him: since this is a distinct entity, what difference does it make to me if it is during the time of her vest or not during the time of her vest? For the reason we forbid in the case of a wound during the time of her vest in siman 187 is because if not so, she would never be tamei, as is written there; but here this reasoning does not apply, for she will be tamei when she sees in the manner of women [Shach subsection 16 and Kereti U-Peleti subsection 4]. And they answered that his intention is regarding what he said, that when she checked three times and they did not dissolve, she no longer requires checking; he said regarding this that we do not rely on this during the time of her vest, but if they checked and they did not dissolve, even during the time of her vest she is tehorah [Minchat Yaakov and Sidrei Taharah subsection 6]. And there are those who undermined even this [see Kereti U-Peleti there]. And in my humble opinion, it appears correct to add that according to what we explained, that the wound was not in that place but rather in her intestines, and it descends from the makor in its normal way, therefore our teacher, the Rema, rightly ruled stringently, and it is not comparable to the wound in siman 187 [and the Chavot Daat subsection 7 lengthily discussed this and follows his theory that the wound was in that place and was pressed by this, see there; but in my humble opinion the essential point is as we explained. And know that the checking in lukewarm water is required for everything she discharged, and it is not sufficient with part of it, as the Sidrei Taharah wrote there in the name of the Terumat HaDeshen, and the Sidrei Taharah wavered on this, see there; and I do not know why, for certainly it is so, and reflect on this].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: In what case does it require examination through soaking? In a discharge like scales or hairs; but a piece of blood, even if it is hard and does not dissolve, is impure. And some say that even for this it requires examination through soaking if it is a small piece the size of the thinnest of tubes. Thus far his words. And we have already written that this is the dispute between the Ra'avad and the Ma'or that we cited, and the Tur also cited this dispute. And in the Yerushalmi in Hamappelet there is a dispute regarding this, and there it appears like the Ra'avad, that in every case it is impure [Shach, sub-section 17].

This is the wording of the Yerushalmi: One who discharges dry blood, Resh Lakish says she is temeiah, Rabbi Yochanan says she is tehorah. The Baraita disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan: It happened that a certain woman would discharge something like red peels, and the case came before the sages, and they sent and called for doctors, and they said to them, "She has an internal wound." Another incident occurred etc. something like red hairs etc. and they said, "She has a mole" etc. Because she has a mole and because she has a wound; but if she has no mole and no wound, no? In this they disagree with him, and it has no standing. Thus far his words.