Siman 190

By the word of the Torah, a woman is not rendered impure nor forbidden to her husband until she feels that blood has exited her flesh. This matter is agreed upon by all our teachers, the Rishonim and the Acharonim, not like one of the great authorities who wished to say that there are those who disagree on this. We have already elaborated on this in siman 183 from section 47 until section 57. What constitutes the sensation is the sensation of the opening of the mouth of the womb, like the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch there. There are several of the great authorities who wished to innovate other sensations, and we have already elaborated there on this from section 57 until section 67; see there. We also explained there in section 54 that which the Rambam wrote at the beginning of chapter 9: "And if she did not feel, but she examined and found the blood inside in the prozdor, she is in the presumption that it came with a sensation." Thus far his words. For his intention is specifically when she found it in the prozdor, for since it has already been uprooted from the womb, we say that at the time of its uprooting from the womb she felt it but did not pay attention. However, if at the time of the flowing of blood from the womb she says that she does not feel, her prohibition is not from the Torah; see there. And in section 55 we wrote that from this is resolved for us a great doubt that several of the great authorities doubted: whether when she finds blood by means of an examination she is forbidden from the Torah. And we explained that she is certainly forbidden from the Torah because the examination is in the prozdor and no further, and if so, the blood has already been uprooted from the womb, and we say that certainly there was a sensation but she did not pay attention; see there. All this is from the Torah, but by rabbinic enactment she is impure even without a sensation [and Rashi, of blessed memory, on page 58a, beginning with the words "by rabbinic enactment," wrote: perhaps she felt but did not pay attention; and the Tosafot there wrote that even if it is established for her that she did not feel, she is impure; see there, beginning with the words "concedes"; and so it is clear from the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of chapter 9 and the Tur, who wrote that even though she did not feel, she is impure; see there].

The sages decreed regarding ketamim that any woman who finds a stain of blood is temeiah, whether she found it on her flesh or whether she found it on her garment or on the sheet she lies upon or covers herself with, according to the specific laws that will be explained in this siman. And even if she did not feel a sensation, and even if she examined herself and found she was tahorah, she is temeiah and forbidden to her husband just like an actual seeing of blood, and she requires seven nekiyim and tevilah and a hefsek taharah. And even though in the time of the Talmud, when they would count the days of niddah and the days of zivah, there was a practical difference in the finding of the ketam—for if she found it during the days of niddah she was temeiah for seven days as a niddah and afterwards would be tahorah without seven nekiyim, and if she found it during the days of zivah she also would not require seven nekiyim unless she found the equivalent of three grisim such that we could say she saw on three days whereby she becomes a zavah gedolah; but if it did not contain the equivalent of three ketamim, and she examined herself every twilight of the first day and was tahorah and did not examine her garment, and on the third day she found this ketam, she is only a shomeret yom as a zavah ketanah according to the laws we explained in siman 183—however, nowadays a ketam is equal to a seeing, and for every ketam she requires a hefsek taharah, and the day of her finding it is not part of the count of the seven nekiyim, and she counts seven nekiyim and performs tevilah with a berakhah, for one also recites a berakhah over rabbinic commandments like the Chanukah candle and Megillah and the like.

This is the wording of the Rambam there [Chapter 9, Halacha 2]: And it is from the words of the Scribes that anyone who sees a blood stain etc. even though she examined herself and did not find blood, she is temeiah, and it is as if she found blood inside her flesh; and this tumah is in doubt, perhaps this stain came from the blood of the chamber. Thus far his words. And it must be understood: since he concludes "perhaps this stain came from the chamber," why did he need to say "and it is as if she found blood inside her flesh"? And it appears to me that he informed us of a great matter with this, for behold, there are those who asked why they decreed upon the stains, for it is a double doubt: perhaps it is not from her body, and if you say it is from her body, perhaps it is from the upper chamber. And they answered that nevertheless the sages were stringent because it is a severe prohibition, and furthermore, since she has nothing to attribute this stain to, it is as if it certainly exited from her body [Kesef Mishneh]. And there is one who answered that since the majority of blood comes from the source, one should not create a doubt that perhaps it is from the upper chamber [Taz, subsection 2], and they responded to this that behold, against this there is the fact that the majority of blood comes with a sensation, and in this case there was no sensation [Kereti U-Peleti and Binat Adam]. And there are those who answered that it all constitutes a single doubt, for what does it matter to me if the blood is from the upper chamber or from the world [ibid.], and there is room to hesitate regarding this.

And in my humble opinion, it appears that this is the intention of the Rambam, of blessed memory, who wrote "as if she found it inside her flesh." For behold, I wonder at what they questioned only regarding a double doubt (safek sefika), for in truth there are three doubts: perhaps it is from an external source; and if you say it is from her body, perhaps it is from the upper chamber (aliyah); and if you say it is from the inner chamber (cheder), perhaps she did not feel it. However, according to what the Rambam wrote previously, that when she found blood in the vestibule (prozdor), it is under the presumption that it came with a sensation (hargashah), and we explained in section 1 that his intention is specifically in the vestibule, for once it has already been uprooted from the source (makor), we hang the matter on the fact that at the time of its uprooting from the source she felt it but did not pay attention; this is not the case when she saw it now from the source without a sensation. And the reason we explained in siman 183 is because the majority of blood comes with a sensation, and therefore, whenever time has passed since it exited the source, we say that it certainly came with a sensation. And according to this, regarding ketamim, all the more so we say that it certainly came with a sensation at the time the blood exited the source, for a long time has passed since then until the finding of the ketam. And this is what the Rambam says, "as if she found it inside her flesh," meaning that they did not treat it as if she saw it now from the source, for she did not feel it, but rather as if she found it inside her flesh, which is in the vestibule, where we say there certainly was a sensation and she did not pay attention. Thus it is found that there is no doubt here of "perhaps she did not feel it." And he also concluded, "perhaps it came from the blood of the inner chamber," meaning that the majority of blood is from the inner chamber, and if so, these two doubts of "from the upper chamber" and "without a sensation" are not here. And there remains only one doubt: perhaps from her body, perhaps from an external source; and a doubt regarding a Torah law is to be ruled stringently. And all the stringencies in siman 196 apply to ketamim.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: And if she felt that her womb opened to discharge blood and she examined herself afterwards and found nothing, there is one who says that she is impure. Thus far his words. This is the opinion of the Terumat HaDeshen, siman 246, and he wrote the reason: for certainly a drop of blood like a mustard seed emerged and was wiped away or dissolved, for a sensation is a Torah-level logic where the sensation cannot be attributed to something else. Therefore, if she examined herself and found a white or green appearance, she is pure, for we attribute the sensation to this, see there. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, was precise and wrote that she found nothing, meaning that if she found a pure appearance, she attributes it to that, but when she found nothing, it is worse.

And know that the author of the Terumat HaDeshen brought proofs for this law from the Gemara, and there are some among the great authorities who rejected his proofs [the Rema in Darkei Moshe siman 188 and the Radbaz siman 149]. From this, there are those who wished to say that specifically when she examined herself after the interval of the vest period explained in siman 187, for then we assume there was a drop and it dissolved or was crushed; but when she examined herself immediately and found nothing, she is tahora [Kereti U-Peleti subsection 3 and see Sidrei Tahara]. But this does not seem so from his words, for if it were so, he should have explained it. In truth, his primary reason is from logical reasoning, for certainly when she felt a sensation, something emerged from her, and the proofs are merely supplementary as is the way of the authors of responsa. If so, even when she examined herself immediately, she is temea when she did not find tahor appearances [and so wrote the Chavot Da'at at the end of subsection 3, and also the opinion of the Sidrei Tahara is such, and the Pitchei Teshuva erred in this, and examine it well].

And there is one who is in doubt regarding that which we said, that when she found a pure appearance she may attribute her sensation to this—until what point in time can she attribute it? For certainly, if after a long time she found the pure appearance, it is impossible to attribute it to this, for if so, what prevented it from exiting? And even though for stringency we say at the beginning of Niddah that for up to twenty-four hours we attribute it to the walls of the womb having withheld the blood, this is for terumah and holy items and is merely a safeguard. But for chullin we say: if there were blood originally, it would have come out. And if so, you must say that within a short time she examined and found the pure appearance. And if so, how much time is this? It requires further study [Sidrei Taharah end of subsection 4].

And in my humble opinion, it appears that we attribute it up to twenty-four hours, for it is certainly impossible to say that regarding chullin there is no reasoning at all to say that the walls of the womb held it back; for if so, how could we be stringent regarding terumah and holy offerings in a matter that is entirely impossible? Rather, it is certain that this matter is possible and can be so, but at the beginning of Niddah this is what we are saying: that it is obvious that there is also no necessity to say so, that the walls of the womb held it back, and therefore regarding chullin, from where do we know to be concerned for a mere apprehension? Since she does not remember a sensation from yesterday, why should we be concerned? It is only for terumah and holy offerings that we are concerned because of the safeguard. And all this is when she did not know of a sensation beforehand; but here, where she knew of a sensation beforehand, it is obvious that we attribute it to the holding back of the walls of the womb for twenty-four hours, and it is a complete attribution. Furthermore, how could it enter our minds to say that for terumah and holy offerings we should be concerned even when she did not feel it beforehand, and for chullin we should not be concerned for this very apprehension even when she did feel it beforehand? Furthermore, we have already explained according to the opinion of the Rambam that when it is found in the vestibule, we are concerned that it is a long time since it left the source and she felt it but did not pay attention, and the blood remained in the vestibule; and here too it is so [so it appears in my humble opinion].

Some say that specifically regarding the sensation of the opening of the womb one must be stringent, but regarding the sensation of the flow of a moist substance, we attribute it to what is common in urine [Sidrei Taharah]. And so too, women who are accustomed to having white discharge constantly emerge from them, if it is their way for it to emerge with the sensation of the opening of the womb, she may even now attribute it to this even when she did not perform a bedikah, for we always attribute it to what is common [it appears to me]. And all the more so regarding the flow of a moist substance, she attributes it to them when such is their way. And so too, regarding a sensation that her limbs trembled, there is also no concern [Chochmat Adam]; that is to say, even according to those who hold that this is called a sensation, nevertheless we attribute it to something else. And so too, according to those who hold that the flow of a moist substance is called a sensation, nevertheless we attribute it to urine. And all the more so according to what we explained, that other than the opening of the womb it is not called a sensation at all, that there is no concern, as I wrote in section 1 and in siman 183. And nevertheless, she requires a bedikah.

An incident occurred involving a woman who was standing in the women's section of the beit knesset and was sneezing, and due to the force of the sneeze, according to her perception, drops of urine sprayed from her. She was unable to examine herself at that time, and at night when she lay down, she found a small stain on her shift less than a k'gris. She asked whether perhaps because she had a sensation that something sprayed from her, there is reason for concern even with less than a k'gris, and we should say that this is the blood that sprayed from her onto the shift. They ruled for her that she is tahora, for we do not establish a prohibition, and had she examined herself immediately, she would have found drops of urine; for such is the way of people, that every sensation of spraying is attributed to urine. Only with the sensation of the opening of the womb is there reason for concern, and not with other sensations [ibid. in the name of Shev Yaakov].

Even though regarding vestot they were lenient with four women—a virgin, an elderly woman, a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman—as written in siman 189, nevertheless regarding ketamim they were only lenient with a virgin alone. However, regarding the other three, they were only lenient regarding the matter of impurity of a twenty-four hour period retroactively, for all women who see blood not at the time of their vestet render terumot and kodashim impure for a twenty-four hour period prior, and likewise when she found a ketem; yet these three women do not render impure retroactively [Niddah 5a]. But they are subject to ketamim. And a virgin who has not yet reached her time to see, who has not reached twelve years and one day, even if she brought signs, or she reached her years and was examined and did not bring signs, her ketem is nothing. And even if her sheets are soiled with blood, she is permitted to her husband. And even if she already saw twice, the sages did not decree upon her ketamim; but when she has seen three times, she must be concerned for a ketem like other women.

And know that there are some who say that nowadays, since they were stringent regarding the blood of virginity in a minor as has been written in siman 193, so too one should be stringent regarding ketamim [Rashal]. And there are some who say that they only ruled leniently regarding ketamim that are on her garments and not regarding ketamim that are on her body [Bach]. And there are some who say that they only ruled leniently regarding her when there is a doubt whether it came from her body or from the world, we attribute it to having come from the world, but if it certainly came from her body, she is tamei [Chavat Da'at]. But it does not appear so, for our Sages, of blessed memory, explicitly said that they did not decree upon her ketamim, which implies that in every case they did not decree upon her, even regarding ketamim on her body and even if she has nothing to attribute it to, as long as she did not feel it. And it is not similar to virginity, for there, there is another reason for it, because intercourse is common to all and they do not distinguish between a minor and an adult, and his inclination overpowers him; therefore, it was necessary to make them all equal. This is not the case with ketamim, which are handed over to the poskim [Shach, subsection 3].

Some say that even though regarding the other three women they did not rule leniently concerning ketamim, nevertheless, regarding the law of a sensation that was explained—that she felt her womb open but found nothing, that she is temeiah—nevertheless, regarding these three women, we attribute the sensation to another matter, since they are under the presumption of being removed from blood [Minchat Yaakov and Sidrei Taharah]. These are words of reason. And even regarding all women, it is specifically if she certainly felt her womb open; but when she has a doubt if her womb opened, such as if in a dream it seemed to her that her womb opened and she awoke from her sleep and checked and found nothing, she is tehorah [Noda BiYehudah, Second Edition, Yoreh Deah, siman 119], for it is sufficient to be stringent in a case of certainty and not in a case of doubt. However, she certainly requires a bedikah [see there in the responsum regarding a complete sensation where she checked immediately and left the cloth until the morning, and in the morning she found nothing, and he ruled her tehorah, see there; and I hesitate regarding this toward a prohibition; and likewise what his son wrote there, that regarding a sensation we require two things: the opening of the womb and the flow of a moist substance, see there, certainly it is not so, as I have written, and delve into this].

Behold, we have already written that regarding a minor, once she has seen three times, she has stains. The wording of the Rambam in chapter 9 [Halacha 5] there: her stain is pure until she sees blood of three vestot. Thus far his words. His intention is not for actual vestot of equal fixed intervals or distant times, for this is irrelevant; rather, his intention is for times separated from one another. That is to say, because in the Gemara [10b] it is stated that if she is flowing, or even dripping, it is only like one seeing. Rashi explained: dripping drop after drop, see there. It is implied from this that if it is only not drop after drop—for example, if she saw a drop and it ceased a little, and she saw again and it ceased a little, and she saw again—her stain is impure. This is the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 3, who wrote: If she was flowing for several days, or if she was dripping drop after drop without cessation, it is only like one seeing until it ceases. But if it ceased a little and she saw again three times, even in one day, she is established in bloods and her stain is impure. Thus far his words. This follows the system of Rashi. To the Rambam, it did not seem correct to explain thus, for how is it possible to consider three seeings in one day such that we would call her established in the seeing of blood? Therefore, he explains "three vestot," meaning three onot at the very least, or perhaps his intention is specifically for three days. This is the opinion of "there is one who says" brought in the Shulchan Aruch. One should be stringent like the first opinion, and even according to this opinion, a cessation only avails for one who is dripping and not for one who is flowing [Bach and Shach, subsection 4].

A young girl who has not yet reached her time to see [menstrual blood] and saw three times, and then ceased from seeing for a duration of three periods, which are ninety days, returns to her prior status, and her ketam is pure until she returns and sees three times. Thus ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 4, and this is like the laws of vestot in the previous siman, and we explained it there in section 79, see there. In the Rambam this law is not found, but the Rashba in Torat HaBayit derived the law of ketamim from the law of vestot [Beit Yosef]. And I do not understand how we can derive this from that; for regarding vestot even an elderly woman has the status of a young girl, as was written there, but regarding ketamim it is not so. If so, we see that ketamim are not similar to vestot and ketamim are more stringent; if so, from where do we have it to derive this law from vestot? This requires further study. However, it is certain that even according to their words, that which they wrote "until she returns and sees three times," the intention is not like vestot that there must be three times of equal intervals, so that its end should not be more lenient than its beginning; for even at the beginning of her seeing it was explained according to their words that even three times in one day, when she saw, her ketam is impure, and all the more so now. Rather, their intention is only for three sightings [and I am very much astonished at the Beit Yosef and the Bach who wrote regarding the intention of the Tur that even if she returned to see in small periods etc., see there, for what is the relevance of a period to ketamim? This requires very great study].

It is simple that a girl who has reached the time for her to see, even though she has not yet seen, her ketem is tamei like all women. There are some of the early authorities who said that as long as she has not yet seen, her ketem is not tamei, and the Rashba, of blessed memory, rejected their words in Torat HaBayit in the gate of ketamim, see there. And so wrote the Tur, and this is his wording: And if she is twelve years and one day old, even though she has never seen, she has a ketem even if it is not known that she brought hairs, for we presume she brought them since she reached the completion of her years; but if they checked her and did not find hairs, the Rashba wrote that we maintain her status as a ketannah and we do not fear that perhaps they fell out. Thus far his words. And according to the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory, [5a, s.v. "ein," see there] that anyone who has reached twelve years even if she did not bring hairs, or brought hairs even if she did not reach her years, is called "reached the time for her to see." And all the poskim disagree with this. And the Rambam in chapter 9 leaves it undefined, and nevertheless from his wording where he wrote "a virgin who never saw blood in her days and is still a ketannah, her ketem is tahor etc." it implies that he holds like the majority of the poskim, for it is established for us throughout the Shas that with signs without years or years without signs she has not left the category of ketannut [see Maggid Mishneh and Beit Yosef].

When they decreed regarding ketamim, they did not decree unless the ketam was as large in its length as a k'gris, and a k'gris itself is still tahor, and only with slightly more than a k'gris is it a ketam and she is temeiah. And the reason for the matter was explained by our sages of blessed memory [58b], for if not so, you would have no woman who would be tahora to her husband, for there is no bed and no sheet upon which are not found drops of blood from the blood of a louse. Therefore, the sages estimated that the blood of a louse is not more than a k'gris, and therefore up to a k'gris and including it, she attributes the ketam to a louse, and more than this she is temeiah. And she attributes it to a louse even if she did not crush the louse with her hands; nevertheless, it is the way of lice to be crushed when people lie on their beds or sit on their seats, as the senses testify that on every shirt and on every sheet there are several drops of blood from the crushing of a louse even though he did not crush them with his hands.

And one should not ask: since we attribute it to a louse, if so, even more than a k'gris should be attributed to two lice, or to three or more, and the decree of ketamim would be nullified. For this is no question at all, as the sages only decreed in a place where it is impossible to be otherwise—meaning, that if we were to decree upon less than this measure, a woman would never be pure for her husband for the reason that has been explained. However, in more than this measure, she can be pure; for do the lice travel together adjacent to one another such that we should say both were crushed together? Behold, in the vast majority of cases, each one travels alone, and how would they contribute exactly adjacent to one another in their being crushed together? And if she truly crushed both of them together, or they know that both were crushed together, she may attribute to them up to two k'grisin, for she attributes to anything she can attribute to, as will be explained in this siman with the help of Heaven.

And let the wording of the Rambam in the commentary on the Mishnah regarding one who sees a ketam not mislead you, for he wrote, and this is his wording: And it is found like a gris of a bean, behold, less than this she attributes to a louse, and we say that sometimes during her sitting or turning from side to side she killed fleas and lice and the like, and from them this ketam came. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote the plural form "fleas and lice"; we say his intention was the name of the species, and his intention was not that she killed many in one place, but rather that she killed many of them but they are scattered, each one across the length and breadth of the sheet and the shift and the like. However, that which he wrote, that with less than this she attributes, his words are astonishing, for we maintain that even with a gris she attributes, as he himself wrote in his composition, chapter 9, law 23, and this is his wording: And she attributes to a louse etc. and up to how much? Up to a gris, but if she found the ketam more than a gris it is not etc. Thus far his words. However, in his composition he also contradicts himself, for prior to this in law 6 he wrote, and this is his wording: And that which is found on the garment does not become tamei until it is a gris etc. if it was less than this measure it is tahor. Thus far his words. [And the Bach already raised this difficulty and remained in astonishment, see there].

And in my humble opinion, it appears that his words are clear when we examine the Gemara [58b] where the Amoraim disagree regarding a gris, whether it was less than a gris or more than a gris. What relevance is there for a dispute in this, since the reason is due to the blood of a louse? Let us see if the blood of a louse is like a gris or less than a gris! Rather, it is certainly impossible to be exact in this, and it is among the impossibilities to calibrate precisely. Therefore, they disagree in this: one master rules stringently and one master rules leniently. And we establish the law leniently, as it is stated there: All the measurements of the sages are for stringency, except for the gris of stains, which is for leniency. That is to say, all measurements of the sages, when there is a doubt regarding them, we follow the stringency, except for the gris of stains, where we follow the leniency in its case of doubt.

And behold, at the beginning of Niddah regarding the matter of retroactive impurity for a twenty-four hour period, they were more stringent regarding taharot than regarding her husband. And we say there [5a] that ketamim also impart impurity retroactively for twenty-four hours, and it says there that this is the view of Rabbi Meir who is stringent regarding ketamim. And see there in Tosafot that everyone is stringent regarding ketamim [and see 53b]. And it is difficult, for later we say that we follow the lenient view regarding ketamim, as has been written. Rather, certainly for taharot they were stringent and not for her husband. And according to this, the words of the Rambam are well-settled: for behold, previously in Law 3 he wrote: And any woman who sees a ketam is impure retroactively for up to twenty-four hours, see there. And this refers to taharot. Therefore, he correctly ruled afterward that a kigris is like more than a kigris because he is dealing with taharot, as is proven from the arrangement of his words and from his wording there where he wrote there: And that which is found on the garment does not impart impurity until it is a kigris, etc., if it was less than this measure, it is tahor. Thus far his words. Behold, he is dealing with the matter of tumah and taharah. This is not the case from there onward, where he deals with her husband, and therefore he ruled in Law 23 that a kigris is like less than a kigris and did not write the language of tumah and taharah, see there [and in the Commentary on the Mishnah he did not see fit to elaborate, and regarding the Baraita on page 53b, he holds like Rashi and not like Tosafot there on 5a, see there and examine it carefully].

Whether it is a red stain or a black stain, we attribute it to a louse, for there are two types: the crawling louse whose blood is red, and the jumping one called a flea, and in the foreign tongue "flea," whose blood is black. And there is one who says that one only attributes a red stain, and it is not so; and even though in the book Ba'alei HaNefesh it also wrote that one only attributes a red stain, nevertheless, all the Rishonim did not write this matter. And it is possible that the one who wrote so is dealing with a place where fleas are not common, but in our regions, it is simple that we attribute even to black.

The measure of a gris is like nine lentils, three by three; that is to say, to place three lentils one beside the other, and beneath them three, and beneath the second row three, and all of them touching one another. The measure of a lentil is like four hairs as they are fixed in the body of a person; that is to say, not with hair clinging to hair, but slightly distant from one another as they stand in the body of a person. In nine lentils there are thirty-six hairs. We have learned likewise at the beginning of the sixth chapter of Negaim regarding a baheret, that its measure is also like a gris, see there. It appears to me that the intent is regarding the hairs of the head, and so wrote our teacher, the Rema, in his book Darkhei Moshe, see there, for even on the head there is a slight distance between hair and hair. There is one who wrote that the intent is regarding the hairs on the body of the person [see Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 11], but it is not so, for on the body there is a great distance from hair to hair, as our eyes see.

There is another measure for a gris, like half a bean [Rashi, Keritot 8b, s.v. "kagris"], meaning that every bean is divided lengthwise into two, and the volume of the divided side is the measure of a gris. One of the great authorities wrote [Chacham Tzvi, siman 67] that these are the beans called "Turkish beans," and in our language are called "fasolye," and the wide variety is not common among them. Nevertheless, this has not been clearly clarified for us, for even among these there are large and small ones. There is one who wrote that it is like the coin of the state of Prussia called a "dedka" [Chachmei Adam]. I received a tradition in my youth from the mouths of the great authorities that it is like the Polish coin of base silver of five gr. called a "fimperl," but now the government has disqualified it, and it is like the measure of the Russian silver coin of five kop. and a little more, and close to the silver coin of ten kop. of our state of Russia.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 5 that as long as it does not have this measure, meaning that there is not in the stain more than a k'gris, we attribute it by saying it is the blood of a louse, even if she did not kill a louse. But when it has this measure, meaning a k'gris and more, we do not attribute it to a louse, whether it is square or long. And if there happened to be for her a k'gris larger than this measure, we measure with it. Thus far their words. And this is from the words of the Ra'avad and the Ramban, of blessed memory, and their reasoning is that since regarding nega'im we learned "like a Cilician k'gris" and regarding a stain they said "k'gris" without specification, we learn from this that we measure with any k'gris that exists in the world.

And one should not ask what relevance there is to every gris that exists in the world, for behold, it depends on the size of the blood of a louse, as it is possible that when there is a larger gris, there is also a larger louse [Perishah and Taz, subsection 7]. And this is not understood at all, what one has to do with the other. But the Ra'avad wrote the reason: since the sages of blessed memory said that all the measurements of the sages are to be stringent, except for the gris of ketamim which is to be lenient, therefore we attribute it even to a gris when it is larger. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: that the sages left their words unspecified to say "a gris" without qualification; hear from this that it was established to the sages of blessed memory that every louse's blood would be like the largest gris in the world, except that in a place where there is not a very large gris, one must of necessity measure by the gris of that place, and this is to be lenient—meaning, so that you will not need to trouble yourself to search for a gris that is in such-and-such a place [and according to this, that which was written in section 24, that it has not been clarified to us because there are large ones and small ones, there is no concern in this, for we can measure by the largest, and this requires further reflection, and delve into it].

There are some of our teachers who wrote that when she killed many lice, she may attribute according to what she killed [Tosafot 58b, s.v. "And like his words"]. And there are those who wrote that the sages did not differentiate, and more than a k'gris she may not attribute in any case [the Rosh ibid., siman 6]. And so it is implied from the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, who did not mention anything of this. And so it is implied from the words of the Rambam, who stated his words without specification [seemingly I would say that this depends on the dispute of Rav Hanina and Rabbi Yannai on page 59a regarding a stain found the size of a k'gris and more, and in that "more" a louse is crushed, where Rav Hanina rules it impure and Rabbi Yannai rules it pure. And the Rambam ruled like Rav Hanina in chapter 9, halacha 23, and therefore he is stringent even in such a case; and for the poskim who rule like Rabbi Yannai, see there in Maggid Mishneh, also in this they would be lenient. But it is impossible to say so, for even the Rosh rules there like Rabbi Yannai, and so ruled the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in section 28, and nevertheless they are stringent here; and it is easy to differentiate between them, and examine this closely].

The Rambam wrote in chapter 9, law 6: What is the difference between a כתם found on her flesh and a כתם found on her garment? For a כתם found on her flesh has no minimum size, but that found on a garment does not impart tumah unless it is like a gris, etc. Thus far his words. And all of our teachers rejected his words, for there is no hint of this in the Shas, and they stated without qualification that a כתם requires a gris, whether on her flesh or on her garment. And so they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 6, and they brought the opinion of the Rambam only in the name of "there are those who say," see there. And there is one who wrote regarding his reasoning that it is because we say [57b] that on her flesh it is doubtfully tamei and on her garment it is doubtfully tahor [Maggid Mishneh]. On the contrary, from there is proof to the opposite, for the Shas actually asks: What is the case? If it is from the belt and below, why is it tahor on her garment? etc. And if it is from the belt and above, why is it tamei on her flesh? etc. And it concludes that it refers to when she passed through the market of butchers, and therefore on her flesh it is tamei, for if it came from elsewhere, it should have been found on the garment, see there. Behold, it is explicit that without this reasoning, one should not be more stringent regarding her flesh, for if it were not so, let it say that it deals with the matter of less than a gris, where on her flesh it is tamei and on the garment it is tahor. [And the words of the Shach, subsection 10, are completely astonishing, as the Minchat Yaakov and the Noda BiYehudah in Dagul Mervavah and other great ones were astonished by him, see there and examine carefully].

And in my humble opinion, it appears that the words of the Rambam are necessitated by the order of the Mishnah itself, for first we learned: "One who sees a ketem on her flesh," etc., and afterwards we learned: "If she saw it on her wrap from the belt and below," etc., and afterwards we learned: "And she attributes it to anything she can attribute it to; she slaughtered an animal," etc., "she was occupied with stains," etc., and afterwards we learned: "How much may she attribute? Up to a gris," etc., see there. And behold, this matter of attribution applies only to a ketem that is on her garment and not to one on her flesh, as the Gemara says there previously: "for if it came from the outside, it should have been found on her wrap," and as I wrote in the previous section. And consequently, this too which we learned, "How much may she attribute? Up to a gris," also refers only to her wrap, for regarding her flesh there is no attribution at all.

And there is a great reason for the matter, for regarding her body itself, it is not relevant to attribute it to a louse at all. For perforce, when a louse is crushed by her lying down or her sitting, it is crushed upon the sheet or upon the shift, as the senses testify, and perforce it flowed from her body onto her flesh and the blood remained there. Therefore, the Gemara does not establish this case of doubt regarding this matter of less than the required measure, because there is no doubt here at all. Aside from this, I do not understand: granted, regarding a stain upon her garment, they bring the garment to the sage and he estimates if there is a k'gris in it or not; but regarding a stain upon her flesh, surely the sage will not look upon her flesh, and perforce she herself must estimate. And where have we found that the sages gave power to a woman to estimate measures? And even if it is possible to say that she should make a template of the size of the stain and bring the template to the sage, nevertheless, in any such case, the sages, of blessed memory, should have specified it. Therefore, it appears to me that one should not be lenient against the Rambam, for his words are clear in their reasoning. [And the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, wrote in the Hasagot that in one way they were taught in the Mishnah: a shift below the neck and her flesh opposite the pudenda, and regarding all of them they said one attributes, etc. Thus far his words. It is not understood at all, for all of this is not in the Mishnah; and thus we learned: on her shift from the belt, etc., if she saw it on the sleeve of the shift if it reaches opposite the pudenda, see there. Furthermore, I saw a wonder in the Ma'aseh Rokeach there, who cited that Rashi wrote like the Rambam, and before us this is not found in Rashi. However, in any event, his testimony is faithful, for he wrote that he thus received from our French teachers in the name of Rashi, of blessed memory, that they hold so. And also in the Hagahot Maimoniyot, letter 1, he wrote that our teacher Simcha ruled like the Rambam, and wrote that the entire body is checked regarding a louse. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that his intention is like our words, that the blood of the louse falls upon the sheet or the shift; and delve into it.]

It is stated in the Gemara [58b]: One may attribute it to a pishpesh up to the size of a lupine. Rashi explained [starting with the words "Said Rav Nachman"]: A stain as wide as a lupine she may attribute, and not to a louse but to a pishpesh, for perhaps she killed a pishpesh whose stain is large. Thus far his words. And a pishpesh is a "wanze" in the foreign tongue. Certainly the intention of Rashi is in a place where pishpeshim are common, and so wrote the Rashba in Torat HaBayit. This is his wording: There are places where the pishpesh insect is common, and in those places a woman attributes stains up to the size of a lupine, and she is not impure until it is more than the size of a lupine. Thus far his words. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 7 wrote: If she killed a pishpesh or smelled its odor, she attributes it to it up to the size of a lupine. Thus far their words. And it is explained that specifically when it is known to her that she killed it, but without this one does not attribute, as the Tur concludes explicitly. This is his wording: But if she did not kill it and did not smell it, one does not attribute it to it. Thus far his words. And their reasoning appears to be that since it has a foul odor, and it is not similar to a louse which has no odor, it is impossible to attribute it ordinarily because she did not smell its odor; for if it entered your mind that it was crushed beneath her, she would have smelled its odor.

And perhaps this is the reasoning of the Rambam, who omitted the law of the pishpesh entirely, because in the Gemara there they said: A covenant is made that anyone who rubs it will smell it, see there. Therefore, it is impossible to attribute it when she did not smell it, and when she did smell it, it is obvious that she attributes it, and this is included in what he wrote, that she attributes it to anything that can be attributed [see Maggid Mishneh there]. And for the halacha, the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch decided to be lenient like the opinion of the Rashba, of blessed memory, for regarding ketamim we listen to the lenient view [Taz subsection 9 and Shach subsection 11]. And regarding that which she did not smell, it can be said that it is because it was crushed during sleep, and this we see with our senses, that in places where they are common, much blood is found from them crushed on the sheets and on the shifts, and so we instruct the halacha in practice [and also a ketam from a pishpesh is recognizable by its appearance, but according to the law that we are not experts in appearances to distinguish between blood and blood, one should not rely on this, and nevertheless their appearance is known to one who is an expert].

The size of the lupine has not been clarified for us, for in the Shulchan Aruch it is written: it is a species of legume, it is bitter, and in the foreign tongue "lupino." Thus far his words. And it is not known to us. And so wrote Rashi in Beitzah [25b s.v. Turmus], and this is his wording: A species of legume, round like a lentil and wide like a small ma'ah, and it is very bitter until etc. Thus far his words. And I saw its translation in the German tongue "Feigbohnen," and its translation is "fig bean," and this too is hidden from us. And in the Tosafot Yom Tov, chapter 1 of Tevul Yom, mishnah 4, it is explained that it is quite large, see there. And there is one who wrote that it is like the coin of a half-pice [Minchat Yaakov and Sidrei Taharah, subsection 15], and this coin is also not known to us, and certainly the ma'ah that Rashi wrote is not known now [and that which the Minchat Yaakov wrote, "like a sela," is certainly astonishing, as the Sidrei Taharah wrote there]. Therefore, I always estimate according to the sight of my eyes [and the Chachmat Adam also wrote "half-pice," and this coin is hidden from me, and I have no tradition regarding this size].

And know that there is no distinction in these measurements of like a gris or a lupine whether the stain is thin in its quantity or thick in its quantity. And even though according to logic when it is thin it spreads more, and this is not so when it is thick in its quantity, nevertheless the sages did not give their words to varying measurements, and all the measurements of our sages of blessed memory are so. And one who wavers in this is only among the wonderers, and so wrote the great later authorities.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 29: If she killed a bug which we attribute to it up to the size of a tirmos, the tirmos returns to the measure of a gris for all the matters we have stated. Thus far their words. And it is simple, and the same applies for us in a place where bugs are common. And according to this, as we wrote in section 27, that even if she killed many lice, nevertheless she does not attribute more than a gris according to the opinion of the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, the same applies to bugs; even if she killed many, she does not attribute more than a tirmos. However, there is a doubt whether to attribute to a bug and a louse, such as if there is a tirmos in the stain and less than a gris, and we say that besides the bug, a louse was also crushed there, as will be explained regarding one who was occupied with blood with less than a gris and a gris and more was found upon her, she is tahora, for I say this stain is from the occupation with blood and there was already louse blood there. And why should we not say so regarding a bug as well? And one of the great authorities took it as simple that we do not attribute [Chavat Da'at, subsection 7]. And according to logic it does not seem so, for they are two things. And nevertheless, one could say the reason is that whenever the sages gave a measure, we do not combine measure to measure, which is not the case regarding one who was occupied with blood, for there is no measure for this, as if she was occupied with many grisin she attributes to them, and therefore we attribute also to a louse, but not with a bug, and all the measures of our sages of blessed memory are so, and so we establish. But according to the truth, the blood of a louse is not similar at all to the blood of a bug as our eyes see, and as I wrote in section 32. Therefore, it seems to me if the blood of the bug is recognizable on its own and the blood of the louse on its own, even though they are joined together, one should attribute to both of them. And even though we do not have permission to distinguish between blood and blood, nevertheless regarding the attribution of stains, one should follow this to be lenient in such a case.

And know that there is no distinction in attributing to a gris or a lupine bean whether the stain is square, round, or elongated; we attribute to them. And even though in the Gemara regarding a bedbug its length is like its width, nevertheless, the blood from it when it is crushed certainly has no set order, and therefore we attribute to them in any manner. It is simple that this is explained from the words of all the poskim. And every stain is considered such when the entire stain is joined together, but if there is not in the stain in one place the size of a gris and more, even though there are many drops there adjacent to one another such that if we were to combine them they would contain more than a gris, nevertheless, she is tahora. This is because we attribute each and every drop to a louse since they are separate, until there is in it a gris and more in one place, entirely joined.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8 that there are those who say that this is specifically when they were found on her garment, but on her flesh they join together to the size of a kigris and more even if they are not connected; meaning, that in this regard her flesh is not similar to her garment. Some of the great authorities decided in favor of this opinion [the Bach and the Sidrei Taharah, subsection 16]. However, from the language of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, it is clear that he holds according to the law like the first opinion, and therefore he wrote this opinion in the name of "there are those who say," as is his holy way. In truth, the reasoning of "there are those who say" is difficult, for either way: since they do not hold like the Rambam that a minimum size is not required on her flesh, but rather that her flesh is like a garment, if so, why is there a distinction in this matter? Behold, their dispute depends on the sugya of the Shas, but nevertheless the reasoning is difficult [and furthermore, why did the Shas not answer previously regarding the Baraita of "uncertainly tamei" in such a case? Therefore it requires further study, and delve into it].

There is one who is uncertain regarding a stain that was found upon the folds of her shift, in a manner where now, when the folds are folded, the gris appears as one, but when the folds are spread out, they separate from one another—whether one joins them to a gris in such a case [Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 16 in the name of Chachmat Adam]. And in my opinion, it appears that certainly they join, for is this law a Halakhah transmitted to Moses from Sinai, that we specifically require them to be separated? Behold, there is a great reason in the matter, for we say that if it were from her body, certainly it would all be together, as it is not common for blood to fall separated; rather, certainly each drop is from a different louse. And here, since according to the folds they are together, we say that when there is more than a gris, the blood fell in this place and is joined together by means of the folds. Therefore, one should not be lenient in this [so it appears to me].

A ketem found on her flesh that is long like a strap, or round, or if there were drops connected to one another, or if the length of the ketem was across the width of her thigh, or if it appeared as if the blood is going from below to above—meaning that it did not descend from the source from above to below, but rather the blood came from another place below and was drawn upward—and similarly when it is across the width of her thigh it also appears that the blood is from another place, for if it had come from the source it would have dripped along the length of her thigh, and similarly it would not be long like a strap or would not be round or would not be drops; nevertheless, there is no distinction in this, since it is below her genital area we say that it dripped from her body and she is tamei according to the Rambam even if it does not contain the size of a gris, and according to the other poskim when it contains the size of a gris and more, and we say that it dripped from her body in this manner [and this law does not pertain at all to the dispute of the Rambam with the poskim whether it requires the size of a gris, for here the investigation is regarding these shapes if it is possible for them to be from the body, and so wrote the Maggid Mishneh there, and all the words of the Bach are astonishing in this matter as the Shach wrote in subsection 14]:

When the sages, of blessed memory, decreed regarding ketamim, they decreed regarding two things: regarding the tumah of the woman to her husband and regarding the tumah of the object upon which the ketam was found. Therefore, they said that if the ketam was found on something that is not susceptible to tumah—for example, if she sat on the ground and found a ketam on the ground, and similarly if she sat in the privy on the hollow board which is not susceptible to tumah since it is attached to the entire structure which is attached to the ground; and even if the board was made from a vessel that was susceptible to tumah, nevertheless, since he attached it to the structure and performed an action upon it, its status as a vessel is nullified; and similarly anything that is not susceptible to tumah—when she sat on this and a ketam was found on it, since there is no tumah in the object, they did not decree regarding the tumah of the woman to her husband either. This is the primary reason for this law, and some have exerted themselves to give another reason, but it is not the primary one [see Noda BiYehudah, First Edition, Yoreh Deah, siman 52, and Chiddushei Ha-Rashba, subsection 8].

Therefore, all vessels that are not susceptible to tumah, such as stone vessels, dung vessels, or earthen vessels, and stains were found upon them, the woman is tahor. And it is simple that if it was found on a vessel fit for lying upon, which contracts the tumah of midras even though it does not contract the tumah of the dead, it is susceptible to stains. And it appears that even if it is susceptible to tumah only rabbinically, even though according to the Torah it is not susceptible to tumah, nevertheless it is tamei regarding stains. And there are those who wish to be stringent even regarding that which is susceptible only to the tumah of nega'im alone, and according to this, even a house would be called something susceptible to tumah, for behold there are nega'im of houses; but this is not the primary view, and the great authorities rejected this matter [see Kereti u-Peleti and Sidrei Taharah subsection 19].

And even a vessel that is susceptible to tumah on this side and not on that side, such as a clay vessel which becomes tamei from its interior and does not become tamei from its exterior—if she sat on the exterior and a כתם was found, it is not tamei, as is explained in the words of the Rambam, chapter 9, law 7, see there. And all the more so vessels that hold more than forty se'ah, for they are not susceptible to ketamim. And likewise, if she sat in a ship and a כתם was found, she is tehorah, for a ship is not susceptible to tumah, as we learned in Shabbat [83b]. And likewise, a cloth less than three by three fingerbreadths is not susceptible to ketamim, since it is not susceptible to any tumah, neither midras tumah nor tumah of the dead. And a כתם on paper is tahor, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 2 [law 1] of Kelim, that paper is not susceptible to tumah. And there is one who wishes to say that our paper, which is made from worn-out rags, is susceptible to tumah [see Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 18 in the name of the Shivat Tziyon to strengthen the words of the Noda BiYehudah], but these are strange words, for behold, they soak them extensively until they become entirely like soaked water and are completely separated, and afterwards "new faces have come here" and there is no name of a garment upon this, and it is obvious that it is tahor [and so wrote the Chatam Sofer in part 6, siman 81, that our paper also is not susceptible to tumah, see there].

And know that all this is regarding a found ketem, but through a bedikah, she is certainly temeiah on any object. And it is not only according to those who hold that through a bedikah she is temeiah from the Torah, but even according to those who are in doubt about this, or even according to those who hold that it is not from the Torah; nevertheless, it is also not within the decree of ketamim. And particularly since we have already decided the halachah in siman 183, section 55, that the tumah of a bedikah is from the Torah; see there.

It is further stated in the Gemara [61b] that a ketam found on a colored garment does not render one temeah through a ketam, and thus the Sages, of blessed memory, said that they only instituted colored garments for a woman to alleviate her ketamim. Rashi explained [s.v. "to alleviate"]: because the ketam is not as recognizable upon it as the appearance of actual blood. Thus far his words. And even though there is a dispute regarding this in the Gemara there, nevertheless the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 10 ruled leniently. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote there: Therefore, a woman should wear colored garments in order to save her from ketamim. Thus far his words. And any type of color does not render one temeah through a ketam. However, a garment that has many shades, part of it white and part of it colored, and the entire garment continues in this manner, and the ketam went from white to white with an interruption of color, and the ketam went across all of them—granted that the colored part does not join to form the size of a k'gris, nevertheless it certainly also does not interrupt; and if there is the size of a k'gris in the two white parts, she is temeah. And so the great authorities agreed. And there are those who are stringent, that the colored part also joins with the white to form the size of a k'gris, and it requires further study [so ruled the Chavot Da'at, subsection 9, and he brought proof from a responsum of the Rema that is in the Taz at the end of this siman, see there; but this is no comparison at all, for here the Sages instituted not to render a ketam tamei on colored items, so how could we join it? And even though according to the words of Rashi that we cited this could be settled, nevertheless it does not seem so, and examine this closely]. And although there are those who say that colored items only pertain to the taharah of the garment and not to the taharah of the woman, nevertheless most poskim do not hold so, and their opinion was not brought at all in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch.

Not in all places on her body when she finds a ketem there is she temeiah; specifically, when in this place the blood could come from the mekor is she temeiah. And thus the sages taught in the Mishnah [57b]: One who sees a ketem on her flesh opposite the beit haturpah is temeiah, and not opposite the beit haturpah is tehorah. For since it is impossible for it to drip there from the mekor, we do not fear that perhaps she brought the blood with her hand—for example, that she touched the mekor with her hands and there was blood on it, and immediately she touched that place on the body with her hands and this place on the body was colored by the blood on her hands—we do not fear this, for we do not establish tumah from place to place [Rashba in Torat HaBayit, see Beit Yosef]. And it is stated there in the Gemara that if she tilted—meaning she raised her legs upward—she is temeiah in any place she finds the ketem, for in this manner it could come from the mekor to her entire body, as is understood. See in section 67.

And which are the places that are opposite the place of filth? We learned there in the Mishnah: If it was found on her heel or on the tip of her big toe, she is impure; on her thigh or on her feet—on the inside, she is impure; on the outside, she is pure. And on the sides, from here or from there, she is pure. And the explanation of the matter is that if it was found on the heel she is impure, lest the heel touched the place of filth when she sat in the manner of the Ishmaelites, who place their feet under their buttocks [Taz, subsection 10], and the heel happens to be opposite that place. And seemingly, according to this, in our countries where they do not sit thus, she should be pure; and why did the later authorities not explain this? And also our teacher, the Rema, who was in our countries, why did he not explain this? Therefore, one must say that we concern ourselves lest she sat thus without realizing it. But in truth, it appears to me that the reason is not because of the sitting of the Ishmaelites, for even in our way of sitting it can be found that her feet were protruding slightly or resting on a small stool, for in this manner the heel is exactly opposite that place and the blood fell onto the heel. And the poskim who wrote "lest she touched etc." wrote this according to their country in Spain, for such was their way of sitting, but in our countries we say that the blood fell there as I have written:

And on the top of her big toe, and all the more so on her actual feet as is understood; but on the rest of her toes which are far from the face, she is tehorah [Taz subsection 11]. And there are those who are uncertain regarding this [see Shach subsection 17], and one who is lenient has not lost, for such is the primary ruling [Minchat Yaakov and Sidrei Taharah subsection 24]. And that which we learned "on her shin and on her feet on the inside she is temeah," this refers to the entire length of her shin and her feet on the inside, and these are the places that cling to one another at the time she stands and presses leg to leg and shin to shin. And behold, in the Gemara [58a] they said: "until the place of the girdle, and the girdle itself is like the inside," and many wondered why the Rambam and the Tur omitted this [see Beit Yosef and Bach].

And it appears to me that the Rambam and the Tur had another explanation of the Gemara when we examine it closely, for in the Mishnah we learned: "on her thigh and on her feet on the inside, she is impure." And they asked in the Gemara: "on the inside, until where?" and they answered: "until the place of the habak." And afterward they asked about the habak itself and concluded that even the habak is considered like the inside. And it is to be wondered: what is this question "on the inside, until where?" Behold, we also learned "on her feet," which is until the ground. And if they asked about the width of the thigh, it is also obvious what is on the inside in the place where they are joined. Rather, it is certainly a completely different question, and it is this: it is known that in a person, whether male or female, the entire body is joined together, and from the top of the thigh it begins to separate into halves, and the place of the ervah protrudes below the top of the thigh. And this is what they asked: "on the inside, until where?" meaning, in height, for the blood drips down from the place of her ervah and not upward. And if so, in the place of separation which is higher than the place of the ervah, it might be possible to rule it pure there, just as if it were found on her belly or her heart. And to this they said: "until the place of the habak," meaning, until the end of the thigh from above, for there is the place where the body embraces the two halves of the body into one. And even though it is slightly above the place of the ervah, nevertheless, due to the proximity of the place, it is possible that the blood rolled there. And afterward they asked about the place of the habak itself, meaning, exactly at the absolute end which is the beginning of the place where the body becomes as one, and concluded that even this is like the inside, for nonetheless it is not far from the place of the ervah. And this is all a question on the Mishnah which said "on her thigh" and not "on all of her thigh." And therefore the Rambam and the Tur, who wrote "on the entire length of her thigh," it follows that it is from the very top, and that is from the place where it is recognizable that from there the body begins to separate, and this is also the place of the habak itself, for there the separation is recognizable. And by this, that they added to say "on the entire length," everything is included [as appears to me clear with the help of Heaven].

We further say in the Gemara there that when the ketem is found on the knuckles of her fingers, meaning on the back of the hand [Rashi], she is tamei. This is not because we say that she checked herself with her other hand and touched the back of this hand, for we do not presume tumah from place to place. Rather, it is because hands are busy, and we say that she inserted the back of her hand into that place and brought out the blood. There is one who says that this is specifically when she knew that she checked herself, for then we fear perhaps she inserted her hands deeply until the blood was on the back, but in an ordinary case we do not fear this [Rashba in the name of his teacher]. However, from the Rambam, the Tur, and all the poskim, it is explicitly clear that even in an ordinary case we fear this, because hands are busy and she checked without realizing it [Shach, subsection 18].

However, it implies that only upon the finger joints is she impure, but upon the back of the palm she is pure, for it is impossible for the blood to come there except from another place, and we do not maintain impurity from one place to another. Furthermore, there is one who says that if she says, "It is clear to me that I did not touch the source," she is believed, and we do not say perhaps she touched it and forgot; rather, only ordinarily do we fear that perhaps she examined herself without realizing it, but not when she says "it is clear" [Sidrei Taharah subsection 26; and only regarding what he is in doubt concerning the back of the palm, it appears to me clear as I have written, and so wrote the Chachmat Adam, and the plain meaning of the Gemara implies this, see there and reflect]:

And it has already been explained that when she leaped and raised her legs upward, she is temeiah wherever the ketem is found on her flesh, even above the beit hatorfah, whether in front of her or behind her. And this too is specifically opposite the mekor on her abdomen and on her back, but from the sides she is tehorah, for it is impossible for the blood to come there, as is understood [Minchat Yaakov and Sidrei Taharah, subsection 27].

And know that even though regarding a stain on her shift it will be explained that we attribute it if she passed through the butchers' market or was involved with stains or with blood, nevertheless, regarding a stain on her flesh we do not attribute it. And the reason for the matter is that if it were so that the blood came from the outside from another place, she should have found the blood on her garments and not on her flesh. And even though it will be explained later regarding her shift that even when the blood is found on the lower shift and not on the upper one we attribute it, and we do not say "if it were so that it came from the outside she should have found the blood on the upper one," it is not comparable. For with garments one may well say that she lifted the upper one and therefore the blood came upon the lower one, but regarding her flesh it is not relevant to say so, for a woman would not lift all her garments and reveal her flesh while walking or while sitting [Tosafot 57b s.v. "al"]. And even though it is possible that from beneath her garments the blood splattered onto her flesh when she was involved with them, nevertheless, since the blood was found on her flesh alone, there is a basis for the matter that the blood came from her body, even though there is no absolute proof for this [Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba]. And see in section 69.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11 that this is specifically when it is found on her flesh alone; but if it is found on her flesh and also on her shift, if she passed through a butchers' market or occupied herself with bloodstains, she attributes it to it, whether it was found below the belt or she raised her legs and it was found above the belt. Thus far his words. And it appears clear to me that this law is only according to the latter reason in the previous section, that there is no necessity to say that if it came from the outside it should not have been found on her flesh, but rather that when it is found only on her flesh, it is a basis for the matter as I have written; therefore, when it is found on both of them, there is no basis for the matter here and we attribute it. But according to the first reason, that it is impossible for it to come from the outside onto her flesh, what difference does it make to me if it is found on her flesh alone or on both of them? And a proof for this is that the source of this law is from the Rashba [see Beit Yosef], and he holds the latter reason as I have written. And I wonder at the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch who were not awakened to this, and perhaps they hold the primary ruling is like the latter reason, and it requires further study. And know that according to the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch, even if the stain that is on her garment is not exactly opposite the stain that is on her flesh, nevertheless we attribute one to the other, because a garment is prone to shift and not be fixed in one place, as is understood. And so too, even if the shift was not previously checked, we do not say that this stain was there previously and the one on her flesh is from her body, but rather we attribute that the one on the shift also came now from that which she occupied herself with bloodstains or in a butchers' market and the like [Sidrei Taharah subsection 35].

And that which has been explained, that a ketem upon her flesh is not attributed [to another source], this refers to an attribution external to her body, such as the thigh of butchers and the like. However, if there is something to attribute to within her body, such as if she has a wound on her body, the ketem is attributed to the wound, provided that it is possible that from that place where the wound is located, the blood could come to the location of the ketem. But if the wound is on her shoulder and the ketem is on her thigh, such that it is impossible to come there from the wound, or if the wound is on her neck from the sides, from where it is also impossible to come upon her thigh, it is not attributed and she is tamei. And so too anything similar to this, according to the assessment of the sage.

And this, that one does not attribute when she was occupied with stains, is specifically when blood was not found on her hands; but if blood was found on her hands, one attributes the stains on her body to the blood on her hands, for she touched there. And even though we do not presume impurity or purity from place to place, this is in an ordinary case when blood was not found on her hands; but when it was found on her hands, and ordinary hands are busy, this is not a presumption from place to place, for she certainly touched there. Therefore, when blood is found on her hands, one attributes throughout her entire body because of this [Perishah]. And there is one who says that only for that which is on her hands do we attribute, and not for her entire body [Taz, subsection 14]. And the primary view is like the first opinion [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 28]. And some say that even if she was occupied with meat and fish that have blood in them, the law is the same, and it requires further study:

When she attributes it to a wound on her body, she attributes it even if she does not know that her wound emits blood. And the matter is a fortiori, for if regarding one who sees blood due to intercourse it was explained in siman 187 that she attributes it to a wound even though she does not know if her wound emits blood, all the more so regarding the lighter matters of ketamim. And more than this, our Sages, of blessed memory, said in the Mishnah [58b] that even if the wound has healed, if it is possible for the wound to be opened and emit blood through friction, she attributes it to it, even though a crust has now formed over it and it is not dripping; for the Sages did not speak to be stringent regarding ketamim, but rather to be lenient regarding them [ibid.]. And there is one who says that if it is known that the wound emits blood, and she knew that she certainly touched the wound, even though she does not know that there is blood on her fingers, we say that there is certainly blood on them, and she attributes any ketam found on the body to it, even in a place where it could not have come from the wound itself, and we say that it came there from the hands, according to the law in the previous section [Chachmat Adam], and this requires further deliberation.

A stain found on her garment, so the sages taught in the Mishnah [57b]: If she saw it on her garment from the belt and below, she is unclean; from the belt and above, she is clean. If she saw it on the sleeve of the garment, if it reaches opposite the beit hatorfah, she is unclean, and if not, she is clean. If she was removing it and covering herself with it at night, any place where a stain is found, she is unclean because it shifts. And similarly with a palium, meaning the garment with which she covers herself. And behold, the reason that from the belt and above she is clean is because it is above the beit hatorfah and it is impossible for the blood to come there. And on the place of the belt itself, she is unclean; and even though it too is slightly above the beit hatorfah, nevertheless with a slight stoop it will reach the beit hatorfah [see Tosafot Yom Tov]. And there is no distinction regarding the garment in the area below the belt in whatever place it is found, whether from her front or from her back, for behold the garment shifts like all garments that shift here and there.

And there is a question regarding this: behold, the sleeve of a tunic does not reach opposite the source except through significant bending, as the Tur and Shulchan Aruch wrote. And if it was found on the sleeve of her tunic, if the place where the blood was found on the sleeve reaches until the source, she is impure, even if it cannot touch there until she bends significantly; and if it cannot touch there at all, she is pure. Thus far his words. And if so, also from the belt and above, why is she pure? Behold, through significant bending it can reach opposite the source even from the belt and above. Therefore, there is one who wished to say that this refers specifically to when she is girded with a belt, for then above the belt it cannot come in any manner opposite the source; but when she is not girded, she is impure even if found above the belt [Sidrei Taharah subsection 35, and see there that he is in doubt regarding this].

And it is impossible to say so, for the Tanna took a physical sign—the place of the belt. A proof for this is that Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote that from the belt and below is opposite the pudenda, see there. And if the reason were as he wrote, there would be no need for it to be opposite the pudenda, but rather because from there it is possible to arrive through leaning opposite the pudenda. Furthermore, the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah explained regarding "polium" that this is the belt with which she girds herself, see there. And if it should enter your mind that what was taught in the first clause, "from the belt and below," is only when she is girded with it, if so, it is the same thing. Furthermore, if so, why did the poskim not clarify this matter which is needed for daily practice? For according to this, with our women who do not gird a belt, she would be tamei regardless of where the ketem is found on her shift, and anything like this they should have clarified. But in truth, the question is no question at all, for this matter is known: that when a person leans much, the clothes upon them distance themselves from the body. If so, if she leans much, her shift above the belt will distance itself much from the pudenda, and it is impossible for the blood to arrive there. And besides this, the leaning of the hand is not similar to the leaning of the body, for with the hand it is the way of a person, when they need to search for something, to lean the hand much while their body is still not leaning much, as is perceived by the senses. [And the Sidrei Taharah himself in subsection 31 did not write like his words in subsection 35, and also there he concludes otherwise, see there].

And know that according to what is explained in the Shas and the poskim, a ketem is relevant to all the garments she wears when it is found from the belt and below, and so we learned explicitly [58b]: she wore three shifts, etc., and it was brought in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 18, see there. However, the great authorities wrote that this is only regarding shifts and not regarding other garments, and all the more so regarding our garments, for it is impossible in any way that blood from that place should come upon her upper garments, and the law of ketamim does not apply to them. And so too regarding the pillows in our beds, which are surrounded by boards and the pillows are placed inside the bed, it is impossible for the lower to flip to the upper, and therefore if a ketem is found on the second pillow, one should rule it pure [Sidrei Taharah sub-section 45 and Panim Meirot part 2 siman 183]. And all these matters depend on the sight of the eyes of the posek according to the custom of the garments and the beds. But the sheets and the covers that are called "koldra" with which they cover the body during sleep, it is obvious that even among us they turn over, and in any place that a ketem is found on them, she is temeah, and it is simple.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12: If the ketem was found on her shift below the belt or at the place of the belt itself, she is temeiah, even if it was found on the outer side. But if she passed through a market of butchers, she is tehorah even if it was found on the inner side and on her flesh. And if it was found on her shift alone from the belt and above, she is tehorah even if she leaned back and raised her legs, and even if she did not pass through a market of butchers, for if it came from the source, it would have been found on her flesh. Thus far his words. And behold, that which he wrote that below the belt she is temeiah even if it was found on the outer side, the reason is because it is the way of the shift for that which is on the outer side to fold toward the inner side [Perishah]. And that which he wrote that if she passed through a market of butchers she is tehorah even if it was found on the inner side, it is simple, because we say that the blood splattered under her garments; and therefore he wrote that even if it was found on the inner side and on her flesh, meaning on both of them, as I wrote in section 53. But the Tur wrote: "and on her flesh, she is temeiah," see there [in the Beit Yosef and in the Perishah; and according to what I wrote in section 53, it appears to me that first the Tur wrote the opinion of the Tosafot and afterwards he brought the opinion of the Ramban, who was the teacher of the Rashba, and examine this carefully].

However, regarding that which he wrote, that from the belt and above it is tahora even if she jumped and even if she did not pass through the market of butchers—meaning that in this it is not similar to a stain upon her flesh, for there, if she jumped, she is temea even above the belt even if she passed through the market of butchers, while here she is tahora even if she did not pass—the reason is that if it were from her body, it would have been found upon her flesh, meaning upon her flesh as well. For it is certain that if she jumped and it was found upon her flesh and upon her shift above the belt, she is temea, and we say that it fell upon both of them. But that it should fall only upon her shift and not upon her flesh, it is impossible to say so. And even though in the Gemara it implies explicitly that whenever she jumped, above the belt is like below the belt—and indeed there is one who holds so in the Tur, see there—nevertheless, it seemed to our teacher, the Beit Yosef, that this opinion is primary: that in such a case we do not say that above should be like below except when it is found upon her flesh or upon both of them, but not when it is found upon her garment alone. And there is one who hesitated regarding this [see Bach and Shach subsection 26 and Sidrei Tahara subsection 33, and examine carefully].

And know that everything found on her shift that was explained in this matter refers to a shift that was checked for her [Shach, subsection 27, in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham]. And there is room to doubt regarding that which was explained, that when it is found on her flesh alone she is impure even if she passed through the butchers' market, and when found on both she is pure—if the shift was not checked, do we say that the stain on the shift was there from before, and if so, her status now is as if it were found only on her flesh and she is impure? Or, since it is now found on both of them, she is pure? And so it appears primary according to what was explained, that it is possible for it to be on her flesh alone as well, but there are more "proven hands" that it came from her body since it was not also found on her shift; but now, when it is found on her shift, even though it was not checked, nevertheless, even "proven hands" are not present here [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 35]. And see what I wrote in section 53.

It has already been explained that if a stain is found on the sleeve of her garment, which is called an "armel," she is temeah if the place where the blood was found on the sleeve can reach opposite the beit hatorpah through even extreme bowing. However, Rashi, of blessed memory, explained in the Mishnah regarding one who sees a ketam that we are concerned that the sleeve slipped from the arm and fell opposite below. Thus far his words. According to this, the entire sleeve can reach until the beit hatorpah, as is understood. It appears to me that both are necessary, for in an ordinary case we are concerned for the reason of Rashi; however, if she says, "it is clear to me that I did not slip the sleeve," then she is not temeah except in a place where, through bowing, this place on the sleeve can come opposite the beit hatorpah. [And see Sidrei Taharah subsection 34, and in my humble opinion it appears as I have written, and examine it closely.] Similarly, it has already been explained that regarding a sheet upon which she lies or with which she covers herself during her sleep, in any place a ketam is found she is temeah, for it is their way to be turned here and there. And such is the law if a ketam is found on a kerchief with which she covers her head during sleep or which she girds herself with, for we say that during sleep the kerchief fell opposite the beit hatorpah. Therefore, if she tied it well to her head and when she awoke she found it also tied well, she need not be concerned. But regarding that which she always girds herself with, she is temeah, for the place of the belt is like below the belt, as I wrote in section 57; see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 15: Two women who covered their heads with one garment, both are tamei. And if one covered and the other did not cover, even though both wore the garment and the ketem was found above the belt, the one who covered is tamei and the other is tehorah. Thus far his words. And this deals with a case where both were tehorot, for if one were temeiah, we would attribute the ketem to the temeiah, as will be explained. And so too if for one the ketem was above the belt and for the other it was below, and both wore the garment and did not cover their heads at all, the one for whom it was below the belt is tamei and the second is tehorah. And if the one for whom it was above the belt covered her head, both are tamei; this one because of the covering, and that one because of the wearing, for in her case it was below the belt. And there is no distinction in this between day and night [and the words of the Levush in section 48 are puzzling matters, as written in the Minchat Yaakov and in siman 9, subsection 36, see there].

Just as the covering with which she covers her body at the time of sleep brings a stringency to ketamim, as has been explained, that in any place where the ketam is found she is temeiah, so too it brings a leniency as well. For example, if she has a wound on the sides of the neck in a manner that the ketam cannot be attributed to this wound when the ketam is found on her shirt below the belt, where it is impossible for the blood to reach there; however, if she removes the shirt and covers herself with it, she attributes it to her wound, for I say it was overturned and came there. But when the wound is on her neck itself, even without this she attributes it to her wound, for it is possible to come from there to below the belt opposite the vaginal area [see Shach subsection 29].

Since it has been explained that a ketam below the belt is tamei and above the belt is tehorah, therefore if two ketamim were found, one below and one above, the upper one purifies the lower one, and we say that just as the upper one certainly came from the outside, so too the lower one. And this is specifically when she knows that she did not bend over; for if she does not know clearly that she did not bend over—even if she also does not know the opposite, that she did bend over, in which case if it were found above alone she would be tehorah, for when it is above alone she is not tamei unless she knows that she bent over, as I wrote in section 45—nevertheless, here we require that she knows she did not bend over. For if not so, we say the opposite: just as this one below came from her body, so too this one above, and we say that she bent over without realizing. For if we were to say the opposite, that just as the upper one came from the outside so too the lower one, it would be two attributions: the attribution of the upper one to the outside, and the attribution of the lower one to the upper one, and we do not attribute two attributions. Therefore, we require that the upper one be clearly from the outside, which is when she knows she did not bend over, for then it is necessarily from the outside and this is not an attribution [and see Shach, subsection 30].

And likewise, this is specifically when there is on the upper [garment] the size of a gris and more, or more, such that it cannot be attributed to a louse and certainly came from the outside; but if there is not on it the size of a gris and more, and on the lower [garment] there is the size of a gris and more, it is not relevant to attribute the lower to the upper, for we say the upper is the blood of a louse and the lower came from her body and she is impure. And likewise, if they are not equal in appearance, such that this one is red and this one is black, they are not attributed to one another, as will be explained in section 74. And likewise, specifically when the shirt was checked [Chavat Da'at, subsection 11], for it was clarified that the upper came from the outside, for if not so, let us say that the upper was already there from before. And likewise, if she knew that she occupied herself with blood, and that she only occupied herself with the size of a gris and more, and here there are two grisin and two mores, she is impure, for we say the upper is from the occupation and the lower is from her body [ibid.].

It has already been explained that we attribute stains to anything that we can attribute them to, and the reason is because stains are of rabbinic origin, we are lenient regarding them and attribute them. How so? If she slaughtered a domestic animal, a wild animal, or a bird, or she was occupied with stains, or she sat beside those occupied with them, or she passed through a butchers' market and blood was found on her garments, she attributes it to them and is tahora. And even if she is wearing three shifts one on top of the other and it was found even only on the bottom one, she is tahora, and we do not say that since it came from the outside why was it not found on the upper one, for we say that she lifted her upper shift; this is not the case with a stain on her flesh, and we explained the reason in section 52. Therefore, we do not attribute a stain on her flesh except to a wound on her body. And that which was explained, that if she slaughtered she attributes the stain, the same law applies if she was occupied with meat, such as if she sells meat and her hands are always soiled with the blood in the meat, she attributes the stain to it, and we say either the blood dripped on her shift or she touched the shift with her hands, for it has already been explained that whenever her hands are occupied with blood, they are "busy hands," and we say that she touched them at the location of the stain. And so too if she salted meat or was occupied with fish and anything similar to this, we attribute it to that.

It is a simple matter that with anything that is possible to bring to mind to attribute [the stain] to, we attribute it. For example, if she cleared out chicken droppings, or if she inhales tobacco into her nostrils and it is her way to have a flow from her nose and there is in this something like the appearance of blood. Similarly, a woman who has the illness of hemorrhoids, which they call "gildene odern," if at times drops of blood flow from her from the rectum, she attributes it to this. Similarly, if she wears red outer garments or red stockings, and sometimes at the time of perspiration the redness falls upon the shift, and similarly if she covers herself with a red cover. Similarly, there are people whose way is to have something drip from them at times like moist excrement from the rectum onto the shift, or if she is not wiped well when she goes out [see Yoma 30a, "and if it is not visible etc."]. In all of this, it is possible to attribute the ketem. And all the more so when she is raising a small child and he is soiled with excrement. And so too with anything similar to this, one must investigate and inquire, and we attribute the ketem to them; "give to a wise man and he will become yet wiser."

Just as she attributes stains to herself, so too she attributes them to her son and to her husband if they were occupied with stains or with blood, or if they have a wound, because it is her way to touch them and it is their way to touch her; and with this, she can attribute even a stain that is on her flesh [Siman 190, subsection 43]. And it appears to me that she attributes it only to her small son and not to an adult, for he is not as close to his mother, as is understood. And if her husband and her son were occupied with blood and no blood was found on them, she does not attribute it to them unless they were occupied with something that typically splatters, such as shechitah and the like. And the same law applies if she lay in bed with women who have wounds on their bodies; she attributes it to them just as with her son and her husband. And regarding that which she attributes to a wound on her body, there is no difference between when the wound and the stain are both in one place—such as both of them in front of her or both of them behind her—or if the stain is on her lower back and the wound is in front of her, or vice versa; in any case, she attributes it to it, for the garment during her sitting and her lying can be turned, and that which was behind comes to the front or vice versa, and it dripped on her from that wound.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 20: One who is accustomed to blood emerging from him through the opening of the organ, and at the time of tashmish blood is found on the woman’s cloth, she attributes it to her husband. Thus far his words. That is to say, that blood emerges from him even not at the time of urinating, and the blood emerges unintentionally [Responsa of the Rashba in the Beit Yosef at the end of this siman]. Therefore, she attributes the examination cloth to this, and she attributes all her ketamim to it. And likewise, if it is known that his semen is red, she also attributes the cloth and the ketamim to this, for so we have learned in the Tosefta of Zavim [chapter 2], see there. And likewise, if at the time she discharges semen blood emerges with it, she attributes it to this [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 24 in the name of the Maharit]. And specifically within three days of her tashmish is there the law of discharge [ibid.], as I have written in siman 196.

If there is a doubt whether she passed through the market of butchers or did not pass, she does not attribute it, for this is like two attributions. For even if she certainly passed, we must attribute that it splattered from it onto her garments, and how can we further attribute by saying we attribute that she passed? And so too in all matters that are attributed, the law is thus; for example, they attribute if she sat near those who deal with ketamim, but not in a doubt if she sat. In what case are these words said? In a city where the butchers or those who deal with ketamim sit in a known place. But if it is their way to deal once in this place and once in another place, they attribute even from doubt, perhaps they dealt in the place where she passed and she did not notice. And the reason is that since they do not have a fixed place, the entire city is like a market of butchers, and it is only one attribution. [And in the Gemara 58b: A city that has pigs, they do not concern themselves with ketamim; this was not brought in the Shulchan Aruch for the reason that the Tosafot wrote there and the Tur, that now this is not applicable, for creeping things and carcasses are not common in our streets, and also the gentiles keep them in their houses, as the Beit Yosef wrote, see there.]

If she was occupied with a red substance and a black stain was found upon her, or vice versa, we do not attribute it to it. In what case does this apply? Red to black and black to red. But red to red and black to black, even if it is not clearly recognizable that it is similar to it, she attributes it to it. For example, if she was occupied with fenugreek water or meat water or a somewhat red eye-salve, she attributes a red appearance to it. But when it is clearly recognizable that there is no similarity between them, we do not attribute it. And the explanation of the matter is that there is no need to place them side-by-side to see if they are similar; and even when it appears on the surface that there is no similarity, if there is room to say that upon the garment the appearance must necessarily change slightly, and also one drop is not entirely similar to another drop, and so too anything similar to this, we say so. And this is all regarding the strength of the appearance and its weakness. But when it is recognizable that there is no similarity at all between them—meaning that all the reasons we could say would not suffice to equate them in one category—certainly we do not attribute it [and with this everything is settled well; see Sidrei Taharah, subsection 45]. And a thing that has several appearances, we attribute to it all appearances. For example, if she was occupied with a hen, she attributes to it red, black, and crocus-colored, because the blood of its slaughtering is red, the blood of its limbs is black, and the blood of its entrails is crocus-colored, and so too anything similar to this.

It is stated in the Gemara [58b]: Two women who were occupied with one bird that had only a sela's worth of blood, and a stain the size of a sela was found on this one and a stain the size of a sela was found on that one, both are unclean. This was brought in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 25. Our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote that this refers to a case where they were occupied with the bird one after the other; for if the first one had come to ask, we would have declared her clean since she was occupied [with the bird], and because of her companion we declare the first one unclean, who was completely clean. Thus far their words. There are those who explained their words that their intention is that specifically when they come to ask at the same time we declare both of them unclean, but one after the other they are clean [Bach]. This is similar to the "two paths" in the Gemara, one unclean and one clean, where one person walked in one of them and prepared tahor items, and his companion came and walked in the second and prepared tahor items, where we establish that if they come to ask at the same time both are unclean, but one after the other they are clean [Pesachim 10a]. And so too regarding two houses checked for chametz, and a mouse came and took chametz and entered one of the houses and we do not know which of them, where the law is also thus [ibid.], and this case is also similar to it.

But in truth, there is no comparison between them, for there the people stand in a presumption of purity were it not for the paths, and every doubt of impurity regarding them stems from the paths; therefore, when they come one after another, we establish each one in his presumption of purity. And so too regarding hametz, the houses are checked, and were it not for the mouse, they would be in a presumption of fitness, and it is only through the mouse that the doubt is awakened. But here, the impurities of the women are from themselves, from the stains they found, and this bird is needed to remove them from their stains by attributing it to it. And how can we attribute it to it since it is not sufficient for both of them? Consequently, they remain with their stains and are impure. And the Tosafot, who said "and if the first one had come to ask, we would have purified her," their intention was before the second one found a stain, and therefore they conclude that she is completely pure, meaning, were it not for the finding of the stain of the second one. But after the finding of the stain of the second one, both are impure even when they come to ask one after another. [And this is the intention of the Taz, subsection 17, and I do not know why the Chavot Da'at, subsection 14, labored over the words of the Taz and diverted his intention to another matter and raised a difficulty against him; and according to our words, the matters are clear with the help of Heaven].

The Tur wrote: If she was occupied with something the size of a k'gris and there was found upon her a k'gris and more, or two k'grisin, she is impure, even though if we were to attribute a k'gris to the occupation she was occupied with, there would not remain a k'gris and more, which is the measure of a ketem. And likewise, if she was occupied with less than a k'gris and there was found upon her a k'gris and more, she is impure. And it is unnecessary to say if she was occupied with a k'gris and there was found upon her two k'grisin and more. The Rashba ruled her pure in a case where she was occupied with ketamim of less than a k'gris and there was found upon her a k'gris and more. The Ramban ruled her pure if she was occupied with less than a k'gris and there was found upon her two k'grisin. My father, our teacher, of blessed memory, wrote according to the first opinion. Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matter is that the Rosh holds that the attribution of ketamim is only when it is possible to attribute the entire ketam to this attribution, such as up to a k'gris to a louse, and more than this if she was occupied with blood in that amount. But if it is not in this manner—for example, where the attribution is less than the ketam—even though when we remove what we can attribute there will not remain a k'gris and more, nevertheless we do not attribute the remainder to a louse. And the reason for the matter, it can be said, is: is the louse a certainty to us? Rather, the sages said so because otherwise you would have no woman who is pure to her husband; but in such a case, she would be pure when it is found in less than a k'gris and more. And another reason can be said: that we do not apply two attributions, and here it would be two attributions—an attribution to the occupation and an attribution to a louse. And further it can be said: how can we say that the two attributions came exactly to the same place? And this is perhaps not common. And it is not similar to what will be explained regarding one who found two k'grisin and a crushed louse within it, that she is pure; for that is not an attribution, as the louse is before us and the attribution is on the remainder. This is not the case here, where an attribution is needed for the entire ketam and it is more than the measure of a k'gris; therefore, even with a minute amount more than a k'gris, and on a k'gris there is an attribution, in such a case the sages did not purify, and all the more so with more than this. And it is a kal v'chomer where she was occupied with a k'gris and there were found upon her two k'grisin and more, that we do not say: let us attribute what is in the middle of the ketam to the occupation, and there will remain here less than the measure of a ketam and here less than the measure of a ketam.

But the Rashba does not hold so, and it seems to me his reasoning is that he holds that even regarding this amount that she was occupied with, it is also not called a "suspension," for this is like a certainty, similar to a crushed louse; for it is a near thing that because she was occupied with blood, a stain of this amount was found upon her, and this is not a suspension but rather a near certainty. Therefore, we follow what remains after the suspension: if it does not contain the amount of a stain, we suspend it on a louse. The Tur was brief in his words, for in truth, according to the Rashba, if she was occupied with the amount of a gris and there was found upon her two gris, she is also pure for the reason that has been explained. However, the Ramban added to be lenient, that even if after the suspension there remains the amount of a stain—for example, if she was occupied with less than a gris and there was found upon her two gris, and similarly if she was occupied with a gris and there was found upon her like two gris and more—she is also pure, because we cast it in the middle after the occupation she was occupied with, and the edges are divided, and there is not in each one of the edges the amount of a stain. And the opinion of the Rambam in law 26 is like the Rashba; see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 26 ruled like the Rashba, and our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And there are those who are stringent and declare it tamei in all of this, and nevertheless it appears that one may rely on those who are lenient, for regarding ketamim we follow the lenient view. Thus far his words. And it requires investigation why he required this reasoning, for behold, most of the poskim are lenient and the Rosh is a lone view in this; and the Tur brought all the opinions and the opinion of the Rosh last, as is his way, and in all of the Turim he inclines toward the opinion of his father, and this is not two opinions. And even if we count them as two opinions, behold, to be lenient there are three opinions: the Rambam, the Ramban, and the Rashba. However, in section 27, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also ruled according to the opinion of the Ramban, and he follows his own reasoning in his great work that the Rashba also holds this way, see there. But all of our teachers, the Acharonim, have already challenged him, for a mistaken version of the text happened to come before him in the Tur, and neither the Ramban nor the Rashba hold this way—that we should cast what she was occupied with into the middle—and this is nothing but a "hava amina" in the Gemara [59a], and such is the primary ruling. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And there are those who are stringent and declare it tamei, and nevertheless if she was occupied with blood and does not know how much, we follow the lenient view and say that there was in the blood the amount of the ketam. Thus far his words. And in this too I wonder at his wording that "there are those who are stringent," for behold, there is no opinion to be lenient among any of the Rishonim. However, in a case where she does not know how much she was occupied with, we certainly attribute it to be lenient, for a doubt regarding a rabbinic law is judged leniently [and the Kereti U-Peleti in subsection 16 wanted to force an interpretation into the words of the Beit Yosef, and there is no reason for this, as he himself wrote, see there].

A woman who found on her undershirt about two gris-lengths and a crushed louse upon it is tahora, for one gris is certainly from the louse crushed upon it—and this is not considered a "suspension" at all—and the second gris we suspend upon another louse, since it does not contain a gris and more. And so too if she killed a bedbug, for we suspend upon it up to the size of a tormos; or in a place where bedbugs are common, the tormos returns to the measurement of a gris for all the laws we have stated. And know that in all the suspensions we have stated, it is not necessary to compare and liken the found stain to the thing we are suspending upon; rather, we suspend as a matter of course unless you know clearly that they are not equal, such as if this is black and this is red or the like, for then it is certainly impossible to suspend. But as a matter of course we suspend. And one should not ask: behold, we are not experts in blood to distinguish between one appearance and another even when both are before us, and therefore every red appearance is temea as written in siman 188, so how can we suspend regarding stains upon an appearance that is not before us? And indeed, there are those who wished to say that now we do not suspend regarding stains for this reason [see Torat HaBayit], but their words have already been rejected, for stains are different since they are rabbinic and we are lenient regarding them, as Rabbi Akiva said in the Mishnah [58b] that the sages did not state the matter to be stringent, but rather to be lenient.

The sages taught in the Mishnah [61b]: Seven substances are passed over the stain: tasteless saliva, water from crushed beans, urine, natron, soap, cimolian earth, and ashlag, etc. If one passed the seven substances over it and it did not pass away, this is a dye and the taharot are pure, etc. If it passed away or faded, this is a stain and the taharot are impure, see there. And there are some of our teachers who wrote that this Mishnah applies only to taharot, but for her husband, she is impure in any case, for the examination is not clear enough to purify a woman for her husband. Even though in several matters they were more stringent regarding taharot than for her husband, as is explained at the beginning of Niddah, that is regarding the impurity of a twenty-four-hour period retroactively, and this is only relevant to taharot, as is understood. And likewise in siman 186 regarding the matter of examination before intercourse for a woman who does not have a fixed vest, they were more lenient for her husband than for taharot so that his heart should not strike him and he would separate, as is written there. But here, where there is a flaw before us in that a stain was found, they were more stringent for her husband than for taharot because it is a prohibition of karet [Hagahot Maimoniyot chapter 9]. And this is the system of the Ramban, of blessed memory, and it is likewise implied from the commentary of Rashi, see there [see the Rambam, Laws of Rebels, chapter 4, halacha 2; and according to this, even in taharot you can find a prohibition of karet regarding entry into the Temple and eating sacred foods, but the foundation of the transgression is not from a prohibition of karet, which is not the case for her husband; and examine this closely].

But the Rambam at the end of chapter 9 and the Rashba in Torat HaBayit at the beginning of the gate of ketamim wrote that this law applies even regarding her husband, that if they passed these seven substances over it and the stain passed away, it is blood; and if it did not pass away, it is dye and she is permitted to her husband. However, ordinarily, as long as they have not passed the seven substances over it, it is a stain and she is impure [in any case], not like the one who wished to say that according to the Rambam she is not impure until they pass the seven substances over it and it passes away [see there and see the Beit Yosef]. And these seven substances must be passed over it in their order and one after the other specifically, and not all at once. And if he preceded the later ones to the earlier ones, the earlier ones that he passed last count for him, and the later ones that he passed first do not count for him, and he must now pass them after the earlier ones that he passed last. And we have already enumerated their order in the previous section.

And our sages, of blessed memory, said there that it is called tasteless saliva as long as one has not tasted anything from the beginning of the night and was sleeping from the last half of the night, and the next day before he eats or drinks it is called tasteless saliva. And it appears to me that if he rinsed his mouth with water it is also not called tasteless saliva, and likewise if he picked his teeth and blood came out it is not called tasteless saliva, and see Even HaEzer siman 169 section 41. And behold, in the Gemara [63a] it is explained that it is not specifically actual sleep, but even "slumbering yet not slumbering," and I wonder about the Rambam who omitted this. And likewise, specifically if he did not speak much, because speech removes the strength of the saliva as it nullifies its potency and makes it like water. And our sages, of blessed memory, said: enough so that the majority of three hours of speech has come out, meaning what a person is likely to speak in three hours; if he spoke the majority of this measure, it is not tasteless saliva. And from the Rambam it is implied that the matter depends on the first three hours of the day, and therefore if he repeated his lesson before three hours of the day, it is not tasteless saliva. And what is the chewing of grits? That he should chew the grits until much saliva from his mouth is mixed with the bean. And what is urine that has become sour? After three days or more, meaning that it has become foul-smelling. And in the Gemara it was asked: which urine? Of a child or of an old man? Of a man or of a woman? Covered or revealed? In the summer days or in the rainy days? And it was not resolved, see there. And the Rambam omitted this and I do not know why. And netar, they said in the Gemara, is Alexandrian netar, and netar is what is called "krayer." And borit is "kabrita," sulfur [Rashi]. And kamonya, they explained in the Gemara as "shluf dutz," and it is a herb that they dry and grind and wash their hands with it, and it removes the filth [Aruch]. And some have the version "kamolya," and it is a type of white earth with which they wash clothes [ibid.]. And ashlag is a type that is found between the holes of pearls. And in the Gemara there, it says that tasteless saliva is required with each one, and the Rambam did not bring this.

And with each of these substances, one must rub, meaning to scrub three times between his two hands in the manner of laundering clothes, where he folds one side with the other side and scrubs, moving it back and forth three times. And in the Gemara before us, the version is netar before borit, and in the Rambam, borit is before netar. In general, this law does not apply to us at all, for many things are hidden from us. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote likewise in section 31, see there. And for the halacha, he adopted the opinion of the Rambam and the Rashba.

A woman who was engaged in her work, for example, she was spinning yarn and was engaged while walking in the manner of spinning, where she walks from the beginning of the loom to its end and from its end to its beginning, and similarly other types of work like this, and afterwards blood was found on the place of her walking, and it appears that this blood fell from her from that place, but who can determine if such is the case? The sages said [Niddah 58a] that she should return and walk as she walked during her previous engagement, or that she should do exactly as she did before, and observe if she passes over the place where the blood was found in a manner that that place would be opposite the blood; she is then impure according to the law of a ketam. And if not, she is pure. And it is obvious that this refers to a case where the place of the blood was checked by her beforehand, and that this place is of a material that becomes impure through ketamim. But if it does not become impure through ketamim, such as the ground or a colored garment, it is nothing and she is pure. And we do not say that this is superior to a ketam since blood was found explicitly and she should be impure in any case, for it is not so; since from the Torah she is not impure without a sensation, if so, even this is nothing other than a ketam and it has all the laws of ketamim [Shach subsection 39 and Derishah]. And also the Rambam in chapter 9 in the laws of ketamim does not distinguish between the language of blood and the language of ketam; see there in law 27, and so it is proven in the Gemara at the beginning of the chapter "Ha'ishah," see there.

Even though it was explained in siman 183, section 55, and also above in this siman, section 43, that regarding the examinations of the cloth with which a woman examines herself, when she finds blood on the examination cloth she is impure according to the Torah—and there we explained the reason for the matter—and if so, this is not similar to ketamim which are only by rabbinic decree; nevertheless, there are instances of this as well where their law is like ketamim. Specifically, when she examined herself with a cloth that was not checked by her to see if it was clean or not, she is not impure unless she found on her examination cloth a stain the size of a gris and more. The reason is simple: just as when finding a ketam, she is not impure with less than this measure because of a louse, as has been explained, so too regarding an examination with a cloth that was not checked, we say that there was blood from a louse on the cloth, and therefore it requires a gris and more as with ketamim. And sometimes even with a cloth that was checked, it requires a gris and more, such as when it is evident that this is not from the examination, for example, if it is round, as will be explained before us.

And what is called an unchecked cloth, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 36, and this is his wording: And specifically with an intermediate cloth, meaning that its status is neither checked nor dirty, for then she is impure with a k'gris and more; but if she checked herself with a cloth whose status is dirty, such as if she took a cloth from a place where blood is common, whose status is that stains were already on it, and she checked herself with it and a stain was found on it, she is pure even if it is more than a k'gris. Thus far his words. And according to this, a checked cloth is only called such when she saw it before the checking that it was completely clean; and even if she checked part of the cloth and did not check part, it is considered unchecked, unless she says explicitly that she knows clearly that she only checked herself with the checked part, but in an ordinary case we say that she checked herself with the entire cloth [see Pitchei Teshuvah sub-section 35 in the name of Chavat Da'at]. And if she checked herself with her shift that she is wearing, if she did not see on the place where she checked herself before the checking that it was clean, it is called an unchecked cloth, even though at the time she put on the shift she knew that the shift was completely clean, because since she was wearing it for some hours, one can certainly say that a louse was crushed in this place [Sidrei Taharah sub-section 55]. But with another cloth that she checked and it was clean, and she placed it in a guarded place, even if she checked with it after some time, it is called a checked cloth, as will be explained before us with the help of Heaven in section 102, see there.

And I have a question regarding this, for it has been explained that the reason one requires a stain to be like a gris and more is because otherwise, you would have no woman who is pure to her husband, as you have no sheet or shift upon which drops of blood from crushed lice are not found. And so they said explicitly in the Gemara [58b], see there. And if so, this is well regarding a found stain, but regarding an examination with a cloth that was not previously examined, this reason is not applicable, for who compels her to examine with a cloth that was not previously examined? And if so, let her be impure even with less than a gris and more. And the answer to this appears to me to be that behold, many women have the habit of examining themselves with the shift that they are wearing, and in this, its law must perforce be like a stain for the reason that was explained. Therefore, they said regarding any cloth that was not previously examined that the law is so, for it is impossible to distinguish between one cloth and another when both were not previously examined. Furthermore, since regarding stains they were forced to this for the reason that was explained, if so, this law is automatically included as well; for since they said that up to this measure a crushed louse is common, how can we rule her impure with a cloth that was not previously examined? For a crushed louse is common, and if we do not say so, it would be a contradiction in terms, as is understood.

Therefore, a woman who checked herself with an examined cloth and there was found upon it even a drop of blood like a mustard seed or even less than this, she is impure. There is no distinction whether the blood on the cloth is elongated, as is the way of examinations, or round, which is not the way of examinations. And one should not ask: Is this not an explicit Mishnah [58b], "If it was placed under the pillow and blood was found upon it, if it is round it is pure, if it is elongated it is impure," and the reason is because through an examination it is impossible for it to be round, and if so, how can we rule her impure with an examined cloth since it is impossible for it to be so? For this is not a question, as that which we learned "round is pure" is not because it is impossible for it to be so through an examination, but rather that for the most part in an examination it is the way of the blood to be elongated. Therefore, when the cloth was placed under the pillow, even though it was previously examined, nevertheless we say that since the examination is round, presumably a louse was crushed in it while it was placed under the pillow. But with a cloth examined immediately before the examination, and it must be that it came from that place, we certainly say that even round is impure, and it just so happened that the examination was round [it appears to me].

And not only this, but even if a crushed louse was found on the witness-cloth, she is certainly teme'ah. They explained the reason in the Gemara [14a] because that place is checked regarding a louse; that is to say, that the louse does not enter that place because of the filth, and if so, the blood of the examination is certainly from her body. Thus ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 33, see there. And I do not understand at all, for ultimately, from where did the louse come? For before the examination she saw the witness-cloth, and likewise immediately after the examination she saw the witness-cloth, and perforce it came from that place. And in the Gemara there, they stated this reasoning regarding an examination after tashmish, and it refers to blood found on his witness-cloth, as the Tosafot wrote there. And also according to the explanation of Rashi it is so [since he concludes: and when he had intercourse it stuck to it; and the Rashba wrote that according to the explanation of Rashi it also refers to hers, and it requires further study]. And regarding his witness-cloth, where she is teme'ah even if it was found after some time, we rightly say that the louse came afterward from the outside; but here, in a standard examination where she examined with a checked witness-cloth and immediately after the examination she saw it, if so, from where did the louse come? And it requires further study.

And also the words of the Tur seem to me to be explained in a different manner than the explanation of the commentators of the Tur, for this is the wording of the Tur: If she examined herself with a checked cloth and the next day she found on it any amount of blood, or if she placed it in a box and the next day she found blood on it, even any amount, she is impure, whether it is round or elongated, and even if a crushed louse is on it. Thus far his words. And this is from the wording of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit HaKatzar, see there. And they found difficulty with his words: what is this that he wrote, "and the next day she found etc." or "if she placed it in a box and the next day etc."? For this is one and the same, as presumably the first clause also deals with a case where she placed it in a guarded place, for if not so, she is not impure, as will be explained before us. Therefore, there is one who explained that this case of the box refers even to a cloth that was not checked [Prisha], for in a box, even with one not checked, she is impure; and all the commentators rejected his words [Taz subsection 21 and Shach subsection 41]. And there is one who erased that first "and the next day," for it deals with a case where she found it immediately [Taz ibid.]. And there are those who wrote that his intention is that there is no difference whether she left the cloth in an exposed place or a covered place [Bach]. And besides this, all the matters have no understanding [see Sidrei Taharah subsection 58].

In my humble opinion, the words of the Tur are precise, and this is the explanation: for this is certain, that even though that place is checked for a ma'acholet, nevertheless, if she checked with a checked cloth and immediately after the checking she found a crushed ma'acholet on it, she is not teme'ah, for perforce the ma'acholet came from near that place, and she certainly was not careful to avoid touching the cloth around that place, for if not so, from where did the ma'acholet come? However, if she did not see the cloth immediately and placed it in a guarded place until the next day, and the next day she saw the checking and found blood, even though a crushed ma'acholet is also on it, she is teme'ah. And we say that this ma'acholet fell there after its crushing, and we do not say that the ma'acholet was crushed there, since it is a guarded place, it is not the way for it to be crushed there, and from that place it certainly did not come, for it is checked for a ma'acholet. And even though it is a guarded place, and from where did a ma'acholet fall there? Nevertheless, regarding a ma'acholet, there is no guarding. And afterwards he says an even greater novelty, that even if she placed it in a box, it is not guarded from a ma'acholet. And so it is in the Yerushalmi in the second chapter of Niddah, at the end of halacha 1, and this is its wording: She checked and placed it in a box of glass, etc., it is the way of boxes to be checked for creeping things but they are not checked for a ma'acholet. Thus far its words.

But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote: A woman who examined herself with a cloth checked for her etc. is teme'ah, and not only that, but even if a crushed louse was found on the ketem she is teme'ah etc. Thus far his words. For it is clear from his wording that even if it was found immediately after the examination she is teme'ah. And it is difficult, for if so, from where did the louse come? And with difficulty one must say that we say the louse fell from the air at the time she removed the cloth from that place, or that the louse fell from her thigh onto the cloth and she did not notice. And all this is because that place is assumed to be checked regarding a louse. And the Rambam, of blessed memory, completely omitted this matter of a crushed louse, both in the fourth chapter of Hilkhot Issurei Biah and in the fifth chapter of Hilkhot Shegagot, and I do not know why; and it requires further study.

If she examined herself with a checked cloth and did not see [blood] on it, and she placed it under the pillow or under the bolster and after some time blood was found upon it, in this case it is an evenly balanced doubt: perhaps it is from the examination, and perhaps it is from a louse that was crushed upon the cloth, for they are commonly found in pillows and bolsters, and due to the pressure under the pillow and the bolster it was crushed. Therefore, if the blood is elongated, she is impure, for this is a sign that it is from the examination, as it is the way [of blood] to be drawn by the hand at the time she examines. If it is round, she is pure, for this is more likely from the crushing of a louse, where there is no drawing, and it was crushed and the blood became round. Nevertheless, this is not a definitive proof, for in both cases it can occasionally be either round or elongated. Therefore, if the blood is the size of a gris and more, in any case she is impure, for behold, one may not attribute it to a louse, and of necessity we say that this is from the examination, and she examined without drawing and it became round. [Thus it appears in its explanation, and several fine points are answered; and study this.] And it is simple that if there is something to which one may attribute more than a gris, such as if there was meat there or other things to which one may attribute [blood], one attributes it to them even for more than a gris.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 35: If she examined herself with a cloth checked for her and smeared it on her thigh, and the next day blood was found upon it, if it is elongated, she is temeiah even with any amount; and if it is round, she is tehorah if there is not in it the size of a gris and more. And there are those who say that even round, she is temeiah with any amount. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matter is that when she took the cloth from that place, she smeared it on her thigh; that is to say, she did not take it from that place to her hand to look at it, but rather she wiped with it around that place on her thigh. And this is superior to a box, for in a box there is no place for the crushing of a louse as has been written, but with smearing on her thigh, it can be said that there was a louse on the thigh and she crushed it with her smearing. Nevertheless, it is inferior to "under the pillow and the bolster," for there lice are common, but on her flesh they are not so common. Therefore, the "there are those who say"—and this is the opinion of the Rambam—holds that even round, she is temeiah with any amount, for the deficiency of the roundness is not so deficient compared to the deficiency of a louse on her flesh, and therefore it is not similar to "under the pillow and the bolster" and is more similar to a box. However, most of the poskim hold that the roundness diminishes the strength like a louse on her flesh, and perhaps it diminishes more because it is more uncommon that through smearing it would be round, and therefore the law is like "under the pillow and the bolster" [and see Taz subsection 24, and according to what I have written the matters are simple]. And there are those who were concerned in practice for the opinion of the "there are those who say" [Bach and Shach subsection 43].

A woman who is accustomed to discharging blood from her rectum and checked herself even by means of a checked cloth, and during the time of the examination she also touched there, she may attribute it to this when it is not the time of her veset, for there is no Torah doubt here since she did not experience a sensation [Taz, subsection 23]. And even though we have already explained that an examination is of Torah status, nevertheless, this is only when it is certain that she checked only in that place; but when there is a doubt that perhaps it came from an entirely different place, there is no Torah doubt here [as mentioned above to reconcile his words with what he himself wrote in subsection 29, and they have already raised difficulties against him, but according to what I have written it is settled well, and the Chavat Da'at wrote similarly in subsection 27, see there].

There are some among the great authorities who wrote that according to what is known now, that in the hair surrounding the pudenda there are lice attached to the flesh, and they are called "filth lice," and when one rubs the hair, drops of blood from these lice become attached, for certainly we attribute it to them. And perhaps through this they also become attached to the vaginal area. And in the time of the Gemara, perhaps the women would shave the hair of the pudenda, for so it implies in the Gemara [Nazir 59b] and above at the beginning of siman 182, see there. Therefore they said that that place is considered examined regarding a louse. But in this time, when the hairs reach exactly over the opening of the pudenda, and when she removes the bedikah it is impossible without touching these hairs, it is possible to attribute it to them. And everything is according to the perception of the eyes of the posek [see Sidrei Taharah in the responsa in this siman].

If she examined herself with an ed that was not checked for her, even if she left it guarded in her chest, and she found blood upon it, she is not teme'ah unless there is on it the size of a k'gris and more, for every ed that is not checked effectively has the law of a ketem. In the Tur, he cited that according to the Rashba, it does not even have the law of a ketem, and even with more than a k'gris she is tehorah. However, the Rambam and the Rosh hold that it has the law of a ketem, and so it is explained in the Yerushalmi in the second chapter of Niddah, and so our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 36 [and see Shach, subsection 44]. And even the Rashba, of blessed memory, said this as the law but not for practical practice [see Beit Yosef]. And from the words of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote: "And specifically with a medium ed, which is to say that its status is neither checked nor dirty, but if she examined herself with an ed whose status is dirty, such as if she took an ed from a place where blood is commonly found, etc., she is tehorah even with more than a k'gris," thus far his words, it implies that they do not disagree, for there are two types of "not checked" [and therefore he added to the words of the Mechaber "is not... but..." see there and examine carefully]. But one who delves into the Torat HaBayit of the Rashba will see that with any ed that is not checked he rules tehorah regarding a ketem. This is his wording there: An ed that is not checked is any that she takes from a hidden place where it is the way of women to hide and prepare for themselves edim and they do not carry them in the market, etc. But when she took a garment from the market, etc., or she wiped with an ed that happened to be available to her in the house, in such a case certainly there is no one who rules her teme'ah even because of a ketem. Thus far his words. Behold, he is dealing with any ed that is not checked [and his words are clearer than the words of the Rema, and it must be said that what the Rema wrote, "a medium ed," refers to that which she took from a hidden place, meaning that she did not check it to see if it was completely clean and it was placed in a hidden place; and what he wrote, "but... that she took from a place where blood is commonly found," his intention is that she took it from the market or an ed that happened to be available to her in the house, and this is what he calls a place where blood is commonly found. And all this is necessary for one who delves into the Torat HaBayit and the Beit Yosef, and examine carefully].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 37: If she examined herself with a cloth that was not checked for her and rubbed it on her thigh, and afterwards blood was found on it, even if it is the size of a gris and more, she is tahora. Thus far his words. And his reasoning is that there are two leniencies: that it is a cloth that was not checked, and also that she rubbed it on her thigh. But in truth, this requires further study, for is there a limit to "not checked"? It is understandable regarding a cloth that was completely unchecked, such as if she took it from the market or the like, where it is certainly appropriate to say that the law of a ketem does not apply at all, as I have written, for it is like being established as having blood. But with an ordinary cloth that was not checked and was in a hidden place, what does the leniency of also rubbing it on her thigh provide or add? And they have already challenged him [Shach subsection 45 and Chavot Daat subsection 26]. And there are those who wish to uphold his words, that even though this is not a literal sefek sefeika since it is all one category, nevertheless it is very light. And in any case, when the blood is round one should be lenient, but not when it is elongated [see Kereti u-Peleti subsection 19 and Sidrei Tahara subsection 64]. And when blood is also found on her thigh in a place where it is impossible for it to fall there from the source, it is possible to be lenient in any case with a cloth that was not checked, for in this it is a complete sefek sefeika: perhaps it came from the cloth onto the thigh, or perhaps it came from elsewhere onto the thigh and the cloth became soiled from the thigh; and if you say it came from the cloth onto the thigh, perhaps it came onto the cloth from elsewhere. But with a checked cloth, even if blood is found on her thigh, she is teme'ah. And even if the cloth was lost and blood was found on her thigh, she is teme'ah, for we say that the blood came from the cloth from the examination [so it is implied in Tosafot 14a, beginning with "lemachar," see there and examine carefully].

And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this that all the more so if she placed it after the bedika in a place where the ketem can be attributed, she is tahora even if it is more than a k'gris. But if she placed it in a place where blood is not common, she is temea if it is more than a k'gris. Thus far his words. And this is certainly according to all opinions. However, I wonder: in a place where it can be attributed, why specifically an unexamined ed? For even with an examined ed we attribute when there is something to attribute to, as he himself wrote in section 34, see there, and as I wrote above at the end of section 95 [see Siman 190, subsection 65]. And it appears to me that his intention is not a literal attribution, but rather a secluded but not enclosed place where blood could happen to be there, and it is like "she rubbed it on her thigh." And afterward he said, "but if she placed it in a place where there is no blood etc.," meaning that it is impossible in any way for blood to come there unless they intentionally soiled it with blood, she is temea if it is more than a k'gris according to the law of a ketem [so it appears to me to explain his intention].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 38: What is a checked cloth? Any that she checked, whether she or her friend, and it was not known that a stain entered it, and she did not pass it through the market of butchers nor near those who deal with stains, this is in the status of being checked. Thus far his words. And this is the opinion of the Rashba, but the Tosafot and the Ramban hold that it is not called a checked cloth unless she actually saw it immediately before the checking, and all the laws we explained were according to this path. The Rashba disagrees with them as the Tur wrote in his name, see there. It appears explicitly that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, took the halakha like him, and so we explained in section 88. It appears that even according to the opinion of the Rashba, it must be placed in a place that is completely guarded, in a box or something like a box, for if not so, but rather it was placed only in a hidden place, behold from the wording of the Rashba himself that we brought in section 99, it is explained that a hidden place alone is nothing, see there. And even though one could say that this is regarding one that is not checked at all, but for a checked one a hidden place is effective to call it checked even after some time, nevertheless it does not imply so from his wording there. And that which he wrote, "and it was not known that a stain entered it," means in the guarded place. And that which he wrote, "and she did not pass it through the market of butchers," his intention is if it was guarded with her in her garments [see the Perisha who wrote that according to this it must be said that the Tosafot and the Ramban hold regarding a cloth that is not checked that it is tamei with a k'gris and more, for if not so, it is difficult from the case of three women who wore one shift where all of them are tamei as will be explained, and behold according to their words this is not checked, see there. And in truth there is no proof from this, as the Ra'ah wrote in Bedek HaBayit there, that a shift which is upon her flesh is called guarded, and so too a sheet that she is occupied with, as the Sidrei Tahara wrote in sub-section 66. However, for the halakha we follow the Rashba since the Beit Yosef ruled so without qualification, and delve into this].

The Rashba wrote in Torat HaBayit: The garment of which the sages spoke is a checked garment, but a garment that is not checked, or one that she purchased from the market and she does not know from whom she purchased it, we do not concern ourselves with it regarding ketamin, for I say this stain was already there, as ketamin are of rabbinic origin and we follow the lenient view regarding them. Thus far his words. This is the version before us, and I wonder at this wording, for if so, why must he say it is because we follow the lenient view regarding ketamin? For the Rashba holds even regarding the checking of an ed that is not checked that it is tahor even if it is larger than a k'gris, as the Tur wrote in his name and we brought this in section 99, and checking is not of rabbinic origin, as was written in section 87, see there.

Therefore, it appears to me that the primary version of the text is as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, cited in his great work, that even if she knows from whom she took it, we are not concerned about it. According to this, the reason that regarding ketamim we listen to the lenient view is well-settled; that is to say, even though in all matters wherever it is possible to clarify we must clarify, nevertheless regarding ketamim it is not so. There are some among the great authorities who wrote that an erroneous version of the text happened to come before our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Torat HaBayit, and one must read "and she does not know from whom she took it," for if she knows, she must ask her, just as regarding chametz in a house that is under the presumption of having been searched, where if the homeowner is in his house one must ask him [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 67]. In my opinion, it is the opposite, for if so, why must it say "because of the leniency of ketamim"? Rather, it is certainly as I wrote, that this is the primary novelty: that she does not need to ask the seller. And so it appears to me to be the primary law [and so it is implied from the Shach, subsection 46].

This is the wording of the Tur: A woman is not impure because of a ketem that she finds on her shift unless it was checked for her before she wore it; but if she took a shift from the market and wore it without checking and found a ketem on it, she is pure. Thus far his words. And the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 39 is as follows: A woman is not etc. unless it was checked for her before she wore it; but if it was not checked before she wore it, and she wore it without checking and found a ketem on it, she is pure. Thus far his words. And it must be understood: it is well that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, omitted that case of "took a shift from the market" because it is a fortiori from "not checked," but why did the Tur omit the case of "not checked," which would be a greater novelty? And it appears to me that since the Tur wrote "unless it was checked," you automatically hear from this that in a case where it was not checked there is no concern of a ketem; and with a shift from the market he informs us of a novelty, that she does not need to ask the seller, as I have written regarding the intention of the Rashba. And his way is to be concise, and since he did not write that she must ask, you learn from this that she does not need to ask, for regarding ketamim they were lenient, as I have written.

However, they raised a difficulty against their words, for they hold that if she checked with a cloth that was not checked, she is temeiah if it has a stain the size of a k'gris and more, as was written in section 99. If so, why were they lenient here regarding one that was not checked? Therefore, in truth, there is one who wished to say that this "not checked" mentioned here is not similar to the "not checked" mentioned above, and this "not checked" that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, his intention was also specifically when she took it from the market. And the Tur, who wrote "unless it was checked for her before she wore it," his intention was only that she held it to be checked, and in the language of the Gemara it is called "not checked," and his intention was not that it was truly held to be checked such that she checked it before the wearing [Taz, subsection 29]. And these are astonishing words and are forced from several aspects, and already one of the great authorities has rebuked him [Sidrei Taharah, subsection 67; see there, for he wrote that all his words in subsection 29 are nothing but a matter of wonder, see there].

And the truth is that in this matter there is a distinction between an examination via a cloth that was not previously examined and a found stain. And so wrote explicitly the Ra'avad in the book Ba'alei HaNefesh, that regarding stains, as long as the shift was not examined by her at all prior to wearing, the law of stains does not apply to it. However, regarding the examination cloth, since she examined herself with it, it is a case of "probative evidence," and it only requires the size of a kigris and more to exclude the blood of a louse since it was not previously examined; and when it has the size of a kigris and more, she is impure because of a stain. This is not the case regarding the finding of a stain on her shift, where it is necessary that the shift was examined by her prior to wearing, for then even if she walked in it many days, the law of a stain applies to it. But if it was not examined by her at all, such as if the shift was placed in a non-secluded area, or if it was recently taken from the market and she did not examine it, the law of stains does not apply to it at all, and we say that this stain was already upon it for some reason, and even if it is more than a kigris, she is pure. And so agreed most of the great authorities [Bach, and Shach subsection 46, and Sidrei Taharah subsection 67, and Kereti U'Peleti subsection 20]. And now, we have found a great remedy for the daughters of Israel in the matters of their stains, for most women do not examine their shifts and their sheets prior to wearing, and only wear them when they come laundered, and if so, there is no "examined shift" here at all; so wrote one of the great authorities [Kereti U'Peleti ibid.]. And in my humble opinion, this is a great leniency, for after they were laundered and came out clean and were placed in a guarded area, certainly this is called "examined" according to the opinion of the Rashba that we brought in section 102, and this requires further study.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 40: If she examined a shirt and spread it out and found it pure, and she lent it to her friend who wore it and found a stain on it, the first is pure and the second is impure. Thus far his words. And seemingly there is no novelty in this, and what does this come to teach us? And it appears that the novelty is that we do not say that since the second did not examine it herself, we should consider the shirt regarding her as not examined at all and not subject to the laws of stains as has been written; for this it teaches us that the examination of the first is effective also for the second [and so it appears in Torat HaBayit which the Beit Yosef cited, see there]. And furthermore it teaches us that even though regarding monetary matters—namely, regarding who must wash the stain—it is stated in the Gemara [58a] that the second can say to the first, "I do not believe you that there was no stain on it and I am not obligated to wash it," nevertheless, regarding the prohibition, she is impure; it is only money that the first is unable to extract from the second, for the burden of proof is on the claimant.

And regarding that which he wrote, "she examined her shift and took it off and found it pure," where he should have written "she took it off and examined it," etc., he comes to teach us that specifically when the shift was examined prior to the wearing; for if not so, even if she found a stain, it is pure, according to the law of a shift that was not examined, as I have written. And this is the intention of the Tur who wrote, "And if she examined her shift and wore it and took it off and found it pure and lent it," etc., for many have labored as to why he requires the examination prior to the wearing, but this is his intention: so that it should be an examined shift [and this is the intention of the Shach in subsection 47, and the commentators of the Tur labored over this in vain]. And in the Gemara there, and likewise in the Rambam chapter 9, it is stated: "she examined herself and her shift," see there. And it is not understood for what purpose she needs the examination of her body. And some say that with the examination of her body it is sufficient even if she did not examine the shift, because we establish her in her status of purity, and therefore even in such a case only the second woman is impure [Derisha and Sidrei Tahara subsection 68]. And the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch have already refuted this [Shach ibid. and Taz subsection 30], for in such a case both of them are impure, because regarding stains we do not say "here it was found, here it was," see there [and in my humble opinion it appears that in the Gemara he comes to teach us a greater novelty, that even in such a case she does not extract money, and the Rambam took the language of the Shas according to his holy way, and delve into this].

Just as we attribute the essence of a stain regarding stains when there is something to attribute it to, so too one attributes this stain to that one if it is only possible to say so, as will be explained. And specifically when the second one is not damaged by the fact that the stain is attributed to it, such as when she is already temeiah regardless and the first one is rectified by this; that is to say, that without this she is tehorah, and the rectified one attributes it to the damaged one. But when both are tehorot or both are temeiot, one does not attribute this one to that one, for what have you seen to make this one temeiah and to make that one tehorah? Therefore, both are temeiot, as will be explained. And this law is not due to the leniency of stains, for in all rabbinic prohibitions it is so, as I wrote above in siman 111 regarding two pots, one of prohibited food and one of permitted food, and two pieces, one of prohibited food and one of permitted food, fell, one into this and one into that; if the prohibited piece is prohibited by rabbinic law, we attribute it by saying that the prohibited piece fell into the prohibited pot and the permitted piece into the permitted pot. And here too it is so, if it is only possible to say so.

How so? For example, she wore her checked shift and removed it without checking it, and she lent the shift to a Jewish woman who is a nida or to a Cuthean woman whose time to see has arrived and she saw once, even if during the days she borrowed the shift she does not see, and afterwards a ketem was found on it—she attributes it to them and she is tahora. And the same applies to the reverse: that she checked the shift and lent it to the nida or to the Cuthean woman, and afterwards she wore it without a check and afterwards found a ketem upon it—she attributes it to them. And when she attributes it to them, it makes no difference if she is completely tahora or if she is standing in the counting of the seven nekiyim, for even in this case she is improved relative to the nida and the Cuthean woman. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 41 that according to what will be explained in siman 196, that for a ketem larger than a k'gris one does not attribute it during the first three days of the counting, the same applies here: she does not attribute it to another during the first three days, see there. [And even though it is not similar to there, for here the attribution in all rabbinic prohibitions is such, to attribute it to the one who is already spoiled, nevertheless, since the reason there is because the source is still open, therefore even in this case one does not attribute it; however, regarding the essence of this law, it will be explained there with the help of Heaven].

If she lent the garment to a minor who was married, and according to the law of the Mishnah she was permitted to have intercourse until the wound heals [64b], and this minor wore it after she had intercourse before the wound healed, and even if this minor had never seen blood [and the difficulty of the Dagan Merevash in section 42 is resolved, and delve into this], nevertheless, she attributes the ketem to her. This is because the minor will not be disadvantaged by this, for her blood is pure, and all the more so her ketamim, as they are attributed to hymeneal blood. And similarly, if she lent it to a na'arah who had not seen blood and was married, to whom the sages gave four nights [ibid.] to attribute to hymeneal blood, and she wore it within these four nights; or if she lent it to one who is sitting on blood of purity, she attributes it to them. And even in this time, when we do not have intercourse on blood of purity and we do not give four nights to a na'arah nor until the wound heals for a minor, nevertheless, she attributes it to them. For although we are stringent regarding them, nevertheless, they are established as having open fountains. And even though they will now be disadvantaged by this in that we attribute it to them, as is understood, nevertheless, since according to the essential law of the Torah they are pure and there is no disadvantage here, if so, although they were stringent, they were stringent for themselves, and not that through the stringency she should cause damage to another. Therefore, these are impure due to the ketem and she is pure. Thus ruled the Rashba, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 42.

And they wrote further that she may similarly attribute it if she lent it to one who is counting seven clean days who has not yet immersed; the owner of the shirt attributes it to her and she is pure, while her friend who borrowed it is impaired. Thus far his words. Meaning, that it disrupts her counting and she must count seven other clean days. And similarly, if she lent it to one who is observing a day against a day on her second day [Tur], she attributes it to her. Even though it impairs her, in that she must also count the following day, nevertheless she attributes it to her; since she is currently impure, we are not concerned for her impairment [Rashi, section 1]. And in truth, in the Gemara there, there is a dispute regarding this, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that even in such a case we attribute it to them, and Rabbi holds that since they will be impaired by this, we do not attribute it to them, for what have you seen? However, the Rashba, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch ruled leniently like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. But the Rambam in chapter 9 ruled like Rabbi, that in any case where the second will be impaired, even though she is currently impure, we do not attribute it to them and both of them are impure.

However, even according to the opinion of those who are lenient, that which is implied by their wording—that she attributes it to one counting seven clean days who has not immersed, meaning even after she counted the seven clean days, as long as she has not immersed—there are those who disagree regarding this. They hold that the intention is within the days of counting when the source is still open [as is implied from Rashi there, see there], but after the days of counting, she does not attribute it to her. Furthermore, even if she did not count, if seven days have passed from the days of her seeing, she does not attribute it to her because her source is no longer open [Chavat Da'at, Siman 190]. Behold, according to this, for us, since women do not begin to count the clean days until after five days for her use, as written in Siman 196, she would only attribute it to her during the first two days, as is understood. And anything such as this, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch should have explained. Furthermore, behold, the presumption of an open source is only during the first three days, as written there. Furthermore, behold, they attribute it to a gentile woman even though she is not seeing now, as written in section 111; evidently, the reason is not because of the opening of the source, but rather that they attribute it to one who is corrupted, for now she is impure [and this is the primary reason of Rashi there, as he concludes: since she is impure now. Thus far his words. And as for why he required an open source, the Mishneh LaMelech already addressed this in Chapter 9. And in my humble opinion, it seems that it is impossible to state this reason at all, for he compares it there to two paths, and there this does not apply. And although one could say that Rava Chisda and Rav Adda disagree on this there—and see there in the Maharsha, beginning with the words "Tamei"—nevertheless, it seems to me that Rashi's intention is that regarding the first one, her source is called "open," meaning she is prone to impurity because she is impure. And so it is regarding two paths, that this one is prone to receive impurity because it is impure. Also, it does not seem correct to say that Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree on this. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the words of the Chavat Da'at require further study, and the plain meaning of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch implies that even afterward she attributes it, and delve into this].

Even though we have said that she may attribute it to the one with the impaired status, nevertheless, sometimes she may not attribute it even to the one with the impaired status. This is when the one with the impaired status is also impure because of a ketam. The reason is that attribution is only applicable when the borrower has some certain impurity that is superior to a ketam, which is only a doubt. And so it is with all attributions, such as with two paths and two pots in siman 111. But how can we attribute it to a ketam, which is an impurity of doubt? For the doubt of the second is no superior to that of the first. Therefore, it is not only if she lent it to a pure woman and afterwards the ketam appeared on her, but even if the second woman had already been sitting with a ketam from before, nevertheless, we do not attribute this ketam to her, and both are impure for the reason we explained. And so too, even if the second woman saw another ketam on another garment after the lending—where seemingly "the hands prove" that she is prone to ketamim—nevertheless, we do not attribute it, since it is all a doubt, and both are impure. [And through what we have explained, the words of the Shulchan Aruch in section 43 are understood regarding the three cases he recounted; see there and examine it closely].

And just as we said that she attributes it to her companion when she is certainly impure, so too she sometimes attributes the ketem to herself for a past time when she was certainly impure. How so? For example, if she wore a shift during the days of her niddah and did not check it after she removed it, and afterwards during the days of her purity she wore this shift without checking, and afterwards a ketem was found on it, she attributes it to the fact that this ketem was already on it from the days of her niddah when she wore it, and now she is pure. For what difference is there to me between attributing it to another or to herself? On the contrary, to herself is preferable according to what our teacher, the Rema, ruled later in siman 196, that she attributes it to a wound on her body even during the first three days of her counting, see there. And her niddah is no worse than a wound on her body, as is understood. If so, she attributes it to herself even during the first three, whereas regarding another she does not attribute it in such a case, as I wrote in section 111. However, there are those who disagree on this there, and there it will be explained with the help of Heaven [see Shach, subsection 51].

And so too, if she wore a shift before she was pregnant and removed it without an examination, and after she became pregnant she wore it without an examination and afterwards a stain was found on it, she attributes the stain to the previous days when she was not pregnant, because a pregnant woman is in a state of the cessation of blood. And so too, a nursing woman attributes it to herself during the previous days when she was not nursing, just as a nursing woman attributes it to her friend who is not nursing. And so too, an elderly woman attributes it to herself when she was not elderly, if it occurred that she wore this shift before her old age and after her old age and did not examine it. And it is simple that all of this deals with a shift that was examined the first time, for without this it does not become impure because of a stain, as I have written.

And know that according to what has been explained regarding the laws of attributions, there is in our times a great leniency: when a pure woman slept in one bed with a single woman of mature years and blood was found on the sheet, we attribute it to the single woman. We do not need to investigate whether the single woman is currently in her days of niddah or not, for she has already seen blood previously and has not immersed since she has no husband. Therefore, it is not only according to what I wrote in section 114, that even after the days of her counting we attribute it to her as long as she has not immersed, but even according to the opinion of those who hold that we only attribute during the days of her counting, as I wrote there, that is all regarding a woman who has a husband and is counting the seven clean days. However, single women, who do not check themselves and do not count at all, are called zavot who have not counted, and we attribute to them [Responsa of the Gara"sh, siman 63].

One more thing our sages, of blessed memory, revealed to us [56a]: that a ketem is not removed through the ordinary laundering of the shift, rather when the laundress inspects and sees that there is a ketem, she performs actions either with the seven substances that have been explained or with other means until the ketem is removed. However, I am in doubt regarding our laundering, which is with lye of ash and soap that is called "seife," and they beat the shift much with a tool called a "prannik," for it appears that it is removed through this. Therefore, the laws that will be explained to be lenient in this, it appears to me that they are not applicable among us. And our sages, of blessed memory, further said that regarding all this, one must recognize if the ketem was before the laundering or after the laundering; that is, when the ketem is a crust like a thick crust, it certainly came after the laundering, for a ketem that was before the laundering is "darkened," meaning that it entered into the garment and has no crust upon it, as the laundering removes the crust. And one who is not expert in this to recognize it shall follow the stringent view, and we do not say "a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently," for any doubt that is due to a lack of knowledge is not considered within the category of doubt, as I wrote in the rules of "double doubt" in siman 110 [see the Levush who gave a reason for this in section 46, that perhaps another will come and recognize it and there will be a disparagement, see there; and I do not know why he needed this, for even without this it is well understood]. [And see the Shach, subsection 62, that in this time we do not inspect the ketamim, and according to what I wrote it is well understood, and delve into it].

Therefore, the sages said that regarding a robe she wore during the days of her niddah and it was laundered, and she wore it again during the time she is pure and did not check it—if it was laundered by a Jewish woman and she is not before us to ask, and also the robe is not before us to recognize it—she does not attribute the stain to this, because there is a presumption regarding the daughters of Israel that they check for stains at the time of laundering, whether their own or those of another, and they strive to remove them; and we say that presumably she also did so. But if she is before us and says that she did not check it, she attributes the stain to before the laundering and that it did not pass through the laundering. And if it was laundered by a maidservant or a gentile woman, whose way is not to check, even if she is not before us, she attributes it saying that it was there from the beginning and did not pass through the laundering. Furthermore, even if she says that she checked it and there was no stain on it, or that she removed it, her words do not add or subtract [Bach and Shach, subsection 63]. However, if it is evident that she is telling the truth, we are concerned for her words. And if the robe is before us and it is possible to recognize by its appearance if it forms a crust or darkens as has been written, we are obligated to recognize it; and if we are not expert in this, we do not attribute to be lenient as has been written in the previous section. And if the robe was lost, we follow the lenient view, as it is a complete doubt.

And so too, if she wore a garment that had been checked for her, and she removed it without a checking and laundered it and lent it to her friend, and she wore it without a checking and afterwards a stain was found upon it: if it forms a crust, it is known that it is from the second woman and she is impure, and the first is pure. And if it is absorbed, it is known that it is from the first woman and she is impure, and the second is pure. And if they cannot reach a clear determination, both are impure; first, for the reason that has been explained, that a lack of knowledge is not a doubt; and furthermore, since there is no reason to attribute it to one more than her friend, it is necessary to declare both impure, for what do you see to declare one impure and the other pure [Shach, subsection 66]. And therefore, even when the garment was subsequently lost, where in such a case in the previous law it would be a complete doubt and we would follow the lenient view, yet here it is necessary to declare both impure even in such a case for the reason that has been explained [ibid.].

Two women who wore one garment and afterwards a ketem was found in it, and both of them were tahorot, then automatically both of them are temeot by means of this ketem, for it is impossible to attribute it to one over her companion. However, it has already been explained that a ketem in a garment only renders one temeah when it is from the belt and below, as I wrote in section 61. Therefore, if the ketem for both of them is from the belt and below, both are temeot; and if for both of them it is from the belt and above, both are tahorot. And if for one it is from the belt and below and for the second it is from the belt and above, the one for whom it is from the belt and below is temeah, and the one for whom it is from the belt and above is tahorah. But when for both of them it is from the belt and below, even though one is taller in stature than the other and it turns out that for the shorter one the ketem is closer to her ervah, as is understood, nevertheless, since for both of them it is at any rate below the belt, the taller one does not attribute it to the shorter one, for anything from the belt and below has one law for them [and with this the words of the Shulchan Aruch in section 48 are understood, and examine it closely].

And this is specifically when they did not remove the shift at night to cover their heads with it, but when they removed them, both are impure, for in such a case even above the belt is impure because she turns over. And if for both of them it was above the belt, and one covered her head and the other did not cover, the one who covered is impure and the second is pure. And if for the one who did not cover it was below the belt for her, both are impure, and so too anything similar to this.

Three women who wore one garment and all of them were tehorot, and the garment had been checked, but after the first one removed it, it was not checked until after the third one wore it; or if they all sat on one bench one after the other and in one place, and the bench is susceptible to stains, such as if it is made of wood or other material that is susceptible to tumah—they are all temeot. This is so even if they came to ask one after the other, and it is not similar to the case of two paths. The reason for this matter we explained above in section 76, see there. In what case does this apply? When they are all equal in the status of seeing blood. But if one of them was more likely to see than her companion—for example, if her companion is an elderly woman, or pregnant, or nursing, or if she has not yet seen blood in her life, for even though she is married and had hymeneal blood, nevertheless she has not yet seen niddah blood—therefore, each of these who are not likely to see attribute it to the one who is likely to see. For if a tehorah attributes it to a temeah, all the more so one whose blood is suspended attributes it to one whose blood is not suspended, even though both are tehorot. And this is specifically when they all checked now or none of them checked, as will be explained:

Three women who sleep in one bed and are intertwined with one another, meaning they are attached together and their legs are mingled with one another, and blood is found beneath one of them, they are all temeiot. And if they are not intertwined with one another and blood is found beneath the middle one, they are all temeiot, because even when they are not intertwined, nevertheless it is impossible to be exact, and it is possible that the blood is from the ones on the sides. Therefore, if blood is found beneath the inner one, she and the middle one are temeiot and the outer one is tehorah, for the blood certainly did not come from her. And if it is found beneath the outer one, she and the middle one are also temeiot and the inner one is tehorah. In what case does this apply? When they all ascended by way of the foot of the bed. But if they ascended by way of the outer one, then the inner one is also temeiot even when it is found beneath the outer one, for perhaps it dripped from her while she was passing. But if it is found beneath the inner one, the outer one is tehorah in any case, as is understood. And so it is explicitly stated in Rashi [61a, s.v. ematai, see there].

The Tur wrote in the name of the Ra'avad that this is specifically when it is found on the bed but not on the sheet, but if it is found on the sheet, in any case they are all impure, for the sheet is prone to being overturned. The Rosh wrote that this refers to the upper sheet, but the lower one does not overturn. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 50, ruled without qualification according to the opinion of the Rosh, see there. And it is not understood what is the upper sheet and what is the lower one, for one cannot explain that the upper one is called that which she covers herself with, for this is a simple matter. And also one cannot explain that the lower one is called the cushion upon which the sheet is placed, which is called a "perina," for how is the term "sheet" applicable to it? Furthermore, a cushion that is under the sheet is certainly not overturned at all [Turei Zahav, subsection 37] because of its weight, and even without a sheet upon it, it is not overturned. The commentators explained that their custom was to place two sheets one on top of the other, and she lies between them so that the upper bedding does not become soiled from sweat [Siftei Kohen, subsection 67 and Perisha], and I do not know the explanation for this. However, in any case, from their words it implies that it refers to the sheet with which they cover themselves, and it requires further study, for what is this coming to teach us? For it has already been explained that the covering is prone to being overturned. Furthermore, they actually wrote that the lower one is also prone to being overturned, and the senses testify to this. And in my humble opinion, it appears that they would spread a good sheet over the cushion and tuck the edges under the cushion, and upon it they would place a simple sheet to lie upon. Therefore, if it is found on the lower one, and it does not overturn, we say that the upper one was wrapped under her and the blood came out onto the lower one, and therefore only she is impure and they are pure [and see the explanation of Tosafot, Ketubot 4b, starting with "And the spreading"].

And even though there is reason to be concerned for their bodies as well, lest they turned over in their sleep to be intertwined, nevertheless they were not concerned for this since ketamim are d'rabbanan [Shach subsection 68], because the body does not certainly turn over, whereas with a sheet it certainly turns over. And even though a single woman when she is alone in a bed is temeiah wherever she finds the blood, this is the reason: because there is no one else to attribute it to, and perforce the blood came from her. Furthermore, when she is alone, she certainly turns over throughout the entire bed, as is the way of all people, whereas when two or three are sleeping, each one stays in her place [ibid. and this is his intention].

And regarding these laws that have been explained, that all of them are impure due to the doubt, the sages taught in the Mishnah that sometimes only one is impure and the others are pure, and likewise the opposite. How so? If one of them examined herself and was found impure, she is impure and the other two are pure, for we attribute the stain to her, and you have no greater attribution than this; and they are not obligated to examine themselves. If two examined themselves and were found impure, the third is pure. And likewise the opposite: if one examined herself and found she was pure, she is pure, and the stain is attributed to the two who did not examine themselves. If two examined themselves and found they were pure, they attribute it to the third who did not examine herself, and they are pure. If the third also examined herself and found she was pure, all of them are impure, for there is no reason to attribute it to this one more than to that one [Mishnah 60a and 61a].

However, the time of the examination, whether to purify herself when she is found pure or to purify her companions when she is found impure, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 51 that this is only when the examination was immediately upon the finding of the ketem; that is, she immediately wiped herself and was found impure or pure. But if she delayed the duration of a complete examination, which is the time it takes to wipe in the cavities and folds, the examination is not effective—neither when she is impure to purify the others, nor when she is pure to purify herself. This duration is the same duration for which a husband is liable for a chatat when he has relations with her and she finds blood within this duration, as is explained in Shevuot [14a] and was explained above in siman 185. And the reason for the matter is that to attribute the ketem found to one of them is only when her purity or impurity was clarified immediately, but regarding after a period of time, there is no proof concerning the prior time. And although there is no proof regarding the ketem that was found, and perhaps this ketem issued from one of them several hours ago, and if so, what benefit is there in the immediacy of now? And if it is because of attribution, we should attribute it even afterwards, and this is not comparable to the husband's cohabitation which was a moment before. And indeed, the Rosh challenged the law that was explained for this reason [see Chavat Da'at subsection 36 who wondered at the Rosh, but his words are clear as I have written, and examine it closely]. Nevertheless, several of our teachers ruled so, for so it is stated in the Gemara there according to one Amora, that specifically in such a case it is effective. And the reason can be said to be that now we must follow the time the ketem was found, for now the doubt was born, and we say that in truth, just now at this moment the ketem issued.

The Rosh truly holds that even after this time, the examination is effective to purify her or to purify the others. And some say that to purify the others when she is found to be impure, it must specifically be immediately, as has been explained; however, to purify herself when she is found to be pure, it is effective even after a time, and this is the opinion of the Baal HaMaor. But the Rashba in Torat HaBayit ruled like the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and according to their words, those who examined after this duration, it is not effective—neither to purify her when they are found to be pure, for they are impure because of the ketem when the first was examined immediately and found to be pure, and likewise if they were found to be impure, it is not effective to purify the first, for anything after this duration is nothing. [And know that in Midrash Rabbah Bereshit, Parsha 86, this law is cited there, and it is explained there that for an entire twenty-four hour period she protects her companions, see there; however, we have only our Talmud, and the law of a twenty-four hour period was stated only regarding terumah and holy items at the beginning of Niddah].

And know that according to what is explained from the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, this law—that one woman through her examination saves herself or her companions—applies to everything that has been explained. That is, even to three women who wore one chaluk one after another, or sat on one bench one after another. This is not the opinion of the Ra'avad and the Rashba in Torat HaBayit; they hold that this Mishnah was taught regarding three women who lay in one bed together, for in that case, the measure of proximity is equal for all of them, and therefore it is effective to purify herself or her companions. This is not the case with a chaluk worn one after another or a bench; in such a case, the proximity of the third is distant from the second, and certainly from the first. That is to say, if so, it would only be effective for the proximity of the third, but for the second and first it would not be effective regardless: for if they examined immediately upon their removal, there is no doubt regarding the third, and if they examined afterward, this is not proximity. In truth, for the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, it should be said that just as regarding the ketem itself we follow the time of finding, as I have written, so too regarding the proximity we follow the completion of all of them; since ketamim are Rabbinic, they were not concerned about this [it appears to me]:

We have already explained that in all these laws where all of them are impure, it is only when all of them are on one level regarding the seeing of blood, even if this one has a fixed veset and this one does not, or even if for this one the time of her veset has arrived and for this one it has not arrived; for regarding the matter of ketamim they are the same, as all of them are presumed to have blood in any case. However, when they do not stand on the same level at all, such as where this one is presumed to be completely removed from blood and this one is not so, the one removed from blood attributes it to the one not removed from blood, because this one is presumed to have blood and this one is not presumed at all to have blood, and you have no greater attribution than this regarding the one removed from blood.

Therefore, if one of them is an old woman for whom three periods have passed and she did not see blood, and one is a young woman, the old woman attributes it to the young woman; the old woman is tahora and the young woman is temea. And it appears to me that in this case, the checking of the young woman is of no use, for even if she checks immediately and finds herself tahora, it is nothing, as checking only helps for one who is equal to her and not for one who is not equal to her, for there is no doubt here, as the blood certainly came from her, and what benefit would the checking provide? And similarly, if one is a pregnant woman whose fetus is recognizable and one is not pregnant, or her fetus is not recognizable, the pregnant woman whose fetus is recognizable attributes it to the second one. And similarly, when one is nursing and one is not nursing, the nursing woman is tahora and her companion is temea. And similarly, if one is still a virgin of blood—meaning she has never seen niddah blood in her life, even though she is married and had intercourse and had hymeneal blood—and the other has seen blood, the one who has not seen is tahora and the one who has seen is temea. And it has already been explained that just as she attributes it to her companion, so too she attributes it to herself: if she wore a shift during a time when she was not pregnant and afterwards wore it during a time when she was pregnant and blood was found on it, she attributes it to the earlier days when she was not pregnant, and she is tahora. And similarly in such cases of a nursing woman and an old woman. And if they were all equal—nursing women, or old women, or pregnant women—they do not attribute one to the other, and they are all temeot. And similarly, if one is nursing, one is pregnant, and one is an old woman, they are also all temeot, since they are on one level. And it appears to me that in such a case, the law returns to the matter of when one of them was checked, either to purify herself when she is tahora or to purify her companions when she is temea; for since they are all on one level, it is as if they were all young women and not pregnant or nursing, for it is all one, as is understood.

And know that it is a simple matter in all these laws that were explained regarding three women, that if one of them has a complete attribution—namely, that she was occupied with stains or with blood—that they are all tahorot. This is because they all attribute it to her, and she attributes it to the stains or to the blood. And the matter is a fortiori: for if when she is alone she attributes it to save herself, all the more so does this attribution avail to save the others, for whom it is not certain that this stain came from them.

The Rishonim wrote that that which was explained in the Mishnah—that when blood is found under one of them, she and the one adjacent to her are temeot—this is when they were sleeping. However, if they were awake and lay down even naked next to one another, or sat next to one another on a bench or on another object, and blood was found under one of them, even if it was found under the middle one, since each one recognizes her place, the one who says "I am certain that I did not come to the place where the blood was found" is tehorah. We do not say regarding this that "anything that is not incumbent upon a person, one does it without noticing," for since the blood was found a short time after their standing, it is not relevant to say she did not notice. Therefore, if it was found after a long time, there are those who say that all of them are temeot [Taz, subsection 40], and there are those who disagree regarding this, that even in such a case, the one who says "I am certain" is tehorah, for this is a matter that is incumbent upon her and she certainly would have noticed [Nekudot HaKesef]. Aside from this, it is not similar to all the places where we say "one does not notice," for there one performs an action and we say that one does not notice, as in siman 94 regarding the cutting of a knife [see there in the Taz, subsection 12] and similar cases; but here there is no action. Furthermore, one should not be so stringent regarding ketamim [Minchat Yaakov], and such is the primary ruling.

However, if the blood was found between them, these two are impure and the third is pure. And if they ascended by way of the outer one and it was found under the outer one, all of them are impure. And if it was found under the middle one, the middle and the inner are impure and the outer is pure. And when it is found under the inner one, it alone is impure and the two outer ones are pure, and this has already been explained. But if they had business toward the inside, such that by means of this it is their way to draw near toward the inner side, such as if they were grinding with a millstone and the like, and blood was found under the inner one, the two inner ones are impure. And if it was found under the outer one, it is impure and the inner one is pure, because the inner one does not press to come toward the outer side. And so too in any similar case, the sage must understand the matter and rule according to the halacha.

It appears to me according to logic regarding three women who were in one bed, in a manner where even the one adjacent to her is temeiah, this is when both were sleeping naked or both were clothed. But if the one under whom the blood was found is naked, or even clothed in a shift alone, and the one adjacent to her is clothed in her garments, it certainly stands to reason not to attribute it to her as well, since the garments intervene. And even though it is possible that during sleep her garments were folded and her flesh was revealed, nevertheless it does not stand to reason to be stringent in such a case. And so too in all similar cases, one must pay attention to understand and to contemplate this.

And even though they decreed regarding ketamim and she requires seven clean days as with a definitive seeing, nevertheless, regarding the establishing of a veset, this is not similar to a seeing, and there is no status of veset in ketamim. How so? If she found ketamim on three Rosh Chodesh days, she has not established a veset for herself, nor has she uprooted the other veset that she has. However, ketamim that come by means of examinations with cloths checked for her, which render impure in any amount, behold they are like seeings in every regard, even for establishing a veset and for uprooting a veset. Thus ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 54. But with a cloth that is not checked, it is only a doubt and she does not establish a veset [Taz, subsection 41], and even if it is larger than a k'gris [see Sidrei Taharah, subsection 93, that from the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the chapter "Ba Siman" it appears that he disagrees with this, since he wrote "and her veset was disrupted," see there; and it is no proof at all, for his intention is that automatically now her veset is disrupted since she is impure by the finding of the ketam, and examine this closely].

A woman afflicted with boils, her ketamim are pure. And even if at the time of her vest she did not examine herself and subsequently found ketamim on her sheet or on her shift, she is pure, for this is certainly from the boil. And all the more so during the days of her whitening we attribute leniently; and even during the first three days it seems proper to be lenient since she is certainly from the boil [see Taz subsection 41 and it requires great study]. And there is one who wrote regarding the signs of ketamim: if when she spat on the ketam it passed and went away immediately, this is a sign of purity [Be'er Heitev in the name of the Shelah], and if it is a tradition, we shall accept it. And furthermore, there is one who says that if the ketam is round, even if it is a pure appearance, if something like a red thread surrounds it, she is impure [ibid.]. And the reason must be that even though there is not the measure of a ketam in the circumference, nevertheless it is proven that it came from her body like the rest of the ketam, and as will be explained. However, in this it appears to me that this is specifically when the redness is very strong, for if not so, it is known that every moist thing, its edges change in their appearance, as is known by the sense of sight; and in siman 188, section 15, we explained the reason for this, see there.

And behold, there are some among the great authorities who permitted this for another reason, namely, that we attribute the surrounding red thread to a louse; that is, that the louse was crushed at the site of the stain and pushed the moisture of the louse's blood to the sides. Therefore, if there is not a k'gris and more in the surrounding thread, she is tahora [Sidrei Taharah subsection 53 and Me'il Tzedakah siman 20]. And do not wonder that we attribute it to such a forced occurrence, for regarding anything that is a concern of a louse, we attribute it even to something more distant [ibid.]; and see what I wrote above in section 78. And one must deliberate on this. However, in any event, for this reason and for the reason we explained in the previous section, certainly one should not be stringent in such a case, and furthermore, regarding stains, we listen to the lenient view.

An incident occurred involving a woman who had scabs and wounds soiled with blood, and the way of this woman was also to see from her body at the time of finding a ketem white and green appearances which are permissible, and she found a ketem larger than a k'gris and at its head was found a red appearance and the rest of the ketamim were only green and white. And they forbade her on the grounds that even though she has something upon which to attribute it, nevertheless, since all the ketamim are certainly from her body, for it is her way to see thus, if so, this red one is also from her body and she is temeiah even with less than a k'gris, and more [the Rema in Responsa siman 96]. And they disagreed with him, for certainly in such a case where the red is at the edge of the green ketem, it is certainly recognizable that this too is from her body; but if it was even slightly distant from this ketem, there is no proof regarding it that it also came from her body, and we attribute it to whatever it is possible to attribute [Taz at the end of this siman and Nekudat HaKesef]. However, this is when she did not feel, but if she felt, one should not be lenient even with distance of place [Chavat Da'at subsection 37]. And a woman who is accustomed to seeing red particles will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 191.