Siman 191

A woman who urinated and blood emerged with her urine, and if so, there is reason to be concerned lest it is blood of niddah that emerged together with the urine. And even though the orifice from which the urine emerges is not the orifice from which the blood of the source emerges—for the orifice of the urine is lower, near its exit, and the orifice of the blood of niddah is higher, at a great depth [Darkhei Moshe in the name of Mahariv]—and how would the blood of the source go together with the urine? Nevertheless, sometimes there is reason to be concerned that if she is strained and does not urinate freely, it is possible that through her straining, the urine within her body returns to the source and brings the blood of the source into the orifice of the urine, and when she urinates, the urine goes together with the blood. And although even this is a remote concern, and in most instances even in such a case the blood of the source will not come to the opening of the urine and it is only a minority [this I learned from the words of the Ran in a Responsum brought by the Beit Yosef, see there], nevertheless, because of the severity of the prohibition, it is possible to be concerned. However, whenever she is relaxed, it is obvious that there is no concern, as will be explained.

And for this, the sages taught at the beginning of the ninth chapter: A woman who is relieving herself and saw blood, Rabbi Meir says: if she is standing, she is impure, and if she is sitting, she is pure. For when standing, the area is constricted and she does not urinate with force, and there is a concern that perhaps the urine returned to the source and brought blood as we have written. But when sitting, the area is relaxed and she urinates with force, there is no such concern. And Rabbi Yossi says: in either case she is pure, because even this is a remote concern as we have written. And in the Gemara, the halacha was decided according to Rabbi Yossi. And this blood is blood from a wound in the rectum or in the kidney, and this occurs occasionally in both women and men. And even though this too is a remote occurrence, nevertheless, since it definitely emerges from this place, it is certainly from some illness. [With this it is settled for me, for seemingly one could say that Rabbi Meir follows his reasoning that he is concerned for the minority; and if so, in the fourth chapter of Niddah, why did the Shas hang this dispute on an unchecked witness, see there. However, behold Rabbi Shimon is even more stringent and requires a reason; and according to what I have written it is well, for this too is a minority, and delve into it]:

And they said in the Gemara according to R. Meir that this matter of one who sits is pure is specifically when she spurts, meaning she urinates in a stream; but if she trickles, meaning she urinates slowly, since she restrains herself, it is also possible that the urine returns to the source and brings blood, and she is impure. And Rashi explained that while standing it is impossible for her to spurt; see there. And behold, according to this, R. Yossi, who purifies even while standing, does not hold to divide between streaming and trickling, and in all manners she is pure. And this is the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 5, law 10, and this is his wording: A woman who urinated water and blood emerged with her urine, whether she urinated while standing or whether she urinated while sitting, behold she is pure. And even if her body felt it and she trembled, she need not be concerned, for this is the sensation of her urine, as her urine is not from the chamber, and this blood is blood from a wound in the rectum or in the kidney. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, transcribed it in section 1, and so ruled the Ramban and the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, and they did not divide between spurting and trickling, for this division in the Gemara is according to R. Meir, and the halacha is like R. Yossi who purifies even while standing, for it is impossible for her to spurt.

However, regarding that which they ruled pure even with a sensation, I am astonished; for while it is true that it is stated so at the beginning of the chapter "HaRoah Ketam," where it challenges Shmuel—who said that a woman is not impure without a sensation—from this Mishnah: if she sensed it, why is she pure when sitting? And if she did not sense it, why is she impure when standing according to Rabbi Meir? And it answers: actually, she sensed it, but say it was the sensation of urine, etc., see there. And based on this, they ruled accordingly. But it is difficult, for this is all according to the initial flow of the Gemara; but in the conclusion there, it concludes that Shmuel admits that she is impure rabbinically even without a sensation, and this is the prevalent halakhah in all the laws of niddah. And if so, the previous answer is unnecessary, and it refers to a case without a sensation like all laws of ketamim, which are without a sensation. But with a sensation, who says she is pure? And this reasoning, that she thought it was the sensation of urine, we find at the beginning of niddah as a stringency and not as a leniency; see there.

And it must be said that their reasoning is as follows: it is indeed true that from the sugya of the Shas there is no necessity to say so, as I have written; however, since we rule like Rabbi Yosei, who purifies in all manners even in a case where it is difficult for her and there is a concern that the urine returned to the source and brought blood, nevertheless she is pure. Thus, it is simple to him that there is no reasoning at all that the blood of the chamber would come with the urine. If so, what difference does it make to me whether there was a sensation or no sensation, since this is among the impossibilities? But according to this, for the poskim who disagree and hold that Rabbi Yosei does not purify in all manners, as will be explained with the help of Heaven, then there are times when niddah blood would come together with urine. And if so, according to them, it would seem that with a sensation she would be impure in every case. Yet we have not found this in the poskim, neither in the Rishonim nor in the Acharonim. And it must be said that they also hold this reasoning: namely, that in a case where we said she is pure, such as when she is gushing as will be explained, it is impossible in any way for niddah blood to come together with the urine, and therefore there is no difference between whether she sensed or did not sense, just as according to the reasoning of the Rambam in all manners.

Furthermore, it appears to me to state the reason of all our teachers that in this matter we do not have the ability to be stringent on account of hargashah, for it is explained in the Gemara that there is one hargashah, both for urine and for niddah blood, since they are interchangeable with one another, as we explained in siman 183 regarding the laws of hargashah. And behold, at the beginning of Niddah where we say as a stringency that she thought it was the hargashah of urine, there she does not change, but rather we say that she erred in the hargashah and thought it was the hargashah of urine that dripped from her, and therefore we only say this reasoning as a stringency and not as a leniency. But here, the essence of her action is to urinate, and perforce there is a hargashah here, for it is entirely impossible without hargashah. And if so, just as we say regarding the blood that it is not from the womb but rather due to the urine, so too we say regarding the hargashah, since there is necessarily a hargashah. And if so, the fundamental law of hargashah neither adds nor subtracts in one who urinates, and therefore they all ruled accordingly. [And the Shas there which challenges Shmuel from this Mishnah and says, "what are the circumstances? If she felt, etc.," this is because it thought that the hargashah of blood was a different hargashah; but since it answers, "actually she felt, and say it was the hargashah of urine, etc.," meaning that they are one hargashah, and therefore it does not say "and she thought" as at the beginning of Niddah, but rather "and say," and that is because the truth is so. And if so, the matter of hargashah is not relevant here at all. And delve into this.]

And furthermore, I have a question regarding the words of these teachers of ours: Behold, in the Gemara there, it asks a difficulty against Rabbi Tarfon: why does he rule it pure in the case of one who urinates with force? Perhaps after the water finished, blood came? And Rashi explained: who says that the blood comes together with the urine? And in the case of one who urinates with force, it is impossible for it to be blood of niddah; perhaps the blood came after the urine finished, and it is blood of niddah. And it answers that it deals with one who is sitting on the edge of the vessel and urinates with force into the vessel, and blood is found inside the vessel; for if it were so that after the water finished it came, it should have been found on the edge of the vessel, see there. And it is certain that just as the Shas asks this difficulty against Rabbi Meir in the case of one who urinates with force, so too one must ask against Rabbi Yosi in all manners, for perhaps the blood came afterward; for indeed the Shas asks generally. And if so, we should only rule it pure in such a case, where she is sitting on the edge of the vessel and blood is found inside the vessel, as indeed many of the poskim hold so, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. And why did these teachers of ours not make this distinction? And according to their words, in all manners she is pure. And one must say that in this they do not interpret like Rashi, that we should suspect perhaps blood of niddah came afterward from the source, for there is no logic to say so, for if so, why did it happen that the blood of the source came immediately after she urinated? Rather, they interpret: perhaps after the water finished urinating with force and began to flow slowly, as is the way of those who urinate, that at the end of urination the urine flows little by little, and we say that then the urine returned to the source and brought blood. And so interpreted our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot. And if so, this difficulty is only according to Rabbi Meir, who rules it impure in the case of one who flows slowly, and not according to Rabbi Yosi, who rules it pure even in the case of one who flows slowly, as I have written; and therefore they omitted this.

But there is yet another great question regarding this matter, for behold, in the Gemara [14b] it compares the law of an examination cloth that was not checked and placed in a box to this law of "mei raglayim," see there, as it says explicitly that whoever purifies here purifies there, and whoever defiles here defiles there, see there. And if so, the Rambam and all the poskim who purified here—behold, regarding an examination cloth that was not checked, they defiled it due to a ketem, as is explained in the Rambam chapter 9 and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in siman 190, section 36. And the Shas compares them to one another. And our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot there [under the heading "And Rabbi Yitzchak"], wrote indeed in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel that also in this law she is impure due to a ketem, just as with an examination cloth that was not checked, see there. But regarding the Rambam and all our teachers who distinguished one from the other, it is difficult, since the Shas compares them to one another.

And so I found in the Rashba's Torat HaBayit in the gate of ketamim, who brought the words of the Ra'avad who wrote that even though we rule like Rabbi Yosei in this matter, nevertheless, regarding an unexamined ed she is impure because of a ketam. And he challenged him: since the Gemara compares them to one another, how is it possible to distinguish between them? And he wrote that the Ba'al HaMa'or indeed purifies even in the case of an unexamined ed, and he agreed with his words; see there. And the reasoning of the Ra'avad appears to be because regarding an unexamined ed there are several who are stringent in the Gemara there, and we also are stringent. And this is also the reasoning of the Rambam. And one may further say regarding the reasoning of these our teachers, that the Gemara only compares them to one another regarding the law of a complete Niddah from the Torah, for in this they should not be separated from one another; but regarding the rabbinic impurity of a ketam, it is certainly appropriate to be more stringent there because she examined herself now, and it is like a basis for the matter [and a similar logic to this I found in the Sma'it in Divrei Chamudot, letter 2, in the chapter Ha'isha, see there].

The approach of the Tosafot and the Rosh is that even while standing it is possible for her to spray and spurt, and nevertheless, Rabbi Meir declares her impure. For since she is standing, her womb does not open and the urine does not exit with expansion, but rather they are slightly restrained, and because of this they return to the source and bring blood. Rabbi Meir only purified in the case of sitting and spraying, where there are two factors in her favor: that her womb is open and she is spraying. But with one factor to her detriment—that is, standing even though she is spraying, or trickling even though she is sitting—he declares her impure. Rabbi Yosei purifies in both cases since there is one factor in her favor. But with two factors to her detriment—standing and trickling—even Rabbi Yosei declares her impure, for in such a case there is certainly a concern that the urine returns to the source and brings blood. And so too, Rabbi Yosei is not concerned in the case of sitting that perhaps after the water finished blood came, since while sitting she is pure in any event. Therefore, there is no difference whether the blood was found inside the basin or on the rim of the basin.

And this is the opinion of the Tur, who wrote: A woman who urinates into a vessel and blood is found in it, the Rambam wrote etc. and my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that if she is sitting she is tahora in every case, for since the place is wide, the urine does not return to the source to bring blood from there; but if she is standing, such that the place is narrow for her, if she urinates into the vessel where the water comes out in a stream, she is tahora, but if they trickle on the rim of the vessel, she is temea. Thus far his words. And this is the first "there are those who say" that our teacher, the Rema, brought, and he wrote in the language of the Tur, see there. And the commentators were precise: since according to him there is no difference between the inside of the vessel and the rim of the vessel, and the difference is only between trickling and a stream, if so, why regarding a stream did he write "into the vessel" and regarding trickling did he write "on the rim of the vessel"?

And there is one who wrote that for the sake of a greater novelty it took the case of "on the rim of the cup," meaning, it is not only necessary to say that if even from the beginning of the discharge, when they are numerous, it was standing and dripping into the cup that she is impure for the reason that has been explained, but even if at the beginning of the discharge of her urine it was spraying into the cup and after the spraying it was dripping on the rim of the cup, where there is only a small amount of urine, that nevertheless we fear that they returned to the source and brought blood; and the difficulty is evident. And there is one who wrote that spraying is only possible when she distances her legs from one another, and according to this, she places the cup between her legs and the urine and the blood descend into the cup; but dripping is only possible when her legs are close to one another, and consequently the cup is not between her legs but adjacent to her legs, and consequently it drips on the rim of the vessel [Atzei Levonah, subsection 1]. And this is more difficult, for why should he seize upon this since for the law there is no practical difference.

And there is one who says that it specifically stated "while streaming into the vessel," for if it was found on the rim of the vessel, even while streaming she is teme'ah, for we fear perhaps after the water finished she brought blood, and therefore it was found on the rim of the vessel, as this is the way of one who flows; and therefore we fear that after the streaming she was flowing, and regarding one who flows, it stated "on the rim of the vessel" because such is the way of one who flows, but the same law applies that even inside the vessel she is teme'ah [Chavat Da'at, subsection 1]. But this is not clear to me, for the Rosh wrote explicitly that according to Rabbi Yosi we do not fear that after the water finished she brought blood, see there.

And in my humble opinion, the opposite appears correct, and the intention of the Tur is not regarding the blood, but rather regarding the urine. It is the way of the matter that a stream goes into the vessel because it travels with force, and if she were to urinate on its rim, it would splash outside. But when it trickles, its way is to be cast upon the rim of the vessel, for since it is not with force, it will not splash outside. And from the language of the Gemara it is clear that everything after a stream must necessarily be a trickle as well, and the senses testify to this, as I wrote in section 7. And since this is so, you have no case of purity in a standing position even with a stream, for in its end it will be a trickle. And this is what the Gemara says: "And perhaps after the water finished," etc., because such is the way of people. And the Rosh does not hold of this reasoning, as I wrote. Therefore, the Tur was wise in his wording, and this is what he said: But in a standing position, etc., if it spurts into the vessel, etc., she is pure. That is to say, if she urinated with a spurt into the vessel, she is pure in any case, whether the blood was found inside the vessel or on the rim of the vessel. And even though it must necessarily be a trickle at its end, and therefore the blood was found on the rim of the vessel, nevertheless she is pure because we do not concern ourselves with "after the water finished," etc. And afterwards he says: But if they trickle on the rim of the vessel, she is impure. That is to say, but if from its beginning it was trickling on the rim of the vessel, for such is the way of those that trickle, she is impure in any case, even if the blood was found inside the vessel, and certainly if on the rim of the vessel.

And there are some of the Rishonim who were even more stringent and hold that this concern that "perhaps after the water ceased," etc., applies according to both R. Meir and R. Yose. And it appears to me that they hold like the explanation of Rashi that we brought in section 7, that this is not related to the concern of the return of the blood to the source. According to this, that which the Gemara answered regarding one who sits on the rim of the vessel, etc., and blood was found inside the vessel, etc., is according to everyone. According to this, if the blood was found on the rim of the vessel, even if she was sitting she is tamei, for this is a sign that the blood came afterward. And this is the second "there are those who say" that our teacher, the Rema, brought. This is his wording: And there are those who say that even when sitting one should not permit it except when she is urinating forcefully and the blood is found inside the vessel, but on the rim of the vessel she is tamei, and when standing she is tamei in any case, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. And according to this, if she was sitting in the middle of the vessel, she is tamei in any case [Shach, subsection 7].

And in truth, our teacher, the Rema, combined two opinions here together, for this opinion is in the Hagahot Maimoni, chapter 5, in the name of the Maharam, see there; and according to him, even when she is standing, she is tahora in a shower, since we rule like R. Yose [see the Beit Yosef]. And that which he wrote, that when she is standing she is temea in any case, this is a fourth opinion, and it is the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel, who holds that even R. Yose did not declare her tahora regarding a ketem, but only regarding a nidda, as in the case of an unchecked cloth, and as I wrote in section 8. And perhaps his entire intention in this "there are those who say" is only according to the interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel, and he holds that when she is sitting and showering she is completely tahora, since R. Meir admits in this case, and it was not pleasing to him to say that even R. Meir did not declare her tahora except regarding a nidda and not regarding a ketem.

The Tur wrote: If a man and a woman both urinated into a vessel and blood was found in it, she is tahora in every case. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote similarly. The reason for the matter is that in this case an additional doubt is added, perhaps it came from the man, and it is a sefek sefeka; for if you say it came from the woman, perhaps it was not from the source [Gemara]. And even though it is not reversible—as it is impossible to say "perhaps from the source and perhaps from the urine," and "if you say from the source," for since it is from the source she is certainly temeia—nevertheless here, even according to the one who holds that every sefek sefeka requires a reversible sefek sefeka, it is not necessary, for they investigated to inquire from where the blood came, as is explained in the rules of sefek sefeka. Therefore, in such a case, even according to the one who is very stringent, which is the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel, that in all cases she is not completely tahora as I have written, nevertheless in a sefek sefeka she is completely tahora in every case.

And there is one who says that even in such a case, it should only be permitted if it was found inside the bowl and not if it was found on the rim of the bowl [Shach, subsection 6], meaning according to the view of those who forbid on the rim of the bowl. And there is one who explained the reason that in this there is proof that the blood is from her, for it is the way of a man only to spray, and by being on the rim of the bowl it is proven that it was by dripping [Chavat Da'at, subsection 5]. And I wonder at this, for the senses prove the opposite, for at the end after the spraying, the urine drips slowly in every person. And so it is implied from the language of the Shas which said: "and perhaps after the water finished etc." because nature is thus. Therefore, it appears to me that this is only according to the view of Rashi that we brought, that the concern is not because they return to the source, but that as the water finished, blood of niddah emerged. And according to this, we would say that if it were from the rectum or from the kidney, it would have emerged earlier during the spraying, and according to this, it is certainly from the woman and it is blood of niddah. And also according to all the views it is possible to say so, but in truth, who told us all these things? And I found among the great ones who indeed questioned this [Kereiti U'Pleiiti, and the Sidrei Taharah subsection 3 also doubted this, see there]. And know that every bowl mentioned here refers to a case where it is known that it was completely clean, for if she urinated in a place that is not clean, we attribute the blood to having been there previously, unless it is known that the blood emerged with the urine.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And all this is if blood was found by chance, but a woman who is accustomed to seeing blood in her urine and feels pain at the time she urinates, such as the illness called urin-wind, it appears that it should be permitted in every case, for there is clear evidence that she has a wound that causes her pain during urination and from it the blood emerges. And even if she finds blood after urination when she wipes herself, she is tahora, since she feels pain and does not discharge blood except after urination, it is certainly the blood of a wound, etc. Thus far his words.

The explanation of these matters is that even according to the stringent opinions, this applies in an ordinary case where blood is found in the urine and the cause is unknown to us. However, a woman who has pain during urination—even though pain is not equivalent to a wound regarding one who sees blood due to intercourse in siman 187, as I wrote there—nevertheless, with this pain known by the name of the illness called "urin-wind," her law is like one with a wound, and she is tahora in every case, even when standing and it flows and is found on the rim of the vessel, for it is known to us from where the blood comes. And it is simple that this is specifically when the pain is at the time of urination; however, if she has constant pain in that place, this depends on whether pain is equivalent to a wound or not. And this seems simple, that if she has a wound in that place, we attribute it to the wound just as with one who sees blood due to intercourse. And even if you wish to distinguish between them, nevertheless it appears that in such a case one may rely on the opinion of the Rambam, the Ra'avad, and the Rashba, who are lenient in every case of urinating blood, as I wrote. And perhaps even regarding pain one may rely on them, and one should deliberate on this.

And he says further that even if she finds blood after the discharge of urine when she wipes herself etc., meaning even if at the time of discharge she does not urinate with blood, but only after the discharge when she checks herself she finds blood on the examination, for in such a case without pain it is obvious that she is tamei even according to the method of those who are lenient, as this has no relevance at all to all the laws that have been explained; nevertheless, when she has pain, even in such a case she is tehorah. And there is no difference between whether she feels the pain at the time of discharging her urine or whether she feels the pain immediately after the discharge, for since she does not feel the pain except after the discharge of her urine, it is a clear sign that she has a malady through which the entire vaginal area becomes filled with blood, and therefore when she wipes, meaning when she checks herself by wiping, she brings out blood [and so wrote the Sidrei Taharah, subsection 4]. And there are those who are stringent to say that specifically if the pain is at the time of discharge, but there is no reason to be stringent in this [ibid.], and especially according to what will be explained, that without an examination we do not permit this.

Our teacher, the Rema, added further to this law, and this is his wording: However, there are those who are stringent not to permit it except for a woman who has a fixed vest, requiring her to perform a bedikah, which is that before she urinates she should check herself well in the holes and crevices, and if she finds no blood, she should insert a clean moch over the mekor inside and urinate, and wipe herself well from her urine, and remove the moch; if it is clean, it is a great proof that the blood is not from the mekor, and such is the custom. And if she checked herself three times in this manner and found the moch clean, she is permitted thereafter without a bedikah when it is not the time of her vest, for there is a chazakah that it is blood from a wound since she only finds it after she has urinated. Thus far his words. And it appears that he only required this bedikah when she finds blood after the discharge on the cloth of the bedikah, and so it is implied from the end of his words where he wrote "since she only finds it after she has urinated," thus far his words, for from this it is clear that if the blood goes at the time of the discharge, she does not need a bedikah since she has pain. And even though in the source of the law in the Responsa of the Maharil it implies that he required a bedikah even in such a case [see Shach, subsection 7], nevertheless our teacher, the Rema, did not require it in such a case. And the reason is simple, for in such a case one may certainly rely at least on the opinion of the lenient ones even without pain. However, I have seen the great authorities who explained his words that in every case he requires a bedikah [so wrote the Chavot Da'at, subsection 7, and so it is implied in the Shach ibid., and it requires further study]. And in my humble opinion, the matters are puzzling, for why should we not rely in such a case at least on the system of the lenient ones, which is the system of most poskim? And in practice one should be concerned; however, if an expert doctor also says so, it appears to me in my humble opinion simple that one may rely on all these even without a bedikah if the bedikah is difficult to perform.

However, the essence of this bedikah is not well understood, for the primary purpose of the bedikah is to clarify from where the blood originates—whether from the opening of the mekor or from the urinary tract. Therefore, when the entire vaginal canal is clean of blood, as she checks herself in the holes and crevices, and afterwards inserts the moch over the mekor inside—meaning that the moch should thoroughly cover the opening of the mekor but the urinary opening should remain clear—and she urinates, wipes, and removes the moch and it is clean, this is a sign that it is not from the mekor. And the wiping is necessary, for otherwise the moch would become soiled as she removes it from there and the bedikah would be nullified. If so, this bedikah is effective when she finds no blood on the moch, but on the wiping of the urine or in the urine itself she finds blood; then it is a complete clarification that the blood is not from the mekor. But if at that time she finds no blood anywhere, this is not a clarification. And it is not similar to one who sees blood due to tashmish in siman 187 regarding the bedikah of a tube when she finds no blood anywhere, where it is nevertheless considered an effective bedikah as written there, for there indeed many reasons were explained for this. This is not the case here; what clarification is this? For we see that this time she did not urinate with blood, and also afterwards no blood was found in the wiping. And if you say that indeed the intention of our teacher, the Rema, is that she found blood on the wiping or in the urine, then the main point is missing from the text. Furthermore, in the Responsa of the Maharil and in the glosses of the Sha'arei Dura, which are the source of this law, it is not explained at all that they required her to find blood on the bedikah or in the urine. Moreover, if she finds blood on the bedikah and does not find it on the moch, you have no better clarification than this, so why did our teacher, the Rema, require three times? Surely once would suffice, and it would be much better than the bedikah of a tube, for which once suffices. Rather, it is certain that she found no blood at all, and if so, what kind of bedikah is this?

And more than this, it is a wonder to me according to the explanation of the commentators that this bedika is also when it changes with blood; what does this bedika avail? For from any perspective: if according to the opinion of the lenient ones that she is tahora in all manners, then she does not require a bedika and does not require pain. Rather, it is certain that the bedika is according to the opinion of those who prohibit in a case of standing and streaming, and according to the third opinion even in a case of sitting and streaming, and all the more so according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel that was explained. And behold, the entire primary reason of those who prohibit is from the reason stated in the Gemara: "and perhaps the urine returned to the mekor and brought blood," as has been explained. And if so, what does it avail that she places a moch over the opening of the mekor and it is clean? For we are concerned that inside the body the urine will return to the source of the mekor and bring the blood of the mekor by way of the urine, and what does the bedika from the outside avail in this? And perhaps you will say that we attribute it to the pain; if so, she does not require a bedika.

And I saw one of the great authorities who wrote that his words are not precise and that he combined two matters together; namely, that which he concludes, that there is a presumption that the blood is from a wound, this is when blood was not found on the absorbent cloth but was found upon the examination, and in this case, one indeed does not require three times and once is sufficient. And that which he wrote that one requires three times, this is when no blood was found at all, and then the reason is due to the uprooting of a veset, as it was her manner to see blood within the urine, and therefore it requires uprooting three times according to the law of a veset, which is not uprooted except through three times [Noda BiYehuda siman 48 and Dagul Mervava]. And in my humble opinion, his words are precise and as firm as a mirror, and our teacher, the Rema, draws sweet water from deep wells, and in the Shulchan Aruch he established his great opinion according to his own pure mind and not merely as a transcriber of previous opinions, as I have written several times. And it is not due to the reason of veset, but rather it is a completely different matter, as has been explained with the help of Heaven:

And so the commentators exerted themselves regarding what he wrote specifically concerning a woman who has a veset, and why it would not also be effective for one who does not have a veset during the average interval, as in siman 187 [Sidrei Taharah subsection 5 and Kneset HaGedolah siman 34]. And in the source of the law in the Maharil, siman 203, he wrote in this wording: that for one who does not have a veset one must be stringent, for if not so, will she then never be tameh, etc. Thus far his words. And the matters are astonishing, for she would be tameh when she finds blood on the moch [Shach subsection 7]. And there are those who answered that his intention was for after three times, when she does not require a bedikah [Noda BiYehudah]; however, is it not possible to always perform a bedikah, and when she finds it on the moch she would be tameh [Chavat Da'at subsection 8]? And there is one who explained that it is dealing with a case where she never sees blood except by way of her urine [Shach ibid.], and the great authorities completely rejected this [Kreiti U'Pleiti and Sidrei Taharah ibid.]. And they explained that certainly it is possible for her to be tameh when she sees not at the time of relieving herself; rather, this is what he is saying: since urine is common every day and at every hour, we fear lest it happen that her seeing from the mekor occurs close to the discharge of her urine, and you would be purifying her unlawfully; therefore she must have a fixed veset, and at the time of her veset she would be tameh in any event [ibid.]. And in any case, the matters are very forced, as is understood.

Furthermore, one must wonder at the words of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote afterward, and this is his wording: And all this is specifically when she feels pain with the discharge of urine; but if she does not feel pain and checks herself after urinating and finds blood, if she did not find blood within her urine, she is certainly temeiah. But if she found blood within her urine and also on the ed with which she checked herself, some say she is temeiah, for they only permitted blood found within the urine; and some say she is tehorah, for we attribute the blood found to the fact that there still remained some residue of the urine. And one should be stringent; however, there is no need to check after this, and even if she was accustomed to seeing [blood], if she checked herself three times and found herself tehorah, she no longer requires checking, etc. Thus far his words. And now, one must be precise: what is he coming to teach us, that without pain, when she finds blood not within the urine but in the checking afterward, she is temeiah? This is obvious! For in the Gemara it is explicitly forbidden except when the blood goes together with the urine. And also, regarding what he wrote that there is a dispute when she found blood within the urine and also on the ed, etc., he should have written this earlier; when he brought all the opinions, he should have explained that in this there is a dispute, and why did he write it after the law of pain?

Therefore, it appears to me that there is another intention in all the words of our teacher, the Rema, and this applies to all the approaches, whether according to the lenient opinions or according to the stringent opinions. And it is this: it is indeed true that our Sages, of blessed memory, were lenient regarding the discharge of blood with urine, according to each master’s respective view; and all the more so in a case where she has pain, where everyone is lenient even if she finds blood upon the examination, as has been explained. However, in any event, all these leniencies are because we attribute the blood to a source other than the womb, but rather to the cause of the urine—whether without pain, where we attribute it to a wound in the rectum or kidney, or with pain, where we attribute it to the pain. And behold, all of this is so that we need not fear that perhaps the urine returned to the womb and brought blood by way of the urine. For in this, our Sages, of blessed memory, permitted when blood is found within the urine even without pain according to the approach of those who are lenient in every case, and according to the stringent opinions in the specific details where they too are lenient; and in a case of pain, everyone is lenient even if the blood was not found in her urine but rather in the examination that followed, as has been explained.

However, when we reflect, is there not a completely different concern, which is: who is to say that the blood that departs together with the urination departs from the place of the urine? Perhaps when the opening of the urine is opened, the opening of the womb is also opened, and the blood departs from the womb together with the urine. And granted that this too is a remote concern, that both would occur together, nevertheless, it is established for us even regarding a light prohibition that wherever it is possible to clarify, we clarify. If so, regarding a severe prohibition of karet, why should we not clarify this at least, so that we may be certain that the blood does not depart from the womb itself together with the urine? And this is why our teacher, the Rema, was precise to say "but there are those who are stringent etc. to require her to perform a bedikah etc.," meaning that this is truly a mere stringency to clarify all of this.

And his words refer to all the matters of this siman, meaning even without the pain, that she should wash the place or wipe herself well and place the moch at the opening of the mekor; and automatically, after urinating, when the moch is clean, this matter is at least clarified—that the blood does not come from the mekor. And she must maintain this status three times according to the law of all chazakot. If so, afterwards she is permitted without a bedikah when it is not the time of her vest; for at the time of her vest, we certainly concern ourselves with this—that the blood goes together with the urine from the mekor. And it is true that if she also performs the bedikah then, it is certainly a complete clarification regarding this matter, that the blood is not from the mekor; however, without a bedikah then, and to rely on the three times, there is no reasoning to rely [on this] at the time of her vest. And that which he said previously, not to permit except for a woman who has a vest, his intention is not that for one who does not have a vest this bedikah is not effective, for it is certainly effective; rather, that the establishment of a chazakah of three times does not help, for since she has no vest, it is always like the time of her vest, and she always requires a bedikah even after the three times. And in this, an onah beinonit from thirty days to thirty days does not help; for on the contrary, from this a great ruin will come—meaning that sometimes she will see several sightings not during the onah beinonit since she has no fixed vest, and she will then rely on this without a bedikah, and at the time of the arrival of her vest it is certainly a great concern and she will come to the prohibition of karet. And this is what he wrote, that in such a case it is a great proof that this is not from the mekor, meaning that the blood of the mekor does not go together with the urine. And this is why he concludes that it is a chazakah that it is blood of a wound, and he did not say it is blood of pain, because it refers to the entire siman; for even without pain, do we not say that this is from the rectum or from the kidney, from the wound there? And this bedikah is effective both without pain when she finds blood in the urine, and with pain even if the blood is found in the bedikah.

And this is what he wrote afterward: and all this is specifically when she feels pain, etc., but, etc., and she examines herself, etc. That is to say, do not say that this examination is effective even without pain regarding the subsequent examination, for certainly it is not effective. And afterward he says: but if she found blood on her urine and also on the cloth, etc., some say she is tamei, etc., and some say she is tahorah, etc. That is to say, that regarding both of them together there is a dispute among the poskim, and therefore for those who are lenient, the examination is effective, but for those who are stringent, even in such a case this examination is not effective. And he adds and says: however, she does not need to examine, etc. That is to say, that even for those who are stringent regarding both of them together, she does not need to examine with a wiping after the discharge of blood, for which we would require her to wipe lest there also be blood on the wiping and it would not be effective for those who are stringent. And he further adds a leniency, that even if she was accustomed to seeing, etc. That is to say, that it is known to her that it is also her way to find blood on the wiping and she is obligated to examine, nevertheless, if she examined the wiping three times and found it tahorah, she no longer needs to examine. [And also the words of the Maharil that the Shach brought should be explained thus in what he said: "And shall she never be tahorah?"—that is to say, without an examination and relying on the three times, for at the time of her veset there is certainly a great concern that the blood of the source goes together with the urine, and therefore she must examine every time always, and examine this carefully]. [And also the difficulty of the Shach in subsection 8 is answered; see there].

He further wrote that if she is not accustomed to seeing except at intervals, she establishes a vest for herself if it is in a fixed manner, whether it is a consistent vest or a vest of intervals. And if she does not find blood afterward when she examines herself, but only small grains like sand and red gravel, and such is also found in her urine, yet at the time of her vest or at other times she sees actual blood like other women and does not find that sand except after her urine, she is tahora, for it is not blood but rather sand which is prone to be generated in the kidneys. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is that since he said previously that without pain they only permitted the days regarding blood that is in the urine and not regarding the examination that follows, as has been explained, and for this even the examination with a moch etc. does not avail, as has been explained; therefore he says that if she is not accustomed to seeing except occasionally, meaning that in most instances when she examines herself after urinating she is clean, and only occasionally does she find blood on the examination after urinating, and this blood we say is from the source, and therefore she establishes for herself a veset like other sightings of blood, whether a fixed veset from 20 to 20 or from 30 to 30 and the like, or a veset of skipping from 20 to 21 and from 21 to 22 and the like. And it comes to teach us that you should not say that since this is not a clear sighting we should not be concerned for it when it is not a fixed veset; it comes to teach us that we are concerned. And it appears to me that nevertheless she does not uproot the clear veset that she has through actual sightings of blood, but rather she is concerned for this veset as well. And how could it be forbidden that with this veset she should uproot the other veset, for there are those who say that blood found on the examination is attributed to being the residue of the urine, as will be explained. And even if there is no blood in the urine but only in the wiping, where in such a case everyone agrees that she is tamei, nevertheless to uproot another veset with this appears clear to me that she does not uproot, for as a stringency one must certainly be concerned that even in this manner it is a residue from the urine.

And afterward he says, and if she does not find blood afterward, etc., only granules, etc., and such is also found in her urine, etc. That is to say, even though we have decided that regarding one who sees blood in her urine and also in the examination afterward that one must be stringent as has been explained, nevertheless, if in the examination afterward it is not actual blood but rather granules like sand and red gravel, and she has a veset of actual seeing, one may be lenient if this is also found in the urine, for this is sand from the kidneys and not blood. And he stipulated two conditions for this: that she see the granules also in the urine, for if not so, her law is like one who sees husks and hairs which was explained in siman 188, for if you were to think that this is sand from the kidneys, why were they not found in the urine? And furthermore, that she should have another veset from seeing actual blood, for if not so, we say that this is her way of seeing with dry blood and we do not attribute it to kidney sand since she has no other seeing of actual blood. And it seems to me that in this there is no difference whether she also finds actual blood in the urine or not, and this depends on the opinions that were explained regarding the blood of urine; however, in the examination afterward, he requires that there be no blood but only these granules. And there is no need to place the granules in water to see if they dissolve, for we attribute them to sand that is in the kidneys, and even if they dissolved in water we are not concerned about it [Shach, subsection 11]. And conversely, when she does not find the granules in the urine but only in the examination, and we forbid her as written in siman 188, soaking in water is required according to the law of husks and hairs. And know that in all of these there is no distinction between one whose blood is ceased, such as a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, or an elderly woman, and one whose blood is not ceased; and one should not be lenient with those whose blood is ceased in all the laws explained in this siman and say that with them it is certainly due to a wound, for sometimes they also see blood [Beit Hillel]. And so it appears primary since the poskim did not mention to make a distinction in this, and so one should instruct.

An incident occurred involving a certain woman who had a fixed veset, but when it was not the time of her veset, she would find on the bedikah red specks like the point of a needle. Some of these specks would be absorbed into the linen garment and some would be caught by the linen. Her custom at the time of her veset was that when the flow of blood from her ceased, she would find something like the soaking of meat, and within it were many of those specks. She says that many times she feels pain in the region of the kidneys, but for about nine weeks she has not felt this pain, but rather feels pain in her abdomen above that place, and it seems to her as if something is moving there to and fro, and she finds those specks sometimes during the sensation of pain and sometimes afterward.

And behold, there are some of the great authorities who wished to permit this based on the words of our teacher, the Rema, that were explained, that this is sand in the kidneys [Atzeret Tzvi at the end of this siman and Shaveh Yaakov], since she has pain; and even though the pain sometimes ceases, such is the way of all wounds, that the pain ceases periodically, and nevertheless the wound remains in its place. But their words were rejected by all the great ones of the world [Chacham Tzvi, and Kereti U'Peleti, and Panim Meirot, and Chavat Yair, and others], for our teacher, the Rema, only permitted this regarding urine, as will be explained. And these grains, their law is like the husks and hairs in siman 188, and if they dissolved, she is temeiah. And even if the doctors say that it is sand in the kidneys, the matter is not clear enough to rely upon them without soaking in water, and if they dissolved, she is temeiah. And there are some of the sages of the generation who instructed to strain the urine through a thin cloth, and if after the straining these grains are found, one should permit [the sages of Lissa in Noda BiYehuda Tinyana, siman 99]. And they did this according to the ruling of our teacher, the Rema, even though these grains were not present at the time of urination. And even regarding this, the great authorities hesitated [ibid.]. However, one may rely on this in a case of great need, since ultimately our eyes see that these grains were found in the urine, it is automatically proven that she has sand in the kidneys, and if so, why should we not attribute these to that as well?

And know that although the great authorities disagreed whether pain is considered like a wound, and we rule stringently as was written in siman 187, nevertheless, if at the very moment of the pain she finds something, we can judge her as having a wound, for you have no clearer proof than this. And so several great authorities agreed [see the responsa of the Pnei Yehoshua and the Chakham Tzevi to the Gaon of Glogau, section 29]. Therefore, regarding these granules, if at the very moment of the pain she finds these granules during a bedikah, one may rely on this to permit her even without the discharging of urine [ibid.]. However, without this, it is difficult to rely on the words of the doctors without soaking, as was written. And there are some doctors who say that this comes from the sides, where there are small veins like a strand of hair, and there are many veins there, and when the woman is abundant in blood, then these veins are also influenced by the blood, and when she performs a bedikah on herself with an ed and presses on these veins, they then open and discharge drops of blood or small granules. However, without proof, one should not rely on them because they say this from mere estimation. Therefore, if it is possible to clarify this—namely, that she places a deep moch in that place and checks the sides at the veins and finds blood while the moch remains clean—you have no clearer proof than this to permit, and so too anything similar to this. 38. The general rule of the matter: in these issues, there are many incidents in the responsa of the great authorities, and the principle is not to judge a prohibition of karet based on mere estimation, unless it is what is explicitly explained in the Shulchan Aruch. Regarding other cases when they occur, one should only rely on a wound if it is possible to clarify through midwives and doctors that she has a sore or a bruise, or through pain if at the moment of the pain she finds the blood or the granules or the sand. And if not, they should perform a moch bedikah for her as was written, and if the moch comes out clean and the bedikah is red, this is a decisive proof that it is from the sides.