Responsa for Niddah 118:2
רבי מאיר אומר
OBSERVED AN ISSUE OF BLOOD, R. MEIR RULED: IF SHE WAS STANDING SHE IS UNCLEAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed in the Gemara infra. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. After urinating Leah usually finds blood on her "examining rag" (ed); the Rabbis of Cologne are of the opinion that she is permitted to cohabit with her husband, since the ruling of R. Jose is accepted that a woman who finds blood in her urine is ritually clean (Niddah 59 b).
A. Even R. Jose would admit that upon finding blood on her "examining rag", after urination, the woman would be ritually unclean. (For R. Jose's opinion is based on the belief that blood found in urine does not come from the interior of the womb, but from a wound or sore; cf. Pr. 630; Mord. Niddah 735. That blood on the "examining rag" after urination however usually comes from the interior of the womb, is universally accepted.) I have often wondered at the compilers of some codes who decide in accordance with the view of R. Jose, yet fail to make the above distinction.
SOURCES: Am II, 51; cf. Pr. 630; L. 403; Hag. Maim. to Issurei Biah, 5, 2; Maharil, Responsa 173.
A. Even R. Jose would admit that upon finding blood on her "examining rag", after urination, the woman would be ritually unclean. (For R. Jose's opinion is based on the belief that blood found in urine does not come from the interior of the womb, but from a wound or sore; cf. Pr. 630; Mord. Niddah 735. That blood on the "examining rag" after urination however usually comes from the interior of the womb, is universally accepted.) I have often wondered at the compilers of some codes who decide in accordance with the view of R. Jose, yet fail to make the above distinction.
SOURCES: Am II, 51; cf. Pr. 630; L. 403; Hag. Maim. to Issurei Biah, 5, 2; Maharil, Responsa 173.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy