Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Niddah 118:62

TO EITHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on her'; and she remains clean. Such a presumption is permitted since neither the gentile woman nor the menstruant is thereby placed at a disadvantage, the former being free from the restrictions in any case while the latter is already in a state of uncleanness. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> IF THREE WOMEN HAD WORN THE SAME SHIRT OR HAD SAT ON THE SAME WOODEN BENCH AND SUBSEQUENTLY BLOOD WAS FOUND ON IT, ALL ARE REGARDED AS UNCLEAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since each one might be presumed to have been the cause. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> IF THEY HAD SAT ON A STONE BENCH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, unlike a wooden one, is not susceptible to uncleanness. ');"><sup>57</sup></span> OR ON THE PROJECTION WITHIN THE COLONNADE OF A BATH HOUSE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, unlike a wooden one, is not susceptible to uncleanness. ');"><sup>57</sup></span> R. NEHEMIAH RULES THAT THEY ARE CLEAN;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The same applies to one woman sitting on a stone bench etc. The plural is used here in continuation of the preceding clause. v. Strashun]. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> FOR R. NEHEMIAH HAS LAID DOWN: ANY THING THAT IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO STAINS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. no uncleanness of the person is assumed by reason of a stain that was found on it. This is further explained in the Gemara infra. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab explained: The reference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah. ');"><sup>60</sup></span> is to a GENTILE WOMAN

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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

We have carefully investigated and found that this woman has a wound in her womb; for every time she urinates she suffers severe pain. Occasionally, but not always, she finds blood in her urine; but no blood is found immediately after urination, neither upon wiping herself nor on the "examining rag". I, therefore, agree with you that this woman is permitted to cohabit with her husband, for, when a woman says she has a wound in her womb from which the blood exudes, she is to be believed.
This responsum is addressed to Rabbi Yekutiel; the Mordecai Hagadol, however, ascribes the question to Rabbi Asher.
SOURCES: Am II, 52; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 339a.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. While urinating Leah sees on the urine particles of blood of a pale color. May she cohabit with her husband?
A. If she examines herself after urinating and finds blood on the examining rag, she is not permitted to cohabit with her husband. But if examining herself after urination she finds no blood for three consecutive times, she no longer has to examine herself and is permitted to cohabit with her husband.
SOURCES: Pr. 630; L. 403; Mord. Sheb. 735. Cf. Israel Bruno, Responsa 248; ibid. 250.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse