Difference between revisions of "Attributing Blood to a Wound"
Jump to navigation Jump to search
|Line 8:||Line 8:|
Latest revision as of 03:05, 4 November 2018
- According to Sephardim, if a woman knows that she has a wound in that area of the body and bleeds, if it is the time of her veset or onah beynonit she can’t assume that the blood is from the wound. However, at other times she can assume that the blood came from the wound. However, that is only for the purposes of not considering her to see blood because of tashmish, but either way we consider her nidda since we don't know with certainty that the blood is from the wound
- According to Ashkenazim, if a woman knows that she has a wound which she knows previously bled and hasn't healed, when she sees next, she can assume that the blood is from the wound unless it is her veset or onah beynonit.
- It is usually assumed that if a physician can see a wound that he knows usually bleeds she is tahor.
- These wounds apply if she has one on the vulva, vagina, or cervix.
During a Veset Period
- If a woman has a wound and sees during a veset she is tameh unless she is certain that when she saw blood the wound actively bleeding at that time.
- All opinions in the Gemara Niddah 16a agree that if a woman sees blood and knows that she has a wound in that area she is pure. The gemara concludes that this is true even during the veset, if veset is only derabbanan. The Mordechai (Niddah no. 735 s.v. neemenet) explains that she needs to know that blood previously came from the wound in order to use it as a factor to assume that the blood she is currently seeing came from that wound. Sefer Hatrumah (92 s.v. vedin) and Hagahot Maimoniyot (Isurei Biyah 11:8) agree. Tosfot 16a s.v. vemar seems to agree. However, the Rashba (Torat Habayit 23a) argues that it is sufficient for her to know that there is a wound even though she doesn’t know that it bled previously. The Bet Yosef YD 187:5, Darkei Moshe Haaroch 187:7, Bach 187:4, and Taz 187:10 understand the Rashba in this light. However, the Shach 187:24 argues that even the Rashba agrees with the Mordechai and Tosfot. Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 230 writes that Shulchan Aruch 187:5 follows the opinion of the Rashba and such is the halacha for Sephardim. The Peleti 187:5 also explains the Shulchan Aruch in this light.
- However, this entire discussion is only relevant to not considering her to be a roah machmat tashmish, a woman who sees blood from tashmish. In terms of making her a niddah, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 230 writes that it certainly does make her a niddah. That is based on the Tzemach Tzedek responsa 86 and the Shach 187:20.
- The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 430 terms this a bleeding wound and cites the Chazon Ish YD 82:1 who writes that a bleeding wound is one which if touched with a cloth would leave a stain on the cloth.
- The Rama YD 187:5 holds like the Mordechai and Tosfot that a woman needs to know that the wound actually previously bled in order to assume that the blood came from there. However, even such a wound is insufficient during a veset since she has to become tameh at some point and the halacha suspects that she’ll see at her next veset or onah beynonit. Shach 187:25 clarifies that this halacha applies to purify a woman to her husband in general (and not just for a woman who sees blood during tashmish).
- Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 243. The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 431, though see footnote for his hesitation. Rav Hershel Schachter (cited in Laws and Concepts of Niddah by Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky pg. 306, says that since the gemara (and brought as halacha in Shulchan Aruch 190:31) allows for passing 7 ingredients over a ketem to wash it with to determine if the blood is uterine or from a wound, means that science can be trusted to determine such a thing.
- The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 428
- Tosfot Niddah 16a s.v. umar, Mordechai Niddah no. 735 s.v. neemenet, Sefer Hatrumah 92 s.v. vedin, Hagahot Maimoniyot 11:8, Rama YD 187:5, Taharat Habayit v. 1 p. 249
- Shach YD 187:26, The Laws of Niddah v. 1 p. 431