5

To the best of my knowledge there is a principle that if a woman knows with reasonable certainty ( or even reasonable suspicion ) that an emission of blood is from a wound and not from the uterus then she is not rendered niddah. This comes up often for instance in the case of gynaecological exams that can cause non-uterine bleeding.

If this is the case, then why would a woman be rendered niddah ( or safeq zavah or whatever you want to call it ) after defloration considering that we know with certainty that the blood is from the broken hymen.

|improve this question
  • 2
    It's Rabbinic . – Double AA♦ Oct 3 '13 at 20:03
  • 1
    @DoubleAA Could you expand on that a bit, be a bit more specific? – Robert S. Barnes Oct 3 '13 at 20:23
  • 1
    @RobertS.Barnes, in this particular instance, it is a rabbinic decree, since she experiences certain sensations that also might mask the sensation of a flow, just as the blood seen might mask the Dam Niddah, as might the seminal emission (if no blood is visible). – Seth J Oct 3 '13 at 20:36
9

The source of this exception from dam makkah is a mishna on Niddah 64b, and the gemara on Niddah 65b.

There's a big machloket in the Rishonim about the reason why we have this exception to the general rule that blood from a wound is not niddah blood. I don't know them all of the top of my head, and I recommend The Laws and Concepts of Niddah by Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky for a full treatment.

The reason we poskin by is that it's a rabbinic decree, enacted because she might emit niddah blood at the same time, and not be aware of it.

|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .