Hymenal Bleeding - Does it Make a Woman a Niddah?

The law that a woman who is menstruating is prohibited from intercourse with her husband is a clear Torah prohibition.

Do not come near a woman during her (menstrual) period of uncleanness to uncover her nakedness. (Leviticus 18:19)

In other verses we learn that this "uncleanness" refers to the blood of her period that comes from the uterus.

If a man lies with a woman in her infirmity and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow and she has exposed the source of her blood flow; both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (Leviticus 20:18)

Those words "the source of her blood flow" is understood by the Rabbis to mean that the only blood that makes a woman prohibited is blood that comes from the "Makor" or the "source" which means the uterus.  This is repeated in many places, for example:

"if she will have": from the pronouncement on. "a flow": I might think even if she flows from any place she is tamei; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 20:18) "and she has revealed the source of her blood." This teaches us about (her) blood that (it causes uncleanliness) only if it comes from the source (the uterus) (Sifra, Metzorah, Parsha 4:2)

From here the rule is established that only uterine blood causes a woman to have the status of a niddah and not blood from any other source such as a vaginal wound or growth or injury of any sort.  This is called a "dam makkah" or the "blood of a wound".

Hymenal bleeding is clearly established by the Talmud in the category of blood from a wound that does not render a woman a Niddah. the Mishna in Niddah states:

In the case of a young girl whose time to see a menstrual flow, i.e., the age of puberty, has not yet arrived, and she married and engaged in intercourse and her hymen was torn, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her four nights after intercourse during which the blood is attributed to the torn hymen and she remains ritually pure. Thereafter, any blood is assumed to be menstrual blood and renders her impure. And Beit Hillel say: The blood is attributed to the torn hymen until the wound heals. ...In the case of a young woman who saw menstrual blood before marriage while she was still in her father’s house, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her permission to engage only in relations that consummate a marriage, which are a mitzva, after which she is ritually impure due to the blood. And Beit Hillel say: The husband and wife may engage even in several acts of intercourse, as any blood seen throughout the entire night is attributed to the torn hymen. (Mishna Niddah 64b)

This Mishna was written in a time that child marriage was considered acceptable.  This would be abhorrent in our time and prohibited by all modern rabbinical authorities.  For the sake of our discussion today, I will ask you to painfully look past the child marriage issue here and focus on the issue related to our current discussion.  The Mishna clearly establishes that hymenal bleeding is considered blood of a wound and does not render a woman a niddah. Even a woman who has already started menstruating prior to marriage, Beit Hillel says clearly that she is not considered a niddah from the first intercourse, as one can assume that her bleeding was from the hymen.
However, on the next page, the Talmud records a rabbinic decree:

Although the Mishnah provides a certain period of time for both a minor and a young woman during which they may attribute any blood to the torn hymen, nevertheless Rav and Shmuel both say that the halakha is that the groom engages in relations that consummate a marriage, which are a mitzva, and then he separates from his wife. (Talmud Niddah 65b)

From the context of the conversation, it seems clear that Rav and Shmuel are discussing the same case that the gemara had been discussing the entire time.  That is, when a new husband has intercourse with his virgin wife for the first time, and there is bleeding, he can complete the act, and then he should separate from her until she counts 7 clean days and immerses in the mikveh. This is an added stringency to the Mishna in which Beit Hillel permitted further intercourse despite the bleeding until the "wound" of the torn hymen is healed.  After that, he may continue having intercourse as normal, unless she sees blood again which can no longer be attributed to the torn hymen and must be assumed to be menstrual blood.  The reason for this added stringency is presumably because we are concerned that at least some of this blood is coming from a uterine source (The Talmud Yerushalmi in Berakhot 19a seems to indicate that this is the concern). This is indeed the way this Halacha is clearly recorded in the Rambam (translations are my own): issurei biah 5:18-19.

The blood of the hymen is pure, and it is not considered menstrual blood or blood of zivah, as it does not come from the uterus. So, what is the law regarding hymenal bleeding for a virgin? ... (I am skipping here the laws of marriage to a young girl who has not yet menstruated) ... If she has begun normal menstruation while still living in her father's house, and then she gets married, he shall only have the first intercourse with her and then separate from her (due to the bleeding from the first intercourse) and we assume that the hymenal bleeding from the first intercourse is (also) the beginning of her period.... (Mishna Torah Hilchot Issurei Biah 5:18-19) 

It seems quite clear from the language of the Rambam, that this rule of Rav and Shmuel is referring to what one must do IF there is bleeding from the first intercourse.  As the Rambam stated "we assume that the hymenal bleeding from the first intercourse is also ..."   In other words, according to Beit Hillel we should allow for continued intercourse despite hymenal bleeding because we can assume that the blood is hymenal in origin and not menstrual.  Nonetheless, Rav and Shmuel added a stringency that we consider this blood to be menstrual in origin, even though we otherwise could've assumed that the bleeding was from the torn hymen.

The Rambam is extremely clear about this, and repeats it again:

...and so is the law regarding the blood of the hymen, that even if ... she never has had a period before, he has the first intercourse and then separates from her (due to the bleeding from the first intercourse) and as long as she continues to have bleeding due to the wound (of the hymenal tearing) she is considered "tameh" ...  (Mishna Torah Hilchot Issurei Biah 11:8) 

Again, it is clear from the Rambam that he understood that the reason he must separate from her, is because of the blood from the hymenal tearing.  If there is no blood, then there would be no reason to separate from her. 

Let me mention also the Rif (Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi), who discusses these laws in Shavuot Chapter two.  There is no mention of the need to separate if there is no bleeding.

The Hagahot Maimuniot (HM) (Rabbi Meir HaKohen of Rothenburg - end of 13th century) annotates the Rambam in chapter 11 which we just quoted and says:

The Raavad writes that it makes no difference if he sees the blood or otherwise (as we suspect there was blood anyway), however there is one who holds that this law applies only if she has bleeding, and it seems that one should be lenient (and assume that if they don't see bleeding she need not separate from her husband) However, I found in Rashi (that he is) stringent, and similarly in the Rokeach and in the Ramban, as he (the Ramban) writes, "Even if she does not see any bleeding, we don't think that maybe that he "tilted" (had intercourse in such a way that did not cause bleeding due to trauma to the hymen) and if so her hymen is still intact (and therefore she is still permitted to him) because it is not common to "tilt" in this way and therefore we suspect that there maybe was some (small amount of) blood and it just got lost, and therefore he should finish this first intercourse and then separate etc." and my teacher our rabbi also ruled that we should be stringent (even when there is no blood) and even those rabbis who are lenient (and assume that when there is no blood she is still permitted) require that she check herself with a cloth (to make sure there was no blood) (HM note 3)

There are a few points I would like to make clear from the words of the HM:

1. That it is clear that during the time of the HM there were Rabbis who felt that they should separate after the first intercourse regardless of whether or not there is bleeding, and there were Rabbis who felt that she should check herself and if there is no blood, she is OK to remain with her husband normally
2. It is clear that everyone understood that the Gemara meant that they must separate due to the actual blood of hymenal tearing. The Ramban and others however were stringent because they assumed that there would always be blood from hymenal tearing at the first intercourse.  The only way they thought there could not be bleeding, is if a person "tilted" in such a way that did not tear the hymen.  This they felt was unusual for most people, and therefore they felt that even if they didn't see blood, it must've been there, but they missed it. 
3. That the Ra'avad felt that we should be lenient in this matter, while many other authorities felt that we should be stringent even when the blood is not found

So, the "universal" Halachic practice of automatically separating from one's newlywed after the first intercourse was not so universal after all, at least until the time of the HM. In fact, it was only enacted because the rishonim that were stringent assumed that every virgin has a hymen, and that with the first intercourse the hymen would tear, and that this would cause bleeding. 

In our next post, we will follow this Halacha as it made its way into the Shulchan Aruch, and how it became standard practice among Halacha observant Jewry.  We will soon see how the lenient opinions we just reviewed became no longer an accepted norm. We are also going to explore in more depth the opinions of the "machmirim" (the stringent ones).