Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 8, 2019 | 讬壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Niddah 46

If a child has 2 pubic hairs in the year before bar/bat mitzva, do they receive punishments? If they reached the age of mitzvot and do not have hairs, are we concerned that they did and they fell off? Can a girl do a “refusal” to a husband she was married off to by her mother or brother (if her father was not alive)? Can she perform chalitza? According to Rav Huna, a child who makes a vow a year before bar/bat mitzva is treated as an adult and receives lashes if one does not keep to the vow.聽Do others receive lashes if they eat from something he sanctified? Is the law relating to the vow of a child before the age of bar/bat mitzva a Torah law or only rabbinic?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讜讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛讜讗 讚讙诪专讗 诇讛 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 讛讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉

and the reason that the development of two hairs renders him an adult is that the onset of his matter, i.e., his reaching puberty, was completed for him after the time? Rav Hamnuna infers from here that if the child developed two hairs during the time, it is considered as before the time, and he or she is not classified as an adult.

讜注讜讚 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诇讛驻诇讬讗 谞讚专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

And furthermore, Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to the opinion that the development of signs indicating puberty during the time is equivalent to their development after the time. It is taught in a baraita which deals with the verse: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel and say to them: When either man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow鈥 (Numbers 6:2). What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渕an,鈥 after it has already stated 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥? This serves to include anyone who is thirteen years and one day old, that even if he does not know how to utter clearly and articulate the meaning of his statements, his vows are in effect.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 拽讟谉 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜讟注诪讗 讚讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讬砖 讛讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 转讬讜讘转讗

Rabbi Zeira analyzes this baraita. What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where the boy has not yet developed two pubic hairs, then he is a minor, and the halakha with regard to him cannot be derived from the word 鈥渕an.鈥 Rather, is it not referring to a case where the boy has developed two pubic hairs? And by inference, the reason that he is considered a man due to his development of pubic hairs is that he is thirteen years and one day old, but if the boy developed two hairs during the time, it is considered as before the time. The Gemara concludes: This is indeed a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that developing pubic hairs during the time is equivalent to developing hairs after the time.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻转谞讗讬 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 砖讜诪讗 诪讘谉 转砖注 讜注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讜诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谉 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 住讬诪谉

Rav Na岣an said that the baraita is not a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as this matter is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, since there is another baraita which teaches the following: Everyone agrees with regard to a nine-year-old boy who developed two hairs that this is not considered a sign of puberty, as they are treated as hairs that grow on a mole. From nine years of age until the age of twelve years and one day, even if the hairs have not fallen out, this is still considered a mole. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: At this stage it is a sign indicating puberty. If he is thirteen years and one day old and has grown two hairs, all agree that it is a sign indicating puberty.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诪讘谉 转砖注 讜注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讜诪讗 讛讗 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讙讜驻讗 住讬诪谉 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 住讬诪谉 讛讗 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讙讜驻讗 砖讜诪讗

Rav Na岣an analyzes the baraita. This baraita itself is difficult, as you initially said that from nine years of age until the age of twelve years and one day it is a mole, from which it can be inferred that if he developed two pubic hairs in the thirteenth year itself, it is a sign indicating puberty. And then the baraita teaches that if he is thirteen years and one day old and has grown two hairs, this is a sign indicating puberty, which indicates that if he developed the hairs in the thirteenth year itself, it is a mole.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚诪专 住讘专 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讜诪专 住讘专 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉

Rav Na岣an concludes: What, is it not correct to say that there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as one Sage, the tanna who states the first line of the baraita, holds that during that time is considered as after the time, and one Sage, the tanna of the last line of the baraita, holds that during that time is considered as before the time? If so, the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is one side of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 讜讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘转讬谞讜拽转 讜专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone, i.e., the tanna鈥檌m of both clauses of the baraita, agrees that during that time is considered as before the time, and this clause and that clause of the baraita are both referring to a young girl. And the difference between them is that the first clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that the thirteenth year for a female is considered after the time, and therefore the development of two pubic hairs at this stage is a sign of maturation; and the last clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that the thirteenth year for a female is considered before the time.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘转讬谞讜拽 讜专讬砖讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬

And if you wish, say that this clause and that clause are both dealing with a young boy, and the first clause is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the last clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that the thirteenth year for a boy is considered before the time.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讛讗 讘转讬谞讜拽 讛讗 讘转讬谞讜拽转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 讘转讬谞讜拽 讛讗 讘转讬谞讜拽转

And if you wish, say that both this clause and that clause are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the difference between them is that this last clause of the baraita is referring to a young boy, whereas that first clause is referring to a young girl. And if you wish, say that both this clause and that clause are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and that first clause of the baraita is referring to a young boy, whereas this last clause is referring to a young girl.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻专讜住驻讚讗讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖讘转讗讬 讜讛讜讗 砖注讜讚谉 讘讜

The baraita further teaches that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says with regard to hairs from nine years of age until the age of twelve years and one day, that it is a sign indicating puberty. In explanation of this opinion, Rabbi Keruspedai, son of Rabbi Shabbtai, says: And this is the halakha only when the hairs are still upon him, i.e., they had not fallen out when he reached the age of puberty, as otherwise they are considered a mole.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 砖讜诪讗 诪讘谉 转砖注 讜注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讜讚谉 讘讜 砖讜诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谉

The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: With regard to a boy nine years and one day old who developed two hairs, this is considered a mole. If the boy is from nine years of age until the age of twelve years and one day, and the hairs are still upon him, it is still considered a mole. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It is a sign indicating puberty.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬诇讻转讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇砖诪注转讗 讚专讘讗 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽讟谞讛 讻诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 讜讛讜诇讻转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 讜讗讬谞讛 讞讜诇爪转

搂 In summary of the rulings cited above, Rava said: The halakha is that the development of two hairs during the time is considered as before the time, and it does not render one an adult. Rav Shmuel bar Zutra teaches this halakha of Rava in this formulation: Rava says: With regard to a minor girl whose father has passed away and whose mother or brothers accepted betrothal on her behalf, a form of betrothal instituted by the Sages, throughout her entire twelfth year she has the continuous right to perform refusal with regard to this marriage and thereby annul it. From that point forward, when she is already an adult, she may no longer perform refusal, and she may not perform 岣litza with the brother of her husband, if he died without children.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 讗诇诪讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讗讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 转讞诇讜抓

The Gemara asks: This statement of Rava itself is difficult: You first said that once she is twelve she may not perform refusal. Evidently, she is an adult woman. But if she is an adult woman, let her perform 岣litza, like any other adult woman.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 拽讟谞讛 砖讛讙讬注讛 诇讻诇诇 砖谞讜转讬讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讞讝拽讛 讛讘讬讗讛 住讬诪谞讬谉

And if you would say that Rava is uncertain whether a twelve-year-old girl is presumed to have developed two hairs and is therefore an adult, or whether it is presumed that she has not yet grown two hairs and remains a minor, and consequently he is stringent on both counts, that she may not perform refusal, like an adult, but she may also not perform 岣litza, like a minor, this suggestion is problematic, as is Rava actually uncertain in this regard? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: A minor girl who reached her full age of maturity, i.e., twelve years and one day, does not require examination to determine whether she has grown two hairs, as there is a presumption that she has developed signs indicating puberty.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘住转诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘讚拽讜 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞讜 诇讗

The Gemara answers that this statement, that it is presumed that a twelve-year-old girl has developed two hairs, applies only in an ordinary situation. But here Rava is referring to a case where they examined her and did not find hairs. In such an instance, Rava did not say that the presumption is in effect.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转诪讗谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞砖专讜

The Gemara asks: If so, that she was actually examined, she should be considered a minor in all regards and she should be able to perform refusal. The Gemara answers: We are concerned that perhaps the girl had already developed pubic hairs but they fell out. Consequently, although the girl is not treated with the presumption that she is an adult, she does not have the certain status of a minor either, and cannot perform refusal.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗讬转诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞砖专讜 专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 诪讬讗讜谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

The Gemara objects: This works out well according to the one who says that we are concerned that the pubic hairs fell out. But according to the one who says that we are not concerned that they have fallen out, what is there to say? As it was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to this matter. Rav Pappa says: We are not concerned that perhaps the pubic hairs fell out; Rav Pappi says: We are concerned that they might have fallen out. The Gemara answers that this statement of Rav Pappa, that there is no concern that perhaps the pubic hairs fell out, applies only with regard to 岣litza, but with regard to refusal everyone agrees that we are concerned that they might have fallen out.

诪讻诇诇 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讞讜诇爪转 讜讛讗 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: By inference, does the one who says that we are concerned that perhaps the hairs fell out maintain that this twelve-year-old performs 岣litza? But this cannot be correct, as he says that we are merely concerned that the hairs might have fallen out, not that this is certainly the case. How, then, can she perform 岣litza like an adult?

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讜诇注谞讬谉 讞诇讬爪讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讗 讞讝拽讛 诇诪讬讗讜谉 讗讘诇 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

Rather, Rava is actually referring to a case where one did not examine the girl, and with regard to 岣litza we are concerned that she might not have developed hairs and is still a minor. And when Rava said that there is a presumption that a twelve-year-old has developed signs indicating puberty, he was referring to refusal, but with regard to 岣litza she requires examination.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讛诇讻转讗 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞砖专讜

With regard to the issue of whether there is concern that hairs might have fallen out, Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃 said: The halakha is that if a girl reached the age of twelve and she was examined and the signs of puberty were not found, we are concerned that perhaps the pubic hairs fell out. Consequently, if her mother or brothers had accepted betrothal for her when she was a minor, she cannot perform refusal at that stage.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讚砖讛 讘转讜讱 讝诪谉 讜讘注诇 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 住驻讬拽讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗

The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only in a case where her husband betrothed her during the time, before she reached the age of twelve years and one day, and engaged in intercourse with her after the time, when she was already twelve years and one day old. This is a situation where there is an uncertainty with regard to Torah law, since if she had developed two hairs and is an adult, the marriage applies by Torah law, due to the intercourse. But if he engaged in intercourse with her only at the outset, before she turned twelve, there is no concern that perhaps she developed pubic hairs and they fell out, as this marriage applies by rabbinic law.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讜讗讻诇 诇讜拽讛

搂 With regard to a minor who vowed, Rav Huna says: If the minor is aware of the meaning of his vow and in Whose name he or she vowed, and the minor鈥檚 age is during the time, i.e., the twelfth year for a girl or the thirteenth year for a boy, and he consecrated an item of food and subsequently ate it, he is flogged, which is the punishment for one who eats consecrated food.

砖谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 讜诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讛驻诇讗讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 讬讞诇 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讛驻诇讗讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 讬讞诇

Rav Huna explains: As it is stated: 鈥淲hen either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow鈥 (Numbers 6:2), from which it is derived that if one on the brink of adulthood is able to articulate that his vow is in the name of God, his vows are valid. And another verse states: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 (Numbers 30:3). This indicates that any person who is included in explicitness of intent is also included in the prohibition: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word,鈥 and anyone who is not included in explicitness of intent is not included in the prohibition: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word.鈥

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 (诇专讘讗) 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raises an objection to Rava, in support of the opinion of Rav Huna:

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 46

讜讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛讜讗 讚讙诪专讗 诇讛 诇诪讬诇转讬讛 讛讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉

and the reason that the development of two hairs renders him an adult is that the onset of his matter, i.e., his reaching puberty, was completed for him after the time? Rav Hamnuna infers from here that if the child developed two hairs during the time, it is considered as before the time, and he or she is not classified as an adult.

讜注讜讚 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 谞讚专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诇讛驻诇讬讗 谞讚专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

And furthermore, Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to the opinion that the development of signs indicating puberty during the time is equivalent to their development after the time. It is taught in a baraita which deals with the verse: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel and say to them: When either man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow鈥 (Numbers 6:2). What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渕an,鈥 after it has already stated 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥? This serves to include anyone who is thirteen years and one day old, that even if he does not know how to utter clearly and articulate the meaning of his statements, his vows are in effect.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 拽讟谉 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜讟注诪讗 讚讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讬砖 讛讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 转讬讜讘转讗

Rabbi Zeira analyzes this baraita. What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where the boy has not yet developed two pubic hairs, then he is a minor, and the halakha with regard to him cannot be derived from the word 鈥渕an.鈥 Rather, is it not referring to a case where the boy has developed two pubic hairs? And by inference, the reason that he is considered a man due to his development of pubic hairs is that he is thirteen years and one day old, but if the boy developed two hairs during the time, it is considered as before the time. The Gemara concludes: This is indeed a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that developing pubic hairs during the time is equivalent to developing hairs after the time.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻转谞讗讬 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 砖讜诪讗 诪讘谉 转砖注 讜注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讜诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谉 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 住讬诪谉

Rav Na岣an said that the baraita is not a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as this matter is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, since there is another baraita which teaches the following: Everyone agrees with regard to a nine-year-old boy who developed two hairs that this is not considered a sign of puberty, as they are treated as hairs that grow on a mole. From nine years of age until the age of twelve years and one day, even if the hairs have not fallen out, this is still considered a mole. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: At this stage it is a sign indicating puberty. If he is thirteen years and one day old and has grown two hairs, all agree that it is a sign indicating puberty.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诪讘谉 转砖注 讜注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讜诪讗 讛讗 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讙讜驻讗 住讬诪谉 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 住讬诪谉 讛讗 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讙讜驻讗 砖讜诪讗

Rav Na岣an analyzes the baraita. This baraita itself is difficult, as you initially said that from nine years of age until the age of twelve years and one day it is a mole, from which it can be inferred that if he developed two pubic hairs in the thirteenth year itself, it is a sign indicating puberty. And then the baraita teaches that if he is thirteen years and one day old and has grown two hairs, this is a sign indicating puberty, which indicates that if he developed the hairs in the thirteenth year itself, it is a mole.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚诪专 住讘专 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讜诪专 住讘专 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉

Rav Na岣an concludes: What, is it not correct to say that there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as one Sage, the tanna who states the first line of the baraita, holds that during that time is considered as after the time, and one Sage, the tanna of the last line of the baraita, holds that during that time is considered as before the time? If so, the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is one side of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 讜讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘转讬谞讜拽转 讜专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone, i.e., the tanna鈥檌m of both clauses of the baraita, agrees that during that time is considered as before the time, and this clause and that clause of the baraita are both referring to a young girl. And the difference between them is that the first clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that the thirteenth year for a female is considered after the time, and therefore the development of two pubic hairs at this stage is a sign of maturation; and the last clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that the thirteenth year for a female is considered before the time.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘转讬谞讜拽 讜专讬砖讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬

And if you wish, say that this clause and that clause are both dealing with a young boy, and the first clause is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the last clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that the thirteenth year for a boy is considered before the time.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讛讗 讘转讬谞讜拽 讛讗 讘转讬谞讜拽转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 讘转讬谞讜拽 讛讗 讘转讬谞讜拽转

And if you wish, say that both this clause and that clause are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the difference between them is that this last clause of the baraita is referring to a young boy, whereas that first clause is referring to a young girl. And if you wish, say that both this clause and that clause are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and that first clause of the baraita is referring to a young boy, whereas this last clause is referring to a young girl.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻专讜住驻讚讗讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖讘转讗讬 讜讛讜讗 砖注讜讚谉 讘讜

The baraita further teaches that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says with regard to hairs from nine years of age until the age of twelve years and one day, that it is a sign indicating puberty. In explanation of this opinion, Rabbi Keruspedai, son of Rabbi Shabbtai, says: And this is the halakha only when the hairs are still upon him, i.e., they had not fallen out when he reached the age of puberty, as otherwise they are considered a mole.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 砖讜诪讗 诪讘谉 转砖注 讜注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讜讚谉 讘讜 砖讜诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谉

The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: With regard to a boy nine years and one day old who developed two hairs, this is considered a mole. If the boy is from nine years of age until the age of twelve years and one day, and the hairs are still upon him, it is still considered a mole. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It is a sign indicating puberty.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬诇讻转讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇砖诪注转讗 讚专讘讗 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽讟谞讛 讻诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 讜讛讜诇讻转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 讜讗讬谞讛 讞讜诇爪转

搂 In summary of the rulings cited above, Rava said: The halakha is that the development of two hairs during the time is considered as before the time, and it does not render one an adult. Rav Shmuel bar Zutra teaches this halakha of Rava in this formulation: Rava says: With regard to a minor girl whose father has passed away and whose mother or brothers accepted betrothal on her behalf, a form of betrothal instituted by the Sages, throughout her entire twelfth year she has the continuous right to perform refusal with regard to this marriage and thereby annul it. From that point forward, when she is already an adult, she may no longer perform refusal, and she may not perform 岣litza with the brother of her husband, if he died without children.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讗谞转 讗诇诪讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讗讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬讗 转讞诇讜抓

The Gemara asks: This statement of Rava itself is difficult: You first said that once she is twelve she may not perform refusal. Evidently, she is an adult woman. But if she is an adult woman, let her perform 岣litza, like any other adult woman.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 拽讟谞讛 砖讛讙讬注讛 诇讻诇诇 砖谞讜转讬讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讞讝拽讛 讛讘讬讗讛 住讬诪谞讬谉

And if you would say that Rava is uncertain whether a twelve-year-old girl is presumed to have developed two hairs and is therefore an adult, or whether it is presumed that she has not yet grown two hairs and remains a minor, and consequently he is stringent on both counts, that she may not perform refusal, like an adult, but she may also not perform 岣litza, like a minor, this suggestion is problematic, as is Rava actually uncertain in this regard? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: A minor girl who reached her full age of maturity, i.e., twelve years and one day, does not require examination to determine whether she has grown two hairs, as there is a presumption that she has developed signs indicating puberty.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘住转诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘讚拽讜 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞讜 诇讗

The Gemara answers that this statement, that it is presumed that a twelve-year-old girl has developed two hairs, applies only in an ordinary situation. But here Rava is referring to a case where they examined her and did not find hairs. In such an instance, Rava did not say that the presumption is in effect.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转诪讗谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞砖专讜

The Gemara asks: If so, that she was actually examined, she should be considered a minor in all regards and she should be able to perform refusal. The Gemara answers: We are concerned that perhaps the girl had already developed pubic hairs but they fell out. Consequently, although the girl is not treated with the presumption that she is an adult, she does not have the certain status of a minor either, and cannot perform refusal.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗讬转诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞砖专讜 专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讞诇讬爪讛 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 诪讬讗讜谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

The Gemara objects: This works out well according to the one who says that we are concerned that the pubic hairs fell out. But according to the one who says that we are not concerned that they have fallen out, what is there to say? As it was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to this matter. Rav Pappa says: We are not concerned that perhaps the pubic hairs fell out; Rav Pappi says: We are concerned that they might have fallen out. The Gemara answers that this statement of Rav Pappa, that there is no concern that perhaps the pubic hairs fell out, applies only with regard to 岣litza, but with regard to refusal everyone agrees that we are concerned that they might have fallen out.

诪讻诇诇 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讞讜诇爪转 讜讛讗 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: By inference, does the one who says that we are concerned that perhaps the hairs fell out maintain that this twelve-year-old performs 岣litza? But this cannot be correct, as he says that we are merely concerned that the hairs might have fallen out, not that this is certainly the case. How, then, can she perform 岣litza like an adult?

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 讘讚拽讛 讜诇注谞讬谉 讞诇讬爪讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讗 讞讝拽讛 诇诪讬讗讜谉 讗讘诇 诇讞诇讬爪讛 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛

Rather, Rava is actually referring to a case where one did not examine the girl, and with regard to 岣litza we are concerned that she might not have developed hairs and is still a minor. And when Rava said that there is a presumption that a twelve-year-old has developed signs indicating puberty, he was referring to refusal, but with regard to 岣litza she requires examination.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讛诇讻转讗 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞砖专讜

With regard to the issue of whether there is concern that hairs might have fallen out, Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃 said: The halakha is that if a girl reached the age of twelve and she was examined and the signs of puberty were not found, we are concerned that perhaps the pubic hairs fell out. Consequently, if her mother or brothers had accepted betrothal for her when she was a minor, she cannot perform refusal at that stage.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讚砖讛 讘转讜讱 讝诪谉 讜讘注诇 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 住驻讬拽讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗

The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only in a case where her husband betrothed her during the time, before she reached the age of twelve years and one day, and engaged in intercourse with her after the time, when she was already twelve years and one day old. This is a situation where there is an uncertainty with regard to Torah law, since if she had developed two hairs and is an adult, the marriage applies by Torah law, due to the intercourse. But if he engaged in intercourse with her only at the outset, before she turned twelve, there is no concern that perhaps she developed pubic hairs and they fell out, as this marriage applies by rabbinic law.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讜讗讻诇 诇讜拽讛

搂 With regard to a minor who vowed, Rav Huna says: If the minor is aware of the meaning of his vow and in Whose name he or she vowed, and the minor鈥檚 age is during the time, i.e., the twelfth year for a girl or the thirteenth year for a boy, and he consecrated an item of food and subsequently ate it, he is flogged, which is the punishment for one who eats consecrated food.

砖谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬驻诇讗 诇谞讚专 讜诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讛驻诇讗讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 讬讞诇 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讛驻诇讗讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 讬讞诇

Rav Huna explains: As it is stated: 鈥淲hen either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow鈥 (Numbers 6:2), from which it is derived that if one on the brink of adulthood is able to articulate that his vow is in the name of God, his vows are valid. And another verse states: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 (Numbers 30:3). This indicates that any person who is included in explicitness of intent is also included in the prohibition: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word,鈥 and anyone who is not included in explicitness of intent is not included in the prohibition: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word.鈥

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 (诇专讘讗) 诇住讬讜注讬 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raises an objection to Rava, in support of the opinion of Rav Huna:

Scroll To Top