Niddah 47

Niddah 47

חַיֶּיבֶת בְּחַלָּה וְאֵינָהּ נִפְסֶלֶת בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטְרִין מִן הַחַלָּה.

it is subject to the obligation of separating ḥalla, the portion of the dough designated for the priest. And although teruma fell into it, that produce does not have the status of teruma, as the teruma was nullified by a majority of non-sacred produce. Consequently, it is not rendered unfit for consumption, i.e., rendered ritually impure, by one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for his purification process to be completed. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon deem the dough exempt from the obligation of separating ḥalla, as this obligation does not apply to teruma, and the entire dough is exempt due to the mixture of teruma it contains.

סַבְרוּהָ, מַאן דְּאָמַר תְּרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — חַלָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מַאן דְּאָמַר תְּרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן — חַלָּה דְּרַבָּנַן. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי חַלָּה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן, אָתֵי דִּמּוּעַ דְּרַבָּנַן וּמַפְקַע חַלָּה דְּרַבָּנַן.

The Sages assumed that the one who said that teruma in the present applies by Torah law maintains that ḥalla likewise applies in the present by Torah law, whereas the one who said that teruma in the present applies by rabbinic law holds that ḥalla also applies by rabbinic law. If so, granted, if you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that ḥalla in the present applies by rabbinic law, one can understand that a mixture which has the status of teruma by rabbinic law comes and abrogates the obligation of separating ḥalla, which also applies by rabbinic law.

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ חַלָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אָתֵי דִּמּוּעַ דְּרַבָּנַן וּמַפְקַע חַלָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?

But if you say that ḥalla in the present applies by Torah law, can a mixture that has the status of teruma by rabbinic law come and abrogate the mitzva of ḥalla which is by Torah law? Evidently, according to Rabbi Yosei the obligation of separating ḥalla in the present is by rabbinic law, and therefore teruma likewise applies by rabbinic law. If so, Rabbi Yosei does not agree with the opinion he cites in Seder Olam, according to which teruma applies in the present by Torah law.

וְדִלְמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: תְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְחַלָּה דְּרַבָּנַן?

The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps Rabbi Yosei maintains that teruma in the present applies by Torah law and yet ḥalla applies by rabbinic law, and therefore the mixture discussed in the above baraita, which has the status of teruma by Torah law, abrogates the obligation of ḥalla, which is by rabbinic law.

וְכִדְאַהְדַּר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אַשְׁכַּחְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן, חַלָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

The Gemara adds: And this answer is as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, responded to the statement of the other Sages. As Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I once found the Sages of the study hall of Rav sitting and saying: Even according to the one who said that teruma in the present applies by rabbinic law, the obligation to separate ḥalla is by Torah law.

שֶׁהֲרֵי שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּבְּשׁוּ, וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִלְּקוּ — נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בְּחַלָּה, וְלֹא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.

The reason is that during the seven years that the Jewish people conquered Eretz Yisrael led by Joshua and during the seven years that they divided the land, they were obligated to separate ḥalla but they were not obligated to separate teruma and tithe. In the present as well, although there is no obligation to set aside teruma in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, the obligation to separate ḥalla applies by Torah law.

וְאָמֵינָא לְהוּ אֲנָא: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, חַלָּה דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא: אִי ״בְּבוֹאֲכֶם״ יָכוֹל מִשֶּׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָהּ שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְרַגְּלִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּבוֹאֲכֶם״ — בְּבִיאַת כּוּלְּכֶם אָמַרְתִּי, וְלֹא בְּבִיאַת מִקְצַתְכֶם.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, continued: And I said to them: On the contrary, even according to the one who said that teruma in the present applies by Torah law, the obligation to separate ḥalla applies by rabbinic law, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to ḥalla: “When you come into the land where I bring you…from the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:18–20). If the obligation applies “when you come” into the land, one might have thought that it took effect from the moment that two or three spies entered the land. Therefore the verse states: “When you come,” from which it is derived that the Torah is saying: I said that the obligation applies when all of you come, and not when some of you come.

וְכִי אַסְּקִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא — לָא כּוּלְּהוּ סְלוּק.

According to this baraita, the separation of ḥalla is an obligation by Torah law only when the entire Jewish people come to Eretz Yisrael. And when Ezra brought the Jewish people to Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of the Second Temple period, not all of them ascended. Since the majority of the Jewish people stayed behind, separating ḥalla was not restored to the status of an obligation by Torah law.

מַתְנִי’ מָשָׁל מָשְׁלוּ חֲכָמִים בָּאִשָּׁה — ״פַּגָּה״, ״בּוֹחַל״, וָ״צֶמֶל״. ״פַּגָּה״ — עוֹדָהּ תִּינוֹקֶת, ״בּוֹחַל״ — אֵלּוּ יְמֵי נְעוּרֶיהָ.

MISHNA: The Sages stated a parable based on the development of the fruit of a fig tree with regard to the three stages of development in a woman: Minority, young womanhood, and grown womanhood. An unripe fig, a ripening fig, and a ripe fig. An unripe fig represents the stage when she is still a child and has not yet developed the signs of puberty; a ripening fig represents the days of her young womanhood, when she reaches twelve years and one day and has developed two pubic hairs.

בְּזוֹ וּבָזוֹ אָמְרוּ: אָבִיהָ זַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּבַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. צֶמֶל — כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּגְרָה, שׁוּב אֵין לְאָבִיהָ רְשׁוּת בָּהּ.

With regard to the periods both during this stage, minority, and during that stage, young womanhood, the Sages said that her father is entitled to any lost object that she finds that cannot be returned to its owner, and to her earnings, and to nullification of her vows. A ripe fig represents the stage of grown womanhood: Once she has reached her majority, her father no longer has authority over her. He can no longer nullify her vows, and he does not have a claim to lost objects found by her and her earnings belong to her.

אֵיזֶהוּ סִימָנִין? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיַּעֲלֶה הַקֶּמֶט תַּחַת הַדַּד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיַּטּוּ הַדַּדִּים. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁתַּשְׁחִיר הַפִּיטּוֹמֶת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא נוֹתֵן יָדוֹ עַל הָעוֹקֶץ, וְהוּא שׁוֹקֵעַ וְשׁוֹהֶא לַחֲזוֹר.

What are the signs that indicate grown womanhood? Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Grown womanhood begins from when her breast grows sufficiently so that a fold appears below the breast. Rabbi Akiva says: It begins from when the breasts sag onto the chest. Ben Azzai says: It begins from when the areola at the tip of the breast darkens. Rabbi Yosei says: It begins when the breasts have developed to a size where a person places his hand on the nipple and it depresses and slows to return.

גְּמָ’ פַּגָּה — עוֹדָהּ תִּינוֹקֶת, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״הַתְּאֵנָה חָנְטָה פַגֶּיהָ״, בּוֹחַל — אֵלּוּ יְמֵי הַנְּעוּרִים, כְּדִתְנַן: הַתְּאֵנִים מִשֶּׁיִּבְחֲלוּ, וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה אָמַר רַב: מִשֶּׁיַּלְבִּין רָאשֵׁיהֶן.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an unripe fig [paga] represents the stage when a woman is still a child. The Gemara explains that the meaning of the word paga is as it is written: “The fig tree puts forth her green fruits [fageha]” (Song of Songs 2:13). The mishna further teaches that a ripening fig [boḥal] represents the days of her young womanhood. The Gemara explains that the meaning of this word is as we learned in a mishna (Ma’asrot 1:2): The obligation of tithes applies to the figs from when they begin to ripen [misheyyibaḥalu]; and Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rav says that this means from when the heads of the figs whiten.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא, ״וַתִּקְצַר נַפְשִׁי בָּהֶם וְגַם נַפְשָׁם בָּחֲלָה בִי״. צֶמֶל, כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״יָצְתָה מְלֵאָה״.

The Gemara adds: And if you wish, say instead that the source is from here: “For My soul became impatient of them, and their soul also grew in disgust [baḥala] toward Me” (Zechariah 11:8). The verse indicates that this word denotes growth. As for the third term in the mishna, a ripe fig [tzemel], it is as one would say: A fruit has come forth complete [yatzeta mele’a].

וְאֵיזֶהוּ סִימָנִים? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיַּעֲלֶה הַקֶּמֶט. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא מִשֶּׁיַּעֲלֶה הַקֶּמֶט מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּחְזִיר יָדֶיהָ לַאֲחוֹרֶיהָ, וְנִרְאֵית כְּמִי שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה הַקֶּמֶט תַּחַת הַדַּד.

§ The mishna teaches: And what are the signs that indicate grown womanhood? Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Grown womanhood begins from when her breast grows sufficiently so that a fold appears below the breast. Shmuel says: This does not literally mean from when her breast grows sufficiently so that a permanent fold appears below the breast. Rather, it means that the breast has grown enough so that if she were to stretch her hand behind her back, it would appear as though her breast has grown sufficiently that there is a fold below the breast.

שְׁמוּאֵל בְּדַק בְּאַמְתֵיהּ, וִיהַב לַהּ אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי דְּמֵי בוֹשְׁתָּהּ. שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״לְעוֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבוֹדוּ״ — לַעֲבוֹדָה נְתַתִּים, וְלֹא לְבוּשָׁה.

The Gemara relates that Shmuel examined these stages in his Canaanite maidservant, and subsequently gave her four dinars as payment for her humiliation. The Gemara notes that in this regard Shmuel conforms to his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said that the verse: “You may enslave them forever” (Leviticus 25:46) teaches: I gave them to you for the service of slaves, but not for humiliation. Consequently, if a master humiliated his Canaanite slave, he must pay him damages.

שְׁמוּאֵל מְיַיחֵד לְהוּ, רַב נַחְמָן מַחְלֵיף לְהוּ, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מָסַר לְהוּ (לערבי) [לְעַרְבָיֵי] וְאָמַר לְהוּ: אִזְדְּהַרוּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.

The Gemara further relates, with regard to the attitude toward maidservants, that Shmuel would designate a particular slave for each of his maidservants for intercourse, and he would not allow his slaves to engage in intercourse with whichever maidservant they chose. By contrast, Rav Naḥman would exchange his maidservants between his slaves, while Rav Sheshet handed his maidservants to an Arab, and said to them: You may engage in intercourse with whomever you choose, but take care not to engage in intercourse with a Jew.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. מַאי ״עוֹקֶץ״? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עוּקְצוֹ שֶׁל דַּד.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: Grown womanhood begins when the breasts have developed to a size where if a person places his hand on the nipple [oketz] it depresses and slows to return. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of oketz? Shmuel said: It means the protrusion [oketz] of the breast, i.e., the nipple.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן סִימָנֵי בַגְרוּת? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיִּתְקַשְׁקְשׁוּ הַדַּדִּין. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיַּכְסִיף רֹאשׁ הַחוֹטֶם. מִשֶּׁיַּכְסִיף? אַזְקִונַהּ לַהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מִשֶּׁיַּפְצִיל רֹאשׁ הַחוֹטֶם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁתַּקִּיף הָעֲטָרָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁנִּתְמַעֵךְ

The Sages taught in a baraita: What are the signs of maturity? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: From when the breasts knock against each other, due to their size. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: From when the head of the protrusion in the center of the nipple darkens. The Gemara asks with regard to this suggestion: From when it darkens? One thereby renders her old, i.e., if one accepts this sign, the beginning of maturity is delayed significantly. Rather, Rav Ashi said: From when the head of the protrusion splits. Rabbi Yosei says: From when the nipple grows to such an extent that it is surrounded by a circle. Rabbi Shimon says: From when there is a softening

הַכַּף.

of the protuberance above the womb, the mons pubis.

וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן (בֶּן יוֹחַי) אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִין נָתְנוּ חֲכָמִים בָּאִשָּׁה מִלְּמַטָּה, וּכְנֶגְדָּן מִלְּמַעְלָה. פַּגָּה מִלְּמַעְלָה — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, בּוֹחַל מִלְּמַעְלָה — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, צֶמֶל מִלְּמַעְלָה — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵךְ הַכַּף.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai would likewise say: The Sages provided three signs indicating puberty in a woman below, i.e., near her vagina, and they stated three corresponding signs above. If a woman has the signs of an unripe fig above, it is known that she has not grown two pubic hairs; if she has the signs of a ripening fig above, it is known that she has grown two hairs; and if she has the signs of a ripe fig above, it is known that the protuberance has softened.

מַאי כַּף? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מָקוֹם תָּפוּחַ יֵשׁ לְמַעְלָה מֵאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁמְּגַדֶּלֶת מִתְמַעֵךְ וְהוֹלֵךְ. שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי מִי? (שְׁלַח לְהוּ) [אָמַר לָהֶן]: כְּדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן לְהַחְמִיר.

The Gemara asks: What is this protuberance? Rav Huna says: There is a swollen place in a woman’s body, above that place, a euphemism for the vagina. It is initially hard, but when a girl grows it increasingly softens. The Sages asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to the signs of maturity in woman, in accordance with whose statement is the halakha? He sent them in response: The halakha is stringent in accordance with all of their statements, i.e., if any one of these signs mentioned by the Sages cited above appears in a girl, she must be treated as an adult with regard to all stringent aspects of this classification.

רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב חִינָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא, חַד מַתְנֵי אַהָא, וְחַד מַתְנֵי אַחָצֵר צוֹרִית, דִּתְנַן: אֵיזוֹהִי חָצֵר צוֹרִית שֶׁחַיֶּיבֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חָצֵר הַצּוֹרִית שֶׁהַכֵּלִים נִשְׁמָרִים בְּתוֹכָהּ.

Rav Pappa and Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rav Ika, disagree about the context of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the halakha is stringent in accordance with all of the Sages’ statements. One of them teaches it with regard to this matter, of a woman’s signs of puberty, and the other one teaches it with regard to the case of a Tyrian courtyard, as we learned in a mishna (Ma’asrot 3:5): What is a Tyrian courtyard, which renders food brought inside it to be required to be tithed? Rabbi Shimon says: A Tyrian courtyard is one inside of which vessels are safe.

מַאי ״חָצֵר הַצּוֹרִית״? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁכֵּן בְּצוֹר מוֹשִׁיבִין שׁוֹמֵר עַל פֶּתַח הֶחָצֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֶחָד פּוֹתֵחַ וְאֶחָד נוֹעֵל — פְּטוּרָה.

The Sages discuss this mishna: What is the meaning of a Tyrian courtyard? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The courtyard is called by this name as the custom in the city of Tyre is to place a watchman at the entrance of the courtyard to guard the articles inside. Consequently, any courtyard in which vessels are safe is called a Tyrian courtyard. Rabbi Akiva says: In any courtyard where there is no permanent watchman who locks and unlocks it, but rather one of its residents opens the courtyard and another one locks it, e.g., a courtyard shared by several partners, each of whom can do as he chooses without asking the other, the produce inside it is exempt from the obligation of separating tithe, as such a courtyard is not considered one in which vessels are safe.

רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין אָדָם בּוֹשׁ לֶאֱכוֹל בְּתוֹכָהּ — חַיֶּיבֶת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁנִּכְנָסִים לָהּ וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים לוֹ ״מָה אַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ״ — פְּטוּרָה.

Rabbi Neḥemya says: Any courtyard which is hidden from the gaze of outsiders, and therefore a person is not ashamed to eat inside it, that courtyard renders produce inside it obligated to have tithe separated from it. Rabbi Yosei says: Any courtyard that one who does not live there can enter it, and the residents do not say to him: What do you want here, produce inside such a courtyard is exempt from tithe.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת זוֹ לִפְנִים מִזּוֹ — הַפְּנִימִית חַיֶּיבֶת, וְהַחִיצוֹנָה פְּטוּרָה.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If there are two courtyards, one within the other, positioned in such a manner that the residents of the inner courtyard cannot enter their houses without passing through the outer courtyard, whereas the residents of the outer courtyard do not traverse the inner one, the inner courtyard renders any produce located inside it obligated to have tithe separated from it, but produce located in the outer courtyard is exempt from tithe. It is not safe, as residents of a different courtyard pass freely through it.

שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי מִי? אֲמַר (לְהוּ) [לָהֶן]: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן לְהַחְמִיר.

According to the opinion of one of the amora’im mentioned above, i.e., either Rav Pappa or Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rav Ika, it was with regard to this issue that the Sages asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In accordance with whose statement is the halakha? He said to them: The halakha is stringent in accordance with all of the Sages’ statements. In other words, with regard to any courtyard in which produce must be tithed according to any of these opinions, the halakha is that tithe must be separated from this produce.

מַתְנִי’ בַּת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — תָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהִיא בַּת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְהִיא אַיְילוֹנִית — לֹא חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת.

MISHNA: A girl twelve years and one day old who grew two pubic hairs is classified as a young woman. Six months later, she becomes a grown woman. But a woman who is twenty years old who did not grow two pubic hairs and was never classified as a young woman shall bring proof that she is twenty years old, and from that point forward she assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped woman [ailonit], who is incapable of bearing children. If she married and her husband died childless, she neither performs ḥalitza nor does she enter into levirate marriage, as the mitzva of levirate marriage applies only to a woman capable of conceiving a child. An ailonit is excluded from that mitzva.

בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — יָבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁהוּא בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְהוּא סָרִיס, לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַבֵּם. אֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: זֶה וָזֶה בֶּן שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה.

In the case of a man who is twenty years old who did not grow two pubic hairs, they shall bring proof that he is twenty years old and he assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped man [saris], who is excluded from the mitzva of levirate marriage. Therefore, if his married brother dies childless, he neither performs ḥalitza nor enters into levirate marriage with his yevama. This is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: For both this case of a woman and that case of a man, they shall bring proof that they are eighteen years old, and they assume the status of a sexually underdeveloped woman and man respectively.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַזָּכָר — כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וְהַנְּקֵבָה — כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מְמַהֶרֶת לָבֹא לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The status of the male is determined in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, i.e., he assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped man at the age of twenty; and the status of the female is determined in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, i.e., she assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped woman at the age of eighteen. The reason is that the woman is quick to reach physical maturity, and reaches that stage before the man reaches physical maturity.

גְּמָ’ וּרְמִינְהִי: אֶחָד לִי בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֶחָד לִי בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת!

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a sexually underdeveloped man does not enter into levirate marriage with the widow of his childless brother. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna (Yevamot 96b): A boy who is nine years and one day old, who has not developed two hairs, and a man who is twenty years old who has not grown two hairs, are one and the same to me with regard to levirate marriage, in that if they engaged in intercourse with the widow of their childless brother, this levirate marriage is partially effective, to the extent that this woman requires both a bill of divorce and ḥalitza.

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק, אָמַר רַב: וְהוּא שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בּוֹ סִימָנֵי סָרִיס. אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״וְהוּא סָרִיס״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak says that Rav says in explanation of the ruling of the mishna here: And this halakha applies only in a case where he developed physical signs of a sexually underdeveloped man (see Yevamot 80b) by the age of twenty. By contrast, the mishna in Yevamot is referring to one who did not develop signs of a sexually underdeveloped man. Rava said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: And he is a sexually underdeveloped man, which indicates that he had already developed physical signs of such a condition. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from it that this is the correct interpretation of the mishna.

וְכִי לֹא נוֹלְדוּ לוֹ סִימָנֵי סָרִיס, עַד כַּמָּה? תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עַד רוֹב שְׁנוֹתָיו.

The Gemara asks a question with regard to the halakha itself: And in a case where he does not develop the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man, until what age is he considered a minor? Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: Until most of his years have passed, i.e., until he reaches the age of thirty-five, halfway to seventy, which is the standard length of a person’s life.

כִּי אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, אִי כְּחִישׁ — אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״אַבְרְיוּהּ״. אִי בָּרִיא — אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״אַכְחֲשׁוּהּ״, דְּהָנֵי סִימָנִים זִימְנִין דְּאָתוּ מֵחֲמַת כְּחִישׁוּתָא, זִימְנִין דְּאָתוּ מֵחֲמַת בְּרִיאוּתָא.

The Gemara relates: When people would come before Rabbi Ḥiyya to inquire about someone who had reached the age of puberty but had not yet developed the physical signs of maturity, if the person in question was thin, he would say to them: Go and fatten him up before we decide on his status. If he was fat, Rabbi Ḥiyya would say to them: Go and make him thin. As these signs indicating puberty sometimes come due to thinness and sometimes they come due to fatness. It is therefore possible that after his bodily shape is properly adjusted this individual will develop the signs indicating puberty and will not have the status of a sexually underdeveloped man.

אָמַר רַב: הִלְכְתָא בְּכוּלֵּי פִּרְקָא — מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְעוּלָּא אָמַר: דִּתְנַן תְּנַן, וּדְלָא תְּנַן לָא תְּנַן.

§ Rav said: The halakha in this entire chapter with regard to all of the places where an age is mentioned in years is that even when the phrase: And one day, is not explicitly noted, they are all calculated from the time of year of birth until that same time of year in the age specified. And Ulla said: With regard to cases where we learned in the mishna a quantity of years including the phrase: And one day, we learned that the reference is to full years; and with regard to cases where we did not learn this phrase, i.e., where a quantity of years is mentioned in the mishna without the phrase: And one day, we did not learn it, and part of the final year is equivalent to a whole year.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעוּלָּא, הַיְינוּ דְקָתָנֵי הָכָא ״יוֹם אֶחָד״, וְהָכָא לָא קָתָנֵי. אֶלָּא לְרַב לִיתְנֵי!

The Gemara discusses these two opinions. Granted, according to Ulla, this is the reason that the tanna teaches there, in previous mishnayot (44b, 45a, 45b): And one day; and here, in this mishna, the tanna does not teach this phrase. But according to Rav, let the tanna be consistent and teach this phrase in all cases, including the mishna here.

וְעוֹד תָּנֵי: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפָּר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִמֶּנָּה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — הֲרֵי הִיא כִּשְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים לְכׇל דְּבָרֶיהָ, וְכֵן הוֹרָה רַבִּי בְּלוֹד: שְׁנַת שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִמֶּנָּה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — הֲרֵי הִיא כִּשְׁנַת שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה לְכׇל דְּבָרֶיהָ.

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the halakhot of a sexually underdeveloped man and a sexually underdeveloped woman: The twentieth year, of which thirty days have passed, i.e., from the age of nineteen and thirty days, is considered like the twentieth year in all regards; and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi similarly issued a practical ruling of halakha in the city of Lod, that the eighteenth year of which thirty days have passed is considered like the eighteenth year in all regards.

בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבִּי וּדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפָּר לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, הָא כְּבֵית הִילֵּל, אֶלָּא לְרַב קַשְׁיָא!

Granted, according to the opinion of Ulla, it is not difficult that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to the eighteenth year whereas Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar discusses the twentieth year, as this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai with regard to the age of a sexually underdeveloped woman, and that statement of Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. But according to the opinion of Rav, who maintains that full years are required for a sexually underdeveloped man or woman, this baraita poses a difficulty.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: שָׁנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּקֳּדָשִׁים, שָׁנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה, שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים שֶׁבִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.

The Gemara answers that this matter is a dispute between tanna’im, and Rav maintains in accordance with the opinion that full years are required. As it is taught in a baraita: Full years are required with regard to the period of one year stated with regard to sacrificial animals, e.g., “a lamb in its first year” (Leviticus 12:6); the one year stated with regard to houses of walled cities, during which one can redeem a house he has sold in a walled city (see Leviticus 25:29); and the two years stated with regard to an ancestral field, during which one cannot yet redeem an ancestral field he has sold (see Leviticus 25:15).

שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים שֶׁבְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי, וְכֵן שֶׁבַּבֵּן וְשֶׁבַּבַּת — כּוּלָּן מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

The six years stated with regard to a Hebrew slave (see Exodus 21:2) and similarly the years of a son and of a daughter, as will be explained, all of these are years from the time of the first year until that same time of year in the year specified, i.e., these periods are units of whole years instead of expiring on predetermined dates, as at the end of the calendar year. This supports the opinion of Rav that the years mentioned with regard to a sexually underdeveloped man or woman are full years.

שָׁנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּקֳּדָשִׁים מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ״, שְׁנָתוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא שָׁנָה שֶׁל מִנְיַן עוֹלָם.

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the one year stated with regard to sacrificial animals is calculated by whole years and not by calendar years? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that the verse states: “A lamb in its first year” (Leviticus 12:6). Since the verse does not state: A one-year-old lamb, it means a year based on calculation of its life, and not a year of the universal count, i.e., the calendar year.

שָׁנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״עַד תֹּם שְׁנַת מִמְכָּרוֹ״ — מִמְכָּרוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא שָׁנָה שֶׁל מִנְיַן עוֹלָם. שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים שֶׁבִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּמִסְפַּר

The Gemara further asks: From where do we derive the halakha that the one year stated with regard to houses of walled cities is calculated by a whole year and not by calendar year? The verse states: “Then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold, for a full year he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). The verse is referring to a year counted from the day of its own sale, and not the year of the universal count. From where do we derive that the two years stated with regard to an ancestral field are whole years? The verse states: “According the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor, and according to the number