Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 52a

MISHNAH. IF A GIRL²  HAS GROWN TWO PUBIC HAIRS SHE³  MAY EITHER PERFORM HALIZAH OR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, AND SHE IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PERFORM ALL THE COMMANDMENTS THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH. SO ALSO A BOY, IF HE HAS GROWN TWO PUBIC HAIRS, IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PERFORM ALL THE COMMANDMENTS ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH. HE IS FURTHERMORE LIABLE TO THE PENALTY OF A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON⁴  AS SOON AS HE HAS GROWN TWO HAIRS UNTIL THE TIME WHEN HIS BEARD FORMS A CIRCLE.⁵  (THIS REFERS TO THE LOWER, AND NOT TO THE UPPER ONE, BUT⁶  THE SAGES USED A EUPHEMISM,)⁷ A GIRL WHO HAS GROWN TWO HAIRS⁸  MAY NO LONGER EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF MI'UN. R. JUDAH RULED: MI'UN MAY BE EXERCISED UNTIL THE BLACK⁹  PREDOMINATES.¹⁰

GEMARA. But since we have learnt, SHE IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PERFORM ALL THE COMMANDMENTS THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH, what need was there for stating, SHE MAY EITHER PERFORM HALIZAH OR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE?¹¹  — To exclude a ruling of R. Jose who stated, 'In the Biblical section¹²  it is written man,¹³  but as regards a woman there is no difference between a major and a minor'.¹⁴  Hence we were informed that¹⁵  if she has grown two hairs she may perform halizah,¹⁶  but otherwise she may not. What is the reason? A woman is to be compared to man.¹⁷

But since it was stated, SO ALSO A BOY, IF HE HAS GROWN TWO PUBIC HAIRS,¹⁸  what need was there for stating, HE IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PERFORM ALL THE COMMANDMENTS ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH? And should you reply: Because it was desired to teach, HE IS FURTHERMORE LIABLE TO THE PENALTY OF A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON [the objection would arise]: Have we not learnt this once: 'When does one become liable to the penalty of a stubborn and rebellious son? As soon as one grows two hairs until the time the beard forms a circle. (By this was meant the lower, and not the upper one, but the Sages used a euphemism)'? — This is so indeed; only because details were specified about the girl those relating to the boy were also specified.

IF A GIRL HAS GROWN etc. R. Abbahu citing R. Eleazar stated, The halachah is in agreement with R. JUDAH. R. Judah, however, agrees that if she was subjected to cohabitation after she had grown two hairs,¹⁹  she may no longer exercise the right of mi'un.²⁰  The colleagues of R. Kahana desired to give a practical decision²¹  in agreement with the ruling of R. Judah, although intercourse had taken place, but R. Kahana addressed them as follows: Did not such an incident happen with the daughter of R. Ishmael?²²  She, namely, came to the schoolhouse to exercise the right of mi'un while her son was riding on her shoulder; and on that day were the views of R. Ishmael mentioned at the schoolhouse; and the Rabbis wept bitterly²³  saying, 'Over a ruling which that righteous man²⁴  had laid down should his offspring stumble!' For Rab Judah citing Samuel who had it from R. Ishmael stated: And she be not seized,²⁵  [then only]²⁶  is she forbidden,²⁷  but if she was seized she is permitted. There is, however, another class of woman who is permitted²⁷  even if she was not seized. And who is that? A woman whose betrothal was a mistaken one,²⁸  and who, even if her son sits riding on her shoulder, may exercise the right of mi'un and go away.²⁹  Thereupon they took a vote and decided: Up to what age may a girl³⁰  exercise the right of mi'un? Until that at which she grows two hairs. [On hearing this incident] they³¹  abstained and did not act as they first intended.³²

R. Isaac and the disciples of R. Hanina gave a practical decision in agreement with R. Judah, though the girl had been subjected to intercourse. R. Shamin b. Abba proceeded to tell it in the presence of R. Johanan; R. Johanan proceeded to tell it in the presence of R. Judah Nesi'ah³³  and the latter sent a constable³⁴  who took her away.³⁵

R. Hisda citing Mar Ukba stated: The meaning³⁶  is not that the black must actually predominate but that it shall be such as, when two hairs lie flat, has the appearance³⁷  of the black predominating over the white,³⁸  Raba stated: Two hairs that reach from rim to rim.

R. Helbo citing R. Huna stated: The two hairs of which the Rabbis spoke³⁹  must⁴⁰  have follicles at their roots. R. Malkio citing R. Adda b. Ahabah ruled: Follicles suffice even in the absence of hairs. Said R. Hanina the son of R. Ika: The rulings concerning a spit,⁴¹  bondwomen⁴²  and follicles⁴³  were laid down by R. Malkio, but those concerning a forelock,⁴⁴  wood-ash⁴⁵  and cheese⁴⁶  were laid down by R. Malkia. R. Papa, however, stated: If the statement was made on a Mishnah or a Baraitha the author is R. Malkia but if on reported traditions⁴⁷  the author is R. Malkio. And the mnemonic⁴⁸  is, 'The mathnitha⁴⁹  is queen'.⁵⁰  What is the practical difference between them?⁵¹  — The practical difference between them is the statement on bondwomen.⁵²  R. Ashi stated, Mar Zutra told me that R. Hanina of Sura felt about this the following difficulty: Would not a single Tanna⁵³  go out of his way to teach⁵⁴  us the law of the follicles? — If one⁵⁵  had informed us of the law of the follicles it might have been presumed that [puberty is not established] unless there were two hairs in two follicles respectively, hence we were informed⁵⁶  that even two hairs in one follicle are sufficient. But is there such a phenomenon?⁵⁷  Is it not in fact written in Scripture, He that would break me with a tempest, and multiply my wounds without cause⁵⁸  in connection with which Raba⁵⁹  remarked: Job blasphemed with the mention of tempest and he was answered with a tempest. He 'blasphemed with the mention of tempest', saying to Him, 'Sovereign of the world, perhaps a tempest has passed before Thee, and caused Thee to confuse "Job"60 with "enemy"?'⁶¹  'He was answered with a tempest': Then the Lord answered

1. Before the smelling of which, but not after, a benediction (cf. P.B. p. 290) is said.
2. Being twelve years and one day old.
3. If her husband died childless.
4. Cf. Deut. XXI, 18ff and Sanh. 68b.
5. When he is regarded as an adult who is no longer subject to this law.
6. In speaking in vague terms.
7. Lit., 'spoke in clean language'.
8. Having thus passed out of her minority.
9. The pubic hair.
10. The growth of no more than two hairs does not suffice in his opinion to deprive her of the right of mi'un (cf. Gemara infra).
11. Which are rites already included in the general rule.
12. Of halizah.
13. Deut. XXV, 7; 'man', excluding the woman, implies that only the male must be of age.
14. Sc. a minor also may perform halizah.
15. In the case of a girl also.
16. Lit., 'yes'.
17. Cf. Yeb. 105b, B.B. 156a.
18. A statement which brings the boy under the same obligations as the girl.
19. So that there was a valid marriage kinyan (cf. Kid, 2a) after she had attained her majority.
20. Only where no intercourse had taken place after two hairs have grown does R. Judah maintain his view (cf. relevant n. on our Mishnah). The first Tanna, however, maintains that, even if she allowed only one moment to pass after the growth of two hairs, irrespective of whether intercourse did or did not take place, her right to mi'un is lost.
21. Lit., 'to do a deed'.
22. Who, after her father's death, while she was in her minority was given in marriage by her mother.
23. Lit., 'a great weeping'. For the reading cf. MS.M. Cur. edd. 'and she wept … in the schoolhouse and they said'.
24. R. Ishmael.
25. Num, V, 13. E. V. neither she be taken in the act.
26. Sc. if she did not act under compulsion but willingly.
27. To her husband.
28. If, for instance, a condition was attached to it and the condition remained unfulfilled, or if the marriage was with a minor (in the absence of her father) whose act (even with the consent of her mother) has no validity. In such a case the woman may leave her husband without a letter of divorce and she has the status of a feme sole who had never before been married.
29. Since the marriage had no validity.
30. Lit., 'the daughter'.
31. R. Kahana's colleagues.
32. Lit., 'and did not do the deed'.
33. The Prince, Judah II.
34. Or 'a detachment of police. Lit., 'searcher'.
35. From her second husband who had married her in reliance on her mi'un.
36. Of R. Judah's ruling on our Mishnah.
37. Owing to the length of the hairs.
38. The skin.
39. V. our Mishnah.
40. If they are to be taken as a mark of puberty.
41. That has been used on a festival for the roasting of meat, may, by an indirect movement, be made to slip into a corner, though direct movement is forbidden (v. Bezah 28b).
42. Brought by a woman to her husband at her marriage (v. Keth. 59b).
43. The law cited here.
44. The law that an Israelite who trims the hairs of a heathen must withdraw his hand at a distance of three fingers' breadth on every side of the forelock (v. A.Z. 29a).
45. Forbidden to be spread on a wound because it gives it the appearance of an incised imprint (v. Mak. 21a).
46. If made by a heathen is forbidden to be eaten on account of the lard that he smears over it.
47. Shemathatha, those not recorded in a Mishnah or a Baraitha.
48. To help one to recollect which of the statements mentioned were made by R. Malkio and R. Malkia respectively.
49. Mathnitha, a general term for both Mishnah and Baraitha as opposed to shemathatha (cf. prev. n. but one).
50. Sc. more authoritative than a reported statement. Malkia ([H]) whose name closely resembles [H] (queen) is to be associated with the Mishnah and the Baraitha that are designated 'queen'.
51. R. Hanina and R. Papa.
52. Which is recorded in a Mishnah. According to R. Papa the comment on it must be that of R. Malkia (cf. prev. n. but one) while according to R. Hanina it is one of the rulings attributed to R. Malkio,
53. If follicles alone, in the absence of hairs, sufficed to establish puberty.
54. Anywhere in the Mishnah.
55. Tanna.
56. By the mention of two hairs only.
57. Two hairs in one follicle.
58. Job IX, 17.
59. Var. lec. Rabbah (cf. B.B. 16a).
60. [H] (Iyob).
61. [H] (Oyeb).

Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: The two hairs of which they spoke [establish puberty] even if one is on the crest and the other on the testes. So it was also taught: The two hairs of which they spoke [establish puberty] even if one grows on her back and the other on her belly, one on the joints of the fingers of her hand and the other on the joints of her toes; so R. Simeon b. Judah of Kefar Akko who cited it in the name of R. Ishmael.⁷  But Rab citing R. Assi ruled: puberty is not established unless two hairs grow in the same spot.

Our Rabbis taught: Up to what age may a girl exercise the right of mi'un? Until she grows two hairs; so R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: Until the black predominates.⁸  R. Jose ruled: Until a ring is formed around the nipple. Ben Shelakoth ruled: Until she grows her hair in profusion.⁹  In connection with this R. Simeon stated: Hanina b. Hakinai once met me at Zidon and said to me,¹⁰  'When you arrive at R. Akiba's ask him "until what age may a girl exercise the right of mi'un". If he tells you, "Until she grows two hairs", ask him this: Did not Ben Shelakoth testify in the presence of all of you at Jamnia, "Until she grows her hair in profusion", and you did not say to him a word to the contrary?' When I arrived at R. Akiba's the latter told me, 'I do not know anything about the growing of hair in profusion, and I do not know Ben Shelakoth; a girl may exercise the right of mi'un until the age when she grows two hairs'.

MISHNAH. THE TWO HAIRS SPOKEN OF IN REGARD TO THE RED HEIFER¹¹  AND IN REGARD TO LEPROSY¹²  AS WELL AS THOSE SPOKEN OF ANYWHERE ELSE¹³  MUST BE LONG ENOUGH FOR THEIR TIPS TO BE BENT TO THEIR ROOTS; SO R. ISHMAEL. R. ELIEZER RULED: LONG ENOUGH TO BE GRASPED BY A FINGER-NAIL, R. AKIBA RULED: LONG ENOUGH TO BE TAKEN OFF WITH SCISSORS.

GEMARA. R. Hisda citing Mar Ukba stated: The halachah is in agreement with the views of all these in that the law is thereby invariably restricted.¹⁴

MISHNAH. A WOMAN WHO OBSERVED A BLOOD-STAIN¹⁵  IS IN AN UNSETTLED CONDITION¹⁶  AND MUST¹⁷  TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS DUE TO ZIBAH; SO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES RULED: IN THE CASE OF BLOOD-STAINS THERE IS NO [NEED TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF THEIR BEING] DUE TO ZIBAH.

GEMARA. Who are THE SAGES? — R. Hanina b. Antigonus. For it was taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonus ruled, In the case of blood-stains there is no [need to consider the possibility of their being] due to zibah, but sometimes blood-stains do lead to zibah. How so? If a woman¹⁸  put on three shirts that she had previously examined and then found a blood-stain on each of them, or if she¹⁹  observed a discharge²⁰  on two days and [a blood-stain on] one shirt,²¹  these are the blood-stains that lead to zibah. But since in the case of three shirts, where she observed no direct discharge from her body, the possibility of zibah is taken into consideration, why was it necessary to mention²²  that of 'two days and one shirt'? — It might have been presumed²³  that in any instance like this²⁴  the woman brings a sacrifice which may be eaten,²⁵  hence we were informed [that only the possibility²⁶  of zibah is taken into consideration].²⁷  Raba observed: In this matter R. Hanina b. Antigonus vindicated his case against the Rabbis. For why is it [that when a bloodstain] less than three beans in size is in one spot we do not take into consideration the possibility of zibah? [presumably] because we assume that it is the result of observations on two days.²⁸  But then why should we not, even if a stain of the size of three beans was in one spot, similarly assume that only to the extent of the size of two and a half beans the discharge was from her body while the rest is the blood of a louse due to the filth?²⁹  — And the Rabbis?³⁰  — Since the stain³¹  can be divided up into parts of the size of a bean and over for each day³²  we do not ascribe it to any external cause. As to R. Hanina b. Antigonus, is it³³  only when a stain of the size of three beans in one spot that we do not take the possibility of zibah into consideration, but if it is in three different places³⁴  the possibility is taken into consideration? But did you not say³⁵  that this³⁶  applies only to stains on³⁷  three shirts,³⁸  from which it follows that it does not apply to stains³⁹  in three spots?⁴⁰  — He⁴¹  spoke to them on the line of the view of the Rabbis. As far as I am concerned, he said in effect, it⁴²  applies only to three shirts³⁸  and not to three spots;⁴⁰  but according to your view, agree with me at least that, where she had observed a stain of the size of three beans in one spot, we assume that to the extent of two and a half beans the discharge came from her body while the rest is the blood of a louse due to the filth. And the Rabbis? — Since the stain⁴³  can be divided up into parts of the size of a little more than a bean for each day,⁴⁴  we do not ascribe it to any external cause,

Our Rabbis taught: If a woman observed a blood-stain, if it is big enough⁴³  to be divided into parts corresponding respectively to three beans, each of which being slightly bigger than the size of a bean, she must take into consideration the possibility of zibah; otherwise, she need not take this possibility into consideration. R. Judah b. Agra citing R. Jose ruled: In the one case and in the other⁴⁵  the possibility must be taken into consideration.⁴⁶

1. Job XXXVIII, 1.
2. Lit., 'fool that (you are) in the world'.
3. The Heb. word for tempest, 'se'arah', may also be rendered 'hair'.
4. From which it is obvious that two hairs can never grow from the same follicle. How then could it be maintained (supra 52a) that two hairs may sometimes grow from the same follicle?
5. The case of the hairs mentioned in our Mishnah.
6. The hairs mentioned in connection with Job,
7. The reading to 'ruled' is that of MS.M. Cur. edd. read, 'And the Rabbis [what is their view]? R. Hisda replied'. BaH. substitutes 'Ashi' for 'Hisda'.
8. Cf. relevant n. on our Mishnah,
9. Cf. Tosaf.
10. So MS.M.
11. Cf. A.Z. 24a and Parah II, 5.
12. Cf. Neg. I, 5.
13. In regard to the marks of puberty.
14. Sc. as soon as the hairs grow to the smallest length mentioned in our Mishnah she is no longer regarded as minor and the right of mi'un is denied to her, while halizah may not be performed until the hairs grew to the maximum of the lengths mentioned, when her majority is beyond all doubt.
15. On her underclothing.
16. Lit., 'damaged', sc. the calculations (that enable her to determine in which days she is liable to menstruation and in which she is susceptible to zibah) are upset since she is unable to ascertain when exactly the discharge (of which the blood-stain is the result) had occurred.
17. Under certain circumstances (cf. Gemara infra).
18. On three consecutive days respectively during the period in which she is susceptible to zibah,
19. In the zibah period (cf. prev. n.).
20. An actual flow of blood.
21. That was previously duly examined.
22. That zibah must be taken into consideration.
23. If the latter case had not been mentioned.
24. Two actual discharges and one blood-stain.
25. Sc. that the sacrifice is deemed to be valid as in the case of certain zibah.
26. But not the certainty.
27. So that the sacrifice is of a doubtful nature. As the method of killing that is prescribed for a bird sacrifice renders an unconsecrated bird nebelah and forbidden to be eaten, the bird sacrifice offered in this case must (on account of its doubtful nature) be forbidden to be eaten.
28. While zibah cannot be established unless discharges occurred on three consecutive days.
29. Of menstruation; so that (cf. prev. n.) there was no zibah at all.
30. How can they maintain their ruling in view of this argument?
31. Being of generous dimensions and rather larger than the size of three beans.
32. So that on each day there may have been a new stain of the size prescribed.
33. As Raba's statement seems to suggest.
34. Though on the same shirt.
35. In the Baraitha supra.
36. That the possibility of zibah is taken into consideration.
37. Lit., 'yes'.
38. One stain on each.
39. Lit., 'not'.
40. On the same shirt.
41. R. Hanina according to Raba's submission.
42. That the possibility of zibah is taken into consideration.
43. Being of generous dimensions and rather larger than the size of three beans.
44. So that on each day there may have been a new stain of the size prescribed.
45. Sc. even if the stain was no bigger than the size of two beans.
46. Since it is possible that at least one of the stains was due to a discharge at twilight which counts as two (v. infra).