בָּא סִימָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָא הָעֶלְיוֹן, אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַּבֶּמֶת. בָּא הָעֶלְיוֹן עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָא הַתַּחְתּוֹן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, לֹא חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֶפְשָׁר לַתַּחְתּוֹן לָבֹא עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָא הָעֶלְיוֹן, אֲבָל אִי אֶפְשָׁר לָעֶלְיוֹן לָבֹא עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָא הַתַּחְתּוֹן: If the lower sign of puberty, two pubic hairs, appeared in a young woman before the upper sign, development of the breasts, appeared, then she is an adult, as the pubic hairs are an unequivocal sign. Therefore, if her childless husband died and she came before her husband’s brother [yavam] for levirate marriage, she either performs the ritual through which a yavam frees a yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza] or enters into levirate marriage with her husband’s brother. If the upper sign indicating puberty appeared before the lower sign appeared, i.e., the two pubic hairs are not visible, although that order of development is apparently impossible, Rabbi Meir says: In fact, it is possible for the breasts to develop before the growth of two pubic hairs, and the concern is that the two hairs did not grow and fall out but rather they never grew in the first place, which would mean that she remains a minor. Therefore, if her childless husband dies, she neither performs ḥalitza nor does she enter into levirate marriage with her husband’s brother. And the Rabbis say: She has reached majority, and therefore if her childless husband dies she either performs ḥalitza or enters into levirate marriage with her husband’s brother. That is due to the fact that the Sages said: It is possible for the lower sign of puberty to appear before the upper sign appears; but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign appears.
כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, כָּל כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁהוּא מַכְנִיס, מוֹצִיא. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁמּוֹצִיא וְאֵינוֹ מַכְנִיס. כָּל אֵבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ צִפֹּרֶן, יֶשׁ בּוֹ עֶצֶם, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ עֶצֶם וְאֵין בּוֹ צִפֹּרֶן: Similar to the order of the appearance of the signs of puberty in a girl, where it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign, there is an analogous principle with regard to the mutual dependency of two items: Any earthenware vessel with a hole that enables entry of liquid into the vessel certainly enables exit of liquid through that hole, and it thereby ceases to be a vessel fit for sanctification of the waters mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. And there are holes that enable exit of liquids from the earthenware vessels but do not enable entry of liquids from outside the vessel, and therefore it remains a vessel. Likewise, in any limb of the body where there is a nail, there is certainly a bone in it as well. If it is the limb of a corpse, it transmits ritual impurity through contact, movement, and in a tent, even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk. And there are limbs in which there is a bone but yet there is not a nail in it. That limb does not transmit impurity in a tent if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk.
כֹּל הַמִּטַּמֵּא מִדְרָס, מִטַּמֵּא טְמֵא מֵת. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁמִּטַּמֵּא טְמֵא מֵת וְאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא מִדְרָס: Similarly, any item that becomes ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading, e.g., a vessel designated for sitting, becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. And there are vessels that become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse but do not become ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading.
כֹּל הָרָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁרָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. כֹּל הַכָּשֵׁר לָדוּן, כָּשֵׁר לְהָעִיד. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁכָּשֵׁר לְהָעִיד וְאֵינוֹ כָשֵׁר לָדוּן: Any person who is fit to adjudicate cases of capital law is fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law, and there are those who are fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate cases of capital law. Any person who is fit to adjudicate a case and serve as a judge is fit to testify as a witness, and there are those who are fit to testify but are not fit to adjudicate.
כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּב בַּמַּעַשְׂרוֹת, מִטַּמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִים. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁמִּטַּמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בַּמַּעַשְׂרוֹת: Any food from which one is obligated to separate tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food; and there is food that becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food but from which one is not obligated to separate tithes.
כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּב בַּפֵּאָה, חַיָּב בַּמַּעַשְׂרוֹת. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁחַיָּב בַּמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בַּפֵּאָה: With regard to any produce from which one is obligated to designate produce in the corner of the field given to the poor [pe’a], as commanded in the Torah (see Leviticus 19:9, 23:22), one is obligated to separate tithes from it; and there is produce from which one is obligated to separate tithes but from which one is not obligated to designate pe’a.
כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּב בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, חַיָּב בַּמַּתָּנוֹת. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁחַיָּב בַּמַּתָּנוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז: With regard to any animal, i.e., sheep and rams, from which one is obligated by Torah law (see Deuteronomy 18:4) to give the first shearing of its wool to a priest, he is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, which must be removed from slaughtered animals, taken from it (see Deuteronomy 18:3). And there are animals from which one is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood taken from them, e.g., cattle and goats, but from which he is not obligated to give the first shearing.
כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ בִעוּר, יֶשׁ לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית וְאֵין לוֹ בִעוּר: The mishna teaches a similar principle: For all Sabbatical-Year produce to which there applies the obligation of eradication from the house when it ceases to be available to the animals in the field, there is the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce upon it, i.e., it may not be used for commerce and is ownerless while it is attached to the ground. And there is produce for which there is the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce, but for which there is no obligation of eradication from the house, e.g., produce that is preserved in the ground and does not cease to be available in the field.
כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת, יֶשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקֵשֶׂת. כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ קַרְנַיִם, יֶשׁ לוֹ טְלָפַיִם. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ טְלָפַיִם וְאֵין לוֹ קַרְנָיִם: It is written: “Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, you may eat them” (Leviticus 11:9). There is a principle with regard to the signs indicating that fish are kosher: Any fish that has scales has fins; and there are fish that have fins but do not have scales. Similarly, with regard to kosher animals it is written: “Whatever parts the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eat” (Leviticus 11:3). Any animal that has horns has hooves; and there are animals that have hooves but do not have horns.
כֹּל הַטָּעוּן בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרָיו, טָעוּן בְּרָכָה לְפָנָיו. וְיֵשׁ טָעוּן בְּרָכָה לְפָנָיו וְאֵין טָעוּן בְּרָכָה לְאַחֲרָיו: This mishna teaches a generalization that is similar to the previous ones: Anything that requires a blessing after one partakes of it requires a blessing beforehand. And there exist items that require a blessing before but do not require a blessing thereafter.
תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת, וְחַיֶּבֶת בְּכָל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן תִּינוֹק שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, חַיָּב בְּכָל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. וְרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן, הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְלֹא הָעֶלְיוֹן, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה. תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחֹר: A young girl who reached the age of puberty and grew two pubic hairs is an adult. If her childless husband dies, she either performs ḥalitza and is thereby permitted to marry anyone, or enters into levirate marriage with her husband’s brother. And furthermore, such a girl is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot stated in the Torah in which women are obligated. And likewise, a young boy who reached the age of puberty and grew two pubic hairs is an adult and is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot stated in the Torah. And he is fit to be declared a stubborn and rebellious son if he performs the actions that warrant that designation, from when he grows two pubic hairs until his beard will form a circle. During that period, although he is an adult and punishable for his actions, he is incapable of fathering a child. Consequently, as he is a son and not a father, he can be designated a stubborn and rebellious son. The mishna explains that the reference is to the lower, pubic, hair, and not to the upper, facial, hair. But the term beard is used, despite its being subject to misinterpretation, due to the fact that the Sages spoke euphemistically. A young girl who reached the age of puberty and grew two pubic hairs can no longer perform refusal to end a marriage with a husband to whom she was married as a minor by her mother and brothers after her father’s death. Rabbi Yehuda says: She retains the right to perform refusal until the pubic hair will grow to the extent that the black hair will be preponderant in the pubic area.
שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּפָּרָה וּבַנְּגָעִים, וְהָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּכָל מָקוֹם, כְּדֵי לָכֹף רֹאשָׁן לְעִקָּרָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, כְּדֵי לִקְרֹץ בַּצִּפֹּרֶן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ נִטָּלוֹת בְּזוּג: The two white or black hairs that are mentioned with regard to disqualification of a red heifer; and the two white hairs mentioned with regard to leprous marks, i.e., that if they grow within a white leprous mark, it is impure; and the two hairs that are mentioned in every place, i.e., with regard to a young boy and girl, are significant only if they are long enough to bend the top of the hairs to reach their roots. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Eliezer says: They must be long enough to grasp them and cut them with a fingernail. Rabbi Akiva says: They must be long enough to be cut with a pair [bezug] of scissors.
הָרוֹאָה כֶתֶם, הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻלְקֶלֶת, וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם זוֹב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין בַּכְּתָמִים מִשּׁוּם זוֹב: With regard to a woman who sees a red stain on her garment, that woman’s reckoning is distorted. Since she does not know when the blood that caused the stain appeared, she does not know when the seven days of menstrual flow end and when the eleven days of the flow of the zava begin. And therefore she must be concerned due to the possibility that it might have been caused by the flow of a zava. If she wore the same garment for three days on which she can assume the status of a zava, and subsequently discovered a stain with an area that is the size of at least three split beans, the concern is that on each of those three days a stain with the area of at least one split bean, the minimum area that transmits impurity, was formed. The result is that she is a greater zava and is required to count seven clean days before immersion. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: No configuration of stains leads to concern due to the flow of a zava.
הָרוֹאָה יוֹם אַחַד עָשָׂר בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, תְּחִלַּת נִדָּה וְסוֹף נִדָּה, תְּחִלַּת זִיבָה וְסוֹף זִיבָה, יוֹם אַרְבָּעִים לַזָּכָר וְיוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים לַנְּקֵבָה, בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת לְכֻלָּן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טוֹעוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, עַד שֶׁאַתֶּם מְתַקְּנִים אֶת הַשּׁוֹטוֹת, תַּקְּנוּ אֶת הַפִּקְחוֹת: In the case of a woman who sees an emission of blood during twilight on the eleventh day of the days in which she can assume the status of a zava, as there is uncertainty whether the emission was during the day and it is the flow of a zava or whether it was at night and it is menstrual flow, she observes seven days of impurity like the beginning of the seven days of menstruation and the end of menstruation. If she experienced an emission on the two previous days as well, she observes seven clean days before immersion like the beginning of the flow of ziva and the end of the flow of ziva. Similarly, in the case of a woman who experiences an emission of blood during twilight on the fortieth day after the birth of a male or the eightieth day after the birth of a female, there is uncertainty whether it is considered daytime and therefore part of the final day of the blood of purity, or night that is part of the following day when the blood is impure. With regard to experiencing bleeding during twilight in all those cases, these women are mistaken in their calculation of the days of menstrual flow and the flow of a zava. Consequently, if they experience bleeding for three consecutive days at the beginning or at the end of the eleven days of ziva, they bring the offering of a zava but it is not eaten, as it was brought based on uncertainty. Rabbi Yehoshua said: Instead of making provisions to remedy the uncertainties of the misguided, come and remedy the uncertainties of the competent women who know what day they saw the blood but require guidance, due to the multitude of emissions that they experienced.