Niddah 46a:3נדה מ״ו א:ג
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Niddah 46a:3"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
46aמ״ו א

וטעמא דלאחר זמן הוא דגמר' לה למילתיה הא תוך זמן כלפני זמן

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.

ועוד מתיב רבי זירא {במדבר ו } איש כי יפליא לנדור נדר מה ת"ל איש לרבות בן י"ג שנה ויום אחד שאע"פ שאינו יודע להפליא נדריו קיימין

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: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When either man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow” (Numbers 6:2). What is the meaning when the verse states “man,” after it has already stated “the children of Israel”? 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.

ה"ד אי דלא אייתי שתי שערות קטן הוא אלא לאו דאייתי שתי שערות וטעמא דבן י"ג ויום אחד הוא דהוה ליה איש הא תוך זמן כלפני זמן תיובתא

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 “man.” 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 Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that developing pubic hairs during the time is equivalent to developing hairs after the time.

אמר ר"נ כתנאי בן ט' שנים שהביא ב' שערות שומא מבן ט' ועד י"ב שנה ויום אחד שומא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר סימן בן י"ג שנה ויום אחד דברי הכל סימן

Rav Naḥman said that the baraita is not a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as this matter is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, 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.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת מבן ט' ועד י"ב שנה ויום אחד שומא הא י"ג שנה גופא סימן והדר תני בן י"ג שנה ויום אחד סימן הא י"ג שנה גופא שומא

Rav Naḥman 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.

מאי לאו תנאי היא דמר סבר תוך זמן כלאחר זמן ומר סבר תוך זמן כלפני זמן

Rav Naḥman concludes: What, is it not correct to say that there is a dispute between tanna’im, 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 Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is one side of a dispute between tanna’im.

לא דכ"ע תוך זמן כלפני זמן ואידי ואידי בתינוקת ורישא רבי וסיפא ר"ש בן אלעזר

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone, i.e., the tanna’im 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.

ואיבעית אימא הא והא בתינוק ורישא ר"ש בן אלעזר וסיפא רבי

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.

ואיבעית אימא הא והא רבי הא בתינוק הא בתינוקת ואב"א הא והא ר"ש בן אלעזר הא בתינוק הא בתינוקת

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.

רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר סימן א"ר כרוספדאי בריה דרבי שבתאי והוא שעודן בו

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.

תניא נמי הכי בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שהביא ב' שערות שומא מבן ט' ועד י"ב שנה ויום אחד ועודן בו שומא ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר סימן

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.

אמר רבא הילכתא תוך זמן כלפני זמן רב שמואל בר זוטרא מתני לה לשמעתא דרבא בהאי לישנא אמר רבא קטנה כל י"ב שנה ממאנת והולכת מכאן ואילך אינה ממאנת ואינה חולצת

§ 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 ḥalitza with the brother of her husband, if he died without children.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת אינה ממאנת אלמא גדולה היא אי גדולה היא תחלוץ

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 ḥalitza, like any other adult woman.

וכי תימא מספקא ליה ומי מספקא ליה והאמר רבא קטנה שהגיעה לכלל שנותיה אינה צריכה בדיקה חזקה הביאה סימנין

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 ḥalitza, like a minor, this suggestion is problematic, as is Rava actually uncertain in this regard? But doesn’t 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.

ה"מ בסתמא אבל הכא דבדקו ולא אשכחו לא

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.

אי הכי תמאן חוששין שמא נשרו

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.

הניחא למ"ד חוששין אלא למ"ד אין חוששין מאי איכא למימר דאיתמר רב פפא אמר אין חוששין שמא נשרו רב פפי אמר חוששין הני מילי לענין חליצה אבל לענין מיאון חוששין

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’im 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 ḥalitza, but with regard to refusal everyone agrees that we are concerned that they might have fallen out.

מכלל דמ"ד חוששין חולצת והא חוששין בעלמא קאמר

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 ḥalitza? 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 ḥalitza like an adult?

אלא לעולם דלא בדקה ולענין חליצה חיישינן וכי קאמר רבא חזקה למיאון אבל לחליצה בעיא בדיקה

Rather, Rava is actually referring to a case where one did not examine the girl, and with regard to ḥalitza 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 ḥalitza she requires examination.

אמר רב דימי מנהרדעא הלכתא חוששין שמא נשרו

With regard to the issue of whether there is concern that hairs might have fallen out, Rav Dimi of Neharde’a 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.

והני מילי היכא דקדשה בתוך זמן ובעל לאחר זמן דאיכא ספיקא דאורייתא אבל מעיקרא לא

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.

אמר רב הונא הקדיש ואכל לוקה

§ 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’s 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.

שנאמר {במדבר ו׳:ב׳ } איש כי יפליא לנדור (במדבר ל, ג) ולא יחל דברו כל שישנו בהפלאה ישנו בבל יחל וכל שאינו בהפלאה אינו בבל יחל

Rav Huna explains: As it is stated: “When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow” (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: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3). This indicates that any person who is included in explicitness of intent is also included in the prohibition: “He shall not profane his word,” and anyone who is not included in explicitness of intent is not included in the prohibition: “He shall not profane his word.”

מתיב רב הונא בר יהודה (לרבא) לסיועי לרב הונא

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