Niddah 47bנדה מ״ז ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Niddah 47b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
47bמ״ז ב
1 א

הכף

of the protuberance above the womb, the mons pubis.

2 ב

וכן היה רבי שמעון (בן יוחי) אומר שלשה סימנין נתנו חכמים באשה מלמטה וכנגדן מלמעלה פגה מלמעלה בידוע שלא הביאה שתי שערות בוחל מלמעלה בידוע שהביאה שתי שערות צמל מלמעלה בידוע שנתמעך הכף

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.

3 ג

מאי כף אמר רב הונא מקום תפוח יש למעלה מאותו מקום כיון שמגדלת מתמעך והולך שאלו את רבי הלכה כדברי מי שלח להו כדברי כולן להחמיר

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.

4 ד

רב פפא ורב חיננא בריה דרב איקא חד מתני אהא וחד מתני אחצר צורית דתנן איזוהי חצר צורית שחייבת במעשר ר"ש אומר חצר הצורית שהכלים נשמרים בתוכה

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.

5 ה

מאי חצר הצורית אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן שכן בצור מושיבין שומר על פתח החצר ר"ע אומר כל שאחד פותח ואחד נועל פטורה

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.

6 ו

ר' נחמיה אומר כל שאין אדם בוש לאכול בתוכה חייבת רבי יוסי אומר כל שנכנסים לה ואין אומרים לו מה אתה מבקש פטורה

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.

7 ז

ר' יהודה אומר שתי חצרות זו לפנים מזו הפנימית חייבת והחיצונה פטורה

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.

8 ח

שאלו את רבי הלכה כדברי מי אמר להו הלכה כדברי כולן להחמיר

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.

9 ט

מתני׳ בת עשרים שנה שלא הביאה שתי שערות תביא ראיה שהיא בת עשרים שנה והיא איילונית לא חולצת ולא מתיבמת

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.

10 י

בן עשרים שנה שלא הביא שתי שערות יביאו ראיה שהוא בן עשרים שנה והוא סריס לא חולץ ולא מיבם אלו דברי בית הלל בית שמאי אומרים זה וזה בן שמונה עשרה

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.

11 יא

ר' אליעזר אומר הזכר כדברי בית הלל והנקבה כדברי בית שמאי שהאשה ממהרת לבא לפני האיש

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.

12 יב

גמ׳ ורמינהי אחד לי בן תשע שנים ויום אחד ואחד לי בן עשרים שלא הביא שתי שערות

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.

13 יג

אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב והוא שנולדו בו סימני סריס אמר רבא דיקא נמי דקתני והוא סריס ש"מ

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.

14 יד

וכי לא נולדו לו סימני סריס עד כמה תני ר' חייא עד רוב שנותיו

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.

15 טו

כי אתו לקמיה דרבי חייא אי כחיש אמר להו אבריוה אי בריא אמר להו אכחשוה דהני סימנים זימנין דאתו מחמת כחישותא זימנין דאתו מחמת בריאותא

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.

16 טז

אמר רב הלכתא בכולי פרקא מעת לעת ועולא אמר דתנן תנן ודלא תנן לא תנן

§ 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.

17 יז

בשלמא לעולא היינו דקתני הכא יום אחד והכא לא קתני אלא לרב ליתני

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.

18 יח

ועוד תני רבי יוסי בן כיפר אומר משום רבי אליעזר שנת עשרים שיצאו ממנה שלשים יום הרי היא כשנת עשרים לכל דבריה וכן הורה רבי בלוד שנת שמנה עשרה שיצאו ממנה שלשים יום הרי היא כשנת שמנה עשרה לכל דבריה

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.

19 יט

בשלמא דרבי ודרבי יוסי בן כיפר לא קשיא הא כבית שמאי הא כבית הילל אלא לרב קשיא

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.

20 כ

תנאי היא דתניא שנה האמורה בקדשים שנה האמורה בבתי ערי חומה שתי שנים שבשדה אחוזה

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).

21 כא

שש שנים שבעבד עברי וכן שבבן ושבבת כולן מעת לעת

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.

22 כב

שנה האמורה בקדשים מנא לן אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ו) כבש בן שנתו שנתו שלו ולא שנה של מנין עולם

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.

23 כג

שנה האמורה בבתי ערי חומה מנלן אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, כט) עד תום שנת ממכרו ממכרו שלו ולא שנת של מנין עולם שתי שנים שבשדה אחוזה מנלן אמר קרא {ויקרא כה } במספר

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