Niddah 46a — the Talmud in English

And the reason is that it is after the time, for his matter has been completed.

That he has both the years and the two hairs, and his body has completely finished maturing.

And from here Rav Hamnuna proves:

but within the time,

even if hairs grew on him,

it is like before the time.

And the hairs are merely a mole.

And furthermore,

an objection against the approaches that if he produced hairs before the age he is considered an adult,

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection

from a beraita. For it was taught:

“When a man explicitly vows a vow.” What does the word “man” come to teach? —

To include a thirteen-year-old and one day, who, even though he does not know how to make an explicit vow, his vows are valid

94. What are the circumstances

of the law of the beraita?

If

the case is one in which

he did not produce two hairs —

he is a minor,

but is it not rather that he produced two hairs? And the reason that a thirteen-year-old and one day

who has both years and hairs

is that he is a man,

but within the time,

who has only hairs without the years,

it is like before the time,

and the hairs are merely a mole!

And

a teyuvta

against the method of Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, who hold that within the time is like after the time.

Rav Naḥman said:

The dispute between Rav and Rav Hanina, who hold that both hairs and years are required, and Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, who hold that hairs alone suffice, is

a

dispute

of tannaim:

For it was taught:

A nine-year-old who produced two hairs,

they are

merely a mole,

and according to everyone they are not a sign that he is already an adult. But if he produced the hairs

from nine years until twelve years and one day,

about this they disputed: The first tanna holds that they too are

a mole.

But

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: They are

They are

a sign

that he is an adult.

A thirteen-year-old and one day —

according to everyone

this is

a sign

that he is an adult.

This matter itself is difficult. You said: From nine years until twelve years and one day, it is a mole. But

all of the

thirteenth year itself

[from twelve years and one day until the end of the thirteenth year] —

is a sign. And then it teaches: A thirteen-year-old and one day, it is a sign. But

all of the

thirteenth year itself —

is a mole!

What, is it not a dispute between tannaim, where one

[the tanna who taught the first clause]

holds that within the time is like after the time,

and the hairs in the thirteenth year are signs of maturity;

and the other

[the tanna who taught the latter clause]

holds that within the time is like before the time,

and the hairs in the thirteenth year are merely a mole?

The Gemara rejects this:

No. Everyone

holds that the production of hairs

within the time is like before the time. And both this and that

[the first clause and the latter clause] speak

of a girl. And the first clause is Rabbi,

who holds that a girl becomes an adult at twelve years and one day.

And the latter clause is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

who holds that a girl becomes an adult at thirteen years and one day.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that are speaking of a boy. And the first clause is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

who holds that a boy becomes an adult at twelve years and one day.

And the latter clause —

is Rabbi,

who holds that a boy becomes an adult at thirteen years and one day.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that

[the first clause and the latter clause]

are Rabbi,

but

this

the first clause speaks

of a boy

who becomes an adult at thirteen years and one day, whereas

this speaks of a girl

who becomes an adult at twelve years and one day.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that are Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. This

[the first clause]

speaks of a boy

who becomes an adult at twelve years and one day;

this

[the latter clause]

speaks of a girl

who becomes an adult at thirteen years and one day.

We learned in the beraita:

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says:

If a nine-year-old and one day produced two hairs, he is not judged as merely a

mole, but as a sign.

Rabbi Kruspedai, son of Rabbi Shabtai, said: And this

that the hairs are judged as a sign and not as a mole is on condition

that

the hairs

are still on him

when he becomes an adult. But if they fell out in the meantime, this is proof that the hair is not a sign of maturity but merely a mole.

It was also taught so: A nine-year-old and one day who produced two hairs —

a mole; from nine years until twelve years and one day, and they are still on him —

a mole. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: A sign.

Rava said: The halakha

is according to the one who says

within the time is like before the time.

A minor orphan: her mother and brothers may marry her off, by rabbinic enactment. But they gave her the power to refuse her husband and leave him by mere mi'un, and she does not require a bill of divorce, and she is considered an unmarried woman in every respect. But if she becomes an adult, and her husband has intercourse with her after her adulthood, she becomes betrothed to him through betrothal by intercourse and becomes fully married to him by Torah law, and she does not leave without a bill of divorce. And if she was divorced, she is a divorcee and not an unmarried woman.

A minor who is married by rabbinic enactment, whose husband dies without offspring, does not need to enter into levirate marriage or perform halitza with her husband’s brothers; rather, she refuses and goes on her way.

Rav Shmuel bar Zutra taught Rava’s teaching,

that within the time is like after the time,

in this formulation.

That is, he inferred this principle of Rava from Rava’s words in another discussion:

Rava said: A minor girl

whom her mother or brothers married off in a marriage by rabbinic enactment,

throughout the twelve years,

even if she produced hairs, she

refuses and goes away

from her husband’s house, according to the law of every minor girl who can perform mi'un.

And this is because Rava holds that the production of hairs within the time is like before the time, and they are not considered a sign of adulthood, but are merely a mole.

But

from this point onward,

from twelve years and one day, she

does not refuse,

because perhaps she is an adult;

and she does not perform halitza,

if she is a widow awaiting levirate marriage, because she is still not considered an adult, and a minor is not fit to perform halitza.

And the Gemara discusses this:

This matter itself is difficult.

On the one hand,

you said,

from twelve years she

does not refuse. It follows that she is an adult,

assuming that she produced two hairs, and therefore mi'un without a bill of divorce is no longer effective for her. But

if she is an adult, she should perform halitza,

for an adult [who is married by Torah law] leaves the levirate bond through halitza, so why did Rava say that she does not perform halitza?!

And if you would say that it is doubtful to him

to Rava whether she has already produced two hairs and is an adult, or has not yet produced them and is a minor, and therefore we act stringently: she does not refuse, and if she is a widow awaiting levirate marriage, she does not refuse.

This cannot be said. For

is it doubtful to him

to Rava?

But Rava said: A minor girl who has reached the category of her years

[twelve years and one day]

does not require examination

to see whether she produced two hairs; rather, she performs halitza, for we have a

presumption

that when she reached the age of adulthood, she also

produced the signs.

The Gemara answers:

These words

that we rely on the presumption that she has already produced two hairs are

in an unspecified case. But here, where they examined

her

and did not find

hairs on her,

no.

She does not have the presumption that she produced two hairs.

The Gemara objects:

If so,

that the case is one in which she was examined and no hairs were found on her,

let her refuse!

For we examined her and saw that she is a minor; why did Rava say that she cannot refuse?

The Gemara answers:

We are concerned lest

she produced two hairs, and afterward the hairs

fell out,

and she truly is already an adult and cannot refuse.

This works according to the one who says that we are concerned

lest the hairs fell out.

But according to the one who says that we are not concerned, what can be said?

Why can she not refuse?!

For it was stated:

With regard to one who was examined after she reached the age of twelve years and one day, and two hairs were not found on her:

Rav Pappa said:

If we see that she has no hairs,

we are not concerned lest they fell out;

rather, she certainly did not produce signs, and she is certainly still a minor.

Rav Pappi said: We are concerned.

And according to Rav Pappa, who holds that she is certainly a minor, it is difficult: why can she not refuse?

And the Gemara answers: What Rav Pappa said, “We are not concerned that they fell out,” means that one may not say that there certainly were hairs and they fell out, and now she is an adult; rather, the matter is doubtful. Therefore,

these words

that they disputed whether we are concerned lest the hairs fell out and she is already an adult are

with regard

to being stringent with her, so that she requires

halitza,

for one who is concerned that the hairs fell out holds that she also requires halitza.

But with regard

to being lenient with her, so that only

mi'un

alone is effective for her, everyone

is concerned

that the hairs fell out and she is already an adult, and they do not act leniently.

The Gemara objects:

It follows that the one who says “we are concerned”

says this only with regard to

performing halitza

?

But he said merely “we are concerned,”

which implies both with regard to mi'un and with regard to halitza?

The Gemara answers:

Rather, actually —

she was not examined

whether she produced hairs.

And with regard to halitza we are concerned

lest she did not produce hairs.

And when Rava said that there is a presumption

and it is not necessary to examine whether she produced hairs, it was

with regard to mi'un,

for she cannot refuse, since presumably she is already an adult.

But with regard to halitza, examination is required

that she is already an adult. But without examination, they do not allow her to perform halitza merely on the strength of the presumption that she is an adult.

Rav Dimi of Nehardea said: The halakha is that we are concerned lest they fell out. And these words apply where she was betrothed within the time

[during the years when she is certainly a minor]

and he had intercourse with her after the time

[at a time when, if she produced hairs, she is already an adult],

for there is a Torah-law doubt,

that perhaps he had intercourse with her after she had already matured and produced hairs, and he performed betrothal through intercourse with her, making her fully married to him by Torah law.

But initially,

if he had intercourse with her only before twelve years and one day, and we have no doubt that perhaps she is married to him by Torah law [because he certainly did not perform an act that betrothed her at a time when she was an adult, and when she is a minor, betrothal does not take effect in her by Torah law],

no,

we are not concerned that there were hairs and they fell out.

Rav Huna said: If he consecrated

a twelve-year-old boy and one day who was examined and found to know how to make distinctions

, and he ate

what he had consecrated,

he is flogged

98. As it is stated: “When a man explicitly vows a vow,”

and it implies that even one capable of making distinctions who is close to manhood [one year before he becomes an adult and knows how to make distinctions]—his vow takes effect, and he is even flogged if he violated his vow; and this is despite the fact that a minor is not subject to punishment for other prohibitions, because in the verse adjacent to it it is stated

“He shall not profane his word,”

and we expound:

Anyone who is included in explicit-vow capacity —

is included in “he shall not profane.” And anyone who is not included in explicit-vow capacity —

is not included in “he shall not profane.”

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raised an objection

to the amoraim who disagree with Rav Huna, and

to support Rav Huna,

from what we learned in a beraita: