Niddah 47b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon says: once it has become flattened

[once it has softened]

the spoon

which is the swollen place below, above the pubic region, since when she matures that place softens.

And thus Rabbi Shimon would say: The Sages gave three signs in a woman below, and corresponding to them

the Sages gave three signs

above:

If she is unripe above —

it is known that she has not brought two hairs

below.

If she is in the stage of ripening above —

it is known that she has brought two hairs

below.

If she is fully mature above —

it is known that the spoon has become flattened

below.

What is “spoon”?

Rav Huna said: There is a swollen place

in a woman,

above that place,

which at first is hard.

Once she grows —

it becomes increasingly flattened

and becomes soft.

The Gemara returns to the dispute in the Mishna concerning what the signs of maturity are:

They asked Rabbi: What is the halakha —

according to whose words?

He sent to them:

the halakha is

according to the words of all of them, to be stringent.

Therefore, if one sees one of the signs, her father can no longer annul her vows because of the doubt that perhaps she is already fully mature; and if he accepts betrothal on her behalf, she is betrothed as a matter of doubt.

Rav Pappa and Rav Hinena, son of Rav Ika,

disagreed about where Rabbi’s statement, “The halakha is according to the words of all of them, to be stringent,” should be taught.

One teaches it concerning this

[our Mishna].

And one teaches it concerning “the Tyrian courtyard,”

where they disputed concerning the laws of tithes.

For we learned

[Maasrot 3:5]:

Which is a Tyrian courtyard that is obligated in tithes?

Produce does not become obligated in tithes until it enters a house or a courtyard. If the produce entered a “Tyrian courtyard,” it is considered to have already reached an important courtyard, and it is obligated in tithes. The Sages disputed what that Tyrian courtyard is, whose receiving the produce obligates it in tithes.

Rabbi Shimon says: “The Tyrian courtyard”

is a courtyard

in which the utensils are guarded.

What is “the Tyrian courtyard”?

Why is the courtyard called this?

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: For in Tyre they appoint a watchman at the entrance of the courtyard.

Therefore, every guarded courtyard is called a Tyrian courtyard, since it is guarded like the courtyard of the people of Tyre.

Rabbi Akiva says: Any

courtyard in which there is no permanent watchman to open and lock, but

one person opens

and does not lock,

and another locks

and is not the one who opens, is not considered a courtyard that establishes [the obligation], and it is

exempt

from tithes. But in a “Tyrian courtyard” there is a watchman, as is customary in Tyre.

Rabbi Nehemiah says: Any

courtyard

that

is enclosed all around, and therefore

a person is not embarrassed to eat inside it,

since he is concealed by the fence from passersby outside,

is obligated

in tithes.

Rabbi Yose says: Any

courtyard

into which people enter

— strangers who do not live in the houses in the courtyard —

and they do not say to him

who enters,

“What are you seeking

here?” — it is

exempt

from tithes, despite the fact that a person is not embarrassed to eat inside it.

Rabbi Judah says: If there were

two

courtyards, one within the other,

and they enter the inner one through the outer courtyard,

the inner one is obligated,

because the members of the outer courtyard do not enter it.

And the outer one is exempt

because it serves as a passageway for the members of the inner courtyard.

They asked Rabbi: The halakha is according to whose words?

According to whom must one act in defining a Tyrian courtyard that is obligated in tithes?

He said to them: The halakha is according to the words of all of them, to be stringent.

For if it possessed one of the features which, according to one of the tannaim, makes it obligated in tithes, one must tithe because of the doubt, lest the halakha be according to that tanna.

Mishna:

The Mishna deals with the laws of a eunuch and an aylonit, who cannot bear children and cannot reach the state of majority at the ordinary age for a male or a female.

A female

who is twenty years old and has not brought

yet

two hairs

[which are signs of majority]

, shall bring proof that she is twenty years old, and

then she becomes an adult, and we will know that

she is an aylonit.

The law of an aylonit is that if her husband dies without leaving surviving offspring, she does not have the bond of yibbum to her husband’s brother, and he is not obligated to perform halitza with her or to perform yibbum with her; rather, she is

neither released by halitza nor subject to yibbum,

and she is permitted to marry another man. The reason is that concerning the mitzva of yibbum it is said: “And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears [the yevama from the yavam] shall stand in the name of his dead brother, and his name shall not be wiped out from Israel.” But an aylonit, since she is unfit to give birth, is not included in the passage of yibbum.

The same law applies to a male:

one who is twenty years old and has not brought two hairs shall bring proof

that he is twenty years old, and

then he becomes an adult, and we will know that

he is a eunuch.

The law of a eunuch is that if his brother dies, he

does not perform halitza

with the dead man’s wife, because in the passage of halitza it is said: “My yavam refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel,” meaning that the yavam does not wish to father offspring in the name of the deceased; therefore, the yevama removes his shoe and spits before him, and says: “So shall be done to the man who does not build his brother’s house.” But a eunuch, since he is unfit to father offspring, does not perform yibbum not because he refuses to establish a name for his brother, but because he is unable.

And he does not perform yibbum

with the wife of his dead brother, because he is unfit to father offspring and establish a name for his brother.

These are the words of Beit Hillel,

who hold that the age determining a eunuch and an aylonit is twenty years.

But

Beit Shammai say: This one

[the eunuch]

and this one

[the aylonit]

are eighteen years old.

If they have not brought two hairs by the age of eighteen, it is a sign that their bodies are unfit ever to bring signs, and likewise they are unfit to bear children.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The male —

according to the words of Beit Hillel,

twenty years old.

And the female —

according to the words of Beit Shammai,

eighteen years old, because

the

maturity of

a woman comes earlier than that of a man.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the law explained in the Mishna, that if he did not bring hairs at the age of twenty, everyone agrees that he is a eunuch:

And we juxtapose a contradiction

to this, apparently, from what we learned in the preceding Mishna:

It is the same for me

as regards the intercourse of

a boy of nine years and one day,

which is not effective to create a complete marriage with his yevama, but is effective only in the form of maamar, and when he grows and has intercourse, his yevama will be his complete wife,

and it is the same for me with a twenty-year-old who has not brought two hairs,

who likewise cannot perform yibbum through intercourse, but must wait until he grows.

It is demonstrated that even a twenty-year-old is considered a minor, since he has not yet brought two hairs and must wait until he brings them; we do not say that at the age of twenty he is an adult and that the reason he has no hairs is not that he is a minor, but that his body is incapable of bringing two hairs because he is a eunuch. And this is a contradiction to the Mishna here, which holds that a twenty-year-old is an adult and is already a eunuch.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said that Rav said: And this is

the case in which our Mishna speaks:

signs of a eunuch were born in him,

meaning that his hair was defective, when he bathed no vapor emerged from his body, and his body was smooth. Therefore, when he has these signs, has also not brought two hairs [below], and has already reached the age of twenty, we know that he is a eunuch. But if he does not have these signs, then even though he has reached the age of twenty and still has no hairs, it is possible that he is still a minor, and we have no proof that he is a eunuch.

Rava said: It is precise as well,

the Mishna is precise that it speaks of one in whom signs of a eunuch appeared,

as it teaches

in the Mishna

“and he is a eunuch”; conclude from it

that it speaks of a case in which we see signs of a eunuch in him.

The Gemara asks:

And if signs of a eunuch were not born in him, until when?

Until what age shall we continue to attribute the fact that he has not brought hairs to his still being a minor, and not to his being a eunuch?

Rabbi Hiyya taught: Until most of his years.

When they came before Rabbi Hiyya

a twenty-year-old who had not brought his hair, and they wished to know whether he was a minor or a eunuch,

, if

the one being examined was

emaciated, he said to them: Fatten him.

Make him fat.

If

the one being examined was

healthy,

fat,

he said to them: Make him emaciated.

And the reason for this matter is

that these signs

[the hairs]

sometimes come because of emaciation, and sometimes come because of robust health.

Rav said: The halakha throughout the entire chapter —

from one exact time to the corresponding time.

For a complete year is required, and not merely that the year should begin [for example, in the Mishna, twenty complete years must pass for him and he must begin his twenty-first year].

And Ulla said: Only that which

is

taught,

in a place where we find in the Mishna a number of years, and the tanna added and said, “and one day,” meaning until the day of the following year begins, is indeed

taught.

But

in a place where

it is not taught

in the Mishna, “and one day,”

it is not taught.

Therefore, nineteen complete years and somewhat from the beginning of the twentieth year are sufficient.

Granted, according to Ulla, this is why it teaches here “one day,” and here it does not teach it.

But according to Rav, let it teach

also in our Mishna, “and one day”!

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty:

, Rabbi Yosei ben Kifar taught in the name of Rabbi Eliezer:

The beginning of

the twentieth year, once thirty days of it have passed —

it is like the twentieth year

complete

for all its matters,

and likewise Rabbi taught in Lod: the eighteenth year, once thirty days of it have passed —

it is like the eighteenth year for all its matters.

Granted, the statements of Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei ben Kifar —

are not difficult.

For

this

— Rabbi, who said that eighteen years are sufficient — holds

according to Beit Shammai. This

— Rabbi Yosei ben Kifar, who holds that twenty years are required — holds

according to Beit Hillel.

But according to Rav, it is difficult!

For it is explained in the beraita that the year need only begin!?

The Gemara answers: It is a dispute

of tannaim,

and Rav rules according to the tanna who holds that in the case of a eunuch too complete years are required, whereas the Mishna and the beraita hold that complete years are not required.

And from where do we know that this is a dispute of tannaim?

For it was taught: The year mentioned in

the

Torah concerning consecrated things,

such as sacrifices concerning which the Torah said that only a lamb in its first year is fit,

the year mentioned in

the

Torah concerning houses of walled cities,

if one sold a house in a city that has a wall, he may redeem [buy back, against the seller’s will] his house until two years; and if he did not redeem his house within two years, he can no longer redeem it,

the two years that are mentioned

in

the

Torah concerning

an ancestral field,

if one sold an ancestral field that he inherited from his father, he may redeem it against the seller’s will after two years,

the six years that are mentioned

in

the

Torah concerning

a Hebrew slave,

who goes free after six years of labor,

and likewise those concerning a son and those concerning a daughter,

and the Gemara assumes that this is the law explained in the Mishna, that a twenty-year-old who has not brought hairs is a eunuch,

all of them

require complete years

from one exact time to the corresponding time.

The Gemara explains:

The year mentioned concerning consecrated things—from where do we know

that a complete year from one exact time to the corresponding time is required?

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: The verse says, “a lamb in its year” —

its own year,

over which a year has passed,

and not a year according to the count of the world.

For the people of the world begin counting the years immediately, and when Rosh Hashanah arrives they count a second year, even though a complete year has not passed.

The year mentioned concerning houses of walled cities—from where do we know? The verse says, “until the completion of the year of its sale” —

the year of its own sale, and not a year according to the count of the world,

The two years concerning an ancestral field—from where do we know?