Niddah 47b (מז:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon says: Once it has become flattened

once it has softened]

the kaf

which is the swollen area below, above the genital area, since when she matures that area becomes soft.

And so 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 a paga above —

it is known that she has not produced two hairs

below.

If she is a bohel above —

it is known that she has produced two hairs

below.

If she is a tzemel above —

it is known that the kaf has become flattened

below.

What is the meaning of “kaf”?

Rav Huna said: There is a swollen area

in a woman

above that place,

which is initially hard.

Once she matures —

it gradually becomes flattened

and becomes soft.

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

They asked Rabbi: What is the halakha —

in accordance with whose opinion?

He sent them a reply:

The halakha is

in accordance with all of their opinions, stringently.

Therefore, if one of the signs is observed, her father may no longer dissolve her vows, out of uncertainty as to whether she has already reached maturity; and if he accepts betrothal on her behalf, she is betrothed subject to uncertainty.

Rav Pappa and Rav Hinnana, son of Rav Ika,

disagree as to where Rabbi’s statement, “The halakha is in accordance with all of their opinions, stringently,” should be taught.

One teaches it with regard to this

our Mishna.

And the other teaches it with regard to “a Tyrian courtyard,”

the subject of a dispute concerning the laws of tithes.

As we learned

[Maasrot 3:5]:

What 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 enters a “Tyrian courtyard,” it is considered to have already reached a significant courtyard and is obligated in tithes. The Sages disputed what constitutes this Tyrian courtyard, whose entry renders the produce obligated in tithes.

Rabbi Shimon says: “A Tyrian courtyard”

is a courtyard

in which utensils are kept under protection.

What is the meaning of “a Tyrian courtyard”?

Why is the courtyard called by this name?

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: In Tyre, they station a watchman at the entrance to the courtyard.

Therefore, every protected courtyard is called a Tyrian courtyard, as it is protected like the courtyards of the people of Tyre.

Rabbi Akiva says: Any

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

one person opens

and does not close,

and another closes

and does not open, is not considered a courtyard that determines the obligation in tithes, and it is

exempt

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

Rabbi Neḥemya says: Any

courtyard

that

is enclosed on all sides, and therefore

a person is not embarrassed to eat in it,

since the fence conceals him from passersby outside,

is obligated

in tithes.

Rabbi Yosei says: Any

courtyard

into which

strangers enter, who do not live in the houses in the courtyard,

and they do not say to him

who enters

“What are you seeking

here?”—that courtyard is

exempt

from tithes, even though a person is not embarrassed to eat in it.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If there were

two courtyards,

one inside the other,

and one enters the inner courtyard through the outer courtyard,

the inner courtyard is obligated,

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

And the outer courtyard is exempt

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

They asked Rabbi: What is the halakha in accordance with whose opinion?

In accordance with whose opinion should one act in defining a Tyrian courtyard that is obligated in tithes?

He said to them: The halakha is in accordance with all of their opinions, stringently.

If a courtyard possesses any one of the features that, according to one of the tannaim, renders it obligated in tithes, one must tithe the produce due to the uncertainty that perhaps the halakha follows that tanna.

Mishna:

The Mishna discusses the laws of a eunuch and an aylonit, who cannot bear children and cannot reach the status of majority at the regular age for a male or female.

A female

who is twenty years old and has not produced

yet

two hairs

[which are signs of majority]

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

then she becomes an adult, and we know that

she is an aylonit.

The law of an aylonit is that if her husband dies without leaving viable offspring, she is not subject to the bond of yibbum to her husband’s brother, and he is not obligated either to perform halitza with her or to perform yibbum with her. Rather, she

neither performs halitza nor undergoes yibbum,

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

The same applies to a male:

one who is twenty years old and has not produced two hairs must bring proof

that he is twenty years old, and

then he becomes an adult, and we know that

he is a eunuch.

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

does not perform halitza

with the deceased’s wife. For the passage concerning halitza states: “He does not wish to establish his brother’s name in Israel,” meaning that the yavam does not wish to father offspring in the name of the deceased; therefore, the yevama removes his shoe, spits before him, and says: “So shall be done to the man who will not build his brother’s house.” But since a eunuch is not capable of fathering offspring, his failure to perform yibbum is not because he refuses to establish his brother’s name; it is because he is incapable of doing so.

And he does not perform yibbum

with his deceased brother’s wife, because he is not capable of fathering offspring and establishing his brother’s name.

These are the words of Beit Hillel,

who maintain that the age determining that a person is a eunuch or an aylonit is twenty years.

But

Beit Shammai say: Both this one

[the eunuch]

and this one

[the aylonit]

are eighteen years old.

If they have not produced two hairs by the age of eighteen, this is an indication that their bodies are incapable of producing the signs at all, and likewise that they are incapable of having children.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The male —

in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel,

twenty years old.

And the female —

in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai,

eighteen years old. Since

the

maturity of

a woman comes earlier than that of a man.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the ruling stated in the Mishna, that if a person has not produced hairs by the age of twenty, all agree that he is a eunuch:

And we raise a contradiction

from what we learned in the earlier Mishna, which apparently contradicts this:

It is the same for me

as regards the intercourse of

a nine-year-old boy and one day,

which is not effective to create a complete marriage with his yevama, but is effective only as a maamar; and when he grows up and has intercourse with her, his yevama becomes his full-fledged wife,

and it is the same for me as regards a twenty-year-old who has not produced two hairs,

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

It is apparent that even a twenty-year-old is considered a minor, since he has still not produced two hairs and must wait until he produces 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 producing two hairs because he is a eunuch. This contradicts the Mishna here, which maintains that a twenty-year-old is an adult and is already a eunuch.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said: And this is so

when our Mishna is speaking of one

in whom signs of a eunuch have appeared,

such as that his hair is defective, no vapor emerges from his body when he bathes, and his body is smooth. Therefore, when he has these signs, has not produced 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 if 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: This is also precise,

as the Mishna is speaking of one in whom signs of a eunuch have appeared,

as it teaches

in the Mishna

“and he is a eunuch”; conclude from it

that it is speaking of one in whom we see signs of a eunuch.

The Gemara asks:

And if signs of a eunuch have not appeared in him, until when?

Until what age do we continue to attribute his failure to produce hairs to the fact that he is still a minor, rather than to the fact that he is a eunuch?

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Until half his years.

When they came before Rabbi Ḥiyya

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

, if

the person being examined was

thin, he said to them: Fatten him,

make him gain weight.

If

the person being examined was

healthy,

fat,

he said to them: Make him thin.

The reason for this is

that these signs

[the hairs]

sometimes appear because of thinness, and sometimes they appear because of robust health.

Rav said: The halakha throughout this chapter is —

from one time to the corresponding time.

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

And Ulla said: Only that which

is

taught

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

taught.

But

where the Mishna

does not teach

“and one day,”

it is not taught.

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

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

But according to Rav, let it teach

“and one day” in our Mishna as well!

And furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

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

The beginning of

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

is considered like the twentieth year

in full

for all its matters,

and likewise Rabbi ruled in Lod that the eighteenth year, once thirty days of it have elapsed —

is considered 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 — maintains

in accordance with Beit Shammai. This

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

in accordance with Beit Hillel.

But according to Rav, it is difficult!

The beraita indicates that it is sufficient for the year merely to begin!?

The Gemara answers: It is

a dispute between tannaim,

and Rav rules in accordance with the tanna who maintains that in the case of a eunuch as well, complete years are required, whereas the Mishna and the beraita maintain that complete years are not required.

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

As it is taught: The year stated in the Torah with regard to

the

Sacred offerings,

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

the year stated in the Torah with regard to

the

houses of walled cities,

where, if one sells a house in a walled city, he may redeem it [repurchase it against the buyer’s will] until two years have passed; and if he does not redeem his house within two years, he can no longer redeem it,

the two years that are

stated

in

the Torah with regard to

ancestral land,

where, if one sells ancestral land that he inherited from his father, he may redeem it against the buyer’s will after two years,

the six years that are

stated

in

the Torah with regard to

a Hebrew slave,

who goes free after six years of labor,

and likewise the years of a male and of a female—and the Gemara assumes that this is the law stated in the Mishna, that a twenty-year-old who has not produced hairs is a eunuch—

as the Gemara assumes that this is the law stated in the Mishna: a twenty-year-old who has not grown pubic hairs is a eunuch,

all of them

require complete years

from one time to the corresponding time.

The Gemara explains:

With regard to the year stated concerning Sacred offerings, from where do we derive

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

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

its own year,

a year that has passed over it,

and not a calendar year.

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

With regard to the year stated concerning houses of walled cities, from where do we derive it? The verse states: “Until the completion of the year of his sale” —

the year of his sale, and not a calendar year,

With regard to the two years of ancestral land, from where do we derive it?