Niddah 48a (מח.) — the Talmud in English

The verse states: “By the number

of two harvests it shall be sold to you.”

The word “two” means at least two years, while the word “harvests” comes to include the produce of a third year.

There are times when you sell three harvests in two years.

And in order to consume the produce of three years, at least two complete years are necessary. For if he sold the field in Tishrei, when it was full of the produce of the previous year, and at the end of the first year he harvested that year’s produce, then at the end of the second year he would harvest the produce of the third year; but at the beginning of the second year he still could not harvest the third produce [of the second year],

The six years of the Hebrew slave— from where do we derive this?

The verse states: “He shall work six years, and in the seventh

he shall go free,” and we derive both that he shall work six years and that he shall work a short period of the seventh year, after which he shall go free,

and in the seventh

year according to the calendar of the world

he shall also work.

For example, if he was sold in Nisan, when the first Tishrei arrives he begins counting the second year according to the calendar of the world; in the second Tishrei, the third year, and so on. In the sixth Tishrei he counts the seventh year, and he does not go free until Nisan. It follows that he worked half a year during the seventh year according to the calendar of the world.

“Of a male and of a female”

as stated in the beraita

, what halakhic matter does this serve?

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: It concerns the laws of valuations.

For one who says, “The valuation of so-and-so is incumbent upon me” is obligated to give the Temple treasury an amount based on the age of that person. For example, for a male from one month old until five years old, he gives five shekels, whereas from five years old until the age of twenty, he gives twenty shekels; and the age is determined according to complete years, day for day.

And Rav Yosef said: It concerns the chapter on a child born by caesarean section.

Where it is not stated explicitly [in our Mishna that one who is twenty is considered a eunuch].

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Do you disagree

with Rav?

He said

to Abaye:

No! He stated one matter, and I am stating another matter, and we do not disagree,

for the halakha is that in both cases complete years, day for day, are required.

And this is also logical, for if you would think

that Rav

disagrees

with me,

and

the one who says that it concerns valuations [

Rav]

did not say that it concerns a child born by caesarean section,

it would be difficult:

But Rav said: The halakha throughout the entire chapter

of a child born by caesarean section

is according to complete years, day for day!

If so, Rav too agrees with me that complete years, day for day, are required.

Rather, according to the one who says that it concerns valuations [

Rav],

why did he not say

that the beraita comes

to

include

a child born by caesarean section?

It is analogous to those [

the other laws stated in the beraita]

, just as those are written,

the years stated explicitly in the Torah

, so too these are written,

the years stated explicitly in the Torah [in the laws of valuations].

And the other one,

Rav Yosef—why did he interpret the beraita as referring to a eunuch and not to valuations?

This phrase, “of a male and of a female,”

why did the tanna use this wording if he was speaking about valuations? After all,

he should have stated, “of a male and of a female,”

as this is the wording of the verse concerning valuations. Rather, since the tanna used the language of the Sages and not the language of the verse in the passage on valuations, it follows that he is speaking about the laws of a eunuch.

Rav Yitzhak bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei ben Kippar, who said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer

that complete years, day for day, are not required.

Rav Zeira said: May I merit to ascend

and go up to Eretz Yisrael

, and learn the matter from the mouth of its master,

from Rabbi Elazar himself, and not merely from a report transmitted in his name by Rav Yitzhak bar Naḥmani!

When he ascended

to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Zeira

found Rabbi Elazar.

He said to him

—Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Elazar:

Did you say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei ben Kippar?

He said to him: I inferred this logically, since throughout the entire chapter the Mishna teaches “one day,” whereas here it does not teach this—

Conclude from this that it is logical to rule in accordance with him.

We have returned to you, chapter “A Child Born by Caesarean Section.”

Mishna:

A girl who is twelve years and one day old,

whose lower sign has appeared

—her two hairs—

before

her sign

above [the “bochel” of the breasts, as explained on the preceding page], is deemed an adult for all matters. The fact that the upper sign has not appeared does not prevent her from attaining majority.

[the development called “budding” of the breasts, as explained on the previous folio], is considered an adult for all purposes, because the absence of the upper sign does not prevent her from attaining majority

Therefore, if she came before a yavam, she

either performs halitza or undergoes yibbum.

If

the sign

above

has appeared in her breasts

before the

sign

below,

then

even though it is impossible

for this to occur according to the Sages, for according to them it is certain that if she has manifested the upper sign, she also manifested the two hairs, and if they examined her and did not find them, we say that they certainly were present and fell out. According to Rabbi Meir, however, it is possible that the upper sign will appear without the lower sign appearing, and she is therefore still a minor [because the upper sign by itself is not a sign of majority].

Therefore,

Rabbi Meir says: She neither performs halitza nor undergoes yibbum,

for she is a minor.

And the Sages say: She either performs halitza or undergoes yibbum,

for she is an adult for all matters,

because they said

the Sages:

The lower sign can appear before the upper sign, but the upper sign cannot appear before the lower sign.

And if the upper sign appeared and they examined her but did not find hairs below, it is certain to us that she had hairs, but they fell out.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If the upper sign appeared before the lower sign,

even though it is impossible

for the upper sign to appear without the lower sign.

The Gemara asks:

But it did appear!

How, then, did they say, “even though it is impossible for it to appear”?

The Gemara answers: What we said,

“it appeared,” according to Rabbi Meir,

who says that it is possible for it to appear before the lower sign. And what we said,

“even though it is impossible for it to appear,” is according to the Sages.

The Gemara challenges: Why was the Mishna phrased “even though it is impossible,” which reflects the view of the Sages, within Rabbi Meir’s statement?

Let it teach

simply:

If the upper sign appeared

before the lower sign,

Rabbi Meir says: She neither performs halitza nor undergoes yibbum,

because it is possible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign, and she is still a minor.

And the Sages say: She either performs halitza or undergoes yibbum,

for she is an adult.

And I would know that it is because it is impossible

for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign

that he says so!?

The Gemara answers:

If it had not taught

explicitly

“even though it is impossible

for the upper sign to appear without the lower sign,” according to the Sages,

I might have thought

that the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Meir should be interpreted differently:

According to everyone, it is possible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign; however,

most women manifest the lower sign first, and a minority manifest the upper sign first.

And Rabbi Meir,

who said that she neither performs halitza nor undergoes yibbum, follows

his own reasoning, as he is concerned about a minority.

Therefore, he is concerned that she may belong to that minority of women in whom the upper sign appears before the lower sign, and she may still be a minor.

And the Sages,

who said that she either performs halitza or undergoes yibbum, also follow

their own reasoning, as they are not concerned about a minority.

Rather, they follow the majority of women in whom the lower sign appears before the upper sign. Therefore, if the upper sign appeared, there is no need to examine the lower sign, since it is reasonable to assume that the lower sign has already appeared.

And this applies when the matter is unstated,

when she was not examined, for then we rely upon the majority.

But where they examined

the lower sign after the upper sign had appeared

and did not find

the two hairs,

say that the Sages concede to Rabbi Meir that the upper sign appeared first,

and she is a minor, since they did not find the lower sign. Therefore,

it teaches us that it is impossible

according to the Sages for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign.

Rather,

even though they did not find hairs when examining the lower sign,

the lower sign certainly appeared

and

it was only that it fell out,

and that is why they did not find it during the examination.

The Gemara asks:

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir,

who holds that the upper sign may precede the lower sign,

this is what is written

[Ezekiel 16]:

“Your breasts were firm, and your hair grew,”

indicating from the order of the verse that the upper sign precedes the lower sign.

But according to the Sages,

who say that the upper sign cannot appear before the lower sign,

it should have said the opposite,

“Your hair grew, and your breasts were firm.”

The Gemara answers:

This is what the verse means:

the verse says:

“Once your breasts were firm, it was known that your hair had grown.”

The Gemara analyzes further:

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir, this is what is written

[in Ezekiel 23]:

“When the Egyptians handled your breasts, for the sake of the breasts of your youth.”

The Egyptians would play with and squeeze your breasts when you were a child, so that they could engage in licentiousness with you when you grew and became a maiden, when the hairs of your youth would be cast outward [that is, “the breasts of your youth,” where the expression refers to casting, as though the hairs of youth were cast and sent outward and appeared as signs of maidenhood]. According to Rabbi Meir, the upper sign appears before the lower sign.

But according to the Sages, it should have said the opposite

in the verse!?

This is what it means: Once your breasts appeared, it was known that your signs of youth had appeared!

Alternatively: What is the meaning of “your breasts”?

[It does not refer to hairs that are cast outward; rather,]

the entire

verse

is written concerning breasts

[and “your breasts” refers to the breasts].

And this is what the Holy One, blessed be He, said

to Israel: