Niddah 52a — the Talmud in English

To include ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

fragrant substances

spices over which one recites “Who creates kinds of fragrances” before them, but not afterward, because the enjoyment is slight.

Mishna:

A minor girl who has produced two hairs [after she has reached eleven years and one day, according to the one who says, “within the period is like after the period,” or after she has reached twelve years and one day, according to the one who says, “within the period is like before the period,”]

she is an adult; and if she falls before a yavam, she

either performs halitza or undergoes yibbum.

And she is liable for all the mitzvot stated in the Torah

as an adult.

And likewise a minor boy who has produced two hairs [at the age of twelve years and one day or at the age of thirteen years and one day, as explained regarding the minor girl]

he is an adult. And therefore he

is liable for all the mitzvot stated in the Torah.

And

he

is fit to be a rebellious and wayward son from the time he produces two hairs until a beard surrounds him [because before he produces two hairs he is a minor and is not subject to punishment, while after a beard surrounds him he is already fit to beget children. And the Torah said “son” who is rebellious and wayward, excluding one who is fit to be a father].

And the tanna of our Mishna explains with regard to which beard the Sages said that once it “surrounds him,” he no longer becomes a rebellious and wayward son:

Once

the

lower

beard

and not

the

upper beard surrounds him.

Rather, the Sages spoke in clean language,

and for that reason they did not say explicitly, “until the lower beard surrounds him,” until the tanna of our Mishna came and explained it.

A minor girl

whom her mother or her brothers married off in a rabbinic marriage can, while she is a minor, perform mi'un regarding her marriage and uproot it without needing a divorce document. But if she did not perform mi'un until she had already

produced two hairs,

she

can no longer perform mi'un

and thereby uproot her rabbinic marriage.

Rabbi Judah says:

she can perform mi'un even after she produces two hairs,

until the black increases!

Until that place becomes black from the abundance of hair.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses:

And since we learned

that a minor girl who has produced two hairs

is liable for all the mitzvot stated in the Torah,

it is obvious that she is like an adult in every respect. If so, this that we learned,

“either performs halitza or undergoes yibbum,”

why do I need it?

And we answer:

To exclude the view of Rabbi Yose,

who says:

“Man”

is written in the passage

of halitza, and not “woman”; therefore, only a minor yavam was excluded from halitza, [as it is stated, “if the man does not wish”].

But a woman, whether an adult or a minor,

who falls before a yavam performs halitza!

It teaches us

the tanna of our Mishna, whose view is not the halakha, but rather:

if she has produced

the woman performing halitza

two hairs, she does not,

and

if not

she has produced them,

she does not

perform halitza!

And we explain:

What is the reason

that the tanna of our Mishna disagrees with Rabbi Yose? After all, “man” is written only with regard to the man performing halitza, and not with regard to the woman performing halitza?

Because

a woman

has the status

of a man

everywhere [except in a place from which the woman was excluded by a specific exposition].

And

we further inquire:

Since the tanna taught

“and likewise the minor boy who has produced two hairs” [after he had already said that a minor girl who produced hairs is liable for the mitzvot],

it is obvious that his intention is to say that the law of a minor boy who has produced two hairs is like the law of the minor girl who has produced hairs. If so, this that the tanna continued to teach and say,

“he is liable for all the mitzvot stated in the Torah,”

why do I need it?

And if you would say, because he needed to teach

later,

“and he is fit to be a rebellious and wayward son

from the time he produces two hairs,” he again wrote that he is liable for the mitzvot from the time he produces two hairs.

But this law itself is also superfluous!

For

we already learned it

before

one time

in tractate Sanhedrin:

When is he a rebellious and wayward son? From the time he produces two hairs until a beard surrounds him. The lower one and not the upper one; rather, the Sages spoke in clean language!

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so,

that both of them are superfluous.

Rather, since he explained the matters of the minor girl, he also explains the matters of the minor boy,

even though he does not introduce anything new concerning them.

We learned in the Mishna:

A minor girl who has produced

two hairs cannot perform mi'un. Rabbi Judah says: until the black increases.

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah! And Rabbi Judah concedes that if she had intercourse after she produced two hairs [she is betrothed to her husband through this intercourse by Torah law], and therefore

and allowing her to refuse even after she had developed two pubic hairs, since the black area had not yet increased,

she can no longer perform mi'un,

even though the hair has not yet become black.

The colleagues of Rav Kahana intended to carry out an act in accordance with Rabbi Judah

and permit her to perform mi'un even after she had produced two hairs, since the black had not yet increased,

even though she had had intercourse,

because they held that she was not betrothed to her husband through this intercourse [because he did not explicitly say to her, “Behold, you are betrothed to me through this intercourse, as a wife,” and he did not intend to betroth her through it, and she too did not consent to this].

Rav Kahana said to them:

And is it not the case that

this is what happened with the daughter of Rabbi Ishmael, who came to the study hall to perform mi'un

against her husband,

and her son

was

mounted on her shoulder?

And on that day the words of Rabbi Ishmael were mentioned in the study hall,

who held that she could perform mi'un even after she had produced two hairs and even after intercourse, since he did not intend to return and betroth her through intercourse, but relied on his earlier rabbinic marriage. Therefore, it was possible for her to perform mi'un even after having intercourse in adulthood and bearing a son.

And she cried a great cry in the study hall.

They were astonished

and said:

Is it possible that

a matter that that righteous man said should cause his offspring to stumble!? [For perhaps the ruling that Rabbi Ishmael issued caused a stumbling for his offspring, so that it emerged that she bore a son without marriage, since through mi'un her betrothal was uprooted retroactively].

is forbidden

For Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Ishmael:

A woman who commits adultery beneath her husband willingly, as the verse says,

“and she was not seized,”

is forbidden

to her husband.

But if she was seized,

under duress,

she is permitted

to him.

And you have

a woman

another

who commits adultery beneath her husband

even though she was not seized,

but committed adultery willingly, she is

permitted

to him.

And who is it?

She is

one whose betrothal is a mistaken betrothal [such as one who betroths a woman on the condition that he is a kohen, and it is found that he is an Israelite, or the betrothal of a minor girl whom her brothers and mother betrothed by rabbinic law],

who, even though her son is mounted on her shoulder, performs mi'un and goes her way!

Even if she had intercourse after she grew up.

For Rabbi Ishmael holds: anyone who has intercourse does so with the intent of the original betrothal, and does not return and betroth her through intercourse once she grows up; and since she is not betrothed to him by Torah law, her adultery while under him does not forbid her to him.

And

when this stumbling occurred,

they convened and concluded,

and the Sages established the halakha:

Until when does the daughter perform mi'un? Until she produces two hairs.

This is what Rav Kahana asked his colleagues: Behold, they convened and ruled that she may not perform mi'un.

Explain:

the colleagues of Rav Huna

did not carry out the act [and did not permit her to perform mi'un].

Rabbi Isaac and the students of Rabbi Hanina carried out the act in accordance with Rabbi Judah

and permitted her to perform mi'un after she had produced two hairs,

even though she had had intercourse

in her adulthood.

Rav Shaman bar Abba went and reported it before Rabbi Yohanan.

Rabbi Yohanan went and reported it before Rabbi Judah Nesi’a. He sent

Rabbi Judah Nesi’a sent

soldiers [his troops]

and removed her

from her second husband [whom she had married after performing mi'un against her first husband]!

Rav Hisda said in the name of Mar Ukva:

This that Rabbi Judah said, that she can perform mi'un until the black increases,

not that the black literally increases, but rather

until

two hairs lie down [long],

and appear as though the black has increased over the white.

Rava said:

Until there are

two hairs that extend from lip to lip.

Rabbi Helbo said in the name of Rav Huna: The two hairs that they said

through which she becomes an adult,

must have indentations at their roots [according to the Meiri, these indentations are “thin protrusions in which moisture gathers and from which the hairs draw nourishment, because whenever there is no indentation at its root, it has arisen accidentally and will eventually fall out].

Rav Malkiyo said in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava: Indentations, even though there are no

hairs

there, are a sign of adulthood, since there is no indentation without a hair; certainly there had already been a hair there, and it fell out!

And since Rav Malkiyo’s name was mentioned here, and there is an amora whose name is similar, Rav Malkiya,

Rav Hanina, son of Rav Ika, said

let this rule be held in your hand: the laws of

spit, maidservants, and indentations are

those that Rav Malkiyo

said, whereas the laws of

forelock, spoonful of ashes, and cheese are

those that Rav Malkiya

said!

Rav Pappa said

another rule: laws relating to the matters stated in

the Mishna and the metnita are those that Rav Malkiya

said, whereas laws stated as a

tradition

of the one who transmitted them,

Rav Malkiyo

said them himself.

And Rav Pappa added:

And the sign

to know who related to a metnita and who stated a tradition:

A metnita [in a play on words],

is a queen!

That is, Rav Malkiya relates to the words of the metnita and the Mishna.

And we explain:

What is the difference between them

what is the difference between Rav Pappa and Rav Hanina, son of Rav Ika?

There is a difference between them

in the law of

maidservants,

which belongs to the Mishna. According to Rav Pappa, Rav Malkiya stated it, since all his laws are those of the Mishna and the metnita, whereas Rav Hanina, son of Rav Ika, included this law among the laws of Rav Malkiyo.

Rav Ashi said: Mar Zutra said to me, Rabbi Hanina of Sura found difficulty [he had difficulty]

with it:

Why

did the tanna not happen to [did not trouble himself to]

teach us the law of

indentations that they are a sign of adulthood even when no hair is visible?

And he answered:

If he had taught us

“

indentations,”

I would have said that there must be two hairs in two indentations.

Therefore this law was not stated in the Mishna or in a beraita, until Rav Malkiyo came and taught in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava that indentations are a sign of hairs that had been present and fell out.

And it teaches us

that there is no need for two hairs in two separate indentations, but rather

even two hairs in one indentation

are a sign of adulthood.

And we raise an objection:

And is there such a case

that there should be two hairs in one indentation?

But it is written

in the Book of Job,

“With a storm He would crush me, and He would multiply my wounds for nothing.”

And Rava said

in explanation of this verse:

Job blasphemed in a storm,

and therefore

they answered him with a storm!

“He blasphemed in a storm”: He said

Job

before Him: Master of the Universe, perhaps a storm wind passed before You, and You confused Job with enemy [for You strike Job, Your beloved, as though he were Your enemy]?

“With a storm He would break me, and multiply my wounds without cause.”

And Rava said

in explaining this verse:

Job blasphemed in a storm,

and therefore

they answered him with a storm!

“He blasphemed in a storm”: He said

Job

before Him: Master of the Universe, perhaps a storm passed before You and You confused Job with an enemy

since You are striking Your beloved Job as though he were Your enemy?