Niddah 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

To include

fragrant substances

spices over which one recites “Who creates various kinds of spices” beforehand, but not afterward, because the pleasure derived from them is slight.

Mishna:

A girl who has brought two hairs

after she has completed eleven years and one day, according to the one who says, “within the period is like after the period,” or after she has completed twelve years and one day, according to the one who says, “within the period is like before the period”—she is considered an adult. And if she falls before a yavam for levirate marriage, she

either performs halitza or enters into levirate marriage.

And she is obligated in all the mitzvot stated in the Torah

as an adult.

And likewise, a boy who has brought two hairs

at the age of twelve years and one day or at the age of thirteen years and one day, as explained with regard to the girl—is an adult. Therefore, he

is obligated in all the mitzvot stated in the Torah.

And

he

is fit to become a wayward and rebellious son from the time he brings two hairs until his lower beard encircles

because before he has brought two hairs he is a minor and is not subject to punishment, while after his beard has encircled he is already fit to father children. And the Torah says “son” with regard to the wayward and rebellious son, excluding one who is fit to be a father.

The tanna of our Mishna explains with regard to which beard the Sages said that once it “encircles,” he can no longer become a wayward and rebellious son:

Once

the

lower beard

and not

the

upper beard encircles.

Rather, the Sages spoke in euphemistic language,

and therefore they did not state explicitly, “until his lower beard encircles,” until the tanna of our Mishna came and explained it.

A girl

whom her mother or brothers married off through a rabbinic marriage can perform refusal, as a minor, with regard to her betrothal and thereby annul it without requiring a bill of divorce. But if she did not perform refusal until

she had brought two hairs,

she

can no longer perform refusal

and thereby annul her rabbinic marriage.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

She can perform refusal even after she brings two hairs,

until the black hairs increase!

Until that place becomes black from the abundance of hairs.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses:

And since we learned

that a girl who has brought two hairs

is obligated in all the mitzvot stated in the Torah,

it is obvious that she is considered an adult in every respect. If so, why do I need

either performs halitza or enters into levirate marriage,

why do I need this?

And we answer:

To exclude the position of Rabbi Yosei.

As he says:

“Man”

is written in the passage

of halitza, and not “woman.” Therefore, only a minor yavam is 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 opinion is not the halakha, but rather

that if she has brought

the woman performing halitza

two hairs, she does not,

and

if not

she has not brought them,

she does not

perform halitza.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that the tanna of our Mishna disagrees with Rabbi Yosei? 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

is subject

like a man

everywhere, except where a woman is excluded by a special derivation.

And

we further inquire:

Since the tanna taught

“and likewise, a boy who has brought two hairs”

after he had already said that a girl who brought hairs is obligated in the mitzvot, it is obvious that he intends to say that the status of a boy who has brought two hairs is the same as that of a girl who has brought hairs. If so, why did the tanna continue and teach

“he is obligated in all the mitzvot stated in the Torah,”

why do I need this?

And if you would say that, since he needed to teach

later

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

from the time he brings two hairs,” he repeated here that he is obligated in the mitzvot from the time he brings two hairs—

this law itself is also superfluous!

For

we already learned

it

once

in tractate Sanhedrin:

“When is he a wayward and rebellious son? From the time he brings two hairs until his beard encircles. The lower beard and not the upper beard; rather, the Sages spoke in euphemistic language!”

And we answer:

Indeed,

both of them are superfluous.

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

even though he does not teach anything new with regard to them.

We learned in the Mishna:

A girl who has brought

two hairs can no longer perform refusal. Rabbi Yehuda says: Until the black hairs increase.

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda! And Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if she had intercourse after she brought two hairs

she becomes betrothed to her husband through this intercourse by Torah law, and therefore

she can no longer perform refusal,

even though the hair has not yet become black.

The colleagues of Rav Kahana thought to act in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

and permit her to perform refusal even after she had brought two hairs, since the black hairs had not yet increased,

and even though she had had intercourse.

They held that she does not become betrothed to her husband through this intercourse, because he had not explicitly said to her, “Behold, you are betrothed to me through this intercourse as a wife,” nor had he intended to betroth her through it, and she had not agreed to this either.

Rav Kahana said to them:

But

was this not the incident involving the daughter of Rabbi Yishmael, who came to the beit-midrash to perform refusal

to her husband,

with her son

who was

riding on her shoulder?

And on that day the words of Rabbi Yishmael were mentioned in the beit-midrash,

for he held that she could perform refusal even after bringing two hairs and even after intercourse, since he did not intend to betroth her anew through intercourse, but relied on his earlier rabbinic marriage. Therefore, it was possible for her to perform refusal even after she had intercourse as an adult and given birth to a son.

And she wept a great cry in the beit-midrash.

They were astonished

and said:

Is it possible that

a matter stated by that righteous man should cause his offspring to stumble!?

Perhaps the halakha that Rabbi Yishmael ruled led to a stumbling block for his offspring, since it emerges that she gave birth to a son without marriage, because through refusal her betrothal was retroactively annulled.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:

A woman who willingly commits adultery while married, as the verse states,

“and she was not seized,”

is forbidden

to her husband.

But if she was seized,

under coercion,

she is permitted

to him.

And there is

a woman

other

who commits adultery while married

even though she was not seized,

but committed adultery willingly, nevertheless

she is permitted

to him.

And who is this?

It is

one whose betrothal was a mistaken betrothal

such as one who betrothed a woman on the condition that he was a koen, but it turned out that he was an Israelite; or the betrothal of a minor whom her brothers or mother betrothed through rabbinic authority—

even though her son is riding on her shoulder, she performs refusal and goes on her way!

Even if she had intercourse after she became an adult.

Rabbi Yishmael holds that every man who has intercourse does so with the intent of relying on the original betrothal, and does not betroth her anew through intercourse once she becomes an adult. Since she is not betrothed to him by Torah law, her adultery while married does not render her forbidden to him.

And

when this stumbling occurred,

they convened and concluded,

and the Sages established the halakha:

Until when may the daughter perform refusal? Until she brings two hairs.

This is what Rav Kahana challenged his colleagues with: They had convened and ruled that she may not perform refusal.

It was explained:

Rav Huna’s colleagues

did not act

and did not permit her to perform refusal.

Rabbi Yitzhak and the students of Rabbi Hanina acted in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

and permitted her to perform refusal after she had brought two hairs,

even though she had had intercourse

as an adult.

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

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

Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a sent

soldiers

and

removed her

from her second husband, whom she had married after performing refusal with her first husband!

Rav Hisda said in the name of Mar Ukva:

That which Rabbi Yehuda said, that she can perform refusal until the black hairs increase,

does not mean that the black hairs actually increase; rather,

until

there are two lying hairs

long hairs

that appear as though the black hairs have increased over the white.

Rava said:

Until there are

two hairs extending from one lip to the other.

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 “fine protrusions in which moisture gathers, from which the hairs draw nourishment. For whenever there is no indentation at the root, the hair has appeared by chance and is destined to fall out.”

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

hairs

there,

they are nevertheless a sign of maturity, since there is no indentation without a hair; certainly a hair had previously been there and had fallen out!

Since Rav Malkio’s name was mentioned here, and there is an amora whose name is similar, Rav Malkia,

Rav Hanina, son of Rav Ika, said

Keep this rule in your hand: The laws of

the spit, maidservants, and indentations were stated by Rav Malkio, while the laws of

the forelock, stove ash, and cheese were stated by Rav Malkia

.

Rav Pappa said

another rule: The laws relating to matters stated in

the

Mishna and beraita were stated by Rav Malkia, whereas the laws stated as

a

teaching

of the one who said them

were stated by Rav Malkio

himself.

Rav Pappa added:

And the mnemonic

for knowing who related to the beraita and who stated a teaching is:

Beraita

as a play on words,

“queen”!

That is, Rav Malkia is associated with the words of the beraita and the Mishna.

And we explain:

What difference is there between them

between Rav Pappa and Rav Hanina, son of Rav Ika?

There is a difference between them

with regard to the law of

maidservants,

which belongs to the Mishna. According to Rav Pappa, this was stated by Rav Malkia, since all his laws concern the Mishna and beraita; whereas Rav Hanina, son of Rav Ika, included this law among Rav Malkio’s laws.

Rav Ashi said: Mar Zutra said to me, Rabbi Hanina of Sura found this difficult

he was perplexed

by it:

Why

did no

tanna

take the trouble to teach us

the law of

indentations,

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

And he answered:

Had he taught us

“indentations,”

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

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

And

it teaches us

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

even two hairs in a single indentation

are a sign of maturity.

And we challenge this:

Is there such a possibility

that there would be two hairs in a single indentation?

But it is written

in the Book of Job:

“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?