Niddah 52b (נב:) — the Talmud in English

And therefore

“He answered him with a tempest”.

As it is written: “

And the Lord answered

Job from the tempest

that is, from the hair on your head comes your answer],

and He said to him:

Foolish one in the world! I created many hairs [

hairs]

on a person’s head, and for each and every hair I created a separate follicle for it,

so that

two hairs would not draw nourishment from a single follicle.

For if two hairs were to draw nourishment from a single follicle, it would weaken a person’s eyesight!

I did not confuse one follicle with another; did I confuse Job with enemy?!

Rava’s words prove that two hairs do not draw nourishment from a single follicle. But how, then, did we say that two hairs in a single follicle are considered a sign?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This refers to

the body, where two hairs grow from a single follicle.

That refers to

the head, where each hair on a person’s head is found in a separate follicle.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The two hairs that they said

are a sign of maturity need not be adjacent to one another. Rather,

even

if one is found

on the kaf

which is a kind of thickened flesh shaped like a spoon, above the organ and below the abdomen] and

one on the testicles.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: The two hairs that they said, even one on her back

below that place in a woman, and

one on her abdomen.

And likewise,

one on the knuckles of the fingers of her hand and one on the knuckles of the toes of her foot—this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, of Kfar Akko, who said it in the name of Rabbi Shimon.

And the Rabbis

what do they hold?

Rav Hisda said [according to the reading of the Bach: Rav Ashi]: Two hairs are not a sign

until

there are two hairs in one place!

The Sages taught: Until when may a girl perform refusal? Until she grows two hairs; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Until the black increases.

Rabbi Yosei says: Until it surrounds the corona

with hairs.

Ben Shelakot says: Until she is fully covered

so that the lower area is covered with continuous hair.

And Rabbi Shimon said: Hanina ben Hakhinai encountered me in Sidon and said

to me,

“When you reach Rabbi Akiva, say to him: Until when may a girl perform refusal? If he says to you, ‘Until she grows two hairs,’ say to him: But did not Ben Shelakot testify in the presence of all of you in Yavne, ‘Until she is fully covered,’ and you said nothing to him?”

And Rabbi Shimon added:

“When I came to Rabbi Akiva

and told him the words of Hanina ben Hakhinai,

he said to me

Rabbi Akiva:

A.

“I do not know what this ‘being fully covered’ is

A.

that is, I disagree with this ruling].

B.

As for

Ben Shelakot, I do not know him.

C. And as for the substance of the question,

“Until when may a girl perform refusal,”

the answer is:

“Until she grows two hairs.”

Mishna:

The two black hairs

that are

mentioned with regard to

a red heifer, rendering it unfit,

and

the two white hairs that render one impure

with regard to leprous afflictions.

And

the two hairs

mentioned everywhere

with regard to a male child and a female child are not considered significant unless they are long enough

to bend their tips back to their roots; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Eliezer says: They must be long enough to pinch

to grasp a small amount

with a fingernail.

Rabbi Akiva says: They must be long enough to be cut with a pair of scissors

scissors.

Gemara:

Rav Hisda said in the name of Mar Ukva: The halakha follows the words of all of them, stringently.

Thus, once the hairs have reached the smallest measure, the woman may no longer perform refusal, while she performs halitza only when her hairs have reached the greatest measure. ,

Mishna:

Zhenshchina, uvidевshaya pyatno, okazalas' v zatrudnitel'nom polozhenii,

to est' ona nashla krovyanoe pyatno na odezhde, no ne znaet, kogda krov' vyshla iz nee i kogda ona stalа nechistoi [vsyakaya nechistota iz-za pyaten otnositsya k postanovleniyam Mudretsov, a po zakonu Tori zhenshchina stanovitsya nechistoi tol'ko pri vydelenii krovi iz tela, no ne pri obnaruzhenii krovi na odezhde]. Teper' neizvesten «nachalo ee menstrual'nogo perioda»: ona ne znaet, kogda nachalis' sem' dnei menstruatsii i kogda nachalis' sleduyushchie odinnadtsat' dnei zavidut.

Esli ona nosila odezhdu s etim pyatnom tri dnya, a razmer pyatna bol'she trekh grisov razmer pyatna, delayushchii ego nechistym, — tol'ko gris i nemnogo bol'she],

One who sees a stain is thereby in a disordered state,

because she found a bloodstain on her clothing and does not know when the blood left her or from when she became impure [all impurity resulting from stains is rabbinic; by Torah law, a woman becomes impure only through seeing blood emerge from her body, not through finding it on her clothing]. From now on, the “opening of her menstrual period” is unknown, since she does not know when her seven days of menstruation are and when her eleven days of ziva begin.

And if she wore the garment with the stain for three days, and the stain’s size was greater than three gris

to est' mozhet byt', v kazhdyi den' poyavlyalos' otdel'noe pyatno razmerom v gris i nemnogo bol'she. Zhenshchina, u kotoroi krov' vykhodit tri dnya podryad v techenie odinnadtsati dnei posle okonchaniya ee semidnevnogo menstrual'nogo perioda, stanovitsya bol'shoi zavah i dolzhna schitat' sem' chistykh dnei,

the measure of a stain that renders her impure is only when the stain is the size of one gris plus a little],

and she is concerned that she may be a zava, lest there was an additional stain on each day measuring one gris plus a little. A woman who sees blood for three consecutive days during the eleven days after completing her week of menstruation becomes a major zava and must count seven clean days, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

takogo

statusa bol'shoi zavah!

Gemara:

Gemara rassuzhdaet:

kogo nazyvayut Mudretsami?

Eto rabbi Hanina ben Antignos.

And the Sages say: There is no concern in the case of such stains

for ziva

impurity!

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

Who are the Sages?

It is Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Stains

of the type discussed in the Mishna, in which a stain measuring three gris plus a little was found,

do not give rise to ziva. And sometimes stains lead to ziva. How so? If she wore three garments that had been examined for her and found a stain on them, or if she saw blood for two days

blood emerging from her body

and

on the third day she found a stain on

one garment, these are the stains that lead to ziva.

And we inquire concerning this:

Now, in the case of three garments, where she did not see [blood] emerging from her body, we are concerned.

If she saw

two days

from her body

and

one day there was a stain on

one garment, is it necessary

to state this? What additional point did Rabbi Hanina teach in the latter clause? It follows by a kal va-chomer from the first clause.

And we answer:

Lest you say that in any such case

she even

brings a sacrifice

of a zava,

and it is eaten

as the law of a definite sacrifice requires.

It teaches us

that this is only a concern that she is a zava, and she brings

only the bird sin-offering brought in a case of uncertainty, which is not eaten.

Rava said: With this, Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus decisively defeated the Rabbis:

he gave a decisive answer

to the Rabbis: What is different about less than three gris in one place, for which we are not concerned

that she is a zava,

as we say that she saw it over two days

and she does not become a major zava after two days?

With regard to three gris in one place as well, let us say that two and a half

gris

she saw from her body, and the other

half was deposited there

along with the filth

of the menstrual blood by a louse [a type of vermin], and this half

is louse blood.

And the Rabbis

since it is possible to divide

these three gris plus a little

into one gris plus a little for each

of the three

days, we do not attribute it

to a louse.

And we inquire concerning this:

And Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus

held: It is only when there are three gris in one place that we are not concerned; but when there are three places separate from one another, we are concerned! You said that in the case of three garments garments, yes; in the case of three places on the same garment, no! И мы отвечаем: