Niddah 52b — the Talmud in English

And therefore

“He answered him in the storm”.

As it is written, “

And the Lord answered” ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

Job from the storm

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

“and He said to him,”

“Foolish one in the world! I created many hairs [

hairs]

on a person’s head, and for every single hair I created for him its own follicle,

so that

two should not draw nourishment from one follicle.

For if two were to draw nourishment from one follicle, it would weaken the light of a person’s eyes!!”

A follicle in place of a follicle was not confused for me, yet Job in place of enemy was confused for me?!

And it is proven from Rava’s words that there are not two hairs drawing nourishment from one follicle; and how did we say that two hairs in one follicle are called a sign?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This is

in the body, where on a person’s body there are two hairs in one follicle.

This is

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

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: The two hairs that they said

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

even

if they were found

one on the palm

which is a sort of thickened flesh in the shape of a palm above the organ and below the abdomen]

and one on the testicles.

It was also taught likewise: 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 joints of the fingers of her hand and one on the joints of the fingers of her foot—these are the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Judah, a man of Kefar 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 the two hairs are 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.

The Sages taught: Until when may the girl refuse the marriage? Until she produces two hairs; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: Until the black increases.

Rabbi Yose says: Until the corona is surrounded

by hairs.

Ben Shaleket says: Until she be covered with hair,

so that that lower place is covered with continuous hairs.

And Rabbi Shimon said: Hanania ben Hakhinai found me in Sidon, and he said

to me,

“When you arrive before Rabbi Akiva, say to him: Until when may the girl refuse the marriage? If he says to you, ‘Until she produces two hairs,’ say to him: But did not Ben Shaleket testify in the presence of all of you in Yavneh, ‘Until she be covered with hair,’ and you said nothing to him?!”

And Rabbi Shimon added:

“When I came before Rabbi Akiva,”

and I told him the words of Hanania ben Hakhinai,

he said to me,

Rabbi Akiva:

a.

“This being covered with hair—I do not know what it is

that is, I differ concerning this law].

b. As for

Ben Shaleket, I do not know him.

c. And concerning the substance of the question,

“Until when may the girl refuse the marriage,”

the answer is:

“Until she produces two hairs.”

Mishna:

The two hairs

black

mentioned concerning the red heifer

disqualify it,

and

the two white hairs that render impure

with skin afflictions.

And

the two hairs

mentioned everywhere

in a male child and a female child are not considered unless they have

enough length for their tips to be bent back to their roots; these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Enough to pluck

a little

with a fingernail.

Rabbi Akiva says: Enough that they can be taken with a pair

of scissors.

Gemara:

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

For at the smallest measure the woman can no longer refuse the marriage, while she performs halitza only when she has hairs of the largest measure. ,

Mishna:

A woman who sees a stain is thereby unsettled,

for she found a bloodstain on her garments and does not know when the blood came from her and from when she became impure [all impurity of stains is rabbinic, and by Torah law a woman becomes impure only through seeing from her body and not through finding it on her garments]. From now on, the “opening of her menstruation” is not known, since she does not know when her seven days of menstruation are and when her eleven days of flux begin.

And if she wore the garment with the stain for three days, and the size of the stain is more than three gris for the measure of a stain that renders impure is only when the stain is the size of a gris and a little more],

and

she is

concerned on account of flux,

lest there was an additional stain of the measure of approximately a gris on each day. And a woman who sees blood for three consecutive days during the eleven days after she has completed her week of menstruation becomes a major zava and must count seven clean days,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: With such stains there is no

such

concern on account of flux!

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses:

Who are the Sages?

It is Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus.

For it was taught: Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Stains

of the kind in the Mishna, in which a stain was found of the size of three gris and more,

do not involve concern on account of flux. And sometimes stains lead to flux. How so? She wore three checked garments and found a stain on them, or she saw for two days

blood coming from her body,

and

on the third day she found a stain on

one garment—these are the stains that lead to flux.

And we raise it:

Now, in the case of three garments, where she did not see it coming from her body, we are concerned;

she saw

two days

from her body

and

one day a stain on

one garment—is it necessary?

And what did Rabbi Hanina add in the latter clause? Is this not a kal va-chomer from the first clause?

And we answer:

Lest you say, in any such case

even

she brings a sacrifice

of a zava,

and it is eaten

according to the law of a definite sacrifice.

It teaches us

that this is only a concern of flux, and she brings only a bird sin-offering brought for a doubt, which is not eaten.

Rava said: In this matter he defeated them,

he gave a decisive answer,

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus [gave] to the Rabbis: What is different about less than three gris in one place, for which we are not concerned

for a zava,

because we say that she saw it over two days?

And over two days she does not become a major zava.

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

gris

she saw from her body, and the other

half, let it be said, came

along with the filth

of the menstrual blood; a crushed insect [a species of lice] arrived there, and this half,

it is the blood of a crushed insect.

And the Rabbis: Since it is possible to divide

these three gris and more

into a gris and more for each

of these three

days, we do not attribute it

to a crushed insect.

And we raise it:

And Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus

held:

It is specifically when there are three gris in one place that we are not concerned; but when there are three places

separate

we are concerned!

You said, in three garments

clothes,

yes, in three places

in the same garment,

no!

And we answer:

He says this to them according to the words of the Rabbis.

“For me, in three divisions, yes; in three places, no. Rather, according to you, at least concede to me that where I saw three griss in one place, we say: I saw two and a half from her body, whereas the other one, because of the filth, is the blood of a louse!”

And the Rabbis: Since it is possible to divide it into a gris and something more for each day, we do not attribute it.

The Sages taught: One who sees a stain

and does not know whether the stain was formed all at once or several times over the course of several days,

if it contains

in the stain a measure

sufficient to divide three griss, which are

each

a gris and something more, she is concerned

because of zov, lest the stain have been combined from three separate sightings of a gris and something more over three separate days, and she is therefore a zavah.

And if not,

that the stain was less than the measure of three griss and something more,

she is not concerned,

for the Sages did not decree that one should be concerned about a stain that is less than the measure of a gris and something more. Therefore, she need not be concerned lest she saw, over the course of three days, three sightings that did not have the measure of a gris and something more.

Rabbi Judah ben Agra says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: In both this case and that case, she is concerned!

Rabbi Yosei is concerned lest she saw a gris and something more on the first day, and on the second day, during bein ha-shemashot, she saw another gris and something more. This sighting during bein ha-shemashot is considered for her as a sighting on two days, because it is possible that part of the sighting was on the day that had passed and part of it on the following day. It follows that she saw over the course of three consecutive days, and she is therefore a zavah.

The Sages, however, were not concerned about a sighting during bein ha-shemashot, and their reasoning is explained before us in the Gemara.