Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Niddah 95:53

מאי שדי כולה בדדי כתיב וה"ק הקב"ה לישראל

was grown,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XVI, 7, since the marks do sometimes appear in this order. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> but according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that the upper mark can never appear first. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> should not the order have been reversed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hair first and breasts afterwards. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> — It is this that was meant: As soon as the 'breasts are fashioned' it is known that 'thy hair was grown'. According to R. Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that the upper mark sometimes appears first. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> one can well see the justification for the order of the Scriptural text, When they from Egypt bruised thy breasts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The upper mark. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> for the bosom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lower one. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> of thy youth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XXIII, 21. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> but according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that the upper mark can never appear first. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> should not the order have been reversed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hair first and breasts afterwards. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> — It is this that was meant: As soon as 'thy breasts' appeared it is known that thy youth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lower one. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> had appeared. And if you prefer I might reply: As to the meaning of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what'. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> shede,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word rendered supra 'bosom'. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> all the clause was written with regard to the breasts; and it is this that the Holy One, blessed be He, said in effect to Israel:

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. L, an orphan, was betrothed by her mother to A. Subsequently A was killed on a day of rioting and massacre leaving a year-old brother. L is eleven years old according to the testimony of women, and has no symptoms of pubescence. May L sever her dependence upon A's brother by "Refusal"?
A. We follow Alfasi (Yeb. 107b) who rules that a minor may sever her dependency upon her levir by "Refusal". In this case we accept the testimony of the aforesaid women regarding her age and condition.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Yakar haLevi.
SOURCES: Cr. 81.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A minor orphan girl was betrothed to A. She wants to exercise the right of "Refusal" (סירוב). May the testimony of female witnesses be accepted that the girl is only eleven years old and, therefore, may still exercise the right of "Refusal"?
A. The mere ceremony of betrothal, without cohabitation, is binding only because of Rabbinic enactment, but is not binding according to Biblical law. The testimony of women is acceptable in the annulment of a marriage that is valid only according to Rabbinic enactment. Therefore, since A did not cohabit with the orphan, the testimony of the female witnesses is to be admitted in evidence.
SOURCES: Cr. 286; Pr. 569; L. 389; Mord. Yeb. 60, 61; Tesh. Maim. to Nashim, 14.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse