Niddah 104

איוב מן הסערה ויאמר אליו

Job out of the whirlwind, and said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XXXVIII, 1. ');">¹</span>

שוטה שבעולם הרבה נימין בראתי בראשו של אדם ולכל נימא ונימא בראתי לו גומא בפני עצמה שלא יהיו שתים יונקות מגומא אחת שאלמלא שתים יונקות מגומא אחת מכחיש מאור עיניו של אדם

to him, 'Most foolish man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fool that (you are) in the world'. ');">²</span>

גומא בגומא לא נתחלף לי איוב באויב נתחלף לי

I have created many hairs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Heb. word for tempest, 'se'arah', may also be rendered 'hair'. ');">³</span>

לא קשיא הא בגופא הא ברישא

in a man's head and for every hair I have created a separate follicle, so that two should not suck from the same follicle, for if two were to suck from the same follicle they would impair the sight of man. I did not confuse one follicle with another, would I confuse "Job" and "enemy"?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it is obvious that two hairs can never grow from the same follicle. How then could it be maintained (supra 52a) that two hairs may sometimes grow from the same follicle? ');">⁴</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל

— This is no difficulty since one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the hairs mentioned in our Mishnah. ');">⁵</span>

שתי שערות שאמרו אפילו אחת על הכף ואחת על הביצים

refers to the body while the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The hairs mentioned in connection with Job, ');">⁶</span>

תניא נמי הכי

refers to the head.

שתי שערות שאמרו אפילו אחת בגבה ואחת בכריסה אחת ע"ג קשרי אצבעותיה של יד ואחת ע"ג קשרי אצבעותיה של רגל דברי ר' שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עכו שאמר משום רבי שמעון

Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: <font>The two hairs of which they</font> spoke [establish puberty] even if one is on the crest and the other on the testes. So it was also taught: <font>The two hairs of which they spoke [establish puberty]</font> even if one grows on her back and the other on her belly, one on the joints of the fingers of her hand and the other on the joints of her toes; so R. Simeon b. Judah of Kefar Akko who cited it in the name of R. Ishmael.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reading to 'ruled' is that of MS.M. Cur. edd. read, 'And the Rabbis [what is their view]? R. Hisda replied'. BaH. substitutes 'Ashi' for 'Hisda'. ');">⁷</span>

ורבנן אמר רב חסדא

But Rab citing R. Assi ruled: <font>puberty is not established unless two hairs grow in the same spot.</font>

עד שיהו ב' שערות במקום אחד

Our Rabbis taught: Up to what age may a girl exercise the right of <i>mi'un</i>? <font>Until she grows two hairs</font>; so R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: Until the black predominates.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. relevant n. on our Mishnah, ');">⁸</span>

ת"ר

R. Jose ruled: Until a ring is formed around the nipple. Ben Shelakoth ruled: Until she grows her hair in profusion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Tosaf. ');">⁹</span>

עד מתי הבת ממאנת

In connection with this R. Simeon stated: Hanina b. Hakinai once met me at Zidon and said to me,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. ');">¹⁰</span>

עד שתביא שתי שערות דברי רבי מאיר

'When you arrive at R. Akiba's ask him "until what age may a girl exercise the right of <i>mi'un</i>". If he tells you, <font>"Until she grows two hairs"</font>, ask him this: Did not Ben Shelakoth testify in the presence of all of you at Jamnia, "Until she grows her hair in profusion", and you did not say to him a word to the contrary?' When I arrived at R. Akiba's the latter told me, 'I do not know anything about the growing of hair in profusion, and I do not know Ben Shelakoth; a girl may exercise the right of <i>mi'un</i> until the age when <font>she grows two hairs'</font>.

ר' יהודה אומר

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. <font>THE TWO HAIRS SPOKEN OF</font> IN REGARD TO THE RED HEIFER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. A.Z. 24a and Parah II, 5. ');">¹¹</span>

עד שירבה השחור

AND IN REGARD TO LEPROSY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Neg. I, 5. ');">¹²</span>

רבי יוסי אומר

AS WELL AS THOSE SPOKEN OF ANYWHERE ELSE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to the marks of puberty. ');">¹³</span>

עד שתקיף העטרה

MUST BE LONG ENOUGH FOR THEIR TIPS TO BE BENT TO THEIR ROOTS; SO R. ISHMAEL. R. ELIEZER RULED: LONG ENOUGH TO BE GRASPED BY A FINGER-NAIL, R. AKIBA RULED: LONG ENOUGH TO BE TAKEN OFF WITH SCISSORS.

בן שלקות אומר

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Hisda citing Mar Ukba stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the views of all these in that the law is thereby invariably restricted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. as soon as the hairs grow to the smallest length mentioned in our Mishnah she is no longer regarded as minor and the right of mi'un is denied to her, while halizah may not be performed until the hairs grew to the maximum of the lengths mentioned, when her majority is beyond all doubt. ');">¹⁴</span>

עד שתכלכל

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A WOMAN WHO OBSERVED A BLOOD-STAIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On her underclothing. ');">¹⁵</span>

ואמר רבי שמעון מצאני חנינא בן חכינאי בצידן ואמר

IS IN AN UNSETTLED CONDITION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'damaged', sc. the calculations (that enable her to determine in which days she is liable to menstruation and in which she is susceptible to zibah) are upset since she is unable to ascertain when exactly the discharge (of which the blood-stain is the result) had occurred. ');">¹⁶</span>

כשאתה מגיע אצל ר"ע אמור לו עד מתי הבת ממאנת

AND MUST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Under certain circumstances (cf. Gemara infra). ');">¹⁷</span>

אם יאמר לך עד שתביא שתי שערות אמור לו והלא בן שלקות העיד במעמד כולכם ביבנה עד שתכלכל ולא אמרתם לו דבר

TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS DUE TO <i>ZIBAH</i>; SO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES RULED: IN THE CASE OF BLOOD-STAINS THERE IS NO [NEED TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF THEIR BEING] DUE TO <i>ZIBAH</i>.

כשבאתי אצל רבי עקיבא אמר לי

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Who are THE SAGES? — R. Hanina b. Antigonus. For it was taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonus ruled, In the case of blood-stains there is no [need to consider the possibility of their being] due to <i>zibah</i>, but sometimes blood-stains do lead to <i>zibah</i>. How so? If a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On three consecutive days respectively during the period in which she is susceptible to zibah, ');">¹⁸</span>

כלכול זה איני יודע מהו בן שלקות איני מכיר עד מתי הבת ממאנת עד שתביא ב' שערות

put on three shirts that she had previously examined and then found a blood-stain on each of them, or if she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the zibah period (cf. prev. n.). ');">¹⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שתי שערות האמורות בפרה ובנגעים והאמורות בכל מקום כדי לכוף ראשן לעיקרן דברי רבי ישמעאל ר"א אומר

observed a discharge<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An actual flow of blood. ');">²⁰</span>

כדי לקרוץ בציפורן ר' עקיבא אומר

on two days and [a blood-stain on] one shirt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was previously duly examined. ');">²¹</span>

כדי שיהו ניטלות בזוג

these are the blood-stains that lead to <i>zibah</i>. But since in the case of three shirts, where she observed no direct discharge from her body, the possibility of <i>zibah</i> is taken into consideration, why was it necessary to mention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That zibah must be taken into consideration. ');">²²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא

that of 'two days and one shirt'? — It might have been presumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the latter case had not been mentioned. ');">²³</span>

הלכה כדברי כולן להחמיר

that in any instance like this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two actual discharges and one blood-stain. ');">²⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הרואה כתם הרי זו מקולקלת וחוששת משום זוב דברי רבי מאיר וחכ"א

the woman brings a sacrifice which may be eaten,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the sacrifice is deemed to be valid as in the case of certain zibah. ');">²⁵</span>

אין בכתמים משום זוב

hence we were informed [that only the possibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not the certainty. ');">²⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאן חכמים

of <i>zibah</i> is taken into consideration].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the sacrifice is of a doubtful nature. As the method of killing that is prescribed for a bird sacrifice renders an unconsecrated bird nebelah and forbidden to be eaten, the bird sacrifice offered in this case must (on account of its doubtful nature) be forbidden to be eaten. ');">²⁷</span>

ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס היא דתניא ר"ח בן אנטיגנוס אומר

Raba observed: In this matter R. Hanina b. Antigonus vindicated his case against the Rabbis. For why is it [that when a bloodstain] less than three beans in size is in one spot we do not take into consideration the possibility of <i>zibah</i>? [presumably] because we assume that it is the result of observations on two days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While zibah cannot be established unless discharges occurred on three consecutive days. ');">²⁸</span>

כתמים אין בהן משום זוב

But then why should we not, even if a stain of the size of three beans was in one spot, similarly assume that only to the extent of the size of two and a half beans the discharge was from her body while the rest is the blood of a louse due to the filth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of menstruation; so that (cf. prev. n.) there was no zibah at all. ');">²⁹</span>

ופעמים שהכתמים מביאין לידי זיבה

— And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can they maintain their ruling in view of this argument? ');">³⁰</span>

כיצד לבשה ג' חלוקות הבדוקות לה ומצאה עליהם כתם או שראתה ב' ימים וחלוק אחד הן הן הכתמים המביאין לידי זיבה

— Since the stain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being of generous dimensions and rather larger than the size of three beans. ');">³¹</span>

השתא שלשה חלוקות דלאו מגופה קחזיא חיישינן ב' ימים וחלוק אחד מיבעיא

can be divided up into parts of the size of a bean and over for each day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that on each day there may have been a new stain of the size prescribed. ');">³²</span>

מהו דתימא כל כי האי גוונא מביאה קרבן ונאכל קא משמע לן

we do not ascribe it to any external cause. As to R. Hanina b. Antigonus, is it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As Raba's statement seems to suggest. ');">³³</span>

אמר רבא בהא זכנהו ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס לרבנן

only when a stain of the size of three beans in one spot that we do not take the possibility of <i>zibah</i> into consideration, but if it is in three different places<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though on the same shirt. ');">³⁴</span>

מאי שנא פחות מג' גריסין במקום אחד דלא חיישינן דאמרי'

the possibility is taken into consideration? But did you not say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha supra. ');">³⁵</span>

בתרי יומי חזיתיה שלשה גריסין במקום אחד נמי נימא

that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the possibility of zibah is taken into consideration. ');">³⁶</span>

תרתי ופלגא מגופה חזיתיה ואידך אגב זוהמא דם מאכולת הוא

applies only to stains on<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. ');">³⁷</span>

ורבנן כיון דאיכא לפלוגי בגריס ועוד לכל יומא לא תלינן

three shirts,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One stain on each. ');">³⁸</span>

ור"ח בן אנטיגנוס ג' גריסין במקום א' הוא דלא חיישינן הא בג' מקומות חיישינן

from which it follows that it does not apply to stains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not'. ');">³⁹</span>

הא אמרת בג' חלוקות אין בג' מקומות לא

in three spots?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the same shirt. ');">⁴⁰</span>

לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי בג' חלוקות אין בג' מקומות לא

— He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hanina according to Raba's submission. ');">⁴¹</span>

אלא לדידכו אודו לי מיהת דהיכא דחזאי ג' גריסין במקום אחד דאמרינן תרי ופלגא מגופה חזיתיה ואידך אגב זוהמא דם מאכולת הוא

spoke to them on the line of the view of the Rabbis. As far as I am concerned, he said in effect, it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the possibility of zibah is taken into consideration. ');">⁴²</span>

ורבנן כיון דאיכא לפלוגי בגריס ועוד לכל יומא לא תלינן

applies only to three shirts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One stain on each. ');">³⁸</span>

ת"ר

and not to three spots;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the same shirt. ');">⁴⁰</span>

הרואה כתם אם יש בו כדי לחלק ג' גריסין שהן כגריס ועוד חוששת ואם לאו אינה חוששת

but according to your view, agree with me at least that, where she had observed a stain of the size of three beans in one spot, we assume that to the extent of two and a half beans the discharge came from her body while the rest is the blood of a louse due to the filth. And the Rabbis? — Since the stain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being of generous dimensions and rather larger than the size of three beans. ');">⁴³</span>

ר' יהודה בן אגרא אומר משום רבי יוסי

can be divided up into parts of the size of a little more than a bean for each day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that on each day there may have been a new stain of the size prescribed. ');">⁴⁴</span>

אחת זו ואחת זו חוששת

we do not ascribe it to any external cause, Our Rabbis taught: If a woman observed a blood-stain, if it is big enough<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being of generous dimensions and rather larger than the size of three beans. ');">⁴³</span> to be divided into parts corresponding respectively to three beans, each of which being slightly bigger than the size of a bean, she must take into consideration the possibility of <i>zibah</i>; otherwise, she need not take this possibility into consideration. R. Judah b. Agra citing R. Jose ruled: In the one case and in the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. even if the stain was no bigger than the size of two beans. ');">⁴⁵</span> the possibility must be taken into consideration.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is possible that at least one of the stains was due to a discharge at twilight which counts as two (v. infra). ');">⁴⁶</span>