Niddah 91

Chapter 91

א וטעמא דלאחר זמן הוא דגמר' לה למילתיה הא תוך זמן כלפני זמן

1 the reason for the ruling1

ב ועוד מתיב רבי זירא (במדבר ו ) איש כי יפליא לנדור נדר מה ת"ל איש לרבות בן י"ג שנה ויום אחד שאע"פ שאינו יודע להפליא נדריו קיימין

2 being that one was over age, when all requirements2 were satisfied.3

ג ה"ד אי דלא אייתי שתי שערות קטן הוא אלא לאו דאייתי שתי שערות וטעמא דבן י"ג ויום אחד הוא דהוה ליה איש הא תוך זמן כלפני זמן תיובתא

3 Thus it follows, does it not, that the intervening period4 is regarded as that of under age?5 A further objection was [also] raised by R. Zera: When … man … shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of …6 What was the purpose of stating 'man'? To include in the scope of the law a boy of the age of thirteen years and one day whose vows are valid, though he is unable to 'utter clearly'. Now how is this to be understood? If it be suggested that the reference is to a boy who had not yet grown two hairs, [the objection could be raised:] Such a boy would still have the status of a minor.7

ד אמר ר"נ כתנאי בן ט' שנים שהביא ב' שערות שומא מבן ט' ועד י"ב שנה ויום אחד שומא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר סימן בן י"ג שנה ויום אחד דברי הכל סימן

4 The reference consequently must be to one who had grown two hairs, the reason being that he is thirteen years and one day old, when he is regarded as a 'man'. Thus8 it follows, does it not, that the intervening period is regarded as that of under age?9 — This is indeed a refutation. R. Nahman stated, The question10 is a point at issue between Tannas:11

ה הא גופא קשיא אמרת מבן ט' ועד י"ב שנה ויום אחד שומא הא י"ג שנה גופא סימן והדר תני בן י"ג שנה ויום אחד סימן הא י"ג שנה גופא שומא

5 [For it was taught:] If a boy of the age of seven years grew two hairs they are attributed to a mole;12 from the age of nine years to that of twelve years and one day they are also to be attributed to a mole,12

ו מאי לאו תנאי היא דמר סבר תוך זמן כלאחר זמן ומר סבר תוך זמן כלפני זמן

6 but R. Jose son of R. Judah ruled: They13 are a sign of puberty; at the age of thirteen years and one day, all agree that they are a sign of puberty.14 Now is not this self-contradictory: You said, 'From the age of nine years to that of twelve years and one day they are also to be attributed to a mole', from which it follows that at the actual age of thirteen years they are a sign of puberty; but then it is stated, 'At the age of thirteen years and one day … they are a sign of puberty', from which it follows, does it not, that at the actual age of thirteen years they are to be attributed to a mole? Must you not concede then that this question15

ז לא דכ"ע תוך זמן כלפני זמן ואידי ואידי בתינוקת ורישא רבי וסיפא ר"ש בן אלעזר

7 is a point at issue between the Tannas, one Master16 holding that the intervening period is regarded as that of over age while the other Master maintains that the intervening period is regarded as that of under age?17

ח ואיבעית אימא הא והא בתינוק ורישא ר"ש בן אלעזר וסיפא רבי

8 No; all may agree that the intervening period is regarded as that under age, but both clauses refer to a girl the first18 supporting the view of Rabbi19

ט ואיבעית אימא הא והא רבי הא בתינוק הא בתינוקת ואב"א הא והא ר"ש בן אלעזר הא בתינוק הא בתינוקת

9 while the latter20 represents that of R. Simeon b. Eleazar.21 And if you prefer I22 might reply: Both clauses refer to a boy, and the first represents the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar while the latter represents the view of Rabbi.23

י רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר סימן א"ר כרוספדאי בריה דרבי שבתאי והוא שעודן בו

10 And if you prefer I24 might reply: Both clauses are the view of Rabbi, but one25 refers to a boy while the other26 refers to a girl. And if you prefer I24

יא תניא נמי הכי בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שהביא ב' שערות שומא מבן ט' ועד י"ב שנה ויום אחד ועודן בו שומא ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר סימן

11 might say: Both clauses are the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, but the one26 refers to a boy while the other25 refers to a girl.

יב אמר רבא הילכתא תוך זמן כלפני זמן רב שמואל בר זוטרא מתני לה לשמעתא דרבא בהאי לישנא אמר רבא קטנה כל י"ב שנה ממאנת והולכת מכאן ואילך אינה ממאנת ואינה חולצת

12 'R. Jose son of R. Judah ruled: They are a sign of puberty.' R. Keruspedai son of R. Shabbethai explained: This applies only where they27 are still on him.28 So it was also taught: If a boy of the age of nine years and one day had grown two hairs they are to be attributed to a mole; from the age of nine years to that of twelve years and one day, though the hairs are still on him, they are to be attributed to a mole. R. Jose son of R. Judah ruled: They are a sign of puberty. Raba stated: The law is that the intervening period is regarded as that of under age. R. Samuel b. Zutra taught Raba's tradition in the following form:29

יג הא גופא קשיא אמרת אינה ממאנת אלמא גדולה היא אי גדולה היא תחלוץ

13 Raba stated, A minor all through her twelfth year may make a declaration of mi'un30

יד וכי תימא מספקא ליה ומי מספקא ליה והאמר רבא קטנה שהגיעה לכלל שנותיה אינה צריכה בדיקה חזקה הביאה סימנין

14 and go away,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is no need to consider the possibility that she may have grown two hairs. If any hairs had grown they must be attributed to a mole. It thus follows that the intervening period is regarded as that of under age. ');">31 but from that age upwards she may not make a declaration of mi'un32 but33

טו ה"מ בסתמא אבל הכא דבדקו ולא אשכחו לא

15 she may not submit to halizah.34

טז אי הכי תמאן חוששין שמא נשרו

16 Is not this statement, however, self contradictory? You said, 'she may not make a declaration of mi'un' from which it is evident that35 she is regarded as one of age; but if she is of age why may she not submit to halizah? And were you to reply that he36

יז הניחא למ"ד חוששין אלא למ"ד אין חוששין מאי איכא למימר דאיתמר רב פפא אמר אין חוששין שמא נשרו רב פפי אמר חוששין הני מילי לענין חליצה אבל לענין מיאון חוששין

17 was in doubt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether a girl at such an age had, or had not grown pubic hairs; and consequently he forbade mi'un in case she was already of age, and forbade halizah in case she was still a minor. ');">37 [it could be retorted:] Was he in doubt? Did not Raba in fact rule: A minor on attaining the age of majority need not be examined38 since there is presumption that she has grown the signs of puberty? — This39 applies only to general cases, but not here where an examination was held and no hairs were found. If so,40 why should she not be allowed to make a declaration of mi'un? The possibility is taken into consideration that they might have fallen off. This would be a satisfactory explanation according to him who holds that such a possibility is taken into consideration, but what explanation can be offered according to him who holds that such a possibility need not be taken into consideration? Was it not stated: R. Kahana41

יח מכלל דמ"ד חוששין חולצת והא חוששין בעלמא קאמר

18 ruled, There is no need to consider the possibility that they may have fallen off and R. Papi ruled, The possibility must be considered? — This42 applies only to the matter of halizah,43

יט אלא לעולם דלא בדקה ולענין חליצה חיישינן וכי קאמר רבא חזקה למיאון אבל לחליצה בעיא בדיקה

19 but as regards mi'un the possibility is taken into consideration.44

כ אמר רב דימי מנהרדעא הלכתא חוששין שמא נשרו

20 Thus it follows that according to him who holds that the possibility45 is taken into consideration she may submit to halizah; but [it may be objected:] Did he not merely say that the possibility46

כא והני מילי היכא דקדשה בתוך זמן ובעל לאחר זמן דאיכא ספיקא דאורייתא אבל מעיקרא לא

21 is taken into consideration?47

כב אמר רב הונא הקדיש ואכל לוקה

22 The fact is that this48 is a case where she was not examined,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as she has attained the age of majority, when she might be presumed to have grown pubic hairs, she must be forbidden mi'un and subjected to the restrictions of divorce. ');">49

כג שנאמר (במדבר ו׳:ב׳ ) איש כי יפליא לנדור (במדבר ל, ג) ולא יחל דברו כל שישנו בהפלאה ישנו בבל יחל וכל שאינו בהפלאה אינו בבל יחל

כד מתיב רב הונא בר יהודה (לרבא) לסיועי לרב הונא

24 but the possibility50 is taken into consideration as regards halizah,51 and when Raba stated 'There is presumption' he meant it in regard to mi'un,52 but in regard to halizah53 an examination54 is a pre-requisite. R. Dimi of Nehardea stated: The law is that the possibility that the hairs may have fallen off is taken into consideration.55 This,56 however, applies only where one had betrothed her57 during the intervening period and cohabited after that period, since a Pentateuchal doubt is thereby involved,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cohabitation, which is a Pentateuchal form of 'acquisition' in marriage, having taken place at an age when she may well be presumed to have attained her majority. ');">58 but not to the original betrothal alone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was not followed by cohabitation after the age of majority had been attained. As the betrothal of a minor (if it was not effected through her father) has only Rabbinical sanction, the Rabbis did not insist on the restrictions of a divorce where her majority was in doubt. Where, however, hairs have grown, though betrothal took place during her minority, the Rabbis forbade mi'un and insisted on the restrictions of a divorce as a preventive measure against the possibility of allowing mi'un to one with whom cohabitation took place after majority had been attained. ');">59 R. Huna ruled: If [a child]60 dedicated some food and then ate it, he61 is subject to flogging, for it is said in Scripture, When… man … shall clearly utter a vow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 2, from which it is deduced that a minor approaching manhood (or womanhood), viz., a boy in his thirteenth year (or a girl in her twelfth), provided he (or she) understands the significance of vows and dedications, is regarded as a man (or woman). ');">62 and He shall not break his word,63 which64 implies that whosoever is able to 'utter clearly'65 is subject to the prohibition of 'he shall not break his word'66 and only he who is not able to 'utter clearly' is not subject to the injunction of 'he shall not break his word'. R. Huna b. Judah addressed an objection to67 Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M. and Maharsha delete the last two words the Heb. for which in cur. edd. is enclosed in parenthesis. [The objection is against those who hold infra that others who ate it are subject to flagellation but not the child. V. Maharsha]. ');">68 in support of R. Huna:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter