Niddah 95

Chapter 95

א שני תבואות ימכר לך פעמים שאתה מוכר שלשה תבואות בשתי שנים
1 years of the crops he shall sell unto thee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 15. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב שש שנה שבעבד עברי מנלן אמר קרא (שמות כא, ב) שש שנים יעבוד ובשביעית ובשביעית נמי יעבוד
2 which implies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the minimum of 'years' (plural) is two, and the plural 'crops' denotes all the crops which can be produced in two years. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> that one may sometimes sell three crops in two years.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this is only possible in two complete years, or a full period of twenty-four months, where the sale took place before the produce of the first calendar year had been harvested. In two calendar years there can be no more than two crops. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> Whence do we deduce the duration of the six years in connection with a Hebrew servant? — Scripture said, Six years he shall serve, and in the seventh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 2. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג שבבן ושבבת למאי הלכתא אמר רב גידל אמר רב לענין ערכין ורב יוסף אמר לפרקין דיוצא דופן
3 which implies that in the seventh [calendar] year also he shall serve.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this is possible only if one serves six full years from the date of purchase which took place in the middle of a calendar year. The end of the sixth full year would in such a case coincide with the middle of the seventh calendar year. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> In regard to what law was mention made of 'the years in the age of a son and a daughter'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 47b ad fin. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> — R. Giddal citing Rab replied: In regard to valuations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which differ with the ages of the persons valued (cf. Lev. XXVII, 2ff). The ruling here serves the purpose of indicating that, even where the Scriptural text provides no clear guidance on the point, the years mentioned throughout the context are full periods each of twelve months duration. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> R. Joseph, however, replied: In regard to the ages<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where 'and a day' does not follow the number of years. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> given in our chapter of 'For a foetus born from its mother's side'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the present Chapter V which begins with these words. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ד א"ל אביי מי פליגת א"ל לא הוא אמר חדא ואנא אמינא חדא ולא פליגינן
4 Said Abaye to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> 'Are you in disagreement?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With Rab. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> — 'No', the other replied, 'he made one statement and I made another statement but there is no essential difference between us'. This is also logically right; for if it could be imagined that there is a radical difference between them and that the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> who replied, 'In regard to valuations' does not accept the reply, 'In regard to our present chapter'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for a foetus born from its mother's side' (cf. p. 333, n. 11). ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ה והכי נמי מסתברא דאי ס"ד פליגי מאן דאמר לערכין לא אמר ליוצא דופן והאמר רב הלכתא בכולה פרקין מעת לעת
5 [the difficulty would arise:] Did not Rab in fact state, 'It is the law throughout this chapter that age is calculated from one point of time to another point of time'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 47b. Of course he did. Consequently it must be admitted that Rab and R. Joseph are essentially of the same opinion. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> But, then, why did not the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> who replied, 'In regard to valuations' also add, In regard to our chapter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for a foetus born from its mothers' side' (cf. prev. n. but one). ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ו אלא למ"ד לערכין מ"ט לא אמר ליוצא דופן דומיא דהנך מה הנך דכתיבן אף הני נמי דכתיבן
6 — [The reference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the expression, 'the years in the age of a son and a daughter' (supra 47b). ');"><sup>17</sup></span> must be to cases] similar to those previously enumerated: As those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consecrated things, houses in wall cities, etc. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ז ואידך האי שבבן ושבבת שבזכר ושבנקבה מבעי ליה
7 were recorded in the Scriptures so must these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the expression, 'the years in the age of a son and a daughter' (supra 47b). ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ח אמר רב יצחק בר נחמני א"ר אלעזר הלכה כר' יוסי בן כיפר שאמר משום ר' אליעזר א"ר זירא אזכה ואיסק ואגמר לשמעתא מפומיה דמרא
8 be such as were recorded in the Scriptures.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his reply that the reference was to valuations (which are also recorded in the Scriptures) though he fully agrees that the same principle applies also to the years in the ages dealt with in the present chapter (which are not Scriptural but merely traditional). ');"><sup>19</sup></span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph; why does he not add, 'In regard to valuation'? ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — [If that were so] it should have been said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the expression, 'the years in the age of a son and a daughter' (supra 47b). ');"><sup>17</sup></span> instead of 'the age of a son and a daughter', the age of a male and a female.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are the expressions of the Scriptures in the context of valuations (cf. Lev. XXVII, 3f.). ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ט כי סליק אשכחיה לר' אלעזר אמר ליה אמרת הלכה כרבי יוסי בן כיפר אמר ליה מסתברא אמרי מדכוליה פירקין תני יום אחד והכא לא קתני שמע מינה מסתברא כותיה:
9 R. Isaac b. Nahmani citing R. Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. Pedath, the famous Palestinian Amora. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> stated: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with the ruling which R. Jose b. Kipper cited in the name of R. Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 27b. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> R. Zera observed: May I be worthy to go up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Palestine (cf. prev. n. but one). ');"><sup>24</sup></span> and to learn the tradition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cited by R. Isaac b. Nahmani. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
י <br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך יוצא דופן</strong></big><br><br>
10 from the Master's mouth. When he went up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Palestine (cf. prev. n. but one). ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
יא מתני׳ <big><strong>בא</strong></big> סימן התחתון עד שלא בא העליון או חולצת או מתיבמת
11 he met R. Eleazar and asked him, 'Did you say: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with R. Jose b. Kipper?' — 'What I said was', the other replied, 'that it seemed to be reasonable. For since, throughout the chapter, "one day" was explicitly added<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'learned', after the number of the years. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>
יב בא העליון עד שלא בא התחתון אף על פי שאי אפשר ר' מאיר אומר לא חולצת ולא מתיבמת
12 while in this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man of the age of twenty years (cf. our Mishnah). ');"><sup>27</sup></span> it was not mentioned it may well be inferred that it seems reasonable [that the <i>halachah</i> is] in agreement with him'.
יג וחכ"א או חולצת או מתיבמת מפני שאמרו אפשר לתחתון לבא עד שלא בא העליון אבל אי אפשר לעליון לבא עד שלא בא התחתון
13 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF THE LOWER MARK<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two pubic hairs. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> APPEARED BEFORE THE UPPER ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'A fig in its early ripening' (v. Mishnah supra 47a). ');"><sup>29</sup></span> HAD YET MADE ITS APPEARANCE, SHE MAY PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> OR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she is deemed to have attained her majority. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יד <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אע"פ שאי אפשר והלא בא בא לר' מאיר אע"פ שאי אפשר לרבנן
14 IF THE UPPER MARK<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'A fig in its early ripening' (v. Mishnah supra 47a). ');"><sup>29</sup></span> APPEARED BEFORE THE LOWER ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two pubic hairs. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
טו ולתני בא העליון ר"מ אומר לא חולצת ולא מתיבמת וחכ"א או חולצת או מתיבמת ואנא ידענא משום דאי אפשר הוא
15 HAD MADE ITS APPEARANCE, THOUGH THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The apparent contradiction is described in the Gemara infra. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> R. MEIR RULED, SHE MAY NEITHER PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> NOR CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE; BUT THE SAGES RULED, SHE MAY EITHER PERFORM <i>HALIZAH</i> OR CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, BECAUSE THEY MAINTAIN: IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE LOWER MARK TO APPEAR BEFORE THE UPPER ONE HAD YET MADE ITS APPEARANCE, BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE UPPER MARK TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LOWER ONE HAD MADE ITS APPEARANCE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it cannot be discovered the hairs may be presumed to have fallen off. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. 'THOUGH THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE'! But has it not in fact APPEARED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it had; since it was explicitly stated, IF THE UPPER MARK APPEARED BEFORE THE LOWER ONE. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> — 'APPEARED', according to R. Meir;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled that SHE MAY NEITHER PERFORM HALIZAH etc., thus regarding her as a minor because, obviously, the upper mark may appear though the lower one had not yet made its appearance. ');"><sup>34</sup></span>
טז אי לא תנא אע"פ שאי אפשר הוה אמינא רוב נשים תחתון אתי ברישא ומיעוט עליון אתי ברישא ורבי מאיר לטעמיה דחייש למיעוטא ורבנן לטעמייהו דלא חיישי למיעוטא
16 'THOUGH THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE' according to the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' THE SAGES, who in either case (v. our Mishnah) regard her as of age. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> Why then was it not stated: 'If the upper mark appeared, R. Meir ruled, She may neither perform <i>halizah</i> nor contract levirate marriage but the Sages ruled, She may either perform <i>halizah</i> or contract levirate marriage'. and I would well have known that their reason is that it is impossible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this would avoid the insertion of the ambiguous clause, 'THOUGH THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE'. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> — If 'THOUGH THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE had not been stated, It might have been presumed that in most women the lower mark appears first and in that of a minority the upper mark appears first, and that R. Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regarding the girl as a minor. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
יז והני מילי בסתמא אבל היכא דבדקן ולא אשכחן אימר מודו ליה רבנן לר"מ דעליון קדים
17 is guided by his principle according to which he takes even a minority into consideration,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since a minority have the upper before the lower mark, every girl producing the upper mark alone must be regarded as a minor in case she belonged to the minority. ');"><sup>38</sup></span>
יח קמ"ל דאי אפשר ודאי אתי ומנתר הוא דנתר
18 while the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' THE SAGES, who in either case (v. our Mishnah) regard her as of age. ');"><sup>39</sup></span>
יט בשלמא לר"מ היינו דכתיב (יחזקאל טז, ז) שדים נכונו ושערך צמח אלא לרבנן איפכא מבעי ליה ה"ק כיון ששדים נכונו בידוע ששערך צמח
19 are guided by their principle according to which they do not take a minority into consideration;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon, therefore, as the upper mark appeared it may be taken for granted that the lower one had appeared previously. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> and that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling of the Sages, which is dependent on the principle of following the majority. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> applies only to a general case, but where an examination was held and no [lower mark] was found the Rabbis, it might have been assumed, agree with R. Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regarding the girl as a minor. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
כ בשלמא לר"מ היינו דכתיב (יחזקאל כג, כא) בעשות ממצרים דדיך למען שדי נעוריך אלא לרבנן איפכא מבעי ליה
20 since the upper mark has appeared first, hence we were informed that this IS IMPOSSIBLE and that the lower mark<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH., wanting in cur. edd. ');"><sup>42</sup></span>
כא ה"ק כיון שבאו דדיך בידוע שבאו נעוריך ואיבעית אימא מאי שדי כולה בדדי כתיב וה"ק הקב"ה לישראל
21 had undoubtedly appeared earlier but merely fell off. According to R. Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that the upper mark sometimes appears first. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> one may well justify the Scriptural text, Thy breasts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The upper mark. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> were fashioned, and thy hair<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lower one. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> 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:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter