## Niddah Daf 46a

###### Niddah 46a:1
[Niddah 46a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:1)

וְטַעְמָא דִּלְאַחַר זְמַן הוּא דְּגָמְרָה לַהּ לְמִילְּתֵיהּ? הָא תּוֹךְ זְמַן — כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and the reason** that the development of two hairs renders him an adult is **that** the onset of **his matter,** i.e., his reaching puberty, **was completed for him after** the **time?** Rav Hamnuna infers from here that if the child developed two hairs **during** the **time,** it is considered **as before** the **time,** and he or she is not classified as an adult.


###### Niddah 46a:2
[Niddah 46a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:2)

וְעוֹד מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדּוֹר נֶדֶר״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת בֶּן שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהַפְלִיא — נְדָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, Rabbi Zeira raises an objection** to the opinion that the development of signs indicating puberty during the time is equivalent to their development after the time. It is taught in a *baraita* which deals with the verse: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: **When** either **man** or a woman **shall clearly utter a vow”** (Numbers 6:2). **What** is the meaning when **the verse states “man,”** after it has already stated “the children of Israel”? This serves **to include** anyone who is **thirteen years and one day old, that even if he does not know** how **to utter clearly** and articulate the meaning of his statements, **his vows are in effect.**


###### Niddah 46a:3
[Niddah 46a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:3)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלָא אַיְיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — קָטָן הוּא! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּאַיְיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, וְטַעְמָא דְּבֶן שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה וְיוֹם אֶחָד הוּא דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ ״אִישׁ״, הָא תּוֹךְ זְמַן כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira analyzes this *baraita*. **What are the circumstances? If** it is referring to a case **where** the boy **has not** yet **developed two** pubic **hairs,** then **he is a minor,** and the *halakha* with regard to him cannot be derived from the word “man.” **Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where** the boy **has developed two** pubic **hairs? And** by inference, **the reason that he is** considered **a man** due to his development of pubic hairs **is that he is thirteen years and one day old, but** if the boy developed two hairs **during** the **time,** it is considered **as before** the **time.** The Gemara concludes: This is indeed **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that developing pubic hairs during the time is equivalent to developing hairs after the time.


###### Niddah 46a:4
[Niddah 46a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּתַנָּאֵי, בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — שׁוּמָא, מִבֶּן תֵּשַׁע וְעַד שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד — שׁוּמָא. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סִימָן. בֶּן שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל סִימָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said** that the *baraita* is not a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as this matter is **subject to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** since there is another *baraita* which teaches the following: Everyone agrees with regard to **a nine-year-old** boy **who developed two hairs** that this is not considered a sign of puberty, as they are treated as hairs that grow on **a mole. From nine** years **of age until** the age of **twelve years and one day,** even if the hairs have not fallen out, this is still considered **a mole. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:** At this stage it is **a sign** indicating puberty. If he is **thirteen years and one day old** and has grown two hairs, **all agree** that it is **a sign** indicating puberty.


###### Niddah 46a:5
[Niddah 46a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:5)

הָא גּוּפַאּ קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: ״מִבֶּן תֵּשַׁע וְעַד שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד״ — שׁוּמָא, הָא שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה גּוּפָא — סִימָן, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: ״בֶּן שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד״ — סִימָן, הָא שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה גּוּפָא — שׁוּמָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman analyzes the *baraita*. **This** *baraita* **itself** is **difficult,** as **you** initially **said** that **from nine** years **of age until** the age of **twelve years and one day** it is **a mole,** from which it can be inferred that if he developed two pubic hairs in **the thirteenth year itself,** it is **a sign** indicating puberty. **And then** the *baraita* **teaches** that if he is **thirteen years and one day old** and has grown two hairs, this is **a sign** indicating puberty, which indicates that if he developed the hairs in **the thirteenth year itself,** it is **a mole.**


###### Niddah 46a:6
[Niddah 46a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:6)

מַאי לַָאו תַּנָּאֵי הִיא: דְּמָר סָבַר תּוֹךְ זְמַן כִּלְאַחַר זְמַן, וּמָר סָבַר תּוֹךְ זְמַן כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman concludes: **What, is it not** correct to say that there **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*, as** one **Sage,** the *tanna* who states the first line of the *baraita*, **holds** that **during** that **time** is considered **as after** the **time, and** one **Sage,** the *tanna* of the last line of the *baraita*, **holds** that **during** that **time** is considered **as before** the **time?** If so, the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is one side of a dispute between *tanna’im*.


###### Niddah 46a:7
[Niddah 46a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:7)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא תּוֹךְ זְמַן כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן, וְאִידִי וְאִידִי בְּתִינוֹקֶת, וְרֵישָׁא רַבִּי וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No, everyone,** i.e., the *tanna’im* of both clauses of the *baraita*, agrees that **during** that **time** is considered **as before** the **time, and this** clause **and that** clause of the *baraita* are both referring **to a young girl. And** the difference between them is that **the first clause** of the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that the thirteenth year for a female is considered after the time, and therefore the development of two pubic hairs at this stage is a sign of maturation; **and the last clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,** who holds that the thirteenth year for a female is considered before the time.


###### Niddah 46a:8
[Niddah 46a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:8)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא בְּתִינוֹק, וְרֵישָׁא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that **this** clause **and that** clause are both dealing **with a young boy, and the first clause** is in accordance with **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the last clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that the thirteenth year for a boy is considered before the time.


###### Niddah 46a:9
[Niddah 46a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:9)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי, הָא — בְּתִינוֹק, הָא — בְּתִינוֹקֶת. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, הָא — בְּתִינוֹק, הָא — בְּתִינוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that both **this** clause **and that** clause are in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, and the difference between them is that **this** last clause of the *baraita* is referring **to a young boy,** whereas **that** first clause is referring **to a young girl. And if you wish, say** that both **this** clause **and that** clause are in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,** and **that** first clause of the *baraita* is referring **to a young boy,** whereas **this** last clause is referring **to a young girl.**


###### Niddah 46a:10
[Niddah 46a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:10)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סִימָן. אָמַר רַבִּי כְּרוּסְפָּדַאי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שַׁבְּתַאי: וְהוּא שֶׁעוֹדָן בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* further teaches that **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says** with regard to hairs from nine years of age until the age of twelve years and one day, that it is **a sign** indicating puberty. In explanation of this opinion, **Rabbi Keruspedai, son of Rabbi Shabbtai, says: And** this **is** the *halakha* only **when** the hairs **are still upon him,** i.e., they had not fallen out when he reached the age of puberty, as otherwise they are considered a mole.


###### Niddah 46a:11
[Niddah 46a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:11)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — שׁוּמָא, מִבֶּן תֵּשַׁע וְעַד שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְעוֹדָן בּוֹ — שׁוּמָא. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סִימָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **this** opinion **is also taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a boy **nine years and one day old who developed two hairs,** this is considered **a mole.** If the boy is **from nine** years **of age until** the age of **twelve years and one day, and** the hairs **are still upon him,** it is still considered **a mole. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:** It is **a sign** indicating puberty.


###### Niddah 46a:12
[Niddah 46a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:12)

אָמַר רָבָא, הִילְכְתָא: תּוֹךְ זְמַן — כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן. רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר זוּטְרָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא דְּרָבָא בְּהַאי לִישָּׁנָא, אָמַר רָבָא: קְטַנָּה כׇּל שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה מְמָאֶנֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ אֵינָהּ מְמָאֶנֶת וְאֵינָהּ חוֹלֶצֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In summary of the rulings cited above, **Rava said: The *halakha*** is that the development of two hairs **during** the **time** is considered **as before** the **time,** and it does not render one an adult. **Rav Shmuel bar Zutra teaches this *halakha* of Rava in this formulation: Rava says:** With regard to **a minor girl** whose father has passed away and whose mother or brothers accepted betrothal on her behalf, a form of betrothal instituted by the Sages, throughout her **entire twelfth year she** has the **continuous** right to **perform refusal with regard to** this marriage and thereby annul it. **From that** point **forward,** when she is already an adult, **she may no** longer **perform refusal, and she may not perform *ḥalitza*** with the brother of her husband, if he died without children.


###### Niddah 46a:13
[Niddah 46a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:13)

הָא גוּפַאּ קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ ״אֵינָהּ מְמָאֶנֶת״, אַלְמָא גְּדוֹלָה הִיא, אִי גְּדוֹלָה הִיא — תַּחְלוֹץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This** statement of Rava **itself** is **difficult: You** first **said** that once she is twelve **she may not perform refusal. Evidently, she is an adult woman.** But **if she is an adult woman, let her perform *ḥalitza*,** like any other adult woman.


###### Niddah 46a:14
[Niddah 46a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:14)

וְכִי תֵּימָא מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, וּמִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: קְטַנָּה שֶׁהִגִּיעָה לִכְלַל שְׁנוֹתֶיהָ אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה, חֲזָקָה הֵבִיאָה סִימָנִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that Rava **is uncertain** whether a twelve-year-old girl is presumed to have developed two hairs and is therefore an adult, or whether it is presumed that she has not yet grown two hairs and remains a minor, and consequently he is stringent on both counts, that she may not perform refusal, like an adult, but she may also not perform *ḥalitza*, like a minor, this suggestion is problematic, as **is** Rava actually **uncertain** in this regard? **But doesn’t Rava say: A minor girl who reached her full age** of maturity, i.e., twelve years and one day, **does not require examination** to determine whether she has grown two hairs, as there is **a presumption** that **she has developed signs** indicating puberty.


###### Niddah 46a:15
[Niddah 46a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:15)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּסְתָמָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דִּבְדַקוּ וְלָא אַשְׁכַּחוּ — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **this statement,** that it is presumed that a twelve-year-old girl has developed two hairs, applies only **in an ordinary** situation. **But here** Rava is referring to a case **where they examined** her **and did not find** hairs. In such an instance, Rava did **not** say that the presumption is in effect.


###### Niddah 46a:16
[Niddah 46a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:16)

אִי הָכִי, תְּמָאֵן! חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נָשְׁרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** that she was actually examined, she should be considered a minor in all regards and **she should** be able to **perform refusal.** The Gemara answers: **We are concerned** that **perhaps** the girl had already developed pubic hairs but **they fell out.** Consequently, although the girl is not treated with the presumption that she is an adult, she does not have the certain status of a minor either, and cannot perform refusal.


###### Niddah 46a:17
[Niddah 46a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:17)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חוֹשְׁשִׁין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּאִיתְּמַר: רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נָשְׁרוּ, רַב פַּפֵּי אָמַר: חוֹשְׁשִׁין. הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן חֲלִיצָה, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן מֵיאוּן — חוֹשְׁשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **This works out well according to the one who says** that **we are concerned** that the pubic hairs fell out. **But according to the one who says** that **we are not concerned** that they have fallen out, **what is there to say? As it was stated** that *amora’im* disagreed with regard to this matter. **Rav Pappa says: We are not concerned** that **perhaps** the pubic hairs **fell out; Rav Pappi says: We are concerned** that they might have fallen out. The Gemara answers that **this statement** of Rav Pappa, that there is no concern that perhaps the pubic hairs fell out, applies only **with regard to *ḥalitza*, but with regard to refusal** everyone agrees that **we are concerned** that they might have fallen out.


###### Niddah 46a:18
[Niddah 46a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:18)

מִכְּלָל דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״חוֹשְׁשִׁין״ — חוֹלֶצֶת? וְהָא ״חוֹשְׁשִׁין״ בְּעָלְמָא קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **By inference, does the one who says** that **we are concerned** that perhaps the hairs fell out maintain that this twelve-year-old **performs *ḥalitza*? But** this cannot be correct, as **he says** that **we are merely concerned** that the hairs might have fallen out, not that this is certainly the case. How, then, can she perform *ḥalitza* like an adult?


###### Niddah 46a:19
[Niddah 46a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:19)

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם דְּלָא (בַּדְקֻהָ) [בַּדְקַן], וּלְעִנְיַן חֲלִיצָה חָיְישִׁינַן, וְכִי קָאָמַר רָבָא חֲזָקָה לְמֵיאוּן, אֲבָל לַחֲלִיצָה בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rava is **actually** referring to a case **where one did not examine** the girl, **and with regard to *ḥalitza* we are concerned** that she might not have developed hairs and is still a minor. **And when Rava said** that there is **a presumption** that a twelve-year-old has developed signs indicating puberty, he was referring **to refusal, but with regard to *ḥalitza* she requires examination.**


###### Niddah 46a:20
[Niddah 46a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:20)

אָמַר רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: הִלְכְתָא, חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נָשְׁרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the issue of whether there is concern that hairs might have fallen out, **Rav Dimi of Neharde’a said: The *halakha*** is that if a girl reached the age of twelve and she was examined and the signs of puberty were not found, **we are concerned** that **perhaps** the pubic hairs **fell out.** Consequently, if her mother or brothers had accepted betrothal for her when she was a minor, she cannot perform refusal at that stage.


###### Niddah 46a:21
[Niddah 46a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:21)

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקִדְּשָׁהּ בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן, וּבָעַל לְאַחַר זְמַן, דְּאִיכָּא סְפֵיקָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And this statement** applies only in a case **where** her husband **betrothed her during** the **time,** before she reached the age of twelve years and one day, **and engaged in intercourse** with her **after** the **time,** when she was already twelve years and one day old. This is a situation **where there is an uncertainty** with regard to **Torah law,** since if she had developed two hairs and is an adult, the marriage applies by Torah law, due to the intercourse. **But** if he engaged in intercourse with her only **at the outset,** before she turned twelve, there is **no** concern that perhaps she developed pubic hairs and they fell out, as this marriage applies by rabbinic law.


###### Niddah 46a:22
[Niddah 46a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:22)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הִקְדִּישׁ וְאָכַל — לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to a minor who vowed, **Rav Huna says:** If the minor is aware of the meaning of his vow and in Whose name he or she vowed, and the minor’s age is during the time, i.e., the twelfth year for a girl or the thirteenth year for a boy, and he **consecrated** an item of food **and** subsequently **ate** it, **he is flogged,** which is the punishment for one who eats consecrated food.


###### Niddah 46a:23
[Niddah 46a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:23)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדּוֹר״, וְ״לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״ — כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּהַפְלָאָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל יַחֵל, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּהַפְלָאָה אֵינוֹ בְּבַל יַחֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna explains: **As it is stated: “When** either **a man** or a woman **shall clearly utter a vow”** (Numbers 6:2), from which it is derived that if one on the brink of adulthood is able to articulate that his vow is in the name of God, his vows are valid. **And** another verse states: **“He shall not profane his word”** (Numbers 30:3). This indicates that **any** person **who is** included **in explicitness** of intent **is** also included **in** the prohibition: **“He shall not profane** his word,” **and anyone who is not** included **in explicitness** of intent **is not** included **in** the prohibition: **“He shall not profane** his word.”


###### Niddah 46a:24
[Niddah 46a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/46a:24)

מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה (לְרָבָא) לְסַיּוֹעֵי לְרַב הוּנָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Yehuda raises an objection** to Rava, **in support** of the opinion **of Rav Huna:**