## Niddah Daf 52a

###### Niddah 52a:1
[Niddah 52a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:1)

רֵיחָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
fragrant **spices.**


###### Niddah 52a:2
[Niddah 52a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:2)

**מַתְנִי'** תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת, וְחַיֶּיבֶת בְּכׇל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A young girl who** reached the age of puberty and **grew two** pubic **hairs** is an adult. If her childless husband dies, **she either performs *ḥalitza*** and is thereby permitted to marry anyone, **or enters into levirate marriage** with her husband’s brother. **And** furthermore, such a girl is **obligated to** fulfill **all the mitzvot stated in the Torah** in which women are obligated.


###### Niddah 52a:3
[Niddah 52a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:3)

וְכֵן תִּינוֹק שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — חַיָּיב בְּכׇל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה, וְרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And likewise, a young boy who** reached the age of puberty and **grew two** pubic **hairs** is an adult and is **obligated to** fulfill **all the mitzvot stated in the Torah. And he is fit to be** declared **a stubborn and rebellious son** if he performs the actions that warrant that designation, **from when he grows two** pubic **hairs until** his **beard will form a circle.** During that period, although he is an adult and punishable for his actions, he is incapable of fathering a child. Consequently, as he is a son and not a father, he can be designated a stubborn and rebellious son.


###### Niddah 52a:4
[Niddah 52a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:4)

הַתַּחְתּוֹן, וְלֹא הָעֶלְיוֹן, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna explains that the reference is to **the lower,** pubic, hair, **and not to the upper,** facial, hair. **But** the term beard is used, despite its being subject to misinterpretation, due to the fact **that the Sages spoke euphemistically.**


###### Niddah 52a:5
[Niddah 52a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:5)

תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְמַאן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A young girl who** reached the age of puberty and **grew two** pubic **hairs can no** longer **perform refusal** to end a marriage with a husband to whom she was married as a minor by her mother and brothers after her father’s death. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** She retains the right to perform refusal **until** the pubic hair will grow to the extent **that the black** hair **will be preponderant** in the pubic area.


###### Niddah 52a:6
[Niddah 52a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:6)

**גְּמָ'** וְכֵיוָן דִּתְנַן ״חַיֶּיבֶת בְּכׇל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה״, ״אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara raises an objection: **But since we learned** in the mishna that a young girl who reached the age of puberty and grew two pubic hairs is considered an adult and is **obligated to** fulfill **all the mitzvot stated in the Torah, why do I** need the mishna to also teach: **She either performs *ḥalitza* or enters into levirate marriage.** These specific examples are included in the broader statement.


###### Niddah 52a:7
[Niddah 52a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:7)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: ״אִישׁ״ כָּתוּב בַּפָּרָשָׁה, אֲבָל אִשָּׁה, בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה וּבֵין קְטַנָּה. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאִי אַיְיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִשָּׁה כְּאִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: This emphasis serves **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei, who said: Man,** i.e., an adult man, **is written in the passage** of *ḥalitza*: “And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife” (Deuteronomy 25:7). **But** with regard to the **woman, whether** she is **an adult or whether** she is **a minor,** she can be released by *ḥalitza*, as the Torah does not specify her age. The mishna **teaches us that** the *halakha* is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rather, **if** she **grew two** pubic **hairs,** then **yes,** she can perform *ḥalitza*, whereas **if** she did **not** grow two hairs, she may **not** perform *ḥalitza* or enter into levirate marriage. **What is the reason** for this ruling? It is that the *halakha* of the **woman** is **like** that of the **man,** as a woman is juxtaposed to man in this passage.


###### Niddah 52a:8
[Niddah 52a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:8)

וְכֵיוָן דִּתְנָא ״וְכֵן הַתִּינוֹק שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת״, ״חַיָּיב בְּכׇל הַמִּצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **And since we learned** in the continuation of the mishna: **And likewise, a young boy who** reached the age of puberty and **grew two** pubic **hairs** is an adult, **why do I** need the mishna to add explicitly: Is **obligated to** fulfill **all the mitzvot stated in the Torah?**


###### Niddah 52a:9
[Niddah 52a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:9)

וְכִי תֵימָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָבָעֵי לְמִתְנֵי ״וְרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה״, תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: אֵימָתַי הוּא בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה — מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת וְעַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן, הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְלֹא הָעֶלְיוֹן, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that the mishna specified this **because** it **wanted to teach** the particular *halakha*: **And he is fit to be** declared **a stubborn and rebellious son,** that cannot be the reason, as **we** already **learned** that ***halakha*** on **another occasion** in a mishna (*Sanhedrin* 68b): **When** is such a boy liable to receive the death penalty imposed upon **a stubborn and rebellious son? From when he grows two** pubic **hairs until** his **beard will form a circle.** The reference is to **the lower,** pubic, hair **and not to the upper,** facial hair, **but** the term beard is used, due to the fact **that the Sages spoke euphemistically.**


###### Niddah 52a:10
[Niddah 52a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:10)

אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא אַיְּידֵי דְּפָרֵישׁ מִילֵּי דְתִינוֹקֶת — קָמְפָרֵשׁ נָמֵי מִילֵּי דְתִינוֹק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes,** it **is indeed so,** i.e., it is not necessary for the mishna to specify with regard to a boy that he is obligated to fulfill all the mitzvot stated in the Torah. **But since** the mishna **specified** this **matter** in the case **of a young girl,** it **also specified** this **matter** in the case **of a young boy.**


###### Niddah 52a:11
[Niddah 52a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:11)

תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **A young girl who** reached the age of puberty and **grew** two pubic hairs can no longer perform refusal to end a marriage with a husband to whom she was married as a minor by her mother and brothers after her father’s death. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that she retains the right of refusal until the pubic hair grows to the extent that the black hair is preponderant in the pubic area. **Rabbi Abbahu says** that **Rabbi Elazar says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Niddah 52a:12
[Niddah 52a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:12)

וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שֶׁאִם נִבְעֲלָה לְאַחַר שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — שׁוּב אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehuda concedes** to the Rabbis **that if she engaged in intercourse** with her husband **after she grew two** pubic **hairs,** she **can no longer perform refusal.** This is because the act of intercourse renders her betrothed to him by Torah law, and refusal is a rabbinic enactment that is effective only with regard to a betrothal that applies by rabbinic law.


###### Niddah 52a:13
[Niddah 52a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:13)

חַבְרוֹהִי דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא סְבוּר לְמֶעְבַּד עוֹבָדָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּנִבְעֲלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana’s colleagues thought to perform an action in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** in the mishna, **and** to permit a young girl who had grown two pubic hairs to perform refusal, **even though she** had **engaged in intercourse** with her husband after growing two hairs. They held that until the pubic hair grows to the extent that the black hair is preponderant in the pubic area, her betrothal does not apply by Torah law.


###### Niddah 52a:14
[Niddah 52a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:14)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבִתּוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, שֶׁבָּאת לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ לְמָאֵן, וּבְנָהּ מוּרְכָּב לָהּ עַל כְּתֵפָהּ, וְאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם הוּזְכְּרוּ דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, (וּבָכְתָה) [וְרָבְתָה] בְּכִיָּיה גְּדוֹלָה בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana said to** his colleagues: **Didn’t the incident involving Rabbi Yishmael’s daughter,** who was married as a minor by her mother and brothers after her father’s death, transpire **in that manner? As she came to the study hall to refuse** her marriage, **and her son was riding on her shoulders. And on that** very **day, Rabbi Yishmael’s statement,** that a young girl may perform refusal even if she engaged in intercourse with her husband after growing two hairs, **was mentioned in the study hall. And she cried** with **a great weeping in the study hall,** as a result of the incident.


###### Niddah 52a:15
[Niddah 52a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:15)

אָמְרוּ: דָּבָר שֶׁאָמַר אוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק, יִכָּשֵׁל בּוֹ זַרְעוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages who were in the study hall **said:** Could it be that with regard to **a matter that that righteous** Rabbi Yishmael **said,** i.e., that she can perform refusal, **his offspring would stumble upon it?** The consequence of her refusal is that she is considered to have borne the child retroactively out of wedlock.


###### Niddah 52a:16
[Niddah 52a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:16)

דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה, הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת, וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ — שֶׁקִּדּוּשֶׁיהָ קִדּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּנָהּ מוּרְכָּב עַל כְּתֵפָהּ — מְמָאֶנֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:** The verse states with regard to a *sota*: **“And neither was she taken”** (Numbers 5:13), i.e., raped. In this case **she is prohibited** to her husband. It may be inferred that if she **was taken** forcefully **she is permitted** to her husband. **And there is** a case of **another** woman **where, even though she was not taken** forcefully, but was willing, she nevertheless remains **permitted. And which** case **is this?** This is referring to one **whose betrothal** was **a mistaken betrothal, as, even if her son** from this marriage **is riding on her shoulders she may perform refusal and go** off as pleases **her.** Although she engaged in intercourse with her husband after growing two pubic hairs, she was relying on the original betrothal, which was a mistaken betrothal, and did not intend to become betrothed to him by means of this intercourse, which would have rendered her betrothed by Torah law. She may therefore nullify the betrothal by means of refusal.


###### Niddah 52a:17
[Niddah 52a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:17)

וְנִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ: עַד מָתַי הַבַּת מְמָאֶנֶת? עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. פְּרוּשׁ, וְלָא עֲבוּד עוֹבָדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara relates that as a result of the event involving Rabbi Yishmael’s daughter, the Sages assembled, **counted** the votes, **and concluded: Until when may** a young **girl perform refusal? Until** she **grows two** pubic **hairs.** Once Rav Kahana’s colleagues heard this, they **retracted** and **did not perform an action** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna, to permit the girl to perform refusal as they had originally planned.


###### Niddah 52a:18
[Niddah 52a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:18)

רַבִּי יִצְחָק וְתַלְמִידִי דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא עֲבוּד עוֹבָדָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּנִבְעֲלָה. אֲזַל רַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲזַל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה, שַׁדַּר בַּלָּשָׁא וְאַפְּקוּהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further relates that **Rabbi Yitzḥak and the disciples of Rabbi Ḥanina performed an action in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** in the mishna, **and** permitted a young girl who had grown two pubic hairs to perform refusal, **even though she** had **engaged in intercourse** with her husband after growing two hairs. **Rav Shemen bar Abba** subsequently **went** and **stated** this story **before Rabbi Yoḥanan,** and **Rabbi Yoḥanan went** and **stated it before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia.** Rabbi Yehuda Nesia **sent a constable [*ballasha*] and removed** that girl from her second husband.


###### Niddah 52a:19
[Niddah 52a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:19)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: לֹא שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחוֹר מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת שׁוֹכְבוֹת, וְנִרְאוֹת כְּמִי שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחוֹר עַל הַלָּבָן. רָבָא אָמַר: שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת הַמַּקִּיפוֹת מִשָּׂפָה לְשָׂפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, that the black hair must be preponderant in the pubic area, **Rav Ḥisda says** that **Mar Ukva says:** This does **not** mean **that** the **black** hair must **literally be preponderant** in the pubic area. **Rather, there must be two hairs lying down, so that it appears as though the black** hairs in the pubic area cover an area **greater than the white** area uncovered by hair. **Rava says:** Rabbi Yehuda means that there are **two hairs that surround** the pubic area **from end to end.**


###### Niddah 52a:20
[Niddah 52a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:20)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּעִיקָּרָן גּוּמּוֹת. רַב מַלְכִּיּוֹ אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: גּוּמּוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שְׂעָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that the growth of two hairs is a sign of becoming an adult. The Gemara clarifies the details of this *halakha*. **Rabbi Ḥelbo says** that **Rav Huna says:** These **two hairs that** the Sages **said** are a sign of adulthood **must have follicles at their roots. Rav Malkiyyu says** that **Rav Adda bar Ahava** says: If there are two **follicles** next to each other, they constitute a sign of adulthood **even if there are no hairs** in them. The assumption is that follicles do not exist without hair, and therefore there must have been hairs there that fell out.


###### Niddah 52a:21
[Niddah 52a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:21)

אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: שַׁפּוּד, שְׁפָחוֹת, וְגוּמּוֹת — רַב מַלְכִּיּוֹ, בְּלוֹרִית, אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה, וּגְבִינָה — רַב מַלְכִּיָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This *halakha* was stated by a Sage by the name of Rav Malkiyyu. To prevent confusion between his rulings and those of the similarly named Rav Malkiyya, **Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rav Ika, says:** The *halakha* involving **a skewer,** the *halakha* with regard to **maidservants, and** the *halakha* involving hair **follicles** were all stated by **Rav Malkiyyu.** By contrast, the *halakha* with regard to the **forelock [*belorit*],** the *halakha* involving **burnt ashes, and** the *halakha* with regard to **cheese** were all stated by a different Sage named **Rav Malkiyya.**


###### Niddah 52a:22
[Niddah 52a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:22)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מַתְנִיתִין וּמַתְנִיתָא — רַב מַלְכִּיָּא, שְׁמַעְתָּתָא — רַב מַלְכִּיּוֹ, וְסִימָנָא: מַתְנִיתָא מַלְכְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says:** The aforementioned *halakhot* that relate to **a mishna or a *baraita*** were stated by **Rav Malkiyya,** whereas ***halakhot*** that do not refer to a mishna or *baraita* but are independent statements of *amora’im* were taught by **Rav Malkiyyu. And a mnemonic** to remember this is: **The mishna is a queen [*malketa*],** i.e., the comments that are referring to a mishna were issued by Rav Malkiyya, whose name is similar to the Aramaic term for queen.


###### Niddah 52a:23
[Niddah 52a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:23)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שְׁפָחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between** the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rav Ika, and Rav Pappa? The Gemara answers: The difference **between them** is with regard to which Sage taught the *halakha* involving **maidservants.** Rav Pappa maintains that it was taught by Rav Malkiyya, as it is referring to a dispute in a mishna. By contrast, according to Rabbi Ḥanina, this *halakha* was stated by Rav Malkiyyu.


###### Niddah 52a:24
[Niddah 52a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:24)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אֲמַר לִי מָר זוּטְרָא, קָשֵׁה בַּהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: לָא לִישְׁתְּמִיט תַּנָּא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן גּוּמּוֹת! אִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן גּוּמּוֹת, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי גוּמּוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בְּגוּמָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the *halakha* of Rav Malkiyyu itself, concerning follicles, **Rav Ashi says: Mar Zutra told me** that **Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura** posed the following **difficulty:** If it is correct that follicles suffice as a sign of adulthood, **let** the ***tanna*** of the mishna **not evade** the issue, **but** rather let him **teach us** explicitly that **follicles** are a sign of adulthood even if they do not contain hair. The Gemara answers: **If** the mishna had **taught us** the case of **follicles, I would say** that they are not considered a sign of adulthood **until there are two hairs in two follicles.** By omitting any mention of follicles in the mishna, the *tanna* **teaches us that even two hairs in one follicle** are a sign of adulthood.


###### Niddah 52a:25
[Niddah 52a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/52a:25)

וּמִי אִיכָּא כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא? וְהָכְתִיב ״אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׂעָרָה יְשׁוּפֵנִי וְהִרְבָּה פְצָעַי חִנָּם״, וְאָמַר רָבָא: אִיּוֹב בִּסְעָרָה חֵירַף, בִּסְעָרָה הֱשִׁיבוּהוּ. בִּסְעָרָה חֵירַף — אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, שֶׁמָּא רוּחַ סְעָרָה עָבְרָה לְפָנֶיךָ וְנִתְחַלְּפָה לְךָ בֵּין ״אִיּוֹב״ לְ״אוֹיֵב״. בִּסְעָרָה הֱשִׁיבוּהוּ — ״וַיַּעַן ה׳ אֶת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is there** actually **a case like this,** of two hairs in one follicle? **But isn’t it written: “He crushes me with a tempest, and multiplies my wounds without cause”** (Job 9:17); **and Rava said** with regard to this verse: **Job blasphemed with a tempest,** and **with a tempest he was answered. He blasphemed with a tempest,** as Job **said before** God: **Master of the Universe, perhaps a tempest passed before You and You confused Iyyov,** Job, **with *oyev*,** enemy. **With a tempest he was answered,** as the verse states: **“Then the Lord answered**