## Niddah Daf 52b

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

אִיּוֹב מִן הַסְּעָרָה וַיֹּאמַר״ אֵלָיו: שׁוֹטֶה שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, הַרְבֵּה נִימִין בָּרָאתִי בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, וּלְכֹל נִימָא וְנִימָא בָּרָאתִי לוֹ גּוּמָּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ שְׁתַּיִם יוֹנְקוֹת מִגּוּמָּא אַחַת, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא שְׁתַּיִם יוֹנְקוֹת מִגּוּמָּא אַחַת מַכְחִישׁ מְאוֹר עֵינָיו שֶׁל אָדָם. גּוּמָּא בְּגוּמָּא לֹא נִתְחַלֵּף לִי, ״אִיּוֹב״ בְּ״אוֹיֵב״ נִתְחַלֵּף לִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Job out of the tempest, and said”** (Job 38:1–3) **to him:** Greatest **imbecile in the world! I have created many hairs on a person’s head, and for each and every hair I created** its own **distinct follicle, so that two hairs should not draw** sustenance **from one follicle. As, were two** hairs **to draw** sustenance **from one follicle,** it would **weaken a man’s vision.** Now if **I did not confuse one follicle with another, would I confuse** a man named **Iyyov with *oyev*?** This indicates that two hairs do not grow from one follicle.


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

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּגוּפָא, הָא בְּרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **not difficult; that** statement above, that two hairs in one follicle is a valid sign of adulthood, is referring to the hairs **in** the rest of a person’s **body,** whereas **this** statement, that there cannot be two hairs in one follicle, is referring to the hairs **on** a person’s **head.**


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת עַל הַכַּף וְאַחַת עַל הַבֵּיצִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The **two hairs that** the Sages **said** are signs of adulthood are valid signs **even if** they are not adjacent; but rather **one** hair is **on the spoon-**shaped area above his organ **and one** is **on the** young boy’s **testicles.**


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

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת בְּגַבָּהּ וְאַחַת בִּכְרֵיסָהּ, אַחַת עַל גַּבֵּי קִשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁל יָד וְאַחַת עַל גַּבֵּי קִשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁל רֶגֶל — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְרַבָּנַן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes **that** this **is also taught** in a *baraita*: The **two hairs that** the Sages **said** are signs of adulthood are valid signs **even** if **one** hair is **on** the young girl’s **back,** below her pubic area, **and one on her lower abdomen.** The same applies if **one** hair is **on the finger joints of her hand and one** hair is **on the toe joints of her foot.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, of the village of Akko, who said** it **in the name of Rabbi Shimon. And** what do **the Rabbis** say about this matter? **Rav Ḥisda says:** According to the Rabbis, they are not a valid sign of adulthood **unless** the **two hairs are in one place.**


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עַד מָתַי הַבַּת מְמָאֶנֶת? עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחוֹר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁתַּקִּיף הָעֲטָרָה. בֶּן שְׁלָקוֹת אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁתְּכַלְכֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to when a young girl can perform refusal. According to the Rabbis, it is until she grows two pubic hairs after she reaches the age of twelve years and one day. According to Rabbi Yehuda she still retains the right to perform refusal at that point, until the majority of the pubic area is filled with hair. In this regard, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **Until when can a young girl perform refusal? Until she grows two** pubic **hairs;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:** She can perform refusal **until** the area covered by the **black** pubic hairs **is greater** than the white skin of the genital area. **Rabbi Yosei says: Until the nipple is surrounded** by hair. **Ben Shelakot says: Until** the pubic area is **filled with hair.**


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

וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מְצָאַנִי חֲנִינָא בֶּן חֲכִינַאי בְּצַיְדָּן, וְאָמַר: כְּשֶׁאַתָּה מַגִּיעַ אֵצֶל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֱמוֹר לוֹ: עַד מָתַי הַבַּת מְמָאֶנֶת? אִם יֹאמַר לָךְ: עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, אֱמוֹר לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא בֶּן שְׁלָקוֹת הֵעִיד בְּמַעֲמַד כּוּלְּכֶם בְּיַבְנֶה עַד שֶׁתְּכַלְכֵּל, וְלֹא אֲמַרְתֶּם לוֹ דָּבָר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Shimon said: Ḥanina ben Ḥakhinai found me in** the city of **Tzaidan and said** to me: **When you reach Rabbi Akiva, say to him: Until when can a young girl perform refusal? If he says to you** that she may perform refusal **until she grows two** pubic **hairs, say to him: But didn’t ben Shelakot testify in the presence of all of you in Yavne** that she may perform refusal **until** the pubic area **is filled with hair [*shetekhalkel*], and you did not say anything to him,** thereby indicating that you conceded to him?


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

כְּשֶׁבָּאתִי אֵצֶל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמַר לִי: כִּלְכּוּל זֶה — אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ, בֶּן שְׁלָקוֹת — אֵינִי מַכִּיר, עַד מָתַי הַבַּת מְמָאֶנֶת — עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon continued: **When I reached Rabbi Akiva,** and I said what I had been told to say to him, **he said to me: I do not know what this filling with hair [*kilkul*] is, I don’t know** any **ben Shelakot,** and my opinion with regard to your question, **until when can a young girl perform refusal,** is that she can perform refusal **until she grows two** pubic **hairs.**


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

**מַתְנִי'** שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּפָּרָה, וּבַנְּגָעִים, וְהָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם — כְּדֵי לָכוֹף רֹאשָׁן לְעִיקָּרָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִקְרוֹץ בַּצִּיפּוֹרֶן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ נִיטָּלוֹת בְּזוּג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The **two** white or black **hairs that are mentioned with regard to** disqualification of a red **heifer; and** the two white hairs mentioned **with regard to leprous marks,** i.e., that if they grow within a white leprous mark, it is impure; **and** the two hairs **that are mentioned in every place,** i.e., with regard to a young boy and girl, are significant only if they are long **enough to bend the top** of the hairs **to** reach **their roots.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Eliezer says:** They must be long **enough to** grasp them and **cut** them **with a fingernail. Rabbi Akiva says:** They must be long **enough to be cut with a pair [*bezug*]** of scissors.


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

**גְּמָ'** אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן לְהַחֲמִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Ḥisda says** that **Mar Ukva says** with regard to the various opinions in the mishna on the measure of hairs: The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with the statements of all of them to be stringent.** One should consider it hair only if all of the criteria are met, or consider it to be hair if any one condition is met, depending on which standard yields the more stringent result.


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

**מַתְנִי'** הָרוֹאֶה כֶּתֶם — הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּלְקֶלֶת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to a woman **who sees** a red **stain** on her garment, **that** woman’s reckoning **is distorted.** Since she does not know when the blood that caused the stain appeared, she does not know when the seven days of menstrual flow end and when the eleven days of the flow of the *zava* begin.


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

וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם זוֹב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בִּכְתָמִים מִשּׁוּם זוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** therefore she must be **concerned due to** the possibility that it might have been caused by the **flow of a *zava*.** If she wore the same garment for three days on which she can assume the status of a *zava*, and subsequently discovered a stain with an area that is the size of at least three split beans, the concern is that on each of those three days a stain with the area of at least one split bean, the minimum area that transmits impurity, was formed. The result is that she is a greater *zava* and is required to count seven clean days before immersion. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: No** configuration **of stains** leads to concern **due to the flow of a *zava*.**


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

**גְּמָ'** מַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: כְּתָמִים אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם זוֹב. וּפְעָמִים שֶׁהַכְּתָמִים מְבִיאִין לִידֵי זִיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Who** are **the Rabbis** in this mishna? **It is Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Stains do not** lead to concern **due to the flow of a *zava*, but stains can sometimes lead to *ziva*.**


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

כֵּיצַד? לָבְשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלוּקוֹת הַבְּדוּקוֹת לָהּ, וּמָצְאָה עֲלֵיהֶם כֶּתֶם, אוֹ שֶׁרָאֲתָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים וְחָלוּק אֶחָד — הֵן הֵן הַכְּתָמִים הַמְּבִיאִין לִידֵי זִיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How so,** i.e., how can stains lead to *ziva* according to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus? If a woman **wore three** different **robes that** had been **examined by her** for blood stains, **and** she then **found a stain on** each of **them; or** if she **saw** blood flowing from her body on **two** consecutive **days and** on the third day she saw a stain on **one** of the **robes** that she wore that day, **those are the stains that lead to *ziva*.**


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

הַשְׁתָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלוּקוֹת, דְּלָאו מִגּוּפַהּ קָחָזְיָא — חָיְישִׁינַן, שְׁנֵי יָמִים וְחָלוּק אֶחָד מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the above statement: According to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, **now** that in a case where she sees stains on **three robes we** are **concerned** for *ziva*, despite the fact **that** she **does not see** the blood flowing **from her body, is** it **necessary** to state that we are concerned if she experiences bleeding from her body on **two days and** sees a stain on **one** of the **robes?**


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כֹּל כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן וְנֶאֱכָל? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state that, **lest you say** that in **any case like this,** where she experiences bleeding from her body on two days and on the third day she sees a stain on one of the robes, **she brings an offering and it is consumed,** like one who is definitely a *zava*. Therefore, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus **teaches us** that her status as a *zava* is uncertain, and consequently she brings a bird for a sin offering that is due to uncertainty, which is not eaten.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: בְּהָא זַכִּנְהוּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי שְׁנָא פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה גְּרִיסִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד דְּלָא חָיְישִׁינַן, דְּאָמְרִינַן בִּתְרֵי יוֹמֵי חֲזִיתֵיהּ, שְׁלֹשָׁה גְּרִיסִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד נָמֵי נֵימָא: תַּרְתֵּי וּפַלְגָא מִגּוּפַהּ חֲזֵיתֵיהּ, וְאִידָּךְ אַגַּב זוּהֲמָא דַּם מַאֲכוֹלֶת הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: With this** claim **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus bested the** other **Rabbis,** who agree with the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the mishna: **What is different** about a stain that is **less than three split beans in one place, that we are not concerned** she might be a *zava*? The reason is **that we say** she **saw** blood **on** only **two days.** But in a case where she discovered a stain on her robe with the area of at least **three split beans in one place,** one can **also say:** The area of **two and a half** split beans should be attributed to blood **seen from her body, but the other is** the **blood of a louse that** was there **due to the dirt** associated with her bleeding.


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

וְרַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא לְפַלּוֹגֵי בִּגְרִיס וָעוֹד לְכֹל יוֹמָא — לָא תָּלֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how do **the Rabbis** respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: They maintain that **since it is possible to divide** the stain into **at least one split bean for each** of the three **days, we do not attribute** the stain to the blood of a louse.


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

וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס, שְׁלֹשָׁה גְּרִיסִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד הוּא דְּלָא חָיְישִׁינַן, הָא בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת — חָיְישִׁינַן. הָא אָמְרַתְּ: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלוּקוֹת — אִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rava: **And** according to the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus,** one can infer that **it is** specifically in the case of a stain with the area of at least **three split beans in one place that we are not concerned** she might be a *zava*. It can be inferred from here that if it is **in three places, we are concerned.** But **didn’t you say** that if she discovered stains **in three robes, yes,** we are concerned, which indicates that if it is **in three places** on a single robe we are **not** concerned.


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

לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ, לְדִידִי — בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלוּקוֹת — אִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת — לָא, אֶלָּא לְדִידְכוּ אוֹדוֹ לִי מִיהַת דְּהֵיכָא דַּחֲזַאי שְׁלֹשָׁה גְּרִיסִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, דְּאָמְרִינַן: תְּרֵי וּפַלְגָא מִגּוּפַהּ חֲזֵיתֵיהּ, וְאִידָּךְ — אַגַּב זוּהֲמָא דַּם מַאֲכוֹלֶת הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that it was **in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis** that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus **stated** his opinion **to them,** as follows: **According to my** opinion, if she discovered stains **in three robes, yes** we are concerned, whereas if it is **in three places** we are **not** concerned. **But according to your** opinion, **at least concede to me that where** she **saw** a stain on her robe with the area of at least **three split beans in one place, that we say** that the area of **two and a half** split beans can be attributed to blood **seen from her body, and the other is** the **blood of a louse** that was there **due to the dirt** associated with her bleeding.


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

וְרַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא לְפַלּוֹגֵי בִּגְרִיס וָעוֹד לְכֹל יוֹמָא — לָא תָּלֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how do **the Rabbis** respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: They maintain that **since it is possible to divide** the stain into **at least one split bean for each** of the three **days, we do not attribute** the stain to the blood of a louse.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָרוֹאֶה כֶּתֶם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַלֵּק שְׁלֹשָׁה גְּרִיסִין, שֶׁהֵן כִּגְרִיס וָעוֹד — חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת, וְאִם לָאו — אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to a woman who finds a stain on her robe, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of a woman **who sees** a red **stain** on her garment that she wore for a number of days and she does not know when and where it is from, what is her status? **If** the area is large **enough to be divided** into three parts, where the total area is the size of **three split beans,** each of **which is** the minimum measure to render her a *zava*, i.e., an area the size of **at least a split bean,** she must be **concerned** that she is a *zava*, as this stain might be the result of seeing a sufficient measure of blood on each of three occasions. **But if** the stain is **not** that size, she does **not** need to **be concerned.**


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן אַגְרָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Both** in **this** case, where she saw a stain large enough to be divided into three parts, where the total area is the size of three split beans, **and that** case, where the stain was not that large, she must be **concerned** that she might be a *zava*. This is due to the fact that she possibly saw stains of sufficient size on only two occasions, but one was during twilight, which counts as two days, amounting to a total of three days.