בא סימן התחתון - two [pubic] hairs which is the sign of being a young woman.

עד שלא בא העליון – the sign of breasts, and this is בוחל/the [intermediate] stage of female puberty between childhood and full womanhood.

או חולצת או מתיבמת – because she is an adult. That the [pubic] hairs are a prominent/distinguished sign, and we rely upon them.

אע"פ שאי אפשר – [even though it is impossible] for the Rabbis for the upper sign (i.e., breasts) to come without the lower one (i.e., the two pubic hairs), but from when the upper sign comes, even though they examined and did not find the lower one, we state the word that the lower sign definitely came but that it fell off, nevertheless, according to Rabbi Meir, she does not perform Halitzah nor does she engage in levirate marriage. For Rabbi Meir holds that it is possible that the upper sign comes without the lower one, but we rely upon the lower one, therefore she is still a minor and she doesn’t perform Halitzah nor does she engage in levirate marriage. But Rabbi Meir according to his rationale who stated that a male child and a female child do not perform Halitzah neither do they engage in levirate marriage. A male child, perhaps he will be found to be a eunuch, and a female child, perhaps she will be found to be a sexually impotent woman.

או חולצת או מתיבמת – and even if she is a minor, she engages in levirate marriage according to the Rabbis, for they do not concern themselves to the limitation/narrowing qualification that perhaps she will be found to be a sexually impotent woman, for most women are not sexually impotent. However, regarding Halitzah (i.e., the removal of the shoe of her dead husband’s brother who refuses to engage in levirate marriage and spitting in his face), we require that she is an adult, even according to the Rabbis, because it is written (Deuteronomy 25;7), “But if the man/איש does not want to marry his brother’s widow,” in the portion, and we make an analogy of [the situation of the] woman to that of the man. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

מפני שאמרו אפשר לתחתון לבוא וכו' – even though it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches it in the first clause, it returns and teaches it another time, because it needs to give support to [Mishnah 2 where it states], “similarly, etc.” which is akin to it.

כל כלי חרס שהוא מכניס – liquid, when he places it on the water there is in a large incision that the water enters into it, all the more so that if he places the water into it, the liquid departs outside. But there is a small incision that lets it out but does not let it in. And we derive from this that which we hold – that a completely earthenware utensil that was perforated it is not invalid to sanctify in it the waters of the sin-offering [of the Red Heifer], that is, to place within it the water of the ashes of the Red Heifer, until he makes a large incision where the liquid goes in. But if he made a small incision where the liquid goes out, it does leave the category of a utensil and not find fault in this. But always a small incision is not like removing liquid that removes it from the category of being a utensil other than a large vessel which turned out to be defective/unwieldy alone (as for example, its handles being broken off or being cracked, and therefore used as a receptacle for refuse, as a pickling pot or as a receiver of drippings from a leaking vessel), that is broken vessel that is was designated to fill up with water and to use it, if it has a perforation/hold through letting liquid out, it is invalidated from the category of a utensil, for we don’t say, bring another large defective vessel and we will place it underneath this defective vessel to receive the liquid that departs. But a complete vessel that has been perforated while removing liquid is not invalidated from anything, because a person is concerned about it and doesn’t break it, and uses it and he brings the shard of a vessel and places it underneath to receive the liquid that comes out from it. And from here this is the explanation of our Mishnah: All earthenware utensils that are invalidated for the waters of the sin-offering [of the Red Heifer] is invalid for a large defective vessel, but there are those which are invalid for a large defective vessel but are fit/kosher for the waters of the sin-offering.

כל אבר שיש בו צפורן – as for example, an extra claw/finger that are on the fingers of the hand, if it has a fingernail/talon, it is considered a limb. And it defiles through contact and by carrying and in a tent, like a limb that has a bone that defiles in a tent, and even if it lacks an olive-bulk of flesh, for we hold that limbs have no [distinct] measurement.

ויש שיש בו עצם – but it is not considered a limb if it is extra, since it doesn’t have a nail/talon, and it defiles through contact and carrying, but does not defile in the tent all the while that there isn’t on it an olive’s-bulk of flesh. But if it is not extra, it definitely defiles in a tent because of being a limb, even though it doesn’t have a nail/talon and even though there isn’t an olive’s-bulk of flesh (see also Talmud Niddah 49b).

כל המיטמא במדרס – the person with gonorrhea. All utensils that is worthy of becoming a primary source of ritual impurity through the Levitical uncleanness arising from a person with gonorrhea’s immediate contact by treading on/leaning against something, as for example a utensil that is designated for lying and/or sitting if a person came in contact with the dead or was defiled in the tent of a corpse. And there is a utensil that completely becomes susceptible to receive all defilements and becomes a primary source of ritual impurity through [contact with] the dead corpse but does not become a primary source of ritual impurity through the person with gonorrhea through lying and/or sitting, as for example, if the person with gonorrhea bent over/turned upside down a Seah and sat upon it, or a field requiring a Tarkav (i.e., a dry-measure, three Kabs) and sat upon it, that very utensil is not impure through treading to become a primary source of ritual impurity, but rather first-degree ritual impurity through its contact with a person with gonorrhea, as it is written (Leviticus 15:4): “[Whoever sits on an object] on which the one with a discharge has sat [shall wash his clothes, bathe in water], and remain impure [until evening],”he who is designated for sitting, excluding this one that they say to him: “Stand and let us our work.” But if he came in contact with a dead corpse, he becomes a primary source of ritual impurity, for we don’t say with someone who is defiled through contact with the dead, “Stand and let us do our work.”

כל הראוי לדון דיני נפשות – all the more so is appropriate/fit to judge monetary matters.

ויש שראוי לדון דימי ממונות – as for example, a Mamzer, who is fit/kosher to judge monetary matters but is invalid to judge capital crimes (see also, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 4, Mishnah 2 and the Bartenura commentary on the concluding clause of that Mishnah).

ויש שכשר להעיד ואינו כשר לדון – as for example, a person who is blind in one of his eyes. But our - Mishnah is according to Rabbi Meir who expounds on Scripture, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:5): “and every lawsuit and case of assault is subject to their ruling/ועל-פיהם יהיה כל-ריב וכל-נגע. He makes an analogy between ריב/lawsuit and נגע/case of assault – that just as a case of assault is not with a blind person, as it is written (Leviticus 13:12): “whatever the priest can see/לכל-מראה א=עיני הכהן,” even a lawsuit is not with a blind person. But the Halakha is not like this anonymously taught [Mishnah], for the Sages dispute on that of Rabbi Meir and state that just as we find that the closing of legal proceedings is at night, even though we can’t see נגעים/people afflicted by plagues/suspected leprosy at night, that is so that a blind person in one of his eyes is fit to judge even though he is not kosher/fit to see plagues/suspected leprosy.

כל שחייב במעשרות מיטמא טומאת אוכלים – for there isn’t a thing that is obligated in tithing that isn’t food (see also Tractate Maaserot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1).

ויש שמיטמא טומאת אוכלים ואינו חייב במעשרות – as for example meat, and fish and eggs, which do not grow in the ground (note: but it should be pointed out that cattle are tithed – see Tractate Rosh Hashanah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1).

כל שחייב בפאה חייב במעשרות – for concerning the corner of the field/פאה, they (i.e., the Rabbis) stated a general principle in [Tractate] Peah (Chapter 1, Mishnah 4): “All that is edible, privately owned, grown in the ground, harvested as a crop all at once (not singly as they become ripe) and can be preserved in storage is subject to [designation as] Peah.” Whereas regarding tithes/מעשר it is taught in the Mishnah [Tractate Maaserot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1]: “All that is food, cultivated and which grows from the earth is subject to [the law of] tithes.” But, “preserved in storage and harvested as a crop all at once” is not taught. It is found that a vegetable is not preserved in storage and a fig and things similar to them are not harvested as a crop all at once, are subject to the laws of tithes but they are exempt from Peah.

כל שחייב בראשית הגז – ewes/sheep and rams alone.

חייב מתנות – the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach (see Deuteronomy 18:3).

ויש שחייב במתנות – that the obligation of [priestly] gifts is for bulls and goats and sheep (at least one year old).

ויש שיש לו שביעית ואין לו ביעור – as for example the things whose roots remain in the ground whether during the months of heat/summer or during the rainy season, like the LOF (i.e., a plant similar to Colocasia, with edible leaves and root, and bearing beans – it is classified with onions and garlic, leaves of the wild LOF and the mint (see Tractate Niddah 51b), which they call NANA in Arabic, and MINTA in the foreign tongue, for since they do not ever cease from the field, there is no obligation to remove them from the house, as it is written (Leviticus 25:7): “and our cattle and the beasts in your land [may eat all its yield],” that all the time that beasts eat in the field, your cattle eats from the house, if the beasts cease from the field, the cattle cease from the house. And all of these that did not cease for the beasts from the field, there is no need to remove them from the house.

קשקשת – the clothing of the fish that is attached to it (i.e., scales).

סנפיר- wings that it flies with them, and whatever has scales, it is known that it has fins and there is no need to examine after it further, for it is a pure fish.

ויש שיש לו סנפיר – but it is an impure fish, for it lacks scales.

יש לו טלפים - its hoofs are cloven, for there are no horns other than for pure cattle and beasts.

ואין לו קרנים – as for example, swine, whose feet are cloven but they don’t have horns.

ויש שטעון ברכה לפניו ואין טעון ברכה לאחריו – such as ritual fringes/Tzizit, and Tefillin/phylacteries and Mezuzah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav, that we recite a blessing upon them before doing/performing them, but they don’t require a blessing afterwards.

תינוקת שהביאה שתי שערות – after [reaching] twelve years of age and one day.

וחולצת או מתיבמת – even though that it teaches [in the Mishnah] that she is obligated in all of the commandments that are stated in the Torah, it was necessary to teach, [either] she performs Halitzah or engages in levirate marriage, for you might have thought that [only] "איש"/a man – is written in the portion (Deuteronomy 25:7): “But if the man/איש does not want [to marry his brother’s widow,” therefore a male who is a minor does not perform Halitzah, but a woman, who is not written in the portion other than as (Deuteronomy 25:7): “his brother’s widow/יבמתו” – whether she is an adult or whether a child, performs Halitzah or engages in levirate marriage. It comes to teach us that if she produces/brings forth two [pubic] hairs, it is so, but if not, it is not so. What is the reason? That we make an analogy between a woman to a man.

וכן תינוק שהביא שתי שערות – after thirteen years and one day. And we establish twelve years for a female and thirteen for a male, is not a definitive sign, but rather an estimation/mark.

וראוי להיות בן סורר ומורה משיביא שתי שערות עד שיקיף זקן התחתון – but prior to his bringing forth two [pubic] hairs, he is not liable for punishment. But after he has grown an encircling beard, he is worthy of giving birth (i.e., engaging in sexual intercourse for purposes of reproduction) and the All-Merciful stated (Deuteronomy 21:18): “If a man has [a wayward and defiant] son/בן,” but not one worthy of being a father.

התחתון ולא העליון – meaning to say, which encircling beard did they mention, with the one of the bottom, but not the one of the top (i.e., the beard of the face).

עד שירבה השחור (until the dark [hair] predominates) – that this place becomes darkened from man hairs. And the legal decision is, that the daughter may [express] refusal until she is twelve years of age and one day. But after this time, if she brought forth signs [of her young womanhood], she is not able to refuse. But if she did not bring forth signs, she can continue to refuse and even until she is twenty-years of age and she will demonstrate signs in her of being a sexually undeveloped woman. But these words [apply] when he did not come upon her [sexually] when she was twelve-years and one-day old, but if he came upon her after this time, she is not able to refuse any longer. But even though signs of [her womanhood] had not appeared in her, we are concerned that perhaps she brought forth the two [pubic] hairs and they fell off.

שתי שערות האמורות בפרה – for we hold (Tractate Parah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5) that two black hairs invalidate her (i.e., the Red Heifer).

ובנגעים – a white hair, for we hold in the Torah of the Priests (The Midrash Halakha of Sifra) (see also Tractate Negaim, Chapter 4, Mishnah 4) that the minimum limitation [of the word] שער/hair is [at least] two.

האמורות בכל מקום – regarding a young male child and a young female child.

לקרוץ (to cut, make an incision) - to hold a bit.

שיהו ניטלות בזוג – of scissors, this is the greater measure. And the Halakha is according to all of them for stringency, and when it is cut with a fingernail, it is the smallest measure of all of them, but she does not complain, lest she is an adult woman, but regarding Halitzah, she does not engage in it, until there is the greatest measure of all of them (see Talmud Niddah 52b).

הרואה כתם (she sees a dark-red stain [on her clothing or body as an indication of uncleanness]) – that she found a drop of blood on her garment.

הרי זו מקולקלת (she is disarrayed) – she doesn’t know an opening to her menstruating to know when will begin the eleven days that are between one Niddah and the next one (the days of protracted menstruation/flux), for she doesn’t know when it appears.

וחוששת משום זוב -if the three days of [consecutive] blood flow have passed from when she wore this garment, and she found upon it a large blood stain the measure of three pounded beans and more, meaning to say, a bit more than three pounded beans, they were doubtful that perhaps each one of them came on one day, and it would be from doubt a large protracted menstruation/flux, and even though there were found in one place.

וחכמים אומרים אין בכתמים משום זוב (bloodstains are not subject [to the laws of uncleanness] because of Zivah) – In the Gemara (Tractate Niddah 52b) it establishes the matter of the Sages here, as an individual opinion, and stated that it is [the statement] of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos. But Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos admits that if she wore three dresses for girls on three days of her days of flux/protracted menstruation, a dress per day, and she found on each of them a blood stain, that she worries about flux. But one does not have to say that if she saw two days of blood from her body, but on the third day wore a dress that was examined for her and she found on it a blood stain, that it is obvious that she worries about protracted menstruation/flux. But it is not disputed that Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos is the “Sages” of our Mishnah, other than when she wears one dress for three days from the days of her protracted menstruation/flux and at the end found a large bloodstain the measurement of three pounded beans and more in one place, or even in three [different] places, for he holds that in this case she is not concerned/worried about protracted menstruation, since she did not have blood stains on three dresses. But Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis dispute upon him, holding, that when she found the measurement of three pounded beans and more on one dress, whether in one place or whether in three places, she worries about protracted menstruation/flux. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos.

הרואה יום אחד עשר – which is at the end of the days of protracted menstruation/flux and on the morrow begins the days of Niddah.

בין השמשות – it is doubtfully day which is the blood of protracted menstruation/flux, doubtfully the night and the beginning of Niddah.

תחלת נדה וסוף נדה – in the Gemara (Tractate Niddah 53b) it explains that this is what it teaches: the beginning of Niddah and the conclusion of the days of protracted menstruation/flux. But on the seventh day of her menstruation/Niddah and the beginning of her protracted menstruation/flux. That is to say, at twilight of the eleven [days], if it is night, it is the appearance of the beginning of Niddah, but if it is day time, the blood is the blood of the end of flux. But if she say it (i.e., blood) two days prior to this, she worries because of flux. And similarly, if she saw it (i.e., blood) on the seventh day of her Niddah at twilight, we are doubtful also, if it is night, for the blood is the blood of the beginning of flux/protracted menstruation, but if she saw it two days afterwards she worries because of flux. But if it is day time, her seeing it [i.e., blood) is the end of the days of Niddah/menstruation , and even though she sees [blood] two days afterwards it is not flux.

יום ארבעים לזכר ויום שמונים לנקבה. בין השמשות לכולן – meaning to say on which of these that she should see [blood] at twilight, it is doubtful that it is [ritually] impure blood and doubtful if it is pure/clean blood,, but if she sees [blood] two other days outside of this, it is blood of protracted menstruation/flux from doubt, and she brings a sacrifice which is not consumed, for all who err bring a sacrifice and it is not consumed.

השוטות (the foolish) – to the foolish who do not know when are the days of Niddah/menstruation and when are the days of flux, they are fools.

עד שאתם מתקנים את השוטות – these foolish women who saw [blood] at the doubtful time period.

בואו ותקנו את הפקחות = that see [blood] at the certain hour and they need repair and to explain/separate the days of their watchfulness and their [days of] sexual intercourse, as for example these that we brought in the Baraita (Tractate Niddah 54a): She who sees [blood] one day is [ritually] impure and one day pure all of her days, and she always sees [blood] during the day but not at night, she engages in sexual intercourse on the eight day from when she saw [blood] for the first time, for she is pure, for behold that on the seventh [day] in the evening she immersed [in the Mikveh] and she didn’t see [blood] until the ninth day, therefore, she engages in sexual intercourse the complete eighth day night and day and the night afterwards which is the morning of the ninth day. And she engages in sexual intercourse for four nights out of eighteen days of her first sighting [of blood], for behold this woman will not be ever be a woman with flux/protracted menstruation, since she doesn’t see [blood] for three consecutive [days]. But when she sees [blood] on the ninth [day], she would observe the tenth [day in abstinence from sexual intercourse] and engage in sexual intercourse at night. And then she would see [blood] on the eleventh [day], and would observe the twelfth [day in abstinence from sexual intercourse] and then engage in sexual intercourse at night, that is two. And she would see [blood] on the thirteenth [day] and observe the fourteenth [day in abstinence from sexual intercourse] and engage in sexual intercourse at night, that is three [days]. And then she would see [blood] on the fifteenth [day] and she would observe the sixteenth [day in abstinence from sexual intercourse] and engage in sexual intercourse in the evening, that is four [days]. And on the seventeenth [day] she would see [blood], and she would observe the eighteenth [day in abstinence from sexual intercourse], behold the eighteen days have been completed and she engaged in sexual intercourse for only four nights. Except for the eighth day and its night, the last act of sexual intercourse is not within the eighteen [days]. And on the morrow on the nineteenth [day], when she sees [blood], this is the beginning of her Niddah/menstrual cycle, for the eleven days between one menstrual period and the other have been completed, and she returns to her count as we have stated. But there is more that requires amendment for the days of their sexual relations, and all of it is brought in the Baraita (Tractate Niddah 54a) in the Gemara in our chapter.