(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nidah 46



(a) A nine-year old who grows two hairs remains a Katan. As for the two hairs, they are no more than a mole.

(b) And the same applies to a boy from the ages of nine until twelve, according to the Rabbanan. The Gemara's first contention to resolve the discrepancy between the two consecutive sections of the Beraisa is by making a Machlokes Tena'im: the one holds 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'Lifnei ha'Zeman', and the other 'Toch ha'Zeman, ke'Le'achar ha'Zeman'.

(c) Both sections of the Beraisa could well hold that 'Toch ha'Zeman, ke'Lifnei ha'Zeman', and both speak about a girl, but the author of the Reisha is Rebbi (that a girl's transition period is from eleven to twelve, and that of the Seifa, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, in whose opinion the transition period is from twelve to thirteen. Alternatively, both speak about a boy, and the author of the Reisha is Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, whereas the author of the Seifa is Rebbi. Alternatively, both sections could go either like Rebbi, and the Reisha speaks about a girl, and the Seifa about a boy, or both could go like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, but the other way round.

2) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, two hairs that grow on a boy between the ages of nine and twelve constitute a Si'man that he is a Gadol. provided the hairs remain until he turns thirteen; should they fall out before that, then they will have been proved to be no more than a mole - retroactively.


(a) If Rava were to hold that 'Toch Zemano ke'le'Achar Zemano', then how could he permit a girl to make Miy'un in her twelfth year? Perhaps she has grown two hairs, and has the Din of a Gedolah?

(b) If a girl is forbidden to make Miy'un after she turns twelve, because she is considered to be a Gedolah, then why can she not make Chalitzah; If, on the other hand, she cannot make Chalitzah because she is considered to be a Ketanah, then why can she not make Miy'un? We cannot simply answer that Rava has a Safek whether she is a Gedolah (because we assume that a girl of twelve has brought two hairs) or a Ketanah (because until for sure that she has brought two hairs, she remains a Ketanah). Why not? Because Rava has also said that, once a Ketanah reaches the age of twelve, she requires no examination, but is presumed to be Gedolah.

(c) The Gemara wants to answer that in Rava's second statement, he speaks exclusively, when she was *not* examined; whereas in his first statement, he is speaking in a case when she *was* examined, and found *not* to have two hairs.

(d) The reason that she can nevertheless not make Miy'un is because perhaps the hairs fell out; and Rava's Safek is whether we say that, since she now has no hairs, she is a Ketanah, or perhaps, since she has turned twelve, we assume that she grew two hairs, but that they fell out.

(a) According to Rav Papa, we do *not* contend with the possibility that the hairs may have fallen out - when it comes to permitting her to make Chalitzah (le'Chumra), but as far as making Miy'un is concerned, we *do* -le'Chumra. Consequently, she cannot make Miy'un either.

(b) If Rav Papa, who holds 'Ein Chosheshin' comes to forbid her to make Chalitzah, then Rav Papi, who holds 'Chosheshin', must permit her to make Chalitzah. But how is that possible, when Rav Papi himself only said 'Chosheshin', which by definition means *suspect*:in other words, we suspect that the hairs fell out (le'Chumra), but not that they definitely did?

(c) The Gemara therefore concludes that when Rava said that she has a Chazakah, that is to forbid her to make Miy'un if she has not been examined. But as far as Chalitzah goes, she cannot make Chalitzah, even though she has turned twelve, in spite of the Chazakah. She still requires examination le'Chumra. (And it is because it is only a Chumra, that the Gemara will say later (on 48b) that according to Rava, even women are believed to make this examination.

5) Although Rava forbids a twelve-year old girl (even an orphan who was married off by her mother or her brothers) to make Miy'un, even if they examined her and no hairs were found, that is only if she had Bi'ah after she turned twelve (because then the Kidushin de'Rabbanan normally make her an Eishes Ish d'Oraysa, and the Safek whether she grew hairs or not becomes a Safek d'Oraysa); But if she did not have Bi'ah, then the Safek is Safek de'Rabbanan, and, there where she was found to have no hairs, we will *not* go le'Chumra, to suspect that maybe she had them, but they fell out.


(a) The Torah writes "Ish Ki *Yafli* li'N'dor" (from which we learn that the Nedarim of a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish" are effective) and "Lo Yacheil Devaro". Since a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish applies to the one, it also applies to the other.

(b) To preclude a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish from a Korban, and to include him in the Din of 'Bal Yacheil', certainly implies that he is included in the Din of Malkus for breaking his Neder, just like Rav Huna said.

(c) Mi'mah Nafshach, asks the Gemara; If a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish is d'Oraysa, then why should he not receive Malkus, and if he is only mi'de'Rabbanan, then there should be no Isur either?

(d) No! We do not have a proof that there is an obligation to stop a child from transgressing a Torah law, because the Beraisa could also mean that it is grown-ups who receive Malkus for eating what the Mufleh was Makdish.




(a) Rav Kahana will explain the Beraisa to mean that there is an Isur of 'Bal Yacheil', as we attempted to say earlier. There is certainly no Malkus, and the Isur is no more than a de'Rabbanan. The Beraisa, which quotes 'Bal Yacheil', is only quoting it as an Asmachta.

(b) Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish hold that a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish is d'Oraysa, whereas in the opinion of Rav Kahana, it is only de'Rabbanan.

(c) Since the Nedarim of a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish are effective mi'd'Oraysa, according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, how is it possible for a husband, whose Kidushin is only de'Rabbanan, to nullify them?

(d) Bearing in mind that the girl will continue to ignore the Nedarim (which her husband nullified - when she was still Mekudeshes mi'de'Rabbanan) even after she grows up, and then Beis-Din certainly *are* obligated to stop her from sinning.

(a) To suggest that her husband must continue to nullify her vows after she turns twelve, will not solve our problem, because a husband is not empowered to nullify the vows that his wife made *before* they were married.

(b) The Gemara therefore concludes that that prohibition only applies if they were 'not' previously married; but in our case, where they 'were' (even though their Kidushin was only de'Rabbanan), we presume that a woman who makes a Neder, does so on the express condition that her husband agrees - and the nullification (after she becomes Bas-Mitzvah, and they make Bi'ah), will be effective mi'd'Oraysa, since those were the terms on which the Nedarim were made.

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi, the Terumah of a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish is effective. Assuming that the obligation to separate Terumah nowadays is d'Oraysa, how can a Mufleh (who, according to Rav Kahana is only mi'de'Rabbanan) fulfill the Torah-based obligation of separating Terumah?

(b) The Gemara answers that Rebbi Yossi holds that Terumah nowadays, is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) Even though Rebbi Yossi quotes an opinion in the Seider Olam which holds that Terumah nowadays is d'Oraysa, that is not the opinion to which he personally subscribes.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,