(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 48



(a) Rav must agree (in principle) with Rav Yosef, who explains that 'she'be'Ben ve'she'be'Bas' in the Beraisa pertains to the twenty years of a Saris and an Aylonis, because Rav said earlier - independently of the Beraisa - that the twenty years in our Mishnah, must be twenty full years.

(b) The reason that he does not explain the Beraisa like this, is because it is more logical to learn the Beraisa with regard to Erchin. Why is that? Because then, 'she'be'Bein ve'she'be'Bas' is based on something written in a Pasuk, just like Kodshim, Batei Arei Chomah and all the other cases quoted in the Beraisa; which is not the case by the twenty years of Saris and Aylonis, which is an independent Halachah, not based on a Pasuk. ( See Tosfos d.h. 'Rav', who explain that, according to this, Rav does not have a Tana to support him, and we will have to rely on the principle that Rav has the power of a Tana, and is authorized to argue with Tena'im.)

(c) Rav Yosef, on the other hand, prefers not to learn 'she'be'Ben ve'she'be'Bas' in connection with Erchin, because then, the Beraisa should have referred to them as 'she'be'Zachar ve'she'bi'Nekeivah'- the words used by the Torah itself in connection with Erchin, and not 'she'be'Ben ve'she'be'Bas'.

(a) Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar, quoting Rebbi Eliezer, says 'Shenas Esrim, she'Yatz'u Mimenah *Sheloshim Yom*, Harei Hi ki'Shenas Esrim le'Chol Devareha'.

(b) The reason that the Gemara rules like him (following the opinion and the reasoning of Ula), is because our Mishnah changed from the wording of the whole Perek: every other case in the Perek added the words 've'Yom Echad' and our Mishnah did not. It is therefore clear that our Tana does not require twenty full years.

(a) The Rabbanan say that, if the upper Siman arrived, but not the lower one, she is a Gedolah, because it is impossible for there to be an upper Si'man without a lower one. Practically, this means that two hairs *must* have grown, and if they are not there now, it means that they *must* have fallen out.

(b) Had the Mishnah not written 'although it is impossible', we would have thought that Rebbi Meir's reason is because in a minority of cases, the upper Si'man comes first, and Rebbi Meir contends with the minority (which means that, a woman who has the upper Si'man, remains a Ketanah until we know for sure that she also has the lower one). The Rabbanan, on the other hand, follow the majority, and consider her a Gedolah, as soon as the upper Siman appears - but that is only as long as she has not been examined. If she has, and was found not to have the lower Si'man, then they will also agree that she is still a Ketanah, according to this contention - that it *is* possible for the upper Si'man to appear before the power one. Therefore, the Mishnah explains, that according to the Rabbanan, it is impossible for the upper Simanim to appear before the upper one, and that, should this happen, it can only be because the lower Si'man fell out, and that she is therefore a Gedolah.

4) According to the Rabbanan, what the Pasuk in Yechezkel is saying, is that since their (Kl'al Yisrael's) breasts are formed, it is a sign that their hair must have grown.




(a) Chazal learn from the Pasuk in Bamidbar, "Ish O Ishah ki Ya'asu mi'Kol Chat'os ha'Adam" (comparing a woman to a man regarding all punishments in the Torah), that a woman, like a man, enters the age where she is punishable, with only *one* Si'man, and that she does not require *two*.

(b) And they also learn from a man, that that Si'man is the lower one (since a man has no upper Si'man).

(c) If the upper Si'man can come before the lower one, either as regards both breasts, or as regards either the right or the left one, it means, that should that the upper Si'man in whichever case, appear, it will not suffice (like the regular opinion of Rebbi Meir, though Rebbi Meir does not differentiate between one breast and two, or between different circumstances, like these Tena'im do).

(a) Regarding girls under eleven, women are believed, because, whether the girl has Simanim or not, she remains a Ketanah, so that their testimony has no currrent relevence. And they are also believed to testify on girls who are twelve or over, because they have a Chazakah (de'Rava) anyway (so that, apart from the Chumra of requiring testimony, their testimony is noy strictly speakin, necessary). Consequently, if they say that she has Simanim, she may make Chalitzah, and if they say that she does not have Simanim, she cannot make Chalitzah, because we do not suspect that the Simanim fell out. It is only during the twelfth year that their testimony is effective, due to the fact that normally, we would not assume the girl to be a Gedolah, and it is their testimony which causes her status to change - because Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'le'Achar ha'Zeman. Consequently, he prohibits them to testify.

(b) The examination of a girl under eleven is not effective now, but will be later (le'Chumra): namely, should the women find hairs there before the age of eleven, and the same hairs are still there after they turn twelve, their prior testimony will prevent those hairs from being accepted as a Si'man of Gadlus, but will be taken to be a mole, and she will remain a Ketanah, unable to make Chalitzah.

(c) Women are believed to testify that a girl brought Simanim after twelve, to enable her to make Chalitzah.

(a) Rebbi Shimon holds 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'Lifnei ha'Zeman. Consequently, a girl under twelve has the same Din as one under eleven according to Rebbi Yehudah, and women are believed, as we explained earlier, in 6a.

(b) 've'Ne'eman Ishah le'Hachmir Aval Lo le'Hakeil' could go according to Rebbi Yehudah during the twelfth year, to say that although Rebbi Yehudah does not believe women to testify during the twelfth year, that is only le'Hakeil (e.g. to permit her to make Chalitzah); but to testify that she has Simanim and that she is therefore forbidden to make Miy'un, for that they are believed (See Tosfos, d.h. 'Iyba'is Eima', who points out that, in reality, according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'le'Achar ha'Zeman', they are forbidden anyway). But the author of that statement could also be Rebbi Shimon (according to whom the twelfth year is like the eleventh according to Rebbi Yehudah), and the Chidush would be that, even *after* the girl has turned twelve, women are not believed to permit her to make Chalitzah. Why not? It must be because Rebbi Shimon does not hold of Chazakah de'Rava, and that therefore, there are no grounds to accept a woman's testimony 'le'Hakeil' under any circumstances.

8) Rebbi found it necessary to add the Seifa 'Mipnei she'Amru' in order to rule like the Rabbanan, and not like Rebbi Meir - despite the fact that Rebbi Meir is a minority opinion. This is necessary because Rebbi Meir has support from Pesukim: "Shadayim Nachonu, u'Se'rayich Tzimei'ach" and "ba'Asos Mitzrayim Dadayich" (which we did not discuss). Alternatively, Rebbi concluded the previous Mishnah with 'Mipnei she'Amru' etc., because in this way, it ends the last Mishnah, and serves as an introduction to the next Mishnah, which has a similar format.

Next daf


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