(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 52



(a) The Tana needs to add 'O Choletzes O Misyabemes', even after having written that 've'Chayeves be'Chol ha'Mitzvos', in order to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Yossi, who holds that even a Ketanah can make Chilatzah (like she can make Yibum - because it is only a Katan whom the Torah precludes from Chalitzah, when it writes "Ish").

(b) The Tana mentions that *a boy* can make Chalitzah only after he has brought two hairs, because it mentions it by *a girl* (where it is necessary, as we explained earlier).

(c) According to the Chachamim), a girl who has been married off by her mother or brother can make Miy'un up to the time that she brings two hairs - provided she has turned twelve.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah agrees (according to Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Elazar) that, once she has a baby, a girl can no longer make Miy'un, even before 'there is a lot of black'.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael learns from "*ve'Hi* Lo Nispasah", that although by a regular marriage, the Torah draws a distinction between a woman who was seized (and raped - who is forbidden to go back to her husband) and one who committed adultery voluntarily (who is permitted both to her husband and to the adulterer, should her husband die or divorce her), there is another case where, even if she is intimate with another man voluntarily whilst she is married, she is permitted to return both to her husband and to the adulterer. And which case is that?
That is the case of a Kidushei Ta'us, where a condition was made which was not fulfilled - and that includes the Kidushin of a Ketanah (who was married off by her mother or brothers).

(c) Rebbi Yishmael's daughter was married off by her mother or brothers, and, after she had turned twelve - but before there was a lot a lot of black, she came to Make Miy'un (with a baby riding on her shoulders). The Chachamim wept because, who would have thought that the very distasteful occurrence about which Rebbi Yishmael spoke, would happen to his own daughter.

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, a person does not make his Bi'ah a Bi'as Zenus. Consequently, as soon as she makes Bi'ah from the time that she turns twelve, it is considered a fresh Kidushin, and she can no longer make Miy'un. Whereas according to Rebbi Yishmael, when he makes Bi'ah, he has in mind that this Biy'ah follows the original Kidushin, which becomes she has the power to render obsolete when she turns twelve.
The Gemara rules like Rebbi Yehudah, that she can make Miy'un until there is a lot of black - provided she did not make Bi'ah.
Some hold like the Chachamim, others like Rebbi Yehudah. What is clear is that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Yishmael.

(a) 'Ad she'Yarbeh ha'Shachor' has two meanings: 1. That two hairs are long enough to lie flat, conveying the impression that there is more black than white; 2. 'Two hairs that go round from one edge to the other' (it is not clear to me what this means).

(b) Rav Malkiyo adds that even holes without the hairs are sufficient to make a boy or a girl a Gadol - because we assume that the hairs were there (since there are no holes without hairs), and must have fallen out.

(c) 'Masnita Malkesa' is a Si'man to remember that the three statements to do with the Mishnahs or the Beraisos were made by Rebbi Malkiya (since 'Malkiya' and 'Masnita' are both feminine endings, as opposed to 'Malkiyo', which has a masculine ending.

(d) The case of 'Shefachos' is a Mishnah. Therefore, according to Rav Papa, it should be ascribed to Rav Malkiya; whereas according to Rav Chanina Brei de'Rav Ika, it was said by Rav Malkiyo.
And, in the opinion of Rashi, we must also switch around the parallel case of 'Eifer Makleh', which, according to Rav Chanina was said by Rav Malkiya, and according to Rav Papa, by Rav Malkiyo.

(a) Had a Mishnah or a Beraisa taught Rav Malkiyo's Din (i.e. that one does not require actual hairs, but that holes are sufficient), we would have thought that there have to be two hairs growing in *two holes*, but that, if they both grow from *one hole*, it is not a good Si'man Gadlus. Therefore the Mishnah writes two hairs, to teach us that even though they grow from one hole, they are still a Si'man Gadlus.

(b) Iyov asked Hashem whether He did not perhaps confuse 'Iyov' for 'Oyev' (which share the same letters), to which Hashem replied that, if He does not confuse the hairs that grow on a human head, each of which must grow from a different hole, in order not to endanger the person, why should He confuse 'Iyov' with 'Oyev'?

(c) In any event, we see that it is abnormal and dangerous for two hairs to grow from the same source, so how can we establish that our Mishnah is speaking in such a case?

(d) Our Mishnah is speaking about hairs on the body, whereas Hashem was referring to hairs on the head. The former is *not* dangerous, the latter *is*.




(a) No! the two hairs can be anywhere on the body, according to Rav Yehudah quoting Shmuel, even if one is between the joints of one of the fingers, and the other one, between the joints of one of the toes.

(b) Rav Ashi maintains that the two hairs must be in the same location, though not necessarily in the place of the Ervah.

(a) Rebbi Akiva told Rebbi Shimon that he knew nothing about long hairs, and as for ben Shelakos, he had never even heard of him. In fact, in his opinion, a girl is permitted to make Miy'un only up to the time that she brings two hairs.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah says until there is a lot of black (which we have already discussed in our Mishnah). Rebbi Yossi says until the aureola has fully matured (like he learnt above in the Mishnah (47a) regarding the signs of Bagrus.

(a) 1. A Parah Adumah with two black hairs is Pasul. 2. Two black hairs that have turned white inside a mark of Tzara'as on the body, are a sign of Tzara'as.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael holds that if the size of those hairs is sufficiently long to bend the one hair until it reaches the root of the other one, it invalidates and renders Tamei, the Parah Adumah and the Tzara'as respectively.
According to Rebbi Eliezer, they must be long enough to hold (even clumsily) with the nails, whereas Rebbi Akiva maintains that they must be fit to cut with a pair of scissors.
The Halachah is like all the opinions le'Chumra.

(a) By saying that the woman is Mekulkeles, Rebbi Meir means that, since we do not know exactly when the bloodstain emerged from her body, we do not know whether she is a Nidah or a Zavah. Consequently, she is obligated to keep the Chumros of both, until such time as her situation becomes clarified.

(b) The Chachamim say that there is no Din of Zivus, when it comes to bloodstains.

(c) Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos agrees that a bloodstain leads to Zivus provided that, either she finds three bloodstains on three different vests, or, she sees blood twice from her body and only the third time on her vest. (d) Had Rebbi Chanina not told us the latter Din, we might have thought that it is only in the former case, when she did not see blood from her body at all, that her Korban for Zivus is not eaten, but that if she saw twice from her body, and the third time on her vest, then her Korban is also eaten. Therefore he needs to inform us, that even in the latter case, her Korban is not eaten, either.
Rebbi Chanina apparently holds that, even when we do contend with Kesamim they are only de'Rabbanan, whilst, according to Rebbi Meir, they are d'Oraysa.

(a) The Rabbanan maintain that since there are three ki'Gerisin plus, sufficient to ascribe one ke'Geris consecutively, to each of the three sughtings, we do not contend with the possibility of part of the third ki'Geris being that of a louse.

(b) Rebbi Chanina himself holds that it is only on three separate vests that we contend with Kesamim (to make her a Zavah), but not on one vest, even in three separate places.
And what he is saying to the Rabbanan (in the Beraisa) is, that 'as far as I am concerned, even three stains in *three different locations* do not render her a Zavah. However, won't you admit to me at least that if the three stains appear in *one location*, that perhaps part of the third stain is from a louse?'
And to that, the Rabbanan reply that, if three stains totaling three ki'Gerisin plus appear on one vest, they still maintain that they are all three from her body, and that she is therefore a Zavah.

Next daf


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