Niddah

R. Nahman stated, The question  is a point at issue between Tannas:  [For it was taught:] If a boy of the age of seven years grew two hairs they are attributed to a mole;  from the age of nine years to that of twelve years and one day they are also to be attributed to a mole,  but R. Jose son of R. Judah ruled: They  are a sign of puberty; at the age of thirteen years and one day, all agree that they are a sign of puberty.  Now is not this self-contradictory: You said, 'From the age of nine years to that of twelve years and one day they are also to be attributed to a mole', from which it follows that at the actual age of thirteen years they are a sign of puberty; but then it is stated, 'At the age of thirteen years and one day … they are a sign of puberty', from which it follows, does it not, that at the actual age of thirteen years they are to be attributed to a mole? Must you not concede then that this question  is a point at issue between the Tannas, one Master  holding that the intervening period is regarded as that of over age while the other Master maintains that the intervening period is regarded as that of under age?  No; all may agree that the intervening period is regarded as that under age, but both clauses refer to a girl the first  supporting the view of Rabbi  while the latter  represents that of R. Simeon b. Eleazar.  And if you prefer I  might reply: Both clauses refer to a boy, and the first represents the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar while the latter represents the view of Rabbi.  And if you prefer I  might reply: Both clauses are the view of Rabbi, but one  refers to a boy while the other  refers to a girl. And if you prefer I  might say: Both clauses are the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, but the one  refers to a boy while the other  refers to a girl. 'R. Jose son of R. Judah ruled: They are a sign of puberty.' R. Keruspedai son of R. Shabbethai explained: This applies only where they  are still on him.  So it was also taught: If a boy of the age of nine years and one day had grown two hairs they are to be attributed to a mole; from the age of nine years to that of twelve years and one day, though the hairs are still on him, they are to be attributed to a mole. R. Jose son of R. Judah ruled: They are a sign of puberty. Raba stated: The law is that the intervening period is regarded as that of under age. R. Samuel b. Zutra taught Raba's tradition in the following form:  Raba stated, A minor all through her twelfth year may make a declaration of mi'un  and go away,  but from that age upwards she may not make a declaration of mi'un  but  she may not submit to halizah.  Is not this statement, however, self contradictory? You said, 'she may not make a declaration of mi'un' from which it is evident that  she is regarded as one of age; but if she is of age why may she not submit to halizah? And were you to reply that he  was in doubt,  [it could be retorted:] Was he in doubt? Did not Raba in fact rule: A minor on attaining the age of majority need not be examined  since there is presumption that she has grown the signs of puberty? — This  applies only to general cases, but not here where an examination was held and no hairs were found. If so,  why should she not be allowed to make a declaration of mi'un? The possibility is taken into consideration that they might have fallen off. This would be a satisfactory explanation according to him who holds that such a possibility is taken into consideration, but what explanation can be offered according to him who holds that such a possibility need not be taken into consideration? Was it not stated: R. Kahana  ruled, There is no need to consider the possibility that they may have fallen off and R. Papi ruled, The possibility must be considered? — This  applies only to the matter of halizah,  but as regards mi'un the possibility is taken into consideration.  Thus it follows that according to him who holds that the possibility  is taken into consideration she may submit to halizah; but [it may be objected:] Did he not merely say that the possibility  is taken into consideration?  The fact is that this  is a case where she was not examined,  but the possibility  is taken into consideration as regards halizah,  and when Raba stated 'There is presumption' he meant it in regard to mi'un,  but in regard to halizah  an examination  is a pre-requisite. R. Dimi of Nehardea stated: The law is that the possibility that the hairs may have fallen off is taken into consideration.  This,  however, applies only where one had betrothed her  during the intervening period and cohabited after that period, since a Pentateuchal doubt is thereby involved,  but not to the original betrothal alone. R. Huna ruled: If [a child]  dedicated some food and then ate it, he  is subject to flogging, for it is said in Scripture, When… man … shall clearly utter a vow,  and He shall not break his word,  which  implies that whosoever is able to 'utter clearly'  is subject to the prohibition of 'he shall not break his word'  and only he who is not able to 'utter clearly' is not subject to the injunction of 'he shall not break his word'. R. Huna b. Judah addressed an objection to  Raba  in support of R. Huna: