Niddah

Rabbi was asked:  In agreement with whose view is the halachah? He sent word in reply: In agreement with all so as to restrict  the law.  R. Papa and R. Hinena son of R. Ika differ. One taught it  in connection with this,  while the other taught it in connection with the law of the Tyrian courtyard. For we have learnt: Which courtyard  imposes the obligations of tithe?  R. Simeon  ruled: A Tyrian courtyard in which objects are safely kept.  (Why is this described as a Tyrian courtyard? — Rabbah b. Bar Hana citing R. Johanan replied: Since in Tyre they put a watchman at the door of a courtyard.) R. Akiba ruled: Any courtyard which one may open and another close  is exempt from tithe.  R. Nehemiah ruled: Any courtyard in which no one is ashamed to eat is subject to tithe.  R. Jose ruled: Any courtyard into which people may enter and none is asked, 'What do you want?' is exempt.  R. Judah ruled: If there were two courtyards, one within the other, the inner one is subject to tithe  while the outer one is exempt.  Rabbi was asked: In agreement with whose view is the halachah? He replied: The halachah is in agreement with all of them so as to restrict the law. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN AT THE AGE OF TWENTY DID NOT PRODUCE TWO HAIRS,  SHE MUST BRING EVIDENCE THAT SHE IS TWENTY YEARS OF AGE AND SHE BECOMES CONFIRMED AS A WOMAN WHO IS INCAPABLE OF PROCREATION AND NEITHER PERFORMS HALIZAH NOR IS TAKEN IN LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. IF A MAN OF THE AGE OF TWENTY YEARS DID NOT PRODUCE TWO HAIRS,  THEY  MUST BRING EVIDENCE THAT HE IS TWENTY YEARS OLD AND HE BECOMES CONFIRMED  AS A SARIS  AND NEITHER SUBMITS TO HALIZAH NOR PERFORMS THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE; SO BETH HILLEL. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: WITH THE ONE AS WELL AS WITH THE OTHER [THIS TAKES PLACE AT] THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN. R. ELIEZER RULED IN THE CASE OF THE MALE, IN AGREEMENT WITH BETH HILLEL, WHILE IN THAT OF THE FEMALE, IN AGREEMENT WITH BETH SHAMMAI, SINCE A WOMAN MATURES EARLIER THAN A MAN. GEMARA. But I would point out an incongruity: The same law applies whether one is  of the age of nine years and one day or whether one is of the age of twenty years but had not produced two hairs!  — R. Samuel son of R. Isaac citing Rab replied: This law  applies only where other symptoms of a saris  also appeared on him. Raba observed: This  may also be arrived at by a deduction. For it was stated, AND HE BECOMES CONFIRMED AS A SARIS.  This is conclusive. Where, however, no other symptoms of a saris had developed, how long [is one  regarded as a minor]? — R. Hiyya taught: Until he has passed middle age.  Wherever people come with such a case  before R. Hiyya,  he used to tell them, if the youth was emaciated, 'Let him first be fattened'; and if he was stout, he used to tell them, 'Let him first be made to lose weight';  for these symptoms  appear  sometimes as a result of emaciation and sometimes they appear as a result of stoutness. Rab stated: It is the law throughout this chapter that age is calculated from one point of time to another point of time;  but 'Ulla stated: This is the case only where we have explicitly learnt it.  According to 'Ulla all is well since there is a satisfactory reason why in one case it was stated  'one day' while in the other this was not stated; but according to Rab, why was not this  stated in all cases?  Furthermore, it was taught: R. Jose b. Kipper stated in the name of R. Eliezer, If thirty days of the twentieth year have passed it is exactly the same as if the entire year had passed;  and so also Rabbi at Lydda ruled, If thirty days of the eighteenth year have passed it is exactly the same as if the entire year had passed.  Now one may well agree that there is no difficulty [as regards the contradiction between the ruling] of Rabbi and that of R. Jose b. Kipper, since the former  is in agreement with Beth Shammai  while the latter  is in agreement with Beth Hillel;  but does not this  present a difficulty against Rab?  — This  is a question in dispute between Tannas.  For it was taught: The year that is mentioned in connection with consecrated things;  the year that is mentioned in connection with houses in walled cities;  the two years  in connection with a field of one's possession;  the six years in connection with a Hebrew servant,  and so also the years in the age of a son and a daughter  are all to be calculated from one point of time to another point of time.  Whence do we deduce the duration of the year that was mentioned in connection with consecrated things? R. Aha b. Jacob replied: Scripture said, A lamb of its  year,  which implies, Its own year and not a calendar year.  Whence do we deduce the duration of the year that was mentioned in connection with the houses in walled cities? — Scripture said, Until the end of his year of sale  which implies, Only his year of sale but not a calendar year.  Whence do we deduce the duration of the two years in connection with a field of one's possession? — Scripture said, According unto the number of