Niddah

MISHNAH. IF A GIRL  HAS GROWN TWO PUBIC HAIRS SHE  MAY EITHER PERFORM HALIZAH OR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, AND SHE IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PERFORM ALL THE COMMANDMENTS THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH. SO ALSO A BOY, IF HE HAS GROWN TWO PUBIC HAIRS, IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PERFORM ALL THE COMMANDMENTS ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH. HE IS FURTHERMORE LIABLE TO THE PENALTY OF A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON  AS SOON AS HE HAS GROWN TWO HAIRS UNTIL THE TIME WHEN HIS BEARD FORMS A CIRCLE.  (THIS REFERS TO THE LOWER, AND NOT TO THE UPPER ONE, BUT  THE SAGES USED A EUPHEMISM,)7 A GIRL WHO HAS GROWN TWO HAIRS  MAY NO LONGER EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF MI'UN. R. JUDAH RULED: MI'UN MAY BE EXERCISED UNTIL THE BLACK  PREDOMINATES. GEMARA. But since we have learnt, SHE IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PERFORM ALL THE COMMANDMENTS THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH, what need was there for stating, SHE MAY EITHER PERFORM HALIZAH OR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE?  — To exclude a ruling of R. Jose who stated, 'In the Biblical section  it is written man,  but as regards a woman there is no difference between a major and a minor'.  Hence we were informed that  if she has grown two hairs she may perform halizah,  but otherwise she may not. What is the reason? A woman is to be compared to man. But since it was stated, SO ALSO A BOY, IF HE HAS GROWN TWO PUBIC HAIRS,  what need was there for stating, HE IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PERFORM ALL THE COMMANDMENTS ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH? And should you reply: Because it was desired to teach, HE IS FURTHERMORE LIABLE TO THE PENALTY OF A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON [the objection would arise]: Have we not learnt this once: 'When does one become liable to the penalty of a stubborn and rebellious son? As soon as one grows two hairs until the time the beard forms a circle. (By this was meant the lower, and not the upper one, but the Sages used a euphemism)'? — This is so indeed; only because details were specified about the girl those relating to the boy were also specified. IF A GIRL HAS GROWN etc. R. Abbahu citing R. Eleazar stated, The halachah is in agreement with R. JUDAH. R. Judah, however, agrees that if she was subjected to cohabitation after she had grown two hairs,  she may no longer exercise the right of mi'un.  The colleagues of R. Kahana desired to give a practical decision  in agreement with the ruling of R. Judah, although intercourse had taken place, but R. Kahana addressed them as follows: Did not such an incident happen with the daughter of R. Ishmael?  She, namely, came to the schoolhouse to exercise the right of mi'un while her son was riding on her shoulder; and on that day were the views of R. Ishmael mentioned at the schoolhouse; and the Rabbis wept bitterly  saying, 'Over a ruling which that righteous man  had laid down should his offspring stumble!' For Rab Judah citing Samuel who had it from R. Ishmael stated: And she be not seized,  [then only]  is she forbidden,  but if she was seized she is permitted. There is, however, another class of woman who is permitted  even if she was not seized. And who is that? A woman whose betrothal was a mistaken one,  and who, even if her son sits riding on her shoulder, may exercise the right of mi'un and go away.  Thereupon they took a vote and decided: Up to what age may a girl  exercise the right of mi'un? Until that at which she grows two hairs. [On hearing this incident] they  abstained and did not act as they first intended. R. Isaac and the disciples of R. Hanina gave a practical decision in agreement with R. Judah, though the girl had been subjected to intercourse. R. Shamin b. Abba proceeded to tell it in the presence of R. Johanan; R. Johanan proceeded to tell it in the presence of R. Judah Nesi'ah  and the latter sent a constable  who took her away. R. Hisda citing Mar Ukba stated: The meaning  is not that the black must actually predominate but that it shall be such as, when two hairs lie flat, has the appearance  of the black predominating over the white,  Raba stated: Two hairs that reach from rim to rim. R. Helbo citing R. Huna stated: The two hairs of which the Rabbis spoke  must  have follicles at their roots. R. Malkio citing R. Adda b. Ahabah ruled: Follicles suffice even in the absence of hairs. Said R. Hanina the son of R. Ika: The rulings concerning a spit,  bondwomen  and follicles  were laid down by R. Malkio, but those concerning a forelock,  wood-ash  and cheese  were laid down by R. Malkia. R. Papa, however, stated: If the statement was made on a Mishnah or a Baraitha the author is R. Malkia but if on reported traditions  the author is R. Malkio. And the mnemonic  is, 'The mathnitha  is queen'.  What is the practical difference between them?  — The practical difference between them is the statement on bondwomen.  R. Ashi stated, Mar Zutra told me that R. Hanina of Sura felt about this the following difficulty: Would not a single Tanna  go out of his way to teach  us the law of the follicles? — If one  had informed us of the law of the follicles it might have been presumed that [puberty is not established] unless there were two hairs in two follicles respectively, hence we were informed  that even two hairs in one follicle are sufficient. But is there such a phenomenon?  Is it not in fact written in Scripture, He that would break me with a tempest, and multiply my wounds without cause  in connection with which Raba  remarked: Job blasphemed with the mention of tempest and he was answered with a tempest. He 'blasphemed with the mention of tempest', saying to Him, 'Sovereign of the world, perhaps a tempest has passed before Thee, and caused Thee to confuse "Job"60 with "enemy"?'  'He was answered with a tempest': Then the Lord answered