Niddah

Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: The two hairs of which they spoke [establish puberty] even if one is on the crest and the other on the testes. So it was also taught: The two hairs of which they spoke [establish puberty] even if one grows on her back and the other on her belly, one on the joints of the fingers of her hand and the other on the joints of her toes; so R. Simeon b. Judah of Kefar Akko who cited it in the name of R. Ishmael.  But Rab citing R. Assi ruled: puberty is not established unless two hairs grow in the same spot. Our Rabbis taught: Up to what age may a girl exercise the right of mi'un? Until she grows two hairs; so R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: Until the black predominates.  R. Jose ruled: Until a ring is formed around the nipple. Ben Shelakoth ruled: Until she grows her hair in profusion.  In connection with this R. Simeon stated: Hanina b. Hakinai once met me at Zidon and said to me,  'When you arrive at R. Akiba's ask him "until what age may a girl exercise the right of mi'un". If he tells you, "Until she grows two hairs", ask him this: Did not Ben Shelakoth testify in the presence of all of you at Jamnia, "Until she grows her hair in profusion", and you did not say to him a word to the contrary?' When I arrived at R. Akiba's the latter told me, 'I do not know anything about the growing of hair in profusion, and I do not know Ben Shelakoth; a girl may exercise the right of mi'un until the age when she grows two hairs'. MISHNAH. THE TWO HAIRS SPOKEN OF IN REGARD TO THE RED HEIFER  AND IN REGARD TO LEPROSY  AS WELL AS THOSE SPOKEN OF ANYWHERE ELSE  MUST BE LONG ENOUGH FOR THEIR TIPS TO BE BENT TO THEIR ROOTS; SO R. ISHMAEL. R. ELIEZER RULED: LONG ENOUGH TO BE GRASPED BY A FINGER-NAIL, R. AKIBA RULED: LONG ENOUGH TO BE TAKEN OFF WITH SCISSORS. GEMARA. R. Hisda citing Mar Ukba stated: The halachah is in agreement with the views of all these in that the law is thereby invariably restricted. MISHNAH. A WOMAN WHO OBSERVED A BLOOD-STAIN  IS IN AN UNSETTLED CONDITION  AND MUST  TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS DUE TO ZIBAH; SO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES RULED: IN THE CASE OF BLOOD-STAINS THERE IS NO [NEED TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF THEIR BEING] DUE TO ZIBAH. GEMARA. Who are THE SAGES? — R. Hanina b. Antigonus. For it was taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonus ruled, In the case of blood-stains there is no [need to consider the possibility of their being] due to zibah, but sometimes blood-stains do lead to zibah. How so? If a woman  put on three shirts that she had previously examined and then found a blood-stain on each of them, or if she  observed a discharge  on two days and [a blood-stain on] one shirt,  these are the blood-stains that lead to zibah. But since in the case of three shirts, where she observed no direct discharge from her body, the possibility of zibah is taken into consideration, why was it necessary to mention  that of 'two days and one shirt'? — It might have been presumed  that in any instance like this  the woman brings a sacrifice which may be eaten,  hence we were informed [that only the possibility  of zibah is taken into consideration].  Raba observed: In this matter R. Hanina b. Antigonus vindicated his case against the Rabbis. For why is it [that when a bloodstain] less than three beans in size is in one spot we do not take into consideration the possibility of zibah? [presumably] because we assume that it is the result of observations on two days.  But then why should we not, even if a stain of the size of three beans was in one spot, similarly assume that only to the extent of the size of two and a half beans the discharge was from her body while the rest is the blood of a louse due to the filth?  — And the Rabbis?  — Since the stain  can be divided up into parts of the size of a bean and over for each day  we do not ascribe it to any external cause. As to R. Hanina b. Antigonus, is it  only when a stain of the size of three beans in one spot that we do not take the possibility of zibah into consideration, but if it is in three different places  the possibility is taken into consideration? But did you not say  that this  applies only to stains on  three shirts,  from which it follows that it does not apply to stains  in three spots?  — He  spoke to them on the line of the view of the Rabbis. As far as I am concerned, he said in effect, it  applies only to three shirts  and not to three spots;  but according to your view, agree with me at least that, where she had observed a stain of the size of three beans in one spot, we assume that to the extent of two and a half beans the discharge came from her body while the rest is the blood of a louse due to the filth. And the Rabbis? — Since the stain  can be divided up into parts of the size of a little more than a bean for each day,  we do not ascribe it to any external cause, Our Rabbis taught: If a woman observed a blood-stain, if it is big enough  to be divided into parts corresponding respectively to three beans, each of which being slightly bigger than the size of a bean, she must take into consideration the possibility of zibah; otherwise, she need not take this possibility into consideration. R. Judah b. Agra citing R. Jose ruled: In the one case and in the other  the possibility must be taken into consideration.