ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 48
(a) Rav must agree (in principle) with Rav Yosef, who explains that
'she'be'Ben ve'she'be'Bas' in the Beraisa pertains to the twenty years of a
Saris and an Aylonis, because Rav said earlier - independently of the
Beraisa - that the twenty years in our Mishnah, must be twenty full years.
(b) The reason that he does not explain the Beraisa like this, is because it
is more logical to learn the Beraisa with regard to Erchin. Why is that?
Because then, 'she'be'Bein ve'she'be'Bas' is based on something written in a
Pasuk, just like Kodshim, Batei Arei Chomah and all the other cases quoted
in the Beraisa; which is not the case by the twenty years of Saris and
Aylonis, which is an independent Halachah, not based on a Pasuk. ( See
Tosfos d.h. 'Rav', who explain that, according to this, Rav does not have a
Tana to support him, and we will have to rely on the principle that Rav has
the power of a Tana, and is authorized to argue with Tena'im.)
Yosef, on the other hand, prefers not to learn 'she'be'Ben ve'she'be'Bas' in
connection with Erchin, because then, the Beraisa should have referred to
them as 'she'be'Zachar ve'she'bi'Nekeivah'- the words used by the Torah
itself in connection with Erchin, and not 'she'be'Ben ve'she'be'Bas'.
(a) Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar, quoting Rebbi Eliezer, says 'Shenas Esrim,
she'Yatz'u Mimenah *Sheloshim Yom*, Harei Hi ki'Shenas Esrim le'Chol
(b) The reason that the Gemara rules like him (following the opinion and the
reasoning of Ula), is because our Mishnah changed from the wording of the
whole Perek: every other case in the Perek added the words 've'Yom Echad'
and our Mishnah did not. It is therefore clear that our Tana does not
require twenty full years.
(a) The Rabbanan say that, if the upper Siman arrived, but not the lower
one, she is a Gedolah, because it is impossible for there to be an upper
Si'man without a lower one. Practically, this means that two hairs *must*
have grown, and if they are not there now, it means that they *must* have
According to the Rabbanan, what the Pasuk in Yechezkel is saying, is that
since their (Kl'al Yisrael's) breasts are formed, it is a sign that their
hair must have grown.
(b) Had the Mishnah not written 'although it is impossible', we
would have thought that Rebbi Meir's reason is because in a minority of
cases, the upper Si'man comes first, and Rebbi Meir contends with the
minority (which means that, a woman who has the upper Si'man, remains a
Ketanah until we know for sure that she also has the lower one). The
Rabbanan, on the other hand, follow the majority, and consider her a
Gedolah, as soon as the upper Siman appears - but that is only as long as
she has not been examined. If she has, and was found not to have the lower
Si'man, then they will also agree that she is still a Ketanah, according to
this contention - that it *is* possible for the upper Si'man to appear
before the power one. Therefore, the Mishnah explains, that according to the
Rabbanan, it is impossible for the upper Simanim to appear before the upper
one, and that, should this happen, it can only be because the lower Si'man
fell out, and that she is therefore a Gedolah.
(a) Chazal learn from the Pasuk in Bamidbar, "Ish O Ishah ki Ya'asu mi'Kol
Chat'os ha'Adam" (comparing a woman to a man regarding all punishments in
the Torah), that a woman, like a man, enters the age where she is
punishable, with only *one* Si'man, and that she does not require *two*.
And they also learn from a man, that that Si'man is the lower one (since a
man has no upper Si'man).
(c) If the upper Si'man can come before the lower
one, either as regards both breasts, or as regards either the right or the
left one, it means, that should that the upper Si'man in whichever case,
appear, it will not suffice (like the regular opinion of Rebbi Meir, though
Rebbi Meir does not differentiate between one breast and two, or between
different circumstances, like these Tena'im do).
(a) Regarding girls under eleven, women are believed, because, whether the
girl has Simanim or not, she remains a Ketanah, so that their testimony has
no currrent relevence. And they are also believed to testify on girls who
are twelve or over, because they have a Chazakah (de'Rava) anyway (so that,
apart from the Chumra of requiring testimony, their testimony is noy
strictly speakin, necessary). Consequently, if they say that she has
Simanim, she may make Chalitzah, and if they say that she does not have
Simanim, she cannot make Chalitzah, because we do not suspect that the
Simanim fell out. It is only during the twelfth year that their testimony is
effective, due to the fact that normally, we would not assume the girl to be
a Gedolah, and it is their testimony which causes her status to change -
because Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'le'Achar ha'Zeman.
Consequently, he prohibits them to testify.
(b) The examination of a girl
under eleven is not effective now, but will be later (le'Chumra): namely,
should the women find hairs there before the age of eleven, and the same
hairs are still there after they turn twelve, their prior testimony will
prevent those hairs from being accepted as a Si'man of Gadlus, but will be
taken to be a mole, and she will remain a Ketanah, unable to make Chalitzah.
(c) Women are believed to testify that a girl brought Simanim after twelve,
to enable her to make Chalitzah.
(a) Rebbi Shimon holds 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'Lifnei ha'Zeman. Consequently, a
girl under twelve has the same Din as one under eleven according to Rebbi
Yehudah, and women are believed, as we explained earlier, in 6a.
Rebbi found it necessary to add the Seifa 'Mipnei she'Amru' in order to rule
like the Rabbanan, and not like Rebbi Meir - despite the fact that Rebbi
Meir is a minority opinion. This is necessary because Rebbi Meir has support
from Pesukim: "Shadayim Nachonu, u'Se'rayich Tzimei'ach" and "ba'Asos
Mitzrayim Dadayich" (which we did not discuss). Alternatively, Rebbi
concluded the previous Mishnah with 'Mipnei she'Amru' etc., because in this
way, it ends the last Mishnah, and serves as an introduction to the next
Mishnah, which has a similar format.
've'Ne'eman Ishah le'Hachmir Aval Lo le'Hakeil' could go according to Rebbi
Yehudah during the twelfth year, to say that although Rebbi Yehudah does not
believe women to testify during the twelfth year, that is only le'Hakeil
(e.g. to permit her to make Chalitzah); but to testify that she has Simanim
and that she is therefore forbidden to make Miy'un, for that they are
believed (See Tosfos, d.h. 'Iyba'is Eima', who points out that, in reality,
according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'le'Achar
ha'Zeman', they are forbidden anyway). But the author of that statement
could also be Rebbi Shimon (according to whom the twelfth year is like the
eleventh according to Rebbi Yehudah), and the Chidush would be that, even
*after* the girl has turned twelve, women are not believed to permit her to
make Chalitzah. Why not? It must be because Rebbi Shimon does not hold of
Chazakah de'Rava, and that therefore, there are no grounds to accept a
woman's testimony 'le'Hakeil' under any circumstances.