(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nidah 46


(a) What is the Din of a nine-year old who grows two hairs?

(b) What do the Rabbanan hold regarding a boy between the ages of nine and twelve years old who grows two hairs - and what does the Gemara first do with the discrepancy between this and the continuation of the Beraisa, which writes that 'If he is *thirteen*, it is a Si'man'?

(c) What are the various other ways of explaining the discrepancy, even if both statements hold 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'Lifnei ha'Zeman'?

2) What does Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Yossi hold in the case of a boy between the ages of nine and twelve who grew two hairs, and how does the Gemara qualify his opinion?

3) Rava says that a girl in her twelfth year can make Miy'un,

(a) How do we see from here that Rava holds 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'Lifnei ha'Zeman'?
He continues 'mi'Kahn va'Eilech, Einah Mema'enes, ve'Einah Choletzes.
(b) What is the problem with this statement, and what makes the Gemara think that we cannot answer simply, that Rava has a Safek and goes le'Chumra in both cases?

(c) What is the Gemara's initial answer?

(d) Then why can she not make Miy'un?

4) Rav Papi contends with the possibility that the hairs may have fallen out (even after she has reached the age of twelve), and that is why she cannot make Miy'un - as we just explained. But according to Rav Papa, we do not contend with the possibility that the hairs may have fallen out.
(a) If that is so, why can the twelve-year old who does not have two hairs not make Miy'un?

(b) Why, in light of Rav Papi's opinion, is this explanation not acceptable?

(c) So how does the Gemara finally establish the two statements of Rava ('mi'Kahn va'Eilech, Einah Mema'enes ve'Einah Choletzes' and 'Ketanah she'Higi'ah li'Ch'lal Shenoseha, Einah Tzerichah Bedikah, Chazakah Heivi'ah Simanim) without any discrepancy?

5) The Gemara concludes that if we do not find two hairs after she has turned twelve, we suspect that they fell out, and she cannot therefore make Miy'un. How does the Gemara qualify this statement, and what is the reason for it?

6) Rav Huna explains that if a boy of twelve (or a girl of eleven) who is a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish eats something that he was Makdish, he receives Malkus.

(a) What is his source for this?
The Beraisa precludes the Neder of a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish from a Korban, from "Zeh ha'Davar", but includes his Nedarim 'le'Zadon Shevu'ah, u'le'Isar, u'le'Ba'al Yacheil'.
(b) Why does this appear to be a proof for Rav Huna?
The Gemara refutes the proof by suggesting that the Beraisa means 'le'Isur Bal Yacheil' - but not for Malkus.
(c) Why does the Gemara not like this explanation?
The Gemara therefore explains that the Isur is not on the 'Mufleh' himself, but on those who are obligated to stop him (whom the Gemara usually refers to as 'Beis-Din').
(d) Do we then have a proof that one is obligated to stop a child from transgressing a Torah law?
Answers to questions


7) If a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish is Makdish an animal, and a Gadol eats it, then according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, the Gadol receives Malkus, which is how *they* will interpret the Beraisa quoted earlier, as we explained in the previous question.

(a) How does Rav Kahana, in whose opinion the Gadol does *not* receive Malkus, explain the Beraisa?

(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

The Beraisa writes that if a Yesomah (who was married off by her mother or brother) makes a vow, her husband may nullify it.
(c) Why is this a problem, according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish?
The Gemara tries to answer that, even if a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish is d'Oraysa, it doesn't matter, because Beis-Din are not obligated to stop a child from sinning.
(d) What is wrong with this answer?
8) The Gemara then tries to resolve the previous problem by suggesting that the orphan's husband should keep on nullifying her vows - even after she has grown up.
(a) Why does the Gemara reject this answer, too?

(b) What is the Gemara's ultimate solution to the problem?

9) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Terumah of a Katan is not valid.
(a) What is Rebbi Yossi's opinion in this matter, and why does this present Rav Kahana, who holds that a Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish is de'Rabbanan, with a problem?

(b) What does the Gemara answer?

(c) How do we now understand the Seider Olam, whose author is Rebbi Yossi, which writes specifically that the first Yerushah (that of Yehoshua) and the second Yerushah (of Ezra) were necessary, whereas the third was not - because the second was permanent (Consequently, Terumah nowadays, ought to be mi'd'Oraysa)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,