אִיּוֹב מִן הַסְּעָרָה, וַיֹּאמַר״ אֵלָיו: שׁוֹטֶה שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, הַרְבֵּה נִימִין בָּרָאתִי בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, וּלְכָל נִימָא וְנִימָא בָּרָאתִי לוֹ גּוּמָּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ שְׁתַּיִם יוֹנְקוֹת מִגּוּמָּא אַחַת, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא שְׁתַּיִם יוֹנְקוֹת מִגּוּמָּא אַחַת – מַכְחִישׁ מְאוֹר עֵינָיו שֶׁל אָדָם. גּוּמָּא בְּגוּמָּא לֹא נִתְחַלֵּף לִי, אִיּוֹב בְּאוֹיֵב נִתְחַלֵּף לִי?

Job out of the tempest, and said” (Job 38:1–3) to him: Greatest imbecile in the world! I have created many hairs on a person’s head, and for each and every hair I created its own distinct follicle, so that two hairs should not draw sustenance from one follicle. As, were two hairs to draw sustenance from one follicle, it would weaken a man’s vision. Now if I did not confuse one follicle with another, would I confuse a man named Iyyov with oyev ? This indicates that two hairs do not grow from one follicle.

לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – בְּגוּפָא, הָא – בְּרֵישָׁא.

The Gemara answers: It is not difficult; that statement above, that two hairs in one follicle is a valid sign of adulthood, is referring to the hairs in the rest of a person’s body, whereas this statement, that there cannot be two hairs in one follicle, is referring to the hairs on a person’s head.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ – אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת עַל הַכַּף וְאַחַת עַל הַבֵּיצִים.

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The two hairs that the Sages said are signs of adulthood are valid signs even if they are not adjacent; but rather one hair is on the spoon- shaped area and one is on the young boy’s testicles.

תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי: שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ – אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת בְּגַבָּהּ וְאַחַת בִּכְרֵיסָהּ, אַחַת עַל גַּבֵּי קִשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁל יָד וְאַחַת עַל גַּבֵּי קִשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתֶיהָ שֶׁל רֶגֶל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְרַבָּנַן אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד.

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita : The two hairs that the Sages said are signs of adulthood are valid signs even if one hair is on the young girl’s back, below her pubic area, and one on her lower abdomen. The same applies if one hair is on the finger joints of her hand and one hair is on the toe joints of her foot. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, of the village of Akko, who said it in the name of Rabbi Shimon. And what do the Rabbis say about this matter? Rav Ḥisda says: According to the Rabbis, they are not a valid sign of adulthood unless the two hairs are in one place.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עַד מָתַי הַבַּת מְמָאֶנֶת? עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחוֹר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁתַּקִּיף הָעֲטָרָה. בֶּן שְׁלָקוֹת אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁתְּכַלְכֵּל.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to when a young girl can perform refusal. According to the Rabbis, it is until she grows two pubic hairs after she reaches the age of twelve years and one day. According to Rabbi Yehuda she still retains the right to perform refusal at that point, until the majority of the pubic area is filled with hair. In this regard, the Sages taught in a baraita : Until when can a young girl perform refusal? Until she grows two pubic hairs; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: She can perform refusal until the area covered by the black pubic hairs is greater than the white skin of the genital area. Rabbi Yosei says: Until the nipple is surrounded by hair. Ben Shelakot says: Until the pubic area is filled with hair.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מְצָאָנִי חֲנִינָא בֶּן חֲכִינַאי בְּצַיְדָן, וְאָמַר: כְּשֶׁאַתָּה מַגִּיעַ אֵצֶל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֱמוֹר לוֹ ״עַד מָתַי הַבַּת מְמָאֶנֶת״? אִם יֹאמַר לְךָ ״עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת״, אֱמוֹר לוֹ ״וַהֲלֹא בֶּן שְׁלָקוֹת הֵעִיד בְּמַעֲמַד כּוּלְּכֶם בְּיַבְנֶה עַד שֶׁתְּכַלְכֵּל, וְלֹא אֲמַרְתֶּם לוֹ דָּבָר״!

And Rabbi Shimon said: Ḥanina ben Ḥakhinai found me in the city of Tzaidan and said to me: When you reach Rabbi Akiva, say to him: Until when can a young girl perform refusal? If he says to you that she may perform refusal until she grows two pubic hairs, say to him: But didn’t ben Shelakot testify in the presence of all of you in Yavne that she may perform refusal until the pubic area is filled with hair [ shetekhalkel ], and you did not say anything to him, thereby indicating that you conceded to him?

כְּשֶׁבָּאתִי אֵצֶל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמַר לִי: כִּלְכּוּל זֶה – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ, בֶּן שְׁלָקוֹת – אֵינִי מַכִּיר, עַד מָתַי הַבַּת מְמָאֶנֶת – עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת.

Rabbi Shimon continued: When I reached Rabbi Akiva, and I said what I had been told to say to him, he said to me: I do not know what this filling with hair [ kilkul ] is, I don’t know any ben Shelakot, and my opinion with regard to your question, until when can a young girl perform refusal, is that she can perform refusal until she grows two pubic hairs.

מתני׳ שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּפָרָה, וּבִנְגָעִים, וְהָאֲמוּרוֹת בְכָל מָקוֹם – כְּדֵי לָכוֹף רֹאשָׁן לְעִיקָּרָן – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִקְרוֹץ בְּצִיפּוֹרֶן, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ נִיטָּלוֹת בְּזוּג.

The two white or black hairs that are mentioned with regard to disqualification of a red heifer; and the two white hairs mentioned with regard to leprous marks, i.e., that if they grow within a white leprous mark, it is impure; and the two hairs that are mentioned in every place, i.e., with regard to a young boy and girl, are significant only if they are long enough to bend the top of the hairs to reach their roots. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Eliezer says: They must be long enough to grasp them and cut them with a fingernail. Rabbi Akiva says: They must be long enough to be cut with a pair [ bezug ] of scissors.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן לְהַחְמִיר.

Rav Ḥisda says that Mar Ukva says with regard to the various opinions in the mishna on the measure of hairs: The halakha is in accordance with the statements of all of them to be stringent. One should consider it hair only if all of the criteria are met, or consider it to be hair if any one condition is met, depending on which standard yields the more stringent result.

מתני׳ הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּלְקֶלֶת

With regard to a woman who sees a red stain on her garment, that woman’s reckoning is distorted. Since she does not know when the blood that caused the stain appeared, she does not know when the seven days of menstrual flow end and when the eleven days of the flow of the zava begin.

וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם זוֹב – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בִּכְתָמִים מִשּׁוּם זוֹב.

And therefore she must be concerned due to the possibility that it might have been caused by the flow of a zava . If she wore the same garment for three days on which she can assume the status of a zava , and subsequently discovered a stain with an area that is the size of at least three split beans, the concern is that on each of those three days a stain with the area of at least one split bean, the minimum area that transmits impurity, was formed. The result is that she is a greater zava and is required to count seven clean days before immersion. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: No configuration of stains leads to concern due to the flow of a zava .

גמ׳ מַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: כְּתָמִים אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם זוֹב. וּפְעָמִים שֶׁהַכְּתָמִים מְבִיאִין לִידֵי זִיבָה.

The Gemara asks: Who are the Rabbis in this mishna? It is Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Stains do not lead to concern due to the flow of a zava , but stains can sometimes lead to ziva .

כֵּיצַד – לָבְשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלוּקוֹת הַבְּדוּקוֹת לָהּ וּמָצְאָה עֲלֵיהֶם כֶּתֶם, אוֹ שֶׁרָאֲתָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים וְחָלוּק אֶחָד – הֵן הֵן הַכְּתָמִים הַמְבִיאִין לִידֵי זִיבָה.

How so, i.e., how can stains lead to ziva according to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus? If a woman wore three different robes that had been examined by her for blood stains, and she then found a stain on each of them; or if she saw blood flowing from her body on two consecutive days and on the third day she saw a stain on one of the robes that she wore that day, those are the stains that lead to ziva .

הָשְׁתָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלוּקוֹת דְּלָאו מִגּוּפָהּ קָחָזְיָא – חָיְישִׁינַן, שְׁנֵי יָמִים וְחָלוּק אֶחָד מִיבָּעֲיָא?

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the above statement: According to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, now that in a case where she sees stains on three robes we are concerned for ziva , despite the fact that she does not see the blood flowing from her body, is it necessary to state that we are concerned if she experiences bleeding from her body on two days and sees a stain on one of the robes?

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא – כָּל כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא מְבִיאָה קָרְבָּן וְנֶאֱכָל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state that, lest you say that in any case like this, where she experiences bleeding from her body on two days and on the third day she sees a stain on one of the robes, she brings an offering and it is consumed, like one who is definitely a zava . Therefore, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus teaches us that her status as a zava is uncertain, and consequently she brings a bird for a sin offering that is due to uncertainty, which is not eaten.

אָמַר רָבָא, בְּהָא זָכַנְהוּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס לְרַבָּנַן: מַאי שְׁנָא פָּחוּת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה גְּרִיסִין בִּמְקוֹם אֶחָד דְּלָא חָיְישִׁינַן – דְּאָמְרִינַן: בִּתְרֵי יוֹמֵי חֲזִיתֵיהּ, שְׁלֹשָׁה גְּרִיסִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד נַמִי – נֵימָא: תַּרְתֵּי וּפַלְגָּא מִגּוּפָהּ חֲזִיתֵיהּ, וְאִידָךְ אַגַּב זוּהֲמָא דַּם מַאֲכוֹלֶת הוּא.

Rava said: With this claim Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus bested the other Rabbis, who agree with the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the mishna: What is different about a stain that is less than three split beans in one place, that we are not concerned she might be a zava ? The reason is that we say she saw blood on only two days. But in a case where she discovered a stain on her robe with the area of at least three split beans in one place, one can also say: The area of two and a half split beans should be attributed to blood seen from her body, but the other is the blood of a louse that was there due to the dirt associated with her bleeding.

וְרַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא לִפְלוּגֵי בִּגְרִיס וְעוֹד לְכָל יוֹמָא – לָא תָּלֵינַן.

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: They maintain that since it is possible to divide the stain into at least one split bean for each of the three days, we do not attribute the stain to the blood of a louse.

וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס שְׁלֹשָׁה גְּרִיסִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד הוּא דְּלָא חָיְישִׁינַן, הָא בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת – חָיְישִׁינַן? הָא אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלוּקוֹת – אִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת – לָא!

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rava: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, one can infer that it is specifically in the case of a stain with the area of at least three split beans in one place that we are not concerned she might be a zava . It can be inferred from here that if it is in three places, we are concerned. But didn’t you say that if she discovered stains in three robes, yes, we are concerned, which indicates that if it is in three places on a single robe we are not concerned.

לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ, לְדִידִי – בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלוּקוֹת – אִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת – לָא: אֶלָּא לְדִידְכוּ, אוֹדוּ לִי מִיהַת דְּהֵיכָא דַּחֲזַאי שְׁלֹשָׁה גְּרִיסִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, דְּאָמְרִינַן – תְּרֵי וּפַלְגָּא מִגּוּפָהּ חֲזִיתֵיהּ, וְאִידָךְ – אַגַּב זוּהֲמָא דַּם מַאֲכוֹלֶת הוּא!

The Gemara answers that it was in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus stated his opinion to them, as follows: According to my opinion, if she discovered stains in three robes, yes we are concerned, whereas if it is in three places we are not concerned. But according to your opinion, at least concede to me that where she saw a stain on her robe with the area of at least three split beans in one place, that we say that the area of two and a half split beans can be attributed to blood seen from her body, and the other is the blood of a louse that was there due to the dirt associated with her bleeding.

וְרַבָּנַן – כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא לִפְלוּגֵי בִּגְרִיס וְעוֹד לְכָל יוֹמָא – לָא תָּלֵינַן.

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: They maintain that since it is possible to divide the stain into at least one split bean for each of the three days, we do not attribute the stain to the blood of a louse.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָרוֹאָה כֶּתֶם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְחַלֵּק שְׁלֹשָׁה גְּרִיסִין, שֶׁהֵן כִּגְרִיס וְעוֹד – חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת.

§ With regard to a woman who finds a stain on her robe, the Sages taught in a baraita : In the case of a woman who sees a red stain on her garment that she wore for a number of days and she does not know when and where it is from, what is her status? If the area is large enough to be divided into three parts, where the total area is the size of three split beans, each of which is the minimum measure to render her a zava , i.e., an area the size of at least a split bean, she must be concerned that she is a zava , as this stain might be the result of seeing a sufficient measure of blood on each of three occasions. But if the stain is not that size, she does not need to be concerned.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן אַגְרָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ – חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Both in this case, where she saw a stain large enough to be divided into three parts, where the total area is the size of three split beans, and that case, where the stain was not that large, she must be concerned that she might be a zava . This is due to the fact that she possibly saw stains of sufficient size on only two occasions, but one was during twilight, which counts as two days, amounting to a total of three days.