Question #2 (against R. Yochanan - R. Zeira - Beraisa): "Ish Ki Yafli Lindor Neder" includes a boy above 13. Even though he does not know to Whom he vowed, it takes effect.

Question: What is the case?

If he did not grow hairs, he is still a minor!

Answer: Rather, he grew hairs;

Inference: The hairs are significant after 13. During year 13 they would be a Shuma!

R. Yochanan is refuted.

Suggestion (Rav Nachman): Tana'im argue as Rav and R. Yochanan do:

(Beraisa): If a boy under nine grew hairs, they are a Shuma;

If he grew hairs between 9 and 12, they are a Shuma;

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, (after nine) they are a Siman.

If he grew hairs after 13, all agree that they are a Siman.

Contradiction: The first Tana says that between 9 and 12, they are a Shuma. This implies that he agrees that after 12 they are a Siman;

(Seifa): All agree that after 13 they are a Siman.

Inference: During year 13, they argue!

Resolution: Different Tana'im taught these clauses. The former Tana holds that the year 13 is like the next year, and the latter Tana holds that it is like the previous year!

Rejection: No, all agree that it is like the previous year;

Explanation #1: The Beraisa discusses a girl. The first Tana holds like Rebbi. (Her age, at which hairs are a Siman, is 12.) The latter Tana holds like R. Shimon. (Her age is 13);

Explanation #2: The Beraisa discusses a boy. The first Tana holds like R. Shimon (his age is 12), and the latter Tana holds like Rebbi (his age is 13);

Explanation #3: The entire Beraisa is like Rebbi. It first discusses a girl (her age is 12), and then a boy (his age is 13);

Explanation #4: The entire Beraisa is like R. Shimon. It first discusses a boy, and then a girl.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): (After nine) they are a Siman.

(Rav Kruspedai brei d'Rav Shavtai): This is only if the hair is still there after 13.

Support (Beraisa): If a boy above nine grew hairs, they are a Shuma;

If he grew hairs between 9 and 12, and they are still on him after 13, they are a Shuma;

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, they are a Siman.

Version #1 (Rava): The Halachah is, the year is like the previous one.

Version #2 - Rav Shmuel bar Zutra (Rava): (An orphaned girl cannot marry mid'Oraisa until she matures. Chachamim enacted marriage mid'Rabanan for her, and allow her to do Mi'un (retroactively annul the marriage) until she matures.) A girl may do Mi'un anytime until 12 full years;

After 12, she may not do Mi'un or Chalitzah.

Question: He forbids Mi'un because he assumes that she is an adult (and the marriage became mid'Oraisa);

If she is an adult, she may do Chalitzah!

Suggestion: Rava is in Safek whether or not she is an adult.

Rejection: Rava taught that we need not check a girl above 12. She is Muchzekes to be an adult.

Answer #1: Normally, we assume that she is an adult. She may not do Chalitzah in a case when we see that she does not have hairs now.

Question: If so, she should be allowed to do Mi'un!

Answer: We are concerned lest she brought hairs after 12 years, and they fell out.

Question: This is like the opinion that is concerned that they fell out. According to the opinion that is not concerned, how can we answer?

(Rav Papa): We are concerned that they fell out;

(Rav Papi): We are not concerned.

Answer: This is only regarding Chalitzah. (Rav Papi does not assume that they fell out to allow Chalitzah.) Regarding Mi'un, all are concerned.

Objection: This implies that Rav Papa permits Chalitzah. However, he says we are concerned (perhaps they fell out)!

Answer #2 (to Question (j)): Really, we did not check her. Regarding Chalitzah we are concerned. (Perhaps she is still a minor.) Rava's Chazakah refers to Mi'un. (We are stringent not to allow Mi'un);

She may not do Chalitzah until we see hairs.

(Rav Dimi of Neharde'a): The Halachah is, (regarding Mi'un) we are concerned lest they fell out.

This is only if she had Bi'ah with her husband after 12 years of age, for then it is a Safek mid'Oraisa. (If she brought hairs after 12 and before Bi'ah, she is married mid'Oraisa.) If not, she may do Mi'un. (She is married only mid'Rabanan.)

(Rav Huna): If a Mufla Samuch l'Ish (a minor in the year before adulthood) was Makdish something and ate it, he is lashed;

It says "Ish Ki Yafli Lindor Neder," and it says "(Ish Ki Yidor... ) Lo Yachel Devaro." Whoever is an "Ish" for the former (his vows take effect) is an Ish for the latter (he is liable for transgressing them), and vice-versa.

Question (against Rava, and support for Rav Huna - Rav Huna bar Yehudah - Beraisa) Suggestion: The Torah considers a minor to be like an adult regarding intentional transgression of oaths, Isar (another way of taking a vow or oath; see Shevu'os 20a) and Lo Yachel. Perhaps one who benefits from Hekdesh of a minor brings a Korban Me'ilah!

Rejection: "Zeh ha'Davar" (teaches that he is like an adult only for Lo Yachel, but not for Me'ilah).

Summation of question: The Beraisa says that a minor is like an adult regarding Isar and Lo Yachel! (I.e. he is lashed. Our text is like the Rashba and Ran. The Aruch la'Ner questions the basis of the question. Perhaps Rava holds like Rav Huna! He suggests that when the Gemara said (45b, 4:a:2) that the year is like before or after regarding punishments, this means punishments for Nedarim. Accordingly, Rava disagrees with Rav Huna. Maharsha - the question is not against Rava, rather, against the Amora'im below who obligate adults for the minor's Hekdesh, but exempt the minor.)

Answer #1: No, he is like an adult regarding the Isur of Lo Yachel, but he is not lashed.

Question: In any case this is difficult!

If Mufla Samuch l'Ish is mid'Oraisa (it is forbidden even to him), he should be lashed;

If it is mid'Rabanan, he should not be forbidden! (Chachamim do not forbid minors.)

Answer: Chachamim commanded the one who supervises the minor to stop him from transgressing.

Inference: Beis Din (i.e. all adults) are commanded to stop minors from transgressing! (This is unlike R. Pedas (Yevamos 113b).)

Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question (b)): No. The case is, the minor was Makdish and adults ate it.

Question: This is like the opinion that adults are lashed for (benefit from) a minor's Hekdesh;

According to the opinion that adults are not lashed for a minor's Hekdesh, how can we answer?

(Rav Kahana): If an adult ate a minor's Hekdesh, he is not lashed;

(R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): He is lashed.

Answer: He is lashed mid'Rabanan. What we expounded from "Ish Ki Yafli" is only an Asmachta.

(Rav Kahana): If an adult ate a minor's Hekdesh, he is not lashed;

(R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): He is lashed.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer: Rav Kahana holds that Mufla Samuch l'Ish is mid'Rabanan, and R. Yochanan holds that it is mid'Oraisa.

Question (R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa): If an orphaned girl (who was married mid'Rabanan) took a vow, her husband can be Mefer (annul) it.

We understand this if Mufla Samuch l'Ish is mid'Rabanan. The marriage is mid'Rabanan, therefore he can be Mefer a mid'Rabanan vow;

However, if Mufla Samuch l'Ish is mid'Oraisa, how can he be Mefer a Torah vow? Mid'Oraisa she is not his wife!

Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): In any case, he can be Mefer:

If the vow is mid'Rabanan, he can be Mefer (like we explained);

If it is mid'Oraisa, Chachamim authorize him to be Mefer;

Even though mid'Oraisa, the vow is in force, we are not concerned. She is a minor, and Beis Din need not stop a minor from transgressing.

Question: Since we say that it is annulled, she will transgress even after she becomes an adult!

Answer (Rabah bar Livai): Her husband is Mefer constantly (in case she just matured). the Hafarah is valid if they had Bi'ah (after she matured, for then the marriage is mid'Oraisa. Seemingly, just like she may not eat Terumah mid'Oraisa (due to her husband, if he is a Kohen) lest she eat in the interim (after maturing before the next Bi'ah - Tosfos Yevamos 90a), she should be bound by her vow lest she transgress it in the interim! The Rashba asks that one may not tell a child to transgress even mid'Rabanan laws, and Hafarah is like telling her to transgress! He answers that we could have asked this (in addition to the coming objection). Perhaps we could have asked also about the interim! - PF)

Objection: A husband cannot be Mefer vows that she made before he married her!

Answer #2: Even though mid'Oraisa they are not married, he can be Mefer due to Rav Pinchas' teaching:

(Rav Pinchas): A woman vows on condition that her husband will consent. (This applies even if the marriage is only mid'Rabanan, for she considers him to be her husband.)

Question (Abaye - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If a minor did not bring hairs, if he separates Terumah, it does not take effect;

R. Yosi says, if he is younger than Onas ha'Nedarim (Mufla Samuch l'Ish), his Terumah does not take effect. If he reached Onas ha'Nedarim, it is Terumah.

We are thinking that R. Yosi holds that (the obligation to take) Terumah is mid'Oraisa nowadays (after the Churban).

If Mufla Samuch l'Ish is mid'Oraisa, we understand this. His Terumah is mid'Oraisa, so it exempts Tevel mid'Oraisa.

If Mufla Samuch l'Ish is mid'Rabanan, how can Terumah mid'Rabanan exempt Tevel mid'Oraisa?!

Answer: R. Yosi holds that Terumah is mid'Rabanan nowadays.

Contradiction (Beraisa in Seder Olam): "Asher Yarshu Avosecha vi'Rishta" alludes to two inheritances (of Eretz Yisrael, in Yehoshua's time and in Ezra's time). There will not be a third (because Ezra's Kedushah did not cease after the second Churban. Therefore, Terumah should still be mid'Oraisa today!)

(R. Yochanan): An anonymous Beraisa in Seder Olam is assumed to be R. Yosi.

Answer: R. Yosi taught this (that there will not be a third Kedushah), but he disagrees. (Rashash, based on Tosfos Eruvin 9b - R. Yosi merely compiled Seder Olam from teachings of previous Chachamim.)