1)

(a)Besides the fact that they are Chayav to observe all the Mitzvos, our Mishnah rules that - a girl or a boy who grows two pubic hairs is eligible to perform Yibum and Chilitzah.

(b)Beginning from then, the latter is fit to be a ben Sorer u'Moreh - up to the time that his 'lower beard' has fully grown ...

(c)Not ...

1. ... before that - because he is not punishable.

2. ... later than that - because the Torah refers to him as 'Ben' (to preclude someone who is fit to be a father).

(d)The Mishnah adds 'Ela she'Dibru Chachamim be'be'Lashon Nekiyah' (using clean speech) - with regard to the Tana's statement 'the lower beard and not the upper one', which is an elaboration of Chazal, who originally said 'beard' (without explaining which one).

2)

(a)The Tana Kama adds that a Ketanah is able to perform Miy'un until she grows two pubic hairs, whereas Rebbi Yehudah holds - until a lot of hair has grown.

(b)Despite the fact that the Tana declares a girl who grows two pubic hairs subject to perform all the Mitzvos, he nevertheless finds it necessary to add that she is also subject to perform Yibum and Chalitzah (though we are only concerned here with Chalitzah) to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Yossi - who says that a Ketanah may perform Chalitzah too ...

(c)... because, in the Parshah of Chalitzah, whereas the Torah writes "Ish" by the Yavam, it does not write "Ishah" by the Yevamah.

(d)The Tana Kama however - learns the Din of the Yevamah from that of the Yavam.

3)

(a)We have a problem (similar to the previous one), with the Tana, who adds 'Chayav be'Chol ha'Mitzvos', after having said 've'Chein Tinok she'Heivi Sh'tei Sa'aros'. We ...

1. ... initially reject the suggestion that he adds this as an introduction to the following statement 've'Ra'uy Lih'yos ben Sorer u'Moreh ... ' - because we already know that from the Mishnah in Sanhedrin.

2. ... ultimately accept it however - since the Tana inserts the details concerning a boy (despite the Mishnah in Sanhedrin), to balance the details concerning a girl.

4)

(a)Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Yehudah in the Seifa of our Mishnah ('ad she'Yarbeh ha'Shachor'), adding that - he will concede to the Chachamim however, that she is no longer eligible to perform Miy'un once she has subsequently performed Bi'ah (which is considered a fresh Kidushin).

(b)When Rav Kahana's colleagues wanted to permit a girl to perform Miy'un, like Rebbi Yehudah, even after she had performed Bi'ah - he objected, citing the incident with Rebbi Yishmael's daughter, who came to Beis-Din with her baby riding on her shoulders, with the intention of performing Miy'un (but she was unsuccessful as we will now see).

(c)Rebbi Yishmael's daughter (citing her father) thought that she was still permitted to perform Miy'un, even though she already had a baby - because, based on the theory that, when performing Bi'ah after attaining Gadlus, they had in mind the initial Kidushin (and not to perform a new one), and that the Bi'ah was therefore of no relevance.

(d)And she burst into tears - when, after delving into the matter, the Beis-Din concluded that the Halachah was not like Rebbi Yishmael.

(e)Following that incident, the Chachamim commented - how sad it was that Rebbi Yishmael's own daughter had to experience the unpleasant situation about which her father had spoken.

5)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel citing Rebbi Yishmael himself, gives the latter's reason, based on the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with a Sotah) "ve'Hi Lo Nispasah", which teaches us that - a woman who has relations with another man is forbidden to her husband, if she was not taken by force.

(b)And Rebbi Yishmael now learns from the word "Hi" (which comes to preclude) that - there is another case of a woman who is permitted, even though she was not taken by force; with reference either to a case of Kidushei Ta'us (where a man betroths a woman on the understanding that he is a Kohen, for example, and he later turns out to be a Levi) - or to the case currently under discussion, whose initial Kidushin was not valid, and who is therefore still permitted to perform Miy'un at that stage (see Tosfos DH 'Kidushei').

(c)Rebbi Sh'man bar Aba informed Rebbi Yochanan that Rebbi Yitzchak and the Talmidim of Rebbi Chanina - had permitted a Yesomah whose mother and brothers had married her off, and who, after having performed Bi'ah with her husband following Simanei Gadlus, had gone on to perform Miy'un (like Rebbi Yishmael).

(d)When Rebbi Yochanan informed Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah of what they had done - he immediately sent a troop of men to forcibly separate the woman from the man whom she had since married.

6)

(a)Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva interprets 'ad she'Yirbeh ha'Shachor' of Rebbi Yehudah to mean that two hairs are actually lying on the skin (meaning that they are long), conveying the impression that there is a lot of hair there. Rava explains - that he is referring to two hairs that stretch from one side of the Amah to the other.

(b)Rav Ada bar Ahavah Amar Rav Malkiyo commented on a statement by Rav Chelbo Amar Rav Huna, who requires the hairs under discussion to have visible holes from which they grow that - the holes without the hairs will also suffice.

(c)According to Rav Chanina b'rei de'Rav Ika, the author of 'Sh'fod', 'Shefachos' and 'Gumos' (our case) is Rav Malkiyo; whereas the author of 'B'luris', 'Eifer Makleh' and 'Gevinah' is Rav Malkiya. According to Rav Papa - whichever case is dealt with in a Mishnah or Beraisa is Rav Malkiya, whereas whatever is just an unrelated statement is Rav Malkiyo.

(d)The significance of the Si'man 'Masnita Malk'sa' (which literally means that the Mishnah or the Beraisa is a queen) - reminds us that the word Masnita ends with an 'Alef', just like Malkiya), a proof for the first part of Rav Malkiyah's statement.

(e)They are then arguing over 'Shefachos', which is a Mishnah, yet Rav Chanina ... lists the author as Rav Malkiyo, whereas according to Rav Papa, it must be Rav Malkiya who said it. On the other hand, he (Rav Chanina ...) cites the author of 'Eifer Makleh' as a statement of Rav Malkiya (and not a Mishnah or a Beraisa, like Rav Papa [see also Tosfos DH 'Ika Beinayhu']).

7)

(a)We counter Rebbi Chanina's mi'Sura's objection to Rav Malkiyo, who asks that if holes alone will suffice, why does no Tana mention it - with the argument that had he done so, we would have been misled into thinking that two holes are required (one for each hair), whereas in fact, one hole will suffice for both hairs (see Maharam).

(b)We query this from a Pasuk in Iyov however, where Iyov questioned Hash-m, accusing Him (Kevayachol) - of confusing 'Iyov' and 'Oyev' (of turning Iyov into an enemy).

(c)Hash-m replied that - if He is able to ensure that every hair on a person's head grows from a different hole (otherwise he would not survive), why should he become confused with regard to something so blatant as 'Iyov' and 'Oyev').

(d)We reconcile that with our previous statement (which declared it possible for two hairs to grow out of the same hole) - by confining Hash-m's statement to Iyov to the hairs of the head.

8)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - considers a boy a Gadol even if his two pubic hairs are in two different locations (one on the Beitzim and one on the thick part of the Amah.

(b)We support this with a Beraisa cited in the name of Rebbi Shimon, who rules that one hair ...

1. ... on a girl's back and one at the front combine to form Simnei Gadlus, and so is one hair ...

2. ... between the joints of a finger, and the other, between the joints of a toe.

(c)The Rabbanan in the name of Rav Ashi however, who disagree with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's ruling - require the two hairs to be in the same location.

9)

(a)Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah repeat the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah in the Seifa of our Mishnah (regarding up to when a girl may perform Miy'un). Rebbi Yossi is even more lenient than Rebbi Yehudah, in that he permits performing Miy'un - until the hair surrounds the Beis ha'Ervah.

(b)According to ben Shelakos, the Shi'ur is 'ad she'Techalkel' - until a lot of hair has grown there.

10)

(a)Chanina ben Chachinai asked Rebbi Shimon to query Rebbi Akiva. In the event that the latter would give the Shi'ur as two hairs (like the Tana Kama of our Mishnah), he asked Rebbi Shimon to remind him that ben Shelakos had publicly issued a testimony in Yavneh that the Halachah was 'ad she'Techalkel', to which Rebbi Akiva had raised no objection.

(b)When Rebbi Shimon presented Chanina's ben Chachinai's objection from the Kilkul of ben Shelakos to Rebbi Akiva - the latter replied that he knew nothing about the Kilkul and that he had never heard of ben Shelakos ...

(c)... and that the Halachah is two hairs.

11)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses the two red hairs of the Parah Adumah, the two white hairs of Nega'im and those everywhere else - incorporating a boy and a girl.

(b)Rebbi Yishmael gives the Shi'ur of two hairs - long enough to bend with one's hands so that the tip touches the root.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer gives the Shi'ur as 'Likrotz be'Tziporen' - long enough to be able to hold with one's finger-nails.

(d)Rebbi Akiva says - long enough to cut off with a pair of scissors.

12)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer gives the smallest Shi'ur. The largest Shi'ur is that - of Rebbi Akiva (see Tif'eres Yisrael).

(b)Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva rules stringently - in which case one may perform ...

1. ... Miy'un - only until the Shi'ur of Rebbi Eliezer, and ...

2. ... Chalitzah - only from the Shi'ur of Rebbi Akiva.

13)

(a)Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah rules that a woman who finds a bloodstain on her clothes, is Mekulkeles - she does not know when to begin counting the eleven days of Zivus.

(b)She is also obligated to consider the stain to be Zivus, according to Rebbi Meir - provided that a. she has been wearing that particular garment for at least three days and b. that the stain is not less than the size of three G'risin.

(c)According to the Chachamim - Kesamim are not subject to Zivus at all.

(d)The name of the Tana that holds this view is - Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos.

14)

(a)Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos concedes that Kesamim render a woman a Zavah however - in a case where the woman sees three stains on three different garments that were all inspected.

(b)And he adds to that a case - where she had already had two consecutive sightings, before finding one bloodstain on the third day.

(c)In spite of having taught us the former case (where she saw three Kesamim), he nevertheless sees fit to add the latter one - to teach us that even though the first two sightings were actual blood, and she has to bring a Korban Chatas ha'Of (see Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman'), it remains a Safek, and the Korban may not be eaten.

15)

(a)Rava proves Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos' opinion from the fact that, when there are less than three G'risin plus, the Rabbanan agree that she is not a Zavah - because we assume that the two bloodstains appeared in two days and not in three (see Beraisa at foot of Amud [otherwise she would be Tamei, even though there is less than a G'ris plus for the third one]).

(b)By the same token, Rava argues - even when there are three G'risin plus, we ought to rely on the fact that they comprise two bloodstains of two and a half G'risin, and ascribe the remainder to the blood of a louse, which was attracted to the gathering of blood (see Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman' [like Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos]).

(c)The Rabbanan however, will counter Rava's proof - by arguing that whenever there is a Shi'ur of a G'ris plus, we never ascribe any of the blood to a louse.

16)

(a)We can extrapolate from Rava, who establishes the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos where the three G'risin plus appeared in one location on the garment that - if they appeared in three different locations, Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos would concede that she is a Zavah.

(b)The problem with this is that - he specifically established his ruling in a case of three different garments (as we just explained), indicating that three bloodstains on the same garment will never render her a Zavah.

(c)And we answer - by establishing Rava in Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos as saying to the Rabbanan that - even though he is referring specifically to three garments, they ought at least to concede to him that if she finds three bloodstains in one location, we will ascribe the half-G'ris to a louse, as we explained ...

(d)... to which the Rabbanan replied that - since it is possible to divide the large bloodstain into three, each consisting of a G'ris plus, we do not rely on a louse.