QUESTION: The Gemara concludes that one recites no blessing (Berachah Acharonah) after he smells a pleasant fragrance. Why is no Berachah Acharonah recited?

(a) RASHI (DH Reichani) explains that one recites no Berachah Acharonah after he smells a pleasant fragrance because it is a relatively minimal pleasure and thus does not warrant a Berachah Acharonah.

(b) The KOL BO (quoted by the TAZ OC 216:1) suggests that a Berachah Acharonah is recited only when the benefits of the pleasure endure at the time of the Berachah Acharonah. After one eats, the feeling of being satisfied endures, and thus a Berachah Acharonah is recited. In contrast, when one is no longer actively smelling the pleasant fragrance, no enduring pleasure remains. Therefore, one recites no Berachah Acharonah after he smells a pleasant fragrance.

QUESTION: The Beraisa quotes Rebbi Meir who says that a girl may perform Mi'un until she reaches the age of twelve and grows two hairs, a sign of adulthood. Rebbi Yehudah says that she may perform Mi'un until she is twelve years old and the pubic area is covered with hair.

(a) Which opinion does the Halachah follow?

(b) According to Rebbi Meir, is the growth of hair follicles without hair equivalent to the growth of hair?

(c) According to Rebbi Meir, do two hairs from different places on the body combine to qualify as a sign of adulthood?

(d) If a girl has not yet consummated her marriage by having relations with her husband, may she do Mi'un even after she reaches the age of twelve?

(a) The SHULCHAN ARUCH (EH 155:12) rules that a girl may do Mi'un until she is twelve years old and has grown two hairs on her body, as Rebbi Meir states.

(b) Regarding the location of the two hairs, the Shulchan Aruch (EH 155:17) cites two opinions. According to the first opinion, the two hairs must be pubic hairs in order to render her a Gedolah who may no longer do Mi'un. According to the second opinion, even if one of the hairs is on her back and the other on her abdomen, she may no longer do Mi'un.

(c) The Shulchan Aruch (EH 155:16) rules that since there cannot be a follicle without a hair, the presence of two follicles is equivalent to two hairs, even if the hairs are not visible.

(d) The Shulchan Aruch (EH 155:21) writes that there is a doubt about whether a girl may do Mi'un after she reaches the age of twelve but before she has relations. In practice, therefore, she may not leave the domain of her husband with Mi'un alone, but she must also receive a Get. If, however, she accepted Kidushin from a second man after she did Mi'un with the first husband but before she received a Get, she requires a Get from both of them.

QUESTION: The Beraisa quotes Ben Shelakos who testified that a girl may perform Mi'un until the pubic area is "richly covered" with hair.

The name "Ben Shelakos" is a highly unusual name, and this is the only place in the Gemara (Bavli and Yerushalmi) where Ben Shelakos is quoted. Is there any significance to his unusual name, and to the fact that this is the only Halachah which is quoted in his name?

ANSWER: RAV REUVEN MARGOLIYOS (in l'Cheker Shemos v'Kinuyim b'Talmud) offers an original approach to the source of the unusual name of Ben Shelakos. He explains that there are many sages in the Gemara whose names reflect their teachings, particularly when the Tana or Amora made only one statement that is quoted in the Gemara. He explains that this is the source for Ben Shelakos' unusual name.

The Mishnah in Ma'aseros (1:5) rules that watermelons ("Avatichim") become obligated in Ma'aser "mishe'Yeshalek." The RAMBAM explains that "mishe'Yeshalek" refers to the time at which the watermelons "become covered with hair-like growth." Accordingly, the root "l'Shalek" means "to become covered with hair." Perhaps Ben Shelakos was given his appellation in commemoration of his ruling that a girl may perform Mi'un until she is "covered with hair"!

OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that says that if a woman wore three different garments that had been examined for stains, and she nevertheless found stains on all of them, or if she saw blood for two days and found a stain on the third, she has the status of a Zavah. The Gemara says that one might have thought that in such a case she must bring a Korban and eat it, as an ordinary Zavah does, and therefore the Beraisa needs to teach that she does not.

What exactly is the Beraisa teaching? Is it teaching that she does not bring a Korban, or that she brings a Korban but does not eat it?

(a) The RAMBAN explains that since the law of stains, Kesamim, is only mid'Rabanan, there are no grounds for bringing a Korban.

(b) RASHI (DH Mahu) explains that the woman does bring a Korban, but she does not eat it. The RAMBAN seems to understand that even according to Rashi, she brings a Korban only in the case in which that she bled on two consecutive days and saw a Kesem on the third. If she saw three Kesamim on three different garments, Rashi agrees that she does not bring a Korban. The logic behind this distinction is that when a Kesem is found after two days of seeing blood, her Tum'ah is no longer a Chumra mid'Rabanan but rather a Safek d'Oraisa for which she is obligated to bring a Korban. A Korban brought in the case of a Safek d'Oraisa is not eaten.

The RA'AVAD (in Ba'alei ha'Nefesh) explains the Gemara as Rashi does, but he concludes that even in the case of stains found on three garments the woman brings a Korban (but does not eat from it).