(Mishnah): If a girl (above 12) grew two hairs (we will discuss their location later), she may do Yibum or Chalitzah, and she is obligated in all the Mitzvos.

The same applies to a boy (above 13) who grew two hairs. He is obligated in all the Mitzvos;

He can become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh (be killed for stealing from his parents to eat meat and wine) from this time until his beard fills out;

This refers to the lower beard (near the Ervah), and not the upper one. Chachamim use a clean language.

If a girl (at least 12) brought two hairs, she may not do Mi'un;

R. Yehudah permits, until there is much hair (Rashba's text - until there is more black than white).

(Gemara) Question: Since the Mishnah teaches she is obligated in all the Mitzvos, why must it say that she may do Yibum or Chalitzah?

Answer: This teaches unlike R. Yosi:

R. Yosi says, because it says "Ish" in the Parshah of Chalitzah, the Yavam must be an adult. Since it does not say "Ishah," the Yevamah can be a minor.

Our Tana argues. He requires two hairs.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: He equates the Yevamah to the Yavam.

Question: It says "the same applies to a boy." Why must it say also that after two hairs he is obligated in all the Mitzvos?

Suggestion: Perhaps this is due to the Seifa. He can become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh from this time until his beard fills out.

Rejection: Another Mishnah teaches this!

(Mishnah): A boy can become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh from the time he grows two hairs until his beard fills out;

This refers to the lower beard, and not the upper one. Chachamim use a clean language.

Answer: Indeed, it was unnecessary. Since it explains this regarding a girl, it says so also regarding a boy.

(Mishnah): If a girl... (R. Yehudah permits Mi'un until there is much hair).

(R. Avahu): The Halachah follows R. Yehudah;

R. Yehudah agrees that she may not do Mi'un if she had Bi'ah with her husband after growing two hairs.

Rav Kahana's colleagues were about to rule like R. Yehudah in a case where they had Bi'ah after two hairs.

Rav Kahana: (This is wrong!) A case occurred in which R. Yishmael's daughter came to do Mi'un carrying a baby. There was a great cry, lest a Tzadik's teaching cause his seed to sin!

(Rav Yehudah citing R. Yishmael): "V'Hi Lo Nispasah" (if a Yisrael's wife willingly transgressed adultery, she is forbidden)", but if she was raped, she is permitted to her husband;

There is a case when a woman willingly had Bi'ah, yet she is permitted, i.e. Kidushei Ta'us. (If she accepted Kidushin on condition, e.g. that he is a Levi, and the condition was not fulfilled,) even if she has a child, she may do Mi'un and leave. (She was never truly married. Her husband relied on the initial Kidushin. He never intended that Bi'ah should make Kidushin. Rashi - the same applies to a mid'Rabanan marriage of a minor. Even after she grows up, her husband does not intend for Bi'ah to make Kidushin. People cried, for the Halachah does not follow R. Yishmael. Ramban - R. Yishmael discussed only Kidushei Ta'us, but when a minor grows up, her husband intends for Bi'ah to make Kidushin, so she may not do Mi'un. Those who planned to permit the Mi'un misunderstood R. Yishmael's teaching.)

They convened and ruled that one may not do Mi'un after growing two hairs, and therefore refrained from ruling like R. Yehudah in a case where they had Bi'ah after two hairs.

R. Yitzchak and R. Chanina's Talmidim ruled like R. Yehudah in a case where they had Bi'ah after two hairs. R. Shemen bar Aba told R. Yochanan. R. Yochanan told R. Yehudah Nesi'ah (the grandson of Rebbi). R. Yehudah sent forces (Aruch - Talmidim) to compel her to leave her second husband.

(Rav Chisda): R. Yehudah does not permit until there is truly much black (Rashba - more black than white), rather, until there are two (long) hairs, and it looks like there is much hair.

(Rava): He allows until two hairs straddle the Ervah.

(R. Chelbo): The two hairs must come out of pores;

(Rav Malkiyo): (Two) pores (are a Siman of adulthood,) even if there are no hairs. (We assume that there were hairs, and they fell out.)

Version #1 (Rav Chanina brei d'Rav Ika): Rav Malkiyo taught the teachings discussing (a roasting) spit, slaves, and pores;

Rav Malkiyah taught the teachings discussing Bluris (hair grown long and later shaved for the sake of idolatry), ashes, and cheese.

Version #2 (Rav Papa): The teachings that explain Mishnayos and Beraisos are of Rav Malkiyah. Those without any source in the Tana'im are of Rav Malkiyo.

The versions argue regarding slaves. (Rav Papa attributes it to Rav Malkiyah. Rashi - they argue also about ashes. Rav Papa attributes it to Rav Malkiyo.)

Question (R. Chanina of Sura): If pores suffice, why is there no Mishnah or Beraisa that says so?!

Answer: If a Tana taught that two pores suffice, we would have thought that two hairs are a Siman only if they are from different pores;

It was not taught, for this is not true. Even if two hairs are from the same pore, they are a Siman.

Question: Two hairs cannot come from the same pore!

(Rava): "Bi'Sarah Yeshufeni" -- Iyov blasphemed through speaking of Se'arah (a stormy wind), and Hash-m answered through speaking of Sa'ar (hair);

Iyov suggested that a stormy wind caused a confusion, and the punishment intended for Oyev (the enemy) was meted to Iyov;

"Va'Ya'an Hash-m... Min ha'Se'arah... " -- you are the biggest fool there is!

I created so many hairs on a person's head. Each nurtures from its own pore. If two hairs would come from the same pore, his sight would be diminished;

I did not confuse even two hairs. Will you say that I confused Oyev and Iyov?!

Answer: Two hairs on the head cannot come from the same pore. Elsewhere, they can.

(Rav Yehudah): Even if one hair is on the Kaf (a mound above the Ever) and one on the Beitzim, they are Simanim.

Support (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Yehudah): Two hairs are Simanim even if one is on the back (of the Ervah) and one is in front, even if one is on her fingers and one is on her toes.

Question: What do Chachamim say?

Answer (Rav Chisda): They require the hairs to be in the same place (Rambam - near the Ervah).

(Beraisa) Question: Until when may a girl do Mi'un?

Answer #1 (R. Meir): She may do Mi'un until she grows two hairs.

Answer #2 (R. Yehudah): She may do Mi'un until there is much hair.

Answer #3 (R. Yosi): She may do Mi'un until the Atarah is surrounded. (This is R. Yosi's upper Siman of Bagrus, at the end of 47a.)

Answer #4 (Ben Shelakos): She may do Mi'un until Kilkul. (Some say that this refers to density of hair, long hairs, or being full of hair.)

R. Shimon: Chanina ben Chakinai said that Ben Shelakos testified in front of Chachamim (including R. Akiva) in Yavneh that a girl may do Mi'un until Kilkul, and that no one argued. Chanina sent me to R. Akiva to verify this;

R. Akiva did not know what Kilkul is, nor who Ben Shelakos is. He said that a girl may do Mi'un until she has two hairs.

(Mishnah - R. Yishmael): If the ends of two hairs can be bent back to the roots:

They invalidate a Parah Adumah (if they are not red). They can be a Siman Tum'ah of Tzara'as (or of Taharah, depending on their color and the Nega). They are considered hairs for everything (adulthood, and one may not cut the Pe'os (sideburns) smaller than this, and shaving such hairs is considered Gilu'ach of a Nazir... )

R. Eliezer says, the Shi'ur is to be able to grip (Rashi; Me'iri - cut) them with his fingernails;

R. Akiva says, the Shi'ur is to be able to cut them with scissors. (All agree that the first Shi'ur is the largest. Rishonim argue about whether the second or third opinion is smallest.)

(Gemara - Rav Chisda): (We do not know whom the Halachah follows, therefore) we are stringent like all of these opinions. (If hairs are between the smallest and biggest Shi'urim, we are in Safek about Kashrus ha'Parah, Tum'as ha'Metzora, and whether or not the child is an adult. The middle opinion is also relevant, e.g. if a man was Mekadesh a woman when his hairs were between the smallest and the middle Shi'urim, and then he was Mekadesh her sister after they reached the middle Shi'ur, both are Safek Mekudashos.)

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If Leah saw a Kesem (blood stain in a place where it is possible that the blood came from her Makor, not during the seven days of Nidah), she is Mekulkeles. (She might be in Safek whether the next blood she sees is Dam Nidah or Dam Zivah), for a Kesem can (count towards three consecutive days of seeing blood to) make her a Zavah;

Chachamim say, Kesamim do not make a woman a Zavah.

(Gemara) Question: Who are these Chachamim?

Answer: They hold like R. Chanina ben Antignos:

(Beraisa - R. Chanina ben Antignos): Kesamim do not make a woman a Zavah (if three were found in one garment). In another scenario, they can;

If a woman wore three garments (each was checked beforehand) on three consecutive days and found Kesamim on them, or if she saw blood on two consecutive days and found a Kesem on a garment she wore the third day, the Kesamim make her a (Safek) Zavah.

Question: If Kesamim on three garments make her a Zavah, all the more so two sightings of blood and one Kesem do! (What is the Chidush of the latter clause?)

Answer: One might have thought that in such a case she brings a Korban (Zavah Vadai) and the Chatas ha'Of is eaten. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. (Rashi - the Chatas is not eaten. Ramban - she does not bring a Korban at all, for Kesamim are only mid'Rabanan! Perhaps Rashi holds that since she is Muchzekes to see blood, the Kesem creates a Safek mid'Oraisa.)

(Rava): R. Chanina refuted the Chachamim (who say that even three Kesamim found in one garment make a Zavah) as follows:

You agree with me that if she found a Kesem less than three Grisim (beans) in one place, she is not a Zavah, for we assume that it is from (at most) two sightings;

Likewise, if she found more than three Grisim in one place, we can attribute two and a half Grisim to two sightings, and the additional half-Gris to a louse, which was attracted by all the blood! (We normally attribute a stain less than a Gris to a louse. However, when there is more than a Gris and we must say that some is from her, we would not attribute any to a louse, if not for this reason that blood attracts lice.)

Chachamim say, since there is enough to attribute more than a Gris to a sighting on each day, we do not attribute any to a louse.

Inference: Rava says that R. Chanina is not concerned for three Grisim in one place. This implies that he is concerned for three Grisim in three places.

Question: The Beraisa says that he is concerned for three Kesamim in three garments, but not for three places in one garment!

Answer: He addresses Chachamim according to their reasoning:

I am concerned only for three Kesamim in three garments, but not for three places in one garment;

Granted, you are concerned for three places in one garment. However, even you should not be concerned for three Grisim in one place. We say that two and a half Grisim came from her, and a half-Gris is from a louse, which was attracted by the blood!

Chachamim holds that since there is enough to attribute more than a Gris to a sighting on each day, we do not attribute any to a louse.

(Beraisa #1): If a woman found a Kesem the size of three (big) Grisim, each is larger than a regular bean, she must be concerned (for Zivah). If not, she is not concerned.

R. Yehudah ben Agra says in the name of R. Yosi, she is concerned in either case.