Question: Granted, the sixth year [must be complete]. However, at the beginning, we should say that 30 days before Rosh Hashanah are considered a year, and after that [he works only] five full years! (Maharsha -"uva'Shevi'is" teaches that 30 days in the sixth year do not count like a full year, for if so, he would not leave in the seventh! Rather, he works the entire sixth year, and leaves at the start of the seventh. However, what is the source that the first year is complete? Perhaps a month before Rosh Hashanah suffices to be considered the first year, and Rosh Hashanah begins the second year!)

Answer: Since the Torah revealed that the sixth is a full year, likewise the first year must be complete.

Question: Since he establishes it for Erchin, the question returns. According to Rav Gidal, there is no Tana [who requires full years for Seris and Ailonis] like Rav!

Answer: He holds that Rav is a Tana, and he argues [with the Beraisa].

Question: R. Elazar himself ruled above (8a) like R. Eliezer in four places, but no where else!

Suggestion: This is not counted, because R. Yosi ben Kiper holds like him. (He counts only places in which no other Tana taught like R. Eliezer.)

Rejection - Question: There, he counts also the law of four women [who are Dayan Shatan], even though R. Yehoshua holds like him (R. Eliezer)!

Answer: Rather, [you must say that he counts four women] because R. Yehoshua received the law from R. Eliezer.

Summation of rejection: Also here, R. Yosi ben Kiper said his law in the name of R. Eliezer!

Answer #1: Here, it is because Rebbi holds like him, like it says "and so Rebbi ruled in Lud." He did not rule [like this] due to R. Eliezer.

Answer #2: Only regarding Mishnayos, [R. Elazar] said above (8a) that the Halachah follows him in [only] four places.

Question #1: According to R. Meir, why was the upper Siman mentioned, since we do not rely on it?

Question #2: Also above (47a), it taught "which are Simanim?", and R. Tam explained that this refers to Bochel (a Siman of Na'arus, and presumably also here the Tana'im discuss this)!

Answer: We need this regarding punishments and Kidushin and many other things, for most of the time the lower Siman comes first, like it says in the Gemara;

If so, if we see the upper Siman, presumably the lower Siman already came, and she is an adult, and she needs a Get [if she wants to marry someone else] for Kidushin [that she received herself], and he (the Mekadesh) is forbidden to her sister.

Explanation: Even if she is a minor, she [may] do Yibum according to Rabanan who argue with R. Meir, who are not concerned for the minority [of minors who are Ailoniyos], regarding "a Katan and Ketanah do not do Chalitzah..."

However, regarding Chalitzah we require that she is an adult, like it says also there 'you said properly that a Katan cannot do Chalitzah, for "Ish" is written in the Parshah', and we equate a woman (Yevamah) to a man (Yavam)

They do not hold like R. Yosi, who said in Yevamos (105b) that the woman (Yevamah) can be an adult or minor.

Explanation: He argues with Rabanan who say about all of them that the lower Siman comes quickly (before the upper Siman);

He argues also with R. Meir, for R. Meir does not distinguish between cities and villages.

Explanation (Rashi): [If the same hair is there before and after the Perek,] she may not do Chalitzah.

Support: We cannot explain that it is Shuma, and she may do Mi'un, for the Seifa teaches that she is not believed to say that she is a minor, and she may do Mi'un.

Question: Why do we check her? She should not check, and she will do Chalitzah after the Perek!

Now, the Makshan holds that the Chazakah that she brought Simanim, which Rava said, is for Chalitzah!

Strengthening of question: Also according to the answer, that Chalitzah requires checking, we should check only after the Perek!

Suggestion: We are concerned lest they came before the Perek, and they are Shuma.

Rejection: Only when they saw them (the hairs) before the Perek, we say here that they are Shuma, but if they did not see them before, it connotes that we are not concerned!

Support #1 (for rejection): Also in Yevamos (105b, a girl came to do Chalitzah, and), Rebbi said to Avdan "go check her." Presumably, they did not check her before the Perek.

Support #2: In Bava Basra (155a), regarding [a youth who sold property in] Benei Berak [and died], it says "may we check him [to see if he was an adult]?"

Inference: If Simanim are found in him, we do not say that they came before the Perek.

Answer #1: We say that we check them, i.e. l'Chatchilah.

Answer #2: "We check them" is not precise. It means that if they checked, the Bedikah helps (if we find Simanim before the Perek, we do not rely on those hairs after the Perek).

Question: Why do we ask "why do we check after the Perek?" This is relevant, for if they checked and did not find any hairs, or they found the same hairs, she does not do Chalitzah, just like we explained Bedikah before the Perek!

Answer: This Bedikah after the Perek, it connotes to him (the Makshan) that it is in order to establish her to be an adult;

If it were to establish her to be a minor, why aren't they believed within the Perek?

They are believed after the Perek. All the more so, [they should be believed] within the Perek!

Therefore, he asks that even without the Bedikah, we establish her to be an adult.

Question: Why does it say that she is believed to say that she is an adult, so she cannot do Mi'un? Why do we need her credibility? Even without this, she cannot do Mi'un!

Even if she says that she is a minor, she is not believed, like the Seifa teaches "but she is not believed to say that she is a minor, to do Mi'un"!

Answer: This is relevant, that if men checked her after she (a woman) checked, and they did not find hairs, even so, she may not do Mi'un;

If not for [the checking of] women, she would properly do Mi'un, for even according to the opinion that we are concerned lest they fell, this is only after the Perek, according to R. Yehudah, due to [the teaching of] Rava, that there is a Chazakah that she brought Simanim;

However, within the time according to R. Yehudah, that there is no Chazakah, or after the time according to R. Shimon, who argues with Rava's Chazakah, we are not concerned lest they fell out.

Now that women said that there were hairs, they are believed, and she may not do Mi'un.

Implied question: Even within the time according to R. Yehudah, when there is no Chazakah, or after the time according to R. Shimon, she may not do Mi'un!

Answer: Rava's Chazakah helps for when they checked and did not find hairs. Due to the Chazakah, we say that they fell out, like he ruled above.

Pesak: The Halachah is, we are concerned lest they fell out. This is if he had Bi'ah [with her] after [the] time [of adulthood. If she was an adult, this made Kidushin mid'Oraisa.]

Question: [The Beraisa said that] she is believed to say that she is a minor, so she cannot do Chalitzah. How does her credibility help? Even if she says that there are hairs, she is not believed, like the Seifa teaches "she is not believed to say that she is an adult...!"

Answer: She is believed to say that those hairs were there before the Perek;

If not for [the Bedikah of] the woman, one would have thought that they came after the Perek, and she may do Chalitzah, like I explained above [in the previous Dibur].