Niddah 6:1 - 6:2

בא סימן התחתון - two [pubic] hairs which is the sign of being a young woman.

עד שלא בא העליון – the sign of breasts, and this is בוחל/the [intermediate] stage of female puberty between childhood and full womanhood.

או חולצת או מתיבמת – because she is an adult. That the [pubic] hairs are a prominent/distinguished sign, and we rely upon them.

אע"פ שאי אפשר – [even though it is impossible] for the Rabbis for the upper sign (i.e., breasts) to come without the lower one (i.e., the two pubic hairs), but from when the upper sign comes, even though they examined and did not find the lower one, we state the word that the lower sign definitely came but that it fell off, nevertheless, according to Rabbi Meir, she does not perform Halitzah nor does she engage in levirate marriage. For Rabbi Meir holds that it is possible that the upper sign comes without the lower one, but we rely upon the lower one, therefore she is still a minor and she doesn’t perform Halitzah nor does she engage in levirate marriage. But Rabbi Meir according to his rationale who stated that a male child and a female child do not perform Halitzah neither do they engage in levirate marriage. A male child, perhaps he will be found to be a eunuch, and a female child, perhaps she will be found to be a sexually impotent woman.

או חולצת או מתיבמת – and even if she is a minor, she engages in levirate marriage according to the Rabbis, for they do not concern themselves to the limitation/narrowing qualification that perhaps she will be found to be a sexually impotent woman, for most women are not sexually impotent. However, regarding Halitzah (i.e., the removal of the shoe of her dead husband’s brother who refuses to engage in levirate marriage and spitting in his face), we require that she is an adult, even according to the Rabbis, because it is written (Deuteronomy 25;7), “But if the man/איש does not want to marry his brother’s widow,” in the portion, and we make an analogy of [the situation of the] woman to that of the man. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

מפני שאמרו אפשר לתחתון לבוא וכו' – even though it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches it in the first clause, it returns and teaches it another time, because it needs to give support to [Mishnah 2 where it states], “similarly, etc.” which is akin to it.

כל כלי חרס שהוא מכניס – liquid, when he places it on the water there is in a large incision that the water enters into it, all the more so that if he places the water into it, the liquid departs outside. But there is a small incision that lets it out but does not let it in. And we derive from this that which we hold – that a completely earthenware utensil that was perforated it is not invalid to sanctify in it the waters of the sin-offering [of the Red Heifer], that is, to place within it the water of the ashes of the Red Heifer, until he makes a large incision where the liquid goes in. But if he made a small incision where the liquid goes out, it does leave the category of a utensil and not find fault in this. But always a small incision is not like removing liquid that removes it from the category of being a utensil other than a large vessel which turned out to be defective/unwieldy alone (as for example, its handles being broken off or being cracked, and therefore used as a receptacle for refuse, as a pickling pot or as a receiver of drippings from a leaking vessel), that is broken vessel that is was designated to fill up with water and to use it, if it has a perforation/hold through letting liquid out, it is invalidated from the category of a utensil, for we don’t say, bring another large defective vessel and we will place it underneath this defective vessel to receive the liquid that departs. But a complete vessel that has been perforated while removing liquid is not invalidated from anything, because a person is concerned about it and doesn’t break it, and uses it and he brings the shard of a vessel and places it underneath to receive the liquid that comes out from it. And from here this is the explanation of our Mishnah: All earthenware utensils that are invalidated for the waters of the sin-offering [of the Red Heifer] is invalid for a large defective vessel, but there are those which are invalid for a large defective vessel but are fit/kosher for the waters of the sin-offering.

כל אבר שיש בו צפורן – as for example, an extra claw/finger that are on the fingers of the hand, if it has a fingernail/talon, it is considered a limb. And it defiles through contact and by carrying and in a tent, like a limb that has a bone that defiles in a tent, and even if it lacks an olive-bulk of flesh, for we hold that limbs have no [distinct] measurement.

ויש שיש בו עצם – but it is not considered a limb if it is extra, since it doesn’t have a nail/talon, and it defiles through contact and carrying, but does not defile in the tent all the while that there isn’t on it an olive’s-bulk of flesh. But if it is not extra, it definitely defiles in a tent because of being a limb, even though it doesn’t have a nail/talon and even though there isn’t an olive’s-bulk of flesh (see also Talmud Niddah 49b).