SHIUR # 6: AYLONIT              Based on a shiur by Rav Yair Kahn

 The gemara (4a) derives that a Jewish maidservant must be  freed both at the initial phases of physical maturity, called  na'arut (puberty), as well as at the more advanced stage of  maturity - bagrut, which takes place six months later.  The  gemara poses the obvious question: If the maidservant was  previously set free at na'arut, the requirement to free her at  bagrut is irrelevant.  Abbaye responds that the relevance of  this halakha is limited to the special case of a girl who  fails to mature physically - called an aylonit.  Such a girl  achieves the status of bagrut directly, without passing  through the initial phase of na'arut.  The gemara then  challenges Abbaye: - the halakha requiring the freedom of a  maidservant upon reaching bagrut is obvious and therefore  needs no source!  In conclusion the gemara derives a different  halakha altogether: an aylonit may be sold as a maidservant  despite the fact that she lacks the potential to be freed at  na'arut.  In this shiur, we will analyze the concept of  aylonit, and through this exceptional case, attempt to gain a  better understanding of the halakhic definitions of adulthood.   Before proceeding in our analysis of this sugya, however, we  will present certain background information that is essential.

According to the gemara in Nidda (47b), a woman cannot be  clearly categorized as an aylonit until the age of twenty, and  even then, only upon displaying certain physical signs that  indicate that she will never develop.  (If these signs do not  appear, she cannot be established as an aylonit until the age  of thirty five.)  Secondly, there is a controversy between Rav  and Shmuel (Yevamot 80a) regarding the culpability of an  aylonit who transgresses the law prior to the age of twenty.   Their argument revolves around the determination of the exact  point at which an aylonit is designated an adult.  According  to Shmuel, she enters adulthood from the time she is  recognized to be an aylonit, namely at the age of twenty,  whereas prior to that she retains the status of a minor.  Rav  argues that an aylonit achieves the halakhic status of  adulthood retroactively.  Most Rishonim side with the opinion  of Rav, that at the age of twenty the woman is defined as an  adult retroactively.  (This is consistent with the rule that  the halakha follows Rav regarding issues of issur, ritual  laws.)  Armed with this information, we can return to the  discussion of our sugya.

According to the conclusion of the gemara, it was  necessary to prove that an aylonit can be sold as a  maidservant.  The commentaries posed the following question:  since an aylonit remains undetected until the age of twenty,  and at that point she achieves the status of bagrut and is  freed from servitude, when can we find a case of an aylonit  who can be sold as a maidservant?  Furthermore, the gemara  originally understood that an aylonit who was sold as a minor  (below the age of twelve) will be freed upon her bagrut, at  the age of twenty.  However, since more than six years  necessarily pass from the time of the sale until her bagrut  (and a Jewish slave or maidservant is freed automatically upon  the passage of six years), the application of this halakha is  nonexistent.

Various answers were given by the Rishonim to these  questions.  Most answers revolve around variant understandings  of Rav's opinion, that at the age of twenty the woman is  established as an aylonit retroactively.  The Ra'avad (as  quoted by the Ramban) claims that the woman is declared  retroactively as an aylonit from the time she displays the  various physical signs indicating that she will not mature.   Take the case, for instance, of a girl who displayed the  physical signs of an aylonit at the age of fifteen.  Such a  girl, if sold before reaching the age of twelve, would, upon  reaching the age of twenty, be established as a free woman  retroactively from the age of fifteen, long before going free  due to the passage of six years.  The Ramban, although  agreeing with the Ra'avad that the status of aylonit is  achieved retroactively, argues that this status is attained at  the age of twelve and a half, regardless of the point at which  physical signs appeared.  However, Rashi, the Rama and many  other Rishonim claim that according to Rav the status of  aylonit is retroactive from age twelve.  Tosafot Rid, on the  other hand, ignores Rav totally, and explains the gemara by  saying that the case discussed is of a girl sold at the age of  seventeen; she is turned free at twenty upon becoming an  aylonit.

We will now attempt to define precisely the source of the  dilemma, and the halakhic solutions offered regarding the  adulthood of an aylonit.  We will start by posing the  following questions:

 1.  Why does the Tosafot Rid ignore Rav's opinion?

 2.  We noted three variant opinions regarding when to  retroactively establish the status of aylonit: twelve, twelve  and a half, and the appearance of physical signs indicating  that the woman is an aylonit.  Around what issue does this  controversy revolve? 

Why does the Ritva in Kiddushin quote the Ramban's  opinion that the status of aylonit is applied retroactively  from twelve and a half, while in Yevamot he only mentions the  opinion that this status is conferred retroactively from the  age of twelve? 

It seems to me that a careful reading of the Rambam will  furnish us with an insight that will help to explain our  entire sugya.  In Hilkhot Ishut 2:1 the Rambam writes as  follows: "A girl, from the day she is born until she completes  twelve full years, is considered a ketana (minor) and a  tinoket (child)."  The Rambam, who is famous for his accurate  and concise language, is in this case verbose and in fact  repetitious.  Why is it necessary for the Rambam to mention  both ketana and tinoket?  One cannot claim that this is  unintentional, for we find the parallel phenomenon with  respect to the male later in the same chapter (halakha 10).   "A boy from birth until he is thirteen years old is considered  a katan (minor) and a tinok (child)...upon the appearance of  two pubic hairs if he is thirteen or above, he is considered  an adult and a man."  Again we find the parallel repetition of  minor and child.  Furthermore, there is an analogous  repetition of adult and man. 

The conclusion is obvious: adulthood in Halakha consists  of two conceptually independent processes.  On the one hand,  we are dealing with intellectual development.  As long as a  child has the status of a minor, he is halakhically defined as  incapable of da'at (the level of intelligence required by  Halakha).  On the other hand, the child has not yet matured  biologically, and only upon coming of age is he or she  considered a fully developed man or woman.  Under normal  conditions, both processes occur simultaneously and are  halakhically integrated.  Consequently, the usual criterion  for being defined as an adult requires both having reached a  certain age (twelve for a female, thirteen for a male), and  the exhibition of certain indications of physical maturity.   This dual requirement is consistent with the complex nature of  halakhic adulthood.  Regarding the female this distinction is  especially marked.  Intellectual adulthood is a one-step  process in which a girl is elevated from a minor to a  responsible adult.  Entering womanhood, on the other hand, is  a two-step process where a child initially enters the interim  period of na'arut.  Only with the passage of six months does  she blossom fully as a woman, at bagrut. 

Our sugya, however, deals with an abnormal situation in  which a discrepancy exists between the two processes.   Although a woman fails to develop physically, we have no  reason to doubt the level of her intelligence.  Nonetheless,  we await the appearance of physical signs of maturity before  categorizing the woman as an adult, even vis-a-vis the  question of intellectual development.  However, once we  discover that this woman will never develop biologically, i.e.  she is an aylonit, we are forced to use different criteria to  establish adulthood.  The precise alternate criterion,  however, is unclear.  This is the focal point of the  controversy among the Amoraim and among the Rishonim as well.   According to Shmuel, an aylonit is designated as an adult only  from the point at which we clearly determine her to be an  aylonit - at the age of twenty.  It is only at that point that  we are forced to concede that this woman will never mature  physically.  Consequently, her status as an adult cannot be  dependent on the normal feminine biological development, and  she achieves the status of an adult despite its absence.  Rav,  on the other hand, claims that at twenty we merely discover  that this woman had been an aylonit all along.  Therefore  adulthood can be established retroactively. 

The Role of Physical Signs   

As was noted above, there is a disagreement among the  Rishonim as to the point at which the aylonit is designated as  an adult retroactively.  The Yad Rama (Bava Batra 155, section  140) claims that that the criteria to establish adulthood of  an aylonit are sharply different from those normally required.   Since there is no possibility of physical indicators, age  alone is sufficient.  Consequently, upon proving at the age of  twenty that she is an aylonit, a woman will achieve adulthood  retroactively from age twelve.  The Ra'avad on the other hand,  held that an aylonit, like every other woman, requires both  age and physical indicators to establish adulthood.  However,  the physical indications of an aylonit differ from  those of a  normal woman.  Therefore upon discovering that she is an  aylonit at age twenty, the woman is established as an adult  retroactive to the point where both factors, age and physical  signs of being an aylonit, exist.  The Rama and Ra'avad  apparently have a basic disagreement as to the categorization  of the physical indicators that an aylonit shows.  According  to the Ra'avad, they are positive indications that this woman  has developed biologically (as much as she ever will).   Therefore, they can be legitimately substituted for the signs  of puberty normally required.  However, the Rama does not  regard these indications as positive signs of development, but  rather as negative signs that this woman will never develop  fully, and therefore they are merely indicators that this  woman is in fact an aylonit.  (See Reb Chaim, Hilkhot Ishut  2:9) 

Moreover, their argument may reflect two basic approaches  regarding the criterion of adulthood in general.  Whereas  according to the Ra'avad physical indications of physical  development are critical, the Rama views them as expendable.   Perhaps the Rama relates to physical maturity merely as  corroboratory evidence of adulthood where there is normal  development, but not as a component of adulthood itself.  (See  Or Sameach, Hilkhot Sota ch. 1).  The Ra'avad, on the other  hand, may view physical development as one of the factors  which actually define adulthood.  (See Shita Mekubetzet Bava  Batra 56 s.v. Veli ani.)  As was already noted, the multiple  components required would accurately reflect the complex  nature of adulthood. 

However, in light of the above analysis, the Ramban's  opinion that the status of aylonit is established retroactive  to twelve and a half, remains enigmatic.  It does not seem to  correspond with the understanding that age alone is a  sufficient determinant of adulthood (in the case of an  aylonit), since clearly the age twelve should be decisive in  that regard.  Nor does the approach that requires the  appearance of physical signs help explain this opinion, since  there are no physical changes specifically at the age of  twelve and a half.  We will return to this opinion later,  after sharpening our definitions even more. 

Intellectual versus Biological Maturity 

Theoretically, one could suggest that in the case of the  aylonit a distinction should be made between the point at  which she is defined as an adult from the intellectual  perspective, and the point at which she is considered a mature  woman.  Upon discovering at age twenty that the woman is an  aylonit, we are forced to sever the issue of intellectual  development from that of biological maturity.  Accordingly,  her status as an intelligent adult is established  retroactively based solely on the factor of age (twelve),  while her status as a mature woman is achieved only from age  twenty.  Interestingly, the argument of Rav and Shmuel  revolved around the issue of culpability, which is a function  of the intellectual maturity alone.  Perhaps this is the  reason that the Rid ignored the opinion of Rav that an aylonit  achieves the status of an adult retroactively.  According to  the Rid, the retroactive designation of the aylonit is limited  to the status of intellectual adulthood.  Our sugya, however,  deals with her biological maturity, which is only established  at twenty.  (It should be noted that the continuation of the  gemara in Yevamot deals with Rav and Shmuel within the context  of biological development.  This presents an obvious  difficulty with our explanation of Tosafot Rid.  My solution  is complex, and since this question does not affect the rest  of the shiur I will not deal with it here.  I welcome insights  into this problem, and comments in general.) 

However, the simple reading of the gemara in Yevamot  clearly indicates that according to Rav both aspects of  adulthood are established retroactively.  Nevertheless, we can  still discriminate between the two.  We have already noted  that in the case of an aylonit, different criteria for the  establishment of adulthood must be used.  According to the  Ra'avad, both age and physical indicators that she is an  aylonit are necessary.  According to the Rama, age alone  suffices.  One may suggest a third approach: that the factors  that determines adulthood in the abnormal case of an aylonit  differ radically from the criteria normally required.  Since  an aylonit can never produce the indicators of adulthood, they  are actually unnecessary.  Instead, she is designated as an  adult based on the norm.  Accordingly, she will be defined  retroactively as an intelligent adult from the age of twelve.   However, her status as a woman will not take place until the  age of twelve and a half, as the average girl matures at this  time.  This is what the gemara in Yevamot refers to when it  claims that according to Rav the status of an aylonit  retroactively changes from childhood straight to bagrut.  

Based on this understanding, we can return now and answer  our questions on the Ritva and the Ramban.  The Ritva in  Yevamot is discussing intellectual adulthood when he claims  that adulthood of an aylonit is established retroactively from  the age of twelve.  In Kiddushin, however, regarding the  question of womanhood, he quotes the opinion of the Ramban  that it is designated retroactively from the age of twelve and  a half.  The Ramban, who argues that even intellectual  adulthood is established at twelve and a half, apparently  rejects the possibility of severing the two aspects of  adulthood even in the case of an aylonit.  Therefore, since  the usual age of establishing womanhood is only at the age of  twelve and a half, it is only at that point that she becomes  an adult.

Summary

We have used the exceptional case of aylonit to help us  analyze the halakhic understanding of adulthood.  We saw that  adulthood is a complex concept, comprised of two conceptually  independent ideas: 1. intellectual development; 2. physical  maturity.  Under normal conditions the two are halakhically  integrated.  However, in the abnormal case of the aylonit, we  examined the possibility of severing the two.  Furthermore, we  touched briefly upon the nature of the criteria required to  establish adulthood, while discussing in detail the  alternatives available where an aylonit is concerned.

SOURCES FOR NEXT WEEK'S SHIUR:

1.  Kiddushin 5a "Amar Rav Huna chuppa kona ... chuppa she- gomeret eino din she-tikneh (5b)".What, in essence, is behind  the machloket between Rava and Abbaye?[Chiddushei R. Chaim al  ha-Rambam, Hilkhot Yibbum ve-Chalitza 4:16 s.v. ve-asher] 2.  Yevamot 107a (mishna) and gemara until "... lefi she-ein  t'nai be-nissu'in"; Rashi s.v. lefi she-ein. 3.  Arukh Ha-Shulchan Even Ha-Ezer 55:5. 4.  Definition of Chuppa:Ran Ketubot (Alfassi 1a) s.v. O she- pirsa, until "...me-hilkhot ishut." [See the mishna and gemara just to understand the Ran's  references.] ibid. "ve-acherim omrim ... harei hi bi-reshuto." What are the two opinions of what happens for chuppa? What ideas are behind these approaches?