Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 6, 2019 | 讞壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Niddah 44

The mishnayot discuss ages and their relevance for various halachot including the difference between a fetus and a one day old for various issues including impurities, levirate marriage, inheritance laws, murder, mourning. Once a girl is three years old (Rabbi Meir and the rabbis discuss exactly when is she considered three year old), she is considered worthy of having sexual relations and therefore there are ramifications for marraige, levirate marriage, forbidden relations, etc.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讜谞讜讞诇 讜诪谞讞讬诇 讜讛讛讜专讙讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讜诇讻诇 拽专讜讘讬讜 讻讞转谉 砖诇诐

and he inherits the estate of his mother if she died on the day of his birth; and if he dies, he bequeaths that inheritance to his paternal brothers; and one who kills him is liable for his murder, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he that smites any man mortally shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:17), i.e., any man, including a child who is one day old; and if he dies, his status in relation to his father and to his mother and to all his relatives, in terms of the halakhot of mourning, is like that of a full-fledged groom [ke岣tan shalem], whose death is deeply mourned.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇谞讚讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that the halakhot of menstruation apply even to a one-day-old baby girl, derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days鈥 (Leviticus 15:19). When the verse states 鈥渁 woman,鈥 I have derived only that the halakhot of menstruation apply to an adult woman. From where do I derive that the impurity of a menstruating woman also applies to a one-day-old baby? The verse states: 鈥淎nd a woman,鈥 to include even a baby girl.

讘转 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诇讝讬讘讛 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 讘转 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诇讝讬讘讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛

The mishna further teaches that a baby girl who is ten days old who experiences an emission of blood for three consecutive days after the conclusion of the seven days fit for menstruation, becomes impure with the impurity of ziva. Again, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue of her blood many days not in the time of her menstruation鈥he shall be as in the days of her menstruation: She is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:25). When the verse states 鈥渁 woman,鈥 I have derived only that the halakhot of a zava apply to an adult woman. From where do I derive that the impurity of ziva also applies to a ten-day-old baby? The verse states: 鈥淎nd a woman,鈥 to include even a baby girl.

转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The mishna further teaches that a baby boy, even one who is one day old, can become impure with the impurity of ziva. Once again, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a zav: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). It would have been enough for the verse to state 鈥渁 man.鈥 Why must the verse state 鈥渁ny man鈥? It is in order to include even a one-day-old baby boy who has such a discharge, to teach that he becomes impure with the impurity of ziva. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诇讝讻专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬谉 拽讟谉 诇谞拽讘讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says that this derivation is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd of those who have an issue, whether it be a male or a female鈥 (Leviticus 15:33). The phrase 鈥渨hether it be a male鈥 includes anyone who is a male, whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor; 鈥渙r a female鈥 includes anyone who is a female, whether she is an adult or whether she is a minor. If so, why must the earlier verse state 鈥渁ny man鈥? The Torah spoke in the language of people, i.e., this emphasis is not unusual and therefore one should not derive a halakha from the superfluous word.

讜诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘注讜专 讘砖专讜 讗讚诐 讻诇 砖讛讜

The mishna teaches: And a one-day-old baby becomes impure with the impurity of leprous marks. The Gemara explains that this is derived from that which is written with regard to leprous marks: 鈥淲hen a person shall have in the skin of his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 13:2). This serves to include anyone who is a person, irrespective of age.

讜诪讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 讚讻转讬讘 讜注诇 讛谞驻砖讜转 讗砖专 讛讬讜 砖诐 谞驻砖 讻诇 讚讛讜

The mishna further teaches: And a one-day-old baby becomes impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara explains that this is derived from that which is written in the context of purification from impurity imparted by a corpse: 鈥淎nd a pure person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the people that were there鈥 (Numbers 19:18). This apparently superfluous mention of 鈥減eople鈥 serves to include anyone who is a person, irrespective of age.

讜讝讜拽拽 诇讬讘讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讗讞讬诐 砖讛讬讛 诇讛诐 讬砖讬讘讛 讗讞转 讘注讜诇诐

The mishna also teaches: And a one-day-old baby creates a levirate bond requiring the widow of his childless brother to enter into levirate marriage with him. The Gemara explains that this is derived from that which is written: 鈥淚f brothers dwell together and one of them dies, and he has no child, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin. Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife, and consummate the levirate marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). This verse is referring to brothers who had one dwelling in the world, i.e., who were alive at the same time, which includes a baby who was born the day his brother died.

讜驻讜讟专 诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The mishna teaches: And a one-day-old baby exempts his widowed mother from the obligation of levirate marriage. The Gemara explains the derivation: The Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd one of them dies, and he has no child鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), and this late husband has a child, albeit one who is one day old.

讜诪讗讻讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诇讬讚 讘讬转讜 讛诐 讬讗讻诇讜 讘诇讞诪讜 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讬讗讻讬诇讜 讘诇讞诪讜

The mishna teaches: And a one-day-old baby enables his mother, an Israelite woman who is no longer married to his father, a priest, to continue to partake of teruma. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written, with regard to those who are entitled to partake of teruma on account of a priest: 鈥淎nd those who are born in his house, they may eat [yokhelu] of his bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:11). Read into the verse: Those who are born in his house enable others to eat [ya鈥檃khilu] of his bread, i.e., on account of her son the priest, the Israelite mother may continue to partake of teruma even after the death of his father.

讜驻讜住诇 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讛

搂 The mishna also teaches: And a one-day-old baby disqualifies his mother, the daughter of a priest who is no longer married to his father, an Israelite man, from continuing to partake of teruma. The Gemara explains that the reason is that the Merciful One states: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter becomes a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and is returned to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13), and this daughter of a priest has a child.

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讝专注 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻谞注讜专讬讛 驻专讟 诇诪注讜讘专转

The Gemara asks: Why state specifically that she has a child? Even if she has a fetus in her womb from an Israelite man, the same halakha applies, as it is written: 鈥淎s in her youth,鈥 which excludes a pregnant woman, since her pregnancy has changed her physical state from that of her youth.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讞讚 讙讜驻讗 讜讛砖转讗 转专讬 讙讜驻讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讞讚 讙讜驻讗 讜讛砖转讗 讞讚 讙讜驻讗 讗讬诪讗 转讬讻讜诇 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻谞注讜专讬讛

The Gemara answers that both derivations are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淎nd has no child,鈥 I would say that the reason the daughter of a priest who has a child from an Israelite man may no longer partake of teruma is due to the fact that at the outset, before she married, she was one body, and now she has developed into two bodies, herself and her child. But here, in a case when she is merely pregnant, when at the outset she was one body and now she remains one body, one might say that she should be permitted to partake of teruma. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎s in her youth.鈥

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻谞注讜专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讙讜驻讛 住专讬拽讗 讜讛砖转讗 讙讜驻讛 诪诇讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讙讜驻讛 住专讬拽讗 讜讛砖转讗 讙讜驻讛 住专讬拽讗 讗讬诪讗 转讬讻讜诇 爪专讬讻讗

And by contrast, if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淎s in her youth,鈥 I would say that the reason that the daughter of a priest who is pregnant from an Israelite man may no longer partake of teruma is due to the fact that at the outset she had an empty body and now she has a full body, and consequently she is not returning to her father鈥檚 household in her initial state. But here, after she has given birth, where at the outset she had an empty body and now she still has an empty body, one might say that she should be permitted to partake of teruma. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd has no child.鈥 Therefore, both derivations are necessary.

拽专讗讬 讗转专讜抓 讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻讛谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讞转 讙专讜砖讛 讜讗讞转 砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜砖讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诪砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜砖讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讙专讜砖讛

The Gemara asks: The need for both verses has been resolved, but the mishna remains difficult: What is the reason the mishna is referring specifically to a baby who is one day old, when, as stated above, the same halakha applies even to a fetus? Rav Sheshet said: Here we are dealing with a priest who has two wives: One who is a divorc茅e, as she was previously divorced from another man, and who was therefore married to this priest in violation of halakha, and one who is not a divorc茅e. And he has sons from the wife who is not a divorc茅e, and he has a baby boy who is one day old from the wife who is a divorc茅e. This son is disqualified from the priesthood and may not partake of teruma.

讚驻讜住诇 讘注讘讚讬 讗讘讬讜 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 注讜讘专 诇讗

Rav Sheshet continues: The mishna is teaching that this baby disqualifies his father鈥檚 Canaanite slaves from partaking of teruma again. Since this child is entitled to a portion of his father鈥檚 inheritance, which includes his slaves, they may no longer partake of teruma due to his presence in the world. And the mishna teaches this to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that a fetus also disqualifies his father鈥檚 slaves from partaking of teruma. For this reason, the tanna of the mishna teaches us that with regard to a one-day-old baby boy, yes, he disqualifies his father鈥檚 slaves from partaking of teruma, but a fetus does not.

谞讜讞诇 讜诪谞讞讬诇 谞讜讞诇 诪诪讗谉 诪讗讘讬讜 讜诪谞讞讬诇 诇诪讗谉 诇讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讗讬 讘注讬 诪讗讘讜讛 诇讬专转讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬专转讬

搂 The mishna teaches that this baby inherits and he bequeaths. The Gemara asks: From whom does he inherit? It must be from his father. And to whom does he bequeath? Presumably, he bequeaths to his paternal brother, in a case where the baby inherited his father鈥檚 property and then died on the same day, as maternal half-brothers do not inherit from each other. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation: What is the novelty of the halakha that the brother of this one-day-old baby inherits from him? After all, if the surviving brother wants, let him inherit from his father, and if he wants, let him inherit from the one-day-old baby. Either way, he receives his late father鈥檚 property.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 谞讜讞诇 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬讜 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜讚讜拽讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 注讜讘专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讜讗 诪讬讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗诪讜

Rav Sheshet said: The mishna is teaching that a one-day-old baby inherits his mother鈥檚 property if she died on the day he was born, so that he is able to bequeath it, even if he dies after a day, to his heirs who are not the mother鈥檚 heirs, e.g., a paternal half-brother. And in such a case it is specifically when he is at least one day old that he inherits from his mother and bequeaths the property to his paternal half-brothers, but a fetus, whose mother died before he emerged, does not inherit from his mother. What is the reason for this? The reason is that presumably the fetus died first, before its mother died, and there is a halakha that a son does not inherit from his mother

讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬讜 诪谉 讛讗讘

while in the grave, i.e., after death, in order to bequeath to his paternal half-brother.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜驻专讻住 注讚 转诇转 驻专讻讜住讬 讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讝谞讘 讛诇讟讗讛 讚诪驻专讻住转

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that it is presumed that the fetus died before its mother? But wasn鈥檛 there an incident in which the mother died and the fetus made up to three spasmodic motions afterward? Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said: That is just as it is with the tail of the lizard, which twitches after being severed from the lizard, but it is merely a spasmodic motion which does not indicate that it is still alive.

诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜诪专 砖诪诪注讟 讘讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讜讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讗讞专 诪讬转转 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 诪诪注讟 讘讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讘注讬谞谉

Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said a different explanation of the mishna鈥檚 ruling in the name of Rava: The mishna teaches that a one-day-old baby inherits in order to say that such a child reduces the portion of the firstborn. A firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the inheritance, which is calculated by taking into account the portion due to his dead brother. And Mar, son of Rav Yosef, further said in the name of Rava: A son who was born after his father鈥檚 death does not reduce the portion of the firstborn. Therefore, the halakha in the mishna does not apply to a fetus. What is the reason for this? We require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淚f a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they bore him children鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), and this does not apply to a fetus not yet born at the time of the father鈥檚 death.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘讻讜专 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讻讬专 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara notes: In Sura they taught Mar鈥檚 statement that way, whereas in Pumbedita they taught it this way: Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said in the name of Rava: A firstborn who was born after his father鈥檚 death does not receive a double portion. What is the reason for this? We require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淏ut he shall acknowledge the firstborn鈥y giving him a double portion鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), and in this case the father is not there to acknowledge him.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讻诇 讛谞讬 诇讬砖谞讬 讚诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with all these versions of the statement of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, i.e., a one-day-old baby reduces the portion of the firstborn, a son born after his father鈥檚 death does not reduce the portion of the firstborn, and a firstborn born after his father鈥檚 death does not receive a double portion.

讜讛讛讜专讙讜 讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讻讛 讻诇 谞驻砖 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: And one who kills a one-day-old baby is liable for his murder. The Gemara explains that the reason for this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd he who smites any man mortally shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:17), where the phrase 鈥渁ny man鈥 indicates that this verse applies in any case, even in the case of a one-day-old baby.

讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讜诇讻诇 拽专讜讘讬讜 讻讞转谉 砖诇诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇注谞讬谉 讗讘诇讜转

The mishna further teaches: And if a one-day-old baby dies, his status in relation to his father and to his mother and to all his relatives is like that of a full-fledged groom. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Pappa said: With regard to mourning.

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖砖讛讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讗讚诐 讗讬谞讜 谞驻诇 讛讗 诇讗 砖讛讛 住驻拽 讛讜讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讬诐 诇讬讛 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is this stated? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: With regard to humans, any child that remained alive thirty days after birth is not considered a non-viable newborn. It can be inferred from this statement that if he did not remain alive for thirty days after birth, he is of uncertain status. The Gemara refutes this proof: Here we are dealing with a case where one is certain that its months of gestation were completed, and therefore it is certainly a viable newborn.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讬讘诐 拽谞讗讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讬砖

MISHNA: A girl who is three years and one day old, whose father arranged her betrothal, is betrothed through intercourse, as the halakhic status of intercourse with her is that of intercourse in all halakhic senses. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl three years and one day old dies, if his brother the yavam engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife; and if she is married, a man other than her husband is liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to violation of the prohibition against intercourse with a married woman.

讜诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 诇讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉

And if she is impure due to menstruation, she imparts impurity to one who engages in intercourse with her who then renders impure all the layers of bedding beneath him, rendering them impure like the upper bedding covering a zav, in the sense that it assumes first-degree ritual impurity and does not become a primary source of ritual impurity, and it renders impure food and drink, but it does not render impure people and vessels.

谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 诪讜诪转讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讛讬讗 驻讟讜专讛

If she marries a priest, she may partake of teruma, like any other wife of a priest; if she is unmarried and one of the men who are unfit for the priesthood, e.g., a mamzer or 岣lal, engaged in intercourse with her, he disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood, and if she is the daughter of a priest, she is disqualified from partaking of teruma. Finally, if one of all those with whom relations are forbidden, as stated in the Torah, e.g., her father or her husband鈥檚 father, engaged in intercourse with her, they are executed by the court for engaging in intercourse with her, and she is exempt, because she is a minor.

驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讻谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉

If the girl is less than that age, younger than three years and one day, the status of intercourse with her is not that of intercourse in all halakhic senses; rather, it is like placing a finger into the eye. Just as in that case, the eye constricts, sheds tears, and then returns to its original state, so too, in a girl younger than three years and one day old, the hymen returns to its original state.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讘讬讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 注专讘 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: A girl who is three years old is betrothed through intercourse; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She must be three years and one day old. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between their opinions, as both agree that she cannot be betrothed before the age of three? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: There is a difference between their opinions in the case of a girl on the eve of the first day of the fourth year of her life. According to Rabbi Meir, she can be betrothed through intercourse, as on this day three years are complete, whereas the Rabbis maintain that she cannot be betrothed in this manner, as she has not yet entered the first day of her fourth year.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘讬谉 砖谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There is a difference between their opinions with regard to the issue of whether thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year. Rabbi Meir maintains that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year, and therefore a girl aged two years and thirty days is already considered like a three-year-old and may be betrothed through intercourse. By contrast, the Rabbis contend that thirty days in a year are not considered equivalent to a year, and she may be betrothed through intercourse only upon reaching the age of three years and one day.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讘讬讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘转 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

The Gemara raises an objection against the explanation of Rabbi Yannai from a baraita: A girl who is three years old, and even one who is two years and one day old, is betrothed through intercourse; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She must be three years and one day old.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 44

讜谞讜讞诇 讜诪谞讞讬诇 讜讛讛讜专讙讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讜诇讻诇 拽专讜讘讬讜 讻讞转谉 砖诇诐

and he inherits the estate of his mother if she died on the day of his birth; and if he dies, he bequeaths that inheritance to his paternal brothers; and one who kills him is liable for his murder, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he that smites any man mortally shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:17), i.e., any man, including a child who is one day old; and if he dies, his status in relation to his father and to his mother and to all his relatives, in terms of the halakhot of mourning, is like that of a full-fledged groom [ke岣tan shalem], whose death is deeply mourned.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇谞讚讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that the halakhot of menstruation apply even to a one-day-old baby girl, derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days鈥 (Leviticus 15:19). When the verse states 鈥渁 woman,鈥 I have derived only that the halakhot of menstruation apply to an adult woman. From where do I derive that the impurity of a menstruating woman also applies to a one-day-old baby? The verse states: 鈥淎nd a woman,鈥 to include even a baby girl.

讘转 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诇讝讬讘讛 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 讘转 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诇讝讬讘讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗砖讛

The mishna further teaches that a baby girl who is ten days old who experiences an emission of blood for three consecutive days after the conclusion of the seven days fit for menstruation, becomes impure with the impurity of ziva. Again, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue of her blood many days not in the time of her menstruation鈥he shall be as in the days of her menstruation: She is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:25). When the verse states 鈥渁 woman,鈥 I have derived only that the halakhot of a zava apply to an adult woman. From where do I derive that the impurity of ziva also applies to a ten-day-old baby? The verse states: 鈥淎nd a woman,鈥 to include even a baby girl.

转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The mishna further teaches that a baby boy, even one who is one day old, can become impure with the impurity of ziva. Once again, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a zav: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2). It would have been enough for the verse to state 鈥渁 man.鈥 Why must the verse state 鈥渁ny man鈥? It is in order to include even a one-day-old baby boy who has such a discharge, to teach that he becomes impure with the impurity of ziva. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诇讝讻专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬谉 拽讟谉 诇谞拽讘讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says that this derivation is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd of those who have an issue, whether it be a male or a female鈥 (Leviticus 15:33). The phrase 鈥渨hether it be a male鈥 includes anyone who is a male, whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor; 鈥渙r a female鈥 includes anyone who is a female, whether she is an adult or whether she is a minor. If so, why must the earlier verse state 鈥渁ny man鈥? The Torah spoke in the language of people, i.e., this emphasis is not unusual and therefore one should not derive a halakha from the superfluous word.

讜诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘注讜专 讘砖专讜 讗讚诐 讻诇 砖讛讜

The mishna teaches: And a one-day-old baby becomes impure with the impurity of leprous marks. The Gemara explains that this is derived from that which is written with regard to leprous marks: 鈥淲hen a person shall have in the skin of his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 13:2). This serves to include anyone who is a person, irrespective of age.

讜诪讟诪讗 讘讟诪讗 诪转 讚讻转讬讘 讜注诇 讛谞驻砖讜转 讗砖专 讛讬讜 砖诐 谞驻砖 讻诇 讚讛讜

The mishna further teaches: And a one-day-old baby becomes impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara explains that this is derived from that which is written in the context of purification from impurity imparted by a corpse: 鈥淎nd a pure person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the people that were there鈥 (Numbers 19:18). This apparently superfluous mention of 鈥減eople鈥 serves to include anyone who is a person, irrespective of age.

讜讝讜拽拽 诇讬讘讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讗讞讬诐 砖讛讬讛 诇讛诐 讬砖讬讘讛 讗讞转 讘注讜诇诐

The mishna also teaches: And a one-day-old baby creates a levirate bond requiring the widow of his childless brother to enter into levirate marriage with him. The Gemara explains that this is derived from that which is written: 鈥淚f brothers dwell together and one of them dies, and he has no child, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin. Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife, and consummate the levirate marriage鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5). This verse is referring to brothers who had one dwelling in the world, i.e., who were alive at the same time, which includes a baby who was born the day his brother died.

讜驻讜讟专 诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The mishna teaches: And a one-day-old baby exempts his widowed mother from the obligation of levirate marriage. The Gemara explains the derivation: The Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd one of them dies, and he has no child鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), and this late husband has a child, albeit one who is one day old.

讜诪讗讻讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诇讬讚 讘讬转讜 讛诐 讬讗讻诇讜 讘诇讞诪讜 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讬讗讻讬诇讜 讘诇讞诪讜

The mishna teaches: And a one-day-old baby enables his mother, an Israelite woman who is no longer married to his father, a priest, to continue to partake of teruma. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written, with regard to those who are entitled to partake of teruma on account of a priest: 鈥淎nd those who are born in his house, they may eat [yokhelu] of his bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:11). Read into the verse: Those who are born in his house enable others to eat [ya鈥檃khilu] of his bread, i.e., on account of her son the priest, the Israelite mother may continue to partake of teruma even after the death of his father.

讜驻讜住诇 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讛

搂 The mishna also teaches: And a one-day-old baby disqualifies his mother, the daughter of a priest who is no longer married to his father, an Israelite man, from continuing to partake of teruma. The Gemara explains that the reason is that the Merciful One states: 鈥淏ut if a priest鈥檚 daughter becomes a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and is returned to her father鈥檚 house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father鈥檚 bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:13), and this daughter of a priest has a child.

诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讝专注 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻谞注讜专讬讛 驻专讟 诇诪注讜讘专转

The Gemara asks: Why state specifically that she has a child? Even if she has a fetus in her womb from an Israelite man, the same halakha applies, as it is written: 鈥淎s in her youth,鈥 which excludes a pregnant woman, since her pregnancy has changed her physical state from that of her youth.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讝专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讞讚 讙讜驻讗 讜讛砖转讗 转专讬 讙讜驻讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讞讚 讙讜驻讗 讜讛砖转讗 讞讚 讙讜驻讗 讗讬诪讗 转讬讻讜诇 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻谞注讜专讬讛

The Gemara answers that both derivations are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淎nd has no child,鈥 I would say that the reason the daughter of a priest who has a child from an Israelite man may no longer partake of teruma is due to the fact that at the outset, before she married, she was one body, and now she has developed into two bodies, herself and her child. But here, in a case when she is merely pregnant, when at the outset she was one body and now she remains one body, one might say that she should be permitted to partake of teruma. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎s in her youth.鈥

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻谞注讜专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讙讜驻讛 住专讬拽讗 讜讛砖转讗 讙讜驻讛 诪诇讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讙讜驻讛 住专讬拽讗 讜讛砖转讗 讙讜驻讛 住专讬拽讗 讗讬诪讗 转讬讻讜诇 爪专讬讻讗

And by contrast, if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淎s in her youth,鈥 I would say that the reason that the daughter of a priest who is pregnant from an Israelite man may no longer partake of teruma is due to the fact that at the outset she had an empty body and now she has a full body, and consequently she is not returning to her father鈥檚 household in her initial state. But here, after she has given birth, where at the outset she had an empty body and now she still has an empty body, one might say that she should be permitted to partake of teruma. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd has no child.鈥 Therefore, both derivations are necessary.

拽专讗讬 讗转专讜抓 讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻讛谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讞转 讙专讜砖讛 讜讗讞转 砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜砖讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 诪砖讗讬谞讛 讙专讜砖讛 讜讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讙专讜砖讛

The Gemara asks: The need for both verses has been resolved, but the mishna remains difficult: What is the reason the mishna is referring specifically to a baby who is one day old, when, as stated above, the same halakha applies even to a fetus? Rav Sheshet said: Here we are dealing with a priest who has two wives: One who is a divorc茅e, as she was previously divorced from another man, and who was therefore married to this priest in violation of halakha, and one who is not a divorc茅e. And he has sons from the wife who is not a divorc茅e, and he has a baby boy who is one day old from the wife who is a divorc茅e. This son is disqualified from the priesthood and may not partake of teruma.

讚驻讜住诇 讘注讘讚讬 讗讘讬讜 诪诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 注讜讘专 谞诪讬 驻讜住诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 注讜讘专 诇讗

Rav Sheshet continues: The mishna is teaching that this baby disqualifies his father鈥檚 Canaanite slaves from partaking of teruma again. Since this child is entitled to a portion of his father鈥檚 inheritance, which includes his slaves, they may no longer partake of teruma due to his presence in the world. And the mishna teaches this to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that a fetus also disqualifies his father鈥檚 slaves from partaking of teruma. For this reason, the tanna of the mishna teaches us that with regard to a one-day-old baby boy, yes, he disqualifies his father鈥檚 slaves from partaking of teruma, but a fetus does not.

谞讜讞诇 讜诪谞讞讬诇 谞讜讞诇 诪诪讗谉 诪讗讘讬讜 讜诪谞讞讬诇 诇诪讗谉 诇讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讗讬 讘注讬 诪讗讘讜讛 诇讬专转讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬专转讬

搂 The mishna teaches that this baby inherits and he bequeaths. The Gemara asks: From whom does he inherit? It must be from his father. And to whom does he bequeath? Presumably, he bequeaths to his paternal brother, in a case where the baby inherited his father鈥檚 property and then died on the same day, as maternal half-brothers do not inherit from each other. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation: What is the novelty of the halakha that the brother of this one-day-old baby inherits from him? After all, if the surviving brother wants, let him inherit from his father, and if he wants, let him inherit from the one-day-old baby. Either way, he receives his late father鈥檚 property.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 谞讜讞诇 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬讜 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜讚讜拽讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 注讜讘专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讜讗 诪讬讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗诪讜

Rav Sheshet said: The mishna is teaching that a one-day-old baby inherits his mother鈥檚 property if she died on the day he was born, so that he is able to bequeath it, even if he dies after a day, to his heirs who are not the mother鈥檚 heirs, e.g., a paternal half-brother. And in such a case it is specifically when he is at least one day old that he inherits from his mother and bequeaths the property to his paternal half-brothers, but a fetus, whose mother died before he emerged, does not inherit from his mother. What is the reason for this? The reason is that presumably the fetus died first, before its mother died, and there is a halakha that a son does not inherit from his mother

讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬讜 诪谉 讛讗讘

while in the grave, i.e., after death, in order to bequeath to his paternal half-brother.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜驻专讻住 注讚 转诇转 驻专讻讜住讬 讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讝谞讘 讛诇讟讗讛 讚诪驻专讻住转

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that it is presumed that the fetus died before its mother? But wasn鈥檛 there an incident in which the mother died and the fetus made up to three spasmodic motions afterward? Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said: That is just as it is with the tail of the lizard, which twitches after being severed from the lizard, but it is merely a spasmodic motion which does not indicate that it is still alive.

诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜诪专 砖诪诪注讟 讘讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讜讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讗讞专 诪讬转转 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 诪诪注讟 讘讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讘注讬谞谉

Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said a different explanation of the mishna鈥檚 ruling in the name of Rava: The mishna teaches that a one-day-old baby inherits in order to say that such a child reduces the portion of the firstborn. A firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the inheritance, which is calculated by taking into account the portion due to his dead brother. And Mar, son of Rav Yosef, further said in the name of Rava: A son who was born after his father鈥檚 death does not reduce the portion of the firstborn. Therefore, the halakha in the mishna does not apply to a fetus. What is the reason for this? We require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淚f a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they bore him children鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), and this does not apply to a fetus not yet born at the time of the father鈥檚 death.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘讻讜专 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讻讬专 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara notes: In Sura they taught Mar鈥檚 statement that way, whereas in Pumbedita they taught it this way: Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said in the name of Rava: A firstborn who was born after his father鈥檚 death does not receive a double portion. What is the reason for this? We require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淏ut he shall acknowledge the firstborn鈥y giving him a double portion鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), and in this case the father is not there to acknowledge him.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讻诇 讛谞讬 诇讬砖谞讬 讚诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with all these versions of the statement of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, i.e., a one-day-old baby reduces the portion of the firstborn, a son born after his father鈥檚 death does not reduce the portion of the firstborn, and a firstborn born after his father鈥檚 death does not receive a double portion.

讜讛讛讜专讙讜 讞讬讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讻讛 讻诇 谞驻砖 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: And one who kills a one-day-old baby is liable for his murder. The Gemara explains that the reason for this is as it is written: 鈥淎nd he who smites any man mortally shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:17), where the phrase 鈥渁ny man鈥 indicates that this verse applies in any case, even in the case of a one-day-old baby.

讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讜诇讻诇 拽专讜讘讬讜 讻讞转谉 砖诇诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇注谞讬谉 讗讘诇讜转

The mishna further teaches: And if a one-day-old baby dies, his status in relation to his father and to his mother and to all his relatives is like that of a full-fledged groom. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Pappa said: With regard to mourning.

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖砖讛讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讗讚诐 讗讬谞讜 谞驻诇 讛讗 诇讗 砖讛讛 住驻拽 讛讜讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讬诐 诇讬讛 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is this stated? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: With regard to humans, any child that remained alive thirty days after birth is not considered a non-viable newborn. It can be inferred from this statement that if he did not remain alive for thirty days after birth, he is of uncertain status. The Gemara refutes this proof: Here we are dealing with a case where one is certain that its months of gestation were completed, and therefore it is certainly a viable newborn.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讘讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讬讘诐 拽谞讗讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讬砖

MISHNA: A girl who is three years and one day old, whose father arranged her betrothal, is betrothed through intercourse, as the halakhic status of intercourse with her is that of intercourse in all halakhic senses. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl three years and one day old dies, if his brother the yavam engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife; and if she is married, a man other than her husband is liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to violation of the prohibition against intercourse with a married woman.

讜诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讘讜注诇讛 诇讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉

And if she is impure due to menstruation, she imparts impurity to one who engages in intercourse with her who then renders impure all the layers of bedding beneath him, rendering them impure like the upper bedding covering a zav, in the sense that it assumes first-degree ritual impurity and does not become a primary source of ritual impurity, and it renders impure food and drink, but it does not render impure people and vessels.

谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 转讗讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讛注专讬讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘转讜专讛 诪讜诪转讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讛讬讗 驻讟讜专讛

If she marries a priest, she may partake of teruma, like any other wife of a priest; if she is unmarried and one of the men who are unfit for the priesthood, e.g., a mamzer or 岣lal, engaged in intercourse with her, he disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood, and if she is the daughter of a priest, she is disqualified from partaking of teruma. Finally, if one of all those with whom relations are forbidden, as stated in the Torah, e.g., her father or her husband鈥檚 father, engaged in intercourse with her, they are executed by the court for engaging in intercourse with her, and she is exempt, because she is a minor.

驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 讻谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉

If the girl is less than that age, younger than three years and one day, the status of intercourse with her is not that of intercourse in all halakhic senses; rather, it is like placing a finger into the eye. Just as in that case, the eye constricts, sheds tears, and then returns to its original state, so too, in a girl younger than three years and one day old, the hymen returns to its original state.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讘讬讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 注专讘 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: A girl who is three years old is betrothed through intercourse; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She must be three years and one day old. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between their opinions, as both agree that she cannot be betrothed before the age of three? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: There is a difference between their opinions in the case of a girl on the eve of the first day of the fourth year of her life. According to Rabbi Meir, she can be betrothed through intercourse, as on this day three years are complete, whereas the Rabbis maintain that she cannot be betrothed in this manner, as she has not yet entered the first day of her fourth year.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘讬谉 砖谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There is a difference between their opinions with regard to the issue of whether thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year. Rabbi Meir maintains that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year, and therefore a girl aged two years and thirty days is already considered like a three-year-old and may be betrothed through intercourse. By contrast, the Rabbis contend that thirty days in a year are not considered equivalent to a year, and she may be betrothed through intercourse only upon reaching the age of three years and one day.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪转拽讚砖转 讘讘讬讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘转 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

The Gemara raises an objection against the explanation of Rabbi Yannai from a baraita: A girl who is three years old, and even one who is two years and one day old, is betrothed through intercourse; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She must be three years and one day old.

Scroll To Top