Niddah 45

Niddah 45

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאִיכָּא תַּנָּא דְּקָאָמַר יוֹם אֶחָד בַּשָּׁנָה חָשׁוּב שָׁנָה, הָכִי נָמֵי אִיכָּא תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בַּשָּׁנָה חֲשׁוּבִין שָׁנָה.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, just as there is a tanna who says that one day in a year is considered equivalent to a year, so too, there is a tanna who says that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year.The baraita states that according to Rabbi Meir, a girl two years and one day old is considered like a three-year-old, following the opinion that one day in a year is equivalent to a full year. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that there is a second tanna who says that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a full year, and therefore a girl can be betrothed by intercourse from the age of two years and thirty days.

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יַנַּאי קַשְׁיָא! קַשְׁיָא.

But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, that Rabbi Meir requires a full three years, this baraita is difficult, as it explicitly states that in Rabbi Meir’s opinion even a girl aged two years and one day can be betrothed by intercourse. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this baraita is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Yannai.

פָּחוֹת מִכֵּן — כְּנוֹתֵן אֶצְבַּע בָּעַיִן. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי בְּתוּלִין — מֵיזָל אָזְלִי וְאָתוּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא אִתְּצוֹדֵי הוּא דְּלָא מִתַּצְדִּי עַד לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ?

§ The last clause of the mishna teaches that if the girl is less than that age, i.e., younger than three years and one day, the status of intercourse with her is like placing a finger into the eye. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What happens to this hymen, i.e., to the hymen of a girl under three with whom a man engaged in intercourse? Does it disappear and come back again later, or perhaps it is not removed at all until after she reaches the age of three?

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּעַל בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ, וּמָצָא דָּם, וּבָעַל לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ וְלֹא מָצָא דָּם. אִי אָמְרַתְּ מֵיזָל אָזְלִי וְאָתוּ — שְׁהוּת הוּא דְּלָא הָוְיָא לְהוּ.

The Gemara asks: What difference is there in halakha between these two suggestions? The Gemara answers that there is a practical ramification in a case where a priest engaged in intercourse with a girl to whom he is married within her first three years, and found blood on her due to that intercourse, and again engaged in intercourse with her many times, including after she turned three, but on that occasion he did not find blood. If you say that after engaging in intercourse when the girl is younger than three, the hymen disappears and comes back again, here one can maintain that it disappeared due to the first time they engaged in intercourse and did not grow back because there was not enough time without intercourse for it to grow back.

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ: אִתְּצוֹדֵי הוּא דְּלָא מִתַּצְדִּי עַד לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ, הָא אַחֵר בָּא עָלֶיהָ — מַאי?

But if you say that the hymen is not removed at all until after she reaches the age of three, the fact that this girl did not emit blood after three years must be because another man engaged in intercourse with her after she turned three, in which case she is classified as a zona, a woman who has engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by the Torah, and is forbidden to her husband the priest. The Gemara reiterates: What, then, is the resolution of the dilemma?

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: וּמַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּמַכָּה שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת לְאַלְתַּר? שֶׁמָּא חוֹזֶרֶת לְאַלְתַּר, וְהָא [וַדַּאי] אַחֵר בָּא עָלֶיהָ!

Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Ika, objects to this explanation of the practical ramifications of the dilemma: But even if one maintains that the hymen of a girl younger than three disappears and grows back, one can still contend that this girl engaged in intercourse with another man, as who will say to us that a wound that was inflicted within three years of a girl’s birth is not restored and healed immediately? Perhaps it is restored immediately, and this girl did not emit blood because another man engaged in intercourse with her previously, and she is therefore a zona who is forbidden to a priest.

אֶלָּא נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ, כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּעַל בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ וּמָצָא דָּם, וּבָעַל לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ וּמָצָא דָּם. אִי אָמְרַתְּ מֵיזָל אָזְלִי וְאָתוּ — הַאי דַּם בְּתוּלִין הוּא, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אִתְּצוֹדֵי הוּא דְּלָא מִתַּצְדִּי אֶלָּא עַד לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ — הַאי דַּם נִדָּה הוּא. מַאי?

Rather, the practical difference between the two suggestions relates to a case where the husband engaged in intercourse with this girl within her first three years, and found blood, and engaged in intercourse with her again after she turned three, and again found blood. If you say that the hymen disappears and comes back again, this blood emitted when she is less than three years old is blood from the tearing of the hymen, which does not render her impure. But if you say that the hymen is not removed at all until after she reaches the age of three, then this blood she emitted when she was younger than three is menstrual blood, which renders her impure. What, then, is the resolution of the dilemma?

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: תָּא שְׁמַע, פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן כְּנוֹתֵן אֶצְבַּע בָּעַיִן. לְמָה לִי לְמִתְנֵי ״כְּנוֹתֵן אֶצְבַּע בָּעַיִן״? לִתְנֵי: פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן וְלֹא כְלוּם! מַאי לַָאו הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: מָה עַיִן מַדְמַעַת, וְחוֹזֶרֶת וּמַדְמַעַת, אַף בְּתוּלִין מֵיזָל אָזְלִי וְאָתוּ.

Rav Ḥisda said: Come and hear the mishna: If the girl is less than that age of three years and one day, intercourse with her is like placing a finger into the eye. Why do I need the mishna to teach: Like placing a finger into the eye? Let it teach simply: If she is less than that age, intercourse with her is nothing. What, is it not correct that this is what the mishna teaches us, by its comparison to an eye: Just as placing a finger in an eye causes it to tear and tear again, when another finger is placed in it, so too after the intercourse of a girl under three the hymen disappears and comes back again?

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיוֹסְטָנִי, בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל אַסְוִירוּס בֶּן אַנְטֹנִינוּס, שֶׁבָּאתָ לִפְנֵי רַבִּי. אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, אִשָּׁה בְּכַמָּה נִיסֵּת? אָמַר לָהּ: בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a gentile woman called Yusteni, the daughter of Asveirus, son of Antoninus, a Roman emperor, who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. She said to him: My teacher, at what age is a woman fit to marry, i.e., at what age is it appropriate for a woman to engage in intercourse, which would therefore be the appropriate time to marry? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: She must be at least three years and one day old.

וּבְכַמָּה מִתְעַבֶּרֶת? אָמַר לָהּ: בַּת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד. אָמְרָה לוֹ: אֲנִי נִשֵּׂאתִי בְּשֵׁשׁ, וְיָלַדְתִּי בְּשֶׁבַע. אוֹי לְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים שֶׁאִבַּדְתִּי בְּבֵית אַבָּא!

Yusteni further inquired: And at what age is she fit to become pregnant? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: When she is at least twelve years and one day old. She said to him: I married when I was six, and gave birth a year later, when I was seven. Woe for those three years, between the age of three, when I was fit for intercourse, and the age of six, when I married, as I wasted those years in my father’s house by not engaging in intercourse.

וּמִי מִעַבְּרָה? וְהָתָנֵי רַב בִּיבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת בְּמוֹךְ — קְטַנָּה, מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וּמְנִיקָה.

The Gemara asks: And can a minor of that age become pregnant? But didn’t Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Naḥman: Three women may engage in intercourse while using a contraceptive absorbent cloth, a soft fabric placed at the entrance to the womb to prevent conception, despite the fact that this practice generally is prohibited. They are a minor; a pregnant woman; and a nursing woman.

קְטַנָּה — שֶׁמָּא תִּתְעַבֵּר וְתָמוּת; מְעוּבֶּרֶת — שֶׁמָּא תַּעֲשֶׂה עוּבָּרָהּ סַנְדָּל; מְנִיקָה — שֶׁמָּא תִּגְמוֹל אֶת בְּנָהּ וְיָמוּת.

The baraita specifies the reason for allowing these women to use contraceptive absorbent cloths: A minor, lest she become pregnant and perhaps die from this pregnancy; a pregnant woman, lest she be impregnated a second time and her older fetus become deformed into the shape of a sandal fish, by being squashed by the pressure of the second fetus; and a nursing woman, lest she become pregnant and her milk dry up, in which case she weans her son too early, thereby endangering him, and he dies.

וְאֵיזוֹהִי קְטַנָּה? מִבַּת אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְעַד שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן, אוֹ יָתֵר עַל כֵּן — מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת [כְּדַרְכָּהּ] וְהוֹלֶכֶת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The baraita continues: And who is considered a minor? It is a girl from the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. If she was younger than that or older than that, she may go ahead and engage in intercourse in her usual manner, i.e., without contraception. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Since it is assumed that a minor who is less than eleven years old cannot become pregnant, she is considered to be in no danger.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְהוֹלֶכֶת, וּמִן הַשָּׁמַיִם יְרַחֲמוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״שׁוֹמֵר פְּתָאיִם ה׳״!

And the Rabbis say: Both in this case of a minor girl who can become pregnant and in that case of a minor girl who cannot become pregnant, she may go ahead and engage in intercourse in her usual manner, and Heaven will have mercy upon her and prevent any mishap, as it is stated: “The Lord preserves the simple” (Psalms 116:6). In light of the statement of Rabbi Meir, how could Yusteni have become pregnant at age seven?

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: ״אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׂר חֲמוֹרִים בְּשָׂרָם״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: ״אֲשֶׁר פִּיהֶם דִּבֶּר שָׁוְא וִימִינָם יְמִין שָׁקֶר״.

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Yusteni was able to become pregnant at such a young age because she was a gentile, and the verse states with regard to gentiles: “Their flesh is the flesh of donkeys” (Ezekiel 23:20). And if you wish, say instead that Yusteni was lying when she said she became pregnant at age seven, as it is stated with regard to gentiles: “Whose mouth speaks falsehood, and their right hand is a right hand of lying” (Psalms 144:8).

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁבָּאת לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, נִבְעַלְתִּי בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, מָה אֲנִי לִכְהוּנָּה? אָמַר לָהּ: כְּשֵׁרָה אַתְּ לַכְּהוּנָּה.

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain woman who came before Rabbi Akiva and said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse within three years of my birth; what is my status with regard to marrying into the priesthood? Rabbi Akiva said to her: You are fit to marry into the priesthood.

אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְתִינוֹק שֶׁטָּמְנוּ לוֹ אֶצְבָּעוֹ בִּדְבַשׁ, פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה גּוֹעֵר בָּהּ, שְׁלִישִׁית מֹצְצָהּ. אָמַר לָהּ: אִם כֵּן, פְּסוּלָה אַתְּ לַכְּהוּנָּה.

She said to him: My teacher, I will tell you a parable; to what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a baby whose finger one forcibly dipped in honey. On the first time and the second time, he moans at his mother for doing so, but on the third occasion, once he is used to the taste of honey, he willingly sucks the finger dipped in honey. She was insinuating to Rabbi Akiva that she engaged in intercourse several times, and although the first couple of times were against her will, the third incident was with her consent. Rabbi Akiva said to her: If so, you are disqualified from marrying into the priesthood.

רָאָה הַתַּלְמִידִים מִסְתַּכְּלִים זֶה בָּזֶה, אָמַר לָהֶם: לָמָה הַדָּבָר קָשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיכֶם? [אָמְרוּ לוֹ]: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁכׇּל הַתּוֹרָה הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, כָּךְ פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים כְּשֵׁרָה לַכְּהוּנָּה הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. וְאַף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לֹא אֲמָרָהּ אֶלָּא לְחַדֵּד בָּהּ אֶת הַתַּלְמִידִים.

Rabbi Akiva saw his students looking at each other, puzzling over this ruling. He said to them: Why is this matter difficult in your eyes? They said to him: Just as the entire Torah is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, so too this halakha of a girl who engaged in intercourse when she was less than three years old, i.e., that she is fit to marry into the priesthood, is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and it applies whether she engaged intercourse against her will or with her consent. The Gemara notes: And even Rabbi Akiva did not say to the woman that she was unfit to marry into the priesthood because that is the halakha; rather, he did so only to sharpen the minds of his students with his statement, to see how they would respond.

מַתְנִי’ בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ — קְנָאָהּ, וְאֵין נוֹתֵן גֵּט עַד שֶׁיַּגְדִּיל.

MISHNA: In the case of a boy, nine years and one day old, whose brother had died childless, who engaged in intercourse with his yevama, his brother’s widow, the status of the intercourse is that of halakhic intercourse and he acquires her as his wife; but he cannot give her a bill of divorce, if he chooses to end the marriage, until he reaches majority.

וּמְטַמֵּא בְּנִדָּה לְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן.

And he becomes ritually impure after engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman to the degree that he renders impure all the layers of bedding beneath him, such that they become impure like the upper bedding covering a zav. Accordingly, the bedding assumes first-degree ritual impurity status and does not become a primary source of ritual impurity, and it renders impure food and drink and does not render impure people and vessels.

וּפוֹסֵל, וְאֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל בַּתְּרוּמָה, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְנִסְקֶלֶת עַל יָדוֹ, וְאִם בָּא עַל אַחַת מִכׇּל הָעֲרָיוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה — מוּמָתִין עַל יָדוֹ, וְהוּא פָּטוּר.

And if he is disqualified from the priesthood and the woman with whom he engages in intercourse is the daughter of a priest, he disqualifies her from partaking of teruma; but if he is a priest who marries an Israelite woman, he does not enable her to partake of teruma. And if he engages in bestiality, he disqualifies the animal from being sacrificed upon the altar, and the animal is stoned due to his act. And if he engaged in intercourse with one of all those with whom relations are forbidden, as stated in the Torah, e.g., his aunt or his mother, they are executed by the court due to having engaged in intercourse with him, because they are adults; but he is exempt, as he is a minor.

גְּמָ’ וְלִכְשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל. בְּגֵט סַגִּי לַהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: עָשׂוּ בִּיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע כְּמַאֲמָר בַּגָּדוֹל.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a boy aged nine years and one day cannot give his yevama a bill of divorce until he reaches majority. The Gemara asks: And even when he reaches majority, is a bill of divorce enough to enable her to marry any man? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the Sages rendered the halakhic status of the act of intercourse of a boy nine years and one day old like that of levirate betrothal by means of money or a document performed by an adult man, which is an acquisition by rabbinic law? Accordingly, she is not his full-fledged wife.

מָה מַאֲמָר בַּגָּדוֹל — צָרִיךְ גֵּט לְמַאֲמָרוֹ וַחֲלִיצָה לְזִיקָּתוֹ, אַף בִּיאַת בֶּן תֵּשַׁע — צָרִיךְ גֵּט לְמַאֲמָרוֹ וַחֲלִיצָה לְזִיקָּתוֹ!

Therefore, one can assert as follows: Just as after a levirate betrothal performed by an adult man, the yavam must give the yevama a bill of divorce to release her from his levirate betrothal and perform ḥalitza to release her from his levirate bond, so too with regard to the intercourse of a boy nine years and one day old, the halakha should be that he must give her a bill of divorce for his levirate betrothal and perform ḥalitza to release her from his levirate bond.

אָמַר רַב: הָכִי קָאָמַר,

Rav said in response that this is what the tanna of the mishna is saying:

לִכְשֶׁיַּגְדִּיל יִבְעוֹל וְיִתֵּן גֵּט.

When he reaches majority he may engage in intercourse with her, and thereby acquire her as his full-fledged wife, and if he wished to divorce her he can then give her a bill of divorce without having to perform ḥalitza.

מַתְנִי’ בַּת אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד — נְדָרֶיהָ נִבְדָּקִין. בַּת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד — נְדָרֶיהָ קַיָּימִין, וּבוֹדְקִין כׇּל שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה.

MISHNA: With regard to a girl who is eleven years and one day old, her vows are examined to ascertain whether she is aware of the meaning of her vow and in Whose name she vowed. Once she is twelve years and one day old and has grown two pubic hairs, which is a sign of adulthood, even without examination her vows are in effect. And one examines her vows throughout the entire twelfth year until her twelfth birthday.

בֶּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד — נְדָרָיו נִבְדָּקִין, בֶּן שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד — נְדָרָיו קַיָּימִין, וּבוֹדְקִין כׇּל שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה.

With regard to a boy who is twelve years and one day old, his vows are examined to ascertain whether he is aware of the meaning of his vow and in Whose name he vowed. Once he is thirteen years and one day old and has grown two pubic hairs, even without examination his vows are in effect. And one examines his vows throughout the entire thirteenth year until his thirteenth birthday.

קוֹדֶם לַזְּמַן הַזֶּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: ״יוֹדְעִין אָנוּ לְשֵׁם מִי נָדַרְנוּ״, ״לְשֵׁם מִי הִקְדַּשְׁנוּ״ — אֵין נִדְרֵיהֶם נֶדֶר וְאֵין הֶקְדֵּשָׁן הֶקְדֵּשׁ. לְאַחַר הַזְּמַן הַזֶּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: ״אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְשֵׁם מִי נָדַרְנוּ״, ״לְשֵׁם מִי הִקְדַּשְׁנוּ״ — נִדְרָן נֶדֶר וְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

Prior to that time, eleven years and one day for a girl and twelve years and one day for a boy, even if they said: We know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is not a valid vow and their consecration is not a valid consecration. After that time, twelve years and one day for a girl and thirteen years and one day for a boy, even if they said: We do not know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is a valid vow and their consecration is a valid consecration.

גְּמָ’ וְכֵיוָן דִּתְנָא ״בַּת אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד נְדָרֶיהָ נִבְדָּקִין״, ״בַּת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד נְדָרֶיהָ קַיָּימִין״ לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: בּוֹדְקִין לְעוֹלָם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But since the mishna teaches: With regard to a girl who is eleven years and one day old her vows are examined, why do I need the mishna to further state: Once she is twelve years and one day old her vows are in effect? After all, by this stage she is already an adult. The Gemara answers that this ruling is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that one examines her vows forever, even when she is an adult. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the vows of an adult are valid even without examination.

וְכֵיוָן דְּתָנֵי בַּת ״שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד נְדָרֶיהָ קַיָּימִין״, ״בּוֹדְקִין כׇּל שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה״ לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר מָר ״שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם בַּשָּׁנָה חֲשׁוּבִים שָׁנָה״, הֵיכָא דִּבְדַקְנָא שְׁלֹשִׁים וְלֹא יָדְעָה לְהַפְלוֹת, אֵימָא: תּוּ לָא לִיבְדּוֹק, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara further asks: And since the mishna teaches: Once she is twelve years and one day old her vows are in effect, why do I need it to further state: One examines her vows throughout the entire twelfth year? The Gemara answers that this ruling is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: Since the Master says that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year, in a case where we examine her for thirty days after she turned eleven and she did not know how to utter a vow properly, i.e., she did not have a clear understanding of the meaning of the vow, one might say that one should examine her no further until she reaches the age of twelve. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that she is examined throughout her twelfth year.

וְלִתְנֵי הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי בָּבֵי: ״בַּת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד נְדָרֶיהָ קַיָּימִין, וּבוֹדְקִין כׇּל שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה״. ״בַּת אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה וְיוֹם אֶחָד נְדָרֶיהָ נִבְדָּקִין״ לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara asks: And let the mishna teach only these two clauses: Once she is twelve years and one day old her vows are in effect, and one examines her vows throughout the entire twelfth year. Once both of these have been taught, why do I need the ruling: With regard to a girl who is eleven years and one day old, her vows are examined?

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: סְתָמָא — בִּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה, בְּאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה לָא בָּעֲיָא בְּדִיקָה, וְהֵיכָא דְּחָזֵינַן לַהּ דַּחֲרִיפָא טְפֵי — (מִיבַּדְקָה) [לִיבְדְּקַהּ] בְּאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers that this clause was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: In an ordinary case, a girl requires examination in her twelfth year, whereas in her eleventh year she does not require examination. But in a case where we discern about her that she has a very sharp mind, perhaps she should be examined already in her eleventh year. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that she is not examined in her eleventh year irrespective of how intelligent she is, as she is too young.

קוֹדֶם הַזְּמַן הַזֶּה וְאַחַר הַזְּמַן הַזֶּה, לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּקָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ — נִסְמוֹךְ עֲלַיְיהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach that prior to that time their vows and consecration are always not valid and after that time they are always valid? These halakhot can be inferred from the previous statements of the mishna. The Gemara answers that these rulings are necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: These matters apply only in a case where they do not say: We know in Whose name we vowed, when they are younger than the periods mentioned in the mishna, or: We do not know in Whose name we vowed, when they are older. But in a case where they do say such statements, perhaps we rely on their claim. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that when they are younger than the periods stated in the mishna their vows are never valid, and when they are older, their vows are always valid.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: דְּבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בְּתִינוֹקֶת — בְּתִינוֹק אֲמוּרִים, דְּבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בְּתִינוֹק — בְּתִינוֹקֶת אֲמוּרִים.

§ The mishna indicates that the intellectual development of a girl is faster than that of a boy. In this regard, the Sages taught in a baraita: This opinion, with regard to the periods of vows for girls and boys, is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says the opposite, that the matter stated here with regard to a girl is actually stated with regard to a boy, whereas the matter stated with regard to a boy is in fact stated with regard to a girl, as the intellectual development of males is faster than that of females.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ [אֱלֹהִים] אֶת הַצֵּלָע״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנָּתַן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בִּינָה יְתֵירָה בָּאִשָּׁה יוֹתֵר מִבָּאִישׁ.

Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As it is written, with regard to the creation of woman: “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, He made [vayyiven] a woman, and brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:22). This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, granted a woman a greater understanding [bina] than that of a men.

וְאִידַּךְ, הַהוּא מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא: ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ [אֱלֹהִים] אֶת הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִן הָאָדָם לְאִשָּׁה וַיְבִאֶהָ אֶל הָאָדָם״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁקִּלְּעָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֵצֶל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁכֵּן בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם קוֹרִין לְקַלָּעִיתָא — בַּנָּיְיתָא.

The Gemara asks: And what does the other tanna, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for that which Reish Lakish taught, as Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya with regard to the verse: “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her to the man.” This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided the hair of Eve, and then brought her to Adam the first man. As in the cities overseas [bikhrakei hayyam] they call braiding hair, building [benayita].

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהַתִּינוֹק מָצוּי בְּבֵית רַבּוֹ, נִכְנֶסֶת בּוֹ עַרְמוּמִית תְּחִלָּה.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, what is the reason that he maintains that the intellectual development of males is faster than that of females? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Since a boy frequents his teacher’s house, cleverness enters his mind first.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: תּוֹךְ זְמַן — כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן, אוֹ כִּלְאַחַר זְמַן?

§ The mishna teaches that there are three periods in the development of girls and boys: When their vows are examined, i.e., the twelfth year for a girl and the thirteenth year for a boy, which will be termed below: During the time; the period beforehand, when their vows are entirely invalid, called: Before the time; and after that period, when their vows are always valid, known as: After the time. But the mishna does not address the issue of their physical development during these periods, with regard to the appearance of two pubic hairs. In this regard, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a boy or girl developed pubic hairs during the time, is this year considered like the development of signs indicating puberty before the time that the child reaches majority, and therefore they are not treated as signs indicating puberty, or is it considered as after the time?

לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אִי לִנְדָרִים — לָאו כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן דָּמְיָא, וְלָאו כִּלְאַחַר זְמַן דָּמְיָא.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this dilemma raised? If it is with regard to vows, the development of pubic hairs is not considered as before the time, but it is not considered as after the time either. Instead, the status of the vow is determined in accordance with the examination of the child’s understanding, as stated in the mishna.

אֶלָּא, לָעֳונָשִׁין מַאי? רַב וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא דְּאָמְרִי תַרְוַויְיהוּ: תּוֹךְ זְמַן כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דְּאָמְרִי תַרְוַויְיהוּ: תּוֹךְ זְמַן כִּלְאַחַר זְמַן.

Rather, the dilemma is raised with regard to punishments, i.e., whether such a boy or girl is punished like an adult for violating the prohibitions of the Torah. What, then, is the halakha? The Sages disagree. Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina both say: The development of pubic hairs during that time is considered as before the time, and therefore the boy or girl is not liable to receive punishment for his or her actions. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi both say: The development of pubic hairs during that time is considered as after the time, and they are punished.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, וְסִימָנָיךְ ״וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל״.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And your mnemonic, to remember which Sages said which ruling, is the verse: “Now this [vezot] was the custom in former times in Israel” (Ruth 4:7). The Sage whose name has a feminine form like the word vezot, namely, Rav Ḥanina, maintains that the development of pubic hairs during the time is considered as before the time, like the former times mentioned in the verse.

מֵתִיב רַב הַמְנוּנָא: אַחַר זְמַן הַזֶּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ ״אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים לְשֵׁם מִי נָדַרְנוּ״, ״לְשֵׁם מִי הִקְדַּשְׁנוּ״ — נִדְרֵיהֶם נֶדֶר וְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן הֶקְדֵּשׁ. הָא תּוֹךְ זְמַן — כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן!

Rav Hamnuna raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from the mishna: After that time, twelve years and one day for a girl and thirteen years and one day for a boy, even if they say: We do not know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is a valid vow and their consecration is a valid consecration. Rav Hamnuna infers from this ruling that if they issued this statement during the time, it is considered as before the time, even if they had developed two hairs.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אֵימָא רֵישָׁא — קוֹדֶם הַזְּמַן הַזֶּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ ״יוֹדְעִים אָנוּ לְשֵׁם מִי נָדַרְנוּ״, ״לְשֵׁם מִי הִקְדַּשְׁנוּ״ — אֵין נִדְרֵיהֶם נֶדֶר וְאֵין הֶקְדֵּשָׁן הֶקְדֵּשׁ. הָא תּוֹךְ זְמַן — כִּלְאַחַר זְמַן!

Rava said to Rav Hamnuna, in rejection of this proof: Say the former clause in the mishna: Prior to that time, eleven years and one day for a girl and twelve years and one day for a boy, even if they said: We know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is not a valid vow and their consecration is not a valid consecration. One can infer the opposite from here, that if they issued this statement during the time, it is considered as after the time.

וְלָא הִיא, רָבָא קָטָעֵי. הוּא סָבַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִמִּשְׁנָה יְתֵירָה קָדָיֵיק, וְאַדְּדָיֵיק מִסֵּיפָא — לֵידוּק מֵרֵישָׁא.

The Gemara responds: And that is not so, as Rava erred. He thought that Rav Hamnuna inferred from the superfluous statement of the mishna, i.e., that the clause Rav Hamnuna cites is unnecessary for the halakha it states, which is why Rav Hamnuna inferred his conclusion from it. And therefore Rava responded that rather than inferring from the latter clause of the mishna that if the boy or girl claims not to know in Whose name he or she vowed during the time, it is considered as before the time, let him infer from the former clause that it is considered as after the time, as Rava demonstrated.

וְלָא הִיא, רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִגּוּפָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין קָא דָיֵיק: הָא ״לְאַחַר זְמַן״ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּלָא אַיְיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — קָטָן הוּא, אֶלָּא לָאו דְּאַיְיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת,

The Gemara continues: But it is not so; rather, Rav Hamnuna inferred that it is considered as before the time from the statement of the mishna itself, without assuming that it is superfluous, as follows: In that mention in the mishna of: After that time, what are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where the boy has not yet developed two pubic hairs, he is a minor. Rather, is it not referring to a case where the boy has developed two pubic hairs,