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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 7, 2019 | 讟壮 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 45

What are laws that are relevant for a boy who reaches the age of nine and a day? What about girls at age twelve and a day and boys at the age of thirteen and a day regarding vows? What about the year before that?


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

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗讬讻讗 转谞讗 讚拽讗诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘 砖谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘讬谉 砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗

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鈥檚 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.

驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讻谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谞讬 讘转讜诇讬谉 诪讬讝诇 讗讝诇讬 讜讗转讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗转爪讜讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪转爪讚讬 注讚 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖

搂 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?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讘注诇 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讜诪爪讗 讚诐 讜讘注诇 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讚诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬讝诇 讗讝诇讬 讜讗转讜 砖讛讜转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讛讜

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗转爪讜讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪转爪讚讬 注讚 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讛讗 讗讞专 讘讗 注诇讬讛 诪讗讬

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?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诪讻讛 砖讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讗诇转专 砖诪讗 讞讜讝专转 诇讗诇转专 讜讛讗 讗讞专 讘讗 注诇讬讛

Rav 岣yya, 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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讘注诇 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讜诪爪讗 讚诐 讜讘注诇 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讜诪爪讗 讚诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬讝诇 讗讝诇讬 讜讗转讜 讛讗讬 讚诐 讘转讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗转爪讜讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪转爪讚讬 讗诇讗 注讚 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讛讗讬 讚诐 谞讚讛 讛讜讗 诪讗讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转讗 砖诪注 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讻谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪转谞讬 讻谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 诇转谞讬 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讛 注讬谉 诪讚诪注转 讜讞讜讝专转 讜诪讚诪注转 讗祝 讘转讜诇讬谉 诪讬讝诇 讗讝诇讬 讜讗转讬

Rav 岣sda 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?

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讬讜住讟谞讬 讘转讜 砖诇 讗住讜讬专讜住 讘谉 讗谞讟谞讬谞讜住 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讗砖讛 讘讻诪讛 谞讬住转 讗诪专 诇讛 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

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.

讜讘讻诪讛 诪转注讘专转 讗诪专 诇讛 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讗谞讬 谞砖讗转讬 讘砖砖 讜讬诇讚转讬 讘砖讘注 讗讜讬 诇砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讘讚转讬 讘讘讬转 讗讘讗

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鈥檚 house by not engaging in intercourse.

讜诪讬 诪注讘专讛 讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘诪讜讱 拽讟谞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛

The Gemara asks: And can a minor of that age become pregnant? But didn鈥檛 Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Na岣an: 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.

拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜转诪讜转 诪注讜讘专转 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讜讘专讛 住谞讚诇 诪谞讬拽讛 砖诪讗 转讙诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讛 讜讬诪讜转

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.

讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪砖诪砖转 讜讛讜诇讻转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讜诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖讜诪专 驻转讗讬诐 讛壮

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: 鈥淭he Lord preserves the simple鈥 (Psalms 116:6). In light of the statement of Rabbi Meir, how could Yusteni have become pregnant at age seven?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗砖专 讘砖专 讞诪讜专讬诐 讘砖专诐 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗砖专 驻讬讛诐 讚讘专 砖讜讗 讜讬诪讬谞诐 讬诪讬谉 砖拽专

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: 鈥淭heir flesh is the flesh of donkeys鈥 (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: 鈥淲hose mouth speaks falsehood, and their right hand is a right hand of lying鈥 (Psalms 144:8).

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 谞讘注诇转讬 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讛 讗谞讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讻砖专讛 讗转 诇讻讛讜谞讛

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.

讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诪砖讜诇 诇讱 诪砖诇 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇转讬谞讜拽 砖讟诪谞讜 诇讜 讗爪讘注讜 讘讚讘砖 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讙讜注专 讘讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 诪爪爪讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诐 讻谉 驻住讜诇讛 讗转 诇讻讛讜谞讛

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.

专讗讛 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐 诪住转讻诇讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讻诐 [讗诪专讜 诇讬讛] 讻砖诐 砖讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讻讱 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讜讗祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专讛 讗诇讗 诇讞讚讚 讘讛 讗转 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 拽谞讗讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谉 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讙讚讬诇

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鈥檚 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.

讜诪讟诪讗 讘谞讚讛 诇讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉

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.

讜驻讜住诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜驻讜住诇 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜谞住拽诇转 注诇 讬讚讜 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇 讗讞转 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 讬讚讜 讜讛讜讗 驻讟讜专

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.

讙诪壮 讜诇讻砖讬讙讚讬诇 讘讙讟 住讙讬 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 注砖讜 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 讻诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇

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鈥檛 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.

诪讛 诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇 爪专讬讱 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讝讬拽转讜 讗祝 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 爪专讬讱 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讝讬拽转讜

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 岣litza 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 岣litza to release her from his levirate bond.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专

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

诇讻砖讬讙讚讬诇 讬讘注讜诇 讜讬转谉 讙讟

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 岣litza.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 谞讘讚拽讬谉 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讘讜讚拽讬谉 讻诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛

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.

讘谉 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讜 谞讘讚拽讬谉 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讘讜讚拽讬谉 讻诇 砖诇砖 注砖专讛

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.

拽讜讚诐 诇讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 讗谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 谞讚专谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 讛拽讚砖谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬讛诐 谞讚专 讜讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 诇讗讞专 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇砖诐 诪讬 谞讚专谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 讛拽讚砖谞讜 谞讚专谉 谞讚专 讜讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖

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.

讙诪壮 讜讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讗 讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 谞讘讚拽讬谉 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讬 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讻诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘讬诐 砖谞讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讘讚拽谞讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讚注讛 诇讛驻诇讜转 讗讬诪讗 转讜 诇讗 诇讬讘讚讜拽 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜诇转谞讬 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讘讘讬 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讘讜讚拽讬谉 讻诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 谞讘讚拽讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬

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?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 住转诪讗 讘砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讛讬讻讗 讚讞讝讬谞谉 诇讛 讚讞专讬驻讗 讟驻讬 诪讬讘讚拽讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

拽讜讚诐 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讜讗讞专 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗诪专讬 讗讬谞讛讜 谞住诪讜讱 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讬谞讜拽转 讘转讬谞讜拽 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转谞讜拽 讘转谞讜拽转 讗诪讜专讬诐

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讘谉 讛壮 [讗诇讛讬诐] 讗转 讛爪诇注 诪诇诪讚 砖谞转谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讬谞讛 讬转讬专讛 讘讗砖讛 讬讜转专 诪讘讗讬砖

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

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讜讬讘谉 讛壮 [讗诇讛讬诐] 讗转 讛爪诇注 讗砖专 诇拽讞 诪谉 讛讗讚诐 诇讗砖讛 讜讬讘讗讛 讗诇 讛讗讚诐 诪诇诪讚 砖拽诇注讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讞讜讛 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讗爪诇 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖讻谉 讘讻专讻讬 讛讬诐 拽讜专讬谉 诇拽诇注讬转讗 讘谞讬讬转讗

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: 鈥淎nd the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her to the man.鈥 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].

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪转讜讱 砖讛转讬谞讜拽 诪爪讜讬 讘讘讬转 专讘讜 谞讻谞住转 讘讜 注专诪讜诪讬转 转讞诇讛

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 Yitz岣k says: Since a boy frequents his teacher鈥檚 house, cleverness enters his mind first.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 讗讜 讻诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

搂 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?

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬 诇谞讚专讬诐 诇讗讜 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 讚诪讬讗 讜诇讗讜 讻诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讚诪讬讗

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鈥檚 understanding, as stated in the mishna.

讗诇讗 诇注讜谞砖讬谉 诪讗讬 专讘 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

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 岣nina 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讜讝讗转 诇驻谞讬诐 讘讬砖专讗诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: And your mnemonic, to remember which Sages said which ruling, is the verse: 鈥淣ow this [vezot] was the custom in former times in Israel鈥 (Ruth 4:7). The Sage whose name has a feminine form like the word vezot, namely, Rav 岣nina, maintains that the development of pubic hairs during the time is considered as before the time, like the former times mentioned in the verse.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 讬讜讚注讬诐 诇砖诐 诪讬 谞讚专谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 讛拽讚砖谞讜 谞讚专讬讛诐 谞讚专 讜讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讛讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉

Rav Hamnuna raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 拽讜讚诐 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 谞讚专谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 讛拽讚砖谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬讛诐 谞讚专 讜讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讛讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

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.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讘讗 拽讟注讬 讛讜讗 住讘专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪诪砖谞讛 讬转讬专讛 拽讚讬讬拽 讜讗讚讚讬讬拽 诪住讬驻讗 诇讬讚讜拽 诪专讬砖讗

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.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪讙讜驻讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗 讚讬讬拽 讛讗 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 拽讟谉 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转

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,

  • 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 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 45

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗讬讻讗 转谞讗 讚拽讗诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘 砖谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘讬谉 砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗

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鈥檚 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.

驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讻谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谞讬 讘转讜诇讬谉 诪讬讝诇 讗讝诇讬 讜讗转讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗转爪讜讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪转爪讚讬 注讚 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖

搂 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?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讘注诇 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讜诪爪讗 讚诐 讜讘注诇 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 讚诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬讝诇 讗讝诇讬 讜讗转讜 砖讛讜转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讛讜

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗转爪讜讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪转爪讚讬 注讚 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讛讗 讗讞专 讘讗 注诇讬讛 诪讗讬

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?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诪讻讛 砖讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讗诇转专 砖诪讗 讞讜讝专转 诇讗诇转专 讜讛讗 讗讞专 讘讗 注诇讬讛

Rav 岣yya, 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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讘注诇 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 讜诪爪讗 讚诐 讜讘注诇 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讜诪爪讗 讚诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬讝诇 讗讝诇讬 讜讗转讜 讛讗讬 讚诐 讘转讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗转爪讜讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪转爪讚讬 讗诇讗 注讚 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 讛讗讬 讚诐 谞讚讛 讛讜讗 诪讗讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转讗 砖诪注 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讻谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪转谞讬 讻谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘注讬谉 诇转谞讬 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讛 注讬谉 诪讚诪注转 讜讞讜讝专转 讜诪讚诪注转 讗祝 讘转讜诇讬谉 诪讬讝诇 讗讝诇讬 讜讗转讬

Rav 岣sda 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?

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讬讜住讟谞讬 讘转讜 砖诇 讗住讜讬专讜住 讘谉 讗谞讟谞讬谞讜住 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讗砖讛 讘讻诪讛 谞讬住转 讗诪专 诇讛 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

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.

讜讘讻诪讛 诪转注讘专转 讗诪专 诇讛 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗诪专讛 诇讜 讗谞讬 谞砖讗转讬 讘砖砖 讜讬诇讚转讬 讘砖讘注 讗讜讬 诇砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讘讚转讬 讘讘讬转 讗讘讗

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鈥檚 house by not engaging in intercourse.

讜诪讬 诪注讘专讛 讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘诪讜讱 拽讟谞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛

The Gemara asks: And can a minor of that age become pregnant? But didn鈥檛 Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Na岣an: 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.

拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜转诪讜转 诪注讜讘专转 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讜讘专讛 住谞讚诇 诪谞讬拽讛 砖诪讗 转讙诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讛 讜讬诪讜转

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.

讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪砖诪砖转 讜讛讜诇讻转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讜诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖讜诪专 驻转讗讬诐 讛壮

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: 鈥淭he Lord preserves the simple鈥 (Psalms 116:6). In light of the statement of Rabbi Meir, how could Yusteni have become pregnant at age seven?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗砖专 讘砖专 讞诪讜专讬诐 讘砖专诐 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗砖专 驻讬讛诐 讚讘专 砖讜讗 讜讬诪讬谞诐 讬诪讬谉 砖拽专

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: 鈥淭heir flesh is the flesh of donkeys鈥 (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: 鈥淲hose mouth speaks falsehood, and their right hand is a right hand of lying鈥 (Psalms 144:8).

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 谞讘注诇转讬 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讛 讗谞讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讻砖专讛 讗转 诇讻讛讜谞讛

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.

讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诪砖讜诇 诇讱 诪砖诇 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇转讬谞讜拽 砖讟诪谞讜 诇讜 讗爪讘注讜 讘讚讘砖 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讙讜注专 讘讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 诪爪爪讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诐 讻谉 驻住讜诇讛 讗转 诇讻讛讜谞讛

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.

专讗讛 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐 诪住转讻诇讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讻诐 [讗诪专讜 诇讬讛] 讻砖诐 砖讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讻讱 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讻砖专讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讜讗祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专讛 讗诇讗 诇讞讚讚 讘讛 讗转 讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖讘讗 注诇 讬讘诪转讜 拽谞讗讛 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谉 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讙讚讬诇

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鈥檚 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.

讜诪讟诪讗 讘谞讚讛 诇讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 转讞转讜谉 讻注诇讬讜谉

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.

讜驻讜住诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜驻讜住诇 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜谞住拽诇转 注诇 讬讚讜 讜讗诐 讘讗 注诇 讗讞转 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 讬讚讜 讜讛讜讗 驻讟讜专

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.

讙诪壮 讜诇讻砖讬讙讚讬诇 讘讙讟 住讙讬 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 注砖讜 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 讻诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇

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鈥檛 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.

诪讛 诪讗诪专 讘讙讚讜诇 爪专讬讱 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讝讬拽转讜 讗祝 讘讬讗转 讘谉 转砖注 爪专讬讱 讙讟 诇诪讗诪专讜 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讝讬拽转讜

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 岣litza 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 岣litza to release her from his levirate bond.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专

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

诇讻砖讬讙讚讬诇 讬讘注讜诇 讜讬转谉 讙讟

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 岣litza.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 谞讘讚拽讬谉 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讘讜讚拽讬谉 讻诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛

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.

讘谉 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讜 谞讘讚拽讬谉 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讘讜讚拽讬谉 讻诇 砖诇砖 注砖专讛

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.

拽讜讚诐 诇讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 讗谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 谞讚专谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 讛拽讚砖谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬讛诐 谞讚专 讜讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 诇讗讞专 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 诇砖诐 诪讬 谞讚专谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 讛拽讚砖谞讜 谞讚专谉 谞讚专 讜讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖

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.

讙诪壮 讜讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讗 讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 谞讘讚拽讬谉 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讬 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讻诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘讬诐 砖谞讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讘讚拽谞讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讚注讛 诇讛驻诇讜转 讗讬诪讗 转讜 诇讗 诇讬讘讚讜拽 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜诇转谞讬 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讘讘讬 讘转 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讘讜讚拽讬谉 讻诇 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讚专讬讛 谞讘讚拽讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬

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?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 住转诪讗 讘砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讛讬讻讗 讚讞讝讬谞谉 诇讛 讚讞专讬驻讗 讟驻讬 诪讬讘讚拽讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

拽讜讚诐 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讜讗讞专 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗诪专讬 讗讬谞讛讜 谞住诪讜讱 注诇讬讬讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讬谞讜拽转 讘转讬谞讜拽 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转谞讜拽 讘转谞讜拽转 讗诪讜专讬诐

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讘谉 讛壮 [讗诇讛讬诐] 讗转 讛爪诇注 诪诇诪讚 砖谞转谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘讬谞讛 讬转讬专讛 讘讗砖讛 讬讜转专 诪讘讗讬砖

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

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讜讬讘谉 讛壮 [讗诇讛讬诐] 讗转 讛爪诇注 讗砖专 诇拽讞 诪谉 讛讗讚诐 诇讗砖讛 讜讬讘讗讛 讗诇 讛讗讚诐 诪诇诪讚 砖拽诇注讛 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讞讜讛 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讗爪诇 讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖讻谉 讘讻专讻讬 讛讬诐 拽讜专讬谉 诇拽诇注讬转讗 讘谞讬讬转讗

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: 鈥淎nd the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her to the man.鈥 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].

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪转讜讱 砖讛转讬谞讜拽 诪爪讜讬 讘讘讬转 专讘讜 谞讻谞住转 讘讜 注专诪讜诪讬转 转讞诇讛

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 Yitz岣k says: Since a boy frequents his teacher鈥檚 house, cleverness enters his mind first.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 讗讜 讻诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

搂 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?

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬 诇谞讚专讬诐 诇讗讜 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 讚诪讬讗 讜诇讗讜 讻诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讚诪讬讗

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鈥檚 understanding, as stated in the mishna.

讗诇讗 诇注讜谞砖讬谉 诪讗讬 专讘 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

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 岣nina 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讜讝讗转 诇驻谞讬诐 讘讬砖专讗诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: And your mnemonic, to remember which Sages said which ruling, is the verse: 鈥淣ow this [vezot] was the custom in former times in Israel鈥 (Ruth 4:7). The Sage whose name has a feminine form like the word vezot, namely, Rav 岣nina, maintains that the development of pubic hairs during the time is considered as before the time, like the former times mentioned in the verse.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 讬讜讚注讬诐 诇砖诐 诪讬 谞讚专谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 讛拽讚砖谞讜 谞讚专讬讛诐 谞讚专 讜讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讛讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇驻谞讬 讝诪谉

Rav Hamnuna raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 专讬砖讗 拽讜讚诐 讛讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 谞讚专谞讜 诇砖诐 诪讬 讛拽讚砖谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬讛诐 谞讚专 讜讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讛讗 转讜讱 讝诪谉 讻诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

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.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讘讗 拽讟注讬 讛讜讗 住讘专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪诪砖谞讛 讬转讬专讛 拽讚讬讬拽 讜讗讚讚讬讬拽 诪住讬驻讗 诇讬讚讜拽 诪专讬砖讗

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.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪讙讜驻讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗 讚讬讬拽 讛讗 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 拽讟谉 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转

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,

Scroll To Top