Niddah 45

בשלמא לרבי יוחנן כי היכי דאיכא תנא דקאמר יום אחד בשנה חשוב שנה הכי נמי איכא תנא דאמר שלשים יום בשנה חשובין שנה

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.

אלא לרבי ינאי קשיא קשיא

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.

פחות מכאן כנותן אצבע בעין איבעיא להו הני בתולין מיזל אזלי ואתו או דלמא אתצודי הוא דלא מתצדי עד לאחר שלש

§ 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?

למאי נפקא מינה כגון שבעל בתוך שלש ומצא דם ובעל לאחר שלש ולא מצא דם אי אמרת מיזל אזלי ואתו שהות הוא דלא הויא להו

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.

אלא אי אמרת אתצודי הוא דלא מתצדי עד לאחר שלש הא אחר בא עליה מאי

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?

מתקיף לה רב חייא בריה דרב איקא ומאן לימא לן דמכה שבתוך שלש אינה חוזרת לאלתר שמא חוזרת לאלתר והא אחר בא עליה

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.

אלא נפקא מינה כגון שבעל בתוך שלש ומצא דם ובעל לאחר שלש ומצא דם אי אמרת מיזל אזלי ואתו האי דם בתולין הוא אלא אי אמרת אתצודי הוא דלא מתצדי אלא עד לאחר שלש האי דם נדה הוא מאי

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?

אמר רב חסדא תא שמע פחות מכאן כנותן אצבע בעין למה לי למתני כנותן אצבע בעין לתני פחות מכאן ולא כלום מאי לאו הא קא משמע לן מה עין מדמעת וחוזרת ומדמעת אף בתולין מיזל אזלי ואתי

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?

תנו רבנן מעשה ביוסטני בתו של אסוירוס בן אנטנינוס שבאת לפני רבי אמרה לו רבי אשה בכמה ניסת אמר לה בת שלש שנים ויום אחד

§ 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.

ובכמה מתעברת אמר לה בת שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד אמרה לו אני נשאתי בשש וילדתי בשבע אוי לשלש שנים שאבדתי בבית אבא

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.

ומי מעברה והתני רב ביבי קמיה דרב נחמן שלש נשים משמשות במוך קטנה מעוברת ומניקה

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.

קטנה שמא תתעבר ותמות מעוברת שמא תעשה עוברה סנדל מניקה שמא תגמול את בנה וימות

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.

ואיזוהי קטנה מבת אחת עשרה שנה ויום אחד ועד שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד פחות מכאן או יתר על כן משמשת והולכת דברי רבי מאיר

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.

וחכמים אומרים אחת זו ואחת זו משמשת כדרכה והולכת ומן השמים ירחמו שנאמר שומר פתאים 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?

איבעית אימא אשר בשר חמורים בשרם ואיבעית אימא אשר פיהם דבר שוא וימינם ימין שקר

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).

תנו רבנן מעשה באשה אחת שבאת לפני רבי עקיבא אמרה לו רבי נבעלתי בתוך שלש שנים מה אני לכהונה אמר לה כשרה את לכהונה

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.

אמרה לו רבי אמשול לך משל למה הדבר דומה לתינוק שטמנו לו אצבעו בדבש פעם ראשונה ושניה גוער בה שלישית מצצה אמר לה אם כן פסולה את לכהונה

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.

ראה התלמידים מסתכלים זה בזה אמר להם למה הדבר קשה בעיניכם [אמרו ליה] כשם שכל התורה הלכה למשה מסיני כך פחותה מבת שלש שנים כשרה לכהונה הלכה למשה מסיני ואף רבי עקיבא לא אמרה אלא לחדד בה את התלמידים

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.

מתני׳ בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו קנאה ואין נותן גט עד שיגדיל

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.

ומטמא בנדה לטמא משכב תחתון כעליון

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.

ופוסל ואינו מאכיל בתרומה ופוסל את הבהמה מעל גבי המזבח ונסקלת על ידו ואם בא על אחת מכל העריות האמורות בתורה מומתין על ידו והוא פטור

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.

גמ׳ ולכשיגדיל בגט סגי לה והתניא עשו ביאת בן תשע כמאמר בגדול

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.

מה מאמר בגדול צריך גט למאמרו וחליצה לזיקתו אף ביאת בן תשע צריך גט למאמרו וחליצה לזיקתו

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.

אמר רב הכי קאמר

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

לכשיגדיל יבעול ויתן גט

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.

מתני׳ בת אחת עשרה שנה ויום אחד נדריה נבדקין בת שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד נדריה קיימין ובודקין כל שתים עשרה

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.

בן שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד נדריו נבדקין בן שלש עשרה שנה ויום אחד נדריו קיימין ובודקין כל שלש עשרה

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.

קודם לזמן הזה אף על פי שאמרו יודעין אנו לשם מי נדרנו לשם מי הקדשנו אין נדריהם נדר ואין הקדשן הקדש לאחר הזמן הזה אף על פי שאמרו אין אנו יודעין לשם מי נדרנו לשם מי הקדשנו נדרן נדר והקדשן הקדש

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.

גמ׳ וכיון דתנא בת אחת עשרה שנה ויום אחד נדריה נבדקין בת שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד נדריה קיימין למה לי סלקא דעתך אמינא בודקין לעולם קא משמע לן

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.

וכיון דתני בת שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד נדריה קיימין בודקין כל שתים עשרה למה לי סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואמר מר שלשים יום בשנה חשובים שנה היכא דבדקנא שלשים ולא ידעה להפלות אימא תו לא ליבדוק קא משמע לן

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.

ולתני הני תרתי בבי בת שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד נדריה קיימין ובודקין כל שתים עשרה בת אחת עשרה ויום אחד נדריה נבדקין למה לי

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?

איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא סתמא בשתים עשרה בעיא בדיקה באחת עשרה לא בעיא בדיקה והיכא דחזינן לה דחריפא טפי מיבדקה באחת עשרה קא משמע לן

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.

קודם הזמן הזה ואחר הזמן הזה למה לי סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי היכא דלא קאמרי אינהו אבל היכא דקאמרי אינהו נסמוך עלייהו קא משמע לן

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.

תנו רבנן אלו דברי רבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר דברים האמורים בתינוקת בתינוק אמורים דברים האמורים בתנוק בתנוקת אמורים

§ 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.

אמר רב חסדא מאי טעמא דרבי דכתיב ויבן ה׳ [אלהים] את הצלע מלמד שנתן הקדוש ברוך הוא בינה יתירה באשה יותר מבאיש

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.

ואידך ההוא מבעי ליה לכדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש משום רבי שמעון בן מנסיא ויבן ה׳ [אלהים] את הצלע אשר לקח מן האדם לאשה ויבאה אל האדם מלמד שקלעה הקדוש ברוך הוא לחוה והביאה אצל אדם הראשון שכן בכרכי הים קורין לקלעיתא בנייתא

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].

ורבי שמעון בן אלעזר מאי טעמא אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק מתוך שהתינוק מצוי בבית רבו נכנסת בו ערמומית תחלה

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.

איבעיא להו תוך זמן כלפני זמן או כלאחר זמן

§ 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?

למאי הלכתא אי לנדרים לאו כלפני זמן דמיא ולאו כלאחר זמן דמיא

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.

אלא לעונשין מאי רב ורבי חנינא דאמרי תרווייהו תוך זמן כלפני זמן רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי דאמרי תרווייהו תוך זמן כלאחר זמן

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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וסימניך וזאת לפנים בישראל

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.

מתיב רב המנונא אחר זמן הזה אף על פי שאמרו אין אנו יודעים לשם מי נדרנו לשם מי הקדשנו נדריהם נדר והקדשן הקדש הא תוך זמן כלפני זמן

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.

אמר ליה רבא אימא רישא קודם הזמן הזה אף על פי שאמרו יודעים אנו לשם מי נדרנו לשם מי הקדשנו אין נדריהם נדר ואין הקדשן הקדש הא תוך זמן כלאחר זמן

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.

ולא היא רבא קטעי הוא סבר רב המנונא ממשנה יתירה קדייק ואדדייק מסיפא לידוק מרישא

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.

ולא היא רב המנונא מגופא דמתניתין קא דייק הא לאחר זמן היכי דמי אי דלא אייתי שתי שערות קטן הוא אלא לאו דאייתי שתי שערות

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,