By SRH
More Evil…
Babylonian Talmud:
Folio 44a
HE INHERITS AND TRANSMITS;1 HE WHO KILLS HIM IS GUILTY OF MURDER, AND HE COUNTS TO HIS FATHER, TO HIS MOTHER AND TO ALL HIS RELATIVES AS1 A FULLY GROWN MAN.2
GEMARA. Whence is this ruling3 deduced? — [From the following]. For our Rabbis taught: From the term woman4 I would only know that the laws5 are applicable to a grown-up woman, whence, however, the inference that a girl one day old is also subject to the uncleanness of menstruation? Since it was explicitly stated, And a woman.6
ONE WHO IS TEN DAYS OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF ZIBAH. Whence is this ruling deduced? [From the following]. For our Rabbis taught: From the term woman7 I would only know that the laws are applicable to a grown-up woman, whence, however, the inference that a girl who is ten days old is also subject to the uncleanness of zibah? Since it was explicitly stated, And a woman.8
A BOY ONE DAY OLD etc. Whence is this ruling deduced? — [From the following Scriptural text]. For the Rabbis taught: When any man,9 what was the object of stating, ‘When any man’?10 To include a boy one day old in the restrictions of the uncleanness of zibah; so R. Judah. R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said, This deduction is not necessary, for surely it is stated in Scripture, And of them that have an issue, whether it be a man or a woman;11 ‘whether it be a man’ means one of any age, whether adult or minor, ‘or a woman means one of any age, whether an adult or minor. But if so12 what need was there to state, ‘When any man’?13 The Torah employed ordinary phraseology.14
[IS SUBJECT TO …] THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY, since it is written, When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh,15 implying a man of any age.
[IS SUBJECT TO …] THAT OF CORPSE-UNCLEANNESS, because it is written, And upon the persons that were there,16 implying a person of any age.
HE SUBJECTS [HIS DECEASED BROTHER’S WIDOW] TO THE DUTY OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, for it is written, If brethren dwell together,17 implying brothers who are contemporaries.18
HE EXEMPTS [HIS MOTHER] FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, for the All Merciful has said, And have no child,17 but this man has one.
HE ENABLES HER TO EAT TERUMAH, for it is written, And such as are born in his house, they may eat19 of his bread,20 read it as, ‘Shall cause to eat21 of his bread’.
AND HE ALSO CAUSES HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED FROM EATING TERUMAH. For the All Merciful has said, And have no child,22 but she has one. But what was the point of speaking of a ‘child’ seeing that the same applies even to an embryo, for it is written,23 As in her youth,22 which excludes24 one who is pregnant?25 Both texts were required. For if the All Merciful had only written, ‘And have no child’ [it might have been presumed that the law26 applied to that case] because originally there was but one body and now there are two bodies,27 but that in this case,28 where there was originally one body and now also there is only one body, it may be held that the woman may eat terumah, hence the All Merciful has written, ‘As in her youth’.29 And if the All Merciful has only written, ‘As in her youth’ [it might have been presumed that the law30 applied to that case alone] since originally the woman’s body was empty and now it is a full one, but that in this case,31 where her body was originally empty and is now also empty, the woman may well eat terumah. Hence the necessity for both texts. Now, the Scriptural texts have been well explained, but as regards our Mishnah, why just A BOY ONE DAY OLD, seeing32 that even an embryo also disqualifies its mother? — R. Shesheth replied: We are here dealing with the case of a priest who had two wives, one who had previously been a divorced woman33 and the other was not a divorced woman,34 and he had sons from the latter35 and one son from the former,36 so that the latter37 causes the slaves of his father38 to be disqualified from eating terumah;39 thus indicating that the law is contrary to the view40 of R. Jose. He having laid down that an embryo41 also causes disqualification we were informed here that only A BOY ONE DAY OLD causes disqualification but not an embryo.42
HE INHERITS AND TRANSMITS. From whom does he INHERIT? Obviously from his father; and to whom does he TRANSMIT? Obviously to his paternal brothers;43 but could not these if they wished inherit from their father and, if they preferred, inherit from him?44 — R. Shesheth replied: The meaning is, He45 inherits the estate of his mother to transmit it46 to his paternal brothers;47 hence only then when he is ONE DAY OLD but not when he is an embryo. What is the reason? — Because it48 dies first,49 and no son may inherit from his mother
To Part b
Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
This is explained in the Gemara.
Lit., 'bridegroom'.
That A GIRL ONE DAY OLD etc.
Lev. XV, 19, which deals with the laws of the menstruant.
Cf. prev. n.
Lev. XV, 19. E.V. and if a woman.
Cf. prev. n. but two. The exposition now is based on what follows in the Scriptural text: Her issue … be blood.
Cf. prev. two notes.
Lev. XV, 2. Lit. 'a man, a man'.
Sc. it would have sufficed if one 'man' (cf. prev. n.) had been omitted, the rendering being, 'when a man'.
Lev. XV, 33.
That the law has been enunciated in Lev. XV, 33.
Lev. XV, 2. Lit., 'a man, a man'.
Lit., 'spoke in the language of men', who are in the habit of repeating their words. No inference, therefore, may be drawn from the repetition of 'a man'.
Lev. XIII, 2.
Num. XIX, 18, in the context dealing with corpse-uncleanness.
Deut. XXV, 5, in the context of the law of levirate marriage and halizah.
Lit., 'who had one (and the same) sitting in the world'.
[H], yokelu (kal).
Lev. XXII, 11.
[H], ya'akilu (hif.).
Lev. XXII, 13.
In the same context.
From the privilege of eating terumah.
Sc. if an embryo causes its mother to be disqualified from eating terumah it is self-evident that a child does it, what need then was there for the text, 'and have no child'?
Of disqualification (cf. p. 304, n. 14).
Mother and born child.
Lit., 'here', that of a pregnant woman.
To indicate that even a pregnant woman is disqualified.
Of disqualification (cf. supra p. 304, n. 14).
Where the child was already born.
As has just been shown.
Whom a priest is forbidden to marry and whose children from a priestly marriage are disqualified priests and are themselves forbidden to eat terumah and, of course, have no right to confer the privilege of eating it upon their slaves.
And whose sons from her marriage with the priest are qualified priests who also confer upon their slaves the right of eating terumah.
Cf. prev. n.
Cf. supra n. 8.
After the death of his father, the priest.
Whom he and his brothers jointly inherit from their deceased father.
On account of his share in them; it being impossible to distinguish which of the slaves are his and which are his brothers'.
Lit., 'to bring out'.
From a forbidden marriage (cf. supra n. 8).
The disqualification spoken of in our Mishnah thus referring to the slaves and not, as has previously been assumed, to the child's mother, the difficulty raised supra is now solved.
Since only paternal relatives are entitled to inherit one's estate.
Of course they could, since the child's estate would in any case revert on his death to his father from whom they would inherit it. What meaning then could be assigned to the law that he TRANSMITS?
A BOY ONE DAY OLD.
When he dies.
Who were born from the same father but not from the same mother.
The embryo, when its mother dies.
Sc. before its mother. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference
Niddah 44b
in the grave1 to transmit the inheritance to his paternal brothers. But, surely, this2 is not? so, for was there not a case where an embryo made three convulsive movements?3 — Mar son of R. Ashi replied: [Those were only reflexive movements] like those of the tail of the lizard which moves convulsively [even after it has been cut off].4
Mar son of R. Joseph citing Raba explained: This5 means to say that he causes a diminution in the portion of the birthright.6
Mar son of R. Joseph citing Raba further ruled: A son born after the death of his father causes no diminution in the portion of the birthright.7 What is the reason?8 It is required that They shall have born to him.9 Thus10 it was taught at Sura; but at Pumbeditha it was taught as follows: Mar son of R. Joseph citing Raba ruled, A firstborn son that was born after the death of his father11 does not receive a double portion. What is the reason? It is necessary that He shall acknowledge,12 and [‘he’,] surely, is not [there to acknowledge]. And the law is in agreement with all those versions which Mar son of R. Joseph cited in the name of Raba.
HE WHO KILLS HIM IS GUILTY OF MURDER, since it is written, And he that smiteth any man mortally,13 implying, whatever the age.14
AND HE COUNTS TO HIS FATHER, TO HIS MOTHER AND TO ALL HIS RELATIVES AS A FULLY GROWN MAN, In respect of what law? — R. Papa replied: In respect of that of mourning.
In agreement with whose view [is our Mishnah]?15 It cannot be, can it, in agreement with16 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who ruled: Any human17 child18 that survived for thirty days cannot be, regarded as a miscarriage,19 from which it follows that if he had not lived so long he would have been a doubtful case?20 — Here21 we are dealing with the case of a child concerning whom it is established that the months of his pregnancy were duly fulfilled.22
Dilling discussion of this doctrine
MISHNAH. A GIRL OF THE AGE OF THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED23 BY INTERCOURSE; IF THE YABAM24 HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HER, HE ACQUIRES HER THEREBY;25 THE GUILT26 OF ADULTERY27 MAY BE INCURRED THROUGH HER,28 AND SHE29 CAUSES UNCLEANNESS TO THE MAN WHO HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HER SO THAT HE IN TURN CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS TO THAT UPON WHICH HE LIES,30 AS TO A GARMENT WHICH HAS LAIN UPON [A ZAB].31 IF SHE WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, SHE MAY EAT TERUMAH. IF ANY OF THE INELIGIBLE PERSONS32 COHABITED WITH HER HE DISQUALIFIES HER FROM THE PRIESTHOOD.33 IF ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN DEGREES ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH COHABITED WITH HER HE IS TO BE EXECUTED ON HER ACCOUNT, BUT SHE34 IS EXEMPT [FROM THE PENALTY]. IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old. What is the practical difference between them? — The school of R Jannai replied: The practical difference between them is the day preceding the first day of the fourth year.35 R. Johanan, however, replied: The practical difference between them is the rule that thirty days of a year are counted as the full year.36
An objection was raised: A girl of the age of three years and even one of the age of two years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old.
- To Next Folio –
Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Sc. after his death.
That an embryo dies before its mother.
After its mother was dead.
But are no signs of life.
The law that A BOY ONE DAY OLD… TRANSMITS.
If, for instance, there were two brothers other than the boy in question, and one of them was the firstborn, the estate is divided, not into three portions (two for the ordinary portions of the two brothers and one for the birthright), but into four portions. Each brother, including the young child, receives one such portion and the firstborn receives the additional fourth portion as his birthright. The firstborn thus receives, as the portion of his birthright, a quarter of the estate, and not (as would have been the case if the child were excluded) a third.
Though he receives his due portion in the estate. In the case mentioned as an instance in the prev. n. the estate would first be divided into three portions (as if the embryo did not exist) and the firstborn would receive, as his birthright, one of these, which represents a third of the estate. The remaining two thirds would then be divided into three equal shares, each of the three brothers receiving one, I.e., two ninths of the estate. The full portion of the firstborn would accordingly amount to (1/3 + 2/9 = 5/9) five ninths of the estate, while, where the child was one day old, the firstborn’s full portion would only amount to half the estate, i.e., (5/9 — 1/2 = 1/18) one eighteenth less.
That a born child does, and an embryo does not cause a diminution in the portion of the birthright.
Deut. XXI, 15, emphasis on ‘him’, sc. while the father is alive. An embryo cannot come within the category of ‘have born’.
The version just given.
In the case, for instance, where his widow bore twins, or where he was survived by two widows and both bore sons and one of these was the firstborn.
Deut. XXI, 17.
Lev. XXIV, 17.
Lit., ‘from any place’.
Which, treating an infant one day old in the various laws embodied in it as a grown-up man, obviously assumes him to be viable.
Lit., ‘that not as’.
Opp. to cattle where the period is only eight days.
Of doubtful premature birth.
Thirty days being a period that suffices to establish the viability of a child.
Now since according to our Mishnah a child may be regarded as viable on the first day of its life (cf. p. 307, n. 9) its view must differ from that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, must it not?
In our Mishnah.
Lit., ‘whose months have ended’. The child’s viability is beyond question even according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who (cf. p. 307, n. 12) referred only to a doubtful premature birth.
Subject to her father’s approval.
The brother of her deceased childless husband, whose duty it is to contract the levirate marriage with her.
In consequence of which he gains possession of his deceased brother’s estate, is entitled if she dies to inherit her own estate and even if he is a priest, he may defile himself to her as to a legally married wife.
Punishable by death.
Lit., ‘on account of the wife of a man’.
If, for instance, her father betrothed her to one man and another cohabited with her.
When a menstruant.
Lit., ‘lower couch’.
Lit., ‘like the upper’.
A bastard or a slave, for instance.
Sc. if she was the daughter of a priest she loses the privilege of eating terumah.
Being a minor.
Lit., ‘the eve of the beginning of the year’. According to R. Meir she attains the prescribed age on that day while according to the Rabbis she does not attain it until the following day.
According to R. Meir the prescribed age is attained as soon as thirty days of the third year have passed, while according to the Rabbis it is not attained until the first day of the fourth year.
…………………………………………………………
Jewish Law
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah
Folio 45a
Now, all is well according to R. Johanan, for just as there is a Tanna1 who holds2 that one day of a year is counted as a year so there may also be a Tanna who holds3 that thirty days of a year are counted as a full year; but, according to R. Jannai,4 does not this5 present a difficulty? — This is a difficulty.
IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE. It was asked, Do the features of virginity6 disappear7 and reappear again8 or is it possible that they cannot be completely destroyed until after the third year of her age? In what practical respect could this matter? — In one, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with her before the age of9 three and found blood, and when he had intercourse after the age of three he found no blood. If you grant that they disappear and reappear again [it might well be assumed]10 that11 there ‘was not sufficient time for their reappearance, but if you maintain that they cannot be destroyed until after the age of three years it would be obvious that12 a stranger cohabited with her.13 Now what is your decision? — R. Hiyya son of R. Ika demurred: But who can tell us that a wound inflicted within the three years is not healed14 forthwith, seeing it is possible that it is immediately healed and it would thus be obvious12 that a stranger had cohabited with her?13 Rather the practical difference is the case, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with her while she was under15 three years of age and found blood and when he had intercourse after the age of three he also found blood. If you grant that the features disappear and reappear again the blood might well be treated as that of virginity, but if you maintain that they cannot be destroyed until after the age of three years, that16 must be the blood of menstruation. Now what is your decision? — R. Hisda replied, Come and hear: IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE; what need was there to state, LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE’ instead of merely saying: IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS of no consequence’? Does not this then teach us that as the eye tears and tears again so do the features of virginity disappear and reappear again.
Our Rabbis taught: It is related of Justinia17 the daughter of ‘Aseverus son of Antonius that she once appeared before Rabbi ‘Master’, she said to him, ‘at what age may a woman marry?’. ‘At the age of three years and one day’, he told her. ‘And at what age is she capable of conception?’ ‘At the age of twelve years and one day’, he replied. ‘I’, she said to him, ‘married at the age of six and bore a child at the age of seven; alas for the three years that I have lost at my father’s house’. But can a woman conceive at the age of six years? Did not R. Bibi recite in the presence of R. Nahman: Three classes of woman may use an absorbent18 in their marital intercourse:19 A minor, and an expectant and a nursing mother. The minor,20 because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother,20 because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.21 A nursing mother,20 because otherwise she might have to wean her child prematurely,22 and this would result in his death. And what is the age of such a ‘minor’?23 From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under24 or over this age25 must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir. But the Sages ruled: The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in a normal manner and mercy26 will be vouchsafed from heaven, for it is said in Scripture, The Lord preserveth the simple?27 — If you wish I might reply: Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses.28 And if you prefer I might reply: Whose mouth speaketh falsehood, and their right hand is a right hand of lying.29
Our Rabbis taught: A story is told of a certain woman who came before R. Akiba and said to him, ‘Master, intercourse has been forced upon me30 when I was under31 three years of age; what is my position towards the priesthood?’32 ‘You are fit for the priesthood’,33 he replied. ‘Master’, she continued, ‘I will give you a comparison; to what may the incident be compared? To a babe whose finger was submerged34 in honey. The first time and the second time he cries about it, but the third time he sucks it’.35 ‘If so’, he replied, ‘you are unfit for the priesthood’.36 Observing that the students were looking at each other,37 he said to them, ‘Why do you find the ruling difficult?’38 ‘Because’, they replied, ‘as all the Torah is a tradition that was handed to Moses at Sinai so is the law that a girl under the age of three years39 is fit for the priesthood one that was handed to Moses at Sinai’. R. Akiba too made his statement40 only for the purpose of exercising the wits of41 the students.42
MISHNAH. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS CHILDLESS BROTHER’S WIDOW, HE43 ACQUIRES HER THEREBY,44 BUT45 HE CANNOT DIVORCE HER UNTIL HE ATTAINS HIS MAJORITY. HE CONTRACTS UNCLEANNESS THROUGH INTERCOURSE WITH A MENSTRUANT AND HE IN TURN CONVEYS THE SAME DEGREE OF UNCLEANNESS TO THAT UPON WHICH HE LIES AS [DOES A ZAB] TO THAT WHICH HAS LAIN UPON HIM.46 HE47 DISQUALIFIES A WOMAN FROM THE PRIESTHOOD,48 BUT49 CANNOT CONFER UPON ONE50 THE RIGHT TO EAT TERUMAH.51 HE RENDERS A BEAST52 INVALID FOR THE ALTAR, AND IT IS STONED ON HIS ACCOUNT.53 IF HE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN DEGREES THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH, SHE IS TO BE EXECUTED ON HIS ACCOUNT, THOUGH HE54 IS EXEMPT FROM PUNISHMENT.
GEMARA. But when HE ATTAINS HIS MAJORITY, is55 a divorce alone sufficient? Was it not taught: The cohabitation of a boy of nine years56 of age was given the same validity as that of a ma’amar57 by an adult; as a ma’amar by an adult requires58 a divorce in respect of his ma’amar and halizah in respect of his marital bond so does the cohabitation of a boy of nine years of age56 require58 a divorce in respect of his ma’amar59 and halizah in respect of his marital bond?60 — Rab replied: It is this that was meant:61
To Part b
Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
In the Baraitha just cited.
As evidenced by his ruling, 'Even one of the age of two years and one day'.
As R. Johanan submitted supra according to R. Meir.
Sc. the school of R. Jannai who submitted supra that even R. Meir does not regard the part of the third year as a full year.
Cf prev. n. but two.
Of one under three years of age.
As a result of intercourse.
Lit., 'going do they go and come'.
Lit., 'within'.
As a reason for the absence of blood.
Owing to his continued intercourse.
Lit., 'surely', since the husband found no traces of bleeding.
After she had attained the age of three. She would consequently be subjected to the disqualifications of a harlot.
Lit., 'returns'.
Lit., 'within'.
The blood found while she was under three.
For a different reading and a biographical note v. Golds.
Muk, flax or hackled wool.
To avoid conception.
Is permitted the use of the absorbent.
A fish-shaped abortion. Lit., 'flat-fish'.
On account of her second conception which causes the deterioration of her breast milk.
Of whom it has been said that she is capable of conception but is thereby exposed to fatal consequences.
When conception is impossible.
When conception involves no danger.
To protect them from harm.
Ps. CXVI, 6; sc. those who are unable to protect themselves. At any rate it was here stated that a minor under eleven years of age is incapable of conception. How then is Justinia's story to be reconciled with this statement?
Ezek. XXIII, 20.
Ps. CXLIV, 8.
By a disqualified person.
Lit., 'within'.
Sc. is she permitted to marry a priest?
Cf. prev. n.
Lit., 'they hid for him'.
Sc. he ultimately enjoyed the experience.
Cf. prev. n.
Amazed or perplexed.
Lit., 'why is the thing difficult in your eyes'.
Who had intercourse.
'If so, you are unfit etc.'
Lit., 'to sharpen'.
By affording them the opportunity of questioning his ruling.
Since his marriage with the widow is Pentateuchally ordained.
And in consequence gains possession of his deceased brother's estate, though elsewhere a minor cannot acquire possession.
Since his deceased brother's marriage was fully valid and his own bond with the widow is consequently equally valid, while his divorce, being merely that of a minor, has no validity.
Lit., 'the lower couch as the upper'.
If he is a disqualified person, a bastard, for instance, or a slave.
If she was the daughter of a priest she loses her right to the eating of terumah.
Though a priest.
If, for instance, he had intercourse with his childless brother's widow.
Though he acquires her as his wife.
If he covered it, though his act was seen by one witness only.
If his act (cf. prev. n.) was observed by two witnesses.
On account of his minority.
As our Mishnah seems to imply.
And one day.
V. Glos.
If the parties have agreed upon a divorce.
Which corresponds to intercourse which is another form of kinyan (v. Glos.) Alfasi reads: in respect of his intercourse.
How then could it be ruled here that a divorce alone suffices?
By our Mishnah. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference
Niddah 45b
when HE ATTAINS HIS MAJORITY he shall cohabit with her1 and give her a divorce.2
MISHNAH. THE VOWS OF A GIRL OF THE AGE OF ELEVEN YEARS AND ONE DAY MUST BE EXAMINED;3 THE VOWS OF ONE WHO IS OF THE AGE OF TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY ARE VALID;4 AND THROUGHOUT THE TWELFTH YEAR THEY ARE TO BE EXAMINED.3 THE VOWS OF A BOY OF THE AGE OF TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY MUST BE EXAMINED;5 THE VOWS OF ONE WHO IS OF THE AGE OF THIRTEEN YEARS AND ONE DAY ARE VALID; AND THROUGHOUT THE THIRTEENTH YEAR THEY ARE TO BE EXAMINED.5 PRIOR TO THIS AGE,6 EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID, ‘WE KNOW IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR VOW’ OR ‘IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR DEDICATION’, THEIR VOW7 IS NO VALID VOW AND THEIR DEDICATION IS NO VALID DEDICATION. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS AGE,8 EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID, ‘WE DO NOT KNOW IN THE HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR VOW’ OR ‘IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR DEDICATION’, THEIR VOW IS A VALID VOW AND THEIR DEDICATION IS A VALID DEDICATION.
GEMARA. But since it was stated, THE VOWS OF A GIRL OF THE AGE OF ELEVEN YEARS AND ONE DAY MUST BE EXAMINED,9 what need was there for stating, THE VOWS OF ONE WHO IS OF THE AGE OF TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY ARE VALID? — It might have been presumed that henceforth they must always be examined,10 hence we were informed that after the age of twelve years and a day the vows are invariably valid. But since it was stated, THE VOWS OF ONE WHO IS OF THE AGE OF TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY ARE VALID,11 what need was there for stating, AND THROUGHOUT THE TWELFTH YEAR THEY ARE TO BE EXAMINED?12 — It might have been presumed that, since a Master has laid down that ‘Thirty days of a year are counted as a full year’, where we examined her vows during a period of thirty days13 and she knew not how to express their significance,14 no further examinations15 should be held16 hence we were informed that her vows are to be examined all through the twelfth year. Then let the last two cases be stated, THE VOWS OF ONE WHO IS OF THE AGE OF TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY ARE VALID, AND THROUGHOUT THE TWELFTH YEAR THEY ARE TO BE EXAMINED, but17 what was the need for the statement, THE VOWS OF A GIRL OF THE AGE OF ELEVEN YEARS AND ONE DAY MUST BE EXAMINED? — It was required: Since it might have been suggested that as a rule examination was necessary in the twelfth year and unnecessary in the eleventh year, but that where we see that the girl is particularly bright she might also be examined in the eleventh year,18 we were informed that the period of examination invariably begins at the age of eleven years and one day. What was the need19 for stating, PRIOR TO THIS AGE and SUBSEQUENT TO THIS AGE? — It might have been presumed that the previous rulings20 applied only where the children themselves spontaneously say nothing21 but that where they do assert spontaneous opinion22 we may rely upon them, hence we were informed that even their own assertions do not affect the age limits.
Our Rabbis taught: These23 are the rulings of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated, The age limits that were assigned to the girl apply to the boy while those assigned to the boy apply to the girl.24 R. Hisda stated: What is Rabbi’s reason? Because it is written in Scripture, And the Lord God built25 the rib26 which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding27 than the man. And the other?28 — He requires that text25 for the same deduction as the one made by Resh Lakish, for Resh Lakish citing R. Simeon b. Menasya stated, And the lord God built the rib which he took from the man into a woman, and he brought her unto the man,29 teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, plaited Eve’s hair and then brought her to Adam, for in the sea-towns they describe net-work as binyatha.30 But what is R. Simeon b. Eleazar’s reason? — R. Samuel son of R. Isaac replied: As a boy frequents the house of his teacher his subtlety31 develops earlier.32
It was asked: Is the intervening period33 regarded as that of under, or of over age?34 — In respect of what law could this matter: If in that of vows, it is neither regarded as that of under age nor as that of over age?35 — Rather in respect of punishments.36 Now what is the ruling? — Both Rab and R. Hanina replied: The intervening period is regarded as that of under age.37 Both R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi replied: The intervening period is regarded as that of over age. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Your mnemonic38 is: Now this was the custom in former time in Israel.39
R. Hamnuna raised an objection:40 SUBSEQUENT TO THIS AGE, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID, WE DO NOT KNOW IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR VOW’ OR ‘IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR DEDICATION’ THEIR VOW IS A VALID VOW AND THEIR DEDICATION IS A VALID DEDICATION. Thus41 it follows, does it not, that the intervening period is regarded as that of under age? Said Raba to him, Read then the first clause: PRIOR TO THIS AGE, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID, ‘WE KNEW IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR VOW’ OR ‘IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR DEDICATION’, THEIR VOW IS NO VALID VOW AND THEIR DEDICATION IS NO VALID DEDICATION. Thus42 it follows, does it not, that the intervening period is regarded as that of over age? — This, however, is no argument, Raba having laboured under a misapprehension. He thought that R. Hamnuna drew his inference from a Mishnah redundancy,43 [hence he argued that] instead of drawing an inference from the final clause he might as well have drawn one from the first clause; but this was not the case. R. Hamnuna in fact drew his inference from the very wording44 of our Mishnah. How [he reasoned] is one to understand the expression of ‘SUBSEQUENT TO THAT AGE’? If by that time one had not yet grown two hairs, one would, surely, still be a minor.45 Consequently it must refer to one who had grown two hairs,
- To Next Folio –
Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Thus, being of age, affecting valid kinyan of marriage.
Being now in all respects her lawful husband, halizah is no longer necessary.
To ascertain whether the girl was aware of their significance.
No examination being necessary.
Cf. prev. n. but one, mut. mut.
The first day of the twelfth year in the case of a girl and the first day of the thirteenth year in that of a boy.
Since they are still minors.
Twelve years and a day in the case of a girl and thirteen years and a day in that of a boy when they respectively attain their majority.
From which it might well be inferred that at a later age her vows are valid and no examination is necessary.
And that the age of eleven years and one day is only the limit below which even an examination does not establish the validity of a vow.
And it has previously been stated that from the age of eleven years and one day vows must be examined.
A ruling which evidently follows (cf. prev. n.) from the previous statements.
The first of the twelfth year.
Thus revealing her mental incapacity.
During the remaining months of that year.
On the assumption that the examinations during the thirty days have established for the rest of that year that her mental state was that of a minor.
In view of the explicit statement that examinations are conducted throughout the twelfth year.
And if she shows sufficient mental development her vows are valid even at that early age.
In view of the earlier statements.
On the limits of minority and majority.
Sc. they do not claim ‘we know’ when they are under the age limit or ‘we do not know’ when they are above the limit.
Cf. Prev. n. mut. mut.
The statements on the respective age limits of a boy and a girl, according to which the latter matures earlier than the former.
The boy, in his opinion, maturing earlier.
Wa-yiben.
Gen. II, 22. E.V., And the rib… made He.
Binah, of a root that is analogous to that of wa-yiben (prev. n. but one).
R. Simeon b. Eleazar; how in view of this deduction can he maintain his view?
Gen. II, 22. E.V., And the rib … made He.
‘Building’.
Or ‘shrewdness’.
Lit., ‘enters into him first’.
From the age of eleven years and a day to that of twelve years and a day and from twelve years and a day to thirteen years and a day in the case of a girl and a boy respectively.
Lit., ‘as before time or as after time’.
As stated supra.
And in the case where the boy or the girl had grown two pubic hairs. In the absence of these, even one of age is exempt from punishments.
And exempt from punishment.
An aid to the recollection of the respective authorship of the two views just expressed.
R. Joshua b. Levi was a Levite, whilst Rab and R. Hanina were Israelites; and those who were ‘in Israel’ (Israelites) gave former time’ which recalls ‘before time’ (‘under age’) as their ruling (Tosaf. Asheri).
Against R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi.
Emphasizing SUBSEQUENT.
Emphasis on PRIOR.
Sc. the apparent superfluity of the rulings PRIOR TO THIS AGE etc. and SUBSEQUENT TO etc. discussed and explained supra.
Lit., ‘from the body’.
How then could it be ruled, THEIR VOW IS VALID etc.
ARE CHRISTIAN’S STILL LOYAL TO JESUS?
Loyalty to Jesus or Loyalty to Israel? Defending a State That Rejects Your Savior. What Does Loyalty to Jesus Really Look Like?
Many Christian Zionists passionately support Israel in the name of Jesus, yet mainstream Jewish theology in Israel rejects Jesus entirely. In some classical rabbinic texts, Jesus is portrayed in extremely degrading ways, reflecting deep historical hostility toward Christian beliefs. Despite this, Christian Zionists continue their support for political and prophetic reasons. To critics, this looks like a contradiction—professing loyalty to Jesus while backing a religious tradition and state that denies, rejects, and historically insults the very figure they claim to worship.
ARE CHRISTIAN’S STILL LOYAL TO JESUS?
— InsideWithSam (@InsideWithSam) January 29, 2026
Loyalty to Jesus or Loyalty to Israel? Defending a State That Rejects Your Savior. What Does Loyalty to Jesus Really Look Like?
Many Christian Zionists passionately support Israel in the name of Jesus, yet mainstream Jewish theology in… pic.twitter.com/UHjnur2WkJ
The name of our radio station says it all. If it’s not “southern,” well… we’ll pray for you. If it’s not “gospel,” that brain connected to your ears is looking for some relief. If it’s not “music radio,” then you were probably born a few decades after us. Even so, we’re glad you’re here!
