Niddah 32a (לב.) — the Talmud in English

It is Rabbi Meir’s view .

For it was taught in a beraita: A minor boy and a minor girl may perform neither halitza nor yibbum; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Sages said to him

:

to Rabbi Meir:

Indeed,

you have spoken well that

a minor boy and a minor girl

may not perform halitza,

because

“man” is written in the passage

concerning halitza, and we learn from its implication that only an adult man performs halitza;

and we compare a woman to a man

to teach that only an adult woman undergoes halitza, but not a minor girl.

But

for what reason may

a minor boy and a minor girl

not perform yibbum,

when the mitzva of yibbum does not mention “man”?

He said to them

Rabbi Meir said to the Sages: The reason that a minor boy and a minor girl may not perform yibbum is that, concerning a

minor boy,

there is concern

that he may prove to be a eunuch,

who is not capable of establishing a name for his brother. And similarly, concerning a

minor girl,

there is concern

that she may prove to be incapable of bearing children,

and the yibbum will not accomplish the establishment of a name,

and

if it ultimately becomes clear that they are indeed incapable of procreation,

they will be found to have encountered the forbidden relation

with the wife of a brother

where there is no mitzva.

For all those incapable of establishing a name retain the prohibition of a brother’s wife, since they are not commanded concerning yibbum .

And

the Gemara explains that the reason of

the Rabbis

—that a minor boy and minor girl perform yibbum—is that they held:

Follow the majority of minor boys, and the majority of minor boys are not eunuchs;

and likewise,

follow the majority of minor girls, and the majority of minor girls are not incapable of bearing children !

It follows that only Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority .

The Gemara asks:

I can say that you heard Rabbi Meir

say that we are concerned for a minority when the minority is

a frequently occurring minority,

such as eunuchs and women incapable of bearing children.

But an uncommon minority,

such as an infant girl who sees blood in her cradle—

did you hear him

say that Rabbi Meir is concerned for such a minority?!

The Gemara answers:

This too is

a frequently occurring minority!

The Gemara proves that this minority is a common occurrence and is mentioned in several places.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said:

An incident

occurred

in

a place called

“Ein Bul,”

where an infant girl saw blood immediately after her birth ,

and they immersed her

to purify her from the impurity of niddah , even

before her mother,

before her mother immersed, because a woman who gives birth to a girl immerses only after fourteen days.

And

we likewise find that

Rabbi said: There was an incident in Beit She’arim, and they immersed her

the infant girl to purify her from her menstruation,

before her mother!

And

we further find that

Rav Yosef said: There was an incident in Pumbedita, and they immersed her before her mother!

It is evident that such cases are common, and therefore Rabbi Meir is concerned about them even though they constitute a minority.

The Gemara discusses the three incidents cited above:

Granted

in the cases

of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi

they immersed her

because of the teruma of Eretz Yisrael,

so that the infant girl would not disqualify it through her contact.

But

the case

of Rav Yosef,

which took place in Pumbedita, in Babylonia—

why

was it necessary to immerse her while she was still a minor?

But didn’t Shmuel say: The teruma of outside Eretz Yisrael is prohibited only to one whose impurity emerges from his body

such as a zav or a menstruating woman?

And this applies

to the prohibition applying to a zav and a zava—

with regard to eating, but not with regard to contact

for a zav and a menstruating woman are permitted to touch teruma of outside Eretz Yisrael, since if they touch it, they do not disqualify it! If so, for what purpose did they immerse her while she was still a minor? She does not eat, and contact with it is not prohibited.

The Gemara explains:

Mar Zutra said: It was necessary

to immerse her immediately upon her birth in the Diaspora

only

so that they would be able

to anoint her with teruma oil. For

anointing is considered like drinking, and eating or drinking teruma of outside Eretz Yisrael is prohibited to a menstruating woman.

The proof that anointing is considered like drinking is as follows:

As it was taught

it is stated (Leviticus 22):

“And they shall not profane the sacred offerings of the Children of Israel that they set apart for the Lord”

to include one who anoints himself and one who drinks

teruma while impure.

The Gemara explains the proof from the beraita:

“One who drinks”

why do I need a verse

to include him among those prohibited while impure? After all,

drinking is included within eating

, and eating teruma is explicitly prohibited to an impure person (Leviticus 22:4).

Rather,

the verse must necessarily intend

to include one who anoints himself,

so that his law will be

like that of one who drinks! And if you wish, say

there is another source that anointing has the same status as drinking:

from here:

As it is stated (Psalms 109):

“And it entered like water into his innards and like oil into his bones” 22 .

The Gemara now returns to explain why we are concerned about the minority of minor girls who see blood among the Kutim but not among Jews:

If so,

if the reason for decreeing impurity upon Kutim girls from the time of their minority is that Rabbi Meir is concerned about a minority—namely, infants

of ours as well

should we not be concerned about the minority who see blood while they are minors, and consider all minor girls menstruating from the time they leave the womb?

The Gemara explains:

We

who derive that a minor girl who saw blood becomes impure from the derivation

“woman

and woman,”

as will be explained below,

and when they see

blood

we separate them

from contact with teruma and sacrificial foods—

the Sages did not decree concerning them

that concern be shown for all minor girls.

But

they,

the Kutim,

who do not expound “woman

and woman,” and

therefore,

when they see

the minor girls

we do not separate them

from teruma and sacrificial foods—

the Sages decreed concerning them

that all minor Kutim girls would have the status of doubtful impurity from the time they leave the womb.

The Gemara explains the derivation mentioned above:

What is the meaning of “woman

and woman”?

As it was taught:

With regard to the impurity of a menstruating woman, it is stated (Leviticus 15:19): “And a woman, when she has a discharge… she shall be in her menstruation for seven days.”

And the Sages expounded: Had only

“woman” been stated, I would have had only a woman

that is, an adult who becomes a menstruating woman upon seeing blood.

An infant girl one day old with regard to menstruation—from where

is this derived?

The verse states

“and woman”

to teach, through the superfluous letter vav, that even an infant girl who sees blood becomes a menstruating woman.

The Gemara infers from the derivation in the beraita:

Apparently, when the verse includes

through the teaching “woman—and woman,” even a minor,

it includes one day old.

And we juxtapose this

with what we learned concerning the statement regarding impurity through intercourse (Leviticus 15:18): “And a woman with whom a man lies with an emission of semen.” The Sages expounded that had only “woman” been stated,

“woman”

we might have said:

I would have had only a woman,

an adult who becomes impure through intercourse,

An infant girl three years and one day old with regard to intercourse

who becomes impure through intercourse with a man—

from where is this derived?

For this purpose,

the verse states

“and woman”!

This indicates that the superfluous letter vav includes a girl three years old. Why, then, did they not derive that she becomes impure through intercourse from the day of her birth, as in the case of menstruation? The Gemara answers:

Rava said: They are halakhot,

these two laws—the impurity of menstruation from the time of birth and the impurity through intercourse from the age of three—are derived as follows: one from the exposition of the verse, and the other from a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

And the Sages provided them with scriptural supports!

The Gemara explains:

Which is the verse, and which is the halakha?

If we say: A one-day-old girl

who becomes impure as a menstruating woman—

that is the halakha.

Whereas

a girl three years and one day old

who becomes impure through intercourse—

that is the verse.

But

the verse is written without qualification

“and woman,” and it does not indicate that a girl three years old is to be included. On the contrary, its plain meaning is that every woman is included, even a one-day-old girl, and she becomes impure through intercourse.

Rather, a girl three years and one day old

is the halakha 26 .

Whereas

a one-day-old girl

who becomes impure as a menstruating woman—

that is the verse!

The Gemara challenges Rava’s answer:

And since it is a halakha

that she becomes impure through intercourse from the age of three,

the verse

the superfluous vav in “and woman”

why do I need it?!

After all, this inclusion does not specifically indicate a girl three years old.