Niddah 32a — the Talmud in English

It is Rabbi Meir .

For it was taught in a beraita: A minor boy and a minor girl do not perform halitza and do not perform yibbum; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. They said to him

the Sages

to Rabbi Meir:

Indeed,

you have said well that

a minor boy and a minor girl do not

perform halitza,

because

“a man” is written in the passage

of halitza, and we learn from its meaning that only an adult male performs halitza,

and we equate a woman with a man

to teach that only an adult woman has halitza performed with her, and not a minor.

But,

for what reason do

a minor boy and a minor girl not

perform yibbum,

when concerning the mitzva of yibbum “man” was not said?!

He said to them

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

minor boy—

there is concern

lest he be found to be a eunuch,

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

minor girl—

there is concern

lest she be found to be an ailonit,

and the yibbum will not be effective for establishing a name,

and

and if it will ultimately become clear that indeed they are incapable of procreation,

it is found that they have encountered a forbidden sexual relation

of a brother’s wife

not in the place of a mitzva.

For all those who are not capable of establishing a name retain upon them the prohibition of a brother’s wife, since they are not commanded in yibbum .

And

And the Gemara explains that the reason of

the Sages

that a minor boy and a minor girl perform yibbum is because they held

go after the majority of minor boys, and most minor boys are not eunuchs,

and likewise

go after the majority of minor girls, and most minor girls are not ailonot !

And it follows that only Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority

. The Gemara asks:

say that you heard from Rabbi Meir

that one is concerned for the minority in a case where the minority is

a common minority,

such as a eunuch and an ailonit.

But an uncommon minority,

such as a female infant who sees blood in the cradle—

did you hear him

Rabbi Meir being concerned for such a minority?!

The Gemara answers:

this too—

is a common 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

that occurred

in

in a place called

“Ein Bol,”

where a female infant saw blood immediately after her birth

, and they immersed her

to purify her from the impurity of nidda , still

before her mother,

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

And

so we find that

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

the little 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 follows that these cases are common, and therefore Rabbi Meir is concerned about them even though they are a minority.

The Gemara discusses the three incidents brought above:

Granted

in the cases

of Rabbi Yosei and of Rabbi,

they immersed her

because of the teruma of the Land of Israel,

so that the girl should not disqualify it through her contact.

But

the case

of Rav Yosef,

which took place in Pumbedita in Babylonia—

why do I need

to immerse her while she was little?

But Shmuel said: The teruma of outside the Land is forbidden only to one whose impurity emerges from his body

[such as a man with a flux or a menstruating woman].

And this matter

that it is forbidden to a man with a flux and to a woman with a flux—

concerns eating, but not contact

[for a man with a flux and a menstruating woman are permitted to touch the teruma of outside the Land, because if they touched it, they would not disqualify it!] And if so, for what purpose did they immerse her while she was little, when she does not eat, and contact was not forbidden?

The Gemara explains:

Mar Zutra said: It was necessary

to immerse her outside the Land immediately upon her birth

only

so that they would be able

to anoint themselves with the oil of teruma. For

anointing is considered like drinking, and eating or drinking teruma of outside the Land is forbidden to a menstruating woman.

And the proof that anointing is considered like drinking is:

for it was taught in a beraita:

It is stated [Leviticus 22],

“And they shall not profane the holy things of the Children of Israel that they raise up to the Lord”—

to include one who anoints himself and one who drinks

teruma while he is impure.

The Gemara explains the proof from the beraita:

“One who drinks”—

why do I need a verse

to include that he is forbidden while impure, when

drinking is included in eating

? And eating teruma is explicitly forbidden to an impure person [in Leviticus 22:4].

Rather,

necessarily, the intention of the verse is

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 status of drinking:

from here:

as it is stated [Psalms 109],

“And it came like water into his midst and like oil into his bones.” 22 .

And now the Gemara returns to explain why we are concerned about the minority of little girls who see blood among the Kuthim but not among Israelites:

If so,

that the reason to decree concerning the daughters of the Kuthim while they are little is that Rabbi Meir is concerned about a minority—

our little girls also

should we be concerned about the minority who see blood while they are little, and consider all little girls menstruating from their cradles?

The Gemara explains:

We, because we expound

to render impure a little girl who saw blood, from the exposition

“a woman

and a woman”

[as will be explained below],

and when they see

blood,

we separate them

from contact with teruma and consecrated things—

the Sages did not decree concerning them

to be concerned for all little girls.

But

they,

the Kuthim,

who do not expound “a woman—

and a woman,” and

therefore,

when they see

the little girls blood,

they do not separate them

from teruma and consecrated things—

the Sages decreed concerning them

that all the little girls of the Kuthim should be in a state of uncertain impurity from their cradles.

The Gemara explains the exposition mentioned above:

What is “a woman

and a woman”?

For it was taught in a beraita:

It is stated [Leviticus 15:19] concerning the impurity of menstruation: “And a woman, when she has a flow… she shall be in her menstruation for seven days.”

And they expounded that had only

“a woman” been stated, I would have only

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

A girl one day old with regard to menstruation—from where?

For this reason

the verse says—

“and a woman”

[to teach, from the superfluous letter vav, that even a girl who saw blood becomes a menstruating woman].

The Gemara infers from the exposition in the beraita:

Apparently, when Scripture includes through the verse

from the teaching “a woman—and a woman,” even a little girl,

it includes one day old.

And we raise a contradiction: From what we learned concerning that which is stated about the impurity of intercourse

[there, verse 19]: “And a woman with whom a man lies with an emission of semen”—and they expounded that had only

“a woman” been stated,

I might have said:

I have only a woman

an adult who becomes impure through intercourse,

A girl three years and one day old with regard to intercourse

[who becomes impure through intercourse with a person]

from where?

For this reason

the verse says—

“and a woman”!

And it would imply that the extra letter vav includes a girl three years old; why did they not expound that she becomes impure through intercourse from the day of her birth, as with menstruation? The Gemara answers:

Rava said: They are halakhot,

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

And the Sages attached them to verses!

The Gemara explains:

Which is the verse, and which is the halakha?

If you say: A girl one day old

who becomes impure through menstruation—

halakha.

Whereas

a girl three years and one day old

who becomes impure through intercourse—

verse.

But

the verse is written without specification,

“and a woman,” and its meaning is not to include three years. Rather, on its plain meaning it comes to include every woman, and even a girl one day old; she becomes impure through intercourse.

Rather, a girl three years and one day old—

halakha. 26 .

Whereas

a girl one day old

who becomes impure through menstruation—

verse!

The Gemara challenges Rava’s answer:

And since it is a halakha

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

the verse

[the extra vav in “and a woman”]—

why do I need it?!

For this inclusion has no specific implication for a girl three years old.