Niddah 44a (מד.) — the Talmud in English

And inherits,

the infant inherits from his relatives who died, even when he is only one day old.

And bequeaths,

he bequeaths his property to his relatives if he dies.

And one who kills him -

is liable

to death, like anyone who kills a person

. And

with regard to observing the practices of mourning,

he is

the infant, if he dies,

for his father, his mother, and all his relatives, like a complete bridegroom,

for whom they are obligated to mourn as they would for an adult.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses:

From where are these matters

that even a girl one day old is subject to the laws of a menstruant?

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning a menstruant [Leviticus 15:19]:

“A woman

when she has a discharge, and her discharge is blood from her flesh” [and this refers to a menstruant, not a woman with a discharge].

I have derived only a woman,

for the verse indicates that the passage concerning a menstruant applies only to a “woman,” that is, an adult and not a minor.

A girl one day old,

who is not called a woman—how do we include her

in

the laws of

menstruation?

The verse states: “And a woman.”

The additional letter vav comes to include even a minor.

We learned in the Mishna:

A girl ten days old is subject to the laws of a woman with a discharge:

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these matters?

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning a woman with a discharge:

“A woman

when she has a discharge of blood from her flesh for many days, not at the time of her menstruation.”

I have derived only a woman,

meaning that the passage concerning a woman with a discharge was stated only with regard to an adult who is called a woman. A female infant

ten days old

who is not called a woman—how do we include her

in

the laws of

a discharge?

The verse states: “And a woman.”

The additional vav comes to include even a minor:

We learned in the Mishna:

A male infant one day old is rendered impure through a discharge:

The Gemara discusses:

From where are these matters?

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning a man with a discharge:

“Any man, any man

when he has a discharge from his flesh.”

What does

the repetition of the expression

“any man, any man”

teach? To include a male infant one day old, who is rendered impure through a discharge; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: It is not necessary

to derive this by means of that verse, because

it says: “And the man with the discharge, whether male or female,”

and we expound:

“Male,”

even a male of

any size, whether adult or minor. “Female,”

even a female of

any size, whether adult or minor.

If so,

according to Rabbi Yishmael,

what does

the repetition of the expression

“any man, any man”

teach? The Torah speaks in the language of people.

It is the way people speak, using a repeated expression.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he is rendered impure through skin afflictions:

And the Gemara explains from where we know that even a minor becomes impure,

as it is written

in the passage concerning skin afflictions:

“When a person has an affliction on the skin of his flesh.”

And the word

“person”

indicates

anyone

who is a person, even an infant.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he is rendered impure through contact with a corpse:

As it is written

in the passage concerning the red heifer: “And he shall sprinkle upon the tent and upon all the vessels,

and upon the persons who were there.”

This indicates that even

any person whatsoever

requires sprinkling with the water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, and it is thereby demonstrated that he becomes impure.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he causes a levirate marriage to be required: as it is written

in the passage concerning levirate marriage,

“When brothers dwell together,”

and we expound that only

brothers who had one dwelling in the world

require levirate marriage. Even dwelling in the world for any amount of time suffices for one to be considered a brother and to require levirate marriage. But brothers who did not dwell together in the world—even if the brother was already present in the world as a fetus in his mother’s womb—he does not cause his deceased brother’s wife to require levirate marriage, since he did not dwell together with his brother in the world; rather, he entered the world [was born] only after his brother’s death.

We further learned in the Mishna:

And he exempts her from levirate marriage:

It is stated in the passage concerning levirate marriage: “When brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son.” The Gemara analyzes the wording of the verse:

“The Merciful One states: ‘And he has no son.’ But this one,”

this brother, at the time he died,

has

a son, even though the son died immediately after his father. And even if the son was born after the father’s death, he exempts his mother from levirate marriage and halitza.

We further learned in the Mishna:

And he enables her to eat teruma.

The infant, who is a kohein, “enables” his Israelite mother to eat teruma; that is, he permits his Israelite mother to eat teruma even after the death of her kohein husband.

As it is written

in the passage concerning those permitted to eat teruma:

“Those born in his household

[of the kohein]

they shall eat of his bread

[and the kohein’s bread means teruma]”.

And according to the received tradition,

read it as: “They shall enable others to eat

others

of his bread,”

and we learn from here that the son [one born in his household] enables his Israelite mother to eat teruma after her kohein husband dies.

We further learned in the Mishna:

And disqualifies

his mother, a daughter of a kohein married to an Israelite, from eating

teruma:

The Gemara explains that

the Merciful One states: “And she has no offspring.” But this one,”

who bore a son from the Israelite, even if her son was born after her husband’s death,

has

offspring from an Israelite, and therefore she does not return to eating teruma.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Why specifically offspring

in the form of a son one day old? After all,

even a fetus as well,

who has not yet been born, disqualifies his pregnant mother from eating teruma,

as it is written

concerning a daughter of a kohein married to an Israelite whose husband died, and who returns to eat teruma:

“As in her youth

in her father’s house,” and we expound:

excluding a pregnant woman

by an Israelite husband, since she is not as she was in her youth and may not eat teruma!?

The Gemara answers:

Both are necessary.

Both verses are necessary: the verse “And she has no offspring” and the verse “As in her youth.”

For if the Merciful One had written

only the verse

“And she has no offspring,”

I would have said that specifically a male infant one day old disqualifies his mother from eating teruma,

because initially,

in her father’s house,

she was one body,

the daughter of a kohein was alone,

but now,

when her husband dies and she wishes to return to her father’s house to eat teruma, she is

two bodies.

That is, she is no longer in her previous state and cannot return to her father’s house together with her son, who is not a kohein and does not belong to her father’s household, until she is again in the same state she had been in her father’s house.

But here,

when she is pregnant,

initially,

she was in her father’s house

one body, and now she is one body,

and she resembles her state in her father’s house, since there is no additional body here that is not a kohein.

I might say that she may eat

teruma. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote: “As in her youth,”

teaching that a pregnant woman is not as she was in her youth.

And if the Merciful One had written

only the verse

“As in her youth,”

and not the verse “And she has no offspring,” I would have said that specifically a pregnant woman may not eat teruma, but if she has a son, she may eat teruma,

because initially,

in her father’s house,

her body was empty,

in practice her body was empty,

but now her body is full,

her body is full and has changed.

But here,

after giving birth,

initially her body was empty and now her body is empty,

the fact that she has a son is irrelevant, since her body is in the same state as when she left her father’s house.

I might say that she may eat

teruma. Therefore the Torah

needs

to write “And she has no offspring,” teaching that if she has offspring, then even though her condition is the same as when she left her father’s house, she may not eat teruma.

The Gemara continues and raises a difficulty: Indeed,

the verses have been explained,

we have explained why both the verse concerning a pregnant woman and the verse concerning a male infant are necessary,

but as for the Mishna, why specifically

does it mention specifically

“a male infant one day old”?

After all, according to the halakha, once there are two verses,

even a fetus as well

disqualifies her!?

Rav Sheshet said:

In truth, the Mishna is not speaking of an infant one day old disqualifying his mother from eating teruma. Rather,

what are we dealing with here? With a kohein

who died,

who had two wives, one a divorcee,

whom the kohein married even though it is forbidden for a kohein to marry a divorcee, and whose sons are halalim and forbidden to eat teruma,

and one who was not a divorcee,

whom the kohein was permitted to marry,

and he has sons

who are fit kohanim

from

the wife

who was not a divorcee,

and therefore the slaves whom they inherited are slaves of fit kohanim and may eat teruma.

But since

he has a male infant one day old from the divorcee,

and he is a halal,

he disqualifies

the male infant one day old, who is a halal,

his father’s slaves from eating teruma.

A slave of a fit kohein may eat teruma, but a slave jointly owned by a kohein and a halal may not eat teruma. Since the one-day-old son has a share in the slaves, they are slaves jointly owned by kohanim and a halal, and they are disqualified from eating teruma,

and to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that a fetus

who is a halal

also disqualifies

his father’s slaves from eating teruma

, it teaches us

that the Mishna means specifically

“a male infant one day old”—yes,

but

a fetus does not

disqualify them from eating teruma. We further learned in the Mishna:

He inherits and bequeaths:

The Gemara asks:

“Inherits” -

from whom?

After all, an infant inherits only

from his father.

And bequeaths -

to whom?

To whom can an infant bequeath? Only

to his paternal brothers,

because his mother does not inherit from him, and if he has property, it must be that his father died and bequeathed it to him.

If so, this is difficult: the brothers would inherit in any event, even without the infant brother, because

if they wished, they could inherit from their father,

their common father,

and inherit from him;

they would inherit from him.

And if they wished, they could inherit it from him;

they would inherit directly from the infant, so why did the tanna need to say that they inherit from the infant who was one day old?

Rav Sheshet said:

There is a practical difference in a case where this infant

inherits his mother’s property,

where his mother died and he inherited her property, and now he comes

to bequeath it to his paternal brothers,

who are his heirs. Although they have no connection to his mother, they nevertheless acquire her property, and not her relatives, because the property has already left the mother’s possession and passed into the possession of her son.

Specifically, a male infant one day old

inherits and bequeaths to his paternal relatives.

But a fetus

in his mother’s womb, where he and his mother died while she was pregnant,

does not

inherit or bequeath to his paternal relatives.