Niddah 44a — the Talmud in English

And inherits,

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

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 treating him according to the practices of mourning,

he is

the infant, if he dies,

to his father and his mother and to all his relatives, like a fully mature groom,

for they are obligated to mourn for him as for an adult.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses:

From where are these words

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

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage of nidda [Leviticus 11:19]

“A woman

when she becomes a woman with a discharge, her discharge of blood shall be in her flesh” [and this refers to a woman in a state of nidda, and not to a zava].

I have only

a woman, for it is implied by the words of the verse that only with regard to a “woman,” that is, an adult and not a minor, was the passage of nidda stated.

A girl one day old,

who is not called a woman—to include her

in

the laws of

niddah, from where?

The verse states: “And a woman.”

The additional letter vav comes to include even a minor.

We learned in the Mishna:

A girl of ten days is subject to ziva:

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these words?

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage of a zava:

“A woman

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

I have only a woman

—it implies that only concerning an adult who is called a woman was the passage of a zava stated. A female infant

of ten days

who is not called a woman—to include her

in

the laws of

ziva, from where?

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 renders impure through ziva:

The Gemara discusses:

From where are these words?

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage of a zav:

“A man, a man

when there is a discharge from his flesh.”

What does

the repetition of the expression

“a man, a man”

come to teach? To include one day old, who renders impure through ziva; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda,

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: It does not require

a teaching for this, for

it says: “And the zav with his discharge, for male and for female,”

and we expound:

“For male,”

even any male,

whether adult or minor. “For female,”

even any female,

whether adult or minor.

If so,

according to Rabbi Yishmael,

what does

the repetition of the expression

“a man, a man”

come to teach?

The Torah spoke in the language of human beings.

This is the manner of human beings, to speak in the form of a repeated expression. We learned in the Mishna:

And he renders impure through afflictions:

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

as it is written

in the passage of afflictions:

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

And

“a person”

implies

anyone

who is a person, even an infant.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he renders impure through contact with one rendered impure by a corpse:

As it is written

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

and upon the persons who were there.”

And it implies that even

any person whatsoever

requires sprinkling of the water of the ashes of the red cow, 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 of levirate marriage:

“When brothers dwell together,”

and we expound: only

brothers who had one dwelling in the world

cause a levirate marriage to be required, and even dwelling in any measure is considered being a brother and causes a levirate marriage to be required. 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—do not cause his deceased brother’s wife to require levirate marriage, since he did not dwell together with his brother in the world, but dwelled in the world [was born] only after his brother’s death.

We learned further in the Mishna:

And he exempts from levirate marriage:

Since it is stated in the passage of levirate marriage: “When brothers dwell together, and one of them dies, and he has no son.” And the Gemara infers from the wording of the verse:

“‘And he has no son,’ the Merciful One said, and behold,

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 permits his mother to eat teruma.

For the priestly infant “feeds” his Israelite mother teruma, meaning that he permits his Israelite mother to eat teruma even after the death of her priestly husband.

As it is written

in the passage concerning those who eat teruma:

“And those born in his household [

of the priest]

shall eat his bread [

and the priest’s bread means teruma]”.

And in the transmitted reading

read it as: “They shall feed

others

with his bread,”

and it is learned from here that the son [born in his household] permits his Israelite mother to eat teruma after her priestly husband dies.

We further learned in the Mishna:

And he disqualifies

his mother, a priest’s daughter who is married to an Israelite, from eating

of the teruma:

And the Gemara explains that

“‘And she has no offspring,’ the Merciful One said. And behold,

she has borne a son from the Israelite, even if her son was born after her husband’s death;

she has

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

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Why specifically offspring,

a one-day-old son? 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 priest’s daughter married to an Israelite, whose husband died and who returns to eat teruma:

“Like the days of her youth

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

excluding a pregnant woman

by her Israelite husband, who is not like the days of her youth and does not eat teruma!?

And the Gemara answers:

They are necessary.

Both verses are needed—the verse “and she has no offspring” and the verse “like the days of her youth.”

For if the Merciful One had written

only the verse

“and she has no offspring,”

I would have said that specifically a one-day-old son disqualifies his mother from teruma,

because initially,

in her father’s house,

one body,

the priest’s daughter 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 not in her previous state and cannot return to her father’s house together with her son, who is not a priest and does not belong to her father’s house, until she is again in the 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 one body,

and she resembles her state in her father’s house, for there is no other body here that is not a priest;

let her eat

teruma. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “like the days of her youth,”

and a pregnant woman is not like the days of her youth.

And if the Merciful One had written

only the verse

“like the days of her youth,”

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

But here,

after the birth,

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

we do not care that she has a son, because her body is in the same state as when she left her father’s house;

let her eat

teruma. Therefore the Torah

needs

to write “and she has no offspring,” to teach that if she has offspring, then even though her state is like the state in which she left her father’s house, nevertheless she does not eat teruma.

And the Gemara continues to raise an objection: Indeed,

the verses have been resolved,

we have explained why both the verse concerning a pregnant woman and the verse concerning a one-day-old son are needed,

but the Mishna—why specifically

did it state specifically

“a one-day-old son”?

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 a one-day-old infant disqualifying his mother from eating teruma. Rather,

with what are we dealing here? With a priest

who died,

who had two wives, one divorced,

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

and one who was not divorced,

whom it was permitted for the priest to marry,

and he had sons

proper priests

from

the woman

who was not divorced,

and therefore the slaves whom they inherited are slaves of proper priests and eat teruma.

But since

he has a one-day-old son from the divorcee,

and he is a halal priest,

he disqualifies

the one-day-old halal infant

his father’s slaves from eating teruma.

For a slave of a proper priest is permitted to eat teruma, but a slave jointly owned by a priest and a halal is forbidden to eat teruma. And by virtue of the one-day-old son having a share in the slaves, they are slaves jointly owned by priests and a halal, and are disqualified from eating teruma,

and to exclude the view of Rabbi Yosei, who said that a fetus

a halal

also disqualifies

his father’s slaves from eating teruma

, it teaches us

the Mishna that specifically

a one-day-old son, yes,

but

a fetus does not

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

He inherits and bequeaths:

The Gemara asks:

He inherits—

from whom?

After all, an infant inherits only

from his father.

And he bequeaths—

to whom?

To whom does the infant have the power to bequeath? After all, only

to his paternal brothers,

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

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

if they wish, from their father

the one they share

they inherit,

they will inherit from him.

And if they wish, from him they inherit

they will inherit directly from the infant, so why must the tan­na state that they inherit from the infant who is 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. Even though they have no connection to his mother, nevertheless they acquire her property, and not his mother’s relatives, because the property has already left the mother’s domain and passed into the domain of her son.

And specifically a one-day-old son

inherits and bequeaths to his paternal relatives.

But a fetus

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

does not

inherit and bequeath to his relatives from his father.