Niddah 45a (מה.) — the Talmud in English

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan,

it is possible to explain the beraita:

Just as there is a tanna who says that one day of a year is considered a year, so too there is a tanna who says that thirty days of a year are considered a year.

And everyone agrees that Rabbi Meir maintains that part of a year is considered like the entire year, and they disagree only as to whether, for part of a year to be considered a year, one day is sufficient or an entire month is required.

But according to Rabbi Yannai,

who maintains that according to Rabbi Meir three complete years are actually required,

it is difficult

to reconcile the beraita that says that one day is sufficient.

The Gemara concludes:

It is difficult

for the statement of Rabbi Yannai.

We learned in the Mishna:

Less than this—

is like placing a finger in the eye [that is, if he had intercourse with her before she was three, her virginity returns. Since after intercourse she is still a virgin, the act is therefore not considered intercourse].

A dilemma was raised before them: These hymens

that a young girl has before the age of three—

do they

depart

when he has intercourse with her,

and then come

back, so that new virginity returns to her afterward?

Or perhaps, it is only that they are not captured until after the age of three [the virginity is not “captured” by intercourse with her; that is, intercourse with a girl younger than three does not destroy or open the hymen at all].

What is the practical difference?—

For example,

a priest married a woman younger than three,

and

had intercourse with

her

within the first three

years,

and found blood

of virginity,

and

had intercourse with

her also

after

she had completed

three

years,

and

did not find

her

blood

of virginity.

If you say that they depart

her virginity

and come back,

there is no concern that perhaps she committed adultery with another man, because the fact that her virginity did not return was not due to her having had intercourse after the age of three; rather, it was due to his repeated acts of intercourse, since

they simply did not have time

for her hymen to heal and return before the age of three.

But if you say that it is only that they are not captured until after three,

then, if the virginity was not captured—that is, was not damaged—at all through intercourse while she was younger than three, he should have found blood of virginity when she reached the age of three, since at the first intercourse after the age of three, her existing virginity should have produced blood. Therefore,

this

fact—that she did not see blood of virginity—is proof that

another man had intercourse with her

when she reached the age of three, before her husband had intercourse with her, and she no longer had her virginity; therefore, her husband did not find blood. She is thus a zona and unfit to marry into the priesthood.

What

is the ruling in this matter?

Rav Hiyya, son of Rav Ika, challenged this

point, namely, the practical difference the Gemara had proposed: that according to the possibility that the virginity departs and returns, there is no concern that she committed adultery.

And who can tell us that an injury sustained within the first three

years

does not return

and heal

immediately,

so that one should say that because of his repeated acts of intercourse, the injury did not have time to heal? Consequently, the absence of blood of virginity is not proof.

But

perhaps the injury returns

and heals

immediately

after each act of intercourse, and if so,

this

woman, from whom he did not find blood of virginity when she was three, cannot have the matter attributed to his repeated acts of intercourse. We have proof that

another man had intercourse with her,

and she became unfit for the priesthood as a zona. If so, there is no practical difference, since in any event, if she has no virginity, she certainly had intercourse after the age of three.

Rather,

there is another

practical difference

in the question of whether her virginity departs, heals, and returns, or whether it is not damaged at all until the age of three:

For example, he had intercourse with her before three and found blood, and had intercourse with her after three and found blood.

If you say that it departs and returns, this

blood that she saw both before and after the age of three

is blood of virginity,

for her virginity departs and returns: it was damaged and emerged, then healed, and new blood of virginity is present. In both acts of intercourse this is blood of virginity, and the woman is ritually pure, since blood of virginity does not impart ritual impurity.

But if you say

that it is only that they are not captured

and her virginity is not damaged at all through intercourse before the age of three,

but only after three [

and only then is it blood of virginity],

this

blood that she saw during the intercourse before the age of three

is menstrual blood!

What

is the resolution of the dilemma?

Rav Hisda said: Come and hear

from what we learned in the Mishna:

“Less than this, it is like placing a finger in the eye.” Why do I need it to teach, ‘It is like placing a finger in the eye’?

What novelty is conveyed by this metaphor?

If it is meant to say that the virginity was not damaged beforehand,

let it teach

it simply:

“Less than this is nothing!”

Is it not teaching us this: Just as an eye that waters returns and waters,

if one inserts a finger into the eye and opens the tear sac, causing tears to flow from the eye, it immediately heals and fills again,

so too, virginity departs and returns.

It is damaged and immediately heals again.

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Justani, daughter of Asویرוס son of Antoninus, who came before Rabbi.

She said to him: My Rabbi, at what age does a woman marry?

He said to her: At the age of three years and one day.

And at what age can she become pregnant?

He said to her: At the age of twelve years and one day.

She said to him: I married at six and gave birth at seven. Woe to the three years

between the ages of three and six

that I lost in my father’s house ,

when I could have been married earlier and was in my father’s house even though I was fit for intercourse!

The Gemara wonders: How could Justani have become pregnant at the age of seven?

Could she become pregnant

before the age of eleven?

But didn’t Rav Bibi teach before Rav Naḥman: Three women engage in intercourse with a barrier

so that they will not become pregnant [but an ordinary woman is prohibited from using a barrier during intercourse, as this destroys the seed]—

a minor, a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman.

A minor—

lest she become pregnant and die.

Therefore, she was permitted to use a barrier because of the danger to her life.

A pregnant woman—

lest she cause her fetus to become a sandal [

if she becomes pregnant again, the new fetus presses against the existing one and crushes it into the form of a fish called a sandal]. Therefore, this was permitted in order to save the fetus.

A nursing woman—

lest she wean her child [

since the pregnancy would cause her milk supply to diminish]

and he die,

her child, of hunger. Because of the danger to the child’s life, she was permitted to use a barrier during intercourse.

And who is the minor

who is permitted to use a barrier?

From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. Less than this or more than this—

she engages in intercourse and continues

in the ordinary manner, without a barrier—

the words of Rabbi Meir. [

Because younger than eleven she cannot become pregnant, and older than twelve there is no danger if she becomes pregnant.]

And the Sages say: Both this one and that one [

whether she is eleven, or younger or older than this age]

engages in intercourse in the ordinary manner

without a barrier

and continues ,

and Heaven will have mercy

on her so that she will not die,

as it is stated: “The Lord protects the simple”!

It follows that no one maintains that a girl younger than eleven can become pregnant. If so, how did Justani become pregnant?

The Gemara answers:

Alternatively,

Rabbi, who replied to Justani that a woman can become pregnant only from the age of twelve, and Rabbi Meir, who maintains that she can become pregnant from the age of eleven, were speaking only about Jewish women. But with regard to a gentile, it is stated concerning them:

“Their flesh is the flesh of donkeys,”

they have a different nature , and therefore the age at which they can become pregnant differs among gentiles .

Alternatively:

Justani’s statement was untrue, and she did not become pregnant at the age of seven. The reason she said that she had become pregnant at seven is that she was a liar, as it is stated concerning the gentiles:

“Their mouth speaks vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood” .

when I was a minor, before I was three

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a certain woman who came before Rabbi Akiva. She said to him: I had intercourse with an unfit man

when I was a minor,

before the age of three

years, and if so—

why should I

marry into the tribe of the

priesthood?

He said to her: You are fit for the priesthood!

She said to him: My Rabbi, let me give you a parable. To what is this comparable? To a child whose finger was dipped in honey

against his will.

The first and second times,

he

rebukes her

for forcing him to dip his finger, but the

third

time he has already discovered the honey’s pleasant taste and

sucks

the honey from his finger. The lesson of the parable is this: At first, they forced me to have intercourse with that unfit man, but afterward I enjoyed it and willingly had intercourse with that unfit man before the age of three.

He said to her: If so, you are unfit for the priesthood!

Rabbi Akiva saw

that

the students were looking at one another

and wondering about his ruling.

He said to them: Why does this matter appear difficult to you?

They said to him: Just as the entire Torah is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, so too

the ruling of the Mishna that a girl

younger than three years

and one day who had intercourse with an unfit man is

fit for the priesthood

is also

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai,

and it is impossible to disagree with this ruling?!

The Gemara concludes that the students were correct:

and Rabbi Akiva did not state it

as a halakhic ruling, nor did he entertain the possibility that this was the halakha;

rather,

he said it only

to sharpen the students through it. [

To see how they would challenge him regarding this ruling.]

Mishna:

After the Mishna explained that with regard to a female, the age at which intercourse is considered intercourse is three years and one day, the Mishna explains that with regard to a male, his intercourse is considered intercourse from the age of nine years and one day, and it details several laws that result from this principle:

A boy nine years and one day old who had intercourse with his yevama —

acquires her.

But

he does not give a bill of divorce

to his yevama, whom he acquired through intercourse,

until he reaches majority.

For she is his fully married wife, and a minor cannot divorce.

And

if a boy nine years and one day old has intercourse with a menstruating woman, he

imparts

the ritual impurity of

menstruation

like anyone who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, who becomes impure like the menstruating woman herself, although one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman has a certain leniency beyond that of the menstruating woman:

he imparts ritual impurity to his lower bedding

only

like the

“upper bedding

of a zav” [as we explained in the previous Mishna, which is the lesser impurity of a rishon], and not like the bedding of a menstruating woman, which is an av hatum’a.

If he is unfit for the priesthood [for example, a mamzer] and has intercourse with a woman, the woman has the status of a zona, and she is prohibited from eating teruma and from marrying a priest. Therefore, if that nine-year-old boy was unfit for the priesthood [for example, a mamzer], he

renders

the priest’s daughter unfit through his intercourse, preventing her from eating teruma, and prevents the Israelite woman from marrying a priest.

However, although when a nine-year-old yavam has intercourse with his yevama she becomes his wife in every respect, if he is a priest, he

does not enable

her

to eat teruma,

because a minor does not have the power to enable his wife to eat teruma.

An animal with which a person had bestial intercourse is stoned if there are two witnesses. If there is only one witness, or if the owners themselves saw the act, the animal is not stoned, but it is prohibited to offer it upon the altar.

And if a boy nine years old has intercourse with an animal, he

renders the animal unfit for the altar

as is the law regarding an animal with which a person had bestial intercourse [but before this age, his intercourse is not considered intercourse, and the animal is not considered an animal with which a person had bestial intercourse],

and it is stoned

the animal

through him [

even though he himself is not stoned, because a minor is not stoned].

And if

a boy nine

has intercourse with any of the forbidden relations mentioned in the Torah,

they

are put to death through him,

but he is exempt, since he is a minor and is not punished for the transgressions he commits.

Gemara:

A yavam can acquire his yevama as a wife by Torah law only through intercourse. However, the Sages instituted that a yavam should betroth his yevama with money or a document [which is called maamar betrothal], and she becomes betrothed to him by rabbinic law even before yibbum.

The maamar is effective, by rabbinic law, in two matters:

a. After one of the brothers performed kiddushei maamar with his yevama, another brother may not perform yibbum with her, because rabbinically she is already betrothed to the brother who performed the maamar,

b. If the brother who performed the maamar wishes to perform halitza with her, he must give her a get for his maamar.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And

when

he comes of age

and wishes to release her to the marketplace,

with a get

alone

is that sufficient for her?

But it was taught: They treated

the

intercourse

of a yavam

who is nine years old

stringently,

as the maamar

of an adult yavam:

Just as maamar by an adult requires a get for his maamar,

because rabbinically she is betrothed to him,

and halitza for her zika,

because according to Torah law she still requires either yibbum or halitza, and a get is ineffective to release her from that bond,

so too intercourse by a nine-year-old requires a get for his maamar and halitza for his zika.

That is, even though according to Torah law intercourse by a nine-year-old is effective, the Sages enacted that it be regarded only like the acquisition effected by maamar, which is a lesser form of acquisition; therefore, she also requires halitza by rabbinic decree, in addition to the get required by Torah law.

This presents a difficulty for our Mishna, which says that it is sufficient to give her a get and that she does not also require halitza.

The Gemara answers:

Rav said: This is what

the tanna means: