Niddah 45a — the Talmud in English

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan,

it is possible to explain the beraita,

for just as there is a tanna who says that one day in a year is considered a year, so too there is a tanna who says that thirty days in a year are considered a year.

And all agree that Rabbi Meir holds that part of a year is considered like the entire year, and they disagreed only over whether, in order for part of a year to be considered a year, one day is required or an entire month is required.

But according to Rabbi Yannai,

who holds that according to Rabbi Meir three truly complete years are required,

there is a difficulty

with the beraita that says that one day suffices,

and the Gemara concludes:

there is a difficulty

with the words of Rabbi Yannai!

We learned in the Mishna:

Less than this—

it is like placing a finger in the eye

[that is, if he had intercourse with her before three years, her virginity returns to her. And since after the intercourse she is still a virgin, the act is therefore not considered an act of intercourse].

They raised a dilemma before them: These signs of virginity

that a little girl has before three years—

do they depart

when he has intercourse with her,

and then come,

with new signs of virginity returning to her afterward?

Or perhaps, it is only that they cannot be captured until after three years

[the virginity is not “captured” through his intercourse; that is, intercourse with a girl younger than three years does not destroy or open the virginity at all].

What practical difference is there?—

For example,

a priest married a woman younger than three years,

had intercourse with

her

within three

years,

and found blood

of virginity,

and had intercourse with

her also

after

she had reached

three

years,

and

then

did not find

on her

blood

of virginity.

If you say that they depart

her signs of virginity

and come,

there is no concern lest she committed adultery with another, because the fact that her virginity did not return was not because she committed adultery after the age of three, but because of his repeated acts of intercourse, since

it is that time did not exist for them

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

But if you say that it is only that they cannot be captured until after three,

then, if the virginity was not captured [not impaired] at all through intercourse while she was younger than three, he should have found blood of virginity when she reached the age of three, for at the first intercourse after the age of three, her existing virginity should have produced blood. Therefore,

this

—that she did not see blood of virginity—is proof that a man

another had intercourse with her

when she reached the age of three, before her husband had intercourse with her, and she had no virginity; therefore, her husband did not find blood. And she is a zona and disqualified from the priesthood.

What

is the law in this question?

Rav Hiyya, son of Rav Ika, challenged this

with regard to what the Gemara said, that there is a practical difference: according to the possibility that they depart and return, we do not suspect that she committed adultery.

And who can tell us that an injury that is within three

years

does not return

and heal

immediately,

and therefore it should be said that, because of his repeated acts of intercourse, there was no time for the injury to heal? Consequently, the absence of blood of virginity is not proof.

But

perhaps the injury returns

and heals

immediately,

after every act of intercourse, and if so,

this

woman, from whom he did not find signs of virginity at the age of three, cannot have this attributed to his repeated acts of intercourse, and we have proof that a man

another had intercourse with her,

and she was disqualified from the priesthood on account of being a zona. If so, we have no practical difference, because in every case in which there is no virginity, she certainly had intercourse after the age of three.

Rather,

there is

a practical difference

of another kind in the question of whether her signs of virginity depart and heal and return, or whether they are not impaired at all until the age of three:

for example, he had intercourse within three and found blood, and had intercourse after three and found blood:

If you say that they depart and come, this

blood that she saw both before three and after three

is blood of virginity,

for her signs of virginity depart and return: they were impaired and emerged, healed, and there is new blood of virginity. In both acts of intercourse this is blood of virginity, and the woman is pure, because blood of virginity does not convey impurity.

But if you say

it is only that they cannot be captured

and her signs of virginity are not impaired at all through his intercourse before three years,

but only after three

[and only then is it blood of virginity],

this

blood that she saw in the intercourse before three years

is menstrual blood!

What?

How is the dilemma resolved?

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 there in this analogy?

If it is in order to say that the virginity was not impaired previously,

let it teach

it simply:

“Less than this, and it is nothing!”

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

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

so too, signs of virginity depart and come.

They are impaired and immediately heal again.

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

She said to him: Rabbi, at what age is a woman married?

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

And at what age does she become pregnant?

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

She said to him: I was married at six, and gave birth at seven; woe to the three years

[between the age of three and the age of six]

that I lost in my father’s house ,

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

And the Gemara wondered: how did Justani become pregnant at the age of seven?

And could she become pregnant

before the age of eleven?

But Rav Bibi taught before Rav Nahman: Three women engage in intercourse with a wad

in order not to become pregnant [but an ordinary woman is forbidden to engage in intercourse with a wad and destroy the seed]—

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

A minor—

lest she become pregnant and die.

Therefore, they permitted her to engage in intercourse with a wad on account of the danger to her life.

A pregnant woman—

lest she make her fetus a sandal

[if she becomes pregnant again, the new fetus pushes against the old one and crushes it into the form of a fish called a sandal]. Therefore, they permitted it in order to save the fetus.

A nursing woman—

lest she wean her son

[since through the pregnancy her milk will be diminished]

and he die

of hunger. On account of the danger to the son’s life, they permitted engaging in intercourse with a wad.

And which is the minor

who is permitted to engage in intercourse with a wad?

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 her ordinary manner, without a wad,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

[For below eleven years it is impossible for her to become pregnant, and above 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 her ordinary manner

without a wad

and continues ,

and Heaven will have mercy

on her so that she will not die,

as it is stated: “He watches over the simple”!

It follows that below the age of eleven no one holds that she can become pregnant. If so, how did Justani become pregnant?

And the Gemara answers:

Alternatively,

Rabbi, who answered Justani that she could become pregnant only from the age of twelve, and Rabbi Meir, who holds that she can become pregnant from the age of eleven, spoke only about Israelites; but regarding a gentile, about whom it is stated,

“Their flesh is the flesh of donkeys,”

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

And alternatively:

Justani’s words are not true, and she did not become pregnant at the age of seven. And the fact that she related that she became pregnant at the age of seven is because she is a liar, as it is said of the gentiles,

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

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 a man disqualified [from the priesthood], when I was a minor,

within three

years, and if so—

what am I to

marry into the tribe of the

priesthood?

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

She said to him: Rabbi, I shall give you an analogy: To what is the matter comparable? To a child whose finger was dipped in honey

against his will.

The first and second time

he

rebukes it

for having forced him to dip his finger, but the

third

time he has already recognized the good taste of the honey and

sucks

his finger. The analogy is this: at first they forced him to have intercourse with that disqualified man, but afterward I enjoyed it and had intercourse willingly with that disqualified man before the age of three.

He said to her: If so, you are disqualified from the priesthood!

Rabbi Akiva saw

that the

students were looking at one another

and wondering about his ruling.

He said to them: Why is this matter difficult in your eyes?

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

the law of the Mishna, that one who is

younger than three years and one day

and had intercourse with a man disqualified from the priesthood is

fit for the priesthood,

is also

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai,

and it is impossible to disagree with this law?!

And the Gemara concludes: the students were correct,

and Rabbi Akiva did not say it

as a ruling, and he did not have a position that this was the halakha,

but

he said it only

to sharpen the students through it.

[To see what they would challenge him with regarding this law].

Mishna:

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

A nine-year-old male and one day who had intercourse with his yevama —

he acquired her.

But

and he does not give a bill of divorce

to his yevama, whom he acquired through intercourse,

until he comes of age.

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

And

if a minor of nine years and one day had intercourse with a menstruating woman, he

conveys

the impurity of

menstruation

like anyone who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, who becomes impure like the menstruating woman herself, except that one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman has a leniency greater than that of the menstruating woman:

to convey impurity to his lower bedding

only

like

the upper bedding

of a zav” [and as we explained in the previous Mishna, which is a lesser impurity of first degree], and not like the bedding of a menstruating woman, which is a primary source of impurity.

If he is disqualified from the priesthood [for example, a mamzer] and had intercourse with a woman, the woman has the status of a zona and is forbidden to eat teruma and to marry a priest. Therefore, if that nine-year-old was disqualified from the priesthood [for example, a mamzer], through his intercourse he

disqualifies

the priest’s daughter from eating teruma, and the Israelite woman from marrying a priest.

But even though if a nine-year-old yavam has intercourse with his yevama, the yevama becomes the wife of the one who performs yibbum 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—if there are two witnesses, it is stoned; and if there is only one witness, or if the owners themselves saw the intercourse, the animal is not stoned, but it is forbidden to sacrifice it upon the altar.

And if a minor of nine years had bestial intercourse with an animal, he

disqualifies the animal from upon the altar

according to the law of an animal with which bestial intercourse was performed [but before this age his intercourse is not intercourse, and it is not considered an animal with which bestial intercourse was performed],

and the animal is stoned

by

his agency

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

And if he had intercourse

a nine-year-old

with any one of all the forbidden sexual relations stated in the Torah,

they

are put to death through his agency,

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, but the Sages instituted that the yavam should betroth his yevama through money or a document [which are called maamar betrothal], and she should be betrothed to him by rabbinic law even before the yibbum.

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

a. After one of the brothers performed kiddushei maamar with his yevama, another brother is forbidden to perform yibbum with her, because rabbinically she is already betrothed to the brother who performed the maamar,

b. If the one who performed the maamar wishes to perform chalitza 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 it sufficient for her?

And it was taught in a beraita: The Sages made

the

intercourse

of a yavam

of nine years

a matter of stringency,

like the maamar

of an adult

yavam: just as the maamar of an adult requires a get for his maamar,

because rabbinically she is betrothed to him,

and chalitza for her zika,

because according to Torah law she is still bound to yibbum or chalitza, and a get is not effective to release her,

so too the intercourse of a nine-year-old requires a get for his maamar, and chalitza for his zika.

That is, even though according to Torah law the intercourse of a nine-year-old is effective, the Sages ordained that it be considered only like the acquisition of a maamar, which is a lesser acquisition; like a maamar, therefore, she also requires chalitza rabbinically, in addition to a get according to Torah law.

And this is difficult for our Mishna, which says that it is sufficient to give her a get, and that she does not also require chalitza?

The Gemara answers:

Rav said: This is what the tanna said:

The tanna: