Niddah 45b — the Talmud in English

when that minor grows up

that minor

will have intercourse, and

this intercourse will be like all intercourse of yibbum performed by an adult, and therefore then

he gives a bill of divorce

alone, and she does not require halitza, like any yevama with whom yibbum was performed through the intercourse of an adult, who does not require halitza but leaves only through a bill of divorce.

Mishna:

The Mishna details the laws of the age called “the period of vows”:

a. A minor girl

eleven years old and one day

who made a vow,

her vows are examined,

for if she knows for whose sake she is making a vow or for whose sake she is consecrating, her vow or consecration takes effect; but if she does not understand, her vows do not take effect.

And if she is

twelve years old and one day, her vows are valid,

and it is not necessary to examine her.

And the Mishna explains the first law:

and they examine

her vows, whether she knows for whose sake she made the vow, throughout

the entire

year of

twelve

[from the time she is eleven years old and one day until she is twelve years old and one day].

b. And likewise, a minor boy

twelve years old and one day, his vows are examined.

And if he was

thirteen years old and one day, his vows are valid,

and it is not necessary to examine them.

And they examine

the vows of the minor boy

the entire

year of

thirteen

[from twelve years old and one day until thirteen years old and one day].

c. But

before this time

[for a female, before eleven; and for a male, before twelve], even

though they said, “We know for whose sake we made our vows,”

or they said, “We know

for whose sake we consecrated,” their vows are not vows, and their consecration is not consecration.

d. In contrast,

after this time

[a girl of twelve years and one day, and a boy of thirteen years and one day],

even though they said, “We do not know for whose sake we made our vows,” “for whose sake we consecrated”—

their vows are vows, and their consecration is consecration.

And the reason for the matter is that a minor’s words have no validity. In contrast, an adult, even though he does not know precisely, has his vow take effect. But at the age of “the period of vows,” when he is called in the language of the Sages a “mufla [wise and understanding, at the age] close to adulthood,” there is an amplification from the verse that if he understands precisely for what purpose he is making his vow, his vows and consecrations take effect.

Gemara:

And since he taught

at the beginning

“eleven years old and one day, her vows are examined”

[since she is a minor], if so, why did the tanna continue and say

“twelve years old and one day, her vows are valid”; what do I need this for?

For is it not obvious that if only a minor requires examination, an adult does not require examination?!

The Gemara answers: The Mishna needs to teach that at twelve years old and one day her vows are valid, because

it might enter your mind to say that they examine forever,

even after adulthood [for I might have thought that the examination is not intended to see whether she is already a mufla and a person of understanding, but that there are some who do not understand what a vow is, and one who does not understand what a vow is does not have a valid vow, and therefore examination is required], and the tanna wrote only the time when examination begins, at eleven years old and one day;

it teaches us

that they examine only because she is a minor [and the purpose of the examination is only to check whether she is a mufla and a person of understanding]. But once she reaches adulthood, she no longer requires examination.

And the Gemara continues and raises a difficulty:

And since he taught

the second law at the beginning of the chapter,

“twelve years old and one day, her vows are valid,”

if so,

“they examine the entire twelfth year”; what do I need this for?

For we have already learned that at eleven years old and one day her vows are examined, and we have also learned that when she reaches twelve years old her vows are valid and no longer require examination; if so, we would already know on our own that throughout the entire year between eleven and twelve the vows must indeed be examined.

The Gemara answers: The Mishna needs to teach that at eleven years old and one day her vows are examined throughout the entire twelfth year, because

it might enter your mind to say: since the Master said, “thirty days in a year are considered a year,”

therefore it might be said:

where we examined for thirty

days after she reached eleven years old and one day

and she did not know how to distinguish

[for whose sake she was making the vow],

let us no longer examine her,

and let us say that the examination of the first thirty days proves that throughout that entire year she is a minor. That is, it could have been said that the definition of mufla ha-samukh le-ish must be established immediately at the beginning of the year, and if it was not established then, it no longer takes effect; therefore

it teaches us

that it is possible for the minor to begin understanding even in the middle of the year and then to become a “mufla ha-samukh le-ish,” and therefore she must be examined after every vow.

But it is still difficult:

And let him teach

only

these two clauses, “twelve years old and one day, her vows are valid,” and “they examine the entire twelfth year,”

and from this we would automatically know that they examine only beginning at eleven years old and one day. If so, the statement that we learned,

“eleven years old and one day, her vows are examined”—

why do I need it?

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary. It might enter your mind to say

that only an ordinary

minor girl,

who does not stand out for her wisdom, is included in the statement that

in

her

twelfth

year alone she

requires examination,

but

in

the

eleventh

year, since she does not stand out for her wisdom, she has the presumptive status of a minor, and ordinarily

does not require examination.

But

where we see that she is sharper,

that she is wiser than the rest of those her age, she is

examined

even

in

her

eleventh

year, before she has reached eleven years old and one day. Therefore

it teaches us

our Mishna that below the age of eleven she does not require examination, even if she is extremely sharp.

But if this is learned from what the Mishna said—that examination is effective specifically from eleven years old and one day—then the following statement of the Mishna is difficult:

“Before this time,

even though they said, ‘We know for whose sake we made our vows,’ their vows are not vows;

and after this time,

even though they said, ‘We do not know for whose sake we made our vows,’ their vows are vows”—

why do I need it?

[For this has already been taught earlier.]

The Gemara answers:

It might enter your mind to say; these matters

that even if they are sharp they do not require examination at an age below eleven years and one day apply only

where they themselves did not say

explicitly that they understand for whose sake they are making vows.

But where they themselves say, let us rely upon them,

and their vows should take effect, therefore

it teaches us

that even if we know with certainty that they know for whose sake they are making vows, their vows are not valid. For there is a requirement both of a “mufla,” who knows for whose sake he is making a vow, and of “close to adulthood,” which is eleven years old and one day for a female, or twelve years old and one day for a male.

The Sages taught:

This matter that we learned in the Mishna—that a female hastens to become wise more than a male, and therefore a minor girl from eleven years old and one day has her vows examined, and from twelve years old and one day her vows are valid, whereas a male from twelve years old and one day has his vows examined, and from thirteen years old and one day his vows are valid—

these are the words of Rabbi.

But

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The matters stated concerning the young girl

that Rabbi says concerning a female—that from eleven years old and one day her vows are examined, and from twelve years old and one day her vows are valid—these ages

are stated concerning the young boy.

That is, this is the age at which the vows of a male are examined or valid, because he hastens to become wise before the female, who becomes wise at a later age; and he says:

The matters stated concerning the young boy,

the age that Rabbi says concerning the male, that from twelve years old and one day his vows are examined and from thirteen years old and one day his vows are valid,

are stated concerning the young girl.

That is, this is the age at which the vows of a female are examined or valid.

And it follows that according to Rabbi, a young girl becomes a person of understanding and has the power to make vows one year before the young boy. Whereas according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, the opposite is the case: a young boy becomes a person of understanding one year before the young girl.

Rav Hisda said: What is the reason of Rabbi,

who holds that the minor girl hastens to become wise before the minor boy?

As it is written

in the creation of Eve [Genesis 2],

“And the Lord God built the rib.”

Concerning the creation of the woman alone, the expression “built” is used, which is an expression of understanding;

this teaches that the Holy One, blessed is He, gave extra understanding

to the woman more than to the man.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But the other one,

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that a woman does not have extra understanding, why does Scripture call the creation of Eve by the expression “built”?

The Gemara answers: That verse

is needed for that which Reish Lakish taught. For Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya:

It is stated concerning the creation of Eve,

“And the Lord built

God

the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman, and He brought her to the man”—

this teaches that the Holy One, blessed is He, braided Eve and brought her to the first man. For in the coastal cities they call a braided woman “benayata.”

And therefore the expression “building” was stated concerning the creation of Eve, its meaning being braiding.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, what is the reason,

what is his reason for saying that the minor boy becomes wise and reaches the period of vows before the minor girl?

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said: Since the young boy is found in the house of his teacher,

[and there they teach him understanding],

cunning enters him

first

before the young girl.

They raised a dilemma:

A minor boy who produced two hairs [which are a sign of adulthood] in the year before his adulthood, that is, before the age of thirteen years and one day, which is the period called

“within the time,”

is he judged

as “before the time,”

and is he still a minor, and are these hairs not a sign that his body is maturing, but rather do they appear because he has the status of a “suma” [beauty mark], whose nature is to hasten to produce hairs even though the body has not matured?

Or

is the production of two hairs within the time considered

as

the production of hairs

“after the time”

[like the production of hairs after thirteen years and one day], and from now on is he already considered an adult?

And the Gemara discusses:

For what halakhic matter

is the dilemma relevant?

If it is concerning vows,

whether his vows are valid, then

it is comparable neither to before the time nor to after the time.

For vows depend on the age of a mufla ha-samukh le-ish and on examination of wisdom alone, and not on the production of two hairs.

Rather,

the dilemma is

with

regard to

punishments: what is the law?

When he produced hairs in the year before he reached thirteen years and one day and committed a transgression, does the court punish him as an adult, or perhaps this hair is in the category of “a mere beauty mark,” and he is not judged as an adult?

Rav and Rabbi Hanina both said:

If he produced hairs in the year before his adulthood, which is called the period of

“within the time,”

he is a minor

like before the time,

and the hairs are nothing but a mere beauty mark, and he is not punished.

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi both said: Within the time—

is like after the time,

and he becomes an adult through the production of the two hairs.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic is,

so that you will not err in knowing who said “within the time is like before the time,” from what is stated in the Scroll of Ruth:

“And this formerly in Israel.”

“This” is feminine language, and it will be a mnemonic for you that Rav Hanina, whose name is feminine in form [with the feminine heh suffix], is the one who said that within the time is “formerly,” like before the time.

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection:

How is it possible to say that with regard to vows within the time is neither like before the time nor like after the time? For it is stated in our Mishna:

“After this time, even though they said, ‘We do not know for whose sake we made our vows, for whose sake we consecrated,’—

their vows are vows, and their consecration is consecration.”

And Rav Hamnuna infers:

“Within the time”—

“like before the time”

[and below the Gemara explains what Rav Hamnuna’s inference is].

Rava said to him:

Instead of analyzing the latter clause of the Mishna,

say the first clause: Before this time, even though they said, “We know for whose sake we made the vow,” “for whose sake we consecrated,”—

their vows are not vows, and their consecration is not consecration.

And analyze the latter clause to the contrary:

but within the time—

it is like after the time!

And the Gemara rejects this:

That is not so.

Rava did not answer the difficulty of Rav Hamenuna!

For

Rava cut off

Rav Hamenuna’s words.

He

Rava

thought,

that

Rav Hamenuna derives from a redundant Mishna,

namely, that he inferred from the fact that the Mishna repeated the law: at first it said that from thirteen years and one day his vows are valid, and afterward it again said that after this time his vows are valid, to teach that specifically when he is thirteen years and one day his vows are valid, but within the time, even if he has produced hairs, his vows are not vows without an examination.

Therefore Rava argued against him:

And if

Rav Hamenuna

derives from the latter clause—

let him derive from the first clause!

Why does the Mishna repeat the law that only from twelve years and one day are his vows examined, and before the time an examination is of no avail? Rather, the repetition comes to teach us that specifically before twelve years, if he produced two hairs, the hairs are of no avail, but after twelve years, if he produced hairs, they are effective to exempt him from an examination.

And that is not so. Rav Hamenuna

did not derive from the repetition of the laws in the Mishna as Rava thought; rather, Rav Hamenuna

derives from the body of the Mishna itself: this “after the time”

that the Mishna stated,

what are the circumstances?

If

it is speaking in a case

where he did not produce two hairs—

he is a minor

for even if he is older than thirteen years and one day, if he has not produced two hairs, he is a minor.

Rather, is it not

speaking

where he produced two hairs,

and therefore his vows are valid.