Niddah 45b (מה:) — the Talmud in English

When he comes of age

that minor

will have intercourse, and

this intercourse will be considered equivalent to intercourse performed by an adult yavam, and therefore at that point he

must give a get

alone; she does not require halitza, just as a yevama who underwent yibbum through intercourse with an adult does not require halitza, but leaves the yibbum through a get alone.

Mishna:

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

a. A minor girl

who is eleven years and one day old

who made a vow:

her vows are examined;

if she understands in whose name she is making the vow or in whose name she is consecrating an item, her vow or consecration takes effect. But if she does not understand, her vows do not take effect.

And if she is

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

and she does not need to be examined.

The Mishna explains the first ruling:

And they examine

her vows to determine whether she knows in whose name she made the vow throughout

the

year of

twelve

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

b. Likewise, a minor boy

who is twelve years and one day old: his vows are examined.

And if he was

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

and they do not need to examine him.

And they examine

the minor’s vows

throughout

the year of

thirteen

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

c. But

before this time

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

even though they say, “We know in whose name we made our vows,”

or they say, “We know

in whose name we consecrated the item,” their vows are not vows, and their consecration is not consecration.

d. Conversely,

after this time

[twelve years and one day for a female, and thirteen years and one day for a male],

even though they say, “We do not know in whose name we made our vows,” or “In whose name we consecrated the item,”

their vows are vows, and their consecration is consecration.

The reason for this distinction is that a minor’s words have no legal force. By contrast, an adult’s vow takes effect even if he does not know precisely. But during “the age of vows,” when he is called by the Sages a mufla samukh le-ish—“a wise one who is close to majority”—there is an additional derivation from the verse that if he understands precisely the purpose for which he is making the vow, his vows and consecrations take effect.

Gemara:

And since the tanna taught

at the beginning

“A girl who is eleven years and one day old, her vows are examined”

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

“A girl who is twelve years and one day old, her vows are valid”?

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

The Gemara answers: The Mishna must teach that a girl who is twelve years and one day old has valid vows, because

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

even once she has become an adult [as one might think that the examination is not intended to determine whether she is already a mufla possessing understanding, but rather that there are people who do not understand what a vow is, and one who does not understand what a vow is does not make a valid vow; therefore examination would always be necessary]. The tanna therefore stated only the age at which examination begins, eleven years and one day.

It teaches us

that she is examined only because she is a minor [and the purpose of the examination is solely to determine whether she is a mufla possessing understanding]. But once she reaches majority, she no longer requires examination.

The Gemara continues and raises a difficulty:

And since it taught

the second ruling at the beginning of the Mishna,

“A girl who is twelve years and one day old, her vows are valid,”

if so,

why do I need “they examine her throughout the twelve”?

We have already learned that at eleven years and one day her vows are examined, and we have also learned that once she reaches twelve her vows are valid and no further examination is necessary. If so, we would know on our own that throughout the entire year between eleven and twelve her vows must indeed be examined.

The Gemara answers: The Mishna must teach that a girl who is eleven years and one day old is examined throughout the entire twelfth year, because

it might enter your mind to say: Since the Master said, “Thirty days of a year are considered a year,”

therefore one might say:

Where we examined her for thirty

days after she reached the age of eleven years and one day

and she did not know how to distinguish

[in whose name she was making her vow],

let us no longer examine her,

and say that the examination of the first thirty days proves that she remains a minor throughout that entire year. That is, one might have thought that the definition of a mufla samukh le-ish must be established immediately at the beginning of the year, and if it was not established then, it can no longer apply. Therefore

it teaches us

that it is possible for the minor to begin understanding even in the middle of the year and at that point to become a mufla samukh le-ish. Therefore she must be examined after every vow.

But the difficulty still remains:

Let him teach

only

these two clauses: “A girl who is twelve years and one day old, her vows are valid,” and “They examine her throughout the twelve,”

and we would consequently know that they examine her only beginning at eleven years and one day. If so, regarding what we learned,

“A girl who is eleven years and one day old, 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,

whose status is presumed

and who does not stand out for her wisdom, is subject to the rule that

in

her

twelfth

year alone she

requires examination,

whereas

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 exceptionally sharp,

that she is wiser than the other members of her age group, she is

examined

even

in

her

eleventh

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

it teaches us

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

But if this is learned from the Mishna’s statement that examination is effective specifically from eleven years and one day, then the Mishna’s subsequent statement is difficult:

“Before this time,”

even though they say, “We know in whose name we made our vows,” their vows are not vows;

“and after this time,”

even though they say, “We do not know in whose name we made our vows,” their vows are vows”—

why do I need it?

[After all, this has already been taught above.]

The Gemara answers:

It might enter your mind to say: These matters

that even if they are exceptionally sharp they do not require examination below the age of eleven years and one day apply only

where they themselves did not say

explicitly, as minors, that they understand in whose name they are making their vows.

But where they themselves say, we rely on them,

and their vows take effect. Therefore

it teaches us

that even if we know with certainty that they know in whose name they are making their vows, their vows do not take effect. They must possess both the status of a mufla, one who knows in whose name he is making his vow, and that of one samukh le-ish, close to majority—that is, eleven years and one day for a female, or twelve years and one day for a male.

The Sages taught:

The statement that we learned in the Mishna—that a female matures intellectually more quickly than a male, and therefore a minor girl’s vows are examined from the age of eleven years and one day, and her vows are valid from the age of twelve years and one day, whereas a male’s vows are examined from the age of twelve years and one day, and his vows are valid from the age of thirteen years and one day—

these are the words of Rabbi.

But

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The matters stated with regard to a female child

—what Rabbi says, that a female’s vows are examined beginning at eleven years and one day and are valid beginning at twelve years and one day—these ages

are stated with regard to a male child.

That is, these are the ages at which a male’s vows are examined or valid, because he matures intellectually before a female does, who matures at a later age. And conversely:

The matters stated with regard to a male child,

the ages that Rabbi assigns to a male—that his vows are examined from twelve years and one day and are valid from thirteen years and one day—

are stated with regard to a female child.

That is, these are the ages at which a female’s vows are examined or valid.

It follows that according to Rabbi, a female child acquires intellectual capacity and the ability to make valid vows one year before a male child. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, conversely, a male child acquires intellectual capacity one year before a female child.

Rav Hisda said: What is the reason of Rabbi

who holds that a female minor becomes wise more quickly than a male minor?

As it is written

with regard to the creation of Eve [Genesis 2]:

“And the Lord God built the rib.”

Only with regard to the creation of the woman is the expression “built” used, a term related to understanding.

This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed

the woman with greater understanding than the man.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But the other one,

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that a woman does not possess greater understanding, why does Scripture refer to Eve’s creation with the expression “built”?

The Gemara answers: That verse

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

With regard to the creation of Eve,

“And the Lord

God

built 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 be He, braided Eve’s hair and brought her to Adam the first. For in the coastal cities they call a braided hairstyle binyata.

Therefore the expression “building” was used with regard to Eve’s creation, as it signifies braiding.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, what is the reason

for his statement that a male minor becomes wise and reaches the age of vows before a female minor?

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said: Since the male child is usually found in the house of his teacher,

where he is taught understanding,

craftiness enters him

first

before it enters the female child.

They raised a dilemma:

A minor who developed two pubic hairs [which are a sign of maturity] during the year preceding his majority, that is, before the age of thirteen years and one day, the period called

“within the time,”

is he judged

as “before the time,”

and he is still a minor, and these hairs are not a sign that his body has matured, but appeared because he has a shuma [beauty mark], which characteristically causes hairs to grow early even though the body has not matured?

Or

is the appearance of two hairs within the time considered

like

the appearance of hairs

“after the time”

[like the appearance of hairs after thirteen years and one day], so that from then on he is already considered an adult?

The Gemara analyzes the matter:

For what halakhic purpose

is this dilemma relevant?

If it is with regard to vows,

whether his vows are valid, then it is

neither analogous to before the time nor analogous to after the time.

After all, vows depend on the age of a mufla samukh le-ish and on examination of one’s understanding alone, not on the appearance of two hairs.

Rather,

the dilemma is

with

regard to

punishments: What is the law?

When he developed hairs during the year before he reached thirteen years and one day and committed a transgression, does the court punish him as an adult, or are these hairs considered merely a “beauty mark,” so that he is not judged as an adult?

Rav and Rabbi Hanina both said:

If he developed hairs during the year preceding his majority, the period called

“within the time,”

he is a minor

like one before the time,

and the hairs are merely a beauty mark; 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 appearance of the two hairs]. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic is

,so that you will not err regarding which sage said “within the time is like before the time”: the following verse is stated in the Scroll of Ruth:

“And this was formerly done in Israel.”

“This” is a feminine expression, and it will serve as a mnemonic for you that Rav Hanina, whose name is expressed in the feminine form [with a final he], is the one who said that “within the time” is “before,” like before the time.

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection:

How can it be said 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 say, ‘We do not know in whose name we made our vows or in whose name we consecrated the item’—

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

Rav Hamnuna infers:

“Within the time”

is like “before the time”

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

Rava said to him:

While you are attempting to infer this from the final clause of the Mishna,

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

their vows are not vows, and their consecrations are not consecrations.

And derive the opposite from the final clause:

But during the period—

it is like after the period!

The Gemara rejects this:

That is not so.

Rava did not answer Rav Hamnuna’s question!

For

Rava interrupted

Rav Hamnuna’s words.

He

(Rava)

thought

that

Rav Hamnuna was deriving his ruling from a superfluous repetition in the Mishna,

meaning that he inferred from the fact that the Mishna repeated the ruling: At first it said that from the age of thirteen years and one day his vows are valid, and then it stated once again that after this time his vows are valid. This teaches that specifically once he is thirteen years and one day old his vows are valid; but during the intervening period, even if he has produced pubic hairs, his vows are not valid without an examination.

Therefore Rava argued against him:

And if

Rav Hamnuna

derives it from the final clause—

let him derive it from the first clause!

Why does the Mishna repeat the ruling that only from the age of twelve years and one day is he examined, whereas before that time an examination is ineffective? Rather, the repetition comes to teach us that specifically before the age of twelve, if he has produced two pubic hairs, the hairs are ineffective; but after the age of twelve, if he has produced hairs, they are effective to exempt him from examination.

That is not so. Rav Hamnuna

did not derive his ruling from the repetition of the laws in the Mishna, as Rava thought. Rather, Rav Hamnuna

derives it from the body of the Mishna itself: This “after the period”

that the Mishna stated,

what case does it refer to?

If

it refers to a case

where he has not produced two pubic hairs—

he is a minor

(because even if he is older than thirteen years and one day, if he has not produced two pubic hairs, he is still a minor).

Rather, is it not

referring to a case

where he has produced two pubic hairs,

and therefore his vows are valid?