Niddah 46b — the Talmud in English

,

Since we find that Scripture equated the minor

who is twelve years old and one day, who knows how to distinguish [between vows], but is still a minor

with an adult, with regard to

regarding

intentional violation of an oath,

for if he swore and violated his oath, he is liable,

and with regard to

regarding

a vow,

for if he prohibited something to himself through a vow and violated his vow, he is liable,

and with regard to

regarding

“he shall not profane

his word,” for he is obligated to fulfill what he vowed, and if he does not fulfill it, he violates [the prohibition],

one might have thought that he would be liable

also

for his consecration,

for if he consecrated something and misused it, he should be liable

[to bring] an offering

for misuse?

The verse therefore says: “This is the matter.”

Specifically, with regard to this matter stated in the passage of vows and oaths, the one who has reached the age immediately preceding adulthood was included, but not with regard to liability for an offering of misuse for consecration that a minor consecrated.

And Rav Huna bar Yehuda proves:

in any event, it teaches

in the beraita that a minor is considered like an adult

with

regard to

a vow and with

regard to

“he shall not profane,”

for

he is liable,

and he receives lashes if he violates them, and this is in accordance with Rav Huna.

The Gemara rejects this:

Say instead: [he is considered an adult] with regard to the prohibition of “he shall not profane.”

Indeed, there is proof from the beraita that he is subject to a prohibition, but there is no proof for Rav Huna’s statement that he receives lashes for the prohibition.

And the Gemara raises an objection: How can it be said that the intention of the beraita is only with regard to

the prohibition of “he shall not profane,”

and not with regard to lashes? But

in any event!? —

If one who has reached the age immediately preceding adulthood

his vows take effect

by Torah law,

and therefore there is a prohibition,

he should likewise receive lashes.

And if one who has reached the age immediately preceding adulthood is not [effective] by Torah law,

and there is only a rabbinic ordinance in the matter,

there is likewise no prohibition.

For the Rabbis did not institute an ordinance to impose liability on a minor, since a minor is not obligated to accept a rabbinic ordinance. Rather, they prohibited the object that the minor vowed or consecrated to other people, or to the minor himself after he grows up.

The Gemara answers:

For those who are warned concerning it.

Indeed, the minor himself has not violated a prohibition if he does not fulfill the vow. But there is a prohibition for the adults responsible for him, as they are obligated to prevent him from [violating] the prohibition.

And the Gemara is astonished at the answer: If so,

infer from this: [in the case of] a minor eating carrion,

the court is commanded to prevent him [from doing so]

and the same is true of other prohibitions! But this is the subject of a dispute in the Gemara [Yevamot 114a]!?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, there is both a prohibition and lashes. And the beraita is not speaking of the minor violating the vow, but rather

here, with what are we dealing? For example, that he consecrated it,

the minor,

and others ate it

—what the minor consecrated. And the others who eat receive lashes.

But the Gemara rejects this:

This works according to the one who says: He consecrated it,

the minor,

and others ate it; they receive lashes.

But according to the one who says that they do not receive lashes,

for the vows of a minor do not have the power, even if he has reached the age immediately preceding adulthood, to make an adult who violates the prohibition of his vow liable for lashes,

what is there to say?

How shall we explain the beraita?

For it was stated: [If] he consecrated it and others ate it, Rav Kahana said: They do not receive lashes; Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both said: They receive lashes.

And the Gemara answers: Rav Kahana, who holds that they do not receive lashes, holds that the vows of a minor take effect only

by rabbinic law, and the verse

that the beraita cited [which equated a minor with an adult] is

merely an asmachta.

The body of the matter: [If] he consecrated it and others ate it, Rav Kahana said: They do not receive lashes; Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both said: They receive lashes.

With regard to what do they disagree? One Master holds that one who has reached the age immediately preceding adulthood —

—

is [effective] by Torah law, and one Master holds that one who has reached the age immediately preceding adulthood —

—

is [effective] by rabbinic law.

Rav Yirmeya objected

from what we learned in a beraita:

An orphan girl

whom her mother and brothers married off [by rabbinic law],

who vowed

a vow,

her husband may annul it

as is the law with regard to every husband who can annul his wife’s vows.

And Rav Yirmeya proves:

If it is acceptable according to you

that the vows of

one who has reached the age immediately preceding adulthood

take effect only

by rabbinic law, the rabbinic marriage comes

[since the husband is considered a husband by rabbinic law],

and annuls a rabbinic vow.

For they said that the vow takes effect, and they said that her vow would be permitted if such a husband annulled it.

But if you say

that the vows of one who has reached the age immediately preceding adulthood are

by Torah law,

then is it possible that

a rabbinic marriage comes and annuls a Torah vow?

For by Torah law this husband is not her husband, and he has no power at all to annul [the vow], and the vow is a full-fledged vow; how can the Sages permit her to violate the vow?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Her husband may annul it in any event: If

the vow of this minor took effect

by rabbinic law —

it is rabbinic,

and the annulment of one who is considered her husband by rabbinic law is effective. And

if

the vow of this minor is a vow

by Torah law,

and the annulment of a rabbinic husband is not effective for it, there is likewise no concern that she will stumble [through violation], and this husband may annul it for her, since this minor

is “a minor eating carrion,” and the court is not commanded to prevent him

from eating carrion or from violating any other prohibition, and therefore they did not concern themselves that her husband might annul her vow, even though his annulment does not take effect by Torah law.

But the Gemara raises an objection: If the vow takes effect by Torah law, then indeed, while she is a minor the court is not commanded to prevent her, but

when she grows up, she will eat it

[she will continue to eat it and then violate the vow]

because of the initial annulment,

because of the husband’s earlier annulment, when she was a minor, and we must be concerned that she will then stumble through the sin of vows!

The Gemara answers:

Rabba bar Livai said: Her husband annuls it for her at every moment, provided that he has had intercourse

every day. Therefore, each day the vow is permitted to her in any event: If she is an adult, her husband has already acquired her that day through betrothal by intercourse, and her husband has become her husband by Torah law, and he has the power to annul her vow. And if today she is still a minor, we are not concerned that she will stumble, since in the case of a minor eating carrion, the court is not commanded to prevent him from violating a prohibition.

The Gemara rejects this:

But a husband does not annul

his wife’s vows

that preceded

[the vows that she vowed before he married her]! And if so, how can he annul the vows that she vowed when she was a minor, when she was married to him then only by rabbinic law, before he married her as an adult by Torah law?

The Gemara answers with a new answer as to why a husband by rabbinic law can annul a vow by Torah law:

In accordance with [the statement of] Rav Pinḥas in the name of Rava. For Rav Pinḥas said in the name of Rava: Every

married woman

who vows, vows with her husband’s consent.

Therefore, this minor who vowed made her vow only on the understanding that her husband would consent to the vow, and if her husband did not consent to the vow, the vow did not take effect at all. And since this is considered a condition that she vows on the understanding that “her husband” will consent to the vow, it does not matter to us if by Torah law he is not her husband but only by rabbinic law.

Abaye said: Come and hear

a proof against Rav Kahana from what we learned:

A minor who has not brought forth two pubic hairs,

and separated terumot and tithes —

Rabbi Yehuda says: His teruma is not

that of the minor

teruma.

Rabbi Yose says: Until he reaches the age of vows

[twelve years old and one day, when they examined him and he does not know how to distinguish [the details of] a vow],

his teruma is not teruma.

But

once he reaches the age of vows, his teruma is teruma.

And Abaye brings a proof from the words of Rabbi Yose:

They thought,

the members of the academy who wished to bring a proof from here against Rav Kahana thought,

Rabbi Yose holds that teruma nowadays

[after the Destruction]

is [required] by Torah law.

And if so,

if it is acceptable according to you that one who has reached the age immediately preceding adulthood

his vow and his consecration are

by Torah law, a person comes

whose teruma is effective

by Torah law, and rectifies untithed produce subject to Torah law,

for consecration, teruma, and a vow are one matter, as they all take effect through his speech.

But if you say

that his vow and consecration are effective only

by rabbinic law,

the difficulty arises: How does he separate teruma from untithed produce? Is it possible that

a person comes

whose acts take effect only

by rabbinic law, and rectifies untithed produce subject to Torah law?

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Rather,

Rabbi Yose holds that teruma nowadays is [required] by rabbinic law.

Therefore, one whose teruma is effective by rabbinic law can rectify untithed produce subject to rabbinic law.

The Gemara is astonished:

And

is it possible that

Rabbi Yose holds

that

teruma nowadays

its obligation is only

rabbinic?

But it was taught in Seder Olam:

it is stated,

“Which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess.”

And we derive that there are two inheritances:

the first inheritance and the second inheritance they have,

but

a third inheritance they do not have.

That is, the sanctity of the Land of Israel, which they sanctified when the Children of Israel conquered the land in the first inheritance [when they went up from Egypt], was nullified during the Babylonian exile. But what they conquered when they went up from Babylonia, and the land was sanctified a second time, this sanctity was not nullified with the Destruction of the Second Temple. Rather, even when the Messiah comes there will not be a third sanctity, because the sanctity continues at all times by virtue of what those who came up from Babylonia sanctified. And it is proven that even nowadays the sanctity of the Land is by Torah law.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Who is the tanna of Seder Olam? —

Rabbi Yose!

And if so, it is difficult: How can it be said that Rabbi Yose holds that the obligation of terumot and tithes nowadays is only rabbinic?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yose taught it

in Seder Olam in the name of another tanna,

and

he himself

does not hold of it

as the halakha.

This too stands to reason,

that Rabbi Yose does not hold that the halakha follows the tanna who holds that terumot and tithes nowadays are by Torah law,

as it was taught: Dough

of non-sacred produce

that became mixed

[became mixed]

or that became leavened with teruma leaven,