Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 45a

IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE. It was asked, Do the features of virginity⁶  disappear⁷  and reappear again⁸  or is it possible that they cannot be completely destroyed until after the third year of her age? In what practical respect could this matter? — In one, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with her before the age of⁹  three and found blood, and when he had intercourse after the age of three he found no blood. If you grant that they disappear and reappear again [it might well be assumed]¹⁰  that¹¹  there 'was not sufficient time for their reappearance, but if you maintain that they cannot be destroyed until after the age of three years it would be obvious that¹²  a stranger cohabited with her.¹³  Now what is your decision? — R. Hiyya son of R. Ika demurred: But who can tell us that a wound inflicted within the three years is not healed¹⁴  forthwith, seeing it is possible that it is immediately healed and it would thus be obvious¹²  that a stranger had cohabited with her?¹³  Rather the practical difference is the case, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with her while she was under¹⁵  three years of age and found blood and when he had intercourse after the age of three he also found blood. If you grant that the features disappear and reappear again the blood might well be treated as that of virginity, but if you maintain that they cannot be destroyed until after the age of three years, that¹⁶  must be the blood of menstruation. Now what is your decision? — R. Hisda replied, Come and hear: IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE; what need was there to state, LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE' instead of merely saying: IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE, INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS of no consequence'? Does not this then teach us that as the eye tears and tears again so do the features of virginity disappear and reappear again.

Our Rabbis taught: It is related of Justinia¹⁷  the daughter of 'Aseverus son of Antonius that she once appeared before Rabbi 'Master', she said to him, 'at what age may a woman marry?'. 'At the age of three years and one day', he told her. 'And at what age is she capable of conception?' 'At the age of twelve years and one day', he replied. 'I', she said to him, 'married at the age of six and bore a child at the age of seven; alas for the three years that I have lost at my father's house'. But can a woman conceive at the age of six years? Did not R. Bibi recite in the presence of R. Nahman: Three classes of woman may use an absorbent¹⁸  in their marital intercourse:¹⁹  A minor, and an expectant and a nursing mother. The minor,²⁰  because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother,²⁰  because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.²¹  A nursing mother,²⁰  because otherwise she might have to wean her child prematurely,²²  and this would result in his death. And what is the age of such a 'minor'?²³  From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under²⁴  or over this age²⁵  must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir. But the Sages ruled: The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in a normal manner and mercy²⁶  will be vouchsafed from heaven, for it is said in Scripture, The Lord preserveth the simple?²⁷  — If you wish I might reply: Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses.²⁸  And if you prefer I might reply: Whose mouth speaketh falsehood, and their right hand is a right hand of lying.²⁹

Our Rabbis taught: A story is told of a certain woman who came before R. Akiba and said to him, 'Master, intercourse has been forced upon me³⁰  when I was under³¹  three years of age; what is my position towards the priesthood?'³²  'You are fit for the priesthood',³³  he replied. 'Master', she continued, 'I will give you a comparison; to what may the incident be compared? To a babe whose finger was submerged³⁴  in honey. The first time and the second time he cries about it, but the third time he sucks it'.³⁵  'If so', he replied, 'you are unfit for the priesthood'.³⁶  Observing that the students were looking at each other,³⁷  he said to them, 'Why do you find the ruling difficult?'³⁸  'Because', they replied, 'as all the Torah is a tradition that was handed to Moses at Sinai so is the law that a girl under the age of three years³⁹  is fit for the priesthood one that was handed to Moses at Sinai'. R. Akiba too made his statement⁴⁰  only for the purpose of exercising the wits of⁴¹  the students.⁴²

MISHNAH. IF A BOY OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY COHABITED WITH HIS CHILDLESS BROTHER'S WIDOW, HE⁴³  ACQUIRES HER THEREBY,⁴⁴  BUT⁴⁵  HE CANNOT DIVORCE HER UNTIL HE ATTAINS HIS MAJORITY. HE CONTRACTS UNCLEANNESS THROUGH INTERCOURSE WITH A MENSTRUANT AND HE IN TURN CONVEYS THE SAME DEGREE OF UNCLEANNESS TO THAT UPON WHICH HE LIES AS [DOES A ZAB] TO THAT WHICH HAS LAIN UPON HIM.⁴⁶  HE⁴⁷  DISQUALIFIES A WOMAN FROM THE PRIESTHOOD,⁴⁸  BUT⁴⁹  CANNOT CONFER UPON ONE⁵⁰  THE RIGHT TO EAT TERUMAH.⁵¹  HE RENDERS A BEAST⁵²  INVALID FOR THE ALTAR, AND IT IS STONED ON HIS ACCOUNT.⁵³  IF HE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN DEGREES THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH, SHE IS TO BE EXECUTED ON HIS ACCOUNT, THOUGH HE⁵⁴  IS EXEMPT FROM PUNISHMENT.

GEMARA. But when HE ATTAINS HIS MAJORITY, is⁵⁵  a divorce alone sufficient? Was it not taught: The cohabitation of a boy of nine years⁵⁶  of age was given the same validity as that of a ma'amar⁵⁷  by an adult; as a ma'amar by an adult requires⁵⁸  a divorce in respect of his ma'amar and halizah in respect of his marital bond so does the cohabitation of a boy of nine years of age⁵⁶  require⁵⁸  a divorce in respect of his ma'amar⁵⁹  and halizah in respect of his marital bond?⁶⁰  — Rab replied: It is this that was meant:⁶¹

1. In the Baraitha just cited.
2. As evidenced by his ruling, 'Even one of the age of two years and one day'.
3. As R. Johanan submitted supra according to R. Meir.
4. Sc. the school of R. Jannai who submitted supra that even R. Meir does not regard the part of the third year as a full year.
5. Cf prev. n. but two.
6. Of one under three years of age.
7. As a result of intercourse.
8. Lit., 'going do they go and come'.
9. Lit., 'within'.
10. As a reason for the absence of blood.
11. Owing to his continued intercourse.
12. Lit., 'surely', since the husband found no traces of bleeding.
13. After she had attained the age of three. She would consequently be subjected to the disqualifications of a harlot.
14. Lit., 'returns'.
15. Lit., 'within'.
16. The blood found while she was under three.
17. For a different reading and a biographical note v. Golds.
18. Muk, flax or hackled wool.
19. To avoid conception.
20. Is permitted the use of the absorbent.
21. A fish-shaped abortion. Lit., 'flat-fish'.
22. On account of her second conception which causes the deterioration of her breast milk.
23. Of whom it has been said that she is capable of conception but is thereby exposed to fatal consequences.
24. When conception is impossible.
25. When conception involves no danger.
26. To protect them from harm.
27. Ps. CXVI, 6; sc. those who are unable to protect themselves. At any rate it was here stated that a minor under eleven years of age is incapable of conception. How then is Justinia's story to be reconciled with this statement?
28. Ezek. XXIII, 20.
29. Ps. CXLIV, 8.
30. By a disqualified person.
31. Lit., 'within'.
32. Sc. is she permitted to marry a priest?
33. Cf. prev. n.
34. Lit., 'they hid for him'.
35. Sc. he ultimately enjoyed the experience.
36. Cf. prev. n.
37. Amazed or perplexed.
38. Lit., 'why is the thing difficult in your eyes'.
39. Who had intercourse.
40. 'If so, you are unfit etc.'
41. Lit., 'to sharpen'.
42. By affording them the opportunity of questioning his ruling.
43. Since his marriage with the widow is Pentateuchally ordained.
44. And in consequence gains possession of his deceased brother's estate, though elsewhere a minor cannot acquire possession.
45. Since his deceased brother's marriage was fully valid and his own bond with the widow is consequently equally valid, while his divorce, being merely that of a minor, has no validity.
46. Lit., 'the lower couch as the upper'.
47. If he is a disqualified person, a bastard, for instance, or a slave.
48. If she was the daughter of a priest she loses her right to the eating of terumah.
49. Though a priest.
50. If, for instance, he had intercourse with his childless brother's widow.
51. Though he acquires her as his wife.
52. If he covered it, though his act was seen by one witness only.
53. If his act (cf. prev. n.) was observed by two witnesses.
54. On account of his minority.
55. As our Mishnah seems to imply.
56. And one day.
57. V. Glos.
58. If the parties have agreed upon a divorce.
59. Which corresponds to intercourse which is another form of kinyan (v. Glos.) Alfasi reads: in respect of his intercourse.
60. How then could it be ruled here that a divorce alone suffices?
61. By our Mishnah.

MISHNAH. THE VOWS OF A GIRL OF THE AGE OF ELEVEN YEARS AND ONE DAY MUST BE EXAMINED;³  THE VOWS OF ONE WHO IS OF THE AGE OF TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY ARE VALID;⁴  AND THROUGHOUT THE TWELFTH YEAR THEY ARE TO BE EXAMINED.³  THE VOWS OF A BOY OF THE AGE OF TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY MUST BE EXAMINED;⁵  THE VOWS OF ONE WHO IS OF THE AGE OF THIRTEEN YEARS AND ONE DAY ARE VALID; AND THROUGHOUT THE THIRTEENTH YEAR THEY ARE TO BE EXAMINED.⁵  PRIOR TO THIS AGE,⁶  EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID, 'WE KNOW IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR VOW' OR 'IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR DEDICATION', THEIR VOW⁷  IS NO VALID VOW AND THEIR DEDICATION IS NO VALID DEDICATION. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS AGE,⁸  EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID, 'WE DO NOT KNOW IN THE HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR VOW' OR 'IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR DEDICATION', THEIR VOW IS A VALID VOW AND THEIR DEDICATION IS A VALID DEDICATION.

GEMARA. But since it was stated, THE VOWS OF A GIRL OF THE AGE OF ELEVEN YEARS AND ONE DAY MUST BE EXAMINED,⁹  what need was there for stating, THE VOWS OF ONE WHO IS OF THE AGE OF TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY ARE VALID? — It might have been presumed that henceforth they must always be examined,¹⁰  hence we were informed that after the age of twelve years and a day the vows are invariably valid. But since it was stated, THE VOWS OF ONE WHO IS OF THE AGE OF TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY ARE VALID,¹¹  what need was there for stating, AND THROUGHOUT THE TWELFTH YEAR THEY ARE TO BE EXAMINED?¹²  — It might have been presumed that, since a Master has laid down that 'Thirty days of a year are counted as a full year', where we examined her vows during a period of thirty days¹³  and she knew not how to express their significance,¹⁴  no further examinations¹⁵  should be held¹⁶  hence we were informed that her vows are to be examined all through the twelfth year. Then let the last two cases be stated, THE VOWS OF ONE WHO IS OF THE AGE OF TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY ARE VALID, AND THROUGHOUT THE TWELFTH YEAR THEY ARE TO BE EXAMINED, but¹⁷  what was the need for the statement, THE VOWS OF A GIRL OF THE AGE OF ELEVEN YEARS AND ONE DAY MUST BE EXAMINED? — It was required: Since it might have been suggested that as a rule examination was necessary in the twelfth year and unnecessary in the eleventh year, but that where we see that the girl is particularly bright she might also be examined in the eleventh year,¹⁸  we were informed that the period of examination invariably begins at the age of eleven years and one day. What was the need¹⁹  for stating, PRIOR TO THIS AGE and SUBSEQUENT TO THIS AGE? — It might have been presumed that the previous rulings²⁰  applied only where the children themselves spontaneously say nothing²¹  but that where they do assert spontaneous opinion²²  we may rely upon them, hence we were informed that even their own assertions do not affect the age limits.

Our Rabbis taught: These²³  are the rulings of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated, The age limits that were assigned to the girl apply to the boy while those assigned to the boy apply to the girl.²⁴  R. Hisda stated: What is Rabbi's reason? Because it is written in Scripture, And the Lord God built²⁵  the rib²⁶  which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, endowed the woman with more understanding²⁷  than the man. And the other?²⁸  — He requires that text²⁵  for the same deduction as the one made by Resh Lakish, for Resh Lakish citing R. Simeon b. Menasya stated, And the lord God built the rib which he took from the man into a woman, and he brought her unto the man,²⁹  teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, plaited Eve's hair and then brought her to Adam, for in the sea-towns they describe net-work as binyatha.³⁰  But what is R. Simeon b. Eleazar's reason? — R. Samuel son of R. Isaac replied: As a boy frequents the house of his teacher his subtlety³¹  develops earlier.³²

It was asked: Is the intervening period³³  regarded as that of under, or of over age?³⁴  — In respect of what law could this matter: If in that of vows, it is neither regarded as that of under age nor as that of over age?³⁵  — Rather in respect of punishments.³⁶  Now what is the ruling? — Both Rab and R. Hanina replied: The intervening period is regarded as that of under age.³⁷  Both R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi replied: The intervening period is regarded as that of over age. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Your mnemonic³⁸  is: Now this was the custom in former time in Israel.³⁹

R. Hamnuna raised an objection:⁴⁰  SUBSEQUENT TO THIS AGE, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID, WE DO NOT KNOW IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR VOW' OR 'IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR DEDICATION' THEIR VOW IS A VALID VOW AND THEIR DEDICATION IS A VALID DEDICATION. Thus⁴¹  it follows, does it not, that the intervening period is regarded as that of under age? Said Raba to him, Read then the first clause: PRIOR TO THIS AGE, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID, 'WE KNEW IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR VOW' OR 'IN HONOUR OF WHOSE NAME WE HAVE MADE OUR DEDICATION', THEIR VOW IS NO VALID VOW AND THEIR DEDICATION IS NO VALID DEDICATION. Thus⁴²  it follows, does it not, that the intervening period is regarded as that of over age? — This, however, is no argument, Raba having laboured under a misapprehension. He thought that R. Hamnuna drew his inference from a Mishnah redundancy,⁴³  [hence he argued that] instead of drawing an inference from the final clause he might as well have drawn one from the first clause; but this was not the case. R. Hamnuna in fact drew his inference from the very wording⁴⁴  of our Mishnah. How [he reasoned] is one to understand the expression of 'SUBSEQUENT TO THAT AGE'? If by that time one had not yet grown two hairs, one would, surely, still be a minor.⁴⁵  Consequently it must refer to one who had grown two hairs,

1. Thus, being of age, affecting valid kinyan of marriage.
2. Being now in all respects her lawful husband, halizah is no longer necessary.
3. To ascertain whether the girl was aware of their significance.
4. No examination being necessary.
5. Cf. prev. n. but one, mut. mut.
6. The first day of the twelfth year in the case of a girl and the first day of the thirteenth year in that of a boy.
7. Since they are still minors.
8. Twelve years and a day in the case of a girl and thirteen years and a day in that of a boy when they respectively attain their majority.
9. From which it might well be inferred that at a later age her vows are valid and no examination is necessary.
10. And that the age of eleven years and one day is only the limit below which even an examination does not establish the validity of a vow.
11. And it has previously been stated that from the age of eleven years and one day vows must be examined.
12. A ruling which evidently follows (cf. prev. n.) from the previous statements.
13. The first of the twelfth year.
14. Thus revealing her mental incapacity.
15. During the remaining months of that year.
16. On the assumption that the examinations during the thirty days have established for the rest of that year that her mental state was that of a minor.
17. In view of the explicit statement that examinations are conducted throughout the twelfth year.
18. And if she shows sufficient mental development her vows are valid even at that early age.
19. In view of the earlier statements.
20. On the limits of minority and majority.
21. Sc. they do not claim 'we know' when they are under the age limit or 'we do not know' when they are above the limit.
22. Cf. Prev. n. mut. mut.
23. The statements on the respective age limits of a boy and a girl, according to which the latter matures earlier than the former.
24. The boy, in his opinion, maturing earlier.
25. Wa-yiben.
26. Gen. II, 22. E.V., And the rib… made He.
27. Binah, of a root that is analogous to that of wa-yiben (prev. n. but one).
28. R. Simeon b. Eleazar; how in view of this deduction can he maintain his view?
29. Gen. II, 22. E.V., And the rib … made He.
30. 'Building'.
31. Or 'shrewdness'.
32. Lit., 'enters into him first'.
33. From the age of eleven years and a day to that of twelve years and a day and from twelve years and a day to thirteen years and a day in the case of a girl and a boy respectively.
34. Lit., 'as before time or as after time'.
35. As stated supra.
36. And in the case where the boy or the girl had grown two pubic hairs. In the absence of these, even one of age is exempt from punishments.
37. And exempt from punishment.
38. An aid to the recollection of the respective authorship of the two views just expressed.
39. R. Joshua b. Levi was a Levite, whilst Rab and R. Hanina were Israelites; and those who were 'in Israel' (Israelites) gave former time' which recalls 'before time' ('under age') as their ruling (Tosaf. Asheri).
40. Against R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi.
41. Emphasizing SUBSEQUENT.
42. Emphasis on PRIOR.
43. Sc. the apparent superfluity of the rulings PRIOR TO THIS AGE etc. and SUBSEQUENT TO etc. discussed and explained supra.
44. Lit., 'from the body'.
45. How then could it be ruled, THEIR VOW IS VALID etc.