(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nidah 44



(a) We learn that a girl can become a Nidah as soon as she is born from the extra 'Vav' in "ve'Ishah", in the Parshah of Nidus, and that she can become a Zavah after ten days, from the extra 'Vav' in "ve'Ishah" in the Parshah of Zavah.

(b) "la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah" (written by Zav) implies even a child, (presumably, since the Torah did not write "Ish").

(c) According to Rebbi Yishmael Be'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, "Ish Ish" is no more than a manner of speech ('Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon Benei Adam').

(a) From "Adam" - written in connection with Nega'im (Tzara'as), we learn that even a small child of one day old is also included in the Parshah of Nega'im.

(b) And exactly the same Limud is learnt from "ve'Al ha'Nefashos Asher Hayu Sham" regarding Tum'as Meis; namely, that even a small baby can become Tamei Meis.

(a) If a baby is born before his brother dies, then, even if he is only one day old at the time, the widow is a Shomeres Yavam, and is obligated to wait for the baby to grow up, to make either Yibum (from the age of nine), or Chalitzah (from when he turns Bar-Mitzvah).
But if he is born only after his brother's death, then the widow is permitted to get married immediately (mi'd'Oraysa), because she is an 'Eishes Ach she'Lo Hayah be'Olamo', to whom she is forbidden min ha'Torah.

(b) "u'Vein Ein Lo" - as long as the deceaced leaves no son, his wife is obligated to make Yibum or Chalitzah; but if he leaves a son, she is Peturah from Yibum, irrespective of age.

(a) "And those who are born in his house (his sons) they shall eat his bread `"(Terumah). Chazal interpret this to mean not "Yochlu" (they shall eat), but "Ya'achilu" (they shall feed), which teaches us that his sons, of whatever age, feed his wife (their mother - who is a Bas Yisrael) Terumah.

(b) Had the Torah written only "ve'Zera Ein Lah", we would have said that if she has a child, the Bas Kohen is forbidden to eat Terumah because before they were only one body, and now they are two - in other words, her son prohibits her from eating Terumah since he became a separate entity, who is a Yisrael; but as long as he is part of the same body, he will not forbid her to return to her father's house to eat Terumah. Therefore, the Torah writes "ki'Ne'ureha".
On the other hand, had the Torah written only "ki'Ne'ureha", we would have said the opposite: namely, that she is forbidden to eat Terumah on account of the fetus inside her, because her body changed, from a thin one to a fat one; that is why she may not eat Terumah, But if the baby was actually born, when her body reverts to what it was before, then perhaps she also reverts to her original Heter, and will therefore be permitted to return to her father's house to eat Terumah. Therefore the Torah writes "ve'Zera Ein Lah".

(c) When our Mishnah writes that a one-day old baby invalidates from eating Terumah, it is not referring to invalidating the woman, who has been Pasul ever since she knew that she was pregnant.
The Mishnah is speaking in a case when the deceased Kohen left sons from a regular wife (who would normally feed their slaves Terumah); but he also left a divorced woman whom he married be'Isur, and from whom he had a one day old baby. The Mishnah comes to invalidate the Kohen's slaves from eating on account of the born baby (since we do not yet know to whom the slaves belong).

(d) The Chidush is that we do not hold like Rebbi Yossi, according to whom even the fetus prohibits the slave from eating Terumah, because in his opinion, even a fetus inherits a portion of the father's property, including the slaves. And he also holds that a fetus in the body of a Zarah (a non-Kohen) is a Zar.

(a) Simply understood, 'Nochel u'Manchil' means that the fetus inherits from his father, and, should he die, he passes the inheritance on to his brothers. But why should his brothers need to come onto him? They will inherit directly from their father with or without him?

(b) Therefore it must mean that he inherits from his mother, to pass it on to his paternal half-brothers (since without him, they would not have inherited anything from their half-brother's mother).

(c) This could not apply to a fetus, because, had the mother died, then the fetus would have died first.

(d) A fetus can convulse as many times as it likes, that does not mean that it is alive, any more than a lizard's tail, which threshes violently after it has been severed.




(a) According to Rava, 'Nochel u'Manchil' means that, should the baby die, he inherits from his father to pass on to all the brothers equally. This means that the first-born loses part of the Bechorah, which he would otherwise have inherited.
For example, if the father left 1200 Shekel, then, if there were only two sons, the Pashut would receive 400 Sh., and the Bechor 800. Now that there is also a day-old baby, the two Peshutim each receive 300 Sh., and the Bechor 600.
Should the baby die (as in our case), then his portion is shared equally by the Bechor and the Pashut, so that the Pashut now recieves 450, and the Bechor, 750.

(b) "ve'Yaldu Lo" teaches us that it is only a baby who was actually born whilst the father was alive who reduces the Bechor's portion, but not a fetus who was born only after the father has died.

(c) A Bechor who is born after his father's death does not take the double portion due to a Bechor. This we learn from "Yakir" - that the father must recognize the Bechor.

(d) It is possible for a first-born to be born after his father's death, either if he died leaving his wife pregnant with twins, or if a man's two wives were both pregnant when he died.

(a) We learn from "ve'Ish Ki Yakeh *Kol Nefesh* Adam", that one is Chayav Misah even for the murder of a Katan.

(b) When the Mishnah writes that a one-day old baby is like a complete Chasan to his relatives, it means that they are obligated to mourn for him.

(c) Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that a baby that does not survive thirty days is a Safek Nefel, only speaks when we not sure that it was a ninth month baby, but our Mishnah is speaking when we *do*.

(a) If a man betroths a girl of three, his Kidushin is valid, and she has all the Dinim of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (provided her father gave his consent).
If a man makes Yibum with a girl of three, she becomes his wife in all regards, and will only leave his jurisdiction by means of a Get And if a man commits adultery with a married girl of three, he is Chayav either Chenek (strangulation), or Kares or a Chatas, depending on the circumstances.

(b) If a man is Bo'el a girl of three when she is a Nidah, he becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah for seven days, even to render Tamei the sheet on which he subsequently lies, making it the same degree of Tum'ah as the top cover of a Zav, which is Metamei food and drink, but not people and vessels.
Had the girl been under three, he would only be Tamei for touching a Nidah, making him a Rishon le'Tum'ah until nightfall.

(c) If any man who is Pasul has relations with a Bas Kohen, whether it is a gentile, a slave or a Chalal etc., she becomes forbidden to eat Terumah.

9) If a relative commits incest with a three=year old girl, he is Chayav Kares or even Misah, when it is appropriate, whereas she is Peturah.


(a) By three and a day, the Chachamim mean three full years to the day.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that, according to Rebbi Meir, a girl becomes a Bas Bi'ah after two years and one month, since he holds that one month in a year is considered like a year (according to Yanai, Rebbi Meir holds that a part of the (last) day (of the third year) is considered a full day.

(c) The Beraisa which considers one day in the year to be like a year (according to Rebbi Meir), is not a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan, because just as this Tana applies the Sevara that one day in the year is considered to be a year to Rebbi Meir, so we can also apply the Sevara of those who hold that one month in the year is considered to be a year to Rebbi Meir (since Rebbi Meir's reasoning is the same). But Rebbi Yanai (who learns that Rebbi Meir's reasoning to be because we say on the last day 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo'), does not conform with the reasoning of the Beraisa. *He* will have difficulty in explaining the Beraisa.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,