(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 45



(a) A girl under three sees blood, and then, after she has turned three, there is none. Now if we say that there *is* Dam Besulim before she turns three, and that it comes back afterwards, then we can ascribe the reason for the absence of Dam Besulim after she turns three, to the slow return of blood after her body change. But if a girl of under three has no Dam Besulim, in which case the blood that she saw before, must have been other blood (e.g. of a wound), then we have no option but to assume that the absence of Dam Besulim is due to the fact that she was 'raped' by someone else, in which case, she will be forbidden to eat Terumah (should she be a Bas Kohen (Tosfos. Rashi explains that she is a Zonah and is therefore forbidden to marry a Kohen, but it is not clear why, since we do not have any reason to assume that she was 'raped' - 'Pituy Ketanah O'nes Hu', see Tosfos d.h. 'Acher' - by someone who is forbidden to her; unless she became betrothed the moment she turned three, and then on her wedding night, she is found to have no Dam Besulim, in which case, she must have been 'raped' during her betrothal period.)

(b) The Gemara however, rejects this explanation, because, who says that the Dam Besulim does not return immediately - even according to the first side of the Sha'aleh, which assumes that it is there before, but returns after she turns three. Who says that the blood delays in returning? Consequently, she will be forbidden to eat Terumah (and, according to Rashi, be termed a Zonah), either way?

(c) The Gemara therefore, concludes, that the difference between the two sides of the Sha'aleh will be even in a case when she saw blood before she turned three, and also afterwards. According to the side that Dam Besulim *is* there already before she turns three, then we assume the blood that she saw beforehand to be Dam Besulim (which means that she was Tehorah at the time); whereas according to the other side of the Sha'aleh, there is no Dam Besulim before three years old, and the blood that she saw must therefore have been Dam Nidus, and she was then Temei'ah.

(d) From the fact that our Mishnah describes the situation of a girl under three who is 'raped' a number of times as 'similar to putting a finger in one's eye' (where tears come out each time), rather than just saying that 'before three it is not a Bi'ah', proves that there *is* blood before she turns three, and that it flows again after she turns three - like tears.

(a) A Ketanah of at least eleven should use a Moch - a cloth to wipe away the Zera after Tashmish - (in case she becomes pregnant, and dies); a pregnant woman (in case the new fetus turns the original one into a Sandel), and a feeding mother (in case she weans her baby - thereby causing his death - in order to accommodate the new fetus).

(b) The Chachamim forbid the using of a Moch; they maintain that she should continue with Tashmish as normal, and "Shomer Pesa'im Hashem" (Hashem guards the fools.

(c) In any event, we see from Rebbi Meir that a girl under eleven cannot become pregnant, so how could Yusteni claim to have been pregnant at the age of six?

(d) Either the sexual organs of gentiles function differently, so that they are able to have children at an earlier age, or else gentiles tend to lie, in which case, Yusteni's testimony could not be trusted.

(a) The woman believed that she was Pesulah li'Kehunah because, although initially, she found it unpleasant, after a while, she began to enjoy it.

(b) Rebbi Akiva then replied that, in that case, she was forbidden to Kehunah. However, he only said that, in order to test the reactions of his disciples, since below the age of three, a girl does not become Pasul li'Kehunah, whether she enjoys the Bi'ah, or not.

(a) The Bi'ah of a boy is considered a Bi'ah from the age nine, which means that, although, under normal circumstances, he cannot acquire, he does acquire his Yevamah, who becomes his wife, as a result of which, he automatically inherits the property of his deceased brother.

(b) He cannot however, divorce her until he becomes Bar-Mitzvah, at thirteen (and the same applies to making Chalitzah with her, should he not wish to make Yibum).

(c) By 'u'Poseil', the Mishnah means to say, that if the nine-year old happened to be a Kuti or a Mamzer, for example, then he would invalidate the woman with whom he had relations from marrying a Kohen.
It cannot mean that, if he is a Yisrael and she a Bas Kohen, he invalidates her from eating Terumah, because only *the marriage* of a Bas Kohen to a Yisrael prohibits her from eating Terumah, not just intimacy with him. And even if he were to betroth her, he would not prohibit her from eating Terumah, since the Kidushin of a nine-year old is invalid.

(d) 'Eino Ma'achil bi'Terumah' means that, if he is Kohen and she a Bas Yisrael, he does cannot feed her Terumah - even if she is his Yevamah.

(a) If a nine-year old has relations with an animal, and there is only one witness or the owner alone saw what transpired, then the animal, which is permitted to a Hedyot, is forbidden to be brought as a Korban.

(b) How can a Get be sufficient, in the case of a nine-year old who made Yibum? The Rabbanan gave the Bi'ah of a nine-year old with a Yevamah the Din of Ma'amar (the Kidushin de'Rabbanan of a Yavam), which is a prelude to Yibum, but does not remove the Zikah (the tie with the Yevamah); in which case, Chalitzah will still be required together with the Get, in order to remove the Zikah?

(c) The Gemara therefore explains that, what our Mishnah means is that, when he grows up and is intimate with her (which effectively means Yibum), then he must give her a Get, should he decide to divorce her.




(a) If an eleven-year old girl makes a vow, we first question her to see whether she knows in whose name she is making the vow (to see if she realizes the significance of her vow). Only if she does, is her vow valid. Whereas once she has turned twelve (assuming that she has also grown two hairs) her vows are valid whether she understands or not.

(b) Exactly the same applies to a boy, but by him, the ages are twelve and thirteen.

(c) Before eleven by a girl, and twelve by a boy, Nedarim are not valid, whether they realize the significance of the vow or not.

(a) We may have thought that, once a girl reaches the age of eleven, we always examine her, even after she passes the age of Bas-Mitzvah. That is why the Mishnah needs to write 'Bas Shteim-Esrei etc....Nedareha Kayamin.'

(b) We might perhaps have thought, that once thirty days of her twelfth year have passed, and she has shown that she does not understand the significance of her vows, we can work on that assumption for the rest of the year (according to those who maintain that thirty days in the year are counted as one year); Consequently, we will not need to examine her, and her Nedarim will automatically be invalid, until she turns Bas-Mitzvah. Therefore, the Mishnah adds 'u'Bodkin *Kol* Shteim-Esrei'.

(c) If not for 'Achas-Esrei ve'Yom Echad, Nedareha Nivdakin', we would have thought that a Stam twelve-year old old girl needs questioning, and an eleven-year old, only if she is particularly bright.

(d) We would have said that, although we do not question a girl under eleven, but assume that she does *not* understand the significance of her Nedarim; and likewise do we not question a girl over twelve, but assume that she *does* understand, that is only to say that that is what we assume. But, if a ten-year old girl demonstrates of her own accord that she *does* understand the significance of a Neder, or if a girl of over twelve demonstrates that she does *not*, then perhaps the Nedarim of the former would be valid, and those of the latter invalid.
Therefore, the Mishnah adds 'Kodem la'Zeman ha'Zeh, Af al Pi she'Amru Yod'in' etc. ... 'le'Achar ha'Zeman ha'Zeh, Af al Pi she'Amru, Ein Anu Yod'in' etc., to stress that Nedarim of a girl under the age of eleven and those a girl over the age of twelve, are not subject to their understanding at all.

(a) Rebbi learns that a girl matures first, from the Pasuk in Bereishis, which writes "*va'Yiven* Hashem Elokim es ha'Tzeila", from which Rebbi derives that Hashem blessed a woman with more understanding (*Binah* Yeseira) than a man.

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar changes the order. According to him, it is the boy who is examined at age eleven, and his Nedarim which are valid in any case at twelve; Whereas by a girl, the ages are twelve and thirteen (Presumably, he will also argue about the ages of Bar and Bas Mitzvah). His reason is because, in his opinion, a boy naturally matures first, since he learns Torah by his Rebbe (in Cheder), and Torah brings with it wisdom.

(c) From "va'Yiven Elokim" etc., Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon learns that Hashem platted Chavah (because overseas, they call plats 'Binyasa'). (Perhaps he means to say that he formed her hair into plats - he gave her a hair-do, before bringing her to Adam for the Chupah).

(a) The Sha'aleh is whether, if the twelve-year old boy( or the eleven-year old girl) brought two hairs during the transition year, are they considered to be moles, and therefore it is as if he had brought them *before* the time (and he remains a Katan) or *after* (in which case he will be considered a Gadol); the Sha'aleh concerns 'punishments': e.g. whether he is fit to make Chalitzah, and regarding the validity of his Kidushin and his Nedarim (the latter even without examination) - Tosfos d.h. 'Ela'.
The Sha'aleh does not pertain to a 'Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish' who did *not* bring two hairs, and whose Din has already been clarified earlier.

(b) Rebbi Chanina's name sounds feminine, and Rebbi Chanina (together with Rav) is the one who holds 'Toch ha'Zeman, *ke'Lifnei* ha'Zeman'. They therefore gave a Si'man (a way of remembering who holds this opinion) through the Pasuk "ve'Zos (which is feminine) *Lefanim* be'Yisrael".

(c) Rava, believing that Rav Hamnuna's proof is based on the implication of the Mishnah, argues that, just as Rav Hamnuna inferred from the Mishnah (which writes that, after they pass the age, even if they say that they do *not* understand the significance of the Neder, the Neder nevertheless stands) that during the period of Mufleh ha'Samuch le'Ish, the Neder is *not* effective (because 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'Lifnei ha'Zeman'); so too, can one infer from the Reisha (which writes that before the time - eleven by a girl, and twelve by a boy), even though they claim that they *do* understand etc., the Neder is not valid) that during the time (Toch ha'Zeman), their Neder *will* be effective (because 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'le'Achar ha'Zeman').

(d) Rava's mistake lay in the fact that Rav Hamnuna's proof was not from the implication of the Mishnah, because of it being superfluous (in which case, one could just as well infer from the Reisha as from the Seifa, as Rava asked), but from the Lashon of the Mishnah itself.
'le'Achar ha'Zeman' of the Seifa can only speak when he brought two hairs, since otherwise, he would be a Katan. Yet the only reason that his Neder is valid, even though he does not understand the significance of the Neder, is because he is over thirteen (or twelve by a girl). But if he would be under thirteen (even though he brought two hairs), his Neder would not be valid (because 'Toch ha'Zeman ke'Lifneni ha'Zeman').

(e) The Beraisa, commenting on the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yafli li'Nedor Neder", writes that "Ish" comes to include a thirteen-year old boy, whose Nedarim will be valid even if he does not know the significance of his Nedarim. Now the Beraisa too, must be speaking when he brought two hairs, otherwise he would be a Katan. Clearly, only at thirteen, are his Nedarim valid even if he does not understand etc., but not when he is twelve (Toch Zemano). So we see that, according to the Beraisa, 'Toch Zemano' ke'Lifnei Zemano'.

Next daf


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