## Niddah Daf 32a

###### Niddah 32a:1
[Niddah 32a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:1)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: קָטָן וּקְטַנָּה לֹא חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **It is Rabbi Meir, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **A minor boy and a minor girl may not perform the ritual through which a *yavam* frees a *yevama* of her levirate bonds [*ḥalitza*], nor may they enter into levirate marriage.** In other words, a minor boy whose brother died childless may not perform *ḥalitza* with his brother’s widow, nor may he enter into levirate marriage with her, even if she is an adult. Likewise, a minor girl whose husband died childless may not perform *ḥalitza* with her husband’s brother, nor may she enter into levirate marriage with him, even if he is an adult. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Niddah 32a:2
[Niddah 32a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:2)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: יָפֶה אָמַרְתָּ שֶׁאֵין חוֹלְצִין, ״אִישׁ״ כָּתוּב בַּפָּרָשָׁה, וּמַקְּשִׁינַן אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ. וּמָה טַעַם אֵין מְיַבְּמִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to Rabbi Meir: You have aptly stated that they may not perform *ḥalitza*,** since **“man” is written in the passage** of the Torah discussing *ḥalitza* (Deuteronomy 25:7), **and we compare a woman to a man,** as the aforementioned verse states: “And if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife.” Consequently, neither a minor boy nor a minor girl may perform *ḥalitza*. **But what is the reason** that **they may not enter into levirate marriage?**


###### Niddah 32a:3
[Niddah 32a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:3)

אָמַר לָהֶן: קָטָן — שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא סָרִיס, קְטַנָּה — שֶׁמָּא תִּמָּצֵא אַיְלוֹנִית, וְנִמְצְאוּ פּוֹגְעִין בְּעֶרְוָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Meir **said to them: A minor boy** may not enter into levirate marriage **lest,** once he is older, **he be found** to be **a sexually underdeveloped man,** who is incapable of fathering children. Likewise, **a minor girl** may not enter into levirate marriage **lest,** once she is older, **she be found** to be **a sexually underdeveloped woman. And** if a sexually underdeveloped boy or girl enters into levirate marriage **they will be found** to be **infringing upon** prohibitions against **forbidden sexual intercourse where no mitzva applies,** as the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to bear children in the name of the deceased.


###### Niddah 32a:4
[Niddah 32a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:4)

וְרַבָּנַן? זִיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִּקְטַנִּים, וְרוֹב קְטַנִּים לָאו סָרִיסִים נִינְהוּ; זִיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִּקְטַנּוֹת, וְרוֹב קְטַנּוֹת לָאו אַיְלוֹנִיּוֹת נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And the Rabbis** maintain that one **follows the majority of minor boys, and most minor boys are not** going to be **sexually underdeveloped men;** likewise, one **follows the majority of** minor girls, **and most** minor girls **are not** going to be **sexually underdeveloped women.** In any event, the *baraita* indicates that Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority.


###### Niddah 32a:5
[Niddah 32a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:5)

אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִיעוּטָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ, אֲבָל מִיעוּטָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ — מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: You can **say that you heard that Rabbi Meir** is concerned for **a common minority,** e.g., the minority of sexually underdeveloped men and sexually underdeveloped women. **But did you hear him** say that one is concerned for **an uncommon minority,** such as the minority of young girls who menstruate?


###### Niddah 32a:6
[Niddah 32a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:6)

הָא נָמֵי מִיעוּטָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעֵין בּוּל וְהִטְבִּילוּהָ קוֹדֶם לְאִמָּהּ, וְאָמַר רַבִּי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֵית שְׁעָרִים וְהִטְבִּילוּהָ קוֹדֶם לְאִמָּהּ. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא וְהִטְבִּילוּהָ קוֹדֶם לְאִמָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **This** minority of young girls who menstruate **is also a common minority. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei said:** There was **an incident in** the town of **Ein Bul** where **they immersed** a baby girl in a ritual bath **before her mother.** In other words, the baby girl experienced bleeding so soon after birth that her immersion in a ritual bath occurred before her mother immersed fourteen days after giving birth. **And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi likewise **said:** There was **an incident in Beit She’arim** where **they immersed** a baby girl **before her mother. And Rav Yosef said:** There was **an incident in Pumbedita** where **they immersed** a baby girl **before her mother.**


###### Niddah 32a:7
[Niddah 32a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:7)

בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וּדְרַבִּי — מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמַת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְמָה לִי? וְהָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין תְּרוּמַת חוּץ לָאָרֶץ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁטּוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה מִגּוּפוֹ, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בַּאֲכִילָה, אֲבָל בִּנְגִיעָה לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** the immersions reported **by Rabbi Yosei and by Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi are understandable, **due to the *teruma* of Eretz Yisrael,** i.e., these incidents occurred in Eretz Yisrael, where the touch of a menstruating girl disqualifies *teruma*. **But** in the incident reported **by Rav Yosef,** which occurred in Babylonia, **why do I** need to immerse the baby girl? **But doesn’t Shmuel say:** The ***teruma* of outside of Eretz Yisrael is prohibited only to one whose impurity** is due to **an emission from his body,** e.g., a menstruating woman, or one who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [*zav*]. **And this statement** applies only **with regard to eating** *teruma*, **but with regard to touching** *teruma*, there is **no** prohibition. Since the touch of a menstruating woman does not disqualify *teruma* outside Eretz Yisrael, why was it necessary to immerse the baby girl in the incident reported by Rav Yosef?


###### Niddah 32a:8
[Niddah 32a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:8)

אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְסוּכָהּ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסָּךְ וְאֶת הַשּׁוֹתֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra says:** That immersion **was necessary only for smearing oil of *teruma*** of outside of Eretz Yisrael. Since smearing is equivalent to eating, it would have been prohibited to smear such oil on the baby girl, were it not for her immersion in a ritual bath. And from where is it derived that smearing is like eating with regard to *teruma*? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse discussing the prohibition against consuming *teruma* in a state of ritual impurity states: **“And they shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they set apart for the Lord”** (Leviticus 22:15). The verse serves **to include** in this prohibition **one who smears and one who drinks.**


###### Niddah 32a:9
[Niddah 32a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:9)

שׁוֹתָה לְמָה לִי קְרָא? שְׁתִיָּה בִּכְלַל אֲכִילָה! אֶלָּא, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסָּךְ כַּשּׁוֹתֶה. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״וַתָּבֹא כַמַּיִם בְּקִרְבּוֹ וְכַשֶּׁמֶן בְּעַצְמוֹתָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Mar Zutra continues: **Why do I** need **a verse** to teach that one who **drinks** *teruma* in a state of impurity is liable? Isn’t **drinking included** in the category of **eating? Rather,** the *baraita* means that the verse serves **to include one who smears,** teaching that he is **like one who drinks. And if you wish, say** that one may derive that smearing is like drinking **from here: “And it came into his innards like water, and like oil into his bones”** (Psalms 109:18).


###### Niddah 32a:10
[Niddah 32a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:10)

אִי הָכִי דִּידַן נָמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As it stands, the *halakha* that Samaritan girls are considered menstruating women from the time they lie in their cradle is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is concerned for the minority of young girls who menstruate. The Gemara objects: **If so,** let us be concerned for the same minority with regard to **our** girls **as well.**


###### Niddah 32a:11
[Niddah 32a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:11)

אֲנַן, דְּדָרְשִׁינַן ״אִשָּׁה״ ״וְאִשָּׁה״, וְכִי חָזְיָין (מפרשי) [מַפְרְשִׁינַן] לְהוּ — לָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן. אִינְהוּ דְּלָא דָּרְשִׁי ״אִשָּׁה״ ״וְאִשָּׁה״, וְכִי חָזְיָין לָא מַפְרְשִׁי לְהוּ — גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: There is no need to be concerned with regard to **our** young girls, **as we interpret** the verse: “And if a woman has an issue” (Leviticus 15:19), and derive from the fact that the verse does not merely state: **“A woman,”** but: **“And** if **a woman,”** that even minor girls are included in the *halakhot* of a menstruating woman. **And** consequently, **when** our girls **see** menstrual blood, **we separate them** in the manner of all menstruating women. Therefore, **the Sages did not decree with regard to them** that all young Jewish girls assume the status of menstruating women. By contrast, with regard to **them,** Samaritans, **who do not interpret** the difference between **“a woman”** and **“and** if **a woman,” when** their girls **see** menstrual blood **they do not separate them,** and therefore **the Sages decreed with regard to them** that all Samaritan girls assume the status of menstruating women.


###### Niddah 32a:12
[Niddah 32a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:12)

מַאי ״אִשָּׁה״ ״וְאִשָּׁה״? דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִשָּׁה״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, תִּינוֹקֶת בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד לְנִדָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִשָּׁה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **What** is this interpretation of the difference between **“a woman”** and **“and** if **a woman”? As it is taught** in a *baraita* that from **“a woman” I have** derived **only** that the *halakhot* of menstruation apply to an adult **woman. From where** do I derive **that** the *halakhot* of **a menstruating woman** also apply to **a one-day-old girl? The verse states: “And** if **a woman.”**


###### Niddah 32a:13
[Niddah 32a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:13)

אַלְמָא, כִּי מְרַבֵּי קְרָא בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד מְרַבֵּי, וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״אִשָּׁה״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, תִּינוֹקֶת בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד לְבִיאָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִשָּׁה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Apparently, when the verse includes** young girls through the word “and” it **includes** even **a one-day-old. But** you can **raise a contradiction** from another *baraita*, which discusses the verse: “And the woman with whom a man shall lie carnally, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:18). From the word **“woman” I have** derived **only** that the sexual intercourse of an adult **woman** is considered intercourse that renders her impure. **From where** do I derive that the **sexual intercourse of a girl aged three years and one day** is also classified as intercourse? **The verse states: And the woman.** Evidently, the word “and” includes only a girl aged three years and one day.


###### Niddah 32a:14
[Niddah 32a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:14)

אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא נִינְהוּ, וְאַסְמְכִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן אַקְּרָאֵי. הֵי קְרָא וְהֵי הִלְכְתָא? אִילֵּימָא בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא, קְרָא סְתָמָא כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: These are *halakhot*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai, **and the Sages** merely **supported them with verses.** There is therefore no contradiction. The Gemara asks: **Which** *halakha* is derived from **a verse and which** is **a *halakha*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai? **If we say** that the *halakha* that the status of a menstruating woman may apply to **a one-day-old** girl is **a *halakha*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the *halakha* that the intercourse of a girl **aged three years and one day** is considered intercourse is derived from **a verse,** then one may object: But **the verse is written** in **an unspecified** manner; consequently, a one-day-old girl should be included by the verse in the same manner as a three-year-old girl.


###### Niddah 32a:15
[Niddah 32a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/32a:15)

אֶלָּא בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — הִלְכְתָא, בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד — קְרָא, וּמֵאַחַר דְּהִלְכְתָא, קְרָא לָמָּה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *halakha* with regard to the intercourse of a girl **aged three years and one day** is **a *halakha*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai, whereas the *halakha* with regard to the menstruation of **a one-day-old** girl is derived from **a verse.** The Gemara asks: **And now that** it has been established that the *halakha* with regard to the intercourse of a three-year-old girl is **a *halakha*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai, **why do I** need **a verse?**