## Niddah Daf 44a

###### Niddah 44a:1
[Niddah 44a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:1)

וְנוֹחֵל וּמַנְחִיל, וְהַהוֹרְגוֹ חַיָּיב, וַהֲרֵי הוּא לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ וּלְכׇל קְרוֹבָיו כְּחָתָן שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and he inherits** the estate of his mother if she died on the day of his birth; **and** if he dies, **he bequeaths** that inheritance to his paternal brothers; **and one who kills him is liable** for his murder, as it is written: “And he that smites any man mortally shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:17), i.e., any man, including a child who is one day old; **and** if he dies, **his** status in relation **to his father and to his mother and to all his relatives,** in terms of the *halakhot* of mourning, is **like** that of **a full-fledged groom [*keḥatan shalem*],** whose death is deeply mourned.


###### Niddah 44a:2
[Niddah 44a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:2)

**גְּמָ'** מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִשָּׁה״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, בַּת יוֹם אֶחָד לְנִדָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִשָּׁה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **From where is this matter,** that the *halakhot* of menstruation apply even to a one-day-old baby girl, derived? **As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days” (Leviticus 15:19). When the verse states **“a woman,” I have** derived **only** that the *halakhot* of menstruation apply to an adult **woman. From where** do I derive that the impurity **of a menstruating woman** also applies to **a one-day-old** baby? **The verse states: “And a woman,”** to include even a baby girl.


###### Niddah 44a:3
[Niddah 44a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:3)

בַּת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים לְזִיבָה — מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִשָּׁה״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִשָּׁה, בַּת עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים לְזִיבָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִשָּׁה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches that a baby girl who is **ten days old** who experiences an emission of blood for three consecutive days after the conclusion of the seven days fit for menstruation, becomes impure with the impurity **of *ziva*.** Again, the Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And if a woman has an issue of her blood many days not in the time of her menstruation…she shall be as in the days of her menstruation: She is impure” (Leviticus 15:25). When the verse states **“a woman,” I have** derived **only** that the *halakhot* of a *zava* apply to an adult **woman. From where** do I derive that the impurity **of *ziva*** also applies to **a ten-day-old** baby? **The verse states: “And a woman,”** to include even a baby girl.


###### Niddah 44a:4
[Niddah 44a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:4)

תִּינוֹק בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ — מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא בְּזִיבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches that **a baby boy,** even one who is **one day old,** can become impure with the impurity of *ziva*. Once again, the Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to a *zav*: “When **any man** has an issue out of his flesh, his issue is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). It would have been enough for the verse to state “a man.” **Why** must **the verse state “any man”?** It is in order **to include** even **a one-day-old** baby boy who has such a discharge, to teach **that he becomes impure with** the impurity of ***ziva*.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Niddah 44a:5
[Niddah 44a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:5)

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהַזָּב אֶת זוֹבוֹ לַזָּכָר וְלַנְּקֵבָה״, ״לַזָּכָר״ — כֹּל שֶׁהוּא, בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן, ״לַנְּקֵבָה״ — כֹּל שֶׁהִיא, בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה. אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says** that this derivation **is not necessary, as** the verse **states: “And of those who have an issue, whether it be a male or a female”** (Leviticus 15:33). The phrase **“whether it be a male”** includes **anyone** who is a male, **whether** he is **an adult** or **whether** he is **a minor; “or a female”** includes **anyone** who is a female, **whether** she is **an adult** or **whether** she is **a minor. If so, why** must **the** earlier **verse state “any man”? The Torah spoke in the language of people,** i.e., this emphasis is not unusual and therefore one should not derive a *halakha* from the superfluous word.


###### Niddah 44a:6
[Niddah 44a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:6)

וּמִטַּמֵּא בִּנְגָעִים. דִּכְתִיב: ״אָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — ״אָדָם״, כֹּל שֶׁהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And** a one-day-old baby **becomes impure with** the impurity of **leprous marks.** The Gemara explains that this is derived from that **which is written** with regard to leprous marks: **“When a person shall have in the skin of his flesh”** (Leviticus 13:2). This serves to include **anyone who is a person,** irrespective of age.


###### Niddah 44a:7
[Niddah 44a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:7)

וּמְטַמֵּא בִּטְמֵא מֵת. דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעַל הַנְּפָשׁוֹת אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ שָׁם״ — נֶפֶשׁ כֹּל דְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches: **And** a one-day-old baby **becomes impure with impurity** imparted by **a corpse.** The Gemara explains that this is derived from that **which is written** in the context of purification from impurity imparted by a corpse: “And a pure person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, **and upon the people that were there”** (Numbers 19:18). This apparently superfluous mention of “people” serves to include **anyone who is a person,** irrespective of age.


###### Niddah 44a:8
[Niddah 44a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:8)

וְזוֹקֵק לְיִבּוּם. דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו״ — אַחִים שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶם יְשִׁיבָה אַחַת בָּעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna also teaches: **And** a one-day-old baby **creates** a levirate bond requiring the widow of his childless brother **to** enter into **levirate marriage** with him. The Gemara explains that this is derived from that **which is written: “If brothers dwell together** and one of them dies, and he has no child, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside of the family to one not of his kin. Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her and take her to him to be his wife, and consummate the levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:5). This verse is referring to **brothers who had one dwelling in the world,** i.e., who were alive at the same time, which includes a baby who was born the day his brother died.


###### Niddah 44a:9
[Niddah 44a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:9)

וּפוֹטֵר מִן הַיִּבּוּם. ״וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא אִית לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And** a one-day-old baby **exempts** his widowed mother **from the** obligation of **levirate marriage.** The Gemara explains the derivation: **The Merciful One states:** “And one of them dies, **and he has no child”** (Deuteronomy 25:5), **and this** late husband **has** a child, albeit one who is one day old.


###### Niddah 44a:10
[Niddah 44a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:10)

וּמַאֲכִיל בִּתְרוּמָה. דִּכְתִיב: ״וִילִיד בֵּיתוֹ הֵם יֹאכְלוּ בְלַחְמוֹ״, קְרִי בֵיהּ: ״יַאֲכִילוּ בְּלַחְמוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And** a one-day-old baby **enables** his mother, an Israelite woman who is no longer married to his father, a priest, to continue **to partake of *teruma*.** The Gemara explains that this is **as it is written,** with regard to those who are entitled to partake of *teruma* on account of a priest: **“And those who are born in his house, they may eat [*yokhelu*] of his bread”** (Leviticus 22:11). **Read into** the verse: Those who are born in his house **enable others to eat [*ya’akhilu*] of his bread,** i.e., on account of her son the priest, the Israelite mother may continue to partake of *teruma* even after the death of his father.


###### Niddah 44a:11
[Niddah 44a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:11)

וּפוֹסֵל מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. ״וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — וְהָא אִית לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna also teaches: **And** a one-day-old baby **disqualifies** his mother, the daughter of a priest who is no longer married to his father, an Israelite man, **from** continuing to partake of ***teruma*.** The Gemara explains that the reason is that **the Merciful One states:** “But if a priest’s daughter becomes a widow, or divorced, **and has no child,** and is returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread” (Leviticus 22:13), **and this** daughter of a priest **has** a child.


###### Niddah 44a:12
[Niddah 44a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:12)

מַאי אִירְיָא זֶרַע? אֲפִילּוּ עוּבָּר נָמֵי! דִּכְתִיב ״כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ״ — פְּרָט לִמְעוּבֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why** state **specifically** that she has **a child? Even** if she has **a fetus** in her womb from an Israelite man, the same *halakha* applies, **as it is written: “As in her youth,”** which **excludes a pregnant woman,** since her pregnancy has changed her physical state from that of her youth.


###### Niddah 44a:13
[Niddah 44a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:13)

וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ״, מִשּׁוּם דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא חַד גּוּפָא וְהַשְׁתָּא תְּרֵי גּוּפֵי, אֲבָל הָכָא — דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא חַד גּוּפָא וְהַשְׁתָּא חַד גּוּפָא — אֵימָא תֵּיכוֹל, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that both derivations **are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written** only: **“And has no child,”** I would say that the reason the daughter of a priest who has a child from an Israelite man may no longer partake of *teruma* is **due to** the fact **that at the outset,** before she married, she was **one body, and now** she has developed into **two bodies,** herself and her child. **But here,** in a case when she is merely pregnant, **when at the outset** she was **one body and now** she remains **one body,** one might **say** that **she should** be permitted to **partake** of *teruma*. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “As in her youth.”**


###### Niddah 44a:14
[Niddah 44a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:14)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ״, מִשּׁוּם דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא גּוּפָא סְרִיקָא וְהַשְׁתָּא גּוּפָא מַלְיָא, אֲבָל הָכָא — דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא גּוּפָא סְרִיקָא וְהַשְׁתָּא גּוּפָא סְרִיקָא, אֵימָא תֵּיכוֹל — צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** by contrast, **if the Merciful One had written** only: **“As in her youth,”** I would say that the reason that the daughter of a priest who is pregnant from an Israelite man may no longer partake of *teruma* is **due to** the fact **that at the outset** she had **an empty body and now** she has **a full body,** and consequently she is not returning to her father’s household in her initial state. **But here,** after she has given birth, **where at the outset** she had **an empty body and now** she still has **an empty body,** one might **say** that **she should** be permitted to **partake** of *teruma*. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And has no child.” Therefore, both derivations are **necessary.**


###### Niddah 44a:15
[Niddah 44a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:15)

קְרָאֵי אִתָּרוּץ, אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין מַאי אִרְיָא ״בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד״? אֲפִילּוּ עוּבָּר נָמֵי! אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּכֹהֵן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, אַחַת גְּרוּשָׁה וְאַחַת שֶׁאֵינָהּ גְּרוּשָׁה, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים מִשֶּׁאֵינָהּ גְּרוּשָׁה, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד מִן הַגְּרוּשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The need for both **verses** has been **resolved, but the mishna** remains difficult: **What** is the reason the mishna is referring **specifically** to a baby who is **one day old,** when, as stated above, the same *halakha* applies **even** to **a fetus? Rav Sheshet said: Here we are dealing with a priest who has two wives: One** who is **a divorcée,** as she was previously divorced from another man, and who was therefore married to this priest in violation of *halakha*, **and one who is not a divorcée. And he has sons from** the wife **who is not a divorcée, and he has** a baby boy who is **one day old from the** wife who is **a divorcée.** This son is disqualified from the priesthood and may not partake of *teruma*.


###### Niddah 44a:16
[Niddah 44a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:16)

דְּפוֹסֵל בְּעַבְדֵי אָבִיו מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: עוּבָּר נָמֵי פּוֹסֵל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד — אִין, עוּבָּר — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet continues: The mishna is teaching **that** this baby **disqualifies his father’s** Canaanite **slaves from partaking of *teruma*** again. Since this child is entitled to a portion of his father’s inheritance, which includes his slaves, they may no longer partake of *teruma* due to his presence in the world. **And** the mishna teaches this **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei, who said** that **a fetus also disqualifies** his father’s slaves from partaking of *teruma*. For this reason, the *tanna* of the mishna **teaches us** that with regard to **a one-day-old** baby boy, **yes,** he disqualifies his father’s slaves from partaking of *teruma*, but **a fetus** does **not.**


###### Niddah 44a:17
[Niddah 44a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:17)

נוֹחֵל וּמַנְחִיל. נוֹחֵל, מִמַּאן? מֵאָבִיו. וּמַנְחִיל, לְמַאן? לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו. אִי בָּעֵי מֵאֲבוּהּ (לֵירְתֵי) [לֵירְתוּ], וְאִי בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ (לֵירְתֵי) [לֵירְתוּ]!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that this baby **inherits and he bequeaths.** The Gemara asks: **From whom does he inherit?** It must be **from his father. And to whom does he bequeath?** Presumably, he bequeaths **to his paternal brother,** in a case where the baby inherited his father’s property and then died on the same day, as maternal half-brothers do not inherit from each other. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation: What is the novelty of the *halakha* that the brother of this one-day-old baby inherits from him? After all, **if** the surviving brother **wants, let him inherit from his father, and if he wants, let him inherit from** the one-day-old baby. Either way, he receives his late father’s property.


###### Niddah 44a:18
[Niddah 44a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/44a:18)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: נוֹחֵל בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם לְהַנְחִיל לְאֶחָיו מִן הָאָב. וְדַוְקָא בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל עוּבָּר — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהוּא מָיֵית בְּרֵישָׁא, וְאֵין הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said:** The mishna is teaching that a one-day-old baby **inherits his mother’s property** if she died on the day he was born, so that he is able **to bequeath** it, even if he dies after a day, **to** his heirs who are not the mother’s heirs, e.g., **a paternal half-brother. And** in such a case it is **specifically** when he is at least **one day old** that he inherits from his mother and bequeaths the property to his paternal half-brothers, **but a fetus,** whose mother died before he emerged, does **not** inherit from his mother. **What is the reason** for this? The reason is **that** presumably the fetus **died first,** before its mother died, **and** there is a *halakha* that **a son does not inherit from his mother**