Niddah 87

Chapter 87

א ונוחל ומנחיל וההורגו חייב והרי הוא לאביו ולאמו ולכל קרוביו כחתן שלם

1 HE INHERITS AND TRANSMITS;1

ב <big>גמ׳</big> מנהני מילי דת"ר אשה אין לי אלא אשה בת יום אחד לנדה מנין ת"ל ואשה

2 HE WHO KILLS HIM IS GUILTY OF MURDER, AND HE COUNTS TO HIS FATHER, TO HIS MOTHER AND TO ALL HIS RELATIVES AS1 A FULLY GROWN MAN.2 GEMARA. Whence is this ruling3 deduced? — [From the following]. For our Rabbis taught: From the term woman4

ג בת י' ימים לזיבה מנא ה"מ דת"ר אשה אין לי אלא אשה בת י' ימים לזיבה מנין ת"ל ואשה

3 I would only know that the laws5 are applicable to a grown-up woman, whence, however, the inference that a girl one day old is also subject to the uncleanness of menstruation? Since it was explicitly stated, And a woman.6 ONE WHO IS TEN DAYS OLD IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF ZIBAH. Whence is this ruling deduced? [From the following]. For our Rabbis taught: From the term woman7 I would only know that the laws are applicable to a grown-up woman, whence, however, the inference that a girl who is ten days old is also subject to the uncleanness of zibah? Since it was explicitly stated, And a woman.8 A BOY ONE DAY OLD etc. Whence is this ruling deduced? — [From the following Scriptural text]. For the Rabbis taught: When any man,9

ד תינוק בן יום אחד כו' מנא הני מילי דת"ר (ויקרא טו, ב) איש איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות בן יום אחד שמטמא בזיבה דברי רבי יהודה

4 what was the object of stating, 'When any man'?10 To include a boy one day old in the restrictions of the uncleanness of zibah; so R. Judah. R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said, This deduction is not necessary, for surely it is stated in Scripture, And of them that have an issue, whether it be a man or a woman;11 'whether it be a man' means one of any age, whether adult or minor, 'or a woman means one of any age, whether an adult or minor. But if so12 what need was there to state, 'When any man'?13 The Torah employed ordinary phraseology.14 [IS SUBJECT TO …] THE UNCLEANNESS OF LEPROSY, since it is written, When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh,15

ה רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא טו, לג) והזב את זובו לזכר ולנקבה לזכר כל שהוא בין גדול בין קטן לנקבה כל שהיא בין גדולה בין קטנה אם כן מה ת"ל איש איש דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם

5 implying a man of any age. [IS SUBJECT TO …] THAT OF CORPSE-UNCLEANNESS, because it is written, And upon the persons that were there,16 implying a person of any age. HE SUBJECTS [HIS DECEASED BROTHER'S WIDOW] TO THE DUTY OF LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, for it is written, If brethren dwell together,17 implying brothers who are contemporaries.18 HE EXEMPTS [HIS MOTHER] FROM THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, for the All Merciful has said, And have no child,17

ו ומטמא בנגעים דכתיב (ויקרא יג, ב) אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו אדם כל שהו

6 but this man has one. HE ENABLES HER TO EAT TERUMAH, for it is written, And such as are born in his house, they may eat19 of his bread,20

ז ומטמא בטמא מת דכתיב (במדבר יט, יח) ועל הנפשות אשר היו שם נפש כל דהו

7 read it as, 'Shall cause to eat21 of his bread'.

ח וזוקק ליבום דכתיב (דברים כה, ה) כי ישבו אחים יחדיו אחים שהיה להם ישיבה אחת בעולם

8 AND HE ALSO CAUSES HER TO BE DISQUALIFIED FROM EATING TERUMAH. For the All Merciful has said, And have no child,22 but she has one. But what was the point of speaking of a 'child' seeing that the same applies even to an embryo, for it is written,23

ט ופוטר מן היבום (דברים כה, ה) ובן אין לו אמר רחמנא והא אית ליה

9 As in her youth,22 which excludes24

י ומאכיל בתרומה דכתיב (ויקרא כב, יא) ויליד ביתו הם יאכלו בלחמו קרי ביה יאכילו בלחמו

10 one who is pregnant?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if an embryo causes its mother to be disqualified from eating terumah it is self-evident that a child does it, what need then was there for the text, 'and have no child'? ');">25 Both texts were required. For if the All Merciful had only written, 'And have no child' [it might have been presumed that the law26 applied to that case] because originally there was but one body and now there are two bodies,27

יא ופוסל מן התרומה (ויקרא כב, יג) וזרע אין לה אמר רחמנא והא אית לה

11 but that in this case,28 where there was originally one body and now also there is only one body, it may be held that the woman may eat terumah, hence the All Merciful has written, 'As in her youth'.29

יב מאי איריא זרע אפילו עובר נמי דכתיב כנעוריה פרט למעוברת

12 And if the All Merciful has only written, 'As in her youth' [it might have been presumed that the law30 applied to that case alone] since originally the woman's body was empty and now it is a full one, but that in this case,31 where her body was originally empty and is now also empty, the woman may well eat terumah. Hence the necessity for both texts. Now, the Scriptural texts have been well explained, but as regards our Mishnah, why just A BOY ONE DAY OLD, seeing32

יג צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא וזרע אין לה משום דמעיקרא חד גופא והשתא תרי גופי אבל הכא דמעיקרא חד גופא והשתא חד גופא אימא תיכול כתב רחמנא כנעוריה

13 that even an embryo also disqualifies its mother? — R. Shesheth replied: We are here dealing with the case of a priest who had two wives, one who had previously been a divorced woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom a priest is forbidden to marry and whose children from a priestly marriage are disqualified priests and are themselves forbidden to eat terumah and, of course, have no right to confer the privilege of eating it upon their slaves. ');">33

יד ואי כתב רחמנא כנעוריה משום דמעיקרא גופה סריקא והשתא גופה מליא אבל הכא דמעיקרא גופה סריקא והשתא גופה סריקא אימא תיכול צריכא

14 and the other was not a divorced woman,34

טו קראי אתרוץ אלא מתניתין מאי אריא בן יום אחד אפי' עובר נמי אמר רב ששת הב"ע בכהן שיש לו שתי נשים אחת גרושה ואחת שאינה גרושה ויש לו בנים משאינה גרושה ויש לו בן יום אחד מן הגרושה

15 and he had sons from the latter35 and one son from the former,36 so that the latter37

טז דפוסל בעבדי אביו מלאכול בתרומה ולאפוקי מדר' יוסי דאמר עובר נמי פוסל קמ"ל בן יום אחד אין עובר לא

16 causes the slaves of his father38 to be disqualified from eating terumah;39

יז נוחל ומנחיל נוחל ממאן מאביו ומנחיל למאן לאחיו מאביו אי בעי מאבוה לירתי ואי בעי מיניה לירתי

17 thus indicating that the law is contrary to the view40 of R. Jose. He having laid down that an embryo41 also causes disqualification we were informed here that only A BOY ONE DAY OLD causes disqualification but not an embryo.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The disqualification spoken of in our Mishnah thus referring to the slaves and not, as has previously been assumed, to the child's mother, the difficulty raised supra is now solved. ');">42 HE INHERITS AND TRANSMITS. From whom does he INHERIT? Obviously from his father; and to whom does he TRANSMIT? Obviously to his paternal brothers;43

יח אמר רב ששת נוחל בנכסי האם להנחיל לאחיו מן האב ודוקא בן יום אחד אבל עובר לא מ"ט דהוא מיית ברישא ואין הבן יורש את אמו

18 but could not these if they wished inherit from their father and, if they preferred, inherit from him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course they could, since the child's estate would in any case revert on his death to his father from whom they would inherit it. What meaning then could be assigned to the law that he TRANSMITS? ');">44 — R. Shesheth replied: The meaning is, He45 inherits the estate of his mother to transmit it46 to his paternal brothers;47 hence only then when he is ONE DAY OLD but not when he is an embryo. What is the reason? — Because it48 dies first,49 and no son may inherit from his mother

Previous Chapter Next Chapter