Niddah 92

Chapter 92

א לפי שמצינו שהשוה הכתוב הקטן כגדול לזדון שבועה ולאיסר ולבל יחל יכול יהא חייב על הקדשו קרבן

1 Since we find that Scripture has put a minor on a par with an adult1

ב ת"ל (במדבר ל, ב) זה הדבר

2 as regards a presumptuous oath, a self-imposed prohibition2

ג קתני מיהת לאיסר ולבל יחל חייב אימא לאיסור בל יחל

3 and [the injunction] not to break his word, it might have been presumed that he should also incur the liability of a sacrifice for eating that which he had dedicated, hence it was explicitly stated,3 This is the thing.4 At any rate, was it not here stated that guilt was incurred for infringing a self imposed prohibition or [the injunction] not to break one's word?5

ד איסור בל יחל מה נפשך אי מופלא סמוך לאיש דאורייתא מילקא נמי לילקי ואי מופלא סמוך לאיש לאו דאורייתא איסור נמי ליכא לאותן המוזהרים עליו

4 Read: The prohibition6 not to break his word.7

ה שמע מינה קטן אוכל נבלות ב"ד מצווין עליו להפרישו הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהקדיש הוא ואכלו אחרים

5 [You say,] 'The prohibition not to break his word'! Whatever your assumption may be [a difficulty arises]. If an intelligent minor8 approaching manhood is Pentateuchally forbidden to break his word, he should also incur the penalty of flogging;9 and if an intelligent minor approaching manhood is not Pentateuchally forbidden to do it, there should not be10

ו הניחא למ"ד הקדיש הוא ואכלו אחרים לוקין אלא למ"ד אין לוקין מאי איכא למימר דאיתמר הקדיש הוא ואכלו אחרים רב כהנא אמר אין לוקין רבי יוחנן ור"ל דאמרי תרוויהו לוקין

6 even a mere prohibition?11 — The prohibition12 applies to those who are responsible for him.13 May it then be inferred from this ruling14

ז מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא

7 that if a minor eats nebelah15

ח גופא הקדיש ואכלו אחרים רב כהנא אמר אין לוקין רבי יוחנן ור"ל דאמרי תרוייהו לוקין במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר מופלא סמוך לאיש דאורייתא ומר סבר מופלא סמוך לאיש מדרבנן

8 it is the duty of Beth din to take it away from him?16 Here we may be dealing with a case, for instance, where the minor dedicated the food and others17 ate it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original reading, 'prohibition and [the injunction] not to break', may, therefore, be retained and yet no support would be forthcoming for R. Huna since the penalty of flogging does not apply to the minor but to the adults who ate that which he has dedicated. ');">18 This explanation is quite satisfactory according to him who laid down that if a minor dedicated some food and others17 ate it the latter are to be flogged, but what can be said in explanation according to him who ruled that they were not to be flogged; for it was stated: If a minor dedicated some food and others ate it, R. Kahana ruled, They are not to be flogged, while both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish ruled, They are to be flogged? — The prohibition19 is20 merely Rabbinical21 and the Scriptural text22

ט מתיב רב ירמיה יתומה שנדרה בעלה מפר לה אי אמרת בשלמא מופלא סמוך לאיש דרבנן אתו נשואין דרבנן ומבטלי נדרא דרבנן אלא אי אמרת דאורייתא אתו נשואין דרבנן ומבטלי נדרא דאורייתא

9 serves as a mere prop. [Reverting to] the above text, 'If a minor dedicated some food and others ate it, R. Kahana ruled, They are not to be flogged, while both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish ruled, They are to be flogged'. On what principle do they differ? — The Masters23 are of the opinion that an intelligent minor approaching manhood is under a Pentateuchal obligation24 while the Master25

י אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בעלה מפר לה ממה נפשך אי דרבנן דרבנן הוא אי דאורייתא קטן אוכל נבלות הוא ואין ב"ד מצווין עליו להפרישו

10 is of the opinion that an intelligent minor approaching manhood is only under a Rabbinical obligation.24 R. Jeremiah raised an objection: If a fatherless girl26

יא והא כי גדלה אכלה בהפרה קמייתא

11 made a vow, her husband may disallow it for her. Now if you grant that an intelligent minor approaching manhood is only under a Rabbinical obligation24

יב אמר רבה בר ליואי בעלה מפר לה כל שעה ושעה והוא שבעל

12 one can well justify the ruling,27 since the force of a Rabbinical marriage28

יג והא אין בעל מפר בקודמין כדרב פינחס משמיה דרבא דאמר רב פנחס משמיה דרבא כל הנודרת על דעת בעלה היא נודרת

13 may well annul a Rabbinical vow, but if you maintain that the obligation24 is Pentateuchal, could [it may be objected] the force of a Rabbinical marriage29 annul a Pentateuchal vow? — R. Judah citing Samuel replied: Her husband may disallow her vow for her whatever your assumption might be. If the minor's obligation24

יד אמר אביי ת"ש קטן שלא הביא ב' שערות רבי יהודה אומר אין תרומתו תרומה רבי יוסי אומר עד שלא בא לעונת נדרים אין תרומתו תרומה משבא לעונת נדרים תרומתו תרומה

14 is Rabbinical, the whole matter is a Rabbinical affair; and if the obligation is Pentateuchal, it is a case of a minor who eats nebelah30 where it is not the duty of the Beth din to take it away from him. But would she not be eating, in reliance upon the first disallowance,31 even when she attains her majority?32 — Rabbah b. Liwai replied: Her husband disallows her vow for her every now and then.33

טו סברוה קסבר ר' יוסי תרומה בזמן הזה דאורייתא אי אמרת בשלמא מופלא סמוך לאיש דאורייתא אתי גברא דאורייתא ומתקן טבלא דאורייתא אלא אי אמרת דרבנן אתי גברא דרבנן ומתקן טבלא דאורייתא לא קסבר רבי יוסי תרומה בזמן הזה דרבנן

15 This,34 however, applies only to one who cohabited with her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After she had attained majority. Cohabitation at that age having the Pentateuchal force of 'acquisition' the marriage which thus has Pentateuchal sanction may well enable the husband to disallow a vow that has Pentateuchal sanction. ');">35 But, surely, no husband may disallow vows made prior to marriage?36 — This37 is in agreement with R. Phinehas who cited Raba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. there is no need to explain, as presumably suggested, that the husband 'disallows the vow every now and then', for even though he only disallowed it during her minority, there is no need to disallow it again when she attains her majority. ');">38

טז וסבר ר' יוסי תרומה בזמן הזה דרבנן והתניא בסדר עולם (דברים ל, ה) אשר ירשו אבותיך וירשתה

16 for R. Phinehas citing Raba stated: Any woman who vows acts in reliance on the opinion of her husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the minor was at least Rabbinically married when her vow was made, its validity is entirely dependent on her husband's pleasure. Only where a woman was not married at all at the time her vow was made is her subsequently married husband precluded from disallowing it. ');">39 Said Abaye, Come and hear: If a minor has not yet grown two hairs, R. Judah ruled, his terumah is not40 valid; while R. Jose ruled, Before reaching the age when his vows are valid41

יז ירושה ראשונה ושניה יש להן שלישית אין להן

יח וא"ר יוחנן מאן תנא סדר עולם ר' יוסי

18 his terumah is not valid, but after reaching the age when his vows are valid42 his terumah is valid.43

יט ר' יוסי תני לה ולא סבר לה ה"נ מסתברא דתניא עיסה שנדמעה או שנתחמצה בשאור של תרומה

19 Assuming44 that R. Jose is of the opinion that terumah at the present time is a Pentateuchal institution, his ruling would be well justified if you grant that an intelligent minor approaching manhood is under a Pentateuchal obligation,45 since a man under a Pentateuchal obligation may well render fit46 Pentateuchal tebel,47 but if you maintain that he is only under a Rabbinical obligation,48 could a man under a Rabbinical obligation render fit Pentateuchal tebel?49 — No, R. Jose is of the opinion that terumah at the present time is only a Rabbinical institution. But does R. Jose hold that terumah at the present time is only Rabbinical? Was it not in fact taught in Seder Olam:50 'Which thy fathers possessed and thou shalt possess it,51 they had a first,52 and a second53 possession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the sanctity of the Land of Israel having ceased with the destruction of the first Temple and the Babylonian exile, a second 'possession' (sc. sanctification) was necessary. ');">54 but they had no need for a third one';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the second sanctification (as the Scriptural text implies) remained for all time. As the land remained sacred the Pentateuchal obligation of terumah also obviously remained in force. ');">55 and R. Johanan stated, 'Who is the author of Seder Olam? R. Jose?'56 — R. Jose may well be its compiler57 but he himself does not uphold this view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the second sanctification remained for all time. He may well be of the opinion that it ceased with the destruction of the second Temple and the Roman exile and that terumah at the present time is merely a Rabbinical institution. ');">58 This59 may also be supported by a process of reasoning. For it was taught: A dough60 that had become subject to the restrictions of terumah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where for instance, some terumah fell into a dough that was less than a hundred times the quantity of the former. Rabbinically, terumah cannot be neutralized unless it was mixed up with unconsecrated commodities that exceeded its quantity a hundredfold. ');">61 or became sour through a leaven of terumah,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter