1)

(a)The Tana in a Beraisa learns from the 'Vav' of the word "ve'Ishah" ...

1. ... in the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Ishah ki Sih'yeh Zavah" that - already a baby girl of one day is subject to Nidus.

2. ... in the Pasuk there "ve'Ishah ki Sazuv Zov Damah" that - she is subject to Zivus from the age of ten days.

(b)Rebbi Yishmael b'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah maintains that this is not necessary, since we already know from the Pasuk there "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah" that - a both a boy and a girl are subject to Zivus as soon as they are born, and ...

(c)... he ascribes the Torah's repetition of "Ish Ish" - to the principle 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon b'nei Adam'.

2)

(a)The Beraisa learns from...

1. ... the word "Adam" (in the Pasuk in Tazri'a "Adam* ki Yih'yeh be'Or Besaro") - that a newborn baby is subject to Tum'as Tzara'as.

2. ... the word "ha'Nefashos" (in the Pasuk in Chukas "ve'Al ha'Nefashos asher Hayu Sham") that - the same applies to Tum'as Meis.

3. ... the word "Yachdav" (in the Pasuk in ki Seitzei "ki Yeishvu Achim Yachdav") that - any brother who was alive at the same time as the deceased brother (even if it was only for one day) is subject to Yibum.

4. ... the Pasuk there "u'Bein Ein lo" that - a Yavam is only Chayav Yibum if the deceased brother has no children, but if he did, even if the baby is only one day old, the deceased's brothers are Patur from Yibum.

(b)The Beraisa interprets the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with a Kohen eating Terumah) "vi'Yelid Beiso Heim Yochlu be'Lachmo" - as if it had written 'Heim Ya'achilu be'Lachmo' (if a Kohen dies and leaves behind a baby, that baby feeds his mother Terumah).

(c)And the Tana learns from the Pasuk there "ve'Zera Ein Lah" that - in the reverse case, the bas Kohen only returns to her father's house (to eat Terumah) if she had no children from her Yisrael husband.

(d)The problem with the previous D'rashah is that now that, based on the Pasuk there "ki'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah", we learn that she cannot even eat Terumah if she is pregnant - why the Tana then needs to inform us that she cannot eat Terumah if she gives birth to a baby?

3)

(a)We answer that, had the Pasuk only written ...

1. ... "ve'Zera Ein lah" (where there are two bodies) we would not have extended the Isur to where she is pregnant - where there is only one body (like there was before).

2. ... "ki'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" (where her body is full), we would not have extended the Isur to where she gave birth - whereas it is empty (like it was before).

(b)Even though we have explained the need for both Pesukim, the Mishnah remains difficult - because, since she was already forbidden to eat Terumah from the time she became pregnant, why does the Tana mention specifically from the time that she gave birth (implying that before that, she was permitted)?

(c)Rav Sheishes therefore establishes our Mishnah with regard to the Avadim of the deceased eating Terumah. He also left behind two wives, one of them a divorcee (who was a Chalalah), with a one-day old baby, and another with children, who was Kasher.

(d)And the reason that the Avadim are not permitted to eat Terumah is - because the son of the divorcee (who is also a Chalal) has a share in them, and we do not yet know what exactly each child inherits, and a Chalal can neither eat Terumah nor feed his family or his Avadim Terumah.

4)

(a)The Mishnah is now coming to teach us - that it is only when the baby is born that he has a share in the Avadim and forbids them to eat Terumah, but not whilst his mother is pregnant with him ...

(b)... to preclude from Rebbi Yossi, who holds that even a fetus inherits (and therefore invalidates).

(c)We learned in our Mishnah that a one day-old baby is Nochel and Manchil. This cannot mean that he inherits from his father to bequeath to his paternal brothers - since they inherit from their father anyway.

(d)Rav Sheishes therefore explains it to mean that - he inherits from his mother (who died after he was born) to bequeath to his paternal brothers.

5)

(a)The Tana is coming to teach us that if his mother had died before he was born - he would not inherit, since in such a case, we know that the baby died first, and a baby does not inherit in the grave to bequeath to his paternal brothers.

(b)Mar b'rei de'Rav Ashi therefore explains that - in the incident where a fetus convulsed three times after the mother had died, it was not a sign a life, but is comparable to the tail of a lizard that convulses.

6)

(a)Mar b'rei de'Rav Yosef citing Rava, explains Nochel u'Manchil to mean that the one day-old baby diminishes the portion of the B'chor. Assuming that the baby and his two older brothers inherited six gold pieces from their father before he died (of which, had the baby not been born, the B'chor would have received four), he will now receive - three gold coins (from his father [including one and a half as a B'chor]) and three-quarters of a gold coin (from his brother).

(b)And he also rules that a son who is born after his father's death does not detract from the portion of the B'chor. Consequently, had the baby who died been born only after their father's death, the latter would have received - four gold coins (two as the B'chor, one and a third as a Pashut, and two thirds from his deceased brother).

(c)And he learns this from the words "ve'Yaldu lo" (in the Pasuk in ki Seitzei, in connection with two wives who bear a man a B'chor and a second son) - from which he extrapolates that it is only brothers who are already born when the father dies who detract from the extra portion of the B'chor, but not those who are born afterwards.

7)

(a)That is how they cited Mar b'rei de'Rav Yosef in Sura. In Pumbedisa, they cited him with regard to the Pasuk there (in connection with the B'chor himself) "Yakir", from which he learned that - it is only a B'chor before his father's death (whom the father recognizes) who inherits an extra portion of his father's property, but not one whose father died before he is born ...

(b)... such as a man who dies, leaving a wife who is expecting twins, or one who leaves two wives who are both pregnant.

(c)We rule - like all three of Mar b'rei de'Rav Yosef's statements.

(d)Our Mishnah also rules that someone who kills a baby of a day old is guilty of murder, which the Tana learns from the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Ish ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh", which he interprets as - Kol-D'hu Nefesh (see Tosfos DH 'Ish ki Yakeh' [meaning even a little bit of a Nefesh]).

8)

(a)Rav Papa interprets the Mishnah's final statement (that a one day-old baby is like a Chasan to her parents and to her family) - with regard to the obligation to mourn (Aveilus).

(b)We suggest that the author of this statement is not Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - who considers a baby to have left the realm of Nefel (a stillborn baby) only from the age of thirty days ...

(c)... whereas our Mishnah - considers a baby to be a V'lad from the moment it is born.

(d)We refute this suggestion however, establishing our Mishnah even like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - by establishing it when we know for sure that the baby is a ninth-month baby (whereas Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is speaking in a case where we do not.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a three year-old girl ...

1. ... whom a man betroths with Bi'ah - is betrothed, provided it is done with her father's consent.

2. ... with whom her Yavam performed Yibum - is in fact married to him, entitling him to inherit all the Yavam's property.

(b)When the Tana continues 've'Chayavin alehah Mishum Eishes Ish', he means that - anyone who subsequently has relations with her is Chayav Misah.

(c)Although we learned in the previous Mishnah that she is subject to Nidus from the age of one day - this Tana consider a man who has relations with her a Bo'el Nidah to be Metamei Tachton ke'Elyon - only from the time she reaches the age of three ...

(d)... from ehrn he becomes Tamei for seven days (and not just until nightfall, like the Din of someone who touches a Nidah).

(e)And by the same token, a bas Yisrael who marries a Kohen - is only permitted to eat Terumah from the age of three.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah also rules that a girl of three with whom ...

1. ... a Pasul - any one of the men who invalidates a Kohenes (a Chalal, Nasin, Mamzer, Eved or Nochri) has relations - invalidates her from the Kehunah

2. ... a close relative committed incest - is Chayav Misah.

11)

(a)Finally, our Mishnah rules that if she is under the age of three then - having relations with her is like placing one's finger in her eye (and is not classified as Bi'ah), and she remains a Besulah.

(b)Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa rules that a girl of three can be betrothed with Bi'ah. The Chachamim say that - she must be at least three years and one day.

(c)When de'bei Rebbi Yanai say that the Tana'im are arguing over Erev Rosh Hashanah, they mean that - Rebbi Meir considers her a bas Bi'ah on the last day of the third year (Erev Rosh Hashanah); whereas according to the Chachamim, she is a bas Bi'ah only on the following day (on the first day of the fourth year [see Chidushei Chasam Sofer]).

(d)And when Rebbi Yochanan says thirty days in the year are considered a year, he means that - according to Rebbi Meir, she is a bas Bi'ah already after the first month into her third year; whereas the Chachamim require a full three years (like de'bei Rebbi Yanai).

12)

(a)We query de'bei Rebbi Yanai from a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama declares a girl of three or even of two and one day as subject to Kidushei Bi'ah. The Chachamim say - three years and one day (which means a complete year).

(b)There is no problem with Rebbi Yochanan - who agrees that, just as he explained Rebbi Meir according to those who consider thirty days in a year to be a year, so too, can one explain him according to those who consider one day in the year to be a year.

(c)The problem with de'bei Rebbi Yanai is - why Rebbi Meir suffices here with two years and a day, when according to de'bei Rebbi Yanai, he requires three full years?

(d)We remain - with a Kashya on de'bei Rebbi Yanai.