Study Niddah folio 46B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Since we find that the verse equates a minor, i.e., one on the brink of adulthood, to an adult with regard to an intentional violation of an oath and with regard to a vow of prohibition, where one renders an item prohibited to himself through a vow, and with regard to the prohibition of he shall n
Therefore, the verse states with regard to vows: “This is the matter which YHWH has commanded. When a man vows a vow to YHWH, or takes an oath” (Numbers 30:2–3). The emphasis of “this” indicates that it is only with regard to this matter, i.e., prohibitions resulting from vows, that a discriminating
The Talmud analyzes the baraita. In any event, the baraita teaches that a discriminating minor on the brink of adulthood is considered an adult with regard to a vow of prohibition and with regard to the prohibition of he shall not profane his word, which indicates that he is liable for violating th
The Talmud asks: Can the baraita actually mean that a minor is compared to an adult with regard to the prohibition of he shall not profane his word, but he is not flogged? Whichever way you look at it, this is problematic: If a discriminating minor on the brink of adulthood is considered an adult by
The Talmud raises a difficulty: If so, one can conclude from the baraita that if a minor eats meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses or violates other prohibitions, the court is commanded to prevent him from doing so. This is problematic, as elsewhere it is stated that this matter is subject to di