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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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