while in the grave, i.e., after death, in order to bequeath to his paternal half-brother.

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that it is presumed that the fetus died before its mother? But wasn’t there an incident in which the mother died and the fetus made up to three spasmodic motions afterward? Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said: That is just as it is with the tail of the lizard, which twitches after being severed from the lizard, but it is merely a spasmodic motion which does not indicate that it is still alive.

Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said a different explanation of the mishna’s ruling in the name of Rava: The mishna teaches that a one-day-old baby inherits in order to say that such a child reduces the portion of the firstborn. A firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the inheritance, which is calculated by taking into account the portion due to his dead brother. And Mar, son of Rav Yosef, further said in the name of Rava: A son who was born after his father’s death does not reduce the portion of the firstborn. Therefore, the halakha in the mishna does not apply to a fetus. What is the reason for this? We require fulfillment of the verse: “If a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they bore him children” (Deuteronomy 21:15), and this does not apply to a fetus not yet born at the time of the father’s death.

The Gemara notes: In Sura they taught Mar’s statement that way, whereas in Pumbedita they taught it this way: Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said in the name of Rava: A firstborn who was born after his father’s death does not receive a double portion. What is the reason for this? We require fulfillment of the verse: “But he shall acknowledge the firstborn…by giving him a double portion” (Deuteronomy 21:17), and in this case the father is not there to acknowledge him.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with all these versions of the statement of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, i.e., a one-day-old baby reduces the portion of the firstborn, a son born after his father’s death does not reduce the portion of the firstborn, and a firstborn born after his father’s death does not receive a double portion.

§ The mishna teaches: And one who kills a one-day-old baby is liable for his murder. The Gemara explains that the reason for this is as it is written: “And he who smites any man mortally shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:17), where the phrase “any man” indicates that this verse applies in any case, even in the case of a one-day-old baby.

The mishna further teaches: And if a one-day-old baby dies, his status in relation to his father and to his mother and to all his relatives is like that of a full-fledged groom. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Pappa said: With regard to mourning.

The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is this stated? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: With regard to humans, any child that remained alive thirty days after birth is not considered a non-viable newborn. It can be inferred from this statement that if he did not remain alive for thirty days after birth, he is of uncertain status. The Gemara refutes this proof: Here we are dealing with a case where one is certain that its months of gestation were completed, and therefore it is certainly a viable newborn.

MISHNA: A girl who is three years and one day old, whose father arranged her betrothal, is betrothed through intercourse, as the halakhic status of intercourse with her is that of intercourse in all halakhic senses. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl three years and one day old dies, if his brother the yavam engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife; and if she is married, a man other than her husband is liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to violation of the prohibition against intercourse with a married woman.

And if she is impure due to menstruation, she imparts impurity to one who engages in intercourse with her who then renders impure all the layers of bedding beneath him, rendering them impure like the upper bedding covering a zav, in the sense that it assumes first-degree ritual impurity and does not become a primary source of ritual impurity, and it renders impure food and drink, but it does not render impure people and vessels.

If she marries a priest, she may partake of teruma, like any other wife of a priest; if she is unmarried and one of the men who are unfit for the priesthood, e.g., a mamzer or ḥalal, engaged in intercourse with her, he disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood, and if she is the daughter of a priest, she is disqualified from partaking of teruma. Finally, if one of all those with whom relations are forbidden, as stated in the Torah, e.g., her father or her husband’s father, engaged in intercourse with her, they are executed by the court for engaging in intercourse with her, and she is exempt, because she is a minor.

If the girl is less than that age, younger than three years and one day, the status of intercourse with her is not that of intercourse in all halakhic senses; rather, it is like placing a finger into the eye. Just as in that case, the eye constricts, sheds tears, and then returns to its original state, so too, in a girl younger than three years and one day old, the hymen returns to its original state.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: A girl who is three years old is betrothed through intercourse; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She must be three years and one day old. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between their opinions, as both agree that she cannot be betrothed before the age of three? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: There is a difference between their opinions in the case of a girl on the eve of the first day of the fourth year of her life. According to Rabbi Meir, she can be betrothed through intercourse, as on this day three years are complete, whereas the Rabbis maintain that she cannot be betrothed in this manner, as she has not yet entered the first day of her fourth year.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There is a difference between their opinions with regard to the issue of whether thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year. Rabbi Meir maintains that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year, and therefore a girl aged two years and thirty days is already considered like a three-year-old and may be betrothed through intercourse. By contrast, the Rabbis contend that thirty days in a year are not considered equivalent to a year, and she may be betrothed through intercourse only upon reaching the age of three years and one day.

The Gemara raises an objection against the explanation of Rabbi Yannai from a baraita: A girl who is three years old, and even one who is two years and one day old, is betrothed through intercourse; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She must be three years and one day old.