When he reaches majority he may engage in intercourse with her, and thereby acquire her as his full-fledged wife, and if he wished to divorce her he can then give her a bill of divorce without having to perform ḥalitza.

MISHNA: With regard to a girl who is eleven years and one day old, her vows are examined to ascertain whether she is aware of the meaning of her vow and in Whose name she vowed. Once she is twelve years and one day old and has grown two pubic hairs, which is a sign of adulthood, even without examination her vows are in effect. And one examines her vows throughout the entire twelfth year until her twelfth birthday.

With regard to a boy who is twelve years and one day old, his vows are examined to ascertain whether he is aware of the meaning of his vow and in Whose name he vowed. Once he is thirteen years and one day old and has grown two pubic hairs, even without examination his vows are in effect. And one examines his vows throughout the entire thirteenth year until his thirteenth birthday.

Prior to that time, eleven years and one day for a girl and twelve years and one day for a boy, even if they said: We know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is not a valid vow and their consecration is not a valid consecration. After that time, twelve years and one day for a girl and thirteen years and one day for a boy, even if they said: We do not know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is a valid vow and their consecration is a valid consecration.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But since the mishna teaches: With regard to a girl who is eleven years and one day old her vows are examined, why do I need the mishna to further state: Once she is twelve years and one day old her vows are in effect? After all, by this stage she is already an adult. The Gemara answers that this ruling is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that one examines her vows forever, even when she is an adult. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the vows of an adult are valid even without examination.

The Gemara further asks: And since the mishna teaches: Once she is twelve years and one day old her vows are in effect, why do I need it to further state: One examines her vows throughout the entire twelfth year? The Gemara answers that this ruling is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: Since the Master says that thirty days in a year are considered equivalent to a year, in a case where we examine her for thirty days after she turned eleven and she did not know how to utter a vow properly, i.e., she did not have a clear understanding of the meaning of the vow, one might say that one should examine her no further until she reaches the age of twelve. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that she is examined throughout her twelfth year.

The Gemara asks: And let the mishna teach only these two clauses: Once she is twelve years and one day old her vows are in effect, and one examines her vows throughout the entire twelfth year. Once both of these have been taught, why do I need the ruling: With regard to a girl who is eleven years and one day old, her vows are examined?

The Gemara answers that this clause was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: In an ordinary case, a girl requires examination in her twelfth year, whereas in her eleventh year she does not require examination. But in a case where we discern about her that she has a very sharp mind, perhaps she should be examined already in her eleventh year. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that she is not examined in her eleventh year irrespective of how intelligent she is, as she is too young.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach that prior to that time their vows and consecration are always not valid and after that time they are always valid? These halakhot can be inferred from the previous statements of the mishna. The Gemara answers that these rulings are necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: These matters apply only in a case where they do not say: We know in Whose name we vowed, when they are younger than the periods mentioned in the mishna, or: We do not know in Whose name we vowed, when they are older. But in a case where they do say such statements, perhaps we rely on their claim. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that when they are younger than the periods stated in the mishna their vows are never valid, and when they are older, their vows are always valid.

§ The mishna indicates that the intellectual development of a girl is faster than that of a boy. In this regard, the Sages taught in a baraita: This opinion, with regard to the periods of vows for girls and boys, is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says the opposite, that the matter stated here with regard to a girl is actually stated with regard to a boy, whereas the matter stated with regard to a boy is in fact stated with regard to a girl, as the intellectual development of males is faster than that of females.

Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As it is written, with regard to the creation of woman: “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, He made [vayyiven] a woman, and brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:22). This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, granted a woman a greater understanding [bina] than that of a men.

The Gemara asks: And what does the other tanna, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for that which Reish Lakish taught, as Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya with regard to the verse: “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her to the man.” This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided the hair of Eve, and then brought her to Adam the first man. As in the cities overseas [bikhrakei hayyam] they call braiding hair, building [benayita].

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, what is the reason that he maintains that the intellectual development of males is faster than that of females? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Since a boy frequents his teacher’s house, cleverness enters his mind first.

§ The mishna teaches that there are three periods in the development of girls and boys: When their vows are examined, i.e., the twelfth year for a girl and the thirteenth year for a boy, which will be termed below: During the time; the period beforehand, when their vows are entirely invalid, called: Before the time; and after that period, when their vows are always valid, known as: After the time. But the mishna does not address the issue of their physical development during these periods, with regard to the appearance of two pubic hairs. In this regard, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a boy or girl developed pubic hairs during the time, is this year considered like the development of signs indicating puberty before the time that the child reaches majority, and therefore they are not treated as signs indicating puberty, or is it considered as after the time?

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this dilemma raised? If it is with regard to vows, the development of pubic hairs is not considered as before the time, but it is not considered as after the time either. Instead, the status of the vow is determined in accordance with the examination of the child’s understanding, as stated in the mishna.

Rather, the dilemma is raised with regard to punishments, i.e., whether such a boy or girl is punished like an adult for violating the prohibitions of the Torah. What, then, is the halakha? The Sages disagree. Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina both say: The development of pubic hairs during that time is considered as before the time, and therefore the boy or girl is not liable to receive punishment for his or her actions. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi both say: The development of pubic hairs during that time is considered as after the time, and they are punished.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: And your mnemonic, to remember which Sages said which ruling, is the verse: “Now this [vezot] was the custom in former times in Israel” (Ruth 4:7). The Sage whose name has a feminine form like the word vezot, namely, Rav Ḥanina, maintains that the development of pubic hairs during the time is considered as before the time, like the former times mentioned in the verse.

Rav Hamnuna raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from the mishna: After that time, twelve years and one day for a girl and thirteen years and one day for a boy, even if they say: We do not know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is a valid vow and their consecration is a valid consecration. Rav Hamnuna infers from this ruling that if they issued this statement during the time, it is considered as before the time, even if they had developed two hairs.

Rava said to Rav Hamnuna, in rejection of this proof: Say the former clause in the mishna: Prior to that time, eleven years and one day for a girl and twelve years and one day for a boy, even if they said: We know in Whose name we vowed and in Whose name we consecrated, their vow is not a valid vow and their consecration is not a valid consecration. One can infer the opposite from here, that if they issued this statement during the time, it is considered as after the time.

The Gemara responds: And that is not so, as Rava erred. He thought that Rav Hamnuna inferred from the superfluous statement of the mishna, i.e., that the clause Rav Hamnuna cites is unnecessary for the halakha it states, which is why Rav Hamnuna inferred his conclusion from it. And therefore Rava responded that rather than inferring from the latter clause of the mishna that if the boy or girl claims not to know in Whose name he or she vowed during the time, it is considered as before the time, let him infer from the former clause that it is considered as after the time, as Rava demonstrated.

The Gemara continues: But it is not so; rather, Rav Hamnuna inferred that it is considered as before the time from the statement of the mishna itself, without assuming that it is superfluous, as follows: In that mention in the mishna of: After that time, what are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where the boy has not yet developed two pubic hairs, he is a minor. Rather, is it not referring to a case where the boy has developed two pubic hairs,