Below you can watch two rabbis explain that because the hymen can regrow before a girl reaches the age of three it is not considered a crime when an adult comes on to (has sex with) the toddler. Below the videos you can read certain relevant transcripts.

“An adult man who has a sexual intercourse with a toddler, it is nothing! (there is no crime). What is a toddler for this matter? A child less than 3 years of age. The toddler’s hymen (virginity) grows back. So an adult who comes (sexually) on the toddler, it is nothing! It is not considered to be sexual intercourse. Since she was less than 3 years of age, it is as if he poked her eye with a finger. As we said earlier…you poke an eye with a finger, a tear drops, but then the eyes clear….the same thing with the hymen of a toddler who is less than 3 years of age.“

“because before three it’s not halachically (legally) an act of cohabitation (sex). But nevertheless, before three is it hymen blood or is it menstrual blood….But, but after three generally doesn’t grow back…After – where the Torah is saying that a man has a relation with a girl, God forbid, after three. Once she is full three years old, then her bethulim (virginity/hymen) will never grow back. If a man has a relation with a girl under three, it’s gonna, either it never ruptured, or it is just going to grow back.”

THE ORIGINAL TEXTS FROM THE TALMUD
In the second video certain parts of the Jewish Talmud are shown as sources. I took a quick look at them to see if I could verify it. Obviously I am no Talmud scholar. It seems that in the ‘mindset of the Talmud’ virginity is a big thing and the ultimate evidence of virginity is an intact hymen.

For me it is hard to grasp this (distorted) logic. Because a hymen can regrow before a girl reaches the age of three years, she can still appear as a virgin until her future marriage, and therefore it is not really sexual intercourse. It is therefore ‘nothing’ or not ‘real intercourse’ because the hymen can regrow.

Let’s look at the whole Ketubot 9a part from the Talmud:
“No, it is necessary to teach this ruling only in the case of the wife of a priest, who is rendered forbidden to her husband even if she engaged in intercourse by coercion. In that case, there is a single uncertainty. And if you wish, say instead that this ruling is relevant even to the wife of an Israelite, and it is in a case where her father accepted her betrothal when she was less than three years and one day old. Intercourse with a girl less than three years old does not permanently rupture the hymen, and therefore there is no uncertainty whether she engaged in intercourse before or after betrothal. Clearly, it took place after betrothal, and there is only one uncertainty: Did she engage in intercourse by coercion or willingly?” (3)

The Talmud, Sanhedrin 55b
Rav Yosef says: Come and hear a resolution from a mishna (Nidda 44b): A girl who is three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal is betrothed with intercourse, as the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse. (4)

The Talmud, Sanhedrin 54b
And Shmuel holds: It is written: “And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman,” indicating that the halakha of a male who engages in intercourse passively is like that of a woman; just as the intercourse of a woman has the halakhic status of intercourse from when she is three years old, the same is true with regard to a male who engages in intercourse passively. Consequently, in Shmuel’s opinion, one who engages in intercourse with a male who is older than three is liable. (5)

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH BOYS YOUNGER THAN NINE YEARS
In another part of the Talmud we can read another worrying element:

“Therefore, just as one who engages in intercourse actively is not liable if he is less than nine years old, as the intercourse of such a child does not have the halakhic status of intercourse, so too, if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable.” (Sanhedrin 54b) (5)

WEIGHING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TALMUD TIMES
A member of the Gondolath Team made some valuable comments on the first version of this article that I would like to add to this article: “Rule one of anthropology is understanding the culture, era, and context of any text. The claim circulating online about this passage of ancient Babylonian Talmud, is a misrepresentation. The discussion in Ketubot 9a does not condone abuse; rather, it is a legal debate about whether a girl under certain circumstances could later marry into priestly classes. This reflects a focus on legal status, not moral permissibility.

Even in ancient times, child abuse was prohibited under Jewish law, with strict penalties for perpetrators. Abuse was treated as a severe violation, subject to communal and legal punishment, including financial restitution, exclusion, or physical penalties. The discussion is not a guide for behavior but a scholarly exploration of legal principles in historical contexts. I was able to discover this with 2 mins of research. Please do better research before spreading such disturbing claims.” (Kate)

SOME REFLECTIONS
There is a lot of discussion on the Talmud on X (9). This article only touches upon one of the aspects of it. It seems that the mentioned Talmud passages above talk mainly about virginity, sexual intercourse, adultery and marriage. It is within this context that the statements are made.

The two Rabbis stressed the importance of an intact hymen, and their ‘wisdom’ is that the hymen can regrow if the girl is not yet three years old. And because of that it is not legally a crime. They didn’t actually promote to have sex with girls below the age of three years.

This intercourse with 3-year-old-girls seems to be allowed only when the girl is married, although the Sanhedrin 54b-part says that anyone engaging in sex with a toddler below the age of three is not liable.

This doesn’t make it any less weird of course: having sex with a three year because she is married to you doesn’t change the insanity of it. And to just say that having sex with someone below the age of three is not really sex is also quite twisted.

The first rabbi compares the hymen of a girl younger than three years with an eye after it is poked by a finger. In the second video an image is presented that suggests that this is ‘eye-metaphor’ is described in the Talmud (Kethubot 9b). I was unable to find that comparison; perhaps someone else can?

What are your thoughts on this? Let your voice be heard in our Telegram group. You can also subscribe to our study project.

FOOTNOTES
(1) https://x.com/KenOKeefe1TJP/status/1851670380332650594
(2) https://x.com/Orphapayi/status/1851690459178971301
(3) https://www.sefaria.org/Ketubot.9a.3?lang=bi (Talmud, Ketubot 9a)
(4) https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.55b.4?lang=bi (Talmud, Sanhedrin 55b)
(5) https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.54b.21?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en (Talmud, Sanhedrin 54b)
(6) The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (22 vols …
(7) Why Was the Talmud Written? – Was the Oral Law Supposed to Remain Oral …
(8) The Talmud and Daily Life in the Age of the Rabbis (circa 200-7th …
(9) I didn’t check all the claims in this post by Dan Bilzerian: https://x.com/DanBilzerian/status/1825211759906693465. If you want to know why is so against Zionist , see for an interview with Pierce Morgan (10)
(10) https://x.com/blackbloodkin1/status/1856584962205442121