fetus

If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat terumah because of the share of the fetus, since a fetus prevents [its mother] from eating [terumah] but does not cause her to be able to eat [terumah], the words of Rabbi Yose. They said to him: since you have testified to us concerning the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest, even concerning the daughter of a priest who was married to a priest, and he died and left her pregnant her slaves may not eat terumah because of the share of the fetus!

If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat terumah because of the share of the fetus, since a fetus prevents [its mother] from eating [terumah] but does not cause her to be able to eat [terumah], the words of Rabbi Yose. They said to him: since you have testified to us concerning the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest, even concerning the daughter of a priest who was married to a priest, and he died and left her pregnant her slaves may not eat terumah because of the share of the fetus!

If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat terumah because of the share of the fetus, since a fetus prevents [its mother] from eating [terumah] but does not cause her to be able to eat [terumah], the words of Rabbi Yose. They said to him: since you have testified to us concerning the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a priest, even concerning the daughter of a priest who was married to a priest, and he died and left her pregnant her slaves may not eat terumah because of the share of the fetus!

A fetus, a yavam, betrothal, a deaf-mute, and a boy who is nine years and one day old, disqualify [a woman] from [terumah], but do not allow her to eat terumah, If it is doubtful whether the boy is nine years and one day old or not, or whether he has produced two hairs or not, If a house collapsed upon a man and upon his brother’s daughter, and it is not known which of them died first, her rival must perform halitzah but may not be taken in yibbum.

She was pregnant and they said to her, “What is the nature of this fetus?’ [And she answered, “It is] from so-and-so and he is a priest.” Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: she is believed, And Rabbi Joshua says: we do not live by her mouth, rather she is in the presumption of having had relations with a natin or a mamzer, until she brings proof for her statement.

If he betroths a woman and then declares, “I thought that she was a priest’s daughter, and behold she is [the daughter of] a Levite” or “a Levite’s daughter whereas she is [the daughter of] a priest”; “Poor, whereas she is wealthy”, or “wealthy, whereas she is poor,” she is betrothed, since she did not deceive him. If he says to a woman, “Behold, you are betrothed to me after I convert,” or “after you convert,” “After I am freed from slavery,” or “after you are freed from slavery”; “After your husband dies” or, “after your sister dies”; “After your yavam performs halizah for you”; she is not betrothed. Similarly, if he says to his friend, “If your wife gives birth to a female, behold she is betrothed to me,” she is not betrothed. [If his wife is pregnant, and her fetus is discernible, his words are valid, and if she bears a female, she is betrothed.]

If a man declares, “this son of mine is a mamzer,” he is not believed. And even if both [the husband and wife] say about the fetus inside her, “it’s a mamzer” they are not believed. Rabbi Judah says: they are believed.

If one slaughters sacred animals [intending] to eat the fetus or the afterbirth outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render it piggul. If one plucks off [the necks of] doves, [intending] to eat their eggs outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render [them] piggul. The milk of sacred animals or the eggs of doves one is not liable for eating them in respect of piggul, remnant, or uncleanness.

If an animal was having difficulty giving birth and the fetus put forth a limb and then put it back in, it may be eaten [when its mother is slaughtered]. If it put forth its head, even though it put it back in, it is considered as born. Whatever is cut off from the fetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatever is cut off from the spleen or kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. This is the rule: that which is from the body of the animal is forbidden, but that which is not from the body of the animal is permitted.

If an animal was having difficulty giving birth and the fetus put forth a limb and then put it back in, it may be eaten [when its mother is slaughtered]. If it put forth its head, even though it put it back in, it is considered as born. Whatever is cut off from the fetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatever is cut off from the spleen or kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. This is the rule: that which is from the body of the animal is forbidden, but that which is not from the body of the animal is permitted.

If a fetus died within the womb [of its mother] and the shepherd put in his hand and touched it, he is clean, whether it was a clean or unclean animal. Rabbi Yose HaGalili says: if it was an unclean animal he is unclean, and if it was a clean animal he is clean. If the fetus of a woman died within the womb of its mother and the midwife put in her hand and touched it, the midwife is unclean for seven days, but the mother is clean until the fetus comes out.

If a fetus died within the womb [of its mother] and the shepherd put in his hand and touched it, he is clean, whether it was a clean or unclean animal. Rabbi Yose HaGalili says: if it was an unclean animal he is unclean, and if it was a clean animal he is clean. If the fetus of a woman died within the womb of its mother and the midwife put in her hand and touched it, the midwife is unclean for seven days, but the mother is clean until the fetus comes out.

If a fetus died within the womb [of its mother] and the shepherd put in his hand and touched it, he is clean, whether it was a clean or unclean animal. Rabbi Yose HaGalili says: if it was an unclean animal he is unclean, and if it was a clean animal he is clean. If the fetus of a woman died within the womb of its mother and the midwife put in her hand and touched it, the midwife is unclean for seven days, but the mother is clean until the fetus comes out.

If an animal was having difficulty in labor and the fetus put forth its limb and a person immediately cut if off and then slaughtered the mother, the flesh [of the fetus] is clean. If he slaughtered the mother first and then cut if off, the flesh [of the fetus] is unclean like that which had touched nevelah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, it is like that which had touched a slaughtered terefah, for just as we find that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean, so the slaughtering of the animal renders the limb clean. Rabbi Meir said to them: No, for when you say that the slaughtering of a terefah [animal] renders it clean you are concerned with [the animal] itself, but can you say that it will render clean the limb which is not part of [the animal] itself? From where do we learn that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean? [For we could have argued to the contrary:] An unclean animal may not be eaten, and a terefah also may not be eaten; just as slaughtering does not render an unclean animal clean so slaughtering should not render a terefah animal clean? No, if you said this of an unclean animal for at no time was it fit [for slaughtering]; can you also say this of a terefah animal which had a time when it was fit [for slaughtering]? Take away with this argument that you brought forth! For where would we know this of an animal that was born terefah from the womb? [Substitute therefore this argument]: No, if you said this of an unclean animal for none of its kind may be validly slaughtered; can you also state this of a terefah for whose kind there is valid slaughter? [Accordingly], the slaughtering of a live eight months birth does not render it clean, since there is no slaughtering of its kind.

If an animal was having difficulty in labor and the fetus put forth its limb and a person immediately cut if off and then slaughtered the mother, the flesh [of the fetus] is clean. If he slaughtered the mother first and then cut if off, the flesh [of the fetus] is unclean like that which had touched nevelah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, it is like that which had touched a slaughtered terefah, for just as we find that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean, so the slaughtering of the animal renders the limb clean. Rabbi Meir said to them: No, for when you say that the slaughtering of a terefah [animal] renders it clean you are concerned with [the animal] itself, but can you say that it will render clean the limb which is not part of [the animal] itself? From where do we learn that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean? [For we could have argued to the contrary:] An unclean animal may not be eaten, and a terefah also may not be eaten; just as slaughtering does not render an unclean animal clean so slaughtering should not render a terefah animal clean? No, if you said this of an unclean animal for at no time was it fit [for slaughtering]; can you also say this of a terefah animal which had a time when it was fit [for slaughtering]? Take away with this argument that you brought forth! For where would we know this of an animal that was born terefah from the womb? [Substitute therefore this argument]: No, if you said this of an unclean animal for none of its kind may be validly slaughtered; can you also state this of a terefah for whose kind there is valid slaughter? [Accordingly], the slaughtering of a live eight months birth does not render it clean, since there is no slaughtering of its kind.

If an animal was having difficulty in labor and the fetus put forth its limb and a person immediately cut if off and then slaughtered the mother, the flesh [of the fetus] is clean. If he slaughtered the mother first and then cut if off, the flesh [of the fetus] is unclean like that which had touched nevelah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, it is like that which had touched a slaughtered terefah, for just as we find that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean, so the slaughtering of the animal renders the limb clean. Rabbi Meir said to them: No, for when you say that the slaughtering of a terefah [animal] renders it clean you are concerned with [the animal] itself, but can you say that it will render clean the limb which is not part of [the animal] itself? From where do we learn that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean? [For we could have argued to the contrary:] An unclean animal may not be eaten, and a terefah also may not be eaten; just as slaughtering does not render an unclean animal clean so slaughtering should not render a terefah animal clean? No, if you said this of an unclean animal for at no time was it fit [for slaughtering]; can you also say this of a terefah animal which had a time when it was fit [for slaughtering]? Take away with this argument that you brought forth! For where would we know this of an animal that was born terefah from the womb? [Substitute therefore this argument]: No, if you said this of an unclean animal for none of its kind may be validly slaughtered; can you also state this of a terefah for whose kind there is valid slaughter? [Accordingly], the slaughtering of a live eight months birth does not render it clean, since there is no slaughtering of its kind.

If one slaughtered an animal and found in it an eight months’ fetus, either living or dead, or a dead nine months’ fetus, he need only tear it open and take out the blood. If he found in it a living nine months’ fetus it must be slaughtered, and he would thereby [possibly] incur the penalty for “it and its young,” the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if it is eight years old and is plowing the field, the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. If he ripped open [the mother] and found in it a living nine months’ fetus, it must be slaughtered, since its mother has not been slaughtered.

If one slaughtered an animal and found in it an eight months’ fetus, either living or dead, or a dead nine months’ fetus, he need only tear it open and take out the blood. If he found in it a living nine months’ fetus it must be slaughtered, and he would thereby [possibly] incur the penalty for “it and its young,” the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if it is eight years old and is plowing the field, the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. If he ripped open [the mother] and found in it a living nine months’ fetus, it must be slaughtered, since its mother has not been slaughtered.

If one slaughtered an animal and found in it an eight months’ fetus, either living or dead, or a dead nine months’ fetus, he need only tear it open and take out the blood. If he found in it a living nine months’ fetus it must be slaughtered, and he would thereby [possibly] incur the penalty for “it and its young,” the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if it is eight years old and is plowing the field, the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. If he ripped open [the mother] and found in it a living nine months’ fetus, it must be slaughtered, since its mother has not been slaughtered.

If one slaughtered an animal and found in it an eight months’ fetus, either living or dead, or a dead nine months’ fetus, he need only tear it open and take out the blood. If he found in it a living nine months’ fetus it must be slaughtered, and he would thereby [possibly] incur the penalty for “it and its young,” the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if it is eight years old and is plowing the field, the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. If he ripped open [the mother] and found in it a living nine months’ fetus, it must be slaughtered, since its mother has not been slaughtered.

[The prohibition of] the sciatic nerve is in force both within the land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of both unconsecrated and consecrated [animals]. It applies to cattle and to wild animals, to the right and left hip. But it does not apply to a bird because it does not have a socket [on its hip]. It applies to a fetus. Rabbi Judah says: it does not apply to a fetus. And its [forbidden] fat is permitted. Butchers are not trustworthy with regard to the [removal of the] sciatic nerve, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: they are trustworthy with regard to it as well as with regard to the [forbidden] fat.

[The prohibition of] the sciatic nerve is in force both within the land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of both unconsecrated and consecrated [animals]. It applies to cattle and to wild animals, to the right and left hip. But it does not apply to a bird because it does not have a socket [on its hip]. It applies to a fetus. Rabbi Judah says: it does not apply to a fetus. And its [forbidden] fat is permitted. Butchers are not trustworthy with regard to the [removal of the] sciatic nerve, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: they are trustworthy with regard to it as well as with regard to the [forbidden] fat.

In the following cases the skin is considered flesh: The skin of a person, The skin of the domesticated pig. Rabbi Yose says: even the skin of the wild pig. The skin of the hump of a young camel. The skin of the head of a young calf. The skin around the hooves. The skin of the pudenda. The skin of a fetus. The skin beneath the fat tail. The skin of the gecko, the monitor, the lizard and the skink. Rabbi Judah says: the lizard is like the weasel. If any of these skins was tanned or trampled upon as much as [was usual] for tanning, it becomes clean, excepting the skin of a man. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the eight reptiles have [real] skins.

[An Israelite] who buys a fetus of a donkey belonging to a non-Jew or who sells one to him, although this is not permitted, or who forms a partnership with him, or who receives [an animal] from him to look after or who gives [his donkey] to him to look after, is exempt from the [law of the] bekhor, for it says: [“I sanctified to me all the firstborn] in Israel,” (Numbers 3:13) but not in non-Jews. Priests and levites are exempt through [an argument made by a] kal vehomer: if they exempted the first-born belonging to the Israelites in the wilderness, it follows all the more so that they should exempt their own.

[An Israelite] who buys a fetus of a cow belonging to a non-Jew or who sells one to him, although this is not permitted, or who forms a partnership with him, or who receives [an animal] from him to look after or who gives [his cow] to him to look after, is exempt from the [law of the] bekhor, for it says: [“I sanctified to Me all the firstborn] in Israel,” (Numbers 3:13) but not in non-Jews. Priests and Levites are subject [to the law of the first-born pure animal]. They are not exempt from [the law of] the first-born of a clean animal, but only of a first-born son and the first-born of a donkey.

If one buys an animal from a non-Jew and it is not known whether it had given birth or had not given birth: Rabbi Ishmael says: that born of a goat in its first year certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first-born]. That born of a ewe two years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. That born of a cow or a donkey three years old certainly belongs to the priest; after that, it is a questionable case [of a first born]. Rabbi Akiva to him: if an animal were exempted [from the law of the first born] only with the birth of [actual] offspring, it would be as you say. But they said: the sign of offspring in small cattle is a discharge [from the womb]. In large cattle, the after-birth; in a woman, the signs are the fetus and the after-birth. This is the general rule: Whenever it is known that it had given birth, the priest receives nothing. Whenever it had never given birth, it belongs to the priest. If there is a doubt, it shall be eaten blemished by the owners. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a large domestic animal has discharged a clot of blood, it [the clot] shall be buried, and it [the mother] is exempted from the law of the first born.

There is one who is [counted as] a firstborn [with respect to] inheritance but not with respect to redemption from a priest; a firstborn with respect to redemption from a priest but not a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance; a firstborn [with respect to both] inheritance and redemption from a priest; and a firstborn [in respect] to neither inheritance nor redemption from a priest. Which is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance but not to redemption from a priest? One which follows one which was not viable whose head came forth alive, or one born in the ninth month whose head came out dead, or when a woman aborts something that looks like an animal, beast or bird, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: [it is not considered an opening of the womb] until [the abortion] has the form of a human being. If [a woman] aborts a sandal or a placenta or a fetus having an articulated shape, or if an embryo came out by pieces, [the infant] which follows after them is a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. If one who never had children married a woman who had already given birth, even if she had given birth when she was a slave but is now free, or [had given birth] when she was a non-Jew but has since converted, if after coming to the Israelite she gave birth, [the infant] is considered a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [the infant] is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance and for redemption from a priest, as it says: “Whatever opens the womb in Israel” (Exodus 13:2), meaning only if it opens the womb in Israel. If one had children already and married a woman who had never given birth previously Or if she converted when pregnant, or if she was freed when pregnant, and she gave birth; If she and a priestess gave birth, she and a Levite’s daughter, she and a woman who had already given birth; And similarly [if a woman] who did not wait three months after her husband's death, married and gave birth and it is not known if the infant was born in the ninth month since the death of the first [husband] or in the seventh month since she married the second, it is a firstborn for redemption from a priest but not a first-born [with respect] to inheritance. Which is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest? If [a woman] miscarries a sac full of blood or full of water or full of pieces of flesh; or if [a woman] miscarries something with the shape of fish or locusts or reptiles, or creeping things, or if she discharges on the fortieth day [of conception], [the infant] which follows after [these discharges] is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest.

A fetus extracted by means of a caesarean section and one that follows neither is a first-born for inheritance or a first-born to be redeemed from a priest. Rabbi Shimon says: the first is a first-born for inheritance and the second is a first-born as regards [the redemption] with five selas.

In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications. In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [those relating to] a substitute, For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them. [The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication. Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred.

Some women [after childbirth] bring an offering which is eaten; some bring one which is not eaten, and some bring no offering at all. These bring an offering which is eaten: If a woman miscarries a fetus which has the shape of beast, or a wild animal or a bird, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the sages say: only if it has a human shape. Or if a woman miscarries a sandal-like fetus or a placenta or a fully formed fetus, or one that comes out in pieces. Similarly, if a female slave miscarries, she brings an offering which is eaten.

Some women [after childbirth] bring an offering which is eaten; some bring one which is not eaten, and some bring no offering at all. These bring an offering which is eaten: If a woman miscarries a fetus which has the shape of beast, or a wild animal or a bird, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the sages say: only if it has a human shape. Or if a woman miscarries a sandal-like fetus or a placenta or a fully formed fetus, or one that comes out in pieces. Similarly, if a female slave miscarries, she brings an offering which is eaten.

Some women [after childbirth] bring an offering which is eaten; some bring one which is not eaten, and some bring no offering at all. These bring an offering which is eaten: If a woman miscarries a fetus which has the shape of beast, or a wild animal or a bird, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the sages say: only if it has a human shape. Or if a woman miscarries a sandal-like fetus or a placenta or a fully formed fetus, or one that comes out in pieces. Similarly, if a female slave miscarries, she brings an offering which is eaten.

Who is regarded as "virgin"? Any woman who has never yet observed a blood flow, even if she is married. "A woman in pregnancy"? One whose fetus is notice. "A nursing woman"? Until she has weaned her child. If she gave her child to a nursing woman, if she weaned him, or if he died: Rabbi Meir says: she conveys uncleanness retroactively for twenty-four hours; But the sages say: it suffices for her [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observation of the flow].

If she aborted a sandal or a placenta she sits in uncleanness for both male and female. If a placenta is in a house, the house is unclean, not because a placenta is a fetus but because generally there can be no placenta without a fetus. Rabbi Shimon says: the child might have been mashed before it came out.

If she aborted a sandal or a placenta she sits in uncleanness for both male and female. If a placenta is in a house, the house is unclean, not because a placenta is a fetus but because generally there can be no placenta without a fetus. Rabbi Shimon says: the child might have been mashed before it came out.

If a woman was in hard labor during the eighty days prescribed for the birth of a female, all kinds of blood that she may observe are clean, until the fetus is born. But Rabbi Eliezer holds them to be unclean. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: if in a case where the law was stringent in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain, it was nevertheless lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor, in a case where it was lenient in regard to blood discharged in the absence of pain is there not even more reason to be lenient in regard to blood discharged during hard labor? He replied: it is enough for the case inferred to be treated in the same manner as the one from which it is inferred. For in what way were you lenient upon her? From the uncleanness of a zivah, but she does have the uncleanness of a niddah.

For a fetus born from its mother's side, she does not sit the prescribed days of uncleanness nor the days of cleanness, nor does one incur on its account the obligation to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon says: it is regarded as a regular birth. All women are subject to uncleanness [as soon as the blood appears] in the outer chamber, as it says, "her discharge being blood in her body" (Leviticus 15:19). But a zav and one who emitted semen convey no uncleanness unless the discharge came out of the body.

“ If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel and made the condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his.” May he sell them to a Cohen? Let us hear from the following. Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything, the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything, the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything, the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses in that dry land to acquire its airspace. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that you acquire one tenth of it.

“ If a Cohen sold a field to an Israel and made the condition that the tithes should be his, the tithes are his.” May he sell them to a Cohen? Let us hear from the following. Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything, the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything, the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything, the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses in that dry land to acquire its airspace. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that you acquire one tenth of it.

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may they not bring a male to her, she is fertilized and gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may they not bring a female to him, he fertilizes her and she gives birth? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen. There, we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Haggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with (slaves) [fetuses]? He said to them, Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you, since Rebbi Abun said in the name of the rabbis there, this implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen.

If the first [sister] had a co-wife, one [of the brothers] performs ḥalîṣah, the co-wife is freed. If then he had intercourse with her, this is forbidden intercourse and the co-wife is not freed. If he performed ḥalîṣah and then had intercourse with her, as you look at it, either ḥalîṣah should free or intercourse should free! Rebbi Yudan said, I confirmed it following “If somebody married his sister-in-law and she turns out to be pregnant”, as you say there, the co-wife should not marry until she knows by which means she is permitted, whether through the fetus or through intercourse; so here also the co-wife should not marry until she knows by which means she is permitted, whether through ḥalîṣah or through intercourse.

Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to fetuses. Rebbi Yose said, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. That is the Mishnah, “if somebody performed ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” as you say here, retroactively ḥalîṣah did not touch her, so retroactively the child is a son and receives the benefit. There, we have stated: “If somebody says, if my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina, if she gave birth to a male, [the male baby] will take a mina. If a female, 200 [drachmae], if she gave birth to a female, that one will take 200.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is only for his son, but not for any other. Rebbi Yasa said, even any other. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, only from a sick person, but not a healthy one; only movables but not real estate. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “ If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son overseas or that [his wife] was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took].” What does Rebbi Eleazar do with this? There is a difference because it is his child. The second part [of the Mishnah] disagrees with Samuel in the interpretation of Rebbi Yose: “If they returned everything and then the son died or she had a miscarriage, anybody who takes first after that acquires it.” The first group did not acquire. Even at the beginning they should not have acquired! Did not Rebbi Yose say, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. He was not living! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, because of abandoning. The rabbis of Caesarea, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Abba bar Natan: Rebbi Natan changed his mind because of that Mishnah: “If a male, a mina, if a female, 200.” Is a female in this situation not like an outsider? Bar Qappara stated: “On transfers benefit to a one day old.”

Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to fetuses. Rebbi Yose said, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. That is the Mishnah, “if somebody performed ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” as you say here, retroactively ḥalîṣah did not touch her, so retroactively the child is a son and receives the benefit. There, we have stated: “If somebody says, if my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina, if she gave birth to a male, [the male baby] will take a mina. If a female, 200 [drachmae], if she gave birth to a female, that one will take 200.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is only for his son, but not for any other. Rebbi Yasa said, even any other. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, only from a sick person, but not a healthy one; only movables but not real estate. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “ If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son overseas or that [his wife] was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took].” What does Rebbi Eleazar do with this? There is a difference because it is his child. The second part [of the Mishnah] disagrees with Samuel in the interpretation of Rebbi Yose: “If they returned everything and then the son died or she had a miscarriage, anybody who takes first after that acquires it.” The first group did not acquire. Even at the beginning they should not have acquired! Did not Rebbi Yose say, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. He was not living! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, because of abandoning. The rabbis of Caesarea, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Abba bar Natan: Rebbi Natan changed his mind because of that Mishnah: “If a male, a mina, if a female, 200.” Is a female in this situation not like an outsider? Bar Qappara stated: “On transfers benefit to a one day old.”

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

How do we hold? If he came to her immediately after her husband’s death, and the fetus was recognized after two months, one should have stated: A nine-month child of either one of them or a seven-month of either one of them! But it may be that he came to her after two months and the fetus was recognized after three months, one should have stated: The sister-in-law should not perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate until after five months! But it must be that he came to her after 40 days and the fetus was recognized after 50 days. That would be complete months for [a child of] the first [brother] and incomplete ones for the second. This implies that a woman may give birth after full months. This implies that there are two creations. This implies that a woman may give birth after incomplete months. This implies that a woman may become pregnant repeatedly. This implies that a woman cannot become pregnant simultaneously from two men. And it disagrees with the sermonizing rabbis, since the sermonizing rabbis say “the middleman” “from the orders of the Philistines”, from 100 prepuces of Philistines, that 100 prepuces of Philistines touched her. Rebbi Mattaniah said, there is no disagreement. As long as the semen is not spoiled, a woman can become pregnant from several men simultaneously. After the semen is spoiled, a woman cannot become pregnant from several men simultaneously.

MISHNAH: If a daughter of an Israel married a Cohen who then died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus. A fetus disqualifies but cannot enable to eat, the words of Rebbi Yose. They said to him, after you testified before us about the daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen, even if a daughter of a Cohen [was married] to a Cohen who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus.

MISHNAH: If a daughter of an Israel married a Cohen who then died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus. A fetus disqualifies but cannot enable to eat, the words of Rebbi Yose. They said to him, after you testified before us about the daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen, even if a daughter of a Cohen [was married] to a Cohen who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus.

MISHNAH: If a daughter of an Israel married a Cohen who then died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus. A fetus disqualifies but cannot enable to eat, the words of Rebbi Yose. They said to him, after you testified before us about the daughter of an Israel [married] to a Cohen, even if a daughter of a Cohen [was married] to a Cohen who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat heave because of the share of the fetus.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah: Her slaves may eat, his slaves may not eat. For if it were not so, she would eat but her slaves would not eat! Rebbi Josia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it is from this, she also should not eat. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Not that Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees, he only said, for if it were not so, she would eat but her slaves would not eat. There came a case before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said, go out and look how the public behaves. Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not eat. Rebbi Yose said, this means that [the fetus] does not disable anybody able to eat and does not enable anybody unable to eat.

MISHNAH: The fetus, the levir, the betrothal, the deaf-and-dumb, and the male nine years and one day old disable but do not enable to eat. If there was a doubt whether or not he had reached nine years and one dayt; whether or not he had grown two pubic hairs; when the house fell on him and his brother’s daughter and it is not known who of them died first, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

HALAKHAH: “The fetus, the levir, the betrothal,” etc. Rebbi Simeon said, here the logic is deficient, for if it is action to disable it also should be action to enable, and if it is not action to disable it also should not be action to enable. Rebbi Simeon is correct; what is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat. The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat. They objected: there is the bastard who may not eat and he enables to eat! There is a difference, since it is written “born in the house”. Then the born should enable, the not born should not enable! There is a difference, since it is written “and she returns to her father’s house”, to exclude the one waiting for the levir, “in her youth”, to exclude the pregnant one. Rebbi Yose said, that means that they considered pregnancy to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat. The words of the rabbis disagree since Ze‘ira said, there they state that the betrothed, the one waiting for the levir, and the pregnant, pay the capital but not the fifth. What are we speaking about? If about the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel, even if she had children from him she is not an outsider for it. But we must deal with the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen. If you say, they considered the fetus to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat, why does she pay the capital but not the fifth, should she not pay capital and fifth?

HALAKHAH: “The fetus, the levir, the betrothal,” etc. Rebbi Simeon said, here the logic is deficient, for if it is action to disable it also should be action to enable, and if it is not action to disable it also should not be action to enable. Rebbi Simeon is correct; what is the reason of the rabbis? “They shall eat”, they shall enable to eat. The one who may eat enables to eat, the one who may not eat cannot enable to eat. They objected: there is the bastard who may not eat and he enables to eat! There is a difference, since it is written “born in the house”. Then the born should enable, the not born should not enable! There is a difference, since it is written “and she returns to her father’s house”, to exclude the one waiting for the levir, “in her youth”, to exclude the pregnant one. Rebbi Yose said, that means that they considered pregnancy to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat. The words of the rabbis disagree since Ze‘ira said, there they state that the betrothed, the one waiting for the levir, and the pregnant, pay the capital but not the fifth. What are we speaking about? If about the daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel, even if she had children from him she is not an outsider for it. But we must deal with the daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen. If you say, they considered the fetus to be real to disable but did not consider it real to enable to eat, why does she pay the capital but not the fifth, should she not pay capital and fifth?

MISHNAH: The rapist, the seducer, and the insane do neither disable nor enable to eat, but if they are unable to marry in Israel they disable. How is that? If an Israel came upon the daughter of a Cohen, she may eat heave, if she became pregnant she may not eat. If the fetus was cut into pieces in her body she may eat. If a Cohen came upon the daughter of an Israel, she may not eat heave, if she became pregnant she may not eat, if she gave birth she may eat. It turns out that the son’s power is greater than the father’s.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months. Rebbi Jonah said this before Rebbi Yose. He said to him, do not accept that from here, they were lenient for eating heave. If a daughter of a Cohen was married to an Israel, her husband went overseas, and she received notice that he died, does she not immediately eat heave? But because of a fetus she has to wait three months.

MISHNAH: If she was pregnant and one asked her, what kind of fetus is this? He is from Mr. X, a Cohen; Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer say, she is believed. Rebbi Joshua said, we do not live off her mouth but there is a presumption that she is pregnant from a Gibeonite or a bastard unless she provides proof of her statement.

Should one follow the majority, and most women are married as virgins. Say then that she was married as a virgin! This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. There, we have stated: “If an ox gored a cow and one finds her fetus beside her.” Do most cows have miscarriages? Say therefore that the goring induced the miscarriage. Rebbi Abbahu said, this implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Abun said, in one case they applied a majority argument, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that the one in heat bit it.

Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave be able to accept a bill of manumission since a bill of manumission applies to him. But he should not be able to accept a bill of divorce since a bill of divorce does not apply to him. If you say, is that not a baraita? “Your are a slave but your child is free; if she was pregnant, she acquired for him.” They considered her fetus as one of her limbs. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave be able to accept a bill of manumission but he should not be able to accept a bill of his equal. If you say, the preceding baraita? “You are a slave but your child is free; if she was pregnant, she acquired for him.” They considered her fetus as one of her limbs.

Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave be able to accept a bill of manumission since a bill of manumission applies to him. But he should not be able to accept a bill of divorce since a bill of divorce does not apply to him. If you say, is that not a baraita? “Your are a slave but your child is free; if she was pregnant, she acquired for him.” They considered her fetus as one of her limbs. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave be able to accept a bill of manumission but he should not be able to accept a bill of his equal. If you say, the preceding baraita? “You are a slave but your child is free; if she was pregnant, she acquired for him.” They considered her fetus as one of her limbs.

“Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything; the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything; the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything; the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself; a slave girl and reserve her children for himself; an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses from that dry land to acquire its airspace. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that one tenth of it be acquired by you.

“Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who sells the tithes of his field to another person did not do anything; the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything; the fetus of his animal to another person, he did not do anything; the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself; a slave girl and reserve her children for himself; an animal and reserve her fetus for himself. Is it not impossible for a person to sell the airspace of his dry land to another person? Explain it if he tells him, tear out some grasses from that dry land to acquire its airspace. And here there is real estate before him and he says, pluck something from the ground so that one tenth of it be acquired by you.

MISHNAH: If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed. Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are believed.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed,” etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody said, this is my son, he is to be believed.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed”? Maybe it was said following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah said, they can be believed; Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, still it is a baraita: “For he has to recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.” If they maintained that he was his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was not his son, he cannot be believed. That he was not his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was his son, he is believed. Some Tannaïm state on the first case that he is believed. Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Huna: If they maintained that he was from his slave girl, he is believed. If he was standing next to the customs collectors and said, he is my son, but later he said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, but later he said, he is my son, he is not believed. Some Tannaïm state, he is believed. Rebbi Mana said, because of those Samaritans who use their sons as slaves.

MISHNAH: A bull gored a cow and her fetus was found beside her. If it is not known whether she gave birth before she was gored or gave birth after she was gored, he pays half the damages for the cow and a quarter for the fetus. And similarly, if a cow gored an ox and her calf is found next to her, but it is not known whether she gave birth before or after she gored, he pays half the damage from the cow and a quarter from the calf.

MISHNAH: A bull gored a cow and her fetus was found beside her. If it is not known whether she gave birth before she was gored or gave birth after she was gored, he pays half the damages for the cow and a quarter for the fetus. And similarly, if a cow gored an ox and her calf is found next to her, but it is not known whether she gave birth before or after she gored, he pays half the damage from the cow and a quarter from the calf.

Rav Ḥisda said, “draw this animal close to you in order to take possession,” he took possession. “To take possession of its offspring,” he did [not] take possession. “To take possession of it together with its offspring,” he did (not) take possession. Rebbi Nasa said, that is, if it was not pregnant. But if it was pregnant, they treated [the fetus] as one of its limbs, as we did state: He who sells the fetus of his animal to another person did not do anything; the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything; the tithes of his field to another person, he did not do anything; the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him an animal and reserve her fetus for himself, sell him a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, sell him dry land and reserve the airspace for himself.

Rav Ḥisda said, “draw this animal close to you in order to take possession,” he took possession. “To take possession of its offspring,” he did [not] take possession. “To take possession of it together with its offspring,” he did (not) take possession. Rebbi Nasa said, that is, if it was not pregnant. But if it was pregnant, they treated [the fetus] as one of its limbs, as we did state: He who sells the fetus of his animal to another person did not do anything; the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything; the tithes of his field to another person, he did not do anything; the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him an animal and reserve her fetus for himself, sell him a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, sell him dry land and reserve the airspace for himself.

Rav Ḥisda said, “draw this animal close to you in order to take possession,” he took possession. “To take possession of its offspring,” he did [not] take possession. “To take possession of it together with its offspring,” he did (not) take possession. Rebbi Nasa said, that is, if it was not pregnant. But if it was pregnant, they treated [the fetus] as one of its limbs, as we did state: He who sells the fetus of his animal to another person did not do anything; the future children of his slave girl to another person, he did not do anything; the tithes of his field to another person, he did not do anything; the airspace of his dry land to another person, he did not do anything. But he may sell him an animal and reserve her fetus for himself, sell him a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, sell him dry land and reserve the airspace for himself.

Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to the fetus; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to the fetus. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took]. If they returned everything and then the son died or his wife had a miscarriage, the last one in possession acquires it.” Did the first group acquire or not? Explain it, because of hopelessness and it does not even disagree with Samuel. Or should the last one not have acquired it? Still it is because of hopelessness.

Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to the fetus; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to the fetus. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took]. If they returned everything and then the son died or his wife had a miscarriage, the last one in possession acquires it.” Did the first group acquire or not? Explain it, because of hopelessness and it does not even disagree with Samuel. Or should the last one not have acquired it? Still it is because of hopelessness.

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a male to it, he fertilizes it and it gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male (horse) [damaged one] which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a female to him, she is fertilized by him and gives birth? Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses. There, we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses? He said to them, Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses.

“A Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Non-Jew, for she brings a son to pagan worship; but a Non-Jew may be a midwife for a Jewish woman.” It was stated so: From the outside but not the inside. She should not put her hand inside not to squish the fetus in her innards, and she should not give her a cup of root-extract to drink. If she was a medical doctor? This will come as what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted. And here, if she was a medical doctor it is permitted. [Rebbi Yose bar Abun, these questions … [doc]tor permitted.]

MISHNAH: What is a virgin? Any female who never saw blood, even if she was married. Pregnant, once the fetus is recognizable. Nursing, until she weans her child. If she gave her child to a wet-nurse or weaned him, Rebbi Meïr says she causes retroactive impurity for 24 hours but the Sages say, her timing is exact.

HALAKHAH: “Under which circumstances did they say that her timing is exact,” etc. Samuel said, they taught only about a virgin and an old woman. But to a pregnant or nursing woman they give all during preganncy and nursing time. Both Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan say, the rules are identical for virgin, post-menopausal, pregnant, or nursing woman. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan parallel Rebbi Ḥanina’s and they all disagree with Samuel’s opinion, since Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Once Rebbi instructed following the leniencies both of Rebbi Meïr and of Rebbi Yose. How was this? If the fetus was noticed and after that she bled, Rebbi Meïr says, her timing is exact; Rebbi Yose says, she retroactively makes impure for 24 hours. If she then bled frequently, interrupted for three periods, and then bled, Rebbi Meïr says, she retroactively makes impure for 24 hours; Rebbi Yose says, her timing is exact. If you say, one gives her all the time during pregnancy, why would we need Rebbi Yose’s leniency? Is not that of Rebbi Meïr less weighty than that of Rebbi Yose? Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Might we say, following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose of milk? He said to him, it was said so explicitly.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarried a sole or a placenta,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: There only is a sole because it was weighed down by a living [fetus]; it comes out not with a living but with a dead [child]. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: did we not state, “if a woman miscarried a sole or a placenta, she should observe for male and female birth”? That means, it is a child! Rebbi Huna said, I explained it before Rebbi Jeremiah. Explain it if the child was born through the wall of the womb and the sole from the womb. The child within fulfilling, the sole after fulfilling. The child before she converted, the sole after she converted. But even you may say, both were born from the womb, both were born after she converted. Explain that the child was born first and she designated a sacrifice for it. Before she could bring the sacrifice, the sole came out and the first sacrifice was pushed away. It turns out that she brings the sacrifice for the sole.

MISHNAH: If a woman miscarries a sexless, or a hermaphrodite, and a male, she shall observe for a male and a female. If it was a sexless and a male, or a hermaphrodite and a male, she shall observe for a male and a female. A sexless and a female, or a hermaphrodite and a female, she shall observe for a female exclusively. If it came out in pieces or defective, it is born as soon as most of its body came out. If it was a regular birth, when most of its head came out. When is it most of its head? If the forehead came out. If a woman miscarries and it is not known what it was, she shall observe for a male and a female. If it is not known whether there was a fetus, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation. If she miscarries on the 40 day, she gives no thought to a child. On the 41 day, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation. Rebbi Ismael says, on the 41st day, she shall observe for a male and menstruation, on the 81st day, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation for the male is fully formed by the 41st day and the female by the 81st. But the Sages say, the creation of males and females is identical, both on the 41st.

What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? It is said above, (in a similar case regarding causing miscarriage) value is according to the victim (fetus), so to here value is according to the victim.