ira

The following is obvious: If the Jew holds the funnel and the Gentile pours, everybody agrees that is it forbidden. If the Gentile holds the funnel and the Jew pours, Rebbi Assi forbids and Rebbi Immi permits. If the Gentile holds the opening of the wineskin and the Jew pours, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: this is the disagreement. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose, which disagreement? He told him, the disasgreement between Rebbi Assi and Rebbi Immi. If the Jew holds the wineskin and the Gentile pours, they wanted to say that according to everybody it is permitted. Rebbi Samuel: In itself it implies that it is forbidden. For sometimes the Jew will loosen his grip and then the entire pouring is done by the Gentile. If somebody lets down a wineskin from top to bottom this is not pouring from vessel to vessel.

Ḥizqiah said, if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], if the forbidden fell in [last] it makes it forbidden, permitted [last] makes it permitted. Rebbi Samuel [bar Rav Isaac] said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer said, I am going after the last one. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is a stringency about libation wine. Rebbi Yose asked, if it were a stringency about libation wine, even if the permitted fell in last it should be forbidden! Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if somebody mixed a cup from forbidden and from permitted [wine], one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Hoshaia said, only if the permitted fell in last. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it does not make any difference whether the forbidden fell in first and the permitted last or the permitted first and the forbidden last, even water and wine, even if it was mixed perfectly from permitted, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this has been said about the preceding; how can it be? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if a flask of libation wine fell into an amphora of (water) and then it fell into a water cistern, one considers the permitted as nonexistent; if the forbidden does impart taste it is forbidden, otherwise permitted.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rab Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he won’t press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it. Did we not state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day”? And Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since he could not ask him for payment, it is as if he could not believe him. And since he could not believe him, it is as if he could not pay him. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan.

HALAKHAH: “Witnesses become plotters,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Only if he was killed. But not if he was not killed. That is what we have stated: “Only the first group is executed.” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If they were standing, testifying that he killed a person in Lydda. Others came and told them, how can you testify since you were with us in Caesarea on the fifth of the month? Then others came and told them, how can you testify since you were with us in Sepphoris on the tenth of the month? The murderer cannot be executed since possibly they are plotting witnesses. The witnesses cannot be executed since possibly they are telling the truth.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

HALAKHAH: “The father is exiled for the son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Binah stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer, nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. And from where even if he said, I cannot face him, the verse says, when he comes upon him he shall kill him.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Mar Uqba: One strip-measures only with a rope of 50 cubits. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: One strip-measures neither for the Levitic cities nor for the place of breaking the calf’s neck. This would be acceptable for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of Sabbath domain. But for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of fields and vineyards, did they not learn the Sabbath domain from the Levitic cities? For the main thing one does not strip-measure; does one strip-measure for the derivative?

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Mar Uqba: One strip-measures only with a rope of 50 cubits. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: One strip-measures neither for the Levitic cities nor for the place of breaking the calf’s neck. This would be acceptable for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of Sabbath domain. But for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of fields and vineyards, did they not learn the Sabbath domain from the Levitic cities? For the main thing one does not strip-measure; does one strip-measure for the derivative?

They are not liable unless they void part and confirm part. Samuel said, only if they ruled that it was permitted; but not if they ruled that it was not prosecutable. They are not liable unless instruction was given from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of this Tanna: From that place which the Eternal will choose. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they ruled unanimously. There, Rebbi Zeˋira said, only if they all rule for the same reason. And here, what?

The colleagues in the name of Samuel. The Mishnah deals with an individual who complements the multitude. But any individual who acted on his own is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even any single individual who acted on his own brings a female sheep or goat. It is difficult. In Samuel’s opinion, would any single individual be atoned by two sacrifices? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: The individual is suspended. If a majority ate, the court brings. If a minority ate, each individual brings. For any ruling for which the court [bring] a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep or goat. For any ruling for which the court bring a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep; for any ruling for which the court does not bring a bull, the individual brings a female sheep or goat. Samuel explains the Mishnah by majority and minority. If a majority ate, since the court does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female sheep or goat.

Rebbi Zeˋira said, the time span is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, one gives him time until he may hear. Rebbi Simeon said, until he must have heard, and we have stated so: If the Court instructed in the upper market and a single person was in the lower market, or the Court on the ground floor and a single person on the upper floor, he is not liable until he actually heard.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled in error,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. “Intentionally but they acted in error.” Is there intentional misdeed or error with respect of an instruction by the Court? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If not most of the public accepted it. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if they rebelled against their instruction. What is the difference between them? If they first accepted and then rebelled. In the opinions of the colleagues, since they rebelled, they are not liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, since at the first moment they accepted it, those are liable.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled in error,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. “Intentionally but they acted in error.” Is there intentional misdeed or error with respect of an instruction by the Court? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If not most of the public accepted it. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, if they rebelled against their instruction. What is the difference between them? If they first accepted and then rebelled. In the opinions of the colleagues, since they rebelled, they are not liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, since at the first moment they accepted it, those are liable.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following Rebbi Meïr. There, it was stated: If the Court ruled and the public acted. If a member of the Court died, they are not liable. If a member of the public died, they are liable. Rebbi Meïr told them, if he relieves others of their liability, not so much more for himself? They told him, he can relieve others from their liability since they have where to hang on; he cannot relieve himself of liability since he has nothing to hang on.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisdai. There, it was stated: “If the Court ruled, and they themselves acted, and they realized what they ruled about. If they erred in what they ruled, would they be liable? The verse says, if the sin became known, not that the sinners became known.” Anyway you take it, if about fat [ they ruled they are liable, if about Sabbath they ruled they are liable. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer; it does not follow Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Yose said, but] it follows Rebbi Joshua if they ruled and they did not know whether about idolatry or about any other commandment. If about idolatry by a bull, if about any other commandment a goat. Since it is in doubt whether a bull or [a bull and] a goat, it is a difference in sacrifice and he is not liable.

HALAKHAH: “They are liable only for forgetting,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Jeremiah. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s or has inferences like Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr who said, it is an obligation of the Court. Rebbi Mana said, following Rebbi Meïr. There, it was stated: If the Court ruled and the public acted. If a member of the Court died, they are not liable. If a member of the public died, they are liable. Rebbi Meïr told them, if he relieves others of their liability, not so much more for himself? They told him, he can relieve others of their liability since they have where to hang on; he cannot relieve himself of liability since he has nothing to hang on.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Maybe following Rebbi? If the Anointed, error in action it is. But if the rabbis, oblivion of a topic it is. Rebbi Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. That you should not say, the Anointed and idolatry: Rebbi said, in acting in error; the rabbis said, in forgetting a topic. He said [ ], because we did not state about the Anointed. But in the former, we did not state about the Anointed but the Anointed is included, and here, even though we did not state about the Anointed, the Anointed is included.

HALAKHAH: “They are only liable for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation,” etc. The commandments of the Eternal. I could think that this also includes those who eat abominations and crawling things. It says here from the eyes and it says there from the eyes. Just as from the eyes mentioned there means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so from the eyes mentioned here means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Or since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here should mean something that can lead to the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? [Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes.] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have] to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court? Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court. It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi] Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.

“What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman?” Rebbi Abin said, Keep the Children of Israel away from their impurities. Rebbi Jonathan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose bar Lakonia, from where a warning for one having sex with an impure woman? He wanted to throw a stone after him; he told him, you are asking me something that children recite every day in the synagogue: To a woman in the separation ofher impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness. He answered him, that is not my problem. My only problem is rather “if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure,” if he separates immediately, is he liable? He told him, I and you have the same problem. Let us go out and learn. They went out and heard the voice of a Tanna who stated following Ḥiskiah: If lying a man will lie with her. Not only that if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately, is he liable? The verse says, her secretion shall be, even if her secretion starts with him. What should he do? Rav Hoshaia, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, he shall cool down. If he did not cool down? Rebbi Yose said, for him I am reading do not come near as “do not separate”. Closeness is separation. Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav Abba: Those who say, be close to yourself, do not touch me for I sanctified you. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he should imagine that a sword is cutting into his flesh. Is everybody Rebbi Zeˋira? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Ḥuna: He shall press his fingertips on the wall, then he will cool down.

“What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman?” Rebbi Abin said, Keep the Children of Israel away from their impurities. Rebbi Jonathan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose bar Lakonia, from where a warning for one having sex with an impure woman? He wanted to throw a stone after him; he told him, you are asking me something that children recite every day in the synagogue: To a woman in the separation ofher impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness. He answered him, that is not my problem. My only problem is rather “if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure,” if he separates immediately, is he liable? He told him, I and you have the same problem. Let us go out and learn. They went out and heard the voice of a Tanna who stated following Ḥiskiah: If lying a man will lie with her. Not only that if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately, is he liable? The verse says, her secretion shall be, even if her secretion starts with him. What should he do? Rav Hoshaia, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, he shall cool down. If he did not cool down? Rebbi Yose said, for him I am reading do not come near as “do not separate”. Closeness is separation. Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav Abba: Those who say, be close to yourself, do not touch me for I sanctified you. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he should imagine that a sword is cutting into his flesh. Is everybody Rebbi Zeˋira? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Ḥuna: He shall press his fingertips on the wall, then he will cool down.

HALAKHAH: “They are not liable for hearing the sound of an imprecation,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean is, if he is poor and cannot afford it. Somebody who is apt to fall into poverty; this excludes the Anointed who is not apt to fall into poverty. [ They objected: There is the prince who is not apt to fall into poverty.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it shall be if he becomes guilty of any of these. He who can be liable for all of them is liable for part of them; but one who cannot be liable for all of them is not liable for part of them. Rebbi Isaac asked: Then he should not become impure by skin disease since he is not apt (easily and then) [to fall] into poverty or the deepest of poverty. Rav Hoshaia asked: Then a woman should not be liable for entering the Temple. Does the woman not bring? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Aqiba, this is the offering of Aaron and his sons. This one he brings; he does not bring another tenth of an ephah. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Yasa may he not bring a voluntary offering? He told him, yes. He does not bring an obligatory one; he may bring a voluntary one.

Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yose said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, where neither itself nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed (and in court) [as the certainty] after he was removed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is not liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is liable. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to free from liability, not rather to insist on liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him before he was appointed; the certainty after he was appointed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression, he must say that one is liable. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression, he must say that one is not liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither itself not its blood are usable, it dies immediately.

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed, and (in court) after he was appointed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not liable. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to insist on liability, not rather to free from liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him after he was appointed; (in court) after he was removed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was not totally atoned, he must say that he is not liable. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was totally atoned, he must say that one is liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

The priest shall atone who was anointed. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where [to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed;] not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.”

It was stated: For the 24 hours which were stated, one suspends but one does not burn. Rebbi Ze‘ira enjoyed this [because] he found stated: “A woman who detects a stain makes impure retroactively. What does she make impure? Food, and drinks, and seats, and beds; her count is in disorder, and she makes her sex partner impure retroactively. A woman who detects blood makes impure retroactively. What does she make impure? Food, and drinks, and seats, and beds; her count is not in disorder, and she does not make her sex partner impure retroactively. Rebbi Aqiba says, she makes her sex partner impure retroactively. In both cases, one suspends but one does not burn.” There, they say: For the 24 hours which were stated, her bed is like her touch. How? Like one who sleeps with a menstruating woman who does not make impure by moving and does not make clay vessels impure. It was found stated: He makes clay vessels impure by moving. For the 24 hours which were stated, what is the status of what she touches in the public domain? Let us hear from the following: Pregnant and nursing women are pure for their husbands, as is a woman with a regular period. And all other women are pure for sexual relations but impure in their touch. That means, what she certainly touched in the public domain is impure.

“And if one has intercourse with cloths, this counts as checking.” How is that? If she checked herself in the morning, had intercourse with a cloth at noontime, and saw [blood] in the afternoon, she is impure only from after the time of intercourse. Levi said, the Mishnah speaks of a cloth used after intercourse, but for a cloth used before intercourse she would be impatient for her mate and not check thorougly. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the Mishnah speaks of a cloth used before intercourse, but a cloth used after intercourse is faded because of semen.

How long is it until a pregnancy is recognized? Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr: After three months. Even though it is no proof, there is a hint: “It was after about three months, etc.” Rebbi Yudan said, even for a phantom pregnancy, “we were pregnant, we were sick, as if we gave birth to wind,” “get pregnant with dry grass, give birth to straw”, etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra said, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Even most of the first, most of the last, and the middle one complete. Assi said, a full 90 days. Samuel said, they in their fulness. A case came before the rabbis there; we do not know if thirteen of the first and seventeen of the last or seventeen of the first and thirteen of the last, and five complete ones in the middle; they wanted to touch the child because of a doubt of bastardy. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob told them, such a case came before Abba bar Abba and he declared it acceptable. Does Abba bar Abba disagree with his son Samuel? Rebbi Abba said, there is a difference between recognizing a pregnancy and giving birth. A pregnancy is recognized after full months, a birth can happen after fractional months. There, we have stated: “How long can labor be? Rebbi Meïr said, even 40 to 50 days. Rebbi Jehudah said, her month is sufficient. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon say, no labor lasts longer than two weeks.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abba: This implies that a woman gives birth after fractional months. Since otherwise one should have stated “thirty days”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: This implies that a woman gives birth after full months. Since we have stated: “Her month is sufficient.”

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If [a woman] gave birth and then converted, she has no period of purity. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. If Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, would it have been a problem for us? Since she has no period of impurity, she cannot have a period of purity. It was stated: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood, Rebbi Jehudah says, is timed exactly; Rebbi Yose says, it makes impure 24 hours retroactively. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Yose are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rebbi Judah for the child. But Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? But because Rebbi said, “they are reasonable”. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, every time Rebbi taught “they are reasonable”, the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument. Rebbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex?

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.

Samuel said, a night and a day form a period, and part of a period is as if it were the entire period. “If she ceased and then bled again, she is impure”. If the look of the blood changed, she is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it did not change because of intercourse. But if it changed because of intercourse, she is pure. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “a virgin whose blood is pure.” That implies, if it changed because of intercourse, she is pure. Since if you said, if it changed because of intercourse she is impure, let her have intercourse with a cloth, maybe it would change because of intercourse and she would be impure!

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals, the presumption is that her body was checked. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Mishnah says so: “If it was found on his [cloth], they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice.” Does that not mean that there is a presumption that the body was checked? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if he had checked himself. Rebbi Ze‘ira was offended. Do people do that? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Up to a broken bean she hangs it, more than that its needs an explanation. They said, Rav Jeremiah retracted this. They said, he retracted it when he was informed of the words of the rabbis. Rebbi praised Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, asked before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals? He said to him, according to him are you asking me? Following the teacher or following the student? My father said, a stain. But Rebbi said, an episode of bleeding. He said to him: That is the one of whom you are proud? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it profits a man to learn his own teacher’s reasons.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals, the presumption is that her body was checked. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Mishnah says so: “If it was found on his [cloth], they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice.” Does that not mean that there is a presumption that the body was checked? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if he had checked himself. Rebbi Ze‘ira was offended. Do people do that? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Up to a broken bean she hangs it, more than that its needs an explanation. They said, Rav Jeremiah retracted this. They said, he retracted it when he was informed of the words of the rabbis. Rebbi praised Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, asked before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals? He said to him, according to him are you asking me? Following the teacher or following the student? My father said, a stain. But Rebbi said, an episode of bleeding. He said to him: That is the one of whom you are proud? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it profits a man to learn his own teacher’s reasons.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals, the presumption is that her body was checked. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Mishnah says so: “If it was found on his [cloth], they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice.” Does that not mean that there is a presumption that the body was checked? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if he had checked himself. Rebbi Ze‘ira was offended. Do people do that? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Up to a broken bean she hangs it, more than that its needs an explanation. They said, Rav Jeremiah retracted this. They said, he retracted it when he was informed of the words of the rabbis. Rebbi praised Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, asked before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals? He said to him, according to him are you asking me? Following the teacher or following the student? My father said, a stain. But Rebbi said, an episode of bleeding. He said to him: That is the one of whom you are proud? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it profits a man to learn his own teacher’s reasons.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals, the presumption is that her body was checked. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Mishnah says so: “If it was found on his [cloth], they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice.” Does that not mean that there is a presumption that the body was checked? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if he had checked himself. Rebbi Ze‘ira was offended. Do people do that? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Up to a broken bean she hangs it, more than that its needs an explanation. They said, Rav Jeremiah retracted this. They said, he retracted it when he was informed of the words of the rabbis. Rebbi praised Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, asked before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals? He said to him, according to him are you asking me? Following the teacher or following the student? My father said, a stain. But Rebbi said, an episode of bleeding. He said to him: That is the one of whom you are proud? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it profits a man to learn his own teacher’s reasons.

“The House of Shammai say, she needs two cloths for each intercourse or she should have sex by candle light.” But was it not stated: The person who engages in sex by light is blameworthy? So is the Mishnah: She may have sex and [then] check by candle light. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If she had intercourse using a cloth, she is forbidden to her house. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if her proof exists, she is permitted; if there is no proof, not so much more? Rebbi Yose said, there, you can determine the facts; here, you cannot determine the facts.

“The House of Shammai say, she needs two cloths for each intercourse or she should have sex by candle light.” But was it not stated: The person who engages in sex by light is blameworthy? So is the Mishnah: She may have sex and [then] check by candle light. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If she had intercourse using a cloth, she is forbidden to her house. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if her proof exists, she is permitted; if there is no proof, not so much more? Rebbi Yose said, there, you can determine the facts; here, you cannot determine the facts.

“And black, like ink-stone.” How do you check that? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: One takes the ink-stone and puts in on white leather. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on colored leather. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: Black like a raven, black like a grape berry, black like asphalt are pure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Black like liquid ink is pure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Like a felt hat imported from overseas is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Are all these facts to be acted upon? He answered him, yes. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard pure except for black. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “And black like ink-stone is impure, lighter than that is pure.” Therefore, darker than that is impure, but only black was mentioned in that connection. Therefore, all others, even if they are darker than the standards, are pure. The town of Rav Jehudah followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but Rav Jehudah himself followed Rebbi Joḥanan. Bar Qappara stated a support for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but one does not follow him in practice, since Rebbi Ḥanina mixed wine for Bar Qappara and asked him, if it is like that, what is its status? He answered, impure. He lightened it, then he answered, pure. He said to him, peace shall be on him who erred with his mouth but not with his eyes. They wanted to say that he who says pure, refers to when it was polished. But he who says impure , if it is not polished. Let us hear from the following: It happened that a woman from the Patriarchate had a discharge of black blood. The case came before Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi and Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭabelai; they wanted to declare her impure. Rebbi Ḥelbo told them: So says Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Black which penetrates is pure, that which polishes is impure. He said that only about black. Therefore, all others are pure even if they polish.

“And black, like ink-stone.” How do you check that? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: One takes the ink-stone and puts in on white leather. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on colored leather. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: Black like a raven, black like a grape berry, black like asphalt are pure. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Black like liquid ink is pure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Like a felt hat imported from overseas is impure. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Are all these facts to be acted upon? He answered him, yes. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of them, if they are lighter than the standard they are pure, darker than the standard pure except for black. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “And black like ink-stone is impure, lighter than that is pure.” Therefore, darker than that is impure, but only black was mentioned in that connection. Therefore, all others, even if they are darker than the standards, are pure. The town of Rav Jehudah followed Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but Rav Jehudah himself followed Rebbi Joḥanan. Bar Qappara stated a support for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish but one does not follow him in practice, since Rebbi Ḥanina mixed wine for Bar Qappara and asked him, if it is like that, what is its status? He answered, impure. He lightened it, then he answered, pure. He said to him, peace shall be on him who erred with his mouth but not with his eyes. They wanted to say that he who says pure, refers to when it was polished. But he who says impure , if it is not polished. Let us hear from the following: It happened that a woman from the Patriarchate had a discharge of black blood. The case came before Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi and Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭabelai; they wanted to declare her impure. Rebbi Ḥelbo told them: So says Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Black which penetrates is pure, that which polishes is impure. He said that only about black. Therefore, all others are pure even if they polish.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah declared impure only in the color of the four kinds of blood. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Nehorai: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar heard that and said, I do not accept this. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he did not say that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah but he saw that the rabbis are used to follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai: One tears it open. If one finds blood collected there, she is impure, otherwise she is pure. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, disagreeing with Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: “Blood would be her flow from her genitals,” not what is in the amnion nor in a lump.

If a woman miscarried dry blood, Rebbi Eleazar says, she is impure; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, she is pure. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “Menstrual blood and flesh from a corpse make impure moist and dry.” He explains it that it was moist and then became dry. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If a woman had a miscarriage in the form of a lump, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure.” He explains it, because of a creature. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even there you can object about dust. Is dust a creature? Rebbi Abba said, You even may mention dust. The dust from a pregnant woman exists as a creature. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “It happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red membranes. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wound. Also it happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red hairs. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wart.” Only because of a wart and a wound. Therefore, if there is no wart or no wound, it does not apply. This disagrees with him and [his opinion] cannot be upheld.

And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. The following are the criteria: The forehead, the eyebrows, the eye, the ear, the mandible, the nose, the beard, and the dimple. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi: Only if the entire face has human traits; but the words of the rabbis: Even one of the criteria; and the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Even its fingernails. Rebbi Phineas asked: Are not the statements of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai inverted? There, he says, “only if its head and most of its body are like its mother,” and here, he says so? Here about humans, there about animals. Rebbi Abba said, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went South. Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its entire body is human and only its face is animal? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, it is no birth. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Zeugos went out, Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its eyes are shapeless? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, there is no child. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi follows his own opinion since Rebbi says, only if the entire face has human traits. What if its face was crushed? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is no child; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is a child. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, not that Rebbi Joḥanan said it is no child in every respect but it is no child to provide the mother with days of purity; it is a child to require the mother to observe the days of birth. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If its hip is unformed, it is not a child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Joshua: If the navel is unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zakkai: If its holes are unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Gidul: If its skull is unformed there is no child.

And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. The following are the criteria: The forehead, the eyebrows, the eye, the ear, the mandible, the nose, the beard, and the dimple. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi: Only if the entire face has human traits; but the words of the rabbis: Even one of the criteria; and the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Even its fingernails. Rebbi Phineas asked: Are not the statements of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai inverted? There, he says, “only if its head and most of its body are like its mother,” and here, he says so? Here about humans, there about animals. Rebbi Abba said, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went South. Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its entire body is human and only its face is animal? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, it is no birth. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Zeugos went out, Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its eyes are shapeless? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, there is no child. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi follows his own opinion since Rebbi says, only if the entire face has human traits. What if its face was crushed? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is no child; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is a child. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, not that Rebbi Joḥanan said it is no child in every respect but it is no child to provide the mother with days of purity; it is a child to require the mother to observe the days of birth. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If its hip is unformed, it is not a child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Joshua: If the navel is unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zakkai: If its holes are unformed, it is no child. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Gidul: If its skull is unformed there is no child.

“What is the sole which they mentioned? Anything which looks like the sole, a sea fish. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, anything which looks like an ox tongue. Our teachers voted about this to say, only if it exhibits human traits.” Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers”, about bills of divorce, oil, and a sole. About a sole, as we just said. About oil, as we have stated: “Rebbi and his court permitted oil.” About bills of divorce, as we have stated there: “This is your bill of divorce if I die, this is your bill of divorce if [I die from this] sickness, this is your bill of divorce after my death; he did not say anything.” But our teachers said, this is a bill of divorce. Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. They should have called him “permissive court” since any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. Rebbi Yannai shouted, you purified the women giving birth! Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: This is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran; as from Rebbi Ze‘ira: If this is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran then it was Rebbi Ḥanina who shouted, you purified the women giving birth!

Rebbi Yose ben Shaul asked before Rebbi: Can one refer a placenta to something which is not a child? He said to him, one does not refer a placenta to anything which is not a child. If it came out attached to it, what then? He said to him, one does not discuss anything impossible. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One does not refer a placenta to something which is not a child, if [nevertheless] it came out attached to something else, one refers to it. Samuel asked the students of Rav: Can one refer a placenta to stillbirths? They said to him, one refers a placenta to a child and one [does not] refer(s) a placenta to stillbirths. Samuel praised them because they follow the argument [of their teacher]. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One refers a placenta to a child but one does not refer a placenta to stillbirths since it does not separate until it [was completed]. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: What you say, that one refers a placenta to a child, is because a pregnant woman does not become pregnant. Why does one not refer it to stillbirth, can a woman not have a stillbirth followed by a stillbirth? I say that she was pregnant with twins when the placenta of one amnion was crushed by the amnion of the other placenta. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One refers a placenta to a child for up to three days, and no child remains after another child for three days. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he who said this also said the other, but they disagree with one another! Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah explained it following Rav: You say that one refers a placenta to a child for up to three days if the child was born first, and you say that no child remains after another child for three days if the sole appeared first. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? The active ones come out first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if [the womb] opened for the large, it opened for the small; if it opened for the small it did not open for the large.

Rebbi Yose ben Shaul asked before Rebbi: Can one refer a placenta to something which is not a child? He said to him, one does not refer a placenta to anything which is not a child. If it came out attached to it, what then? He said to him, one does not discuss anything impossible. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One does not refer a placenta to something which is not a child, if [nevertheless] it came out attached to something else, one refers to it. Samuel asked the students of Rav: Can one refer a placenta to stillbirths? They said to him, one refers a placenta to a child and one [does not] refer(s) a placenta to stillbirths. Samuel praised them because they follow the argument [of their teacher]. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One refers a placenta to a child but one does not refer a placenta to stillbirths since it does not separate until it [was completed]. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: What you say, that one refers a placenta to a child, is because a pregnant woman does not become pregnant. Why does one not refer it to stillbirth, can a woman not have a stillbirth followed by a stillbirth? I say that she was pregnant with twins when the placenta of one amnion was crushed by the amnion of the other placenta. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One refers a placenta to a child for up to three days, and no child remains after another child for three days. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he who said this also said the other, but they disagree with one another! Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah explained it following Rav: You say that one refers a placenta to a child for up to three days if the child was born first, and you say that no child remains after another child for three days if the sole appeared first. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? The active ones come out first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if [the womb] opened for the large, it opened for the small; if it opened for the small it did not open for the large.

Rebbi Yose ben Shaul asked before Rebbi: Can one refer a placenta to something which is not a child? He said to him, one does not refer a placenta to anything which is not a child. If it came out attached to it, what then? He said to him, one does not discuss anything impossible. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One does not refer a placenta to something which is not a child, if [nevertheless] it came out attached to something else, one refers to it. Samuel asked the students of Rav: Can one refer a placenta to stillbirths? They said to him, one refers a placenta to a child and one [does not] refer(s) a placenta to stillbirths. Samuel praised them because they follow the argument [of their teacher]. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One refers a placenta to a child but one does not refer a placenta to stillbirths since it does not separate until it [was completed]. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: What you say, that one refers a placenta to a child, is because a pregnant woman does not become pregnant. Why does one not refer it to stillbirth, can a woman not have a stillbirth followed by a stillbirth? I say that she was pregnant with twins when the placenta of one amnion was crushed by the amnion of the other placenta. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One refers a placenta to a child for up to three days, and no child remains after another child for three days. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he who said this also said the other, but they disagree with one another! Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah explained it following Rav: You say that one refers a placenta to a child for up to three days if the child was born first, and you say that no child remains after another child for three days if the sole appeared first. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? The active ones come out first. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if [the womb] opened for the large, it opened for the small; if it opened for the small it did not open for the large.

If it was in pieces and the head came out, what is the rule? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, its head counts for most of it. Rebbi Eleazar said, its head is like any other of its limbs. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If it came out in pieces or defective, it is born as soon as most of its body came out.” Explain it if its head came out. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If it was a regular birth, when most of its head came out.” Did not the first part say, the head is nothing? Explain it about the incomplete body. Rebbi Jonathan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; Rebbi Jonathan agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Ze‘ira showed the colleagues his forehead with the skull. One of the house of Gamliel ben Rebbi Leani asked before Rebbi Mana: Since you say, it is a child, does this not imply that one who comes after him is firstborn neither for inheritance nor for the Cohen. He said to him, explain it if both were stillborn.

Rebbi Isaac bar Nahman in the name or Rebbi Eleazar: The head of a bird by most of it. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Samuel: The throat of a bird by most of it. There came a case before Rebbi Yose about [a bird whose throat] was punctured by a needle’s width. Do we not know what “most” means?