Bava Batra

Amemar said: Nor does he reduce the portion of the birthright;  for it is said, And they have born him sons  [which implies that] he must have been  a son  at the time of [his] birth.  R. Shezbi said: Nor is he circumcised on the eighth [day  of his birth];  for Scripture said, If a woman be delivered, and bear a man-child … and in the eighth day [the flesh of his foreskin] shall be circumcised,  [which implies that] he must be  a male at  the time of [his] birth.  R. Sherabya said: Nor is his mother [levitically] unclean [on account] of [his] birth;  for Scripture said, If a woman be delivered, and bear a man-child, then she shall be unclean seven days [which implies that she is not unclean]  unless he  was a male at  the time of [his] birth. An objection was raised: [It was taught]. 'If a woman miscarried a tumtum  or an androginos,  she must continue [in her levitical uncleanness and cleanness, as] for both a male and a female'.  [Is not this] an objection [to the statement] of R. Sherabya?  — This is an objection. May it be suggested [that] this is [also] all objection [against the statement] of R. Shezbi?  The Tanna  may have been in doubt  and, [consequently. he imposed a double] restriction.  If so,  it should have been [stated that] she should continue [in her uncleanness] for a male, and for a female, and for her menstruation!  — This is a difficulty. Raba said: It was taught in agreement with [the view] of R. Ammi:  [The expression.] a Son,  [Implies], but not a tumtum;  [the expression] a firstborn,  [implies] but not a doubtful case.  [The statement]. 'in son, but not a tumtum' [can well be explained] in accordance with [the view] of R. Ammi; but what does [the statement]. 'a firstborn, but not a doubtful case', exclude?  — It excludes  [the opinion arrived at] through Raba's exposition. For Raba gave the following exposition: [if] two women  gave birth [respectively] to two male children in a hiding place.  [these  may] write out an authorisation for one another. R. Papa said to Raba: Surely Rabin had sent [a message stating]: This question I have asked of all my teachers, but they told me nothing; the following, however, was reported in the name R. Jannai: [If] they  were identified,  and afterwards they were exchanged, they may give written authorisation to one another; [if] they were not identified,  they may not give written authorisation to one another. Subsequently Raba appointed an Amora  by his side, and made the following exposition: what have told you was in error; but this, indeed, has been reported in the name of R. Jannai. 'If they  were identified  and afterwards they were exchanged, they may give written authorisation to one another, [if] they were not identified  they may not give written authorisation to one another. The men of Akra di Agama  addressed  [the following enquiry] to Samuel: Will our master instruct us [as to] what [is the law in the case] where one was generally held-to be a firstborn son, but his father declared that another [son] was the firstborn?  — He sent to them [the following reply]: 'They may write on an authorisation