GEMARA. Said Samuel: [The putting forth of] the head of an untimely birth does not release [the offspring which follows from redemption from a priest]. What is the reason? [Scripture says]: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, [intimating] that wherever there is the breath of life in the nostrils, the head is of importance. [exempting the successor from redemption] but otherwise, the head is not considered of importance. We have learnt: ONE WHO FOLLOWS AN UNTIMELY BIRTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH ALIVE OR ONE BORN IN THE NINTH MONTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH DEAD. At all events the Mishnah says: ‘WHOSE HEAD’? — ‘WHOSE HEAD means its greater part. Why then not say its greater part? — By rights [the Tanna of our Mishnah] should have stated ‘its greater part’. But as he had to state in the second clause OR ONE BORN IN THE NINTH MONTH WHOSE HEAD CAME FORTH DEAD, and he wishes to argue that the reason is because its head was dead but that if its head was alive, the one who follows is not even a first-born [with the privileges] of inheritance, he therefore also states in the first clause ‘WHOSE HEAD’. Now what then does the Mishnah inform us? That since he put forth his head it is considered a birth. But have we not learnt this already: If the embryo put forth its head, although he withdrew it again, it is considered a birth? And should you reply that [the Tanna] teaches us this ruling [separately] both for the case of an animal and for that of a human being, because we do not infer the case of a human being from that of an animal, as the latter has no forepart of female genitals, and again we do not infer the case of an animal from that of a human being, as the latter's full face is important — have we not learnt this too in a Mishnah: If an infant came forth in the natural way, [it is not considered a birth] till the greater part of its head comes forth? And what is the greater part of its head? When its forehead comes forth. Shall we then say that this confutes Samuel? — It is indeed a refutation. Said R. Simeon b. Lakish: The [emergence of] forehead is regarded as birth in all cases except in that of inheritance. What is the reason? — But he shall acknowledge the first-born, says the Divine Law. But R. Johanan says: Even as regards inheritance. What does ‘in all cases’ imply? — It implies what our Rabbis have taught [as follows]: In the case of a proselyte woman, if the forehead of her infant came forth from the womb when she was a heathen and she subsequently became a proselyte, we do not subject her to periods of impurity and purity and she does not bring the offering for confinement. An objection was raised. [Scripture says]: But he shall acknowledge, [this intimates] the recognition of the face. And what is a recognizable face? The full face with the nose! — Read: ‘Unto the nose’. Come and hear: Evidence may not be given [in identification of a corpse] save by [proof afforded by] the face with the nose, Read: Unto the nose. Come and hear: No evidence may be given [by identification of] the forehead without the face or the face without the forehead; it must be by both together with the nose. And Abaye said, or as some say, R. Kahana: Where is the scriptural authority for this? [Scripture says]: The show of their countenance’ doth witness against them. It is different with regard to testimony on behalf of a woman, as the Rabbis made the law stringent in her case. But have the Rabbis indeed made it stringent? Have we not learnt: If they were generally presumed established to permit a woman to re-marry on the evidence of a witness testifying to what he heard from an eye-witness, or from a woman, from a slave or a bondwoman? — The Rabbis were only lenient in the end but were not lenient in the beginning. And if you prefer [another solution] I may say:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍ