Niddah

IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES OR IN A REVERSED CONDITION etc. R. Eleazar ruled: Even if the head was with them;  but R. Johanan ruled: This  was learnt only in a case where the head was not with them but where the head was with them the embryo is deemed born.  May it be suggested that they  differ on a principle of Samuel for Samuel has laid down: The head  does not exempt  in the case of miscarriages?  — Where it  is whole there is no difference of opinion whatever;  they only differ in a case where it  issued in pieces, one Master  holding the opinion that the head is of importance  only where the miscarriage is whole but where it is in pieces it is of no importance, while the other Master  holds that even where it  is in pieces the head is of importance.  There  are some who teach this passage as an independent discussion:  R. Eleazar ruled, The head  has not the status of the greater part of the limbs  but R. Johanan ruled: The head has the same status as the greater part of the limbs. They thus differ on the validity of Samuel's principle. We learnt: IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES OR IN A REVERSED POSITION IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED FORTH. Now since 'OR  IN A REVERSED POSITION' was specifically stated it follows that 'IN PIECES' refers to one that issued in a normal position,  and yet it was stated, IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED. Does not this then present an objection against R. Johanan? — R. Johanan can answer you: Read, ISSUED IN PIECES and IN A REVERSED POSITION. But was it not stated 'OR'?  It is this that was meant: IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES OR whole, but in either case, IN A REVERSED POSITION, IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED FORTH. R. Papa stated, [This  is] a matter of dispute between the following Tannas: 'If an embryo issued in pieces or in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth. R. Jose ruled: Only when it issued in the normal way'. What does he  mean? — R. Papa replied: It is this that was meant:  If the embryo issued in pieces and in a reversed position  it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth, but [it follows] if it issued in the normal way  the head alone  causes exemption.  R. Jose ruled: Only where its greater part issued in the normal manner.  R. Zebid demurred:  Thus it follows  that where the embryo issued in a reversed position  even the issue of its greater part causes no exemption,  but surely, have we not an established rule that the greater part  counts as the whole? Rather, said R. Zebid, it is this that was meant:  If the embryo issued in pieces and in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth, but [it follows] if it issued in the normal way the head alone causes exemption.  R. Jose  ruled: Only  where it issued in the normal manner in a condition of viability.  So it was also taught: If the embryo issued in pieces and  in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth, but, it follows, if it issued in the normal way the head alone causes exemption. R. Jose ruled: Only when it issued in the normal manner in a condition of viability. And what is 'the normal manner in a condition of viability'? The issue  of the greater part of its head. And what is meant by 'the greater part of its head'? R. Jose  said: The issue of its temples. Abba Hanan citing R. Joshua said: The issue of its forehead; and some say: The appearance  of the corners of its head. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED AND  IT IS UNKNOWN WHAT WAS [THE SEX OF THE EMBRYO] SHE MUST CONTINUE [HER PERIODS OF UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE CHILD  AND A FEMALE CHILD.  IF IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER IT WAS A CHILD OR NOT, SHE MUST CONTINUE [HER PERIODS OF CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS AS] FOR A MALE AND A FEMALE  AND AS A MENSTRUANT. GEMARA. R. Joshua b. Levi ruled: If a woman crossed a river and miscarried in it, she  must bring a sacrifice which may 'be eaten, since we are guided by the nature of  the majority of women and the majority of women bear normal children. We learnt: IF IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER IT WAS A CHILD OR NOT, SHE MUST CONTINUE [HER PERIODS OF CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS AS] FOR A MALE AND A FEMALE AND AS A MENSTRUANT. But  why should she continue as a menstruant. Why should it not be said, 'Be guided by the nature of the majority of women and the majority of women bear normal children'.  — Our Mishnah deals with a case where there was no presumption of the existence of an embryo,  while R. Joshua b. Levi spoke of one where there was such presumption. Come and hear: 'If a beast went out  full  and returned  empty, the young that is born subsequently is deemed to be a firstling of a doubtful nature'.  But  why [should its nature be a matter of doubt]? [Why not] be guided by the majority of beasts and, since the majority of beasts bear normal young, this one also  must be an ordinary beast?  — Rabina replied, Because it may be said: Most beasts bear young that are exempt from the law of the firstling  and a minority of them bear young that are not exempt from the law of the firstling but all that bear secrete,  and in the case of this beast, since it did not secrete, the majority rule has been impaired. If, however, all that bear secrete, must not the young, since this beast did not secrete, be a valid firstling?  — Rather say: Most of those that bear secrete, and in the case of this beast, since it did not secrete, the majority rule is impaired. When Rabin came  he stated: 'R. Jose b. Hanina raised an objection  [from a Baraitha dealing with] a forgetful woman,  but I do not know what objection it was'. What was it? — It was taught: