Niddah

Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera:  But do you not yourself hold that he who taught that balsam was a fruit is R. Eliezer, seeing that we have learnt: R. Eliezer ruled, Milk curdled with the sap of 'orlah is forbidden?  — This  might be said to agree even with the view of the Rabbis, since they differed from R. Eliezer only in respect of the sap of the tree but in the case of the sap of the fruit they agree with him, for we have learnt: R. Joshua stated, I have explicitly heard that milk curdled with the sap of the leaves or with the sap of the roots is permitted, but if it was curdled with the sap of unripe figs it is forbidden because the latter is regarded as a proper fruit.  And if you prefer I might reply: The Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer only in respect of a fruit producing tree but in the case of a tree that does not produce fruit they agree that its sap is regarded as its fruit, for we have learnt: R. Simeon ruled, Balsam is not subject to the laws of the Sabbatical Year  and the Sages ruled, Balsam is subject to the laws of the Sabbatical Year because the sap of the tree is regarded as its fruit.  Now who are the Sages? Are they not in fact the Rabbis who differ  from R. Eliezer?  — Thus, a certain elder replied to him, said R. Johanan, 'Who are the "Sages"? R. Eliezer who ruled that its balsam is its fruit'. But if by the 'Sages' R. Eliezer was meant what was the point in speaking of a tree that does not produce fruit seeing that even where a tree produces fruit its sap is regarded as its fruit? — He  spoke to them  according to the view of the Rabbis. 'According to my view' [he said in effect,] 'even in the case of a fruit producing tree its sap is regarded as its fruit, but according to your view  agree with me at least in this case of a tree that produces no fruit that its sap is its fruit. But the Rabbis told him: No difference is made. WHO IS REGARDED AS A 'VIRGIN'? ANY WOMAN WHO HAS NOT YET OBSERVED etc. Our Rabbis taught: [If a virgin] married and observed a discharge of blood that was due to the marriage, or if when she bore a child she observed a discharge of blood that was due to the birth, she is still called a 'virgin', because the virgin of whom the Rabbis spoke is one that is a virgin as regards menstrual blood but not one who is so in regard to the blood of virginity.  Can this, however, be correct?  Has not R. Kahana in fact stated, 'A Tanna taught: There are three kinds of virgin, the human virgin, the soil virgin and the sycamore virgin. The "human virgin" is one that never  had any sexual intercourse, the practical issue  being her eligibility to marry a High Priest  or else her claim to a kethubah of two hundred zuz;  the "virgin soil" is one that had never  been cultivated, the practical issue  being its designation as "a rough valley"34 or else its legal status as regards purchase and sale;  the "virgin sycamore" is one that has never  been cut,  the practical issue  being its legal status as regards purchase and sale  or else the permissibility to cut it  in the Sabbatical Year, as we have learnt: A virgin sycamore may not be cut in the Sabbatical Year because such cutting is regarded as cultivation'.  Now if this  were correct why did he  not mention this one also? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: He only mentioned such as has no special  name  but one which bears a special  name  he does not mention. R. Shesheth son of R. Idi replied: He  only mentioned those, the loss of whose virginity  is dependent on an act  but one the loss of whose virginity  is not dependent on an act  he does not mention. R. Hanina son of R. Ika replied: He  only mentioned those  which do not change  into their original condition  but one which does change to its original condition  he does not mention. Rabina replied: He  only mentioned that to which a purchaser is likely to object  but that to which a purchaser is not likely to object  he does not mention. But do not people object?  Was it not in fact taught, 'R. Hiyya stated: As leaven is wholesome for the dough so is menstrual blood wholesome for a woman'  and it was also taught in the name of R. Meir, 'Every woman who has an abundance of menstrual blood has many children'?  — Rather say: He  only mentioned that which a purchaser is anxious to acquire  but that  which a purchaser is not anxious to acquire  he does not mention. Our Rabbis taught: What is meant by a virgin soil? One which  turns up clods  and whose earth is not loose. If  a potsherd is found in it, it may be known that it had once been cultivated;  if flint, it is undoubtedly  virgin soil. 'A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY'? ONE WHOSE EMBRYO 'CAN BE DISCERNED. At what stage  is the embryo discernible? — Symmachus citing R. Meir replied: Three months after conception. And though there is no actual proof for this statement there is an allusion  to it, for it is said in Scripture, And it came to pass about three months after  etc. 'An allusion to it' [you say], is not this a text of Scripture and a most reliable  proof? — [It can only be regarded as an allusion] because some women  give birth after nine months and others after seven months. Our Rabbis taught: If a woman was  in a condition of presumptive pregnancy and after observing a discharge of blood she miscarried an inflated object  or any other object which had no vitality  she  is still deemed to be  in the condition of her presumptive pregnancy and it suffices for her to reckon her period of menstrual uncleanness from the time of her observation of the discharge.  And though there is no actual proof for this ruling  there is an allusion  to it, for it is said in Scripture, We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind.  But why only 'an allusion to it' seeing that the text provides actual  proof? — That text was in fact written about males. I would, however, point out an incongruity: If a woman was in hard labour  for two days  and on the third day  she miscarried an inflated object or any thing that had no vitality, she  is regarded as bearing in the condition of a zabah.  Now if you maintain that such miscarriage is a proper birth