Yevamot

who has not experienced a moment [of life] in a state of fitness.  How could this  be ascertained? — Abaye replied: [By observing whether] when he urinates no arch is formed. What are the causes?  — That the child's mother baked at noon  and drank strong  beer. R. Joseph said: It must have been such a saris  of whom I heard Ammi saying. 'He who is afflicted from birth',  and I did not know [at the time] to whom he was referring. But should we not take into consideration the possibility that he might have recovered in the meantime!  — Since he suffered from affliction in his early as well as in his later life, no [possible interval of recovery] need be taken into consideration R. Mari raised an objection: R. Hanina b. Antigonos stated, 'It  is to be examined  three times in eighty days'!  — Precautions are to be taken in respect of one limb;  in respect of the entire body  no such precautions need be taken. R. ELIEZER SAID: NOT SO etc. A contradiction may be pointed out: If at the age of twenty he  did not produce two hairs,  they  must bring evidence that he is twenty years of age and he, being confirmed as a saris,  neither submits to halizah nor performs the levirate marriage. If the woman  at the age of twenty did not produce two hairs,  they  must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she, being confirmed as a woman who is incapable of procreation neither performs halizah nor is taken in levirate marriage; so Beth Hillel. But Beth Shammai maintain that with the one as well as with the other [this takes place at] the age of eighteen. R. Eliezer said. In the case of the male, the law is in accordance with Beth Hillel and in the case Of the female, the law is in accordance with Beth Shammai because a woman matures earlier than a man!  Rami b. Dikuli replied in the name Of Samuel: R. Eliezer changed his view. The question was raised: From which statement did he withdraw? — Come and hear what was taught: R. Eliezer said. A congenital saris  submits to halizah, and halizah is arranged for his wife, because cases of such a nature are cured in Alexandria in Egypt. R. Eleazar said: As a matter of fact he  did not change his view at all, but that statement  was taught in respect [of the age of] punishment. It was stated: If a person  between the age of twelve years and one day  and that of eighteen years  ate forbidden fat,  and after the marks of a saris had appeared, he grew two hairs.  Rab ruled that the person is deemed to be a saris retrospectively.  But Samuel ruled [that the person is regarded as] having been a minor at that time. R. Joseph demurred against Rab:  According to R. Meir,  a woman who is incapable of procreation  should be entitled to a fine!  — Abaye replied: She passes from her minority [directly] into adolescence.  The other said to him: May all such fine sayings be reported in my name. For so it was taught: A saris is not tried as a stubborn and rebellious son,  because no stubborn and rebellious son is tried unless he bears the mark of the pubic hair.  Nor is a woman who is incapable of procreation tried as a betrothed damsel  because from her minority she passes [directly] into adolescence. R. Abbahu stated: On [the basis of] the marks of a saris, of a woman incapable of procreation, and of an eight-[month] child  no decision is made  until they attain the age of twenty.  Is, however, an eight-[month] child viable? Surely it was taught: An eight-month child is like a stone,  and it is forbidden to move him;  only his mother may bend over him and nurse him