1)

(a)When they asked Rebbi about a woman who miscarries a skin full of flesh (see Tosfos DH 'M'lo Basar Mahu') - he replied that he had not heard about it from his Rebbes.

(b)Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi however, purported to know about it. Quoting his father, he ruled that a woman who miscarries a skin full of ...

1. ... blood - is Tamei Nidah.

2. ... flesh - is Tamei Leidah.

(c)Rebbi however, not impressed, commented - that had Rebbi Yishmael cited his father's personal opinion, he would have accepted it, but that ...

1. ... the first ruling that he quoted was the individual opinion of Sumchus citing Rebbi Meir, who holds that blood inside a Sh'fir renders the woman Tamei Nidah (as we learned earlier in the Perek). Whereas ...

2. ... the second ruling was the individual opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua in a Beraisa, who considers an unformed Sh'fir a V'lad, whereas ...

(d)... the Chachamim do not.

2)

(a)Rebbi assumed that the Chachamim also argue by a Sh'fir even if it is full of flesh - since it too, is unformed.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua, on the other hand, will concede that a Sh'fir that is full of blood - is not considered a V'lad, because if it was, it would not be full of blood.

(c)Resh Lakish citing Rebbi Oshaya confines the Machlokes Tana'im regarding a Sh'fir full of flesh to where the flesh is turbid, but if it is clear - they will all agree that it is not a V'lad.

(d)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi maintains - that they argue in a case where the flesh is clear (see Tosfos DH 'Machlokes be'Tzalul'), but where it is turbid, they both agree that it is a V'lad.

(e)We are unable to decide exactly what Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi means - whether they argue also where it is clear, or specifically where it is clear (see Tosfos DH 'Shema'), but where it is turbid, they both agree that it is considered a V'lad.

3)

(a)We query Resh Lakish from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehoshua proves from the Pasuk in Bereishis "Vaya'as Hash-m ... le'Adam ... Kosnos Or Vayalbishem" (bearing in mind that the "Kosnos Or" refers to an additional layer of skin) - that Hash-m only forms skin on a baby that has been formed, irrespective of whether what inside is clear or turbid.

(b)We now prove from there that he (Rebbi Yehoshua) and the Chachamim must be arguing over one that contains clear Basar - because that is where a Pasuk is required, whereas if it is turbid, then it would not require a Pasuk, but would be a S'vara.

(c)In spite of this proof, Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehoshua and the Chachamim - by turbid flesh (like Resh Lakish).

4)

(a)Rava queries Rav Nachman from a different Beraisa. When the Tana says there (in connection with the Din Bechorah) 'Siman V'lad bi'Veheimah Dakah, Tinuf', he means - that if a Beheimah Dakah miscarries a firstborn baby that melted, it is considered a V'lad, in that the baby that is born after it is not a B'chor.

(b)The equivalent by ...

1. ... a Beheimah Gasah is - a Shilya.

2. ... a woman is - a either a Sh'fir or a Shilya. We can deduce from there that ...

(c)... a Sh'fir is not a Siman V'lad regarding a Beheimah Gasah.

(d)Rava now proves from the distinction between the Din of a woman and a Beheimah Gasah - that Rebbi Yehoshua (and the Chachamim) - must be speaking about a Sh'fir with clear flesh inside, and which, seeing as he learns it from the above Pasuk in Bereishis, is confined to Adam, but not to Beheimah; whereas if he was referring to one with turbid flesh, which is learned from a S'vara (as we explained), there would be no reason to draw such a distinction (a Kashya on Rav Nachman).

5)

(a)Rav Nachman refutes the proof - on the grounds that R. Yehoshua himself is not sure that a Sh'fir containing turbid flesh is considered a V'lad, and he therefore goes le'Chumra in cases of Isur and le'Kula by issues concerning money.

(b)Consequently, by ...

1. ... a B'chor Adam - which is purely an issue of Mamon Kohen, he considers the baby a B'chor, to exempt the father from the five Sela'im.

2. ... a B'chor Beheimah - he does not consider it a V'lad, in order not to permit the wool of the baby that follows or to work with it.

3. ... a woman - he reckons it as a V'lad, in order to obligate her to observe the days of Tum'ah (but not of Taharah).

(c)Even though Rebbi Yehoshua learns his Din from a Pasuk. we attribute refer to it as a Safek - because the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta, and he really holds that it is only mi'de'Rabbanan that a Sh'fir is considered a V'lad.

6)

(a)When Rav Chanina bar Shalmaya asked Rav whether, with regard to a Sh'fir, he held like Rebbi (who did not know), Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi ('Malei Basar, Tamei Leidah'), Rebbi Oshaya ('be'Achur Machlokes') or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi ('be'Tzalul Machlokes'), he replied ...

1. ... that he declared her Tahor, irrespective of whether the melted flesh inside it was clear or turbid, whereas ...

2. ... Shmuel - considered them both Tamei (le'Chumra).

(b)We conclude that Shmuel follows his own reasoning, which we know from Rav Dimi, who testified, upon arrival from Eretz Yisrael, that in Neherda'a (Shmuel's town) - they never declared her Tahor (even in the case of a dry birth), except for once, where the Sh'fir contained liquid that was so clear that when they placed a hair on one side of it, it could be seen from the other side (in which case it could not possibly have been a V'lad that had melted).

(c)Aba Shaul in a Beraisa, describes a Sh'fir Merukam (a formed Sh'fir). When it is first created, it looks like - a Chagav (a species of locust).

(d)The eyes and the two nostrils resemble - the eyes and 'nostrils' of a fly.

7)

(a)According to the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya, the eyes of a Sh'fir are far apart - the nostrils, close to each other.

(b)Its mouth stretches like a hair. The size of ...

1. ... the Amah of a Zachar is - that of a lentil ...

2. ... and of the Nakvus of a Nekeivah is - that of a barley.

(c)When our Mishnah rules 'Teishev la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah' - it is speaking about one whose sexual organs are not yet discernible.

(d)At that stage, the Tana says - its arms and legs have not yet been formed.

8)

(a)The Pasuk in Iyov "ve'cha'Gevinah Takpi'eni" refers to the second stage of a fetuses creation, when he becomes congealed like hard cheese. When Iyov says "ha'Lo che'Chalav Taticheni" - he is referring to the first stage, when the Zera is 'poured (into the woman's womb) like milk'.

(b)When washing a Sh'fir to ascertain whether it a Zachar or a Nekeivah (regarding the Yemei Tum'ah and Taharah), one should avoid using water - because, due to its relative roughness, it will will cause the fetus to disintegrate.

(c)One should therefore use oil instead - which is soft, and also makes the skin shiny (facilitating the examination).

(d)One should examine it - in the sun.

9)

(a)For the actual examination, Aba Shaul bar Nash (or bar Remesh) requires a splinter with a smooth tip. After placing it into the hole of the skin, one then ascertain the sex of the fetus - by moving it around; should one encounter something which obstructs it, it must be the Amah, and one knows that it is a Zachar; otherwise, it is a Nekeivah.

(b)Rabah bar Avuhah restricts the test to moving the splinter in an up and down motion - because an obstruction at the side might just as well be caused by the walls of the womb of a Nekeivah.

(c)By citing another Beraisa in connection with a female Sh'fir) 'Nidunah ki'Se'orah S'dukah', Rav Ada bar Ahavah adds to the previous Beraisa - the word 'S'dukah' (split), which was not mentioned there.

(d)Abaye resolves Rav Nachman's Kashya, how we know that the slit is not that of Beitzei Zachar - by retorting that if even the Beitzim themselves are not discernible, it is obvious that the slit is not visible either.

10)

(a)Rebbi Amram cites a Beraisa describing both the two thighs (legs) and the two arms as two red threads. He describes the former as the thread of the (Arev) woof, and the latter, as that of the warp (the Shesi [which is thinner than that of the woof]).

(b)Shmuel instructed Rav Yehudah not to consider a Sh'fir, a V'lad, unless it already has hair. Rav Ami bar Shmuel reconciles this with Shmuel own ruling earlier 'Chosheshes', whether it is clear or turbid (although there is obviously no visible hair there) - by interpreting 'Chosheshin' to mean Safek (as it indeed implies), in which case, the mother only observes the days of Tum'ah, whereas if there is hair on the fetuses head, it is Vaday, and she observes the days of Taharah as well.

(c)Shmuel ascertained that a certain Sh'fir that was brought before him - had been miscarried after forty-one days ...

(d)... even though the woman claimed that she had Toveled from her Tum'ah only forty days prior to the miscarriage (implying that her husband had violated the laws of Nidah).

11)

(a)Shmuel discovered that the man had indeed had relations with her whilst she was a Nidah - by bending him over the Amud to give him Malkos, which prompted him to confess his sin.

(b)If it was possible to ascertain the sex of the fetus by merely examining it, we ask - why did Shmuel himself rule 'Chosheshes' (that it is a Safek [as we just explained])?

(c)And we answer that Shmuel's expertise, which enabled him to examine a fetus in this way - was unique to him, but that as far as others was concerned, it is indeed a Safek.

12)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa compares a 'Sandal' to a fish (possibly a sole). It was originally a proper V'lad, he explained, only it became squashed.

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel compares it to the tongue of a large ox. The Beraisa adds in the name of Raboseinu (like whom Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules) - that it must have a face which is properly formed ...

(c)... to which Rav Ada Amar ... Rebbi Yitzchak adds - that it doesn't matter if it is formed at the back of the head instead of at the front), and he illustrates this with ...

(d)... a Mashal to somebody who slaps his friend's face so hard that it comes out at the back of his head.

13)

(a)When the Chachamim of his time wanted to declare a Sandal without a shaped face, Tahor, Rebbi Yanai commented - that they were declaring babies, Tahor.

(b)Rav Bibi bar Abaye Amar Rebbi Yochanan reconciled Rebbi Yanai's objection with the Beraisa that we just cited (in the name of Raboseinu, and) with which he seems to clash - by establishing it as the individual opinion of Rebbi Nechunyah (which is not Halachah).

(c)Rebbi Ze'ira (who was a colleague of Rav Bibi bar Abaye) commented on the latter's statement - that he too, had heard it heard it from Rebbi Yochanan, only Rav Bibi had the good fortune to have quoted it before he did.

14)

(a)Despite the fact that every Sandal is accompanied by a V'lad, our Mishnah sees fit to learn the Din of 'ha'Mapeles Sandal, Teishev ... ' - in a case where the Sandal was accompanied by a V'lad Zachar ...

(b)... in which case we might have thought otherwise, on account of a statement by Rav Yitzchak bar Ami, who states that where the ...

1. ... man germinates first - the woman gives birth to a girl.

2. ... woman germinates first - she gives birth to a boy.

(c)We might have therefore thought, that, in our case - since the first V'lad was a Zachar (indicating that the man did indeed germinate first), the second V'lad is a Zachar too, for the same reason.

(d)The Tana nevertheless gives the mother the fourteen days of Tum'ah of a Nekeivah - because we suspect that both parents germinated simultaneously, resulting in twins, a boy and a girl).

15)

(a)Alternatively, the Tana finds it necessary to mention Safek Sandal, because of the scenario which adds to the days of Tum'ah. In the event that she miscarries the V'lad before Sheki'ah and the Sandal, after Sheki'ah - she is obligated to observe a sighting on the eighty-first day after miscarrying the V'lad as the first day of Nidus, and the same goes for a sighting the following day, the eighty-first day after miscarrying the Sandal (instead of treating it as the second day of Nidus).

(b)The reason that the eighty-first day after the miscarriage of the ...

1. ... V'lad begins the seven days of Nidus (and not the second sighting of the following day) is - due to the possibility that the Sandal was a Zachar.

2. ... Sandal begins the seven days of Nidus (and not the first sighting of the previous day) is - in case it was a Nekeivah.

(c)Alternatively, we read ...

1. ... 'Techilas Leidah min ha'Acharon, which means - that she must count the fourteen days of Tum'ah from the Sandal (in case it too, was a Nekeivah) and begin the sixty-six days of Taharah from the following day ...

2. ... 've'Sof Leidah min ha'Rishon' - meaning that although the sixty-six days of Taharah began after the termination of the days of Tum'ah of the miscarriage of the Sandal (in case it too, was a Nekeivah), they end on the eightieth day after the days of Tum'ah of the miscarriage of the Nekeivah (in case the Sandal was a Zachar).