The discussion begins by reviewing the laws concerning a `Tumtum` and an `Androgynous`. Normally, an individual who becomes ritually impure must be sent out of the Temple. However, for a `Tumtum` or an `Androgynous`, even if they become ritually impure due to a red or white discharge, they are not expelled from the Temple. This ruling stems from a specific verse that states, "from male to female," which is understood to exclude the `Androgynous`—whose gender is definitively both—and the `Tumtum`, whose gender is uncertain.
The Gemara questions why this exemption from expulsion applies only to impurity from a discharge, and not to other types of ritual impurity. The explanation is that the specific wording of the verse, referring to "secretions that come out of a male," forms a legislative decree that limits the exclusion to these types of impurities. We learn from a separate context concerning valuations (`Eilishim`) that an `Androgynous` is treated as a male for certain purposes, but this derivation uses additional words like "the male" (`Ha-Zachar`) and "if a female" (`Im-Ni-Keba`). The question then arises: how are the `Tumtum` and `Androgynous` exempted from Temple expulsion without these extra words?
The answer provided is that in the context of valuations, the additional words "the" and "if" were necessary to teach that each gender has its own unique valuations, which are not interchangeable. However, regarding expulsion from the camp (or Temple), the words "male" and "female" themselves are considered superfluous. Therefore, we can derive from these seemingly extra words that the law of expulsion applies only to a clear male or female, thereby excluding the `Tumtum` and `Androgynous`.
The discourse then shifts to the laws of ritual impurity for a woman after childbirth, specifically when the child is born "cut up" (`mechotach`) or "backwards" (`mesuras`). The general rule is that a woman becomes impure once the majority of the child emerges. When the head emerges, it is considered equivalent to the majority of the body, a concept known as `Rav Roshot`.
A dispute arises regarding a child born in pieces. Rabbi El Azar states that even if the head is among the pieces, it does not count as a birth until the majority of the child's body emerges. This applies specifically when the child is born in fragments. In contrast, Rabbi Yohanan asserts that when the head emerges, it is considered a birth, even if the body is in pieces. This birth can have halachic implications, such as exempting a subsequent child from the laws of a firstborn (`bichor`).
Initially, the Gemara suggests that this dispute between Rabbi El Azar and Rabbi Yohanan revolves around the opinion of Shmuel. Shmuel ruled that if the head of an undeveloped fetus (`nefer`) emerges, it does not exempt a subsequent child from being a firstborn. According to this interpretation, Rabbi El Azar would agree with Shmuel that the head of a `mechotach` child does not count, while Rabbi Yohanan would disagree. However, this interpretation is rejected because Shmuel was discussing a `nefer` whose body was intact (`shalem`). In such a case, it is generally agreed that the head does count as a birth. Thus, their argument must directly concern a `mechotach` birth.
The revised understanding is that Rabbi El Azar holds that the head is considered a complete birth only if the child is intact, but not if it is `mechotach`. Rabbi Yohanan, however, maintains that the head is sufficient for a birth even if the child is `mechotach`.
The Gemara then presents an alternative version of the dispute, learned independently of the Mishnah. Here, Rabbi El Azar states that the head is not considered equivalent to the majority of limbs, meaning its emergence alone does not constitute a birth. This independent statement implies that their dispute could extend even to an intact birth, not just a `mechotach` one. If so, their disagreement would indeed be directly with Shmuel, with Rabbi El Azar agreeing that the head of an undeveloped fetus does not count, and Rabbi Yohanan disagreeing.
A challenge is posed to Rabbi Yohanan from the Mishnah, which states that for a child born `mechotach` or `mesuras`, the woman becomes impure when the majority of the child emerges. This seems to imply that the head alone is insufficient. The Gemara resolves this by clarifying that the "or" in the Mishnah means that if the child emerges `mechotach` or intact (`shalem`) but backwards (`mesuras`), then the majority is required. However, if it emerges normally (head first), the head alone is sufficient.
Rabba then suggests that the dispute between Rabbi El Azar and Rabbi Yohanan is a reflection of a dispute among the Tana'im in a `Braita`. The `Braita` states that if a child is born `mechotach` or `mesuras`, "once the majority emerges, it is considered born." This first opinion (`Tanakama`) implies that if the child emerges normally (`ketekno`), the head alone is sufficient (`harosh poter`). However, Rabbi Yosef disputes this, saying that even if it emerges normally, the majority is still required, and the head alone is not sufficient. This aligns Tanakama with Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yosef with Rabbi El Azar.
Rav Zvid challenges Rabbi Yosef's position. If Rabbi Yosef requires the majority even for a normal birth, what would he say about a backwards birth? Would he claim that even the majority is insufficient? This would contradict the general principle that the majority is equivalent to the whole (`Rubo Kekuno`).
Therefore, Rav Zvid offers an alternative interpretation of the `Braita`. The `Braita` states that if a child is born `mechotach` or `mesuras`, "once the majority emerges, it is considered born." The implication is that if it is `mechotach` but emerges normally (head first), the head alone is sufficient. Rabbi Yosef, however, argues that if it is `mechotach`, even if the head emerges first, the head is *not* sufficient. The head only counts as a birth if it emerges in a way that implies viability (`ketekno lechayim`), which is not the case for a `mechotach` birth. This interpretation aligns Tanakama with Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yosef with Rabbi El Azar.
The Gemara then delves into what constitutes the "majority of the head." The `Tanakama` refers to the majority of the head. Rabbi Yosef defines this as the temples (`Seda'av`). Rabbi Hanan, in the name of Rabbi Yosef, says it is the forehead (`Padachto`). Rabbi Shimron says it is the crown of the head (`Karni roshu`).
The discussion shifts to a woman who gave birth, but it is unknown whether the child was male or female, or even if a birth occurred at all. In such a case, she must observe the stringencies of both a male and a female birth, as well as the laws of a menstruating woman (`Nidah`) if no birth occurred. The stringency for a female birth is 14 days of ritual impurity (`tum'ah`), while for a male birth, it is 33 days of purity (`yemeh tohar`). If she sees blood on the 15th day, it would be considered purity blood (`Dam Tov`) if she had a male or female child, but `Nidah` blood if no birth occurred.
Rabbi Yeshua Ben Levi offers a case: if a woman has a miscarriage in a river and the fetus is lost, she can bring a sacrifice (`korban`) and eat holy food (`ne'khal`). This is because we follow the majority of women (`rov nashim`), who give birth to viable children (`v'lad me'alia yalda'an`). The Gemara challenges this from the Mishnah, which states that if it's unknown whether there was a fetus, she observes stringencies. Why not follow the majority? The resolution is that Rabbi Yeshua Ben Levi's case refers to a woman who was *known* to be pregnant (`hozekah u bara`), whereas the Mishnah refers to a woman whose pregnancy itself was uncertain (`lo hozekah u bara`).
A similar principle is applied to animals: if a pregnant animal goes out to graze and returns empty, there is a doubt about whether a birth occurred. While the majority of animals give birth, if this particular animal did not bleed the day before birth (as most do), this weakens the `rov` (majority) and creates a doubt. In such a situation, the second offspring would be considered a doubtful firstborn (`Bichor Mestafek`).
Returning to the woman with unknown birth status, the Mishnah describes a case where a woman was pregnant, then returned empty. For the first three weeks, she saw no blood. For the subsequent ten weeks, she alternated between seeing blood for one week and being clean for the next. The school of Bet Shammai rules that she must immerse in a `mikveh` 95 times during this period, while the school of Bet Hillel says 35 times. Rabbi Yosef suggests she only needs to immerse once at the very end.
Let's analyze the rationale for these immersions. During the first week, she cannot engage in marital relations (`tashmish`) because she might have given birth to a male, which entails 7 days of `Nidah`. In the second week, she is also forbidden because she might have given birth to a female, which entails 14 days of `Nidah`. In the third week, she might be a `Zavah` (a woman with an irregular uterine discharge). If she had a flow without labor, she would need to count 7 clean days after her `Nidah` period. Since she had three clean weeks, one might think she should be permitted, but this is not the case.
In the fourth week, she sees blood. This blood could be `Dam Tov` (purity blood) if she had a male or female child, as she would still be within her `yemeh tohar` period (33 days for a male, 66 for a female). However, if no birth occurred, this blood would be `Nidah` blood. Therefore, she cannot engage in `tashmish`.
The question is raised: why suspect no birth, given Rabbi Yeshua Ben Levi's ruling to follow the majority? The answer is that the assumption of `Dam Tov` is based on her giving birth on the day she showed up. However, it's possible she gave birth earlier, in which case her `Dam Tov` period might have already ended, and the blood she is now seeing is `Nidah` blood.
Even if she is clean in the fifth week, she is still forbidden. This is because it is uncertain when her `Dam Tohar` ended and her `Nidah` began in the fourth week. If her `Nidah` began on the last day of the fourth week, she would need 7 clean days, which would extend into the fifth week. Therefore, she cannot engage in `tashmish` in the fifth week either.
The earliest she can engage in `tashmish` is the night of the 35th day. This allows for 7 clean days after the latest possible onset of `Nidah`. A challenge is raised: why not day 21, at the end of the third clean week? She would have completed her `Nidah` and `Zavah` requirements. The reason is that while a `Zavah` can immerse during the day, Bet Shammai forbids this. They fear she might see blood later that night and engage in `tashmish` while impure. Therefore, immersion must occur at night. The earliest night after all stringencies are satisfied is the night of the 35th day.
Now, let's detail Bet Shammai's 95 immersions. During the first week, she must immerse every night (7 times). This addresses the doubt of a male birth, where her 7-day `Nidah` period could end on any of these nights, depending on whether she gave birth up to 6 days before she showed up. Similarly, during the second week, she must immerse every night (7 times) to account for a female birth, where her 14-day `Nidah` period could end on any of these nights.
In addition, during the days of the second week, she must immerse every day (7 times) to account for a male birth where she was also a `Zavah`. In such a case, after her 7 days of `Nidah`, she would need 7 clean days for her `Zavut`. Each day of the second week could be the end of this `Zavut` period. She cannot count `Zavut` during the first week because the `Nidah` period might still be ongoing. Similarly, during the third week, she must immerse every day (7 times) for the doubt of a female birth with `Zavut`. This brings the total to 7 (nights, week 1) + 7 (nights, week 2) + 7 (days, week 2) + 7 (days, week 3) = 28 immersions. The text then mentions an additional 7 immersions for the nights of the third week, bringing the total to 35.
The remaining immersions for Bet Shammai relate to the concept of `Tevul Yom Aroch` (one who has immersed during the day but remains impure until nightfall, extended over a long period). A woman who has given birth has the status of `Tevul Yom Aroch` throughout her `yemei tohar` (up to 66 days for a female). Bet Shammai holds that she must immerse again at the end of this long `Tevul Yom` status. Therefore, for every night that could potentially be the end of her `yemei tohar` (depending on when she gave birth), she must immerse. The `yemei tohar` period for a female is 66 days. After the 14 days of `Nidah`, there are 52 days of `yemei tohar`. The Gemara calculates 80 nights for the entire process (14 days `Nidah` + 66 days `yemei tohar`). After the initial 35 immersions, there are 59 remaining days/nights of potential `yemei tohar` endings, leading to 35 + 59 = 94 immersions.
The 95th immersion, according to Bet Shammai, is accounted for by assuming the woman showed up *between sunset and nightfall* (`Ben Hashemashot`). If she showed up at this time, and had given birth 7 or 14 days prior, her `Nidah` or `tum'ah` period could end precisely at this `Ben Hashemashot` interval, requiring an immediate immersion. This adds one extra immersion. The reason for specifying `Ben Hashemashot` is to ensure that the initial three weeks were truly clean (`Teorim`). If she had shown up at night, she might have seen blood that night, invalidating the "clean week" status. `Ben Hashemashot` allows for the possibility of seeing blood *before* the clean week began, thus preserving the "clean week" status.
For Bet Hillel's 35 immersions: Bet Hillel does not require an immersion at the end of `yemei tohar`. Therefore, all the immersions related to `Tevul Yom Aroch` are removed. This leaves the 28 immersions from the first three weeks (7 nights week 1, 7 nights week 2, 7 days week 2, 7 days week 3). The remaining 7 immersions to reach 35 come from the fifth week. If the blood seen in the fourth week was `Nidah`, then she needs 7 clean days. Each night of the fifth week could be the end of this 7-day `Nidah` period, depending on when `Nidah` began in the fourth week. This brings Bet Hillel's total to 28 + 7 = 35 immersions. The earliest `tashmish` is then permitted on the night of the 35th day, after all these doubts are satisfied.