due to the danger, both to the baby, who might in fact be viable, as well as to the mother, who might suffer fatal complications if she has to retain all her milk. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where his signs of viability are fully developed, and he has the appearance of a viable child. As it is taught in a baraita: Who is a baby born during the eighth month? It is anyone whose months of gestation have not been completed, i.e., a baby that was born prematurely. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The signs that prove that the child falls into this category are that his hair and nails are not fully developed. Now, the reason is that they are not fully developed; but if his hair and nails are fully developed, we say that this fetus was fit to be born after seven months but for some reason was delayed in its mother’s womb.

But if so, with regard to the action taken by Rava Tosfa’a concerning a woman whose husband went overseas and her baby was delayed in her womb for the twelve months of the year following her husband’s departure, and Rava Tosfa’a rendered the child fit, arguing that the husband is presumed to be the father and the child is not a mamzer, according to whose opinion did he issue this ruling? It must have been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that a baby can be delayed for an extended period of time in its mother’s womb even after it is fully developed and ready to be born. But how could Rava Tosfa’a have ruled in accordance with the minority opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, against the majority opinion of his colleagues?

The Gemara answers: Since there is also Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that a baby can be delayed in its mother’s womb, Rava Tosfa’a in fact acted in accordance with the majority, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion is not that of a lone dissenting scholar. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any human child who stays alive for thirty days is not a stillborn. Even if the child was not carried for a full nine months, once he has survived for thirty days he is no longer treated like an infant whose viability is in doubt. The reason is that he is presumed to be a child that was fit to be born after seven months but for some reason was delayed in his mother’s womb and not born immediately upon reaching full development.

§ The Sages taught: Who is considered a eunuch by natural causes? It is anyone who is twenty years old and has not yet grown two pubic hairs. And even if he grows pubic hairs afterward, he is still considered a eunuch by natural causes with regard to all his matters. And his signs are as follows: Whoever does not have a beard, and his hair is defective, unlike that of ordinary individuals, and his skin is smooth, i.e., hairless. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya’ir: It is anyone whose urine does not raise foam.

And some say: It is anyone who urinates without forming an arch. And some say: It is anyone whose semen dissipates and fails to congeal in the proper manner. And some say: Anyone whose urine does not ferment. Others say: It is anyone who bathes in the rainy season and his flesh does not give off steam. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: It is anyone whose voice is defective, so that it is not evident from it whether he is a man or a woman.

And who is a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit]? It is anyone who is twenty years old and has not yet grown two pubic hairs. And even if she grows pubic hairs afterward, she is still considered a sexually underdeveloped woman with regard to all her matters. And her signs are as follows: A sexually underdeveloped woman is anyone who does not have breasts and experiences pain during intercourse. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is anyone whose lower abdomen is not formed like that of other women, as she lacks the cushion of flesh that is usually situated above a woman’s genitals. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: It is anyone whose voice is deep, so that it is not evident from it whether she is a woman or a man.

It was stated that amora’im disagreed over the signs of a eunuch. Rav Huna said that one is not categorized as a eunuch unless all these signs are present; Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is categorized as such even if only one of them is present. The Gemara comments: In a case when he has grown two hairs in his beard, everyone agrees that he is not considered sexually impotent unless all the signs are present. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case when he has not grown two hairs.

The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to that which Rabba bar Avuh said to the Sages: Examine Rav Naḥman when he bathes and if his flesh gives off steam I will give him my daughter for a wife, in accordance with whose opinion did he issue these instructions? Is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, who maintains that all the signs must be present, as presumably he could see that Rav Naḥman did not have a beard? The Gemara answers: No, Rav Naḥman had wisps of a beard, and therefore Rabba bar Avuh wanted to know whether he displayed the other signs of sexual incapacity.

§ It is taught in the mishna that a sexually underdeveloped man does not perform ḥalitza or enter into levirate marriage with his yevama, and similarly, a sexually underdeveloped woman does not perform ḥalitza or enter into levirate marriage with her yavam. The Gemara comments that the tanna teaches the case of a sexually underdeveloped man similarly to that of a sexually underdeveloped woman, from which it can be inferred: Just as in the case of a sexually underdeveloped woman, her disability is by the hand of Heaven, so too, in the case of a sexually underdeveloped man, his disability must be by the hand of Heaven. And this unattributed view in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: With regard to one whose incapacity was brought about by the hands of man, yes, he is considered like any other man and performs ḥalitza, whereas one who suffers his condition by the hand of Heaven does not do so.

§ It is further taught in the mishna that if a eunuch performed ḥalitza with his yevama, he has not thereby disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood, but if he had intercourse with her, he has disqualified her. The Gemara infers from this wording that the reason for her disqualification is that he, the yavam, had intercourse with her, as she had intercourse with her yavam outside the framework of permitted levirate marriage. But if a different individual had relations with her she would not be disqualified.