and when the governor [parashtevina] of Pumbedita would stand next to Adda the attendant, he would reach only half of his height. And when everyone else in the world would stand next to the governor of Pumbedita, they would reach only his loins [ḥartzeih].

§ The students asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In the case of a woman who discharges a gestational sac full of flesh, what is the halakha? Does she have the impurity of a woman after childbirth? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: I have not heard from my teachers the halakha in this case.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: This is what my father, i.e., Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta, one of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s teachers, said: If a woman discharged a gestational sac full of blood, she is impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. If it is full of flesh, she is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: If you had told us an entirely new statement in the name of your father, no part of which was also stated by another Sage, we would have listened to you, i.e., we would have accepted the statement as halakha. But now that you stated two halakhot, one with regard to a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of blood, and the other with regard to a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of flesh, the entire statement cannot be accepted as halakha.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explains: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei said this first clause of his statement, with regard to a gestational sac full of blood, in accordance with an individual opinion, i.e., in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who said in the name of Rabbi Meir that the woman is impure, contrary to the opinion of the other Sages, it follows that with regard to this latter statement as well, with regard to a gestational sac full of flesh, one can say that perhaps Rabbi Yosei said it in accordance with the opinion of another individual Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua. And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a woman who discharges a gestational sac in which tissue did not develop, Rabbi Yehoshua says: It has the status of an offspring, and the woman has the impurity of a woman after childbirth; and the Rabbis say: It is not an offspring, and the woman is pure. The opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of flesh is impure might be in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua, which is not accepted as halakha, since the majority of the other Sages disagree with him. Therefore, the halakha cannot be decided in accordance with either part of the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: The dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, as Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the turbidity indicates that there was likely an embryo in the sac that liquefied. But in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, everyone agrees that the discharged sac is not considered an offspring. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What does Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi mean? Does he mean that the dispute applies only in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, but in a case where it is turbid, everyone agrees that it has the halakhic status of an offspring? Or perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi means that the dispute applies in this case and in that case, i.e., the Rabbis hold that the sac does not have the status of an offspring even if the amniotic fluid is turbid. The Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies only in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya, who is the same Rabbi Yehoshua who disagrees with the Rabbis with regard to the case of a woman who discharges a gestational sac in which tissue did not develop, taught this following proof for his opinion that the woman is impure: It is stated: “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21). This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not make skin for a person unless he is already created, as God first created Adam and Eve, and then gave them skin. Consequently, the existence of a gestational sac proves that there is an offspring.

Evidently, according to Rabbi Yehoshua the matter of whether or not an embryo is considered offspring is dependent on whether or not there is skin, and there is no difference whether the amniotic fluid is turbid, and there is no difference whether it is clear.

Granted, if you say that the dispute applies in a case where it is clear, that is why it was necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua to derive from a verse that an embryo that has skin is considered an offspring. But if you say that the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, but Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that the woman is pure if it is clear, why do I need a verse to teach that if the amniotic fluid is turbid the woman is impure? It is logical that where the amniotic fluid is turbid there was probably an embryo that liquefied. Rather, conclude from it that the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from it that this is correct.

And likewise, just as Rabbi Oshaya interprets the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis as referring to a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid; but in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, everyone agrees that the discharged sac is not considered an offspring.

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a mishna that specifies the obligations that apply to firstborn animals (Bekhorot 19b):But the Sages said that not only does a viable offspring exempt any subsequent offspring from being counted a firstborn, but the same applies to an indication of the offspring that is discharged from the womb. The indication in a small animal is a murky discharge from the womb, in a large animal it is the emergence of an afterbirth, and in a woman the indication is a gestational sac or an afterbirth.

Rava infers: And yet the miscarriage of a gestational sac in the case of a large animal does not exempt the animal’s subsequent offspring from being counted a firstborn. Granted, if you say that the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear, it is due to that reason that the mishna differentiates between a large animal and a woman with regard to a gestational sac.

Rava explains: With regard to a woman, as the aforementioned verse: “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins,” includes in the definition of offspring a gestational sac, i.e., skin, one can say that such a gestational sac exempts subsequent births from the obligations of primogeniture. By contrast, in the case of an animal, as the verse does not include a gestational sac in the definition of offspring, discharging a gestational sac does not exempt the animal’s subsequent offspring from being considered a firstborn.

But if you say that the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems the woman impure due to the likelihood that there was an embryo that liquefied, since this halakha is based on logic, what is different in the case of a woman, and what is different in the case of an animal? Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning applies equally to both. Evidently, the dispute applies in a case where the amniotic fluid is clear.

The Gemara answers: Do you hold that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehoshua that a gestational sac in which the amniotic fluid is turbid has the halakhic status of an offspring? That is not so; rather, Rabbi Yehoshua is uncertain of its halakhic status, and therefore here, in this case, he rules stringently, and there he also rules stringently.

The Gemara elaborates: First of all, with regard to a situation where a woman discharged a gestational sac in which the amniotic fluid was turbid, in which case the obligation of primogeniture is a monetary matter, i.e., the obligation to redeem the newborn child by paying money to a priest, the subsequent births are exempt, in accordance with the principle that uncertainty with regard to monetary matters is treated leniently.

By contrast, with regard to an animal, in which case firstborn status is a ritual matter, as there are prohibitions involving, i.e., against, shearing the animal’s wool and using the animal for labor before it incurs a blemish, the discharged gestational sac is not considered an offspring and does not exempt subsequent births from the obligations of firstborn status, as uncertainty with regard to ritual matters is treated stringently. So too, with regard to the impurity of a woman who discharged a gestational sac, she is deemed impure, as uncertainty with regard to impurity is treated stringently, which means that for the purposes of this halakha a gestational sac is considered an offspring.

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehoshua uncertain about the halakha of a woman who discharges a gestational sac? But doesn’t he cite a verse as proof that the woman has the impurity of one who gave birth? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that the woman is impure by rabbinic law, and the verse he cites is a mere support for this halakha; it is not the actual source.

Rav Ḥanina bar Shelamya said to Rav: This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who told his students that he did not hear from his teachers the halakha in the case of a woman who discharged a gestational sac full of flesh; and this is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who cited his father’s opinion that in such a case the woman is impure. And this is the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, that the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the Rabbis applies only in a case where the amniotic fluid is turbid; and finally this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who holds that the dispute applies if the amniotic fluid is clear. In accordance with whose opinion does the Master hold?

Rav said to Rav Ḥanina bar Shelamya: I say that both in this case, where the amniotic fluid is turbid, and in that case, where the fluid is clear, the woman does not need to be concerned that she has the status of a woman who gave birth to an offspring.

And Shmuel says: In both this case and that case, the woman must be concerned that the discharged gestational sac has the status of an offspring, and therefore she is considered impure like a woman who gave birth. And Shmuel follows his standard line of reasoning here, as when Rav Dimi came and transmitted many halakhic traditions, the latter said: In Neharde’a the Sages never deemed a woman who discharged a gestational sac pure, except for the case of a certain gestational sac that came before Shmuel, who placed a hair on this side of that sac, and it was visible from that side. Shmuel said, based on this test: If it were so, that there was an offspring in the sac, it would not have been so transparent. He therefore deemed the woman pure, but his ruling applied only in that extreme case.

§ The mishna teaches: But if the sac was one in which tissue developed, the halakhic status of the woman is that of a woman after childbirth. Since the sex of the embryo is unknown, she observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female; she is impure for fourteen days like a woman who gave birth to a female, but blood that she sees thereafter is pure only until forty days after birth, like a woman who gave birth to a male. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the definition of a gestational sac in which tissue developed? Abba Shaul says: The beginning of the formation of the embryo is from its head, and its two eyes look like two drops, similar to the eyes of a fly. Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: These eyes must be distant from each other. Furthermore, its two nostrils look like two drops, similar to the nostrils of a fly.

Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: And these eyes must be close to each other. And its mouth stretches along the width of its face like a strand of hair. And its body is like the size of a lentil. And if it was female, its vagina can be discerned by the appearance of a line like a cracked grain of barley oriented along the length of its body.

And it does not have the shape of arms and legs at this stage. And it is said with regard to an embryo at this stage, in the texts of tradition, the Prophets: “Have You not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? You have clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and favor, and Your providence has preserved my spirit” (Job 10:10–12).

And one does not examine it with water to discover its sex, as water is too strong,