Version #1 (Mishnah): If the fetus came out cut up or Mesuras (out of order, the head was not first)...

(R. Elazar): Even if the head came out, it is not considered born until the majority leaves.

(R. Yochanan): Once the head comes out, it is considered born.

Suggestion: They argue about Shmuel's law.

(Shmuel): If the head of a Nefel left the womb, this is not considered birth. (If a twin will leave the womb after the Nefel, it is the Peter Rechem. It must be redeemed.)

Rejection: No, both agree that the head of an intact Nefel is considered birth (unlike Shmuel);

They argue only when the Nefel is cut up. R. Elazar holds that in this case, the head is not important. It is not born until the majority leaves;

R. Yochanan holds that even in this case the head is important. Once it leaves, the Nefel is born.

Version #2 (R. Elazar): The head is not considered like the majority of the limbs

(R. Yochanan): Once the head comes out, it is considered born.

Suggestion: They argue about Shmuel's law.

Question (against R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If the fetus came out cut up or Mesuras, it is not considered born until the majority leaves.

Inference: Since it says cut up or Mesuras, in the first case (it was cut up), it came out normally (headfirst), and it is not born until the majority leaves!

Answer #1: It means, if the fetus came out cut up and Mesuras...

Objection: It says '... or Mesuras'!

Answer #2: Rather, it means, if the fetus came out cut up or whole, and it was Mesuras, when the majority leaves it is considered born.

(Rav Papa): Tana'im argue as R. Elazar and R. Yochanan do:

(Beraisa): If the fetus came out cut up or Mesuras, when the majority leaves it is considered born;

R. Yosi says, when it comes out properly (headfirst).

Question: What does R. Yosi mean? (Tosfos - surely he agrees that if it is intact, even if it is Mesuras, when the majority leaves it is considered born!)

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): The first Tana says, if the fetus came out cut up and Mesuras, when the majority leaves it is considered born;

Had the head left first, this would have been considered birth;

R. Yosi says, it is born when the majority leaves properly.

Objection (Rav Zevid): This implies that R. Yosi holds that if the majority left Mesuras, it is not born. However, we hold that the majority is like the whole! (This is a great general rule. Surely, R. Yosi agrees.)

Answer #2 (Rav Zevid): The first Tana says that if the fetus came out cut up and Mesuras, when the majority leaves it is considered born;

Had it come out headfirst, once the head left it would be considered born (even though it is cut up);

Version #1 (Rashi): R. Yosi says that even if it comes out headfirst, the head is considered a birth only if it is born alive.

Version #2 (Tosfos): R. Yosi says that when it comes out headfirst, once the essence of life (the majority of the head) leaves, it is born. (end of Version #2)

Support (Beraisa): If the fetus came out cut up and Mesuras, when the majority leaves it is considered born;

Inference: Had the head left first, this would have been considered birth;

R. Yosi says, when it comes out headfirst (Rashi - and alive), it is considered born after the majority of the head leaves.

Question: What is considered the majority of the head?

Answer #1 (R. Yosi): Up to the temples is the majority.

Answer #2 (Aba Chanan): Up to the forehead is the majority.

Answer #3: Some say, once the "horns" (the top of the back of the head) are visible (the majority has left).

(Mishnah): If a woman miscarried a child, but she does not know the gender, she is Yoledes Zachar or Nekevah;

If she does not know whether or not a child came out, she is Safek Yoledes Zachar or Nekevah, Safek Nidah.

(Gemara - R. Yehoshua ben Levi): If a woman miscarried in a river, she brings a Korban (like a definite Yoledes). The Chatas is eaten, for we follow the majority:

Most miscarriages are proper children (for which a Korban is brought).

Question (Mishnah): If she does not know whether or not a child came out, she is Safek Yoledes Zachar or Nekevah, Safek Nidah.

According to R. Yehoshua ben Levi, why is she Safek Nidah? We should follow the majority and say that a child came out!

Answer: The case is, she was not known to be pregnant. R. Yehoshua teaches about one who was known to be pregnant.

Question (Beraisa): If a pregnant animal (that never gave birth before) wandered off and returned (the same day) empty (not pregnant), if its next child is a male, it is a Safek Bechor.

According to R. Yehoshua ben Levi, we should follow the majority and say that a child came out from this pregnancy. The next child is definitely not a Bechor!

Answer (Ravina): All animals secrete Tinuf (fluids) the day before giving birth. Since this animal did not, this counters the majority that give birth to proper offspring, therefore the next child is a Safek.

Objection: If all animals secrete before giving birth, and this one did not, surely it did not give birth!

Correction: Rather, most animals secrete before giving birth. Since this animal did not, this counters the majority that give birth to proper offspring, so the next child is Safek.

Ravin: R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina tried to refute R. Yehoshua ben Levi from the following Beraisa, but it is not a refutation!

Question (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina - Beraisa - Beis Shamai): A pregnant woman left, and returned empty months later. The first three weeks after returning, she did not see blood. The following ten weeks, she alternated. She would see blood for seven straight days, and then have seven clean days, and repeat this. She may have Bi'ah on the 35th night. She immerses 95 times during this period (this will be explained);

Beis Hillel says, she immerses 35 times;

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, it suffices for her to immerse once at the end.

Granted, Bi'ah is forbidden the first week, for even if she gave birth to a male, she is Teme'ah;

Bi'ah is forbidden the second week, for perhaps she gave birth to a female.

Bi'ah is forbidden the third week, for perhaps she was Yoledes Nekevah b'Zov (when she was a Zavah). The Tana requires her to count seven clean days after the two weeks of Tum'ah.

Question: Why is Bi'ah forbidden in the fourth week? Whether she gave birth to a male or female, she already had seven clean days, and the blood she sees is Dam Tohar!

Answer: This shows that we do not rely on the majority that most women give birth to a proper child. This refutes R. Yehoshua ben Levi!

Question: Why did Ravin say that it is not a refutation?

Answer: Really, we rely on the majority. However, since we do not know when she gave birth, we are concerned lest Yemei Tohar already ended. (Most Rishonim cannot explain why R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina asked the question. The Beraisa makes sense only if we do not know when she gave birth! Ran - most women immediately sense that they miscarried. R. Yosi reasoned, if we do not rely on this majority (rather, we are concerned lest she gave birth many days ago), we should not rely on the majority that most women give birth to a proper child, either. Ravin says that we rely on the latter majority, but not on the former.)

Question: Why is Bi'ah forbidden in the fifth week (until night 35)?

Answer: It is possible that Yemei Tohar ended on any day of the fourth week (in particular, perhaps on the 27th), and the blood she saw the next day was the beginning of Nidah, therefore the next seven days (until and including the 34th) might be days of Nidah.

Question: Why is Bi'ah forbidden on day 21? (Even if she was Yoledes Nekevah b'Zov, she just counted seven clean days!)

Answer: The Tana is R. Shimon, who forbids Bi'ah on the seventh clean day, for if she sees blood later that day, it is retroactively revealed that she never counted 7 clean days.

Question: Why is Bi'ah forbidden the following night?

Answer: The case is, she saw blood at the beginning of the night.