כא ורמינהי קשתה שנים ולשלישי הפילה רוח או כל דבר שאינו של קיימא הרי זו יולדת בזוב ואי אמרת לידה מעלייתא היא
21 turns up clods<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That need crushing. ');"><sup>62</sup></span> and whose earth is not loose. If<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On being broken up. ');"><sup>61</sup></span> a potsherd is found in it, it may be known that it had once been cultivated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How else could the potsherd have found its way into it? ');"><sup>63</sup></span> if flint, it is undoubtedly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'behold this'. ');"><sup>64</sup></span> virgin soil. 'A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY'? ONE WHOSE EMBRYO 'CAN BE DISCERNED. At what stage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and how much'. ');"><sup>65</sup></span> is the embryo discernible? — Symmachus citing R. Meir replied: Three months after conception. And though there is no actual proof for this statement there is an allusion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'remembrance'. ');"><sup>66</sup></span> to it, for it is said in Scripture, And it came to pass about three months after<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it was told … she is with child, Gen, XXXVIII, 24. ');"><sup>67</sup></span> etc. 'An allusion to it' [you say], is not this a text of Scripture and a most reliable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'great'. ');"><sup>68</sup></span> proof? — [It can only be regarded as an allusion] because some women<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is'. ');"><sup>69</sup></span> give birth after nine months and others after seven months.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it might have been assumed that the three months of the text (representing a third of nine) applied to the former only while in the case of the latter the stage of recognition begins after 7/3 = 2 1/3, months. ');"><sup>70</sup></span> Our Rabbis taught: If a woman was<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'behold she was'. ');"><sup>71</sup></span> in a condition of presumptive pregnancy and after observing a discharge of blood she miscarried an inflated object<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wind'. ');"><sup>72</sup></span> or any other object which had no vitality<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'existence'. ');"><sup>73</sup></span> she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Despite the fact that her pregnancy, as is now evident, was not natural. ');"><sup>74</sup></span> is still deemed to be<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards retrospective uncleanness. ');"><sup>75</sup></span> in the condition of her presumptive pregnancy and it suffices for her to reckon her period of menstrual uncleanness from the time of her observation of the discharge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not twenty-four hours retrospectively as is the case with one who is not pregnant. ');"><sup>76</sup></span> And though there is no actual proof for this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an inflated object (cf. supra n. 12) is regarded as a viable embryo in respect of pregnancy. ');"><sup>77</sup></span> there is an allusion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'remembrance', ');"><sup>78</sup></span> to it, for it is said in Scripture, We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on the last word. Isa. XXVI, 18. Tosef. Nid. I. ');"><sup>79</sup></span> But why only 'an allusion to it' seeing that the text provides actual<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'great'. ');"><sup>80</sup></span> proof? — That text was in fact written about males.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In whose case conception and birth are mere metaphorical expressions. ');"><sup>81</sup></span> I would, however, point out an incongruity: If a woman was in hard labour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accompanied by a flow of blood. ');"><sup>82</sup></span> for two days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the eleven days in which she is susceptible to the uncleanness of a zabah (v. foll. nn.). ');"><sup>83</sup></span> and on the third day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After a further discharge of blood, so that (cf. prev. n. but one) her bleeding and pain extended over three consecutive days. ');"><sup>84</sup></span> she miscarried an inflated object or any thing that had no vitality, she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there was no proper birth though she had no relief from her pain between the time of the discharge and the miscarriage. ');"><sup>85</sup></span> is regarded as bearing in the condition of a zabah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Sc. she must count seven days and bring the sacrifice prescribed for a zabah before she can attain cleanness. ');"><sup>86</sup></span> Now if you maintain that such miscarriage is a proper birth