יא המפלת סנדל וכו' ת"ר סנדל דומה לדג של ים מתחלתו ולד הוא אלא שנרצף רשב"ג אומר סנדל דומה ללשון של שור הגדול משום רבותינו העידו סנדל צריך צורת פנים
11 at all mentioned, seeing that there can be no birth of a sandal without that of an embryo with it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the woman would be unclean even in the absence of a sandal. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> — If a female child were to be born with it this would be so indeed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There would have been no necessity at all to mention the sandal (cf. prev. n. but one), since it could add no uncleanness, whatever its sex: If it is a female it would subject the woman to the very same uncleanness as the female that was born with it, and if it is a male, the period of uncleanness it causes is a lesser one than that of the female. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> but here we are dealing with one with which a male was born.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if the sandal were a female the period of the woman's uncleanness would extend over a longer period. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> As it might have been presumed that, since R. Isaac b. Ammi stated, 'If the woman is first to emit the semen she bears a male child and if the male is first to do it she bears a female child', the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sandal. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> is a male as well as the other is a male,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which the woman's uncleanness would be that of a male birth only. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> hence we were informed [that no such assumption is made, for] it might equally be assumed that both emitted their semen simultaneously so that one might be a male while the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sandal. ');"><sup>35</sup></span>