והא קשיש מיניה טובא אלא משום דקאי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל בשיטתיה
The Gemara asks: But wasn’t Rabbi Eliezer much older than Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel? How could Rabbi Eliezer have cited the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel? The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason Rabbi Elazar ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case was because Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel held in accordance with his opinion.
ומי קאי והתניא אור יוה"כ מתפלל שבע ומתודה שחרית מתפלל שבע ומתודה מוסף מתפלל שבע ומתודה מנחה מתפלל שבע ומתודה בנעילה מתפלל שבע ומתודה בערבית מתפלל שבע מעין שמנה עשרה
And does Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel really hold in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On the night of Yom Kippur, one prays seven blessings in the Amida prayer and confesses; in the morning prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; in the additional prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; in the afternoon prayer, one prays seven blessings and confesses; and in the ne’ila prayer, one also prays seven blessings and confesses. For the evening prayer at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one prays seven blessings in an abridged version of the eighteen blessings of the weekday Amida prayer. One recites the first three blessings, the final three, and a middle blessing that includes an abbreviated form of the other weekday blessings.
רבי חנינא בן גמליאל משום אבותיו אומר מתפלל שמנה עשרה מפני שצ"ל הבדלה בחונן הדעת אמר ר"נ בר יצחק איהו אמר משום אבותיו וליה לא ס"ל
Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says in the name of his forefathers: One recites the complete eighteen blessings, due to the fact that he is required to recite havdala in the fourth blessing of the Amida: Who graciously grants knowledge. Havdala cannot be inserted into the abridged version. Evidently, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel does not agree with Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that one recites havdala in the blessing of thanksgiving, one of the final three blessings of the Amida prayer. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says in explanation: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel said this opinion in the name of his forefathers, but he himself does not hold accordingly.
א"ל ר' ירמיה לר' זירא ואת לא תסברא דמאן תנא קטפא פירא ר"א הוא והתנן ר"א אומר המעמיד בשרף ערלה אסור
§ Earlier, Rabbi Zeira questioned the claim of Rabbi Pedat, son of Rabbi Eliezer, that the Sage who holds that balsam is considered to be fruit and therefore has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And you? Do you not hold that the tanna who taught that balsam sap has the status of fruit is Rabbi Eliezer? As, didn’t we learn in a mishna (Orla 1:7) that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to one who curdles cheese in the sap of orla, the cheese is prohibited, as the sap is considered to be fruit of the tree.
אפילו תימא רבנן ע"כ לא פליגי רבנן עליה דר"א אלא בקטפא דגווזא אבל בקטפא דפירא מודו ליה דתנן א"ר יהושע שמעתי בפירוש שהמעמיד בשרף העלין בשרף העיקרין מותר בשרף הפגין אסור מפני שהוא פרי
The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna that deals with balsam is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the sap of the tree, but in the case of the sap of the fruit they agree with him. As we learned in a mishna (Orla 1:7) that Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly that in the case of one who curdles cheese in the sap of the leaves or the sap of the roots of an orla tree, the cheese is permitted. But if it is curdled in the sap of unripe figs it is prohibited, because that sap is considered to be fruit.
ואיבעית אימא כי פליגי רבנן עליה דר"א באילן העושה פירות אבל באילן שאינו עושה פירות מודו דקטפו זהו פריו דתנן ר"ש אומר אין לקטף שביעית וחכ"א יש לקטף שביעית מפני שקטפו זהו פריו
And if you wish, say instead: When the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, it is with regard to a tree that bears fruit. But in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit, they agree that its sap is considered to be its fruit. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 7:6) that Rabbi Shimon says: The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not apply to sap. And the Rabbis say: The sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does apply to sap, because its sap is its fruit.
מאן חכמים לאו רבנן דפליגי עליה דר"א א"ל ההוא סבא הכי א"ר יוחנן מאן חכמים ר"א דאמר קטפו זהו פריו
The Gemara explains the proof: Who are these Rabbis? Are they not the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer? If so, this demonstrates that they agree in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit. The Gemara rejects this proof: A certain elder said to Rabbi Zeira that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Who are the Rabbis in this mishna? It is Rabbi Eliezer, who said that its sap is considered to be its fruit.
אי ר"א מאי איריא אילן שאינו עושה פרי אפילו אילן העושה פרי קטפו זהו פריו לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי אפי' אילן העושה פירות נמי קטפו זהו פריו לדידכו אודו לי מיהת באילן שאינו עושה פירות דקטפו זהו פריו ורבנן אמרי ליה לא שנא
The Gemara asks: If it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, why are they specifically discussing the case of a tree that does not bear fruit? Even in the case of a tree that does bear fruit, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that its sap is like its fruit. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer stated his opinion to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis themselves, as follows: According to my opinion, even with regard to a tree that bears fruit, its sap is also considered to be its fruit. But according to your opinion, you should at least agree with me in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit, that its sap is considered to be its fruit. And the Rabbis said in response to Rabbi Eliezer: It is no different. Sap is not considered fruit whether it comes from a fruit-bearing tree or a barren tree.
איזו היא בתולה כל שלא ראתה כו' ת"ר נשאת וראתה דם מחמת נישואין ילדה וראתה דם מחמת לידה עדיין אני קורא לה בתולה שהרי בתולה שאמרו בתולת דמים ולא בתולת בתולים
§ The mishna teaches: Who is the woman characterized as a virgin in this context? It is any woman who did not see the flow of menstrual blood in all her days, even if she was married and experienced bleeding resulting from intercourse consummating her marriage. The Sages taught: If she was married and she saw a flow of blood due to her marriage, i.e., blood resulting from the tearing of her hymen; or if she gave birth and saw blood due to the birth, I still call her a virgin in this context. The reason is that when they said: Virgin here, they meant a menstrual blood virgin, i.e., one who did not yet see a menstrual flow, and not a hymen-blood virgin, i.e., one who did not experience bleeding from a torn hymen.
איני והאמר רב כהנא תנא ג' בתולות הן בתולת אדם בתולת קרקע בתולת שקמה בתולת אדם כל זמן שלא נבעלה נפקא מינה לכ"ג א"נ לכתובתה מאתים
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rav Kahana say that a Sage taught: There are three types of virgins: A virgin human, virgin ground, and a virgin sycamore. A virgin human is a woman for as long as she has not engaged in intercourse. The relevance of this designation is that only a virgin is permitted to marry a High Priest (see Leviticus 21:13–14). Alternatively, the relevance is that her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, instead of the one hundred dinars in the marriage contract of a non-virgin.
בתולת קרקע כ"ז שלא נעבדה נפקא מינה לנחל איתן א"נ למקח וממכר
Virgin ground is ground for as long as it has not been worked. The relevance of this designation is with regard to the rough dried-up stream mentioned in the Torah. When the corpse of a murder victim is found between two towns and the murderer is unknown, the Torah states that a heifer’s neck is broken in a place that was not worked. Alternatively, the relevance is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying virgin land, it is defined as land that has never been worked.
בתולת שקמה כ"ז שלא נקצצה נפקא מינה למקח וממכר אי נמי למקצצה בשביעית כדתנן אין קוצצין בתולת שקמה בשביעית מפני שהיא עבודה ואם איתא ליתני נמי הא
Finally, a virgin sycamore is a sycamore for as long as it has not been felled, i.e., cut to promote growth. The relevance of this designation is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying virgin sycamore, it is defined as one that has never been felled. Alternatively, the relevance is with regard to the prohibition against felling it in the Sabbatical Year, as we learned in a mishna: (Shevi’it 4:5): One may not fell a virgin sycamore in the Sabbatical Year, because it is considered work, as this promotes the growth of the tree. The Gemara explains its question: And if it is so, that there is a concept of a virgin from menstrual blood, let the tanna of this baraita also teach this type of virgin.
אמר ר"נ בר יצחק כי קתני מידי דלית ליה שם לווי אבל מידי דאית ליה שם לווי לא קתני רב ששת בריה דרב אידי אמר כי קתני מידי דתלי במעשה מידי דלא תלי במעשה לא קתני
The Gemara cites several answers. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that does not have a modifier, but he does not teach an item that has a modifier. A virgin human, virgin land, and a virgin sycamore can be referred to without another modifier. Conversely, a virgin with regard to menstrual blood cannot be referred to simply by the unmodified term: Virgin. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that is dependent upon an outside action, e.g., intercourse in the case of a human virgin or felling in the case of a virgin sycamore. But he does not teach an item that is not dependent upon an outside action, such as a woman’s menstrual flow.
רבי חנינא בריה דרב איקא אמר כי קתני מידי דלא הדר לברייתו מידי דהדר לברייתו לא קתני רבינא אמר כי קתני מידי דקפיד עליה זבינא מידי דלא קפיד עליה זבינא לא קתני
Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rav Ika says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that will not later revert to its original state. But he does not teach an item that will later revert to its original state, such as a woman’s menstrual flow that ceases when she reaches old age. Ravina says: When the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item about which a buyer is particular, such as one who purchases a virgin sycamore tree. But he does not teach an item about which a buyer is not particular, e.g., a woman’s menstrual blood.
ולא קפדי והתניא רבי חייא אומר כשם שהשאור יפה לעיסה כך דמים יפין לאשה ותניא משום ר"מ כל אשה שדמיה מרובין בניה מרובין אלא כי קתני מידי דקפיץ עליה זבינא מידי דלא קפיץ עליה זבינא לא קתני
The Gemara asks: And is a buyer, i.e., a potential husband, not particular about her menstrual blood? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: Just as leaven is fortuitous for dough, so too, blood is fortuitous for a woman; and it is taught in another baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: Any woman whose blood is plentiful, her children are plentiful? A potential husband would certainly be particular about this factor. The Gemara provides an alternative answer: Rather, when the Sage teaches the list of virgins, he includes only an item that buyers are eager to purchase. But he does not teach an item that buyers are not eager to purchase, e.g., a woman without menstrual blood.
ת"ר איזוהי בתולת קרקע כל שמעלה רשושין ואין עפרה תיחוח נמצא בה חרס בידוע שנעבדה צונמא הרי זו בתולת קרקע
The Sages taught in a baraita: What is virgin ground? It is any ground that raises up hard clumps of earth and whose dirt is not loose. If one finds a shard of earthenware in the earth, it is thereby known that it was once worked and is not virgin ground. If one finds hard rock, it is virgin ground.
מעוברת משיודע עוברה וכמה הכרת העובר סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר שלשה חדשים ואע"פ שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר שנאמר (בראשית לח, כד) ויהי כמשלש חדשים וגומר
§ The mishna teaches: The time of a pregnant woman is sufficient from the point in her pregnancy when the existence of her fetus is known to all who see her. The Gemara asks: And how much time must pass for the fetus to be known? Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Three months. And although there is no explicit proof for the matter, that a fetus is discernable after three months of pregnancy, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot” (Genesis 38:24).
זכר לדבר קרא כתיב וראיה גדולה היא משום דאיכא דילדה לט' ואיכא דילדה לשבעה
The Gemara asks: Why does Rabbi Meir call this a mere allusion to the matter? An explicit verse is written, and that is a significant proof. The Gemara answers: It is only an allusion because there are some women who give birth after nine months and there are others who give birth after seven months. Although the verse indicates that a fetus is known to all after three months, it is possible that this applies only to a nine-month pregnancy. Since in the case of a nine-month pregnancy the fetus is recognizable after a third of the full term, with regard to a seven-month pregnancy, the fetus would likewise be noticeable after a third of the full pregnancy, i.e., at two and one-third months. Therefore, Rabbi Meir teaches that in all cases the fetus is known only after three months.
ת"ר הרי שהיתה בחזקת מעוברת וראתה דם ואח"כ הפילה רוח או כל דבר שאינו של קיימא הרי היא בחזקתה ודיה שעתה
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a woman who had a presumptive status that she was pregnant and she saw blood, and afterward she miscarried air, or anything that is not a viable fetus, she retains her presumptive status, and therefore her time is sufficient from that flow of blood, i.e., it renders her impure only from then on, not retroactively, as even a non-viable fetus gives her full pregnancy status.
ואע"ג שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר שנאמר (ישעיהו כו, יח) הרינו חלנו כמו ילדנו רוח מאי זכר לדבר הרי ראיה גדולה היא כי כתיב האי קרא בזכרים כתיב
And even though there is no explicit proof for this matter, that even a pregnancy that ends in a miscarriage is like a full-fledged pregnancy, there is an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind” (Isaiah 26:18). This verse indicates that even one who miscarries wind is considered as having been with child. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that this is called a mere allusion to the matter? This explicit verse is a significant proof. The Gemara answers: When that verse was written, it was written with regard to males as bearing children. The allusion to child-bearing in the verse is symbolic, so halakhic inferences may not be drawn from it.
ורמינהי קשתה שנים ולשלישי הפילה רוח או כל דבר שאינו של קיימא הרי זו יולדת בזוב ואי אמרת לידה מעלייתא היא
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If a woman experienced labor pain for two days, during which she saw a discharge of blood, and on the third day she miscarried air or anything that is not a viable fetus, that woman gives birth as a zava, and the blood is treated as blood of a zava in all regards. The Gemara explains the contradiction: And if you say that miscarrying a non-viable fetus is considered a proper birth, this is problematic,