Question: We already know this from "v'Zera Ein Lah" - Ayen (investigate) about her (see whether she is pregnant)!

This should be just like we disqualify in Yevamos (35b) Chalitzah of a Me'uberes from "Ein Lo" - Ayen about him.

Answer: There, it says only Ayen, and wait [to see] whether the baby will be viable, but she is not exempt from Yibum just because it says Ein Lo;

Also here, she is not disqualified from Terumah due to this. (In both cases, concern for a viable baby does not change the Chazakah.)

Question #1: Why must we say that he has two wives? We should establish it when he has one divorced wife, and one son from her;

Only a one day old disqualifies, but not a fetus. The slaves eat due to the entire family, according to Rabanan of R. Yosi, like it says in Yevamos (67a)!

Question #2 (R. Efrayim): In Bava Basra (142a), Rav Sheshes said that both of these acquire, whether one is Zocheh (acquires on behalf of) the fetus [now], or for [the baby,] when she will give birth!

He asks from the Mishnah [there] that a one day old inherits, but [we infer that] a fetus does not, and answers that there [we discuss inheriting his mother's property to bequeath it to his paternal brothers], it is because the fetus dies first. (When his mother dies, the fetus already died, so he cannot inherit her.)

Now, we ask from the Reisha, that a one day old disqualifies, but a fetus does not, because a fetus has no Zechiyah, like Rav Sheshes himself explains there, and he could not answer anything! (The answer given there does not apply here.)

Answer: Rav Sheshes holds that also Rabanan who argue with R. Yosi hold that [a fetus] has Zechiyah. The reason he does not disqualify is because we join the minority of Nefalim to the half [of all fetuses] that are females;

[Viable] males are the minority. [Chachamim] are not concerned for the minority, [un]like R. Yosi, who is concerned.

Support #1: This is why here we establish it when he has two wives, and he has sons from the one who is not divorced;

Since he has sons, the fetus does not disqualify, even though he has Zechiyah, for we are concerned for the minority of males, like I explained;

However, if he has no sons, the fetus disqualifies also according to Rabanan, for it (the fetus) has Zechiyah. Whether it is a male or female, they (the slaves) belong to it.

Rav Sheshes argues with Shmuel, who said in Yevamos (67a) that according to Rabanan, the slaves eat [Terumah] due to the entire family;

Shmuel holds that the fetus has no Zechiyah.

Support #2: Now it is fine that Rav Sheshes said there "what is my source? A Beraisa teaches that if a convert died...

We do not reject that the Beraisa is like R. Yosi, for also Rabanan argue only regarding that they are not concerned for the minority, like I explained.

Question: In Bava Basra (142a), regarding a convert who died, and Yisre'elim plundered his property, and his wife was pregnant, they did not acquire;

If they heard afterwards that she miscarried, one who seized the second time acquired, but one who seized the first time did not acquire.

Why didn't one who seized the first time acquire? In the end she miscarried!

In Yevamos (67b) we say that [viable] males are the minority, due to the minority of Nefalim (which joins with the half that are females), and a fetus that will be a Nefel has no share in the slaves!

Answer: There, we attribute that at the time the slaves eat, the fetus already died in the womb, and [the fetus] has no Zechiyah.

Question: In Bava Basra (142a), we challenge Rav Sheshes from this Mishnah that a one day old inherits and bequeaths, but [we infer that] a fetus does not, and answers that he inherits his mother's property to bequeath it to his paternal brothers;

What did the Makshan think? You are forced to say like Rav Sheshes answers;

If not, it is difficult for him (the Makshan), if he wants, he can inherit from him (the baby) and if he wants, he can inherit from his father (there is no practical difference to say that the baby inherits and bequeaths), like it asks here!

Answer #1: He explains like Mar brei d'Rav Yosef (Amud B), that he (a born baby) diminishes the firstborn's extra share, but a fetus does not.

This is not due to "v'Yaldu Lo", rather, because a fetus has no Zechiyah.

Answer #2: He (the Makshan) knew like Rav Sheshes answers, that he inherits his mother's property to bequeath it to his paternal brothers, but he thought that she (the mother) dies first, and he said that a fetus does not (inherit to bequeath), because he does not acquire (he does not have Zechiyah).

Implied question: In Erchin (7a), Shmuel said that a woman who was taken out for execution, we hit her opposite [the place of] her pregnancy so the child will die first. This implies that if not, the fetus dies after her;

We challenge him from this [Mishnah] that a one day old inherits. This shows that the fetus dies first!

Why didn't we answer that "but not a fetus" teaches that he does not diminish the firstborn's extra share, like it says in our Sugya?

Answer: He prefers to establish Rav Sheshes, who said here that he (the fetus) dies first, according to Shmuel, and to distinguish that really, there is a difference between when she died and when she was killed.

Implied question: It says in Chulin (74a) that if one slaughtered an animal and found a live nine-month fetus inside... (This shows that the mother can die first!)

Answer: There is a difference between if the mother died or was killed, like it says in Erchin (7a).

Implied question: It says also in Chulin (74a) "if the mother died, and afterwards the fetus was born..." (This connotes that even when the mother died, the fetus can outlive the mother!)

Answer #1: Also this refers to when the mother was killed.

Answer #2: The mother died due to birth. Since the fetus was uprooted to leave, then it does not die;

This is like Shmuel taught in Erchin (7a) that if she sat on the birthing stool and died, we cut her open on Shabbos and remove the fetus.

Question: If so, a fetus inherits and bequeaths when she sat on the birthing stool and [she] died first!

Answer: Indeed, this is true. The Mishnah mentions one day, for then it is uniformly true that he inherits and bequeaths. It is not uniform regarding a fetus.

However, [the Mishnah] teaches that one who kills a one day old is liable, but not [for killing] a fetus. This is even if she was killed or sat on the birthing stool, until the head comes out;

This is like the Mishnah in Ohalos (7:6), brought in Sanhedrin (72b), if a woman is in danger due to labor, we cut the fetus limb by limb. If the head comes out [it is considered born, and] we do not override one Nefesh (kill the baby) for the sake of another Nefesh (to save her).

Distinction: However, perhaps only when his mother is alive, one who kills him is not liable until his head emerges, for his life depends partly on his mother's life;

However, when she died, he is liable, because [the baby is considered] like resting in a box.

Question: If you will say that one may kill him in the womb, even if the mother died, and he is not considered like resting in a box, why are we Mechalel Shabbos for him?

We bring a knife through Reshus ha'Rabim to tear the mother, like is proven in Erchin (7b)!

Answer: In any case, due to Piku'ach Nefesh we are Mechalel Shabbos even though it is permitted to kill him;

Note: The Ya'avetz points out that this is not precise. Even though one is exempt for killing him, surely one may not kill him without reason! Shmuel taught that we kill a fetus before executing the mother to inhibit disgrace to her, for it is a limb of her, and without a Refu'ah (solution) it is destined to die with her.

A Goses (someone dangerously sick) due to human acts, one who kills him is exempt, like it says in Sanhedrin (78a), for most Gosesim die...

[Even so] we are Mechalel Shabbos for him, like it says in Yoma (84b), that we do not follow the majority regarding Piku'ach Nefesh.

Observation: According to the opinion that one who is Mezakeh for a fetus, he does not acquire, he need not expound from v'Yaldu, like it says in Bava Basra (142b).

Explanation: This verse is written in Parshas Emor.

Question: In Sanhedrin (84b), we expound [this from] another verse written in Eleh Mas'ei "Kol Makeh Nefesh"!

Inference: Rabanan hold that he is viable more than R. Shimon ben Gamliel does, for they considered even a one day old to be viable, and similarly in Yevamos (36b).

Question: The Tosefta teaches that they argue about a Ben Shemoneh (born after eight months of pregnancy). Rabanan hold that even if he lived 30 days, he is a Nefel;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say that if he lived 30 days, he is viable. He says that he is a Ben Shiv'ah (who develops fully in this time), and he delayed [coming out]! It says so also in Yevamos (80b).

Answer: They argue about two matters. We infer from the fact that R. Shimon ben Gamliel did not say "if he lived 30 days, he is not a Nefel", since he discusses the opinion of Rabanan, who say that a Ben Shemoneh is a Nefel. (If he argued only about a Ben Shemoneh, he should have said "if he lived...");

Since he [rather] said "whoever lived", this implies that for all babies, R. Shimon ben Gamliel requires 30 days. If so, we infer that Rabanan hold that it does not depend on 30 days, rather, on the months of pregnancy. (A seven or nine-month baby is immediately assumed to be viable.)

Explanation: If he does not know, it is a Safek. We discuss when he fell from the roof, or a lion ate him;

If he yawned and died, even according to Rabanan it is a Nefel, like it says in Shabbos (136a).

Question #1: If so, what is the reason of R. Shimon ben Gamliel, since there is no Re'usa (something suggesting a problem)? Why doesn't he mourn over him? We should follow the majority of babies, who are viable!

Question #2: In Shabbos (136a), (Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua) forbade a calf that was slaughtered on the seventh day, for there we rule like R. Shimon ben Gamliel. Why don't we follow the majority?

Answer: Nefalim are a common minority. Therefore, Chachamim were stringent. Regarding Avelus, they were lenient.

Support: We find even more [disparity between Avelus and other laws] than this, in Bechoros (49a) that day 30 is like the day before regarding Avelus...

Even though we hold in Yevamos (36b) that if [the baby] died on day 30, and [his mother] became Mekudeshes (this was her husband's only child, so if he was a Nefel, she needs Chalitzah or Yibum) if the Mekadesh is a Kohen, she does not do Chalitzah [which would forbid her to him], for we consider the baby to be viable!

Question: It says here that if he did not delay (live 30 days), it is a Safek, and he does not observe Avelus for him;

In Maseches Semachos (4:2), it says if it is a Safek whether or not he is his brother, he observes Avelus for him!

Answer #1: There is different. Since he was viable, if he will not observe Avelus for him, people will think that there is no Avelus over brothers.

Answer #2: Regarding a Safek whether he was born after nine months [of pregnancy] from the first husband, or after seven months from the latter, in any case one of them is obligated [to observe Avelus, just we do not know which], it is disgraceful to exempt both of them.

Implied question: Why doesn't it say that they argue about whether or not one day in a year is considered like a year?

According to R. Meir, two years and one day suffice. [If so], he does not argue with the Beraisa below!

Answer: [We cannot say so,] for due to one day in the third year, we would not call it three years.

Question: Why doesn't it say that they argue about [whether we require] one day in the fourth year?

According to R. Meir, part of the day suffices. Rabanan require me'Es la'Es (24 hours) from when he was born, like it says in Zevachim (25b) that hours disqualify Kodshim! (It begins its first [or second or third...] year on the same day it was born, at the same time of day.)

Answer #1: He knew that Rabanan do not require me'Es la'Es.

Answer #2: If so, also according to R. Meir it should say three years and a day, and he should have specified that we do not require me'Es la'Es.

Implied question: The [Stam] Mishnah (Kesuvos 29a) teaches that if a girl less than three years and a day converted, there is a fine for her [if she is raped. A Stam Mishnah is assumed to be R. Meir!]

Answer: It is unlike R. Meir, since it requires a day after three years.

Question: How is it proven there that the Reisha (the Mishnah on 29a) is like R. Meir, who says in Kesuvos (40b) [that there is a fine only for] a Na'arah, but not for a minor?

Answer: There, you are forced to say that we rely on the Seifa (40b), which taught "whenever there is a sale (one can sell his daughter to be an Amah Ivriyah), there is no fine (if she is raped or enticed);

From the word "Na'aros" (the Mishnah says that "there is a fine for these Na'aros"), we can say that it does not come to exclude minors, rather, Bogros.

Source: In Sanhedrin (66b), a Mishnah says that one is not liable for Bi'ah with a Na'arah Me'orasah until she is a Na'arah;

We infer there that it comes to exclude a minor, for if it came to exclude a Bogeres, it should have said [that one is liable] only for a Na'arah!

Inference: Na'arah connotes even a minor! Rather, he relies on the Seifa, like I explained.

Question: How do we infer from the Seifa that also the Reisha is R. Meir, since the middle is unlike R. Meir? (Mishnayos in between discuss a fine for a girl who converted or was freed below three years and a day.)

Answer: We do not mean that R. Meir himself taught it. Rather, we infer that the Tana of that Perek holds that there is no fine for a minor, like it taught in the Seifa. If so, it taught "Na'aros" to exclude minors.

Implied question: Rava asked in Kesuvos (11a) [why the Mishnah says that] a convert receives a fine - do we give to her a fine, and [she can renounce her conversion before maturing] and consume the fine when she is a Nochris [who does not deserve a fine]?!

Inference: He holds that the Mishnah holds that there is a fine for a minor!

Answer: This is because he holds that since this clause of a convert is unlike R. Meir, since it says three years and a day, if so also regarding a fine for a minor, it is like Rabanan.

Implied question: [R. Zeira] asks in Bava Kama (38b), from the Mishnah in Kesuvos (29a), which says that a Kusis has a fine according to R. Meir. (Why must we say that it is like R. Meir?) The clause of a convert is unlike R. Meir!

Answer: In any case, since a Stam Mishnah is [assumed to be] R. Meir, whatever we can establish like him, we establish.