Explanation: They discuss a female, according to R. Eliezer;

Since they use the masculine (Achal Chelev), they discuss Simanei Seris, and not Simanei Ailonis.

Note: Tosfos did not explain why they used the masculine. Perhaps it is because normally, we discuss a man eating Chelev.

It is unreasonable to say that they hold like Beis Shamai.

Explanation: This teaches an added Chidush. Even though he brought hairs, we do not say that it is revealed that retroactively, he was a minor until now that he brought hairs;

Rather, he is considered an adult according to Rav from the age of 12, and according to Shmuel from the age of 18.

Explanation: He is lashed for Chelev that he ate [after 12 years].

Implied question: This should be considered Hasra'as Safek, for when he was warned, it was a Safek whether or not he will bring two hairs before 18!

Answer: [It is not considered Hasra'as Safek, for] now it is revealed retroactively that he was an adult at the time he was warned;

This is unlike [one whom we are unsure if he is Reuven's son or Shimon's son;] if he hit (wounded) Reuven and then Shimon (we cannot kill him, for even if he was warned, it was Hasra'as Safek - Makos 16a);

There, even after he hit both of them, it is not known which is his father.

Explanation: This is not difficult for Shmuel. Since she is a minor until 18, there is no Na'arus, for the days of Na'arus are six months right after 12 years, when she ceases to be a minor at 12;

However, according to Rav she should have a Kenas, for she ceases to be a minor [at 12] like other women.

Explanation: If it is possible that he is viable, it would not be forbidden to move him.

We answer that the case is that his Simanim are finished. Through Simanim, there is indication to remove him from the status of Nefel when he is 20 years old according to Rabanan;

This is like we find according to Rebbi, that when his Simanim are finished, he is considered viable after 30 days, like other babies.

R. Avahu's teaching (that until 20, we considered a Ben Shemoneh to be a Safek) is like Rabanan.

Suggestion: According to Rabanan, he never leaves the status of Nefel, and according to Rebbi, he leaves after 20 years, and R. Avahu taught like Rebbi.

Rejection #1: If so, when we ask that Rabah Tosfa'ah is [only] like Rebbi, we should have against R. Avahu, whose teaching we were discussing!

Rejection #2: Also, if so, Rabah Tosfa'ah is not even like Rebbi, for Rebbi considers him to be viable, to say that he delayed [coming out] only through a great proof, that he lived 20 years!

Rather, the Ri holds like we explained.

Pesak: It seems that even if his Simanim are finished, one may not move him.

Source: In the Tosefta, after it says that a Ben Shemoneh is like a rock and one may not move him, it teaches "what is a Ben Shemoneh? It is one who did not have full months [of pregnancy];

This is even if his Simanim are finished. He does not leave the status of Nefel through 30 days, only through 20 years. This is uncommon, so one may not move him.

Observation: Now it connotes that the argument of R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabanan is about a Ben Shemoneh. R. Shimon ben Gamliel considers him viable, and Rabanan do not.

Question (Ri): Above (36b) and in Shabbos (135b), it connotes that they argue oppositely, and regarding Stam babies;

According to R. Shimon ben Gamliel, when he did not delay (30 days), we consider him to be a Safek. Rabanan consider him to be viable!

Answer (Ri): The Gemara understands that they argue about two matters;

You are forced to say that R. Shimon ben Gamliel discusses a Ben Shemoneh, since it is taught in the Tosefta after the above argument of Rebbi and Rabanan;

Since it says "anyone who delayed", and did not say "if he delayed", this connotes that it comes to include Stam babies. They do not leave the status of Nefel until 30 days.

Also, the Tosefta concludes R. Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion 'for it says "u'Fduyav mi'Ben Chodesh Tifdeh." Since it brings a verse, this connotes that it discusses Stam babies.

Also, if R. Shimon ben Gamliel does not come to include Stam babies, what does he add to Rebbi?

Question (Ri): The Gemara asks (Shabbos 136a) whether or not Rabanan argue with R. Shimon ben Gamliel about Stam babies;

It infers from Rav Yehudah, who taught in the name of Shmuel that the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel, that Rabanan argue;

What is the proof? Perhaps he comes to rule like him regarding a Ben Shemoneh!

Answer #1 (Ri): We hold that Shmuel rules like him regarding Stam babies.

Answer #2: You cannot say that he rules like him about a Ben Shemoneh, rather, regarding Stam babies;

The Halachah does not follow R. Shimon ben Gamliel regarding a Ben Shemoneh, from R. Avahu's teaching here.

Also, if he rules like him about a Ben Shemoneh, he should have said "the Halachah follows Rebbi and R. Shimon ben Gamliel."

Implied question: We said above that he must be stricken from when he left his mother's womb. Some of these Simanim cannot be known from birth!

Answer: In any case, since it is recognized immediately that he does not make an arch [when urinating], and each of the other Simanim is recognized when its time comes, the first proves about the others;

He was stricken from the womb, just it could not be recognized close to birth.

Question: We say below (111b) that a minor Yavam or Yavam do not do Chalitzah or Yibum. We are concerned lest he is a Seris;

According to Rav Huna, who requires all of the Simanim, if he makes an arch he can do Chalitzah or Yibum!

Even if all of the Simanim will arise afterwards, this means nothing, since he was not stricken from birth!

Suggestion: Perhaps we say that a minor does not do Chalitzah or Yibum when he has Simanei Seris, and he does not make an arch.

Rejection #1: Everywhere, it connotes that the reason is because we are concerned for the minority [who are Serisim];

It would be astounding to say that of those with Simanei Seris in childhood, most of them get fixed, and they are not Serisim!

Rejection #2: Below (111b) it connotes that R. Meir discusses all minors, regarding a minor Yavam who had Bi'ah with an adult Yevamah, she raises him;

We suggest that the Mishnah is unlike R. Meir... (According to the suggestion, we could say that it is R. Meir, when he does not have Simanei Seris!)

Answer (Ri): We require all of the Simanim from birth to be considered a Vadai Seris. He is a Safek Seris even if he does not have Simanei Seris.

Support: Also the Rashbam explained like this in Nidah (47b) regarding "if Simanei Seris did not arise, until when?" Until most of his years;

Explanation: Until most of his years (after 35 full years), if he did not bring Simanim, he is a Vadai adult and a Vadai Seris. Before this, he is a minor, and he has the law of a nine year-old from 20 until most of his years.

If he brought two hairs from 20 until most of his years, he is an adult and not a Seris.

Question: Above, we said that if he is 20 and did not bring two hairs, he proves [that he is 20, and he is a Seris...]

Inference: If he brought hairs before 20, he is not a Vadai Seris, even if he has Simanei Seris.

Summation of question: If so, why do we say that he must have all of the Simanim? Even all of them do not help, for he brought two hairs in the beard!

Answer (Ri): Hairs in the beard do not count like bringing two hairs, even though hairs elsewhere in the body help.

Question: Since he brought two hairs in the beard, what does it mean that he must have all of the Simanim? One of the Simanim is that he does not have a beard. He has a beard!

Answer (Ri): Bringing just two hairs is not considered having a beard. Rather, the beard must be filled.

Question: [A Beraisa] says in Kidushin (35b) "the beard of a woman, or of a Seris [is considered like a beard regarding Tzara'as]";

Rashi explained that it discusses a Seris Chamah. How is this possible, according to the opinion that he must all of the Simanim?

Answer (Ri): Here we discuss before 20. What he brings after 20, when he is already a Seris, has no significance.

Explanation: R. Yochanan said that even one of them [makes him a Seris]. He does not require another Siman in addition to this (not bringing two hairs in the beard);

Rather, this alone suffices to consider him a Seris.

Question: The words connote unlike this (i.e. R. Yochanan requires another Siman)!

Answer: We find like this in Chulin (62a) "a bird with one Siman [that Chachamim gave for Tahor species] is Tahor. This is only if it is not Dores (holds its food in its claws while eating, or eats its prey before it dies)."

You are forced to say that it means that this is when the Siman is that it is not Dores.