And if you wish, say instead that the tanna who taught this ruling was Rabbi Shimon, and the baraita is referring to an examination conducted after the age of majority. And Rabbi Shimon does not accept the presumption of Rava that a girl of this age has already developed signs indicating puberty.

§ The mishna teaches that according to the Rabbis a young woman who apparently developed the upper sign before the lower sign has reached majority, and therefore if her childless husband died she either performs ḥalitza or enters into levirate marriage with her husband’s brother. This ruling is due to the fact that the Sages said: It is possible for the lower sign of puberty to appear before the upper sign, but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this additional repetition of this point? It was already taught in the first clause that it is impossible for the upper sign to appear without the lower sign having already appeared.

And if you would say that it is repeated because the tanna wants to teach an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, in order to establish that the halakha follows their opinion in their dispute with Rabbi Meir, that cannot be the case. The Gemara explains why this suggestion is incorrect: This is obvious, as there is a principle that in a dispute between an individual Sage and a majority of other Sages, the halakha is always decided in accordance with the opinion of the majority.

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the tanna to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis despite the fact that they are the majority, lest you say that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir is more reasonable. One might have thought this, as the verses cited above support it: “Your breasts were fashioned, and your hair was grown,” and: “When they from Egypt bruised your breasts for the sprouting forth of your young womanhood.” Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And if you wish, say instead that the tanna repeated the claim that the upper sign cannot precede the lower one because he wants to teach a case in the next mishna which is similar to this one, i.e., this summary provides a transition to the halakha brought in the following mishna.

MISHNA: Similar to the order of the appearance of the signs of puberty in a girl, where it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign, there is an analogous principle with regard to the mutual dependency of two items: Any earthenware vessel with a hole that enables entry of liquid into the vessel certainly enables exit of liquid through that hole, and it thereby ceases to be a vessel fit for sanctification of the waters mixed with the ashes of the red heifer. And there are holes that enable exit of liquids from the earthenware vessels but do not enable entry of liquids from outside the vessel, and therefore it remains a vessel.

Likewise, in any limb of the body where there is a nail, there is certainly a bone in it as well. If it is the limb of a corpse, it transmits ritual impurity through contact, movement, and in a tent, even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk. And there are limbs in which there is a bone but yet there is not a nail in it. That limb does not transmit impurity in a tent if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk.

Similarly, any item that becomes ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading, e.g., a vessel designated for sitting, becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. And there are vessels that become ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse but do not become ritually impure with impurity of a zav imparted by treading.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that any earthenware vessel with a hole that enables entry of liquid into the vessel certainly enables exit of liquid through that hole, whereas there are holes that enable exit of liquids but do not enable entry. The Gemara explains the halakhic significance of this distinction. A vessel that contains a hole that is large enough to enable liquid to enter is no longer considered a vessel and is therefore unfit to contain the water of purification. And it is also disqualified as a shard [gastera] of a vessel. A shard still has some utility and is therefore susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, an earthenware vessel that contains a small hole that enables only the exit of liquids is fit for the water of purification, but is disqualified as a shard of a vessel.

Rav Asi says that they teach the following halakha: In the case of an earthenware vessel, its measure of a hole that renders it no longer ritually impure is one that is large enough to enable liquid to enter it. And they said that the measure of a small hole is that which enables the exit of liquids only with regard to a shard. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for this? Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: It is because people do not say: Bring another shard to seal the leak of a shard; rather, they throw it out immediately. A shard is used as a plate beneath a perforated earthenware vessel. If the shard itself is also perforated and leaks, it is no longer of any use.

§ On the topic of holes in earthenware vessels, the Sages taught in a baraita: How does one test a broken earthenware vessel to know if it was pierced with a hole that enables liquid to enter it or not? One brings a tub filled with water and places the broken pot into it. If the water from the tub enters the pot, it is known that the pot contains a hole that enables liquid to enter. And if the water does not enter the pot, it is known that the vessel contains only a small hole that merely enables the exit of liquids.