Shabbat 136a — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this: If so,

how do we circumcise him

on Shabbat?

But with regard to every small child who is eight days old, it is possible to be concerned that perhaps he is a nefel, and it turns out that he is making a wound not for the sake of a mitzva?

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: We circumcise him from either perspective: If he is alive

—that his months were completed—

he is properly circumcising.

And if not,

then he is like

cutting flesh

that has been

slaughtered.

And it is not a wound.

And we ask:

But then, with regard to that which was taught in a beraita: An uncertainty whether he is the son of seven months, an uncertainty whether he is the son of eight months—one may not desecrate Shabbat for him.

Why? Let us circumcise him from either perspective.

If he is alive, he is properly circumcising. And if not,

he is

merely cutting flesh

alone

.

And we answer:

Mar, the son of Ravina, said: I and Rav Nahumi bar Zechariah interpreted it,

we explained the beraita.

And this is its explanation:

As for circumcising, indeed we circumcise him in this manner.

And that which it teaches: One may not desecrate Shabbat for him—

it is necessary only for

the matter of

the preparations for circumcision, and according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who says at the beginning of the chapter that even the preparations for circumcision override Shabbat.

And when do they override it? When it is known that his months were completed. But in a case of uncertainty, its preparations do not override Shabbat, for perhaps he is not fit for circumcision, and he desecrates Shabbat in preparing the preparations for circumcision.

And as for what we said—that if he is not alive, wounding him is like merely cutting flesh—this is because he is like the dead, and there is no making of a wound through wounding him.

Abaye said:

This matter

is like the dispute between tannaim,

who disagree whether a nefel is considered completely dead or not.

It is written:

“And when there dies of the animal that is yours for food,

one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening.”

And this verse speaks of a pure animal, as we derive [in the Sifra]: “Of the animal”—to exclude a tereifa.

And we derive: “For food”—

to include

the offspring of an animal born when it is

eight months

old,

whose slaughter does not purify it,

since it is considered dead, and it imparts impurity.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Judah, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, say:

An eight-month-old—

its slaughter purifies it.

Is it not that they disagree about this: One master holds that

an eight-month-old

is alive?

Therefore its slaughter purifies it.

And one master holds:

An eight-month-old

is dead,

and therefore it imparts the impurity of a carcass.

Rava said: If so, instead of these tannaim disagreeing

with regard to

impurity and purity, let them disagree with regard to

whether it is permitted for

eating?

Rather,

necessarily

everyone

holds that an eight-month-old

is dead.

And

they disagree about this:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Judah, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, hold:

An eight-month-old is

like a tereifa. A tereifa—even though it is dead,

since it cannot live, nevertheless

its slaughter purifies it,

so that it does not impart the impurity of a carcass, as we derive: “Of the animal”—to exclude a tereifa.

So too

an eight-month-old,

it is no different,

for even though it is dead, if it is slaughtered, it does not impart the impurity of a carcass.

And the Rabbis

hold: An eight-month-old

is not comparable to a tereifa.

Since

a tereifa had a time of fitness

to be slaughtered and purified before it became a tereifa, therefore now as well, when it is not permitted for eating, its slaughter removes it from the impurity of a carcass.

But

this one,

an eight-month-old,

never had

at any time

a time of fitness

to be slaughtered.

And if you would say

that since the slaughter of a tereifa purifies it only because it had a time of fitness, if so, what can be said regarding an animal that was

a tereifa from

the time it was in

the womb

of its mother?

What is there to say?

And does it impart the impurity of a carcass even if it was slaughtered?

And we answer:

There, in the case of a tereifa from the womb,

there is

slaughter among its kind.

But

here, in the case of an eight-month-old,

there is

no slaughter among its kind,

and therefore the Rabbis hold that even if it is slaughtered, it imparts the impurity of a carcass.

They raised a dilemma before them: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

who said: Only an animal that remained alive for eight days has left the category of a nefel? And do they hold that even within eight days it is permitted?

Or not

do the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

If you should establish that they disagree,

that the Rabbis disagree with him, we have another question:

Is the halakha like him, or is the halakha not like him?

Come and hear: A calf that was born on a Festival—

one slaughters it on the Festival.

Infer from this that according to the Rabbis it is permitted to slaughter it even on the very day it was born. [

And it is not muktze, since at twilight it was “prepared” along with its mother. Rashi ]

And we reject this: No.

With what are we dealing here? With a case in which we know about it

with certainty

that its months were completed,

and it is a nine-month-old, and it is certainly not a nefel. Therefore it is permitted for eating immediately.

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon disagree in tractate Beitza regarding a firstborn animal that fell into a pit on a Festival, whether it is permitted to trouble oneself with its rectification.

Rabbi Judah holds that an expert should descend into the pit and see whether it has a defect, and if it has a defect, it should be slaughtered.

And Rabbi Shimon holds that one does not inspect defects on a Festival, because in permitting it, he appears to be rectifying it on the Festival.

Come and hear:

A proof for their uncertainty. From that which is stated there:

And Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon agree

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon

that if it was born

the calf

with its defect together with it, this is from what was prepared,

and it is permitted to inspect its defect on the Festival, and it is not comparable to rectifying something on the Festival. For only when it had been established as forbidden beforehand is permitting it a rectification. But when it was born on the Festival and had not previously been forbidden, making it fit is not a rectification. [And this refers to a case in which the judges actually saw it at the time of the birth. Rashi.]

And we learn from it that if it has a defect, it is permitted for eating immediately. It follows that the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And this too we reject:

So too here

it is speaking of a case in which we know

that its months were completed.

Come and hear: For Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And we infer:

From the fact that he says “the halakha,” it follows that they disagree

with him, the Rabbis.

And we conclude:

Infer from this.

Abaye said:

An offspring that

fell from the roof, or a lion ate it,

whether in the case of a person or in the case of an animal, since most women who give birth do not miscarry—

everyone

holds that it has the presumption that its months were completed, and we attribute that, were it not for that death, it would not have died.

Therefore, an animal that was slaughtered is permitted for eating. And in the case of a person, such an offspring exempts its mother from halitza.

They disagree

whether it is considered alive or dead—in the case of a fetus

that,

after its birth,

yawned,

which is a sign of some life,

and

afterward

died.

For in such a case,

one master holds: It is alive. And one master holds: It is dead.

What practical difference is there?—

To exempt

its mother

from levirate marriage.

And we challenge this: But in the case of one who

fell from the roof, or a lion ate it—

does everyone hold that it is alive?

But Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Joshua, happened to come to the house of the son of Rav Idi bar Avin, and he prepared for them,

he slaughtered in their honor

a third-born calf, on the day of seven,

when it was on the seventh day from its birth.

And they said to him,

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna:

If you had waited for it,

if you had waited for it,

until evening,

until it would be the night of the eighth day,

we would have eaten from it,

since part of the eighth day is like all of it. But

now,

since you did not wait,

we will not eat from it.

Here it is shown that they were concerned not to eat it, since eight days had not been completed for it. But did you not say that in the case of one who fell from the roof, and likewise one that was slaughtered, everyone holds that it is alive, because we attribute it to the fact that most women do not miscarry?

Rather, when it yawned and

afterward

died, everyone holds that it is dead.

They disagree:

In the case of one who fell from the roof,

or a lion ate it.

One master holds: It is dead. And one master holds: It is alive.

And they were concerned to be stringent in accordance with the words of the one who says that it is dead.

The son of Rav Dimi bar Yosef had a certain baby born to him,

and

within thirty days he died.

He died within thirty days of his birth.

He sat and mourned over him.

His father said to him

[Rav Dimi]: Is

tzevoronita,

foods that are fed to a mourner ,

what you have decided to eat,

and therefore you are mourning over him for no reason?

He said to him:

I am mourning over him because

I know with regard to him that his months were completed.

Rav Ashi happened to come to the house of Rav Kahana; an incident occurred,

there was mourning there because a baby had died

within thirty days.

He saw him,

he saw him,

sitting and mourning over him.

He said to him:

Do

you, Master, not hold in accordance with that which Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

that only if he remained alive for thirty days did he leave the presumption of a nefel? And if so, why are you mourning?

He said to him: I know with regard to him that his months were completed.

It was stated:

One who died without sons, and left his wife pregnant, and she gave birth, and

the

offspring

died within thirty

days—whereas, had it been viable, its mother would have been exempt from halitza. And the woman thought that she did not require levirate marriage, and went and became betrothed.

Ravina said in the name of Rava: