Shabbat 136a (קלו.) — the Talmud in English

And we challenged this: If so,

how do we circumcise him

on Shabbat?

But every infant who is eight days old may possibly be a stillborn, and it follows that one is inflicting a wound not for the sake of a mitzva?

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: We circumcise him from whichever perspective one considers it: If he is alive,

as his months of gestation were completed,

the circumcision is properly performed.

And if not,

it is

like cutting flesh

of slaughtered meat;

it is.

And it is not considered inflicting a wound.

And we challenge this:

But with regard to that which was taught in a beraita: In the case of an infant of uncertain gestational age, either seven months or eight months, one may not desecrate Shabbat for him.

Why? Let us circumcise him from whichever perspective one considers it.

If he is alive, the circumcision is properly performed. And if not,

it is

like cutting flesh

merely;

it is.

And we answer:

Mar, son of Ravina, said: Rav Naḥumi bar Zekharya and I interpreted

the beraita.

And this is its interpretation:

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

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

was necessary only with regard to

the matter of

the requirements for circumcision, and according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who said at the beginning of the chapter that even the requirements for circumcision override Shabbat.

And when do they override Shabbat? When it is known that his months of gestation were completed. But in a case of uncertainty, the requirements for his circumcision do not override Shabbat, as perhaps he is not fit for circumcision, and one would be desecrating Shabbat by preparing the requirements for the circumcision.

And as for what we said, that if he is not alive, inflicting an injury upon him is like cutting flesh merely, this is because he is considered dead, and inflicting an injury upon him is not considered making a wound.

Abaye said:

This matter is

subject to a dispute between tanna’im,

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

It is written:

“And when an animal dies, of the animals that are yours for food,

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

And this verse is referring to a kosher animal, as we derive [in the Sifra]: “Of the animal” comes to exclude a tereifa.

And we derive: “For food”

comes to include

the offspring of an animal born when it is

eight

months old,

whose slaughter does not render it ritually pure,

because it is considered dead and transmits impurity.

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

An eight-month-old

is rendered pure by its slaughter.

Is that not to say that they disagree about this: One Sage holds that

an eight-month-old

is alive,

and therefore its slaughter renders it pure?

And the other Sage holds

that an eight-month-old

is dead,

and therefore it transmits the impurity of an animal carcass?

Rava said: If so, rather than these tanna’im disagreeing

with regard to

impurity and purity, they should disagree with regard to

whether it is permitted to

eat it.

Rather,

it must be that

everyone

holds that an eight-month-old

is dead.

And

they disagree as follows:

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

An eight-month-old

is like a tereifa. A tereifa, although it is dead,

as it cannot survive, nevertheless

its slaughter renders it pure,

as we derive: “Of the animal” comes to exclude a tereifa, which does not transmit the impurity of an animal carcass.

So too here,

an eight-month-old,

it makes no difference,

for although it is dead, if it is slaughtered, it does not transmit the impurity of an animal carcass.

And the Rabbis

hold that an eight-month-old

is not comparable to a tereifa.

Since

a tereifa had a period when it was fit

to be slaughtered and rendered pure, before it became a tereifa, therefore even now, when it is not permitted for consumption, its slaughter removes it from the impurity of an animal carcass.

But

this

eight-month-old

never had

at any time

a period when it was fit

to be slaughtered.

And if you would say

that since the slaughter of a tereifa renders it pure only because it had a period when it was fit, then what can be said about an animal that was

a tereifa from

the time it was in its mother’s

womb

?

What is there to say?

Does it transmit the impurity of an animal carcass even if it is slaughtered?

And we answer:

There,

in the case of an animal that was a tereifa from the womb,

there is slaughter among its species.

But

here,

in the case of an eight-month-old,

there is no slaughter among its species,

and therefore the Rabbis hold that even if it is slaughtered, it transmits the impurity of an animal carcass.

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

who says that only an animal that lived for eight days is established as not being a stillborn, and do they hold that even within eight days it is permitted?

Or do they not

disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

If you say that they disagree

with him, the Rabbis, another question must be raised: Is

the halakha in accordance with him, or is the halakha not in accordance with him?

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

may be slaughtered on the Festival.

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

And it is not muktze, since at twilight it was “prepared” on account of its mother. Rashi.

And we reject this: No.

With what are we dealing here? With a case where we know concerning it

with certainty

that its months of gestation were completed,

and it is nine months old and certainly is not a stillborn. Therefore, it is permitted for consumption immediately.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree in tractate Beitza regarding a firstborn animal that fell into a pit on a Festival, as to whether one may trouble oneself to deal with it.

Rabbi Yehuda holds that an expert may descend into the pit and see whether it has a blemish, and if it has a blemish, it may be slaughtered.

And Rabbi Shimon holds that one may not inspect blemishes on a Festival, because by permitting it, it appears as though one is repairing it on the Festival.

Come and hear:

A proof for their dilemma, from that which is stated there:

And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree

that

if it was born

the calf

with its blemish, this is considered prepared,

and it is permitted to inspect its blemish on a Festival, and this is not comparable to repairing it on a Festival. Only when it had previously been established as forbidden is permitting it considered repair; but when it was born on the Festival and had not previously been forbidden, rendering it fit is not considered repair. [And this is referring to a case in which the judges actually saw it at the moment of its birth. Rashi.]

And we learn from this that if it has a blemish, it is permitted for consumption immediately. By inference, the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And this too is rejected:

Here too

we are dealing with a case where it is known

that its months of gestation were completed.

Come and hear: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And we infer:

From the fact that he says “the halakha,” by inference, they disagree

with him, the Rabbis.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this that they disagree.

Abaye said:

An offspring that

fell from the roof or was eaten by a lion,

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

everyone

considers it established that its months of gestation were completed, and we attribute its death to that external cause; had it not died in that manner, it would not have died.

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

They disagree

as to whether it is considered alive or dead, in the case of a fetus

that

after its birth

yawned,

which is a sign of some degree of life,

and

afterward

died.

In such a case,

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

What practical difference does it make?

To exempt

its mother

from levirate marriage.

And we challenge this: What about a case where it

fell from the roof or was eaten by a lion—is it

alive according to everyone?

But Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, once came to the house of Rav Idi bar Avin’s son, and he prepared for them

a slaughtered

three-year-old calf, on the seventh day

of its life.

And they said to him,

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna:

Had you waited for it

a little,

until evening,

until the night of the eighth day,

we would have eaten from it,

since part of the eighth day is considered like the entire day. But

now,

since you did not wait,

we will not eat from it.

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

Rather, when it yawned and

afterward

died, everyone considers it dead.

They disagree

in the case of one that fell from the roof,

or was eaten by a lion.

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

And they were concerned to be stringent in accordance with the opinion of the one who considers it dead.

The son of Rav Dimi bar Yosef had a certain infant 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: Why,

did you set your heart on eating tzonronita,

the delicacies fed to a mourner,

that you have arranged to eat,

and are therefore mourning over him needlessly?

He said to him:

I am mourning over him because

I know concerning him that his months of gestation were completed.

Rav Ashi once came to Rav Kahana’s house, and a calamity occurred

there, as a baby had died,

within thirty days.

He saw him,

and saw

that he was sitting and mourning over him.

He said to him:

Do

you not accept the ruling stated by Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

that only if an infant lived for thirty days is it removed from the presumption of being a stillborn? If so, why are you mourning?

He said to him: I know concerning it that its months of gestation were completed.

It was stated:

In the case of a man who died without children and left behind a wife who was pregnant, and she gave birth, and

the

child

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 proceeded and became betrothed—

Ravina said in the name of Rava: