Yevamot 71b — the Talmud in English

And we answer: Those seven days that one waits for a sick person from the time he recovered —

we require

that they be seven days

from one time to the corresponding time [from the same hour at which he recovered until that same hour on the eighth day], and this is speaking of a case in which the seven complete days ended on the eve of Passover, after the making of the Passover offering.

—from the time he recovered until that same time on the eighth day. And this is referring to a case in which the seven complete days ended on the eve of Passover, after the Paschal offering had been prepared.

And we raise an objection against it:

But Ludaah taught [the name of a sage, ]

a beraita:

The day of his recovery

of an infant from his illness is

like the day of his birth

of an infant, and one must wait eight days until he circumcises him.

Is it not that, just as on the day of his birth we do not require

counting it

from one time to the corresponding time,

but already from the morning of the eighth day they circumcise him —

so too, on the day of his recovery, do we not require counting from one time to the corresponding time?!

And we answer:

No! His day of recovery is preferable to his day of birth.

For if it were his day of birth, we would not require counting from one time to the corresponding time

in order to count it.

But in the case of his day of recovery, we require counting from one time to the corresponding time.

Rav Pappa said,

to explain what they said in the beraita, that one can find uncircumcised males who were not present at the time of the making and were present at the time of the eating:

One never requires seven days from one time to the corresponding time from the day of his recovery.

And with what are we dealing here?

For example, his eye hurt the infant. [

The infant’s eye hurt] and he was not fit for circumcision,

and he recovered in the interim [

he recovered on the eve of Passover between the making and the eating], for seven days are given only to one whom a fever has left.

Rava said,

to explain the beraita:

For example, his father and mother were

at the time of the making of the Passover offering

imprisoned in a prison,

so that the circumcision of their son did not prevent them at the time of the making, for they were coerced and could not circumcise him, and they were released between the making and the eating.

Rav Kahana, son of Rav Nehemiah, said,

to explain the beraita:

For example,

he was

a tumtum, who was torn open,

the skin covering the place of his male organ,

and it was found

that he was

male,

and the matter occurred

in the interim,

between the making and the eating.

For at the time of the making he was not obligated to tear it open and circumcise him, and it did not prevent him at that time [Tosafot above, 71a].

Rav Sheravya said,

to explain the beraita:

For example, he brought out

the infant’s

head outside the corridor

from his mother’s womb seven days before the eve of Passover, and from that time he is like one born. And they count eight days for his circumcision. But he was not fit for circumcision, and his circumcision did not prevent the making, since he was not fit for circumcision; and after his father made the Passover offering, his entire body emerged, and he then became fit for circumcision.

And we wonder about it:

But can he live,

that is, can an infant live in such a manner for eight days?!

But it was taught:

To what is the fetus similar in its mother’s womb? Its mouth is closed, and its navel is open, and it eats from what its mother eats, and drinks from what its mother drinks [through the navel, which is connected to his mother].

Once he emerged

the infant

into the air of the world —

his

mouth

that was closed opened, and his

navel

that was open closed.

For if this were not so, he would not be able,

the newborn infant

to live even one hour.

And it might have entered our mind that, since his head emerged into the air of the world, although the navel was still connected to his mother, it had closed, and he no longer ate from what his mother ate. If so, how could this infant live, unable to nurse from his mother until the eighth day?!

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? For example, a fever nourished him [

the illness itself “nourished” him; since he had a fever, he did not need food].

That is, a fever seized him in his mother’s womb, and it “nourished” him; and when he emerged into the air of the world, the fever left him, and he was fit for circumcision.

And we inquire concerning it:

Whose fever?

The fever of the illness that nourished him: whose fever was it, his mother’s or his?

If you say, it was his fever [

if you say that the infant himself was ill],

if so,

when he emerged from his mother’s womb and recovered, then

he requires all seven

to wait until he becomes fit for circumcision.

And since it is not necessary to wait seven days from one time to the corresponding time, it is impossible that seven days should be completed between the making and the eating?!

Rather,

it is speaking of a case

in which his mother’s fever nourished him,

her illness’s fever being what “nourished” him in her womb.

And if you wish, say: These words

—that when the navel closes he no longer lives—apply

where it is not connected [

when the navel is no longer connected to his mother].

But where it is connected —

he lives!

When the navel is still connected, he lives, for it closes only after it has been severed from his mother’s navel. And as long as the navel is connected to his mother, he eats from what his mother eats, and lives.

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Benaah:

An uncircumcised

Israelite who became impure through a corpse

receives sprinkling

of the water of purification from the ashes of the red heifer in order to become pure from his impurity.

And when he circumcises himself, he need not be sprinkled again, and he is permitted to eat sacrificial food and teruma, and we do not say: The sprinkling of an uncircumcised person is not called sprinkling.

For so we find concerning our ancestors

who were born in the wilderness — when they made the Passover offering at Gilgal immediately after ascending from the Jordan —

that they received sprinkling

from corpse impurity, for they had become impure through their ancestors who had died in the wilderness,

when they

were still

uncircumcised.

And from where do we know that they received sprinkling while they were uncircumcised?

For in the wilderness they did not circumcise, as will be explained below, and after they circumcised, there was not enough time for them to receive the third-day and seventh-day sprinklings before the time of making the Passover offering, which is on the fourteenth of the month —

For

it is

stated

in the Book of Joshua:

And the people ascended from the Jordan on the tenth of the first month.

And on that day on which they ascended,

on the tenth

of Nisan, certainly

they did not circumcise themselves because of the weakness caused by the journey [

they did not circumcise themselves because of the weakness of the journey], and the earliest time for their circumcision was the eleventh of Nisan.

And if so,

when did they perform the sprinkling for them [

when did they sprinkle upon them from the ashes of the heifer]?

Was it not,

surely

when they were uncircumcised!

For if they had sprinkled the third-day sprinkling upon them on the eleventh of the month, after their circumcision, then their seventh-day sprinkling would have occurred on the fifteenth of Nisan, four days after their first sprinkling; yet they needed to become pure by the fourteenth of Nisan, which was the time of making the Passover offering!

And it is proven that the sprinkling of an uncircumcised person is called sprinkling.

And we raise an objection against it:

But perhaps they did not make the Passover offering at all [

perhaps they did not make the Passover offering that year at all]?

And although it is explicit in the verse that they made the Passover offering at Gilgal, perhaps only those who came out of Egypt made it, for they were already circumcised [Ritva]?!

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind

to say this.

For

it

is written: “The children of Israel” encamped at Gilgal,

and

and they made the Passover offering

on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, in the plains of Jericho.

And it implies that most of Israel made it, although most of them had not come out of Egypt, but had been born in the wilderness.

Mar Zutra challenged it: But perhaps it was a Passover offering brought in impurity,

for since the majority of the community were impure, they could make it in impurity, and you cannot hear from here that an uncircumcised person receives sprinkling!

Rav Ashi said to him:

For

it is explicitly taught

concerning that generation:

They circumcised, immersed, and made their Passover offerings in purity.

And now the Gemara explains the matter of the mitzva of circumcision:

Rabba bar Yitzhak said that Rav said: The mitzva of

the mitzva of

“uncovering of circumcision”

was not given to Abraham our father

when he was commanded concerning circumcision. And the mitzva of uncovering was not introduced until the time of Joshua.

As it is stated: At that time

—after Israel ascended from the Jordan —

the Lord said

to Joshua: Make for yourself knives of flint,

and again circumcise the children of Israel.

And that circumcision was the uncovering of circumcision, for they had not uncovered their circumcision when they had circumcised previously.

And we raise an objection against it: From where is it known that the verse is speaking of uncovering of circumcision?

But perhaps

Joshua was commanded concerning circumcision itself, that he circumcise

these —

those born in the wilderness —

who had not been circumcised

at all?!

For

it

is written in that passage that those born in the wilderness had still not been circumcised at all:

in that passage that those born in the wilderness had never been circumcised:

“For all the people who came out [

from Egypt]

had been circumcised, but all those born

in the wilderness on the way, when they came out of Egypt, had not been circumcised” [and the reason why they had not circumcised is explained in the Gemara below]!

And we answer:

If so,

if you say that the verse speaks only of those born in the wilderness who had not yet been circumcised,

what

is the meaning of “and

again circumcise the children of Israel”?

and circumcise the children of Israel” mean?

Rather, is it not

necessarily that Joshua was commanded concerning even those who came out of Egypt

to

again and perform for them

uncovering.

And the Gemara asks:

And

since you expound the wording of the verse, “and again”

—

what will you expound from what the verse subsequently says, “and circumcise the children of Israel

a second time”?

And we explain:

To compare the end of circumcision,

the removal of all pieces of skin that remain after cutting the foreskin,

to the beginning of circumcision,

the cutting of the foreskin:

Just as the beginning of circumcision,

the cutting of the foreskin,

prevents

so too, the end of circumcision,

when he has not removed all the skin, the pieces of skin that remained and were not removed

prevent him.

[Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot wrote that this refers to uncovering the pieces of the soft membrane ], as he explains and proceeds. And the Gemara explains what are the pieces that prevent the circumcision:

For we learned: These are the pieces that prevent the circumcision:

If there remains

flesh [

skin]

that covers most of the corona, he may not eat teruma

until he removes it.

Ravina said, and some say Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said,

to explain the Mishna:

Flesh [

skin]

that covers most of the height of the corona,

even though it does not cover most of its circumference.

From the Gemara's exposition:

And in the wilderness, what is the reason they were not circumcised [

Why did the Children of Israel not circumcise in the wilderness, as explained in the verse in Joshua that the Gemara brought]?

Alternatively, because of the weakness of the journey [

the weakness of the journey].