Yevamot 71b (עא:) — the Talmud in English

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

must be

seven full days

from one corresponding time to the next [from the hour when he recovered until that same hour on the eighth day], and this is referring to a case where the seven complete days ended on the eve of Pesaḥ, after the offering of the Pesaḥ sacrifice.

—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 challenge this:

But did not the Lodite teach [the name of a sage, ]

a beraita:

The day of a baby's recovery

from his illness is

like the day of his birth,

and one must wait eight days before circumcising him.

Does this not mean that, just as on the day of his birth we do not need

to count the day

from one corresponding time to the next,

but rather circumcise him from the morning of the eighth day

so too, on the day of his recovery, we do not need to wait from one corresponding time to the next?!

And we answer:

No! The day of his recovery is more stringent than the day of his birth.

For on the day of his birth, we do not need to wait from one corresponding time to the next

in order to count it.

But on the day of his recovery, we do need to wait from one corresponding time to the next.

Rav Pappa said,

to explain what the beraita said: that one can find uncircumcised males who were not present at the time of the offering but were present at the time of eating:

In fact, we do not require seven days from one corresponding time to the next from the day of his recovery.

And with what case are we dealing here?

For example, the baby's eye hurt.

[The baby's eye hurt,] and he was unfit for circumcision,

but he recovered in the interim

[he recovered on the eve of Pesaḥ between the offering and the eating], since 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 offering of the Pesaḥ

imprisoned,

so the circumcision of their son did not prevent them at the time of the offering, since they were under duress and unable to circumcise him; and they were released between the offering and the eating.

Rav Kahana, son of Rav Neḥemya, said,

to explain the beraita:

For example, he was

a

tumtum, whose covering was torn,

the skin covering the place of his male organ,

and it was found

that he was

male,

and this occurred

in the interim,

between the offering and the eating.

For at the time of the offering, he was not obligated to have the covering torn and to circumcise him, and it did not prevent him at that time [Tosafot above, 71a].

Rav Sherevya said,

to explain the beraita:

For example, the baby had brought

his

head outside the corridor

from his mother's womb seven days before the eve of Pesaḥ, and from that time he was considered like a newborn. He is counted as requiring eight days before his circumcision. However, he was unfit for circumcision, and his circumcision did not prevent the offering, since he was unfit for circumcision; and after his father offered the Pesaḥ sacrifice, his entire body emerged, and he then became fit for circumcision.

And we raise an objection to this:

But can he live?

Can a baby live in such a state for eight days?!

But it was taught:

What is a fetus like in its mother's womb? Its mouth is closed and its umbilical cord is open; it eats what its mother eats and drinks what its mother drinks [through the umbilical cord, which is attached to its mother].

Once he emerges

the baby

into the air of the world,

his

mouth

that was closed opens, and his

umbilical cord

that was open closes.

For if this were not so, the

newborn baby

could not live even one hour.

It might have entered our minds that, since his head emerged into the air of the world, although the umbilical cord was still attached to his mother, it had already closed, and he no longer ate what his mother ate. If so, how could this baby live, when he could not nurse from his mother until the eighth day?!

And we answer:

Here, with what case are we dealing? For example, a fever sustained him [the illness itself “nourished” him; since he had a fever, he did not need food].

[the illness itself “feeds” him; when he has a fever, he does not need food].

That is, a fever had seized him while he was 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 became fit for circumcision.

And we inquire about this:

Whose fever?

The fever of the illness that sustained him—whose fever was it, his mother's or his?

If you say it was his fever [if you say that the baby himself was ill],

[if you say that the baby himself was ill],

if so,

when he emerged from his mother's womb and recovered,

he must wait the entire seven

days until he becomes fit for circumcision.

And since there is no need to wait seven days from one corresponding time to the next, it is impossible for seven days to have elapsed between the offering and the eating?!

Rather,

the case is one in which

his mother's fever sustained him,

that is, it was his mother's fever that “nourished” him in her womb.

And if you wish, say: This statement

that when the umbilical cord closes he no longer lives applies

where it is not attached

[when the umbilical cord is no longer attached to his mother].

But where it is attached—

he lives!

When the umbilical cord is still attached, he lives, for it closes only after it has been severed from his mother's navel. As long as the umbilical cord is attached to his mother, he eats what his mother eats and lives.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Bana'a:

An uncircumcised

Israelite who became impure through contact with a corpse

may receive the sprinkling

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

And once he is circumcised, he need not receive the sprinkling again; he may eat consecrated offerings and teruma, and we do not say that the sprinkling upon an uncircumcised person is not considered sprinkling.

For we find this with our ancestors,

those born in the wilderness—when they offered the Pesaḥ sacrifice at Gilgal immediately after ascending from the Jordan—

that they received the sprinkling

for impurity imparted by a corpse, since 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 the sprinkling while uncircumcised?

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

F

or

it is stated

in the Book of Joshua:

“The people ascended from the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month.”

And on that day when they ascended,

on the tenth

of Nisan, they certainly

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

[they did not circumcise themselves because of the weakness caused by 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 red heifer]?

Was it not

indeed

when they were uncircumcised!

For if they received the sprinkling of the third day on the eleventh of the month, after their circumcision, their sprinkling of the seventh day would have been 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 offering the Pesaḥ sacrifice!

It is therefore proven that sprinkling upon an uncircumcised person is considered sprinkling.

And we challenge this:

But perhaps they did not offer the Pesaḥ sacrifice at all [perhaps they did not offer the Pesaḥ sacrifice that year at all]?

[perhaps they did not perform it that year at all]?

And although it is explicit in the verse that they offered the Pesaḥ sacrifice at Gilgal, perhaps only those who had left Egypt offered it, since they were already circumcised [Ritva]?!

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind

to say so.

F

or

it is written:

“The children of Israel” camped at Gilgal,

and they offered the Pesaḥ sacrifice

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

This indicates that most of Israel offered it, although most of them had not left Egypt but had been born in the wilderness.

Mar Zutra challenged this: But perhaps it was a Pesaḥ sacrifice offered in a state of impurity,

for since the majority of the community was impure, they could offer it in impurity, and you cannot derive from here that an uncircumcised person may receive the sprinkling!

Rav Ashi said to him:

It is

explicitly taught

concerning that generation:

They circumcised themselves, immersed, and offered their Pesaḥ sacrifices in purity.

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

Rabba bar Yitzḥak said that Rav said: The mitzva of

circumcision,

“uncovering the corona”

was not given to Abraham our forefather

when he was commanded concerning circumcision. The mitzva of uncovering the corona was introduced only in the time of Joshua.

As it is stated: “At that time”

after Israel had ascended from the Jordan—

“The Lord said

to Joshua: Make flint knives for yourself,”

and circumcise the children of Israel again.

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

And we challenge this: From where do we know that the verse is speaking of uncovering the corona?

But perhaps

Joshua was commanded concerning circumcision itself, to circumcise

these

—those born in the wilderness—

who had not been circumcised

at all?!

F

or

it is written

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

“For all the people who came out

[of Egypt]

had been circumcised, but all those born

in the wilderness along the way, when they came out of Egypt, had not been circumcised” [the reason they had not been circumcised is explained later in the Gemara]!

And we answer:

If so,

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

why “

a

gain

and circumcise the children of Israel”?

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that Joshua was also commanded concerning those who had come out of Egypt

t

o return and perform for them

the uncovering of the corona.

The Gemara asks:

A

nd since you interpret the wording of the verse “return”

why

do you interpret what the verse says afterward: “And circumcise the children of Israel

again”?

And we explain:

To juxtapose the end of circumcision,

the removal of all the pieces of skin remaining after the cutting of the foreskin,

with the beginning of circumcision,

the cutting of the foreskin:

Just as the beginning of circumcision,

the cutting of the foreskin,

is indispensable,

so too the end of circumcision:

if one did not remove all the skin, then the shreds of skin that remained and were not removed

are indispensable for him to remove.

[Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot wrote that this refers to uncovering the shreds of the thin membrane ], as the Gemara proceeds to explain. The Gemara explains which shreds invalidate the circumcision:

As we learned: These are the shreds that invalidate circumcision:

if

flesh

[skin]

that covers most of the corona remains. And he may not eat teruma

until he removes it.

Ravina—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.

The Gemara explains:

And in the wilderness, what is the reason they did not circumcise?

Why did the Israelites not circumcise in the wilderness, as explained in the verse in Joshua cited by the Gemara]?

Alternatively, one can say: Because of the weakness caused by the journey

the weakness caused by the journey].