Shabbat 135
וְלֹא סָפֵק דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״ — וַדַּאי דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְלֹא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
and the circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. And by means of the same inference from the term his foreskin, derive that circumcision of his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat, and circumcising the foreskin of a hermaphrodite baby, with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not circumcision is required, does not override Shabbat.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״ — וַדַּאי דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְלֹא נוֹלָד בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. ״עׇרְלָתוֹ״ — וַדַּאי דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְלֹא נוֹלָד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: צָרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ.
Rabbi Yehuda says: The circumcision of a hermaphrodite overrides Shabbat, and if he is not circumcised, when he reaches majority he is punishable by karet. Rabbi Yehuda interprets the verse in the following manner: His definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one born at twilight does not override Shabbat. And likewise, his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, does not override Shabbat. With regard to a child in that condition, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: It is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of circumcision of the foreskin, and Beit Hillel say: It is not necessary, as he is already circumcised.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל נוֹלָד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעׇרְלָה כְּבוּשָׁה הִיא. עַל מַה נֶּחְלְקוּ — עַל גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: צָרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית.
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: That was not the subject of their dispute, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree over the fact that from one who was born circumcised, it is necessary to drip covenantal blood, because they agree that it is a case of a concealed foreskin. The child is not actually circumcised; it is just that his foreskin is not visible. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to a convert who for some reason was circumcised when he was a gentile and converted when he was already circumcised, as Beit Shammai say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is necessary, and Beit Hillel say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is not necessary, and he needs only a ritual immersion to complete his conversion.
אָמַר מָר: וְלֹא סָפֵק דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֶּן שִׁבְעָה, מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וּבֶן שְׁמוֹנָה, אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. סָפֵק בֶּן שִׁבְעָה סָפֵק בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה — אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
The Gemara cited above that the Master said: The circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What case of uncertainty does this statement come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which the Sages taught: To circumcise a child born after seven months of pregnancy, one desecrates Shabbat, as it will likely live. However, to circumcise a child born after eight months of pregnancy, with regard to whom the presumption was that he would not survive, one may not desecrate Shabbat. And even for the circumcision of a child with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether the child was born after seven months and uncertainty whether the child was born after eight months, one may not desecrate Shabbat.
בֶּן שְׁמוֹנָה — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאֶבֶן, וְאָסוּר לְטַלְטְלוֹ. אֲבָל אִמּוֹ שׁוֹחָה וּמְנִיקָתוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה.
And the Sages taught: A child born after eight months is like a stone with regard to the halakhot of set-aside [muktze], and it is prohibited to move him. However, his mother may bend over the child and nurse him due to the danger that failure to nurse will cause her to fall ill.
אִיתְּמַר, רַב אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר.
With regard to the halakhic ruling in the case of a child born circumcised, it is stated that the Sages disagree. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the explanation of the first tanna, i.e., in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s explanation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, that they disagree with regard to one born circumcised. Since we rule in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, it is not necessary to drip covenantal blood from a child born circumcised. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to one born circumcised, and that everyone agrees that it is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him.
רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אִתְיְלִיד לֵיהּ הָהוּא יָנוֹקָא כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל. אַהְדְּרֵיהּ אַתְּלֵיסַר מָהוֹלָאֵי, עַד דְּשַׁוְּיֵיהּ כְּרוּת שָׁפְכָה. אֲמַר: תֵּיתֵי לִי, דַּעֲבַרִי אַדְּרַב.
The Gemara relates that to Rav Adda bar Ahava there was this child that was born circumcised, and the time for his circumcision was on Shabbat. He inquired after thirteen ritual circumcisors, but they refused to circumcise him, until ultimately, he circumcised his son himself and rendered him one with a severed urethra. He did not know how to perform a circumcision and made too deep an incision. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: I have it coming to me, i.e., I deserve to be punished, as I violated the ruling of Rav, who ruled that one born circumcised does not even need covenantal blood drawn.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: וְאַדִּשְׁמוּאֵל לָא עֲבַר?! אֵימַר דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּחוֹל, בְּשַׁבָּת מִי אָמַר? הוּא סָבַר, וַדַּאי עׇרְלָה כְּבוּשָׁה הִיא. דְּאִיתְּמַר, רַבָּה אָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא עׇרְלָה כְּבוּשָׁה הִיא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: וַדַּאי עׇרְלָה כְּבוּשָׁה הִיא.
Rav Naḥman said to him: And did he not violate the ruling of Shmuel? Say that Shmuel said that one is required to drip covenantal blood during the week, on Shabbat, did he say so? Certainly one does not desecrate Shabbat in that case. The Gemara explains that Rav Adda bar Ahava held differently, that in that case there is not merely a concern that perhaps there is a concealed foreskin. In that case, that there is definitely a concealed foreskin. Therefore, a form of circumcision must be performed on the child, and it overrides Shabbat. As it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute as to whether or not it is permitted to drip covenantal blood on Shabbat from a child born circumcised. Rabba said: We are concerned lest there is a concealed foreskin, and therefore there is uncertainty whether or not he is considered uncircumcised, and therefore it is prohibited to circumcise him on Shabbat. Rav Yosef said: In that case, there is certainly a concealed foreskin and therefore, it is permitted to circumcise him even on Shabbat.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַקַּפָּר אוֹמֵר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל נוֹלָד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל — שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית, עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — לְחַלֵּל עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. לָאו מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת?!
Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this line of reasoning? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar says: There is a tradition that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to a child who was born circumcised, that one is required to drip covenantal blood from him. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to whether or not to desecrate Shabbat on his behalf. Beit Shammai say: One desecrates Shabbat in order to circumcise him, and Beit Hillel say: One does not desecrate Shabbat in order to circumcise him. Rav Yosef concludes: Does this not prove by inference that the first tanna, whose opinion Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disputes, holds that everyone agrees that one desecrates Shabbat on his behalf, and Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disagrees and states that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute that very matter?
וְדִילְמָא תַּנָּא קַמָּא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין מְחַלְּלִין קָאָמַר! אִם כֵּן — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַקַּפָּר טַעְמָא דְבֵית שַׁמַּאי אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן? דִילְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּדָבָר זֶה.
The Gemara refutes this: And perhaps the first tanna is saying that everyone agrees that one may not desecrate Shabbat in that case, and Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disagrees and holds that there is a dispute in this regard. The Gemara immediately rejects this assertion: If that is so, that Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar is coming to introduce an opinion that allows desecrating Shabbat to perform circumcision in this case, that is the opinion of Beit Shammai; did Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar come to teach us the reasoning of Beit Shammai? Their opinion is rejected as halakha, and there would be no purpose in making a statement simply to explain the opinion of Beit Shammai. The Gemara answers that proof is not absolute; perhaps this is what he is saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to this matter of circumcision of a baby born circumcised on Shabbat. They disagree with regard to the requirement to drip covenantal blood on a weekday.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי כׇּל שֶׁאִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה — נִימּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה — אֵין נִימּוֹל לִשְׁמֹנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה וְגוֹ׳ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עׇרְלָתוֹ״.
Rabbi Asi stated a principle: Any child whose birth renders his mother ritually impure due to childbirth is circumcised at eight days; and any child whose birth does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, e.g., the birth was not natural, but by caesarean section, is not necessarily circumcised at eight days. As it is stated: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days…and on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:2–3). This verse draws a parallel between the two issues, indicating that only a child whose birth renders his mother impure is circumcised on the eighth day.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: דּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁאֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, וְנִימּוֹל לִשְׁמֹנָה!
Abaye said to him: The early generations, from Abraham through the revelation at Sinai, will prove that the principle is not valid, as the birth of a male during that era did not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, as the halakhot of the impurity of childbirth were commanded at Sinai, and nevertheless, the child was circumcised at eight days, as stated in the Torah, in the book of Genesis.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נִתְּנָה תּוֹרָה,
Rabbi Asi said to him: There is no proof from here, as when the Torah was later given,
וְנִתְחַדְּשָׁה הֲלָכָה.
halakha was introduced. No proof can be cited from the observance of mitzvot prior to the revelation at Sinai.
אִינִי? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן וּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי עֲרָלוֹת, רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר רַב, חַד אָמַר: מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין. עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא לְחַלֵּל עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אֲבָל לִשְׁמֹנָה — וַדַּאי מָהֲלִינַן לֵיהּ! הָא בְּהָא תַּלְיָא.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? Wasn’t it stated that there is a dispute with regard to this halakha? As it was taught with regard to a child born by caesarean section and one who has two foreskins, Rav Huna and Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav disputed their status. One said: One desecrates Shabbat on his behalf and performs the circumcision; and one said: One does not desecrate Shabbat on his behalf. They only disagree with regard to whether or not it is permissible to desecrate Shabbat on his behalf; however, with regard to circumcising him at eight days, in principle, we certainly circumcise him, even though the birth of a child by caesarean section does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth. The Gemara answers: The two disputes are interdependent. The one who holds that one desecrates Shabbat for this child’s circumcision also holds that one must circumcise him on the eighth day. The one who holds that one may not desecrate Shabbat for this child’s circumcision holds that one need not circumcise him on the eighth day.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: יֵשׁ יְלִיד בַּיִת שֶׁנִּימּוֹל לְאֶחָד וְיֵשׁ יְלִיד בַּיִת שֶׁנִּימּוֹל לִשְׁמֹנָה, יֵשׁ מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף שֶׁנִּימּוֹל לְאֶחָד וְיֵשׁ מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף שֶׁנִּימּוֹל לִשְׁמֹנָה.
The Gemara comments: The issue of Rabbi Asi’s statement that the obligation to circumcise after eight days depends upon whether or not his birth renders his mother ritually impure due to childbirth is parallel to a tannaitic dispute, as we learned: There is a home-born child of a Canaanite maidservant born in a Jewish home, who has the legal status of a Canaanite slave and his Jewish owner is obligated to circumcise him, who is circumcised at the age of one day, i.e., immediately after birth; and there is a home-born child circumcised at eight days. And there is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at one day, and there is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at eight days.
יֵשׁ מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף שֶׁנִּימּוֹל לְאֶחָד וְיֵשׁ מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף שֶׁנִּימּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה, כֵּיצַד? לָקַח שִׁפְחָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה — זֶהוּ מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף הַנִּימּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה. לָקַח שִׁפְחָה וּוְלָדָהּ עִמָּהּ — זוֹ הִיא מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף שֶׁנִּימּוֹל לְאֶחָד.
The baraita explains: There is a home-born child who is circumcised at one; and there is a home-born child circumcised at eight. How so? If a Jew purchased a pregnant maidservant and she then gave birth to a child while in his possession; that is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at eight days, as the fetus was purchased along with the maidservant. If he purchased a maidservant who had already given birth and purchased her child along with her, he is obligated to circumcise the child as soon as the child enters his possession; this is a slave purchased in a money transaction, who is circumcised at one day.
וְיֵשׁ יְלִיד בַּיִת שֶׁנִּימּוֹל לִשְׁמֹנָה, כֵּיצַד? לָקַח שִׁפְחָה וְנִתְעַבְּרָה אֶצְלוֹ וְיָלְדָה — זֶהוּ יְלִיד בַּיִת הַנִּימּוֹל לִשְׁמֹנָה. רַב חָמָא אוֹמֵר: יָלְדָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִטְבִּילָהּ — זֶהוּ יְלִיד בַּיִת שֶׁנִּימּוֹל לְאֶחָד. הִטְבִּילָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה — זֶהוּ יְלִיד בַּיִת הַנִּימּוֹל לִשְׁמֹנָה.
And likewise, there is a home-born child circumcised at eight days. How so? If he bought a maidservant and she became pregnant in his possession and gave birth; that is a home-born child circumcised at eight days. Rav Ḥama says there is a distinction: If the maidservant gave birth and he subsequently had her immerse for the purpose of becoming a maidservant, that is a home-born child circumcised at one day. But if he had her immerse and she then gave birth; that is a home-born child circumcised at eight days.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא לָא שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ בֵּין הִטְבִּילָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה בֵּין יָלְדָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִטְבִּילָהּ, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, נִימּוֹל לִשְׁמֹנָה.
And the first tanna does not distinguish between whether he had her immerse and she then gave birth, or whether she gave birth and he then had her immerse. Apparently, even though the child’s birth does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, as she is not obligated in mitzvot before immersing and she is not susceptible to ritual impurity of childbirth, he is circumcised at eight days. The dispute between Rabbi Ḥama and the first tanna revolves around the halakha stated by Rabbi Asi.
אָמַר רָבָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי חָמָא, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ יְלִיד בַּיִת נִימּוֹל לְאֶחָד, יְלִיד בַּיִת נִימּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה, מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף נִימּוֹל לְאֶחָד וּמִקְנַת כֶּסֶף נִימּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה: יָלְדָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִטְבִּילָהּ — זֶהוּ יְלִיד בַּיִת שֶׁנִּימּוֹל לְאֶחָד. הִטְבִּילָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה — זֶהוּ יְלִיד בַּיִת שֶׁנִּימּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה.
With regard to the dispute between the tanna’im, Rava said: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥama, cases can be found of a home-born child circumcised at one day, a home-born child circumcised at eight days, a slave purchased in a money transaction circumcised at one day, and a slave purchased in a money transaction circumcised at eight days, in the following manner: If a maidservant gave birth and he subsequently had her immerse, that is the case of a home-born child circumcised at one day. If he had her immerse and she then gave birth, that is the case of a home-born child circumcised at eight days.
מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף נִימּוֹל לִשְׁמֹנָה — כְּגוֹן שֶׁלָּקַח שִׁפְחָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת וְהִטְבִּילָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה. מִקְנַת כֶּסֶף נִימּוֹל לְאֶחָד — כְּגוֹן שֶׁלָּקַח זֶה שִׁפְחָה, וְזֶה עוּבָּרָהּ.
A slave purchased in a money transaction is circumcised at eight days in a case where a Jew purchased a pregnant maidservant and thereby paid for and purchased the fetus as well, and then had her immerse, and she then gave birth. A slave purchased in a money transaction is circumcised at one day in a case where that person purchased a maidservant, and that person, i.e., someone else, bought her fetus; since the owner of the fetus has no share in its mother, the child may be circumcised immediately after birth.
אֶלָּא לְתַנָּא קַמָּא, בִּשְׁלָמָא כּוּלְּהוּ מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לְהוּ, אֶלָּא יְלִיד בַּיִת נִימּוֹל לְאֶחָד הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
However, according to the opinion of the first tanna, granted that all the cases can be found; however, how can the case of a home-born child circumcised at one day be found?
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בְּלוֹקֵחַ שִׁפְחָה לְעוּבָּרָהּ.
Rabbi Yirmeya said: It can be found in the case of one who purchases a maidservant for the purpose of purchasing rights to her fetus without purchasing the maidservant herself.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of the one who said that a transaction to purchase an item for its product is not a transaction to purchase the item itself, i.e., one who purchased a field for its fruit did not purchase the field itself. However, according to the opinion of the one who said that a transaction to purchase an item for its product is a transaction to purchase the item itself, what can be said, as he does not distinguish between the purchase of the maidservant herself and the purchase of the children that she bears?
אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: בְּלוֹקֵחַ שִׁפְחָה עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לְהַטְבִּילָהּ.
Rav Mesharshiya said: According to this opinion, it must be explained as referring to one who purchases a maidservant on condition that he will not have her immerse. They can stipulate that he will not have her immerse as a maidservant and that she will remain a gentile. In that case, the child is a slave born to a Jew, and the mitzva of circumcision is in effect immediately upon birth.
תַּנְיָא: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁשָּׁהָה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, בָּאָדָם — אֵינוֹ נֵפֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּפְדוּיָו מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ תִּפְדֶּה״. שְׁמֹנַת יָמִים בַּבְּהֵמָה — אֵינוֹ נֵפֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה יֵרָצֶה לְקׇרְבַּן וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara cites a related baraita where it was taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to people, any child that remains alive thirty days after birth is no longer suspected of being a stillborn, and is assumed to be a regular child who will go on living. Proof is cited from that which is stated with regard to the laws of redemption and valuations: “And their redemption, from a month old you shall redeem according to your valuation, five shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the Sanctuary; it is twenty gera” (Numbers 18:16), indicating that no value is ascribed to an infant less than a month old, as its viability is uncertain. Likewise, a newborn animal that survives for eight days is no longer suspected of being a stillborn, as it is stated: “When a bullock or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days under its mother; and from the eighth day and onward it may be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:27).
הָא לֹא שָׁהָה — סְפֵיקָא הָוֵי,
The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference: If the child did not yet remain alive for thirty days, it is considered an uncertainty whether or not it is a stillborn with regard to several halakhot?
