Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

July 20, 2020 | 讻状讞 讘转诪讜讝 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Shabbat 136

This week’s learning is dedicated by Margie Zweibel for a refuah shleima for Chaim Tzvi ben Yenta Bluma. Today’s daf is sponsored by Danielle Leeshaw in honor of the wonderful community of daf yomi participants at Hillel International that inspire students and staff to learn and love Talmud study.

How does one perform a brit milah on Shabbat if according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is not clear until the thirtieth day if the baby will survive? How does one treat a case where one is not sure if a baby is viable (in the terminology of the rabbis – a baby born after eight months is not viable but after seven or nine would be viable – what if it is unclear what month the baby was born?) – do we view the baby as alive for the time is was living, even if it doesn’t make it to day 30 or do we view it as if it was never alive? The relevance is in a case where the husband died while the woman was pregnant and they had no other children. If the child is considered to have lived for the time it was alive, she is exempt from levirate marriage. If not, she is obligated. The gemara brings two stories of rabbis whose children died within the first thirty days and they mourned for them. Others did not understand why and they needed to explain themselves. One can see from these stories, raising awareness about the difficulties of those dealing with infant loss/stillborn births. Rabbi Yehuda allows a brit milah on an androgenous/hermaphrodite on Shabbat. Rav Shizbi says that in other places Rabbi Yehuda does not treat an androgenous as a clear male – see for example laws of valuation.

诪讬诪讛诇 讛讬讻讬 诪讛诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛


If so, with regard to circumcision, how can we circumcise him? Perhaps he is a stillborn and one may not desecrate Shabbat for his circumcision.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗诐 讞讬 讛讜讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讛讬诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讞转讱 讘讘砖专 讛讜讗


Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One may circumcise him whichever way you look at it, based on the following calculation: If he is a child who will live, the circumcisor may well circumcise the child, and if not, if the child is a stillborn and the circumcisor is merely cutting flesh, one who cuts the flesh of a corpse or the flesh of one with the legal status of a corpse is not considered to have made a wound, and therefore has not performed a prohibited labor.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 住驻拽 讘谉 砖讘注讛 住驻拽 讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讛诇讬讛 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗诐 讞讬 讛讜讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讛讬诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讞转讱 讘讘砖专 讛讜讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And however, with regard to that which was taught in a baraita: If there is uncertainty whether he was born after seven months of pregnancy, and uncertainty whether he was born after eight months, one does not desecrate Shabbat on his behalf and circumcise him. The Gemara asks: Why? Let us circumcise him on Shabbat, as whichever way you look at it, that is appropriate. If he is a child that will live, the circumcisor may well circumcise the child, and if not, he is merely cutting the flesh of a corpse, which does not violate any Shabbat prohibitions.


讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讜专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讝讻专讬讛 转专讙讬诪谞讗 诪讬诪讛讬诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讛诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讻砖讬专讬 诪讬诇讛 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


Mar, son of Ravina, said: Rav Na岣mei bar Zekharya and I interpreted this as follows: Indeed, as for circumcision itself, we do indeed circumcise that child even on Shabbat. It was only necessary to say that one does not desecrate Shabbat on his behalf with regard to the issue of preparing facilitators of circumcision on Shabbat, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that actions that facilitate circumcision at its appointed time override Shabbat.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻转谞讗讬 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讗砖专 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诇讗讻诇讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘谉 砖诪谞讛 砖讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转讜


Abaye said: The issue of whether a child who has not yet survived thirty days from his birth is considered viable is parallel to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m with regard to the interpretation of the verse: 鈥淎nd if any animal of which you may eat shall die, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). The verse is interpreted as coming to include offspring of eight months. Large domesticated animals typically give birth after a gestation period of nine months. If an animal of that sort gives birth after eight months, its offspring is deemed to be not viable and its slaughter does not purify it. Rather, it assumes the status of an unslaughtered animal, which is not only prohibited to be eaten, but also transmits ritual impurity to those who touch or move it. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, say: Its slaughter purifies it, and it does not assume unslaughtered animal status.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讞讬 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪转 讛讜讗


What, is it not that this is the matter with regard to which they disagree? That this Master holds that the animal is considered alive and therefore its slaughter is effective, as is the case with regard to all pure animals, while this Master, the first tanna, holds that it is considered dead.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讛专讛 诇讬驻诇讙讬 诇注谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛


Rava said: If so, instead of disagreeing over the issue of impurity and purity, let them disagree over the issue of eating, i.e., whether it is permitted to eat this offspring after it is slaughtered. Since they did not dispute this point, their disagreement must revolve around a different factor.


讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪转 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专讬 讻讟专驻讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪转讛 讛讬讗 砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讚诪讬 诇讟专驻讛 讟专驻讛 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讛讗讬 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


Rather, it must be that everyone agrees that it is considered dead, yet Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, hold that it has the legal status like that of a tereifa, an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months. With regard to a tereifa, is it not that even though it is considered dead from the perspective of halakha because there is no possibility of long-term survival, nevertheless, if it is slaughtered, its slaughter purifies it? It does not cause ritual impurity like an unslaughtered animal, even though it may not be eaten. Here too, it is no different. And the Rabbis, who do not accept this claim, say: It is not similar to a tereifa, since a tereifa had a period of fitness before it became a tereifa. However, this animal that was born after eight months of pregnancy did not ever have a period of fitness.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讟专驻讛 诪讘讟谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛转诐 讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛


And if you say: With regard to an animal that was a tereifa from the womb and was born in that condition, what is there to say? It too never had a period of fitness. There is a distinction between the cases. There, with regard to a tereifa, there is slaughter in its type; here, with regard to a stillborn, there is no slaughter in its type, as there is no circumstance where slaughter of a stillborn animal is appropriate.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜 诇讗 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that any animal that survived for eight days after birth is presumed viable, or not? If you say that they disagree, the dilemma is: Is the halakha in accordance with his opinion, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion?


转讗 砖诪注 注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜


Come and hear proof from that which we learned: With regard to a calf that was born on a Festival, one may slaughter it on the Festival. Apparently, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 opinion is not accepted, and one need not wait eight days after the animal is born. The Gemara refutes this: With what are we dealing here? It is a case in which one is certain that its months of gestation were completed, and therefore, it is certainly not stillborn.


转讗 砖诪注 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜


Come and hear another proof from that which we learned: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who disagreed with regard to whether or not it is permitted to inspect firstborn animals for blemishes on a Festival, agree that if a firstborn animal was born with its blemish, it is considered prepared for use on the Festival. It is not deemed set-aside and an expert may examine it to determine whether or not it is a permanent blemish. Apparently, a firstborn animal may be slaughtered on the day of its birth. The Gemara refutes this proof as well: It is a case in which one is certain that its months of gestation were completed, and it is certainly not stillborn.


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Come and hear a solution to the dilemma, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha in this matter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Nonetheless, from the fact that the halakha was ruled in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, by inference, the Sages disagree with his ruling. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this the resolution to both dilemmas raised above.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讗讜 讗讻诇讜 讗专讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬 讛讜讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 砖驻讬讛拽 讜诪转 诪专 住讘专 讞讬 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪转 讛讜讗


Abaye said: With regard to a baby less than thirty days old that fell off a roof or was eaten by a lion, everyone agrees that he is considered to have been alive; it was a viable baby that died in the accident. Where they disagree is in a case where the baby yawned, i.e., breathed momentarily after birth, and then immediately died. This Master, the Rabbis, hold: The baby is considered to have been living, since it was born alive; and this Master holds: It is considered to have been born dead until it lives a month after its birth.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诇驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐


What practical difference is there whether or not the baby is considered to have been alive? The difference is to exempt the child鈥檚 mother from levirate marriage. If a man died with no children, and his wife was pregnant and a viable child was born, the woman is exempt from levirate marriage; however, if the child was born dead, the man is considered to have died childless, and his widow is obligated in levirate marriage.


谞驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讗讜 讗讻诇讜 讗专讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讘讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 注讬讙诇讗 转讬诇转讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讚砖讘注讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讬转专讞讬转讜 诇讬讛 注讚 诇讗讜专转讗 讛讜讛 讗讻诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that to say that if the child fell off a roof or was eaten by a lion, everyone agrees that it is considered to have been alive? Didn鈥檛 Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, happen to come to the house of the son of Rav Idi bar Avin, and he prepared for them a third-born calf on the seventh day after its birth. And they said to him: Had you waited to slaughter it until the evening, we would have eaten from it. Now that you did not wait, we shall not eat from it. Apparently, if a calf is slaughtered before it was alive for eight days and definitely viable, suspicion that it is stillborn remains; the same is true of a child who dies from an accident within thirty days of birth.


讗诇讗 讻砖驻讬讛拽 讜诪转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪转 讛讜讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讜讗讻诇讜 讗专讬 诪专 住讘专 诪转 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讞讬 讛讜讗


Rather, Abaye鈥檚 statement must be reformulated: When the baby yawned and died, everyone agrees that it is considered to have been dead from the outset. Where they disagree is in a case when it fell off a roof or was eaten by a lion: This Master, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds: It is considered to have been dead; and this Master holds that since it did not die on its own, it is considered to have been alive.


讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗转讬诇讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讘讙讜 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 砖讻讬讘 讬转讬讘 拽诪转讗讘讬诇 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讛 爪讜讜专讜谞讬转讗 拽讘注讬转 诇诪讬讻诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讬讛 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜


The Gemara relates: A baby was born to the son of Rav Dimi bar Yosef. Within thirty days the baby died. He sat and mourned over him. His father, Rav Dimi bar Yosef, said to him: Are you mourning because you wish to partake of the delicacies fed to mourners? The halakha deems a child that dies before thirty days stillborn, and one does not mourn over it. He said to him: I am certain that its months of gestation were completed.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬拽诇注 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬转专注 讘讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讘讙讜 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 诪转讗讘诇 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讬讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讬讛 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜


The Gemara similarly relates that Rav Ashi happened to come to Rav Kahana鈥檚 house. A matter befell him, i.e., his child died within thirty days of its birth. Rav Ashi saw him and observed that he was sitting and mourning over him. He said to him: Doesn鈥檛 the Master hold in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that only a child who lived for thirty days is not considered stillborn? He said to him: I am certain that its months of gestation were completed and he is not to be considered a stillborn.


讗讬转诪专 诪转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讜注诪讚讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗


It was stated that the Sages discussed the following question: What is the ruling in a case where a baby died within thirty days after birth, leaving its mother a childless widow, and before they decided whether or not she was obligated in levirate marriage, she stood and was betrothed to another? Ravina said in the name of Rava:


讗诐 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 讞讜诇爪转 讗诐 讗砖转 讻讛谉 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 讞讜诇爪转


If she is the wife of an Israelite, meaning she became betrothed to an Israelite, who may marry a woman who has undergone 岣litza, she performs 岣litza due to uncertainty. Given that the child may have been stillborn and therefore never considered alive, in which case she would be obligated to undergo levirate marriage or perform 岣litza, by performing 岣litza, she removes any doubt and can remain with her new husband. However, if she is the wife of a priest, she does not perform 岣litza, as if she were to perform 岣litza she would be prohibited to her husband the priest. Since there are those who hold that that the baby is considered alive from the moment of its birth, based on that opinion, she is exempt from performing 岣litza, after the fact.


讜专讘 砖专讘讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 讞讜诇爪转


Rav Sherevya said in the name of Rava: Both this, the woman married to an Israelite, and that, the woman married to a priest, perform 岣litza, as the prohibition against marrying a woman not released from her bond of levirate marriage is a stringent one, and the fact that her husband is a priest is not taken into consideration.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讘讗讜专转讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 诇爪驻专讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖专讬转讜讛 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚转砖专讜 转专讘讗:


Ravina said to Rav Sherevya: In the evening Rava indeed said so, as you said; however, in the morning he retracted his statement, and that is what I cited. Rav Sherevya, however, did not accept this explanation, and said: Did you permit the wife of a priest without 岣litza, despite the fact that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel deems the baby stillborn unless he survives to the age of thirty days? Since you have violated his ruling, may it be God鈥檚 will that you continue along this path and permit the eating of forbidden fat.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诇讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讝讻专 讛讜讗 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讘注专讻讬谉 讬注专讱


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda permits circumcising a hermaphrodite on Shabbat. Rav Sheizvi said that Rav 岣sda said: Not with regard to all matters did Rabbi Yehuda say that a hermaphrodite is considered a male; it was only with regard to circumcision, as if you say so, that the legal status of a hermaphrodite is that of a male in every sense, then even with regard to vows of valuation, he should be valuated.


讜诪谞诇谉 讚诇讗 诪讬注专讱 讚转谞讬讗 讛讝讻专 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗讬砖 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讝讻专 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住


And from where do we derive that he is not valuated? As it was taught in the Sifra, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus, with regard to the verse: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be for the male from the age of twenty years until the age of sixty years, your valuation shall be fifty shekel of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 27:3). The Sages inferred: 鈥淭he male鈥 means the definite male but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. I might have thought that these shall not be valuated according to the valuation of a man, but shall be valuated according to the valuation of a woman. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭he male,鈥 and in the following verse: 鈥淎nd if she is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels鈥 (Leviticus 27:4), indicating: Only a definite male or a definite female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, which are categorized as neither male nor female.


Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf_icon

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time: Shabbat 131-137

This week we will review key concepts in Daf 131-137 including when and how does Brit Milah, circumcision, override Shabbat,...

Shabbat 136

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 136

诪讬诪讛诇 讛讬讻讬 诪讛诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛


If so, with regard to circumcision, how can we circumcise him? Perhaps he is a stillborn and one may not desecrate Shabbat for his circumcision.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗诐 讞讬 讛讜讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讛讬诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讞转讱 讘讘砖专 讛讜讗


Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One may circumcise him whichever way you look at it, based on the following calculation: If he is a child who will live, the circumcisor may well circumcise the child, and if not, if the child is a stillborn and the circumcisor is merely cutting flesh, one who cuts the flesh of a corpse or the flesh of one with the legal status of a corpse is not considered to have made a wound, and therefore has not performed a prohibited labor.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 住驻拽 讘谉 砖讘注讛 住驻拽 讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讛诇讬讛 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗诐 讞讬 讛讜讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讛讬诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讞转讱 讘讘砖专 讛讜讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And however, with regard to that which was taught in a baraita: If there is uncertainty whether he was born after seven months of pregnancy, and uncertainty whether he was born after eight months, one does not desecrate Shabbat on his behalf and circumcise him. The Gemara asks: Why? Let us circumcise him on Shabbat, as whichever way you look at it, that is appropriate. If he is a child that will live, the circumcisor may well circumcise the child, and if not, he is merely cutting the flesh of a corpse, which does not violate any Shabbat prohibitions.


讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讜专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讝讻专讬讛 转专讙讬诪谞讗 诪讬诪讛讬诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讛诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讻砖讬专讬 诪讬诇讛 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


Mar, son of Ravina, said: Rav Na岣mei bar Zekharya and I interpreted this as follows: Indeed, as for circumcision itself, we do indeed circumcise that child even on Shabbat. It was only necessary to say that one does not desecrate Shabbat on his behalf with regard to the issue of preparing facilitators of circumcision on Shabbat, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that actions that facilitate circumcision at its appointed time override Shabbat.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻转谞讗讬 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讗砖专 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诇讗讻诇讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘谉 砖诪谞讛 砖讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转讜


Abaye said: The issue of whether a child who has not yet survived thirty days from his birth is considered viable is parallel to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m with regard to the interpretation of the verse: 鈥淎nd if any animal of which you may eat shall die, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). The verse is interpreted as coming to include offspring of eight months. Large domesticated animals typically give birth after a gestation period of nine months. If an animal of that sort gives birth after eight months, its offspring is deemed to be not viable and its slaughter does not purify it. Rather, it assumes the status of an unslaughtered animal, which is not only prohibited to be eaten, but also transmits ritual impurity to those who touch or move it. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, say: Its slaughter purifies it, and it does not assume unslaughtered animal status.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讞讬 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪转 讛讜讗


What, is it not that this is the matter with regard to which they disagree? That this Master holds that the animal is considered alive and therefore its slaughter is effective, as is the case with regard to all pure animals, while this Master, the first tanna, holds that it is considered dead.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讟讛专讛 诇讬驻诇讙讬 诇注谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛


Rava said: If so, instead of disagreeing over the issue of impurity and purity, let them disagree over the issue of eating, i.e., whether it is permitted to eat this offspring after it is slaughtered. Since they did not dispute this point, their disagreement must revolve around a different factor.


讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪转 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专讬 讻讟专驻讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪转讛 讛讬讗 砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讚诪讬 诇讟专驻讛 讟专驻讛 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讛讗讬 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


Rather, it must be that everyone agrees that it is considered dead, yet Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, hold that it has the legal status like that of a tereifa, an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months. With regard to a tereifa, is it not that even though it is considered dead from the perspective of halakha because there is no possibility of long-term survival, nevertheless, if it is slaughtered, its slaughter purifies it? It does not cause ritual impurity like an unslaughtered animal, even though it may not be eaten. Here too, it is no different. And the Rabbis, who do not accept this claim, say: It is not similar to a tereifa, since a tereifa had a period of fitness before it became a tereifa. However, this animal that was born after eight months of pregnancy did not ever have a period of fitness.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讟专驻讛 诪讘讟谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛转诐 讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛


And if you say: With regard to an animal that was a tereifa from the womb and was born in that condition, what is there to say? It too never had a period of fitness. There is a distinction between the cases. There, with regard to a tereifa, there is slaughter in its type; here, with regard to a stillborn, there is no slaughter in its type, as there is no circumstance where slaughter of a stillborn animal is appropriate.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜 诇讗 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that any animal that survived for eight days after birth is presumed viable, or not? If you say that they disagree, the dilemma is: Is the halakha in accordance with his opinion, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion?


转讗 砖诪注 注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜


Come and hear proof from that which we learned: With regard to a calf that was born on a Festival, one may slaughter it on the Festival. Apparently, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 opinion is not accepted, and one need not wait eight days after the animal is born. The Gemara refutes this: With what are we dealing here? It is a case in which one is certain that its months of gestation were completed, and therefore, it is certainly not stillborn.


转讗 砖诪注 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜


Come and hear another proof from that which we learned: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who disagreed with regard to whether or not it is permitted to inspect firstborn animals for blemishes on a Festival, agree that if a firstborn animal was born with its blemish, it is considered prepared for use on the Festival. It is not deemed set-aside and an expert may examine it to determine whether or not it is a permanent blemish. Apparently, a firstborn animal may be slaughtered on the day of its birth. The Gemara refutes this proof as well: It is a case in which one is certain that its months of gestation were completed, and it is certainly not stillborn.


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Come and hear a solution to the dilemma, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha in this matter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Nonetheless, from the fact that the halakha was ruled in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, by inference, the Sages disagree with his ruling. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this the resolution to both dilemmas raised above.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讗讜 讗讻诇讜 讗专讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬 讛讜讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 砖驻讬讛拽 讜诪转 诪专 住讘专 讞讬 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪转 讛讜讗


Abaye said: With regard to a baby less than thirty days old that fell off a roof or was eaten by a lion, everyone agrees that he is considered to have been alive; it was a viable baby that died in the accident. Where they disagree is in a case where the baby yawned, i.e., breathed momentarily after birth, and then immediately died. This Master, the Rabbis, hold: The baby is considered to have been living, since it was born alive; and this Master holds: It is considered to have been born dead until it lives a month after its birth.


诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诇驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛讬讬讘讜诐


What practical difference is there whether or not the baby is considered to have been alive? The difference is to exempt the child鈥檚 mother from levirate marriage. If a man died with no children, and his wife was pregnant and a viable child was born, the woman is exempt from levirate marriage; however, if the child was born dead, the man is considered to have died childless, and his widow is obligated in levirate marriage.


谞驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讗讜 讗讻诇讜 讗专讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讘讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 注讬讙诇讗 转讬诇转讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讚砖讘注讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讬转专讞讬转讜 诇讬讛 注讚 诇讗讜专转讗 讛讜讛 讗讻诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that to say that if the child fell off a roof or was eaten by a lion, everyone agrees that it is considered to have been alive? Didn鈥檛 Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, happen to come to the house of the son of Rav Idi bar Avin, and he prepared for them a third-born calf on the seventh day after its birth. And they said to him: Had you waited to slaughter it until the evening, we would have eaten from it. Now that you did not wait, we shall not eat from it. Apparently, if a calf is slaughtered before it was alive for eight days and definitely viable, suspicion that it is stillborn remains; the same is true of a child who dies from an accident within thirty days of birth.


讗诇讗 讻砖驻讬讛拽 讜诪转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪转 讛讜讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讜讗讻诇讜 讗专讬 诪专 住讘专 诪转 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讞讬 讛讜讗


Rather, Abaye鈥檚 statement must be reformulated: When the baby yawned and died, everyone agrees that it is considered to have been dead from the outset. Where they disagree is in a case when it fell off a roof or was eaten by a lion: This Master, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds: It is considered to have been dead; and this Master holds that since it did not die on its own, it is considered to have been alive.


讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗转讬诇讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讘讙讜 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 砖讻讬讘 讬转讬讘 拽诪转讗讘讬诇 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讛 爪讜讜专讜谞讬转讗 拽讘注讬转 诇诪讬讻诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讬讛 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜


The Gemara relates: A baby was born to the son of Rav Dimi bar Yosef. Within thirty days the baby died. He sat and mourned over him. His father, Rav Dimi bar Yosef, said to him: Are you mourning because you wish to partake of the delicacies fed to mourners? The halakha deems a child that dies before thirty days stillborn, and one does not mourn over it. He said to him: I am certain that its months of gestation were completed.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬拽诇注 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬转专注 讘讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讘讙讜 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 诪转讗讘诇 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讬讛 诪专 诇讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讬讛 砖讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜


The Gemara similarly relates that Rav Ashi happened to come to Rav Kahana鈥檚 house. A matter befell him, i.e., his child died within thirty days of its birth. Rav Ashi saw him and observed that he was sitting and mourning over him. He said to him: Doesn鈥檛 the Master hold in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that only a child who lived for thirty days is not considered stillborn? He said to him: I am certain that its months of gestation were completed and he is not to be considered a stillborn.


讗讬转诪专 诪转 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讜注诪讚讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗


It was stated that the Sages discussed the following question: What is the ruling in a case where a baby died within thirty days after birth, leaving its mother a childless widow, and before they decided whether or not she was obligated in levirate marriage, she stood and was betrothed to another? Ravina said in the name of Rava:


讗诐 讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗 讞讜诇爪转 讗诐 讗砖转 讻讛谉 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 讞讜诇爪转


If she is the wife of an Israelite, meaning she became betrothed to an Israelite, who may marry a woman who has undergone 岣litza, she performs 岣litza due to uncertainty. Given that the child may have been stillborn and therefore never considered alive, in which case she would be obligated to undergo levirate marriage or perform 岣litza, by performing 岣litza, she removes any doubt and can remain with her new husband. However, if she is the wife of a priest, she does not perform 岣litza, as if she were to perform 岣litza she would be prohibited to her husband the priest. Since there are those who hold that that the baby is considered alive from the moment of its birth, based on that opinion, she is exempt from performing 岣litza, after the fact.


讜专讘 砖专讘讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 讞讜诇爪转


Rav Sherevya said in the name of Rava: Both this, the woman married to an Israelite, and that, the woman married to a priest, perform 岣litza, as the prohibition against marrying a woman not released from her bond of levirate marriage is a stringent one, and the fact that her husband is a priest is not taken into consideration.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讘讗讜专转讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 诇爪驻专讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖专讬转讜讛 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚转砖专讜 转专讘讗:


Ravina said to Rav Sherevya: In the evening Rava indeed said so, as you said; however, in the morning he retracted his statement, and that is what I cited. Rav Sherevya, however, did not accept this explanation, and said: Did you permit the wife of a priest without 岣litza, despite the fact that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel deems the baby stillborn unless he survives to the age of thirty days? Since you have violated his ruling, may it be God鈥檚 will that you continue along this path and permit the eating of forbidden fat.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诇讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讝讻专 讛讜讗 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讘注专讻讬谉 讬注专讱


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda permits circumcising a hermaphrodite on Shabbat. Rav Sheizvi said that Rav 岣sda said: Not with regard to all matters did Rabbi Yehuda say that a hermaphrodite is considered a male; it was only with regard to circumcision, as if you say so, that the legal status of a hermaphrodite is that of a male in every sense, then even with regard to vows of valuation, he should be valuated.


讜诪谞诇谉 讚诇讗 诪讬注专讱 讚转谞讬讗 讛讝讻专 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗讬砖 讗讘诇 讬讛讗 讘注专讱 讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讝讻专 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住


And from where do we derive that he is not valuated? As it was taught in the Sifra, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus, with regard to the verse: 鈥淭hen your valuation shall be for the male from the age of twenty years until the age of sixty years, your valuation shall be fifty shekel of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 27:3). The Sages inferred: 鈥淭he male鈥 means the definite male but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. I might have thought that these shall not be valuated according to the valuation of a man, but shall be valuated according to the valuation of a woman. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭he male,鈥 and in the following verse: 鈥淎nd if she is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels鈥 (Leviticus 27:4), indicating: Only a definite male or a definite female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, which are categorized as neither male nor female.


Scroll To Top