Halakhah su Levitico 12:2

And in tractate Yoma, in the chapter “The Appointee,”¹²⁴B. Yoma 30a. they said: “It is halakhah at a meal, that a person who leaves the dining room to urinate washes one of his hands and re-enters. But if he spoke with his companion [while he was out],¹²⁵That is, he didn’t just relieve himself and come right back, but socialized for a bit while he was out. he washes both hands and returns, he does not wash outside, but rather inside, returns to and sits down at his place at the table, and turns his face back towards his fellow guests.¹²⁶I.e., to confirm through eye contact that his fellow guests saw that he properly rewashed before rejoining them at the table. Indeed, that’s precisely the intent of the sequence of most of these particular actions prescribed for a guest returning to the table after urinating, according to Chavel, p. 473. Rav Hisda said, ‘They meant this only for someone returning to drink, but in if he’s returning to eat, he washes outside and re-enters. It is known that he has a delicate sensitivity about such things.¹²⁷Because you can assume that everyone washes their hands after peeing before eating (with their hands) without having to see it, while you can’t assume this for drinking, since as long as it’s from a cup, some might not care how clean their hands are.

And thus one needs to say words of Torah over the table, because even though one has said all the blessings he is required to say, and will eventually conclude with birkat ha-mazon, saying birkat ha-mazon will not exempt him from his requirement unless he speaks words of Torah. And so our rabbis said: “Every table over which they ate and said words of Torah, it is as if they ate from the table of God [Makom], as it is said, ‘He said to me, This is the table before the Lord,’”¹³⁹M. Avot 3:3, quoting Ez 41:22. that is to say, when they spoke over it words of Torah, then “this table is before the Lord.”¹⁴⁰Ez. 41:22. “And every table over which they ate and did not say over it words of Torah, it is as if they ate from the sacrifices of the dead. As it is said, ‘For all tables were full of vomit, no place [bli Makom] without excrement,”¹⁴¹M. Avot 3:3, quoting Is 28:8. that is to say, the words of Makom, i.e., God, are not mentioned there.¹⁴²R. Bahya, following M. Avot’s midrashic interpretation, also creatively attributes the use of the later rabbinic term for God – Ha-Makom – “The Place” to Isaiah’s Biblical Hebrew “bli makom,” i.e., “without God.” And all this is to instruct you that humankind [adam] was not created for eating and drink, but rather to engage in Torah. For this is what Scripture meant when it said, “for man [adam] was born for toil [‘amal].”¹⁴³Job 5:7. Our sages interpreted this in a midrash:¹⁴⁴B. Sanhedrin 99b. “’For man was born for toil’ – I don’t know if this is toil by mouth, or if it’s toiling in the Torah. When Scripture says, “The appetite of a toiler [‘amel] toils [‘amlah] for him, because his mouth craves it,”¹⁴⁵Prov 16:26. toil by the mouth is being spoken about. But this is exactly how I fulfill “For man was born for toil” when it refers to toiling in Torah, so I say it means “for toiling in Torah he was born.”¹⁴⁶In other words, R. Bahya has it both ways, since you use your mouth to “toil in Torah,” that is, by speaking words of Torah. And so they said in another midrash: Just as in the Creation, He created domestic and wild animals, birds, reptiles and swarming things, and after that created Adam, as it is said, “And God created Adam in his image,”¹⁴⁷Gen 1:27. so it was written in the Torah “This you shall eat” and “this you shall not eat,”¹⁴⁸Lev 11:9,4. and after that Adam was born. This is why Scripture connects this parashah (“Shemini”) with the next one that begins “When a woman at childbirth bears a male,”¹⁴⁹Lev 12:2. to say it is for toil in Torah he was born. And thus right after that it is written, “On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,”¹⁵⁰Ibid. 12:3. teaching that even before he was formed the Torah and commandments encircled him, and afterwards he was born. This is what it meant when it said, “When a woman at childbirth bears a male”¹⁵¹Lev 12:2. – that The Holy One Blessed be He imposed commandments before him and after him, and he is in the middle.¹⁵²In other words, even the syntax of the vv. 12:2-3 in Leviticus “sandwiches” the birth of a man between two commandments, one directed to his mother giving birth to him, the second, after he’s born, that he himself be circumcised. In other words, the man’s birth is literally surrounded by Torah and commandments. Circumscribed (and circumcised) by the Torah from his birth – of course that “proves” that’s what he was born for!This is what it meant when it said, “For man was born for toil”¹⁵³Job 5:7.– that for toil in Torah he was born.

We find a declaration of Rav Chisda (Yevamot 69b) to the effect that the daughter of a kohen widowed shortly after marriage to an Israelite may partake of terumah during the first forty days following consummation of her marriage despite the fact that she has become a widow in the interim. Permission to eat terumah is a privilege accorded an unmarried daughter of a kohen or a widowed daughter who has no children. The concern in the case presented to Rav Chisda is that the widow, unknown to herself, may be pregnant with child, in which case terumah would be forbidden to her. Rav Chisda argues, if the widow is not pregnant there is no impediment to her partaking of terumah; if she is pregnant the embryo is considered to be "mere water" until after the fortieth day of pregnancy. Therefore she may continue to eat terumah for a full forty days after her marriage. The ruling of Rav Chisda indicates that fetal development within the initial forty days of gestation is insufficient to warrant independent standing in the eyes of Halakhah. Another source for this distinction is the Mishnah (Niddah 30a), which declares that a fetus aborted less than forty days following cohabitation does not engender the impurity of childbirth ordained by Leviticus 12:2–5.²⁹It is perhaps of interest to note that Aristotle (De Historia Animalium, VII, 3) declares that the male fetus is endowed with a rational soul on the fortieth day of gestation and the female on the eightieth. This distinction corresponds not only to the respective periods of impurity prescribed by Leviticus but to the opinion of R. Yishmael in the Mishnah, Niddah 30a, who is of the opinion that the prescribed periods of impurity correspond to the number of days required for the animation of the respective sexes and therefore declares that no impurity results from the miscarriage of a female embryo of less than eighty days. Aristotle’s representation of animation as occurring on the fortieth or eightieth day, depending upon the sex of the fetus, was later incorporated in both Canon and Justinian law. See Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits, Jewish Medical Ethics (New York, 1959), p. 175. Similarly, according to Mishneh le-Melekh, Hilkhot Tumat Met 2:1, the defilement associated with a dead body is not attendant upon an embryo expelled during the first forty days of gestation. Furthermore, in the opinion of many authorities, a fetus cannot acquire property prior to the fortieth day of development.³⁰Shakh, Ḥoshen Mishpat 210:2; Ẓofnat Pa‘aneaḥ, no. 59.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo 3:98:4)²²This responsum appears as 124:1 in the Mahadura Tinyana of the Minchat Shlomo. questions whether a boy conceived through artificial insemination should have his brit milah on Shabbat.²³Rav Shlomo Zalman bases his concern on a passage from the Gemara (Shabbat 135a) and a comment of Rabbeinu Chananeil (Chagigah 16a). The Gemara rules that we may circumcise on Shabbat only when the birth matches the Torah’s description: “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a boy” - in a natural manner, then he shall be circumcised “on the eighth day” (Vayikra 12:2-3) - even on Shabbat. A baby born by Caesarean delivery, however, may not be circumcised on Shabbat. Rav Hershel Schachter (in a lecture at Yeshiva University) ruled in practice against circumcising such a baby on Shabbat, and Rav J. David Bleich (Tradition 35:2) asserts that the same applies to a child who is conceived through in vitro fertilization.²⁴Rav Bleich permits the parents to tell people that they have postponed the brit due to jaundice, or some other reason, in order to avoid publicly revealing how the baby was conceived. However, Rav Ovadia Yosef (comments to Nishmat Avraham vol. 4 p. 226; Yalkut Yosef, Sova Semachot 2:151-152) permits circumcising a baby conceived through artificial insemination or IVF on Shabbat.²⁵He reasons that in a Caesarean birth (see footnote 23), the birth process itself is unnatural, whereas artificial insemination involves an unusual conception followed by a completely natural birth. Rav Gidon Weitzman reports that Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (addressing the 5762 Machon Puah conference) permitted circumcising a baby on Shabbat if he was conceived through IVF. Rav Weitzman also reports that Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv permitted circumcising a boy on Shabbat who was conceived through intrauterine insemination (IUI). Parents should ask their rabbi if they must discretely inform the mohel of the baby’s background (as the mohel probably does not know the conception’s circumstances).

Another possible factor militating against circumcision on Shabbat in the cases under discussion is the element of artificiality in the birth process. Children whose birth occurs as a result of Caesarean section may not be circumcised on the Sabbath. It may be argued that children born following medically induced labor may be equated in status with children delivered by means of Caesarean section. Rabbi Pirutinsky dismisses this contention as being unfounded. The provision forbidding Shabbat circumcision of children born by Caesarean section is not predicated upon the fact that this procedure constitutes an "unnatural" form of childbirth. The Gemara, Shabbat 135a, cites Leviticus 12:2–3, "If a woman conceive and give birth to a male child, she shall be unclean seven days. … And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." On the basis of the juxtaposition of these two verses the Gemara concludes that only in cases when the mother is subject to the laws of impurity associated with childbirth is there an overriding necessity for circumcision to be performed on the eighth day even when that day coincides with the Sabbath. Since Caesarean delivery in and of itself does not result in the ritual impurity which follows normal chilbirth, the child born in this manner may not be circumcised on Shabbat. There is no question whatsoever that artificially induced delivery does result in such ritual impurity. Hence the element of artificiality present in medically induced delivery does not preclude circumcision on the Sabbath. Rabbi Pirutinsky concludes that there is no reason to postpone Shabbat circumcision of infants whose delivery has either been hastened or induced by medical means.

The commandment of the matter of the impurity of a woman who has given birth: To render a woman who has given birth impure; meaning to say that when a woman gives birth she be impure for her husband - and all the more so for pure items - seven days for a male and two weeks for a female, as it is stated (Leviticus 12:2, Leviticus 12:5), "If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she will be impure for seven days, etc. And if she gives birth to a female, she will be impure for two weeks, etc."

And this commandment is practiced in every place and at all times regarding that women giving birth are impure. And one who transgresses it and has sexual relations with her volitionally during the time specified for prohibition - or even after the specified time, so long as she has not immersed - has violated this positive commandment, besides that he has violated a negative commandment, as with a menstruant. And [it is] like the matter that is written (Leviticus 12:2), "like the days of her menstrual illness, shall she be impure." And [so] he is liable for excision. If inadvertent, he is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering at the time of the [Temple].

The commandment of purification from tsaraat that it be with certain species: That purification from tsaraat - whether tsaraat of a person, a garment or a house - be with cedar wood, hyssop, wool dyed red, two birds and living water, and that he do with them everything that is written about the matter, as it is stated (Leviticus 14:2), "This is the law of the metsora, etc." to the end of the section. And three types of purifications are mentioned in the Torah, and these are them: Water, and this type, by water, includes the purification of every impurity - meaning to say it is impossible for any impure thing to emerge from impurity without water; and the second type is sprinkling water, and that is the type that is specific for the impurity of a dead body; and the third type, the cedar wood, hyssop, wool dyed red, two birds and living water, and it is the type that is specific for tsaraat. The Sages informed us of a bit of a hint in the matters of the purification of the metsora with these things. As they, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesikta D'Rav Kahanna 14) that the matter is to fix in the soul of the metsora that if, before the illness came to him, he was haughty-hearted like the cedar - by way of metaphor, since it is a tall tree - he should lower himself like the hyssop. It is said about the reason of the birds (Arakhin 16b) [that] he did an act of chattering - meaning to say, he spoke many words of evil speech - therefore, he must sacrifice birds that constantly chirp. And with the wool dyed red (shani tolaat), I do not know or remember anything that they, may their memory be blessed, said about it. And it is possible that it is also a hint that he should lower himself; and it would be a hint from its name [as it is called,] worm (tolaat).