Halakhah su Levitico 12:78

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.

The commandment to circumcise: [Parshat] Lekh Lekha [has] one positive commandment, and that is the commandment to circumcise; as it is stated (Genesis 17:10), "This is My covenant which you shall keep, between you and I, and with your descendants after you, circumcise all males." And [the commandment] is repeated in the Order of Eesha ki Tazria, as it is stated (Leviticus 12:3), "And on the eighth day circumcise the flesh of his foreskin." There are many commandments which are repeated in many places in the Torah; and all of them are necessary as the sages explained (Shabbat 132a and Shabbat 135a). And the content of this commandment is that we cut the foreskin that covers the head of the member and then tearing the sorting skin which is below it so that the glans of the member will be exposed. As is known to those that understand, the completion of the form of man comes with the removal of this foreskin which is extraneous.

We offer two explanations for why the Torah, according to the Ramban, granted such permission to our ancestors. One possibility is that this permission demonstrates the principle of Yalta (Chullin 109b) that for everything forbidden there is a permitted counterpart. The examples he offers include cheilev (fat) of a chayah (a non-domesticated animal) which is the kosher counterpart of the forbidden fat (cheilev) of a beheimah (domesticated animal), a part of the permitted shivuta fish (which tastes like pig) which is the counterpart to non-kosher pig and dam tohar (see Vayikra 12:1-8) which is the counterpoint to dam niddah.

The Gemara (Shabbat 130-134) teaches that we perform the milah even on Shabbat if that day is the eighth day of the baby's life. The Gemara (Shabbat 135) notes that this applies only to a baby born in a manner where the mother is rendered ritually impure (as described in Vayikra 12:1-8). Thus, we do not circumcise a baby that was born by caesarean section on Shabbat (see Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 266:10), as a mother becomes ritually impure at birth only upon a "conventional" birth.

The Gemara (Chagigah 16a) discusses a strange situation in which a woman becomes pregnant due to visiting a bathouse that previously was used by a man. Commenting on this Gemara, Rabbeinu Channaneil writes, "This is a miraculous act, and a woman does not become ritually impure upon this type of conception because it does not meet the specifications of the Pasuk [Vayikra 12:1] 'when a woman conceives and gives birth.'" Thus, according to Rabbeinu Channaneil, we may not circumcise the child conceived by bathhouse insemination on Shabbat.

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).

This latter argument is predicated on the assumption that since circumcision can be performed subsequent to the eighth day it is not deemed to be a mizvah overet. Support for Rabbi Breisch's view with regard to this point may be found in Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Hayyim 687:5, who explains a ruling of an earlier authority on the basis of this thesis. It is, however, at variance with the opinion of R. Zevi Benjamin Auerbach, Naḥal Eshkol, II, 40:12 (Halberstadt, 5628), p. 135. A question was posed to Naḥal Eshkol by a mohel who lived in a hamlet in which there was no minyan on Rosh ha-Shanah. Each year this individual was wont to journey to a distant town in order to pray and to hear the blowing of the shofar. One year a birth occurred a week before Rosh ha-Shanah. The mohel was placed in a quandary. Should he forego the opportunity to hear the blowing of the shofar in order to perform the circumcision or should the circumcision be delayed in order that he might hear the blowing of the shofar? Naḥal Eshkol rules that the mohel should remain at home in order to perform the circumcision. This ruling is cited and endorsed by R. Shalom Mordecai Schwadron, Da'at Torah 584:4. Naḥal Eshkol considers the possibility that milah might not be considered a mizvah overet because it may be performed subsequently while the blowing of the shofar is clearly a mizvah overet. He dismisses this contention as "something strange" because the commandment to perform circumcision on the eighth day cannot be delayed. This position is based upon the recognition that Leviticus 12:3 establishes an additional obligation beyond the mizvah of circumcision; viz., an obligation to perform circumcision on the eighth day specifically. Delay of circumcision beyond the eighth day constitutes abrogation of this latter mizvah. Accordingly, argues Naḥal Eshkol, although circumcision itself is not a mizvah overet, circumcision on the eighth day does constitute a mizvah overet.

Of particular moment is a later responsum authored by Rabbi Breisch, Helkat Ya'akov, III, no. 36, in which Rabbi Breisch suggests that circumcision may be performed on the eighth day in a manner which will leave sufficient foreskin for subsequent plastic surgery. The mizvah of milah requires that circumcision be performed in a manner which exposes the entire glans including the corona or crown. Hokhmat Adam, Binat Adam, klal 149, and Hamudei Daniel, cited by Pitḥei Teshuvah, Yoreh De'ah 264:13, rule that the foreskin covering this area must be entirely removed by excision. This is also the opinion of R. Judah Asad, Teshuvot Maharya, no. 250; Teshuvot Yeshu'ot Malko, Yoreh De'ah, no. 42; and R. Abraham Dov Kahana-Shapiro, Dvar Avraham, I, no. 27, sec. 2. Other authorities including Divrei Hayyim, II, nos. 114-118; R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek, nos. 101-102; Hatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah, no. 249; Maharam Schick, Yoreh De'ah, no. 245 and Maharsham, I, no. 27, disagree and maintain that the essence of milah is simply exposure of the glans which may be accomplished by retracting the foreskin in a manner which leaves the glans exposed. R. Mordecai Jaffe, Teshuvot Maharam Yafo, no. 12, discusses both possibilities and states that he is unable to resolve the question definitively. The question hinges primarily upon the meaning of the Hebrew word "yimol—he shall circumcise" (Lev. 12:3), i.e., whether the word means "he shall cut" or whether its connotation is "he shall remove" as is the apparent meaning of the term in Deut. 10:16 and Deut. 30:6.

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."

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 the conception of a female indicates coldness in the constitution of the female. And in coldness, excesses abound; and hence she needs two weeks for the cleansing of her body. And so did I find the matter after I wrote this [in] Ramban, may his memory be blessed, and these are his words (Ramban on Leviticus 12:4): "Because the constitution of the female is cold and wet, and the dampness in the womb of the mother is very great and cold. And therefore, she gave birth to a female. And hence she requires a big cleansing because of the multitude of dampness and the blood decaying in her and because of her coldness. And it is well-known that the cold sicknesses require a longer time to be cleansed than the hot ones." To here [are his words].

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].

That one impure not eat consecrated foods: That one impure not eat consecrated foods until he immerses and his sun sets and - if he is an impure one that requires atonement - until he brings his atonement, as it is stated (Leviticus 12:4), "every consecrated thing shall he not touch." And the language of Sifra, Shemini Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 1:8, "'Every consecrated thing shall he not touch and to the sanctuary shall he not come' - just like the one who enters the sanctuary in impurity is punished excision, so too one who eats consecrated foods in impurity is punished excision." And we say in Makkot 14b, "'Every consecrated thing shall he not touch' is a warning for the eater. You say it is for the eater or is it only for the one who touches, etc.," as it is [found] there.

The law of the sacrifice of the woman that has given birth: That a woman who has given birth bring a sacrifice when the days of her purification for a son or a daughter are completed. And it is a one-year old lamb for a burnt-offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin-offering. And if she is poor, she brings two doves or two young pigeons - one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin offering, as it is stated (Leviticus 12:6), "On the completion of the days of purification for a son or daughter, she shall bring, etc." And she is lacking atonement until she brings her sacrifice.

It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] in order that she be aroused by action to give thanks to God, blessed be He, who saved her from the pangs of her birth, which is a miraculous thing. And also they, may their memory be blessed, said (Niddah 31b) that a woman rushes to swear at the time of her throes that she will no longer [have sexual relations with] a man. And therefore she requires atonement, and hence her sacrifice is called a sin-offering, and it is stated about her, "and the priest shall atone for her" (Leviticus 12:8).

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).

That an impure person not enter the entire Temple: That any impure person is prevented from entering the entire Temple - the likeness of which in the [future] generations is all of the yard from Nikanor Gate and inwards, which is the beginning of the yard of the Israelites - as it is stated (Numbers 5:3), "and they will not render your camps impure" - meaning to say the camp of the Divine Presence. And the proof of this being among the negative commandments is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara (Makkot 14b), "One who enters the Temple while impure [is liable for excision], as both the punishment and the warning are written [in the Torah.] The punishment is written (Numbers 19:13) 'the Tabernacle of God he has defiled and he shall be cut off.' The warning is written (Numbers 5:3) 'and they will not render your camps impure.'" And they also said in the Mekhilta (Sifrei Zuta on Bamidbar 5:3), "'Command the Children of Israel, and they shall send from the camp' - [that is] a positive commandment. From where do we derive [the] negative commandment? Since it is written, 'and they will not render your camps impure.'" And they said in Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Section 1 1), "Since it is stated (Leviticus 15:31), 'And you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanliness[...],' I might understand, whether from its midst or from its back," meaning to say that one who approaches the Temple from its back while he is impure would be liable for excision; "it is, therefore, written in respect to a yoledet (a woman after childbirth) (Leviticus 12:4), 'and into the sanctuary she shall not come,'" meaning to say the expression of coming is only about one who enters from the front. And there it is elucidated that the law of a yoledet and the other [cases of] impurity are the same regarding this.