פֿאַרבונדענע פּסוקים אויף ויקרא 12:2

Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, if a woman carries seed and gives birth to a male⁷¹Lev. 13:1. Sifra TazriaˋIntroduction (5); another version of Sifra in Midrash Haggadol Lev., ed A. Steinsalz, Jerusalem 1976, pp. 313–314.. What does the verse imply? Since it is said, she shall be impure for seven days,⁷²Lev. 13:2.and on the eighth day one shall circumcise, I understand that a live birth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth. From where that a stillbirth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth? Rebbi Jehudah said, I am presenting an argument de minore ad majus. Since a live birth, who does not make impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him⁷³According to Pene Mosheh, this refers to multiple births if one of the fetuses is dead., [or who comes with his mother,]⁷⁴Unnecessary addition by the corrector. into a tent⁷⁵A live birth causes his mother to be impure for seven days; after this time she may remove her impurity at any time by immersion in a miqweh. A stillbirth causes impurity of the dead not only by touch but also by being under the same “tent” and requires the purification rite of the ashes of the Red Cow described in Num. 19., the stillbirth who makes impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him, [or who comes with his mother,]⁷⁴Unnecessary addition by the corrector. into a tent, it is only logical that he should make his mother impure by the impurity of birth. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument de minore ad majus. As a consequence, since a live birth purifies his mother⁷⁶After the impurity of the first 7 days, the next 33 days for a male or 66 days for a female no genital discharge of the mother induces biblical impurity., also the stillbirth should purify his mother? Since I cannot prove it by an argument de minore ad majus, [therefore} the Torah said a male, to include the stillbirth⁷⁷Since the mention of a female in v. 5 implies that the preceding verses refer to a male, the explicit mention of “male” is unnecessary. It is concluded that the verses refer to any fetus recognizably male..