Sifra 5.0.2

Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 1

1) ("And on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin.") I might think either in the daytime or at night; it is, therefore, written "the day" — the day and not the night. This tells me (only) that one circumcised on the eighth day must be circumcised in the daytime. Whence do I derive the same for one who is circumcised on the ninth day or the tenth day or the eleventh day or on any other day? From "and on the day."

2) A certain disciple said before R. Akiva: ("and on the day") must be stated (for a different reason, and cannot be used for the above derivation). For if it were written "and she shall be tamei seven days and on the eighth he shall circumcise," I might think (that there is a combination here of) seven (for tumah) and eight (for circumcision), so that circumcision takes place on the fifteenth day. It must, therefore, be written "and on the day" (i.e., on the day after the seventh day). R. Akiva responded: "You have dived into mighty waters and come up with a shard!" Is it not already written (Bereshith 17:12): "And at eight days old there shall be circumcised unto you every male throughout your generations!"

3) "and on the day": We are hereby taught that all of the day is valid for circumcision, but "the zealous are quick to do mitzvoth, as it is written (Bereshith 22:3): "And Abraham rose early in the morning" (for the binding of Isaac) "and he (himself) saddled his ass." "on the eighth day he shall circumcise," even on the Sabbath. And how am I to fulfill (Shemoth 31:14): "Those who desecrate it shall die"? With all of the other labors, other than that of circumcision. — But perhaps I am to fulfill "Those who desecrate it shall die" even with circumcision. And how am I to fulfill "on the eighth day he shall circumcise"? Except on the Sabbath. It is, therefore, written (to negate this) "and on the day," (to connote) even on the Sabbath.

4) "he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin": though there be a leprous lesion upon it. How, then, am I to fulfill" (Devarim 24:8): "Be heedful of the plague-spot of leprosy"? Except in the instance of circumcision. — But perhaps I am to fulfill "Be heedful of the plague-spot of leprosy" even with circumcision. And how am I to fulfill "he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin"? When there is no leprous lesion. It is, therefore, written (to negate this) "the flesh," even if there is a leprous lesion upon it.

5) "his foreskin": Only when it is clearly (a mitzvah to circumcise) does circumcision countermand the Sabbath, and not when (its being a mitzvah) is in doubt. "his foreskin": Only when it is clearly (a mitzvah to circumcise) does circumcision countermand the Sabbath, and not when the child is a hermaphrodite. R. Yehudah says: A hermaphrodite countermands the Sabbath, and not circumcising (a hermaphrodite) is subject to kareth. "his foreskin": Only when it is clearly (a mitzvah to circumcise) does circumcision countermand the Sabbath, and not when the child was born at twilight (of the Sabbath, it being possible that the birth was on Friday.) "his foreskin": Only when it is clearly (a mitzvah to circumcise) does circumcision countermand the Sabbath, and not when the child is born circumcised. For Beth Shammai say: It is necessary to cause the blood of the covenant to drip from him, and Beth Hillel say: It is not necessary.

6) R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ on the necessity of causing the blood of the covenant to drip from one who is born circumcised, it being possible that his foreskin is "sunken." Where do they differ? In the instance of one who was proselytized circumcised. Beth Shammai say: It is necessary to cause the blood of the covenant to drip from him, and Beth Hillel say: It is not necessary.

7) "And thirty days (and three days shall she abide in the blood of cleanliness"): I might think, either consecutive or scattered; it is, therefore, written "thirty day" (lit.) — Just as one day is consecutive, so are thirty. I might then think that the thirty are consecutive, but the three may be either consecutive or scattered; it is, therefore, written "and thirty days and three days" — Just as the thirty are consecutive, so the three are consecutive. Why need "thirty-three days" be written? (i.e., Since we find that the cleanliness days for a female are doubled, those for a female being sixty-six (viz. Devarim 12:5), we understand that those for a male must be thirty-three.) I might reason: If for a female, for which the days of uncleanliness are many (fourteen), the days of cleanliness are many (sixty-six), than for a male, for which the days of uncleanliness are few (seven), how much more so should the days of cleanliness be many! It is, therefore, written "thirty-three days." "she shall abide": to include a woman who experienced labor pains (and bleeding) in the midst of the eleven days (separating her niddah times) as being clean of zivah uncleanliness, (the assumption being that the bleeding was caused by the contractions and not by the zivah). I might think that she would likewise be clean if she experienced this in the midst of her niddah time; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:2) "(any blood that she sees) in (the time of) her niddah flow, she shall be unclean." ("And thirty-three days she shall abide in) the blood of cleanliness": Even if she sees blood (in that period) she is clean.

8) (Vayikra 12:4) "All that is holy she shall not touch": I might think even (second-) tithe, (which is called "holy" [viz. Vayikra 27:30]); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:4)" and into the sanctuary she shall not come." Just as (entering the sanctuary in a state of tumah) is liable to "taking of the soul" (kareth), so (eating) "holy" (terumah, in a state of tumah) is liable to "taking of the soul" (death at the hands of Heaven, viz. Vayikra 22:9), to exclude the tithe. — But perhaps: Just as one who enters the sanctuary in a state of tumah is liable to kareth, so one who eats "holy" in a state of tumah is liable to kareth, to exclude terumah, (which is liable to death at the hands of Heaven.) It is, therefore, written "All that is holy," to include terumah. — But perhaps: Just as (eating) "holy" involves touching, so (entering) the sanctuary must involve touching (it). Whence is it derived (that he is liable for entering it even) if he does not touch it, (as when he enters in a box)? From "and into the sanctuary she shall not come" (— in any event). "until the fulfillment of the days of her purification": to include a woman who bears a female (in the prohibitions against entering the sanctuary and eating consecrated food).