Yevamot

a full period of seven days. But, surely, Luda'ah learned, 'The day of a child's recovery is like the day of his birth'.  Does not this mean that as in respect of the day of his birth no full period is required  so is no full period required in respect of the day of his recovery? — No; the day of his recovery is superior to the day of his birth. For, whereas in respect of the day of his birth no full period is required.  in respect of the day of his recovery a full period is required. R. Papa replied:  Where, for instance, the child had a pain in his eye and recovered  in the meantime.  Raba replied:  Where, for instance, his father and mother were confined in prison.  R. Kahana son of R. Nehemiah replied:  Where, for instance, the child was a tumtum  who in the meantime  was operated upon and was found to be a male. R. Sherabia replied:  'Where, for instance, the child put forth his head out of the forechamber [of the uterus]'.  But can such a child survive? Surely it was taught: As soon as the child emerges into the air of the world the closed organ  is opened and the opened  is closed,  for otherwise he could not survive even for one hour!  — Here we deal with a case where the heat of the fever sustained him. Whose fever? If 'his own fever' be suggested, he should, if such was the case, be allowed a full period of seven days!  — It means, where the fever of his mother sustained him. And if you prefer I might say that the statement  applies only when the child does not cry. When, however, it cries it undoubtedly survives. R. Johanan stated in the name of R. Bana'ah: An uncircumcised [Israelite] is eligible to receive sprinkling;  for so we find that our ancestors  received sprinkling  while they were still uncircumcised, since it is said, And the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month,  but on the tenth they were not circumcised owing to the fatigue of the journey; when, then, [could the sprinkling] have been performed?  Obviously  while they were still uncircumcised.  But is it not possible that they prepared no Paschal lamb at all? — This suggestion cannot be entertained at all, since it is written, And they kept the Passover.  Mar Zutra demurred: It is possible that it  was a paschal lamb that was prepared in uncleanness!  — R. Ashi retorted: It was explicitly taught: They were circumcised, they performed their ritual ablutions, and they prepared their paschal lambs in a state of cleanness. Rabbah b. Isaac stated in the name of Rab: The commandment of uncovering the corona at circumcision  was not given to Abraham; for it is said, At that time the Lord said unto Joshua: 'Make thee knives of flint etc.'  But is it not possible [that this applied to] those who were not previously circumcised; for it is written, For all the people that came out were circumcised,  but all the people that were born etc.?  — If so,  why the expression. 'Again!' Consequently  it must apply to the uncovering of the corona.  Why, then,  the expression, 'A second time?'  — To compare the termination of the circumcision with its commencement; as the commencement of the circumcision is essential  so is the termination of circumcision  essential;  for we learned, 'These are the shreds which render circumcision invalid: Flesh which covers the greater part of the corona; and [a priest whose circumcision was so defective] is not permitted to eat terumah'; and Rabina, or it might be said, R. Jeremiah b. Abba, stated in the name of Rab: Flesh which covers the greater part of the height of the corona. Why were they not circumcised in the wilderness? — If you wish I might say: Because of the fatigue of the journey;