If the word “bo” comes to exclude other situations, the Gemara asks about other times this word appeared and what these verses came exclude. The same types of questions that were asked on Rabbi Eliezer’s drasha regarding the geziera shava between Pesach and truma are asked about Rabbi Akiva who derived the halacha from “a man a man.” What each one do with the words that the other used to derive this halacha? Rabbi Chama Bar Ukva asked about a baby who was born and did not reach the age of eight days when the time came to sacrifice the Passover sacrifice – does this prevent the child from being rubbed with oil that is truma? They try to answer out of understanding a braita in a particular way, but then reject that answer and bring five other explanations for the braita, so there is no answer to the question. Rabbi Yochanan said that an uncircumcised male can be sprinkled with the red heifer waters as can be proven from the Jews who entered the land of Israel with Joshua and then purified, circumcised and then brought the Pesach sacrifice. It is clear from there that they did the first sprinkling (on day 3) when they were still uncircumcised because the circumcision was on the eleventh of the month and they sacrificed the Passover sacrifice on the 14th. The Gemara begins to discuss the circumcision they did. The first thing we learn is the law of priah was given then and they derive that from the verses.
This week’s learning is dedicated by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z”l, on her 25th yahrzeit. She left a profound legacy for her family and many devoted friends who continue to learn from her to this day. Yehi zichra baruch.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
This week’s learning is dedicated by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z”l, on her 25th yahrzeit. She left a profound legacy for her family and many devoted friends who continue to learn from her to this day. Yehi zichra baruch.
Yevamot 71
מְשׁוּמָּדוּת פּוֹסֶלֶת, וְאֵין מְשׁוּמָּדוּת פּוֹסֶלֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.
that apostasy [meshumadut] disqualifies, as the term “stranger” in this context is understood to refer to a Jew whose conduct makes him estranged from God, and he is disqualified from eating the Paschal lamb, but apostasy does not disqualify one from eating tithe.
״כׇּל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? בּוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, אֲבָל אוֹכֵל הוּא בְּמַצָּה וּמָרוֹר.
The Gemara asks further: If so, with regard to the phrase “from it” in the verse “No uncircumcised person shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:48), which again emphasizes “from it” and not from another item, why do I need it? The Gemara answers: This teaches that only from it, the Paschal lamb, one who is uncircumcised may not eat, but he eats matza and bitter herbs. One who is uncircumcised is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs on Passover, just like any other Jew.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״עָרֵל״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר״. דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עָרֵל״, מִשּׁוּם דִּמְאִיס. אֲבָל בֶּן נֵכָר, דְּלָא מְאִיס — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר״, מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם, אֲבָל עָרֵל, דְּלִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara continues: And it was necessary for the Torah to write the prohibition with regard to an uncircumcised man, and it was necessary for the Torah to write a separate prohibition with regard to any stranger. As, if the Merciful One had written only about an uncircumcised man, one might have thought that only for him is it prohibited to eat from the Paschal lamb because the foreskin is repulsive, but with regard to a stranger, who is not repulsive, say that it is not prohibited. And if the Merciful One had written only about any stranger, one might have concluded that only for him is it prohibited to eat from the Paschal lamb because his heart is not directed toward Heaven due to his apostasy, but with regard to an uncircumcised man, whose heart is directed toward Heaven, and it is only on account of unavoidable circumstances that he has not undergone circumcision, say that there is no prohibition against his eating the Paschal lamb. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.
״מִמֶּנּוּ״ ״מִמֶּנּוּ״. לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַבָּה אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק.
The Gemara asks: With regard to the phrase “of it” in the verse “Do not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water, but roasted in fire” (Exodus 12:9), and the phrase “of it” in the verse “And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning” (Exodus 12:10), both of which are terms of exclusion, why do I need them? The Gemara answers that they are necessary for that which Rabba said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said, as will be explained later (74a).
אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הֶעָרֵל. וְאֵימָא: לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאוֹנֵן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכׇל זָר״ — זָרוּת אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא אֲנִינוּת.
The Master said above in the baraita: Rabbi Akiva says that it is not necessary to derive by way of a verbal analogy the halakha that an uncircumcised priest may not eat teruma, as the verse says: “Any man [ish ish] from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things” (Leviticus 22:4). The repetition of the word ish comes to include an uncircumcised man and indicate that he too may not partake of consecrated food. The Gemara asks: But say that the verse comes to include an acute mourner in the prohibition against eating teruma. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The verse states: “No foreigner may eat of the holy thing” (Leviticus 22:10), which indicates: A disqualification stemming from foreignness I told you prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on acute mourning.
אֵימָא: וְלֹא עֲרֵלוּת? הָא כְּתִיב ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״.
The Gemara asks: Say that the verse comes to teach that a disqualification stemming from foreignness prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on the priest’s lack of circumcision, and so it should be permitted for an uncircumcised priest to partake of teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written: “Any man [ish ish],” where the repetition of the word ish comes to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition?
וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא עֲרֵלוּת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן: מַעֲשִׂים, כְּרוּתִים, בִּדְבַר, הָעֶבֶד. מְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה, וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפוֹ, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר, וּמִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating teruma and exclude an acute mourner? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that lack of circumcision should be included and should preclude a priest’s eating teruma, as the halakhot governing an uncircumcised man are stringent in several respects, as alluded to by the following mnemonic of key words: Acts; karetim; the divine word; the slave. The Gemara explains: An uncircumcised man lacks the act of circumcision, and this act is performed on his body; the failure to perform circumcision is punishable by karet; circumcision existed before the divine word was spoken at Mount Sinai, as the mitzva of circumcision had already been given to Abraham; and the lack of circumcision of one’s male children and slaves precludes one’s eating the Paschal lamb.
אַדְּרַבָּה: אֲנִינוּת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן: יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּכׇל שָׁעָה, וְנוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וְנָשִׁים, וְאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְתַקֵּן עַצְמוֹ!
The Gemara counters: On the contrary, acute mourning should be included and it should prevent a priest from eating teruma, as acute mourning is relevant at any time, it applies to both men and women, and it is not in the mourner’s power to render himself fit until after the deceased is buried.
הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן. רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ. אָמַר קְרָא ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בָּאִישׁ וְאֵינוֹ בָּאִשָּׁה — הָוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה עֲרֵלוּת.
The Gemara answers: These arguments for including an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition are more numerous. Rava said: Even without the rationale that these arguments are more numerous, you still cannot say that an acute mourner should be included and an uncircumcised priest should be excluded, as the verse states: “Any man [ish ish],” emphasizing maleness. Now, what matter applies to a man and not to a woman? You must say that it is lack of circumcision, and therefore it cannot be that the phrase comes to include acute mourning in the prohibition.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הַאי ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב שְׁמַעְיָא: לְאֵתוֹיֵי עַרְבִי מָהוּל וְגִבְעוֹנִי מָהוּל.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva do with this phrase: “A sojourner and a hired servant,” as it is not needed for the Paschal lamb? Rav Shemaya said: It serves to include a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Gibeonite in the prohibition against the eating of the Paschal lamb. Although they have been circumcised, it is prohibited for them to partake of the offering.
וְהָנֵי מוּלִין נִינְהוּ? וְהָא תְּנַן: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי נֶהֱנֶה לַעֲרֵלִים״ — מוּתָּר בְּעַרְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָסוּר בְּמוּלֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי נֶהֱנֶה לְמוּלִין״ — מוּתָּר בְּמוּלֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, וְאָסוּר בְּעַרְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל!
The Gemara poses a question: And are these considered circumcised? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 31b): If one vowed: The benefit that I might gain from the uncircumcised is konam to me, i.e., forbidden to me like consecrated property, then it is permitted for him to derive benefit from uncircumcised Jews, and it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world, as gentiles are considered uncircumcised even if they have their foreskins removed. And conversely, if he vowed: The benefit that I might gain from the circumcised is konam to me, it is permitted for him to derive benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world, as they are not considered circumcised, and it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from uncircumcised Jews. This indicates that the circumcision of gentiles is disregarded.
אֶלָּא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי גֵּר שֶׁמָּל וְלֹא טָבַל, וְקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל. וְקָסָבַר: צָרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית.
Rather, the phrase “a sojourner and a hired servant” comes to include in the prohibition against eating of the Paschal lamb a convert to Judaism who was circumcised but did not yet immerse in a ritual bath, and a child who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin. Although he does not have a foreskin, he is still seen as lacking the act of circumcision. And he, Rabbi Akiva, maintains that it is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of circumcision, in order to usher him into the covenant of Abraham, even though he has no foreskin that can be removed.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: גֵּר שֶׁמָּל וְלֹא טָבַל — גֵּר מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, וְקָסָבַר: קָטָן כְּשֶׁנּוֹלַד מָהוּל — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית.
And Rabbi Eliezer, who uses the words “a sojourner and a hired servant” for a verbal analogy, conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: A convert who was circumcised but did not yet immerse is a proper convert in every way. Therefore, the verse cannot come to exclude such an individual. And he maintains that in the case of a child who was born circumcised, it is not necessary to drip covenantal blood from him. Since he was born without a foreskin, no additional procedure is necessary.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַאי ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Eliezer do with this inclusive phrase “any man [ish ish]”? The Gemara answers: He maintains that the Torah spoke in the language of men, meaning that no special halakha is derived from this expression, as it is common biblical vernacular.
בָּעֵי רַב חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא: קָטָן עָרֵל מַהוּ לְסוּכוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה? עֲרֵלוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ מְעַכְּבָא, אוֹ לָא מְעַכְּבָא?!
Rav Ḥama bar Ukva raises a dilemma: With regard to an uncircumcised child who is less than eight days old and not yet fit for circumcision, what is the halakha with respect to anointing him with oil of teruma? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Does lack of circumcision not at its appointed time, meaning before the obligation of circumcision goes into effect, preclude the infant’s benefiting from teruma, as he has the status of one who is uncircumcised, or perhaps it does not preclude his benefiting from teruma, as he is not considered uncircumcised until the mitzva of circumcision is applicable?
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִילַת זְכָרָיו בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּה, וַעֲבָדָיו בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה. מִנַּיִן לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה, וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אָז״ ״אָז״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.
Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: I have derived only the halakha concerning the circumcision of one’s male children at the time of the preparation, i.e., the slaughter, of the Paschal lamb, as it is stated: “Let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it” (Exodus 12:48), and the halakha concerning the circumcision of one’s slaves at the time of the eating of the Paschal lamb, as it is stated: “But every man’s servant…when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat from it” (Exodus 12:44). From where do I derive that it is proper to apply the prohibition that was stated about this case to that case, and the prohibition that was said about that case to this case, i.e., that the circumcision of both one’s male children and one’s slaves is indispensable both at the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and at the time of its consumption? The tanna answers that the verse states the term “then” with regard to male children and the term “then” with regard to slaves as a verbal analogy.
בִּשְׁלָמָא עֲבָדָיו, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה וְלֵיתַנְהוּ בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּה, כְּגוֹן דְּזַבְנִינְהוּ בֵּינֵי בֵּינֵי.
The Gemara comments: Granted, with regard to one’s slaves you find a case where they are present at the time of eating but they were not present at the time of preparation; for example, if he purchased them in the meantime, i.e., they did not belong to him when the Paschal lamb was slaughtered but he bought them immediately afterward, before it was time to eat it.
אֶלָּא זְכָרָיו, דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה וְלֵיתַנְהוּ בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ — לָאו דְּאִתְיְלוּד בֵּין עֲשִׂיָּה לַאֲכִילָה? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: עֲרֵלוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ הָוְיָא עֲרֵלוּת!
However, with regard to his male children, how can you find a case where they are present at the time of eating, but they were not present at the time of preparation? Does it not involve a situation where they were born between the time of the Paschal lamb’s preparation and the time of its eating? Learn from this that lack of circumcision, even not at, i.e., before, its appointed time, is nevertheless considered lack of circumcision that prevents the father from partaking of the offering.
אָמַר רָבָא: וְתִסְבְּרָא? ״הִמּוֹל לוֹ כׇל זָכָר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, ״וְאָז יִקְרַב לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ״. וְהַאי לָאו בַּר מְהִילָא הוּא. אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁחֲלָצַתּוּ חַמָּה.
Rava said: And how can you understand it that way? How can you think that the lack of circumcision of a newborn child precludes his father’s eating from the Paschal lamb? Doesn’t the Merciful One state: “Let all his males be circumcised,” followed by “and then let him come near and keep it” (Exodus 12:48), and as this infant is not yet fit for circumcision he cannot possibly preclude the father’s partaking of the offering? Rather, with what case are we dealing here? With the case, for example, of a baby who was exempt from circumcision at the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb because he was sick with a high fever, and subsequently the fever left him and he recovered. In such a case, failure to immediately circumcise his son precludes the father’s eating from the Paschal lamb.
וְנִיתֵּוב לֵיהּ כׇּל שִׁבְעָה. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֲלָצַתּוּ חַמָּה — נוֹתְנִין לוֹ כׇּל שִׁבְעָה! דְּיָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ כׇּל שִׁבְעָה. וְנִימְהֲלֵיהּ מִצַּפְרָא! בָּעֵינַן
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the case is one of a child recovering from an illness, let us give him the full seven days that he needs to recuperate properly. As Shmuel said: In the case of a baby that was sick with a high fever, and subsequently the fever left him, one gives him a full seven days to heal and only then is he circumcised, but not before. The Gemara answers: The case is in fact one where we already gave him a full seven days to heal, but they culminated on the eve of Passover. The Gemara asks: But if the seven-day recovery period ended on the eve of Passover, why did the father wait until the time of eating the Paschal lamb, i.e., the first night of Passover? He should have circumcised him already in the morning, before the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb. The Gemara answers: We require
מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
that during the recovery period one must wait from the time the seven days began to the exact same time seven days later, i.e., seven complete twenty-four-hour periods. Therefore, if the child recovered in the afternoon of a particular day, one is required to wait until that same time of day a week later, and only then is he circumcised.
וְהָתָנֵי לוּדָאָה: יוֹם הַבְרָאָתוֹ כְּיוֹם הִוָּלְדוֹ. מַאי לָאו: מָה יוֹם הִוָּלְדוֹ לָא בָּעֵינַן מֵעֵת לְעֵת, אַף יוֹם הַבְרָאָתוֹ לָא בָּעֵינַן מֵעֵת לְעֵת?
The Gemara asks: Didn’t the Sage from Lod teach that the day of his healing is like the day of his birth? What, is it not that just as with regard to the day of his birth we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, so too, with regard to the day of his healing we need not wait from the time he heals to the same time seven days later?
לָא, עֲדִיף יוֹם הַבְרָאָתוֹ מִיּוֹם הִוָּלְדוֹ. דְּאִילּוּ יוֹם הִוָּלְדוֹ לָא בָּעֵינַן מֵעֵת לְעֵת, וְאִילּוּ יוֹם הַבְרָאָתוֹ בָּעֵינַן מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
The Gemara refutes this argument: No, the day of his healing is superior to the day of his birth: While from the day of his birth until circumcision we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, i.e., the child may be circumcised already at the start of the eighth day, from the day of his healing we need to wait seven complete days from the time he heals to the same time seven days later.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּכָאֵיב לֵיהּ עֵינֵיהּ לְיָנוֹקָא וְאִיתְּפַח בֵּינֵי וּבֵינֵי.
The Gemara suggests other circumstances where a male child may be present at the time of the eating of the Paschal lamb but absent at the time of its preparation. Rav Pappa said: This would take place, for example, if the baby’s eye hurt him on the eighth day following his birth, which occurred on the eve of Passover, and he recovered in the meantime between the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating. In the case of a minor ailment such as eye pain, circumcision is not performed as long as the pain persists, but it may be performed as soon as the child has recovered, without first waiting seven days.
רָבָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ חֲבוּשִׁין בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין.
Rava said: This would occur, for example, if the infant’s father and mother were incarcerated in a prison at the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb, and they slaughtered their offering by way of an agent, and there was no one available to circumcise the infant, and the parents were released from prison before the time for eating the Paschal lamb arrived.
רַב כָּהֲנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר: כְּגוֹן טוּמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע, וְנִמְצָא זָכָר בֵּינֵי וּבֵינֵי.
Rav Kahana, son of Rav Neḥemya, said: This would occur, for example, if the infant was a tumtum, one whose external sexual organs are indeterminate and it is unclear whether the infant is male or female, and in the meantime between the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating, he was torn open, his gender was revealed, and he was found to be a male, so that the obligation to circumcise him went into effect.
רַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹצִיא רֹאשׁוֹ חוּץ לַפְּרוֹזְדוֹר.
Rav Sherevya said: This would occur, for example, if seven days earlier the baby had already extended his head, but not the rest of his body, out of the corridor to his mother’s womb. In such a situation he is considered born, but he is fit for circumcision only after his entire body has emerged. If this occurs between the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating, the child’s father may not eat of the offering until he has circumcised his son.
וּמִי חָיֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם, נִפְתַּח הַסָּתוּם וְנִסְתַּם הַפָּתוּחַ. שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא כֵּן, אֵין יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת אֲפִילּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת!
The Gemara poses a question: But in a case such as this, can the child live for such a long period with only his head outside? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: Once a baby emerges into the air of the world, that which had been closed, the mouth and nostrils, open, and that which had been open, the umbilical cord, from which the child had previously received its sustenance, closes, as, if this did not occur it could not live for even an hour, as it has no other way to receive nutrition. If so, this child whose head alone emerged from his mother’s womb would certainly starve, as it cannot take in any sustenance.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דְּזַנְתֵּיהּ אִישָּׁתָא. אִישָּׁתָא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אִישָּׁתָא דִּידֵיהּ, אִי הָכִי כֹּל שִׁבְעָה בָּעֵי? אֶלָּא דְּזַנְתֵּיהּ אִישָּׁתָא דְּאִימֵּיהּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא מְעַוֵּי, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דִּמְעַוֵּי, מִחְיָיא חָיֵי.
The Gemara answers: With what case are we dealing here? It is, for example, a case where he was sustained by the heat of a fever and therefore did not need to eat. The Gemara asks: Whose fever? If we say it is his own fever, i.e., the baby himself had a fever, if so, it should be necessary to wait a full seven days after his entire body exits the womb before he can be circumcised, in accordance with the halakha governing an infant who was ill. Rather, it must be that he was sustained by his mother’s fever. And if you wish, say that this principle that a child cannot survive in such conditions applies only when he does not cry, but when he cries he can live, as his crying indicates that he has already started to breathe.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי בְּנָאָה: עָרֵל מְקַבֵּל הַזָּאָה, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בַּאֲבוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ הַזָּאָה כְּשֶׁהֵן עֲרֵלִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָעָם עָלוּ מִן הַיַּרְדֵּן בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן״.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Bena’a: An uncircumcised man may receive the sprinkling of the water mixed with the ashes of a red heifer in order to purify himself from ritual impurity imparted by a human corpse, as we do not say that this sprinkling is ineffective as long as he is uncircumcised. As we found that our forefathers received the sprinkling when they were uncircumcised, as it is stated: “And the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month” (Joshua 4:19), and the verses go on to relate that the men were all later circumcised before sacrificing the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth (see Joshua 5:10).
בַּעֲשָׂרָה לָא מְהִילִי, מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְאוֹרְחָא. הַזָּאָה אֵימַת עָבֵיד לְהוּ?! לָאו כְּשֶׁהֵן עֲרֵלִים?
The Gemara clarifies: On the tenth day itself they did not circumcise themselves due to the weariness caused by their journey. When, then, was the sprinkling done to them in order to remove the ritual impurity resulting from contact with a corpse, so that they would be fit to bring the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth? The first sprinkling must have taken place no later than the tenth, as there is a four-day waiting period between the first and second sprinklings. In that case, wasn’t the initial sprinkling performed when they were still uncircumcised? This proves that one who is uncircumcised may receive the sprinkling of the purification waters.
וְדִלְמָא לָא עֲבוּד פֶּסַח כְּלָל? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת הַפֶּסַח״.
The Gemara counters: But perhaps they did not sacrifice the Paschal lamb at all. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written: “And they kept the Passover” (Joshua 5:10), meaning they brought the Paschal lamb.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר זוּטְרָא: וְדִלְמָא פֶּסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה הָיָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי, תַּנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא: מָלוּ, וְטָבְלוּ, וְעָשׂוּ פִּסְחֵיהֶן בְּטׇהֳרָה.
Mar Zutra strongly objects to this: But perhaps it was a Paschal lamb that comes in a state of impurity? If the majority of the community is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, they may all sacrifice their Paschal lambs even though they are ritually impure, and there is no need for any sprinkling. Rav Ashi said to him: It is taught explicitly in a baraita that they circumcised themselves, immersed in a ritual bath, and performed the ritual of their Paschal lambs in a state of purity.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: לֹא נִיתְּנָה פְּרִיעַת מִילָה לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בָּעֵת הַהִיא אָמַר ה׳ אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עֲשֵׂה לְךָ חַרְבוֹת צֻרִים וְגוֹ׳״.
Rabba bar Yitzḥak said that Rav said: The mitzva of uncovering the corona during circumcision was not given to our Patriarch Abraham. The command given to Avraham included only the mitzva of circumcision itself, i.e., the removal of the foreskin, but not the uncovering of the corona, i.e., the folding back of the thin membrane that lies under the foreskin. As it is stated: “At that time the Lord said to Joshua: Make yourself knives of flint, and circumcise again the children of Israel a second time” (Joshua 5:2). Why was it necessary to circumcise them? Apparently, it is because before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, some of them had been circumcised in the manner of Abraham, without uncovering the corona, and therefore they needed to be circumcised a second time in accordance with the Torah law that requires uncovering the corona.
וְדִלְמָא הָנָךְ דְּלָא מְהוּל, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי מֻלִים הָיוּ כׇּל הָעָם הַיֹּצְאִים וְכׇל הָעָם הַיִּלֹּדִים וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara asks: How may it be inferred that those who were already circumcised required a second circumcision? Perhaps the verse is referring to those who had not been circumcised at all, as it is written: “For all the people who came out were circumcised; but all the people who were born in the wilderness…had not been circumcised” (Joshua 5:5)?
אִם כֵּן, מַאי ״שׁוּב״? אֶלָּא לָאו לִפְרִיעָה. וּמַאי ״שֵׁנִית״ —
The Gemara responds: If so, that it was only those who had never been circumcised who required circumcision, what is the meaning of “circumcise again,” which indicates that they had to be circumcised a second time? Rather, is it not referring to uncovering the corona? And what is the meaning of “a second time,” stated in the same verse? This phrase appears redundant, as the verse already stated: “Circumcise again.”
לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי סוֹף מִילָה לִתְחִלַּת מִילָה: מָה תְּחִלַּת מִילָה מְעַכֶּבֶת — אַף סוֹף מִילָה מְעַכְּבִין בּוֹ. דִּתְנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת [רוֹב] הָעֲטָרָה, וְאֵין אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה.
The Gemara explains: It comes to equate the end of circumcision, when it is necessary to circumcise a second time in order to correct an improperly performed circumcision, with the beginning of circumcision: Just as an incomplete performance at the beginning of circumcision invalidates the circumcision, so too, incomplete performance at the end of circumcision, i.e., the foreskin not being fully removed, invalidates the circumcision. As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 137a): These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. The essential element of circumcision is the removal of the flesh that covers most of the corona, and a child who was not circumcised in this manner is considered uncircumcised, and he does not partake of teruma.
אָמַר רָבִינָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל עֲטָרָה.
With regard to this issue Ravina said, and some say it was Rav Yirmeya bar Abba who said that Rav said: When the mishna mentioned most of the corona, it meant the flesh that covers most of the height of the corona as well as most of its circumference.
וּבַמִּדְבָּר מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מְהוּל? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּאוֹרְחָא,
The Gemara returns to the incident involving Joshua. And what is the reason that they did not circumcise themselves in the wilderness after the Torah had already been given? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say it was due to the weariness caused by their journey. Since they were traveling continuously, they were too weak to undergo circumcision.
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
What Is the First Mitzvah in the Torah? – Gefet
A Daf Of Their Own – Ruler or Leader: King vs. President
נשיא מול מלך- דף משלהן
כיצד בני, סמ”ר איתן דישון ז”ל, זיכה אותי בלימוד דף יומי – שירה דישון
Ethics in Psychology and Lifnei Iver with Khaya Eisenberg
Din & Daf: A Decree that the Majority Cannot Fulfill
Avodah Zarah Daf 71-76 + Siyum – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
New York, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Richmond, CA, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Yevamot 71
מְשׁוּמָּדוּת פּוֹסֶלֶת, וְאֵין מְשׁוּמָּדוּת פּוֹסֶלֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.
that apostasy [meshumadut] disqualifies, as the term “stranger” in this context is understood to refer to a Jew whose conduct makes him estranged from God, and he is disqualified from eating the Paschal lamb, but apostasy does not disqualify one from eating tithe.
״כׇּל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? בּוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, אֲבָל אוֹכֵל הוּא בְּמַצָּה וּמָרוֹר.
The Gemara asks further: If so, with regard to the phrase “from it” in the verse “No uncircumcised person shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:48), which again emphasizes “from it” and not from another item, why do I need it? The Gemara answers: This teaches that only from it, the Paschal lamb, one who is uncircumcised may not eat, but he eats matza and bitter herbs. One who is uncircumcised is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs on Passover, just like any other Jew.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״עָרֵל״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר״. דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עָרֵל״, מִשּׁוּם דִּמְאִיס. אֲבָל בֶּן נֵכָר, דְּלָא מְאִיס — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר״, מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם, אֲבָל עָרֵל, דְּלִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara continues: And it was necessary for the Torah to write the prohibition with regard to an uncircumcised man, and it was necessary for the Torah to write a separate prohibition with regard to any stranger. As, if the Merciful One had written only about an uncircumcised man, one might have thought that only for him is it prohibited to eat from the Paschal lamb because the foreskin is repulsive, but with regard to a stranger, who is not repulsive, say that it is not prohibited. And if the Merciful One had written only about any stranger, one might have concluded that only for him is it prohibited to eat from the Paschal lamb because his heart is not directed toward Heaven due to his apostasy, but with regard to an uncircumcised man, whose heart is directed toward Heaven, and it is only on account of unavoidable circumstances that he has not undergone circumcision, say that there is no prohibition against his eating the Paschal lamb. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.
״מִמֶּנּוּ״ ״מִמֶּנּוּ״. לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַבָּה אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק.
The Gemara asks: With regard to the phrase “of it” in the verse “Do not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water, but roasted in fire” (Exodus 12:9), and the phrase “of it” in the verse “And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning” (Exodus 12:10), both of which are terms of exclusion, why do I need them? The Gemara answers that they are necessary for that which Rabba said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said, as will be explained later (74a).
אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הֶעָרֵל. וְאֵימָא: לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאוֹנֵן? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכׇל זָר״ — זָרוּת אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא אֲנִינוּת.
The Master said above in the baraita: Rabbi Akiva says that it is not necessary to derive by way of a verbal analogy the halakha that an uncircumcised priest may not eat teruma, as the verse says: “Any man [ish ish] from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things” (Leviticus 22:4). The repetition of the word ish comes to include an uncircumcised man and indicate that he too may not partake of consecrated food. The Gemara asks: But say that the verse comes to include an acute mourner in the prohibition against eating teruma. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The verse states: “No foreigner may eat of the holy thing” (Leviticus 22:10), which indicates: A disqualification stemming from foreignness I told you prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on acute mourning.
אֵימָא: וְלֹא עֲרֵלוּת? הָא כְּתִיב ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״.
The Gemara asks: Say that the verse comes to teach that a disqualification stemming from foreignness prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on the priest’s lack of circumcision, and so it should be permitted for an uncircumcised priest to partake of teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written: “Any man [ish ish],” where the repetition of the word ish comes to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition?
וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא עֲרֵלוּת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן: מַעֲשִׂים, כְּרוּתִים, בִּדְבַר, הָעֶבֶד. מְחוּסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה, וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפוֹ, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר, וּמִילַת זְכָרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו מְעַכֶּבֶת.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating teruma and exclude an acute mourner? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that lack of circumcision should be included and should preclude a priest’s eating teruma, as the halakhot governing an uncircumcised man are stringent in several respects, as alluded to by the following mnemonic of key words: Acts; karetim; the divine word; the slave. The Gemara explains: An uncircumcised man lacks the act of circumcision, and this act is performed on his body; the failure to perform circumcision is punishable by karet; circumcision existed before the divine word was spoken at Mount Sinai, as the mitzva of circumcision had already been given to Abraham; and the lack of circumcision of one’s male children and slaves precludes one’s eating the Paschal lamb.
אַדְּרַבָּה: אֲנִינוּת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן: יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּכׇל שָׁעָה, וְנוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וְנָשִׁים, וְאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְתַקֵּן עַצְמוֹ!
The Gemara counters: On the contrary, acute mourning should be included and it should prevent a priest from eating teruma, as acute mourning is relevant at any time, it applies to both men and women, and it is not in the mourner’s power to render himself fit until after the deceased is buried.
הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן. רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ. אָמַר קְרָא ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בָּאִישׁ וְאֵינוֹ בָּאִשָּׁה — הָוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה עֲרֵלוּת.
The Gemara answers: These arguments for including an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition are more numerous. Rava said: Even without the rationale that these arguments are more numerous, you still cannot say that an acute mourner should be included and an uncircumcised priest should be excluded, as the verse states: “Any man [ish ish],” emphasizing maleness. Now, what matter applies to a man and not to a woman? You must say that it is lack of circumcision, and therefore it cannot be that the phrase comes to include acute mourning in the prohibition.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הַאי ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב שְׁמַעְיָא: לְאֵתוֹיֵי עַרְבִי מָהוּל וְגִבְעוֹנִי מָהוּל.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva do with this phrase: “A sojourner and a hired servant,” as it is not needed for the Paschal lamb? Rav Shemaya said: It serves to include a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Gibeonite in the prohibition against the eating of the Paschal lamb. Although they have been circumcised, it is prohibited for them to partake of the offering.
וְהָנֵי מוּלִין נִינְהוּ? וְהָא תְּנַן: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי נֶהֱנֶה לַעֲרֵלִים״ — מוּתָּר בְּעַרְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָסוּר בְּמוּלֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי נֶהֱנֶה לְמוּלִין״ — מוּתָּר בְּמוּלֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, וְאָסוּר בְּעַרְלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל!
The Gemara poses a question: And are these considered circumcised? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 31b): If one vowed: The benefit that I might gain from the uncircumcised is konam to me, i.e., forbidden to me like consecrated property, then it is permitted for him to derive benefit from uncircumcised Jews, and it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world, as gentiles are considered uncircumcised even if they have their foreskins removed. And conversely, if he vowed: The benefit that I might gain from the circumcised is konam to me, it is permitted for him to derive benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world, as they are not considered circumcised, and it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from uncircumcised Jews. This indicates that the circumcision of gentiles is disregarded.
אֶלָּא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי גֵּר שֶׁמָּל וְלֹא טָבַל, וְקָטָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל. וְקָסָבַר: צָרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית.
Rather, the phrase “a sojourner and a hired servant” comes to include in the prohibition against eating of the Paschal lamb a convert to Judaism who was circumcised but did not yet immerse in a ritual bath, and a child who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin. Although he does not have a foreskin, he is still seen as lacking the act of circumcision. And he, Rabbi Akiva, maintains that it is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of circumcision, in order to usher him into the covenant of Abraham, even though he has no foreskin that can be removed.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: גֵּר שֶׁמָּל וְלֹא טָבַל — גֵּר מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, וְקָסָבַר: קָטָן כְּשֶׁנּוֹלַד מָהוּל — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַטִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ דַּם בְּרִית.
And Rabbi Eliezer, who uses the words “a sojourner and a hired servant” for a verbal analogy, conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: A convert who was circumcised but did not yet immerse is a proper convert in every way. Therefore, the verse cannot come to exclude such an individual. And he maintains that in the case of a child who was born circumcised, it is not necessary to drip covenantal blood from him. Since he was born without a foreskin, no additional procedure is necessary.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַאי ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Eliezer do with this inclusive phrase “any man [ish ish]”? The Gemara answers: He maintains that the Torah spoke in the language of men, meaning that no special halakha is derived from this expression, as it is common biblical vernacular.
בָּעֵי רַב חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא: קָטָן עָרֵל מַהוּ לְסוּכוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה? עֲרֵלוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ מְעַכְּבָא, אוֹ לָא מְעַכְּבָא?!
Rav Ḥama bar Ukva raises a dilemma: With regard to an uncircumcised child who is less than eight days old and not yet fit for circumcision, what is the halakha with respect to anointing him with oil of teruma? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Does lack of circumcision not at its appointed time, meaning before the obligation of circumcision goes into effect, preclude the infant’s benefiting from teruma, as he has the status of one who is uncircumcised, or perhaps it does not preclude his benefiting from teruma, as he is not considered uncircumcised until the mitzva of circumcision is applicable?
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִילַת זְכָרָיו בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּה, וַעֲבָדָיו בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה. מִנַּיִן לִיתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה, וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אָז״ ״אָז״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה.
Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: I have derived only the halakha concerning the circumcision of one’s male children at the time of the preparation, i.e., the slaughter, of the Paschal lamb, as it is stated: “Let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it” (Exodus 12:48), and the halakha concerning the circumcision of one’s slaves at the time of the eating of the Paschal lamb, as it is stated: “But every man’s servant…when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat from it” (Exodus 12:44). From where do I derive that it is proper to apply the prohibition that was stated about this case to that case, and the prohibition that was said about that case to this case, i.e., that the circumcision of both one’s male children and one’s slaves is indispensable both at the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and at the time of its consumption? The tanna answers that the verse states the term “then” with regard to male children and the term “then” with regard to slaves as a verbal analogy.
בִּשְׁלָמָא עֲבָדָיו, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה וְלֵיתַנְהוּ בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּה, כְּגוֹן דְּזַבְנִינְהוּ בֵּינֵי בֵּינֵי.
The Gemara comments: Granted, with regard to one’s slaves you find a case where they are present at the time of eating but they were not present at the time of preparation; for example, if he purchased them in the meantime, i.e., they did not belong to him when the Paschal lamb was slaughtered but he bought them immediately afterward, before it was time to eat it.
אֶלָּא זְכָרָיו, דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה וְלֵיתַנְהוּ בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ — לָאו דְּאִתְיְלוּד בֵּין עֲשִׂיָּה לַאֲכִילָה? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: עֲרֵלוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ הָוְיָא עֲרֵלוּת!
However, with regard to his male children, how can you find a case where they are present at the time of eating, but they were not present at the time of preparation? Does it not involve a situation where they were born between the time of the Paschal lamb’s preparation and the time of its eating? Learn from this that lack of circumcision, even not at, i.e., before, its appointed time, is nevertheless considered lack of circumcision that prevents the father from partaking of the offering.
אָמַר רָבָא: וְתִסְבְּרָא? ״הִמּוֹל לוֹ כׇל זָכָר״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, ״וְאָז יִקְרַב לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ״. וְהַאי לָאו בַּר מְהִילָא הוּא. אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁחֲלָצַתּוּ חַמָּה.
Rava said: And how can you understand it that way? How can you think that the lack of circumcision of a newborn child precludes his father’s eating from the Paschal lamb? Doesn’t the Merciful One state: “Let all his males be circumcised,” followed by “and then let him come near and keep it” (Exodus 12:48), and as this infant is not yet fit for circumcision he cannot possibly preclude the father’s partaking of the offering? Rather, with what case are we dealing here? With the case, for example, of a baby who was exempt from circumcision at the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb because he was sick with a high fever, and subsequently the fever left him and he recovered. In such a case, failure to immediately circumcise his son precludes the father’s eating from the Paschal lamb.
וְנִיתֵּוב לֵיהּ כׇּל שִׁבְעָה. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֲלָצַתּוּ חַמָּה — נוֹתְנִין לוֹ כׇּל שִׁבְעָה! דְּיָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ כׇּל שִׁבְעָה. וְנִימְהֲלֵיהּ מִצַּפְרָא! בָּעֵינַן
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the case is one of a child recovering from an illness, let us give him the full seven days that he needs to recuperate properly. As Shmuel said: In the case of a baby that was sick with a high fever, and subsequently the fever left him, one gives him a full seven days to heal and only then is he circumcised, but not before. The Gemara answers: The case is in fact one where we already gave him a full seven days to heal, but they culminated on the eve of Passover. The Gemara asks: But if the seven-day recovery period ended on the eve of Passover, why did the father wait until the time of eating the Paschal lamb, i.e., the first night of Passover? He should have circumcised him already in the morning, before the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb. The Gemara answers: We require
מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
that during the recovery period one must wait from the time the seven days began to the exact same time seven days later, i.e., seven complete twenty-four-hour periods. Therefore, if the child recovered in the afternoon of a particular day, one is required to wait until that same time of day a week later, and only then is he circumcised.
וְהָתָנֵי לוּדָאָה: יוֹם הַבְרָאָתוֹ כְּיוֹם הִוָּלְדוֹ. מַאי לָאו: מָה יוֹם הִוָּלְדוֹ לָא בָּעֵינַן מֵעֵת לְעֵת, אַף יוֹם הַבְרָאָתוֹ לָא בָּעֵינַן מֵעֵת לְעֵת?
The Gemara asks: Didn’t the Sage from Lod teach that the day of his healing is like the day of his birth? What, is it not that just as with regard to the day of his birth we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, so too, with regard to the day of his healing we need not wait from the time he heals to the same time seven days later?
לָא, עֲדִיף יוֹם הַבְרָאָתוֹ מִיּוֹם הִוָּלְדוֹ. דְּאִילּוּ יוֹם הִוָּלְדוֹ לָא בָּעֵינַן מֵעֵת לְעֵת, וְאִילּוּ יוֹם הַבְרָאָתוֹ בָּעֵינַן מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
The Gemara refutes this argument: No, the day of his healing is superior to the day of his birth: While from the day of his birth until circumcision we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, i.e., the child may be circumcised already at the start of the eighth day, from the day of his healing we need to wait seven complete days from the time he heals to the same time seven days later.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּכָאֵיב לֵיהּ עֵינֵיהּ לְיָנוֹקָא וְאִיתְּפַח בֵּינֵי וּבֵינֵי.
The Gemara suggests other circumstances where a male child may be present at the time of the eating of the Paschal lamb but absent at the time of its preparation. Rav Pappa said: This would take place, for example, if the baby’s eye hurt him on the eighth day following his birth, which occurred on the eve of Passover, and he recovered in the meantime between the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating. In the case of a minor ailment such as eye pain, circumcision is not performed as long as the pain persists, but it may be performed as soon as the child has recovered, without first waiting seven days.
רָבָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ חֲבוּשִׁין בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין.
Rava said: This would occur, for example, if the infant’s father and mother were incarcerated in a prison at the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb, and they slaughtered their offering by way of an agent, and there was no one available to circumcise the infant, and the parents were released from prison before the time for eating the Paschal lamb arrived.
רַב כָּהֲנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר: כְּגוֹן טוּמְטוּם שֶׁנִּקְרַע, וְנִמְצָא זָכָר בֵּינֵי וּבֵינֵי.
Rav Kahana, son of Rav Neḥemya, said: This would occur, for example, if the infant was a tumtum, one whose external sexual organs are indeterminate and it is unclear whether the infant is male or female, and in the meantime between the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating, he was torn open, his gender was revealed, and he was found to be a male, so that the obligation to circumcise him went into effect.
רַב שֵׁרֵבְיָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹצִיא רֹאשׁוֹ חוּץ לַפְּרוֹזְדוֹר.
Rav Sherevya said: This would occur, for example, if seven days earlier the baby had already extended his head, but not the rest of his body, out of the corridor to his mother’s womb. In such a situation he is considered born, but he is fit for circumcision only after his entire body has emerged. If this occurs between the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating, the child’s father may not eat of the offering until he has circumcised his son.
וּמִי חָיֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם, נִפְתַּח הַסָּתוּם וְנִסְתַּם הַפָּתוּחַ. שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא כֵּן, אֵין יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת אֲפִילּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת!
The Gemara poses a question: But in a case such as this, can the child live for such a long period with only his head outside? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: Once a baby emerges into the air of the world, that which had been closed, the mouth and nostrils, open, and that which had been open, the umbilical cord, from which the child had previously received its sustenance, closes, as, if this did not occur it could not live for even an hour, as it has no other way to receive nutrition. If so, this child whose head alone emerged from his mother’s womb would certainly starve, as it cannot take in any sustenance.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דְּזַנְתֵּיהּ אִישָּׁתָא. אִישָּׁתָא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אִישָּׁתָא דִּידֵיהּ, אִי הָכִי כֹּל שִׁבְעָה בָּעֵי? אֶלָּא דְּזַנְתֵּיהּ אִישָּׁתָא דְּאִימֵּיהּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא מְעַוֵּי, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דִּמְעַוֵּי, מִחְיָיא חָיֵי.
The Gemara answers: With what case are we dealing here? It is, for example, a case where he was sustained by the heat of a fever and therefore did not need to eat. The Gemara asks: Whose fever? If we say it is his own fever, i.e., the baby himself had a fever, if so, it should be necessary to wait a full seven days after his entire body exits the womb before he can be circumcised, in accordance with the halakha governing an infant who was ill. Rather, it must be that he was sustained by his mother’s fever. And if you wish, say that this principle that a child cannot survive in such conditions applies only when he does not cry, but when he cries he can live, as his crying indicates that he has already started to breathe.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי בְּנָאָה: עָרֵל מְקַבֵּל הַזָּאָה, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בַּאֲבוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ הַזָּאָה כְּשֶׁהֵן עֲרֵלִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָעָם עָלוּ מִן הַיַּרְדֵּן בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן״.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Bena’a: An uncircumcised man may receive the sprinkling of the water mixed with the ashes of a red heifer in order to purify himself from ritual impurity imparted by a human corpse, as we do not say that this sprinkling is ineffective as long as he is uncircumcised. As we found that our forefathers received the sprinkling when they were uncircumcised, as it is stated: “And the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month” (Joshua 4:19), and the verses go on to relate that the men were all later circumcised before sacrificing the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth (see Joshua 5:10).
בַּעֲשָׂרָה לָא מְהִילִי, מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְאוֹרְחָא. הַזָּאָה אֵימַת עָבֵיד לְהוּ?! לָאו כְּשֶׁהֵן עֲרֵלִים?
The Gemara clarifies: On the tenth day itself they did not circumcise themselves due to the weariness caused by their journey. When, then, was the sprinkling done to them in order to remove the ritual impurity resulting from contact with a corpse, so that they would be fit to bring the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth? The first sprinkling must have taken place no later than the tenth, as there is a four-day waiting period between the first and second sprinklings. In that case, wasn’t the initial sprinkling performed when they were still uncircumcised? This proves that one who is uncircumcised may receive the sprinkling of the purification waters.
וְדִלְמָא לָא עֲבוּד פֶּסַח כְּלָל? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת הַפֶּסַח״.
The Gemara counters: But perhaps they did not sacrifice the Paschal lamb at all. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written: “And they kept the Passover” (Joshua 5:10), meaning they brought the Paschal lamb.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר זוּטְרָא: וְדִלְמָא פֶּסַח הַבָּא בְּטוּמְאָה הָיָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי, תַּנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא: מָלוּ, וְטָבְלוּ, וְעָשׂוּ פִּסְחֵיהֶן בְּטׇהֳרָה.
Mar Zutra strongly objects to this: But perhaps it was a Paschal lamb that comes in a state of impurity? If the majority of the community is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, they may all sacrifice their Paschal lambs even though they are ritually impure, and there is no need for any sprinkling. Rav Ashi said to him: It is taught explicitly in a baraita that they circumcised themselves, immersed in a ritual bath, and performed the ritual of their Paschal lambs in a state of purity.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: לֹא נִיתְּנָה פְּרִיעַת מִילָה לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בָּעֵת הַהִיא אָמַר ה׳ אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עֲשֵׂה לְךָ חַרְבוֹת צֻרִים וְגוֹ׳״.
Rabba bar Yitzḥak said that Rav said: The mitzva of uncovering the corona during circumcision was not given to our Patriarch Abraham. The command given to Avraham included only the mitzva of circumcision itself, i.e., the removal of the foreskin, but not the uncovering of the corona, i.e., the folding back of the thin membrane that lies under the foreskin. As it is stated: “At that time the Lord said to Joshua: Make yourself knives of flint, and circumcise again the children of Israel a second time” (Joshua 5:2). Why was it necessary to circumcise them? Apparently, it is because before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, some of them had been circumcised in the manner of Abraham, without uncovering the corona, and therefore they needed to be circumcised a second time in accordance with the Torah law that requires uncovering the corona.
וְדִלְמָא הָנָךְ דְּלָא מְהוּל, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי מֻלִים הָיוּ כׇּל הָעָם הַיֹּצְאִים וְכׇל הָעָם הַיִּלֹּדִים וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara asks: How may it be inferred that those who were already circumcised required a second circumcision? Perhaps the verse is referring to those who had not been circumcised at all, as it is written: “For all the people who came out were circumcised; but all the people who were born in the wilderness…had not been circumcised” (Joshua 5:5)?
אִם כֵּן, מַאי ״שׁוּב״? אֶלָּא לָאו לִפְרִיעָה. וּמַאי ״שֵׁנִית״ —
The Gemara responds: If so, that it was only those who had never been circumcised who required circumcision, what is the meaning of “circumcise again,” which indicates that they had to be circumcised a second time? Rather, is it not referring to uncovering the corona? And what is the meaning of “a second time,” stated in the same verse? This phrase appears redundant, as the verse already stated: “Circumcise again.”
לְאַקּוֹשֵׁי סוֹף מִילָה לִתְחִלַּת מִילָה: מָה תְּחִלַּת מִילָה מְעַכֶּבֶת — אַף סוֹף מִילָה מְעַכְּבִין בּוֹ. דִּתְנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת [רוֹב] הָעֲטָרָה, וְאֵין אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה.
The Gemara explains: It comes to equate the end of circumcision, when it is necessary to circumcise a second time in order to correct an improperly performed circumcision, with the beginning of circumcision: Just as an incomplete performance at the beginning of circumcision invalidates the circumcision, so too, incomplete performance at the end of circumcision, i.e., the foreskin not being fully removed, invalidates the circumcision. As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 137a): These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. The essential element of circumcision is the removal of the flesh that covers most of the corona, and a child who was not circumcised in this manner is considered uncircumcised, and he does not partake of teruma.
אָמַר רָבִינָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב גּוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל עֲטָרָה.
With regard to this issue Ravina said, and some say it was Rav Yirmeya bar Abba who said that Rav said: When the mishna mentioned most of the corona, it meant the flesh that covers most of the height of the corona as well as most of its circumference.
וּבַמִּדְבָּר מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מְהוּל? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּאוֹרְחָא,
The Gemara returns to the incident involving Joshua. And what is the reason that they did not circumcise themselves in the wilderness after the Torah had already been given? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say it was due to the weariness caused by their journey. Since they were traveling continuously, they were too weak to undergo circumcision.
