Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 17, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Yevamot 71

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 鈥渁 man a man.鈥 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.

诪砖讜诪讚讜转 驻讜住诇转 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讜诪讚讜转 驻讜住诇转 讘诪注砖专

that apostasy [meshumadut] disqualifies, as the term 鈥渟tranger鈥 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.

讻诇 注专诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讘诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专

The Gemara asks further: If so, with regard to the phrase 鈥渇rom it鈥 in the verse 鈥淣o uncircumcised person shall eat from it鈥 (Exodus 12:48), which again emphasizes 鈥渇rom it鈥 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.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 注专诇 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注专诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗讬住 讗讘诇 讘谉 谞讻专 讚诇讗 诪讗讬住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 诇讘讜 诇砖诪讬诐 讗讘诇 注专诇 讚诇讘讜 诇砖诪讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

诪诪谞讜 诪诪谞讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽

The Gemara asks: With regard to the phrase 鈥渙f it鈥 in the verse 鈥淒o not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water, but roasted in fire鈥 (Exodus 12:9), and the phrase 鈥渙f it鈥 in the verse 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning鈥 (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 Yitz岣k said, as will be explained later (74a).

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注专诇 讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗讜谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻诇 讝专 讝专讜转 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讗谞讬谞讜转

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: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish] from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things鈥 (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 岣nina, said: The verse states: 鈥淣o foreigner may eat of the holy thing鈥 (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.

讗讬诪讗 讜诇讗 注专诇讜转 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讬砖

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鈥檚 lack of circumcision, and so it should be permitted for an uncircumcised priest to partake of teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish],鈥 where the repetition of the word ish comes to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition?

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 注专诇讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 诪注砖讬诐 讻专讜转讬诐 讘讚讘专 讛注讘讚 诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讜诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讬砖谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讜专 讜诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 male children and slaves precludes one鈥檚 eating the Paschal lamb.

讗讚专讘讛 讗谞讬谞讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讛 讘讻诇 砖注讛 讜谞讜讛讙转 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讜谞砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇转拽谉 注爪诪讜

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鈥檚 power to render himself fit until after the deceased is buried.

讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讗讬砖 讜讗讬谞讜 讘讗砖讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 注专诇讜转

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: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish],鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗讬 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 注专讘讬 诪讛讜诇 讜讙讘注讜谞讬 诪讛讜诇

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva do with this phrase: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant,鈥 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.

讜讛谞讬 诪讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 转谞谉 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇注专诇讬诐 诪讜转专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇诪讜诇讬谉 诪讜转专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讜讗住讜专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara poses a question: And are these considered circumcised? But didn鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙专 砖诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讜拽讟谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讜拽住讘专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转

Rather, the phrase 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讙专 砖诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讙专 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜拽住讘专 拽讟谉 讻砖谞讜诇讚 诪讛讜诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转

And Rabbi Eliezer, who uses the words 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Eliezer do with this inclusive phrase 鈥渁ny man [ish ish]鈥? 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.

讘注讬 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 拽讟谉 注专诇 诪讛讜 诇住讜讻讜 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 注专诇讜转 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 诪注讻讘讗 讗讜 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗

Rav 岣ma 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鈥檚 benefiting from teruma, as he has the status of an 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讘砖注转 注砖讬讛 讜注讘讚讬讜 讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讝 讗讝 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: I have derived only the halakha concerning the circumcision of one鈥檚 male children at the time of the preparation, i.e., the slaughter, of the Paschal lamb, as it is stated: 鈥淟et all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it鈥 (Exodus 12:48), and the halakha concerning the circumcision of one鈥檚 slaves at the time of the eating of the Paschal lamb, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut every man鈥檚 servant鈥hen you have circumcised him, then shall he eat from it鈥 (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鈥檚 male children and one鈥檚 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 鈥渢hen鈥 with regard to male children and the term 鈥渢hen鈥 with regard to slaves as a verbal analogy.

讘砖诇诪讗 注讘讚讬讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘砖注转 注砖讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬

The Gemara comments: Granted, with regard to one鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讝讻专讬讜 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘砖注转 注砖讬讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讗讜 讚讗转讬诇讜讚 讘讬谉 注砖讬讛 诇讗讻讬诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注专诇讜转 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讛讜讬讗 注专诇讜转

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 讛诪讜诇 诇讜 讻诇 讝讻专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗讝 讬拽专讘 诇注砖讜转讜 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 诪讛讬诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讞诇爪转讜 讞诪讛

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鈥檚 eating from the Paschal lamb? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state: 鈥淟et all his males be circumcised,鈥 followed by 鈥渁nd then let him come near and keep it鈥 (Exodus 12:48), and as this infant is not yet fit for circumcision he cannot possibly preclude the father鈥檚 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鈥檚 eating from the Paschal lamb.

讜谞讬转讜讘 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇爪转讜 讞诪讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讚讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讜谞讬诪讛诇讬讛 诪爪驻专讗 讘注讬谞谉

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

诪注转 诇注转

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.

讜讛转谞讬 诇讜讚讗讛 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 讻讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛 讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 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?

诇讗 注讚讬祝 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 诪讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转 讜讗讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转

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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讻讗讬讘 诇讬讛 注讬谞讬讛 诇讬谞讜拽讗 讜讗讬转驻讞 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讞讘讜砖讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉

Rava said: This would occur, for example, if the infant鈥檚 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.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖谞拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讻专 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬

Rav Kahana, son of Rav Ne岣mya, 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.

专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讝讚讜专

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 father may not eat of the offering until he has circumcised his son.

讜诪讬 讞讬讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 谞驻转讞 讛住转讜诐 讜谞住转诐 讛驻转讜讞 砖讗诇诪诇讗 讻谉 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讬讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 womb would certainly starve, as it cannot take in any sustenance.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讝谞转讬讛 讗讬砖转讗 讗讬砖转讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讬砖转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讘注讬 讗诇讗 讚讝谞转讬讛 讗讬砖转讗 讚讗讬诪讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪注讜讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注讜讬 诪讞讬讬讗 讞讬讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讘谞讗讛 注专诇 诪拽讘诇 讛讝讗讛 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讗讘讜转讬谞讜 砖拽讘诇讜 讛讝讗讛 讻砖讛谉 注专诇讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛注诐 注诇讜 诪谉 讛讬专讚谉 讘注砖讜专 诇讞讚砖 讛专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Bena鈥檃: 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: 鈥淎nd the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month鈥 (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).

讘注砖专讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讗讜专讞讗 讛讝讗讛 讗讬诪转 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 诇讗讜 讻砖讛谉 注专诇讬诐

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鈥檛 the initial sprinkling performed when they were still uncircumcised? This proves that an one who is uncircumcised may receive the sprinkling of the purification waters.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇讗 注讘讜讚 驻住讞 讻诇诇 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖讜 讗转 讛驻住讞

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: 鈥淎nd they kept the Passover鈥 (Joshua 5:10), meaning they brought the Paschal lamb.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讚诇诪讗 驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 诪诇讜 讜讟讘诇讜 讜注砖讜 驻住讞讬讛谉 讘讟讛专讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 驻专讬注转 诪讬诇讛 诇讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 讬讛讜砖注 注砖讛 诇讱 讞专讘讜转 爪专讬诐 讜讙讜壮

Rabba bar Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淎t that time the Lord said to Joshua: Make yourself knives of flint, and circumcise again the children of Israel a second time鈥 (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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛谞讱 讚诇讗 诪讛讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪诇讬诐 讛讬讜 讻诇 讛注诐 讛讬爪讗讬诐 讜讻诇 讛注诐 讛讬诇讚讬诐 讜讙讜壮

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: 鈥淔or all the people who came out were circumcised; but all the people who were born in the wilderness鈥ad not been circumcised鈥 (Joshua 5:5)?

讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 砖讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇驻专讬注讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讬转

The Gemara responds: If so, that it was only those who had never been circumcised who required circumcision, what is the meaning of 鈥渃ircumcise again,鈥 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 鈥渁 second time,鈥 stated in the same verse? This phrase appears redundant, as the verse already stated: 鈥淐ircumcise again.鈥

诇讗拽讜砖讬 住讜祝 诪讬诇讛 诇转讞诇转 诪讬诇讛 诪讛 转讞诇转 诪讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讗祝 住讜祝 诪讬诇讛 诪注讻讘讬谉 讘讜 讚转谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 [专讜讘] 讛注讟专讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讙讜讘讛讛 砖诇 注讟专讛

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.

讜讘诪讚讘专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讛讜诇 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讗讜专讞讗

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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yevamot: 65-71 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

We will continue the discussion on the mitzvah of 鈥淧ru u鈥檙vu鈥, procreation, and learn who is obligated. This week we...
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 71: A Baby’s Korban Pesach

A classic dispute between R. Akiva and R. Eliezer, with regard to explication of the biblical text. Also, delaying a...

Yevamot 71

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 71

诪砖讜诪讚讜转 驻讜住诇转 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讜诪讚讜转 驻讜住诇转 讘诪注砖专

that apostasy [meshumadut] disqualifies, as the term 鈥渟tranger鈥 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.

讻诇 注专诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讘诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专

The Gemara asks further: If so, with regard to the phrase 鈥渇rom it鈥 in the verse 鈥淣o uncircumcised person shall eat from it鈥 (Exodus 12:48), which again emphasizes 鈥渇rom it鈥 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.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 注专诇 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注专诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗讬住 讗讘诇 讘谉 谞讻专 讚诇讗 诪讗讬住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讘谉 谞讻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 诇讘讜 诇砖诪讬诐 讗讘诇 注专诇 讚诇讘讜 诇砖诪讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

诪诪谞讜 诪诪谞讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽

The Gemara asks: With regard to the phrase 鈥渙f it鈥 in the verse 鈥淒o not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water, but roasted in fire鈥 (Exodus 12:9), and the phrase 鈥渙f it鈥 in the verse 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning鈥 (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 Yitz岣k said, as will be explained later (74a).

讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注专诇 讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗讜谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻诇 讝专 讝专讜转 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讗谞讬谞讜转

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: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish] from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things鈥 (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 岣nina, said: The verse states: 鈥淣o foreigner may eat of the holy thing鈥 (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.

讗讬诪讗 讜诇讗 注专诇讜转 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讬砖

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鈥檚 lack of circumcision, and so it should be permitted for an uncircumcised priest to partake of teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish],鈥 where the repetition of the word ish comes to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition?

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诪住转讘专讗 注专诇讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 诪注砖讬诐 讻专讜转讬诐 讘讚讘专 讛注讘讚 诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讜诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讬砖谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讜专 讜诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 诪注讻讘转

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 male children and slaves precludes one鈥檚 eating the Paschal lamb.

讗讚专讘讛 讗谞讬谞讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讛 讘讻诇 砖注讛 讜谞讜讛讙转 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讜谞砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇转拽谉 注爪诪讜

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鈥檚 power to render himself fit until after the deceased is buried.

讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗 讛谞讱 谞驻讬砖谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讗讬砖 讜讗讬谞讜 讘讗砖讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 注专诇讜转

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: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish],鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗讬 转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 注专讘讬 诪讛讜诇 讜讙讘注讜谞讬 诪讛讜诇

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva do with this phrase: 鈥淎 sojourner and a hired servant,鈥 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.

讜讛谞讬 诪讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗 转谞谉 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇注专诇讬诐 诪讜转专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗住讜专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇诪讜诇讬谉 诪讜转专 讘诪讜诇讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讜讗住讜专 讘注专诇讬 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara poses a question: And are these considered circumcised? But didn鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙专 砖诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讜拽讟谉 砖谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讜拽住讘专 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转

Rather, the phrase 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讙专 砖诪诇 讜诇讗 讟讘诇 讙专 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜拽住讘专 拽讟谉 讻砖谞讜诇讚 诪讛讜诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转

And Rabbi Eliezer, who uses the words 鈥渁 sojourner and a hired servant鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Eliezer do with this inclusive phrase 鈥渁ny man [ish ish]鈥? 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.

讘注讬 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 拽讟谉 注专诇 诪讛讜 诇住讜讻讜 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 注专诇讜转 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 诪注讻讘讗 讗讜 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗

Rav 岣ma 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鈥檚 benefiting from teruma, as he has the status of an 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讬诇转 讝讻专讬讜 讘砖注转 注砖讬讛 讜注讘讚讬讜 讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讝 讗讝 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita: I have derived only the halakha concerning the circumcision of one鈥檚 male children at the time of the preparation, i.e., the slaughter, of the Paschal lamb, as it is stated: 鈥淟et all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it鈥 (Exodus 12:48), and the halakha concerning the circumcision of one鈥檚 slaves at the time of the eating of the Paschal lamb, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut every man鈥檚 servant鈥hen you have circumcised him, then shall he eat from it鈥 (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鈥檚 male children and one鈥檚 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 鈥渢hen鈥 with regard to male children and the term 鈥渢hen鈥 with regard to slaves as a verbal analogy.

讘砖诇诪讗 注讘讚讬讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘砖注转 注砖讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬

The Gemara comments: Granted, with regard to one鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讝讻专讬讜 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘砖注转 注砖讬讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讗讜 讚讗转讬诇讜讚 讘讬谉 注砖讬讛 诇讗讻讬诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注专诇讜转 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讛讜讬讗 注专诇讜转

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 讛诪讜诇 诇讜 讻诇 讝讻专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗讝 讬拽专讘 诇注砖讜转讜 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 诪讛讬诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讞诇爪转讜 讞诪讛

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鈥檚 eating from the Paschal lamb? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state: 鈥淟et all his males be circumcised,鈥 followed by 鈥渁nd then let him come near and keep it鈥 (Exodus 12:48), and as this infant is not yet fit for circumcision he cannot possibly preclude the father鈥檚 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鈥檚 eating from the Paschal lamb.

讜谞讬转讜讘 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇爪转讜 讞诪讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讚讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讜谞讬诪讛诇讬讛 诪爪驻专讗 讘注讬谞谉

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

诪注转 诇注转

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.

讜讛转谞讬 诇讜讚讗讛 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 讻讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛 讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 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?

诇讗 注讚讬祝 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 诪讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转 讜讗讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转

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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讻讗讬讘 诇讬讛 注讬谞讬讛 诇讬谞讜拽讗 讜讗讬转驻讞 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讞讘讜砖讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉

Rava said: This would occur, for example, if the infant鈥檚 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.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖谞拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讻专 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬

Rav Kahana, son of Rav Ne岣mya, 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.

专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讝讚讜专

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 father may not eat of the offering until he has circumcised his son.

讜诪讬 讞讬讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 诇讗讜讬专 讛注讜诇诐 谞驻转讞 讛住转讜诐 讜谞住转诐 讛驻转讜讞 砖讗诇诪诇讗 讻谉 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讬讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 womb would certainly starve, as it cannot take in any sustenance.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讝谞转讬讛 讗讬砖转讗 讗讬砖转讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讬砖转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讘注讬 讗诇讗 讚讝谞转讬讛 讗讬砖转讗 讚讗讬诪讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪注讜讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注讜讬 诪讞讬讬讗 讞讬讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讘谞讗讛 注专诇 诪拽讘诇 讛讝讗讛 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讗讘讜转讬谞讜 砖拽讘诇讜 讛讝讗讛 讻砖讛谉 注专诇讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛注诐 注诇讜 诪谉 讛讬专讚谉 讘注砖讜专 诇讞讚砖 讛专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Bena鈥檃: 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: 鈥淎nd the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month鈥 (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).

讘注砖专讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讗讜专讞讗 讛讝讗讛 讗讬诪转 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 诇讗讜 讻砖讛谉 注专诇讬诐

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鈥檛 the initial sprinkling performed when they were still uncircumcised? This proves that an one who is uncircumcised may receive the sprinkling of the purification waters.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇讗 注讘讜讚 驻住讞 讻诇诇 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖讜 讗转 讛驻住讞

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: 鈥淎nd they kept the Passover鈥 (Joshua 5:10), meaning they brought the Paschal lamb.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讚诇诪讗 驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 诪诇讜 讜讟讘诇讜 讜注砖讜 驻住讞讬讛谉 讘讟讛专讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 驻专讬注转 诪讬诇讛 诇讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 讬讛讜砖注 注砖讛 诇讱 讞专讘讜转 爪专讬诐 讜讙讜壮

Rabba bar Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淎t that time the Lord said to Joshua: Make yourself knives of flint, and circumcise again the children of Israel a second time鈥 (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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛谞讱 讚诇讗 诪讛讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪诇讬诐 讛讬讜 讻诇 讛注诐 讛讬爪讗讬诐 讜讻诇 讛注诐 讛讬诇讚讬诐 讜讙讜壮

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: 鈥淔or all the people who came out were circumcised; but all the people who were born in the wilderness鈥ad not been circumcised鈥 (Joshua 5:5)?

讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 砖讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇驻专讬注讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讬转

The Gemara responds: If so, that it was only those who had never been circumcised who required circumcision, what is the meaning of 鈥渃ircumcise again,鈥 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 鈥渁 second time,鈥 stated in the same verse? This phrase appears redundant, as the verse already stated: 鈥淐ircumcise again.鈥

诇讗拽讜砖讬 住讜祝 诪讬诇讛 诇转讞诇转 诪讬诇讛 诪讛 转讞诇转 诪讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讗祝 住讜祝 诪讬诇讛 诪注讻讘讬谉 讘讜 讚转谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 [专讜讘] 讛注讟专讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讙讜讘讛讛 砖诇 注讟专讛

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.

讜讘诪讚讘专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讛讜诇 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讗讜专讞讗

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.

Scroll To Top