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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 15, 2014 | 讻状讙 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 72

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞砖讬讘 诇讛讜 专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讗讜转谉 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 诇讗 谞砖讘讛 诇讛诐 专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转

And if you wish, say instead that it was because the north wind did not blow for them, and the hot weather was likely to lead to medical complications following the procedure. As it is taught in a baraita: All those forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness, the north wind did not blow for them.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讝讜驻讬诐 讛讜讜 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚诇讗 谞讘讚讜专 注谞谞讬 讻讘讜讚

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that this wholesome wind did not blow all those years? If you wish, say it was because they were under censure following the sin of the spies and were therefore undeserving of this salutary wind. And if you wish, say instead that it was so that the clouds of glory covering the Tabernacle should not disperse.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻讱 讬讜诪讗 讚注讬讘讗 讜讬讜诪讗 讚砖讜转讗 诇讗 诪讛诇讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 诪住讜讻专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讚砖讜 讘讛 专讘讬诐 砖讜诪专 驻转讗讬诐 讛壮

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, learn from here that on a cloudy day or on a day that a south wind [shuta] blows, we may neither circumcise nor let blood [mesokhrinan], owing to the danger involved. But nowadays, when many are accustomed to ignoring these safeguards, the verse 鈥淭he Lord preserves the simple鈥 (Psalms 116:6) is applied, and it is assumed that they will come to no harm.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讗讜转谉 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜诐 砖诇讗 谞砖讘讛 讘讜 专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转 讘讞爪讬 讛诇讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讘讞爪讬 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讛壮 讛讻讛 讻诇 讘讻讜专 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚注转 专爪讜谉 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: All those forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness there was not a day in which the north wind did not blow at midnight, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt鈥 (Exodus 12:29). The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation? How is it derived from this verse that speaks of the exodus from Egypt that a north wind blew at midnight during the forty years that the Jewish people wandered in the wilderness? The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us that a time of favor is a significant matter. Since midnight had once been a time of divine favor at the beginning of the exodus from Egypt, it continued to be a time of favor throughout the forty years that the Jewish people sojourned in the wilderness.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪砖讜讱 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诪讚讘专讬讛诐 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注专诇

Rav Huna said: By Torah law, if one had been circumcised, but subsequently the residual foreskin was drawn forward by itself or manually so that it covered the corona, he may partake of teruma, as he is considered circumcised. However, from the words of the Sages, they decreed that he must be circumcised again because he looks as if he were uncircumcised.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪砖讜讱 爪专讬讱 砖讬诪讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 讛讗 爪专讬讱 拽转谞讬

The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: One whose residual foreskin was drawn forward so that it covers the corona requires a second circumcision, indicating that he is not considered circumcised. The Gemara explains: This requirement is by rabbinic law, and by Torah law he is considered circumcised. The Gemara asks: And the amora who asked this question, why did he ask it in the first place? The baraita merely teaches that such an individual requires circumcision, and does not indicate that it is a Torah obligation.

拽讟注讬 讘住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖住讻谞讛 讛讬讗 诇讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 讛专讘讛 诪诇讜 讘讬诪讬 讘谉 讻讜讝讬讘讗 讜讛讜诇讬讚讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗转 讘专讬转讬 讛驻专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪砖讜讱

The Gemara explains: The amora who raised the question erred due to the latter clause of that same baraita, which states: Rabbi Yehuda says: He should not be circumcised because it would be dangerous for him to do so. His colleagues said to him: But weren鈥檛 there many who had drawn their residual foreskins forward and subsequently were circumcised a second time in the days of ben Koziva, otherwise known as bar Kokheva, and they fathered sons and daughters. Such re-circumcision is necessary, as it is stated: 鈥淗e must surely be circumcised [himmol yimmol]鈥 (Genesis 17:13), the double verb form indicating: Even one hundred times. And furthermore, it says: 鈥淗e has broken My covenant鈥 (Genesis 17:14), which comes to include one whose foreskin was drawn forward.

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 诇专讘讜转 爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬诐 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讗转 讘专讬转讬 讛驻专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪砖讜讱

The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of: And furthermore, it says? Why was it necessary to cite two verses in support of the same halakha? The Gemara answers: The additional verse is necessary, lest you say that this first verse: 鈥淗e shall surely be circumcised,鈥 comes only to include the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut and to indicate that they must be removed. If so, come and hear a second verse: 鈥淗e has broken My covenant,鈥 which comes to include one whose foreskin was drawn forward.

讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讚拽讗 谞住讬讘 诇讛 转诇诪讜讚讗 拽专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

Now he, the amora who raised an objection based on the first part of the baraita, thought that since at the end of the baraita the tanna brings a derivation from a verse, this halakha must be by Torah law. But in fact that is not so. It is only by rabbinic law, and the verse quoted is a mere support but not the source of the halakha.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 谞砖讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪砖讜讱 讜谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection from a different source: A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma, but his wives and slaves may partake of it. A priest who had been circumcised, but subsequently the residual foreskin was drawn forward, and similarly one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, may partake of teruma. A priest who is a hermaphrodite [androginos], possessing both male and female genitals, and was circumcised may partake of teruma, as whether he is male or female he is entitled to eat teruma, but he may not partake of sacrificial food, which is permitted only to male priests, as he might not be a male. A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food, as he might be a male, and since his member is hidden he cannot be circumcised.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪砖讜讱 讜谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 转讬讜讘转讗

In any event, this baraita teaches that a priest whose foreskin was drawn forward and one who was born circumcised may partake of teruma. This would seem to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna that a priest whose foreskin was drawn forward may not eat teruma at least by rabbinic law. The Gemara concludes: This is in fact a conclusive refutation of his opinion.

讗诪专 诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 谞砖讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 谞砖讬讜 诇讟讜诪讟讜诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讚讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 拽讚讜砖讬讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 谞转拽讚砖 拽讚讜砖讬讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

The Master said above in the baraita: A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma, but his wives [nashav] and slaves may partake of it. The Gemara is puzzled by this teaching: From where does a tumtum have wives? If he does not have a visible male organ, how can he marry a woman? If we say that he merely betrothed a woman, as it is taught in another baraita: If a tumtum betrothed a woman his betrothal is considered a valid betrothal, as he might be a male, and similarly if he was betrothed by a man, his betrothal is deemed a valid betrothal as he might be a female, there is a difficulty.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 住驻拽 讗砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪拽讚砖转 讗砖讛

One could say that the tanna said that the betrothal of a tumtum is valid only as a stringency, i.e., out of concern that he might be a male, and therefore the woman cannot leave without a proper bill of divorce. But should we say that his betrothal is valid also as a leniency, to allow his wife to eat teruma? There is an uncertainty here that perhaps he is a woman, and one woman cannot betroth another woman.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖讘讬爪讬讜 谞讬讻专讜转 诪讘讞讜抓

Abaye said: The tanna is referring to a tumtum whose male organ is hidden, but he is speaking of a situation where his testicles are visible externally. Since it is evident that he is a male, he can betroth a woman even though he cannot have relations with her.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讗讬 谞砖讬讜 讗诪讜 讗诪讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讜诇讬讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rava said a different answer: What is meant here by the word nashav, which was translated earlier as his wives, but which can also be understood as his women? It refers here to the priest鈥檚 mother, who, after her husband the priest has passed away, may continue to eat teruma by virtue of her son. The Gemara questions this interpretation of the baraita: His mother? It is obvious that she may eat teruma on his account, as he is her offspring by a priest. The Gemara explains: This statement is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that only if the priest is capable of having children does he enable his mother to eat teruma, but if he is incapable of having children he does not enable his mother to eat teruma, and therefore a tumtum, who cannot have children, should not enable his mother to eat teruma. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that this is not so, as a woman may eat teruma by virtue of the child she bore a priest, even if that child is incapable of having children.

转讗 砖诪注 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 注专诇 讜讚讗讬 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 住驻拽 注专诇

Come and hear a proof in support of Abaye鈥檚 opinion from that which is taught in the latter part of the baraita: A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food. There is a difficulty here, as the halakha that a tumtum may not partake of teruma was already taught in the first part of the baraita. Granted, according to Abaye, the tanna teaches in the first clause of the baraita the halakha governing a tumtum who is definitely uncircumcised, i.e., one whose testicles are visible externally, so that he is definitely male but cannot undergo circumcision because his member itself is hidden. And then he teaches in the latter clause of the baraita the halakha governing a tumtum about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, i.e., one whose genitalia are completely hidden, so that he might not even be a male.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讚住讬驻讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讗讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 注专诇

But according to Rava, why do I need the repetition of the halakha governing a tumtum in the latter clause? The tanna already stated this halakha in the first part of the baraita. The Gemara answers: What is this tumtum referred to in the latter clause? It is a man who is definitely uncircumcised.

讛砖转讗 住驻拽 注专诇 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讜讚讗讬 注专诇 讗讻讬诇 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖住驻拽 注专诇 讛讜讗 讜注专诇 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: Now, if a tumtum, about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, may not partake of teruma, as stated in the first clause of the baraita, can it be supposed that a man who is definitely uncircumcised may eat teruma, so that it was necessary for the baraita to teach in the latter clause that he may not do so? The Gemara answers: He is saying: What is the reason. The baraita should be understood as follows: What is the reason that a tumtum may not partake of teruma? It is because there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, and an uncircumcised priest may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 诪砖讜讱 (讜谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇) 讜讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讜拽讟谉 砖注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛谞讬诪讜诇讬诐 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 注专诇讜转 讗讬谞谉 谞讬诪讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谞讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this amoraic dispute as to whether or not one who had been circumcised but his residual foreskin was drawn forward is considered uncircumcised by Torah law is parallel to the following dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in the Tosefta (Shabbat 16:7): One whose foreskin was drawn forward, and similarly, one who was born circumcised, and a convert who converted when he was already circumcised, and a child whose appropriate time for circumcision already passed and he was still uncircumcised, and all others who require circumcision, which, as the Gemara parenthetically adds, comes to include one who has two foreskins, both of which must be removed, may be circumcised only during the day. Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon says: If the circumcision is performed at its appropriate time, i.e., on the eighth day,

讗讬谉 谞讬诪讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 谞讬诪讜诇讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘诇讬诇讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪砖讜讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪砖讜讱 讚专讘谞谉

they may be circumcised only during the day. However, if the circumcision is performed not at its appropriate time, they may be circumcised either during the day or at night. What, is it not the case that they disagree about the following: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the obligation to circumcise one whose foreskin was drawn forward is by Torah law, and therefore he must be circumcised during the day despite the fact that the procedure is not performed at the proper time, and one Sage, Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon, holds that the circumcision of one whose foreskin was drawn forward is by rabbinic law.

讜转住讘专讗 拽讟谉 砖注讘专 讝诪谞讜 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And how can you understand the disagreement in that way? With regard to a child whose appropriate time for circumcision has already passed, is there anyone who says that the obligation to circumcise him is only by rabbinic law? Even after the eighth day, there is certainly a Torah obligation to circumcise him, and yet the tanna鈥檌m disagree about this case as well.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜讱 讚专讘谞谉 讜拽讟谉 砖注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚专砖讬谞谉 讜讘讬讜诐 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 讜讘讬讜诐

Rather, everyone agrees that the obligation to circumcise one whose foreskin was drawn forward is by rabbinic law, and that the obligation to circumcise a child whose appropriate time for circumcision has already passed is by Torah law. And here they disagree with regard to the following: One Sage holds that we expound the phrase 鈥渁nd on the day鈥 in the verse 鈥淎nd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3). The superfluous word 鈥渁nd鈥 indicates that even if the child was not circumcised on the eighth day, the procedure must still be performed during the day. And one Sage, Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon, holds that we do not expound the phrase 鈥渁nd on the day,鈥 and therefore a circumcision must be performed during the day only when it takes place on the eighth day, but afterward it may be performed even at night.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽讚专讬砖 谞讜转专 讘讝诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞砖专祝 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖专祝 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛

As in the case where Rabbi Yo岣nan was sitting and he expounded: Notar, the flesh of an offering that is left over beyond its allotted time, requires burning. If it is burnt at its appropriate time, i.e., on the same day that it became notar, it may be burned only during the day. If it is burnt not at its appropriate time, it may be burned either during the day or at night.

讜讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讬谞讬 砖讗讬谉 谞讬诪讜诇 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 诇转砖注讛 诇注砖专讛 诇讗讞讚 注砖专 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 (诪谞讬谉) 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘讬讜诐

And Rabbi Elazar raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from the following baraita: I have derived only that a child who is circumcised on the eighth day may be circumcised only during the day. From where do I derive to include in this halakha a child who is circumcised on the ninth, tenth, eleventh, or twelfth day? From where is it derived that he, too, may be circumcised only during the day? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd on the day,鈥 which teaches that the obligation to circumcise during the day extends beyond the eighth day itself.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 讜讗讜 讜讗讜 讜讛讬 讚专讬砖 讗讬砖转讬拽

And even the Sage who does not expound the letter vav, meaning 鈥渁nd,鈥 as superfluous, expounds the letters vav and heh when they come together and understands them as alluding to cases not explicitly mentioned in the biblical text. Regarding notar the verse states: 鈥淎nd that which remains [vehanotar] of the flesh of the offering on the third day shall be burnt with fire鈥 (Leviticus 7:17), where the letters vav and heh teach that the obligation to burn notar during the day extends beyond the third day itself. Rabbi Yo岣nan was silent, as he had no response.

讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 专讗讬转讬 诇讘谉 驻讚转 砖讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜专砖 讻诪砖讛 诪驻讬 讛讙讘讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讛讬讗 讛讬讻讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讘转讜专转 讻讛谞讬诐 谞驻拽 转谞讬讬讛 讘转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讜住讘专讛 讘转诇转讗 讬专讞讬

After Rabbi Elazar left, Rabbi Yo岣nan, who was impressed with Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 exposition, said to Reish Lakish: I saw that Rabbi Elazar, son of Pedat, was sitting and expounding the Torah as Moses had received it directly from the mouth of the Almighty. Reish Lakish said to him: Was this exposition his own? It is a baraita. Rabbi Yo岣nan inquired: Where is this baraita taught? Reish Lakish replied: It is in Torat Kohanim, otherwise known as Sifra, a work of halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus. Rabbi Yo岣nan went out and learned the entire Torat Kohanim in three days, and reached a full understanding of it in three months.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注专诇 砖讛讝讛 讛讝讗转讜 讻砖专讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗住讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 讻砖专 讘驻专讛

Rabbi Elazar said: If an uncircumcised priest sprinkled the purification waters containing the ashes of a red heifer in order to purify someone who had contracted ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, his sprinkling is valid, just as it is in the case of a priest who immersed himself that day but does not become completely purified until nightfall. As, although such an individual is prohibited from eating teruma, he is fit for all the rites connected to the red heifer.

诪讛 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讻谉 诪讜转专 讘诪注砖专 讗讟讜 讗谞谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗谞谉 诇谞讙讬注讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜诪讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讗住讜专 讘谞讙讬注讛 讚转专讜诪讛 诪讜转专 讘驻专讛 注专诇 砖诪讜转专 讘谞讙讬注讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜转专 讘驻专讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If one who immersed himself that day is fit for all the rites connected to the red heifer, that is because he is at least permitted to eat tithes, and so he is treated more leniently than one who is uncircumcised, for whom it is prohibited to partake of second tithe. The Gemara answers: Is that to say that we are speaking about eating? We spoke in reference to touching, and the proof was as follows: If one who immersed himself that day and who is forbidden to touch teruma, as he invalidates teruma by touch, is nevertheless permitted to participate in all the rites connected to the red heifer; then with regard to one who is uncircumcised, who is permitted to touch teruma according to all opinions, is it not right that he should be permitted to participate in the rites connected to the red heifer?

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 注专诇 砖讛讝讛 讛讝讗转讜 讻砖专讛 讜诪注砖讛 讛讬讛 讜讛讻砖讬专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讝讗转讜

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita: If an uncircumcised priest sprinkled the purification waters, his sprinkling is valid. And an incident occurred in which such an individual sprinkled the purification waters and the Sages validated his sprinkling.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 拽讬讚讜砖讜 驻住讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 住驻拽 注专诇 讜注专诇 驻住讜诇 诇拽讚砖 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 砖拽讬讚砖 拽讬讚讜砖讜 讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 砖拽讬讚砖 拽讚讜砖讬讜 驻住讜诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖住驻拽 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 驻住讜诇讛 诪诇拽讚砖 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 注专诇 讜住驻拽 注专诇 驻住讜诇 诪诇拽讚砖

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta (Para 5:5): If a tumtum sanctified the purification waters by placing a small amount of ashes from the red heifer into springwater that had been placed into a container for that purpose, his sanctification is invalid because there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, and an uncircumcised man is disqualified from sanctifying the purification waters. But if a hermaphrodite sanctified the purification waters, his sanctification is valid. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says: Even if a hermaphrodite sanctified the purification waters, his sanctification is invalid, because there is uncertainty as to whether a hermaphrodite is a woman, and a woman is disqualified from sanctifying the purification waters. In any event, the baraita teaches that one who is definitely uncircumcised, and even one about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is un-circumcised, is disqualified from sanctifying the purification waters.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诪专讘讬 诇讬讛 诇注专诇 讻讟诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讛注专诇

Rav Yosef said: This tanna of the baraita, who disqualifies one who is uncircumcised from sanctifying the purification waters, is a tanna from the school of Rabbi Akiva, who includes the uncircumcised in the same halakha as that which governs the ritually impure. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva says that the words 鈥渁ny man鈥 in the verse 鈥淎ny man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure鈥 (Leviticus 22:4), come to include one who is uncircumcised, and it is prohibited for him as well to partake of consecrated food. And so too, with regard to other matters as well, e.g., sanctifying the purification waters, one who is uncircumcised has the same status as one who is ritually impure.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬 诇讗 诇讬砖转诪讬讟 转谞讗 讜诇讬转谞讬 讛注专诇 讜讛讟诪讗 讜诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗

Rava said: I was sitting at the time before Rav Yosef, and I had the following difficulty: If so, according to Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion that the uncircumcised and the ritually impure have the same status, should one not be able to find a tanna who teaches the halakha of the uncircumcised and that of the ritually impure together, and we should say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? There should be some source that reflects this view.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讛注专诇 讜讛讟诪讗 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗讬住

The Gemara asks: And is there not such a source? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who is uncircumcised and one who is ritually impure are exempt from making an appearance in the Temple on each of the three pilgrim Festivals. The Gemara refutes this argument: This is no proof, as there it can be argued that one who is uncircumcised is exempt from appearing in the Temple because he is repulsive, and it is unbefitting that one who is uncircumcised appear in the Temple courtyard, but this does not mean that with regard to other matters as well he is treated like one who is ritually impure.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬诐 诇拽讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 讜驻讜住诇 讘讗砖讛 讜讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda follow their usual line of reasoning with regard to a hermaphrodite. As it is taught in a baraita: All are fit to sanctify the purification waters except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit for the task, but deems a woman and a hermaphrodite unfit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞讜 诇讟诪讗 诪注驻专 砖专讬驻转 讛讞讟讗转 讛谞讱 讚驻住诇讬 讘讗住讬驻讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讛谞讱 讚讻砖专讬谉 讘讗住讬驻讛 讻砖专讬诐 讘拽讬讚讜砖

The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? As it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall take for the impure of the ashes of the burning of the sin-offering, and he shall place on it running water in a vessel鈥 (Numbers 19:17). The juxtaposition of the placement of the water to the gathering of the ashes indicates that they are governed by the same halakha. Therefore, those who are unfit for gathering the ashes are likewise unfit for sanctification, whereas those who are fit for gathering the ashes are likewise fit for sanctification. Since a woman is fit to gather the ashes of the red heifer, she may also sanctify its waters.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞 诪讗讬 讜诇拽讞讜 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讛谞讱 讚驻住讜诇讬谉 讛转诐 讻砖专讬诐 讛讻讗

And Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: If so, then let the verse state: And he shall take. What is the significance of the shift to the plural form: 鈥淎nd they shall take鈥? It teaches that even those who are unfit there are fit here. As the halakhot of the two cases are not identical, Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit to perform the sanctification.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 讜谞转谉 讜诇讗 讜谞转谞讛 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞 讜谞转谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖拽讬诇 讞讚 讜讬讛讬讘 讞讚 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, according to Rabbi Yehuda a woman should also be fit to sanctify the purification waters. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda reads the verse precisely. It says: 鈥淎nd he shall place on it,鈥 and not: And she shall place on it. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? If the verse was written: And he shall take鈥nd he shall place, I would say that one individual must take the ashes and the same one must also place the water on them. The Merciful One therefore writes: 鈥淎nd they shall take,鈥 indicating that the ritual is valid even when performed by two different individuals.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜 讜谞转谞讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚砖拽诇讬 转专讬 讜讬讛讘讬 转专讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜 讜谞转谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 砖拽诇讬 转专讬 讜讬讛讬讘 讞讚

And if the Merciful One had written: And they shall take鈥nd they shall place, I would say that two people must take the ashes and two must place the water on them, but if these rites are performed by fewer than two people they are invalid. The Torah therefore states: 鈥淎nd they shall take鈥nd he shall place,鈥 to teach that even if two people take the ashes and one person places the water on them, the ritual is valid. Since the verse had to be formulated precisely in this manner in order to teach that halakha, the words 鈥渁nd he shall place鈥 cannot be understood as coming to exclude a woman.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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: 72-78 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week, we will learn about the laws pertaining to a Jewish male who can鈥檛 be circumcised for health reasons....
talking talmud_square

Yevamot 72: The North Wind

On not circumcising in the Midbar, after leaving Egypt. Categories of those with physical issues that may prevent one's eligibility...
brit David ben Gurion

Keeping the Faith

One of the most enduring Jewish values is that of bringing a baby boy into the covenant through circumcision, brit...

Yevamot 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yevamot 72

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞砖讬讘 诇讛讜 专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讗讜转谉 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 诇讗 谞砖讘讛 诇讛诐 专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转

And if you wish, say instead that it was because the north wind did not blow for them, and the hot weather was likely to lead to medical complications following the procedure. As it is taught in a baraita: All those forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness, the north wind did not blow for them.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讝讜驻讬诐 讛讜讜 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚诇讗 谞讘讚讜专 注谞谞讬 讻讘讜讚

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that this wholesome wind did not blow all those years? If you wish, say it was because they were under censure following the sin of the spies and were therefore undeserving of this salutary wind. And if you wish, say instead that it was so that the clouds of glory covering the Tabernacle should not disperse.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻讱 讬讜诪讗 讚注讬讘讗 讜讬讜诪讗 讚砖讜转讗 诇讗 诪讛诇讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 诪住讜讻专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讚砖讜 讘讛 专讘讬诐 砖讜诪专 驻转讗讬诐 讛壮

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, learn from here that on a cloudy day or on a day that a south wind [shuta] blows, we may neither circumcise nor let blood [mesokhrinan], owing to the danger involved. But nowadays, when many are accustomed to ignoring these safeguards, the verse 鈥淭he Lord preserves the simple鈥 (Psalms 116:6) is applied, and it is assumed that they will come to no harm.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讗讜转谉 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜诐 砖诇讗 谞砖讘讛 讘讜 专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转 讘讞爪讬 讛诇讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讘讞爪讬 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讛壮 讛讻讛 讻诇 讘讻讜专 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚注转 专爪讜谉 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: All those forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness there was not a day in which the north wind did not blow at midnight, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt鈥 (Exodus 12:29). The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation? How is it derived from this verse that speaks of the exodus from Egypt that a north wind blew at midnight during the forty years that the Jewish people wandered in the wilderness? The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us that a time of favor is a significant matter. Since midnight had once been a time of divine favor at the beginning of the exodus from Egypt, it continued to be a time of favor throughout the forty years that the Jewish people sojourned in the wilderness.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪砖讜讱 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诪讚讘专讬讛诐 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注专诇

Rav Huna said: By Torah law, if one had been circumcised, but subsequently the residual foreskin was drawn forward by itself or manually so that it covered the corona, he may partake of teruma, as he is considered circumcised. However, from the words of the Sages, they decreed that he must be circumcised again because he looks as if he were uncircumcised.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪砖讜讱 爪专讬讱 砖讬诪讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 讛讗 爪专讬讱 拽转谞讬

The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: One whose residual foreskin was drawn forward so that it covers the corona requires a second circumcision, indicating that he is not considered circumcised. The Gemara explains: This requirement is by rabbinic law, and by Torah law he is considered circumcised. The Gemara asks: And the amora who asked this question, why did he ask it in the first place? The baraita merely teaches that such an individual requires circumcision, and does not indicate that it is a Torah obligation.

拽讟注讬 讘住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖住讻谞讛 讛讬讗 诇讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 讛专讘讛 诪诇讜 讘讬诪讬 讘谉 讻讜讝讬讘讗 讜讛讜诇讬讚讜 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗转 讘专讬转讬 讛驻专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪砖讜讱

The Gemara explains: The amora who raised the question erred due to the latter clause of that same baraita, which states: Rabbi Yehuda says: He should not be circumcised because it would be dangerous for him to do so. His colleagues said to him: But weren鈥檛 there many who had drawn their residual foreskins forward and subsequently were circumcised a second time in the days of ben Koziva, otherwise known as bar Kokheva, and they fathered sons and daughters. Such re-circumcision is necessary, as it is stated: 鈥淗e must surely be circumcised [himmol yimmol]鈥 (Genesis 17:13), the double verb form indicating: Even one hundred times. And furthermore, it says: 鈥淗e has broken My covenant鈥 (Genesis 17:14), which comes to include one whose foreskin was drawn forward.

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讛诪讜诇 讬诪讜诇 诇专讘讜转 爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬诐 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讗转 讘专讬转讬 讛驻专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪砖讜讱

The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of: And furthermore, it says? Why was it necessary to cite two verses in support of the same halakha? The Gemara answers: The additional verse is necessary, lest you say that this first verse: 鈥淗e shall surely be circumcised,鈥 comes only to include the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut and to indicate that they must be removed. If so, come and hear a second verse: 鈥淗e has broken My covenant,鈥 which comes to include one whose foreskin was drawn forward.

讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讚拽讗 谞住讬讘 诇讛 转诇诪讜讚讗 拽专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

Now he, the amora who raised an objection based on the first part of the baraita, thought that since at the end of the baraita the tanna brings a derivation from a verse, this halakha must be by Torah law. But in fact that is not so. It is only by rabbinic law, and the verse quoted is a mere support but not the source of the halakha.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 谞砖讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪砖讜讱 讜谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection from a different source: A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma, but his wives and slaves may partake of it. A priest who had been circumcised, but subsequently the residual foreskin was drawn forward, and similarly one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, may partake of teruma. A priest who is a hermaphrodite [androginos], possessing both male and female genitals, and was circumcised may partake of teruma, as whether he is male or female he is entitled to eat teruma, but he may not partake of sacrificial food, which is permitted only to male priests, as he might not be a male. A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food, as he might be a male, and since his member is hidden he cannot be circumcised.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪砖讜讱 讜谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 转讬讜讘转讗

In any event, this baraita teaches that a priest whose foreskin was drawn forward and one who was born circumcised may partake of teruma. This would seem to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna that a priest whose foreskin was drawn forward may not eat teruma at least by rabbinic law. The Gemara concludes: This is in fact a conclusive refutation of his opinion.

讗诪专 诪专 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 谞砖讬讜 讜注讘讚讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 谞砖讬讜 诇讟讜诪讟讜诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讚讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 拽讚讜砖讬讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 谞转拽讚砖 拽讚讜砖讬讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

The Master said above in the baraita: A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma, but his wives [nashav] and slaves may partake of it. The Gemara is puzzled by this teaching: From where does a tumtum have wives? If he does not have a visible male organ, how can he marry a woman? If we say that he merely betrothed a woman, as it is taught in another baraita: If a tumtum betrothed a woman his betrothal is considered a valid betrothal, as he might be a male, and similarly if he was betrothed by a man, his betrothal is deemed a valid betrothal as he might be a female, there is a difficulty.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 住驻拽 讗砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 讗砖讛 诪拽讚砖转 讗砖讛

One could say that the tanna said that the betrothal of a tumtum is valid only as a stringency, i.e., out of concern that he might be a male, and therefore the woman cannot leave without a proper bill of divorce. But should we say that his betrothal is valid also as a leniency, to allow his wife to eat teruma? There is an uncertainty here that perhaps he is a woman, and one woman cannot betroth another woman.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖讘讬爪讬讜 谞讬讻专讜转 诪讘讞讜抓

Abaye said: The tanna is referring to a tumtum whose male organ is hidden, but he is speaking of a situation where his testicles are visible externally. Since it is evident that he is a male, he can betroth a woman even though he cannot have relations with her.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讗讬 谞砖讬讜 讗诪讜 讗诪讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讜诇讬讚 诪讗讻讬诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rava said a different answer: What is meant here by the word nashav, which was translated earlier as his wives, but which can also be understood as his women? It refers here to the priest鈥檚 mother, who, after her husband the priest has passed away, may continue to eat teruma by virtue of her son. The Gemara questions this interpretation of the baraita: His mother? It is obvious that she may eat teruma on his account, as he is her offspring by a priest. The Gemara explains: This statement is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that only if the priest is capable of having children does he enable his mother to eat teruma, but if he is incapable of having children he does not enable his mother to eat teruma, and therefore a tumtum, who cannot have children, should not enable his mother to eat teruma. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that this is not so, as a woman may eat teruma by virtue of the child she bore a priest, even if that child is incapable of having children.

转讗 砖诪注 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 注专诇 讜讚讗讬 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 住驻拽 注专诇

Come and hear a proof in support of Abaye鈥檚 opinion from that which is taught in the latter part of the baraita: A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food. There is a difficulty here, as the halakha that a tumtum may not partake of teruma was already taught in the first part of the baraita. Granted, according to Abaye, the tanna teaches in the first clause of the baraita the halakha governing a tumtum who is definitely uncircumcised, i.e., one whose testicles are visible externally, so that he is definitely male but cannot undergo circumcision because his member itself is hidden. And then he teaches in the latter clause of the baraita the halakha governing a tumtum about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, i.e., one whose genitalia are completely hidden, so that he might not even be a male.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讚住讬驻讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讗讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 注专诇

But according to Rava, why do I need the repetition of the halakha governing a tumtum in the latter clause? The tanna already stated this halakha in the first part of the baraita. The Gemara answers: What is this tumtum referred to in the latter clause? It is a man who is definitely uncircumcised.

讛砖转讗 住驻拽 注专诇 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讜讚讗讬 注专诇 讗讻讬诇 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖住驻拽 注专诇 讛讜讗 讜注专诇 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: Now, if a tumtum, about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, may not partake of teruma, as stated in the first clause of the baraita, can it be supposed that a man who is definitely uncircumcised may eat teruma, so that it was necessary for the baraita to teach in the latter clause that he may not do so? The Gemara answers: He is saying: What is the reason. The baraita should be understood as follows: What is the reason that a tumtum may not partake of teruma? It is because there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, and an uncircumcised priest may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 诪砖讜讱 (讜谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇) 讜讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讜拽讟谉 砖注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛谞讬诪讜诇讬诐 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 注专诇讜转 讗讬谞谉 谞讬诪讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谞讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this amoraic dispute as to whether or not one who had been circumcised but his residual foreskin was drawn forward is considered uncircumcised by Torah law is parallel to the following dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in the Tosefta (Shabbat 16:7): One whose foreskin was drawn forward, and similarly, one who was born circumcised, and a convert who converted when he was already circumcised, and a child whose appropriate time for circumcision already passed and he was still uncircumcised, and all others who require circumcision, which, as the Gemara parenthetically adds, comes to include one who has two foreskins, both of which must be removed, may be circumcised only during the day. Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon says: If the circumcision is performed at its appropriate time, i.e., on the eighth day,

讗讬谉 谞讬诪讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 谞讬诪讜诇讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘诇讬诇讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪砖讜讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪砖讜讱 讚专讘谞谉

they may be circumcised only during the day. However, if the circumcision is performed not at its appropriate time, they may be circumcised either during the day or at night. What, is it not the case that they disagree about the following: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the obligation to circumcise one whose foreskin was drawn forward is by Torah law, and therefore he must be circumcised during the day despite the fact that the procedure is not performed at the proper time, and one Sage, Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon, holds that the circumcision of one whose foreskin was drawn forward is by rabbinic law.

讜转住讘专讗 拽讟谉 砖注讘专 讝诪谞讜 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And how can you understand the disagreement in that way? With regard to a child whose appropriate time for circumcision has already passed, is there anyone who says that the obligation to circumcise him is only by rabbinic law? Even after the eighth day, there is certainly a Torah obligation to circumcise him, and yet the tanna鈥檌m disagree about this case as well.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜讱 讚专讘谞谉 讜拽讟谉 砖注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚专砖讬谞谉 讜讘讬讜诐 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 讜讘讬讜诐

Rather, everyone agrees that the obligation to circumcise one whose foreskin was drawn forward is by rabbinic law, and that the obligation to circumcise a child whose appropriate time for circumcision has already passed is by Torah law. And here they disagree with regard to the following: One Sage holds that we expound the phrase 鈥渁nd on the day鈥 in the verse 鈥淎nd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3). The superfluous word 鈥渁nd鈥 indicates that even if the child was not circumcised on the eighth day, the procedure must still be performed during the day. And one Sage, Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon, holds that we do not expound the phrase 鈥渁nd on the day,鈥 and therefore a circumcision must be performed during the day only when it takes place on the eighth day, but afterward it may be performed even at night.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽讚专讬砖 谞讜转专 讘讝诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞砖专祝 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖专祝 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛

As in the case where Rabbi Yo岣nan was sitting and he expounded: Notar, the flesh of an offering that is left over beyond its allotted time, requires burning. If it is burnt at its appropriate time, i.e., on the same day that it became notar, it may be burned only during the day. If it is burnt not at its appropriate time, it may be burned either during the day or at night.

讜讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讬谞讬 砖讗讬谉 谞讬诪讜诇 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 诇转砖注讛 诇注砖专讛 诇讗讞讚 注砖专 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 (诪谞讬谉) 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘讬讜诐

And Rabbi Elazar raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from the following baraita: I have derived only that a child who is circumcised on the eighth day may be circumcised only during the day. From where do I derive to include in this halakha a child who is circumcised on the ninth, tenth, eleventh, or twelfth day? From where is it derived that he, too, may be circumcised only during the day? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd on the day,鈥 which teaches that the obligation to circumcise during the day extends beyond the eighth day itself.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 讜讗讜 讜讗讜 讜讛讬 讚专讬砖 讗讬砖转讬拽

And even the Sage who does not expound the letter vav, meaning 鈥渁nd,鈥 as superfluous, expounds the letters vav and heh when they come together and understands them as alluding to cases not explicitly mentioned in the biblical text. Regarding notar the verse states: 鈥淎nd that which remains [vehanotar] of the flesh of the offering on the third day shall be burnt with fire鈥 (Leviticus 7:17), where the letters vav and heh teach that the obligation to burn notar during the day extends beyond the third day itself. Rabbi Yo岣nan was silent, as he had no response.

讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 专讗讬转讬 诇讘谉 驻讚转 砖讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜专砖 讻诪砖讛 诪驻讬 讛讙讘讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讛讬讗 讛讬讻讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讘转讜专转 讻讛谞讬诐 谞驻拽 转谞讬讬讛 讘转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讜住讘专讛 讘转诇转讗 讬专讞讬

After Rabbi Elazar left, Rabbi Yo岣nan, who was impressed with Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 exposition, said to Reish Lakish: I saw that Rabbi Elazar, son of Pedat, was sitting and expounding the Torah as Moses had received it directly from the mouth of the Almighty. Reish Lakish said to him: Was this exposition his own? It is a baraita. Rabbi Yo岣nan inquired: Where is this baraita taught? Reish Lakish replied: It is in Torat Kohanim, otherwise known as Sifra, a work of halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus. Rabbi Yo岣nan went out and learned the entire Torat Kohanim in three days, and reached a full understanding of it in three months.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注专诇 砖讛讝讛 讛讝讗转讜 讻砖专讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗住讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 讻砖专 讘驻专讛

Rabbi Elazar said: If an uncircumcised priest sprinkled the purification waters containing the ashes of a red heifer in order to purify someone who had contracted ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, his sprinkling is valid, just as it is in the case of a priest who immersed himself that day but does not become completely purified until nightfall. As, although such an individual is prohibited from eating teruma, he is fit for all the rites connected to the red heifer.

诪讛 诇讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讻谉 诪讜转专 讘诪注砖专 讗讟讜 讗谞谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗谞谉 诇谞讙讬注讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜诪讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖讗住讜专 讘谞讙讬注讛 讚转专讜诪讛 诪讜转专 讘驻专讛 注专诇 砖诪讜转专 讘谞讙讬注讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜转专 讘驻专讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If one who immersed himself that day is fit for all the rites connected to the red heifer, that is because he is at least permitted to eat tithes, and so he is treated more leniently than one who is uncircumcised, for whom it is prohibited to partake of second tithe. The Gemara answers: Is that to say that we are speaking about eating? We spoke in reference to touching, and the proof was as follows: If one who immersed himself that day and who is forbidden to touch teruma, as he invalidates teruma by touch, is nevertheless permitted to participate in all the rites connected to the red heifer; then with regard to one who is uncircumcised, who is permitted to touch teruma according to all opinions, is it not right that he should be permitted to participate in the rites connected to the red heifer?

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 注专诇 砖讛讝讛 讛讝讗转讜 讻砖专讛 讜诪注砖讛 讛讬讛 讜讛讻砖讬专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讝讗转讜

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita: If an uncircumcised priest sprinkled the purification waters, his sprinkling is valid. And an incident occurred in which such an individual sprinkled the purification waters and the Sages validated his sprinkling.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 拽讬讚讜砖讜 驻住讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 住驻拽 注专诇 讜注专诇 驻住讜诇 诇拽讚砖 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 砖拽讬讚砖 拽讬讚讜砖讜 讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 砖拽讬讚砖 拽讚讜砖讬讜 驻住讜诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖住驻拽 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛 驻住讜诇讛 诪诇拽讚砖 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 注专诇 讜住驻拽 注专诇 驻住讜诇 诪诇拽讚砖

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta (Para 5:5): If a tumtum sanctified the purification waters by placing a small amount of ashes from the red heifer into springwater that had been placed into a container for that purpose, his sanctification is invalid because there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, and an uncircumcised man is disqualified from sanctifying the purification waters. But if a hermaphrodite sanctified the purification waters, his sanctification is valid. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says: Even if a hermaphrodite sanctified the purification waters, his sanctification is invalid, because there is uncertainty as to whether a hermaphrodite is a woman, and a woman is disqualified from sanctifying the purification waters. In any event, the baraita teaches that one who is definitely uncircumcised, and even one about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is un-circumcised, is disqualified from sanctifying the purification waters.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诪专讘讬 诇讬讛 诇注专诇 讻讟诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讛注专诇

Rav Yosef said: This tanna of the baraita, who disqualifies one who is uncircumcised from sanctifying the purification waters, is a tanna from the school of Rabbi Akiva, who includes the uncircumcised in the same halakha as that which governs the ritually impure. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva says that the words 鈥渁ny man鈥 in the verse 鈥淎ny man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure鈥 (Leviticus 22:4), come to include one who is uncircumcised, and it is prohibited for him as well to partake of consecrated food. And so too, with regard to other matters as well, e.g., sanctifying the purification waters, one who is uncircumcised has the same status as one who is ritually impure.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬 诇讗 诇讬砖转诪讬讟 转谞讗 讜诇讬转谞讬 讛注专诇 讜讛讟诪讗 讜诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗

Rava said: I was sitting at the time before Rav Yosef, and I had the following difficulty: If so, according to Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion that the uncircumcised and the ritually impure have the same status, should one not be able to find a tanna who teaches the halakha of the uncircumcised and that of the ritually impure together, and we should say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? There should be some source that reflects this view.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讛注专诇 讜讛讟诪讗 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗讬住

The Gemara asks: And is there not such a source? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who is uncircumcised and one who is ritually impure are exempt from making an appearance in the Temple on each of the three pilgrim Festivals. The Gemara refutes this argument: This is no proof, as there it can be argued that one who is uncircumcised is exempt from appearing in the Temple because he is repulsive, and it is unbefitting that one who is uncircumcised appear in the Temple courtyard, but this does not mean that with regard to other matters as well he is treated like one who is ritually impure.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬诐 诇拽讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 讜驻讜住诇 讘讗砖讛 讜讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda follow their usual line of reasoning with regard to a hermaphrodite. As it is taught in a baraita: All are fit to sanctify the purification waters except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit for the task, but deems a woman and a hermaphrodite unfit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞讜 诇讟诪讗 诪注驻专 砖专讬驻转 讛讞讟讗转 讛谞讱 讚驻住诇讬 讘讗住讬驻讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讛谞讱 讚讻砖专讬谉 讘讗住讬驻讛 讻砖专讬诐 讘拽讬讚讜砖

The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? As it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall take for the impure of the ashes of the burning of the sin-offering, and he shall place on it running water in a vessel鈥 (Numbers 19:17). The juxtaposition of the placement of the water to the gathering of the ashes indicates that they are governed by the same halakha. Therefore, those who are unfit for gathering the ashes are likewise unfit for sanctification, whereas those who are fit for gathering the ashes are likewise fit for sanctification. Since a woman is fit to gather the ashes of the red heifer, she may also sanctify its waters.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞 诪讗讬 讜诇拽讞讜 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讛谞讱 讚驻住讜诇讬谉 讛转诐 讻砖专讬诐 讛讻讗

And Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: If so, then let the verse state: And he shall take. What is the significance of the shift to the plural form: 鈥淎nd they shall take鈥? It teaches that even those who are unfit there are fit here. As the halakhot of the two cases are not identical, Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit to perform the sanctification.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 讜谞转谉 讜诇讗 讜谞转谞讛 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞 讜谞转谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖拽讬诇 讞讚 讜讬讛讬讘 讞讚 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, according to Rabbi Yehuda a woman should also be fit to sanctify the purification waters. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda reads the verse precisely. It says: 鈥淎nd he shall place on it,鈥 and not: And she shall place on it. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? If the verse was written: And he shall take鈥nd he shall place, I would say that one individual must take the ashes and the same one must also place the water on them. The Merciful One therefore writes: 鈥淎nd they shall take,鈥 indicating that the ritual is valid even when performed by two different individuals.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜 讜谞转谞讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚砖拽诇讬 转专讬 讜讬讛讘讬 转专讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇拽讞讜 讜谞转谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 砖拽诇讬 转专讬 讜讬讛讬讘 讞讚

And if the Merciful One had written: And they shall take鈥nd they shall place, I would say that two people must take the ashes and two must place the water on them, but if these rites are performed by fewer than two people they are invalid. The Torah therefore states: 鈥淎nd they shall take鈥nd he shall place,鈥 to teach that even if two people take the ashes and one person places the water on them, the ritual is valid. Since the verse had to be formulated precisely in this manner in order to teach that halakha, the words 鈥渁nd he shall place鈥 cannot be understood as coming to exclude a woman.

Scroll To Top