Yevamot 71a (עא.) — the Talmud in English

Only with regard to the Paschal offering,

conversion

[apostasy, according to the version of the Rishonim]

disqualifies

him.

If one of the Jewish people converted, thereby demonstrating through his actions his estrangement from his Father in Heaven, he is disqualified from eating the Paschal offering.

But conversion

[apostasy]

does not disqualify one with regard to

the second tithe.

The Gemara now further explains the verses in the passage concerning the Paschal offering:

And it was necessary to write

also, “Every

uncircumcised man

shall not eat of it,” and

it was also necessary

to write

“Every foreigner

shall not eat of it.”

For had the Merciful One written

only, “Every

uncircumcised man

shall not eat of it,” I would have said that only an uncircumcised man may not eat of the Paschal offering,

because he is repulsive

[an uncircumcised man is repulsive].

But as for a foreigner, who is not repulsive—

I might say that he is not

forbidden to eat the Paschal offering.

And had the Merciful One written, “Every foreigner

shall not eat of it,” I would have said that specifically a foreigner may not eat of it,

because the heart

of one who converted is not directed, when eating the Paschal offering,

toward Heaven.

But in the case of an uncircumcised man, whose heart is directed toward Heaven,

for example, one whose brothers died as a result of circumcision,

I might say that he is not

disqualified from eating the Paschal offering.

Therefore,

it is necessary

to state that he too is disqualified from eating the Paschal offering.

The Gemara further inquires: Since we have said that the word “of it” comes as a derivation to exclude something—

the verse

“of it”

also implies an exclusion, just as “of it” in the previous verse is an exclusion.

If so, when the verse in the passage concerning the Paschal offering says, “You shall not eat

of it

raw,” [meat that has not been fully roasted]—

Why do I need it?

What does this “of it” come to teach by exclusion? And we answer: “Of it”—it comes

for that which Rabba said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak,

as explained below, on page 74a.

The Gemara now explains the method of Rabbi Akiva, who derives the prohibition against an uncircumcised man eating teruma from the exposition of the verse “Every man.”

The Master said

above, in the beraita on page 70a:

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

to derive the prohibition against an uncircumcised man eating teruma by means of a gzera shava. Rather,

it says: “Every man”—

to include an uncircumcised man

in the prohibition against eating teruma.

And we challenge this:

Perhaps

say that “Every man” comes

to include an acute mourner

in the prohibition against eating teruma, and not to include an uncircumcised man!

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina said

in response:

The verse says

an expression of exclusion, through the word “and every,” as it is stated:

“And every foreigner

shall not eat of it [teruma],” and it did not say, “A foreigner shall not eat of it”—

the verse teaches: Only

foreignness I have told you

is prohibited with regard to eating teruma,

but not acute mourning.

The Gemara inquires:

Perhaps

say the opposite: “And every” does not come to exclude acute mourning; rather, it tells you that I have stated that foreignness is prohibited

but not uncircumcision.

And we answer: This cannot be said, since

it is written, “Every man”

to include an uncircumcised man, who is like one impure.

The Gemara asks:

What did you see

that led you to include through “Every man” an uncircumcised man, who is also prohibited from eating teruma, and not an acute mourner, on the basis of “And every foreigner”?

One could say the opposite: “Every man” comes to include an acute mourner, who is also prohibited from eating teruma, while “And every foreigner” teaches that an uncircumcised man is permitted to eat teruma. And we answer:

It is reasonable that

an

uncircumcised man should have been included

in the prohibition regarding teruma,

because

uncircumcision is more stringent than teruma in four respects:

a.

Acts

b.

Those liable to excision

c.

The matter

d.

The slave

a. Acts:

An uncircumcised man

is lacking an act

—circumcision—to rectify him, and

the act

that he lacks is

in his body

—that of the uncircumcised man.

b. Those liable to excision:

And

an uncircumcised man

is liable to excision

if he does not circumcise himself and thereby nullifies the mitzva of circumcision.

c. The matter of speech:

And it existed

as a mitzva of circumcision

before the utterance

[the giving of the Torah], since Abraham our forefather had already been commanded concerning it.

d. The slave:

And the circumcision of his males

—of the father—

and of his slaves

—of the master—

prevents

the father or the master from offering the Paschal offering: if he has a son who is fit to be circumcised, or a slave who is fit to be circumcised, the father or master may not eat the Paschal offering unless they circumcise him.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary, acute mourning should have been included

in the prohibition derived from “Every man,” rather than an uncircumcised man, and “And every foreigner” should be interpreted as coming to exclude an uncircumcised man from the prohibition against eating teruma.

Because

acute mourning is more stringent than uncircumcision:

a. Acute mourning

exists at every time

when a person’s relative dies, whereas once he removes his foreskin, uncircumcision never applies to him again.

b.

And

acute mourning

applies to men and women.

c.

And it is not within the power

of the acute mourner

to rectify himself.

And we answer:

These

stringencies that we enumerated with regard to uncircumcision

are more numerous [many] than the stringencies of acute mourning, since uncircumcision has four stringencies, while acute mourning has three.

[they are many] than the stringencies of acute mourning, for uncircumcision has four stringencies, while acute mourning has three.

Rava said: Without

the reasoning of

“these are more numerous”

that we stated,

you likewise cannot say

that “Every man” comes to include an acute mourner in the prohibition, while an uncircumcised man is permitted to eat teruma by virtue of the exclusion “of it”:

for

the verse says: “Every man.” What is the matter

that applies to a man but not to a woman? You must say that this is uncircumcision.

The Gemara inquires:

And as for Rabbi Akiva, what does he do with this “resident and hired laborer

shall not eat of it,” stated with regard to the Paschal offering, which Rabbi Yishmael understood as making the entire extra verse available for a gzera shava—

what does he do with it,

what does Rabbi Akiva do with this verse? For it cannot be interpreted according to its plain meaning, that a Hebrew slave may not eat of the Paschal offering, since a Hebrew slave is certainly a full-fledged Israelite and is obligated in the Paschal offering [as explained in the Gemara above]. If so, what does “resident and hired laborer” come to teach?

Rav Shemaya said

explaining: “A resident and hired laborer shall not eat of it,” which the Torah stated concerning the Paschal offering, comes

Rav Shemaya: “A resident and a hired laborer shall not eat of it,” which the Torah stated concerning the Paschal offering, comes

to include

and teach concerning

a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Gibeonite,

who may not eat the Paschal offering.

And we ask:

And

these

particular

gentiles who circumcised themselves,

are they circumcised? Are they considered circumcised and thereby removed from the category of uncircumcised, so that a special verse, “A resident and hired laborer shall not eat of it,” was needed to prohibit them from eating the Paschal offering!?

and have they left the category of uncircumcised males, so that a special verse, “A resident and a hired laborer shall not eat of it,” was needed to prohibit them from eating the Paschal offering!?

But we learned:

One who says: I am forbidden by the prohibition of

a konam

that I derive benefit “from uncircumcised people,”

he is

permitted to benefit from uncircumcised Jews, but forbidden to benefit from circumcised gentiles.

And if he said:

“Konam, I am forbidden to benefit from circumcised people,”

he is

permitted to benefit from circumcised gentiles, but forbidden to benefit from uncircumcised Jews.

For the term “uncircumcised” is applied only to gentiles, as it is stated: “For all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.”

It follows that even a gentile who was circumcised is included in the category of uncircumcised.

If so, why do I need a verse to include a resident and hired laborer—circumcised gentiles—who may not eat the Paschal offering? He is uncircumcised even if he circumcised himself!

Rather—the resident and hired laborer mentioned with regard to the Paschal offering, who may not eat of it—

come to include:

a.

A convert who circumcised himself

in order to convert, and is no longer uncircumcised,

but

still

has not immersed

for his conversion.

And Rabbi Akiva holds that he is not a convert until he circumcises and immerses.

b.

And a child born circumcised.

And he holds

that Rabbi Akiva

requires blood of the covenant to be drawn from him,

and therefore he may not eat the Paschal offering, since he is still uncircumcised.

The Gemara adds and explains:

And Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that “A resident and hired laborer shall not eat of it” is available for a gzera shava, since it cannot be interpreted according to its plain meaning, and did not interpret it as Rabbi Akiva did—

he

follows his position

[he follows his own method],

as he said: A convert who circumcised but did not immerse—

is a full-fledged convert,

and therefore he is obligated in the Paschal offering.

And

he also

holds

that Rabbi Eliezer holds that

a child born circumcised does not require blood of the covenant to be drawn from him,

and he is not uncircumcised; therefore, he is permitted to eat the Paschal offering.

Therefore, he does not expound “A resident and hired laborer shall not eat of it” as Rabbi Akiva does; rather, it is available for a gzera shava.

The Gemara further inquires:

And as for Rabbi Eliezer,

who derives the prohibition against an uncircumcised man eating teruma by means of a gzera shava,

what does he do with this “Every man”—

which Rabbi Akiva derived from here as prohibiting an uncircumcised man from eating teruma—

what does he do with it?

And we explain:

The Torah speaks in the language of people,

who repeat themselves, and it does not come to include anything.

Rav Hama bar Ukva raised a question: A minor

who is less than eight days old and is

uncircumcised

because the time for his circumcision has not yet arrived—

what is the halakha concerning anointing him with teruma oil?

The sides of the question are:

Does

uncircumcision before its time

prior to the eighth day

prevent

him from eating teruma,

or does it not prevent him?

Rabbi Zeira said: Come and hear

from that which is written in the passage concerning the Paschal offering: “Circumcise for him every male, and then he shall draw near to offer it.”

You learn from this that if he had sons at the time of the offering and did not circumcise them, they prevent him from offering the Paschal offering.

And it is further written: “And every male slave acquired for money, you shall circumcise him; then he may eat of it.”

You learn from this that if he had slaves at the time of eating and did not circumcise them, they prevent him from eating the Paschal offering.

I have derived only that the circumcision of his males

prevents him

at the time of the offering.

And

I have derived only that the circumcision of

his slaves

prevents him

at the time of eating.

From where is it derived that what is stated concerning one applies to the other,

so that his uncircumcised males prevent him even when they were uncircumcised only at the time of eating, while at the time of the offering they were not in a state that would prevent him,

and that what is stated concerning the other applies to this one,

so that his uncircumcised slaves prevent him even when they were uncircumcised only at the time of the offering, while at the time of eating they were no longer uncircumcised?

The verse states: “Circumcise for him every male, and

then

he shall draw near to offer it.” “And every male slave acquired for money, you shall circumcise him;

then

he may eat of it.”

The verse teaches: The two instances of “then”—

for a gzera shava.

And since it says, “And his slaves at the time of eating,” this implies that there is a case in which there are uncircumcised slaves who did not prevent him at the time of the offering, but do prevent him at the time of eating.

And since it says, “From where is it derived that what is stated concerning one applies to the other,” this implies that there are uncircumcised sons who did not prevent him at the time of the offering but do prevent him at the time of eating:

Yet,

granted, his slaves

are uncircumcised;

you can find a case in which they are present at the time of eating but absent at the time of the offering [you can find that he has uncircumcised slaves only at the time of eating, while they were not present at the time of the offering],

and

for example, he purchased them in the interim [he acquired slaves between the eating of the Paschal offering and its offering].

[he purchased slaves between the time of performing the offering and the time of eating].

But his males,

who are uncircumcised,

who are present at the time of eating but absent at the time of the offering—

how can you find such a case?

How is it possible for him to have uncircumcised sons only at the time of eating, while at the time he offered the Paschal offering he did not yet have uncircumcised sons?

No,

it must necessarily be referring to a case

in which a child was born between the offering and the eating,

that is, sons were born to him between the time of offering the Paschal offering and the time of eating it—

and

learn from this: uncircumcision before its time is considered uncircumcision,

since at the time of eating the time for circumcision had not yet arrived for those who were born after the offering.

Rava said: Can you really understand

that this is indeed the meaning of the beraita!?

For

the Merciful One said, “Circumcise for him every male, and then he shall draw near to offer it.”

And this one—

is not fit for circumcision!

For the Torah said, “Circumcise for him every male,” and it is the failure to fulfill the mitzva of circumcision that prevents the father from offering the Paschal offering; but this infant is not currently fit for circumcision.

Could there really be a possibility that uncircumcision before its time prevents the father with regard to the Paschal offering?

Surely, with regard to the father it is obvious that it does not prevent him, since he is not yet obligated to circumcise the child!

Rather,

the situation described in the beraita, in which he may have uncircumcised sons between the offering and the eating, is

what are we dealing with here? For example,

his son was ill at the time of offering the Paschal offering, and

his fever left him [he recovered when the fever that had been in his body departed and subsided] between the offering and the eating.

These sons were consequently fit to prevent him only at the time of eating, while at the time of the offering the father was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from circumcising them.

Thus, these sons were fit to prevent him only at the time of eating, whereas at the time of performing the offering the father was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from circumcising them.

We challenge this:

And

since he must wait seven additional days after the day of his recovery before circumcising him,

let him be given all seven days [let him be given seven days] during which he does not prevent the father from offering the Paschal offering.

How, then, can you say that if the son recovered between the offering and the eating, he prevents his father at the time of eating?

How, then, can you say that if the son recovered between the time of performing the offering and the time of eating, he prevents his father from eating?

And we answer:

He is indeed given all seven days!

Indeed, he prevents his father with regard to the Paschal offering only after seven days; here we are dealing with a case in which the seven days following his recovery from the illness had already been completed on Passover eve after midday, after the father had offered the Paschal offering.

And it might have entered our minds that if seven complete days elapsed from his recovery in the middle of the day, his time for circumcision would be at the beginning of that day, which is the eighth day from his recovery. Therefore, we ask:

And let us circumcise him from the morning

let us circumcise him from the morning!?

For already on Passover eve, from the beginning of the day—which is the eighth day from his recovery—he is fit for circumcision. And although at night one cannot circumcise him, since circumcision is only during the day, nevertheless, from the morning his time for circumcision has already arrived. And if he did not circumcise him when he performed the Paschal offering, it follows that his males prevent him even from performing it. How, then, is it possible that the circumcision of his males should prevent him at the time of eating but not at the time of performing the offering?!