Yevamot 71a — the Talmud in English

Only with regard to the Paschal offering,

conversion

[the reading of the early authorities: apostasy]

disqualifies

him.

If one of Israel converted his religion, and through this his deeds became estranged 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

.

And now the Gemara adds to explain 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 son of a 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

[the uncircumcised man is repulsive].

But a son of a foreigner, who is not repulsive—

I would say not

that he should be prohibited from eating the Paschal offering.

And had the Merciful One written “Every son of a foreigner

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

because his heart

—the heart of one who converted his religion—does not direct his intention in eating the Paschal offering

toward Heaven.

But an uncircumcised man, whose heart is directed toward Heaven, such as one whose brothers died because of circumcision,

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

I would say not

that he is disqualified from eating the Paschal offering.

Therefore:

it is necessary

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

And we further consider this: Since we said that the word “of it” comes as a derivation to exclude—

the verse

“from it”

also signifies an exclusion, just as “of it” is an exclusion.

And if so, that which the verse says in the passage concerning the Paschal offering, “You shall not eat

from it

now” [meat that is not completely roasted]—

Why do I need it?

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

for that which Rabba said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak

, as explained below, on page 74a.

And now the Gemara comes to explain the method of Rabbi Akiva, who derives the prohibition of an uncircumcised man with regard to teruma from the exposition of the verse “Every man, every man.”

The Master said

above, in the beraita, on page 70a:

Rabbi Akiva says: It is not necessary

to learn the prohibition of an uncircumcised man with regard to teruma from a gzera shava. Rather,

it says: “Every man, every man”—

to include an uncircumcised man

in the prohibition against eating teruma.

And we challenge this:

And say,

say that “Every man, every man” comes

to include an acute mourner

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

He said

—he answered—

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina: The verse says

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

“And every foreigner

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

the verse teaches: only

foreignness I told you

is prohibited with regard to eating teruma,

but not acute mourning.

And we consider this:

Say, say the opposite: “and every” did not come to exclude acute mourning, but rather to tell you: I told you that foreignness is prohibited

and

not uncircumcision.

And we answer: It is impossible to say so, for

it is written, “Every man, every man”

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

And we wonder:

What did you see

that you include from “Every man, every man” the uncircumcised man, who too is prohibited with regard to teruma, and do not include the acute mourner on account of “And every foreigner”?

For one could say the opposite: “Every man, every man” comes to include the acute mourner, who too is prohibited with regard to teruma, while “and every foreigner” comes to say that an uncircumcised man is permitted with regard to teruma? And we answer:

It is reasonable

that

uncircumcision should have been included

in the prohibition with regard to teruma,

since

it is more severe than teruma in four matters:

1.

Acts

; 2.

those liable to excision

; 3.

with regard to speech

; 4.

the slave.

a. Acts:

An uncircumcised man

lacks an act

—circumcision—in order to be corrected,

and the act

that he lacks is

in his body

—the body of the uncircumcised man.

b. Those liable to excision:

And

the uncircumcised man

is liable to excision

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

c. With regard to speech:

And it exists

—the mitzva of circumcision—

before the speech

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

d. The slave:

And the circumcision of his males

—of the father—

and his slaves

—of the master—

prevents

the father or the master from making the Paschal offering: if he has a son fit to be circumcised or a slave fit to be circumcised, the father or master is prohibited from eating the Paschal offering unless they circumcise him.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary, acute mourning should have been included

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

Since

acute mourning is more severe than uncircumcision:

a. Acute mourning

exists at every time

when his dead has died, whereas once he has removed his foreskin it never returns upon him.

b.

And acute mourning applies

to

men and women.

c.

And it is not in the power

of the acute mourner

to correct himself.

And we answer: These

are

the stringencies that we listed with regard to uncircumcision;

they are more numerous

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

Rava said: Without

the reasoning

“they are more numerous”

that we stated,

you likewise cannot say

that “Every man, every man” comes to include the acute mourner in the prohibition, whereas the uncircumcised man is permitted with regard to teruma because of the exclusion “of it”:

For

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

that exists in a man but does not exist in a woman? You must say this is uncircumcision.

And we consider this:

But Rabbi Akiva—this “resident and hired laborer

shall not eat of it,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal offering, and from which Rabbi Yishmael learned that the entire surplus of the verse is available for a gzera shava—

what does he do with it

? What will Rabbi Akiva do with it? For it is impossible to explain it 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?

He said

—he explained—

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

to include

—to bring and teach concerning—

a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Gibeonite,

who do not eat the Paschal offering.

And we wonder:

And

when

these

gentiles circumcise themselves,

are they circumcised? Are they considered circumcised and have they left the category of uncircumcised men, 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!?

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 prohibited by a prohibition of

a vow-offering

that I enjoy [the company of] uncircumcised men,”

is

permitted with regard to uncircumcised Israelites, but prohibited with regard to circumcised gentiles.

And if he said,

“A vow-offering that I enjoy [the company of] circumcised men,”

he is

permitted with regard to circumcised gentiles, but prohibited with regard to uncircumcised Israelites.

For uncircumcision is called only with reference to gentiles, as it is stated: “For all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.”

And it is demonstrated that even a gentile who was circumcised is included in uncircumcision.

And if so, why do I need a verse to include a circumcised gentile who is a resident or hired laborer, that they do not eat the Paschal offering? For he is uncircumcised even if he circumcised himself!

Rather—“resident and hired laborer,” stated concerning the Paschal offering, who does not eat—

comes to include:

1.

A convert who circumcised

in order to convert, and is already no longer uncircumcised,

and

still

has not immersed

for his conversion.

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

2.

And a minor who was born circumcised.

And he holds

Rabbi Akiva: He

needs covenantal blood to be caused to flow from him,

and therefore he is prohibited with regard to the Paschal offering, since he is still uncircumcised.

And the Gemara adds and explains:

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

who holds that “A resident and a hired laborer shall not eat of it” is available for a derivation based on an identical expression, since it cannot be explained according to its plain meaning, and who did not explain it as Rabbi Akiva did—

he proceeds

according to his own reasoning

[he follows his own method],

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

is a full-fledged convert, and if so, he is obligated in the Paschal offering.

and therefore he is obligated in the Paschal offering.

And

also

holds

Rabbi Eliezer that

a minor who was born circumcised does not need covenantal blood to be caused to flow from him, and he is not uncircumcised, and is permitted to eat the Paschal offering.

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

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

And we further consider this:

And Rabbi Eliezer, who learns the prohibition of an uncircumcised man with regard to teruma from a gzera shava,

who derives the prohibition against an uncircumcised male eating teruma through a derivation based on an identical expression,

this “Every man, every man”—

from which Rabbi Akiva learned to prohibit an uncircumcised man with regard to teruma—

what does he do with it?

And we explain:

The Torah spoke in the language of people

who repeat their wording, and it does not come to include.

Rav Ḥama bar Ukva inquired: A minor

who is less than eight days old, and who is

uncircumcised

because the time for circumcising him has not arrived—

what is the law concerning anointing him with teruma oil?

And the sides of the question are:

Whether

uncircumcision not at its proper time,

before the eighth day,

prevents

one from eating teruma.

Or does it not prevent?

Rabbi Zeira said, ta shma

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

You have learned that if he had sons at the time of performing 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 have learned that if he had slaves at the time of eating and did not circumcise them, these prevent him from eating the Paschal offering.

I have only the circumcision of his males

which prevents him

at the time of performing the offering.

And

I have only the circumcision of

his slaves

which prevents him

at the time of eating.

From where is it established that what is stated concerning one is applied 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 performing the offering they were not in a condition to prevent him?

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 what is stated concerning the other is applied to the one, so that his uncircumcised slaves prevent him even when they were uncircumcised only at the time of performing the offering, while at the time of eating they were not uncircumcised?

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 says: “‘He shall circumcise for him every male, and

then

he may draw near to perform it.’ “‘And every male slave acquired for money, you shall circumcise him;

then

he may eat of it.’”

The verse teaches “then, then”—

for a gzera shava.

And from the statement “and his slaves at the time of eating,” it is implied that there is a circumstance in which there are uncircumcised slaves who did not prevent him at the time of performing the offering, but do prevent him at the time of eating.

And from the statement “from where is it established that what is stated concerning one is applied to the other,” it is implied that there are uncircumcised sons who did not prevent him at the time of performing the offering, but do prevent him at the time of eating:

But

granted, his slaves

are uncircumcised:

you can find that they are present at the time of eating but are not present at the time of performing the offering

[you can find that he had uncircumcised slaves only at the time of eating, while at the time of performing the offering they were not present],

for example, he acquired them in the interim

[he acquired slaves between the eating of the Paschal offering and its performance].

But his males,

uncircumcised,

who are present at the time of eating but are not present at the time of performing the offering—

how can you find such a case?

How is it possible that he had uncircumcised sons only at the time of eating, whereas when he performed the Paschal offering he did not yet have uncircumcised sons?

No, necessarily the case is

it must necessarily refer to a case

that he was born between the performance and the eating,

that male sons were born to him between the time of performing the Paschal offering and the time of eating—

and

learn from this: uncircumcision not at its proper time is uncircumcision, for at the time of eating the time for circumcision had not arrived for those who were born after the performance.

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

Rava said: And can you understand it

as indeed being the explanation of the beraita!?

For

“the Merciful One said, ‘He shall circumcise for him every male, and then he may draw near to perform it.’”

And this one—

is he not fit for circumcision!

For the Torah said, “He shall circumcise for him every male,” and if the nonperformance of the mitzva of circumcision is what prevents the father from performing the Paschal offering, this infant is at present not fit for circumcision.

And is there any possibility of saying that uncircumcision not at its proper time prevents the father with regard to the Paschal offering?

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

Rather, what is explained in the beraita—that it is possible for him to have uncircumcised sons between the performance and the eating—

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

with what are we dealing here? For example,

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

his fever left him

[he was healed through the fever that had been released and departed from his body] between the performance and the eating.

And these sons were found fit to prevent him only at the time of eating, while at the time of performing the offering the father was compelled and unable to circumcise them.

And we challenge this:

And

since he must wait for him another seven days after the day of his recovery before circumcising him, if so,

let us give him all seven

[let us give him seven days] during which he will not prevent the father from performing the Paschal offering.

And how can you say that if the son recovered between the performance and the eating, he prevents his father at the time of eating?

And we answer:

We do give him all seven days!

Indeed, he does not prevent his father with regard to the Paschal offering until after seven days; and here we are dealing with a case in which the seven days after his recovery from the illness had already been completed on the eve of Passover after midday, after he had performed the Paschal offering.

And it might have entered our minds that if seven complete days from his birth were completed in the middle of the day, then the time of his circumcision is at the beginning of that day, which is the eighth day from his birth; therefore we raise the objection:

And let him circumcise him from the morning

—let him circumcise him in the morning—

!? For already from the beginning of the day, which is the eighth day from his birth, he is fit for circumcision; and although at night he cannot circumcise him, since circumcision is only during the day, nevertheless, from the morning the time of his circumcision has arrived. And if he did not circumcise him when he performed the Passover offering, it follows that his male offspring also prevent him in its performance; and how is it possible that the circumcision of his male offspring should prevent him at the time of eating but not at the time of its performance?!