Yevamot 72a (עב.) — the Talmud in English

And if you wish, say instead: Because the northern wind did not blow for them:

it is a temperate wind, neither hot nor cold, and the sun shines, and it is dangerous to circumcise without this.

As it was taught in a beraita: Throughout all those forty years that Israel was in the wilderness, the northern wind did not blow for them

And we explain:

What is the reason?

If you wish, say: Because they were under a ban

on account of the incident of the Golden Calf, and were therefore unfit for the radiant light.

And if you wish, say:

The reason the northern wind did not blow was so that

they would not disperse [

they would not be scattered]

the Clouds of Glory

that surrounded them, and the sun could not enter.

Rav Pappa said: Therefore,

on

a cloudy day [

a day when it is overcast],

and on a day of shuta [

a day when the southern wind blows, which is harsher than all the winds]—

we do not circumcise on it [

we do not perform circumcision on it],

and we do not let blood on it [

we do not perform bloodletting on it], just as Israel did not circumcise in the wilderness.

But

however,

nowadays, since the public has become accustomed to doing so [

now, since the community has become accustomed to doing this even on such days], concerning this it is said:

“The Lord protects the simple.”

The Sages taught: Throughout all those forty years that Israel was in the wilderness—

even though the northern wind did not blow for them during the day—

there was no day on which the northern wind did not blow at midnight—

since that hour is a time of favor.

And this is like

that which is stated: “And it came to pass at midnight, and the Lord

struck every firstborn

in the land of Egypt.”

What does the verse teach us [

what does this statement come to teach us]?

This teaches us that a time of favor—

is a significant matter.

Rav Huna said: By Torah law,

a kohen who is

a mashukh

in his foreskin [one who was circumcised, but whose foreskin subsequently extended and covered the corona]

may eat teruma,

since he is not obligated to undergo circumcision.

But

only

by rabbinic decree, they ordained that he must circumcise,

and they prohibited him from eating teruma like an uncircumcised male,

because he appears to be uncircumcised.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna, who said that a mashukh is not obligated by Torah law to circumcise:

It was taught:

“

A mashukh must circumcise!”

And it initially occurred to us that he must circumcise by Torah law.

And we answer: He must circumcise

by rabbinic law.

The Gemara is puzzled by the objection:

But the one who raised it—

what led him to raise it [

what entered the questioner’s mind initially that led him to ask this question]?

Behold,

it does not say that a mashukh is like an uncircumcised male; rather,

“must

circumcise,”

it teaches,

which implies that the requirement is rabbinic?!

And we explain:

The questioner was misled

by

the latter clause [

the latter clause of the beraita misled the questioner into understanding that the requirement was by Torah law].

For we learned in the latter clause of the beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

A mashukh

may not circumcise, because it is dangerous for him,

lest he become one whose penis has been severed and be unable to father children.

The Sages said to him,

to Rabbi Yehuda:

But many

men whose foreskin had extended

were circumcised in the days of Ben Koziva,

and fathered

children

sons and daughters afterward.

The beraita explains the source of the law that a mashukh must circumcise:

As it is stated

in the passage concerning the circumcision said to Abraham:

“You shall surely circumcise.”

The repetition of the wording comes to teach:

even one hundred times

he must circumcise, as in the case of one whose foreskin extended after he had been circumcised.

And it says:

The verse continues there: “An uncircumcised male who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from its people,”

“he has violated My covenant.”

This expression is superfluous, in order

to include a mashukh.

The Gemara first explains the beraita, and afterward returns to explain the questioner’s reasoning:

What is the purpose of the additional verse?”

That is: Why did the tanna of the beraita need to bring an additional verse to teach the law concerning a mashukh?

And we explain:

And if you would say

that

this “You shall surely circumcise”

does not come to include a mashukh, but rather

to include folds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision,

therefore

come and hear: “He has violated My covenant,” to include a mashukh.

Here the Gemara returns to explain the questioner’s reasoning, that the obligation of a mashukh to circumcise is by Torah law:

He,

the questioner,

reasoned: Since the Talmud cited a verse for it,

since the beraita brought the source of the law from Scripture, the law

must be by Torah law.

But

that is not so!

Rather, only

by rabbinic law

is a mashukh obligated to circumcise again,

and

if there is

a verse,

it is merely a scriptural allusion

to the rabbinic law.

The following teaching is explained in accordance with Rashi’s second wording and his version of the text.

Can it be said that this supports Rav Huna, who said that by Torah law a mashukh may eat teruma, from the following beraita:

It was taught:

A

tumtum [

whose male organ is covered by skin]

may not eat teruma,

lest, if the covering is torn, it be discovered that he is male, in which case he is uncircumcised.

But

his wives and slaves may eat

like the wives and slaves of an uncircumcised male.

A mashukh

in his foreskin,

and

likewise one who was

born circumcised,

these may eat

teruma [from here the Gemara supports Rav Huna’s words, as it will explain].

An androgynos [

one who possesses both male and female sexual characteristics] who was circumcised may

eat teruma,

since he is not uncircumcised.

But he may not eat

the androgynos

of

sacred offerings

of the highest sanctity,

which may be eaten only by male kohanim, and an androgynos is possibly female.

A tumtum may eat neither teruma [

and later the Gemara will explain why the tanna repeated this law],

nor sacred offerings,

even offerings of lesser sanctity, because of his status as uncircumcised.

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita:

A mashukh and one born circumcised—

these may eat,

which means that a mashukh may eat teruma by Torah law, in accordance with Rav Huna’s view [but by rabbinic law he may not eat teruma, as Rav Huna stated].

The Master said

in the beraita:

A tumtum may not eat teruma

because of his status as uncircumcised, but

his wives and slaves may eat.

And we ask:

His wives, with regard to a tumtum—

from where does he have them? [

How can a tumtum have a wife to enable her to eat teruma]?!

If you say that he betrothed [

betrothed] a Jewish woman, and he enables her to eat teruma because

it was taught: A tumtum who betrothed

a woman,

his betrothals are valid,

and even a tumtum who was

betrothed

by a man,

the man’s betrothal

is

valid?

This cannot be explained as meaning that the tumtum enables his wife to eat teruma, because:

Perhaps when it was said

in the beraita that a tumtum’s betrothals take effect, it was said only

as a stringency,

to require her to receive a bill of divorce before marrying another man.

But

as a leniency—

to enable his non-kohen wife to eat teruma—

who says so?!

After all, a tumtum

is possibly female, and

as a stringency we must say that

a woman cannot betroth a woman!

Abaye said:

The beraita is speaking

when the testicles

of the tumtum

are externally discernible,

so that he is certainly male and can betroth a woman; therefore he enables her to eat teruma.

Rava said,

to explain the beraita:

What does “his wives”

mean,

“his mother”

of the tumtum, who is a Jewish woman married to a kohen whose husband died?

She eats teruma on account of the tumtum son she had from her kohen husband. This is as the Torah says: “And those born in his household, they shall eat of his bread”; and we read it as “they shall enable others to eat of his bread,” teaching that offspring whom a Jewish woman has from a kohen enable her to eat teruma.

And we ask:

His mother?!

Is it not

obvious

that the tumtum enables her to eat?!

And we explain:

Lest you say:

Since the verse states: “And those born in his household, they shall eat of his bread,” then a son who

begets [

is capable of begetting] and can indeed be called “one born in his household”

enables

his mother to eat; but a son who

does not beget,

and cannot be called “one born in his household,” I might say that

he does not enable her to eat.

This teaches us.

Come and hear

to challenge Rava’s interpretation of the beraita, from its latter clause:

A tumtum may eat neither teruma nor consecrated food.

Granted, according to Abaye,

who interprets the first clause of the beraita that we learned—“A tumtum may not eat teruma; his wives and slaves may eat”—as referring to a tumtum whose testicles are externally visible, it is understandable that the tanna repeats: “A tumtum may not eat teruma.”

For

when he taught the first clause:

a tumtum whose testicles are externally visible, who is

certainly uncircumcised.

And he teaches in the latter clause:

an ordinary tumtum, who is

possibly uncircumcised.

But according to Rava,

who interprets even the first clause of the beraita as referring to an ordinary tumtum, if so,

why do I need the tumtum of the latter clause

to teach us that he may not eat teruma? This has already been stated in the first clause?!

And we answer:

What is meant by “tumtum"

that is stated in the latter clause of the beraita?

Uncircumcised.

And we ask: Why does the tanna need to state that an uncircumcised person may not eat teruma or consecrated food?

After all,

now, if one who is possibly uncircumcised may not eat

teruma, as explained in the first clause, is it conceivable that

one who is certainly uncircumcised may eat

teruma?!

And we explain:

“What is the reason,” he means

the tanna of the beraita:

What is the reason that a tumtum

whose testicles are not externally visible

may not eat teruma? Because he is possibly uncircumcised, and an uncircumcised person may eat neither teruma nor consecrated food.

Shall we say that this is subject to a dispute between tannaim,

whether one whose foreskin has been drawn forward is obligated by Torah law to undergo circumcision, or whether he needs to undergo circumcision only by rabbinic decree, as Rav Huna said:

As it was taught in a beraita:

One whose foreskin has been drawn forward,

and a convert who converted while already circumcised,

and from whom one must draw the blood of the covenant,

and a minor whose proper time for circumcision has passed,

and all other people who require circumcision—this comes to include one who has two foreskins

foreskin layers one over the other, even these

may be circumcised only during the day,

like a complete circumcision, which may take place only during the day.

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon says:

A baby who is circumcised

at its proper time

on the eighth day—