Yevamot 72a — the Talmud in English

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

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

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

And we explain:

What is the reason?

If you wish, say: Because they were rebuked

on account of the incident of the Golden Calf, and they were not fit for radiant light.

And if you wish, say:

For this reason the north wind did not blow, so that

they would not be dispersed [

they would not scatter]

the clouds of glory

that surrounded them, and the sun could not enter.

Rav Pappa said: Therefore,

on

a cloudy day [

a day overcast with clouds],

and on a day of shuta [

a day when the south wind blows, and it is harsher than all the winds]—

we do not circumcise on it [

we do not circumcise on it],

and we do not let blood on it [

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

And

but

nowadays, when many have become accustomed to it [

now, when the public has become accustomed to doing so even on these days], concerning this it is said:

“The Lord preserves the simple.”

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

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

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

since this hour is a time of favor.

And as

it is said: “And it came to pass at midnight, and the Lord

struck every firstborn”

in the land of Egypt.

What does it teach? [

What does this statement come to teach us]?

This teaches us that a time of favor—

is a matter.

Rav Huna said: By Torah law,

a priest who is

drawn

in his foreskin [circumcised, whose foreskin has been drawn forward and covered the corona]

eats terumah,

because he is not obligated to circumcise.

But

only

by their words, they decreed that he must circumcise,

and they prohibited him from terumah like an uncircumcised man,

because he appears to be uncircumcised.

He raised an objection to Rav Huna, who said that the mashukh is not obligated by Torah law to circumcise:

And was it not taught:

And it was taught:

“A mashukh must circumcise!”

And it entered our minds that he must circumcise by Torah law.

And we answer: He must circumcise

by rabbinic law.

And the Gemara wonders about the objection:

And the one who raised it—

what caused him to raise it [

what entered the questioner’s mind initially that caused him to raise this objection]?

Behold,

it did not say, “A mashukh is like an uncircumcised man,” but rather

“must”

circumcise

it teaches, which implies that it is rabbinic?!

And we explain:

And we explain:

The questioner was mistaken

the questioner

at the end [

the end of the beraita misled the questioner into understanding that it was by Torah law].

For this is what we learned at the end of the beraita:

Rabbi Judah says:

A mashukh

must not circumcise, because it is dangerous for him,

lest he become one whose urethra is split and be unable to father children.

They said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Judah:

But many

who were mashukhim in their foreskins

circumcised in the days of ben Koziva,

and fathered

afterward

sons and daughters.

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

As it is stated

in the portion of circumcision that was said to Abraham:

“He shall surely circumcise.”

And the repetition of the wording comes to teach:

even one hundred times

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

And it says

the verse further there: “And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from its people,”

“He has broken My covenant.”

And it is superfluous, in order

to include a mashukh.

The Gemara first explains the beraita, and afterward returns to explain the view of the questioner:

What is the purpose of “And it says”?

That is to say: Why did the tanna of the beraita need to bring another verse to teach about a mashukh?

And we explain:

And if you would say that

this

“He shall surely circumcise”

does not come to include a mashukh, but rather

to include trimmings that prevent the circumcision,

therefore

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

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

He,

the questioner,

thought: Since the Talmud cited a verse for it,

from the fact that the beraita brings the source of the law from Scripture, the law

is by Torah law.

But

it is not so!

Rather, only

by rabbinic law

is a mashukh obligated to circumcise again,

and

if there were

a verse—

it is merely a support

for the rabbinic law.

The following report is explained according to Rashi’s second wording and his version.

Let us say that it supports him

Rav Huna, who said that by Torah law a mashukh eats terumah, from the words of the beraita:

For it was taught:

A tumtum [

whose male organ is covered with skin],

does not eat terumah,

lest, if it is torn open, he be found to be male, and he is uncircumcised.

But

his wives and slaves eat

like the wives and slaves of an uncircumcised man.

A mashukh

in his foreskin,

and

likewise one who

was born circumcised,

these eat

terumah [from here the Gemara supports Rav Huna’s words, as it explains and proceeds].

An androgynos [

one who has male and female sexual characteristics] who was circumcised, he

eats terumah,

since he is not uncircumcised.

And he does not eat

the androgynos

of

holy things

of the highest sanctity,

for they may be eaten only by male priests, and an androgynos is doubtfully a woman.

A tumtum does not eat either terumah [

and later the Gemara explains why the tanna repeated this law],

or holy things,

even holy things of lesser sanctity, on account of being uncircumcised.

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita:

“A mashukh, and one born circumcised”—

these eat,

which means that the mashukh eats terumah by Torah law, in accordance with Rav Huna’s view [but by rabbinic law he does not eat terumah, as Rav Huna said].

The master said

in the beraita:

“A tumtum does not eat terumah

on account of being uncircumcised, but

his wives and slaves eat.”

And we wonder:

“His wives” of a tumtum—

from where does he have them? [

How can a tumtum have a wife] to feed her terumah?!

If you say that he betrothed [

betrothed] a daughter of Israel, and he thereby feeds her terumah because

it was taught: “A tumtum who betrothed

a woman,

his betrothals are betrothals,”

and even a tumtum who

was betrothed

by a man,

his betrothals

of the man

are betrothals?

It is impossible to explain it this way, that the tumtum feeds his wife terumah, because:

I can say that he said

in the beraita that the tumtum’s betrothals take effect only

for stringency,

to require her to receive a bill of divorce before she becomes betrothed to another.

But

for leniency—

to feed his non-priestly wife terumah—

who says so?!

For a tumtum

is doubtfully a woman, and

for stringency we must say that

a woman does not betroth a woman!

Abaye said:

The beraita is speaking

when the testicles

of the tumtum

are recognizable from the outside,

so that he is certainly male and can betroth a woman; therefore he feeds her terumah.

Rava said

to explain the beraita:

What does “his wives

mean,”

“his mother”

of the tumtum, who is an Israelite woman married to a priest, whose husband died?

She eats terumah on account of the tumtum son she has from her priest husband, as the Torah said: “And one born in his house—they shall eat of his bread”; and we read it as “they shall feed” on his bread, to teach concerning offspring that an Israelite woman has from a priest, that he feeds her terumah.

And we wonder:

“His mother?!”

Behold,

it is obvious

that the tumtum feeds her!

And we explain:

Lest you say: Since the verse said, “And one born in his house—they shall eat of his bread,” then a son who

begets [

fit to beget]—and we read him as “one born”—indeed

feeds

his mother, but a son

who does not beget,

and we do not read him as “one born,” I might say that he

and whom we cannot call “one born in his household,” I might say that he

does not feed her.

This teaches us.

Come and hear

to raise an objection to Rava’s interpretation of the beraita, from its latter clause:

A tumtum does not eat either teruma or sacred offerings.

Granted, according to Abaye,

who interprets the first clause of the beraita that we learned—“A tumtum does not eat teruma; his wives and slaves shall eat”—as speaking of a tumtum whose testicles are recognizable from the outside; it is then understandable that the tan­ na­ y repeated and said: “A tumtum does not eat teruma.”

For

when he taught the first clause:

a tumtum whose testicles are on the outside, who is

certainly uncircumcised.

And he taught 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, then

why do I need the tumtum of the latter clause

to teach us that he does not eat teruma, since this has already been explained in the first clause?!

And we answer:

What is meant by “tumtum”

“does not eat,” which is taught in the latter clause of the beraita?

An uncircumcised person.

And we raise a difficulty: Why does the tanna need to say that an uncircumcised person does not eat teruma and sacred offerings?

For

now, a person possibly uncircumcised does not eat

teruma, as explained in the first clause; and if so, is it possible that

a certainly uncircumcised person eats

teruma?!

And we explain:

He is stating, “For what reason,”

the tanna of the beraita:

For what reason does a tumtum

whose testicles are not recognizable from the outside

not eat teruma? Because he is possibly uncircumcised, and an uncircumcised person does not eat either teruma or sacred offerings.

Shall we say that it is a dispute between tannaim,

whether tannaim disputed the matter: whether a person whose foreskin was drawn forward is obligated to circumcise by Torah law, or needs to circumcise only by rabbinic law, as Rav Huna said:

For it was taught:

A person whose foreskin was drawn forward,

and a convert who converted while already circumcised

and from him it is necessary to draw covenantal blood ,

and a minor whose appointed time has passed ,

and all the other circumcised persons—this comes to include one who has two foreskins

foreskins of one upon the other , even these

are circumcised only during the day

like a complete circumcision, which is only during the day.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says:

a child who is circumcised

at his appointed time

on the eighth day]—