Yevamot 72b — the Talmud in English

Are not circumcised

except during the day.

But a child circumcised

But a child who is circumcised

not at his proper time—

is circumcised

both

during the day and

both

during the night.

And likewise, the other ones who are circumcised, mentioned in the beraita, are circumcised both during the day and during the night.

Is it not so—

concerning one whose flesh was drawn over the corona—

in this they disagree: for one

the first tanna

holds: one whose flesh was drawn over the corona is circumcised

by

Torah law, and therefore he is circumcised only during the day.

And the other—

And the other—

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon—

holds: one whose flesh was drawn over the corona is circumcised

by

rabbinic law, and they did not impose stringency upon him to require circumcision specifically during the day and not during the night.

and the Sages did not require that his circumcision be performed specifically during the day and not at night.

It follows that the tannaim disagree concerning the statement of Rav Huna.

And we challenge this:

But can you understand it so—

is it possible to explain their disagreement in this way!? For—

A minor whose proper time passed—

is there anyone who says that it is only a

mitzva

of rabbinic law, and nevertheless according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon he is circumcised even during the night?!

mitzva, and yet, according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, he may be circumcised even at night?

Rather, in truth the tannaim do not disagree concerning the statement of Rav Huna. And

And

everyone, one whose flesh was drawn over the corona is circumcised only

by

rabbinic law,

And

while

if

a minor whose proper time passed is circumcised, he is circumcised by

the

Torah law.

And here—

concerning a minor whose proper time passed—

in this they disagree, the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon:

One Master,

One,

the first tanna,

holds: since Scripture did not say, “On the eighth day he shall be circumcised,” but rather, “And on the day,”

“And on the day”—

we expound from the addition of the letter vav in the word

And the other—

“And on the day”—

to include also one circumcised not at his proper time, that he is to be circumcised only during the day.

And the other—

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon—

holds: we do not expound “And on the day”,

and the Torah said that only the child circumcised at his proper time is to be circumcised during the day.

And since they disagree concerning a minor whose proper time passed according to Torah law, they also disagree concerning one whose flesh was drawn over the corona, which is according to rabbinic law:

The first tanna holds: since even one circumcised not at his proper time is circumcised during the day, the Sages likewise instituted concerning one whose flesh was drawn over the corona, who is subject only to rabbinic law, in a manner resembling Torah law.

And Rabbi Elazar holds: since even a minor whose proper time passed is circumcised during the night, all the more so one whose flesh was drawn over the corona, which is subject only to rabbinic law.

For it is like that which Rabbi Yohanan was sitting and expounding:

left over, which is required to be burned—when it is burned at its proper time, on the day on which it became left over,

The flesh of offerings,

“left over”, whose mitzva is to burn it—when it is burned

But when it is burned

at its proper time, on the day on which it becomes left over,

it

it is burned only during the day.

Because it is written concerning peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night: “And the left-over from the flesh of the sacrifice, on the third day, shall be burned in fire.”

But when it is burned

not at its proper time, it

From where do we include one circumcised on the

is burned both during the day and during the night.

And Rabbi Elazar raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan from that which was taught:

tenth, or on the

I have only that one circumcised on the eighth day is not circumcised except during the day,

as it is written: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.”

From where do we include

There is an extra letter vav here, which includes those circumcised not on the eighth day.

one circumcised on the ninth

days, or

on the tenth,

or

on the eleventh,

or

on the twelfth day, that he too is not circumcised except during the day?

If so, it is certainly the case that left-over meat, even when burned after its proper time, may be burned only during the day.

Scripture says: “And on the day.” And here there is a superfluous letter vav, which includes also those circumcised not on the eighth day.

He was silent [he was silent]—Rabbi Yohanan did not know how to answer.

And Rabbi Elazar adds, in order to challenge Rabbi Yohanan:

And even according to the one who does not expound

the superfluous letter

vav

by itself, and does not include from “And on the day” circumcision not at its proper time—

from the two letters

vav and he together—as it is written concerning the left-over: “And the left-over” from the flesh of the sacrifice, on the third day, shall be burned in fire—he indeed

Reish Lakish answered him:

expounds it.

And if so, certainly the left-over, even when it is not burned at its proper time, is burned only during the day.

We have therefore learned that the left-over, even when not burned at its proper time, is burned only during the day, and this is a difficulty against Rabbi Yohanan.

He was silent [he was silent] Rabbi Yohanan and did not know how to answer.

and analyzed it [he studied it conceptually]

After he went out [after Rabbi Elazar—who was Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat—left] from before Rabbi Yohanan,

Rabbi Elazar said: Although an uncircumcised man is forbidden to eat teruma and consecrated food like an impure person [Tosafot], nevertheless:

Rabbi Yohanan said to Resh Lakish, with astonishment:

his sprinkling

I saw [Rabbi Elazar]

The reason is:

ben Pedat, who sits and expounds

these verses

like Moses from the mouth of the Almighty, in the language of tannaim! [ [A0137]]And he is not a tanna, but rather an amora, who was a student of Rabbi Yohanan.]

who, although he is forbidden to eat

teruma,

Resh Lakish said to him

to Rabbi Yohanan: Are these expositions,

his own!? Are they Rabbi Elazar’s expositions!? But

And we challenge this:

it is a teaching [beraita]

to eat

that it is, which expounds these verses in this manner?!

although an impure person is forbidden to eat it? Therefore he is also valid for the procedures of the red heifer. But can you say the same of an uncircumcised man, who is forbidden to eat second tithe? From where do you know that he is valid for the procedures of the red heifer?!

And Rabbi Yohanan asked Resh Lakish:

Where did he teach it to you [where is this beraita]?

Do we mean

Resh Lakish said to him:

In the Sifra,

which is the midrash of the tannaim on the Book of Leviticus!

Rabbi Yohanan went out [he went out]

we mean with regard to contact

and learned it, he learned the Sifra

when we say that an uncircumcised man is permitted to participate in it like a person who immersed that day. Therefore, it is no longer possible to challenge this by saying: What is the case of a person who immersed that day, who is permitted to touch second tithe, whereas an uncircumcised man is forbidden to touch second tithe? An uncircumcised man is permitted even to touch consecrated food, and all the more so second tithe—

in three days [he learned the Sifra in three days],

And this is the exposition:

and analyzed it [he examined it through reasoning]

is nevertheless

in three months [in three months].

An uncircumcised man, who is permitted to touch

Rabbi Elazar said:

Although an uncircumcised man, with regard to teruma and consecrated property, is forbidden to eat them like an impure person [Tosafot], nevertheless:

An uncircumcised man who sprinkled

the water of purification from the ashes of the red cow upon one impure through contact with the dead—

his sprinkling

of the uncircumcised man

is valid,

and it is not like the sprinkling of an impure person, which is invalid.

And the reason is:

Is it something

like

that it is with one who immersed that day,

for even though he is forbidden

to eat teruma, one who immersed that day

is valid

since perhaps he is male and is required to be circumcised,

for the red cow, despite the fact that all the acts of the red cow must be performed only by pure persons.

And an androgynos, a person with both male and female sexual characteristics,

And we challenge this:

What is so concerning one who immersed that day, for he is permitted

to

the

eating of

second tithe [although an impure person is forbidden to eat it]; therefore he is also valid for the acts of the red cow. Can you say this concerning an uncircumcised man, who is forbidden to eat second tithe, and from where do you know that he is qualified for the acts of the red cow?!

At least the beraita teaches:

And we answer:

Is it so,

that

we are speaking about eating

of the red cow,

are we saying, that an uncircumcised man should be permitted to it like one who immersed that day, so that you come to challenge this by saying that an uncircumcised man is forbidden to eat second tithe, whereas one who immersed that day is permitted to eat second tithe?!

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Akiva says: In the passage concerning impure people, whom the Torah forbids to eat teruma, it says,

But

we are speaking about touching

the red cow,

are we saying, that an uncircumcised man is permitted to it like one who immersed that day, and once again it is not possible to challenge this by saying: What is so concerning one who immersed that day, who is permitted to touch second tithe; can you say this concerning an uncircumcised man, who is forbidden to touch second tithe? For an uncircumcised man is permitted even to touch consecrated property, and all the more so second tithe—

Ответил

And this is how we expound:

And just as one who immersed that day, who is forbidden to touch teruma,

nevertheless he is

permitted in its sprinkling

of the red cow [Rashi’s version].

An uncircumcised man, who is permitted to touch

teruma,

is it not logical that he should be

anything concerning contact:

permitted in sprinkling?

It was also taught so: An uncircumcised man who sprinkled—

his sprinkling is valid.

And

even

an incident occurred

in which an uncircumcised man sprinkled,

and the Sages validated

his

sprinkling.

Just as the sprinkling of an impure person is invalid, so too the consecration performed by an impure person for the water of purification [the mixing of the ashes of the red cow with living water] is invalid. Whereas one who immersed that day is valid for them.

And just as the sprinkling of an uncircumcised man is valid according to Rabbi Elazar, so too his consecration is valid, for they have one reason.

He raised an objection

from that which was taught:

A tumtum who consecrated

the water of purification [mixed ashes with water],

his consecration is invalid, because he is an uncertain uncircumcised man,

for perhaps he is male and requires circumcision,

and an uncircumcised man is invalid for consecrating.

And an androgynos

who is circumcised

who consecrated—

although he is possibly female—

his consecration is valid,

since according to the Sages even a woman is valid for consecration.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even an androgynos who consecrated—

his consecration is invalid, because he is possibly a woman,

he is,

and a woman is invalid for consecrating.

At any rate, it teaches

in the beraita:

an uncircumcised man and an uncertain uncircumcised man are invalid for consecrating, and just as he is invalid for consecrating, so is he invalid for sprinkling. And this is a difficulty against Rabbi Elazar.

Поскольку Гемара привела спор рабби Йеуды и мудрецов о том, пригоден ли андрогин для освящения, она объясняет их спор:

He said,

Rav Yosef answered:

This tanna

of the beraita—who invalidated the consecration of an uncircumcised man—

is the tanna of the school of Rabbi Akiva [at the beginning of the chapter, concerning an uncircumcised man eating teruma],

в том числе женщина,

who includes an uncircumcised man

so that his law should be

like that of an impure person.

For it was taught: Rabbi Akiva says:

It is stated in the passage concerning impure persons, whom the Torah forbade from teruma,

“Every man”—

to include an uncircumcised man, from the repetition of the word “man.”

And according to Rabbi Akiva: Since concerning impure persons the Torah included an uncircumcised man, learn from this that they are equal, and an uncircumcised man is forbidden even to touch teruma.

for preparing the water.

And it is again impossible to derive the law of an uncircumcised man concerning sprinkling by a kal va-chomer from one who immersed that day. Since according to Rabbi Akiva, one who immersed that day is not more stringent than an uncircumcised man with regard to touching teruma, as according to him an uncircumcised man too is forbidden to touch teruma.

Whereas Rabbi Elazar [and the tanna in the beraita brought by the Gemara, who validates the sprinkling of an uncircumcised man] follows the position of Rabbi Eliezer, for the prohibition of an uncircumcised man eating teruma is learned by a gzera shava from the Passover-offering, and we learned from there only with regard to eating. But an uncircumcised man is permitted to touch teruma, and he is less stringent than one who immersed that day, who is forbidden to touch teruma.

Rava said: I was sitting before Rav Yosef, and it was difficult for me

concerning his answer:

How is it possible that

no tanna should happen to state [that no tanna should be found who teaches] concerning contact

и нальет на него живой воды в сосуд»,

“the uncircumcised man and the impure man,” and say [and let us say] that

те, кто непригоден для сбора,

it is Rabbi Akiva?!

And since we have not found this, it is necessarily the case that even according to Rabbi Akiva an uncircumcised man is not forbidden to touch teruma, and even according to him we have a basis to derive leniency for an uncircumcised man from one who immersed that day.

And what they were stringent about in the beraita concerning the consecration of an uncircumcised man is only an independent stringency, for they imposed stringencies concerning the red cow as they did with other stringencies that they instituted concerning it. It follows that according to both Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer, an uncircumcised man is invalid for consecration and sprinkling.

And we are astonished:

And

indeed

not

should a tanna happen to state this?!

But it teaches: The uncircumcised man and the impure man are exempt from appearing.

It follows that with regard to entering the Temple we equate an uncircumcised man with an impure person. And so too we should say with regard to contact, that the law of an uncircumcised man is like the law of an impure person, according to Rabbi Akiva.

And we reject this:

There,

concerning appearing,

because

the uncircumcised man

is repulsive [repulsive] to appear in the courtyard, and even the Rabbis agree about this [Tosafot in their first explanation and other early authorities].

Since the Gemara brought the disagreement of Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages whether an androgynos is valid for consecration, the Gemara explains their disagreement:

And they proceeded—

the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda, who disagreed concerning the consecration of an androgynos—who is possibly a woman—whether his consecration is invalid,

according to their positions [according to their method] they proceed, for they disagree concerning the validity of a woman’s consecration:

For it was taught: Everyone

is valid for consecrating

the water of purification, even a woman,

except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor.

Rabbi Yehuda validates

consecration

by a minor,

and invalidates

consecration

by a woman and by an androgynos.

And we explain:

What is the reason of the Sages

who invalidate a minor for consecration and validate a woman?

For it is written:

“And a pure man shall gather the ashes of the cow and place them outside the camp in a pure place.”

And since it is written: “A man” pure, we learn: a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are invalid for gathering the ashes of the red cow.

And from the word “pure”—which is superfluous, for it is unnecessary to exclude an impure person, since the Torah calls the red cow a “sin-offering,” and an impure person is invalid for service—we learn that a woman is valid for gathering the ashes of the red cow.

And you likewise learn this concerning consecration, since concerning the service of consecration—which is written after the service of gathering, without another service intervening—the Torah said

“And they shall take for the impure person from the dust of the burning of the sin-offering

and place living water upon it in a vessel.”

And it implies: those whom I told you about concerning gathering are the ones who shall take; therefore you have learned:

those who are invalid for gathering [those who are invalid for gathering]

are invalid

also

for consecration.

Therefore, a minor who is invalid for gathering is also invalid for consecration.

But

you are those who are fit for the collection;

and the woman—

[they are] fit for the consecration.

And Rabbi Judah—

who holds that even a minor who is disqualified for the collection is fit for the consecration—

would say to you:

If so—

that “and they shall take” refers to those who collect—

let us say in this verse: “and he shall take

to render impure, from the dust of the burning of the sin-offering,” just as it says: “and a pure man shall collect,” in the singular.

What is the meaning of “and they shall take”

which is in the plural?

It comes to teach:

that even those who are disqualified there

for the collection, namely, a minor,

are fit here

for the consecration.

And we raise an objection to Rabbi Judah:

If so,

a woman also

should be fit for the consecration; and why did Rabbi Judah disqualify the woman for the consecration?!

And we answer: It is written:

“And he shall give”

upon it living water into a vessel, and it is superfluous in order to teach you:

and not “and she shall give,”

a woman. The continuation of the Gemara is explained according to Tosafot here and Tosafot Yeshanim in Yoma 43a.

And the Rabbis,

who hold that “and they shall take” refers to those who collect, and are not concerned with the change of wording from the singular to the plural, say to you: The verse therefore changed its wording and said “and they shall take” in the plural:

For

if it had been written, “and he shall take and he shall give” [“

he shall take” to render impure, from the dust of the burning of the sin-offering, and “he shall give” upon it living water],

I would have said: one takes,

that one person places the ashes upon the water,

and one gives,

that same person mixes it into the water. Therefore:

the Merciful One wrote, “and they shall take.”

”

And if the Merciful One had written, “and they shall take and they shall give,” I would have said: two take and two give

[specifically two shall take, and both shall give].

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote, “and they shall take, and he shall give,” so that even two may take and one may give.

No distinction is made between one and two, nor between the one who performed the taking and another person.