Yevamot 141

המרת דת פוסלת ואין המרת דת פוסלת במעשר

does apostasy disqualify,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An apostate may not participate in the eating of the Paschal lamb. ');">¹</span> but in respect of tithe, apostasy does not disqualify. What was the purpose of, But no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 48, emphasis on [H]. Cf. supra note 2. ');">²</span> — 'Thereof'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (cf. note 2) the Paschal lamb. ');">³</span>

כל ערל לא יאכל בו למה לי בו אינו אוכל אבל אוכל הוא במצה ומרור

only may he not eat, but he may eat of the unleavened bread and bitter herbs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which were served with the Paschal lamb. V. Ex. XII, 8. ');">⁴</span> And it was necessary for Scripture to specify<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to write', in regard to the prohibition of eating the Paschal lamb. ');">⁵</span> both 'Uncircumcised' and 'There shall no alien.' For had the All Merciful mentioned the 'uncircumcised' only it might have been assumed [that the prohibition applies only to him], because he is repulsive. but not to an alien who is not repulsive. And had the All Merciful written only 'There shall no alien' it might have been assumed [that only he is subject to the prohibition]. because his heart is not directed towards heaven, but not the uncircumcised whose heart is directed towards heaven. [Hence both were] required. What<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression. 'Thereof'. is made the basis of an exposition. ');">⁶</span>

ואיצטריך למכתב ערל ואיצטריך למכתב כל בן נכר דאי כתב רחמנא ערל משום דמאיס אבל בן נכר דלא מאיס אימא לא ואי כתב רחמנא כל בן נכר משום דאין לבו לשמים אבל ערל דלבו לשמים אימא לא צריכא

was the purpose of repeating the expression. 'Of it',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 9, 10; also mentioned in respect of the Paschal lamb. ');">⁷</span> twice? — As expounded by Rabbah in the name of R. Isaac.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 74a. Pes. 96a. ');">⁸</span> The Master said, 'R. Akiba stated: This deduction is unneces sary. Since it was stated, What man soever,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4. ');">⁹</span> the uncircumcised also was included'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the prohibition against eating terumah, supra 70a, q.v. for notes. ');">¹⁰</span>

(שמות יב, ט) ממנו ממנו למה לי לכדרבה א"ר יצחק

Might it be suggested that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Scriptural text cited. ');">¹¹</span> includes the onan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V Glos. ');">¹²</span> R. Jose b. Hanina replied: Scripture stated, There shall no common man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 10. ');">¹³</span> I commanded you concerning its prohibition to a common man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The non-priest. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר מר ר"ע אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא כב, ד) איש איש לרבות את הערל ואימא לרבות את האונן א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא אמר קרא (ויקרא כב, י) וכל זר זרות אמרתי לך ולא אנינות

but not concerning that of an onan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V Glos. ');">¹²</span> Might it be suggested: But not the uncircumcised?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 476. n. 18. ');">¹⁵</span> — Surely, what man soever' was written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which includes the uncircumcised in the prohibition. ');">¹⁶</span> And what reason do you see?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For including the uncircumcised and excluding the onan. ');">¹⁷</span>

אימא ולא ערלות הא כתיב איש איש

— It is logical that the case of the uncircumcised should be included, since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 476. n. 22, where the mnemonic also is explained. ');">¹⁸</span> it involves the absence of an act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The circumcision. ');">¹⁹</span> and that act is one affecting the man's own body; [the uncircumcised] is punishable by <i>kareth</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 476. n. 24. ');">²⁰</span> the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of circumcision. ');">²¹</span>

ומה ראית מסתברא ערלות הוה ליה לרבויי שכן מעשי"ם כרותי"ם בדב"ר העב"ד מחוסר מעשה ומעשה בגופו וענוש כרת וישנו לפני הדבור ומילת זכריו ועבדיו מעכבת

was in force before the Revelation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 476. n. 25. ');">²²</span> and the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars [one from eating the paschal lamb].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 477. n. 1. ');">²³</span> On the contrary; the case of the onan should have been included,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the prohibition of eating terumah. ');">²⁴</span> since mourning is an ever-present possibility,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 477. n. 3. ');">²⁵</span>

אדרבה אנינות הוה ליה לרבויי שכן ישנה בכל שעה ונוהגת באנשים ונשים ואין בידו לתקן עצמו

is common to men as well as women, and no man has the power to cure himself of It!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 477, n. 4. ');">²⁶</span> — Those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The restrictions of circumcision. ');">²⁷</span> are more in number. Raba said: Even if those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The restrictions of circumcision. ');">²⁷</span> were not more in number, you could not make your suggestion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To include the onan and exclude the uncircumcised. ');">²⁸</span>

הנך נפישן רבא אמר בלא הנך נפישן נמי לא מצית אמרת אמר קרא איש איש איזהו דבר שישנו באיש ואינו באשה הוי אומר זה ערלות

For Scripture stated, What man soever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4, [H] (lit., 'man man'). emphasis on man. ');">²⁹</span> Now what disability is it that is applicable to a man and not to a woman? You must, of course, say that it is uncircumcision. What expository use does R. Akiba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who deduces the prohibition of the uncircumcised, in respect of terumah, from What man soever. ');">³⁰</span> make of the expression A sojourner and a hired servant?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 10. ');">¹³</span>

ורבי עקיבא האי תושב ושכיר מאי עביד ליה אמר רב שמעיא לאתויי ערבי מהול וגבעוני מהול

R. Shemaia replied: To include<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the prohibition to eat of the Paschal lamb. ');">³¹</span> a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Gibeonite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (Cf. Josh. IX, 3ff); synonymous with nathin (v. Glos.). Aruk and MSS. read [H] 'highlander'. Cf. 'A.Z. 27a. The circumcision of these men was not performed in fulfilment of the Pentateuchal commandment and had, therefore, no religious value. ');">³²</span> Are these, however, regarded as circumcised at all? Surely we learned: [If a man said]. 'Konam<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] an expression used in a vow of abstinence. V. Ned. 3lb. ');">³³</span> if I benefit from the uncircumcised', he may benefit from uncircumcised Israelites<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In ordinary speech (the usages of which are the determining factor in vows), even such Israelites are never described as uncircumcised'. ');">³⁴</span>

והני מולין נינהו והא תנן קונם שאני נהנה לערלים מותר בערלי ישראל ואסור במולי עובדי כוכבים קונם שאני נהנה למולין מותר במולי עובדי כוכבים ואסור בערלי ישראל

but is forbidden to benefit from circumcised idolaters.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since such idolaters also are in ordinary speech described as 'uncircumcised'. ');">³⁵</span> [If he said]. 'Konam', if I benefit from the circumcised', he is permitted to benefit from circumcised idolaters but is forbidden to benefit from uncircumcised Israelites!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 2. Now, since circumcised idolaters are never regarded as 'circumcised', they are obviously forbidden to eat of the Paschal lamb; what need then was there for a special text to include them in the prohibition? ');">³⁶</span> — But In truth [the text referred to] includes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the prohibition to eat of the Paschal lamb. ');">³⁷</span> a proselyte who had been circumcised but did not perform the prescribed ritual immersion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He may not eat of the Paschal lamb before he has performed the immersion. ');">³⁸</span>

אלא לאתויי גר שמל ולא טבל וקטן שנולד כשהוא מהול וקסבר צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית

and a child who was born circumcised,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., without his foreskin. ');">³⁹</span> he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba. ');">⁴⁰</span> holding that it is necessary to provide for a few drops of the blood of the covenant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. V. Gen. XVII, 10. ');">⁴¹</span> to flow;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though no proper circumcision is necessary. Cf. supra n. 6. ');">⁴²</span>

ור' אליעזר לטעמיה דאמר גר שמל ולא טבל גר מעליא הוא וקסבר קטן כשנולד מהול אין צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית

while R. Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who does not include these in the prohibition to eat the Paschal lamb. ');">⁴³</span> follows his own view, he having stated that 'A proselyte who has been circumcised, though he has not performed his ritual immersion, is regarded as a proper proselyte'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 46a. ');">⁴⁴</span> and he is also of the opinion that it is not necessary to provide for any drops of the blood of the covenant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. V. Gen. XVII, 10. ');">⁴¹</span> to flow where a child was born circumcised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., without his foreskin. ');">³⁹</span>

ור' אליעזר האי איש איש מאי עביד ליה דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם

What expository use, however, does R. Eliezer make of the expression. What man soever?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 479. n. 21. ');">⁴⁵</span> — The Torah, [he maintains], speaks in the language of [ordinary] men.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In ordinary speech people repeat certain words. The repetition of the term man (v. supra p. 479. n. 21) has, therefore, no expository significance. ');">⁴⁶</span> R. Hama b. Ukba inquired: May an uncircumcised child<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the days preceding the child's circumcision which is normally due on the eighth day of his birth, v. Gen. XVII, 12. ');">⁴⁷</span> be anointed with the oil of <i>terumah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Anointing with the oil of terumah is forbidden wherever its consumption is forbidden. V. Shab. 86a. ');">⁴⁸</span>

בעי רב חמא בר עוקבא קטן ערל מהו לסוכו בשמן של תרומה ערלות שלא בזמנה מעכבא או לא מעכבא

Does non-circumcision in the pre-circumcision period<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 480. n: 15. ');">⁴⁹</span> constitute a bar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the consumption etc. (v. supra n. 1) of terumah. ');">⁵⁰</span> or not? — R. Zera replied: Come and hear: I only know [of the command]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to the eating of the Paschal lamb. ');">⁵¹</span> concerning the circumcision of the male children [which he has] at the time of the preparation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its ritual slaying. ');">⁵²</span>

א"ר זירא ת"ש אין לי אלא מילת זכריו בשעת עשיה ועבדיו בשעת אכילה מנין ליתן את האמור של זה בזה ואת האמור של זה בזה ת"ל (שמות יב, מח) אז אז לגזירה שוה

[of the paschal lamb].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture states, Let all his males (i.e.. his children) be circumcised, and then let him (i.e.. the master)&nbsp;… keep it (Ex. XII, 48); one's own keeping (v. supra n. 5) is thus made dependent on the circumcision of one's children. ');">⁵³</span> and concerning the slaves [which he has] at the time of the eating thereof;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture stated, Every man's servant … when … circumcised. then shall he (i.e., his master) eat (Ex. XII, 44); one's own eating of the lamb is thus dependent on the circumcision of one's slaves. ');">⁵⁴</span> whence, however, is it deduced that the restriction mentioned in respect of this category is to be applied to the other, and that of the other to this one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the non-circumcision of a person's children born to him subsequent to the preparation of the Paschal lamb debars him from the eating of it, and that the non-circumcision of his slave debars him not only from the eating of it but also from its preparation. ');">⁵⁵</span> Then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' zt ');">⁵⁶</span>

בשלמא עבדיו משכחת לה דאיתנהו בשעת אכילה וליתנהו בשעת עשיה כגון דזבנינהו ביני ביני

was specifically stated in both categories<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ex. XII, 44. and ibid. 48. ');">⁵⁷</span> so that an analogy between the two might be drawn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 8. ');">⁵⁸</span> Now, it is quite possible to imagine a man's slaves as being with him at the time of the eating of the paschal lamb but not at the time of its preparation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its ritual slaying. ');">⁵⁹</span> when, for instance, he bought them in the meantime.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the preparation and the consumption. ');">⁶⁰</span>

אלא זכריו דאיתנהו בשעת אכילה וליתנהו בשעת עשיה היכי משכחת לה לאו דאתילוד בין עשיה לאכילה ש"מ ערלות שלא בזמנה הויא ערלות

How is it possible, however, that a person's male children should be in existence during the eating and not during the preparation? Obviously only when birth occurred in the interval between the preparation and the eating.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on the same day. viz., on the fourteenth of Nisan, the Passover Eve. ');">⁶¹</span> Thus it may be inferred that uncircumcision in the pre-circumcision period<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The child being only one day old (v. supra n. 24). ');">⁶²</span> constitutes a legal status of uncircumcision.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer to R. Hama's enquiry is consequently in the negative. ');">⁶³</span> Said Rabbah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'Raba'. ');">⁶⁴</span>

אמר רבא ותסברא (שמות יב, מח) המול לו כל זכר אמר רחמנא ואז יקרב לעשותו והאי לאו בר מהילא הוא אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שחלצתו חמה

Do you understand this? The All Merciful said, Let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex XII, 48, i.e., in order that a man shall be enabled to observe the commandment of the Paschal lamb he is advised, or instructed, to circumcise all his males. ');">⁶⁵</span> it; but such a child is not fit to be circumcised!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, could the text possibly have referred to his case! ');">⁶⁶</span> But what are we dealing with here? With a child<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Over the age of eight days (cf. supra p. 480, n. 15). ');">⁶⁷</span> who recovered from a fever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fever released him'. The fever from which he suffered during the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb. While in his fever he was physically unfit for, and hence exempt from circumcision. Now that he has recovered he is, at the time of consumption of the Paschal lamb, physically fit, and consequently subject to circumcision. ');">⁶⁸</span>

וניתוב ליה כל שבעה (דאמר שמואל חלצתו חמה נותנין לו כל שבעה) דיהבינן ליה כל שבעה ונימהליה מצפרא בעינן

Then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the child recovered from an illness. ');">⁶⁹</span> let him be granted [a period of convalescence of] full seven days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before circumcision is allowed. ');">⁷⁰</span> for<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. encloses in parenthesis 'for&nbsp;… seven days'. ');">⁷¹</span> Samuel said that a child who recovered from a fever must be allowed a period of convalescence of full seven days!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the seven days are passed the child remains unfit for circumcision. How, then, could his state of lawful uncircumcision debar his father from the consumption of the Paschal lamb? ');">⁷²</span> — Where he was already granted the seven days' period.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it expired on the Passover Eve. ');">⁷³</span> He should, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 9. ');">⁷⁴</span> have been circumcised in the morning!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb; and, since that was not done, the child was in a legal state of uncircumcision not only during the time of eating, but also during the time of the preparation. The difficulty then arises again: What need was there for a Scriptural text to include the prohibition of eating the Paschal lamb while such a child remained uncircumcised, when the preparation that must precede the eating is already forbidden! ');">⁷⁵</span> — We require