Yevamot 144

אין נימולין אלא ביום שלא בזמנו נימולין ביום ובלילה מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר משוך דאורייתא ומר סבר משוך דרבנן

children may be circumcised in the daytime only; and if not at the proper time they may be circumcised both by day and by night,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Shab. XVI. ');">¹</span> Do they not differ on the following principle: While one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna who restricts the time of the circumcision to the day only. ');">²</span> is of the opinion that the circumcision of a <i>mashuk</i> is a pentateuchal law, the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. Simeon. ');">³</span> is of the opinion that the circumcision of the <i>mashuk</i> is only a Rabbinical ordinance?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he permits its performance during the night also. Would then R. Huna's ruling agree with the view of one Tanna only! ');">⁴</span>

ותסברא קטן שעבר זמנו מי איכא למ"ד דרבנן

— And can you understand this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the point at issue should be the one suggested. ');">⁵</span> Is there any authority who maintains that the duty to circumcise a child whose proper time of circumcision had passed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 4. ');">⁶</span> is only Rabbinical!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. Being obviously a Pentateuchal law, the point at issue in the Baraitha cited cannot be the one suggested. ');">⁷</span> But the fact is that both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but, that all the world', i.e., the first Tanna and R. Eleazar b. Simeon. ');">⁸</span>

אלא דכולי עלמא משוך דרבנן וקטן שעבר זמנו דאורייתא והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר דרשינן וביום ומר סבר לא דרשינן וביום

agree that the circumcision of a <i>mashuk</i> is a Rabbinical ordinance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with R. Huna's ruling. ');">⁹</span> and that the duty to circumcise a child whose proper time of circumcision had passed, is Pentateuchal. Here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha cited. ');">¹⁰</span> however, their difference depends on the following principle: One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 7. ');">¹¹</span> holds that [the conjunctive in the expression]. And in the day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Waw (and) in [H], Lev. XII, 3. ');">¹²</span>

כי הא דיתיב רבי יוחנן וקדריש נותר בזמנו אינו נשרף אלא ביום שלא בזמנו נשרף בין ביום בין בלילה

is to be expounded;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the statement, In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised (ibid.) would have sufficiently indicated that circumcision must be performed in the daytime, the addition of the conjunction Waw is regarded as an indication that even a circumcision that takes place after its proper time must be performed in the daytime only. And the case of the mashuk was, by Rabbinical ordinance. given the same force as that of the child. ');">¹³</span> and the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. Simeon. ');">³</span> is of the opinion that [the conjunctive in] And in the day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Waw (and) in [H], Lev. XII, 3. ');">¹²</span> is not to be expounded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nothing may be inferred from the use of the conjunctive Waw, not even the case of the child whose proper time of circumcision had passed, much less that of the circumcision of the mashuk, which is altogether a Rabbinical enactment. The circumcision of either may consequently be performed in the night also. ');">¹⁴</span>

ואיתיביה רבי אלעזר לרבי יוחנן אין לי אלא נימול לשמיני שאין נימול אלא ביום מנין לרבות לתשעה לעשרה לאחד עשר לשנים עשר (מנין) תלמוד לומר וביום

[The exposition here is of the same nature] as the following:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the objection raised by R. Eleazar infra. ');">¹⁵</span> When R. Johanan was once sitting [at his studies] and expounding that 'nothar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁶</span> at its proper time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the third day. V. Lev. VII. 17. ');">¹⁷</span> may be burned in the daytime only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression day was explicitly used. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואפילו למאן דלא דריש וא'ו וא"ו וה"י דריש אישתיק

and if not at its proper time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the third day. V. supra n. 5. ');">¹⁹</span> it may be burned either in the day or in the night'. R. Eleazar raised an objection: I only know that a child whose circumcision takes place on the eighth day must be circumcised in the daytime only; whence, however, is it deduced that the case of a child whose circumcision takes place on the ninth, tenth, eleventh or twelfth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Day of its birth. V. Shab. 137a. ');">²⁰</span> is also included? Because it was expressly stated, 'And in the day';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII. 3. ');">²¹</span> and even he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. Simeon. supra. ');">²²</span>

בתר דנפק א"ל רבי יוחנן לר"ל ראיתי לבן פדת שיושב ודורש כמשה מפי הגבורה א"ל ר"ל דידיה היא מתניתא היא היכא תנא ליה בתורת כהנים נפק תנייה בתלתא יומי וסברה בתלתא ירחי

who bases no expositions on a <i>Waw</i> does base his exposition on the basis of a <i>Waw</i> and a He!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both these letters are found in the word [H] And that which remaineth (ibid. VII. 17), and both are superfluous; which proves that even when burning takes place after the proper time it must be done in the daytime. How then could R. Johanan state that nothar, after its proper time, may be burned either in the day or in the night? ');">²³</span> The other remained silent. After he went out, R. Johanan said to Resh Lakish: I observed that the son of Pedath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar's father was Pedath. ');">²⁴</span> was sitting and making expositions like Moses in the name of the Almighty. 'Was this his'? Resh Lakish replied.'It is really a Baraitha'. 'Where', the first asked. 'was it taught'? — 'In Torath Kohanim'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'the law of the priests', an halachic commentary on Leviticus, sometimes designated Sifra. ');">²⁵</span> He went out and learned it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The book, Torath Kohanim. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר רבי אלעזר ערל שהזה הזאתו כשרה מידי דהוה אטבול יום שאע"פ שאסור בתרומה כשר בפרה

in three days; and was engaged in making deductions and drawing conclusions from it for a period of three months. R. Eleazar stated: The sprinkling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the waters of purification. V. Num. XIX. 2ff. ');">²⁷</span> performed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. 19. ');">²⁸</span> by an uncircumcised person is valid, for his status is similar to that of a tebul yom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], one who has performed his ritual ablution and is awaiting sunset, when his purification will be completed. V. Glos. ');">²⁹</span>

מה לטבול יום שכן מותר במעשר אטו אנן לאכילה קאמרינן אנן לנגיעה קאמרינן ומה טבול יום שאסור בנגיעה דתרומה מותר בפרה ערל שמותר בנגיעה אינו דין שמותר בפרה

who, though forbidden to eat <i>terumah</i>, is permitted to prepare<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And also to sprinkle the waters of purification. (V. Rashi). ');">³⁰</span> the red heifer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which the water of purification (p. 490. n. 14) is prepared. ');">³¹</span> The case of the tebul yom,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], one who has performed his ritual ablution and is awaiting sunset, when his purification will be completed. V. Glos. ');">²⁹</span> however, might be different, since he is also permitted to eat tithe!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the law in his case was relaxed in respect of the tithe it might also have been relaxed in respect of purification. How, then, could the uncircumcised, whose case is more restricted, be compared to him? ');">³²</span>

תניא נמי הכי ערל שהזה הזאתו כשרה ומעשה היה והכשירו חכמים הזאתו

— Are we speaking of eating?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the red heifer. In such a case the objection might be justified. ');">³³</span> We speak only of touching: If a tebul yom who is forbidden to touch <i>terumah</i> is permitted [to occupy himself] with the red heifer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And also to sprinkle the waters of purification. (V. Rashi). ');">³⁰</span> how much more so the uncircumcised who is permitted to touch <i>terumah</i>! The same [law] was also taught [elsewhere]: The sprinkling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the waters of purification. V. Num. XIX. 2ff. ');">³⁴</span>

מיתיבי טומטום שקידש קידושו פסול מפני שהוא ספק ערל וערל פסול לקדש ואנדרוגינוס שקידש קידושו כשר רבי יהודה אומר אף אנדרוגינוס שקידש קדושיו פסולים מפני שספק אשה ואשה פסולה מלקדש קתני מיהא ערל וספק ערל פסול מלקדש

performed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. 19. ');">³⁵</span> by an uncircumcised man is valid; and such an incident once happened, and the Sages declared his sprinkling to be valid. An objection was raised: If a <i>tumtum</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">³⁶</span> performed sanctification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the water of purification by mixing the water with the ashes of the red heifer. V. Num. XIX. 27. ');">³⁷</span>

אמר רב יוסף האי תנא תנא דבי רבי עקיבא הוא דמרבי ליה לערל כטמא דתניא ר"ע אומר (ויקרא כב, ד) איש איש לרבות הערל

his sanctification is invalid, because he [has the status of the person whose uncircumcision is a matter of] doubt, and such a person is forbidden to perform sanctification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the water of purification by mixing the water with the ashes of the red heifer. V. Num. XIX. 27. ');">³⁷</span> If an hermaphrodite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had been duly circumcised. ');">³⁸</span> however, performed sanctification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the water of purification by mixing the water with the ashes of the red heifer. V. Num. XIX. 27. ');">³⁷</span> his sanctification is valid. R. Judah said: Even if an hermaphrodite performed sanctification his act has no validity. because [his sex might] possibly be that of a woman, and a woman is ineligible to perform sanctification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Parah IV. ');">³⁹</span>

אמר רבא הוה יתיבנא קמיה דרב יוסף וקשיא לי לא לישתמיט תנא וליתני הערל והטמא ולימא ר' עקיבא היא

At all events it was taught here that the uncircumcised or the person whose uncircumcision is a matter of doubt is forbidden to perform sanctification!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could R. Eleazar maintain that the uncircumcised may touch terumah? ');">⁴⁰</span> R. Joseph replied: This Tanna is one of the school of R. Akiba who include the uncircumcised in the same prohibition as that of the unclean; as it was taught: R. Akiba said, <i>'What man soever</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 4, lit., 'man man'. ');">⁴¹</span> includes also the uncircumcised'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 70a. As he is included there, so he is also included in the prohibition to touch terumah. R. Eleazar need not adopt this view, since the Rabbis are in disagreement with it. ');">⁴²</span> Raba related: I was once sitting before R. Joseph when I raised the following difficulty: Then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If R. Akiba regards the uncircumcised and the unclean as having the same status in all respects. ');">⁴³</span>

ולא והא קתני הערל והטמא פטורים מן הראייה התם משום דמאיס

the Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whenever he deals with uncleanness caused by touch. ');">⁴⁴</span> should not have omitted to state.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and (he) should teach'. ');">⁴⁵</span> 'The uncircumcised and the unclean', and one would at once suggest that the author was R. Akiba!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, however. the uncircumcised is always omitted. it follows that, with the exception of the case of the red heifer, he does not have the same status as the unclean. How then could it be said that according to R. Akiba the uncircumcised may not touch terumah? ');">⁴⁶</span> — But does he not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mention the two side by side. ');">⁴⁷</span>

ואזדו לטעמייהו דתניא הכל כשרים לקדש חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן רבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן ופוסל באשה ובאנדרוגינוס

Surely it was taught: The uncircumcised and the unclean are exempt from appearing at the Festivals!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hag. 4b. Three times a year. on the occasion of the Festivals of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles, all males had to appear before the Lord in the Temple at Jerusalem. V. Ex. XXIII. 17 and cf. Hag. 20. ');">⁴⁸</span> — There [the case is different], because he is a repulsive person.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is revolting to have an uncircumcised man in the Temple. Hence the prohibition. This, however, supplies no proof that in all other respects also the uncircumcised has the same status as the unclean. ');">⁴⁹</span> They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the Rabbis, in their difference on the question of the hermaphrodite. ');">⁵⁰</span> follow their own respective views. For it was taught: All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Levitically clean persons, including a woman. ');">⁵¹</span>

מאי טעמא דרבנן דכתיב (במדבר יט, יז) ולקחו לטמא מעפר שריפת החטאת הנך דפסלי באסיפה פסולין בקידוש הנך דכשרין באסיפה כשרים בקידוש

are permitted to perform sanctification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 491. n. 9. ');">⁵²</span> with the exception of the deaf, the imbecile and the minor. R. Judah permits in the case of the minor but regards a woman and an hermaphrodite as unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Parah V, 4. ');">⁵³</span> What is the Rabbi's reason? — Because it is written, And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the purification from sin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 17. ');">⁵⁴</span> those who are ineligible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Minors. ');">⁵⁵</span>

ורבי יהודה אמר לך א"כ נימא קרא ולקח מאי ולקחו דאפי' הנך דפסולין התם כשרים הכא

for the gathering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the ashes of the red heifer. ');">⁵⁶</span> are also ineligible for the sanctification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the mention of the latter rite, in Num. XIX, follows that of the former, no other rite in respect of the red heifer being mentioned in between. ');">⁵⁷</span> but those who are eligible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Women. V. Yoma 43a. ');">⁵⁸</span> for the gathering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the ashes of the red heifer. ');">⁵⁶</span>

אי הכי אשה נמי ונתן ולא ונתנה ורבנן אי כתיב ולקח ונתן הוה אמינא שקיל חד ויהיב חד כתב רחמנא ולקחו

are also eligible for the sanctification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 492. n. 17. ');">⁵⁹</span> And R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of this deduction made by the Rabbis, can he maintain that an hermaphrodite is ineligible? ');">⁶⁰</span> — He can answer you: If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That sanctification is to be compared to gathering. ');">⁶¹</span> Scripture should have used<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Num. XIX, 17. ');">⁶²</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא ולקחו ונתנו ה"א דשקלי תרי ויהבי תרי כתב רחמנא ולקחו ונתן דאפי' שקלי תרי ויהיב חד

the expression 'He shall take',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sing., as was done in the case of the verb referring to the gathering. V. ibid. 9. ');">⁶³</span> why then, And they shall take?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plural. ');">⁶⁴</span> To indicate that even those who are ineligible there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Minors. ');">⁶⁵</span> are eligible here. If so, a woman also should be eligible!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she is eligible for the gathering. ');">⁶⁶</span> Shall he put<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And running water shall he put, Num. XIX, 17. ');">⁶⁷</span> but not 'Shall she put'. And the Rabbis? — Had it been written, 'He shall take'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Num. XIX. 17. V. infra nn. 11 and 12. ');">⁶⁸</span> and 'Shall he put'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Num. XIX. 17. V. infra nn. 11 and 12. ');">⁶⁸</span> it might have been assumed that only one individual must take<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ashes. ');">⁶⁹</span> and only one must put,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water. ');">⁷⁰</span> hence did the All Merciful write, And they shall take.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plural. ');">⁷¹</span> And had the All Merciful written, 'And they shall take' and also 'Shall they put'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plural. ');">⁷¹</span> it might have been assumed that two must take<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ashes. ');">⁶⁹</span> and two must put,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water. ');">⁷⁰</span> hence did the All Merciful write, And they shall take<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Num. XIX. 17. V. infra nn. 11 and 12. ');">⁶⁸</span> and Shall he put.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Num. XIX. 17. V. infra nn. 11 and 12. ');">⁶⁸</span> [to indicate that the rites are duly performed] even if two take<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ashes. ');">⁶⁹</span> and one put.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water. ');">⁷⁰</span>