Daf Yomi - Yevamos 72 - Highlights

Rabbah bar Yitzchak said in the name of Rav: The commandment of uncovering the circumcision (uncovering the corona by splitting the membrane that covers it and drawing it towards its base) was not given to our forefather Avraham; for it is said [Yehoshua 5:2]: At that time Hashem said to Yehoshua: “Make sharp knives of flint for yourself (and circumcise the Children of Israel again, a second time).” (This is referring to mitzvah of uncovering the circumcision.)

The Gemora asks: Perhaps this applied to those who were not previously circumcised; for it is written [Yehoshua 5:5]: For all the people that came out were circumcised, but all the people that were born in the Wilderness were not circumcised.

The Gemora answers: If so, what is the meaning of “and circumcise the Children of Israel again”? Rather, it must apply to the uncovering the circumcision.

The Gemora asks: What is the meaning of the last words of the verse: “and circumcise the Children of Israel again, a second time”?

The Gemora answers: It is to compare the end of the circumcision with its commencement. Just as the commencement of the circumcision is essential (and if a majority of the thick upper part of the foreskin is not cut off, the circumcision is invalid), so too, the end of the circumcision essential (failure to remove strands that cover the corona can invalidate the circumcision); for we learned in a Mishna: These are the shreds which render circumcision invalid: Flesh which covers the greater part of the corona. A Kohen whose circumcision was so defective is not permitted to eat terumah.

Ravina said, or it might be said, Rabbi Yirmiyah bar Abba said in the name of Rav: Flesh which covers the greater part of only the height of the corona. (71b)

The Gemora asks: Why weren’t they circumcised in the Wilderness?

You can answer that it was due to the fatigue of the journey (this would have threatened their lives).

Alternatively, you can answer that it was because the north wind did not blow for them (the north wind is neither hot nor cold, and it usually scatters the clouds which enable the sun to shine through and heal the circumcision wound.)

The Gemora asks: Why didn’t the north wind blow?

The Gemora answers: They were being rebuked by Hashem (on account of the sin of the golden calf or because of the spies).

Alternatively, you can say that the northern wind didn’t blow in order that the Clouds of Glory should not scatter.

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, circumcision should not be performed on a cloudy day or on a day when the south wind blows; nor should one let blood on such a day. At the present time, however, since many people are in the habit of disregarding these precautions, we apply the verse [Tehillim 116:6]: Hashem protects the simple. (71b – 72a)

The Rabbis taught in a braisa: All forty years that the Jews were in the Wilderness, there was never a day that the north wind did not blow at midnight, as it is stated [Shmos 12:29]: And it came to pass at midnight, that Hashem smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt.

The Gemora asks: How do we derive that from this verse?

The Gemora answers: We see from that verse that a time of favor is a significant thing. (72a)

Rav Huna said: A mashuch (one who is properly circumcised, but the remaining skin of his member has been drawn forward to cover up the corona) is Biblically permitted to eat terumah but has been forbidden to do so by Rabbinical ordinance, because he appears to be like one uncircumcised.

The Gemora asks from the following braisa: The mashuch is required to be circumcised again.

The Gemora answers: That is only by Rabbinical ordinance.

The Gemora asks: Why did the one who asked this question assume that the braisa meant that he is Biblically required to circumcise himself again?

The Gemora answers: He made a mistake because of the latter part of the braisa, which stated: Rabbi Yehudah said: A mashuch should not circumcise himself because it is dangerous for him. They said to him: Surely many were circumcised in the days of Ben Koziba (or Bar Kochba, the leader of the Judean revolt against Rome in 132 C.E. In the course of the persecutions that preceded the revolt, the Romans forced many Jews to draw the skin forward in order to obliterate the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, and when liberation came they were again circumcised), and yet, they gave birth to sons and daughters. They were required to circumcise themselves again, as it is said [Breishis 17:13]: Circumcise, you shall circumcise, and the repetition teaches us even a hundred times. The one who asked this question consequently thought that, since the Gemora cited a Scriptural text, the law must be Biblical; but the fact is that it is only Rabbinical, and the Scriptural text is a merely supporting the Rabbinical law. (72a)

The Gemora cites a braisa: A Kohen tumtum may not eat terumah. His wives and slaves may eat terumah.

The Gemora asks: How can a tumtum have a wife? If you want to say that the tumtum betrothed a woman, as was taught in the following braisa: If a tumtum betrothed a woman, the kiddushin takes effect; if a tumtum is betrothed by a male, the kiddushin takes effect. However, this is only for a stringency (that a get would be required), but not for a leniency (we do not regard a tumtum as a certain male, and allow his wife to eat terumah). A tumtum might be a woman, and a woman cannot marry another woman.

Abaye answers: We are referring to a case when his testicles are outside the membrane (he is definitely a male, but nevertheless classified as a tumtum because his member is concealed).

Rava answers: The braisa is not referring to his wife; rather, “his women” means his mother. (If an Israelite woman is married to a Kohen, and she gives birth to a tumtum, and the husband dies; she is permitted to eat terumah on account of her son.)

The Gemora asks: Isn’t this halacha obvious?

The Gemora answers: One might think that one who can have children can entitle his mother to eat terumah, but one who cannot have children, cannot entitle his mother to eat terumah. The braisa teaches us that he can in fact entitle his mother to eat terumah. (72a)

The Gemora states: Let us say that Rav Huna’s halacha (that a mashuch is Biblically permitted to eat terumah but has been forbidden to do so by Rabbinical ordinance, because he appears to be like one uncircumcised) is actually a matter of Tannaic dispute, for it was taught in the following braisa: A mashuch, or a convert that was born circumcised, or a child who is older than eight days old can be circumcised only by day. Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon rules: If the circumcision is performed on the eighth day, it must be performed by day, but if it is performed after the eighth day, it can be performed either by day or at night.

Ostensibly, their argument would depend on the following point: The Tanna Kamma maintains that one is Biblically obligated to circumcise one who is mashuch, and the circumcision must be performed by day. Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon would hold that it is only a Rabbinical obligation (like Rav Huna), and therefore the circumcision can be performed even at night.

The Gemora objects to this logic: Would you think that anyone holds that a circumcision of a child who is more than eight days old would only be a Rabbinic requirement (of course, not)?

Rather, everyone agrees that the requirement to circumcise a mashuch is merely Rabbinic, and the requirement to circumcise a child who is more than eight days old is Biblical. The Tannaim argue regarding the following point: The Tanna Kamma maintains that we expound the extra letter “vav” in the verse And on the eighth day to teach us that all circumcisions must be performed by day. Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon does not expound the extra “vav,” and thus holds that any circumcision which is not performed on the eighth day can be performed at night. (72a – 72b)

Rabbi Elozar said: An uncircumcised person who sprinkled the mei chatas (waters of purification) upon one who was tamei from corpse tumah, the sprinkling is valid, for he is similar to a tevul yom (one who has immersed in a mikvah but still has tumah on him until nightfall), who even though he is prohibited from eating or touching terumah, he would be qualified to sprinkle the mei chatas.

The Gemora asks on this comparison: Perhaps a tevul yom can sprinkle the mei chatas because we find another leniency by him; namely, that he is permitted to eat maaser sheini (one brings one tenth of his produce to Yerushalayim to be eaten there), and one who is uncircumcised cannot eat maaser sheini.

The Gemora answers: We are not discussing the permissibility of eating the mei chatas; we are discussing the eligibility of touching it. Just as a tevul yom is prohibited from touching terumah, yet, he is permitted to sprinkle the mei chatas; so too, an uncircumcised person, who is permitted to touch terumah should certainly be permitted to sprinkle the mei chatas.

The Gemora cites a braisa supporting Rabbi Elozar’s opinion. (72b)

The Gemora asks from a different braisa which states the following: If a tumtum performed the sanctification of the mei chatas, his sanctification is invalid, because he might not be circumcised, and such a person is ineligible to perform sanctification. If an androgynous (hermaphrodite) performed the sanctification, his sanctification is valid. Rabbi Yehudah said: Even if an androgynous performed the sanctification, it is invalid because he might be a woman, and a woman is ineligible to perform sanctification.

This braisa explicitly teaches us that the uncircumcised person or the person whose circumcision is a matter of doubt is forbidden to perform sanctification.

Rav Yosef replied: This Tanna is one from the academy of Rabbi Akiva who include the uncircumcised in the same prohibition as that of the tamei; as it was taught: Rabbi Akiva said: “A man, a man” includes the uncircumcised in the prohibition of eating terumah. (72b)

[END]