Yevamot 72a

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא נְשִׁיב לְהוּ רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית. דְּתַנְיָא: כׇּל אוֹתָן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר לֹא נָשְׁבָה לָהֶם רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית.

And if you wish, say instead that it was because the north wind did not blow for them, and the hot weather was likely to lead to medical complications following the procedure. As it is taught in a baraita : All those forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness, the north wind did not blow for them.

מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּנְזוּפִים הָווּ, וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא דְּלָא נִבַּדּוּר עַנְנֵי כָבוֹד.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that this wholesome wind did not blow all those years? If you wish, say it was because they were under censure following the sin of the spies and were therefore undeserving of this salutary wind. And if you wish, say instead that it was so that the clouds of glory covering the Tabernacle should not disperse.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ יוֹמָא דְעֵיבָא וְיוֹמָא דְשׁוּתָא — לָא מָהֲלִינַן בֵּיהּ, וְלָא מְסוֹכְרִינַן בֵּיהּ. וְהָאִידָּנָא דְּדָשׁוּ בַּהּ רַבִּים, ״שׁוֹמֵר פְּתָאִים ה׳״.

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, learn from here that on a cloudy day or on a day that a south wind [ shuta ] blows, we may neither circumcise nor let blood [ mesokhrinan ], owing to the danger involved. But nowadays, when many are accustomed to ignoring these safeguards, the verse “The Lord preserves the simple” (Psalms 116:6) is applied, and it is assumed that they will come to no harm.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל אוֹתָן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, לֹא הָיָה יוֹם שֶׁלֹּא נָשְׁבָה בּוֹ רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה וַה׳ הִכָּה כׇל בְּכוֹר וְגוֹ׳״ מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּעֵת רְצוֹן מִילְּתָא הִיא.

The Sages taught in a baraita : All those forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness there was not a day in which the north wind did not blow at midnight, as it is stated: “And it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:29). The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation? How is it derived from this verse that speaks of the exodus from Egypt that a north wind blew at midnight during the forty years that the Jewish people wandered in the wilderness? The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us that a time of favor is a significant matter. Since midnight had once been a time of divine favor at the beginning of the exodus from Egypt, it continued to be a time of favor throughout the forty years that the Jewish people sojourned in the wilderness.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, מָשׁוּךְ — אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה, וּמִדִּבְרֵיהֶם גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּעָרֵל.

§ Rav Huna said: By Torah law, if one had been circumcised, but subsequently the residual foreskin was drawn forward by itself or manually so that it covered the corona, he may partake of teruma , as he is considered circumcised. However, from the words of the Sages, they decreed that he must be circumcised again because he looks as if he were uncircumcised.

מֵיתִיבִי: מָשׁוּךְ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיָּמוּל! מִדְּרַבָּנַן. וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ, מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ? הָא ״צָרִיךְ״ קָתָנֵי!

The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita : One whose residual foreskin was drawn forward so that it covers the corona requires a second circumcision, indicating that he is not considered circumcised. The Gemara explains: This requirement is by rabbinic law, and by Torah law he is considered circumcised. The Gemara asks: And the amora who asked this question, why did he ask it in the first place? The baraita merely teaches that such an individual requires circumcision, and does not indicate that it is a Torah obligation.

קָטָעֵי בְּסֵיפָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִמּוֹל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסַּכָּנָה הִיא לוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא הַרְבֵּה מָלוּ בִּימֵי בֶּן כּוֹזֵיבָא וְהוֹלִידוּ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״, אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים, וְאוֹמֵר: ״אֶת בְּרִיתִי הֵפַר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמָּשׁוּךְ.

The Gemara explains: The amora who raised the question erred due to the latter clause of that same baraita , which states: Rabbi Yehuda says: He should not be circumcised because it would be dangerous for him to do so. His colleagues said to him: But weren’t there many who had drawn their residual foreskins forward and subsequently were circumcised a second time in the days of ben Koziva, otherwise known as bar Kokheva, and they fathered sons and daughters. Such re-circumcision is necessary, as it is stated: “He must surely be circumcised [ himmol yimmol ]” (Genesis 17:13), the double verb form indicating: Even one hundred times. And furthermore, it says: “He has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14), which comes to include one whose foreskin was drawn forward.

מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: הַאי ״הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל״ לְרַבּוֹת צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִים אֶת הַמִּילָה — ״תָּא שְׁמַע: ״אֶת בְּרִיתִי הֵפַר״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמָּשׁוּךְ.

The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of: And furthermore, it says? Why was it necessary to cite two verses in support of the same halakha ? The Gemara answers: The additional verse is necessary, lest you say that this first verse: “He shall surely be circumcised,” comes only to include the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut and to indicate that they must be removed. If so, come and hear a second verse: “He has broken My covenant,” which comes to include one whose foreskin was drawn forward.

הוּא סָבַר: מִדְּקָא נָסֵיב לַהּ תַּלְמוּדָא (קְרָא) — דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא. וְלָא הִיא: מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

Now he, the amora who raised an objection based on the first part of the baraita , thought that since at the end of the baraita the tanna brings a derivation from a verse, this halakha must be by Torah law. But in fact that is not so. It is only by rabbinic law, and the verse quoted is a mere support but not the source of the halakha .

מֵיתִיבִי: טוּמְטוּם — אֵין אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה, נָשָׁיו וַעֲבָדָיו — אוֹכְלִין. מָשׁוּךְ, וְנוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִים. אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאֵין אוֹכֵל בְּקָדָשִׁים. טוּמְטוּם — אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל לֹא בִּתְרוּמָה וְלֹא בְּקָדָשִׁים.

The Gemara raises an objection from a different source: A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma , but his wives and slaves may partake of it. A priest who had been circumcised, but subsequently the residual foreskin was drawn forward, and similarly one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, may partake of teruma . A priest who is a hermaphrodite [ androginos ], possessing both male and female genitals, and was circumcised may partake of teruma , as whether he is male or female he is entitled to eat teruma , but he may not partake of sacrificial food, which is permitted only to male priests, as he might not be a male. A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food, as he might be a male, and since his member is hidden he cannot be circumcised.

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: מָשׁוּךְ, וְנוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרַב הוּנָא! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

In any event, this baraita teaches that a priest whose foreskin was drawn forward and one who was born circumcised may partake of teruma . This would seem to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna that a priest whose foreskin was drawn forward may not eat teruma at least by rabbinic law. The Gemara concludes: This is in fact a conclusive refutation of his opinion.

אָמַר מָר: טוּמְטוּם — אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה, נָשָׁיו וַעֲבָדָיו — אוֹכְלִים. נָשָׁיו לְטוּמְטוּם מְנָא לֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא דְּקַדֵּישׁ, דְּתַנְיָא: טוּמְטוּם שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ — קִדּוּשָׁיו קִדּוּשִׁין, נִתְקַדֵּשׁ — קִדּוּשָׁיו קִדּוּשִׁין,

The Master said above in the baraita : A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma , but his wives [ nashav ] and slaves may partake of it. The Gemara is puzzled by this teaching: From where does a tumtum have wives? If he does not have a visible male organ, how can he marry a woman? If we say that he merely betrothed a woman, as it is taught in another baraita : If a tumtum betrothed a woman his betrothal is considered a valid betrothal, as he might be a male, and similarly if he was betrothed by a man, his betrothal is deemed a valid betrothal as he might be a female, there is a difficulty.

אֵימַר דְּאָמַר לְחוּמְרָא, לְקוּלָּא מִי אָמְרִינַן? סְפֵק אִשָּׁה הוּא, וְאֵין אִשָּׁה מְקַדֶּשֶׁת אִשָּׁה?

One could say that the tanna said that the betrothal of a tumtum is valid only as a stringency, i.e., out of concern that he might be a male, and therefore the woman cannot leave without a proper bill of divorce. But should we say that his betrothal is valid also as a leniency, to allow his wife to eat teruma ? There is an uncertainty here that perhaps he is a woman, and one woman cannot betroth another woman.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּשֶׁבֵּיצָיו נִיכָּרוֹת מִבַּחוּץ.

Abaye said: The tanna is referring to a tumtum whose male organ is hidden, but he is speaking of a situation where his testicles are visible externally. Since it is evident that he is a male, he can betroth a woman even though he cannot have relations with her.

רָבָא אָמַר: מַאי ״נָשָׁיו״ — אִמּוֹ. אִמּוֹ, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מוֹלִיד — מַאֲכִיל, שֶׁאֵין מוֹלִיד — אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Rava said a different answer: What is meant here by the word nashav , which was translated earlier as his wives, but which can also be understood as his women? It refers here to the priest’s mother, who, after her husband the priest has passed away, may continue to eat teruma by virtue of her son. The Gemara questions this interpretation of the baraita : His mother? It is obvious that she may eat teruma on his account, as he is her offspring by a priest. The Gemara explains: This statement is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that only if the priest is capable of having children does he enable his mother to eat teruma , but if he is incapable of having children he does not enable his mother to eat teruma , and therefore a tumtum , who cannot have children, should not enable his mother to eat teruma . Therefore, the tanna teaches us that this is not so, as a woman may eat teruma by virtue of the child she bore a priest, even if that child is incapable of having children.

תָּא שְׁמַע: טוּמְטוּם — אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל לֹא בִּתְרוּמָה וְלֹא בְּקָדָשִׁים. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי, תְּנָא רֵישָׁא עָרֵל וַדַּאי, וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא סְפֵק עָרֵל.

Come and hear a proof in support of Abaye’s opinion from that which is taught in the latter part of the baraita : A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food. There is a difficulty here, as the halakha that a tumtum may not partake of teruma was already taught in the first part of the baraita . Granted, according to Abaye, the tanna teaches in the first clause of the baraita the halakha governing a tumtum who is definitely uncircumcised, i.e., one whose testicles are visible externally, so that he is definitely male but cannot undergo circumcision because his member itself is hidden. And then he teaches in the latter clause of the baraita the halakha governing a tumtum about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, i.e., one whose genitalia are completely hidden, so that he might not even be a male.

אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, טוּמְטוּם דְּסֵיפָא לְמָה לִי? מַאי טוּמְטוּם — עָרֵל.

But according to Rava, why do I need the repetition of the halakha governing a tumtum in the latter clause? The tanna already stated this halakha in the first part of the baraita . The Gemara answers: What is this tumtum referred to in the latter clause? It is a man who is definitely uncircumcised.

הַשְׁתָּא סְפֵק עָרֵל לָא אָכֵיל — וַדַּאי עָרֵל אָכֵיל?! מָה טַעַם קָאָמַר: מָה טַעַם טוּמְטוּם אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסְּפֵק עָרֵל הוּא, וְעָרֵל אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל לֹא בִּתְרוּמָה וְלֹא בְּקָדָשִׁים.

The Gemara asks: Now, if a tumtum , about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, may not partake of teruma , as stated in the first clause of the baraita , can it be supposed that a man who is definitely uncircumcised may eat teruma , so that it was necessary for the baraita to teach in the latter clause that he may not do so? The Gemara answers: He is saying: What is the reason. The baraita should be understood as follows: What is the reason that a tumtum may not partake of teruma ? It is because there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, and an uncircumcised priest may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food.

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: מָשׁוּךְ (וְנוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל), וְגֵר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל, וְקָטָן שֶׁעָבַר זְמַנּוֹ, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַנִּימּוֹלִים, לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי עֲרָלוֹת — אֵינָן נִימּוֹלִין אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַנּוֹ —

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this amoraic dispute as to whether or not one who had been circumcised but his residual foreskin was drawn forward is considered uncircumcised by Torah law is parallel to the following dispute between tanna’im . As it is taught in the Tosefta ( Shabbat 16:7): One whose foreskin was drawn forward, and similarly, one who was born circumcised, and a convert who converted when he was already circumcised, and a child whose appropriate time for circumcision already passed and he was still uncircumcised, and all others who require circumcision, which, as the Gemara parenthetically adds, comes to include one who has two foreskins, both of which must be removed, may be circumcised only during the day. Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon says: If the circumcision is performed at its appropriate time, i.e., on the eighth day,