1)

WHY YISRAEL DIDN'T CIRCUMCISE IN THE WILDERNESS

(a)

Question: Why didn't they circumcise in the Midbar?

(b)

Answer #1: They were weak from travelling.

(c)

Answer #2: The north wind (it is the most gentle) did not blow (during the day).

1.

(Beraisa): All 40 years that Yisrael were in the Midbar, the north wind did not blow.

(d)

Question: What is the reason?

(e)

Answer #1: Hash-m showd displeasure with Bnei Yisrael.

(f)

Answer #2: It would have scattered the Clouds of Glory.

(g)

Rav Papa: Therefore, we do not circumcise on a cloudy day or on a day when the south wind (the harshest) blows. We do not let blood on such days.

(h)

Nowadays that many people do this, [we do not protest. We rely on] "Hash-m watches over the simple".

(i)

(Beraisa): All 40 years in the Midbar, each night the north wind blew at midnight - "At midnight, Hash-m killed every firstborn".

(j)

Question: How is this learned from this verse?

(k)

Answer: It shows that Hash-m is appeased at midnight.

2)

A MASHUCH

(a)

(Rav Huna): Mid'Oraisa, a Mashuch (a circumcised person whose foreskin covers the crown) may eat Terumah. Chachamim decreed that he may not, because he looks like an Arel.

(b)

Question (Beraisa): A Mashuch must be circumcised.

(c)

Answer: That is only mid'Rabanan.

(d)

Question: The one who asked should have anticipated the answer! (The Beraisa does not say that he is an Arel, merely he must circumcise!)

(e)

Answer: The Seifa made him err:

1.

(Seifa - R. Yehudah): He should not circumcise, because it is dangerous (lest he be castrated).

2.

Chachamim: Many were circumcised in the days of Ben Koziva (after Nochrim forcibly were Moshech foreskins of Yisrael), and they had children! "Himol Yimol" - even 100 times! "He annulled my covenant" includes a Mashuch!

3.

Question: Why was the second verse needed?

4.

Answer: One might have thought that circumcision is repeated only for strands that invalidate the Milah. The second verse teaches that even a Mashuch must circumcise again.

5.

The one who asked thought that since verses are brought, the law is mid'Oraisa.

6.

This is wrong. The law is mid'Rabanan; the verses are only Asmachtos.

(f)

Question (Beraisa): A Tumtum does not eat Terumah. His wives and slaves eat. A Mashuch and one born circumcised may eat;

1.

An Androginus (one who has male and female genitals) eats Terumah, but not Kodshim; a Tumtum eats neither Terumah nor Kodshim.

2.

The Beraisa permits a Mashuch and one born circumcised to eat. This refutes Rav Huna.

3)

A TUMTUM

(a)

(Beraisa): A Tumtum does not eat Terumah. His Nashim (wives) and slaves eat.

(b)

Question: How does a Tumtum have wives?

1.

Suggestion: He was Mekadesh a woman:

i.

(Beraisa): If a Tumtum was Mekadesh a woman or became Mekudeshes to a man, the Kidushin takes effect.

2.

Rejection: It takes effect to be stringent, but not to be lenient!

i.

A Tumtum is a Safek woman. If the Tumtum is truly female, when she was Mekadesh a woman it is not Kidushin!

(c)

Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, (his Ever is covered but) the testicles can be recognized.

(d)

Answer #2 (Rava): He feeds his 'Nashim' (women), i.e. his mother (if she is a Bas Yisrael widowed or divorced from a Kohen).

(e)

Objection: That is obvious!

(f)

Answer: One might have thought that only one who can have children permits eating. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(g)

(Beraisa): A Tumtum eats neither Terumah nor Kodshim.

(h)

Question: Granted, according to Abaye the Reisha teaches about a Vadai Arel (the Beitzim can be recognized) and the Seifa teaches about a (Safek woman,) Safek Arel.

1.

Question: According to Rava, why must the Seifa repeat (the Isur to eat Terumah)?

(i)

Answer: Here, 'Tumtum' refers to a (Vadai) Arel.

(j)

Objection: The Reisha forbids a Safek Arel to eat. There is no need to teach that a Vadai Arel may not eat!

(k)

Answer: The Seifa explains the Reisha:

1.

A Tumtum may not eat Terumah because he is a Safek Arel, and an Arel may not eat Terumah or Kodshim.

(l)

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about Rav Huna's law.

1.

(Beraisa): The following may only be circumcised in daytime: a Mashuch; a convert who was circumcised before converting; a baby past his time (eight days); and all others who are circumcised, i.e. one who has two foreskins;

2.

R. Elazar bar Shimon says, in the proper time they are circumcised only during the day. After the time, it may be at night.

72b----------------------------------------72b

3.

Suggestion: The first Tana holds that Mashuch must be circumcised mid'Oraisa, and R. Elazar bar Shimon requires this mid'Rabanan.

(m)

Rejection: This is unreasonable! Mashuch is taught with a baby past his time, which all agree is mid'Oraisa!

1.

Rather, all agree that Mashuch is mid'Rabanan, and that a baby past his time is mid'Oraisa;

2.

The first Tana expounds the Vav in "Uva'Yom" (to require Milah during the day even after the time. Chachamim pattern the law of Mashuch after the mid'Oraisa law);

3.

R. Elazar does not expound it (so Milah after the time may be at night, and all the more so Mashuch).

(n)

(R. Yochanan): Nosar (Korbanos that were not eaten in the allotted time) in the proper time (to burn it) must be burned during the day. After the time, it may be burned even at night.

(o)

Question #1 (R. Elazar - Beraisa) Question: ('Ba'Yom ha'Shemini' teaches that) Milah on the eighth day must be during the day. What is the source that Milah must be during the day even if it is on day nine, 10, 11 or 12 (e.g. we are unsure which day he was born, so we must wait until a Yom Chol)?

1.

Answer: We learn from "Uva'Yom".

(p)

Question #2: Also, even the opinion that does not expound Vav expounds Vav-Hei (so "Veha'Nosar" teaches that it must always be burned during the day)!

(q)

R. Yochanan was silent. After R. Elazar left, R. Yochanan said that R. Elazar expounds like Moshe learning from Hash-m!

(r)

Reish Lakish: He did not expound on his own. He learned from a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim!

(s)

R. Yochanan went and learned Toras Kohanim in three days, and spent three months thinking it over.

4)

CAN AN AREL DO HAZA'AH?

(a)

(R. Elazar): If an Arel did Haza'ah (sprinkled water sanctified with ashes of Parah Adumah), it is valid.

1.

This is like a Tevul Yom (one who immersed today from Tum'ah). Even though a Tevul Yom is forbidden to Terumah (until evening), he is Kosher for Parah Adumah.

2.

Objection: One cannot learn from a Tevul Yom, since he may eat Ma'aser (Sheni, but an Arel may not)!

3.

Answer: We do not discuss eating, rather, touching!

i.

A Tevul Yom may not touch Terumah, but he is Kosher for Parah Adumah. An Arel may touch Terumah, all the more so, he is Kosher for Parah Adumah!

(b)

Support (Beraisa): Haza'ah of an Arel is valid. A case occurred, and Chachamim validated the Haza'ah.

(c)

Question (Beraisa): If a Tumtum was Mekadesh (water with the ashes), his Kidush is invalid, since he is a Safek Arel, and Kidush of an Arel is invalid. If an Androginus was Mekadesh, his Kidush is valid;

1.

R. Yehudah says, even Kidush of an Androginus is invalid, since he is a Safek female, and Kidush of a female is invalid.

2.

This shows that an Arel or a Safek Arel may not be Mekadesh!

(d)

Answer (Rav Yosef): That Tana holds like Tana d'vei R. Akiva, who considers an Arel like a Tamei:

1.

(Beraisa - R. Akiva): "Ish Ish" (regarding the Isur for a Tamei to eat Terumah) includes an Arel.

(e)

Question (Rava): Why isn't there a Mishnah or Beraisa that teaches 'an Arel and a Tamei', and we will establish it like R. Akiva?!

(f)

Objection: We do find this!

1.

(Beraisa): An Arel and a Tamei are exempt from Re'iyah (the Mitzvah to enter the Mikdash on the festival).

(g)

Answer (Rava): An Arel is not exempt from Re'iyah because he is considered Tamei, rather, because he is repulsive.

(h)

R. Yehudah and Chachamim are consistent with what they taught elsewhere:

1.

(Beraisa): All are Kosher to be Mekadesh (water with the ashes) except for a deaf person, lunatic or minor;

2.

R. Yehudah says, a minor may Mekadesh, but a woman or Androginus may not.

(i)

Chachamim learn from "V'Lakchu... me'Afar... (v'Nasan Alav Mayim)" - only one who may gather may be Mekadesh.

(j)

R. Yehudah disagrees, for if so it should have said 'V'Lakach (singular)'! Rather "V'Lakchu (plural)" teaches that those who are Pesulim to gather may do Kidush.

1.

Question: If so, even a woman should be Kosher for Kidush!

2.

Answer: It says "V'Nasan (masculine)" to exclude women.

(k)

Chachamim disagree. It did not say both in the singular "V'Lakach... v'Nasan", for this would teach that one person takes the ashes and another takes the water (Rashi; Tosfos - the same one who put the ashes on the water must mix them together). Therefore, it says "V'Lakchu";

1.

It did not say "V'Lakchu... v'Nasnu", for this would teach that two take the ashes and two put the water;

2.

Rather, it says "V'Lakchu... v'Nasan" to teach that even two may take the ashes and one may put the water.

(l)

"And the Tahor will sprinkle on the Tamei" implies that he is considered Tahor for Haza'ah, but he is Tamei for other things!

1.

This teaches that a Tevul Yom is Kosher for Parah Adumah.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF