## Yevamot Daf 72a

###### Yevamot 72a:1
[Yevamot 72a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:1)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Yevamot 72a:2
[Yevamot 72a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Yevamot 72a:3
[Yevamot 72a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 72a:4
[Yevamot 72a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 72a:5
[Yevamot 72a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:5)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.**


###### Yevamot 72a:6
[Yevamot 72a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:6)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yevamot 72a:7
[Yevamot 72a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:7)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Yevamot 72a:8
[Yevamot 72a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:8)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Yevamot 72a:9
[Yevamot 72a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Yevamot 72a:10
[Yevamot 72a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:10)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yevamot 72a:11
[Yevamot 72a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:11)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 72a:12
[Yevamot 72a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:12)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 72a:13
[Yevamot 72a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Yevamot 72a:14
[Yevamot 72a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:14)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּשֶׁבֵּיצָיו נִיכָּרוֹת מִבַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 72a:15
[Yevamot 72a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:15)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 72a:16
[Yevamot 72a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:16)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yevamot 72a:17
[Yevamot 72a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:17)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Yevamot 72a:18
[Yevamot 72a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:18)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Yevamot 72a:19
[Yevamot 72a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/72a:19)

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 —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,