Yerushalmi Yevamot 8:1 ירושלמי יבמות ח׳:א׳

MISHNAH: The uncircumcised and any impure persons may not eat heave; their wives and slaves may eat. Someone injured in his testicles or with cut-off penis and his slaves may eat, his wives may not eat; but if he did not know her carnally after he was injured in his testicles or his penis was cut off, they may eat¹No uncircumcised person may eat any sanctified food (Ex. 12:48) nor any impure (Lev. 22:3). If these persons belong to the priestly clan they are not excluded by their disability (assuming the the Cohen is legally uncircumcised, e. g., as a hemophiliac). But the rules of entitlement to heave follow only the rules of membership in the priestly clan. The person injured in his testicles is prevented from marrying inside the congregation; therefore, his intercourse disables his otherwise entitled sex partner from heave.
The numerical inconsistency in the last sentence is in the Mishnah..

HALAKHAH: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons,” etc. “Every man²Lev. 22:4. The verse excludes impure persons from sanctified food. The inclusive “every man” implies that every man of the descendents of Aaron is included among the prospective eaters of heave since every man is exluded when impure. Verse 7 notes that after immersion in water he may eat the sanctified food after sundown; this refers to heave which does not require a prior purification sacrifice.”, to include the uncircumcised³Quoted in the Babli (70a, 71a, 74a) and Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18) in the name of R. Aqiba. He takes the emphatic expression “every man” to mean that in addition to the persons excluded in the text there must be some category of excluded persons not mentioned in the text.. Or “every man” to include the mourner⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning.? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is written, “no outsider shall eat sanctified [food]⁵Lev. 22:10: “No outsider (a non-priestly Jew; cf. Num. 18:4) shall eat sanctified [food], a Cohen’s sojourner (foreign worker) and hireling shall not eat sanctified [food].” The verse clearly disqualifies persons because of their intrinsic status, not because of a temporary disability. Sifra Emor Pereq4(16) also classifies the bastard as an outsider.”. I forbade to you because of outside status, I did not forbid because of prepuce⁶In the Babli 71a, “I did not forbid because of mourning” which is immediately corrected to “say: not lack of circumcision.” One may not correct the Yerushalmi text according to the first version of the Babli (done by most commentators and the editors of the Zhitomir/Wilna text), since not only the principle of lectio difficilior but also the next sentence in the text, and the parallel discussion in the Babli preclude such an approach. It is clear from the start that both the uncircumcised and the mourner are forbidden heave, and the entire discussion is one of hermeneutics. No temporary disabilities have any place in the interpretation of vv. 10–13. The question is only whether the rather arbitrary approach of R. Aqiba has any justification.. The reddish Rebbi Tiufa⁷A Galilean Amora of the fourth generation; his name appears also as Ṭaifa. His sobriquet may mean that he was a redhead. asked before Rebbi Yose: may we not say, I did not forbid because of prepuce and because of mourning? He said to him, since one verse includes and the other excludes⁸It is the general method of R. Aqiba to analyze verses for expressions of inclusion and exclusion. The expression in 22:4: אִישׁ אִישׁ “man, man” (translated as “every man”) implies that some man is included in the set of persons excluded from heave who is not mentioned in the verse. On the other hand, if the verse had simply read אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב the same meaning as in the actual verse אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן והוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב could have been expressed in correct grammar with one less word. This is taken as an exclusion, “only if he be a leper or sick with gonorrhea”, which decreases the size of the excluded set. The verse deals only with temporary disabilities. The verse 22:10 dealing with permanent disabilities has no exclusion. It is therefore acceptable to include a permanently disabled person in the excluded set and to exclude from that set an additional temporarily disabled person., I am including the uncircumcised who is missing some procedure performed on his body and excluding the mourner who is not missing some procedure performed on his body. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated⁹Sifra Emor Pereq 4(18). In the Babli (70a) and the Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Bo (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 54), the argument is presented in the name of R. Eliezer, adding to the arguments of B. Z. Wacholder [The date of the Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael, HUCA 39(1968) 117–144] about the dependence of that Mekhilta on the Babli.: It said “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover¹⁰Ex. 12:45. and “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave¹¹Lev. 22:10.. Since “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover implies disabling the uncircumcised, so “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave must imply disabling the uncircumcised¹²An application of the principle of גזרה שוה, R. Ismael’s rule 2: One word found in two different laws which in neither of them are needed for the understanding of the law, are written to permit the transfer of rules from one to the other.. Rebbi Ḥaggai questioned: If “sojourner and hireling” with regard to Passover is in a group of laws disabling the mourner, also “sojourner and hireling” with regard to heave should imply disabling the mourner¹³However, Mishnah Pesaḥim8:8, explained in Pesaḥim [Yerushalmi 8:8 (fol. 36b), Babli 92a] states that the mourner is excluded by biblical decree only from services during daytime. This means that the mourner (as long as he is not impure) is admitted to the Passover meal. R. Haggai attempts to discredit R. Ismael’s approach.. Rebbi Hila answered: They inferred from “under, under” only items mentioned in the paragraph¹⁴While the argument of R. Hila is almost understandable, this sentence is not. Neither in the laws of Passover nor in those of heave is the word תחת used. The Babli, in a somewhat similar discussion (71a, 74a) discusses the seemingly superfluous inclusion of three expressions “ממנו” in the laws of the Passover sacrifice offered in Egypt (Ex. 12:9,10). The argument there is not applicable here. All R. Hila seems to say is that one does not derive laws not touched upon in Ex. 22:43–50 from there.. The sexless and the hermaphrodite came under another category¹⁵The sexless is excluded from sacrifices since he probably is a male with an ingrown penis and therefore uncircumcised. The hermaphrodite is circumcised and accepted. His inclusion here has to be rated an editorial or scribal error since “sexless and hermaphrodite” is a frequently occurring combination. (A priest hermaphrodite is excluded from the sacrifices reserved for men and admitted to those open to women; Tosephta 10:2.). The mourner comes from second tithe⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning..

Rebbi Abun asked: Should not heave be forbidden to the mourner by an inference de minore ad majus? Since tithe¹⁶Second tithe, which has to be eaten by the farmer’s family who are not priestly (cf. Tractate Ma‘aser Šeni)., which is permitted to outsiders, is forbidden to the mourner⁴The mourner during the period between the death of a relative and his burial, who is excluded from all religious duties except the care for the burial. As R. Hila points out at the end, the exclusion of the mourner is mentioned only in the declaration of tithes (Deut. 26:14), which implies that even the Israel farmer may not eat his sanctified food (the Second Tithe) while in mourning. From there, it is inferred that the Cohen certainly is disabled during his mourning., should not heave, which is forbidden to outsiders, be forbidden to the mourner? No. If you said it about tithe which needs an enclosure¹⁷Inside the walls of Jerusalem or, earlier, of Siloh., what can you say about heave which does not need an enclosure? Therefore, since each of them has an aspect missing in the other, they cannot teach an inference from one to the other.

Are sacrifices forbidden for the uncircumcised? One cannot deduce the answer from Passover since they are not subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone¹⁸No bone may be broken of the Passover sacrifice; Ex. 12:46. The bone marrow of other sacrificial animals is not forbidden. Therefore, no argument de minore ad majus is possible from Passover to other sacrifices., neither from heave since that would be inference after inference¹⁹In general, the rules of R. Ismael may be combined with one another; an exeption are the rules of sacrifices and sanctified matter. This is discussed in detail in the Babli, Zebaḥim Chapter 5, which has no parallel in the Yerushalmi. Even though the authorities quoted there are all Babylonian, the reference here shows that the basis of the arguments is a Yerushalmi tradition. It is stated in Babli, Zebaḥim 50a, that rules 2 and 3 in the scheme of R. Ismael cannot be used one after the other. Since the exclusion of the uncircumcised from heave was an application of rule 2 (Note 12), the result cannot be used as premiss for an argument of type 3. An attempt to formulate the rules in an extension of symbolic logic is in H. Guggenheimer, Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, 150–164.. At the end, you have to say “from it, from it²⁰An application of rule 2 (Note 12)..” Since “from it”²¹Ex. 12:9 (once), 10 (twice). The Babli must reject this argument since it deduces laws of Passover from all three instances of the word. which was said in the laws of Passover implies that the uncircumcised is disqualified, so “from it”²²Lev. 7:14. The verse is quoted in Mishnah Menaḥot 8:2. which was said in the laws of sacrifices must imply that the uncircumcised is disqualified. Are sacrifices forbidden for the mourner?²³There is no inference to be drawn from Lev. 10:6 since, after the death of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron and his sons were commanded not to mourn. “From it, from it.” Since “from it” which was said in the laws of tithe²⁴The Second Tithe, Deut. 26:14. states that the mourner is disqualified, so “from it” which was said in the laws of Passover²⁵This word indicates an oversight by editor or copyist since (1) from the laws of Passover nothing can be inferred for other sacrifices and (2) the mourner (whose relative died outside of Jerusalem so that he could not defile himself) is admitted to the Passover sacrifice. It most probably should read “sacrifices” (Note 22). must imply that the mourner is disqualified.

Is it free²⁶This refers back to the argument (Notes 9–12) that the uncircumcised is barred from eating heave. It is claimed that the conditions for application of rule 2, גזרה שוה, are not fulfilled.? Has it not been used for a derivation? As it was stated²⁷Babli 70a, Qiddushin 4a, Zebaḥim 62a; Sifra Emor Pereq 4(17).: “Sojourner”, that is the one who is permanently acquired, “hireling” the one temporarily acquired²⁸Lev. 22:10: “A Cohen’s sojourner or hireling shall not eat from sanctified food.” Who are sojourner and hireling? They cannot be Gentiles; these were excluded in the first part of v. 10. They cannot be slaves; these are included (when circumcised) in v. 11. They must be Hebrew “slaves”, i. e., indentured servants. The verse states that the money paid in acquiring a Hebrew slave is paid not to acquire his person but his working and earning power. Therefore, they are not able to partake of sanctified food. The Hebrew slave who is permanently acquired is the one who refuses to leave when his six years of indenture are passed; Ex. 21:5–6, Deut. 15:16–17.
According to tradition, the institution of Hebrew slaves disappeared with the first commonwealth and could never be re-introduced. The argument here is purely one of biblical interpretation, not of actual law.. It should only say “sojourner”; why does the verse mention “hireling”? Should the one who is permanently acquired be forbidden to eat and the one temporarily acquired be permitted? But I would have said that “sojourner” means the one temporarily acquired; the mention of the “hireling” teaches that “sojourner” means the one permanently acquired. Rebbi Mathias²⁹He is mentioned only here. said, since it is written “no uncircumcised person may eat from it,³⁰Ex. 12:48.” it is as if free from one side³¹While the verse in Lev. is used for clarification about the Hebrew slave, Ex. 12:46 cannot speak about him since no circumcised Jew is excluded from the Passover sacrifices. Therefore, the verse is not used for other deductions and the application of rule 2 might be justified.
The Yerushalmi does not clarify the difference between a straight גזרה שוה in which neither part is used for other implications (cf. Note 12), and a conditional one in which only one of the conditions is fulfilled, which may be rejected on logical grounds. This is made explicit in the Babli, 70b..

In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, for which reason were “sojourner or hireling” written for heave³²He derives the exclusion of the uncircumcised from another verse, cf. Note 8. For him there is no necessity to explain “sojourner and hireling” as (no longer applicable) Jewish slaves; he takes “sojourner and hireling” both with respect to heave as with respect to Passover as Gentiles who have not completed the process of conversion.? Like what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, if somebody bought uncircumcised slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them³³That sentence seems to be incomplete. The following rules imply that nobody can be forced to be circumcised against his will. (This is the majority opinion in the Babli, 48a). A Jewish buyer will prefer to buy slaves only with their prior agreement to be circumcised.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody bought uncircumcised slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them, they [still] cannot eat heave even if circumcised³⁴If the buyer is a Cohen, the slave can become part of his household only if he became Jewish by circumcision followed by immersion in a miqweh. If the last step is missing, the conversion is void. A lawful conversion is necessary since upon manumission the slave becomes a full Jew.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody bought slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them but they changed their minds, he keeps them for twelve months. If they accept, it is fine; otherwise, he may sell them to a Gentile³⁵But a converted slave cannot be sold to a Gentile under any circumstances. This rule and the following story also are in the Babli, 48b. The Babli also quotes R. Aqiba to the effect that one does not buy or keep a slave who did not give his prior agreement to be circumcised.. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that somebody bought a village full of uncircumcised slaves from a Gentile with the understanding that he would circumcise them but they changed their minds. He came and asked the rabbis. They said to him, keep them for twelve months. If they accept, it is fine; otherwise one follows the local customs.

Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman also said: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi was in Laodicea and met there Rebbi Jehudah the Patriarch³⁶The grandson of Rebbi.. He³⁷R. Joshua ben Levi. wanted to leave early, when he³⁸R. Jehudah Neśia. said to him wait for us tomorrow to immerse this woman convert. Rebbi Zera³⁹He might be R. Ze‘ira,name written in Babylonian style. asked Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman: Was that to honor the old man³⁷R. Joshua ben Levi. or because one does not immerse a woman convert at night? He said to him, because one does not immerse a woman convert at night. A case came before Rebbi Yose whether one may immerse converts at night. They could not agree⁴⁰In the Babli, 46b, the Galilean authorities are quoted without dissent that conversion needs a court of three judges and must be executed during daytime since “judgment” is written in this respect (Num. 15:16)..

A slave may be a permanent sojourner⁴¹A slave may refuse to be circumcised and stay in the Jewish household as a “sojourner”, a Gentile who has accepted the seven Noahide commandments (prohibition of idolatry, murder, adultery and incest with direct descendents; eating flesh torn from living beings, blasphemy; prohibition of robbery, duty to live under the rule of a civil law). As such he is under the protection of the often repeated commandment to treat the sojourner well and he can be tolerated in a Jewish household since his touch does not make wine prohibited (Babli Avodah zarah 64b).
In the Babli, 48b, this is the position taken by R. Ismael; R. Aqiba (48b) and R. Eliezer (71a) prohibit keeping uncircumcised slaves.. A sojourner is like a Gentile in every respect⁴²This is not meant to be a generally valid statement; the idolator is not protected by the Covenant of the sojourner. What is meant is a rather technical detail. It is stated repeatedly in the Torah, e. g. Deut. 13:18, that statues and other idolatrous objects are prohibited for any use by a Jew. Therefore, valuables of an idolatrous character may only be used by Jews (for example, melted down for their precious metal content) if they come into the hand of a Jew already profaned, i. e., if a non-Jew has treated them contemptuously, preferably damaging them. The Yerushalmi holds that the sojourner still has the power of a Gentile to render profane objects of idolatry even though he is a monotheist, and make them available for a Jew to use. The Babli, Avodah zarah 64b/65a, explains away all the reasons quoted in this paragraph and decides that only an idolator can effectively render idols profane.. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: One keeps the sojourner for twelve months. If he changes his mind, that is fine; otherwise he is like a Gentile in all respects⁴³This statement, that the status of sojourner is only temporary and should lead to full conversion is not found anywhere else.. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: The sojourner has to accept on condition that he may eat cadaver meat⁴⁴In the Babli, Avodah zarah 64b, the opinion of “others” is that the sojourner has to accept all commandments in the Torah except those of kosher food.. Rebbi Hila said, one would then say, the words are [interpreted] as they are written. What does it mean, the words are [interpreted] as they are written? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it⁴⁵Deut. 14:21: “You shall not eat any cadaver; to the sojourner in your midst you shall give it that he eat it, or sell it to a stranger.” This seems to imply that cadaver meat must be donated to the sojourner or sold to the Gentile. Whether it may be sold to the sojourner or donated to the Gentile is a matter of controversy in the Babli (Pesaḥim 21b, Avodah zarah 20a) and Sifry Deut # 104. R. Hila wants to decide following the majority that a sale to the sojourner is permitted..” Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he accepts all commandments written in the Torah⁴⁴In the Babli, Avodah zarah 64b, the opinion of “others” is that the sojourner has to accept all commandments in the Torah except those of kosher food.. Some Tannaim state: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry⁴⁶In the Babli Avodah zarah 64b, this is the opinion of R. Meïr. The operative majority opinion there, that he has to accept all seven Noahide commandments, is not mentioned in the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: One does not receive a sojourner unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile⁴⁷This is the same statement as the preceding one, only it emphasizes that the sojourner has not lost his power to render idols profane which was his as an idolator.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from their consensus: unless he renounces his idolatry as a Gentile. For if it were not so, what would we say? Since he is forbidden idolatry he cannot render profane. But are Gentiles not also forbidden⁴⁸The Noahide precepts are supposed to be valid for all mankind. idolatry and they do render profane? Rebbi Yose said, that you should not say, since he is equal to an Israel in three respects, do not oppress⁴⁹Deut. 24:14: “Do not oppress the poor hireling, or the deprived, from your brothers or the stranger in your land, in your gates.” The stranger who has the right of permanent residence in your gates is the approved sojourner., do not cheat⁵⁰Deut. 23:17: “With you he shall dwell in your midst, at the place which he will chose, where he feels well within one of your gates; do not cheat him.”, and he is exiled like an Israel⁵¹The exile of the homicide to one of the cities of refuge, Num. 35:15: “For the children of Israel and the sojourner in their midst should these six cities be a refuge.”, that he has no power to render profane. Therefore, it was necessary to spell out that he renders idols profane like a Gentile. Who is the Tanna who includes “do not oppress”? He is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated⁵²More explicit in Babli Baba meṣi‘a 111b, Tosephta Baba meṣi‘a 10:4. In the latter source, it is explained that the prohibition of oppression includes the obligation to pay the day-laborer immediately.: The sojourner is protected by the prohibition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah.

Rebbi Jehudah says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on a holiday. Just as a Jew bakes and cooks but is forbidden to work, so is the sojourner on the Sabbath⁵³In the Babli, Keritut 9a, this is the opinion of R. Aqiba.. Rebbi Yose says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on the intermediate days of a holiday⁵⁴In the Babli, this is the opinion of the anonymous majority.. Just as a Jew on the intermediate days of a holiday collects from the field but is forbidden agricultural work, so is the sojourner on the Sabbath. Rebbi Simeon says, the sojourner on a Sabbath is like a Jew on the remaining days of the year⁵⁵In the Babli, he explicitly includes the sojourner-slave working for himself; work for the Jewish owner is forbidden.. Just as a Jew on the remaining days of the year ploughs, sows, and harvests, so does the sojourner on the Sabbath. Rav Ada, Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon⁵⁶In the Babli, quoted by Šiṭṭa Mequbeṣet from manuscript: Rav Idi bar Naḥman in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava (cf. Berakhot, Chapter 1, Note 161.).

It is written: “Any slave who is a man bought by money⁵⁷Ex. 12:44: “Any slave who is a man bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat from [the Passover sacrifice].” In the Babli (Yebamot 48a) the anonymous opinion here is the minority opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar. The Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai follows the Yerushalmi; the Mekhilta dR. Ismael follows the Babli (Yebamot 71a) in referring the sentence “then he may eat from [the Passover sacrifice]” to the owner who in that interpretation is barred from the sacrifice as long as not all his slaves are circumcised. (Cf. Note 41, the position of R. Aqiba)..” You circumcise by force a slave who is a man⁵⁸The verse notes only the activity of the owner., you do not circumcise by force a son who is a man⁵⁹A proselyte may only circumcise his minor sons with him.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, does this imply that you may circumcise a minor by force? Even like one of undescended testicles⁶⁰The word אורכניס. has a number of explanations in the dictionaries which do not fit since they denote persons of high social standing. It is difficult to see how a foundling can be a son of a “ruler” (Mussaphia) or a “chief leader” (Kohut), etc. According to the context, one may translate בן not as “son” but “endowed with a certain quality” and take אורכניס as a composite of Greek ὀρχίς “testicles”, such as ὀρχιπέδη “restraint of testicles, impotence” (E. G.).? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is so. “If he found there a foundling. If he immersed him as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; [if he immersed him] as a free person, he circumcises him as a free person.⁶¹Mishnah Makhshirin 2:7 explains that in a city where Jews and Gentiles dwell together, a foundling has the status of the majority (according to R. Jehudah the majority of those who abandon their children; in Tosephta Makhshirin 1:8 he declares the foundling to be a Gentile or a slave if only one Gentile or female slave of childbearing age lives there.)” Rebbi Joḥanan asked, as a slave, he circumcises him as a slave; even like one of undescended testicles? Rebbi Abbahu and Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia did not say so, but “any slave who is a man bought by money.” If your slave is a man, you circumcise him by force. If your son is a man, you do not circumcise him by force. This refers to what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: If somebody buys uncircumcised slaves from Gentiles on condition that he will circumcise them, in any case if they are slaves who are men, you circumcise them by force. On condition⁶²A condition negotiated with the slave trader. that he will not circumcise them, he is like a son who is a man, you do not circumcise him by force.

The one drawn [circumcised]⁶³A circumcised person who extended the skin of his penis that it should look like a prepuce and he should not be recognized as a Jew., the one born circumcised⁶⁴His circumcision had no connection with Judaism. He cannot be circumcised for fear that his penis would be injured. If one drop of blood can be drawn from him, then he is considered fully circumcised; see below., and the circumcised before he converted⁶⁴His circumcision had no connection with Judaism. He cannot be circumcised for fear that his penis would be injured. If one drop of blood can be drawn from him, then he is considered fully circumcised; see below. may not eat heave⁶⁵In the first two cases, if the man is a Cohen.. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Yannay ben Rebbi Ismael, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: As a fine. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: They instituted a fence⁶⁶In the Babli, 72a, Rav Huna states that the drawn [circumcised] is forbidden heave only by rabbinic standards; everybody in the Yarushalmi will agree.. What is the difference between them? If another person drew it⁶⁷Against the will of the person on whom the procedure is executed., or that it regrew by itself. If you want to say, it is a fine, there is no place for a fine. If you say they instituted a fence, nevertheless they instituted a fence.

“Circumcising he shall circumcise⁶⁸Gen. 17:13..” A decision for two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering⁶⁹The follow-up to the act of circumcision in which the skin is cut and plied back to uncover the corona.. One for the uncovering, the other for the fibers⁷⁰Eventual fibers of the prepuce which have to be cleaned from the wound. The same argument in the Babli, 72a.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba who said, these are expressions of additions⁷¹This interpretation of double expressions is also attributed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Shevuot 27b.. From where for Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen⁷²Gen. 31:30, a speech of Laban; 40:15, Josef’s address to the cup-bearer. Both verses are without legal implications; this proves that the repetitions are a literary device to express emphasis. The same argument in Babli, Avodah zarah 27a.”? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, “then she said, a blood bridegroom for circumcisions⁷³Ex. 4:26, the inference is from the plural form מולות. {Modern interpreters take the words of the Ismaelite Ṣippora to be Arabic, “poor circumcised one, may it be for opulence”.},” from here that there are two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for the uncovering; one for the uncovering, the other for the fibers. Rav said, “circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from one born circumcised. “Circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that an uncircumcised Jew cannot circumcise until he circumcises himself; not to speak of an uncircumcised Gentile⁷⁴In Gen. rabba 46(8), this is the argument of R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Levi said, it is written: “But you have to keep my covenant.” You and yours⁷⁵In Gen. rabba 46(8), this is the argument of Rav Huna. In the Babli, Avodah zarah 27a, it is attributed to Rebbi..

It was stated⁷⁶Babli Avodah zarah 27a, Tosephta Avodah zarah 3:13.: “A Jew may circumcise a Samaritan but a Samaritan may not circumcise a Jew since he is circumcised in the name of Mount Gerizim, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, where do we find in the Torah that circumcision needs intent? Let him continue to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim until he dies!” “The drawn should not circumcise [again] lest he get into danger, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, many drawn⁷⁷They might have been forcibly circumcised in the general conscription ordered by Bar Kokhba. ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and begat sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn [circumcised]⁶³A circumcised person who extended the skin of his penis that it should look like a prepuce and he should not be recognized as a Jew., the one born circumcised⁶⁴His circumcision had no connection with Judaism. He cannot be circumcised for fear that his penis would be injured. If one drop of blood can be drawn from him, then he is considered fully circumcised; see below., and the circumcised before he converted.⁶⁴His circumcision had no connection with Judaism. He cannot be circumcised for fear that his penis would be injured. If one drop of blood can be drawn from him, then he is considered fully circumcised; see below. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised since that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.”⁷⁸Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq 1(7); also Tosephta Shabbat 15:9; Babli Shabbat 135a; Gen. rabba 46(9). Rebbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows the words of the student⁷⁹R. Simeon ben Eleazar, a student of R. Jehudah who is quoted in a baraita in the Babli as stating that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree about the child born without prepuce.. There came a case before Rav, who said: Who is he who said that it is a compressed prepuce⁸⁰Also in the Babli, Shabbat 135a, he is quoted as deciding practice following R. Jehudah.? That means⁸¹The statement of R. Simeon ben Eleazar, who asserts flatly that the baby apparently without prepuce has a compressed prepuce, not that possibly he has one., he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him⁸²As explained in the next paragraph, a child born on the Sabbath is circumcised on the following Sabbath (if he is healthy enough to be circumcised on the eighth day.). Rebbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him⁸³This is the uncontested anonymous decision of the Babli.. A male child was born to Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in that condition⁸⁴Babli Shabbat 135a. There, R. Ada bar Ahava accused himself of being punished for not following the ruling of his teacher Rav.. He squeezed it, he died. Rebbi Abin said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him that he should die. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his testicles became injured and he fasted for him that he should die.

A certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but a doubtful one does not push away the Sabbath. “His prepuce⁸⁵Lev. 12:3: “On the eighth day, one circumcises the prepuce of his flesh.” “The flesh” is the penis as boneless member; cf. Ez. 23:20. Since the commandment is unconditional, a baby boy born on the Sabbath has to be circumcised on the following Sabbath even though without the commandment it would be a desecration of the Sabbath and a capital crime.
From here to the end of the Halakhah, most of the text is also found in Shabbat, Chapter 18.
The text is from Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq 1(5), also quoted in Babli Shabbat 134b. The details are only applications of the general principle stated at the start.”, his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the hermaphrodite does not push away the Sabbath even though Rebbi Jehudah said one pushes away the Sabbath for the hermaphrodite and is punished for him by divine extirpation⁸⁶He considers the hermaphrodite as a certain male. Therefore, cohabitation of a male with the female aspect of an hermaphrodite nevertheless is homosexual behavior; cf. Notes 243 ff.. “His prepuce”, his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the one born at dusk does not push away the Sabbath⁸⁷When it is not clear whether the child was born on the Sabbath which starts at nightfall, which time is not well defined; cf. Berakhot Chapter 1, Notes 20 ff.. “His prepuce”, his certain prepuce pushes away the Sabbath, but the one born circumcised does not push away the Sabbath even though the House of Shammai say one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him⁸⁸This disproves the earlier statement that the child apparently born without prepuce has a compressed one..

There⁸⁹Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:1. This refers to the duty of pilgrimage. Ex.23:17: “Three times a year all your male population should be seen before the Lord, the Eternal.”, we have stated: “Everybody is required to be seen except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite⁹⁰The first three are not subject to commandments, the last two may not be males..” What says Rebbi Jehudah in this respect? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, “also the blind one.”⁹¹Tosephta Ḥagigah 1:1, Babli Ḥagigah 2a, 4b; Sanhedrin 4b; Arakhin2b. Nobody says “also” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says to exclude, but here he says to include⁹²For the pilgrimage he agrees that the person whose masculinity is questionable is excluded but for circumcision he includes him as male.. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse⁹³Gen. 17:14: “An uncircumcised male who refuses to circumcise the prepuce of his flesh …”. The rabbis explain “uncircumcised”, why does the verse add “male”? Only if he is totally male⁹⁴They disregard the existence of societies practicing female circumcision.. Rebbi Jehudah explains “male”, why does the verse add “uncircumcised”? Even if he is partially male⁹⁵The same argument in the Babli, Shabbat 136b/137a.. But here, “all your maleness”, that excludes the hermaphrodite.

There⁹⁶Mishnah Shabbat 19:5., we have stated: “One does not circumcise a sick baby until he gets well.” Samuel said, even if he runs a fever for one hour one waits with him up to one month⁹⁷In the Babli, 71a and Shabbat 137a, he gives a minimum of 7 times 24 hours.. May one feed him with milk-substitute⁹⁸Some baby food made from heave grain. from heave? May one rub him with heave oil? Let us hear from the following: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons may not eat heave; their wives and slaves may eat.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum: The prepuce is counted only from the eighth day onward⁹⁹The Babli, 71a, asserts the opposite, that uncircumcised babies of Cohanim may not be fed heave products.. It was stated so: For the entire thirty days it is forbidden to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and forbidden to rub him with heave oil. How do you treat the night of the eighth day? Since it was stated: In the night of the eighth day it enters the corral to be tithed¹⁰⁰A newborn animal is acceptable as sacrifice only after eight days. If a calf can be counted for tithing already in the night of the eighth day, that proves that one does not have to wait until it is daytime; Babli Zebaḥim 12a. Therefore, the baby may not be fed heave products between nightfall of the eighth day and the time of circumcision on the next morning., that means that the night of the eighth is treated like the eighth day. It was stated so: All seven days long one is permitted to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and permitted to rub him with heave oil.

There¹⁰¹Mishnah Shabbat 19:6: These are the fibers which invalidate the circumcision: flesh that covers most of the corona. If he was fat, one has to fix it because of the bad appearance. If he circumcised and did not fold back, it is as if he did not circumcise., we have stated: “These are the fibers which invalidate the circumcision.” Rebbi Avina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: If it covers most of the height of the corona¹⁰²Making clear that “most” in the Mishnah refers to the vertical, not the horizontal. In the Babli, Shabbat 137b, this is a statement of Rebbi Avina in the name of (the Babylonian) RavJeremiah bar Abba. This is the correct version since R. Avina lived two generations before Rebbi Jeremiah (cf. Berakhot Chapter 6, Note 148).. Rebbi Yose ben Yose¹⁰³Since he was a Galilean Amora of the last generation, his statement makes sense only if the preceding statement was Babylonian, i. e., that the Yerushalmi version also read “Rav Jeremiah bar Abba.” said, if it covers most of the top of the corona. Rebbi Tebi in the name of Samuel: One checks at the time of an erection¹⁰⁴This refers to the fat baby mentioned in the Mishnah; if only the uncovered part of his corona is visible, nothing has to be done. In the Babli, Shabbat 137b, this is a statement of Samuel, modifying a tannaitic statement of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (Tosephta Shabbat 15:9).. “If he circumcised and did not fold back, it is as if he did not circumcise.¹⁰¹Mishnah Shabbat 19:6: These are the fibers which invalidate the circumcision: flesh that covers most of the corona. If he was fat, one has to fix it because of the bad appearance. If he circumcised and did not fold back, it is as if he did not circumcise.” It was stated: He is subject to divine extirpation¹⁰⁵The person who performs an invalid circumcision on the Sabbath.. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is to say if there is no time left in the day to correct it. But if there is time left in the day to correct, he corrects without hesitation.

It was stated¹⁰⁶A baraita also quoted in Babli Shabbat 133b and determined there to disagree with R. Yose (the Tanna).: As long as he is occupied with the circumcision, he may return both to fibers which invalidate the circumcision as also to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has stopped, he may return only to fibers which invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we had stated there¹⁰⁷Mishnah Sukkah 3:14. R. Yose holds that since the Torah requires one to take a palm branch on the first day of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:40), even taking it out on the Sabbath cannot be punishable. The same then holds for the knife for a circumcision which must be performed on the Sabbath and the unleavened bread which must be eaten during the first night of Passover even if that happens to be on a Sabbath. (The remainder of Passover, leavened matter is forbidden but consumption of unleavened bread is not commanded.): “Rebbi Yose said, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath and somebody forgot [that it was the Sabbath] and took the palm branch into the public domain he is free [from punishment] since he took it out with permission.” Is it the same for the knife of circumcision, for a maṣṣah? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision, that means the same holds for the knife of circumcision, for a maṣṣah.

“If he did not know her carnally after he was injured in his testicles or his penis was cut off, they may eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Eleazar’s and Rebbi Simeon’s¹⁰⁸They say in Mishnah 6:3 that a priestly woman who is disqualified for marriage to a priest but nevertheless betrothed to a priest may continue to eat heave up to the time of the actual marriage. A similar discussion is in the Babli, 75a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion; there is a difference since he did not add an acquisition to disable¹⁰⁹The case is not comparable to that of a widow betrothed to a High Priest. In the latter case, the act of betrothal is an illegitimate act of acquisition which disqualifies the woman. But in the case here there was no transaction between the man and the woman which could change the latter’s status.. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the other disagreement, since they disagreed: A priestly woman waiting for her levir who became eligible to two priestly levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her but did not have occasion to bring her to the marriage chamber before he became injured in his testicles or his penis was damaged¹¹⁰Her situation is bad. If she goes ahead with the now forbidden marriage, she is disqualified from priestly prebends. If she does not go ahead, she needs a (rabbinic) divorce and becomes disqualified., Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since she is a candidate for disabling intercourse, she is disabled. Rebbi Joḥanan said, when he will copulate¹¹¹If she stays engaged permanently, neither married nor divorced, she can continue to eat heave indefinitely.. If one of them was qualified but the other disqualified, even Rebbi Joḥanan agrees¹¹²Her first husband’s death confers on her the equal candidacy of both levirs. This is a disabling change of status.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, if the qualified one “bespoke” her? He said to him, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹¹³But everybody will agree that marriage to the qualified levir will remove her temporary disability..