Yevamos - Daf 72
- Why the bnei Yisroel born in the midbar did not have bris milah done
The Gemara on Daf 71b taught that the bnei Yisroel born in the midbar were not circumcised until they crossed the Yarden. The Gemara asks why they were not circumcised earlier and answers either משום חולשא דאורחא – because of the exhaustion from the travelling or משום דלא נשיב להו רוח צפונית – because the north wind did not blow for them. Rashi explains that the north wind is pleasant, neither hot or cold, and the sun shines through. The Gemara explains that it did not blow for them either משום דנזופים היו – because they were being rebuked by Hashem, which Rashi says refers to the cheit ha’egel, and they were not deserving of the אור נוגה – the spiritual pure light. Or the north wind did not blow דלא נבדור ענני כבוד – so that the Clouds of Glory would not disperse. Rav Pappa said we learn from here that we should not circumcise on a cloudy day or on a day of severe south winds, which Rashi says is the harshest of all winds, nor should we let blood on that day. The Gemara concludes that now that it is common practice for people to do so on these days, we apply the principle of שמר פתאים ה' – Hashem protects the simple.
- Is a mashuch prohibited from eating terumah?
Rav Huna said: דבר תורה משוך אוכל בתרומה – It is d’Oraysa law that a mashuch, which refers to someone who had a proper circumcision, but the remaining skin of his member was stretched and now conceals the crown, may eat terumah, but the Rabbanon decreed that he may not מפני שנראה כערל – because he appears like an arel. After the first challenge to Rav Huna’s statement is unsuccessful, the Gemara refutes Rav Huna when it brings a Baraisa that states: משוך ונולד כשהוא מהול הרי אלו אוכלים – Regarding a mashuch and a child who was born circumcised, they may eat terumah. Rashi brings another loshon of the Gemara in which this Baraisa is brought to support Rav Huna’s opinion that a mashuch is mid’Oraysa permitted to eat terumah and does not refute his opinion that a mashuch is Rabbinically prohibited from doing so. Rashi says that this latter version is the correct one.
- ערל שהזה הזאתו כשרה
Rebbe Elazar said: ערל שהזה הזאתו כשרה – In the case of an arel who sprinkled the mei chatas upon someone who was a tamei meis, his haza’ah is valid. מידי דהוה אטבול יום – for he is similar to a tevul yom, שאף על פי שאסור בתרומה כשר בפרה – who, although he is prohibited from eating terumah, he is kasher to do the various avodahs of the parah adumah. When the Gemara asks if it is a fair comparison, מה לטבול יום שכן מותר במעשר – for a tevul yom is permitted to eat maaser sheini, which an arel cannot, it answers that we are not discussing whether an arel is qualified to eat the parah adumah. Rather, we are addressing whether an arel can touch it. ומה טבול יום שאסור בנגיעה דתרומה מותר בפרה – Since a tevul yom is forbidden to touch terumah, yet is permitted to be involved with the parah adumah, ערל שמותר בנגיעה אינו דין שמותר בפרה - then an arel who is permitted to touch terumah, is it not logical that he is permitted to be involved in the services of the parah adumah?
