Previous daf

1)

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Kol ben Neichar La Yochal *Bo*" (in connection with the Korban Pesach) - 'Bo Hamaras Das Poseles, ve'Ein Hamaras Das Poseles be'Ma'aser' (that a Mumar is permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheini).
2. ... "Kol Areil Lo Yochal *Bo*" - 'Bo Eino Ochel, Aval Ochel Hu be'Matzah u'Maror' (that an Areil is permitted to eat Matzah and Maror).

(b) In spite of having already taught us that ...

1. ... an Areil is forbidden to eat the Pesach, the Torah nevertheless needs to write "Kol ben Neichar ... " - because a ben Neichar is not physically repugnant, as is an Areil.
2. ... a Mumar (whose ways are estranged from Hashem) is forbidden, it nevertheless needs to write "Kol Areil ... " - because, unlike a ben Neichar, an Areil's heart is with Hashem.

(c) Rebbi Akiva (who derives the prohibition for an Areil to eat Terumah from "Ish Ish"), permits an Onan to eat from "ve'Chol Zar" (in the same manner as Rebbi Eliezer did). Rava however, based on the Pasuk "Ish Ish", gives a different reason than he gave there for including an Onan, and precluding an Areil (even if an Areil would not have more stringencies than an Onan). He explains that - "Ish Ish" implies a P'sul that pertains only to a man and not to a woman (i.e. Arlus rather Aninus).

(a) We reject Rav Sh'maya's suggestion that Rebbi Akiva learns from "Toshav ve'Sachir" of Pesach that a circumcised Arab or Giv'oni is disqualified from eating it - because we know already from a Mishnah in Nedarim, that a circumcised Arab or Giv'oni is called an Areil and not a Mahul. So why would we require a Pasuk to disqualify them?

(b) In fact, "Toshav ve'Sachir" comes to preclude - a Ger who circumcised but did not Tovel, and a Katan who was born already circumcised.

(c) A Katan who is born Mahul is not able to eat the Korban Pesach, according to Rebbi Akiva - because he still requires Hatafas Dam B'ris (extracting some blood in place of the actual Milah).

(a) Rebbi Eliezer uses "Toshav ve'Sachir" for a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', because he disagrees with Rebbi Akiva in both issues. He holds that ...

1. ... the conversion of a Ger who had B'ris Milah but who did not yet Tovel - is valid.
2. ... a Katan who is born Mahul - does not require Hatafas Dam B'ris.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer learns that the Torah writes "Ish Ish" - not to teach us anything, but is simply employing human manner of speech.

(a) Rav Chama bar Ukva asks whether one may anoint a Katan Areil with Terumah oil. A Katan Areil - is a baby during the first eight days whom one is not obligated to circumcise.

(b) Anointing with Terumah oil is prohibited, even though it is not eaten - because of the principle (that applies exclusively to Terumah and Yom Kipur) 'Sichah ki'Sh'siyah' (anointing is like drinking).

(a) The Torah forbids *Shechting* the Pesach if one has uncircumcised sons (from the Pasuk "ve'Az Yikrav la'Asoso"), and *eating* it if one has uncircumcised Avadim (from "Az Yochal Bo"). The Beraisa learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Az" "Az" - that it is also forbidden to Shecht the Pesach if one had uncircumcised Avadim, and to eat it if one has uncircumcised sons.

(b) One would have uncircumcised Avadim at the time of eating but not at the time of Shechting - if one purchased them between the Shechitah and the time of eating.

(c) We attempt to resolve Rav Chama bar Ukva's She'eilah (in 4a.) by similarly establishing the case by an uncircumcised son - when he was born between the Shechitah and the time of eating (a clear proof that even Arlus she'Lo bi'Z'manah is considered Arlus.

(d) Rava rejects this proof from the Pasuk itself - which writes "Himol Lo Kol Zachar, ve'Az Yikrav la'Asoso", indicating that if he wanted to, he *could* circumcise his son, implying a son whose Milah has fallen due.

(a) So Rava establishes the Beraisa by a case of Chaltzaso Chamah - a baby who had fever but whose fever died down.

(b) We must be speaking about a baby on the eighth day after its recovery for it not to be considered 'Arlus she'Lo bi'Z'manah'.

(c) He cannot be circumcised in the morning (before the time that the Shechitah falls due) - because we are speaking when he recovered after mid-day, and Chaltzaso Chamah requires me'Es le'Es (a full seven days each consisting of twenty-four hours) before one is permitted to circumcise him.

(d) Rava will explain 'Yom Havra'aso ke'Yom Hivaldo' (the day that he is cured is like the day that he is born) - with regard to waiting seven days before circumcising the baby, but in fact, the day that he is cured is even more stringent than the day that he is born, inasmuch as it also requires 'me'Es le'Es' (which the day of birth does not).

7)

(a) According to Rav Papa, the Beraisa speaks about a baby whose eyes were hurting at the time of the Shechitas ha'Pesach. One is permitted to circumcise him - as soon as the pain dissipates.

(b) Rava establishes the case by a baby whose parents were in prison at the time of the Shechitah and were freed before the time of eating. 'Beis-Din' (incorporating every Jew) did not circumcise the baby - because as long as the parents are alive, the obligation rests exclusively with them (See Maharsha).

(c) They managed to Shecht their Pesach - through a Sh'liach.

(d) Rav Kahana Brei de'Rav Nechemyah establishes the case by a baby who was born a Tumtum and whose skin was torn open, revealing that he was a male only after the time of the Shechitah. Rav Sh'ravyah establishes it by a baby whose head emerged from the womb eight days earlier and whose body emerged only between the Shechitah of the Pesach and the time of eating. But how can a baby survive for so many days without feeding - seeing as, the moment it is born, its navel (which is open until birth, and through which it is sustained via its mother) closes and its mouth opens.

(a) This baby survived for eight days without eating - by means of the fever.

(b) It must have been his mother's fever which sustained him (not his own, otherwise we would need to give him another seven days, as we explained earlier).

(c) It is nevertheless possible for even a healthy baby to survive for such a long period without eating - if he cried when he was born (see Maharshal).

(a) Given that Yisrael were Areilim when they crossed the Yarden, Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Ban'ah proves from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "ve'ha'Am Alu min ha'Yarden be'Asor la'Chodesh ha'Rishon" - that they must have received Haza'ah (from the ashes of the Parah Adumah) on the tenth of Nisan, before the Milah, as we shall see shortly, even though Yehoshua did not circumcise them until the following day (because they were still weak from the travails of the journey). It is also possible that each person arranged his own individual Haza'ah during the course of the forty years; either way, we see that an Areil can receive Haza'ah.

(b) We assume that Yisrael ...

1. ... were Tamei Meis at the time - because of the fifteen thousand men who died each year following the decree of the Meraglim.
2. ... did not receive the first Haza'ah from the ashes of the Parah Adumah on the eleventh of Nisan, *after* the B'ris Milah - because then the second Haza'ah, which takes place four days after the first, would have had to be done on the fifteenth, too late to enable them to bring the Pesach be'Taharah.

(c) and we also know ...

1. ... that they brought the Pesach at all that year - because the Pasuk in Yehoshua testifies that they did.
2. ... that it was not a Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah (seeing as most of the people were Tamei) - because the Beraisa specifically describes it as a Pesach ha'Ba be'Taharah.

11)

(a) When the Pasuk writes ...

1. ... "ba'Eis ha'Hi Amar Hashem el Yehoshua ... ve'*Shuv* Mol es B'nei Yisrael ... " - it refers to the P'riy'ah (the obligation to fold over the skin after the Milah (this implies that they already performed the Milah, and all that Yehoshua needed to do was the P'riy'ah, whereas above we seemed to take for granted that it was the actual Milah which Yehoshua performed - see also Tosfos DH 'Mai Ta'ama').
2. ... "Sheinis" - refers to the final stage of the actual Milah. The final stage of the Milah refers to the cutting of the strands which prevent the Mitzvah from taking effect.

(b) Rabah bar Yitzchak infers from the fact that Yehoshua had to perform the P'riy'ah on the whole of Yisrael - that Avraham Avinu was not commanded to perform the P'ri'ah.

(a) Perhaps the B'nei Yisrael did not circumcise their children in the desert because they were weak - or perhaps it was because the north-wind did not blow (in which case it is dangerous to circumcise).

(b) This is due to the fact that - as a result, the sun (a vital factor in the healing process of the baby [in those days]) did not shine.

(a) Perhaps the north-wind did not blow because they were in Cherem (because of the Golden Calf - see also Tosfos 72a. DH 'Nizufin Hayu') - or perhaps it was because, if it had, it would have caused the Clouds of Glory to disperse.

(b) Rav Papa extrapolate from the above - that one should not perform the Milah on a cloudy day ...

(c) ... nor on a day when the south-wind (the most powerful of all the winds) blows.

(d) Nowadays, we ignore the elements and perform the Milah - relying on the Pasuk "Shomer Pesayim Hashem" (Hashem looks after the fools).