Yevamot II 72: Mitzvot Specific to the Circumcised Penis

Perhaps the Israelites were saved from the effects of the north wind on their circumcision  scars, for the north wind never blew at all while the Israelites crossed the desert. Or perhaps the north wind blew each day at midnight in homage to the Egyptian first born sons who were killed at that time.  The rabbis mention different winds and their attributes.  They are focused on the ways that G-d has safeguarded G-d's people from harm.

If someone appears to be uncircumcised, they must be circumcised a second time.  Perhaps it was in fashion to pretend that one still had his foreskin, and men would allow the skin to appear as foreskin.  Perhaps it was politically savvy to claim that one was uncircumcised.  Perhaps a number of men were circumcised in an incomplete manner, where at least shreds of skin remained around the corona of the penis.  The rabbis suggest that a second circumcision correct any of these experiences, and there is little sympathy for the notion that the surgery could put them in danger.  Note that we are speaking of grown men and not children, who are carefully protected from circumcision should it pose any danger.  

The rabbis note again that priests who are not circumcised are not entitled to teruma, though their families may be entitled in some circumstances.  

• a tumtum priest does not have access to teruma nor sacrificial food because s/he may be male and uncircumcised (for his penis is not visible), but 'his' wives and slaves do have access to teruma only (sacrificial food is only for male priests)
• one who was born with no foreskin and one who is circumcised but the skin draws forward are both permitted to partake of teruma
• an androginos who has both male and female genitals may partake of teruma if he has been circumcised
• an androginos who has been circumcised may not partake of the sacrificial foods, for they are permitted only to males and he may not be a male but someone of a third gender

The rabbis wonder how a tumtum could be married.  Perhaps he was betrothed?  And in fact, the tumtum could be betrothed to a man or a woman, for he might be a woman or a man.  But how could such a betrothal be valid?  The rabbis are concerned that the tumtum could in fact be a woman betrothed to another woman!  Which of course, was thought to be ridiculous.  Perhaps the text was referring to the other women in a tumtum's life who would have access to teruma: the tumtum's mother, sisters, etc.  But if the tumtum cannot parent a child, those women are not enabled to partake of teruma, either.  The rabbis wonder if the text was referring to someone whose testicles are visible externally, and so he is clearly a man.

It is fascinating to witness the rabbis debating the issues that continue to confound so many leaders in our society today.  The more strictly that a society creates boundaries and fences, the more difficult it might be to understand the notion of someone living in the 'grey'; living on the boundary.

But it seems as though these Jews were not uncommon, those who were not distinctly fitting into categories of women and men.  I wonder if the intra-familial partnering, especially within the kohan clan, created a greater likelihood of genital differences.  Ironic, as those gender differences created difficulties for the rabbis who so carefully constructed roles based on a binary gender system.

We are reminded that the mitzvah of brit, circumcision, takes place during the day.  If the brit occurs at night, covenantal blood must drip from the infant the following day.  The rabbis note that these guidelines refer to a brit that occurs at its proper time: on the eighth day after birth.  If the brit occurs later than that, daytime or nighttime is an acceptable time.

As an aside, we learn about the rabbis' uses of the text called the Torat Kohanim.  Our notes teach that it is halachic midrashim on Leviticus.  It was redacted by Rav, made up of tannaitic statements and unattributed comments thought to belong to Rabbi Yehuda.  Our daf describes an incident where this great, difficult work was read by Rabbi Yochanan in three days and learned completely within three months.

Our daf ends with a conversation regarding ritual impurity and sacrificial rites.  When can a priest perform rites, such as sprinkling the ashes of the red heifer?  Is a priest who is also a tumtum or an androginos permitted to perform these rites?  The presence of a penis - and a circumcised penis, to be specific - is of paramount importance.  But Rabbi Yeduda challenges the Gemara: an androginos should not be permitted to perform these rights, for even if he is circumcised, she could be a woman. And women cannot perform these rites.

Rabbi Yehuda also speaks to which people are excluded from performing rites as they are excluded from attending the shalosh regalim, the three pilgrimages to the Temple.  Women and those who are androginos are excluded while minors, he argues, can be included.  The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehuda uses the pronoun of "he" referring to the person (or people) who draws the water for sanctification and who sprinkles that water.   He and not she.  Thus women are excluded.

It has always been a challenge to understand why sometimes we are to interpret "he" as a reference to all of us.  Men should not kill - none of us should kill.  But at other times, the male pronoun is used to refer to men specifically and not women (nor children).  How do the rabbis know how to accurately interpret the meaning of the male pronoun?