they may be circumcised only during the day. However, if the circumcision is performed not at its appropriate time, they may be circumcised either during the day or at night. What, is it not the case that they disagree about the following: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the obligation to circumcise one whose foreskin was drawn forward is by Torah law, and therefore he must be circumcised during the day despite the fact that the procedure is not performed at the proper time, and one Sage, Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon, holds that the circumcision of one whose foreskin was drawn forward is by rabbinic law.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And how can you understand the disagreement in that way? With regard to a child whose appropriate time for circumcision has already passed, is there anyone who says that the obligation to circumcise him is only by rabbinic law? Even after the eighth day, there is certainly a Torah obligation to circumcise him, and yet the tanna’im disagree about this case as well.

Rather, everyone agrees that the obligation to circumcise one whose foreskin was drawn forward is by rabbinic law, and that the obligation to circumcise a child whose appropriate time for circumcision has already passed is by Torah law. And here they disagree with regard to the following: One Sage holds that we expound the phrase ''and on the day'' in the verse ''And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised'' (Leviticus 12:3). The superfluous word ''and'' indicates that even if the child was not circumcised on the eighth day, the procedure must still be performed during the day. And one Sage, Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon, holds that we do not expound the phrase ''and on the day,'' and therefore a circumcision must be performed during the day only when it takes place on the eighth day, but afterward it may be performed even at night.

As in the case where Rabbi Yoḥanan was sitting and he expounded: Notar, the flesh of an offering that is left over beyond its allotted time, requires burning. If it is burnt at its appropriate time, i.e., on the same day that it became notar, it may be burned only during the day. If it is burnt not at its appropriate time, it may be burned either during the day or at night.

And Rabbi Elazar raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from the following baraita: I have derived only that a child who is circumcised on the eighth day may be circumcised only during the day. From where do I derive to include in this halakha a child who is circumcised on the ninth, tenth, eleventh, or twelfth day? From where is it derived that he, too, may be circumcised only during the day? Therefore, the verse states: ''And on the day,'' which teaches that the obligation to circumcise during the day extends beyond the eighth day itself.

And even the Sage who does not expound the letter vav, meaning ''and,'' as superfluous, expounds the letters vav and heh when they come together and understands them as alluding to cases not explicitly mentioned in the biblical text. Regarding notar the verse states: ''And that which remains [vehanotar] of the flesh of the offering on the third day shall be burnt with fire'' (Leviticus 7:17), where the letters vav and heh teach that the obligation to burn notar during the day extends beyond the third day itself. Rabbi Yoḥanan was silent, as he had no response.

After Rabbi Elazar left, Rabbi Yoḥanan, who was impressed with Rabbi Elazar’s exposition, said to Reish Lakish: I saw that Rabbi Elazar, son of Pedat, was sitting and expounding the Torah as Moses had received it directly from the mouth of the Almighty. Reish Lakish said to him: Was this exposition his own? It is a baraita. Rabbi Yoḥanan inquired: Where is this baraita taught? Reish Lakish replied: It is in Torat Kohanim, otherwise known as Sifra, a work of halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus. Rabbi Yoḥanan went out and learned the entire Torat Kohanim in three days, and reached a full understanding of it in three months.

§ Rabbi Elazar said: If an uncircumcised priest sprinkled the purification waters containing the ashes of a red heifer in order to purify someone who had contracted ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, his sprinkling is valid, just as it is in the case of a priest who immersed himself that day but does not become completely purified until nightfall. As, although such an individual is prohibited from eating teruma, he is fit for all the rites connected to the red heifer.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If one who immersed himself that day is fit for all the rites connected to the red heifer, that is because he is at least permitted to eat tithes, and so he is treated more leniently than one who is uncircumcised, for whom it is prohibited to partake of second tithe. The Gemara answers: Is that to say that we are speaking about eating? We spoke in reference to touching, and the proof was as follows: If one who immersed himself that day and who is forbidden to touch teruma, as he invalidates teruma by touch, is nevertheless permitted to participate in all the rites connected to the red heifer; then with regard to one who is uncircumcised, who is permitted to touch teruma according to all opinions, is it not right that he should be permitted to participate in the rites connected to the red heifer?

The Gemara comments: That opinion is also taught in a baraita: If an uncircumcised priest sprinkled the purification waters, his sprinkling is valid. And an incident occurred in which such an individual sprinkled the purification waters and the Sages validated his sprinkling.

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta (Para 5:5): If a tumtum sanctified the purification waters by placing a small amount of ashes from the red heifer into springwater that had been placed into a container for that purpose, his sanctification is invalid because there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, and an uncircumcised man is disqualified from sanctifying the purification waters. But if a hermaphrodite sanctified the purification waters, his sanctification is valid. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says: Even if a hermaphrodite sanctified the purification waters, his sanctification is invalid, because there is uncertainty as to whether a hermaphrodite is a woman, and a woman is disqualified from sanctifying the purification waters. In any event, the baraita teaches that one who is definitely uncircumcised, and even one about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, is disqualified from sanctifying the purification waters.

Rav Yosef said: This tanna of the baraita, who disqualifies one who is uncircumcised from sanctifying the purification waters, is a tanna from the school of Rabbi Akiva, who includes the uncircumcised in the same halakha as that which governs the ritually impure. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva says that the words ''any man'' in the verse ''Any man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure'' (Leviticus 22:4), come to include one who is uncircumcised, and it is prohibited for him as well to partake of consecrated food. And so too, with regard to other matters as well, e.g., sanctifying the purification waters, one who is uncircumcised has the same status as one who is ritually impure.

Rava said: I was sitting at the time before Rav Yosef, and I had the following difficulty: If so, according to Rav Yosef’s opinion that the uncircumcised and the ritually impure have the same status, should one not be able to find a tanna who teaches the halakha of the uncircumcised and that of the ritually impure together, and we should say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? There should be some source that reflects this view.

The Gemara asks: And is there not such a source? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who is uncircumcised and one who is ritually impure are exempt from making an appearance in the Temple on each of the three pilgrim Festivals. The Gemara refutes this argument: This is no proof, as there it can be argued that one who is uncircumcised is exempt from appearing in the Temple because he is repulsive, and it is unbefitting that one who is uncircumcised appear in the Temple courtyard, but this does not mean that with regard to other matters as well he is treated like one who is ritually impure.

The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda follow their usual line of reasoning with regard to a hermaphrodite. As it is taught in a baraita: All are fit to sanctify the purification waters except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit for the task, but deems a woman and a hermaphrodite unfit.

The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? As it is written: ''And they shall take for the impure of the ashes of the burning of the sin-offering, and he shall place on it running water in a vessel'' (Numbers 19:17). The juxtaposition of the placement of the water to the gathering of the ashes indicates that they are governed by the same halakha. Therefore, those who are unfit for gathering the ashes are likewise unfit for sanctification, whereas those who are fit for gathering the ashes are likewise fit for sanctification. Since a woman is fit to gather the ashes of the red heifer, she may also sanctify its waters.

And Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: If so, then let the verse state: And he shall take. What is the significance of the shift to the plural form: ''And they shall take''? It teaches that even those who are unfit there are fit here. As the halakhot of the two cases are not identical, Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit to perform the sanctification.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, according to Rabbi Yehuda a woman should also be fit to sanctify the purification waters. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda reads the verse precisely. It says: ''And he shall place on it,'' and not: And she shall place on it. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? If the verse was written: And he shall take…and he shall place, I would say that one individual must take the ashes and the same one must also place the water on them. The Merciful One therefore writes: ''And they shall take,'' indicating that the ritual is valid even when performed by two different individuals.

And if the Merciful One had written: And they shall take…and they shall place, I would say that two people must take the ashes and two must place the water on them, but if these rites are performed by fewer than two people they are invalid. The Torah therefore states: ''And they shall take…and he shall place,'' to teach that even if two people take the ashes and one person places the water on them, the ritual is valid. Since the verse had to be formulated precisely in this manner in order to teach that halakha, the words ''and he shall place'' cannot be understood as coming to exclude a woman.