Yevamot

does apostasy disqualify,  but in respect of tithe, apostasy does not disqualify. What was the purpose of, But no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof?  — 'Thereof'  only may he not eat, but he may eat of the unleavened bread and bitter herbs.  And it was necessary for Scripture to specify  both 'Uncircumcised' and 'There shall no alien.' For had the All Merciful mentioned the 'uncircumcised' only it might have been assumed [that the prohibition applies only to him], because he is repulsive. but not to an alien who is not repulsive. And had the All Merciful written only 'There shall no alien' it might have been assumed [that only he is subject to the prohibition]. because his heart is not directed towards heaven, but not the uncircumcised whose heart is directed towards heaven. [Hence both were] required. What  was the purpose of repeating the expression. 'Of it',  twice? — As expounded by Rabbah in the name of R. Isaac. The Master said, 'R. Akiba stated: This deduction is unneces sary. Since it was stated, What man soever,  the uncircumcised also was included'.  Might it be suggested that it  includes the onan?  R. Jose b. Hanina replied: Scripture stated, There shall no common man,  I commanded you concerning its prohibition to a common man  but not concerning that of an onan.  Might it be suggested: But not the uncircumcised?  — Surely, what man soever' was written.  And what reason do you see?  — It is logical that the case of the uncircumcised should be included, since  it involves the absence of an act  and that act is one affecting the man's own body; [the uncircumcised] is punishable by kareth;  the law  was in force before the Revelation;  and the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars [one from eating the paschal lamb].  On the contrary; the case of the onan should have been included,  since mourning is an ever-present possibility,  is common to men as well as women, and no man has the power to cure himself of It!  — Those  are more in number. Raba said: Even if those  were not more in number, you could not make your suggestion.  For Scripture stated, What man soever.  Now what disability is it that is applicable to a man and not to a woman? You must, of course, say that it is uncircumcision. What expository use does R. Akiba  make of the expression A sojourner and a hired servant?  R. Shemaia replied: To include  a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Gibeonite.  Are these, however, regarded as circumcised at all? Surely we learned: [If a man said]. 'Konam  if I benefit from the uncircumcised', he may benefit from uncircumcised Israelites  but is forbidden to benefit from circumcised idolaters.  [If he said]. 'Konam', if I benefit from the circumcised', he is permitted to benefit from circumcised idolaters but is forbidden to benefit from uncircumcised Israelites!  — But In truth [the text referred to] includes  a proselyte who had been circumcised but did not perform the prescribed ritual immersion,  and a child who was born circumcised,  he  holding that it is necessary to provide for a few drops of the blood of the covenant  to flow;  while R. Eliezer  follows his own view, he having stated that 'A proselyte who has been circumcised, though he has not performed his ritual immersion, is regarded as a proper proselyte'.  and he is also of the opinion that it is not necessary to provide for any drops of the blood of the covenant  to flow where a child was born circumcised. What expository use, however, does R. Eliezer make of the expression. What man soever?  — The Torah, [he maintains], speaks in the language of [ordinary] men. R. Hama b. Ukba inquired: May an uncircumcised child  be anointed with the oil of terumah?  Does non-circumcision in the pre-circumcision period  constitute a bar  or not? — R. Zera replied: Come and hear: I only know [of the command]  concerning the circumcision of the male children [which he has] at the time of the preparation  [of the paschal lamb].  and concerning the slaves [which he has] at the time of the eating thereof;  whence, however, is it deduced that the restriction mentioned in respect of this category is to be applied to the other, and that of the other to this one?  Then  was specifically stated in both categories  so that an analogy between the two might be drawn.  Now, it is quite possible to imagine a man's slaves as being with him at the time of the eating of the paschal lamb but not at the time of its preparation,  when, for instance, he bought them in the meantime.  How is it possible, however, that a person's male children should be in existence during the eating and not during the preparation? Obviously only when birth occurred in the interval between the preparation and the eating.  Thus it may be inferred that uncircumcision in the pre-circumcision period  constitutes a legal status of uncircumcision.  Said Rabbah:  Do you understand this? The All Merciful said, Let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep  it; but such a child is not fit to be circumcised!  But what are we dealing with here? With a child  who recovered from a fever.  Then  let him be granted [a period of convalescence of] full seven days.  for  Samuel said that a child who recovered from a fever must be allowed a period of convalescence of full seven days!  — Where he was already granted the seven days' period.  He should, then,  have been circumcised in the morning!  — We require