Yevamot

children may be circumcised in the daytime only; and if not at the proper time they may be circumcised both by day and by night,  Do they not differ on the following principle: While one Master  is of the opinion that the circumcision of a mashuk is a pentateuchal law, the other Master  is of the opinion that the circumcision of the mashuk is only a Rabbinical ordinance?  — And can you understand this?  Is there any authority who maintains that the duty to circumcise a child whose proper time of circumcision had passed  is only Rabbinical!  But the fact is that both  agree that the circumcision of a mashuk is a Rabbinical ordinance,  and that the duty to circumcise a child whose proper time of circumcision had passed, is Pentateuchal. Here,  however, their difference depends on the following principle: One Master  holds that [the conjunctive in the expression]. And in the day  is to be expounded;  and the other Master  is of the opinion that [the conjunctive in] And in the day  is not to be expounded.  [The exposition here is of the same nature] as the following:  When R. Johanan was once sitting [at his studies] and expounding that 'nothar  at its proper time  may be burned in the daytime only,  and if not at its proper time,  it may be burned either in the day or in the night'. R. Eleazar raised an objection: I only know that a child whose circumcision takes place on the eighth day must be circumcised in the daytime only; whence, however, is it deduced that the case of a child whose circumcision takes place on the ninth, tenth, eleventh or twelfth  is also included? Because it was expressly stated, 'And in the day';  and even he  who bases no expositions on a Waw does base his exposition on the basis of a Waw and a He!  The other remained silent. After he went out, R. Johanan said to Resh Lakish: I observed that the son of Pedath  was sitting and making expositions like Moses in the name of the Almighty. 'Was this his'? Resh Lakish replied.'It is really a Baraitha'. 'Where', the first asked. 'was it taught'? — 'In Torath Kohanim'.  He went out and learned it  in three days; and was engaged in making deductions and drawing conclusions from it for a period of three months. R. Eleazar stated: The sprinkling  performed  by an uncircumcised person is valid, for his status is similar to that of a tebul yom  who, though forbidden to eat terumah, is permitted to prepare  the red heifer. The case of the tebul yom,  however, might be different, since he is also permitted to eat tithe!  — Are we speaking of eating?  We speak only of touching: If a tebul yom who is forbidden to touch terumah is permitted [to occupy himself] with the red heifer,  how much more so the uncircumcised who is permitted to touch terumah! The same [law] was also taught [elsewhere]: The sprinkling  performed  by an uncircumcised man is valid; and such an incident once happened, and the Sages declared his sprinkling to be valid. An objection was raised: If a tumtum  performed sanctification,  his sanctification is invalid, because he [has the status of the person whose uncircumcision is a matter of] doubt, and such a person is forbidden to perform sanctification.  If an hermaphrodite.  however, performed sanctification,  his sanctification is valid. R. Judah said: Even if an hermaphrodite performed sanctification his act has no validity. because [his sex might] possibly be that of a woman, and a woman is ineligible to perform sanctification.  At all events it was taught here that the uncircumcised or the person whose uncircumcision is a matter of doubt is forbidden to perform sanctification!  R. Joseph replied: This Tanna is one of the school of R. Akiba who include the uncircumcised in the same prohibition as that of the unclean; as it was taught: R. Akiba said, 'What man soever  includes also the uncircumcised'. Raba related: I was once sitting before R. Joseph when I raised the following difficulty: Then  the Tanna  should not have omitted to state.  'The uncircumcised and the unclean', and one would at once suggest that the author was R. Akiba!  — But does he not?  Surely it was taught: The uncircumcised and the unclean are exempt from appearing at the Festivals!  — There [the case is different], because he is a repulsive person. They  follow their own respective views. For it was taught: All  are permitted to perform sanctification,  with the exception of the deaf, the imbecile and the minor. R. Judah permits in the case of the minor but regards a woman and an hermaphrodite as unfit.  What is the Rabbi's reason? — Because it is written, And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the purification from sin,  those who are ineligible  for the gathering  are also ineligible for the sanctification,  but those who are eligible  for the gathering  are also eligible for the sanctification.  And R. Judah?  — He can answer you: If so,  Scripture should have used  the expression 'He shall take',  why then, And they shall take?  To indicate that even those who are ineligible there  are eligible here. If so, a woman also should be eligible!  Shall he put  but not 'Shall she put'. And the Rabbis? — Had it been written, 'He shall take'  and 'Shall he put'.  it might have been assumed that only one individual must take  and only one must put,  hence did the All Merciful write, And they shall take.  And had the All Merciful written, 'And they shall take' and also 'Shall they put'.  it might have been assumed that two must take  and two must put,  hence did the All Merciful write, And they shall take  and Shall he put.  [to indicate that the rites are duly performed] even if two take  and one put.