יבמות דף עב

ואיבעית אימא: משום דלא נשיב להו רוח צפונית. דתניא: כל אותן ארבעים שנה שהיו ישראל במדבר לא נשבה להם רוח צפונית.

And if you wish, say instead that it was because the north wind did not blow for them, and the hot weather was likely to lead to medical complications following the procedure. As it is taught in a baraita: All those forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness, the north wind did not blow for them.

מאי טעמא? איבעית אימא משום דנזופים הוו, ואי בעית אימא דלא נבדור ענני כבוד.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that this wholesome wind did not blow all those years? If you wish, say it was because they were under censure following the sin of the spies and were therefore undeserving of this salutary wind. And if you wish, say instead that it was so that the clouds of glory covering the Tabernacle should not disperse.

אמר רב פפא: הלכך יומא דעיבא ויומא דשותא — לא מהלינן ביה, ולא מסוכרינן ביה. והאידנא דדשו בה רבים, ״שומר פתאים ה׳״.

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, learn from here that on a cloudy day or on a day that a south wind [shuta] blows, we may neither circumcise nor let blood [mesokhrinan], owing to the danger involved. But nowadays, when many are accustomed to ignoring these safeguards, the verse “The Lord preserves the simple” (Psalms 116:6) is applied, and it is assumed that they will come to no harm.

תנו רבנן: כל אותן ארבעים שנה שהיו ישראל במדבר, לא היה יום שלא נשבה בו רוח צפונית בחצי הלילה, שנאמר: ״ויהי בחצי הלילה וה׳ הכה כל בכור

The Sages taught in a baraita: All those forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness there was not a day in which the north wind did not blow at midnight, as it is stated: “And it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:29). The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation? How is it derived from this verse that speaks of the exodus from Egypt that a north wind blew at midnight during the forty years that the Jewish people wandered in the wilderness? The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us that a time of favor is a significant matter. Since midnight had once been a time of divine favor at the beginning of the exodus from Egypt, it continued to be a time of favor throughout the forty years that the Jewish people sojourned in the wilderness.

וגו׳״ מאי תלמודא? הא קא משמע לן דעת רצון מילתא היא.

אמר רב הונא: דבר תורה, משוך — אוכל בתרומה, ומדבריהם גזרו עליו, מפני שנראה כערל.

§ Rav Huna said: By Torah law, if one had been circumcised, but subsequently the residual foreskin was drawn forward by itself or manually so that it covered the corona, he may partake of teruma, as he is considered circumcised. However, from the words of the Sages, they decreed that he must be circumcised again because he looks as if he were uncircumcised.

מיתיבי: משוך צריך שימול! מדרבנן. ודקארי לה, מאי קארי לה? הא ״צריך״ קתני!

The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: One whose residual foreskin was drawn forward so that it covers the corona requires a second circumcision, indicating that he is not considered circumcised. The Gemara explains: This requirement is by rabbinic law, and by Torah law he is considered circumcised. The Gemara asks: And the amora who asked this question, why did he ask it in the first place? The baraita merely teaches that such an individual requires circumcision, and does not indicate that it is a Torah obligation.

קטעי בסיפא, רבי יהודה אומר: לא ימול, מפני שסכנה היא לו. אמרו לו: והלא הרבה מלו בימי בן כוזיבא והולידו בנים ובנות, שנאמר: ״המול ימול״,

The Gemara explains: The amora who raised the question erred due to the latter clause of that same baraita, which states: Rabbi Yehuda says: He should not be circumcised because it would be dangerous for him to do so. His colleagues said to him: But weren’t there many who had drawn their residual foreskins forward and subsequently were circumcised a second time in the days of ben Koziva, otherwise known as bar Kokheva, and they fathered sons and daughters. Such re-circumcision is necessary, as it is stated: “He must surely be circumcised [himmol yimmol]” (Genesis 17:13), the double verb form indicating: Even one hundred times. And furthermore, it says: “He has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14), which comes to include one whose foreskin was drawn forward.

אפילו מאה פעמים, ואומר: ״את בריתי הפר״ — לרבות את המשוך.

מאי ״ואומר״? וכי תימא: האי ״המול ימול״ לרבות ציצין המעכבים את המילה — ״תא שמע: ״את בריתי הפר״, לרבות את המשוך.

The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of: And furthermore, it says? Why was it necessary to cite two verses in support of the same halakha? The Gemara answers: The additional verse is necessary, lest you say that this first verse: “He shall surely be circumcised,” comes only to include the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut and to indicate that they must be removed. If so, come and hear a second verse: “He has broken My covenant,” which comes to include one whose foreskin was drawn forward.

הוא סבר: מדקא נסיב לה תלמודא (קרא) — דאורייתא היא. ולא היא: מדרבנן, וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא.

Now he, the amora who raised an objection based on the first part of the baraita, thought that since at the end of the baraita the tanna brings a derivation from a verse, this halakha must be by Torah law. But in fact that is not so. It is only by rabbinic law, and the verse quoted is a mere support but not the source of the halakha.

מיתיבי: טומטום — אין אוכל בתרומה, נשיו ועבדיו — אוכלין. משוך, ונולד כשהוא מהול — הרי אלו אוכלים. אנדרוגינוס — אוכל בתרומה, ואין אוכל בקדשים.

The Gemara raises an objection from a different source: A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma, but his wives and slaves may partake of it. A priest who had been circumcised, but subsequently the residual foreskin was drawn forward, and similarly one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, may partake of teruma. A priest who is a hermaphrodite [androginos], possessing both male and female genitals, and was circumcised may partake of teruma, as whether he is male or female he is entitled to eat teruma, but he may not partake of sacrificial food, which is permitted only to male priests, as he might not be a male. A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food, as he might be a male, and since his member is hidden he cannot be circumcised.

טומטום — אינו אוכל לא בתרומה ולא בקדשים.

קתני מיהת: משוך, ונולד כשהוא מהול — הרי אלו אוכלין, תיובתא דרב הונא! תיובתא.

In any event, this baraita teaches that a priest whose foreskin was drawn forward and one who was born circumcised may partake of teruma. This would seem to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna that a priest whose foreskin was drawn forward may not eat teruma at least by rabbinic law. The Gemara concludes: This is in fact a conclusive refutation of his opinion.

אמר מר: טומטום — אינו אוכל בתרומה, נשיו ועבדיו — אוכלים. נשיו לטומטום מנא ליה? אילימא דקדיש, דתניא: טומטום שקידש — קדושיו קדושין, נתקדש — קדושיו קדושין,

The Master said above in the baraita: A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma, but his wives [nashav] and slaves may partake of it. The Gemara is puzzled by this teaching: From where does a tumtum have wives? If he does not have a visible male organ, how can he marry a woman? If we say that he merely betrothed a woman, as it is taught in another baraita: If a tumtum betrothed a woman his betrothal is considered a valid betrothal, as he might be a male, and similarly if he was betrothed by a man, his betrothal is deemed a valid betrothal as he might be a female, there is a difficulty.

אימר דאמר לחומרא, לקולא מי אמרינן? ספק אשה הוא, ואין אשה מקדשת אשה?

One could say that the tanna said that the betrothal of a tumtum is valid only as a stringency, i.e., out of concern that he might be a male, and therefore the woman cannot leave without a proper bill of divorce. But should we say that his betrothal is valid also as a leniency, to allow his wife to eat teruma? There is an uncertainty here that perhaps he is a woman, and one woman cannot betroth another woman.

אמר אביי: כשביציו ניכרות מבחוץ.

Abaye said: The tanna is referring to a tumtum whose male organ is hidden, but he is speaking of a situation where his testicles are visible externally. Since it is evident that he is a male, he can betroth a woman even though he cannot have relations with her.

רבא אמר: מאי ״נשיו״ — אמו. אמו, פשיטא! מהו דתימא: מוליד — מאכיל, שאין מוליד — אינו מאכיל, קא משמע לן.

Rava said a different answer: What is meant here by the word nashav, which was translated earlier as his wives, but which can also be understood as his women? It refers here to the priest’s mother, who, after her husband the priest has passed away, may continue to eat teruma by virtue of her son. The Gemara questions this interpretation of the baraita: His mother? It is obvious that she may eat teruma on his account, as he is her offspring by a priest. The Gemara explains: This statement is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that only if the priest is capable of having children does he enable his mother to eat teruma, but if he is incapable of having children he does not enable his mother to eat teruma, and therefore a tumtum, who cannot have children, should not enable his mother to eat teruma. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that this is not so, as a woman may eat teruma by virtue of the child she bore a priest, even if that child is incapable of having children.

תא שמע: טומטום — אינו אוכל לא בתרומה ולא בקדשים. בשלמא לאביי, תנא רישא ערל ודאי, וקתני סיפא ספק ערל.

Come and hear a proof in support of Abaye’s opinion from that which is taught in the latter part of the baraita: A priest who is a tumtum may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food. There is a difficulty here, as the halakha that a tumtum may not partake of teruma was already taught in the first part of the baraita. Granted, according to Abaye, the tanna teaches in the first clause of the baraita the halakha governing a tumtum who is definitely uncircumcised, i.e., one whose testicles are visible externally, so that he is definitely male but cannot undergo circumcision because his member itself is hidden. And then he teaches in the latter clause of the baraita the halakha governing a tumtum about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, i.e., one whose genitalia are completely hidden, so that he might not even be a male.

אלא לרבא, טומטום דסיפא למה לי? מאי טומטום — ערל.

But according to Rava, why do I need the repetition of the halakha governing a tumtum in the latter clause? The tanna already stated this halakha in the first part of the baraita. The Gemara answers: What is this tumtum referred to in the latter clause? It is a man who is definitely uncircumcised.

השתא ספק ערל לא אכיל — ודאי ערל אכיל?! מה טעם קאמר: מה טעם טומטום אינו אוכל בתרומה? מפני שספק ערל הוא,

The Gemara asks: Now, if a tumtum, about whom there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, may not partake of teruma, as stated in the first clause of the baraita, can it be supposed that a man who is definitely uncircumcised may eat teruma, so that it was necessary for the baraita to teach in the latter clause that he may not do so? The Gemara answers: He is saying: What is the reason. The baraita should be understood as follows: What is the reason that a tumtum may not partake of teruma? It is because there is uncertainty as to whether he is uncircumcised, and an uncircumcised priest may not partake of teruma or sacrificial food.

וערל אינו אוכל לא בתרומה ולא בקדשים.

לימא כתנאי: משוך (ונולד כשהוא מהול), וגר שנתגייר כשהוא מהול, וקטן שעבר זמנו, ושאר כל הנימולים, לאיתויי מי שיש לו שתי ערלות — אינן נימולין אלא ביום.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this amoraic dispute as to whether or not one who had been circumcised but his residual foreskin was drawn forward is considered uncircumcised by Torah law is parallel to the following dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in the Tosefta (Shabbat 16:7): One whose foreskin was drawn forward, and similarly, one who was born circumcised, and a convert who converted when he was already circumcised, and a child whose appropriate time for circumcision already passed and he was still uncircumcised, and all others who require circumcision, which, as the Gemara parenthetically adds, comes to include one who has two foreskins, both of which must be removed, may be circumcised only during the day. Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon says: If the circumcision is performed at its appropriate time, i.e., on the eighth day,

רבי אלעזר בר שמעון אומר: בזמנו —

אין נימולין אלא ביום, שלא בזמנו — נימולין ביום ובלילה. מאי לאו, בהא קמיפלגי: דמר סבר משוך דאורייתא, ומר סבר משוך דרבנן.

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.

ותסברא? קטן שעבר זמנו מי איכא למאן דאמר דרבנן?

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.

אלא, דכולי עלמא: משוך — דרבנן, וקטן שעבר זמנו — דאורייתא. והכא בהא קמיפלגי: מר סבר דרשינן ״וביום״, ומר סבר לא דרשינן ״וביום״.

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.

כי הא דיתיב רבי יוחנן וקדריש: נותר, בזמנו — אינו נשרף אלא ביום, שלא בזמנו — נשרף בין ביום בין בלילה.

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.

ואיתיביה רבי אלעזר לרבי יוחנן: אין לי אלא נימול לשמיני שאין נימול אלא ביום, מנין לרבות לתשעה, לעשרה, לאחד עשר לשנים עשר (מנין)? תלמוד לומר: ״וביום״.

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.

ואפילו למאן דלא דריש ואו, ואו והי דריש. אישתיק.

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.

בתר דנפק, אמר ליה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש: ראיתי לבן פדת שיושב ודורש כמשה מפי הגבורה. אמר ליה ריש לקיש: דידיה היא? מתניתא היא.

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.

היכא תנא ליה? בתורת כהנים. נפק, תנייה בתלתא יומי, וסברה בתלתא ירחי.

אמר רבי אלעזר: ערל שהזה — הזאתו כשרה. מידי דהוה אטבול יום, שאף על פי שאסור בתרומה, כשר בפרה.

§ 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.

מה לטבול יום — שכן מותר במעשר! אטו אנן לאכילה קאמרינן, אנן לנגיעה קאמרינן: ומה טבול יום שאסור בנגיעה דתרומה — מותר בפרה,

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?

ערל שמותר בנגיעה — אינו דין שמותר בפרה?!

תניא נמי הכי: ערל שהזה — הזאתו כשרה. ומעשה היה והכשירו חכמים הזאתו.

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.

מיתיבי: טומטום שקידש — קידושו פסול, מפני שהוא ספק ערל, וערל פסול לקדש. ואנדרוגינוס שקידש — קידושו כשר. רבי יהודה אומר: אף אנדרוגינוס שקידש — קדושיו פסולים,

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.

מפני שספק אשה [הוא], ואשה פסולה מלקדש. קתני מיהא: ערל וספק ערל פסול מלקדש!

אמר רב יוסף: האי תנא — תנא דבי רבי עקיבא הוא, דמרבי ליה לערל כטמא. דתניא, רבי עקיבא אומר: ״איש איש״, לרבות הערל.

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.

אמר רבא: הוה יתיבנא קמיה דרב יוסף, וקשיא לי: לא לישתמיט תנא וליתני הערל והטמא, ולימא רבי עקיבא היא.

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.

ולא? והא קתני: הערל והטמא פטורים מן הראייה! התם משום דמאיס.

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.

ואזדו לטעמייהו. דתניא: הכל כשרים לקדש — חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן, רבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן ופוסל באשה ובאנדרוגינוס.

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.

מאי טעמא דרבנן — דכתיב: ״ולקחו לטמא מעפר שריפת החטאת״, הנך דפסלי באסיפה — פסולין בקידוש, הנך דכשרין באסיפה — כשרים בקידוש.

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.

ורבי יהודה אמר לך: אם כן, נימא קרא ״ולקח״, מאי ״ולקחו״? דאפילו הנך דפסולין התם, כשרים הכא.

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.

אי הכי, אשה נמי! ״ונתן״ ולא ״ונתנה״. ורבנן — אי כתיב: ״ולקח״ ״ונתן״, הוה אמינא שקיל חד ויהיב חד, כתב רחמנא ״ולקחו״.

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.

ואי כתב רחמנא ״ולקחו״ ״ונתנו״, הוה אמינא דשקלי תרי ויהבי תרי, כתב רחמנא ״ולקחו״ ״ונתן״ — דאפילו שקלי תרי ויהיב חד.

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.