Citation (Sifri, cited in Rashi Bamidbar 9:1): The verse discusses the disgrace of Yisrael, that in 40 years in the Midbar, they offered only one Korban Pesach. We do not find that they offered it except for in the second year.

Question: Did they refrain b'Mezid?!

Suggestion: They did not offer it because circumcising one's males (sons) is Me'akev. (Note: Rashi (Shabbos 89b DH she'Paru) says that everyone's wife became pregnant with a boy right after Matan Torah.)

Implied question: If so, why is this a disgrace?

Answer: It is because they caused this (to be 40 years in the Midbar, through believing the evil Meraglim).

Rejection: Since it was impossible [to circumcise them], it is not Me'akev, like it says above (71a) 'the Torah said "Himol Lo", and then he may offer..."!

Answer (R. Yitzchak): They offered Korban Pesach [every year], but they did so properly (after circumcising their sons) only once.

Explanation: It did not blow by itself.

Suggestion: Perhaps it did not blow at all!

Rejection: It says in Gitin (31b) that four winds blow every day, and the north wind blows with all of them. If not, the world would not endure.

Explanation (R. Yitzchak): This was from the episode of [believing] the Meraglim.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): It was from the episode of Chet ha'Egel.

Rejection: Hash-m pardoned them [for the golden calf], and said "I forgave", for afterwards they built the Mishkan and He put His Shechinah among them!

Suggestion: [The north wind would scatter the clouds] because it is powerful.

Rejection: It is calm, and good for wounded people!

Explanation: Rather, it scatters the clouds and the time is good, like it says (Megilah 28b) that teachings require clarity like a day of the north wind;

Also, it says "mi'Tzafon Zahav Ye'eseh." This is an expression of light, like "ha'Merikin Zahav" (which refers to oil dripping into the Menorah. I.e., sunlight comes due to the north wind, which scatters the clouds. Also Menachem explained like this [in "ha'Machberes"].

Support: Also according to the Medrash, it is like this. We expound (Bava Basra 25b) that it cheapens gold, for it scatters the clouds and rain is withheld. Grain becomes expensive, therefore gold is cheapened (it buys less grain).

Implied question: It says in Sanhedrin (44a) that Achan pulled his foreskin, and derives this from a verse! (Surely, it is because mid'Oraisa this disqualifies.)

Answer: It is a mere Asmachta.

Implied question: It says in Shevuos (13a) that there is Kares for Mashuch Orlah!

Answer: That refers to one who did not circumcise at all.

Explanation: A Mashuch eats Terumah. Even though mid'Rabanan he must circumcise [again] because he appears Arel, they did not forbid him to Terumah.

According to the texts that say "let us say that this supports him", we must say that it connotes that he eats mid'Oraisa, but mid'Rabanan he is forbidden, like is proven from the Beraisa that says "he must circumcise."

Question: How can he feed his wife? Since he cannot have Bi'ah, his Chupah is invalid, just like a girl less than three years old (above, 57b)!

Answer: Since he can be torn [and then he can have Bi'ah], Chupah applies to him.

Question (R. Efrayim): In Kidushin (29a), why do we need '"Oso", and not her' to teach that a woman is exempt from circumcising her son?

We already know this, for it is Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zeman Gerama. It is only during the day, but not at night!

This is the source to exempt women from Tzitzis!

Answer: According to R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon [who says that after day eight, it is even at night] we need ["Oso" to exempt women].

Even though Milah is [l'Chatchilah] on day eight, this does not cause that it is Zeman Gerama, since after day eight, the Mitzvah is at all times.

Implied question: Since it says "Shemonas Yamim", we expound (Shabbos 132) to exclude nights, and we expound "uva'Yom" to teach even on Shabbos!

Answer: Even so, we properly expound the Vov in "uva'Yom" to include all these who are circumcised only during the day.

Question: We expound "to give a second morning for burning it" (Korban Pesach becomes Nosar on the morning of the 15th, but one does not burn it until the morning of the 16th). Since this is not at the time [it became Nosar], why must he wait until the morning?

He should burn it on Motza'ei Yom Tov, for it already became Nosar!

Answer: Since one may not burn it on Yom Tov, the Torah fixed its time to be the next morning.

Explanation: It needs to teach that his (an Arel's) Haza'ah is Kosher, even though he is forbidden to Terumah and Kodshim like a Tamei.

Question: Mechusar Kipurim refutes this! He is permitted to Terumah, but forbidden for Parah!

Answer: We cannot learn from Mechusar Kipurim, since he may not touch Kodshim. We can make a Kal va'Chomer from both of them;

A Tevul Yom may not touch Terumah or Kodshim, yet he is permitted for Parah. An Arel may touch Terumah and Kodshim...

Now, Mechusar Kipurim does not refute this.

Explanation: Even Rabanan [who do not consider an Arel to be Tamei] agree that there he is exempt [from Re'iyah].

Question: In Chagigah (4a), why do we need Zechurcha to exclude Tumtum and Androginus? [Even] when his (a Tumtum's) testicles can be seen [and he is a Vadai male], I already know that he is exempt because he is an Arel!

Answer #1: Since one cannot circumcise a Tumtum, he is not repulsive. He is not exempt due to Arel.

Answer #2: There, it means that [he is exempt] because he is repulsive, and according to R. Akiva, an Arel is considered like a Tamei;

This is not according to Rabanan. Rabanan require Zechurcha to exclude Tumtum.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We expound "v'Asaf Ish Tahor", and not a minor.

Rejection (and Explanation #2): In Yoma (43a), we explicitly expound "Ish" to be Machshir a Zar. "Tahor" is Machshir a woman. "V'Heni'ach" refers to one who has Da'as to put down; this excludes a Cheresh, lunatic or child.

Explanation: He is Machshir a minor more [than a woman or Androginus] because he will later become an Ish.

Explanation: The one who puts the ashes in the Mei Chatas, he himself mixes the water and ashes together.

Explanation: He expounds an extra verse. He does not expound v'Nasan v'Lo v'Nasnah (the fact that this is masculine, and not feminine) for the entire Torah was said in the masculine.