Why do we need a drasha to teach us that brit milah overrides the prohibition to cut a leprous mark – isn’t it an act that one does without intention and one should be exempt? From where do we derive that brit milah done not on the eighth day does not override Yom Tov (and obviously, Shabbat). Four answers are brought. Rav Yehuda paskens in the name of Rav like Rabbi Akiva that preparations for milah do not override Shabbat. He also holds like Rabbi Akiva regarding the same issue with the Pashal sacrifice. Why does he need to say this in both cases – wouldn’t it be obvious we can learn from one to the other? All things relating directly to the brit milah override Shabbat – the mishna states what that includes. The gemara says it even includes pieces of the skin that are left that are necessary as part of the mitzvah to remove. However, if they do not prevent the mitzvah from being fulfilled, one can only remove them if one is still in the process of cutting but once the mohel has stopped, he cannot cut those pieces. The gemara tries to connect this opinion with a tanna who in a different case who holds that once one stops, the action is no longer connected with the previous one. Three different tannaitic arguments are brought – the first two are rejected. Why is metzitza allowed? The gemara discusses bandages as mentioned in the mishna and Rava taught how to make a good bandage and as a result got some people upset as he “stole” their business as they knew how to do this and would sell to others. Rava tries to appease them.
Shabbat 133
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Shabbat 133
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״בָּשָׂר״ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת — ״יִמּוֹל״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, שַׁבָּת חֲמוּרָה — דּוֹחָה, צָרַעַת — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.
is a dispute of tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: The term flesh comes to teach that even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says: There is no need for this derivation from the word flesh in the verse. Rather, the same law can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If circumcision overrides Shabbat, which is stringent, all the more so that it overrides leprosy.
אָמַר מָר: ״בָּשָׂר״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת — ״יִמּוֹל״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. הָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר!
We earlier learned that the Master said: When the verse states the term flesh, it comes to teach that even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan agrees with this halakha, albeit for a different reason. The Gemara addresses the fundamental question: Why do I need a verse to derive this? The removal of leprous skin is an unintentional act. One does not intend to cut the symptom of leprosy; he intended to circumcise the baby. And the general rule is that an unintentional act is permitted. Consequently, there is no need for a special derivation in this case.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״. וְאַבָּיֵי לֵית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! בָּתַר דְּשַׁמְעַהּ מֵרָבָא סַבְרַהּ.
Abaye said: This derivation is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., an unintentional act from which a prohibited labor ensued as an inevitable consequence. In that case, the one who performs the action cannot claim that the outcome was unintended. In the case of circumcising a leprous foreskin, the removal of leprosy is an inevitable consequence of the circumcision. The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t it Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: If you cut off its head will it not die? The Gemara answers: After Abaye heard this principle from Rava, he accepted it.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לְהָא דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא אַהָא: ״הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת לִשְׁמֹר מְאֹד וְלַעֲשׂוֹת״, לַעֲשׂוֹת אִי אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה אַתָּה בְּסִיב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלוֹ, וּבְמוֹט שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי כְּתֵיפוֹ, וְאִם עָבְרָה — עָבְרָה.
Some teach that which Abaye and Rava said as referring to this baraita. The verse states: “Take heed with regard to the plague of leprosy that you observe diligently and do in accordance with all that the priests, the Levites, instruct you; as I commanded them you shall take care to do” (Deuteronomy 24:8). The Sages derived from here that to do something in order to remove leprosy directly, you may not do; but you may do something that will indirectly remove one’s symptom, such as tying a thick rope on his foot, and placing a rod on his shoulder. This is permitted even though there is a bright white spot present, and if the bright white spot is thereby removed, it is removed.
וְהָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר. וְרָבָא אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״. וְאַבָּיֵי לֵית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! לְבָתַר דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ מֵרָבָא סַבְרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to address this? It is an unintentional act, and an unintentional act is permitted. Abaye said: This derivation is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of: If you cut off its head will it not die? The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t it Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die? The Gemara answers: After Abaye heard this principle from Rava, he accepted it.
וְאַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״בְּשַׂר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: בְּאוֹמֵר לָקוֹץ בַּהַרְתּוֹ הוּא מִתְכַּוֵּין.
The Gemara clarifies: According to Abaye’s initial understanding of the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, i.e., even the inevitable consequence of an unintended act is permitted, what does he do with this term flesh, which appears in the verse with regard to circumcision? Rav Amram said: This term teaches that even in a case where the person who is circumcising himself says explicitly that his intention is also to cut off the bright white spot, the circumcision nonetheless overrides the prohibition to remove symptoms of leprosy.
תִּינַח גָּדוֹל, קָטָן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: בְּאוֹמֵר אֲבִי הַבֵּן לָקוֹץ בַּהֶרֶת דִּבְנוֹ הוּא קָא מִתְכַּוֵּין.
The Gemara asks: This works out well in the case of an adult who intends to perform the prohibited act. With regard to the circumcision of a minor, who has no intention at all, what is there to say, i.e., how does this teaching apply? Rav Mesharshiya said: The teaching applies in a case where the father of the circumcised child says that his intention is to cut off his son’s bright white leprous spot.
וְאִי אִיכָּא אַחֵר, לֶיעְבֵּיד אַחֵר! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים שְׁנֵיהֶם מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. דְּלֵיכָּא אַחֵר.
The Gemara asks: In that case, if there is another person present who can circumcise the child, let the other person perform the circumcision. Presumably the other person will not intend to excise the bright white spot but rather will intend to fulfill the mitzva of circumcision, and no transgression will be committed, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Any place that you find positive and negative mitzvot that clash with one another, if you can find some way to fulfill both, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva will come and override the negative mitzva. Here it is possible to fulfill both the positive and negative mitzvot by having another person perform the circumcision. The Gemara answers: This is a case where there is no other person to perform circumcision; only the boy’s father can circumcise him. Therefore, a particular verse is needed to teach us that the mitzva of circumcision overrides the prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy.
אָמַר מָר: יוֹם טוֹב אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ בִּלְבַד. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
We learned earlier that the Master said that circumcision only overrides a Festival when the circumcision takes place at its proper time, on the eighth day after birth. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן לוֹ בֹּקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ.
Ḥizkiya said, and likewise one of the Sages of the school of Ḥizkiya taught: The verse states with regard to the Paschal lamb: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). This verse contains a superfluous phrase, as the Torah did not need to state until morning the second time; it would have been sufficient to state: But that which remains of it you shall burn with fire. Rather, why does the Torah state until morning? The verse comes to provide him with the second morning for burning. Leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following day, the first of the intermediate days of the Festival. Even though the labor of kindling a fire is not entirely prohibited on a Festival, as one may cook and bake, it is derived from here that kindling a fire is permitted only for the purpose of preparing food for the immediate needs of the day and not for purposes that can be postponed until the intermediate days. Similarly, since circumcision involves a prohibited labor, it is permitted on the eighth day only when there is no option of postponing it. Otherwise, doing so is prohibited.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״עוֹלַת שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ״, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּיוֹם טוֹב.
Abaye said there is a different source for the fact that only circumcision on the eighth day overrides the Festival, as the verse stated: “The burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its Shabbat in addition to the continual burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:10). This verse teaches that one may not sacrifice the burnt-offering of a weekday on Shabbat, and one may not sacrifice the burnt-offering of a weekday on a Festival. Although slaughtering is permitted on a Festival for sustenance, it is nevertheless prohibited to slaughter animals for sacrifices other than those specifically mandated on the Festival. Temple service only overrides prohibited labor in the case of Temple service that is an essential obligation of that day. Similarly, circumcision only overrides the prohibition of labor when it is an essential obligation of that day, which is the case only on the eighth day; it is not the case after the eighth day.
רָבָא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא לְבַדּוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה לָכֶם״, ״הוּא״ — וְלֹא מַכְשִׁירִין. ״לְבַדּוֹ״ — וְלֹא מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ, דְּאָתְיָא מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר.
Rava said there is a different proof, as the verse states with regard to Festivals: “And in the first day there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat; that alone may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). The superfluous term “that” in the verse teaches the following: That which is necessary for food preparation itself is permitted and not actions that facilitate food preparation or which prepare utensils necessary for eating. Similarly, “that alone may be done” teaches: Only food preparation may be performed and not circumcision that is not at its appointed time, which could have been derived through an a fortiori inference. Therefore, the verse emphasizes that “that alone” may be performed, to teach that prohibited labors are permitted for sustenance on a Festival, and are not permitted for other mitzvot.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״שַׁבָּתוֹן״ — עֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹם טוֹב עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה.
Rav Ashi said: The mitzvot of a Festival include not only a negative mitzva but also a positive one. There is a prohibition of labor as well as Shabbaton, an obligation to engage in solemn rest, which is a positive mitzva, and therefore the observance of a Festival constitutes both a positive mitzva and a negative mitzva. And there is a principle that a positive mitzva does not override both a negative mitzva and a positive mitzva.
כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
We learned in the mishna: A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat; however, any prohibited labor that cannot be performed on Shabbat eve overrides Shabbat. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in this matter.
וּתְנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי פֶסַח כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא: כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כׇּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
And we also learned in a mishna pertaining to the Paschal lamb, in a similar vein: A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat. By contrast, the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb, which cannot be performed on Shabbat eve, as it has a fixed time from the Torah, overrides Shabbat. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי מִילָה: הָתָם הוּא דְּמַכְשִׁירִין אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵאֶתְמוֹל לָא דָּחוּ שַׁבָּת דְּלֵיכָּא כָּרֵת, אֲבָל פֶּסַח דְּאִיכָּא כָּרֵת — אֵימָא לִידְחוֹ שַׁבָּת.
The Gemara comments: And both statements that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva were necessary. As had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only with regard to circumcision, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that facilitators that can be performed the day before do not override Shabbat, as there is no punishment of karet if the circumcision is delayed, as liability for karet only applies when the child becomes obligated in mitzvot and chooses not to circumcise himself. However, with regard to the Paschal lamb, where there is karet for one who fails to offer the sacrifice at its proper time, one would say that those facilitators should override Shabbat. Therefore, it was necessary for Rav to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the Paschal lamb.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי פֶסַח, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת. אֲבָל מִילָה דְּנִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת — אֵימָא לִידְחוֹ שַׁבָּת, צְרִיכָא.
And if Rav had taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only with regard to the Paschal lamb, the conclusion would have been that the reason that facilitators that can be performed on the eve of the Festival do not override the Festival is because thirteen covenants were not established upon the Paschal lamb, and it is therefore not so significant. However, with regard to circumcision, upon which thirteen covenants were established, the conclusion would have been that even actions that facilitate the mitzva that could have been performed on Shabbat eve should override Shabbat. It was therefore necessary to teach that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva in both cases.
מַתְנִי׳ עוֹשִׂין כׇּל צׇרְכֵי מִילָה [בְּשַׁבָּת]: מוֹהֲלִין וּפוֹרְעִין וּמוֹצְצִין וְנוֹתְנִין עָלֶיהָ אִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן.
MISHNA: When the eighth day of a baby’s life occurs on Shabbat, he must be circumcised on that day. Therefore, one performs all the necessities of the circumcision, even on Shabbat: One circumcises the foreskin, and uncovers the skin by removing the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, and sucks the blood from the wound, and places on it both a bandage [ispelanit] and cumin as a salve.
אִם לֹא שָׁחַק מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — לוֹעֵס בְּשִׁינָּיו וְנוֹתֵן. אִם לֹא טָרַף יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — נוֹתֵן זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ.
If one did not grind the cumin from Shabbat eve, he chews it with his teeth and places it on the place of circumcision as a salve. If he did not mix wine and oil on Shabbat eve, a mixture designed to heal and strengthen the child, this, the wine, is placed on the wound by itself and that, the oil, is placed by itself.
וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין לָהּ חָלוּק לְכַתְּחִילָּה, אֲבָל כּוֹרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ סְמַרְטוּט. אִם לֹא הִתְקִין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — כּוֹרֵךְ עַל אֶצְבָּעוֹ וּמֵבִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ מֵחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת.
And on Shabbat one may not make a pouch to place over the circumcision as a bandage ab initio, but he may wrap a rag over it as a dressing. If he did not prepare the bandage on Shabbat eve by bringing it to the place where the circumcision was performed, he wraps the bandage on his finger and brings it on Shabbat, even from a different courtyard. While the Sages permitted it to be brought, they required that it be performed in an unusual fashion, by wearing it in the manner of a garment.
גְּמָ׳ מִכְּדֵי קָתָנֵי כּוּלְּהוּ, ״כׇּל צוֹרְכֵי מִילָה״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Since the mishna is teaching all of them, i.e., enumerated all the requirements of circumcision, when the mishna added: One performs all the requirements of circumcision even on Shabbat, what did it come to include?
לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמָּל, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא עוֹסֵק בַּמִּילָה — חוֹזֵר בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה. פֵּירַשׁ, עַל צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — חוֹזֵר, עַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר.
The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which the Sages taught in a baraita: One who circumcises on Shabbat, as long as he is engaged in the circumcision, he may return and remove shreds of skin that were not cut properly. This is the ruling both for shreds of skin and flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut, i.e., the child is not considered circumcised if they remain, and for shreds that do not invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. But if the circumcisor has withdrawn from engaging in the mitzva of circumcision, he may return for shreds that invalidate the circumcision if they were not cut, as the mitzva has not yet been properly performed, but he may not return for shreds that do not invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. Consequently, when the mishna refers to all the requirements of circumcision, it means that as long as one is still involved in the act of circumcision, one may go back and remove even pieces of skin that do not invalidate the circumcision.
מַאן תַּנָּא פֵּירַשׁ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת — מַפְשִׁיט אָדָם הַפֶּסַח עַד הֶחָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַפְשִׁיטִין אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.
With regard to this law, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that if one has already withdrawn from a mitzva he may not return to engage in its performance? Which tanna asserts that as long as a person is involved in a mitzva whose performance overrides Shabbat, he may complete it; however, if he is no longer involved in the mitzva, he may not exceed the minimum requirements if doing so would desecrate Shabbat? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as it was taught in a baraita: In a case of the fourteenth of Nisan, the day the Paschal lamb is sacrificed, that occurs on Shabbat, one flays the Paschal lamb until he exposes the breast, in order to remove the portions that are offered on the altar, but one does not flay anymore, as it is not necessary for the mitzva of the day; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. And the Rabbis say: One may even flay the entire hide.
מִמַּאי? עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הָתָם — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״. אֲבָל הָכָא — דְּבָעֵינַן ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הָכִי נָמֵי.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: From where do you draw this comparison? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, only stated his opinion that one may do no more than the minimum requirement there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, because we do not need to fulfill the mitzva of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). The manner in which the animal is flayed does not impact the mitzva of the sacrifice. However, here, with regard to circumcision, where we need to fulfill the mitzva of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him,” which requires performing the circumcision in a beautiful manner, indeed, Rabbi Yishmael would agree that the mitzva must be performed as aesthetically as possible.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הִתְנָאֵה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת: עֲשֵׂה לְפָנָיו סוּכָּה נָאָה, וְלוּלָב נָאֶה, וְשׁוֹפָר נָאֶה, צִיצִית נָאָה, סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה נָאֶה, וּכְתוֹב בּוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ בִּדְיוֹ נָאֶה, בְּקוּלְמוֹס נָאֶה, בְּלַבְלָר אוּמָּן, וְכוֹרְכוֹ בְּשִׁירָאִין נָאִין.
What is the source for the requirement of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him”? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [anveihu], the Lord of my father and I will raise Him up.” The Sages interpreted anveihu homiletically as linguistically related to noi, beauty, and interpreted the verse: Beautify yourself before Him in mitzvot. Even if one fulfills the mitzva by performing it simply, it is nonetheless proper to perform the mitzva as beautifully as possible. Make before Him a beautiful sukka, a beautiful lulav, a beautiful shofar, beautiful ritual fringes, beautiful parchment for a Torah scroll, and write in it in His name in beautiful ink, with a beautiful quill by an expert scribe, and wrap the scroll in beautiful silk fabric.
אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: ״וְאַנְוֵהוּ״ — הֱוֵי דּוֹמֶה לוֹ, מָה הוּא חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם — אַף אַתָּה הֱיֵה חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם.
Abba Shaul says: Ve’anveihu should be interpreted as if it were written in two words: Ani vaHu, me and Him [God]. Be similar, as it were, to Him, the Almighty: Just as He is compassionate and merciful, so too should you be compassionate and merciful. In any case, there is no proof from Rabbi Yishmael’s statement with regard to the Paschal lamb that he would say the same with regard to circumcision, as in that case, he might agree that fulfilling the mitzva beautifully justifies overriding Shabbat.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: בֵּין שֶׁנִּרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל, וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל — מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: נִרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל — אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: This should be understood differently. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita with regard to circumcision? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As we learned in a mishna: Whether the new moon was clearly seen by everyone or whether it was not clearly seen, one may desecrate Shabbat in order to sanctify the New Moon. Eyewitnesses who saw the appearance of the moon may desecrate Shabbat in order to go to court and testify. Rabbi Yosei says: If the moon was clearly seen, they may not desecrate Shabbat for it, since other witnesses, located nearer to the court, will certainly testify. If these distant witnesses go to court to testify, they will desecrate Shabbat unnecessarily. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei holds that if the basic requirements of a mitzva have already been fulfilled, one may no longer desecrate Shabbat in its performance.
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָתָם, דְּלֹא נִיתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִידָּחוֹת, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּנִיתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִידָּחוֹת — הָכִי נָמֵי.
The Gemara rejects this: From where do you draw this comparison? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei only stated his opinion there, in the case of sanctification of the New Moon, because there no allowance was made for Shabbat to be overridden. Given that the moon was clearly seen and testimony to that effect could have been delivered easily, there was no need for additional witnesses to come and desecrate Shabbat, and the prohibition to desecrate Shabbat remained in place. However, here, in the case of circumcision, where allowance was made for Shabbat desecration, as it is permitted and required to perform circumcision on Shabbat at its appointed time, indeed, it would be permitted to complete the circumcision even according to Rabbi Yosei.
אֶלָּא אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. דִּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה כֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין: שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי בָזִיכִּין. וְאַרְבָּעָה מַקְדִּימִין לִפְנֵיהֶם: שְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי בָזִיכִּין. הַמַּכְנִיסִין עוֹמְדִים בַּצָּפוֹן וּפְנֵיהֶם לַדָּרוֹם, וְהַמּוֹצִיאִין עוֹמְדִים בַּדָּרוֹם וּפְנֵיהֶם לַצָּפוֹן. אֵלּוּ מוֹשְׁכִים, וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין, טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּצַד טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ תָּמִיד״.
Rather, the Sages of Neharde’a say: This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei. As we learned in a mishna: Four priests would enter the Sanctuary every Shabbat to arrange the showbread, two of whom had two orders of six loaves each in their hands, and two had two bowls of frankincense in their hands. And four priests would precede them; two came to take the two orders of bread left on the table from the previous week, and two came to take the two bowls of frankincense. Next, those bringing the loaves and bowls into the Sanctuary would stand in the north of the Sanctuary, facing south, while those carrying the loaves and bowls out would stand in the south of the Sanctuary, facing north. These slide the old bread along the table, and these place the new bread on the table, and as a result, the handbreadth of this one would be alongside the handbreadth of that one, so that the requisite amount of bread would always be present on the table, as it is stated: “And you shall place on the table showbread before Me continuously” (Exodus 25:30).
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֵלּוּ נוֹטְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין אַף זֶה הָיָה ״תָּמִיד״.
Rabbi Yosei said: Even if these priests were first to take the old bread off the table entirely, and only afterward were these priests to place the new ones on the table, this too would fulfill the requirement that the showbread be on the table continuously. It is unnecessary to ensure the uninterrupted presence of the showbread on the table. Apparently, the Rabbis hold that even a moment’s break in the performance of a mitzva is deemed an interruption. The same principle applies to circumcision. Once one withdrew and is no longer engaged in its performance, it is as though he completed the mitzva and he may no longer return to it.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְהַלְקְטִין אֶת הַמִּילָה, וְאִם לֹא הִילְקֵט — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. מַנִּי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אוּמָּן.
The Sages taught: We complete the cutting of the foreskin, and if he did not complete the cutting he is punishable by karet. The Gemara asks: Who is punishable by karet? Rav Kahana said: The craftsman, i.e., the circumcisor. If he failed to complete the circumcision properly on Shabbat he is punishable by karet, as he wounded the baby on Shabbat without fulfilling the mitzva circumcision.
מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אוּמָּן לֵימָא לְהוּ ״אֲנָא עֲבַדִי פַּלְגָא דְמִצְוָה, אַתּוּן [נָמֵי] עֲבִידוּ פַּלְגָא דְמִצְוָה״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: גָּדוֹל.
Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Why should the craftsman be liable? Let him say to those present: I performed half the mitzva; now you perform the other half of the mitzva. I am not liable, as I was engaged in performance of a mitzva, even though I did not complete it. Rather, Rav Pappa said: The reference here is not to circumcision on Shabbat, but rather to the mitzva of circumcision in general. The one liable for karet is an adult whose circumcision was not completed. He is not considered to have been circumcised according to halakha. Therefore, he is punishable by karet, like one who was not circumcised at all.
מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: גָּדוֹל בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל״. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְעוֹלָם אוּמָּן, וּכְגוֹן דַּאֲתָא בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת דְּשַׁבָּת, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא מַסְפְּקַתְּ, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: מַסְפְּקֵינָא, וַעֲבַד וְלָא אִיסְתַּפַּק, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח דְּחַבּוּרָה הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.
Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: This cannot be, as if so what is the baraita teaching? The fact that an adult is liable for karet is explicitly written in the verse: “And an uncircumcised male who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from its people; My covenant he has broken” (Genesis 17:14). Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it refers to the craftsman who performed the partial circumcision on Shabbat, and it is a case where he came to perform the circumcision at twilight on Shabbat day, just before the conclusion of Shabbat, and those present said to him: You will not manage to complete the circumcision before the conclusion of Shabbat, and he said to them: I will manage. And he performed the circumcision and did not manage to complete the mitzva before Shabbat ended. It turns out that he made a wound in the child but did not fulfill the mitzva. And since he was forewarned not to do so, he is therefore punishable by karet like anyone who violates Shabbat not for the purpose of performing a mitzva.
מוֹצְצִין וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי אוּמָּנָא דְּלָא מָיֵיץ — סַכָּנָה הוּא וּמְעַבְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.
We learned in the mishna that one sucks blood from the wound after the circumcision was performed on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said: A craftsman who does not suck the blood after every circumcision is a danger to the child undergoing circumcision, and we remove him from his position as circumcisor.
פְּשִׁיטָא, מִדְּקָא מְחַלְּלִי עֲלֵיהּ שַׁבְּתָא סַכָּנָה הוּא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא הַאי דָּם מִיפְקָד פְּקִיד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן חַבּוֹרֵי מִיחַבַּר.
The Gemara comments: This is obvious. Given that one desecrates Shabbat to suck the blood, which involves performance of a prohibited labor, obviously, failure to do so poses a danger. Desecration of Shabbat would not be permitted if it was not a life-threatening situation. The Gemara answers: This is not an absolute proof. Lest you say that this blood is collected and contained in place, and one who removes that which is pooled in its place does not perform the subcategory of the prohibited labor of threshing on Shabbat, i.e., drawing blood; that is the reason sucking the blood is permitted, not due to any danger involved in failing to do so. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this blood is attached and flowing and not merely pooled. One who draws it out performs an act that is generally prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat, and it is nonetheless permitted due to danger to the child.
וְדוּמְיָא דְּאִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן: מָה אִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן כִּי לָא עָבֵיד סַכָּנָה הוּא, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּי לָא עָבֵיד סַכָּנָה הוּא.
And it is similar to the halakhot of a bandage and cumin stated in the mishna. Just as in the case of a bandage and cumin, failure to do what is necessary with these items poses a danger to the child, here too, if he does not perform the sucking after circumcision, it poses a danger to the child; Shabbat is overridden in cases of danger.
וְנוֹתְנִין עָלֶיהָ אִיסְפְּלָנִית. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אֲמַרָה לִי אֵם: אִיסְפְּלָנִיתָא דְּכוּלְּהוֹן כִּיבֵי — שַׁב מָאנֵי תַּרְבָּא, וַחֲדָא קִירָא. רָבָא אָמַר: קִירָא וְקַלְבָּא.
We learned in the mishna: And on Shabbat one places on the wound from the circumcision a bandage. Abaye said: My nurse said to me: A bandage for all wounds should be made from seven parts fat and one part wax. Rava said: A bandage should be made from wax and sap of a tree.
דַּרְשַׁהּ רָבָא בְּמָחוֹזָא, קַרְעִינְהוּ בְּנֵי מִנְיוֹמֵי אָסְיָא לְמָנַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁבַקִי לְכוּ חֲדָא. דַּאֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּמָשֵׁי אַפֵּיהּ וְלָא מִנַּגֵּיב טוּבָא — נִקְטְרוּ לֵיהּ
When Rava taught this cure in Meḥoza, the sons of Manyomei the doctor tore their clothes in misery, as he taught everyone how to make a bandage, and their services would no longer be required. Rava said to them: I left you one cure that I did not reveal, with which you can make a profit, for Shmuel said: One who washes his face and does not wipe it a lot will develop
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Raanana, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Richmond, CA, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
Shabbat 133
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״בָּשָׂר״ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת — ״יִמּוֹל״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, שַׁבָּת חֲמוּרָה — דּוֹחָה, צָרַעַת — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.
is a dispute of tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: The term flesh comes to teach that even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says: There is no need for this derivation from the word flesh in the verse. Rather, the same law can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If circumcision overrides Shabbat, which is stringent, all the more so that it overrides leprosy.
אָמַר מָר: ״בָּשָׂר״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת — ״יִמּוֹל״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. הָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר!
We earlier learned that the Master said: When the verse states the term flesh, it comes to teach that even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan agrees with this halakha, albeit for a different reason. The Gemara addresses the fundamental question: Why do I need a verse to derive this? The removal of leprous skin is an unintentional act. One does not intend to cut the symptom of leprosy; he intended to circumcise the baby. And the general rule is that an unintentional act is permitted. Consequently, there is no need for a special derivation in this case.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״. וְאַבָּיֵי לֵית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! בָּתַר דְּשַׁמְעַהּ מֵרָבָא סַבְרַהּ.
Abaye said: This derivation is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., an unintentional act from which a prohibited labor ensued as an inevitable consequence. In that case, the one who performs the action cannot claim that the outcome was unintended. In the case of circumcising a leprous foreskin, the removal of leprosy is an inevitable consequence of the circumcision. The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t it Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: If you cut off its head will it not die? The Gemara answers: After Abaye heard this principle from Rava, he accepted it.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לְהָא דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא אַהָא: ״הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת לִשְׁמֹר מְאֹד וְלַעֲשׂוֹת״, לַעֲשׂוֹת אִי אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה אַתָּה בְּסִיב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלוֹ, וּבְמוֹט שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי כְּתֵיפוֹ, וְאִם עָבְרָה — עָבְרָה.
Some teach that which Abaye and Rava said as referring to this baraita. The verse states: “Take heed with regard to the plague of leprosy that you observe diligently and do in accordance with all that the priests, the Levites, instruct you; as I commanded them you shall take care to do” (Deuteronomy 24:8). The Sages derived from here that to do something in order to remove leprosy directly, you may not do; but you may do something that will indirectly remove one’s symptom, such as tying a thick rope on his foot, and placing a rod on his shoulder. This is permitted even though there is a bright white spot present, and if the bright white spot is thereby removed, it is removed.
וְהָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר. וְרָבָא אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״. וְאַבָּיֵי לֵית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! לְבָתַר דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ מֵרָבָא סַבְרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to address this? It is an unintentional act, and an unintentional act is permitted. Abaye said: This derivation is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of: If you cut off its head will it not die? The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t it Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die? The Gemara answers: After Abaye heard this principle from Rava, he accepted it.
וְאַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״בְּשַׂר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: בְּאוֹמֵר לָקוֹץ בַּהַרְתּוֹ הוּא מִתְכַּוֵּין.
The Gemara clarifies: According to Abaye’s initial understanding of the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, i.e., even the inevitable consequence of an unintended act is permitted, what does he do with this term flesh, which appears in the verse with regard to circumcision? Rav Amram said: This term teaches that even in a case where the person who is circumcising himself says explicitly that his intention is also to cut off the bright white spot, the circumcision nonetheless overrides the prohibition to remove symptoms of leprosy.
תִּינַח גָּדוֹל, קָטָן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: בְּאוֹמֵר אֲבִי הַבֵּן לָקוֹץ בַּהֶרֶת דִּבְנוֹ הוּא קָא מִתְכַּוֵּין.
The Gemara asks: This works out well in the case of an adult who intends to perform the prohibited act. With regard to the circumcision of a minor, who has no intention at all, what is there to say, i.e., how does this teaching apply? Rav Mesharshiya said: The teaching applies in a case where the father of the circumcised child says that his intention is to cut off his son’s bright white leprous spot.
וְאִי אִיכָּא אַחֵר, לֶיעְבֵּיד אַחֵר! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים שְׁנֵיהֶם מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. דְּלֵיכָּא אַחֵר.
The Gemara asks: In that case, if there is another person present who can circumcise the child, let the other person perform the circumcision. Presumably the other person will not intend to excise the bright white spot but rather will intend to fulfill the mitzva of circumcision, and no transgression will be committed, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Any place that you find positive and negative mitzvot that clash with one another, if you can find some way to fulfill both, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva will come and override the negative mitzva. Here it is possible to fulfill both the positive and negative mitzvot by having another person perform the circumcision. The Gemara answers: This is a case where there is no other person to perform circumcision; only the boy’s father can circumcise him. Therefore, a particular verse is needed to teach us that the mitzva of circumcision overrides the prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy.
אָמַר מָר: יוֹם טוֹב אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ בִּלְבַד. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
We learned earlier that the Master said that circumcision only overrides a Festival when the circumcision takes place at its proper time, on the eighth day after birth. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן לוֹ בֹּקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ.
Ḥizkiya said, and likewise one of the Sages of the school of Ḥizkiya taught: The verse states with regard to the Paschal lamb: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). This verse contains a superfluous phrase, as the Torah did not need to state until morning the second time; it would have been sufficient to state: But that which remains of it you shall burn with fire. Rather, why does the Torah state until morning? The verse comes to provide him with the second morning for burning. Leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following day, the first of the intermediate days of the Festival. Even though the labor of kindling a fire is not entirely prohibited on a Festival, as one may cook and bake, it is derived from here that kindling a fire is permitted only for the purpose of preparing food for the immediate needs of the day and not for purposes that can be postponed until the intermediate days. Similarly, since circumcision involves a prohibited labor, it is permitted on the eighth day only when there is no option of postponing it. Otherwise, doing so is prohibited.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״עוֹלַת שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ״, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּיוֹם טוֹב.
Abaye said there is a different source for the fact that only circumcision on the eighth day overrides the Festival, as the verse stated: “The burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its Shabbat in addition to the continual burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:10). This verse teaches that one may not sacrifice the burnt-offering of a weekday on Shabbat, and one may not sacrifice the burnt-offering of a weekday on a Festival. Although slaughtering is permitted on a Festival for sustenance, it is nevertheless prohibited to slaughter animals for sacrifices other than those specifically mandated on the Festival. Temple service only overrides prohibited labor in the case of Temple service that is an essential obligation of that day. Similarly, circumcision only overrides the prohibition of labor when it is an essential obligation of that day, which is the case only on the eighth day; it is not the case after the eighth day.
רָבָא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא לְבַדּוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה לָכֶם״, ״הוּא״ — וְלֹא מַכְשִׁירִין. ״לְבַדּוֹ״ — וְלֹא מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ, דְּאָתְיָא מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר.
Rava said there is a different proof, as the verse states with regard to Festivals: “And in the first day there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat; that alone may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). The superfluous term “that” in the verse teaches the following: That which is necessary for food preparation itself is permitted and not actions that facilitate food preparation or which prepare utensils necessary for eating. Similarly, “that alone may be done” teaches: Only food preparation may be performed and not circumcision that is not at its appointed time, which could have been derived through an a fortiori inference. Therefore, the verse emphasizes that “that alone” may be performed, to teach that prohibited labors are permitted for sustenance on a Festival, and are not permitted for other mitzvot.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״שַׁבָּתוֹן״ — עֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹם טוֹב עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה.
Rav Ashi said: The mitzvot of a Festival include not only a negative mitzva but also a positive one. There is a prohibition of labor as well as Shabbaton, an obligation to engage in solemn rest, which is a positive mitzva, and therefore the observance of a Festival constitutes both a positive mitzva and a negative mitzva. And there is a principle that a positive mitzva does not override both a negative mitzva and a positive mitzva.
כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
We learned in the mishna: A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat; however, any prohibited labor that cannot be performed on Shabbat eve overrides Shabbat. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in this matter.
וּתְנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי פֶסַח כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא: כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כׇּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
And we also learned in a mishna pertaining to the Paschal lamb, in a similar vein: A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat. By contrast, the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb, which cannot be performed on Shabbat eve, as it has a fixed time from the Torah, overrides Shabbat. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי מִילָה: הָתָם הוּא דְּמַכְשִׁירִין אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵאֶתְמוֹל לָא דָּחוּ שַׁבָּת דְּלֵיכָּא כָּרֵת, אֲבָל פֶּסַח דְּאִיכָּא כָּרֵת — אֵימָא לִידְחוֹ שַׁבָּת.
The Gemara comments: And both statements that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva were necessary. As had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only with regard to circumcision, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that facilitators that can be performed the day before do not override Shabbat, as there is no punishment of karet if the circumcision is delayed, as liability for karet only applies when the child becomes obligated in mitzvot and chooses not to circumcise himself. However, with regard to the Paschal lamb, where there is karet for one who fails to offer the sacrifice at its proper time, one would say that those facilitators should override Shabbat. Therefore, it was necessary for Rav to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the Paschal lamb.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי פֶסַח, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת. אֲבָל מִילָה דְּנִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת — אֵימָא לִידְחוֹ שַׁבָּת, צְרִיכָא.
And if Rav had taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only with regard to the Paschal lamb, the conclusion would have been that the reason that facilitators that can be performed on the eve of the Festival do not override the Festival is because thirteen covenants were not established upon the Paschal lamb, and it is therefore not so significant. However, with regard to circumcision, upon which thirteen covenants were established, the conclusion would have been that even actions that facilitate the mitzva that could have been performed on Shabbat eve should override Shabbat. It was therefore necessary to teach that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva in both cases.
מַתְנִי׳ עוֹשִׂין כׇּל צׇרְכֵי מִילָה [בְּשַׁבָּת]: מוֹהֲלִין וּפוֹרְעִין וּמוֹצְצִין וְנוֹתְנִין עָלֶיהָ אִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן.
MISHNA: When the eighth day of a baby’s life occurs on Shabbat, he must be circumcised on that day. Therefore, one performs all the necessities of the circumcision, even on Shabbat: One circumcises the foreskin, and uncovers the skin by removing the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, and sucks the blood from the wound, and places on it both a bandage [ispelanit] and cumin as a salve.
אִם לֹא שָׁחַק מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — לוֹעֵס בְּשִׁינָּיו וְנוֹתֵן. אִם לֹא טָרַף יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — נוֹתֵן זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ.
If one did not grind the cumin from Shabbat eve, he chews it with his teeth and places it on the place of circumcision as a salve. If he did not mix wine and oil on Shabbat eve, a mixture designed to heal and strengthen the child, this, the wine, is placed on the wound by itself and that, the oil, is placed by itself.
וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין לָהּ חָלוּק לְכַתְּחִילָּה, אֲבָל כּוֹרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ סְמַרְטוּט. אִם לֹא הִתְקִין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — כּוֹרֵךְ עַל אֶצְבָּעוֹ וּמֵבִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ מֵחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת.
And on Shabbat one may not make a pouch to place over the circumcision as a bandage ab initio, but he may wrap a rag over it as a dressing. If he did not prepare the bandage on Shabbat eve by bringing it to the place where the circumcision was performed, he wraps the bandage on his finger and brings it on Shabbat, even from a different courtyard. While the Sages permitted it to be brought, they required that it be performed in an unusual fashion, by wearing it in the manner of a garment.
גְּמָ׳ מִכְּדֵי קָתָנֵי כּוּלְּהוּ, ״כׇּל צוֹרְכֵי מִילָה״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Since the mishna is teaching all of them, i.e., enumerated all the requirements of circumcision, when the mishna added: One performs all the requirements of circumcision even on Shabbat, what did it come to include?
לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמָּל, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא עוֹסֵק בַּמִּילָה — חוֹזֵר בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה. פֵּירַשׁ, עַל צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — חוֹזֵר, עַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר.
The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which the Sages taught in a baraita: One who circumcises on Shabbat, as long as he is engaged in the circumcision, he may return and remove shreds of skin that were not cut properly. This is the ruling both for shreds of skin and flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut, i.e., the child is not considered circumcised if they remain, and for shreds that do not invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. But if the circumcisor has withdrawn from engaging in the mitzva of circumcision, he may return for shreds that invalidate the circumcision if they were not cut, as the mitzva has not yet been properly performed, but he may not return for shreds that do not invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. Consequently, when the mishna refers to all the requirements of circumcision, it means that as long as one is still involved in the act of circumcision, one may go back and remove even pieces of skin that do not invalidate the circumcision.
מַאן תַּנָּא פֵּירַשׁ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת — מַפְשִׁיט אָדָם הַפֶּסַח עַד הֶחָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַפְשִׁיטִין אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.
With regard to this law, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that if one has already withdrawn from a mitzva he may not return to engage in its performance? Which tanna asserts that as long as a person is involved in a mitzva whose performance overrides Shabbat, he may complete it; however, if he is no longer involved in the mitzva, he may not exceed the minimum requirements if doing so would desecrate Shabbat? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as it was taught in a baraita: In a case of the fourteenth of Nisan, the day the Paschal lamb is sacrificed, that occurs on Shabbat, one flays the Paschal lamb until he exposes the breast, in order to remove the portions that are offered on the altar, but one does not flay anymore, as it is not necessary for the mitzva of the day; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. And the Rabbis say: One may even flay the entire hide.
מִמַּאי? עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הָתָם — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״. אֲבָל הָכָא — דְּבָעֵינַן ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הָכִי נָמֵי.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: From where do you draw this comparison? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, only stated his opinion that one may do no more than the minimum requirement there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, because we do not need to fulfill the mitzva of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). The manner in which the animal is flayed does not impact the mitzva of the sacrifice. However, here, with regard to circumcision, where we need to fulfill the mitzva of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him,” which requires performing the circumcision in a beautiful manner, indeed, Rabbi Yishmael would agree that the mitzva must be performed as aesthetically as possible.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הִתְנָאֵה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת: עֲשֵׂה לְפָנָיו סוּכָּה נָאָה, וְלוּלָב נָאֶה, וְשׁוֹפָר נָאֶה, צִיצִית נָאָה, סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה נָאֶה, וּכְתוֹב בּוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ בִּדְיוֹ נָאֶה, בְּקוּלְמוֹס נָאֶה, בְּלַבְלָר אוּמָּן, וְכוֹרְכוֹ בְּשִׁירָאִין נָאִין.
What is the source for the requirement of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him”? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [anveihu], the Lord of my father and I will raise Him up.” The Sages interpreted anveihu homiletically as linguistically related to noi, beauty, and interpreted the verse: Beautify yourself before Him in mitzvot. Even if one fulfills the mitzva by performing it simply, it is nonetheless proper to perform the mitzva as beautifully as possible. Make before Him a beautiful sukka, a beautiful lulav, a beautiful shofar, beautiful ritual fringes, beautiful parchment for a Torah scroll, and write in it in His name in beautiful ink, with a beautiful quill by an expert scribe, and wrap the scroll in beautiful silk fabric.
אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: ״וְאַנְוֵהוּ״ — הֱוֵי דּוֹמֶה לוֹ, מָה הוּא חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם — אַף אַתָּה הֱיֵה חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם.
Abba Shaul says: Ve’anveihu should be interpreted as if it were written in two words: Ani vaHu, me and Him [God]. Be similar, as it were, to Him, the Almighty: Just as He is compassionate and merciful, so too should you be compassionate and merciful. In any case, there is no proof from Rabbi Yishmael’s statement with regard to the Paschal lamb that he would say the same with regard to circumcision, as in that case, he might agree that fulfilling the mitzva beautifully justifies overriding Shabbat.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: בֵּין שֶׁנִּרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל, וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל — מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: נִרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל — אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: This should be understood differently. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita with regard to circumcision? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As we learned in a mishna: Whether the new moon was clearly seen by everyone or whether it was not clearly seen, one may desecrate Shabbat in order to sanctify the New Moon. Eyewitnesses who saw the appearance of the moon may desecrate Shabbat in order to go to court and testify. Rabbi Yosei says: If the moon was clearly seen, they may not desecrate Shabbat for it, since other witnesses, located nearer to the court, will certainly testify. If these distant witnesses go to court to testify, they will desecrate Shabbat unnecessarily. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei holds that if the basic requirements of a mitzva have already been fulfilled, one may no longer desecrate Shabbat in its performance.
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָתָם, דְּלֹא נִיתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִידָּחוֹת, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּנִיתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִידָּחוֹת — הָכִי נָמֵי.
The Gemara rejects this: From where do you draw this comparison? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei only stated his opinion there, in the case of sanctification of the New Moon, because there no allowance was made for Shabbat to be overridden. Given that the moon was clearly seen and testimony to that effect could have been delivered easily, there was no need for additional witnesses to come and desecrate Shabbat, and the prohibition to desecrate Shabbat remained in place. However, here, in the case of circumcision, where allowance was made for Shabbat desecration, as it is permitted and required to perform circumcision on Shabbat at its appointed time, indeed, it would be permitted to complete the circumcision even according to Rabbi Yosei.
אֶלָּא אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. דִּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה כֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין: שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי בָזִיכִּין. וְאַרְבָּעָה מַקְדִּימִין לִפְנֵיהֶם: שְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי בָזִיכִּין. הַמַּכְנִיסִין עוֹמְדִים בַּצָּפוֹן וּפְנֵיהֶם לַדָּרוֹם, וְהַמּוֹצִיאִין עוֹמְדִים בַּדָּרוֹם וּפְנֵיהֶם לַצָּפוֹן. אֵלּוּ מוֹשְׁכִים, וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין, טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּצַד טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ תָּמִיד״.
Rather, the Sages of Neharde’a say: This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei. As we learned in a mishna: Four priests would enter the Sanctuary every Shabbat to arrange the showbread, two of whom had two orders of six loaves each in their hands, and two had two bowls of frankincense in their hands. And four priests would precede them; two came to take the two orders of bread left on the table from the previous week, and two came to take the two bowls of frankincense. Next, those bringing the loaves and bowls into the Sanctuary would stand in the north of the Sanctuary, facing south, while those carrying the loaves and bowls out would stand in the south of the Sanctuary, facing north. These slide the old bread along the table, and these place the new bread on the table, and as a result, the handbreadth of this one would be alongside the handbreadth of that one, so that the requisite amount of bread would always be present on the table, as it is stated: “And you shall place on the table showbread before Me continuously” (Exodus 25:30).
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֵלּוּ נוֹטְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין אַף זֶה הָיָה ״תָּמִיד״.
Rabbi Yosei said: Even if these priests were first to take the old bread off the table entirely, and only afterward were these priests to place the new ones on the table, this too would fulfill the requirement that the showbread be on the table continuously. It is unnecessary to ensure the uninterrupted presence of the showbread on the table. Apparently, the Rabbis hold that even a moment’s break in the performance of a mitzva is deemed an interruption. The same principle applies to circumcision. Once one withdrew and is no longer engaged in its performance, it is as though he completed the mitzva and he may no longer return to it.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְהַלְקְטִין אֶת הַמִּילָה, וְאִם לֹא הִילְקֵט — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. מַנִּי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אוּמָּן.
The Sages taught: We complete the cutting of the foreskin, and if he did not complete the cutting he is punishable by karet. The Gemara asks: Who is punishable by karet? Rav Kahana said: The craftsman, i.e., the circumcisor. If he failed to complete the circumcision properly on Shabbat he is punishable by karet, as he wounded the baby on Shabbat without fulfilling the mitzva circumcision.
מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אוּמָּן לֵימָא לְהוּ ״אֲנָא עֲבַדִי פַּלְגָא דְמִצְוָה, אַתּוּן [נָמֵי] עֲבִידוּ פַּלְגָא דְמִצְוָה״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: גָּדוֹל.
Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Why should the craftsman be liable? Let him say to those present: I performed half the mitzva; now you perform the other half of the mitzva. I am not liable, as I was engaged in performance of a mitzva, even though I did not complete it. Rather, Rav Pappa said: The reference here is not to circumcision on Shabbat, but rather to the mitzva of circumcision in general. The one liable for karet is an adult whose circumcision was not completed. He is not considered to have been circumcised according to halakha. Therefore, he is punishable by karet, like one who was not circumcised at all.
מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: גָּדוֹל בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל״. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְעוֹלָם אוּמָּן, וּכְגוֹן דַּאֲתָא בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת דְּשַׁבָּת, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא מַסְפְּקַתְּ, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: מַסְפְּקֵינָא, וַעֲבַד וְלָא אִיסְתַּפַּק, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח דְּחַבּוּרָה הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.
Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: This cannot be, as if so what is the baraita teaching? The fact that an adult is liable for karet is explicitly written in the verse: “And an uncircumcised male who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from its people; My covenant he has broken” (Genesis 17:14). Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it refers to the craftsman who performed the partial circumcision on Shabbat, and it is a case where he came to perform the circumcision at twilight on Shabbat day, just before the conclusion of Shabbat, and those present said to him: You will not manage to complete the circumcision before the conclusion of Shabbat, and he said to them: I will manage. And he performed the circumcision and did not manage to complete the mitzva before Shabbat ended. It turns out that he made a wound in the child but did not fulfill the mitzva. And since he was forewarned not to do so, he is therefore punishable by karet like anyone who violates Shabbat not for the purpose of performing a mitzva.
מוֹצְצִין וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי אוּמָּנָא דְּלָא מָיֵיץ — סַכָּנָה הוּא וּמְעַבְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.
We learned in the mishna that one sucks blood from the wound after the circumcision was performed on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said: A craftsman who does not suck the blood after every circumcision is a danger to the child undergoing circumcision, and we remove him from his position as circumcisor.
פְּשִׁיטָא, מִדְּקָא מְחַלְּלִי עֲלֵיהּ שַׁבְּתָא סַכָּנָה הוּא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא הַאי דָּם מִיפְקָד פְּקִיד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן חַבּוֹרֵי מִיחַבַּר.
The Gemara comments: This is obvious. Given that one desecrates Shabbat to suck the blood, which involves performance of a prohibited labor, obviously, failure to do so poses a danger. Desecration of Shabbat would not be permitted if it was not a life-threatening situation. The Gemara answers: This is not an absolute proof. Lest you say that this blood is collected and contained in place, and one who removes that which is pooled in its place does not perform the subcategory of the prohibited labor of threshing on Shabbat, i.e., drawing blood; that is the reason sucking the blood is permitted, not due to any danger involved in failing to do so. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this blood is attached and flowing and not merely pooled. One who draws it out performs an act that is generally prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat, and it is nonetheless permitted due to danger to the child.
וְדוּמְיָא דְּאִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן: מָה אִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן כִּי לָא עָבֵיד סַכָּנָה הוּא, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּי לָא עָבֵיד סַכָּנָה הוּא.
And it is similar to the halakhot of a bandage and cumin stated in the mishna. Just as in the case of a bandage and cumin, failure to do what is necessary with these items poses a danger to the child, here too, if he does not perform the sucking after circumcision, it poses a danger to the child; Shabbat is overridden in cases of danger.
וְנוֹתְנִין עָלֶיהָ אִיסְפְּלָנִית. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אֲמַרָה לִי אֵם: אִיסְפְּלָנִיתָא דְּכוּלְּהוֹן כִּיבֵי — שַׁב מָאנֵי תַּרְבָּא, וַחֲדָא קִירָא. רָבָא אָמַר: קִירָא וְקַלְבָּא.
We learned in the mishna: And on Shabbat one places on the wound from the circumcision a bandage. Abaye said: My nurse said to me: A bandage for all wounds should be made from seven parts fat and one part wax. Rava said: A bandage should be made from wax and sap of a tree.
דַּרְשַׁהּ רָבָא בְּמָחוֹזָא, קַרְעִינְהוּ בְּנֵי מִנְיוֹמֵי אָסְיָא לְמָנַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁבַקִי לְכוּ חֲדָא. דַּאֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּמָשֵׁי אַפֵּיהּ וְלָא מִנַּגֵּיב טוּבָא — נִקְטְרוּ לֵיהּ
When Rava taught this cure in Meḥoza, the sons of Manyomei the doctor tore their clothes in misery, as he taught everyone how to make a bandage, and their services would no longer be required. Rava said to them: I left you one cure that I did not reveal, with which you can make a profit, for Shmuel said: One who washes his face and does not wipe it a lot will develop
