Shabbat 132a — the Talmud in English

And further

it can be refuted:

What is the case with those, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

for when their time has passed

of the mitzva,

it is nullified.

Therefore it is fitting that they should override [Shabbat]. This is not so with circumcision, for if he did not circumcise on the eighth, he can still circumcise on the ninth.

Rather, this is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s [opinion]: for the verse says, “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.”

And for the mitzva of circumcision to override Shabbat, we do not require this verse, since it is derived from a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai. And the verse “on the eighth day” comes to include:

even on Shabbat,

for the requirements of circumcision.

And we challenge this:

Let the Merciful One write [this] with regard to circumcision, and let

all

these [other cases] be brought and derived from it?

And we answer:

Because it can be refuted: What is the case with circumcision, for thirteen covenants were made concerning it,

for in the passage of the covenant of Abraham our father, the word “covenant” is mentioned thirteen times.

We consider this:

The Sages did not disagree with him

about Rabbi Eliezer,

except concerning the requirements of circumcision. But

the mitzva of

circumcision itself, everyone agrees that it overrides Shabbat. From where do we know

this?

Ulla said: It is a halakha

transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

And Rabbi Isaac likewise said: It is a halakha

transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

We raise an objection: From where [is it derived] that saving a life overrides Shabbat?

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says:

And

what

mitzva

of circumcision, which is

the repair of

one of a person’s limbs, overrides Shabbat—how much more so saving a life, which overrides Shabbat.

And now we challenge:

And if it enters your mind

that the permission for circumcision on Shabbat is

a halakha

transmitted to Moses at Sinai,

a

kal va-chomer from a halakha

transmitted to Moses at Sinai,

can it be derived?

For does one derive a “kal va-chomer” from a “halakha”?

And it was taught

in tractate Nazir: Rabbi Akiva said: I presented a kal va-chomer before Rabbi Eliezer: a quarter-log of blood from the dead renders a nazirite impure with “impurity of a tent,” and he shaves because of it.

And this is how Rabbi Akiva expounded: What of a bone the size of a barley-grain, which does not render a person impure in a tent, yet a nazirite becomes impure through it? A quarter-log of blood, which renders a person impure in a tent—does it not follow that a nazirite should shave because of it, with the shaving of impurity?

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva.

A bone the size of a barley-grain

which

renders impure,

this

is a halakha

transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

And

if

a quarter-log of blood

were to render [one] impure, would you come to derive it through a

“kal va-chomer”?

And

behold,

one does not derive a kal va-chomer from a halakha

transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

And we too will not be able to derive saving a life through a kal va-chomer from circumcision if we say that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai. Rather, it is necessarily the case that the law that the mitzva of circumcision overrides Shabbat is not from a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai, but rather from a derivation from the Torah.

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said:

circumcision that overrides Shabbat

is derived

from a gzera shava:

“sign”

—“sign.”

With regard to Shabbat it is written: “For it is a ‘sign’ between Me and you throughout your generations.”

And with regard to circumcision it is written: “And it shall be a ‘sign’ of a covenant between Me and you.” Just as there, [it refers to] Shabbat, so too circumcision [is performed] on Shabbat.

And we challenge:

If so,

that the word “sign” with regard to Shabbat is expounded for a gzera shava,

phylacteries, concerning which it is also written

also

“sign”—should they override Shabbat?

Rather,

the gzera shava “sign, sign” was never stated at Sinai. And a person may not derive a gzera shava on his own.

And circumcision that overrides Shabbat is derived from a gzera shava that was stated at Sinai:

“covenant,”

which is written with regard to circumcision, from

“covenant,”

which is written with regard to Shabbat: “to observe Shabbat throughout your generations, an eternal ‘covenant.’”

And we challenge: If so,

an adult

who was not circumcised at its proper time,

concerning whom “covenant” is written,

as it is said: “And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise ... he has violated My covenant” [and this verse was said with regard to an adult, for the punishment of excision is written in it]

should override Shabbat,

whereas we say that only circumcision on the eighth day overrides Shabbat.

Rather,

circumcision

is derived

from a gzera shava:

“generations”—“generations.”

With regard to Shabbat it is written: “throughout your generations, an eternal covenant.”

And with regard to circumcision it is written: “And at eight days old every male shall be circumcised for you throughout your generations.”

And we challenge: If so,

fringes, concerning which “generations” is written

“on the corners of their garments throughout their generations,”

should override Shabbat.

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Isaac said: One derives

circumcision, concerning which

“sign,” “covenant,” and “generations” are written, from

Shabbat, concerning which

“sign,” “covenant,” and “generations” are written. This excludes those,

phylacteries and fringes, and the circumcision of an adult beyond eight days,

for

only

one by one

of these verses

is written concerning them,

and not all three of them.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

The verse says: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” Since

“on the eighth day”

is written, and “on the eighth” is not written, we expound:

even on Shabbat.

[And Rabbi Eliezer, who expounds “on the day” with regard to the requirements of circumcision, holds that circumcision overrides Shabbat by a halakha, and we do not expound saving a life through a kal va-chomer from a halakha, but derive it from other verses, as it is stated in tractate Yoma 85b].

Resh Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan: If so,

those impure persons who needed to bring an offering and are

lacking atonement, concerning whom “on the day

of the eighth [day]” is written,

is it indeed also the case that they override Shabbat?

And we answer:

That

“on the day” that is written with regard to those lacking atonement

is needed by him

to expound that they bring their offerings

during the day and not at night.

And we challenge:

This

“on the day” that is written with regard to circumcision

is also needed by him

to expound that the time of circumcision is

during the day and not at night?

And we answer:

That is derived from “at eight days old,”

which implies that it shall be on the eighth day and not on its night.

And we reject this:

This

derivation that they bring offerings during the day and not at night

is also derived from “on the day of his commandment,”

which teaches that it shall be during the day and not at night.

And we explain:

Even though it is derived from “on the day of his commandment,” it was necessary.

Because

it might enter your mind to say: Since the Merciful One has compassion on him,

on the leper, the gonorrheic man, and the woman who gave birth,

to bring

an offering

of poverty,

that is, only two turtledoves,

they may also bring it at night.

It teaches us

the verse of

“during the day”

that is written concerning them, that they bring their offering only during the day.

Ravina strongly challenges this: If so,

since, because they were permitted to bring an offering of poverty, it might enter our minds to permit [bringing it] also at night, then

would an unauthorized person be fit to [perform the service] with them?

And would an acute mourner

[who is waiting for the burial of his deceased relative, for whom he mourns]

be fit to [perform the service] with them?

And we answer:

The verse restored it

that is written concerning them, “during the day,” to disqualify night in their case, and it revealed to us that the entire law of the other offerings applies to them.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:

With regard to circumcision,

the verse says “eighth.”

Eighth—

even

if it is

on Shabbat.

And we challenge:

This “eighth” is needed to exclude

circumcision on the

seventh day?

And we answer: A child on the

seventh day is derived

from the verse that says

“at eight days old.”

And we challenge further:

And still,

both

are needed: one to exclude

the

seventh

day, and one to exclude

the

ninth day?

For if [there were] only one

verse,

we might say that only the

seventh day

is unfit, because

its time has not yet arrived

yet,

its appointed time.

But from the eighth onward,

always

its time has arrived.

Therefore we require two verses, “eighth” and “at eight days old.”

Rather, it is clear as

the exposition

of Rabbi Yohanan: “on the day,” even on Shabbat.

“On the day”—even on Shabbat.

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan,

who derives it from “on the day,”

and not in accordance with Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov,

who expounds it from “eighth.”

And this is how it was taught:

“He shall circumcise on the eighth,” even on Shabbat. And how do I establish, “And one who desecrates it shall surely be put to death”? With regard to the other labors, aside from circumcision.

Or perhaps it is not so, but even circumcision

is included in the warning concerning Shabbat.

And how do I establish, “He shall circumcise on the eighth”?

To expound:

except for Shabbat.

The verse therefore says, “on the day”—

even on Shabbat.

And that is as Rabbi Yohanan expounded.

Rava said: This tanna

of the beraita,

at first,

when he said “he shall circumcise on the eighth, even on Shabbat,”

what was pleasing to him

was that circumcision was not included in the verse “one who desecrates it shall surely be put to death.”

And at the end,

when he asked whether perhaps circumcision too was included in the warning concerning Shabbat,

what difficulty did he have

with the first explanation?

And we explain: At first

this is what he said: “He shall circumcise on the eighth,” even on Shabbat.

And how do I establish, “one who desecrates it shall surely be put to death”? With regard to the other labors, aside from circumcision; but circumcision overrides Shabbat.

What is the reason?

It is a kal va-chomer.

What of leprosy, whose

impurity

overrides the service,

for the cutting off of the bright spot was not permitted in order to render him fit for the service,