Shabbat 132a (קלב.) — the Talmud in English

And further,

it may be refuted:

What is distinctive about those,

that if the time allotted for them passes

for the mitzva,

it is nullified.

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

Rather, this is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer's opinion: For the verse states: “And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.”

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

even on Shabbat,

the preparations necessary for circumcision,

And we challenge this:

Let the Merciful One write it with regard to circumcision, and let them bring

all

of the others and derive them from it?

And we answer:

Because it can be refuted: What is distinctive about circumcision, for thirteen covenants were made concerning it,

as the word “covenant” is mentioned thirteen times in the passage concerning the covenant of Abraham our forefather.

We raise a difficulty concerning this:

The Rabbis disagree with

Rabbi Eliezer

only with regard to the preparations necessary for circumcision. But

the mitzva of

circumcision itself is universally agreed to override Shabbat. From where do we derive

this?

Ulla said: It is a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak likewise said: It is a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai.

We challenge this: From where is it derived that saving a life overrides Shabbat?

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says:

And

just as

the mitzva of

circumcision, which is

a repair of

one of a person's limbs, overrides Shabbat, by means of a kal va-chomer, saving a life overrides Shabbat.

And now we challenge this:

And if it enters your mind

that the permission for circumcision on Shabbat is

a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai,

can

a kal va-chomer from a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai

be derived?

Do we derive a kal va-chomer from a halakha?

But was it not taught

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

And this is how Rabbi Akiva expounded: If a bone the size of a barley-grain, which does not render a person impure through a tent, nevertheless renders a nazirite impure through contact with it, then, with regard to a quarter-log of blood, which renders a person impure through a tent, is it not logically derived that a nazirite should shave because of it, as a shaving for impurity?

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva,

a bone the size of a barley-grain

that

renders impure

—this

is a halakha

given to Moses at Sinai.

And

if

a quarter-log of blood

were to render one impure, would you come to derive it by means of a

“kal va-chomer”?

And

indeed,

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

given to Moses at Sinai.

And we too cannot derive that saving a life overrides Shabbat by means of a kal va-chomer from circumcision if we say that its overriding Shabbat is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai. Rather, it necessarily follows that the law that circumcision overrides Shabbat is not based on a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, but on a derivation from the Torah.

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said:

Circumcision that overrides Shabbat

is derived

by means of a gzera shava from

“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 the former refers to Shabbat, so too circumcision applies on Shabbat.

And we challenge this:

If so,

since the word “sign” with regard to Shabbat is expounded by means of a gzera shava,

phylacteries, concerning which it is also written

also

“sign,” should they override Shabbat?

Rather,

actually, the gzera shava “sign—sign” was not stated at Sinai. And a person may not derive a gzera shava on his own.

The fact that circumcision overrides Shabbat is derived by means of 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 this: If so,

an adult

who was not circumcised at the proper time,

concerning whom “covenant” is written,

as it is stated: “And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise … has violated My covenant” [and this verse is stated with regard to an adult, as 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

by means of a gzera shava of

“generations—generations.”

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

And with regard to circumcision it is written: “And on the eighth day every male shall be circumcised throughout your generations.”

And we challenge this: If so,

ritual fringes, concerning which “generations” is written

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

should override Shabbat.

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One derives

circumcision, with regard to which

“sign,” “covenant,” and “generations”

are written, from

Shabbat, with regard to which “sign,” “covenant,” and “generations” are written. In contrast, these others,

phylacteries and ritual fringes, and circumcision of an adult more than eight days old,

for

only

one each

of these verses

is written concerning them,

and not all three.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

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

“on the eighth day,”

rather than “on the eighth,” we expound it as follows:

even on Shabbat.

[And Rabbi Eliezer, who expounds “on the day” with regard to the preparations necessary for circumcision, maintains that circumcision overrides Shabbat by virtue of a halakha, and we do not derive that saving a life overrides Shabbat by means of a kal va-chomer from a halakha; rather, he derives it from other verses, as stated in Yoma 85b].

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: If so,

those impure people who needed to bring an offering and were

lacking atonement, concerning whom “on the day

of the eighth” is written, does it

likewise mean that they override Shabbat?

And we answer:

That “on the day”

which is written with regard to those lacking atonement

is needed

to expound that they bring their offerings

during the day and not at night.

And we challenge this:

This “on the day”

which is written with regard to circumcision

is also needed

to expound that the time for circumcision is

during the day and not at night?

And we answer:

That is derived from “on the eighth day,”

which indicates that it must be on the eighth day and not on its night.

And we reject this:

This

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

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

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

And we explain:

Although it is derived from “on the day of his offering,” it is necessary.

Because

it might enter your mind to say: Since the Merciful One took pity on him,

on the metzora, the zav, and the woman who gave birth,

to bring

an offering

of poverty,

that is, only two turtledoves, perhaps

he may even bring it at night.

It therefore teaches us

the verse

“during the day”

which is written with regard to them, that they bring their offering only during the day.

Ravina raised an objection to this: If so,

since they were permitted to bring an offering of poverty, it might enter your mind to permit bringing it at night as well; if so,

would a non-koen be fit to perform their service?

And would an onen

[one awaiting the burial of a close relative for whom he is in mourning]

be fit to perform their service?

And we answer:

The verse restored

the matter to its original status by writing “during the day,” to disqualify night in their case, and it revealed to us that all the laws of other offerings apply to them.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:

With regard to circumcision,

the verse states “eighth.”

“Eighth”

even

if it is

on Shabbat.

And we challenge this:

This “eighth” is needed to exclude

circumcision on the

seventh day?

And we answer: Circumcision on the

seventh day is

derived from the verse

“on the eighth day.”

And we challenge further:

Still,

both

are needed: one to exclude

the

seventh day, and one to exclude

the

ninth day?

For if there were only one

verse,

I would have said

that only the

seventh day is

not valid, because

its time has not yet arrived.

But from the eighth day onward,

its time has arrived.

But from the eighth day onward,

always

its time has arrived.

Therefore, we require two verses: “eighth” and “on the eighth day.”

Rather, it is clear in accordance with

the exposition of

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

“On the day”—even on Shabbat.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who derives it from “on the day,”

and not in accordance with Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov,

who derives it from “eighth.”

And this is what was taught:

“On the eighth day he shall be circumcised”—even on Shabbat. And how do I understand “And one who desecrates it shall surely be put to death”? With regard to the other labors, excluding circumcision.

Or perhaps it is not so; rather, even circumcision

is included in the warning concerning Shabbat.

And how do I understand “On the eighth day he shall be circumcised”?

To expound:

excluding Shabbat.

The verse therefore states: “On the day”—

even on Shabbat.

And this is in accordance with the exposition of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Rava said: This tanna

of the

beraita, at first,

when he said “on the eighth day—even on Shabbat,”

what was he satisfied with

when he said that circumcision is not included in the statement “one who desecrates it shall surely be put to death”?

And ultimately,

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

what difficulty did he have

with the first explanation?

And we explain: At first,

this is what he meant: “On the eighth day he shall be circumcised”—even on Shabbat.

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

What is the reason?

It is a kal va-chomer.

And just as leprosy,

whose impurity

overrides the Temple service,

for cutting off the affected area was not permitted in order to qualify the person for the Temple service,