Shabbat 132b — the Talmud in English

and the Temple service

is stringent, for it

overrides Shabbat,

and nevertheless the mitzva of

circumcision overrides it,

the prohibition against cutting off the baheret, as we will expound below [133a], that even if there is a baheret in the place of the circumcision, it is permitted to circumcise and thereby cut off the baheret.

Shabbat, which is overridden on account of the Temple service—is it not an inference that circumcision should override it?

And

in the end,

what is the meaning of “or is it not” that the

tanney of the beraita

then said

the tanney:

And from where is it established that leprosy is more stringent

than Shabbat, so that a kal va-chomer may be stated?

Perhaps Shabbat is more stringent, since it has

on Shabbat

many punishments and warnings.

And

as for what you argued, that leprosy is more stringent because it overrides the Temple service, and the Temple service overrides Shabbat, this is not an argument.

For

from where

do you know that the fact that leprosy overrides the Temple service is

because leprosy is stringent?

Perhaps

we do not tell him to cut off his baheret

because it is the person who is unfit

for the Temple service, for even if he cuts off his baheret, he is still lacking immersion and sunset for his purification.

And

if you say so, you must again say:

How do I uphold “on the eighth day he shall be circumcised”—

except for Shabbat.

The verse says: “On the day,” even on Shabbat.

The Sages taught: Circumcision overrides

the prohibition of cutting off

the leprosy, whether

the circumcision is

in its proper time, whether

the circumcision is

not in its proper time.

But

a Festival overrides only

circumcision that is

in its proper time.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

From where are these matters?

For the Sages taught: “

And on the eighth day

the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,” even though there is there

in the place of the circumcision

a baheret—

he shall cut it off.

And how do I uphold

the Torah’s command

“Take heed concerning the affliction of leprosy”?

In the other places

on his body,

except for circumcision.

Or is it not

so, and let us say

even circumcision

is included in the prohibition?

And how do I uphold “the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” -

at a time when there is no

in the place of the circumcision

a baheret.

The verse says: “flesh.”

And even though there is a baheret there.

Rava said: As for this tanney, at first what was acceptable to him, and in the end what was difficult to him?

And we explain: At first,

this is what he said: “The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,”

and we expound,

even though there is there

in the place of the circumcision—

a baheret,

he shall circumcise.

And how do I uphold

the Torah’s warning

“Take heed concerning the affliction of leprosy,” in the other places

on the body, except

for

the place of

circumcision. But

the mitzva of

circumcision overrides

the prohibition of cutting off the leprosy.

What is the reason?

Because it comes from a kal va-chomer.

And this is how we reason:

What about Shabbat,

which is

stringent—circumcision overrides it; leprosy, is it not certainly

to override it?

And what is the meaning of “or is it not” that he said

the tanney afterward?

The

tanney of the beraita

then said: From where is it established that Shabbat is more stringent? Perhaps leprosy is more stringent, since

leprosy

overrides the Temple service, and the Temple service

is stringent, for it

overrides Shabbat.

And do not derive by a kal va-chomer that circumcision overrides the prohibition of cutting off a baheret.

The verse says

the superfluity of the verse,

“flesh,” and

to include,

even though there is there a baheret

he shall circumcise.

Another formulation: Circumcision overrides the leprosy.

What is the reason?—

because there comes

the mitzva of

positive commandment

of “the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised”

and overrides

the prohibition of

negative commandment

written concerning cutting off a baheret: “Take heed concerning the affliction of leprosy.” And we hold that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment.

And what is the meaning of “or is it not” that the

tanney of the beraita

then said: Let us say that we say that a positive commandment comes and overrides a negative commandment,

that is

a mere negative commandment.

But this one,

the prohibition against cutting off his baheret,

is both a negative commandment and a positive commandment: “Take heed” is a negative commandment, and afterward it is written, “to observe very carefully and to perform,” and that is a positive commandment.

And

since it does not override it, let us say

that

how do I uphold “the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised”—

at a time when there is no baheret there.

The verse says

the superfluity of the verse

“flesh,”

to teach us:

and even though there is a baheret there

he shall circumcise.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

It is satisfactory

with regard to the circumcision of

an adult, for it is written concerning him “And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise

his

flesh

of his foreskin.”

And likewise it is satisfactory

with regard to a minor

of eight days,

also it is written concerning him “And on the eighth day he shall circumcise

the

flesh

of his foreskin.”

But the circumcision of

an intermediate case,

who is more than eight days old but has not yet reached the age of mitzvot, whose obligation we derive from that which is written, “Every male among you shall be circumcised,” and it is not written concerning it “flesh”—

from where

do we know that his circumcision overrides the prohibition against cutting off his baheret?

Abaye said:

An intermediate case,

comes from the intermediate cases,

from the common side in both of them.

From an adult

alone

it does not come, since

an adult who did not circumcise himself is

liable for karet.

And likewise

from

the circumcision of

a minor it does not come, since

it is

circumcision in its proper time.

But

the common side between them,

in a minor and an adult,

is that they are circumcised and override the leprosy.

So too, everything that is circumcised—

overrides the leprosy.

Rava said: Circumcision in its proper time,

which

overrides, does not require a verse.

Because

it comes from a kal va-chomer. [

And the verse is needed for the circumcision of a minor not in its proper time. Rashi.]

And this is how we reason:

What about Shabbat, which is stringent,

circumcision

overrides

it.

Leprosy, is it not certainly

to override it?

Rav Safra said to Rava: From where is it established that Shabbat is more stringent?

Perhaps leprosy is more stringent: since leprosy overrides the Temple service, and the Temple service overrides Shabbat.

And we explain:

There,

with regard to leprosy that overrides the Temple service,

it is not because leprosy is stringent. Rather, it is because the person is unfit for the Temple service,

because he is impure.

And we are astonished:

Why

is the person unfit for the Temple service?

Let him cut off his baheret and perform the service.

And we explain: It is impossible to act in this way, for at the time that he cuts off his baheret, he is still

lacking immersion.

And he is not fit for the Temple service until his sunset, and on account of the service of tomorrow we do not now override the prohibition against cutting off a baheret.

And we raise an objection:

This is satisfactory with regard to impure afflictions.

But

pure afflictions,

such as a bohak, or when it has spread over his entire body, which, although they are pure, were included in the prohibition against cutting off a baheret—

what is there to say?

Why should he not cut off his baheret and perform the service immediately?

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

The fact that leprosy overrides the Temple service is not because of the stringency of leprosy. Rather, it has another reason.

For

where do we say that a positive commandment comes and overrides a negative commandment?

Specifically

in a case such as

the mitzva of

circumcision in

the place of

leprosy. Alternatively,

the mitzva of

fringes and

the prohibition of

mixed kinds. For at the time that the negative commandment is uprooted, he establishes and

fulfills

the positive commandment.

For the uprooting of the negative commandment and the positive commandment occur simultaneously. Therefore the positive commandment is overridden on account of the negative commandment.

However,

here,

when cutting off a baheret in order to perform the Temple service,

at the time that the negative commandment is uprooted, he does not establish the positive commandment,

but only afterward. Therefore it does not override it.