Shabbat 132b (קלב:) — the Talmud in English

and the Temple service

is stringent, as

it overrides Shabbat;

and nevertheless, the mitzva of

circumcision overrides it—

the prohibition against cutting off the baheret, as we will expound below [133a]: Even if there is a baheret at the place of the circumcision, it is permitted to perform the circumcision and thereby cut off the baheret.

If Shabbat, which is overridden by the Temple service, is overridden by circumcision, is it not logical that circumcision should override it?

And

ultimately,

what does the tanna of the beraita mean by “or is it not so”?

This is what he found difficult;

and then he said

the tanna:

And from where do we know that tzara'at is more stringent

than Shabbat, so that a kal va-homer can be stated?

Perhaps Shabbat is more stringent, since it contains

within Shabbat

many punishments and prohibitions.

And

as for your claim that tzara'at is more stringent because it overrides the Temple service, and the Temple service overrides Shabbat, that is no claim.

For

from where

do you know that the fact that tzara'at overrides the Temple service is

because tzara'at itself is stringent?

Perhaps

the person is not told to cut off his baheret

because the person is unfit

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

And

if you say this, you must again say:

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

except for Shabbat.

The verse therefore states: “on the day,” even on Shabbat.

The Sages taught: Circumcision overrides

the prohibition against cutting off

tzara'at, whether

the circumcision is

in its proper time, or whether

the circumcision is

not in its proper time.

But

a Festival does not override

circumcision except when it is

in its proper time.

And we raised a question concerning it:

From where are these matters derived?

For the Sages taught:

“And on the eighth day

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

at the place of the circumcision

a baheret—

he shall cut it off.

And how do I understand

the Torah’s command

“Take care concerning the plague of tzara'at”?

In other places

on his body,

apart from circumcision.

Or is it not so

and shall we say that

even circumcision

is included in the prohibition?

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

when there is no

at the place of the circumcision

a baheret.

The verse therefore states: “flesh.”

Even if there is a baheret there.

Rava said: What did this tanna find acceptable initially, and what did he find difficult ultimately?

And we explain: At first,

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

and we expound:

even if there is

at the place of the circumcision—

a baheret,

he shall circumcise him.

And how do I understand

the Torah’s warning

“Take care concerning the plague of tzara'at,” in other places

on the body, apart

from

the place of

circumcision. But

the mitzva of

circumcision overrides

the prohibition against cutting off tzara'at.

What is the reason?

Because it is derived by means of a kal va-chomer.

And this is how we reason:

As for Shabbat,

which is

stringent, circumcision overrides it; with regard to tzara'at, is it not certainly

overridden?

And what does the tanna mean by “or is it not so”

afterward?

The tanna then says

of the beraita:

From where do we know that Shabbat is more stringent? Perhaps tzara'at is more stringent, since

tzara'at

overrides the Temple service, and the Temple service

is stringent, as

it overrides Shabbat.

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

The verse therefore states

the superfluous word

“flesh,” and

it comes

to include even if there is a baheret there

that he shall circumcise him.

Alternatively: Circumcision overrides tzara'at.

What is the reason?—

Because there comes

the mitzva of

a positive commandment,

“the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,” and it

overrides

the

prohibition

written with regard to cutting off a baheret: “Take care concerning the plague of tzara'at.” And we hold that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition.

And what does the tanna of the beraita mean by “or is it not so”?

the author of the beraita said?

He then says: Granted that we say that a positive commandment comes and overrides a prohibition,

that applies to

a prohibition alone.

But this prohibition,

the prohibition against cutting off his baheret,

involves both a prohibition and a positive commandment:

“Take care” constitutes a prohibition, and afterward it is written, “to take great care and to perform,” which constitutes a positive commandment.

And

since it does not override them, let us say:

How do I understand “the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised”—

when there is no baheret there.

The verse therefore states

the superfluous word

“flesh,”

to teach us:

even if there is a baheret there

he shall circumcise him.

And we raised a question concerning it:

That works

for the circumcision of

an adult, as it is written concerning him,

“And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise

the flesh

of his foreskin.”

And likewise, that works for

a minor

eight days old,

as it is also written concerning him,

“And on the eighth day he shall circumcise

the flesh

of his foreskin.”

But the circumcision of

an intermediate case,

one who is more than eight days old but has not yet reached the age of mitzvot, whose obligation is derived from the verse “Every male among you shall be circumcised,” and concerning whom “flesh” is not written—

from where do we know

that his circumcision overrides the prohibition against cutting off his baheret?

Abaye said:

In the intermediate case,

it is derived from the two intermediate cases,

from the common denominator between them.

From the adult

alone

it cannot be derived, since

an adult who did not circumcise himself is

liable to karet.

And likewise,

from

the circumcision of

a minor it cannot be derived, since

it is

circumcision performed in its proper time.

Rather,

the common denominator between them,

the minor and the adult, is

that they are circumcised and override tzara'at.

So too, all who are circumcised—

override tzara'at.

Rava said: Circumcision in its proper time,

which

overrides, does not require a verse.

Because

it is derived by means of a kal va-chomer. [The verse is required for the circumcision of a minor not performed in its proper time. Rashi.]

And this is how we reason:

And this is how we reason:

As for Shabbat, which is stringent,

circumcision

overrides

it.

With regard to tzara'at, is it not certainly

overridden?

Rav Safra said to Rava: From where do you know that Shabbat is more stringent?

Perhaps tzara'at is more stringent, since tzara'at overrides the Temple service, and the Temple service overrides Shabbat.

And we explain:

There,

with regard to tzara'at overriding the Temple service,

it is not because tzara'at is stringent. Rather, it is because the person is unfit for the Temple service,

because he is impure.

And we challenge this:

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 do this, since at the time he cuts off his baheret he is still

lacking immersion.

And he is not fit for the Temple service until sunset. And we do not override the prohibition against cutting off a baheret now for the sake of the service of the following day.

And we challenge this:

That works for impure lesions.

But

pure lesions,

such as bohak, or when the lesion has spread over his entire body, which, despite being pure, were included in the prohibition against cutting off a baheret—

what can be said?

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

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

The fact that tzara'at overrides the Temple service is not because of the stringency of tzara'at. Rather, it has another rationale.

For

when do we say that a positive commandment comes and overrides a prohibition?

Only

in a case such as

the mitzva of

circumcision in

the place of

tzara'at. Alternatively,

the mitzva of

ritual fringes and

the prohibition of

mixed kinds, for at the moment that the prohibition is removed, he fulfills

the

positive commandment.

The removal of the prohibition and fulfillment of the positive commandment take place simultaneously. Therefore, the positive commandment overrides the prohibition.

However,

here,

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

at the moment that the prohibition is removed, he does not fulfill a positive commandment;

he fulfills it only later. Therefore, it does not override the prohibition.