Shabbat 133a — the Talmud in English

And

we say: this

that

they disagree,

Rava and Rav Safra,

whether circumcision in its proper time overrides tzaraat, is derived for us by a kal va-chomer—the dispute d

is a dispute among Tannaim.

For it was taught :

It is written: “And on the eighth day he shall circumcise

the flesh

of its foreskin.” “The flesh” is superfluous, and it should have written: “He shall circumcise its foreskin,”

and

it comes to serve as a derivation, that

even though there is

in the place of the circumcision

a bright spot,

which is a tzaraat lesion that it is forbidden to cut away,

he shall circumcise. The words of Rabbi Yoshiyah.

Rabbi Yonatan says: It does not require

a derivation. For if

Shabbat,

which is

more stringent,

whose punishment is stoning, circumcision

overrides

it;

tzaraat,

whose prohibition is only a “prohibition of a positive commandment,” “Take heed concerning the tzaraat lesion” —

all the more so

that the mitzva of circumcision should override it?

The Master said:

That which we say:

“The flesh: even though there is a bright spot, he shall circumcise, the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah.”

And we considered it:

Why do I need a verse?

For it is

a matter not intended, and a matter not intended is permitted.

Abaye said: The verse was necessary

only

for

the method of

Rabbi Judah,

who says: A matter not intended is forbidden.

Rava said: Even if you say it is Rabbi Shimon,

here too we require a verse to permit circumcision with tzaraat, for

Rabbi Shimon concedes concerning

an act that is

“cut off its head, and will it not die” [

an act whose result necessarily follows is like an act performed intentionally].

And we were astonished:

And

is it that

Abaye does not have this reasoning?

But Abaye and Rava both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes in a case of “cut off its head, and will it not die”

that it is forbidden?

And we explain:

After he heard it

from him

from Rava, he reasoned

it; he accepted it from him.

There are those who transmit this statement of Abaye and Rava concerning this matter.

It is written:

“Take heed concerning the tzaraat lesion, to take great heed and to do.”

And we derive:

“To do,”

to cut the lesion intentionally,

you may not do. But you may do

it

unintentionally, such as

with a fiber.

For a person who has a lesion on his foot need not refrain from pressing the fiber with which he ties his shoe

that is upon his foot,

even though through pressing the fiber the lesion will be rubbed and cut away.

And

likewise he is permitted to carry loads

on a pole that is upon his shoulder,

and the friction of the pole will remove the lesion.

And if the bright spot passed away

through this,

it passed away,

and there is nothing in it [therefore it is written “to do,” for he is permitted to perform his work].

And we refute:

But why do I need a verse

to permit it? After all, it is

a matter not intended, and a matter not intended is permitted.

Abaye said: It was necessary only for Rabbi Judah, who says: A matter not intended is forbidden.

And Rava said: Even if you say it is Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Shimon concedes in a case of “cut off its head, and will it not die.”

And we were astonished:

And

is it that

Abaye does not have this reasoning

that a “cut off its head” case is forbidden?

But Abaye and Rava both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes in a case of “cut off its head, and will it not die”?

And we answer:

After he heard it

Abaye

from Rava, he reasoned it,

he accepted it.

And

we now explain, according to what had entered our minds concerning

Abaye according to Rabbi Shimon,

that he disagrees even concerning an act that is “cut off its head”: if so,

this

superfluous word of the verse,

“the flesh,”

what does he do with it?

Rav Amram said:

The verse was necessary

for

a man and not for an infant, for he

says

to the circumciser who circumcises him: that

he intends to cut away his bright spot

by his circumcision, in order to become pure from the lesion. Although he himself does not cut the lesion, but rather the circumciser does, the matter is forbidden to him, for by this he transgresses “Take heed concerning the tzaraat lesion,” and consequently it is forbidden for the circumciser to circumcise, so as not to cause him to stumble.

And we considered it:

That is satisfactory

concerning the circumcision of a

grown man,

whose intention to become pure forbids the act of circumcision.

An infant,

who has no understanding and the circumciser does not intend to purify him—

what is there to say?

And we explain:

Rav Mesharsheya said: It is speaking of a case where the father of the son says

who comes to circumcise his son, that

he intends to cut away his son’s bright spot

in order to purify him;

that is what he intends [

that is, the father of the son, who desires his son’s benefit, is pleased with his purification, and he is therefore considered to intend to purify him, even if he does not say this explicitly. Ritva].

And we object:

And if there is

a

different

person who does not care to purify him,

let the other perform it?

For you can fulfill the positive commandment without uprooting the prohibition. [

From Rashi’s wording it appears that the father need not be present at all at the time of the circumcision, because the father’s intention is also for his purification, and his presence at the place of circumcision together with his intention to purify causes the act of circumcision to be defined as an act of purification, since the circumciser fulfills the father’s agency, for he is the one commanded to circumcise his son].

For

this is

what Reish Lakish said: Wherever you find a positive commandment and a prohibition, if you can fulfill

the

two of them, it is preferable; and if not, let the positive commandment come and override the prohibition.

And we answer: here it is speaking

where there is no

person

other.

The Master said:

Yom Tov overrides only

circumcision that is

in its proper time.

And we considered it:

From where are these matters?

Hezekiah said, and likewise the school of Hezekiah taught: The verse says, “You shall not leave any of it until morning,

and what is left of it until morning you shall burn in fire.”

This second “morning” is superfluous,

for there is no need

to

say “until morning

” [the second one in the verse].

What does “until morning” teach?

The verse came to give it,

to the Paschal offering,

a second morning for its burning.

And this is the meaning of the verse: “And what is left of it until morning” of the first day of Yom Tov—you shall burn it on the second morning.

From here [it follows] that an act of weekday is forbidden on Yom Tov. The same applies to circumcision not in its proper time, which is forbidden on Yom Tov.

Abaye said: The verse says, “The burnt offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat.” And not a weekday burnt offering on Shabbat, and not a weekday burnt offering on Yom Tov.

And just as the limbs of the daily offering of the eve of Yom Tov may not be offered on Yom Tov, the same applies to circumcision not in its proper time.

Rava said: The verse says

“However, that which may be eaten by every person,

it alone shall be done for you.”

And we derive:

“It”

the food itself shall be prepared on Yom Tov,

but not preparations

for food for a person [such as preparing the knife and the spit] are performed on Yom Tov.

Rav Ashi said: “A sabbath-rest,” it is a positive commandment. And there is

a prohibition against labor on

Yom Tov, a positive commandment and a prohibition. And there is no positive commandment

of circumcision not in its proper time

that overrides a prohibition and a positive commandment.

But circumcision in its proper time is included through what is written “on the day,” and even on Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule:

Any labor that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat.

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: The halakha follows

the words of

Rabbi Akiva.

And we likewise learned concerning

the

Paschal offering, in this manner:

Rabbi Akiva stated a general rule: Any labor that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat.

For example, bringing the offering from outside the Shabbat limit, or cutting away its withered skin,

does not override Shabbat. Slaughtering, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat.

And Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: The halakha follows Rabbi Akiva.

And

we explain:

It is necessary

for Rav Judah in the name of Rav to inform us, both concerning circumcision and concerning the Paschal offering, that preparations do not override Shabbat.

For if he had informed us

only

concerning circumcision,

we would have said:

There

specifically

preparations that can be performed on the previous day

do not override Shabbat,

because there is no karet.

For the father is not liable for karet for failing to fulfill the mitzva of circumcising his son, while the infant himself is not subject to punishment.

But concerning the Paschal offering, where there is

a punishment of

karet

for failing to perform it,

I might say that they should override Shabbat;

it informs us [that they do not].

And if he had informed us

only

concerning the Paschal offering,

we would have said that preparations for the mitzva of offering the Paschal sacrifice do not override Shabbat

because thirteen covenants were not made concerning it.

But concerning circumcision, concerning which thirteen covenants were made, I might say that its preparations should override

Shabbat,

Shabbat;

therefore

it is necessary

for Rav Judah in the name of Rav to inform us that they do not override Shabbat.

Mishna:

One performs all the requirements of circumcision on Shabbat:

One circumcises —

one circumcises and cuts the foreskin.

One uncovers —

one peels and removes the thin skin covering the head of the organ.

And one sucks —

the blood, even though this is the making of a wound, since the blood emerges through the force of the sucking [Rashi].

And one places upon it a dressing,

a bandage,

and cumin,

a type of plant that is useful for healing.

And one must crush the cumin on the eve of Shabbat. And

if

he did not grind

it

on the eve of Shabbat, he chews it with his teeth,

in order to deviate from his weekday practice.

And he places

it on the place of the circumcision.

They would customarily mix wine and oil and place them on the place of the circumcision for healing.

If he did not beat,

mix

the wine and oil on the eve of Shabbat,

it is forbidden for him to beat them on Shabbat. Rather,

this shall be placed

separately,

and this separately,

separately,

on its own,

on the place of the circumcision.

And one does not make for it —

for the circumcision,

a loincloth,

a piece of pierced cloth that is placed over the head of the organ and tied there so that the skin will not return and cover the organ. And it is forbidden

ab initio

to make it on Shabbat.

And

if he did not prepare it,

set it aside,

on the eve of Shabbat, he wraps it around his finger

as a garment, in order to deviate from the manner of carrying on weekdays.

And he brings

it to the place of the circumcision,

even from another courtyard,

even though the courtyards did not join together. But through the public domain it is forbidden. [Shulhan Arukh, section 331, subsection 8, and Magen Avraham there].