Shabbat 133a (קלג.) — the Talmud in English

And

we say: This

is

the dispute of

Rava and Rav Safra,

whether circumcision performed at its proper time overrides leprosy, and this may be derived by means of a kal va-chomer; the dispute

is a dispute between tanna’im.

As it is taught in a beraita:

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

the flesh

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

and

it comes to teach

that even if there is

at the site of the circumcision

a baheret,

which is a leprous lesion that one may not cut away,

he shall circumcise. These are the words of Rabbi Yoshiya.

Rabbi Yonatan says: It is not necessary

to derive this from the verse. For if

Shabbat,

which is

more stringent,

as its violation is punishable by stoning, circumcision

overrides

it, then

leprosy,

whose prohibition is only the prohibition of a positive commandment, “Take heed of the affliction of leprosy” —

all the more so

should the mitzva of circumcision override it?

The Master said:

That which we said:

“The flesh: Even if there is a baheret there, he shall circumcise. These are the words of Rabbi Yoshiya.”

And we raised a difficulty:

Why do I need a verse for this?

After all,

it is an unintentional act, and an unintentional act is permitted.

Abaye said: The verse was necessary

only

for the

method of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who says: An unintentional act is prohibited.

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

still, here a verse is required to permit circumcision performed in the presence of leprosy, since

Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to

an act that is

“cutting off its head and it will not die”

[an act whose result necessarily follows is considered an intentional act].

We challenge this:

And

does

Abaye not accept this reasoning?

But Abaye and Rava both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to an act that is “cutting off its head and it will not die,”

that it is prohibited.

And we explain:

After she heard it

from

Rava, she held this view;

she accepted it from him.

Some teach this statement of Abaye and Rava with regard to the following:

It is written:

“Take heed of the affliction of leprosy, taking great care 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.

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

that is on his foot,

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

And

he may likewise carry burdens

on a pole resting on his shoulder,

and the friction of the pole will remove the lesion.

And if the baheret passed away

in this manner,

it passed away,

and there is nothing wrong with this [and therefore it is written “to do”: he may perform his work].

And we refute this:

Why do I need a verse

to permit it? After all,

it is an unintentional act, and an unintentional act is permitted.

Abaye said: It was necessary only according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that an unintentional act is prohibited.

And Rava said: Even if you say that it is Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to an act that is “cutting off its head and it will not die.”

And we challenge this:

And

does

Abaye not accept this reasoning,

that an act that is “cutting off its head” is prohibited?

But Abaye and Rava both say: Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to an act that is “cutting off its head and it will not die.”

And we answer:

After Abaye heard it

from

Rava, he held this view;

he accepted it.

And

we now explain, according to what we initially thought, that

Abaye, according to Rabbi Shimon,

disagrees even with regard to an act that is “cutting off its head”: If so,

this

superfluous word in the verse,

“the flesh,”

what does he do with it?

Rav Amram said:

The verse was necessary

in

a case involving an adult rather than an infant, where he

says

to the circumciser who circumcises him that

he intends through his circumcision to cut away his baheret

in order to become pure from the lesion. Although he himself is not cutting the lesion, but rather the circumciser is, it is nevertheless prohibited for him, since he thereby violates “Take heed of the affliction of leprosy”; consequently, it is prohibited for the circumciser to circumcise him, so as not to cause him to stumble.

And we raise a difficulty:

This works

in the case of the circumcision of an

adult,

whose intention to become pure renders the act of circumcision prohibited.

But in the case of an infant,

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

what can be said?

And we explain:

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

that when he comes to circumcise his son,

he intends to cut away his son’s baheret

in order to purify him;

that is what he intends

[that is, the father, who desires what is best for his son, is pleased that he become pure, and is therefore considered to intend to purify him even if he does not say so explicitly. Ritva].

And we challenge this:

If there is

a person

else

who does not care to purify him,

let the other perform it!

After all, you can fulfill the positive commandment without overriding the prohibition.

Rashi’s wording implies that the father should not be present at all during the circumcision, because the father’s intention also includes his son’s purification. His presence at the place of circumcision, together with his intention to purify him, causes the act of circumcision to be defined as an act of purification, since the circumciser is fulfilling the father’s agency, and it is the father who is 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; but if not, let the positive commandment come and override the prohibition.

And we answer: Here we are dealing with a case

where there is no

person

else.

The Master said:

Yom Tov overrides only

circumcision performed

at its proper time.

And we raise a difficulty:

From where are these matters derived?

Ḥizkiya said, and likewise the tanna of the school of Ḥizkiya 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 mention of “morning” is superfluous,

as there is no need

for the verse

to say “until morning”

[the second one in the verse].

What does the verse intend by saying “until morning”?

The verse comes to give it,

the Paschal offering,

a second morning for its burning.

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

From here it follows that a non-sacred act is prohibited on Yom Tov. The same applies to circumcision not performed at its proper time, which is prohibited 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.

Just as the limbs of the daily offering of the eve of Yom Tov may not be sacrificed on Yom Tov, so too circumcision not performed at its proper time may not be performed then.

Rava said: The verse says:

“However, whatever is eaten by every person,

that alone shall be done for you.”

And we derive:

“That”

the food itself may be prepared on Yom Tov,

but not its preparations,

such as preparing the knife and spit, may be performed on Yom Tov.

Rav Ashi said: “A solemn rest” is a positive commandment. And there is therefore

a prohibition against labor on

Yom Tov, a positive commandment and a prohibition. And the positive commandment

of circumcision not performed at its proper time

does not override a prohibition and a positive commandment.

But circumcision performed at its proper time is included through the word “on the day,” even on Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva stated a general principle:

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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with

the words of

Rabbi Akiva.

And we also learned with regard to

the

Paschal offering, a similar principle:

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

such as bringing the offering from outside the Shabbat boundary or cutting away its dried tissue,

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

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

And

we explain:

It is necessary

for Rav Yehuda, who said that Rav ruled thus, to inform us both with regard to circumcision and with regard to the Paschal offering that preparations do not override Shabbat.

For had he taught us

only

with regard to circumcision,

I would have said:

There,

specifically,

the preparations that can be performed the previous day

do not override Shabbat

because there is no liability for excision.

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

But with regard to the Paschal offering, where there is

a punishment of

excision

for failing to offer it,

I would say that they should override Shabbat;

it teaches us that they do not.

And had he taught us

only

with regard to the Paschal offering,

I would have said that the preparations for offering the Paschal offering do not override Shabbat

because thirteen covenants were not enacted concerning it.

But with regard to circumcision, concerning which thirteen covenants were enacted, I would say that its preparations should override

Shabbat;

therefore,

it is

necessary

for Rav Yehuda, who said that Rav ruled thus, to teach us that they do not override Shabbat.

Mishna:

All the requirements of circumcision are performed on Shabbat:

One circumcises

— he cuts and removes the foreskin.

One bares

— he peels and removes the thin skin covering the head of the organ.

And one suctions

the blood, even though this is the performance of a wound, since the blood emerges as a result of the suction [Rashi].

And one places upon it a dressing,

a bandage,

and cumin,

a type of plant used for healing.

The cumin must be crushed on the eve of Shabbat.

If

he did not grind

it

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

in order to deviate from the weekday manner.

And he places

it on the site of the circumcision.

They were accustomed to mix wine and oil and place them on the site of the circumcision for healing.

If he did not beat

and mix

the wine and oil on the eve of Shabbat,

he may not beat them on Shabbat. Rather,

this shall be placed

separately,

and this

separately,

on

the site of the circumcision.

And one does not make for it

— for the circumcision —

a haluk,

a piece of cloth with a hole, which is placed over the head of the organ and tied there so that the skin will not return and cover the organ. It is prohibited

initially

to make it on Shabbat.

And

if he did not prepare it,

make it ready,

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

in the manner of clothing, in order to deviate from the weekday manner of carrying.

And he brings

it to the site of the circumcision,

even from another courtyard,

although the courtyards had not formed an eruv together. But carrying it through a public domain is prohibited. [Shulḥan Arukh, section 331, subsection 8, and Magen Avraham there].