Shabbat 133b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raise it:

Granted:

it is

taught

in the Mishna

all of them

the needs of circumcision: the circumcisers cut, uncover, and suck. If so, this which it teaches,

“They perform all the needs of circumcision”—

what does it come to include

that it teaches it?

And we explain:

to include that which the Sages taught: One who circumcises

on Shabbat,

as long as he is occupied with the circumcision,

as long as he has not withdrawn his hand, if he sees that strips remain on it [remnants of the foreskin]

he returns, both for strips that impede the circumcision and for strips that do not impede the circumcision [

and below, on page 137a, it explains that strips that impede are flesh that covers most of the corona].

He explained:

that he withdrew his hand;

for strips that impede the circumcision, he returns,

and cuts them, for this is like a circumcision in itself.

For strips that do not impede the circumcision, he does not return.

Since this is a new circumcision, these strips do not override Shabbat.

And we explain:

who is the tanna of “he withdrew—

he does not return”?

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.

For it was taught: The fourteenth

of Nisan

that occurs on Shabbat, one strips

the skin of the Paschal offering

up to the breast

and he does not finish stripping it, because after he has stripped it up to the breast he can already remove its sacrificial fats. And once he has withdrawn from the stripping, he does not return, since it is not a need of the Most High,

the words of Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.

And this is analogous to circumcision, where once he has withdrawn he again does not return for strips that do not impede.

And the Sages say: One strips

the Paschal offering

entirely.

And we reject:

From where

is it as you say?

Perhaps

Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, spoke only in that case,

with the Paschal offering,

because we do not require

embellishment, as learned from the verse

“This is my God and I shall beautify Him,”

which teaches that it is a mitzva to beautify oneself before Him through mitzvot, since once he has taken the sacrificial fats, there is no mitzva embellishment in stripping with regard to beautifying the flesh.

But here,

with circumcision,

where we do require “This is my God and I shall beautify Him,”

for beautifying the circumcision is itself a mitzva,

so too

he returns even if he has withdrawn. And we learn that there is an advantage in beautifying a mitzva.

For it was taught: It is written:

“This is my God and I shall beautify Him”—

beautify yourself before Him through mitzvot.

Make before Him a beautiful sukkah, a beautiful lulav, a beautiful shofar, beautiful ritual fringes, a beautiful Torah scroll, and write it for His sake, with beautiful ink, with a beautiful quill, by an expert scribe, and wrap it in beautiful silk.

Abba Shaul says:

This is how one should expound the verse

“and I shall beautify Him”—

be similar to Him.

And it is interpreted as two words, “I and He”: I shall make myself like Him. And the verse comes to say:

Just as He is gracious and compassionate, so too you be gracious and compassionate.

Rather, Rav Ashi said: This

distinction that we make between whether he has withdrawn or not,

whose

is it? It is Rabbi Yosei’s.

For we learned

concerning testimony of seeing the moon:

Whether it was seen

the moon

clearly,

plainly to everyone, so that certainly the court or those near it saw it, and therefore there is no need for witnesses to come from outside the Shabbat boundary,

or whether it was not seen clearly,

and it is necessary for witnesses to come from a distance, in every case

one desecrates Shabbat on its account.

Rabbi Yosei says:

If

it was seen clearly, one does not desecrate Shabbat on its account.

And although this is for the purpose of a mitzva, since it is not a need of the Most High, one does not desecrate Shabbat. The same law applies to one who circumcised and withdrew, that he does not return for strips that do not impede.

And this too we reject:

From where?

Perhaps Rabbi Yosei spoke only there, because

from the outset

Shabbat was not given over to be overridden,

since it was seen clearly.

But here,

with circumcision,

when

he began circumcising,

Shabbat was given over to be overridden; so too

at the end it should also be overridden.

Rather, the sages of Nehardea say:

This beraita—

the Sages

is it,

who disagree with Rabbi Yosei

concerning the showbread.

For we learned: Four priests enter

the Sanctuary to arrange the showbread on the table.

Two have in their hands

two arrangements, each with six loaves.

And two have in their hands two bowls,

spoons full of frankincense. As it is written: “And you shall place pure frankincense on each arrangement.”

And four

priests

precede them. Two

in order

to take

from the table

two arrangements

of old bread.

And two

in order

to take the two bowls

of old frankincense.

The table stood with its length from east to west. The priests

who brought it in

were

standing on the

side of

the north,

which is more important .

And their faces

of those who brought it in were toward

the

side of

the south. And

the priests

who removed it were standing on the

side of

the south. And their faces, toward the

side of

the north. Those

who stood in the south

pulled

the bread and the frankincense from the table.

And

immediately, before they even lifted it from the table,

those

standing in the north

placed

and

the handbreadth of this was alongside the handbreadth of that,

so that the table was never even for a moment without bread.

Because it is stated, “And you shall place on the table showbread

before Me always.”

before Me always.”

Rabbi Yosei says:

Even if these take

first and remove the bread from the table,

and

afterward

these place it, this too was “always,”

for one act is considered one matter. Provided that the table does not spend one night without bread.

Just as Rabbi Yosei holds that placing after removal is one matter, so too Rabbi Yosei will hold concerning circumcision that even if he withdrew and removed his hand, he returns also for strips that do not impede, because according to his view this is one act. And the Sages disagree with him and hold that the continuation of the mitzva after an interruption is not called one mitzva.

The Sages taught: One gathers,

cuts and removes

the strips

that impede, in the place of

the circumcision. And if he did not gather them—

he is liable to excision.

And we raise it: This excision—

whose is it?

Who is liable for it?

Rav Kahana said:

The

expert,

who circumcised on Shabbat and did not gather the strips that impede, is liable to excision, because the mitzva of circumcision was not fulfilled, and what he did was a desecration of Shabbat.

Rav Pappa challenged him:

Why is the

expert liable?

Let him say to them,

to the other people present at the place:

I performed half of the mitzva,

and what I did was with permission, and it is not like performing an ordinary wound.

You

continue and

perform half

of the mitzva,

and finish the mitzva yourselves; why should I become liable to excision for what I did?

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

Actually, it is speaking of a weekday, and

with an adult

who was not circumcised, and afterward he circumcised but had not yet gathered them; therefore he is liable to excision.

Rav Ashi challenged him: An adult?

But

it is explicitly written concerning him: “And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise

the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from its people.”

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually,

the

expert

is involved.

And for example, he came during twilight of Shabbat, and they said to him:

Do not circumcise now, because you

will not manage

to finish the circumcision during the day according to its law, and you will make a wound on Shabbat without a mitzva.

And he said to them:

I

will manage,

and I will finish circumcising on Shabbat.

And he acted, but did not manage, and it was found that he had made a wound, and he is liable to excision,

because it was forbidden for him to begin [and he is not liable to death because they did not warn him concerning death. Rashi].

We learned in the Mishna:

They suck.

Rav Pappa said: This expert,

a circumciser,

who does not suck

the blood,

is a danger

to the infant,

and we remove him

from his profession, so that he should not circumcise again.

And we ask:

Is it obvious?

For

from the fact that we desecrate

Shabbat on its account, since extracting blood on Shabbat is a complete labor, it is certainly

a danger.

And we explain:

You might say: This blood is deposited and stored,

it is held and gathered, and it is like something placed in a vessel, and extracting it does not involve making a wound.

It teaches us

that it is

firmly attached,

and it emerges through suction,

and

performing it is permitted

analogously to the plaster and cumin

that we learned in our Mishna:

Just as with the plaster and cumin, when he does not perform it, it is a danger, so too here

suction,

when he does not perform it, it is a danger.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they place a plaster on it:

Abaye said: My mother told me: The plaster for all wounds,

the remedy that is beneficial for all pains, is:

seven portions of fat,

seven portions of milk,

and one of wax,

and one of wax, and he should place them on the wound.

Rava said:

The remedy is:

wax,

wax,

and kalba rishina,

white tar that comes out by itself from the tree.

Rava expounded

this remedy

in Mehoza.

And once the remedy became known,

the sons of Menaumi, the physicians, tore

their

garments,

because of their great distress over the loss caused to them.

Rava said to them,

Rava:

I have left one for you,

one remedy I have still not revealed.

For Samuel said: One who washes his face,

who washes his face,

and does not dry it very well,

and does not dry it well,

there will form for him ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

cracks,

his face cracks and a boil called “ḥeres” rises from it.