Shabbat 133b (קלג:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raised this question:

now

it teaches

in the Mishna

all of them

the requirements of circumcision: the circumcisers circumcise, expose the corona, and suck out the blood. If so, the statement that teaches:

“They perform all the requirements of circumcision”—

what does it come to include

when it teaches it?

And we explain:

It comes to include that which the Sages taught in a beraita: One who circumcises

on Shabbat,

as long as he is occupied with the circumcision,

before he has withdrawn his hand, if he sees that strips of flesh [remnants of the foreskin] remain,

he may return to remove both strips that impede the circumcision and strips that do not impede the circumcision

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

He explained:

If he has withdrawn his hand,

he may return for strips that impede the circumcision,

and complete the cutting, since this is like a circumcision in its own right.

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

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

And we explain:

Who is the tanna of the statement, “If he has withdrawn his hand,

he may not return”?

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

As it is taught in a beraita: The fourteenth

of Nisan

that occurs on Shabbat, one strips

the skin of the Paschal offering

up to the breast.

He does not finish stripping it, because once he has stripped it up to the breast, he can already remove its sacrificial fats. And once he has withdrawn from the stripping, he may not return, since this is not a requirement of the Temple service;

this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.

And this is analogous to circumcision, where once he has withdrawn, he may not again remove strips that do not impede the circumcision.

But the Sages say: One strips

the Paschal offering

entirely.

We reject this:

From where

do you say that it is as you stated?

Perhaps

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, spoke only to this extent there,

with regard to the Paschal offering,

because we do not require

enhancement, which is derived from the verse

“This is my God and I will glorify Him,”

which teaches that one must beautify oneself before Him through the mitzvot. For once he has removed the sacrificial fats, there is no longer any enhancement of the mitzva in stripping the skin in order to beautify the flesh.

But here,

with regard to circumcision,

where we require “This is my God and I will glorify Him,”

since beautifying the circumcision is itself a mitzva,

here too

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

For it is taught in a beraita: It is written:

“This is my God and I will glorify Him”—

Beautify yourself before Him through mitzvot.

Make before Him a beautiful sukka, a beautiful lulav, a beautiful shofar, beautiful ritual fringes, and a beautiful Torah scroll; 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 will glorify Him”—

be similar to Him.

It is interpreted as though it consisted of two words, “I and He,” meaning that I should make myself like Him. And the verse comes to say:

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

Rather, Rav Ashi said: This

distinction we make between one who has withdrawn and one who has not—

whose opinion is it?

It is Rabbi Yosei’s.

As we learned

with regard to testimony concerning sighting the moon:

Whether it was seen

by the moon

plainly,

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

or whether it was not seen plainly,

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

they desecrate Shabbat on its account.

Rabbi Yosei says:

If

it was seen plainly, they may not desecrate Shabbat on its account.

Although this is for the sake of a mitzva, since it is not for the sake of the Temple service, they may not desecrate Shabbat. The same applies to one who circumcises and withdraws: he may not return to remove strips that do not impede the circumcision.

And this too is rejected:

From where?

Perhaps Rabbi Yosei spoke only to this extent there, because

from the outset

Shabbat was not placed in a state of being overridden,

since the moon was seen plainly.

But here,

with regard to circumcision,

when

he began to circumcise,

Shabbat was placed in a state of being overridden; here too,

it may be overridden at the end as well.

Rather, the sages of Nehardea said:

This beraita

is the view of the Sages,

who

disagree with Rabbi Yosei

with regard to the showbread.

As we learned: Four priests enter

the Sanctuary to arrange the showbread on the Table.

Two carry

the two arrangements, each containing six loaves,

and two carry two bowls,

spoons filled with frankincense. As it is written: “You shall place pure frankincense on each arrangement.”

And four

priests

precede them. Two

in order

to take

from the Table

the two arrangements

that are old,

and two

in order

to take the two old bowls.

The Table stood with its length running from east to west.

The priests who bring in the new bread

stood

on the

north

side,

which

is more important .

And their faces

were turned

to

the

south. And

the priests

who take out the old bread stood on

the

south. And their faces were turned to

the

north. These

who stood in the south

would draw

the bread and frankincense from the Table.

And

immediately, before they lifted them from the Table,

these

who stood in the north

would place

the new bread.

And this one’s handbreadth was beside that one’s handbreadth,

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

Because it is stated: “And you shall place on the Table the bread of the Presence

before Me always.”

Rabbi Yosei says:

Even if these take

the old bread first and remove it from the Table,

and

afterward

these place the new bread, this too is considered “always,”

because it is regarded as one act. Provided that the Table does not spend a single night without bread.

Just as Rabbi Yosei holds that placing the new bread after removing the old bread constitutes one act, so too Rabbi Yosei would hold with regard to circumcision that even if he withdrew and removed his hand, he may return to remove strips that do not impede the circumcision, because according to his view this is one act. The Sages disagree with him and hold that continuation of a mitzva after an interruption is not considered one mitzva.

The Sages taught: They remove,

cutting and removing

the strips

that impede the circumcision

from the place of

the circumcision. And if he did not remove them—

he is liable to karet.

And we raise this question: This liability to karet—

whose opinion is it?

Who is liable for it?

Rav Kahana said:

The

expert circumciser.

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

Rav Pappa raised an objection:

Why is

the expert circumciser liable?

Let him say to them,

to the other people present there:

“I performed half of the mitzva,

and what I did was permitted; it was not merely the making of a wound.

You

go on and

perform half

of the mitzva,

and complete the mitzva yourselves; why should I be liable to karet for what I did?”

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

Actually, it is speaking of a weekday,

and of an adult

who had not been circumcised and then circumcised but had not yet removed the strips; therefore he is liable to karet.

Rav Ashi raised an objection: 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,

it is the

expert circumciser

who is under discussion.

And it is a case where he came during twilight on the eve of Shabbat, and they said to him:

Do not circumcise now, because

you will not manage

to complete the circumcision properly during the day, and you will make a wound on Shabbat without fulfilling a mitzva.

And he said to them:

I

will manage,

and I will complete the circumcision on Shabbat.

And he acted, but did not manage, and it turned out that he had made only a wound, and he is liable to karet,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

They suck out the blood:

Rav Pappa said: This circumciser,

the mohel,

who does not suck

the blood,

is dangerous

for the infant,

and we remove him

from his profession so that he will not circumcise again.

And we ask:

Is this obvious?

For

since they desecrate

Shabbat on its account—for drawing blood on Shabbat is a complete labor—it is certainly

dangerous.

And we explain:

It might have entered your mind to say that this blood

is deposited and stored, as though it were placed in a vessel, and drawing it out does not involve making a wound.

It teaches us

that it

is attached within

the flesh and is drawn out through suction,

and

performing it is permitted

like the dressing and cumin

that we learned in our Mishna:

Just as with the dressing and cumin, if one does not apply them, it is dangerous, so too here,

with suction,

if one does not perform it, it is dangerous.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they place a dressing on it:

Abaye said: My mother told me: The dressing for all wounds

is the remedy that is effective for all pains:

seven measures of fat,

seven portions of milk,

and one of wax,

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

Rava said:

The remedy is

wax

and

white pitch,

white tar that emerges naturally from a tree.

Rava taught

this remedy

in Mehoza.

Once the remedy became known,

the sons of Maniyumi the physicians tore

their garments,

for their clients,

because of their great distress over the loss that had been caused them.

Rava said to them:

Rava said:

“Leave one for yourselves,

there is still one remedy that I have not revealed.

For Shmuel said: One who washes his face,

who washes his face,

and does not dry it thoroughly,

and does not dry it well,

there will develop for him

cracked skin,

his face splits and boils called “heras” emerge from it.”