Shabbat 134b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

They bathe the infant

in hot water,

both before the circumcision and after the circumcision. And they sprinkle upon him

hot water,

by hand, but not

shall he sprinkle upon him

with a vessel.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: They bathe the infant

in the usual manner

on the third day

after his circumcision,

when it occurs on Shabbat. As it is stated: “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain.”

An infant who is

in doubt

whether he is nine months old or eight months old .

And an androgynos,

who has signs of a male and a female alike,

one does not desecrate Shabbat for him.

But Rabbi Judah permits [circumcising] an androgynos

to circumcise him on Shabbat.

Gemara:

And we raised it as a difficulty: What is the reason that it teaches, “by hand, but not with a vessel,”

when you said in the first clause: They bathe,

and it implies even in the usual manner?

Rav Judah and Rabbah bar Avuha both say:

“They bathe” in the first clause is not in the usual manner; rather,

read: “How,”

and the latter clause explains the first clause:

“They bathe the infant both before the circumcision and after the circumcision; how

do they bathe him?”

They sprinkle upon him by hand, but not with a vessel.”

Rava said: But it teaches “they bathe,”

and it implies in the usual manner.

Rather, Rava said: This is what it teaches: “They bathe the infant, both before

the

circumcision and after the circumcision. On the first day, in the usual manner. And on the third day, when it occurs on Shabbat, they sprinkle upon him by hand, but not with a vessel.”

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: They bathe the infant on the third day, when it occurs on Shabbat, as it is stated: “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain.” [

And he disagrees with the first tanna, who said that on the third day they sprinkle.]

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rava’s [opinion]: “They bathe the infant both before the circumcision and after the circumcision, on the first day in the usual manner. And on the third day, when it occurs on Shabbat, they sprinkle upon him by hand.”

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: They bathe the infant on the third day, when it occurs on Shabbat. And although there is no proof for the matter, there is an indication for the matter

there is.

As it is stated: “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain.”

And when they sprinkle, they do not sprinkle with a cup, nor with a bowl, nor with a vessel, but rather by hand.

And this latter clause, which teaches that they sprinkle only by hand,

applies to the first tanna,

for according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, he permits even bathing in the usual manner.

And we raised it as a difficulty:

What is the meaning of “although there is no proof for the matter,”

why is this not a complete proof? And we explain: Because the circumcision in the episode of Shechem

was of an adult

and

his flesh did not quickly heal;

his flesh does not quickly heal. But

in the case of an infant, his flesh quickly heals;

his flesh heals and he leaves his danger quickly.

A certain person came before Rava, and he ruled for him

to permit bathing him in the usual manner on the first day

in accordance with his teaching.

Rava became ill,

and he was concerned that perhaps he had been punished with his illness on account of this.

He said: “Why did I need to disagree with the interpreters of these elders?”

What need did I have to oppose these elders [Rav Judah and Rabbah bar Avuha], who prohibited it?

The Sages said to Rava: “But was it not taught in accordance with your master’s [opinion],”

and why are you concerned that you were punished because of this?

He said to them,

Rava: Because

the Mishna is precisely in accordance with their [opinion].

And we raised it as a difficulty:

From where

is it precise according to their position?

And we explain: This is what Rava said:

Since it says

in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: They bathe the infant on the third day, when it occurs on Shabbat.”

If you say that the first tanna said that they sprinkle,

and bathing in the usual manner is prohibited,

this is why Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him, “They bathe,”

and he disagrees with him in that he permits even [bathing] in the usual manner.

But if you say that the first tanna

held

that he said: On the first day they bathe, and on the third day they sprinkle,

what is this that it teaches:

“Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: They bathe”?

For according to my position, even the first tanna permits bathing on the first day, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah adds to his words by permitting bathing also on the third day; therefore,

“also

on the third day

they bathe” should have been what it teaches

to teach.

And from here there is proof for Rav Judah and Rabbah bar Avuha, who hold that according to the first tanna it is prohibited to bathe in the usual manner even on the first day.

When Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah.

They raised the matter in the West:

Does Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah permit

bathing the entire body, or

only

bathing

the place of

the circumcision?

One of the Sages said to them—and his name was Rabbi Yaakov—“It is reasonable”

that he permitted

bathing the entire body.

For if it enters your mind

that he permitted only

bathing

the place of the

circumcision,

what is the reason that the Sages prohibit it?

Is it inferior

to placing

hot water upon a wound, which is permitted?

For

it

Rav said: One does not prevent hot water and oil

from being placed upon a wound on Shabbat.

Rav Yosef challenged this: W

hy,

is the distinction between hot water that was heated on Shabbat and hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat not known to you?

But here, concerning circumcision, we are dealing with hot water that was heated on Shabbat.

Rav Dimi challenged this: And from where [do you know] that here they disagree concerning hot water that was heated on Shabbat?

Perhaps they disagree concerning hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat?

Abaye said: “I was about to answer him,”

I, too, wanted to resolve it with Rav Yosef’s resolution.

But Rav Yosef anticipated him and answered him

that certainly, concerning circumcision, the permission applies even to hot water that was heated on Shabbat,

because it is dangerous for him.

It was also stated: When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Abahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah—

both concerning hot water that was heated on Shabbat and concerning hot water that was heated on the eve of Shabbat; both concerning bathing the entire body and concerning bathing the circumcision—

because it is dangerous for him.

The essential matter: Rav said: One does not prevent hot water and oil from being placed upon a wound on Shabbat.

And Shmuel said: He places

them

outside the wound, and it trickles and descends to the wound.

But upon the wound itself it is prohibited because of the decree concerning grinding medicinal substances.

An objection was raised: “One may not place oil and hot water upon a compress in order to place it upon a wound on Shabbat.”

Infer from this that it is prohibited because of the decree concerning grinding medicinal substances, and this is in accordance with Shmuel.

And we answer:

There

the reason that it is prohibited is

because of squeezing.

Come and hear: “One may not place hot water and oil upon a compress that is upon a wound on Shabbat.”

Infer from this that it is prohibited, and not in accordance with Rav.

And we answer:

There, too,

the reason that it is prohibited is

because of squeezing.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Shmuel: “One may not place hot water and oil upon a wound on Shabbat. But one may place them outside the wound, and it trickles and descends to the wound.”

The Sages taught: One may place a dry compress and a dry sponge upon the wound,

since he does not do this for healing, but rather in order to prevent his wound from being scratched by his rough garments.

But not

shall he place

a dry reed, nor shreds,

thin pieces of clothing, because they heal and are included in the decree concerning grinding medicinal substances.

It is difficult:

the first clause, which teaches that one may place a compress, that is,

shreds,

against the latter clause, which teaches

“but not shreds”

dry ones?

We answer:

It is not difficult.

This

which we prohibit is

with new ones,

which, being new and not having been upon a wound, heal the wound.

This

which we permit is

with old ones,

which do not heal.

Abaye said: Infer from this: These shreds—

they heal,

they are beneficial for healing.

We learned in the Mishna:

“An uncertain case and an androgynos”

one does not desecrate Shabbat for him.

The Sages taught: “And on the eighth day the flesh of

his foreskin shall be circumcised.

His foreskin”

which is

certain,

overrides Shabbat.