Shabbat 134b (קלד:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One bathes the child

in hot water,

both before circumcision and after circumcision. And one sprinkles hot water upon him

by hand,

but not

sprinkle it upon him

with a vessel.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One bathes the child

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.”

A child who is

in doubt

whether he was born after nine months or after eight months .

And an androgynos,

who possesses both male and female characteristics,

one may not desecrate Shabbat on his account.

But Rabbi Yehuda permits circumcising an androgynos

on Shabbat.

Gemara:

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

when you said in the first clause, ‘One bathes,’

which implies even in the usual manner?

Rav Yehuda and Rabba bar Avuha both say:

The bathing mentioned in the first clause is not in the usual manner. Rather,

it teaches, ‘How?’

and the latter clause explains the first clause:

‘One bathes the child both before circumcision and after circumcision; how

does one bathe him?

One sprinkles water upon him by hand, but not with a vessel.’

Rava said: But it teaches, ‘One bathes,’

which implies in the usual manner.

Rather, Rava said: This is what it teaches: ‘One bathes the child, 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, one sprinkles water upon him by hand, but not with a vessel.’

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One bathes the child 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 one sprinkles water.]

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rava’s opinion: One bathes the child both before circumcision and after circumcision, on the first day in the usual manner. And on the third day, when it occurs on Shabbat, one sprinkles water upon him by hand.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One bathes the child on the third day, when it occurs on Shabbat. And although there is no definitive proof for the matter, there is an allusion to it

there.

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

And when they sprinkle the water, they do not sprinkle it with a cup, nor with a bowl, nor with any vessel, but only by hand.

And this latter clause, which teaches that one sprinkles only by hand,

refers to the first tanna,

for according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, bathing even in the usual manner is permitted.

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

What is the meaning of ‘although there is no definitive proof for the matter’?

Why is this not a complete proof? And we explain: Because the circumcision performed in the incident of Shechem was that

of an adult

man

and his flesh did not heal quickly,

his flesh did not recover rapidly. But

in the case of a child, his flesh heals quickly,

and he emerges from his danger rapidly.

There was a certain man who came before Rava, and he instructed him

that he was permitted to bathe 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 illness because of this.

He said: Why did I have to disagree with the interpretations of the elders?

Why did I have to oppose these elders [Rav Yehuda and Rabba bar Avuha], who prohibited it?

The Sages said to Rava: But was it not taught in accordance with your opinion,

so 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 raise a difficulty concerning this:

From where

is it precise that this is their opinion?

And we explain: This is what Rava said:

From the fact that

the Mishna states:

‘Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One bathes the child on the third day, when it occurs on Shabbat.’

Granted, if you say that the first tanna said that one sprinkles water,

and bathing in the usual manner is prohibited,

this is why Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him, ‘One bathes,’

and disagreed with him in permitting bathing even in the usual manner.

But if you say that the first tanna

held that

he said: ‘One bathes on the first day in the usual manner, and one sprinkles water on the third day,’

what is the reason that it teaches:

‘Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One bathes’?

According to my approach, even the first tanna permits bathing on the first day, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya adds to his words by permitting bathing even on the third day. If so,

‘even

on the third day

one bathes’ should have been what it teaches,

rather than simply “one bathes.”

And from here there is proof for Rav Yehuda and Rabba bar Avuha, who maintain that according to the first tanna, bathing in the usual manner is prohibited even on the first day.

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

They raised the following question in the West:

Did Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya permit

bathing the entire body, or

only

bathing

the area

of the circumcision?

One of the Sages, named Rabbi Yaakov, said to them: It is reasonable

that he permitted

bathing his entire body.

For if it enters your mind

that he permitted only

bathing

the area of the

circumcision,

why did the Sages prohibit it?

Is it inferior

to placing

hot water on a wound, which is permitted?

For

indeed

Rav said: One need not prevent hot water and oil

from being placed upon a wound on Shabbat.

Rav Yosef raised an objection to this: And

if

you do not distinguish between hot water heated on Shabbat and hot water heated on the eve of Shabbat?

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

Rav Dimi raised an objection to this: And from where do you know that here they disagree concerning hot water heated on Shabbat?

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

Abaye said: I was about to answer him,

as I too wished to resolve the matter with the resolution of Rav Yosef.

But Rav Yosef preceded me and answered him

that certainly, in the case of circumcision, the permission applies even to hot water heated on Shabbat,

because it is a danger for him.

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

both with regard to hot water heated on Shabbat and with regard to hot water heated on the eve of Shabbat; both with regard to bathing his entire body and with regard to bathing the area of the circumcision —

because it is a danger for him.

With regard to the matter itself, Rav said: One need not prevent hot water and oil from being placed upon a wound on Shabbat.

And Shmuel said: One places

them

outside the wound, and it flows and trickles down into the wound.

But placing it directly on the wound is prohibited, due to the decree against grinding medicinal substances.

A challenge was raised: One may not place oil and hot water on wool to place it upon a wound on Shabbat.

Infer from this that it is prohibited due to the decree against grinding medicinal substances, in accordance with Shmuel.

And we resolve:

There,

the reason it is prohibited is

because of squeezing.

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

Infer from this that it is prohibited, contrary to Rav.

And we resolve:

There too,

the reason it is prohibited is

because of squeezing.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Shmuel’s opinion: One may not place hot water and oil upon a wound on Shabbat. But one may place them outside the wound, and they flow and trickle down into the wound.

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

since he is not doing so for medicinal purposes, but in order to prevent his wound from being scratched by his rough garments.

But not

may he place

dry reed mats, nor rags,

thin pieces of cloth, because they heal the wound, and this falls under the decree against grinding medicinal substances.

This is difficult:

The first clause, which teaches that one may place wool, meaning

rags,

contradicts the latter clause, which teaches

‘but not rags’

that are dry.

And we resolve:

It is not difficult.

This

that we prohibit is

with regard to new ones,

which had not previously been placed upon a wound and which heal the wound.

This

that we permit is

with regard to old ones,

which do not heal the wound.

Abaye said: Infer from this that these rags —

heal,

that they are effective for medicinal purposes.

We learned in the Mishna:

A doubtful case and an androgynos

one may not desecrate Shabbat on his account.

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

his foreskin

shall be circumcised.” His foreskin

that is

certain

overrides Shabbat.