Shabbat 137a (קלז.) — the Talmud in English

These are the derashot that we expound in the Sifra, called “Torat Kohanim”; and the general rule is:

an anonymous Sifra—

Rabbi Yehuda

is its author.

And since Rabbi Yehuda holds that an androgynos is not subject to valuation, it follows that he holds that it is considered male only with regard to circumcision on Shabbat, but not for all matters [and below, shortly afterward, he derives this from a verse].

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too have learned this in a Mishna: All are fit to sanctify

the water of the mei ḥatat, that is, to place the ashes of the red heifer into the water,

except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor.

Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, but disqualifies a woman and an androgynos.

Learn from this

that Rabbi Yehuda does not consider an androgynos male for every matter.

And we raised a question about this:

What is different

with regard to

circumcision,

that he considers it male?

And we explain:

Because it is written

in the mitzva of circumcision:

“Circumcise every male among you”.

The word “every” is superfluous, and comes to include even an androgynos.

Mishna:

One who had two infants

whom he was required to circumcise:

one to circumcise after Shabbat,

as its eighth day fell on Sunday,

and one to circumcise on Shabbat,

as its eighth day fell on Shabbat.

And he forgot,

and confused them,

and circumcised

the infant

who was to be circumcised after Shabbat—

on Shabbat, he is liable

to bring a sin-offering. Since he erred while engaged in a mitzva, but did not perform a mitzva, for the time to circumcise that infant had not yet arrived.

He had two infants,

one to circumcise on Friday eve, and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot,

and confused them,

and circumcised

the infant

who was to be circumcised on Friday eve—

on Shabbat:

Rabbi Eliezer holds him liable to bring a sin-offering,

even though he was preoccupied with a mitzva; since this circumcision, on the ninth day, does not override Shabbat.

And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him

from a sin-offering, even though he desecrated Shabbat by performing a circumcision not at its proper time, which does not override Shabbat; since he erred while engaged in a mitzva and performed a mitzva. [For the infant’s eighth day had arrived for circumcision.]

Gemara:

The amoraim disagreed about how to read the first clause of the Mishna, concerning one who had two infants to circumcise, one on Shabbat and one after Shabbat, and confused them: whether it should read, “he is liable to bring a sin-offering,” or “he is exempt.”

Rav Huna teaches—

he is liable.

Rav Yehuda teaches—

he is exempt.

Rav Huna teaches that he is liable

according to everyone, and this accords with our version of the Mishna. His proof is from the following

as it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree concerning one who had two infants, one to circumcise on Shabbat and one to circumcise after Shabbat, that he is liable

to bring a sin-offering. Since the infant whom he circumcised had not yet reached the time for circumcision, he was not engaged in a mitzva.

With regard to what did they disagree?

With regard to one who had two infants, one

whom he needed

to circumcise on Friday eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat. And he forgot and circumcised

the infant

who was to be circumcised on Friday eve—

on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer holds him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. And both of them,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua,

derived it—

only from idolatry for all those liable to bring sin-offerings in the Torah were equated with a sin-offering brought for idolatry, as it is written [Numbers 15:29]: “There shall be one law for you”]:

Rabbi Eliezer holds: It is like idolatry. Just as, with regard to idolatry, the Merciful One said, “Do not perform it”,

and if he performs it—

he is liable

to bring a sin-offering,

so too here it is no different,

and he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

And Rabbi Yehoshua

can say to you: It is specifically

there,

with regard to idolatry, that he is liable to bring a sin-offering, because

it is not a mitzva

but merely engagement in a transgression. But

here, with regard to circumcision, when he circumcised the infant who was to be circumcised on Friday eve—on Shabbat, although this circumcision was not one for which Shabbat was permitted to be overridden, nevertheless he was occupied with the performance of a

with regard to circumcision, when he circumcised the infant who was to be circumcised on Friday on Shabbat, although Shabbat was not permitted to be overridden for this circumcision, nevertheless he was occupied with the performance of a

mitzva

of circumcision. Through his act he fulfilled the mitzva of circumcision, and therefore he is exempt from a sin-offering.

Rav Yehuda teaches

in the first clause

that he is exempt.

His proof is from the following

as it was taught:

Rabbi Meir said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree concerning one who had two infants, one to circumcise on Friday eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one to be circumcised on Friday eve—

on Shabbat, that he is exempt

from a sin-offering. For although Shabbat was not permitted to be overridden for this circumcision, he nevertheless performed a mitzva.

With regard to what did they disagree?

With regard to one who had two infants, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one to be circumcised after Shabbat—

on Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer holds him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him

from a sin-offering.

And both of them derived it only from idolatry.

Rabbi Eliezer holds: It is like idolatry. Just as, with regard to idolatry, the Merciful One said, “Do not perform it,” and if he performs it, he is liable

to bring a sin-offering,

so too here it is no different.

And Rabbi Yehoshua

can say to you:

There,

with regard to idolatry, he

is not preoccupied

with the preoccupation of a

mitzva.

Here,

with regard to circumcision, he is

preoccupied

with the preoccupation of a

mitzva.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Rabbi Meir would say: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree concerning one who had two infants, one to circumcise on Friday eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one to be circumcised on Friday eve—

on Shabbat, that he is liable.

With regard to what did they disagree?

With regard to one who had two infants, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one to be circumcised after Shabbat—

on Shabbat, for Rabbi Eliezer holds him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.

And we are astonished:

Now, if Rabbi Yehoshua,

in the

last clause,

where he circumcised the one to be circumcised after Shabbat—on Shabbat,

did not perform a mitzva,

since the eighth day for his circumcision had not arrived, nevertheless Rabbi Yehoshua

exempts him.

In the first clause,

where he circumcised the one to be circumcised on Friday eve—on Shabbat, whose eighth day had already arrived,

he did perform a mitzva

through his circumcision,

yet he holds him liable?

The scholars of the house of Rabbi Yannai said: The first clause,

which teaches that he is liable, deals

with a case where he preceded and circumcised the one to be circumcised on Shabbat—

on Friday eve.

For,

since he had already circumcised him on Friday eve,

Shabbat was not permitted to be overridden,

as he no longer had an infant to circumcise on Shabbat and was not preoccupied with the preoccupation of a mitzva.

But

the last clause, where he circumcised the one to be circumcised after Shabbat—on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempted him,

Shabbat was permitted to be overridden,

Shabbat was permitted to be overridden,

for he had an infant whom he was obligated to circumcise on Shabbat, and he was preoccupied with the preoccupation of a mitzva; therefore, he is exempt from a sin-offering.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: The first clause as well,

where he circumcised the one to be circumcised on Shabbat—on Friday eve,

also

involves engagement in a mitzva. For

Shabbat was permitted to be overridden with regard to ordinary infants,

whose circumcision was scheduled for that Shabbat.

He said to him: The mitzva of circumcising ordinary infants does not exempt him, because

for this man,

who had already circumcised the one to be circumcised on Shabbat on Friday eve,

Shabbat was not given

to be overridden.

We learned above: “In a case of uncertainty, one may not desecrate Shabbat on his account.” Sometimes such an infant is circumcised on the ninth day, and sometimes his circumcision is postponed until the twelfth day, as explained in the following Mishna:

Mishna:

A minor is circumcised on the eighth

day,

on the ninth, on the tenth, on the eleventh, or on the twelfth.

He is not circumcised

before—

the eighth day,

nor later—

than the twelfth.

How so?

One circumcised

in the usual manner

is circumcised

on the eighth.

day. An infant born

If he was born during twilight,

which is uncertain whether it is day or night,

he is circumcised on the ninth,

because, due to the uncertainty, the counting of the eight days begins only from the night following twilight, so it emerges that he is circumcised on the ninth day.

If he was born during

the twilight of Friday eve,

and it is uncertain whether he was born on Friday or on Shabbat,

he is circumcised on the tenth,

because it is impossible to circumcise him on the ninth, as the circumcision of one whose status is uncertain does not override Shabbat; rather, he is circumcised after Shabbat, which is the tenth day from his birth.

And if

a Festival fell after Shabbat,

so that it was impossible to circumcise him on the tenth, as the circumcision of one whose status is uncertain does not override a Festival,

he is circumcised

on the day following the Festival, namely

on the eleventh.

And if, after Shabbat,

the two days of Rosh HaShana occurred, he is circumcised on the twelfth.

A minor who is ill—

he may not be circumcised until he recovers.

Gemara:

Shmuel said:

An infant whose

fever has left him,

whose body’s heat has subsided [the illness of fever, Meiri], is not circumcised at the proper time; rather,

they give him all seven

days after the illness in order

to recover,

as they wait seven days from the time he has recovered before circumcising him.

They raised a dilemma: Is

the question whether

we require

waiting seven complete days from the time he recovers

from one period to the corresponding time on the next,

or not?

Come and hear: For Luda taught,

the name of a sage:

The day of his recovery—

its status is

like the day of his birth.

And we infer:

Is it not

saying as follows:

Just as

the eight-day count beginning from

the day of his birth does not require

eight complete days

from one period to the corresponding time on the next,

so too,

when counting seven days from

the day of his recovery, it does not require

seven complete days

from one period to the corresponding time on the next.

And we reject this:

No, he did not mean that its status is like the day of his birth. Rather,

it is not saying “like the day of his birth”; rather,

the day of his recovery is more stringent than the day of his birth. For on the day of his birth

we do not require the count from one period to the corresponding time on the next, whereas on the day of his recovery we do require the count from one period to the corresponding time on the next.

Mishna:

These are the tzitzin,

strands of flesh that remain from the foreskin,

that invalidate the circumcision:

if there remains

flesh covering most of the crown,

which is a raised rim encircling the organ and from which it slopes downward toward its tip.

If this flesh remains, it prevents the circumcision from being valid, and it is as though he had not been circumcised.

And a priest who has remaining on him tzitzin that invalidate the circumcision

may not eat teruma,

as he is considered uncircumcised.

And if he was one with abundant flesh,

so that, because of his corpulence, after the circumcision it appears as though that flesh covers the organ,

he adjusts it because of the appearance to the eye,

so that he will not appear uncircumcised.