Shabbat 137a — the Talmud in English

And these

derashot we expound in the Sifra called “Torat Kohanim,” and this is the general rule:

an anonymous Sifra—

is Rabbi Judah

he.

And since Rabbi Judah holds that an androginus is not evaluated, it follows that he holds that only with regard to circumcision on Shabbat is it considered male, but not with regard to every matter [and below, shortly, he expounds this from a verse].

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

the water of the sin-offering, meaning, to place the ashes of the red heifer into the water,

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

Rabbi Judah declares a minor fit, and disqualifies a woman and an androginus.

Learn from it

that Rabbi Judah does not regard the androginus as male for every matter.

And we raised a difficulty:

And what is different

with regard to

circumcision

that he regards him as male?

And we explain:

Because it is written

in the mitzva of circumcision,

“Circumcise for yourselves every male.” “Every” is superfluous, and it comes to include even an androginus.

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

Mishna:

One who had two infants

whom he needed to circumcise:

one to circumcise after Shabbat,

for his eighth day fell on Sunday,

and one to circumcise on Shabbat,

for his eighth day fell on Shabbat.

And he forgot,

and switched them,

and circumcised

the infant

who was to be circumcised after Shabbat—

on Shabbat, he is liable

for a sin-offering. Since he erred regarding a mitzva, but did not perform a mitzva, for the time to circumcise him had not yet arrived.

He had two infants,

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

and switched them,

and circumcised

the infant

who was to be circumcised on Friday eve—

on Shabbat:

Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable for a sin-offering,

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

And Rabbi Joshua exempts

from a sin-offering, even though he violated Shabbat by means of a circumcision not in its proper time, which does not override Shabbat, since he erred regarding a mitzva and performed a mitzva. [For his eighth day had arrived for his 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 switched them: whether to read “he is liable for a sin-offering” or “he is exempt”:

Rav Huna teaches—

liable.

Rav Judah teaches—

exempt.

Rav Huna teaches: liable

according to everyone, and in accordance with our version in the Mishna, and his proof is from that

which was taught:

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

for a sin-offering. Since the one whom he circumcised had not yet reached the time of his circumcision, and it turns out that he was not occupied with a mitzva.

Regarding what did they disagree?

Regarding one who had two infants, one

who needed

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

the infant

who was to be circumcised on Friday eve—

on Shabbat. For Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable for a sin-offering, and Rabbi Joshua exempts him. And both of them,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua,

learned it—

only from idolatry [

for all those liable for sin-offerings in the Torah were equated with the sin-offering brought for idolatry, as it is written [Numbers 15:29], “One law shall there be for you”]:

Rabbi Eliezer holds: Like idolatry: just as regarding idolatry the Merciful One said, “Do not do it,”

and when he does it—

he is liable

for a sin-offering,

so too here it is no different,

and he is liable for a sin-offering.

And Rabbi Joshua

would say to you: Only

there,

in idolatry, is he liable for a sin-offering, because

it is not a mitzva

but he is occupied only with a transgression. But

here,

with circumcision, when he circumcised the one due on Friday eve—on Shabbat, although Shabbat was not given to be overridden by this circumcision, nevertheless he was occupied with the matter of performing a

mitzva

of circumcision, for by his act he fulfilled the mitzva of circumcision; therefore he is exempt from a sin-offering.

Rav Judah teaches

in the first clause

exempt.

And his proof is from that

which was taught:

Rabbi Meir said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua 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 due on Friday eve—

on Shabbat, that he is exempt

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

Regarding what did they disagree?

Regarding one who had two infants, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat. And he forgot, and circumcised the one due after Shabbat—

on Shabbat. For Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable for a sin-offering, and Rabbi Joshua exempts him

from a sin-offering.

And both of them learned it only from idolatry.

Rabbi Eliezer holds: Like idolatry. Just as regarding idolatry the Merciful One said, “Do not do it,” and when he does it, he is liable

for a sin-offering,

so too here it is no different.

And Rabbi Joshua

would say to you:

There,

in idolatry,

he is not occupied

with the occupation of a

mitzva.

Here,

with circumcision, behold,

he is occupied

with the occupation of a

mitzva.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Rabbi Meir would say: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua 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 due on Friday eve—

on Shabbat, that he is liable.

Regarding what did they disagree?

Regarding one who had two infants, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat. And he forgot, and circumcised the one due after Shabbat—

on Shabbat, for Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable for a sin-offering, and Rabbi Joshua exempts him.

And we are astonished:

Now Rabbi Joshua

in the

latter clause,

when he circumcised the one due after Shabbat—on Shabbat,

when he did not perform a mitzva,

since his eighth day for circumcision had not arrived, Rabbi Joshua

exempts.

The first clause,

when he circumcised the one due on Friday eve—on Shabbat, whose eighth day had already arrived,

when he did perform a mitzva

by his circumcision,

does he make him liable?

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: The first clause,

which teaches that he is liable, is speaking

for example: when he acted first and circumcised the one due on Shabbat—

on Friday eve.

For,

since he had already circumcised him on Friday eve, Shabbat

was not given to be overridden,

for he had no infant to circumcise on Shabbat, and he was not occupied with the occupation of a mitzva.

But

the latter clause,

when he circumcised the one due after Shabbat—on Shabbat, for Rabbi Joshua exempts him,

Shabbat was given to be overridden,

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

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

when he circumcised the one due on Shabbat—on Friday eve,

also

is he occupied with a mitzva. For

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

whose circumcision time is on this Shabbat?

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

for this man,

who had already circumcised the one due on Shabbat on Friday eve,

Shabbat was not given

to be overridden.

We learned above: “A case of uncertainty—one does not violate Shabbat on its account.” And sometimes he is circumcised on the ninth day, and sometimes his circumcision is postponed until the twelfth day, as explained in the Mishna below:

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

no earlier—

than eight days.

And no later—

than twelve.

How so?

One circumcised

in the ordinary manner—

is circumcised

on the eighth.

day. An infant born

One born during twilight,

which is uncertain whether it is day or night—

is circumcised on the ninth,

because, due to the uncertainty, we begin counting the eight days only from the night after twilight, and it follows that he is circumcised on the ninth day.

One born during

the twilight of Friday eve,

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

is circumcised on the tenth,

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

And if

a Festival falls after Shabbat,

and it is impossible to circumcise him on the tenth, for a circumcision of uncertain status does not override a Festival—

he is circumcised

on the day after the Festival, which is

the eleventh.

And if after Shabbat there occur

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

A sick minor—

one does not circumcise him until he recovers.

Gemara:

Samuel said:

A baby whom

the fever has left,

meaning that heat of illness has departed from his body [the illness of fever, Meiri], is not circumcised at his proper time; rather,

they give him all seven

days after the illness in order

to restore him to health,

for they wait to circumcise him seven days from the time he recovered.

They raised a question: Do

we ask whether

we require

that he be made to wait from the time he recovered seven complete days

from time to time,

or not?

Come and hear: For Luda taught,

the name of a sage:

The day of his recovery—

its law

is like the day of his birth.

And we infer:

Is it not

saying as follows:

Just as

the count of eight days, which we count from

the day of his birth, we do not require

that there be eight complete days

from time to time—

also

when we count seven days from

the day of his recovery, we do not require

that there be seven complete days

from time to time.

And we reject this:

No,

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 time to time, whereas for the day of his recovery we require time to time.

Mishna:

These are the strips of flesh,

like threads of flesh that remained from the foreskin,

that impede the circumcision:

if there remains

flesh covering most of the corona,

which is a high lip surrounding the organ all around, from which it slopes downward toward its tip.

This flesh, if it remains, impedes the circumcision, and it is as though he did not circumcise.

And

a kohen who has strips of flesh remaining that impede the circumcision

does not eat teruma,

for he is considered uncircumcised.

And if he was fleshy,

and because of his abundant flesh it appears after the circumcision as though that flesh covers the organ—

he adjusts it because of the appearance of the eye,

so that he will not appear uncircumcised.