Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 16, 2020 | 讻状讚 讘转诪讜讝 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Shabbat 132

Today’s daf is sponsored by Robyn Samuels for a refuah shelaymah u’mehayra for Yaakov Wolf Ben Tzipa.

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive that any preparations needed for a brit milah override Shabbat?聽 From where do we derive (according to all opinions) that a brit milah can be performed on Shabbat? The gemara brings seven possible answers and delves into each possibility. The gemara brings a proof from a braita for Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion that it is derived from the word “on the day.” Before quoting the derivation from the verse, the braita first suggests two possibilities that maybe logically one could infer that brit milah would override Shabbat or maybe the opposite can be inferred. Rava explains the logic behind each one. In the suggestion of Rava, the issue is raised regarding the hlacha that one cannot remove a leprous mark, even if it means that sacrifices can’t be brought in the Temple. However, one can cut off a leprous mark in the performance of the mitzva of brit milah. From where is that law derived? Why is there a difference?

砖讻谉 讗诐 注讘专 讝诪谞讛 讘讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

in each, as if its time passed, it is void, unlike the mitzva of circumcision, which can be fulfilled at a later date if the child is not circumcised on the eighth day. Rather, this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as the verse says: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3), indicating that he is circumcised on the eighth day even if it falls on Shabbat.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪讬诇讛 讜诇讬转讜 讛谞讱 讜诇讬讙诪讜专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪讬诇讛 砖讻谉 谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转:

The Gemara asks: And let the Torah write this principle only with regard to the mitzva of circumcision, and let these other mitzvot come and derive their halakhot from it. The Gemara answers: Because this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the mitzva of circumcision? That thirteen covenants were established over it, as the word covenant is mentioned thirteen times in the passage dealing with the circumcision of Abraham (Genesis 17). Owing to its great significance, other mitzvot cannot be derived from it.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讻砖讬专讬 诪讬诇讛 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讙讜驻讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛诇讻讛

The Gemara departs from the facilitators of circumcision to the halakha of circumcision itself and asks: The Rabbis only disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to actions that facilitate circumcision, which, in their view, do not override Shabbat; however, with regard to circumcision itself, everyone agrees that it overrides Shabbat. From where do we derive this halakha? Ulla said: This is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, but there is no biblical basis for it. And so too, Rabbi Yitz岣k said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪谞讬讬谉 诇驻讬拽讜讞 谞驻砖 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讞转 诪讗讬讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇驻讬拽讜讞 谞驻砖 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta: From where is it derived that saving a life overrides Shabbat? Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says it is derived from the mitzva of circumcision: Just as circumcision, which pertains to only one of a person鈥檚 limbs, overrides Shabbat, all the more so it is an a fortiori inference that saving a life, which is a mitzva that pertains to the entire person, overrides Shabbat.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛诇讻讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛诇讻讛 诪讬 讗转讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘谉 注讝专讬讛) 注拽讬讘讗 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 诪讟诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛诇讻讛

And if it should enter your mind to say that circumcision may be performed on Shabbat based on a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, is an a fortiori inference derived from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Wasn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita that an a fortiori inference cannot be derived from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Rabbi Akiva sought to derive that a nazirite who comes into contact with a quarter log of blood from a corpse becomes ritually impure and is required to shave his hair. He sought to do this based on an a fortiori inference from the halakha of the bone from a dead person the size of a grain of barley, as he had a received tradition that a nazirite is required to shave his hair due to that contact. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, the halakha that a bone the size of a grain of barley transmits ritual impurity is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and you would derive from it that a quarter of a log of blood transmits ritual impurity based upon an a fortiori inference, and one does not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Tosefta explicitly states that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya himself derived an a fortiori inference from the halakha of circumcision on Shabbat. Clearly, then, it is derived from the Torah itself and not from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗转讬讗 讗讜转 讗讜转

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: This halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word sign that appears with regard to circumcision: 鈥淎nd you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you鈥 (Genesis 17:11), and sign that appears with regard to Shabbat: 鈥淗owever, you shall keep My Shabbatot, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 31:13). From this verbal analogy, it is derived that circumcision, which is a sign, may be performed even on Shabbat, which is itself a sign.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛谉 讗讜转 诇讬讚讞讬 砖讘转

The Gemara asks: But if what you say is so, phylacteries, with regard to which the term sign is also written: 鈥淎nd it shall be for a sign on your hand and for frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Exodus 13:16), should also override Shabbat, and they should be donned on that day.

讗诇讗 讗转讬讗 讘专讬转 讘专讬转

Rather, this principle is derived by means of a different verbal analogy from the word covenant that appears with regard to circumcision: 鈥淎nd you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you鈥 (Genesis 17:11), and the word covenant that appears with regard to Shabbat: 鈥淭he children of Israel shall keep the Shabbat, to observe the Shabbat throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant鈥 (Exodus 31:16).

讙讚讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘专讬转 诇讬讚讞讬 砖讘转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If this is so, then the circumcision of an adult should also be permitted on Shabbat and it should not be limited to a child on the eighth day, as the term covenant is written with regard to him as well, as it applies to any Jewish male not yet circumcised. Therefore, let his circumcision override Shabbat. The halakha, however, is that only circumcision at its proper time on the eighth day overrides Shabbat.

讗诇讗 讗转讬讗 讚讜专讜转 讚讜专讜转

Rather, this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word generations that appears with regard to Shabbat: 鈥淭hroughout their generations for a perpetual covenant鈥 (Exodus 31:16), and the word generations that appears with regard to circumcision: 鈥淎nd I shall establish My covenant between Me and you, and between your seed after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant鈥 (Genesis 17:7).

爪讬爪讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讚讜专讜转 诇讬讚讞讬 砖讘转

The Gemara asks: If so, let ritual fringes too, with regard to which the term generations is also written, override Shabbat, and it should be permitted to affix ritual fringes to a garment on Shabbat.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转 讘专讬转 讜讚讜专讜转 诪讗讜转 讘专讬转 讜讚讜专讜转 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛谞讱 讚讞讚 讞讚 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛谉

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This halakha is derived not from one common word alone, but one derives it based upon the three words sign, covenant, and generations that appear with regard to circumcision, from sign, covenant, and generations that appear with regard to Shabbat, to the exclusion of these, i.e., ritual fringes and phylacteries, that with regard to each of them, one of these is written but not all three words together.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讬讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The verse says: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day鈥hall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3), which means that the child is circumcised on the eighth day whenever it occurs, even on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讚讞讜 砖讘转 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: But if what you say is so, then, with regard to those lacking atonement, such as a zav or a healed leper, who must after their immersion still bring an atonement offering in order to complete their purification process, with regard to whom the term on the day is also written, as in the verse: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish鈥 (Leviticus 14:10), sacrificing their atonement offerings should also override Shabbat. Rabbi Yo岣nan responded: That verse is necessary to teach that the sacrifice must be brought during the day and not at night.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讘谉 砖诪谞转 讬诪讬诐 谞驻拽讗

Reish Lakish asked: This verse with regard to the mitzva of circumcision is also necessary to teach that circumcision must be performed during the day and not at night. Rabbi Yo岣nan replied: That is derived from a different verse, which states: 鈥淎nd he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you throughout your generations鈥 (Genesis 17:12). That circumcision must take place during the day is derived from that verse.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讘讬讜诐 爪讜讜转讜 谞驻拽讗

Reish Lakish says: That matter, that the atonement offering must be sacrificed during the day, can also be derived from a different verse, as it is stated: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings; which the Lord commanded Moses at Mount Sinai on the day He commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings to the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai鈥 (Leviticus 7:37鈥38), and from here it is derived that all offerings are sacrificed by day and not at night.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞驻拽讗 诪讘讬讜诐 爪讜讜转讜 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 讘讚诇讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讬转讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Although this halakha is derived from: 鈥淥n the day He commanded,鈥 an additional source is necessary for those lacking atonement. It might have entered your mind to say that since the Torah shows him mercy by allowing him to bring an offering of poverty, as if one cannot afford to sacrifice the regular atonement offering, the Torah enables him to sacrifice a less costly one, let him also bring it at night, as perhaps the Torah shows him mercy and allows him to hasten his atonement. Therefore, it teaches us that he too must bring his offering only by day and not at night.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讛讗 讝专 讻砖专 讘讛谉 讜讬讛讗 讗讜谞谉 讻砖专 讘讛谉 讛讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗

Ravina strongly objects to this reasoning: But if what you say is so, that the Torah has compassion on a person lacking atonement and is lenient with regard to the halakhot of the atonement offering, a non-priest should be fit to sacrifice them, and similarly, a priest who is an acute mourner, i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, should be fit to sacrifice them. The Gemara answers: The verse has restored this. The additional verse that teaches that even one lacking atonement must sacrifice during the day, also teaches that the Torah was lenient with regard to this offering only in the ways explicitly stated in the Torah.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诪讬谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: There is a different proof from the Torah that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat, for the verse said: 鈥淥n the eighth day,鈥 underscoring that circumcision is performed specifically on the eighth day and indicating that it is performed even on Shabbat.

讛讗讬 砖诪讬谞讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讘讬注讬 砖讘讬注讬 诪讘谉 砖诪谞转 讬诪讬诐 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This usage of the term eighth is necessary to exclude the seventh day, i.e., a child may not be circumcised before the eighth day. The Gemara answers: The fact that one may not circumcise on the seventh day is derived from a different verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you throughout your generations鈥 (Genesis 17:12).

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讘讬注讬 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 转砖讬注讬 讚讗讬 诪讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讘讬注讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讗讘诇 诪砖诪讬谞讬 讜讗讬诇讱 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Both verses are still necessary, one to exclude the seventh day and one to exclude the ninth day. As if it were derived from one verse alone, I would have said: It is on the seventh day that one may not circumcise, since the time to circumcise this child has not yet arrived and the obligation of circumcision is not yet in effect; however, from the eighth day and onward is its time, and therefore it is permissible to postpone a circumcision until the ninth day. No answer was found to this question, and the Gemara concludes: Rather, the derivation is clear according to Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘砖讗专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬诇讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诇讛 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讞讜抓 诪砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and not in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, as the tanna interprets the phrase: 鈥淥n the eighth day he shall be circumcised鈥 to mean that the circumcision must be performed even on Shabbat. And how do I fulfill the prohibition against performing prohibited labor explicit in the Torah in the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall guard the Shabbat, for it is holy to you; he who desecrates it shall surely die鈥 (Exodus 31:14)? That is referring to other prohibited labors besides circumcision. The tanna questions his previous statement: Or perhaps that is not the case, and the prohibition of performing prohibited labor on Shabbat includes even circumcision, and, on the contrary, how do I fulfill the verse: 鈥淥n the eighth day he shall be circumcised鈥? It applies when the eighth day is any day other than Shabbat. The verse states: 鈥淥n the day,鈥 meaning on that very day when he turns eight days old, even on Shabbat. The tanna of this baraita rejects Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 proof and accepts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 assertion that the phrase 鈥淥n the day鈥 conclusively establishes that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛

With regard to this baraita, Rava said: Initially, what did this tanna find acceptable, and ultimately, what did he find difficult? Initially he suggested that: 鈥淥n the eighth day he shall be circumcised鈥 is a valid source for the fact that circumcision overrides Shabbat, but ultimately, he deemed that difficult and turned to an alternative source, yet provided no reason, neither for his initial statement nor for his second statement.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘砖讗专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬诇讛 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讚讞讬讗

Rather, we can explain that this is what he is saying: 鈥淥n the eighth day he shall be circumcised鈥 applies even on Shabbat. And how do I fulfill: 鈥淗e who desecrates it shall surely die鈥? That is referring to the other prohibited labors besides circumcision; however, circumcision overrides Shabbat.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 爪专注转 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛注讘讜讚讛

What is the reason for this? It is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as leprosy, which overrides the Temple service, as a priest who is a leper may not serve in the Temple and it is prohibited to cut off the symptoms of leprosy,

讜注讘讜讚讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛 砖讘转 砖谞讚讞讬转 诪驻谞讬 讛注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讛讗 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛

and the Temple service overrides Shabbat, as Shabbat offerings are sacrificed at their appointed time, and nevertheless circumcision overrides leprosy, i.e., if there were symptoms of leprosy on the foreskin of the baby, one circumcises the child even though he thereby violates the prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy; therefore, with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden by the Temple service, is it not logical that circumcision, which is so stringent that it overrides leprosy, overrides Shabbat as well? This was the tanna鈥檚 reasoning at the outset.

讜诪讗讬 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讛讚专 讗诪专 讜诪诪讗讬 讚爪专注转 讞诪讜专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讘转 讞诪讜专讛 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛 注讜谞砖讬谉 讜讗讝讛专讜转 讛专讘讛 (讗讬 谞诪讬) 讜诪诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讬专讗 爪专注转 讛讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讞讜抓 诪砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转:

And what was the reason the tanna said: Or perhaps, and questioned his previous statement? He reconsidered and said: And from where do we know that leprosy is more stringent than Shabbat? Perhaps Shabbat is more stringent, as it includes the severe punishments of karet and execution by stoning, and numerous warnings pertaining to it throughout the Torah. Alternatively, and from where do we know that the reason the Temple service does not override the prohibition of leprosy is specifically because leprosy is more stringent than the Temple service? Perhaps the Temple service does not override the prohibition of leprosy because a man afflicted with leprosy is unfit to perform the Temple service and not due to the stringency of the prohibition to remove symptoms of leprosy from one鈥檚 body. And if so, how do I establish the verse: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3)? That it applies to days other than Shabbat. Consequently, the tanna cited additional proof from that which the Torah states: 鈥淥n the day,鈥 indicating that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛爪专注转 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谞讛 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讘诇讘讚

The Sages taught: Circumcision overrides leprosy. The foreskin is cut even if it has symptoms of leprosy on it, despite the fact that there is a Torah prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy. This is the halakha both when the circumcision takes place at its appointed time, on the eighth day, or when it is not performed at its appointed time but after the eighth day. However, circumcision overrides a Festival only when performed at its appointed time.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转 讬拽讜抓 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讛砖诪专 讘谞讙注 讛爪专注转 讘砖讗专 诪拽讜诪讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3), since this verse is stated in general terms, it teaches that even though there is a bright white leprous spot there, he should cut it. And how do I establish the verse: 鈥淭ake care with regard to the plague of leprosy to take great care and to perform in accordance with all that the priests, the Levites, instruct you; as I commanded them you shall take care to perform鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:8)? Does usage of the term 鈥渢ake care鈥 indicate that there is a negative mitzva that prohibits cutting off symptoms of leprosy? We establish this prohibition as applying in other places, other than the place of a circumcision.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诇讛 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讘讛专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转

The tanna asks: Or perhaps that is not the case; rather, this prohibition applies even in the place of circumcision, and how do I validate the verse: 鈥淭he flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥? It applies when there is no bright white leprous spot on the foreskin. So that we will not interpret the verse that way, the verse states the superfluous word flesh. It would have been sufficient to state: His foreskin shall be circumcised, but instead the verse stated: 鈥淭he flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,鈥 indicating that the foreskin must be removed even though there is a bright white spot there.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛

Rava said: Initially, what did this tanna find acceptable, and ultimately, what did he find difficult? At first he assumed that the mitzva of circumcision is more stringent, but he ultimately rejected this assumption with no explanation.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 讘讛专转 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讛砖诪专 讘谞讙注 讛爪专注转 讘砖讗专 诪拽讜诪讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬诇讛 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛爪专注转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗转讬讗 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖讘转 讞诪讜专讛 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛 爪专注转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rather, this is what he is saying: Initially he held that the phrase: The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised teaches that it is permitted to remove the foreskin even though there is a bright white spot there. And how do I validate the following verse: Take care with regard to the plague of leprosy? It applies in other places, aside from the place of circumcision, but circumcision overrides leprosy. What is the reason for this? It is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as Shabbat is stringent and nevertheless circumcision overrides it, all the more so that circumcision overrides leprosy, which is less stringent than Shabbat.

讜诪讗讬 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讛讚专 拽讗诪专 诪诪讗讬 讚砖讘转 讞诪讬专讗 讚讬诇诪讗 爪专注转 讞诪讬专讗 砖讻谉 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转

And what was the reason for the term or perhaps that the tanna is saying to question his previous statement? He reconsidered and said: From where do we know that Shabbat is more stringent? Perhaps leprosy is more stringent, as leprosy overrides the Temple service, as stated earlier, and the Temple service overrides Shabbat. Therefore, the verse states the additional word flesh, to teach that the foreskin is removed even though there is a bright white leprous spot there.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛爪专注转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜诪讗讬 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讛讚专 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙专讬讚讗 讛讗讬 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讘讛专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转

The Gemara cites another version of Rava鈥檚 comments. Initially the tanna thought that circumcision overrides leprosy. What is the reason for this? He relied on the principle that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a negative mitzva. And what was the reason the tanna is saying: Or perhaps to question his previous statement? He reconsidered and said: Say that we say that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a negative mitzva when there is a negative mitzva alone. However, this cutting off leprosy is prohibited by both a positive mitzva and a negative mitzva. And how do I establish the verse: The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised? It applies only when there is no bright white spot on the foreskin. Therefore, the verse states the additional word flesh in order to emphasize that the foreskin is removed, even though there is a bright white spot there.

转讬谞讞 讙讚讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讘砖专 拽讟谉 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘砖专 讘讬谞讜谞讬 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara questions the derivation from the word flesh: This works out well with regard to the circumcision of an adult who has not yet been circumcised, as the word flesh is written with regard to adults in the verse: 鈥淎nd an uncircumcised male who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from its people; My covenant he has broken鈥 (Genesis 17:14). Similarly, it works out well with regard to a minor who is circumcised on the eighth day, as the superfluous word flesh is also written with regard to him. However, with regard to a person at an intermediate stage of life, i.e., a child who was not circumcised on the eighth day but has not yet reached majority, from where do we derive that his circumcision overrides leprosy? The Torah explicitly mandates his circumcision: 鈥淐ircumcise for yourselves every male鈥 (Genesis 17:10). However, that verse does not employ the term flesh.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗转讬讗 诪讘讬谞讬讗 诪讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讗转讬讗 砖讻谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转 诪拽讟谉 诇讗 讗转讬讗 砖讻谉 诪讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 谞讬诪讜诇讬谉 讜讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛爪专注转 讗祝 讻诇 砖谞讬诪讜诇讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛爪专注转

Abaye said: It is derived from a combination of the two sources about the status of a child at the intermediate stage, from the common denominator between an eight-day-old and one who reached majority. From an adult alone, the halakha with regard to an intermediate child cannot be derived, as an adult is punishable by karet if he fails to circumcise himself, but an intermediate child is not punishable by karet. Likewise, from the case of an eight-day-old child, the case of an intermediate child cannot be derived; since the circumcision at its time overrides Shabbat it may also override leprosy. However, the common denominator between an eight-day-old and an adult is that they are circumcised and their circumcision overrides leprosy. So too, all who are circumcised, including those in the intermediate stage, override leprosy.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗转讬讗 讜诪讛 砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讗 讚讜讞讛 爪专注转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rava said: No verse is required to teach that circumcision at its appointed time overrides leprosy, as it is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as circumcision overrides Shabbat, which is more stringent than leprosy, all the more so that circumcision overrides leprosy.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚砖讘转 讞诪讬专讗 讚讬诇诪讗 爪专注转 讞诪讬专讗 砖讻谉 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讬专讗 爪专注转 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讗诪讗讬 讜讬拽讜抓 讘讛专转讜 讜讬注讘讜讚 诪讞讜住专 讟讘讬诇讛 讛讜讗

Rav Safra said to Rava: From where do we know that Shabbat is more stringent? Perhaps leprosy is more stringent, as leprosy overrides the Temple service, and the Temple service overrides Shabbat. Rava answered: There, when leprosy overrides the Temple service, it is not because leprosy is more stringent; rather, it is because the man afflicted with leprosy is unfit for the Temple service. Rav Safra asked: Why is he unfit? Let him cut off his bright white leprous spot and serve. Rava answered: He would remain unfit to serve, as he is lacking immersion. In order to purify himself for service in the Temple, he must immerse himself and wait until the following day. In the meantime he is unfit.

转讬谞讞 谞讙注讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 谞讙注讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rav Safra raised a difficulty: It works out well if we are referring to impure symptoms of leprosy, as even one who removes them must immerse afterward. However, with regard to pure symptoms of leprosy, there is a prohibition to cut off the symptoms even though there is no impurity. They have the legal status of blemishes that invalidate a priest from serving until it is cured. Once the bright white spot is removed, he may immediately serve in the Temple without immersion. What is there to say in that case?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讬诇讛 讘爪专注转 讗讬 谞诪讬 爪讬爪讬转 讜讻诇讗讬诐 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚诪转注拽专 诇讗讜 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 注砖讛 讛讻讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚诪转注拽专 诇诇讗讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 注砖讛

Rather, Rav Ashi said that this is the reason that leprosy overrides the Temple service: Where do we say that a positive mitzva overrides a negative mitzva? It is in cases like circumcision in a case of leprosy, or alternatively, ritual fringes and diverse kinds of wool and linen, as at the time the negative mitzva is uprooted, the positive mitzva is fulfilled in the very same action, e.g., when the ritual fringes are woolen and will be attached to a linen garment, a prohibited mixture is created. However, here, in the case of a person afflicted with pure symptoms of leprosy cutting off his symptoms to enable his involvement in the Temple service, it is different, at the time the negative mitzva is uprooted, the positive mitzva is not yet fulfilled, as cutting off the symptoms is only a preliminary action that enables him to serve. In that case, the positive mitzva does not override the negative one.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讗 讜专讘 住驻专讗

The Gemara points out that this disagreement between Rava and Rav Safra

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time: Shabbat 131-137

This week we will review key concepts in Daf 131-137 including when and how does Brit Milah, circumcision, override Shabbat,...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 132: The Rock Paper Scissors of Overriding Shabbat

More brit milah on Shabbat - everyone accepts that milah overrides Shabbat: it's Halakhah! From brit milah, we infer that...

Shabbat 132

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 132

砖讻谉 讗诐 注讘专 讝诪谞讛 讘讟诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

in each, as if its time passed, it is void, unlike the mitzva of circumcision, which can be fulfilled at a later date if the child is not circumcised on the eighth day. Rather, this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as the verse says: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3), indicating that he is circumcised on the eighth day even if it falls on Shabbat.

讜诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪讬诇讛 讜诇讬转讜 讛谞讱 讜诇讬讙诪讜专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪讬诇讛 砖讻谉 谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转:

The Gemara asks: And let the Torah write this principle only with regard to the mitzva of circumcision, and let these other mitzvot come and derive their halakhot from it. The Gemara answers: Because this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the mitzva of circumcision? That thirteen covenants were established over it, as the word covenant is mentioned thirteen times in the passage dealing with the circumcision of Abraham (Genesis 17). Owing to its great significance, other mitzvot cannot be derived from it.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讻砖讬专讬 诪讬诇讛 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讙讜驻讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛诇讻讛

The Gemara departs from the facilitators of circumcision to the halakha of circumcision itself and asks: The Rabbis only disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to actions that facilitate circumcision, which, in their view, do not override Shabbat; however, with regard to circumcision itself, everyone agrees that it overrides Shabbat. From where do we derive this halakha? Ulla said: This is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, but there is no biblical basis for it. And so too, Rabbi Yitz岣k said: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪谞讬讬谉 诇驻讬拽讜讞 谞驻砖 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪讛 诪讬诇讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讞转 诪讗讬讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇驻讬拽讜讞 谞驻砖 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta: From where is it derived that saving a life overrides Shabbat? Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says it is derived from the mitzva of circumcision: Just as circumcision, which pertains to only one of a person鈥檚 limbs, overrides Shabbat, all the more so it is an a fortiori inference that saving a life, which is a mitzva that pertains to the entire person, overrides Shabbat.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛诇讻讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛诇讻讛 诪讬 讗转讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘谉 注讝专讬讛) 注拽讬讘讗 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 诪讟诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛诇讻讛

And if it should enter your mind to say that circumcision may be performed on Shabbat based on a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, is an a fortiori inference derived from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Wasn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita that an a fortiori inference cannot be derived from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? Rabbi Akiva sought to derive that a nazirite who comes into contact with a quarter log of blood from a corpse becomes ritually impure and is required to shave his hair. He sought to do this based on an a fortiori inference from the halakha of the bone from a dead person the size of a grain of barley, as he had a received tradition that a nazirite is required to shave his hair due to that contact. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, the halakha that a bone the size of a grain of barley transmits ritual impurity is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and you would derive from it that a quarter of a log of blood transmits ritual impurity based upon an a fortiori inference, and one does not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Tosefta explicitly states that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya himself derived an a fortiori inference from the halakha of circumcision on Shabbat. Clearly, then, it is derived from the Torah itself and not from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗转讬讗 讗讜转 讗讜转

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: This halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word sign that appears with regard to circumcision: 鈥淎nd you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you鈥 (Genesis 17:11), and sign that appears with regard to Shabbat: 鈥淗owever, you shall keep My Shabbatot, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 31:13). From this verbal analogy, it is derived that circumcision, which is a sign, may be performed even on Shabbat, which is itself a sign.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛谉 讗讜转 诇讬讚讞讬 砖讘转

The Gemara asks: But if what you say is so, phylacteries, with regard to which the term sign is also written: 鈥淎nd it shall be for a sign on your hand and for frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Exodus 13:16), should also override Shabbat, and they should be donned on that day.

讗诇讗 讗转讬讗 讘专讬转 讘专讬转

Rather, this principle is derived by means of a different verbal analogy from the word covenant that appears with regard to circumcision: 鈥淎nd you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you鈥 (Genesis 17:11), and the word covenant that appears with regard to Shabbat: 鈥淭he children of Israel shall keep the Shabbat, to observe the Shabbat throughout their generations for a perpetual covenant鈥 (Exodus 31:16).

讙讚讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘专讬转 诇讬讚讞讬 砖讘转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If this is so, then the circumcision of an adult should also be permitted on Shabbat and it should not be limited to a child on the eighth day, as the term covenant is written with regard to him as well, as it applies to any Jewish male not yet circumcised. Therefore, let his circumcision override Shabbat. The halakha, however, is that only circumcision at its proper time on the eighth day overrides Shabbat.

讗诇讗 讗转讬讗 讚讜专讜转 讚讜专讜转

Rather, this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word generations that appears with regard to Shabbat: 鈥淭hroughout their generations for a perpetual covenant鈥 (Exodus 31:16), and the word generations that appears with regard to circumcision: 鈥淎nd I shall establish My covenant between Me and you, and between your seed after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant鈥 (Genesis 17:7).

爪讬爪讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讚讜专讜转 诇讬讚讞讬 砖讘转

The Gemara asks: If so, let ritual fringes too, with regard to which the term generations is also written, override Shabbat, and it should be permitted to affix ritual fringes to a garment on Shabbat.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转 讘专讬转 讜讚讜专讜转 诪讗讜转 讘专讬转 讜讚讜专讜转 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛谞讱 讚讞讚 讞讚 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛谉

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This halakha is derived not from one common word alone, but one derives it based upon the three words sign, covenant, and generations that appear with regard to circumcision, from sign, covenant, and generations that appear with regard to Shabbat, to the exclusion of these, i.e., ritual fringes and phylacteries, that with regard to each of them, one of these is written but not all three words together.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讬讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The verse says: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day鈥hall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3), which means that the child is circumcised on the eighth day whenever it occurs, even on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讚讞讜 砖讘转 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: But if what you say is so, then, with regard to those lacking atonement, such as a zav or a healed leper, who must after their immersion still bring an atonement offering in order to complete their purification process, with regard to whom the term on the day is also written, as in the verse: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish鈥 (Leviticus 14:10), sacrificing their atonement offerings should also override Shabbat. Rabbi Yo岣nan responded: That verse is necessary to teach that the sacrifice must be brought during the day and not at night.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讘谉 砖诪谞转 讬诪讬诐 谞驻拽讗

Reish Lakish asked: This verse with regard to the mitzva of circumcision is also necessary to teach that circumcision must be performed during the day and not at night. Rabbi Yo岣nan replied: That is derived from a different verse, which states: 鈥淎nd he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you throughout your generations鈥 (Genesis 17:12). That circumcision must take place during the day is derived from that verse.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讘讬讜诐 爪讜讜转讜 谞驻拽讗

Reish Lakish says: That matter, that the atonement offering must be sacrificed during the day, can also be derived from a different verse, as it is stated: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings; which the Lord commanded Moses at Mount Sinai on the day He commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings to the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai鈥 (Leviticus 7:37鈥38), and from here it is derived that all offerings are sacrificed by day and not at night.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞驻拽讗 诪讘讬讜诐 爪讜讜转讜 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 讘讚诇讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讬转讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Although this halakha is derived from: 鈥淥n the day He commanded,鈥 an additional source is necessary for those lacking atonement. It might have entered your mind to say that since the Torah shows him mercy by allowing him to bring an offering of poverty, as if one cannot afford to sacrifice the regular atonement offering, the Torah enables him to sacrifice a less costly one, let him also bring it at night, as perhaps the Torah shows him mercy and allows him to hasten his atonement. Therefore, it teaches us that he too must bring his offering only by day and not at night.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讛讗 讝专 讻砖专 讘讛谉 讜讬讛讗 讗讜谞谉 讻砖专 讘讛谉 讛讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗

Ravina strongly objects to this reasoning: But if what you say is so, that the Torah has compassion on a person lacking atonement and is lenient with regard to the halakhot of the atonement offering, a non-priest should be fit to sacrifice them, and similarly, a priest who is an acute mourner, i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, should be fit to sacrifice them. The Gemara answers: The verse has restored this. The additional verse that teaches that even one lacking atonement must sacrifice during the day, also teaches that the Torah was lenient with regard to this offering only in the ways explicitly stated in the Torah.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诪讬谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: There is a different proof from the Torah that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat, for the verse said: 鈥淥n the eighth day,鈥 underscoring that circumcision is performed specifically on the eighth day and indicating that it is performed even on Shabbat.

讛讗讬 砖诪讬谞讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讘讬注讬 砖讘讬注讬 诪讘谉 砖诪谞转 讬诪讬诐 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This usage of the term eighth is necessary to exclude the seventh day, i.e., a child may not be circumcised before the eighth day. The Gemara answers: The fact that one may not circumcise on the seventh day is derived from a different verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you throughout your generations鈥 (Genesis 17:12).

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讘讬注讬 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 转砖讬注讬 讚讗讬 诪讞讚 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讘讬注讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讗讘诇 诪砖诪讬谞讬 讜讗讬诇讱 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Both verses are still necessary, one to exclude the seventh day and one to exclude the ninth day. As if it were derived from one verse alone, I would have said: It is on the seventh day that one may not circumcise, since the time to circumcise this child has not yet arrived and the obligation of circumcision is not yet in effect; however, from the eighth day and onward is its time, and therefore it is permissible to postpone a circumcision until the ninth day. No answer was found to this question, and the Gemara concludes: Rather, the derivation is clear according to Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘砖讗专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬诇讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诇讛 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讞讜抓 诪砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and not in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, as the tanna interprets the phrase: 鈥淥n the eighth day he shall be circumcised鈥 to mean that the circumcision must be performed even on Shabbat. And how do I fulfill the prohibition against performing prohibited labor explicit in the Torah in the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall guard the Shabbat, for it is holy to you; he who desecrates it shall surely die鈥 (Exodus 31:14)? That is referring to other prohibited labors besides circumcision. The tanna questions his previous statement: Or perhaps that is not the case, and the prohibition of performing prohibited labor on Shabbat includes even circumcision, and, on the contrary, how do I fulfill the verse: 鈥淥n the eighth day he shall be circumcised鈥? It applies when the eighth day is any day other than Shabbat. The verse states: 鈥淥n the day,鈥 meaning on that very day when he turns eight days old, even on Shabbat. The tanna of this baraita rejects Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 proof and accepts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 assertion that the phrase 鈥淥n the day鈥 conclusively establishes that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛

With regard to this baraita, Rava said: Initially, what did this tanna find acceptable, and ultimately, what did he find difficult? Initially he suggested that: 鈥淥n the eighth day he shall be circumcised鈥 is a valid source for the fact that circumcision overrides Shabbat, but ultimately, he deemed that difficult and turned to an alternative source, yet provided no reason, neither for his initial statement nor for his second statement.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘砖讗专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬诇讛 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讚讞讬讗

Rather, we can explain that this is what he is saying: 鈥淥n the eighth day he shall be circumcised鈥 applies even on Shabbat. And how do I fulfill: 鈥淗e who desecrates it shall surely die鈥? That is referring to the other prohibited labors besides circumcision; however, circumcision overrides Shabbat.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 爪专注转 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛注讘讜讚讛

What is the reason for this? It is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as leprosy, which overrides the Temple service, as a priest who is a leper may not serve in the Temple and it is prohibited to cut off the symptoms of leprosy,

讜注讘讜讚讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛 砖讘转 砖谞讚讞讬转 诪驻谞讬 讛注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讛讗 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛

and the Temple service overrides Shabbat, as Shabbat offerings are sacrificed at their appointed time, and nevertheless circumcision overrides leprosy, i.e., if there were symptoms of leprosy on the foreskin of the baby, one circumcises the child even though he thereby violates the prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy; therefore, with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden by the Temple service, is it not logical that circumcision, which is so stringent that it overrides leprosy, overrides Shabbat as well? This was the tanna鈥檚 reasoning at the outset.

讜诪讗讬 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讛讚专 讗诪专 讜诪诪讗讬 讚爪专注转 讞诪讜专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讘转 讞诪讜专讛 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛 注讜谞砖讬谉 讜讗讝讛专讜转 讛专讘讛 (讗讬 谞诪讬) 讜诪诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讬专讗 爪专注转 讛讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讞讜抓 诪砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转:

And what was the reason the tanna said: Or perhaps, and questioned his previous statement? He reconsidered and said: And from where do we know that leprosy is more stringent than Shabbat? Perhaps Shabbat is more stringent, as it includes the severe punishments of karet and execution by stoning, and numerous warnings pertaining to it throughout the Torah. Alternatively, and from where do we know that the reason the Temple service does not override the prohibition of leprosy is specifically because leprosy is more stringent than the Temple service? Perhaps the Temple service does not override the prohibition of leprosy because a man afflicted with leprosy is unfit to perform the Temple service and not due to the stringency of the prohibition to remove symptoms of leprosy from one鈥檚 body. And if so, how do I establish the verse: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3)? That it applies to days other than Shabbat. Consequently, the tanna cited additional proof from that which the Torah states: 鈥淥n the day,鈥 indicating that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛爪专注转 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谞讛 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讘诇讘讚

The Sages taught: Circumcision overrides leprosy. The foreskin is cut even if it has symptoms of leprosy on it, despite the fact that there is a Torah prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy. This is the halakha both when the circumcision takes place at its appointed time, on the eighth day, or when it is not performed at its appointed time but after the eighth day. However, circumcision overrides a Festival only when performed at its appointed time.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转 讬拽讜抓 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讛砖诪专 讘谞讙注 讛爪专注转 讘砖讗专 诪拽讜诪讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3), since this verse is stated in general terms, it teaches that even though there is a bright white leprous spot there, he should cut it. And how do I establish the verse: 鈥淭ake care with regard to the plague of leprosy to take great care and to perform in accordance with all that the priests, the Levites, instruct you; as I commanded them you shall take care to perform鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:8)? Does usage of the term 鈥渢ake care鈥 indicate that there is a negative mitzva that prohibits cutting off symptoms of leprosy? We establish this prohibition as applying in other places, other than the place of a circumcision.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诇讛 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讘讛专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转

The tanna asks: Or perhaps that is not the case; rather, this prohibition applies even in the place of circumcision, and how do I validate the verse: 鈥淭he flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥? It applies when there is no bright white leprous spot on the foreskin. So that we will not interpret the verse that way, the verse states the superfluous word flesh. It would have been sufficient to state: His foreskin shall be circumcised, but instead the verse stated: 鈥淭he flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,鈥 indicating that the foreskin must be removed even though there is a bright white spot there.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛

Rava said: Initially, what did this tanna find acceptable, and ultimately, what did he find difficult? At first he assumed that the mitzva of circumcision is more stringent, but he ultimately rejected this assumption with no explanation.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 讘讛专转 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讛砖诪专 讘谞讙注 讛爪专注转 讘砖讗专 诪拽讜诪讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬诇讛 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛爪专注转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗转讬讗 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖讘转 讞诪讜专讛 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛 爪专注转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rather, this is what he is saying: Initially he held that the phrase: The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised teaches that it is permitted to remove the foreskin even though there is a bright white spot there. And how do I validate the following verse: Take care with regard to the plague of leprosy? It applies in other places, aside from the place of circumcision, but circumcision overrides leprosy. What is the reason for this? It is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as Shabbat is stringent and nevertheless circumcision overrides it, all the more so that circumcision overrides leprosy, which is less stringent than Shabbat.

讜诪讗讬 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讛讚专 拽讗诪专 诪诪讗讬 讚砖讘转 讞诪讬专讗 讚讬诇诪讗 爪专注转 讞诪讬专讗 砖讻谉 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转

And what was the reason for the term or perhaps that the tanna is saying to question his previous statement? He reconsidered and said: From where do we know that Shabbat is more stringent? Perhaps leprosy is more stringent, as leprosy overrides the Temple service, as stated earlier, and the Temple service overrides Shabbat. Therefore, the verse states the additional word flesh, to teach that the foreskin is removed even though there is a bright white leprous spot there.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪讬诇讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛爪专注转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜诪讗讬 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讛讚专 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讙专讬讚讗 讛讗讬 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讘讛专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转

The Gemara cites another version of Rava鈥檚 comments. Initially the tanna thought that circumcision overrides leprosy. What is the reason for this? He relied on the principle that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a negative mitzva. And what was the reason the tanna is saying: Or perhaps to question his previous statement? He reconsidered and said: Say that we say that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a negative mitzva when there is a negative mitzva alone. However, this cutting off leprosy is prohibited by both a positive mitzva and a negative mitzva. And how do I establish the verse: The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised? It applies only when there is no bright white spot on the foreskin. Therefore, the verse states the additional word flesh in order to emphasize that the foreskin is removed, even though there is a bright white spot there.

转讬谞讞 讙讚讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讘砖专 拽讟谉 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘砖专 讘讬谞讜谞讬 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara questions the derivation from the word flesh: This works out well with regard to the circumcision of an adult who has not yet been circumcised, as the word flesh is written with regard to adults in the verse: 鈥淎nd an uncircumcised male who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from its people; My covenant he has broken鈥 (Genesis 17:14). Similarly, it works out well with regard to a minor who is circumcised on the eighth day, as the superfluous word flesh is also written with regard to him. However, with regard to a person at an intermediate stage of life, i.e., a child who was not circumcised on the eighth day but has not yet reached majority, from where do we derive that his circumcision overrides leprosy? The Torah explicitly mandates his circumcision: 鈥淐ircumcise for yourselves every male鈥 (Genesis 17:10). However, that verse does not employ the term flesh.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗转讬讗 诪讘讬谞讬讗 诪讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讗转讬讗 砖讻谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转 诪拽讟谉 诇讗 讗转讬讗 砖讻谉 诪讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 谞讬诪讜诇讬谉 讜讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛爪专注转 讗祝 讻诇 砖谞讬诪讜诇讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛爪专注转

Abaye said: It is derived from a combination of the two sources about the status of a child at the intermediate stage, from the common denominator between an eight-day-old and one who reached majority. From an adult alone, the halakha with regard to an intermediate child cannot be derived, as an adult is punishable by karet if he fails to circumcise himself, but an intermediate child is not punishable by karet. Likewise, from the case of an eight-day-old child, the case of an intermediate child cannot be derived; since the circumcision at its time overrides Shabbat it may also override leprosy. However, the common denominator between an eight-day-old and an adult is that they are circumcised and their circumcision overrides leprosy. So too, all who are circumcised, including those in the intermediate stage, override leprosy.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 拽专讗 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗转讬讗 讜诪讛 砖讘转 讚讞诪讬专讗 讚讜讞讛 爪专注转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rava said: No verse is required to teach that circumcision at its appointed time overrides leprosy, as it is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as circumcision overrides Shabbat, which is more stringent than leprosy, all the more so that circumcision overrides leprosy.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚砖讘转 讞诪讬专讗 讚讬诇诪讗 爪专注转 讞诪讬专讗 砖讻谉 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛注讘讜讚讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讬专讗 爪专注转 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讗诪讗讬 讜讬拽讜抓 讘讛专转讜 讜讬注讘讜讚 诪讞讜住专 讟讘讬诇讛 讛讜讗

Rav Safra said to Rava: From where do we know that Shabbat is more stringent? Perhaps leprosy is more stringent, as leprosy overrides the Temple service, and the Temple service overrides Shabbat. Rava answered: There, when leprosy overrides the Temple service, it is not because leprosy is more stringent; rather, it is because the man afflicted with leprosy is unfit for the Temple service. Rav Safra asked: Why is he unfit? Let him cut off his bright white leprous spot and serve. Rava answered: He would remain unfit to serve, as he is lacking immersion. In order to purify himself for service in the Temple, he must immerse himself and wait until the following day. In the meantime he is unfit.

转讬谞讞 谞讙注讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 谞讙注讬诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rav Safra raised a difficulty: It works out well if we are referring to impure symptoms of leprosy, as even one who removes them must immerse afterward. However, with regard to pure symptoms of leprosy, there is a prohibition to cut off the symptoms even though there is no impurity. They have the legal status of blemishes that invalidate a priest from serving until it is cured. Once the bright white spot is removed, he may immediately serve in the Temple without immersion. What is there to say in that case?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗转讬 注砖讛 讜讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讬诇讛 讘爪专注转 讗讬 谞诪讬 爪讬爪讬转 讜讻诇讗讬诐 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚诪转注拽专 诇讗讜 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 注砖讛 讛讻讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚诪转注拽专 诇诇讗讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 注砖讛

Rather, Rav Ashi said that this is the reason that leprosy overrides the Temple service: Where do we say that a positive mitzva overrides a negative mitzva? It is in cases like circumcision in a case of leprosy, or alternatively, ritual fringes and diverse kinds of wool and linen, as at the time the negative mitzva is uprooted, the positive mitzva is fulfilled in the very same action, e.g., when the ritual fringes are woolen and will be attached to a linen garment, a prohibited mixture is created. However, here, in the case of a person afflicted with pure symptoms of leprosy cutting off his symptoms to enable his involvement in the Temple service, it is different, at the time the negative mitzva is uprooted, the positive mitzva is not yet fulfilled, as cutting off the symptoms is only a preliminary action that enables him to serve. In that case, the positive mitzva does not override the negative one.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讗 讜专讘 住驻专讗

The Gemara points out that this disagreement between Rava and Rav Safra

Scroll To Top