Why do we need a drasha to teach us that brit milah overrides the prohibition to cut a leprous mark – isn’t it an act that one does without intention and one should be exempt? From where do we derive that brit milah done not on the eighth day does not override Yom Tov (and obviously, Shabbat). Four answers are brought. Rav Yehuda paskens in the name of Rav like Rabbi Akiva that preparations for milah do not override Shabbat. He also holds like Rabbi Akiva regarding the same issue with the Pashal sacrifice. Why does he need to say this in both cases – wouldn’t it be obvious we can learn from one to the other? All things relating directly to the brit milah override Shabbat – the mishna states what that includes. The gemara says it even includes pieces of the skin that are left that are necessary as part of the mitzvah to remove. However, if they do not prevent the mitzvah from being fulfilled, one can only remove them if one is still in the process of cutting but once the mohel has stopped, he cannot cut those pieces. The gemara tries to connect this opinion with a tanna who in a different case who holds that once one stops, the action is no longer connected with the previous one. Three different tannaitic arguments are brought – the first two are rejected. Why is metzitza allowed? The gemara discusses bandages as mentioned in the mishna and Rava taught how to make a good bandage and as a result got some people upset as he “stole” their business as they knew how to do this and would sell to others. Rava tries to appease them.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Shabbat 133
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״בָּשָׂר״ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת — ״יִמּוֹל״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, שַׁבָּת חֲמוּרָה — דּוֹחָה, צָרַעַת — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.
is a dispute of tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: The term flesh comes to teach that even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says: There is no need for this derivation from the word flesh in the verse. Rather, the same law can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If circumcision overrides Shabbat, which is stringent, all the more so that it overrides leprosy.
אָמַר מָר: ״בָּשָׂר״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת — ״יִמּוֹל״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. הָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר!
We earlier learned that the Master said: When the verse states the term flesh, it comes to teach that even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan agrees with this halakha, albeit for a different reason. The Gemara addresses the fundamental question: Why do I need a verse to derive this? The removal of leprous skin is an unintentional act. One does not intend to cut the symptom of leprosy; he intended to circumcise the baby. And the general rule is that an unintentional act is permitted. Consequently, there is no need for a special derivation in this case.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״. וְאַבָּיֵי לֵית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! בָּתַר דְּשַׁמְעַהּ מֵרָבָא סַבְרַהּ.
Abaye said: This derivation is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., an unintentional act from which a prohibited labor ensued as an inevitable consequence. In that case, the one who performs the action cannot claim that the outcome was unintended. In the case of circumcising a leprous foreskin, the removal of leprosy is an inevitable consequence of the circumcision. The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t it Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: If you cut off its head will it not die? The Gemara answers: After Abaye heard this principle from Rava, he accepted it.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לְהָא דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא אַהָא: ״הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת לִשְׁמֹר מְאֹד וְלַעֲשׂוֹת״, לַעֲשׂוֹת אִי אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה אַתָּה בְּסִיב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלוֹ, וּבְמוֹט שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי כְּתֵיפוֹ, וְאִם עָבְרָה — עָבְרָה.
Some teach that which Abaye and Rava said as referring to this baraita. The verse states: “Take heed with regard to the plague of leprosy that you observe diligently and do in accordance with all that the priests, the Levites, instruct you; as I commanded them you shall take care to do” (Deuteronomy 24:8). The Sages derived from here that to do something in order to remove leprosy directly, you may not do; but you may do something that will indirectly remove one’s symptom, such as tying a thick rope on his foot, and placing a rod on his shoulder. This is permitted even though there is a bright white spot present, and if the bright white spot is thereby removed, it is removed.
וְהָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר. וְרָבָא אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״. וְאַבָּיֵי לֵית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! לְבָתַר דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ מֵרָבָא סַבְרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to address this? It is an unintentional act, and an unintentional act is permitted. Abaye said: This derivation is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of: If you cut off its head will it not die? The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t it Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die? The Gemara answers: After Abaye heard this principle from Rava, he accepted it.
וְאַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״בְּשַׂר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: בְּאוֹמֵר לָקוֹץ בַּהַרְתּוֹ הוּא מִתְכַּוֵּין.
The Gemara clarifies: According to Abaye’s initial understanding of the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, i.e., even the inevitable consequence of an unintended act is permitted, what does he do with this term flesh, which appears in the verse with regard to circumcision? Rav Amram said: This term teaches that even in a case where the person who is circumcising himself says explicitly that his intention is also to cut off the bright white spot, the circumcision nonetheless overrides the prohibition to remove symptoms of leprosy.
תִּינַח גָּדוֹל, קָטָן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: בְּאוֹמֵר אֲבִי הַבֵּן לָקוֹץ בַּהֶרֶת דִּבְנוֹ הוּא קָא מִתְכַּוֵּין.
The Gemara asks: This works out well in the case of an adult who intends to perform the prohibited act. With regard to the circumcision of a minor, who has no intention at all, what is there to say, i.e., how does this teaching apply? Rav Mesharshiya said: The teaching applies in a case where the father of the circumcised child says that his intention is to cut off his son’s bright white leprous spot.
וְאִי אִיכָּא אַחֵר, לֶיעְבֵּיד אַחֵר! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים שְׁנֵיהֶם מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. דְּלֵיכָּא אַחֵר.
The Gemara asks: In that case, if there is another person present who can circumcise the child, let the other person perform the circumcision. Presumably the other person will not intend to excise the bright white spot but rather will intend to fulfill the mitzva of circumcision, and no transgression will be committed, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Any place that you find positive and negative mitzvot that clash with one another, if you can find some way to fulfill both, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva will come and override the negative mitzva. Here it is possible to fulfill both the positive and negative mitzvot by having another person perform the circumcision. The Gemara answers: This is a case where there is no other person to perform circumcision; only the boy’s father can circumcise him. Therefore, a particular verse is needed to teach us that the mitzva of circumcision overrides the prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy.
אָמַר מָר: יוֹם טוֹב אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ בִּלְבַד. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
We learned earlier that the Master said that circumcision only overrides a Festival when the circumcision takes place at its proper time, on the eighth day after birth. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן לוֹ בֹּקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ.
Ḥizkiya said, and likewise one of the Sages of the school of Ḥizkiya taught: The verse states with regard to the Paschal lamb: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). This verse contains a superfluous phrase, as the Torah did not need to state until morning the second time; it would have been sufficient to state: But that which remains of it you shall burn with fire. Rather, why does the Torah state until morning? The verse comes to provide him with the second morning for burning. Leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following day, the first of the intermediate days of the Festival. Even though the labor of kindling a fire is not entirely prohibited on a Festival, as one may cook and bake, it is derived from here that kindling a fire is permitted only for the purpose of preparing food for the immediate needs of the day and not for purposes that can be postponed until the intermediate days. Similarly, since circumcision involves a prohibited labor, it is permitted on the eighth day only when there is no option of postponing it. Otherwise, doing so is prohibited.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״עוֹלַת שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ״, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּיוֹם טוֹב.
Abaye said there is a different source for the fact that only circumcision on the eighth day overrides the Festival, as the verse stated: “The burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its Shabbat in addition to the continual burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:10). This verse teaches that one may not sacrifice the burnt-offering of a weekday on Shabbat, and one may not sacrifice the burnt-offering of a weekday on a Festival. Although slaughtering is permitted on a Festival for sustenance, it is nevertheless prohibited to slaughter animals for sacrifices other than those specifically mandated on the Festival. Temple service only overrides prohibited labor in the case of Temple service that is an essential obligation of that day. Similarly, circumcision only overrides the prohibition of labor when it is an essential obligation of that day, which is the case only on the eighth day; it is not the case after the eighth day.
רָבָא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא לְבַדּוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה לָכֶם״, ״הוּא״ — וְלֹא מַכְשִׁירִין. ״לְבַדּוֹ״ — וְלֹא מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ, דְּאָתְיָא מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר.
Rava said there is a different proof, as the verse states with regard to Festivals: “And in the first day there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat; that alone may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). The superfluous term “that” in the verse teaches the following: That which is necessary for food preparation itself is permitted and not actions that facilitate food preparation or which prepare utensils necessary for eating. Similarly, “that alone may be done” teaches: Only food preparation may be performed and not circumcision that is not at its appointed time, which could have been derived through an a fortiori inference. Therefore, the verse emphasizes that “that alone” may be performed, to teach that prohibited labors are permitted for sustenance on a Festival, and are not permitted for other mitzvot.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״שַׁבָּתוֹן״ — עֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹם טוֹב עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה.
Rav Ashi said: The mitzvot of a Festival include not only a negative mitzva but also a positive one. There is a prohibition of labor as well as Shabbaton, an obligation to engage in solemn rest, which is a positive mitzva, and therefore the observance of a Festival constitutes both a positive mitzva and a negative mitzva. And there is a principle that a positive mitzva does not override both a negative mitzva and a positive mitzva.
כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
We learned in the mishna: A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat; however, any prohibited labor that cannot be performed on Shabbat eve overrides Shabbat. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in this matter.
וּתְנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי פֶסַח כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא: כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כׇּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
And we also learned in a mishna pertaining to the Paschal lamb, in a similar vein: A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat. By contrast, the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb, which cannot be performed on Shabbat eve, as it has a fixed time from the Torah, overrides Shabbat. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי מִילָה: הָתָם הוּא דְּמַכְשִׁירִין אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵאֶתְמוֹל לָא דָּחוּ שַׁבָּת דְּלֵיכָּא כָּרֵת, אֲבָל פֶּסַח דְּאִיכָּא כָּרֵת — אֵימָא לִידְחוֹ שַׁבָּת.
The Gemara comments: And both statements that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva were necessary. As had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only with regard to circumcision, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that facilitators that can be performed the day before do not override Shabbat, as there is no punishment of karet if the circumcision is delayed, as liability for karet only applies when the child becomes obligated in mitzvot and chooses not to circumcise himself. However, with regard to the Paschal lamb, where there is karet for one who fails to offer the sacrifice at its proper time, one would say that those facilitators should override Shabbat. Therefore, it was necessary for Rav to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the Paschal lamb.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי פֶסַח, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת. אֲבָל מִילָה דְּנִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת — אֵימָא לִידְחוֹ שַׁבָּת, צְרִיכָא.
And if Rav had taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only with regard to the Paschal lamb, the conclusion would have been that the reason that facilitators that can be performed on the eve of the Festival do not override the Festival is because thirteen covenants were not established upon the Paschal lamb, and it is therefore not so significant. However, with regard to circumcision, upon which thirteen covenants were established, the conclusion would have been that even actions that facilitate the mitzva that could have been performed on Shabbat eve should override Shabbat. It was therefore necessary to teach that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva in both cases.
מַתְנִי׳ עוֹשִׂין כׇּל צׇרְכֵי מִילָה [בְּשַׁבָּת]: מוֹהֲלִין וּפוֹרְעִין וּמוֹצְצִין וְנוֹתְנִין עָלֶיהָ אִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן.
MISHNA: When the eighth day of a baby’s life occurs on Shabbat, he must be circumcised on that day. Therefore, one performs all the necessities of the circumcision, even on Shabbat: One circumcises the foreskin, and uncovers the skin by removing the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, and sucks the blood from the wound, and places on it both a bandage [ispelanit] and cumin as a salve.
אִם לֹא שָׁחַק מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — לוֹעֵס בְּשִׁינָּיו וְנוֹתֵן. אִם לֹא טָרַף יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — נוֹתֵן זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ.
If one did not grind the cumin from Shabbat eve, he chews it with his teeth and places it on the place of circumcision as a salve. If he did not mix wine and oil on Shabbat eve, a mixture designed to heal and strengthen the child, this, the wine, is placed on the wound by itself and that, the oil, is placed by itself.
וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין לָהּ חָלוּק לְכַתְּחִילָּה, אֲבָל כּוֹרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ סְמַרְטוּט. אִם לֹא הִתְקִין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — כּוֹרֵךְ עַל אֶצְבָּעוֹ וּמֵבִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ מֵחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת.
And on Shabbat one may not make a pouch to place over the circumcision as a bandage ab initio, but he may wrap a rag over it as a dressing. If he did not prepare the bandage on Shabbat eve by bringing it to the place where the circumcision was performed, he wraps the bandage on his finger and brings it on Shabbat, even from a different courtyard. While the Sages permitted it to be brought, they required that it be performed in an unusual fashion, by wearing it in the manner of a garment.
גְּמָ׳ מִכְּדֵי קָתָנֵי כּוּלְּהוּ, ״כׇּל צוֹרְכֵי מִילָה״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Since the mishna is teaching all of them, i.e., enumerated all the requirements of circumcision, when the mishna added: One performs all the requirements of circumcision even on Shabbat, what did it come to include?
לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמָּל, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא עוֹסֵק בַּמִּילָה — חוֹזֵר בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה. פֵּירַשׁ, עַל צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — חוֹזֵר, עַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר.
The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which the Sages taught in a baraita: One who circumcises on Shabbat, as long as he is engaged in the circumcision, he may return and remove shreds of skin that were not cut properly. This is the ruling both for shreds of skin and flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut, i.e., the child is not considered circumcised if they remain, and for shreds that do not invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. But if the circumcisor has withdrawn from engaging in the mitzva of circumcision, he may return for shreds that invalidate the circumcision if they were not cut, as the mitzva has not yet been properly performed, but he may not return for shreds that do not invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. Consequently, when the mishna refers to all the requirements of circumcision, it means that as long as one is still involved in the act of circumcision, one may go back and remove even pieces of skin that do not invalidate the circumcision.
מַאן תַּנָּא פֵּירַשׁ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת — מַפְשִׁיט אָדָם הַפֶּסַח עַד הֶחָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַפְשִׁיטִין אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.
With regard to this law, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that if one has already withdrawn from a mitzva he may not return to engage in its performance? Which tanna asserts that as long as a person is involved in a mitzva whose performance overrides Shabbat, he may complete it; however, if he is no longer involved in the mitzva, he may not exceed the minimum requirements if doing so would desecrate Shabbat? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as it was taught in a baraita: In a case of the fourteenth of Nisan, the day the Paschal lamb is sacrificed, that occurs on Shabbat, one flays the Paschal lamb until he exposes the breast, in order to remove the portions that are offered on the altar, but one does not flay anymore, as it is not necessary for the mitzva of the day; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. And the Rabbis say: One may even flay the entire hide.
מִמַּאי? עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הָתָם — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״. אֲבָל הָכָא — דְּבָעֵינַן ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הָכִי נָמֵי.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: From where do you draw this comparison? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, only stated his opinion that one may do no more than the minimum requirement there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, because we do not need to fulfill the mitzva of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). The manner in which the animal is flayed does not impact the mitzva of the sacrifice. However, here, with regard to circumcision, where we need to fulfill the mitzva of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him,” which requires performing the circumcision in a beautiful manner, indeed, Rabbi Yishmael would agree that the mitzva must be performed as aesthetically as possible.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הִתְנָאֵה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת: עֲשֵׂה לְפָנָיו סוּכָּה נָאָה, וְלוּלָב נָאֶה, וְשׁוֹפָר נָאֶה, צִיצִית נָאָה, סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה נָאֶה, וּכְתוֹב בּוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ בִּדְיוֹ נָאֶה, בְּקוּלְמוֹס נָאֶה, בְּלַבְלָר אוּמָּן, וְכוֹרְכוֹ בְּשִׁירָאִין נָאִין.
What is the source for the requirement of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him”? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [anveihu], the Lord of my father and I will raise Him up.” The Sages interpreted anveihu homiletically as linguistically related to noi, beauty, and interpreted the verse: Beautify yourself before Him in mitzvot. Even if one fulfills the mitzva by performing it simply, it is nonetheless proper to perform the mitzva as beautifully as possible. Make before Him a beautiful sukka, a beautiful lulav, a beautiful shofar, beautiful ritual fringes, beautiful parchment for a Torah scroll, and write in it in His name in beautiful ink, with a beautiful quill by an expert scribe, and wrap the scroll in beautiful silk fabric.
אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: ״וְאַנְוֵהוּ״ — הֱוֵי דּוֹמֶה לוֹ, מָה הוּא חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם — אַף אַתָּה הֱיֵה חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם.
Abba Shaul says: Ve’anveihu should be interpreted as if it were written in two words: Ani vaHu, me and Him [God]. Be similar, as it were, to Him, the Almighty: Just as He is compassionate and merciful, so too should you be compassionate and merciful. In any case, there is no proof from Rabbi Yishmael’s statement with regard to the Paschal lamb that he would say the same with regard to circumcision, as in that case, he might agree that fulfilling the mitzva beautifully justifies overriding Shabbat.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: בֵּין שֶׁנִּרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל, וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל — מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: נִרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל — אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: This should be understood differently. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita with regard to circumcision? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As we learned in a mishna: Whether the new moon was clearly seen by everyone or whether it was not clearly seen, one may desecrate Shabbat in order to sanctify the New Moon. Eyewitnesses who saw the appearance of the moon may desecrate Shabbat in order to go to court and testify. Rabbi Yosei says: If the moon was clearly seen, they may not desecrate Shabbat for it, since other witnesses, located nearer to the court, will certainly testify. If these distant witnesses go to court to testify, they will desecrate Shabbat unnecessarily. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei holds that if the basic requirements of a mitzva have already been fulfilled, one may no longer desecrate Shabbat in its performance.
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָתָם, דְּלֹא נִיתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִידָּחוֹת, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּנִיתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִידָּחוֹת — הָכִי נָמֵי.
The Gemara rejects this: From where do you draw this comparison? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei only stated his opinion there, in the case of sanctification of the New Moon, because there no allowance was made for Shabbat to be overridden. Given that the moon was clearly seen and testimony to that effect could have been delivered easily, there was no need for additional witnesses to come and desecrate Shabbat, and the prohibition to desecrate Shabbat remained in place. However, here, in the case of circumcision, where allowance was made for Shabbat desecration, as it is permitted and required to perform circumcision on Shabbat at its appointed time, indeed, it would be permitted to complete the circumcision even according to Rabbi Yosei.
אֶלָּא אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. דִּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה כֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין: שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי בָזִיכִּין. וְאַרְבָּעָה מַקְדִּימִין לִפְנֵיהֶם: שְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי בָזִיכִּין. הַמַּכְנִיסִין עוֹמְדִים בַּצָּפוֹן וּפְנֵיהֶם לַדָּרוֹם, וְהַמּוֹצִיאִין עוֹמְדִים בַּדָּרוֹם וּפְנֵיהֶם לַצָּפוֹן. אֵלּוּ מוֹשְׁכִים, וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין, טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּצַד טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ תָּמִיד״.
Rather, the Sages of Neharde’a say: This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei. As we learned in a mishna: Four priests would enter the Sanctuary every Shabbat to arrange the showbread, two of whom had two orders of six loaves each in their hands, and two had two bowls of frankincense in their hands. And four priests would precede them; two came to take the two orders of bread left on the table from the previous week, and two came to take the two bowls of frankincense. Next, those bringing the loaves and bowls into the Sanctuary would stand in the north of the Sanctuary, facing south, while those carrying the loaves and bowls out would stand in the south of the Sanctuary, facing north. These slide the old bread along the table, and these place the new bread on the table, and as a result, the handbreadth of this one would be alongside the handbreadth of that one, so that the requisite amount of bread would always be present on the table, as it is stated: “And you shall place on the table showbread before Me continuously” (Exodus 25:30).
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֵלּוּ נוֹטְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין אַף זֶה הָיָה ״תָּמִיד״.
Rabbi Yosei said: Even if these priests were first to take the old bread off the table entirely, and only afterward were these priests to place the new ones on the table, this too would fulfill the requirement that the showbread be on the table continuously. It is unnecessary to ensure the uninterrupted presence of the showbread on the table. Apparently, the Rabbis hold that even a moment’s break in the performance of a mitzva is deemed an interruption. The same principle applies to circumcision. Once one withdrew and is no longer engaged in its performance, it is as though he completed the mitzva and he may no longer return to it.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְהַלְקְטִין אֶת הַמִּילָה, וְאִם לֹא הִילְקֵט — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. מַנִּי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אוּמָּן.
The Sages taught: We complete the cutting of the foreskin, and if he did not complete the cutting he is punishable by karet. The Gemara asks: Who is punishable by karet? Rav Kahana said: The craftsman, i.e., the circumcisor. If he failed to complete the circumcision properly on Shabbat he is punishable by karet, as he wounded the baby on Shabbat without fulfilling the mitzva circumcision.
מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אוּמָּן לֵימָא לְהוּ ״אֲנָא עֲבַדִי פַּלְגָא דְמִצְוָה, אַתּוּן [נָמֵי] עֲבִידוּ פַּלְגָא דְמִצְוָה״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: גָּדוֹל.
Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Why should the craftsman be liable? Let him say to those present: I performed half the mitzva; now you perform the other half of the mitzva. I am not liable, as I was engaged in performance of a mitzva, even though I did not complete it. Rather, Rav Pappa said: The reference here is not to circumcision on Shabbat, but rather to the mitzva of circumcision in general. The one liable for karet is an adult whose circumcision was not completed. He is not considered to have been circumcised according to halakha. Therefore, he is punishable by karet, like one who was not circumcised at all.
מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: גָּדוֹל בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל״. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְעוֹלָם אוּמָּן, וּכְגוֹן דַּאֲתָא בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת דְּשַׁבָּת, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא מַסְפְּקַתְּ, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: מַסְפְּקֵינָא, וַעֲבַד וְלָא אִיסְתַּפַּק, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח דְּחַבּוּרָה הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.
Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: This cannot be, as if so what is the baraita teaching? The fact that an adult is liable for karet is explicitly written in the verse: “And 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” (Genesis 17:14). Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it refers to the craftsman who performed the partial circumcision on Shabbat, and it is a case where he came to perform the circumcision at twilight on Shabbat day, just before the conclusion of Shabbat, and those present said to him: You will not manage to complete the circumcision before the conclusion of Shabbat, and he said to them: I will manage. And he performed the circumcision and did not manage to complete the mitzva before Shabbat ended. It turns out that he made a wound in the child but did not fulfill the mitzva. And since he was forewarned not to do so, he is therefore punishable by karet like anyone who violates Shabbat not for the purpose of performing a mitzva.
מוֹצְצִין וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי אוּמָּנָא דְּלָא מָיֵיץ — סַכָּנָה הוּא וּמְעַבְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.
We learned in the mishna that one sucks blood from the wound after the circumcision was performed on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said: A craftsman who does not suck the blood after every circumcision is a danger to the child undergoing circumcision, and we remove him from his position as circumcisor.
פְּשִׁיטָא, מִדְּקָא מְחַלְּלִי עֲלֵיהּ שַׁבְּתָא סַכָּנָה הוּא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא הַאי דָּם מִיפְקָד פְּקִיד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן חַבּוֹרֵי מִיחַבַּר.
The Gemara comments: This is obvious. Given that one desecrates Shabbat to suck the blood, which involves performance of a prohibited labor, obviously, failure to do so poses a danger. Desecration of Shabbat would not be permitted if it was not a life-threatening situation. The Gemara answers: This is not an absolute proof. Lest you say that this blood is collected and contained in place, and one who removes that which is pooled in its place does not perform the subcategory of the prohibited labor of threshing on Shabbat, i.e., drawing blood; that is the reason sucking the blood is permitted, not due to any danger involved in failing to do so. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this blood is attached and flowing and not merely pooled. One who draws it out performs an act that is generally prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat, and it is nonetheless permitted due to danger to the child.
וְדוּמְיָא דְּאִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן: מָה אִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן כִּי לָא עָבֵיד סַכָּנָה הוּא, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּי לָא עָבֵיד סַכָּנָה הוּא.
And it is similar to the halakhot of a bandage and cumin stated in the mishna. Just as in the case of a bandage and cumin, failure to do what is necessary with these items poses a danger to the child, here too, if he does not perform the sucking after circumcision, it poses a danger to the child; Shabbat is overridden in cases of danger.
וְנוֹתְנִין עָלֶיהָ אִיסְפְּלָנִית. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אֲמַרָה לִי אֵם: אִיסְפְּלָנִיתָא דְּכוּלְּהוֹן כִּיבֵי — שַׁב מָאנֵי תַּרְבָּא, וַחֲדָא קִירָא. רָבָא אָמַר: קִירָא וְקַלְבָּא.
We learned in the mishna: And on Shabbat one places on the wound from the circumcision a bandage. Abaye said: My nurse said to me: A bandage for all wounds should be made from seven parts fat and one part wax. Rava said: A bandage should be made from wax and sap of a tree.
דַּרְשַׁהּ רָבָא בְּמָחוֹזָא, קַרְעִינְהוּ בְּנֵי מִנְיוֹמֵי אָסְיָא לְמָנַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁבַקִי לְכוּ חֲדָא. דַּאֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּמָשֵׁי אַפֵּיהּ וְלָא מִנַּגֵּיב טוּבָא — נִקְטְרוּ לֵיהּ
When Rava taught this cure in Meḥoza, the sons of Manyomei the doctor tore their clothes in misery, as he taught everyone how to make a bandage, and their services would no longer be required. Rava said to them: I left you one cure that I did not reveal, with which you can make a profit, for Shmuel said: One who washes his face and does not wipe it a lot will develop
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Berlin, Germany
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Ontario, Canada
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Shabbat 133
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״בָּשָׂר״ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת — ״יִמּוֹל״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, שַׁבָּת חֲמוּרָה — דּוֹחָה, צָרַעַת — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.
is a dispute of tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: The term flesh comes to teach that even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says: There is no need for this derivation from the word flesh in the verse. Rather, the same law can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If circumcision overrides Shabbat, which is stringent, all the more so that it overrides leprosy.
אָמַר מָר: ״בָּשָׂר״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת — ״יִמּוֹל״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. הָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר!
We earlier learned that the Master said: When the verse states the term flesh, it comes to teach that even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan agrees with this halakha, albeit for a different reason. The Gemara addresses the fundamental question: Why do I need a verse to derive this? The removal of leprous skin is an unintentional act. One does not intend to cut the symptom of leprosy; he intended to circumcise the baby. And the general rule is that an unintentional act is permitted. Consequently, there is no need for a special derivation in this case.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״. וְאַבָּיֵי לֵית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! בָּתַר דְּשַׁמְעַהּ מֵרָבָא סַבְרַהּ.
Abaye said: This derivation is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., an unintentional act from which a prohibited labor ensued as an inevitable consequence. In that case, the one who performs the action cannot claim that the outcome was unintended. In the case of circumcising a leprous foreskin, the removal of leprosy is an inevitable consequence of the circumcision. The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t it Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: If you cut off its head will it not die? The Gemara answers: After Abaye heard this principle from Rava, he accepted it.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לְהָא דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא אַהָא: ״הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת לִשְׁמֹר מְאֹד וְלַעֲשׂוֹת״, לַעֲשׂוֹת אִי אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה אַתָּה בְּסִיב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלוֹ, וּבְמוֹט שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי כְּתֵיפוֹ, וְאִם עָבְרָה — עָבְרָה.
Some teach that which Abaye and Rava said as referring to this baraita. The verse states: “Take heed with regard to the plague of leprosy that you observe diligently and do in accordance with all that the priests, the Levites, instruct you; as I commanded them you shall take care to do” (Deuteronomy 24:8). The Sages derived from here that to do something in order to remove leprosy directly, you may not do; but you may do something that will indirectly remove one’s symptom, such as tying a thick rope on his foot, and placing a rod on his shoulder. This is permitted even though there is a bright white spot present, and if the bright white spot is thereby removed, it is removed.
וְהָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר. וְרָבָא אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״. וְאַבָּיֵי לֵית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! לְבָתַר דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ מֵרָבָא סַבְרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to address this? It is an unintentional act, and an unintentional act is permitted. Abaye said: This derivation is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of: If you cut off its head will it not die? The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t it Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die? The Gemara answers: After Abaye heard this principle from Rava, he accepted it.
וְאַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״בְּשַׂר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: בְּאוֹמֵר לָקוֹץ בַּהַרְתּוֹ הוּא מִתְכַּוֵּין.
The Gemara clarifies: According to Abaye’s initial understanding of the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, i.e., even the inevitable consequence of an unintended act is permitted, what does he do with this term flesh, which appears in the verse with regard to circumcision? Rav Amram said: This term teaches that even in a case where the person who is circumcising himself says explicitly that his intention is also to cut off the bright white spot, the circumcision nonetheless overrides the prohibition to remove symptoms of leprosy.
תִּינַח גָּדוֹל, קָטָן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: בְּאוֹמֵר אֲבִי הַבֵּן לָקוֹץ בַּהֶרֶת דִּבְנוֹ הוּא קָא מִתְכַּוֵּין.
The Gemara asks: This works out well in the case of an adult who intends to perform the prohibited act. With regard to the circumcision of a minor, who has no intention at all, what is there to say, i.e., how does this teaching apply? Rav Mesharshiya said: The teaching applies in a case where the father of the circumcised child says that his intention is to cut off his son’s bright white leprous spot.
וְאִי אִיכָּא אַחֵר, לֶיעְבֵּיד אַחֵר! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים שְׁנֵיהֶם מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. דְּלֵיכָּא אַחֵר.
The Gemara asks: In that case, if there is another person present who can circumcise the child, let the other person perform the circumcision. Presumably the other person will not intend to excise the bright white spot but rather will intend to fulfill the mitzva of circumcision, and no transgression will be committed, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Any place that you find positive and negative mitzvot that clash with one another, if you can find some way to fulfill both, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva will come and override the negative mitzva. Here it is possible to fulfill both the positive and negative mitzvot by having another person perform the circumcision. The Gemara answers: This is a case where there is no other person to perform circumcision; only the boy’s father can circumcise him. Therefore, a particular verse is needed to teach us that the mitzva of circumcision overrides the prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy.
אָמַר מָר: יוֹם טוֹב אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ בִּלְבַד. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
We learned earlier that the Master said that circumcision only overrides a Festival when the circumcision takes place at its proper time, on the eighth day after birth. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן לוֹ בֹּקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ.
Ḥizkiya said, and likewise one of the Sages of the school of Ḥizkiya taught: The verse states with regard to the Paschal lamb: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). This verse contains a superfluous phrase, as the Torah did not need to state until morning the second time; it would have been sufficient to state: But that which remains of it you shall burn with fire. Rather, why does the Torah state until morning? The verse comes to provide him with the second morning for burning. Leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following day, the first of the intermediate days of the Festival. Even though the labor of kindling a fire is not entirely prohibited on a Festival, as one may cook and bake, it is derived from here that kindling a fire is permitted only for the purpose of preparing food for the immediate needs of the day and not for purposes that can be postponed until the intermediate days. Similarly, since circumcision involves a prohibited labor, it is permitted on the eighth day only when there is no option of postponing it. Otherwise, doing so is prohibited.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״עוֹלַת שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ״, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּיוֹם טוֹב.
Abaye said there is a different source for the fact that only circumcision on the eighth day overrides the Festival, as the verse stated: “The burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its Shabbat in addition to the continual burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:10). This verse teaches that one may not sacrifice the burnt-offering of a weekday on Shabbat, and one may not sacrifice the burnt-offering of a weekday on a Festival. Although slaughtering is permitted on a Festival for sustenance, it is nevertheless prohibited to slaughter animals for sacrifices other than those specifically mandated on the Festival. Temple service only overrides prohibited labor in the case of Temple service that is an essential obligation of that day. Similarly, circumcision only overrides the prohibition of labor when it is an essential obligation of that day, which is the case only on the eighth day; it is not the case after the eighth day.
רָבָא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא לְבַדּוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה לָכֶם״, ״הוּא״ — וְלֹא מַכְשִׁירִין. ״לְבַדּוֹ״ — וְלֹא מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ, דְּאָתְיָא מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר.
Rava said there is a different proof, as the verse states with regard to Festivals: “And in the first day there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat; that alone may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). The superfluous term “that” in the verse teaches the following: That which is necessary for food preparation itself is permitted and not actions that facilitate food preparation or which prepare utensils necessary for eating. Similarly, “that alone may be done” teaches: Only food preparation may be performed and not circumcision that is not at its appointed time, which could have been derived through an a fortiori inference. Therefore, the verse emphasizes that “that alone” may be performed, to teach that prohibited labors are permitted for sustenance on a Festival, and are not permitted for other mitzvot.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״שַׁבָּתוֹן״ — עֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹם טוֹב עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה.
Rav Ashi said: The mitzvot of a Festival include not only a negative mitzva but also a positive one. There is a prohibition of labor as well as Shabbaton, an obligation to engage in solemn rest, which is a positive mitzva, and therefore the observance of a Festival constitutes both a positive mitzva and a negative mitzva. And there is a principle that a positive mitzva does not override both a negative mitzva and a positive mitzva.
כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
We learned in the mishna: A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat; however, any prohibited labor that cannot be performed on Shabbat eve overrides Shabbat. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in this matter.
וּתְנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי פֶסַח כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא: כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כׇּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
And we also learned in a mishna pertaining to the Paschal lamb, in a similar vein: A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat. By contrast, the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb, which cannot be performed on Shabbat eve, as it has a fixed time from the Torah, overrides Shabbat. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי מִילָה: הָתָם הוּא דְּמַכְשִׁירִין אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵאֶתְמוֹל לָא דָּחוּ שַׁבָּת דְּלֵיכָּא כָּרֵת, אֲבָל פֶּסַח דְּאִיכָּא כָּרֵת — אֵימָא לִידְחוֹ שַׁבָּת.
The Gemara comments: And both statements that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva were necessary. As had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only with regard to circumcision, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that facilitators that can be performed the day before do not override Shabbat, as there is no punishment of karet if the circumcision is delayed, as liability for karet only applies when the child becomes obligated in mitzvot and chooses not to circumcise himself. However, with regard to the Paschal lamb, where there is karet for one who fails to offer the sacrifice at its proper time, one would say that those facilitators should override Shabbat. Therefore, it was necessary for Rav to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the Paschal lamb.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי פֶסַח, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת. אֲבָל מִילָה דְּנִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת — אֵימָא לִידְחוֹ שַׁבָּת, צְרִיכָא.
And if Rav had taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only with regard to the Paschal lamb, the conclusion would have been that the reason that facilitators that can be performed on the eve of the Festival do not override the Festival is because thirteen covenants were not established upon the Paschal lamb, and it is therefore not so significant. However, with regard to circumcision, upon which thirteen covenants were established, the conclusion would have been that even actions that facilitate the mitzva that could have been performed on Shabbat eve should override Shabbat. It was therefore necessary to teach that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva in both cases.
מַתְנִי׳ עוֹשִׂין כׇּל צׇרְכֵי מִילָה [בְּשַׁבָּת]: מוֹהֲלִין וּפוֹרְעִין וּמוֹצְצִין וְנוֹתְנִין עָלֶיהָ אִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן.
MISHNA: When the eighth day of a baby’s life occurs on Shabbat, he must be circumcised on that day. Therefore, one performs all the necessities of the circumcision, even on Shabbat: One circumcises the foreskin, and uncovers the skin by removing the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, and sucks the blood from the wound, and places on it both a bandage [ispelanit] and cumin as a salve.
אִם לֹא שָׁחַק מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — לוֹעֵס בְּשִׁינָּיו וְנוֹתֵן. אִם לֹא טָרַף יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — נוֹתֵן זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ.
If one did not grind the cumin from Shabbat eve, he chews it with his teeth and places it on the place of circumcision as a salve. If he did not mix wine and oil on Shabbat eve, a mixture designed to heal and strengthen the child, this, the wine, is placed on the wound by itself and that, the oil, is placed by itself.
וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין לָהּ חָלוּק לְכַתְּחִילָּה, אֲבָל כּוֹרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ סְמַרְטוּט. אִם לֹא הִתְקִין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — כּוֹרֵךְ עַל אֶצְבָּעוֹ וּמֵבִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ מֵחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת.
And on Shabbat one may not make a pouch to place over the circumcision as a bandage ab initio, but he may wrap a rag over it as a dressing. If he did not prepare the bandage on Shabbat eve by bringing it to the place where the circumcision was performed, he wraps the bandage on his finger and brings it on Shabbat, even from a different courtyard. While the Sages permitted it to be brought, they required that it be performed in an unusual fashion, by wearing it in the manner of a garment.
גְּמָ׳ מִכְּדֵי קָתָנֵי כּוּלְּהוּ, ״כׇּל צוֹרְכֵי מִילָה״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Since the mishna is teaching all of them, i.e., enumerated all the requirements of circumcision, when the mishna added: One performs all the requirements of circumcision even on Shabbat, what did it come to include?
לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמָּל, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא עוֹסֵק בַּמִּילָה — חוֹזֵר בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה. פֵּירַשׁ, עַל צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — חוֹזֵר, עַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר.
The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which the Sages taught in a baraita: One who circumcises on Shabbat, as long as he is engaged in the circumcision, he may return and remove shreds of skin that were not cut properly. This is the ruling both for shreds of skin and flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut, i.e., the child is not considered circumcised if they remain, and for shreds that do not invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. But if the circumcisor has withdrawn from engaging in the mitzva of circumcision, he may return for shreds that invalidate the circumcision if they were not cut, as the mitzva has not yet been properly performed, but he may not return for shreds that do not invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. Consequently, when the mishna refers to all the requirements of circumcision, it means that as long as one is still involved in the act of circumcision, one may go back and remove even pieces of skin that do not invalidate the circumcision.
מַאן תַּנָּא פֵּירַשׁ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת — מַפְשִׁיט אָדָם הַפֶּסַח עַד הֶחָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַפְשִׁיטִין אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.
With regard to this law, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that if one has already withdrawn from a mitzva he may not return to engage in its performance? Which tanna asserts that as long as a person is involved in a mitzva whose performance overrides Shabbat, he may complete it; however, if he is no longer involved in the mitzva, he may not exceed the minimum requirements if doing so would desecrate Shabbat? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as it was taught in a baraita: In a case of the fourteenth of Nisan, the day the Paschal lamb is sacrificed, that occurs on Shabbat, one flays the Paschal lamb until he exposes the breast, in order to remove the portions that are offered on the altar, but one does not flay anymore, as it is not necessary for the mitzva of the day; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. And the Rabbis say: One may even flay the entire hide.
מִמַּאי? עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הָתָם — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״. אֲבָל הָכָא — דְּבָעֵינַן ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הָכִי נָמֵי.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: From where do you draw this comparison? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, only stated his opinion that one may do no more than the minimum requirement there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, because we do not need to fulfill the mitzva of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). The manner in which the animal is flayed does not impact the mitzva of the sacrifice. However, here, with regard to circumcision, where we need to fulfill the mitzva of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him,” which requires performing the circumcision in a beautiful manner, indeed, Rabbi Yishmael would agree that the mitzva must be performed as aesthetically as possible.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הִתְנָאֵה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת: עֲשֵׂה לְפָנָיו סוּכָּה נָאָה, וְלוּלָב נָאֶה, וְשׁוֹפָר נָאֶה, צִיצִית נָאָה, סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה נָאֶה, וּכְתוֹב בּוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ בִּדְיוֹ נָאֶה, בְּקוּלְמוֹס נָאֶה, בְּלַבְלָר אוּמָּן, וְכוֹרְכוֹ בְּשִׁירָאִין נָאִין.
What is the source for the requirement of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him”? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [anveihu], the Lord of my father and I will raise Him up.” The Sages interpreted anveihu homiletically as linguistically related to noi, beauty, and interpreted the verse: Beautify yourself before Him in mitzvot. Even if one fulfills the mitzva by performing it simply, it is nonetheless proper to perform the mitzva as beautifully as possible. Make before Him a beautiful sukka, a beautiful lulav, a beautiful shofar, beautiful ritual fringes, beautiful parchment for a Torah scroll, and write in it in His name in beautiful ink, with a beautiful quill by an expert scribe, and wrap the scroll in beautiful silk fabric.
אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: ״וְאַנְוֵהוּ״ — הֱוֵי דּוֹמֶה לוֹ, מָה הוּא חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם — אַף אַתָּה הֱיֵה חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם.
Abba Shaul says: Ve’anveihu should be interpreted as if it were written in two words: Ani vaHu, me and Him [God]. Be similar, as it were, to Him, the Almighty: Just as He is compassionate and merciful, so too should you be compassionate and merciful. In any case, there is no proof from Rabbi Yishmael’s statement with regard to the Paschal lamb that he would say the same with regard to circumcision, as in that case, he might agree that fulfilling the mitzva beautifully justifies overriding Shabbat.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: בֵּין שֶׁנִּרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל, וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל — מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: נִרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל — אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: This should be understood differently. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita with regard to circumcision? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As we learned in a mishna: Whether the new moon was clearly seen by everyone or whether it was not clearly seen, one may desecrate Shabbat in order to sanctify the New Moon. Eyewitnesses who saw the appearance of the moon may desecrate Shabbat in order to go to court and testify. Rabbi Yosei says: If the moon was clearly seen, they may not desecrate Shabbat for it, since other witnesses, located nearer to the court, will certainly testify. If these distant witnesses go to court to testify, they will desecrate Shabbat unnecessarily. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei holds that if the basic requirements of a mitzva have already been fulfilled, one may no longer desecrate Shabbat in its performance.
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָתָם, דְּלֹא נִיתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִידָּחוֹת, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּנִיתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִידָּחוֹת — הָכִי נָמֵי.
The Gemara rejects this: From where do you draw this comparison? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei only stated his opinion there, in the case of sanctification of the New Moon, because there no allowance was made for Shabbat to be overridden. Given that the moon was clearly seen and testimony to that effect could have been delivered easily, there was no need for additional witnesses to come and desecrate Shabbat, and the prohibition to desecrate Shabbat remained in place. However, here, in the case of circumcision, where allowance was made for Shabbat desecration, as it is permitted and required to perform circumcision on Shabbat at its appointed time, indeed, it would be permitted to complete the circumcision even according to Rabbi Yosei.
אֶלָּא אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. דִּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה כֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין: שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי בָזִיכִּין. וְאַרְבָּעָה מַקְדִּימִין לִפְנֵיהֶם: שְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי בָזִיכִּין. הַמַּכְנִיסִין עוֹמְדִים בַּצָּפוֹן וּפְנֵיהֶם לַדָּרוֹם, וְהַמּוֹצִיאִין עוֹמְדִים בַּדָּרוֹם וּפְנֵיהֶם לַצָּפוֹן. אֵלּוּ מוֹשְׁכִים, וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין, טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּצַד טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ תָּמִיד״.
Rather, the Sages of Neharde’a say: This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei. As we learned in a mishna: Four priests would enter the Sanctuary every Shabbat to arrange the showbread, two of whom had two orders of six loaves each in their hands, and two had two bowls of frankincense in their hands. And four priests would precede them; two came to take the two orders of bread left on the table from the previous week, and two came to take the two bowls of frankincense. Next, those bringing the loaves and bowls into the Sanctuary would stand in the north of the Sanctuary, facing south, while those carrying the loaves and bowls out would stand in the south of the Sanctuary, facing north. These slide the old bread along the table, and these place the new bread on the table, and as a result, the handbreadth of this one would be alongside the handbreadth of that one, so that the requisite amount of bread would always be present on the table, as it is stated: “And you shall place on the table showbread before Me continuously” (Exodus 25:30).
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֵלּוּ נוֹטְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין אַף זֶה הָיָה ״תָּמִיד״.
Rabbi Yosei said: Even if these priests were first to take the old bread off the table entirely, and only afterward were these priests to place the new ones on the table, this too would fulfill the requirement that the showbread be on the table continuously. It is unnecessary to ensure the uninterrupted presence of the showbread on the table. Apparently, the Rabbis hold that even a moment’s break in the performance of a mitzva is deemed an interruption. The same principle applies to circumcision. Once one withdrew and is no longer engaged in its performance, it is as though he completed the mitzva and he may no longer return to it.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְהַלְקְטִין אֶת הַמִּילָה, וְאִם לֹא הִילְקֵט — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. מַנִּי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אוּמָּן.
The Sages taught: We complete the cutting of the foreskin, and if he did not complete the cutting he is punishable by karet. The Gemara asks: Who is punishable by karet? Rav Kahana said: The craftsman, i.e., the circumcisor. If he failed to complete the circumcision properly on Shabbat he is punishable by karet, as he wounded the baby on Shabbat without fulfilling the mitzva circumcision.
מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אוּמָּן לֵימָא לְהוּ ״אֲנָא עֲבַדִי פַּלְגָא דְמִצְוָה, אַתּוּן [נָמֵי] עֲבִידוּ פַּלְגָא דְמִצְוָה״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: גָּדוֹל.
Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Why should the craftsman be liable? Let him say to those present: I performed half the mitzva; now you perform the other half of the mitzva. I am not liable, as I was engaged in performance of a mitzva, even though I did not complete it. Rather, Rav Pappa said: The reference here is not to circumcision on Shabbat, but rather to the mitzva of circumcision in general. The one liable for karet is an adult whose circumcision was not completed. He is not considered to have been circumcised according to halakha. Therefore, he is punishable by karet, like one who was not circumcised at all.
מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: גָּדוֹל בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל״. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְעוֹלָם אוּמָּן, וּכְגוֹן דַּאֲתָא בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת דְּשַׁבָּת, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא מַסְפְּקַתְּ, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: מַסְפְּקֵינָא, וַעֲבַד וְלָא אִיסְתַּפַּק, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח דְּחַבּוּרָה הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.
Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: This cannot be, as if so what is the baraita teaching? The fact that an adult is liable for karet is explicitly written in the verse: “And 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” (Genesis 17:14). Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it refers to the craftsman who performed the partial circumcision on Shabbat, and it is a case where he came to perform the circumcision at twilight on Shabbat day, just before the conclusion of Shabbat, and those present said to him: You will not manage to complete the circumcision before the conclusion of Shabbat, and he said to them: I will manage. And he performed the circumcision and did not manage to complete the mitzva before Shabbat ended. It turns out that he made a wound in the child but did not fulfill the mitzva. And since he was forewarned not to do so, he is therefore punishable by karet like anyone who violates Shabbat not for the purpose of performing a mitzva.
מוֹצְצִין וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי אוּמָּנָא דְּלָא מָיֵיץ — סַכָּנָה הוּא וּמְעַבְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.
We learned in the mishna that one sucks blood from the wound after the circumcision was performed on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said: A craftsman who does not suck the blood after every circumcision is a danger to the child undergoing circumcision, and we remove him from his position as circumcisor.
פְּשִׁיטָא, מִדְּקָא מְחַלְּלִי עֲלֵיהּ שַׁבְּתָא סַכָּנָה הוּא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא הַאי דָּם מִיפְקָד פְּקִיד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן חַבּוֹרֵי מִיחַבַּר.
The Gemara comments: This is obvious. Given that one desecrates Shabbat to suck the blood, which involves performance of a prohibited labor, obviously, failure to do so poses a danger. Desecration of Shabbat would not be permitted if it was not a life-threatening situation. The Gemara answers: This is not an absolute proof. Lest you say that this blood is collected and contained in place, and one who removes that which is pooled in its place does not perform the subcategory of the prohibited labor of threshing on Shabbat, i.e., drawing blood; that is the reason sucking the blood is permitted, not due to any danger involved in failing to do so. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this blood is attached and flowing and not merely pooled. One who draws it out performs an act that is generally prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat, and it is nonetheless permitted due to danger to the child.
וְדוּמְיָא דְּאִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן: מָה אִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן כִּי לָא עָבֵיד סַכָּנָה הוּא, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּי לָא עָבֵיד סַכָּנָה הוּא.
And it is similar to the halakhot of a bandage and cumin stated in the mishna. Just as in the case of a bandage and cumin, failure to do what is necessary with these items poses a danger to the child, here too, if he does not perform the sucking after circumcision, it poses a danger to the child; Shabbat is overridden in cases of danger.
וְנוֹתְנִין עָלֶיהָ אִיסְפְּלָנִית. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אֲמַרָה לִי אֵם: אִיסְפְּלָנִיתָא דְּכוּלְּהוֹן כִּיבֵי — שַׁב מָאנֵי תַּרְבָּא, וַחֲדָא קִירָא. רָבָא אָמַר: קִירָא וְקַלְבָּא.
We learned in the mishna: And on Shabbat one places on the wound from the circumcision a bandage. Abaye said: My nurse said to me: A bandage for all wounds should be made from seven parts fat and one part wax. Rava said: A bandage should be made from wax and sap of a tree.
דַּרְשַׁהּ רָבָא בְּמָחוֹזָא, קַרְעִינְהוּ בְּנֵי מִנְיוֹמֵי אָסְיָא לְמָנַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁבַקִי לְכוּ חֲדָא. דַּאֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּמָשֵׁי אַפֵּיהּ וְלָא מִנַּגֵּיב טוּבָא — נִקְטְרוּ לֵיהּ
When Rava taught this cure in Meḥoza, the sons of Manyomei the doctor tore their clothes in misery, as he taught everyone how to make a bandage, and their services would no longer be required. Rava said to them: I left you one cure that I did not reveal, with which you can make a profit, for Shmuel said: One who washes his face and does not wipe it a lot will develop
