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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 17, 2020 | 讻状讛 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 the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Shabbat 133

Why do we need a drasha to teach us that brit milah overrides the prohibition to cut a leprous mark 鈥 isn鈥檛 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 鈥 wouldn鈥檛 it be obvious we can learn from one to the other? All things relating directly to the brit milah override Shabbat 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥渟tole鈥 their business as they knew how to do this and would sell to others. Rava tries to appease them.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘砖专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转 讬诪讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讘转 讞诪讜专讛 讚讜讞讛 爪专注转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉:

is a dispute of tanna鈥檌m, 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讘砖专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转 讬诪讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 讜讗讘讬讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 诪专讘讗 住讘专讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讗讛讗 讛砖诪专 讘谞讙注 讛爪专注转 诇砖诪专 诪讗讚 讜诇注砖讜转 诇注砖讜转 讗讬 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 讗转讛 讘住讬讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇讜 讜讘诪讜讟 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讻转讬驻讜 讜讗诐 注讘专讛 注讘专讛

Some teach that which Abaye and Rava said as referring to this baraita. The verse states: 鈥淭ake 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鈥 (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鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 讜讗讘讬讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 诇讘转专 讚砖诪注讬讛 诪专讘讗 住讘专讛

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鈥檛 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.

讜讗讘讬讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 讘砖专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讘讗讜诪专 诇拽讜抓 讘讛专转讜 讛讜讗 诪转讻讜讬谉

The Gemara clarifies: According to Abaye鈥檚 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.

转讬谞讞 讙讚讜诇 拽讟谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘讗讜诪专 讗讘讬 讛讘谉 诇拽讜抓 讘讛专转 讚讘谞讜 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪转讻讜讬谉

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鈥檚 bright white leprous spot.

讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗讞专 诇讬注讘讬讚 讗讞专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讟讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讞专:

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诪专 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 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

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?

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讘拽专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讘拽专 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讘拽专 砖谞讬 诇砖专讬驻转讜

岣zkiya said, and likewise one of the Sages of the school of 岣zkiya taught: The verse states with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淎nd you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 注讜诇转 砖讘转 讘砖讘转讜 讜诇讗 注讜诇转 讞讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 注讜诇转 讞讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Abaye said there is a different source for the fact that only circumcision on the eighth day overrides the Festival, as the verse stated: 鈥淭he burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its Shabbat in addition to the continual burnt-offering and its libation鈥 (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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 诇讘讚讜 讬注砖讛 诇讻诐 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 诇讘讚讜 讜诇讗 诪讬诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讚讗转讬讗 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

Rava said there is a different proof, as the verse states with regard to Festivals: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Exodus 12:16). The superfluous term 鈥渢hat鈥 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, 鈥渢hat alone may be done鈥 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 鈥渢hat alone鈥 may be performed, to teach that prohibited labors are permitted for sustenance on a Festival, and are not permitted for other mitzvot.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖讘转讜谉 注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛:

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.

讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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.

讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 驻住讞 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇讛 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讘讬 诪讬诇讛 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转 诪讗转诪讜诇 诇讗 讚讞讜 砖讘转 讚诇讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讘诇 驻住讞 讚讗讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讚讞讜 砖讘转

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.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讘讬 驻住讞 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讚谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讚讞讜 砖讘转 爪专讬讻讗:

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.

诪转谞讬壮 注讜砖讬谉 讻诇 爪专讻讬 诪讬诇讛 [讘砖讘转] 诪讜讛诇讬谉 讜驻讜专注讬谉 讜诪讜爪爪讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗讬住驻诇谞讬转 讜讻诪讜谉

MISHNA: When the eighth day of a baby鈥檚 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.

讗诐 诇讗 砖讞拽 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇讜注住 讘砖讬谞讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讗诐 诇讗 讟专祝 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讬谞转谉 讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘注爪诪讜

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.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 讞诇讜拽 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讻讜专讱 注诇讬讛 住诪专讟讜讟 讗诐 诇讗 讛转拽讬谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讻讜专讱 注诇 讗爪讘注讜 讜诪讘讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞爪专 讗讞专转:

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.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 拽转谞讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻讬 诪讬诇讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

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?

诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪诇 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 注讜住拽 讘诪讬诇讛 讞讜讝专 讘讬谉 注诇 讛爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讘讬谉 注诇 讛爪讬爪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 驻讬专砖 注诇 爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讞讜讝专 注诇 爪讬爪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 驻讬专砖 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 诪驻砖讬讟 (讗讚诐) 讛驻住讞 注讚 讛讞讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻砖讬讟讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讜

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 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Beroka. And the Rabbis say: One may even flay the entire hide.

诪诪讗讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: From where do you draw this comparison? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him鈥 (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: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him,鈥 which requires performing the circumcision in a beautiful manner, indeed, Rabbi Yishmael would agree that the mitzva must be performed as aesthetically as possible.

讚转谞讬讗 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讛转谞讗讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讘诪爪讜转 注砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 住讜讻讛 谞讗讛 讜诇讜诇讘 谞讗讛 讜砖讜驻专 谞讗讛 爪讬爪讬转 谞讗讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 谞讗讛 讜讻转讜讘 讘讜 诇砖诪讜 讘讚讬讜 谞讗讛 讘拽讜诇诪讜住 谞讗讛 讘诇讘诇专 讗讜诪谉 讜讻讜专讻讜 讘砖讬专讗讬谉 谞讗讬谉

What is the source for the requirement of: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him鈥? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him [anveihu], the Lord of my father and I will raise Him up.鈥 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.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讛讜讬 讚讜诪讛 诇讜 诪讛 讛讜讗 讞谞讜谉 讜专讞讜诐 讗祝 讗转讛 讛讬讛 讞谞讜谉 讜专讞讜诐

Abba Shaul says: Ve鈥檃nveihu 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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讘讬谉 砖谞专讗讛 讘注诇讬诇 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 谞专讗讛 讘注诇讬诇 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞专讗讛 讘注诇讬诇 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转

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.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛转诐 讚诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讬讚讞讜转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚谞讬转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讬讚讞讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚诐 砖谞讬 住讚专讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚诐 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 砖谞讬诐 诇讬讟讜诇 砖谞讬 住讚专讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 诇讬讟讜诇 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 讛诪讻谞讬住讬谉 注讜诪讚讬诐 讘爪驻讜谉 讜驻谞讬讛诐 诇讚专讜诐 讜讛诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 注讜诪讚讬诐 讘讚专讜诐 讜驻谞讬讛诐 诇爪驻讜谉 讗诇讜 诪讜砖讻讬诐 讜讗诇讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讟驻讞讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 讟驻讞讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇驻谞讬 (讛壮) 转诪讬讚

Rather, the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 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: 鈥淎nd you shall place on the table showbread before Me continuously鈥 (Exodus 25:30).

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讜讗诇讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗祝 讝讛 讛讬讛 转诪讬讚

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鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讛讬诇拽讟 注谞讜砖 讻专转 诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讜诪谉

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讜诪谉 诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 注讘讚讬 驻诇讙讗 讚诪爪讜讛 讗转讜谉 注讘讚讬转讜 驻诇讙讗 讚诪爪讜讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讙讚讜诇

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讚讜诇 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜注专诇 讝讻专 讗砖专 诇讗 讬诪讜诇 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讜诪谉 讜讻讙讜谉 讚讗转讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚砖讘转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪住驻拽转 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪住驻拽讬谞讗 讜注讘讚 讜诇讗 讗讬住转驻拽 讜讗讬砖转讻讞 讚讞讘讜专讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转:

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: 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). 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.

诪讜爪爪讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 讗讜诪谞讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬抓 住讻谞讛 讛讜讗 讜注讘专讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讚拽讗 诪讞诇诇讬 注诇讬讛 砖讘转讗 住讻谞讛 讛讜讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讚诐 诪讬驻拽讚 驻拽讬讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讞讘讜专讬 诪讬讞讘专

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.

讜讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗讬住驻诇谞讬转 讜讻诪讜谉 诪讛 讗讬住驻诇谞讬转 讜讻诪讜谉 讻讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 住讻谞讛 讛讜讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 住讻谞讛 讛讜讗:

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.

讜谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗讬住驻诇谞讬转: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬住驻诇谞讬转讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜谉 讻讬讘讬 砖讘 诪讬谞讗讬 转专讘讗 讜讞讚讗 拽讬专讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽讬专讗 讜拽诇讘讗 专讬砖讬谞讗

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.

讚专砖讛 专讘讗 讘诪讞讜讝讗 拽专注讬谞讛讜 讘谞讬 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗住讬讗 诇诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讘拽讬 诇讻讜 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪砖讬 讗驻讬讛 讜诇讗 谞讙讬讘 讟讜讘讗 谞拽讟专讜 诇讬讛

When Rava taught this cure in Me岣za, 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

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 the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

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 133: “Metzitzah BaPeh”

[With apologies for the audio issues at the beginning. They do diminish pretty quickly.] The Gemara asks why verses are...

Shabbat 133

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 133

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘砖专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转 讬诪讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讘转 讞诪讜专讛 讚讜讞讛 爪专注转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉:

is a dispute of tanna鈥檌m, 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讘砖专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转 讬诪讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 讜讗讘讬讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 诪专讘讗 住讘专讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讗讛讗 讛砖诪专 讘谞讙注 讛爪专注转 诇砖诪专 诪讗讚 讜诇注砖讜转 诇注砖讜转 讗讬 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 讗转讛 讘住讬讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇讜 讜讘诪讜讟 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讻转讬驻讜 讜讗诐 注讘专讛 注讘专讛

Some teach that which Abaye and Rava said as referring to this baraita. The verse states: 鈥淭ake 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鈥 (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鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 讜讗讘讬讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 诇讘转专 讚砖诪注讬讛 诪专讘讗 住讘专讛

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鈥檛 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.

讜讗讘讬讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 讘砖专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讘讗讜诪专 诇拽讜抓 讘讛专转讜 讛讜讗 诪转讻讜讬谉

The Gemara clarifies: According to Abaye鈥檚 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.

转讬谞讞 讙讚讜诇 拽讟谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘讗讜诪专 讗讘讬 讛讘谉 诇拽讜抓 讘讛专转 讚讘谞讜 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪转讻讜讬谉

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鈥檚 bright white leprous spot.

讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗讞专 诇讬注讘讬讚 讗讞专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讟讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讞专:

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诪专 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 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

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?

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讘拽专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讘拽专 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讘拽专 砖谞讬 诇砖专讬驻转讜

岣zkiya said, and likewise one of the Sages of the school of 岣zkiya taught: The verse states with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淎nd you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 注讜诇转 砖讘转 讘砖讘转讜 讜诇讗 注讜诇转 讞讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 注讜诇转 讞讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Abaye said there is a different source for the fact that only circumcision on the eighth day overrides the Festival, as the verse stated: 鈥淭he burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its Shabbat in addition to the continual burnt-offering and its libation鈥 (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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 诇讘讚讜 讬注砖讛 诇讻诐 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 诇讘讚讜 讜诇讗 诪讬诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讚讗转讬讗 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

Rava said there is a different proof, as the verse states with regard to Festivals: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Exodus 12:16). The superfluous term 鈥渢hat鈥 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, 鈥渢hat alone may be done鈥 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 鈥渢hat alone鈥 may be performed, to teach that prohibited labors are permitted for sustenance on a Festival, and are not permitted for other mitzvot.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖讘转讜谉 注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛:

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.

讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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.

讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 驻住讞 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇讛 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讘讬 诪讬诇讛 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转 诪讗转诪讜诇 诇讗 讚讞讜 砖讘转 讚诇讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讘诇 驻住讞 讚讗讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讚讞讜 砖讘转

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.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讘讬 驻住讞 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讚谞讻专转讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讘专讬转讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讚讞讜 砖讘转 爪专讬讻讗:

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.

诪转谞讬壮 注讜砖讬谉 讻诇 爪专讻讬 诪讬诇讛 [讘砖讘转] 诪讜讛诇讬谉 讜驻讜专注讬谉 讜诪讜爪爪讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗讬住驻诇谞讬转 讜讻诪讜谉

MISHNA: When the eighth day of a baby鈥檚 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.

讗诐 诇讗 砖讞拽 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇讜注住 讘砖讬谞讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 讗诐 诇讗 讟专祝 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讬谞转谉 讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘注爪诪讜

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.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 讞诇讜拽 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讻讜专讱 注诇讬讛 住诪专讟讜讟 讗诐 诇讗 讛转拽讬谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讻讜专讱 注诇 讗爪讘注讜 讜诪讘讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞爪专 讗讞专转:

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.

讙诪壮 诪讻讚讬 拽转谞讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讻诇 爪讜专讻讬 诪讬诇讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

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?

诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪诇 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 注讜住拽 讘诪讬诇讛 讞讜讝专 讘讬谉 注诇 讛爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讘讬谉 注诇 讛爪讬爪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 驻讬专砖 注诇 爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讞讜讝专 注诇 爪讬爪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 驻讬专砖 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 诪驻砖讬讟 (讗讚诐) 讛驻住讞 注讚 讛讞讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻砖讬讟讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讜

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 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Beroka. And the Rabbis say: One may even flay the entire hide.

诪诪讗讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: From where do you draw this comparison? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him鈥 (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: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him,鈥 which requires performing the circumcision in a beautiful manner, indeed, Rabbi Yishmael would agree that the mitzva must be performed as aesthetically as possible.

讚转谞讬讗 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讛转谞讗讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讘诪爪讜转 注砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 住讜讻讛 谞讗讛 讜诇讜诇讘 谞讗讛 讜砖讜驻专 谞讗讛 爪讬爪讬转 谞讗讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 谞讗讛 讜讻转讜讘 讘讜 诇砖诪讜 讘讚讬讜 谞讗讛 讘拽讜诇诪讜住 谞讗讛 讘诇讘诇专 讗讜诪谉 讜讻讜专讻讜 讘砖讬专讗讬谉 谞讗讬谉

What is the source for the requirement of: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him鈥? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him [anveihu], the Lord of my father and I will raise Him up.鈥 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.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讜讗谞讜讛讜 讛讜讬 讚讜诪讛 诇讜 诪讛 讛讜讗 讞谞讜谉 讜专讞讜诐 讗祝 讗转讛 讛讬讛 讞谞讜谉 讜专讞讜诐

Abba Shaul says: Ve鈥檃nveihu 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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讘讬谉 砖谞专讗讛 讘注诇讬诇 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 谞专讗讛 讘注诇讬诇 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞专讗讛 讘注诇讬诇 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转

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.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛转诐 讚诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讬讚讞讜转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚谞讬转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讬讚讞讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讗专讘注讛 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚诐 砖谞讬 住讚专讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚诐 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 讜讗专讘注讛 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 砖谞讬诐 诇讬讟讜诇 砖谞讬 住讚专讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 诇讬讟讜诇 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 讛诪讻谞讬住讬谉 注讜诪讚讬诐 讘爪驻讜谉 讜驻谞讬讛诐 诇讚专讜诐 讜讛诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 注讜诪讚讬诐 讘讚专讜诐 讜驻谞讬讛诐 诇爪驻讜谉 讗诇讜 诪讜砖讻讬诐 讜讗诇讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讟驻讞讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 讟驻讞讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇驻谞讬 (讛壮) 转诪讬讚

Rather, the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 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: 鈥淎nd you shall place on the table showbread before Me continuously鈥 (Exodus 25:30).

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诇讜 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讜讗诇讜 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讗祝 讝讛 讛讬讛 转诪讬讚

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鈥檚 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讛诇拽讟讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讛讬诇拽讟 注谞讜砖 讻专转 诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讜诪谉

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讜诪谉 诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 注讘讚讬 驻诇讙讗 讚诪爪讜讛 讗转讜谉 注讘讚讬转讜 驻诇讙讗 讚诪爪讜讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讙讚讜诇

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讚讜诇 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜注专诇 讝讻专 讗砖专 诇讗 讬诪讜诇 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讜诪谉 讜讻讙讜谉 讚讗转讗 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚砖讘转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪住驻拽转 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪住驻拽讬谞讗 讜注讘讚 讜诇讗 讗讬住转驻拽 讜讗讬砖转讻讞 讚讞讘讜专讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转:

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: 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). 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.

诪讜爪爪讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 讗讜诪谞讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬抓 住讻谞讛 讛讜讗 讜注讘专讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讚拽讗 诪讞诇诇讬 注诇讬讛 砖讘转讗 住讻谞讛 讛讜讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讚诐 诪讬驻拽讚 驻拽讬讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讞讘讜专讬 诪讬讞讘专

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.

讜讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗讬住驻诇谞讬转 讜讻诪讜谉 诪讛 讗讬住驻诇谞讬转 讜讻诪讜谉 讻讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 住讻谞讛 讛讜讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 住讻谞讛 讛讜讗:

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.

讜谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗讬住驻诇谞讬转: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬住驻诇谞讬转讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜谉 讻讬讘讬 砖讘 诪讬谞讗讬 转专讘讗 讜讞讚讗 拽讬专讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽讬专讗 讜拽诇讘讗 专讬砖讬谞讗

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.

讚专砖讛 专讘讗 讘诪讞讜讝讗 拽专注讬谞讛讜 讘谞讬 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗住讬讗 诇诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讘拽讬 诇讻讜 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚诪砖讬 讗驻讬讛 讜诇讗 谞讙讬讘 讟讜讘讗 谞拽讟专讜 诇讬讛

When Rava taught this cure in Me岣za, 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

Scroll To Top