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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 19, 2020 | 讻状讝 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Shabbat 135

Today鈥檚 shiur is dedicated by Miriam Tannenbaum with gratitude to the inspiring Daf Yomi women of RBS-Kehillat Ahavat Tzion. “So grateful to have started this journey together and to continue even as we move to Efrat” and by Margie Zwiebel for a refuah shleima for Chaim Tzvi ben Yenta Bluma.

In which situations does the mitzva of brit milah not override Shabbat? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree although it is not clear if their disagreement is regarding a child who is already born circumcised or a convert who was circumcised before converting. What is the status of a child born after eight months of pregnancy? Rabbi Asi connects (based on the connection in the verses of the Torah) between a woman who has impurity from birth for seven days after the birth of a male to the law of performed the brit milah on the eighth day. He therefore holds that a child born though caesarean section would get a brit milah immediately. Abaye disagrees. The gemara then shows that this debate was also a subject of debate for tannaim where Rabbi Chama and tana kama debate the status of slave children and in what situations do are they circumcised on the first day and in which ones on the eighth day? For the first thirty days of a baby’s life, it is not clear if the baby will live – only when it reaches day 30 does it become clear. This is why the law of pidyon haben, redeeming the baby, is one the tthirtieth day. If that is the case, how can we do a brit milah on Shabbat on day eight if it’s not clear the baby will live?

讜诇讗 住驻拽 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 注专诇转讜 讜讚讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

and the circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. And by means of the same inference from the term his foreskin, derive that circumcision of his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat, and circumcising the foreskin of a hermaphrodite baby, with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not circumcision is required, does not override Shabbat.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 注专诇转讜 讜讚讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 谞讜诇讚 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 注专诇转讜 讜讚讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

Rabbi Yehuda says: The circumcision of a hermaphrodite overrides Shabbat, and if he is not circumcised, when he reaches majority he is punishable by karet. Rabbi Yehuda interprets the verse in the following manner: His definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one born at twilight does not override Shabbat. And likewise, his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, does not override Shabbat. With regard to a child in that condition, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: It is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of circumcision of the foreskin, and Beit Hillel say: It is not necessary, as he is already circumcised.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 砖爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转 诪驻谞讬 砖注专诇讛 讻讘讜砖讛 讛讬讗 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: That was not the subject of their dispute, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree over the fact that from one who was born circumcised, it is necessary to drip covenantal blood, because they agree that it is a case of a concealed foreskin. The child is not actually circumcised; it is just that his foreskin is not visible. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to a convert who for some reason was circumcised when he was a gentile and converted when he was already circumcised, as Beit Shammai say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is necessary, and Beit Hillel say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is not necessary, and he needs only a ritual immersion to complete his conversion.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诇讗 住驻拽 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谉 砖讘注讛 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 住驻拽 讘谉 砖讘注讛 住驻拽 讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转

The Gemara cited above that the Master said: The circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What case of uncertainty does this statement come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which the Sages taught: To circumcise a child born after seven months of pregnancy, one desecrates Shabbat, as it will likely live. However, to circumcise a child born after eight months of pregnancy, with regard to whom the presumption was that he would not survive, one may not desecrate Shabbat. And even for the circumcision of a child with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether the child was born after seven months and uncertainty whether the child was born after eight months, one may not desecrate Shabbat.

讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讗讘谉 讜讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讗讘诇 讗诪讜 砖讜讞讛 讜诪谞讬拽转讜 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛

And the Sages taught: A child born after eight months is like a stone with regard to the halakhot of set-aside [muktze], and it is prohibited to move him. However, his mother may bend over the child and nurse him due to the danger that failure to nurse will cause her to fall ill.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

With regard to the halakhic ruling in the case of a child born circumcised, it is stated that the Sages disagree. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the explanation of the first tanna, i.e., in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 explanation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, that they disagree with regard to one born circumcised. Since we rule in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, it is not necessary to drip covenantal blood from a child born circumcised. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to one born circumcised, and that everyone agrees that it is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗转讬诇讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讗讛讚专讬讛 讗转诇讬住专 诪讛讜诇讗讬 注讚 讚砖讜讬讬讛 讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讗诪专 转讬转讬 诇讬 讚注讘专讬 讗讚专讘

The Gemara relates that to Rav Adda bar Ahava there was this child that was born circumcised, and the time for his circumcision was on Shabbat. He inquired after thirteen ritual circumcisors, but they refused to circumcise him, until ultimately, he circumcised his son himself and rendered him one with a severed urethra. He did not know how to perform a circumcision and made too deep an incision. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: I have it coming to me, i.e., I deserve to be punished, as I violated the ruling of Rav, who ruled that one born circumcised does not even need covenantal blood drawn.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 注讘专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讞讜诇 讘砖讘转 诪讬 讗诪专 讛讜讗 住讘专 讜讚讗讬 注专诇讛 讻讘讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讚讗讬转诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 注专诇讛 讻讘讜砖讛 讛讬讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讜讚讗讬 注专诇讛 讻讘讜砖讛 讛讬讗

Rav Na岣an said to him: And did he not violate the ruling of Shmuel? Say that Shmuel said that one is required to drip covenantal blood during the week, on Shabbat, did he say so? Certainly one does not desecrate Shabbat in that case. The Gemara explains that Rav Adda bar Ahava held differently, that in that case there is not merely a concern that perhaps there is a concealed foreskin. In that case, that there is definitely a concealed foreskin. Therefore, a form of circumcision must be performed on the child, and it overrides Shabbat. As it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute as to whether or not it is permitted to drip covenantal blood on Shabbat from a child born circumcised. Rabba said: We are concerned lest there is a concealed foreskin, and therefore there is uncertainty whether or not he is considered uncircumcised, and therefore it is prohibited to circumcise him on Shabbat. Rav Yosef said: In that case, there is certainly a concealed foreskin and therefore, it is permitted to circumcise him even on Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛拽驻专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 砖爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 诇讞诇诇 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 诇讗讜 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this line of reasoning? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar says: There is a tradition that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to a child who was born circumcised, that one is required to drip covenantal blood from him. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to whether or not to desecrate Shabbat on his behalf. Beit Shammai say: One desecrates Shabbat in order to circumcise him, and Beit Hillel say: One does not desecrate Shabbat in order to circumcise him. Rav Yosef concludes: Does this not prove by inference that the first tanna, whose opinion Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disputes, holds that everyone agrees that one desecrates Shabbat on his behalf, and Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disagrees and states that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute that very matter?

讜讚讬诇诪讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讻谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛拽驻专 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛:

The Gemara refutes this: And perhaps the first tanna is saying that everyone agrees that one may not desecrate Shabbat in that case, and Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disagrees and holds that there is a dispute in this regard. The Gemara immediately rejects this assertion: If that is so, that Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar is coming to introduce an opinion that allows desecrating Shabbat to perform circumcision in this case, that is the opinion of Beit Shammai; did Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar come to teach us the reasoning of Beit Shammai? Their opinion is rejected as halakha, and there would be no purpose in making a statement simply to explain the opinion of Beit Shammai. The Gemara answers that proof is not absolute; perhaps this is what he is saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to this matter of circumcision of a baby born circumcised on Shabbat. They disagree with regard to the requirement to drip covenantal blood on a weekday.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讻诇 砖讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讗讬谉 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讝专讬注 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜讟诪讗讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜

Rabbi Asi stated a principle: Any child whose birth renders his mother ritually impure due to childbirth is circumcised at eight days; and any child whose birth does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, e.g., the birth was not natural, but by caesarean section, is not necessarily circumcised at eight days. As it is stated: 鈥淚f a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days鈥and on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:2鈥3). This verse draws a parallel between the two issues, indicating that only a child whose birth renders his mother impure is circumcised on the eighth day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讜谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛

Abaye said to him: The early generations, from Abraham through the revelation at Sinai, will prove that the principle is not valid, as the birth of a male during that era did not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, as the halakhot of the impurity of childbirth were commanded at Sinai, and nevertheless, the child was circumcised at eight days, as stated in the Torah, in the book of Genesis.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞转谞讛 转讜专讛

Rabbi Asi said to him: There is no proof from here, as when the Torah was later given,

讜谞转讞讚砖讛 讛诇讻讛

halakha was introduced. No proof can be cited from the observance of mitzvot prior to the revelation at Sinai.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 注专诇讜转 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 诇讞诇诇 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇砖诪谞讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讛诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛讗 讘讛讗 转诇讬讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Wasn鈥檛 it stated that there is a dispute with regard to this halakha? As it was taught with regard to a child born by caesarean section and one who has two foreskins, Rav Huna and Rav 岣yya bar Rav disputed their status. One said: One desecrates Shabbat on his behalf and performs the circumcision; and one said: One does not desecrate Shabbat on his behalf. They only disagree with regard to whether or not it is permissible to desecrate Shabbat on his behalf; however, with regard to circumcising him at eight days, in principle, we certainly circumcise him, even though the birth of a child by caesarean section does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth. The Gemara answers: The two disputes are interdependent. The one who holds that one desecrates Shabbat for this child鈥檚 circumcision also holds that one must circumcise him on the eighth day. The one who holds that one may not desecrate Shabbat for this child鈥檚 circumcision holds that one need not circumcise him on the eighth day.

讻转谞讗讬 讬砖 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讜讬砖 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讜讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛

The Gemara comments: The issue of Rabbi Asi鈥檚 statement that the obligation to circumcise after eight days depends upon whether or not his birth renders his mother ritually impure due to childbirth is parallel to a tannaitic dispute, as we learned: There is a home-born child of a Canaanite maidservant born in a Jewish home, who has the legal status of a Canaanite slave and his Jewish owner is obligated to circumcise him, who is circumcised at the age of one day, i.e., immediately after birth; and there is a home-born child circumcised at eight days. And there is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at one day, and there is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at eight days.

讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讜讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛 讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 砖驻讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 讝讛讜 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 讛谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛 诇拽讞 砖驻讞讛 讜讜诇讚讛 注诪讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚

The baraita explains: There is a home-born child who is circumcised at one; and there is a home-born child circumcised at eight. How so? If a Jew purchased a pregnant maidservant and she then gave birth to a child while in his possession; that is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at eight days, as the fetus was purchased along with the maidservant. If he purchased a maidservant who had already given birth and purchased her child along with her, he is obligated to circumcise the child as soon as the child enters his possession; this is a slave purchased in a money transaction, who is circumcised at one day.

讜讬砖 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 砖驻讞讛 讜谞转注讘专讛 讗爪诇讜 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讛讜 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 讛谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 专讘 讞诪讗 讗讜诪专 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讝讛讜 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 讝讛讜 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 讛谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛

And likewise, there is a home-born child circumcised at eight days. How so? If he bought a maidservant and she became pregnant in his possession and gave birth; that is a home-born child circumcised at eight days. Rav 岣ma says there is a distinction: If the maidservant gave birth and he subsequently had her immerse for the purpose of becoming a maidservant, that is a home-born child circumcised at one day. But if he had her immerse and she then gave birth; that is a home-born child circumcised at eight days.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 讘讬谉 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛

And the first tanna does not distinguish between whether he had her immerse and she then gave birth, or whether she gave birth and he then had her immerse. Apparently, even though the child鈥檚 birth does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, as she is not obligated in mitzvot before immersing and she is not susceptible to ritual impurity of childbirth, he is circumcised at eight days. The dispute between Rabbi 岣ma and the first tanna revolves around the halakha stated by Rabbi Asi.

(讗诪专 专讘讗) 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞诪讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讜诪拽谞转 讻住祝 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讝讛讜 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 讝讛讜 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛

With regard to the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m, Rava said: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣ma, cases can be found of a home-born child circumcised at one day, a home-born child circumcised at eight days, a slave purchased in a money transaction circumcised at one day, and a slave purchased in a money transaction circumcised at eight days, in the following manner: If a maidservant gave birth and he subsequently had her immerse, that is the case of a home-born child circumcised at one day. If he had her immerse and she then gave birth, that is the case of a home-born child circumcised at eight days.

诪拽谞转 讻住祝 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞 砖驻讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞 讝讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讝讛 注讜讘专讛

A slave purchased in a money transaction is circumcised at eight days in a case where a Jew purchased a pregnant maidservant and thereby paid for and purchased the fetus as well, and then had her immerse, and she then gave birth. A slave purchased in a money transaction is circumcised at one day in a case where that person purchased a maidservant, and that person, i.e., someone else, bought her fetus; since the owner of the fetus has no share in its mother, the child may be circumcised immediately after birth.

讗诇讗 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

However, according to the opinion of the first tanna, granted that all the cases can be found; however, how can the case of a home-born child circumcised at one day be found?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘诇讜拽讞 砖驻讞讛 诇注讜讘专讛

Rabbi Yirmeya said: It can be found in the case of one who purchases a maidservant for the purpose of purchasing rights to her fetus without purchasing the maidservant herself.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 诇讗讜 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of the one who said that a transaction to purchase an item for its product is not a transaction to purchase the item itself, i.e., one who purchased a field for its fruit did not purchase the field itself. However, according to the opinion of the one who said that a transaction to purchase an item for its product is a transaction to purchase the item itself, what can be said, as he does not distinguish between the purchase of the maidservant herself and the purchase of the children that she bears?

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘诇讜拽讞 砖驻讞讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 诇讛讟讘讬诇讛

Rav Mesharshiya said: According to this opinion, it must be explained as referring to one who purchases a maidservant on condition that he will not have her immerse. They can stipulate that he will not have her immerse as a maidservant and that she will remain a gentile. In that case, the child is a slave born to a Jew, and the mitzva of circumcision is in effect immediately upon birth.

转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖砖讛讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讗讚诐 讗讬谞讜 谞驻诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜驻讚讜讬讜 诪讘谉 讞讚砖 转驻讚讛 砖诪谞转 讬诪讬诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讜 谞驻诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讜讛诇讗讛 讬专爪讛 诇拽专讘谉 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara cites a related baraita where it was taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to people, any child that remains alive thirty days after birth is no longer suspected of being a stillborn, and is assumed to be a regular child who will go on living. Proof is cited from that which is stated with regard to the laws of redemption and valuations: 鈥淎nd their redemption, from a month old you shall redeem according to your valuation, five shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the Sanctuary; it is twenty gera鈥 (Numbers 18:16), indicating that no value is ascribed to an infant less than a month old, as its viability is uncertain. Likewise, a newborn animal that survives for eight days is no longer suspected of being a stillborn, as it is stated: 鈥淲hen a bullock or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days under its mother; and from the eighth day and onward it may be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:27).

讛讗 诇讗 砖讛讛 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference: If the child did not yet remain alive for thirty days, it is considered an uncertainty whether or not it is a stillborn with regard to several halakhot?

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 135: Born Circumcised

More on brit milah... When a child is born circumcised, what to do? You can take a drop of blood....

Shabbat 135

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 135

讜诇讗 住驻拽 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 注专诇转讜 讜讚讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

and the circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. And by means of the same inference from the term his foreskin, derive that circumcision of his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat, and circumcising the foreskin of a hermaphrodite baby, with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not circumcision is required, does not override Shabbat.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 注专诇转讜 讜讚讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 谞讜诇讚 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 注专诇转讜 讜讚讗讬 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

Rabbi Yehuda says: The circumcision of a hermaphrodite overrides Shabbat, and if he is not circumcised, when he reaches majority he is punishable by karet. Rabbi Yehuda interprets the verse in the following manner: His definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one born at twilight does not override Shabbat. And likewise, his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, does not override Shabbat. With regard to a child in that condition, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: It is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of circumcision of the foreskin, and Beit Hillel say: It is not necessary, as he is already circumcised.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 砖爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转 诪驻谞讬 砖注专诇讛 讻讘讜砖讛 讛讬讗 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: That was not the subject of their dispute, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree over the fact that from one who was born circumcised, it is necessary to drip covenantal blood, because they agree that it is a case of a concealed foreskin. The child is not actually circumcised; it is just that his foreskin is not visible. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to a convert who for some reason was circumcised when he was a gentile and converted when he was already circumcised, as Beit Shammai say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is necessary, and Beit Hillel say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is not necessary, and he needs only a ritual immersion to complete his conversion.

讗诪专 诪专 讜诇讗 住驻拽 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谉 砖讘注讛 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 住驻拽 讘谉 砖讘注讛 住驻拽 讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转

The Gemara cited above that the Master said: The circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What case of uncertainty does this statement come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which the Sages taught: To circumcise a child born after seven months of pregnancy, one desecrates Shabbat, as it will likely live. However, to circumcise a child born after eight months of pregnancy, with regard to whom the presumption was that he would not survive, one may not desecrate Shabbat. And even for the circumcision of a child with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether the child was born after seven months and uncertainty whether the child was born after eight months, one may not desecrate Shabbat.

讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讗讘谉 讜讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讗讘诇 讗诪讜 砖讜讞讛 讜诪谞讬拽转讜 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛

And the Sages taught: A child born after eight months is like a stone with regard to the halakhot of set-aside [muktze], and it is prohibited to move him. However, his mother may bend over the child and nurse him due to the danger that failure to nurse will cause her to fall ill.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

With regard to the halakhic ruling in the case of a child born circumcised, it is stated that the Sages disagree. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the explanation of the first tanna, i.e., in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 explanation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, that they disagree with regard to one born circumcised. Since we rule in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, it is not necessary to drip covenantal blood from a child born circumcised. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to one born circumcised, and that everyone agrees that it is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗转讬诇讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 讗讛讚专讬讛 讗转诇讬住专 诪讛讜诇讗讬 注讚 讚砖讜讬讬讛 讻专讜转 砖驻讻讛 讗诪专 转讬转讬 诇讬 讚注讘专讬 讗讚专讘

The Gemara relates that to Rav Adda bar Ahava there was this child that was born circumcised, and the time for his circumcision was on Shabbat. He inquired after thirteen ritual circumcisors, but they refused to circumcise him, until ultimately, he circumcised his son himself and rendered him one with a severed urethra. He did not know how to perform a circumcision and made too deep an incision. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: I have it coming to me, i.e., I deserve to be punished, as I violated the ruling of Rav, who ruled that one born circumcised does not even need covenantal blood drawn.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 注讘专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讞讜诇 讘砖讘转 诪讬 讗诪专 讛讜讗 住讘专 讜讚讗讬 注专诇讛 讻讘讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讚讗讬转诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 注专诇讛 讻讘讜砖讛 讛讬讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讜讚讗讬 注专诇讛 讻讘讜砖讛 讛讬讗

Rav Na岣an said to him: And did he not violate the ruling of Shmuel? Say that Shmuel said that one is required to drip covenantal blood during the week, on Shabbat, did he say so? Certainly one does not desecrate Shabbat in that case. The Gemara explains that Rav Adda bar Ahava held differently, that in that case there is not merely a concern that perhaps there is a concealed foreskin. In that case, that there is definitely a concealed foreskin. Therefore, a form of circumcision must be performed on the child, and it overrides Shabbat. As it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute as to whether or not it is permitted to drip covenantal blood on Shabbat from a child born circumcised. Rabba said: We are concerned lest there is a concealed foreskin, and therefore there is uncertainty whether or not he is considered uncircumcised, and therefore it is prohibited to circumcise him on Shabbat. Rav Yosef said: In that case, there is certainly a concealed foreskin and therefore, it is permitted to circumcise him even on Shabbat.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛拽驻专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 谞讜诇讚 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讛讜诇 砖爪专讬讱 诇讛讟讬祝 诪诪谞讜 讚诐 讘专讬转 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 诇讞诇诇 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 诇讗讜 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this line of reasoning? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar says: There is a tradition that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to a child who was born circumcised, that one is required to drip covenantal blood from him. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to whether or not to desecrate Shabbat on his behalf. Beit Shammai say: One desecrates Shabbat in order to circumcise him, and Beit Hillel say: One does not desecrate Shabbat in order to circumcise him. Rav Yosef concludes: Does this not prove by inference that the first tanna, whose opinion Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disputes, holds that everyone agrees that one desecrates Shabbat on his behalf, and Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disagrees and states that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute that very matter?

讜讚讬诇诪讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讻谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛拽驻专 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讚讘专 讝讛:

The Gemara refutes this: And perhaps the first tanna is saying that everyone agrees that one may not desecrate Shabbat in that case, and Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disagrees and holds that there is a dispute in this regard. The Gemara immediately rejects this assertion: If that is so, that Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar is coming to introduce an opinion that allows desecrating Shabbat to perform circumcision in this case, that is the opinion of Beit Shammai; did Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar come to teach us the reasoning of Beit Shammai? Their opinion is rejected as halakha, and there would be no purpose in making a statement simply to explain the opinion of Beit Shammai. The Gemara answers that proof is not absolute; perhaps this is what he is saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to this matter of circumcision of a baby born circumcised on Shabbat. They disagree with regard to the requirement to drip covenantal blood on a weekday.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讻诇 砖讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讗讬谉 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讝专讬注 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜讟诪讗讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 讘砖专 注专诇转讜

Rabbi Asi stated a principle: Any child whose birth renders his mother ritually impure due to childbirth is circumcised at eight days; and any child whose birth does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, e.g., the birth was not natural, but by caesarean section, is not necessarily circumcised at eight days. As it is stated: 鈥淚f a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days鈥and on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:2鈥3). This verse draws a parallel between the two issues, indicating that only a child whose birth renders his mother impure is circumcised on the eighth day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚讜专讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讜谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛

Abaye said to him: The early generations, from Abraham through the revelation at Sinai, will prove that the principle is not valid, as the birth of a male during that era did not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, as the halakhot of the impurity of childbirth were commanded at Sinai, and nevertheless, the child was circumcised at eight days, as stated in the Torah, in the book of Genesis.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞转谞讛 转讜专讛

Rabbi Asi said to him: There is no proof from here, as when the Torah was later given,

讜谞转讞讚砖讛 讛诇讻讛

halakha was introduced. No proof can be cited from the observance of mitzvot prior to the revelation at Sinai.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 注专诇讜转 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讞诇诇讬谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 诇讞诇诇 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇砖诪谞讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讛诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛讗 讘讛讗 转诇讬讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Wasn鈥檛 it stated that there is a dispute with regard to this halakha? As it was taught with regard to a child born by caesarean section and one who has two foreskins, Rav Huna and Rav 岣yya bar Rav disputed their status. One said: One desecrates Shabbat on his behalf and performs the circumcision; and one said: One does not desecrate Shabbat on his behalf. They only disagree with regard to whether or not it is permissible to desecrate Shabbat on his behalf; however, with regard to circumcising him at eight days, in principle, we certainly circumcise him, even though the birth of a child by caesarean section does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth. The Gemara answers: The two disputes are interdependent. The one who holds that one desecrates Shabbat for this child鈥檚 circumcision also holds that one must circumcise him on the eighth day. The one who holds that one may not desecrate Shabbat for this child鈥檚 circumcision holds that one need not circumcise him on the eighth day.

讻转谞讗讬 讬砖 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讜讬砖 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讜讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛

The Gemara comments: The issue of Rabbi Asi鈥檚 statement that the obligation to circumcise after eight days depends upon whether or not his birth renders his mother ritually impure due to childbirth is parallel to a tannaitic dispute, as we learned: There is a home-born child of a Canaanite maidservant born in a Jewish home, who has the legal status of a Canaanite slave and his Jewish owner is obligated to circumcise him, who is circumcised at the age of one day, i.e., immediately after birth; and there is a home-born child circumcised at eight days. And there is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at one day, and there is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at eight days.

讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讜讬砖 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛 讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 砖驻讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 讝讛讜 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 讛谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛 诇拽讞 砖驻讞讛 讜讜诇讚讛 注诪讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚

The baraita explains: There is a home-born child who is circumcised at one; and there is a home-born child circumcised at eight. How so? If a Jew purchased a pregnant maidservant and she then gave birth to a child while in his possession; that is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at eight days, as the fetus was purchased along with the maidservant. If he purchased a maidservant who had already given birth and purchased her child along with her, he is obligated to circumcise the child as soon as the child enters his possession; this is a slave purchased in a money transaction, who is circumcised at one day.

讜讬砖 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 砖驻讞讛 讜谞转注讘专讛 讗爪诇讜 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讛讜 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 讛谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 专讘 讞诪讗 讗讜诪专 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讝讛讜 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 讝讛讜 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 讛谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛

And likewise, there is a home-born child circumcised at eight days. How so? If he bought a maidservant and she became pregnant in his possession and gave birth; that is a home-born child circumcised at eight days. Rav 岣ma says there is a distinction: If the maidservant gave birth and he subsequently had her immerse for the purpose of becoming a maidservant, that is a home-born child circumcised at one day. But if he had her immerse and she then gave birth; that is a home-born child circumcised at eight days.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 讘讬谉 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛

And the first tanna does not distinguish between whether he had her immerse and she then gave birth, or whether she gave birth and he then had her immerse. Apparently, even though the child鈥檚 birth does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, as she is not obligated in mitzvot before immersing and she is not susceptible to ritual impurity of childbirth, he is circumcised at eight days. The dispute between Rabbi 岣ma and the first tanna revolves around the halakha stated by Rabbi Asi.

(讗诪专 专讘讗) 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞诪讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讜诪拽谞转 讻住祝 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讝讛讜 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 讝讛讜 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪讜谞讛

With regard to the dispute between the tanna鈥檌m, Rava said: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣ma, cases can be found of a home-born child circumcised at one day, a home-born child circumcised at eight days, a slave purchased in a money transaction circumcised at one day, and a slave purchased in a money transaction circumcised at eight days, in the following manner: If a maidservant gave birth and he subsequently had her immerse, that is the case of a home-born child circumcised at one day. If he had her immerse and she then gave birth, that is the case of a home-born child circumcised at eight days.

诪拽谞转 讻住祝 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞 砖驻讞讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬诇讚讛 诪拽谞转 讻住祝 谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞 讝讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讝讛 注讜讘专讛

A slave purchased in a money transaction is circumcised at eight days in a case where a Jew purchased a pregnant maidservant and thereby paid for and purchased the fetus as well, and then had her immerse, and she then gave birth. A slave purchased in a money transaction is circumcised at one day in a case where that person purchased a maidservant, and that person, i.e., someone else, bought her fetus; since the owner of the fetus has no share in its mother, the child may be circumcised immediately after birth.

讗诇讗 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

However, according to the opinion of the first tanna, granted that all the cases can be found; however, how can the case of a home-born child circumcised at one day be found?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘诇讜拽讞 砖驻讞讛 诇注讜讘专讛

Rabbi Yirmeya said: It can be found in the case of one who purchases a maidservant for the purpose of purchasing rights to her fetus without purchasing the maidservant herself.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 诇讗讜 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of the one who said that a transaction to purchase an item for its product is not a transaction to purchase the item itself, i.e., one who purchased a field for its fruit did not purchase the field itself. However, according to the opinion of the one who said that a transaction to purchase an item for its product is a transaction to purchase the item itself, what can be said, as he does not distinguish between the purchase of the maidservant herself and the purchase of the children that she bears?

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘诇讜拽讞 砖驻讞讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 诇讛讟讘讬诇讛

Rav Mesharshiya said: According to this opinion, it must be explained as referring to one who purchases a maidservant on condition that he will not have her immerse. They can stipulate that he will not have her immerse as a maidservant and that she will remain a gentile. In that case, the child is a slave born to a Jew, and the mitzva of circumcision is in effect immediately upon birth.

转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖砖讛讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讘讗讚诐 讗讬谞讜 谞驻诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜驻讚讜讬讜 诪讘谉 讞讚砖 转驻讚讛 砖诪谞转 讬诪讬诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讜 谞驻诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讜讛诇讗讛 讬专爪讛 诇拽专讘谉 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara cites a related baraita where it was taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to people, any child that remains alive thirty days after birth is no longer suspected of being a stillborn, and is assumed to be a regular child who will go on living. Proof is cited from that which is stated with regard to the laws of redemption and valuations: 鈥淎nd their redemption, from a month old you shall redeem according to your valuation, five shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the Sanctuary; it is twenty gera鈥 (Numbers 18:16), indicating that no value is ascribed to an infant less than a month old, as its viability is uncertain. Likewise, a newborn animal that survives for eight days is no longer suspected of being a stillborn, as it is stated: 鈥淲hen a bullock or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days under its mother; and from the eighth day and onward it may be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:27).

讛讗 诇讗 砖讛讛 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference: If the child did not yet remain alive for thirty days, it is considered an uncertainty whether or not it is a stillborn with regard to several halakhot?

Scroll To Top