Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 19, 2020 | כ״ז בתמוז תש״פ

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.

Shabbat 135

Today’s 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?

ולא ספק דוחה את השבת ערלתו ודאי דוחה את השבת ולא אנדרוגינוס דוחה את השבת

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.

רבי יהודה אומר אנדרוגינוס דוחה את השבת וענוש כרת ערלתו ודאי דוחה את השבת ולא נולד בין השמשות דוחה את השבת ערלתו ודאי דוחה את השבת ולא נולד כשהוא מהול דוחה את השבת שבית שמאי אומרים צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית ובית הלל אומרים אינו צריך

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.

אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על נולד כשהוא מהול שצריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית מפני שערלה כבושה היא על מה נחלקו על גר שנתגייר כשהוא מהול שבית שמאי אומרים צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית ובית הלל אומרים אין צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית:

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.

אמר מר ולא ספק דוחה את השבת לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דתנו רבנן בן שבעה מחללין עליו את השבת ובן שמונה אין מחללין עליו את השבת ספק בן שבעה ספק בן שמונה אין מחללין עליו את השבת

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.

בן שמונה הרי הוא כאבן ואסור לטלטלו אבל אמו שוחה ומניקתו מפני הסכנה

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.

איתמר רב אמר הלכה כתנא קמא ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר

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’s 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.

רב אדא בר אהבה אתיליד ליה ההוא ינוקא כשהוא מהול אהדריה אתליסר מהולאי עד דשוייה כרות שפכה אמר תיתי לי דעברי אדרב

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.

אמר ליה רב נחמן ואדשמואל לא עבר אימר דאמר שמואל בחול בשבת מי אמר הוא סבר ודאי ערלה כבושה היא דאיתמר רבה אמר חיישינן שמא ערלה כבושה היא רב יוסף אמר ודאי ערלה כבושה היא

Rav Naḥman 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.

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא רבי אליעזר הקפר אומר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על נולד כשהוא מהול שצריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית על מה נחלקו לחלל עליו את השבת בית שמאי אומרים מחללין עליו את השבת ובית הלל אומרים אין מחללין עליו את השבת לאו מכלל דתנא קמא סבר מחללין עליו את השבת

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?

ודילמא תנא קמא דברי הכל אין מחללין קאמר אם כן רבי אליעזר הקפר טעמא דבית שמאי אתא לאשמעינן דילמא הכי קאמר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בדבר זה:

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.

אמר רבי אסי כל שאמו טמאה לידה נימול לשמונה וכל שאין אמו טמאה לידה אין נימול לשמנה שנאמר אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר וטמאה וגו׳ וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו

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: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days…and on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:2–3). 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.

אמר ליה אביי דורות הראשונים יוכיחו שאין אמו טמאה לידה ונימול לשמנה

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.

אמר ליה נתנה תורה

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

ונתחדשה הלכה

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

איני והא איתמר יוצא דופן ומי שיש לו שתי ערלות רב הונא ורב חייא בר רב חד אמר מחללין עליו את השבת וחד אמר אין מחללין עד כאן לא פליגי אלא לחלל עליו את השבת אבל לשמנה ודאי מהלינן ליה הא בהא תליא

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Wasn’t 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 Ḥiyya 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’s 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’s circumcision holds that one need not circumcise him on the eighth day.

כתנאי יש יליד בית שנימול לאחד ויש יליד בית שנימול לשמנה יש מקנת כסף שנימול לאחד ויש מקנת כסף שנימול לשמנה

The Gemara comments: The issue of Rabbi Asi’s 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.

יש מקנת כסף שנימול לאחד ויש מקנת כסף שנימול לשמונה כיצד לקח שפחה מעוברת ואחר כך ילדה זהו מקנת כסף הנימול לשמונה לקח שפחה וולדה עמה זו היא מקנת כסף שנימול לאחד

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.

ויש יליד בית שנימול לשמנה כיצד לקח שפחה ונתעברה אצלו וילדה זהו יליד בית הנימול לשמנה רב חמא אומר ילדה ואחר כך הטבילה זהו יליד בית שנימול לאחד הטבילה ואחר כך ילדה זהו יליד בית הנימול לשמנה

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 Ḥama 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.

ותנא קמא לא שני ליה בין הטבילה ואחר כך ילדה בין ילדה ואחר כך הטבילה דאף על גב דאין אמו טמאה לידה נימול לשמנה

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’s 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 Ḥama and the first tanna revolves around the halakha stated by Rabbi Asi.

(אמר רבא) בשלמא לרבי חמא משכחת לה יליד בית נימול לאחד יליד בית נימול לשמונה מקנת כסף נימול לאחד ומקנת כסף נימול לשמונה ילדה ואחר כך הטבילה זהו יליד בית שנימול לאחד הטבילה ואחר כך ילדה זהו יליד בית שנימול לשמונה

With regard to the dispute between the tanna’im, Rava said: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥama, 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.

מקנת כסף נימול לשמנה כגון שלקח שפחה מעוברת והטבילה ואחר כך ילדה מקנת כסף נימול לאחד כגון שלקח זה שפחה וזה עוברה

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.

אלא לתנא קמא בשלמא כולהו משכחת להו אלא יליד בית נימול לאחד היכי משכחת לה

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?

אמר רבי ירמיה בלוקח שפחה לעוברה

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.

הניחא למאן דאמר קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי אלא למאן דאמר קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי מאי איכא למימר

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?

אמר רב משרשיא בלוקח שפחה על מנת שלא להטבילה

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.

תניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל ששהה שלשים יום באדם אינו נפל שנאמר ופדויו מבן חדש תפדה שמנת ימים בבהמה אינו נפל שנאמר ומיום השמיני והלאה ירצה לקרבן וגו׳

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: “And 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” (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: “When 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” (Leviticus 22:27).

הא לא שהה ספיקא הוי

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.

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

ולא ספק דוחה את השבת ערלתו ודאי דוחה את השבת ולא אנדרוגינוס דוחה את השבת

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.

רבי יהודה אומר אנדרוגינוס דוחה את השבת וענוש כרת ערלתו ודאי דוחה את השבת ולא נולד בין השמשות דוחה את השבת ערלתו ודאי דוחה את השבת ולא נולד כשהוא מהול דוחה את השבת שבית שמאי אומרים צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית ובית הלל אומרים אינו צריך

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.

אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על נולד כשהוא מהול שצריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית מפני שערלה כבושה היא על מה נחלקו על גר שנתגייר כשהוא מהול שבית שמאי אומרים צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית ובית הלל אומרים אין צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית:

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.

אמר מר ולא ספק דוחה את השבת לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דתנו רבנן בן שבעה מחללין עליו את השבת ובן שמונה אין מחללין עליו את השבת ספק בן שבעה ספק בן שמונה אין מחללין עליו את השבת

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.

בן שמונה הרי הוא כאבן ואסור לטלטלו אבל אמו שוחה ומניקתו מפני הסכנה

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.

איתמר רב אמר הלכה כתנא קמא ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר

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’s 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.

רב אדא בר אהבה אתיליד ליה ההוא ינוקא כשהוא מהול אהדריה אתליסר מהולאי עד דשוייה כרות שפכה אמר תיתי לי דעברי אדרב

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.

אמר ליה רב נחמן ואדשמואל לא עבר אימר דאמר שמואל בחול בשבת מי אמר הוא סבר ודאי ערלה כבושה היא דאיתמר רבה אמר חיישינן שמא ערלה כבושה היא רב יוסף אמר ודאי ערלה כבושה היא

Rav Naḥman 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.

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא רבי אליעזר הקפר אומר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על נולד כשהוא מהול שצריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית על מה נחלקו לחלל עליו את השבת בית שמאי אומרים מחללין עליו את השבת ובית הלל אומרים אין מחללין עליו את השבת לאו מכלל דתנא קמא סבר מחללין עליו את השבת

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?

ודילמא תנא קמא דברי הכל אין מחללין קאמר אם כן רבי אליעזר הקפר טעמא דבית שמאי אתא לאשמעינן דילמא הכי קאמר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בדבר זה:

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.

אמר רבי אסי כל שאמו טמאה לידה נימול לשמונה וכל שאין אמו טמאה לידה אין נימול לשמנה שנאמר אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר וטמאה וגו׳ וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו

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: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days…and on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:2–3). 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.

אמר ליה אביי דורות הראשונים יוכיחו שאין אמו טמאה לידה ונימול לשמנה

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.

אמר ליה נתנה תורה

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

ונתחדשה הלכה

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

איני והא איתמר יוצא דופן ומי שיש לו שתי ערלות רב הונא ורב חייא בר רב חד אמר מחללין עליו את השבת וחד אמר אין מחללין עד כאן לא פליגי אלא לחלל עליו את השבת אבל לשמנה ודאי מהלינן ליה הא בהא תליא

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Wasn’t 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 Ḥiyya 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’s 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’s circumcision holds that one need not circumcise him on the eighth day.

כתנאי יש יליד בית שנימול לאחד ויש יליד בית שנימול לשמנה יש מקנת כסף שנימול לאחד ויש מקנת כסף שנימול לשמנה

The Gemara comments: The issue of Rabbi Asi’s 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.

יש מקנת כסף שנימול לאחד ויש מקנת כסף שנימול לשמונה כיצד לקח שפחה מעוברת ואחר כך ילדה זהו מקנת כסף הנימול לשמונה לקח שפחה וולדה עמה זו היא מקנת כסף שנימול לאחד

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.

ויש יליד בית שנימול לשמנה כיצד לקח שפחה ונתעברה אצלו וילדה זהו יליד בית הנימול לשמנה רב חמא אומר ילדה ואחר כך הטבילה זהו יליד בית שנימול לאחד הטבילה ואחר כך ילדה זהו יליד בית הנימול לשמנה

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 Ḥama 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.

ותנא קמא לא שני ליה בין הטבילה ואחר כך ילדה בין ילדה ואחר כך הטבילה דאף על גב דאין אמו טמאה לידה נימול לשמנה

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’s 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 Ḥama and the first tanna revolves around the halakha stated by Rabbi Asi.

(אמר רבא) בשלמא לרבי חמא משכחת לה יליד בית נימול לאחד יליד בית נימול לשמונה מקנת כסף נימול לאחד ומקנת כסף נימול לשמונה ילדה ואחר כך הטבילה זהו יליד בית שנימול לאחד הטבילה ואחר כך ילדה זהו יליד בית שנימול לשמונה

With regard to the dispute between the tanna’im, Rava said: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥama, 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.

מקנת כסף נימול לשמנה כגון שלקח שפחה מעוברת והטבילה ואחר כך ילדה מקנת כסף נימול לאחד כגון שלקח זה שפחה וזה עוברה

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.

אלא לתנא קמא בשלמא כולהו משכחת להו אלא יליד בית נימול לאחד היכי משכחת לה

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?

אמר רבי ירמיה בלוקח שפחה לעוברה

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.

הניחא למאן דאמר קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי אלא למאן דאמר קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי מאי איכא למימר

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?

אמר רב משרשיא בלוקח שפחה על מנת שלא להטבילה

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.

תניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל ששהה שלשים יום באדם אינו נפל שנאמר ופדויו מבן חדש תפדה שמנת ימים בבהמה אינו נפל שנאמר ומיום השמיני והלאה ירצה לקרבן וגו׳

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: “And 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” (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: “When 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” (Leviticus 22:27).

הא לא שהה ספיקא הוי

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?

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top