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

Daf Yomi

July 21, 2020 | 讻状讟 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.

Shabbat 137

This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Margie Zweibel in honor of Howie Shocket, Chaim Tzvi ben Yenta Bluma. He is in our tefillot.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by The Mitchell Family in honor of Rabia Mitchell鈥檚 birthday. Mazel tov!

In which additional case does Rabbi Yehuda hold that an andrgyne is considered a case of doubt and not for sure male? If there are two babies (of one father) and was born on Friday and the other on Shabbat and the father mistakenly circumcises the Friday baby, or there were two babies one born on Sunday and one born on Shabbat and the father mistakenly circumcises the Sunday baby, is he obligated to bring a sacrifice for unwittingly desecrating Shabbat? Rabbi Eliezer and rabbi Yehoshua disagree in one of the cases and agree in the other but it is not clear in which case do they agree and do they both agree one is obligated or exempt? Three versions are brought in the gemara. The underlying issues is: does the fact that one performed a mitzva or was involved in trying to perform a mitzva exempt him from bringing a sacrifice for desecrating Shabbat? One can perform the brrit milah sometimes on the 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th day after the birth and still be circumcising in its proper time. The mishna describes each case and why. When is brit milah in its proper time for a child who is sick? What are the additional pieces of skin that must be removed in order for the circumcision to be valid? If someone is overweight, more needs to be removed so it will not appear (marit ayin) as if he isn’t circumcised. If one is overweight, how can it be determined whether or not more needs to be removed? What blessings are recited at the brit milah? How are the blessings different for a convert and a Canaanite slave? Can one hang a wine strainer on Yom Tov? Is it a problem of building? Can one pour wine into an already set up wine strainer even on Shabbat? Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis debate this issue. Rabbi Eliezer is lenient. How does it connect with Rabbi Eliezer’s stringent opinion about the window shutter where he forbids adding to an already existing temporary tent?

讜住转诐 住驻专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


And an unattributed halakha cited in the Sifra generally reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬诐 诇拽讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 讜驻讜住诇 讘讗砖讛 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We too also learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda does not consider a hermaphrodite to be a male in every sense. The Sages disagreed over sanctification of the waters of a purification offering, i.e., the placing of the ashes of the red heifer in potable, running spring water: Everyone is fit to sanctify the waters of a purification offering, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, but deems a woman and a hermaphrodite unfit. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not consider the legal status of a hermaphrodite to be like that of a male. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from this.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讛诪讜诇 诇讻诐 讻诇 讝讻专:


The Gemara asks: What is different about the halakhot of circumcision, with regard to which Rabbi Yehuda categorizes a hermaphrodite as a male in regard to its laws? The Gemara answers that it is due to the fact that it is written: 鈥淭his is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you: Circumcise for yourselves every male鈥 (Genesis 17:10), and he interprets the phrase 鈥渆very male鈥 as an amplification including anyone who could possibly be included in the category of a male.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘


MISHNA: One who had two babies to circumcise, one of whom he needed to circumcise on the day after Shabbat, and one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, because he performed the prohibited labor of causing a wound not in the framework of performing a mitzva, as no obligation yet exists to circumcise the child.


讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专:


If there were two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve, and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that he should have circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, as circumcision after its appointed time does not override Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him; since he intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error in fact performed a mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.


讙诪壮 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬 驻讟讜专


GEMARA: There is a dispute among the amora鈥檌m with regard to the correct version of our mishna, based on an early dispute of the tanna鈥檌m: Rav Huna teaches the first clause of the mishna as stating: Liable, whereas Rav Yehuda teaches the first clause as stating: Exempt.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 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 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara explains: Rav Huna taught the first clause as stating: Liable, based on that which was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree with regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat and one to circumcise after Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer renders him liable to bring a sin-offering for this unwitting transgression, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.


讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 讜讻讬 注讘讬讚 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗


And both of them only derived it from idolatry, where the Torah details the halakhot of bringing a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression. Rabbi Eliezer holds: The law of every unwitting transgression is like that of idolatry. Just as with regard to idolatry the Torah stated: Do not perform certain activities, and when one performs them unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, here too it is no different, and since he transgressed the prohibition, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛转诐 讚诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛讻讗 诪爪讜讛


And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: There, where the unwitting transgression was not performed in order to fulfill a mitzva, one is liable to bring a sin-offering. Here, his intention was to perform a mitzva, and one who unwittingly violates a prohibition in the course of attempting to fulfill a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This is according to the opinion of Rav Huna, based on the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.


专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬 驻讟讜专 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专


Rav Yehuda taught the first clause as stating: Exempt, based on that which was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, as that circumcision fulfilled a mitzva.


注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.


讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 讜讻讬 注讘讬讚 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗


And the Gemara notes here too that both of them only derived it from idolatry. Rabbi Eliezer holds: The halakha of every unwitting transgression sin is like that of idolatry: Just as with regard to idolatry the Torah stated: Do not perform certain activities, and when one performs them unwittingly he is liable to bring a sin-offering, here too it is no different, and since he violated the prohibition, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛转诐 诇讗 讟专讬讚 诪爪讜讛 讛讻讗 讟专讬讚 诪爪讜讛


And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: There, with regard to idolatry, one is liable to bring a sin-offering when he performs the transgression, because he is not preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva. Here, he is preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva, and anyone who unwittingly transgresses a prohibition while preoccupied with a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.


转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘


Rabbi 岣yya taught another version of the same dispute between the tanna鈥檌m: Rabbi Meir would say that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.


讛砖转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 驻讜讟专 专讬砖讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 诪讞讬讬讘


The Gemara expresses surprise at this last version: Now, after all, in the latter clause, where he did not perform a mitzva, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him; in the first clause, where he performed a mitzva, does Rabbi Yehoshua deem him liable?


讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 专讬砖讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚诐 讜诪诇 砖诇 砖讘转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讚诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讬讚讞讜转 住讬驻讗 谞讬转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讬讚讞讜转


In the school of Rabbi Yannai they say: The first clause of the baraita is referring to a unique situation, where the circumcisor first unwittingly circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat on Shabbat eve. In that case, Shabbat is not given to be overridden at all, since the baby who was supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat was already circumcised. In the latter clause, however, the circumcision was performed in a situation where Shabbat is given to be overridden.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 谞讬转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讬讚讞讜转 诇讙讘讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讚注诇诪讗 诇讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 讗讬转讬讛讬讘:


Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana that this explanation is difficult: In the first clause too, Shabbat is given to be overridden with regard to babies in general, as it is permitted to circumcise a baby whose eighth day occurs on Shabbat. He replied: That is indeed so; however, with regard to this person, Shabbat is not given to be overridden, as there is no longer any child who is supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat. Therefore, if he unwittingly performed a circumcision on Shabbat, he is not considered to have unwittingly performed a transgression while preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva.


诪转谞讬壮 拽讟谉 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 诇转砖注讛 讜诇注砖专讛 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 讜诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讗 驻讞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜转专


MISHNA: Although a child is generally circumcised at eight days, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3), nevertheless, at times he is circumcised at nine days, at times at ten days, at eleven days, and at twelve days, no earlier and no later.


讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讚专讻讜 诇砖诪谞讛 谞讜诇讚 诇讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇转砖注讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇注砖专讛


How so? In his usual manner, a child is circumcised at eight days. If he was born at twilight and it is therefore uncertain on which day he was born, he is circumcised at nine days, as his circumcision is postponed due to that uncertainty, as perhaps the eighth day from his birth has not yet arrived. If he was born at twilight on Shabbat eve, he is not circumcised on the following Shabbat, due to the uncertainty whether it is the eighth or ninth day since his birth, and only a circumcision definitely performed at the appointed time overrides Shabbat. Rather, he is circumcised on Sunday, and the result is that he is circumcised at ten days.


讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 注砖专 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专


If there was a Festival after that Shabbat, he is not circumcised on the Festival either, and he is circumcised at eleven days. And if that Shabbat was followed by two days of Rosh HaShana, the result is that he is circumcised at twelve days.


拽讟谉 讛讞讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讜讛诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 砖讬讘专讬讗:


The mishna states another halakha: With regard to a sick child, one does not circumcise him until he becomes healthy.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇爪转讜 讞诪讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诇讛讘专讜转讜


GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one does not circumcise a sick baby until he becomes healthy. Shmuel said: A baby that was sick and had a high fever, and subsequently the fever left him, one gives him a full seven days to heal before circumcising him.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转


With regard to this issue, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do we require, during the recovery period, to wait from the time the seven days begin to the exact same time seven days later, i.e., seven complete, twenty-four-hour periods, or is it enough to wait seven days without taking into account the time of day?


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 诇讜讚讗 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 讻讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛 讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this from that which the Sage Luda taught: The day of his healing is like the day of his birth. What, is it not that just as from the day of his birth we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, so too, with regard to the day of his healing, we need not wait from the time he heals to the same time seven days later?


诇讗 注讚讬祝 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 诪讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转 讜讗讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转:


The Gemara refutes this: No, the day of his healing is superior to the day of his birth. While from the day of his birth until circumcision we need not wait from time to time, from the day of his healing we need to wait seven complete days from time to time.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讛谉 爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讛注讟专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛


MISHNA: These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. The essential element of circumcision is the removal of the flesh that covers most of the corona, and a child that was not circumcised in this manner is considered uncircumcised, and he does not eat teruma.


讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讘注诇 讘砖专 诪转拽谞讜 诪驻谞讬 诪专讗讬转 讛注讬谉


And if he was properly circumcised but he was fleshy, and it appears as though he has not been properly circumcised, the circumcisor should correct it by circumcising more than necessary, to avoid the appearance of transgression, so he will not appear uncircumcised.


诪诇 讜诇讗 驻专注 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 诪诇:


If one circumcised but did not uncover the flesh at the area of the circumcision by folding back the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, it is as if he had not circumcised.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讙讜讘讛讛 砖诇 注讟专讛:


GEMARA: Rabbi Avina said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: When the mishna said most of the corona, they meant the flesh that covers most of the height of the corona, as well as most of its circumference.


讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讘注诇 讘砖专 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讟谉 讛诪住讜专讘诇 讘讘砖专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪转拽砖讛 讜谞专讗讛 诪讛讜诇 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪讜诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪讜诇


We learned in the mishna: If the baby was fleshy, the circumcisor corrects the circumcision so that it will not appear uncircumcised. Shmuel said: A child who is encumbered with flesh, one examines him, and as long as when his limb hardens he looks circumcised, one need not circumcise him again. And if not, meaning he does not appear circumcised even then, one must circumcise him again.


讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 拽讟谉 讛诪住讜专讘诇 讘讘砖专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪转拽砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛 诪讛讜诇 爪专讬讱 诇诪讜诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪讜诇讜


It was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A child who is encumbered with flesh, one examines him, and as long as when it hardens it does not appear circumcised, one needs to circumcise him again, and if not, one need not circumcise him again.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞专讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛:


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two formulations? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where he appears circumcised but does not appear fully circumcised. According to Shmuel, in order to avoid an additional circumcision, one must appear fully circumcised, and this state is insufficient. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, only one who appears uncircumcised requires further circumcision; this partial circumcision is adequate.


诪诇 讜诇讗 驻专注: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪诇 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛诪讬诇讛 讗讘讬 讛讘谉 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇讛讻谞讬住讜 讘讘专讬转讜 砖诇 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 讛注讜诪讚讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖诐 砖谞讻谞住 诇讘专讬转 讻讱 讬讻谞住 诇转讜专讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇诪注砖讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐


We learned in the mishna: If he circumcised a child but did not uncover the area of the circumcision, it is as if he did not circumcise him. The Sages taught in a Tosefta that one who circumcises a child recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. The father of the circumcised child recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Abraham, our father. Those standing there recite: Just as he has entered into the covenant, so may he enter into Torah, marriage, and good deeds.


讜讛诪讘专讱 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讚 诪讘讟谉 讞讜拽 讘砖讗专讜 砖诐 讜爪讗爪讗讬讜 讞转诐 讘讗讜转 讘专讬转 拽讚砖 注诇 讻谉 讘砖讻专 讝讗转 讗诇 讞讬 讞诇拽谞讜 爪讜讛 诇讛爪讬诇 讬讚讬讚讜转 砖讗专讬谞讜 诪砖讞转 诇诪注谉 讘专讬转讜 讗砖专 砖诐 讘讘砖专谞讜 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 讻讜专转 讛讘专讬转


And the one who recites the additional blessing says: Who made the beloved one holy from the womb, marked the decree in his flesh, and gave his descendants the seal and the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore, as a reward for this, the living God, our Portion, commanded to deliver the beloved of our flesh from destruction, for the sake of His covenant that He set in our flesh. Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.


讛诪诇 讗转 讛讙专讬诐 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 诪诇讱 讛注讜诇诐 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛诪讬诇讛 讜讛诪讘专讱 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇诪讜诇 讗转 讛讙专讬诐 讜诇讛讟讬祝 诪讛诐 讚诐 讘专讬转 砖讗讬诇诪诇讗 讚诐 讘专讬转 诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讘专讬转讬 讬讜诪诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讞讜拽讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 诇讗 砖诪转讬 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 讻讜专转 讛讘专讬转


One who circumcises converts says: Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. And the one who recites the additional blessing recites: Who has made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us to circumcise converts, and to drip from them covenantal blood, as were it not for the blood of the covenant, the heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: 鈥淚f My covenant would not be with day and night, the ordinances of heaven and earth I would not have placed鈥 (Jeremiah 33:25), which is interpreted to mean that were it not for the covenant of circumcision that is manifest both day and night, the world would cease to exist. He concludes the blessing with the phrase: Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.


讛诪诇 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛诪讬诇讛 讜讛诪讘专讱 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇诪讜诇 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讛讟讬祝 诪讛诐 讚诐 讘专讬转 砖讗讬诇诪诇讗 讚诐 讘专讬转 讞讜拽讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讘专讬转讬 讬讜诪诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讞讜拽讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 诇讗 砖诪转讬 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 讻讜专转 讛讘专讬转:


When a Jew buys a Canaanite slave, he is obligated to circumcise the slave, as the slave is partially entering the covenant of the Jewish people. One who circumcises slaves recites a blessing: Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. And the one who recites the additional blessings says a blessing similar to those mentioned above: Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us to circumcise slaves, and to drip from them covenantal blood, as were it not for the blood of the covenant the heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: 鈥淚f My covenant would not be with day and night, the ordinances of heaven and earth I would not have placed鈥 (Jeremiah 33:25). Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪讬诇讛



诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 转讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖诪专转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇转诇讜讬讛 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖诪专转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇转诇讜讬讛 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇转诇讜讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘:


MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: One may suspend and stretch over a base the strainer through which sediment is filtered from wine, on a Festival. And one may place wine through a strainer that was already suspended the day before; however, one may not suspend the strainer on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival, and one may not place wine for filtering through a suspended strainer on Shabbat; however, one may place wine through a suspended strainer on a Festival.


讙诪壮 讛砖转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住讜驻讬 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 诇讗 诪讜住驻讬谞谉 诇诪讬注讘讚 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖专讬


GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 position: Now, Rabbi Eliezer holds that we may not even add to a temporary tent on Shabbat; could it be that to make a tent is permitted ab initio? Stretching a strainer over a base, which Rabbi Eliezer permits, is comparable to making a tent.


诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 驻拽拽 讛讞诇讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖拽砖讜专 讜转诇讜讬 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜


The Gemara explains the question: What is this opinion of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a window shutter used to cover a skylight, Rabbi Eliezer says: When it is tied to and hanging from the window, i.e., it is not touching the ground, one may shutter the window with it, and if not, one may not shutter the window with it. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it.


讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜住讬祝 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘


And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Everyone agrees that one may not construct a temporary tent on a Festival for the first time, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. The tanna鈥檌m disagree only with regard to adding to an existing tent, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add to an existing structure on a Festival, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add to the temporary structure on Shabbat, and needless to say, one may do so on a Festival.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专讬 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer indeed holds that the suspension of a strainer constitutes a prohibited labor. However, Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to actions that facilitate preparation of food on a Festival, as it was taught in a baraita: The only difference between a Festival and Shabbat is with regard to the preparation of food alone. It is permitted to perform labors for the purpose of food preparation on a Festival, but not on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate food preparation on a Festival, e.g., fixing utensils with which food is prepared on the Festival. Similarly, Rabbi Eliezer permits the suspension of a strainer, which would otherwise constitute a prohibited labor, in order to prepare wine for use on the Festival.


讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: Say that we heard that Rabbi Yehuda permits labors that are otherwise prohibited if they pertain to actions that facilitate food preparation that cannot be performed on the eve of the Festival; however, with regard to actions that facilitate food preparation that can be performed on the eve of the Festival, did you hear that he permits doing so?


讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讚讬驻讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛:


The Gemara answers: The leniency of Rabbi Eliezer exceeds that of Rabbi Yehuda. Unlike Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Eliezer does not distinguish between actions that facilitate food preparation that can and those that cannot be performed on the eve of the Festival.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转诇讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he suspended a strainer unwittingly, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef said: If he suspended it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, like anyone who unwittingly performs a labor prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 转诇讗 讻讜讝讗 讘住讬讻转讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘


Abaye said to him: But if that is so, that an action of that sort constitutes performance of the prohibited labor of building by Torah law, then if one suspended a jug on a peg, is he also liable for building a tent?


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_icon

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,...

Shabbat 137

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 137

讜住转诐 住驻专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


And an unattributed halakha cited in the Sifra generally reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬诐 诇拽讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 讜驻讜住诇 讘讗砖讛 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We too also learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda does not consider a hermaphrodite to be a male in every sense. The Sages disagreed over sanctification of the waters of a purification offering, i.e., the placing of the ashes of the red heifer in potable, running spring water: Everyone is fit to sanctify the waters of a purification offering, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, but deems a woman and a hermaphrodite unfit. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not consider the legal status of a hermaphrodite to be like that of a male. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from this.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讛诪讜诇 诇讻诐 讻诇 讝讻专:


The Gemara asks: What is different about the halakhot of circumcision, with regard to which Rabbi Yehuda categorizes a hermaphrodite as a male in regard to its laws? The Gemara answers that it is due to the fact that it is written: 鈥淭his is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you: Circumcise for yourselves every male鈥 (Genesis 17:10), and he interprets the phrase 鈥渆very male鈥 as an amplification including anyone who could possibly be included in the category of a male.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘


MISHNA: One who had two babies to circumcise, one of whom he needed to circumcise on the day after Shabbat, and one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, because he performed the prohibited labor of causing a wound not in the framework of performing a mitzva, as no obligation yet exists to circumcise the child.


讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专:


If there were two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve, and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that he should have circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, as circumcision after its appointed time does not override Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him; since he intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error in fact performed a mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.


讙诪壮 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬 驻讟讜专


GEMARA: There is a dispute among the amora鈥檌m with regard to the correct version of our mishna, based on an early dispute of the tanna鈥檌m: Rav Huna teaches the first clause of the mishna as stating: Liable, whereas Rav Yehuda teaches the first clause as stating: Exempt.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 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 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara explains: Rav Huna taught the first clause as stating: Liable, based on that which was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree with regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat and one to circumcise after Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer renders him liable to bring a sin-offering for this unwitting transgression, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.


讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 讜讻讬 注讘讬讚 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗


And both of them only derived it from idolatry, where the Torah details the halakhot of bringing a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression. Rabbi Eliezer holds: The law of every unwitting transgression is like that of idolatry. Just as with regard to idolatry the Torah stated: Do not perform certain activities, and when one performs them unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, here too it is no different, and since he transgressed the prohibition, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛转诐 讚诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛讻讗 诪爪讜讛


And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: There, where the unwitting transgression was not performed in order to fulfill a mitzva, one is liable to bring a sin-offering. Here, his intention was to perform a mitzva, and one who unwittingly violates a prohibition in the course of attempting to fulfill a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This is according to the opinion of Rav Huna, based on the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.


专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬 驻讟讜专 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专


Rav Yehuda taught the first clause as stating: Exempt, based on that which was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, as that circumcision fulfilled a mitzva.


注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.


讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 讜讻讬 注讘讬讚 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗


And the Gemara notes here too that both of them only derived it from idolatry. Rabbi Eliezer holds: The halakha of every unwitting transgression sin is like that of idolatry: Just as with regard to idolatry the Torah stated: Do not perform certain activities, and when one performs them unwittingly he is liable to bring a sin-offering, here too it is no different, and since he violated the prohibition, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛转诐 诇讗 讟专讬讚 诪爪讜讛 讛讻讗 讟专讬讚 诪爪讜讛


And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: There, with regard to idolatry, one is liable to bring a sin-offering when he performs the transgression, because he is not preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva. Here, he is preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva, and anyone who unwittingly transgresses a prohibition while preoccupied with a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.


转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 讗转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘


Rabbi 岣yya taught another version of the same dispute between the tanna鈥檌m: Rabbi Meir would say that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.


注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讜诇 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜诪诇 砖诇 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讘砖讘转 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专


With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.


讛砖转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 驻讜讟专 专讬砖讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诪爪讜讛 诪讞讬讬讘


The Gemara expresses surprise at this last version: Now, after all, in the latter clause, where he did not perform a mitzva, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him; in the first clause, where he performed a mitzva, does Rabbi Yehoshua deem him liable?


讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 专讬砖讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讚诐 讜诪诇 砖诇 砖讘转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讚诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讬讚讞讜转 住讬驻讗 谞讬转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讬讚讞讜转


In the school of Rabbi Yannai they say: The first clause of the baraita is referring to a unique situation, where the circumcisor first unwittingly circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat on Shabbat eve. In that case, Shabbat is not given to be overridden at all, since the baby who was supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat was already circumcised. In the latter clause, however, the circumcision was performed in a situation where Shabbat is given to be overridden.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 谞讬转谞讛 砖讘转 诇讬讚讞讜转 诇讙讘讬 转讬谞讜拽讜转 讚注诇诪讗 诇讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 讗讬转讬讛讬讘:


Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana that this explanation is difficult: In the first clause too, Shabbat is given to be overridden with regard to babies in general, as it is permitted to circumcise a baby whose eighth day occurs on Shabbat. He replied: That is indeed so; however, with regard to this person, Shabbat is not given to be overridden, as there is no longer any child who is supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat. Therefore, if he unwittingly performed a circumcision on Shabbat, he is not considered to have unwittingly performed a transgression while preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva.


诪转谞讬壮 拽讟谉 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 诇转砖注讛 讜诇注砖专讛 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 讜诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讗 驻讞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜转专


MISHNA: Although a child is generally circumcised at eight days, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:3), nevertheless, at times he is circumcised at nine days, at times at ten days, at eleven days, and at twelve days, no earlier and no later.


讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讚专讻讜 诇砖诪谞讛 谞讜诇讚 诇讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇转砖注讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇注砖专讛


How so? In his usual manner, a child is circumcised at eight days. If he was born at twilight and it is therefore uncertain on which day he was born, he is circumcised at nine days, as his circumcision is postponed due to that uncertainty, as perhaps the eighth day from his birth has not yet arrived. If he was born at twilight on Shabbat eve, he is not circumcised on the following Shabbat, due to the uncertainty whether it is the eighth or ninth day since his birth, and only a circumcision definitely performed at the appointed time overrides Shabbat. Rather, he is circumcised on Sunday, and the result is that he is circumcised at ten days.


讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 谞讬诪讜诇 诇讗讞讚 注砖专 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专


If there was a Festival after that Shabbat, he is not circumcised on the Festival either, and he is circumcised at eleven days. And if that Shabbat was followed by two days of Rosh HaShana, the result is that he is circumcised at twelve days.


拽讟谉 讛讞讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讜讛诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 砖讬讘专讬讗:


The mishna states another halakha: With regard to a sick child, one does not circumcise him until he becomes healthy.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇爪转讜 讞诪讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诇讛讘专讜转讜


GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one does not circumcise a sick baby until he becomes healthy. Shmuel said: A baby that was sick and had a high fever, and subsequently the fever left him, one gives him a full seven days to heal before circumcising him.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转


With regard to this issue, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do we require, during the recovery period, to wait from the time the seven days begin to the exact same time seven days later, i.e., seven complete, twenty-four-hour periods, or is it enough to wait seven days without taking into account the time of day?


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 诇讜讚讗 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 讻讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛 讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this from that which the Sage Luda taught: The day of his healing is like the day of his birth. What, is it not that just as from the day of his birth we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, so too, with regard to the day of his healing, we need not wait from the time he heals to the same time seven days later?


诇讗 注讚讬祝 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 诪讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讛讜诇讚讜 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转 讜讗讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讛讘专讗转讜 讘注讬谞谉 诪注转 诇注转:


The Gemara refutes this: No, the day of his healing is superior to the day of his birth. While from the day of his birth until circumcision we need not wait from time to time, from the day of his healing we need to wait seven complete days from time to time.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讛谉 爪讬爪讬谉 讛诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讛注讟专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛


MISHNA: These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut. The essential element of circumcision is the removal of the flesh that covers most of the corona, and a child that was not circumcised in this manner is considered uncircumcised, and he does not eat teruma.


讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讘注诇 讘砖专 诪转拽谞讜 诪驻谞讬 诪专讗讬转 讛注讬谉


And if he was properly circumcised but he was fleshy, and it appears as though he has not been properly circumcised, the circumcisor should correct it by circumcising more than necessary, to avoid the appearance of transgression, so he will not appear uncircumcised.


诪诇 讜诇讗 驻专注 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 诪诇:


If one circumcised but did not uncover the flesh at the area of the circumcision by folding back the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, it is as if he had not circumcised.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讙讜讘讛讛 砖诇 注讟专讛:


GEMARA: Rabbi Avina said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: When the mishna said most of the corona, they meant the flesh that covers most of the height of the corona, as well as most of its circumference.


讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讘注诇 讘砖专 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讟谉 讛诪住讜专讘诇 讘讘砖专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪转拽砖讛 讜谞专讗讛 诪讛讜诇 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪讜诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪讜诇


We learned in the mishna: If the baby was fleshy, the circumcisor corrects the circumcision so that it will not appear uncircumcised. Shmuel said: A child who is encumbered with flesh, one examines him, and as long as when his limb hardens he looks circumcised, one need not circumcise him again. And if not, meaning he does not appear circumcised even then, one must circumcise him again.


讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 拽讟谉 讛诪住讜专讘诇 讘讘砖专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪转拽砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛 诪讛讜诇 爪专讬讱 诇诪讜诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪讜诇讜


It was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A child who is encumbered with flesh, one examines him, and as long as when it hardens it does not appear circumcised, one needs to circumcise him again, and if not, one need not circumcise him again.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞专讗讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞专讗讛:


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two formulations? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where he appears circumcised but does not appear fully circumcised. According to Shmuel, in order to avoid an additional circumcision, one must appear fully circumcised, and this state is insufficient. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, only one who appears uncircumcised requires further circumcision; this partial circumcision is adequate.


诪诇 讜诇讗 驻专注: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪诇 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛诪讬诇讛 讗讘讬 讛讘谉 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇讛讻谞讬住讜 讘讘专讬转讜 砖诇 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 讛注讜诪讚讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻砖诐 砖谞讻谞住 诇讘专讬转 讻讱 讬讻谞住 诇转讜专讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇诪注砖讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐


We learned in the mishna: If he circumcised a child but did not uncover the area of the circumcision, it is as if he did not circumcise him. The Sages taught in a Tosefta that one who circumcises a child recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. The father of the circumcised child recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Abraham, our father. Those standing there recite: Just as he has entered into the covenant, so may he enter into Torah, marriage, and good deeds.


讜讛诪讘专讱 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讚 诪讘讟谉 讞讜拽 讘砖讗专讜 砖诐 讜爪讗爪讗讬讜 讞转诐 讘讗讜转 讘专讬转 拽讚砖 注诇 讻谉 讘砖讻专 讝讗转 讗诇 讞讬 讞诇拽谞讜 爪讜讛 诇讛爪讬诇 讬讚讬讚讜转 砖讗专讬谞讜 诪砖讞转 诇诪注谉 讘专讬转讜 讗砖专 砖诐 讘讘砖专谞讜 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 讻讜专转 讛讘专讬转


And the one who recites the additional blessing says: Who made the beloved one holy from the womb, marked the decree in his flesh, and gave his descendants the seal and the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore, as a reward for this, the living God, our Portion, commanded to deliver the beloved of our flesh from destruction, for the sake of His covenant that He set in our flesh. Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.


讛诪诇 讗转 讛讙专讬诐 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 讗诇讛讬谞讜 诪诇讱 讛注讜诇诐 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛诪讬诇讛 讜讛诪讘专讱 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇诪讜诇 讗转 讛讙专讬诐 讜诇讛讟讬祝 诪讛诐 讚诐 讘专讬转 砖讗讬诇诪诇讗 讚诐 讘专讬转 诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讘专讬转讬 讬讜诪诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讞讜拽讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 诇讗 砖诪转讬 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 讻讜专转 讛讘专讬转


One who circumcises converts says: Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. And the one who recites the additional blessing recites: Who has made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us to circumcise converts, and to drip from them covenantal blood, as were it not for the blood of the covenant, the heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: 鈥淚f My covenant would not be with day and night, the ordinances of heaven and earth I would not have placed鈥 (Jeremiah 33:25), which is interpreted to mean that were it not for the covenant of circumcision that is manifest both day and night, the world would cease to exist. He concludes the blessing with the phrase: Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.


讛诪诇 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛诪讬诇讛 讜讛诪讘专讱 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇诪讜诇 讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讛讟讬祝 诪讛诐 讚诐 讘专讬转 砖讗讬诇诪诇讗 讚诐 讘专讬转 讞讜拽讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讘专讬转讬 讬讜诪诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讞讜拽讜转 砖诪讬诐 讜讗专抓 诇讗 砖诪转讬 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 讻讜专转 讛讘专讬转:


When a Jew buys a Canaanite slave, he is obligated to circumcise the slave, as the slave is partially entering the covenant of the Jewish people. One who circumcises slaves recites a blessing: Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. And the one who recites the additional blessings says a blessing similar to those mentioned above: Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us to circumcise slaves, and to drip from them covenantal blood, as were it not for the blood of the covenant the heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: 鈥淚f My covenant would not be with day and night, the ordinances of heaven and earth I would not have placed鈥 (Jeremiah 33:25). Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covenant.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪讬诇讛



诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 转讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖诪专转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇转诇讜讬讛 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖诪专转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇转诇讜讬讛 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇转诇讜讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘:


MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: One may suspend and stretch over a base the strainer through which sediment is filtered from wine, on a Festival. And one may place wine through a strainer that was already suspended the day before; however, one may not suspend the strainer on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival, and one may not place wine for filtering through a suspended strainer on Shabbat; however, one may place wine through a suspended strainer on a Festival.


讙诪壮 讛砖转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜住讜驻讬 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 诇讗 诪讜住驻讬谞谉 诇诪讬注讘讚 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖专讬


GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 position: Now, Rabbi Eliezer holds that we may not even add to a temporary tent on Shabbat; could it be that to make a tent is permitted ab initio? Stretching a strainer over a base, which Rabbi Eliezer permits, is comparable to making a tent.


诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 驻拽拽 讛讞诇讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖拽砖讜专 讜转诇讜讬 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜


The Gemara explains the question: What is this opinion of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a window shutter used to cover a skylight, Rabbi Eliezer says: When it is tied to and hanging from the window, i.e., it is not touching the ground, one may shutter the window with it, and if not, one may not shutter the window with it. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it.


讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜住讬祝 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘


And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Everyone agrees that one may not construct a temporary tent on a Festival for the first time, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. The tanna鈥檌m disagree only with regard to adding to an existing tent, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add to an existing structure on a Festival, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add to the temporary structure on Shabbat, and needless to say, one may do so on a Festival.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专讬 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer indeed holds that the suspension of a strainer constitutes a prohibited labor. However, Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to actions that facilitate preparation of food on a Festival, as it was taught in a baraita: The only difference between a Festival and Shabbat is with regard to the preparation of food alone. It is permitted to perform labors for the purpose of food preparation on a Festival, but not on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate food preparation on a Festival, e.g., fixing utensils with which food is prepared on the Festival. Similarly, Rabbi Eliezer permits the suspension of a strainer, which would otherwise constitute a prohibited labor, in order to prepare wine for use on the Festival.


讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: Say that we heard that Rabbi Yehuda permits labors that are otherwise prohibited if they pertain to actions that facilitate food preparation that cannot be performed on the eve of the Festival; however, with regard to actions that facilitate food preparation that can be performed on the eve of the Festival, did you hear that he permits doing so?


讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讚讬驻讗 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛:


The Gemara answers: The leniency of Rabbi Eliezer exceeds that of Rabbi Yehuda. Unlike Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Eliezer does not distinguish between actions that facilitate food preparation that can and those that cannot be performed on the eve of the Festival.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转诇讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he suspended a strainer unwittingly, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef said: If he suspended it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, like anyone who unwittingly performs a labor prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 转诇讗 讻讜讝讗 讘住讬讻转讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘


Abaye said to him: But if that is so, that an action of that sort constitutes performance of the prohibited labor of building by Torah law, then if one suspended a jug on a peg, is he also liable for building a tent?


Scroll To Top