שבת 132 — Soncino English Talmud

¹[they may supersede the Sabbath] because if their time passes they are annulled! Rather this is R. Eliezer s reason: Because Scripture saith, and in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised, [implying] even on the Sabbath. Then let the Divine Law write it in connection with circumcision, and these [others] can come to be deduced thence? Because one can refute [the analogy]: as for circumcision, that is because thirteen covenants were made in connection therewith. Now, the Rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer only in respect of the preliminaries of circumcision; but as for circumcision itself, all hold that it supersedes the Sabbath: whence do we know it? Said 'Ulla, It is a traditional law; and thus did R. Isaac say, It is a traditional law. An objection is raised: How do we know that the saving of life supersedes the Sabbath? R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said: If circumcision, which is [performed on but] one of the limbs of man, supersedes the Sabbath, the saving of life, a minori, must supersede the Sabbath. Now if you think that it is a traditional law, can one argue a minori from a traditional law? Surely it was taught, R. Eleazar said to him: Akiba! [That] a bone [of a corpse] the size of a barley grain defiles is a traditional law, whereas [that] a quarter [log] of blood [of a corpse] defies is [deduced by you] a minori, and we do not argue a minori from a traditional law! — Rather said R. Eleazar: We learn 'a sign' [written in connection with circumcision from] 'a sign' [written in connection with the Sabbath]. If so, let Tefillin, in connection with which 'sign' is written, supersede the Sabbath? — Rather 'covenant' is learnt from, 'covenant'. Then let [the circumcision of] an adult, in connection with whom 'covenant' is written, supersede the Sabbath? — Rather 'generations' is learnt from 'generations'. Then let fringes, in connection with which 'generations' is written, supersede the Sabbath? Rather said R. Nahman b. Isaac: We learn 'sign,' 'covenant' and 'generations' from 'sign,' 'covenant' and 'generations,' thus excluding the others in connection with each of which only one is written. R. Johanan said: Scripture saith, in the [eighth] day, 'in the day' [implying] even on the Sabbath. Resh Lakish objected to R. Johanan: If so, those who lack atonement, in connection with whom 'in the day' is written, do they too supersede the Sabbath? — That is required [for teaching], by day but not by night. But this too is required [for teaching], by day but not by night? That is deduced from, and he that is eight days old. But this too can be derived from, in the day that he commanded [the children of Israel to offer their oblations, etc.]? — Though it may be derived from, in the day that he commanded, [etc.]', yet it [the other verse] is necessary: you might argue, Since the Merciful One had compassion upon him, [permitting him] to bring [a lesser sacrifice] in poverty, he may bring [it] at night too: hence we are informed [otherwise]. Rabina demurred: If so, let a zar and an onen be eligible for them? Surely Scripture brought him back. R. Aha b. Jacob said, Scripture saith, 'the eighth', [intimating] the eighth, even if it is the Sabbath. But this 'eighth' is required to exclude the seventh? — That follows from, 'and the that is eight days old'. Yet they are still required, one to exclude the seventh and the other to exclude the ninth, for if [we deduced] from one [verse only] I might say, only the seventh is excluded, since its time [for circumcision] has not [yet] arrived, but from the eighth onward that is the [right] time? Hence it is clear [that it must be explained] as R. Johanan. It was taught in accordance with R. Johanan and not as R. Aha b. Jacob: '[And in] the eighth [day the flesh of his foreskin] shall be circumcised': even on the Sabbath. Then to what do I apply, every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death? To labours other than circumcision. Yet perhaps it is not so, but [it includes] even circumcision, whilst to what do I apply 'in the eighth... shall be circumcised': [To all days] except the Sabbath? Therefore 'in the day' is stated, [teaching], even on the Sabbath. Raba observed: Why was this Tanna content at first, and what was his difficulty eventually? — He argues thus: '[in] the eighth shall be circumcised': even on the Sabbath. Then to what do I apply, every one that profaneth it shall be put to death'? To labours other than circumcision, but circumcision supersedes it. What is the reason? It [follows] a minori. If leprosy, which suspends the sacrificial service,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ

^ᵃnote:They must be performed at a certain time or not at all. But circumcision, though obligatory for the eighth day from birth, can and must be performed afterwards if not done then.
^ᵇnote:Lev. XII, 3.
^ᶜnote:It cannot be to teach that circumcision itself is performed on the Sabbath, because as stated infra that is already known by tradition, hence it must refer to its preliminaries.
^ᵈnote:In the passage enjoining circumcision upon Abraham and his descendants (Gen. XVII) 'covenant' is mentioned thirteen times, which shows its great importance.
^ᵉnote:Rashi: Received from Moses on Sinai.
^ᶠnote:A nazirite by its touch, and he must commence again (cf. Num, VI, 9-12).
^ᵍnote:R. Akiba deduced a minori from the former that if a nazirite is under the same covering as a quarter log of blood taken from a corpse he is defiled, just as in the first case; v. Naz. 57a.
^ʰnote:Circumcision: and it shall be a sign of a covenant betwixt me and you (Gen. XVII, 11); Sabbath: for it is a sign between me and you (Ex. XXXI, 13). Since both are so designated, it follows that the former must be performed even on the latter.
^ⁱnote:Deut. VI, 8: And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand.
^ʲnote:[Probably, one should be permitted to carry them on him in the street on the Sabbath].
^ᵏnote:V. n. 2 for circumcision; Sabbath: therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath...for a perpetual covenant (Ex. XXXI, 16).
^ˡnote:Gen, XVII, 14: And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin...hath broken my covenant. In Kid. 29a this is referred to an adult whom his father had omitted to circumcise, and it throws the obligation upon himself.
^ᵐnote:Whereas it is stated infra that it supersedes the Sabbath only when performed on the eighth day.
^ⁿnote:Sabbath: to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations (Ex. XXXI, 16); circumcision: every male throughout your generations (Gen. XVII, 12).
^ᵒnote:Num. XV 38: bid them...make them fringes...throughout their generations.
^ᵖnote:I.e., let it be permitted to insert them in garments on the Sabbath.
^ᵠnote:This is according to the Rabbis. R. Eliezer, as stated supra, utilizes this in respect of the preliminaries. Hence he holds that circumcision itself is a traditional law, whilst he learns that life saving is permitted from a Scriptural verse (Yoma 85b).
^ʳnote:This is the technical designation of all unclean persons who must offer a sacrifice as part of their purification rites, viz., a zab and a zabah, a leper, and a woman after childbirth.
^ˢnote:E.g., this shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing (Lev. XIV, 2); similarly the rest.
^ᵗnote:They are surely not permitted to bring their offerings on the Sabbath, for only public sacrifices were permitted on them.
^ᵘnote:Sacrifices may not be offered up at night.
^ᵛnote:'Day' written in connection with circumcision.
^ʷnote:Gen. XVII. 12.
^ˣnote:Lev. VII, 38.
^ʸnote:That the leniency shown in poverty might be regarded as permitting other things which normally invalidate the sacrifice.
^ᶻnote:V. Glos. for both.
^ᵃᵃnote:Sc. to offer these sacrifices. A zar may kill the sacrifice, but cannot perform any of the other services in connection therewith.
^ᵃᵇnote:In fact we see that this leniency was not extended to permission to offer at night: thus in all other respects the poor are governed by the same rules as the rich.
^ᵃᶜnote:Ex. XXXI, 14.
^ᵃᵈnote:Why does he assume at first that the eighth naturally supersedes the Sabbath, whereas subsequently he finds a difficulty in this assumption and proposes to reverse it?
^ᵃᵉnote:It is stated infra b that one may not cut away a leprous bright spot in order to be clean, and this holds good even on Passover: individuals may not do so in order to bring the Passover sacrifice, nor may Priests to enable them to perform the sacrificial service.

²whilst the sacrificial service supersedes the Sabbath, yet circumcision supersedes it: then the Sabbath, which is superseded by the sacrificial service, surely circumcision supersedes it. And what is the 'or perhaps it is not so' which he states? — He then argues [thus]: yet whence [does it follow] that leprosy Is more stringent? Perhaps the Sabbath is more stringent, since there are many penalties and injunctions in connection therewith. Further, whence [does it follow] that it is because leprosy is more stringent, perhaps it is because the man is not fit; whilst to what do I apply, 'in the eighth... shall be circumcised', [to all days] except the Sabbath? Therefore 'in the day' is stated, teaching, even on the Sabbath. Our Rabbis taught: Circumcision supersedes leprosy, whether [performed] at its [proper] time or not at its [proper] time; it supersedes Festivals only [when performed] at its [proper] time. How do we know this? — Because our Rabbis taught: 'The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised', even if a bahereth is there it must be cut off. Then to what do I apply, 'Take heed in the plague of leprosy'? To other places, but excluding the foreskin. Or perhaps it is not so, but [it includes] even the foreskin, while how do I apply, 'the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised', when it does not contain a bahereth! Therefore 'flesh' is stated, intimating even when a bahereth is there. Raba observed: This Tanna, why was he content at first, and what was his difficulty eventually? He argues thus: 'The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised': even if a bahereth is there. Then to what do I apply: 'Take heed in the plague of leprosy'? To other places, excluding the foreskin, yet circumcision supersedes leprosy. What is the reason? Because it is inferred a minori: if circumcision supersedes the Sabbath, which is stringent, how much more so leprosy. And what is the 'or perhaps it is not so which he states? He then argues: how do we know that the Sabbath is more stringent: perhaps leprosy is more stringent, since it supersedes the sacrificial service, while the sacrificial service supersedes the Sabbath? Therefore flesh is stated, intimating, even when a bahereth is there. Another version: circumcision supersedes leprosy: what is the reason? Because a positive command comes and supersedes a negative command. Then what is the 'or is it not so' which he states? He then argues: Perhaps we rule that a positive command comes and supersedes a negative command [only in the case of] a negative command by itself but this is a positive command plus a negative command. Then how do I apply, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised? When it does not contain a bahereth. Therefore flesh is stated, intimating, even when a bahereth is there. Now, this is well of an adult, in connection with whom 'flesh' is written; of an infant too 'flesh is written; but whence do we know one of intermediate age? Said Abaye, It is inferred from the other two combined: it cannot be inferred from an adult [alone], Since there is the penalty of kareth [in his case]; it cannot be inferred from an infant [eight days old], since [there] it is circumcision at the proper time. The feature common to both is that they must be circumcised and they supersede leprosy: so all who must be circumcised supersede leprosy. Raba said: [That] circumcision at the proper time supersedes [leprosy] requires no verse, [for] it is inferred a minori: If it supersedes the Sabbath, which is [more] stringent, how much more so leprosy! Said R. Safra to Raba: How do you know that the Sabbath is [more] stringent, perhaps leprosy is [more] stringent, seeing that it supersedes the sacrificial service, whilst the sacrificial service supersedes the Sabbath? — There it is not because leprosy is more stringent but because the person is unfit. Why so? Let him cut off the bahereth and perform the service? — He [still] lacks tebillah. This is well of unclean eruptions! what can be said of clean eruptions? — Rather R. Ashi said: Where do we rule that a positive command comes and supersedes a negative one? E.g., circumcision in [the place of] leprosy, or fringes and kil'ayim, where at the very moment that the negative injunction is disregarded the positive command is fulfilled; but here at the moment that the negative injunction is disregarded the positive command is not fulfilled. Now, this [discussion] of Raba and R. Safra ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵃᶠnote:Public sacrifices being brought thereon.
^ᵃᵍnote:The injunction not to cut away a leprous bright spot is disregarded when it is on the foreskin which is to be circumcised.
^ᵃʰnote:Sc. the reason that the sacrificial service does not supersede leprosy.
^ᵃⁱnote:For, as stated infra, even if the bright spot is cut away he is still unfit to offer the Passover sacrifice until he performs tebillah and the sun sets.
^ᵃʲnote:The eighth day from birth.
^ᵃᵏnote:A bright, snow-white (v. Neg. I, 1) spot on the skin, which is a symptom of leprosy (Lev. XII, 2 seq.).
^ᵃˡnote:Deut, XXIV, 8; this is interpreted as an injunction against cutting away a leprous bright spot, etc,
^ᵃᵐnote:To circumcise
^ᵃⁿnote:Not to cut the bahereth away.
^ᵃᵒnote:Negative: Take heed in the plague of leprosy, 'Take heed' always being so regarded; positive: that thou observe diligently, etc.
^ᵃᵖnote:The following three passages are applied to three different cases of circumcision: (i) And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people (Gen. XVII, 14) — this applies to an adult whom his father did not circumcise as an infant. (ii) And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised (Lev. XII, 3) this is a command to the father of the child. (iii) Every male among you shall be circumcised (Gen. XVII, 10) — this is a general command, e.g., to the Beth din, for a child to be circumcised after his eighth day if not circumcised at the proper time. Now, 'flesh' is written in (i) and (ii), but not in (iii), which refers to a child of intermediate age, i.e., between eight days and thirteen years and a day, when he becomes an adult.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lit., 'from between them'.
^ᵃʳnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃˢnote:E.g., where the leprosy covers the whole skin (v. Lev. XII, 12f). Even then it must not be cut away and supersedes the sacrificial service.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. Glos. and Deut. XXII, 11f: Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together. Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four borders of thy vesture. The juxtaposition of these two laws is interpreted as showing that the former is suspended in the case of fringes, and the garment may be of linen while the fringes are of wool.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., 'uprooted'.
^ᵃᵛnote:I.e., the latter is fulfilled through the disregard of the former.
^ᵃʷnote:The cutting away of the bahereth itself is not a fulfilment of the command to offer a Passover sacrifice, but merely preliminary thereto, so that the fact that leprosy supersedes the sacrificial service is no mark of the stringency of leprosy.