Shabbat

whilst the sacrificial service supersedes the Sabbath,  yet circumcision supersedes it:  then the Sabbath, which is superseded by the sacrificial service, surely circumcision supersedes it.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