Shabbat

And an anonymous [statement in the] Sifra  is according to R. Judah.  R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We too learnt likewise: All are eligible to sanctify,  save a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. R. Judah admits a minor, but invalidates a woman and an hermaphrodite. This proves it — And why is circumcision different?  Because it is written, every male among you shall be circumcised.  MISHNAH. IF A MAN HAS TWO INFANTS, ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION AFTER THE SABBATH AND THE OTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH, AND HE ERRS  AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO AFTER THE SABBATH ON THE SABBATH, HE IS CULPABLE.  [IF HE HAS] ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH AND ANOTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH, AND HE ERRS AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO THE EVE OF THE SABBATH ON THE SABBATH, — R. ELIEZER HOLDS [HIM] LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING;  BUT R. JOSHUA EXEMPTS [HIM]. GEMARA. R. Huna recited: He is culpable;  Rab Judah recited: He is not culpable. 'R. Huna recited: He is culpable'; because it was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning a man who has two infants, one for circumcision on the Sabbath and another for circumcision after the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, that he is culpable. About what do they disagree? About him, who has two infants, one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer declaring [him] liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua exempts [him]. Now, both learn it from nought but idolatry:  R. Eliezer holds, it is like idolatry: just as idolatry, the Divine Law decreed, Do not engage [therein], and if one engages [therein] he is culpable, so here too it is not different. But R. Joshua [argues]: there there is no precept [fulfilled], whereas here there is a precept. 'Rab Judah recited; He is not culpable.' For it was taught, R. Meir said: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning a man who has two infants, one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, that he is not culpable. About what do they disagree? About him who has two infants, one for circumcision after the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer declaring [him] liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua exempts him. Now, both learn it from nought save idolatry: R. Eliezer holds, It is like idolatry: just as idolatry, the Divine Law decreed, Do not engage [therein], and if one engages [therein] he is culpable, so here too it is not different — But R. Joshua [argues:] There he is not preoccupied with a precept, whereas here he is preoccupied with a precept. R. Hiyya taught, R. Meir used to say: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua did not differ concerning him who has two infants, one for circumcision on the eve of the Sabbath and one for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to the eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, that he is culpable. About what, do they disagree? About a man who has two infants, one for circumcision after the Sabbath and another for circumcision on the Sabbath, and he errs and circumcises the one belonging to after the Sabbath on the Sabbath, R. Eliezer declaring [him] liable to a sin-offering, while R. Joshua exempts him. Now if R. Joshua exempts him, in the second clause, though he does not fulfil a precept, shall he declare him culpable in the first clause, where he does fulfil a Precept!  The School of R. Jannai said: The first clause is, e.g., where the [infant] belonging to the Sabbath was previously circumcised on the eve of the Sabbath, so that the Sabbath does not stand to be superseded;  but in the second clause the Sabbath stands to be superseded. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: [But] in the first clause too the Sabbath stands to be superseded in connection with infants in general? — Nevertheless as far as this man [is concerned] it does not stand to be superseded. MISHNAH. AN INFANT IS TO BE CIRCUMCISED ON THE EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, ELEVENTH, AND TWELFTH [DAYS], NEITHER EARLIER NOR LATER. HOW SO? IN THE NORMAL COURSE, IT IS ON THE EIGHTH; IF HE IS BORN AT TWILIGHT, ON THE NINTH;  AT TWILIGHT ON SABBATH EVE, ON THE TENTH;  IF A FESTIVAL FOLLOWS THE SABBATH, ON THE ELEVENTH;  IF THE TWO DAYS OF NEW YEAR [FOLLOW THE SABBATH, ON THE TWELFTH.  AN INFANT WHO IS ILL IS NOT CIRCUMCISED UNTIL HE RECOVERS. GEMARA. Samuel said: When his temperature subsides [to normal], we allow him full seven days for his [complete] recovery. The scholars asked: Do we require twenty-four hours' days?  Come and hear: For Luda taught: The day of his recovery is like the day of his birth. Surely that means, just as with the day of his birth, we do not require a twenty-four hours' day,  so with the day of his recovery, we do not require a twenty-four hours' day? — No: the day of his recovery is stronger than the day of his birth, for whereas with the day of his birth we do not require a twenty-four hours' day, with the day of his recovery we do require a twenty-four hours' day. MISHNAH. THESE ARE THE SHREDS WHICH INVALIDATE CIRCUMCISION: FLESH THAT COVERS THE GREATER PART OF THE CORONA; AND HE MUST NOT PARTAKE OF TERUMAH.  AND IF HE IS FLESHY,  HE MUST REPAIR IT FOR APPEARANCES SAKE.