Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 137a

And an anonymous [statement in the] Sifra¹  is according to R. Judah.²  R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We too learnt likewise: All are eligible to sanctify,³  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?⁴  Because it is written, every male among you shall be circumcised.⁵ 

MISHNAH. IF A MAN HAS TWO INFANTS, ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION AFTER THE SABBATH AND THE OTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH, AND HE ERRS⁶  AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO AFTER THE SABBATH ON THE SABBATH, HE IS CULPABLE.⁷  [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;⁸  BUT R. JOSHUA EXEMPTS [HIM].⁹

GEMARA. R. Huna recited: He is culpable;¹⁰  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:¹¹  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.¹²

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!¹³  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;¹⁴  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;¹⁵  AT TWILIGHT ON SABBATH EVE, ON THE TENTH;¹⁶  IF A FESTIVAL FOLLOWS THE SABBATH, ON THE ELEVENTH;¹⁷  IF THE TWO DAYS OF NEW YEAR [FOLLOW THE SABBATH, ON THE TWELFTH.¹⁸  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?¹⁹  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,²⁰  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.²¹  AND IF HE IS FLESHY,²²  HE MUST REPAIR IT FOR APPEARANCES SAKE.

1. The halachah midrash on Leviticus, in which this passage occurs.
2. This principle was laid down by R. Johanan; v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 567, n. 1. — Thus R. Judah does not regard him as a male in this respect.
3. The waters of lustration by placing the ashes therein; v. Num. XIX, 17.
4. That an hermaphrodite is considered a male.
5. Gen. X VII, 10: 'every' is an extension, and teaches the inclusion of an hermaphrodite.
6. Lit., 'forgets'.
7. For unwittingly desecrating the Sabbath. For since circumcision is obligatory from the eighth day only, this is not circumcision, but the mere inflicting of a wound, which entails culpability.
8. For though he has actually fulfilled a precept, nevertheless circumcision after the proper time does not supersede the Sabbath.
9. He erred through the fulfilment of a precept, viz., because he was occupied with the circumcision of the second, which actually was to be done that day; he also did fulfil a precept by circumcising the first, and R. Joshua holds that in such a case one is not culpable.
10. In the first clause of the Mishnah, as our text.
11. The obligations to all sin-offerings are learnt from the unwitting offence of idolatry, which serves as a model; v. Num. XV. 29-30 (v. 30 is understood to refer to deliberate idolatry, and shows that the preceding verses refer to all unwitting offences which are similar thereto).
12. He is anxious to carry out the obligation which rests on him, and this preoccupation excuses his error. Rab Judah accordingly reads the Mishnah quite differently, and in accordance with the present view.
13. Surely not, v. p. 688, n. 4.
14. There is no infant left for whom the Sabbath must be violated. There was therefore no preoccupation with a precept and the error consequently was inexcusable, hence he is culpable.
15. As it may have been night already, and circumcision must not take place before the eighth.
16. Sc. the following Sunday week.
17. The following Monday week.
18. In Palestine all Festivals are of one day's duration, in accordance with Scripture, save New Year, which is of two days. — In the last three cases the infant cannot be circumcised on the following Friday, in case it is the seventh day, nor on the Sabbath or Festival, in case Friday was the eighth day, and circumcision after its proper time does not supersede them.
19. Lit., 'from time to time'. Must we wait seven whole days to the hour, or can we circumcise any time on the seventh day?
20. E.g., we do not wait eight full days to the hour for a normal circumcision, but perform it any time on the eighth day.
21. If he is a priest and was thus inadequately circumcised, v. Yeb. 70a.
22. So that though the circumcision was correctly performed the foreskin nevertheless looks as though it was uncircumcised.

IF ONE CIRCUMCISES BUT DOES NOT UNCOVER THE CIRCUMCISION,¹  IT IS AS THOUGH HE HAS NOT CIRCUMCISED.

GEMARA. R. Abina said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba in Rab's name: [This means,] the flesh that covers the greater part of the height of the corona.

AND IF HE IS FLESHY, etc. Samuel said: If an infant['s membrum] is overgrown with flesh, we examine him: as long as he appears circumcised when he forces himself, it is unnecessary to recircumcise him; but if not he must be recircumcised. In a Baraitha it was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If an infant['s membrum] is overgrown with flesh, we examine him: if he does not appear circumcised when he forces himself,²  he must be recircumcised: otherwise he need not be recircumcised. Wherein do they differ? — They differ where it is only partially visible.³

IF ONE CIRCUMCISES BUT DOES NOT UNCOVER THE CIRCUMCISION. Our Rabbis taught: He who circumcises must recite: '… Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments, and hast commanded us concerning circumcision.' The father of the infant recites, '… Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us to lead him into the covenant of our father Abraham.' The bystanders exclaim, 'Even as he has entered the covenant, so may he enter into the Torah, the marriage canopy, and good deeds.' And he who pronounces the benediction recites: '… Who hast sanctified the beloved one⁴  from the womb; He set a statute in his flesh, and his offsprings he sealed with the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore as a reward for this, O living God Who art our portion, give command to save the beloved of our flesh from the pit, for the sake of Thy covenant which Thou hast set in our flesh. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who makest the covenant. He who circumcises proselytes says, 'Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us concerning circumcision.' He who pronounces the benediction recites, '… Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us to circumcise proselytes and to cause the drops of the blood of the covenant to flow from them, since but for the blood of the covenant Heaven and earth would not endure, as it is said, If not my covenant by day and by night, I had not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth.⁵  Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who makest the covenant.' He who circumcises slaves recites: '… Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us concerning circumcision. While he who pronounces the benediction recites: '… Who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us to cause the drops of the blood of the covenant to flow from them, since but for the blood of the covenant the ordinances of heaven and earth would not endure, as it is said, If not my covenant by day and by night, I had not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who makest the covenant.'⁶

CHAPTER XX

MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER SAID: ONE MAY SUSPEND A STRAINER ON FESTIVALS, AND POUR [WINE] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON THE SABBATH.⁷  BUT THE SAGES RULE: ONE MAY NOT SUSPEND A STRAINER ON FESTIVALS, NOR POUR [WINE] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON THE SABBATH, BUT WE MAY POUR [IT] THROUGH A SUSPENDED [STRAINER] ON FESTIVALS.

GEMARA. Seeing that R. Eliezer [holds] that we may not [even] add to a temporary tent, can it be permitted to make [one] in the first place?⁸  What is this allusion? For we learnt: As for the stopper of a skylight, — R. Eliezer said: When it is fastened and suspended, one may close [the skylight] with it; if not, one may not close [the skylight] with it. But the Sages maintain: In both cases you may close [the skylight] with it. Whereon Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: All agree that a temporary tent may not be made on Festivals, whilst on the Sabbath it goes without saying. They differ only in respect of adding [to a tent]; R. Eliezer maintaining. One may not add on a Festival, whilst on the Sabbath it goes without saying; whereas the Sages rule: One may add on the Sabbath, whilst it is superfluous to speak of Festivals!⁹  — R. Eliezer agrees with R. Judah. For it was taught: The only difference between Festivals and the Sabbath is in respect of food for consumption.¹⁰  R. Judah permits the preliminary preparations of food for consumption too.¹¹  But say that we know R. Judah [to rule thus] of preparations which could not be done on the eve of the Festival; do you know him [to rule thus] of preparations which could be done on the eve of the Festival? — R. Eliezer's [ruling] goes further than R. Judah's.¹²

BUT THE SAGES RULE, '[etc.]. The scholars asked: What if one does suspend [it]? — R. Joseph said: If one suspends [it] he is liable to a sin-offering. Said Abaye to him: If so, if one hangs a pitcher on a peg. is he too liable?¹³

1. I.e., the corona, by splitting the membrane and pulling it down. — He did not perform the peri'ah. V. supra 133a.
2. To cause his bowels to function.
3. Lit., 'he appears and does not appear'. Samuel maintains that unless it is fully visible he must be circumcised, whereas the Baraitha teaches that only where it is quite invisible is recircumcision required.
4. Rashi refers this to Isaac; Tosaf. to Abraham.
5. Jer. XXXIII, 25.
6. The emphasis on the extreme importance of circumcision was probably meant to counteract the early Christian teaching, which abrogated circumcision entirely in order to attract converts; v. Weiss, Dor, II, 9. It is perhaps noteworthy that in the present passage it is precisely in connection with proselytes and slaves that this is so much emphasized.
7. When a strainer is 'suspended', i.e., set over the vessel which receives the liquid, a 'tent' is technically made, in that the strainer covers the vessel like the top of a tent cover and protects that which is beneath it. R. Eliezer permits this on Festivals but not on the Sabbath. Again, when the liquid, e.g., wine, is poured through the strainer, the lees are separated from the wine; nevertheless he does not regard this as 'selecting' (v. supra 73a) and permits it on the Sabbath. A cloth strainer is probably meant; v. T.A. II, p. 243.
8. As he does permit it in the Mishnah.
9. This means that R. Eliezer forbids even adding to a temporary tent.
10. V. p. 281, n. 8.
11. The suspending of a strainer falls within this category.
12. For he permits it even in the latter case.
13. Surely not. Here too it is not a real building and is forbidden by Rabbinical law only.