Shabbat 135aשבת קל״ה א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 135a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
135aקל״ה א

ולא ספק דוחה את השבת ערלתו ודאי דוחה את השבת ולא אנדרוגינוס דוחה את השבת

and the circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. And by means of the same inference from the term his foreskin, derive that circumcision of his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat, and circumcising the foreskin of a hermaphrodite baby, with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not circumcision is required, does not override Shabbat.

רבי יהודה אומר אנדרוגינוס דוחה את השבת וענוש כרת ערלתו ודאי דוחה את השבת ולא נולד בין השמשות דוחה את השבת ערלתו ודאי דוחה את השבת ולא נולד כשהוא מהול דוחה את השבת שבית שמאי אומרים צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית ובית הלל אומרים אינו צריך

Rabbi Yehuda says: The circumcision of a hermaphrodite overrides Shabbat, and if he is not circumcised, when he reaches majority he is punishable by karet. Rabbi Yehuda interprets the verse in the following manner: His definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one born at twilight does not override Shabbat. And likewise, his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, does not override Shabbat. With regard to a child in that condition, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: It is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of circumcision of the foreskin, and Beit Hillel say: It is not necessary, as he is already circumcised.

אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על נולד כשהוא מהול שצריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית מפני שערלה כבושה היא על מה נחלקו על גר שנתגייר כשהוא מהול שבית שמאי אומרים צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית ובית הלל אומרים אין צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: That was not the subject of their dispute, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree over the fact that from one who was born circumcised, it is necessary to drip covenantal blood, because they agree that it is a case of a concealed foreskin. The child is not actually circumcised; it is just that his foreskin is not visible. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to a convert who for some reason was circumcised when he was a gentile and converted when he was already circumcised, as Beit Shammai say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is necessary, and Beit Hillel say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is not necessary, and he needs only a ritual immersion to complete his conversion.

אמר מר ולא ספק דוחה את השבת לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דתנו רבנן בן שבעה מחללין עליו את השבת ובן שמונה אין מחללין עליו את השבת ספק בן שבעה ספק בן שמונה אין מחללין עליו את השבת

The Gemara cited above that the Master said: The circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What case of uncertainty does this statement come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which the Sages taught: To circumcise a child born after seven months of pregnancy, one desecrates Shabbat, as it will likely live. However, to circumcise a child born after eight months of pregnancy, with regard to whom the presumption was that he would not survive, one may not desecrate Shabbat. And even for the circumcision of a child with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether the child was born after seven months and uncertainty whether the child was born after eight months, one may not desecrate Shabbat.

בן שמונה הרי הוא כאבן ואסור לטלטלו אבל אמו שוחה ומניקתו מפני הסכנה

And the Sages taught: A child born after eight months is like a stone with regard to the halakhot of set-aside [muktze], and it is prohibited to move him. However, his mother may bend over the child and nurse him due to the danger that failure to nurse will cause her to fall ill.

איתמר רב אמר הלכה כתנא קמא ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר

With regard to the halakhic ruling in the case of a child born circumcised, it is stated that the Sages disagree. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the explanation of the first tanna, i.e., in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s explanation of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, that they disagree with regard to one born circumcised. Since we rule in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, it is not necessary to drip covenantal blood from a child born circumcised. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to one born circumcised, and that everyone agrees that it is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him.

רב אדא בר אהבה אתיליד ליה ההוא ינוקא כשהוא מהול אהדריה אתליסר מהולאי עד דשוייה כרות שפכה אמר תיתי לי דעברי אדרב

The Gemara relates that to Rav Adda bar Ahava there was this child that was born circumcised, and the time for his circumcision was on Shabbat. He inquired after thirteen ritual circumcisors, but they refused to circumcise him, until ultimately, he circumcised his son himself and rendered him one with a severed urethra. He did not know how to perform a circumcision and made too deep an incision. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: I have it coming to me, i.e., I deserve to be punished, as I violated the ruling of Rav, who ruled that one born circumcised does not even need covenantal blood drawn.

אמר ליה רב נחמן ואדשמואל לא עבר אימר דאמר שמואל בחול בשבת מי אמר הוא סבר ודאי ערלה כבושה היא דאיתמר רבה אמר חיישינן שמא ערלה כבושה היא רב יוסף אמר ודאי ערלה כבושה היא

Rav Naḥman said to him: And did he not violate the ruling of Shmuel? Say that Shmuel said that one is required to drip covenantal blood during the week, on Shabbat, did he say so? Certainly one does not desecrate Shabbat in that case. The Gemara explains that Rav Adda bar Ahava held differently, that in that case there is not merely a concern that perhaps there is a concealed foreskin. In that case, that there is definitely a concealed foreskin. Therefore, a form of circumcision must be performed on the child, and it overrides Shabbat. As it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute as to whether or not it is permitted to drip covenantal blood on Shabbat from a child born circumcised. Rabba said: We are concerned lest there is a concealed foreskin, and therefore there is uncertainty whether or not he is considered uncircumcised, and therefore it is prohibited to circumcise him on Shabbat. Rav Yosef said: In that case, there is certainly a concealed foreskin and therefore, it is permitted to circumcise him even on Shabbat.

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא רבי אליעזר הקפר אומר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על נולד כשהוא מהול שצריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית על מה נחלקו לחלל עליו את השבת בית שמאי אומרים מחללין עליו את השבת ובית הלל אומרים אין מחללין עליו את השבת לאו מכלל דתנא קמא סבר מחללין עליו את השבת

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this line of reasoning? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar says: There is a tradition that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to a child who was born circumcised, that one is required to drip covenantal blood from him. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to whether or not to desecrate Shabbat on his behalf. Beit Shammai say: One desecrates Shabbat in order to circumcise him, and Beit Hillel say: One does not desecrate Shabbat in order to circumcise him. Rav Yosef concludes: Does this not prove by inference that the first tanna, whose opinion Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disputes, holds that everyone agrees that one desecrates Shabbat on his behalf, and Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disagrees and states that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute that very matter?

ודילמא תנא קמא דברי הכל אין מחללין קאמר אם כן רבי אליעזר הקפר טעמא דבית שמאי אתא לאשמעינן דילמא הכי קאמר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בדבר זה:

The Gemara refutes this: And perhaps the first tanna is saying that everyone agrees that one may not desecrate Shabbat in that case, and Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar disagrees and holds that there is a dispute in this regard. The Gemara immediately rejects this assertion: If that is so, that Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar is coming to introduce an opinion that allows desecrating Shabbat to perform circumcision in this case, that is the opinion of Beit Shammai; did Rabbi Eliezer HaKappar come to teach us the reasoning of Beit Shammai? Their opinion is rejected as halakha, and there would be no purpose in making a statement simply to explain the opinion of Beit Shammai. The Gemara answers that proof is not absolute; perhaps this is what he is saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to this matter of circumcision of a baby born circumcised on Shabbat. They disagree with regard to the requirement to drip covenantal blood on a weekday.

אמר רבי אסי כל שאמו טמאה לידה נימול לשמונה וכל שאין אמו טמאה לידה אין נימול לשמנה שנאמר אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר וטמאה וגו׳ וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו

Rabbi Asi stated a principle: Any child whose birth renders his mother ritually impure due to childbirth is circumcised at eight days; and any child whose birth does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, e.g., the birth was not natural, but by caesarean section, is not necessarily circumcised at eight days. As it is stated: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days…and on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:2–3). This verse draws a parallel between the two issues, indicating that only a child whose birth renders his mother impure is circumcised on the eighth day.

אמר ליה אביי דורות הראשונים יוכיחו שאין אמו טמאה לידה ונימול לשמנה

Abaye said to him: The early generations, from Abraham through the revelation at Sinai, will prove that the principle is not valid, as the birth of a male during that era did not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, as the halakhot of the impurity of childbirth were commanded at Sinai, and nevertheless, the child was circumcised at eight days, as stated in the Torah, in the book of Genesis.

אמר ליה נתנה תורה

Rabbi Asi said to him: There is no proof from here, as when the Torah was later given,