Shabbat 264

ועבודה דוחה את השבת מילה דוחה אותה שבת שנדחית מפני העבודה אינו דין שתהא מילה דוחה אותה

whilst the sacrificial service supersedes the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Public sacrifices being brought thereon. ');">¹</span>

ומאי או אינו דקאמר הדר אמר וממאי דצרעת חמורה דילמא שבת חמורה שכן יש בה עונשין ואזהרות הרבה (אי נמי) וממאי משום דחמירא צרעת היא דילמא משום גברא הוא דלא חזי ומה אני מקיים שמיני ימול חוץ משבת תלמוד לומר ביום אפילו בשבת:

yet circumcision supersedes it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The injunction not to cut away a leprous bright spot is disregarded when it is on the foreskin which is to be circumcised. ');">²</span>

תנו רבנן מילה דוחה את הצרעת בין בזמנה בין שלא בזמנה יום טוב אינה דוחה אלא בזמנה בלבד

then the Sabbath, which is superseded by the sacrificial service, surely circumcision supersedes it.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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the reason that the sacrificial service does not supersede leprosy. ');">³</span>

מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא יב, ג) ימול בשר ערלתו ואע"פ שיש שם בהרת יקוץ ומה אני מקיים (דברים כד, ח) השמר בנגע הצרעת בשאר מקומות חוץ ממילה

is because leprosy is more stringent, perhaps it is because the man is not fit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁴</span>

או אינו אלא אפילו מילה ומה אני מקיים ימול בשר ערלתו בזמן שאין בה בהרת ת"ל בשר ואע"פ שיש שם בהרת

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.

אמר רבא האי תנא מעיקרא מאי ניחא ליה ולבסוף מאי קשיא ליה

Our Rabbis taught: Circumcision supersedes leprosy, whether [performed] at its [proper] time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The eighth day from birth. ');">⁵</span>

הכי קאמר ימול בשר ערלתו ואע"פ שיש בהרת ומה אני מקיים השמר בנגע הצרעת בשאר מקומות חוץ ממילה אבל מילה דוחה את הצרעת מ"ט דאתיא מק"ו ומה שבת חמורה מילה דוחה אותה צרעת לא כ"ש

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bright, snow-white (v. Neg. I, 1) spot on the skin, which is a symptom of leprosy (Lev. XII, 2 seq.). ');">⁶</span>

ומאי או אינו דקאמר הדר קאמר ממאי דשבת חמירא דילמא צרעת חמירא שכן דוחה את העבודה ועבודה דוחה את השבת ת"ל בשר ואע"פ שיש שם בהרת

is there it must be cut off. Then to what do I apply, 'Take heed in the plague of leprosy'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut, XXIV, 8; this is interpreted as an injunction against cutting away a leprous bright spot, etc, ');">⁷</span>

לישנא אחרינא מילה דוחה את הצרעת מ"ט דאתי עשה ודחי לא תעשה ומאי או אינו דקאמר הדר קאמר אימר דאמרינן דאתי עשה ודחי את לא תעשה לא תעשה גרידא האי עשה ולא תעשה הוא ומה אני מקיים ימול בשר ערלתו בזמן שאין בה בהרת ת"ל בשר ואע"פ שיש שם בהרת

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To circumcise ');">⁸</span>

תינח גדול דכתיב בהו בשר קטן נמי כתיב ביה בשר בינוני מנלן

comes and supersedes a negative command.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to cut the bahereth away. ');">⁹</span>

אמר אביי אתיא מביניא מגדול לא אתיא שכן ענוש כרת מקטן לא אתיא שכן מילה בזמנה הצד השוה שבהן שכן נימולין ודוחין את הצרעת אף כל שנימולין דוחין את הצרעת

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Negative: Take heed in the plague of leprosy, 'Take heed' always being so regarded; positive: that thou observe diligently, etc. ');">¹⁰</span>

רבא אמר מילה בזמנה דוחה לא צריכא קרא מק"ו אתיא ומה שבת דחמירא דוחה צרעת לא כל שכן

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.

אמר ליה רב ספרא לרבא ממאי דשבת חמירא דילמא צרעת חמירא שכן דוחה את העבודה ועבודה דוחה את השבת התם לאו משום דחמירא צרעת אלא משום דגברא הוא דלא חזי אמאי ויקוץ בהרתו ויעבוד מחוסר טבילה הוא

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹¹</span>

תינח נגעים טמאים נגעים טהורים מאי איכא למימר

Said Abaye, It is inferred from the other two combined:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from between them'. ');">¹²</span>

אלא א"ר אשי היכא אמרינן דאתי עשה ודחי ל"ת כגון מילה בצרעת א"נ ציצית וכלאים דבעידנא דמתעקר לאו קא מוקי' עשה הכא בעידנא דמתעקר ללאו לא קא מוקים עשה

it cannot be inferred from an adult [alone], Since there is the penalty of <i>kareth</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹³</span>

והא דרבא ורב ספרא

[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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁴</span> — 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁵</span> where at the very moment that the negative injunction is disregarded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'uprooted'. ');">¹⁶</span> the positive command is fulfilled;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the latter is fulfilled through the disregard of the former. ');">¹⁷</span> but here at the moment that the negative injunction is disregarded the positive command is not fulfilled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁸</span> Now, this [discussion] of Raba and R. Safra