Shabbat 265

תנאי היא דתניא בשר ואף על פי שיש שם בהרת ימול דברי רבי יאשיה רבי יונתן אומר אינו צריך שבת חמורה דוחה צרעת לא כ"ש:

is [a controversy between] Tannaim. For it was taught: 'Flesh', and even if a bahereth is there, 'it shall be circumcised': the words of R. Josiah. R. Jonathan said: This is unnecessary: if it supersedes the Sabbath [which is more] Stringent, how much more so leprosy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus R. Josiah learns that circumcision at the proper time supersedes leprosy from 'flesh', whilst the same for circumcision after the eighth day must be inferred from the common feature (v. supra 132b), this agreeing with R. Safra's rejection of Raba's argument. Whereas R. Jonathan infers the former a minori, so that 'flesh' may be applied to the other case, as Raba. ');">¹</span>

אמר מר בשר אע"פ שיש שם בהרת ימול דברי רבי יאשיה הא למה לי קרא דבר שאין מתכוין הוא ודבר שאין מתכוין מותר

The Master said: '"Flesh", and even if a bahereth is there, "it shall be circumcised": the words of R. Josiah.' Why is a verse required for this: it is an unintentional act,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the cutting away of the bahereth. ');">²</span>

אמר אביי לא נצרכא אלא לרבי יהודה דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין אסור רבא אמר אפילו תימא ר"ש מודה ר"ש בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות ואביי לית ליה האי סברא והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו מודה רבי שמעון בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות בתר דשמעה מרבא סברה

and an unintentional act is permitted? — Said Abaye, This is only necessary according to R. Judah, who maintains: An unintentional act is forbidden. Raba said, You may even say [according to] R. Simeon: R. Simeon admits in the case of 'cut off his head but let him not die.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 357, n. 8. ');">³</span>

איכא דמתני להא דאביי ורבא אהא (דברים כד, ח) השמר בנגע הצרעת לשמור מאד ולעשות לעשות אי אתה עושה אבל עושה אתה בסיב שעל גבי רגלו ובמוט שעל גבי כתיפו ואם עברה עברה

Now, does not Abaye accept this reasoning? Surely Abaye and Raba both said, R. Simeon admits in the case of, 'cut off his head but let him not die'? — After hearing it from Raba he accepted its logic.

והא למה לי קרא דבר שאין מתכוין הוא ודבר שאין מתכוין מותר אמר אביי לא נצרכא אלא לרבי יהודה דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין אסור ורבא אמר אפילו תימא רבי שמעון ומודה רבי שמעון בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות ואביי לית ליה האי סברא והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו מודה ר' שמעון בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות לבתר דשמעיה מרבא סברה

Others recite this [dictum] of Abaye and Raba in reference to the following: Take heed in the plague of leprosy, that thou observe diligently, to do [etc.]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 8. ');">⁴</span>

ואביי אליבא דרבי שמעון האי בשר מאי עביד ליה אמר רב עמרם באומר לקוץ בהרתו הוא מתכוין

'to do' thou art forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thou mayest not do'. I.e., one may not intentionally cut off a bahereth. ');">⁵</span>

תינח גדול קטן מאי איכא למימר אמר רב משרשיא באומר אבי הבן לקוץ בהרת דבנו הוא קא מתכוין

but thou mayest effect it by means of bast on the foot or a pole on the shoulder, and if it goes it goes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one need not refrain from wearing a tight shoe of bast or carrying a heavy burden on his shoulder, though these may remove the bahereth. ');">⁶</span>

ואי איכא אחר ליעביד אחר דאמר ר"ש בן לקיש כל מקום שאתה מוצא עשה ולא תעשה אם אתה יכול לקיים שניהם מוטב ואם לאו יבא עשה וידחה לא תעשה דליכא אחר:

But what need of a verse for this: it is an unintentional act, and an unintentional act is permitted? — Said Abaye: It is only necessary according to R. Judah, who maintained: An unintentional act is forbidden. But Raba said: You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Simeon, yet R. Simeon admits in the case of 'cut off his head but let him not die.' Now, does not Abaye accept this reasoning? Surely Abaye and Raba both said, R. Simeon admits in the case of 'cut off his head but let him not die'? After hearing it from Raba, he accepted its logic.

אמר מר יום טוב אינה דוחה אלא בזמנה בלבד מנא הני מילי

Now Abaye on R. Simeon's view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before he accepted Raba's dictum. ');">⁷</span>

אמר חזקיה וכן תנא דבי חזקיה אמר קרא (שמות יב, י) לא תותירו ממנו עד בקר שאין ת"ל עד בקר מה ת"ל עד בקר בא הכתוב ליתן לו בקר שני לשריפתו

how does he utilize this [word] 'flesh'? — Said R. Amram: As referring to one who asserts that it is his intention to cut off his bahereth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to be rendered clean. Yet even so it is permitted for the sake of circumcision. ');">⁸</span>

אביי אמר אמר קרא (במדבר כח, י) עולת שבת בשבתו ולא עולת חול בשבת ולא עולת חול בי"ט

That is well of an adult: what can be said of an infant?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eight days old. He has no intention, yet 'flesh' is written in his case too (v. supra 132b, p. 665 n. 1). ');">⁹</span>

רבא אמר אמר קרא (שמות יב, טז) הוא לבדו יעשה לכם הוא ולא מכשירין לבדו ולא מילה שלא בזמנה דאתיא מק"ו

Said R. Mesharsheya: It refers to the infant's father who asserts that it is his [specific] intention to cut off his son's bahereth. Then if there is another,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Available to perform the circumcision — the prohibition concerning the bahereth will not apply to him, since he has no interest in the child's ritual cleanness. ');">¹⁰</span>

רב אשי אמר (ויקרא כג, ג) שבתון עשה הוא והוה ליה י"ט עשה ול"ת ואין עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ועשה:

let another perform it; for R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Wherever you find a positive command and a negative command [in opposition], if you can fulfil both of them, it is preferable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus, if a stranger performs it, the positive command of circumcision is fulfilled without violating the injunction of leprosy, since the stranger has no such intention. ');">¹¹</span>

כלל אמר ר"ע וכו': אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הלכה כר"ע

but if not, let the positive command come and supersede the negative command?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus the question remains: what need is there for the word 'flesh' in the case of the infant? ');">¹²</span>

ותנן נמי גבי פסח כי האי גוונא כלל אמר ר"ע כל מלאכה שאפשר לה לעשותה מע"ש אינה דוחה את השבת שחיטה שאי אפשר לעשותה מע"ש דוחה את השבת ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב הלכה כר"ע

— This is where there is no stranger.

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן גבי מילה התם הוא דמכשירין אפשר לעשות מאתמול לא דחו שבת דליכא כרת אבל פסח דאיכא כרת אימא לידחו שבת

The Master said, 'It supersedes Festivals only [when performed] at its [proper] time.' Hezekiah said, and the School of Hezekiah taught likewise: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning [but that which remaineth of it] until the morning [ye shall burn with fire]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 10. ');">¹³</span>

ואי אשמעינן גבי פסח משום דלא נכרתו עליה י"ג בריתות אבל מילה דנכרתו עליה י"ג בריתות אימא לידחו שבת צריכא:

now [the second] until the morning need not be stated: What then is the teaching of, until the morning? Scripture comes to appoint the second morning for its burning. Abaye said: Scripture saith, the burnt-offering of the Sabbath [shall be burnt] on its Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVIII, 10. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> עושין כל צרכי מילה [בשבת] מוהלין ופורעין ומוצצין ונותנין עליה איספלנית וכמון

but not the burnt-offering of weekdays on the Sabbath, nor the burnt-offering of weekdays on Festivals. Raba said: Scripture saith, [no manner of work shall be done in them save that which every man must eat], that only may be done of you:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 16. ');">¹⁵</span>

אם לא שחק מע"ש לועס בשיניו ונותן אם לא טרף יין ושמן מע"ש ינתן זה בעצמו וזה בעצמו

'that', but not its preliminaries; 'only', but not circumcision out of its proper time, which might [otherwise] be inferred a minori. R. Ashi said: [On the seventh day is a Sabbath of] holy rest [sabbathon]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 3. ');">¹⁶</span>

ואין עושין לה חלוק לכתחילה אבל כורך עליה סמרטוט אם לא התקין מע"ש כורך על אצבעו ומביא ואפי' מחצר אחרת:

is an affirmative precept, thus there is an affirmative and a negative precept in respect of Festivals, and an affirmative precept cannot supersede a negative plus an affirmative precept.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 24b and 25a for notes. From all the foregoing we see that labour which can be done on weekdays or which belongs primarily to weekdays does not supersede Festivals even in the fulfilment of a precept, and the same applies here. ');">¹⁷</span> R. AKIBA STATED A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, etc. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Akiba. And we learnt similarly in respect to the Passover sacrifice: R. Akiba stated a general principle: Any labour which can be performed on the eve of the Sabbath does not supersede the Sabbath; slaughtering [the Passover sacrifice], which can not be done on the eve of the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the fourteenth of Nisan falls on the Sabbath. ');">¹⁸</span> supersedes the Sabbath; and Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Akiba. And these are necessary. For if he informed us [of the <i>halachah</i>] in connection with circumcision, — It is only there that the preparatory requirements which could be done the previous day do not supersede the Sabbath, since there is no <i>kareth</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When circumcision is postponed. ');">¹⁹</span> but as for the Passover sacrifice, where there is <i>kareth</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For not offering it. ');">²⁰</span> you might argue, Let them [the preliminaries] supersede the Sabbath. And if he told us [the <i>halachah</i>] about the Passover sacrifice, — that is because thirteen covenants were not made in connection therewith; but as for circumcision, seeing that thirteen covenants were made in connection therewith<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 132a top. ');">²¹</span> I would say, Let them [the preliminaries] supersede the Sabbath — Thus they are necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 66a. ');">²²</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WE PERFORM ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH. WE CIRCUMCISE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cut off the foreskin. ');">²³</span> UNCOVER [THE CORONA],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Peri'ah. By splitting the membrane and pulling it down. ');">²⁴</span> SUCK [THE WOUND],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mezizah. Nowadays the suction is accomplished by means of a glass cylinder. ');">²⁵</span> AND PLACE A COMPRESS AND CUMMIN UPON IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make the wound heal. ');">²⁶</span> IF ONE DID NOT CRUSH [THE CUMMIN] ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH, HE MUST CHEW [IT] WITH HIS TEETH AND APPLY [IT TO THE WOUND]; IF HE DID NOT BEAT UP WINE AND OIL ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This too was applied to the wound. ');">²⁷</span> EACH MUST BE APPLIED SEPARATELY. WE MAY NOT MAKE A HALUK<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A kind of shirt-shaped bandage placed over the membrum and tied at the corona, to prevent the flesh from growing back and recovering the membrum. ');">²⁸</span> FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT MUST WRAP A RAG ABOUT IT. IF THIS WAS NOT PREPARED FROM THE EVE OF THE SABBATH, ONE WINDS IT ABOUT HIS FINGER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As though it were a garment, so that it shall not be carried just like on weekdays. ');">²⁹</span> AND BRINGS IT, AND EVEN THROUGH ANOTHER COURTYARD.