Shabbat 273

וסתם ספרא רבי יהודה

And an anonymous [statement in the] Sifra<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The halachah midrash on Leviticus, in which this passage occurs. ');">¹</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אף אנן נמי תנינא הכל כשרים לקדש חוץ מחש"ו רבי יהודה מכשיר בקטן ופוסל באשה ואנדרוגינוס ש"מ

is according to R. Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²</span>

ומאי שנא מילה משום דכתיב (בראשית יז, י) המול לכם כל זכר:

R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We too learnt likewise: All are eligible to sanctify,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The waters of lustration by placing the ashes therein; v. Num. XIX, 17. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול אחר השבת ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של אחר השבת בשבת חייב

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an hermaphrodite is considered a male. ');">⁴</span>

אחד למול בע"ש ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ע"ש בשבת רבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר:

Because it is written, every male among you shall be circumcised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. X VII, 10: 'every' is an extension, and teaches the inclusion of an hermaphrodite. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> רב הונא מתני חייב רב יהודה מתני פטור

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN HAS TWO INFANTS, ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION AFTER THE SABBATH AND THE OTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH, AND HE ERRS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'forgets'. ');">⁶</span>

רב הונא מתני חייב דתניא אמר ר"ש בן אלעזר לא נחלקו רבי אלעזר ור' יהושע על מי שהיו לו ב' תינוקות אחד למול בשבת ואחד למול אחר השבת ושכח ומל את של אחר השבת בשבת שהוא חייב

AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO AFTER THE SABBATH ON THE SABBATH, HE IS CULPABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁷</span>

על מה נחלקו על מי שהיו לו ב' תינוקות א' למול בע"ש וא' למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ע"ש בשבת שר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר

[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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For though he has actually fulfilled a precept, nevertheless circumcision after the proper time does not supersede the Sabbath. ');">⁸</span>

ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מעבודת כוכבים ר' אליעזר סבר כעבודת כוכבים מה עבודת כוכבים אמר רחמנא לא תעביד וכי עביד מיחייב ה"נ לא שנא

BUT R. JOSHUA EXEMPTS [HIM].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁹</span>

ורבי יהושע התם דלאו מצוה הכא מצוה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Huna recited: He is culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause of the Mishnah, as our text. ');">¹⁰</span>

רב יהודה מתני פטור דתניא א"ר מאיר לא נחלקו ר"א ורבי יהושע על מי שהיו לו ב' תינוקות אחד למול בע"ש ואחד למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ע"ש בשבת שהוא פטור

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

על מה נחלקו על מי שהיו לו ב' תינוקות אחד למול אחר השבת וא' למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של אחר השבת בשבת שר"א מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר

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.

ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מעבודת כוכבים ר"א סבר כעבודת כוכבים מה עבודת כוכבים אמר רחמנא לא תעביד וכי עביד מיחייב ה"נ לא שנא

'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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹²</span>

ור' יהושע התם לא טריד מצוה הכא טריד מצוה

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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not, v. p. 688, n. 4. ');">¹³</span>

תני ר' חייא אומר היה ר"מ לא נחלקו רבי אלעזר ורבי יהושע על מי שהיו לו ב' תינוקות א' למול בע"ש וא' למול בשבת ושכח ומל את של ע"ש בשבת שהוא חייב

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁴</span>

על מה נחלקו על מי שהיו לו ב' תינוקות א' למול אחר השבת וא' למול בשבת ושכח ומל של אחר השבת בשבת שר"א מחייב חטאת ור' יהושע פוטר

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.

השתא רבי יהושע סיפא דלא קא עביד מצוה פוטר רישא דקא עביד מצוה מחייב

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it may have been night already, and circumcision must not take place before the eighth. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמרי דבי ר' ינאי רישא כגון שקדם ומל של שבת בע"ש דלא ניתנה שבת לידחות סיפא ניתנה שבת לידחות

AT TWILIGHT ON SABBATH EVE, ON THE TENTH;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the following Sunday week. ');">¹⁶</span>

א"ל רב אשי לרב כהנא רישא נמי ניתנה שבת לידחות לגבי תינוקות דעלמא להאי גברא מיהא לא איתיהיב:

IF A FESTIVAL FOLLOWS THE SABBATH, ON THE ELEVENTH;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The following Monday week. ');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> קטן נימול לשמנה לתשעה ולעשרה ולאחד עשר ולי"ב לא פחות ולא יותר

IF THE TWO DAYS OF NEW YEAR [FOLLOW THE SABBATH, ON THE TWELFTH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁸</span>

הא כיצד כדרכו לשמנה נולד לבין השמשות נימול לט' ביה"ש של ע"ש נימול לעשרה

AN INFANT WHO IS ILL IS NOT CIRCUMCISED UNTIL HE RECOVERS.

יו"ט לאחר השבת נימול לאחד עשר ב' ימים של ר"ה נימול לשנים עשר

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from time to time'. Must we wait seven whole days to the hour, or can we circumcise any time on the seventh day? ');">¹⁹</span>

קטן החולה אין מוהלין אותו עד שיבריא:

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר שמואל חלצתו חמה נותנין לו כל ז' להברותו

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.

איבעיא להו מי בעינן מעת לעת

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THESE ARE THE SHREDS WHICH INVALIDATE CIRCUMCISION: FLESH THAT COVERS THE GREATER PART OF THE CORONA; AND HE MUST NOT PARTAKE OF <i>TERUMAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he is a priest and was thus inadequately circumcised, v. Yeb. 70a. ');">²¹</span>

ת"ש דתני לודא יום הבראתו כיום הולדו מאי לאו מה יום הולדו לא בעינן מעת לעת אף יום הבראתו לא בעינן מעת לעת

AND IF HE IS FLESHY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that though the circumcision was correctly performed the foreskin nevertheless looks as though it was uncircumcised. ');">²²</span>

לא עדיף יום הבראתו מיום הולדו דאילו יום הולדו לא בעינן מעת לעת ואילו יום הבראתו בעינן מעת לעת:

HE MUST REPAIR IT FOR APPEARANCES SAKE.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אלו הן ציצין המעכבין את המילה בשר החופה את רוב העטרה ואינו אוכל בתרומה

ואם היה בעל בשר מתקנו מפני מראית העין