Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 135a

but [of] one in doubt does not supersede the Sabbath; 'his foreskin' [of] one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but an hermaphrodite does not supersede the Sabbath. R. Judah maintained: An hermaphrodite supersedes the Sabbath and there is the penalty of kareth. 'His foreskin': [of] one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but [of] one born at twilight¹  does not supersede the Sabbath; his foreskin: one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but one who is born circumcised does not supersede the Sabbath, for Beth Shammai maintain: One must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him, while Beth Hillel rule: It is unnecessary. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ concerning him who is born circumcised that you must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him, because it is a suppressed foreskin:²  about what do they differ? about a proselyte who was converted when [already] circumcised: there Beth Shammai maintain: One must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him; whereas Beth Hillel rule: One need not cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him.

The Master said: 'But [of] one that is doubtful does not supersede the Sabbath.' What does this include?³  — It includes the following which was taught by our Rabbis: For a seven-months' infant⁴  one may desecrate the Sabbath, but for an eight-months' infant one may not desecrate the Sabbath.⁵  For one in doubt whether the is a seven-months' or an eight-months' infant, one may not desecrate the Sabbath. An eight-months' infant is like a stone and may not be handled, but his mother bends [over] and suckles him because of the danger.⁶

It was stated: Rab said: The halachah is as the first Tanna;⁷  while Samuel said: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. A circumcised child was born to R. Adda b. Ahabah. He took him to thirteen circumcisers,⁸  until he mutilated him privily.⁹  I deserve it for transgressing Rab's [ruling], said he. Said R. Nahman to him, And did you not violate Samuel's [ruling]? Samuel ruled this only of weekdays, but did he rule this of the Sabbath? — He [R. Adda b. Ahabah] held that it is definitely a suppressed foreskin.¹⁰  For it was stated: Rabbah said: We suspect that it may be a suppressed foreskin;¹¹  R. Joseph said: It is certainly a suppressed foreskin.

R. Joseph said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught, R. Eliezer ha-Kappar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not disagree concerning him who is born circumcised, that one must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him. Concerning what do they differ? As to whether the Sabbath is desecrated on his account: Beth Shammai maintain, We desecrate the Sabbath on his account; while Beth Hillel rule: We must not desecrate the Sabbath on his account. Does it then not follow that the first Tanna holds, We desecrate the Sabbath for him?¹²  But perhaps the first Tanna maintains that all agree that we may not desecrate the Sabbath for him? — If so, R. Eliezer ha-Kappar comes to teach us Beth Shammai's view!¹³  But perhaps he means this: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not disagree in this matter!¹⁴ 

R. Assi said: He whose mother is defiled through confinement must be circumcised at eight [days], but he whose mother is not defiled through confinement¹⁵  is not circumcised on the eighth day,¹⁶  because it is said, If a woman conceive seed, and bear a man child, then she shall be unclean, etc. … And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.¹⁷  Said Abaye to him, Let the early generations¹⁸  prove [the reverse], where the mother was not defiled through confinement,¹⁹  yet circumcision was of the eighth day!²⁰  — The Torah was given, replied he,

1. On Friday, and it is not known whether it was then Friday or the Sabbath.
2. I.e., the foreskin which seems absent is pressed to the membrum.
3. For the various cases of doubt are enumerated in detail.
4. I.e., one born after seven months of pregnancy.
5. The Rabbis held that such could not possibly live; hence there is no point in desecrating the Sabbath by circumcising him.
6. To herself, if she is not eased of her milk.
7. Who taught that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree about a child who is born circumcised; the halachah then naturally being as Beth Hillel.
8. That they might cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow. It was the Sabbath, and they all refused.
9. Eventually he performed the operation himself unskillfully, with that result.
10. There is no element of doubt at all, and therefore it must be done even on the Sabbath.
11. It is only because of this doubt that some drops of blood must be made to flow.
12. Even in Beth Hillel's opinion. Hence Beth Hillel must hold that it is certainly a suppressed foreskin.
13. Surely that is of no interest, since the halacha is as Beth Hillel.
14. Thus: the first Tanna maintains that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that we may not desecrate the Sabbath; hence their controversy must refer to weekdays, Beth Hillel holding that no blood-flow at all is required, whereupon R. Eleazar ha-Kappar stated that this is incorrect, there being no dispute in respect to weekdays, for even Beth Hillel necessitate a blood-flow, and they differ only in respect of the Sabbath. On this interpretation he informs us of Beth Hillel's view in respect to weekdays.
15. E.g., if the child is not born in the usual manner but extracted through the cesarean section; or if a Gentile woman gives birth and becomes a proselyte the following day.
16. But immediately.
17. Lev. XII, 2f. Thus the two are interdependent.
18. Viz., those preceding the giving of the Torah.
19. The law of defilement being as yet non-existent.
20. In accordance with God's command to Abraham; v. Gen. XVII, 12.

and then a new law was decreed.¹  But that is not so? for it was stated: If one is extracted through the cesarean section, or has two foreskins,²  — R. Huna and R. Hiyya b. Rab [differ thereon]: one maintains, We desecrate the Sabbath for them; whilst the other holds, We do not desecrate the Sabbath for them. Thus, they differ only concerning the desecration of the Sabbath for them, but we certainly circumcise them on the eighth day? — One is dependent on the other.³

This is a controversy of Tannaim: [For it was taught], There is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is one born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the eighth [day]; there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day. 'There is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the first [day], and there is [a slave] bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day.' How so? If one purchases a pregnant female slave and then she gives birth, that [the infant] is an acquired slave who is circumcised at eight days — If one purchases a female slave together with her infant child, that is a slave bought with money who is circumcised on the first day.⁴  'And there is [a slave] born in [his] master's house who is circumcised on the eighth day' — How so? If one purchases a female slave and she conceives in his house and gives birth, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised at eight days. R — Hama said:⁵  If she gives birth and then has a ritual bath,⁶  that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day; if she has a ritual bath and then gives birth, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised at eight days. But the first Tanna allows no distinction between one who [first] has a ritual bath and then gives birth and one who gives birth and then has a ritual bath, so that though his mother is not defiled through her confinement he is circumcised on the eighth day.⁷  Raba said:⁸  As for R. Hama, it is well: we find [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day, and one who is circumcised on the eighth day; one bought with money who is circumcised on the first day, and one bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth day. [Thus:] if she gives birth and then has a ritual bath, that is [a slave] born in his [master's] house who is circumcised on the first day; if she has a ritual bath and then gives birth, that is [a slave] born in the house who is circumcised on the eighth [day].⁹  'One bought with money who is circumcised on the eighth [day]': e.g., if one purchases a pregnant female slave and she has a ritual bath and then gives birth; 'one bought with money who is circumcised on the first day': e.g., where one buys a [pregnant] female slave and another buys her unborn child.¹⁰  But according to the first Tanna, as for all [others] it is well: they are conceivable.¹¹  But how can [a slave] born in the house be found who is circumcised on the first day?¹²  — Said R. Jeremiah: In the case of one who buys a female slave for her unborn child.¹³  This is satisfactory on the view that a title to the usufruct is not as a title to the principal; but on the view that a title to the usufruct is as a title to the principal, what can be said?¹⁴  — Said R. Mesharsheya: [It is possible] where one buys a female slave on condition that he will not subject her to a ritual bath.¹⁵

It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Any human being who lives¹⁶  thirty days is not a nefel,¹⁷  because it is said, And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month old shalt thou redeem.¹⁸  An animal [which lives] eight days is not a nefel, for it is said, and from the eighth day and henceforth it shall be accepted for an oblation, etc.¹⁹  This implies that if it [an infant] does not last [so long], it is doubtful;

1. Viz., that the two are interdependent.
2. Two skins on top of each other. Or, two separate membra.
3. The infant who must be circumcised on the eighth day must be circumcised even on the Sabbath, since that is deduced from (eighth) day (supra 132a); but where the eighth day is necessary the Sabbath may not be desecrated.
4. Of purchase, even if he is not eight days old yet.
5. [Probably R. Hama the father of R. Oshaia, v. Hyman, Toledoth II p. 456].
6. By this rite she enters the Jewish household as slave, becoming liable to all duties enjoined upon a Jewish woman. V. next note.
7. These laws centre on Gen. XVII, 12, 13: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed (v. 12). He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised (v. 13). Whereas v. 12 specifies circumcision for the eighth day, v. 13 does not, which implies at the earliest possible moment. Now it is logical that v. 12 refers to a slave who is as like as possible to a full Jew, that being the implication of 'among you', intimating those that are similar to you. viz., one born in his master's house after he was purchased. i.e., his mother was bearing him when she was bought; whilst v. 13 applies to a slave who is unlike a full Jew, vi., he was already born before he was bought. R. Hama draws this distinction: If his mother has a ritual bath, whereby she formally becomes a Jewish-owned slave in that she is bound to observe all the laws incumbent upon Jewesses in general, so that her confinement renders her unclean just like a Jewess, and then she gives birth, the infant is circumcised on the eighth day. But otherwise the infant is not like a Jewish-born child, and is circumcised on the first day. But the first Tanna ignores this distinction: thus R. Assi's ruling is a matter of controversy between the first Tanna and R. Hama.
8. Maharam deletes this.
9. Both of these refer to a slave who conceived in her master's house, so that the infant is not 'bought with money'.
10. Since the latter does not own the mother, the child is not like a Jewish-born infant, and therefore he is circumcised on the first day.
11. As already stated supra.
12. Since he rejects the distinction based on when the mother had her ritual bath, one born in the house is certainly similar to a Jew.
13. Even if he buys her from a Jew, and she has already had her ritual bath and is subject to the uncleanness of confinement, the child is nevertheless unlike a Jewish child, since his owner has no share in the mother.
14. V. B.B. 136a; the mother is the principal, while the child is the usufruct. On the latter view he is like a Jewish-born child
15. There her child is certainly unlike a Jewish-born one.
16. Lit., 'tarries'.
17. A nonviable, premature birth.
18. Num. XVIII, 16. Since he must then be redeemed, it follows that he is viable.
19. Lev. XXII, 27.