## Shabbat Daf 132b

###### Shabbat 132b:1
[Shabbat 132b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:1)

וַעֲבוֹדָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת — מִילָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ. שַׁבָּת שֶׁנִּדְחֵית מִפְּנֵי הָעֲבוֹדָה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא מִילָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** the Temple **service overrides Shabbat,** as Shabbat offerings are sacrificed at their appointed time, and nevertheless **circumcision overrides** leprosy, i.e., if there were symptoms of leprosy on the foreskin of the baby, one circumcises the child even though he thereby violates the prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy; therefore, with regard to **Shabbat, which is overridden by the** Temple **service, is it not logical that circumcision,** which is so stringent that it overrides leprosy, **overrides** Shabbat as well? This was the *tanna’s* reasoning at the outset.


###### Shabbat 132b:2
[Shabbat 132b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:2)

וּמַאי ״אוֹ אֵינוֹ״ דְּקָאָמַר — הֲדַר אָמַר: וּמִמַּאי דְּצָרַעַת חֲמוּרָה? דִילְמָא שַׁבָּת חֲמוּרָה, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהּ עוֹנָשִׁין וְאַזְהָרוֹת הַרְבֵּה. אִי נָמֵי: וּמִמַּאי מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲמִירָא צָרַעַת הִיא, דִּילְמָא מִשּׁוּם גַּבְרָא הוּא דְּלָא חֲזֵי. וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״שְׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל״ — חוּץ מִשַּׁבָּת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּיּוֹם״ — אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what** was the reason the *tanna* **said: Or perhaps,** and questioned his previous statement? **He reconsidered** and **said: And from where** do we know **that leprosy is** more **stringent** than Shabbat? **Perhaps Shabbat is** more **stringent, as it includes** the severe **punishments** of *karet* and execution by stoning, **and numerous warnings** pertaining to it throughout the Torah. **Alternatively, and from where** do we know that the reason the Temple service does not override the prohibition of leprosy is specifically **because leprosy is** more **stringent** than the Temple service? **Perhaps** the Temple service does not override the prohibition of leprosy **because a man** afflicted with leprosy **is unfit** to perform the Temple service and not due to the stringency of the prohibition to remove symptoms of leprosy from one’s body. **And** if so, **how do I establish** the verse: “And on the **eighth** day the flesh of his foreskin **shall be circumcised”** (Leviticus 12:3)? That it applies to days **other than Shabbat.** Consequently, the *tanna* cited additional proof from that which **the Torah states: “On the day,”** indicating that circumcision is performed **even on Shabbat.**


###### Shabbat 132b:3
[Shabbat 132b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִילָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַצָּרַעַת, בֵּין בִּזְמַנָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ. יוֹם טוֹב אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught: Circumcision overrides leprosy.** The foreskin is cut even if it has symptoms of leprosy on it, despite the fact that there is a Torah prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy. This is the *halakha* **both** when the circumcision takes place **at its** appointed **time,** on the eighth day, or **when it is not** performed **at its** appointed **time** but after the eighth day. However, circumcision **overrides a Festival only** when performed **at its** appointed **time.**


###### Shabbat 132b:4
[Shabbat 132b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:4)

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עׇרְלָתוֹ״, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת, יָקוֹץ. וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת״ — בִּשְׁאָר מְקוֹמוֹת חוּץ מִמִּילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **As the Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “And on the eighth day **the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised”** (Leviticus 12:3), since this verse is stated in general terms, it teaches that **even though there is a bright white** leprous **spot there, he should cut it. And how do I establish** the verse: **“Take care with regard to the plague of leprosy** to take great care and to perform in accordance with all that the priests, the Levites, instruct you; as I commanded them you shall take care to perform” (Deuteronomy 24:8)? Does usage of the term “take care” indicate that there is a negative mitzva that prohibits cutting off symptoms of leprosy? We establish this prohibition as applying **in other places, other than** the place of a **circumcision.**


###### Shabbat 132b:5
[Shabbat 132b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:5)

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מִילָה, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עׇרְלָתוֹ״ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ בַּהֶרֶת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בָּשָׂר״, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *tanna* asks: **Or** perhaps **that is not** the case; **rather,** this prohibition applies **even** in the place of **circumcision, and how do I validate** the verse: **“The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised”?** It applies **when there is no bright white** leprous **spot** on the foreskin. So that we will not interpret the verse that way, **the verse states** the superfluous word **flesh.** It would have been sufficient to state: His foreskin shall be circumcised, but instead the verse stated: “The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,” indicating that the foreskin must be removed **even though there is a bright white spot there.**


###### Shabbat 132b:6
[Shabbat 132b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:6)

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי תַּנָּא מֵעִיקָּרָא מַאי נִיחָא לֵיהּ וּלְבַסּוֹף מַאי קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Initially, what** did **this *tanna*** find **acceptable, and ultimately, what** did **he** find **difficult?** At first he assumed that the mitzva of circumcision is more stringent, but he ultimately rejected this assumption with no explanation.


###### Shabbat 132b:7
[Shabbat 132b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:7)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עׇרְלָתוֹ״ — וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ [שָׁם] בַּהֶרֶת, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת״ — בִּשְׁאָר מְקוֹמוֹת חוּץ מִמִּילָה. אֲבָל מִילָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַצָּרַעַת, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָתְיָא מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה שַׁבָּת חֲמוּרָה, מִילָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ, צָרַעַת לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **this is what he is saying:** Initially he held that the phrase: **The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised** teaches that it is permitted to remove the foreskin **even though there is a bright white spot** there. **And how do I validate** the following verse: **Take care with regard to the plague of leprosy?** It applies **in other places, aside from** the place of **circumcision, but circumcision overrides leprosy. What is the reason** for this? **It is derived by** means of **an *a fortiori* inference: Just as Shabbat** is **stringent** and nevertheless **circumcision overrides it, all the more so** that circumcision overrides **leprosy,** which is less stringent than Shabbat.


###### Shabbat 132b:8
[Shabbat 132b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:8)

וּמַאי ״אוֹ אֵינוֹ״ דְּקָאָמַר — הֲדַר קָאָמַר: מִמַּאי דְּשַׁבָּת חֲמִירָא? דִילְמָא צָרַעַת חֲמִירָא, שֶׁכֵּן דּוֹחָה אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה, וַעֲבוֹדָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בָּשָׂר״ — וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what** was the reason for the term **or perhaps that** the *tanna* **is saying** to question his previous statement? **He reconsidered** and **said: From where** do we know **that Shabbat is** more **stringent? Perhaps leprosy is** more **stringent, as** leprosy **overrides the** Temple **service,** as stated earlier, **and the** Temple **service overrides Shabbat.** Therefore, **the verse states** the additional word **flesh,** to teach that the foreskin is removed **even though there is a bright white** leprous **spot there.**


###### Shabbat 132b:9
[Shabbat 132b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:9)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא. מִילָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַצָּרַעַת, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְדָחֵי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וּמַאי ״אוֹ אֵינוֹ״ דְּקָאָמַר — הֲדַר קָאָמַר: אֵימַר דְּאָמְרִינַן דְּאָתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְדָחֵי אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה גְּרֵידָא, הַאי עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה הוּא. וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עׇרְלָתוֹ״ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ בַּהֶרֶת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בָּשָׂר״ — וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites **another version** of Rava’s comments. Initially the *tanna* thought that **circumcision overrides leprosy. What is the reason** for this? He relied on the principle **that a positive** mitzva **comes and overrides a negative** mitzva. **And what** was the reason the *tanna* **is saying: Or perhaps** to question his previous statement? **He reconsidered** and **said: Say that we say that a positive** mitzva **comes and overrides a negative** mitzva when there is **a negative** mitzva **alone.** However, **this** cutting off leprosy **is** prohibited by both **a positive** mitzva **and a negative** mitzva. **And how do I establish** the verse: **The flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised?** It applies only **when there is no bright white spot on** the foreskin. Therefore, **the verse states** the additional word **flesh** in order to emphasize that the foreskin is removed, **even though there is a bright white spot there.**


###### Shabbat 132b:10
[Shabbat 132b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:10)

תִּינַח גָּדוֹל, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״בָּשָׂר״. קָטָן נָמֵי, כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״בָּשָׂר״. בֵּינוֹנִי מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the derivation from the word flesh: This **works out well** with regard to the circumcision of **an adult** who has not yet been circumcised, **as** the word **flesh is written with regard to** adults in the verse: “And an uncircumcised male who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from its people; My covenant he has broken” (Genesis 17:14). Similarly, it works out well with regard to **a minor** who is circumcised on the eighth day, as the superfluous word **flesh is also written** with regard to him. However, with regard to a person at an **intermediate** stage of life, i.e., a child who was not circumcised on the eighth day but has not yet reached majority, **from where do we derive** that his circumcision overrides leprosy? The Torah explicitly mandates his circumcision: “Circumcise for yourselves every male” (Genesis 17:10). However, that verse does not employ the term flesh.


###### Shabbat 132b:11
[Shabbat 132b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:11)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אָתְיָא מִבֵּינַיָּא: מִגָּדוֹל לָא אָתְיָא, שֶׁכֵּן עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. מִקָּטָן לָא אָתְיָא, שֶׁכֵּן מִילָה בִּזְמַנָּהּ. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן — שֶׁכֵּן נִימּוֹלִין וְדוֹחִין אֶת הַצָּרַעַת, אַף כֹּל שֶׁנִּימּוֹלִין — דּוֹחִין אֶת הַצָּרַעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: It is derived from a combination** of the two sources about the status of a child at the intermediate stage, from the common denominator between an eight-day-old and one who reached majority. **From an adult** alone, the *halakha* with regard to an intermediate child **cannot be derived, as** an adult **is punishable by *karet*** if he fails to circumcise himself, but an intermediate child is not punishable by *karet*. Likewise, **from** the case of **an** eight-day-old **child,** the case of an intermediate child **cannot be derived; since** the **circumcision at its time** overrides Shabbat it may also override leprosy. However, the **common denominator** between an eight-day-old and an adult **is that they are circumcised and** their circumcision **overrides leprosy. So too, all who are circumcised,** including those in the intermediate stage, **override leprosy.**


###### Shabbat 132b:12
[Shabbat 132b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:12)

רָבָא אָמַר: מִילָה בִּזְמַנָּהּ דּוֹחָה לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר אָתְיָא: וּמָה שַׁבָּת דַּחֲמִירָא דּוֹחָה — צָרַעַת לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: No verse is required** to teach that **circumcision at its** appointed **time overrides** leprosy, as it **is derived by means of an *a fortiori* inference: Just as** circumcision **overrides Shabbat, which is** more **stringent than** leprosy, **all the more so** that circumcision overrides **leprosy.**


###### Shabbat 132b:13
[Shabbat 132b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְרָבָא: מִמַּאי דְּשַׁבָּת חֲמִירָא? דִּילְמָא צָרַעַת חֲמִירָא, שֶׁכֵּן דּוֹחָה אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה, וַעֲבוֹדָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת! הָתָם, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲמִירָא צָרַעַת, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּגַבְרָא הוּא דְּלָא חֲזִי. אַמַּאי: וְיָקוֹץ בַּהַרְתּוֹ וְיַעֲבוֹד! מְחוּסָּר טְבִילָה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Safra said to Rava: From where** do we know that **Shabbat is** more **stringent? Perhaps leprosy is** more **stringent, as** leprosy **overrides the** Temple **service, and the** Temple **service overrides Shabbat.** Rava answered: **There,** when leprosy overrides the Temple service, **it is not because leprosy is** more **stringent; rather,** it is **because the man** afflicted with leprosy **is unfit** for the Temple service. Rav Safra asked: **Why** is he unfit? **Let him cut off his bright white** leprous **spot and serve.** Rava answered: He would remain unfit to serve, as **he is lacking immersion.** In order to purify himself for service in the Temple, he must immerse himself and wait until the following day. In the meantime he is unfit.


###### Shabbat 132b:14
[Shabbat 132b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:14)

תִּינַח נְגָעִים טְמֵאִים. נְגָעִים טְהוֹרִים, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Safra raised a difficulty: **It works out well** if we are referring to **impure** symptoms of **leprosy,** as even one who removes them must immerse afterward. However, with regard to **pure** symptoms of **leprosy,** there is a prohibition to cut off the symptoms even though there is no impurity. They have the legal status of blemishes that invalidate a priest from serving until it is cured. Once the bright white spot is removed, he may immediately serve in the Temple without immersion. **What is there to say** in that case?


###### Shabbat 132b:15
[Shabbat 132b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:15)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הֵיכָא אָמְרִינַן דְּאָתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְדָחֵי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — כְּגוֹן מִילָה בְּצָרַעַת, אִי נָמֵי צִיצִית וְכִלְאַיִם, דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּמִתְעֲקַר לָאו — קָא מוֹקֵים עֲשֵׂה. הָכָא, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּמִתְעֲקַר לְלָאו — לָא קָא מוֹקֵים עֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said** that this is the reason that leprosy overrides the Temple service: **Where do we say that a positive** mitzva **overrides a negative** mitzva? It is in cases **like circumcision in** a case of **leprosy,** or **alternatively, ritual fringes and diverse kinds** of wool and linen, **as at the time the negative** mitzva **is uprooted,** the **positive** mitzva **is fulfilled** in the very same action, e.g., when the ritual fringes are woolen and will be attached to a linen garment, a prohibited mixture is created. However, **here,** in the case of a person afflicted with pure symptoms of leprosy cutting off his symptoms to enable his involvement in the Temple service, it is different, **at the time the negative** mitzva **is uprooted,** the **positive** mitzva **is not** yet **fulfilled,** as cutting off the symptoms is only a preliminary action that enables him to serve. In that case, the positive mitzva does not override the negative one.


###### Shabbat 132b:16
[Shabbat 132b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/132b:16)

וְהָא, דְּרָבָא וְרַב סָפְרָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara points out that **this** disagreement between **Rava and Rav Safra**