## Shabbat Daf 133a

###### Shabbat 133a:1
[Shabbat 133a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:1)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״בָּשָׂר״ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת — ״יִמּוֹל״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, שַׁבָּת חֲמוּרָה — דּוֹחָה, צָרַעַת — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**is** a dispute of ***tanna’im*, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: The term **flesh** comes to teach that **even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says: There is no need** for this derivation from the word flesh in the verse. Rather, the same law can be derived by means of an *a fortiori* inference: If circumcision **overrides Shabbat,** which is **stringent, all the more so** that it overrides **leprosy.**


###### Shabbat 133a:2
[Shabbat 133a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:2)

אָמַר מָר: ״בָּשָׂר״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת — ״יִמּוֹל״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. הָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We earlier learned that **the Master said:** When the verse states the term **flesh,** it comes to teach that **even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.** Rabbi Yonatan agrees with this *halakha*, albeit for a different reason. The Gemara addresses the fundamental question: **Why do I need a verse** to derive **this?** The removal of leprous skin **is an unintentional act.** One does not intend to cut the symptom of leprosy; he intended to circumcise the baby. **And** the general rule is that **an unintentional act is permitted.** Consequently, there is no need for a special derivation in this case.


###### Shabbat 133a:3
[Shabbat 133a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:3)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״. וְאַבָּיֵי לֵית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! בָּתַר דְּשַׁמְעַהּ מֵרָבָא סַבְרַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** This derivation **is only necessary according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said** that **an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say** that it is according to the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as **Rabbi Shimon concedes** to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of: **Cut off its head and will it not die,** i.e., an unintentional act from which a prohibited labor ensued as an inevitable consequence. In that case, the one who performs the action cannot claim that the outcome was unintended. In the case of circumcising a leprous foreskin, the removal of leprosy is an inevitable consequence of the circumcision. The Gemara asks: And **does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t** it **Abaye and Rava who both say** that **Rabbi Shimon concedes** to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: **If you cut off its head will it not die?** The Gemara answers: **After** Abaye **heard** this principle **from Rava, he accepted it.**


###### Shabbat 133a:4
[Shabbat 133a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:4)

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לְהָא דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא אַהָא: ״הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת לִשְׁמֹר מְאֹד וְלַעֲשׂוֹת״, לַעֲשׂוֹת אִי אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה אַתָּה בְּסִיב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלוֹ, וּבְמוֹט שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי כְּתֵיפוֹ, וְאִם עָבְרָה — עָבְרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some teach that which Abaye and Rava** said as referring **to this** *baraita*. The verse states: **“Take heed with regard to the plague of leprosy that you observe diligently and do** in accordance with all that the priests, the Levites, instruct you; as I commanded them you shall take care to do” (Deuteronomy 24:8). The Sages derived from here that **to do** something in order to remove leprosy directly, **you may not do; but you may do** something that will indirectly remove one’s symptom, such as tying **a thick rope on his foot, and** placing **a rod on his shoulder.** This is permitted even though there is a bright white spot present, **and if** the bright white spot **is** thereby **removed, it is removed.**


###### Shabbat 133a:5
[Shabbat 133a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:5)

וְהָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר. וְרָבָא אָמַר אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״. וְאַבָּיֵי לֵית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״! לְבָתַר דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ מֵרָבָא סַבְרַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **a verse** to address **this? It is an unintentional act, and an unintentional act is permitted. Abaye said:** This derivation **is only necessary according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who said** that **an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say** that it is according to the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as **Rabbi Shimon concedes** to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of: **If you cut off its head will it not die?** The Gemara asks: And **does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t** it **Abaye and Rava who both say** that **Rabbi Shimon concedes** to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: **Cut off its head and will it not die?** The Gemara answers: **After** Abaye **heard** this principle **from Rava, he accepted it.**


###### Shabbat 133a:6
[Shabbat 133a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:6)

וְאַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַאי ״בְּשַׂר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: בְּאוֹמֵר לָקוֹץ בַּהַרְתּוֹ הוּא מִתְכַּוֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: According to **Abaye’s** initial understanding of the *halakha* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** i.e., even the inevitable consequence of an unintended act is permitted, **what does** he **do with this** term **flesh,** which appears in the verse with regard to circumcision? **Rav Amram said:** This term teaches that even **in** a case where the person who is circumcising himself **says** explicitly that **his intention is** also **to cut off the bright white spot,** the circumcision nonetheless overrides the prohibition to remove symptoms of leprosy.


###### Shabbat 133a:7
[Shabbat 133a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:7)

תִּינַח גָּדוֹל, קָטָן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: בְּאוֹמֵר אֲבִי הַבֵּן לָקוֹץ בַּהֶרֶת דִּבְנוֹ הוּא קָא מִתְכַּוֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: This **works out well** in the case of **an adult** who intends to perform the prohibited act. With regard to the circumcision of **a minor,** who has no intention at all, **what is there to say,** i.e., how does this teaching apply? **Rav Mesharshiya said:** The teaching applies in a case **where the father of the** circumcised **child says** that **his intention is to cut off his son’s bright white** leprous **spot.**


###### Shabbat 133a:8
[Shabbat 133a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:8)

וְאִי אִיכָּא אַחֵר, לֶיעְבֵּיד אַחֵר! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים שְׁנֵיהֶם מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. דְּלֵיכָּא אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In that case, **if there is another** person present who can circumcise the child, **let the other** person **perform** the circumcision. Presumably the other person will not intend to excise the bright white spot but rather will intend to fulfill the mitzva of circumcision, and no transgression will be committed, **as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Any place that you find positive and negative mitzvot** that clash with one another, **if you can** find some way to **fulfill both,** that is **preferable; and if that is not** possible, **the positive** mitzva **will come and override the negative** mitzva. Here it is possible to fulfill both the positive and negative mitzvot by having another person perform the circumcision. The Gemara answers: This is a case **where there is no other** person to perform circumcision; only the boy’s father can circumcise him. Therefore, a particular verse is needed to teach us that the mitzva of circumcision overrides the prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy.


###### Shabbat 133a:9
[Shabbat 133a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:9)

אָמַר מָר: יוֹם טוֹב אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ בִּלְבַד. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned earlier that **the Master said** that circumcision **only overrides a Festival when** the circumcision takes place **at its** proper **time,** on the eighth day after birth. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived?


###### Shabbat 133a:10
[Shabbat 133a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:10)

אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״ — בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן לוֹ בֹּקֶר שֵׁנִי לִשְׂרֵיפָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ḥizkiya said, and likewise** one of the Sages **of the school of Ḥizkiya taught: The verse states** with regard to the Paschal lamb: “And **you shall not leave any of it until morning;** but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). This verse contains a superfluous phrase, **as the Torah did not need to state until morning** the second time; it would have been sufficient to state: But that which remains of it you shall burn with fire. Rather, **why does the Torah state until morning? The verse comes to provide him** with **the second morning for burning.** Leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following day, the first of the intermediate days of the Festival. Even though the labor of kindling a fire is not entirely prohibited on a Festival, as one may cook and bake, it is derived from here that kindling a fire is permitted only for the purpose of preparing food for the immediate needs of the day and not for purposes that can be postponed until the intermediate days. Similarly, since circumcision involves a prohibited labor, it is permitted on the eighth day only when there is no option of postponing it. Otherwise, doing so is prohibited.


###### Shabbat 133a:11
[Shabbat 133a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:11)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״עוֹלַת שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ״, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלֹא עוֹלַת חוֹל בְּיוֹם טוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** there is a different source for the fact that only circumcision on the eighth day overrides the Festival, as **the verse stated: “The burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its Shabbat** in addition to the continual burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:10). This verse teaches that one may **not** sacrifice **the burnt-offering of a weekday on Shabbat, and** one may **not** sacrifice **the burnt-offering of a weekday on a Festival.** Although slaughtering is permitted on a Festival for sustenance, it is nevertheless prohibited to slaughter animals for sacrifices other than those specifically mandated on the Festival. Temple service only overrides prohibited labor in the case of Temple service that is an essential obligation of that day. Similarly, circumcision only overrides the prohibition of labor when it is an essential obligation of that day, which is the case only on the eighth day; it is not the case after the eighth day.


###### Shabbat 133a:12
[Shabbat 133a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:12)

רָבָא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא לְבַדּוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה לָכֶם״, ״הוּא״ — וְלֹא מַכְשִׁירִין. ״לְבַדּוֹ״ — וְלֹא מִילָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ, דְּאָתְיָא מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** there is a different proof, as **the verse states** with regard to Festivals: “And in the first day there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat; **that alone may be done for you”** (Exodus 12:16). The superfluous term **“that”** in the verse teaches the following: That which is necessary for food preparation itself is permitted **and not** actions that **facilitate** food preparation or which prepare utensils necessary for eating. Similarly, “that **alone** may be done” teaches: Only food preparation may be performed **and not circumcision that is not at its** appointed **time, which** could have been **derived through an *a fortiori* inference.** Therefore, the verse emphasizes that “that alone” may be performed, to teach that prohibited labors are permitted for sustenance on a Festival, and are not permitted for other mitzvot.


###### Shabbat 133a:13
[Shabbat 133a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:13)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״שַׁבָּתוֹן״ — עֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹם טוֹב עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** The mitzvot of a Festival include not only a negative mitzva but also a positive one. There is a prohibition of labor as well as ***Shabbaton*,** an obligation to engage in solemn rest, which **is a positive mitzva, and** therefore the observance of a **Festival** constitutes both **a positive mitzva and a negative mitzva. And** there is a principle that **a positive mitzva does not override** both **a negative mitzva and a positive mitzva.**


###### Shabbat 133a:14
[Shabbat 133a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:14)

כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva:** Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat; however, any prohibited labor that cannot be performed on Shabbat eve overrides Shabbat. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva** in this matter.


###### Shabbat 133a:15
[Shabbat 133a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:15)

וּתְנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי פֶסַח כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא: כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כׇּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we also learned** in a mishna **pertaining to the Paschal lamb, in a similar vein: A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat.** By contrast, the **slaughtering** of the Paschal lamb, **which cannot be performed on Shabbat eve,** as it has a fixed time from the Torah, **overrides Shabbat. And Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Shabbat 133a:16
[Shabbat 133a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:16)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי מִילָה: הָתָם הוּא דְּמַכְשִׁירִין אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵאֶתְמוֹל לָא דָּחוּ שַׁבָּת דְּלֵיכָּא כָּרֵת, אֲבָל פֶּסַח דְּאִיכָּא כָּרֵת — אֵימָא לִידְחוֹ שַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** both statements that the *halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva **were necessary. As had** Rav **taught us** that the *halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only **with regard to circumcision,** the conclusion would have been: **It is** specifically **there** that **facilitators** that **can be performed the day before do not override Shabbat,** as **there is no** punishment of ***karet*** if the circumcision is delayed, as liability for *karet* only applies when the child becomes obligated in mitzvot and chooses not to circumcise himself. **However,** with regard to **the Paschal lamb, where there is *karet*** for one who fails to offer the sacrifice at its proper time, one would **say** that those facilitators **should override Shabbat.** Therefore, it was necessary for Rav to state that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the Paschal lamb.


###### Shabbat 133a:17
[Shabbat 133a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:17)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי פֶסַח, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת. אֲבָל מִילָה דְּנִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת — אֵימָא לִידְחוֹ שַׁבָּת, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** Rav **had taught us** that the *halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only **with regard to the Paschal lamb,** the conclusion would have been that the reason that facilitators that can be performed on the eve of the Festival do not override the Festival is **because thirteen covenants** were **not established upon** the Paschal lamb, and it is therefore not so significant. **However,** with regard to **circumcision, upon which thirteen covenants** were **established,** the conclusion would have been that even actions that facilitate the mitzva that could have been performed on Shabbat eve **should override Shabbat.** It was therefore **necessary** to teach that the *halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva in both cases.


###### Shabbat 133a:18
[Shabbat 133a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:18)

**מַתְנִי׳** עוֹשִׂין כׇּל צׇרְכֵי מִילָה [בְּשַׁבָּת]: מוֹהֲלִין וּפוֹרְעִין וּמוֹצְצִין וְנוֹתְנִין עָלֶיהָ אִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** When the eighth day of a baby’s life occurs on Shabbat, he must be circumcised on that day. Therefore, **one performs all the necessities of** the **circumcision,** even **on Shabbat: One circumcises** the foreskin, **and uncovers** the skin by removing the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, **and sucks** the blood from the wound, **and places on it** both **a bandage [*ispelanit*] and cumin** as a salve.


###### Shabbat 133a:19
[Shabbat 133a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:19)

אִם לֹא שָׁחַק מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — לוֹעֵס בְּשִׁינָּיו וְנוֹתֵן. אִם לֹא טָרַף יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — נוֹתֵן זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If one did not grind** the cumin **from Shabbat eve, he chews** it **with his teeth and places** it on the place of circumcision as a salve. **If he did not mix wine and oil on Shabbat eve,** a mixture designed to heal and strengthen the child, **this,** the wine, **is placed** on the wound **by itself and that,** the oil, is placed **by itself.**


###### Shabbat 133a:20
[Shabbat 133a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/133a:20)

וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין לָהּ חָלוּק לְכַתְּחִילָּה, אֲבָל כּוֹרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ סְמַרְטוּט. אִם לֹא הִתְקִין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — כּוֹרֵךְ עַל אֶצְבָּעוֹ וּמֵבִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ מֵחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** on Shabbat **one may not make a pouch** to place over the circumcision as a bandage ***ab initio*, but he may wrap a rag over it** as a dressing. **If he did not prepare** the bandage **on Shabbat eve** by bringing it to the place where the circumcision was performed, **he wraps** the bandage **on his finger and brings** it on Shabbat, **even from a different courtyard.** While the Sages permitted it to be brought, they required that it be performed in an unusual fashion, by wearing it in the manner of a garment.