## Shabbat Daf 133b

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

**גְּמָ׳** מִכְּדֵי קָתָנֵי כּוּלְּהוּ, ״כׇּל צוֹרְכֵי מִילָה״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Since** the mishna **is teaching all of them,** i.e., enumerated all the requirements of circumcision, when the mishna added: One performs **all the requirements of circumcision** even on Shabbat, **what** did it come **to include?**


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

לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמָּל, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא עוֹסֵק בַּמִּילָה — חוֹזֵר בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה בֵּין עַל הַצִּיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה. פֵּירַשׁ, עַל צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — חוֹזֵר, עַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה — אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It comes **to include that which the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **One who circumcises** on Shabbat, **as long as he is engaged in the circumcision, he may return** and remove shreds of skin that were not cut properly. This is the ruling **both for shreds** of skin and flesh **that invalidate the circumcision** if they are not cut, i.e., the child is not considered circumcised if they remain, **and for shreds that do not invalidate the circumcision** if they are not cut. But if the circumcisor has **withdrawn** from engaging in the mitzva of circumcision, **he may return for shreds that invalidate the circumcision** if they were not cut, as the mitzva has not yet been properly performed, but **he may not return for shreds that do not invalidate the circumcision** if they are not cut. Consequently, when the mishna refers to all the requirements of circumcision, it means that as long as one is still involved in the act of circumcision, one may go back and remove even pieces of skin that do not invalidate the circumcision.


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

מַאן תַּנָּא פֵּירַשׁ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת — מַפְשִׁיט אָדָם הַפֶּסַח עַד הֶחָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַפְשִׁיטִין אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this law, the Gemara asks: **Who is the *tanna*** who holds that if one has already **withdrawn** from a mitzva **he may not return** to engage in its performance? Which *tanna* asserts that as long as a person is involved in a mitzva whose performance overrides Shabbat, he may complete it; however, if he is no longer involved in the mitzva, he may not exceed the minimum requirements if doing so would desecrate Shabbat? **Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: In a case of **the fourteenth of Nisan,** the day the Paschal lamb is sacrificed, **that occurs on Shabbat, one flays the Paschal lamb until** he exposes **the breast,** in order to remove the portions that are offered on the altar, but one does not flay anymore, as it is not necessary for the mitzva of the day; this is the statement of **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. And the Rabbis say: One may** even **flay** the **entire** hide.


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

מִמַּאי? עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הָתָם — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״. אֲבָל הָכָא — דְּבָעֵינַן ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הָכִי נָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **From where** do you draw this comparison? Perhaps **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, only stated** his opinion that one may do no more than the minimum requirement **there,** with regard to the Paschal lamb, **because we do not need** to fulfill the mitzva of: **“This is my God and I will glorify Him”** (Exodus 15:2). The manner in which the animal is flayed does not impact the mitzva of the sacrifice. **However, here,** with regard to circumcision, **where we need** to fulfill the mitzva of: **“This is my God and I will glorify Him,”** which requires performing the circumcision in a beautiful manner, **indeed,** Rabbi Yishmael would agree that the mitzva must be performed as aesthetically as possible.


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

דְּתַנְיָא: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הִתְנָאֵה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת: עֲשֵׂה לְפָנָיו סוּכָּה נָאָה, וְלוּלָב נָאֶה, וְשׁוֹפָר נָאֶה, צִיצִית נָאָה, סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה נָאֶה, וּכְתוֹב בּוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ בִּדְיוֹ נָאֶה, בְּקוּלְמוֹס נָאֶה, בְּלַבְלָר אוּמָּן, וְכוֹרְכוֹ בְּשִׁירָאִין נָאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
What is the source for the requirement of: “This is my God and I will glorify Him”? **As it was taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: **“This is my God and I will glorify Him [*anveihu*],** the Lord of my father and I will raise Him up.” The Sages interpreted *anveihu* homiletically as linguistically related to *noi*, beauty, and interpreted the verse: **Beautify yourself before Him in mitzvot.** Even if one fulfills the mitzva by performing it simply, it is nonetheless proper to perform the mitzva as beautifully as possible. **Make before Him a beautiful *sukka*, a beautiful *lulav*, a beautiful *shofar*, beautiful ritual fringes, beautiful** parchment for a **Torah scroll, and write in it in His name in beautiful ink, with a beautiful quill by an expert scribe, and wrap** the scroll **in beautiful silk fabric.**


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

אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: ״וְאַנְוֵהוּ״ — הֱוֵי דּוֹמֶה לוֹ, מָה הוּא חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם — אַף אַתָּה הֱיֵה חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abba Shaul says: *Ve’anveihu*** should be interpreted as if it were written in two words: *Ani vaHu*, me and Him [God]. **Be similar,** as it were, **to Him,** the Almighty: **Just as He is compassionate and merciful, so too should you be compassionate and merciful.** In any case, there is no proof from Rabbi Yishmael’s statement with regard to the Paschal lamb that he would say the same with regard to circumcision, as in that case, he might agree that fulfilling the mitzva beautifully justifies overriding Shabbat.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: בֵּין שֶׁנִּרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל, וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל — מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: נִרְאָה בַּעֲלִיל — אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said:** This should be understood differently. In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita* with regard to circumcision? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei. As we learned** in a mishna: **Whether** the new moon **was clearly seen** by everyone **or whether it was not clearly seen, one may desecrate Shabbat** in order to sanctify the New Moon. Eyewitnesses who saw the appearance of the moon may desecrate Shabbat in order to go to court and testify. **Rabbi Yosei says:** If the moon **was clearly seen, they may not desecrate Shabbat for it,** since other witnesses, located nearer to the court, will certainly testify. If these distant witnesses go to court to testify, they will desecrate Shabbat unnecessarily. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei holds that if the basic requirements of a mitzva have already been fulfilled, one may no longer desecrate Shabbat in its performance.


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

מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָתָם, דְּלֹא נִיתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִידָּחוֹת, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּנִיתְּנָה שַׁבָּת לִידָּחוֹת — הָכִי נָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **From where** do you draw this comparison? **Perhaps Rabbi Yosei only stated** his opinion **there,** in the case of sanctification of the New Moon, because there **no allowance was made for Shabbat to be overridden.** Given that the moon was clearly seen and testimony to that effect could have been delivered easily, there was no need for additional witnesses to come and desecrate Shabbat, and the prohibition to desecrate Shabbat remained in place. **However, here,** in the case of circumcision, where **allowance was made for Shabbat desecration,** as it is permitted and required to perform circumcision on Shabbat at its appointed time, **indeed,** it would be permitted to complete the circumcision even according to Rabbi Yosei.


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

אֶלָּא אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. דִּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה כֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין: שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי בָזִיכִּין. וְאַרְבָּעָה מַקְדִּימִין לִפְנֵיהֶם: שְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים, וּשְׁנַיִם לִיטּוֹל שְׁנֵי בָזִיכִּין. הַמַּכְנִיסִין עוֹמְדִים בַּצָּפוֹן וּפְנֵיהֶם לַדָּרוֹם, וְהַמּוֹצִיאִין עוֹמְדִים בַּדָּרוֹם וּפְנֵיהֶם לַצָּפוֹן. אֵלּוּ מוֹשְׁכִים, וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין, טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּצַד טִפְחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לִפְנֵי ה׳ תָּמִיד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Sages of **Neharde’a say:** This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, who disagree** with **Rabbi Yosei. As we learned** in a mishna: **Four priests would enter** the Sanctuary every Shabbat to arrange the showbread, **two** of whom **had two orders** of six loaves each **in their hands, and two had two bowls** of frankincense **in their hands. And four** priests **would precede them; two** came **to take** the **two orders** of bread left on the table from the previous week, **and two** came **to take** the **two bowls** of frankincense. Next, **those bringing** the loaves and bowls **into** the Sanctuary **would stand in the north** of the Sanctuary, **facing south, while those carrying** the loaves and bowls **out would stand in the south** of the Sanctuary, **facing north. These slide** the old bread along the table, **and these place** the new bread on the table, and as a result, **the handbreadth of this one would be alongside the handbreadth of that one,** so that the requisite amount of bread would always be present on the table, **as it is stated:** “And you shall place on the table showbread **before Me continuously”** (Exodus 25:30).


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

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֵלּוּ נוֹטְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַנִּיחִין אַף זֶה הָיָה ״תָּמִיד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei said: Even if these** priests **were** first **to take** the old bread off the table entirely, **and** only afterward **were these** priests **to place** the new ones on the table, **this too would** fulfill the requirement that the showbread be on the table **continuously.** It is unnecessary to ensure the uninterrupted presence of the showbread on the table. Apparently, the Rabbis hold that even a moment’s break in the performance of a mitzva is deemed an interruption. The same principle applies to circumcision. Once one withdrew and is no longer engaged in its performance, it is as though he completed the mitzva and he may no longer return to it.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְהַלְקְטִין אֶת הַמִּילָה, וְאִם לֹא הִילְקֵט — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. מַנִּי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אוּמָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught: We complete the cutting of the foreskin, and if he did not complete the cutting he is punishable by *karet*.** The Gemara asks: **Who** is punishable by *karet*? **Rav Kahana said: The craftsman,** i.e., the circumcisor. If he failed to complete the circumcision properly on Shabbat he is punishable by *karet*, as he wounded the baby on Shabbat without fulfilling the mitzva circumcision.


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

מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אוּמָּן לֵימָא לְהוּ ״אֲנָא עֲבַדִי פַּלְגָא דְמִצְוָה, אַתּוּן [נָמֵי] עֲבִידוּ פַּלְגָא דְמִצְוָה״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: גָּדוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa strongly objects to this:** Why should the **craftsman** be liable? **Let him say to** those present: **I performed half** the **mitzva;** now **you perform** the other **half** of the **mitzva.** I am not liable, as I was engaged in performance of a mitzva, even though I did not complete it. **Rather, Rav Pappa said:** The reference here is not to circumcision on Shabbat, but rather to the mitzva of circumcision in general. The one liable for *karet* is **an adult** whose circumcision was not completed. He is not considered to have been circumcised according to *halakha*. Therefore, he is punishable by *karet*, like one who was not circumcised at all.


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

מַתְקֵיף לָהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: גָּדוֹל בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וְעָרֵל זָכָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמּוֹל״. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְעוֹלָם אוּמָּן, וּכְגוֹן דַּאֲתָא בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת דְּשַׁבָּת, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא מַסְפְּקַתְּ, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: מַסְפְּקֵינָא, וַעֲבַד וְלָא אִיסְתַּפַּק, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח דְּחַבּוּרָה הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi strongly objects to this:** This cannot be, as if so what is the *baraita* teaching? The fact that **an adult** is liable for *karet* is **explicitly written** 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). **Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually,** it refers to the **craftsman** who performed the partial circumcision on Shabbat, **and** it is a case **where he came** to perform the circumcision **at twilight** on **Shabbat** day, just before the conclusion of Shabbat, **and** those present **said to him: You will not manage** to complete the circumcision before the conclusion of Shabbat, **and he said to them: I will manage. And he performed** the circumcision **and did not manage** to complete the mitzva before Shabbat ended. **It turns out that he made a wound** in the child but did not fulfill the mitzva. **And** since he was forewarned not to do so, he is therefore **punishable by *karet*** like anyone who violates Shabbat not for the purpose of performing a mitzva.


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

מוֹצְצִין וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי אוּמָּנָא דְּלָא מָיֵיץ — סַכָּנָה הוּא וּמְעַבְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna that **one sucks** blood from the wound after the circumcision was performed on Shabbat. **Rav Pappa said: A craftsman who does not suck** the blood after every circumcision **is a danger** to the child undergoing circumcision, **and we remove him** from his position as circumcisor.


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

פְּשִׁיטָא, מִדְּקָא מְחַלְּלִי עֲלֵיהּ שַׁבְּתָא סַכָּנָה הוּא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא הַאי דָּם מִיפְקָד פְּקִיד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן חַבּוֹרֵי מִיחַבַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: This is **obvious. Given that one desecrates Shabbat** to suck the blood, which involves performance of a prohibited labor, obviously, failure to do so poses **a danger.** Desecration of Shabbat would not be permitted if it was not a life-threatening situation. The Gemara answers: This is not an absolute proof. **Lest you say** that **this blood is collected and contained** in place, and one who removes that which is pooled in its place does not perform the subcategory of the prohibited labor of threshing on Shabbat, i.e., drawing blood; that is the reason sucking the blood is permitted, not due to any danger involved in failing to do so. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that this blood **is attached** and flowing and not merely pooled. One who draws it out performs an act that is generally prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat, and it is nonetheless permitted due to danger to the child.


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

וְדוּמְיָא דְּאִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן: מָה אִיסְפְּלָנִית וְכַמּוֹן כִּי לָא עָבֵיד סַכָּנָה הוּא, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּי לָא עָבֵיד סַכָּנָה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **it is similar** to the *halakhot* of **a bandage and cumin** stated in the mishna. **Just as** in the case of **a bandage and cumin, failure to do** what is necessary with these items poses **a danger** to the child, **here too, if he does not perform** the sucking after circumcision, **it poses a danger** to the child; Shabbat is overridden in cases of danger.


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

וְנוֹתְנִין עָלֶיהָ אִיסְפְּלָנִית. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אֲמַרָה לִי אֵם: אִיסְפְּלָנִיתָא דְּכוּלְּהוֹן כִּיבֵי — שַׁב מָאנֵי תַּרְבָּא, וַחֲדָא קִירָא. רָבָא אָמַר: קִירָא וְקַלְבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **And** on Shabbat **one places on** the wound from the circumcision **a bandage. Abaye said: My nurse said to me: A bandage for all wounds** should be made from **seven parts fat and one part wax. Rava said:** A bandage should be made from **wax and sap** of a tree.


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

דַּרְשַׁהּ רָבָא בְּמָחוֹזָא, קַרְעִינְהוּ בְּנֵי מִנְיוֹמֵי אָסְיָא לְמָנַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁבַקִי לְכוּ חֲדָא. דַּאֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּמָשֵׁי אַפֵּיהּ וְלָא מִנַּגֵּיב טוּבָא — נִקְטְרוּ לֵיהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When **Rava taught** this cure **in Meḥoza, the sons of Manyomei the doctor tore their clothes** in misery, as he taught everyone how to make a bandage, and their services would no longer be required. Rava **said to them: I left you one** cure that I did not reveal, with which you can make a profit, **for Shmuel said: One who washes his face and does not wipe it a lot will develop**