MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement¹ before the Sabbath he brings it openly on the Sabbath and in times of danger² he brings it covered by the testimony of witnesses³. In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, one cuts down trees to make charcoal to make iron⁴; Rebbi Aqiba stated a principle: Any work which he might have done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside⁵; circumcision which is impossible to perform on Friday⁶. 12:3 is prescriptive: On the eighth day, the prepuce of his flesh shall be circumcised, even if the eighth day is a Sabbath. It is sinful to circumcise on the seventh day (but doing so does not create liability for a purification sacrifice since it is not a deadly sin.) pushes the Sabbath aside.

footnotes: ¹ The knife for the circumcision. ² When circumcision was forbidden, as in the Hadrianic persecution after the Bar Kochba rebellion. ³ That he could not be accused by other Jews of violating the Sabbath. ⁴ R. Eliezer holds that if the circumcision has to be performed on the Sabbath, all preparations are permitted, including the making of the knife. ⁵ He disputes R. Eliezer’s assertion and holds that only what is prescribed by a verse may be done on the Sabbath but nothing else. ⁶ Since Lev

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases²⁴. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside²⁵ is a measure, a tenth of an epha, about 3.5 liter, of new barley grain which is offered in the Temple to permit the consumption of grain from the new harvest. It has to be brought on the day after the Sabbath (Lev. 23:15) which in rabbinic tradition is the second day of the Feast of unleavened bread, in the Sadducee tradition of the Book of Jubilees the day following the Feast, and in Boethusian tradition on the Sunday in the Feast. The common testimony of Philo and Josephus shows that rabbinic tradition was followed in the Temple service. The ˋomer had to be brought to the Temple on a fixed date, even if this date was a Sabbath (except for Boethusians for which this never could happen.) Therefore it is clear that there is a biblical prescription to cut the barley on the Sabbath if that is the day on which the grain has to be offered. The Two Breads are the only leavened bread ever permitted in the Temple precinct; they have to be presented to the altar (but not offered on it) on the festival of Weeks (Lev. 23:17), which falls on the 50th day after the ˋomer, on the same day of the week as the ˋomer. These Two Breads permit the use of new wheat in the Temple service. R. Eliezer concludes from an argument of “equal cut”, since both the ˋomer and the Two Breads are referred to in the verse as “first fruits” that they follow the same rules and, therefore, if the two loaves were not baked before the Sabbath they may be baked on the Sabbath.; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases²⁶. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases²⁷, and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work²⁸ the action of harvesting is prescribed on the day of the sacrifice (Lev. 23:10); the grain must be roasted (Lev. 2:14) and part of it burned on the altar. This means that both the preparation and the offering involve actions that are violations of Sabbath prohibitions. But the Two Breads are simply presented to the altar; no part of them may be burned on the altar (Lev. 2:12); they have to be eaten by the priests in the Temple precinct. This means that the offering itself does not imply any Sabbath violation; there is no intrinsic reason which would allow baking the breads on the Sabbath.. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside²⁹ 23:40 requires that on the first day of Tabernacles one has to take four kinds of greenery tied to a palm branch, the lulav. Since this is required at a fixed day of the calendar, it has precedence over the rules of the Sabbath. For R. Eliezer cutting the plants may be done on the Sabbath. The statement has to be dated before the destruction of the Temple since in Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai’s reconstruction of rabbinic Judaism at Jabneh, in imitation of a Temple ceremony the obligation to take the “four kinds” was extended to all seven days of Tabernacles which automatically re-instituted the rules of the Sabbath as preeminent. Here the situation is completely parallel to that of the Two Breads in that taking the Four Kinds on the holiday does not involve any Sabbath desecration; but the preparation involves forms of harvesting which are forbidden on the Sabbath.? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree³⁰. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary³¹ to override the rules of the Sabbath (including rabbinic rules). The prohibition to bring anything from outside the Sabbath boundaries (at least if the distance is less than three parasang) certainly is rabbinic,. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off³² or the preparation of the Four Kinds. מפרך means breaking off outcroppings to produce smooth surface.. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished³³ about not scraping, not cutting, etc., is separate from the statement attributed to R. Eliezer about the lulav.. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer³⁴? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden³⁵ to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street³⁶.

footnotes: ²⁴ The question is whether R. Eliezer permits to perform preparations on the Sabbath which could have been made on Friday for circumcision only or in general for any action prescribed for the Sabbath even if it involves doing work which under other circumstances would be Sabbath violations. ²⁵ The ˋomer ²⁶ If it were understood that in all cases of a prescribed action on the Sabbath the preparation also can be done on the Sabbath the argument of “equal cut” would be unnecessary. Babli 131a. ²⁷ This sentence is missing in modern editions of the Yerushalmi. ²⁸ R. Joḥanan’s argument is not convincing. For the ˋomer ²⁹ Babli 131a,b. Lev. ³⁰ It is possible to explain that R. Eliezer in this case permits only rabbinic prohibitions, not work by biblical standards. ³¹ This statement also refers to the time before the reforms of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai which permanently extended the holiday of the New Year to two days, thereby eliminating the power of the duty to sound the shofar ³² This text seems corrupt. S. Liebermann reads מגדד “one cuts” instead of the second מגרד. It is not clear whether the topic is preparing a ram’s horn for use as a shofar ³³ The baraita ³⁴ Such an act contradicts ail our rules for determining practice. ³⁵ Rabbinically. ³⁶ As explained in the next paragraph, this is a matter of different interpretations of rabbinic rules. Since R. Eliezer allows biblical rules to be broken, saying that Rebbi instructed following R. Eliezer is a misrepresentation of what he did.

³⁶ They asked before Rebbi Yose³⁷: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard one may move them in the entire courtyard³⁸ was made. The courtyard essentially is private property where one may carry. But since no eruv was made it is rabbinically forbidden to move things from the houses to the courtyard and vice-versa. In the courtyard itself one may move things since it is not public domain in any sense., similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat³⁹ and he did not answer since Rebbi Yose³⁷ said each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin⁴⁰ he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street; similarly implements which were resting in a courtyard one may move in the entire courtyard; Rav said, one may move them only four cubits⁴¹. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation⁴² one may not move between courtyard and adjacent houses., it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation⁴² one may not move between courtyard and adjacent houses., it is he who says that one may move them only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains one⁴³ 5a, 73b..

footnotes: ³⁶ As explained in the next paragraph, this is a matter of different interpretations of rabbinic rules. Since R. Eliezer allows biblical rules to be broken, saying that Rebbi instructed following R. Eliezer is a misrepresentation of what he did. ³⁷ With ז read: Yasa (third generation), not Yose (fifth generation). ³⁸ A courtyard, with only one exit to the street, common to several houses for which no eruv ³⁹ When studying the Mishnah Tractate Šabbat. ³⁷ With ז read: Yasa (third generation), not Yose (fifth generation). ⁴⁰ When studying the Mishnah Tractate Eruvin. ⁴¹ This is the only opinion reported in the Babli, 130b. ⁴² A dead-end street which is bordered on three sides by the walls of houses together with the courtyards opening into it can be turned for the laws of the Sabbath into a single private domain by 1) symbolically turning the opening of the dead-end street into a thoroughfare into a door either by installing a horizontal beam (קוֹרָה) over the entrance or a vertical strip (לֶחִי) at the entrance symbolizing a doorpost; and 2) depositing a meal in some house opening to a courtyard which opens to the dead-end-street to which each house adjacent to the dead-end street contributed something. The latter is called שִׁיתּוּף “participation”.R. Joḥanan holds that the two required actions are for two distinct reasons. Installing the beam turns the dead-end street into a private domain but without participation it is forbidden to move from the courtyards into the street or from the street into the courtyards, just as without eruv ⁴² A dead-end street which is bordered on three sides by the walls of houses together with the courtyards opening into it can be turned for the laws of the Sabbath into a single private domain by 1) symbolically turning the opening of the dead-end street into a thoroughfare into a door either by installing a horizontal beam (קוֹרָה) over the entrance or a vertical strip (לֶחִי) at the entrance symbolizing a doorpost; and 2) depositing a meal in some house opening to a courtyard which opens to the dead-end-street to which each house adjacent to the dead-end street contributed something. The latter is called שִׁיתּוּף “participation”.R. Joḥanan holds that the two required actions are for two distinct reasons. Installing the beam turns the dead-end street into a private domain but without participation it is forbidden to move from the courtyards into the street or from the street into the courtyards, just as without eruv ⁴³ He does not split the action into two; if both conditions are satisfied one may freely transport between houses and dead-end street, with only one the dead-end street remains public domain. Babli Eruvin

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For the knife for circumcision one makes walls of people⁴⁵ and brings it. There was a case for Bar Marinus. He asked Rebbi Simon who permitted. He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade. Rebbi Simon was offended. But was it not stated, if one asked a Sage who permitted, one may ask another one who might forbid⁴⁶? Rebbi Yudan said, the case was as follows: He asked Rebbi Immi who forbade, Rebbi Simon who permitted. Rebbi Immi was offended, following what was stated, if one asked a Sage who forbade, one may not ask another one who might permit⁴⁷ 63b, Avodah zarah 7a..

footnotes: ⁴⁵ In the public domain one forms two parallel rows of people with a narrow passageway between them. The rows are treated as walls, the passageway becomes a private domain where moving the knife is permitted. The word חולה seems to be حِوَال “who puts himself between two obstacles.” ⁴⁶ This is not mentioned anywhere else. ⁴⁷ Babli Berakhot

In the days of Rebbi Jeremiah they forgot the keys to the great study hall⁴⁸. They came and asked him, who told them: if you see a great mass of people passing by bring it by walls of people⁴⁹ 43b, bottom.. The strength of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: A wall of people made with or without the knowledge of the participants is a wall of people⁵⁰.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Where the rabbi was preaching on the Sabbath. ⁴⁹ Since he instructed them in Aramaic, he showed that he considered them uneducated. Cf. Babli Eruvin ⁵⁰ Babli 101b.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi instructed to bring it in shoes⁵¹. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos instructed to make a wall of people and to bring it in shoes⁵². Rabbi Samuel ben Eudaimon had a case to circumcise his son, Rav Shishaa. They forgot to bring the knife. He asked Rebbi Mana who said, it should be deferred until tomorrow⁵³. He asked Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar who told them, you did not forget to mix spiced wine⁵⁴ In this version, subterfuges which might circumvent both biblical and rabbinic prohibitions are rejected as a punishment for preferring the party following the circumcision to the religious act., but to bring a knife you forgot; it should be deferred until tomorrow.

footnotes: ⁵¹ Since this is not how carrying is usually done it cannot be biblically prohibited (Mishnah 10:3). ⁵² Two ways to make sure no biblical prohibition is violated. ⁵³ He follows R. Aqiba in Mishnah 1 who states that anything that could have been done on Friday may not be done on the Sabbath. This is applied even to rabbinic prohibitions. [The text is quoted in this form by all Medieval authorities who refer to it except Ravan, who has R. Mana stating that the circumcision should not be deferred until Sunday. This would conform to the statement of the preceding paragraph that one is permitted to ask a second authority only if the first was permissive. S. Liebermann and most authorities declare the text of Ravan either a scribal error in the underlying ms. (now lost) or a printer’s error in the Prague edition (1610, §370).] In any case, practice is determined by this story as following R. Aqiba. ⁵⁴ Latin [vinum] conditum.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Our Mishnah implies that it is forbidden to make walls of people, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement¹ before the Sabbath he brings it openly on the Sabbath.” For if you are saying that one may make, could he not find it possible to make and bring it⁵⁵?

footnotes: ¹ The knife for the circumcision. ⁵⁵ The argument is not from the statement of Rebbi Eliezer which is quoted here but from R. Aqiba’s opposition to this teaching. If R. Aqiba, whom practice follows, would agree that two walls formed by people turn the public domain into a private one he could simply have added the requirement that the open transport required by R. Eliezer should be through such walls. Since he categorically denies the possibility of bringing the knife on the Sabbath, he rejects the idea of human walls.

They asked Hillel the Elder: What to do with people who did not bring their knives with them⁵⁷ 6:1 treating of the Passover sacrifice if the 14 of Nisan is a Sabbath. It is presumed that Jerusalem is public domain and, therefore, carrying a knife to slaughter the Passover sacrifice in the Temple was not possible. For sacrifices all actions starting with receiving the blood from the slaughtered victim had to be performed by priests but the slaughter itself was possible by laymen and the Temple did not have enough slaughterers to serve the multitude coming on Passover eve. Since the day of the sacrifice is determined by the verse, it may not be moved even if it falls on a Sabbath.? ⁵⁸ 6:1 (33a l. 40, פ). For the second paragraph a copy of the Pesaḥim text exists from the Cairo Genizah, edited by L. Ginzberg in Ginze Schechter 1, New York NY 1928, pp. 447–448 (ג). Cf. Babli Pesaḥim 66a. He told them, I was informed of the practice but I forgot. But let Israel act; if they are not prophets they are descendants of prophets. Then everybody whose Passover sacrifice was a lamb stuck it in its fleece, for a kid goat he bound it to its horns; it turned out that the Passover sacrifices brought their knives with them. When he saw the action he remembered the practice. He told them, this is what I heard from Shemaya and Abtalion.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ This is taken from Pesaḥim ⁵⁸ From here on, the paragraph and the next are copied from Pesaḥim

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching⁵⁹ where it is mentioned that the Elders of Bathyra, at that time the heads of the Synhedrion, did not know how to proceed if the 14 of Nisan was a Sabbath and that they were not convinced by any logical arguments presented by Hillel until he affirmed that what he said conformed to the teachings of their predecessors in the Synhedrion.. There, we have stated⁶⁰ 2:3.: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified.⁶¹ 19:2.) The Mishnah continues with examples of loads which do not qualify and ends with the statement: “Anything done for its needs leaves it qualified; for extraneous purposes disqualifies.”” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it⁶² it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work⁶³. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rebbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rebbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rebbi Abbin said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14 which falls on the Sabbath⁶⁴ 8b–10a) then R. Abbin’s statement seems justified, if no precautions were taken to avoid the Day of Atonement falling on Friday or Sunday; cf. the Appendix of the author’s Seder Olam (Northvale 1998). If R. Abbin quoted here is R. Abun as stated in Pesaḥim he would be a contemporary of R. Yose, who published the algorithm for the current calendar; then his assertion has to be questioned. (It is not certain that the calendar rules described by Abraham ben Ḥiyya, the source of the currently used algorithm, are totally identical with those promulgated by R. Yose.)! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel⁶⁵.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ This is the conclusion of a lengthy story in Pesaḥim, ⁶⁰ Mishnah Parah ⁶¹ “It” is the Red Cow which never had borne a yoke (Num. ⁶² The Red Cow. ⁶³ From the moment that an animal is dedicated as sacrifice any use of it other than sacrificing is forbidden. ⁶⁴ This is difficult to verify. In the current computed calendar (whose algorithm has a built-in bias against placing the New Year’s Day on a Tuesday which puts the Feast of Unleavened Bread on a Sunday and the 14th of Nisan on a Sabbath) there are intervals of 20 years possible between two such occurrences. If the Mishnaic calendar was implemented as presented in the Babli (Arakhin ⁶⁵ Who following his performance in this case rose to be the head of the Synhedrion.

⁶⁶6:4, on the Mishnah in which R. Aqiba states his principle as here in Mishnah 1 (33c l. 9, פ). The text of the first paragraph is Tosephta Pesaḥim 5:1; partially reproduced in Babli Pesaḥim 69a. The second paragraph, while clearly originating in Pesaḥim, is copied there in very defective form but a Genizah fragment shows that it should read exactly as formulated here. It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside⁶⁷ so the preparations of slaughter⁶⁸ push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts⁶⁹ shall prove which he could make on (Friday)⁷⁰ read: Sunday. which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter⁷¹? Rebbi Aqiba said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter when the slaughter already had pushed away the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter not yet had pushed away the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter⁷².”

footnotes: ⁶⁶ These paragraphs are from Pesaḥim ⁶⁷ Of the Passover sacrifice if the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath, and all sacrifices obligatory on a Sabbath. ⁶⁸ In particular, bringing a knife for the required slaughter. ⁶⁹ Greek μηρία, τά, “thigh bones”, the parts of a sacrifice which have to be burned on the altar. This does not refer to the Passover sacrifice, of which nothing is burned on the altar, nor the regular Sabbath sacrifice which is a holocaust of which nothing is separated for the altar. It must refer to the public purification offering required on holidays, of which only parts are burned. If the holiday is on a Sabbath, all sacrifices or parts destined for the altar have to be burned either on the holiday or the following night. There is no requirement to wait until nightfall, after the end of the Sabbath, for any of these. ⁷⁰ With the text in Pesaḥim ⁷¹ Since it would be sinful not to burn the parts taken from the sacrifice, the burning of the parts is as necessary as the bringing of the knife. ⁷² This is the main argument why practice follows R. Aqiba.

What can you say about a baby⁷³ where R. Aqiba forbids bringing a knife for a circumcision on the Sabbath. What could go wrong in this case?? Maybe the baby would become sick; then the Sabbath would be pushed aside without circumcision. They objected: If the altar collapsed on the Sabbath, it will not be possible to build on the Sabbath⁷⁴! A kind of altar can be built the day before. Think of it, if it developed a wart⁷⁵ 22:22). A Passover sacrifice which develops a wart in the night from the 13 to the 14 of Nisan cannot be brought if the latter day is a Sabbath even though the wart was nonexistent the day before, for the same reason, that in general warts are cut on weekdays.? It cannot be cut on the Sabbath! Warts can be cut on the day before. Think of it, if the fourteenth falls on a Sabbath, there cannot be sprinkling on the Sabbath⁷⁶! Sprinkling is done on the day before.

footnotes: ⁷³ This now refers to the Mishnah in Šabbat ⁷⁴ Since there can be no sacrifice without an altar, R. Eliezer would permit to rebuild one on the Sabbath. The question is whether R. Aqiba would prohibit and why. The answer is that while this altar could not have been rebuilt the day before since it was still standing, he will prohibit since building is a common weekday practice. ⁷⁵ A wart on a sacrificial animal disables it (Lev. ⁷⁶ A person who was impure by the impurity of the dead, who needs to be sprinkled with water containing ashes of the Red Cow on the 3rd and 7th days of his impurity, according to R. Aqiba cannot eat from the Passover sacrifice if the 7th day happens to be the 14th of Nisan which is a Sabbath, even though the prohibition of sprinkling on the Sabbath is rabbinic only.

MISHNAH: One does everything necessary for circumcision; one circumcises, and uncovers⁷, and drains⁸, and puts a bandage⁹“plaster, patch”. and cumin¹⁰ on it. If he did not grind on Friday he chews with his teeth and puts it on. If he did not mix wine and oil¹¹, he gives each one separately. One does not make a new dressing for it but binds a rag around it. If he did not prepare this on Friday he winds it around his finger and brings it even from another courtyard¹².

footnotes: ⁷ One has to cut the membrane under the prepuce to expose the penis’s corona. ⁸ One drains the blood from the wound by sucking it out. ⁹ Greek σπληνίον, τό “pad, compress of linen laid on wound,”; Latin splenium, -ii, n. ¹⁰ The knife for the circumcision. ¹¹ To be put on the wound as disinfectants. ¹² Since this is also done by people who injured their finger it is clothing and R. Aqiba will agree that this kind of carrying through the public domain is permitted.

HALAKHAH: ⁷⁷ 8:1 (Notes 67–84,א). Here they appear as discussions of Mishnah 2.Circumcising he shall circumcise⁷⁸ 17:13.. A decision for two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for uncovering⁷. One for circumcision, the other for the fibers⁷⁹. So far following Rebbi Aqiba who said, these are expressions of additions⁸⁰ 27b. Cf. Sotah 7:5 (21d l. 66), 8:1 (22b l. 34), Nedarim 1:1 (36c l. 35).. From where for Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the style of the Torah, going I went, desiring you desired⁸¹ 31:30, a speech of Laban without legal implications; this proves that the repetitions are literary devices to express emphasis. Babli Avodah zarah 27a., stealing (you were) stolen⁸² 40:15, Josef’s speech to the cup bearer. Incorrectly copied here by the corrector.? Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, then she said, a blood bridegroom for circumcisions⁸³ 4:26., from there that there are two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for uncovering; one for circumcision, the other for the fibers. Rav said, circumcising he shall circumcise, from here that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from one born circumcised⁸⁴ 71a.. Circumcising he shall circumcise, from here that an uncircumcised Jew cannot circumcise; not to speak of an uncircumcised Gentile⁸⁵ 46(8).. Rebbi Levi said, it is written: But you have to keep My Covenant⁸⁶ 17:9., you and yours⁸⁷ 46(8); Babli Avodah zarah27a..

footnotes: ⁷⁷ This and the following paragraph also are in Yebamot ⁷⁸ Gen. ⁷ One has to cut the membrane under the prepuce to expose the penis’s corona. ⁷⁹ Cf. Mishnah 6. ⁸⁰ This interpretation of double expressions is also attributed to R. Aqiba in the Babli, Ševuot ⁸¹ Gen. ⁸² Gen. ⁸³ Ex. ⁸⁴ Babli Yebamot ⁸⁵ Gen. rabba ⁸⁶ Gen. ⁸⁷ Gen. rabba

It was stated⁸⁸ 27a, Tosephta Avodah zarah 3:13.: “A Jew may circumcise a Samaritan but a Samaritan may not circumcise a Jew since he circumcises in the name of Mount Gerizim, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, where do we find that circumcision needs intent? Let him continue to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim until he dies!”

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Babli Avodah zarah

“The drawn⁸⁹ should not circumcise lest he get into danger, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, many drawn ones were in the days of Ben Koziba⁹⁰, they all circumcised, lived, and begat sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn, the one born circumcised, and the circumcised convert. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised; because that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.” Rebbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia⁹¹ 1(7); also Tosephta Šabbat 15:9; Babli Šabbat 135a; Gen. rabba 46(9).: Practice follows the words of the student⁹² in the Babli as stating that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree about the child born without prepuce.. There came a case before Rav, who said: Since we have stated that it is a compressed prepuce⁹³ 135a, he is quoted as deciding practice following R. Jehudah., it is implied that he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him⁹⁶ 135a. There, R. Ada bar Ahava accused himself of being punished for not following the ruling of his teacher Rav.. Rebbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him⁹⁵. A son was born to Rav Ada bar Ahava in that condition⁹⁶ 135a. There, R. Ada bar Ahava accused himself of being punished for not following the ruling of his teacher Rav.. He squeezed it, he died. Rebbi Abin said, testicles became injured and he fasted for him; he died. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him; he died.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ People originally circumcised who manipulated their penises (or had plastic surgery) to appear uncircumcised. They might have been forcibly circumcised in the general conscription ordered by Bar Kokhba. ⁹⁰ Bar Kokhba. ⁹¹ Sifra Tazriaˋ Pereq ⁹² R. Simeon ben Eleazar, a student of R. Jehudah who is quoted in a baraita ⁹³ Also in the Babli, Šabbat ⁹⁶ Babli Šabbat ⁹⁵ This is the uncontested anonymous decision of the Babli. ⁹⁶ Babli Šabbat

Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius asked, if it was mixed at the bottom, may one again stir on top⁹⁷?

footnotes: ⁹⁷ This refers to the statement in Mishnah 2 that if one did not prepare a mixture of wine and oil on Friday one has to apply wine and oil separately on the Sabbath. He asks what happens if one prepared a mixture on Friday but the components separated during the night and now appear separated while at the bottom of the vessel some mixture is still there. No answer is given.

MISHNAH: One bathes the baby before and after the circumcision by sprinkling on him with one’s hand but not with a vessel¹³. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one bathes the baby on the third day which falls on the Sabbath as it is said, it was on the third day when they were hurting¹⁴ 34:25. This presumes that neonatal physiology is the same as the adult one.. One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt¹⁵ or for a hermaphrodite¹⁶; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite¹⁷.

footnotes: ¹³ While it is permitted to wash the baby’s entire body (which is not permitted for adults), it should be done differently than on weekdays. This is a purely rabbinic rule. ¹⁴ Gen. ¹⁵ When it is not clear which day is the 8th, as explained in the next Mishnah. ¹⁶ Greek ἀνδρόγυνος, ὁ “man-woman”. ¹⁷ Since having a penis makes him a male, irrespective of other sex characteristics.

HALAKHAH: ⁹⁸ We have stated: “One washes the baby.” It was stated in the House of Rebbi: “One washes the circumcision.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who says, “one washes the baby”. Rebbi Yose said, you are forced to say, one washes the baby. Samuel stated, one never withholds either oil or warm water from a wound on the Sabbath. Rebbi Yose said, my teacher Rebbi Zeˋira always was coming to say to me, state in your Mishnah, not only this but one sprinkles warm water on a wound on the Sabbath. If you are saying, “one washes the circumcision”, what is the difference between an adult and a baby?

footnotes: ⁹⁸ This and the next paragraph are from Chapter 9, Notes 109 ff.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: it was on the third day when they hurt¹¹. It does not say, “when it hurt”, but when they hurt, at a time when all their limbs hurt them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan ordered for the women having newborns, that all treatments which you give to a sick person on the Sabbath should be given if the third day falls on a Sabbath. Samuel said, because of the danger. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is because of the danger one heats hot water for him! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: One heats hot water for him. And it was stated thus: A person heats a linen cloth and puts it on his belly on the Sabbath. A person may not take a bottle full of hot water and put it on his belly on the Sabbath. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, on the contrary it is permitted.

footnotes: ¹¹ To be put on the wound as disinfectants.

“One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt¹⁵ or for a hermaphrodite¹⁶; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite¹⁷.” There, we have stated⁹⁹ 1:1.: “Everybody is liable to be seen¹⁰⁰ 23:17: Three times a year all your male population should be seen before the Lord, the Eternal. except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor¹⁰¹, the sexless¹⁰², and the hermaphrodite.”

footnotes: ¹⁵ When it is not clear which day is the 8th, as explained in the next Mishnah. ¹⁶ Greek ἀνδρόγυνος, ὁ “man-woman”. ¹⁷ Since having a penis makes him a male, irrespective of other sex characteristics. ⁹⁹ Mishnah Ḥagigah ¹⁰⁰ This refers to the duty of pilgrimage, Ex. ¹⁰¹ The first three categories are exempt from all religious duties. ¹⁰² He has neither male nor female characteristics.

¹⁰³ 1:1 (76a l. 31, צ) in addition to Yebamot 8:1. It is difficult to establish which text is the original since both “there” and “here” are used to point to Mishnah Ḥagigah. What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one¹⁰⁴ 1:1. Babli Ḥagigah2a, Sanhedrin 4b, Arakhin 2b.. Nobody says “neither” unless he agree with the preceding statement¹⁰⁵. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There¹⁰⁶ he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse¹⁰⁷ 17:14: An uncircumcised male who refuses to circumcise the prepuce of his flesh .…. Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, the rabbis emphazise uncircumcised. Why does the verse add male¹⁰⁸*?* Only if he be totally male. But Rebbi Jehudah emphasizes male, why does the verse add uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here¹⁰⁹, all your maleness, except the hermaphrodite.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ This paragraph also appears in Ḥagigah ¹⁰⁴ Tosephta Ḥagigah ¹⁰⁵ The Babylonian texts do not support the interpretation given here. ¹⁰⁶ In Ḥagigah. ¹⁰⁷ Gen. ¹⁰⁸ This interpretation disregards the existence of societies practicing female circumcision. ¹⁰⁹ In Ḥagigah.

MISHNAH: If one had two children to circumcise, one on Friday and one on the Sabbath. If he forgot and circumcised the one for Friday on the Sabbath he is liable¹⁸. One to circumcise on Sunday and one on the Sabbath; if he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable¹⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁸ It is presumed that the child to be circumcised on the Sabbath was erroneously circumcised on Friday. Then there is no child at hand which must be circumcised on the Sabbath; what he does is an absolute Sabbath violation. ¹⁹ Since there is a baby at hand who has to be circumcised on the Sabbath, for R. Joshua he is under the obligation to violate the Sabbath. It he takes the wrong baby it is a sin, but not a deadly sin. For R. Eliezer it is a Sabbath desecration unless he circumcise the correct baby.The Mishnah in the Babli switches the two cases. Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah follows the Mishnah as given here.

HALAKHAH: ¹¹⁰ 6:7 (33d l. 63). It is not clear where the paragraph belonged originally. The text here has some lacunae, the one there has some places where the order of the sentences may be questioned. While it is clear that both are based on the same original, in their present shape they do not seem to be copies of one another. The text is unusually difficult.“If one had two children,” etc. ¹¹¹ in the Babli 137a in the name of R. Meïr keeps the order of the Mishnah of the Yerushalmi but states “not liable” in the first case. In the following, different authorities seem to accept different readings. The interpretation given here in general follows S. Liebermann. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed¹¹² to circumcise on the eighth day, but no liability for a sacrifice is created. If then he circumcises the one scheduled for Friday on the Sabbath, he violates the Sabbath but in the act satisfies a commandment; according to R. Meïr this frees him from liability.. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed¹¹³ confirms the text here there is no possibility to emend “liable” into “not liable” as proposed by the classical commentaries.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice¹¹⁴ 6:9 (6:5 in most independent Mishnah mss.) where in a discussion of liability if a Passover sacrifice was slaughtered incorrectly on a Sabbath which was a 14 of Nisan, R. Eliezer notes that obligatory sacrifices must be slaughtered on the Sabbath but that a person slaughtering a private sacrifice in the name of a public one on the Sabbath is liable but R. Meïr declares him not liable. R. Joshua rejects a comparison of public and private sacrifices since public sacrifices are prescribed in number but the number of private ones is unlimited. R. Joḥanan notes that R. Meïr exempts from liability only if the error was excusable. A Passover sacrifice must be without blemish, male, and a yearling (*Ex.*12:5). A blemished animal cannot be a sacrifice at all; slaughtering a blemished animal as a sacrifice is an inexcusable error. A well-being sacrifice may be male or female and of almost any age (more than 8 days old). Such an animal can be a candidate for Passover sacrifice only if it is a male yearling. If the three conditions are satisfied an illegal switching between the categories is excusable.. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number¹¹⁵. And which is not usually exchanged¹¹⁶. And doing something which fulfills a commandment¹¹⁷. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these ¹¹⁸ it is essential for the understanding of the argument: ר׳ יוסי כד הוי מטי לאילין [תינוקות ספיקות היה אמ׳. יפה לימדנו ר׳ ירמיה. אית לך מימר. שאין את יכול לעמוד על מיניינן. אלא שלא] ניתנה … [“children in doubt”¹¹⁹ 19:4. he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount¹²⁰? But the Torah did not] specify¹²¹ limit on the numbers. how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter¹²² the disagreement between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua is whether there still is a baby to be circumcised, so in parallel their disagreement in Pesaḥim must refer to a case where a Passover sacrifice has still to be slaughtered.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai¹²³ implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable¹²⁴. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable¹²⁵. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children¹²⁶. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr¹²⁷ 6, 23c l. 65). R. Zeˋira asserts that accepting the interpretation of the Mishnah given by R. Yannai, there exists a (not otherwise reported) decision by Rav which follows the reading of the Mishnah ascribed to Rav, which therefore decides practice.. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon¹²⁸? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder¹²⁹? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount¹³⁰ to the case in Šabbat?? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise¹³¹ adds: אפי׳ אין שם תינוק אחד למול. ואין תעבדינון כדבר שאין לו קיצבה. “even if there is not one baby to be circumcised. But if you are treating it like something which is not a fixed amount,” and one has to read this text here also. In Pesaḥim one infers that R. Joshua agrees with R. Eliezer that in matters of public sacrifices, which are fixed in numbers, there is no excuse for additional slaughter and any error will result in liability. But in matters of private offerings (excluding purification and reparation offerings, which follow the rules of public sacrifices) where the numbers are indefinite, he denies liability for additional infractions of the rules of the Sabbath. Therefore in the case here he might agree to liability if the baby scheduled for Friday was circumcised on the Sabbath only if the case is compared to public sacrifices.. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable¹³²? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated¹³³: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday¹³⁴. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment¹³⁵.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ This entire piece is also found in Pesaḥim ¹¹¹ The main problem discussed in the paragraph is the correct reading in Mishnah 4. The Mishnah printed in the Venice edition of the Yerushalmi and reproduced at the start of this Chapter (not from the Leiden ms.) states liability if the baby scheduled for Friday was circumcised on the Sabbath and notes a controversy if the one scheduled for Sunday was circumcised on the Sabbath. In the Babli 137a this version is attributed to R. Ḥiyya (the Elder). The Mishnah in the Babli switches the two cases. A baraita ¹¹² It seems that R. Joḥanan reads in the Mishnah a text similar to that attributed to R. Meïr in the Babli. If he circumcises the baby scheduled for Sabbath on Friday he violates a positive commandment, viz., ¹¹³ R. Simeon reads the Mishnah as given at the start of this Chapter. The fact that the baby scheduled for Friday had to be circumcised and the circumcision on the Sabbath accomplished this does not free from liability for the desecration of the Sabbath.Since the text in Pesaḥim ¹¹⁴ This refers to Mishnah Pesaḥim ¹¹⁵ This excludes sacrificing privately in the name of public sacrifices. ¹¹⁶ This seems to contradict the prior statement that only well-being sacrifices are exempt from liability if they are fit to be Passover sacrifices. Therefore the commentaries emend the statement to read: And which usually is exchanged. Since the statement is not discussed further in the Halakhah, there is no certainty achievable but since the text is identical in both sources one would have to assume a corruption in the original common source. There is no difficulty explaining the text as it stands. If it were something that routinely can be changed, such as excess Passover animals reclassified as animals for well-being sacrifices, and if the slaughter were legitimate for the new denomination, there would be universal agreement that everything is legitimate and there is merit, never liability. The question of liability can arise only if such a reclassification is unusual and has not been effected. ¹¹⁷ As offering the Passover in the case of sacrifices and circumcising in the case of Mishnah Šabbat. ¹¹⁸ The text in brackets is added from Pesaḥim; ¹¹⁹ Mishnah Šabbat ¹²⁰ After the fact one always can count how many sacrifices were offered in the Temple. ¹²¹ There is not an a priori ¹²² Since in Šabbat ¹²³ As given in the next sentence. ¹²⁴ This is based on the Mishnah as given at the start of the Chapter. If he correctly circumcised the baby scheduled for the Sabbath on the morning of the Sabbath and later the same day wrongly circumcised the baby scheduled for Sunday, is he not liable because Sabbath already was being pushed aside for the first circumcision? ¹²⁵ He disagrees with R. Zeˋira and states that R. Yannai in this case holds that R. Joshua also would find him liable. ¹²⁶ He only comes to explain how it could happen that the baby scheduled for Sunday would be circumcised on the Sabbath and no other baby still had to be circumcised. ¹²⁷ The language is elliptic (but, as S. Liebermann has pointed out, it also appears otherwise in the Yerushalmi, cf. Eruvin ¹²⁸ The two opinions are based on two different readings of the Mishnah; there should be no need to try to harmonize the opinions. It is not explained who tried to harmonize them. ¹²⁹ Both agree that there must be a baby left to be circumcised, or a sacrifice to be slaughtered, to lift liability from an untimely circumcision or slaughter. ¹³⁰ How can one apply the arguments from the Mishnah in Pesaḥim ¹³¹ The text in Pesaḥim ¹³² The position of R. Joshua in the Mishnah does not seem reasonable (assuming R. Meïr’s argument.) By circumcising the baby scheduled for Friday on the Sabbath he fulfills a commandment (even though a day late) and is declared liable; but by circumcising the baby scheduled for Sunday on the Sabbath he does not fulfil a commandment (since its time has not yet arrived) but is declared not liable! ¹³³ Babli 137a. ¹³⁴ The explanation given in Note 18 is necessary; if both babies are still uncircumcised on the Sabbath R. Joshua will declare him not liable even if the one scheduled for Friday is circumcised first. ¹³⁵ For example, if on Passover he slaughtered a defective animal as sacrifice when no commandment could be fulfilled with it.

¹³⁶ (פ), but also in Yebamot 8:1 (Notes 106–107, א) and is repeated at the end of the present Halakhah. Most of the remaining parts of the Halakhah are also found there. If he finished he can return only for fibers which would invalidate the circumcision¹³⁷. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision¹³⁸. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we stated there¹³⁹ 3:14.: “Rebbi Yose says, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath¹⁴⁰ 23:40), even taking it out on the Sabbath cannot be punishable. The same then holds for the knife for a circumcision which must be performed on the Sabbath and the unleavened bread which must be eaten during the first night of the Feast of Unleavened Bread even if that happens to be on a Sabbath. (During the remainder of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, leavened matter is forbidden but consumption of unleavened bread is not obligatory.), if he forgot and took the lulav out into the public domain he is not liable because he took it out with permission.” Does the same hold for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread]¹⁴¹ the [correct] text in brackets is from Pesaḥim and Yebamot; it is confirmed by the text here at the end of the Halakhah.? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision, this implies the same even for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread].

footnotes: ¹³⁶ This paragraph is found not only in Pesaḥim ¹³⁷ If the circumcision is done on a Sabbath, once he is finished he can return only to correct a defect as described in Mishnah 6 but not for cosmetic adjustments. Babli 133b. ¹³⁸ This is a straight application of R. Yose’s (the Tanna) position, Note 135. ¹³⁹ Mishnah Sukkah ¹⁴⁰ R. Yose holds that since the Torah requires one to take a palm branch on the first day of Tabernacles (Lev. ¹⁴¹ The text in parentheses is from Šabbat,

MISHNAH: A baby is circumcised on the eighth day, the ninth, the tenth, the eleventh, the twelfth, no less and no more. In the normal case, on the eighth. If he was born at dusk²⁰1:1, Notes 23–47)., on the ninth. In the twilight Friday evening, on the tenth. If there is a holiday on Sunday, on the eleventh²¹; the two days of the New Year on the twelfth. A sick baby one does not circumcise until he gets well.

footnotes: ²⁰ It is intrinsically indeterminate whether the time between shortly after sundown and nightfall belongs to the previous or the following day (cf. Berakhot ²¹ If the circumcision cannot be done on the Sabbath, it cannot be done on a holiday either.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁴² It is possible that a child is circumcised on his first day. How is this possible? If she gave birth and then converted, he is circumcised on his first day. If she converted and then gave birth, he is circumcised on his eighth day¹⁴³.כל שאין אמו טמאה לידה.. Jacob from Kefar-Naboraia asked Rebbi Ḥaggai, then if he was born during twilight, should he not be circumcised at twilight¹⁴⁴? He told him, if I and you were entering the same door, could we make it simultaneous¹⁴⁵?

footnotes: ¹⁴² Here starts discussion of Mishnah 5. ¹⁴³ In the first case he is a convert, in the second the child of a Jewish mother. Cf. Babli 135a„ Rashi s. v ¹⁴⁴ If the boy was born Friday night at twilight, the Mishnah states that he is circumcised on Sunday since it is not knowable whether he was born on Friday or on the Sabbath, Note 20. Why could the child not be circumcised exactly 8 times 24 hours afterwards, when it would be irrelevant which day it was? ¹⁴⁵ Since simultaneity is not realizable under normal circumstances, the identical moment cannot be reproduced, not to mention the variations in the astronomical data.

¹⁴⁶ 8:1, Notes 97–100. The original seems to be there since Samuel’s statement here is missing an essential part. Samuel said, if he runs a fever [for one hour]¹⁴⁷ one waits with him one month¹⁴⁸ 71a and Šabbat137a, he gives a minimum of 7 times 24 hours.. May one feed him with milk-substitute¹⁴⁹ from heave? May one rub him with heave oil? Let us hear from the following: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons may not eat heave; their wives and slaves may eat.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The prepuce is counted only from the eighth day onward¹⁵⁰ 71a, asserts the opposite, that uncircumcised babies of Cohanim may not be fed heave products. The argument here is that since for the first 7 days there is no obligation to circumcise, there can be no disability connected to this fact either.. It was stated so: For the entire thirty days it is forbidden to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and forbidden to rub him with heave oil. How do you treat the night of the eighth day? Since it was stated: In the night of the eighth day it enters the corral to be tithed¹⁵¹ 22:27). If a calf can be counted for tithing already in the night of the eighth day, to be chosen as tithe sacrifice, this proves that one does not have to wait until it is daytime; Babli Zebaḥim 12a. Therefore, the baby may not be fed heave products between nightfall of the eighth day and the time of circumcision on the next morning., that means that the night of the eighth is treated like the eighth day. And it was stated so: All seven days long one is permitted to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and permitted to rub him with heave oil.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ The parallel is in Yebamot ¹⁴⁷ Added from Yebamot. ¹⁴⁸ In the Babli, Yebamot ¹⁴⁹ Some baby food made from heave grain. There is no heave milk. ¹⁵⁰ The Babli, Yebamot ¹⁵¹ A newborn animal is acceptable as sacrifice only after eight days (Lev.

MISHNAH: The following are the fibers which invalidate a circumcision: the flesh which covers most of the corona; then he could not eat heave²². If he was fat one corrects him because of the bad impression²³. If he circumcised but did not uncover⁷ the circumcision it is as if he did not circumcise²⁴.

footnotes: ²² If it looks as if he were uncircumcised there should be a cosmetic correction. ²³ Since otherwise the circumcision is incomplete. ⁷ One has to cut the membrane under the prepuce to expose the penis’s corona. ²⁴ The question is whether R. Eliezer permits to perform preparations on the Sabbath which could have been made on Friday for circumcision only or in general for any action prescribed for the Sabbath even if it involves doing work which under other circumstances would be Sabbath violations.

HALAKHAH: “The following are the fibers which invalidate a circumcision.¹⁵²” Rebbi Avuna in the name of Rav Jeremiah¹⁵³ R. Abinna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The text here is correct since also in the Babli, Šabbat 137b, this is a statement of Rebbi Abinna in the name of the Babylonian Rav Jeremiah bar Abba and R. Avina lived two generations before Rebbi Jeremiah (cf. Berakhot Chapter 6, Note 148).: If it covers most of the height of the corona¹⁵⁴. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina¹⁵⁵ Yose ben Yose. This also was the version of the scribe here, “Ḥanina” is the scribe’s own correction. But it seems that the Yebamot version is correct and the late Galilean Amora R. Yose ben Yose endorses the earlier Babylonian ruling. said, if it covers most of the top of the corona. Rebbi Tebi in the name of Samuel: One checks at the time of an erection¹⁵⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁵² Mishnah 6. ¹⁵³ In Yebamot: ¹⁵⁴ Making clear that “most” in the Mishnah refers to the vertical, not the horizontal. ¹⁵⁵ In Yebamot: ¹⁵⁶ This refers to the fat baby mentioned in the Mishnah; if only the uncovered part of his corona is visible, nothing has to be done. In the Babli 137b this is a statement of Samuel, modifying a tannaitic statement of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (Tosephta Shabbat 15:9, ed. Liebermann).

¹⁵⁸ 8:1 (Notes 104 ff., 9a l. 43, א).“If he circumcised but did not uncover⁷ the circumcision it is as if he did not circumcise²⁴.” It was stated: He is subject to divine extirpation¹⁵⁹. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is to say if there is no time left [in the day]¹⁵⁷ to correct it. But if there is time left [in the day] to correct, he corrects without hesitation. ¹⁶⁰ It was stated: As long as he is occupied with the circumcision, he may return both to fibers which invalidate the circumcision as also to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has stopped, he may return only to fibers which invalidate the circumcision. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we had stated there: “Rebbi Yose said, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath and somebody forgot [that it was the Sabbath] and took the palm branch into the public domain he is not liable since he took it out with permission.” Is it the same for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision, that means the same holds for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ The parallel is in Yebamot ⁷ One has to cut the membrane under the prepuce to expose the penis’s corona. ²⁴ The question is whether R. Eliezer permits to perform preparations on the Sabbath which could have been made on Friday for circumcision only or in general for any action prescribed for the Sabbath even if it involves doing work which under other circumstances would be Sabbath violations. ¹⁵⁹ The person incorrectly circumcising on the Sabbath. ¹⁵⁷ Probably the original version was the composite בּוֹ בַיּוֹם “on the same day”. The scribe originally wrote ביום and corrected to בו. ¹⁶⁰ This paragraph is repeated from above, Notes 136 ff.