Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 41

raitha: " They all agree (even R. Eliezer), that if one made a show-thread for his garment, or a Mezuzah for his door, on the Sabbath, he is liable for a sin-offering." Why so ? Said R. Joseph: " Because no specified time is set for the accomplish- ment of these duties." Said Abayi to him: " On the contrary, just because no specified time was set for the accomplishment of that duty, every moment is the time for performing it (so, if he have the garment on Sabbath, or enter the house on that day, he should perform those duties, and hence it must be considered a duty of the day)." Therefore said R. Na'hman in the name of R. Itz'hak, and according to others R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua : " The reason is, because one is enabled to abandon these things for the time being (and hence the duty does not devolve upon him for that day)," From what we have learned above, we see, that for the cir- cumcision itself and all its necessary accessories the Sabbath may be violated, according to the dictum of R. Eliezer. Whence does he deduce this ? This is the reasoning of R. Ehezer : It is written [Leviticus xii. 3] : " And on the eighth day shall the flesh of his foreskin be circumcised." Thus, as it says dis- tinctly the eighth day, it makes no difference what day the eighth falls on, whether it be Sabbath or not. Let us see: The rabbis and R. Eliezer differ only as far as the preparations for circumcision on the Sabbath are concerned, but not as to the circumcision itself. If, then, they do not regard the text quoted as does R. Eliezer, they should not even permit the violation of the Sabbath on account of circumcision itself. What source TRACT SABBATH. 293 do they base their permission on ? Said Ula, and also R. Itz- 'hak: " This is traditional." An objection was raised : We have learned that the Sabbath may be violated in order to save life. Whence do we know this ? Said R. Elazar ben Azariah: " Why! if it be permitted when circumcision is concerned to violate the Sabbath, where but one of the many members of the body is concerned, it should certainly be permitted in so much greater a degree when the whole body is to be saved. If thou sayest, then, that the per- mission to perform circumcision on the Sabbath is only tradi- tional, how is it possible that thou shouldst derive an a fortiori assumption from a traditional institution?" Therefore R. Jo- hanan saith, that the permission to perform the rite of circum- cision on Sabbath is not based upon tradition, but is derived from the word " day," as the verse quoted above reads: " And on the eighth day," etc. ; whereas it could read simply, " And on the eighth"; for in the preceding verse we read "seven days," etc. Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan : " The word ' day,' however, is also necessary, that we may know that the rite must be per- formed during the day and not at night ! " This can be inferred from another passage [Genesis xvii. 12], where it expressly says: " And at eight days old shall every man-child in your generations be circumcised," etc. R. A'ha bar Jacob said: As far as the rite of circumcision itself is concerned, the rabbis also hold that the permission to perform it is based on the passage quoted, " and on the eighth day"; but as for the preparations necessary for circumcision, they claim to find no justification for violating the Sabbath on that account. But it is absolutely necessary that " the eighth " be mentioned, for otherwise how would we know that the rite should not be performed on the seventh ? That is also definitely settled by the other passage, as stated above: "And at eight days old," etc. Still, both passages are necessary, in order to prove that the eighth day is the day for circumcision ; because, if it did not state expressly " on the eighth day," it might be presumed that the seventh day would do, and if it did not state " at eight days old," it might be presumed that after the child is eight days old any other later day, e.g., the ninth, would do. Hence R. Johanan's explanation is the most acceptable; and we have learned in a Boraitha in support of R. Johanan's explana- tion, and not of that of R. A'ha bar Jacob, as follows: " On. 294 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. the eighth day shall he be circumcised, even though it be Sab- bath." How, then, is it possible to keep the commandment in Exodus xxxi. 14? " And ye shall keep the Sabbath, for it is holy unto you : every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death." This refers to other labor, but not to that of circumci- sion. How, then, do we know that circumcision is not included in the prohibited labor, and that the eighth day does not refer to all other days except Sabbath ? To this end it reads " the eighth day,'" and " day " means, even on Sabbath. The rabbis taught : Although it is written [Deut. xxiv. 8] : " Take heed in the plague of leprosy," which signifies, that the leprous spot must not be cut; but if the white spot (the symp- tom of leprosy) show itself on the member to be circumcised, it may be cut off, whether the member be circumcised at the prescribed time or afterwards. A biblical festival must not be violated on account of circum- cision, unless it happen to be the eighth day (precisely the pre- scribed time). Whence do we adduce these two ordinances ? From the teaching of the rabbis, as follows: The first one is based on the verse [Leviticus xii. 3] : " And on the eighth day shall \\it. flesh of his foreskin be circumcised." The order is imperative, regardless of whether the member be leprous or not. Whence do we know this ? Perhaps it means to say, that only the healthy flesh of the foreskin be circumcised ? Nay; it could say merely the foreskin, but it says expressly the flesh of the foreskin, meaning that even if the flesh be leprous it should also be circumcised. What need is there of a special verse for this purpose ? During circumcision no intention to cut leprous flesh exists; hence, if it be done, it is done unintentionally, and an unintentional act does not involve culpability ? Said Abayi : " The verse is used here to counteract the opinion of R. Jehu- dah, who holds, that an act committed unintentionally also involves culpability." Rabha said: " The verse must be used, even if the opinion of R. Simeon be adhered to, who holds, that an act committed unintentionally does not involve culpabil- ity. For in this case it is different ; the act committed here is like the one where a man would behead another and still claim no intention to kill him (and when circumcising the flesh of the foreskin, if there be a leprous sore, one cannot help but cut it). This, even R. Simeon admits, would involve culpability, were it not for that exonerating verse." Does Rabha alone hold thus ? Have we not learned elsewhere that Abayi and Rabha both