Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 44

came to pass on the third day, when they were sore." When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Elazar, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Elazar ben Azariah. In the West the question was discussed whether R. Elazar ben Azariah meant that the whole body of the child might be bathed, or whether the part circumcised only might be bathed. Said one of the rabbis, whose name was R. Jacob: " It seems to me that the whole body is meant, because if the wound only was meant, wherein does the wound caused by circumcision differ from any other wound ? Any wound may be bathed on the Sabbath in water and oil, according to Rabh's opinion." This was opposed by R. Joseph : " Is it immaterial whether the water was warmed on the Sabbath or before the Sabbath?" This was again opposed by R. Dimi : " Whence dost thou know that the Mishna refers to water that was warrhed on Sabbath, perhaps they (the sages and R. Elazar) differ even as to water warmed before the Sabbath set in ? " Said Abayi : " I was pre- pared to answer this question myself, but R. Joseph preceded me and said, that of a necessity the water must have been warmed on Sabbath, because the precariousness of the child demanded it," We were also taught, that when Rabhin came from Pales- tine, he said in the name of R. Abuha quoting R. Elazar, and according to another version, in the name of R. Abuha quoting R. Johanan, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Elazar ben Azariah, whether it be with water that was warmed on the Sabbath or before the Sabbath, or whether the whole body or only the circumcised part is concerned, because it would be dangerous not to bathe the child on that day. It was said above in the name of Rabh, that every wound may be bathed on the Sabbath with water or oil ; but Samuel said that water may be poured to one side of the wound and it may TRACT SABBATH. 301 run down into the wound. An objection was made : " We have learned, that oil or water must not be put on a piece of cotton to place on a wound ?" This is prohibited on account of the necessity to wring the piece of cotton. We have been taught by a Boraitha in accordance with Samuel's opinion; viz.: "Water must not be placed directly on the wound, but near it, that it may run down into the wound." The rabbis taught: " Dry cotton and dry sponge, but not dry papyrus or dry cloth, maybe placed on a wound." This presents a contradiction. Is not dry cotton the same as dry cloth ? This is no diflficulty. By cloth is meant new cloth, which must not be used, whereas old cloth may be. Said Abayi : " From this we see, that pieces of cloth heal a wound." " On account of a doubtful child or an hermaphrodite,'' etc. The rabbis taught: It is written [Leviticus xii. 3], " his fore- skin'' \ so, on account of a foreskin which must be circumcised, the Sabbath may be violated, but on account of one which is doubtful the Sabbath must not be desecrated. Such also is the case with the circumcision of the foreskin of a true male, but not with that of an hermaphrodite. R. Jehudah, however, says, that the Sabbath may be violated on account of an hermaphro- dite, and if the latter is not circumcised he becomes amenable to Karath. The Sabbath may also be violated on account of a child who was born at a certain time, but not on account of one who was born at twilight (and it is not known whether it was born on Sabbath or on the following day). It is not allowed to violate the Sabbath on account of a child who was born without a foreskin, because the school of Shamai (only) contends, that even if a child is born without a foreskin, some blood must be drawn in commemoration of the covenant. The school of Hillel, however, says, " That is not necessary." Said R. Sim- eon ben Elazar: "The school of Hillel and the school of Shamai did not differ as to a child born without a foreskin ; both agree that blood must be drawn from it, because the foreskin is not wholly missing, but is merely ingrown. They differ only as regards a proselyte who was born without a foreskin. When seeking conversion, the school of Shamai contends that blood of the covenant must be drawn from his gland, whereas the school of Hillel does not require this to be done. The Master said: " On account of a doubtful child, the Sab- bath must not be desecrated." What does he mean by " doubt- ful" ? He means to say, what we learned from the rabbis; VOL. II.-— 8 302 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. viz.: A child born in the seventh month may have the Sabbath violated for it, but if born in the eighth it must not. If it is doubtful whether it was born in the seventh or in the eighth month, the Sabbath must not be violated on its account. Not only this, but a child born in the eighth month must not even be carried on the Sabbath, because it is like a stone (and cannot live). It is allowed, however, for the mother to stoop down and suckle the child, because it is dangerous for the mother to carry too much milk. We were taught that Rabh said (referring to a child born without a foreskin) : The Halakha prevails according to the un- known Tana, while Samuel said, the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon ben Elazar. R. Ada bar Ahabha had a child that was born without a foreskin ; so he carried him to thirteen cir- cumcisers, until the child was maimed and made impotent. Said he: "I deserve this fate, because I did not follow the dictum of Rabh." Said R. Na'hman to him: " Thou hast not only dis- obeyed Rabh, but also Samuel, for Samuel said, that a child born without a foreskin should be bled only if it was born on a week-day, but not on a Sabbath ; and thy child was born on a Sabbath." R. Ada bar Ahabha, however, held, that he had only disobeyed Rabh, because, he was certain that the foreskin of a child is never wholly missing, but is merely ingrown and should be lanced even on Sabbath, as we were taught : Rabba said, that there is fear lest it be an ingrown foreskin ; but R. Joseph said, that we were certain that it is so. Said R. Joseph: " Whence do I know this ? From the following Borai- tha: R. Elazar Hakappar said, that the school of Shamai and Hillel do not differ as to a child that is born without a foreskin. Both agree that the blood of the covenant must be drawn from the gland. The school of Shamai, however, contends that this may be done on the Sabbath, while the other holds that the Sabbath must not be desecrated on that account. If, then, R. Eliezer Hakappar holds, that they differ only as to the desecra- tion of the Sabbath, the first Tana must hold, that both schools agree that the Sabbath may be desecrated on that account, and in consequence must also hold, that the foreskin is not wholly missing but is merely ingrown (hence I am certain that it is so)."