HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
52b
{to crush spices to mix into wine} to make konditon you did not forget, but to bring the scalpel you forgot? Let it be pushed off to the morrow.
And to us, this ruling which the early ones {Rishonim - here probably the Geonim, who rule against Rabbi Shimon by a scalpel} ruled is difficult, for we rule explicitly {Eruvin 91b} like Rabbi Shimon who said that roofs, courtyards, and enclosures are all one domain, and it is permitted to carry in all of them, and there is not even a prohibition when it comes to something voluntary {that is, there is no requirement for carrying} and certainly in a matter of a mitzvah {as here, by circumcision}! And furthermore, they acted in practice like Rabbi Shimon, as we said earlier - Rav Avin cited Rav Adda who cited Rabbi Yitzchak: one time they forget and did not bring a scalpel, etc., and we establish like a maaseh rav in all cases.
And all these proofs which the {post-Talmudic} Sages learn - that we do not bring a scalpel by way of roofs, courtyards, and enclosures - there is an answer to each and every one of them. Forthe fact that we decide the halacha like Rabbi Akiva, who says that ANY [MANNER OF] WORK WHICH COULD BE PERFORMED ON EREV SHABBAT DOES NOT SUPERSEDE SHABBAT - we only derive from this that one may not push off Shabbat, and bring it via the public domain, like Rabbi Eliezer, but to bring it via roofs, courtyards, and enclosures, this matter has nothing to do with it at all. But rather it is a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages, in which the Sages maintain that via roofs and courtyards there is a prohibition, because of shevut, and we do not push off that prohibition even in case of mitzvah, and Rabbi Shimon maintains that via roofs, courtyards, and enclosured, it is reckoned a single domain, and it is permitted to carry {even} voluntary items, and certainly those of mitzvah. And we have already ruled in accordance with Rabbi Shimon in this as well. And this that Rava said, that arel, hazaah, and izmel their words do stand when there is an issue of kareit, he is not stating his own opinion, nor ruling the halacha, but rather he is mentioning the opinion of the Sages {against Rabbi Shimon}, that they hold that bringing the scalpel via roofs, courtyards, and enclosures has in it an issue of shevut, and they prohibited it even in an instance of kareit. And since they make their made their words stand in an instance of kareit, Rava comes and mentions it {scalpel} next to the cases of areil and hazaah, which are from their words {Rabbinic} and they caused to stand {even} in case of kareit. And Rabbi Shimon argues by scalpel on the Sages and says that there is no prohibition at all, as we have discussed.
And furthermore, Rabbi Shimon also holds by this of Rava, for Rabbi Shimon only argues on the Sages by vessels which rested {when Shabbat first came in} in the courtyard, but vessels which rested in the house, Rabbi Shimon would maintain that they are prohibited, and that the Sages maintained their words {even} in case of kareit. And therefore there is also no proof from this that Rava said regarding arel, hazaah, and izmel.
And also, this that they said that Rabbi Shimon is an individual and he argues against the rabim {many}, and we have established that an individual vs. the many, the halacha is like the many, there words are so {only} where they did not rule explicity like the individual, but here, they ruled explicitly that the halacha is like Rabbi Shimon, and they also acted in practice like him.
And this case where they forgot, which occurs in Yerushalmi, one should not learn from it that it is forbidden to bring it via roofs, for it is possible to say that this that it said "it should be pushed off to the morrow" was because it was not possible to bring it via roofs and enclosures - for instance if there was an intervening public domain, or if there was no scalpel that rested {when Shabbat first entered} in a courtyard, for Rabbi Shimon spoke of vessels which rested {when Shabbat first entered} in it {the courtyard} and not of vessels which rested within the house. And it {the Yerushalmi} comes not to dismiss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, but to dismiss the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
And further, even if you say it comes to dismiss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, we only rely on our own gemara {=Bavli, and not Yerushalmi} and this {deciding like Rabbi Shimon} is the opinion of our gemara in this sugya, and they {the words of the Bavli} are clear, and there is not the slightest ambiguity in them.
{Shabbat 133a}
"R. AKIBA STATED A GENERAL PRINCIPLE..":
Rav Yehuda said {in our gemara, he cites Rav}: The halacha is like Rabbi Akiva.
The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva is only as regards the preparations for {machshirei} circumcision {such as bringing the scalpel}.
{Shabbat 132a}
But as regards the circumcision itself, that it pushes off Shabbat, from where?
Rabbi Yochanan said: The verse states {Vayikra 12:3}:
| ג וּבַיּוֹם, הַשְּׁמִינִי, יִמּוֹל, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ. | 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. |
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: : Circumcision supersedes leprosy, whether [performed] at its [proper] time {=day 8} or not at its [proper] time; it superseds Yom Tov only [when performed] at its [proper] time.
And circumcision, whether [performed] at its [proper] time or not at its [proper] time, we only circumcise by day, for they learnt {in a brayta, in Yevamot 72a}: I only have that one circumcised on the eighth day that he is circumcised by day. On the ninth, on the tenth, on the eleventh, on the tweltth, and all the other ones who are curcumcised, from where {do I know} that they are only circumcised by day? They Torah teaches {Vayikra 12:3}:
| ג וּבַיּוֹם, הַשְּׁמִינִי, יִמּוֹל, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ. | 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. |
We learn in Kiddushin, in the first perek {Kiddushin 29a} that when the father does not circumcise him, the Bet Din is obligated to circumcise him, for it is written {Bereishit 17:10}
And when the Bet Din does not circumcise him, he himself is obligated to circumcise himself, for it is written {Bereishit 17:14}:
MISHNA:
WE PERFORM ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CIRCUMCISION ON SHABBAT.
WE CIRCUMCISE, UNCOVER [THE CORONA], SUCK [THE WOUND], AND PLACE A COMPRESS AND CUMMIN UPON IT {to make the wound heal}.
IF ONE DID NOT CRUSH [THE CUMMIN] ON EREV SHABBAT, HE MUST CHEW [IT] WITH HIS TEETH AND APPLY [IT TO THE WOUND];
IF HE DID NOT BEAT UP WINE AND OIL ON EREV SHABBAT, EACH MUST BE APPLIED SEPARATELY.
WE MAY NOT MAKE A CHALUK {=a kind of shirt-shaped bandage placed over the membrum and tied at the corona, to prevent the flesh from growing back and recovering the membrum} FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT MUST WRAP A RAG ABOUT IT.
IF THIS WAS NOT PREPARED FROM EREV SHABBAT, ONE WINDS IT ABOUT HIS FINGER {as though it were a garment, so that it shall not be carried just like on weekdays} AND BRINGS IT, AND EVEN THROUGH ANOTHER COURTYARD.
{Shabbat 133b}
Gemara:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: He who circumcises, as long as he is engaged in the circumcision, he returns both for the shreds [of the corona] which invalidate the circumcision and for those which do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has withdrawn {from circumcising, thinking it finished}, he returns on account of the shreds which invalidate the circumcision, but not for the shreds which do not invalidate the circumcision.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment