HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
55a
{Shabbat 136a continues}
Do the Sages disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel or not?
{The question is whether they permit a young animal to be eaten before it is eight days old.}
And if you say that they are on him, is the halacha like him or not?
Come and hear: For Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: The halacha is like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
From the fact that it says {the} halacha {is like X or Y} implies that there is one who argues, and that the halacha is like him.
And this that we said that eight days {and on} for an animal is not considered a nefel {miscarriage}, there words were said about a sacrifice, but for eating, if he waits seven days, it is permissible to slaughter it on the night of the eighth and eat it, for Rav Papa and Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua were visiting the house of Rav Iddi bar Avin, and they prepared a third-born calf for them on its seventh day [from birth], whereupon they said to him 'Had you waited with it until evening (of the eighth), the time which it is fit for slaughter, we would have eaten thereof: now we will not eat thereof'!
The son of Rav Dimi bar Yosef had an infant born to him, [and] it died within thirty days. [Thereupon] he sat and mourned for it. His father said to him "Do you wish to eat dainties {sent by friends to mourners}?! {after all, it has the status of a nefel before 30 days.} He said to him {his father}: I know for certain that its months [of pregnancy] were complete.
Rav Ashi visited the home of Rav Kahana. A mishap befell him within the thirty days. {A child died within the first 30 days after birth.} He saw him sitting and mourning for it.
He {Rav Ashi} said to him: Does master not agree with Rav Yehuda's citation of Shmuel, that the halacha is as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?
He {Rav Kahana} said to him: I know for certain that its months were complete.
It was stated {by Amoraim}:
If it died within thirty days, and she [the mother] arose and was betrothed {at a later date, thinking that the child had freed her from the obligation of yibbum}:
Ravina cited Rava:
{Shabbat 136b}
If she is an Israelite's wife, she must perform chalizah {for a regular Israelite may marry one upon whom chalitza was performed; but if she is a Kohen's wife, she does not perform chalizah
{since a Kohen may not marry one upon whom chalitza was performed - rather, we may assume that her child was viable, relying on the majority of births, and therefore she has no yibbum/chalitza obligation}.
And so is the halacha.
"R. JUDAH PERMITS BY A HERMAPHRODITE":
Rav Shizvi cited Rav Chisda: Not in respect of everything did Rabbi Yehuda rule [that] an hermaphrodite is a male; for if you do say thus, in the case of vows of valuation let him be subject to valuation.
And how do we know that he is not subject to 'valuation'?
Because it was taught: {Vayikra 27:3}:
There is one who says that from the fact that Rav Chisda explains the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, we may deduce that the halacha is like him {Rabbi Yehuda}. And the Gaon states that the halacha is not like him.
{Shabbat 137a}
MISHNA:
IF A MAN HAS TWO INFANTS, ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION AFTER SHABBAT AND THE OTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON SHABBAT, AND HE ERRS AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO AFTER SHABBAT ON SHABBAT, HE IS CULPABLE.
{For unwittingly desecrating Shabbat. For since circumcision is obligatory from the eighth day only, this is not circumcision, but the mere inflicting of a wound, which entails culpability.}
[IF HE HAS] ONE FOR CIRCUMCISION ON EREV SHABBAT {=Friday} AND ANOTHER FOR CIRCUMCISION ON SHABBAT, AND HE ERRS AND CIRCUMCISES THE ONE BELONGING TO EREV SHABBAT ON SHABBAT,
R. ELIEZER HOLDS [HIM] LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING
{For though he has actually fulfilled a precept, nevertheless circumcision after the proper time does not supersede Shabbat};
BUT R. JOSHUA EXEMPTS [HIM]
{He erred through the fulfilment of a precept, viz., because he was occupied with the circumcision of the second, which actually was to be done that day; he also did fulfil a precept by circumcising the first, and R. Joshua holds that in such a case one is not culpable.}
AN INFANT IS TO BE CIRCUMCISED ON THE EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, ELEVENTH, AND TWELFTH [DAYS], NEITHER EARLIER NOR LATER.
HOW SO?
IN THE NORMAL COURSE, IT IS ON THE EIGHTH;
IF HE IS BORN AT TWILIGHT, ON THE NINTH;
{As it may have been night already, and circumcision must not take place before the eighth.}
AT TWILIGHT ON EREV SHABBAT, ON THE TENTH;
IF A YOM TOV FOLLOWS SHABBAT {in Eretz Yisrael, where Yom Tov is one rather than two days} ON THE ELEVENTH;
IF THE TWO DAYS OF ROSH HASHANA {FOLLOW SHABBAT}, ON THE TWELFTH.
AN INFANT WHO IS ILL IS NOT CIRCUMCISED UNTIL HE RECOVERS
Gemara:
We learn in perek Yoztei Dofen {Nidda 42b}:
A certain person once came before Raba and asked him, 'Is it permissible to perform a circumcision on Shabbat?'
He {Rava} said to him: It is fine to do so.
After that person went out Rava considered: Is it likely that this man did not know that it was permissible to perform a circumcision on Shabbat? He brought him back, and said to him, 'Pray tell me all the circumstance of the case.'
He said to him {Rava}: I heard the child cry on twilight {Friday night} but it was not born until it became dark {and was certainly Shabbat}.
He {Rava} said to him: This is a case of one who put his head out of the ante-chamber {prozdor}, for had he not put out {his head} he would not have cried, for so long as he is in his mother's womb, his mouth is closed and his umbilical cord is open. And so he is reckoned as born during twilight {on Friday night}, and this is then circumcision not in its proper time {since 8 days including the Friday he was born occurs on the next Friday, not Shabbat}, and on account of a circumcision that does not take place at the proper time Shabbat may not be desecrated.
{Shabbat 137a resumes}
"AN INFANT WHO IS ILL IS NOT CIRCUMCISED UNTIL HE RECOVERS":
Shmuel said: When his temperature subsides [to normal], we allow him
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment