Torah Community Connections

Week 9 - Shabbat - 29 Jan. 2000

SHABBAT: CHAPTER 19: MISHNA 3

One may wash the child, whether before the circumcision or after the circumcision, and sprinkle on him by hand, but not with a vessel. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah says: One may wash the child on the third day that falls on Shabbat, as it is written, "And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain" (Gen. 34:25). A doubt and a hermaphrodite one may not profane the Shabbat for him; but Rabbi Yehudah permits in the case of a hermaphrodite.

Kehati

One may wash the child - with hot water on the day of the circumcision, whether before the circumcision or after the circumcision - According to one opinion, before the circumcision one may not heat water for the child on Shabbat, and one may wash him only with water that was heated before Shabbat; however, after the circumcision, since the infant is considered to be critically ill, it is permitted even to heat water for him on Shabbat (Hameiri, Shenot Eliyahu), and sprinkle on him by hand - The Gemara explains that this clause amplifies the first part of the mishnah: How may they wash the child? They sprinkle on him by hand, i.e., they may not wash him in the usual way but with a

change, such as by sprinkling water over him by hand, but not with a vessel even by sprinkling (Bartenura)

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah says: One may wash the child on the third day - after his circumcision, that falls on Shabbat - Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah disagrees with the First Tanna regarding two laws: (1) One may wash the child in a normal way; (2) According to the First Tanna, the law of washing applies only on the day of the circumcision, while Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah holds that they may wash him even "on the third day that falls on Shabbat," with water that was heated prior to Shabbat, or with water that was heated on Shabbat, because the child is in danger, as it is written, concerning the men of Shekhem who were circumcized,

"And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain" - On the third day the circumcised infant suffers from strong pains, which is regarded as a life-threatening situation. This verse, however, is not an absolute proof, but only an allusion to the matter (as in 9:3, above). At any rate, the Gemara concludes that the halakhah follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah. The infant may be washed with water that was heated on Shabbat or with water that was heated on Friday, whether by washing his entire body or washing the area of the circumcision, because the child is in danger (Shah. 134b). One opinion interprets Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah's statement to mean "One may wash the

child even on the third day," and certainly on the first two days, because the danger is greater on them than on the third day, and "And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain" was written only to state that they were still in pain (Hameiri), or that they were weakest on that day, and were incapable of fleeing or of Fighting, while on the First two days, even though they are the most dangerous, their strength had not yet weakened (Ran). Rambam's ruling, however, implies that the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah adds only the third day after the circumcision to the statement by the First Tanna, i.e., even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah, the child may be washed only on the day of the circumcision or on the third day after the circumcision, but on the second day of the circumcision they may not wash him, because he is not in danger (HH. Milah 2:8). This also is implied by R. Yitzhak Alfasi, writing on this subject, citing the Gaonim: "The halakhah follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah that one may wash him on the third day (as was cited above from the Gemara), and certainly on the First day, that one may wash him in the usual manner, whether before the circumcision or after the circumcision, whether with water that was heated on Shabbat or with water that was heated before Shabbat" (see also Ran and Rosh, who interpret the words "whether before the circumcision" by R' Yitzhak Alfasi as meaning only with water that had been heated before

Shabbat", and the clause "whether with water that was heated on Shabbat" refers only to the washing after the circumcision). A doubt - According to one opinion, this means a child who might be a seven-month pregnancy (in which case he is considered viable), or possibly an eighth-month pregnancy (in which case he is regarded as not viable), or alternatively, a child who might be an eight-month pregnancy, or possibly a nine-month pregnancy. The halakhah is that an eighth-month child is not viable and therefore his circumcision does not override the Shabbat (Rashi, R. Yitzhak Alfasi). According to another opinion, the "doubt" refers to whether the day of his circumcision falls on that Shabbat, e.g., he was born on Shabbat eve at twilight, and it is not known whether his eighth day falls on friday or on Shabbat itself (Hameiri, Tosefot Rabbi Akiva Eiger),

and a hermaphrodite - who possesses both male and female organs, one may not profane the Shabbat for him - by circumcising him on Shabbat; but Rabbi Yehudah permits in the case of a hermaphrodite - to circumcise him on Shabbat, as it is written, "every male among you shall be circumcised" (Gen. 17:10), and Rabbi Yehudah understands that this includes the hermaphrodite. The First Tanna, however, understands the verse, "And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin [or/aro] shall be circumcised" (Lev. 12:3) to refer to a child who is completely uncircumcised iaref], his eighth day overrides Shabbat, thereby excluding the hermaphrodite, who is half-female, and whose circumcision does not override Shabbat. The halakhah follows the First Tanna. We have interpreted the first section of the mishnah in accordance with the interpretation of Rav Yehudah and Rabba bar Avuha in the Gemara. Rava, however, interprets it differently: "One may wash the child, whether before the circumcision or after the circumcision" on the first day, in the normal manner; "and sprinkle on him by hand, but not with a vessel" on the third day which falls on Shabbat, since one may not wash him in the usual way, but only by sprinkling. "Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah says, One may wash the child on the third day that falls on Shabbat" even on the third day they may wash him on Shabbat in the usual way. In the Gemara, however, even Rava himself admits that the plain meaning of the mishnah better accords with the interpretation of Rav Yehudah and Rabba bar Avuha (see Shab. 134b).

Nevertheless, some commentators (Hameiri, Tiferet Yisrael) adopt Rava's interpretation, for the Gemara quotes a baraita in accordance with his interpretation. We have cited two interpretations for the mishnah's expression for the "doubt. Some commentators, however, query the first interpretation, that the "doubt" refers to the age of the fetus, for the Gemara explains that the circumcision of a child who is possibly a seven-month embryo, or possibly an eight-month embryo, does override Shabbat. Rambarn similarly rules: If it is doubtful whether the child is a seven-month embryo or an eight-month embryo, they circumcise him on Shabbat in any event. If he is the result of a seven-month pregnancy and fully developed, it is by law that it overrides the Shabbat; and if he is the result of an eight-month pregnancy, then the person who circumcises is as one who cuts unlive meat, because the child has

the legal status of a miscarriage if he is the result of an eight-month pregnancy" (Hil. Milah 1:14). In view of this, the author of Kesef Mishnek writes that the "doubt" regarding which the mishnah teaches

that Shabbat is not overridden for him, refers to the preparatory acts (bringing the knife, etc.) for circumcision, and that this mishnah follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer who holds that even these override Shabbat regarding a full-term child; regarding, however, the newborn who possibly is the result of a seven-month pregnancy, and possibly the result of an eighth-month pregnancy, the preparatory acts for the circumcision do not override Shabbat (as explained in the Gemara, Shab. 136a), or to the infant born at twilight (as in the second interpretation cited above).

SHABBAT: CHAPTER 19: MISHNA 4

If someone had two babies, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised that of after Shabbat on Shabbat he is liable; one to circumcise on Friday, and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised that of Friday on-Shabbat Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a sin-offering, but Rabbi Yehoshua exempts.

Kahati

Circumcision overrides Shabbat only when it is performed at its proper time, as it is written, "And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised" (Lev. 12:3), which implies: even if the eighth day falls on Shabbat, its obligation for the eighth day overrides Shabbat. But a circumcision which is not performed at its proper time, i.e., not on the eighth day after birth, does not override Shabbat. This mishnah deals with the case of a person who erred and performed on Shabbat a circumcision not at its proper time, and discusses whether or not he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

If somone had two babies - if a mohelhad two babies before him, one to circumcise after Shabbat - The child's eighth day falls on Sunday, and one to circumcise on Shabbat - The time of his circumcision falls on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised that of after Shabbat - He prematurely circumcises the baby who should have been circumcised after Shabbat - on Shabbat, he is liable - to bring a sin-offering. Since he circumcised the baby before the eighth day, it follows that he erred in the performance of the mitzvah and did not fulfill it, for the time when the baby had to be circumcised had not yet come. Therefore, he is liable on account of the profanation of Shabbat; one to circumcise on Friday - This baby's eighth day falls on Friday, and one to circumcise on Shabbat - The time of his circumcision falls on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised that of Friday on Shabbat - This is a circumcision not at its proper time, which does not override Shabbat (see above),

Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a sin-offering - Even though he erred because of his distraction through the fulfillment of a mitzvah, and he did indeed perform the mitzvah, for this baby is due to be circumcised, nevertheless, since the fulfillment of this mitzvah (circumcision not at its proper time) does not override the Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer therefore holds that he is liable for it,

but Rabbi Yehoshua exempts - from bringing a sin-offering. Even though he profaned Shabbat by performing a circumcision not at its proper time, which does not override Shabbat, nonetheless, since he erred regarding a mitzvah, and he did indeed perform the mitzvah (for the obligation to circumcise the child exists from the eighth day onwards), he is exempt from bringing a sinoffering. The halakhah follows Rabbi Yehoshua.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives