Study Shabbat folio 133A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
תנאי היא, דתניא: ״בשר״ ואף על פי שיש שם בהרת — ״ימול״, דברי רבי יאשיה. רבי יונתן אומר: אינו צריך, שבת חמורה — דוחה, צרעת — לא כל שכן.
is a dispute of tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: The term flesh comes to teach that even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise; this is the statement of R' Yoshiya. R' Yonatan says: There is no need for this derivation from the word flesh in the verse. Rather, the same law can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If circumcision overrides Shabbat, which is stringent, all the more so that it overrides tzara'at.
אמר מר: ״בשר״, אף על פי שיש שם בהרת — ״ימול״, דברי רבי יאשיה. הא למה לי קרא, דבר שאין מתכוין הוא, ודבר שאין מתכוין — מותר!
We earlier learned that the Master said: When the verse states the term flesh, it comes to teach that even though there is a bright white spot there, one should circumcise; this is the statement of R' Yoshiya. R' Yonatan agrees with this halakha, albeit for a different reason. The Talmud addresses the fundamental question: Why do I need a verse to derive this? The removal of leprous skin is an unintentional act. One does not intend to cut the symptom of tzara'at; he intended to circumcise the baby. And the general rule is that an unintentional act is permitted. Consequently, there is no need for a special derivation in this case.
אמר אביי: לא נצרכא אלא לרבי יהודה, דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין — אסור. רבא אמר: אפילו תימא רבי שמעון, מודה רבי שמעון ב״פסיק רישיה ולא ימות״. ואביי לית ליה האי סברא? והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו: מודה רבי שמעון ב״פסיק רישיה ולא ימות״! בתר דשמעה מרבא סברה.
Abaye said: This derivation is only necessary according to the opinion of R' Yehuda, who said that an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say that it is according to the opinion of R' Shimon, who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as R' Shimon concedes to R' Yehuda in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, i.e., an unintentional act from which a prohibited labor ensued as an inevitable consequence. In that case, the one who performs the action cannot claim that the outcome was unintended. In the case of circumcising a leprous foreskin, the removal of tzara'at is an inevitable consequence of the circumcision. The Talmud asks: And does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t it Abaye and Rava who both say that R' Shimon concedes to R' Yehuda that in the case of: If you cut off its head will it not die? The Talmud answers: After Abaye heard this principle from Rava, he accepted it.