Shabbat 135A

ולא ספק דוחה את השבת. ״ערלתו״⁠ — ודאי דוחה את השבת, ולא אנדרוגינוס דוחה את השבת.

and the circumcision of a halakhically uncertain foreskin does not override Shabbat. And by means of the same inference from the term his foreskin, derive that circumcision of his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat, and circumcising the foreskin of a hermaphrodite baby, with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not circumcision is required, does not override Shabbat.

רבי יהודה אומר: אנדרוגינוס דוחה את השבת, וענוש כרת. ״ערלתו״⁠ — ודאי דוחה את השבת, ולא נולד בין השמשות דוחה את השבת. ״ערלתו״⁠ — ודאי דוחה את השבת, ולא נולד כשהוא מהול דוחה את השבת. שבית שמאי אומרים: צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית, ובית הלל אומרים: אינו צריך.

R' Yehuda says: The circumcision of a hermaphrodite overrides Shabbat, and if he is not circumcised, when he reaches majority he is punishable by karet. R' Yehuda interprets the verse in the following manner: His definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one born at twilight does not override Shabbat. And likewise, his definite foreskin overrides Shabbat; however, the circumcision of one who was born circumcised, i.e., without a foreskin, does not override Shabbat. With regard to a child in that condition, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: It is necessary to drip covenantal blood from him, in lieu of circumcision of the foreskin, and Beit Hillel say: It is not necessary, as he is already circumcised.

אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר: לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על נולד כשהוא מהול שצריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית, מפני שערלה כבושה היא. על מה נחלקו ⁠— על גר שנתגייר כשהוא מהול, שבית שמאי אומרים: צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית, ובית הלל אומרים: אין צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית.

R' Shimon ben Elazar said: That was not the subject of their dispute, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree over the fact that from one who was born circumcised, it is necessary to drip covenantal blood, because they agree that it is a case of a concealed foreskin. The child is not actually circumcised; it is just that his foreskin is not visible. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to a convert who for some reason was circumcised when he was a non-Jew and converted when he was already circumcised, as Beit Shammai say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is necessary, and Beit Hillel say: Dripping covenantal blood from him is not necessary, and he needs only a ritual immersion to complete his conversion.