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 Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi 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 leprosy.

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 Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan agrees with this halakha, albeit for a different reason. The Gemara 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 leprosy; 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.

Abaye said: This derivation is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi 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 leprosy is an inevitable consequence of the circumcision. The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t it Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: If you cut off its head will it not die? The Gemara answers: After Abaye heard this principle from Rava, he accepted it.

Some teach that which Abaye and Rava said as referring to this baraita. The verse states: ''Take heed with regard to the plague of leprosy that you observe diligently and do in accordance with all that the priests, the Levites, instruct you; as I commanded them you shall take care to do'' (Deuteronomy 24:8). The Sages derived from here that to do something in order to remove leprosy directly, you may not do; but you may do something that will indirectly remove one’s symptom, such as tying a thick rope on his foot, and placing a rod on his shoulder. This is permitted even though there is a bright white spot present, and if the bright white spot is thereby removed, it is removed.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to address this? It is an unintentional act, and an unintentional act is permitted. Abaye said: This derivation is only necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an unintentional act is prohibited. Rava said: Even if you say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that an unintentional act is permitted, as Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of: If you cut off its head will it not die? The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept this reasoning? Wasn’t it Abaye and Rava who both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes to Rabbi Yehuda that in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die? The Gemara answers: After Abaye heard this principle from Rava, he accepted it.

The Gemara clarifies: According to Abaye’s initial understanding of the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, i.e., even the inevitable consequence of an unintended act is permitted, what does he do with this term flesh, which appears in the verse with regard to circumcision? Rav Amram said: This term teaches that even in a case where the person who is circumcising himself says explicitly that his intention is also to cut off the bright white spot, the circumcision nonetheless overrides the prohibition to remove symptoms of leprosy.

The Gemara asks: This works out well in the case of an adult who intends to perform the prohibited act. With regard to the circumcision of a minor, who has no intention at all, what is there to say, i.e., how does this teaching apply? Rav Mesharshiya said: The teaching applies in a case where the father of the circumcised child says that his intention is to cut off his son’s bright white leprous spot.

The Gemara asks: In that case, if there is another person present who can circumcise the child, let the other person perform the circumcision. Presumably the other person will not intend to excise the bright white spot but rather will intend to fulfill the mitzva of circumcision, and no transgression will be committed, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Any place that you find positive and negative mitzvot that clash with one another, if you can find some way to fulfill both, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva will come and override the negative mitzva. Here it is possible to fulfill both the positive and negative mitzvot by having another person perform the circumcision. The Gemara answers: This is a case where there is no other person to perform circumcision; only the boy’s father can circumcise him. Therefore, a particular verse is needed to teach us that the mitzva of circumcision overrides the prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy.

We learned earlier that the Master said that circumcision only overrides a Festival when the circumcision takes place at its proper time, on the eighth day after birth. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

Ḥizkiya said, and likewise one of the Sages of the school of Ḥizkiya taught: The verse states with regard to the Paschal lamb: ''And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire'' (Exodus 12:10). This verse contains a superfluous phrase, as the Torah did not need to state until morning the second time; it would have been sufficient to state: But that which remains of it you shall burn with fire. Rather, why does the Torah state until morning? The verse comes to provide him with the second morning for burning. Leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following day, the first of the intermediate days of the Festival. Even though the labor of kindling a fire is not entirely prohibited on a Festival, as one may cook and bake, it is derived from here that kindling a fire is permitted only for the purpose of preparing food for the immediate needs of the day and not for purposes that can be postponed until the intermediate days. Similarly, since circumcision involves a prohibited labor, it is permitted on the eighth day only when there is no option of postponing it. Otherwise, doing so is prohibited.

Abaye said there is a different source for the fact that only circumcision on the eighth day overrides the Festival, as the verse stated: ''The burnt-offering of each Shabbat on its Shabbat in addition to the continual burnt-offering and its libation'' (Numbers 28:10). This verse teaches that one may not sacrifice the burnt-offering of a weekday on Shabbat, and one may not sacrifice the burnt-offering of a weekday on a Festival. Although slaughtering is permitted on a Festival for sustenance, it is nevertheless prohibited to slaughter animals for sacrifices other than those specifically mandated on the Festival. Temple service only overrides prohibited labor in the case of Temple service that is an essential obligation of that day. Similarly, circumcision only overrides the prohibition of labor when it is an essential obligation of that day, which is the case only on the eighth day; it is not the case after the eighth day.

Rava said there is a different proof, as the verse states with regard to Festivals: ''And in the first day there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat; that alone may be done for you'' (Exodus 12:16). The superfluous term ''that'' in the verse teaches the following: That which is necessary for food preparation itself is permitted and not actions that facilitate food preparation or which prepare utensils necessary for eating. Similarly, ''that alone may be done'' teaches: Only food preparation may be performed and not circumcision that is not at its appointed time, which could have been derived through an a fortiori inference. Therefore, the verse emphasizes that ''that alone'' may be performed, to teach that prohibited labors are permitted for sustenance on a Festival, and are not permitted for other mitzvot.

Rav Ashi said: The mitzvot of a Festival include not only a negative mitzva but also a positive one. There is a prohibition of labor as well as Shabbaton, an obligation to engage in solemn rest, which is a positive mitzva, and therefore the observance of a Festival constitutes both a positive mitzva and a negative mitzva. And there is a principle that a positive mitzva does not override both a negative mitzva and a positive mitzva.

We learned in the mishna: A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat; however, any prohibited labor that cannot be performed on Shabbat eve overrides Shabbat. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in this matter.

And we also learned in a mishna pertaining to the Paschal lamb, in a similar vein: A principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat. By contrast, the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb, which cannot be performed on Shabbat eve, as it has a fixed time from the Torah, overrides Shabbat. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

The Gemara comments: And both statements that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva were necessary. As had Rav taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only with regard to circumcision, the conclusion would have been: It is specifically there that facilitators that can be performed the day before do not override Shabbat, as there is no punishment of karet if the circumcision is delayed, as liability for karet only applies when the child becomes obligated in mitzvot and chooses not to circumcise himself. However, with regard to the Paschal lamb, where there is karet for one who fails to offer the sacrifice at its proper time, one would say that those facilitators should override Shabbat. Therefore, it was necessary for Rav to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to the Paschal lamb.

And if Rav had taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva only with regard to the Paschal lamb, the conclusion would have been that the reason that facilitators that can be performed on the eve of the Festival do not override the Festival is because thirteen covenants were not established upon the Paschal lamb, and it is therefore not so significant. However, with regard to circumcision, upon which thirteen covenants were established, the conclusion would have been that even actions that facilitate the mitzva that could have been performed on Shabbat eve should override Shabbat. It was therefore necessary to teach that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva in both cases.

MISHNA: When the eighth day of a baby’s life occurs on Shabbat, he must be circumcised on that day. Therefore, one performs all the necessities of the circumcision, even on Shabbat: One circumcises the foreskin, and uncovers the skin by removing the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, and sucks the blood from the wound, and places on it both a bandage [ispelanit] and cumin as a salve.

If one did not grind the cumin from Shabbat eve, he chews it with his teeth and places it on the place of circumcision as a salve. If he did not mix wine and oil on Shabbat eve, a mixture designed to heal and strengthen the child, this, the wine, is placed on the wound by itself and that, the oil, is placed by itself.

And on Shabbat one may not make a pouch to place over the circumcision as a bandage ab initio, but he may wrap a rag over it as a dressing. If he did not prepare the bandage on Shabbat eve by bringing it to the place where the circumcision was performed, he wraps the bandage on his finger and brings it on Shabbat, even from a different courtyard. While the Sages permitted it to be brought, they required that it be performed in an unusual fashion, by wearing it in the manner of a garment.