Daf Ditty Shabbes 132

The Ramban writes that the reason a positive commandment supersedes a negative
commandment is because in reality, a positive commandment is greater than a negative
commandment. A positive commandment is a reflection of the love Hashem has for us, because
one who fulfills the instructions of his master is beloved by his master and the master will have
compassion on him. A negative commandment, however, is a reflection of Hashem’s Attribute
of Judgment, and stems from fear. Since love is greater than fear, the Torah states that a
positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment.

Commentary to Ex 20:8

1
 ‫חה‬
ָ ‫אינָהּ דּוֹ‬
ֵ ‫יוֹם טוֹב‬. ‫מנָּהּ‬
ַ ְ ‫בּז‬
ִ ‫שׁלּ ֹא‬
ֶ ‫בּין‬
ֵ ‫מנָּהּ‬
ַ ְ ‫בּז‬
ִ ‫בּין‬
ֵ , ‫ﬠת‬
ַ ‫צַּר‬
ָ ‫ה‬
ַ ‫את‬
ֶ ‫חה‬
ָ ‫מילָה דּוֹ‬ ִ : ‫בּנַן‬ ָ ‫תּנוּ ַר‬ָ
‫בד‬
ַ ְ‫בּ ל‬
ִ ‫מנָּהּ‬ַ ְ ‫בּז‬
ִ ‫לּא‬ ָ ‫א‬
ֶ .

The Sages taught: Circumcision overrides leprosy. The foreskin is cut even if it has symptoms
of leprosy on it, despite the fact that there is a Torah prohibition to cut off symptoms of leprosy.
This is the halacha both when the circumcision takes place at its appointed time, on the eighth
day, or when it is not performed at its appointed time but after the eighth day. However,
circumcision overrides a Festival only when performed at its appointed time.

‫שֶּׁמר ְבֶּנַגע‬
ָ ‫וָּמה ֲא ִני ְמַקֵיּים ״ִה‬. ‫ָיקוֹץ‬, ‫ ְוַאף ַﬠל ִפּי ֶשֵׁיּשׁ ָשׁם ַבֶּה ֶרת‬, ‫שׂר ׇﬠ ְרָלתוֹ״‬
ַ ‫״ ִימּוֹל ְבּ‬: ‫ְמָנָהֵני ִמיֵלּי ?ְדָּתנוּ ַרָבַּנן‬
‫ַהָצּ ַרַﬠת״ — ִבְּשָׁאר ְמקוֹמוֹת חוּץ ִמִמּיָלה‬.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita
with regard to the verse:

‫ ְבַּשׂר‬,‫ ִימּוֹל‬,‫ ַהְשִּׁמי ִני‬,‫ג וַּביּוֹם‬ 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be
.‫ָﬠ ְרָלתוֹ‬ circumcised.

“And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), since
this verse is stated in general terms, it teaches that even though there is a bright white leprous
spot there, he should cut it. And how do I establish the verse:

2
 ,‫ַהָצַּרַﬠת ִלְשֹׁמר ְמֹאד‬-‫ח ִהָשֶּׁמר ְבֶּנַגע‬ 8 Take heed in the plague of leprosy, that thou observe
‫יוֹרוּ ֶאְתֶכם ַהֹכֲּה ִנים‬-‫ ְכֹּכל ֲאֶשׁר‬:‫ְוַלֲﬠשׂוֹת‬ diligently, and do according to all that the priests the
.‫ִתְּשְׁמרוּ ַלֲﬠשׂוֹת‬--‫ ַכֲּאֶשׁר ִצ ִוּיִתם‬,‫ַהְל ִו ִיּם‬ Levites shall teach you, as I commanded them, so ye
shall observe to do.

“Take care with regard to the plague of leprosy to take great care and to perform in accordance
with all that the priests, the Levites, instruct you; as I commanded them you shall take care to
perform” Deut 24:8? Does usage of the term “take care” indicate that there is a negative mitzvah
that prohibits cutting off symptoms of leprosy? We establish this prohibition as applying in other
places, other than the place of a circumcision.

‫״ָבָּשׂר״‬: ‫ַתְּלמוּד לוַֹמר‬. ‫שׂר ׇﬠ ְרָלתוֹ״ — ִבְּזַמן ֶשֵׁאין ָבּהּ ַבֶּה ֶרת‬
ַ ‫וָּמה ֲא ִני ְמַקֵיּים ״ ִימּוֹל ְבּ‬, ‫אוֹ ֵאינוֹ ֶאָלּא ֲאִפילּוּ ִמיָלה‬,
‫ ְוַאף ַﬠל ִפּי ֶשֵׁיּשׁ ָשׁם ַבֶּה ֶרת‬.

The tanna asks: Or perhaps that is not the case; rather, this prohibition applies even in the place
of circumcision, and how do I validate the verse: “The flesh of his foreskin shall be
circumcised”? It applies when there is no bright white leprous spot on the foreskin. So that we
will not interpret the verse that way, the verse states the superfluous word flesh. It would have
been sufficient to state: His foreskin shall be circumcised, but instead the verse stated: “The flesh
of his foreskin shall be circumcised,” indicating that the foreskin must be removed even though
there is a bright white spot there.

The mitzvah to perform circumcision overrides the prohibitions of Shabbat. This rule does not fit
into the usual rubric of aseh docheh lo ta'aseh – that a positive mitzvah overrides a negative one –
since Shabbat is not simply a negative commandment; it is a positive commandment, as well. For
this reason, the Gemara on today's daf brings a number of different opinions offering different
sources for this law.

The Gemara also discusses other cases where positive and negative commandments stand in
contradiction and rulings must be made based on setting priorities. For example, the mitzvah of
circumcision will be performed even if it involves cutting off a leprous sign on the child's foreskin,
but someone suffering from leprosy may not perform the Temple service even though it is a
mitzvah. The Gemara explains:

Rather, Rav Ashi said that this is the reason that leprosy does not override the Temple service:
Where do we say that a positive mitzvah overrides a negative mitzvah?

It is in cases like circumcision in a case of leprosy, or alternatively, Tzitzis and kilayim (diverse
kinds of wool and linen), as at the time the negative mitzvah is uprooted, the positive mitzvah is
fulfilled in the very same action, e.g., when the ritual fringes are woolen and will be attached to a
linen garment, a prohibited mixture is created. However, here, in the case of a person afflicted
with pure symptoms of leprosy cutting off his symptoms to enable his involvement in the Temple
service, it is different, at the time the negative mitzvah is uprooted, the positive mitzvah is not yet

3
fulfilled, as cutting off the symptoms is only a preliminary action that enables him to serve. In that
case, the positive mitzvah does not override the negative one.

The cases of ritual fringes and diverse kinds cited here are not classic examples of positive mitzvot
overriding negative mitzvot, because both cases mentioned here are derived from a particular
source.

The halacha in the case of leprosy and circumcision is derived from an a fortiori inference, and
the halacha in the case of ritual fringes and diverse kinds is based on a juxtaposition of verses.

Nevertheless, the following principle learned from these cases applies to other laws: The positive
commandment overrides the negative commandment only when the fulfillment of the positive
commandment is simultaneous with the violation of the negative commandment (Ramban; see
Me’iri).1

Support for the violation of the Sabbath for Milah in Midrash comes from the following
midrash.

Mekhilta (31:16)

‫זו היא שר 'נתן אומר פקיח עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה ור 'אלעזר‬
]‫אומר לעשות את השבת [וגו ]'דבר שהברית כרותה בו והיזו זו זו ברית (מלח[ )מילה‬
‫'ור 'אלעזר בן פרטא אומר מניין שכל המשמר שבת אחת כתקנה מעלה עליו הכת‬
‫כאלו הוא עושה את השבת ת"ל לעשות את השבת לדרתם ברית עולם ור 'אומר‬
‫מניין שכל המשמר שבת אחת כתקנה מעלין עליו כאלו הוא עושה את השבת מיום‬
‫שנברא העולם ועד שיחיו מתים ת"ל לעשות את השבת לדורותם ברית עולם‬

"And the children of Israel shall keep the Shabbat to observe the Shabbat for their generations,
an everlasting covenant" (Shemot 31:16)… R. Eliezer says ["to observe on Shabbat"] that which
seals the covenant — circumcision.

Halacha

Circumcision overrides leprosy2. If there is a bright white leprous spot on the foreskin, the child
is circumcised, even though cutting the bright spot is a violation of a negative mitzvah.

Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Mila 1:9

1
Steinzaltz
2
Milah overrides Tzara'as (if there is Tzara'as on the foreskin, one cuts it off) which overrides Avodah which overrides Shabbos,
all the more so Milah overrides Shabbos! (Tzara'as on the end of the Ever is not Tamei (Nega'im 6:7) - nevertheless, one may not
cut Tzara'as even if it is Tahor (Bo'az Nega'im 7:5 - see below 3:p:2); alternatively, if the Nega spread to there from somewhere
else, it is Tamei. Alternatively - Tzara'as is Tamei even on external limbs if there is a flat area the size of a Gris (Rambam Tzara'as
3:9) - we may learn from the law in such a case, even if [in practice] we never find foreskin like this -

4
When a circumcision takes place at the regular time (on the eighth day), it supersedes the
prohibition of work on the Sabbath. But if it is to be performed after the regular time, it neither
overrides the obligation of the Sabbath nor of the festivals. Whether performed at the regular time
or not, it supersedes the obligation of the law of leprosy. If there was a bright leprous spot on the
foreskin, the spot is cut off with the foreskin. For though the hacking of a leprous plague spot is
prohibited, the affirmative precept (of circumcision) overrides the prohibition.

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 266:1

The Gemara discusses one who performs Milah when there is a Nega of Tzara'as on the Orlah,
which will be cut off when the Orlah is cut off.

The Gemara discusses whether one is permitted to cut off the Nega in order to cut off the Orlah,
since one is normally prohibited from cutting off a Nega which is Tamei.

There are twenty-four tips of limbs in the human body that do not become unclean on account of
quick flesh: the tips of the fingers and the toes, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the
penis; and also the nipples of a woman. Rabbi Judah says: also those of a man. Rabbi Eliezer
says: also warts and warts with thin necks do not become unclean on account of quick flesh.

5
This Mishnah in Nega'im (6:6) states that the tops of small limbs that slope down to a point, like
the tips of the fingers and the top of the Orlah, are not Metamei with a leprous Nega.

Why, then, does the Gemara discuss one who cuts off a Nega from the top of the Orlah, if a
Nega in such a place is not Tamei?

The Torah prohibits only cutting off a Nega which is Tamei in order to make oneself Tahor.

YA'AVETZ, LECHEM SHAMAYIM

MELECHES SHLOMO (Nega'im 7:5) cites an answer in the name of RABEINU

SULEIMAN.

When the Mishnah discusses a Nega (Baheres) on the Orlah, it does not mean that there was a
Nega on the Orlah itself. Rather, it means that the person's entire body was afflicted with the
white Nega and the Orlah was healthy.

If a nega broke out completely upon one who was unclean, he becomes clean; If the ends of his
limbs reappeared, he becomes unclean until the bright spot is reduced to less than the size of a
split bean. [If it broke out completely upon him] when he was clean, he becomes unclean; If the
ends of his limbs reappeared, he remains unclean until his bright spot resumes its former size.

This Mishnah in Nega'im (8:1) teaches that a healthy spot is Metamei a person when the rest of
his body is white, because that spot is considered a Michyah (recession), which is a sign of
Tum'ah.

The Mishnah clearly adds that in the case of a person whose body is almost completely covered
by a Nega, even if the healthy skin is on the top of a small limb, it is considered a Michyah and is
Metamei.

MELECHES SHLOMO and TIFERES YISRAEL (Nega'im 6:6, in the name of his father) give
another answer.

Perhaps the Nega is not on the top of the Orlah, but rather the Pisyon (spread) of the Nega spread
to the top of the Orlah. If the Nega (from an adjacent part of the body) spread to the top of the
Orlah, it can be Metamei, and thus when one cuts off the Orlah he removes a Siman of Tum'ah (as
the BARTENURA rules in Nega'im 8:5.

RAMBAM (Hilchos Nega'im 10:1) writes:

6
that although a person will be punished with Malkus for cutting off a Nega only when his act serves
to make himself Tahor (that is, he cuts off a Siman Tum'ah), nevertheless the Torah prohibits one
from cutting off any Nega, even though he does not thereby become Tahor (for example, he cut
off only a small part of a large Nega).

Accordingly, the Gemara here may be referring to the prohibition, and not to the Chiyuv of Malkus.
Mid'Oraisa, there may be a prohibition against cutting off a Nega even at the tops of small limbs,
even though cutting off those forms of Nega does not change his status from Tamei to Tahor. 3

Similarly, Rashi here (DH Nega'im Tehorin) writes in the name of the Sifri that the Torah prohibits
cutting off even Nega'im that are Tahor.

The earliest sources noting that the halachot of metzora are not practiced are found in the responsa
from the Geonim.4 The Geonim say that ever since the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed
a metzora does not become impure.5

Ever since the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed those afflicted [with tzaraat] do not become impure.
Nowadays, if G-d forbid a student or sage will become a metzora we do not oust them from the

3
For example, there is a full-size Nega on the side of his limb adjacent to the Orlah, and this Nega extends to and covers the
Orlah. By cutting off the Orlah he does not make himself Tahor, but it is nevertheless forbidden.
4
Responsa Geonica – Cambridge Collection, S. Assaf, Jerusalem 1942, pp. 123 lines 10-11
5
https://www.torahmusings.com/2014/04/contemporary-tzaraat/

7
synagogue nor from the house of study, because now there is no longer [a law of] “your camp shall
be holy”.6

In the 11th century Midrash Lekach Tov a similar statement is attributed to the amora Rabbi
Yochanan:

Midrash Lekach Tov, Tazriah 35b

Rabbi Yochanan said from the day the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed there is no purification from
a dead body and no polluting from a metzora but there is [still] impurity because we do not have
the ashes from the red heifer to sprinkle. But there is no impurity from a metzora at all because
we do not have a [capable] judge.

The statement is not found anywhere in the Talmud or early midrashim. R. Kasher points out that
it contradicts what Rabbi Yochanan says in Berachot 5b where he implies that tzaraat existed in
his times.7

Prof. Levi Ginsburg claims that the author of Midrash Lekach Tov drew on an unreliable source.8

The question why we don’t observe the laws of metzora has troubled many Torah scholars. In his
introduction to his Tiferet Yisrael commentary on Mishnah Nega’im, R. Yisrael Lipschitz recalls
that in his youth he asked the great R. Akiva Eiger this question.

He responded that he himself was wondering the same thing for a long time and does not have a
good answer.9

R. Lipschitz himself answers along the lines of Rambam. Whereas Rambam stressed the need for
a kohen meyuchas in determining a metzora to be impure, R. Lipschitz claimed it was essential for
the purification process. Because the purification process included shaving the head, it could only
be done if the metzora was really impure and had now been cured. But since a metzora can only
become impure by the pronouncement of a real kohen, if it turned out the kohen was not a
valid kohen, the shaving of the head would be a Torah violation.10

6
Teshuvot haGeonim Shaarei Teshuva 176 pp. 18
7
Torah Shleima vol. 9 Shemot, Miluim 18, pp. 257.
8
See his comments in Ginzei Schechter vol. 1 pp. 71
9
Introduction to Nega’im called Mareh Kohen 39. In Shut Beit David vol. 2 64, the author is surprised that they had not seen those
who already addressed the question. However, as noted below, R. Eiger did not believe the requirement of a kohen meyuchas to be
essential.
10
This approach is adopted by many achronim, see: Otzar Nechmad (commentary on Kuzari) 3:49; Sheilat Yaavetz vol. 1
136; Toldot Adam ch. 6 23 p. 96; Ha’amek She’eila, Metzora 88:1; Shut Beit Yitzchak YD vol. 2 113; Daat Torah 5:8; Shut
Maharsham vol. 3 20; Minchat Chinuch 169:13; Yad Chanoch, ibid.;Torah Temima, Vayikra 14:2 note 3. Both Toldot

8
The Zohar hakadosh, in the Raiya Mehemna (Tazria 44a), teaches us that man’s “orlah” stems
from the contamination of the “nachash hakadmoni,” which was introduced into man’s being after
he sinned.

Therefore, it is necessary to place the “orlah” in a vessel with dust in order to return it to the
nachash, who feeds off of dust.

This was part of the curse HKB”H imposed upon the nachash

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent: 'Because thou
‫ ִכּי‬,‫ַהָנָּחשׁ‬-‫ִהים ֶאל‬Œ‫יד ַויּ ֹאֶמר ְיהָוה ֱא‬ hast done this, cursed art thou from among all cattle, and

Adam and Otzar Nechmad add that since the purification ritual cannot be done, it is not appropriate for the kohen to declare the
afflicted impure. As for women who are not forbidden from shaving their head, they answer that since there is no practical issur
that will apply to them, they too are not declared impure. However, this is difficult, because though it is true that a metzoraat is
exempt from pria ufrima and is not forbidden from engaging in marital relations, she is still forbidden in she’eilat shalom, washing
clothes, and haircutting. (Rambam, Hilchot Tumat Tzaraat 10:8) Also, many argue that it is forbidden to for a metzora to go into
Yeushalayim even after the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash (Sheilat Yaavetz, ibid.).

9
 ,‫ַהְבֵּהָמה‬-‫ ָארוּר ַאָתּה ִמָכּל‬,‫ָﬠִשׂיָת זּ ֹאת‬ from among all beasts of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou
‫ ְוָﬠָפר‬,•‫ְגֹּח ְנ” ֵתֵל‬-‫וִּמֹכּל ַחַיּת ַהָשֶּׂדה; ַﬠל‬ go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
.”‫ ְיֵמי ַחֶיּי‬-‫תּ ֹאַכל ָכּל‬

GEN 3:14

”‫”—חייך ימי כל תאכל ועפר‬and dust shall you eat all the days of your life. Similarly, it is written

‫ ְוַא ְרֵיה ַכָּבָּקר‬,‫כה ְזֵאב ְוָטֶלה ִי ְרעוּ ְכֶאָחד‬ 25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion
‫ָיֵרעוּ‬-‫ ָﬠָפר ַלְחמוֹ; ל ֹא‬,‫ ְוָנָחשׁ‬,‫ֶתֶּבן‬-‫י ֹאַכל‬ shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent's
‫ ָאַמר‬,‫ַהר ָקְדִשׁי‬-‫ַיְשִׁחיתוּ ְבָּכל‬-‫ְול ֹא‬ food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy
{‫ }ס‬.‫ְיהָוה‬ mountain, saith the LORD. {S}

ISA 65:25

‫—עפר ונחש” ”לחמו‬a snake’s food will be dust.

This explains why Adam HaRishon was created circumcised, without any foreskin. Since, prior to
the sin, the pollution of the the nachash causing the “orlah” was not part of his being.

After he sinned, however, and the nachash introduced its contamination in his being, it caused him
to have an “orlah.”

This is the meaning of the Gemara’s statement: ”‫”—היה בערלתו מושך‬as a result of his sin, Adam
caused the appearance of the “orlah,” emanating from the contamination of the nachash. It was
precisely for this reason that of all the “taryag mitzvos,” HKB”H specifically chose to give
Avraham the mitzvah of “milah.” For, the mitzvah of “milah” represents a tikkun for Adam
HaRishon.

By eating from the Eitz HaDa’as, he caused the intermingling of good and evil. Therefore, HKB”H
imposed this mitzvah on Avraham, involving the removal of the “orlah,” in order to separate the
evil of the “orlah”--arising from the contamination of the nachash--from the good of the “bris
kodesh.” 11

The Zohar focused on the individual whereas the Ramchal read the same the secrets of Torah (sod)
in terms of a theological/mystical view of the landscape of history.

RAMCHAL in his Adir Bamarom (9-10) describes the notion of the orlah in messianic terms.

11
Shvilei Pinchas Rabbi Pinches Friedman Parshas Lech Lecha 5776 Translation by Dr. Baruch Fox:
http://torahdoc.free.fr/torahdoc/[1]%20Parasha/Rav%20Friedman/5776/5776-06-Lech%20Lecha[EN].pdf

10
from Gen 9:6

,‫ ֶבָּﬠָנן; וּ ְרִאיִתיָה‬,‫טז ְוָה ְיָתה ַהֶקֶּשׁת‬ 16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon
-‫ וֵּבין ָכּל‬,‫ִהים‬Œ‫ ֵבּין ֱא‬,‫ִלְזֹכּר ְבּ ִרית עוָֹלם‬ it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between
.‫ָהָאֶרץ‬-‫ָבָּשׂר ֲאֶשׁר ַﬠל‬-‫ֶנֶפשׁ ַחָיּה ְבָּכל‬ God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the
earth.'

In his work on the RAMCHAL. Elliot Wolfson12 describes the kabbala of Rabbi Luzatto in terms
of a theory of history from creation to redemption. The sin of Adam through the agency of the
serpent is connected to the orlah and the act of Milah represents a tikkun or rectification of the
split within the divine. History represents the repair of that split ending in the messianic era.

12
"Tiqqun ha-Shechinah": Redemption and the Overcoming of Gender Dimorphism in the Messianic Kabbalah of Moses
Chayyim Luzzatto Author(s): Elliot R. Wolfson, U of C press: History of Religions, May, 1997, Vol. 36, No. 4 (May, 1997), pp.
289-332

11
In many of his works, Luzzatto repeats the identification of Moses and the Messiah, an
identification that underscores his own messianic pretensions as well as his belief that he was the
reincarnation of Moses in his generation.13 On other occasions, Luzzatto speaks of the triad of
Moses and the two messianic figures, Messiah son of David and Messiah son of Joseph (according
to that passage, Moses effects the unity of the two messianic figures by uniting the left hand, which
corresponds to the Messiah son of Joseph, and the right hand, which corresponds to the Messiah
son of David. Luzzatto's belief that he was the reincarnation of Moses betrays, no doubt, the idea
expressed in earlier sources regarding the identification of Luria as the reincarnation of Moses,
the first deliverer of Israel and hence the prototype of the messianic figure.

On the description of the messianic future in terms of the dis-closure of the phallus and the
removal of the demonic foreskin,14 "According to this secret it is written, 'and for all the great
might and awesome power that Moses displayed before all Israel' (Deut. 34:12), for through him
was the rectification of the phallus (tiqqun ha-berit) and the removal of the foreskin (ha'avarat
ha-'orlah), and through him also was the disclosure of the supernal lights before all Israel,

'The glory of the Lord shall appear, and all flesh, as one, shall behold' (Isa. 40:5), the 'flesh'
precisely, for the heart of stone shall be removed and in its place shall be given the heart of flesh
(cf. Ezek. 11:19, 36:26), which will be able to see and to draw pleasure from the splendor of the
lights that derive from the rectified Yesod.

Concerning this secret, it is written, 'Then your Master will no longer be concealed, but your
eyes will see your Master' (Isa. 30:20), 'From the end of the earth we hear singing: Glory to the
righteous!' (ibid. 24:16), for by means of the songs of the 'singing of the tyrants' (ibid. 25:5), the
esoteric significance of which refers to the cutting of the foreskin, the glory and the beauty of the
'righteous, foundation of the world' (Prov. 10:25) is immediately revealed, and it will never be
hidden or concealed, for 'The Lord has sworn by His right hand etc.' (Isa. 62:8)."

I wanted to suggest then a connection between the unique Mitzvah of Milah as being able to
docheh the Shabbat laws, because at the esoteric level the removal of the orlah is itself the
greatest mythic ritual move to hasten the tikkun of the supernal split, and hasten the
messianic era the way Shabbat too is a taste of that world (“me’ein olam habaa”).

13
Compare Moses Chayyim Luzzatto, Ma'amar ha-Ge'ullah (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 24, 96-97.
14
cf. Valle, Shiv'im Panim 50; in Moses David Valle, Shiv'im Panim, in Megillat Setarim, Warsaw, 1889.

12
In our Daf The rule is Aseh docheh lo ta’aseh – “a positive law overrides a negative law”.
Hence though we might think that a circumcision would not take place on Shabbat, however
the opposite is the case; the positive law of b’rit Milah overrides the negative law of not
working on Shabbat.

The Chafetz Chayyim told a story connected with the Torah reading (parshas Eikev) which bears
on this rule.

Citing the verse,

;‫ ֵאת ָעְרַלת ְלַבְבֶכם‬,‫טז וַּמְלֶתּם‬ 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart,
.‫ עוֹד‬,‫א ַתְקשׁוּ‬7--‫ו ְָעְרְפֶּכם‬ and be no more stiff-necked.
Deut 10:16
“You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart” (Deut. 10:16), he said that a rabbinic sage
opened the door of the Bet Midrash one Shabbat morning to find the congregation sitting and
learning Torah before the service.

He said, “One would expect that on Shabbat morning everyone would think first of praying and
then going home to eat”, but the congregation have restrained themselves from their Shabbat
observance in order not to lose a moment from their Torah study.

“Truly, I see milah (the mark of piety and learning) overriding Shabbat!”15

The Rebbe and the Rav

The Admo”r Rebbe Gershon Henoch Chanoch of Radzhin, zt”l, was speaking in halacha
with Reb Chaim Brisker, zt”l.

The Rebbe mentioned that he found a Gemara which could not be understood according to its
simple meaning without reverting to interpreting it from a chassidish perspective.

Reb Chaim listened with interest as the Rebbe presented him with our Gemara and the lesson of
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who determined that we can save a life on Shabbos based upon the
halacha that the mitzvah of milah is permitted on Shabbos.

The Rebbe asked, “The lesson of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would have been easier to understand
if the milah was being done to a limb that was in some sort of danger. Then, if we can save a single
limb, the logic would teach that we could certainly save an entire life, which is comprised of 248
limbs and 365 sinews. However, milah does not take place to save an endangered condition.

15
Punning on the word Milah as both “the word” (of Torah) and circumcision

13
What, therefore, is the basis for this ‫“ ?וחומר קל‬Rather, it must be that there is a spiritual danger
if the milah is not done on time. The lesson is now clear. If we can save one limb from its ‫יותרוח‬
crisis, how much more so can we act to save an entire body that is in physical danger! We see that
the Torah equates spiritual and physical well-being.”

Reb Chaim agreed with the Rebbe’s “‫“ פשט‬in the Gemara, and he responded with a hearty,
“‫יישר‬.16

16
Daf Digest

14