משנה: מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי תִינוֹקוֹת אֶחָד לָמוּל עֶרֶב שַבָּת וְאֶחָד לָמוּל בַּשַּׁבָּת שָׁכַח וּמָל אֶת שֶׁל עֶרֶב שַבָּת בַּשַּׁבָּת חַייָב. אֶחָד לָמוּל אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶחָד לָמוּל בַּשַּׁבָּת שָׁכַח וּמָל אֶת שֶׁל אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת בַּשַּׁבָּת רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַייֵב חַטָּאת וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר׃ MISHNAH: If one had two children to circumcise, one on Friday and one on the Sabbath. If he forgot and circumcised the one for Friday on the Sabbath he is liable18It is presumed that the child to be circumcised on the Sabbath was erroneously circumcised on Friday. Then there is no child at hand which must be circumcised on the Sabbath; what he does is an absolute Sabbath violation.. One to circumcise on Sunday and one on the Sabbath; if he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable19Since there is a baby at hand who has to be circumcised on the Sabbath, for R. Joshua he is under the obligation to violate the Sabbath. It he takes the wrong baby it is a sin, but not a deadly sin. For R. Eliezer it is a Sabbath desecration unless he circumcise the correct baby.
The Mishnah in the Babli switches the two cases. Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah follows the Mishnah as given here..
הלכה: מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ ב׳ תִינוֹקוֹת כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּאָמַר. דָּבָר שֶׁעֲשִׂייָתוֹ מִצְוָה פָטוּר. וְשֶׁאֵין בְּעֲשִׂייָתוֹ מִצְוָה חַייָב בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶֹת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּעֲשִׂייָתוֹ מִצְוָה חַייָב. וְשֶׁאֵין בְּעֲשִׂייָתוֹ מִצְוָה פָטוּר בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶֹת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא שֶׂה תָמִים וּבֶן שָׁנָה וּשְׁלָמִים וְרָאוּי לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח. אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָהּ תְּלַת. שְׁמַע מִינָהּ. דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִיצְבָּה. וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִתְחַלֵּף. וְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּעֲשִׂייָתוֹ מִצְוָה. מָה אִית לָךְ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָּה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סְבַר מֵימַר. שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְנָה הַתּוֹרָה קִיצְבָּה כַּמָּה פְסָחִים יִדְחוּ אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת בְּכָל־שָׁנָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי סְבַר מֵימַר. שֶּׁאֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד עַל מִנְייָנָן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה כַּד הֲוָה מַטֵּי לְאִילֵּין נִיתְנָה הַתּוֹרָה קִיצְבָּה כַּמָּה פְסָחִים יִדְחוּ אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת בְּכָל־הַשָּׁנָה. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם חֲבוּרָה אַחַת שֶׁלֹּא שָֽׁחְטָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יַנַּאי אָֽמְרָה. וְהוּא שֶׁשָּׁכַח וּמָל אֶת שֶׁלְשַׁבָּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. מָלוֹ בְשַׁחֲרִית. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה אָמַר. סָבַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי פָּטוּר. רִבִּי בָּא אָמַר. חַייָב. וּלְיֵי דָא מִילָּה אָֽמְרָהּ רִבִּי יַנַּאי. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ אֵיכָן דֶּרֶךְ הַתִּינּוֹקוֹת לְחַלֵּף. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָא כְּרִבִּי יַנַּאי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַה דָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וּמַה דָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וּמֵשִׁיבִין דָּבָר בֵּין רִבִּי מֵאִיר לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְאַשְׁכְּחָן פְלִיגָא בֵין רִבִּי מֵאִיר לְבֵין רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשִׁיּוּר. אֵילּוּ הַתִּינּוֹקוֹת סְפֵיקוֹת מָה אַתְּ עֲבִיד לוֹ. כְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִיצְבָּה אוֹ כְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה. אִין תַּעַבְדִּינוּן כְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִצְבָּה. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם תִּינּוֹק אַחֵר לָמוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִלֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן עַבְדּוּן לוֹן כְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִיצְבָּה. וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם תִּינּוֹק אַחֵר לָמוּל. אִיתָא חֲמִי. הִקְדִּים זְמָנוֹ פָּטוּר. אִיחֵר זְמָנוֹ חַייָב. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. חִילּוּפִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. דְּתַנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל מִי שֶׁהָיָה לָמוּל אַחַר שַׁבָּת וּמָלוֹ בַּשַׁבָּת שֶׁחַייָב. וְעַל. מִי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לָמוּל בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וּמָלוֹ בַּשַׁבָּת. שֶׁרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַייֵב חַטָּאת וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵירִבִּי בּוּן. מִן קוֹשֵׁיי מַקְשֵׁי לָהּ רִבִּי יַנַּאי. וְהוּא שֶׁשָּׁכַח וּמָל אֶת שֶׁלְשַׁבָּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. רַב אָדָא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר. זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲפִילוּ דָבָר שֶׁאֵין בְּעֲשִׂייָתוֹ מִצְוָה הוֹאִיל וְטוֹעֶה בוֹ לְשֵׁם מִצְוָה פָטוּר. HALAKHAH: 110This entire piece is also found in Pesachim 6:5:3-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.5.3-6">Pesaḥim 6:7 (33d l. 63). It is not clear where the paragraph belonged originally. The text here has some lacunae, the one there has some places where the order of the sentences may be questioned. While it is clear that both are based on the same original, in their present shape they do not seem to be copies of one another. The text is unusually difficult.“If one had two children,” etc. 111The main problem discussed in the paragraph is the correct reading in Shabbat 19:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.19.4.1">Mishnah 4. The Mishnah printed in the Venice edition of the Yerushalmi and reproduced at the start of this Chapter (not from the Leiden ms.) states liability if the baby scheduled for Friday was circumcised on the Sabbath and notes a controversy if the one scheduled for Sunday was circumcised on the Sabbath. In the Shabbat.137a">Babli 137a this version is attributed to R. Ḥiyya (the Elder). The Mishnah in the Babli switches the two cases. A baraita in the Shabbat.137a">Babli 137a in the name of R. Meïr keeps the order of the Mishnah of the Yerushalmi but states “not liable” in the first case. In the following, different authorities seem to accept different readings. The interpretation given here in general follows S. Liebermann. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed112It seems that R. Joḥanan reads in the Mishnah a text similar to that attributed to R. Meïr in the Babli. If he circumcises the baby scheduled for Sabbath on Friday he violates a positive commandment, viz., to circumcise on the eighth day, but no liability for a sacrifice is created. If then he circumcises the one scheduled for Friday on the Sabbath, he violates the Sabbath but in the act satisfies a commandment; according to R. Meïr this frees him from liability.. Rebbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed113R. Simeon reads the Mishnah as given at the start of this Chapter. The fact that the baby scheduled for Friday had to be circumcised and the circumcision on the Sabbath accomplished this does not free from liability for the desecration of the Sabbath.
Since the text in Pesaḥim confirms the text here there is no possibility to emend “liable” into “not liable” as proposed by the classical commentaries.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice114This refers to Pesachim 6:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.6.5.1">Mishnah Pesaḥim 6:9 (6:5 in most independent Mishnah mss.) where in a discussion of liability if a Passover sacrifice was slaughtered incorrectly on a Sabbath which was a 14th of Nisan, R. Eliezer notes that obligatory sacrifices must be slaughtered on the Sabbath but that a person slaughtering a private sacrifice in the name of a public one on the Sabbath is liable but R. Meïr declares him not liable. R. Joshua rejects a comparison of public and private sacrifices since public sacrifices are prescribed in number but the number of private ones is unlimited.
R. Joḥanan notes that R. Meïr exempts from liability only if the error was excusable. A Passover sacrifice must be without blemish, male, and a yearling (Exodus.12.5">Ex.12:5). A blemished animal cannot be a sacrifice at all; slaughtering a blemished animal as a sacrifice is an inexcusable error. A well-being sacrifice may be male or female and of almost any age (more than 8 days old). Such an animal can be a candidate for Passover sacrifice only if it is a male yearling. If the three conditions are satisfied an illegal switching between the categories is excusable.. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number115This excludes sacrificing privately in the name of public sacrifices.. And which is not usually exchanged116This seems to contradict the prior statement that only well-being sacrifices are exempt from liability if they are fit to be Passover sacrifices. Therefore the commentaries emend the statement to read: And which usually is exchanged. Since the statement is not discussed further in the Halakhah, there is no certainty achievable but since the text is identical in both sources one would have to assume a corruption in the original common source. There is no difficulty explaining the text as it stands. If it were something that routinely can be changed, such as excess Passover animals reclassified as animals for well-being sacrifices, and if the slaughter were legitimate for the new denomination, there would be universal agreement that everything is legitimate and there is merit, never liability. The question of liability can arise only if such a reclassification is unusual and has not been effected.. And doing something which fulfills a commandment117As offering the Passover in the case of sacrifices and circumcising in the case of Mishnah Šabbat.. What means “something which is not a fixed number”? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rebbi Yose came to these 118The text in brackets is added from Pesaḥim; it is essential for the understanding of the argument:
ר׳ יוסי כד הוי מטי לאילין [תינוקות ספיקות היה
אמ׳. יפה לימדנו ר׳ ירמיה. אית לך מימר. שאין את
יכול לעמוד על מיניינן. אלא שלא] ניתנה … [“children in doubt”119Shabbat 19:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.19.4.1">Mishnah Šabbat 19:4. he used to say, Rebbi Jeremiah tought us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount120After the fact one always can count how many sacrifices were offered in the Temple.? But the Torah did not] specify121There is not an a priori limit on the numbers. how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rebbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter122Since in Šabbat the disagreement between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua is whether there still is a baby to be circumcised, so in parallel their disagreement in Pesaḥim must refer to a case where a Passover sacrifice has still to be slaughtered.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the word of Rebbi Yannai123As given in the next sentence. implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable124This is based on the Mishnah as given at the start of the Chapter. If he correctly circumcised the baby scheduled for the Sabbath on the morning of the Sabbath and later the same day wrongly circumcised the baby scheduled for Sunday, is he not liable because Sabbath already was being pushed aside for the first circumcision?. Rebbi Abba said, he is liable125He disagrees with R. Zeˋira and states that R. Yannai in this case holds that R. Joshua also would find him liable.. In relation to what did Rebbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children126He only comes to explain how it could happen that the baby scheduled for Sunday would be circumcised on the Sabbath and no other baby still had to be circumcised.. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion following Rebbi Yannai Rav followed Rebbi Meïr127The language is elliptic (but, as S. Liebermann has pointed out, it also appears otherwise in the Yerushalmi, cf. Eruvin 6, 23c l. 65). R. Zeˋira asserts that accepting the interpretation of the Mishnah given by R. Yannai, there exists a (not otherwise reported) decision by Rav which follows the reading of the Mishnah ascribed to Rav, which therefore decides practice.. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rebbi Simeon, and what Rebbi Zeˋira said follows Rebbi Meïr. Can one object anything between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon128The two opinions are based on two different readings of the Mishnah; there should be no need to try to harmonize the opinions. It is not explained who tried to harmonize them.? Do we find a difference between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon about the remainder129Both agree that there must be a baby left to be circumcised, or a sacrifice to be slaughtered, to lift liability from an untimely circumcision or slaughter.? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount130How can one apply the arguments from the Mishnah in Pesaḥim to the case in Šabbat?? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount … only if there remains another baby to circumcise131The text in Pesaḥim adds:
אפי׳ אין שם תינוק אחד למול. ואין תעבדינון כדבר
שאין לו קיצבה.
“even if there is not one baby to be circumcised. But if you are treating it like something which is not a fixed amount,” and one has to read this text here also. In Pesaḥim one infers that R. Joshua agrees with R. Eliezer that in matters of public sacrifices, which are fixed in numbers, there is no excuse for additional slaughter and any error will result in liability. But in matters of private offerings (excluding purification and reparation offerings, which follow the rules of public sacrifices) where the numbers are indefinite, he denies liability for additional infractions of the rules of the Sabbath. Therefore in the case here he might agree to liability if the baby scheduled for Friday was circumcised on the Sabbath only if the case is compared to public sacrifices.. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable132The position of R. Joshua in the Mishnah does not seem reasonable (assuming R. Meïr’s argument.) By circumcising the baby scheduled for Friday on the Sabbath he fulfills a commandment (even though a day late) and is declared liable; but by circumcising the baby scheduled for Sunday on the Sabbath he does not fulfil a commandment (since its time has not yet arrived) but is declared not liable!? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated133Shabbat.137a">Babli 137a.: Rebbi Simeon said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rebbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday134The explanation given in Note 18 is necessary; if both babies are still uncircumcised on the Sabbath R. Joshua will declare him not liable even if the one scheduled for Friday is circumcised first.. Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the words of Rebbi Yose [are]: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment135For example, if on Passover he slaughtered a defective animal as sacrifice when no commandment could be fulfilled with it..
פִּירֵשׁ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר אֶלָּא עַל צִיצִין הַמְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲפִילוּ פִירֵשׁ חוֹזֵר אֲפִילוּ עַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה. הֵיי דֵין רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הֵיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלְחַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת. שָׁכַח וְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַלּוּלָב לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. פָּטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ בִרְשׁוּת: אַף בְּסַכִּין שֶׁלְמִילָה וְאַף בְּמִילָה כֵן. מִמַּה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲפִילוּ פִירֵשׁ חוֹזֵר אֲפִילוּ עַל צִיצִין שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמִּילָה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. אֲפִילוּ בְּסַכִּין שֶׁלְמִילָה כֵּן. אֲפִילוּ בְּמִילָה כֵן 136This paragraph is found not only in Pesaḥim (פ), but also in Yevamot 8:1:18" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.8.1.18">Yebamot 8:1 (Notes 106–107, א) and is repeated at the end of the present Halakhah. Most of the remaining parts of the Halakhah are also found there. If he finished he can return only for fibers which would invalidate the circumcision137If the circumcision is done on a Sabbath, once he is finished he can return only to correct a defect as described in Shabbat 19:1:2-6:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.19.1.2-6.3">Mishnah 6 but not for cosmetic adjustments. Shabbat.133b">Babli 133b.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision138This is a straight application of R. Yose’s (the Tanna) position, Shabbat 19:4:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.19.4.2">Note 135.. Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? That which we stated there139Sukkah 3:10:3-12:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sukkah.3.10.3-12.1">Mishnah Sukkah 3:14.: “Rebbi Yose says, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath140R. Yose holds that since the Torah requires one to take a palm branch on the first day of Tabernacles (Leviticus.23.40">Lev. 23:40), even taking it out on the Sabbath cannot be punishable. The same then holds for the knife for a circumcision which must be performed on the Sabbath and the unleavened bread which must be eaten during the first night of the Feast of Unleavened Bread even if that happens to be on a Sabbath. (During the remainder of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, leavened matter is forbidden but consumption of unleavened bread is not obligatory.), if he forgot and took the lulav out into the public domain he is not liable because he took it out with permission.” Does the same hold for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread]141The text in parentheses is from Šabbat, the [correct] text in brackets is from Pesaḥim and Yebamot; it is confirmed by the text here at the end of the Halakhah.? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision, this implies the same even for a knife for circumcision, the same for (circumcision) [unleavened bread].