Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 133

1) "DAVAR SH'EINO MISKAVEN" AND CUTTING OFF A LEPROUS "NEGA"

QUESTION: The Gemara says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is forbidden mid'Oraisa to perform Milah when there is a leprous Nega that is Tamei on the place of the Milah. Even though one does not have intention (Eino Miskaven) to cut off the Nega, nevertheless a Davar sh'Eino Miskaven is forbidden mid'Oraisa according to Rebbi Yehudah. (The Gemara concludes that even according to Rebbi Shimon it is prohibited, because even though it is a Pesik Reishei).

Why does the Gemara say that according to Rebbi Yehudah it is forbidden *mid'Oraisa* to perform a Davar sh'Eino Miskaven and cut off the Nega? We find that Rebbi Yehudah normally prohibits a Davar sh'Eino Miskaven only *mid'Rabanan* and not mid'Oraisa (see Rashi 121b, DH l'Fi Tumo; Tosfos 41b, DH Meicham)!

ANSWER: The MAHARSHAL explains that only with regard to the laws of Shabbos does Rebbi Yehudah say that a Davar sh'Eino Miskaven is forbidden mid'Rabanan. As TOSFOS (41b) explains, with regard to Shabbos the Torah requires explicit intent to perform the Melachah (Meleches Machsheves) in order to be Chayav. With regard to other prohibitions of the Torah, though (such as our case of cutting off a Nega), which are not regulated by the condition of Meleches Machsheves, a Davar sh'Eino Miskaven will be forbidden mid'Oraisa.

QUESTION: Rashi (DH b'Omer la'Kotz) tells us that if an uncircumcised, adult Jewish man has a leprous Nega in the place of his Milah and he appoints someone else to perform Milah (and thereby to cut off the Nega as well), the Mohel is Chayav for cutting off a Nega Tamei. It is as if the Mohel himself had *intention* to cut the Nega off, since the man who appointed him certainly has an interest in getting rid of the Nega (because he want to become Tahor). Similarly, if a father appoints a Mohel to perform Milah on his child and the father is present during the Milah, since the father certainly has intention to remove the Nega from his son while performing the Milah, the Mohel is Chayav as if he himself had intention to transgress the Isur of removing a Nega Tamei (Rashi, DH v'Iy Ika Acher).

Why is it considered an intentional removal of a Nega Tamei if someone asks a Mohel to do Milah for him, and the person that *asked him* has in mind to remove the Nega? The person that *performs* the Milah does *not* intend to remove the Nega, and the person who does have intention to remove the Nega is not performing any action! The Mohel should not be Chayav because he does not have intention to cut off the Nega, and the person who appointed him should not be Chayav because a Shali'ach cannot be appointed to perform a transgression ("Ein Shali'ach li'Dvar Aveirah") on his behalf. Only if the Mohel had intention to cut off the Nega should he be Chayav.

Also, Rashi (DH v'Iy Ika Acher) seems to say that when the father appoints a Mohel to perform Milah on his child, the Mohel is Chayav if "the father is standing there." What difference does it make if the father is present or not at the time that the Mohel performs Milah on his son?

ANSWER: The MISHNAH L'MELECH (10:1) and MINCHAS CHINUCH (#584) explain that as long as the father (or the person upon whom the Milah is performed, in the first case) is present at the time of the Milah, the Mohel cannot avoid having in mind to satisfy *whatever* intentions the father has by performing the Milah. Since he knows that the father will be pleased by the removal of the Nega, he inevitably intends to remove the Nega as well. Only if the father is not there at all does the Mohel perform the Milah exclusively in order to remove the Orlah, without thinking about the Nega.

Rashi learned this point from the Gemara's statement that when a person has a Nega on his *own* Orlah, he inevitably intends to remove the Nega at the time of the Milah. It is clear from the Gemara that even if someone *else* performs Milah on him, it will be done with the intent to remove the Nega. Apparently, the Mohel's intentions are controlled by the person who orders the Milah. However, if Milah is being performed on a person's *son* and there is a Nega on the Orlah, the Gemara says that it *is* possible for the Mohel to perform the Milah exclusively for the sake of the Mitzvah of Milah. Apparently, his intentions are *not* controlled by the client.

To resolve this apparent contradiction, Rashi concluded that as long as the person who orders the Milah is present at the time, his will determines the Mohel's intentions. When the Milah is performed on him himself, he is always present, while when it is performed on his son, he need not be present.

QUESTION: Even though it is prohibited to intentionally remove a Nega Tamei from one's body, the Gemara concludes that it is permitted to cause a Nega to be removed from the skin *indirectly*, such as by carrying an object on one's shoulder which rubs against and removes a Nega there. This is permitted even if it is a Pesik Reishei that the object on the shoulder will remove the Nega.

If it is permitted to remove the Nega indirectly even when there is a Pesik Reishei, then why does the Gemara need to find a source (at the beginning of this Amud) to teach us that it is permitted to cut off an Orlah that has a Nega on it? According to both Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah it should be permitted to cut off the Orlah that has a Nega on it because one does not have intention to remove the Nega!

ANSWERS:

(a) The RAMBAN answers that indeed, now that we know that it is permitted to remove a Nega indirectly with a Pesik Reishei, the source which teaches that Milah may be done even when there is a Nega applies when one *intends* to remove the Nega -- such as when a father performs Milah on his son. Even though the father has intention to remove the Nega so that his son will be Tahor, it is permitted since there is no one else to do the Milah. (If someone else is available, he must perform the Milah rather than the father, since in this case intentionally cutting off a Nega can be avoided, just like the Gemara concludes according to Abaye.) Similarly, if a person needs to give himself a Milah, it is permitted even though he has intention to remove the Nega.

(b) The RASHBA explains that it is only permitted to remove a Nega with a Pesik Reishei when he has no intention to perform an act of cutting. He is simply putting a burden on his shoulder. In the case of Milah, however, the person has Kavanah to do an act of cutting; he just does not have Kavanah to do an act of cutting off *the Nega* but only to cut off the Orlah (in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Milah). In such a case, since the person has Kavanah for *cutting*, removing the Nega with a Pesik Reishei is forbidden. Therefore, a verse is needed to teach that when there is a Mitzvah of Milah, it is permitted to cut off a Nega on the Orlah even though *he has* intention to perform an act of cutting.

(According to the Rashba, it makes no difference whether someone else is available to perform the Milah or not, since in any case transgressing the prohibition of cutting off a Nega through a Pesik Reishei cannot be avoided.)

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that all actions necessary to perform the Milah are permitted on Shabbos. If the medicine for the child was not prepared and ground before Shabbos, one should chew it with his teeth in order to prepare it with a Shinuy.

Why must one do a Shinuy? Normally, in a situation of Piku'ach Nefesh, it is permissible to do a Melachah on Shabbos (Shabbos is "Hutrah") and there is no need to perform a Melachah through the use of a Shinuy!

ANSWER: TOSFOS (133b, DH Lo'es) emphasizes that even though this is a situation of Piku'ach Nefesh, one must try to do a Shinuy if possible when performing a Melachah. The SHACH (YD 266:3) explains that since a person knows *in advance* that the child will be in a state of Piku'ach Nefesh, it is not as absolutely permitted to do a Melachah as it is in a normal case of Piku'ach Nefesh, and therefore one must make a Shinuy. (The SEFAS EMES here offers the same explanation. See Insights to Shabbos 128b and Nidah 38b regarding doing Melachah on Shabbos with a Shinuy for a woman in labor.)

133b

OPINIONS: The Gemara cites a Beraisa that says that when a Milah is performed on Shabbos, a Mohel must go back and cut off the Tzitzin ha'Me'akvin, any pieces of skin remaining that cover a majority of the Atarah after the Orlah was cut off (the Milah is not valid with such Tzitzin remaining), regardless of whether or not he is still involved in the Milah. He does not go back and cut off the Tzitzin sh'Einan Me'akvin (that is, those Tzitzin that do not invalidate the Milah), though, if he is no longer involved in the Milah.

The Gemara explains that this depends on an argument between Rebbi Yosi and the Chachamim regarding the removal and replacement of the Lechem ha'Panim in the Beis ha'Mikdash. According to the Chachamim, the Kohanim who bring in the new Lechem ha'Panim must replace the old Lechem ha'Panim immediately when the old Lechem ha'Panim are removed in order for it to be considered "Tamid," since the Torah requires that there be Lechem ha'Panim on the Shulchan at all times -- "Tamid." According to Rebbi Yosi, the new Lechem ha'Panim may be placed on the Shulchan later the same day, and that is also called "Tamid."

According to Rebbi Yosi, acts done at different times are still considered to be part of one action, and that is why the Lechem ha'Panim are considered to be on the Shulchan "Tamid." In contrast, the Chachamim maintain that two acts are only considered to be parts of one long action if they are done in immediate succession, with no delay between them.

In what way does this argument relate to cutting off the Tzitzin sh'Einan Me'akvin on Shabbos?

(a) RASHI and most Rishonim explain that the reason a person must go back to remove Tzitzin sh'Einan Me'akvin is because of the requirement to beautify one's performance of Mitzvos, which is learned from the verse, "Zeh Keli v'Anveihu," as the Gemara mentions. On Shabbos, though, since the presence of these Tzitzin does not invalidate the Milah, one may not do a Melachah merely to fulfill the concept of beautifying the Mitzvah. However, if it is done as part of one long action of performing the Milah, then it may also be done on Shabbos, because it is considered as part of the Milah.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Milah 2:4,6) rules that a Mohel does not have to go back to cut off the Tzitzin sh'Einan Me'akvin even during the week (according to the Kesef Mishnah's conclusion in his interpretation of the RAMBAM). The BRISKER RAV (Hilchos Chanukah 4:1) and the BEIS HA'LEVI (2:47) explain that the Rambam learned the Gemara the same was as RABEINU CHANANEL. Rabeinu Chananel writes that one who stops performing a Mitzvah is no longer required to beautify that Mitzvah. That means that beautifying a Mitzvah is only meaningful when it is done as part of the performance of the Mitzvah. After the Mitzvah has been performed, there is no point in beautifying it. The beautification is in the *performance*, or the act, of the Mitzvah, and not in the *object*, or the result, of the Mitzvah that remains when the performance of the Mitzvah is completed. Therefore, after the Milah is performed, there is no point in making the Milah look nice because of the requirement to beautify Mitzvos. Only during the act of Milah itself is there a requirement to make it look nice.