[The amoraim differ in the gemara as to the correct version of this Mishnah. The version subscribed to by my rabbis is the essential one, viz.:] If one had two children to circumcise: one, after Shabbath; the other, on Shabbath, and he forgot and circumcised the first on Shabbath, and the second after Shabbath, he is liable (for a sin-offering). (If he had) one to circumcise on Sabbath eve, and the other on Shabbath, and he circumcised the first on Shabbath, R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua exempts him. [This is the interpretation: If he forgot and circumcised the after-Shabbath child on Shabbath, all hold that he is liable. For he erred in the performance of a mitzvah and did not perform a mitzvah when he circumcised the after-Shabbath child on Shabbath. In this, even R. Yehoshua concurs. ("one to circumcise on Shabbath, and one to circumcise on Sabbath eve, and he forgot and circumcised the Sabbath eve child on Shabbath, R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering":) For milah beyond its time does not override Shabbath. And even though he erred in the performance of a mitzvah, being taken up with the Shabbath circumcision, for which reason he erred with the other — and even though he performed a mitzvah even with the first, for he was fit for circumcision, though not for circumcision overriding Shabbath — R. Eliezer holds that if one erred in the performance of a mitzvah and performed a mitzvah which does not override Shabbath, he is liable. ("and R. Yehoshua exempts him":) He holds that if one erred in the performance of a mitzvah and performed a mitzvah which does not override Shabbath, he is exempt; for he felt that he was operating under the sanction of beth-din. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehoshua.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shabbat
מי שהיו לו שתי תינוקות וכו' - The Amoraim dispute in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Shabbat 137a) concerning the textual reading of this Mishnah but the textual reading that that my teachers grabbed hold of as essential is this: He who had two baby boys, one to circumcise [the day] after the Sabbath (i.e., on Sunday) and one to circumcise on the Sabbath but he forgot and circumcised the one of the day after the Sabbath on the Sabbath is liable [for a sin-offering]. If one was to be circumcised on the Eve of the Sabbath (i.e., on Friday), and one (i.e., the other) to be circumcised on the Sabbath, but he forgot and circumcised the one for the Eve of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, Rabbi Eliezer obligates him to bring a sin-offering and Rabbi Yehoshua [says] that he is exempt. And this its explanation: If he forgot and circumcised the one [who was to be circumcised] after the Sabbath (i.e., on Sunday) on the Sabbath, , according to everyone he is liable [for a sin-offering] for he has erred in the matter of the Commandment and did not perform the Mitzvah when he advanced [the circumcision] and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, and in this, even Rabbi Yehoshua admits [that he is liable a sin-offering].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shabbat
Introduction
This mishnah discusses a case where there are two infants, one who should be circumcised on Shabbat and the other who should not be circumcised on Shabbat. The question is what happens if the babies get switched and someone circumcises on Shabbat the one who should have been circumcised on a different day.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shabbat
אחד למול בשבת ואחד למול בערב שבת ושכח ומל את של ערב שבת בשבת ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת – for it is a ritual circumcision that was not at the its [appropriate] time and does not supersede the Sabbath, and even though he erred in the matter of [the performance of] a commandment for he was preoccupied with that Sabbath and because of it, erred in it, and even with this, he performed a Mitzvah for it was appropriate to circumcise [his son] but it does not supersede the Sabbath, for Rabbi Eleazar holds that he erred in the matter of a Mitzvah and performed a Mitzvah which does not supersede the Sabbath and he is liable [for a sin-offering].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shabbat
If a man has two infants, one to circumcise after Shabbat and the other to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgets and circumcises the one who should be circumcised after Shabbat on the Shabbat, he is liable. In the first case the mohel (the circumciser) ends up circumcising a baby on Shabbat who should have been circumcised after Shabbat. In other words, he desecrated Shabbat to circumcise a boy who had not yet reached his eighth day. This child was not yet obligated to be circumcised. Hence the circumciser is liable to bring a sin-offering for accidentally desecrating Shabbat.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shabbat
[If he has] one to circumcise on the eve of Shabbat and another to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgets and circumcises the one who should be circumcised on the eve of Shabbat on Shabbat: Rabbi Eliezer holds [him] liable to a sin-offering, but Rabbi Joshua exempts [him]. In this case it turns out that he circumcised a boy on Shabbat who should have been circumcised on Friday. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that he is still liable since he did, after all, circumcise on Shabbat in a case where he should not have done so. Only circumcision on the eighth day overrides Shabbat (this we learned in yesterday’s mishnah and we will learn again in tomorrow’s mishnah). Rabbi Joshua holds that since the child had already passed his eighth day and had therefore become obligated to be circumcised, the circumciser has fulfilled the commandment and is not liable. Note that Rabbi Joshua agrees that it is forbidden to circumcise a child on Shabbat on any other day but the eighth day. He only holds that if someone mistakenly did so to a child who was already obligated for circumcision, he is not liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shabbat
ור"י פוטר – for he holds that he erred in the matter of a Mitzvah and performed a commandment that does not supersede the Sabbath=, he exempt [from having to bring a sin-offering] because he holds/thought that it was with the permission of the Jewish court that he did it, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
