[Os amoraim diferem na gemara quanto à versão correta desta Mishnah. A versão assinada pelos meus rabinos é a essencial, a saber:] Se alguém tivesse dois filhos para circuncidar: um, depois do sábado; o outro, no sábado, e ele esqueceu e circuncidou o primeiro no sábado, e o segundo após o sábado, ele é responsável (por uma oferta pelo pecado). (Se ele tivesse) um para circuncidar na véspera do sábado, e outro no sábado, e ele circuncidou o primeiro no sábado, R. Eliezer decide que ele é responsável por uma oferta pelo pecado, e R. Yehoshua o isenta. [Esta é a interpretação: se ele esqueceu e circuncidou a criança depois do Shabbath no Shabbath, todos sustentam que ele é responsável. Pois ele errou na realização de uma mitzvá e não a realizou quando circuncidou a criança após o Shabbath no Shabbath. Nisto, até R. Yehoshua concorda. ("um para circuncidar no sábado, e outro para circuncidar na véspera do sábado, e ele esqueceu e circuncidou a criança da véspera do sábado no sábado, R. Eliezer decide que ele é responsável por uma oferta pelo pecado"). não substitui o Shabbath. E mesmo que ele tenha cometido um erro na realização de uma mitzvá, sendo levado pela circuncisão do Shabbath, razão pela qual ele errou com a outra— e mesmo que ele tenha realizado uma mitzvá mesmo com a primeira, pois estava apto para a circuncisão, embora não para a circuncisão que prevalece sobre o sábado —R. Eliezer sustenta que, se alguém errou no desempenho de uma mitzvá e executou uma mitzvá que não substitui o Shabbath, ele é responsável. ("e R. Yehoshua o isenta"). Ele sustenta que se alguém errou no desempenho de uma mitzvah e executou uma mitzvah que não substitui o Shabbath, ele está isento; pois ele sentia que estava operando sob a sanção de beth-din. A halachá está de acordo com 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.
