7

only a bris that is on time on the eighth day is done on shabbos (ch 19 mesechta shabbos), so a mohel who performs a belated bris on shabbos is mechalel shabbos, does that invalidate the bris being that it was done "illegally"?

1

Mishna Shabbat chapter 19 verse 4:

מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי תִינוֹקוֹת, אֶחָד לָמוּל אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶחָד לָמוּל בְּשַׁבָּת, וְשָׁכַח וּמָל אֶת שֶׁל אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת בְּשַׁבָּת, חַיָּב. אֶחָד לָמוּל בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְאֶחָד לָמוּל בְּשַׁבָּת, וְשָׁכַח וּמָל אֶת שֶׁל עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבָּת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר: [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.]

I have highlighted the significant text where Rabbi Yehoshua, according to whom the halacha follows, exempts him from bringing a korban chatat because he has fulfilled a mitzvah.

Ergo, the milah is valid (unlike the other case discussed here).

  • 1
    Perhaps you could cite your source that we follow R' Yehoshua over R' Eliezer? – DonielF May 23 '17 at 15:32
  • 1
    Where is your English quotation from? – msh210 May 23 '17 at 17:24
  • @cashcow that's in a case of where it was a case of he thought "this baby" is supposed to be the one that's getting the bris but what about in a case of a single baby that was not supposed to get a bris on shabbos (pushed off)? – mmc99 May 24 '17 at 2:18
  • The logic is that he has performed a mitzvah of Milah... see the bold quote about 6 lines up. Therefore the Milah is valid even if he shouldn't have done it on Shabbat. – CashCow May 24 '17 at 10:20
  • The website from which I copied that is: sefaria.org/Mishnah_Shabbat.19.4/en/… – CashCow May 24 '17 at 10:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .