Study Shabbat folio 135B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
halakha was introduced. No proof can be cited from the observance of mitzvot prior to the revelation at Sinai.
The Talmud asks: Is that so? Wasn’t it stated that there is a dispute with regard to this halakha? As it was taught with regard to a child born by caesarean section and one who has two foreskins, Rav Huna and Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav disputed their status. One said: One desecrates Shabbat on his behalf and
The Talmud comments: The issue of R' Asi’s statement that the obligation to circumcise after 8 days depends upon whether or not his birth renders his mother ritually impure due to childbirth is parallel to a tannaitic dispute, as we learned: There is a home-born child of a Canaanite female slave bor
The baraita explains: There is a home-born child who is circumcised at one; and there is a home-born child circumcised at 8. How so? If a Jew purchased a pregnant female slave and she then gave birth to a child while in his possession; that is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumc
And likewise, there is a home-born child circumcised at 8 days. How so? If he bought a female slave and she became pregnant in his possession and gave birth; that is a home-born child circumcised at 8 days. Rav Ḥama says there is a distinction: If the female slave gave birth and he subsequently had