Q&A: A Circumcision Performed Through a Transgression
A Circumcision Performed Through a Transgression
Question
The Mishnah in Sabbath 137a states that if someone had two infants to circumcise, one to circumcise on Friday eve and one to circumcise on the Sabbath, and he forgot and circumcised the one for Friday eve on the Sabbath, Rabbi Eliezer says he is liable for a sin-offering, while Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. (According to another opinion in the Talmud, Rabbi Eliezer also agrees that he is exempt in such a case.)
The Talmud says that the reason he is exempt from a sin-offering in such a case is that although he did violate the prohibition of circumcision on the Sabbath, in the end he still performed a commandment, since the infant for Friday eve had already reached the proper time for circumcision, and therefore he is exempt from the offering.
My question is: after all, this is a commandment that comes through a transgression, and someone who performs a commandment through a transgression is considered as though he did not fulfill the commandment. If so, why does the Talmud treat him as someone who did perform a commandment through his act?
Answer
Who told you that a commandment that comes through a transgression, when done unintentionally, is also not considered a commandment? Beyond that, here one must discuss whether this is even in the category of a commandment that comes through a transgression at all, since the transgression is not necessary to the fulfillment of the commandment itself. (It is not certain that the timing is essential.)
Discussion on Answer
Yes, in the context of a commandment. Only after you've decided that the commandment is invalidated does it become wounding not in the context of a commandment. That's a circular loop.
The transgression (making a wound not in the context of a commandment) is certainly necessary for fulfilling the commandment of circumcision