Source: http://halakhah.com/shabbath/shabbath_135.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:43:10+00:00

Document:
but [of] one in doubt does not supersede the Sabbath; 'his foreskin' [of] one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but an hermaphrodite does not supersede the Sabbath. R. Judah maintained: An hermaphrodite supersedes the Sabbath and there is the penalty of kareth. 'His foreskin': [of] one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but [of] one born at twilight1 does not supersede the Sabbath; his foreskin: one who is certain supersedes the Sabbath, but one who is born circumcised does not supersede the Sabbath, for Beth Shammai maintain: One must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him, while Beth Hillel rule: It is unnecessary. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ concerning him who is born circumcised that you must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him, because it is a suppressed foreskin:2 about what do they differ? about a proselyte who was converted when [already] circumcised: there Beth Shammai maintain: One must cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him; whereas Beth Hillel rule: One need not cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow from him.
It was stated: Rab said: The halachah is as the first Tanna;7 while Samuel said: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. A circumcised child was born to R. Adda b. Ahabah. He took him to thirteen circumcisers,8 until he mutilated him privily.9 I deserve it for transgressing Rab's [ruling], said he. Said R. Nahman to him, And did you not violate Samuel's [ruling]? Samuel ruled this only of weekdays, but did he rule this of the Sabbath? — He [R. Adda b. Ahabah] held that it is definitely a suppressed foreskin.10 For it was stated: Rabbah said: We suspect that it may be a suppressed foreskin;11 R. Joseph said: It is certainly a suppressed foreskin.
On Friday, and it is not known whether it was then Friday or the Sabbath.
I.e., the foreskin which seems absent is pressed to the membrum.
For the various cases of doubt are enumerated in detail.
I.e., one born after seven months of pregnancy.
The Rabbis held that such could not possibly live; hence there is no point in desecrating the Sabbath by circumcising him.
To herself, if she is not eased of her milk.
Who taught that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree about a child who is born circumcised; the halachah then naturally being as Beth Hillel.
That they might cause a few drops of the covenant blood to flow. It was the Sabbath, and they all refused.
Eventually he performed the operation himself unskillfully, with that result.
There is no element of doubt at all, and therefore it must be done even on the Sabbath.
It is only because of this doubt that some drops of blood must be made to flow.
Even in Beth Hillel's opinion. Hence Beth Hillel must hold that it is certainly a suppressed foreskin.
Surely that is of no interest, since the halacha is as Beth Hillel.
Thus: the first Tanna maintains that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that we may not desecrate the Sabbath; hence their controversy must refer to weekdays, Beth Hillel holding that no blood-flow at all is required, whereupon R. Eleazar ha-Kappar stated that this is incorrect, there being no dispute in respect to weekdays, for even Beth Hillel necessitate a blood-flow, and they differ only in respect of the Sabbath. On this interpretation he informs us of Beth Hillel's view in respect to weekdays.
E.g., if the child is not born in the usual manner but extracted through the cesarean section; or if a Gentile woman gives birth and becomes a proselyte the following day.
Lev. XII, 2f. Thus the two are interdependent.
Viz., those preceding the giving of the Torah.
The law of defilement being as yet non-existent.
In accordance with God's command to Abraham; v. Gen. XVII, 12.
Viz., that the two are interdependent.
Two skins on top of each other. Or, two separate membra.
The infant who must be circumcised on the eighth day must be circumcised even on the Sabbath, since that is deduced from (eighth) day (supra 132a); but where the eighth day is necessary the Sabbath may not be desecrated.
Of purchase, even if he is not eight days old yet.
[Probably R. Hama the father of R. Oshaia, v. Hyman, Toledoth II p. 456].
By this rite she enters the Jewish household as slave, becoming liable to all duties enjoined upon a Jewish woman. V. next note.
These laws centre on Gen. XVII, 12, 13: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed (v. 12). He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised (v. 13). Whereas v. 12 specifies circumcision for the eighth day, v. 13 does not, which implies at the earliest possible moment. Now it is logical that v. 12 refers to a slave who is as like as possible to a full Jew, that being the implication of 'among you', intimating those that are similar to you. viz., one born in his master's house after he was purchased. i.e., his mother was bearing him when she was bought; whilst v. 13 applies to a slave who is unlike a full Jew, vi., he was already born before he was bought. R. Hama draws this distinction: If his mother has a ritual bath, whereby she formally becomes a Jewish-owned slave in that she is bound to observe all the laws incumbent upon Jewesses in general, so that her confinement renders her unclean just like a Jewess, and then she gives birth, the infant is circumcised on the eighth day. But otherwise the infant is not like a Jewish-born child, and is circumcised on the first day. But the first Tanna ignores this distinction: thus R. Assi's ruling is a matter of controversy between the first Tanna and R. Hama.
Both of these refer to a slave who conceived in her master's house, so that the infant is not 'bought with money'.
Since the latter does not own the mother, the child is not like a Jewish-born infant, and therefore he is circumcised on the first day.
Since he rejects the distinction based on when the mother had her ritual bath, one born in the house is certainly similar to a Jew.
Even if he buys her from a Jew, and she has already had her ritual bath and is subject to the uncleanness of confinement, the child is nevertheless unlike a Jewish child, since his owner has no share in the mother.
There her child is certainly unlike a Jewish-born one.
Num. XVIII, 16. Since he must then be redeemed, it follows that he is viable.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.