Aligned sentence by sentence
[ ] .
The Rabbanites obligate circumcision for them, and argue it is for the sake of drawing the “blood of the covenant.” Anan agreed with them on this point, and proved it as above with the case of the children of Israel, that they were circumcised a second time upon their entry into the land. Thus, God, blessed and exalted, said to the Prophet, may he be blessed, (Joshua 5:2) ”At that time the LORD said unto Joshua: 'Make thee knives of flint, and circumcise again (veshuv) the children of Israel the second time (shenit).'” He said that the statement “again” (veshuv) proves a return to something already done, and the word “the second time” (shenit) emphasizes this for there cannot be something second without something occurring first. He says that we learn from this that the children of Israel were already circumcised on the eighth-day, according to what was commanded from Abraham and Moses together, and additionally that it was impossible that they would not fulfill for forty years such an important commandment whose punishment is karet, while Moses and Aaron , peace be upon them, were with them and they were not punished. And it was the case that when they transgressed they were punished. Thus, we learn from what is reported in Joshua that they were commanded a second circumcision for a specific purpose which is that their first circumcision was not complete, but rather only partial, necessitating a return to it.
[ ] .
And he and the Rabbanites agreed that the nation were “circumcised but not uncovered” meaning that their foreskin was cut such that the skin underneath the foreskin was not uncovered. And if one was circumcised but not uncovered, he has foreskin and is not circumcised and according to all of them this is the meaning of the verse (Joshua 5:7) “And He raised up their children in their stead; them did Joshua circumcise; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised by the way.” And Anan adds to this verse other verses that obligate a second circumcision and these refer to one who was not circumcised by a Jew and one who was not circumcised by means of scissors, and one who was not circumcised according to all the conditions that are obligatory such as the scissors additionally being made by a Jew and using nut oil and two pieces of cotton and other conditions of his. And he treats one who has not fulfilled all these conditions as uncircumcised and obligates him in a second circumcision.
.
And we say that we are resolute that the matter is like he says, and we say that “circumcised but not uncovered” means that returning to the circumcision is required for the purpose that some of their foreskin still remains, and if some of what is obligated to be removed remains, the commandment is not fulfilled and must be repeated. But regarding the rest of what he mentions and adds to this, from where can we learn that you remove and cut when no foreskin exists and this is nothing but a false argument.
.
The Ananites were already asked, and we said to them “did God not obligate us to remove the tithes and first-born animals from the produce and fruit and flock and similarly other donations?” And if they reply positively, say to them “and what do you say regarding one who has no piece of land, nor sheep nor cattle, nor vegetation or fruit, is he obligated to remove the tithe or other donations or the first-born animal or what is similar to this?” And from their words, these things are impossible since if one doesn’t have them to begin with from what can he tithe and what is similar! Say to them “and similarly your argument regarding second circumcision is impossible, since circumcision is the removal of the foreskin and when no foreskin exists the obligation to circumcise is nullified!”
.
ُAnd this obligates them to argue that eunuchs who [removed their penis] without circumcision to be circumcised. And if you say “this too is impossible since circumcision is the removal of existing foreskin at the head of the male’s penis, and if the penis at its tip does not exist, behold what can be circumcised and cut?” They must concede, similarly with the foreskin, the impossibility of circumcising one with no foreskin is like the impossibility of circumcising one with no penis and there is no difference.
[ " ] .
Furthermore, they must agree with what we obligated the Rabbanites’ regarding their view on circumcising the dead, and this is like the verse regarding the slave (Exodus 21:6) “then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.” For if the slave’s ears were cut off is he obligated to do this? If they say “Scripture says his ears must be pierced and if he has no ears what can be pierced?” Say to them “Scripture says to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, and if he has no foreskin what can be circumcised?”
[ " ] .
Furthermore, say to them: “if he has no foreskin, you are leaving a scar with a sharp tool in the place in order to draw blood. Thus do the same with a eunuch and the slave’s ear, and similarly the leper and nazir who are bald and has no hair at all, you must pass a razor over his head to fulfill the commandment (Leviticus 14:9) ‘And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off; and he shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and he shall be clean!’” If this is not necessary since he has no hair, similarly what they practice with the blade on one who is circumcised is not obligatory if there is no foreskin to be cut off, and there is no difference.
[] .
Regarding their justification of “covenantal blood” behold the Torah does not mention in circumcision “covenantal blood” but rather teaches circumcision is itself the covenant; and when foreskin exists it must be cut off and this is the covenant, and when there is no foreskin this does not determine. If “blood of the covenant” was also mentioned it would be obligatory if the foreskin was present but if the foreskin was not present it would not be required to draw “blood of the covenant.”
[ ] [" " "] [ "] [ " ] (?) [ ] [ ] .
And regarding what they justify with the verse (Joshua 5:2) “At that time the LORD said unto Joshua: 'Make thee knives of flint, and circumcise again (veshuv) the children of Israel the second time '” for this returns to an action occurring and does not necessarily imply something done to a specific person and then repeated on him again. And this is parallel to the Torah’s verses regarding Isaiah (2 Kings 23:25) “And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned (shav) to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.” He did not sin after he received authority and returned to obey, but rather it means how people habitually speak like one person saying to his friend “return to God, blessed and exalted, meaning fear him.” And the Torah may use this word at the beginning of events as in the verse (Joshua 10:38) “And Joshua turned back (vayashav), and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it” and he was not there prior and then returned. And similarly (Joshua 11:10) “And Joshua turned back at that time (vayashav), and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms”--- he did not “take Hazor” twice, but rather the words “turned back” means that Joshua was ordered to attack a second time given Moses’ command, peace upon him. Thus the verse’s “twice” (shenit) returns to the verse (Joshua 5:2) “At that time the LORD said unto Joshua: 'Make thee knives of flint, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time,” not to his statement “circumcise.” And Binyamin argues this is “second” to the Exodus, since they were not circumcised from the Exodus until their entry to the land according to the verse (Joshua 5:5) “For all the people that came out were circumcised; but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, had not been circumcised.”
.
And thus the Ananites determined themselves, collectively with their teacher Anan, as uncircumcised since he was circumcised according to the Rabbanite custom. And there was none before him since the exile who was circumcised with scissors, and none according to his view has made scissors for circumcision, and they are in this state until today. They are embarrassed by this and do not know what to say. And they are forced to say like this additionally that Abraham was circumcised by one who was uncircumcised, and an uncircumcised person made the tool of his circumcision. They justify by saying there that Shem was present and he was circumcised and this was inherited since the time of Adam. If you say to them, “who circumcised Adam? And if he was born circumcised and that was sufficient, the rest of your comments are void.” And if one asks the reasons why the desert generation deviated from circumcision, behold this is not germane to the debate regarding the commandant but is one of the ambiguous teachings in the Torah, however we will discuss it subsequently.