Daf 130

1) R' Eliezer holds that even Melachos that are done to prepare for the Mila (like making a knife) supersedes Shabbos. R' Akiva says that only those preparations that couldn't be done before Shabbos supersedes Shabbos but not those preparations that could have been done before Shabbos.

2) R' Eliezer says that, when you need to carry the Mila knife through a Reshus Harabim, you carry it exposed to publicize how dear the Mitzvah is that it supersedes Shabbos. However, when it's dangerous to do so, (i.e., when there is a governmental decree not to allow Mila), you hide the knife before witnesses before carrying it out. However we don't resolve if you need two people witnessing it besides the carrier, or do you only need the carrier and one other person.

3) R' Eliezer requires to carry it through a Reshus Harabim even if he could find a way to carry it through courtyards, roofs and storage areas. [Tosfos asks an unanswered question: we say by all Mitzvos that supersede a sin; if there is anyway to do the Mitzvah that avoids doing the sin, we should do it that way and avoid the sin. So why are we insisting here to do Chilul Shabbos when it's avoidable?

However, Tosfos concludes: perhaps R' Eliezer will agree that, if there's a totally permitted way that's not even rabbinically forbidden, like going through courtyards that have an Eiruv, you shouldn't carry it through the Reshus Harabim.]

4) [Tosfos asks: why don't you carry the baby to the knife and you would be exempt since you're not Chayiv for carrying people since living people "carry themselves?" Tosfos answers: since you would need to carry the child back to his mother after the Mila, and since you weakened the child, it's as if the child is tied up and you're Chayiv if you carry him. Also, the mother is also sick that she can't walk to the child. Alternatively, it's faster to bring the knife, so, we say to carry it to be able to do the Mitzvah faster. This could also be the reason why you should carry it in the Reshus Harabim rather than carrying it in a longer fashion through roofs, courtyards and storage areas.]

5) The Chachumim say that it's forbidden to carry it through roofs, courtyards and storage areas. Although they're only rabbinically prohibited; still, the Rabanan held up their decrees even in a place where it will prevent you to do a Mitzvah that is associated with a Kareis punishment. R' Shimon permitted carrying in those areas since he generally allows carrying from a roof to a courtyard to a storage areas, but only utensils that started off Shabbos in one of those areas, (and not those that started out in a house). [Tosfos point out: therefore, the case is where the Mila knife was in one of those areas in the beginning of Shabbos and not in a house.]

6) The Halacha is not like R' Eliezer since the Halacha is not like an individual when a majority argue with him. Also, we don't Paskin like R' Eliezer since he was a Shmuti [Rashi explains: he was excommunicated (for not agreeing to go with the majority of the Chachumim). Tosfos explains: since he was a student of Beis Shammai.]

7) R' Yehuda Hanassi says: an alleyway that you didn't make a Shituf (i.e. an Eiruv for alleyways), you may still carry in the whole alleyway even for more than four Amos.

8) Rav holds that if the courtyards that lead into that alleyway didn't make an Eiruv, you may now carry in the alleyway (that's permitted with a Lechi, a vertical pole). After all, the alleyway has the prescribed two courtyards opened to it, so, they can carry from the alleyway to the courtyards, and vice versa; (and a Lechi is enough to permit it).

However, if they made an Eiruv, then it's forbidden to carry from the courtyard to the alleyway. Although technically you should be able to carry utensils that rested in the courtyard Bein Hashmashes to the alleyway, however, since there will also be utensils in the courtyard that were originally in the houses, and those are forbidden to carry into the alleyway since you didn't make a Shituf, so they forbid carrying utensils that rested in the courtyard into the alleyway since you might come to carry out utensils that rested in the houses too. Thus, since you can't practically carry anything from the courtyards to the alleyway, they're not connected to the point that we don't consider it as if the courtyards are open to it and, therefore, the alleyway can't be permitted with a Lechi, and you may only carry in it within four Amos.

[Tosfos points out that this is Rav consistent to his opinion in Eiruvin that you can't carry from the courtyards to the alleyway. However, we don't Paskin like that, but like R' Yochanan who holds that the Halacha is like R' Shimon that roofs, courtyards and storage areas are one Reshus that you can carry from one to another even if you made an Eiruv, and we're not concerned that you'll come to carry out the utensils that were originally in the house. So, since you may carry from the courtyard to the alleyway, you can allow the alleyway with a Lechi.]

Daf 131

9) R' Eliezer holds that the preparations for Milah, Omer, two loaves, Luluv, Sukka, Matza, Shofar on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur (of Yovel) supersedes Shabbos (from a Gezeiras Hakasuv). However, the preparations for Mezuza and Talis don't supersede Shabbos. This is not only to those who hold that you're only Chayiv to put Tzitzis on a Talis if you wear them (since you don't need to wear them), but even according to those who hold that you're Chayiv even when it's left in the box. This is because you can avoid those Mitzvos by making the garment and the house Hefker.

Daf 132

10) Everyone agrees that Mila on the eighth day supersedes Shabbos.

11) Mila supersedes Tzaras (that's in the place of the Mila, that you may cut it even though there is a prohibition to remove a Nega of Tzaras). This is whether the Mila is done on the eighth day or afterwards.

12) Avoda doesn't supersede Tzaras (i.e., a Kohain who has Tzaras, and is now unfit to do the Avoda, can't cut off the Tzaras in order to be able to do the Avoda). R' Ashi explains: since the transgressing of cutting the Tzaras is not at the same time that you do the Mitzvah of the Avoda, (but comes before it).

Daf 133

13) You may wear blast, (i.e., a vine that grows around a palm tree), on your foot, or carry a pole on your shoulder, even if they'll be in contact with a Tzaras, you don't need to worry about them healing the Tzaras, (which we said there is a prohibition to remove Tzaras).

14) That, which we need the Gezeiras Hakosuv to allow cutting a Mila with Tzaras, or to carry a pole that will cure the Tzaras, although we anyhow hold like R' Shimon that allows unintended prohibitions; we must say because it's inevitable that it will be transgress, and R' Shimon agrees that a P'sik Reisha is forbidden. Even according to Abaya's original position that R' Shimon allows a P'sik Reisha, we need the Pasuk to allow it even if his intention is to remove, or to heal, the Tzaras.

15) When we say that an Asei supersedes a Lav, that's only when you can't preserve both. However if you can do the Asei without having to transgress the Lav, then you're obligated to do it that way.

16) Mila doesn't supersede Yom Tov either, unless it's on the eighth day.

17) R' Yehuda quotes Rav that the Halacha is like R' Akiva, whether by Mila or by Korban Pesach, that only preparations that can't be done before Shabbos supersedes Shabbos.

18) All what is needed for the Mila supersedes Shabbos. Therefore, even after you cut most of the foreskin, you can finish cutting any leftover strips. Even though the Mila is good without cutting them, you may continue as long as you didn't stop doing the Mila. This is like the Rabanan's opinion about Lechem Hapanim that, since it says that it needs to be constantly there, as one Kohain pulls out the old Lechem, another Kohain pushes in and replaces the old Lechem with the new ones. However, according to R' Yossi who holds that you can remove them earlier in the day and replace them later in the day, you can return to cut the foreskin strips that don't invalidate the Mila even after you fully stopped the original cutting.

19) To explain the Pasuk of "this is my G-d 'Vanveihu,' the Tanna Kama says that it means to beautify before Him in Mitzvos. To have a nice Sukka, Luluv, Tzitzis, Shofar and Sefer Torah etc. Abba Shaul says it's an acronym of "Ani V'hu" (me and Him). Therefore, you need to copy His ways. Just like he's merciful, so should you be. Etc.

20) If a Mohel only does half a Mila on Shabbos, he's exempt. Although he did a Melacha and didn't finish the Mitzvah; he can say "I did one half, and it could be finished if someone does the other half." (Therefore, his Melacha is justified.) However, if it's close to Bein Hashmashes and people told him that he doesn't have time to finish the Mila before night and he has no right to start it, and he says that he'll do it since he feels there is plenty of time; and it comes out that he didn't, he's Chayiv Kareis.

21) It's dangerous for the Mohel not to perform Metziza, sucking the blood. Therefore, you remove a Mohel from his position if he doesn't do the Metziza. Therefore, we allow the Mohel to do it on Shabbos although it's a Torah prohibition of wounding on Shabbos since we consider the blood around the wound as still attached to the bloodstream, and it's not just detached and just gathered in a puddle under the skin.

22) If you wash your face with water and don't dry it properly, your face will develop cracks in it. The fix to the situation is to wash your face well with beet juice.

Daf 134

23) You place a dressing for the bandage on the Mila, and you also put cummin on it. If you didn't grind up the cummin before Shabbos, you need to grind it abnormally (so it shouldn't be a Torah prohibition) by chewing it. [Tosfos explains: although it should supersede Shabbos since it's dangerous not to have it; still, as much as you can do it abnormally, we do it since you can save from danger without transgressing a Torah prohibition.] However, you can grind it normally on Yom Tov because it can be used to sprinkle on a pot of food.

24) You can't mix wine and oil together on Shabbos to place it on the wound. Even according to R' Meir who generally permits mixing them for a sick person, but you still can't whisk them together with strong movements. However, the Rabanan say that you can't mix them together even lightly.

25) You can't strain mustard in its strainer since it looks like you're separating. [However, Tosfos says that it's not actual separating since the impurities are edible.] However, you may strain an egg through a mustard strainer since it doesn't look like separating (since all the contents go through).

26) You can't sweeten mustard (on Yom Tov) by placing it on burning coals, since you're slightly extinguishing the coals when you place the mustard on it. However, you can place it upon red-hot metal since there can't be any extinguishing. However, this limitation is only because it could have been done before Yom Tov, but you may roast meat by putting it on the coals. Although there's extinguishing, it's permitted since it's better when you roast it on Yom Tov than before Yom Tov.

27) It's forbidden to make cheese on Yom Tov since it's as good if you make it before Yom Tov. However, you can knead dough (to make bread) since it's not as good when done the day before than when it's done today.

28) If the newborn son is red, it's a sign that his blood didn't absorb well yet, and it's dangerous to give him a Mila. Therefore, you need to wait until he absorbs the blood, and then give him a Mila.

29) If the child is green, then its blood hadn't completely come in and it's dangerous to give it a Mila. Also, you won't have yet any Mila blood if done now. Rather, you should wait until the blood comes in and then do the Mila.

30) There is an argument between the Tanna Kama and R' Elazar b. Azarya how to wash the Mila in hot water on Shabbos. R' Yehuda explains that the Tanna Kama only allows to splash the hot water on with your hand, but not to wash with a utensil. R' Elazar b. Azarya says that you can wash normally on the third day since it's particularly dangerous.

31) However, Rava explains that the Tanna Kama allows you to wash normally on the first day, but you can only splash water on with your hand on the third day. R' Elazar b. Azarya holds that you can wash normally on the third day since it's also very dangerous. We have a Braisa like Rava's explanation, but the Mishna seems to imply like R' Yehuda's explanation (since it says that R' Elazar b. Azarya says to wash on the third day, and if the Tanna Kama says to wash normally on the first day, then R' Elazar b. Azarya should say you also wash normally on the third day).

32) The Halacha is like R' Elazar b. Azarya even with water that was heated on Shabbos even to wash his whole body, since it's dangerous not to.

33) Rav permits putting hot water and oil on a wound on Shabbos. However, Shmuel forbids, but allows putting them above the wound and let them drip inside the wound. [Tosfos points out that it's only forbidden to put the hot water and oil together, but you may put them separately on the wound, like we said that you may place regular oil on a wound since it just looks like you're smearing it on your skin.] We have a Braisa like Shmuel.

34) Everyone agrees that you can't apply them with a soft material (like cotton balls) since you'll be squeezing.

35) You can't put on a wound a dry Gemmi grass or a dried worn out garment that was never yet put on a wound since they heal the wound. However, if you once used the garment on a wound, you may place it on a wound on Shabbos since it no longer can heal.

Daf 135

36) You can't do Mila to an Androgenus on Shabbos, or to prick a baby that's born without a foreskin to get out drips of Mila blood, since their Mila don't supersede Shabbos. As the Pasuk says "its foreskin" which excludes these cases and any other cases of Safeik Mila. [Tosfos explains, although it's one Pasuk that we exclude all these cases, we must say that we don't really need a Pasuk to exclude Safeik Mila, since it's logical that they don't supersede Shabbos if you don't know that there is an obligation in the first place. However, we can say that we have two extra P'sukim of "its foreskin", one by Mila on the eighth day, and the other written by a Mila after the eighth day. One to exclude an Androgenus, and the other excludes a child born without a foreskin. Alternatively, even if we say that there is only one Pasuk, we don't need a Pasuk to exclude the child born without a foreskin, since it's logical that pricking of Mila blood doesn't supersede Shabbos. Alternatively, we don't need a Pasuk that a Mila for an Androgenus supersedes Shabbos. After all, even R' Yehuda who says that it does supersede Shabbos only knows it from a Pasuk, showing that the assumed Halacha is that it doesn't supersede. Therefore, the Rabanan who argue with R' Yehuda knows it from logic.]

37) There is an argument between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding these questionable Milos. The Tanna Kama says that Beis Shammai says that you need to prick a child that's born without a foreskin to remove blood. Beis Hillel says that you don't need to. However, R' Shimon b. Elazar says that everyone agrees that you must prick such a child. They only argue about a convert who came circumcised. Beis Shammai holds that you must prick him, and Beis Hillel says that you don't need to prick him. [Tosfos points out; from here it seems that it's more of an obligation to prick a child born without a foreskin than to prick a circumcised convert.] R' Elazar b. Hakafor says that everyone holds that you prick a child born without a foreskin, the only argument is whether it supersedes Shabbos or not.

Rav says that the Halacha is like the Tanna Kama and you don't need to prick the child born without a foreskin. Shmuel Paskins like R' Shimon b. Elazar and holds you need to prick him. Rabbah says that you need to prick him because it's a Safeik whether there is a compressed foreskin, and R' Yosef holds that there is a definite compressed foreskin there. [Tosfos says that the Gemara infers that the Halacha is like Rav.]

38) [Tosfos says: since the Halacha seems to be like Rav, the Halacha should be that a child born without a foreskin is exempt from being pricked, and, of course, a circumcised convert is exempt (since we say that they're less obligated.) However, the Bahag Paskins that the child born without a foreskin is exempt, but the circumcised convert is obligated to get pricked. This seems to be the exact opposite of our Sugya. We must say that he Paskins this way since he Paskins like R' Yossi in Yevamos who holds that, if a convert comes before Beis Din and claims that he was circumcised to convert, but not Toiveled, you just can't Toivel him to complete his conversion. However, if it's like what we said that a convert that's already circumcised (even if it wasn't for conversion) doesn't need to be pricked; since we see he's circumcised, why can't we just Tovel him? The Rashba gives a reason why this is the opposite from our Gemara. After all, they both should be Chayiv logically. However, once we have a Pasuk of "its foreskin" to exempt a child born without a foreskin, he's exempt. However, since we don't have a Pasuk to exempt a circumcised convert, he remains obligated. However, R' Chananel Paskins the opposite from the Bahag, and says the child born without a foreskin is obligated in being pricked, but the circumcised convert is exempt.]

39) You desecrate Shabbos to do a Mila for the child that was born after seven months, but not for one born after eight months (since it's not viable). You can't desecrate Shabbos according to R' Eliezer for the preparations of a Mila of a child that we're not sure whether it was born after seven or eight months. However, you can give it a Mila since, whichever way you look at it, you did well. If it was born after seven months, then it's a Mila to a regular child that supersedes Shabbos. If it's not viable since it was born after eight months, it's like cutting into meat, and is not a Melacha. We can't resolve if the child is viable or not until it lives thirty days.

40) A child born in its eighth month has the status of a stone and is Muktza, however, it's mother can bend over to nurse it because it's dangerous (for the mother not to nurse). [Tosfos explains: and we're not worried that she'll come to move the Muktza. Tosfos asks: it should be permitted even without being in danger, as long as she has pain (from not nursing)? After all, it's less stricter than a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo, and we even allow that because of pain like we allow popping a pimple. So, not only shouldn't we worry about moving Muktza, she should be able to express her milk when it goes to waste that's a Melacha Shein Tzricha L'gufo.]

41) [Tosfos says: nowadays, we're allowed to move this child that's born in its eighth month. After all, we're not experts when she got pregnant, for perhaps she didn't get pregnant right after her Teveila, but later on, and the child was realy in its seventh month. Even if we know she had only one relations with her husband, and it's been eight months since then, it still could be that it only had seven months of gestation, and it just waited longer in the mother until it was born. However, this is only if we don't see some problem in its hair or fingernails, which might be a sign that it didn't develop enough.]

42) If the mother is not Tamai for giving birth (like by a cesarean or if the mother was a non-Jew when she gave birth, and converted with her son shortly afterwards); there's a Tannaic argument whether the son needs Mila on the eighth day, or can get a Mila right away. (According to the opinion that he gets a Mila on the eighth day, the Mila also supersedes Shabbos. As we see the Tanna Kama says that a non-Jewish maid that gave birth before her Tevila for converting to a Shifcha Kenanis, the son gets a Mila on the eighth day. However, R' Chama says that he gets a Mila on the first day. [Tosfos asks: why is it proven that the reason is because the mother didn't have Tumah for giving birth? Perhaps it's only because the mother wasn't a Jew until after the Tevila (and it's no proof to a cesarean).]

43) According to the opinion that he gets a Mila on the eighth day, even though the Pasuk implies that there is a concept of a child born in your house that gets a Mila on the first day, we need to establish it by a case where he buys the mother exclusively for her children and you don't own her at all, and you don't own anything until after the birth). This only fits well if you hold that buying "the fruit" of an object, (i.e., what it produces), is not as if you have ownership of the actual object; however, according to the opinion that holds that it's as if you own the object, it's as if you owned the mother and child by birth. So, you would need to answer that you bought the mother with specific intention not to Toivel her at all (and there is no obligations to her for Mitzvos until the baby is born). [Tosfos points out: as the Gemara in Yevomas says that, in this case where you intend never to convert her, you can leave her in your possession for some time and you don't need to sell her to a non-Jew right away.]

44) [Rashi seems to hold that if one Jew owns the mother and another Jew owns the fetus, you can still do the Mila on the first day since it's not considered 'yours.' However, Tosfos says that it's definitely called 'yours,' and you give him a Mila on the eighth day.]

Daf 136

45) The Rabanan say that all born children are assumed to be viable right when they're born. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that you need to wait thirty days for a human to be assumed that he's definitely viable, and eight days for an animal.[Tosfos says: these Shiurim are not the same, since the eighth day by an animal is considered viable like after the eighth day. However, the thirtieth day by humans, according to the Rabanan, is considered not definitely viable like before thirty days. According to R' Akiva, it's a Safeik. Therefore, R' Akiva agrees that, regarding mourning over a child that died on its thirtieth day, we can consider it like it's before thirty days, since we're lenient by a Safeik of mourning.] After that time, he's definitely viable [Tosfos: even if it was born in its eighth month], and before that, you need to worry that maybe it wasn't viable [Tosfos: even if it was born regularly], as long as you're not sure that he came to full term. The practical difference between them is; if you Shechted the animal, or by a human, if the child exempts his mother from Yibum.

46) The argument between the Rabanan and R' Shimon b. Gamliel is only if an accident happened to the child, like if it was eaten by a lion or fell off a roof. However, if it just yawned and died, even the Rabanan agree to R' Shimon b. Gamliel that we need to worry it was not viable. The Halacha is like R' Shimon b. Gamliel.

47) The Tanna Kama of a Brasia holds that if you Shecht an unviable animal, it's Tamai like a Neveila. R' Yossi b. Yehuda and R' Elazar b. R' Shimon say that it's Tahor like when you Shecht a Treifa. However, the Tanna Kama says that it's not like a Treifa since a Treifa was once Kosher. Even if it was born a Treifa, but we see that Treifos in general could have been Kosher once, but this unviable child can never have been Kosher.

48) If someone was born with two foreskins (either one on top of the other, or he was born with two male appendages), there is an argument between R' Huna and R' Chiya b. Rav. One holds that the Mila supersedes Shabbos, and the other holds that it doesn't.

49) If a woman (who's husband died) and gave birth to a son that died within thirty days, where she should get Chalitza, but married someone else without Chalitza, if the new husband is a Yisrael, she should get Chalitza. However, if the new husband is a Kohain (who can't marry a Chalutza); R' Shravya quotes Rava that she still needs Chalitza, and Raveina quotes Rava that she doesn't need Chalitza. [Rashi and Tosfos explain: since we can rely on the Rabanan that the child's considered viable. Tosfos: although she won't be forbidden to her Kohain husband since he's only rabbinically forbidden to a Chalutza, and therefore, they didn't forbid a Safeik Chalutza after they got married; still, we're worried about rumors that the Kohain married a Chalutza. As we see, when someone's husband and sister-wife went across the sea, and you find out that the husband died, R' Yochanan says that she can't ever get married since he never had children, she should fall to Yibum. However, since her sister-wife might have became pregnant in the meantime, she can't have Yibum. She can't get a Safeik Chalitza since we might find out that she didn't need Chalitza, and then we would need to announce to the world that she's really permitted to a Kohain (which we don't want to do, since someone might have seen the Chalitza, and didn't hear the announcement). Therefore, if we can permit her without Chalitza, we shouldn't require it.]

50) R' Yehuda says that the Mila of an Androgenus supersedes Shabbos from an extra Pasuk of "all males." However, regularly, he doesn't hold that an Androgenus is a definite male. Therefore, we don't say that it's a male regarding Erichin (and you don't need to give the amount for a man, nor is it a female, and you don't give the amount for a woman) and he can't Mekadesh the Parah Adumah, i.e., place the Parah Adumah ashes on the water.

Daf 137

51) If you give a Mila to a child that's eighth day is not on Shabbos, since he mixed it up with another child that's eighth day is Shabbos; R' Huna says that everyone holds that he's Chayiv for doing a Melacha on Shabbos if he didn't perform any Mitzva, like when the child wasn't eight days old yet and wouldn't be obligated in Mila until after Shabbos. The argument is if he did a Mitzvah, like that the child was older than eight days old and he did a Mila after the proper time. R' Eliezer holds he's still Chayiv, and R' Yehoshua holds that he's exempt since he was very busy trying to do a Mitzvah (of doing the eight day Mila) and it's not similar to idol worship that there was no Mitzvah to be busy with. Since we have a Hekish from idolatry to all other prohibitions that are Chayiv Chatos, you're only Chayiv Chatos if it's similar to idolatry.

R' Yehuda says: if he did a Mitzvah (that the child he gave a Mila was after the eighth day) everyone holds he's exempt. The argument is only if he didn't do a Mitzvah (the child was younger than eight days old).R' Eliezer holds he's still Chayiv, and R' Yehoshua holds that he's exempt since he was very busy trying to do a Mizvah.

52) R' Chiya taught that they don't argue in a case where he mixed up a child who should have had his Mila on Friday with one who should have his Mila on Shabbos, and gave a Mila to the Shabbos one on Friday, that you're Chayiv. After all, this Mohel no longer has a Bris that supersedes Shabbos. Although there are many children who's Bris would be this Shabbos, however, since their Brisim weren't given over to this Mohel to do, so he has no Bris for this Shabbos. The argument is only if you mixed the Shabbos Bris with a Sunday Bris, where he had upon him to do a Shabbos Bris. On that, R' Eliezer still holds him to be Chayiv and R' Yehoshua holds him to be exempt.

53) If the child was born Bein Hashmashes, you need to wait until the ninth day to do the Mila (since the eighth day could really be the seventh day). If the child was born Bein Hashmashes before Shabbos, you need to wait until the tenth day. (After all, if Shabbos would be the ninth day, the Bris doesn't supersede it.) If the child was born Bein Hashmashes before Shabbos and the next week, Shabbos is before Yom Tov, you need to wait until the eleventh day. If the child was born Bein Hashmashes before Shabbos and the next week, Shabbos is before the two days Yom Tov of Rosh Hashana, you need to wait until the twelfth day. If the baby was sick, you need to wait seven days from the time the fever subsided. It's an unresolved inquiry whether you need them to be full days (i.e.,one hundred and sixty eight hours).

54) The strips of the foreskin that remains that makes the Mila invalid until its removed is either a strip that's left going up most of the tip of that appendage, or that's surrounds most of that tip. Therefore the child may not eat Trumah until it's fixed.

55) If it's really mostly removed, but the child is fat and he doesn't look like he has a Mila, you need to cut more because of Maaris Ayin, (so people shouldn't think he doesn't have a proper Mila). However, if he looks like he has a Mila when he has an erection, you don't need to fix it. If he somewhat looks like he has a Mila, then Shmuel still requires to fix it. A Braisa quotes R' Shimon b. Gamliel that says, even in this case, you don't need to fix it.

56) [Rashbam holds that the Bracha that a father makes on a Mila should be before the Mohel's Bracha before the Mila since all Birchos Hamitzvah should be made before the Mitzvah is done. Also, the term that he says "L'hachniso, to bring into the Bris" implies that it's in the future and it wasn't done yet. However, R' Tam says that it's made after the Mila since he's not the one who's doing the Mitzvah, you don't have the rule that the Bracha needs to be made before the Mitzvah. As it says that those standing ther say 'just as you brought him to the Bris etc.," implying that the Bris was done already. Also we see by the Bracha of Mila of the convert, they combine the father's Bracha with the Bracha after the Mila, implying that it was all done after the Mila. Also, L'hachniso can be past tense, although it's more apt for it to be future tense.]