Opinion #1: It says "v'Chol Eved Ish Miknas Kesef..." - a slave [that you bought from a Nochri] who is an Ish (adult man), you circumcise him Bal Korcho (against his will). A [Nochri's] son who is an Ish, you do not circumcise him Bal Korcho.

Question (R. Yochanan): This implies that a [Nochri's] son who is a minor, you circumcise him Bal Korcho, even the son of a noble! (His father will not let you do so!)

Answer (R. Chizkiyah citing Rava): [The Drashah] discusses a baby found cast [in the street]. If you immersed him in order to be a slave, you circumcise him to be a slave. If you immersed him in order to be free (a convert), you circumcise him to be a free man.

Question (R. Yochanan): This implies that [if you immersed him] in order to be a slave, he is like a slave, even the son of a noble!

Opinion #2: R. Avahu and R. Elazar citing R. Hoshayah did not say so. Rather, "v'Chol Eved Ish Miknas Kesef" teaches that your adult slave, you circumcise him Bal Korcho, but your adult son, you need not circumcise him Bal Korcho.

This is like R. Heila said in the name of R. Yosah - one who buys Arel slaves from a Nochri on condition to circumcise them, they are like Eved Ish. You circumcise them Bal Korcham;

If [he begin] on condition not to circumcise them, he is like Ben Ish. You may not circumcise him Bal Korcho!

One who is Mashuch (circumcised, but his Orlah stretched and covered the crown), or he was born circumcised, and one who circumcised before he converted, they may not eat Terumah.

(R. Zerikan citing R. Yanai bei R. Yishmael citing R. Yochanan): It is a fine.

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak citing Rav): [Chachamim] made a decree.

Question: What do they differ about?

Answer: If someone else stretched his Orlah, or it stretched by itself. If you will say that it is a fine, there is no fine her. If you will say that it is a decree, even so (in such a case) they decreed.

"Himol Yimol" - the Torah decreed that there are two circumcisions - one of Milah (itself, i.e. cutting the foreskin), and one of Peri'ah (pulling back the flesh). One of Milah and one of strands [that remain after Milah itself].

Question: This is according to R. Akiva, who says that [doubled expressions] are inclusions;

According to R. Yishmael, who says that they are doubled expressions, and the Torah spoke in it its way, e.g. "Haloch Halachta Ki Nichsaf Nichsafta Gunav Gunavti" [so we do not expound them], what is the source?

Answer (R. Yudah bar Pazi): "Az Amarti Chasan Damim l'Mulos" - this is the source for two circumcisions - one of Milah and one of Peri'ah. One of Milah and one of strands.

(Rav): "Himol Yimol" - this teaches that one who was born circumcised, he needs Hatafas Dam (to extract a drop of blood from the end of his Ever, for the sake of the) Bris.

"Himol Yimol" - this is the source that a Yisrael Arel may not circumcise until he is circumcised, and there is no need to say that a Nochri Arel [may not circumcise].

(R. Levi): It says "v'Atah Es Brisi Sishmor" - you and everyone like you (may circumcise others, but Nochrim may not).

(Beraisa): A Yisrael may circumcise a Kusi, but a Kusi (even if he is circumcised) may not circumcise a Yisrael, for he circumcises l'Shem Har Grizim (an idolatry that many Kusim worshipped). R. Yehudah says so;

R. Yosi (to R. Yehudah): Where do we find in the Torah that Milah needs intent?! Rather, he may circumcise l'Shem Har Grizim (his intent for idolatry does not disqualify the Milah) repeatedly, until he dies [for his idolatrous intents].

One who is Mashuch (circumcised, but his Orlah stretched and covered the crown) should not circumcise [again], lest he come to danger (become a Krus Shafchah, who cannot father children and is forbidden to marry into Yisrael). R. Yehudah says so;

R. Yosi (to R. Yehudah): They were many Mashuchim in the days of Ben Koziva (Bar Kochba; the Nochrim forcibly did so to them). All of them circumcised [again] and lived, and fathered sons and daughters!

One who is Mashuch, was born circumcised, or circumcised before he converted, he needs Hatafas Dam Bris.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel did not argue about one who was born circumcised, that he needs Hatafas Dam Bris, for there is covered Orlah. (CHAZON ISH, YD 154:3 - since it is covered, it is not proper Orlah that must be cut off, but it does obligate Hatafas Dam Bris);

What did they argue about? They argue about one who converted when he was already circumcised. Beis Shamai say that he needs Hatafas Dam Bris, and Beis Hillel say that he does not need Hatafas Dam Bris.

(R. Yitzchak bar Nachman citing R. Hoshayah): The Halachah follows the Talmid (R. Shimon ben Elazar).

A case came in front of Rav [of a baby born circumcised on Shabbos]. He said, since [the Beraisa] taught 'for there is covered Orlah', this teaches that he is a Vadai Arel, and [his Milah] overrides Shabbos.

(R. Avahu): We do not override Shabbos for him, and, he needs Hatafas Dam Bris [on a weekday, for it is a Safek].

Rav Ada bar Achavah had a son born so (circumcised). He engaged with him (to do Hatafas Dam Bris), and he died.

(R. Avin): [The son] became a Krus Shafchah, and he fasted for him that he die. (EIN YITZCHAK EH 11:21 - he was concerned lest the son later think that perhaps he was a Krus Shafchah bi'Ydei Shamayim, and he will marry a Bas Yisrael, and they will sin constantly, i.e. every Bi'ah.)

(Rabanan of Kisarin): [The son] became a Petzu'a Daka, and he fasted for him that he die.