Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 14, 2020 | 讻状讘 讘转诪讜讝 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 130

What preparations, if any, are allowed to be done on Shabbat for the purposes of a brit milah? Can one carry a scalpel? Can one cuts trees to make a fire to create a scalpel? Rabbi Eliezer permits and says one should carry it in a way that is visible to all but Rabbi Akiva says that anything that can be done before Shabbat cannot be done on Shabbat. Why does Rabbi Eliezer insist that it be visible – is it to show how much one loves to do mitzvot or to prevent others from suspecting one of carrying on Shabbat? The gemara expounds on the issue of performing a mitzva out of happiness. In Rabbi Eliezer’s city, they held like him and in Rabbi Yosi the Galilean’s city, they held like Rabbi Yosi regarding eating milk and chicken together, even though in both cases, it was the minority opinion. The gemara talks about how mitzvot that the Jews accepted with happiness continue to be performed with happiness and those accepted with argumentation continue to be performed with argumentation. Likewise, ones that the Jews sacrificed their lives for, end up being performed widely (like circumcision not worshipping idols) and ones that they did not sacrifice their lives for (tefillin) are not widely held. The story of Elisha “the winged” is brought to show that only he sacrificed his life for tefillin but not others. A story is told of a scalpel that was carried via rooftops and courtyards on Shabbat not according to Rabbi Eliezer. According to whose opinion did they do this? Can one carry within an alley where an eiruv wasn’t established (if the items were in the alleyway before Shabbat)? Two opposing opinions are brought.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讻诇讬 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪讘讬讗讜 讘砖讘转 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讘住讻谞讛 诪讻住讛讜 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐

MISHNA: As a continuation to the discussion at the end of the previous chapter, which mentioned circumcision in the context of a discussion of the halakhot of childbirth on Shabbat, the mishna continues to address the halakhot of circumcision. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he did not bring an implement for circumcising the child on Shabbat eve, he brings it on Shabbat itself uncovered so that it will be clear to all that he is bringing a circumcision scalpel. And in times of danger, when decrees of persecution prohibit Jews from circumcising their children, one covers it in the presence of witnesses who can testify that he transported the scalpel to perform a mitzva.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讜专转讬诐 注爪讬诐 诇注砖讜转 驻讞诪讬谉 诇注砖讜转 (讻诇讬) 讘专讝诇

And furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer said with regard to this issue: One may even cut down trees to prepare charcoal in order to fashion iron tools for the purpose of circumcision.

讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 (讜诪讬诇讛) 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转:

Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 approach was not universally accepted, and a principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat, including transporting the circumcision scalpel. However, any prohibited labor involved in the mitzva of circumcision itself that cannot be performed on Shabbat eve overrides Shabbat.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讞讘讜讘讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讻讜住讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讞讘讜讘讬 诪爪讜讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讻讜住讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讜住讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诪讗讬

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that the scalpel must be uncovered due to affection for the mitzva and the desire to publicize it, or perhaps it is due to avoiding suspicion? The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between the two reasons suggested for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to the question of whether or not it is permitted to bring the scalpel covered in the presence of witnesses who are aware that one is bringing the scalpel for the purpose of circumcision. If you say the reason is due to affection for the mitzva, then if it is uncovered, yes, there is a display of affection for the mitzva. If it is covered, no, there is no display of affection. However, if you say the reason for this ruling is due to avoiding suspicion, even if it is covered he may well do so, because the witnesses are aware that a circumcision will be performed. What is the resolution of this dilemma?

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 诇讞讘讜讘讬 诪爪讜讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讘讬讗讜 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讜 诪讻讜住讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 诪讻住讛讜 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讘住讻谞讛 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘住讻谞讛 诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讘讜讘讬 诪爪讜讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

It was stated that Rabbi Levi said: Rabbi Eliezer only stated this ruling to express affection for the mitzva. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: If a child is to be circumcised on Shabbat and they failed to bring the scalpel on Shabbat eve, one brings it on Shabbat uncovered, but he does not bring it covered; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise in support of this opinion, as it teaches: And in a time of danger he covers it in the presence of witnesses. By inference, in a time of danger, yes, he covers it; when it is not a time of danger, no, he does not cover it. Conclude from this that the scalpel is uncovered due to affection for the mitzva. The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude from this.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪讘讬讗讜 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讜 诪讻讜住讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讛讬讜 讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 砖讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诪讻讜住讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐

It was taught in another baraita: He brings the scalpel uncovered, and he does not bring it covered; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: In a time of danger they would customarily bring the scalpel covered in the presence of witnesses.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚讬诐 讚拽讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 讜讞讚 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜转专讬

With regard to these witnesses, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: The necessary witnesses that he is saying, do they include he who is bringing the scalpel and one other witness? Or perhaps they include he who brought the scalpel and two other witnesses to testify on his behalf.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讘住讻谞讛 诪讻住讛讜 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜转专讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讜讗 讜讞讚 诪讗讬 注讚讬诐 砖专讗讜讬诐 诇讛注讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专:

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the language of the mishna, which stated: And in times of danger he covers it in the presence of witnesses. Granted, if you say it is referring to him and two other witnesses, it works out well; the wording is appropriate. However, if you say it is referring to him and one other witness, what is to be made of the use of the term witnesses in the plural when there is only one other witness? The Gemara refutes this proof: They may still be called witnesses, in the plural, because they, i.e., he and the other witness, are fit to testify elsewhere.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讜 讻讜专转讬谉 注爪讬诐 诇注砖讜转 驻讞诪讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讘专讝诇 讘砖讘转 讘诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘砖专 注讜祝 讘讞诇讘

We learned in our mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer said: One may even cut down trees to prepare charcoal for the purpose of circumcision on Shabbat. With regard to this issue, the Sages taught in a baraita: In the locale of Rabbi Eliezer, where they would follow his ruling, they would even cut down trees on Shabbat to prepare charcoal from it in order to fashion iron tools with which to circumcise a child on Shabbat. On a related note, the baraita relates: In the locale of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili they would eat poultry meat in milk, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili held that the prohibition of meat in milk does not include poultry.

诇讜讬 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 讬讜住祝 专讬砖讘讗 拽专讬讘讜 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讚讟讜讜住讗 讘讞诇讘讗 诇讗 讗讻诇 讻讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 转砖诪转讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讛讜讛 讜讗诪讬谞讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讚专砖 诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

The Gemara relates: Levi happened to come to the house of Yosef the hunter. They served him the head of a peacock [tavsa] in milk and he did not eat. When Levi came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the latter said to him: Why did you not excommunicate these people who eat poultry in milk, contrary to the decree of the Sages? Levi said to him: It was in the locale of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, and I said: Perhaps he taught them that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who permits the eating of poultry meat in milk. Given the possibility that their rabbi rules that it is permitted, I cannot come and prohibit it, and I certainly cannot excommunicate them for it.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讗转 砖讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 谞讘诇讛 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 注讜祝 砖讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 谞讘诇讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讬爪讗 注讜祝 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇讘 讗诐

As we learned in a mishna, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is stated in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not eat anything that dies of itself; to the stranger at your gates you may give it, that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21), and it is stated later in the same verse: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk.鈥 From the juxtaposition of the two issues it is derived: That which is prohibited due to the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal, it is prohibited to cook it in milk. The prohibition against cooking a creature in milk is not limited to only a kid. If so, with regard to poultry, which is prohibited due to the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal, I might have thought it should be prohibited to cook it in milk; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n its mother鈥檚 milk.鈥 This excludes poultry, which does not have mother鈥檚 milk and is therefore not included in the prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 注讬专 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛讬讜 诪转讬诐 讘讝诪谞谉 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖驻注诐 讗讞转 讙讝专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 讙讝专讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讛诪讬诇讛 讜注诇 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 诇讗 讙讝专讛:

Rabbi Yitz岣k said: There was one city in Eretz Yisrael where they would act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to circumcision, and they would die at their appointed time and not earlier, as a reward for their affection for this mitzva. And not only that, but on one occasion the wicked empire, Rome, issued a decree against the Jewish people prohibiting circumcision; but against that city it did not issue the decree.

转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖拽讬讘诇讜 注诇讬讛诐 讘砖诪讞讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讬诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 砖砖 讗谞讻讬 注诇 讗诪专转讱 讻诪讜爪讗 砖诇诇 专讘 注讚讬讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘砖诪讞讛 讜讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖拽讘诇讜 注诇讬讛诐 讘拽讟讟讛 讻讙讜谉 注专讬讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诪注 诪砖讛 讗转 讛注诐 讘讜讻讛 诇诪砖驻讞讜转讬讜 注诇 注住拽讬 诪砖驻讞讜转讬讜 注讚讬讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘拽讟讟讛 讚诇讬讻讗 讻转讜讘讛 讚诇讗 专诪讜 讘讛 转讬讙专讗

Apropos affection for the mitzva of circumcision, the Gemara cites a baraita in which it was taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Every mitzva that the Jews initially accepted upon themselves with joy, such as circumcision, as it is written: 鈥淚 rejoice at Your word as one who finds great spoil鈥 (Psalms 119:162), and as the Sages explained, this 鈥渨ord鈥 refers to the mitzva of circumcision, over which they rejoiced, they still perform it with joy. And every mitzva that the Jews initially accepted upon themselves with contentiousness and regret, such as the prohibition against incestuous relations, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Moses heard the people weeping, family by family鈥 (Numbers 11:10), and as the Sages interpreted homiletically: They wept over matters pertaining to their families, as they were prohibited at that time from marrying family members, they still perform with contentiousness. The fact is that there is no marriage contract and wedding in which contentiousness does not arise, as there is inevitably some conflict between the parties. The baraita asserts that this is because, initially, the Jews did not accept the laws governing marriage and family relationships willingly.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖诪住专讜 讬砖专讗诇 注爪诪谉 注诇讬讛诐 诇诪讬转讛 讘砖注转 讙讝专转 讛诪诇讻讜转 讻讙讜谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诪讬诇讛 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讜讞讝拽转 讘讬讚诐 讜讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖诇讗 诪住专讜 讬砖专讗诇 注爪诪谉 注诇讬讛 诇诪讬转讛 讘砖注转 讙讝专转 讛诪诇讻讜转 讻讙讜谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪专讜驻讛 讘讬讚诐

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in praise of the observance of the mitzva of circumcision: Any mitzva for which the Jews sacrificed their lives at the time of the decrees of the wicked empire, such as the prohibition of idolatry and the mitzva of circumcision, is still steadfastly observed. And any mitzva for which the Jews did not sacrifice their lives at the time of the decrees of the wicked empire, such as phylacteries, is still casually observed, meaning that they are not as careful in its fulfillment as they should be.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讙讜祝 谞拽讬 讻讗诇讬砖注 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诇讗 讬驻讬讞 讘讛诐 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讬讬砖谉 讘讛诐

The Gemara cites proof that the mitzva of phylacteries was not fulfilled properly at the time of the decrees, based upon an incident related to the following halakha. As Rabbi Yannai said: Donning phylacteries requires a clean body like that of Elisha, Man of Wings. What is included in the requirement to have a clean body? Abaye said: That one may not pass wind in them. Rava said: That one may not sleep in them.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讗诇讬砖注 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐 砖驻注诐 讗讞转 讙讝专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 讙讝专讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻诇 讛诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 专讗砖讜 讬拽专讜 讗转 诪讜讞讜 讜讛讬讛 讗诇讬砖注 诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讬爪讗 诇砖讜拽 讜专讗讛讜 拽住讚讜专 讗讞讚 专抓 诪诇驻谞讬讜 讜专抓 讗讞专讬讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讗爪诇讜 谞讟诇谉 诪专讗砖讜 讜讗讞讝谉 讘讬讚讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 驻砖讟 讗转 讬讚讜 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讘讛 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讬讜 拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐

The Gemara asks: And why did they call him Elisha, Man of Wings? Because on one occasion the wicked empire of Rome issued a decree against the Jewish people that, as punishment, they would pierce the brain of anyone who dons phylacteries on his head. Nevertheless, Elisha would don them and defiantly go out to the marketplace. One day, an official who was appointed to enforce the decree saw him. Elisha ran away from him, and the official ran after him. When the official reached him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his head and held them in his hand. The officer asked him: What is in your hand? Elisha said to him: It is merely a dove鈥檚 wings. A miracle took place: He opened his hand, and, indeed, it was found to be a dove鈥檚 wings. Therefore, in commemoration of this miracle, they would call him Elisha, Man of Wings.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗专 注讜驻讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚讚诪讬讗 讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讬讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 谞讞驻讛 讘讻住祝 讜讗讘专讜转讬讛 讘讬专拽专拽 讞专讜抓 诪讛 讬讜谞讛 讝讜 讻谞驻讬讛 诪讙讬谞讜转 注诇讬讛 讗祝 讬砖专讗诇 诪爪讜转 诪讙讬谞讜转 注诇讬讛谉:

The Gemara asks: And what is different about a dove鈥檚 wings, that Elisha specifically told him that he was holding the wings of a dove and he did not tell him he was holding the wings of other birds? The Gemara answers: Because the congregation of Israel is likened to a dove, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall shine as the wings of a dove covered with silver and her pinions with yellow gold鈥 (Psalms 68:14). Just as a dove has only its wings to protect it, so too, the Jewish people have only mitzvot to protect them. Apparently, Elisha Man of Wings was vigilant in fulfilling the mitzva of phylacteries in the face of the decree, whereas the rest of the people were not.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 讗讬讝诪诇 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 讘砖讘转 [讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讜讚专讱 讞爪讬专讜转]

Rabbi Abba bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said as follows: On one occasion they were supposed to circumcise a baby on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not bring a scalpel with which to circumcise him on Shabbat eve, and they brought it on Shabbat via roofs and via courtyards,

砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer. Even though the roofs and courtyards were not halakhically joined in a manner where it would be permitted to carry from one to the other, the Rabbis permitted carrying the scalpel in this manner.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讚专讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讜讗 讚砖专讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚砖专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘谞谉 讚讗住专讜 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜砖专讜 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讚专讱 讞爪讬专讜转 讜拽专驻讬驻讜转 讜诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讗 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讜诇讗 讚专讱 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讜诇讗 讚专讱 讞爪讬专讜转

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: Contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer? On the contrary, it is Rabbi Eliezer who permits this, as he permits carrying the scalpel even through the public domain. And if you say that it means contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits carrying even in the public domain, but in accordance with the wishes of the Rabbis, who prohibited carrying via the public domain and only permitted carrying via roofs, via courtyards and enclosures, that is also difficult. And is it permitted according to the opinion of the Rabbis? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Just as one may not bring the circumcision knife via the public domain, so too, one may not bring it via roofs, via enclosures, or via courtyards?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讞诇讜拽转讜 讗诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讜讗讞讚 讞爪讬专讜转 讻讜诇谉 专砖讜转 讗讞讚 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转

Rather, Rav Ashi said: It means contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer and his disputants, but in accordance with the wishes of Rabbi Shimon. As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, enclosures, and courtyards are all considered as one domain with regard to vessels that rested inside them at the beginning of Shabbat. Therefore, it is permitted to carry vessels that rested inside one to another. However, they are not considered the same domain with regard to vessels that rested inside the house at the beginning of Shabbat. If the homeowners did not join the courtyard by means of an eiruv, it is prohibited to carry vessels from their houses to the courtyard. Even if the houses in a courtyard were joined, it is prohibited to carry from the courtyard to an enclosure unless they were joined by means of an eiruv. In any case, there are circumstances in which Rabbi Shimon allows carrying via roofs, courtyards, and enclosures.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 诪讛讜 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讞爪专 讚诪讬 诪讛 讞爪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注专讘讜 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 诇讞爪专 讚讞爪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讞讬爪讜转 讗讬 谞诪讬 讞爪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: An alleyway whose residents did not merge together, what is its legal status with regard to carrying items in all of it according to Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Zeira explains the dilemma: Do we say that it is like a courtyard, and just as with regard to a courtyard, even though they did not join the houses in it together and despite the fact that it is prohibited to carry out items from the houses to the courtyard, it is nonetheless permitted to carry in all of it? Therefore, in this alleyway too, even though they did not merge together, it is permitted to carry in all of it despite the fact that it is prohibited to carry items into the alleyway. Or, perhaps an alleyway is not similar in this regard to a courtyard, as a courtyard has four partitions, whereas this, the alleyway, does not have four partitions, but only three. Alternatively, there may be a different reason for the inferior status of an alleyway in this regard: A courtyard has residents and can therefore be considered like a house, which would allow carrying within it, whereas this alleyway does not have residents. Rabbi Asi was silent and did not say anything to him, as he was unable to provide a satisfactory response.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 讗讬讝诪诇 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 讘砖讘转 讜讛讬讛 讛讚讘专 拽砖讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讗讱 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讞讚讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖诪讜转讬 讛讜讗 讜注讜讚 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐

On another occasion Rabbi Zeira found Rabbi Asi sitting and saying: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: One time they forgot and did not bring a scalpel on Shabbat eve for the purpose of circumcising a child on Shabbat, and they brought it on Shabbat, and the matter was difficult in the eyes of the Rabbis: How can they abandon the words of the Rabbis, who prohibit doing so, and act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? Why did they find this difficult? One reason was that Rabbi Eliezer was a Shammuti, i.e., a follower of the views of Beit Shammai (Jerusalem Talmud), and the halakha is generally in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in their disputes with Beit Shammai. And furthermore, there is a general rule that in a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many. Here too, the halakha should certainly be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖讗讬诇讬转 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讙讜讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讬 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讛讜讛 讜讗讬讬转讜讛讜 诪讛讗讬 专讬砖讗 诇讛讗讬 专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇诪专 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讗讬 诪讬谞讱 讜诇讗 讗诪专转 诇讬 讛讻讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讙讘 砖讬讟驻讱 专讛讬讟 诇讱 讙诪专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讙讘 砖讬讟驻讗 专讛讬讟讗 诇讬 讙诪专讬

And Rabbi Oshaya said: I asked Rabbi Yehuda the Cutter, i.e., the circumcisor, and he told me that this incident occurred in an alleyway whose residents did not merge together, and they brought the scalpel from this end of the alleyway to that end, where the baby was. That concludes Rabbi Asi鈥檚 account of the event. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Since you related that story without expressing any reservations, it appears that the Master must hold that with regard to an alleyway whose residents did not merge together, it is permitted to carry in all of it. And Rabbi Asi said to him: Yes, that is the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to him: But on a different occasion I raised a dilemma on this matter before you and you did not say so to me. Perhaps in the course of your studies your knowledge was restored to you? He said to him: Yes, in the course of my studies my knowledge was restored to me, and I remembered this halakha.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

With regard to the very same halakha, it was stated as a principle that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: An alleyway that was not merged by the residents of the courtyards that open into it, it is only permitted to carry in it within four cubits.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜诇讗 驻讬专砖讛 注讚 讚讗转讗 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜驻讬专砖讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 注讬专讘讜 讞爪讬专讜转 注诐 讘转讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讞爪讬专讜转 注诐 讘转讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜

Abaye said: This halakhic matter was stated by Rabbi Zeira, and he did not explain it. It remained enigmatic until Rabba bar Avuh came and explained it. As Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Rav said: With regard to an alleyway that was not merged by the residents of the courtyards that open into it, if they joined the courtyards with the houses, i.e., the homeowners within each courtyard joined together and are therefore permitted to carry within the courtyards themselves, it is only permitted to carry in it within four cubits, as in an intermediate domain [karmelit]. However, if they did not join the courtyards with the houses and it is prohibited to carry within the courtyards, it is permitted to carry in the entire alleyway.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 诇专讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讬 注讬专讘讜 讞爪讬专讜转 注诐 讘转讬诐 讚谞讬转拽讜 讞爪讬专讜转 讜谞注砖讜 讘转讬诐 讜专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诪讘讜讬 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜

Rav 岣nina 岣za鈥檃 said to Rabba: What is different about a case where they joined the courtyards with the houses? Is it because the courtyards were detached and became like houses? And Rav follows his regular line of reasoning, for Rav said: An alleyway can only be made into a permitted area for carrying by means of a sidepole and a crossbeam, which is the standard halakha in a closed alleyway, if there are

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Shabbat 124-130 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will review concepts in Daf 124-130 including moving utensils, moving boxes of food to make room for...
flashback

So, Where Are You From?

On today鈥檚 daf we have a few fascinating statements about regional differences in halacha. We learn that Rabbi Eliezer permitted...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 130: Peacock Parmesan

A mohel who needs to perform a circumcision on Shabbat should make sure his tools are at the site of...

Shabbat 130

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 130

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讻诇讬 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪讘讬讗讜 讘砖讘转 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讘住讻谞讛 诪讻住讛讜 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐

MISHNA: As a continuation to the discussion at the end of the previous chapter, which mentioned circumcision in the context of a discussion of the halakhot of childbirth on Shabbat, the mishna continues to address the halakhot of circumcision. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he did not bring an implement for circumcising the child on Shabbat eve, he brings it on Shabbat itself uncovered so that it will be clear to all that he is bringing a circumcision scalpel. And in times of danger, when decrees of persecution prohibit Jews from circumcising their children, one covers it in the presence of witnesses who can testify that he transported the scalpel to perform a mitzva.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讜专转讬诐 注爪讬诐 诇注砖讜转 驻讞诪讬谉 诇注砖讜转 (讻诇讬) 讘专讝诇

And furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer said with regard to this issue: One may even cut down trees to prepare charcoal in order to fashion iron tools for the purpose of circumcision.

讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 (讜诪讬诇讛) 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转:

Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 approach was not universally accepted, and a principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat, including transporting the circumcision scalpel. However, any prohibited labor involved in the mitzva of circumcision itself that cannot be performed on Shabbat eve overrides Shabbat.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讞讘讜讘讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讻讜住讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讞讘讜讘讬 诪爪讜讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讻讜住讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讜住讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 诪讗讬

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that the scalpel must be uncovered due to affection for the mitzva and the desire to publicize it, or perhaps it is due to avoiding suspicion? The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between the two reasons suggested for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to the question of whether or not it is permitted to bring the scalpel covered in the presence of witnesses who are aware that one is bringing the scalpel for the purpose of circumcision. If you say the reason is due to affection for the mitzva, then if it is uncovered, yes, there is a display of affection for the mitzva. If it is covered, no, there is no display of affection. However, if you say the reason for this ruling is due to avoiding suspicion, even if it is covered he may well do so, because the witnesses are aware that a circumcision will be performed. What is the resolution of this dilemma?

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 诇讞讘讜讘讬 诪爪讜讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讘讬讗讜 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讜 诪讻讜住讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 诪讻住讛讜 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讘住讻谞讛 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘住讻谞讛 诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讘讜讘讬 诪爪讜讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

It was stated that Rabbi Levi said: Rabbi Eliezer only stated this ruling to express affection for the mitzva. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: If a child is to be circumcised on Shabbat and they failed to bring the scalpel on Shabbat eve, one brings it on Shabbat uncovered, but he does not bring it covered; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise in support of this opinion, as it teaches: And in a time of danger he covers it in the presence of witnesses. By inference, in a time of danger, yes, he covers it; when it is not a time of danger, no, he does not cover it. Conclude from this that the scalpel is uncovered due to affection for the mitzva. The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude from this.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪讘讬讗讜 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讜 诪讻讜住讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讛讬讜 讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 砖讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诪讻讜住讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐

It was taught in another baraita: He brings the scalpel uncovered, and he does not bring it covered; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: In a time of danger they would customarily bring the scalpel covered in the presence of witnesses.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚讬诐 讚拽讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 讜讞讚 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜转专讬

With regard to these witnesses, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: The necessary witnesses that he is saying, do they include he who is bringing the scalpel and one other witness? Or perhaps they include he who brought the scalpel and two other witnesses to testify on his behalf.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讘住讻谞讛 诪讻住讛讜 注诇 驻讬 注讚讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜转专讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讜讗 讜讞讚 诪讗讬 注讚讬诐 砖专讗讜讬诐 诇讛注讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专:

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the language of the mishna, which stated: And in times of danger he covers it in the presence of witnesses. Granted, if you say it is referring to him and two other witnesses, it works out well; the wording is appropriate. However, if you say it is referring to him and one other witness, what is to be made of the use of the term witnesses in the plural when there is only one other witness? The Gemara refutes this proof: They may still be called witnesses, in the plural, because they, i.e., he and the other witness, are fit to testify elsewhere.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讜 讻讜专转讬谉 注爪讬诐 诇注砖讜转 驻讞诪讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讘专讝诇 讘砖讘转 讘诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘砖专 注讜祝 讘讞诇讘

We learned in our mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer said: One may even cut down trees to prepare charcoal for the purpose of circumcision on Shabbat. With regard to this issue, the Sages taught in a baraita: In the locale of Rabbi Eliezer, where they would follow his ruling, they would even cut down trees on Shabbat to prepare charcoal from it in order to fashion iron tools with which to circumcise a child on Shabbat. On a related note, the baraita relates: In the locale of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili they would eat poultry meat in milk, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili held that the prohibition of meat in milk does not include poultry.

诇讜讬 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 讬讜住祝 专讬砖讘讗 拽专讬讘讜 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讚讟讜讜住讗 讘讞诇讘讗 诇讗 讗讻诇 讻讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 转砖诪转讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讛讜讛 讜讗诪讬谞讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讚专砖 诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

The Gemara relates: Levi happened to come to the house of Yosef the hunter. They served him the head of a peacock [tavsa] in milk and he did not eat. When Levi came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the latter said to him: Why did you not excommunicate these people who eat poultry in milk, contrary to the decree of the Sages? Levi said to him: It was in the locale of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, and I said: Perhaps he taught them that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who permits the eating of poultry meat in milk. Given the possibility that their rabbi rules that it is permitted, I cannot come and prohibit it, and I certainly cannot excommunicate them for it.

讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讗转 砖讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 谞讘诇讛 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 注讜祝 砖讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 谞讘诇讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讗住讜专 诇讘砖诇 讘讞诇讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讬爪讗 注讜祝 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇讘 讗诐

As we learned in a mishna, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is stated in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not eat anything that dies of itself; to the stranger at your gates you may give it, that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21), and it is stated later in the same verse: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk.鈥 From the juxtaposition of the two issues it is derived: That which is prohibited due to the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal, it is prohibited to cook it in milk. The prohibition against cooking a creature in milk is not limited to only a kid. If so, with regard to poultry, which is prohibited due to the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal, I might have thought it should be prohibited to cook it in milk; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n its mother鈥檚 milk.鈥 This excludes poultry, which does not have mother鈥檚 milk and is therefore not included in the prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 注讬专 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛讬讜 诪转讬诐 讘讝诪谞谉 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖驻注诐 讗讞转 讙讝专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 讙讝专讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讛诪讬诇讛 讜注诇 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 诇讗 讙讝专讛:

Rabbi Yitz岣k said: There was one city in Eretz Yisrael where they would act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to circumcision, and they would die at their appointed time and not earlier, as a reward for their affection for this mitzva. And not only that, but on one occasion the wicked empire, Rome, issued a decree against the Jewish people prohibiting circumcision; but against that city it did not issue the decree.

转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖拽讬讘诇讜 注诇讬讛诐 讘砖诪讞讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讬诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 砖砖 讗谞讻讬 注诇 讗诪专转讱 讻诪讜爪讗 砖诇诇 专讘 注讚讬讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘砖诪讞讛 讜讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖拽讘诇讜 注诇讬讛诐 讘拽讟讟讛 讻讙讜谉 注专讬讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诪注 诪砖讛 讗转 讛注诐 讘讜讻讛 诇诪砖驻讞讜转讬讜 注诇 注住拽讬 诪砖驻讞讜转讬讜 注讚讬讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘拽讟讟讛 讚诇讬讻讗 讻转讜讘讛 讚诇讗 专诪讜 讘讛 转讬讙专讗

Apropos affection for the mitzva of circumcision, the Gemara cites a baraita in which it was taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Every mitzva that the Jews initially accepted upon themselves with joy, such as circumcision, as it is written: 鈥淚 rejoice at Your word as one who finds great spoil鈥 (Psalms 119:162), and as the Sages explained, this 鈥渨ord鈥 refers to the mitzva of circumcision, over which they rejoiced, they still perform it with joy. And every mitzva that the Jews initially accepted upon themselves with contentiousness and regret, such as the prohibition against incestuous relations, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Moses heard the people weeping, family by family鈥 (Numbers 11:10), and as the Sages interpreted homiletically: They wept over matters pertaining to their families, as they were prohibited at that time from marrying family members, they still perform with contentiousness. The fact is that there is no marriage contract and wedding in which contentiousness does not arise, as there is inevitably some conflict between the parties. The baraita asserts that this is because, initially, the Jews did not accept the laws governing marriage and family relationships willingly.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖诪住专讜 讬砖专讗诇 注爪诪谉 注诇讬讛诐 诇诪讬转讛 讘砖注转 讙讝专转 讛诪诇讻讜转 讻讙讜谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诪讬诇讛 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讜讞讝拽转 讘讬讚诐 讜讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖诇讗 诪住专讜 讬砖专讗诇 注爪诪谉 注诇讬讛 诇诪讬转讛 讘砖注转 讙讝专转 讛诪诇讻讜转 讻讙讜谉 转驻讬诇讬谉 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪专讜驻讛 讘讬讚诐

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in praise of the observance of the mitzva of circumcision: Any mitzva for which the Jews sacrificed their lives at the time of the decrees of the wicked empire, such as the prohibition of idolatry and the mitzva of circumcision, is still steadfastly observed. And any mitzva for which the Jews did not sacrifice their lives at the time of the decrees of the wicked empire, such as phylacteries, is still casually observed, meaning that they are not as careful in its fulfillment as they should be.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讙讜祝 谞拽讬 讻讗诇讬砖注 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诇讗 讬驻讬讞 讘讛诐 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讬讬砖谉 讘讛诐

The Gemara cites proof that the mitzva of phylacteries was not fulfilled properly at the time of the decrees, based upon an incident related to the following halakha. As Rabbi Yannai said: Donning phylacteries requires a clean body like that of Elisha, Man of Wings. What is included in the requirement to have a clean body? Abaye said: That one may not pass wind in them. Rava said: That one may not sleep in them.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讗诇讬砖注 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐 砖驻注诐 讗讞转 讙讝专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 讙讝专讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻诇 讛诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 注诇 专讗砖讜 讬拽专讜 讗转 诪讜讞讜 讜讛讬讛 讗诇讬砖注 诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讬爪讗 诇砖讜拽 讜专讗讛讜 拽住讚讜专 讗讞讚 专抓 诪诇驻谞讬讜 讜专抓 讗讞专讬讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讗爪诇讜 谞讟诇谉 诪专讗砖讜 讜讗讞讝谉 讘讬讚讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 驻砖讟 讗转 讬讚讜 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讘讛 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讬讜 拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘注诇 讻谞驻讬诐

The Gemara asks: And why did they call him Elisha, Man of Wings? Because on one occasion the wicked empire of Rome issued a decree against the Jewish people that, as punishment, they would pierce the brain of anyone who dons phylacteries on his head. Nevertheless, Elisha would don them and defiantly go out to the marketplace. One day, an official who was appointed to enforce the decree saw him. Elisha ran away from him, and the official ran after him. When the official reached him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his head and held them in his hand. The officer asked him: What is in your hand? Elisha said to him: It is merely a dove鈥檚 wings. A miracle took place: He opened his hand, and, indeed, it was found to be a dove鈥檚 wings. Therefore, in commemoration of this miracle, they would call him Elisha, Man of Wings.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗专 注讜驻讜转 诪砖讜诐 讚讚诪讬讗 讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讬讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻谞驻讬 讬讜谞讛 谞讞驻讛 讘讻住祝 讜讗讘专讜转讬讛 讘讬专拽专拽 讞专讜抓 诪讛 讬讜谞讛 讝讜 讻谞驻讬讛 诪讙讬谞讜转 注诇讬讛 讗祝 讬砖专讗诇 诪爪讜转 诪讙讬谞讜转 注诇讬讛谉:

The Gemara asks: And what is different about a dove鈥檚 wings, that Elisha specifically told him that he was holding the wings of a dove and he did not tell him he was holding the wings of other birds? The Gemara answers: Because the congregation of Israel is likened to a dove, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall shine as the wings of a dove covered with silver and her pinions with yellow gold鈥 (Psalms 68:14). Just as a dove has only its wings to protect it, so too, the Jewish people have only mitzvot to protect them. Apparently, Elisha Man of Wings was vigilant in fulfilling the mitzva of phylacteries in the face of the decree, whereas the rest of the people were not.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 讗讬讝诪诇 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 讘砖讘转 [讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讜讚专讱 讞爪讬专讜转]

Rabbi Abba bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said as follows: On one occasion they were supposed to circumcise a baby on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not bring a scalpel with which to circumcise him on Shabbat eve, and they brought it on Shabbat via roofs and via courtyards,

砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer. Even though the roofs and courtyards were not halakhically joined in a manner where it would be permitted to carry from one to the other, the Rabbis permitted carrying the scalpel in this manner.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讚专讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讜讗 讚砖专讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚砖专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘谞谉 讚讗住专讜 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜砖专讜 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讚专讱 讞爪讬专讜转 讜拽专驻讬驻讜转 讜诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讗 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讜诇讗 讚专讱 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讜诇讗 讚专讱 讞爪讬专讜转

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: Contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer? On the contrary, it is Rabbi Eliezer who permits this, as he permits carrying the scalpel even through the public domain. And if you say that it means contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits carrying even in the public domain, but in accordance with the wishes of the Rabbis, who prohibited carrying via the public domain and only permitted carrying via roofs, via courtyards and enclosures, that is also difficult. And is it permitted according to the opinion of the Rabbis? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Just as one may not bring the circumcision knife via the public domain, so too, one may not bring it via roofs, via enclosures, or via courtyards?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讞诇讜拽转讜 讗诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讜讗讞讚 讞爪讬专讜转 讻讜诇谉 专砖讜转 讗讞讚 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转

Rather, Rav Ashi said: It means contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer and his disputants, but in accordance with the wishes of Rabbi Shimon. As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, enclosures, and courtyards are all considered as one domain with regard to vessels that rested inside them at the beginning of Shabbat. Therefore, it is permitted to carry vessels that rested inside one to another. However, they are not considered the same domain with regard to vessels that rested inside the house at the beginning of Shabbat. If the homeowners did not join the courtyard by means of an eiruv, it is prohibited to carry vessels from their houses to the courtyard. Even if the houses in a courtyard were joined, it is prohibited to carry from the courtyard to an enclosure unless they were joined by means of an eiruv. In any case, there are circumstances in which Rabbi Shimon allows carrying via roofs, courtyards, and enclosures.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 诪讛讜 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讞爪专 讚诪讬 诪讛 讞爪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注专讘讜 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 诇讞爪专 讚讞爪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讞讬爪讜转 讗讬 谞诪讬 讞爪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 砖转讬拽 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: An alleyway whose residents did not merge together, what is its legal status with regard to carrying items in all of it according to Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Zeira explains the dilemma: Do we say that it is like a courtyard, and just as with regard to a courtyard, even though they did not join the houses in it together and despite the fact that it is prohibited to carry out items from the houses to the courtyard, it is nonetheless permitted to carry in all of it? Therefore, in this alleyway too, even though they did not merge together, it is permitted to carry in all of it despite the fact that it is prohibited to carry items into the alleyway. Or, perhaps an alleyway is not similar in this regard to a courtyard, as a courtyard has four partitions, whereas this, the alleyway, does not have four partitions, but only three. Alternatively, there may be a different reason for the inferior status of an alleyway in this regard: A courtyard has residents and can therefore be considered like a house, which would allow carrying within it, whereas this alleyway does not have residents. Rabbi Asi was silent and did not say anything to him, as he was unable to provide a satisfactory response.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 讗讬讝诪诇 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 讘砖讘转 讜讛讬讛 讛讚讘专 拽砖讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讗讱 诪谞讬讞讬谉 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讞讚讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖诪讜转讬 讛讜讗 讜注讜讚 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐

On another occasion Rabbi Zeira found Rabbi Asi sitting and saying: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: One time they forgot and did not bring a scalpel on Shabbat eve for the purpose of circumcising a child on Shabbat, and they brought it on Shabbat, and the matter was difficult in the eyes of the Rabbis: How can they abandon the words of the Rabbis, who prohibit doing so, and act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? Why did they find this difficult? One reason was that Rabbi Eliezer was a Shammuti, i.e., a follower of the views of Beit Shammai (Jerusalem Talmud), and the halakha is generally in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in their disputes with Beit Shammai. And furthermore, there is a general rule that in a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many. Here too, the halakha should certainly be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖讗讬诇讬转 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讙讜讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讬 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讛讜讛 讜讗讬讬转讜讛讜 诪讛讗讬 专讬砖讗 诇讛讗讬 专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇诪专 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讗讬 诪讬谞讱 讜诇讗 讗诪专转 诇讬 讛讻讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讙讘 砖讬讟驻讱 专讛讬讟 诇讱 讙诪专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讙讘 砖讬讟驻讗 专讛讬讟讗 诇讬 讙诪专讬

And Rabbi Oshaya said: I asked Rabbi Yehuda the Cutter, i.e., the circumcisor, and he told me that this incident occurred in an alleyway whose residents did not merge together, and they brought the scalpel from this end of the alleyway to that end, where the baby was. That concludes Rabbi Asi鈥檚 account of the event. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Since you related that story without expressing any reservations, it appears that the Master must hold that with regard to an alleyway whose residents did not merge together, it is permitted to carry in all of it. And Rabbi Asi said to him: Yes, that is the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to him: But on a different occasion I raised a dilemma on this matter before you and you did not say so to me. Perhaps in the course of your studies your knowledge was restored to you? He said to him: Yes, in the course of my studies my knowledge was restored to me, and I remembered this halakha.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

With regard to the very same halakha, it was stated as a principle that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: An alleyway that was not merged by the residents of the courtyards that open into it, it is only permitted to carry in it within four cubits.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜诇讗 驻讬专砖讛 注讚 讚讗转讗 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜驻讬专砖讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 注讬专讘讜 讞爪讬专讜转 注诐 讘转讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讞爪讬专讜转 注诐 讘转讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜

Abaye said: This halakhic matter was stated by Rabbi Zeira, and he did not explain it. It remained enigmatic until Rabba bar Avuh came and explained it. As Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Rav said: With regard to an alleyway that was not merged by the residents of the courtyards that open into it, if they joined the courtyards with the houses, i.e., the homeowners within each courtyard joined together and are therefore permitted to carry within the courtyards themselves, it is only permitted to carry in it within four cubits, as in an intermediate domain [karmelit]. However, if they did not join the courtyards with the houses and it is prohibited to carry within the courtyards, it is permitted to carry in the entire alleyway.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 诇专讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讬 注讬专讘讜 讞爪讬专讜转 注诐 讘转讬诐 讚谞讬转拽讜 讞爪讬专讜转 讜谞注砖讜 讘转讬诐 讜专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诪讘讜讬 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜

Rav 岣nina 岣za鈥檃 said to Rabba: What is different about a case where they joined the courtyards with the houses? Is it because the courtyards were detached and became like houses? And Rav follows his regular line of reasoning, for Rav said: An alleyway can only be made into a permitted area for carrying by means of a sidepole and a crossbeam, which is the standard halakha in a closed alleyway, if there are

Scroll To Top