Shabbat 130a (קל.) — the Talmud in English

Introduction to the Chapter of Rabbi Eliezer of Circumcision

In the previous chapter we learned: “And all the requirements of circumcision may be performed on Shabbat.”

Now, in the chapter before us, all the laws of circumcision on Shabbat are explained in detail.

The first subject explained in our Mishna is the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva: whether on Shabbat the preparations for the mitzva of circumcision as well—called the accessories of circumcision—which involve performing labor on Shabbat, are permitted.

For example, bringing the circumcision knife through the public domain, which is merely preparation for the mitzva and could also be done on the eve of Shabbat: does this too override Shabbat?

Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

With regard to an infant whom it is a mitzva to circumcise on Shabbat,

if he did not bring

the

instrument

of circumcision—the knife, called an izmel—

from the eve of Shabbat

to the place where he circumcises the infant,

he brings it on Shabbat,

through the public domain, with the knife

exposed

in full view. [The reason will be explained in the Gemara.]

And

at a time of

danger,

when the gentile rulers decreed that the mitzva of circumcision was forbidden,

he covers it,

the circumcision knife, and brings it into the private domain through the public domain,

on the testimony of witnesses,

who testify that he is bringing a circumcision knife, so that he will not be suspected of merely carrying an object.

And Rabbi Eliezer further said:

If there is no knife with which to circumcise,

we cut wood in order to make

from it

charcoal,

and with the charcoal we kindle a fire in order

to make an iron instrument,

a knife for circumcision.

Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning is that just as the mitzva itself overrides Shabbat, so too do its accessories override Shabbat.

And Rabbi Akiva disagrees:

Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any labor that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat

such as the accessories of circumcision,

does not override Shabbat.

Only labor

that cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat,

such as the circumcision itself, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat because its time is on the eighth day, only that labor

overrides Shabbat.

Gemara:

They raised a dilemma:

Does

the reason of Rabbi Eliezer,

who said that the knife must be brought while exposed, derive

from affection for the mitzva,

in order to publicize that the mitzva of circumcision is so important and beloved to him that he desecrates Shabbat for it?

Or perhaps,

Rabbi Eliezer holds that he brings it exposed

due to suspicion,

so that people will not suspect him of carrying an ordinary object.

And that which we say in the latter clause, “And at a time of danger, he covers it on the testimony of witnesses,” is certainly due to suspicion. The Gemara’s doubt concerns only what is stated in the first clause of the Mishna: “He brings it on Shabbat exposed” [Rashi].

And we raised an objection concerning this: This dilemma,

what practical difference does it make?

And we explain: Is it permitted

to bring

a knife when it is

covered, on the testimony of witnesses?

If you say

that his reason is

due to affection for the mitzva,

only when it is

exposed

yes,

as this publicizes the matter. But

when it is covered, no.

Rather, if you say

that his reason is

due to suspicion, even

if they bring it

covered

on the testimony of witnesses,

it is entirely acceptable

to do so.

What is the answer?

And the Gemara resolves it:

It was stated: Rabbi Levi said: Rabbi Eliezer stated his ruling only out of affection for the mitzva.

A beraita was also taught accordingly: He brings it

the knife

exposed, but he does not bring it covered; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rav Ashi said: Our Mishna

the Mishna before us

also proves precisely

this reason.

As it teaches: “And at a time of danger, he covers it

on the testimony of witnesses.”

And we infer:

In a time of danger, yes,

only then does he cover it, and he does so on the testimony of witnesses. But

when there is no danger, no,

he does not cover it; rather, he carries it openly.

Conclude from it

that Rabbi Eliezer’s reason is

due to affection for the mitzva.

Conclude from it.

Another beraita was taught: He brings it

the knife

exposed, but he does not bring it covered; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: It was customary in a time of danger, when they would bring

the knife

covered, on the testimony of witnesses.

They raised a dilemma:

These

witnesses of whom he speaks, before whom he is to cover it—does he mean

that

he,

the person bringing the knife,

and

one additional witness,

one?

Or perhaps: he,

the person bringing it,

and

he requires an additional

two

witnesses.

Come and hear

from what we learned in our Mishna:

“And in a time of danger, he covers it on the testimony of witnesses.”

And this is how we prove it:

Granted, if you say it means he and two,

in addition to himself,

it is reasonable that they are called “witnesses.”

they are called “witnesses.”

But if you say

that it means

he and

one additional

one,

then

what

is the reason that they are called

“witnesses”

in the plural? Is a person considered a witness concerning himself?

And we answer: It always means he and one additional person. This is not actual testimony, since its purpose is only to remove suspicion. Nevertheless, they are called

“witnesses,”

because

they—

he and the additional witness—

would be fit to testify in another matter,

when they do not have a personal interest in the testimony.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Eliezer further said

that they cut wood to make charcoal in order to kindle it for the purpose of making an iron instrument.

The Sages taught: In the place of Rabbi Eliezer, they would cut wood

in order

to make charcoal to make an iron instrument on Shabbat.

[And intentionally they would cause themselves to need this, out of affection for the mitzva. Tosafot, Yevamot 14a.]

In the place of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

who permitted eating fowl cooked in milk,

they would eat fowl with milk.

Levi happened to come

and arrive

at the house of Yosef the bird hunter,

who was a hunter of birds.

They brought him

and served before him

the head of a peacock [

Some versions read:

peacock]

the head of a peacock when cooked

in milk.

Levi did not eat

from the dish.

When

Levi

came before Rabbi,

and told him what had happened,

Rabbi said to him:

Why did you concern yourself only with your own conduct and refrain from eating,

and why did you not place them under a ban,

why did you not excommunicate them until they abandoned their practice?

He said to him:

That place

was the site of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

And I said: Perhaps

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira

expounded for them in accordance with

the words of

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

As we learned: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is stated

in the Torah:

“You shall not eat any unslaughtered animal.”

And it is stated

later in that same verse:

“You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.”

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili expounds: Only

that

which is

forbidden

to eat

due to unslaughtered animal meat is forbidden to cook

it

in milk.

And if you would say that

fowl, which is forbidden due to unslaughtered animal meat, might also be forbidden

as well

to cook it in milk?

The verse states: “You shall not cook a kid

in

its mother’s milk.”

An animal that has a mother’s milk is forbidden to cook in milk;

excluding fowl, which has no mother’s milk,

which is permitted to cook in milk.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was one city in Eretz Yisrael in which they acted in accordance with

the words of

Rabbi Eliezer,

and

the inhabitants of that city

died at their appointed time,

in old age.

And not only that. Rather, once the wicked kingdom issued a decree,

the wicked kingdom issued a decree against Israel concerning

the mitzva of

circumcision, but it did not issue the decree against that city.

A beraita was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Any mitzva that Israel accepted

upon themselves

upon themselves

it

with joy, such as

the mitzva of circumcision,

as it is written

concerning it:

“I rejoice over Your statement

as one who finds abundant spoils,”

and this refers to the mitzva of circumcision, which, when Abraham our forefather was commanded to perform it, was a single “statement,” since it preceded the other statements—

they still perform it with joy,

by making a festive meal in its honor. And it is especially beloved to them, because it demonstrates that they are observant of mitzvot at every moment, even when they are not performing other mitzvot, such as when they are in a bathhouse.

And,

on the other hand,

any mitzva that they accepted

it

upon themselves through strife, such as forbidden sexual relations, as it is written

concerning them:

“And Moses heard the people weeping by their families”—

they wept

over the matters of their families,

because their relatives had been forbidden to them,

they still perform it through strife.

For

this

there is no ketובה,

there being no ketuba at the time it is written,

because no

dispute

arises,

a quarrel concerning it.

A beraita was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Every mitzva

and mitzva

for which Israel gave themselves over to death

in order to fulfill it even

at a time of the kingdom’s decree, such as

not worshipping

idolatry, and the mitzva of

idolatry, and the mitzva of

circumcision—

it is still firmly held by them.

But every mitzva for which Israel did not give themselves over to death

in order to fulfill it even

at a time of the kingdom’s decree, such as the mitzva of

the mitzva of

tefillin—

it is still weak,

lax,

in their hands.

The proof that the mitzva of tefillin was weak in their hands and that they did not give their lives for it is derived from that which

Rabbi Yannai said: Tefillin require

one to be careful to put them on only when the

body is clean,

so that one will not pass wind while wearing them; and if one is not clean, he should not put them on.

And one must be meticulous about this,

as

was meticulous

Elisha the man of wings,

who was meticulous in the mitzva of tefillin and even risked his life for it; presumably he was also careful concerning the laws of bodily cleanliness when putting them on. Therefore he serves as an example to others of the care required regarding bodily cleanliness when putting on tefillin [according to Tosafot above, 49a].

And we explain:

What is it

that is required in terms of bodily cleanliness when putting on tefillin?

Abaye said: One should put on tefillin only when he can restrain himself

from the moment they are placed upon him until he removes them,

so that he will not pass wind while wearing them

from below.

Rava said: A person who is awake is presumed capable of restraining himself from passing wind. Therefore, the bodily cleanliness mentioned by Rabbi Yannai concerns only

the requirement

not to sleep while wearing them,

lest he pass wind in his sleep while wearing them [Rashi above, 49a. Tosafot, however, explain that Rava is speaking of an awake person, who should not put on tefillin if he fears that he may doze off and sleep while wearing them, whereas Abaye is not concerned about this].

This is the reason why the mitzva of tefillin was weak in their hands: because it is difficult to observe it while maintaining bodily cleanliness. [Rashi and the Shita of the Ran; the Rashba disagrees.]

The proof that it was weak in their hands is that we do not find that they risked their lives for it except for Elisha the man of wings [according to Tosafot, the proof is that Elisha himself did not give his life for it]. As follows:

And why did they call him “Elisha the man of wings”?

Because of an incident that occurred:

Once the wicked kingdom issued a decree against Israel that anyone who put tefillin on his head would have his brain pierced,

they would bore into it [the reading above is “puncture”]

through his brain.

And Elisha would put on tefillin and go out to the marketplace

while wearing them.

And a government officer saw him,

an officer appointed by the authorities,

one.

Elisha ran

and fled

from before him, and the officer ran

after him

afterwards.

When

the officer

reached him, he took them

Elisha

from his head and held them in his hand.

The officer said to him:

What is in your hand?

He said to him: The wings of a dove.

He said to him: “The wings of a dove.”

The Tosafot and the early authorities above, in the chapter “With What May One Conceal,” 49a, asked: How could Elisha remove them from his head? During a time of religious persecution, even concerning the strap of a sandal—when the gentiles demand that the Jews alter it—one is commanded to be killed rather than transgress. They answered that this applies to a prohibition, but not to failure to perform a positive mitzva. See the Ritva on our passage. And the Sefat Emet answered that he removed them from his head for reasons of cleanliness, since he did not want the officer to come near him while he was wearing tefillin, as in the incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua above, 127b. In the glosses of the Vilna Gaon to the Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De'a 157:3, he wrote that this is a source for the views holding that even where one is not obligated to be killed rather than transgress a prohibition, it is nevertheless permitted for him to give himself over to death. For Elisha placed himself in danger by putting on tefillin. However, the Nimukei Yosef, Sanhedrin, at the end of the chapter “Ben Sorer,” proved the opposite: the fact that Elisha removed the tefillin proves that it is forbidden for a person to give his life in order to fulfill a mitzva. See the book Perot Te’enah.

Elisha opened

his hand,

and the wings of a dove were found in it.

Therefore,

because of the miracle,

they would call him:

Elisha

the man of wings.

And we raise the question:

What is different about “the wings of a dove,” which he told him, rather than telling him

the wings of

other birds?

And we explain:

Because the congregation of Israel resembles—

a dove. As it is stated: “The wings of a dove are covered

and concealed

with silver, and its pinions

its wings—are covered

with glistening

gold,”

with fine gold.

And the comparison to a dove is as follows:

Just as a dove’s wings protect it,

and it fights with them rather than with its beak,

so too mitzvot protect Israel.

Rav Abba bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Once they forgot and did not bring an izmel on the eve of Shabbat, and they brought it on Shabbat

[through roofs and through courtyards].