Shabbat 130a — the Talmud in English

Introduction to the Chapter of Rabbi Eliezer on Circumcision

In the previous chapter, we learned: “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 even the preparations for the mitzva of circumcision, called “implements of circumcision,” which involve performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat, are permitted.

For example, bringing the circumcision knife through a public domain is only preparation for the mitzva, and it is possible to do this on the eve of Shabbat. The question is whether even this overrides Shabbat.

Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

A baby whom it is a mitzva to circumcise on Shabbat,

if he did not bring

the

implement

of circumcision—the knife, called an izmel—

from the eve of Shabbat

to the place where he circumcises the baby,

he brings it on Shabbat,

through a public domain, with the knife

exposed,

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

And

during 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 a private domain through a public domain,

in the presence of witnesses,

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

Rabbi Eliezer further said:

If there is no knife with which to circumcise,

they cut wood to make

from it

charcoal,

and they use the charcoal to kindle a fire in order

to make an iron implement,

a knife for circumcision.

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

Rabbi Akiva disagrees:

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

such as the preparation of the implements for circumcision,

does not override Shabbat.

Only a labor

that cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat,

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

overrides Shabbat.

Gemara:

They raised a question:

Does

the reason of Rabbi Eliezer,

who said that the knife must be brought exposed, consist

in showing love 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

because of suspicion,

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

The statement in the latter clause, “And in a time of danger he covers it in the presence of witnesses,” is certainly due to suspicion. The Gemara’s uncertainty concerns only the statement in the first clause of the Mishna: “He brings it on Shabbat exposed” [Rashi].

The Gemara asks about this question:

What practical difference does it make?

The Gemara explains: Is it permitted

to bring

the knife when it is

covered, in the presence of witnesses?

If you say

that his reason is

to show love for the mitzva, then only when it is

only when it is

exposed—

yes,

because in this way the matter will be publicized. But

when it is covered, no.

Rather, if you say

that his reason is

because of suspicion, even

if they bring it

covered

in the presence of witnesses,

it is perfectly acceptable

to do so.

What is the answer?

The Gemara resolves the matter:

It was stated: Rabbi Levi said: Rabbi Eliezer stated this ruling only in order to show love for the mitzva.

A beraita likewise teaches: He brings it

the knife

exposed, and he does not bring it covered; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rav Ashi said: Our Mishna

the Mishna before us

also demonstrates

that this is the reason.

For it teaches: “And in a time of danger, he covers it

in the presence of witnesses.”

The Gemara infers:

In a time of danger, yes—only then does he cover it, and he does so in the presence of witnesses. But

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, but carries it openly.

Learn from this

that Rabbi Eliezer’s reason is

to show love for the mitzva.

Learn from this.

Another beraita teaches: He brings it

the knife

exposed, and he does not bring it covered; these are the words 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 in the presence of witnesses.

They raised a question:

These

witnesses that he mentioned, before whom he should cover it—does he mean

that

himself,

the person bringing the knife,

and

one other witness,

one?

Or perhaps: He

is the person bringing it,

and

he needs another

two

witnesses.

Come and hear a proof

from what we learned in our Mishna:

“And in a time of danger he covers it in the presence of witnesses.”

The Gemara proves as follows:

Granted, if you say that it means he and two

others besides him,

it is appropriate

to call them “witnesses.”

But if you say

that it means

he and

one other

one,

then

why

are they called

“witnesses”

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

The Gemara answers: It always means he and one other. This is not testimony in the full legal sense, since its purpose is only to remove suspicion. Nevertheless, they are called

“witnesses,”

because

he

and the additional witness

would be fit to testify in another case,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer further said

that they cut wood to make charcoal in order to kindle it for making an iron implement.

The Sages taught: In Rabbi Eliezer’s place, they would cut wood

in order

to make charcoal with which to make an iron implement on Shabbat. [

They would intentionally cause themselves to need this, out of love for the mitzva. Tosafot, Yevamot 14a.]

In the place of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

who permitted eating fowl cooked with milk,

they would eat fowl with milk.

Levi happened to come

by

the house of Yosef the bird hunter,

who was a hunter of birds.

They brought him

and placed before him

the head of a peacock [

some versions read:

a peacock]

which had been 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 merely look after yourself and refrain from eating,

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 the same verse:

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

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili expounds: Only

that

which is

forbidden

to eat

because it is an unslaughtered animal is forbidden to cook

it

in milk.

And if you would say: Perhaps also

a fowl, which is forbidden because it is an unslaughtered animal, should be forbidden

as well

to cook it in milk?

The verse says: “You shall not cook a young goat

in

in its mother’s milk.”

Only a species that has a mother’s milk is forbidden to cook in milk;

fowl, which has no mother’s milk, is excluded,

and it is permitted to cook it in milk.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was one city in the Land of Israel where they acted in accordance with

the words of

Rabbi Eliezer,

and

the residents of that city

died at their proper time,

in old age.

And not only that. On one occasion the wicked government decreed

a decree against Israel concerning

the mitzva

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

A beraita teaches: 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 great spoil,”

that is, the mitzva of circumcision, which was, when Abraham our forefather was commanded it, the one “statement,” since it preceded the other statements—

they still perform it with joy,

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

But

on the other hand,

any mitzva that they accepted

it

upon themselves in 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 matter of their families,

because their female relatives had been forbidden to them—

they still perform it in strife.

For

in this case

there is no marriage contract,

since there is no marriage contract at the time it is written,

because there is no

actual

quarrel

about it.

A beraita teaches: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Every mitzva

and every mitzva

for which Israel endangered themselves by accepting death

in order to fulfill it even

at a time of a royal decree, such as

not to worship

idolatry, and the mitzva of

и мицва

circumcision—

it is still firmly held by them.

But every mitzva for which Israel did not endanger themselves by accepting death

in order to fulfill it even

at a time of a royal decree, such as

the mitzva of

phylacteries—

it is still weak,

loose,

in their hands.

The proof that the mitzva of phylacteries was weak in their hands and that they did not risk their lives for it is found in

what Rabbi Yannai said: Phylacteries require

that one be careful to put them on only when the

body is clean,

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

One must be meticulous about this,

as

was meticulous

Elisha of the wings,

who was meticulous regarding the mitzva of phylacteries and even risked his life for it; presumably, he was also careful about the laws of bodily cleanliness while putting them on. Therefore, he serves as an example to others of how carefully to observe bodily cleanliness when putting on phylacteries [according to Tosafot above, 49a].

The Gemara explains:

What is it

that is required concerning bodily cleanliness when putting on phylacteries?

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

from the time he puts them on

so that he will not pass wind while wearing them,

from below, while they remain on him until he removes them.

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 sleeping while wearing them,

lest he pass wind in his sleep while wearing them [Rashi above, 49a. Tosafot, however, explain that Rava is speaking of a person who is awake: he should not put on phylacteries if he fears that he might fall asleep while wearing them, whereas Abaye does not have this concern].

This is why the mitzva of phylacteries was weak in their hands: it is difficult to guard against passing wind 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, apart from Elisha of the wings [according to Tosafot, the proof is that Elisha himself did not risk his life for it]. As follows:

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

It was because of an incident that occurred:

On one occasion the wicked government issued a decree against Israel that anyone who put phylacteries on his head would have his head split open,

his brains pierced [above, the version reads “they would pierce”],

his brain.

Elisha would put on phylacteries and go out to the marketplace

wearing them.

And one official saw him,

a government-appointed officer,

alone.

Elisha ran

and fled

from before him, and the official ran

after him

after him.

When

the official

reached him, he removed them

Elisha

from his head and held them in his hand.

The official said to him:

What is in your hand?

“What is in your hand?”

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

Elisha extended

his hand,

and the wings of a dove were found in it.

Therefore,

because of the miracle,

they called him:

Elisha

of the wings.

The Gemara asks:

Why specifically did he say “the wings of a dove,” rather than saying

the wings of

other birds?

The Gemara explains:

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,”

fine gold.

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 the mitzvot protect Israel.

Rav Abba bar Rav Adda said in the name of Rav Yitzḥak: Once they forgot and did not bring the circumcision knife from the eve of Shabbat, and they brought it on Shabbat [

through roofs and courtyards].