Shabbat 130b — the Talmud in English

And this was

not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s wishes.

Rav Yosef challenged this:

Was this really

not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s wishes?

After all,

on the contrary, it is Rabbi Eliezer who permits

bringing the knife even through a public domain.

A. The Sages prohibited carrying an object on Shabbat from one person’s courtyard to another person’s courtyard unless they establish a courtyard eruv between them, designating the place of their Shabbat residence in one location by placing shared food there.

This prohibition also applies to carrying from one person’s roof to another person’s roof.

B. Likewise, it is prohibited to carry utensils from a house into a shared courtyard [if a courtyard eruv was not made].

C. Utensils that were resting in a courtyard when Shabbat began may be carried within the courtyard. If they were taken from a house to the courtyard on Shabbat in a permitted manner, the law governing carrying them within the courtyard will be explained below.

D. Regarding utensils that were resting in an alleyway when Shabbat began, the Gemara records a dispute as to whether they may be carried within the alleyway.

D. A karpef is a large area belonging to one person, measuring seventy cubits and four handbreadths by seventy cubits and four handbreadths, enclosed by partitions; by Torah law it is a private domain.

Since it is not used as a dwelling but only for growing tree plantings, the Sages prohibited carrying within it and gave it the status of a karmelit, in which one may carry only within four cubits.

A courtyard eruv does not remedy the status of a karpef, since it belongs to one person.

And if you would say

that this is what he meant by

“not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s wishes,”

because

he

himself

permits even

carrying it

through a public domain,

whereas they brought it through a private domain,

rather, what they did, they did

with

the approval of the Sages, who prohibited

carrying it through

a public domain, and permitted

carrying it only through

courtyards,

even when no eruv had been made between them,

and through

enclosed areas.

enclosed areas.

It is not possible to say this.

For

and

according to the Rabbis—

is it permitted

to carry the circumcision knife through courtyards and karmelits?

And it was taught

according to the view of the Rabbis:

Just as they do not bring it [the knife]

the knife]

by way of the public domain, so they do not bring it by way of roofs, nor by way of karmelits, nor by way of courtyards

that did not establish an eruv among themselves, even though the prohibition against carrying in them is only rabbinic.

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

When we say that it was not in accordance with the will of Rabbi Eliezer, this means

that it was not in accordance with the will of Rabbi Eliezer, and

not in accordance with the will of

his disputants—

the Sages who dispute him.

Rather,

they did this

in accordance with the will of Rabbi Shimon,

who permits carrying through courtyards and roofs, even for an optional matter, utensils that spent Shabbat in the courtyard or on the roof. And this scalpel too had its place of rest at the onset of Shabbat in the courtyard [Tosafot].

As we learned: Rabbi Shimon says: Whether roofs, whether courtyards, and whether karmelits,

even if they belong to several people,

all of them

are one domain

with regard

to utensils that spent Shabbat within them

at the onset of Shabbat.

For even if their residents did not establish an eruv together, it is permitted to carry them from one courtyard to another and from one roof to another.

Since the utensils whose place of rest is on roofs and in courtyards are not used in a specific and regular manner, therefore the law of “division of domains” was not stated with regard to them; rather, it is permitted to carry them from one place to another without a courtyard eruv.

[And with regard to karmelits, Rabbi Shimon did not permit carrying four cubits within a karmelit; rather, the intention is that he permitted carrying from one person’s courtyard to another person’s karmelit.]

Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Asi: A passageway in which the residents had not established a partnership,

in which the residents of the passageway had not made a “partnership of passageways” [for if they had made a partnership of passageways in it, it would have been permitted to carry from the houses and from the courtyards into the passageway]—

what is

the law of carrying

through all of it

[without bringing [anything] into the courtyards and houses]?

Do we say:

This passageway

is comparable to a courtyard: Just as with a courtyard, even though they did not establish an eruv

and it is prohibited to take out from the houses into the courtyard, and from the courtyard into the houses, nevertheless

it is permitted to carry

within the courtyard itself

through all of it,

so too

this

passageway

also, even though they did not establish a partnership in it—

it is permitted to carry through all of it.

Or perhaps it is not comparable

a passageway to a courtyard.

Since

a courtyard has four partitions,

and therefore it is a complete private domain, and one carries throughout all of it.

But

this

passageway—here,

it does not have four partitions,

but only three partitions, while its fourth side is entirely open to the public domain, and there is room to decree that one may not carry in it.

Alternatively,

there is another reason to distinguish between them:

A courtyard has residents,

for it is made to be used regularly by its residents. Whereas

this

passageway

has no residents.

For people do not ordinarily carry out residential uses in a passageway; rather, they live in houses, and from there go out into courtyards, and use the courtyards, and from the courtyards go out into the passageway.

Rabbi Asi was silent

Rav Asi,

and he said nothing to him.

On one occasion, he found him

Rabbi Zeira found Rav Asi

sitting and saying:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Once, they forgot and did not bring a scalpel on the eve of Shabbat, and they brought it on Shabbat

by way of the public domain.

And the matter was difficult for the Sages: How could they set aside the words of the Sages and act in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer?

The matter was difficult for the Sages for two reasons:

First, Rabbi Eliezer is a shamuti—

of the disciples of Beit Shammai—

he is [

Rashi in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud. And in Rashi’s first explanation, he explained that he was called this because of the incident involving the oven of Akhnai, Bava Metzia 59b, where “shamuti” is from the expression shamta, that he was excommunicated. But Rashba and Ritva raised difficulties against this].

And furthermore, this

is established for us:

When one individual and the many [disagree], the halakha follows the many.

And Rabbi Oshaya said: I asked Rabbi Yehuda HaGozer,

the one who circumcises infants: What happened in that incident?

And he said to me: It was a passageway in which the residents had not established a partnership

of the residents of the passageway in “partnerships of passageways”

it was.

And they brought it

the knife

from this end,

from a house that was at one end of the passageway,

to that end,

to a house that was at the other end, where the infant was.

All this is from the words of Rabbi Asi.

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Is it possible to prove from this that you have no difficulty with this incident, because

you hold

that

in a passageway in which they had not established a partnership, it is permitted to carry through all of it?

And he said to me: Yes,

this is what I hold.

I

said

to

him:

But on one occasion,

once,

I asked you

about this matter,

and you did not tell me.

Perhaps, on account of your rushing,

in the course of your rapid recitation, when you repeated the words of Reish Lakish,

your learning ran ahead of you,

this teaching of Rabbi Oshaya became clear to you.

He said to him: Yes,

indeed,

on account of the rushing, my learning ran ahead of me.

It was stated: Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav: In a passageway in which they had not established a partnership—

one may carry in it only within four cubits.

Abaye said: Rabbi Zeira stated this matter but did not explain it

when carrying is permitted and when it is prohibited.

Until Rabba bar Avuha came and explained it.

For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha in the name of Rav: In a passageway in which they had not established a partnership,

if

the courtyards established an eruv

of the passageway

with the houses—

one may not carry in it

in the passageway

except within four cubits.

If the courtyards did not establish an eruv

of the passageway

with the houses,

for they are prohibited from taking anything out from their houses into their courtyards—

it is permitted to carry in the

passageway

through all of it,

utensils that spent Shabbat within it.

Rav Hanina of Khuzah said to Rabba: What is different when the courtyards established an eruv

of the passageway

with the houses, that

we say:

the courtyards were severed,

from the law of an unpartnered courtyard, in which it is prohibited to carry,

and they became

according to the law of

houses,

that is, they were nullified with regard to the houses, and it is permitted to carry in them.