Shabbat 130b (קל:) — the Talmud in English

And this occurred

not in accordance with the will of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rav Yosef strongly challenged this:

Was this matter really

not in accordance with the will of Rabbi Eliezer?

But

on the contrary, it is Rabbi Eliezer who permits

bringing the knife even through the public domain.

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

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

b. Likewise, it is forbidden to carry utensils [if they did not establish an eruv hatzerot] from a house into a shared courtyard.

c. Utensils that were resting in the courtyard when Shabbat began may be carried within the courtyard. If they were taken from the 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 whether they may be carried within the alleyway.

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

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

An eruv hatzerot is of no use for a karef, since it belongs to a single person.

And if you would say

that this is what is meant by

“not in accordance with the will of Rabbi Eliezer”,

because

he

is

permitted even

to carry it

through the public domain, whereas they carried it through the private domain,

whereas they brought it through a private domain,

rather, what they did, they did

in accordance with the will of the Rabbis, who prohibited

carrying it through

the

public domain, and permitted

carrying it only through

courtyards,

even when they had not established an eruv between them,

and

through

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 enclosed areas?

But was it not taught

in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis:

Just as they may not bring it [

the knife]

through the public domain, so they may not bring it by way of roofs, nor by way of enclosed areas, nor by way of courtyards

that had not joined one another through an eruv, even though the prohibition against carrying within them is only rabbinic.

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

When we say that they did not act in accordance with the will of Rabbi Eliezer, this means

not in accordance with the will of Rabbi Eliezer, and

not in accordance with the will of

his disputants

the Sages who disagreed with him.

Rather,

they did this

in accordance with the will of Rabbi Shimon,

who permits carrying by way of courtyards and roofs, even for an optional purpose, objects that had rested in a courtyard or on a roof at the onset of Shabbat. This scalpel, too, had rested in a courtyard at the onset of Shabbat [Tosafot].

As we learned in a Mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: Both roofs, both courtyards, and both enclosed areas,

even if they belong to several people,

all of them—

are one domain

with regard

to objects that had rested within them

at the onset of Shabbat.

Thus, even if their residents did not join together in an eruv, it is permitted to carry objects from one courtyard to another and from one roof to another.

Since objects whose place of rest is on roofs or in courtyards are not used for a particular and regular purpose, the law of “division into domains” does not apply to them. Therefore, it is permitted to carry them from one place to another without an eruv of courtyards.

[And with regard to enclosed areas, Rabbi Shimon did not permit carrying four cubits within an enclosed area. Rather, the intention is that he permitted carrying from one person’s courtyard to another person’s enclosed area.]

Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Asi: With regard to an alleyway in which the residents had not joined in a partnership,

that is, the residents of the alleyway had not made an eruv of alleyways [for had they made such an eruv, it would have been permitted to carry from the houses and courtyards into the alleyway]—

what is the ruling with regard to carrying

in the alleyway itself

throughout it [

without bringing objects into the courtyards and houses]?

Do we say that

this alleyway

is comparable to a courtyard: Just as with regard to a courtyard, even though its residents did not join in an eruv

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

it is permitted to carry

within the courtyard itself

throughout it,

so too

this

alleyway

also, even though its residents did not join in a partnership—

it is permitted to carry throughout it.

Or perhaps it is not comparable

an alleyway to a courtyard.

Since

a courtyard has four partitions,

it is therefore a complete private domain, and consequently one may carry throughout it.

But

this

alleyway—

it does not have four partitions,

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

Alternatively,

there is another reason to distinguish between them:

A courtyard has residential usage,

as it is designed for the residents to use it regularly. Whereas

this

alleyway

does not have residential usage.

For people do not ordinarily use an alleyway for residential purposes; rather, they live in houses, from there go out to the courtyards and use the courtyards, and from the courtyards they go out into the alleyway.

Rav Asi remained silent

Rav Asi

and did not say anything to him.

On one occasion, he found

Rabbi Zeira 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

through 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 was a shammuti—

of the disciples of Beit Shammai

he was [

Rashi, in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud. In his first explanation, Rashi explained that he was called this because of the incident involving the oven of Akhnai, in Bava Metzia 59b: “and shammuti” is from the expression shemata, meaning that they excommunicated him. The Rashba and the Ritva raised difficulties with this explanation].

And furthermore, this

is established for us:

When an individual disputes the majority, the halakha follows the majority.

And Rabbi Oshaya said: I asked Rabbi Yehuda HaGozer,

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

And he said to me: It was an alleyway in which the residents had not joined in a partnership

in an “eruv of alleyways”

it was.

And they brought it

the knife

from this end,

from a house at one end of the alleyway,

to that end,

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

All this was said by Rabbi Asi.

Rabbi Zeira said to him

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

you hold

that

in an alleyway in which the residents did not join in a partnership, it is permitted to carry throughout it?

And he said to him: Yes,

this is indeed what I hold.

I

said

to

him:

And on one occasion,

once,

I asked you

about this matter,

and you did not tell me.

Perhaps, because of the rapidity of your recitation,

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

your learning ran ahead of you,

and this teaching of Rabbi Oshaya became clear to you.

He said to him: Yes,

indeed,

because of the rapidity, my learning ran ahead of me.

It was stated: Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: With regard to an alleyway in which the residents had not joined in a partnership—

one may carry within it only four cubits.

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

when it is permitted to carry and when it is prohibited.

Until Rabba bar Avuha came and explained it.

For Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said that Rav said: With regard to an alleyway in which the residents had not joined in a partnership,

if

the courtyards joined in an eruv

of the alleyway

with the houses—

one may not carry within it

in the alleyway

except four cubits.

If the courtyards did not join in an eruv

of the alleyway

with the houses,

so that they are prohibited from taking objects out of their houses into their courtyards—

it is permitted to carry in the

alleyway

throughout it,

objects that had rested within it.

Rav Ḥanina of Koḥa said to Rabba: What is different when the courtyards joined in an eruv

of the alleyway

with the houses, that

we say:

the courtyards have been severed,

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

and have become

subject to the law of

houses,

meaning that they have been subsumed under the houses, and it is permitted to carry within them?