Shabbat 130bשבת ק״ל ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 130b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
130bק״ל ב

שלא ברצון רבי אליעזר

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.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף שלא ברצון רבי אליעזר אדרבה רבי אליעזר הוא דשרי וכי תימא שלא ברצון רבי אליעזר דשרי אפילו ברשות הרבים אלא ברצון רבנן דאסרו דרך רשות הרבים ושרו דרך גגות דרך חצירות וקרפיפות ומי שרי והתניא כשם שאין מביאין אותו דרך רשות הרבים כך אין מביאין אותו לא דרך גגות ולא דרך קרפיפות ולא דרך חצירות

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’t 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?

אלא אמר רב אשי שלא ברצון רבי אליעזר ומחלוקתו אלא ברצון רבי שמעון דתנן רבי שמעון אומר אחד גגות ואחד קרפיפות ואחד חצירות כולן רשות אחד הן לכלים ששבתו בתוכן ולא לכלים ששבתו בתוך הבית

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.

בעא מיניה רבי זירא מרבי אסי מבוי שלא נשתתפו בו מהו לטלטל בכולו מי אמרינן כחצר דמי מה חצר אף על גב דלא ערבו מותר לטלטל בכולו האי נמי אף על גב דלא נשתתפו בו מותר לטלטל בכולו או דילמא לא דמי לחצר דחצר אית ליה ארבע מחיצות האי לית ליה ארבע מחיצות אי נמי חצר אית ליה דיורין האי לית ביה דיורין שתיק ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי

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.

זימנין אשכחיה דיתיב וקא אמר אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש משום רבי יהודה הנשיא פעם אחת שכחו ולא הביאו איזמל מערב שבת והביאוהו בשבת והיה הדבר קשה לחכמים היאך מניחין דברי חכמים ועושין כרבי אליעזר חדא דרבי אליעזר שמותי הוא ועוד יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים

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.

ואמר רבי אושעיא שאילית את רבי יהודה הגוזר ואמר לי מבוי שלא נשתתפו בו הוה ואייתוהו מהאי רישא להאי רישא אמר ליה סבירא ליה למר מבוי שלא נשתתפו מותר לטלטל בכולו ואמר ליה אין אמר ליה והא זימנין בעאי מינך ולא אמרת לי הכי דילמא אגב שיטפך רהיט לך גמרך אמר ליה אין אגב שיטפא רהיטא לי גמרי

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’s 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.

איתמר אמר רבי זירא אמר רב מבוי שלא נשתתפו בו אין מטלטלין בו אלא בארבע אמות

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.

אמר אביי הא מילתא אמרה רבי זירא ולא פירשה עד דאתא רבה בר אבוה ופירשה דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב מבוי שלא נשתתפו בו עירבו חצירות עם בתים אין מטלטלין בו אלא בארבע אמות לא עירבו חצירות עם בתים מותר לטלטל בכולו

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 Naḥman 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.

אמר ליה רב חנינא חוזאה לרבה מאי שנא כי עירבו חצירות עם בתים דניתקו חצירות ונעשו בתים ורב לטעמיה דאמר רב אין המבוי ניתר בלחי וקורה עד שיהו

Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a 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