Kreuzberg Commentary on Pesachim Daf 51

The residents of Beit She’an were accustomed not to travel from Tyre to market day in Sidon on Shabbat eve. Their children came before Rabbi Yoḥanan. They said to him: it was possible for our fathers; however, it is not possible for us. He said to them: Your fathers already accepted this upon themselves, and it remains in effect for you, as it is stated: “My son, hear your father’s rebuke and do not abandon your mother’s teaching (Torat Imecha).”

The residents of the city of Ḥozai were accustomed to separate ḥalla from rice dough. They came and told Rav Yosef. He said to them: Let a non-priest eat this dough in their presence! Abaye raised an objection to him: "With regard to matters that are permitted, but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, you are not allowed to permit these actions in their presence."

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: And wasn’t it stated about this halakha concerning stringencies that Rav Ḥisda said: This was stated specifically with regard to Samaritans?

What is the reason that this applies to Samaritans? They will extend this matter of leniency. These people of Ḥozai will also extend this matter of leniency!

Gufa - Back to the previous issue. If matters are permitted but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, you are not allowed to permit these actions in their presence. Rav Ḥisda said: We are dealing with Samaritans, not with Jews. Doesn’t this apply to everyone?? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita to the contrary? As it was taught: Two brothers may bathe together. However, the custom was that two brothers do not bathe together in the city of Kabul. And there was an incident involving Yehuda and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamliel, who bathed together in Kabul, and the entire city denounced them and said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. Hillel stole away and went out to the outer chamber and did not want to tell them: You are permitted to do so.

Similarly, one may go out with kurdakison, wide shoes (זאקקען or אונטערשוה) on Shabbat; however, one does not go out with wide shoes in the city of Birei. And there was an incident involving Yehuda and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamliel, who went out with wide shoes in Birei, and the people of the city denounced them and said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. And Yehuda and Hillel removed their shoes, and gave them to their servants, and did not want to tell the residents of the city: You are permitted to go out with wide shoes on Shabbat.​​​​​​​

Similarly, one may sit on gentiles’ stools on Shabbat, But one may not sit on gentiles' stools on Shabbat in the city of Akko. And there was an incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who sat on gentiles’ stools on Shabbat in the city of Akko, and the entire city denounced him. They said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel moved onto the ground and did not want to tell them: You are permitted to sit on the stools.

The legal status of people in the cities since Sages are not found among them, is like that of the Samaritans. Therefore, it is prohibited to tell them that these activities are permitted.

Bishlama, it makes sense that sitting on gentiles’ stools is prohibited because it appears like one is engaged in buying and selling on Shabbat. In the case of wide shoes as well, it could be prohibited to wear them due to the concern lest they fall off one’s feet and one come to carry them in her hand four cubits in the public domain, thereby violating a Torah prohibition.

However, what is the reason that two brothers may not bathe together? It was taught in a baraita: A person may bathe with anyone except for his father, and his father-in-law, and his mother’s husband, and his sister’s husband. And Rabbi Yehuda permits one to bathe with his father, due to the honor that he can accord his father by assisting his father while bathing. The same is true for one’s mother’s husband.

And the people of Kabul came and issued a decree to prohibit bathing together for two brothers, due to their concern that it is similar to bathing with one’s sister’s husband. It was taught in the Tosefta: A student may not bathe with his teacher. But if his teacher requires his help when bathing, it is permitted.

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that when one travels from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he is required to act stringently in accordance with the local custom, this applies only when his intent is not to return. One is required to adopt the local customs when permanently settling in a new location. However, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s intent was to return to Eretz Yisrael, his point of origin, he continued to follow the custom of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara relates that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to his son: My son, you live in Babylonia. Therefore, do not eat this fat, neither when you are in my presence nor when you are not in my presence. I, who saw Rabbi Yoḥanan eat this fat, can say that Rabbi Yoḥanan is worthy for one to rely upon him both in his presence and not in his presence. You did not see him. Therefore, do not eat it, neither when you are in my presence nor when you are not in my presence, since you may not rely upon my opinion alone in this matter.

The Gemara comments: And this statement of his disagrees with another statement of his, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Elazar told me: Once I followed Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya into the garden next to his house, and he took cabbage after-growths that had grown during the Sabbatical Year, and ate from them and gave some to me. And he said to me: My son, in my presence, you may eat this. But when you are not in my presence, you may not eat cabbage that grew as an after-growth. I, who saw Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai eat, can say that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai is worthy for one to rely upon him both in his presence and not in his presence. You, who did not see him eat, in my presence, rely on what I saw and eat; however, not in my presence, do not rely on my testimony and do not eat. In this case, Rabba bar bar Ḥana maintained that one who saw a Sage act in a certain way may rely on what he saw, as may his students when they are in the presence of their teacher.