Shabbat 259

מתני׳ <big><strong>רבי</strong></big> אליעזר אומר אם לא הביא כלי מע"ש מביאו בשבת מגולה ובסכנה מכסהו ע"פ עדים

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. R. ELIEZER SAID: IF ONE DID NOT BRING AN INSTRUMENT ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A knife for circumcision. ');">¹</span>

ועוד אמר ר"א כורתים עצים לעשות פחמין לעשות (כלי) ברזל

HE MUST BRING IT ON THE SABBATH UNCOVERED;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That all may see it. ');">²</span>

(כלל) אמר ר"ע כל מלאכה שאפשר לעשותה מע"ש אינה דוחה את השבת (ומילה) שאי אפשר לעשותה מע"ש דוחה את השבת:

BUT IN [TIMES OF] DANGER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When circumcision is forbidden by the State, as during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes before the Maccabean revolt; v. 1 Macc. I, 48, 60, 11, 46. It was again forbidden during the Hadrianic persecution; cf. Mek. Yithro, Ba-Hodesh, VI; Graetz, Geschichte IV, 154. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איבעיא להו טעמא דר"א משום חבובי מצוה או דילמא משום חשדא למאי נפקא מינה לאתויי מכוסה ע"פ עדים אי אמרת משום חבובי מצוה מגולה אין מכוסה לא אלא אי אמרת משום חשדא אפי' מכוסה שפיר דמי מאי

HE HIDES IT ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES. R. ELIEZER SAID FURTHER: ONE MAY CUT TIMBER TO MAKE CHARCOAL FOR MANUFACTURING IRON.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a circumcision knife. Thus R. Eliezer permits not only circumcision but even its preparatory adjuncts, though these could have been prepared before the Sabbath. ');">⁴</span>

איתמר א"ר לוי לא אמרה ר"א אלא לחבובי מצוה תניא נמי הכי מביאו מגולה ואין מביאו מכוסה דברי ר"א אמר רב אשי מתני' נמי דיקא דקתני ובשעת הסכנה מכסהו ע"פ עדים בסכנה אין שלא בסכנה לא שמע מינה משום חבובי מצוה שמע מינה

R. AKIBA STATED A GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ANY [MANNER OF] WORK WHICH COULD BE PERFORMED ON SABBATH EVE DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE SABBATH; BUT THAT WHICH COULD NOT BE PERFORMED ON SABBATH EVE DOES SUPERSEDE THE SABBATH.

תניא אידך מביאו מגולה ואין מביאו מכוסה דברי ר"א ר' יהודה אומר משום ר"א נוהגין היו בשעת הסכנה שהיו מביאין מכוסה ע"פ עדים

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The scholars asked: Is R. Eliezer's reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For requiring the knife to be brought uncovered. ');">⁵</span>

איבעיא להו עדים דקאמר איהו וחד או דילמא הוא ותרי

out of love for the precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One must show how precious is circumcision that he even desecrates the Sabbath on its account. ');">⁶</span>

ת"ש ובסכנה מכסהו ע"פ עדים אי אמרת בשלמא הוא ותרי שפיר אלא אי אמרת הוא וחד מאי עדים שראוים להעיד במקום אחר:

or perhaps it is because of suspicions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That would otherwise attach to the bringer, that he was unlawfully desecrating the Sabbath. ');">⁷</span>

ועוד אמר ר"א: ת"ר במקומו של ר"א היו כורתין עצים לעשות פחמין לעשות ברזל בשבת במקומו של ר' יוסי הגלילי היו אוכלין בשר עוף בחלב

What is the practical difference? Whether it may be brought covered on the testimony of witnesses. If you say it is out of love for the precept, it must be uncovered and not hidden. But if you say it is because of suspicions it is well even if hidden: what then? It was stated, R. Levi said: R. Eliezer ruled thus only out of love for the precept. It was taught likewise: He must bring it uncovered, and he must not bring it covered: this is R. Eliezer's opinion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emphatic repetition shows that it must not be hidden on any account. ');">⁸</span>

לוי איקלע לבי יוסף רישבא קריבו ליה רישא דטוותא בחלבא לא אכל כי אתא לקמיה דרבי א"ל אמאי לא תשמתינהו א"ל אתריה דר' יהודה בן בתירה הוה ואמינא דילמא דרש להו כר' יוסי הגלילי

R. Ashi said: Our Mishnah too proves this, because it states, BUT IN TIMES OF DANGER HE HIDES IT ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES; thus in times of danger only, but not when there is no danger. This proves that it is out of love for the precept: this proves it.

דתנן ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר נאמר (דברים יד, כא) לא תאכלו כל נבלה ונאמר (דברים יד, כא) לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו את שאסור משום נבלה אסור לבשל בחלב עוף שאסור משום נבלה יכול יהא אסור לבשל בחלב ת"ל בחלב אמו יצא עוף שאין לו חלב אם

Another [Baraitha] taught: He brings it uncovered, but he must not bring it covered: this is R. Eliezer's view. R. Judah said in R. Eliezer's name: In times of danger it was the practice to bring it hidden on the testimony of witnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'It was the practice' implies that this is not a mere theoretical ruling but an actual account of what happened in the past. As R. Eliezer died before the Hadrianic wars, this must refer to the days of the persecution by Antiochus. — Weiss, Dor, II, p. 131. n. I. ');">⁹</span>

א"ר יצחק עיר אחת היתה בא"י שהיו עושין כר"א והיו מתים בזמנן ולא עוד אלא שפעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזרה על ישראל על המילה ועל אותה העיר לא גזרה:

The scholars asked: The witnesses which he mentions, [does it mean] he and another one, or perhaps he and another two? — Come and hear: BUT IN [TIMES OF] DANGER HE HIDES IT ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES: if you agree to say he and two [others], it is well; but if you say he and another, what witnesses [are there]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is only one, as obviously he cannot be counted. ');">¹⁰</span>

תניא רשב"ג אומר כל מצוה שקיבלו עליהם בשמחה כגון מילה דכתיב (תהלים קיט, קסב) שש אנכי על אמרתך כמוצא שלל רב עדיין עושין אותה בשמחה וכל מצוה שקבלו עליהם בקטטה כגון עריות דכתיב (במדבר יא, י) וישמע משה את העם בוכה למשפחותיו על עסקי משפחותיו עדיין עושין אותה בקטטה דליכא כתובה דלא רמו בה תיגרא

— Such as are eligible to testify elsewhere.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In truth it may be he and another, nevertheless there are two who know the purpose of his carrying. and they are referred to as witnesses, since two in general can testify. Yet two independent witnesses may not be required, since there is no actual lawsuit. ');">¹¹</span>

תניא ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר כל מצוה שמסרו ישראל עצמן עליהם למיתה בשעת גזרת המלכות כגון עבודת כוכבים ומילה עדיין היא מוחזקת בידם וכל מצוה שלא מסרו ישראל עצמן עליה למיתה בשעת גזרת המלכות כגון תפילין עדיין היא מרופה בידם

R. ELIEZER SAID FURTHER [etc.]. Our Rabbis taught: In R. Eliezer's locality they used to cut timber to make charcoal for making iron on the Sabbath. In the locality of R. Jose the Galilean they used to eat flesh of fowl with milk. Levi visited the home of Joseph the fowler [and] was offered the head of a peacock in milk, [which] he did not eat. When he came before Rabbi he asked him, Why did you not place them under the ban?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For infringing the dietary laws. ');">¹²</span>

דא"ר ינאי תפילין צריכין גוף נקי כאלישע בעל כנפים מאי היא אמר אביי שלא יפיח בהם רבא אמר שלא יישן בהם

It was the locality of R. Judah b. Bathyra, replied he, and I thought, Perhaps he has lectured to them in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean. For we learnt: R. Jose the Galilean said: It is said, Ye shall not eat any <i>nebelah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 21. ');">¹³</span>

ואמאי קרו ליה אלישע בעל כנפים שפעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזרה על ישראל שכל המניח תפילין על ראשו יקרו את מוחו והיה אלישע מניח תפילין ויצא לשוק וראהו קסדור אחד רץ מלפניו ורץ אחריו כיון שהגיע אצלו נטלן מראשו ואחזן בידו א"ל מה בידך אמר לו כנפי יונה פשט את ידו ונמצאו בה כנפי יונה לפיכך היו קוראין אותו בעל כנפים

and it is said, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 22 — these laws are stated successively. ');">¹⁴</span>

מאי שנא כנפי יונה דא"ל ולא א"ל שאר עופות משום דדמיא כנסת ישראל ליונה שנאמר (תהלים סח, יד) כנפי יונה נחפה בכסף ואברותיה בירקרק חרוץ מה יונה זו כנפיה מגינות עליה אף ישראל מצות מגינות עליהן:

[this teaches,] that which is forbidden on the score of <i>nebelah</i> may not be seethed in milk. Now since a fowl is prohibited when <i>nebelah</i>, you might think that one must not seethe it in milk; therefore it is stated, 'in its mother's milk', hence a fowl is excluded, since it has no mother's milk.

א"ר אבא בר רב אדא א"ר יצחק פעם אחת שכחו ולא הביאו איזמל מערב שבת והביאוהו בשבת [דרך גגות ודרך חצירות]

R. Isaac said: There was one town in Palestine where they followed R. Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of circumcision. ');">¹⁵</span> and they died there at the [proper] time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Never prematurely. ');">¹⁶</span> Moreover, the wicked State<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rome. ');">¹⁷</span> once promulgated a decree against Israel concerning circumcision,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidding it; v. p. 649, n. 3. ');">¹⁸</span> yet did not decree [it] against that town. It was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Every precept which they accepted with joy, e.g., circumcision, as it is written, I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. CXIX, 162. This is understood to refer to circumcision, which is a single 'word', i.e., command, which preceded the bulk of Mosaic legislation (this dating back to Abraham, Gen. XVII, 10), and which the Jew, in virtue of being circumcised, ceaselessly performs. ');">¹⁹</span> they still observe with joy. While every precept which they accepted with displeasure,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'quarrelling'. ');">²⁰</span> e.g., the forbidden degrees of consanguinity, as it is written, And Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XI, 10. ');">²¹</span> [i.e.,] on account of the affairs of their families,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' viz., because they were now interdicted in marriage. ');">²²</span> they still perform them with strife, for there is no marriage settlement which does not contain a quarrel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in which they (the parties concerned) throw no discord'. ');">²³</span> It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Every precept for which Israel submitted to death at the time of the royal decree, e.g., idolatry and circumcision,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 649, n. 3. Antiochus demanded idol worship too; later, Caligula made a similar demand; v. Graetz, History (Eng. trans.) Vol. II, pp. 188 seqq.; cf. also Weiss, Dor, II, p. 5. ');">²⁴</span> is still held firmly in their minds. Whereas every precept for which Israel did not submit to death at the time of the royal decree, e.g., tefillin, is still weak in their hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Weiss, op. cit., p. 134. ');">²⁵</span> For R. Jannai said: Tefillin demand a pure body, like Elisha-the-man-of-the-wings. What does this mean? — Abaye said: That one must not pass wind while wearing them; Raba said: That one must not sleep in them. And why is he called 'the man-of-the-wings'? Because the wicked State once proclaimed a decree against Israel that whoever donned tefillin should have his brains pierced through; yet Elisha put them on and went out into the streets. A quaestor saw him: he fled before him, and the latter gave pursuit. As he overtook him, he [Elisha] removed them from his head and held them in his hand, 'What is that in your hand?' he demanded, 'The wings of a dove,' was his reply. He stretched out his hand and the wings of a dove were found therein. Hence he is called 'Elisha-the-man-of-the-wings.' And why did he tell him the wings of a dove rather than that of other birds? Because the Congregation of Israel is likened to a dove, as it is said, as the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her pinions with yellow gold:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. LXVIII, 14. ');">²⁶</span> just as a dove is protected by its wings, so with the Israelites, their precepts protect them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. also supra 49a and notes a.l. ');">²⁷</span> R. Abba b. R. adda said in R. Isaac's name: they once forgot to bring a knife on Sabbath eve, so they brought it on the Sabbath through roofs and courtyards,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which no 'erub (q.v. Glos) had been provided. It is normally forbidden to carry through such by Rabbinical law. ');">²⁸</span>