1)

TOSFOS DH REBBI ELIEZER

תוספות ד"ה רבי אליעזר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why they did not bring the baby to the location of the Milah knife instead.)

וא"ת ויביאו התינוק אצל כלי דהשתא ליכא איסור שבת כלל דהחי נושא את עצמו

(a)

Question: Let them bring the baby to the vessel, as this would not be a transgression of Shabbos at all since a live person carries his own weight!

וי"ל דקטן צריך לאמו הוא ואחר המילה היה צריך להחזירו לאמו ואז הוי כפות לפי שהוא חולה

(b)

Answer #1: He is a child who needs his mother, and he must be returned to his mother after the Milah. After he has the Milah he is considered like a person who is tied up (who does not carry his own weight), as he is sick.

כדאמרינן ביומא (דף סו:) אפי' תימא ר' נתן חולה שאני וגם אמו שהיא מסוכנת לא תוכל לבא אצל התינוק

1.

Proof: This is as the Gemara says in Yoma (66b) that even Rebbi Nasan would agree that a sick person is different (as he does not carry his own weight, and therefore a person who carries him is deemed to be carrying on Shabbos). Additionally, the mother is considered in danger after birth, and therefore cannot come to the baby after the birth.

ועוד י"ל כיון דיותר בקל יביא הכלי משיביא התינוק שרי ר"א כדי למהר המצוה

(c)

Answer #2: It is also possible to answer that since it is easier to bring the vessel than to bring the baby, Rebbi Eliezer permits bringing the vessel in order to hurry to perform the Mitzvah.

כדמוכח בגמרא דאמר פעם אחת שכחו ולא הביאו איזמל מע"ש והביאו בשבת שלא ברצונו שהביאו דרך חצרות וגגות וקרפיפות והיו יכולין להביא דרך רה"ר אלמא דשרי ר"א דרך רה"ר דהוי דאורייתא כדי למהר המצוה אע"פ שיכול לעשות [בענין] דליכא אלא איסורא דרבנן

1.

Proof: This is as is apparent from the Gemara that says that they once forgot and did not bring a knife from before Shabbos. They brought the knife on Shabbos against his will through yards, roofs, and open empty spaces. It was against his will, as Rebbi Eliezer understands one is even permitted to carry it through the public domain. This implies that Rebbi Eliezer permits carrying through the public domain, which is a Torah prohibition, in order to hurry to perform a Mitzvah. This is despite the fact that one can do the same thing in a way that is only a Rabbinic prohibition.

2)

TOSFOS DH SAS ANOCHI

תוספות ד"ה שש אנכי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that there are other Pesukim that allude to the great joy one should have that he is fulfilling the Mitzvah of Bris Milah.)

במדרש (שוחר טוב) למנצח על השמינית כתיב הנדרש על המילה שהיא בשמיני

(a)

Observation: The Medrash (Shochar Tov) on the Pasuk, "Lamenatzeach Al ha'Sheminis" expounds on David ha'Melech being happy regarding having a Milah (in the bathhouse where he was otherwise devoid of Mitzvos), as the Medrash understands this Pasuk is referring to Milah that is done on the eighth day (this is how the Maharsha understands Tosfos, see also Maharshal who changes the text of Tosfos).

וכן אמרי' (פר"א פ' כ"ט) ויעש אברהם משתה גדול ביום הגמל את יצחק ביום ה"ג מל את יצחק דהיינו ביום השמיני דמילה כמנין ה"ג, ר"ת

1.

Observation (cont.): The Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer (ch. 29) says regarding the Pasuk, "And Avraham made a large meal on the day "Hegamel Es Yitzchak." The Medrash says that "Hegamel" alludes to "Heh Gimmel Mal" meaning that he gave him a Bris Milah on the eighth day, the numerical value of Heh (5) plus Gimmel (3).

3)

TOSFOS DH AMAR LEY

תוספות ד"ה אמר ליה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that he did not say they are Tefilin.)

הרי שלא מסר עצמו לומר תפילין הן, רבינו שמואל

(a)

Explanation: He did not give himself over by saying they are Tefilin. (Rabeinu Shmuel)

130b----------------------------------------130b

4)

TOSFOS DH SHELO B'RATZON

תוספות ד"ה שלא ברצון

(SUMMARY: Tosfos does not understand why Rebbi Eliezer was upset that they did not carry the knife for the Milah in the public domain.)

קשה לרשב"א הא אמרינן לקמן בפירקין (דף קלג.) כל מקום שאתה מוצא עשה ולא תעשה אם אתה יכול לקיים את שניהם מוטב כו' והכא כיון דאפשר לקיים את שניהם להביאו דרך גגות וחצירות וקרפיפות אמאי יביאו אותו דרך רה"ר

(a)

Question: The Rashba has difficulty with this. We say later (33a) that wherever one finds a positive Mitzvah and a negative Mitzvah, if you can fulfill both you should etc. In our Gemara, he can uphold both by bringing the knife through yards, roofs, and open spaces (that are not public domain). Why should he bring it through the public domain?

וליכא למימר דלגבי מילה דגלי רחמנא בה דדחי שבת כדדרשינן לקמן לא אמרינן הכי

1.

Answer: One cannot say that regarding Milah, that the Torah teaches pushes aside Shabbos as we derive later, we do not say this rule. (Why not?)

דהא לקמן גבי בשר אפי' במקום בהרת יקוץ כו' אמרינן כדר"ל דאמר ר"ל כל מקום שאתה מוצא כו'

2.

Question: Later, when the Gemara says that one should even cut the flesh of the Milah even if there is a mark of leprosy on it, we say that this is like Reish Lakish who says that whenever you find etc. (In other words, if we could do the Milah without doing so we would do it in this fashion, despite the fact that there is a Torah derivation that Milah pushes aside cutting the leprosy.)

5)

TOSFOS DH U'MI SHARI

תוספות ד"ה ומי שרי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the case could not be that it was carried through a yard with an Eiruv.)

וא"ת ולוקמי שהביאו דרך חצר מעורבת דהוי כרצון חכמים ושלא כרצון ר"א דשרי אפי' דרך רה"ר

(a)

Question: Why don't we say that the case is where they brought it through a yard that had an Eiruv which would be in accordance with the will of the Chachamim and unlike Rebbi Eliezer who even permits carrying through the public domain?

וי"ל דבכה"ג לא הוה שרי ר"א מן רה"ר כיון שיכול להביאו דרך חצר מעורבת בהיתר גמור

(b)

Answer #1: In such a case Rebbi Eliezer would not have permitted to carry from the public domain, since he could bring it through a yard that had an Eiruv in a totally permitted fashion.

א"נ לישנא דשכחו לא משמע כן דאי היתה מעורבת לא ה"ל למימר שכחו אלא לא חשו להביאו מע"ש כיון דבשבת אפשר להביאו בהיתר גמור

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the term "they forgot" does not imply that this was the case. If it had an Eiruv, it would not say "they forgot" but rather that they did not take care to bring it before Shabbos, since it could be brought on Shabbos without transgressing anything.

אבל כי מסיק ברצון ר"ש אתי שפיר דקאמר שכחו שאם היו נזכרין מע"ש היו מביאין משום דפליגי רבנן עליה

1.

Answer #2 (cont.): However, since the Gemara concludes that this was done according to Rebbi Shimon it is understandable why it said "they forgot." If they would have remembered they would have brought it before Shabbos, since the Rabbanan argue on Rebbi Shimon.

6)

TOSFOS DH B'RATZON

תוספות ד"ה ברצון

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara chooses to say it is according to Rebbi Shimon and not Rebbi Meir.)

ה"ה דהוה מצי למימר ברצון ר"מ שהביאו דרך גגות מגג לגג או דרך חצרות מחצר לחצר כדמוכח בפרק כל גגות (עירובין דף פט.) דאית ליה כל גגות העיר רשות אחת הן וכן חצרות וקרפיפות

(a)

Implied Question: It also could have said that this was according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir, as they brought it by going over the roofs from roof to roof or through yards from one yard to the next. This is as is apparent in Eiruvin (89a) that Rebbi Meir holds that all of the roofs in a city are considered one domain. The same applies (according to Rebbi Meir) to all of the yards and open empty spaces. (Why didn't the Gemara say it is according to Rebbi Meir?)

אלא נקט ר' שמעון דקי"ל כוותיה

(b)

Answer: Rather, it said that it is according to Rebbi Shimon because we rule according to Rebbi Shimon.

7)

TOSFOS DH L'KEILIM

תוספות ד"ה לכלים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara is stating the status of the knife.)

וכן היה אותו איזמל

(a)

Explanation: This was the case regarding that knife.

8)

TOSFOS DH D'REBBI ELIEZER

תוספות ד"ה דרבי אליעזר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Shamuti means from the House of Shamai.)

מב"ש

(a)

Explanation: This means he is from the House of Shamai.

וכן מוכח בירושלמי במסכת תרומות בפרק סאה תרומה דתנן התם סאה תרומה טמאה שנפלה למאה סאין טהורין בית שמאי אוסרים וב"ה מתירין כו' עד לאחר שהודו ר"א אומר תירום ותישרף

1.

Proof: This is apparent from the Yerushalmi in Terumos (ch. 5) where the Mishnah (5:4) states that a Sa'ah of impure Terumah that fell into one hundred Sa'ah of pure Terumah, Beis Shamai forbids and Beis Hillel permits etc. The Mishnah continues to say that "after they admitted," Rebbi Eliezer says that he should take Terumah and burn it.

ואמר בגמרא בן פזי ורבי אייבו בר נגרי הוו יתבין ואמרי תנינן אחר שהודו ר"א אומר תירום ותישרף מי הודה למי א"ר אסי מתניתין אמרה כן לאחר שהודו ר"א אומר תירום ותישרף ר"א לאו שמותי הוא הרי משמע דשמותי הוא מתלמידי ב"ש דמינה קא פשיט דב"ש הודו לב"ה ר"ת

2.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara says that Ben Pazi and Rebbi Aiyvu bar Nagri were sitting and learning this statement, "after they admitted, Rebbi Eliezer says he should take off Terumah and burn it." Who admitted to who? Rebbi Asi says that our Mishnah is saying that after they admitted etc. Isn't Rebbi Eliezer a Shamuti? In other words, Rebbi Asi is saying that since he is from the students of Beis Shamai, we can deduce that Beis Shamai admitted to Beis Hillel. Rabeinu Tam.

9)

TOSFOS DH NITKU

תוספות ד"ה ניתקו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question, answer, and question of the Gemara.)

פירוש וחשיב כאילו אין כאן חצר כלל שהחצר נעשה בית וכשלא עירבו חשיבי בתים כליתנהו

(a)

Explanation: This means that it is considered as if there is no yard here at all, as the yard is now considered a house. When they did not make an Eiruv, the houses are as if they are not there. (The Gemara therefore asks that Rav's law is not being followed in either case.)

ומיהו חצר לא חשיב כליתא אע"פ שאסור לטלטל מתוכו למבוי כיון שאין דרך מפסיק בינו למבוי לא חשוב [כסתום] אבל בתים כסתומות חשיבי כיון שהחצר מפסיק בינם למבוי ודוקא היכא דלא נשתתפו בעינן בתים וחצרות פתוחין לתוכו אבל נשתתפו לא בעינן

1.

Explanation (cont.): However, the yard is not considered as if it is not there, even though it is forbidden to carry from the yard to the alleyway. Since there is no path that separates between it and the alleyway it is not considered closed. However, houses are considered closed, since the yard separates between them and the alleyway. We only require houses and yard open to it when they did not make a Shituf. However, if they did this it is not required.

ומשני אפשר דמבטלי רשות גבי חד דהשתא איכא בית דלא חשיב כסתום ולא אמר נמי ניתקו חצרות כולם כיון דשאר הבתים אסורין בחצר

2.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers that it is possible that the people in a yard can nullify their domain to one person. This would make it that there is a house that is not considered closed off from the alleyway (as the person who it is nullified to can carry into that yard). He did not say that all of the yards are considered taken away, since the people in the other houses cannot carry into the yard.

ופריך בית איכא בתים ליכא

3.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks that there is a house, but not houses (and two houses are required to be able to carry from the yards to this alleyway)!

ולא מצי למימר דבטלי רשות גבי תרי שהם היו אוסרין זה על זה

4.

Explanation (cont.): We cannot say that the case is where they nullified their domain to two people, as they would forbid each other from carrying into the yard (if they do not make an Eiruv with each other).

ולא מצי למימר שהשנים עירבו דהא מדקאמר רב לא עירבו משמע לא עירבו כלל

5.

Explanation (cont.): We cannot say that these two people made an Eiruv, as since Rav said they did not make an Eiruv, the implication is that the case is when no Eiruv was made at all.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF