Study Shabbat folio 130A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מתני׳ רבי אליעזר אומר: אם לא הביא כלי מערב שבת — מביאו בשבת מגולה, ובסכנה מכסהו על פי עדים.
Mishnah: As a continuation to the discussion at the end of the previous chapter, which mentioned circumcision in the context of a discussion of the halakhot of childbirth on Shabbat, the Mishnah continues to address the halakhot of circumcision. R' Eliezer says: If he did not bring an implement for circumcising the child on Friday, he brings it on Shabbat itself uncovered so that it will be clear to all that he is bringing a circumcision scalpel. And in times of danger, when decrees of persecution prohibit Jews from circumcising their children, one covers it in the presence of witnesses who can testify that he transported the scalpel to perform a mitzva.
ועוד אמר רבי אליעזר: כורתים עצים לעשות פחמין לעשות (כלי) ברזל.
And furthermore, R' Eliezer said with regard to this issue: One may even cut down trees to prepare charcoal in order to fashion iron tools for the purpose of circumcision.
כלל אמר רבי עקיבא: כל מלאכה שאפשר לעשותה מערב שבת — אינה דוחה את השבת, ומילה שאי אפשר לעשותה מערב שבת דוחה את השבת.
R' Eliezer’s approach was not universally accepted, and a principle was stated by R' Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Friday does not override Shabbat, including transporting the circumcision scalpel. However, any prohibited labor involved in the mitzva of circumcision itself that cannot be performed on Friday overrides Shabbat.
גמ׳ איבעיא להו: טעמא דרבי אליעזר משום חבובי מצוה, או דילמא משום חשדא. למאי נפקא מינה? לאתויי מכוסה על פי עדים. אי אמרת משום חבובי מצוה, מגולה — אין, מכוסה — לא. אלא אי אמרת משום חשדא — אפילו מכוסה, שפיר דמי. מאי?
Talmud: A dilemma was raised before the rabbis: Is the reason for R' Eliezer’s opinion that the scalpel must be uncovered due to affection for the mitzva and the desire to publicize it, or perhaps it is due to avoiding suspicion? The Talmud asks: What practical difference is there between the two reasons suggested for R' Eliezer’s opinion? The Talmud answers: The difference is with regard to the question of whether or not it is permitted to bring the scalpel covered in the presence of witnesses who are aware that one is bringing the scalpel for the purpose of circumcision. If you say the reason is due to affection for the mitzva, then if it is uncovered, yes, there is a display of affection for the mitzva. If it is covered, no, there is no display of affection. However, if you say the reason for this ruling is due to avoiding suspicion, even if it is covered he may well do so, because the witnesses are aware that a circumcision will be performed. What is the resolution of this dilemma?