Shabbat

MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER SAID: IF ONE DID NOT BRING AN INSTRUMENT ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH,  HE MUST BRING IT ON THE SABBATH UNCOVERED;  BUT IN [TIMES OF] DANGER  HE HIDES IT ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES. R. ELIEZER SAID FURTHER: ONE MAY CUT TIMBER TO MAKE CHARCOAL FOR MANUFACTURING IRON.  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. GEMARA. The scholars asked: Is R. Eliezer's reason  out of love for the precept  or perhaps it is because of suspicions?  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.  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. 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.  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]?  — Such as are eligible to testify elsewhere. 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?  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 nebelah,  and it is said, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk:  [this teaches,] that which is forbidden on the score of nebelah may not be seethed in milk. Now since a fowl is prohibited when nebelah, 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. R. Isaac said: There was one town in Palestine where they followed R. Eliezer,  and they died there at the [proper] time,  Moreover, the wicked State  once promulgated a decree against Israel concerning circumcision,  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,  they still observe with joy. While every precept which they accepted with displeasure,  e.g., the forbidden degrees of consanguinity, as it is written, And Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families,  [i.e.,] on account of the affairs of their families,  they still perform them with strife, for there is no marriage settlement which does not contain a quarrel. 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,  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.  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:  just as a dove is protected by its wings, so with the Israelites, their precepts protect them. 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,