More On Ullah's "Strict" Approach - Was He Being Machmir or Just Conveying the Halachic Traditions of Eretz Yisrael?

Continuing last post, here is another example that appears to contradict the assertion that in general, Ulla "was very strict in his interpretation of religious laws."

Shabbat 39b:

On account of the incident of what the people of Tiberias did and the Rabbis forbade them, [the practice of] putting away [aught] in anything that adds heat, even by day, has no sanction. 'Ulla said: The halachah agrees with the inhabitants of Tiberias. Said R. Nahman to him, The Tiberians have broken their pipe long ago!

Thus, it is Ulla that wants to permit and Rav Nachman who assurs.

I mentioned in the previous post that some of what may appear to be Ulla being very strict is just an effect of him being an Amora from Eretz Yisrael who traveled to Bavel. He brings with him various traditions from early Palestinian Amoraim (such as Rabbi Eleazar, Rabbi Hoshaya, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, etc.), and where he sees difference between Israeli and Babylonian halachic practice, he will point out the difference. He is more likely to point out where Babylonian tradition is more lenient, for otherwise he really has no impetus to object.

An example of this phenomenon might be seen in an incident in which Ulla clearly is the more stringent. May one knock on a door on Shabbat with one's fist, or is this prohibited under "making a noise," mashmia kol?

We see this at the end of Eruvin. Citing from my Rif blog, because the Rif's comments are especially relevant:

Ulla visited the house of Rav Menashe. A certain person came and knocked on the door. He {=Ulla} said: Who is this person? May his body be desecrated, for he desecrates the Shabbat!
Rava {our gemara: Rabba} said to him: The only spoke {and forbad creation} of a musical sound.
And they {attempted to} refute Rava from this that they learnt {in a brayta}:

Liquids may be drawn by means of a deyofi {=siphon} and water may be allowed to drip from the arag {a perforated vessel} for a sick person on Shabbat.

For a sick person, yes. But for a healthy person, no. Is this not the case that he was sleeping and they desired that he wake up {from the non-musical sound of dripping}? And we may then derive that production of {even non-musical} sound is forbidden?
And he answers: no, it is where he was awake and it is desired that he fall asleep, and this is the reason that for a healthy person it is forbidden - because he is producing a tingling noise.

The explanation of deyofi is a siphon with which they draw wine.
And the explanation of mi arag {our gemara: miarak} is a vessel whose mouth is narrow above and is wide below, and on the bottom are tiny holes through which wine exits, and when they fall into a metal vessel, the sound is heard like music.

And they {attempted to} refute Rava from this that they learnt {in a brayta}:

If one guards his fruit against birds or his gourds against beasts {on Shabbat}, he may not clap his hand, beat his chest, or stamp his feet {yerakad} as he does during the week.

What is the reason? Is it not because producing a sound on Shabbat is forbidden?
And Rav Acha bar (Rav) Yaakov answers that this is a decree lest he pick up a pebble to throw at them.

And they further {attempt} to refute from this that Rav Yehuda cited Rav: Women playing with nuts is forbidden.
What is the reason? Is it not because producing a sound on Shabbat is forbidden?
And the answer there that no, it is because they make a tinkling {=musical} sound.

And Shmuel says that Women playing with apples is forbidden.
To explain, they cast one towards the other upon the ground, and they hit one another.
What is the reason? Is it not because producing a sound on Shabbat is forbidden?
There is to answer that it is lest they come to make furrows in the ground since the play is on the ground.

And they further ask from our Mishna: "and they may fill from the Pilgrim's Well with the wheel in the Temple but not in the country."
What is the reason? Is it not because producing a sound is forbidden?
To explain, because the wheel produces a sound.
And they answer: No. It is a decree lest he draw water for his garden or for his ruin.

And it is logical to us that the halacha is like Rava, who said that they only said this {that it is forbidden} by a musical sound: Since Rav Acha bar Yaakov answered like him, it is clear that he holds like him. Further, we say that Amemar allowed filling using a wheel on Shabbat in Mechoza. He said: What is the reason the Sages decreed? Because of his garden and ruin. Here, there is neither garden nor ruin. However, when he saw that they began {Eruvin 104b} to soak flax in it {the water they drew via a wheel}, he forbade them. And thus it is clear that he held like Rava. For if he held like Ulla, he would not have permitted them to draw with a wheel at all, for it produces a sound.

And we see that a minority of {post-Talmudic} Sages who hold like Ulla and rely on the Yerushalmi, for we read there is masechet Yom Tov {=Beitza}: Rabbi Eleazar said: Anything that produces sound is forbidden on Shabbat. Rabbi Ila'a was detained in the study hall {on Friday night}. He exited to his house and they discovered him asleep at the gate in order that he not knock on Shabbat. And we say also: Rabbi Yirmiya permitted knocking on the gate on Shabbat. Rabbi Abba {not Abaye, who is not in Yerushalmi} said to him: Who permitted to you?

And we do not hold so, for since our sugya of our gemara permits, we are unconcerned that the Yerushalmi forbids, for on our gemara we rely, for it is later {contains later generations of Amoraim} and they were experts in Yerushalmi more than us, and if they did not establish that this statement in Yerushalmi is not to be relied upon, they would not have permitted it to us.

Thus, Ulla forbids while Rava permits, and their dispute is exactly what had previously been forbidden. We see that some post-Talmudic Sages ruled like Ulla because the Yerushalmi supports him. This is interesting in its own right, for we might see here that this principle set up by Rif that in case of dispute between Bavli and Yerushalmi that we favor the Bavli was not universally agreed upon (though perhaps they would argue that there is no dispute here). Also of good general use is this principle that Rif spells out about favoring Bavli.

Aside from all of that, I would point out that it is no accident that the Yerushalmi sides with Ulla. Let us not forget that Ulla carried with him the halachic traditions of Eretz Yisrael. Thus, the Babylonian Amoraim all permit, while Ulla and the Yerushalmi forbids. We have a dispute between halachic traditions of two geographical areas.

And so this is not a case from which one should argue that in general, Ulla liked being machmir and that this is why he felt that the person who knocked on the door was mechalel Shabbat.