משנה: יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע בִּפְנִים וּשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע בַּחוּץ. בְּאֵי זָה צַד. הֶעָנִי עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת בִּפְנִים. פָּשַׁט הֶעָנִי אֶת יָדוֹ לִפְנִים וְנָתַן לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ שֶׁנָּטַל מִתּוֹכָה וְהוֹצִיא הֶעָנִי חַייָב וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר. פָּשַׁט בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶת יָדוֹ לַחוּץ וְנָתַן לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ שֶׁל עָנִי אוֹ שֶׁנָּטַל מִתּוֹכָהּ וְהִכְנִיס בַּעַל הַבַּיִת חַייָב וְהֶעָנִי פָּטוּר. פָּשַׁט הֶעָנִי אֶת יָדוֹ לִפְנִים וְנָטַל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מִתּוֹכָהּ אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכָהּ וְהוֹצִיא שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין. פָּשַׁט בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶת יָדוֹ לַחוּץ וְנָטַל הֶעָנִי מִתּוֹכָהּ אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכָהּ וְהִכְנִיס שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין׃ MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside1On the Sabbath it is forbidden to move any load from a private to the public domain (or for a distance of at least 4 cubits in the public domain.) Inside a private domain there are no restrictions unless the article may not be moved at all. While any transport between domains is forbidden, it is a prosecutable offense only if there is a completed action, i. e., one person lifted the item up, transported it, and put it down. This applies both to transport from the private domain to the public one (“inside”) and vice versa (“outside”). In each case, the transport may be effectuated either by the person inside or the person outside (in which case the person is prosecutable but the person standing in the other domain is not involved) or it may be taken up by one person, taken over while moving by another person who then puts it down. In this case both participants have sinned but are not prosecutable. The possible cases are enumerated in Mishnaiot 1–4. “Liable” and “not liable” refer both to the possibility of prosecution for intentional Sabbath desecration and the obligation of a purification sacrifice in the case of unintentional infraction.. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable.
If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable.
If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable.
If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.
הלכה: יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת כול׳. מָהוּ שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. שְׁתַּיִם לְחִייוּב וּשְׁתַּיִם לִפְטוֹר אוֹ אַרְבַּע לְחִיּוּב וְאַרְבַּע לִפְטוֹר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מְן הָדָא. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. תַמָּן כּוּלְּהוֹן לְחִייּוּב. בְּרַם הָכָא חִייּוּב וּפְטוֹר אֲתִינָן מַתְנֵי. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. ד׳ לְחִיּוּב וְד׳ לִפְטוֹר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. לֹא לְחִיוּב. וְדִכְווָתָהּ. יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע לְחִיוּב. וְהָא תַנֵּי. דַּלְתוֹת הַהֵיכַל שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר. לֹא לְחִיּוּב וְלֹא לִפְטוֹר. נִיתְנֵי. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר פְּטוֹר. לֹא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא פְטוֹר שֶׁהוּא כְנֶגֶד חִייוּב. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָא בָּר אַבָּא. מָהוּ הָהֵן פְּטוֹר דְּתַנִּינָן הָכָא. מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עָנִי וְעָשִׁיר אֶחָד הֵן וּמָנוּ אוֹתָן חֲכָמִים שְׁנַיִם. הַכְנָסָה וְהוֹצָאָה אֶחָד הֵן וּמָנוּ אוֹתָן חֲכָמִים שְׁנַיִם. יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת אֵין הַכְנָסָה בִכְלָל. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת אֵין הַמַּכְנִיס בִכְלָל. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. דָּמַר רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִכְנִיס חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת חַייָב. מְנַיִין שֶׁהוֹצָאָה קְרוּיָה מְלָאכָה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. וַיְצַ֣ו מֹשֶׁ֗ה וַיַּֽעֲבִ֨ירוּ ק֥וֹל בַּמַּֽחֲנֶה֘ לֵאמֹר֒ אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשָּׁ֗ה אַל־יַֽעֲשׂוּ־ע֛וֹד מְלָאכָה֭ לִתְרוּמַ֣ת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וַיִּכָּלֵ֥א הָעָ֖ם מֵֽהָבִֽיא. נִמְנְעוּ הָעָם מִלְּהוֹצִיא מִבָּתֵּיהֶן וְלִיתֵּן לַגִּיזְבָּרִים. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִלָא. אֲפִילוּ הַכְנָסָה אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּמְנְעוּ הָעָם מִלְּהוֹצִיא מִבָּתֵּיהֶן וְלִיתֵּן לַגִּיזְבָּרִין כָּךְ נִמְנְעוּ הַגִּזְבָּרִין מִלְּקַבֵּל מִיָּדָן וּלְהַכְנִיס לַלִּישְׁכָּה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא שָׁמַע כּוּלְּהֹן מִן הָדֵין קִרְייָא. לֹא תוֹצִ֨יאוּ מַשָּׂ֤א מִבָּֽתֵּיכֶם֙ בְּי֣וֹם הַשַּׁבָּ֔ת וְכָל־מְלָאכָה֭ לֹ֣א תַֽעֲשׂ֑וּ. HALAKHAH: 25For this and the following paragraphs there exists a reasonably complete Genizah text (G) edited by L. Ginzberg (שרידי ירושלמי New York 1909 p. 62). A slightly garbled parallel is in Ševuot 1:1, explained there in Notes 5–20. The Notes here are restricted to references and short explanations.“Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following26Mishnah Ševuot 1:1.: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability27For R. Abba, there is a difference between the Mishnaiot in Šabbat and Ševuot in that in the case here at least one person involved always is not liable whereas in Ševuot only one person is mentioned and all cases are of liability. For R. Yose, the parallel is only that of Mishnaiot 1–2, not 3–4. Each Mishnah describes two cases of liability; these are two covering in all four cases of liability as in Ševuot 1:1.. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated28Mishnah Middot 4:1. The Mishnah is purely descriptive of the construction of Herod’s Temple; the notions of liability or no liability are inappropriate., “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability29There are four cases in the Mishnah where one party is liable and the other is not involved. Then there are four cases in which both parties are involved but nobody is criminally liable. One might construct another four cases where nobody is liable; e. g., if the poor man reaches into the house, picks something up, which the householder then takes from his hand and deposits outside.? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted30Since in Mishnaiot 1–2 only one person acts, it is inappropriate to apply the label “not liable” to the other person. Babli 2b/3a.! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two31In G, Ševuot 1:1, editio princeps, and a quote in RITBA Ševuot 1:1: “Taking out or bringing in are two but the Sages counted them as one.” As noted later in this paragraph, taking out is called work by Jeremiah (which cannot be used as a legal text but is confirmation of the interpretation of the law) whereas bringing in is only forbidden by the argument that taking out from A to B is bringing in to B from A.. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable32Even an intrinsic liability can be prosecuted only if a minimal amount was transported, which for food is determined as the size of a dried fig (Chapters 7–8). Since taking out and bringing in small quantities are to be combined, taking out and bringing in are representatives of one and the same action, viz., transporting.. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan33In Ševuot 1:1 and the Babli (6b): R. Joḥanan; quoted without attribution by R. Ḥananel Šabbat 3b; in a number of Medieval sources R. Jonathan. understood it from the following34Ex. 36:6. Babli 96a.: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah35Missing in Ševuot. In G, R, Aḥa in the name or R. Ila; in Sefer Haˋittim (ed. Mekize Nirdamim p. 300) R. Aḥa in the name of R. Ḥiyya. In Sefer Miṣwot Gadol #65, (part 1, fol. 17a in Venice edition) R. Ḥiyya in the name of R. Aḥa. in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following36Jer. 17:22.: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.
רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִכְנִיס חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת חַייָב. מַה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחְנָן דְּלָא כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֶה. דְּתַנֵּי. הוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד חַייָב. בִּשְׁנֵי הֶעֱלֵימוֹת פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. בְּעֶלֵם אֶחָד בִּרְשׁוּת אֶחָד חַייָב. בְּעֶלֶם אֶחָד בִּשְׁתֵּי רְשׂוּיוֹת אוֹ בִשְׁנֵי הֶעֱלֵימוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת אֶחָד פָּטוּר. וְקַשְׁייָן. אִילּוּ הוֹצָאה וְהוֹצָאָה אֵינָן מִצְטָֽרְפוֹת כְּרִבִּי יוּסֶה לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן הַכְנָסָה וְהוֹצָאָה. הֲוֵי מַה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחְנָן דְּלָא כְּרִבִּי יוּסֵי. 37For this and the next paragraph there also exists an additional Genizah text (ג) also edited by L. Ginzberg, loc. cit. p. 64. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable38Here and in the following, “liable” only refers to the obligation to bring a purification sacrifice in case of unintentional infraction of the Sabbath rules. Since an intentional sin cannot be atoned for by a sacrifice (Num. 16:30), a sacrifice is possible only if the perpetrator was oblivious either of the fact that the act was forbidden or, in the case of the Sabbath, that the day was a Sabbath. Sins committed during different periods of oblivion require different sacrifices. In addition, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath is not a single prohibition but, as explained in Chapter 7, a set of 39 different prohibitions, each with different minima of forbidden work which trigger the obligation of a sacrifice. Minimal infractions of different prohibitions do not combine to produce the obligation of a sacrifice. On the other hand, infractions which are subsumed under the same prohibition, even if one is clearly biblically prohibited (אַב מְלָאכָה “a master work” such as transporting from a private to the public domain) and one which is classified by a logical argument as belonging to the same class (תּוֹלְדָה “a derivative”, as transporting to the private domain) do combine to create the obligation of a sacrifice.. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose39The Tanna, ben Ḥalafta, the greatest authority of the fourth generation of Tannaim., as it was stated40Babli 80b, Bava batra 55b, Keritut17a. The first part is a Tosephta, ed. Liebermann 9:11, ed. princeps 10:7.: “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable.41Since transporting has three components, lifting in one domain, removing to another, and depositing in the other domain, for R. Yose they cannot be combined unless all three components are the same (within one period of oblivion.)” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rebbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out42The argument is not convincing since transporting into is a derivative of transporting from. R. Yose still could hold that the actions combine to create liability if the domains involved are the same.? Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rebbi Yose.
אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שָׁנֵי פְתָחִים פְּתוּחִים לִשְׁתֵּי פַּלַטִיּוֹת. אֶלָּא אֲפִילו פְתוּחִין לְפַלָטִיַת אַחַת אוֹף רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מודֶה. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְדַמֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת לְהֶעֱלֵימוֹת לְחִיּוּב. כְּמַה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְדַמֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת לְהֶעֱלֵימוֹת לִפָטוֹר כָּךְ מְדַמֶּה רְשׁוּיוֹת לְעֱלֵימוֹת לְחִייוב. שֶׁאִם הוֹצִיא כִגְרוֹגֶרֶת בְּפֶתַח זֶה וְכִגְרוֹגֶרֶת בְּפֶתַח זֶה כְעֶלֵם אֶחָד שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. Rebbi Ila said, not only if two doors open to two public roads43Greek πλατεῖα (sc., ὁδός) “a wide (road)”, equivalent of Hebrew רְחוֹב. but even if they open to the same public road will Rebbi Yose agree44Since it is assumed that each private house has only one door to the street, there are two different private domains involved; the transgressions do not combine for R. Yose., for Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability45Different domains from which transport starts or where transport ends are like different periods of oblivion for which no common purification sacrifice is possible by biblical standards.. Just as Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability so Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability46Clearly the correct text is that of G: “Just as Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability so Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability.” The fact that incomplete actions in two different periods of oblivion do not combine to create the liability (or possibility) of a sacrifice is only a corollary to the statement that all infractions of the same kind committed during the same period of oblivion are atoned for by one single sacrifice.. For if he took out the volume of a dried fig through this door and the volume of a dried fig through that door in one period of oblivion is he not liable twice47For R. Yose, who negates the possibility of any sacrifice if the amounts each time are insufficient. For the anonymous majority, the situation is the opposite; two transports of insufficient quantities from two domains combine to create liability for a sacrifice but transports of greater quantities from different domains in one period of oblivion are atoned for by a single sacrifice.?
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְדַמֶּה רְשׁוּיוֹת לַאֲכִילַת פְּרָסִיִים. שֶׁאִם אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס הַזֶּה וַחֲצִי זַיִת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס הַזֶּה שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פָטוּר. אָכַל כַּמָּה זֵיתיִם בְּכַמָּה פְרָסִים בֶּעֶלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. 48This paragraph and the next also appear in Horaiot 3:3 (Notes 66–72) in a different context. (R. Yose mentioned there is the fifth generation Amora). Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Yose compares domains to eating slices49This refers to sacrifices due for eating forbidden food. Since purification sacrifices are due only for transgressions punishable at least by extirpation (Mishnah Horaiot 3:7), the only example of such solid food is forbidden fat. A sacrifice for inadvertent consumption of forbidden fat is due if at least the volume of an average olive was eaten in the time needed to eat a slice of bread. The slice is defined (Tosephta Negaˋim 7:10) as half a loaf when three loaves are baked from a kav of flour (about 35 cl). For if one ate the volume of half an olive during the time needed to eat one slice and another volume of half an olive in the time needed to eat another slice, is he not free from liability? If one ate several volumes of olives during several times needed to eat a slice in one period of forgetting, he is liable only once.
רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין אָֽמְרִין. עַד דְּאַתְּ מְדַמֵּי לָהּ לַחֲלָבִים דַּמִּינָהּ לַשַּׁבָּת. שֶׁאִם אָרַג חוּט אֶחָד בְּתוֹךְ בֶּגֶד הַזֶּה וְחוּט אֶחָד בְּתוֹךְ בֶּגֶד זֶה שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ פָטוּר. אָרַג כַּמָּה חוּטִין בְּכַמָּה בְגָדִים בֶּעֶלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. 50Cf. Horaiot 3:3 Note 70. The rabbis of Caesarea object to comparing the rules of the Sabbath to any other biblical prohibition. Mishnah 13:1 states that weaving is forbidden and the threshold for an action requiring a purification sacrifice is weaving two threads. For the majority, weaving two threads in one oblivion triggers the obligation of a sacrifice, for R. Yose only if the two rows were added to the same piece of cloth. The rabbis of Caesarea say, before you compare this to fat, compare it to the rules of Sabbath itself. For if one was weaving one thread on this piece of cloth and weaving one thread on that piece of cloth, is he not free from liability? If he wove several threads on several pieces of cloth in one period of oblivion he is liable only once.
רִבִּי יוּסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמּוֹצִיא אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַד שֶׁיִּטּוֹל וְעַד שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָעֵי. עַד שֶׁיִּטּוֹל עַל מְנָת לְהָנִיחַ. נָטַל לֶאֱכוֹל וְנִמְלָךְ לָהָנִיחַ לֹא. הָוֵי (חַייָב) מַה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּלֹא כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּתַנֵּי. הוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְהִנִּיחָהּ וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת. אִם הִנִּיחָהּ בְּתוֹךְ ד׳ אַמּוֹת לָרִאשׁוֹנָה חַייָב. וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. אִם הֶעֱבִירוֹ דֶּרֶךְ עָלֶּיהָ חַייָב. וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עֲבִיד הַמְהַלֵּךְ כְּמַנִּיחַ. כְּמָה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי עֲבִיד הַמְהַלֵּךְ כְּמַנִּיחַ לְחִייוּב כָּךְ הוּא עֲבִיד הַמְהַלֵּךְ כְּמַנִּיחַ לִפְטוֹר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹצִיאָהּ נַעֲשֶׂה כְמוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ שָׁם וִיהֵא פָטוּר. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָֽיְתָה נְתוּנָה בְּתוֹךְ ד׳ אַמּוֹת. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. אָמַר רָבָא בַּר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפַּי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה הַפֶּתַח רָחָב חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת וְהוֹצִיא אַחַת לְכָאן וְאַחַת לְכָאן. וַהֲרֵי לֹא הוֹצִיא את הַשְּׂנִיָּה בְתוֹךְ ד׳ אַמּוֹת לָרִאשׁוֹנָה. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The one who takes out is not liable until he put it down51As explained in Note 1, the Sabbath is desecrated only by a complete action, lifting up, transporting from one domain to another, and depositing. If the last act is missing, there was no punishable desecration.
The tradent R. Yose is the fifth generation Amora.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down52This is a necessary clarification of the preceding statement. Not only must there be a complete action, but all three parts must be executed with the intent to perform the action. In Ex. 35, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath is repeated (vv. 1–3) as part of the commandment to build the Tabernacle (vv. 4–35). In 35:33, the construction of the Tabernacle is described as “thinking work”. It is concluded that only “thinking work” is punishable (criminally or by a sacrifice) as desecration of the Sabbath. In the special case of transporting, there is desecration only if the three parts are done with compatible intent, if the lifting up was intended to be followed by a putting down.. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down53It is perfectly legitimate to take food to eat in the domain where it was at the start of the Sabbath. If the first stage of a transport was executed in a perfectly permitted way based on a true thought, it never can become the first leg in a criminal transport. While the change of intent and the following action were forbidden and sinful, there can be no criminal or sacrificial liability attached to them. (As statement of R. Joḥanan himself, Babli 5b, Eruvin 20b, Ketubot 31a).. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated54An anonymous baraita following the statement here attributed to R. Yose is Tosephta 9:11(ed. S. Liebermann); the first part Babli 80a.
Since in the public domain one is only permitted to move things by a distance of less than four cubits, things farther away are as in two different domains. If each transport was less that a minimal amount, the actions cannot be combined.: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose39The Tanna, ben Ḥalafta, the greatest authority of the fourth generation of Tannaim. said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down56Later in the Halakhah and in the Babli (5b, 91b, Eruvin 98a, Ketubot 31b) this opinion is attributed to Ben Azzai, a generation before R. Yose. It is agreed by everybody that standing still while transporting an object is legally putting it down, not on the ground but on the static person. This is the same as depositing the object on a pillar. R. Yose holds that a slow motion such as walking is the equivalent of standing still for a negligible time at many places. An action which does not result in instant deposition is throwing.
According to R. Yose, if the second object ever was within 4 cubits of the place where the first was deposited, the two actions combine for liability, even if the second was ultimately deposited somewhere else.. Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability57If the object is considered deposited the moment it was taken out of a private domain by a walking person, then any subsequent motion is a new transport. Since R. Yose (Note 44) only considers combining transports if they originate and terminate in the same domains, the fact that later the second object was transported over the first should be irrelevant.. Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door]58Added from G and ג., as it was stated41Since transporting has three components, lifting in one domain, removing to another, and depositing in the other domain, for R. Yose they cannot be combined unless all three components are the same (within one period of oblivion.), “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first59For the anonymous Tanna the final place of deposit determines liability; for R. Yose there is no liability if the two paths never were within 4 cubits of one another..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. אִם הָֽיְתָה שַׁבָּת וְהוֹצִיאוֹ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם: שֶׁזֶּה חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מְהַלֵּךְ וְזֶה חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מַנִּיחַ. מַנֵּי אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן לָא עֲבַד הַמְהַלֵּךְ כְּמַנִּיחַ וָכָה עֲבִיד הַמְהַלֵּךְ כְּמַנִּיחַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה מוּטָּל עַל הָאַסְקוּפָּה מִקְצָתוֹ בִּפְנִים וּפִיו לַחוּץ וּפָשַׁט יָדוֹ וּנְטָלָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ. וַהֲרֵי לֹא הִילֵּךְ. There60Mishnah Keritut 3:4., we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was a Sabbath and he carried it out61As noted before, a purification offering is possible only for transgressions punishable at least by extirpation. The Mishnah gives an example that a single act may trigger the obligation of 4 purification and one reparation offerings. An impure person who eats a piece of well-being offering (Lev. 7:20) which is fat (v.25) and more than 2 days old (v. 18) on the Day of Atonement (23:29). For the illicit use of a sanctum a reparation sacrifice is due (5:15–16). R. Meïr adds that if the day also was a Sabbath and the person would take the piece in a private domain, carry it out and eat it in the public domain, an additional purification offering is needed.
The text and R. Yudan’s explanation make it clear that the Yerushalmi does not read with some Babli sources “carried it out in his mouth.”. They told him, it is not the category62The five sacrifices are due for eating one piece; the Sabbath infraction would be for carrying. S. Liebermann explains אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם as “is not simultaneous.”.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down63Eating may also be done while walking; the Sabbath infraction becomes a liability only when the motion stopped.. Who is “they said to him”? Rebbi Yose64There is no other reference to the fact that the objection to R. Meïr originates with the Tanna R. Yose.! The argument of Rebbi Yose is inverted. There, he does not consider the person walking equal to one who was putting down but here he is considering the person walking equal to one who was putting down65This argument may support Liebermann’s interpretation. Since for R. Yose a person walking is considered stopping at every place, the Sabbath infraction and the desecration of the sacrifice are simultaneous.! Rebbi Yudan said, explain it that he was laying on the threshold66An Accadic word (askuppum). The word describes not only the threshold but also the stairs leading from the road to the house. [Also cf. Latin scapus “post or newel of a circular staircase; main stile of a door on which it hinges” (E. G.)] partially inside, his mouth outside, when he stretched out his hand, took it, and ate it. Then he did not walk67If the piece of fat was lying inside the private domain, the Sabbath violation did not involve any movement of his body; the reference to R. Yose’s opinion about transporting on the Sabbath is irrelevant, as is the explanation given in the preceding sentence. The difference in the status of the required sacrifices is as indicated in Note 62..
אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. בָּלַע חֲצִי זַיִת והִקִּיאוֹ וְחָזַר וּבְלָעוֹ חַייָב. הִכְנִיס חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיאָהּ פָּטוּר. מַה בֵינָהּ לְבֵין קַדְמִייָתָא. תַּמָּן נֶהֱנֶה חִיכּוֹ בִכְזַיִת. בְּרַם הָכָא לֹא נִתְעַסֵּק בֵּכִגְרוֹגֶרֶת שְׁלֵימָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא מִתְעַסֵּק בִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת שְׁלֵימָה וְהוּא פָטוּר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְהִנִּיחָהּ וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַנִּיחָהּ עַד שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וַהֲרֵי נִתְעַסֵּק בִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת שְׁלֵימָה וְהוּא פָטוּר. בְּגִין מְדַמְייָתָהּ לַחֲלָבִין וְהוּא עֲבַד כֵּן. Rebbi Yannai said, one who swallowed half the volume of an olive, then threw it up, and again swallowed it, is liable68In the Babli, Ḥulin 103b, statement and supporting argument are by R. Assi (Yasa) in the name of R. Joḥanan. The food swallowed is supposed to be forbidden fat.. But one who brought in half the volume of a dried fig and took it out again, is not liable69This is not the situation discussed in Note 32 where half a fig was brought in and half a fig taken out; in all a whole fig was transported. But here the same half fig was transported twice; neither transport created liability.. What is the difference between this and the first one? There his palate enjoyed the volume of an olive, but here he never dealt with a full volume of a fig. Rebbi Yose said, sometimes a person may be dealing with a full volume of a fig and not be liable. How is this possible? He took out half of the volume of a dried fig70Here starts a new Genizah leaf (G), also edited by L. Ginzberg, loc. cit. p. 65., put it down, again took out half of the volume of a dried fig, but did not manage to put it down before the first one was burned. He was dealing with a full volume of a fig but is not liable71In the Tosephta 9:11 (ed. Liebermann): “If the first half was eaten before the second came to rest he is not liable, whether in one or in two periods of oblivion.” As explained earlier, quantities less than the minimum trigger liability only if they exist together.
The statement is referred to as obvious in the Babli, 80a.. Because he compared it to forbidden fat he contrived this72This is R. Yose’s explanation of R. Yannai’s statement. Since for fat a single half olive can create liability, there is good reason to formulate R. Yannai’s rule in the way indicated. For the Sabbath, R. Yannai’s statement is unnecessary; it is formulated purely as companion piece to the statement about fat..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת הָיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוֹת הָרַבִּים דֶּרֶךְ כַּרְמְלִית חַייָב מִן הַמּוֹצִיא לַאֳחָרָיו. מִן הָדָא. הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין לְהוֹצִיא לְפָנָיו וּבָא לוֹ לַאֲחַרָיו פָּטוּר. לַאֲחַרָיו וּבָא לוֹ לְפָנָיו חַייְָָב. וְאֶיפְשַׁר שֶׁלֹּא יֵעָשֶׂה בֵינוֹ לְבֵין הַכּוֹתֵל כַּרְמְלִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיוּ פָנָיו הֲפוּכוֹת לַכּוֹתֶל וּמַשּׂוֹאוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו וּבְכָךְ יָצָא מַשּׂוֹאוֹ תְחִילָּה. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אַבָּא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְזוֹ לֹא דֶּרֶךְ הוֹצָאָה הִיא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שֶׁכֵּן כַּתָּפַייָא אוּמְנַיָּא עָֽבְדִין כֵּן. וֵיידָא אָֽמְרָה דָא. דָּמַר רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי מַייְשָׁא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמּוֹצִיא אוֹכְלִים וּנְתָנָן עַל הָאַסְקוּפָּה. וְהָא אַסְקוּפָּה לָאו כַּרְמְלִית הִיא. וּבְאִישׁ לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דְלָא אָֽמְרָהּ מִן גַּרְמֵיהּ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one exports from a private domain to the public domain through karmelit73Karmelit is a part of the public domain not readily accessible to the public (Chapter 13 Note 68). The two main examples are “the sides of a thoroughfare”, the part of a street close to the houses if that part is not easy to use because of stairs extending from the houses or if the fronts of the houses do not form a straight line. The other is “valley”, a rural access path which is public domain, not a thoroughfare but meant only as a path for farmers working adjacent fields.
Since karmelit is not a thoroughfare (defined as road of at least 16 cubits width) it does not qualify as public domain for which transport from a private domain is forbidden. The statement of R. Joḥanan implies that he cannot consider walking as equivalent of standing still (Note 56) since transporting from a private domain to karmelit followed by transport from karmelit to public domain, while forbidden on the Sabbath, does not generate liability (Note 81).
(The etymology of the word karmelit is unknown. Cf. Accadic karmiš “like a ruin”.), he is liable because of him who carries on his back74Because of the argument presented in the next sentence about the difference of carrying a load in front or back., from the following:75Mishnah 10:4. “One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable.76If a person carries valuables, he will want to carry them on his front so as to be in control. If then it happens that he carried them on his back, his action does not actualize his intentions; it does not qualify as “thinking work” (Note 52) and does not trigger liability. But if he intended to carry the load on his back but in fact carried it on his front, he is more in control than he intended; such an improvement qualifies as “thinking work”.” For it is impossible that between him and the wall should not karmelit be created77A person standing close to that wall in the public domain in any case creates karmelit around himself since he bars the access of others to this place. This is formulated in 10:2 as “nothing movable in the public domain creates karmelit except a human.”. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that his face was turned to the wall and his load on his back and so78Instead of “and so” G reads “already”, which results in a smoother text. The person exited the house backwards. his load exited first. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba79G reads: Ada. This reading is the only one possible since R. Ḥiyya bar Abba lived several generations before R. Mana II. asked before Rebbi Mana: But this is not a usual way of carrying out80Work done כִּלְאַחַר יָד “as if with the back of one’s hand” is not “thinking work” and does not create liability.! He told him, professional porters act in this way. But the following implies it, as Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold.81Mishnah 10:2. “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold, whether he or somebody else carries them to the street there is no liability since it was not done in one action.”” Is the threshold not karmelit82If the door is open, the threshold belongs to the house; if it is closed it is part of the public domain.? Rebbi Yose was sorry that he had not said this himself.
רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּזוֹרֵק שֶׁהוּא חַייָב. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הוּא שֶׁאֵין אֲוֵיר כַּרְמְלִית כְּמַמָּשָׁהּ. וּמַה פְלִיגִין. בְּמוֹצִיא. בֶּן עַזַּאי פוֹטֵר. וַחֲכָמִים מְחַייְבִין. בֶּן עַזַּאי עֲבַד הַמְהַלֵּךְ כְּמֵנִיחַ. וְרַבָּנִין לָא עָֽבְדֵי מְהַלֵּךְ כְּמֵנִיחַ. רַב חִסְדָּא שָׁאַל לְרַב הוּנָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבֶן עַזַּאי. אֵין אָדָם מִתְחַייֵב בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לְעוֹלָם. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹצִיאָן נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ עַל כָּל־אַמָּה וָאַמָּה וִיהֵא פָטוּר. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for throwing one is liable83One continues the discussion of transporting from a private to the public domain or vice-versa through a karmelit region. In the Babli (6a), it is a statement of R. Joḥanan.. It is everybody’s opinion that the air space over karmelit is not like its essence. Where do they disagree? If one carries out. Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai makes the person walking as if he was putting down56Later in the Halakhah and in the Babli (5b, 91b, Eruvin 98a, Ketubot 31b) this opinion is attributed to Ben Azzai, a generation before R. Yose. It is agreed by everybody that standing still while transporting an object is legally putting it down, not on the ground but on the static person. This is the same as depositing the object on a pillar. R. Yose holds that a slow motion such as walking is the equivalent of standing still for a negligible time at many places. An action which does not result in instant deposition is throwing.
According to R. Yose, if the second object ever was within 4 cubits of the place where the first was deposited, the two actions combine for liability, even if the second was ultimately deposited somewhere else. but the Sages do not make the person walking as if he was putting down. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Huna: In Ben Azzai’s opinion nobody ever could become liable for four cubits! Since when he transported something, it is made84In G: “It is considered as if”. as if he put it down within every cubit; he should be not liable85This refers to a person carrying in the public domain. It is a desecration of the Sabbath to carry a load nonstop for at least 4 cubits in the public domain. Since for Ben Azzai every step in walking is considered a stop, it is impossible to carry anything nonstop for 4 cubits. The objection is left without any answer in the Leiden ms., G, and the lengthy quote in Sefer Haˋittim (p. 307). But in Tosaphot (5b, s.v. בשלמא) the Yerushalmi is quoted as answering that a person still could become liable by jumping..
רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּמוֹצִיא שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הוּא שֶׁהַמְהַלֵּךְ כְּמֵנִיחַ. וּמַה פְלִיגִין. בְּזוֹרֵק. בֶּן עַזַּאי פוֹטֵר וַחֲכָמִים מְחַייְבִין. בֶּן עַזַּאי עֲבַד אֲוֵיר כַּרְמְלִית כְּמַמָּשָׁהּ וְרַבָּנִן לָא עָֽבְדִין אֲוֵיר כַּרְמְלִית כְּמַמָּשָׁהּ. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for carrying out one is not liable. It is everybody’s opinion that walking counts as if one was putting down. Where do they disagree? If one is throwing, for Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai considers the air space over karmelit like its essence86In this interpretation, which has no parallel in the Talmudim, anything in the airspace over a karmelit is considered lying there. but the Sages consider the air space over karmelit not like its essence.
מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרַב הוּנָא. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְזָרַק לְדִיר אוֹ לְסַהַר דֶּרֶךְ כַּרְמְלִית חַייָב. וְאִם הוֹצִיא פָטוּר. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרַב יְהוּדָה. הַמּוֹצִיא אוֹכְלִין וּנְתָנָן עַל הָאַסְקוּפָּה בֵּין שֶׁחָזַר וְהוֹצִיאָן בֵּין שֶׁהוֹצִיאָן אַחֵר פָּטוּר. שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה מְלַאכְתָּן בְּבַת אַחַת. הָא אִם עָשָׂה מְלַאכְתָּן בְּבַת אַחַת חַייָב. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ עָשָׂה מְלַאכְתּוֹ בַת אַחַת פָּטוּר. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. אִם הָֽיְתָה שַׁבָּת וְהוֹצִיאוֹ. וְאָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם: שֶׁזֶּה חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מְהַלֵּךְ וְזֶה חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מֵנִיחַ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא דְּלֹא כְבֶן עַזַּאי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה דְּלֹא כְבֶן עַזַּאי וּדְלֹא כְרַבָּנִן. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. מָנוּ אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. חֲכָמִים. שֶׁהֵן בְּשִׁיטַּת בֶּן עַזַּאי. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna87It would seem obvious that the names “Huna” and “Jehudah” should be switched. But the attributions are identical in the Leiden ms., G, and the lengthy quote in Sefer Haˋittim (p. 307).: 88A similar text is in Tosephta 10:1 (ed. Liebermann). If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: 81Mishnah 10:2. “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold, whether he or somebody else carries them to the street there is no liability since it was not done in one action.”“If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step89As noted before, the work of transporting consists of lifting, moving, and depositing. If this is done from private to public domain, it is a desecration of the Sabbath. But a combination of two actions, both involving karmelit and therefore not creating liability, still does not create liability. he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out61As noted before, a purification offering is possible only for transgressions punishable at least by extirpation. The Mishnah gives an example that a single act may trigger the obligation of 4 purification and one reparation offerings. An impure person who eats a piece of well-being offering (Lev. 7:20) which is fat (v.25) and more than 2 days old (v. 18) on the Day of Atonement (23:29). For the illicit use of a sanctum a reparation sacrifice is due (5:15–16). R. Meïr adds that if the day also was a Sabbath and the person would take the piece in a private domain, carry it out and eat it in the public domain, an additional purification offering is needed.
The text and R. Yudan’s explanation make it clear that the Yerushalmi does not read with some Babli sources “carried it out in his mouth.”. They told him, it is not the category62The five sacrifices are due for eating one piece; the Sabbath infraction would be for carrying. S. Liebermann explains אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם as “is not simultaneous.”.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai90Since practice follows the opinion of those who “said to him” in Mishnah Keritut3:4, for Rav Huna it is clear that walking is not considered depositing.. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages91Since for Rav Jehudah everybody agrees that walking is considered depositing according to everybody, those who “said to him” seem to be nonexistent.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.92The Tanna R. Yose as explained earlier.
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּרְשׁוֹת הָרַבִּים וְזָרַק וְקִידֵּם וּקְלָטָהּ. מָהוּ. וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. קְלָטָהּ אַחֵר קְלָטָהּ כֶּלֶב אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפָה. פָּטוּר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. בְּחוֹטֵף כֵּן. הָא אִם קָלָט חַייָב. מַה בֵין נָחָה לָאָרֶץ לְנָחָה לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ. תַּמָּן לָמָּה הוּא חַייָב. תַּמָּן הוּא זָרַק וְאַחֵר קִיבֵּל. בְּרַם הָכָא הוּא זָרַק הוּא קִיבֵּל. וּתְהֵא פְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. אִילּוּ זָרַק בִּימִין וְהוֹצִיא וְקָלַט בִּשְׂמֹאל שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ חַייָב מְִן הָדֵין פִּיו. וּפִיו לָאו כְּאַחֵר הוּא. וָכָא שְׂמֹאלוֹ כְאַחֵר הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁזָּרַק בִּימִין וְקָלַט בִּשְׂמֹאל שֶׁהוּא חַייָב. וּמַה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. בְּזוֹרֵק בִּימִין וְקָלַט בִּימִין. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין. רִבִּי שַׁמַּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. אֲפִילוּ זָרַק בִּימִין וְקָלַט בִּשְׂמֹאל צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ חַייָב. אִין תֵּימַר פִּיו. וּפִיו כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ כְּאַחֵר הִיא. בְּרַם הָכָא יָדוֹ כְאַחֵר הוּא. רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי. מֵעַתָּה הוֹצִיא כִגְרוֹגֶרֶת בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו יְהֵא פָטוּר מִשּׁוּם שְׂנַיִם שֶׁעָשׂוּ מְלָאכָה אַחַת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר אָדָא. וָדָא הִיא בַּעֲשׂוֹתָהּ. וְלֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי. יָחִיד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ חַייָב. שְׁנַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁעָשׂוּ פְטוּרִין. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what93Transporting something in the public domain for a distance of at least 4 cubits is a desecration of the Sabbath. Therefore, throwing something a distance of at least 4 cubits creates liability the moment the thrown object touches the ground. The question is whether there is liability if the thrower himself runs and catches the object in the air, at a distance of at least 4 cubits from where it was thrown. Babli 5a.? Is that not a Mishnah94Mishnah 11:7. The thrower did not intend to throw it to another person or to a dog; the object was intercepted. Therefore, the original intent was not fulfilled; there is no liability. If the object was burned in flight, there is no putting down; the action is incomplete and there is no liability even if the original intent was that it should be burned in flight., “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable95In the question asked by R. Joḥanan one has to distinguish whether the original intent was that the object should be caught in flight, when there is liability, or whether the object was snatched in flight against the original intent, when there is no liability.. What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There96In the Mishnah there is liability if the object is a ball thrown from one person to another and the recipient is supposed to catch the ball., why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it97The Mishnah does not directly address R. Joḥanan’s problem.. Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth98This refers to the explanation given earlier by R. Yudan (Note 67) which shows that receiving an object in his mouth is a valid putting down. if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person99And the legal situation depends on the original intent.. Rebbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rebbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand100Throwing from one hand to the other is a normal action but throwing with one hand and receiving with the same has to be classified “as if with the back of one’s hand” (Note 80) and automatically exclude liability.. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He101R. Joḥanan. is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth98This refers to the explanation given earlier by R. Yudan (Note 67) which shows that receiving an object in his mouth is a valid putting down.”, his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person102Does it make any difference which hand is used since it always is the same person?? Rebbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons103Therefore it is not possible to distinguish between hands in these matters.! Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that when he did it104Lev. 4:27. The verse is emphatic that purification sacrifices are available only for single perpetrators acting in error: If one person of the people of the land sin in error, if he act in one of the commandments of the Eternal which is a prohibition, and be damaged.? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable105Babli 3a,5a; Sifra Wayyiqra I Parashah 7(9)..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְקָלַט גְּשָׁמִים מֵאֲוֵיר מְחִיצוֹת וְהוֹצִיא. חַייָב. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. בַּחוֹטֵף כֵּן. הָא אִם קָלַט פָּטוּר. מַה בֵין נָתָן לוֹ אַחֵר מַה בֵין נָֽתְנוּ לוֹ שָׁמַיִם. אַתְייָא כְרִבִּי. דְּרִבִּי עֲבַד אֲוֵיר מְחִיצוֹת כְּמַמָּשָׁהּ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody was standing in the public domain, collected rain from the airspace of walls and carried it out, he is liable. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, it is so if he grabbed it, but if he collected it he is not liable106The statement of R. Joḥanan is made more precise. If somebody opens his hands to collect raindrops, the rain falls into his hand; he does not lift it. Therefore, if he then moves the rain water in his hand, the motion is not complete; he cannot be liable. It must be that he collects the water actively, by wiping it off a wall or a roof. If then he moves away, the motion is complete and he is liable. Babli 5a.. What is the difference between whether another person gave him or if Heaven gave? It follows Rebbi, for Rebbi made the airspace of walls like their substance107This really refers to another situation. If he stands in a room enclosed by 4 walls, for Rebbi anything which enters the airspace of this enclosure is as if it was at rest on the floor. Therefore anything received in his hand is as if taken up from the floor..
הָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּפְנִים וְיָדוֹ מְלֵיאָה פֵירוֹת פְּשׁוּטָה לַחוּץ וְקִדֵּשׁ עָלָיו הַיּוֹם אָסוּר לַהֲחֲזִירָהּ. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. אָסוּר לָהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּאֲוֵיר עֲשָׂרָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מוּתָּר. הֲווּן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. מָאן דָּמַר מוּתָּר. בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם רוֹחַב אַרְבָּעָה. וּמָאן דָּמַר אָסוּר בְּשֶׁאֵין שָׁם רוֹחַב אַרְבָּעָה. אַמָר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בֵּין זֶה וּבֵין זֶה אָסוּר. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּאֲוֵיר עֲשָׂרָה. מַיי כְדוֹן. מָאן דָּמַר. אָסוּר. לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה. וּמָאן דָּמַר מוּתָּר. לְמַעֲלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה. If he was standing inside and his hand full of produce was stretched to the outside when the day became holy he is forbidden to take it back108He was in a private domain, his hand stretched out to the public domain, and remained so at sundown of Friday evening. Then the situation is as described in Mishnah 2.. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: following him who said that it is forbidden to use the space below ten [hand-breadths]109Since the numerals are masculine they refer to hand-breadths (טְפָחִים). While in theory private domain extends to an unlimited height, the public domain extends only to a height of 10 hand-breadths. Anything higher is מְקוֹם פְּטוֹר “exempt space”, where unlimited motion and unlimited transfer to private domain is permitted. Therefore the baraita must assume that the outstretched hand was within 10 hand-breadths from the ground.. There are Tannaim who state, it is permitted. They wanted to say, he who says it is permitted if there was four [cubits] of space; but he who says it is forbidden if there was not four [cubits] of space110A room of less that four-by-four cubits is karmelit, not a private domain. Babli 3b.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in both cases (it is forbidden)111The word, missing in G, must be deleted as a scribal error since it contradicts the statement which follows. it follows him who said that it is forbidden to use the space below ten [hand-breadths]. What about it? He who says it is forbidden below ten [hand-breadths]; he who says it is permitted, above ten [hand-breadths]112Babli 3b..
הֶעָנִי חַייָב וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת פָּטוּר. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהִיא שֶׁתְּהֵא יָדוֹ שֶׁלְּעָנִי בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה לַקַּרְקַע. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. בְּרָחוֹק מִן הַכּוֹתֶל ד׳. אֲבָל אִם אֵינוֹ רָחוֹק מִן הַכּוֹתֶל אַרְבָּעָה כַּרְמְלִית הוּא. רִבִּי לָּֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כַּרְסָנָה. בְּשֶׁהָיוּ פָנָיו הֲפוּכוֹת לַפְּלַטְיָא. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ פָנָיו הֲפוּכוֹת לַכּוֹתֶל כַּרְמְלִית הִיא. Mishnah: “The poor man is liable but the householder is not liable.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Only if the poor man’s hand is within ten hand-breadths from the ground113Since otherwise he transports from a private to an exempt domain which does not create liability, Note 109.
The quote of the Mishnah is from Mishnah 1. But from the discussion it seems that here starts the discussion of Mishnah 2, “the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable,” since R. Zeˋira makes a difference whether the poor man receives the item in karmelit or not. But R. Zeˋira must follow R. Joḥanan that carrying through karmelit does not relieve from liability if the object was lifted in a private and deposited in a public domain. But if the householder lifts an object in his house and deposits it in karmelit, he is not liable. This also applies if the poor man is standing close to the house with his face to the house; he stands in karmelit (S. Liebermann).. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if he is distant four [hand-breadths] from the wall. But if he is not distant four [hand-breadths] from the wall, it is karmelit73Karmelit is a part of the public domain not readily accessible to the public (Chapter 13 Note 68). The two main examples are “the sides of a thoroughfare”, the part of a street close to the houses if that part is not easy to use because of stairs extending from the houses or if the fronts of the houses do not form a straight line. The other is “valley”, a rural access path which is public domain, not a thoroughfare but meant only as a path for farmers working adjacent fields.
Since karmelit is not a thoroughfare (defined as road of at least 16 cubits width) it does not qualify as public domain for which transport from a private domain is forbidden. The statement of R. Joḥanan implies that he cannot consider walking as equivalent of standing still (Note 56) since transporting from a private domain to karmelit followed by transport from karmelit to public domain, while forbidden on the Sabbath, does not generate liability (Note 81).
(The etymology of the word karmelit is unknown. Cf. Accadic karmiš “like a ruin”.). Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simeon Karsanah: If his face was turned towards the public road43Greek πλατεῖα (sc., ὁδός) “a wide (road)”, equivalent of Hebrew רְחוֹב.. But if his face was turned towards the wall it is karmelit.
רִבִּי חִסְדָּא בְשֵׁם אַשִּׁי. קָנֶה נָעוּץ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִתּוֹכוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּמֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְתוֹכוֹ חַייָב. רַב אָמַר. תַּרְכּוֹס שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וְרוֹחַב ד׳. הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִתּוֹכוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּמֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְתוֹכוֹ חַייָב. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. מְנוֹרָה שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּובְהָהּ עֲשָׂרָה וּפִירְחָהּ אַרְבָּעָה. הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִתּוֹכָהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּמֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְתוֹכָהּ חַייָב. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מְנוֹרָה. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ קָנֶה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וְטַבֻּלָה נְתוּנָה בְרֹאשׁוֹ. הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִתּוֹכוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּמֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְתוֹכוֹ חַייָב. Rebbi Ḥisda in the name of Ashi113*As shown by G and the quote later in this Chapter (Note 170) one has to read: Rav Ḥisda in the name of Assi.: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable114As explained later in this paragraph, the top of the stick must be at least four-by-four hand-breadths wide. Since the public domain extends only to a height of ten hand-breadths, the airspace is available for the creation of other domains. A surface of less than four-by-four hand-breadths is not usable; but if it has the minimal size it creates a new private domain and all the prohibitions of transport to and from a public domain do apply. If the surface area is less than the required minimum it is exempt space and all transports to and from it do not create liability; cf. Note 170. Babli 5a, 101a, Eruvin 33b.. Rav said, a leather container115In Mishnah Kelim 24:5, the sources read תרבוס which the Geonic Commentary explains as دُرج “box (for money or jewels)”; the translation follows Maimonides who defines it as a leather box (more appropriate for the text of the Mishnah). which stands in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and four wide; anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable. Rebbi Hoshaia stated116Tosephta (ed. Liebermann) 10:7.: “A candelabra which stands in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and its flower four [wide]; anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable.” Rebbi Mana said, not only a candelabra but even a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high with a tablet117Latin tabula. Cf. Erubin 3(3) (21a line 30). fixed to its head, anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable.
מְנַיִין לְמַעֲלָה מֵי׳ שֶׁהִיא רְשׁוּת אֲחֶרֶת. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. וְנֽוֹעַדְתִּ֣י לְךָ֘ שָׁם֒ וְדִבַּרְתִּ֨י אִתְּךָ֜ מֵעַ֣ל הַכַּפּוֹרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל אָרוֹן הָעֵדוּת מִבֵּין֙ שְׁנֵ֣י הַכְּרֻבִ֔ים. וְכָתוּב. אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם כִּ֚י מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם דִּיבַּרְתִּי עִמָּכֶֽם: מַה דִיבּוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן רְשׁוּת אֲחֶרֶת אַף דִּיבּוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן רְשׁוּת אֲחֶרֶת. וַאֲרוֹן לֹא תִשְׁעָה טְפָחִים הוּא. דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָֽמְרֵי. וְכַפּוֹרֶת טֶפַח. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָעֵי. מְנַיִין לַכַּפּוֹרֶת שֶׁהוּא טֶפַח. תַּנָּא רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל. כָּל־הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ נָֽתְנָה הַתּוֹרָה מִידַּת אָרְכוּ וְרוֹחְבוֹ וְנָֽתְנָה שִׁיעוּר קוֹמָתָן. חוּץ מִן הַכַּפּוֹרֶת שֶׁנָּֽתְנָה הַתּוֹרָה מִידַּת אוֹרְכָהּ וְרָחְבָּהּ וְלֹא נָֽתְנָה שִׁיעוּר קוֹמָתָהּ. תְּלַמְּדֶינָּהּ מִכְּלִי קָטָֹוֹן שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. וְעָשִׂ֨יתָ לּ֥וֹ מִסְגֶּ֛רֶת טֹ֖פַח סָבִ֑יב. מַה כָאן טֶפַח אַף כָּאן טֶפַח. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא וְעָשִׂיתָ זֵר־זָהָב לְמִסְגַּרְתּוֹ סָבִיב: מַה כָאן כָּל־שֶׁהוּא אַף כָּאן כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. מַאי כְדוֹן. רַב אָחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר. פְּנֵי. וְאֵין פְּנֵי פָּחוּת מִטֶּפַח. 118A copy of this paragraph, closer to the original, is in Sukkah 1:1 (ס) 51d l. 56. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Sukkah 5a. Since the entire discussion is Amoraic, one must conclude that for earlier times the limitation of the public domain to 10 hand-breadths from the ground was tradition not subject to verification from biblical sources. From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover (which is on the Ark of the Covenant)from between the two Cherubim119Ex. 25:6. The words in parentheses are not in the verse and not in ס; they are added to indicate that the argument is about the Ark.. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you120Ex. 20:22.. Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths1211.5 cubits (Ex. 25:10).? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth122In the Babli, Sukkah 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit)2 (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined. If we take a small hand-breadth of 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm)3. Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of almost 1.9 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around122In the Babli, Sukkah 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit)2 (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined. If we take a small hand-breadth of 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm)3. Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of almost 1.9 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it is only make a golden wreath as its frame all around122In the Babli, Sukkah 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit)2 (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined. If we take a small hand-breadth of 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm)3. Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of almost 1.9 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth123This cryptic statement is explained in the Babli (in the name of Rav Aḥa bar Jacob’s teacher Rav Huna) as referring to Lev. 16:2 where Aaron is warned not to appear before the face of the cover except on the day of Atonement. This implies that the cover was not simply a sheet lying over the ark but had a face, a vertical dimension which is not negligible..
רִבִּי יוּסֵי בָעֵי. אִילּוּ מִגְדָּל שֶׁהָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת גָּבוֹהַּ כַּמָּה. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִתּוֹכוֹ לַבַּיִת וּמִן הַבַּיִת לְתוֹכוֹ. אֶלָּא בְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה מְרַבֵּעַ לָהֶן אֶת הָרוּחוֹת אֲנָן קַייָמִין. נִיחָא כְמָאן דְּאָמַר. בָּאַמַּת שִׁשָּׁה. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. בָּאַמַּת חֲמִשָּׁה. וָאָרוֹן לָאו שִׁבְעָה טְפָחִים וּמֶחֱצָה הוּא. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק. חַד יְלִיף לָהּ מִן אָרוֹן. וְחוֹרָנָה יְלִיף לָהּ מִן הָעֲגָלוֹת. וְלָא יָֽדְעִין מָאן יְלִיף לָהּ מִן אָרוֹן וּמָאן יְלִיף לָהּ מִן עֲגָלוֹת. מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי יְלִיפִין לָהּ מִן אָרוֹן. דְּבֵית רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָֽמְרִין. וְכַפּוֹרֶת טֶפַח. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק יְלִיף לָהּ מִן הָעֲגָלוֹת. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָעֵי. מְנַיִין לָעֲגָלוֹת שֶׁהֵן גְּבוֹהוֹת עֲשָׂרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וַאֲפִילוּ תֹאמַר גְּבוֹהוֹת עֲשָׂרָה. וְלֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. צָב כְּמִין קַמָרֳסְטָא הָיוּ. אִילּוּ חוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחַב אַרְבָּעָה. שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִתּוֹכוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּמֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְתוֹכוֹ. אֶלָּא בְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ מוֹשִׁיטִין אֶת הַקְּרָשִׁים מִזּוֹ לָזוֹ תְּרוּטוֹת הָיוּ. Rebbi Yose asked, if there were a very high chest standing in a house, would it not be permitted to use anything from in it into the house or from the house into it124It is impossible to say that in general a new domain starts at 10 hand-breadths since it is commonly accepted that a private domain remains such to an indeterminate height. The Ark was standing in the private domain of the Sanctuary; a reference to it seems to be irrelevant.? But we are dealing when it was indicating to them the geographic directions125In the desert, the Ark was traveling in front of the people (Num. 10:33) while the Sanctuary was carried in the middle (v. 17). At the resting place, the Ark automatically assumed a West-East direction so that the Sanctuary could be placed around it and the tribes camped correctly in the four directions of the compass (Num. 2). The Ark had functions outside the Sanctuary; the reference is legitimate.. This is understandable for him who said, a cubit of six [hand-breadths]126In Mishnaic times, the building cubit was a standard 6, the vessel cubit 5 hand-breadths. If the Ark was built to vessel standards, it cannot be used to define domains. Whether the vessel standard was used in the Temple is a matter of controversy in the Babli, Menaḥot 98a.. But for him who said, a cubit of five hand-breadths? Would the Ark not be seven and one half hand-breadths? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the House of Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. One learns it from the Ark, but the other learns it from the wagons127In Ex. 31:12–18 and 35:1–3 the observation of the Sabbath is emphasized in the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. One concludes that the work forbidden on the Sabbath is exactly work needed in building or transporting the Tabernacle. The wagons mentioned here are the 6 wagons donated by the tribal chiefs for the transport of the Sanctuary (Num. 7:3).. We do not know who learned it from the Ark and who learned in from the wagons. It is reasonable that the House of Rebbi Yannai learned it from the Ark since the House of Rebbi Yannai said, the cover was one hand-breadth128The reading of ס is preferable: Nine hand-breadths of the Ark and one of the cover.. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq learns if from the Wagons. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, from where that the Wagons were ten [hand-breadths] high129There are no biblical indications about the height of the wagons’ platforms above ground.? Rebbi Yose said, and even if you said that they were ten high, did not Rebbi Neḥemiah state that the Freight Wagons were like a cupola130Greek καμάρα, Latin camara, -ae, f.(also camera) “arched or vaulted roof or ceiling, distinct from an outer roof”.
The wagons are called עֶגְלֹ֥ת צָב֙. Now צָב means “turtle”; from this comes the usual translation “covered wagon”, using the image of the domed back of the turtle. The expression really is a technical term “freight-wagon”, Accadic ṣubbum, ṣūbum.? If there was a hole in the public domain ten deep and four wide, would it no be forbidden to use anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it131This is a side remark. A hole in the public domain 10 hand-breadths deep and 4 by 4 wide creates a new domain and is considered a private domain from which nothing may be transported to the public domain. This cannot be derived by comparison either to the Ark or to the wagons.? But when they were transferring the planks from one to the other they were straight132Whether the wagons were covered with a convex covering or not is irrelevant since at the moment of loading the planks and the gobelins of the Sanctuary they were uncovered and certainly had flat loading areas. For the meaning of “straight” for תְּרוּטוֹת cf. Mishnah Middot 2:5..
שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּטוּרִין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה רַבָּנִן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִשֵּׁם שְׁנַיִם שֶׁעָשׂוּ מְלָאכָה אַחַת. רַב שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי. נָתַן לוֹ אֶחָד חֲבִילָה עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ וְשָׁכַח וְהוֹצִיאָהּ. בְּמַחְזוֹרָה תִּנְייָנָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חַייָב. שֶׁאֵינָהּ דּוֹמָה לְאוֹתָהּ. סָבַר רִבִּי. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָקַר אֶת רַגְלָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁעָקַר אֶת הַחֵפֶץ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי. הָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְזָרַק וְקִידֵּם וּקְלָטָהּ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד מָהוּ. וְלֹא רִבִּי הוּא. דְּרִבִּי עֲבַד אֲוֵיר מְחִיצוֹת כְּמַמָּשָׁן. לֹא צוֹרְכָה דְלֹא הָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְזָרַק וְקִידֵּם וּקְלָטָהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מָהוּ. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי פּוֹטֵר עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁתָּנוּחַ. “Neither is liable.133Quote from Mishnaiot 3–4, starting the discussion of these.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah, the rabbis in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the category of two people performing one work104Lev. 4:27. The verse is emphatic that purification sacrifices are available only for single perpetrators acting in error: If one person of the people of the land sin in error, if he act in one of the commandments of the Eternal which is a prohibition, and be damaged.. Rav asked Rebbi, if another person put a bundle on his back, when he forgot and brought it out134Is this considered an incomplete action since another person lifted and put the load on him (Babli 3a).? On the occasion of the second repetition135The Babli (3b) reports that the question was asked when Rebbi was teaching (or editing) another tractate; it was Rebbi’s practice not to answer questions which did not concern the subject he was currently concerned with. He gave the answer only when he took up Mishnah Šabbat another time. he told him, he is liable because it does not compare to this. Rebbi is of the opinion that when he started to walk it is as if he had taken up the object136If the other person had put the load on him while he was walking, there could be no liability since the action was not that of a single person. But if the load was resting on his back, when he then started walking he started moving the object and this makes the action complete.. In the opinion of Rebbi, if he stood in the public domain and threw but ran and caught it137If this is a question different from the one asked earlier, it must mean that “absorbed it” has to mean that his body absorbed the shock of impact of the object, not that he caught it in his hands. in a private domain, what? But is that not Rebbi since Rebbi made the airspace enclosed by walls like its essence138Therefore automatically the action is completed and there is liability.? It is only necessary in case he stood in the private domain and threw but ran and and caught it in a public domain, what? It was found stated: Rebbi declares him not liable until the moment it comes to rest139Public domain by definition is not enclosed by walls; an object is at rest only at the moment it stopped moving. If the object fell down because it hit his body, there was no putting down and no completed action..
אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. רִבִּי וּבֶן עַזַּאי וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה שְׁלָשְׁתָּן אָֽמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. רִבִּי עֲבַד אֲוֵיר מְחִיצוֹת כְּמַמָּשָׁן. בֶּן עַזַּאי עֲבַד אֲוֵיר כַּרְמְלִית כְּמַמָּשָׁהּ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה עֲבַד אֲוֵיר רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כְּמַמָּשָׁהּ. Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi, Ben Azzai, and Rebbi Aqiba, all three said the same. Rebbi made the airspace enclosed by walls like its essence138Therefore automatically the action is completed and there is liability.. Ben Azzai made the airspace enclosed by karmelit like its essence86In this interpretation, which has no parallel in the Talmudim, anything in the airspace over a karmelit is considered lying there.. Rebbi Aqiba made the airspace over public domain like its essence140For example in Mishnah 11:1 where he declares that a person throwing from one private domain to another over the public domain is liable, a statement opposed by the majority..
אַרְבַּע רְשׁוּיוֹת לַשַּׁבָּת. רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְכַרְמְלִית וּמְבוּאוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן מְפוּלָשִׁין. וְאֵי זֶהוּ רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. חָרִיץ שֶׁהוּא עָמוֹק עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחַב אַרְבָּעָה. וְגָדֵר שֶׁהוּא גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחַב אַרְבָּעָה. זוֹ הִיא רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד גְּמוּרָה. וְאֵי זוֹ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גְּמוּרָה. אִיסְטְרַטְייָא וּפַלַטֵּיָא וּמִדְבָּר וּמְבוּאוֹת הַמְפוּלָשִׁין. אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְלֹא מַכְנִיסִין מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. וְאִם הוֹצִיא אוֹ הִכְנִיס שׁוֹגֵג חַייָב חַטָּאת. מֵזִיד חַייָב כָּרֵת וְנִסְקָל. אֶחָד הַמּוֹצִיא וְאֶחָד הַמַּכְנִיס אֶחָד הַמּוֹשִׁיט וְאֶחָד הַזּוֹרֵק. יָם וּבִקְעָה וְאִיסְטְווָה וְאַסְקוּפָּה וְכַרְמְלִית אֵינָן לֹא רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְלֹא רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. וְאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בָּהֶן וְאִם נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בָּהֶן פָּטוּר. 141Tosephta 1:1, Babli 6a.“There are four kinds of domain on the Sabbath: Private domain, public domain, karmelit, and dead-end streets142In the Babli: “Exempt space”. This is what one would expect. Dead-end streets can be either public domain or karmelit; their particular status is that by an eruv they can be transformed into private domains, whereas passages open at both ends in general cannot. These differences belong to Tractate Eruvin.. What is private domain? A ditch ten deep and four wide, or a wall ten high and four wide; this is completely private domain. And what is completely public domain? A street143Latin strata (sc. via)., a wide road43Greek πλατεῖα (sc., ὁδός) “a wide (road)”, equivalent of Hebrew רְחוֹב., desert, and passages open at both ends144It is “completely public” because it cannot be turned into a private domain by a symbolic eruv.. One does not export from a private to a public domain nor import from a public to a private domain. If somebody exported or imported in error he is liable for a purification sacrifice; intentionally he is liable for extirpation or is stoned145Desecration of the Sabbath is punishable by Heaven’s extirpation if there are no witnesses or nor proper warning was given, and by the courts if there are witnesses both for due warning and the act itself., whether he exports or imports, or lifts or throws. An ocean, or a valley73Karmelit is a part of the public domain not readily accessible to the public (Chapter 13 Note 68). The two main examples are “the sides of a thoroughfare”, the part of a street close to the houses if that part is not easy to use because of stairs extending from the houses or if the fronts of the houses do not form a straight line. The other is “valley”, a rural access path which is public domain, not a thoroughfare but meant only as a path for farmers working adjacent fields.
Since karmelit is not a thoroughfare (defined as road of at least 16 cubits width) it does not qualify as public domain for which transport from a private domain is forbidden. The statement of R. Joḥanan implies that he cannot consider walking as equivalent of standing still (Note 56) since transporting from a private domain to karmelit followed by transport from karmelit to public domain, while forbidden on the Sabbath, does not generate liability (Note 81).
(The etymology of the word karmelit is unknown. Cf. Accadic karmiš “like a ruin”.), or a platform146Latin stibadium, -ii, n., Greek στιβάδιον; a semi-circular couch., or a threshold, or karmelit147Or any other kind of karmelit. are neither public nor private domain; one does not carry there148A rabbinic prohibition of carrying further than four cubits because the karmelit looks like public domain. but if one carried he is not liable.”
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף. אַף אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן כּוּלְּהֹן. יָם. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הַזּוֹרֵק בַּיָּם אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת פָּטוּר. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בַּיָּם. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ זוֹרֵק בְּכָל־הַיָּם פָּטוּר. שֶׁכָּל־הַיָּם נִקְרָא כַרְמְלִית. בִּקְעָה. דְּתַנִּינָן. הַבִּקְעָה בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לַשַּׁבָּת וּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לַטּוּמְאָה. וּבִימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים רְשׁוּת (הַיָּחִיד) [הָרַבִּים] לְכָאן וּלְכָאן: אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכָאן וּלְכָאן. לֹא תְהֵא טְעוּנָה הַקָּפַת כְּלֵי בְהֵמָה. וְתַנִּינָן. הִקִּיפוּהָ כְּלֵי בְהֵמָה מְטַלְטְלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ. אִסְטְווָה. דְּתַנִּינָן. וְכֵן גְּשָׁרִין הַמְפוּלָּשִׁין מְטַלְטְלִין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן בַּשַּׁבָּת. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. אַסְקוּפָּה. דְּתַנִּינָן. הַמּוֹצִיא אוֹכְלִין וּנְתָנָן עַל הָאַסְקוּפָּה. בֵּין שֶׁחָזַר וְהוֹצִיאָן בֵּין שֶׁהוֹצִיאָן אַחֵר. פָּטוּר. שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה מְלַאכְתּוֹ בְּבַת אֶחָת. הָא אִם עָשָׂה מְלַאכְתּוֹ בְּבַת אֶחָת חַייָב. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוּמֵר. אֲפִילוּ אִם עָשָׂה מְלַאכְתּוֹ בְּבַת אֶחָת פָּטוּר. כַּרְמְלִית. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָא. כַּרְמֶל. רַךְ מָלֵא. אֵינוֹ לֹא לַח וְלֹא יָבֵשׁ אָלָּא בֵינוֹנִי. וְהָכָא אֵינָהּ לֹא רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְלֹא רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אֶלָּא כַרְמְלִית. אֵי זוֹ הִיא כַרְמְלִית. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּגוֹן חָנוּתֵיהּ דְּבַר יוּסְטִינֵי. חָצֵר שֶׁלְּרַבִּים וּמְבוּאוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן מְפוּלָשִׁין אִם עִירְבוּ מוּתָּרִין. וְאִם לֹא עִירְבוּ אֲסוּרִין. Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated149While the technical term karmelit does not appear in the Mishnah, all the examples enumerated in the Tosephta are found in the Mishnah and the rules can be deduced from Mishnaic quotes. all of these. The sea as we have stated there150Mishnah 11:5.: “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit151Since nobody can walk in the sea, it cannot be considered public domain..
A valley73Karmelit is a part of the public domain not readily accessible to the public (Chapter 13 Note 68). The two main examples are “the sides of a thoroughfare”, the part of a street close to the houses if that part is not easy to use because of stairs extending from the houses or if the fronts of the houses do not form a straight line. The other is “valley”, a rural access path which is public domain, not a thoroughfare but meant only as a path for farmers working adjacent fields.
Since karmelit is not a thoroughfare (defined as road of at least 16 cubits width) it does not qualify as public domain for which transport from a private domain is forbidden. The statement of R. Joḥanan implies that he cannot consider walking as equivalent of standing still (Note 56) since transporting from a private domain to karmelit followed by transport from karmelit to public domain, while forbidden on the Sabbath, does not generate liability (Note 81).
(The etymology of the word karmelit is unknown. Cf. Accadic karmiš “like a ruin”.) as we have stated152Mishnah Ṭaharot 6:4. The “valley” is agricultural domain accessible only by rural paths, not by a paved road. In the dry season, after the grain was cut and before the fields are ploughed for new seeds, the fields are accessible to everybody. Since there is nothing hidden there, it is like public domain for impurity but since it is not easy of access it cannot be considered public domain for the rules of the Sabbath.: “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity153Where any question of ritual impurity is resolved by presumption of purity, Soṭah1:2 Note 88.. During the rainy season it is (private) [public]154The word in parentheses is from the text of the scribe here, the reading in the Mishnah, the quote in the Babli (Šabbat 6b, Bava batra 123b), and alluded to in Bava batra 9:8 (Note 87). The text in brackets is that of the first corrector. It was noted by Qorban Haˋedah (as emendation of the Venice text since the ms. was not accessible to this author) and supported by convincing arguments by S. Liebermann (תלמודא דקיסרין p. 17 Note 2, הירושלמי כפשוטו p. 15) and J. N. Epstein (Tarbiz 5, 1934, p. 264) that the text of the scribe is correct and the correction a corruption. In the rainy season the fields are sown, the grain is growing, and any trespass by unauthorized persons is criminal. There is no doubt that the fields have the status of private domain both for the Sabbath and for cases of doubt about impurity. domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated155Mishnah Eruvin 1:8.
A caravan which in the dry season uses a “valley” as camping ground for a stay over the Sabbath is required to turn the fields into a guarded place by arranging the (camel or donkey) loads as a symbolic wall (of 10 hand-breadths height). In the interior then one may carry unrestrictedly. This proves that in the dry season the fields are not private domains in the commonly accepted sense; they are karmelit.: “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.”
A platform, as we have stated156Mishnah Eruvin 9:5.: “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the rabbis forbid.157It is supposed that the bridges are not simply a roadway on a flat support but that they have side walls extending somewhat under the roadway so that seen from below they delineate the space under the bridge. The Sages forbid to carry for four cubits or more in the informally defined space but they refrain from imposing liability; this proves that the prohibition is purely rabbinical; the space can be neither private nor public domain.”
A threshold158This is a repetition of an earlier text as referred to by the Notes., as we have stated: 81Mishnah 10:2. “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold, whether he or somebody else carries them to the street there is no liability since it was not done in one action.”“If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step89As noted before, the work of transporting consists of lifting, moving, and depositing. If this is done from private to public domain, it is a desecration of the Sabbath. But a combination of two actions, both involving karmelit and therefore not creating liability, still does not create liability. he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if he completed the work at one time he would not be liable.
Karmelit. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full”, neither moist nor dry but average159The same etymology of the quadrilitteral כרמל is given in Sifra Wayyiqra I Parsheta 13(8), Pereq 15(1).. And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus160In the Babli (7a) the example is given of a stoa, a roofed domain bounded by pillars. Since such a stoa is a pedestrian mall, not accessible to vehicular traffic; if there is an additional obstacle to free circulation it becomes karmelit. S. Liebermann conjectured that the store in question was situated in such a stoa.. A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden161A domain which is not public by biblical standards can be turned into a private domain by an eruv, “mixing” (of domains), by arranging the potential of a common meal for all interested persons. A genuinely public domain cannot be turned into a private domain. Therefore the domains mentioned as candidates for eruv cannot be public domains. They also cannot be private domains since then they would need no eruv..
רִבִּי זְעִירָה בְשֵׁם רַב יְהוּדָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב חִינְנָא בְשֵׁם רַב חֲנִינָה. סִימְטִיּוֹת שֶׁבֵּין הְעֲמוּדִים נִידוֹנִין כְּכַרְמְלִית. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר חִייָה בַּר יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. פִּירְחֵי הָעֲמוּדִים נִידּוֹנִין כְכַרְמְלִית. לָכֵן צְרִיכָה בִּגְבוֹהִין שְׁלֹשָׁה. חִייָה בְרֵיהּ דְּרַב. כָּל־הַמְעַכֵּב דְּרִסָה בִּרְשׁוֹת הָרַבִּים נִידוֹנִין כְּכַרְמְלִית. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין אָֽמְרִין. אֲפִילוּ קוֹצִין אֲפִילוּ זְכוּכִית. לָכֵן צְרִיכָה בְּשֶׁאֵינָן גְּבוֹהִין שְׁלֹשָׁה. Rebbi Zeˋirah in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina162It seems that the correct reading is quoted by Rashba (ad 7a): “Zaˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina.”: landings163Even though the reading סמטיות (“paths”, Latin semita, -ae f.) is confirmed by Rashba, the translation follows an emendation of Yefe Enaim, J. N. Epstein (Tarbiz 1(2) p. 135), and S. Liebermann, to read מסטויות (with consonantal first vaw), the Galilean form of Babylonian אצטבא used in the parallel 7a (as in Pesaḥim 5:8). between pillars are judged as karmelit164Since these are obstacles to free circulation; Note 160.. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah165In the Yerushalmi this student of R. Ḥanina’s always is quoted with names of father and grandfather; in the Babli (Bava meṣiˋa 72b) he is quoted as R. Samuel bar Ḥiyya. in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The flowers166The spaces under the capital of a Corinthian pillar which are too close to the pillar to be part of a thoroughfare. of the pillars are considered karmelit. There it is necessary that they be higher than three [hand-breadths]167The sentence can use some rearrangement: Anything which hinders access in the public domain because it (or its enclosure) is at least three hand-breadths high is considered karmelit.; Ḥiyya the son of Rav: Anything which hinders access in the public domain is considered karmelit. The rabbis of Caesarea say, even thistles, even glass. This is necessary if they are not three [hand-breadths] high168While for Ḥiyya bar Rav the three hand-breadths rule is always needed (Babli 7a), for the rabbis of Caesarea it is suspended if the place cannot be stepped on..
וְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אִיסְקוּפָּה שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ רְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה וְאֵינָהּ גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה. אִין תֵּימַר. גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה וּרְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה. רְשׁוּת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא. אִין תֵּימַר. גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה וְאֵינָהּ רְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה. הָדָא דָּמַר רַב חִסְדָּא בְשֵׁם אַסִּי. קָנֶה נָעוּץ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים מוּתָּר לְכָאן וּלְכָאן. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲלִיף. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין. בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ לֹא רְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה וְלֹא גְבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה. And Rebbi Yose169The parallel in Eruvin 1(1), Note 162, shows that the name is Yasa, R. Joḥanan’s student, and not the fifth generation R. Yose. said: The threshold about which they spoke is four wide but not ten high. If you would say, ten high and four wide, it is a domain by itself 114As explained later in this paragraph, the top of the stick must be at least four-by-four hand-breadths wide. Since the public domain extends only to a height of ten hand-breadths, the airspace is available for the creation of other domains. A surface of less than four-by-four hand-breadths is not usable; but if it has the minimal size it creates a new private domain and all the prohibitions of transport to and from a public domain do apply. If the surface area is less than the required minimum it is exempt space and all transports to and from it do not create liability; cf. Note 170. Babli 5a, 101a, Eruvin 33b.. If you would say, ten high but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Assi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways on condition that he not exchange170This is the necessary complement to the earlier statement by Rav Ḥisda , Note 114. The prohibition to use exempt space as an intermediate station in transport from private to public domain is in the Babli 8b; Tosephta 1:6.. But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high171This text contradicts the prior statement that we are dealing with a domain four-by-four wide but not ten high. In addition, a place in the public domain not four-by-four wide and not ten high is public domain and not karmelit. One has to read: “four wide but not ten high” as noted by Qorban Haˋedah..
אִיסְקוּפָּה שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַפֶּתַח. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים. כָּל־זְמַן שֶׁהַפֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ כּוּלָּהּ כְּלִפְנִים. נָעוּל כּוּלָּהּ כִּלְחוּץ. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בִּמְקוּרָה אֲפִילוּ נָעוּל כּוּלָּהּ כְּלִפְנִים. אִם בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ מְקוּרָה אֲפִילוּ פָּתוּחַ כּוּלָּהּ כִּלְחוּץ. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין. בְּשֶׁחֶצְייָהּ מְקוּרָה וְחֶצְייָהּ אֵינָהּ מְקוּרָה. מָהוּ נָעוּל כּוּלָּהּ כִּלְחוּץ. מוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִתּוֹכָהּ לַחוּץ וּמִן הַחוּץ לְתוֹכָהּ. בְּשֶׁהָיָה בַפֶּתַח חוֹר אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִתּוֹכָהּ לַחוֹר וּמִן הַחוֹר לְתוֹכָהּ. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר. נָעוּל כּוּלָּהּ כִּלְחוּץ. פָּתוּחַ חֶצְייָהּ כְּלִפְנִים וְחֶצְייָהּ כִּלְחוּץ. וְלֹא כֵן סָֽבְרִנָן מֵימַר. אַסְקוּפָּה אַרְבָּעָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁיִּנְעַל הַפֶּתַח כּוּלָּהּ כִּלְחוּץ. אַף כְּשֶׁהַפֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ חֶצְייָהּ כְּלִפְנִים וְחֶצְייָהּ כִּלְחוּץ. A threshold in front of the door; others172Babli 6a,9a. Even though in the Mishnah “others” means R. Nathan, here it cannot mean this since R. Nathan dissents. say whenever the door is open it is entirely inside173If the threshold is not 10 hand-breadths higher than the public domain. As Rashba explains (ad 9a), since the outside platform is flush with the interior of the house there is no need to rabbinically forbid carrying from the house to the platform. Tosephta 1:6., when it is locked it is entirely outside. What are we dealing with? If it is roofed174The entrance to the house is covered by a roof fastened to the house and two outside pillars. There is no reason not to consider this part of the house. even when it is locked it is entirely inside, if it is not roofed even when it is open it is entirely outside. But we must deal with the case that it is partially roofed175There are two possible interpretations. One is that one refers to the entrance to a house where the platform in front of the door extends beyond the roof. The other is that one speaks of the entrance to a dead-end street which was made into a private domain by a log lying horizontally over the entrance which is higher than the public road into which it opens. In that case the log, in order to count as a roof, must be four hand-breadths wide. and partially not roofed. What does it mean, when it is locked it is entirely outside? It is permitted for use from it to the outside and from the outside to it. If there was a hole in the door it is forbidden for use from it to the hole and from the hole to it. Rebbi Nathan says, when it is locked it is entirely outside; when it is open it is partially inside and partially outside. And that is what we wanted to say; a threshold of four when the door is locked is entirely outside, also when the door is open it is partially inside and partially outside176Because only the space under the roof is counted as part of the house..