Skip to content

October 16, 2021 | י׳ במרחשון תשפ״ב | TODAY'S DAF: Rosh Hashanah 7 - Shabbat October 16

Today's Daf Yomi

November 15, 2020 | כ״ח במרחשון תשפ״א

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Tamara Katz in honor of the yahrzeits of her grandparents,  Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig z"l.

Eruvin 98

This week’s learning is dedicated in honor of our Ema, Savta, and Savta Rabba, Rookie Billet, aka “Daf”-ta, on her milestone birthday, one day for each decade. Your commitment to growth and Torah learning inspires us every day. We look forward to celebrating your daf yomi siyum midway between ״seivah” and “gevurah,” b’ezrat Hashem! With love from all the Billets, Exlers, Jacobsons, and Tegers.

In what case does the mishna allow one to bring in a scroll that is still in one’s hand while one is sitting on the threshold but rolled out into the public domain? Is it a threshold that is a private domain or is it a carmelit? What is a basis of the debate regarding the case on the roof? The gemara explains the mishna differently than its simple reading. Can one carry out to a ledge outside one’s window?

מני רבי שמעון היא דאמר כל דבר שהוא משום שבות אינו עומד בפני כתבי הקודש אימא סיפא רבי יהודה אומר אפילו אין מסולק מן הארץ אלא מלא החוט גוללו אצלו רבי שמעון אומר אפילו בארץ עצמה גוללו אצלו

who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Shimon, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat and its prohibition is not by Torah law, but rather is due to a rabbinic decree issued to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest stands as an impediment before the rescue of sacred writings. But if it is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself; and Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the scroll is on the ground itself, he rolls it back to himself.

רישא וסיפא רבי שמעון מציעתא רבי יהודה אמר רב יהודה אין רישא וסיפא רבי שמעון מציעתא רבי יהודה

Is it possible that the tanna cited in the first clause of the mishna is Rabbi Shimon, as claimed above, while it is explicitly stated that the last clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and yet its middle clause reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rav Yehuda said: Yes, that is the correct, albeit unconventional, explanation. The first and last clauses are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while the middle clause of the mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבה אמר הכא באיסקופה הנדרסת עסקינן ומשום בזיון כתבי הקדש שרו רבנן

Rabba said that the mishna may be understood differently. Here, we are dealing with a threshold that is trodden upon by the public, and due to the potential degradation of the sacred writings the Sages permitted one to violate the rabbinic decree. It would be disgraceful if people were to trample over sacred writings.

איתיביה אביי תוך ארבע אמות גוללו אצלו חוץ לארבע הופכו על הכתב ואי אמרת באיסקופה נדרסת עסקינן מה לי תוך ארבע אמות מה לי חוץ לארבע אמות

Abaye raised an objection to his explanation: It was taught that if the scroll rolled within four cubits, he rolls it back to himself; if it rolled beyond four cubits, he turns it over onto its writing. And if you say we are dealing with a threshold that is trodden on by the public, what difference is there to me whether it remained within four cubits and what difference is there to me if it rolled beyond four cubits? Since the prohibition is a rabbinic decree, not a Torah prohibition, why isn’t one permitted to move the scroll in both cases to prevent the degradation of the sacred writings?

אלא אמר אביי הכא באיסקופה כרמלית עסקינן ורשות הרבים עוברת לפניה

Rather, Abaye said: Here, we are dealing with a threshold that is a karmelit, as the threshold is four handbreadths wide but is less than ten handbreadths high. Furthermore, on one side of the karmelit there is a private domain, and a public domain passes before it.

תוך ארבע אמות דאי נפיל ומייתי ליה לא אתי לידי חיוב חטאת שרו ליה רבנן

The reason for the different rulings is as follows: If the scroll rolled within four cubits, even if the entire scroll falls out of the one’s hand and he brings it back, he cannot incur liability to bring a sin-offering, as the prohibition against carrying from a public domain to a karmelit is a rabbinic decree. Consequently, the Sages permitted him to roll it back to himself, as there is no danger of transgressing a Torah prohibition.

חוץ לארבע אמות דאי מייתי ליה אתי לידי חיוב חטאת לא שרו ליה רבנן

However, if it rolled beyond four cubits, so that if he brings it back he incurs liability to bring a sin-offering, as carrying an object four cubits in the public domain is prohibited by Torah law, the Sages did not permit him to roll it back. In this case, if he forgot and carried the scroll instead of rolling it, he would be violating a severe prohibition.

אי הכי תוך ארבע אמות נמי נגזר דילמא מעייל מרשות הרבים לרשות היחיד וכי תימא כיון דמפסקת כרמלית לית לן בה והאמר רבא המעביר חפץ מתחלת ארבע לסוף ארבע והעבירו דרך עליו חייב

The Gemara asks: If so, let us likewise issue a decree in the case where the scroll remained within four cubits, lest he bring the scroll in from the public domain to the private domain, i.e., to his house. And lest you say: Since a karmelit separates the public and private domains we have no problem with it, as nothing is directly carried from one domain to the other, didn’t Rava say: One who carries an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain, and he carried it by way of the airspace above his head, he is liable, even though the object remained more than ten handbreadths off the ground and passed from the beginning to the end of four cubits by way of an exempt zone? Here, too, one should be liable for carrying the scroll from the public domain to a private domain by way of a karmelit.

הכא במאי עסקינן באיסקופה ארוכה אדהכי והכי מידכר

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with an extended threshold. Consequently, in the meantime, while he is carrying the scroll along the length of the threshold, he will remember not to bring it into the private domain.

ואיבעית אימא לעולם באסקופה שאינה ארוכה וסתם כתבי הקדש עיוני מעיין בהו ומנח להו וליחוש דילמא מעיין בהו ברשות הרבים ועייל להו בהדיא לרשות היחיד

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, it is referring to a threshold that is not extended; however, ordinarily one peruses sacred writings and then puts them in their place. Consequently, there is no concern that he might pass directly from the public to the private domain, as he will pause on the threshold to read the scroll. The Gemara asks: According to this explanation too, let us be concerned lest he pause to peruse the scroll in the public domain, and subsequently carry it directly into the private domain without pausing in the karmelit.

הא מני בן עזאי היא דאמר מהלך כעומד דמי ודילמא זריק להו מזרק דאמר רבי יוחנן מודה בן עזאי בזורק

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Ben Azzai, who said that walking is considered like standing. Consequently, one who passes through the karmelit is considered to have paused and stood there. Therefore, the object was not transferred directly from the public domain to the private domain, as he paused in the karmelit. The Gemara asks: But what of the concern lest he throw the scrolls inside, rather than carry them by hand, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Azzai concedes that one who throws an object from the public domain to a private domain by way of an exempt domain is liable?

אמר רב אחא בר אהבה זאת אומרת אין מזרקין כתבי הקודש:

The Gemara answers that Rav Aḥa bar Ahava said: That is to say that one does not throw sacred writings, as this is demeaning to them. Consequently, there is no concern that one might throw the scrolls rather than carry them by hand.

היה קורא בראש הגג וכו׳: ומי שרי והתניא כותבי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות לא התירו להן להפך יריעה על פניה אלא פורס עליה את הבגד

It was stated in the mishna: If one was reading on top of the roof, which is a full-fledged private domain, and the scroll rolled from his hand, as long as the edge of the scroll did not reach ten handbreadths above the public domain, he may roll it back to himself. However, once the scroll reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll it back. In that case, he should turn it over, so that the writing of the scroll will be facedown and not be exposed and degraded. The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to do so? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that with regard to writers of scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot who interrupt their work, the Sages did not permit them to turn the sheet of parchment facedown lest it become soiled? Rather, one spreads a cloth over it in a respectful manner.

התם אפשר הכא לא אפשר ואי לא אפיך איכא בזיון כתבי הקודש טפי:

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to scribes, it is possible to cover the parchment respectfully; here, it is not possible to do so. And if he does not turn the scroll over, it will be more degrading to the sacred writings. Consequently, although this is not an ideal solution, it is preferable to turn it over rather than leave the scroll exposed.

הופכו על הכתב והא לא נח [אמר רבא] בכותל משופע

The mishna states: Once the scroll has reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll it back to oneself, and one turns it over onto the writing. The Gemara asks: But why is this prohibited? Since the scroll did not come to rest in the public domain, rolling it back to oneself should not be prohibited. Rava said: This teaching is referring to an inclined wall. Although the scroll did not reach the ground, it came to rest within the confines of the public domain.

[אמר ליה אביי] במאי אוקימתא למתניתין בכותל משופע אימא סיפא רבי יהודה אומר אפילו אינו מסולק מן הארץ אלא מלא החוט גוללו אצלו והא נח ליה

Abaye said to him: In what manner did you establish that the mishna is referring to the case of an inclined wall? Say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself. But didn’t the scroll come to rest in the public domain? It shouldn’t matter whether or not the scroll is in contact with the ground.

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני במה דברים אמורים בכותל משופע אבל

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of an inclined wall. However,

בכותל שאינו משופע למעלה משלשה גוללו אצלו למטה משלשה הופכו על הכתב:

with regard to a wall that is not inclined, the following distinction applies: If the end of the scroll is three handbreadths above the ground, he may roll it back to himself; but if it is below three handbreadths from the ground, it is considered as though the scroll is on the ground, and he must therefore turn it facedown onto the writing.

רבי יהודה אומר אפילו אינו מסולק מן הארץ וכו׳: דבעינן הנחה על גבי משהו

It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, one rolls it back to himself. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that in order for an object to be deemed at rest, we require that it rest atop something. Consequently, a scroll that is not actually touching the ground is not considered resting and may be rolled back.

ואלא הא דאמר רבא תוך שלשה לרבנן צריך הנחה לימא כתנאי אמרה לשמעתיה

The Gemara asks: But consider that which Rava said with regard to an object located within three handbreadths of the ground. Rava said that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and claim that something in the air is not considered to be at rest, nevertheless, for one to incur liability it is necessary for the object to rest on a surface. Let us say that he stated his halakha in accordance with only one of the tanna’im, but not in accordance with all of them. This is an unacceptable conclusion.

אלא כולה רבי יהודה היא וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני במה דברים אמורים בכותל משופע אבל בכותל שאינו משופע אפילו פחות משלשה טפחים גוללו אצלו שרבי יהודה אומר אפילו אינו מסולק מן הארץ אלא מלא החוט גוללו אצלו

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation in favor of the following one: The mishna is all in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and it is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement that once the end of the scroll is within ten handbreadths of the ground it may not be rolled back said? It was said in the case of an inclined wall. But with regard to a wall that is not inclined, even if the end of the scroll is less than three handbreadths from the ground, one may roll it back to himself, as Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself.

מאי טעמא דבעינן הנחה על גבי משהו:

What is the reason for this ruling? The reasoning is that for an object to be considered at rest, we require that it rest atop some surface. Consequently, if the scroll is not actually touching the ground, it is not considered at rest, even if it is less than three handbreadths from the ground.

מתני׳ זיז שלפני חלון נותנין עליו ונוטלין ממנו בשבת:

MISHNA: With regard to a ledge in front of a window, that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one may place objects upon it or remove them from it on Shabbat via the window.

גמ׳ האי זיז דמפיק להיכא אילימא דמפיק לרשות הרבים ליחוש דילמא נפיל ואתי לאיתויי אלא דמפיק לרשות היחיד פשיטא

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: This ledge, to where does it protrude? If you say that the ledge protrudes into a public domain, one should be prohibited to place an object on it, as we should be concerned lest the object fall and he will forget and come to bring it in from the public domain to a private domain. Rather, it must be that the ledge protrudes into a private domain; but if so, it is obvious that it is permitted to place objects on it and to remove them.

אמר אביי לעולם דמפיק לרשות הרבים ומאי נותנין עליו דקתני כלים הנשברים:

Abaye said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with a case where it protrudes into a public domain, and what is the meaning of that which it teaches: One may place objects upon it? This refers to fragile utensils, which would break instantly if they fell. Consequently, there is no concern that one might then bring them in from the public domain to the private domain.

תניא נמי הכי זיז שלפני החלון היוצא לרשות הרבים נותנין עליו קערות וכוסות קיתוניות וצלוחיות

The Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to a ledge in front of a window that protrudes into a public domain, one may place on it bowls, cups, small cups [kitoniyot], and saucers. All of these utensils are made of fragile glass or earthenware, which supports Abaye’s opinion.

ומשתמש בכל הכותל עד עשרה התחתונים ואם יש זיז אחד למטה ממנו משתמש בו ובעליון אין משתמש בו אלא כנגד חלונו

The baraita continues: And one may use this ledge along the entire length of the wall, if the ledge spans its length, whether in close proximity to the window or removed from it, until the lower ten handbreadths of the wall, but not if the ledge is lower than that. And if there is one other ledge below it but still ten handbreadths above the ground, one may use the lower ledge along the entire length of the wall; but with regard to the upper ledge, one may use it only opposite his window.

האי זיז היכי דמי אי דלית ביה ארבעה מקום פטור הוא ואפילו כנגד חלונו נמי לא ישתמש ואי אית ביה ארבעה בכולי הכותל לישתמש

The Gemara asks: This upper ledge, what are its circumstances? If it is not four handbreadths deep, although it is an exempt domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, which means it does not pose a problem in itself, one should nonetheless not be permitted to use it even opposite his window, as anything placed on this narrow ledge is likely to fall. Consequently, it is as though he has thrown the object directly to the ground. And if it is four handbreadths deep, let him use the ledge along the entire length of the ledge along the wall.

אמר אביי תחתון דאית ביה ארבעה ועליון לית ביה ארבעה וחלון משלימתו לארבעה כנגד חלון משתמש דחורי חלון הוא דהאי גיסא ודהאי גיסא אסור:

Abaye said: We are dealing with a case where the lower ledge is four handbreadths deep and the upper ledge is not four handbreadths deep, but the windowsill on the inside completes it to form a surface four handbreadths deep. Accordingly, one may use the part of the upper ledge opposite the window, as it is considered an extension of the window, but the parts to this side or to that side of the window are prohibited, as they are less than four handbreadths deep.

מתני׳ עומד אדם ברשות היחיד ומטלטל ברשות הרבים ברשות הרבים ומטלטל ברשות היחיד ובלבד שלא יוציא חוץ מארבע אמות:

MISHNA: A person may stand in a private domain and move objects that are in a public domain, as there is no concern that he might mistakenly bring them into the private domain. Similarly, one may stand in a public domain and move objects in a private domain, provided that he does not carry them beyond four cubits in the public domain, which is prohibited on Shabbat.

לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד וישתין ברשות הרבים ברשות הרבים וישתין ברשות היחיד וכן לא ירוק

However, a person may not stand in a private domain and urinate into a public domain, nor may one stand in a public domain and urinate into a private domain. And likewise, one may not spit in such a manner that the spittle passes from a private domain to a public domain or vice versa.

רבי יהודה אומר אף משנתלש רוקו בפיו לא יהלך ארבע אמות עד שירוק:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even once a person’s spittle is gathered in his mouth, he may not walk four cubits in the public domain until he spits it out, for he would be carrying the accumulated spittle in his mouth, which is akin to carrying any other object.

גמ׳ מתני ליה רב חיננא בר שלמיא לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד ומטלטל ברשות הרבים אמר ליה שבקת רבנן ועבדת כרבי מאיר

GEMARA: Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamiya would teach this mishna to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav as follows: A person may not stand in a private domain and move objects that are in a public domain. Rav said to him: Have you abandoned the majority opinion of the Rabbis and followed the solitary dissenting opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is stringent in this regard?

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Tamara Katz in honor of the yahrzeits of her grandparents,  Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig z"l.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 94-100 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what happens if walls between courtyards fall down, or if the walls of a house...
alon shvut women

Three Mishnayot in Eruvin

Eruvin Daf 98 Looking into what is the status of the אסקופה mentioned in the mishna. We look into three...

Eruvin 98

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 98

מני רבי שמעון היא דאמר כל דבר שהוא משום שבות אינו עומד בפני כתבי הקודש אימא סיפא רבי יהודה אומר אפילו אין מסולק מן הארץ אלא מלא החוט גוללו אצלו רבי שמעון אומר אפילו בארץ עצמה גוללו אצלו

who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Shimon, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat and its prohibition is not by Torah law, but rather is due to a rabbinic decree issued to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest stands as an impediment before the rescue of sacred writings. But if it is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself; and Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the scroll is on the ground itself, he rolls it back to himself.

רישא וסיפא רבי שמעון מציעתא רבי יהודה אמר רב יהודה אין רישא וסיפא רבי שמעון מציעתא רבי יהודה

Is it possible that the tanna cited in the first clause of the mishna is Rabbi Shimon, as claimed above, while it is explicitly stated that the last clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and yet its middle clause reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rav Yehuda said: Yes, that is the correct, albeit unconventional, explanation. The first and last clauses are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while the middle clause of the mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבה אמר הכא באיסקופה הנדרסת עסקינן ומשום בזיון כתבי הקדש שרו רבנן

Rabba said that the mishna may be understood differently. Here, we are dealing with a threshold that is trodden upon by the public, and due to the potential degradation of the sacred writings the Sages permitted one to violate the rabbinic decree. It would be disgraceful if people were to trample over sacred writings.

איתיביה אביי תוך ארבע אמות גוללו אצלו חוץ לארבע הופכו על הכתב ואי אמרת באיסקופה נדרסת עסקינן מה לי תוך ארבע אמות מה לי חוץ לארבע אמות

Abaye raised an objection to his explanation: It was taught that if the scroll rolled within four cubits, he rolls it back to himself; if it rolled beyond four cubits, he turns it over onto its writing. And if you say we are dealing with a threshold that is trodden on by the public, what difference is there to me whether it remained within four cubits and what difference is there to me if it rolled beyond four cubits? Since the prohibition is a rabbinic decree, not a Torah prohibition, why isn’t one permitted to move the scroll in both cases to prevent the degradation of the sacred writings?

אלא אמר אביי הכא באיסקופה כרמלית עסקינן ורשות הרבים עוברת לפניה

Rather, Abaye said: Here, we are dealing with a threshold that is a karmelit, as the threshold is four handbreadths wide but is less than ten handbreadths high. Furthermore, on one side of the karmelit there is a private domain, and a public domain passes before it.

תוך ארבע אמות דאי נפיל ומייתי ליה לא אתי לידי חיוב חטאת שרו ליה רבנן

The reason for the different rulings is as follows: If the scroll rolled within four cubits, even if the entire scroll falls out of the one’s hand and he brings it back, he cannot incur liability to bring a sin-offering, as the prohibition against carrying from a public domain to a karmelit is a rabbinic decree. Consequently, the Sages permitted him to roll it back to himself, as there is no danger of transgressing a Torah prohibition.

חוץ לארבע אמות דאי מייתי ליה אתי לידי חיוב חטאת לא שרו ליה רבנן

However, if it rolled beyond four cubits, so that if he brings it back he incurs liability to bring a sin-offering, as carrying an object four cubits in the public domain is prohibited by Torah law, the Sages did not permit him to roll it back. In this case, if he forgot and carried the scroll instead of rolling it, he would be violating a severe prohibition.

אי הכי תוך ארבע אמות נמי נגזר דילמא מעייל מרשות הרבים לרשות היחיד וכי תימא כיון דמפסקת כרמלית לית לן בה והאמר רבא המעביר חפץ מתחלת ארבע לסוף ארבע והעבירו דרך עליו חייב

The Gemara asks: If so, let us likewise issue a decree in the case where the scroll remained within four cubits, lest he bring the scroll in from the public domain to the private domain, i.e., to his house. And lest you say: Since a karmelit separates the public and private domains we have no problem with it, as nothing is directly carried from one domain to the other, didn’t Rava say: One who carries an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain, and he carried it by way of the airspace above his head, he is liable, even though the object remained more than ten handbreadths off the ground and passed from the beginning to the end of four cubits by way of an exempt zone? Here, too, one should be liable for carrying the scroll from the public domain to a private domain by way of a karmelit.

הכא במאי עסקינן באיסקופה ארוכה אדהכי והכי מידכר

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with an extended threshold. Consequently, in the meantime, while he is carrying the scroll along the length of the threshold, he will remember not to bring it into the private domain.

ואיבעית אימא לעולם באסקופה שאינה ארוכה וסתם כתבי הקדש עיוני מעיין בהו ומנח להו וליחוש דילמא מעיין בהו ברשות הרבים ועייל להו בהדיא לרשות היחיד

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, it is referring to a threshold that is not extended; however, ordinarily one peruses sacred writings and then puts them in their place. Consequently, there is no concern that he might pass directly from the public to the private domain, as he will pause on the threshold to read the scroll. The Gemara asks: According to this explanation too, let us be concerned lest he pause to peruse the scroll in the public domain, and subsequently carry it directly into the private domain without pausing in the karmelit.

הא מני בן עזאי היא דאמר מהלך כעומד דמי ודילמא זריק להו מזרק דאמר רבי יוחנן מודה בן עזאי בזורק

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Ben Azzai, who said that walking is considered like standing. Consequently, one who passes through the karmelit is considered to have paused and stood there. Therefore, the object was not transferred directly from the public domain to the private domain, as he paused in the karmelit. The Gemara asks: But what of the concern lest he throw the scrolls inside, rather than carry them by hand, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Azzai concedes that one who throws an object from the public domain to a private domain by way of an exempt domain is liable?

אמר רב אחא בר אהבה זאת אומרת אין מזרקין כתבי הקודש:

The Gemara answers that Rav Aḥa bar Ahava said: That is to say that one does not throw sacred writings, as this is demeaning to them. Consequently, there is no concern that one might throw the scrolls rather than carry them by hand.

היה קורא בראש הגג וכו׳: ומי שרי והתניא כותבי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות לא התירו להן להפך יריעה על פניה אלא פורס עליה את הבגד

It was stated in the mishna: If one was reading on top of the roof, which is a full-fledged private domain, and the scroll rolled from his hand, as long as the edge of the scroll did not reach ten handbreadths above the public domain, he may roll it back to himself. However, once the scroll reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll it back. In that case, he should turn it over, so that the writing of the scroll will be facedown and not be exposed and degraded. The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to do so? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that with regard to writers of scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot who interrupt their work, the Sages did not permit them to turn the sheet of parchment facedown lest it become soiled? Rather, one spreads a cloth over it in a respectful manner.

התם אפשר הכא לא אפשר ואי לא אפיך איכא בזיון כתבי הקודש טפי:

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to scribes, it is possible to cover the parchment respectfully; here, it is not possible to do so. And if he does not turn the scroll over, it will be more degrading to the sacred writings. Consequently, although this is not an ideal solution, it is preferable to turn it over rather than leave the scroll exposed.

הופכו על הכתב והא לא נח [אמר רבא] בכותל משופע

The mishna states: Once the scroll has reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll it back to oneself, and one turns it over onto the writing. The Gemara asks: But why is this prohibited? Since the scroll did not come to rest in the public domain, rolling it back to oneself should not be prohibited. Rava said: This teaching is referring to an inclined wall. Although the scroll did not reach the ground, it came to rest within the confines of the public domain.

[אמר ליה אביי] במאי אוקימתא למתניתין בכותל משופע אימא סיפא רבי יהודה אומר אפילו אינו מסולק מן הארץ אלא מלא החוט גוללו אצלו והא נח ליה

Abaye said to him: In what manner did you establish that the mishna is referring to the case of an inclined wall? Say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself. But didn’t the scroll come to rest in the public domain? It shouldn’t matter whether or not the scroll is in contact with the ground.

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני במה דברים אמורים בכותל משופע אבל

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of an inclined wall. However,

בכותל שאינו משופע למעלה משלשה גוללו אצלו למטה משלשה הופכו על הכתב:

with regard to a wall that is not inclined, the following distinction applies: If the end of the scroll is three handbreadths above the ground, he may roll it back to himself; but if it is below three handbreadths from the ground, it is considered as though the scroll is on the ground, and he must therefore turn it facedown onto the writing.

רבי יהודה אומר אפילו אינו מסולק מן הארץ וכו׳: דבעינן הנחה על גבי משהו

It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, one rolls it back to himself. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that in order for an object to be deemed at rest, we require that it rest atop something. Consequently, a scroll that is not actually touching the ground is not considered resting and may be rolled back.

ואלא הא דאמר רבא תוך שלשה לרבנן צריך הנחה לימא כתנאי אמרה לשמעתיה

The Gemara asks: But consider that which Rava said with regard to an object located within three handbreadths of the ground. Rava said that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and claim that something in the air is not considered to be at rest, nevertheless, for one to incur liability it is necessary for the object to rest on a surface. Let us say that he stated his halakha in accordance with only one of the tanna’im, but not in accordance with all of them. This is an unacceptable conclusion.

אלא כולה רבי יהודה היא וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני במה דברים אמורים בכותל משופע אבל בכותל שאינו משופע אפילו פחות משלשה טפחים גוללו אצלו שרבי יהודה אומר אפילו אינו מסולק מן הארץ אלא מלא החוט גוללו אצלו

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation in favor of the following one: The mishna is all in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and it is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement that once the end of the scroll is within ten handbreadths of the ground it may not be rolled back said? It was said in the case of an inclined wall. But with regard to a wall that is not inclined, even if the end of the scroll is less than three handbreadths from the ground, one may roll it back to himself, as Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself.

מאי טעמא דבעינן הנחה על גבי משהו:

What is the reason for this ruling? The reasoning is that for an object to be considered at rest, we require that it rest atop some surface. Consequently, if the scroll is not actually touching the ground, it is not considered at rest, even if it is less than three handbreadths from the ground.

מתני׳ זיז שלפני חלון נותנין עליו ונוטלין ממנו בשבת:

MISHNA: With regard to a ledge in front of a window, that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one may place objects upon it or remove them from it on Shabbat via the window.

גמ׳ האי זיז דמפיק להיכא אילימא דמפיק לרשות הרבים ליחוש דילמא נפיל ואתי לאיתויי אלא דמפיק לרשות היחיד פשיטא

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: This ledge, to where does it protrude? If you say that the ledge protrudes into a public domain, one should be prohibited to place an object on it, as we should be concerned lest the object fall and he will forget and come to bring it in from the public domain to a private domain. Rather, it must be that the ledge protrudes into a private domain; but if so, it is obvious that it is permitted to place objects on it and to remove them.

אמר אביי לעולם דמפיק לרשות הרבים ומאי נותנין עליו דקתני כלים הנשברים:

Abaye said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with a case where it protrudes into a public domain, and what is the meaning of that which it teaches: One may place objects upon it? This refers to fragile utensils, which would break instantly if they fell. Consequently, there is no concern that one might then bring them in from the public domain to the private domain.

תניא נמי הכי זיז שלפני החלון היוצא לרשות הרבים נותנין עליו קערות וכוסות קיתוניות וצלוחיות

The Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to a ledge in front of a window that protrudes into a public domain, one may place on it bowls, cups, small cups [kitoniyot], and saucers. All of these utensils are made of fragile glass or earthenware, which supports Abaye’s opinion.

ומשתמש בכל הכותל עד עשרה התחתונים ואם יש זיז אחד למטה ממנו משתמש בו ובעליון אין משתמש בו אלא כנגד חלונו

The baraita continues: And one may use this ledge along the entire length of the wall, if the ledge spans its length, whether in close proximity to the window or removed from it, until the lower ten handbreadths of the wall, but not if the ledge is lower than that. And if there is one other ledge below it but still ten handbreadths above the ground, one may use the lower ledge along the entire length of the wall; but with regard to the upper ledge, one may use it only opposite his window.

האי זיז היכי דמי אי דלית ביה ארבעה מקום פטור הוא ואפילו כנגד חלונו נמי לא ישתמש ואי אית ביה ארבעה בכולי הכותל לישתמש

The Gemara asks: This upper ledge, what are its circumstances? If it is not four handbreadths deep, although it is an exempt domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, which means it does not pose a problem in itself, one should nonetheless not be permitted to use it even opposite his window, as anything placed on this narrow ledge is likely to fall. Consequently, it is as though he has thrown the object directly to the ground. And if it is four handbreadths deep, let him use the ledge along the entire length of the ledge along the wall.

אמר אביי תחתון דאית ביה ארבעה ועליון לית ביה ארבעה וחלון משלימתו לארבעה כנגד חלון משתמש דחורי חלון הוא דהאי גיסא ודהאי גיסא אסור:

Abaye said: We are dealing with a case where the lower ledge is four handbreadths deep and the upper ledge is not four handbreadths deep, but the windowsill on the inside completes it to form a surface four handbreadths deep. Accordingly, one may use the part of the upper ledge opposite the window, as it is considered an extension of the window, but the parts to this side or to that side of the window are prohibited, as they are less than four handbreadths deep.

מתני׳ עומד אדם ברשות היחיד ומטלטל ברשות הרבים ברשות הרבים ומטלטל ברשות היחיד ובלבד שלא יוציא חוץ מארבע אמות:

MISHNA: A person may stand in a private domain and move objects that are in a public domain, as there is no concern that he might mistakenly bring them into the private domain. Similarly, one may stand in a public domain and move objects in a private domain, provided that he does not carry them beyond four cubits in the public domain, which is prohibited on Shabbat.

לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד וישתין ברשות הרבים ברשות הרבים וישתין ברשות היחיד וכן לא ירוק

However, a person may not stand in a private domain and urinate into a public domain, nor may one stand in a public domain and urinate into a private domain. And likewise, one may not spit in such a manner that the spittle passes from a private domain to a public domain or vice versa.

רבי יהודה אומר אף משנתלש רוקו בפיו לא יהלך ארבע אמות עד שירוק:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even once a person’s spittle is gathered in his mouth, he may not walk four cubits in the public domain until he spits it out, for he would be carrying the accumulated spittle in his mouth, which is akin to carrying any other object.

גמ׳ מתני ליה רב חיננא בר שלמיא לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד ומטלטל ברשות הרבים אמר ליה שבקת רבנן ועבדת כרבי מאיר

GEMARA: Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamiya would teach this mishna to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav as follows: A person may not stand in a private domain and move objects that are in a public domain. Rav said to him: Have you abandoned the majority opinion of the Rabbis and followed the solitary dissenting opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is stringent in this regard?

Scroll To Top