Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 14, 2020 | 讻状讘 讘住讬讜谉 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 100

Today’s shiur is sponsored by Elizabeth Kirshner in memory of her Bubbie, Blanche Engel, Bluma bat Chaya Feiyga z”l for her first yahrzeit. She was a supporter of Torah learning and a regular at many shiurim, and was so proud of my ongoing learning. May her neshama have an aliyah and may her memory continue to inspire.聽

The gemara deals with definitions of when an item is considered placed or taken from the ground – what if the item is in a liquid and is unstable? How do we view water in a pail – as resting on unstable water or is all the water viewed as one and considered resting in a stable manner in a utensil? How do we view oil that is settled on top of wine? The gemara goes back to the discussion regarding putting in item in a private domain and at the same moment filling the private domain so that it no longer has the requisite amount to be considered a private domain – is it cancelled. Does it depend on what is placed and how it is placed inside? Is there a different between water and solid items? The mishna deals with throwing items onto a wall. What if it fell into a hole in the wall that is not 4 handbreaths wide – is that hole viewed as part of the private domain and we view it as if it is 4 handbreaths wide since it is part of the wall which is that wide? Or do we view it by the size it is and maybe people in the public domain use the space, it is considered public? A mound 10 handbreaths tall in a pulibc domain – at what length of the incline it is considered a private domain? What if one threw an item less than or more than 4 cubits in public and it rolled to more thanor less than 4 cubits? What is the law regarding a puddle in a public domain – is it considered part of the public domain? On what does it depend? Why is the same sentence about the puddle repeatied in the mishna? The gemara brings 3 answers. How can one draw water while in a boat on Shabbat. Two potential solutions are brought.

诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讛谞讞转谉 讘注讬 专讘讗 讗讙讜讝 讘讻诇讬 讜讻诇讬 爪祝 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘转专 讗讙讜讝 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗 谞讬讬讞 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘转专 讻诇讬 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讬讬讞 转讬拽讜

it is not considered its placement. However, Rava raised a dilemma: In a case where there is a nut in a vessel and the vessel is floating on water, what is the ruling? Is it permitted to lift the nut on Shabbat if one is in another domain? The two sides of the dilemma are: Do we say that we go according to the status of the nut, and it is at rest in the vessel? Or perhaps we go according to the status of the vessel, and it is not at rest. No resolution was found to this dilemma. Therefore, let it stand unresolved as well.

砖诪谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讬讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 砖诪谉 砖爪祝 注诇 讙讘讬 讬讬谉 讜谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘砖诪谉 诇讗 驻住诇 讗诇讗 砖诪谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讬讘讜专 讝讛 诇讝讛

However, with regard to oil floating on wine, there is a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna: In the case of oil floating on wine, and one who immersed himself during the day, i.e., one who was impure, immersed himself in a ritual bath, but will not become completely pure until sunset, touched the oil, he invalidated only the oil and not the wine. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: With regard to the two, i.e., the oil and the wine, they are considered to have a connection to each other. Since he made the oil impure, the wine is also impure. Their dispute is whether or not the oil is considered to be placed atop the wine.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注诪讜拽讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 砖诪谞讛 讜讝专拽 诇转讜讻讛 诪讞爪诇转 讞讬讬讘 讞讬诇拽讛 讘诪讞爪诇转 驻讟讜专 诇讗讘讬讬 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚诪讞爪诇转 诪讘讟诇讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讞讜诇讬讗 讚诪讘讟诇讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讞讜诇讬讗 诪讞爪诇转 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇讗 诪讞讬爪转讗

Abaye said: In the case of a pit in the public domain that is ten handbreadths deep and precisely eight handbreadths wide, and one threw a mat into it, he is liable. However, if he divided the pit with a mat that split it in two, each one slightly less than four handbreadths wide, he is exempt because neither part is considered a private domain. The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Abaye, for whom it is obvious that the mat eliminates the partition of the pit, all the more so that a segment of dirt thrown into a pit that is ten handbreadths deep, rendering it less than ten handbreadths, eliminates the partition, and he has no dilemma with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 case. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who raised a dilemma with regard to a segment of dirt, it is obvious that a mat does not eliminate the partition.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注诪讜拽讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 诪诇讗讛 诪讬诐 讜讝专拽 诇转讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讜讝专拽 诇转讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬诐 诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 诪讞讬爪转讗 驻讬专讜转 诪讘讟诇讬 诪讞讬爪转讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讝讜专拽 诪谉 讛讬诐 诇讗讬住专讟讬讗 讜诪谉 讛讗讬住专讟讬讗 诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讝专拽 注诪讜拽 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讞讬讬讘:

Abaye said: With regard to a pit in the public domain that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide and filled with water, and one threw an object into it on Shabbat, one is liable because the pit is considered a private domain. And if the pit was filled with fruit and one threw an object into it, he is exempt. What is the reason for the different rulings? Water is not significant enough to eliminate the partition; fruit eliminates the partition. This was also taught in a baraita: One who throws an object from the sea to the street or from the street to the sea is exempt because the sea is considered a karmelit, and one is not liable according to Torah law in that case. Rabbi Shimon says: If the area in the sea where he threw it is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, he is liable, as he is considered as one who threw an object into a private domain. Apparently, the water in the sea does not eliminate the status of a private domain.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讻讜转诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讛讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘:

MISHNA: With regard to one who throws an object four cubits in the public domain, if the object hits the wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, which is an exempt domain, it is as if one threw it in the air, and he is exempt. If it hits the wall below ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if he threw it and it landed on the ground, and one who throws an object four cubits and it lands on the ground is liable.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚讘讬诇讛 砖诪讬谞讛 砖谞讬谞讜

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that if one throws an object in the public domain a distance of four cubits and it hits a wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, he is liable if he threw it. The Gemara asks: And we discussed it: How could he be liable for carrying in that case? Since the object did not come to rest on the wall, there was no placement. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is with regard to the case of a juicy cake of figs that sticks to the wall when thrown against it that we learned in the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝专拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讜谞讞讛 讘讞讜专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讝专拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讜谞讞讛 讘讞讜专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that Rabbi 岣yya said: If one threw a stone at a wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, and it went and came to rest in a hole in the wall of any size less than four handbreadths, we have come to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One carves out the space to complete it, he is liable. We complete the hole by conceptually carving it to four handbreadths because doing so is theoretically possible. Since the hole is considered ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one is liable for transferring an object from a public domain to a private one. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: One does not carve out the space to complete it, the thrower is not liable because the hole is actually less than four handbreadths wide at present. That was also taught in a baraita: If one threw an object above ten handbreadths, and it went and came to rest in a small hole, Rabbi Meir deems him liable, while the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 转诇 讛诪转诇拽讟 注砖专讛 诪转讜讱 讗专讘注 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讘讜讬 砖砖讜讛 诇转讜讻讜 讜谞注砖讛 诪讚专讜谉 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讜 砖讜讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞注砖讛 诪讚专讜谉 诇转讜讻讜 讗讜转讜 诪讘讜讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗 诇讞讬 讜诇讗 拽讜专讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 转诇 讛诪转诇拽讟 注砖专讛 诪转讜讱 讗专讘注 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: In the case of a mound that is an inclined plane that gradually attains a height of ten handbreadths over a horizontal space of four cubits, and one threw an object from the public domain and it came to rest atop that mound, he is liable because it is considered a partition. That was also taught in a baraita: An alleyway that is level inside and becomes an inclined or declined plane as it enters the public domain, which is higher or lower than the alleyway, or if the entrance to the alleyway is level when entering the public domain and inside it is inclined, that alleyway requires neither a post alongside its entrance or a beam across its entrance in order to distinguish it from the public domain because the incline itself is considered a partition. Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says: In the case of a mound that gradually attains a height of ten handbreadths over a horizontal space of four cubits, and one threw an object from the public domain and it came to rest atop that mound, he is liable.

诪转谞讬壮 讝专拽 诇转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜谞转讙诇讙诇 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜谞转讙诇讙诇 诇转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘:

MISHNA: If one threw an object in the public domain, intending for it to land within four cubits, meaning that he had no intention of violating the Torah prohibition of carrying, and the object rolled and went beyond four cubits, he is exempt. However, if one threw an object with the intention of it landing beyond four cubits, and the object rolled back within four cubits, he is liable from when he originally threw the object.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讝专拽 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讚讞驻转讜 讛专讜讞 讜讛讻谞讬住转讜 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讝专讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗转讜 驻讟讜专 讗讞讝转讜 讛专讜讞 诪砖讛讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讝专讛 讜讛讻谞讬住转讜 讞讬讬讘

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that if one threw an object beyond four cubits and it rolled back within four cubits, he is liable. The Gemara asks: The object did not come to rest beyond four cubits, so how can the one who threw it be liable? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And that liability was established when the object came to rest atop something. That was also taught in a baraita: If one threw an object beyond four cubits and the wind blew it while still in the air and brought it within four cubits, he is exempt even though it, i.e., the wind, then brought it back out because the object did not come to rest in the place where it was thrown. However, if the wind seized it briefly and it stayed on the ground for a brief period of time (Tosafot), even though the wind then brought it in, the individual is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 诇专讘谞谉 爪专讬讱 讛谞讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜 讬转讬讘 诪专讬诪专 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专

Rava said: Despite the principle of lavud, which states that within three handbreadths of the ground an object is considered to be attached to it, according to the Rabbis, who maintain that an object in airspace is not considered at rest, the object must come to rest atop something to establish liability. The Gemara relates that Mareimar sat and stated this halakha. Ravina said to Mareimar:

诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转讙诇讙诇 拽讗诪专转 诪转讙诇讙诇 讗讬谉 住讜驻讜 诇谞讜讞 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚住讜驻讜 诇谞讜讞 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞讞 讻诪讗谉 讚谞讞 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

Isn鈥檛 that what we learned in the mishna, with regard to which Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That liability is when it came to rest atop something, which means that the object must actually land in order for the one who threw it to be liable. Mareimar said to Ravina: Are you saying it is a case of rolling? One cannot cite proof from a rolling object because a rolling object will not ultimately come to rest. However, with regard to this object, which passed within three handbreadths of the ground, I would say: Since it will ultimately come to rest, even though it has not yet come to rest, it is considered as an object that came to rest. Therefore, Rava teaches us that even in that case one is not liable until it actually comes to rest upon something.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 讘讬诐 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 讗诐 讛讬讛 专拽拽 诪讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛诇讻转 讘讜 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 专拽拽 诪讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 专拽拽 诪讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛诇讻转 讘讜 讛讝讜专拽 讘转讜讻讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘:

MISHNA: One who throws an object four cubits into the sea is exempt. If there was a swamp and the public domain passes through it, one who throws an object four cubits into it is liable like one who carried four cubits in the public domain. And how deep is this swamp? It is less than ten handbreadths deep. In the case of a swamp that the public domain passes through, one who throws an object four cubits into the swamp is liable.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讬诇讜讱 讛讬诇讜讱 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讬诇讜讱 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 砖诪讬讛 讛讬诇讜讱 转砖诪讬砖 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 转砖诪讬砖 讗诇讗 专拽拽 专拽拽 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讞讚讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪住讙讬 诇讗拽讜专讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讟谞驻讬 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 诇讗

GEMARA: One of the Sages said to Rava: Granted, passing passing is mentioned twice in the mishna; this teaches us that passage under duress is considered passage, but usage under duress is not considered usage. But why do I need it to mention swamp swamp twice? Rava answered him: One case is referring to the summer, and one case is referring to the winter. And both cases are necessary, as had the mishna taught only one mention of swamp, I would have said that these matters, i.e., cases indicating that passage under duress is considered passage, apply only in the summer because people commonly pass through the swamp to cool themselves; however, in the winter I would have thought that it would not be so. And had the mishna taught us only the case of winter, I would have said that since they are filthy from mud anyway, they do not mind walking through the swamp, but in the summer it would not be so.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗拽讜驻讬 诪拽驻讬 诇讬讛

Abaye said: It is possible to explain this other way. It was necessary for the mishna to state swamp twice because it would have entered your mind to say that these matters apply specifically where the swamp is not four cubits wide because then people walk through the swamp and do not circumvent it, but where the swamp is four cubits wide, people circumvent it. Therefore, it was necessary to teach that people walk through swamps that are both narrow and wide.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讛 讗专讘注讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 讗专讘注讛 诪讬驻住注讬 驻住注讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讝专讬拽 讜谞讞 讗讙讜讚讗 讚讙诪诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 专讘讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讜:

Rav Ashi said another explanation: It was necessary for the mishna to state swamp twice because it would have entered your mind to say that these matters apply specifically where the swamp is at least four handbreadths wide, but where the swamp is not four handbreadths wide, people step over it and do not walk through it. The Gemara comments: And Rav Ashi follows his own reasoning, as Rav Ashi said: One who threw an object and it came to rest on one of the beams of a bridge is liable. Even though the width of each beam is less than four handbreadths, it joins together with the other beams to form a single surface of the public domain because even though many people step over the beams, still many people step on it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 诪谉 讛讬诐 诇讬讘砖讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讘砖讛 诇讬诐 讜诪谉 讛讬诐 诇住驻讬谞讛 讜诪谉 讛住驻讬谞讛 诇讬诐 讜诪谉 讛住驻讬谞讛 诇讞讘讬专转讛 驻讟讜专 住驻讬谞讜转 拽砖讜专讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 拽砖讜专讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讜拽驻讜转 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讝讜 诇讝讜:

MISHNA: One who throws an object from the sea to dry land, or from dry land to the sea, or from the sea onto a boat, or from a boat into the sea, or from one boat to another is exempt because the sea has the legal status of a karmelit. If boats are tied together, one may carry an object from one to the other on Shabbat. However, if they are not tied, even though they are adjacent, one may not carry from one to the other.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 住驻讬谞讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 讝讬讝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诪诪诇讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 注讜砖讛 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诪诪诇讗

GEMARA: It was stated that the Sages disagreed with regard to the manner in which one may draw seawater onto a boat on Shabbat. Rav Huna said: One extends a projection of any size from the side of the boat as a distinctive sign, and fills a receptacle with water from the sea. Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: One creates an area, a frame of four by four handbreadths, and fills the water from inside it.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讜爪讬讗 讛讬诪谞讛 讝讬讝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诪诪诇讗 拽住讘专 讻专诪诇讬转 诪讗专注讗 诪砖讞讬谞谉 讜讗讜讬专讗 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讝讬讝 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讛讬讻专讗

The Gemara explains: Rav Huna, who said that one extends a projection of any size and fills a receptacle with water, maintains that we measure the karmelit from the sea floor. Since the sea itself is deeper than ten handbreadths, the boat is considered to be floating in the air, and the air is an exempt domain, as it is above ten handbreadths from the ground of the karmelit. And by law one should not require a projection because he is drawing water from an exempt domain into a private domain, which is permitted ab initio. Rather, the reason a projection is required is so that he will have a distinctive sign and not come to draw water from a karmelit into a private domain.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 注讜砖讛 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诪诪诇讗 拽住讘专讬 讻专诪诇讬转 诪砖驻转 诪讬讗 诪砖讞讬谞谉 诪讬讗 讗专注讗 住诪讬讻转讗 讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇 诪讻专诪诇讬转 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: One creates an area, a frame of four by four handbreadths, and fills a receptacle with water. They maintain that we measure the karmelit from the surface of the water, and the water in the sea has a legal status like that of solid land. Therefore, if one does not create an area of four by four, he will carry from a karmelit to the private domain.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜爪讬讗 讛讬诪谞讛 讝讬讝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诪诪诇讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讬讻讗 注砖专讛 讜拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇 诪讻专诪诇讬转 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讬谉 住驻讬谞讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 讜讛讗 诪讜专砖讗 讗讬转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讙砖讜砖讬 讗讝诇讬 拽诪讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rabba bar Avuh: And according to Rav Huna, who said that one extends a projection of any size from the side of the boat and fills a receptacle with water, isn鈥檛 there room for concern that at times when the water is not ten handbreadths deep, he will carry from a karmelit into the private domain? He said to him: We learned through tradition that a boat does not travel in water that is less than ten handbreadths deep. He asks: Although a boat has a protrusion at its bow is more than ten handbreadths above the sea floor, the entire length of the boat is not necessarily that far above the bottom. Rav Safra said: Those people who measure the depth of the water with long poles proceed before the ship and ensure that that the water is at least ten handbreadths deep.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 注讜砖讛 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诪诪诇讗 砖讜驻讻讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讻讬 砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 诪讗讬住讬 诇讬讛 讚砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讗讚驻谞讗 讚住驻讬谞讛 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讻讞讜 讻讞讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞讬讗 住驻讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讗 诪转讜讻讛 诇讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讬诐 诇转讜讻讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rav 岣yya bar Avin: According to Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna, who say that in order to draw water onto a boat on Shabbat one creates an area of four by four handbreadths and fills a receptacle, how does he throw out his waste water? And if you say he pours it out in the same area from which he draws water, the water that he subsequently draws from there will be disgusting to him. Rav 岣yya bar Avin answered him: He pours it onto the side of the boat from which it runs into the sea, and he does not pour it directly into the sea. The Gemara asks: Even so, it is accomplished by means of his power. Although he did not pour it directly, he caused the waste water to enter the sea. The Gemara answers: The Sages did not issue a decree to prohibit an action performed by one鈥檚 power in a karmelit. They only prohibited throwing an object directly. And from where do you say that this is so? As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a ship, one may neither carry from it into the sea, nor from the sea into it.

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

Daf Yomi One Week at a Time 鈥 Shabbat 96-102

This week we will review Daf 96-102 and learn about different laws pertaining to throwing on Shabbat. We will also...
Hadran Community Sunday

Hadran’s Community Sunday – June 2020

https://www.facebook.com/hadranwomen/videos/264469971308653

Shabbat 100

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 100

诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讛谞讞转谉 讘注讬 专讘讗 讗讙讜讝 讘讻诇讬 讜讻诇讬 爪祝 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘转专 讗讙讜讝 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗 谞讬讬讞 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘转专 讻诇讬 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讬讬讞 转讬拽讜

it is not considered its placement. However, Rava raised a dilemma: In a case where there is a nut in a vessel and the vessel is floating on water, what is the ruling? Is it permitted to lift the nut on Shabbat if one is in another domain? The two sides of the dilemma are: Do we say that we go according to the status of the nut, and it is at rest in the vessel? Or perhaps we go according to the status of the vessel, and it is not at rest. No resolution was found to this dilemma. Therefore, let it stand unresolved as well.

砖诪谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讬讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 砖诪谉 砖爪祝 注诇 讙讘讬 讬讬谉 讜谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘砖诪谉 诇讗 驻住诇 讗诇讗 砖诪谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讬讘讜专 讝讛 诇讝讛

However, with regard to oil floating on wine, there is a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna: In the case of oil floating on wine, and one who immersed himself during the day, i.e., one who was impure, immersed himself in a ritual bath, but will not become completely pure until sunset, touched the oil, he invalidated only the oil and not the wine. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: With regard to the two, i.e., the oil and the wine, they are considered to have a connection to each other. Since he made the oil impure, the wine is also impure. Their dispute is whether or not the oil is considered to be placed atop the wine.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注诪讜拽讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 砖诪谞讛 讜讝专拽 诇转讜讻讛 诪讞爪诇转 讞讬讬讘 讞讬诇拽讛 讘诪讞爪诇转 驻讟讜专 诇讗讘讬讬 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚诪讞爪诇转 诪讘讟诇讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讞讜诇讬讗 讚诪讘讟诇讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讞讜诇讬讗 诪讞爪诇转 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇讗 诪讞讬爪转讗

Abaye said: In the case of a pit in the public domain that is ten handbreadths deep and precisely eight handbreadths wide, and one threw a mat into it, he is liable. However, if he divided the pit with a mat that split it in two, each one slightly less than four handbreadths wide, he is exempt because neither part is considered a private domain. The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Abaye, for whom it is obvious that the mat eliminates the partition of the pit, all the more so that a segment of dirt thrown into a pit that is ten handbreadths deep, rendering it less than ten handbreadths, eliminates the partition, and he has no dilemma with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 case. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who raised a dilemma with regard to a segment of dirt, it is obvious that a mat does not eliminate the partition.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注诪讜拽讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 诪诇讗讛 诪讬诐 讜讝专拽 诇转讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘 诪诇讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讜讝专拽 诇转讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬诐 诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 诪讞讬爪转讗 驻讬专讜转 诪讘讟诇讬 诪讞讬爪转讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讝讜专拽 诪谉 讛讬诐 诇讗讬住专讟讬讗 讜诪谉 讛讗讬住专讟讬讗 诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讝专拽 注诪讜拽 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讞讬讬讘:

Abaye said: With regard to a pit in the public domain that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide and filled with water, and one threw an object into it on Shabbat, one is liable because the pit is considered a private domain. And if the pit was filled with fruit and one threw an object into it, he is exempt. What is the reason for the different rulings? Water is not significant enough to eliminate the partition; fruit eliminates the partition. This was also taught in a baraita: One who throws an object from the sea to the street or from the street to the sea is exempt because the sea is considered a karmelit, and one is not liable according to Torah law in that case. Rabbi Shimon says: If the area in the sea where he threw it is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, he is liable, as he is considered as one who threw an object into a private domain. Apparently, the water in the sea does not eliminate the status of a private domain.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讻讜转诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讛讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘:

MISHNA: With regard to one who throws an object four cubits in the public domain, if the object hits the wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, which is an exempt domain, it is as if one threw it in the air, and he is exempt. If it hits the wall below ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if he threw it and it landed on the ground, and one who throws an object four cubits and it lands on the ground is liable.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚讘讬诇讛 砖诪讬谞讛 砖谞讬谞讜

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that if one throws an object in the public domain a distance of four cubits and it hits a wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, he is liable if he threw it. The Gemara asks: And we discussed it: How could he be liable for carrying in that case? Since the object did not come to rest on the wall, there was no placement. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is with regard to the case of a juicy cake of figs that sticks to the wall when thrown against it that we learned in the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝专拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讜谞讞讛 讘讞讜专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讝专拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讜谞讞讛 讘讞讜专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that Rabbi 岣yya said: If one threw a stone at a wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, and it went and came to rest in a hole in the wall of any size less than four handbreadths, we have come to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One carves out the space to complete it, he is liable. We complete the hole by conceptually carving it to four handbreadths because doing so is theoretically possible. Since the hole is considered ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one is liable for transferring an object from a public domain to a private one. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: One does not carve out the space to complete it, the thrower is not liable because the hole is actually less than four handbreadths wide at present. That was also taught in a baraita: If one threw an object above ten handbreadths, and it went and came to rest in a small hole, Rabbi Meir deems him liable, while the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 转诇 讛诪转诇拽讟 注砖专讛 诪转讜讱 讗专讘注 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讘讜讬 砖砖讜讛 诇转讜讻讜 讜谞注砖讛 诪讚专讜谉 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讜 砖讜讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞注砖讛 诪讚专讜谉 诇转讜讻讜 讗讜转讜 诪讘讜讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗 诇讞讬 讜诇讗 拽讜专讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 转诇 讛诪转诇拽讟 注砖专讛 诪转讜讱 讗专讘注 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: In the case of a mound that is an inclined plane that gradually attains a height of ten handbreadths over a horizontal space of four cubits, and one threw an object from the public domain and it came to rest atop that mound, he is liable because it is considered a partition. That was also taught in a baraita: An alleyway that is level inside and becomes an inclined or declined plane as it enters the public domain, which is higher or lower than the alleyway, or if the entrance to the alleyway is level when entering the public domain and inside it is inclined, that alleyway requires neither a post alongside its entrance or a beam across its entrance in order to distinguish it from the public domain because the incline itself is considered a partition. Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says: In the case of a mound that gradually attains a height of ten handbreadths over a horizontal space of four cubits, and one threw an object from the public domain and it came to rest atop that mound, he is liable.

诪转谞讬壮 讝专拽 诇转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜谞转讙诇讙诇 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜谞转讙诇讙诇 诇转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘:

MISHNA: If one threw an object in the public domain, intending for it to land within four cubits, meaning that he had no intention of violating the Torah prohibition of carrying, and the object rolled and went beyond four cubits, he is exempt. However, if one threw an object with the intention of it landing beyond four cubits, and the object rolled back within four cubits, he is liable from when he originally threw the object.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讝专拽 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讚讞驻转讜 讛专讜讞 讜讛讻谞讬住转讜 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讝专讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗转讜 驻讟讜专 讗讞讝转讜 讛专讜讞 诪砖讛讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讝专讛 讜讛讻谞讬住转讜 讞讬讬讘

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that if one threw an object beyond four cubits and it rolled back within four cubits, he is liable. The Gemara asks: The object did not come to rest beyond four cubits, so how can the one who threw it be liable? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And that liability was established when the object came to rest atop something. That was also taught in a baraita: If one threw an object beyond four cubits and the wind blew it while still in the air and brought it within four cubits, he is exempt even though it, i.e., the wind, then brought it back out because the object did not come to rest in the place where it was thrown. However, if the wind seized it briefly and it stayed on the ground for a brief period of time (Tosafot), even though the wind then brought it in, the individual is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 诇专讘谞谉 爪专讬讱 讛谞讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜 讬转讬讘 诪专讬诪专 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专

Rava said: Despite the principle of lavud, which states that within three handbreadths of the ground an object is considered to be attached to it, according to the Rabbis, who maintain that an object in airspace is not considered at rest, the object must come to rest atop something to establish liability. The Gemara relates that Mareimar sat and stated this halakha. Ravina said to Mareimar:

诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转讙诇讙诇 拽讗诪专转 诪转讙诇讙诇 讗讬谉 住讜驻讜 诇谞讜讞 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚住讜驻讜 诇谞讜讞 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞讞 讻诪讗谉 讚谞讞 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

Isn鈥檛 that what we learned in the mishna, with regard to which Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That liability is when it came to rest atop something, which means that the object must actually land in order for the one who threw it to be liable. Mareimar said to Ravina: Are you saying it is a case of rolling? One cannot cite proof from a rolling object because a rolling object will not ultimately come to rest. However, with regard to this object, which passed within three handbreadths of the ground, I would say: Since it will ultimately come to rest, even though it has not yet come to rest, it is considered as an object that came to rest. Therefore, Rava teaches us that even in that case one is not liable until it actually comes to rest upon something.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 讘讬诐 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 讗诐 讛讬讛 专拽拽 诪讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛诇讻转 讘讜 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 专拽拽 诪讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 专拽拽 诪讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛诇讻转 讘讜 讛讝讜专拽 讘转讜讻讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘:

MISHNA: One who throws an object four cubits into the sea is exempt. If there was a swamp and the public domain passes through it, one who throws an object four cubits into it is liable like one who carried four cubits in the public domain. And how deep is this swamp? It is less than ten handbreadths deep. In the case of a swamp that the public domain passes through, one who throws an object four cubits into the swamp is liable.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讬诇讜讱 讛讬诇讜讱 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讬诇讜讱 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 砖诪讬讛 讛讬诇讜讱 转砖诪讬砖 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 转砖诪讬砖 讗诇讗 专拽拽 专拽拽 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讞讚讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚诪住讙讬 诇讗拽讜专讬 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讟谞驻讬 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 诇讗

GEMARA: One of the Sages said to Rava: Granted, passing passing is mentioned twice in the mishna; this teaches us that passage under duress is considered passage, but usage under duress is not considered usage. But why do I need it to mention swamp swamp twice? Rava answered him: One case is referring to the summer, and one case is referring to the winter. And both cases are necessary, as had the mishna taught only one mention of swamp, I would have said that these matters, i.e., cases indicating that passage under duress is considered passage, apply only in the summer because people commonly pass through the swamp to cool themselves; however, in the winter I would have thought that it would not be so. And had the mishna taught us only the case of winter, I would have said that since they are filthy from mud anyway, they do not mind walking through the swamp, but in the summer it would not be so.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗拽讜驻讬 诪拽驻讬 诇讬讛

Abaye said: It is possible to explain this other way. It was necessary for the mishna to state swamp twice because it would have entered your mind to say that these matters apply specifically where the swamp is not four cubits wide because then people walk through the swamp and do not circumvent it, but where the swamp is four cubits wide, people circumvent it. Therefore, it was necessary to teach that people walk through swamps that are both narrow and wide.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜讛 讗专讘注讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讗讬 讗专讘注讛 诪讬驻住注讬 驻住注讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讝专讬拽 讜谞讞 讗讙讜讚讗 讚讙诪诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 专讘讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讜:

Rav Ashi said another explanation: It was necessary for the mishna to state swamp twice because it would have entered your mind to say that these matters apply specifically where the swamp is at least four handbreadths wide, but where the swamp is not four handbreadths wide, people step over it and do not walk through it. The Gemara comments: And Rav Ashi follows his own reasoning, as Rav Ashi said: One who threw an object and it came to rest on one of the beams of a bridge is liable. Even though the width of each beam is less than four handbreadths, it joins together with the other beams to form a single surface of the public domain because even though many people step over the beams, still many people step on it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 诪谉 讛讬诐 诇讬讘砖讛 讜诪谉 讛讬讘砖讛 诇讬诐 讜诪谉 讛讬诐 诇住驻讬谞讛 讜诪谉 讛住驻讬谞讛 诇讬诐 讜诪谉 讛住驻讬谞讛 诇讞讘讬专转讛 驻讟讜专 住驻讬谞讜转 拽砖讜专讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 讗诐 讗讬谞谉 拽砖讜专讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讜拽驻讜转 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诪讝讜 诇讝讜:

MISHNA: One who throws an object from the sea to dry land, or from dry land to the sea, or from the sea onto a boat, or from a boat into the sea, or from one boat to another is exempt because the sea has the legal status of a karmelit. If boats are tied together, one may carry an object from one to the other on Shabbat. However, if they are not tied, even though they are adjacent, one may not carry from one to the other.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 住驻讬谞讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 讝讬讝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诪诪诇讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 注讜砖讛 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诪诪诇讗

GEMARA: It was stated that the Sages disagreed with regard to the manner in which one may draw seawater onto a boat on Shabbat. Rav Huna said: One extends a projection of any size from the side of the boat as a distinctive sign, and fills a receptacle with water from the sea. Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: One creates an area, a frame of four by four handbreadths, and fills the water from inside it.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讜爪讬讗 讛讬诪谞讛 讝讬讝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诪诪诇讗 拽住讘专 讻专诪诇讬转 诪讗专注讗 诪砖讞讬谞谉 讜讗讜讬专讗 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讝讬讝 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讛讬讻专讗

The Gemara explains: Rav Huna, who said that one extends a projection of any size and fills a receptacle with water, maintains that we measure the karmelit from the sea floor. Since the sea itself is deeper than ten handbreadths, the boat is considered to be floating in the air, and the air is an exempt domain, as it is above ten handbreadths from the ground of the karmelit. And by law one should not require a projection because he is drawing water from an exempt domain into a private domain, which is permitted ab initio. Rather, the reason a projection is required is so that he will have a distinctive sign and not come to draw water from a karmelit into a private domain.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 注讜砖讛 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诪诪诇讗 拽住讘专讬 讻专诪诇讬转 诪砖驻转 诪讬讗 诪砖讞讬谞谉 诪讬讗 讗专注讗 住诪讬讻转讗 讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇 诪讻专诪诇讬转 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: One creates an area, a frame of four by four handbreadths, and fills a receptacle with water. They maintain that we measure the karmelit from the surface of the water, and the water in the sea has a legal status like that of solid land. Therefore, if one does not create an area of four by four, he will carry from a karmelit to the private domain.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讜诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜爪讬讗 讛讬诪谞讛 讝讬讝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诪诪诇讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讬讻讗 注砖专讛 讜拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇 诪讻专诪诇讬转 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚讗讬谉 住驻讬谞讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 讜讛讗 诪讜专砖讗 讗讬转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讙砖讜砖讬 讗讝诇讬 拽诪讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rabba bar Avuh: And according to Rav Huna, who said that one extends a projection of any size from the side of the boat and fills a receptacle with water, isn鈥檛 there room for concern that at times when the water is not ten handbreadths deep, he will carry from a karmelit into the private domain? He said to him: We learned through tradition that a boat does not travel in water that is less than ten handbreadths deep. He asks: Although a boat has a protrusion at its bow is more than ten handbreadths above the sea floor, the entire length of the boat is not necessarily that far above the bottom. Rav Safra said: Those people who measure the depth of the water with long poles proceed before the ship and ensure that that the water is at least ten handbreadths deep.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 注讜砖讛 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诪诪诇讗 砖讜驻讻讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讻讬 砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讘讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 诪讗讬住讬 诇讬讛 讚砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讗讚驻谞讗 讚住驻讬谞讛 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讻讞讜 讻讞讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚转谞讬讗 住驻讬谞讛 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讗 诪转讜讻讛 诇讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讬诐 诇转讜讻讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rav 岣yya bar Avin: According to Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna, who say that in order to draw water onto a boat on Shabbat one creates an area of four by four handbreadths and fills a receptacle, how does he throw out his waste water? And if you say he pours it out in the same area from which he draws water, the water that he subsequently draws from there will be disgusting to him. Rav 岣yya bar Avin answered him: He pours it onto the side of the boat from which it runs into the sea, and he does not pour it directly into the sea. The Gemara asks: Even so, it is accomplished by means of his power. Although he did not pour it directly, he caused the waste water to enter the sea. The Gemara answers: The Sages did not issue a decree to prohibit an action performed by one鈥檚 power in a karmelit. They only prohibited throwing an object directly. And from where do you say that this is so? As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a ship, one may neither carry from it into the sea, nor from the sea into it.

Scroll To Top