Today's Daf Yomi
March 8, 2020 | 讬状讘 讘讗讚专 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.
Shabbat 2
Masechet Shabbat is sponsored by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan in memory of/lilui nishmato of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z”l. Today’s shiur is sponsored for a refuah sheleima for Chaim Yeshayahu ben Shprintze Faygel.
The masechet starts out with laws of moving things from one domain to another – why? In order to be obligated by Torah law for this, one needs to both uproot the item from one domain and place it an another. If one did the uprooting and another person did the placing, neither is obligated by Torah law, but the rabbis forbade it. The mishna mentions eight possible situations that can occur with one person passing something to another in a different domain and specifies in each case whether each person is obligated or not. The gemara asks why our mishna mentions eight cases when the mishna in Shevuot that mentions our issue in a list of other issues, only mentions four. Which four and why only those four? Two answers are brought but one is rejected.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (讚祝 讬讜诪讬 诇谞砖讬诐 - 注讘专讬转): Play in new window | Download
转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转
诪转谞讬壮 讬爪讬讗讜转 讛砖讘转 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讘讞讜抓
MISHNA: The acts of carrying out from a public domain into a private domain or vice versa, which are prohibited on Shabbat, are primarily two basic actions that comprise four cases from the perspective of a person inside a private domain, and two basic actions that comprise four cases from the perspective of a person outside, in a public domain.
讻讬爪讚
The mishna elaborates: How do these eight cases take place? In order to answer that question, the mishna cites cases involving a poor person and a homeowner.
讛注谞讬 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘驻谞讬诐 驻砖讟 讛注谞讬 讗转 讬讚讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讬讚讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 砖谞讟诇 诪转讜讻讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讛注谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专:
The poor person stands outside, in the public domain, and the homeowner stands inside, in the private domain. The poor person lifted an object in the public domain, extended his hand into the private domain, and placed the object into the hand of the homeowner. In that case, the poor person performed the prohibited labor of carrying from the public domain into the private domain in its entirety. Or, the poor person reached his hand into the private domain, took an item from the hand of the homeowner, and carried it out into the public domain. In that case, the poor person performed the prohibited labor of carrying out from the private domain into the public domain in its entirety. In both of these cases, because the poor person performed the prohibited labor in its entirety, he is liable and the homeowner is exempt.
驻砖讟 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗转 讬讚讜 诇讞讜抓 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讬讚讜 砖诇 注谞讬 讗讜 砖谞讟诇 诪转讜讻讛 讜讛讻谞讬住 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜讛注谞讬 驻讟讜专:
The mishna cites two additional cases. In these, the prohibited labor is performed by the homeowner, who is in the private domain: The homeowner lifted an item in the private domain, extended his hand into the public domain, and placed the object into the hand of the poor person. In that case, the homeowner performed the labor of carrying out from the private domain into the public domain in its entirety. Or, the homeowner reached his hand into the public domain, took an object from the hand of the poor person, and carried it into the private domain. In that case, the homeowner performed the labor of carrying from the public domain into the private domain in its entirety. In both of those cases, because the homeowner performed the prohibited labor in its entirety, he is liable and the poor person is exempt.
驻砖讟 讛注谞讬 讗转 讬讚讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讜谞讟诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪转讜讻讛 讗讜 砖谞转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉
There are four additional cases where neither the homeowner nor the poor person performed the labor in its entirety, and therefore neither is liable: The poor person extended his hand into the private domain and either the homeowner took an object from his hand and placed it in the private domain or the homeowner placed an object into the hand of the poor person, and the poor person carried the object out into the public domain. In those cases and the two that follow, the act of transferring the object from one domain to another was performed jointly by two people, the poor person and the homeowner. Because each performed only part of the prohibited labor, both of them are exempt.
驻砖讟 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗转 讬讚讜 诇讞讜抓 讜谞讟诇 讛注谞讬 诪转讜讻讛 讗讜 砖谞转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讜讛讻谞讬住 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉:
So too, in a case where the homeowner extended his hand into the public domain and, either the poor person took an object from the homeowner鈥檚 hand and placed it in the public domain or the poor person placed an object into the homeowner鈥檚 hand and the homeowner carried the object into the private domain. Because each performed only part of the prohibited labor, both of them are exempt.
讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讘讜注讜转 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注
GEMARA: We learned in our mishna: The acts of carrying out on Shabbat are two that comprise four. Similarly, we learned in the mishna there, in tractate Shevuot: Oaths on a statement, which, when violated, render one liable to bring a sin-offering are two that comprise four. The first two cases, which are mentioned explicitly in the Torah, are: One who swore that he would perform a specific action in the future and one who swore to refrain from performing said action. Based on an amplification in the language of the Torah, two more cases are added: One who swore that he performed a specific action in the past and one who swore that he did not perform said action.
讬讚讬注讜转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注
Similarly, with regard to awareness of ritual impurity, there are two cases that comprise four. It is prohibited for one who is ritually impure to enter the Temple or to consume a consecrated item. However, one who unwittingly violates this serious prohibition is obligated to bring a sacrifice for his transgression only if he was clearly aware of his ritually impure status both before committing the transgression and thereafter. The two cases of unwitting transgression in this area are: One who was aware and then forgot that he is ritually impure, and then either ate consecrated meat or entered the Temple, and subsequently recalled that he was ritually impure. Two additional cases are: One who was aware of his ritually impure status but was unaware that the food he was about to eat was consecrated and ate it, or he was unaware that he was about to enter the Temple and entered it.
诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 砖谞讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注
Signs of affliction by leprosy are two that comprise four. The Torah (Leviticus 13) mentions two types of signs of affliction with regard to leprosy, baheret and se鈥檈t. Two additional, secondary signs of affliction were added. They are not as white as those delineated in the Torah. Consequently, there are derivatives of both baheret and se鈥檈t.
讬爪讬讗讜转 讛砖讘转 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注
The mishna in Shevuot also mentions that the acts of carrying out on Shabbat are two basic actions that comprise four.
诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚转谞讬 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讘讞讜抓 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚转谞讬 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讜转讜 诇讗
The Gemara asks: What is different here that our mishna teaches: Two that comprise four inside and two that comprise four outside, and what is different there, in tractate Shevuot, that the mishna teaches with regard to transfers on Shabbat: Two that comprise four, and nothing more?
讛讻讗 讚注讬拽专 砖讘转 讛讜讗 转谞讬 讗讘讜转 讜转谞讬 转讜诇讚讜转 讛转诐 讚诇讗讜 注讬拽专 砖讘转 讛讜讗 讗讘讜转 转谞讬 转讜诇讚讜转 诇讗 转谞讬
The Gemara answers: Here, in tractate Shabbat, which contains the primary discussion of the halakhot of Shabbat, the mishna teaches the primary categories of labor that are prohibited on Shabbat, including carrying out from the private to the public domain, and it teaches the subcategories of labor that are prohibited on Shabbat, including carrying from the public into the private domain. But there, in tractate Shevuot, which does not contain the primary discussion of the halakhot of Shabbat, the mishna teaches the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat but does not teach the subcategories of labor.
讗讘讜转 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讬爪讬讗讜转 讜讬爪讬讗讜转 转专讬 讛讜讬讬谉
The Gemara asks: What are the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat? They are acts of carrying out from the private domain to the public domain. However, the Gemara objects: The acts of carrying out are only two in number: There is the case of the homeowner who takes an object out of the private domain and places it in the hand of the poor person in the public domain and the case of a poor person who takes an object from the homeowner鈥檚 hand in the private domain and takes it out into the public domain. What are the two additional cases referred to by the phrase: Two that comprise four, in tractate Shevuot?
讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讛谉 诇讞讬讜讘 讜诪讛谉 诇驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 拽转谞讬 诪讛 讛转诐 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讞讬讜讘讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讞讬讜讘讗
And if you say that the mishna in tractate Shevuot enumerates all four cases of carrying out, among them those for which there is liability and among them those for which there is exemption, including those mentioned in the second half of our mishna in which each individual performs only half of the prohibited labor, that is not feasible. The mishna in Shevuot teaches the prohibition of carrying out on Shabbat parallel to the signs of affliction by leprosy. Just as there, with regard to leprosy, all four of them are cases for which there is liability, so too, here, with regard to Shabbat, all four of them are cases for which there is liability.
讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讚注讬拽专 砖讘转 讛讜讗 转谞讬 讞讬讜讘讬 讜驻讟讜专讬 讛转诐 讚诇讗讜 注讬拽专 砖讘转 讛讜讗 讞讬讜讘讬 转谞讬 讜驻讟讜专讬 诇讗 转谞讬
Rather, Rav Pappa said that the difference between the manner in which the halakha is cited in tractates Shevuot and Shabbat must be understood as follows: Here, where it contains the primary discussion of the halakhot of Shabbat, the mishna teaches both cases of liability and cases of exemption, meaning cases of carrying out for which one is liable by Torah law as well as those for which one is exempt by Torah law. However, there, where it does not contain the primary discussion of the halakhot of Shabbat, the mishna teaches cases of liability but does not teach cases of exemption.
讞讬讜讘讬 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讬爪讬讗讜转 讬爪讬讗讜转 转专转讬 讛讜讬讬谉 砖转讬诐 讚讛讜爪讗讛 讜砖转讬诐 讚讛讻谞住讛
The Gemara asks: What are the cases of liability? They are acts of carrying out from the private domain to the public domain. The Gemara objects on the grounds that there are only two acts of carrying out: Carrying out while standing inside and carrying out while standing outside. What is the meaning of the phrase in Shevuot: Which comprise four? The Gemara answers: It is possible to arrive at a total of four. Cases of carrying in from the public domain to the private domain are also enumerated in tractate Shevuot. Consequently, there are two cases of carrying out and two cases of carrying in.
讜讛讗 讬爪讬讗讜转 拽转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转谞讗 讛讻谞住讛 谞诪讬 讛讜爪讗讛 拽专讬 诇讛
The Gemara objects: In Shevuot, the phrase: Acts of carrying out, is taught in the mishna, not acts of carrying in. Rav Ashi said: The tanna in Shevuot also refers to carrying in as carrying out.
诪诪讗讬 诪讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪专砖讜转 诇专砖讜转 讞讬讬讘 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讛 讛讜爪讗讛
From where do I know this? From that which we learned in a mishna: One who carries out an object from one domain to another is liable. Are we not also dealing with a case where he is carrying it in from the public domain to the private domain, and nevertheless the mishna characterizes it as carrying out?
讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讻诇 注拽讬专转 讞驻抓 诪诪拽讜诪讜 转谞讗 讛讜爪讗讛 拽专讬 诇讛
And what is the reason that the term carrying out is used to refer to an act of carrying in? The tanna characterizes any act that involves lifting of an object from its place and transferring it to another domain as carrying out. Carrying out does not refer only to carrying an object out from one鈥檚 house. Rather, it is a general depiction of moving an object from the domain in which it is located into another domain.
讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讬爪讬讗讜转 讜拽讗 诪驻专砖 讛讻谞住讛 诇讗诇转专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛
Ravina said: Our mishna is also precise, and its language leads us to the same conclusion, as the expression: Acts of carrying out on Shabbat, was taught in our mishna, yet immediately a case of carrying in is articulated. The first case listed in our mishna involves the poor person placing an object into the hand of the homeowner, which is a case of carrying in from the public to the private domain. The Gemara notes: Indeed, conclude from this that the term carrying out also refers to carrying in.
专讘讗 讗诪专 专砖讜讬讜转 拽转谞讬 专砖讜讬讜转 砖讘转 砖转讬诐:
Rava said: The language of the mishnayot poses no difficulty. The tanna in both of these mishnayot did not teach: Acts of carrying out on Shabbat. Rather, he taught: Domains of Shabbat. The correct version of the mishna is: The domains of Shabbat are two that comprise four, and, according to this tanna, there are four instances of prohibited labor in these two domains, inside and outside.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪转谞讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讗 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 转专转讬 住专讬 讛讜讬讬谉
Rav Mattana said to Abaye: The mishna speaks of two that comprise four inside and two that comprise four outside, for a total of eight. Yet there is a difficulty: Are these eight cases? They are twelve. Upon closer inspection, in the four cases in the latter part of the mishna, the homeowner and the poor person each performs an individual action contributing to the overall prohibited labor of carrying in or carrying out. Consequently, there are four actions in the first part of the mishna and eight actions in the second part.
讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 砖讬转住专讬 讛讜讬讬谉
Abaye responded: According to your reasoning, they are sixteen actions, as even in the first part of our mishna, the one who receives the object and the one who places the object each participates in the performance of a prohibited action. Therefore, there are a total of sixteen actions.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘砖诇诪讗
Rav Mattana said to Abaye: That is not difficult, as granted,
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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Shabbat 2
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
诪转谞讬壮 讬爪讬讗讜转 讛砖讘转 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讘讞讜抓
MISHNA: The acts of carrying out from a public domain into a private domain or vice versa, which are prohibited on Shabbat, are primarily two basic actions that comprise four cases from the perspective of a person inside a private domain, and two basic actions that comprise four cases from the perspective of a person outside, in a public domain.
讻讬爪讚
The mishna elaborates: How do these eight cases take place? In order to answer that question, the mishna cites cases involving a poor person and a homeowner.
讛注谞讬 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘驻谞讬诐 驻砖讟 讛注谞讬 讗转 讬讚讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讬讚讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗讜 砖谞讟诇 诪转讜讻讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讛注谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讟讜专:
The poor person stands outside, in the public domain, and the homeowner stands inside, in the private domain. The poor person lifted an object in the public domain, extended his hand into the private domain, and placed the object into the hand of the homeowner. In that case, the poor person performed the prohibited labor of carrying from the public domain into the private domain in its entirety. Or, the poor person reached his hand into the private domain, took an item from the hand of the homeowner, and carried it out into the public domain. In that case, the poor person performed the prohibited labor of carrying out from the private domain into the public domain in its entirety. In both of these cases, because the poor person performed the prohibited labor in its entirety, he is liable and the homeowner is exempt.
驻砖讟 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗转 讬讚讜 诇讞讜抓 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讬讚讜 砖诇 注谞讬 讗讜 砖谞讟诇 诪转讜讻讛 讜讛讻谞讬住 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜讛注谞讬 驻讟讜专:
The mishna cites two additional cases. In these, the prohibited labor is performed by the homeowner, who is in the private domain: The homeowner lifted an item in the private domain, extended his hand into the public domain, and placed the object into the hand of the poor person. In that case, the homeowner performed the labor of carrying out from the private domain into the public domain in its entirety. Or, the homeowner reached his hand into the public domain, took an object from the hand of the poor person, and carried it into the private domain. In that case, the homeowner performed the labor of carrying from the public domain into the private domain in its entirety. In both of those cases, because the homeowner performed the prohibited labor in its entirety, he is liable and the poor person is exempt.
驻砖讟 讛注谞讬 讗转 讬讚讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讜谞讟诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪转讜讻讛 讗讜 砖谞转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉
There are four additional cases where neither the homeowner nor the poor person performed the labor in its entirety, and therefore neither is liable: The poor person extended his hand into the private domain and either the homeowner took an object from his hand and placed it in the private domain or the homeowner placed an object into the hand of the poor person, and the poor person carried the object out into the public domain. In those cases and the two that follow, the act of transferring the object from one domain to another was performed jointly by two people, the poor person and the homeowner. Because each performed only part of the prohibited labor, both of them are exempt.
驻砖讟 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗转 讬讚讜 诇讞讜抓 讜谞讟诇 讛注谞讬 诪转讜讻讛 讗讜 砖谞转谉 诇转讜讻讛 讜讛讻谞讬住 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉:
So too, in a case where the homeowner extended his hand into the public domain and, either the poor person took an object from the homeowner鈥檚 hand and placed it in the public domain or the poor person placed an object into the homeowner鈥檚 hand and the homeowner carried the object into the private domain. Because each performed only part of the prohibited labor, both of them are exempt.
讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讘讜注讜转 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注
GEMARA: We learned in our mishna: The acts of carrying out on Shabbat are two that comprise four. Similarly, we learned in the mishna there, in tractate Shevuot: Oaths on a statement, which, when violated, render one liable to bring a sin-offering are two that comprise four. The first two cases, which are mentioned explicitly in the Torah, are: One who swore that he would perform a specific action in the future and one who swore to refrain from performing said action. Based on an amplification in the language of the Torah, two more cases are added: One who swore that he performed a specific action in the past and one who swore that he did not perform said action.
讬讚讬注讜转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注
Similarly, with regard to awareness of ritual impurity, there are two cases that comprise four. It is prohibited for one who is ritually impure to enter the Temple or to consume a consecrated item. However, one who unwittingly violates this serious prohibition is obligated to bring a sacrifice for his transgression only if he was clearly aware of his ritually impure status both before committing the transgression and thereafter. The two cases of unwitting transgression in this area are: One who was aware and then forgot that he is ritually impure, and then either ate consecrated meat or entered the Temple, and subsequently recalled that he was ritually impure. Two additional cases are: One who was aware of his ritually impure status but was unaware that the food he was about to eat was consecrated and ate it, or he was unaware that he was about to enter the Temple and entered it.
诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 砖谞讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注
Signs of affliction by leprosy are two that comprise four. The Torah (Leviticus 13) mentions two types of signs of affliction with regard to leprosy, baheret and se鈥檈t. Two additional, secondary signs of affliction were added. They are not as white as those delineated in the Torah. Consequently, there are derivatives of both baheret and se鈥檈t.
讬爪讬讗讜转 讛砖讘转 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注
The mishna in Shevuot also mentions that the acts of carrying out on Shabbat are two basic actions that comprise four.
诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚转谞讬 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讘讞讜抓 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚转谞讬 砖转讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注 讜转讜 诇讗
The Gemara asks: What is different here that our mishna teaches: Two that comprise four inside and two that comprise four outside, and what is different there, in tractate Shevuot, that the mishna teaches with regard to transfers on Shabbat: Two that comprise four, and nothing more?
讛讻讗 讚注讬拽专 砖讘转 讛讜讗 转谞讬 讗讘讜转 讜转谞讬 转讜诇讚讜转 讛转诐 讚诇讗讜 注讬拽专 砖讘转 讛讜讗 讗讘讜转 转谞讬 转讜诇讚讜转 诇讗 转谞讬
The Gemara answers: Here, in tractate Shabbat, which contains the primary discussion of the halakhot of Shabbat, the mishna teaches the primary categories of labor that are prohibited on Shabbat, including carrying out from the private to the public domain, and it teaches the subcategories of labor that are prohibited on Shabbat, including carrying from the public into the private domain. But there, in tractate Shevuot, which does not contain the primary discussion of the halakhot of Shabbat, the mishna teaches the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat but does not teach the subcategories of labor.
讗讘讜转 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讬爪讬讗讜转 讜讬爪讬讗讜转 转专讬 讛讜讬讬谉
The Gemara asks: What are the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat? They are acts of carrying out from the private domain to the public domain. However, the Gemara objects: The acts of carrying out are only two in number: There is the case of the homeowner who takes an object out of the private domain and places it in the hand of the poor person in the public domain and the case of a poor person who takes an object from the homeowner鈥檚 hand in the private domain and takes it out into the public domain. What are the two additional cases referred to by the phrase: Two that comprise four, in tractate Shevuot?
讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讛谉 诇讞讬讜讘 讜诪讛谉 诇驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 拽转谞讬 诪讛 讛转诐 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讞讬讜讘讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讞讬讜讘讗
And if you say that the mishna in tractate Shevuot enumerates all four cases of carrying out, among them those for which there is liability and among them those for which there is exemption, including those mentioned in the second half of our mishna in which each individual performs only half of the prohibited labor, that is not feasible. The mishna in Shevuot teaches the prohibition of carrying out on Shabbat parallel to the signs of affliction by leprosy. Just as there, with regard to leprosy, all four of them are cases for which there is liability, so too, here, with regard to Shabbat, all four of them are cases for which there is liability.
讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讚注讬拽专 砖讘转 讛讜讗 转谞讬 讞讬讜讘讬 讜驻讟讜专讬 讛转诐 讚诇讗讜 注讬拽专 砖讘转 讛讜讗 讞讬讜讘讬 转谞讬 讜驻讟讜专讬 诇讗 转谞讬
Rather, Rav Pappa said that the difference between the manner in which the halakha is cited in tractates Shevuot and Shabbat must be understood as follows: Here, where it contains the primary discussion of the halakhot of Shabbat, the mishna teaches both cases of liability and cases of exemption, meaning cases of carrying out for which one is liable by Torah law as well as those for which one is exempt by Torah law. However, there, where it does not contain the primary discussion of the halakhot of Shabbat, the mishna teaches cases of liability but does not teach cases of exemption.
讞讬讜讘讬 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讬爪讬讗讜转 讬爪讬讗讜转 转专转讬 讛讜讬讬谉 砖转讬诐 讚讛讜爪讗讛 讜砖转讬诐 讚讛讻谞住讛
The Gemara asks: What are the cases of liability? They are acts of carrying out from the private domain to the public domain. The Gemara objects on the grounds that there are only two acts of carrying out: Carrying out while standing inside and carrying out while standing outside. What is the meaning of the phrase in Shevuot: Which comprise four? The Gemara answers: It is possible to arrive at a total of four. Cases of carrying in from the public domain to the private domain are also enumerated in tractate Shevuot. Consequently, there are two cases of carrying out and two cases of carrying in.
讜讛讗 讬爪讬讗讜转 拽转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转谞讗 讛讻谞住讛 谞诪讬 讛讜爪讗讛 拽专讬 诇讛
The Gemara objects: In Shevuot, the phrase: Acts of carrying out, is taught in the mishna, not acts of carrying in. Rav Ashi said: The tanna in Shevuot also refers to carrying in as carrying out.
诪诪讗讬 诪讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪专砖讜转 诇专砖讜转 讞讬讬讘 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讛 讛讜爪讗讛
From where do I know this? From that which we learned in a mishna: One who carries out an object from one domain to another is liable. Are we not also dealing with a case where he is carrying it in from the public domain to the private domain, and nevertheless the mishna characterizes it as carrying out?
讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讻诇 注拽讬专转 讞驻抓 诪诪拽讜诪讜 转谞讗 讛讜爪讗讛 拽专讬 诇讛
And what is the reason that the term carrying out is used to refer to an act of carrying in? The tanna characterizes any act that involves lifting of an object from its place and transferring it to another domain as carrying out. Carrying out does not refer only to carrying an object out from one鈥檚 house. Rather, it is a general depiction of moving an object from the domain in which it is located into another domain.
讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讬爪讬讗讜转 讜拽讗 诪驻专砖 讛讻谞住讛 诇讗诇转专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛
Ravina said: Our mishna is also precise, and its language leads us to the same conclusion, as the expression: Acts of carrying out on Shabbat, was taught in our mishna, yet immediately a case of carrying in is articulated. The first case listed in our mishna involves the poor person placing an object into the hand of the homeowner, which is a case of carrying in from the public to the private domain. The Gemara notes: Indeed, conclude from this that the term carrying out also refers to carrying in.
专讘讗 讗诪专 专砖讜讬讜转 拽转谞讬 专砖讜讬讜转 砖讘转 砖转讬诐:
Rava said: The language of the mishnayot poses no difficulty. The tanna in both of these mishnayot did not teach: Acts of carrying out on Shabbat. Rather, he taught: Domains of Shabbat. The correct version of the mishna is: The domains of Shabbat are two that comprise four, and, according to this tanna, there are four instances of prohibited labor in these two domains, inside and outside.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪转谞讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讗 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 转专转讬 住专讬 讛讜讬讬谉
Rav Mattana said to Abaye: The mishna speaks of two that comprise four inside and two that comprise four outside, for a total of eight. Yet there is a difficulty: Are these eight cases? They are twelve. Upon closer inspection, in the four cases in the latter part of the mishna, the homeowner and the poor person each performs an individual action contributing to the overall prohibited labor of carrying in or carrying out. Consequently, there are four actions in the first part of the mishna and eight actions in the second part.
讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 砖讬转住专讬 讛讜讬讬谉
Abaye responded: According to your reasoning, they are sixteen actions, as even in the first part of our mishna, the one who receives the object and the one who places the object each participates in the performance of a prohibited action. Therefore, there are a total of sixteen actions.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘砖诇诪讗
Rav Mattana said to Abaye: That is not difficult, as granted,
