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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 11, 2020 | 讟状讜 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'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 5

Today’s shiur is sponsored by Betsy Mehlman and the Mehlman family in memory of their father and grandfather z”l.

The gemara continues to bring answers and challenge them to the question: how did the minsha bring cases where one is obligated if the item was uprooted and placed in someone’s hand and not from/in a space of four by four handsbreaths? The gemara brings six answers and rejects them all, other than the last – of Rava – that a person’s hand is significant like a space of 4×4. The gemara brings various laws stated by Rabbi Yochanan regarding similar cases – throwing items in the public domain to someone else, throwing and catching it oneself in a different place than one intended originally, taking rainwater from someone else’s domain and bringing it into the public domain, taking food that one intended to move around the house but then took them outside. In all these cases – is one obligated or not? On what circumstances does it depend?

 

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪拽讜专讛 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讬转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬讗 讚诪讬讗 讗讘诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 诇讗

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only deemed him liable in the covered private domain, with a roof, as we say: The house is considered as one that is full? The entire house with all its space is considered one unit, and each part of it is considered as if it is filled with actual objects. Therefore, an object passing through the house is considered as if it landed on an actual surface of at least four by four handbreadths. However, in a private domain that is not covered, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not deem him liable.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪拽讜专讛 讛转讬谞讞 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪拽讜专讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪拽讜专讛 诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪拽讜专讛 驻讟讜专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讚讙诇讬 诪讚讘专

And if you say: Here too our mishna is speaking about a covered domain, and therefore the lifting from and the placing on the hand are considered as if they were performed in a place that is four handbreadths; granted, in a covered private domain lifting from and placing in a hand are considered as if it were lifted from and placed onto an area of four by four handbreadths, but in a covered public domain is he liable at all? Didn鈥檛 Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda say that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: One who carries an object four cubits from place to place in a covered public domain, even though transferring an object four cubits in the public domain is like carrying out from one domain to another and prohibited by Torah law, in this case, he is not liable? The reason is that since the covered public domain is not similar to the banners in the desert, i.e., the area in which the banners of the tribes of Israel passed in the desert. The labors prohibited on Shabbat are derived from the labors that were performed in the building of the Tabernacle during the encampment of Israel in the desert, and the desert was most definitely not covered. Consequently, even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion, it is impossible to explain that our mishna is referring to the case of a covered public domain.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讘诇 讞讬讬讘 注拽专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讘诇 驻讟讜专 注诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讘诇 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛谞讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: There must be a different source for our mishna. Whose opinion is it in our mishna? It is the opinion of A岣rim, as it was taught in a baraita: A岣rim say: One who stood in his place on Shabbat and received an object thrown to him from another domain, the one who threw the object is liable for the prohibited labor of carrying out, as he both lifted and placed the object. However, if the one who received the object moved from his place, ran toward the object, and then received it in his hand, he, the one who threw it, is exempt. That is because, even though he performed an act of lifting, the placing of the object was facilitated by the action of the one who received it, and therefore the one who threw it did not perform the act of placing. In any case, according to the opinion of A岣rim, if he stood in his place and received the object, the one who threw it is liable. Don鈥檛 we require placing upon an area of four by four handbreadths and there is none in this case? Rather, certainly conclude from this that according to A岣rim we do not require an area of four by four.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讞讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛讗 注拽讬专讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛谞讞讛 谞诪讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讚驻砖讬讟 讻谞驻讬讛 讜拽讬讘诇讛 讚讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讛谞讞讛

The Gemara rejects this: This is not a proof, and one could say: Perhaps it is specifically for placing that we do not require an area of four by four; however, for lifting we require an area of four by four in order to consider it significant. And with regard to placing as well, one could say: Perhaps it was performed in a manner in which he extended the corners of his coat and received it, so in that case there is also placing upon an area of four by four. Therefore, there is no proof from here.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讙讜谉 (砖拽讘诇 讘讟专住拽诇) 讜讛谞讬讞 注诇 讙讘讬 讟专住拽诇 讚讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讛谞讞讛 讜讛讗 讬讚讜 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 讟专住拽诇 砖讘讬讚讜

Rabbi Abba said: Our mishna is speaking about a special case where he received, i.e., lifted, the object that was in a basket [teraskal] and he placed it atop a basket. In that case, there is also placing performed upon an area of four by four handbreadths. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: His hand? So how can you say that he received it in a basket? The Gemara answers: Emend the text of the mishna and teach: The basket in his hand.

讛转讬谞讞 讟专住拽诇 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗诇讗 讟专住拽诇 砖讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks about this matter: Granted, when the basket was in the private domain, but if it was a basket that was placed in the public domain, doesn鈥檛 it immediately become the private domain? Presumably, the basket is ten handbreadths above the ground, and its surface is the requisite size for creating a private domain.

诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘专讗砖讜 讟专住拽诇 讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘

Since that is not the explanation given, let us say that this is a proof that our mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who stuck a stick into the ground in the public domain, and hung a basket atop it, and threw an object from the public domain, and it landed upon it, he is liable, because he threw it from the public domain into the private domain. Since the surface of the basket is four by four handbreadths and it is ten handbreadths above the ground, it is considered a private domain. Even though the stick, which is serving as the base for this basket, is not four handbreadths wide, since the basket is that wide, we consider it as if the sides of the basket descend in a straight line. Consequently, a type of pillar of a private domain is formed in the public domain.

讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 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 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 拽讗 诪驻讬拽

Our mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, in a case where the owner of the house extended his hand outside and placed an object in the basket in the hand of the poor person in the public domain, why is he liable? According to his opinion, the basket is considered a private domain and he, the owner of the house, is merely carrying out from private domain to private domain. This proves that the opinion of our mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讛讻讗 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛

The Gemara answers: Even if you say that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, there, where we learned that a basket is considered like a private domain, was in a case in which the basket was above ten handbreadths off the ground. Here, in our mishna, the basket was below ten handbreadths off the ground. Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, in a case where it is below ten handbreadths it is not considered a private domain, rather it is part of the public domain. Therefore, it is considered carrying out and he is liable.

拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讟专住拽诇 砖讘讬讚讜 讜讛讗 讬讚讜 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻讙讜谉 砖砖诇砖诇 讬讚讜 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讜拽讘诇讛

The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, this explanation is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu: Was the language taught in the mishna: A basket in his hand? His hand, was taught. There is no reason to emend the mishna in that way. Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said: The mishna here is referring to a case where the poor person lowered his hand below three handbreadths off the ground and received that object in his hand. Below three handbreadths is considered, in all respects, to be appended to the ground and, therefore, a place of four by four handbreadths.

讜讛讗 注讜诪讚 拽转谞讬 讘砖讜讞讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讙讜诪讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘谞谞住

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 the mishna teach: The poor person stands outside? If he is standing, how is it possible that his hand is within three handbreadths of the ground? Rabbi Abbahu answered: It is describing a case where he is bending down. In that case, his hand could be adjacent to the ground even though he is standing. And if you wish, say instead that it is possible in a case where the poor person is standing in a hole and his hand is adjacent to the ground. And if you wish, say instead a different depiction of the situation: The mishna is speaking about a case involving a midget [nanas], whose hands, even when standing, are within three handbreadths of the ground.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬讻驻诇 转谞讗 诇讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讜 讻讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讜 讻讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛

About all of these Rava said: Did the tanna go to all that trouble in an effort to teach us all of these cases? It is difficult to accept that the tanna could not find a more conventional manner to explain the halakha. Rather, Rava said: The problem must be resolved by establishing the principle: A person鈥檚 hand is considered like four by four handbreadths for him. It is true that lifting and placing upon a significant place are required. However, even though a significant place is normally no less than four handbreadths, the hand of a person is significant enough for it to be considered a significant place as far as the halakhot of Shabbat are concerned. And, so too, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A person鈥檚 hand is considered four by four handbreadths for him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专拽 讞驻抓 讜谞讞 讘转讜讱 讬讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讜 讻讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讞砖讘讛 讛讜讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讞砖讘讛 讛讜讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Elai said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who threw an object and it landed in the hand of another who is in a different domain is liable. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? What halakhic principle is conveyed through this statement? Is it that a person鈥檚 hand is considered four by four for him? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan already say that one time? Why was it necessary to repeat it, albeit in a different context? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the halakha cited by Rabbi Elai as well, lest you say that this, the principle that a person鈥檚 hand is significant, applies only where he himself deemed his hand significant by lifting or receiving an object with his hand. However, where he did not deem his hand significant, rather the object fell into another鈥檚 hand without his intention, perhaps the hand is not considered a significant place and he would not be liable. Therefore, he teaches us that the hand鈥檚 significance is absolute and not dependent upon the intention of the one initiating the action.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讬讘诇 讞讬讬讘 注拽专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讬讘诇 驻讟讜专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讬讘诇 讞讬讬讘 注拽专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讬讘诇 驻讟讜专

Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Elai said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said additionally: One who stood in his place and received an object that was thrown to him from another domain, the one who threw it is liable. However, if he moved from his place and then received the object, the one who threw it is exempt. That was also taught in a baraita. A岣rim say: If he stood in his place and received in his hand the object that was thrown from another domain, the one who threw it is liable. And if he moved from his place and received it, he is exempt.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专拽 讞驻抓 讜谞注拽专 讛讜讗 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讜讞讝专 讜拽讬讘诇讜 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a related dilemma: One who threw an object from one domain and moved from his place and ran to another domain and then received the same object in his hand in the second domain, what is his legal status?

诪讗讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖谞讬 讻讞讜转 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 砖谞讬 讻讞讜转 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讻讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讚诪讬 讜讞讬讬讘 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讚诪讬 讜驻讟讜专 转讬拽讜

To clarify the matter, the Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? Didn鈥檛 one person perform a complete act of lifting and placing? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: His dilemma was with regard to two forces in one person. Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a dilemma with regard to one who performs two separate actions rather than one continuous action. Are two forces in one person considered like one person, and he is liable? Or, perhaps they are considered like two people, and he is exempt? This dilemma remains unresolved and therefore, let it stand.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻谞讬住 讬讚讜 诇转讜讱 讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 讜拽讬讘诇 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讞讬讬讘 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讛 诇讬 讛讟注讬谞讜 讞讘讬专讜 诪讛 诇讬 讛讟注讬谞讜 砖诪讬诐 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 注讘讬讚 注拽讬专讛 诇讗 转讬诪讗 拽讬讘诇 讗诇讗 拽诇讟 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 注拽讬专讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讬讻讗

Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If he brought his hand into the courtyard of another and received rainwater that fell at that time into his hand and carried it out to another domain, he is liable. Rabbi Zeira objects to this: What is the difference to me if his friend loaded him with an object, i.e., his friend placed an object in his hand, and what is the difference to me if Heaven loaded him with rainwater? In neither case did he perform an act of lifting. Why then should he be liable for carrying out from domain to domain? The Gemara answers: Do not say: He received rainwater, indicating that he passively received the rainwater in his hand. Rather, read: He actively gathered rainwater in his hand from the air, which is tantamount to lifting. The Gemara asks: In order to become liable, don鈥檛 we require lifting from atop an area of four handbreadths, and in this case there is none? How, therefore, would he be liable?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽诇讟 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讜转诇 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讜转诇 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讗 讗讛讗 讚转谞谉

Rabbi 岣yya, son of Rav Huna, said: It is a case where he gathered the rainwater from atop and on the side of the wall, so he lifted it from a significant place. Therefore, it is considered an act of lifting, and he is liable. The Gemara questions: Atop a wall, too, the rain did not come to rest. Rather, it immediately and continuously flowed. If so, the lifting was not from the wall at all. The Gemara answers: As Rava said in another context that the case involves an inclined wall, here too the case involves an inclined wall. The Gemara asks: And where was this statement of Rava stated? It was stated with regard to that which we learned in a mishna:

讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘住驻专 注诇 讛讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讜谞转讙诇讙诇 讛住驻专 诪讬讚讜 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜谞转讙诇讙诇 讛住驻专 诪讬讚讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 诪砖讛讙讬注 诇注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 讛讻转讘 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讗诪讗讬 讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 讛讻转讘 讛讗 诇讗 谞讞

One who was reading a sacred book in scroll form on Shabbat on an elevated, wide threshold and the book rolled from his hand outside and into the public domain, he may roll it back to himself, since one of its ends is still in his hand. However, if he was reading on top the roof, which is a full-fledged private domain, and the book rolled from his hand, as long as the edge of the book did not reach ten handbreadths above the public domain, the book is still in its own area, and he may roll it back to himself. However, once the book has reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, he is prohibited to roll it back to himself. In that case, he may only turn it over onto the side with writing, so that the writing of the book should face down and should not be exposed and degraded. And we discussed this halakha: Why must he turn it over onto the side with writing, and he is prohibited to bring the book back to himself? Didn鈥檛 the book not yet come to rest upon a defined area in the public domain? Even if he brought it back it would not constitute lifting.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讘住驻专 讚注讘讬讚 讚谞讬讬讞 诪讬诐 诪讬 注讘讬讚讬 讚谞讬讬讞讬

And Rava said: It is referring to the case of an inclined wall. Because it is inclined, the scroll is resting upon it to some degree. However, that answer is not effective in explaining the case of gathering water. Say that Rava said that the legal status of the slanted wall is different, specifically with regard to a book, as it is wont to come to rest upon an inclined wall. In contrast, is water wont to come to rest upon an inclined wall? It continues flowing. Consequently, the question with regard to water remains.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽诇讟 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讙讜诪讗 讙讜诪讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐 诇讗讜 讛谞讞讛 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, Rava said: Here, it is referring to a case where he gathered the rainwater from on top of a hole filled with water. The Gemara asks: If he gathered it from on top of a hole, it is obvious that it is considered like lifting from a significant place. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since the water that comes down from the roof into the hole it is water on top of water and, perhaps, it is not considered placing. Therefore, he taught us that collecting water from on top of a hole filled with water is considered an act of lifting an object from its placement.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讛谞讞转谉 讗讙讜讝 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讛谞讞转讜 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 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 讚谞讬讬讚 转讬拽讜

The Gemara comments: And Rava follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rava already said: It is obvious to me that water on top of water, that is its placement, and lifting the water from there is an act of lifting in every sense. It is also obvious that if a nut is floating on top of water, that is not considered its placement, and therefore lifting it from there is not considered an act of lifting. However, Rava raised a dilemma: In a case where a nut is in a vessel, and that vessel is floating on top of water, and one lifted the nut from the vessel, is that considered an act of lifting? The sides of the dilemma are: Do we go according to the nut and the halakha is decided exclusively based on its status, and it is at rest in the vessel? Or perhaps, we go according to the vessel and it is not at rest, as it is moving from place to place on the surface of the water. This dilemma remained unresolved, and therefore let it stand.

砖诪谉 砖爪祝 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 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讞讜讘专讬诐 讝讛 诇讝讛

A similar dilemma was raised with regard to oil that was floating on top of wine. Oil does not mix with wine. Rather, it floats on top of it in a separate layer. Resolution of this dilemma is dependent on a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. Is oil considered a discrete entity placed on the wine? Or, perhaps it is considered to be connected to the wine? As we learned in a mishna: Oil that was floating on top of wine and one who immersed himself during the day touched the oil, he disqualified only the oil alone and not the wine, as he only touched the oil and the oil does not render the wine impure. And Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: They both are considered connected to each other, and therefore they are both rendered impure through the same contact. The consideration of whether the oil and the wine are considered connected is the determining factor with regard to the laws of Shabbat as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讛 讟注讜谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讜谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬注诪讜讚

Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Elai said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who was standing in the private domain or the public domain laden with food and drinks on Shabbat, and his intention was to carry them to another corner of the same domain, if once he began walking he changed his mind and exited that domain, and he enters and exits from domain to domain, even if he does so all day long, he is exempt by Torah law for carrying out on Shabbat until he stands still. Moving the object is not considered carrying out, since he did not intend from the outset to move himself in order to carry out. Therefore, only after he stands still can it be considered a bona fide placement, and only when he subsequently moves and walks would he incur liability.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 砖注诪讚 诇驻讜砖 诪诪讗讬 诪讚讗诪专 诪专 转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诪讚 诇驻讜砖 驻讟讜专 诇讻转祝 讞讬讬讘 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诪讚 诇驻讜砖 讞讬讬讘 诇讻转祝 驻讟讜专

Abaye added and said: And that is specifically if he stopped to rest; then it is considered placement. However, if he stopped to adjust his burden, it is not considered placement. The Gemara comments: From where did Abaye arrive at this conclusion? From that which the Master said with regard to the laws of carrying in the public domain: Although, by Torah law, one who transfers an object four cubits in the public domain is liable, if while transferring the object he stopped to rest within four cubits, he is exempt. By stopping to rest, he performed an act of placement in the middle of the transfer. As a result, he did not carry the object four complete cubits. However, if he stopped to adjust the burden on his shoulders, he is liable, as stopping in order to adjust his burden is not considered an act of placement. It is considered an action required to facilitate the continued carrying of that burden. On the other hand, after he walked beyond four cubits, if he stopped to rest, he thereby performed an act of placement and completed the prohibited labor, and he is liable; if he stopped to adjust the burden on his shoulders, he is exempt. From this halakha, Abaye learned that only when one stops to rest is it considered an act of placement in terms of the prohibited labor of carrying on Shabbat.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 注拽讬专讛 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱 讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪注讘讬专 讞驻爪讬诐 诪讝讜讬转 诇讝讜讬转 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 讜讛讜爪讬讗谉 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 注拽讬专讛 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪专 讗诪专 诇讛 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讜诪专 讗诪专 诇讛 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗:

With regard to the essence of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 halakha about entering and exiting all day long, the Gemara asks: What principle is he teaching us with this halakha? Is it to teach that one is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for performing the prohibited labor of carrying out on Shabbat when the lifting of the object from its place from the first moment was not for that purpose of carrying out, but for another purpose? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan already say it once? As Rav Safra said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who transfers objects from corner to corner in a private domain, and, while carrying them, he changed his mind about them and took them out to the public domain, he is exempt because the lifting at the first moment was not for that purpose of carrying out to another domain. Why, then, was it necessary to repeat the same halakha? The Gemara answers: They are different amora鈥檌m who transmitted this matter. One Sage said it in this language and one Sage said it in that language. They chose different halakhot to relate the principle that Rabbi Yo岣nan stated a single time.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞谞讜转 诇驻诇讟讬讗 讚专讱 住讟讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讘谉 注讝讗讬 驻讜讟专

Since the issue of interruptions in the performance of the prohibited labor of carrying out was mentioned above, the Gemara proceeds to discuss a more complex related issue. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who carries an object out from a store, which is a private domain, to a plaza [pelatia], which is a public domain, by way of a colonnade [setav], which is situated between the store and the public domain and whose legal status is that of a karmelit, is liable, as he carried out from the private domain to the public domain. And ben Azzai deems him exempt.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 拽住讘专 诪讛诇讱 讻注讜诪讚 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 专讘谞谉 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚拽住讘专讬 诪讛诇讱 诇讗讜 讻注讜诪讚 讚诪讬 讛讬讻讗 讗砖讻讞谞讗 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚讞讬讬讘

The Gemara clarifies the opinions. Granted, the opinion of ben Azzai makes sense, as he holds that walking is considered like standing. In other words, with each step, he is considered as if he came to a complete stop. Therefore, as he walked through the colonnade, which is neither a public domain nor a private domain, he came to rest there. Consequently, he did not carry from a private domain to a public domain; he carried into and out of a karmelit. However, the Rabbis, although they hold that walking is not considered like standing, their opinion is difficult. Where do we find a comparable case where one is liable? There is no direct transfer from domain to domain. The transfer is via a domain where there is no Torah prohibition. Where do we find that the Torah deemed one who carried out in that manner liable?

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rav Safra said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That is not an exceptional case,

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 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

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time- Daf 3-11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VVV4BSVPlg&t= For audio only:   Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 5: What If You Never Stop Walking?

More on the expansiveness of the definitions of Hotza'ah - with a focus on "hanachah," namely, what it means to...

Shabbat 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 5

诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪拽讜专讛 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讬转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬讗 讚诪讬讗 讗讘诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 诇讗

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only deemed him liable in the covered private domain, with a roof, as we say: The house is considered as one that is full? The entire house with all its space is considered one unit, and each part of it is considered as if it is filled with actual objects. Therefore, an object passing through the house is considered as if it landed on an actual surface of at least four by four handbreadths. However, in a private domain that is not covered, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not deem him liable.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪拽讜专讛 讛转讬谞讞 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪拽讜专讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪拽讜专讛 诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪拽讜专讛 驻讟讜专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讚讙诇讬 诪讚讘专

And if you say: Here too our mishna is speaking about a covered domain, and therefore the lifting from and the placing on the hand are considered as if they were performed in a place that is four handbreadths; granted, in a covered private domain lifting from and placing in a hand are considered as if it were lifted from and placed onto an area of four by four handbreadths, but in a covered public domain is he liable at all? Didn鈥檛 Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda say that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: One who carries an object four cubits from place to place in a covered public domain, even though transferring an object four cubits in the public domain is like carrying out from one domain to another and prohibited by Torah law, in this case, he is not liable? The reason is that since the covered public domain is not similar to the banners in the desert, i.e., the area in which the banners of the tribes of Israel passed in the desert. The labors prohibited on Shabbat are derived from the labors that were performed in the building of the Tabernacle during the encampment of Israel in the desert, and the desert was most definitely not covered. Consequently, even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion, it is impossible to explain that our mishna is referring to the case of a covered public domain.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讘诇 讞讬讬讘 注拽专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讘诇 驻讟讜专 注诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讘诇 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛谞讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: There must be a different source for our mishna. Whose opinion is it in our mishna? It is the opinion of A岣rim, as it was taught in a baraita: A岣rim say: One who stood in his place on Shabbat and received an object thrown to him from another domain, the one who threw the object is liable for the prohibited labor of carrying out, as he both lifted and placed the object. However, if the one who received the object moved from his place, ran toward the object, and then received it in his hand, he, the one who threw it, is exempt. That is because, even though he performed an act of lifting, the placing of the object was facilitated by the action of the one who received it, and therefore the one who threw it did not perform the act of placing. In any case, according to the opinion of A岣rim, if he stood in his place and received the object, the one who threw it is liable. Don鈥檛 we require placing upon an area of four by four handbreadths and there is none in this case? Rather, certainly conclude from this that according to A岣rim we do not require an area of four by four.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讞讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛讗 注拽讬专讛 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛谞讞讛 谞诪讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讚驻砖讬讟 讻谞驻讬讛 讜拽讬讘诇讛 讚讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讛谞讞讛

The Gemara rejects this: This is not a proof, and one could say: Perhaps it is specifically for placing that we do not require an area of four by four; however, for lifting we require an area of four by four in order to consider it significant. And with regard to placing as well, one could say: Perhaps it was performed in a manner in which he extended the corners of his coat and received it, so in that case there is also placing upon an area of four by four. Therefore, there is no proof from here.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讙讜谉 (砖拽讘诇 讘讟专住拽诇) 讜讛谞讬讞 注诇 讙讘讬 讟专住拽诇 讚讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讛谞讞讛 讜讛讗 讬讚讜 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 讟专住拽诇 砖讘讬讚讜

Rabbi Abba said: Our mishna is speaking about a special case where he received, i.e., lifted, the object that was in a basket [teraskal] and he placed it atop a basket. In that case, there is also placing performed upon an area of four by four handbreadths. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: His hand? So how can you say that he received it in a basket? The Gemara answers: Emend the text of the mishna and teach: The basket in his hand.

讛转讬谞讞 讟专住拽诇 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗诇讗 讟专住拽诇 砖讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks about this matter: Granted, when the basket was in the private domain, but if it was a basket that was placed in the public domain, doesn鈥檛 it immediately become the private domain? Presumably, the basket is ten handbreadths above the ground, and its surface is the requisite size for creating a private domain.

诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘专讗砖讜 讟专住拽诇 讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘

Since that is not the explanation given, let us say that this is a proof that our mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who stuck a stick into the ground in the public domain, and hung a basket atop it, and threw an object from the public domain, and it landed upon it, he is liable, because he threw it from the public domain into the private domain. Since the surface of the basket is four by four handbreadths and it is ten handbreadths above the ground, it is considered a private domain. Even though the stick, which is serving as the base for this basket, is not four handbreadths wide, since the basket is that wide, we consider it as if the sides of the basket descend in a straight line. Consequently, a type of pillar of a private domain is formed in the public domain.

讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 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 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 拽讗 诪驻讬拽

Our mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, in a case where the owner of the house extended his hand outside and placed an object in the basket in the hand of the poor person in the public domain, why is he liable? According to his opinion, the basket is considered a private domain and he, the owner of the house, is merely carrying out from private domain to private domain. This proves that the opinion of our mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讛讻讗 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛

The Gemara answers: Even if you say that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, there, where we learned that a basket is considered like a private domain, was in a case in which the basket was above ten handbreadths off the ground. Here, in our mishna, the basket was below ten handbreadths off the ground. Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, in a case where it is below ten handbreadths it is not considered a private domain, rather it is part of the public domain. Therefore, it is considered carrying out and he is liable.

拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讟专住拽诇 砖讘讬讚讜 讜讛讗 讬讚讜 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻讙讜谉 砖砖诇砖诇 讬讚讜 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讜拽讘诇讛

The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, this explanation is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu: Was the language taught in the mishna: A basket in his hand? His hand, was taught. There is no reason to emend the mishna in that way. Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said: The mishna here is referring to a case where the poor person lowered his hand below three handbreadths off the ground and received that object in his hand. Below three handbreadths is considered, in all respects, to be appended to the ground and, therefore, a place of four by four handbreadths.

讜讛讗 注讜诪讚 拽转谞讬 讘砖讜讞讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讙讜诪讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘谞谞住

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 the mishna teach: The poor person stands outside? If he is standing, how is it possible that his hand is within three handbreadths of the ground? Rabbi Abbahu answered: It is describing a case where he is bending down. In that case, his hand could be adjacent to the ground even though he is standing. And if you wish, say instead that it is possible in a case where the poor person is standing in a hole and his hand is adjacent to the ground. And if you wish, say instead a different depiction of the situation: The mishna is speaking about a case involving a midget [nanas], whose hands, even when standing, are within three handbreadths of the ground.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬讻驻诇 转谞讗 诇讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讜 讻讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讜 讻讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛

About all of these Rava said: Did the tanna go to all that trouble in an effort to teach us all of these cases? It is difficult to accept that the tanna could not find a more conventional manner to explain the halakha. Rather, Rava said: The problem must be resolved by establishing the principle: A person鈥檚 hand is considered like four by four handbreadths for him. It is true that lifting and placing upon a significant place are required. However, even though a significant place is normally no less than four handbreadths, the hand of a person is significant enough for it to be considered a significant place as far as the halakhot of Shabbat are concerned. And, so too, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A person鈥檚 hand is considered four by four handbreadths for him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专拽 讞驻抓 讜谞讞 讘转讜讱 讬讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讜 讻讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讞砖讘讛 讛讜讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讞砖讘讛 讛讜讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Elai said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who threw an object and it landed in the hand of another who is in a different domain is liable. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? What halakhic principle is conveyed through this statement? Is it that a person鈥檚 hand is considered four by four for him? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan already say that one time? Why was it necessary to repeat it, albeit in a different context? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the halakha cited by Rabbi Elai as well, lest you say that this, the principle that a person鈥檚 hand is significant, applies only where he himself deemed his hand significant by lifting or receiving an object with his hand. However, where he did not deem his hand significant, rather the object fell into another鈥檚 hand without his intention, perhaps the hand is not considered a significant place and he would not be liable. Therefore, he teaches us that the hand鈥檚 significance is absolute and not dependent upon the intention of the one initiating the action.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讬讘诇 讞讬讬讘 注拽专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讬讘诇 驻讟讜专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讬讘诇 讞讬讬讘 注拽专 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讜拽讬讘诇 驻讟讜专

Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Elai said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said additionally: One who stood in his place and received an object that was thrown to him from another domain, the one who threw it is liable. However, if he moved from his place and then received the object, the one who threw it is exempt. That was also taught in a baraita. A岣rim say: If he stood in his place and received in his hand the object that was thrown from another domain, the one who threw it is liable. And if he moved from his place and received it, he is exempt.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝专拽 讞驻抓 讜谞注拽专 讛讜讗 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讜讞讝专 讜拽讬讘诇讜 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a related dilemma: One who threw an object from one domain and moved from his place and ran to another domain and then received the same object in his hand in the second domain, what is his legal status?

诪讗讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖谞讬 讻讞讜转 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 砖谞讬 讻讞讜转 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讻讗讚诐 讗讞讚 讚诪讬 讜讞讬讬讘 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讚诪讬 讜驻讟讜专 转讬拽讜

To clarify the matter, the Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? Didn鈥檛 one person perform a complete act of lifting and placing? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: His dilemma was with regard to two forces in one person. Rabbi Yo岣nan raised a dilemma with regard to one who performs two separate actions rather than one continuous action. Are two forces in one person considered like one person, and he is liable? Or, perhaps they are considered like two people, and he is exempt? This dilemma remains unresolved and therefore, let it stand.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻谞讬住 讬讚讜 诇转讜讱 讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 讜拽讬讘诇 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讞讬讬讘 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讛 诇讬 讛讟注讬谞讜 讞讘讬专讜 诪讛 诇讬 讛讟注讬谞讜 砖诪讬诐 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 注讘讬讚 注拽讬专讛 诇讗 转讬诪讗 拽讬讘诇 讗诇讗 拽诇讟 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 注拽讬专讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讬讻讗

Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If he brought his hand into the courtyard of another and received rainwater that fell at that time into his hand and carried it out to another domain, he is liable. Rabbi Zeira objects to this: What is the difference to me if his friend loaded him with an object, i.e., his friend placed an object in his hand, and what is the difference to me if Heaven loaded him with rainwater? In neither case did he perform an act of lifting. Why then should he be liable for carrying out from domain to domain? The Gemara answers: Do not say: He received rainwater, indicating that he passively received the rainwater in his hand. Rather, read: He actively gathered rainwater in his hand from the air, which is tantamount to lifting. The Gemara asks: In order to become liable, don鈥檛 we require lifting from atop an area of four handbreadths, and in this case there is none? How, therefore, would he be liable?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽诇讟 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讜转诇 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讜转诇 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讗 讗讛讗 讚转谞谉

Rabbi 岣yya, son of Rav Huna, said: It is a case where he gathered the rainwater from atop and on the side of the wall, so he lifted it from a significant place. Therefore, it is considered an act of lifting, and he is liable. The Gemara questions: Atop a wall, too, the rain did not come to rest. Rather, it immediately and continuously flowed. If so, the lifting was not from the wall at all. The Gemara answers: As Rava said in another context that the case involves an inclined wall, here too the case involves an inclined wall. The Gemara asks: And where was this statement of Rava stated? It was stated with regard to that which we learned in a mishna:

讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘住驻专 注诇 讛讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讜谞转讙诇讙诇 讛住驻专 诪讬讚讜 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜谞转讙诇讙诇 讛住驻专 诪讬讚讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 诪砖讛讙讬注 诇注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 讛讻转讘 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讗诪讗讬 讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 讛讻转讘 讛讗 诇讗 谞讞

One who was reading a sacred book in scroll form on Shabbat on an elevated, wide threshold and the book rolled from his hand outside and into the public domain, he may roll it back to himself, since one of its ends is still in his hand. However, if he was reading on top the roof, which is a full-fledged private domain, and the book rolled from his hand, as long as the edge of the book did not reach ten handbreadths above the public domain, the book is still in its own area, and he may roll it back to himself. However, once the book has reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, he is prohibited to roll it back to himself. In that case, he may only turn it over onto the side with writing, so that the writing of the book should face down and should not be exposed and degraded. And we discussed this halakha: Why must he turn it over onto the side with writing, and he is prohibited to bring the book back to himself? Didn鈥檛 the book not yet come to rest upon a defined area in the public domain? Even if he brought it back it would not constitute lifting.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讘住驻专 讚注讘讬讚 讚谞讬讬讞 诪讬诐 诪讬 注讘讬讚讬 讚谞讬讬讞讬

And Rava said: It is referring to the case of an inclined wall. Because it is inclined, the scroll is resting upon it to some degree. However, that answer is not effective in explaining the case of gathering water. Say that Rava said that the legal status of the slanted wall is different, specifically with regard to a book, as it is wont to come to rest upon an inclined wall. In contrast, is water wont to come to rest upon an inclined wall? It continues flowing. Consequently, the question with regard to water remains.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽诇讟 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讙讜诪讗 讙讜诪讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐 诇讗讜 讛谞讞讛 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, Rava said: Here, it is referring to a case where he gathered the rainwater from on top of a hole filled with water. The Gemara asks: If he gathered it from on top of a hole, it is obvious that it is considered like lifting from a significant place. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since the water that comes down from the roof into the hole it is water on top of water and, perhaps, it is not considered placing. Therefore, he taught us that collecting water from on top of a hole filled with water is considered an act of lifting an object from its placement.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讛谞讞转谉 讗讙讜讝 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬诐 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讛谞讞转讜 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 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 讚谞讬讬讚 转讬拽讜

The Gemara comments: And Rava follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rava already said: It is obvious to me that water on top of water, that is its placement, and lifting the water from there is an act of lifting in every sense. It is also obvious that if a nut is floating on top of water, that is not considered its placement, and therefore lifting it from there is not considered an act of lifting. However, Rava raised a dilemma: In a case where a nut is in a vessel, and that vessel is floating on top of water, and one lifted the nut from the vessel, is that considered an act of lifting? The sides of the dilemma are: Do we go according to the nut and the halakha is decided exclusively based on its status, and it is at rest in the vessel? Or perhaps, we go according to the vessel and it is not at rest, as it is moving from place to place on the surface of the water. This dilemma remained unresolved, and therefore let it stand.

砖诪谉 砖爪祝 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 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讞讜讘专讬诐 讝讛 诇讝讛

A similar dilemma was raised with regard to oil that was floating on top of wine. Oil does not mix with wine. Rather, it floats on top of it in a separate layer. Resolution of this dilemma is dependent on a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. Is oil considered a discrete entity placed on the wine? Or, perhaps it is considered to be connected to the wine? As we learned in a mishna: Oil that was floating on top of wine and one who immersed himself during the day touched the oil, he disqualified only the oil alone and not the wine, as he only touched the oil and the oil does not render the wine impure. And Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: They both are considered connected to each other, and therefore they are both rendered impure through the same contact. The consideration of whether the oil and the wine are considered connected is the determining factor with regard to the laws of Shabbat as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讛 讟注讜谉 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讜谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬注诪讜讚

Rabbi Avin said that Rabbi Elai said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who was standing in the private domain or the public domain laden with food and drinks on Shabbat, and his intention was to carry them to another corner of the same domain, if once he began walking he changed his mind and exited that domain, and he enters and exits from domain to domain, even if he does so all day long, he is exempt by Torah law for carrying out on Shabbat until he stands still. Moving the object is not considered carrying out, since he did not intend from the outset to move himself in order to carry out. Therefore, only after he stands still can it be considered a bona fide placement, and only when he subsequently moves and walks would he incur liability.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 砖注诪讚 诇驻讜砖 诪诪讗讬 诪讚讗诪专 诪专 转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诪讚 诇驻讜砖 驻讟讜专 诇讻转祝 讞讬讬讘 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诪讚 诇驻讜砖 讞讬讬讘 诇讻转祝 驻讟讜专

Abaye added and said: And that is specifically if he stopped to rest; then it is considered placement. However, if he stopped to adjust his burden, it is not considered placement. The Gemara comments: From where did Abaye arrive at this conclusion? From that which the Master said with regard to the laws of carrying in the public domain: Although, by Torah law, one who transfers an object four cubits in the public domain is liable, if while transferring the object he stopped to rest within four cubits, he is exempt. By stopping to rest, he performed an act of placement in the middle of the transfer. As a result, he did not carry the object four complete cubits. However, if he stopped to adjust the burden on his shoulders, he is liable, as stopping in order to adjust his burden is not considered an act of placement. It is considered an action required to facilitate the continued carrying of that burden. On the other hand, after he walked beyond four cubits, if he stopped to rest, he thereby performed an act of placement and completed the prohibited labor, and he is liable; if he stopped to adjust the burden on his shoulders, he is exempt. From this halakha, Abaye learned that only when one stops to rest is it considered an act of placement in terms of the prohibited labor of carrying on Shabbat.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 注拽讬专讛 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱 讛讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪注讘讬专 讞驻爪讬诐 诪讝讜讬转 诇讝讜讬转 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 讜讛讜爪讬讗谉 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 注拽讬专讛 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪专 讗诪专 诇讛 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讜诪专 讗诪专 诇讛 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗:

With regard to the essence of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 halakha about entering and exiting all day long, the Gemara asks: What principle is he teaching us with this halakha? Is it to teach that one is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for performing the prohibited labor of carrying out on Shabbat when the lifting of the object from its place from the first moment was not for that purpose of carrying out, but for another purpose? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan already say it once? As Rav Safra said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who transfers objects from corner to corner in a private domain, and, while carrying them, he changed his mind about them and took them out to the public domain, he is exempt because the lifting at the first moment was not for that purpose of carrying out to another domain. Why, then, was it necessary to repeat the same halakha? The Gemara answers: They are different amora鈥檌m who transmitted this matter. One Sage said it in this language and one Sage said it in that language. They chose different halakhot to relate the principle that Rabbi Yo岣nan stated a single time.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞谞讜转 诇驻诇讟讬讗 讚专讱 住讟讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讜讘谉 注讝讗讬 驻讜讟专

Since the issue of interruptions in the performance of the prohibited labor of carrying out was mentioned above, the Gemara proceeds to discuss a more complex related issue. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who carries an object out from a store, which is a private domain, to a plaza [pelatia], which is a public domain, by way of a colonnade [setav], which is situated between the store and the public domain and whose legal status is that of a karmelit, is liable, as he carried out from the private domain to the public domain. And ben Azzai deems him exempt.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 拽住讘专 诪讛诇讱 讻注讜诪讚 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 专讘谞谉 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚拽住讘专讬 诪讛诇讱 诇讗讜 讻注讜诪讚 讚诪讬 讛讬讻讗 讗砖讻讞谞讗 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚讞讬讬讘

The Gemara clarifies the opinions. Granted, the opinion of ben Azzai makes sense, as he holds that walking is considered like standing. In other words, with each step, he is considered as if he came to a complete stop. Therefore, as he walked through the colonnade, which is neither a public domain nor a private domain, he came to rest there. Consequently, he did not carry from a private domain to a public domain; he carried into and out of a karmelit. However, the Rabbis, although they hold that walking is not considered like standing, their opinion is difficult. Where do we find a comparable case where one is liable? There is no direct transfer from domain to domain. The transfer is via a domain where there is no Torah prohibition. Where do we find that the Torah deemed one who carried out in that manner liable?

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rav Safra said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: That is not an exceptional case,

Scroll To Top