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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 12, 2020 | 讟状讝 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 sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Shabbat 6

Today’s shiur is sponsored by Meryl and Harold Sasnowitz in memory of Malka bat Chaya Ettel and Mordechai and Toba Raizel bat Rochel and Zvi. Refuah Sheleima to Zvi ben Freida.聽聽

If one removes an item from the public domain to the private domain (or the reverse) through a collonade (status of karmelit), is one obligated or not? Debate between Ben Azai and the rabbis. The gemara questions the rabbis opinion who obligates – where do we have a precedent for obligated in a case like this? The gemara brings three answers – the first two are rejected as they are not similar enough. Rabbi Yochanan narrows Ben Azai’s opinion and said he agrees with the rabbis that one would be obligated if one threw it and it only passed through the airspace of the collonade. The gemara quotes the Tosefta which defines each of the four domains and what is allowed or not by Torah and rabbinic law. The gemara then analyzes the wording – questions and then provides answers.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻诪讛 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 驻讟讜专 讻讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

as the halakha there is just as it is in the case of one who transfers an object in the public domain. There, even though as long as he takes it and walks and does not place the object he is exempt, is it not the case that when he places it he is liable? Obviously, between the place where he lifted the object and the place where he placed the object, where there is liability, there lies an undefined area where, as long as he continues walking, he is exempt. Here too, it is no different, as in both cases an identical situation exists: If he places the object at the end of his path he is liable, despite the fact that the area in the middle is an exempt place.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪谞讞 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讞讬讜讘 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 讗讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘住讟讬讜 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this comparison: Is this comparable? There, anywhere that he places the object is a place of potential liability. That cannot be described as two places of liability with an exempt domain between them, as the area between them is also a place of potential liability if he were to place the object there. On the other hand, here, if he places it in the colonnade, it is an absolute exempt domain.

讗诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 诪转讞诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 讻讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘住讜祝 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Again the question arises: Where is there a precedent of liability for transferring an object through an exempt domain? The Gemara answers: Rather, it is possible to cite a different precedent: The halakha here is just as it is in the case of one who transfers an object in the public domain from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits exactly. There, is it not the case that, even though were he to place it within four cubits of where he stands, he is not liable because within four cubits, the complete prohibited labor of carrying in the public domain was not performed; and nevertheless, when he places it at the end of four cubits he is liable? Here too, it is no different. It can be said that there is a strip of exempt domain between the lifting and the placement.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪拽讜诐 讞讬讜讘 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗

Again the Gemara rejects the analogy: Is that similar? There, in the public domain, for this man it is an exempt domain, as it is within four cubits of the place that he lifted the object. However, for the entire world, it is a place of potential liability, as the space itself is a public domain and it could be beyond four cubits for someone else who placed it there, and he would be liable. Here, on the other hand, the colonnade is an exempt domain for the entire world. There is no comparison between an absence of liability that stems from the fact that the prohibited labor was not completed and an unconditional exemption dependent solely on the nature of the domain in question.

讗诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讜爪讬讗 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚专讱 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讗爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专 讜讻讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rather, it is possible to cite a different precedent: The halakha here is just as it is in the case of one who carries out an object from the private domain to the public domain through the sides of the public domain. The sides of a public domain are narrow strips located adjacent to the houses where the multitudes do not congregate. There, is it not the case that, even though if one were to place an object on the sides of the public domain, he is exempt and, nevertheless, when he places it in the public domain he is liable? If so, here too, it is no different.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 (讘谉 讬注拽讘) 讚讗诪专 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this explanation: Granted, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the sides of the public domain are a type of independent domain and not considered the public domain, that precedent is similar to our case. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, who said that the sides of the public domain are considered a full-fledged public domain, what is there to say?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 (讘谉 讬注拽讘) 讚讗诪专 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讞讬驻讜驻讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讬驻讜驻讬 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讱 诇讛讗 讚诪讬讗

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said to him: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov said that the sides of the public domain are considered a public domain in a place where there are no stakes [岣pufei] separating the houses and the courtyards from the actual public domain to prevent the public from damaging the walls of the houses. However, in a place where there are stakes, did you hear him say that the legal status of the sides is that of the public domain itself? Therefore, it is similar to that case of the colonnade, and consequently it serves as a precedent for liability when carrying through an exempt domain.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讜讚讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘讝讜专拽 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 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 讗讞讚 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讻谞讬住 讜讗讞讚 讛讝讜专拽 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讜砖讬讟 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讜讛诪讻谞讬住 驻讟讜专 讛诪讜砖讬讟 讜讛讝讜专拽 讞讬讬讘:

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ben Azzai disagreed with regard to carrying out the object while walking through the colonnade. In his opinion one who carries it out is exempt. Yet, he agrees with the Rabbis that in a case where one throws an object from the private domain to the public domain through a colonnade he is liable, as it is tantamount to carrying out directly from domain to domain. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One who carries out an object on Shabbat from a store to a plaza via a colonnade is liable. The halakha is identical with regard to all means of transferring an object from domain to domain via a colonnade. The same is true for one who carries out, and one who carries in, and one who throws, and one who extends his hand from domain to domain. Ben Azzai says: One who walks and carries out and one who walks and carries in are exempt, as he is considered to have come to rest in the colonnade. On the other hand, one who extends his hand with the object and one who throws the object, whose actions are uninterrupted, are liable.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注 专砖讜讬讜转 诇砖讘转 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讻专诪诇讬转 讜诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专

In order to explain the essence of the laws of domains on Shabbat, the Gemara cites what the Sages taught in the Tosefta, that there are four domains for the halakhot of Shabbat: The private domain, and the public domain, and two additional domains: The karmelit, which is like neither the public domain nor the private domain, and an exempt domain, which does not fall into the category of domains.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讞专讬抓 砖讛讜讗 注诪讜拽 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讜讻谉 讙讚专 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讙诪讜专讛

The Gemara elaborates: And what is the private domain? A ditch which is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, as well as a fence which is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide; that is a full-fledged private domain. The criteria for a private domain are that it must be an area of four by four handbreadths, with a ten-handbreadth difference in elevation from the surrounding environment.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住专讟讬讗 讜驻诇讟讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诪讘讜讗讜转 讛诪驻讜诇砖讬谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙诪讜专讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讝讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讝讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讝讜 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讝讜 讜讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讛讻谞讬住 讘砖讜讙讙 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘诪讝讬讚 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜谞住拽诇

And what is the public domain? A main street [seratia] and a large plaza as well as alleyways [mevo鈥檕t], which are open on both ends to the public domain, connecting between main streets; that is a full-fledged public domain. With regard to those domains: One may not carry out from the private domain of this kind to the public domain of this kind, and one may not carry in from the public domain of this kind to the private domain of this kind. If he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally, and there were no witnesses to his act, and he was not forewarned, he is liable to receive the punishment of excision [karet]. If he was forewarned and there were witnesses to his transgression, he is punished with the court-imposed capital punishment and stoned.

讗讘诇 讬诐 讜讘拽注讛 讜讗讬住讟讜讜谞讬转 讜讛讻专诪诇讬转 讗讬谞讛 诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬谉 谞讜砖讗讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘转讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪转讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇转讜讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇转讜讻讛 讜诇讗 诪转讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讛讻谞讬住 驻讟讜专

However, a sea and a valley and a colonnade and the karmelit all enter into the general category of karmelit, which is neither like the public domain, because the multitudes are not congregated there, nor like the private domain, as it has no partitions. Rather, the Sages instituted that cases like these should be considered an independent domain. One may not carry and place an object in it beyond four cubits, just as it is prohibited to do so in the public domain. And if he nevertheless carried and placed an object in it, he is exempt, as it involves no Torah prohibition. And one may neither carry from it into the public domain nor from the public domain into it, as it is not the public domain. And one may neither carry from the private domain into it nor from it into the private domain, as it is not the private domain. And if he carried out from the private domain or carried in from the public domain, he is exempt, as it involves is no Torah prohibition.

讞爪专讜转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜诪讘讜讗讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 诪驻讜诇砖讬谉 注讬专讘讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗住讜专讬诐

Similarly, there is a type of private domain which, by rabbinic law, has the legal status of a karmelit or a public domain. Courtyards shared by many and alleyways that are not open on both sides are private domains that are somewhat similar to the public domain because many people congregate there. For this reason, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting carrying within them. However, if they placed an eiruv, i.e., a joining of courtyards, to transform a common courtyard into a single domain, or a merging of alleyways to merge a common alleyway shared by several courtyards into a single domain, they are all permitted to carry objects from their houses into the courtyard or from the courtyard into the alleyway, respectively. However, if they did not place an eiruv, they are prohibited to do so.

讗讚诐 注讜诪讚 注诇 讛讗讬住拽讜驻讛 谞讜讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 谞讜讟诇 诪注谞讬 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讟讜诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞讜转谉 诇注谞讬 诪注谞讬 讜谞讜转谉 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讜谞转谉 砖诇砖转谉 驻讟讜专讬诐

An example of the fourth domain listed in the baraita, the exempt domain is: A person standing on the threshold may take an object from the homeowner standing in the private domain and may give an object to him. Similarly, while standing there, he may take an object from a poor person standing in the public domain and may give an object to him because there is no element of prohibition or liability in carrying and carrying out in an exempt domain on Shabbat. There is no prohibition as long as he does not take the object from the homeowner in the private domain and give it to a poor person in the public domain, or from a poor person and give to the homeowner, as by doing so he facilitated transfer from domain to domain. And, however, if he took an object from one and gave it to the other, certainly no labor prohibited by Torah law was performed, and all three of them are exempt.

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬住拽讜驻讛 诪砖诪砖转 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 讘讝诪谉 砖讛驻转讞 驻转讜讞 讻诇驻谞讬诐 驻转讞 谞注讜诇 讻诇讞讜抓 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讛专讬 讝讛 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪讛

A岣rim say: Not every threshold is an exempt domain. Some are not sufficiently isolated from the surrounding domains. Sometimes, a threshold serves as two domains; at times the public domain and at times the private domain, as in different circumstances it is subsumed within the adjacent domain. Therefore, when the doorway is open, the threshold is an extension of the house and considered to be a private domain. If the doorway was locked, it is considered like the outside, like part of the public domain. This applies when the threshold is not an independent domain. And if the threshold was ten handbreadths high above the public domain and four handbreadths wide, it is a domain unto itself, i.e., a full-fledged private domain discrete from the house.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜砖讛

It was taught in the Tosefta with regard to the definition of a private domain that the Master said, with added emphasis: This is the private domain. The Gemara asks: What was this emphasis added to exclude? The Gemara answers: To exclude this halakha of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: One who has two houses opposite each other on two sides of the public domain, if he chooses, he may create a private domain for himself in the public domain. He may place

诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讗诪爪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讻讱

a ten-handbreadth high post from here, perpendicular to the public domain. This creates a symbolic wall which, in the halakhot of alleyways, has the legal status of a wall. And, he may place an additional post from here, on the other side, and that has the same legal status as if he closed the public domain on all of its sides. Or, he can implement a different solution appropriate for alleyways by placing a beam extending from here, from one end of one house, to the end of the house opposite it. This creates a symbolic partition across the width of the street. And, he may place a beam extending from here, from the other side of the house. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in that way, one is permitted to carry objects and place them in the area between the symbolic partitions, as he would in a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One may not place an eiruv in the public domain in that way. One who seeks to transform a public domain into a private domain must erect actual partitions.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讙诪讜专讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讟诇讟诇 讗讘诇 诇讝专讜拽 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

The Gemara questions the language of the Tosefta: This is a full-fledged private domain. And why did they call it full-fledged? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: When do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and say that it is not the private domain? This applies only with regard to the prohibition to carry there on Shabbat. By means of these partitions, it was not rendered a full-fledged private domain to the point that one is permitted to carry there. However, conceivably, with regard to the prohibition of throwing from the public domain to this place, the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda that the area between the partitions would be considered a private domain by Torah law and it would be prohibited. Therefore, the tanna taught us that according to the Rabbis it is not a private domain at all.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬讚讱 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪驻住拽转谉 讬住诇拽谞讛 诇爪讚讚讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

It was also taught in the Tosefta with regard to the definition of a public domain that the Master said, with added emphasis: This is the public domain. The Gemara asks: What was this emphasis added to exclude? The Gemara answers: Here, the Tosefta came to exclude another halakha of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna: The Sages permitted those ascending to Jerusalem on the Festival pilgrimage to place posts serving as symbolic boundaries around the wells, in order to render the wells and their surroundings a private domain. That way, the pilgrims could draw water from the wells even on Shabbat, as they became private domains. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the path of the public domain passes through the area of the wells and the posts and obstructs them, he must divert it to the sides, so that the passersby will not pass through there. In his opinion, many people passing through that area negates the private domain formed merely by means of symbolic boundaries. And the Rabbis say: He need not divert the path of the public domain. The emphasis in the Tosefta: This is the public domain, teaches that only the specific areas listed there fall into the category of a public domain; however, a well around which partitions were established is no longer in the realm of public domain, even if the multitudes continue to walk through that area.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讙诪讜专讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讙诪讜专讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讙诪讜专讛

The Gemara asks: And why do they call it full-fledged? The Gemara answers: This emphasis was unnecessary. But, since he taught the first clause of the Tosefta employing the term full-fledged, he also taught the latter section employing the term full-fledged in the interest of uniformity.

讜诇讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 诪讚讘专 讚讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住专讟讬讗 讜驻诇讟讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诪讘讜讗讜转 讛诪驻讜诇砖讬谉 讜讛诪讚讘专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖专讗诇 砖专讜讬讬谉 讘诪讚讘专 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛:

With regard to the places characterized as the public domain, the Gemara asks: And include the desert among the places considered a public domain? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: What is the public domain? A main street, and a large plaza, and open alleyways, and the desert? Abaye said: This is not difficult, as here, where it enumerated the desert among the public domains, it refers to the time when Israel was dwelling in the desert, and it was an area frequented by the multitudes. And here, where the desert was not enumerated among the public domains, refers to this time, when multitudes do not congregate there.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讛讻谞讬住 讘砖讜讙讙 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘诪讝讬讚 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜谞住拽诇 讘砖讜讙讙 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 驻砖讬讟讗 讘诪讝讬讚 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜谞住拽诇 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

It was also taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: If he carried out an object on Shabbat from the private domain to the public domain or vice versa, if he carried in, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally and there were no witnesses to his act and he was not forewarned, he is punishable from the hand of Heaven with the punishment of karet. If he was forewarned and there were witnesses to his transgression, he is punished by the court and stoned. The Gemara asks: Unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering; it is obvious that one who violates the serious transgression of desecrating the Shabbat unwittingly is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to teach that if he did so intentionally he is punishable with karet and stoned. Since he needed to cite those cases because they involve a novel element, he also cited the case where he performed the transgression unwittingly, in order to complete the picture.

讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪爪讗转讬 诪讙诇转 住转专讬诐 讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

The Gemara asks: That is also obvious, as the Torah states explicitly that one who desecrates Shabbat intentionally without witnesses and forewarning is punishable by karet, and that when there are witnesses and forewarning he is executed by stoning. The Gemara answers: This came to teach us in accordance with the statement of Rav, as Rav said: I found a hidden scroll in the house of Rabbi 岣yya in which matters of Oral Torah were briefly summarized, and in it was written: Isi ben Yehuda says: The primary categories of prohibited labor on Shabbat are forty-less-one, and he is liable only for one. This expression is unclear, and it would seem that it means that one who performs all of the prohibited labors is only liable to bring one sin-offering.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇谉 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The primary categories of prohibited labor are forty-less-one? The mishna proceeded to enumerate those labors. And we discussed it: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? It would have been sufficient for the mishna to merely list the prohibited labors. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The number is also significant, in order to teach us that if he performed all of the prohibited labors within one lapse of awareness, during which he remained unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one of the prohibited labors separately. Consequently, the statement of Isi ben Yehuda cannot be understood as suggested above.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 诪讛谞讱 讚诇讗 诪住驻拽谉:

Rather, say as follows: There are forty prohibited labors less one, and he is not liable for one of them. Among those labors, there is one unspecified exception for which one is not liable to be executed by stoning and merely violates a negative prohibition. That which the Tosefta mentioned with regard to one carrying out on Shabbat being liable for karet and stoning, teaches us: This labor of carrying out from domain to domain, is among those prohibited labors with regard to which there is no uncertainty and it is clear that one is liable for karet and stoning for its violation.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讘诇 讬诐 讜讘拽注讛 讜讛讗讬住讟讜讜谞讬转 讜讛讻专诪诇讬转 讗讬谞谉 诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘拽注讛 讗讬谞讜 诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讘拽注讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇砖讘转 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 (诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉)

It was also taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: However, a sea, and a valley, and the colonnade, and the karmelit all enter into the general category of karmelit, which is neither like the public domain nor like the private domain. The Gemara asks: And is a valley neither like the private domain nor like the public domain? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna in tractate Teharot: The valley, in the days of summer, which is a time when the multitudes frequent it, nevertheless, it is considered the private domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, as according to the parameters of domains of Shabbat it remains in the realm of a private domain. And, still, it is considered like the public domain with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, where there is a distinction between a place frequented by the multitudes and a place that the multitudes do not frequent. While in the rainy season, the winter, when multitudes do not frequent the fields, the valley is considered like the private domain for this, Shabbat, and for that, ritual purity. A valley is a private domain and not a karmelit.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专诪诇讬转 讛讜讬讗 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Ulla said: Actually, the valley is a karmelit; and why does the mishna call it the private domain? In order to emphasize that it is not the public domain, as the mishna in tractate Teharot did not enter into the details of the halakhot of Shabbat. It merely underscored the distinction between the halakhot of Shabbat and the halakhot of ritual purity.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专

Rav Ashi said:

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 the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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...
Facebook posts

Shabbat 6 What Does Your Neighborhood Look Like?

Masechet Shabbat has begun and with it a whole slew of new and complex concepts. We are talking about the...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 6: Looking for the Beginning, Middle, and End

If Masekhet Shabbat has felt a little "all over the place" to you, this may be the day you can...

Shabbat 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 6

诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻诪讛 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 驻讟讜专 讻讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

as the halakha there is just as it is in the case of one who transfers an object in the public domain. There, even though as long as he takes it and walks and does not place the object he is exempt, is it not the case that when he places it he is liable? Obviously, between the place where he lifted the object and the place where he placed the object, where there is liability, there lies an undefined area where, as long as he continues walking, he is exempt. Here too, it is no different, as in both cases an identical situation exists: If he places the object at the end of his path he is liable, despite the fact that the area in the middle is an exempt place.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪谞讞 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讞讬讜讘 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 讗讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘住讟讬讜 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this comparison: Is this comparable? There, anywhere that he places the object is a place of potential liability. That cannot be described as two places of liability with an exempt domain between them, as the area between them is also a place of potential liability if he were to place the object there. On the other hand, here, if he places it in the colonnade, it is an absolute exempt domain.

讗诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 诪转讞诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 讻讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘住讜祝 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Again the question arises: Where is there a precedent of liability for transferring an object through an exempt domain? The Gemara answers: Rather, it is possible to cite a different precedent: The halakha here is just as it is in the case of one who transfers an object in the public domain from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits exactly. There, is it not the case that, even though were he to place it within four cubits of where he stands, he is not liable because within four cubits, the complete prohibited labor of carrying in the public domain was not performed; and nevertheless, when he places it at the end of four cubits he is liable? Here too, it is no different. It can be said that there is a strip of exempt domain between the lifting and the placement.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪拽讜诐 讞讬讜讘 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗

Again the Gemara rejects the analogy: Is that similar? There, in the public domain, for this man it is an exempt domain, as it is within four cubits of the place that he lifted the object. However, for the entire world, it is a place of potential liability, as the space itself is a public domain and it could be beyond four cubits for someone else who placed it there, and he would be liable. Here, on the other hand, the colonnade is an exempt domain for the entire world. There is no comparison between an absence of liability that stems from the fact that the prohibited labor was not completed and an unconditional exemption dependent solely on the nature of the domain in question.

讗诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讜爪讬讗 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚专讱 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讗爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专 讜讻讬 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rather, it is possible to cite a different precedent: The halakha here is just as it is in the case of one who carries out an object from the private domain to the public domain through the sides of the public domain. The sides of a public domain are narrow strips located adjacent to the houses where the multitudes do not congregate. There, is it not the case that, even though if one were to place an object on the sides of the public domain, he is exempt and, nevertheless, when he places it in the public domain he is liable? If so, here too, it is no different.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 (讘谉 讬注拽讘) 讚讗诪专 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this explanation: Granted, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the sides of the public domain are a type of independent domain and not considered the public domain, that precedent is similar to our case. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, who said that the sides of the public domain are considered a full-fledged public domain, what is there to say?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 (讘谉 讬注拽讘) 讚讗诪专 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讞讬驻讜驻讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讬驻讜驻讬 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讱 诇讛讗 讚诪讬讗

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said to him: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov said that the sides of the public domain are considered a public domain in a place where there are no stakes [岣pufei] separating the houses and the courtyards from the actual public domain to prevent the public from damaging the walls of the houses. However, in a place where there are stakes, did you hear him say that the legal status of the sides is that of the public domain itself? Therefore, it is similar to that case of the colonnade, and consequently it serves as a precedent for liability when carrying through an exempt domain.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讜讚讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘讝讜专拽 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 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 讗讞讚 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讻谞讬住 讜讗讞讚 讛讝讜专拽 讜讗讞讚 讛诪讜砖讬讟 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讜讛诪讻谞讬住 驻讟讜专 讛诪讜砖讬讟 讜讛讝讜专拽 讞讬讬讘:

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ben Azzai disagreed with regard to carrying out the object while walking through the colonnade. In his opinion one who carries it out is exempt. Yet, he agrees with the Rabbis that in a case where one throws an object from the private domain to the public domain through a colonnade he is liable, as it is tantamount to carrying out directly from domain to domain. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One who carries out an object on Shabbat from a store to a plaza via a colonnade is liable. The halakha is identical with regard to all means of transferring an object from domain to domain via a colonnade. The same is true for one who carries out, and one who carries in, and one who throws, and one who extends his hand from domain to domain. Ben Azzai says: One who walks and carries out and one who walks and carries in are exempt, as he is considered to have come to rest in the colonnade. On the other hand, one who extends his hand with the object and one who throws the object, whose actions are uninterrupted, are liable.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注 专砖讜讬讜转 诇砖讘转 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讻专诪诇讬转 讜诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专

In order to explain the essence of the laws of domains on Shabbat, the Gemara cites what the Sages taught in the Tosefta, that there are four domains for the halakhot of Shabbat: The private domain, and the public domain, and two additional domains: The karmelit, which is like neither the public domain nor the private domain, and an exempt domain, which does not fall into the category of domains.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讞专讬抓 砖讛讜讗 注诪讜拽 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讜讻谉 讙讚专 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讙诪讜专讛

The Gemara elaborates: And what is the private domain? A ditch which is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, as well as a fence which is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide; that is a full-fledged private domain. The criteria for a private domain are that it must be an area of four by four handbreadths, with a ten-handbreadth difference in elevation from the surrounding environment.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住专讟讬讗 讜驻诇讟讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诪讘讜讗讜转 讛诪驻讜诇砖讬谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙诪讜专讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讝讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讝讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讝讜 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讝讜 讜讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讛讻谞讬住 讘砖讜讙讙 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘诪讝讬讚 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜谞住拽诇

And what is the public domain? A main street [seratia] and a large plaza as well as alleyways [mevo鈥檕t], which are open on both ends to the public domain, connecting between main streets; that is a full-fledged public domain. With regard to those domains: One may not carry out from the private domain of this kind to the public domain of this kind, and one may not carry in from the public domain of this kind to the private domain of this kind. If he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally, and there were no witnesses to his act, and he was not forewarned, he is liable to receive the punishment of excision [karet]. If he was forewarned and there were witnesses to his transgression, he is punished with the court-imposed capital punishment and stoned.

讗讘诇 讬诐 讜讘拽注讛 讜讗讬住讟讜讜谞讬转 讜讛讻专诪诇讬转 讗讬谞讛 诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬谉 谞讜砖讗讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讗诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讘转讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪转讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇转讜讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇转讜讻讛 讜诇讗 诪转讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讛讻谞讬住 驻讟讜专

However, a sea and a valley and a colonnade and the karmelit all enter into the general category of karmelit, which is neither like the public domain, because the multitudes are not congregated there, nor like the private domain, as it has no partitions. Rather, the Sages instituted that cases like these should be considered an independent domain. One may not carry and place an object in it beyond four cubits, just as it is prohibited to do so in the public domain. And if he nevertheless carried and placed an object in it, he is exempt, as it involves no Torah prohibition. And one may neither carry from it into the public domain nor from the public domain into it, as it is not the public domain. And one may neither carry from the private domain into it nor from it into the private domain, as it is not the private domain. And if he carried out from the private domain or carried in from the public domain, he is exempt, as it involves is no Torah prohibition.

讞爪专讜转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜诪讘讜讗讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 诪驻讜诇砖讬谉 注讬专讘讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗住讜专讬诐

Similarly, there is a type of private domain which, by rabbinic law, has the legal status of a karmelit or a public domain. Courtyards shared by many and alleyways that are not open on both sides are private domains that are somewhat similar to the public domain because many people congregate there. For this reason, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting carrying within them. However, if they placed an eiruv, i.e., a joining of courtyards, to transform a common courtyard into a single domain, or a merging of alleyways to merge a common alleyway shared by several courtyards into a single domain, they are all permitted to carry objects from their houses into the courtyard or from the courtyard into the alleyway, respectively. However, if they did not place an eiruv, they are prohibited to do so.

讗讚诐 注讜诪讚 注诇 讛讗讬住拽讜驻讛 谞讜讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 谞讜讟诇 诪注谞讬 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讟讜诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜谞讜转谉 诇注谞讬 诪注谞讬 讜谞讜转谉 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讜谞转谉 砖诇砖转谉 驻讟讜专讬诐

An example of the fourth domain listed in the baraita, the exempt domain is: A person standing on the threshold may take an object from the homeowner standing in the private domain and may give an object to him. Similarly, while standing there, he may take an object from a poor person standing in the public domain and may give an object to him because there is no element of prohibition or liability in carrying and carrying out in an exempt domain on Shabbat. There is no prohibition as long as he does not take the object from the homeowner in the private domain and give it to a poor person in the public domain, or from a poor person and give to the homeowner, as by doing so he facilitated transfer from domain to domain. And, however, if he took an object from one and gave it to the other, certainly no labor prohibited by Torah law was performed, and all three of them are exempt.

讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬住拽讜驻讛 诪砖诪砖转 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 讘讝诪谉 砖讛驻转讞 驻转讜讞 讻诇驻谞讬诐 驻转讞 谞注讜诇 讻诇讞讜抓 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讛专讬 讝讛 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪讛

A岣rim say: Not every threshold is an exempt domain. Some are not sufficiently isolated from the surrounding domains. Sometimes, a threshold serves as two domains; at times the public domain and at times the private domain, as in different circumstances it is subsumed within the adjacent domain. Therefore, when the doorway is open, the threshold is an extension of the house and considered to be a private domain. If the doorway was locked, it is considered like the outside, like part of the public domain. This applies when the threshold is not an independent domain. And if the threshold was ten handbreadths high above the public domain and four handbreadths wide, it is a domain unto itself, i.e., a full-fledged private domain discrete from the house.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜砖讛

It was taught in the Tosefta with regard to the definition of a private domain that the Master said, with added emphasis: This is the private domain. The Gemara asks: What was this emphasis added to exclude? The Gemara answers: To exclude this halakha of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: One who has two houses opposite each other on two sides of the public domain, if he chooses, he may create a private domain for himself in the public domain. He may place

诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讗诪爪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讻讱

a ten-handbreadth high post from here, perpendicular to the public domain. This creates a symbolic wall which, in the halakhot of alleyways, has the legal status of a wall. And, he may place an additional post from here, on the other side, and that has the same legal status as if he closed the public domain on all of its sides. Or, he can implement a different solution appropriate for alleyways by placing a beam extending from here, from one end of one house, to the end of the house opposite it. This creates a symbolic partition across the width of the street. And, he may place a beam extending from here, from the other side of the house. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in that way, one is permitted to carry objects and place them in the area between the symbolic partitions, as he would in a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One may not place an eiruv in the public domain in that way. One who seeks to transform a public domain into a private domain must erect actual partitions.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讙诪讜专讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讟诇讟诇 讗讘诇 诇讝专讜拽 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

The Gemara questions the language of the Tosefta: This is a full-fledged private domain. And why did they call it full-fledged? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: When do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and say that it is not the private domain? This applies only with regard to the prohibition to carry there on Shabbat. By means of these partitions, it was not rendered a full-fledged private domain to the point that one is permitted to carry there. However, conceivably, with regard to the prohibition of throwing from the public domain to this place, the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda that the area between the partitions would be considered a private domain by Torah law and it would be prohibited. Therefore, the tanna taught us that according to the Rabbis it is not a private domain at all.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讬讚讱 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪驻住拽转谉 讬住诇拽谞讛 诇爪讚讚讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

It was also taught in the Tosefta with regard to the definition of a public domain that the Master said, with added emphasis: This is the public domain. The Gemara asks: What was this emphasis added to exclude? The Gemara answers: Here, the Tosefta came to exclude another halakha of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna: The Sages permitted those ascending to Jerusalem on the Festival pilgrimage to place posts serving as symbolic boundaries around the wells, in order to render the wells and their surroundings a private domain. That way, the pilgrims could draw water from the wells even on Shabbat, as they became private domains. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the path of the public domain passes through the area of the wells and the posts and obstructs them, he must divert it to the sides, so that the passersby will not pass through there. In his opinion, many people passing through that area negates the private domain formed merely by means of symbolic boundaries. And the Rabbis say: He need not divert the path of the public domain. The emphasis in the Tosefta: This is the public domain, teaches that only the specific areas listed there fall into the category of a public domain; however, a well around which partitions were established is no longer in the realm of public domain, even if the multitudes continue to walk through that area.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讙诪讜专讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讙诪讜专讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讙诪讜专讛

The Gemara asks: And why do they call it full-fledged? The Gemara answers: This emphasis was unnecessary. But, since he taught the first clause of the Tosefta employing the term full-fledged, he also taught the latter section employing the term full-fledged in the interest of uniformity.

讜诇讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 诪讚讘专 讚讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住专讟讬讗 讜驻诇讟讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诪讘讜讗讜转 讛诪驻讜诇砖讬谉 讜讛诪讚讘专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖专讗诇 砖专讜讬讬谉 讘诪讚讘专 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛:

With regard to the places characterized as the public domain, the Gemara asks: And include the desert among the places considered a public domain? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: What is the public domain? A main street, and a large plaza, and open alleyways, and the desert? Abaye said: This is not difficult, as here, where it enumerated the desert among the public domains, it refers to the time when Israel was dwelling in the desert, and it was an area frequented by the multitudes. And here, where the desert was not enumerated among the public domains, refers to this time, when multitudes do not congregate there.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 讜讛讻谞讬住 讘砖讜讙讙 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘诪讝讬讚 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜谞住拽诇 讘砖讜讙讙 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 驻砖讬讟讗 讘诪讝讬讚 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜谞住拽诇 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

It was also taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: If he carried out an object on Shabbat from the private domain to the public domain or vice versa, if he carried in, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally and there were no witnesses to his act and he was not forewarned, he is punishable from the hand of Heaven with the punishment of karet. If he was forewarned and there were witnesses to his transgression, he is punished by the court and stoned. The Gemara asks: Unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering; it is obvious that one who violates the serious transgression of desecrating the Shabbat unwittingly is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to teach that if he did so intentionally he is punishable with karet and stoned. Since he needed to cite those cases because they involve a novel element, he also cited the case where he performed the transgression unwittingly, in order to complete the picture.

讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪爪讗转讬 诪讙诇转 住转专讬诐 讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讻转讜讘 讘讛 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

The Gemara asks: That is also obvious, as the Torah states explicitly that one who desecrates Shabbat intentionally without witnesses and forewarning is punishable by karet, and that when there are witnesses and forewarning he is executed by stoning. The Gemara answers: This came to teach us in accordance with the statement of Rav, as Rav said: I found a hidden scroll in the house of Rabbi 岣yya in which matters of Oral Torah were briefly summarized, and in it was written: Isi ben Yehuda says: The primary categories of prohibited labor on Shabbat are forty-less-one, and he is liable only for one. This expression is unclear, and it would seem that it means that one who performs all of the prohibited labors is only liable to bring one sin-offering.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇谉 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The primary categories of prohibited labor are forty-less-one? The mishna proceeded to enumerate those labors. And we discussed it: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? It would have been sufficient for the mishna to merely list the prohibited labors. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The number is also significant, in order to teach us that if he performed all of the prohibited labors within one lapse of awareness, during which he remained unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one of the prohibited labors separately. Consequently, the statement of Isi ben Yehuda cannot be understood as suggested above.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 诪讛谞讱 讚诇讗 诪住驻拽谉:

Rather, say as follows: There are forty prohibited labors less one, and he is not liable for one of them. Among those labors, there is one unspecified exception for which one is not liable to be executed by stoning and merely violates a negative prohibition. That which the Tosefta mentioned with regard to one carrying out on Shabbat being liable for karet and stoning, teaches us: This labor of carrying out from domain to domain, is among those prohibited labors with regard to which there is no uncertainty and it is clear that one is liable for karet and stoning for its violation.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讘诇 讬诐 讜讘拽注讛 讜讛讗讬住讟讜讜谞讬转 讜讛讻专诪诇讬转 讗讬谞谉 诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘拽注讛 讗讬谞讜 诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诇讗 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讘拽注讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇砖讘转 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 (诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉)

It was also taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: However, a sea, and a valley, and the colonnade, and the karmelit all enter into the general category of karmelit, which is neither like the public domain nor like the private domain. The Gemara asks: And is a valley neither like the private domain nor like the public domain? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna in tractate Teharot: The valley, in the days of summer, which is a time when the multitudes frequent it, nevertheless, it is considered the private domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, as according to the parameters of domains of Shabbat it remains in the realm of a private domain. And, still, it is considered like the public domain with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, where there is a distinction between a place frequented by the multitudes and a place that the multitudes do not frequent. While in the rainy season, the winter, when multitudes do not frequent the fields, the valley is considered like the private domain for this, Shabbat, and for that, ritual purity. A valley is a private domain and not a karmelit.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专诪诇讬转 讛讜讬讗 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Ulla said: Actually, the valley is a karmelit; and why does the mishna call it the private domain? In order to emphasize that it is not the public domain, as the mishna in tractate Teharot did not enter into the details of the halakhot of Shabbat. It merely underscored the distinction between the halakhot of Shabbat and the halakhot of ritual purity.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专

Rav Ashi said:

Scroll To Top