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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 13, 2020 | 讬状讝 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 Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Shabbat 7

Today’s shiur is sponsored by Sarene Shanus and Harold Treiber in honor of Julie ben Avram for her outstanding dedication to kibud eim and by Anne Mirsky in memory of her mother Shoshana (Rhoda) bat Yehuda Leib Polachek z”l.聽

Why is a valley mentioned in the Tosefta like a karmelit but in the mishna is Taharot, it is listed a a private domain? Two answers are brought. What is a karpaf and what are the laws relating to carrying in it? If there is a brick standing up in a public domain and it’s 3 tefachim tall, if one throws something 4 amot in public and it lands there, is one obligated? What about other spaces in the public space that people don’t generally walk through – ar they considered public or not? A karmelit is until 10. What is the meaning of that? What law of karmelit are like a public space and what are like a private space? If a space has walls 9 tefachim tall but the ceiling is one tefach thick, what are the laws regarding that space? What if one dug a whole one tefach deep and 4×4 wide in that space? This is called chorei reshut hayachid. What are the laws regarding chorei reshut harabim – holes in public areas. Rava and Abaye disagree and Abaye’s opinion is questioned.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽专驻祝 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜拽祝 诇讚讬专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专讬讬诐 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 砖诪讞讜住专转 讚讬讜专讬谉

The valley discussed in the mishna in Teharot is unusual, as it refers to a case where it has partitions that are ten handbreadths high surrounding it. And in accordance with that which Ulla said that Rav Yo岣nan said: An enclosure [karpef], a large courtyard that is not contiguous with the house and does not serve a direct purpose for the house, that is greater than a field that produces a crop of two se鈥檃, that was not originally surrounded by a fence for the purpose of residence, but with a partition to protect his belongings, and even if it is as large as a field that produces a crop of one kor, thirty times the size of a se鈥檃, and even two kor, it is still considered a private domain. And, consequently, one who throws an object into it from the public domain on Shabbat is liable. What is the reason for this? It is a partition that surrounds the enclosure and its legal status is like that of a partition in every sense, except that it is lacking residents. Even though the Rabbis were stringent with regard to this enclosure because of the lack of residents and prohibited carrying in it as if it were a karmelit, that does not negate its primary legal status; by Torah law it is a full-fledged private domain. The same is true with regard to the aforementioned valley. The valley is a large area surrounded by partitions erected for the purpose of protection and thereby assumes private domain status.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻讚注讜诇讗 讗诇讗 注讜诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 讘拽注讛 拽专讬 诇讛 拽专驻祝 讛讬讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 拽转谞讬:

The Gemara asks: Granted, in explanation of the mishna, Rav Ashi did not say in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as he provided a reason for it. However, what is the reason that Ulla did not say in accordance with his own halakha that he cited in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara answers: Ulla could have said to you: If the mishna is referring to a case where it has partitions, would it call that place a valley? It is an enclosure. The implication of the word valley is that there are no partitions at all. And Rav Ashi defends his opinion by saying: The language taught in the mishna is: The private domain and not a karmelit. Therefore, his explanation more closely approximates the language of the mishna.

讜讛讻专诪诇讬转 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讻专诪诇讬转 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讚讞拽讬 讘讬讛 专讘讬诐 讜注讬讬诇讬 诇讙讜讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 讻讬 讻专诪诇讬转 讚诪讬

In the Tosefta, the list of places whose legal status is that of a karmelit also includes karmelit. The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 they, all the other places listed there, i.e., a sea, a valley, and a colonnade, a karmelit too? If so, what is this karmelit that is prominently mentioned here? The Gemara answers: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This addition of karmelit was only necessary in order to teach the case of a corner adjacent to the public domain, where, although at times the multitudes push their way in and enter it, since its use is inconvenient it is considered a karmelit.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬谉 讛注诪讜讚讬谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讻讻专诪诇讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讚专住讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪住转讙讬 诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬讗 讻讻专诪诇讬转 讚诪讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬爪讟讘讗 砖诇驻谞讬 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 讻讻专诪诇讬转

Similarly, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Between the pillars alongside the public domain is judged like a karmelit. What is the reason for this? Although the multitudes stride there, since they cannot walk in it in a direct manner, uninterrupted, it is considered like a karmelit. Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Yehuda said: The same is true for the bench that is before the pillars upon which the merchants place their wares; it is judged to be like a karmelit.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讬爪讟讘讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬爪讟讘讗 讗讬爪讟讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 讚谞讬讞讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 诇讗 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 讛注诪讜讚讬谉 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讚专住讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬讗

The Gemara comments: According to the one who said that between the pillars is considered like a karmelit, all the more so a bench is considered a karmelit. However, according to the one who said that a bench is a karmelit, one could say that that is so specifically with regard to a bench because its use is inconvenient. However, the space between the pillars, whose use is convenient, would not be considered a karmelit. Another version of that statement: However, between the pillars where, at times, the multitudes stride there is considered like the public domain.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讘讬谞讛 讝拽讜驻讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讝专拽 讜讟讞 讘驻谞讬讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讙讘讛 驻讟讜专

With regard to the question to what degree does the use of the multitudes determine whether a specific place is considered a public domain, the Gemara cites the halakha that Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav 岣sda said: If an upright brick was placed in the public domain and one threw an object from a distance of four cubits and he stuck the object to its side, he is liable for throwing in the public domain. But if the object landed atop the brick, he is not liable. Because the multitudes do not step on the brick, it is not a full-fledged public domain.

讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讛讜讗 砖讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛 讚诇讗 讚专住讬 诇讛 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讝诪讬 讜讛讬讙讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讙讘讬讛讬 砖诇砖讛 讜讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讝诪讬 讜讛讬讙讬 讗讘诇 爪讜讗讛 诇讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 爪讜讗讛

It was Abaye and Rava, who both said: And that is specifically when that brick is at least three handbreadths high, as then the multitudes do not step on it, and, therefore, even though the brick is standing in the public domain, it is considered an independent domain. However, thorns and shrubs, even though they are not three handbreadths high, are not considered part of the public domain. Since people do not walk on thorns, those areas cannot be considered part of the public domain. And 岣yya bar Rav said: Even the place where there are thorns and shrubs in the public domain, if they were low, the place is considered part of the public domain. However, a place in the public domain where there are feces is not considered part of the public domain, as people do not walk there. And Rav Ashi said: Even a place in the public domain where there are feces is considered part of the public domain, since ultimately people who are rushing to work do not take care to avoid it and will step on it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讻专诪诇讬转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讗专讘注讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜转讜驻住转 注讚 注砖专讛 诪讗讬 讜转讜驻住转 注讚 注砖专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬 讻专诪诇讬转 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讻专诪诇讬转 讜诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘转讜讻讜 注砖专讛 讜拽专讜讬讜 诪砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 注诇 讙讙讜 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讘转讜讻讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

Rabba from the school of Rav Sheila said: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There is no karmelit less than four handbreadths. And Rav Sheshet added and said: And the karmelit extends up to ten handbreadths. With regard to the formulation of Rav Sheshet, the Gemara wondered: What is the meaning of the phrase: And extends up to ten? If you say that it means if there is a partition ten handbreadths high surrounding it then it is considered a karmelit, and if not, it is not considered a karmelit. And is it not a karmelit? Didn鈥檛 Rav Giddel say that Rav 岣yya bar Yosef said that Rav said: A house that does not have walls inside it that are ten handbreadths high, and with its roofing it reaches a height of ten handbreadths above the ground; on its roof, one may carry on all of it, as its roof is a private domain in every sense, and inside it, one may only carry four cubits, as inside, the height is insufficient to render it a private domain, and it retains karmelit status? Apparently, even an area less than ten handbreadths high has the legal status of a karmelit.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讜转讜驻住转 注讚 注砖专讛 讚注讚 注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讗 讻专诪诇讬转 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 讻专诪诇讬转 讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 讘诪讬诇讬 讚砖讘转讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬谉 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜诇讛 注讚 诇专拽讬注

Rather, what is the meaning of Rav Sheshet鈥檚 formulation: And extends up to ten? Apparently, up to ten handbreadths is that which is within the parameters of a karmelit, and above ten handbreadths is not a karmelit. And as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Keen scholar [shinnana], do not be involved with questions in the matters of Shabbat above ten handbreadths. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to what halakha and in the context of what issue did Shmuel make this statement? If you say his intention was that there is no private domain above ten handbreadths, didn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: One who stuck a stick in the ground of the private domain and threw an object from the public domain and it landed atop it, even if the stick was a hundred cubits high, he is liable, since the private domain extends up to the sky? Apparently, there is a private domain even above ten handbreadths.

讗诇讗 讚讗讬谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛讝讜专拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讻讜转诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓

Rather, suggest that Shmuel meant that there is no public domain above ten handbreadths. It is a mishna, and why would he repeat an explicit mishna? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who throws an object four cubits in the public domain, and the object came to rest on a wall standing in the public domain above ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if he were throwing an object in the air and it never landed. If it came to rest below ten handbreadths off the ground, it is as if he were throwing an object to the ground. That is an explicit mishna stating that the area of the public domain does not go beyond ten handbreadths off the ground.

讗诇讗 讻专诪诇讬转 讚讗讬谉 讻专诪诇讬转 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 诪拽讜诇讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诪拽讜诇讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪拽讜诇讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讗 讻专诪诇讬转 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 诪拽讜诇讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚注讚 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讗 讻专诪诇讬转 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讻专诪诇讬转:

Rather, it must be that Shmuel鈥檚 statement was referring to a karmelit; there is no karmelit above ten handbreadths. And, if so, the Sages were lenient with regard to a karmelit and applied some leniencies of the private domain and some leniencies of the public domain. The Gemara elaborates: Some leniencies of the private domain: That if there is an area of four handbreadths, then it is a karmelit, and if there is not an area of four handbreadths, it is merely an exempt domain. Some leniencies of the public domain: That until a height of ten handbreadths, it is a karmelit, above ten handbreadths is not a karmelit.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬转 砖讗讬谉 转讜讻讜 注砖专讛 讜拽专讜讬讜 诪砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 注诇 讙讙讜 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讘转讜讻讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

To the matter itself: It was mentioned above that Rav Giddel said that Rav 岣yya bar Yosef said that Rav said: A house that does not have inside it walls that are ten handbreadths high, and with its roofing it reaches a height of ten handbreadths above the ground; on its roof, one may carry on all of it, as its roof is a private domain in every sense, and inside it, one may only carry four cubits, as inside the height is insufficient to render it a private domain and it retains karmelit status.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗诐 讞拽拽 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讬 讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚诪讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚诪讜 讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讘讬讬 讗讜诪专 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 专讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜

With regard to this halakha, Abaye said: And if he dug out an area of four by four handbreadths in the floor of the house and in the place where the digging took place, its height to the ceiling reaches ten handbreadths, the house becomes a private domain, and it is permitted to carry in the entire house. What is the reason for this? Since the dug out area is a private domain, the rest of the house is ancillary to it, and it assumes the legal status of the holes of the private domain, and the holes of the private domain, although they lack the measure of a private domain, are considered like the private domain itself. As it was stated: Everyone agrees that the holes of the private domain are considered like the private domain; since they are subsumed within the private domain, they are judged to be like it. However, they disagreed with regard to the holes of the public domain. Abaye says: They are considered to be like the public domain. And Rava says: They are not considered to be like the public domain; they are either a karmelit or an exempt domain.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜转讬讛讜讬 讻讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛转诐 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 讛讻讗 谞讬讞讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛

Rava said to Abaye: According to you, who said that the holes of the public domain are considered like the public domain, in what way is it different from this halakha? As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This addition of karmelit to the Tosefta was only necessary to teach the case of a corner adjacent to the public domain. And, according to your opinion, let this corner be like the holes of the public domain, and its legal status should be that of a public domain itself and not that of a karmelit. Abaye answered: There is a distinction between the cases. There, the corner, its use is not convenient; here, the holes of the public domain, their use is convenient. Since it is convenient to utilize the holes of the public domain, and they are in fact utilized, they are a public domain in every sense.

转谞谉 讛讝讜专拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讻讜转诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞

The Gemara raised an additional difficulty for Abaye鈥檚 opinion: We learned in a mishna with regard to one who throws an object four cubits in the public domain, and the object came to rest on a wall standing in the public domain above ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if he were throwing an object in the air and it never landed. If it came to rest below ten handbreadths off the ground, it is as if he were throwing an object to the ground, and he is liable. And we discussed this halakha: What is the reason that when the wall is not ten handbreadths high it is as if he threw it to the ground? The object did not come to rest on the wall, as presumably the object hit the wall and then fell to the ground. Since there was no act of placement, he did not perform the prohibited labor of carrying in the public domain.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚讘讬诇讛 砖诪讬谞讛 砖谞讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗讜拽诪讛 讘讚讘讬诇讛 砖诪讬谞讛 诇讜拽诪讛 讘爪专讜专 讜讞驻抓 讜讚谞讞 讘讞讜专

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said that they learned this mishna as referring to a case when he threw a juicy cake of figs that sticks to the wall and remains there. And should it enter your mind to say that the holes of the public domain are considered like the public domain, why do I need to establish the mishna as referring to the case of a juicy cake of figs? Let us establish it simply as referring to the case of a run-of-the-mill stone or object, and that it came to rest in a hole.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 诪砖谞讬 诇讛 砖讗谞讬 爪专讜专 讜讞驻抓 讚诪讬讛讚专 讜讗转讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 诪砖谞讬 诇讛 讘讻讜转诇 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讞讜专 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讝专拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讻讜转诇 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讞讜专 讗诪讗讬 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 讛讗 谞讞 讘讞讜专

Sometimes Abaye would answer the question by saying that a stone or object is different from a juicy fig in that they come back when they are thrown and do not come to rest in the hole. Therefore, it was simpler to establish the mishna in the case of a fig. And sometimes he would answer it by saying that the mishna is referring to a wall that has no hole. And from where does he find support for this explanation? From that which we learned in the first clause of the mishna: One who throws above ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if he is throwing in the air and it never landed. And if it should enter your mind to say that we are speaking here about a wall that has a hole in it, why should it be as if he threw it in the air and it never landed? It rested in a hole, and that hole is a private domain, as it is above ten handbreadths, and in that way the prohibited labor of carrying in was performed.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝专拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讛诇讻讛 讜谞讞讛 讘讞讜专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘谞谉 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讻讜转诇 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讞讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

And if you say that the mishna is referring to a case where holes do not have an area of at least four by four handbreadths, which is common for holes in the wall, and therefore the holes have exempt domain status, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rabbi 岣yya said: One who threw an object above ten handbreadths and the object went and came to rest in a hole of any size, we have arrived in this matter at the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis? The decision whether or not there is a prohibition here depends on an analysis of that dispute. Rabbi Meir holds that in all cases where a certain minimum area is required for a specific halakha to take effect and the existing area is smaller, if, theoretically, circumstances would allow to carve out and create an area of the requisite size, one considers it as if he carves out the space to complete it, i.e., the space has the legal status as if it was actually enlarged. And the Rabbis hold that one does not carve out the space to complete it. Rather, the legal status of the area corresponds to its actual size. Consequently, according to Rabbi Meir, if an object landed in a small hole, one considers the area as if it were carved out to complete the hole to four by four handbreadths, and its legal status is like that of a private domain in every sense. Rather, can we not conclude from the mishna that maintains that one who throws an object onto a wall above ten handbreadths it is as if he threw it in the air, that it is referring to a wall that has no hole in it, and the possibility of carving out the space was never raised? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜诇讛 注讚 诇专拽讬注 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 讝讬讝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐 (讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛)

The Gemara again returns to the matter that was mentioned above in passing itself [gufa]. Rav 岣sda said: One who stuck a stick in the ground of the private domain, and an object that he himself threw from the public domain rested atop it, even if that stick was a hundred cubits high, he is liable. The reason for this is because the private domain rises up to the sky. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that when Rav 岣sda said his statement, it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The tanna鈥檌m disagreed with regard to a similar issue, as it was taught in a baraita: One who threw an object on Shabbat in the public domain, and the object rested on a projection of any size, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him liable and the Rabbis deem him exempt. Consequently, only according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is there no need for the object to come to rest on an area of a specific size, and therefore the statement of Rav 岣sda with regard to the stick can only be in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion.

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

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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 7: Throw a Juicy Cake of Figs against a Wall

In which we explore the Karmalit -- what it is and what it is not, in relation to the public...

Shabbat 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 7

讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽专驻祝 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜拽祝 诇讚讬专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专讬讬诐 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 砖诪讞讜住专转 讚讬讜专讬谉

The valley discussed in the mishna in Teharot is unusual, as it refers to a case where it has partitions that are ten handbreadths high surrounding it. And in accordance with that which Ulla said that Rav Yo岣nan said: An enclosure [karpef], a large courtyard that is not contiguous with the house and does not serve a direct purpose for the house, that is greater than a field that produces a crop of two se鈥檃, that was not originally surrounded by a fence for the purpose of residence, but with a partition to protect his belongings, and even if it is as large as a field that produces a crop of one kor, thirty times the size of a se鈥檃, and even two kor, it is still considered a private domain. And, consequently, one who throws an object into it from the public domain on Shabbat is liable. What is the reason for this? It is a partition that surrounds the enclosure and its legal status is like that of a partition in every sense, except that it is lacking residents. Even though the Rabbis were stringent with regard to this enclosure because of the lack of residents and prohibited carrying in it as if it were a karmelit, that does not negate its primary legal status; by Torah law it is a full-fledged private domain. The same is true with regard to the aforementioned valley. The valley is a large area surrounded by partitions erected for the purpose of protection and thereby assumes private domain status.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻讚注讜诇讗 讗诇讗 注讜诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 讘拽注讛 拽专讬 诇讛 拽专驻祝 讛讬讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 拽转谞讬:

The Gemara asks: Granted, in explanation of the mishna, Rav Ashi did not say in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as he provided a reason for it. However, what is the reason that Ulla did not say in accordance with his own halakha that he cited in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara answers: Ulla could have said to you: If the mishna is referring to a case where it has partitions, would it call that place a valley? It is an enclosure. The implication of the word valley is that there are no partitions at all. And Rav Ashi defends his opinion by saying: The language taught in the mishna is: The private domain and not a karmelit. Therefore, his explanation more closely approximates the language of the mishna.

讜讛讻专诪诇讬转 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讻专诪诇讬转 谞讬谞讛讜 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讚讞拽讬 讘讬讛 专讘讬诐 讜注讬讬诇讬 诇讙讜讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 讻讬 讻专诪诇讬转 讚诪讬

In the Tosefta, the list of places whose legal status is that of a karmelit also includes karmelit. The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 they, all the other places listed there, i.e., a sea, a valley, and a colonnade, a karmelit too? If so, what is this karmelit that is prominently mentioned here? The Gemara answers: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This addition of karmelit was only necessary in order to teach the case of a corner adjacent to the public domain, where, although at times the multitudes push their way in and enter it, since its use is inconvenient it is considered a karmelit.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬谉 讛注诪讜讚讬谉 谞讬讚讜谉 讻讻专诪诇讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讚专住讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪住转讙讬 诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬讗 讻讻专诪诇讬转 讚诪讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬爪讟讘讗 砖诇驻谞讬 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 讻讻专诪诇讬转

Similarly, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Between the pillars alongside the public domain is judged like a karmelit. What is the reason for this? Although the multitudes stride there, since they cannot walk in it in a direct manner, uninterrupted, it is considered like a karmelit. Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Yehuda said: The same is true for the bench that is before the pillars upon which the merchants place their wares; it is judged to be like a karmelit.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讬谉 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讬爪讟讘讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬爪讟讘讗 讗讬爪讟讘讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 讛注诪讜讚讬诐 讚谞讬讞讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 诇讗 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 讛注诪讜讚讬谉 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讚专住讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬讗

The Gemara comments: According to the one who said that between the pillars is considered like a karmelit, all the more so a bench is considered a karmelit. However, according to the one who said that a bench is a karmelit, one could say that that is so specifically with regard to a bench because its use is inconvenient. However, the space between the pillars, whose use is convenient, would not be considered a karmelit. Another version of that statement: However, between the pillars where, at times, the multitudes stride there is considered like the public domain.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讘讬谞讛 讝拽讜驻讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讝专拽 讜讟讞 讘驻谞讬讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讙讘讛 驻讟讜专

With regard to the question to what degree does the use of the multitudes determine whether a specific place is considered a public domain, the Gemara cites the halakha that Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav 岣sda said: If an upright brick was placed in the public domain and one threw an object from a distance of four cubits and he stuck the object to its side, he is liable for throwing in the public domain. But if the object landed atop the brick, he is not liable. Because the multitudes do not step on the brick, it is not a full-fledged public domain.

讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讛讜讗 砖讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛 讚诇讗 讚专住讬 诇讛 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讝诪讬 讜讛讬讙讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讙讘讬讛讬 砖诇砖讛 讜讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讝诪讬 讜讛讬讙讬 讗讘诇 爪讜讗讛 诇讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 爪讜讗讛

It was Abaye and Rava, who both said: And that is specifically when that brick is at least three handbreadths high, as then the multitudes do not step on it, and, therefore, even though the brick is standing in the public domain, it is considered an independent domain. However, thorns and shrubs, even though they are not three handbreadths high, are not considered part of the public domain. Since people do not walk on thorns, those areas cannot be considered part of the public domain. And 岣yya bar Rav said: Even the place where there are thorns and shrubs in the public domain, if they were low, the place is considered part of the public domain. However, a place in the public domain where there are feces is not considered part of the public domain, as people do not walk there. And Rav Ashi said: Even a place in the public domain where there are feces is considered part of the public domain, since ultimately people who are rushing to work do not take care to avoid it and will step on it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讻专诪诇讬转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讗专讘注讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜转讜驻住转 注讚 注砖专讛 诪讗讬 讜转讜驻住转 注讚 注砖专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬 讻专诪诇讬转 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讻专诪诇讬转 讜诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬转 砖讗讬谉 讘转讜讻讜 注砖专讛 讜拽专讜讬讜 诪砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 注诇 讙讙讜 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讘转讜讻讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

Rabba from the school of Rav Sheila said: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There is no karmelit less than four handbreadths. And Rav Sheshet added and said: And the karmelit extends up to ten handbreadths. With regard to the formulation of Rav Sheshet, the Gemara wondered: What is the meaning of the phrase: And extends up to ten? If you say that it means if there is a partition ten handbreadths high surrounding it then it is considered a karmelit, and if not, it is not considered a karmelit. And is it not a karmelit? Didn鈥檛 Rav Giddel say that Rav 岣yya bar Yosef said that Rav said: A house that does not have walls inside it that are ten handbreadths high, and with its roofing it reaches a height of ten handbreadths above the ground; on its roof, one may carry on all of it, as its roof is a private domain in every sense, and inside it, one may only carry four cubits, as inside, the height is insufficient to render it a private domain, and it retains karmelit status? Apparently, even an area less than ten handbreadths high has the legal status of a karmelit.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讜转讜驻住转 注讚 注砖专讛 讚注讚 注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讗 讻专诪诇讬转 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 讻专诪诇讬转 讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 讘诪讬诇讬 讚砖讘转讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬谉 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜诇讛 注讚 诇专拽讬注

Rather, what is the meaning of Rav Sheshet鈥檚 formulation: And extends up to ten? Apparently, up to ten handbreadths is that which is within the parameters of a karmelit, and above ten handbreadths is not a karmelit. And as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Keen scholar [shinnana], do not be involved with questions in the matters of Shabbat above ten handbreadths. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to what halakha and in the context of what issue did Shmuel make this statement? If you say his intention was that there is no private domain above ten handbreadths, didn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: One who stuck a stick in the ground of the private domain and threw an object from the public domain and it landed atop it, even if the stick was a hundred cubits high, he is liable, since the private domain extends up to the sky? Apparently, there is a private domain even above ten handbreadths.

讗诇讗 讚讗讬谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛讝讜专拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讻讜转诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓

Rather, suggest that Shmuel meant that there is no public domain above ten handbreadths. It is a mishna, and why would he repeat an explicit mishna? As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who throws an object four cubits in the public domain, and the object came to rest on a wall standing in the public domain above ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if he were throwing an object in the air and it never landed. If it came to rest below ten handbreadths off the ground, it is as if he were throwing an object to the ground. That is an explicit mishna stating that the area of the public domain does not go beyond ten handbreadths off the ground.

讗诇讗 讻专诪诇讬转 讚讗讬谉 讻专诪诇讬转 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 诪拽讜诇讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诪拽讜诇讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪拽讜诇讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讗 讻专诪诇讬转 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 诪拽讜诇讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚注讚 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讗 讻专诪诇讬转 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讻专诪诇讬转:

Rather, it must be that Shmuel鈥檚 statement was referring to a karmelit; there is no karmelit above ten handbreadths. And, if so, the Sages were lenient with regard to a karmelit and applied some leniencies of the private domain and some leniencies of the public domain. The Gemara elaborates: Some leniencies of the private domain: That if there is an area of four handbreadths, then it is a karmelit, and if there is not an area of four handbreadths, it is merely an exempt domain. Some leniencies of the public domain: That until a height of ten handbreadths, it is a karmelit, above ten handbreadths is not a karmelit.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬转 砖讗讬谉 转讜讻讜 注砖专讛 讜拽专讜讬讜 诪砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 注诇 讙讙讜 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讘转讜讻讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

To the matter itself: It was mentioned above that Rav Giddel said that Rav 岣yya bar Yosef said that Rav said: A house that does not have inside it walls that are ten handbreadths high, and with its roofing it reaches a height of ten handbreadths above the ground; on its roof, one may carry on all of it, as its roof is a private domain in every sense, and inside it, one may only carry four cubits, as inside the height is insufficient to render it a private domain and it retains karmelit status.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗诐 讞拽拽 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讬 讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚诪讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚诪讜 讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讘讬讬 讗讜诪专 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 专讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜

With regard to this halakha, Abaye said: And if he dug out an area of four by four handbreadths in the floor of the house and in the place where the digging took place, its height to the ceiling reaches ten handbreadths, the house becomes a private domain, and it is permitted to carry in the entire house. What is the reason for this? Since the dug out area is a private domain, the rest of the house is ancillary to it, and it assumes the legal status of the holes of the private domain, and the holes of the private domain, although they lack the measure of a private domain, are considered like the private domain itself. As it was stated: Everyone agrees that the holes of the private domain are considered like the private domain; since they are subsumed within the private domain, they are judged to be like it. However, they disagreed with regard to the holes of the public domain. Abaye says: They are considered to be like the public domain. And Rava says: They are not considered to be like the public domain; they are either a karmelit or an exempt domain.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜转讬讛讜讬 讻讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛转诐 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 讛讻讗 谞讬讞讗 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛

Rava said to Abaye: According to you, who said that the holes of the public domain are considered like the public domain, in what way is it different from this halakha? As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This addition of karmelit to the Tosefta was only necessary to teach the case of a corner adjacent to the public domain. And, according to your opinion, let this corner be like the holes of the public domain, and its legal status should be that of a public domain itself and not that of a karmelit. Abaye answered: There is a distinction between the cases. There, the corner, its use is not convenient; here, the holes of the public domain, their use is convenient. Since it is convenient to utilize the holes of the public domain, and they are in fact utilized, they are a public domain in every sense.

转谞谉 讛讝讜专拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讻讜转诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗专抓 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞

The Gemara raised an additional difficulty for Abaye鈥檚 opinion: We learned in a mishna with regard to one who throws an object four cubits in the public domain, and the object came to rest on a wall standing in the public domain above ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if he were throwing an object in the air and it never landed. If it came to rest below ten handbreadths off the ground, it is as if he were throwing an object to the ground, and he is liable. And we discussed this halakha: What is the reason that when the wall is not ten handbreadths high it is as if he threw it to the ground? The object did not come to rest on the wall, as presumably the object hit the wall and then fell to the ground. Since there was no act of placement, he did not perform the prohibited labor of carrying in the public domain.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚讘讬诇讛 砖诪讬谞讛 砖谞讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讜专讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讗讜拽诪讛 讘讚讘讬诇讛 砖诪讬谞讛 诇讜拽诪讛 讘爪专讜专 讜讞驻抓 讜讚谞讞 讘讞讜专

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said that they learned this mishna as referring to a case when he threw a juicy cake of figs that sticks to the wall and remains there. And should it enter your mind to say that the holes of the public domain are considered like the public domain, why do I need to establish the mishna as referring to the case of a juicy cake of figs? Let us establish it simply as referring to the case of a run-of-the-mill stone or object, and that it came to rest in a hole.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 诪砖谞讬 诇讛 砖讗谞讬 爪专讜专 讜讞驻抓 讚诪讬讛讚专 讜讗转讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 诪砖谞讬 诇讛 讘讻讜转诇 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讞讜专 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讝专拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讻讜转诇 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讞讜专 讗诪讗讬 讻讝讜专拽 讘讗讜讬专 讛讗 谞讞 讘讞讜专

Sometimes Abaye would answer the question by saying that a stone or object is different from a juicy fig in that they come back when they are thrown and do not come to rest in the hole. Therefore, it was simpler to establish the mishna in the case of a fig. And sometimes he would answer it by saying that the mishna is referring to a wall that has no hole. And from where does he find support for this explanation? From that which we learned in the first clause of the mishna: One who throws above ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if he is throwing in the air and it never landed. And if it should enter your mind to say that we are speaking here about a wall that has a hole in it, why should it be as if he threw it in the air and it never landed? It rested in a hole, and that hole is a private domain, as it is above ten handbreadths, and in that way the prohibited labor of carrying in was performed.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讝专拽 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讛诇讻讛 讜谞讞讛 讘讞讜专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘谞谉 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讻讜转诇 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讞讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:

And if you say that the mishna is referring to a case where holes do not have an area of at least four by four handbreadths, which is common for holes in the wall, and therefore the holes have exempt domain status, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rabbi 岣yya said: One who threw an object above ten handbreadths and the object went and came to rest in a hole of any size, we have arrived in this matter at the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis? The decision whether or not there is a prohibition here depends on an analysis of that dispute. Rabbi Meir holds that in all cases where a certain minimum area is required for a specific halakha to take effect and the existing area is smaller, if, theoretically, circumstances would allow to carve out and create an area of the requisite size, one considers it as if he carves out the space to complete it, i.e., the space has the legal status as if it was actually enlarged. And the Rabbis hold that one does not carve out the space to complete it. Rather, the legal status of the area corresponds to its actual size. Consequently, according to Rabbi Meir, if an object landed in a small hole, one considers the area as if it were carved out to complete the hole to four by four handbreadths, and its legal status is like that of a private domain in every sense. Rather, can we not conclude from the mishna that maintains that one who throws an object onto a wall above ten handbreadths it is as if he threw it in the air, that it is referring to a wall that has no hole in it, and the possibility of carving out the space was never raised? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜诇讛 注讚 诇专拽讬注 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬 讝讬讝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐 (讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛)

The Gemara again returns to the matter that was mentioned above in passing itself [gufa]. Rav 岣sda said: One who stuck a stick in the ground of the private domain, and an object that he himself threw from the public domain rested atop it, even if that stick was a hundred cubits high, he is liable. The reason for this is because the private domain rises up to the sky. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that when Rav 岣sda said his statement, it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The tanna鈥檌m disagreed with regard to a similar issue, as it was taught in a baraita: One who threw an object on Shabbat in the public domain, and the object rested on a projection of any size, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him liable and the Rabbis deem him exempt. Consequently, only according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is there no need for the object to come to rest on an area of a specific size, and therefore the statement of Rav 岣sda with regard to the stick can only be in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion.

Scroll To Top