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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 14, 2020 | 讬状讞 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 8

If one threw an object from a public domain to a pole in a private domain, even if the pole is very tall, one is obligated for passing from a public to a private domain. Does this match Rebbi’s opinion regarding one who throw an item onto a protrusion? Abaye says they are not the same as the details of the case are different and the debate between Rebbi and the rabbis is on a different topic. Abaye brings a case where one throws a rounded basket from a private domain to a public domain. Does it depend on the size? Upon what else does it depend? Does it matter if it is thrown right size up or upside down (because of laws of levud)? How does one calculate the 4×4 width in a circular item? Ulla brings a case of a pole nine tefachim tall and says that since people use it to readjust their loads, it is considered public space. Would the same be true for a hole nine tefachim deep? There is a disagreement. Rava thinks it is not the same as using a hole to store things is not so convenient. Several questions are brought against Rava. What is the law regarding a threshold – does it depend on its size?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讗讬诇谉 讛注讜诪讚 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜谞讜驻讜 谞讜讟讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 讗谞讜驻讜 讚专讘讬 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讚讬 谞讜驻讜 讘转专 注讬拽专讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讚讬 谞讜驻讜 讘转专 注讬拽专讜:

Regarding this assertion, Abaye said: In the private domain, everyone agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, i.e., that the private domain is considered one entity filled from the ground to the sky. However, here this baraita is referring to a special case involving a tree standing in the private domain and its boughs lean into the public domain, and one threw an object from the public domain and it rested upon the boughs of the tree. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that we say: Cast its boughs after its trunk. The tree鈥檚 branches are considered an extension of its trunk, therefore the entire tree is considered a private domain, and one who throws onto it is liable. And the Rabbis hold that we do not say: Cast its boughs after its trunk, and therefore the boughs themselves are not considered to be a private domain, but rather an exempt domain, and one who throws atop them from the public domain is not liable.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讝专拽 讻讜讜专转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讛 专讞讘讛 砖砖讛 讞讬讬讘 专讞讘讛 砖砖讛 驻讟讜专

Abaye said: One who threw a round reed barrel into the public domain, and the barrel is ten handbreadths high and its diameter is not six handbreadths wide, is liable. Since its diameter is less than six handbreadths, its area is less than the area of four handbreadths squared. Therefore, this barrel is considered an object, and if he threw it from the private domain to the public domain he is liable. However, if the diameter of the barrel was six handbreadths wide, he is exempt. Since the area of the barrel is greater than the area of four handbreadths squared, it is considered an independent private domain, and he did not perform an act of throwing an object from one domain to another domain.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛 专讞讘讛 砖砖讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇拽专讜诪讬讜转 砖诇 拽谞讛 砖诇讗 讬注诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛

Rava said: Even if it was not six handbreadths wide he is exempt. What is the reason for this? He is exempt because it is impossible that the ends of the reeds protruding from the weave of the barrel will not extend above ten handbreadths. Consequently, the entire barrel never entered the public domain, as part of it remains in a non-liable place, i.e., ten handbreadths off the ground of the public domain.

讻驻讗讛 注诇 驻讬讛 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 讞讬讬讘 砖讘注讛 讜诪讞爪讛 驻讟讜专

If he turned the barrel that is less than six handbreadths wide over on its mouth, i.e., if he threw it with its mouth facing down, even if the barrel was only seven handbreadths and a bit high, he is still liable, as the legal status of this barrel is equivalent to that of any other object that lands there. However, if the height of this barrel was seven and a half handbreadths, he is exempt. Within three handbreadths of the ground, the principle of lavud takes effect: An object within three handbreadths of the ground has the legal status of being connected to the ground. The sides of the barrel extend to the ground and then it is considered as if the barrel already touched the ground of the public domain, even though it is actually still three handbreadths away, while its upper part remains an exempt domain. It is as if this was a barrel higher than ten handbreadths.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘注讛 讜诪讞爪讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讞讬爪讜转 诇转讜讻谉 注砖讜讬讜转:

Rav Ashi said: Even if the height of the barrel was seven and a half handbreadths, he is liable, as the sides of the barrel are not considered to be higher than they are in reality. What is the reason for this? The reason is because partitions are made exclusively for the inside of the barrel. The sides of the barrel play no role beyond the barrel itself, and therefore there is no room to extend the sides by means of the principle of lavud. Therefore, if the barrel itself is not higher than ten handbreadths, it is merely an object.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 注诪讜讚 转砖注讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜专讘讬诐 诪讻转驻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诪讚专住 讚专住讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬诐 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 转砖注讛 诇讗 诪讚专住 讚专住讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讻转讜驻讬 诪讻转驻讬 转砖注讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讻转驻讬谉 注讬诇讜讬讛

Ulla said: A pillar that is nine handbreadths high, standing in the public domain, and many people adjust the burden on their shoulders upon it, and one threw an object from the private domain and it rested atop the pillar, he is liable. What is the reason for this? It is based on this principle: Anything protruding from the public domain: If it is less than three handbreadths off the ground, and the multitudes step on it, it is considered to be part of the ground. If it is from three to nine handbreadths, they, the multitudes, neither step on it nor adjust the burden on their shoulders on it, and it is not considered part of the public domain. However, a protrusion nine handbreadths high, certainly the multitudes adjust the burden on their shoulders on it. Since the multitudes utilize it, it is considered a public domain, despite its height.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讙讜诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻谉 讘讙讜诪讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讙讜诪讗 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转砖诪讬砖 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 转砖诪讬砖

Based on Ulla鈥檚 statement, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: A hole in the ground of the public domain, which is several handbreadths deep, what is its legal status? Is it also considered, in accordance with Ulla鈥檚 principle, part of the public domain? In general, with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, there is no distinction between an area elevated above its surroundings and an area depressed below its surroundings. Rav Yosef said to him: And the same is true in a hole; these halakhot apply. Rava said: In a hole, these halakhot do not apply. What is the reason for this? Since use under duress is not considered use, and the use of a pit even if it is nine handbreadths deep is inconvenient, and it is not comparable to a pillar of the same height.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 诇专讘讗 讛讬转讛 拽讜驻转讜 诪讜谞讞转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讗 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 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜讻谉 讘讙讜诪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 诇讗 讗专讬砖讗

Rav Adda bar Mattana raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion from that which was taught in a baraita: One whose basket was placed in the public domain and it was ten handbreadths high and four wide, one may neither move an object from it to the public domain nor from the public domain to it, since its legal status is that of a private domain. If it were less than that height, one may carry from it to the public domain and vice versa. The baraita adds: And the same is true for a hole. Is this statement not referring to the latter clause of the baraita: One may carry from a pit which is less than ten handbreadths deep to the public domain? This supports the opinion of Rav Yosef, that a hole is subsumed within the public domain. Rava rejected this: This statement is not referring to the latter clause of the baraita, but rather to the first clause of the baraita: It is like a basket in that one may not carry from a hole ten handbreadths deep to the public domain because it is a full-fledged private domain. However, no conclusion may be drawn with regard to a hole less than ten handbreadths deep.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛

Rav Adda bar Mattana raised another objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion from what was taught in a different baraita, which deals with the laws of joining of borders:

谞转讻讜讜谉 诇砖讘讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讘讜专 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘

One who intended to establish his Shabbat abode in the public domain at a specific site must place food sufficient for two meals for that site to be considered his legal residence. And if he placed the food used for his eiruv in a pit above ten handbreadths, i.e., less than ten handbreadths below ground level, his eiruv is an eiruv. If he placed the eiruv below ten handbreadths from ground level, his eiruv is not an eiruv. Because the pit is a private domain and he may not carry the eiruv from that private domain to a public domain, where he has established his residence, the eiruv is invalid.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讘讜专 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 注砖专讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 讚讚诇讗讬 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 讜诇诪讟讛 讚转转讗讬 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注诇讛 讜诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讬专讜讘讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讛讜讗

The Gemara seeks to clarify the details of this case. What are the exact circumstances? If you say that the baraita is referring to a pit that has ten handbreadths in depth and the phrase: And he placed it above ten handbreadths, means that he raised the eiruv and placed it within ten handbreadths of ground level, and the phrase: Below ten handbreadths, means that he lowered the eiruv and placed it ten handbreadths or more below ground level, what difference does it make to me if the eiruv is above ten handbreadths and what difference does it make to me if it is below ten handbreadths? In any case, the pit is a private domain, and the principle states that the private domain extends from its lowest point to the sky. There is no difference whether the eiruv was placed higher or lower. In any case, he is in one place, in the public domain, and his eiruv is in another place, in the private domain. Since he cannot take the eiruv out of the pit, his eiruv is not an eiruv.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讘讜专 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 注砖专讛 讜拽转谞讬 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讗诇诪讗 转砖诪讬砖 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 砖诪讬讛 转砖诪讬砖

Rather, is the baraita not referring to a pit that does not have in it a depth of ten handbreadths? And the baraita should be understood as follows: If he placed his eiruv below ten handbreadths, refers to a pit whose lowest point is ten handbreadths or more below ground level. If he placed his eiruv above ten handbreadths, refers to a pit that is less than ten handbreadths deep and is not a private domain. And, with regard to that case, it was taught that his eiruv is an eiruv. Consequently, usage under duress in a pit that is less than ten handbreadths deep is considered usage, and a pit of that kind is a full-fledged part of the public domain.

讝诪谞讬谉 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讜注讬专讜讘讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

Rava suggested various responses to this objection. At times he would answer him that it is referring to a case where both he and his eiruv are in a karmelit, i.e., that he intended to establish residence in a karmelit and placed his eiruv there. The pit is less than ten handbreadths deep, and consequently, both he and his eiruv are in the same domain. And why does the baraita call his place of residence the public domain? Because it is not the private domain.

讜讝诪谞讬谉 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讬专讜讘讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

And at times he would answer him that it is referring to a case where he was, indeed, in the public domain and his eiruv was in a karmelit, as a pit that is not ten handbreadths deep is not part of the public domain, rather it is a karmelit. With regard to the question, how can this be considered a legitimate eiruv as it is forbidden to carry from a karmelit to a public domain as well, this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat and its prohibition is not by Torah law, rather it is due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages did not issue the decree to apply during twilight, which is neither definitive day nor definitive night. Consequently, at the time that the eiruv was placed in the karmelit it was permissible for him to carry it to the public domain. Since an eiruv takes effect even if it is fit for use just one moment during twilight on Shabbat eve, his eiruv is effective.

讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚讞讜讬讬 拽讗 诪讚讞讬谞讗 诇讱 讗诇讗 讚讜拽讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讚转谞谉 讗诐 讛讬讛 专拽拽 诪讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛诇讻转 讘讜 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 专拽拽 诪讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜专拽拽 诪讬诐 砖专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛诇讻转 讘讜 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘

And Rava said to Rav Adda bar Mattana: Do not say that I am just putting you off with these answers. Rather, what I am saying to you is accurate. The opinion that usage under duress is not considered usage is a bona fide opinion and the suggested answers are appropriate explanations of that baraita. As we learned in a mishna: If there was a swamp and the public domain passes through it, one who throws an object into it at a distance of four cubits is liable just like anyone who carried four cubits in the public domain. And how deep is this swamp? It is less than ten handbreadths. The mishna adds: And with regard to a swamp that the public domain passes through it, one who throws four cubits into the swamp is liable.

讘砖诇诪讗 专拽拽 专拽拽 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诇拽专讜专讬 谞驻砖讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讙讘 讚诪讟谞讬祝 诪拽专讬 讜谞讞讬转 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The difficulty concerning the repetition of the same topic with virtually identical words is clear, and therefore: Granted, it is possible to explain, that swamp swamp was repeated twice; one case is referring to the summer, and one case is referring to the rainy season. And it is necessary to emphasize that this ruling is in effect both in the summer and in the winter. As, had the mishna told us this halakha only in the summer, we would have said that since people commonly pass through the swamp to cool themselves, it is considered part of the public domain. However, in the rainy season I would have said it is not part of the public domain. And conversely, had the mishna told us this halakha only in the rainy season, I would have said that since he is filthy anyway, it happens that he is not cautious and enters into the swamp. However, in the summer, when he is not dirty with mud, I would have said that it is not part of the public domain. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to repeat swamp twice, to teach us that this halakha applies at all times.

讗诇讗 讛讬诇讜讱 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讬诇讜讱 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 砖诪讬讛 讛讬诇讜讱 转砖诪讬砖 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 转砖诪讬砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

However, why do I need the mishna to state twice that the public domain passes through that swamp? Rather, shouldn鈥檛 one conclude from this that passage, even when it is under duress, and not free and easy, is considered passage, but usage under duress is not considered usage? It was necessary to emphasize that the public domain actually passes through it. If the multitudes do not pass through it and it was only used under duress, it would not have been considered a public domain. The Gemara concludes: Indeed conclude from this.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讝讬专讝讗 讚拽谞讬 专诪讗 讜讝拽驻讬讛 专诪讗 讜讝拽驻讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 注讚 讚注拽专 诇讬讛

Somewhat related to the case of the barrel discussed earlier which was a case of moving an object without liability, the Gemara cites that Rav Yehuda said: That bundle of reeds that he stood upright and threw down, stood upright and threw down repeatedly, he is not liable for carrying it four cubits in the public domain until he lifts it off the ground. As long as he did not lift it from the ground, even though he moved it a long way, he did not perform the acts of lifting and placing which are prohibited by Torah law, as at least one part of the bundle always remained on the ground.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讚诐 注讜诪讚 注诇 讛讗住拽讜驻讛 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 讛讗讬 讗住拽讜驻讛 诪讗讬

The Master said: 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 in and carrying out in an exempt domain on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: This threshold, what is it; to what type of threshold is it referring? Different thresholds have different halakhic status.

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住拽讜驻转 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 谞讜讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讗 诪驻讬拽 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

If you say that it is referring to a threshold that is the public domain, i.e., the threshold of an alleyway that is fewer than three handbreadths off the ground and is not covered, and the post that demarcates the parameters of the alleyway is situated between the public domain and the alleyway, how can the Tosefta say that he may take an object from the homeowner? Isn鈥檛 he carrying out from the private domain to the public domain?

讜讗诇讗 讗住拽讜驻转 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 诪谉 讛注谞讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

Rather, say that the Tosefta is referring to a threshold that is the private domain, in a case where it is covered, or it is situated between the post that demarcates the parameters of the alleyway and the private domain, or it is ten handbreadths high and its area is at least four by four handbreadths. How then can the Tosefta say that he may take an object from a poor person? Isn鈥檛 he carrying in from the public domain to the private domain?

讗诇讗 讗住拽讜驻转 讻专诪诇讬转 谞讜讟诇 讜谞讜转谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转讗

Rather, say that the Tosefta is referring to a threshold that is a karmelit, i.e., it is not ten handbreadths high and it is four by four handbreadths; how can the Tosefta say that he may take and give even ab initio? Ultimately, in this case, there is nevertheless a prohibition. Even though a karmelit does not engender liability by Torah law, carrying from it is prohibited by rabbinic law and is certainly not permitted ab initio.

讗诇讗 讗住拽讜驻讛 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讻讙讜谉 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讻讬 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 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诇讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讻转祝 注诇讬讜 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻讜

Rather, say that the Tosefta is referring to a threshold that is merely an exempt domain, and therefore there is no prohibition at all. In what circumstances is it an exempt domain? In a case where it does not have an area of four by four handbreadths, and it is therefore not considered a domain with regard to liability on Shabbat. And that halakha is similar to that statement made when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A place that does not have an area of four by four handbreadths and is set apart, it is permissible for both the people of the private domain and for the people of the public domain to adjust the burden on their shoulders upon it on Shabbat, as long as they do not exchange objects between them from one domain to the other domain.

讗诪专 诪专 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 驻讟讜专讬谉 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛注讘讬专讜

The Master also said in the Tosefta: A person standing on the threshold may take an object from the homeowner and give an object to him, and he may take an object from the poor person or give an object to him, as long as he does not take the object from the homeowner and give it to a poor person or from a poor person and give it to the homeowner. And, however, if he took an object from one and gave it to the other, certainly no labor prohibited by Torah law was performed in that case, and all three of them are exempt. The Gemara asks: Say that this will be a conclusive refutation of Rava鈥檚 opinion, as Rava said: One who transfers an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain, even though he transferred it above the upper boundary of the public domain

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...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 8: It Doesn’t Matter How You Use Your Domain

A lot of the discussion of the private domain is dramatically different from our intuitive sense of what a private...

Shabbat 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 8

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讗讬诇谉 讛注讜诪讚 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜谞讜驻讜 谞讜讟讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 讗谞讜驻讜 讚专讘讬 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讚讬 谞讜驻讜 讘转专 注讬拽专讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讚讬 谞讜驻讜 讘转专 注讬拽专讜:

Regarding this assertion, Abaye said: In the private domain, everyone agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, i.e., that the private domain is considered one entity filled from the ground to the sky. However, here this baraita is referring to a special case involving a tree standing in the private domain and its boughs lean into the public domain, and one threw an object from the public domain and it rested upon the boughs of the tree. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that we say: Cast its boughs after its trunk. The tree鈥檚 branches are considered an extension of its trunk, therefore the entire tree is considered a private domain, and one who throws onto it is liable. And the Rabbis hold that we do not say: Cast its boughs after its trunk, and therefore the boughs themselves are not considered to be a private domain, but rather an exempt domain, and one who throws atop them from the public domain is not liable.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讝专拽 讻讜讜专转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讛 专讞讘讛 砖砖讛 讞讬讬讘 专讞讘讛 砖砖讛 驻讟讜专

Abaye said: One who threw a round reed barrel into the public domain, and the barrel is ten handbreadths high and its diameter is not six handbreadths wide, is liable. Since its diameter is less than six handbreadths, its area is less than the area of four handbreadths squared. Therefore, this barrel is considered an object, and if he threw it from the private domain to the public domain he is liable. However, if the diameter of the barrel was six handbreadths wide, he is exempt. Since the area of the barrel is greater than the area of four handbreadths squared, it is considered an independent private domain, and he did not perform an act of throwing an object from one domain to another domain.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讛 专讞讘讛 砖砖讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇拽专讜诪讬讜转 砖诇 拽谞讛 砖诇讗 讬注诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛

Rava said: Even if it was not six handbreadths wide he is exempt. What is the reason for this? He is exempt because it is impossible that the ends of the reeds protruding from the weave of the barrel will not extend above ten handbreadths. Consequently, the entire barrel never entered the public domain, as part of it remains in a non-liable place, i.e., ten handbreadths off the ground of the public domain.

讻驻讗讛 注诇 驻讬讛 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 讞讬讬讘 砖讘注讛 讜诪讞爪讛 驻讟讜专

If he turned the barrel that is less than six handbreadths wide over on its mouth, i.e., if he threw it with its mouth facing down, even if the barrel was only seven handbreadths and a bit high, he is still liable, as the legal status of this barrel is equivalent to that of any other object that lands there. However, if the height of this barrel was seven and a half handbreadths, he is exempt. Within three handbreadths of the ground, the principle of lavud takes effect: An object within three handbreadths of the ground has the legal status of being connected to the ground. The sides of the barrel extend to the ground and then it is considered as if the barrel already touched the ground of the public domain, even though it is actually still three handbreadths away, while its upper part remains an exempt domain. It is as if this was a barrel higher than ten handbreadths.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘注讛 讜诪讞爪讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讞讬爪讜转 诇转讜讻谉 注砖讜讬讜转:

Rav Ashi said: Even if the height of the barrel was seven and a half handbreadths, he is liable, as the sides of the barrel are not considered to be higher than they are in reality. What is the reason for this? The reason is because partitions are made exclusively for the inside of the barrel. The sides of the barrel play no role beyond the barrel itself, and therefore there is no room to extend the sides by means of the principle of lavud. Therefore, if the barrel itself is not higher than ten handbreadths, it is merely an object.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 注诪讜讚 转砖注讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜专讘讬诐 诪讻转驻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诪讚专住 讚专住讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬诐 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 转砖注讛 诇讗 诪讚专住 讚专住讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讻转讜驻讬 诪讻转驻讬 转砖注讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讻转驻讬谉 注讬诇讜讬讛

Ulla said: A pillar that is nine handbreadths high, standing in the public domain, and many people adjust the burden on their shoulders upon it, and one threw an object from the private domain and it rested atop the pillar, he is liable. What is the reason for this? It is based on this principle: Anything protruding from the public domain: If it is less than three handbreadths off the ground, and the multitudes step on it, it is considered to be part of the ground. If it is from three to nine handbreadths, they, the multitudes, neither step on it nor adjust the burden on their shoulders on it, and it is not considered part of the public domain. However, a protrusion nine handbreadths high, certainly the multitudes adjust the burden on their shoulders on it. Since the multitudes utilize it, it is considered a public domain, despite its height.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讙讜诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻谉 讘讙讜诪讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讙讜诪讗 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转砖诪讬砖 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 转砖诪讬砖

Based on Ulla鈥檚 statement, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: A hole in the ground of the public domain, which is several handbreadths deep, what is its legal status? Is it also considered, in accordance with Ulla鈥檚 principle, part of the public domain? In general, with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, there is no distinction between an area elevated above its surroundings and an area depressed below its surroundings. Rav Yosef said to him: And the same is true in a hole; these halakhot apply. Rava said: In a hole, these halakhot do not apply. What is the reason for this? Since use under duress is not considered use, and the use of a pit even if it is nine handbreadths deep is inconvenient, and it is not comparable to a pillar of the same height.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 诇专讘讗 讛讬转讛 拽讜驻转讜 诪讜谞讞转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讗 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 驻讞讜转 诪讻谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜讻谉 讘讙讜诪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 诇讗 讗专讬砖讗

Rav Adda bar Mattana raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion from that which was taught in a baraita: One whose basket was placed in the public domain and it was ten handbreadths high and four wide, one may neither move an object from it to the public domain nor from the public domain to it, since its legal status is that of a private domain. If it were less than that height, one may carry from it to the public domain and vice versa. The baraita adds: And the same is true for a hole. Is this statement not referring to the latter clause of the baraita: One may carry from a pit which is less than ten handbreadths deep to the public domain? This supports the opinion of Rav Yosef, that a hole is subsumed within the public domain. Rava rejected this: This statement is not referring to the latter clause of the baraita, but rather to the first clause of the baraita: It is like a basket in that one may not carry from a hole ten handbreadths deep to the public domain because it is a full-fledged private domain. However, no conclusion may be drawn with regard to a hole less than ten handbreadths deep.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛

Rav Adda bar Mattana raised another objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion from what was taught in a different baraita, which deals with the laws of joining of borders:

谞转讻讜讜谉 诇砖讘讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讘讜专 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘

One who intended to establish his Shabbat abode in the public domain at a specific site must place food sufficient for two meals for that site to be considered his legal residence. And if he placed the food used for his eiruv in a pit above ten handbreadths, i.e., less than ten handbreadths below ground level, his eiruv is an eiruv. If he placed the eiruv below ten handbreadths from ground level, his eiruv is not an eiruv. Because the pit is a private domain and he may not carry the eiruv from that private domain to a public domain, where he has established his residence, the eiruv is invalid.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讘讜专 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 注砖专讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 讚讚诇讗讬 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 讜诇诪讟讛 讚转转讗讬 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注诇讛 讜诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讬专讜讘讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讛讜讗

The Gemara seeks to clarify the details of this case. What are the exact circumstances? If you say that the baraita is referring to a pit that has ten handbreadths in depth and the phrase: And he placed it above ten handbreadths, means that he raised the eiruv and placed it within ten handbreadths of ground level, and the phrase: Below ten handbreadths, means that he lowered the eiruv and placed it ten handbreadths or more below ground level, what difference does it make to me if the eiruv is above ten handbreadths and what difference does it make to me if it is below ten handbreadths? In any case, the pit is a private domain, and the principle states that the private domain extends from its lowest point to the sky. There is no difference whether the eiruv was placed higher or lower. In any case, he is in one place, in the public domain, and his eiruv is in another place, in the private domain. Since he cannot take the eiruv out of the pit, his eiruv is not an eiruv.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讘讜专 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 注砖专讛 讜拽转谞讬 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讗诇诪讗 转砖诪讬砖 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 砖诪讬讛 转砖诪讬砖

Rather, is the baraita not referring to a pit that does not have in it a depth of ten handbreadths? And the baraita should be understood as follows: If he placed his eiruv below ten handbreadths, refers to a pit whose lowest point is ten handbreadths or more below ground level. If he placed his eiruv above ten handbreadths, refers to a pit that is less than ten handbreadths deep and is not a private domain. And, with regard to that case, it was taught that his eiruv is an eiruv. Consequently, usage under duress in a pit that is less than ten handbreadths deep is considered usage, and a pit of that kind is a full-fledged part of the public domain.

讝诪谞讬谉 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讜注讬专讜讘讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

Rava suggested various responses to this objection. At times he would answer him that it is referring to a case where both he and his eiruv are in a karmelit, i.e., that he intended to establish residence in a karmelit and placed his eiruv there. The pit is less than ten handbreadths deep, and consequently, both he and his eiruv are in the same domain. And why does the baraita call his place of residence the public domain? Because it is not the private domain.

讜讝诪谞讬谉 诪砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讬专讜讘讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

And at times he would answer him that it is referring to a case where he was, indeed, in the public domain and his eiruv was in a karmelit, as a pit that is not ten handbreadths deep is not part of the public domain, rather it is a karmelit. With regard to the question, how can this be considered a legitimate eiruv as it is forbidden to carry from a karmelit to a public domain as well, this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat and its prohibition is not by Torah law, rather it is due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages did not issue the decree to apply during twilight, which is neither definitive day nor definitive night. Consequently, at the time that the eiruv was placed in the karmelit it was permissible for him to carry it to the public domain. Since an eiruv takes effect even if it is fit for use just one moment during twilight on Shabbat eve, his eiruv is effective.

讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讚讞讜讬讬 拽讗 诪讚讞讬谞讗 诇讱 讗诇讗 讚讜拽讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讚转谞谉 讗诐 讛讬讛 专拽拽 诪讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛诇讻转 讘讜 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 专拽拽 诪讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜专拽拽 诪讬诐 砖专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛诇讻转 讘讜 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘

And Rava said to Rav Adda bar Mattana: Do not say that I am just putting you off with these answers. Rather, what I am saying to you is accurate. The opinion that usage under duress is not considered usage is a bona fide opinion and the suggested answers are appropriate explanations of that baraita. As we learned in a mishna: If there was a swamp and the public domain passes through it, one who throws an object into it at a distance of four cubits is liable just like anyone who carried four cubits in the public domain. And how deep is this swamp? It is less than ten handbreadths. The mishna adds: And with regard to a swamp that the public domain passes through it, one who throws four cubits into the swamp is liable.

讘砖诇诪讗 专拽拽 专拽拽 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讞讚 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讚注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诇拽专讜专讬 谞驻砖讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讙讘 讚诪讟谞讬祝 诪拽专讬 讜谞讞讬转 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The difficulty concerning the repetition of the same topic with virtually identical words is clear, and therefore: Granted, it is possible to explain, that swamp swamp was repeated twice; one case is referring to the summer, and one case is referring to the rainy season. And it is necessary to emphasize that this ruling is in effect both in the summer and in the winter. As, had the mishna told us this halakha only in the summer, we would have said that since people commonly pass through the swamp to cool themselves, it is considered part of the public domain. However, in the rainy season I would have said it is not part of the public domain. And conversely, had the mishna told us this halakha only in the rainy season, I would have said that since he is filthy anyway, it happens that he is not cautious and enters into the swamp. However, in the summer, when he is not dirty with mud, I would have said that it is not part of the public domain. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to repeat swamp twice, to teach us that this halakha applies at all times.

讗诇讗 讛讬诇讜讱 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讬诇讜讱 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 砖诪讬讛 讛讬诇讜讱 转砖诪讬砖 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 转砖诪讬砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

However, why do I need the mishna to state twice that the public domain passes through that swamp? Rather, shouldn鈥檛 one conclude from this that passage, even when it is under duress, and not free and easy, is considered passage, but usage under duress is not considered usage? It was necessary to emphasize that the public domain actually passes through it. If the multitudes do not pass through it and it was only used under duress, it would not have been considered a public domain. The Gemara concludes: Indeed conclude from this.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讝讬专讝讗 讚拽谞讬 专诪讗 讜讝拽驻讬讛 专诪讗 讜讝拽驻讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 注讚 讚注拽专 诇讬讛

Somewhat related to the case of the barrel discussed earlier which was a case of moving an object without liability, the Gemara cites that Rav Yehuda said: That bundle of reeds that he stood upright and threw down, stood upright and threw down repeatedly, he is not liable for carrying it four cubits in the public domain until he lifts it off the ground. As long as he did not lift it from the ground, even though he moved it a long way, he did not perform the acts of lifting and placing which are prohibited by Torah law, as at least one part of the bundle always remained on the ground.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讚诐 注讜诪讚 注诇 讛讗住拽讜驻讛 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 讛讗讬 讗住拽讜驻讛 诪讗讬

The Master said: 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 in and carrying out in an exempt domain on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: This threshold, what is it; to what type of threshold is it referring? Different thresholds have different halakhic status.

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住拽讜驻转 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 谞讜讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讗 诪驻讬拽 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

If you say that it is referring to a threshold that is the public domain, i.e., the threshold of an alleyway that is fewer than three handbreadths off the ground and is not covered, and the post that demarcates the parameters of the alleyway is situated between the public domain and the alleyway, how can the Tosefta say that he may take an object from the homeowner? Isn鈥檛 he carrying out from the private domain to the public domain?

讜讗诇讗 讗住拽讜驻转 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 诪谉 讛注谞讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

Rather, say that the Tosefta is referring to a threshold that is the private domain, in a case where it is covered, or it is situated between the post that demarcates the parameters of the alleyway and the private domain, or it is ten handbreadths high and its area is at least four by four handbreadths. How then can the Tosefta say that he may take an object from a poor person? Isn鈥檛 he carrying in from the public domain to the private domain?

讗诇讗 讗住拽讜驻转 讻专诪诇讬转 谞讜讟诇 讜谞讜转谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转讗

Rather, say that the Tosefta is referring to a threshold that is a karmelit, i.e., it is not ten handbreadths high and it is four by four handbreadths; how can the Tosefta say that he may take and give even ab initio? Ultimately, in this case, there is nevertheless a prohibition. Even though a karmelit does not engender liability by Torah law, carrying from it is prohibited by rabbinic law and is certainly not permitted ab initio.

讗诇讗 讗住拽讜驻讛 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讻讙讜谉 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讻讬 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 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诇讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讻转祝 注诇讬讜 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻讜

Rather, say that the Tosefta is referring to a threshold that is merely an exempt domain, and therefore there is no prohibition at all. In what circumstances is it an exempt domain? In a case where it does not have an area of four by four handbreadths, and it is therefore not considered a domain with regard to liability on Shabbat. And that halakha is similar to that statement made when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A place that does not have an area of four by four handbreadths and is set apart, it is permissible for both the people of the private domain and for the people of the public domain to adjust the burden on their shoulders upon it on Shabbat, as long as they do not exchange objects between them from one domain to the other domain.

讗诪专 诪专 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 驻讟讜专讬谉 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛注讘讬专讜

The Master also said in the Tosefta: A person standing on the threshold may take an object from the homeowner and give an object to him, and he may take an object from the poor person or give an object to him, as long as he does not take the object from the homeowner and give it to a poor person or from a poor person and give it to the homeowner. And, however, if he took an object from one and gave it to the other, certainly no labor prohibited by Torah law was performed in that case, and all three of them are exempt. The Gemara asks: Say that this will be a conclusive refutation of Rava鈥檚 opinion, as Rava said: One who transfers an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain, even though he transferred it above the upper boundary of the public domain

Scroll To Top