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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 11, 2020 | 讬状讟 讘住讬讜谉 转砖状驻

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

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

Shabbat 97

What was Tzolfchad’s sin according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, if he wasn’t the wood gatherer? Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira also disagree regarding Aaron – did he get leprosy also with Miriam? One who accuses one of sinning if that person is innocent, is punished through the body. This is derived from Moshe. How? One who throws an item from one private domain to another through a public domain, there is a debate whether they are obligated by Torah law or not. Is the debate within ten handbreaths of the ground but above ten, all would agree that one is exempt or is the debate above 10 and below ten all would agree that one is obligated? Do they all agree that going through airspace is considered as if it had rested in that domain or is that a subject of debate? Do they all agree that we do not learn throwing from passing or is that a subject of debate? If one owned both private domains, one can throw and item from one to the other even with a public domain in between. What is the source for the law of levud, that a space less than 3 handbreaths is not viewed as a space but is perceived as if it is closed. If one passes an item from one public domain to another public domain through a private domain, one is obligated but only if the private domain had a roof. Then it is viewed as if it rested there. A statement was passed down in the name of Shmuel that Rebbi obligated in public to public through private two osin offerings – one for taking out and one for bringing in. This contradicts another statement of Rebbi and therefore Rav Yosef says the statement was made about Rabbi Yehuda instead and proves it from a braita. However his proof is rejected.聽 The gemara tries again to prove is it Rabbi Yehuda but is not able to prove it. One who intends to throw an item 8 cubits but throw for or vice-versa – what is the law? Is one obligated?

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讙诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇讗 讙诪专 讗诇讗 诪讛讬讻讗 讛讜讛 诪讜讬注驻讬诇讜 讛讜讛

The Gemara asks: However, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva derive this by means of a verbal analogy? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira did not learn a verbal analogy. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira had no tradition of this verbal analogy from his teachers, and therefore he disagreed with Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 conclusion. The Gemara asks: However, according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, from where was Zelophehad鈥檚 liability derived? Why was he executed? The Gemara answers: Zelophehad was among those who 鈥減resumed to ascend to the top of the mountain鈥 (Numbers 14:44) in the wake of the sin of the spies.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讜讬讞专 讗祝 讛壮 讘诐 讜讬诇讱 诪诇诪讚 砖讗祝 讗讛专谉 谞爪讟专注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注拽讬讘讗 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗转讛 注转讬讚 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讗诐 讻讚讘专讬讱 讛转讜专讛 讻住转讜 讜讗转讛 诪讙诇讛 讗讜转讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讝 注诇 讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽

On a similar note, Rabbi Akiva revealed an additional matter not explicitly articulated in the Torah. You say that when Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses, both Aaron and Miriam were struck with leprosy, as it written: 鈥淎nd God became angry at them and He left, and the cloud departed from above the tent, and behold, Miriam was leprous like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous鈥 (Numbers 12:9鈥10). The verse鈥檚 statement that God became angry at both of them teaches that Aaron, too, became leprous; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Akiva, in either case you will be judged in the future for this teaching. If the truth is in accordance with your statement, the Torah concealed Aaron鈥檚 punishment and you reveal it. And if the truth is not in accordance with your statement, you are unjustly slandering that righteous man.

讜讗诇讗 讛讻转讬讘 讘诐 讛讛讜讗 讘谞讝讬驻讛 讘注诇诪讗 转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讗讛专谉 谞爪讟专注 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬驻谉 讗讛专谉 讗诇 诪专讬诐 讜讛谞讛 诪爪专注转 转谞讗 砖驻谞讛 诪爪专注转讜

The Gemara asks: However, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva derive this from the plural pronoun them, meaning that God was angry with both of them? The Gemara answers: God鈥檚 anger in that verse was manifest in a mere rebuke, not in leprosy. A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that Aaron also became leprous, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous鈥 (Numbers 12:10), and it was taught: This teaches that he turned, i.e., he was healed, from his leprosy, as he too had been afflicted.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讞讜砖讚 讘讻砖专讬诐 诇讜拽讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谉 诇讗 讬讗诪讬谞讜 诇讬 讜讙讜壮 讜讙诇讬讗 拽诪讬 拽讜讚砖讗 讘专讬讱 讛讜讗 讚诪讛讬诪谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 讜讗转讛 讗讬谉 住讜驻讱 诇讛讗诪讬谉

On the topic of Miriam鈥檚 leprosy, the Gemara cites that which Reish Lakish said: One who suspects the innocent of indiscretion is afflicted in his body, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Moses answered and said: But they will not believe me and will not hearken to my voice, for they will say, God did not appear to you鈥 (Exodus 4:1), and it is revealed before the Holy One, Blessed be He, that the Jewish people would believe. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: They are believers, the children of believers; and ultimately, you will not believe.

讛谉 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪谉 讛注诐 讘谞讬 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 讜讛讗诪讬谉 讘讬讬 讗转讛 讗讬谉 住讜驻讱 诇讛讗诪讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讬注谉 诇讗 讛讗诪谞转诐 讘讬 讜讙讜壮 诪诪讗讬 讚诇拽讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 诇讜 注讜讚 讛讘讗 谞讗 讬讚讱 讘讞讬拽讱 讜讙讜壮:

They are believers, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the people believed once they heard that God had remembered the children of Israel, and that He saw their affliction, and they bowed and they prostrated鈥 (Exodus 4:31). The children of believers, as it says with regard to Abraham our Patriarch: 鈥淎nd he believed in God, and He counted it for him as righteousness鈥 (Genesis 15:6). Ultimately, you will not believe, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd God said to Moses and to Aaron: Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 20:12). From where do we know that Moses was afflicted in his body? As it is written: 鈥淎nd God said to him further: Bring your hand to your bosom, and he brought his hand to his bosom and he took it out and behold, his hand was leprous like snow鈥 (Exodus 4:6).

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讚讛 讟讜讘讛 诪诪讛专转 诇讘讗 诪诪讚转 驻讜专注谞讜转 讚讗讬诇讜 讘诪讚转 驻讜专注谞讜转 讻转讬讘 讜讬讜爪讬讗讛 讜讛谞讛 讬讚讜 诪爪专注转 讻砖诇讙 讜讗讬诇讜 讘诪讚讛 讟讜讘讛 讻转讬讘 讜讬讜爪讬讗讛 诪讞讬拽讜 讜讛谞讛 砖讘讛 讻讘砖专讜 诪讞讬拽讜 讛讜讗 讚砖讘讛 讻讘砖专讜

On this topic, Rava said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said: The divine attribute of beneficence takes effect more quickly than the divine attribute of punishment. From where is this derived? While, with regard to the divine attribute of punishment, it is written, 鈥淎nd he took it out and behold, his hand was leprous like snow鈥 (Exodus 4:6), with regard to the divine attribute of beneficence it is written: 鈥淎nd He said: Return your hand to your bosom, and he returned his hand to his bosom and he took it out from his bosom and behold, it had returned to be like his original flesh鈥 (Exodus 4:7). The Gemara analyzes this as follows: It was already from his bosom that it returned to be like his original flesh. Moses鈥 hand was healed even before he took his hand out.

讜讬讘诇注 诪讟讛 讗讛专谉 讗转 诪讟转诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞住 讘转讜讱 谞住:

The Gemara proceeds to discuss another miracle that transpired at that time. With regard to the verse, 鈥淎nd each man threw down his staff and they became serpents, and Aaron鈥檚 staff swallowed their staffs鈥 (Exodus 7:12), Rabbi Elazar said: This was a miracle within a miracle. It was Aaron鈥檚 staff, not his serpent, that swallowed the other staffs.

诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻讜壮:

We learned in the mishna that there is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis in a case where one threw an object from the private domain to the other private domain through the public domain between the two. Rabbi Akiva deems him liable, as one who threw an object from the private domain to the public domain, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讘注讬 专讘讛 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讗讘诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讝讜专拽 诪诪讜砖讬讟

Rabba raised a dilemma with regard to their dispute: Are they disagreeing with regard to a case where the object traveled below ten handbreadths from the ground? And, if so, it is with regard to this point that they disagree: As this Master, Rabbi Akiva holds: We say that an object in airspace is considered at rest. The object is considered as if it was actually placed in the public domain after being lifted from the private domain. And this Master, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: We do not say that an object in airspace is considered at rest. However, with regard to a case where the object traveled above ten handbreadths from the ground, everyone agrees that one is exempt, and we do not derive the legal status of throwing from the legal status of passing. Although everyone agrees that one who passes an object from a private domain to another private domain via a public domain is liable, even if it was passed above ten handbreadths, as that was the service of the Levites, one who throws an object in that manner is exempt.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讝讜专拽 诪诪讜砖讬讟 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讝讜专拽 诪诪讜砖讬讟 讗讘诇 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讚诪讬讗

Or perhaps, they are disagreeing with regard to a case where the object traveled above ten handbreadths from the ground, and it is with regard to this that they disagree: As this Master, Rabbi Akiva, holds: We derive the legal status of throwing from the legal status of passing. Therefore, one who throws an object that passes through the airspace of a public domain higher than ten handbreadths from the ground is liable. And this Master, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: We do not derive throwing from passing. However, with regard to a case where the object traveled beneath the ten handbreadth airspace of the public domain, everyone agrees that he is liable. What is the reason for that? An object in airspace is considered at rest.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讜驻砖讟讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪讛讗 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜注讜讘专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注爪诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐 诪讚拽讗诪专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注爪诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Yosef said: Rav 岣sda had a dilemma with regard to this matter, and Rav Hamnuna resolved it for him from this baraita: With regard to an object that travels from the private domain to the other private domain, and it passes through the public domain itself, Rabbi Akiva deems one liable and the Rabbis deem one exempt. From the fact that it says in the baraita: Through the public domain itself, it is obvious that it is with regard to a case where the object traveled below ten handbreadths from the ground that they disagree.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪注讘讬专 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖讜讬 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讞讬讬讘 砖讻谉 诪砖讗 讘谞讬 拽讛转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讝讜专拽 讜诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And with regard to what form of transfer is the baraita dealing? If you say it refers to passing an object in his hand, is it only when he passes it below ten handbreadths that he is liable? When he passes it above ten handbreadths is he not liable? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: One who carries out a load from a private domain to a public domain above ten handbreadths from the ground is liable, as that was the manner in which the descendants of Kehat, from whom we derived the laws of carrying, carried their burden in the Tabernacle? Rather, isn鈥檛 this baraita referring to a case of throwing, and it is in a case where the object travels below ten handbreadths from the ground that one is liable, and above ten handbreadths from the ground one is not liable? Learn from it that it is with regard to whether or not an object in airspace is considered at rest that they disagree. The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the crux of their dispute.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注爪诪讛 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉

And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Akiva deems one liable even if the object travels above ten handbreadths. And that term that was taught in the baraita, the public domain itself, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem one exempt even if the object traveled in the public domain itself, and all the more so if it traveled above ten handbreadths, which is no longer within the bounds of the public domain.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讞诇拽讬讛 讘专 讟讜讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞诇拽讬讛 讘专 讟讜讘讬 转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘谞谉

This opinion of Rabbi Elazar disagrees with the opinion of Rav 岣lkiya bar Tovi, as Rav 岣lkiya bar Tovi said: If the thrown object traveled within three handbreadths from the ground, everyone agrees that one is liable because the Sages established the principle of lavud. Lavud means that any object within three handbreadths of another object is considered to be attached to it. Therefore, an object that traveled within three handbreadths of the ground is considered to have come to a complete rest. If the thrown object traveled above ten handbreadths from the ground, everyone agrees that one is exempt. If the thrown object traveled between three handbreadths and ten handbreadths from the ground, we have come to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 专砖讜讬讜转 砖诇讜 诪讜转专 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 注砖专讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

That was also taught in a baraita: Within three handbreadths of the ground, everyone agrees that one is liable; above ten handbreadths from the ground, everyone agrees that one is exempt by Torah law, and it is only prohibited due to rabbinic decree. The Sages prohibited throwing or passing an object from the private domain of one person set to the private domain of another person unless a joining of the courtyards is set. And if both of the private domains were his it is permitted. If the thrown object traveled between three handbreadths and ten handbreadths from the ground, Rabbi Akiva deems one liable and the Sages deem him exempt.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 专砖讜讬讜转 砖诇讜 诪讜转专 诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讚讗讬转诪专 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇讝专讜拽 诪讝讛 诇讝讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讝专讜拽 诪讝讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇讛讛讬讗 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讬讚诇讬 讞讚 讜诪转转讬 讞讚 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 谞驻诇 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬

The Master said in the baraita cited above: And if both of the private domains were his, i.e., they belonged to the same person, it is permitted. Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of Rav鈥檚 opinion, as an amoraic dispute was stated with regard to the following case: Concerning two houses on two opposite sides of the public domain, even if they belong to the same person, Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: It is prohibited to throw an object from this private domain to that private domain. And Shmuel said: It is permitted to throw from this private domain to that private domain. The Gemara rejects this and states: Didn鈥檛 we already establish that Rav鈥檚 statement is referring to a case where one of the houses was elevated and one was low? Due to the disparity in height, the concern is that at times the object will fall into the public domain, and one will come to bring it in from there and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖转讬诇拽讟 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬

Rav 岣sda said to Rav Hamnuna, and some say that Rav Hamnuna said to Rav 岣sda: From where is this matter that the Sages stated: Any objects less than three handbreadths apart are considered to be lavud, attached? He said to him: Because it is impossible for the public domain to be made level with planes. Since the space cannot be completely smooth, even the minor differences in the ground level throughout the public domain must be taken into consideration.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇砖讛 谞诪讬 讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪砖诇砖诇 讚驻谞讜转 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讗诐 讛谉 讙讘讜讛讬谉 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻砖专讛

He asked him: If so, if that is the reason, objects within three handbreadths should also be considered lavud. Why is it that only objects within less than three handbreadths are considered attached? And furthermore, an inference can be made from that which we learned in the mishna with regard to the halakhot of sukka: If one lowers the walls of a sukka from the top to the bottom, if the bottom of the wall is above three handbreadths from the ground, the sukka is invalid because it is considered to be lacking walls. By inference, if one lowers the walls so that the bottom of the wall is below three handbreadths from the ground, it is valid. In this case, the rationale that it is impossible for the public domain to be made level does not apply.

讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛 转讬谞讞 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

He rejects this: There, the reason that a space larger than three handbreadths is not considered to be part of the wall is because it, i.e., the wall, is a partition that goats pass through. Therefore, it is a partition incapable of serving its function. Once a partition is below three handbreadths, it will obstruct the passage of the goats. Furthermore, according to this explanation, it works out well when the measure of three handbreadths is below, adjacent to the ground. If any more than three handbreadths of space are between the ground and the wall, it is not considered a wall. However, there are several halakhot in which lavud applies above and not near the ground, e.g., when the roofing of the sukka is not connected to the walls. What, then, can be said to explain that halakha? Rather, the conclusion is that the halakha which states that anything that is less than three is considered to be lavud is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, learned through tradition.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讗诪爪注 专讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪拽讜专讛 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讬转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬讗 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讛讜爪讗讛 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讛讻谞住讛

The Sages taught a case in a baraita similar to the one discussed in the mishna: One who throws an object from the public domain to the other public domain and the object passes through the private domain between the two, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him liable for carrying into the private domain, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. With regard to this, Rav and Shmuel both said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds him liable only if the private domain between the two public areas is covered with a roof. In that case, we say that the house is considered full and an object that passes through it is considered as if it landed upon an actual object. However, if the private domain is not covered, he is not liable even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. On this topic, Rav 岣na said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would deem him liable to bring two sin-offerings in this case, one for carrying out from the private domain into the second public domain, and one for carrying in, when the object initially entered the private domain.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讞谞讗 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣na was sitting, and the following point was difficult for him:

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘

Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems one liable for a subcategory of prohibited labor when performed with a primary category of prohibited labor? After all, carrying out and carrying in constitute a primary category of prohibited labor and its subcategory.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讛讚讘专讬诐 讗诇讛 讛讚讘专讬诐 讗诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讜转砖注 诪诇讗讻讜转 砖谞讗诪专讜 诇诪砖讛 讘住讬谞讬

Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that Shabbat is mentioned in the verse: 鈥淭hese are the things [eleh hadevarim] that God has commanded to perform them鈥 (Exodus 35:1)? Several points are derived from the superfluous emphases in this verse. The Torah could simply have stated: This is a thing [davar]. When it states things [devarim] in the plural, it teaches at least two points. The addition of the definite article the in the term the things [hadevarim] adds at least a third point. The numerological value of letters of the word eleh, which are alef, one; lamed, thirty; and heh, five, is thirty-six. The phrase: These are the things, alludes to three plus thirty-six derivation, i.e., the thirty-nine prohibited labors that were stated to Moses at Sinai. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that there are a fixed number of primary categories of labor, he would certainly hold a person liable for the primary categories but not for the subcategories.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专 讗讛讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讚专讘讬 讗谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬谞谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇谉

Rav Yosef said to him: The Master taught Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement with regard to this, and consequently, he encounters a difficulty. One statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi contradicts another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. We learn the statement of Rav Yehuda with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and therefore there is no difficulty for us.

讚转谞讬讗 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讘专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who threw an object from the private domain to the public domain, and it traveled four cubits in the public domain, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable and the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讛讜爪讗讛 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讛注讘专讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讚讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 驻讟专讬 诇讙诪专讬 讛讗 讗驻讬拽 诇讛 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讚讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讜专讘谞谉 驻讟专讬 诇讙诪专讬 讜讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 注讚 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 转谞讜讞

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda would deem him liable to bring two sin-offerings in this case, one for carrying out from the private domain into the public domain and one for carrying the object four cubits through the public domain. The Rabbis deem him exempt for carrying four cubits in the public domain. And it must be interpreted that way because if it would enter your mind to say that Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to bring only one sin-offering, by inference, the Rabbis deem him completely exempt. How is that possible? Didn鈥檛 he carry an object out from the private domain into the public domain? This proof is rejected: And from where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps I could actually say to you that Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to bring one sin-offering and the Rabbis deem him completely exempt, and how do you find that circumstance? In a case where he said: My intention is that as soon it, the object, goes out into the public domain it will immediately come to rest.

讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讜讗讬转注讘讬讚讗 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘转讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讜诇讗 讗讬转注讘讬讚讗 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘转讜 讗讘诇 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And they disagree with regard to this: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that we say: An object in airspace is considered at rest, and therefore his intention was fulfilled. As soon as the object enters the airspace of the public domain it is considered to have come to rest. And the Rabbis maintain that we do not say: An object in airspace is considered at rest, and therefore his intention was not fulfilled and he is exempt. However, Rabbi Yehuda does not hold one liable for a subcategory of labor performed together with a primary category of labor.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讛砖讜讘讟 讜讛诪讚拽讚拽 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讜讘讟 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讻诇诇 诪讬住讱 诪讚拽讚拽 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讻诇诇 讗讜专讙 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚注讘讚讬谞讛讜 诇转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘

The Gemara rejects this explanation: It could not enter your mind to say so, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda adds even lining up the threads of the warp and beating the threads of the woof to the list of primary categories of labor. The Rabbis said to him: Lining up is a subcategory subsumed under the primary category of stretching the threads of the warp within the loom, and beating is subsumed under the primary category of weaving. Is this not referring to a case where one performed both lining up and beating together, and learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable for both a subcategory and a primary category of labor when they are performed together?

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚注讘讚讛 诇讛讗 诇讞讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛谞讬 讗讘讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讛谞讬 转讜诇讚讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara rejects this proof: And from where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps it is actually referring to a case where one performed this action alone and this action alone, and Rabbi Yehuda does not deem one liable for a subcategory of labor performed together with a primary category of labor. And Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this. Rabbi Yehuda maintains as follows: These actions of lining up and beating are additional primary categories of labor, and the Rabbis maintain as follows: These are subcategories.

转讚注 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讘讜转 诪讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 诪讜住讬祝 讗讘讜转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 转讜诇讚讜转 诪讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讞转

Know that this is so, as the baraita teaches: Rabbi Yehuda adds. The Gemara explains this quote from the baraita: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda meant that these are primary categories of labor, what is the meaning of: He adds? It means he adds primary categories of labor. However, if you say that he meant that these are subcategories, what is the meaning of: He adds? It was also stated that it was Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said: Rabbi Yehuda deemed him liable to bring only one sin-offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬诐 讗讬 诇讛讻讗 拽讘注讬 诇讛 诇讛讻讗 诇讗 拽讘注讬 诇讛 讗讬 诇讛讻讗 拽讘注讬 诇讛 诇讛讻讗 诇讗 拽讘注讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖转专爪讛 转谞讜讞:

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And according to what originally entered our mind that Rabbi Yehuda deemed him liable to bring two sin-offerings, how could he be liable for both carrying out from the private domain and for carrying four cubits in the public domain? If one only wanted the object to land here at the beginning of the public domain, he did not want it to land here, four cubits into the public domain. Conversely, if one only wanted the object to land here, four cubits into the public domain, he did not want it to land here, at the beginning of the public domain. Rav Ashi said to Ravina: It is possible in a case where one says: Any place that it wants to come to rest, let it come to rest. One indicated that his intention would be fulfilled wherever the thrown object lands.

驻砖讬讟讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖诪谞讛 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 讛专讬 讻转讘 砖诐 诪砖诪注讜谉 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讝专讜拽 讗专讘注 讜讝专拽 砖诪谞讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讗 讗驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 讛讗 诇讗 谞讞 讜诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖转专爪讛 转谞讜讞

Concerning throwing an object on Shabbat from one domain to another and within a single domain, the Gemara raises several issues with regard to intention when throwing. It is obvious that one who intended to throw an object eight cubits in a public domain and actually threw it only four cubits is liable because that case is similar to a case where one wrote the word shem, the first two letters of the name Shimon. In the case of writing shem, the individual performed the prohibited labor of writing a two-letter word, even though he did not complete the word that he originally intended to write. The question is as follows: What is the halakha if one intended to throw an object four cubits and threw it eight? Do we say he did indeed carry the object, or perhaps we say that ultimately the object did not land where he wanted it to land? But is that not precisely what Ravina said to Rav Ashi, as mentioned above? And Rav Ashi said in response that it is referring to a case where one says: Any place that it wants to come to rest, let it come to rest. In such a scenario one is liable, because he expressed the fact that he is contented with any labor that will be performed with the object.

讜讚拽讗诪专转 讛专讬 讻转讘 砖诐 诪砖诪注讜谉 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 砖诐 诇讗 诪讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 砖诪注讜谉 讛讻讗 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讝专讬拽 讗专讘注 诇讗 诪讬讝讚专拽讬 诇讬讛 转诪谞讬:

Furthermore, the first case, which seems obvious, also requires clarification. And that which you said, that this is similar to a case where one wrote the word shem, the first two letters of the name Shimon, is it in fact similar? There, as long as the letters of shem, shin and mem, are not written, the name Shimon cannot be written. Here, where one intended to throw the object eight cubits and he threw it only four, is it true that as long as it was not thrown four cubits it cannot be thrown eight? An object can be thrown eight cubits without first landing after four cubits. The question remains unresolved.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讝讜专拽 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讗诪爪注 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘

The Sages taught: With regard to one who throws an object on Shabbat from the public domain to the other public domain through the private domain, he is liable if he throws an object a total of four cubits in both parts 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 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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi One Week at a Time 鈥 Shabbat 96-102

This week we will review Daf 96-102 and learn about different laws pertaining to throwing on Shabbat. We will also...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 96: Catch!

The new chapter, HaZorek: Throwing an item between public and private domains; throwing an item from a private domain to...

Shabbat 97

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 97

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讙诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇讗 讙诪专 讗诇讗 诪讛讬讻讗 讛讜讛 诪讜讬注驻讬诇讜 讛讜讛

The Gemara asks: However, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva derive this by means of a verbal analogy? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira did not learn a verbal analogy. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira had no tradition of this verbal analogy from his teachers, and therefore he disagreed with Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 conclusion. The Gemara asks: However, according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, from where was Zelophehad鈥檚 liability derived? Why was he executed? The Gemara answers: Zelophehad was among those who 鈥減resumed to ascend to the top of the mountain鈥 (Numbers 14:44) in the wake of the sin of the spies.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讜讬讞专 讗祝 讛壮 讘诐 讜讬诇讱 诪诇诪讚 砖讗祝 讗讛专谉 谞爪讟专注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注拽讬讘讗 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗转讛 注转讬讚 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讗诐 讻讚讘专讬讱 讛转讜专讛 讻住转讜 讜讗转讛 诪讙诇讛 讗讜转讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇注讝 注诇 讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽

On a similar note, Rabbi Akiva revealed an additional matter not explicitly articulated in the Torah. You say that when Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses, both Aaron and Miriam were struck with leprosy, as it written: 鈥淎nd God became angry at them and He left, and the cloud departed from above the tent, and behold, Miriam was leprous like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous鈥 (Numbers 12:9鈥10). The verse鈥檚 statement that God became angry at both of them teaches that Aaron, too, became leprous; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Akiva, in either case you will be judged in the future for this teaching. If the truth is in accordance with your statement, the Torah concealed Aaron鈥檚 punishment and you reveal it. And if the truth is not in accordance with your statement, you are unjustly slandering that righteous man.

讜讗诇讗 讛讻转讬讘 讘诐 讛讛讜讗 讘谞讝讬驻讛 讘注诇诪讗 转谞讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讗讛专谉 谞爪讟专注 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬驻谉 讗讛专谉 讗诇 诪专讬诐 讜讛谞讛 诪爪专注转 转谞讗 砖驻谞讛 诪爪专注转讜

The Gemara asks: However, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva derive this from the plural pronoun them, meaning that God was angry with both of them? The Gemara answers: God鈥檚 anger in that verse was manifest in a mere rebuke, not in leprosy. A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that Aaron also became leprous, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous鈥 (Numbers 12:10), and it was taught: This teaches that he turned, i.e., he was healed, from his leprosy, as he too had been afflicted.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讞讜砖讚 讘讻砖专讬诐 诇讜拽讛 讘讙讜驻讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谉 诇讗 讬讗诪讬谞讜 诇讬 讜讙讜壮 讜讙诇讬讗 拽诪讬 拽讜讚砖讗 讘专讬讱 讛讜讗 讚诪讛讬诪谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 讜讗转讛 讗讬谉 住讜驻讱 诇讛讗诪讬谉

On the topic of Miriam鈥檚 leprosy, the Gemara cites that which Reish Lakish said: One who suspects the innocent of indiscretion is afflicted in his body, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Moses answered and said: But they will not believe me and will not hearken to my voice, for they will say, God did not appear to you鈥 (Exodus 4:1), and it is revealed before the Holy One, Blessed be He, that the Jewish people would believe. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: They are believers, the children of believers; and ultimately, you will not believe.

讛谉 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪谉 讛注诐 讘谞讬 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 讜讛讗诪讬谉 讘讬讬 讗转讛 讗讬谉 住讜驻讱 诇讛讗诪讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讬注谉 诇讗 讛讗诪谞转诐 讘讬 讜讙讜壮 诪诪讗讬 讚诇拽讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 诇讜 注讜讚 讛讘讗 谞讗 讬讚讱 讘讞讬拽讱 讜讙讜壮:

They are believers, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the people believed once they heard that God had remembered the children of Israel, and that He saw their affliction, and they bowed and they prostrated鈥 (Exodus 4:31). The children of believers, as it says with regard to Abraham our Patriarch: 鈥淎nd he believed in God, and He counted it for him as righteousness鈥 (Genesis 15:6). Ultimately, you will not believe, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd God said to Moses and to Aaron: Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 20:12). From where do we know that Moses was afflicted in his body? As it is written: 鈥淎nd God said to him further: Bring your hand to your bosom, and he brought his hand to his bosom and he took it out and behold, his hand was leprous like snow鈥 (Exodus 4:6).

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讚讛 讟讜讘讛 诪诪讛专转 诇讘讗 诪诪讚转 驻讜专注谞讜转 讚讗讬诇讜 讘诪讚转 驻讜专注谞讜转 讻转讬讘 讜讬讜爪讬讗讛 讜讛谞讛 讬讚讜 诪爪专注转 讻砖诇讙 讜讗讬诇讜 讘诪讚讛 讟讜讘讛 讻转讬讘 讜讬讜爪讬讗讛 诪讞讬拽讜 讜讛谞讛 砖讘讛 讻讘砖专讜 诪讞讬拽讜 讛讜讗 讚砖讘讛 讻讘砖专讜

On this topic, Rava said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, who said: The divine attribute of beneficence takes effect more quickly than the divine attribute of punishment. From where is this derived? While, with regard to the divine attribute of punishment, it is written, 鈥淎nd he took it out and behold, his hand was leprous like snow鈥 (Exodus 4:6), with regard to the divine attribute of beneficence it is written: 鈥淎nd He said: Return your hand to your bosom, and he returned his hand to his bosom and he took it out from his bosom and behold, it had returned to be like his original flesh鈥 (Exodus 4:7). The Gemara analyzes this as follows: It was already from his bosom that it returned to be like his original flesh. Moses鈥 hand was healed even before he took his hand out.

讜讬讘诇注 诪讟讛 讗讛专谉 讗转 诪讟转诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞住 讘转讜讱 谞住:

The Gemara proceeds to discuss another miracle that transpired at that time. With regard to the verse, 鈥淎nd each man threw down his staff and they became serpents, and Aaron鈥檚 staff swallowed their staffs鈥 (Exodus 7:12), Rabbi Elazar said: This was a miracle within a miracle. It was Aaron鈥檚 staff, not his serpent, that swallowed the other staffs.

诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻讜壮:

We learned in the mishna that there is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis in a case where one threw an object from the private domain to the other private domain through the public domain between the two. Rabbi Akiva deems him liable, as one who threw an object from the private domain to the public domain, and the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讘注讬 专讘讛 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讗讘诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讝讜专拽 诪诪讜砖讬讟

Rabba raised a dilemma with regard to their dispute: Are they disagreeing with regard to a case where the object traveled below ten handbreadths from the ground? And, if so, it is with regard to this point that they disagree: As this Master, Rabbi Akiva holds: We say that an object in airspace is considered at rest. The object is considered as if it was actually placed in the public domain after being lifted from the private domain. And this Master, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: We do not say that an object in airspace is considered at rest. However, with regard to a case where the object traveled above ten handbreadths from the ground, everyone agrees that one is exempt, and we do not derive the legal status of throwing from the legal status of passing. Although everyone agrees that one who passes an object from a private domain to another private domain via a public domain is liable, even if it was passed above ten handbreadths, as that was the service of the Levites, one who throws an object in that manner is exempt.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讝讜专拽 诪诪讜砖讬讟 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讝讜专拽 诪诪讜砖讬讟 讗讘诇 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讚诪讬讗

Or perhaps, they are disagreeing with regard to a case where the object traveled above ten handbreadths from the ground, and it is with regard to this that they disagree: As this Master, Rabbi Akiva, holds: We derive the legal status of throwing from the legal status of passing. Therefore, one who throws an object that passes through the airspace of a public domain higher than ten handbreadths from the ground is liable. And this Master, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: We do not derive throwing from passing. However, with regard to a case where the object traveled beneath the ten handbreadth airspace of the public domain, everyone agrees that he is liable. What is the reason for that? An object in airspace is considered at rest.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讜驻砖讟讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪讛讗 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜注讜讘专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注爪诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐 诪讚拽讗诪专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注爪诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Yosef said: Rav 岣sda had a dilemma with regard to this matter, and Rav Hamnuna resolved it for him from this baraita: With regard to an object that travels from the private domain to the other private domain, and it passes through the public domain itself, Rabbi Akiva deems one liable and the Rabbis deem one exempt. From the fact that it says in the baraita: Through the public domain itself, it is obvious that it is with regard to a case where the object traveled below ten handbreadths from the ground that they disagree.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪注讘讬专 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪砖讜讬 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讞讬讬讘 砖讻谉 诪砖讗 讘谞讬 拽讛转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讝讜专拽 讜诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And with regard to what form of transfer is the baraita dealing? If you say it refers to passing an object in his hand, is it only when he passes it below ten handbreadths that he is liable? When he passes it above ten handbreadths is he not liable? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: One who carries out a load from a private domain to a public domain above ten handbreadths from the ground is liable, as that was the manner in which the descendants of Kehat, from whom we derived the laws of carrying, carried their burden in the Tabernacle? Rather, isn鈥檛 this baraita referring to a case of throwing, and it is in a case where the object travels below ten handbreadths from the ground that one is liable, and above ten handbreadths from the ground one is not liable? Learn from it that it is with regard to whether or not an object in airspace is considered at rest that they disagree. The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the crux of their dispute.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注爪诪讛 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉

And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Akiva deems one liable even if the object travels above ten handbreadths. And that term that was taught in the baraita, the public domain itself, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem one exempt even if the object traveled in the public domain itself, and all the more so if it traveled above ten handbreadths, which is no longer within the bounds of the public domain.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讞诇拽讬讛 讘专 讟讜讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞诇拽讬讛 讘专 讟讜讘讬 转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘谞谉

This opinion of Rabbi Elazar disagrees with the opinion of Rav 岣lkiya bar Tovi, as Rav 岣lkiya bar Tovi said: If the thrown object traveled within three handbreadths from the ground, everyone agrees that one is liable because the Sages established the principle of lavud. Lavud means that any object within three handbreadths of another object is considered to be attached to it. Therefore, an object that traveled within three handbreadths of the ground is considered to have come to a complete rest. If the thrown object traveled above ten handbreadths from the ground, everyone agrees that one is exempt. If the thrown object traveled between three handbreadths and ten handbreadths from the ground, we have come to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 专砖讜讬讜转 砖诇讜 诪讜转专 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 注砖专讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

That was also taught in a baraita: Within three handbreadths of the ground, everyone agrees that one is liable; above ten handbreadths from the ground, everyone agrees that one is exempt by Torah law, and it is only prohibited due to rabbinic decree. The Sages prohibited throwing or passing an object from the private domain of one person set to the private domain of another person unless a joining of the courtyards is set. And if both of the private domains were his it is permitted. If the thrown object traveled between three handbreadths and ten handbreadths from the ground, Rabbi Akiva deems one liable and the Sages deem him exempt.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 专砖讜讬讜转 砖诇讜 诪讜转专 诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讚讗讬转诪专 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇讝专讜拽 诪讝讛 诇讝讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讝专讜拽 诪讝讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇讛讛讬讗 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讬讚诇讬 讞讚 讜诪转转讬 讞讚 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 谞驻诇 讜讗转讬 诇讗转讜讬讬

The Master said in the baraita cited above: And if both of the private domains were his, i.e., they belonged to the same person, it is permitted. Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of Rav鈥檚 opinion, as an amoraic dispute was stated with regard to the following case: Concerning two houses on two opposite sides of the public domain, even if they belong to the same person, Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: It is prohibited to throw an object from this private domain to that private domain. And Shmuel said: It is permitted to throw from this private domain to that private domain. The Gemara rejects this and states: Didn鈥檛 we already establish that Rav鈥檚 statement is referring to a case where one of the houses was elevated and one was low? Due to the disparity in height, the concern is that at times the object will fall into the public domain, and one will come to bring it in from there and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖转讬诇拽讟 讘诪诇拽讟 讜讘专讛讬讟谞讬

Rav 岣sda said to Rav Hamnuna, and some say that Rav Hamnuna said to Rav 岣sda: From where is this matter that the Sages stated: Any objects less than three handbreadths apart are considered to be lavud, attached? He said to him: Because it is impossible for the public domain to be made level with planes. Since the space cannot be completely smooth, even the minor differences in the ground level throughout the public domain must be taken into consideration.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇砖讛 谞诪讬 讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪砖诇砖诇 讚驻谞讜转 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讗诐 讛谉 讙讘讜讛讬谉 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻砖专讛

He asked him: If so, if that is the reason, objects within three handbreadths should also be considered lavud. Why is it that only objects within less than three handbreadths are considered attached? And furthermore, an inference can be made from that which we learned in the mishna with regard to the halakhot of sukka: If one lowers the walls of a sukka from the top to the bottom, if the bottom of the wall is above three handbreadths from the ground, the sukka is invalid because it is considered to be lacking walls. By inference, if one lowers the walls so that the bottom of the wall is below three handbreadths from the ground, it is valid. In this case, the rationale that it is impossible for the public domain to be made level does not apply.

讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛 转讬谞讞 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

He rejects this: There, the reason that a space larger than three handbreadths is not considered to be part of the wall is because it, i.e., the wall, is a partition that goats pass through. Therefore, it is a partition incapable of serving its function. Once a partition is below three handbreadths, it will obstruct the passage of the goats. Furthermore, according to this explanation, it works out well when the measure of three handbreadths is below, adjacent to the ground. If any more than three handbreadths of space are between the ground and the wall, it is not considered a wall. However, there are several halakhot in which lavud applies above and not near the ground, e.g., when the roofing of the sukka is not connected to the walls. What, then, can be said to explain that halakha? Rather, the conclusion is that the halakha which states that anything that is less than three is considered to be lavud is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, learned through tradition.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讗诪爪注 专讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪拽讜专讛 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讬转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬讗 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讛讜爪讗讛 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讛讻谞住讛

The Sages taught a case in a baraita similar to the one discussed in the mishna: One who throws an object from the public domain to the other public domain and the object passes through the private domain between the two, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him liable for carrying into the private domain, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. With regard to this, Rav and Shmuel both said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds him liable only if the private domain between the two public areas is covered with a roof. In that case, we say that the house is considered full and an object that passes through it is considered as if it landed upon an actual object. However, if the private domain is not covered, he is not liable even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. On this topic, Rav 岣na said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would deem him liable to bring two sin-offerings in this case, one for carrying out from the private domain into the second public domain, and one for carrying in, when the object initially entered the private domain.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讞谞讗 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣na was sitting, and the following point was difficult for him:

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘

Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems one liable for a subcategory of prohibited labor when performed with a primary category of prohibited labor? After all, carrying out and carrying in constitute a primary category of prohibited labor and its subcategory.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讛讚讘专讬诐 讗诇讛 讛讚讘专讬诐 讗诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讜转砖注 诪诇讗讻讜转 砖谞讗诪专讜 诇诪砖讛 讘住讬谞讬

Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that Shabbat is mentioned in the verse: 鈥淭hese are the things [eleh hadevarim] that God has commanded to perform them鈥 (Exodus 35:1)? Several points are derived from the superfluous emphases in this verse. The Torah could simply have stated: This is a thing [davar]. When it states things [devarim] in the plural, it teaches at least two points. The addition of the definite article the in the term the things [hadevarim] adds at least a third point. The numerological value of letters of the word eleh, which are alef, one; lamed, thirty; and heh, five, is thirty-six. The phrase: These are the things, alludes to three plus thirty-six derivation, i.e., the thirty-nine prohibited labors that were stated to Moses at Sinai. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that there are a fixed number of primary categories of labor, he would certainly hold a person liable for the primary categories but not for the subcategories.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专 讗讛讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讚专讘讬 讗谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬谞谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇谉

Rav Yosef said to him: The Master taught Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement with regard to this, and consequently, he encounters a difficulty. One statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi contradicts another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. We learn the statement of Rav Yehuda with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and therefore there is no difficulty for us.

讚转谞讬讗 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讘专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who threw an object from the private domain to the public domain, and it traveled four cubits in the public domain, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable and the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讛讜爪讗讛 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讛注讘专讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讚讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 驻讟专讬 诇讙诪专讬 讛讗 讗驻讬拽 诇讛 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讚讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讜专讘谞谉 驻讟专讬 诇讙诪专讬 讜讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 注讚 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 转谞讜讞

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda would deem him liable to bring two sin-offerings in this case, one for carrying out from the private domain into the public domain and one for carrying the object four cubits through the public domain. The Rabbis deem him exempt for carrying four cubits in the public domain. And it must be interpreted that way because if it would enter your mind to say that Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to bring only one sin-offering, by inference, the Rabbis deem him completely exempt. How is that possible? Didn鈥檛 he carry an object out from the private domain into the public domain? This proof is rejected: And from where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps I could actually say to you that Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to bring one sin-offering and the Rabbis deem him completely exempt, and how do you find that circumstance? In a case where he said: My intention is that as soon it, the object, goes out into the public domain it will immediately come to rest.

讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讜讗讬转注讘讬讚讗 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘转讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇讜讟讛 讻诪讛 砖讛讜谞讞讛 讜诇讗 讗讬转注讘讬讚讗 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘转讜 讗讘诇 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And they disagree with regard to this: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that we say: An object in airspace is considered at rest, and therefore his intention was fulfilled. As soon as the object enters the airspace of the public domain it is considered to have come to rest. And the Rabbis maintain that we do not say: An object in airspace is considered at rest, and therefore his intention was not fulfilled and he is exempt. However, Rabbi Yehuda does not hold one liable for a subcategory of labor performed together with a primary category of labor.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讛砖讜讘讟 讜讛诪讚拽讚拽 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讜讘讟 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讻诇诇 诪讬住讱 诪讚拽讚拽 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讻诇诇 讗讜专讙 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚注讘讚讬谞讛讜 诇转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘

The Gemara rejects this explanation: It could not enter your mind to say so, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda adds even lining up the threads of the warp and beating the threads of the woof to the list of primary categories of labor. The Rabbis said to him: Lining up is a subcategory subsumed under the primary category of stretching the threads of the warp within the loom, and beating is subsumed under the primary category of weaving. Is this not referring to a case where one performed both lining up and beating together, and learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable for both a subcategory and a primary category of labor when they are performed together?

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚注讘讚讛 诇讛讗 诇讞讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗转讜诇讚讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛谞讬 讗讘讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讛谞讬 转讜诇讚讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara rejects this proof: And from where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps it is actually referring to a case where one performed this action alone and this action alone, and Rabbi Yehuda does not deem one liable for a subcategory of labor performed together with a primary category of labor. And Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this. Rabbi Yehuda maintains as follows: These actions of lining up and beating are additional primary categories of labor, and the Rabbis maintain as follows: These are subcategories.

转讚注 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讘讜转 诪讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 诪讜住讬祝 讗讘讜转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 转讜诇讚讜转 诪讗讬 诪讜住讬祝 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讞转

Know that this is so, as the baraita teaches: Rabbi Yehuda adds. The Gemara explains this quote from the baraita: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda meant that these are primary categories of labor, what is the meaning of: He adds? It means he adds primary categories of labor. However, if you say that he meant that these are subcategories, what is the meaning of: He adds? It was also stated that it was Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said: Rabbi Yehuda deemed him liable to bring only one sin-offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬诐 讗讬 诇讛讻讗 拽讘注讬 诇讛 诇讛讻讗 诇讗 拽讘注讬 诇讛 讗讬 诇讛讻讗 拽讘注讬 诇讛 诇讛讻讗 诇讗 拽讘注讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖转专爪讛 转谞讜讞:

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And according to what originally entered our mind that Rabbi Yehuda deemed him liable to bring two sin-offerings, how could he be liable for both carrying out from the private domain and for carrying four cubits in the public domain? If one only wanted the object to land here at the beginning of the public domain, he did not want it to land here, four cubits into the public domain. Conversely, if one only wanted the object to land here, four cubits into the public domain, he did not want it to land here, at the beginning of the public domain. Rav Ashi said to Ravina: It is possible in a case where one says: Any place that it wants to come to rest, let it come to rest. One indicated that his intention would be fulfilled wherever the thrown object lands.

驻砖讬讟讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖诪谞讛 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 讛专讬 讻转讘 砖诐 诪砖诪注讜谉 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讝专讜拽 讗专讘注 讜讝专拽 砖诪谞讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讗 讗驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 讛讗 诇讗 谞讞 讜诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖转专爪讛 转谞讜讞

Concerning throwing an object on Shabbat from one domain to another and within a single domain, the Gemara raises several issues with regard to intention when throwing. It is obvious that one who intended to throw an object eight cubits in a public domain and actually threw it only four cubits is liable because that case is similar to a case where one wrote the word shem, the first two letters of the name Shimon. In the case of writing shem, the individual performed the prohibited labor of writing a two-letter word, even though he did not complete the word that he originally intended to write. The question is as follows: What is the halakha if one intended to throw an object four cubits and threw it eight? Do we say he did indeed carry the object, or perhaps we say that ultimately the object did not land where he wanted it to land? But is that not precisely what Ravina said to Rav Ashi, as mentioned above? And Rav Ashi said in response that it is referring to a case where one says: Any place that it wants to come to rest, let it come to rest. In such a scenario one is liable, because he expressed the fact that he is contented with any labor that will be performed with the object.

讜讚拽讗诪专转 讛专讬 讻转讘 砖诐 诪砖诪注讜谉 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 砖诐 诇讗 诪讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 砖诪注讜谉 讛讻讗 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讝专讬拽 讗专讘注 诇讗 诪讬讝讚专拽讬 诇讬讛 转诪谞讬:

Furthermore, the first case, which seems obvious, also requires clarification. And that which you said, that this is similar to a case where one wrote the word shem, the first two letters of the name Shimon, is it in fact similar? There, as long as the letters of shem, shin and mem, are not written, the name Shimon cannot be written. Here, where one intended to throw the object eight cubits and he threw it only four, is it true that as long as it was not thrown four cubits it cannot be thrown eight? An object can be thrown eight cubits without first landing after four cubits. The question remains unresolved.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讝讜专拽 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讗诪爪注 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘

The Sages taught: With regard to one who throws an object on Shabbat from the public domain to the other public domain through the private domain, he is liable if he throws an object a total of four cubits in both parts of the public domain.

Scroll To Top