Eruvin 98b (צח:) — the Talmud in English

But,

in a wall that is not slanted,

if all that has reached

above three

of the lower handbreadths of the public domain—

he rolls it up toward himself,

for it has not come to rest.

But if the head of the scroll has reached

below three

handbreadths,

he turns it over onto the writing

and may not roll it up, for it is considered as though it were resting on the ground. For the three handbreadths adjacent to the ground are like “solid ground.”

And concerning this it is taught:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if it is not elevated from the ground

except by the thickness of a thread, he rolls it up toward himself.

And his reason is

that we require

the

resting

of the object

upon something,

upon any amount of space; it is not sufficient that it be suspended in the air within three handbreadths of the ground. Rather, it must actually come to rest on the ground.

[Nevertheless, it is not necessary for it to rest upon a place four handbreadths by four handbreadths, as with every act of resting, since it is within three handbreadths of the ground.]

And we raise an objection:

But what of that which Rava said:

If one throws an object a distance of four cubits in the public domain, and before it reaches the ground the object is burned or a dog swallows it, he is exempt. And even if the object managed to reach

within three

handbreadths of the ground, he is exempt, according to the Rabbis, who hold that an object caught in the air is not considered as though it had come to rest;

it is necessary

for there to be

resting

actually upon the ground. We do not say that, when an object is in the air within three handbreadths of the ground, the Rabbis agree that it is considered as though the object had come to rest on the ground.

Shall we say that Rava stated

his teaching

on the basis of a dispute between tannaim?

For only Rabbi Yehuda agrees with him, whereas according to the first tanna it is sufficient for the object to reach the air within three handbreadths of the ground for it to be considered as though it had come to rest. Therefore, he prohibits rolling it up once it has reached the air of the public domain below three handbreadths, as a decree lest the entire scroll fall from his hand.

But according to Rava, even if the entire scroll falls from his hand, he is not liable if he catches it again before it actually comes to rest on the ground.

And we conclude:

Rather, the entire

Mishna is

according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And it is incomplete, and this is what it teaches:

When are these words stated,

that once it has reached ten handbreadths it is prohibited to roll it up toward himself?

In a slanted wall.

But in a wall that is not slanted,

even if

the scroll has fallen to

less than three handbreadths

from the ground,

he rolls it up toward himself.

For Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if it is not elevated from the ground except by the thickness of a thread—

he rolls it up toward himself.

What is the reason?

Because

we require resting upon something.

And there is no tanna in the Mishna who disagrees with Rava.

Mishna:

A projection in front of a window,

a shelf alongside the window that protrudes from the wall over the public domain, and that is ten handbreadths above the ground and four handbreadths wide—

one may place objects upon it and remove them from it,

that is, the inhabitants of the house from which the projection protrudes may place utensils upon it through the window and take them back from there

on Shabbat,

for it too has the status of a private domain.

Gemara:

We inquire about this:

This projection—

where does it protrude?

Where does it extend?

If we say that it protrudes into the public domain,

why is it permitted to place utensils upon it?

And let us be concerned lest it fall

into the public domain

and he come to carry it

into his house, thereby violating the Torah prohibition of carrying from the public domain into the private domain!

Rather,

perhaps you will say that

it protrudes

the projection

into the private domain.

If so, this is difficult: What does the Mishna teach us by stating that it is permitted? Surely

it is obvious

!

And we answer:

Abaye said: Actually, it protrudes into the public domain.

And what is meant by “one may place objects upon it,” as the Mishna teaches?—

Breakable utensils!

Only breakable utensils, which will break if they fall into the public domain, and there is no concern that he will come to retrieve them, may be placed there.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: A projection in front of a window that extends into the public domain—

one may place bowls and cups, small pitchers,

pitchers,

and flasks,

bottles, upon it.

For all of these are generally made of earthenware, and they are breakable.

And one may use the entire wall,

if the projection extends along the entire wall, one may use the entire projection, even at a distance from the window—

down to the lower ten handbreadths!

That is, provided it is ten handbreadths above the ground of the public domain.

And if there is one projection below it,

and it too is above ten handbreadths,

one may use it

along its entire surface, even if it extends beyond the window,

but on the upper one he may use it only opposite his window,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

We inquire about this:

This projection,

the upper one—

what are its circumstances?

If it does not contain four

handbreadths by four handbreadths in width, then

it is a place exempt,

and even opposite his window he may not use it!

Although a place exempt may be used for carrying objects into and out of it by both those in the private domain and those in the public domain, nevertheless it is prohibited to use it for regular use, because, due to its small size, most of the utensils placed upon it will fall from it; and when he takes utensils out onto it from the house, it appears as though he intends to throw them into the public domain.

And if it does contain four

handbreadths on the upper projection, then,

on the projection he should use the entire wall,

and not only the area opposite his window?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

What are we dealing with here? With a projection

the lower one, which contains four

handbreadths, and therefore he may use all of it;

but

the projection

the upper one does not contain four, and the window completes it to four,

so that together with the window sill the upper projection has a surface of four handbreadths.

Therefore, only

opposite the window

may he

use

the projection, because

it is “the recesses of the window”

itself!

That is, it is an extension of the window.

[The reference is not to the “recesses of the private domain” found elsewhere. Rather, this expression is used here in keeping with the customary terminology of the Talmud, which speaks of “the recesses of the private domain” and “the recesses of the public domain.”]

But the projection

on this side and on that side,

on the two sides of the window, where there are not four handbreadths—

is prohibited.

Mishna:

A person may stand in the private domain,

in a house or on a roof, and bend down

and handle objects in the public domain.

That is, he may take an object from one place and put it down in another, and we are not concerned that perhaps he will bring it into the private domain in which he is standing.

And likewise,

he may stand in the public domain and handle objects in the private domain,

from one place to another, and we are not concerned that perhaps he will remove them from there into the public domain.

Provided that he does not carry them beyond four cubits.

When he is standing in the private domain and handling an object in the public domain, he must take care not to move the object there more than four cubits.

And likewise,

a person may not stand in the private domain and urinate in the public domain,

or

in the public domain and urinate in the private domain,

for this is like carrying from one domain to another.

And likewise, he may not spit

from one domain to another, for the same reason.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even once the spittle has detached in his mouth,

when a large amount of saliva has accumulated and he is about to spit,

he may not walk four cubits until he spits.

Since it is about to be expelled from his mouth, it is considered a burden.

Gemara:

Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamya taught Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav, in the presence of Rav,

our Mishna in the following formulation:

A person may not stand in the private domain and handle objects in the public domain,

as a decree lest he bring the object to himself.

He said to him:

Have you

abandoned the Rabbis and acted in accordance with Rabbi Meir?

For we find that the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir disagree below, in the Mishna [101a], as to whether we issue such a decree. Rabbi Meir prohibits a person from standing in one domain, taking a key located in the other domain, and opening the door there, as a decree lest he bring the key to himself; whereas the Rabbis do not issue such a decree.

And why do you interpret our Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Meir rather than in accordance with the Rabbis? The Gemara explains the opinion of Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamya: