Eruvin 98b — the Talmud in English

, but ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the folio")

on a wall that is not sloping,

if all that has reached

above three

lower handbreadths of the reshut ha-rabim—

he rolls it toward himself,

for it has not come to rest.

But if the head of the scroll reached

below three

handbreadths—

he turns it over onto the writing

and he is not permitted to roll it, for it is like something resting on the ground. For the three handbreadths adjacent to the ground are like “solid ground.”

And concerning this it teaches:

Rabbi Judah says: Even if it is not raised above the ground

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

And its reason is because

we require

that there be

resting

of the object

upon something,

upon any sort of place, and it is not sufficient that it be in the air within three handbreadths of the ground; rather, it must actually rest upon the ground.

[In any event, it is not necessary that it rest upon a place of four handbreadths by four handbreadths, as with every resting, since it is within three handbreadths of the ground].

And we raise an objection:

But what of that which Rava said:

One who throws an object a distance of four cubits in the reshut ha-rabim, and before it reaches the ground the object burns 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 something caught in the air is not considered as though it had come to rest [an object thrown from one private domain to another private domain through the public domain is under discussion, for Rabbi Akiva held in tractate Shabbat that one is liable because “something caught in the air is considered as though it had come to rest,” and it is as though it came to rest in the public domain, while the Rabbis dispute him], but rather

it is necessary

that there be

resting

upon the ground itself, and we do not say that, in the air within three handbreadths of the ground, the Rabbis agree that it is like the object having come to rest upon the ground.

Shall we say that Rava stated

his teaching

as a dispute between tannaim?

For only Rabbi Judah holds like him, since 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 resting; therefore, he prohibits rolling it when it reaches the air of the public domain below three handbreadths, as a decree on account of the case where the entire scroll fell from his hand.

Whereas 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 upon the ground.

And we conclude:

Rather, the entire

Mishna—

is Rabbi Judah’s.

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

In what case are these words stated,

that when it reaches ten handbreadths it is prohibited to roll it toward himself—

with a sloping wall.

But with a wall that is not sloping—

even if

the scroll fell to

less than three handbreadths

from the ground,

he rolls it toward himself.

For Rabbi Judah says: Even if it is not raised above the ground except by the thickness of a thread—

he rolls it toward himself.

What is the reason?

Because

we require resting upon something.

And there is no tanna in the Mishna who disputes Rava.

Mishna:

A projection before a window,

a shelf beside the window, projecting from the wall over the public domain, and ten handbreadths high from the ground and four handbreadths wide—

one may place objects upon it and take objects from it,

that is, the members of that house from which the projection projects are permitted to place vessels upon it through the window and take them back from there

on Shabbat,

for it too has the status of a private domain.

Gemara:

And we inquire concerning it:

This projection—

where does it project?

Where does it project outward?

If we say that it projects into the public domain—

why is it permitted to place vessels upon it? And

let us be concerned lest it fall,

the vessel into the public domain,

and he come to bring it

into his house, thereby transgressing the Torah prohibition of bringing in from the public domain to the private domain!

Rather,

perhaps you will say that

it projects

the projection

into the private domain.

For if so, it is difficult: What does the Mishna teach us, that it is permitted? Is it not

obvious

?

And we answer:

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

And what is “one may place upon it” that it teaches—

breakable vessels!

Only breakable vessels, which, if they fall into the public domain, will break, and there is no concern that he will come to take them; it is permitted to place them there.

It was taught likewise: A projection before a window that projects into the public domain—

one may place bowls and cups, small pitchers

pitchers,

and flasks

bottles.

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

And he uses the entire wall

if the projection extends along the entire length of the wall, he uses the entire projection, even at a distance from the window—

up to the lower ten!

That is, provided that it is ten handbreadths high from the ground of the public domain.

And if there is one projection below it,

and it too is above ten—

he uses it

in its entirety, even if it extends beyond the window,

but on the upper one he uses it only opposite his window

alone, as it explains and proceeds.

And we inquire concerning it:

This projection,

the upper one—

what are the circumstances?

If it does not contain four

handbreadths by four handbreadths in width, then

it is a exempt place,

and even opposite his window also he may not use it!

For although an exempt place is permitted to bring objects into it and take objects out of it, both for members of a private domain and for members of a public domain, nevertheless it is prohibited to make continual use of it, because, on account of its smallness, most of the vessels placed upon it fall from it, and when he takes vessels out onto it from the house, it appears as though he intends to throw them into the public domain.

And if it contains four

handbreadths on the upper one, then—on the projection that

extends along the entire wall, he should use it

and not only opposite his window?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

With what are we dealing here? With a projection,

the lower one, that contains four,

and therefore he uses all of it,

and

the projection

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

for together with the window-sill the upper projection has a surface of four handbreadths.

Therefore, only

opposite the window

does he

use

the projection, because

it is “the recesses of a window”

!

That is, its continuation is the window.

[The intention is not the “recesses of a private domain” found everywhere; rather, this expression is used following the customary wording in the Talmud, “the recesses of a private domain” and “the recesses of a public domain.”]

But the projection

on this side and on that side,

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

is prohibited.

Mishna:

A person may stand in a private domain,

in a house or on a roof, and bend down

and move objects in the public domain.

For he takes an object from here and places it there, and we are not concerned lest he bring it into the private domain in which he is located.

And likewise,

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

from here to there, and we are not concerned lest he take it out from there into the public domain.

Provided that he does not take it beyond four cubits.

When he stands in a private domain and moves 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 a private domain and urinate in the public domain

or

in the public domain and urinate in the private domain,

for it is like taking something from one domain to another.

And likewise, he may not spit

from one domain to another, for the same reason.

Rabbi Judah says: Even once his spittle has been detached in his mouth

when much spittle has collected until he is about to spit—

he may not walk four cubits until he spits.

Since it is destined to be thrown from his mouth, it is considered a burden.

Gemara:

Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelemya taught Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav in the presence of Rav

our Mishna in this wording:

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

as a decree lest he bring it 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 dispute later, in the Mishna [101a], whether we issue such a decree. Rabbi Meir prohibits a person from standing in one domain, taking a key found in the second 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 establish our Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Meir and not in accordance with the Rabbis? And the Gemara explains the position of Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelemya:

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: