Shabbat 100a — the Talmud in English

Was this not its placing

for one to become liable for removing it from there.

Rava raised a question: A nut

that was lying

in a vessel, and

the vessel, however,

was

was

floating upon water

which is not considered as lying, because it moves and sways, and he removed the nut and took it out—does he become liable?

And the sides of the question are:

Do we say: We follow the nut

that is, should we relate to the nut as it is in relation to the vessel,

and it is at rest

and behold, it is considered as lying in the vessel, and if so, he is liable.

Or perhaps: We follow the vessel

that is, we do not relate to the nut by itself, but to the vessel together with the nut,

and it is not at rest

behold, the two together are not at rest, and if so, he is exempt. And we conclude:

It stands unresolved!

The Gemara further explains:

Oil

that was floating

upon wine

or water, and he removed the oil from above it and took it out, this law depends upon

the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis.

For we learned

in tractate Tevul Yom:

Oil

of teruma

that was floating upon wine

of teruma,

and one who immersed that day touched

who invalidates teruma through his touch,

the oil

behold, this one

invalidated only

the

oil

alone. For he is considered to have touched only the oil, and the oil does not have the power to render the wine impure, because it itself is disqualified, not impure in such a way that it would have the power to render others impure.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: The two are connected to one another,

and both became invalid at once.

And likewise in our matter: According to the Sages, he is not liable for taking the oil, because the oil upon the wine is like a nut upon water. But according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, he is liable for it, like water upon water.

Abaye said: A pit in the public domain,

that was

ten

handbreadths deep

and eight

[by four] handbreadths exactly,

and he threw

from the public domain

a mat into it,

behold, this one

is liable,

for he brought [an object] from the public domain into the private domain. But if he

divided it with a mat,

that is, he threw a mat into it vertically, and the mat divided the pit in such a manner that on each side of the mat there is not four handbreadths, behold, this one

is exempt—

For now there is no longer a private domain here that is not less than four by four handbreadths, and consequently he is also exempt for throwing the mat itself, because when placing and removal of a partition occur together, he is exempt.

And the Gemara explains:

For Abaye, for whom it is obvious that a mat nullifies a partition

and it is no longer a private domain,

all the more so a ring

[if he brought a ring from the public domain into a pit ten deep, thereby reducing it from a depth of ten handbreadths]

which nullifies the partition

and removes from the pit the status of a private domain, for he nullifies the ring there.

But

according to Rabbi Yohanan, for whom it is a question

concerning a

ring

that he nullifies with regard to the pit,

a mat is obvious

to him

that it does not nullify the partition,

and the pit is still a private domain, because he does not nullify the mat with regard to the pit.

And Abaye said: A pit in the public domain,

that was

ten

handbreadths deep

and four

by four handbreadths: If the pit was

filled with water, and he threw into it

any object from the public domain, behold, this one

is liable,

and we do not say: Since the pit is full, this is not a private domain, because the water nullifies the partitions.

But if it was

filled with produce, and he threw

from the public domain

into it

any object, behold, this one

is exempt.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

water does not nullify a partition,

but

produce nullifies a partition.

It was also taught thus

that water does not nullify the partition. For it was taught:

One who throws from the sea

which is a karmelit

to the highway

[it is the “highway” mentioned above, 6a, and it is a road on which people travel from city to city], which is a public domain,

and from

[or from]

the highway

to the sea,

behold, this one

is exempt,

for he did not carry from the public domain into the private domain, but into a karmelit.

Rabbi Shimon says: If there is

in the sea

at the place where he threw

the object there, a separate pit by itself that is

deep

ten

handbreadths

and four wide

by four handbreadths, behold, this one

is liable.

For this pit is a private domain. We learn from Rabbi Shimon's words that water does not nullify the partitions of the place.

Mishna:

One who throws

an object

four cubits

in the public domain, and the object comes to rest

in

front of

a wall

that stands there:

If it struck the wall

above

the height of

ten handbreadths

from the ground of the public domain, which is a “neutral place,” because the public domain extends only up to ten handbreadths, behold, this one is

like one who throws into the air

above ten handbreadths, for which he is exempt.

And if it struck the wall

below

the height of

ten handbreadths

from the ground of the public domain, behold, this one is

like one who throws on the ground,

and he is liable.

One who throws on the ground

in the public domain

four cubits,

behold, this one

is liable.

Gemara:

And we challenge: Why does he become liable when the object struck the wall below ten handbreadths,

but it did not come to rest

when it struck the wall?

He said

Rabbi Yohanan

explained: With a thick fig cake

that he threw against the face of the wall and it became attached to it

we learned,

for it came to rest.

Rabbi Meir and the Sages disputed in Eruvin 11b concerning the law of a “vault” with regard to a mezuzah. This is a gate made in a rounded form like a vault, whose open entrance does not have a height of ten handbreadths together with a width of four handbreadths, which is the measure of an “entrance” that makes one liable for a mezuzah, but there is enough building around the entrance to carve out and complete the entrance to the appropriate measure. According to Rabbi Meir, “we carve out to complete”; that is, we view it as though the wall around the gate had been carved out and the measure of an “entrance” completed, and it is therefore liable for a mezuzah. But according to the Sages, “we do not carve out to complete,” and the gate is not liable for a mezuzah.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, Rabbi Hiyya said: He threw

an object from the public domain toward the wall

above ten

handbreadths,

and it traveled

the object

and came to rest

there

in any kind of hole,

which does not contain four by four handbreadths, and the thickness of the wall was sufficient to expand the hole and make it four by four handbreadths and to make there a private domain, like a pillar ten high and four wide standing in the public domain, which is a private domain:

We have arrived

at this

at the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis,

who disputed concerning a gate made like a vault, which does not contain the measure of an entrance, but there is enough there to carve out and complete it to the measure of an entrance, whether it is liable for a mezuzah:

According to Rabbi Meir, who says

there

that we carve out to complete,

behold, this one

becomes liable

because he brought [an object] from the public domain into the private domain, for we view the hole in the wall as though it had been carved out and widened to a width of four by four handbreadths, and a private domain was made there.

But

for the Rabbis, who say

there

that they do not carve out to complete, he is not liable.

For there is not in the hole the measure of a private domain, which is four by four handbreadths.

It was also taught likewise:

If

he threw above ten

handbreadths,

and it went and came to rest in any-sized hole

in the wall, and there is enough there to enlarge it and make it four by four handbreadths:

Rabbi Meir declares him liable, and the Sages exempt him.

And this follows their method, for they disagreed concerning a mezuzah whether “they carve out to complete.”

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav:

A. A pillar in the public domain, ten high in a straight line and four by four handbreadths wide, is a private domain.

B. If the partitions of the place did not rise in a straight line, but rather

a mound

in the public domain

that rises

to a height of

ten

handbreadths

within four

cubits—that is, its slope was so steep that the mound already rose to a height of ten handbreadths by the time it reached four cubits—

and he threw, and it came to rest upon it,

he is

liable,

as though the mound stood upright and rose in a straight line. But if the mound does not rise to a height of ten handbreadths until it reaches more than four cubits, it is not a private domain; rather, it is like the rest of the public domain, because its use for walking is convenient.

A lane enclosed on three of its sides by partitions, and open on its fourth side to the public domain: the Sages prohibited carrying in it four cubits until one places at its entrance a side-post or a crossbeam, so that people will not come to exchange this with, and permit, carrying four cubits in the public domain.

It was also taught likewise: A lane whose

ground level in the public domain adjacent to the entrance of the lane

was equal to its interior,

of the lane, adjacent to its entrance,

and it became a slope toward the public domain.

That is, only near the entrance was the floor of the lane equal in height to the ground of the lane, but farther inside the floor of the lane was higher than the area adjacent to the public domain; therefore, it was necessary to slope the floor of the lane, making it like a slope that slopes continuously toward the public domain.

Or

the level of the floor of the lane, toward its entrance adjacent to the public domain, was

level

in height

with the public domain, and it became a slope toward its interior.

That is, the public domain was higher than the floor of the interior of the lane, in such a way that near the entrance of the lane its floor was level with the public domain, and only after one cubit or half a cubit inside the lane did its floor begin to slope, like a slope that continuously slopes toward the interior of the lane—

that lane does not require either a side-post or a crossbeam,

because the height of the slope is considered a fourth partition.

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says: A mound that rises

in height according to the ratio of

ten

handbreadths of height

within four

cubits of length,

and he threw

an object from the public domain

and it came to rest upon it,

upon the mound, he is

liable,

since the height of the mound is considered a private domain.

Mishna:

He threw

an object in the public domain

within four cubits

from the place where he is standing,

and it rolled beyond four cubits,

he is

exempt.

But if he threw

beyond four cubits, and it rolled,

even before it fell to the ground,

within four cubits,

he is

liable.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises an objection concerning what is stated in the latter clause, that he is liable for an object that was beyond four cubits and rolled into them:

But it did not come to rest

the object beyond four cubits, so why is he liable!?

Rabbi Yohanan

answered:

And it is when it came to rest

the object beyond four cubits

upon something.

It was also taught likewise

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan, that if the object did not come to rest at all, he is not liable. For it was taught:

He threw

an object

beyond four cubits, and

the object did not stop its motion at all, and

the wind pushed it and brought it inside, and even though it returned and took it outside,

he is

exempt.

But if

the wind held it somewhat,

that is, if the object stopped its motion slightly through the wind beyond four cubits,

even though it returned

the wind

and brought it inside

the four cubits, he is

liable.

Rava said:

Rabbi Akiva and the Sages disagreed in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter concerning one who throws from a private domain to a private domain through the public domain, whether he is liable; and the opinion of the Sages is that he is not liable, because we do not say “caught in the air is like something that came to rest.” And do not say that the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Akiva only when the object was caught in the air more than three handbreadths above the ground of the public domain, but within three handbreadths they did not disagree. Rather, even

within three

handbreadths of the ground of the public domain,

for the Rabbis,

who hold that “caught in the air is not like something that came to rest,”

a resting upon something is required,

and he is not liable even if he threw from a private domain to a private domain through the public domain below three handbreadths—

The same practical difference applies in the case of one who throws four cubits in the public domain, and after passing four cubits it reaches within three handbreadths, and he remembered his error before it came to rest, in which case he is exempt, since its beginning and its end were not both inadvertent, and we do not say: Before he remembered, it had already become placed.

Mareimar sat and recited this teaching [

Mareimar was sitting and stating this teaching in the name of Rava]:

Ravina said to Mareimar: