Shabbat 100b (ק:) — the Talmud in English

And

was this not our Mishna

[our Mishna], in which we raised the difficulty: “But it did not come to rest,”

and

that

Rabbi Yoḥanan said

to explain it:

and this is when it came to rest upon something

[and this is when it came to rest upon something, the Gra]—

—

It is therefore explained that even within three handbreadths, it is necessary for the object to come to rest upon something, for otherwise Rabbi Yoḥanan should have established the Mishna as referring to an object that entered within three handbreadths, even if it did not come to rest upon something. And if so, why did Rava need to teach this to us again!?

He said to

Marimar:

“A rolling object,”

that is, an object which the wind rolls through the air—

are you speaking of!?

That is, are you bringing proof for our matter from a rolling object, which Rabbi Yoḥanan had to establish as having come to rest upon something? After all,

a rolling object is not destined to come to rest

, and therefore, if it did not come to rest upon something, one is not liable.

But this case,

when one threw an object four cubits in the public domain, and remembered after it had passed four cubits and reached a point less than three handbreadths from the ground, before it actually came to rest on the ground—

since it is destined to come to rest

, it may be said that

although it did not come to rest, it is considered as though it came to rest

. Therefore,

Rava teaches us

that even in a case in which the object is destined to come to rest, it must come to rest upon something; even if it was within three handbreadths of the ground, if he remembered before it came to rest on the actual ground, he is not liable.

Mishna:

One who throws an object four cubits into the sea

is

exempt

, because the sea is a karmelit.

If there was merely a shallow pool

[a puddle] of

water

in the public domain,

and the public domain passes through it

, meaning that the public walked through it on foot,

one who throws into it

from a distance of

four cubits is liable

, as in the case of one who throws four cubits in the public domain. And although the shallow pool is not like an ordinary public domain in which the public walks regularly, since they walk through it only with difficulty, nevertheless, since the public uses it as a passageway, it is a public domain.

And how deep is

a

shallow pool of water

whose status is that of a public domain rather than a karmelit?

Less than ten

handbreadths.

The Mishna repeats and says

:

A shallow pool of water

in the public domain,

and through it

the public domain passes,

[above, 8b],

one who throws four cubits is liable

.

Gemara:

A certain

student

said

[one of the students]

to Rava: Granted that the repetition of “walking, walking”

twice is understandable

—that is, it is reasonable that the tanna taught twice in the Mishna that “the public domain passes” through it, because

this teaches us

that walking with difficulty is still called walking,

whereas

use with difficulty is not called use

. For example, a pit in the public domain, which the public does not use for walking but only for placing objects there, is not thereby considered a public domain.

But the repetition of “shallow pool, shallow pool,”

which the tanna taught

twice—what do I need it for!?

Why did the tanna repeat specifically the law of walking with difficulty in a shallow pool? It would have been preferable for him to teach two different cases, in order to teach us that even walking that is only with difficulty establishes a public domain, rather than teaching the same case twice.

And we answer

: One

instance of “shallow pool” was taught by the tanna to teach us that

in the summer

the shallow pool is considered a public domain.

And one

additional instance was taught to teach us that also

in the rainy season

the shallow pool is considered a public domain.

And both are necessary

, for it is necessary to teach us that the shallow pool is considered a public domain both in the summer and in the rainy season:

For if he taught only one

instance, if the tanna had taught “shallow pool” only once,

I would have said: This applies only in the summer

, when the shallow pool is considered a public domain, because

people are accustomed to walk

through the shallow pool

to cool themselves

[it is common for people to enter the shallow pool to cool their bodies].

But

a shallow pool

in the rainy season—say that it is not

a public domain.

And if he had taught us

only

that in the rainy season

the shallow pool is considered a public domain, I would have said that it is a public domain

because, since

they are in any event

soiled, they do not care

[since their feet are soiled in the rainy season, they do not mind entering the muddy shallow pool].

But

a shallow pool

in the summer is not

a public domain. Therefore, the Mishna must repeat “shallow pool.”

Abaye said

: It was

necessary

to teach “shallow pool” twice because

it might enter your mind to say: This applies

—that the shallow pool is a public domain—

when it is not

four cubits

wide, because since people do not need to walk a great distance through it, they do not trouble themselves to go around it—

But when it is

four cubits

wide

, people do not enter it; rather,

they go around it

[they go around the shallow pool], provided that they do not walk four cubits through the shallow pool.

Therefore, the Mishna teaches us two clauses concerning a shallow pool, to teach us that even a shallow pool four cubits wide is a public domain.

Rav Ashi said

the opposite:

It was necessary

to teach two clauses concerning a shallow pool because

it might enter your mind to say: This applies

—that the shallow pool is a public domain—

when its width is

four

cubits

.

But when

its width is not

four

cubits, it is not a public domain, because

people jump over it

[they leap over it] and do not walk through it.

Therefore, the Mishna teaches us two clauses concerning a shallow pool, to teach us that even a shallow pool that is not four cubits wide is a public domain, because although some people jump over it, many people walk through it.

And Rav Ashi followed his own reasoning here,

[Rav Ashi proceeded here according to his established method],

as Rav Ashi said:

One who throws

an object four cubits in the public domain,

and it comes to rest

[the object]

on a plank of a bridge

[a plank laid across the bridge like the other planks, but separated from them],

is liable, since many people pass over it.

That is, although there are some who walk over this plank and do not place their feet upon it, many people cross over it and tread upon it. The same law applies to water that is less than ten handbreadths deep.

Mishna:

One who throws from the sea,

which is a karmelit,

to dry land,

to a place that is the public domain,

or from dry land to the sea, or from the sea to a ship,

which is the private domain,

or from a ship to the sea, or from one ship to another—

in all these cases, he is

exempt.

For he did not carry out from or bring into the public domain from or to the private domain; rather, he carried from a karmelit to the private or public domain, or from them to it, or from one private domain to another private domain. By Torah law, one is liable only for carrying from one domain to another—that is, between the public domain and the private domain.

Ships

that were

tied to one another: one may carry from one to the other,

since both are private domains, as will be explained further in the Gemara.

And

if they are not tied, even though they are enclosed

[adjacent] to one another,

one may not carry from one to the other,

because the sea separates them, as will be explained further in the Gemara.

Gemara:

It was stated: A ship,

that is, one traveling in a ship at sea, and who comes to draw water from the sea—which is a karmelit—into the ship, which is the private domain:

Rabba said: One extends from it

[from the wall of the ship outward] at the place where he draws the water

a projection

[a wooden projection]

of any size

merely as a conspicuous indication,

and draws water,

and the Gemara proceeds to explain the reason.

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: He makes a place four

that is, he makes an area four by four handbreadths outside the ship, enclosed by low partitions,

and draws water

only through that area.

The Gemara explains their reasons:

Rav Huna said: He extends from it a projection of any size and draws water

from the sea; and although the sea is a karmelit, while the ship is a private domain,

he holds that a karmelit is measured from the ground

[the sea, which is a karmelit, is measured from its floor],

and

if

the airspace

above ten handbreadths, even though there is still water there,

is a “place of exemption.”

That is, we have established that a karmelit extends upward only ten handbreadths, like the public domain, and Rav Huna holds that the measurement of the ten handbreadths above it is taken from the floor of the sea, so that he may draw water from the sea at the place where the ship travels, because the water at the place where the ship travels is more than ten handbreadths deep. Consequently, he is drawing from a place of exemption into a private domain, which is not prohibited even rabbinically.

And in principle,

it

need not require a projection either

[according to the strict law, even a projection would not be necessary],

but only so that he would have an indication

[so that the projection would serve as a reminder] not to do the same in a complete karmelit.

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: He makes a place four

by four,

and draws water.

But without this, it is prohibited for him to draw water. Their reasoning is that

they hold:

a karmelit is measured from the waterline

[the ten handbreadths within which a karmelit extends are measured from the waterline], because

water is solid ground

itself [the water is considered like a thick layer of ground], and we measure from there. Consequently, all the water is a karmelit, and therefore:

if he does not make a place four,

it turns out that he

is carrying from a karmelit into a private domain.

He said,

challenging him,

Rav Naḥman said to Rabba bar Avuh: But according to Rav Huna, who said, “He extends from it a projection of any size and draws water,”

and yet

there are times when there is not ten

[there are times when the water at the place where the ship travels is less than ten handbreadths deep],

and

it follows that he

is carrying

when he draws the water from there into the ship,

from a karmelit into a private domain,

for even according to his view, the water up to ten handbreadths from the floor of the sea is a karmelit!?

He said,

in reply,

to him,

Rabba bar Avuh replied to Rav Naḥman:

We have learned

[it is a received teaching]:

that a ship does not travel in

a depth

of less than ten

handbreadths from the floor of the sea.

The objection still remains:

But does the ship not have a projecting prow!?

That is, the bow of the ship rises gradually above the water, and consequently, even if the water were less than ten handbreadths deep, the ship would not touch the ground there [with its bottom]. If he draws water opposite that place, it turns out that he is carrying from a karmelit into a private domain.

He said,

in reply,

Rav Safra: The probers go before it

the ship. Probers go before the ship; that is, people examine the depth of the water with poles, and they allow the ship to travel only in a deep place, lest the bottom of the ship become stuck on the ground.

He said,

challenging him,

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: According to Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna, who say, “He makes a place four and draws water,”

and without this it is prohibited for him to draw water, because all the water is a karmelit, then what does he do with his

wastewater

[of the ship]?

Where does he pour it

[where does he pour it]? If he pours it into the sea, he is carrying from a private domain into a karmelit, since the entire sea is a karmelit, even above ten handbreadths from the floor of the sea!?

And

if you would say

as a resolution

that he pours it in that same place

[he also pours the wastewater through that four-by-four area], this cannot be said, because the water that he draws through that place is the very place into which he pours his wastewater, and

it will become repulsive to him

[it will become repulsive].

And we answer:

He pours it onto the side of the ship.

He pours the wastewater onto the side of the ship. That is, he may pour it wherever he wishes, but he may not pour it directly from the ship into the sea; rather, he pours it onto the edge of the ship’s side, and from there it flows by itself into the sea. This is not prohibited, since he did not pour it directly into the sea.

The Gemara challenges this:

But there is “his force”,

that is, it flows into the sea by his force, and this is like carrying from a private domain into a karmelit.

And we answer:

“His force” in a karmelit,

where carrying into it is prohibited only rabbinically—

they did not decree.

The Gemara asks:

And from where do you say this,

from where do we know that they indeed did not decree against his force in a karmelit?

And we answer: From this,

as it was taught in a beraita: With regard to a ship, one may not carry neither from inside it to the sea,

nor from the sea into it.