Shabbat 100b — the Talmud in English

But

is this not our Mishna

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

and

that

Rabbi Yohanan 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 thus explained that even within three handbreadths, it requires coming to rest upon something, for if this were not so, Rabbi Yohanan should have established it as being within three handbreadths, even without its coming to rest upon something. And since this is so, why does Rava need to teach us this additionally!?

And it implies that his intention is that if it fell to the ground, it is obvious that he is liable, even though it did not come to rest from its motion. It is thus explained that in such a case no one disagrees and says that he is exempt. And according to what was explained in section a, that from Rashi it is explicitly implied that Rabbi Yohanan, who established it as having come to rest upon something, meant above three handbreadths, and otherwise he is not liable because it did not come to rest [as we challenged: “But it did not come to rest”], it follows that if it is rolling on the ground, he is liable even though it did not come to rest from its motion, whereas in the air he is not liable when it did not come to rest from its motion. This requires explanation: what is the reasoning for the distinction between rolling in the air and rolling on the ground!? And this is understandable if Rabbi Yohanan’s intention is that he is speaking of a case where it came to rest within three handbreadths. In that case, one can say that the Gemara’s question, “But it did not come to rest,” does not mean to ask: “But it did not come to rest from its motion”; rather, the Gemara’s question means to ask: “But it did not come to rest on the ground.” For even if it is below three handbreadths, we do not say lavud when it is rolling. To this he answered that it came to rest upon something, and then, automatically, we say lavud, and it has reached the ground. But according to what was explained regarding Rashi’s view, that the reference is to when it came to rest upon something above three handbreadths, then the deficiency when it did not come to rest upon something is that in the air he is liable only if it comes to rest from its motion. This requires explanation: what is the reasoning for the distinction between rolling in the air and rolling upon the ground, regarding coming to rest from its motion!? Ravina said to

Marimar:

Rolling,

something that the wind rolls through the air—

are you saying!?

That is, are you bringing proof for our matter from “rolling,” concerning which Rabbi Yohanan had to establish that it came to rest upon something? But

rolling has no end destined to come to rest,

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

But this one,

when he threw it four cubits in the public domain, and remembered after it had passed four cubits and reached less than three handbreadths adjacent to the ground, and before it had actually come to rest upon the ground,

since its end is destined to come to rest,

one might say:

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

Therefore,

he teaches us

Rava that even in a case whose end is destined to come to rest, coming to rest upon something is required, even if it was within three handbreadths adjacent to the ground; and if he remembered before it came to rest upon the actual ground, he is not liable.

Mishna:

One who throws [an object] in the sea four cubits,

it is

exempt,

because the sea is a karmelit.

If there was only a pool

[a puddle]

of water

in the public domain,

and the public domain passes through it,

for the many walked through it on foot,

one who throws into it

from a distance of

four cubits is liable,

like the law of one who throws four cubits in the public domain. And although the pool is not like the rest of the public domain, through which the many walk regularly, for through it they walk only with difficulty, nevertheless, since the many use it by walking, it is a public domain.

And how much is the

depth of a

pool of water

whose law is that of a public domain and not a karmelit?

Less than ten

handbreadths.

The Mishna repeats and says:

A pool of water

in the public domain,

and the public domain passes through it, one who throws

within it

into it,

above, 8b,

four cubits is liable.

.

Gemara:

A

certain student

said

[one of the students]

to Rava: It is understandable that “walking, walking” twice,

that is, that the tanna repeated twice in the Mishna and said that “the public domain passes” through it, was properly repeated, because

this teaches us

that it is considered a public domain only because the pool is needed by the many for walking. For although walking through it is done with difficulty, nevertheless,

walking with difficulty is called walking,

whereas

use with difficulty is not called use.

For example, a pit in the public domain, which the many do not use for walking, but only to place objects there, does not cause it to be considered a public domain.

But “pool, pool”

that the tanna taught

twice, why do I need it!?

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

And we answer:

One

pool the tanna taught in order to teach us that

in the summer

the pool is considered a public domain.

And one

additional pool he wrote in order to teach us that also

in the rainy season

the pool is considered a public domain.

And both are necessary,

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

If he taught one,

if the tanna had taught “pool” only once,

I would have thought: This applies in the summer

when the pool is considered a public domain, because

people are accustomed to walk

in the pool

to cool themselves

[it is common for the many to enter the pool in order to cool their bodies].

But

a pool

in the rainy season, say it is not

a public domain.

And if he had taught us

the tanna only

in the rainy season

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

because, since

in any event

they become soiled, it does not matter to them

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

But

a pool

in the summer, not

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

Abaye said:

For this reason

it was necessary

to teach “pool” twice, because

it might enter your mind to say, this applies

when the pool is a public domain

where it is not

the pool four cubits wide

four cubits,

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

But where it is

the pool four cubits wide,

four cubits,

people do not enter it, but

they go around it

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

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

Rav Ashi said

to the contrary:

It was necessary

to teach us two clauses concerning a pool, because

it might enter your mind to say, this applies

when the pool is a public domain

where it is

the width of the pool

four

cubits.

But where

it is not

the width of the pool

four cubits,

it is not a public domain, because

they step over it

[they jump over it] and do not walk within it.

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

And Rav Ashi proceeded according to his approach

[Rav Ashi followed his approach in these words],

as Rav Ashi said:

One who throws

an object four cubits in the public domain,

and it comes to rest

the object

on the edge of the bridge

[on a plank lying across the bridge like the other planks, and separated from its fellow],

is liable, for the public pass through it.

That is, even though there are some who walk over this plank and do not place their feet upon it, there are many who pass over it and tread upon it. And the same law applies also to mud.

Mishna:

One who throws from the sea

which is a karmelit

to dry land

to a place that is a public domain,

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

which is a private domain,

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

in all these cases he is

exempt.

For he did not carry out or bring in from a public domain to a private domain, but rather from a karmelit to a private or public domain, or from them to it, or from one private domain to another private domain. And by Torah law one is liable only for carrying out from one domain to another, that is, the public and private domains.

Ships

that were

tied to one another: one may move objects from one to the other,

for both of them are private domains, as will be explained further in the Gemara.

And

if they are not tied, even though they are surrounded

[close] one beside the other,

one may not move objects from one to the other,

since the sea separates between 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 he came to draw water from the sea—which is a karmelit—into the ship, which is a private domain:

Rabba said: They extend from it

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

a projection

[a wooden projection]

of any size

merely as a distinguishing mark,

and he draws water,

and he explains the reason and proceeds.

Rav Hisda 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 he draws water

only through that area.

And 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, whereas the ship is a private domain, he holds:

we measure a karmelit from the ground

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

and

if

the air

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

is a “place of exemption.”

That is, it is established for us that a karmelit occupies, in its height, only up to ten handbreadths, like a public domain, and Rav Huna holds that the measurement of the ten handbreadths above it, which is a “place of exemption,” is measured from the floor of the sea; therefore, he may draw water from the sea at the place where the ship is traveling, because the water is more than ten handbreadths deep at the place where the ship travels, and it follows that he draws from a place of exemption into a private domain, which contains no prohibition even rabbinically.

And as a matter of law

it

should not even require a projection

[as a matter of basic law, even a projection would not be necessary],

but only so that he should have a distinguishing mark

[so that through the projection he would have a distinguishing mark] that he should not do this in a complete karmelit.

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

by four,

and draws water.

But without this he is forbidden to draw water. Their reason is that

they hold:

we measure a karmelit from the water’s edge

[the ten handbreadths occupied by the karmelit are measured from the water’s edge], because

water is solid ground

[the water itself is considered like thick ground], and we must measure from there; it follows that all the water is a karmelit, and therefore:

if he does not make a place four

it follows that he

is moving [an object] from a karmelit to a private domain.

He said

[he challenged]

Rav Nahman said to Rabba bar Avuha: 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 are not ten

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

and

it follows that he

is moving [an object]

when he draws the water from there into the ship

from a karmelit to a private domain,

for up to ten handbreadths from the floor of the sea it is also a karmelit according to his view!?

He said

[he answered]

to him

Rabba bar Avuha answered Rav Nahman:

We have learned

[it is accepted by us]:

that a ship does not travel at

a height

of less than ten

handbreadths from the floor of the sea.

And we still challenge:

But it has a projecting prow

The ship’s bow rises gradually from the water, and it follows that even if the water were less than ten [handbreadths deep], the ship does not touch the ground there [on the floor]; and if he draws water opposite that place, it follows that he is moving [an object] from a karmelit to a private domain.

He said

[he answered]

Rav Safra: Probers go before it

the ship. Probers go before the ship; that is, people probe 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 in the ground.

He said

[he challenged]

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said to Rav Hiyya bar Avin: According to Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna, who say, “He makes a place four and draws water”,

and without this he is forbidden to draw water, because all the water is a karmelit, if so, his

wastewater

[of the ship],

how does he dispose of it

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

And

if you would say

[to resolve this]

that he pours it in that same place

[he pours the wastewater also through that four-area], this cannot be said, for the water that he draws through that place, there he pours his wastewater,

it will become repulsive to him

[they 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 pours it wherever he wishes, but he does 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, and there is no prohibition in this, since he did not pour it directly into the sea.

And we challenge this:

But there is “his force”,

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

And we answer:

“His force” in a karmelit,

for the prohibition of carrying out into it is only rabbinic;

they did not decree.

The Gemara asks:

And from where do you say this,

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

And we answer: From this

as it was taught: A ship—one may move objects neither from inside it to the sea

nor from the sea into it;