Shabbat 101a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Judah says:

If the rim of the ship was ten handbreadths above the sea, then it is permitted to carry from the sea into it and from it into the sea, and not in accordance with the words of the Sages, who did not distinguish in this matter.

And if the ship was

deep

within it

ten handbreadths, so that the bottom of the ship was enclosed by partitions ten handbreadths high,

handbreadths, so that the bottom of the boat is enclosed by partitions ten handbreadths high,

and

however

not

the rim of the ship [at the top of its walls] was

ten high handbreadths above the sea, because it was sunk in the water owing to the weight of its cargo:

handbreadths from the sea, because it had sunk into the water under the weight of its cargo:

They carry from within it into the sea, but not from the sea into it, and he explains it further.

And he proceeds to explain it.

From the fact that Rabbi Judah permitted carrying from within it into the sea, the Gemara proves that they did not decree regarding his force in a karmelit, for seemingly it is difficult:

What is different about from the sea into it, that they do not carry

carry, because

they are carrying

from

the sea, which is

a karmelit, into a private domain,

for the ship is ten handbreadths deep and four by four handbreadths wide. If so, then

from within it

of the ship

into the sea as well, why is it permitted to carry, for

why is it permitted to carry, when

he carries from a private domain into a karmelit?

Rather, is it not

here we are dealing with a case in which he carries from the ship into the sea in a manner that he pours water

along the length

of the ship [at the rim of the ship, at the top of the walls], and they fall from there into the sea; this is his “force,” and they did not decree regarding “his force” in a karmelit.

And he added: And it is difficult for me: according to Rabbi Judah, how do we find a private domain that rises to the firmament? And even if you say that concerning a pillar in a public domain that is ten high and four wide, we do not say that its domain rises to the firmament [see concerning this in the name of the Ramban in the notes above, 99b, regarding Rav Mordecai’s problem], that applies to a pillar that has no partitions, whose air is a place exempt. But concerning a courtyard or a ship that has partitions, we say of them, “a private domain rises to the firmament”! ? And my teacher, may his lamp shine, answered that the Ramban of blessed memory said this only concerning a courtyard and the like, whose partitions are made for their airspace; and in that case we say that they rise to the firmament. But the partitions of a ship are made only to keep out the water, and are not made for their airspace, so it is like a pillar in a public domain that is ten high and four wide, which is a place exempt. A novel interpretation emerges from his words, and it is this: the “place exempt” mentioned here in Rabbi Judah’s reason for permitting when it is ten high does not refer to the air above the sea, but rather to the air above the ship, as he explained the reason: that its domain does not rise to the firmament. And according to his words, what Rabbi Judah distinguished between ten high above the sea and not ten high above the sea must be explained as follows: if it is not ten high above the sea, then although the private domain does not rise to the firmament, nevertheless this is not a “place exempt,” but a karmelit, like the rest of the air of the sea up to ten [handbreadths]; and the status of karmelit in this air is not diminished on account of the ship beneath it. Learn from it: they did not decree regarding his force in a karmelit.

And we conclude: indeed,

learn from it!

Rav Huna said: These ships of Maysan [

ships of the city of Maysan ], and they are ships four handbreadths or more wide, and their bottoms slope progressively until they are only as wide as the edge of a knife, even if their partitions have a height of ten

handbreadths [the measure of a partition] from the place where the ships widen to four handbreadths [the measure of a private domain], they are not private domains, but are karmelitot, and therefore:

one may not carry within them

except within

within

four

cubits, like any other karmelit.

And the reason is: they are not private domains even in the place where they widened to four, because since the lower part of the partition does not enclose a space of four, it is as though there is no partition there; and the partitions of the ship above—in the place where they enclose four handbreadths—are found to be suspended partitions, and a “suspended partition” does not permit.

And we said this

that they are karmelitot

only when there is not, within less than

three

handbreadths of height from the bottom of the ship, a width of

four handbreadths—that is, they widen to four handbreadths only at a height of three handbreadths or more from the bottom of the ship.

handbreadths—in other words, they widen to four handbreadths only at a height of three handbreadths or more above the bottom of the boat.

But

if

there is at a

height

less than three

handbreadths—a width of

four handbreadths, for they widen to a width of four within three handbreadths of their bottom,

handbreadths, since they widen to a width of four handbreadths within three handbreadths of their bottom,

we have no concern with it, meaning, they are a private domain, and it is permitted to carry within them four cubits, because they are like something whose bottom rises to this point and whose partitions are partitions.

And

likewise,

if he fills them with reeds and willow branches [

if he filled the ships with reeds or thin willow branches up to the place where they widen to four handbreadths ],

we have no concern with it, meaning, they are a private domain, and it is permitted to carry within them four cubits.

Rav Naḥman challenged this:

Rav Nahman objected to this: Let him say concerning the partitions above the place where the ships widened to a width of four handbreadths

“

“draw down and lower the partition” [

draw down the ship’s partition in a straight line to the seabed surrounding the ship, and there is no longer a suspended partition]!? For

is it not taught: Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: If one inserted a pole

that is ten handbreadths high and is not four by four handbreadths wide

in a public domain, and

but there is

a basket at its top

that is four by four handbreadths wide, but the basket does not have partitions ten handbreadths high,

and he threw and it came to rest on

its top

of the basket, it is

liable, because the law of a private domain applies to the basket, despite its low partitions.

And it is further clarified: if the partitions reach to the bottom of the ship and there is no air between the partition and the bottom of the ship, it is no longer a suspended partition, for all ships are private domains even though their partitions do not reach the seabed. Moreover, even when the bottom of the ship is not a private domain, partitions reaching the bottom of the ship are nevertheless sufficient. For these partitions were called “suspended partitions” only because their lower partitions have no partitions upon them [as explained by Rashi, who wrote: for since the lower ones that is, those opposite the place where they are not four handbreadths wide, are not a partition; and this is as explained, that every partition not made for an enclosed space of four is not a partition]. It therefore follows that without this factor, their partitions are not suspended, because they reach the bottom of the ship, even though that lower part is not a private domain, for there is no private domain in less than four by four. But when there is air between the partition and the ship, then it is not sufficient that the partitions reach opposite the bottom of the ship; rather, the partitions must reach to the seabed, as explained by Rashi, that the Gemara’s question was to say “draw down and lower the partitions” to the seabed.

Thus ,

it is proven that

we say

with regard to its small partitions

“gud aḥit mechitzta”,

as though they descend all the way to the public domain; and it follows that the traskel is enclosed by partitions from below, and the traskel becomes a private domain.

Here too,

with regard to the boats of Mishan,

let us say, “gud aḥit mechitzta”,

as though they had partitions extending down below, and it would no longer be a “suspended partition”!?

Rav Yosef challenged

Rav Naḥman’s question:

“Did they not hear”

that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, and some attribute it in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya

[there are those who incline the matter toward deciding and saying that Rabbi Ḥiyya said this]

and taught concerning it:

“And the Sages exempt.”

For they do not hold that one should say “gud aḥit mechitzta.”

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

“And can you not understand”

[do you not concede] that everyone says gud aḥit mechitzta, and the Sages disputed only with regard to a traskel!?

And it was taught: A pillar in the public domain

whose top

is ten

handbreadths

high and is four

by four handbreadths,

but

nevertheless

does not have at its base

beneath the top of the pillar a width

of four

handbreadths, because it is made on a slope,

and at its narrow part

[at the narrow place]

there are three

handbreadths, that is, that part of the pillar which is not four handbreadths wide is three handbreadths high from the ground, because the pillar does not expand to a width of four handbreadths until above three handbreadths from the ground of the public domain,

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

he is

liable.

Thus, we say

with regard to the walls of the pillar at the place where they widened to four handbreadths between them,

“gud aḥit mechitzta.”

For if this were not said, the top of the pillar would not become a private domain, and this pillar would not have ten-handbreadth partitions with four by four handbreadths between them.

Here too,

with regard to the boat,

let us say, “gud aḥit mechitzta”!?

Abaye adds and says to Rav Yosef: And as for the difficulty that you have from the words of the Sages who exempt with regard to a traskel,

“Is it comparable!?”

That is, does the matter under discussion resemble the proof!? For

there,

with regard to a traskel, the Sages do not hold that one should say “gud aḥit mechitzta,” because

it becomes for it

that partition which is as though it descended below

a partition through which young goats pass,

and they nullify the partition.

But

here,

with regard to the boat and the narrow pillar,

it becomes a partition through which young goats do not pass.

For no passage whatsoever is discernible in the sea, and even with regard to the pillar, young goats do not customarily rub against the pillar and pass beneath the slope, since the slope is only slight.

He said,

he raised a difficulty

to him—Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Aḥa, to Rav Ashi: With regard to a boat as well, there is the passage of fish

which pass through the place of the partition that is as though it descended to the ground. And should the fish nullify the partition, just as young goats nullify it!?

He said

he answered

to him,

Rav Ashi to Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Aḥa:

The passage of fish is not called passage,

because their passage is not visible.

And from where do you say

that the passage of fish is not considered passage?

For Rabbi Tavla asked Rav: “A suspended partition”—what is the law concerning its permitting [the carrying] in a ruin

That is, a ruin whose walls are destroyed, and it has suspended partitions that do not reach the ground. And Rabbi Tavla was uncertain whether such partitions are effective for a ruin, so that it would not be considered open toward the public domain and carrying in it would not be prohibited.