Shabbat 117a — the Talmud in English

And we objected:

Are they comparable

the handling of a book-cover to the handling of the hide?

There

with the book-cover,

the cover became

the cover

a base for the

book, which is

a permitted object, and therefore it is permitted to handle it.

and therefore it is permitted to move it.

Here,

with the hide,

the hide became

the hide

a base for the

meat, which is

a forbidden object

on Shabbat, for one may eat the meat of the Paschal offering only in the evening, at the conclusion of Shabbat, at the onset of the festival of Passover; therefore it is forbidden to handle it.

Rather, this is what he said to him: If one saves a book-cover together with the book, even though there are coins inside it,

which are muktze—

shall we not handle a hide incidentally to meat?

And we objected:

Are they comparable?

There—

it became

the cover

a base for a forbidden object,

the coins,

and for a permitted object,

the book. But

here,

with the hide,

all of it became a base

only

for the

meat, which is

a forbidden object!

Rather, this is what he said to him: If one brings a cover containing coins from elsewhere in order to save a Torah scroll,

although at the time he brings it, it is a base solely for a forbidden object—

shall we not handle a hide incidentally to meat!?

And we considered this:

And the matter itself—

handling a cover containing coins alone, for the purpose of saving a book—

from where do we know

that it is permitted to do so?

Shall we say that since,

just as in a case where

there are

coins in a cover containing a book,

he does not

need the tanna to say that

he should throw them away,

but he may take the cover together with the book, along with the coins inside it—

we also bring one,

from here we learn that one may bring an empty cover, which contains no book but does contain coins, in order to save a book.

Are they comparable?

There,

when it contains coins together with the book, we did not require him to throw away the coins, because

in the meantime,

before he throws them away,

a fire may fall

on the book. But

here,

when he brings an empty cover from elsewhere,

in the meantime,

while he must bring it in any event—

let him throw them away!

He can also turn it over and shake out the coins inside it.

Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: In fact,

as we said at first.

They disagreed only about flaying, and he compared this to saving a cover with a book.

And if what is difficult for you is: Here it is handling, and here it is a labor—

here we are speaking

of a case where he does not need the hide,

for he does not intend to flay for the sake of the hide, and in such a case it is not considered a labor by Torah law.

But Abaye and Rava both said: Rabbi Shimon agrees

that he holds that a labor performed on Shabbat without intention for the labor is permitted

in a case of “cut off its head and it will not

die!”—

this is an analogy, as if one says: I shall cut off the head of this animal, but I do not intend that it should die. For Rabbi Shimon agrees that if it is certain that a labor will result from his actions, it is forbidden even if he does not intend it.

If so, when he certainly flays, it is certainly forbidden, since it is clear that he is flaying a hide?

And we answer:

That he removes it in strips.

He cuts the hide into small pieces, which is not the usual manner of flaying.

Taking an object on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain is forbidden by Torah law. The Sages added and also forbade places resembling a public domain, so that one may neither carry into them nor handle objects within them. "

A mavוי is a passage leading to a public domain.

The mavוי is enclosed on all sides by partitions, and at its head it has an opening through which the residents of the houses leave for the public domain.

By Torah law, it is considered a private domain by virtue of the partitions surrounding it. But since it serves as a passage for many people who live in the houses around it to the public domain, the Sages decreed that one may neither carry within it nor carry into it.

This decree operates on two levels:

First, since it is a place made for the passage of the public, it appears to be an independent private domain, different from a private individual’s domain. The Sages therefore decreed that on Shabbat one may not carry from one private domain to another private domain, so that people would not err and permit carrying from a private domain to a public domain.

Second, since it serves the people living around it as a passage to the public domain, it itself appears to be a public domain. If they were to carry within it or carry into it, they might err and carry from a private domain to a public domain, or mistakenly think that it is permitted to carry in a public domain, or err and carry into it from a public domain [within four cubits].

The explanation of the reason for these decrees is found in the words of the early authorities at the beginning of tractate Eruvin.

Likewise, the Sages instituted that it should be possible to permit carrying in the mavוי by means of modifications that prevent the concerns on both levels.

a. They instituted “partnerships of courtyards”: all the members of the mavוי contribute food and place the food in one location, and it is found as though all the members of the mavוי live in one domain and do not each possess a domain of their own; thus there is no carrying from one person’s domain to another’s.

b. They place a lehi [post] or a beam at the opening of the mavוי, thereby separating it from the public domain. It is now a complete private domain, and there is no concern that people will compare it to a public domain.

We learned in the Mishna:

And to where may one save them?—

to a mavוי that is not open through at both ends. Ben Beteira says: Even to one open through at both ends.

And we considered this:

What are the circumstances of a

mavוי

open through at both ends,

and

what are the circumstances of a

mavוי

that is not open through at both ends?

Rav Hisda said:

A mavוי that has

three partitions

on three of its sides,

and

on the fourth side

two lehayin—

this is a mavוי that is not open through at both ends.

A mavוי that has

three partitions and one lehi—

this is a mavוי open through at both ends.

And both of them,

the Rabbis and Ben Beteira,

follow the view of Rabbi Eliezer.

As we learned: The proper arrangement of a mavוי,

Beit Shammai say: A lehi and a beam.

And Beit Hillel say: Either a lehi or a beam.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Two lehayin

on the two sides of the opening.

Rabba said to him: Is a mavוי that has

three partitions and

one lehi called a “

mavוי

open through at both ends”?

Furthermore, according to the Rabbis,

who say that one may save to a mavוי that is not open through at both ends, and we have now said that this is a mavוי with three partitions and two lehayin, which is a mavוי properly blocked, then

let us save into it

also

food and drink.

But from the wording of the Rabbis it appears that food may be saved only to a joined courtyard and not to a mavוי, while only a book may be saved to a mavוי that is not open through at both ends!

Rather, Rabba said: Two partitions,

one on this side and one on that side,

and two lehayin

at the two ends of one of the partitions—

this is a mavוי that is not open through at both ends.

Two partitions and one lehi—

this is a mavוי open through at both ends.

And both of them follow the view of Rabbi Judah.

And Ben Beteira permitted carrying to a mavוי that has only two partitions and one lehi.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Judah said, Furthermore:

One who has two houses on the two sides of a public domain—

he makes a lehi here

at the end of one house,

and a lehi here

at its other end.

Or

he makes

a beam here and a beam here—

and he carries and transfers in the middle.

They said to him: One does not make a public domain into a joined domain in this manner.

Abaye said to him: According to you as well, according to the Rabbis, let us save into it

of the completely blocked mavוי, according to Rabbi Judah,

food and drink!?