Shabbat 6b — the Talmud in English

And therefore,

he makes ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

a side-post here

on its one side, which is open to the continuation of the public domain,

and a side-post here

on its other side, which is open to the continuation of the public domain,

or a beam here and a beam here,

and

thus

he carries and transfers in the middle.

And it is like an alleyway that is open only on its one side to the public domain. And since, according to Rabbi Judah, with only two partitions the place becomes a private domain by Torah law.

The Sages said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Judah:

One does not establish an eruv for a public domain by means of this!

And in order to exclude Rabbi Judah’s view, we learned: “This is a private domain,” that is: this one that is surrounded by partitions, and not this one that has only two partitions.

The Gemara continues to explain:

And why did they call

it

in the beraita “ [this is a private domain]]

complete”?

For

lest you say

I would say:

When the Rabbis disagree

until this point the Sages disagreed

with Rabbi Judah that

a place surrounded by two partitions

is not

a private domain, this matter applies

as a stringency by rabbinic ordinance, so that one should not

carry

in it as in a private domain, even by means of the sign of a side-post or a beam.

But with regard to throwing,

as a stringency, to obligate one who throws from the public domain into it,

they agree with him

the Sages agree with Rabbi Judah that it is a private domain, to obligate him, because by Torah law two partitions are sufficient; therefore

it informs us “complete,”

to say that a place surrounded by two partitions is not a private domain at all, and one who throws from the public domain into it is not liable.

The Master said,

in the beraita mentioned above:

This is a public domain:

And the Gemara asks:

To exclude what

what does the expression “This is a public domain” come to exclude?

And the Gemara explains:

To exclude the other one of Rabbi Judah

the second position of Rabbi Judah!

A. By Torah law, it is possible to create a private domain in the midst of the public domain without surrounding it on all sides with complete partitions, by setting up four posts, made in the form of angles, at four opposite corners [when the width of the angle is one cubit on each side]. These posts define the domain between the corners as a private domain, because the space between the posts is considered an entrance, and thus something resembling four complete partitions is formed all around. All this is by Torah law, but the Sages prohibited carrying in such a private domain if these posts were set up in the public domain.

B. Wells of flowing water located in the public domain, their depth being ten handbreadths and their width four by four handbreadths, are a private domain. Therefore, one may not draw water from them on Shabbat, since he removes the water from the pit, which is a private domain, into the public domain.

But the Sages permitted it for the needs of pilgrims, so that they could water their animals on Shabbat from the wells that were along their route of ascent, to make “posts of the wells,” which are those four angled posts, around the place where the well is located, setting them up at four corners around the well.

For we learned: Rabbi Judah says: If a public-domain road cut through them

the “posts of the wells”—that is, if a public road passed between the post on this side and the post on that side,

he must remove it

that road

to the sides,

outside the posts. For the passage of the public between the posts nullifies, according to Rabbi Judah, the surrounding of the [imagined] partitions made by means of the posts.

And the Sages say: It is not necessary

to remove the public domain to the sides.

And the tanna taught us, by saying “This is a public domain,” that only a public domain—this one that has no partitions at all—has the status of a public domain; but a public road surrounded by “posts of the wells” does not have the status of a public domain.

And the Gemara asks further:

And why did they call it “

this is a public domain

complete”?!

And the Gemara explains:

Since

as a result of

the tanna taught at the beginning

with regard to a private domain

“complete”

to inform us as was explained in the Gemara above, therefore

the tanna also taught at the end

with regard to a public domain

“complete.”

We ask another question against the beraita:

And let it also count,

among the public domains mentioned in the beraita, also

“the desert,”

which is a public domain!?

For it was taught: What is a public domain? A thoroughfare

and

a large open square, and alleyways open at both ends, and the desert!

He said,

Abaye resolved:

It is not difficult. Here,

this that we learned, that the desert is a public domain, applies only

when Israel dwelled in the desert.

But

here,

in the beraita, in which the desert was not mentioned among the public domains,

in the present time,

when it is not a place of passage for the public, and those who travel through deserts are not common.

The Master said: If he carried out and carried in, unwittingly: he is liable for a sin-offering.

Intentionally: he is punished by excision, and is stoned:

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

“Unwittingly he is liable for a sin-offering,”

is it obvious!

Why did the beraita need to inform us of this? It would have been sufficient for it to say: And if he carried out and carried in, he is liable, for it is obvious that if he did so unwittingly he is liable for a sin-offering, since all liabilities for Shabbat are liabilities punishable by excision, and everyone who is liable to excision intentionally is liable for a sin-offering unwittingly!?

And we answer: Indeed, the tanna did not need to inform us that unwittingly he is liable for a sin-offering; rather,

“Intentionally he is punished by excision, and is stoned,”

was necessary for him.

And because the tanna mentioned his liability intentionally, the tanna also mentioned his liability unwittingly.

And we still ask:

Is this too obvious

that he is liable to stoning, since all liabilities for Shabbat are by stoning!?

And we answer:

This is what the tanna informs us

by saying “he is punished by excision and is stoned,”

in accordance with Rav. For Rav said: I found a concealed scroll

in the study-house of Rabbi Hiyya, and it was written in it: Isi ben Judah says: The primary labors are forty minus one, and he is liable for only one.

And the Gemara thought to explain that if he performed all of them during one lapse of awareness, having forgotten the prohibition of all the labors of Shabbat and performing them all without becoming aware in the interim, he is liable for only one sin-offering [but ultimately the Gemara explains it in another manner, and the intention of the Gemara in saying “in accordance with Rav” is clarified].

And we raise an objection against this:

No

that is not so! For

we learned

below, in the chapter “The Great Principle” [73a],

“The primary labors are forty minus one,”

and the Mishna there lists all of them—

And we discussed it: Why do I need the enumeration

why is the general number mentioned at the beginning of the Mishna!?

And he said,

he answered this,

Rabbi Yohanan,

in order to teach

that if he performed all of them during one lapse of awareness,

he is

liable for each one and one.

And the tanna teaches us that the total number of sin-offerings for which a person can become liable during one lapse of awareness is forty-nine sin-offerings. But if he performs primary labors and derivatives during one lapse of awareness, he does not add a separate sin-offering for the derivatives.

And just as this law can be inferred from the wording of the Mishna, so too this law can be inferred from the words of Isi ben Judah himself, who said “The primary labors are forty minus one.” Thus we have learned that he is liable for each one and one. And how did Isi ben Judah himself say, “and he is liable for only one”!?

Rather, say,

this is the intention of Isi ben Judah:

He is not liable for one of them,

there is one of the labors for which he is not liable to stoning, and we do not know which labor it is—

And this is what the tanna informs us

in the beraita by saying “Intentionally he is punished by excision and is stoned,”

for,

the labor of carrying out, is

among those concerning which there is no uncertainty

among those labors concerning which there is no doubt about liability to stoning.

The Master said,

in the beraita mentioned above,

But: the sea, and the valley, and the colonnade, and the karmelit are neither like a private domain nor like a public domain:

And we raise a difficulty against this:

And

for

is a valley neither like a private domain nor like a public domain!?

But we learned

in Tractate Tohorot [6:6]:

The valley, during the summer season,

when it has no crops and people walk through the fields,

is a private domain

it is

with regard to

the matter of

Shabbat,

because it is not a place of passage for the public, since the public do not leave the paved path to walk through the fields,

and a public domain

it is

with regard to

the matter of

impurity,

with regard to a doubt of impurity that arose in it, which is pure.

But

during the rainy season,

which is the time of sowing, when people do not walk through the fields,

it is a private domain

it is

for this and for that.

Thus it is explained that the valley is a private domain with regard to Shabbat!?

He said,

Ulla answered:

In truth, it is a karmelit,

and not a private domain.

And why did he call it

the tanna called the valley [in Tractate Tohorot]

“a private domain”? Because it is not a public domain.

Rav Ashi said,

he answered: