Shabbat 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

And therefore,

he makes

a side post here

[on the side that is open to the continuation of the public domain]

and a side post here

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

or a crossbeam here and a crossbeam here,

and

this person

may carry and pass objects in the middle.

And this is like an alleyway that is open to the public domain only on one side. Since, according to Rabbi Yehuda, a place enclosed by only two partitions becomes a private domain by Torah law.

The Sages said

to Rabbi Yehuda:

One may not establish an eruv for the public domain in this manner!

And in order to reject Rabbi Yehuda’s view, we learned: “This is a private domain,” meaning: one that is enclosed by partitions, and not one that has only two partitions.

The Gemara proceeds to explain:

And why did they call

it

in the beraita “This is a private domain”

complete”?

For

lest you say

[I might have said]:

When the Sages disagree

[the Sages disagreed only]

with Rabbi Yehuda concerning a

place enclosed by two partitions:

it is not

a private domain; this applies

as a stringency by rabbinic decree, so that one may not

carry

within it as in a private domain, even by means of a recognizable side post or crossbeam.

But with regard to throwing,

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

the Sages concede to him

that it is a private domain, and he is liable, because by Torah law two partitions suffice; therefore

it teaches us “complete,” to say that a place enclosed by two partitions is not a private domain at all, and one who throws an object from the public domain into it is not liable.

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

The master said,

in the beraita mentioned above:

“This is the public domain”:

The Gemara asks:

To exclude what

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

The Gemara explains:

To exclude that other statement of Rabbi Yehuda

[Rabbi Yehuda’s second position]!

By Torah law, it is possible to create a private domain in the midst of the public domain without completely enclosing it with partitions, by placing four posts, made in the shape of angles, at four opposing corners [with the width of the angle being 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 the equivalent of four complete partitions is formed around it. All this is by Torah law; however, the Sages prohibited carrying in such a private domain when these posts were placed in the public domain.

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

However, the Sages permitted this for the sake of pilgrims, so that they could water their animals on Shabbat from the wells along their route of ascent, by making “the posts of the wells” (pasei biraot): those same four angular posts, around the place where the well is situated, placing them at four corners around the well.

As we learned in a Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda says: If a public-domain road passed between them

—the “posts of the wells,” meaning that a public road ran between the post on this side and the post on that side—

he must move it

that road

to the sides,

outside the posts. For, in Rabbi Yehuda’s view, the passage of the public between the posts negates the [illusory] enclosure created by the posts.

And the Sages say: It is not necessary

to move the public domain to the sides.

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

The Gemara further asks:

And why did they call it “This is the public domain”

[this is the public domain]

complete”?

The Gemara explains:

Since

[because]

the first clause teaches

with regard to a private domain

“complete”

to teach us what was explained earlier in the Gemara, therefore

the latter clause also teaches

with regard to the public domain

“complete.”

We raise another objection to the beraita:

And let it also enumerate

among the public domains mentioned in the beraita

“the wilderness,”

which is a public domain!?

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

and

a large plaza, and open-ended alleyways, and the wilderness!

He said,

Abaye answered:

It is not difficult. Here,

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

when the Jewish people were dwelling in the wilderness.

But

here,

in the beraita, in which the wilderness is not mentioned among the public domains, it is referring to

the present time,

when it is not a place through which the public travels, and travelers in the wilderness are uncommon.

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

Intentionally: he is punished by karet and is stoned:

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

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

is it obvious!

Why did the beraita need to teach us this? It need only have said: “And if he carried out and brought in, he is liable,” since it is obvious that if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. For all liabilities on Shabbat are liabilities carrying karet, and anyone who is liable to karet for an intentional transgression is liable to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression!?

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

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

was necessary for him to state.

And because the tanna mentioned his liability for an intentional transgression, he also mentioned his liability for an unwitting transgression.

We nevertheless ask:

Is this too obvious,

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

And we answer:

This teaches us

what the tanna meant by saying “he is punished by karet and is stoned”:

as Rav [taught]. For Rav said: I found a hidden scroll

in the house of Rabbi Hiyya, and written in it was: Isi ben Yehuda says: The principal labors are forty less one, and one is liable for only one of them.

The Gemara initially understood this to mean that if one performed all of them during a single lapse of awareness—having forgotten the prohibition of all the labors of Shabbat—and performed them all without becoming aware of the matter in the interim, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering [but ultimately the Gemara explains this differently, and the meaning of the Gemara’s statement “as Rav [taught]” is clarified].

We raise an objection to this:

No

[this matter is not so]! For

we learned

below, in the chapter “The Principal Category of Labors” [73a],

“The principal labors are forty less one,”

and the Mishna there lists all of them—

And we considered it: Why do I need the number

[for what purpose is the general number mentioned at the beginning of the Mishna]!?

And he said,

he answered this:

Rabbi Yohanan,

to teach

that if one performed all of them during a single lapse of awareness,

then

he is liable for each and every one.

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

Just as this law can be inferred from the wording of the Mishna, it can likewise be inferred from Isi ben Yehuda’s own statement, “The principal labors are forty less one.” We have learned from this that he is liable for each and every one. How, then, could Isi ben Yehuda himself say, “And one is liable for only one of them”?

Rather, say

that this is Isi ben Yehuda’s intention:

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 teaches us

what the tanna in the beraita meant by saying, “Intentionally, he is punished by karet and is stoned”:

for,

the labor of carrying out, is

among those whose liability is not in doubt

[among those labors concerning which there is no doubt that one is liable to stoning].

The master said,

in the beraita mentioned above,

“But the sea, the plain, the istavanit, and the karmelit are neither like a private domain nor like a public domain”:

We raise an objection to this:

And

for

is the plain neither like a private domain nor like a public domain!?

But we learned

in tractate Tohorot [6:6]:

The plain, during the summer,

when there are no crops in it and people travel through the fields, is

a private domain

for

the

matter of

Shabbat,

because it is not a place through which the public travels, as people do not leave the established road to walk through the fields,

and a public domain

it is

for

the matter of

ritual impurity,

with regard to a case of uncertain impurity that arises there, in which the object is pure.

Whereas

during the rainy season,

when it is the time of sowing and people do not travel through the fields, it is

a private domain

both

for this and for that.

It is therefore clear that the plain is a private domain with regard to Shabbat!?

He said,

Ulla answered:

It is always a karmelit,

and not a private domain.

And why did the tanna call it

the plain [in tractate Tohorot]

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

Rav Ashi said,

he answered: