Shabbat 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

He said:

Abaye

resolved:

Anyone who placed it on any projection

in the private domain, everyone agrees,

both the Sages and Rabbi,

do not disagree, in accordance with Rav Ḥisda.

Rather, here,

the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages, in which the Sages did not deem him liable since it is merely any projection,

is referring to a tree standing in the private domain, whose branch extends into the public domain, and one threw

an object from the public domain, a distance of four cubits,

and the object came to rest

the object

on its branch,

on the branch of the tree extending into the public domain, and the branch on which the object came to rest was not four by four. By law, Rabbi too should agree that he is not liable, since in order to render one liable for placing an object in the public domain, there certainly must be a place four by four. Rather, Rabbi and the Sages disagree on this point:

Rabbi holds

that nevertheless he should be liable for placing the object on the branch, despite the fact that it is merely any small place, because

we say: extend the branch after its trunk.

And since the trunk has a measure of four cubits, placing the object on its branch is considered significant placement even when it is not on a place four by four. Therefore, even one who places an object on the branch in the public domain is considered to have placed it in a significant place, despite the fact that it does not have a place four by four, although in the public domain alone placement on a place four by four is required.

And the Sages hold

that since the branch is merely like any projection in the public domain, he should not be deemed liable even if he threw the object a distance of more than four cubits, because

we do not say: extend the branch

which is in the public domain

after its trunk

which has a measure of four, and there is no significant placement here in the public domain. a. The prohibition against carrying out from the private domain into the public domain, or carrying an object four cubits in the public domain, applies only to objects and not to carrying out something considered a “domain in its own right.” For example, one who carries out or carries a large vessel ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths by four handbreadths wide, which constitutes a “domain in its own right,” is not liable, because the Torah did not render one liable for “carrying out domains.”

b. The measure of a vessel considered a private domain in its own right is a square of four handbreadths by four handbreadths. If the vessel is round, it must be possible to inscribe within the circle a square of four handbreadths by four handbreadths [“a square that can be extracted from within a circle”].

c. For a square circumscribed by a circle, the diameter of the circle equals the diagonal of the square. The diagonal of a square is equal to the length of its side plus two-fifths [“every cubit in a square is a cubit and two-fifths on the diagonal”]. According to this calculation, if the private domain has the shape of a circular area, the circle must have a diameter of at least five handbreadths and three-fifths of a handbreadth in order to be considered a “private domain.” With a diameter of this size, one can inscribe in the circle a square of four handbreadths by four handbreadths. Therefore, if a round vessel is ten handbreadths high and its circular diameter is five handbreadths and three-fifths of a handbreadth, one is exempt for throwing it, because at this measure the vessel itself becomes a “private domain.”

d. The public domain extends only up to ten handbreadths, and its airspace above ten handbreadths is a “place exempt from liability,” so one who carries an object there is not liable. Moreover, even if only part of the vessel is in the airspace of the public domain above ten handbreadths [“part of the vessel is in a place exempt from liability”], he is not liable for it.

Abaye said:

if

a person threw

on Shabbat

a beehive,

which is a round vessel made from a round reed mat, and threw it from the private domain

into the public domain,

then even if the beehive was

ten handbreadths high

the measure of a domain in height,

and

however, if

it was not six handbreadths wide,

meaning that its diameter was not

six

handbreadths, it follows that it does not contain a square of four by four handbreadths, and it is not a domain in its own right but merely an ordinary vessel; therefore

he is liable

for carrying it out.

But if it was ten handbreadths high, the measure of a domain in height, and also

wide [([רוחב קוטרה]]its diameter)

the width of its diameter

six

handbreadths, the measure of a domain in width, since it contains a square of four by four handbreadths, and is a domain in its own right, he is

exempt .

Rava said: Even

if

it is not six handbreadths wide,

since it is ten handbreadths high, he is

exempt. What is the reason

that he is exempt for it? Because

it is

impossible for the “reed fringes” [([המחצלת שממנה עשויה הכוורת, נארגת מקנים, שתי וערב. ל"קני השתי" יש "קרומיות", שהן קצות הקנים, הנקראות גם "זנבות", שאינן מחוברות למעלה באמצעות "קני הערב]]the mat from which the beehive is made is woven from reeds, warp and weft. The “warp reeds” have “fringes,” the ends of the reeds, also called “tails,” which are not joined at the top by the “weft reeds”)]

the mat from which the beehive is made is woven from reeds, warp and weft. The “warp reeds” have “reed ends,” which are the ends of the reeds, also called “tails,” that are not joined above by means of the “weft reeds” ]]

not to extend above ten

handbreadths in the airspace of the public domain when the beehive is ten handbreadths high. Since those fringes protruding above are part of the beehive, it follows that part of the beehive protrudes into a “place exempt from liability,” and in such a case one is not liable for placing the entire vessel in the public domain.

a. We hold that with regard to partitions or walls, the law of lavud applies. The meaning of the law of lavud is that one may extend them or consider them joined to an object from which they are separated by less than three handbreadths.

b. Therefore, when one throws a vessel whose walls are directed downward, by the law of lavud they may be considered as though the walls of the vessel had been extended downward. Consequently, from the moment the vessel reaches [while still in the air] a height of less than three handbreadths above the ground, it is already considered as though it had been placed on the ground. As stated, by the law of lavud it is considered as though the walls had been extended until they reached the ground; thus, in legal terms, the vessel is considered to be resting on the ground while it is still in the air.

Rava adds and says: Although one who throws a beehive that is not six handbreadths wide is not exempt on the grounds that “part of it is in a place exempt from liability” unless the beehive is ten handbreadths high, and only because the “reed fringes” protrude above ten, all this applies specifically when he threw the beehive in the manner in which it is designed to be used, with its bottom downward and its walls upward. But if

he overturned

a beehive that is not six handbreadths wide

onto its opening,

turning it so that its opening was below and its bottom above, and threw it in this manner into the public domain, it need not even be ten handbreadths high for him to be exempt; even if it is less than this measure, he is exempt because “part of it is in a place exempt from liability,” even without the reed fringes. And this is what Rava said: If the height of the overturned beehive was even

seven handbreadths and a bit

only, he is still

liable

for placing it in the public domain. For with this measure, when the walls of the overturned beehive reach the airspace less than three handbreadths above the ground, and the law of lavud applies, the entire beehive is found to be in the airspace of the public domain at a height of ten handbreadths.

But if the height of the overturned beehive was

seven and a half handbreadths [([או אפילו "שני משהויין"],or even “two bits”)] then he is

or even “two somethings”], he is

exempt.

For when the walls of the vessel reach a height of less than three handbreadths above the ground, the beehive is already considered, by the law of lavud, to have been placed on the ground. Only at that moment, the moment of its legally defined placement, can one render him liable [even though the beehive continued descending]. At that moment, the bottom of the overturned beehive was “joined above ten handbreadths,” since at the time of placement [by the law of lavud] the upper part of the beehive was more than seven handbreadths and a bit high. Since “part of it is in a place exempt from liability,” he is exempt. By contrast, if the beehive is only seven handbreadths and a bit high, then at the time of its legally defined placement—that is, when the beehive reaches a height of less than three handbreadths above the ground—the bottom of the beehive has already left the airspace above ten handbreadths and entered the airspace of ten handbreadths of the public domain; therefore, he is liable.

Rav Ashi said: Even

if it was

seven and a half

he is

liable. What is the reason?

Because it is impossible to apply lavud to the walls of the beehive unless they stand in their ordinary position, and not in an inverted position, because

the walls

of the beehive

are made for their interior.

”That is, they are intended to be used with their openings facing upward, and not with their openings facing downward. In this manner they do not have the status of walls, and we do not apply the law of lavud to them.

Ulla said: A post

high

nine handbreadths,

no less and no more, that stood

in a

public domain,

even if the post was not four handbreadths wide,

and the public used it as a shoulder-rest [

adjusting the loads on their shoulders upon it],

and threw

an object in the public domain from a distance of four cubits,

and it came to rest upon it

on the post, he is not exempted as one who throws an object onto an exempt place. This is so even though the post rises three handbreadths above the public domain and does not contain an area of four by four handbreadths, in which case we ordinarily consider it an “exempt domain” under Torah law. Rather, he is

liable

like one who throws an object in the public domain itself.

What is the reason?

And the Gemara explains the parameters of the law: Because if the post were

less than

the height of

three

handbreadths,

the public treads upon it,

and it is considered like the ground; therefore, one who throws an object and it comes to rest upon it is liable.

Whereas

from

a height of

three

handbreadths

until

a height of

nine

handbreadths, it is not a public domain, because

the public does not tread upon it

since it is higher than the distance a person’s feet are raised during his steps,

and

the public does not rest loads on their shoulders

upon it, because it is not as high as their shoulders. Therefore, it is not used by the public at all, and it is not like a public domain; rather, under Torah law it is an “exempt domain.”

But when it is

nine

handbreadths high,

certainly the public rests loads

on it

upon it,

and since it is needed by the public, it is a public domain.

He said:

Abaye asked him

Rav Yosef: A pit

deep

nine

handbreadths in the public domain,

what

is its status? Shall we say that since people in the public domain place the objects in their hands there until they go and return, it follows that the public needs to use it, and therefore it is a public domain? Or perhaps it is an “exempt domain” if it is not four [handbreadths] wide, or a karmelit if it is four [handbreadths] wide?

He said

he answered

him

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

Likewise

the same law applies

with regard to a pit.

Rava said: With regard to a pit, no!

Rather, if it was no more than three handbreadths deep, it has the status of a public domain; from three until ten, it is an “exempt domain” if it was not four by four handbreadths wide. It is a karmelit if it was four by four handbreadths wide.

What is the reason?

Because

use under duress

is like the use that the people of the public domain make of a hollow,

is not considered use.

Rav Adda bar Mattana raised an objection to Rava

from a beraita that we learned: If

his basket was placed in the public domain,

then if it was

ten

handbreadths high

and four

handbreadths wide, it is an independent private domain, and

one may carry neither from within it to the public domain nor from the public domain into it.

But if its dimensions were

less than that

in height or width—for example, if it was less than ten handbreadths high, or even if it was ten handbreadths high but was not four handbreadths wide—

one may carry

to it and from it into the public domain, since it is not a private domain when it is less than this height or this width.

And likewise with regard to a hollow,

he proceeds to explain it.

Rav Adda bar Mattana proves from the beraita:

Is it not

the case that the statement of the beraita, “and likewise with regard to a hollow,”

refers to the latter clause?

That is, if the basket was less than this, one may carry. The same law applies to a hollow that is less than this: if it is not ten handbreadths deep or is not four handbreadths wide, one may carry from the public domain into it. It follows that a hollow less than ten handbreadths deep, even if it is four handbreadths wide, is not a karmelit in which carrying into it from the public domain is prohibited. Necessarily, the reason is that we are dealing with a hollow nine handbreadths deep , and it has the status of the public domain rather than the status of a karmelit, as Rava said. This is a difficulty against Rava, who said, “With regard to a hollow, no”!

And we reject this:

No,

it is not as you explained, that “and likewise with regard to a hollow” continues the law of the latter clause, “less than this”; rather,

it refers to the first clause,

and this is what it is saying: A basket ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide in the public domain has the status of a private domain, and likewise a hollow in the public domain has the status of a private domain when it is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide.

Furthermore,

he raised an objection

Rav Adda bar Mattana to Rava from that which was taught:

A. One who wishes to go out on Shabbat beyond the limit may place an eruv teḥumin on Shabbat eve at the end of the limit. It is considered as though that is the place where he established his residence, and he may walk from that place in every direction for two thousand cubits, the measure of the Shabbat limit.

B. One of the conditions for placing the eruv is that the person be able to eat it at the time when his residence is established, namely, twilight at the onset of Shabbat, because thereby it is established that the place where his food is located is the place of his residence. But if he intended to establish his residence in one place, and placed his food in a place from which he could not take it at twilight and bring it to the place where he intended to establish his residence, his eruv is ineffective for him, and he is called “he and his eruv are in another place.”