Shabbat 98a (צח.) — the Talmud in English

But if he carried

less than four cubits

, he is

exempt.

And we challenge this:

What does this teach us!?

It was stated above [folio 80a]: The Sages taught: If one carried out half a dried fig-bulk [which is half the measure that incurs liability for carrying out], and then carried out another half a dried fig-bulk: If this was done in one lapse of awareness, he is liable. If it was done in two lapses of awareness, he is exempt.

Rabbi Yosei says: If it was done in one lapse of awareness into one domain, he is liable [that is, if he carried out the second half of the dried fig-bulk into the same public domain into which he carried out the first half, he is liable]; if into two domains, he is exempt [that is, if he carried out the first half into one public domain, whereas he carried out the second half into another public domain, for example, where another domain separates them, as explained there, he is not liable].

And we answer:

This teaches us:

a. The first clause comes to teach us that two

public

domains

combine to complete the measure of four cubits through the two of them. This is unlike Rabbi Yosei, who holds that two domains do not combine to complete a single measure. This is what we say: “Four cubits, he is liable.”

to complete the measure of four amot by both of them. And not like Rabbi Yosi, who holds that two r'shutot do not combine to one measure. And this is that which we say "four amot, liable."

b. The latter clause comes to teach us:

We do not

say that “an object caught in the air is considered as though it had come to rest

”; for if an object caught in the air is considered as though it had come to rest, one would also be liable when he did not carry it four cubits, because of bringing it in from the public domain into the private domain in the middle, and because of taking it out from the private domain in the middle into the second public domain. This is what we say: “Less than four cubits, he is exempt.”

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Abba,

Rav Huna said that Rav said: One who carries four cubits in a public domain

that is

roofed [

covered] is

exempt, because it is not similar to the banners of the wilderness [

the Israelite camp, whose members camped in the wilderness according to their banners].

a. The descendants of Merari carried the forty-eight boards of the Tabernacle on the four wagons that Moses gave them: twelve boards to each wagon.

b. The width of the wagon’s interior was two and a half cubits, and the “sides of the wagon” likewise occupied a width of two and a half cubits. Included in the “sides of the wagon” were the thickness of the wagon walls, the space between the walls and the wheels, and the thickness of the wheels. Altogether, each wagon was five cubits wide, including its sides.

c. The board was ten cubits long, one cubit and a half wide, and one cubit thick. In our passage there is a dispute among the tannaim: whether that thickness of one cubit extended along the entire length of the board, or whether the board was tapered so that at its upper end its thickness was only a fingerbreadth.

d. The boards were placed on the wagon with their length running across the width of the wagon. Our passage will clarify whether they lay on their width or on their thickness. In any event, twelve boards could not all lie on the wagon itself; rather, there was one layer of boards below, another layer above it, and so on as necessary.

e. Since the board was ten cubits long, whereas the width of the wagon [including its sides] was only five cubits, the boards projected two and a half cubits beyond each side.

f. The wagons traveled as two wagons side by side, with another two wagons side by side behind them.

And we challenge this:

Is that so!?

But the wagons were roofed

by the boards; that is, the public domain beneath the wagons and boards was roofed by the boards,

and

nevertheless

Rav said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya: The wagons—their undersides, the spaces between them,

[between the wheel of one wagon and the wheel of the wagon beside it],

and their sides

of each and every wagon, meaning the thickness of the wall together with the space between it and the wheel and the thickness of the wheel itself, all of it is

a public domain.

It is therefore clear that although the public domain beneath the boards was roofed by the boards, it nevertheless remains a public domain!?

And we answer:

When Rav spoke, he was referring to the spaces

[between the boards]. That is, the boards did not lie directly beside one another; rather, there were spaces between them, and the area beneath those spaces was a public domain, because there it was not roofed.

We challenge this: The space between the boards was less than three handbreadths, and therefore it is as though the entire area were roofed, because we apply the principle of lavud. This is the calculation:

Granted,

the

length of the wagon—how much was it

[how long was each wagon]? It was

five cubits

[five cubits]—

and

the width of a board—how much was it

[how wide was each board]?

A cubit and a half

[a cubit and a half].

How many could he place

[how many boards whose width ran along the length of the wagon could be placed on one wagon]?

Three

boards. Since it was possible to place them in this manner, presumably that is what they did.

It follows that

there remained

only

half a cubit

[the wagon’s length exceeded the boards by no more than half a cubit]. And

when you distribute it between them

[when you divide this excess among the three boards lying on it], the space between each board would not be three handbreadths, but only a quarter of a cubit, which is one and a half handbreadths [based on the calculation of six handbreadths to a cubit]. If so,

it is considered lavud,

and according to the law it is a roofed public domain!?

And we answer:

Do you think that the boards were placed on their widths

[and do you think that the boards lay on their widths]!? No; rather,

they were placed on their edges

[the boards lay on their thicknesses].

And we still challenge this:

Ultimately, the thickness of a board—how much was it

[the board was one cubit thick],

and how many could be placed

[how many boards could be laid along the length of the wagon]?

Four

boards. Since it was possible to lay this number, presumably that is what they did. And if so,

there remained a cubit

[only one cubit remained] for the three spaces between the boards.

And when you distribute it between them

[when you divide this excess into three equal spaces between the four boards lying on the wagon], the space between each board would not be three handbreadths, but only two handbreadths. If so, still

it is considered lavud!?

The Gemara adds clarification of its question:

This works according to the one who says, “The boards, below, were one cubit thick

, and their width tapered until

above they narrowed progressively until they were like a finger

” [the thickness of the boards gradually diminished, until at a height of ten cubits their thickness was only a single fingerbreadth],

well

it can be said that there was a space of more than three handbreadths between them when they lay on their thicknesses.

For the thickness of the boards grew progressively narrower toward the upper end, which projected beyond the outer side of the wagon by a quarter of a cubit. It follows that there was a large space between the boards as a result of the reduction in their thickness, in addition to the space of two handbreadths that there was between each board at its base.

But according to the one who says that just as their thickness below was one cubit, so too their thickness above was one cubit, what can be said?

There was no space between them other than two handbreadths, just as there was at their bases, and there was no measure sufficient to remove them from the category of lavud.

Rav said

[he answered]:

With clamps.

That is, the twelve boards placed on each wagon were not arranged with three boards one above another, with a space between them, followed by another three boards with a space between them, and so on, because the boards would not be stable on the wagon in that arrangement: each board rested on only one cubit [since they were placed on their thicknesses], and they would eventually fall. They were therefore required to attach to the three boards placed one above another another three boards placed one above another; in this manner they supported one another. Just as he did this with six boards on one side of the wagon, so he did with six boards on the other side of the wagon. It follows that the boards occupied only two cubits on one side and two cubits on the other, leaving a cubit of space in the middle.

And we still challenge this:

Where were the clamps placed on the back

of the wagon?

That is, those boards, according to the arrangement we explained, in which there was a space between them, indeed explain why the back of the wagon was not roofed by the boards, but the difficulty nevertheless remains:

the wagon itself was roofed

for presumably the bottom of the wagon was entirely sealed, like the other wagons used for carrying sand and earth. If so, the public domain beneath it was roofed, and why is it considered a public domain!?