Shabbat 98a — the Talmud in English

But if he carried

less than four cubits

, he is

exempt.

.

What does this teach us!?

It was stated above [page 80a]: The Sages taught in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: If one carried out half a dried fig, which is half the measure that creates liability for carrying out, and then carried out another half of a dried fig, if this was done while unaware of the prohibition throughout, he is liable. If it was done during two separate periods of unawareness, he is exempt.

Rabbi Yosei says: If this was done during one period of unawareness, to one domain, he is liable. That is, if he carried the second half of the dried fig into the same public domain into which he carried the first half, he is liable. If he carried them into two domains, he is exempt. That is, if he carried the first half into one public domain and the second half into another public domain, for example, where another domain separates them, as explained there, he is not liable.

And they answer:

This is what it teaches us:

a. The first clause teaches us that two

public

domains

combine to complete the measure of four cubits through both of them. This is unlike Rabbi Yosei, who holds that two domains do not combine to complete one measure. This is the meaning of the statement: “Four cubits, he is liable.”

для восполнения размера четырёх локтей посредством их обеих. И это не согласно рабби Йоси, считающему, что две области не восполняют один размер. И это то, что мы говорим: «Четыре локтя — обязан».

b. The final clause teaches us:

We do not

.” For if an object caught in flight were considered as though it had come to rest, he would also be liable when he did not carry it four cubits, because he would have carried it from the public domain into the private domain in the middle, and because he would have carried it from the private domain in the middle into the second public domain. This is the meaning of the statement: “Less than four cubits, he is exempt.”

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: One who carries four cubits in a public domain

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 comparable to the banners of the wilderness [

the Israelite camp, whose tribes dwelled in the wilderness under their banners].

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

b. The open space of each wagon was two and a half cubits wide, and the “sides of the wagon” likewise occupied a width of two and a half cubits. The “sides of the wagon” included the thickness of the wagon walls, the space between the walls and the wheels, and the thickness of the wheels. Altogether, each wagon occupied a width of five cubits, including its sides.

c. Each beam was ten cubits long, one and a half cubits wide, and one cubit thick. In our discussion, the tannaitic sages disagree whether the thickness of one cubit continued along the entire length of the beam, or whether it gradually narrowed, so that at the top of the beam its thickness was only one fingerbreadth.

d. The beams were placed on the wagons with their length running across the width of the wagon. Our discussion will explain whether they lay on their width or on their thickness. In any event, twelve beams could not all lie on the wagon itself in a single layer. Rather, there was one row of beams below, another row above it, and so on as necessary.

e. Since each beam was ten cubits long, while the wagon’s width, including its sides, was only five cubits, the beams projected two and a half cubits beyond each side.

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

And they raise a difficulty:

Is that so!?

But the wagons were roofed

by the beams; that is, the public domain beneath the wagons and the beams was roofed over by the beams.

And

nevertheless,

Rav said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya: The areas beneath them, between them [

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

and their sides

of each wagon—that is, the thickness of the wall, the space between it and the wheel, and the thickness of the wheel itself—all constitute

a public domain.

It is thus clear that although the public domain beneath the beams was roofed over by the beams, it nevertheless remains a public domain!?

And they answer:

When Rav spoke, he was referring to the spaces [

between the beams]. That is, the beams did not lie directly adjacent to one another; rather, there were spaces between them. Beneath those spaces was a public domain, because there it was not roofed over.

They raise a difficulty against this: The space between the beams was less than three handbreadths, and therefore it is considered as though the entire area were roofed over, because we apply the principle of “lavud,” treating a gap of less than three handbreadths as closed. This is the calculation:

Now,

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 beam—how much was it [

how wide was each beam]?

One and a half cubits

[one and a half cubits].

How many could be placed [

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

Three

beams. Since it was possible to place them that way, presumably that is how they did it.

It follows that there

remains

only

half a cubit [

the wagon’s length exceeds the length occupied by the beams by no more than half a cubit]. And

when one distributes this among the spaces [

when this excess is divided among the three beams lying on the wagon], the space between each pair of beams is not three handbreadths, but a quarter of a cubit, which is one and a half handbreadths [since a cubit consists of six handbreadths]. If so,

it is subject to the principle of lavud

and is considered a roofed public domain!?

And they answer:

Do you think that the beams were placed on their widths [

do you think that the beams lay on their broad sides]!? That is not so. Rather,

they were placed on their edges [

the beams lay on their thickness].

They nevertheless raise another difficulty:

Ultimately, the thickness of a beam—how much was it [

the beam was one cubit thick]?

And how many could be placed [

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

Four

beams. Since it was possible to lay this number, presumably that is what they did. If so,

one cubit remained [

only one cubit remained] for the three spaces between the beams.

And when one distributes it among the spaces [

when this excess is divided into three equal spaces between the four beams lying on the wagon], the space between each pair of beams is not three handbreadths, but only two handbreadths. If so, it is still

subject to the principle of lavud!?

The Gemara adds an explanation of its difficulty:

This works according to the one who says: The beams were one cubit thick at the bottom

and their width was sloped so that

at the top they narrowed gradually until they were only a fingerbreadth [

the thickness of the beams gradually decreased, until at a height of ten cubits it was only one fingerbreadth],

it works well

to say that there was a space of more than three handbreadths between them when they lay on their thickness.

For the thickness of the beams gradually decreased until the upper end, which projected a quarter of a cubit beyond the outer side of the wagon. It follows that there was a large space between the beams because their thickness narrowed, in addition to the two-handbreadth space that existed between each pair of beams at their base.

But according to the one who says that just as their thickness at the bottom was one cubit, so their thickness at the top was one cubit, what can be said?

There was only a space of two handbreadths between them, just as there was at their base, and there was no space large enough to remove them from the category of lavud.

He said [

he answered]

Rav Kahana: With clamps.

That is, the twelve beams placed on each wagon were not arranged with three beams one above another, then a space, then another three beams, and so on, because the beams would not be stable on the wagon in this arrangement. Since each beam rested on a base only one cubit wide [as they were placed on their thickness], they would eventually fall. It was therefore necessary to place alongside the three beams stacked one above another another three beams stacked one above another; in this way, each group supported the other. Just as he did this with six beams on one side of the wagon, he did so with six beams on the other side. It follows that the beams occupied only two cubits on one side and two cubits on the other, leaving a cubit of space in the middle.

They nevertheless raise another difficulty:

Where were the clamps placed on the back

That is, arranging the beams in the manner we explained, with spaces between them, does indeed explain why the back of the wagon was not roofed over by the beams, but there is still a difficulty:

the wagon itself was roofed

Surely the bottom of the wagon was presumably entirely solid, like the other wagons used to carry sand and earth. If so, the public domain beneath it was roofed over; why, then, is it considered a public domain!?