Shabbat 99b — the Talmud in English

unless they made for it

at some distance from the well

a partition ten handbreadths high, and the person drawing the water stands in front of the partition and brings the water there.

, with the one drawing the water standing on the near side of the partition, and bringing the water there.

And one may not drink from it on Shabbat. That is, it is prohibited to stand at the edge of the well, which is a public domain, draw water from the well with a vessel, and incline one’s head toward the opening of the well to drink from the vessel. This is a decree enacted by the Sages, lest he pull the vessel toward himself,

That is, it is prohibited to stand at the edge of the well, which is a public domain, draw water from the well with a vessel, tilt his head toward the cavity of the well, and drink from the vessel. This is a decree that the Sages issued, lest he draw the vessel toward himself,

unless he inserts into it

[above the well] his

head and the greater part of his body.

And the well and its surrounding rim combine to make ten,

making the well a private domain and prohibiting all these actions.

Rav Mordekhai asked Rabba:

If there was

a pillar in a public domain, ten

handbreadths high and

four

by four handbreadths, which makes it a private domain, and

he threw

an object from the public domain

and it came to rest on top of it, the pillar, and before the object came to rest on the pillar, it passed through the air opposite the public domain above ten handbreadths, which is a “place exempt from liability,”

of the pillar, and before it came to rest on top of the pillar, the object passed through the air opposite the public domain above ten handbreadths, which is a “place exempt,”

what

is the law regarding his liability?

The alternatives in the question are:

Do we say that the initial lifting was performed in a prohibited manner

in the public domain, and

the placing down was also performed in a prohibited manner

in the private domain? Although the object passed through a “place exempt from liability,” this does not prevent the transfer from the public domain into the private domain from being considered a violation, and he is liable.

Or perhaps, since it came from a place exempt from liability

because the object reached the private domain from a “place exempt from liability,” having passed through the airspace above ten handbreadths,

he will not

be liable?

Rabba said to him,

Rav Mordekhai:

It is stated in the Mishna,

it is our Mishna, as will be explained!

Rav Mordekhai came

Rav Mordekhai,

and asked

also

Rav Yosef,

and

he said

to him,

he too:

It is stated in the Mishna!

Rav Mordekhai came

Rav Mordekhai,

and asked

also

Abaye,

and

he said to him

he too:

It is stated in the Mishna!

Rav Mordekhai said to them

Rav Mordekhai:

All of you spit the same spittle

you are all spitting one and the same spittle!

They said to him,

to Rav Mordekhai:

And do you not think

[that your question can be resolved from our Mishna]!?

But did we not learn

in our Mishna: “And with regard to the rock,

one who takes from them, or places on top of them, is liable.”

He is liable even though it is impossible to place something on top of the rock without it first passing through a place exempt from liability.

Rav Mordekhai said to them

Rav Mordekhai: My question cannot be resolved from our Mishna, because

perhaps the Mishna

speaks

of

of a case where he placed upon it

a needle,

because in order to place it on the pillar, there is no need to raise it into the airspace above ten handbreadths, which is a place exempt from liability.

And we raise an objection:

Even a needle cannot fail to be raised slightly

It is impossible to place it on a pillar ten handbreadths high without raising it somewhat into the airspace above the public domain before placing it on the rock!?

And we answer: the case is one in which

the rock has

the rock

a projection. That is, our Mishna deals with a rock whose greater part is above ten handbreadths, but which has a horn-like projection lower than ten handbreadths, and he placed the needle in that spot. This spot too, despite being below ten handbreadths, is considered a private domain, according to the law of “recesses of a private domain,” since it is not itself a significant area.

That is, our Mishna is dealing with a rock whose greater part is above ten handbreadths, but which has a projection resembling a horn that is lower than ten handbreadths, and he placed the needle in that location. This place too, despite being below ten handbreadths, is considered a private domain, under the law of the “recesses of a private domain,” since it is not itself a significant area.

Alternatively,

our Mishna can be explained as referring to a case

where he placed it in a groove

he placed the needle in a groove in the rock that is within ten handbreadths. In order to insert the needle into the groove at the edge of the rock, he does not need to raise it above ten handbreadths, and the needle did not come from a “place exempt from liability.”

Rav Misha said: Rabbi Yoḥanan asked [that is, he was uncertain]

he was uncertain]:

Rabbi Yoḥanan: If there is a wall in a public domain ten

handbreadths high

and not four

[handbreadths]

wide,

and it encloses a karmelit and made it a private domain, that is, he enclosed the entire karmelit with this wall and made it a private domain,

, that is, he enclosed the entire karmelit with this wall and made it a private domain,

and he threw

from the public domain

and it came to rest on top of it, the wall, which itself does not have the required width of a private domain,

of the wall, which itself does not have the measure of the width of a private domain,

what

is the law regarding his liability?

Do we say that since

the wall itself

is not four

handbreadths wide, then

it is a “place exempt from liability,”

like any place that has partitions but is not four by four handbreadths?

Or perhaps, since

this wall

made

the karmelit into

a private domain,

a private domain

is considered as though it

were filled

as though it were filled with objects, and this filling combines with the width of the wall to make the wall itself a private domain, so that it is considered as though it were four handbreadths wide?

Ulla said: An a-fortiori inference:

If

for others,

for the karmelit that it enclosed,

the wall makes

the wall

a partition,

making it a private domain,

all the more so, for itself,

it should make a partition so that the wall itself is included within the private domain.

It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said, and likewise Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

A wall in the public domain, ten [handbreadths] high but not four [handbreadths] wide

[high],

and surrounded by a karmelit,

and he made it a private domain: one who throws [an object], and it comes to rest upon it, is liable.

For this is a kal va-chomer: if

it makes a partition for others, all the more so for itself.

Rabbi Yohanan raised a dilemma: A pit

that was deep

nine

handbreadths בלבד, which is not a private domain,

and he removed from it a clod and completed it

with this

to ten

handbreadths, and the pit became a private domain, and he took it out into the public domain. It follows that before the removal, the place was still not a private domain, and through the removal the place became a private domain,

what

is the law: will he be liable on account of taking out from a private domain into the public domain?

The removal of an object and the making of a partition

that is, making the pit into a place surrounded by partitions, and into a private domain

come together

they come together—

is he liable

or is he not liable?

And if you should say, since there was not a partition of ten [handbreadths] from the outset

at the beginning, before the removal, but they come together,

he is not liable.

There is still a doubt:

A pit

that was deep

ten

handbreadths,

and he placed into it a clod

that he brought from the public domain

and reduced it

from ten [handbreadths], so that before the placing the pit was a private domain, to make him liable, and with the placing the domain was removed,

what is the law?

The placing of an object and the removal of a partition

that is, removal of the partition that made it a private domain, and removal of the domain

come together—

is he liable or is he not liable?

That is, even if you should say in the first manner that we do not relate to the new state created through the removal, but to what existed before the removal, [and therefore he is exempt], one cannot forcefully infer from this that if he placed an object in a private domain, and through the placing the status of a private domain was removed from the place, he is liable because before the placing there was a private domain here, even though a new state was created through the placing. Rather, there is still a doubt:

Perhaps, nevertheless, he is exempt, since through the placing the partition was removed.

And we raise an objection: What did Rabbi Yohanan doubt? Surely

it can be resolved from his own statement

from his own words this doubt can be resolved!?

For

surely

we learned: One who throws four cubits

in the public domain, and it comes to rest

before

the

wall

standing in the public domain: if it comes to rest at a height

above ten handbreadths

, which is the airspace of a “place of exemption,” this is

like one who throws into the air,

and he is exempt. But if it comes to rest before the wall

below ten

handbreadths, which is the airspace of the public domain, this is

like one who throws onto the ground,

and he is liable.

And one who throws onto the ground

four cubits,

this is

liable.

And we pondered it: Why is he liable when it reached the wall below ten handbreadths?

Why does he become liable when it reached the wall below ten handbreadths?

But it did not come to rest

there before the wall, and why does he become liable!?

And Rabbi Yohanan said: We learned [this] with regard to a moist fig cake,

which sticks to the wall.

And

now the difficulty is:

why

is he liable,

but it reduces

the fig cake

from four cubits?

For once it stuck to the wall, the distance from the place of throwing was reduced, and it is no longer four cubits, since the Mishna is dealing even with a case in which there are exactly four cubits from the place of throwing to the wall, and once it stuck there are no longer four cubits, so why is he liable!? Rather, necessarily, a reduction that is made through the very act that creates liability is not considered as though it had already existed at the time of the act that creates liability, and regarding the act that creates liability we judge as though it had not yet been reduced; and Rabbi Yohanan’s doubt concerning placing and removal of a partition is resolved from his own words!?

And we answer: The case is not comparable to the proof, for

there,

concerning the fig cake,

he does not nullify

it;

he does not nullify the fig cake there with regard to the wall, and his intention is to take it from there, and this is not a reduction. Whereas

here,

concerning the clod placed in the pit,

he nullifies

it

with regard to

the pit, and it is a reduction.

Rava raised a dilemma: If he threw

from the public domain a board that was four by four handbreadths,

and it came to rest

the board

on top of

stakes

that were thin, fixed in the public domain, ten handbreadths high but not four handbreadths wide, and through this throwing the area beneath the board became a private domain, because “the mouth of the roof descends and closes,”

what is the law

—is he liable for this throwing on account of bringing in from the public domain to the private domain? And the Gemara asks:

What is Rava asking

if you say that he was in doubt about the law of

the placing of an object and the making of a partition coming together,

whether he is liable, and his doubt concerned placing the board, whether he is liable for it—

Thus

this is

his doubt,

of Rabbi Yohanan, and why should Rava raise a further doubt about this?

so why should Rava raise this uncertainty again?

And we answer:

When Rava raises the dilemma, it is in a case where he threw a board, with an object upon it—what is the law?

Will he be liable for the object on account of bringing it in from the public domain to the private domain?

That is, if you should say that in the case of placing an object and making a partition simultaneously he is not liable, and for that reason he certainly is not liable for the board, nevertheless, what will be his law regarding liability for the object? The sides of the doubt are:

Since

they come together

the placing of the object and the making of the partition beneath it come at once,

it is like the placing of an object and

afterward

the making of a partition,

and he is not liable for it.

Or perhaps, since it is impossible that it is not raised slightly and then comes to rest

it is impossible that the object is not raised slightly when the board is placed and then comes to rest upon the board,

it is like the making of a partition and

afterward

the placing of an object,

and he is liable? And we conclude:

teyku.

Rava said: Water

that is standing

on top of water,

even though it is not at rest there from its movement,

this is its placing

to make one who removes part of it from there liable. But

a nut on top of water,

which is not at rest there from its movement,