Shabbat 9a — the Talmud in English

For Rava said: One who carries an object from the beginning of four

cubits

to the end of four

cubits

in the public domain, even though he carried it ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the page")

by way above him,

having uprooted it from the public domain, carried it by way above his head, and placed it at the end of four cubits,

is liable.

And even though the air above his head is the air of an “exempt place,” for the public domain extends only up to a height of ten handbreadths, and it follows that he carried it by way of an “exempt place,” nevertheless he is liable. If so, the same law applies that he should be liable when he takes something from a private domain to a public domain by way of an “exempt place,” whereas in the beraita it is explained that he is exempt!?

And we answer:

There,

in Rava’s statement—

it did not rest

the object during its transfer in the exempt place, and it follows that there was an uprooting and a placing without an interruption of placing in an exempt place in the middle.

But

here,

when one is standing on the threshold—

it rested

the object between the uprooting and the placing in the exempt place, in the hands of the one standing on the threshold.

We also learned above:

Others say: A threshold—

serves two domains.

For understanding the discussion before us, several facts must be prefaced: A. A mavoy is a place enclosed on three of its sides by walls and open on one side to the public domain.

By Torah law it is considered a private domain, but the Sages decreed that one may not carry in it unless one makes a side-post for it or places a crossbeam at the entrance of the mavoy.

B. The permission to carry when a side-post has been placed at the entrance of the mavoy applies only on the inner side of the side-post, and not in the area alongside the side-post. But placing a crossbeam permits carrying even beneath it, up to its outer side.

C. The threshold of a mavoy is a raised surface in the form of a step, located at the entrance of a mavoy. Ordinarily, on both sides of the threshold there are two pillars from the fourth wall, and there is the opening there to the public domain.

D. It now enters our mind that the authorization to carry in this mavoy that has a threshold is effected by the two thicknesses of the walls on both sides of the threshold of the mavoy, on its fourth side that is open to the public domain, which are considered side-posts.

And this is what we are saying:

At the time when the

entrance

of the mavoy, which is located on the inner side of the threshold,

is open,

that is, when the door of the entrance between the mavoy and the threshold is open—the place of the threshold is considered

like the inside

of the mavoy [which has been made fit for carrying by virtue of the side-posts], and it is permitted to carry also on the threshold, as though it were part of the mavoy.

But at the time when the

entrance

on the inner side of the mavoy

is locked,

closed by means of the door—the place of the threshold is considered

like the outside

of the mavoy, and it is forbidden to carry in it, because it has no side-post to permit it.

And we raise a difficulty: How is it permitted to carry on the area of the threshold when the door of the mavoy is open toward it?

And

because

even though it does not have

the place of the threshold

a side-post,

nevertheless it is permitted to carry in it when the entrance of the mavoy is open toward it?

But did not Rav Hama bar Gurya say that Rav said:

The area located

“within the entrance”

of a mavoy [when the authorization to carry in the mavoy itself is by means of the thickness of the pillars of the fourth wall that is open to the public domain, in accordance with the law of a side-post], that is, the place of the threshold—

requires another side-post to permit it,

since it is not permitted by means of the inner side-post, because the indication of the side-post is only on its inner side, but not opposite it and not on its outer side!?

And if you would say

that here we are speaking of a case

where there is not

in the place of the threshold an area of

four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths, and therefore it does not constitute a domain of its own, but is part of the mavoy, and it is therefore permitted for carrying by virtue of the outer side of the side-post.

It is impossible to say so.

For—

did not Rav Hama bar Gurya say that Rav said: “Within the entrance”

[that is, the place of the threshold]—

even though it does not contain four by four—

requires another side-post to permit it

for carrying?

Since it is not considered a separate area, nor is it considered a non-liable domain, despite the fact that it does not contain four handbreadths by four handbreadths. Rather, it joins the alleyway, so that it is considered an area measuring four by four.

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Here,

indeed

we are dealing with the threshold of a mavoy,

but we are not speaking of permission to carry in it by means of a side-post, but by means of a crossbeam. And a crossbeam permits carrying also beneath it, up to its outer side, because the indication of the crossbeam is from its outer side [according to the one who says that the authorization of the crossbeam is by virtue of indication. And according to the one who says that it is by virtue of a partition, the partition is considered to be on the outer side of the crossbeam, for we say that the outer side of the crossbeam is as though it descends and closes the entrance of the mavoy].

Here is the place to emphasize that one must distinguish between two concepts:

A. Permission to carry in a mavoy by means of a crossbeam, according to the one who says

“a crossbeam

because of a partition.”

For according to his words, the side of the crossbeam facing the public domain is considered as though it descends and closes the mavoy on its fourth side. And likewise, a crossbeam one handbreadth wide is sufficient to permit carrying in the mavoy.

B. “The edge of the

ceiling

descends and closes.”

This law is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, and it is according to everyone. And it concerns a ceiling that has at least a width of four handbreadths, so that the edge of the ceiling is considered as though it were a wall descending and closing this side.

The prominent distinction between these two concepts concerns the forms of permission through them.

A crossbeam permits carrying only in a mavoy that has all the conditions of a mavoy, among them that its length be four cubits and its width at least four handbreadths.

“The edge of the ceiling descends and closes” is stated with reference to a private domain, which it closes as a wall, by virtue of the halakha given to Moses at Sinai, and it is stated also in places that do not have the status of a mavoy, as will be explained in the discussion before us.

And here we are speaking when

half

of the area of the threshold

is roofed

by a crossbeam, which ordinarily is only one handbreadth wide,

and half of it—

is unroofed.

And its roofing

of the half of the area roofed by the crossbeam is—

toward the inside

[that is, half of the area of the threshold on the inner side is roofed, and half of the outer area is unroofed].

Therefore, if the

entrance

between the mavoy and the threshold

is open—

the half of the roofed area adjacent to the entrance is considered

like the inside.

That is, the roofed area joins the mavoy, and the outer side of the crossbeam, which permits carrying in the mavoy, is also the boundary for permission to carry on the threshold.

But if the

entrance

between the mavoy and the threshold

is locked,

then the roofed area on the threshold is not considered part of the mavoy, but is a place of its own [and then the crossbeam does not close the mavoy, but the door does]. And since it does not contain an area of four handbreadths by four handbreadths, this is not a “mavoy,” and the crossbeam is not effective for it to close the outer side. Therefore the entire area of the threshold is considered

like the outside,

and it is forbidden to carry in it.

The essence of the answer is that when the door is closed, the crossbeam cannot close the roofed side because the roofed area does not contain four handbreadths by four handbreadths. And it makes no difference whether the threshold is at the entrance of a house or at the entrance of a mavoy, except that ordinarily the threshold at the entrance of a house has roofing four by four, and therefore the Gemara stated that the case concerns the entrance of a mavoy.

Rav Ashi said: Actually, [we are dealing] with the threshold of a house

that is roofed, whose roofing contains four by four

we are dealing.

And for example, he roofed

the threshold before the house

with two crossbeams

separate from one another. And the case is:

A.

Neither this one

crossbeam

has four

handbreadths,

nor does this one

the second crossbeam

have four

handbreadths.

B.

And between this one and that one

there is no gap of

three

handbreadths, so that it may be said “lavud,” and they may be considered one ceiling of four handbreadths.

C.

And the door

stands

in the middle

of the threshold, in the area of the gap between the two crossbeams.

Therefore, if the

entrance

in which the door

is open—

the entire area of the threshold is considered

like the inside,

because the two crossbeams are considered one roofing, for an area of three handbreadths does not separate between them, and we say “lavud” to make them both one ceiling covering an area of four by four, in which case we use the principle “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,” and the matter is considered as though the outer edge of the ceiling descends and closes the entire area of the roofed threshold.

But if the

entrance,

located beneath the gap between the two crossbeams,

is locked

by the door in the middle—then the locked door prevents the possibility of regarding the two crossbeams as one ceiling of four handbreadths by the law of lavud, for from now on the two crossbeams constitute two separate roofings for two places separated from one another by the locked door.

And since the roofed area beneath the outer crossbeam again does not contain four by four, the crossbeam above it cannot close the outer side by the law of the crossbeam of a mavoy, because there is no area here of a mavoy. Therefore that area is considered

like the outside,

and it is forbidden to carry in it.

[And what we established as concerning specifically two crossbeams and not one roofing is because in the case of one roofing, the closing of the door in the middle would not nullify the law that the outer edge of the ceiling descends and closes the outer side, since the edge of a single ceiling that actually has four handbreadths, and not four handbreadths by “lavud,” closes the outer side despite the door in the middle. Rashi].

We also learned above, later in the words of “Others”:

And if the

the

threshold

before the house

is ten [handbreadths] high and four [handbreadths] wide—

it is a domain

of its own,

and one may not carry to it even from within the house, despite the fact that both the house and the threshold are the private domain of the same person.

And we say:

This supports Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi.

For Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi said: Rabbi Meir used to say

[who is called “Others,” as explained in tractate Horayot]:

Every place where you find two domains and they are one domain, such as a pillar

that was within

a private domain,

and it is

ten [handbreadths] high and four [handbreadths] wide,

and they are like “two domains,” since the private domain is low whereas the pillar is high—

it is forbidden to shoulder upon it

an object that had been placed in the courtyard of the private domain.

A decree on account of a mound

ten [handbreadths] high and four [handbreadths] wide

in the public domain,

whose law is that of a private domain, and if they were to shoulder upon it an object that had been in the public domain, they would come to err in transferring an object from the public domain to the private domain.