Talmud for Shabbat 10:1

חייב כרת ונסקל אחד המוציא ואחד המכניס אחד המושיט ואחד הזורק. ים ובקעה ואיסטווה ואסקופה וכרמלית אינן לא רשות הרבים ולא רשות היחיד. ואין נושאין ונותנין בהן. ואם נשא ונתן בהן פטור. אמר רב יוסף אף אנן תנינן כולהן. ים דתנינן תמן הזורק בים ארבע אמות פטור. לא סוף דבר ד' אמות בים אלא אפי' זורק בכל הים פטור. שכל הים נקרא כרמלית. בקעה דתנינן הבקעה בימות החמה רשות היחיד לשבת ורשות הרבים לטומאה. ובימות הגשמים רשות הרבים לכאן ולכאן. אם אומר את רשות היחיד לכאן ולכאן לא תהא טעונה הקפה כלי בהמה. דתנינן הקיפוה כלי בהמה מטלטלין בתוכה. איסטווה דתנינן וכן גשרין המפולשין מטלטלין תחתיהן בשבת דברי ר' יהודה. וחכמים אוסרין. אסקופה דתנינן המוציא אוכלין ונתנן על האסקופה בין שחזר והוציאן בין שהוציאן אחר פטור שלא עשה מלאכתו בבת אחת. הא אם עשה מלאכתו בבת אחת חייב. בן עזאי אומר אפי' אם עשה מלאכתו בבת אחת פטור. כרמלית תני רבי חייא כרמל רך מלא אינו לא לח ולא יבש אלא בינוני. והכא אינה לא רה"ר ולא רה"י אלא כרמלית. איזו היא כרמלית. רבי יסא בשם רבי יוחנן כגון חנותיה דבר יוסטיני. חצר של רבים ומבואות שאינן מפולשין אם עירבו מותרין. ואם לא עירבו אסורין. רבי זעירה בשם רב יהודה רבי זעירה בשם רב חיננא סימטיות שבין העמודים נידונין ככרמלית. ר' שמואל בר חייא בר יהודה בשם ר' חנינה פירחי העמודים נידונין ככרמלית. לכן צריכין בגבוהין ג'. חייא בריה דרב כל המעכב דרסה בר"ה נידונין ככרמלית. רבנן דקיסרין אמרין אפי' קוצין אפי' זכוכית. לכן צריכין בשאינן גבוהין שלשה. וא"ר יוסה איסקופה שאמרו רחבה ארבעה ואינה גבוה עשרה. אין תימר גבוה עשרה ורחבה ארבעה רשות בפני עצמו הוא. אין תימר גבוהה עשרה ואינה רחבה ד'. הדא דמר רב חסדא בשם אסי קנה נעוץ בר"ה גבוהה עשרה טפחים מותר לכאן ולכאן. ובלבד שלא יחליף. אלא כן אנן קיימין בשאינה לא רחבה

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside¹On the Sabbath it is forbidden to move any load from a private to the public domain (or for a distance of at least 4 cubits in the public domain.) Inside a private domain there are no restrictions unless the article may not be moved at all. While any transport between domains is forbidden, it is a prosecutable offense only if there is a completed action, i. e., one person lifted the item up, transported it, and put it down. This applies both to transport from the private domain to the public one (“inside”) and vice versa (“outside”). In each case, the transport may be effectuated either by the person inside or the person outside (in which case the person is prosecutable but the person standing in the other domain is not involved) or it may be taken up by one person, taken over while moving by another person who then puts it down. In this case both participants have sinned but are not prosecutable. The possible cases are enumerated in Mishnaiot 1–4. “Liable” and “not liable” refer both to the possibility of prosecution for intentional Sabbath desecration and the obligation of a purification sacrifice in the case of unintentional infraction.. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable.
If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable.
If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable.
If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

There⁶⁰Mishnah Keritut 3:4., we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was a Sabbath and he carried it out⁶¹As noted before, a purification offering is possible only for transgressions punishable at least by extirpation. The Mishnah gives an example that a single act may trigger the obligation of 4 purification and one reparation offerings. An impure person who eats a piece of well-being offering (Lev. 7:20) which is fat (v.25) and more than 2 days old (v. 18) on the Day of Atonement (23:29). For the illicit use of a sanctum a reparation sacrifice is due (5:15–16). R. Meïr adds that if the day also was a Sabbath and the person would take the piece in a private domain, carry it out and eat it in the public domain, an additional purification offering is needed.
The text and R. Yudan’s explanation make it clear that the Yerushalmi does not read with some Babli sources “carried it out in his mouth.”. They told him, it is not the category⁶²The five sacrifices are due for eating one piece; the Sabbath infraction would be for carrying. S. Liebermann explains אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם as “is not simultaneous.”.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down⁶³Eating may also be done while walking; the Sabbath infraction becomes a liability only when the motion stopped.. Who is “they said to him”? Rebbi Yose⁶⁴There is no other reference to the fact that the objection to R. Meïr originates with the Tanna R. Yose.! The argument of Rebbi Yose is inverted. There, he does not consider the person walking equal to one who was putting down but here he is considering the person walking equal to one who was putting down⁶⁵This argument may support Liebermann’s interpretation. Since for R. Yose a person walking is considered stopping at every place, the Sabbath infraction and the desecration of the sacrifice are simultaneous.! Rebbi Yudan said, explain it that he was laying on the threshold⁶⁶An Accadic word (askuppum). The word describes not only the threshold but also the stairs leading from the road to the house. [Also cf. Latin scapus “post or newel of a circular staircase; main stile of a door on which it hinges” (E. G.)] partially inside, his mouth outside, when he stretched out his hand, took it, and ate it. Then he did not walk⁶⁷If the piece of fat was lying inside the private domain, the Sabbath violation did not involve any movement of his body; the reference to R. Yose’s opinion about transporting on the Sabbath is irrelevant, as is the explanation given in the preceding sentence. The difference in the status of the required sacrifices is as indicated in Note 62..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter