Talmud for Shabbat 11:1

Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated¹⁴⁹While the technical term karmelit does not appear in the Mishnah, all the examples enumerated in the Tosephta are found in the Mishnah and the rules can be deduced from Mishnaic quotes. all of these. The sea as we have stated there¹⁵⁰Mishnah 11:5.: “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit¹⁵¹Since nobody can walk in the sea, it cannot be considered public domain..
A valley⁷³Karmelit is a part of the public domain not readily accessible to the public (Chapter 13 Note 68). The two main examples are “the sides of a thoroughfare”, the part of a street close to the houses if that part is not easy to use because of stairs extending from the houses or if the fronts of the houses do not form a straight line. The other is “valley”, a rural access path which is public domain, not a thoroughfare but meant only as a path for farmers working adjacent fields.
Since karmelit is not a thoroughfare (defined as road of at least 16 cubits width) it does not qualify as public domain for which transport from a private domain is forbidden. The statement of R. Joḥanan implies that he cannot consider walking as equivalent of standing still (Note 56) since transporting from a private domain to karmelit followed by transport from karmelit to public domain, while forbidden on the Sabbath, does not generate liability (Note 81).
(The etymology of the word karmelit is unknown. Cf. Accadic karmiš “like a ruin”.) as we have stated¹⁵²Mishnah Ṭaharot 6:4. The “valley” is agricultural domain accessible only by rural paths, not by a paved road. In the dry season, after the grain was cut and before the fields are ploughed for new seeds, the fields are accessible to everybody. Since there is nothing hidden there, it is like public domain for impurity but since it is not easy of access it cannot be considered public domain for the rules of the Sabbath.: “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity¹⁵³Where any question of ritual impurity is resolved by presumption of purity, Soṭah1:2 Note 88.. During the rainy season it is (private) [public]¹⁵⁴The word in parentheses is from the text of the scribe here, the reading in the Mishnah, the quote in the Babli (Šabbat 6b, Bava batra 123b), and alluded to in Bava batra 9:8 (Note 87). The text in brackets is that of the first corrector. It was noted by Qorban Haˋedah (as emendation of the Venice text since the ms. was not accessible to this author) and supported by convincing arguments by S. Liebermann (תלמודא דקיסרין p. 17 Note 2, הירושלמי כפשוטו p. 15) and J. N. Epstein (Tarbiz 5, 1934, p. 264) that the text of the scribe is correct and the correction a corruption. In the rainy season the fields are sown, the grain is growing, and any trespass by unauthorized persons is criminal. There is no doubt that the fields have the status of private domain both for the Sabbath and for cases of doubt about impurity. domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated¹⁵⁵Mishnah Eruvin 1:8.
A caravan which in the dry season uses a “valley” as camping ground for a stay over the Sabbath is required to turn the fields into a guarded place by arranging the (camel or donkey) loads as a symbolic wall (of 10 hand-breadths height). In the interior then one may carry unrestrictedly. This proves that in the dry season the fields are not private domains in the commonly accepted sense; they are karmelit.: “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.”
A platform, as we have stated¹⁵⁶Mishnah Eruvin 9:5.: “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the rabbis forbid.¹⁵⁷It is supposed that the bridges are not simply a roadway on a flat support but that they have side walls extending somewhat under the roadway so that seen from below they delineate the space under the bridge. The Sages forbid to carry for four cubits or more in the informally defined space but they refrain from imposing liability; this proves that the prohibition is purely rabbinical; the space can be neither private nor public domain.”
A threshold¹⁵⁸This is a repetition of an earlier text as referred to by the Notes., as we have stated: ⁸¹Mishnah 10:2. “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold, whether he or somebody else carries them to the street there is no liability since it was not done in one action.”“If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step⁸⁹As noted before, the work of transporting consists of lifting, moving, and depositing. If this is done from private to public domain, it is a desecration of the Sabbath. But a combination of two actions, both involving karmelit and therefore not creating liability, still does not create liability. he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if he completed the work at one time he would not be liable.
Karmelit. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full”, neither moist nor dry but average¹⁵⁹The same etymology of the quadrilitteral כרמל is given in Sifra Wayyiqra I Parsheta 13(8), Pereq 15(1).. And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus¹⁶⁰In the Babli (7a) the example is given of a stoa, a roofed domain bounded by pillars. Since such a stoa is a pedestrian mall, not accessible to vehicular traffic; if there is an additional obstacle to free circulation it becomes karmelit. S. Liebermann conjectured that the store in question was situated in such a stoa.. A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden¹⁶¹A domain which is not public by biblical standards can be turned into a private domain by an eruv, “mixing” (of domains), by arranging the potential of a common meal for all interested persons. A genuinely public domain cannot be turned into a private domain. Therefore the domains mentioned as candidates for eruv cannot be public domains. They also cannot be private domains since then they would need no eruv..

We have stated there³¹Mishnah Šabbat 11:4. It is forbidden to transport anything in the public domain on the Sabbath a distance of more than four cubits. “Transporting” in the legal sense includes taking up, moving, and depositing. If one of these elements is missing, no offense occured. “Public domain” in this context extends only to ten hand-breadths above ground. Anything higher is free space to which the prohibition of transporting does not extend. Hence, if something was taken up from the public domain, thrown, and came to rest in free space, it is as if it was thrown and never came to rest; no offense occured. But if it came to rest within ten hand-breadths of the ground, the Sabbath was desecrated.: “If somebody throws from four cubits [distance] to a wall, if [the projectile hits] higher than ten hand-breadths, he is like one throwing into the air, if lower than ten hand-breadths, he is like one throwing onto the ground.” Rav Ḥisda said, if it extends slanting³²Taking מדד not as Biblical Hebrew “to measure”, but from Arabic مدّ، مدّد “to extend, to rise”. R. Ḥisda’s problem is that nothing can stop on a vertical wall. The same answer is given by R. Ḥisda’s student and son-in-law Rava in Babli Šabbat 5b, the material there being sheets of paper or parchment. In the Yerushalmi, the discussion here is reproduced in Šabbat11:3 (fol. 14a).. But will it not finally descend? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, explain it that it was a soft fig cake and it stuck³³The same answer is given by R. Joḥanan himself in Babli Šabbat 7b, 100 a.. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that the declivity of a terrace belongs to the level below³⁴R. Ḥaggai assumes that the reason one insists on a separation of 10 hand-breadths is the same for the rules of the Sabbath and of kilaim. In that case, the Mishnah seems to extend the reach of any “bottom” upwards to 10 hand-breadths. He is answered that plants may grow on a slanted wall but anything sticking to the lower part of any wall bordering the public domain will be rubbed off; the fig cake cannot be considered to be at rest at such a place. The Babli (Šabbat 100a) disagrees with R. Yose and points out that even if a Tannaitic statement such as suggested by him did exist, it would not prove anything since R. Meïr [Yerushalmi Šabbat 11:3 (fol. 13a), Eruvin 10:8 (fol. 26b); Babli Šabbat 7b, 100 a, Eruvin 11b, 33b, 101b, Yoma 11b] considers any depression a separate domain excluded from “free space”.? He said to him, there the vegetables profit from the terrace but here people rub it and it falls down. If it would say, if there is a hole [in the wall] and it profits from the hole just as vegetables profit from the terrace, you would be justified.

“And who tears down,” but only for a need⁴⁴⁶As the Mishnah stated, tearing down only creates liability if it is for the purpose of building anew.. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who braids a palm-leaf basket is liable because of building⁴⁴⁷The rule that there is no building with vessels does not mean that there is no building of vessels. The Babli 75b has a completely different understanding of R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statement: “He who decorates a vessel or blows a glass vessel is liable because of “hitting with a hammer.”. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who blows a glass vessel is liable because of building. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There are things which are close but far away; and there are things which are far away but close⁴⁴⁸There are very diverse activities which are classified under the same category for the Sabbath, and there are distinct categories which may be represented by the same abstract definition, as explained in the sequel.. He who braids a palm-leaf basket, and he who blows a glass vessel, and he who makes a vessel in a form⁴⁴⁹Greek τύπος, ὁ. The vessel is cast., all are because of building. He who selects, who filters⁴⁵⁰R. David Fraenckel points out that “filtering” should be replaced by “winnowing” since filtering was reduced to either selecting or sifting (Note 325). But selecting, winnowing, and sifting are three similar activities but listed as three different categories (“close but far away”) whereas the very different activities in fabricating vessels mentioned in the preceding sentence are all classified under the same heading (“far away but close”)., and who sifts, all because of removing waste. Each of them is separately liable⁴⁵¹Since they are separately listed in the Mishnah.. And why was handing over not stated with them⁴⁵²Why were the transactions described in Mishnaiot 1:1–2 not mentioned in the list of forbidden actions?? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages⁴⁵³In Mishnah 11:1, one who throws from one private domain over a public domain into another private domain, R. Aqiba declares liable but the Sages do not. There is no universally accepted definition of “handing from one domain to another.”. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi: In addition, there is handing over. And why was it not stated with them? All categories of work involve one, and this one two⁴⁵⁴Since the numerals are in the feminine, they refer to domains, not to persons, as noted by R. David Fraenckel.. All categories of work have derivatives, but this has no derivative.