Talmud for Shabbat 11:2

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what⁹³Transporting something in the public domain for a distance of at least 4 cubits is a desecration of the Sabbath. Therefore, throwing something a distance of at least 4 cubits creates liability the moment the thrown object touches the ground. The question is whether there is liability if the thrower himself runs and catches the object in the air, at a distance of at least 4 cubits from where it was thrown. Babli 5a.? Is that not a Mishnah⁹⁴Mishnah 11:7. The thrower did not intend to throw it to another person or to a dog; the object was intercepted. Therefore, the original intent was not fulfilled; there is no liability. If the object was burned in flight, there is no putting down; the action is incomplete and there is no liability even if the original intent was that it should be burned in flight., “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable⁹⁵In the question asked by R. Joḥanan one has to distinguish whether the original intent was that the object should be caught in flight, when there is liability, or whether the object was snatched in flight against the original intent, when there is no liability.. What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There⁹⁶In the Mishnah there is liability if the object is a ball thrown from one person to another and the recipient is supposed to catch the ball., why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it⁹⁷The Mishnah does not directly address R. Joḥanan’s problem.. Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth⁹⁸This refers to the explanation given earlier by R. Yudan (Note 67) which shows that receiving an object in his mouth is a valid putting down. if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person⁹⁹And the legal situation depends on the original intent.. Rebbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rebbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand¹⁰⁰Throwing from one hand to the other is a normal action but throwing with one hand and receiving with the same has to be classified “as if with the back of one’s hand” (Note 80) and automatically exclude liability.. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He¹⁰¹R. Joḥanan. is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth⁹⁸This refers to the explanation given earlier by R. Yudan (Note 67) which shows that receiving an object in his mouth is a valid putting down.”, his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person¹⁰²Does it make any difference which hand is used since it always is the same person?? Rebbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons¹⁰³Therefore it is not possible to distinguish between hands in these matters.! Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that when he did it¹⁰⁴Lev. 4:27. The verse is emphatic that purification sacrifices are available only for single perpetrators acting in error: If one person of the people of the land sin in error, if he act in one of the commandments of the Eternal which is a prohibition, and be damaged.? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable¹⁰⁵Babli 3a,5a; Sifra Wayyiqra I Parashah 7(9)..

Rebbi Yose asked, if there were a very high chest standing in a house, would it not be permitted to use anything from in it into the house or from the house into it¹²⁴It is impossible to say that in general a new domain starts at 10 hand-breadths since it is commonly accepted that a private domain remains such to an indeterminate height. The Ark was standing in the private domain of the Sanctuary; a reference to it seems to be irrelevant.? But we are dealing when it was indicating to them the geographic directions¹²⁵In the desert, the Ark was traveling in front of the people (Num. 10:33) while the Sanctuary was carried in the middle (v. 17). At the resting place, the Ark automatically assumed a West-East direction so that the Sanctuary could be placed around it and the tribes camped correctly in the four directions of the compass (Num. 2). The Ark had functions outside the Sanctuary; the reference is legitimate.. This is understandable for him who said, a cubit of six [hand-breadths]¹²⁶In Mishnaic times, the building cubit was a standard 6, the vessel cubit 5 hand-breadths. If the Ark was built to vessel standards, it cannot be used to define domains. Whether the vessel standard was used in the Temple is a matter of controversy in the Babli, Menaḥot 98a.. But for him who said, a cubit of five hand-breadths? Would the Ark not be seven and one half hand-breadths? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the House of Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. One learns it from the Ark, but the other learns it from the wagons¹²⁷In Ex. 31:12–18 and 35:1–3 the observation of the Sabbath is emphasized in the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. One concludes that the work forbidden on the Sabbath is exactly work needed in building or transporting the Tabernacle. The wagons mentioned here are the 6 wagons donated by the tribal chiefs for the transport of the Sanctuary (Num. 7:3).. We do not know who learned it from the Ark and who learned in from the wagons. It is reasonable that the House of Rebbi Yannai learned it from the Ark since the House of Rebbi Yannai said, the cover was one hand-breadth¹²⁸The reading of ס is preferable: Nine hand-breadths of the Ark and one of the cover.. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq learns if from the Wagons. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, from where that the Wagons were ten [hand-breadths] high¹²⁹There are no biblical indications about the height of the wagons’ platforms above ground.? Rebbi Yose said, and even if you said that they were ten high, did not Rebbi Neḥemiah state that the Freight Wagons were like a cupola¹³⁰Greek καμάρα, Latin camara, -ae, f.(also camera) “arched or vaulted roof or ceiling, distinct from an outer roof”.
The wagons are called עֶגְלֹ֥ת צָב֙. Now צָב means “turtle”; from this comes the usual translation “covered wagon”, using the image of the domed back of the turtle. The expression really is a technical term “freight-wagon”, Accadic ṣubbum, ṣūbum.? If there was a hole in the public domain ten deep and four wide, would it no be forbidden to use anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it¹³¹This is a side remark. A hole in the public domain 10 hand-breadths deep and 4 by 4 wide creates a new domain and is considered a private domain from which nothing may be transported to the public domain. This cannot be derived by comparison either to the Ark or to the wagons.? But when they were transferring the planks from one to the other they were straight¹³²Whether the wagons were covered with a convex covering or not is irrelevant since at the moment of loading the planks and the gobelins of the Sanctuary they were uncovered and certainly had flat loading areas. For the meaning of “straight” for תְּרוּטוֹת cf. Mishnah Middot 2:5..