תלמוד על שבת 1:1
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.
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..
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
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
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..
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..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy