Daf 2

1) Someone is Chayiv if he carries out from a Reshus Hayachid to a Reshus Harabim, or carry in from a Reshus Harabim into a Reshus Hayachid. It doesn’t matter if he moves the object in or out when he’s standing inside or when he’s standing outside. [Tosfos explains: you have a source from the Torah for each one, although you might say that it should be simple without a Drasha since it shouldn’t make a difference where he’s standing when he does a Melacha, inside or outside; still, we need them for the Melacha of carrying since it’s a very weak type of Melacha, (so, since it’s a Chiddush to be Chayiv at all for a weak Melacha, we wouldn’t say someone is Chayiv but for what the Torah explicitly says and we shouldn’t even make simple extrapolations). This is also the reason why we need to find a source for its Toldos (like, if they were done in the Mishkon), even though other Melachos’ Toldos don’t need any source. The reason why we consider carrying a weak Melacha; since the Torah allows the exact same action when he carries from one Reshus Hayachid to another, and only forbids carrying out to a Reshus Harabim.]

Daf 3

2) All the times it says an action is Patur in Shabbos means; but it’s rabbinically forbidden to do. However, there are three exceptions where it’s permitted [Tosfos: besides the obvious cases where you’re saving a life]. Like when the Mishna says regarding capturing a deer on Shabbos; if one person already blocked it in a house, and a second person stands behind him in the doorway in order to block the deer if the first one moves away, the second one is Patur, and it’s permitted to do. Also, when it says you’re Patur for capturing a snake on Shabbos, it’s permitted. [Tosfos explains: even when there is no danger of it killing. Although it’s a Melacha, it’s a Melacha Shein Tzricha L’gufa (that you don’t need the actual Melacha, like here, you don’t need the snake, but you need to remove it from you). Thus, it’s like R’ Shimon who holds that a Melacha Shein Tzricha L’gufa is Patur, and the rabbis didn’t enact to forbid it, like usual, in order to rid yourself from a snake so it shouldn’t hurt you. Tosfos concludes: we Paskin like R’ Shimon, as Rava, the latest authority, Paskins like him at the end of the Mesechta.]

Also, when you’re Patur for popping a pimple on Shabbos, it’s permitted. [Tosfos says: the Mishna in Ediyos qualifies it; as long as you didn’t intend to make a true opening that will remain open for any future pus to come out. If you did intend for it, you’re Chayiv. Although you’re not Chayiv for making an opening if it’s not made to bring in and out (and here it seems that it’s only to bring out the pus); but, not only is the opening for removing pus, it’s also to allow fresh air to come in.]

We add another case where it’s permitted (but is not counted among the three since he didn’t do anything). If someone, on Shabbos, sticks his hand out of his house with an object and deposited it in someone else’s hand, the first one is Chayiv and the second one is Patur, and it’s permitted. [Tosfos says: the case where the second one is permitted must be that the one who accepted the object accepted it from a non-Jew and the object belonged to the non-Jew. However, he can’t accept it from a Jew because he’s transgressing Lifnei Iver (when you help someone do a sin). Even if the perpetrator can do the sin without him, and there is no Torah prohibition of Lifnei Iver, still there is a rabbinical prohibition, since you need to stop people from doing sins. Also, if the object would belong to the Jew, he can’t allow the non-Jew to carry it out. We only allow him to take the Jew’s food in his courtyard since he may eat it in the courtyard and won’t carry it out.]

3) Two people who do a Melacha together is Patur. [Tosfos qualifies this: whether if each one did half the Melacha, like one picks up the object and the other carries it out and puts it down; or if they do the whole Melacha together, like they both held the object as they carry it out.]

4) If someone loads you up, and you carry it out, you’re Chayiv for carrying out and we don’t say that the one who loaded you up made the Akira (uprooted the object) and did part of the Melacha. Rather, we consider (the object resting on you) and your moving your body as uprooting the object. This is not similar to what we say that if someone picks up an object and places it in a hand that’s stuck in through a window, and the outside person pulls it outside; that they’re both exempt since the person who picked up the object and placed in in the hand did the Akira. After all, the hand doesn’t rest. [Rashi explains: since a hand is not on the ground like your body, it’s not considered at rest, so the first person’s Akira is still in effect. Tosfos asks: we say that, if the outside person took it out of the inside’s person’s hand and carries out (instead of the inside person putting it in his hand), he’s Chayiv and we don’t say that the object in a hand isn’t at rest and he didn’t make the Akira. Rather, Tosfos says that the right text should read: a hand follows its body, so it needs another Akira; i.e., if the hand is not in the same domain as his body, we don’t say it’s at rest since the part of the body in this domain is not on the ground. However, a body doesn’t need an Akira, since the moving of the body is an Akira.]

5) We know that the hands (sticking out to another Reshus) doesn’t have a status of a Reshus Hayachid or Reshus Harabim. After all, we say that if you stick your hand into the next domain and the other person takes it, he’s exempt. The question is; if someone sticks his hand out with an object to a different domain, did the rabbis enact it to be a Karmulas that you can’t bring it back to your original domain and you must leave it there the whole Shabbos or not. [Tosfos points out that it could only have a status of a Karmulas to the domain that his body is in, since bringing it in will look like you’re carrying to a different Reshus. However, regarding objects in the second domain, we don’t consider your hand as a Karmulas. As we permit being in one Reshus and move objects in a different Reshus and we don’t consider that you’re taking an object in a Reshus Hayachid (or Reshus Harabim) and placing in a Karmulas by taking it into your hands.] We have two conflicting Braisos; one allows returning the object and the other forbids it.

6) We can say that they argue whether they enacted the hands to have a status of a Karmulas. Alternatively, we can say that everyone holds it to be a Karmulas, and they don’t argue. The Braisa that says don’t return the object refers to bringing it back below ten T’fachim from the ground and the one the permits refers to returning it above ten T’fachim from the ground. [Tosfos points out: it’s not needed to say that, if you stuck the object outside above ten T’fachim from the ground you can return it, since it was never in the airspace of a Reshus Harabim but in a Makom Patur (and you’re even allowed to stick your hand out there in the first place). We must say that this Braisa is permitting, when you stuck your hand out below ten, you can return the object through a window that’s above ten T’fachim.]

Alternatively, we can say both Braisos refer to below ten and neither holds that it’s a Karmulas. The one who permits to return it refers to a case where he stuck his hand out Friday afternoon. Since he stuck it out when it’s permitted, they didn’t fine him to keep it there. However, the Braisa that prohibits refers to when he stuck his hand out on Shabbos, so they fined him to leave it there the whole Shabbos. Alternatively, they both refer to him sticking his hand out on Shabbos, it’s permitted when he mistakenly did it, and it’s forbidden if he purposely stuck his hand out. Alternatively, they both refer to doing it mistakenly, and the Braisos argue if we fined people for doing it mistakenly, for perhaps it will lead them to eventually do it purposely, or not. Alternatively, everyone holds that they didn’t fine him at all, but they allowed returning it to your own courtyard, but you can’t return it in to a different courtyard, since he accomplished his original plan to move it into another area. [Tosfos points out that there is a Tolda to carry from one Reshus Hayachid to another over a Reshus Harabim called ’Moshit.’ So, you need to say that this case where they fined him to bring it into another courtyard refers to a case where it’s not transgressing this Melacha anyhow, or else it would be forbidden without fining him. Therefore, since it’s only a Melacha when carrying it on the same side of the Reshus Harabim, we’ll say that here refers to a courtyard on the other side of the street. Alternatively, even on the same side of the street, it’s only forbidden if the Reshus Harabim separates the two Reshus Hayachids (like two balconies that stick over the street), but here, there is no Reshus Harabim between the two courtyards.]

6) R’ Bibi inquired: if you placed dough in an oven on Shabbos, do we allow taking it down with the baker’s shovel in order to save him from a Chatos, or not. [Tosfos says: although removing bread with that shovel (or blowing the Shofar) on Shabbos is not Torah prohibited, as we say it’s not a Melacha, but a skill; still, it’s rabbinically forbidden. Like we say later in the Mesechta; (if you forgot and left bread in the oven, you can take out what you need for Shabbos) but not with a baker’s shovel, but with a knife. (They also forbade blowing a Shofar; as the Mishna in Rosh Hashana says that we don’t prevent children from blowing the Shofar, implying that we prevent women who are not Chayiv in Shofar to blow.)] The Gemara brought a proof to this from one of the above reconciliations between the Braisos: we answered that they allowed returning your hand if you stuck it out on Friday afternoon, but not if you stuck it out on Shabbos. If we would be worried that you would do a Melacha, then they should have answered the opposite; that they forbade if you stuck out your hand on Friday because it can’t bring to be Chayiv a Chatos, since you didn’t make the Akira on Shabbos. However, they permitted to return your hand if you stuck it out on Shabbos since, if you will drop it, you will be Chayiv a Chatos. Therefore, we’re not worried about making someone Chayiv a Chatos and you can’t remove the bread with a baker’s shovel. 

[Tosfos quotes Ri: this is even true when the Gemara brings other ways to reconcile it. Although it’s no longer necessary to say that this is what the Braisos mean, but we brought a proof that the Beis Medrish felt compelled to answer it this way, to forbid when done on Shabbos, and not the opposite, to permit it when done on Shabbos; that they logically held we’re not worried for the Chatos. However the Rashba says that it’s only a proof according to that answer, before we gave alternative answers. After all, they couldn’t have really give the opposite answer, that it’s permitted when done on Shabbos but prohibited when done on Friday; since that’s sort of a joke to be more stringent on something done on Friday than if done on Shabbos. But it’s not because they hold from logic that we’re not worried about him bringing a Chatos. Therefore, once we found alternative answers, we’re not forced to say that we have a proof to R’ Bibi’s inquiry.

Rashi says that you can’t bring a proof that we’re not worried for him to leave dough in the oven from the next answer, they fined them when they stuck there hand out on purpose, (but not when he did it mistakenly); because, even if he did it purposely, it’s not definite that he’ll drop it, but the dough will definitely bake if he leaves it in the oven. Tosfos answers: we can say we’re only talking about when he stuck his hand out on Friday.]

Daf 4

8) The Gemara then questions our assumption that R’ Bibi’s inquiry refers to a case where he put it in mistakenly and we’re trying to prevent a Chatos. After all, if we refer to a case where the person himself remembered that it’s Shabbos and he did something wrong; he wouldn’t be Chayiv Chatos if he left it in, since you’re only Chayiv if you were mistaken about it from the beginning of the Melacha until the end. Also, you can’t say that he inquired if someone else can take it out, since we don’t say that someone should do a (small) sin in order for his friend to gain (by preventing him from grievously sinning).

[Tosfos asks: we see that we allow a Talmid Chachum to transgress separating Trumah and Maasar not near his produce to prevent an Am Ha’aretz (who’s going to eat this produce) from transgressing eating Tevel. Tosfos answers: because he caused the Am Ha’aretz to sin, since he told him to eat some of my figs (and realized afterwards that they were untithed). Riva answers: you can’t even bring a proof from there that the person himself can take it out. After all, there we permit because he was not involved yet in the sin, since he didn’t start eating. However, here, he already did the sin by putting it in the oven, and it will finish baking by itself, we would tell him not to do any prohibition to prevent it. Although someone transgresses freeing his half slave (and half free man) in order to be able to do the Mitzva of having children (since he can’t marry anyone in his present state); that’s because it’s in order for him to fulfill an extremely great Mitzvah. this is the same as we allow freeing a slave in order to make a Minyan since it’s a community Mitzvah.

Alternatively, Tosfos differentiates: we only allow it when the sinner wasn’t negligent like he was here when he placed the dough in the oven. This is why we permit a Kohain to transgress bringing the Korbanos of a Metzora or Zav after the bringing of the Tamid so that he can bring a Korban Pesach that day; and that a Kohain can bite a wart off his friend on Shabbos (which is in a strange way so it won’t be a Torah prohibition) in order to make him no longer a blemished Kohain, so he’ll be fit to do the Avoda.

Although we allow freeing a half maid half free woman (who is not obligated in having children) if she is having relations with people (to save people from this sin); since we consider it as beyond their control (and they’re not negligent) since she’s inciting people to have relations with her. Alternatively, it’s considered a community Mitzva (to prevent the public stumbling with her).]

9) Rather, the Gemara concludes: R’ Bibi’s inquiry is if he put the dough in purposely, and do we allow him to take it out before he transgresses a sin that he’ll get stoning. [Tosfos asks: of course he won’t listen to this decree and allow himself to get stoned. So, why enact something that will never be followed? Tosfos answers: he would not get stoned if he refrains from removing it because the rabbis forbade it. Similar to the many times the Rabanan didn’t allow you to transgress one of their prohibitions in order for you do a Mitzva that has a Karies punishment on it if you don’t so it, (like Mila and Pesach). Since you only didn’t do those Mitzvos because of the rabbis’ decree, you don’t get Kareis.] R’ Ada b. Masna’s version was that, R’ Bibi didn’t ask an inquiry, but made the statement: you’re allowed to remove it before you’ll come to transgress a prohibition that you get stoned over.

10) [Tosfos asks: how can he ever get stoned for baking, since you can only give a Safeik warning when he puts in the dough, since it’s possible that he’ll remove it before it bakes? Tosfos answers: since it will definitely bake if he leaves it in there, we assume that he doesn’t plan on removing it, and therefore, it’s a definite warning. You only have a Safeik warning when the punishment for the transgression is only on condition if he’ll do a second action, that he might not do.]

11) If you throw from a Reshus Hayachid through a Reshus Harabim and it lands in a Reshus Hayachid; R’ Akiva holds he’s Chayiv; and the Rabanan hold he’s Patur. Rabbah’s conclusion is that it was thrown below ten T’fachim from the ground. R’ Akiva held your Chayiv (although it didn’t actually land in the Reshus Harabim) since he holds that hovering above the ground is as if it landed; and the Rabanan don’t consider it as if it landed. However, if it was above ten, everyone holds that he’s exempt (since it doesn’t go in the airspace of the Reshus Harabim [Tosfos even if it’s on the same side of the street where someone usually transgresses the Tolda Moshit] since you’re only Chayiv for Moshit if you place the item in the next Reshus Hayachid (as it was done in the Mishkon), and we don’t extrapolate throwing from placing.

12) If you throw an item and it landed on a very small protrusion; Rebbi holds you’re Chayiv and the Rabanan hold you’re Patur. We establish the case as a tree in a Reshus Haychid with a branch protruding into the Reshus Harabim; do we say that the branch follows the trunk, or not? [Tosfos explains: does it get the status of the trunk, which is in the Reshus Hayachid, and it’s like you threw it to a Reshus Hayachid, or does it have its own status of a Reshus Harabim? However, you can’t establish the case to be that it’s completely in a Reshus Hayachid, and the question is whether it should have the status of being four T’fachim wide like the trunk, since R’ Chisda says later that you don’t need it to be four T’fachim wide in a Reshus Hayachid. You also can’t establish it completely in a Reshus Harabim. For, if it would be below three T’fachim from the ground, you don’t need the surface to be four T’fachim since it’s like it landed on the floor. If it’s above three T’fachim, even if it’s four T’fachim wide you’re Patur since it’s a Karmolus (since people don’t step on it).

Rashba says: you could have a case where it’s completely in a Reshus Harabim, like if the branch starts out below three T’fachim, and it rises to above three, do we say it follows the place it’s attached to the tree, which has the status of a Reshus Harabim, or not. The only reason they didn’t make this case is; R’ Chisda would hold you don’t need four T’fachim in a Reshus Harabim too, because; why should it be different than a Reshus Hayachid? The only reason why R’ Chisda uses the example of Reshus Hayachid since he ends up saying “even if it’s a hundred Amos high,” which you can’t say by a Reshus Harabim, since it only goes up to ten T’fachim.

Rashi says that this branch sticking out to the street has the status of a Reshus Harabim, but the question is; does it have the status of a surface that’s four T’fachim squared or not. However, Tosfos asks: it’s difficult to find a case, for, if it’s within three from the ground, you don’t need it to be four wide. If it’s above three, then it doesn’t help being four wide. The only way to explain it as if it’s a sticky fig that sticks to the side of the branch. (In that case, you’re Chayiv as long as it’s within ten T’fachim from the ground, since it’s not a horizontal surface to make it into a Karmulas.)]

13) Rebbi says: if you throw from a Reshus Harabim through a covered Reshus Hayachid, (like a house), and into another Reshus Harabim, you’re Chayiv twice (for carrying into the house, and carrying again out to the street); this is because he holds that a covered house is like it’s filled with stuff, and anything that flies through it is as if it landed on the stuff.

14) If you carry four Amos under a covered Reshus Harabim, you’re Patur since it’s not the way they had Reshus Harabims in the desert (when they carried for the Mishkon).

15) R’ Yossi b. Yehuda says: a basket on top of a pole ten T’fachim high has a status of a Reshus Hayachid, and if you throw from the street into it, you’re Chayiv. [Tosfos says: however, less than ten Tefachim will have a status of a Reshus Harabim even if it’s above three from the ground and we don’t say it’s a Karmulas; as Rashi says later, there is no Karmulas in a vessel.]

Daf 5

16) The reason the Mishna says that someone’s Chayiv when he carries an object out and places it in someone’s hand, although regularly we say he’s not Chayiv until he places it on a four Tefachim squared surface; that’s because someone’s hand has the same importance as a four Tefachim squared surface. [Tosfos says: you can’t answer that his intent for it to be placed there makes it important, since we only say that at the end of Eiruvin when it needs to be in that place more than any other one; like you want it to land in a dog’s mouth so it can eat, or in a fire for it to burn up. Also, when you spit or urinate, since spit can only originate in your mouth and urine in your appendage.]

17) [Tosfos explains why, regularly you’re only Chayiv if you place the object on a four Tefachim squared surface. R’ Tam says: since it’s not normal to place objects on a surface that’s smaller than that, (since it’s not so secure). Ri says: since the Pasuk about carrying “someone can’t leave his place” also can be read, you can’t carry the object out of its place, and a place is not considered anything if it’s not four Tefachim squared.]

18) If you throw an object four Amos in a Reshus Harabim into your friend’s hand; if he stood still, you’re Chayiv (since the receiver didn’t do anything). However, if he ran to get the object, (we consider the receiver as doing the Hanacha, placement of the item), and they’re both Patur.

19) R’ Yochanan inquires: what happens if he himself runs over and catches it. Do we say that two actions by one person is like one person doing the whole thing, and he’s Chayiv. Or is it like two people doing it and he’s Patur. [Tosfos quotes R’ Chananel who had the opposite text. Is it like two people and he’s Chayiv, and we refer to a case where he’s not grabbing it, but it landed in his hand, and it’s as if it landed in a friend’s hand. Or do we say it’s one person and you’re Patur, and it’s like one person who passed an object from his right hand to his left hand, that he’s Patur despite the fact that the object moved four Amos.]

20) If you’re standing in the street and stick your hand into your friend’s courtyard and caught rain and carry it back to you in the street, you’re Patur. After all, what difference is it if your friend places and object in your hand, or if heaven does; (you still didn’t do the Akira). Not only that, but even if you put one hand up for the water to hit against, and the other hand will scoop the rain off it and remove it, you’re definitely Patur. For one thing, you didn’t take it off a four T’fachim surface. Not only that, but even if you scoop it off a wall that is four T’fachim wide you’re Patur, since it never landed on the wall, it’s not resting to say that, when you remove the water, you’re making an Akira. Even if the wall is slanted, it’s not considered as if it landed. (This is different than a Sefer Torah that one side rolled off a roof and draped to below ten T’fachim from the ground; resting on a slanted wall, it’s considered as part of the Sefer is resting in the Reshus Harabim and you can’t roll it back up to the roof. [Tosfos says: we must refer to a wall where the public rest their packages against (at nine Tefachim off the ground), or else the wall wouldn’t have the status of a Reshus Harabim]; since liquids can’t rest on it like solid objects.

However, if you take water off a puddle, you’re Chayiv since it’s considered as resting. Although water is constantly moving, still, since it’s in a situation where it usually is, we consider that this is its resting state.

21) If you lift up a nut floating in the water, it’s not considered as if it’s at rest, and you’re Patur. There is an unresolved inquiry: if the nut is in a vessel that’s floating on water, is it considered at rest. Do we focus on the nut, which is at rest in the vessel? or do we look at the vessel that’s not at rest in the water. [Tosfos says: Halachically, we consider the nut as on the move, as we Paskin that riding something is as if you’re moving. However, our inquiry is regarding Shabbos since we need it to be a place where someone would store it so it should be like the way they placed items in the Mikdash. Similarly, even regarding Shabbos we see that placing something on moving beings are not a Hanacha.

Also, you can’t compare it to what the Gemara says that a boat is not considered a moving courtyard (and you may acquire objects on it, and you can’t compare it to a moving animal that you can’t acquire objects on it), since the boat is still, but the water is moving it. After all the requirement of being an unmoving courtyard is to be similar to one’s hand (that we say a courtyard is an extension of). Therefore, a hand is also moved by the body, so the boat that’s moved by water is similar to it.]

22) If oil that’s floating on top of wine is considered at rest, and you’re Chayiv for lifting the oil and carrying it outside, is dependent on the following Tannaic argument. The Tanna Kama doesn’t consider them as connected as one pool, and if a T’vul Yom (a Tamai person who was Toiveled, but still can invalidate Trumah before nightfall) touches the Trumah oil, the Trumah wine underneath is still fine. According to him, if you carry out the oil on Shabbos, it wasn’t considered resting, and you’re Patur. However, R’ Yochanan b. Nuri says that the Trumah wine is also invalid, so he holds that there is a connection and it’s no worse than carrying out water that was on top of other water.

23) [Tosfos infers from the following: since the case was framed that he was a T’vul Yom and not a Sheini; that oil is considered as a ‘Mashkin’ (a drink) that they decreed always becomes a Rishon, even when touched by a Sheini. Therefore, if a Sheini touches the oil, it becomes a Rishon and invalidates the wine even if it’s not connected.]

24) R’ Yochanan says: if someone was carrying an object from one corner of his house to another, and changes his mind and carries out, he’s Patur since he didn’t intend by the Akira to carry out. [Tosfos points out that he couldn’t have held like Ben Azai, as we’ll quote him soon, that every step of walking is considered as another Hanacha; because, as soon as he starts stepping to carry it outside, it’s considered as a new Akira and he’ll be Chayiv.]

25) If someone stops while he’s walking; if he stops to rest, then it’s considered at that point as a Hanacha, and when he walks further, he’s making a new Akira. However, if he just stops to adjust his package, it’s not a Hanacha, and the next walking is not a new Akira. The practical differences is; in the above case when you originally didn’t plan to carry out, if you stopped before you carried out, would it be a new Akira and you would be Chayiv. Also, if you stopped within four Amos, and then completed the four Amos, do they combine to say that you carried four Amos before you made a Hanacha, or not. Also, if you stopped after four Amos, did you make your Hanacha and you’re Chayiv, or not and you’re Patur if someone takes it from you before you make a real Hanacha.

Daf 6

26) If someone carries from a Reshus Hayachid through a Karmulas to a Reshus Harabim; the Chachumim say he’s Chayiv, and Ben Azai who holds that every step is another Hanacha and Akira, he’s Patur since he made an Hanacha when he stepped in the Karmulas and did an Akira when he stepped from the Karmulas unto the Reshus Harabim. However, Ben Azai agrees that if you throw the object, you’re Chayiv. [Tosfos brings the Yerushami that asks: according to Ben Azai; how are you Chayiv for carrying an object four Amos in a Reshus Harabim? After all, every step that he takes within four Amos makes a Hanacha and you never have him carrying four Amos with one Akira and Hanacha. The Yerushalmi answers: if he jumps four Amos (so, he travels four Amos without his feet touching the ground).

However, Tosfos says; the Bavli, that didn’t ask this question, must hold it’s not a question. Rather, since we learn from a Halacha L’Moshe M’sinai that you’re Chayiv for carrying four Amos; the very fact that the Torah makes someone Chayiv in this fashion, the Torah’s saying that in this aspect, a step is not considered as a Hanacha. It’s similar to the opinions who hold that an object that’s suspended over the ground (when it was thrown) is considered as if it landed on the ground, how can they ever say one’s Chayiv for throwing an object four Amos in a Reshus Harabim? We must say that, the very fact that the Torah makes it Chayiv, that it’s not considered a Hanacha in this aspect.

The Riva was in doubt: according to Ben Azai; if someone stops to rest within four Amos in Reshus Harabim, and then finishes carrying the rest of the four Amos, if he’s Chayiv. After all, once he says that stepping is not a Hanacha regarding carrying four Amos like he holds in all other cases, perhaps he holds that there is no longer a concept of making a Hanacha within carrying four Amos. Also, if after he passes four Amos, if he didn’t stop and someone takes the object from him, is he Chayiv. Perhaps, Ben Azai doesn’t hold that every step is considered a Hanacha by carrying four Amos, or does he only say that within the four Amos since it’s impossible otherwise, but afterwards, since it’s possible, he’ll hold that you’re Chayiv as soon as you step out of four Amos.

Also, according to the one who holds a suspended object is usually considered as if it’s resting, but we don’t say it by throwing four Amos in a Reshus Harabim; do we say that they don’t say it at all, and even when the object passes four Amos, we don’t say that it’s considered landed then either and is not Chayiv until it actually lands.]

27) The side of the street; the Rabanan say that it has the status of a Karmulas and R’ Eliezer held that it has the status of a Reshus Harabim. The Gemara concludes that the argument is only if there aren’t pegs to differentiate between the street and its side. However, if there are pegs, then everyone will consider it to be a Karmulas. [According to one answer in Tosfos, R’ Pappa argues and holds that R’ Eliezer holds it’s a Reshus Harabim even with pegs.]

28) R’ Yehuda says that you only need two walls to make a Reshus Hayachid. Therefore, if you have two houses on opposite sides of the Reshus Harabim; you can put a Lechi (a pole) or a Koreh (a crossbeam) on both of the open sides and make an Eiruv in between. [Tosfos asks: it says in Eiruvin that R’ Yehuda didn’t allow if the openings are greater than thirteen and a third Amos, and a street isn’t a Reshus Harabim unless it’s sixteen Amos wide. Tosfos answers: he only rabbinically needs it to be less than thirteen and a third Amos, but he agrees from the Torah it’s permitted even if it’s sixteen Amos wide. {R’ Akiva Eiger asks: it would seem that R’ Yehuda allows L’chatchila to carry in this Reshus Harabim since he says that you make an Eiruv.}] However, the Rabanan say that you can’t make an Eiruv by a Reshus Harabaim like this; and it’s not even a Reshus Hayachid from the Torah, and if you throw from a Reshus Harabim into it (within four Amos), you’re Patur.

29) Pasei Beiros (boards surrounding a wellspring, we consider the Amah wide boards on the corner as a Mechitza around the wellspring, despite having a lot more airspace between the boards than the length of the boards themselves). Although we don’t usually consider this a Reshus Hayachid to allow carrying in it, they allowed it when necessary for a Mitzva, like for the people traveling to Yerushalayim to be Olei Regel, so that they can draw water for their animals). R’ Yehuda says: if the traffic flow goes through them, you need to detour them around the Pasei Beiros so that the public traffic doesn’t make the Mechitzos null and void. However, the Rabanan don’t need them to detour, since they don’t hold that the traffic makes the Mechitzos null and void.

30) When the Jews lived in the desert, the desert was considered as a Reshus Harabim. However, nowadays, when they don’t live there, it’s a Karmulas. [Tosfos infers from here: it seems that you need six hundred thousand people there to consider the street a Reshus Harabim.]

31) We found a hidden scroll that had written in it that one Melacha doesn’t have the death penalty on it when done on purpose, [although they all obligate a Chatos when done forgetfully.] However, we’re not in doubt that carrying from one domain to another is that one Melacha. Rather, someone definitely gets the death penalty if he transgresses carrying.

Daf 7

32) A corner (off the Reshus Harabim that was formed by someone leaving off some land when he built his house), has a status of a Karmulas. Although the public goes into it when there is a lot of traffic in the street, still, since it’s not an easy use for the public, it gets a status of a Karmulas.

33) There is an Amoraic argument whether between the vertical beams in the marketplace (where the merchants hang up their wares) that aren’t parallel to each other (which doesn’t make a straight path, but just placed haphazardly) and the traffic can’t walk easily through it. One held that it has a status of a Karmulas since it’s not a straight path for people to walk through. The other held that it’s a Reshus Harabim since traffic sometimes go through it. Alternatively, since it’s relatively easy to go through it. [Tosfos asks: how can it be a Reshus Harabim since there is no sixteen Amos between the beams? Tosfos answers: since there are sixteen Amos streets on both sides of this area, it’s a Reshus Harabim since the public passes through this to get from one sixteen Amos street to another.] However, platforms next to the beams are definitely something that people don’t travel over since it’s hard to walk over it; so, everyone agrees they’re a Karmulus.

34) A brick that’s stood upon its side; if you throw a sticky object that sticks to the side of the brick, you’re Chayiv. [Tosfos says: R’ Tam holds that you’re only Chayiv if it’s above three Tefachim from the ground if the surface of the brick is four Tefachim squared. After all, any surface less than that is a Makum Patur. However, the Riva says that you’re Chayiv even if its surface is less than four, since it’s suspended above the ground, we consider it as if it’s on the ground’s surface that’s more than four Tefachim. However, the Ri disagrees. After all, the Gemara originally spent a lot of time to answer why you’re Chayiv when you place an object in your friend’s hand even though it’s not four Tefachim wide. Why didn’t it just answer that he held it in a way that it’s suspended over the floor and it’s as if it landed on the floor that’s four Tefachim wide. So, we must say that it’s not considered resting on the ground if it’s suspended above the ground.]

35) If it lands on top of the brick, if it’s three Tefachim high, you’re Patur since people wouldn’t step on top of this tall brick when walking in the Reshus Harabim. Abaya and Rava says that you’re Patur even if you throw it on top of thorns that are less than three Tefachim high since the public won’t step on them either. R Chiya b. Rav says that you’re Chayiv since people with sandals may step on the thorns, but you’re Patur if it lands on dung less than three Tefachim high because nobody will step on it. R’ Ashi says you’re Chayiv even if it lands on dung. After all, you’re Chayiv as long as it’s not three Tefachim high.

36) A Karmulas has the leniencies of both a Reshus Harabim an Reshus Hayachid. It only goes up until ten Tefachim above the ground like a Reshus Harabim. As we say that, if you throw a sticky object on the face of a wall in a Reshus Harabim, you’re only Chayiv if it sticks within ten T’fachim from the ground, but not above ten. It’s only a Karmulas if it’s four Tefachim wide just like a Reshus Hayachid. However, less than that would be a Makom Patur.

37) If you have a small house that the interior is not ten Tefachim high, but combining with the thickness of the roof, it’s ten Tefachim tall, then it’s a Reshus Hayachid on the roof, but a Karmulas inside the house. However, if you dig a four Tefachim squared hole in the ground to make it ten Tefachim, we consider that hole to be a Reshus Hayachid. [Tosfos explains: this is not similar to a Sukka where you need the hole to be within three Tefachim next to the walls, since there you need the complete Mechitza of the Sukka to be near the S’chach, and by Shabbos, you just need it to be a Mechitza, so the hole doesn’t need to be within three Tefachim of the walls.] The rest of the house is a “crevice opened up to a Reshus Hayachid” that has the status of a Reshus Hayachid.

38) However, a “crevice opened up to a Reshus Harabim;” Abaya says that it has a status as a Reshus Harabim too. It’s not similar to the case that the house left over a corner [Tosfos: or, according to the Rabanan, the side of a street]; since it’s easier for the public to use the crevice than those areas. However, Rava says that it doesn’t have the status of a Reshus Harabim, but of a Karmulas.

39) The Gemara asks: according to Abaya; why did R’ Yochanan say the case of throwing an item four Amos on a wall below ten Tefachim in a Reshus Harabim is Chayiv refers to a case of a sticky fig that sticks to the side of the wall? Why doesn’t he say that it went into a crevice in the hole? The Gemara answers: he’d rather not say this case since it probably would bounce out of the crevice. Alternatively, the other case in the Mishna, that if it was thrown above ten Tefachim he’s Patur, wouldn’t be that simple since he might have thrown it into a Reshus Hayachid. After all, although the crevice isn’t four Tefachim wide and wouldn’t seem to be a Reshus Hayachid, it would depend on the argument between the Rabanan and R’ Meir whether you say that we look at the wall as it’s chiseled out around the crevice. So, according to R’ Meir, we look at if the crevice is four Tefachim wide and is a Reshus Hayachid, and he’s Chayiv for throwing there.

[Tosfos points out: the Gemara in Eiruvin holds that R’ Meir needs to have some start of the Shiur to look as if the rest of the Shiur is chiseled out. If you have an arched door, R’ Meir only holds that you’re obligated to put a Mezuza if the door is high ten, and the bottom three Tefachim is wide four, then we say that you view the rest chiseled until it’s wide four for the whole height of ten Tefachim. Therefore, we must say that the crevice is much wider in the area facing the Reshus Hayachid, like how the builders make it when they make a wall, and there it’s four Tefachim wide; and you just need to chisel out the side of the crevice facing the street to four Tefachim.

The reason why R’ Yochanan can’t give a case where the crevice is less than four on both sides; because most crevices are made to be wide on the other side. Alternatively, if so, you won’t be Chayiv if it was thrown below ten. After all, granted that it has the status of a Reshus Harabim, but it doesn’t have the Shiur of four Tefachim to be Chayiv if it lands on it.]

40) R’ Chisda says: if you stuck a pole in a Reshus Hayachid, even if it’s a hundred Amos high, you’re Chayiv if you throw an object on it from the Reshus Harabim. Even though it’s so high, it’s still a Reshus Hayachid, since a Reshus Hayachid extends all the way to heaven.

Daf 8

40a) You don’t need to say that it depends on the argument between the Rabanan and Rebbi concerning throwing an object that landed on a small branch on a tree. After all, we don’t need to say that they argue about a tree that’s completely in a Reshus Hayachid and they argue whether you need a four Tefachim surface in the Reshus Hayachid or not. Rather, we can say that everyone holds that it doesn’t need it. However, we refer to a case where the branch sticks out to the Reshus Harabim. Rebbi holds that you’re Chayiv since we say that the branch follows the trunk, and the Rabanan hold that he’s Patur since it doesn’t follow the trunk.

41) [Tosfos asks: the Gemara earlier seems to say that a Reshus Hayachid needs to be four Tefachim wide, and therefore if it lands in a hole in a wall above ten Tefachim that’s not four Tefachim wide is Patur (unless we view the wall is chiseled out until it’s four Tefachim squared). Tosfos answers: the reason for R’ Chisda is because he views the whole Reshus Hayachid as if it’s filled and it’s as if there is four Tefachim of surface surrounding this pole. However, that’s not applicable to say in the thickness of a wall.]

42) Abaya says: if you throw a beehive-shaped (i.e., circular) basket into the street, if it’s six Tefachim wide, (which is enough to have an area of four Tefachim squared in the circle), you’re Patur. If it’s less, than you’re Chayiv. [Rashi says: since it’s the dimensions of a Reshus Hayachid, it’s not similar to how they throw items in the Mishkon, since they didn’t throw domains there, only objects. However, Tosfos explains: that it’s like you threw from one Reshus Hayachid to another, since, when it lands, it becomes a Reshus Hayachid. Although it’s going over a Reshus Harabim, even if it’s the same side of the street, you’re not Chayiv for Moshit, since you’re only Chayiv by placing an object in the second Reshus Hayachid, but not by throwing. Even though the Mechitzos to make it into a Reshus Hayachid and the Hanacha is done simultaneously, you must say that Abaya holds that it’s never consider a true Akira or Hanacha in any domain if the domain changes simultaneously. This is why Abaya held later (in the eleventh Perek) if you throw a mat and it falls into a pit and divides it so that either side is not four Tefachim wide anymore, he’s not Chayiv.] Rava says he’s Patur even if it’s not six Tefachim wide. After all, there must be some loose wickets by the rim that extends above ten Tefachim, and thus, the whole object is not in the Reshus Harabim, that doesn’t extend above ten Tefachim. [Tosfos says: however, Abaya still holds he’s Chayiv since he doesn’t consider those loose wickets to be of any importance to be considered as part of the basket.]

[Rashi says that it doesn’t need to be exactly six Tefachim, (since the diameter of the circle is two fifths extra than the square it circumscribes). Therefore it’s enough if it’s five and three fifths Tefachim wide. However, Tosfos quotes R’ Chananel that you need it to be six Tefachim wide, since the five and three fifths is needed for the basket’s airspace. However, you need an extra fifth of a Tefach on both sides for the basket’s walls. Still, you don’t need it to be above ten (in order to have an airspace of ten T’fachim in the basket). Although you’ll need to combine the bottom of the basket to consider it ten Tefachim high; still we say that the five Tefachim wall on a hill combines to the five Tefachim of the side of the hill to make a ten Tefachim Mechitza. However, Tosfos concludes not like R’ Chananel, since we say that the thickness of the walls of a well can combine to the airspace of the well to be four Tefachim to make a Reshus Hayachid since you can place a board on top and you’ll have a four Tefachim surface that you can use.]

43) If you turn over the basket; Abaya says that you’re Chayiv if it’s seven Tefachim high, [Rashi explains: if it’s not six Tefachim wide, since it won’t be above ten Tefachim] even with Lavud [that we say anything within three Tefachim is considered connected], but Patur if it’s seven and a half Tefachim [or even a little extra than seven that, when it’s bottom is a little bit within three Tefachim from the ground, we would say it’s connected, and, at that point, its top is a little above ten Tefachim].

[However, Tosfos says that we refer to it being six Tefachim wide, or else you wouldn’t say Lavud if it doesn’t make it into a Reshus Hayachid. When it’s seven Tefachim high, we don’t say Lavud, since we only say Lavud when you have a Mechitza, and the inside is not ten T’fachim high to make it into a Mechitza to say Lavud. (However, if you would say Lavud you would be Patur since the walls would make the top of the basket’s turned-over bottom as a Reshus Hayachid since the roof and walls combine to ten Tefachim.) A proof to this: that in the first case, where the basket is facing upwards, you need it to be ten Tefachim high and we don’t say that it could be less and it’s still a Reshus Hayachid because it’s ten Tefachim when it gets within three Tefachim from the ground. However, if it’s over seven, it’s ten Tefachim Mechitos in the inside with Lavud, therefore it’s a Reshus Hayachid then, and is considered as it’s touching the ground through Lavud, and it’s as if it had a Hanacha at that moment. Therefore, it doesn’t matter that a second later it falls to the ground and it’s no longer a Mechitza and it falls into the Reshus Harabim.]

44) However, R’ Ashi says that he’s Chayiv in all cases, since the walls of the basket were made to put things in and, not to be upside down to be used as a Mechitza, therefore, we never say Lavud by it.

45) If you have a stand in the Reshus Harabim that’s nine Tefachim high, and the public uses it to temporary rest their burden on; it has the status of a Reshus Harabim. Despite the fact that people don’t step on it, it’s a Reshus Harabim since it’s fit for people to rest their burdens, but this doesn’t apply to anything below nine Tefachim. [Tosfos holds that this applies to any height from nine Tefachim until ten Tefachim.]

46) A hole nine Tefachim deep; Abaya says that it has the status of a Reshus Harabim since it could be used in a time of need (to keep your package in temporarily), and using it in a time of need is considered a public using to make it into a Reshus Harabim. However, Rava holds it’s not a Reshus Harabim since something that’s only good to use in a time of need is not considered a public using. This is also inferred from a Mishna that says twice “a pool in the street that the public goes through is a Reshus Harabim” that only a place where you would only walk in a time of need is considered a Reshus Harabim and not only an area that you can use to place things in a time of need.

47) Rebbi holds that they didn’t prohibit rabbinical Shabbos decrees during Bein Hashmashes.

48) If you pick up one side of a bundle of reeds and throw it over, and repeat many times until you have moved it four Amos in a Reshus Harabim, you’re Patur. After all, you have another Hanacha by every picking up and throwing down. [Tosfos points out: even though, since it’s heavy, it’s normal to transfer the bundle in this fashion. This only applies here where it stops a moment in between. However, if you drag it four Amos without stopping, you’re Chayiv. Similarly, if you roll a barrel four Amos in a Reshus Harabim you’re Chayiv, since it’s similar to being dragged. However, if you’re turning over a square box, then you’re Patur, since it’s impossible for it not to rest momentarily between each turn of each side.]

49) If you have a threshold that’s a Makum Patur (over three Tefachim high, but not four Tefachim wide) that’s between a Reshus Harabim and a Reshus Hayachid; the people in the street can rest their packages there, and so can those from the Reshus Hayachid; as long as they don’t exchange it (that a person from the street put it down on the threshold and the person inside takes it). Similarly, someone standing on it may take an object from someone on either side, as long as he doesn’t take it from one of them and give it to the other one. However, if he did, all three of them are Patur (since it didn’t go straight from the Reshus Harabim to Reshus Hayachid, but rested in the Makum Patur in between).

The Gemara asks from this on Rava who says that you’re Chayiv if you pass an object over four Amos in a Reshus Harabim even though you passed it over you [Rashi explains: above you, even though it’s passing above ten T’fachim from the ground, which is a Makum Patur. However, Tosfos asks: if so, why ask a question from the Braisa of a threshold when you can bring a proof from the Rabanan we quoted earlier that you’re Chayiv if you carried from a Reshus Hayachid through a Karmulas to a Reshus Harabim. Also, the Gemara in Eiruvin brings a proof to Rava from the Mishna: you can stand in a Reshus Hayachid and move an object in a Reshus Harabim, as long as you don’t move it pass four Amos. According to Rashi; how does this prove anything of carrying above ten T’fachim? Rather, the Gemara thought the reason he’s Patur is because, since he passed it across his body, when it gets to his body, we consider it as a Hanacha. Therefore, how can Rava say that he’s Chayiv when he crosses the object past his body, since that would be a Hanacha within four Amos.] The Gemara answers: in Rava’s case; he didn’t make a Hanacha. [Tosfos explains: by the threshold, the middle person actually held it there for a while, therefore, it’s a Hanacha.]

 Daf 9

51) Rav holds: the fourth wall of a courtyard works as a Lechi (vertical pole) to permit the courtyard, since it’s a protruding wall that covers part of the courtyard’s width. Still, you need another Lechi to permit carrying in the opening, between the two sides of the fourth wall, even if it’s not four Tefachim wide. [Tosfos explains; the Gemara in Eiruvin says (if the opening is not four Tefachim wide) then; Rava holds that you only need another Lechi if it’s open to a Karmulas. Therefore, since the opening has the same status of a Karmulas, but it doesn’t have the dimensions to make it into a Karmulas, it combines with the area outside to make it more than four Tefachim. However, if it’s open to a Reshus Harabim, since it remains a Karmulas that’s not four Tefachim wide, it’s a Makum Patur and doesn’t need a Lechi. However, Abaya held that you need a Lechi even if it’s open to a Reshus Harabim.]

52) Acheirim says that there is a threshold that you can carry on if the door is open, but it’s forbidden to carry on it when it’s closed. We must say that it’s not a case where the threshold is between the two Lechis on both sides, for then, it will be forbidden even if the doors are open [Tosfos: and we don’t say that the area is Batul to the courtyard when the door is open], like Rav said. [Tosfos says; we can’t establish the case is that the threshold is before a Reshus Harabim according to Rava, or even according to Abaya if the threshold is three Tefachim high, (which you’ll be able to carry on the threshold); since then it would be permitted even if the door was closed.]

53) Rav establishes the case: it’s by an alleyway that has a Tefach crossbeam over the inner side of the threshold. When the door is open, it’s considered part of the alleyway that’s permitted with the crossbeam (according to the opinion that you can carry directly under the crossbeam). [Tosfos says: even though the alleyway doesn’t need the crossbeam to permit it, since there is a door on the fourth wall; still, since it could be permitted with the crossbeam, and you wouldn’t need the door; we can say it’s part of the alleyway.] However, when the door is closed, it cuts off the crossbeam from the alleyway. Also, there is no four Tefachim from under the crossbeam to the wall to say we can view the outer surface of the crossbeam as if it comes down to create a Mechitza. However, if the crossbeam was placed over the outer part of a four Tefachim threshold, we would have a four Tefachim area to view the outer surface of the crossbeam as if it comes down to create a Mechitza.

54) R’ Ashi explains Acheirim: he refers to a threshold before a house. The house has two disconnected beams above it, each one being not four Tefachim wide by itself, (which you can’t say Pi Tikra, i.e., we view the surface of the covering to extend downwards creating a Mechitza. However, since they’re within three Tefachim of each other, we say Lavud, as if they’re attached, and together, they’re four Tefachim wide, and we say Pi Tikra. Therefore, when the door is open, we can say Lavud between the boards, which creates a Pi Tikra, and the threshold is now within this Mechitza. However, if you close the door, it makes a separation between the two boards, and we can’t say Lavud, so there is no Pi Tikra and no Mechitza for the threshold. However, if the board itself is four Tefachim wide, then we always say Pi Tikra even when the door is closed.

55) R’ Meir forbids carrying from the ground of a courtyard to a stand (ten Tefachim high and four Tefachim wide) in it, although they’re both a Reshus Hayachid; since you might come to carry from the floor of the Reshus Harabim to a stand (which is carrying to a Reshus Hayachid). [Tosfos says that this is only so by a stand that doesn’t have defining Mechitzos. However, you can carry from a ground floor in a house to the second floor. Also, this Gezeira is only for something that’s embedded in the ground, like a stand, or a millstone, but not if it’s a tall movable object. Tosfos concludes: It seems from the Gemara in Eiruvin that the Halacha is not like R’ Meir, although we usually follow his decrees.]