Torah Community Connections

Week 6 - Thursday - 6 Jan. 2000

SHABBAT: CHAPTER 11: MISHNA 2

How? Two balconies, on opposite sides of the public domain, if a person hands over or throws from one to the other, he is exempt. If both of them were in one row, one who stretches forth is liable, but one who throws is exempt, for thus was the service of the Levites: there were two wagons, one behind the other, in the public domain, they stretched forth the boards from one to the other, but they did not throw. The rim of the well and the rock which are ten high and their width is four, if one takes from them and puts on top of them he is liable. Less than this he is exempt.

Kehati

This mishnah is the continuation of the preceding, and is the conclusion of the words of the Sages there.

How - is the person who throws from a private domain to another private domain, with the public domain in between them, exempt? The version of this mishnah in the Jerusalem Talmud omits the word “How?” I.e., according to the Jerusalem Talmud, this mishnah is not a continuation of the preceding, for the preceding mishnah deals, with the case of one who throws at a height of under ten tefahs (see the explanation above concerning the disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages), while this mishnah deals with one person who throws or stretches forth to a height of more than ten tefahs.

Two balconies - that extend into the public domain, yet each is a private domain, on opposite sides of on the two sides of, the public domain and the width of the public domain separates them, if a person hands over or throws from one to the other whether a person stretches something forth from one balcony to the other or throws from one balcony to the other, he is exempt the thrower is exempt for the reason explained above. According to the Sages, that which is enveloped is not regarded as set down. One who stretches something forth is exempt because though in the building of the Tabernacle boards were indeed stretched forth from one wagon to another, as will be explained in this mishnah below, but not in these circumstances where the width of the public domain separates the two private domains; therefore this sretching forth does not entail liability.

If both of them - the balconies, were in one row of buildings along the public domain, one who stretches forth - something from balcony to balcony, is liable - even if he stretches forth above a height often fefahs, but one who throws is exempt - even if the object passed through the air-space of the public domain at a height of less than ten tefahs (as was explained in the preceding mishnah). The reason for this law is as follows: for thus was the service of the Levites - in the Tabernacle in the wilderness, there were two wagons, one behind the other, in - i.e., along the length of, the public domain, they stretched forth the boards of the Tabernacle from one to the other - from one wagon to the next. A wagon is a private domain, for it was ten tefahs high. Thus they stretched a board forth from a private domain to

another private domain, at a height of more than ten tefahs, with the length of the public domain in the middle. The Sages learned from this that the person who stretches forth from one balcony to another in one row, even at a height of more than ten tefahs, is liable. If, however, a person stretches forth from one balcony to another, with the width of the public domain between them, he is exempt, for such a stretching forth was not done in the work of the Tabernacle (as has already been explained, the types of activity prohibited on Shabbat are derived from the activities engaged in in the Tabernacle);

but they did not throw - they would not throw the boards, because of their weight; or, according to another opinion, because of their sanctity. Therefore, the person who throws, in either case, is exempt. Hameiri further explains that by strict law one who stretches forth should be exempt, because he is higher than ten tefahs. He is declared liable only because this work was performed in the Tabernacle; therefore, his liability is restricted to that of stretching forth which was performed in the Tabernacle.

The rim of the well - in the public domain. When a well is dug, the earth which is dug up is left around it as a rim. This earth is called “the rim of the well.” This mishnah teaches that if the well itself is not ten tefahs deep, and the rim completes this measure, and or, the rock in the public domain which are ten tefahs high and their width is four tefahs, i.e., in the case of the well which together with its rim is ten tefahs deep, and four tefahs wide, and similarly the rock that is ten tefahs high and four tefahs wide. According to one interpretation, “The rim of” also refers to the rock, i.e., that in the case of the rock, too, the rim around the mound completes the rock’s height to a total often tefahs(Hameiri). According to yet another interpretation, the mishnah refers to the rim itself, that it itself is ten tefahs high, and similarly, the rock, Rabbeinu Hananel)’. if one takes from them - and sets down in the public domain, and or, if he takes from the public domain and puts on top of them - he is liable - for their legal status is as a private domain. If they are less than this - If they are less than four tefahs wide, or if they are lower than ten tefahs, he - one who takes from or one who puts on them, is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, for their legal status is not as a private domain but as a karmelit. If the height of the rock or the depth of the well is less than three tefahs, then they are part of the public domain in which they are located.

The above explanation, “for their legal status is not as a private domain but as a karmelit” applies only to those cases which are lower than ten tefahs but have a width of four tefahs. If, however, their width is less than four tefahs, they have the legal status of a makorn patur (see glossary).

SHABBAT: CHAPTER 11: MISHNA 3

If one throws a distance of four amot against the wall, above ten tefahs - it is as one who throws in the air; below ten tefahs - it is as one who throws onto the ground. If one throws onto the ground four amot, he is liable. If he threw within four amot and it rolled outside four amot, he is exempt; outside of four amot and it rolled within four amot, he is liable.

Kehati

As has been mentioned (see the Introduction to the Tractate), carrying an object four amot on Shabbat within the public domain has the same legal status as carrying from one domain to another, and one who does so unintentionally must bring a sin-offering, and if done intentionally is liable to the death penalty if done in the presence of witnesses. The Sages learned this from an oral tradition (“they know it by tradition” Shab. 96b). This liability also applies to one who throws an object a distance of four amot within the public domain, because this is a derivative of carrying from one domain to another. This mishnah deals with the detailed laws regarding the person who throws within the public domain.

If one throws an object a distance of four amot in the public domain, and it struck against the wall, above ten tefahs - the Gemara explains that this refers to one who threw a thick fig cake, and it stuck to the wall, at a height of more than ten tefahs, it is as one who throws in the air -who is exempt, for the air-space in the public domain at a height greater than ten tefahs is a makorn patur, but if the fig cake stuck to the wall at a height below ten tefahs it is as one who throws four amot onto the ground - in the public domain, if one throws onto the ground four amot - in the public domain, he is liable - for this is the same as carryng an object four amot in the public domain. These throwing cases are derivatives of carrying. The Gemara (Shab. 99b) explains that this mishnah teaches that even though the distance from the place from where the object was thrown to the wall is only exactly four amot, we do not say that because of the thickness of the figs the distance of the throwing is decreased by the thickness of the figs and since this is now less than four amot he is exempt; but we say that since the figs are not extensions of the wall, the thickness of the figcake does not decrease the effective distance between the thrower and the wall. If he threw within four amot - he intended that the object thrown by him should fall within a distance of four amot, and it rolled outside four amot - from the place where he threw, he is exempt because he did not intend to throw a distance of four amot. Some explain the case as one where the object first landed within the four amot, and therefore its subsequent rolling does not make him liable (Hameiri)’, if he threw outside of four amot and it rolled within four amot - the Gemara explains that this refers to where the object landed on something beyond the four amot before it rolled, he is liable -if, however, it did not come to rest at all, he is exempt (Rambarn). According to another opinion, even if it did not come to rest on something, but rather was delayed a bit in the air-space by the wind, and afterwards rolled within the four amot, he is liable (Rashi).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives