MISHNAH: If one throws from a private domain to the public domain or from the public domain to a private domain, he is liable. From a private domain to another private domain when a public domain is between them, Rebbi Aqiba declares him liable [Under certain conditions as discussed in the Halakhah.] but the Sages declare him not liable [Since motion requires start and finish, they consider it a Sabbath violation only if either one of start or finish was in a private and the other in the public domain or both in the public domain at a distance greater than 4 cubits.] .
HALAKHAH: “If one throws from a private domain,” etc. Throwing is a derivative of transporting [This sentence is the answer to the obvious question, why is a Chapter devoted to throwing when throwing was not listed among the 39 categories of forbidden work? Babli 96b.] .
Is there no difference, whether according to his [As follows from the sequel, the question is about interpreting R. Aqiba’s position, where there is a dispute between Rebbi (referred to as “he”) and the majority of the rabbis of his generation.] opinion or that of the rabbis, only if it came to rest from a public domain into a private domain? In Rebbi’s opinion, even if it did not come to rest [Since the airspace over a private domain belongs to that domain up to an indeterminate height, Rebbi considers the entry of an object into this airspace as valid delivery; the rabbis read the statement that “a person’s courtyard acquires for him” to refer only to the soil, not to the airspace over it. The disagreement essentially refers to matters of civil law; its applicability to the laws of the Sabbath is questioned later in the paragraph. (Šabbat 1 Note 107, Babli 4a, 5a, Giṭṭin 79a). In the Babli (4b) it is stated that one who threw from a public domain to another over a private domain is not liable for the Sages but twice liable for Rebbi. Since the Yerushalmi does not quote this statement, it cannot be presupposed here.] ; in the rabbis’ opinion, only if it came to rest. For Rebbi Abba bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Rebbi declared liable only for a private domain which was roofed [Babli 4a/5b. An object is delivered into a courtyard only if it comes to rest on the ground. But delivery to a house is effected the moment the object is in the house since even the air in the house is considered soil. For this rule, “house” is any covered place even if it has no walls.] . The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies, even if it was not roofed, [From here on the text is copied from Giṭṭin 8:3 (ט, Notes 54–57). The topic of divorce at the end is referred to as “here”.] for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions [This refers to the last sentence in Mishnah Giṭṭin 8:3. If the husband throws the bill of divorce from his roof to her courtyard, it is possible to say that the bill was delivered the moment it cleared the roof only if the walls of the wife’s courtyard are higher than the husband’s roof. Otherwise it would be legally delivered only if the bill fell below the level of the courtyard walls. (The same argument is quoted in Samuel’s name in the Babli, Giṭṭin 79a.)] . Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up [Babli 4a/5b. An object is delivered into a courtyard only if it comes to rest on the ground. But delivery to a house is effected the moment the object is in the house since even the air in the house is considered soil. For this rule, “house” is any covered place even if it has no walls.] ? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion [The Babli agrees, Giṭṭin 79a, that the delivery of bills of divorce is governed by the rules of property rights, not those of the Sabbath.] . Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed? [For the rules of the Sabbath.] What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Ila said, about the Sabbath it is written: You shall not do any work [Ex. 20:10.] ; it may make itself automatically [Deut. 24:1.] . But here he shall deliver into her hand [Deut. 24:1.] , into her domain.
Samuel said, they taught this [The disagreement between R. Aqiba and the Sages about one who throws from one private domain to another over a public domain. In his opinion, R. Aqiba declares him liable because he holds that anything within 10 hand-breadths off the soil is as if it was resting; if the object passed within 10 hand-breadths off the soil it is as if it was exported from a private to the public domain and biblically forbidden.] only about lower than ten [hand-breadths]. Therefore higher than ten [hand-breadths] it is forbidden [Since it says “forbidden” but not “liable”, the prohibition is purely rabbinic, not biblical.] . The statement of Rebbi Eleazar implied that even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it is permitted [Rashba (Novellae ad 97a) reads: “The statement of Rebbi Eleazar implied even higher than ten [hand-breadths],” meaning that the dispute between the Sages and R. Aqiba is not dependent on the height on which the object passes over the public domain. He does not read “it is permitted”. But his (and a similar remark by Ritba ad 97a) cannot be taken as witness to the text since he is dependent on his teacher Nahmanides (Novellae Sabbath, ed. M. Herschler, col. 337–338) who does not read “it is permitted” in the quote from the Yerushalmi. But since he finds it necessary in an appendix to his Commentary to justify his not reading the clause it is clear that he amended the text. It follows that the medieval authors confirm the text as given in the ms. This does not mean that Nahmanides’s emendation as adopted by Rashba not be justified; it is required by the text which follows.] . For Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Aqiba learned from the carts [Since a situation like this never occurred in the service of the Tabernacle. The Merarites had four carts (Num. 7:8) to carry the planks which formed the walls of the Tabernacle. When the latter was disassembled the carts were lined up on both of its sides and loaded there; therefore it could happen that a plank was transferred from a cart to one parallel to it (as mentioned in the next Mishnah) but never from a cart to one parallel to it when they were separated by the public domain. The loading docks of the carts were more than ten hand-breadths high and four-by-four hand-breadths wide; this qualifies them as private domains. Since the Tabernacle was disassembled during decamping and the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle removed, the area in which the carts were standing reverted to the status of public domain. (Explanation of Maimonides.)] [In the Babli (92a, 97a) R. Eleazar derives the prohibition of carrying in the public domain from the work of the Kehatites who carried the contents of the Tabernacles on their shoulders (Num. 7:9).] ; and were the carts not higher than ten [hand-breadths] [Cf. Chapter 1, Notes 127–129.] ? Some Tannaim state “how is this” [In the first version, which is the text of our Mishnah, Mishnah 2 is a direct continuation of Mishnah 1 and an explanation of the last sentence in that Mishnah. In the second version the two Mishnaiot are not directly connected.] ; some do not state “how is this”. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion there is “how is this”, in Samuels’s opinion there is no “how is this”.
Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar asked: If one threw from a private domain to the public domain and remembered when it was over the public domain, in Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion it should be considered as if it rested in the public domain and he should be liable twice [The statement is elliptic since in Mishnah 7 it is stated that if one throws in oblivion of the Sabbath rules and recognizes his error while the object is in flight there cane be no liability for a purification sacrifice. Therefore one has to assume that there was only a fleeting consciousness of the Sabbath prohibition followed by another period of oblivion. Then for R. Aqiba the moment of recognition should be counted both as rest for a first and start for a second throw and there should be liability for two sacrifices. (Cf. Babli 4b where Rav Jehudah holds that R. Aqiba in the interpretation of Rebbi declares that there are two liabilities incurred by throwing from public domain to public domain over a private domain.)] . Rebbi Ḥuna said, Rebbi Aqiba made him liable only by means of the second private domain [Since anything can happen as long as the object did not come to rest (as described in Mishnah 7), there can be no liability created before this time.] .
Rebbi Abbahu says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one was standing in the public domain and threw higher than ten [hand-breadths]. One sees that if it fell down it would come to rest within four cubits he will not be liable, otherwise he will be liable [Even though it passed through exempt space.] . But did not Samuel state: From public domain to public domain with a private domain in the middle, one sees that if it fell it would come to rest within four cubits he will not be liable, otherwise he will be liable [The combined distance travelled over the second public domain must be more than 4 cubits.] . There, you are saying that public domain is not joining, but here you are saying that public domain is joining [Why travelling over private domain requires 4 cubits on the other side, with what happened on the other side being disregarded, while travelling through exempt space is no different from travelling over public domain?] ? Rebbi Ḥuna said, there where if it falls down the ground under it is private domain but here where if it falls down the ground under it is public domain [In the first case, if the object fell down in the private domain there would be no liability since the intention was to throw into the public domain while in the second case there is liability from the moment the projection of the trajectory onto the ground extends to over four cubits.] .
It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: One who threw four cubits in the public domain is liable [He denies that throwing is a derivative of transporting (Note 24). Babli 97b.] . Rebbi Jehudah considers four cubits in the public domain a separate category of work [If he transported from a domain to another by throwing he is twice liable, Babli 97b.] . In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion there are 40 categories of work: should we not state this? We come to state only things about which everybody agrees. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Joshia in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah learned this from those who were sewing the gobelins, for those sewing the gobelins were throwing the needles one to another [Babli 96b., Ex. 26:1–6. R. Jehudah must hold that throwing within 10 hand-breadths from the soil is transporting in the public domain.] . Is that not karmelit [Since the camp was organized as a private domain only after the Tabernacle was in service (Num. 2:1), in the period of construction of the Tabernacle they were dwelling in the desert; the space between the tents was karmelit. If the argument is correct then carrying in karmelit should be biblically prohibited and causing liability. This contradicts practice (Chapter 1, Note 73).] ? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they were throwing sideways [They threw outside of the tents in the public domain. The Babli 96b rejects the entire argument as impossible.] .
MISHNAH: How is this? Two balconies [Greek ἐξώστρα, ἡ “balcony, bridge between two towers (military)”, also Latin exostra. These are at least ten hand-breadths high and four-by-four hand-breadths wide on top, to constitute separate private domains.] one vis-a-vis the other in the public domain: one who hands over or throws from one to the other is not liable [Since a situation like this never occurred in the service of the Tabernacle. The Merarites had four carts (Num. 7:8) to carry the planks which formed the walls of the Tabernacle. When the latter was disassembled the carts were lined up on both of its sides and loaded there; therefore it could happen that a plank was transferred from a cart to one parallel to it (as mentioned in the next Mishnah) but never from a cart to one parallel to it when they were separated by the public domain. The loading docks of the carts were more than ten hand-breadths high and four-by-four hand-breadths wide; this qualifies them as private domains. Since the Tabernacle was disassembled during decamping and the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle removed, the area in which the carts were standing reverted to the status of public domain. (Explanation of Maimonides.)] . If they both were on the same floor [Greek δίαιτα, ἡ. Separate balconies on the same floor, extending over the public domain. If one hands over from one to the other one imitates the Merarites in the desert, which is counted as a Sabbath violation. But since the planks of the Tabernacles never were thrown, throwing from one balcony to an other cannot be sanctioned.] , the one who hands over is liable but the one who throws is not liable, for this [Handing over, not throwing.] was the service of the Levites. Two carts, one parallel to the other in the public domain: they [The Merarites (Note 4).] used to hand over from one to the other but did not throw. The enclosure of a cistern or a rock [Surrounded by public domain.] high ten [hand-breadths] and wide [In two directions so that the surface area of the enclosure or the top of the rock is at least 16 (hand-breadths).] four [hand-breadths]: one who takes from them or puts on them is liable, less than this he is not liable [If the height is less than ten hand-breadths the place is karmelit; if the surface area is insufficient the place is either karmelit or exempt space (Chapter 1, Note 109), depending on the height.] .
HALAKHAH: 2 [They threw outside of the tents in the public domain. The Babli 96b rejects the entire argument as impossible.] . Rav said, here [The first sentence in the Mishnah. For him reaching or throwing over a public domain through exempt space is both biblically and rabbinically permitted.] there is no “not liable” but “permitted”. In Rav’s opinion, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is permitted. In Samuel’s opinion, higher than ten [hand-breadths] is forbidden [Rabbinically. This is consistent with his opinion that Mishnah 2 is not a continuation of Mishnah 1.] . Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: on condition that the public domain surround it from all sides [The remark about the Levites’ carts should be read before this sentence (S. Liebermann), cf. Babli 99a. Since when camp was broken the carts were standing in the public domain, the difference between below and above ten hand-breadths biblically refers only to the situation of private domain surrounded on all sides by public domain. The opinion of R. Joḥanan can be valid only rabbinically.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even from one side. From these carts. Were the carts not higher than ten [hand-breadths] [Cf. Chapter 1, Notes 127–129.] ? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Maisha: only by two persons [Handing over an object from one private domain to another over public domain is biblically a Sabbath violation only if giver and recipient are two different persons, not if executed by one person alone.] . Everywhere you are saying, two persons acting together are not liable [Chapter 1, Notes 1,105; Chapter 10, 12c l. 47. Babli 3a.] , but here you are saying, two persons acting together are liable. There is a difference, because this was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting. What was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting? Two carts one parallel to the other in the public domain. They were handing the planks from one to the other but not throwing [Therefore throwing over the public domain never is a biblical violation in the interpretation of the Sages.] . Bar Qappara stated, not to treat the planks [In all medieval quotes of this sentence enumerated by Ratner and Liebermann one reads קדשים “sancta” for קרשים “planks”.] with contempt.
[This paragraph also is Eruvin 8 (Note 57, ז). The statement of R. Joḥanan also is quoted there in Chapter 1, Notes 178, 255, Chapter 7, Mote 44. Cf. Babli 99a.] Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and the hollow combine together (to ten) [This was written by the scribe both here and in the parallel and deleted both times. It is not written in the other quotes of R. Joḥanan. As explained in the next Note, one should follow S. Liebermann in treating the deletion as unnecessary.] to four, but only if what is standing is more than the hollow [This now refers to the second part of Mishnah 3 where it is stated that an elevated surface in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and four-by-four wide, constitutes a separate private domain. It is now stated that it is not necessary that the entire surface be solid material; if one has two walls standing close together, not only may one add the surface areas of the two tops to satisfy the requirement of 16 (hand-breadths), but one even may add the space between the two walls to the count. In the first formulation it only is required that the total solid surface area be larger than the hollow space added. This is the Babli’s formulation of similar cases in Eruvin. In this case it would seem that there be no occasion to mention “ten” since a wall cannot be built partially suspended without support. But the wall may be built partially solid and partially on thin pillars; this is the case considered frequently in Eruvin (e. g. Mishnah 1:9) and Sukkah (e. g. Mishnah 1:9). Therefore it is reasonable that the full text be quoted for the full statement but only the relevant statement about surface area when height is not considered a problem. Cf. Babli Eruvin 16a. The Yerushalmi clearly requires the solid part to be larger than the hollow.] . Rebbi Zeˋira asked, only if what is standing on each side is more? Rebbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rebbi Zeˋira that what is standing on one side only does not combine; it is obvious for him that (not) [Delete with the Eruvin text; the text here is a scribal error induced by the parallel preceding sentence.] one side must be more. He only questions even the second standing part [First, and this easily is read into R. Joḥanan’s statement, one really requires two walls with a hollow in between, not one almost sufficient wall to which one adds the hollow bordered by a virtual second side. In addition he requires that the surface area of the hollow be smaller than at least one of the solid surfaces. The only question is whether both bounding surfaces must be larger than the hollow part. In the latter case, the surface area of the hollow part must be strictly smaller than one-third of the total surface area.] .
“The enclosure of a cistern or a rock [Surrounded by public domain.] high ten [hand-breadths] and wide [In two directions so that the surface area of the enclosure or the top of the rock is at least 16 (hand-breadths).] four [hand-breadths].” Where do we hold [This does not refer to the sentence quoted but to its sequel: “less than this he is not liable.” The question is whether this means “less than 10 or less than 4” or “less than 10 and less than 4”.] ? If ten high (and four wide, it is a domain by itself. Ten high) [The text in parentheses was added by the corrector. As S. Liebermann has pointed out, this text is irrelevant for the topic here, it is a copy from Chapter 1, Notes 170–171.] but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Issi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways; on condition that he not exchange [Therefore the Mishnah should have said “permitted” instead of “not liable” which implies “prohibited but not prosecutable”.] . But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high. But did not Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, say, anything which hinders access in the public domain is called karmelit [Again the Mishnah should have mentioned “permitted”.] ? Rebbi Yudan said, what Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, said refers to the middle [Obviously one has to switch the places of “middle” and “on the side”, Chapter 1 Note 73. A bump in the middle of the public domain is not karmelit, but remains part of the domain. Cf. Babli Eruvin 94a.] , but on the side the public domain invalidates it [Obviously one has to switch the places of “middle” and “on the side”, Chapter 1 Note 73. A bump in the middle of the public domain is not karmelit, but remains part of the domain. Cf. Babli Eruvin 94a.] .
Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted [In the preceding discussion it was established that the Mishnah refers to a wall lower than ten and narrower than four hand-breadths which therefore is part of the public domain and the access to it is not restricted. The statements attributed here to R. Joḥanan are credited to Samuel in the Babli, 3a.] .” There [All the Mishnaiot quoted in the paragraph are from Idiut 2:5. The Mishnah lists three items about which R. Ismael said neither “permitted” nor “forbidden” and R. Matthew ben Ḥarash explained that each one has an aspect which is permitted and one which is forbidden.] , we have stated: “He who opens a boil on the Sabbath, if to make an opening he is liable, if to remove fluid he is not liable. [One who opens a boil on the Sabbath makes a wound, which is biblically forbidden. But if it is to remove the pus, the intent is not to make a wound, and following RR. Yose and Simeon there is no biblical prohibition (Chapter 2, Note 19). R. Joḥanan adds that in this case there is no rabbinic prohibition either.] ” Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.” There, we have stated: “One who catches a snake on the Sabbath, if he is active that it should not bite him he is not liable, if for medicine he is liable. [If there is a danger to life it is imperative that the snake be either caught or killed. There is no guilt involved in catching the snake; the expression “not liable” only is used as opposite of “liable” applicable if the snake is caught for the production of medicines.] ” Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.” There, we have stated: “About rural dishes [Greek λοπάς, -άδος, ἡ “dish, frying pan”. The spelling עִירוֹנִיּוֹת is found only here; in the other quote of the Mishnah in the Yeruishalmi, Beṣah 4:3, and in the Mishnah mss. the spelling is as indicated here by the scribe himself in the margin אִרוֹנִיּוֹת; in Babli Beṣah 32a חרניות “Hauran type vessels”. It may not be derived from Mishnaic Hebrew עִיר “village” but Greek ἀρουραῖος, -α. -ον, “from the country, rustic” (E.G.).] that they are pure in a tent with a corpse but impure if carried by a sufferer from gonorrhea. [Here the terms “not liable” and “liable” are not applicable; in a certain sense “permitted” (pure) and “forbidden” (impure) which were referred to in the introductory statement of the Mishnah are applicable. According to Rashi, Beṣah 32a, rural dishes are totally flat earthenware; according to Maimonides such a dish is formed as hollow ovaloid and after firing is sawed apart to produce two dishes. As long as it is not sawed apart it cannot become impure by the impurity of the dead which is inactive on tightly closed vessels or those which enclose no volume (Num. 19:15). Nevertheless it may become impure by being moved by a person whose impurity is caused by his own body.] ” Rebbi Zeˋira said, this is correct. If for a need, that is what we have stated, “if for medicine he is liable.” This implies that there is here no “not liable” but “permitted. [This argument is extremely elliptic. The example of the snake shows that it is impossible to read “not liable” in the Mishnah in its usual sense, “forbidden but not prosecutable”, as noted before. Also, in the last sentence, about rural dishes, “liable” and “not liable” are inapplicable. Therefore, also in the first case about the boil, where we have no corroborating evidence that opening it to remove the fluid is not forbidden rabbinically, by analogy one has to agree with R. Joḥanan that the act is permitted.] ”
MISHNAH: One who throws four cubits to a wall higher than ten hand-breadths [And the object thrown sticks to the wall in exempt space, higher than ten hand-breadths.] is like one who throws in the air, lower than ten hand-breadths is like one who throws on the ground [Since anything within ten hand-breadths of the ground in the public domain is in the public domain.] and one who throws four cubits on the ground is liable. One who threw less than four cubits and it rolled further than four cubits is not liable [If it touched the ground at a distance of less than 4 cubits the throw is completed; if afterwards it rolls on the ground, even though it is because of the impetus given by the thrower, this is not part of the throwing action as far as the laws of the Sabbath are concerned.] ; one who threw more than four cubits and it rolled back within four cubits is liable [As Rashi points out, this statement is necessary only for the case that the object reached farther than 4 cubits but was blown back before it touched the ground. If it touched the ground farther than 4 cubits the statement is a direct consequence of the preceding one as seen from Note 13.] .
HALAKHAH: 3. [Here begins discussion of Mishnah 4.] Our Mishnah applies if there is no hole there, but if there is a hole, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis. In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr, whether it is four by four or it is not four by four one considers the wall as carved out [The Mishnah implies that one may throw an object against a wall and it stays there. This is possible in two cases. Either the wall has a cavity where the object may come to rest or the object is sticky and clings at least temporarily to a vertical wall. The first alternative is discussed first. R. Meïr does not consider a hole which is a defect in the wall but one built into the wall as a window, where the wind may enter the house, which presents a narrow slit to the outside but is wide inside. If the width at the other end of the wall is 4 hand-breadths, he completes the trapezoidal shape of the base of the opening to a rectangle to which the rules of private domain do apply. The rabbis reject theoretical extensions of domains. Cf. Tosephta 10:9 (ed. Liebermann).] . In the rabbis’ opinion, if it is four by four one considers the wall as carved out, otherwise one does not consider the wall as carved out but as closed. [From here on to the end of this paragraph the text is from Kilaim 6:2, Notes 32–34, כ.] Rav Ḥisda said, if it extends [Taking מדד not as Biblical Hebrew “to measure”, but from Arabic مدد ،مدّ “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. Since the word is spelled identically both times, the likelihood of a scribal error is very small; the emendation of מודד to מורד proposed by the classical commentators and accepted by the editor of the ms. should be rejected.] slanting [Greek λοξός, -ή, -όν, adj., “slanting, crosswise”.] . 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 stuck [The 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 below [R. Ḥaggai refers to Mishnah Kilaim 6:2 where different crops on terraces one on top of the other are permitted only if the step between terraces is at least 10 hand-breadths. He 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 in Kilaim 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 (Sabbat 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 [here and Yerushalmi Eruvin 10 (Note 122); Babli Šabbat 7b, 100a, Eruvin 11b, 33b, 101b, Yoma 11b] considers any depression a separate domain excluded from exempt 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.
Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the place was inclined, as we have stated, “one who threw more than four cubits and it rolled beyond [This obviously is a misquote.] four cubits is liable.” There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only if it came to rest [There is no liability unless the object came to rest since it might either roll back into 4 cubits from its starting point or end up in karmelit. Babli 100a.] .
MISHNAH: One who throws four cubits in the ocean is not liable [Since the sea is karmelit (Chapter 1, Note 151).] . If there was a shallow spot in the water and a public thoroughfare passed through it, one who throws four cubits into it is liable [A ford used by travellers on a public road is part of the road and public domain.] . What is a shallow spot in the water? Less than ten hand-breadths. Shallow water [Not in the ocean. This statement seems to describe the original practice; the statement about a ford in the ocean is a consequence.] and a public thoroughfare passed through it: one who throws four cubits in it is liable.
HALAKHAH: 4 [Here starts discussion of Mishnah 5.] . Not only four cubits in the sea, but even if he threw across the entire sea he is not liable, since any sea is called karmelit.
And why was it stated twice [Where is the need for the wordiness of the Mishnah and the repetitous treatment of shallows? A different answer, referring to river fords, in the Babli 100b.] ? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, if there were two shallows, one which was used as a thoroughfare and one used by the public only in case of emergency. That you should not say, since the public are using it only in case of emergency it is not public domain but private domain [Clearly this should be “karmelit”.] , therefore it was necessary to say that it is public domain.
MISHNAH: He who throws from the sea to dry land, or from dry land to the sea, of from the sea to a ship, or from a ship to the sea [Following the rules of karmelit.] , or from one ship to another [Even though each ship is a separate private domain, the domains are separated by karmelit, not public domain. Therefore even Rebbi Aqiba must agree that no Sabbath violation can occur in this case.] is not liable. If ships are tied to one another one carries from one to the other; if they are not tied to one another, even though they be surrounded [By a fence or other ships.] , one does not carry from one to the other [This prohibition is rabbinic. If the ships are not tied together one has to worry that they might become separated by more than 4 cubits of karmelit sea. Even though carrying in or through karmelit cannot be sanctioned it still is rabbinically forbidden.] .
HALAKHAH: 5 [Here starts discussion of Mishnah 6, starting with the second sentence.] . Abba bar Rav Ḥuna said, it they are tied together with bast [Even if the tie-up is of flimsy material. Babli 100b, statement of Rav Huna.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only if they made an eruv [A symbolic mixing of food from both ships, following the rules of eruv applying if different dwellers share an apartment building or a courtyard common to several single family houses, as explained in Tractate Eruvin. Ships tied together are considered the equivalent of apartments occupied by different people in the same house.] . Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Immi, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. One said, if the distance between them is less than four [While the numerals here are in the feminine and represent cubits, they should be read in the masculine and represent hand-breadths.] ; but the other said, even if the distance between them is four [While the numerals here are in the feminine and represent cubits, they should be read in the masculine and represent hand-breadths.] . We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, even if they are not ten [hand-breadths] high, it is he who said, if the distance between them is less than four [hand-breadths] [Since no space less than four hand-breadths wide can define a separate domain, the two ships form one private domain. If the distance is at least four hand-breadths, they are separated by karmelit.] .
They wanted to say, he who said, if the distance between them is less than four [hand-breadths], even if they are not ten [hand-breadths] high. He who said, if they are ten [hand-breadths] high, even if the distance between them is four [If the decks of the ships are not ten hand-breadths above the surface of the water, one may move objects from one to the other only if they form a single domain as explained in the preceding Note. If the decks are higher than 10 hand-breadths, any traffic between the ships would be through exempt space since karmelit as derivative of the public domain also extends only up to 10 hand-breadths above the ground.] . Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, only if the airspace of karmelit be within ten [hand-breadths] [The remainder is exempt space.] .
[Tosephta 10:14 (ed. Liebermann).] “From a ship in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea into it. Rebbi Jehudah says, if its draught was more than ten hand-breadths but it does not extend higher than ten hand-breadths above the water one moves from it to the sea but not from the sea into it.” Rebbi Abbahu said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, why from it to the sea? Because it is not ten high. If it is so, even from the sea into it! Why from the sea into it is forbidden? Because it is ten deep. If it is so, even from it to the sea! Rebbi Abun said, why is it permitted from it to the sea? Because of danger [It is true that the rules are inconsistent but pumping water from the wooden ship back into the ocean is necessary to protect the lives of the people on the ship, and cannot be forbidden. Since the sea is karmelit, the prohibitions are rabbinical and therefore it is reasonable to permit all transport from ship to sea.] .
From a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths [This becomes a separate domain and transports from it to its surroundings are at least rabbinically forbidden. It is presumed that there be no dwelling (such as a light house) on the rock since a dwelling would make the rock an unrestricted private domain.] one transports neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it. If it was less than this it is permitted. What is the difference between a rock and a ship? A ship rises and falls [Therefore it may sometimes be higher and sometimes lower than ten hand-breadths.] ; a rock stays in its place. But is it not karmelit? Is it permitted to move on karmelit only four cubits? Rebbi Ila said, it refers to the beginning: “from a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it. [In the opinion of S. Liebermann, one has to add here the statement that on a rock higher than ten hand-breadths above the sea one may carry without restriction only if its surface area does not extend over more than two bet se’ah. A private domain either is for human dwelling when its size is not limited, or it is a corral for animals which is treated as private domain only up to the area for which two se ’ah of seed grain are needed, standardized as 5’000 square cubits (cf. Kilaim Chapter 1, Note 195), the size of the enclosed area of the Tabernacle.] ” If it was higher it becomes like a fence made for agriculture where inside one is permitted to transport only four cubits [A field reserved for agricultural use cannot be a private domain. It is asserted here that a barren rock has the same status, but this contradicts all previous and following statements. The sentence should be deleted..] . If it was lower one transports from it to the sea and from the sea onto it, and one transports up to two bet se’ah [As noted before, this clause must refer to a rock higher than 10 hand-breadths without a human dwelling. Babli Eruvin 67b.] . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, two adjacent karmeliot, may one transport from one to the other [Since the sea is karmelit and so is the rock which is less than ten hand-breadths high, does this prove that transporting between two distinct karmelit domains is not rabbinically restricted?] ? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since the sea surrounds it from all sides it is considered as a single karmelit [The low rock is part of the sea for the rules of the Sabbath. It seems that this implies that transporting between two distinct karmelit domains is prohibited. While this is not found in the Babli, it is asserted by R. Ḥananel ad 100b, also quoted in Raviah §233 (p. 323, n. 24; cf. the sources quoted there).] .
Rav Hamnuna said, on a board outside the ship which is not four [While the numerals here are in the feminine and represent cubits, they should be read in the masculine and represent hand-breadths.] wide one may sit and provide for his needs [Usually this means, to relieve himself. It is assumed that the deck of the ship is at least 10 hand-breadths high, which makes it a private domain. In the parallel of Babli 100b, the question is of drawing water from the river.] on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, if he had said an open box it would have been correct [To provide some privacy.] . Rebbi Abun said, one who wants to provide for a boat makes outside of three [hand-breadths] a plank which is not four [hand-breadths] wide and one considers it as if partitions rose. [In the medieval quotes of this passage (Naḥmanides and Rashba ad 100b) this is part of the preceding: “for R. Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rav Hamnuna.”] Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Because any three [hand-breadths] which are close to a partition are as if of the partition [This is a general principle accepted in both Talmudim. For example, a sukkah must have walls. It is completely acceptable that the walls be planks fixed to poles; between the planks and between the highest plank and the roof there may be spaces of up to three hand-breadths width. R. Abun recommends making an outhouse outside the ship but close enough so that it be counted as part of the private domain defined by the deck.] . Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar commanded Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, who was a mariner, to make for himself a deficient container [The quote in Sefer Haˋittim p. 53 switches the adjectives פְּתוּתה, פְּחוּתָה between box and container. The reading of the ms. is confirmed by Naḥmanides and Rashba.] .
MISHNAH: One who throws and remembers before it leaves his hand, if another person caught it, or a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable [The liability is for a purification sacrifice. Since such a sacrifice cannot be offered as a voluntary gift, all preconditions for it must be strictly satisfied. The first condition is that a prosecutable offense must have been committed; in this case that lifting, transporting, and depositing must be done by the same person (Chapter 1, Note 1). In the cases described in this sentence, the last condition is not satisfied. “It was burned” means burned in flight.] . If one threw with the intention of causing an injury whether on a human or an animal and he remembered before it caused an injury, he is not liable [A purification sacrifice is possible only for inadvertent offenses. If during the course of the action the subject became aware of the criminality of his deed, there can be no purification sacrifice] . This is the principle: All who are liable for a purification sacrifice are liable only if beginning and end were in error. If the beginning was unintentional but the end criminal or the beginning criminal and the end unintentional they are not liable unless beginning and end be unintentional.
HALAKHAH: 6 [Here starts discussion of Mishnah 9.] So is the Mishnah: “he acted intentionally. [After he realized that it was the Sabbath and that his throwing was a Sabbath violation he did not regret having thrown the object.] ” This is difficult. If somebody shot an arrow intending to kill a person, he was warned, and changed his intention; is that anything [The sequence in the question is not quite correct. A person was warned not to shoot another (a requirement for future prosecution), nevertheless he shot but while the arrow was in the air he regretted the act. The fact that his victim was killed when he no longer wished to kill him does not shield the perpetrator from prosecution and conviction. In the case of the Mishnah, one cannot see what influence a temporary consciousness of the criminality of the deed should have on the legal status of the act.] ? Finally you have to say that it was intentional [Therefore one has to agree with the correction, that after the person realized that he was throwing on the Sabbath he was satisfied with what he had done, and an act which is started in oblivion but completed in consciousness cannot be atoned for by a sacrifice.] .
Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, unintentionally a prohibition, intentionally a prohibition [In his opinion, only if both the unintentional and the intentional acts are forbidden as simple prohibitions is there no liability for a purification sacrifice, but if the unintentional act is under a simple prohibition and the intentional is a deadly sin punishable by extirpation a sacrifice is due. This opinion is not otherwise found in the Talmudim.] . Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, unintentionally extirpation, intentionally extirpation [This is the standard opinion, that a sacrifice is due only for sins for which the punishment is extirpation at least, and only if it was unintentional from beginning to end (ˋBabli 68b/69a, Yebamot 9a, Horaiot 8a, Ševuot 32b).] . Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, a support of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He blasphemes the Eternal and will be extirpated [Num. 15:31; the basic text which bars the intentional sinner from offering a purification sacrifice. The quote clearly is elliptic; in Sifry Num. 112 the restriction to sins punishable at least with extirpation is stated in the name of R. Aqiba.] . Think of it; even if he was intentional in a matter of extirpation and he was warned and is being flogged, may he bring a sacrifice [If the sin was under a simple prohibition if unintentional but subjects the perpetrator to extirpartion if intentional, if the act was prosecutable, he was flogged, and therefore is no longer subject to extirpation (Mishnah Makkot 3:17), should he still be liable for a sacrifice for the simple prohibition involved? This we never heard; therefore the position of R. Yose ben Ḥanina is untenable.] ? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was unintentional about fat but intentional about the purification sacrifice one warns him and he is flogged [This sentence must read: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was intentional about fat but unintentional about the purification sacrifice one warns him and he is flogged (Terumot 6:1, Notes 5,6; Bava qamma 7:3, Note 29, Ševuot 3:1, Note 9).] .
It was stated: One experiments [One acts without a particular aim.] neither with fat nor with incest or adultery. One who experiments on the Sabbath is not liable, with fat or with incest or adultery is liable. How is this? If he said, “am going to harvest the volume half of a dried fig” and then he harvested the volume of a dried fig, he is not liable. “I am going to eat half the volume of an olive” and ate the volume of an olive; he is liable. “I am going to arouse myself by her” and then touched her [His genitals touched the forbidden female’s genitals (Yebamot 4:2 Note 59, 6:1 Note 11).] ; he is liable.