משנה: כֵּיצַד שְׁנֵי גְזוּזְטְרָאוֹת זוֹ כְנֶגֶד זוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים הַמּוֹשִׁיט וְהַזּוֹרֵק מִזּוֹ לָזוֹ פָּטוּר. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן בִּדְיַיְטִי אַחַת הַמּוֹשִׁיט חַייָב וְהַזּוֹרֵק פָּטוּר שֶׁכָּךְ הָֽיְתָה עֲבוֹדַת הַלְוִיִּם. שְׁתֵּי עֲגָלוֹת זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מוֹשִׁיטִין אֶת הַקְּרָשִׁין מִזּוֹ לָזוֹ אֲבָל לֹא זוֹרְקִין. חוּלְיַת הַבּוֹר וְהַסֶּלַע שֶׁהֵן גְּבוֹהִין עֲשָׂרָה וּרְחָבִין אַרְבָּעָה הַנּוֹטֵל מֵהֶן וְהַנּוֹתֵן עַל גַּבָּן חַייָב פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן פָּטוּר: MISHNAH: How is this? Two balconies3Greek 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 liable4Since 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 floor5Greek 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 this6Handing over, not throwing. was the service of the Levites.
Two carts, one parallel to the other in the public domain: they7The Merarites (Note 4). used to hand over from one to the other but did not throw. The enclosure of a cistern or a rock8Surrounded by public domain. high ten [hand-breadths] and wide9In two directions so that the surface area of the enclosure or the top of the rock is at least 16 (hand-breadths)2. four [hand-breadths]: one who takes from them or puts on them is liable, less than this he is not liable10If 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..
הלכה: ב׳. רַב אָמַר. לֵית כָּאן פָּטוּר אֶלָּא מוּתָּר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב. לְמַעֲלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה מוּתָּר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. לְמַעֲלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה אָסוּר. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מַקִּפָתוֹ מִכָּל־צַד. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲפִילוּ מֵרוּחַ אַחַת. מִן אִילֵּין עֲגָלוֹת. וָעֲגָלוֹת לָאו לְמַעֲלָה מֵעֲשָׁרָה אִינּוּן. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מַייְשָׂא. בִּלְבַד עַל יְדֵי שְׁנַיִם. בְּכָל־אָתָר אַתְּ אָמַר. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁעָשׂוּ פְטוּרִין. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁעָשׂוּ חַייָבִין. שַׁנְייָא הִיא. שֶׁכָּךְ הָֽיְתָה עֲבוֹדַת הַלְּוִיִּם בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. מַה הָֽיְתָה עֲבוֹדַת הַלְּוִיִּם בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. שְׁתֵּי עֲגָלוֹת זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מוֹשִׁיטִין אֶת הַקְּרָשִׁים מִזּוֹ לְזוֹ אֲבָל לֹא זוֹרְקִין. תַּנֵּי בַר קַפָּרָא. שֶׁלֹּא לִנְהוֹג בַּקְּרָשִׁים בִּיזָּיוֹן. HALAKHAH: 251They threw outside of the tents in the public domain. The Babli 96b rejects the entire argument as impossible.. Rav said, here52The 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 forbidden53Rabbinically. 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 sides54The 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]39Cf. Chapter 1, Notes 127–129.? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Maisha: only by two persons55Handing 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 liable56Chapter 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 throwing57Therefore throwing over the public domain never is a biblical violation in the interpretation of the Sages.. Bar Qappara stated, not to treat the planks58In all medieval quotes of this sentence enumerated by Ratner and Liebermann one reads קדשים “sancta” for קרשים “planks”. with contempt.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָעוֹמֵד וְהֶחָלָל מִצְטָֽרְפִין (לָעֲשָׂרָה) בָּאַרָבָּעָה. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא הָעוֹמֵד רָבָה עַל הֶחָלָל. רִבִּי זְעוּרָא בָעֵי. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עוֹמֵד שֶׁכָּאן וְעוֹמֵד שֶׁכָּאן רָבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. פְּשִׁיטָא לְרִבִּי זְעוּרָא שֶׁאֵין עוֹמֵד מִצַּד אֶחָד מִצְטָרֵף. פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ שֶׁאֵין עוֹמֵד מִצַּד אֶחָד רָבָה. לֹא צוֹרְכָה דְלֹא אֲפִילוּ עוֹמֵד הַשֵּׁינִי. 59This 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)60This 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 hollow61This 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)2, 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)62Delete 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 part63First, 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..
חוּלְייַת הַבּוֹר וְהַסֶּלַע שֶׁהֵן גְּבוֹהִין עֲשָׂרָה וּרְחָבִין אַרְבָּעָה. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בִּגְבוֹהִין עֲשָׂרָה (וְרָחְבָּן אַרְבָּעָה. רְשׁוּת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הִיא. גְּבוֹהִין עֲשָׂרָה) וְאֵינָן רְחָבִין אַרְבָּעָה. הָדָא הִיא דְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא בְשֵׁם אִיסִּי. קָנֶה נָעוּץ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים מוּתָּר לְכָאן וּמוּתָּר לְכָאן בִּלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲלִיף. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין. בְּשֶׁאֵינָן לֹא רְחָבִים אַרְבָּעָה וְלֹא גְבוֹהִין עֲשָׂרָה. לֹא כֵן אָמַר חִייָה בְרֵיהּ דְּרַב. כָּל־הַמְעַכֵּב דְּרִיסָה בִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים נִקְרָא כַרְמְלִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. מַה דְאָמַר חִייָה בְרֵיהּ דְּרַב. בָּאֶמְצַע. אֲבָל מִן הַצַּד רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מְבַטְּלָתָהּ. “The enclosure of a cistern or a rock8Surrounded by public domain. high ten [hand-breadths] and wide9In two directions so that the surface area of the enclosure or the top of the rock is at least 16 (hand-breadths)2. four [hand-breadths].” Where do we hold64This 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)65The 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 exchange66Therefore 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 karmelit67Again the Mishnah should have mentioned “permitted”.? Rebbi Yudan said, what Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, said refers to the middle68Obviously 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 it68Obviously 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..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית כָּאן פָּטוּר אֶלָּא מוּתָּר. תַּמָּן תַנִּינָן. הַמֵּיפִיס מוּרְסָא בַּשַּׁבָּת. אִם לַעֲשֹוֹת לָהּ פֶּה חַייָב. אִם לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנָּה הַלֵּיחָה פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית כָּאן פָּטוּר אֶלָּא מוּתָּר. תַּמָּן תַנִּינָן. הַצָּד נָחָשׁ בַּשַּׁבָּת. אִם בְּמִתְעַסֵּק שֶׁלֹּא יִשְּׁכֶנּוּ פָּטוּר. אִם לִרְפוּאָה חַייָב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית כָּאן פָּטוּר אֶלָּא מוּתָּר. תַּמָּן תַנִּינָן. וְעַל לֹפַּסִים עִירֹנִיּוֹת [אִרוֹנִיּוֹת] שֶׁהֵן טְהוֹרוֹת בְּאֹהֶל הַמֵּת וּטְמֵאוֹת בְּמַשָּׂא הַזָּב. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. וְיֵאוּת. אִם לְצוֹרֶךְ. הָדָא דְתַנִּינָן. אִם לִרְפוּאָה חַייָב. הֲוֵי. לֵית כָּאן פָּטוּר אֶלָּא מוּתָּר. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted69In 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..” There70All 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.71One 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.72If 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 dishes73Greek 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.74Here 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.75This 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.”