Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 1, scan section 11

are counted ; but those that do not involve such an obligation are not counted. " They are both free.*' Was not the act (of transfer) com- mitted by both ? Said R. Hyya bar Gamda : The act of remov- ing the thing was committed by the joint efforts of both, and they (the rabbis) said: "It is written in the law, when a person did it " t — i.e., when one person commits the act he is culpable; but when an act is committed by the joint efforts of two per- sons, they are both free. Rabh questioned Rabbi : If one were laden by his friend with eatables and beverages and carried them outside (of the house), how is the law ? Is the removing of his body tanta- mount to the removing of a thing from its place, and therefore he is culpable, or is it not so ? * Rashi explains at length how eight or even twelve instances of transfer could occur, but, not being essential to the subject, we Oinit the explanation. \ Lev. iv. 27. TRACT SABBATH. 3 Said Rabbi to him : He is culpable. And this case is not like the case of removing his hand. Why so ? Because (in the latter case) the hand was not at rest, while (in the former) the body (before and after removal) was entirely at rest.* Said Rabbi Hyya to Rabh : Descendant of nobles ! Did I not tell thee that when Rabbi is engaged with a certain tract ask him not about a subject (that is treated) in another tract, for he may not have that subject in his mind ! And if Rabbi were not a great man thou mightest cause him shame, for he would give thee an answer which might not be right. In this instance, however, he gave thee a correct answer; as we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one was laden with eat- ables and beverages while it was yet light on the eve of Sab- bath, and he carried them outside after dark, he is culpable ; for his case is not like that of removing the hand mentioned above. Abayi said : From all that was said above it is certain to me that the hand of a man (standing on the street) is not treated as public ground. f And I also see that (if a man stands on private ground) his hand is not to be treated as private ground. Would it be correct, then, to regard the hand as unclaimed ground ? If so, would the penalty imposed by the rabbis in such a case, namely, that one should not move his hand (containing a mov- able thing) back (during the Sabbath day), apply in this case or not ? Come and hear the following Boraitha: If a man has his hand filled with fruit and he extends it outside (of the premises where he stands), one said he is not permitted to draw it back, and another Boraitha says he is allowed to do so. May we not assume that this is their point of dispute : the former holds that the hand is treated as unclaimed ground, and the latter thinks that it is not like unclaimed ground? Nay, it may be that both agree that the hand (as spoken of in our Mishna) is like un- claimed ground, and yet it presents no difificulty. One of the Boraithas treats of a man who had extended his hand uninten- tionally, and the other one treats of a man who had put forth his hand intentionally. In the former case the rabbis did not * Students of the Talmud will remember that while in the act of walking a man cannot be guilty of the transgression of carrying movable property. The body must be at rest. The removal of a thing by means of the hand implies a disturbance in the rest of the body. f As illustrated in our Mishna ; for if he did not deposit the thing that he had passed from the street into the house, he was not culpable. 4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. fine him, and in the latter case they did. And if you wish, it may be said that they both speak of a case when the act was done unintentionally, and their point of differing is as to the varying premises, whether the hand may be drawn back to the ground where the man stands, or to other (private) ground that adjoins it ? As Rabha questioned R. Na'hman: If the hand of a man was filled with fruit, and he extended it outside, may he draw it back to the same ground where he stands ? And he answered : He may. (And may he remove his hand) to other (private) ground ? Nay. And to the question, " What is the distinc- tion ?" he said: If thou wilt measure a whole kur of salt and present me with it, I shall tell thee the answer. (See footnote, Erubin, p. 79.) In the former case his design was not accom- plished ; in the latter, however, his design was accomplished (and it is prohibited for fear that it should be repeated). R. Bibi bar Abayi questioned : If one has put bread into the oven, is he allowed to take it out before (it is baked and) he becomes liable to bring a sin-offering, or not ? Said R. A'ha bar Abayi to Rabhina : What does the ques- tioner mean ? Unintentionally and without remembering (that it is Sabbath), then what does the expression " allowed " mean ? To whom ? He is still not aware of it. On the other hand, if he did it unintentionally and afterward he remembered of the Sabbath, how can he be liable to a sin-offering; did not a Mishna state that the liability to bring such a sacrifice applies onl}' when the failing was begun and accomplished unintentionally ? Should it be understood that the act was done intentionally, then it would not involve the liability of a sin-offering, but it would constitute a crime that involved capital punishment.* Said R. Ashi : Say, then, it is a crime that involves capital punishment. R. A'ha, the son of Rabha, taught so plainly. R. Bibi bar Abayi said: If one put bread into the oven, he is allowed to take it out before it may involve a case of capital punishment. " The mendicant extended his hand,^' etc. Why is he culpa- ble ? (To complete the act) there must be a transfer from a place that is four ells square and a depositing into a place of the same area, and such was not the case here. Said Rabba : Our * All the labors that were performed at the construction of the tabernacle in the desert, as is taught in a Mishna farther on, if done on the Sabbath intentionally, in- volved capital punishment. The intention becomes apparent when there are wit- nesses to warn the perpetrator of his wrong and he does not heed them. TRACT SABBATH. 5 Mishna is in accordance with R. Aqiba's opinion, who holds that as soon as the air of a place surrounds a thing it is equal to the thing being deposited in that place. But may it not be that depositing does not require four ells, for the reason stated above, but removing does ? Said R. Joseph : The teaching of this paragraph agrees (not with the opinion of R. Aqiba), but with that of Rabbi, as we have learned in the following Boraitha : If one threw an object from one street into the other, and there was a private ground between them, Rabbi declared him