Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 9

whereby the ground enclosed by the mats becomes private ; and if many such tents were made, carrying from one tent into another is permitted, provided an Erubh is made. If the mats were rolled up, however, such carrying is not permitted. Were the mats rolled down again, intentionally or unintentionally, through compulsion or through error, the original permission again holds good. It was reported in the name of Samuel : If the ships were tied together with a mere thread, permission to carry from one into the other holds good. MISHNA: If one threw a thing, and after the thing had * The word Moses was used as a title to a great teacher. 202 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. passed out of his hand, he recollected that it was Sabbath ; if another person caught the thing thrown ; if a dog caught it or if the thing thrown was consumed by fire (before reaching its des- tination), the man is free. If one threw a thing for the purpose of injuring a man or a beast, and before such injury was inflicted recollected (that it was Sabbath), he is free. (For) this is the rule : Only such are culpable and bound to bring a sin-offering as commit an act through error from beginning to end ; if the act, however, was committed through error only at the start, and at the close was committed consciously, or vice versa, the perpe- trator is free until the beginning as well as the end of the act is committed through error. GEMARA: What would be the case, if the thing, after passing out of the thrower's hand, had rested (outside of four ells in public ground) ? Would he be culpable ? Why ! Did he not recollect (that it was Sabbath) before the thing rested ? And our Mishna (distinctly) states that one cannot be culpable unless an act were committed through error from beginning to end! Said Rabha: The Mishna teaches us two facts: Firstly, if one threw a thing, and after the thing had passed out of his hand he recollected (that it was Sabbath) ; or secondly, even if he did not recollect (that it was Sabbath), but another man, or a dog, caught the thing, or it was consumed by fire before it rested, he is not culpable. " This is the rule." We have learned: If one threw a dis- tance of six ells, two ells through error, the next two con- sciously, and the last again through error, Rabba declares him free. (How can that occur ? As soon as the object had passed out of his hand and had not yet reached farther than two ells, he became conscious that it was Sabbath, and before it had passed the next two ells he forgot again that it was Sabbath.) Rabha, however, declares him culpable. Rabba declares him free, even according to the opinion of R. Gamaliel (in the last Mishna of Chapter XII.), who does not consider the consciousness during the time intervening between the perpetration of the two acts (each of which only executed one-half the prescribed deed) as being of any consequence (but considers the two unfinished acts as one prolonged act done unintentionally and making the per- petrator culpable). For what reason ? Because in the case treated of in the cited Mishna nothing was done during the period of consciousness (of the Sabbath) intervening between the two unfinished acts to neutralize the erroneous character of TRACT SABBATH. 203 the two unfinished acts, and thus they became one finished act and made the perpetrator culpable. In this case, however, Rabba assumes that during the time intervening between the passing of the first two ells and the last two ells, the man carried the thing, and did so fully conscious (of the Sabbath), and thus neu- tralized the erroneous character surrounding the throwing for the first two and last two ells. Rabha, however, declares him cul- pable, even according to the rabbis, who hold contrary to the opinion of R. Gamaliel (in the cited Mishna) and consider the consciousness (of Sabbath) during the period intervening between the two unfinished acts as a neutralization of the unintentional character of the unfinished acts, thus making the perpetrator not culpable. In this case, however, the man is culpable. (Why so ?) Because in the case cited in the same Mishna the entire act could have been committed, but was not, for after the man became conscious (of its being Sabbath) he stopped ; hence the unfinished act was not counted. Later he again forgot that it was Sabbath, but again recollected, before the entire act was committed ; so the second unfinished act was not counted, and the man is free. In this case, however, the thing having been thrown could not be stopped when the man became conscious of its being Sabbath before it reached its des- tination ! Thus the act was committed, and the fact that the thrower became conscious (of its being Sabbath) in the mean time is of no consequence. (Now, the conclusion is that there is really no difference between the rabbis and R. Gamaliel or be- tween Rabba and Rabha, because all agree that if the thing was thrown the man is culpable, but if carried by hand he is not.) Rabba said : If one threw a thing and it rested in the mouth of a dog or in the opening of an oven, he is culpable. Did we not learn in the Mishna that if a dog caught it, or if it was consumed by fire, he is not culpable? Yea; but the Mishna refers to a case where the intention was to throw it elsewhere and accidentally a dog caught it or it was consumed by fire ; but Rabba means to say that a man is culpable if he intentionally throw it into the dog's mouth or into the oven. Said R. Bibhi b. Abayi : We have also learned elsewhere that the intention to have a thing rest in a place makes that place a fit one for the thing. CHAPTER XII. REGULATIONS CONCERNING BUILDING, PLOUGHING, ETC., ON THE SABBATH. MISHNA: (Among the forty, less one, principal acts of labor, building was enumerated.) What is the least amount of building which will make a man culpable ? The least possible amount. The same applies to stone-masonry, smoothing with a hammer (at the close of the work) ; as for planing, he who planes the least bit, and for drilling, he who drills ever so little, is cul- pable. For this is the rule : He who performs any act of labor which is of permanent value is culpable. R. Simeon ben Gama- liel said : He who during his work strikes the anvil with his sledge is culpable, because he virtually brings about labor. GEMARA: Of what use is so small an amount of building ? Said R. Aha bar Jacob: " So small an amount of building is usually done by a householder who discovers a hole in the wall of one of his rooms and fills it up (with wood or cement). And the instance of such work having been performed at the (con- struction of the) Tabernacle is : When one of the boards con- tained a hole produced by worms, a little molten lead was poured into it and it was thus filled."