## Shabbat Daf 101a

###### Shabbat 101a:1
[Shabbat 101a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/101a:1)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עֲמוּקָּה עֲשָׂרָה, וְאֵין גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה — מִטַּלְטְלִין מִתּוֹכָהּ לַיָּם, אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכָהּ. מַאי שְׁנָא מִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכָהּ דְּלָא — דְּקָא מְטַלְטְלִין מִכַּרְמְלִית לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, מִתּוֹכָהּ לַיָּם — נָמֵי קָמְטַלְטֵל מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכַרְמְלִית! אֶלָּא לָאו אַחוּדָּהּ. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כֹּחוֹ בְּכַרְמְלִית לָא גְּזַרוּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says:** If the interior of the boat is **ten** handbreadths **deep and it is not ten** handbreadths **above** the surface of the water, **one may carry from it into the sea, but not from the sea into it.** The Gemara asks: **What is different** about carrying **from the sea into** the ship **that** one may **not** do so? Is it **because** in doing so **one is carrying from a *karmelit* into the private domain?** In carrying **from** the ship **into the sea, one is also carrying from the private domain into a *karmelit*. Rather, is it not** that from the ship to the sea is permitted because one throws the object onto **the edge** of the boat and it falls into the sea on its own, **and learn from it** that the Sages did **not issue a decree** prohibiting an action caused indirectly by **one’s power in a *karmelit*?** The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, **learn from it** that this is so.


###### Shabbat 101a:2
[Shabbat 101a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/101a:2)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָנֵי בִּיצִיָּאתָא דְמֵישָׁן אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בָּהֶן אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע [אַמּוֹת]. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה אַרְבָּעָה, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה אַרְבָּעָה — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְאִי מְלָנְהוּ קְנֵי וְאוּרְבָּנֵי — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said:** With regard to **those small boats of Meishan,** which are wide on top and narrow at the bottom, **one may carry in them only within four** cubits. Because they are less than four handbreadths wide at the bottom, they are not a private domain. **And we only said** this *halakha* in a case where the width of the boat does **not** reach **four** handbreadths **less than three** handbreadths from the bottom of the boat. **However, if** the width of the boat reaches **four** handbreadths **less than three** handbreadths from the bottom, **we do not have** this *halakha*, as those are considered full-fledged partitions which create a private domain. **And,** similarly, **if one fills** the bottom of the boat **with reeds and** thin **willow branches** up to the point where the boat reaches four handbreadths, **we do not have** this *halakha*. If there are ten handbreadths above the point where the boat reaches four handbreadths, it is a private domain.


###### Shabbat 101a:3
[Shabbat 101a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/101a:3)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן, וְלֵימָא גּוּד אַחֵית מְחִיצָתָא! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נָעַץ קָנֶה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבְרֹאשׁוֹ טְרַסְקָל, וְזָרַק וְנָח עַל גַּבָּיו — חַיָּיב. אַלְמָא אָמְרִינַן גּוּד אַחֵית מְחִיצָתָא. הָכָא נָמֵי נֵימָא גּוּד אַחֵית מְחִיצָתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman strongly objects to this: And let us say: Lower the partition.** The upper part of the raft is sufficiently wide and its partitions are sufficiently high; why not consider it as if the partitions of the boat descend from the top of the raft in a straight line to the bottom? **Was it not taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who stuck a stick** into the ground **in the public domain, and** hung **a basket atop it** that is four by four handbreadths wide, and **threw** an object from the public domain **and it landed upon it, he is liable,** like one who carried an object into a private domain? **Apparently, we say: Lower the partition** of the basket and treat it as if it reaches the ground, creating a column that is considered a private domain. **Here, too, let us say: Lower the partition.**


###### Shabbat 101a:4
[Shabbat 101a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/101a:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וְלָא שְׁמִיעָא לְהוּ לְהָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וּמָטוּ בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חִיָּיא, וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְאַתְּ לָא תִּסְבְּרָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: עַמּוּד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחָב אַרְבָּעָה, וְאֵין בְּעִיקָּרוֹ אַרְבָּעָה, וְיֵשׁ בַּקָּצָר שֶׁלּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְזָרַק וְנָח עַל גַּבָּיו — חַיָּיב. אַלְמָא אָמְרִינַן: גּוּד אַחֵית מְחִיצָתָא. הָכָא נָמֵי: גּוּד אַחֵית מְחִיצָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef strongly objects to this** statement of Rav Naḥman: **And** did **they not hear that** which **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said, and** there are those who **determined** that **this** *halakha* was stated **in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: And it was taught** in a *baraita*: **And the Rabbis deem** one **exempt** in the case of a reed stuck in the ground of a public domain? Apparently, the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is an individual opinion and was not accepted as *halakha*. **Abaye said to him: And do you not hold** the principle of extending partitions? **Was it not taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a column in the public domain** that is **ten** handbreadths **high and four** handbreadths **wide, and its base** is **not four** handbreadths wide, **and its narrowest** point **is** more than **three** handbreadths high; **and** if **one threw** an object from the public domain **and it came to rest atop** the column, **he is liable? Apparently, we say: Lower the partition.** Since the column’s uppermost section is sufficiently wide, its partitions are considered as if they extend to the ground. **Here, too,** say: **Lower the partition.**


###### Shabbat 101a:5
[Shabbat 101a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/101a:5)

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָתָם הָוְיָא לַהּ מְחִיצָה שֶׁהַגְּדָיִים בּוֹקְעִין בָּהּ. הָכָא הָוְיָא לַהּ מְחִיצָה שֶׁאֵין הַגְּדָיִים בּוֹקְעִין בָּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: גַּבֵּי סְפִינָה נָמֵי, הָא אִיכָּא בְּקִיעַת דָּגִים! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּקִיעַת דָּגִים לֹא שְׁמָהּ בְּקִיעָה. וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא? — דִּבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי טַבְלָא מֵרַב: מְחִיצָה תְּלוּיָה מַהוּ שֶׁתַּתִּיר בְּחוּרְבָּה? וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין מְחִיצָה תְּלוּיָה מַתֶּרֶת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Are** the case of the basket and the case of the boat **comparable? There,** in the case of the basket, **it is a partition that goats pass through.** A partition that does not serve as a barrier is not considered a partition. **Here, it is a partition that goats do not pass through.** It is considered a partition. **Rav Aḥa, son** of **Rav Aḥa, said to Rav Ashi: In the case of a boat, too,** there is **the passage of fish,** as they can swim through the lowered partitions of the boat. **He said to him: Passage of fish is not considered passage** because it is not visible. **And from where do you say** that this is so? **As Rabbi Tavla raised a dilemma before Ravin:** With regard to **a hanging partition, what** is the ruling in terms of it **permitting** one to carry **in a ruin** when part of the building’s walls are still intact, and they are still considered partitions? Ravin **said to him: A hanging partition only permits** one to carry