## Shabbat Daf 7a

###### Shabbat 7a:1
[Shabbat 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/7a:1)

כְּגוֹן דְּאִית לַהּ מְחִיצּוֹת. וְכִי הָא דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קַרְפֵּף יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַּף לְדִירָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוֹר וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוֹרַיִים, הַזּוֹרֵק לְתוֹכוֹ חַיָּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא? — מְחִיצָה הִיא, אֶלָּא שֶׁמְחוּסֶּרֶת דָּיוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The valley discussed in the mishna in *Teharot* is unusual, as it refers to **a case where it has partitions** that are ten handbreadths high surrounding it. **And in accordance with that** which **Ulla said** that **Rav Yoḥanan said: An enclosure [*karpef*],** a large courtyard that is not contiguous with the house and does not serve a direct purpose for the house, that is **greater than** a field that produces a crop of **two *se’a*, that was not** originally **surrounded** by a fence **for** the purpose of **residence,** but with a partition to protect his belongings, **and even** if it is as large as a field that produces a crop of one ***kor*,** thirty times the size of a *se’a*, **and even two *kor*,** it is still considered a private domain. **And,** consequently, **one who throws** an object **into it** from the public domain on Shabbat **is liable. What is the reason** for this? **It is a partition** that surrounds the enclosure and its legal status is like that of a partition in every sense, **except that it is lacking residents.** Even though the Rabbis were stringent with regard to this enclosure because of the lack of residents and prohibited carrying in it as if it were a *karmelit*, that does not negate its primary legal status; by Torah law it is a full-fledged private domain. The same is true with regard to the aforementioned valley. The valley is a large area surrounded by partitions erected for the purpose of protection and thereby assumes private domain status.


###### Shabbat 7a:2
[Shabbat 7a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/7a:2)

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַב אָשֵׁי לָא אָמַר כִּדְעוּלָּא, אֶלָּא עוּלָּא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? אָמַר לָךְ: אִי דְּאִית לַהּ מְחִיצּוֹת ״בִּקְעָה״ קָרֵי לַהּ?! קַרְפֵּף הִיא! וְרַב אָשֵׁי ״רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד״ קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** in explanation of the mishna, **Rav Ashi did not say in accordance with** the opinion of **Ulla,** as he provided a reason for it. **However, what is the reason that Ulla did not say in accordance with his** own ***halakha*** that he cited in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers: Ulla could have **said to you: If** the mishna is referring to a case where **it has partitions,** would it **call** that place **a valley? It is an enclosure.** The implication of the word valley is that there are no partitions at all. **And Rav Ashi** defends his opinion by saying: The language **taught** in the mishna is: **The private domain** and not a *karmelit*. Therefore, his explanation more closely approximates the language of the mishna.


###### Shabbat 7a:3
[Shabbat 7a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/7a:3)

וְהַכַּרְמְלִית. אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי לָאו כַּרְמְלִית נִינְהוּ? כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְקֶרֶן זָוִית הַסְּמוּכָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּזִימְנִין דְּדָחֲקִי בֵּיהּ רַבִּים וְעָיְילִי לְגַוַּהּ, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא נִיחָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתֵּיהּ, כִּי כַרְמְלִית דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the *Tosefta,* the list of places whose legal status is that of a *karmelit* also includes ***karmelit.*** The Gemara asks: **Aren’t they, all** the other places listed there, i.e., a sea, a valley, and a colonnade, **a *karmelit* too?** If so, what is this *karmelit* that is prominently mentioned here? The Gemara answers: **When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This** addition of *karmelit* **was only necessary** in order to teach the case of **a corner adjacent to the public domain, where, although at times the multitudes push** their way **in and enter it, since its use is inconvenient it is considered a *karmelit*.**


###### Shabbat 7a:4
[Shabbat 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/7a:4)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֵּין הָעַמּוּדִין נִידּוֹן כְּכַרְמְלִית. מַאי טַעְמָא? אַף עַל גַּב דְּדָרְסִי בַּהּ רַבִּים, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מִסְתַּגִּי לְהוּ בְּהֶדְיָא — כְּכַרְמְלִית דָּמְיָא. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אִיצְטְבָא שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הָעַמּוּדִים נִידּוֹן כְּכַרְמְלִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Between the pillars** alongside the public domain **is judged like a *karmelit*. What is the reason** for this? **Although the multitudes stride there, since they cannot walk** in it **in a direct manner,** uninterrupted, **it is considered like a *karmelit*. Rabbi Zeira said** that **Rav Yehuda said:** The same is true for **the bench that is before the pillars** upon which the merchants place their wares; it **is judged** to be **like a *karmelit*.**


###### Shabbat 7a:5
[Shabbat 7a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/7a:5)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בֵּין הָעַמּוּדִים, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אִיצְטְבָא. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אִיצְטְבָא — אִיצְטְבָא הוּא דְּלָא נִיחָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתֵּיהּ, אֲבָל בֵּין הָעַמּוּדִים דְּנִיחָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתֵּיהּ — לָא. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: אֲבָל בֵּין הָעַמּוּדִין דְּזִימְנִין דְּדָרְסִי לֵיהּ רַבִּים, כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: According **to the one who said** that **between the pillars** is considered like a *karmelit*, **all the more so a bench** is considered a *karmelit*. However, according **to the one who said** that **a bench** is a *karmelit*, one could say that that **is** so specifically with regard to **a bench** because **its use is inconvenient. However,** the space **between the pillars, whose use is convenient,** would **not** be considered a *karmelit*. **Another version** of that statement: **However, between the pillars where, at times, the multitudes stride there is considered like the public domain.**


###### Shabbat 7a:6
[Shabbat 7a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/7a:6)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לְבֵינָה זְקוּפָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְזָרַק וְטָח בְּפָנֶיהָ — חַיָּיב. עַל גַּבָּהּ — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the question to what degree does the use of the multitudes determine whether a specific place is considered a public domain, the Gemara cites the *halakha* that **Rabba bar Sheila said** that **Rav Ḥisda said:** If **an upright brick** was placed **in the public domain and one threw** an object from a distance of four cubits **and he stuck** the object **to its side, he is liable** for throwing in the public domain. But if the object landed **atop** the brick, **he is not liable.** Because the multitudes do not step on the brick, it is not a full-fledged public domain.


###### Shabbat 7a:7
[Shabbat 7a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/7a:7)

אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: וְהוּא שֶׁגְּבוֹהָה שְׁלֹשָׁה, דְּלָא דָּרְסִי לַהּ רַבִּים. אֲבָל הִיזְמֵי וְהִיגֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא גְּבִיהֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. וְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הִיזְמֵי וְהִיגֵי, אֲבָל צוֹאָה לָא. וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ צוֹאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was **Abaye and Rava, who both said: And that is** specifically when that brick **is** at least **three** handbreadths **high,** as then **the multitudes do not step on it,** and, therefore, even though the brick is standing in the public domain, it is considered an independent domain. However, **thorns and shrubs, even though they are not three handbreadths high,** are not considered part of the public domain. Since people do not walk on thorns, those areas cannot be considered part of the public domain. **And Ḥiyya bar Rav said: Even** the place where there are **thorns and shrubs** in the public domain, if they were low, the place is considered part of the public domain. **However,** a place in the public domain where there are **feces** is **not** considered part of the public domain, as people do not walk there. **And Rav Ashi said: Even** a place in the public domain where there are **feces** is considered part of the public domain, since ultimately people who are rushing to work do not take care to avoid it and will step on it.


###### Shabbat 7a:8
[Shabbat 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/7a:8)

אָמַר רַבָּה דְּבֵי רַב שֵׁילָא: כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין כַּרְמְלִית פְּחוּתָה מֵאַרְבָּעָה. וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: וְתוֹפֶסֶת עַד עֲשָׂרָה. מַאי ״וְתוֹפֶסֶת עַד עֲשָׂרָה״? אִילֵּימָא דְּאִי אִיכָּא מְחִיצָה עֲשָׂרָה הוּא דְּהָוֵי כַּרְמְלִית, וְאִי לָא — לָא הָוֵי כַּרְמְלִית, וְלָא? וְהָאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב: בַּיִת שֶׁאֵין בְּתוֹכוֹ עֲשָׂרָה וְקֵרוּיוֹ מַשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה, עַל גַּגּוֹ — מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכוּלּוֹ, בְּתוֹכוֹ — אֵין מִטַּלְטְלִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba from the school of Rav Sheila said: When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There is no *karmelit* less than four** handbreadths. **And Rav Sheshet** added and **said: And** the *karmelit* **extends up to ten** handbreadths. With regard to the formulation of Rav Sheshet, the Gemara wondered: **What is** the meaning of the phrase: **And extends up to ten? If you say that** it means **if there is a partition ten** handbreadths **high** surrounding it **then it is** considered **a *karmelit*, and if not, it is not** considered **a *karmelit*. And** is it **not** a *karmelit*? **Didn’t Rav Giddel say** that **Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said** that **Rav said: A house that does not have** walls **inside it** that are **ten** handbreadths **high, and** with **its roofing it reaches** a height of **ten** handbreadths above the ground; **on its roof, one may carry on all of it,** as its roof is a private domain in every sense, **and inside it, one may only carry four cubits,** as inside, the height is insufficient to render it a private domain, and it retains *karmelit* status? Apparently, even an area less than ten handbreadths high has the legal status of a *karmelit*.


###### Shabbat 7a:9
[Shabbat 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/7a:9)

אֶלָּא מַאי ״וְתוֹפֶסֶת עַד עֲשָׂרָה״ — דְּעַד עֲשָׂרָה הוּא דְּהָוְיָא כַּרְמְלִית, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים לָא הָוְיָא כַּרְמְלִית. וְכִי הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁינָּנָא, לָא תְּיהַוֵּי בְּמִילֵּי דְשַׁבְּתָא לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אִילֵּימָא דְּאֵין רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה? וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: נָעַץ קָנֶה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְזָרַק וְנָח עַל גַּבָּיו, אֲפִילּוּ גָּבוֹהַּ מֵאָה אַמָּה — חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד עוֹלָה עַד לָרָקִיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what is** the meaning of Rav Sheshet’s formulation: **And extends up to ten?** Apparently, **up to ten** handbreadths **is that which is** within the parameters of **a *karmelit*, and above ten** handbreadths **is not a *karmelit*. And as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Keen scholar [*shinnana*], do not be** involved with questions **in the matters of Shabbat above ten** handbreadths. The Gemara elaborates: With regard **to what *halakha*** and in the context of what issue did Shmuel make this statement? **If you say** his intention was that **there is no private domain above ten** handbreadths, **didn’t Rav Ḥisda say:** One who **stuck a stick in the** ground of **the private domain and threw** an object from the public domain **and it landed atop it, even** if the stick was **a hundred cubits high, he is liable, since the private domain extends up to the sky?** Apparently, there is a private domain even above ten handbreadths.