## Shabbat Daf 7b

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

אֶלָּא דְּאֵין רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה — מַתְנִיתִין הִיא! דִּתְנַן: הַזּוֹרֵק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בַּכּוֹתֶל, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — כְּזוֹרֵק בָּאֲוִיר. לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — כְּזוֹרֵק בָּאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** suggest that Shmuel meant that **there is no public domain above ten** handbreadths. **It is a mishna,** and why would he repeat an explicit mishna? **As we learned** in a mishna: With regard to **one who throws** an object **four cubits** in the public domain, and the object came to rest **on a wall** standing in the public domain **above ten handbreadths** from the ground, it **is as if he were throwing** an object **in the air** and it never landed. If it came to rest **below ten handbreadths** off the ground, it **is as if he were throwing** an object **to the ground.** That is an explicit mishna stating that the area of the public domain does not go beyond ten handbreadths off the ground.


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

אֶלָּא כַּרְמְלִית, דְּאֵין כַּרְמְלִית לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה. וְאַקִּילוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן מִקּוּלֵּי רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּמִקּוּלֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. מִקּוּלֵּי רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — דְּאִי אִיכָּא מָקוֹם אַרְבָּעָה הוּא דְּהָוְיָא כַּרְמְלִית, וְאִי לָא — מְקוֹם פָּטוּר בְּעָלְמָא הוּא. מִקּוּלֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — דְּעַד עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים הוּא דְּהָוְיָא כַּרְמְלִית, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים לָא הָוְיָא כַּרְמְלִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that Shmuel’s statement was referring to **a *karmelit*; there is no *karmelit* above ten handbreadths. And,** if so, **the Sages were lenient with regard to** a *karmelit* and applied **some leniencies of the private domain and some leniencies of the public domain.** The Gemara elaborates: **Some leniencies of the private domain: That if there is an area of four** handbreadths, **then it is a *karmelit*, and if** there is **not** an area of four handbreadths, **it is merely an exempt domain. Some leniencies of the public domain: That until** a height of **ten handbreadths, it is a *karmelit,* above ten handbreadths is not a *karmelit*.**


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

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב: בַּיִת שֶׁאֵין תּוֹכוֹ עֲשָׂרָה וְקֵרוּיוֹ מַשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה, עַל גַּגּוֹ — מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכוּלּוֹ, בְּתוֹכוֹ — אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**To** the matter **itself:** It was mentioned above that **Rav Giddel said** that **Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said** that **Rav said: A house that does not have inside it** walls 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.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְאִם חָקַק בּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה, — מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכוּלּוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? — הָוֵי חוֹרֵי רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, וְחוֹרֵי רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד כִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד דָּמוּ. דְּאִיתְּמַר: חוֹרֵי רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד כִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד דָּמוּ, חוֹרֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, אַבָּיֵי אוֹמֵר כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמוּ. רָבָא אוֹמֵר: לָאו כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this *halakha*, **Abaye said: And if he dug** out an area of **four by four** handbreadths **in** the floor of the house **and** in the place where the digging took place, its height to the ceiling **reaches ten** handbreadths, the house becomes a private domain, and **it is permitted to carry in the entire** house. **What is the reason** for this? Since the dug out area is a private domain, the rest of the house is ancillary to it, **and it assumes the** legal **status of the holes of the private domain, and the holes of the private domain,** although they lack the measure of a private domain, **are considered like the private domain** itself. **As it was stated:** Everyone agrees that **the holes of the private domain are** considered **like the private domain;** since they are subsumed within the private domain, they are judged to be like it. However, they disagreed with regard to **the holes of the public domain. Abaye says: They are considered** to be **like the public domain. And Rava says: They are not considered** to be **like the public domain;** they are either a *karmelit* or an exempt domain.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ חוֹרֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמוּ, מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְקֶרֶן זָוִית הַסְּמוּכָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְתִיהְוֵי כְּחוֹרֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים?! הָתָם לָא נִיחָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתֵּיהּ, הָכָא נִיחָא תַּשְׁמִישְׁתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Abaye: According to you, who said** that the **holes of the public domain are considered like the public domain, in what** way **is it different from this** *halakha*? **As when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This** addition of *karmelit* to the *Tosefta* **was only necessary** to teach the case of **a corner adjacent to the public domain. And,** according to your opinion, **let** this corner **be like the holes of the public domain,** and its legal status should be that of a public domain itself and not that of a *karmelit*. Abaye answered: There is a distinction between the cases. **There,** the corner, **its use is not convenient; here,** the holes of the public domain, **their use is convenient.** Since it is convenient to utilize the holes of the public domain, and they are in fact utilized, they are a public domain in every sense.


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

תְּנַן: הַזּוֹרֵק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בַּכּוֹתֶל, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה — כְּזוֹרֵק בָּאֲוִיר. לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — כְּזוֹרֵק בָּאָרֶץ. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי כְּזוֹרֵק בָּאָרֶץ? וְהָא לָא נָח!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raised an additional difficulty for Abaye’s opinion: **We learned** in a mishna with regard to **one who throws** an object **four cubits** in the public domain, and the object came to rest **on a wall** standing in the public domain **above ten handbreadths** from the ground, it **is as if he were throwing** an object **in the air** and it never landed. If it came to rest **below ten handbreadths** off the ground, it **is as if he were throwing** an object **to the ground,** and he is liable. **And we discussed** this *halakha*: **What is** the reason that when the wall is not ten handbreadths high it is **as if he threw it to the ground?** The object **did not** come to **rest** on the wall, as presumably the object hit the wall and then fell to the ground. Since there was no act of placement, he did not perform the prohibited labor of carrying in the public domain.


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

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, בִּדְבֵילָה שְׁמֵינָה שָׁנוּ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ חוֹרֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמוּ, לְמָה לִי לְאוֹקֻמַהּ בִּדְבֵילָה שְׁמֵינָה? לוֹקְמַהּ בִּצְרוֹר וְחֵפֶץ, וּדְנָח בְּחוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that **they learned** this mishna as referring to a case **when** he threw **a juicy cake of figs** that sticks to the wall and remains there. **And should it enter your mind** to say that **the holes of the public domain are considered like the public domain, why do I need to establish** the mishna as referring to the case **of a juicy cake of figs? Let us establish it** simply as referring to the case **of a** run-of-the-mill **stone or object, and** that it **came to rest in a hole.**


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

זִימְנִין מְשַׁנֵּי לַהּ, שָׁאנֵי צְרוֹר וְחֵפֶץ דְּמִיהֲדַר וְאָתֵי. זִימְנִין מְשַׁנֵּי לַהּ, בְּכוֹתֶל דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ חוֹר. מִמַּאי? — מִדְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: זָרַק לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — כְּזוֹרֵק בָּאֲוִיר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בְּכוֹתֶל דְּאִית בֵּיהּ חוֹר, אַמַּאי כְּזוֹרֵק בָּאֲוִיר? הָא נָח בְּחוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Sometimes** Abaye **would answer** the question by saying that **a stone or object is different** from a juicy fig **in that they come back** when they are thrown and do not come to rest in the hole. Therefore, it was simpler to establish the mishna in the case of a fig. **And sometimes he would answer it** by saying that the mishna is referring to **a wall that has no hole. And from where** does he find support for this explanation? **From that which we learned in the first clause** of the mishna: **One who throws above ten handbreadths** from the ground, it **is as if he is throwing in the air** and it never landed. **And if it should enter your mind** to say that we are speaking here **about a wall that has a hole in it, why** should it be **as if he threw it in the air** and it never landed? **It rested in a hole,** and that hole is a private domain, as it is above ten handbreadths, and in that way the prohibited labor of carrying in was performed.


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

וְכִי תֵּימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלֵית בְּהוּ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה, וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: זָרַק לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וְהָלְכָה וְנָחָה בְּחוֹר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנַן. דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר חוֹקְקִין לְהַשְׁלִים. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי אֵין חוֹקְקִין לְהַשְׁלִים. אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, בְּכוֹתֶל דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ חוֹר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **the mishna** is referring to a case **where** holes **do not have** an area of at least **four by four** handbreadths, which is common for holes in the wall, and therefore the holes have exempt domain status, **didn’t Rav Yehuda say** that **Rabbi Ḥiyya said: One who threw** an object **above ten handbreadths and** the object **went and came to rest in a hole of any size, we have arrived** in this matter **at the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis?** The decision whether or not there is a prohibition here depends on an analysis of that dispute. **Rabbi Meir holds** that in all cases where a certain minimum area is required for a specific *halakha* to take effect and the existing area is smaller, if, theoretically, circumstances would allow to carve out and create an area of the requisite size, **one** considers it as if he **carves out** the space **to complete** it**,** i.e., the space has the legal status as if it was actually enlarged. **And the Rabbis hold** that **one does not carve out** the space **to complete** it. Rather, the legal status of the area corresponds to its actual size. Consequently, according to Rabbi Meir, if an object landed in a small hole, one considers the area as if it were carved out to complete the hole to four by four handbreadths, and its legal status is like that of a private domain in every sense. **Rather, can we not conclude from** the mishna that maintains that one who throws an object onto a wall above ten handbreadths it is as if he threw it in the air, that it is referring to **a wall that has no hole in it,** and the possibility of carving out the space was never raised? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **conclude from it.**


###### Shabbat 7b:10
[Shabbat 7b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/7b:10)

גּוּפָא. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: נָעַץ קָנֶה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, וְזָרַק וְנָח עַל גַּבָּיו, אֲפִילּוּ גָּבוֹהַּ מֵאָה אַמָּה — חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד עוֹלָה עַד לָרָקִיעַ. לֵימָא רַב חִסְדָּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי? דְּתַנְיָא: זָרַק וְנָח עַל גַּבֵּי זִיז כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — רַבִּי מְחַיֵּיב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִים. אַלְמָא לָא בָּעֵינַן מָקוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara again returns to the **matter** that was mentioned above in passing **itself [*gufa*]. Rav Ḥisda said:** One who **stuck a stick in the** ground of **the private domain, and** an object that he himself threw from the public domain **rested atop it, even** if that stick was **a hundred cubits high, he is liable.** The reason for this is **because the private domain rises up to the sky.** The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that when **Rav Ḥisda said** his statement, it was **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. The *tanna’im* disagreed with regard to a similar issue, **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: One who **threw** an object on Shabbat in the public domain, **and** the object **rested on a projection of any size, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **deems him liable and the Rabbis deem him exempt. Consequently,** only according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is there no need for the object to come to rest on an area of a specific size, and therefore the statement of Rav Ḥisda with regard to the stick can only be in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion.