## Shabbat Daf 91b

###### Shabbat 91b:1
[Shabbat 91b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/91b:1)

יוֹצֵא — בִּכְזַיִת, לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת נָמֵי — בִּכְזַיִת! הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם — מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ בְּיוֹצֵא, אַשַּׁבָּת לָא מִיחַיַּיב עַד דְּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, הָכָא — שַׁבָּת וְטוּמְאָה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
disqualification of consecrated items due to **leaving** the Temple courtyard, the significant measure is **an olive-bulk,** as one who eats that measure of disqualified consecrated items is liable; **with regard to Shabbat,** its measure for liability should **also** be **an olive-bulk.** The Gemara rejects this: **How can you make that comparison? There,** in the case of the consecrated items, **from** the moment **that he took it beyond the courtyard wall it was disqualified** due to the prohibition of **leaving.** However, with regard to **Shabbat, he is only liable when he takes it into the public domain,** which is far beyond the courtyard walls. **Here,** in the case where one threw *teruma* into the house on Shabbat, the prohibition of **Shabbat and** the **impurity** of the *teruma* **come simultaneously.** Since the olive-bulk is significant in terms of impurity, it is similarly significant with regard to Shabbat.


###### Shabbat 91b:2
[Shabbat 91b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/91b:2)

חָזַר וְהִכְנִיסוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא כְּשִׁיעוּרוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁזְּרָקוֹ לְאוֹצָר וּמְקוֹמוֹ נִיכָּר. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דִּמְקוֹמוֹ נִיכָּר בְּמִילְּתֵיהּ קַמָּיְיתָא קָאֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — מִדְּזַרְקֵיהּ לְאוֹצָר, בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: If one stored the seed, carried it out, **and then brought it back in, he is only liable** if he brought in **its measure** for liability. The Gemara asks: This is **obvious.** By bringing it back into the house he indicates that he no longer considers it significant, and the object then assumes the legal status of an object belonging to anyone else. **Abaye said: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where he threw it into the storehouse and its place is** clearly **discernible** to the one who threw it, in that he knows where it landed. **Lest you say** that **because its location is discernible** it **maintains its original status,** the mishna **teaches us** that **from** the fact **that he threw it into the storehouse,** he indicated that **he nullified** the object’s previous significance.


###### Shabbat 91b:3
[Shabbat 91b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/91b:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמּוֹצִיא אוֹכָלִין וּנְתָנָן עַל הָאַסְקוּפָּה, בֵּין שֶׁחָזַר וְהוֹצִיאָן, בֵּין שֶׁהוֹצִיאָן אַחֵר — פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה מְלַאכְתּוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת. קוּפָּה שֶׁהִיא מְלֵיאָה פֵּירוֹת וּנְתָנָהּ עַל אַסְקוּפָּה הַחִיצוֹנָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרוֹב פֵּירוֹת מִבַּחוּץ — פָּטוּר, עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַקּוּפָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who carries out food** from his house on Shabbat **and placed it on the threshold** of the door, **whether he then carried it out** from the threshold into the public domain **or another person carried it out, he is exempt because he did not perform his prohibited labor** of carrying from domain to domain **all at once.** Similarly, if one **placed a basket that is full of fruit on the outer threshold,** which is in the public domain, and part of the basket remained inside, **even though most of** the **fruit** is **outside** in the public domain, he is **exempt until he carries out the entire basket.**


###### Shabbat 91b:4
[Shabbat 91b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/91b:4)

**גְּמָ׳** הַאי אַסְקוּפָּה, מַאי? אִילֵימָא אַסְקוּפָּה רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — פָּטוּר? הָא קָא מַפֵּיק מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים! אֶלָּא אַסְקוּפָּה רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. בֵּין שֶׁחָזַר וְהוֹצִיאָן, בֵּין שֶׁהוֹצִיאָן אַחֵר — פָּטוּר? הָא קָא מַפֵּיק מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara begins by asking: **What** is the nature of **this threshold** in terms of Shabbat? **If you say** that it is **a threshold** that has the legal status of **the public domain,** in that it does not extend above nine handbreadths, and its area is four by four handbreadths, and it is suitable for use by the multitudes, why is he **exempt? Didn’t he carry out** food **from the private domain to the public domain? Rather,** say that it is **a threshold** that has the legal status of **the private domain,** in that it extends above ten handbreadths, and its area is four by four handbreadths. In that case, why does the mishna say: **Whether he then carried it out** from the threshold into the public domain **or another person carried it out, he is exempt?** Why should he be exempt? **Didn’t he carry out** food **from the private domain to the public domain?**


###### Shabbat 91b:5
[Shabbat 91b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/91b:5)

אֶלָּא אַסְקוּפָּה כַּרְמְלִית, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: טַעְמָא דְּנָח בְּכַרְמְלִית, הָא לָא נָח בְּכַרְמְלִית — מִיחַיַּיב. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּבֶן עַזַּאי. דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲנוּת לִפְלַטְיָא דֶּרֶךְ סְטָיו — חַיָּיב, וּבֶן עַזַּאי פּוֹטֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna is referring to **a threshold** that is **a *karmelit*. And** it **teaches us the following: The reason** that he is exempt is due to the fact **that** the object **came to rest in a *karmelit*. However,** if the object **did not come to rest in a *karmelit*, he is liable** even if it passed through a *karmelit*. This comes to teach that **the mishna** is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **ben Azzai, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **One who carries out** an object **from a store,** which is a private domain, **to a plaza,** which is a public domain, **via a colonnade,** which is a *karmelit*, **is liable** because he lifted the object in a private domain and placed it in a public domain. **And ben Azzai** deems him **exempt** because, in his opinion, an exempt domain separates between the private and public domains.


###### Shabbat 91b:6
[Shabbat 91b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/91b:6)

קוּפָּה שֶׁהִיא מְלֵיאָה כּוּ׳. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּקוּפָּה מְלֵיאָה קִישּׁוּאִין וְדִלּוּעִין, אֲבָל מְלֵיאָה חַרְדָּל — חַיָּיב. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר אֶגֶד כְּלִי — לָא שְׁמֵיהּ אֶגֶד. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מְלֵיאָה חַרְדָּל — פָּטוּר. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר אֶגֶד כְּלִי — שְׁמֵיהּ אֶגֶד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: If one **placed a basket that is full of fruit** on the outer threshold, he is only liable if he carries out the entire basket. **Ḥizkiya said: They only taught** this *halakha* **with regard to a basket full of cucumbers and gourds,** both of which are long. Part of each fruit remains inside even when most of the basket is in the public domain. **However,** if the basket was **full of mustard** seeds, **he is liable** for carrying out a measure of individual mustard seeds to the public domain. The Gemara concludes: **Apparently, he holds that the fusion** of several objects in a single **vessel is not considered fusion.** Even though several objects are in a single basket, they do not have the legal status of a single unit. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even** if the basket were **full of mustard** seeds, **he is exempt. Apparently, he holds that the fusion** of several objects in a single **vessel is considered fusion.**


###### Shabbat 91b:7
[Shabbat 91b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/91b:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּחִזְקִיָּה דַּיְקָא, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דַּיְקָא: כְּחִזְקִיָּה לָא דַּיְקָא — דְּקָתָנֵי: ״עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַקּוּפָּה״ — טַעְמָא דְּכׇל הַקּוּפָּה, הָא כׇּל הַפֵּירוֹת — פָּטוּר, אַלְמָא קָסָבַר אֶגֶד כְּלִי שְׁמֵיהּ אֶגֶד. כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא דַּיְקָא — דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרוֹב פֵּירוֹת בַּחוּץ״ — טַעְמָא דְּרוֹב פֵּירוֹת, הָא כׇּל פֵּירוֹת, אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲגִידָא קוּפָּה מִגַּוַּאי — חַיָּיב, אַלְמָא קָסָבַר אֶגֶד כְּלִי לָא שְׁמֵיהּ אֶגֶד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said:** The language of **the mishna** does **not precisely** correspond with the opinion of **Ḥizkiya, and** it does **not precisely** correspond with the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan.** The Gemara explains: It does **not precisely** correspond with the opinion of **Ḥizkiya, as** the mishna **taught: Until he carries out the entire basket.** The Gemara infers: **The reason** that he is liable is because he carried out **the entire basket. However,** if part of the basket remained inside, even if he carried out **all the fruit, he is exempt. Apparently,** the mishna **holds** that **fusion** of several objects in a single **vessel is considered fusion.** Since the vessel fuses the fruit into one entity, when part of the basket remains inside, by extension its fruit is also considered to have remained inside. And it does **not precisely** correspond with the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, as** the mishna **taught: Even though most of** the **fruit** is **outside.** The Gemara infers: **The reason** that he is exempt is because only **most of the fruit** is outside. **However,** if **all** the **fruit** were outside, then **even though** part of **the basket** remains **bound inside, he is liable. Apparently,** the mishna **holds** that **the fusion** of several objects in a single **vessel is not considered fusion.**


###### Shabbat 91b:8
[Shabbat 91b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/91b:8)

וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא! חִזְקִיָּה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ. חִזְקִיָּה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: ״עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַקּוּפָּה״, בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּקוּפָּה מְלֵיאָה קִישּׁוּאִין וְדִלּוּעִין, אֲבָל מְלֵיאָה חַרְדָּל — נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמִי שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַקּוּפָּה, וְחַיָּיב. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, ״אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרוֹב פֵּירוֹת בַּחוּץ״, וְלֹא רוֹב פֵּירוֹת בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל פֵּירוֹת — פָּטוּר, עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַקּוּפָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **However,** that is **difficult.** The inferences of the mishna are contradictory. The Gemara explains: **Ḥizkiya resolves** the contradiction in accordance **with his reasoning, and Rabbi Yoḥanan resolves** the contradiction in accordance **with his reasoning.** The Gemara elaborates: According to both of the Sages, the mishna is referring to two distinct cases. **Ḥizkiya resolves** the contradiction according **to his reasoning.** The phrase: **Until he carries out the entire basket; in what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in the case of **a basket full of cucumbers and gourds. However,** in the case of a basket **full of mustard** seeds, **he becomes as one who carried out the entire basket, and he is liable** for carrying out the mustard seeds. And **Rabbi Yoḥanan resolves** the contradiction according **to his reasoning:** When we learned: **Even though most of** the **fruit** is **outside,** he is exempt; **and** that ruling is true **not only** if he carried out **most** of the **fruit, but even** if he carried out **all the fruit** he is also **exempt, until he carries out the entire basket.**


###### Shabbat 91b:9
[Shabbat 91b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/91b:9)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַמּוֹצִיא קוּפַּת הָרוֹכְלִין וּנְתָנָהּ עַל אַסְקוּפָּה הַחִיצוֹנָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרוֹב מִינִין בַּחוּץ — פָּטוּר, עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַקּוּפָּה. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בִּצְרָרֵי, קַשְׁיָא לְחִזְקִיָּה! אָמַר לָךְ חִזְקִיָּה: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּאוּרְנָסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Gemara raises an objection** from that which was taught in a *baraita*: **One who carries out the merchant’s basket** on Shabbat that contains different items, primarily spices, **and placed it on the outer threshold** of the house, **even though most of** the **types** of items in the basket are **outside, he is exempt until he carries out the entire basket. It** might **enter your mind** to say that this is referring to a basket full **of bundles** of different spices. That **is difficult** according **to** the opinion of **Ḥizkiya,** as even though most of the bundles entered the public domain, he is exempt. The Gemara answers: **Ḥizkiya** could have **said to you: With what are we dealing here? With stalks [*urnasei*].** The spices are in the form of stalks that fill the entire length of the basket. As long as part of the basket remains inside, part of each stalk remains inside as well.


###### Shabbat 91b:10
[Shabbat 91b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/91b:10)

מֵתִיב רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: הַגּוֹנֵב כִּיס בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת. הָיָה מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא — פָּטוּר, שֶׁהֲרֵי אִיסּוּר גְּנֵיבָה וְאִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֶגֶד כְּלִי — שְׁמֵיהּ אֶגֶד, קָדֵים לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר גְּנֵיבָה לְאִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **Rav Beivai bar Abaye** also **raised an objection** from that which we learned: **One who steals a purse on Shabbat is liable** for the theft. Based on the principle that one who is liable to receive two punishments receives the greater of the two, in this case one should be exempt from payment for the theft, since performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat is punishable by stoning. However, this case is different **because he was already liable for theft** as soon as he lifted the purse. This took place **before he came to** violate **the prohibition** of performing prohibited labor on **Shabbat** by carrying it into the public domain. However, if he did not lift the purse, but **was dragging** it on the ground **and exiting** the private domain, **he is exempt** from paying for the theft, **as** in that case, he is only liable for the theft when he drags the purse out of the owner’s property into the public domain. **The prohibition of theft and the prohibition of Shabbat** are violated **all at once.** For the purposes of this discussion: **And if it enters your mind** to say that **fusion** of several objects within a single **vessel is considered fusion,** in this case **the prohibition of theft precedes the prohibition of Shabbat.** At the moment that the mouth of the purse enters the public domain, he is liable for theft because it is as if the money inside had been carried out. With regard to Shabbat, he would not be liable until the entire purse entered the public domain.


###### Shabbat 91b:11
[Shabbat 91b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/91b:11)

אִי דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ דֶּרֶךְ פִּיו — הָכִי נָמֵי. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? — דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ דֶּרֶךְ שׁוּלָיו. וְהָאִיכָּא מְקוֹם חֲלָמָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If** this is referring to a case **where he carried it out by way of its mouth, indeed that is so,** he would be liable for theft. However, **with what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where he carried it out by** the **underside** of the purse. Since none of the money is accessible until the entire purse is in the public domain, he violated the prohibitions simultaneously. The Gemara asks: **Isn’t there the area of the seam?** He could gain access to the money even if he dragged out the purse by way of its underside,