## Shevuot Daf 5b

###### Shevuot 5b:1
[Shevuot 5b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/5b:1)

דִּתְנַן: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת חַיָּיב. מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דְּקָא מְעַיֵּיל עַיּוֹלֵי – וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״הוֹצָאָה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Shabbat* 73a): **One who carries out** an item **from** one **domain to** another **domain** is **liable.** The Gemara claims: **Are we not** also **dealing** with a case **where he is bringing** it **in** from a public domain to a private domain, **and** nevertheless the mishna **refers to it** as **carrying out?**


###### Shevuot 5b:2
[Shevuot 5b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/5b:2)

וְדִלְמָא קָא מַפֵּיק מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים? אִם כֵּן, נִיתְנֵי ״הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים״; מַאי ״מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת״? דַּאֲפִילּוּ מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this assertion: **But perhaps** the mishna is dealing with a case of **carrying out** an item **from a private domain to a public domain.** The Gemara defends its claim: **If so, let it** instead **teach: One who carries out** an item **from a private domain to a public domain** is liable. **What** is the reason it used the more generalized formulation: **From** one **domain to** another **domain?** To teach **that** one is liable **even** if one transfers an item **from a public domain to a private domain.**


###### Shevuot 5b:3
[Shevuot 5b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/5b:3)

וְקָא קָרֵי לַהּ ״הוֹצָאָה״. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? תַּנָּא, כׇּל עֲקִירַת חֵפֶץ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ – ״הוֹצָאָה״ קָרֵי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains further: Even though the mishna addresses carrying an item in from a public domain to a private domain, **it refers to it as carrying out.** The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** for this? **The *tanna* refers to any** act that involves **removal of an item from its place as carrying out.** Accordingly, the term can appropriately be used even when an item is brought in to a private domain from a public domain.


###### Shevuot 5b:4
[Shevuot 5b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/5b:4)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״יְצִיאוֹת שַׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע בִּפְנִים וּשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע בַּחוּץ״, וְקָא מְפָרֵשׁ הַכְנָסָה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** The language of **the mishna** in tractate *Shabbat* **is also precise** in indicating this, **as it teaches:** With regard to acts of **carrying out [*yetziyyot*]** that are prohibited **on Shabbat,** there are primarily **two** basic actions **that are four** cases from the perspective of a person **inside** a private domain, **and two** basic actions **that are four** cases from the perspective of a person **outside,** in a public domain. **And** then, immediately, in the continuation of that mishna, **it explicates** the cases of **bringing in** an item. **Conclude from it** that the term: Carrying out, is also used to refer to bringing in an item.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: רְשׁוּיוֹת קָתָנֵי – רְשׁוּיוֹת שַׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** One cannot make any inference from the language of the mishna, as it is not referring to acts of carrying out. Rather, **it teaches domains.** In other words, it means: With regard to the **domains of Shabbat** there are **two** types, the existence of which leads to four types of prohibited transfers, two with regard to carrying out and two with regard to bringing in.


###### Shevuot 5b:6
[Shevuot 5b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/5b:6)

מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה. תְּנַן הָתָם: מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים – שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה: בַּהֶרֶת – עַזָּה כַּשֶּׁלֶג, שְׁנִיָּה לָהּ – כְּסִיד הַהֵיכָל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to different **shades of** leprous **marks,** there are **two** types **that are** actually **four. We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Nega’im* 1:1): With regard to different **shades of** leprous **marks,** there are **two** types **that are** actually **four:** The ***baheret*,** mentioned in the Torah (see Leviticus 13:2), is considered a primary mark; it is **an intense** white, **like snow. Secondary to it,** i.e., a sub-category of it, is a mark that is white **like** the **lime** plaster **of the Sanctuary** walls.


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

שְׂאֵת – כְּצֶמֶר לָבָן, שְׁנִיָּה לָהּ – כִּקְרוּם בֵּיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
That mishna continues: The ***se’et*** mentioned in the Torah is considered a primary mark; it is **like white wool. Secondary to it** is a mark that is white **like the membrane of an egg.** The ordering of different shades is relevant in determining which shades can be combined together. In order for a leprous mark to be halakhically significant, it must at least be the size of a split Cilician bean [*geris*]. If a mark is that size, but it is composed of different shades of white, none of which is alone the size of a *geris*, then if the different shades are compatible they can combine together and will thereby render the person ritually impure.


###### Shevuot 5b:8
[Shevuot 5b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/5b:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאן תַּנָּא מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. דְּאִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר: זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ וְזוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ, אִם כֵּן טִיהַרְתָּ סִיד הֵיכָל מִלְּצָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina said: Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** this mishna, which delineates the different **shades of leprous marks** into two groups? It is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva. As if** it were in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva** one would be presented with a difficulty: **Since** with regard to which shades can combine together, Rabbi Akiva **says:** The different shades should be ordered **this** one **above this** one, **and that** one **above that** one, i.e., according to their degrees of brightness, from the most bright to the darkest shade, as follows: Snow white, i.e., *baheret*; wool white, i.e., *se’et*; lime; and egg membrane; and only two adjacent shades can combine together. But **if so, you have rendered pure** a mark that is white like the **lime** plaster **of the Sanctuary** walls and is smaller than a *geris*, as **it cannot be combined** with any other shade of white.


###### Shevuot 5b:9
[Shevuot 5b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/5b:9)

בַּהֲדֵי מַאן לִיצָרְפֵיהּ? לִיצָרְפֵיהּ בַּהֲדֵי בַּהֶרֶת – אִיכָּא שְׂאֵת דַּעֲדִיפָא מִינֵּיהּ. לִיצָרְפֵיהּ בַּהֲדֵי שְׂאֵת – לָאו תּוֹלָדָה דִּידֵיהּ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **With which** other shade **could we combine** the lime-colored mark? We cannot say: **Let us combine it together with** a snow-white ***baheret*,** which is the primary mark relative to a lime-colored mark, as **there is** a wool-white ***se’et*, which is a more** bright white **than** a lime-colored mark but less bright than snow white. Since *baheret* is not adjacent to lime it cannot combine with it. We cannot say: **Let us combine it together with a *se’et*,** as a lime-colored mark **is not its secondary** mark and a primary mark can combine only with its secondary mark. This is difficult because the mishna’s categorization of a lime-colored mark as a secondary mark indicates that it can be combined with another shade of white. Perforce, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.


###### Shevuot 5b:10
[Shevuot 5b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/5b:10)

אִי הָכִי, קְרוּם בֵּיצָה נָמֵי – בַּהֲדֵי מַאן לִיצָרְפֵיהּ? לִיצָרְפֵיהּ בַּהֲדֵי שְׂאֵת – אִיכָּא סִיד דַּעֲדִיף מִינֵּיהּ, לִיצָרְפֵיהּ בַּהֲדֵי סִיד – לָאו בַּר מִינֵיהּ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that Rabbi Akiva holds that only adjacent shades of white can combine together, why didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina **also** bring proof from a mark that is white like the **membrane of an egg,** as **with which** other shade **could we combine it?** We cannot say: **Let us combine it together with** a wool-white ***se’et*,** which is the primary mark relative to an egg membrane–colored mark, as **there is a lime**-colored mark, **which is a more** bright white **than** an egg membrane–colored mark but less bright that wool white. Since *se’et* is not adjacent to egg membrane it cannot combine with it. We cannot say: **Let us combine it together with a lime**-colored mark, as it **is not its type,** i.e., they are not of the same category, and so they cannot combine.