Quoting%20commentary for Makkot 39:3

טעמא דאיתיה בירושלים הא בגבולין לוקה שלש דאע"ג דלאו רואה פני חומה דעיילי ואפקי

The reason [why he would only be liable two] is that he was in Jersulselm, but if he would have been in the provinces, he would have liable three even though it never "saw the face of the wall"! The baraisa was referring to a case where he brought it in and out.

Explore quoting%20commentary for Makkot 39:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.