Reference for Shabbat 198:14

אמר רבא פשיטא לי מים על גבי מים היינו הנחתן אגוז על גבי מים

how much more so for itself!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is certainly private ground, just as the karmelith which it converts. ');">¹³</span> This was stated too: R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name, and thus said R. Isaac in R. Johanan's name: In the case of a wall in the street ten high and not four broad, surrounding a <i>karmelith</i> and converting it into private ground, he who throws [an article] which alights thereon is culpable: if it serves as a partition for something- else, how much more so for itself. R. Johanan propounded: What of a pit nine [handbreadths deep] and one removes one segment from it and makes it up to ten;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The segment was one handbreadth in thickness and by removing it the pit reaches the depth of ten handbreaths, which constitutes the legal height for the partition of a private domain.] ');">¹⁴</span> [do we say] the taking up of the object and the making of the partition come simultaneously, hence he is culpable; or is he not culpable? Now should you say, since the partition was not ten originally he is not liable: what of a pit ten [deep] and one lays the segment therein and [thus] diminishes it['s depth]? [Here] the depositing of the article and the removal of the partition come simultaneously: is he culpable or not? — You may solve it for him by his own [dictum]. For we learnt: if one throws [an article] four cubits on to a wall, — if above ten handbreadths, it is as though he throws it into the air; if below, it is as though lie throws it on to the ground; and he who throws [an article] four cubits along the ground is culpable. Now we discussed this: surely it does not stay there? And R. Johanan answered: This refers to a juicy cake of figs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 7b. ');">¹⁵</span> Yet why so? Surely it diminishes the four cubits?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the thickness of the figs must be deducted. Nevertheless he is culpable, and the same reasoning applies to R. Johanan's second problem. ');">¹⁶</span> — There he does not render it as nought;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he throws the cake of figs on the wall, he does not mean it to become part thereof and cease to exist separately, as it were. ');">¹⁷</span> here he does render it as nought.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it becomes part of the wall. Hence the two cases are dissimilar. ');">¹⁸</span> Raba propounded: What if one throws a board and it alights upon poles?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The poles are ten handbreadths high, but not four square, whilst the board is; thus as it rests on these poles it constitutes a private domain. ');">¹⁹</span> What does he ask? [The law where] the depositing of the article and the constituting of the partition come simultaneously? [but] that is R. Johanan's [problem]!-When does Raba ask? e.g.. if he throws a board with an article on top of it: what [then]? [Do we say], Since they come simultaneously, it is like the depositing of the article and the making of a partition [at the same time];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he is not liable. assuming this to be the solution of R. Johanan's problem. ');">²⁰</span> or perhaps, since it is impossible for it [the article] not to be slightly raised and then alight,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it does not stick to the board; hence the board alights first and then this article. ');">²¹</span> it is like the making of a partition and the [subsequent] depositing of an article?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore he is culpable. ');">²²</span> The question stands over. Raba said: I am certain, water [lying] upon water, that is its [natural] rest; a nut upon water,

Jastrow

Jastrow