Talmud for Shabbat 5:5

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what⁹³Transporting something in the public domain for a distance of at least 4 cubits is a desecration of the Sabbath. Therefore, throwing something a distance of at least 4 cubits creates liability the moment the thrown object touches the ground. The question is whether there is liability if the thrower himself runs and catches the object in the air, at a distance of at least 4 cubits from where it was thrown. Babli 5a.? Is that not a Mishnah⁹⁴Mishnah 11:7. The thrower did not intend to throw it to another person or to a dog; the object was intercepted. Therefore, the original intent was not fulfilled; there is no liability. If the object was burned in flight, there is no putting down; the action is incomplete and there is no liability even if the original intent was that it should be burned in flight., “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable⁹⁵In the question asked by R. Joḥanan one has to distinguish whether the original intent was that the object should be caught in flight, when there is liability, or whether the object was snatched in flight against the original intent, when there is no liability.. What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There⁹⁶In the Mishnah there is liability if the object is a ball thrown from one person to another and the recipient is supposed to catch the ball., why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it⁹⁷The Mishnah does not directly address R. Joḥanan’s problem.. Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth⁹⁸This refers to the explanation given earlier by R. Yudan (Note 67) which shows that receiving an object in his mouth is a valid putting down. if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person⁹⁹And the legal situation depends on the original intent.. Rebbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rebbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand¹⁰⁰Throwing from one hand to the other is a normal action but throwing with one hand and receiving with the same has to be classified “as if with the back of one’s hand” (Note 80) and automatically exclude liability.. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He¹⁰¹R. Joḥanan. is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth⁹⁸This refers to the explanation given earlier by R. Yudan (Note 67) which shows that receiving an object in his mouth is a valid putting down.”, his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person¹⁰²Does it make any difference which hand is used since it always is the same person?? Rebbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons¹⁰³Therefore it is not possible to distinguish between hands in these matters.! Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that when he did it¹⁰⁴Lev. 4:27. The verse is emphatic that purification sacrifices are available only for single perpetrators acting in error: If one person of the people of the land sin in error, if he act in one of the commandments of the Eternal which is a prohibition, and be damaged.? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable¹⁰⁵Babli 3a,5a; Sifra Wayyiqra I Parashah 7(9)..