יא א"ר ספרא א"ר אמי א"ר יוחנן
11 How do you know it? — Because a Master said: Within four cubits, if he stops to rest, he is exempt; to shoulder his burden, he is liable. Beyond four cubits, if he stops to rest, he is liable; to rearrange his burden, he is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One is liable for carrying an article four cubits over public ground, providing that he himself removes it from the first spot and deposits it on the other. Now, if he stops to rest within the four cubits, that constitutes depositing, and when he restarts there is a fresh removal; consequently, the article was carried four cubits with a single removal and deposit, and so he is exempt. But if he stops to rearrange the burden, it is still part of the first removal; therefore he is liable. Hence if he stops to rest after walking four cubits, he is regarded as depositing the article there, and is liable. But if he stops to rearrange his burden, he is still engaged in walking, and should another relieve him of it before he stops to rest, both are exempt. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> What does he [R. Johanan] inform us — that the original removal was not for this purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to carry it without, and so he is not liable. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> But R. Johanan stated it once. For R. Safra said in R. Ammi's name in R. Johanan's name: If one is carrying articles from corner to corner [in private ground] and then changes his mind and carries them out, he is exempt, because his original removal was not for this purpose? — It is dependent on Amoraim: one stated it in the former version; the other stated it in the latter version.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan did not teach both, but amoraim reporting his words gave different versions of what he did state. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> Our Rabbis taught: If one carries [an article] from a shop to an open space via a colonnade,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The shop is private ground, the open space is public ground, and the colonnade ranks as a karmelith, being occupied by stall holders and not frequented as a public thoroughfare. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> he is liable; but Ben 'Azzai holds him not liable. As for Ben 'Azzai, it is well: he holds that walking is like standing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he walks through the colonnade it is as though he stood there. Hence he performs two separate actions: (i) carrying an object from private ground to a karmelith; (ii) carrying an object from a karmelith to public ground. Neither of these imposes liability. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> But according to the Rabbis, granted that they hold that walking is not like standing, yet where do we find liability for such a case?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Scripture, by analogy with the Tabernacle (v. p. 11, n. 2) we find liability only for direct transference from private to public ground. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> — Said R. Safra in the name of R. Ammi in R. Johanan's name: