Shabbat 182

יוצא בכזית לענין שבת נמי בכזית הכי השתא התם מדאפקיה חוץ לחומת העזרה איפסיל ליה ביוצא אשבת לא מיחייב עד דמפיק ליה לרה"ר הכא שבת וטומאה בהדי הדדי קאתיין:

its going out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beyond the walls of the Temple Court. — These must be consumed within the Temple precincts; if they are taken beyond that they become unfit for food, and the priest who eats then, violates a negative injunction. ');">¹</span> [the standard is] the size of an olive, in respect of the Sabbath too it is the size of an olive?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since we do not reason thus, we see that there is no connection between the standard of culpability for carrying out on the Sabbath and that required for other purposes. ');">²</span>

חזר והכניסו אינו חייב אלא כשיעורו: פשיטא אמר אביי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שזרקו לאוצר ומקומו ניכר מהו דתימא כיון דמקומו ניכר במילתיה קמייתא קאי קמ"ל מדזרקיה לאוצר בטולי בטליה:

How compare! There, immediately one takes it without the wall of the Temple Court it becomes unfit as that which has gone out, whereas there is no culpability for the [violation of the] Sabbath until he carries it into public ground. But here the Sabbath and defilement come simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it comes to rest the action of throwing is completed. and simultaneously the standard for defilement is reached. ');">³</span> IF HE CARRIES IT BACK AGAIN, HE IS LIABLE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS STANDARD. But that is obvious? Said Abaye: What case do we discuss here? E.g., if he throws it on to a store, but its place is [distinctly] recognizable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He did not actually state that he had changed his mind, but let it be inferred from the fact that he threw it on to a store of other grain. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המוציא אוכלין ונתנן על האסקופה בין שחזר והוציאן בין שהוציאן אחר פטור מפני שלא עשה מלאכתו בבת אחת קופה שהיא מליאה פירות ונתנה על אסקופה החיצונה אע"פ שרוב פירות מבחוץ פטור עד שיוציא את כל הקופה:

You, might argue, since Its place is recognizable, it stands in its original condition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As being destined for separate sowing. ');">⁵</span> he [the Tanna] therefore teaches us that by throwing it on to a store he indeed nullifies it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it loses its separate identity. and becomes merely part of the store. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> האי אסקופה מאי אילימא אסקופ' רה"ר פטור הא קא מפיק מרה"י לרה"ר אלא אסקופה רה"י בין שחזר והוציאן בין שהוציאן אחר פטור הא קא מפיק מרה"י לרה"ר

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE CARRIES OUT FOOD AND PLACES IT ON THE THRESHOLD, WHETHER HE [HIMSELF] SUBSEQUENTLY CARRIES IT OUT [INTO THE STREET] OR ANOTHER DOES SO, HE IS NOT CULPABLE, BECAUSE THE [WHOLE] ACT WAS NOT PERFORMED AT ONCE. [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] A BASKET WHICH IS FULL OF PRODUCE AND PLACES IT ON THE OUTER THRESHOLD, THOUGH MOST OF THE PRODUCE IS WITHOUT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the street. ');">⁷</span> HE IS NOT CULPABLE UNLESS HE CARRIES OUT THE WHOLE BASKET.

אלא אסקופה כרמלית והא קמ"ל טעמא דנח בכרמלית הא לא נח בכרמלית מיחייב מתני' דלא כבן עזאי דתניא המוציא מחנות לפלטיא דרך סטיו חייב ובן עזאי פוטר:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is this threshold? Shall we say, a threshold that is public ground? [How state then] 'HE IS NOT CULPABLE'! Surely he has carried out from private into public ground? Again, if it is a threshold that is private ground, [how state then] WHETHER HE [HIMSELF] SUBSEQUENTLY CARRIES IT OUT [INTO THE STREET] OR ANOTHER DOES SO, HE IS NOT CULPABLE'? Surely he carries out from private into public ground? Rather the threshold is a <i>karmelith</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 6a. ');">⁸</span> and he [the Tanna] informs us this: The reason [that he is not culpable] is because it rested in the <i>karmelith</i>; but if it did not rest in the <i>karmelith</i> he would be liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it was carried out by way of a karmelith. ');">⁹</span>

קופה שהיא מליאה כו': אמר חזקיה לא שנו אלא בקופה מליאה קישואין ודלועין אבל מליאה חרדל חייב אלמא קסבר אגד כלי לא שמיה אגד ור' יוחנן אמר אפי' מליאה חרדל פטור אלמא קסבר אגד כלי שמיה אגד

our Mishnah not agreeing with Ben 'Azzai. For it was taught: If one carries [an article] from a shop to an open place via a colonnade, he is liable; but Ben 'Azzai holds him not liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 5b. ');">¹⁰</span> A BASKET WHICH IS FULL OF PRODUCE. Hezekiah said: They learnt this only of a basket full of cucumbers and gourds;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are long, and are still partly within. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ר זירא מתני' דלא כחזקיה דיקא ודלא כר' יוחנן דיקא כחזקיה לא דיקא דקתני עד שיוציא את כל הקופה טעמא דכל הקופה הא כל הפירות פטור אלמא קסבר אגד כלי שמיה אגד כרבי יוחנן לא דיקא דקתני אע"פ שרוב פירות בחוץ טעמא דרוב פירות הא כל פירות אע"ג דאגידא קופה מגואי חייב אלמא קסבר אגד כלי לא שמיה אגד

but if it is full of mustard, he is culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since some of it is entirely in the street. ');">¹²</span> This proves that the tie of the vessel is not regarded as a tie.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We do not regard all the mustard as one because it is tied together, as it were, by the basket, and treat it the same as cucumbers and gourds. [The 'tie of a vessel' in connect on with Sabbath is a technical phrase denoting that side of the vessel in the direction of the domain whence it is carried out (Rashi)]. ');">¹³</span>

ואלא קשיא חזקיה מתרץ לטעמי' ור' יוחנן מתרץ לטעמיה חזקיה מתרץ לטעמיה עד שיוציא את כל הקופה בד"א בקופה מליאה קישואין ודלועין אבל מליאה חרדל נעשה כמי שהוציא את כל הקופה וחייב ר"י מתרץ לטעמיה אע"פ שרוב פירות בחוץ ולא רוב פירות בלבד אלא אפילו כל פירות פטור עד שיוציא את כל הקופה

But R. Johanan maintained: Even if it is full of mustard he is not culpable, which proves that he holds that the tie of the vessel is regarded as a tie. R. Zera observed: Our Mishnah implies that it is neither as Hezekiah nor as R. Johanan. 'It implies that it is not as Hezekiah', for it states: UNLESS HE CARRIES OUT THE WHOLE BASKET. Thus only the whole basket; but if all the produce [is without] he is not culpable, which shows that he holds that the tie of the vessel is regarded as a tie. 'It implies that it is not as R. Johanan', for it states: THOUGH MOST OF THE PRODUCE IS WITHOUT: thus only most of the produce, but if all the produce [is without], though the tie of the basket is within, he is liable, which shows that he holds that the tie of a vessel is not regarded as a tie. But in that case there is a difficulty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah being self-contradictory. ');">¹⁴</span> — Hezekiah reconciles it in accordance with his view, while R. Johanan reconciles it in accordance with his view. Hezekiah reconciles it in accordance with his view: UNLESS HE CARRIES OUT THE WHOLE BASKET. When is that? in the case of a basket full of cucumbers and gourds. But if it is full of mustard, it is treated as though HE CARRIED OUT THE WHOLE BASKET, and he is culpable' — While R. Johanan reconciles it according to his view. THOUGH MOST OF THE PRODUCE IS WITHOUT, and not only most of the produce, but even if all the produce [is without] he is not culpable, UNLESS HE CARRIES OUT THE WHOLE BASKET.

מיתיבי המוציא קופת הרוכלין ונתנה על אסקופה החיצונה אע"פ שרוב מינין בחוץ פטור עד שיוציא את כל הקופה קס"ד בצררי קשיא לחזקיה אמר לך חזקיה הכא במאי עסקינן באורנסי

An objection is raised: If one carries out a spice pedlar's basket and places it on the outer threshold, though most of the kinds [of the spices] are without he is not culpable, unless he carries out the whole basket. Now this was assumed to refer to grains [of spices],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., it contained ground spices, which makes it similar to a basket of mustard. ');">¹⁵</span> which is a difficulty according to Hezekiah? Hezekiah answers you: The reference here is to prickly shrubs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [G], a kind of prickly shrub used for medicinal purposes and carried in long bundles (Jast.). ');">¹⁶</span>

מתיב רב ביבי בר אביי הגונב כיס בשבת חייב שכבר נתחייב בגניבה קודם שיבא לידי איסור שבת היה מגרר ויוצא פטור שהרי איסור גניבה ואיסור שבת באין כאחד ואי סלקא דעתך אגד כלי שמיה אגד קדים ליה איסור גניבה לאיסור שבת

R. Bibi b. Abaye raised an objection: If one steals a purse on the Sabbath, he is bound to make restitution, since his liability for theft arises before his desecrating of the Sabbath. But if he drags it out of the house he is exempt, since the interdict of theft and the interdict of the Sabbath come simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 491, n. 1. ');">¹⁷</span> But if you think that the tie of a vessel is regarded as a tie,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the vessel is still regarded as being within. ');">¹⁸</span>

אי דאפקיה דרך פיו הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן דאפקיה דרך שוליו והאיכא מקום חלמה

the interdict of theft precedes that of the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he violates the former before the latter. For as soon as part of the purse is outside, all the money within that part is regarded as stolen, since he can take it out through the mouth of the purse as it lies thus. ');">¹⁹</span> — If he carries it out by way of its opening,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mouth or opening preceding. ');">²⁰</span> that indeed is so. Here we discuss the case where he carries it out by way of its bottom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through which he cannot remove the coins; hence he has not stolen them yet. ');">²¹</span> But there is the place of its seams,