Shabbat 194:1

למימרא דמחייב רבי אתולדה במקום אב

shall we say that Rabbi holds one liable for a derivative [when performed] conjointly with its principal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 96b. ');">¹</span>

והתניא רבי אומר דברים הדברים אלה הדברים אלו ל"ט מלאכות שנאמרו למשה בסיני

But surely it was taught. Rabbi said: Words [debarim], the words [ha-debarim], these [eleh] are the words: this indicates the thirty-nine labours stated to Moses at Sinai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 70a. Now the only purpose of deducing the number is to show that his is the maximum number of sacrifices to which one can be liable; but if one is liable for derivatives in addition to the principal labours there can be far more. ');">²</span>

אמר ליה רב יוסף מר אהא מתני לה וקשיא ליה דרבי אדרבי אנן אדרבי יהודה מתנינן ולא קשיא לן

Said R. Joseph to him: You learn it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What you heard from Rab Judah. ');">³</span>

דתניא מרה"י לרשות הרבים ועבר ארבע אמות ברה"ר רבי יהודה מחייב וחכמים פוטרין

in reference to this, and so find Rabbi self-contradictory; We learn it in reference to R. Judah['s ruling]. and find no difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we find nowhere that R. Judah exempts for a derivative performed conjointly with the principal. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחייב היה רבי יהודה שתים אחת משום הוצאה ואחת משום העברה דאי ס"ד חדא הוא דמחייב מכלל דרבנן פטרי לגמרי הא אפיק לה מרה"י לרה"ר ממאי דילמא לעולם אימא לך ר' יהודה חדא הוא דמחייב ורבנן פטרי לגמרי והיכי משכחת לה כגון דאמר עד דנפקא ליה לרה"ר תנוח

For it was taught: [If one throws an article] from private to public ground, and it traverses four cubits over the public ground: R. Judah holds [him] liable, whereas the sages exempt [him]. [Whereon] Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: R. Judah holds [him] liable to two [sacrifices], one on account of transporting [from private ground] and a second on account of carrying over [public ground). For if you think that he holds him liable to one [only]. it follows that the Rabbis exempt [him] completely: but surely he has carried it out from private to public ground? [But] how so? Perhaps I may tell you after all that R. Judah holds him liable to one [only]. and the Rabbis exempt [him] completely: yet [as to the question] how is that possible? it is where e.g.. he declared, 'Immediately on issuing into the street, let it come to rest; and they differ in this: R. Judah holds: 'We say. An object caught up [in the air] is as at rest, and his intention is fulfilled; while the Rabbis hold, We do not say. An object caught up is as at rest, and his intention is not fulfilled;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he is not liable on its account. ');">⁵</span>

ובהא קמיפלגי דר' יהודה סבר אמרינן קלוטה כמה שהונחה ואיתעבידא ליה מחשבתו ורבנן סברי לא אמרינן קלוטה כמה שהונחה ולא איתעבידא ליה מחשבתו אבל אתולדה במקום אב לא מחייב רבי יהודה

but for a derivative [performed] simultaneously with its principal R. Judah does not impose liability? You cannot think so, for it was taught: R. Judah adds the closing up of the web and the evening of the woof. Said they to him: Closing the web is included in stretching the threads, and evening [the woof] is included in weaving.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 75a. ');">⁶</span>

לא ס"ד דתניא רבי יהודה מוסיף אף השובט והמדקדק אמרו לו שובט הרי הוא בכלל מיסך מדקדק הרי הוא בכלל אורג מאי לאו דעבדינהו לתרווייהו בהדי הדדי וש"מ מחייב היה רבי יהודה אתולדה במקום אב

Does that not mean that one performs both of them together. which proves that R. Judah imposed liability for a derivative [performed] simultaneously with its principal — Why so? perhaps it really means that each was performed separately. R. Judah not imposing liability for a derivative [performed] simultaneously with its principal, and they differ in this: R. Judah holds.These are principal labours; while the Rabbis hold, These are derivatives. The proof [of this assumption] is that it is stated, 'R. Judah adds etc.': now. it is well if you agree that they are principal labours [on his view, for then] what does he add? he adds principals; but if you say that they are derivatives, what does he add?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For only principals are enumerated there. ');">⁷</span>

ממאי דילמא לעולם דעבדה להא לחודה והא לחודה ורבי יהודה אתולדה במקום אב לא מחייב ובהא קמיפלגי דר' יהודה סבר הני אבות נינהו ורבנן סברי הני תולדות נינהו

It was stated likewise, Rabbah and R. Joseph both maintain: R. Judah imposed liability only for one [sacrifice].

תדע דקתני רבי יהודה מוסיף אי אמרת בשלמא אבות מאי מוסיף מוסיף אבות אלא אי אמרת תולדות מאי מוסיף איתמר נמי רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו לא חייב רבי יהודה אלא אחת

Rabina observed to R. Ashi: But on our original assumption that R. Judah held [him] liable to two, — if he desires it [to alight] here. he does not desire it [to alight] there, and vice versa?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to be liable to two it would be necessary that he should carry it out and deposit it in the street, then lift it up and carry it four cubits. and deposit it again. Now it may be argued that an object caught up in the air is as at rest, and therefore immediately it enters the street atmosphere it is as though it alights on the ground, and when it travels further it is as though it is taken up and carried again. But the thrower's intention is that it should come to rest at one place only, either as soon as it emerges into the street or after four cubits; in either case it cannot be regarded as though he deposited it, picked it up and deposited it again. Hence he can be liable for carrying it out only, but not for its passage in the street (v. Rashi and R. Han.). ');">⁸</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא דמחייב היה ר' יהודה שתים אי להכא קבעי לה להכא לא קבעי לה אי להכא קבעי לה להכא לא קבעי לה אמר ליה באומר כל מקום שתרצה תנוח:

— Said he to him, It means that he declared, 'Wherever it pleases, let it come to rest.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then it is regarded as though it rested at both places in accordance with this intention, ');">⁹</span>

פשיטא נתכוון לזרוק שמנה וזרק ארבע הרי כתב שם משמעון נתכוון לזרוק ארבע וזרק שמנה מהו מי אמרינן הא אפיק ליה או דילמא היכא דבעי הא לא נח ולאו היינו דאמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי וא"ל באומר כל מקום שתרצה תנוח

It is obvious that if one intends throwing [an object] eight [cubits] but throws [it] four, it is as though he wrote SHem [as part of] SHimeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 103a and p. 336. n. 5. Hence here too he is liable. ');">¹⁰</span>

ודקאמרת הרי כתב שם משמעון מי דמי התם כמה דלא כתיב שם לא מכתיב ליה שמעון הכא כמה דלא זריק ארבע לא מיזדרקי ליה תמני:

[But] what if one intends throwing [an object] four [cubits] but throws [it] eight: do we say, Surely he has carried it out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' of its original spot and it has traversed the four cubits he desired, though it has gone further too, ');">¹¹</span>

תנו רבנן הזורק מרשות הרבים לרה"ר ורשות היחיד באמצע ד' אמות חייב

or perhaps it has surely not alighted where he desired? But is this not what Rabina observed to R. Ashi, and he answered him, It means that he said, 'Wherever it pleases. let it come to rest'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But otherwise he is not liable; so here too he should not be liable in either case unless he made such a declaration. ');">¹²</span> And as to what you say. It is the same as writing SHem [as part] of SHimeon: how compare? There, without writing SHem, SHimeon cannot be written;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence when one writes SHem he does so intentionally, though he also intends to add to it, ');">¹³</span> but here, without [intentionally] throwing [it] four, cannot one throw it eight?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! I.e., one need have no intention to throw it exactly four cubits in order to be able to throw it eight. (The difference is that when one writes SHem he has performed a labour, whereas when one throws an article, his action is incomplete until it comes to rest.) ');">¹⁴</span> Our Rabbis taught: If one throws [an object] from public to public ground, and private ground lies between them: [if it traverses] four cubits [over public ground]. he is culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., over the two public grounds combined. ');">¹⁵</span>