Shabbat 199:1

לאו היינו הנחתן בעי רבא אגוז בכלי וכלי צף על גבי מים מהו מי אמרינן בתר אגוז אזלינן והא נייח או דילמא בתר כלי אזלינן והא לא נייח תיקו

that is not its [natural] rest. Raba propounded: If a nut [lies] in a vessel, and the vessel floats on water, what [is the law]? Do we regard the nut, and behold it is at rest; or do we regard the vessel, and behold it is not at rest? The question stands over. [In respect to] oil [floating] upon wine, R. Johanan b. Nuri and the Rabbis differ. For we learnt: If oil is floating upon wine, and a tebul yom touches the oil, he disqualifies the oil only. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: Both are attached to each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 5b for notes on the whole passage. ');">¹</span> Abaye said: If a pit in the street [is] ten deep and eight broad, and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., eight by four-the pit of course is private ground. ');">²</span>

שמן על גבי יין מחלוקת ר' יוחנן בן נורי ורבנן דתנן שמן שצף על גבי יין ונגע טבול יום בשמן לא פסל אלא שמן ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר שניהם חיבור זה לזה

one throws a mat into it, he is culpable; but if he divides it with the mat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a stiff cane mat, which stands up vertically across the middle of the pit, ');">³</span> he is not culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thickness of the mat leaves less than four square handbreadths on either side, so that neither is now private ground. ');">⁴</span>

אמר אביי בור ברה"ר עמוקה עשרה ורחבה שמנה וזרק לתוכה מחצלת חייב חילקה במחצלת פטור לאביי דפשיטא ליה דמחצלת מבטלא מחיצה כל שכן חוליא דמבטלא מחיצה לרבי יוחנן דמיבעיא ליה חוליא מחצלת פשיטא דלא מבטלא מחיצת'

Now according to Abaye. who is certain that the mat annuls the partition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the previous note. ');">⁵</span> a segment certainly annuls the partition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. question asked by R. Johanan, supra 99b. ');">⁶</span>

ואמר אביי בור ברה"ר עמוקה עשרה ורחבה ארבעה מלאה מים וזרק לתוכה חייב מלאה פירות וזרק לתוכה פטור מ"ט מים לא מבטלי מחיצתא פירות מבטלי מחיצתא תניא נמי הכי הזורק מן הים לאיסרטיא ומן האיסרטיא לים פטור ר"ש אומר אם יש במקום שזרק עמוק עשרה ורחב ארבעה חייב:

but according to R. Johanan to whom a segment is a problem, a mat certainly does not annul the partition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the mat does not become part of the pit; v. p. 477. n. 3. ');">⁷</span> Abaye also said: If a pit in the street, ten deep and four broad, [is] full of water and one throws [an object] therein, he is culpable; [but if it is] full of produce and one throws [an object] therein, he is not culpable. What is the reason? Water does not annul the partition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the pit is private ground in spite of the water, ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הזורק ארבע אמות בכותל למעלה מעשרה טפחים כזורק באויר למטה מעשרה טפחים כזורק בארץ הזורק בארץ ארבע אמות חייב:

[whereas] produce does annul the partition. It was taught likewise: If one throws [an object] from the sea into a street, or from a street into the sea, he is not liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sea is a karmelith, supra 6a. ');">⁹</span> R. Simeon said: If there is in the place where he throws [it a separate cavity] ten deep and four broad, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it stands apart from the rest of the sea. This cavity too is naturally filled with water; hence we see that water does not annul the partition. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> והא לא נח א"ר יוחנן בדבילה שמינה שנינו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] FOUR CUBITS ON TO A WALL ABOVE TEN HANDBREADTHS, IT IS AS THOUGH HE THROWS IT INTO THE AIR; IF BELOW, IT IS AS THOUGH IT THROWS IT ON TO THE GROUND, AND HE WHO THROWS [AN ARTICLE] FOUR CUBITS ALONG THE GROUND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, over the ground, within the height of ten handbreadths. ');">¹¹</span> IS CULPABLE.

א"ר יהודה אמר רב א"ר חייא זרק למעלה מעשרה והלכה ונחה בחור כל שהוא באנו למחלוקת ר' מאיר ורבנן לר"מ דאמר חוקקין להשלים מיחייב לרבנן דאמרי אין חוקקין להשלים לא מיחייב תניא נמי הכי זרק למעלה מעשרה והלכה ונחה בחור כל שהוא ר"מ מחייב וחכמים פוטרין

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But it does not stay there? — Said R. Johanan: We learnt of a juicy cake of figs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 7b for notes on this and the Mishnah. ');">¹²</span> Rab Judah said in Rab's name in the name of R. Hiyya: If one throws [an article] above ten [handbreadths] and it goes and alights in a cavity of any size, we come to a controversy of R. Meir and the Rabbis. According to R. Meir. who holds: We [imaginarily] hollow out to complete it, he is liable; according to the Rabbis who 'maintain, We do not hollow out to complete it, he is not liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra 7b for notes. ');">¹³</span>

א"ר יהודה אמר רב תל המתלקט עשרה מתוך ארבע וזרק ונח על גביו חייב תנ"ה מבוי ששוה לתוכו ונעשה מדרון לרה"ר או שוה לרה"ר ונעשה מדרון לתוכו אותו מבוי אינו צריך לא לחי ולא קורה רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר תל המתלקט עשרה מתוך ארבע וזרק ונח על גביו חייב:

It was taught likewise: If one throws [an article] above ten and it goes and alights in a cavity of any size, R. Meir declares [him] culpable. whereas the Rabbis exempt [him]. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If a [sloping] mound attains [a height of] ten [handbreadths] within [a distance of] four,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This renders it too steep to be negotiated in one's ordinary stride, and the top is therefore counted as private ground. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> זרק לתוך ד' אמות ונתגלגל חוץ לד' אמות פטור חוץ לד' אמות ונתגלגל לתוך ד' אמות חייב:

and one throws [an object] and it alights on top of it, he is culpable. It was taught likewise: If an alley<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This ranks as a karmelith, supra 6a. ');">¹⁵</span> is level with within but becomes a slope towards the [main] street,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into which it debouches. ');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> והא לא נח אמר ר' יוחנן והוא שנח על גבי משהו תניא נמי הכי זרק חוץ לד' אמות ודחפתו הרוח והכניסתו ואע"פ שחזרה והוציאתו פטור אחזתו הרוח משהו אף על פי שחזרה והכניסתו חייב

or is level with the [main] street, but becomes a slope within,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ground on the inner side of the entrance is of the same level as the main street for a short distance, but then falls away. ');">¹⁷</span> that alley requires neither a lath nor a beam.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To convert it into private ground (v. supra 9a), the slope itself being an effective partition. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רבא תוך ג' לרבנן צריך הנחה על גבי משהו יתיב מרימר וקאמר לה להא שמעתא אמר ליה רבינא למרימר

R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: If a [sloping] mound attains [a height of] ten [handbreadths] within [a distance of] four, and one throws [an object] and it alights on top of it, he is culpable. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE THROWS[ [AN OBJECT] WITHIN FOUR CUBITS BUT IT ROLLS BEYOND FOUR CUBITS, HE IS NOT CULPABLE; BEYOND FOUR CUBITS BUT IT ROLLS WITHIN FOUR CUBITS, HE IS CULPABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both cases it did not properly rest before the wind drove it back or forward. ');">¹⁹</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But it did not rest [beyond four cubits]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why is he culpable in the latter case? ');">²⁰</span> — Said R. Johanan: Providing it rests [beyond four cubits] on something, whatever its size.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even not on the ground itself, and stays there momentarily. Rashi: The same holds good if the wind keeps it stationary for a moment within three handbreadths of the ground 'in the principle of labud (v. Glos.). [Wilna Gaon reads: Provided it rests for a little while.] ');">²¹</span> It was taught likewise: If one throws [an article] beyond four cubits, but the wind drives it within, even if it carries it out again, he is not liable; if the wind holds it for a moment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beyond the four cubits. ');">²²</span> even if it carries it in again, he is liable. Raba said: [An article brought] within three [handbreadths] must, according to the Rabbis, rest upon something, however small.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to the Rabbis' view that an object caught up in the air is not regarded as at rest, in contrast to R. Akiba's ruling that it is as at rest (supra 97a). Raba states that the Rabbis hold thus even if the object comes within three handbreadths of the ground: it must actually alight upon something, otherwise it is not regarded as having been deposited. ');">²³</span> Meremar sat and reported this statement. Said Rabina to Meremar: