Shabbat 7

כאן לחצר אחרת כדבעא מיניה רבא מר"נ היתה ידו מלאה פירות והוציאה לחוץ מהו להחזירה לאותה חצר א"ל מותר לחצר אחרת מהו א"ל אסור

the other, into a different courtyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one stands in a courtyard, which is private ground, and stretches his laden hand into the street, he may withdraw it into the same courtyard, but not into an adjoining one and drop the article there. ');">¹</span>

ומאי שנא לכי תיכול עלה כורא דמילחא התם לא איתעבידא מחשבתו הכא איתעבידא מחשבתו:

Even as Raba asked R. Nahman: If a person holds a handful of produce in his hand and he extends it without,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., into the street. ');">²</span>

גופא בעי רב ביבי בר אביי הדביק פת בתנור התירו לו לרדותה קודם שיבוא לידי חיוב חטאת או לא התירו

may he withdraw it into the same courtyard? He replied, It is permitted. And what about another courtyard? Said he to him, It is forbidden. And what is the difference? — When you measure out a measure of salt for it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A jesting remark: then I will tell you the difference. ');">³</span>

א"ל רב אחא בר אביי לרבינא היכי דמי אילימא בשוגג ולא אידכר ליה למאן התירו

There his intention is not carried out; here his intention is carried out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he stretches out his hand into the street he wants to remove the produce from that courtyard. Hence he may draw it back into the same, when his intention remains unfulfilled, but not into an adjoining courtyard, whereby his intention would be carried out. ');">⁴</span>

ואלא לאו דאיהדר ואידכר מי מחייב והתנן כל חייבי חטאות אינן חייבין עד שתהא תחלתן שגגה וסופן שגגה

[To revert to] the main text: 'R. Bibi b. Abaye propounded: If one places a loaf of bread in an oven, do they permit him to remove it before he incurs the liability of a sin-offering or not?' R. Aha b. Abaye said to Rabina: What are the circumstances? Shall we say [that he did it] unwittingly and he did remind himself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it was completely baked, that it was the Sabbath, or that baking on the Sabbath is forbidden. ');">⁵</span>

אלא במזיד קודם שיבא לידי איסור סקילה מיבעי ליה

then whom are they to permit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being unaware of anything wrong, he does not come to ask. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב שילא לעולם בשוגג ולמאן התירו לאחרים

Hence it must surely mean that he did afterwards become aware thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it was baked. ');">⁷</span>

מתקיף לה רב ששת וכי אומרים לו לאדם חטא כדי שיזכה חבירך

but then would he be liable? Surely we learnt: All who are liable to sin-offerings are liable only if the beginning and end [of the forbidden action] are unwitting. On the other hand, if his problem refers to a deliberate action, he should have asked [whether he may remove it] before he comes to an interdict involving stoning!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is the penalty for the deliberate desecration of the Sabbath, and not 'before he incurs the liability of a sin-offering'? ');">⁸</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי לעולם במזיד ואימא קודם שיבא לידי איסור סקילה רב אחא בריה דרבא מתני לה בהדיא אמר רב ביבי בר אביי הדביק פת בתנור התירו לו לרדותה קודם שיבא לידי איסור סקילה:

— R. Shila said: After all, it means unwittingly; and [as to the question] 'whom are they to permit?', [the reply is], Others. R. Shesheth demurred: Is then a person told, 'Sin, in order that your neighbour may gain thereby?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Can one be told to infringe the minor injunction of removing bread from an oven in order to save his neighbour from the greater transgression of baking on the Sabbath? ');">⁹</span>

פשט העני את ידו: אמאי חייב והא בעינן עקירה והנחה מעל גבי מקום ד' על ד' וליכא

Rather, said R. Ashi, after all it refers to a deliberate act; but say [in the problem], before he comes to an interdict involving stoning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this it is obvious that R. Bibi's original question was merely whether he is permitted to remove it or not. 'Before he incurs etc.,' was a later addition, which R. Ashi emends. The same assumption must be made in similar cases. V. Kaplan, Redaction of the Talmud, Ch. XIII. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רבה הא מני ר"ע דאמר לא בעינן מקום ארבעה על ארבעה דתנן הזורק מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד ורשות הרבים באמצע רבי עקיבא מחייב וחכמים פוטרים

R. Aba son of Raba recited it explicitly: R. Bibi b. Abaye said: If one places a loaf in an oven, he is permitted to remove it before he comes to an interdict involving stoning.

ר"ע סבר אמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא ורבנן סברי לא אמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא

IF THE POOR MAN STRETCHES OUT HIS HAND. Why is he liable? Surely removal and depositing must be from [and into] a place four [handbreadths] square,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Removal from one domain and depositing in the other necessitates in each case that the object shall rest upon a place four handbreadths square. ');">¹¹</span>

למימרא דפשיטא ליה לרבה דבקלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא

which is absent here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A person's hand does not fulfil this condition. ');">¹²</span> — Said Rabbah: The author of this [Mishnah], is R. Akiba, who maintains: We do not require a place four by four. For we learnt: If one throws [an article] from one private domain to another and public ground lies between: R. Akiba holds him liable; but the Sages hold him not liable. R. Akiba holds: We say, An object intercepted by [air] is as though it rested there;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence when it crosses public ground it is as though it rested there, and so liability is incurred. ');">¹³</span> While the Rabbis maintain: We do not say, An object intercepted by [air] is as though it rested there. Shall we say that Rabbah is certain that they differ as to whether an object intercepted is considered at rest,