Siman 346

Four types of transferring from domain to domain are from the Torah — transferring out, bringing in, throwing, and handing. All of them have one law, except for handing, which has a stringency beyond all of them, as will be explained. This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 13, law 16: "One who throws from a private domain to a private domain with a public domain in the middle, even though the object passed through the airspace of the public domain — he is exempt. (For we do not say that an object caught in the air is considered as if it has come to rest.) This is provided that it passes above three, but if it passed at less than three tefachim close to the ground and came to rest upon something small, even though it was uprooted or rolled from this private domain to the other private domain, it is as if it remained standing in the public domain and therefore he is liable." Thus far his words. Rabbeinu Chananel and the Ramban ruled that below three one does not need resting upon something small, for anything less than three close to the ground is considered as if it is resting on the ground, and in the Gemara (97a) there is a dispute regarding this, see there. And one should not ask that since we consider it as if it has come to rest, if so he should be liable for two, as there is here a transferring out from a private domain to a public domain and a bringing in from a public domain to a private domain. For certainly it is so, but he is not liable for a derivative in the place of a primary labor (ibid.) and as we learned in the chapter of "Klal Gadol": "One who performs many labors of the same type of labor is only liable for one sin offering," and as I wrote in siman 242.

He further wrote: "And so too, one who throws from a public domain to a public domain with a private domain in the middle—he is exempt. But if the object passed within three handbreadths of the ground and rested upon something, even though it subsequently rolled and exited to the second public domain, it is as if it remained standing in the private domain, and therefore he is liable." Thus far his words. That is to say, that on account of throwing in a public domain it is impossible to find him liable, for we are dealing with a case where he did not throw four amot, such that even in the two public domains together there were not four amot. Therefore, the liability is only for the resting in the private domain, as is explained from what he wrote afterward: (Halacha 17) "One who carries four amot in this public domain together with the second public domain is liable, because four amot in two public domains combine since the object did not rest in the domain between them." Thus far his words. And it is obvious that the same law applies to one who throws, and that which he wrote "carries" is to show the greater novelty, for even though he himself passed with the object through the private domain, we do not say "one who walks is like one who stands," and all the more so in the case of one who throws. And if so, that which he wrote previously, "one who throws from a public domain to a public domain with a private domain in the middle is exempt"—perforce it is when there are not four amot in the two public domains. And it is simple that according to Rabbeinu Chananel and the Ramban, even if it did not rest upon something, as I wrote in the previous section (see there). And know, that this which makes him liable within three handbreadths when it rested on something because of bringing from a public domain to a private domain, this is when he intentionally threw it close to three, and his intention was for this, that it should rest slightly in the private domain. For if his intention was to throw it to the other public domain, he would not be liable for the bringing in, since he did not intend for this, and this is not "thoughtful labor," and so it is explicitly proven there in the Gemara, see there. (Which asks "if he wants it here... where he says 'wherever it wants let it rest,' but without this he is exempt").

And this is regarding one who throws or carries, but one who hands over is more severe, as the Rambam wrote there: "One who hands over from a private domain to a private domain with a public domain in the middle is liable, and even if he handed it over above the airspace of the public domain, for such was the service of the Levites in the Mishkan—they would hand over the planks from wagon to wagon with the public domain between the two wagons, and each wagon is a private domain. In what case are these words said? When the two private domains were along the length of the public domain, just as the wagons travel in the public domain one after the other. But if the two domains were on two sides of the public domain, even one who hands over from this private domain to the private domain opposite it is exempt." Thus far his words. And it emerges that there were two stringencies in handing over: one, that he is liable from a private domain to a private domain through a public domain when they are on the same level; and one, that even above ten handbreadths he is liable, which is not the case with throwing, but with carrying one is also liable even above ten handbreadths, for such was the burden of the sons of Kehat, for we learn all of them from the Mishkan. And the matter of handing over, as explained by Rashi and the Bartenura at the beginning of the chapter "HaZorek"—is that he hands over the burden to his fellow and his fellow to his fellow, for such would the Levites hand over the planks to one another. And it appears that even with a light burden one is liable for handing over, for even though the planks were a heavy burden, nevertheless, we do not learn from the Mishkan in the specific details, for if not so, we would only be liable for planks; rather, it is certain that for every type of handing over one is liable, and so it appears primary for the halacha. (And from Tosafot 4a, starting with the words "And what," it is explained that handing over is even if not to his fellow, see there).

And in chapter 14, law 14, he wrote: "One who carries out from a private domain to a private domain or from a public domain to a public domain with a karmelit in between is exempt. So too, one who hands over or throws from this one to that one with a karmelit in between is exempt." Thus far his words. That is to say, that in this case even regarding one who hands over he is exempt, because the labor of the Levites was only from a private domain to a private domain by way of a public domain, and not by way of a karmelit. And that which he wrote, "from a public domain to a public domain with a karmelit in between is exempt," this is when there are not four amot in the second public domain; but if there are four amot, he already wrote that they combine and he is liable, for walking is not considered like standing (Maggid Mishneh). And he wrote further: "One who carries out an object from a public domain to a karmelit and placed it there, and went back and uprooted it from the karmelit and placed it in a private domain, or carried it out from a private domain to a karmelit and placed it there, and went back and uprooted it from the karmelit and placed it in a public domain—behold, this one is exempt." Thus far his words. And it is simple, since there was a placement in the middle in the karmelit. But if there was no placement in the middle, he would be liable even though it passed through a karmelit, since walking is not considered like standing, and all the more so in the case of one who throws in these instances, that he is liable.

And this is what he wrote further (Halacha 15), and this is his wording: "One who carries out from a reshut hayachid to a reshut harabim, and passed through a mekom patur that was between them in his walking—is liable, for one who walks is not like one who stands. And it goes without saying regarding one who throws, where the object passed through a mekom patur—that it is not considered as if it rested there." Thus far his words. And this is when it did not pass within three handbreadths of the ground and did not rest there at all, for in such cases one is exempt in throwing. And according to the Rabbeinu Chananel and the Ramban, even if it did not rest at all, as I have written. And that which he wrote "mekom patur"—the same law applies to a karmelit, for according to the Torah, a karmelit is also a mekom patur. And that which he wrote "mekom patur"—it is to show the greater novelty. That is to say, even though he passed through a place where even according to the rabbis it is permitted ab initio to carry from there to a reshut harabim or to a reshut hayachid and from them into it, nevertheless he is liable, and all the more so through a karmelit. And he wrote further: "But if he was standing in a mekom patur, and took an object from a reshut hayachid or from a person standing there and placed it in a reshut harabim or in the hand of a person standing there—he is exempt. And likewise, if he brought it from a reshut harabim to a reshut hayachid and stood in a mekom patur—he is exempt." Thus far his words. And the same law applies to a karmelit, as I have written, and see in section 8.

We say in the Gemara (8b): Rava said—one who transfers an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the reshut harabim, even though he transferred it over himself, is liable. Rashi explained "over himself"—that he raised it above ten handbreadths, and nevertheless he is liable when he places it down, see there, for one who is walking is not considered like one who is standing. This law has already been explained and contains no novelty at all, and it is likewise clear from the words of the Rambam in chapter 12 at the end of law 14, and this is his wording: "One who transfers an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the reshut harabim, even though he transferred it above his head, is liable." Thus far his words. This is according to the explanation of Rashi, but the Tosafot (s.v. Lima) explain there in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel—that "transferred it over himself" means that he transferred it in front of him from his right to his left across his body, for I would have said, since it arrived across his body, it is as if it were resting, and it would turn out that he did not transfer four cubits at once. It comes to teach us that this is not so—and he is liable; and so wrote the Ra'avad and the Rashba. And if he delayed it for a moment across his body, it is obvious that he is exempt. (ibid.) And know that all this which was explained, that "one who is walking is not considered like one who is standing," refers to one who is walking without delay. But when he stands for a little while, it is like a resting there, for we establish that the lifting of his body is like the lifting of an object, and the resting of his body is like the resting of an object, and it will be explained in siman 347 with the help of Heaven.

From the Torah, there is no obligation except for one who carries out, or brings in, or throws, or hands from a reshut hayachid to a reshut harabim, or from a reshut harabim to a reshut hayachid. However, from a karmelit to a reshut hayachid or to a reshut harabim it is permitted, and likewise from them into it. But by rabbinic decree, it is forbidden to move or to throw or to hand from a karmelit to a reshut hayachid or to a reshut harabim, and from them into it. However, a makom patur, even by rabbinic decree it is permitted from a makom patur to a reshut hayachid or to a reshut harabim, and from them to a makom patur. And the reason they forbade in a karmelit is because it is similar to a reshut harabim, but a makom patur has no semblance of a reshut. Nevertheless, it is forbidden ab initio to carry an object from a reshut hayachid to a makom patur and to pass with it through a reshut harabim, for perhaps he will place it down in the reshut harabim. (Bach and Taz, subsection 2) And likewise it is forbidden ab initio to throw from a reshut hayachid to a makom patur through a reshut harabim, for perhaps it will fall in the reshut harabim or it will be delayed there slightly. And likewise it is forbidden ab initio to carry an object from a reshut hayachid to a reshut hayachid through a reshut harabim, for perhaps he will stand a bit in the reshut harabim, and likewise to throw is forbidden.

It has already been explained that one who stands in a reshut hayachid and takes out or brings in or extends or throws to a reshut harabim via a makom patur or a karmelit is liable, for moving is not considered like standing, and "caught in the air" is not considered like having come to rest. And so, a person should not stand on a makom patur and take an object from the hand of one who stands in a reshut harabim and give it to one who stands in a reshut hayachid or vice versa; and if he took and gave, he is exempt according to the Torah, for since he stands on the makom patur, it is considered there somewhat like resting, but it is forbidden ab initio, for it is a disparagement of the prohibition of Shabbat to cause removal from a reshut hayachid to a reshut harabim (Rashi 6a, s.v. "u-bilvad"), and it has already been explained in section 5. And ab initio, it is forbidden even if the makom patur stands between rabbinic domains, such as two courtyards that did not establish an eruv; it is forbidden to stand on the makom patur and take an object from a person in this courtyard and give it to the person in the second courtyard. This is the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur, but the Rif and the Rambam permit exchanging in such a manner between rabbinic domains ab initio, and see what I wrote in siman 355, section 10.

According to what has been explained, a reshut hayachid and a makom patur—it is permitted to carry in all of them; even if the reshut hayachid was very large and the makom patur was very long, they are permitted for carrying and for throwing. However, in a reshut harabim and a karmelit, one may only carry within four amot, and if one moved or threw or passed beyond four amot, in a reshut harabim—he is liable, and in a karmelit—he is exempt, for the prohibition of a karmelit is from the words of the sages, lest it be confused with a reshut harabim. And the Rambam wrote in chapter 14 at the end of law 11: "Therefore, if he did not need the act of carrying itself, such as if he moved a thorn in a karmelit so that the public would not be harmed by it—behold, this is permitted, even if he moved it several amot, and so too anything similar to this." Thus far his words. And from domain to domain it is forbidden, except from a reshut hayachid to a reshut hayachid and from a makom patur to all domains and from all domains to a makom patur. And know that there are several types of karmelit, as was written in the previous siman, and it is permitted to carry within four amot from this karmelit to that karmelit, and in the Yerushalmi chapter 11 halacha 5 it is explained that it is forbidden; see there.

Therefore, a karpef—which is a place surrounded by four partitions without a roof like a courtyard, and it is larger than two beit se'ah and was not enclosed for dwelling, which according to the Torah is a complete reshut hayachid, only by rabbinic decree it is like a karmelit and it is forbidden to carry within it more than four amot—it is permitted to take out from it to a complete karmelit, such as a valley passing before it, provided it is within four amot. And therefore, gardens adjacent to a karmelit like a valley, or in our streets where we do not have a reshut harabim, and the garden is locked with a key, it is permitted to take the key from the karmelit in front of the garden to open and lock and to return the key to there. For even though the garden is according to the Torah a complete reshut hayachid, nevertheless since by rabbinic decree it is forbidden to carry within it more than four amot, it is permitted to carry from it to a complete karmelit within four amot, provided there is no reshut hayachid between them, that is, a threshold that is ten high and four wide, for it is forbidden to bring into there from the karmelit before it. And likewise from the garden to the threshold it is forbidden to carry, according to the law of carrying from a karmelit to a complete reshut hayachid.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema, in section 3: "Therefore, it is permitted to take a key from a karmelit that is in front of a garden… provided that there is no threshold between them that is a reshut hayachid, or that has two partitions from the sides that are four wide with a lintel upon them that is four wide, for then it is a reshut hayachid even though it is not ten high. However, it is forbidden to bring from a threshold to a reshut hayachid or vice versa, for we fear perhaps the ceiling will not be four, and then if the threshold is not three high it has the law of that which is before it, and even if it is three high, since all our domains are karmelit we say 'one found its own kind and was awakened,' as I wrote in siman 345. And so too if the ceiling is very wide and has no partitions from the sides — its law is like the domain before it, and so too with roofs that protrude before the houses like our roofs — their law is like the domain before them." Thus far his words. And his words require clarification.

And this is its explanation - that it requires that there not be a reshut hayachid between them, and that is a threshold ten high and four wide, and there is a reshut hayachid by means of pi tikrah, and that is when there are two partitions whose width is four and a lintel above whose width is four, we say on the two open sides - "the edge of the ceiling descends and closes." But when they are not four wide, we do not say "descends and closes," for any partition where there is not four between the space of the partitions is not a partition. (Rashi 9a, s.v. "petach") And since we say "descends and closes," it follows that there are four partitions whose height is ten and whose width is four, so that the threshold between them also becomes a reshut hayachid even though it is not ten high. And even though later in siman 361 it will be explained that for the condition of "pi tikrah" it also requires that the two partitions be connected, meaning like the shape of the letter dalet and not one opposite the other, nevertheless there is concern lest this is merely a stringency. And according to the core of the law, we say "pi tikrah" even in one opposite the other. However, in any case, even though this is a complete reshut hayachid, nevertheless it is forbidden to move from it to a reshut hayachid or from a reshut hayachid into it, for we fear lest it fall from the ceiling until there is not four tefachim and the pi tikrah will be nullified. And then if the threshold is not three high, it is obvious that it is nullified to be like the domain before it, and even if it is three high, there is a reasoning to say "it found its kind etc.," and the threshold also becomes a karmelit even though it is truly a makom patur according to the law of a makom patur adjacent to a karmelit, for some say "it found etc." as written in siman 345 section 45, see there. And so too a ceiling without partitions or protruding roofs, their law is like the domain before them. And therefore our protruding roofs are like the street, and so too when they make a small roof before the entrance hanging on iron bars, and there is not beneath it a partition ten high and four wide or a small bridge ten high and four wide, the law of the roof and the bridge is like the law of the street, because it is nullified to them and "it found its kind and was awakened." (This is the explanation of his words, and what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 4 that at the entrance of a mavoi we say pi tikrah even though it is not entirely roofed, this is explained in Rashi and Tosafot 9a in the sugya of the threshold, see there, but it is not relevant to this siman. And what he wrote in subsection 3 in the name of the Maharil that one should be concerned for the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel, and his intention is that even with three partitions we do not say pi tikrah as explained at the end of the chapter "Kol Gagot," it is very astonishing, for there it is according to Shmuel and we rule like Rav, see there. And the Machatzit HaShekel presses himself with pressed matters, see there, and the law is clear like the Rema. And also what the Taz wrote in subsection 7 that a roof without partitions has the law of the domain before it, we have already explained, and delve into it).