Rambam Laws of Shabbat Chapter 14 – The Four Domains of Shabbat

Introduction to Chapter 14

Speaker 1:

Good, good, dear friends, we are learning Rambam, Sefer Zemanim, Laws of Shabbat, Chapter 14. We have already finished the 39 melachot (categories of prohibited labor), and the last few chapters all discuss the melacha (prohibited labor) of hotza’ah (carrying). In the previous two chapters we already discussed the essential law of hotza’ah, the law of akirah (picking up), which is that every hotza’ah on Shabbat must have akirah v’hanachah (picking up and putting down), and it must be akirah v’hanachah in a manner that he intended, this is melachet machshevet (purposeful labor), with all the laws that we learned in Chapter 13.

Here the Rambam is going to give us more of the order. The truth is, according to how the Rambam organizes things, perhaps this would have been a good beginning to all the laws of hotza’ah on Shabbat, because here the Rambam begins with what are the four domains of Shabbat. The Rambam is going to enumerate the four domains for Shabbat, that there are four domains regarding Shabbat. And the Rambam begins with reshut harabim (public domain), because reshut harabim is like the essential prohibition of Shabbat takes place, because either one carries out from reshut hayachid (private domain) to reshut harabim, or four amot (cubits) in reshut harabim. He begins with reshut harabim.

Law 1 – Reshut Harabim

What is reshut harabim? The Rambam says, what is reshut harabim? Deserts, forests, and marketplaces. I would have started with marketplaces. Marketplaces is the most obvious reshut harabim. He means a street where people move about, where people conduct business. That is reshut harabim. The Rambam adds that also deserts or forests are also called reshut harabim. The simple meaning of this is apparently, the Rambam says that reshut harabim is not simply specifically where the public is, but all places where the public can be. A desert is a place that is open. People who go from one land to another, or caravans go places, they have the right to pass through deserts. And a desert is not a place where someone has placed ownership on it. And the same thing with forests. A forest is a place where one can pass through.

Discussion: The Question of the Desert and the Gemara

And the commentators on the Rambam struggle a bit with this, because apparently it seems that a desert is not… like an empty place, perhaps others would have said that it’s a karmelit or a makom patur (exempt place). But the essential idea I think is, the Rambam says that a place where the public has permission to pass through, that it’s a large open place where the public can pass through without difficulty. Otherwise it’s for example like a sea where one must come up with and one must build a ship to cross over. A place where a person can walk in easily is called a reshut harabim.

Speaker 2:

Let me mention the Gemara, because I know, no king, it’s important. That is, a marketplace, a marketplace is, as you say, is clear, that is indeed a reshut harabim, according to everyone, there is a certain dispute, there are opinions of Rishonim regarding shishim ribo (sixty myriads), but it’s clear in the Gemara that a marketplace is a reshut harabim. Deserts, apparently here it is explicit in the Gemara which says that it is not a reshut harabim. That is, the Gemara states that the Torah was given in a desert which is reshut harabim, the Gemara says, “As long as Israel was in the desert, as long as it’s not”. Most Jews understood, Rashi and others, that when the Jews were in the desert, there were people in the desert, all the people were there, then it was reshut harabim. Today when no one goes in the desert, it’s not called reshut harabim, it’s a karmelit. So, it’s not a reshut hayachid, but it’s a karmelit. The Rambam didn’t even ask, the Rambam says “and so”, I don’t know what the simple meaning of the Rambam is, but it states clearly in the Gemara that a desert nowadays is not a reshut harabim. And the Rambam says, why?

Speaker 1:

Because the Rambam in his responsa, Birkat Avraham, which is brought here on the side, was asked this question, how does the language of forests and desert come? He said that the simple meaning in the Gemara is exactly the opposite. When the Jews were in the desert, then one couldn’t go, there were various people there, one had to ask permission from the tribe of Reuben to go in his territory. It wasn’t a reshut harabim, it was perhaps a karmelit, or parts of it.

Speaker 2:

It seems like one learns from how the Bedouins acted, which it seems. Yes, yes, yes. It depends which part.

Speaker 1:

Today when a desert is open to everyone, on the contrary, it’s called a reshut harabim. Eh, it’s indeed as you say here, places like a sea, which it clearly states that it’s a karmelit. The simple meaning is, a sea one cannot easily go. Just as it is indeed a forest, when it says “forest” it means a grove or what one can properly travel through. If it’s indeed difficult, it will indeed be a karmelit. One can hear, it states that the Torah was given in the desert, where everyone can go. A desert is like it doesn’t belong more to me than to you, it’s a hefker (ownerless) place. And reshut hayachid are also places where it’s harder for a person to go, because it’s perhaps a difficult path to go up and the like.

Darchim Hamefulashim and the Conditions of Reshut Harabim

The Rambam says further, what else is called reshut harabim? Not only the deserts, forests, marketplaces, but also roads that lead to them, roads that lead to the marketplaces, deserts, that the forests are part of the reshut harabim. But reshut harabim has two conditions, that it should be wide, sixteen amot, that it should be sixteen amot wide, presumably meaning the roads leading to them, because the deserts, forests, marketplaces are automatic, it’s talking about large streets. The roads that are obligated are also only the large well-traveled roads that lead to the places that are hefker.

And it should not have a roof, if one places a roof on it, it already has a new law, it becomes like a building which is already called a reshut hayachid. This is like a principle from the Gemara, reshut harabim that is covered is not a reshut harabim, reshut harabim is a place without a roof.

Law 2 – Reshut Hayachid

The Rambam continues, And what is reshut hayachid? What is reshut hayachid? The second domain is reshut hayachid. What is reshut hayachid? So the Rambam will also bring two examples, besides the obvious, that reshut hayachid means a person’s house, but he says even a place that is yes… not a person’s house, just to be clear. The Rambam doesn’t say about a person’s house, a person’s house is not a reshut hayachid. He means unless it fulfills the conditions.

Speaker 2:

Yes, but I mean that he means yes to say, that he means to explain that he doesn’t mean only literally and simply a domain that belongs to an individual, but any place that is not so convenient, is not a place where it’s natural for the public to pass through.

Reshut Hayachid Is Not a Matter of Ownership

Speaker 1:

Right, but let’s be clear. Reshut hayachid, fundamentally, there are points regarding this, but the essential law is… The Rambam gives here three examples of reshut hayachid. Three, right? Not just two. I counted it a bit that way because it’s a bit easier, but he gives here three examples of reshut hayachid. And there is yes a condition, soon we’ll see, one must learn further. But reshut hayachid, from the essential definition of reshut hayachid is a place four by four by ten, which either has a partition or there is a mound that is like a partition. That is what it is. For whom it belongs has no… simply, he says generally no matter of ownership. It’s not that reshut hayachid means it belongs to one person. The truth is, reshut harabim there is yes a condition that it must be a place where the public comes and goes, in a certain sense reshut hayachid is the opposite of that, but the essential law that the Rambam says here is not the law. Reshut hayachid doesn’t mean specifically… One doesn’t speak of ownership. Both things one doesn’t speak of whom it belongs to. It belongs to the ruler of the city, but it’s open to everyone, it’s still reshut harabim.

Speaker 2:

But… I mean he does begin yes, I mean in both places, he doesn’t want to first say… He does say first the less obvious. A marketplace is the most obvious, or a place surrounded by four partitions for dwelling is also the most obvious. That means reshut hayachid. But he doesn’t say only that.

The Three Examples of Reshut Hayachid

Speaker 1:

He begins with what is a bit more of a novelty. That also a mound that is ten tefachim (handbreadths) high and four tefachim by four tefachim wide, just that because it’s a bit high and it has a certain thing, it’s a domain unto itself. Even let’s say it’s in a desert or in a place where the whole place around is open, but this place becomes like a place unto itself, because it’s not something that one treads through. It’s for example, it’s next to a reshut harabim, people don’t walk on it, because it’s… one must climb up on it ten tefachim, and it’s a thing unto itself, it becomes a thing unto itself, it becomes a reshut hayachid.

Or a mound means a hill ten tefachim high and four tefachim by four tefachim wide or more. The same thing a ditch, there are two ways how it shouldn’t be the reshut harabim level, because it’s a deeper pit down, ten deep and four by four wide or more is also called reshut hayachid. And so a place that is surrounded by four partitions. Essentially all three is partitions, but the third is actual partitions. The others are such… it’s a mountain up, so it’s automatically like a partition, or the ditch down becomes like a partition. Or a place that has actual four partitions. How high must the partitions be? They should be ten tefachim, and between them must be four by four tefachim or more.

Mukaf L’dirah – What Does It Mean?

He says, even if it contains several mil, even if the size of the place is a few mil, a mil I think is two thousand amot, but if it is if it was surrounded for dwelling, if it was surrounded, meaning the partitions were made to separate it from the place around so that it should be for dwelling, such as, he’s going to bring what it means mukaf l’dirah, that it doesn’t belong to an individual, what does “mukaf l’dirah” mean? Such as, he says, “mukaf l’dirah” doesn’t mean one person should live there. “Mukaf l’dirah” – for dwelling, for habitation. Such as, a city, a city that is surrounded by a wall whose gates are locked at night, that is surrounded by a wall where the gates are locked at night. So it’s simple that it’s locked, it’s simple that it’s not a hefker place, it’s a place that gets closed, and it’s a thing unto itself. Or alleyways, alleys where one can pass through, but which have three walls, it has three walls, it’s surrounded by dwellings on the sides, or walls, and a lechi on the fourth side, and on the fourth side which is yes open, but there is also something a lechi – we will learn much more later about the lechi. And so, or a courtyard, or a pen – a place for animals, or a sahar, ah… what does sahar mean?

Speaker 2:

Sahar means a… a circle?

Speaker 1:

Yes, a half-moon, a corral, okay. That were surrounded for dwelling, that were surrounded for dwelling, all of them are complete reshut hayachid. All these things are called a reshut hayachid.

The mukaf l’dirah means to exclude what we will learn a karfef, which is open, which is a large corral, and it’s not for people to dwell in, but for some other reason, then it doesn’t have the law of reshut hayachid from the Torah. It’s a different law, it can become a makom patur or the like. Right, a karmelit, a karfef. That is the meaning that it’s reshut hayachid.

Vessels as Reshut Hayachid

Let’s say one more law. Even vessels, a vessel can also be called a reshut hayachid, if it’s a large vessel. Such as a ship, a ship, or a wooden tower – a large… generally a wooden tower means a cabinet, but here one means something a structure made of wood. It can mean a cabinet, one doesn’t speak of a larger cabinet. If it has a width of four, if it’s only a vessel, the novelty is that it’s a vessel, it’s not included in any domain at all. A refrigerator that is ten high four wide, is a complete reshut hayachid. If it has a width of four and a height of ten, so… it is a complete reshut hayachid.

It’s not mukaf l’dirah, but mukaf l’dirah is only a condition for very large things. For a small thing it doesn’t always mean so. And reshut harabim which is, has the dwelling, one may not place into it, which means reshut hayachid.

Law 3 – The Thickness of the Partitions

Okay, let’s take a bit more laws of reshut hayachid, one more law. Because we will further… We discussed that reshut hayachid is when it’s four by four, how does one calculate the walls themselves? He says thus, “The thickness of the partitions”.

Migdal Shel Etz – Complete Reshut Hayachid

Generally a wooden tower means a cabinet, but here one means something a structure made of wood. This can mean a cabinet, a larger cabinet. If it has four by four, not so four.

If it’s only a vessel, so it’s simple that it’s a vessel, it’s not included in any domain at all? Certainly this is a reshut hayachid. A fridge that is ten high four wide, this becomes a complete reshut hayachid. If it has four by four at a height of ten, this is a complete reshut hayachid. It’s not mukaf l’dirah, but mukaf l’dirah is only a condition for a large thing. For a small thing, a box, is automatically reshut hayachid, and not reshut harabim which is mutual, you must not place into it, which means reshut hayachid.

The Thickness of the Walls of Reshut Hayachid

Okay, let’s learn a bit more laws of reshut hayachid, one more law. Because we discussed that reshut hayachid is when it’s four by four, how does one calculate the walls themselves? He says thus, the thickness of the walls of reshut hayachid, the thickness of the walls of reshut hayachid, is like reshut hayachid. This is a kal vachomer (a fortiori argument). That is, if someone places something on the wall itself, it means as if he placed it on the reshut hayachid. And he says why? Because “And if the wall that is placed outside makes a reshut hayachid, is it itself not all the more so?” What makes the reshut hayachid a reshut hayachid? The walls. So it’s simple that the walls make the reshut hayachid, so kal vachomer that it can make reshut hayachid, it is itself also a reshut hayachid.

Discussion: The Kal Vachomer of the Thickness of the Walls

I don’t understand this kal vachomer. It’s like the guard must be able to guard himself. Not the opposite, the principle is that there can be a thing that makes impure things pure. Not always is there the principle that a thing must have… Yes, I don’t understand that it’s good this. The Gemara says that it’s a kal vachomer. One can hear why, one can hear that the reshut hayachid begins from where the wall begins, not the holes themselves is simple. Why must one say the kal vachomer? You say it could be that one learns it from a kal vachomer. I’m explaining that it’s so. Aha, it’s the language of the kal vachomer. This is the language of the Gemara.

The Airspace of Reshut Hayachid and Reshut Harabim

The Rambam further, the airspace of reshut hayachid, something that hasn’t landed on the floor of reshut hayachid, but it came into the airspace of reshut hayachid, is like reshut hayachid.

What happens above the reshut hayachid? Reshut hayachid, the airspace or the airspace above the reshut hayachid, or below reshut hayachid up to the sky, it is pierces and rises up to the sky means the domain. If he threw something in the air above reshut hayachid, it’s simple that he threw it in reshut hayachid. There it falls wherever, down down down, whatever, that is reshut hayachid.

But the airspace of reshut harabim, the airspace of reshut harabim is not like reshut harabim except up to ten tefachim. Reshut harabim is only up to ten tefachim. Above ten in the airspace of reshut harabim is a makom patur. This is already a separate domain.

Law 4 – Four Domains for Shabbat

Section 4 further, four domains for Shabbat. We have already discussed two domains, we discussed reshut harabim and reshut hayachid, and if one carries from reshut harabim to reshut hayachid or vice versa, one violates the prohibition of hotza’ah. But there are two more domains, which together makes four domains. That is, besides reshut hayachid and reshut harabim which we have already enumerated, there are two more which are called karmelit and makom patur. And we will soon see what the laws are, what the definitions of these two places are. But first he’s going to enumerate what they are, and afterwards he’s going to say what their laws are.

What is Karmelit – The Five Types

He’s going to enumerate what is karmelit. What is karmelit?

1) A Mound

A mound, a hill that has four tefachim by four or more on the ground, which is at least four by four tefachim wide, and is between three and ten high, and the height is from three to ten, this is a karmelis. For a karmelis only extends up to ten. If it were ten tefachim high, it would be a reshus hayachid, it would be a separate domain. But if it were less than three, it would be lavud, it would be considered as if it’s a flat place. But since it’s higher than three, it’s no longer regular ground, it’s something separate, and it’s not high enough to become a reshus hayachid, so it’s a kind of intermediate place that is called a karmelis. For a karmelis only extends up to ten, and its width can even be less than four by four.

2) Charitz

Further, and likewise, a mound is something that sticks out higher than the ground, and a charitz is something that goes deep into the ground. And likewise a charitz, a ditch that is four by four wide or more, and a depth of three to ten.

3) A Place Enclosed by Four Partitions

And likewise, there is another place that has the status of karmelis, a place enclosed by four partitions, where the partitions are between three and ten high. They’re not full partitions, if they were higher than ten it would already be complete partitions. It’s partial partitions, and it has a width of four by four or more, this is a karmelis.

4) A Corner Adjacent to Reshus Harabim

And likewise, another… the fourth type of karmelis, a corner adjacent to reshus harabim. A corner that is open to reshus harabim, but it’s not part of reshus harabim. And this is a place enclosed by three partitions, it’s surrounded by three partitions, and the fourth side is reshus harabim, the fourth side is reshus harabim. For example, he says for example, what’s an example, a mavoy, a mavoy is an alley that has… that is surrounded by walls on all sides, or houses on all sides, three sides, from three sides, and it’s open to reshus harabim.

So the corner where it’s open to reshus harabim, meaning there where it’s deep into the mavoy… ah, no, the entire mavoy, excuse me. A mavoy that is surrounded on three sides, and the fourth side is open to reshus harabim, if one places a lechi or a korah, then it’s not called reshus harabim at all, it’s called reshus hayachid. But if one places nothing, it’s still not reshus harabim, because it’s surrounded on three sides, but since it’s open to reshus harabim, it has something in which it’s similar to reshus harabim, so it doesn’t become completely reshus harabim, and it’s called a karmelis.

5) Seas and Valleys

And likewise, the fifth thing is, seas and valleys. Water or a deep valley, both in summer and in winter. He doesn’t distinguish between summer and winter, because regarding other things, I mean fields or whatever, there will be a difference between reshus harabim and reshus hayachid. These things are karmelis. Meaning, for example, a sea is different from a desert, they’re both places that are so ownerless, but people don’t go there. But a desert people can go, large groups can go, or we learned that a desert is a reshus harabim. But a sea is technically one may go, it belongs to the public, but one must build a ship, it’s a whole enterprise, meaning it’s not reshus harabim, so it has the status of karmelis.

Discussion: What Does “Bik’ah” Mean?

What is the meaning of the word karmelis, have you already told me? Kar-me-lis. One says the word karmel. Karmel is a mountain in Eretz Yisrael, Har HaKarmel, I don’t know. Why is the mountain called that? It’s a name, right? Yes, Har HaKarmel. Why is it called Har HaKarmel? I don’t know.

Three Explanations of the Word “Karmelis”

Explanation 1: Rambam – K’Armelis (Widow)

So he brings that the Rambam says in Peirush HaMishnayos that karmelis is the language of k’armelis, which is a widow. The domain is like a widow. It’s not a domain of the individual, and not a domain of the public. Not the individual, because the individual belongs to the individual. Reshus harabim belongs to the public. Karmelis belongs to no one.

Explanation 2: Tosafos – Grain That Is Karmel

There are other explanations. Yes, Tosafos says it’s the language of karmel, but not Har HaKarmel, rather grain that is karmel. When it’s still completely moist, it’s still grain that’s growing. When it starts to dry out, it has a different name. Karmel is the bein hashmashos of grains. And karmelis is something like the bein hashmashos, the intermediate state between reshus harabim and reshus hayachid.

Bein hashmashos is a doubt. This is not a doubt. It has things in which it’s similar to reshus harabim, and things in which it’s similar to reshus hayachid. Yes, it’s an intermediate. That’s a better word.

It’s interesting, when there’s such a word and one finds such kinds of Torah insights, k’armelis, it sounds like somehow the truth hasn’t yet been discovered, like it must be something simpler.

Explanation 3: Rashi – Field of Trees

No, Rashi’s explanation that he brings, the third explanation, that makes the most sense, that karmel is a… I mean before that it’s called Har HaKarmel. Karmel means like a field or a place of trees. That’s what I think is the usual meaning of karmel. “Ya’ar v’khakarmel,” he brings there a verse in Yeshayahu. I think that karmel is a place of fruit trees, something like a pardes. So. I remember that there are other places in Tanach with this word. And apparently this is an example of a karmelis. A bik’ah, as if, bik’ah means like a place where things grow. That means karmel, one word, I think makes good sense. Karmelis.

Bik’ah, it’s not known that this word means that things grow. Bik’ah means a place that is lower, that is a valley. Therefore it’s not reshus harabim.

It’s a place where people don’t move around, because it’s something at the bottom of a mountain. No, no, no. Bik’ah, if I remember, as it says here? “Bik’ah mesuderes she’ein bah mechitzos.” Bik’ah is at the foot of a mountain, on the mountain. It could be the mountain too, actually. But a mountain plain one doesn’t usually plant, no one moves around, it’s difficult, one must crawl. And the bik’ah one plants outside, and it becomes reshus hayachid. This is a place that is not really, perhaps it’s a natural place that grows on its own, wild grown, it’s not that someone grew it. Even let’s say one plants, but it’s not… not fenced in.

Air of Karmelis

Okay, and what happens with the… it depends which partitions, so here, so here, captured, whatever. Yes, what happens with the air? We already learned, I think, that the air of each domain gets the same status as that domain. That is, reshus hayachid is oleh reshus hayachid, meaning also the air above is reshus hayachid. Reshus harabim higher than ten is not reshus harabim. And he says, what is the air regarding karmelis, yes? That is, it will be relevant if someone throws higher than a karmelis. He says, the air of karmelis is like karmelis up to ten tefachim. Up to ten tefachim it has the same status as karmelis. That is, for example, someone throws from the karmelis to the air of karmelis, he hasn’t left the karmelis, he’s still remained in the karmelis. But above ten tefachim, the air of karmelis is like a makom patur. But above ten tefachim, much higher than the karmelis, the air doesn’t become part of the karmelis, rather it’s a separate status called makom patur.

Air of Seas and Rivers

Therefore, it is so, the water in seas and rivers, what happens with the air above the water in the seas and rivers? So up to ten tefachim in their air, up to ten tefachim close to the sea in the air, has the status of karmelis, because the sea itself we discussed seas and valleys are karmelis, also up to ten tefachim is karmelis, but above ten it’s already out of the domain of karmelis and it already becomes a makom patur. Says the Rambam, but this is calculated from the surface of the water.

Karmelis – A Pit in a Karmelis

Speaker 1:

But no, the entire depth full of water is like solid ground. One doesn’t say that ten tefachim above the water is actually a hundred tefachim above the earth from under the water. The water is the thing that fills the space, and it becomes like solid ground.

But one can’t go into the water. On the contrary, if one goes into the water it’s still everything. We learned similar to this, a person throws down onto water, versus a person places down, or a person takes out from the water. What did we say there? That when he takes out from the water, it means as if he took out from the entire water. One doesn’t say he only took from the top.

Okay, not necessarily.

What happens with a pit in a karmelis? In the middle of the karmelis there is a pit. It is like karmelis, it’s part of the karmelis. Even if it’s a hundred amos deep, even if the pit is a hundred amos deep, it’s still part of the karmelis, and it doesn’t have four. If it doesn’t have four tefachim.

If it had four tefachim and it’s very deep, it would become a reshus hayachid.

Karmelis – Other Types

What else is karmelis? He lists other things. The Talmud Korah listed the types of karmelis. Here he lists more such interesting ways when something becomes a karmelis, yes?

Speaker 2:

Yes, I would have thought even earlier that if one thinks of the word karmelis, apparently the main karmelis is like the sea, seas and valleys, which is apparently a karmelis, that a kind of area in the world that is a karmelis.

The first three or four, mound, ditch, a place of four by three up to ten and the like, it seems to me it’s like, it’s such a technical law of karmelis, you understand? It’s compared to a karmelis. It has the same law, but apparently the original karmelis is apparently the valley, I would just think.

Speaker 1:

Okay. There are other things that have the status of karmelis. There are other things that halachically have the status of karmelis, that they receive the status of karmelis for some reason.

He says thus, a reshus harabim that has no roof, they discussed earlier that once it has a roof it’s no longer reshus harabim. Reshus harabim is an open place. When it gets a roof, it still doesn’t become reshus hayachid, it becomes a karmelis.

Speaker 2:

Oh, nice.

Speaker 1:

Or it doesn’t have a width of sixteen amos. They discussed that reshus harabim is an alley that is sixteen amos wide. If it’s not that wide, it’s also not reshus hayachid. What is it? Yes, a karmelis.

The platform between the pillars standing in reshus harabim. In reshus harabim there used to be places where there are poles and on them a canopy. If there’s a canopy, it’s already a reshus harabim that has no roof. Or that has no roof.

What does platform mean? Platform means a place where one walks?

Speaker 2:

He says it’s a place where one sits. Something a… there by the pillars people used to sit selling things.

Speaker 1:

Platform means such a stand, such a platform, something one can sit on. Just, it’s a Roman word for something. Yes, and I think the Gemara says so, it’s a place made to rest. It’s not the reshus harabim itself, no one rests, one walks, one goes, it’s active. Platform is such a corner on the side, such an external territory of the reshus harabim, where one can rest, between pillars standing in reshus harabim.

This will be the case, if it’s in front of the pillars it’s implied… no, there one will lean on the pillars. But between the pillars, here in your text it only says between the pillars, because then apparently pillars was one and on, but what was under the pillars, and in short there is no place where one walks, as you say, it’s a ruin, it’s a collapsed, if I remember correctly, a type of karmelis.

Speaker 2:

Also the sides of reshus harabim, what does the sides of reshus harabim mean? The side of reshus harabim? What does it mean? It’s a place that stands in reshus harabim.

Speaker 1:

Okay, we’ll see. No, pillars go to the reshus harabim, he must already mean a mavoy. Okay, we’ll see what the sides of reshus harabim are. No, sides means, this is a bit different, with a different name. A corner adjacent to reshus harabim. Not in reshus harabim, but something from all sides that is open to it.

The sides of reshus harabim is for example something like a shelf in reshus harabim, or one would apparently learn laws that come out from the law of the sides of reshus harabim. One can say today also that it’s like a sidewalk perhaps, I don’t know. The place is what not… okay, next to the reshus harabim perhaps. In any case, something a… not really a part of reshus harabim.

That is, even if it’s the same partitions, no difference in partitions, such things, but since there is no place that is the proper use of reshus harabim, the way people move around so much, it’s a karmelis.

Discussion: Between the Pillars – Reshus Harabim or Karmelis?

Speaker 1:

But between the pillars, ah, he clarifies the difference between the… but not platform, he doesn’t say platform between the pillars, he says between the pillars.

Speaker 2:

Ah, between the pillars themselves. It says between the pillars there is an area that is like a platform, where one rests there, but between the pillars just so. Platform is a… something a building, something a step, or something a… a place for… but between the pillars, even if it’s between the pillars which is a bit separated from reshus harabim, but since the public treads there, people move around there, it is reshus harabim, it is indeed part of reshus harabim.

Speaker 1:

If I remember correctly, the Gemara says that people go there when they want to fix their things that they’re carrying on themselves, it’s useful for the pillars, people move around there, so it is reshus harabim. This is karmelis.

Makom Patur – Definition

The Rambam goes on to list the fourth type of place of the four domains for Shabbos.

What is a makom patur? Which place is called makom patur?

He says, a place that is less than four by four, a place that is smaller than four by four, and is three high up to the sky, and it’s higher than three, and however high it may be, any height can be a makom patur.

Says the Rambam, it must be higher than three, because anything less than three is like the ground, a place that is less than three is like the ground, it wouldn’t help, it would be like the ground around it, it would be either reshus hayachid or reshus harabim.

So a karmelis is less than four by four. So earlier we had that it does have four by four, three high. Now we say, it’s not larger than four by four, it’s not important enough to become a domain by itself, so it’s a karmelis. A domain that’s not high enough is called a karmelis. But if it’s not even wide enough, it’s barely anything, anything, then it’s a makom patur, it’s called. Yes.

Speaker 2:

Wonderful.

Makom Patur – Thorns and Thistles

Speaker 1:

Even? He says, even thorns and thistles or dung in reshus harabim, thorns… what are thistles? Also types of thorns? Thorns and thistles, two kinds of thorns? Plants that don’t grow well. Or dung or waste in reshus harabim, if there’s a pile that is three high and doesn’t have four by four, people don’t go there because there are thorns and thistles, and it’s higher, you won’t go, and won’t enter. Three high and doesn’t have four, this is a makom patur.

What does he want to show us? It’s not only when it’s a place built by people, but just nature made it, it’s a small piece of junk, a place where one doesn’t go, but if it has the measurement that it’s three high and doesn’t have four by four, it also has the status of makom patur.

And likewise a ditch that doesn’t have four by four and its depth is three, and how high, how low must be three tefachim into the ground, and how deep down is already to the abyss, it doesn’t matter anymore.

Discussion: Mound and Ditch by Makom Patur

Speaker 2:

It’s interesting, because all three domains or four domains began with the two things, mound and ditch. Here it changed to place and ditch. I must say place means mound, right? A built high place. I don’t know why he forgot the word mound.

Speaker 1:

But he wants to add something even thorns, because mound usually means a hill. Here he says it’s not necessarily a hill, it can be what a person built, it can be just garbage piled up.

One must be aware what happens with thorns and thistles, which is indeed four by four, which becomes a karmelis, which becomes larger it becomes a reshus hayachid. It seems here that this is a special law for a makom patur. But if the word is all about the size, there’s no difference on top.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Makom Patur – An Enclosed Place

Speaker 1:

And likewise which other place is a makom patur? An enclosed place, a place that is surrounded by walls, that doesn’t have four by four. It’s not four by four. That is, even if it has a lot of space, even if its length is a thousand amos, it’s a narrow long place, and its width, but if the width of it is less than four by a bit, a bit less than four, and its height is three and above, and the height is as we discussed three and above, this is a makom patur.

A space that doesn’t have four by four, even if it has a lot of square feet because it’s very long or whatever, then this becomes a makom patur.

Discussion: Why Must It Be Four by Four?

Speaker 2:

English Translation

It’s a bit interesting, why must it be less than four tefachim? Why must an area be boxy? After all, a large area emerges here that is enclosed.

Speaker 1:

Yes, but that’s the point of a makom patur, that one can do almost nothing with it. It’s less than four tefachim, yes? It must be very small. Perhaps there’s a small structure. No one makes a long structure. If it’s a structure, it’s something for a gate, I already know for something for a Jew, but… that’s the point. Yes.

Above Ten

Speaker 1:

And so, but Reish Lakish’s rabbi, if he can teach him above ten, they discussed that Reish Lakish’s rabbi goes up to ten, higher than that he didn’t go. What is higher than that? He now says,

General Overview of the Four Domains

Speaker 1:

Place. Yes, but that’s the point of a makom patur, that one can do almost nothing with it. It’s less than four tefachim, yes?

Yes, it must be very small. Some small structure. No one makes… I mean, if there is such a structure, it’s something for a gate, I already know what, for something for a Jew, but… that’s the point. Yes. Yes.

Rabbi Chaim, “avar reshut harabim, or avar karmelit above ten” — they discussed that reshut harabim goes up to ten. Higher than that is not reshut harabim. The same thing with karmelit. He now says, what is higher than that? The same thing, “avar karmelit” — we discussed goes up to ten. What is higher than that? Into makom patur. Ahh. Very good.

And now the Rambam will go into more… no, he’s not going now into karmelit and makom patur. He wanted to introduce karmelit, he’s going to turn back to reshut harabim. And there’s still more not learned. Until now, let’s stop for a moment, I can look here by you, yes? We’ve learned the four domains.

Version of the Beginning of the Chapter — “Four Domains” or Not

And we spoke before the lesson, I didn’t say it out loud, that the Rambam, in the printed version it says the first beginning of the chapter “four domains for Shabbat”. And our version says it begins only “reshut harabim, reshut hayachid”, and afterwards he says all the domains. Why? Because reshut harabim and reshut hayachid we’ve already learned about until now, and they are essentially simple. Only when one must speak of the next two, comes a novelty that there are essentially four.

But I wanted to make it also be the beginning, it’s not… I think, I’m precise that essentially there are only three domains, because makom patur is not simply that it’s a domain. The whole point of it is that it’s not any domain. That which we call it four domains, is like we say to make it easier to understand. Yes, but makom patur is nothing. The whole point of it is that it’s a place that is a place. Yes, makom patur, it’s not any domain. It’s not even called a domain. Reshut harabim, reshut hayachid, karmelit which is good for nothing, and makom patur which is not even a place.

Introduction to the Coming Laws

Anyway, that’s what the Rambam will do. He’ll give us the four domains. If they are within an opening in reshut harabim, because such a thing isn’t relevant, but they become nullified. That means, we learned earlier from the side of reshut harabim, or what’s called makom hapatur in reshut harabim, which has a din of karmelit, it’s yes extra. Now we’re going to learn about different ways that there’s a place, some distinction in reshut harabim, but it doesn’t become different, it’s nullified in reshut harabim.

He’s going to say about a place in reshut harabim and in reshut hayachid, that a person might have thought it’s a karmelit or a makom patur, because it’s not properly reshut harabim or reshut hayachid, but if it has halachic reasons, it becomes part of reshut harabim and reshut hayachid. Therefore he’s going back to explain the laws of karmelit and makom patur.

Law 9: A Place That Has a Height of Exactly Nine Tefachim in Reshut Harabim

Speaker 1:

He says thus: “A place that has a height of exactly nine tefachim, no less and no more, in reshut harabim” — someone has such a piece, in the reshut harabim there’s a little hill. He doesn’t say it’s relevant here, but on top there’s a little something, but it’s high nine tefachim, exactly nine tefachim, in reshut harabim, it is like reshut harabim, it becomes part of the reshut harabim. That means, if it were a bit higher, it would be ten, it would be a reshut hayachid, and if it were a bit smaller, it would be part of the reshut harabim. That’s it, because it’s only exactly nine tefachim, it is like reshut harabim.

But the distinction is thus, “and we don’t pay attention to the measure of its length and the measure of its width” — one doesn’t need to look, be precise exactly how long or how wide it is, “whether wide or narrow, it is like reshut harabim, and the public shoulders upon it”.

Explanation: “Shoulders Upon It” — Convenience for the Public

Such a sort of place is a place that comes exactly to use, the size of exactly nine tefachim is a place that people can use “for shouldering”. “For shouldering” means “shoulders upon it”, he means something that has to do with the shoulder, with the shoulder. People walk in reshut harabim and carry packages, and one can rest there, lean, or help with the packages, somehow one uses it for convenience. Therefore, it’s a place that the public uses, one doesn’t look at it as an extra structure in reshut harabim. But looks at it as furniture of the reshut harabim, as something in the reshut harabim that’s provided for the public.

If It’s More Than Nine or Less

“But if it was more than nine or less”, rather this is only if in the height it’s exactly nine tefachim, but if it’s higher than that or lower than that, it’s already a different category. He turned thus, “if it was four by four or more”, if it’s wide four by four it’s a reshut hayachid, it becomes karmelit. When are these words said? With four by four. If it’s a smaller thing that doesn’t have four by four, it’s a makom patur.

Why? Why isn’t there any… then it’s a makom patur. This is the makom patur is only when it’s…

Discussion: Why Specifically Exactly Nine Tefachim?

Speaker 2:

Yes, I understand that, but if it’s more than nine, in other words, if it’s ten, and I’m not speaking does more than nine mean from nine to ten? I ask, if it’s ten tefachim and four by four, it’s reshut hayachid, it’s even a karmelit. That which he says more than nine or less, does he mean less, or more but it doesn’t have ten tefachim?

Speaker 1:

Agreed?

Speaker 2:

I’m not sure.

Speaker 1:

Why not?

Speaker 2:

I don’t understand, because what should actually be the distinction? Why does a person scratch his back, does he check if it’s exactly a certain area?

Speaker 1:

Again, wait wait wait, now you’re asking a question on the law.

Speaker 2:

No, I don’t understand, in any case something is still missing for us the Baal HaMaor.

Speaker 1:

I understand very well. The answer is that there’s such a sort of stick, such a sort of thing, in hand there isn’t, perhaps only the law remains for practical purposes that this is the measure, but there must be such a sort of stick that one places in reshut harabim so that one should shoulder there. The one who builds the reshut harabim, in his order for the builders, sends this. And this is exactly in such a manner, if it’s too small it’s useless, if it’s too big it’s a domain unto itself, too high, because the main thing is the height, because people walk, need it to fit in the height. If it’s not that sort of vessel, one goes back to the normal law, in total it’s an exception. The way in which I’ve defined the exception is with the version of exactly nine tefachim. You might want to say differently, if it has a hook, where one hangs the brit case. I don’t know, other things, that’s how they defined the thing. But I understand it. I just want to know if it’s more than ten, apparently it’s reshut hayachid, so I think. It must be, they didn’t learn. Explicitly, four by four, is reshut hayachid.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Law 9: A Roof Adjacent to Reshut Harabim Within Ten Tefachim

Speaker 1:

Further he says thus, a roof adjacent to reshut harabim within ten tefachim, in reshut harabim extends a roof from an adjacent house to what, and within ten tefachim, it’s ten tefachim away from where the public turns, it also becomes a place where people come to shoulder, because within ten tefachim means it’s suitable for shouldering. It’s forbidden to carry to the roof, the person who lives in the house next to the roof may not, he would have thought that the roof is reshut hayachid, but since it’s so close to reshut harabim, and the public uses it for shouldering, he may not carry there. It’s forbidden to carry to the roof until he makes for himself a fixed ladder to go up on it. He should make, if he makes a fixed ladder, he puts down there a ladder in a fixed manner, so the public will see that the place is, even if they use it first, and they will further perhaps even they will further shoulder, but they will know, the ladder will be a sign that someone uses it, here someone is indeed, someone goes up and down, and with this it will become permitted. That means then it’s enough a revelation of intent that the people who shoulder won’t change, it won’t take away the category that it’s still a reshut hayachid.

Discussion: “Forbidden” Not “Liable” — Is It Karmelit?

Speaker 2:

But he doesn’t say forbidden that it becomes a reshut harabim, it could be that it’s forbidden that it’s a concern of reshut harabim, he doesn’t say liable. Apparently it’s with the Rabbis. Does he say it like that? Why does a fixed ladder help?

Speaker 1:

Okay, the fixed ladder I would say, that makes it for reshut hayachid. It doesn’t really make, it doesn’t change the domain, only it’s a sign, that you say that he’s declared ownership over it. The question is whose is the walkway? If the residents of the courtyard, the people who live there put a ladder, they’ve declared that it’s theirs. If not, it becomes part of reshut harabim.

Speaker 2:

No, but I say from the ten, it seems that there’s no din of reshut harabim. It’s perhaps… I want to know, makom patur means a permitted place or only makom patur? Because if it’s exempt… that means, a permitted place means a place where one may, let’s say. Because if it’s not reshut harabim, only one may not initially, something that one may not becomes a karmelit or… like karmelit. There is indeed a din of karmelit. But the din is because it looks like a reshut harabim. But it’s forbidden, not liable. What’s the distinction?

Speaker 1:

Any reshut harabim derabbanan you can call karmelit if you want, but this is already a question on lines. It’s different than… karmelit is a type of area unto itself that was given a din that one is stringent like a reshut harabim in certain things. But here one says that it’s a type of reshut harabim, it’s just not a Torah-level reshut harabim.

Speaker 2:

True, but we’ve already learned, that when one says the word karmelit, it has like an original meaning, whatever a karmelit is, or as you say that it’s a real karmelit. But in practice, any reshut harabim derabbanan we call karmelit in the end, as the Gemara says about less than ten.

Law 10: A Pillar in Reshut Harabim High Ten and Wide Four

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further, “a pillar in reshut harabim”… ah, he says the explanation. A pole, yes, he’s going to say. A pole in reshut harabim, but it’s yes high ten. It’s not under the ten where people would still scratch their backs on it. It’s higher ten and wide four, this is reshut hayachid. Like everything that is high ten and wide four, is a domain unto itself.

A Peg of Any Size in a Pillar

So it is, but how can one use such a thing? A person thinks he’s grabbed a piece of reshut hayachid. But if he puts in a peg of any size, on top of the pillar he puts in a little nail, even if it’s not high three, even if the little nails are not high three… he means to say, the nail is high, it’s close to three mixed. Apparently the nail becomes so nullified to the ground that’s in the pillar. Ah, in its height doesn’t mean on top of the pillar, in its height means therefore on top. In its height means by the side, there where the height goes up, that’s what he means to say, not versus on the width of the top of the pillar.

Even if it’s under the three, but since it’s suitable to hang pegs on it to use it, people will use the pegs, once there’s such a peg people will make themselves comfortable and hang on it their packages or what.

Law 10 (Continued): Pegs in a Pillar in Reshut Harabim

Speaker 1:

This diminishes it. So the foundation is as if one diminishes from the area, and it becomes karmelit. And we only measure from the foundation and up.

That means, we look at the foundation as this is a sign for the residents of reshut harabim that this is something that can be used, because it comes practically to use, so one can shorten. Therefore, it’s not nullified, it doesn’t make it for reshut harabim, but it makes that up to where the peg is people look at it like reshut harabim, like a reshut harabim. Therefore you’re left only with the area from the nail and further. Therefore, it lacks from the area and it becomes a karmelit, because now it becomes a pillar that’s not high ten and wide four, but high less than ten.

And we only measure from the foundation and up. He says, even if he filled it entirely with pegs, which means that he placed everywhere, he placed on the entire pillar nails, hooks, its height is diminished, so where you place a nail, up to where the nail is one doesn’t count as an extra domain, one counts it as reshut harabim.

So therefore if you’ve placed pegs everywhere, the entire area will be, won’t be called a reshut hayachid. He doesn’t say that it becomes actually reshut harabim, perhaps the whole thing becomes a karmelit, it says “becomes karmelit” explicitly.

Discussion: Why Karmelit and Not Reshut Harabim?

Speaker 2:

But here it’s a bit interesting, no, because there the word karmelit is because one diminishes it. If filled you’re left only with the area that’s from the nail and higher. But if he filled it entirely with foundations, I perhaps thought to make the whole thing for use for reshut harabim, it becomes like the pillars where one sits in the reshut harabim. Could it be that it’s the same thing?

Speaker 1:

No?

Speaker 2:

What’s the din? It becomes a karmelit, and what’s the din?

Speaker 1:

Rabbinically one wasn’t allowed to carry from the reshut harabim there, and from there to the reshut harabim.

Speaker 2:

No. What’s the din of a karmelit? From the reshut harabim?

Speaker 1:

One doesn’t take rabbinically. It’s not called reshut harabim.

Speaker 2:

Yes, but there’s indeed a rabbinic prohibition to carry less than four amot from a reshut harabim to a karmelit, if I remember. So it makes a difference. Isn’t that so? A karmelit that’s adjacent to reshut harabim, what’s the din?

Speaker 1:

Not clear. The Rambam says yes, there’s a… one may not place from a karmelit to reshut harabim.

Speaker 2:

Okay, we’ll see. It’s perhaps not. What I want to know, the adjacent height, does the place mean…

Speaker 1:

Okay, we don’t know what the place means. What it says here is that it’s explicit that it becomes a karmelit?

Speaker 2:

No, it’s not really explicit. It’s so, the questioner asks if it’s neutralized, but he said… it’s advice in any case if it’s neutralized.

Speaker 1:

Very good. It becomes less, it becomes very small. It counts, if it’s nothing, perhaps nothing remains.

Speaker 2:

Perhaps nothing remains, perhaps it’s not enough. Perhaps zero remains. He doesn’t really say…

Speaker 1:

Yes, but entirely… he means every inch, but perhaps there doesn’t remain enough an area by itself. Whatever there is, what’s the din of that area? It could be, he brings that the adjacent… sorry, filled entirely is essentially a novelty, because usually filled entirely one says that one can’t use it. Because when there’s one hook, one can use it. A whole thing with hooks, you can’t hang anything.

Speaker 2:

No, he doesn’t mean… it’s the opposite. He says the holy… no, he doesn’t mean entirely foundations, he means that he placed as many foundations as needed, but every few inches there’s a hook.

Speaker 1:

No, good. But for some reason, people call it. All the Jews who learned Gemara, who know where the Rambam comes from, they say this interpretation. So… what’s the simple meaning?

Speaker 2:

Okay. You say it’s nothing different?

Speaker 1:

I don’t know. The Rambam says very clearly, he writes “they hang the foundations on it and use them”. But one uses it yes.

Speaker 2:

Very good. He writes that one can, yes, still use it a bit. He writes that which he moves it. It can still. So he’s explaining the…

English Translation

Speaker 1:

So that’s how he explains it. The entire Tur in general, who learns the entire Gemara differently. That’s not the problem. But this means, the entire halacha is strange. Let’s be clear. The entire halacha is something peculiar. A yesod (fundamental principle), like what is the interpretation in the Gemara, Rashi, the Ra’avad, they all learn completely differently from the Rambam in the Gemara. It’s not at all the chiddush (novel interpretation) that the Rambam had.

But according to the Rambam’s interpretation they learn… So if he introduced such a yesod, then that place which was made into a reshus hayachid (private domain), it becomes a karmelis (semi-public domain). The Rambam himself would make sense if you say that a yesod makes the whole thing as you say, that it makes it into a reshus harabbim (public domain), because the Rambam doesn’t say that. He says it becomes a karmelis.

Speaker 2:

Very good. That means, in other words, and not only does he not say that, he also doesn’t say that the yesod makes the whole thing underneath like the amah shemekefes hakol (the cubit that surrounds everything). That would make a lot of sense. We learned that there is such a thing as an amah, and this is the amah that belongs to the reshus harabbim. But the Rambam doesn’t say that. He only says, one begins to calculate the numbers differently. It’s very peculiar. Why? Why shouldn’t one say that it becomes a… a… like a shimush reshus harabbim (use of the public domain)?

Speaker 1:

Yes. But you want to learn by kilayim (forbidden mixtures), but what does kilayim have to do with it? It’s not clear.

Speaker 2:

Okay. In short, it’s all because the Rambam learned the Gemara differently from most other Rishonim to begin with, and we don’t even understand what the Rambam meant. I don’t know. It’s not relevant to the halachos anyway, right? We need to check. Why are we looking for reshus harabbim’s. Anyway. There aren’t any reshus harabbim’s anyway nowadays, according to the meforshim (commentators).

—

Halacha 14: Chor Reshus Hayachid and Chor Reshus Harabbim

Speaker 1:

Okay, next. Chor reshus hayachid (a hole in a private domain), now he’s going to tell us what happens with… there’s a hole made in the… in a wall or something. So a hole in the reshus hayachid, behold it is like a reshus hayachid.

But it’s not that everywhere there’s a hole we count it like the place around the hole, because a hole in the reshus harabbim is not like a reshus harabbim, unless it is four by four, it depends how big the hole is, how so.

So apparently, let me just try to think, what is the difference? The difference is apparently simple. A reshus hayachid belongs to one person, one person – the hole also belongs to him, it’s still part of his domain. But the reshus harabbim we see here in all these halachos, there’s a condition that reshus harabbim only means the part that the reshus harabbim uses.

It shows you that like a… how should I say, reshus hayachid doesn’t have any… we’re going to learn eruv (Sabbath boundary) is a rabbinic commandment, but reshus hayachid doesn’t have a boundary that the individual needs to be able to use it. The entire reshus hayachid is still part of the reshus hayachid up to the sky, yes? As opposed to reshus harabbim, for example reshus harabbim is only up to ten tefachim (handbreadths), because reshus harabbim must actually… it doesn’t have to be mukaf mechitzos (surrounded by partitions), but it also has to be a place that has such a form that the public can use. If not, it’s not called reshus harabbim. Do you agree?

Speaker 2:

More or less. But I don’t know what the chiddush of chor (hole) is, because a chor becomes a kind of bor (pit). There’s a bor that’s called a bor, and there’s a bor that’s called a chor. What are we talking about here, right?

Speaker 1:

They’re saying, not a chor, a chor means like the… the wall, let’s say. I mean when chor means in a wall.

Speaker 2:

In the wall of what? What’s next to the reshus harabbim?

Speaker 1:

Yes.

Speaker 2:

Or in the reshus hayachid?

Speaker 1:

Yes. A hole in a wall, not a hole in the floor. So a chor and a bor are the same thing. He says that just as there’s an area in the reshus harabbim that becomes a reshus hayachid, or in a karmelis, it’s the same thing, there’s no difference whether the hole is down or it’s in the side in a wall.

Speaker 2:

Yes yes, you’re right apparently that a reshus hayachid… that a bor in a reshus hayachid is also a bor. You’re right apparently that in a reshus hayachid it doesn’t become an extra domain if there’s a hole or a hill. True. But here it clearly states the difference between reshus harabbim and reshus hayachid. There it doesn’t state it clearly. You see that reshus harabbim… because you could say, just as the hole serves the reshus harabbim, it’s reshus harabbim. Here we have Amoraim who held that way, they’re not rejected, as we learn. There are things that are batel (nullified), but can be used. I don’t know. Here it says no. And similar names, the laws aren’t the same laws for each… right. But a hole in reshus harabbim isn’t automatically reshus harabbim. It depends on the size.

Speaker 1:

How so? It’s never a reshus harabbim.

Speaker 2:

Never. Right. Or it’s a… it depends on its size.

Speaker 1:

Yes. No, if it’s very small, it’s a… it’s batel, it’s not a hole, it’s part of the reshus harabbim. We’re talking about a hole.

Speaker 2:

You’ll see, okay. Now read something.

The Three Measurements of a Hole in Reshus Harabbim

Speaker 1:

If it is four by four and ten high, we already discussed regarding bor and tel (mound), it should be the same thing regarding a hole, that a place that is four by four and ten high, becomes a reshus hayachid.

And if it’s not ten high, behold it is a karmelis, as we discussed.

And if it doesn’t have four by four, if it doesn’t have four by four, behold it is a makom patur (exempt place), and this is when it’s three high, for anything less than three is like the ground. If it’s higher than three and doesn’t have four by four, then it’s a makom patur.

Discussion: How Small Can a Hole Be and Still Count as Makom Patur?

Speaker 2:

Until now we know about things that are basically things in the reshus harabbim, which are or aren’t… he’s already telling me, if it doesn’t have a place of four by four, until how much? That means, does every hole automatically have its makom patur? If there’s a small hole in any wall in any reshus harabbim, it’s not a reshus harabbim? Interesting.

Speaker 1:

Yes, it’s interesting. By a bor we didn’t say such a thing. A tiny bor doesn’t now become a bor. That means, if there’s a small… somewhere in the reshus harabbim there’s a place that becomes a drop deeper, does it stop being reshus harabbim, because one has to walk a bit lower? A reshus harabbim that goes hilly, will we say that the reshus harabbim ends when we have to calculate according to the…

Speaker 2:

No, because you’re the one who came up with the idea that a chor and a bor are similar. They’re actually completely different things. The only similarity is that… the only similarity is that here we say that a hole also has… the same three measurements that make the three different measurements, but essentially a chor is a completely different thing. A bor is only if it’s a bor.

Speaker 1:

How small? I don’t know how small. When is it no longer a bor? It’s certainly not simply a reshus harabbim. How small? I don’t know. Not clear. When is it actually three tefachim?

Speaker 2:

No, we know that it’s a karmelis. If there’s a hole, yes.

Halacha 11 – Measurements of a Hole and the Different Domains

Speaker 1:

Yes, the only similarity is that here we say that a hole also has the same three measurements that make the three different domains. But essentially a chor is a completely different thing. A bor is only if it’s a bor. How small? I don’t know. I don’t know, not clear. When is it a bor? When it’s three tefachim. I mean, in the ground, I mean that it’s deep. If there’s a hole, yes there’s a difference. Understand?

What did we learn? A bor must be, how big must the bor be? What does it mean? Anything, what is a karmelis, yes, in the reshus harabbim is that? Yes. A charitz (groove) is what it’s called in the Rambam’s language, right? Four by four and deeper than three. If it’s less than four by four, it’s a makom patur. And less than three, less than three. That’s the measurement. Less than three is lavud (considered connected). Just as it goes… but lavud is the word, and not the word that it’s not at all extra. It’s interpreted as lavud.

Speaker 2:

No, lavud means even when there actually is a clear hill.

Speaker 1:

Okay, yes, good. It means lavud, that we don’t notice it so strongly, yes. Rav Yosef, that if it’s close enough, therefore it’s not a thing in itself. But when it’s very good, that the measurement is three tefachim. Higher, a hill that’s less than three tefachim is actually batel, or a hole that’s less than three tefachim is actually batel. But if it’s more than three tefachim, then it depends, if it’s four tefachim wide, then it’s a karmelis. If it’s less it’s a makom patur. That’s the step. If it’s also ten tefachim deep, then it’s a reshus hayachid. Understand?

Halacha 12 – Laws of Carrying in These Domains

Speaker 1:

Now the Rambam is going to tell us what happens with the karmelis and makom patur, what is their boundary in halacha? What may one do and not do? He says like this, in other words, from reshus hayachid to reshus harabbim we already know basically that one may not carry, it was stated earlier in the chapter, in the first chapter it says, right? Twelve, it’s a place to learn. What happens with the other domains actually?

He says, it’s like this, reshus hayachid and makom patur are two places where one may carry in all of them, even if the length of each of them is several mil, no difference how big it is. If it’s a reshus hayachid, a reshus hayachid can be as big as several mil, one may carry in all of them. The same thing with makom patur. A makom patur can’t be several mil, but yes, I mean, yes, except that peculiar long, long narrow thing. They learned.

A Place Surrounded That Doesn’t Have Four by Four

Speaker 1:

They also learned about even if it’s several mil long, yes, a place that is surrounded that doesn’t have four by four. Because usually the makom patur must be less than four by four, it can only be if it’s a place of partitions, it’s very narrow and long, one may carry the entire thing. Yes.

Laws of Carrying in Reshus Harabbim and Karmelis

Speaker 1:

But in the reshus harabbim and the karmelis, one may only carry within four amos (cubits). And if one transferred or extended or threw, carried or gave to another, or threw beyond four amos, here is the difference, in the reshus harabbim one is liable, but in the karmelis one is exempt, because the prohibition of karmelis is rabbinic. That which was said that one may carry in it within four amos is rabbinic, from the words of the Sages. And the reason is because it resembles the reshus harabbim, karmelis has similarities to reshus harabbim, therefore there’s a concern lest it be confused with the reshus harabbim, if a person will think that one may carry there, one will come to also carry in the reshus harabbim.

A Labor Not Needed for Its Own Sake in Karmelis

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says, therefore, once you understand with this, that karmelis is only rabbinic, the prohibition to carry in karmelis is because it resembles reshus harabbim, it’s like this, if one didn’t need the body of the carrying, if he doesn’t need the essence of carrying, meaning he doesn’t need the labor of carrying, meaning usually carrying is he wants a place to arrive from one place to the next place, that’s not yet another way how one carries, but that carrying is a melachah she’einah tzrichah legufa (labor not needed for its own sake). But when one only wants that the thing shouldn’t lie here because it’s in the way, like one who transferred a thorn in a karmelis so that the public won’t be injured by it, there’s a thorn, now he carried it into the karmelis, he carried it in the karmelis, let’s say, to the corner of the karmelis, so one won’t be injured. In reshus harabbim one may do it even carrying four amos, because generally melachah she’einah tzrichah legufa one is liable, but when it’s rabbinic and we’re lenient by… when it’s rabbinic and it’s for a need, for the need that the public won’t be injured by it.

Discussion: Why Is There a Leniency?

Speaker 2:

So it’s very peculiar, so one doesn’t need to come to the essence of carrying. Right. You need to come to the leniency of melachah she’einah tzrichah legufa, not that one needs to come, it doesn’t do anything, because the Rambam holds melachah she’einah tzrichah legufa one is liable. It doesn’t make a difference. Perhaps by rabbinic there’s sometimes an exemption, perhaps so. But it’s certain that so one doesn’t just leave something for a need, that they won’t be injured by it. Just as we always learn rabbinic they allow things for a need that they won’t be injured by it and the like.

Speaker 1:

Perhaps the word is, the not needed for the essence of carrying, they will go needed for the essence of carrying, because they’ll be afraid that it resembles reshus harabbim. What do you think, what kind of need or not injury is that which is about the essence of carrying? For example, he wants to carry in a karmelis something that’s important, he wants to carry medicine, not for danger, he wants to carry medicine that’s in a karmelis. It’s a need, it’s a need of the public, he wants to carry a siddur (prayer book) for the public in the karmelis.

Speaker 2:

So one needs to know why. If you say that melachah she’einah tzrichah legufa doesn’t make a difference according to the Rambam, it can have to do with shevus d’shevus (double rabbinic prohibition). Right. That when it looks like hotza’ah (carrying out), one sees a person carrying, one sees a person doing hotza’ah, one will do hotza’ah in reshus harabbim. But when it doesn’t look like hotza’ah, because one sees him he’s simply a thorn, right. So that makes sense. And thorns and all similar things. That means another type of injury, but the Rambam says “similar to this” means when one is needed for its body or for its place. If it’s needed for its body, apparently there’s no leniency, even if you have a need apparently. Because then it’s not different enough, then it’s still mis’asek (unintentional). How do you say the explanation?

Speaker 1:

Okay. So what do we know? Ah, and later the Rambam is going to say that if there’s a thorn in the reshus harabbim, one may only take it out less than four amos. And in karmelis one may properly. Okay. What’s the problem? Do I have a problem? No, now one who is needed for its body remains a bit open that we need to better understand.

Laws of Makom Patur – Bringing In and Taking Out

Speaker 1:

Ah, next he says, just as it’s permitted to carry in any makom patur, so until now we learned that inside a makom patur, just as in a reshus hayachid. He says, makom patur is something that’s even easier, because just as it’s permitted to carry in a makom patur, so it’s permitted to bring in from a reshus hayachid or from a reshus harabbim or from the karmelis. From a reshus hayachid one may not carry to a reshus harabbim or to a karmelis. But makom patur, which inside one may carry just as in a reshus hayachid, is however easier than a reshus hayachid, because one may also carry from reshus hayachid or from reshus harabbim or from karmelis to there.

Discussion: What Is the Boundary of Makom Patur?

Speaker 2:

What does it mean a makom patur is not at all an extra place? Makom patur is something a place that’s batel to the place next to it, something like that, yes? Could be, because a makom patur is usually such a little place. I don’t know if it’s batel. I don’t know if it’s batel. If it’s really batel, it would become reshus harabbim. But it remains a makom patur, but it gets the law of the place next to where it is, or what? Okay, let’s see. Let’s see.

Speaker 1:

No, no, it doesn’t get the law of the place where it is. Let’s call it an extra domain, but this is makom patur, that one may carry both inside, and also one may carry from the next place to there. And karmelis is exactly the opposite, one may not carry out four amos inside the karmelis. That’s the stringency that the Sages said that one shouldn’t carry more than four amos, which according to the Rambam one may not carry more than four amos in the karmelis. And also one may not carry from the reshus hayachid or from the reshus harabbim to the karmelis, or conversely, take out from the karmelis to the reshus hayachid, or bring into the karmelis from the reshus hayachid or reshus harabbim. And the one who takes out and brings in is exempt, because it’s a rabbinic prohibition, it’s forbidden but one is exempt from Torah law.

Discussion: Question from Pri Chadash – Why May One Not Carry from Reshus Harabbim to Karmelis?

Speaker 2:

Ahh. Okay. But I don’t understand something that was said that the karmelis the Sages prohibited because it resembles reshus harabbim, true?

Speaker 1:

Yes.

Speaker 2:

So from reshus harabbim to reshus harabbim one may carry, true?

Speaker 1:

We mean one may not less than four amos. Correct.

Speaker 2:

It’s only a bit similar, it’s not similar enough. It looks like one is carrying. It’s worse than reshus harabbim, because the Rambam says one may not carry from reshus harabbim to a karmelis.

Speaker 1:

Correct. Even less than less, he’s not talking here about the four amos, yes. Correct. So it’s enough as if it’s a reshus hayachid then, understand?

Speaker 2:

Yes, because the Chachamim (Sages) wouldn’t be lenient more than… the Chachamim were stringent regarding karmelis, they made it like a reshus harabim (public domain) that one may not carry. But if they would say that one may carry from reshus harabim to there, they would have made a kula (leniency), yes? Because we see it’s not a reshus hayachid (private domain), rather it’s a karmelis. They didn’t say it as a leniency. Right.

Speaker 1:

No, it wouldn’t be a reshus hayachid, it would be a makom patur (exempt place).

Speaker 2:

Aha. He brings that the Pri Chadash asked this question, and he says like this, on the contrary, then one says perhaps it’s too similar to reshus hayachid. I hear. I don’t know. Um… most say perhaps that it’s like… one can’t make it easier than other reshuyos (domains), something like that. I’m not sure. Because there’s a case like karmelis when not that it’s a geder letzmoh (fence unto itself) it wouldn’t be a makom patur, rather a reshus hayachid. We need to know which karmelis.

Speaker 1:

No, it can’t be. Ah… let’s go, a karmelis that… it can’t be, because then they should have made a kehillah (community). They didn’t make any kehillah, because they said to themselves that one may not walk around in the sanctity of reshus harabim there.

Speaker 2:

Yes, but you need to have one karmelis that… with its father. Eh.

Speaker 1:

I mean, it says in the Magen Avraham, it says in the Rambam like this. I don’t believe that all karmelis are things that are essentially year.

Karmelis is a Chumra, Not a Kula

You can ask who made the precise division. Let’s say there’s something that’s a drop different from what gets a din (law) of reshus hayachid, or a drop different from what gets a din of reshus harabim. So will the Chachamim now be lenient and say that one may carry in there from reshus harabim? Why? Because the Chachamim said it’s not a reshus hayachid, and they were stringent that it’s not a reshus hayachid, and therefore one may not carry inside.

Again, a bit more of a drop different actually becomes a makom patur, right? It depends on the situation. One must see what makes it out. Let’s say a place that’s a karmelis because it only has a buleh a buleh, it’s not bigger than that, yes? It’s not ten tefachim high, it’s fenced, it’s not a reshus hayachid. So? It’s not a reshus hayachid, it lacks a drop from being reshus hayachid. Should you say that one may now carry there from reshus harabim?

So, what’s the problem? The Chachamim were stringent that this shouldn’t have any din of reshus hayachid, and therefore they gave it a name karmelis, that one may not carry inside. But they weren’t lenient and said that now there’s reshus harabim. Why shouldn’t one carry inside? It’s no longer reshus harabim, it’s a karmelis. So, the Chachamim said it’s not a reshus hayachid. If it were a reshus hayachid one could carry. One may not carry because it’s a karmelis. But to say that one carries from reshus harabim there, they would have been lenient.

I don’t see any case where it’s a kula. There’s no thing that would be different in a reshus hayachid. If it were a reshus hayachid, one could carry in that place. Very good, but that’s not the story of the karmelis. It’s also when that is the story of the karmelis. A karmelis is a place that lacks something from being a reshus hayachid.

Speaker 2: Don’t understand what you’re saying. It’s not big enough for a reshus hayachid.

Speaker 1: So, it’s not a kula. The Chachamim made a karmelis. The Chachamim didn’t make a reshus hayachid. Reshus hayachid was d’oraisa (from the Torah). From where do you come that the Chachamim made a reshus hayachid? The Chachamim didn’t make a reshus hayachid. Reshus hayachid is from the Torah. The Torah said, or the Chachamim say that the Torah said, however it is, that something that’s not ten tefachim high is not a reshus hayachid. What is it? It should have been a makom patur. But if it’s wider than four tefachim, the Chachamim come and say it’s karmelis.

True. Mid’oraisa (from Torah law) actually wide like four tefachim and less, both are a makom patur. Neither is a reshus hayachid. And the Chachamim say it’s a karmelis.

Speaker 2: You want to say that it’s similar.

Speaker 1: That you can say yes, it’s similar enough. You find me a case, the amah (cubit) that’s not yet ten tefachim, you say it’s similar enough to a reshus hayachid that one can understand that a karmelis should also have stringencies as if it’s a reshus hayachid. Okay, that can be.

It’s actually, lemaaseh (in practice) a karmelis is a chumra (stringency). It’s actually, the Chachamim by making karmelis made that one shouldn’t be liable with carrying there, but in a reshus harabim one may carry in reshus harabim less than four amos, and in a reshus hayachid one may carry properly in the reshus hayachid, and in karmelis one may not. It’s certain that karmelis is a chumra, again. It’s certainly not a kula. Because again, mid’oraisa one could lechatchila (initially) carry to it and in it and everything. It would have been a makom patur. Karmelis is something that was once a makom patur, kiveyachol (so to speak), before the Chachamim forbade it, let’s say. And they make a chumra. That’s certain that they make a chumra.

The question was only, that if you say that a karmelis is like reshus harabim, like the Rambam said, it should be permitted to carry from reshus harabim into it. He explains that it’s not precise, it’s similar to reshus harabim and sometimes similar to reshus hayachid. That’s what you’re saying, basically. In any case, it doesn’t say so in the Rambam, but perhaps it’s true. Okay.

Halacha 14: One Who Carries From Reshus to Reshus With Karmelis in Between

The Rambam says further, section 14: One who carries from reshus hayachid to reshus hayachid, or from reshus harabim to reshus harabim, that’s permitted. But with karmelis in between, between in the middle of reshus hayachid there’s an area called karmelis, or in the middle of reshus harabim, lechatchila one may not carry, as you just said, but one is exempt. It’s not simple that…

Speaker 2: Yes, simply because it’s only an issur miderabbanan (rabbinic prohibition).

Speaker 1: And so one who extends or throws, from this to that with karmelis in between, is exempt. Exempt means exempt but forbidden.

The Chiddush of the Halacha

This is perhaps the chiddush (novel point). The question is whether the chiddush of the halacha is that it’s exempt, or the chiddush is that it’s forbidden? Because seemingly if it’s exempt it’s obvious.

Speaker 2: He asks, that even when it’s a reshus hayachid… even when it’s two reshus harabim in between he would be exempt, except for extending in a certain case, right? That’s what we learned earlier.

Speaker 1: So seemingly the chiddush is that it’s forbidden. The Chachamim who forbade carrying in a karmelis, also forbade when reshus hayachid to reshus hayachid through a karmelis.

Speaker 2: Ah, he means to say forbidden. The Rambam should have said forbidden.

Speaker 1: But the Rambam says, we haven’t yet had forbidden meanwhile. Forbidden he’ll say where he’ll speak about the rabbinical laws. So he stays with his language of exempt, but he means to say the halacha that one may not carry through a karmelis.

One Who Carries From Reshus Harabim to Karmelis and Places It There

One who carries an object from reshus harabim to karmelis and places it there, he carried from reshus harabim to karmelis, which would have been the first rabbinical prohibition, and he made a hanachah (placement) there, and returned and lifted it from the karmelis and brought it into reshus hayachid, or the opposite, he took it out from reshus hayachid to karmelis and placed it there, and returned and lifted it from the karmelis and took it out to reshus harabim, behold this one is exempt.

It means, he carried from a reshus harabim and later he carried it to reshus hayachid, but meanwhile he put it down in the karmelis, he’s not liable, and one doesn’t say that it means he carried from reshus harabim to reshus hayachid. Why? Because there wasn’t an akirah (lifting) from reshus harabim and hanachah in reshus hayachid, there was meanwhile an akirah with a hanachah in the karmelis.

Discussion: The Karmelis Makes It Easier?

It’s actually a chiddush, because the previous thing he says that the karmelis doesn’t make you easier, and here he says that the karmelis does make you easier, because it saved you from an issur d’oraisa (Torah prohibition) from being liable.

Speaker 2: It’s not the rabbinical law that exempts him, because even if it were a makom patur he would be exempt.

Speaker 1: Ah, that’s what you mean, that the chumra makes him easier to the extent that it should be called like that…

Speaker 2: Yes, okay. It should be called like the previous one, exactly, that there’s actually no akirah.

Halacha 15: One Who Carries From Reshus Hayachid to Reshus Harabim Through Makom Patur

Further, one who carries from reshus hayachid to reshus harabim. But now he says, what happens if he went from reshus hayachid to reshus harabim, and he went through a makom patur between them? Okay, let’s now go to makom patur. Okay, again.

One who carries from reshus hayachid to reshus harabim, and meanwhile he passed through a makom patur, but he didn’t put down his object in the makom patur, he didn’t stop. If he had stopped in the makom patur, it would have been like by the karmelis, he certainly would have been exempt, perhaps he would have even been permitted. But if he walked through the makom patur in his walking, he is indeed liable.

One doesn’t say that his being in the middle in the makom patur cuts off between the reshus hayachid and reshus harabim. Why? Because walking is not like standing, because he only walked through, and walking through, mehalech (walking), doesn’t mean like omed (standing). Standing cuts off, he was in reshus hayachid, but now he stopped, he became an omed in makom patur. But mehalech is not like omed, one looks at it as he walked from reshus hayachid to reshus harabim, and one doesn’t count the place in the middle as a stop.

He says, and needless to say by throwing that the object passed through makom patur. If it’s a zorek (thrower) who threw from reshus hayachid to reshus harabim through makom patur, he’s still liable, because even though it flew through the makom patur, but it’s one considered as if it was placed, and one doesn’t look at it as the thing, the object that one carries, landed, had a rest, stopped in the makom patur, therefore the object is still like carrying from reshus hayachid to reshus harabim.

One Standing in Makom Patur and Taking an Object

These halachos we’ve already learned actually. He said that mehalech is not like omed. If mehalech is not like omed, he has the same halacha that we already also had regarding reshus harabim.

One standing in makom patur and taking an object, he stands there and he takes an object from reshus hayachid, a person stands there, he stands in a makom patur next to the reshus hayachid, and he takes over from the reshus hayachid and he puts it into the reshus harabim, or he lifts it up in the reshus hayachid, or he takes it from a person standing there. And the same thing, he puts it down in the reshus harabim, or he gives it over to a person standing in the reshus harabim. He is exempt, says the Rambam, exempt because he made the akirah or the hanachah in makom patur.

Both he did, the akirah and the hanachah he did both, he made the akirah from reshus hayachid and the hanachah in the reshus harabim, but because he stands in the makom patur, yes? He stands in the makom patur exempts him.

Discussion: Did He Stop?

Speaker 2: Ha, taking an object from reshus hayachid, he stands there, it’s a small makom patur that’s between a reshus hayachid and a reshus harabim. Right, but he doesn’t stand here, he was a… what does nach mean? Because he’s nach. We learned, yes, that if it were reshus harabim he would be liable. Right? So, because he stops in the middle.

Speaker 1: It doesn’t say here exactly, it doesn’t look like he stops, he takes it over and he carries it. But because he stands in the middle, here there’s actually a chakirah (investigation), he brings that there are those who argue that this doesn’t mean it stopped, and then he should have been liable. But the Rambam looks like this means stopped, it’s enough.

And so one who carries from reshus harabim to reshus hayachid and he stands in makom patur, exempt. The same thing, earlier he said from reshus hayachid to reshus harabim, and from reshus harabim to reshus hayachid.

Beginning of New Halachos – Questionable Reshuyos

Okay, so we’re going to learn a few more halachos about reshus harabim, reshus hayachid really, things in… I don’t know how it comes in here, I’m trying to give a keppel (chapter), but… questionable reshuyos and the solution they have. This is still all part of the laws of reshuyos. This is all more or less part of what is a reshus, and how does which reshus become, and what is with all kinds of, how do you say, questionable or edge cases it’s called in English, boundary cases.

So like this, one standing in reshus harabim ten high and four wide, it’s ten high, it’s four wide, so seemingly it’s a reshus hayachid. But it lacks something.

Halacha 16: A Pillar in Reshus Harabim That Doesn’t Have Four at Its Base

Speaker 1:

It’s still all part of the laws of reshuyos, this is all more or less part of what is a reshus, and how does which reshus become, and what is with all kinds of, as you say, “questionable” or “edge cases” it’s called in English, boundary cases.

So like this, a pillar in reshus harabim ten high and four wide, it’s ten high and it’s four wide, so it’s seemingly reshus hayachid. But it lacks something, and at its base there isn’t four, and the bottom of the pillar doesn’t have four tefachim. One needs to have pictures here, they have a picture where one can see clearly all these things, I need to show on the video somehow, by days, yes? From below it’s simply less, it’s something like this… it becomes triangular from below. Yes, it’s an “upside down cone” like a bit.

And it doesn’t have at the short height three, and the short height, there where it becomes smaller, there where there isn’t four, there isn’t three tefachim. Ah, if it were three, it would actually be a new reshus, it would be extra, and since there isn’t ten tefachim here, it’s not essentially four, it would be a makom patur. But since there isn’t three tefachim as I know here, between how it begins to be four tefachim wide and the ground, there isn’t three tefachim, so it’s all connected, behold this is reshus hayachid, it becomes properly reshus hayachid, because this means like gud achis mechitzasa I think, it goes down from above, the four tefachim go above, in any case since it’s not less than three tefachim empty, the place doesn’t bother us. If it were a place, it would indeed bother. Therefore behold this is reshus hayachid, it becomes properly reshus hayachid like a pillar that’s ten by four, and if one threw from reshus harabim and it rested on top of it he’s liable.

Halacha 16: A Sloping Mound

Speaker 1:

Now there’s another interesting case, which is if one has a high thing like a pillar in reshus harabim, but it doesn’t have straight walls, it’s a tel hamistalek (sloping mound), that means, it goes up sloped like a little mountain, like a kevesh (ramp), a ramp. So one needs to know when it’s called that it has a wall. The rule is, if it slopes ten tefachim in height within a length of four amos, then it’s a reshus hayachid, and one who throws from reshus harabim into it is liable. This means like this, that if it’s very, like in English there’s a word for it, right? Not “steep”, yes? It’s very laid out, it takes ten amos to become ten tefachim high, then it doesn’t mean any reshus, that’s a high reshus harabim, like we asked earlier. But if “within” four amos it goes up to ten tefachim, one looks at it that this is the wall, it’s simply such a very wide wall. I don’t know exactly what the reasoning is for this measurement, but it’s a measurement that says if “within” four amos you come to ten tefachim, that means it’s a wall, and therefore it’s a reshus unto itself, it becomes a reshus hayachid, it has all the laws of an extra reshus hayachid. Right?

Discussion: Why Specifically Four Amos?

Speaker 2:

Yes. Do you understand why this is so? I mean, I understand, that if it’s just very steep, it’s out mechitzah (wall). But what is exactly four amos? What is there?

Speaker 1:

The four amos has to do with the law of gud asik. One says that from where it’s four, one looks that also there where it’s not four, it’s four.

Speaker 2:

I’m asking about the tel hamistalek. That if actually in the four amos it becomes ten tefachim…

Speaker 1:

Clear. The other side is that it’s just a mountain, it also becomes the reshus harabim. If it’s steep enough, it’s enough… if it would slope ten tefachim over longer than four amos, it’s like a little mountain, it’s a reshus hayachid, but suddenly it’s a reshus harabim. On this it does make enough of an extra area that one should be able to give a place of reshus hayachid.

Speaker 2:

Right. I’m trying now to catch to understand the measurements of this, it’s just something a… one says that there’s even a question, what is the meaning of four amos? The four amos is the curved part? Or the straight part from below, understand? Because it’s longer. Yes, lechatchila it should be longer, it should be shorter. I would have had to be shorter to be. Anyways.

Speaker 1:

English Translation

Ah, he brings Rabbi Chaim, yes, he wanted, what does it mean, where is the partition? What is the simple meaning that every piece? Okay, scholars don’t have time. Okay, dear groom, they learn very beautiful Torah insights, but we need to understand the point.

Law 17: One Who Plants a Reed in a Private Domain – A Private Domain Rises to the Heavens

Speaker 1:

Now we can learn about the actual law. The next law is a simple law about the fact that a private domain goes up to the heavens, as we have learned. Therefore the Rambam says, one who places a reed in a private domain, even if it is a hundred – reed means a pipe, or perhaps a… reed is a type of small tree, a small tree, a tall pole. A hundred cubits, presumably a good pole. Even, okay, yes, even if it is a hundred cubits high, and one throws from a public domain and it lands on top of it, he is liable. Why? A private domain rises to the heavens, a private domain goes to the sky. Therefore one must remain on Shabbos in a private domain, because one must reach the heavens. No, that is according to Kabbalah. According to the simple meaning, a private domain is not like a public domain, which we already learned earlier in the law. A public domain stops at ten handbreadths, and a private domain goes to the heavens. In total there must be a placement. So if it’s in the air, there is no placement. If he has a reed and it becomes a placement, then one transgresses, even if it’s very high.

Discussion: Why Does a Private Domain Rise to the Heavens and a Public Domain Not?

Speaker 2:

I don’t understand for one minute, why does a private domain rise to the heavens and a public domain not?

Speaker 1:

Yes, I don’t know. That is… we learned earlier about a private domain, like the place below, and therefore a private domain rises to the heavens, because it must be a public domain.

Speaker 2:

No, I told you, because a public domain is a place that the public must be able to use, as we learn from all the laws. A private domain is your fence. A private domain is what belongs to you, belongs to you, who are they? It’s not a public domain, you don’t say that a person won’t go so high. It’s not relevant at all. An individual ten, he moves on the ground, he moves on the ground.

Speaker 1:

Okay, you’re asking a different question, why is the measure ten handbreadths? You would want to make the measure to the ground. That’s a question on all the measures of the Sages.

Speaker 2:

And even, I’m asking two questions. Today you would say that for example a person asks if he may use something, he wants to use a drone, if it’s higher than a public domain, there’s no question of permission.

Speaker 1:

No, that is a Choshen Mishpat question. Now we’re learning the laws of Shabbos. And in the laws of Shabbos there is less than Choshen Mishpat. That means, it’s not only dependent on… the sexton is right. So you see clearly, the sexton is the main thing. That’s what happens when the public domain is ten handbreadths. A private domain doesn’t need to have such a strong connection with the sexton. That’s what I think is the reasoning. One can understand it. Perhaps there are other answers.

The Mishnah says that the holiness rises to the heavens, that is the private domain of the Almighty. I don’t remember. What happens with such questions when one flies with a plane higher than… higher than a public domain, higher than a designated place. Or higher than a… conversely, higher than a place, like a Kohen higher than a cemetery. Technically it goes to the heavens, but perhaps there is less than four handbreadths. To the heavens is presumably an exaggeration. Someone flies with an airplane… okay, there’s no placement. We’re talking about what to count when there is a placement.

Discussion: The Question of Four by Four by the Reed

Speaker 2:

Here there is another problem, that the beams… the Rambam doesn’t say that the beams need to be four by four. Seemingly, there must be a placement on top of a place of four handbreadths. So anyway, the commentators discuss this problem. It’s not clear.

Speaker 1:

Now one can learn another law. It seemingly has nothing to do with the previous laws.

Speaker 2:

But I think, the placement on top of a beam in a private domain is specifically in a manner when there is something. For example, if a person threw something into the air higher than a private domain, and I know a bird came and caught it. There might be a question about… I don’t know, it’s not a placement. But if there would be no placement… the beam must be a placement, or the beam also, as if there must be something that should have a connection to the private domain below it. Do you know what might have to do with the question of four by four? Do you have something to say here? That why… that when it’s in a private domain there isn’t the law of four by four? Because the beam, as you say, the beam connects it to the ground, it’s as if still part of the ground. In a public domain it doesn’t help. But… okay.

Law 17: A Tree Standing in a Private Domain with Its Foliage Extending to a Public Domain

Speaker 1:

A tree, a new law that has nothing to do with anything. A tree standing in a private domain with its foliage extending to a public domain – there is a tree in a private domain, but its leaves, “foliage” means its leaves, its branches, extend out into a public domain. And one threw and it landed on its foliage – it fell on the… “and threw” from where? From a public domain. Yes. And it landed on its foliage – that it went onto the… not in the private domain. If it only rises to the heavens, it went onto the air of the public domain, then he is exempt, because the foliage follows the main part. One could have argued the same law as liable, he could have said if he throws it into a private domain, liable, because the foliage follows the main part.

True, there is indeed such a thing. But one doesn’t look, in other places one says that one follows the main part, here one doesn’t follow the main part, rather one follows where the thing itself is. True, there is a dispute about this, but yes. This also says exempt, it turns out that it’s exempt but forbidden, one may not do this initially.

Law 18: A Reed in a Public Domain with a Basket at Its Top

Speaker 1:

Now one can take the opposite law. The law of the pole I don’t understand what comes in here, it’s not the actual topic. But still, what about a reed in a public domain? Just a reed in a public domain, but here he says yes that at its top there must be a basket. Why? I don’t know why, perhaps because in a public domain… I really don’t know why there must be a basket here. Seemingly it should be even without a basket. Basket means a basket or some receptacle. And one threw and placed on top of it, then he is exempt, because a public domain does not rise up to ten.

So this is not clear. Even if at its top is a basket, what makes it more of a place that is convenient, I don’t know what? But look, he doesn’t say a reed ten high, it can be even a reed less than ten, if it’s not part of the public domain that is nullified as we learned earlier. Is there what to argue, he brings that the Maggid Mishneh says that the law is even less than ten. Since a public domain does not rise to the heavens, even less than this, it must actually fall on the ground from… but he says that a public domain does not rise up to ten. I know, but it turns out that even not less than ten. So says the… and the glosses, the Raavad says certainly so, the Raavad says explicitly even up to ten is exempt, he argues with the Rambam. He says that it’s not a private domain because there is no partition, and a public domain it also isn’t, so it’s a karmelis. It is exempt as in a karmelis. It’s forbidden, certainly it’s forbidden. Yes, the Rambam also says that exempt means that it’s exempt but forbidden.

Discussion: Why Exempt But Forbidden?

Speaker 2:

Again, the reason why one should be exempt here is if not forbidden, but why then? Because of saving a life? If it’s in the forbidden, what should be the permission that it should be exempt?

The Dispute Between the Raavad and the Rambam: A Pole Above Ten in a Public Domain

The Raavad says explicitly, “even up to ten is exempt”. He even argues with the Rambam. He says that it’s not a private domain, because there is no partition. Not what the Rambam holds. It’s essentially a karmelis, and it’s exempt as in a karmelis. This is a punishment. Certainly this is a punishment. Yes, the Rambam also says that exempt means that it’s exempt but forbidden.

Question: Why Exempt If the Pole Is in the Ten?

Again, the reason why one should be exempt here is, if not forbidden, but why then? Because there is a pole? If it’s in the ten, what should be the permission that it should be exempt? It should be a placement on the public domain. And in the ten handbreadths won’t it be a public domain? If there would be a pole in the ten handbreadths, would it be called a public domain, yes?

But the point is because it’s a pole which it’s a pole that has a basket. It occurred to me earlier, poles that are made for decoration, I don’t know what. It fell on the poles. Yes, certainly. Because that pole is… because the pole itself is a public domain. So the point is because the pole is some strange growth, and doesn’t belong here. It’s nothing. Not clear.

The Position of the Maggid Mishneh: A Private Domain Rises to the Heavens

There is one weak proof from those who say like the Raavad. The Maggid Mishneh argues that the Rambam is essentially agreeing with the Raavad. The Rambam says it perhaps only to say that… why is it different from a private domain? A private domain would indeed be liable, because it rises to the heavens. But a public domain, everything that is higher than three is a separate domain. Do you understand? In a private domain there are no things that are separate domains. So learns the Maggid Mishneh. It’s a bit forced, but it’s indeed difficult why it goes here.

Law 18: One Who Throws and It Sticks in a Wall — A Clump of Dirt or Mud

Okay. Now one can learn about other ways that are above… how… the latter part is essentially about the permission of a public domain above ten, right? One way is when one places a pole. And another way is thus: One who throws four cubits in a public domain, he stands in a public domain four by four cubits, and it sticks in a wall, the thing that he throws sticks on the wall.

How can a thing stick on a wall? A wall is a wall. The Rambam says an answer, “a clump of dirt or mud that sticks to the wall, he is exempt from desecration”. I threw something sticky, that it stuck to the wall. This was a measure, a measure of sticking.

Above Ten — Like Throwing in the Air

So thus, if it stuck above ten handbreadths, it is like throwing in the air. If it actually stopped, it must be a placement, because that’s called a placement. Let’s say, it’s called even a placement on a place of four by four, because the wall is four by four, I don’t know exactly why. But since it’s above ten handbreadths, it is like throwing in the air, because above ten in a public domain is an exempt place.

Below Ten — Like Throwing on the Ground and Liable

But if it stuck below ten handbreadths, because then it is in the air of the public domain, it is like throwing on the ground and liable. And this is only when it’s on a wall, because a wall means a place of four by four.

Threw Above Ten in Any Hole — Exempt

But one who throws above ten, and he threw it in any hole, it fell into a hole, then he is exempt. Because with a hole one must calculate how big the hole is, since the hole is not a place of four by four. One doesn’t say we dig to complete, says the Maggid Mishneh, and therefore he is exempt. I said that a hole is generally an exempt place, yes, that’s the point? Right. Yes. Except if the hole is four by four, but here it says any hole.

Why does he say this? A hole of a private domain, a hole of a public domain, is always called a separate domain it seems. So we learned there, that it depends how big it is, but here he speaks of any size, there’s no measure, it’s not even three handbreadths which would be a karmelis, and would be exempt. In short, yes.

Law 19: One Who Throws a Reed or Spear from a Private Domain to a Public Domain

Okay. Until now we learned about what if someone throws something onto a reed. Now we’re going to learn about the person who throws the reed itself. After that we’re going to learn about one who throws an entire domain.

So thus, one who throws a reed or spear in a private domain, I threw a reed or a spear, okay, both are the same shaped things, and it stuck in a public domain while standing. The reed is higher than ten handbreadths, we assume, and it stuck into a public domain standing. Then he is exempt. Why? Because part of it is not in an exempt place.

Question: Why Not Liable Because Part of It Is in a Liable Place?

Although the bottom of it is certainly on the ground, since a part of it is still above ten, yes, the upper part, they explain the law. Why don’t we say the opposite, that he’s liable? Because part of it is in a liable place. Does that mean as if he didn’t throw a whole thing, does that mean as if he threw half a thing?

Answer: One Must Uproot the Whole Thing

Ah, as we learned earlier, that one must throw the whole thing, one must uproot the whole thing, in order for it to be the opposite, as if it rolls. I know there… ah, now they learned thus, laws must be the whole thing. Interesting.

Law 19: One Who Throws a Large Vessel from a Private Domain to a Public Domain

Look at the next one. After that stands another similarity: “One who throws a vessel from a private domain to a public domain”, yes, say an answer. The thing is, you say, this is made a whole… you know exactly how I wrote it. He threw a vessel, “and the vessel was large and it has four by four at a height of ten”, the vessel itself is a private domain, basically. He throws himself with a private domain. So he is exempt. Why? Because this vessel is a complete private domain, and it turns out to be like taking out from a private domain to a private domain.

Question: What If He Throws from a Public Domain?

Even though he says he is taking out, but from where is he taking out? From one private domain to another private domain. It’s true, he must make an eruv, and rabbinically it’s forbidden, but he is exempt.

The thing is, the Rambam doesn’t say that he threw the entire domain. The Rambam says because “like taking out from a private domain to a private domain”. And if he throws it from a public domain to a private domain? Further, he did an uprooting from a public domain, he throws it into a public domain. That means, he now threw from a public domain to a private domain, because the vessel itself is a private domain? I don’t know.

But when he lifts up the vessel, he carries it out from whatever it is. Why? He lifts it up in a public domain. But the vessel is a domain unto itself. How is it relevant? Where does the vessel go? To a private domain, right? You’re asking a question, what if he throws it from a public domain, right? I don’t know. He indeed made an uprooting from a public domain.

Discussion: What Is the Rambam Innovating About an Entire Domain?

What is the Rambam innovating about an entire domain? Perhaps the point here is that a domain is not a thing that one can throw? That’s what I would have thought, but the Rambam doesn’t say that. The Rambam says… I don’t understand, actually.

You need to think, yes, uprooting from its place a bushel, he lifts up a mountain, yes. In practice, there by Moses our teacher in the Gemara, yes. One certainly may not do this on Shabbos. He lifted up a public domain, yes.

Engineer. He says, he brings that for example, what about a karmelis? What about a smaller vessel that is four, but it’s less than ten, which is a law of karmelis? He doesn’t say, but he brings later authorities who say.

But throwing a karmelis is not one karmelis, is established. He says that here there are those who say. The Rambam doesn’t speak about this case. I don’t know.

Digression: Why Is the Gemara So Lengthy in the Laws of Carrying Out?

All this is stuck in a Gemara, which is much more fun when one learns it in the Gemara, because then one thinks about all these things. I think these laws exist still because it was fun for the Gemara to think about them. The Rambam who made into all laws, these types of laws, in my opinion it’s…

I learned this week in the holy Zohar that when something doesn’t fit in the verses, contradictions, there one must say that we mean the hidden legends, so says Rabbi Shimon the living. Because if not, there are indeed scribes who can do a better job. So, one must say that all these Gemaras are deep secrets of the Torah. Yes, it’s full of scholarly analysis, scholarly analysis is very enjoyable, the Gemara also loved scholarly analysis. But for practical law it’s difficult, yes. It makes a practical difference if there will be a case, but seriously, how many times do people throw in a private domain? A large vessel one can throw, it means, it happens sometimes, a person throws a refrigerator box… I hear, I hear. But not because of this does the law exist, that it should happen so often that people throw refrigerator boxes on Shabbos. There are many more lofty essences of Shabbos that one could have discussed in the laws of Shabbos, yes.

Right. The length, the Gemara is very lengthy in the laws of hotza’ah, and there’s certainly a secret in this. A secret can be according to the simple meaning a secret, but it’s not because there happened to be many questions in hotza’ah. That’s not the reason. It can’t be.

Observation About the Rambam’s Approach

Okay. For this I need to… But the Rambam is a question. I don’t want a question, I know why, the Rambam needs to write every law in the Gemara. But many questions that the commentators ask here, and what’s the point? The Rambam apparently didn’t care. He said, I’ll write you the conclusion more or less from the Gemara. You want to learn all the details? Figure it out yourself. I have many questions on the Rambam.

Law 20: A Pit Nine Deep and He Removed Sediment and Completed It to Ten — Uprooting and Partition Together

Anyway, where are we here? Another interesting case. There was a Jew who made a domain at the same time that he made a hotza’ah, similar to our case. Yes. A pit nine [tefachim deep] in the public domain, and he removed sediment from its bottom and completed it to ten, yes, there was a pit nine [tefachim deep], what is the pit now? A karmelis. Yes, let’s say it’s four by four wide. The young man gave a scratch, he tore out a piece from the bottom, right? A piece of sand, whatever, and it became ten. Yes.

Discussion: He Also Transgresses Plowing

Apparently, apparently he also transgresses plowing. He transgresses plowing. True. He transgresses plowing. But he transgresses plowing, he was also on… when he tore out the sediment, he tore it out from the public domain, but with this he also made it into a private domain. So he took from the private domain to the public domain, right?

Answer: At the Time of Uprooting It Was Not Yet a Private Domain

After he lifted it from the public domain, the piece of sediment, apparently, right? No, but when he took it, it was still part of the public domain, because when he lifted it, it wasn’t yet ten. He took it from a place of the public domain to the public domain. He throws out the sediment, ah? No, let’s say he leaves the sediment inside. On the side of the pit. He throws it out into the public domain. Whatever it is, the law is exempt. There’s no difference. Even if the uprooting was liable, but uprooting and partition together is exempt. At the beginning of the three and the partition tenth first, forbidden, sorry, at the beginning. That means, one must have… when he made the uprooting it was still a public domain. A karmelis actually, presumably, but yes. A karmelis, ah.

Principle: One Cannot Make Hotza’ah and Partition Together

The point is that one cannot make hotza’ah and partition together. First there must be a domain, and afterwards one can be motzi from it. The same thing, in reverse. But in reverse, no, then it does help yes.

Law 20: The Pit Was Ten and He Threw Sediment Into It and Reduced It to Nine — Placement and Partition Together

The pit was ten, it was ten, for a private domain, and he threw into it sediment and reduced it to nine, now it became a karmelis, so he is also exempt. Why? For the same reason. That means, for the same reason. When he made the placement, he didn’t make a placement in a private domain. He didn’t make a placement in a private domain, because the moment that the placement happened it was already a… It’s obvious to everyone this. Behold placement is liable, uprooting and partition together, but at the time… ah, at the time of the placement. So earlier was at the time of the uprooting. At the time of the uprooting earlier it was not yet a private domain.

Point: Beginning of Placement and End of Placement

It’s interesting, because one can say that the beginning of placement is when the sand starts to touch the floor, the end of placement is when everything is already lying, because then one will be able to divide.

Law: One Who Throws a Board and It Rests on Pegs — Partition and Placement Come Together

The Rambam’s words: One who throws a board, and it rests on pegs in the public domain, and it becomes a private domain, even a vessel on the board — exempt, for the making of the partition and the placement of the vessel come together.

Speaker 1: A board means a… not a patch, a straight piece of wood. A straight piece of wood, like a tabletop. And it rests on pegs in the public domain, the board fell on like a table, basically, four posts, like pegs in the public domain, pegs that touch the ground. And it becomes a private domain. Yes, it became a private domain. Why? Because it was ten tefachim high? It must be ten, right?

Even a vessel on the board, on the board he threw together with a… he threw the top of his table, and on the top was a wine cup. Okay. Exempt.

It’s a question why, he threw the whole table. And he is exempt. Why? For the making of the partition and the placement of the vessel come together. He takes down the partition and he makes the vessel at the same time. He makes the partition and the vessel at the same time.

And further, at the time of the uprooting, basically, there was no domain where he throws it in, there was no private domain. And he throws it from the public domain, not like from the mismar, he throws it out from there. Okay.

Innovation: We Don’t Reckon Like When You Started Doing the Melacha

Speaker 1: One good thing. The innovation of all these things is that we don’t reckon like when you started doing the melacha. One could have reckoned like this: what’s the matter? You don’t want to carry from one domain to another, and here you did it. We don’t look at it like that, yes? We look at it very technically.

Law: A Pit Ten Deep and Eight Wide — The Partition Divides the Pit in Its Width Into Two

Speaker 1: But in reverse, the same thing in reverse. There is the same case, and another case of the case, where at the time he makes the placement the domain changes.

The Rambam’s words: A pit that is ten deep and eight wide in the public domain, and he threw into it a partition and it divides the pit in its width into two — exempt, for the partition is nullified and each place doesn’t have four by four.

Speaker 1: There is a pit that is ten deep and eight wide, which is two measures of a private domain vessel. What does he do? He makes a partition in the public domain, and it divides the pit in its width into two. The partition appears to be a bit wide, it has a bit of width. It comes out that the pit becomes two [sections] less than four tefachim. Exempt. For the partition is nullified, and each place doesn’t have four by four.

Law: A Pit in the Public Domain Filled With Water — For Water Doesn’t Nullify Partitions

Speaker 1: Yes, okay. Let’s [discuss] another pit in the public domain, another law that isn’t… ah, a new law. Now we come to the matter of water. We’ve already spoken that water is exceptional from all the laws, because water… I don’t know, water is different from other things. Let’s see.

The Rambam’s words: A pit in the public domain ten deep and four wide, filled with water — one who takes from it and places on top of it, is liable, for water doesn’t nullify partitions.

Speaker 1: But it’s full of water, filled with water. You might have thought that water, it’s full, it’s not a pit. No, liable. One who takes from it and places on top of it water, liable. For water doesn’t nullify partitions. And also water, as we learned that a vessel that one places on the ground, is liable, because water doesn’t nullify partitions.

Distinction: Water Versus Fruits

Speaker 1: If it was filled with fruits, what’s the law? Exempt. Why? To go into the fruits is indeed a measure. It should be interesting, even fruits that one can remove, fruits that one can take away. No, but if he wants to go into the pit now, can he go in? The water doesn’t prevent him from being able to, there is the measure. Fruits he needs to move things, so he can go in.

Discussion: Do Fruits Nullify the Private Domain of a House

Speaker 2: In any domain, a private domain too, if one fills it with fruits does it become nullified? Or only a pit?

Speaker 1: No, a domain must be an empty thing. If it’s full it’s nullified. It doesn’t break the private domain, the pit. If it’s full of fruits it became another thing.

Speaker 2: But he’s saying that in practice there isn’t any empty space in the pit. This is a private domain, I want to fill it with fruits.

Speaker 1: Ah, it’s a pit that’s in my house, it can’t be a private domain. Okay, it’s… So why do I go into a house, I fill it with mattresses until only three tefachim are left, I don’t know what. So, is it still a private domain? Why? Filled with fruits, you’ve now learned. It’s less than the measure, it becomes less than the measure.

It becomes less than the measure, but only when it’s in the public domain. We want to say that such a kind of private domain that is only a private domain because it has space, but every private domain is exempt like this.

This is what I’m trying to bring out, that a house of a person that belongs to a person is the father of all private domains. We say that even a small space also has this law, because it’s a place where a person can dwell. I filled my house with fruits, I imagine it should be truly exempt. I don’t believe it.

Why? It will become exempt or forbidden, let’s remember, it won’t help much, perhaps except that it becomes an exempt place. I don’t believe that the fruits nullify it as a private domain. This says that it makes it worse, because the place remains, it’s a small place, so it’s nullified to the public domain.

But if a person has the actual house which is truly a private domain, I don’t know, this is such an exception, but when a person has a house that’s full of people, a person has like the side dresser, the smaller the room the more people, it’s filled with people, we say that the people are a barrier, it must truly fill the measure, yes.

Imagine you have some small storage, you want to remove something from there on Shabbos, you stuff in a bunch of people until only less than four tefachim of space remain, can you remove it because it’s an exempt place. I don’t know. One will ask, I agree. We’ve never encountered such an exception, but you say perhaps yes.

Everything is a private domain because there are partitions, it’s a private domain. There are distinctions like… and in logic it makes sense, as I say that in the public domain, because it’s a small space that isn’t nullified to the public domain, it’s like the true private domain which means because a person has his domain. The simple meaning of private domain means a domain of an individual. Yes, but the law of it is the partitions. There is a rabbinic [element]. The partitions are there, because that makes it similar to a private domain, we still call it a private domain. I don’t know.

So be it.

Law: A Puddle of Water — A Stream of Water in the Public Domain

Speaker 1: Now, further another law, how water doesn’t disturb. Yes, there is a rekak means a puddle? A puddle? A puddle? What’s the language? A pool? No, bigger than a puddle. A big puddle of water. A puddle of an angel, not just a puddle. This is like the reed that Gavriel placed under the sea and it became an island. He says that rekak means a stream of water. And so it says “similar to a rekak”. A rekak is like a matzah, a cookie? No, a rekak isn’t like that. It’s so low, flat, shallow, it’s flat water, as we’ll learn, it’s not deep.

In short, water that passes through, that the public walking in the world don’t go through there, because it’s not too deep.

The Rambam’s words: A puddle of water that the public walks through — if it doesn’t have ten tefachim in its depth, behold it’s like the public domain, whether it’s wide even four amos, or whether it doesn’t have four tefachim in its width, for behold most people jump over it. Since it doesn’t have ten, behold it’s like the public domain. And if it has ten or more — behold it’s a karmelis like other seas. And if it has four tefachim in its width [behold it’s a karmelis], and it doesn’t have four tefachim — behold it’s an exempt place.

Speaker 1: That means, when it’s a small puddle, people don’t need to go in it, they jump over, it doesn’t disturb. Since it doesn’t have ten, behold it’s like the public domain. And if it has ten or more, behold it’s a karmelis like other seas. If it has four tefachim in its width, and it doesn’t have four tefachim, behold it’s a karmelis less than four. That means, if it’s less than four it’s an exempt place.

But water, this is what, if the public go in the water… by the public domain sometimes the condition is that the public must be able to go. If they go in the water, or even they don’t go, if they can go, it’s still called part of the public domain. Only if it becomes ten tefachim deep, then they don’t go in it apparently, then it becomes a karmelis like all other seas in the world.

Digression: The Splitting of the Sea of Reeds

Speaker 1: Wonderful. Yasher koach. I’ve finished.

So at the Sea of Reeds, when we went through the Sea of Reeds on holy Shabbos, it wasn’t Shabbos. So for the Jews it was a private domain, because it’s standing on its [bottom] walking in it. Okay, it wasn’t ten tefachim. No difference.

Conclusion

Speaker 1: In short, this is the law of the laws of the offspring of domains on Shabbos. This is the rekak, basically.

—

General Notes from the Lecture

Speaker 1: It worked leniently this way. For behold this placement is liable, whereas uprooting and partition come together. But at the time of the placement, so earlier was at the time of the uprooting. At the time of the uprooting earlier there wasn’t yet a private domain. And here at the time of the placement there was already no private domain.

It’s interesting, because one can say that the beginning of placement… the beginning of placement is when the sand starts to touch the floor. The end of placement is when everything is already lying. According to this one can divide. You have here a beginning and an end of a placement. The contradiction is about this, since you need both an uprooting and a placement, so the first way there’s no uprooting, and the second way there’s no placement.

It’s certain that this was made for the scholars, as we discussed if someone is drunk or a fool, and what one shouldn’t do. In general, all these things are exempt, exempt means exempt but forbidden. It’s not relevant in forgetfulness, it’s not in the Shulchan Aruch this law. It’s simple because it’s not relevant in practice, it’s all exempt but forbidden.

Further, threw a board, we brought that in the Shulchan Aruch it’s not stated. Yes, there’s no practical difference regarding punishment, or sin offerings, there’s no practical difference regarding. Yes.