וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל־כָּל־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְהוָ֖ה לֵאמֹֽר׃
און משה האָט געזאָגט צו דער גאַנצער עדה פֿון די קינדער פֿון ישׂראל, אַזױ צו זאָגן: דאָס איז די זאַך װאָס גאָט האָט באַפֿױלן, אַזױ צו זאָגן:
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The one who takes out is not liable until he put it down51As explained in Note 1, the Sabbath is desecrated only by a complete action, lifting up, transporting from one domain to another, and depositing. If the last act is missing, there was no punishable desecration.
The tradent R. Yose is the fifth generation Amora.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down52This is a necessary clarification of the preceding statement. Not only must there be a complete action, but all three parts must be executed with the intent to perform the action. In Ex. 35, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath is repeated (vv. 1–3) as part of the commandment to build the Tabernacle (vv. 4–35). In 35:33, the construction of the Tabernacle is described as “thinking work”. It is concluded that only “thinking work” is punishable (criminally or by a sacrifice) as desecration of the Sabbath. In the special case of transporting, there is desecration only if the three parts are done with compatible intent, if the lifting up was intended to be followed by a putting down.. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down53It is perfectly legitimate to take food to eat in the domain where it was at the start of the Sabbath. If the first stage of a transport was executed in a perfectly permitted way based on a true thought, it never can become the first leg in a criminal transport. While the change of intent and the following action were forbidden and sinful, there can be no criminal or sacrificial liability attached to them. (As statement of R. Joḥanan himself, Babli 5b, Eruvin 20b, Ketubot 31a).. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated54An anonymous baraita following the statement here attributed to R. Yose is Tosephta 9:11(ed. S. Liebermann); the first part Babli 80a.
Since in the public domain one is only permitted to move things by a distance of less than four cubits, things farther away are as in two different domains. If each transport was less that a minimal amount, the actions cannot be combined.: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose39The Tanna, ben Ḥalafta, the greatest authority of the fourth generation of Tannaim. said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down56Later in the Halakhah and in the Babli (5b, 91b, Eruvin 98a, Ketubot 31b) this opinion is attributed to Ben Azzai, a generation before R. Yose. It is agreed by everybody that standing still while transporting an object is legally putting it down, not on the ground but on the static person. This is the same as depositing the object on a pillar. R. Yose holds that a slow motion such as walking is the equivalent of standing still for a negligible time at many places. An action which does not result in instant deposition is throwing.
According to R. Yose, if the second object ever was within 4 cubits of the place where the first was deposited, the two actions combine for liability, even if the second was ultimately deposited somewhere else.. Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability57If the object is considered deposited the moment it was taken out of a private domain by a walking person, then any subsequent motion is a new transport. Since R. Yose (Note 44) only considers combining transports if they originate and terminate in the same domains, the fact that later the second object was transported over the first should be irrelevant.. Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door]58Added from G and ג., as it was stated41Since transporting has three components, lifting in one domain, removing to another, and depositing in the other domain, for R. Yose they cannot be combined unless all three components are the same (within one period of oblivion.), “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first59For the anonymous Tanna the final place of deposit determines liability; for R. Yose there is no liability if the two paths never were within 4 cubits of one another..
The tradent R. Yose is the fifth generation Amora.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down52This is a necessary clarification of the preceding statement. Not only must there be a complete action, but all three parts must be executed with the intent to perform the action. In Ex. 35, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath is repeated (vv. 1–3) as part of the commandment to build the Tabernacle (vv. 4–35). In 35:33, the construction of the Tabernacle is described as “thinking work”. It is concluded that only “thinking work” is punishable (criminally or by a sacrifice) as desecration of the Sabbath. In the special case of transporting, there is desecration only if the three parts are done with compatible intent, if the lifting up was intended to be followed by a putting down.. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down53It is perfectly legitimate to take food to eat in the domain where it was at the start of the Sabbath. If the first stage of a transport was executed in a perfectly permitted way based on a true thought, it never can become the first leg in a criminal transport. While the change of intent and the following action were forbidden and sinful, there can be no criminal or sacrificial liability attached to them. (As statement of R. Joḥanan himself, Babli 5b, Eruvin 20b, Ketubot 31a).. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated54An anonymous baraita following the statement here attributed to R. Yose is Tosephta 9:11(ed. S. Liebermann); the first part Babli 80a.
Since in the public domain one is only permitted to move things by a distance of less than four cubits, things farther away are as in two different domains. If each transport was less that a minimal amount, the actions cannot be combined.: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose39The Tanna, ben Ḥalafta, the greatest authority of the fourth generation of Tannaim. said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down56Later in the Halakhah and in the Babli (5b, 91b, Eruvin 98a, Ketubot 31b) this opinion is attributed to Ben Azzai, a generation before R. Yose. It is agreed by everybody that standing still while transporting an object is legally putting it down, not on the ground but on the static person. This is the same as depositing the object on a pillar. R. Yose holds that a slow motion such as walking is the equivalent of standing still for a negligible time at many places. An action which does not result in instant deposition is throwing.
According to R. Yose, if the second object ever was within 4 cubits of the place where the first was deposited, the two actions combine for liability, even if the second was ultimately deposited somewhere else.. Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability57If the object is considered deposited the moment it was taken out of a private domain by a walking person, then any subsequent motion is a new transport. Since R. Yose (Note 44) only considers combining transports if they originate and terminate in the same domains, the fact that later the second object was transported over the first should be irrelevant.. Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door]58Added from G and ג., as it was stated41Since transporting has three components, lifting in one domain, removing to another, and depositing in the other domain, for R. Yose they cannot be combined unless all three components are the same (within one period of oblivion.), “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first59For the anonymous Tanna the final place of deposit determines liability; for R. Yose there is no liability if the two paths never were within 4 cubits of one another..