SATURDAY PRAYER: KETER-YESHIVAT HAVERIM יְשִׁיבָה חברים – BABYLONIAN TALMUD p192

READING: BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND DAWN OF SATURDAY

“From private ground into private ground,” etc. Rabha propounded a question: “Shall we
assume that the point of difference is in the opinion relating to whether the surrounding of a
thing by the atmosphere of a certain place makes the thing equal to being deposited in that place
or not?” And if this is the point of difference, it must follow that the Mishna treats of a case
where the object thrown was at no time above ten spans from the ground (because above ten
spans no public ground exists). Those who deem it a culpable act, do so, because they hold that
the object, being surrounded by the air of the public ground, through which it passed, makes it
equal to being deposited therein, while those who do not deem it a culpable act are not of this
opinion; but if the object thrown was above ten spans from the ground, do both sides agree that
the thrower is not culpable? Or shall we assume that both sides do not differ as to the object
thrown being equal to being deposited in the place, the atmosphere of which surrounded it,
agreeing that such is the case; but their point of difference is as to whether throwing is equal to
transfer or not? He who holds that the thrower is culpable does so because he considers
throwing equal to transfer by hand, and as transfer makes a man culpable, even if it was
accomplished above ten spans from the ground, it also applies to throwing; but he who holds
that the thrower is not culpable, does so because he does not consider throwing equal to transfer
by hand. And the case treated of by the Mishna is one where the throwing was done above ten
spans from the ground? Said R. Joseph: This question was also propounded by R. Hisda, and R.
Hamnuna decided it from the following Boraitha: “From private into private ground, by way of
public ground itself, R. Aqiba makes him culpable, but the sages declare him free.” Now, if he
says, “by way of public ground itself,” it implies that it was below ten spans from the ground.
Let us then see wherein was the difference of opinion. Shall we say that it was a case of transfer
by hand and still the one who holds him culpable does so because it was below ten spans, but if
it was above ten spans he would concede that he was not culpable? How can this be? Did not R.
Elazar say: “He who transfers a burden above ten spans from the ground is culpable, because
thus were burdens transferred by the sons of [paragraph continues] Kehath”? Therefore we must assume that the Boraitha treats of a case of throwing and not of transfer by hand, and hence one holds, that an object surrounded by the atmosphere of a certain place below ten spans from the ground is equal to an object deposited in that place, while the other holds that such is not the case. Conclude then from this that the Mishna treats of a case where the throwing was done below ten spans from the ground.