תוספות ד"ה מידי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara switched from the phraseology used in the Beraisa it is discussing.)

ה"ל למנקט המוציא דאיירי ביה לעיל דכל כמה דלא מנח ליה מיפטר


Implied Question: The Gemara should have used the word "ha'Motzi" -- "one who takes out" which was discussed by the previous Beraisa, since he is exempt until he puts the object down (there as well, and not just in a case where he is carrying four cubits in the public domain). (Why didn't it use this word?)

אלא משום דבתר הכי נקט מעביר נקט ליה נמי השתא ובכל עניני העברה בר"ה קאמר


Answer: However, because it later had to say "Ma'avir" -- "one who transfers" it used this word here as well. Whenever this word is used, it refers to carrying in the public domain.



תוספות ד"ה התם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains which area of the public domain is being taken into account by the Gemara.)

ומוציא ומושיט ומעביר ד"א בר"ה דרך למעלה מי' דחייב אע"ג דאי הוה מנח ליה למעלה מי' פטור


Implied Question: One who carries, extends, and passes four cubits in the public domain through an area that is higher than ten Tefachim (above the public domain) is liable, despite the fact that if he would put down the object in this area that is higher than ten Tefachim (above the public domain) he is exempt. (This indicates that one is not liable for carrying in every area of the public domain!)

מ"מ תחתיו במקום שמהלך מקום חיוב הוא אבל סטיו הקרקע נמי מקום פטור הוא


Answer: Even so, the ground underneath him which supports him when he is walking is a place where he is liable. However, one is not liable for the ground of a Stav.



תוספות ד"ה מידי דהוה אצדי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara is more certain regarding the sides of the public domain that it is regarding a Stav.)

וא"ת מה פשוט לן יותר דרך צדי ר"ה מדרך סטיו


Question: Why is going through the sides of a public domain more obvious to us than going through a Stav?

וי"ל דדרך בית שיש לפניו צדדין וכן היה מסתמא במשכן


Answer: It is normal for a house to have side areas to it, and it was probably this way in the Mishkan as well (that they transported from the Mishkan through the sides of the public domain to the public domain, see Ramban).



תוספות ד"ה היכא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how our Gemara fits with a Gemara in Eiruvin.)

ותימה בפ' כל גגות (עירובין צד. ושם) פריך ולפלוג בצדי ר"ה דעלמא פירוש ואמאי פליגי בחצר שנפרצה


Question: This is difficult, as in Eiruvin (94a) the Gemara asks, why don't we say they argue regarding the sides of the public domain? In other words, why do they argue regarding a courtyard that has a hole (facing the public domain)?

ומשני אי הוי פליגי בעלמא ה"א כי פליגי רבנן עליה ה"מ היכא דאיכא חיפופי אבל היכא דליכא חיפופי מודו קמ"ל משמע דר"א נמי פליג בדאיכא חיפופי


Question (cont.): The Gemara (ibid.) answers that if they argued in general regarding the sides of the public domain, I would think that the Rabbanan only argue when there are small pegs (blocking people from banging into the wall of the courtyard, similar to bars set up to stop cars from going onto sidewalks). However, if there are no such pegs, they would agree. This is why it discussed a courtyard with an open hole facing the public domain. This implies that Rebbi Eliezer also argues when there are pegs!

וי"ל דה"ק קמ"ל דהיכא דליכא חיפופי דוקא פליגי אבל היכא דאיכא חיפופי מודה רבי אליעזר


Answer #1: The Gemara means that the fact that the case is regarding a hole in the courtyard teaches that they only argue when there are not any pegs. When there are pegs, Rebbi Eliezer admits.

אי נמי ההיא סוגיא כרב פפא דהכא דלא מחלק


Answer #2: Alternatively, that Gemara (ibid.) is according to Rav Papa quoted in our Gemara who does not differentiate.



תוספות ד"ה המושיט

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Ben Azai admits regarding extending and throwing.)

וא"ת אמאי מודה במושיט וזורק כיון דלא יליף דרך סטיו מדרך צדי לענין מעביר ה"נ לא נילף בזורק ומושיט


Question: Why should he admit regarding extending and throwing? Since he does not derive carrying through a Stav from carrying through the sides of the public domain, he also should not derive this regarding throwing and extending!

וי"ל דלבן עזאי מעביר דרך צדי נמי פטור אע"ג דהיה במשכן משום דמהלך כעומד דמי אבל זורק ומושיט דרך סטיו יליף מזורק ומושיט דרך צדי


Answer: According to Ben Azai, a person who carries through the sides of the public domain is also exempt, even though this was done in the Mishkan. This is because walking is like standing. However, throwing and extending through a Stav is derived from throwing and extending through the sides of the public domain.



תוספות ד"ה ארבע

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why certain empty areas or courtyards without an Eiruv Chatzeiros are not listed as a separate domain.)

ק' לרשב"א ליתני ה' רשויות דהא קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה הזורק מר"ה לתוכו או איפכא חייב ואין מטלטלין בו אלא בד"א


Question: The Rashba has a difficulty. Why doesn't it say there are five domains, as a Karfeif (empty area) that is more than a Sa'asayim and was not surrounded buy walls in order for a person to live there is like a separate domain! One who throws from the public domain into it or visa versa is liable (so it is similar to a private domain), and one can only carry four cubits in it on Shabbos (unlike a private domain, meaning it is a separate category)!

וי"ל דההיא רה"י גמור אלא לענין דאין מטלטלין בו אלא בד"א עשאוה ככרמלית והרי כבר שנה רה"י וכרמלית ולהכי נמי לא תני חצר שלא עירבו


Answer: It is in fact a private domain. However, Chazal viewed it regarding carrying four cubits (in it) like a Karmelis. A private domain and Karmelis are already in this list (and therefore it was not necessary to state a fifth domain). This is also why it does not list a joint courtyard in which there is no Eiruv (Chatzeiros).



תוספות ד"ה כרמלית

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the source of the term Karmelis.)

בירושלמי בריש שבת תני ר' חייא כרמל רך (ומלא) לא לח ולא יבש אלא בינוני ה"נ כרמלית אינו לא כרה"י ולא כר"ה


Observation: The Yerushalmi in the beginning of Shabbos says that Rebbi Chiya taught that Karmel is soft, not wet and not dry, rather in between. So too, a Karmelis is not like a private domain or a public domain.



תוספות ד"ה יתר על כן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.)

הכי מיתני' בתוספתא פרק ז' דעירובין אחד חלון שבין ב' חצרות ואחד חלון שבין שני בתים כו' וגשרים ונפשות ור"ה מקורה מטלטלין תחתיו בשבת דברי ר' יהודה


Observation: The Tosefta in Eiruvin (ch. 7) says whether there is a window between two courtyards or two houses...bridges, structures over graves (two walls and a roof, similar to a bridge), and a covered public domain, one can carry under these areas on Shabbos. These are the words of Rebbi Yehudah.

יתר על כן א"ר יהודה כו' פירוש יתר ע"כ בשני בתים משני צדי ר"ה דאף על גב דליכא למימר פי תקרה יורד וסותם כמו בגשרים ונפשות ור"ה מקורה דרישא אפ"ה נושא ונותן באמצע דקסבר ר"י ב' מחיצות דאוריי' כדאמרן בפ' כל גגות (עירובין צה.)


Observation (cont.): Moreover, Rebbi Yehudah says etc. This means that this is even true regarding two houses that are on two opposite sides of the public domain. Even though one cannot say in this case that the lip of the roof is as if it goes down and closes off the area (as if there were four walls), such as we can say regarding bridges, structures over graves, and a covered public domain mentioned in the first part of the Tosefta, even so one can carry between these two houses. This is because Rebbi Yehudah is of the opinion that if there are two walls in an area it causes it to be a private domain according to Torah law, as stated in Eiruvin (95a).


וא"ת אמאי לא מייתי הכא מתני' דכל גגות (עירובין צה.) דקתני התם ועוד אמר רבי יהודה מערבין למבוי המפולש


Question: Why doesn't our Gemara quote the Mishnah in Eiruvin (95a) that states, "And Rebbi Yehudah additionally said that one can make an Eiruv in an alleyway that has a wall on each side (with no walls on the other two sides)?"

וי"ל דמתני' איכא לפרושי דמערבין בצורת הפתח וקסבר ג' מחיצות דאורייתא א"נ ה"א דמתני' איירי במבוי המפולש לרה"ר אבל אין ר"ה עוברת לתוכה להכי מייתי הברייתא דיתר על כן דאפי' רה"ר (גמורה) עוברת בה מטלטלין ע"י לחי או קורה משום דשתי מחיצות דאורייתא


Answer: One can understand that Mishnah as stating that Rebbi Yehudah holds one can make an Eiruv if he makes a Tzuras ha'Pesach on one of the open sides. He could therefore still hold (like the mainstream opinion, if we only knew this Mishnah) that one needs three walls to make a private domain according to Torah law.

ואע"ג דבפ"ק דעירובין (דף י.) אמתני' דהרחב מי' אמות ימעט משמע דלכל היותר לא התיר רבי יהודה אלא עד י"ג אמה ושליש


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that in Eiruvin (10a), regarding the Mishnah that says that if an entranceway is wider than ten cubits it should be lessened, the implication is that even Rebbi Yehudah only permitted an entranceway of thirteen and one third cubits wide.

היינו מדרבנן אבל מדאורייתא אפי' ברוחב י"ו אמות מטלטלין דאית ליה ב' מחיצות דאורייתא


Answer: This is according to Rabbinic law. However, according to Torah law, even if it is sixteen cubits wide one can carry in this area, as it has two walls (which is the requirement according to Torah law for a private domain).

דע"כ צ"ל דרבי יהודה איירי ברה"ר גמורה שבוקעין שם רבים כדמוכח בפ"ק דעירובין (דף ו: ושם) גבי כיצד מערבין רה"ר ושם פירשתי


Answer (cont.): It must be that Rebbi Yehudah is referring to a public domain in which many people pass through, as is apparent from the Gemara in Eiruvin (6b) which discusses how one can make an Eiruv in a public domain. I explained this there.

וא"ת והא מדקתני סיפא דמבואות המפולשין הוו רה"ר שמעי' שפיר לאפוקי מדר' יהודה דאית ליה ב' מחיצות דאורייתא דלדידיה מבואו' המפולשות לא הוו רה"ר כיון דאיכא שתי מחיצות


Question: Since the second part of the Beraisa states that alleyways that have two walls (one on each side) are considered a public domain, this excludes the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who says that two walls cause an area to be a private domain according to Torah law. According to Rebbi Yehudah, such alleyways are not a public domain as they have two walls!

וי"ל דמסיפא לא הוה שמעינן לאפוקי מדר' יהודה דה"א טעמא דרבי יהודה משום דקסבר לחי וקורה משום מחיצה דאיכא מאן דסבר הכי בפ"ק דעירובין (דף טו:) להכי אצטריך למתני' זו היא רה"י גמורה למעוטי דר' יהודה דלא הוי רה"י דלחי וקורה לא חשיב מחיצה


Answer: We would not have said that this second part of the Beraisa excludes the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. I would think that Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning is that a Lechi (beam ten Tefachim tall standing straight up) or Korah (beam going across the top of two walls) is effective as a (third) wall. There is such an opinion in Eiruvin (15b). This is why the Beraisa had to say that this is a complete public domain, in order to exclude the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. It is not a private domain, as a Lechi and Korah cannot make a (third) wall.



תוספות ד"ה ואמאי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos has difficulty with the word "Gemurah.")

אומר ר"י דלשון גמורה אדרבה איפכא מסתברא זו היא רה"י גמורה אבל זו אינה רה"י גמורה אבל היא רה"י קצת


Question: The Ri says (i.e. asks, see Chidushei ha'Rashba) that the term "Gemurah" indicates the opposite of what the Gemara is trying to say, as it sounds like it is saying that this is a complete private domain, while there are other private domains that are not complete but are still called private domains!

ורש"י ישבה בדוחק לפי הגמרא


Answer: Rashi answered this question in a forced fashion according to the (context of the) Gemara. (See the Maharsha who understands Rashi as explaining the word "Gemurah" as referring to the walls being completed in order to have enough walls to be a private domain, as opposed to the understanding of the Ri in his question that "complete" refers to the domain being the quintessential private domain.)



תוספות ד"ה כאן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says that the Gemara implies that an can only have the status of a public domain if six hundred thousand people are usually there.)

משמע קצת דאינה ר"ה אלא א"כ מצויין שם ששים רבוא כמו במדבר


Observation: The Gemara implies that an area is only a public domain if there are six hundred thousand people present there, just as there were in the desert (when Bnei Yisrael were there before they entered Eretz Yisrael).



תוספות ד"ה בשוגג

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question.)

כיון דאשמעינן דהאי הוי רה"י והאי הוי ר"ה פשיטא דהמוציא מזה לזה בשוגג חייב חטאת


Explanation: Since this is teaching us that one domain is a private domain and the other is a public domain, it is obvious that if one carries accidentally from one to the other he is liable to bring a Chatas!



תוספות ד"ה הא קמ"ל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Isi is clearly referring to stoning, not bringing a Chatas.)

מכאן מדקדק ר"י דלא קתני איסי אינו חייב על אחת מהן אלא אסקילה אבל חטאת חייב על כולם


Opinion: The Ri deduces from here that when Isi stated that he is only liable for one of them, he means that he only receives stoning for one of them. However, he is obligated to offer a Chatas for each one.

דאי קאי אחטאת א"כ כי פריך בשוגג חייב חטאת פשיטא הו"ל לשנויי הא קמ"ל כרב דהא דמשני במזיד ענוש כרת ונסקל איצטריכא ליה לא משני מידי


Proof: If he was also referring to a Chatas, when the Gemara asks that he is obviously obligated to bring a Chatas, it should have answered that he is teaching us the opinion of Rav. The answer that it is needed because if he sins purpose he is liable to receive Kares and be stoned is also not an answer (as determined by the Gemara).

ומעיקרא ודאי לא היה ידע דמיירי בסקילה מדפריך מדר' יוחנן דמיירי בחטאת והיינו משום דאינו חייב אלא אחת לא מצי לאוקמי בסקילה דאטו בתרי קטלי קטלינן ליה


Proof (cont.): Originally, the Gemara certainly did not know that he was referring to stoning, as is apparent from the question from Rebbi Yochanan that this must be referring to a Chatas. This is because the phrase, "he is only liable once" cannot refer to death by stoning, as we cannot kill him twice!

אבל כי קמפרש דאינו חייב על אחת מהן קאמר איסי אז ידע שפיר דלא איירי איסי אלא בסקילה דלא פליג אמתני' דכלל גדול (לקמן עג:) דקתני מניינא למימר דחייב על כל אחת ואחת


Proof (cont.): However, when we explain that the phrase Isi said was, "he is not liable for one of them" we understand that Isi is talking about stoning. He clearly is not arguing on the Mishnah later (73b) that says that the amount is in order to teach he is liable for each prohibition.

ואתי שפיר הא דבריש פרק כלל גדול (שם סט.) קאמר ארבי יוחנן דאמר שאם עשאן כולם בהעלם אחת חייב כו' דידע לה לשבת במאי ומפרש דידע לה לתחומים ואליבא דר"ע


Proof #2: The Gemara later (69a) is therefore understandable. The Gemara asks regarding Rebbi Yochanan's statement that if he does them all at once he is liable etc., "what did he know that applied on Shabbos?" The Gemara answers that he knew the laws of Techumim according to Rebbi Akiva (who says they apply according to Torah law).

ולא מצי למימר דידע לה בדאיסי דהא אכולהו חייב חטאת וכן פירש בקונטרס


Proof #2 (cont.): We cannot say that he knew the law of Isi, as Rebbi Yochanan states that he is liable for all of them. This is also explained by Rashi.

ולקמן בריש הזורק (דף צו:) מייתי לדאיסי לענין סקילה ולא מישתמיט בשום מקום לאתויי לענין חטאת


Proof #3: Later (96b), the Gemara quotes Isi regarding stoning and nowhere does it ever quote him regarding a Chatas.

והא דאמרינן לקמן בריש פרק בתרא (דף קנד.) לרמי בר חמא דילמא הכי קאמר כל שחייבין על שגגתו חטאת חייבים על זדונו סקילה


Implied Question: The Gemara later (154a) asks that according to Rami bar Chama perhaps the Beraisa means, "Whatever one is liable to bring a Chatas for if he transgresses accidentally, he is liable to be stoned if he transgresses it on purpose." (This rule is not in accordance with the opinion of Isi!)

אומר ריב"א דאליבא דרמי בר חמא אתיא ההיא ברייתא דלא כאיסי דלאיסי איכא דוכתא דחייב חטאת ולא סקילה


Answer: The Riva says that this Beraisa is indeed according to Rami bar Chama and unlike Isi, as according to Isi there is a case where one is liable to bring a Chatas if he sins accidentally, and he would not receive stoning if he did it on purpose.



תוספות ד"ה ואמר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Gemara knew Isi agreed with Rebbi Yochanan.)

אין צריך לפרש דפריך דמסתמא לא פליג איסי עלה אלא מדברי איסי נמי יש לדקדק כן מדקתני מניינא כדדייק לקמן בכלל גדול (דף עג:)


Explanation: One does not have to explain that this is a question, as presumably Isi does not argue on this. Rather, the Gemara is saying we can even deduce this from the words of Isi, as he states an amount of Melachos. A similar manner of deduction is used later (73b).