Have you ever asked for directions while visiting Israel? The standard
answer always seems to be, “Go straight, straight, straight, turn left, turn
right, continue straight, and then asked there.” Sometimes I get the feeling
that many Israelis don’t want to admit they don’t know the directions. This
failure isn’t just limited to Israelis when asked for directions. Too many
rabbis, teachers, and parents are afraid to admit they don’t know something.
The sages in the Talmud weren’t afraid to
admit they don’t know the answer when it came to analyzing three theoretical
cases in Saturday’s daf TB Shabbat 99. Remember that a private domain, Reshut HaYachid (רשות
היחיד),
is defined as an area of at least 4 Tefachim by
4 Tefachim surrounded
by walls of at least 10 Tefachim.
This includes a pit which is 4x4 Tefachim with
walls of 10 Tefachim.
What happens if in a public domain a person does something that changes a
potential private domain into an actual private domain or the opposite he
changes a private domain so that it reverts back to the public domain and simultaneously violates
the prohibition of hotza-ah (הוצאה)[i]? Is that
person liable for a sin offering are not?
“Rav Meyasha said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma: There is a wall in the
public domain that is ten handbreadths high and is not quite four
handbreadths wide, and it surrounds a karmelit and renders the
area that it encloses the private domain. The wall serves as a partition
of this private domain. And if one threw an object from the
public domain and it landed atop the wall, what is the ruling? Do
we say: Since it is not four handbreadths wide it is an exempt domain,
and the one who threw the object is exempt? Or perhaps we say that since
it rendered the karmelit the private domain, the wall
together with the private domain is considered to be filled. Therefore,
the object is considered to have landed on an area that is four handbreadths
wide, and the one who threw the object is liable.
“Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a dilemma: In a case where there is a pit that is nine
handbreadths deep, and one dug out a segment of earth from the bottom of
the pit and thereby completed the depth of the pit to ten handbreadths,
and then he proceeded to throw the earth into the public domain, what is
the ruling? The two sides to the dilemma are: Is it that the lifting of the
object and establishment of the ten-handbreadth partition came about
simultaneously, and he is liable? Or perhaps he is not liable. And if
you say: Since the partition was not ten handbreadths deep initially, he
is not liable, then in a case where there is a pit that is ten
handbreadths deep, and one placed a segment of earth into the pit
and thereby minimized its depth to less than ten handbreadths,
nullifying its status as a private domain, what is the ruling? The two
sides of the question are: Is it that placement of the object and the
elimination of the ten-handbreadth partition came about simultaneously,
and he is liable? Or perhaps, he is not liable because the
partition was not intact throughout the performance of the action.
“Rava raised
a similar dilemma: In a case where one threw a board and it landed on
top of stakes that are ten handbreadths high but not four handbreadths
wide, what is the ruling? Once the board lands, the surface is ten
handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide. The Gemara asks: What is his
dilemma? Does his dilemma pertain to the ruling in a case where the
placement of the object and the establishment of the partition came about
simultaneously? That is precisely the dilemma raised by Rabbi Yoḥanan.
“These
dilemmas remain, and therefore let it stand unresolved.” (Sefaria.org translation)
No comments:
Post a Comment