Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s, the redactor and editor
of the Mishnah, word choice was very precise. He did not repeat himself
unnecessarily. In today’s daf TB Shabbat 100, we see in a Mishna a strange
redundancy that needs to be explained. He seemingly repeats the law concerning
a puddle or a shallow pool in a public domain. Rava, Abaye, and Rav Ashi give
three different reasons why this repetition is necessary.
“MISHNA: One who throws an object four
cubits into the sea is exempt. If there was a puddle or shallow pool and the
public domain passes through it, one who throws an object four cubits
into it is liable like one who carried four cubits in the public domain. And
how deep is this puddle or shallow pool[i]?
It is less than ten handbreadths deep. In the case of a puddle or
shallow pool that the public domain passes through, one who throws an
object four cubits into the puddle or shallow pool is liable.
“Gemara: …But why do I need it to mention puddle
or shallow pool twice? Rava answered him: One case is
referring to the summer, and one case is referring to the
winter. And both cases are necessary, as had the mishna taught
only one mention of puddle or shallow pool, I would have said that these
matters, i.e., cases indicating that passage under duress is considered
passage, apply only in the summer because people commonly pass
through the puddle or shallow pool to cool themselves; however, in the
winter I would have thought that it would not be so. And had
the mishna taught us only the case of winter, I would have said
that since they are filthy from mud anyway, they do not mind
walking through the puddle or shallow pool, but in the summer it would not
be so.
“Abaye said:
It is possible to explain this other way. It was necessary for the
mishna to state puddle or shallow pool twice because it would have entered
your mind to say that these matters apply specifically where
the puddle or shallow pool is not four cubits wide because then people
walk through the puddle or shallow pool and do not circumvent it, but where
the puddle or shallow pool is four cubits wide, people circumvent it.
Therefore, it was necessary to teach that people walk through puddle or shallow
pools that are both narrow and wide.
“Rav Ashi said another explanation: It was necessary for the mishna to state puddle
or shallow pool twice because it would have entered your mind to say
that these matters apply specifically where the puddle or shallow
pool is at least four handbreadths wide, but where the puddle or
shallow pool is not four handbreadths wide, people step over it
and do not walk through it. The Gemara comments: And Rav Ashi follows
his own reasoning, as Rav Ashi said: One who threw an object and it
came to rest on one of the beams of a bridge is liable. Even though the
width of each beam is less than four handbreadths, it joins together with the
other beams to form a single surface of the public domain because even
though many people step over the beams, still many people step on it.” (Sefaria.org translation)
What’s the common denominator of these three explanation? They each describe
a different kind of inconvenience that people may avoid walking through in the
middle of a public domain. Does this inconvenience in the middle
of a public domain change its status? The answer is no it doesn’t.
[i]
רְקַק- Sefaria.org translates as swamp. In the context of our Gemara
the word swamp is not really apropos. I looked up this word in the Jastow (the dictionary
for the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds and Midrashic literature) and decided
its definition of a puddle or a shallow pool makes more sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment