Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 2a

CHAPTER I

MISHNAH. THE CARRYINGS OUT¹  OF THE SABBATH²  ARE TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHIN, AND TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHOUT.³  HOW SO? THE POOR MAN STANDS WITHOUT AND THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE WITHIN: [i] IF THE POOR MAN STRETCHES HIS HAND WITHIN AND PLACES [AN ARTICLE] INTO THE HAND OF THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE, OR [ii] IF HE TAKES [AN ARTICLE] FROM IT AND CARRIES IT OUT, THE POOR MAN IS LIABLE,⁴  AND THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE IS EXEMPT.⁵  [AGAIN] [i] IF THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE STRETCHES HIS HAND WITHOUT AND PLACES [AN OBJECT] IN THE POOR MAN'S HAND, OR [ii] TAKES [AN OBJECT] THEREFROM AND CARRIES IT IN, THE MASTER IS LIABLE, WHILE THE POOR MAN IS EXEMPT.⁶  [iii] IF THE POOR MAN STRETCHES HIS HAND WITHIN AND THE MASTER TAKES [AN OBJECT] FROM IT, OR PLACES [AN OBJECT] THEREIN AND HE CARRIES IT OUT, BOTH ARE EXEMPT; [iv] IF THE MASTER STRETCHES HIS HAND WITHOUT AND THE POOR MAN TAKES [AN OBJECT] FROM IT, OR PLACES [AN ARTICLE] THEREIN AND HE CARRIES IT INSIDE, BOTH ARE EXEMPT.⁷

GEMARA, We learnt elsewhere:⁸  [False] oaths are two which are four:⁹

1. Lit., 'outgoings'.
2. i.e., the acts of transporting objects from private to public ground or vice versa, which are forbidden on the Sabbath, Tosaf. observes that the phraseology, 'outgoings,' ([H]) instead of the more usual 'carryings out' ([H]) is based on Ex. XVI, 29: let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. L. Blau in MGWJ., 1934 (Festschrift), P. 122, n. 2 is inclined to reject this, and conjectures that 'outgoings' ([H]) is the original Hebrew for 'carrying out,' and its present use indicates the extreme antiquity of this Mishnah.
3. I.e., by Biblical law two acts of carrying out are interdicted to the person standing in a private domain ('within') and two to the person standing in public ground ('without'); to each two the Rabbis added another two, thus making 'TWO WHICH ARE FOUR.' Tosaf. is much exercised with the question why this is taught at the beginning of the Tractate, instead of in the seventh chapter, where all the principal forbidden acts of the Sabbath, including this, are enumerated, and offers various answers. L. Blau, op. cit., p. 124f maintains that this was originally part of the Mishnah of Shebu. I, 1, which is quoted at the beginning of the Gemara (infra), where a number of subjects, having no inner connection, are grouped together by the catch phrase 'two which are four.' As an aid to the memory each subject was then put at the head of the Tractate to which it refers.
4. For desecrating the Sabbath.
5. Because the poor man performs the two acts which together constitute 'carrying out' in the Biblical sense, viz., he removes an object from one domain and replaces it in another. (When he withdraws the object into the street, holding it in his hand, he is regarded as having deposited it in the street.) The master, on the other hand, is quite passive, performing no action at all.
6. In both cases here the master performs the two acts, the poor man being passive. Thus there are two Biblically forbidden acts for each.-'Liable' means to a sin-offering, if the acts are committed unwittingly, or to death (in theory, hardly in practice) if committed knowingly, and can apply here only to a Biblical interdict.
7. In iii and iv each performs one act only, either removing from one domain or depositing in another. This is Rabbinically forbidden, and involves no liability. (When the master places an object into the poor man's outstretched hand, which is already in the house, he, and not the poor man, is regarded as having removed it from the private domain.)
8. Shebu. I, 1.
9. In Lev. V, 4-7 (q.v.) a variable sacrifice (vv. 6-7) is imposed for taking a false oath (v. 4 is so explained). 'To do evil, or to do good,' is interpreted as meaning that one swears, 'I will eat,' or 'I will not eat,' which are the two referred to, viz., a positive or a negative oath relating to the future. These are further increased to four by including similar oaths relating to the past: 'I ate', or 'I did not eat.'

the forms of consciousness of uncleanness are two which are four;¹  the appearances of leprosy are two, which are four;²  the carryings out of the Sabbath are two which are four.³  Now, why is it taught here, TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHIN, AND TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHOUT; whereas there it is [simply] stated, 'two which are four,' and nothing else? — Here, since the Sabbath is the main theme, [both] principal [forms of labour] and derivatives are taught;⁴  but there, since the main theme is not the Sabbath, principal labours only are taught, but not derivatives. What are the principal labours? — carryings out! But the carryings out are only two?⁵  And should you answer, some of these involve liability, and some do not involve liability⁶  — surely it is taught on a par with the appearances of leprosy: just as there all involve liability,⁷  so here too all involve liability? — Rather said R. Papa: here that the Sabbath is the main theme, acts of liability and non-liability are taught;⁸  there, since the Sabbath is not the main theme, only acts of liability are taught, but not of exemptions.⁹  Now, what are the cases of liability-carryings out? But the carryings out are [only] two?¹⁰  — There are two forms of carrying out and two of carrying in. But 'carry ings out' are taught? — Said R. Ashi: The Tanna designates carrying in' too as 'carrying out.'¹¹  How do you know it? — Because we learnt: If one carries out [an object] from one domain to another, he is liable. Does this not mean even if he carries [it] in from the public to a private domain, and yet it is called 'carrying out.' And what is the reason? — Every removal of an article from its place the Tanna designates 'carrying out.' Rabina said: Our Mishnah too proves it, because CARRYINGS OUT are taught, yet straightway a definition of carrying in is given; this proves it. Raba said: He [the Tanna] teaches [the number of] domains; the domains of the Sabbath are two.¹²

R. Mattenah objected to Abaye: Are there eight?¹³  but there are twelve!¹⁴  — But according to your reasoning, there are sixteen!¹⁵  Said he to him, That is no difficulty: as for the first clause, it is well:

1. In Lev. V, 2f, 5-7 a variable sacrifice is also decreed for transgressing through uncleanness. According to the Talmud (Shebu. 7b) this refers to the eating of holy food, e.g., the flesh of sacrifices, and entering the Temple while unclean. Further, liability is contracted only if one was originally aware of his uncleanness, forgot it, and ate sacred food or entered the Temple, and then became conscious of it again. Thus there are two, viz., forgetfulness of uncleanness when eating sacred food, and same when entering the Temple. To these another two are added: forgetfulness of the sacred nature of the food and forgetfulness of the sanctity of the Temple while being aware of one's uncleanness.
2. The two are 'a rising' and 'a bright spot' (Lev. XIII, 2), which, in order to be unclean, must be snowy white and white as wool respectively. To these the Rabbis added, by exegesis, the whiteness of the plaster of the Temple and the whiteness of the white of an egg respectively-in each case a darker shade.
3. BaH, on the basis of the text in Shebu. I, 1, reverses the order of the last two.
4. Labours forbidden on the Sabbath are of two classes: (i) principal labours (aboth, lit., 'fathers') and (ii) derivatives (toledoth, lit., 'offsprings'), which are prohibited as partaking of the nature of the principal labours. Both are regarded as Biblical. Carrying out from private into public ground is a principal labour, while the reverse is a derivative thereof (infra 96b).
5. Viz., that of the poor man who takes an article from the houseowner's hand, and that of the master of the house who puts an article into the poor man's hand. Where then are the 'two which are four?'
6. I.e., two carryings out impose liability, as in preceding note, and another two are forbidden yet do not involve liability. Viz., if the poor man stretches his hand within, receives an article, and withdraws it; likewise, if the master of the house puts forth his hand with an object which the other takes, as explained on p. 1, n. 5 on the Mishnah. — Thus there are 'two which are four,' all referring to carrying out.
7. To the purificatory sacrifices of a leper (Lev. XIV).
8. V. notes on Mishnah.
9. Two instances of carrying out, and two of carrying in, as explained in the Mishnah.
10. Though there is liability for carrying in, the Mishnah in Shebu. speaks only of 'carryings out.'
11. Employing 'carrying out' in the wider sense of transporting between private and public ground.
12. I.e., in respect of the Sabbath we recognize two domains, public and private, carrying between which is prohibited. On account of these two four acts are forbidden to a person standing within and four to a person standing without, and that is the meaning of 'TWO WHICH ARE FOUR,' both here and in Shebu. (Rashi). Riba explains it differently. — Actually four domains are distinguished (infra 6a), but these are the principal two.
13. 'TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHIN, AND TWO WHICH ARE FOUR WITHOUT.'
14. In addition to the four acts which involve liability, there are eight which do not. Viz., two acts of removal by the poor man without depositing, i.e., if he stretches his hand into the house and the master takes an object from him, or the master puts his hand without and the poor man places an object in it. Reversing these, we have two acts of depositing by the poor man without removal. These four, again, are also to be viewed from the standpoint of the master of the house, which gives eight in all.
15. For the two actions which involve liability for the poor man are likewise to be regarded from the standpoint of the master of the house, and vice versa, which yield another four.