לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רשות הרבים בכך
a ten-handbreadth high post from here, perpendicular to the public domain. This creates a symbolic wall which, in the halakhot of alleyways, has the legal status of a wall. And, he may place an additional post from here, on the other side, and that has the same legal status as if he closed the public domain on all of its sides. Or, he can implement a different solution appropriate for alleyways by placing a beam extending from here, from one end of one house, to the end of the house opposite it. This creates a symbolic partition across the width of the street. And, he may place a beam extending from here, from the other side of the house. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in that way, one is permitted to carry objects and place them in the area between the symbolic partitions, as he would in a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One may not place an eiruv in the public domain in that way. One who seeks to transform a public domain into a private domain must erect actual partitions.
ואמאי קרו ליה גמורה מהו דתימא כי פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי יהודה דלא הוי רשות היחיד הני מילי לטלטל אבל לזרוק מודו ליה קא משמע לן:
The Gemara questions the language of the Tosefta: This is a full-fledged private domain. And why did they call it full-fledged? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: When do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and say that it is not the private domain? This applies only with regard to the prohibition to carry there on Shabbat. By means of these partitions, it was not rendered a full-fledged private domain to the point that one is permitted to carry there. However, conceivably, with regard to the prohibition of throwing from the public domain to this place, the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda that the area between the partitions would be considered a private domain by Torah law and it would be prohibited. Therefore, the tanna taught us that according to the Rabbis it is not a private domain at all.
אמר מר זו היא רשות הרבים למעוטי מאי למעוטי אידך דרבי יהודה דתנן רבי יהודה אומר אם היתה דרך רשות הרבים מפסקתן יסלקנה לצדדין וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך
It was also taught in the Tosefta with regard to the definition of a public domain that the Master said, with added emphasis: This is the public domain. The Gemara asks: What was this emphasis added to exclude? The Gemara answers: Here, the Tosefta came to exclude another halakha of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna: The Sages permitted those ascending to Jerusalem on the Festival pilgrimage to place posts serving as symbolic boundaries around the wells, in order to render the wells and their surroundings a private domain. That way, the pilgrims could draw water from the wells even on Shabbat, as they became private domains. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the path of the public domain passes through the area of the wells and the posts and obstructs them, he must divert it to the sides, so that the passersby will not pass through there. In his opinion, many people passing through that area negates the private domain formed merely by means of symbolic boundaries. And the Rabbis say: He need not divert the path of the public domain. The emphasis in the Tosefta: This is the public domain, teaches that only the specific areas listed there fall into the category of a public domain; however, a well around which partitions were established is no longer in the realm of public domain, even if the multitudes continue to walk through that area.
ואמאי קרו ליה גמורה איידי דתנא רישא גמורה תנא נמי סיפא גמורה
The Gemara asks: And why do they call it full-fledged? The Gemara answers: This emphasis was unnecessary. But, since he taught the first clause of the Tosefta employing the term full-fledged, he also taught the latter section employing the term full-fledged in the interest of uniformity.
ולחשוב נמי מדבר דהא תניא איזו היא רשות הרבים סרטיא ופלטיא גדולה ומבואות המפולשין והמדבר אמר אביי לא קשיא כאן בזמן שישראל שרויין במדבר כאן בזמן הזה:
With regard to the places characterized as the public domain, the Gemara asks: And include the desert among the places considered a public domain? Wasn’t it taught in a different baraita: What is the public domain? A main street, and a large plaza, and open alleyways, and the desert?Abaye said: This is not difficult, as here, where it enumerated the desert among the public domains, it refers to the time when Israel was dwelling in the desert, and it was an area frequented by the multitudes. And here, where the desert was not enumerated among the public domains, refers to this time, when multitudes do not congregate there.
אמר מר אם הוציא והכניס בשוגג חייב חטאת במזיד ענוש כרת ונסקל בשוגג חייב חטאת פשיטא במזיד ענוש כרת ונסקל אצטריכא ליה
It was also taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: If he carried out an object on Shabbat from the private domain to the public domain or vice versa, if he carried in, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he did so intentionally and there were no witnesses to his act and he was not forewarned, he is punishable from the hand of Heaven with the punishment of karet. If he was forewarned and there were witnesses to his transgression, he is punished by the court and stoned. The Gemara asks: Unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering; it is obvious that one who violates the serious transgression of desecrating the Shabbat unwittingly is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to teach that if he did so intentionally he is punishable with karet and stoned. Since he needed to cite those cases because they involve a novel element, he also cited the case where he performed the transgression unwittingly, in order to complete the picture.
הא נמי פשיטא הא קא משמע לן כדרב דאמר רב מצאתי מגלת סתרים בי רבי חייא וכתוב בה איסי בן יהודה אומר אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת ואינו חייב אלא אחת
The Gemara asks: That is also obvious, as the Torah states explicitly that one who desecrates Shabbat intentionally without witnesses and forewarning is punishable by karet, and that when there are witnesses and forewarning he is executed by stoning. The Gemara answers: This came to teach us in accordance with the statement of Rav, as Rav said: I found a hidden scroll in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya in which matters of Oral Torah were briefly summarized, and in it was written: Isi ben Yehuda says: The primary categories of prohibited labor on Shabbat are forty-less-one, and he is liable only for one. This expression is unclear, and it would seem that it means that one who performs all of the prohibited labors is only liable to bring one sin-offering.
איני והתנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת והוינן בה מנינא למה לי ואמר רבי יוחנן שאם עשאן כולן בהעלם אחת חייב על כל אחת ואחת
The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t we learn in the mishna: The primary categories of prohibited labor are forty-less-one? The mishna proceeded to enumerate those labors. And we discussed it: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? It would have been sufficient for the mishna to merely list the prohibited labors. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The number is also significant, in order to teach us that if he performed all of the prohibited labors within one lapse of awareness, during which he remained unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one of the prohibited labors separately. Consequently, the statement of Isi ben Yehuda cannot be understood as suggested above.
אלא אימא אינו חייב על אחת מהן והא קא משמע לן הא מהנך דלא מספקן:
Rather, say as follows: There are forty prohibited labors less one, and he is not liable for one of them. Among those labors, there is one unspecified exception for which one is not liable to be executed by stoning and merely violates a negative prohibition. That which the Tosefta mentioned with regard to one carrying out on Shabbat being liable for karet and stoning, teaches us: This labor of carrying out from domain to domain, is among those prohibited labors with regard to which there is no uncertainty and it is clear that one is liable for karet and stoning for its violation.
אמר מר אבל ים ובקעה והאיסטוונית והכרמלית אינן לא כרשות היחיד ולא כרשות הרבים ובקעה אינו לא כרשות היחיד ולא כרשות הרבים והא תנן הבקעה בימות החמה רשות היחיד לשבת ורשות הרבים לטומאה בימות הגשמים רשות היחיד (לכאן ולכאן)
It was also taught in the Tosefta that the Master said: However, a sea, and a valley, and the colonnade, and the karmelit all enter into the general category of karmelit, which is neither like the public domain nor like the private domain. The Gemara asks: And is a valley neither like the private domain nor like the public domain? Didn’t we learn in a mishna in tractate Teharot: The valley, in the days of summer, which is a time when the multitudes frequent it, nevertheless, it is considered the private domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, as according to the parameters of domains of Shabbat it remains in the realm of a private domain. And, still, it is considered like the public domain with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, where there is a distinction between a place frequented by the multitudes and a place that the multitudes do not frequent. While in the rainy season, the winter, when multitudes do not frequent the fields, the valley is considered like the private domain for this, Shabbat, and for that, ritual purity. A valley is a private domain and not a karmelit.
אמר עולא לעולם כרמלית הויא ואמאי קרי לה רשות היחיד לפי שאינה רשות הרבים
Ulla said: Actually, the valley is a karmelit; and why does the mishna call it the private domain? In order to emphasize that it is not the public domain, as the mishna in tractate Teharot did not enter into the details of the halakhot of Shabbat. It merely underscored the distinction between the halakhot of Shabbat and the halakhot of ritual purity.
רב אשי אמר
Rav Ashi said: