Yesterday, we looked at 8 cases to determine what was permissible, what was prohibited and what was punishable. To understand today’s Daf, we need to first focus on the difference between prohibited and punishable. Acts which are proscribed by the bible, like hypotheticals one and four yesterday, are punishable – by death if the act is intentional and by the requirement to atone through an offering if the act is unintentional. Acts which are not prohibited by the bible, but by rabbinic decree, hypotheticals 5(A) or 7(A) yesterday, are still prohibited, but they are referred to as exempt, because there is no need of an offering (or death) to atone. The distinction between a rabbinic prohibition and a biblical prohibition is very important to following today’s Daf. Please note, however, in both cases the acts are prohibited, they just lead to different conseuquences.

Our Daf starts with counting. We have eight hypotheticals, but actually 12 cases from yesterday. In each of 5-8, there is a (B) in which the actor in that branch has not violated a prohibition. The Talmud wants to draw the distinction between (i) exempt and permissible and (ii) exempt and prohibited. The Talmud notes that we only count 8 of the 12 situations from yesterday, because we are not concerned with the actions which are exempt and permissible.

We then discuss those situations when the elements of carrying are not completed by one person, but by the combination of two people (hypotheticals 5-8 from yesterday). The Talmud wants to know why the actions in those cases are exempt, but prohibited. The Talmud looks to Leviticus 4:27 (“If any person from among the populace unwittingly incurs guilt by doing any of the things which by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt – “). Since this passage speaks in the singular, the Talmud concludes that the biblical prohibition has to be completed by one person. In the case of a carrying that relies on two people for all of the elements, that is rabbinically prohibited and, therefore, not liable for the sin offering.

In our discussion yesterday, we assumed that the poor man and the rich lady homeowner were in separate domains. What if they were in the same domain? What if the poor man walks into the rich lady’s home and she loads him up with food and drink and then he walks out? Has he transgressed a biblical prohibition? A rabbinic prohibition? Remember, to be carrying, three elements must be established: (i) there has to be a lifting; (ii) there has to be a transporting from one domain to another; and (iii) there has to be a setting down in the new domain. In this case, the lady has done the lifting and the poor man has done the other two elements. Authority can be found for two opposite conclusions – that the poor man violated the biblical prohibition and that the poor man did not violate the biblical prohibition. The Talmud needs to reconcile these seemingly mutually exclusive answers.

We spend the rest of the Daf working through various possibilities to explain the seemingly inconsistent answers:

• Perhaps an outstretched hand is different than a whole body. In this theory, the poor man’s arm extended through the window into the private domain is not at rest in the private domain. Therefore, when the poor main removes his arm, he has not accomplished a lifting. If his whole body were inside, he would be in the private domain and by walking out, he is deemed to be “lifting”.
• Perhaps the outstretched arm is not considered part of the body. Therefore, the arm and the body can have separate domains. If this is the explanation, then the arm is considered a third category of domain called a “Karmelis“. A Karmelis is a public domain that is used infrequently. By rabbinic decree, carrying from a Karmelis to either a public or private domain is prohibited.
• Perhaps one authority was speaking of a situation in which the poor man put his arm through the window before sundown and the start of the Sabbath and in one case where the poor man stuck his hand through the window after the start of the Sabbath. If the poor man extended his hand before sundown, then he is permitted to withdraw it. If he did not extend his arm before sundown, he is not permitted to withdraw it. The Talmud is particulary troubled by this explanation because it seems to make the man more likely to drop the object he is required to hold until the conclusion of the Sabbath which would violate a biblical prohibition to avoid violating a rabbinic prohibition.
• Perhaps one authority discusses an inadvertent transgression (e.g., the poor man did not know it was the Sabbath or he did not know the action was carrying) and one authority discusses an intentional transgression.

All of these possibilities are considered. We do not learn which is preferred. I have a feeling that will come later.