Shabbat

shall we say that Rabbi holds one liable for a derivative [when performed] conjointly with its principal?  But surely it was taught. Rabbi said: Words [debarim], the words [ha-debarim], these [eleh] are the words: this indicates the thirty-nine labours stated to Moses at Sinai.  Said R. Joseph to him: You learn it  in reference to this, and so find Rabbi self-contradictory; We learn it in reference to R. Judah['s ruling]. and find no difficulty.  For it was taught: [If one throws an article] from private to public ground, and it traverses four cubits over the public ground: R. Judah holds [him] liable, whereas the sages exempt [him]. [Whereon] Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: R. Judah holds [him] liable to two [sacrifices], one on account of transporting [from private ground] and a second on account of carrying over [public ground). For if you think that he holds him liable to one [only]. it follows that the Rabbis exempt [him] completely: but surely he has carried it out from private to public ground? [But] how so? Perhaps I may tell you after all that R. Judah holds him liable to one [only]. and the Rabbis exempt [him] completely: yet [as to the question] how is that possible? it is where e.g.. he declared, 'Immediately on issuing into the street, let it come to rest; and they differ in this: R. Judah holds: 'We say. An object caught up [in the air] is as at rest, and his intention is fulfilled; while the Rabbis hold, We do not say. An object caught up is as at rest, and his intention is not fulfilled;  but for a derivative [performed] simultaneously with its principal R. Judah does not impose liability? You cannot think so, for it was taught: R. Judah adds the closing up of the web and the evening of the woof. Said they to him: Closing the web is included in stretching the threads, and evening [the woof] is included in weaving.  Does that not mean that one performs both of them together. which proves that R. Judah imposed liability for a derivative [performed] simultaneously with its principal — Why so? perhaps it really means that each was performed separately. R. Judah not imposing liability for a derivative [performed] simultaneously with its principal, and they differ in this: R. Judah holds.These are principal labours; while the Rabbis hold, These are derivatives. The proof [of this assumption] is that it is stated, 'R. Judah adds etc.': now. it is well if you agree that they are principal labours [on his view, for then] what does he add? he adds principals; but if you say that they are derivatives, what does he add?  It was stated likewise, Rabbah and R. Joseph both maintain: R. Judah imposed liability only for one [sacrifice]. Rabina observed to R. Ashi: But on our original assumption that R. Judah held [him] liable to two, — if he desires it [to alight] here. he does not desire it [to alight] there, and vice versa? — Said he to him, It means that he declared, 'Wherever it pleases, let it come to rest.' It is obvious that if one intends throwing [an object] eight [cubits] but throws [it] four, it is as though he wrote SHem [as part of] SHimeon.  [But] what if one intends throwing [an object] four [cubits] but throws [it] eight: do we say, Surely he has carried it out  or perhaps it has surely not alighted where he desired? But is this not what Rabina observed to R. Ashi, and he answered him, It means that he said, 'Wherever it pleases. let it come to rest'!  And as to what you say. It is the same as writing SHem [as part] of SHimeon: how compare? There, without writing SHem, SHimeon cannot be written;  but here, without [intentionally] throwing [it] four, cannot one throw it eight? Our Rabbis taught: If one throws [an object] from public to public ground, and private ground lies between them: [if it traverses] four cubits [over public ground]. he is culpable.