it is not considered its placement. However, Rava raised a dilemma: In a case where there is a nut in a vessel and the vessel is floating on water, what is the ruling? Is it permitted to lift the nut on Shabbat if one is in another domain? The two sides of the dilemma are: Do we say that we go according to the status of the nut, and it is at rest in the vessel? Or perhaps we go according to the status of the vessel, and it is not at rest. No resolution was found to this dilemma. Therefore, let it stand unresolved as well.

However, with regard to oil floating on wine, there is a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna: In the case of oil floating on wine, and one who immersed himself during the day, i.e., one who was impure, immersed himself in a ritual bath, but will not become completely pure until sunset, touched the oil, he invalidated only the oil and not the wine. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: With regard to the two, i.e., the oil and the wine, they are considered to have a connection to each other. Since he made the oil impure, the wine is also impure. Their dispute is whether or not the oil is considered to be placed atop the wine.

Abaye said: In the case of a pit in the public domain that is ten handbreadths deep and precisely eight handbreadths wide, and one threw a mat into it, he is liable. However, if he divided the pit with a mat that split it in two, each one slightly less than four handbreadths wide, he is exempt because neither part is considered a private domain. The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Abaye, for whom it is obvious that the mat eliminates the partition of the pit, all the more so that a segment of dirt thrown into a pit that is ten handbreadths deep, rendering it less than ten handbreadths, eliminates the partition, and he has no dilemma with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s case. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who raised a dilemma with regard to a segment of dirt, it is obvious that a mat does not eliminate the partition.

Abaye said: With regard to a pit in the public domain that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide and filled with water, and one threw an object into it on Shabbat, one is liable because the pit is considered a private domain. And if the pit was filled with fruit and one threw an object into it, he is exempt. What is the reason for the different rulings? Water is not significant enough to eliminate the partition; fruit eliminates the partition. This was also taught in a baraita: One who throws an object from the sea to the street or from the street to the sea is exempt because the sea is considered a karmelit, and one is not liable according to Torah law in that case. Rabbi Shimon says: If the area in the sea where he threw it is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, he is liable, as he is considered as one who threw an object into a private domain. Apparently, the water in the sea does not eliminate the status of a private domain.

MISHNA: With regard to one who throws an object four cubits in the public domain, if the object hits the wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, which is an exempt domain, it is as if one threw it in the air, and he is exempt. If it hits the wall below ten handbreadths from the ground, it is as if he threw it and it landed on the ground, and one who throws an object four cubits and it lands on the ground is liable.

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that if one throws an object in the public domain a distance of four cubits and it hits a wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, he is liable if he threw it. The Gemara asks: And we discussed it: How could he be liable for carrying in that case? Since the object did not come to rest on the wall, there was no placement. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is with regard to the case of a juicy cake of figs that sticks to the wall when thrown against it that we learned in the mishna.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that Rabbi Ḥiyya said: If one threw a stone at a wall above ten handbreadths from the ground, and it went and came to rest in a hole in the wall of any size less than four handbreadths, we have come to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One carves out the space to complete it, he is liable. We complete the hole by conceptually carving it to four handbreadths because doing so is theoretically possible. Since the hole is considered ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one is liable for transferring an object from a public domain to a private one. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: One does not carve out the space to complete it, the thrower is not liable because the hole is actually less than four handbreadths wide at present. That was also taught in a baraita: If one threw an object above ten handbreadths, and it went and came to rest in a small hole, Rabbi Meir deems him liable, while the Rabbis deem him exempt.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: In the case of a mound that is an inclined plane that gradually attains a height of ten handbreadths over a horizontal space of four cubits, and one threw an object from the public domain and it came to rest atop that mound, he is liable because it is considered a partition. That was also taught in a baraita: An alleyway that is level inside and becomes an inclined or declined plane as it enters the public domain, which is higher or lower than the alleyway, or if the entrance to the alleyway is level when entering the public domain and inside it is inclined, that alleyway requires neither a post alongside its entrance or a beam across its entrance in order to distinguish it from the public domain because the incline itself is considered a partition. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: In the case of a mound that gradually attains a height of ten handbreadths over a horizontal space of four cubits, and one threw an object from the public domain and it came to rest atop that mound, he is liable.

MISHNA: If one threw an object in the public domain, intending for it to land within four cubits, meaning that he had no intention of violating the Torah prohibition of carrying, and the object rolled and went beyond four cubits, he is exempt. However, if one threw an object with the intention of it landing beyond four cubits, and the object rolled back within four cubits, he is liable from when he originally threw the object.

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that if one threw an object beyond four cubits and it rolled back within four cubits, he is liable. The Gemara asks: The object did not come to rest beyond four cubits, so how can the one who threw it be liable? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And that liability was established when the object came to rest atop something. That was also taught in a baraita: If one threw an object beyond four cubits and the wind blew it while still in the air and brought it within four cubits, he is exempt even though it, i.e., the wind, then brought it back out because the object did not come to rest in the place where it was thrown. However, if the wind seized it briefly and it stayed on the ground for a brief period of time (Tosafot), even though the wind then brought it in, the individual is liable.

Rava said: Despite the principle of lavud, which states that within three handbreadths of the ground an object is considered to be attached to it, according to the Rabbis, who maintain that an object in airspace is not considered at rest, the object must come to rest atop something to establish liability. The Gemara relates that Mareimar sat and stated this halakha. Ravina said to Mareimar: