Abaye said to him: In what manner did you establish our mishna as dealing with the danger posed by gentiles? Say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Shimon says that one gives them to another and the other passes them to another. In that case, all the more so will the matter be conspicuous, and they should fear the decree issued by the gentiles.

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement that the finder covers the phylacteries said? It is where the concern is danger posed by gentiles. However, where the concern is danger posed by bandits, one carries them less than four cubits at a time. In that case Rabbi Shimon disagrees, maintaining that it is preferable that many people carry the phylacteries.

It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: One gives them to another and the other passes them to another. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? One Sage, the first tanna, holds that having one person carrying the phylacteries less than four cubits at a time is preferable, as if you say that the finder gives them to another, and the other passes them to another, Shabbat desecration will be noticeable, thereby demeaning Shabbat’s character as a sacred day of rest.

And the other Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that the solution that one gives the phylacteries to another is preferable, as if you say that the finder carries them less than four cubits at a time, sometimes it is not in his thoughts and will unwittingly come to carry the phylacteries four cubits in the public domain. That is unlikely if there are numerous people together.

It was stated in the mishna: And the same is true with regard to one’s son. The Gemara is surprised: What is his son doing there in the field necessitating his retrieval in this way? The school of Menashe taught: It is referring to a case where his mother gave birth to him in a field, and he must be brought to town.

And what may be inferred from the mishna’s ruling that the baby is passed from one person to the next, even if it requires a hundred people? This teaches that although it is difficult for the child to be passed from hand to hand, even so, this method of transporting him is preferable to his being carried by one person less than four cubits at a time.

It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: A person gives a barrel to another, and the other may pass it to another, and in that way they may take it even beyond the Shabbat limit. The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda not of the opinion of that which we learned in a mishna: The distance that an animal and vessels may be taken is like the distance that the feet of the owners may go with regard to Shabbat limits?

Reish Lakish said in the name of Levi the Elder: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one pours the water from one barrel to another barrel so that only the water, rather than the barrel itself, is taken beyond the limit. And Rabbi Yehuda follows his usual reasoning, as he said: Water has no substance, i.e., it is not significant enough for its transfer beyond the Shabbat limit to be prohibited.

As we learned in a mishna that discusses a dispute on this issue: If one person adds flour for dough while another adds the water, the Rabbis say that the dough may only be taken as far as both owners are permitted to go, whereas Rabbi Yehuda exempts water from any limit due to the fact that it has no substance.

And what, then, is the meaning of the Rabbis’ statement in the mishna: This may not go farther than the feet of the owners may go, which apparently refers to the barrel? It means: That which is in this barrel may not go farther than the feet of the owners may go.

The Gemara rejects this explanation. Say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda express his opinion that water has no substance in a case where it is absorbed in dough; but in a case where it is in its pure, unadulterated state did you hear him say so? Now, if with regard to water in a pot of cooked food Rabbi Yehuda said that it is not nullified, would it be nullified when it is in its pure, unadulterated state? That is clearly not the case, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Water and salt are nullified in dough, as they are absorbed into it and are not independently discernible. However, they are not nullified in a pot of cooked food, because the water and salt are discernible in its gravy.

Rather, Rava rejected this explanation and said: Here, we are dealing with a barrel that belonged to a particular individual who acquired residence at the start of Shabbat in a specific location, and water that did not remain in one place, i.e., spring or river water, and that does not belong to any individual who acquired residence. In that case, the barrel is nullified relative to the water, since the barrel is designated to hold the water.

As we learned in a mishna: One who carries out a living person on a bed from one domain to another on Shabbat is exempt even for carrying out the bed, due to the fact that the bed is secondary to the person. He is exempt for carrying out the living person because a living being carries itself, i.e., the person being carried lightens the load and thereby assists those bearing him.

Similarly, one who carries out an amount of food, less than the measure that determines liability for carrying out food on Shabbat, in a vessel is exempt, even for carrying out the vessel, due to the fact that the vessel is secondary to the food inside it. By the same reasoning, the barrel should be nullified relative to the water it contains.

Rav Yosef raised an objection from the following baraita. Rabbi Yehuda says: If members of a caravan camped in a field wish to drink, one person gives a barrel to another, and the other passes it to another. By inference: In a caravan, yes, it is permitted to do so due to exigent circumstances; however, in a case that is not a caravan, no, it is prohibited. Rather, Rav Yosef said: When we learned the case in the mishna as well, we learned it with regard to a caravan. The Sages were lenient in the case of a caravan due to the lack of water.

Abaye said that this explanation is unnecessary: In a caravan, even if the barrel acquired residence and the water acquired residence, it is permitted to move them. If one is not in a caravan, if the barrel acquired residence and the water did not acquire residence, it is prohibited to move them.

Rav Ashi said: Here, we are dealing with an ownerless barrel and ownerless water, neither of which acquired residence as they do not belong to anyone. And who is the tanna about whom it says in the mishna that they said to Rabbi Yehuda that it may not go farther than the feet of its owners may go? It is Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who, consistent with his approach, said that ownerless objects acquire residence where they were located when Shabbat began, and it is prohibited to move them beyond their limit. And what is the meaning of the statement: This may not go farther than the feet of its owners may go, as it has no owner? It means that the barrel and water may not go farther than vessels that have owners, i.e., they may not be moved beyond their limit.

MISHNA: One who was reading a sacred book in scroll form on Shabbat on an elevated, wide threshold, and the book rolled from his hand into the public domain, he may roll it back to himself, since one of its ends remains in his hand.

If he was reading on top the roof, which is a full-fledged private domain, and the book rolled from his hand, as long as the edge of the book did not reach within ten handbreadths above the public domain, the book is still in its own domain, and he may roll it back to himself. However, once the book has reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll the book back to oneself. In that case, he may only turn it over onto the side with writing, so that the writing of the book will be facedown and not exposed and degraded.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the scroll is on the ground itself, he rolls it back to himself, as you have nothing that was instituted as a rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest that stands as an impediment before the rescue of sacred writings.

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the first clause of the mishna: What are the circumstances of this threshold? If you say it is referring to a threshold that is a private domain, and there is a public domain before it, and the mishna teaches that we do not issue a decree lest the entire scroll fall from one’s hand and he come to bring it from a public to a private domain,