To me it is not clear that carrying something in one's pocket is considered carrying on the Sabbath Day. In laws about acquisition this issue comes up. The basic question is if the vessels of a buyer acquire in the domain of a seller. The law comes out that they do acquire in any place the buyer has permission to put his vessels.
The Rashbam over there in Bava Batra says the question is if an object in a vessel is considered to be in the vessel or the domain.
What I mean to say is that it is considered in general simple that e.g. a key in a pocket is not thought to be nullified to the pocket in terms of carrying and in tractate Shabat itself there does not seem to be anything to indicate whether this is so; one way or the other. But in laws of acquisition in Bava Batra 85 this comes up.
Now what is a public domain itself is a debate. The Rif, Rambam hold you do not need 600,000 people walking through it every day. Rashi and Tosphot hold you do. So to me it seems putting Rashi and Tosphot together with the above idea that an object in a pocket is thought to be in the pocket, not in the domain, then there comes out a permission to carry something in one's pocket, but not to take it in one's hand until one reaches a private domain.
What I find is that it is curious that the Gemara does not deal with carrying in a pocket on the Sabbath at all, and yet when it comes to the issue of acquisition it goes into great detail.
If you would hold a direct connection between acquisition and Shabat, then in fact carrying in a pocket would not be allowed because a bag does not acquire in a public domain. But a pocket might very well be better than a bag. The case of the man that throws a divorce into the bag of his wife shows that a pocket that is connected with one's body is different that a bag one is holding.
[The Mishna says she is divorced but the Gemara puts a few conditions like that the bag has to be connected with her. Incidentally the Rashbam on page 85 in Bava Batra does mention this question in terms of acquisition-- whether the thing in the vessel is thought to be in the vessel or in the larger domain. Putting that together with what the sages say about throwing the divorce into the bag of the wife to me seems to indicate that a pocket in thought part of the person -not the domain. [That is Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, and others.]
[The nice thing about carrying in one's pocket is that a public domain is probably like the Rif and Rambam --just a public street that is 16 yards wide. Rome was the largest city the ancient world had ever seen and it was a million strong. To imagine the cities of Sura and Pumbadita in Persia were more than 600,000 on public streets every day is just not likely. And the way the people in the Talmud deal with a public domain in Persia is very simple--as if a public domain is common place even in Persia.
[Besides that, a large city is impossible without running water. No city in Persia had anything like an aqueduct of the Romans nor did they have the know-how or type of concrete the Romans had. [The Romans had a special type of concrete mixed with volcanic ash that was much stronger ] Therefore there simply were no large cities like Rome in Persia. Period. At best they would have had to be spread out villages.
The thing to be careful about is not to take anything out of the pocket as long as one is walking outside unless he stands still. Also carrying from a public domain to a private one is forbidden.
The Rashbam over there in Bava Batra says the question is if an object in a vessel is considered to be in the vessel or the domain.
What I mean to say is that it is considered in general simple that e.g. a key in a pocket is not thought to be nullified to the pocket in terms of carrying and in tractate Shabat itself there does not seem to be anything to indicate whether this is so; one way or the other. But in laws of acquisition in Bava Batra 85 this comes up.
Now what is a public domain itself is a debate. The Rif, Rambam hold you do not need 600,000 people walking through it every day. Rashi and Tosphot hold you do. So to me it seems putting Rashi and Tosphot together with the above idea that an object in a pocket is thought to be in the pocket, not in the domain, then there comes out a permission to carry something in one's pocket, but not to take it in one's hand until one reaches a private domain.
What I find is that it is curious that the Gemara does not deal with carrying in a pocket on the Sabbath at all, and yet when it comes to the issue of acquisition it goes into great detail.
If you would hold a direct connection between acquisition and Shabat, then in fact carrying in a pocket would not be allowed because a bag does not acquire in a public domain. But a pocket might very well be better than a bag. The case of the man that throws a divorce into the bag of his wife shows that a pocket that is connected with one's body is different that a bag one is holding.
[The Mishna says she is divorced but the Gemara puts a few conditions like that the bag has to be connected with her. Incidentally the Rashbam on page 85 in Bava Batra does mention this question in terms of acquisition-- whether the thing in the vessel is thought to be in the vessel or in the larger domain. Putting that together with what the sages say about throwing the divorce into the bag of the wife to me seems to indicate that a pocket in thought part of the person -not the domain. [That is Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, and others.]
[The nice thing about carrying in one's pocket is that a public domain is probably like the Rif and Rambam --just a public street that is 16 yards wide. Rome was the largest city the ancient world had ever seen and it was a million strong. To imagine the cities of Sura and Pumbadita in Persia were more than 600,000 on public streets every day is just not likely. And the way the people in the Talmud deal with a public domain in Persia is very simple--as if a public domain is common place even in Persia.
[Besides that, a large city is impossible without running water. No city in Persia had anything like an aqueduct of the Romans nor did they have the know-how or type of concrete the Romans had. [The Romans had a special type of concrete mixed with volcanic ash that was much stronger ] Therefore there simply were no large cities like Rome in Persia. Period. At best they would have had to be spread out villages.
The thing to be careful about is not to take anything out of the pocket as long as one is walking outside unless he stands still. Also carrying from a public domain to a private one is forbidden.
