Mesorat%20hashas for Eruvin 197:22

אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה מדקתני

- The person meant is one who coughs up the phlegm and ejects it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his master's presence.');">⁴³</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>A MAN MUST NOT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a preventive measure against the possibility of drawing the drinking vessel towards the body from the one domain into the other.');">⁴⁴</span> STAND IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN AND DRINK IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OR STAND IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN AND DRINK IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN UNLESS HE PUT HIS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF HIS BODY INTO THE DOMAIN IN WHICH HE DRINKS. AND A SIMILAR LAW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of tithe (v. Gemara infra) .');">⁴⁵</span> APPLIES TO A WINEPRESS. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Does then the first clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the previous Mishnah (supra 98b) according to which 'a man may stand in a private domain and move objects in a public domain' etc.');">⁴⁶</span> represent the view of the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who did not enact a preventive measure against the possibility of drawing the object after the body.');">⁴⁷</span> while the final clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁸</span> represents that of R'Meir?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who (cf. Mishnah infra 101a) upholds the principle of the necessity for such a preventive measure. But is it likely that two anonymous and consecutive rulings should represent the views of different authors?');">⁴⁹</span> - R'Joseph replied: The latter clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁸</span> deals with objects that are among one's necessities<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that he requires', as water, for instance. Being in so much need of it, a man is most likely in a moment of absent-mindedness to draw it towards him into the domain in which he stands.');">⁵⁰</span> and it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁸</span> represents the general opinion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in such a case (cf. Prev. n.) all agree that a preventive measure is required.');">⁵¹</span> The question was raised: What is the ruling in respect of a karmelith?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. may one standing in a karmelith drink in a public or private domain?');">⁵²</span> - Abaye replied: The same law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As that relating to the domains spoken of in our MISHNAH:');">⁵³</span> applies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it it'.');">⁵⁴</span> Raba replied: The very law of karmelith<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Pentateuchally there is no prohibition even against the actual transfer of objects from a karmelith into, private or public domain.');">⁵⁵</span> is but a preventive measure,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the possibility of carrying objects between a public and a private domain.');">⁵⁶</span> shall we then go as far as<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'shall we rise up'.');">⁵⁷</span> to enact a preventive measure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to drink from a public or private domain while standing in a karmelith as a preventive measure against possible transfer of the drinking vessel.');">⁵⁸</span> in addition to another preventive measure!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The very law of karmelith. As such a double precaution is obviously unreasonable, the restrictions our Mishnah imposes in connection with the domains mentioned cannot apply to the karmelith.');">⁵⁹</span> Whence, observed Abaye, do I derive my view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'do l say it'.');">⁶⁰</span> From the statement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'since he learned'.');">⁶¹</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Eruvin 197:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.