Eruvin 197

הוא סבר מדסיפא ר"מ רישא נמי ר"מ ולא היא סיפא ר"מ ורישא רבנן:

He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hinena.');">¹</span> thought that since the final clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' i.e., the Mishnah infra 101a.');">²</span> represented the view of R'Meir the first clause also must represent the view of R'Meir.

ובלבד שלא יוציא חוץ: הא הוציא חייב חטאת לימא מסייע ליה לרבא דאמר רבא המעביר חפץ מתחילת ארבע לסוף ארבע והעבירו דרך עליו חייב

In fact, however, this is not so. While the final clause represents the view of R'Meir the first represents the view of the Rabbis. PROVIDED HE DOES NOT TAKE THEM BEYOND.

מי קתני אם הוציא חייב חטאת דילמא אם הוציא פטור אבל אסור

Thus it follows that if he did take them beyond the four cubits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though his position was raised from the ground of the public domain and the objects were carried in the air above ten handbreadths from the ground which is a free domain.');">³</span> he incurs the obligation of a sin-offering. May it then be suggested that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to carry an object even through a free domain on account of the 'lifting up' and the 'setting down' which take place in the public domain.');">⁴</span>

איכא דאמרי הא הוציא פטור אבל אסור לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דרבא דאמר רבא המעביר מתחילת ד' לסוף ד' והעבירו דרך עליו חייב מי קתני הוציא פטור אבל אסור דילמא אם הוציא חייב חטאת:

provides support for Raba who laid down that if a man transferred an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of the four cubits, and the transfer was made above his head, he is guilty of an offence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 98a q.v. notes.');">⁵</span> Was it stated: 'If he took them beyond, he incurs the obligation of a sin-offering'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If that were so, support for Raba's view would indeed have been forthcoming.');">⁶</span> It is quite possible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no sin-offering was mentioned.');">⁷</span>

לא יעמוד אדם ברה"י וכו': אמר רב יוסף השתין ורק חייב חטאת

that if he took them beyond [the four cubits] he is exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a sin-offering.');">⁸</span> but the act is [nevertheless] forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By a Rabbinical enactment. In order to prevent one from carrying an object below the ten handbreadths level.');">⁹</span> Others read: Thus it follows<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no sin-offering was mentioned.');">⁷</span>

והא בעינן עקירה והנחה מעל גבי מקום ד' וליכא

that if he did take them out he Is exempt though this is forbidden. Must it be conceded that this presents an objection against Raba who laid down that if a man transferred an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits, and the transfer was made above his head, he is guilty of an offence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 98a q.v. notes.');">⁵</span> Was it stated: 'if he took them out he is exempt though this is forbidden'?

מחשבתו משויא ליה מקום דאי לא תימא הכי הא דאמר רבא זרק ונח בפי הכלב או בפי הכבשן חייב חטאת והא בעינן הנחה ע"ג מקום ד' וליכא

It is quite possible that if he took them beyond [the four cubits] he does incur the obligation of a sin-offering? A MAN MUST NOT STAND IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN etc. R'Joseph ruled: If a man made water or spat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the one domain into the other.');">¹⁰</span> he incurs the obligation of a sin-offering.

אלא מחשבתו משויא ליה מקום ה"נ מחשבה משויא לה מקום

But is it not necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a sin-offering is to be incurred.');">¹¹</span> that the lifting up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the object moved.');">¹²</span> and the putting down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the object moved.');">¹²</span>

בעי רבא הוא ברה"י ופי אמה ברה"ר מהו בתר עקירה אזלינן או בתר יציאה אזלינן תיקו:

shall respectively be from, and upon a place that was four handbreadths wide, which is not the case here? - His intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To relieve himself.');">¹³</span> confers upon him the status of a proper place. For should you not concede this principle, how would you explain the following ruling of Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that which Raba said'.');">¹⁴</span>

וכן לא ירוק רבי יהודה אומר וכו': אף על גב דלא הפיך בה

'If a man threw some object<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Along a distance of four cubits in a public domain.');">¹⁵</span> and it dropped<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and rested'.');">¹⁶</span> into the mouth of a dog or into the mouth of a furnace<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it was instantly burnt out before it touched the floor of the furnace.');">¹⁷</span>

והתנן היה אוכל דבילה בידים מסואבות והכניס ידו לתוך פיו ליטול צרור רבי מאיר מטמא

he incurs the obligation of a sin-offering', in view of the objection:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but surely'.');">¹⁸</span> Is it not necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a sin-offering is to be incurred.');">¹¹</span> that the putting down should be upon a place that was four handbreadths wide, which is not the case here?

ורבי יוסי מטהר רבי יהודה אומר היפך בה טמא לא היפך בה טהור

You must consequently admit that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but'. erz');">¹⁹</span> the man's intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [That it should drop into the fire or into the dog's mouth, v. Tosaf s.v. ].');">²⁰</span> confers upon it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dog's mouth or the flames of the furnace.');">²¹</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן מוחלפת השיטה

the status of a proper place, so also here, it may well be explained, it is his intention that confers upon him the status of a valid place. Raba enquired: What is the legal position where a man stood in a private domain and the orifice of the organ projected into a public domain? Are we guided by the source<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is in the private domain.');">²²</span>

ריש לקיש אמר לעולם לא תחליף והכא במאי עסקינן בכיחו

or by the point of exit? - This remains undecided.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teku.');">²³</span> AND THE SAME APPLIES TO SPITTING. R'JUDAH RULED etc. Even though he did not turn it over?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his mouth.');">²⁴</span>

והתניא רבי יהודה אומר כיחו ונתלש מאי לאו רוק ונתלש לא כיחו ונתלש והא תניא ר' יהודה אומר כיחו שנתלש וכן רוקו שנתלש לא יהלך ד' אמות עד שירוק אלא מחוורתא כדשנינן מעיקרא:

Have we not, however, learnt: If a man was eating a pressed fig<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of terumah.');">²⁵</span> with soiled hands<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. 'unwashed'. These are subject to the second degree of levitical uncleanness and consequently carry the third degree of uncleanness to the terumah with which they came in contact.');">²⁶</span> and he put his hand into his mouth to remove a small stone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And with his wet hand touched the fig.');">²⁷</span>

אמר ר"ל כיח בפני רבו חייב מיתה שנאמר (משלי ח, לו) כל משנאי אהבו מות אל תקרי למשנאי אלא למשניאי

R'Meir declares the fig to be unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the spittle is regarded as a liquid which, my moistening the fig, renders it susceptible to levitical uncleanness. Food that has never come in contact with a liquid is not susceptible to such uncleanness.');">²⁸</span> while R'Jose regards it as clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spittle, while in one's mouth is deemed to be a part of the body and cannot, therefore, the regarded as a liquid that renders food susceptible to levitical uncleanness.');">²⁹</span> R'Judah ruled: If he turned it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the spittle in his mouth.');">³⁰</span>

והא מינס אניס כיח ורק קאמרינן:

over<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his mouth.');">³¹</span> the fig is unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the spittle is regarded as a liquid which, my moistening the fig, renders it susceptible to levitical uncleanness. Food that has never come in contact with a liquid is not susceptible to such uncleanness.');">²⁸</span> but if he did not turn it over<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spittle, while in one's mouth is deemed to be a part of the body and cannot, therefore, the regarded as a liquid that renders food susceptible to levitical uncleanness.');">²⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> לא יעמוד אדם ברה"י וישתה ברה"ר ברה"ר וישתה ברה"י אלא אם כן הכניס ראשו ורובו למקום שהוא שותה וכן בגת:

the fig remains clean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kel. VIII, 10. How then can it be maintained here that R. Judah regards spittle as detached from the body even if it was not turned over?');">³²</span> - R'Johanan replied: Reverse the statement ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The view given in the name of R. Judah should he attributed to one of the others. Rashi: R. Judah is at variance with his own principle.');">³³</span> Resh Lakish said: You have no need<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'forever'.');">³⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי מאיר

to reverse the statement,for we are dealing here with phlegm.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is detached from the lungs by the time it reaches the mouth.');">³⁵</span> But was it not taught: R'Judah ruled: 'If his phlegm was detached',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He must not walk beyond four cubits in the public domain.');">³⁶</span> which implies also, does it not, 'if his spittle was detached'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text is in disorder. Read (v. D.S.) : 'R. Judah said, (the same applies to) his phlegm or spittle'; now does this not mean if his phlegm or spittle was detached?- No, only if his phlegm was detached (but as to spittle, there is no liability unless he turned it over) ].');">³⁷</span>

אמר רב יוסף בחפיצין שצריכין לו ודברי הכל

- No, only that if his phlegm was detached. But was it not taught: R'Judah ruled: Whether his phlegm was detached or his spittle was detached he must not walk four cubits before he spat it out? - Clearly the explanation is the one originally given.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the statement was to be reversed.');">³⁸</span> Resh Lakish stated: One who coughs up phlegm in the presence of his master deserves an untimely death, for it is said in Scripture: All that hate me love death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. VIII, 36.');">³⁹</span>

איבעיא להו כרמלית מאי אמר אביי היא היא אמר רבא היא גופא גזירה ואנן ניקום ונגזור גזירה לגזירה

read not 'that hate me' but 'those that cause me to be hated'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reading cf. Meg. 28a.');">⁴⁰</span> But does not one merely act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When coughing.');">⁴¹</span> under an impulsion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course he does; why then should he deserve death?');">⁴²</span>

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>