Eruvin

He1 thought that since the final clause2 represented the view of R. Meir the first clause also must represent the view of R. Meir. 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. Thus it follows that if he did take them beyond the four cubits3 he incurs the obligation of a sin-offering. May it then be suggested that this4 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?5 Was it stated: ‘If he took them beyond, he incurs the obligation of a sin-offering’?6 It is quite possible7 that if he took them beyond [the four cubits] he is exempt,8 but the act is [nevertheless] forbidden.9 Others read: Thus it follows7 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?5 Was it stated: ‘if he took them out he is exempt though this is forbidden’? 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 spat10 he incurs the obligation of a sin-offering. But is it not necessary11 that the lifting up12 and the putting down12 shall respectively be from, and upon a place that was four handbreadths wide, which is not the case here? — His intention13 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:14 ‘If a man threw some object15 and it dropped16 into the mouth of a dog or into the mouth of a furnace17 he incurs the obligation of a sin-offering’, in view of the objection:18 Is it not necessary11 that the putting down should be upon a place that was four handbreadths wide, which is not the case here? You must consequently admit that19 the man's intention20 confers upon it21 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 source22 or by the point of exit? — This remains undecided.23 AND THE SAME APPLIES TO SPITTING. R. JUDAH RULED etc. Even though he did not turn it over?24 Have we not, however, learnt: If a man was eating a pressed fig25 with soiled hands26 and he put his hand into his mouth to remove a small stone,27 R. Meir declares the fig to be unclean28 while R. Jose regards it as clean.29 R. Judah ruled: If he turned it30 over31 the fig is unclean28 but if he did not turn it over29 the fig remains clean?32 — R. Johanan replied: Reverse the statement ,33 Resh Lakish said: You have no need34 to reverse the statement,for we are dealing here with phlegm.35 But was it not taught: R. Judah ruled: ‘If his phlegm was detached’,36 which implies also, does it not, ‘if his spittle was detached’?37 — 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. 38 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,39 read not ‘that hate me’ but ‘those that cause me to be hated’.40 But does not one merely act41 under an impulsion?42 — The person meant is one who coughs up the phlegm and ejects it.43 MISHNAH. A MAN MUST NOT44 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 LAW45 APPLIES TO A WINEPRESS. GEMARA. Does then the first clause46 represent the view of the Rabbis47 while the final clause48 represents that of R. Meir?49 — R. Joseph replied: The latter clause48 deals with objects that are among one's necessities50 and it48 represents the general opinion.51 The question was raised: What is the ruling in respect of a karmelith?52 — Abaye replied: The same law53 applies.54 Raba replied: The very law of karmelith55 is but a preventive measure,56 shall we then go as far as57 to enact a preventive measure58 in addition to another preventive measure!59 Whence, observed Abaye, do I derive my view?60 From the statement,61 above ten handbreadths from the ground which is a free domain. which take place in the public domain. degree of uncleanness to the terumah with which they came in contact. uncleanness. Food that has never come in contact with a liquid is not susceptible to such uncleanness. renders food susceptible to levitical uncleanness. was not turned over? his own principle. 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)]. domain into the other. a public domain’ etc. that two anonymous and consecutive rulings should represent the views of different authors? absent-mindedness to draw it towards him into the domain in which he stands. or public domain. against possible transfer of the drinking vessel. imposes in connection with the domains mentioned cannot apply to the karmelith.