## Eruvin Daf 99a

###### Eruvin 99a:1
[Eruvin 99a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:1)

הוּא סָבַר: מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְלָא הִיא: סֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְרֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Rav Ḥinnana **maintains that from** the fact that **the latter clause** of the mishna, was taught in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** it can be inferred that **the first clause** was **likewise** taught in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir. But** in fact **that is not so: The latter clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, while the first clause** is in accordance with that of **the Rabbis.**


###### Eruvin 99a:2
[Eruvin 99a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:2)

וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא חוּץ. הָא הוֹצִיא חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הַמַּעֲבִיר חֵפֶץ מִתְּחִילַּת אַרְבַּע לְסוֹף אַרְבַּע, וְהֶעֱבִירוֹ דֶּרֶךְ עָלָיו — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: One may move objects in a public domain when he is standing in a private domain, **provided that he does not carry** them **beyond** four cubits in the public domain. The Gemara infers: This teaching indicates that if **he carried** them beyond four cubits, **he is liable** to bring **a sin-offering.** The Gemara asks: **Let us say** that **this** ruling **supports** the opinion of **Rava, as Rava said:** With regard to **one who carries an object** in a public domain **from the beginning of four** cubits **to the end of** those **four** cubits, even if he **carried it above his head,** i.e., he lifted the object above his head so that it passed through an exempt place, **he is** nonetheless **liable** for carrying four cubits in a public domain. Here, too, although he is standing in an elevated private domain and carries the object at that elevated height, he is still liable.


###### Eruvin 99a:3
[Eruvin 99a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:3)

מִי קָתָנֵי: אִם הוֹצִיא חַיָּיב חַטָּאת? דִּילְמָא אִם הוֹצִיא — פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this contention: **Is** the mishna **teaching** that **if he carried** the object beyond four cubits **he is liable** to bring **a sin-offering? Perhaps** the mishna means: **If he carried** the object beyond four cubits, he is **exempt** from bringing a sin-offering, **but it is** nevertheless **prohibited** by rabbinic decree to do so.


###### Eruvin 99a:4
[Eruvin 99a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:4)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא הוֹצִיא פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר, לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הַמַּעֲבִיר מִתְּחִילַּת אַרְבַּע לְסוֹף אַרְבַּע וְהֶעֱבִירוֹ דֶּרֶךְ עָלָיו חַיָּיב! מִי קָתָנֵי ״הוֹצִיא פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר״? דִּילְמָא: אִם הוֹצִיא — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** a different version of the previous discussion: The Gemara’s initial inference was actually that if **he carried** the object beyond four cubits he is **exempt** from bringing a sin-offering, **but it is prohibited** by rabbinic decree to do so. The Gemara asks: If so, **let us say** that this **is a conclusive refutation of Rava’s** opinion, **as Rava said:** With regard to **one who carries** an object in a public domain **from the beginning of four** cubits **to the end of** those **four** cubits, even if he **carried it above his head, he is liable.** The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **Is** the mishna **teaching** that **if he took** it beyond four cubits he is **exempt, but it is prohibited** to do so? **Perhaps** the *tanna* means that **if he carried** it beyond four cubits, he is **liable** to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Eruvin 99a:5
[Eruvin 99a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:5)

לֹא יַעֲמוֹד אָדָם בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הִשְׁתִּין וְרָק — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: **A person** may **not stand in a private domain** and urinate or spit into the public domain. **Rav Yosef said: One who urinated or spat** in this manner is **liable** to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Eruvin 99a:6
[Eruvin 99a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:6)

וְהָא בָּעִינַן עֲקִירָה וְהַנָּחָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי מְקוֹם אַרְבָּעָה, וְלֵיכָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** for an act of carrying to be considered a prohibited Shabbat labor that entails liability, **we require** that the **lifting and placing** of the object be performed **from atop an area four** by four handbreadths, the minimal size of significance with regard to the *halakhot* of carrying on Shabbat. **And** that is **not** the case here, as one’s mouth, which produces the spittle, is not four by four handbreadths in size.


###### Eruvin 99a:7
[Eruvin 99a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:7)

מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ מְשַׁוְּיָא לֵיהּ מָקוֹם. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: זָרַק וְנָח בְּפִי הַכֶּלֶב אוֹ בְּפִי הַכִּבְשָׁן חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, וְהָא בָּעִינַן הַנָּחָה עַל גַּבֵּי מְקוֹם אַרְבָּעָה, וְלֵיכָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: One’s **intent renders it an area** of significance, i.e., as one certainly considers his mouth a significant area, it is regarded as four by four handbreadths in size. **As, if you do not say so,** that the size of an area is not the sole criterion, but that a person’s thoughts can also establish a place as significant, there is a difficulty with **that** which **Rava said:** If **a person threw** an object **and it landed in the mouth of a dog or in the mouth of a furnace,** he is **liable** to bring **a sin-offering. But don’t we require** that the object be **placed on an area of four** by four handbreadths? **And** that is **not** the case here.


###### Eruvin 99a:8
[Eruvin 99a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:8)

אֶלָּא: מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ מְשַׁוְּיָא לֵיהּ מָקוֹם, הָכִי נָמֵי מַחְשָׁבָה מְשַׁוְּיָא לָהּ מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the person’s **intent** to throw the object into the dog’s mouth **renders it an area** of significance. **Here too, his intent renders** his own mouth **a** significant **area.**


###### Eruvin 99a:9
[Eruvin 99a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:9)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: הוּא בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וּפִי אַמָּה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, מַהוּ? בָּתַר עֲקִירָה אָזְלִינַן, אוֹ בָּתַר יְצִיאָה אָזְלִינַן? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised a dilemma:** If **one** is standing **in a private domain, and the opening of his** male **member is in the public domain,** and he urinates, **what is** the *halakha*? How should this case be regarded? Do **we follow** the domain where the urine is **uprooted** from the body, i.e., the bladder, which is in the private domain? **Or** do **we follow the** point of the urine’s actual **emission** from the body, and since the urine leaves his body through the opening of his member in the public domain, no prohibition has been violated? Since this dilemma was not resolved, the Gemara concludes: **Let it stand** unresolved.


###### Eruvin 99a:10
[Eruvin 99a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:10)

וְכֵן לֹא יָרוֹק. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הַפֵּיךְ בָּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states: **And likewise, one** may **not spit** from one domain to another. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** Once a person’s spittle is gathered in his mouth, he may not walk four cubits in the public domain until he removes it. The Gemara asks: Does this teaching mean that it is prohibited to do so **even if he has not turned** the spittle **over** in his mouth, i.e., after he has dredged up the saliva but before he has rolled it around in his mouth in preparation to spit it out?


###### Eruvin 99a:11
[Eruvin 99a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:11)

וְהָתְנַן: הָיָה אוֹכֵל דְּבֵילָה בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת, וְהִכְנִיס יָדוֹ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו לִיטּוֹל צְרוֹר — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַהֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Didn’t we learn** in a mishna the *halakha* of one who **was eating a dried fig** of *teruma* **with unwashed hands?** By Torah law, only food that has come into contact with a liquid is susceptible to ritual impurity, and no liquid had ever fallen on this fig. The significance of the fact that his hands are unwashed is that by rabbinic law, unwashed hands have second degree ritual impurity status and therefore invalidate *teruma*. If this person **inserted his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, Rabbi Meir deems** the dried fig **impure,** as it had been rendered liable to contract impurity by the spittle in the person’s mouth, and it subsequently became impure when it was touched by his unwashed hand. **And Rabbi Yosei deems** the fig **ritually pure,** as he maintains that spittle which is still in one’s mouth is not considered liquid that renders food liable to contract impurity; the spittle does so only after it has left the mouth.


###### Eruvin 99a:12
[Eruvin 99a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:12)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הִיפֵּךְ בָּהּ — טָמֵא. לֹא הִיפֵּךְ בָּהּ — טָהוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says** that there is a distinction between the cases: If **he turned** the spittle **over** in his mouth, it is like spittle that has been detached from its place, and therefore its legal status is that of a liquid, which means the fig is **impure.** However, if **he** had **not** yet **turned** the spittle **over** in his mouth, the fig is **pure.** This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, spittle that has not yet been turned over in one’s mouth is not considered detached.


###### Eruvin 99a:13
[Eruvin 99a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The** attribution of the **opinions is reversed,** as the opinion attributed to Rabbi Yehuda is actually that of a different *tanna*, while Rabbi Yehuda himself maintains that the fig is ritually impure in either case.


###### Eruvin 99a:14
[Eruvin 99a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:14)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תַּחְלֵיף, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּכִיחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said: Actually, do not reverse** the opinions, **and** the apparent contradiction can be reconciled in accordance with the original version of the text: **With what we are dealing here** in the mishna? We are dealing **with his phlegm** that is expelled through coughing.


###### Eruvin 99a:15
[Eruvin 99a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:15)

וְהַתַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כִּיחוֹ וְנִתְלַשׁ, מַאי לָאו — רוֹק וְנִתְלַשׁ! לָא, כִּיחוֹ וְנִתְלַשׁ. וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כִּיחוֹ שֶׁנִּתְלַשׁ, וְכֵן רוּקּוֹ שֶׁנִּתְלַשׁ, לֹא יְהַלֵּךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַד שֶׁיָּרוֹק! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִדְשַׁנִּינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty against this resolution. **Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** If **one’s phlegm was detached,** he may not walk four cubits in the public domain with it in his mouth? **What, is it not** the case that this *halakha* refers to **spittle that was detached?** The Gemara rejects this contention: **No,** this ruling applies only to **one’s phlegm that was detached.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** If **one’s phlegm was detached, and likewise,** if **his spittle was detached, he** may **not walk four cubits** in the public domain **before he spits** it out, even if he has not yet turned it over. **Rather, it is clear as we originally answered,** that the opinions in the mishna with regard to spittle and ritual impurity must be reversed.


###### Eruvin 99a:16
[Eruvin 99a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:16)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כִּיַּח בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ חַיָּיב מִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כׇּל מְשַׂנְאַי אָהֲבוּ מָוֶת״ — אַל תִּקְרֵי ״לִמְשַׂנְאַי״, אֶלָּא ״לְמַשְׂנִיאַי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Having mentioned phlegm, the Gemara cites a related teaching: **Reish Lakish said:** One who expelled **phlegm in front of his master** has acted in a disrespectful manner and is **liable for** the punishment of **death** at the hand of Heaven, **as it is stated: “All they who hate Me love death”** (Proverbs 8:36). **Do not read it** as: **“They who hate [*mesanai*] Me”; rather,** read it as: **“Those who make themselves hateful [*masniai*] to Me,”** i.e., those who make themselves hateful by such a discharge.


###### Eruvin 99a:17
[Eruvin 99a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:17)

וְהָא מֵינָס אֲנִיס? כִּיַּח וְרָק קָאָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: **But doesn’t he** do so **involuntarily,** as no one coughs and emits phlegm by choice; why should this be considered a transgression? The Gemara answers: **We are speaking** here of someone who had **phlegm** in his mouth **and spat** it out, i.e., one who had the opportunity to leave his master’s presence and spit outside.


###### Eruvin 99a:18
[Eruvin 99a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:18)

**מַתְנִי׳** לֹא יַעֲמוֹד אָדָם בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְיִשְׁתֶּה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְיִשְׁתֶּה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִכְנִיס רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ לִמְקוֹם שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹתֶה. וְכֵן בַּגַּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A person** may **stand in a private domain** and extend his head **and drink in a public domain,** and he may stand **in a public domain and drink in a private domain, only if he brings his head and most of his** body **into the domain** in **which he drinks. And the same** applies **in a winepress,** as will be explained in the Gemara.


###### Eruvin 99a:19
[Eruvin 99a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:19)

**גְּמָ׳** רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן, וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara registers surprise at the mishna: It would seem that **the first clause,** i.e., the previous mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who maintain that a person located in one domain is permitted to move objects in another domain, **whereas the latter clause,** i.e., this mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who maintains that it is prohibited for a person in one domain to move objects in a different domain.


###### Eruvin 99a:20
[Eruvin 99a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:20)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בַּחֲפֵיצִין שֶׁצְּרִיכִין לוֹ, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said:** This mishna is referring **to objects that one needs, and** the ruling is accepted by **all.** In this case, even the Rabbis concede that it is prohibited to move objects in another domain, lest one absent-mindedly draw the objects to him and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.


###### Eruvin 99a:21
[Eruvin 99a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:21)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כַּרְמְלִית, מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִיא הִיא. אָמַר רָבָא: הִיא גּוּפָא גְּזֵירָה, וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְנִגְזוֹר גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If one of the domains is a ***karmelit*, what is** the *halakha*? **Abaye said: This** case **is** equal **to that** case, i.e., in this situation a *karmelit* is governed by the same *halakha* that applies to a domain defined by Torah law. Just as the Sages prohibited one in the private domain from drinking from the public domain and vice versa, so too, they prohibited one in a *karmelit* from drinking in the same manner. **Rava said:** How can you say so? The prohibition against carrying to or from a *karmelit* is **itself** a rabbinic **decree. And will we** then **proceed to issue a decree to** prevent violation of another **decree?**


###### Eruvin 99a:22
[Eruvin 99a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/99a:22)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, מִדְּקָתָנֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** in explanation of his opinion: **From where do I say that** *halakha*? **From** the fact **that it is taught** in the mishna: