Eruvin 99a

עירובין צ״ט ע״א

Learn Eruvin 99a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Eruvin 99a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Carrying and drinking across domains on שבת: רבא's 'over the head' rule, liability for spitting and urinating, רבי יהודה on spittle, and whether the drinking rule applies to a כרמלית.

Overview

The amud opens by rejecting רב חיננא's view that the whole משנה follows רבי מאיר: the סיפא is רבי מאיר, but the רישא is רבנן. Next, the גמרא asks whether the משנה's words 'ובלבד שלא יוציא חוץ' support or refute רבא's rule about carrying four אמות over one's head. In both versions, the משנה turns out to be ambiguous, so it proves nothing either way. רב יוסף then rules that urinating or spitting from a רשות היחיד into a רשות הרבים is חייב חטאת, because a person's intent makes even a small spot count as a significant place (מחשבתו משויא ליה מקום). רבא asks whether we follow where the urine is uprooted or where it exits, and the question ends in תיקו. On spitting, a contradiction in רבי יהודה's view is resolved by רבי יוחנן's switch of names in the dried-fig משנה, after ריש לקיש's 'phlegm' answer is refuted. A side teaching warns against spitting phlegm in front of one's רבו. Finally, a new משנה forbids drinking across domains unless one's head and most of his body are inside. רב יוסף explains that even the רבנן agree when the person needs the object. אביי and רבא then dispute whether this applies to a כרמלית, and אביי begins a proof that continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (33)

1. ResolutionWhy the earlier אמורא thought the whole משנה follows רבי מאיר
2. RejectionRejecting that assumption: the two clauses have different authors
3. StatementQuoting the משנה's limit and inferring liability
4. ProofProposed support for רבא's rule about carrying over one's head
5. RejectionRejecting the support: maybe it is only forbidden
6. StatementSecond version: the inference is exempt but forbidden
7. ChallengeChallenge: this would refute רבא
8. RejectionRejecting the challenge: maybe it means liable
9. Statementרב יוסף: urinating or spitting into the public domain makes one liable
10. ChallengeBut there is no four-by-four place for lifting
11. ResolutionHis intent makes it a significant place
12. ProofProof from רבא: an object thrown into a dog's mouth or a furnace
13. ConclusionIntent makes a place, both for רבא's case and for spitting
14. Questionרבא asks: is liability decided by where the urine starts or where it leaves the body?
15. ConclusionThe question remains unresolved
16. QuestionDoes רבי יהודה forbid it even if the spittle was not turned over?
17. ChallengeA משנה shows רבי יהודה holds unturned spittle is not detached
18. Resolutionרבי יוחנן: The opinions are switched
19. Resolutionריש לקיש: No switch, our משנה is about phlegm
20. ChallengeA ברייתא seems to say detached spittle
21. RejectionNo, it really means phlegm
22. ChallengeA second ברייתא explicitly mentions spittle
23. ConclusionBack to the original answer: the opinions are switched
24. StatementCoughing up phlegm in front of one's teacher
25. ChallengeBut coughing is involuntary
26. ResolutionThe case is someone who had phlegm and chose to spit
27. StatementNew משנה: drinking from one domain into another
28. ChallengeThe previous משנה follows the רבנן, but this one follows רבי מאיר
29. Resolutionרב יוסף: objects one needs, and everyone agrees
30. QuestionWhat is the law if one area is a כרמלית?
31. Responseאביי: A כרמלית follows the same rule
32. Challengeרבא: We do not make a decree on top of a decree
33. Proofאביי begins his proof from the משנה