Study Eruvin folio 99A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud explains: Rav Ḥinnana maintains that from the fact that the latter clause of the Mishnah, was taught in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, it can be inferred that the first clause was likewise taught in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir. But in fact that is not so: The latter c
We learned in the Mishnah: One may move objects in a public domain when he is standing in a private domain, provided that he does not carry them beyond 4 cubits in the public domain. The Talmud infers: This teaching indicates that if he carried them beyond 4 cubits, he is liable to bring a sin-offer
The Talmud rejects this contention: Is the Mishnah teaching that if he carried the object beyond 4 cubits he is liable to bring a sin-offering? Perhaps the Mishnah means: If he carried the object beyond 4 cubits, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, but it is nevertheless prohibited by rabbini
Some say a different version of the previous discussion: The Talmud’s initial inference was actually that if he carried the object beyond 4 cubits he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, but it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to do so. The Talmud asks: If so, let us say that this is a conclusive
The Mishnah 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.