Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 20, 2020 | 讚壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Eruvin 103

Today’s daf is dedicated by Sue Ann Hochberg in honor of her children, Zev Daniel and Hanna Paige, “the miracles of my life. I love you now and forever!”

A number of cases are brought of actions that are permitted in the Temple but not outside the Temple. However there are contradictory bratitot and the gemara tries to resolve the contradictions. Can one tie strings of a broken harp in the Temple for the Levites music? Can one cut off a wart either of a priest or a sacrificial animal (to remove the blemish)? Can a priest put on a bandage made of a reed, even though it is used for medicinal purposes? Is it different if he puts a sash on it? Would that create a problem of adding more clothing above what the priest is supposed to wear? Is that only an issue if he adds it in the place where the clothes are meant to be worn?

 

 

讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 谞诪讬

If he stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, why did he permit tying a bow only after the fact? It should also be permitted even ab initio, as Rabbi Eliezer maintains that preparations required for the performance of a mitzva override the prohibitions of Shabbat.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖谞驻住拽讛 诇讜 谞讬诪讗 讘讻谞讜专 拽讜砖专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讜谞讘讛

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation: It is not difficult; this baraita that deems tying prohibited is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while that mishna that rules that tying is permitted, is according to the opinion of the Rabbis. As it was taught in a baraita: If a string of the Levite鈥檚 harp was severed on Shabbat, he may tie it with a knot; Rabbi Shimon says: He may only form a bow. The Rabbis permit the preparations for a mitzva that could not have been performed before Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Shimon is stringent and prohibits even those preparations.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪砖诪注转 讗转 讛拽讜诇 讗诇讗 诪砖诇砖诇 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讻讜专讱 诪诇诪注诇讛 讗讜 诪砖诇砖诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讻讜专讱 诪诇诪讟讛

The Gemara continues its citation of the baraita. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if he ties a knot or a bow, the harp will not issue the proper sound, and he would therefore be committing a transgression without performing the mitzva in a fitting manner. Rather, he unwinds the string from the lower knob and winds it around the upper one, or he unwinds the string from the upper knob and winds it around the lower one, before tightening the string until it produces the proper note.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗诪爪注 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛爪讚

And if you wish, say instead that both sources were taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who permit preparations for a mitzva that could not have been performed the day before, and even so it is not difficult; here, the mishna permits tying in a case where the string was severed in the middle, in which case the sound would be affected if the string were reconnected with a bow, whereas there, the baraita is referring to a string that was severed on the side near the end of the string, which can be fixed with a bow.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讗诪爪注 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉:

And if you wish, say instead that both sources are referring to a case where the string snapped in the middle, and the issue at hand is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, maintains in the baraita that it is prohibited even to tie a knot in the middle, as a decree, lest one unnecessarily tie a knot on the side as well. And the other Sage, the Rabbis, maintains in the mishna that we do not issue a decree of this kind.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讜转讻讬谉 讬讘诇转 讘诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜讗诐 讘讻诇讬 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗住讜专:

MISHNA: A wart is an example of a blemish that temporarily disqualifies a priest from performing the Temple service, and disqualifies an animal from being offered on the altar; they regain their fitness once the wart is removed. Consequently, on Shabbat one may cut off a wart by hand in the Temple, as this constitutes a preparatory act required for the sacrificial service. However, he may not cut off a wart in the rest of the country. And if he seeks to cut off the wart with an instrument, it is prohibited in both places.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讻讬讘讜 讜讛讘讗转讜 诪讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讞转讬讻转 讬讘诇转讜 讗讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讚讜讞讬谉

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna: When Passover eve occurs on Shabbat, the acts of carrying a Paschal lamb on one鈥檚 shoulders, bringing it to the Temple from outside the Shabbat boundary, and cutting off its wart to render it fit for the altar, do not override the prohibitions of Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer, conforming to his standard opinion, says: They override the Shabbat prohibitions. The mishna in Eiruvin apparently contradicts the opinion of these Sages.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 (讘谉) 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘诇讞讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讚 讻讗谉 讘讻诇讬

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei ben 岣nina suggested different resolutions to this difficulty: One said that both sources are referring to a moist wart, and it is not difficult. Here, the mishna permits removing the wart by hand. It is prohibited by rabbinic decree, as that is not the usual manner of performing the procedure. Whereas there, the mishna prohibits removal of the wart with an instrument by Torah law.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讬讚 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诇讞讛 讛讗 讘讬讘讬砖讛

And the other one said that in both cases the wart is removed by hand, and it is not difficult. There, the mishna prohibits the removal of a moist wart, whereas here, the mishna is referring to a dry wart, the removal of which does not constitute a prohibited labor.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讗 讘讬讚 讛讗 讘讻诇讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讘诇讞讛 讛讗 讘讬讘讬砖讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讬讘讬砖讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 谞诪讬 砖专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬驻专讜讻讬 讗讬驻专讻讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And according to the one who said: This is referring to removal by hand, and that is referring to removal with an instrument; what is the reason that he did not say, as did his colleague: This is referring to a moist wart and that is referring to a dry one? The Gemara answers: He can say to you that with regard to a dry wart, it is permitted to remove it even with an instrument. What is the reason? As it crumbles on its own, cutting it is like cutting off dead skin.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讗 讘诇讞讛 讜讛讗 讘讬讘讬砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讘讬讚 讛讗 讘讻诇讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讘讻诇讬 讛讗 转谞谉 讗诐 讘讻诇讬 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗住讜专

And according to the one who said: This is referring to a moist wart and that is referring to a dry one, what is the reason that he did not say, like the other Sage: This is referring to removal by hand and that is referring to removal with an instrument? The Gemara answers: He can say to you that with regard to an instrument, we explicitly learned in the mishna: If he wishes to cut off the wart with an instrument, it is prohibited in both places. Consequently, it is unnecessary to teach again that it is prohibited to remove a wart with an instrument.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 讗讬驻诇讜讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉

And the other Sage, how does he respond to this contention? He can say that the other mishna teaches this halakha there because it wants to record the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis on this issue, i.e., to inform us that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and permits cutting off the wart even with an instrument.

讜讗讬讚讱 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛专讻讬讘讜 讜讛讘讗转讜 诪讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 拽转谞讬 讚专讘谞谉

And the other Sage, how does he counter this reasoning? He can say that the tanna teaches the case of the wart parallel to the cases of carrying the animal and bringing it to the Temple from outside the Shabbat boundary, activities that are prohibited by rabbinic law. Consequently, the ruling involving a wart is also referring to cutting that is prohibited by rabbinic law, i.e., cutting by hand, not with an instrument.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛专讻讬讘讜 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚讗诪专 讛讞讬 谞讜砖讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 讛讘讗转讜 诪讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

And the other Sage maintains that these cases also involve Torah prohibitions. How so? With regard to carrying the animal, the mishna was taught not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who said: A living being carries itself, which means that carrying an animal on one鈥檚 shoulders is not considered carrying by Torah law, and is prohibited by rabbinic law. If we do not accept this opinion, one who carries the Paschal lamb transgresses the Torah prohibition against carrying an object four cubits in the public domain. As for the case of bringing the animal from outside the Shabbat boundary, the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Bringing an animal from outside the Shabbat boundaries is prohibited by Torah law.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 诪诇讗讻讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诇讜 砖诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讚讞讜 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rav Yosef raised an objection against this explanation from a mishna. Rabbi Eliezer said that this halakha is an a fortiori inference: If slaughtering the Paschal lamb, which is prohibited due to the fact that it is a prohibited labor by Torah law, nonetheless overrides Shabbat in the Temple, with regard to these actions, i.e., carrying the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat boundary, and cutting off its wart, which are prohibited due to rabbinic decree, isn鈥檛 it right that they should override Shabbat? Evidently, the previous explanation must be rejected, as there too the mishna is referring to rabbinic prohibitions.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讬讚 讜砖讘讜转 诪拽讚砖 讘诪拽讚砖 讛转讬专讜 砖讘讜转 讚诪拽讚砖 讘诪讚讬谞讛 诇讗 讛转讬专讜

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Both sources are referring to a case where the wart is removed by hand, an activity that constitutes a rabbinic prohibition, and the contradiction can be resolved as follows: To transgress a rabbinic decree relating to the Temple within the confines of the Temple itself, they permitted doing so. However, to transgress a rabbinic decree relating to the Temple, in the country, they did not permit doing so. Consequently, although these procedures involving the Paschal lamb are prohibited due to rabbinic decree and are indeed related to the Temple service, since they are performed outside the Temple, the Sages did not permit their performance.

讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘住驻专 注诇 讛讗住拽讜驻讛 讜谞转讙诇讙诇 讛住驻专 诪讬讚讜 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚砖讘讜转 讚诪拽讚砖 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 谞驻讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬

Abaye sat with the scholars and recited this halakha in the name of Rav Yosef. Rav Safra raised an objection to the opinion cited by Abaye from a mishna: If one was reading a scroll of the Bible while sitting on the threshold of his house, and the scroll rolled out of his hand, i.e., while he was holding one end, the scroll rolled open into the public domain, he may roll the scroll back to himself. And here, isn鈥檛 it a rabbinic decree involving a sacred scroll, which due to its sanctity should have the legal status of a rabbinic decree relating to the Temple with regard to an incident that occurred in the country. And yet we do not issue a decree prohibiting one to roll the scroll back to himself, lest the scroll fall and he will forget and come to bring it in from the public domain to a private domain. Apparently, the Sages did not impose a rabbinic prohibition with regard to matters relating to the Temple, even outside the Temple compound.

讜诇讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘讗住拽讜驻讛 讻专诪诇讬转 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜讘专转 诇驻谞讬讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讙讚讜 讘讬讚讜 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘讜转 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗

Abaye refutes this contention: Didn鈥檛 we already establish this mishna as referring to a threshold that is a karmelit, e.g., one that is four handbreadths wide but less than ten handbreadths high, and before which the public domain passes? As he holds one end of the scroll in his hand, it is not prohibited even by rabbinic decree. The reason is that even if the scroll fell from his hand and rolled into the public domain, and he were to carry it back from the public domain to the karmelit, he would not transgress a Torah prohibition.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诪砖诇砖诇讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 诇转谞讜专 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚砖讘讜转 讚诪拽讚砖 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬讞转讛 讘讙讞诇讬诐

Rav Safra raised an objection from a different mishna: One may lower the Paschal lamb into the oven on Shabbat eve just before nightfall, after its blood is sprinkled and it is brought outside the Temple for roasting. But here we are dealing with a violation of a rabbinic decree relating to the Temple that occurred in the country, and yet we do not issue a decree against lowering the sacrifice into the oven at that late hour lest one rake the coals to hasten the cooking. Once again, the mishna indicates that the Sages did not issue a rabbinic decree prohibiting an action related to the Temple service, even outside the Temple.

讗讬砖转讬拽 讻讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛谉

Abaye was silent and did not answer. When he came before Rav Yosef, he said to him: This is what Rav Safra said to me, contrary to your approach. Rav Yosef said to him: What is the reason that you didn鈥檛 answer him: Members of a group who joined together to prepare and partake of a single Paschal lamb, which, like all sacrifices, requires careful attention, are certainly vigilant and exacting in the performance of this mitzva. Consequently, there is less concern that they might commit a transgression than with regard to people in other circumstances. However, other rabbinic decrees relating to the Temple remain in effect outside the Temple.

讜讗讘讬讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛谉 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara comments: And as for Abaye, why did he not accept this reasoning? He maintains that we say that only priests are vigilant, as they are constantly involved in the Temple service, and they will therefore not mistakenly commit a transgression. However, that members of a group of people who join together for a single Paschal lamb are vigilant, we do not say. As they are not accustomed to that level of watchfulness, they might forget.

专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诪砖谞讬谞谉

Rava stated a different resolution of the contradiction between the two mishnayot: The mishna which permits the cutting of a wart, is according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said that the preparations for the performance of a mitzva override the prohibitions of Shabbat, and it is therefore permitted to cut the wart by hand. And if you say that in that case one should be permitted to do so with an instrument as well, Rabbi Eliezer concedes that as much as it is possible to alter the manner in which a procedure is performed to prevent violation of a Torah prohibition, we alter it, to emphasize that the day is Shabbat.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讛谉 砖注诇转讛 讘讜 讬讘诇转 讞讘讬专讜 讞讜转讻讛 诇讜 讘砖讬谞讬讜 讘砖讬谞讬讜 讗讬谉 讘讻诇讬 诇讗 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 讗讬讛讜 诇讗

What is the source for this idea? As it was taught in a baraita: If a priest grew a wart, which temporarily disqualifies him from performing the service, his fellow priest may cut it off for him on Shabbat with his teeth. The Gemara infers: With his teeth, yes, this is permitted; but with an instrument, no, he may not do so. Likewise, for his fellow priest, yes, he may cut off his wart; but he himself, no, he may not cut off his own wart.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讜讘诪拽讚砖 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讘注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讛讻讗 诪讛 诇讬 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara inquires: According to whose opinion was this baraita taught? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the leniency is based on the principle that a rabbinic prohibition does not apply in the Temple, since the Rabbis say in general that biting off even one鈥檚 own nails or wart, and certainly those of another, is prohibited due to rabbinic decree, then in this case here, what is the difference to me whether it is the priest himself who cuts off the wart, or what is the difference to me whether it is another priest who cuts it off?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讛讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诪砖谞讬谞谉

Rather, wasn鈥檛 it taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that in general one is liable to bring a sin-offering for biting off his own nails or wart? And here, even though he maintains that preparations for a mitzva override the prohibitions of Shabbat, and it should therefore be permitted for him to cut off his own wart with an instrument, nevertheless, as much as it is possible to alter the procedure so that it does not entail the violation of a Torah prohibition, one alters, and biting off another person鈥檚 wart is prohibited due to rabbinic decree, not Torah law.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 注诇转讛 讘讻专讬住讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is not necessarily the case. Actually, this baraita can be explained in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and if the wart grew on his abdomen, or anywhere else easily removable by hand, so too, it is clear that according to the Rabbis there is no difference between himself and his fellow priest, and he may remove it himself.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注诇转讛 诇讜 谞砖讬讻讛 讘讙讘讜 讜讘讗爪讬诇讬 讬讚讬讜 讚讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诪爪讬 砖拽讬诇 诇讛

However, here, we are dealing with a case where, the priest received a bite that developed into a wart on his back or on his elbow, from where he himself cannot remove it, but someone else can.

讜讗讬 专讘谞谉 谞砖拽诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讬讚 讜转驻砖讜讟 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讬讚 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: But if the baraita reflects the opinion of the Rabbis, the other priest should be permitted to remove the wart from him by hand, rather than with an instrument, and therefore one should resolve the dilemma in accordance with the teaching of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the removal of one鈥檚 nails is limited to one who removed them by hand, but if he removed them with an instrument, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 诇讬砖拽诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讬讚 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讙讝专 讬讚 讗讟讜 讻诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 谞砖拽诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讬讚 讜转讜 诇讗 诪讬讚讬:

The Gemara rejects this argument: And according to your reasoning, Rabbi Eliezer should also agree that he should be permitted to remove it for him by hand. The Gemara expresses surprise at this comment: What is the nature of this contention? Granted, if you say that it was taught in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, this is why removing the wart by hand was decreed prohibited due to a preventive measure, lest he remove it with an instrument, as he maintains that removing a wart with an instrument is prohibited by the Torah. However, if you say it is according to the opinion of the Rabbis, he should be permitted to remove it for him by hand. And nothing more need be said, as it is clear that the baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讛谉 砖诇拽讛 讘讗爪讘注讜 讻讜专讱 注诇讬讛 讙诪讬 讘诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讗诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讚诐 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗住讜专:

MISHNA: With regard to a priest who was injured on his finger on Shabbat, he may temporarily wrap it with a reed so that his wound is not visible while he is serving in the Temple. This leniency applies in the Temple, but not in the country, as it also heals the wound, and medical treatment is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree. If his intention is to draw blood from the wound or to absorb blood, it is prohibited in both places.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讙诪讬 讗讘诇 爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 讛讜讬 讬转讜专 讘讙讚讬诐

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi 岣yya, said: They taught that only a reed is permitted. However, a small sash is prohibited, as it would be considered an extra garment, and it is prohibited for a priest to add to the priestly garments prescribed by the Torah.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讬转讜专 讘讙讚讬诐 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 讬转讜专 讘讙讚讬诐

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They said that donning an extra garment is prohibited only if it is worn in a place on the priest鈥檚 body where the priestly garments are worn. But in a place where those garments are not worn, e.g., on his hand or the like, a sash that is tied there is not considered an extra garment.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讘砖诪讗诇

The Gemara asks: And let him derive that both the reed and the sash are prohibited as an interposition. As the reed and sash interpose between the priest鈥檚 hand and the holy vessel, they should invalidate the service. The Gemara rejects this contention: Perhaps the wound is on the priest鈥檚 left hand, while the entire service is performed exclusively with his right hand. Consequently, a bandage on his left hand is not an interposition.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讬诪讬谉 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 注讘讜讚讛

Alternatively, it is possible that the wound is on the priest鈥檚 right hand, but not in a place used in the service, which means the bandage does not interpose between his hand and the holy vessels used in the Temple service.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讬诪讗 讗讞转 讞讜爪爪转 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讞讜爪爪讜转 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讗讬谞谉 讞讜爪爪讜转

And this conclusion disputes the opinion of Rava, as Rava said that Rav 岣sda said: In a place on the priest鈥檚 body where the priestly garments are worn, even one extra thread interposes and is prohibited, whereas in a place where the priestly garments are not worn, if the fabric was three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it interposes, but if it was less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it does not interpose.

讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讚讗讬 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讬 谞讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗

The Gemara comments: This teaching certainly disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as he maintains that the prohibition against interpositions does not apply at all in a place on the priest鈥檚 body where the priestly garments are not worn. However, shall we say that it also disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi 岣yya, who prohibits even a sash smaller than three by three fingerbreadths?

砖讗谞讬 爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 讚讞砖讬讘

The Gemara answers: Nothing can be proven from here, as a small sash is different, since it is significant, and it is therefore considered a garment even if it is less than three by three fingerbreadths.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讙诪讬 讗讘诇 爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 讞讜爪抓

According to another version, they reported this dispute as follows: Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi 岣yya, said that they taught this leniency only with regard to a reed, but that a small sash interposes.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讞爪讬爪讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They said that there is interposition with regard to an article that is less than three by three fingerbreadths only in a place where the priestly garments are worn. However, in a place where the priestly garments are not worn, the following distinction applies:

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 101-105 and Pesachim 2-3 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will be finishing Tractate Eruvin. After an introduction to Tractate Pesachim we will learn the first two...
Architecture during the time of the Talmud- by Amy Cohn for Hadran's Siyum Masechet Eruvin

Architecture During the Time of the Talmud- by Amy Cohn

Watch architect Amy Cohn's full presentation from Hadran's Siyum Masechet Eruvin https://youtu.be/QhuZzfg3vRA

Eruvin 103

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 103

讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 谞诪讬

If he stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, why did he permit tying a bow only after the fact? It should also be permitted even ab initio, as Rabbi Eliezer maintains that preparations required for the performance of a mitzva override the prohibitions of Shabbat.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖谞驻住拽讛 诇讜 谞讬诪讗 讘讻谞讜专 拽讜砖专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讜谞讘讛

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation: It is not difficult; this baraita that deems tying prohibited is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while that mishna that rules that tying is permitted, is according to the opinion of the Rabbis. As it was taught in a baraita: If a string of the Levite鈥檚 harp was severed on Shabbat, he may tie it with a knot; Rabbi Shimon says: He may only form a bow. The Rabbis permit the preparations for a mitzva that could not have been performed before Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Shimon is stringent and prohibits even those preparations.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 诪砖诪注转 讗转 讛拽讜诇 讗诇讗 诪砖诇砖诇 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讻讜专讱 诪诇诪注诇讛 讗讜 诪砖诇砖诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讻讜专讱 诪诇诪讟讛

The Gemara continues its citation of the baraita. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if he ties a knot or a bow, the harp will not issue the proper sound, and he would therefore be committing a transgression without performing the mitzva in a fitting manner. Rather, he unwinds the string from the lower knob and winds it around the upper one, or he unwinds the string from the upper knob and winds it around the lower one, before tightening the string until it produces the proper note.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗诪爪注 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛爪讚

And if you wish, say instead that both sources were taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who permit preparations for a mitzva that could not have been performed the day before, and even so it is not difficult; here, the mishna permits tying in a case where the string was severed in the middle, in which case the sound would be affected if the string were reconnected with a bow, whereas there, the baraita is referring to a string that was severed on the side near the end of the string, which can be fixed with a bow.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讗诪爪注 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉:

And if you wish, say instead that both sources are referring to a case where the string snapped in the middle, and the issue at hand is subject to a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, maintains in the baraita that it is prohibited even to tie a knot in the middle, as a decree, lest one unnecessarily tie a knot on the side as well. And the other Sage, the Rabbis, maintains in the mishna that we do not issue a decree of this kind.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讜转讻讬谉 讬讘诇转 讘诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜讗诐 讘讻诇讬 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗住讜专:

MISHNA: A wart is an example of a blemish that temporarily disqualifies a priest from performing the Temple service, and disqualifies an animal from being offered on the altar; they regain their fitness once the wart is removed. Consequently, on Shabbat one may cut off a wart by hand in the Temple, as this constitutes a preparatory act required for the sacrificial service. However, he may not cut off a wart in the rest of the country. And if he seeks to cut off the wart with an instrument, it is prohibited in both places.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讻讬讘讜 讜讛讘讗转讜 诪讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讞转讬讻转 讬讘诇转讜 讗讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讚讜讞讬谉

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna: When Passover eve occurs on Shabbat, the acts of carrying a Paschal lamb on one鈥檚 shoulders, bringing it to the Temple from outside the Shabbat boundary, and cutting off its wart to render it fit for the altar, do not override the prohibitions of Shabbat. Rabbi Eliezer, conforming to his standard opinion, says: They override the Shabbat prohibitions. The mishna in Eiruvin apparently contradicts the opinion of these Sages.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 (讘谉) 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘诇讞讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讚 讻讗谉 讘讻诇讬

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei ben 岣nina suggested different resolutions to this difficulty: One said that both sources are referring to a moist wart, and it is not difficult. Here, the mishna permits removing the wart by hand. It is prohibited by rabbinic decree, as that is not the usual manner of performing the procedure. Whereas there, the mishna prohibits removal of the wart with an instrument by Torah law.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讬讚 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诇讞讛 讛讗 讘讬讘讬砖讛

And the other one said that in both cases the wart is removed by hand, and it is not difficult. There, the mishna prohibits the removal of a moist wart, whereas here, the mishna is referring to a dry wart, the removal of which does not constitute a prohibited labor.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讗 讘讬讚 讛讗 讘讻诇讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讘诇讞讛 讛讗 讘讬讘讬砖讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讬讘讬砖讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻诇讬 谞诪讬 砖专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬驻专讜讻讬 讗讬驻专讻讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And according to the one who said: This is referring to removal by hand, and that is referring to removal with an instrument; what is the reason that he did not say, as did his colleague: This is referring to a moist wart and that is referring to a dry one? The Gemara answers: He can say to you that with regard to a dry wart, it is permitted to remove it even with an instrument. What is the reason? As it crumbles on its own, cutting it is like cutting off dead skin.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讗 讘诇讞讛 讜讛讗 讘讬讘讬砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讘讬讚 讛讗 讘讻诇讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讘讻诇讬 讛讗 转谞谉 讗诐 讘讻诇讬 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗住讜专

And according to the one who said: This is referring to a moist wart and that is referring to a dry one, what is the reason that he did not say, like the other Sage: This is referring to removal by hand and that is referring to removal with an instrument? The Gemara answers: He can say to you that with regard to an instrument, we explicitly learned in the mishna: If he wishes to cut off the wart with an instrument, it is prohibited in both places. Consequently, it is unnecessary to teach again that it is prohibited to remove a wart with an instrument.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 讗讬驻诇讜讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉

And the other Sage, how does he respond to this contention? He can say that the other mishna teaches this halakha there because it wants to record the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis on this issue, i.e., to inform us that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and permits cutting off the wart even with an instrument.

讜讗讬讚讱 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛专讻讬讘讜 讜讛讘讗转讜 诪讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 拽转谞讬 讚专讘谞谉

And the other Sage, how does he counter this reasoning? He can say that the tanna teaches the case of the wart parallel to the cases of carrying the animal and bringing it to the Temple from outside the Shabbat boundary, activities that are prohibited by rabbinic law. Consequently, the ruling involving a wart is also referring to cutting that is prohibited by rabbinic law, i.e., cutting by hand, not with an instrument.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛专讻讬讘讜 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚讗诪专 讛讞讬 谞讜砖讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 讛讘讗转讜 诪讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

And the other Sage maintains that these cases also involve Torah prohibitions. How so? With regard to carrying the animal, the mishna was taught not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who said: A living being carries itself, which means that carrying an animal on one鈥檚 shoulders is not considered carrying by Torah law, and is prohibited by rabbinic law. If we do not accept this opinion, one who carries the Paschal lamb transgresses the Torah prohibition against carrying an object four cubits in the public domain. As for the case of bringing the animal from outside the Shabbat boundary, the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Bringing an animal from outside the Shabbat boundaries is prohibited by Torah law.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 诪诇讗讻讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诇讜 砖诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讚讞讜 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rav Yosef raised an objection against this explanation from a mishna. Rabbi Eliezer said that this halakha is an a fortiori inference: If slaughtering the Paschal lamb, which is prohibited due to the fact that it is a prohibited labor by Torah law, nonetheless overrides Shabbat in the Temple, with regard to these actions, i.e., carrying the animal, bringing it from outside the Shabbat boundary, and cutting off its wart, which are prohibited due to rabbinic decree, isn鈥檛 it right that they should override Shabbat? Evidently, the previous explanation must be rejected, as there too the mishna is referring to rabbinic prohibitions.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讬讚 讜砖讘讜转 诪拽讚砖 讘诪拽讚砖 讛转讬专讜 砖讘讜转 讚诪拽讚砖 讘诪讚讬谞讛 诇讗 讛转讬专讜

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Both sources are referring to a case where the wart is removed by hand, an activity that constitutes a rabbinic prohibition, and the contradiction can be resolved as follows: To transgress a rabbinic decree relating to the Temple within the confines of the Temple itself, they permitted doing so. However, to transgress a rabbinic decree relating to the Temple, in the country, they did not permit doing so. Consequently, although these procedures involving the Paschal lamb are prohibited due to rabbinic decree and are indeed related to the Temple service, since they are performed outside the Temple, the Sages did not permit their performance.

讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘住驻专 注诇 讛讗住拽讜驻讛 讜谞转讙诇讙诇 讛住驻专 诪讬讚讜 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚砖讘讜转 讚诪拽讚砖 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 谞驻讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬

Abaye sat with the scholars and recited this halakha in the name of Rav Yosef. Rav Safra raised an objection to the opinion cited by Abaye from a mishna: If one was reading a scroll of the Bible while sitting on the threshold of his house, and the scroll rolled out of his hand, i.e., while he was holding one end, the scroll rolled open into the public domain, he may roll the scroll back to himself. And here, isn鈥檛 it a rabbinic decree involving a sacred scroll, which due to its sanctity should have the legal status of a rabbinic decree relating to the Temple with regard to an incident that occurred in the country. And yet we do not issue a decree prohibiting one to roll the scroll back to himself, lest the scroll fall and he will forget and come to bring it in from the public domain to a private domain. Apparently, the Sages did not impose a rabbinic prohibition with regard to matters relating to the Temple, even outside the Temple compound.

讜诇讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讘讗住拽讜驻讛 讻专诪诇讬转 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜讘专转 诇驻谞讬讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讙讚讜 讘讬讚讜 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘讜转 谞诪讬 诇讬讻讗

Abaye refutes this contention: Didn鈥檛 we already establish this mishna as referring to a threshold that is a karmelit, e.g., one that is four handbreadths wide but less than ten handbreadths high, and before which the public domain passes? As he holds one end of the scroll in his hand, it is not prohibited even by rabbinic decree. The reason is that even if the scroll fell from his hand and rolled into the public domain, and he were to carry it back from the public domain to the karmelit, he would not transgress a Torah prohibition.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诪砖诇砖诇讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讞 诇转谞讜专 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚砖讘讜转 讚诪拽讚砖 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬讞转讛 讘讙讞诇讬诐

Rav Safra raised an objection from a different mishna: One may lower the Paschal lamb into the oven on Shabbat eve just before nightfall, after its blood is sprinkled and it is brought outside the Temple for roasting. But here we are dealing with a violation of a rabbinic decree relating to the Temple that occurred in the country, and yet we do not issue a decree against lowering the sacrifice into the oven at that late hour lest one rake the coals to hasten the cooking. Once again, the mishna indicates that the Sages did not issue a rabbinic decree prohibiting an action related to the Temple service, even outside the Temple.

讗讬砖转讬拽 讻讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛谉

Abaye was silent and did not answer. When he came before Rav Yosef, he said to him: This is what Rav Safra said to me, contrary to your approach. Rav Yosef said to him: What is the reason that you didn鈥檛 answer him: Members of a group who joined together to prepare and partake of a single Paschal lamb, which, like all sacrifices, requires careful attention, are certainly vigilant and exacting in the performance of this mitzva. Consequently, there is less concern that they might commit a transgression than with regard to people in other circumstances. However, other rabbinic decrees relating to the Temple remain in effect outside the Temple.

讜讗讘讬讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛谉 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara comments: And as for Abaye, why did he not accept this reasoning? He maintains that we say that only priests are vigilant, as they are constantly involved in the Temple service, and they will therefore not mistakenly commit a transgression. However, that members of a group of people who join together for a single Paschal lamb are vigilant, we do not say. As they are not accustomed to that level of watchfulness, they might forget.

专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诪砖谞讬谞谉

Rava stated a different resolution of the contradiction between the two mishnayot: The mishna which permits the cutting of a wart, is according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said that the preparations for the performance of a mitzva override the prohibitions of Shabbat, and it is therefore permitted to cut the wart by hand. And if you say that in that case one should be permitted to do so with an instrument as well, Rabbi Eliezer concedes that as much as it is possible to alter the manner in which a procedure is performed to prevent violation of a Torah prohibition, we alter it, to emphasize that the day is Shabbat.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讛谉 砖注诇转讛 讘讜 讬讘诇转 讞讘讬专讜 讞讜转讻讛 诇讜 讘砖讬谞讬讜 讘砖讬谞讬讜 讗讬谉 讘讻诇讬 诇讗 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬谉 讗讬讛讜 诇讗

What is the source for this idea? As it was taught in a baraita: If a priest grew a wart, which temporarily disqualifies him from performing the service, his fellow priest may cut it off for him on Shabbat with his teeth. The Gemara infers: With his teeth, yes, this is permitted; but with an instrument, no, he may not do so. Likewise, for his fellow priest, yes, he may cut off his wart; but he himself, no, he may not cut off his own wart.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讜讘诪拽讚砖 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讘注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讛讻讗 诪讛 诇讬 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara inquires: According to whose opinion was this baraita taught? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the leniency is based on the principle that a rabbinic prohibition does not apply in the Temple, since the Rabbis say in general that biting off even one鈥檚 own nails or wart, and certainly those of another, is prohibited due to rabbinic decree, then in this case here, what is the difference to me whether it is the priest himself who cuts off the wart, or what is the difference to me whether it is another priest who cuts it off?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讛讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诪砖谞讬谞谉

Rather, wasn鈥檛 it taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that in general one is liable to bring a sin-offering for biting off his own nails or wart? And here, even though he maintains that preparations for a mitzva override the prohibitions of Shabbat, and it should therefore be permitted for him to cut off his own wart with an instrument, nevertheless, as much as it is possible to alter the procedure so that it does not entail the violation of a Torah prohibition, one alters, and biting off another person鈥檚 wart is prohibited due to rabbinic decree, not Torah law.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 注诇转讛 讘讻专讬住讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is not necessarily the case. Actually, this baraita can be explained in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and if the wart grew on his abdomen, or anywhere else easily removable by hand, so too, it is clear that according to the Rabbis there is no difference between himself and his fellow priest, and he may remove it himself.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注诇转讛 诇讜 谞砖讬讻讛 讘讙讘讜 讜讘讗爪讬诇讬 讬讚讬讜 讚讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诪爪讬 砖拽讬诇 诇讛

However, here, we are dealing with a case where, the priest received a bite that developed into a wart on his back or on his elbow, from where he himself cannot remove it, but someone else can.

讜讗讬 专讘谞谉 谞砖拽诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讬讚 讜转驻砖讜讟 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讬讚 讗讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: But if the baraita reflects the opinion of the Rabbis, the other priest should be permitted to remove the wart from him by hand, rather than with an instrument, and therefore one should resolve the dilemma in accordance with the teaching of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the removal of one鈥檚 nails is limited to one who removed them by hand, but if he removed them with an instrument, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 诇讬砖拽诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讬讚 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讙讝专 讬讚 讗讟讜 讻诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 谞砖拽诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讬讚 讜转讜 诇讗 诪讬讚讬:

The Gemara rejects this argument: And according to your reasoning, Rabbi Eliezer should also agree that he should be permitted to remove it for him by hand. The Gemara expresses surprise at this comment: What is the nature of this contention? Granted, if you say that it was taught in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, this is why removing the wart by hand was decreed prohibited due to a preventive measure, lest he remove it with an instrument, as he maintains that removing a wart with an instrument is prohibited by the Torah. However, if you say it is according to the opinion of the Rabbis, he should be permitted to remove it for him by hand. And nothing more need be said, as it is clear that the baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讛谉 砖诇拽讛 讘讗爪讘注讜 讻讜专讱 注诇讬讛 讙诪讬 讘诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讗诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讚诐 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗住讜专:

MISHNA: With regard to a priest who was injured on his finger on Shabbat, he may temporarily wrap it with a reed so that his wound is not visible while he is serving in the Temple. This leniency applies in the Temple, but not in the country, as it also heals the wound, and medical treatment is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree. If his intention is to draw blood from the wound or to absorb blood, it is prohibited in both places.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讙诪讬 讗讘诇 爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 讛讜讬 讬转讜专 讘讙讚讬诐

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi 岣yya, said: They taught that only a reed is permitted. However, a small sash is prohibited, as it would be considered an extra garment, and it is prohibited for a priest to add to the priestly garments prescribed by the Torah.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讬转讜专 讘讙讚讬诐 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 讬转讜专 讘讙讚讬诐

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They said that donning an extra garment is prohibited only if it is worn in a place on the priest鈥檚 body where the priestly garments are worn. But in a place where those garments are not worn, e.g., on his hand or the like, a sash that is tied there is not considered an extra garment.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬爪讛 讘砖诪讗诇

The Gemara asks: And let him derive that both the reed and the sash are prohibited as an interposition. As the reed and sash interpose between the priest鈥檚 hand and the holy vessel, they should invalidate the service. The Gemara rejects this contention: Perhaps the wound is on the priest鈥檚 left hand, while the entire service is performed exclusively with his right hand. Consequently, a bandage on his left hand is not an interposition.

讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讬诪讬谉 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 注讘讜讚讛

Alternatively, it is possible that the wound is on the priest鈥檚 right hand, but not in a place used in the service, which means the bandage does not interpose between his hand and the holy vessels used in the Temple service.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讬诪讗 讗讞转 讞讜爪爪转 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讞讜爪爪讜转 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讗讬谞谉 讞讜爪爪讜转

And this conclusion disputes the opinion of Rava, as Rava said that Rav 岣sda said: In a place on the priest鈥檚 body where the priestly garments are worn, even one extra thread interposes and is prohibited, whereas in a place where the priestly garments are not worn, if the fabric was three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it interposes, but if it was less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it does not interpose.

讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讚讗讬 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讬 谞讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗

The Gemara comments: This teaching certainly disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as he maintains that the prohibition against interpositions does not apply at all in a place on the priest鈥檚 body where the priestly garments are not worn. However, shall we say that it also disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi 岣yya, who prohibits even a sash smaller than three by three fingerbreadths?

砖讗谞讬 爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 讚讞砖讬讘

The Gemara answers: Nothing can be proven from here, as a small sash is different, since it is significant, and it is therefore considered a garment even if it is less than three by three fingerbreadths.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讙诪讬 讗讘诇 爪诇爪讜诇 拽讟谉 讞讜爪抓

According to another version, they reported this dispute as follows: Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi 岣yya, said that they taught this leniency only with regard to a reed, but that a small sash interposes.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讞爪讬爪讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘诇 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘讙讚讬诐

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They said that there is interposition with regard to an article that is less than three by three fingerbreadths only in a place where the priestly garments are worn. However, in a place where the priestly garments are not worn, the following distinction applies:

Scroll To Top