עירובין 103 — Soncino English Talmud

¹If he made It according to the view of R. Eliezer, should not this be permitted also for the first time? — Rather say: There is no difficulty since the latter represents the view of R. Simeon while the former represents that of the Rabbis. For it was taught: if a Levite had a break in the string of his harp he may tie it up; R. Simeon ruled: He may only make a loop; R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Neither the one nor the other would produce a tone; one should rather unwind the string from the lower pin and wind it round the upper one or unwind it from the upper pin and wind it round the lower one. And if you prefer I might reply: The former as well as the latter represents the view of the Rabbis, and yet there is no difficulty, since the former refers to a break in the middle while the latter refers to one at the end. And if you prefer I might reply: Both refer to a break in the middle part, but the Master holds that a preventive measure is enacted, while the Masters hold that no preventive measure is to be enacted. MISHNAH. A WEN MAY BE REMOVED IN THE TEMPLE BUT NOT IN THE COUNTRY. IF [THE OPERATION, HOWEVER, MUST BE PERFORMED] WITH AN INSTRUMENT IT IS FORBIDDEN EVERYWHERE. GEMARA. Is not this inconsistent with the following: Carrying it, bringing it from without the permitted Sabbath limit, and removing its wen do not supersede the Sabbath, and R. Eliezer ruled: They do supersede it? — R. Eleazar and R. Jose son of R. Hanina gave different explanations. One Master explains that both rulings refer to a soft wen and yet there is no difficulty, since the former deals with removal by the hand while the latter deals with removal by means of an instrument. And the other Master explains that both rulings refer to removal with the hand, and yet there is no difficulty, since the latter refers to a soft wen while the former refers to a dry one. But according to him who explained that the former dealt with removal by the hand while the latter dealt with removal by means of an instrument, what was his reason for not explaining that the latter dealt with a soft wen and the former with a dry one? — He can answer you: A dry one may be removed even by means of an instrument. What is the reason? Because It merely crumbles away. And according to him who explained that the latter referred to a soft wen while the former referred to a dry one, what was his reason for not explaining that the former referred to removal by hand and the litter to an operation by means of an instrument? — He can answer you: Concerning an instrument we have explicitly learnt: IF [THE OPERATION, HOWEVER, MUST BE PERFORMED] WITH AN INSTRUMENT IT IS FORBIDDEN EVERYWHERE. And the other? — The reason why the ruling was taught there is because it was desired to indicate the divergence of opinion between R. Eliezer and the Rabbis. And the other? — The ruling must be similar to that of ‘carrying it’ or ‘bringing it from without the permitted Sabbath limit’ which is only a Rabbinical restriction. And the other? — As regards ‘carrying it’ he is not in agreement with R. Nathan who holds that a living being carries its own self; and as regards ‘bringing it from without the permitted Sabbath limit’, he is in agreement with R. Akiba who holds that the laws relating to Sabbath limits are Pentateuchal. R. Joseph raised an objection: R. Eliezer argued, May not this be inferred a minori ad majus? If slaughtering which is forbidden under the category of work supersedes the Sabbath, how much more so should these, which come only under the category of shebuth, supersede the Sabbath? — Rather, said R. Joseph, both deal with removal by hand but a shebuth relating to the Temple within the Temple has been permitted whereas a shebuth relating to the Temple in the country has not been permitted. Abaye once sat at his studies and discoursed on this statement when R. Safra pointed out to him the following objection: If a man was reading in a scroll on a threshold and the scroll rolled out of his hand, he may roll it back to himself. Now is it not the case here one of a shebuth relating to the Temple in the country and yet no preventive measure has been enacted against the possibility that the scroll might fall down completely and the man might then carry it? — Have we not explained this case as dealing with ‘a threshold that was a karmelith in front of which passed a public domain’, so that, since its rolled up section was still in his hand, even the prohibition of shebuth does not exist. He raised a further objection against him: The paschal lamb may be lowered into the oven at dusk. Now is not the case here one of a shebuth relating to the Temple in the country and yet no preventive measure was enacted against the possibility that the man might stir up the coals? Thereupon he remained silent. When he? came to R. Joseph and told him ‘Thus said R. Safra to me, the latter asked him: Why did you not answer him, ‘The members of a [paschal lamb] party are careful’? — And Abaye? — We only presume that priests are careful, but we do not presume that the members of a [paschal lamb] party are also careful. Raba explained: This represents the view of R. Eliezer who ruled that the preliminary requisites of a precept supersede the Sabbath, R. Eliezer however, agreeing that a change should be made as far as this is possible.83^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ

^ᵃnote:He could not do so according to the Rabbis who do not permit a knot in either case.
^ᵇnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘it also’, the loop like the knot.
^ᵈnote:Discarding the shorter section of the broken string.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘lowers from below’, sc. from the lower pin of the harp.
^ᶠnote:Having obtained sufficient length.
^ᵍnote:At the other end.
^ʰnote:Thus obtaining a sound length of string free from knots or loops. As the lowering of the string is no more forbidden than tying it, the former, which enables the tone to be produced, is to be preferred. Our Mishnah thus represents the view of the Rabbis of the Baraitha who, agreeing with R. Eliezer on one point, that preliminary requisites of a precept supersede the Sabbath, permit the tying up of the string on the Sabbath; but disagreeing with him that such an act is permitted for the first time, permit it only where the break occurred on the Sabbath.
^ⁱnote:That preliminary requisites which could not be prepared before the Sabbath may he prepared on the Sabbath.
^ʲnote:Of the string, when a knot is essential. A loop would not be strong enough. Hence the ruling that A STRING MAY BE TIED UP.
^ᵏnote:Lit., ‘at the side’, near the pin, where a loop suffices to hold the string in position.
^ˡnote:R. Simeon the author of the Baraitha.
^ᵐnote:Though Pentateuchally permitted.
^ⁿnote:Sc. were a knot to be permitted in the middle someone might make one at the ends also.
^ᵒnote:The Rabbis, the authors of our Mishnah.
^ᵖnote:Hence the ruling that only a loop may be made but not a knot.
^ᵠnote:On an animal intended as a sacrifice. Cf. Lev. XXII, 22: . . . having a wen . . . ye shall not offer . . . unto the Lord.
^ʳnote:With the hand. Lit., ‘cut’.
^ˢnote:In order to enable the sacrifice to be offered. The removal of a wen with one's fingers on the Sabbath is only Rabbinically forbidden as a preventive measure and no such measures have been enacted in the case of the Temple.
^ᵗnote:Where Its removal would not facilitate the performance of any precept.
^ᵘnote:Since all operation performed with aid Instrument Is one of the main classes of work which is forbidden on the Sabbath even in the Temple.
^ᵛnote:The anonymous ruling that A WEN MAY BE SCRAPED OFF IN THE TEMPLE.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘causing it to ride’, sc. carrying the paschal lamb on one's shoulder beyond four cubits in a public domain on the Sabbath when the Passover eve falls on that day.
^ˣnote:Pes. 65b. How then is the anonymous ruling here, which forbids the scraping of a wen on the Sabbath to be reconciled with the anonymous ruling in our Mishnah which permits it?
^ʸnote:Var. lec. ‘Eliezer’.
^ᶻnote:So MS.M. and marg. glos. Cur..ed. omit the ‘R.’ before Hanina and insert ‘son’ in parenthesis.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit., ‘that and that about a moist one’.
^ᵃᵇnote:While the latter is forbidden as work the former is permitted.
^ᵃᶜnote:The removal of which is deemed to be work forbidden on the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵈnote:Which crumbles away and its removal cannot, therefore, be regarded as forbidden work.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘if with an instrument, we have surely’.
^ᵃᶠnote:And there is, therefore, no need to repeat the same anonymous ruling in the Mishnah, cited from Pesahim.
^ᵃᵍnote:How can he maintain his explanation in view of this argument?
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., that R. Eliezer allows the use of an instrument also.
^ᵃⁱnote:Concerning the removal of the wen in the Mishnah of Pes.
^ᵃʲnote:Lit., ‘similar to . . . he learned’.
^ᵃᵏnote:It could not, therefore, refer to an operation by means of an instrument which is Pentateuchally forbidden on the Sabbath.
^ᵃˡnote:In maintaining that the carrying on the Sabbath of a living creature is only Rabbinically forbidden.
^ᵃᵐnote:Shab. 94a. Disagreeing with R. Nathan he maintains that such carrying is forbidden Pentateuchally.
^ᵃⁿnote:Sot. 27b. As the two rulings of ‘carrying’ and ‘bringing’ embody Pentateuchal prohibitions the third one, that relating to the wen, must also be Pentateuchal.
^ᵃᵒnote:Against the anonymous ruling in the Mishnah of Pesahim under discussion.
^ᵃᵖnote:His statement that the acts enumerated in the anonymous ruling do supersede the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵠnote:In the case of all ordinary beast.
^ᵃʳnote:Sc. work forbidden on the Sabbath under pentateuchal law.
^ᵃˢnote:The acts enumerated in the anonymous Mishnah, of Pes.
^ᵃᵗnote:Which shows that the prohibitions in the anonymous ruling, including that against the removal of the wen, are merely Rabbinical. How then could anyone maintain that the removal of a wen is a Pentateuchal prohibition?
^ᵃᵘnote:Our Mishnah as well as that cited from Pes. 65b.
^ᵃᵛnote:Of a soft wen (v. next n.).
^ᵃʷnote:Our Mishnah, therefore, cannot refer to a dry wen since such may be removed even by means of an instrument.
^ᵃˣnote:As to the apparent condition between the two Mishnahs.
^ᵃʸnote:Such as the removal of a soft wen with one's hand.
^ᵃᶻnote:Sc. one relating to sacrifices.
^ᵇᵃnote:If a wen, for instance, was found on a regular daily offering which is examined within the Temple.
^ᵇᵇnote:The removal of a wen from the paschal lamb which, though the animal is ultimately brought into the Temple, is first examined at its owner's home.
^ᵇᶜnote:Of R. Joseph.
^ᵇᵈnote:Supra 97b q.v. notes.
^ᵇᵉnote:Since the scroll, as explained Supra, was one containing a holy Scriptural text.
^ᵇᶠnote:The Temple is holy and so also are the Scriptures.
^ᵇᵍnote:Sc. outside the Temple.
^ᵇʰnote:Forbidding the rolling hack of the scroll.
^ᵇⁱnote:Not even one of its ends remaining in the reader's hand.
^ᵇʲnote:How then could R. Joseph maintain that a ‘shebuth of the Temple’ was not permitted in the country?
^ᵇᵏnote:Supra 98a.
^ᵇˡnote:Lit., ‘its knot’, ‘bunch’.
^ᵇᵐnote:Lit., ‘even a shebuth also is not’, since no Pentateuchal law would be transgressed even if the entire scroll were to fall down and the man were to carry it back into the private domain by way of the karmelith.
^ᵇⁿnote:R. Safra.
^ᵇᵒnote:R. Joseph as cited by Abaye.
^ᵇᵖnote:On Friday eve to roast it (Shab. 19b); though, as a preventive measure or shebuth this is forbidden in the case of other foodstuffs.
^ᵇᵠnote:The paschal lamb being a sacrifice.
^ᵇʳnote:Since the roasting is done at one,s own home.
^ᵇˢnote:After Sabbath had set in. An objection against R. Joseph.
^ᵇᵗnote:Abaye.
^ᵇᵘnote:Who joined to participate in the paschal lamb which, like other sacred food, required careful attention.
^ᵇᵛnote:And no preventive measures in their case are needed.
^ᵇʷnote:How is it that he overlooked this distinction?
^ᵇˣnote:Who from their youth are trained for the Temple service.
^ᵇʸnote:Who are mere laymen.
^ᵇᶻnote:Maintaining that both Mishnahs deal with the case of removal by hand of a soft wen. The Mishnah of Pesahim cannot refer to removal by means of an instrument, on account of the objection raised supra that such a removal would be an act Pentateuchally forbidden; and our Mishnah cannot refer to a dry wen which may be removed even by means of an instrument since, in its final clause the use of an instrument is forbidden.
^ᶜᵃnote:The ruling in our Mishnah which permits the removal of a wen by hand, which is shebuth that could have been performed prior to the Sabbath.
^ᶜᵇnote:Besides differing from the Rabbis in the Mishnah of Pes. in the case of a shebuth.
^ᶜᶜnote:Even where one of the main classes of work that are Pentateuchally forbidden has to he performed, and much more so, as is the case in our Mishnah and in that of Pes., where only a shebuth is involved.
^ᶜᵈnote:In the manner of their performance or preparation.
^ᶜᵉnote:As it is possible to remove a wen by hand he ruled in the final clause of our Mishnah that the use of an instrument is forbidden. Where, however, no change is possible, even one of the mail classes of forbidden work supersedes the Sabbath.

²What is the proof? — Since it was taught: If f wen appeared on [he body of] a priest his fellow may bite it off for him with his teeth. Thus only ‘with his teeth’ but not with an instrument; only ‘his fellow’ but not he himself. Now whose view could this be? if it be suggested: That of the Rabbis, and [the permissibility is because it is in connection] with the Temple, the objection would arise: Since the Rabbis have elsewhere forbidden [such acts] Only as a shebuth, what matters it here whether he or his fellow does the biting? Consequently it must represent, must it not, the view of R. Eliezer who ruled elsewhere that [for such acts] a sin-offering is incurred but here, though the preliminary requirements of a precept supersede the Sabbath, a change must be made as far as this i# possible? — No, it may in fact represent the view of the Rabbis, and if the wen had grown on his belly the law would indeed have been so, but here we are dealing with one, for instance, that grew on his back or his elbows where he himself cannot remove it, if this, however represents the view of the Rabbis, why should he not be allowed to remove it with his hand, and this you might easily derive the statement made by R. Eleazar, for R. Eleazar stated: They only differ in the case of removal with the hand but if it is done with an Instrument all agree that guilt is incurred? — And according to your line of reasoning why should he not be permitted even in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer to remove it with his hand? — What an argument is this! If you grant that it represents the view of R. Eliezer one can easily see why removal with the hand was forbidden as a preventive measure against the use of an instrument, but if you maintain that it represents the view of the Rabbis, why should he not be allowed to remove it with his hand? And nothing more need be said about the matter. MISHNAH. A PRIEST WHO WAS WOUNDED IN HIS FINGER MAY WRAP SOME REED-GRASS ROUND IT IN THE TEMPLE BUT NOT IN THE COUNTRY. BUT IF IT WAS INTENDED TO FORCE OUT BLOOD IT IS FORBIDDEN IN BOTH CASES. GEMARA. R. Judah, son of R. Hiyya explained: They learned this only in respect of reed-grass, but a bandage is regarded as an addition to the priestly garments. R. Johanan, however, stated: They forbade an addition to the priestly garments only on a part of the body where the garments are usually worn; but on a part where no garments are usually worn the wearing of one is not deemed an addition to the priestly garments. But why should not these be excluded on the ground of interposition? This refers to a wound on the left hand or even to one on the right hand on a part that does not come in contact with the objects of the service. This is in disagreement with a ruling of Raba, for Raba, citing R. Hisda, ruled: On a part where clothes are usually worn even one thread causes an interposition while on a part where clothes are not usually worn a piece of material that was three handbreadths by three causes an interposition but one that was less than three handbreadths by three causes no interposition. Now this unquestionably differs from the view of R. Johanan; but must it also be assumed that it differs from that of R. Judah son of R. Hiyya? — A bandage is different since it is significant. Others have a different reading: R. Judah son of R. Hiyya explained: They learned this only in respect of reed-grass, but a bandage is regarded as an interposition. R. Johanan, however, stated: They forbade interposition where the material was less than three handbreadths by three only if it rested on a part of the body where clothes are usually worn; but on a part where no garments are usually worn^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ^ᵈᵃ^ᵈᵇ^ᵈᶜ^ᵈᵈ^ᵈᵉ^ᵈᶠ^ᵈᵍ^ᵈʰ^ᵈⁱ^ᵈʲ^ᵈᵏ^ᵈˡ^ᵈᵐ^ᵈⁿ^ᵈᵒ^ᵈᵖ^ᵈᵠ^ᵈʳ^ᵈˢ^ᵈᵗ^ᵈᵘ^ᵈᵛ^ᵈʷ^ᵈˣ^ᵈʸ^ᵈᶻ^ᵉᵃ^ᵉᵇ^ᵉᶜ^ᵉᵈ^ᵉᵉ^ᵉᶠ^ᵉᵍ^ᵉʰ^ᵉⁱ^ᵉʲ^ᵉᵏ^ᵉˡ^ᵉᵐ^ᵉⁿ^ᵉᵒ^ᵉᵖ^ᵉᵠ^ᵉʳ^ᵉˢ^ᵉᵗ^ᵉᵘ^ᵉᵛ^ᵉʷ^ᵉˣ^ᵉʸ^ᵉᶻ^ᶠᵃ^ᶠᵇ^ᶠᶜ

^ᶜᶠnote:that R. Eliezer agrees that wherever possible a change should he made.
^ᶜᵍnote:on the Sabbath so that there was no possibility of removing it on the previous day.
^ᶜʰnote:Lit., ‘a priest on whom went up’.
^ᶜⁱnote:An act which is a mere shebuth.
^ᶜʲnote:Who is unable to remove it completely and to perform a proper piece of work.
^ᶜᵏnote:The ruling that the priest himself should not remove his wen even with his teeth while his friend may remove it only with his teeth but not with an instrument.
^ᶜˡnote:Who hold that the preliminary requirements of a precept may only override a Shebuth but not one of the main classes of forbidden work.
^ᶜᵐnote:Sc. preliminary requirements of the precept of performing the Temple service. As the wen could not be removed on the Sabbath eve (cf. supra n.1) and as the removal is a preliminary requisite of the precept involving a shebuth only, it is permitted.
^ᶜⁿnote:Cf. Shah. 94b (the case of the finger nails).
^ᶜᵒnote:Since removal with the teeth, whether one's own or one's friend's, is only a shebuth.
^ᶜᵖnote:Even where a Pentateuchal prohibition is involved; and the removal of the wen in any manner is in fact permitted.
^ᶜᵠnote:Hence the ruling that the priest himself must not remove his wen and that his friend should do it with his teeth only, which proves does it not, that a change must be made wherever possible?
^ᶜʳnote:V. supra n. 5.
^ᶜˢnote:While R. Eliezer requires no change whatever and permits the removal of the wen even with an instrument by the priest himself
^ᶜᵗnote:In explanation of the difficulty ‘what matters it here whether he or his fellow’ uses his teeth.
^ᶜᵘnote:A spot accessible to ones own teeth.
^ᶜᵛnote:that the priest himself may effect the removal.
^ᶜʷnote:Cf. MS.M. Cur. edd. insert ‘a bite’.
^ᶜˣnote:Whose main aim is to avoid the transgression of a Pentateuchal prohibition and to restrict the act of removal to a shebuth.
^ᶜʸnote:The priest's fellow.
^ᶜᶻnote:Since in the removal by hand as by the teeth only a shebuth is involved.
^ᵈᵃnote:From the mention of hand instead of teeth.
^ᵈᵇnote:In addition to what may be derived even now, viz., that the preliminary requisites of a precept may override only a shebuth but not a Pentateuchal prohibition.
^ᵈᶜnote:From the fact that the use of the bare hand only (a shebuth) and not that of an instrument (a Pentateuchal prohibition) has been allowed.
^ᵈᵈnote:R. Eliezer and the Rabbis.
^ᵈᵉnote:Of one's finger nails (Shah. 94b).
^ᵈᶠnote:Not only R. Eliezer but the Rabbis also.
^ᵈᵍnote:Sc. a sin-offering.
^ᵈʰnote:This submission, cannot be derived now that the use of the teeth only has been permitted. Should one argue that R. Eleazar's submission might be derived from the fact that the use of the teeth (a shebuth) was permitted ‘and not that of an Instrument (a Pentateuchal prohibition), it could he retorted that this was no proof since the use of the hand also was not permitted though, unlike an instrument, it also involves a shebuth only.
^ᵈⁱnote:That the ruling under discussion is R. Eliezer's.
^ᵈʲnote:The priest's friend who removes the wen.
^ᵈᵏnote:Who, as suggested, requires a change to be made wherever possible.
^ᵈˡnote:Which is only a shebuth and a change from the usual mode of removal.
^ᵈᵐnote:Who in the case of the preliminary requisites of a precept draws no distinction between a Pentateuchal prohibition and a shebuth and allows both to be superseded, requiring only a change from the usual procedure.
^ᵈⁿnote:As a change is made from a Pentateuchal prohibition to a shebuth (though either might be equally superseded) so must a change be made from the major shebuth (removal with the hand) to the minor one (removal with a friend's teeth which is less usual than that with the hand).
^ᵈᵒnote:The reason for whose ruling is not the desirability for a change but the view that only a Shebuth may be superseded but not a Pentateuchal prohibition.
^ᵈᵖnote:Which is no less a Shebuth than removal with the teeth.
^ᵈᵠnote:Since it is quite evident that the view represented is that of R. Eliezer.
^ᵈʳnote:On the Sabbath, since It is unseemly to perform the service with all exposed wound.
^ᵈˢnote:Though the grass helps indirectly to heal the wound (cf. foll. n.).
^ᵈᵗnote:Where the reed-grass serves no religious purpose, while its application as a cure is forbidden on the Sabbath.
^ᵈᵘnote:By making of the reed-grass a tight bandage.
^ᵈᵛnote:Lit., ‘here and here’, sc. even in the Temple, since the tightening serves no ritual purpose and comes, moreover, under the category of wounding which is one of the principal classes of activity that are forbidden on the Sabbath and which even the Temple service cannot supersede.
^ᵈʷnote:‘Rab’. Var. lec. ‘Rabbi’ throughout the passage (Emden).
^ᵈˣnote:The Rabbis of our Mishnah.
^ᵈʸnote:A PRIEST . . . MAY WRAP etc.
^ᵈᶻnote:Lit., ‘small belt’.
^ᵉᵃnote:Which is forbidden (cf. Zeb. 18a).
^ᵉᵇnote:Lit., ‘they did not say . . . but’.
^ᵉᶜnote:As on a finger, for instance.
^ᵉᵈnote:Hence it is permitted to put a bandage round the finger.
^ᵉᵉnote:The reed-grass as well as the bandage.
^ᵉᶠnote:From use in the Temple. Lit., ‘and let it go out for him’.
^ᵉᵍnote:Which is forbidden in the Temple services. No object may intervene between the priest's hands and the ritual object he handles.
^ᵉʰnote:The wound spoken of in our Mishnah.
^ᵉⁱnote:With which it is forbidden to perform the Temple service and an interposition in that case does not in any way affect the service.
^ᵉʲnote:One, for instance, on the back of the finger.
^ᵉᵏnote:R. Johanan's statement that, whatever its size, an additional garment on a part of the body where one is not usually worn constitutes no transgression.
^ᵉˡnote:Though it cannot possibly be described as a garment.
^ᵉᵐnote:Which has the legal status of a garment.
^ᵉⁿnote:As well as a transgression against the prohibition of adding to the priestly garment (cf. Rashi a.l.).
^ᵉᵒnote:In consequence of which it cannot be regarded as a garment.
^ᵉᵖnote:Since it was located on a part of the body which does not come in contact with the objects of the service and when no garments are worn. As it has not the legal status of a garment, no transgression against the prohibition against adding to the priestly garments Is committed either.
^ᵉᵠnote:Ruling of Raba.
^ᵉʳnote:As has just been shown.
^ᵉˢnote:The ruling to the effect that a piece of material that was less than three handbreadths by three causes no interposition on a part of the body on which garments are not usually worn.
^ᵉᵗnote:Who stated that a bandage, even one that was less than three handbreadths by three, is legally regarded as a garment whereby a transgression against adding to the priestly garments is committed.
^ᵉᵘnote:From a piece of material of similar size.
^ᵉᵛnote:Lit., ‘important’. Hence its status as a garment which even Raba might acknowledge.
^ᵉʷnote:Lit., ‘say it’.
^ᵉˣnote:The Rabbis of our Mishnah.
^ᵉʸnote:A PRIEST . . . MAY "WRAP etc.
^ᵉᶻnote:Lit., ‘small belt’.
^ᶠᵃnote:Since it does not belong to the priest's garments.
^ᶠᵇnote:Lit., ‘they did not say. . . but’.
^ᶠᶜnote:This expression is really the main point of difference between the first and second version. For an explanation why this expression was used v. Rash a.l.