עירובין 103:1 — Soncino English Talmud

If 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.