עירובין 103:2 — Soncino English Talmud

What 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^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

^ᵃnote:that R. Eliezer agrees that wherever possible a change should he made.
^ᵇnote:on the Sabbath so that there was no possibility of removing it on the previous day.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘a priest on whom went up’.
^ᵈnote:An act which is a mere shebuth.
^ᵉnote:Who is unable to remove it completely and to perform a proper piece of work.
^ᶠnote: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.
^ᵍnote:Who hold that the preliminary requirements of a precept may only override a Shebuth but not one of the main classes of forbidden work.
^ʰnote: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.
^ⁱnote:Cf. Shah. 94b (the case of the finger nails).
^ʲnote:Since removal with the teeth, whether one's own or one's friend's, is only a shebuth.
^ᵏnote:Even where a Pentateuchal prohibition is involved; and the removal of the wen in any manner is in fact permitted.
^ˡnote: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?
^ᵐnote:V. supra n. 5.
^ⁿnote:While R. Eliezer requires no change whatever and permits the removal of the wen even with an instrument by the priest himself
^ᵒnote:In explanation of the difficulty ‘what matters it here whether he or his fellow’ uses his teeth.
^ᵖnote:A spot accessible to ones own teeth.
^ᵠnote:that the priest himself may effect the removal.
^ʳnote:Cf. MS.M. Cur. edd. insert ‘a bite’.
^ˢnote:Whose main aim is to avoid the transgression of a Pentateuchal prohibition and to restrict the act of removal to a shebuth.
^ᵗnote:The priest's fellow.
^ᵘnote:Since in the removal by hand as by the teeth only a shebuth is involved.
^ᵛnote:From the mention of hand instead of teeth.
^ʷnote: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.
^ˣnote: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.
^ʸnote:R. Eliezer and the Rabbis.
^ᶻnote:Of one's finger nails (Shah. 94b).
^ᵃᵃnote:Not only R. Eliezer but the Rabbis also.
^ᵃᵇnote:Sc. a sin-offering.
^ᵃᶜnote: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.
^ᵃᵈnote:That the ruling under discussion is R. Eliezer's.
^ᵃᵉnote:The priest's friend who removes the wen.
^ᵃᶠnote:Who, as suggested, requires a change to be made wherever possible.
^ᵃᵍnote:Which is only a shebuth and a change from the usual mode of removal.
^ᵃʰnote: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.
^ᵃⁱnote: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).
^ᵃʲnote: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.
^ᵃᵏnote:Which is no less a Shebuth than removal with the teeth.
^ᵃˡnote:Since it is quite evident that the view represented is that of R. Eliezer.
^ᵃᵐnote:On the Sabbath, since It is unseemly to perform the service with all exposed wound.
^ᵃⁿnote:Though the grass helps indirectly to heal the wound (cf. foll. n.).
^ᵃᵒnote:Where the reed-grass serves no religious purpose, while its application as a cure is forbidden on the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵖnote:By making of the reed-grass a tight bandage.
^ᵃᵠnote: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.
^ᵃʳnote:‘Rab’. Var. lec. ‘Rabbi’ throughout the passage (Emden).
^ᵃˢnote:The Rabbis of our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵗnote:A PRIEST . . . MAY WRAP etc.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., ‘small belt’.
^ᵃᵛnote:Which is forbidden (cf. Zeb. 18a).
^ᵃʷnote:Lit., ‘they did not say . . . but’.
^ᵃˣnote:As on a finger, for instance.
^ᵃʸnote:Hence it is permitted to put a bandage round the finger.
^ᵃᶻnote:The reed-grass as well as the bandage.
^ᵇᵃnote:From use in the Temple. Lit., ‘and let it go out for him’.
^ᵇᵇnote:Which is forbidden in the Temple services. No object may intervene between the priest's hands and the ritual object he handles.
^ᵇᶜnote:The wound spoken of in our Mishnah.
^ᵇᵈnote:With which it is forbidden to perform the Temple service and an interposition in that case does not in any way affect the service.
^ᵇᵉnote:One, for instance, on the back of the finger.
^ᵇᶠnote: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.
^ᵇᵍnote:Though it cannot possibly be described as a garment.
^ᵇʰnote:Which has the legal status of a garment.
^ᵇⁱnote:As well as a transgression against the prohibition of adding to the priestly garment (cf. Rashi a.l.).
^ᵇʲnote:In consequence of which it cannot be regarded as a garment.
^ᵇᵏnote: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.
^ᵇˡnote:Ruling of Raba.
^ᵇᵐnote:As has just been shown.
^ᵇⁿnote: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.
^ᵇᵒnote: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.
^ᵇᵖnote:From a piece of material of similar size.
^ᵇᵠnote:Lit., ‘important’. Hence its status as a garment which even Raba might acknowledge.
^ᵇʳnote:Lit., ‘say it’.
^ᵇˢnote:The Rabbis of our Mishnah.
^ᵇᵗnote:A PRIEST . . . MAY "WRAP etc.
^ᵇᵘnote:Lit., ‘small belt’.
^ᵇᵛnote:Since it does not belong to the priest's garments.
^ᵇʷnote:Lit., ‘they did not say. . . but’.
^ᵇˣnote: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.