Eruvin

What is the proof?1 — Since it was taught: If f wen appeared2 on [he body of] a priest3 his fellow may bite it off for him with his teeth. Thus only ‘with his teeth’4 but not with an instrument; only ‘his fellow’5 but not he himself. Now whose view could this6 be? if it be suggested: That of the Rabbis,7 and [the permissibility is because it is in connection] with the Temple,8 the objection would arise: Since the Rabbis have elsewhere9 forbidden [such acts] Only as a shebuth, what matters it here10 whether he or his fellow does the biting? Consequently it6 must represent, must it not, the view of R. Eliezer who ruled elsewhere9 that [for such acts] a sin-offering is incurred but here, though the preliminary requirements of a precept supersede the Sabbath,11 a change must be made as far as this i# possible?12 — No, it13 may in fact represent the view of the Rabbis,14 and15 if the wen had grown on his belly16 the law would indeed have been so,17 but here we are dealing with one,18 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,19 why should he20 not be allowed to remove it with his hand,21 and this22 you might23 easily derive24 the statement made by R. Eleazar, for R. Eleazar stated: They25 only differ in the case of removal26 with the hand but if it is done with an Instrument all27 agree that guilt28 is incurred?29 — And according to your line of reasoning30 why should he31 not be permitted even in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer32 to remove it with his hand?33 — What an argument is this! If you grant that it represents the view of R. Eliezer34 one can easily see why removal with the hand was forbidden as a preventive measure against the use of an instrument,35 but if you maintain that it represents the view of the Rabbis,36 why should he not be allowed to remove it with his hand?37 And nothing more need be said about the matter.38 MISHNAH. A PRIEST WHO WAS WOUNDED IN HIS FINGER MAY39 WRAP SOME REED-GRASS ROUND IT IN THE TEMPLE40 BUT NOT IN THE COUNTRY.41 BUT IF42 IT WAS INTENDED TO FORCE OUT BLOOD IT IS FORBIDDEN IN BOTH CASES.43 GEMARA. R.44 Judah, son of R. Hiyya explained: They45 learned this46 only in respect of reed-grass, but a bandage47 is regarded as an addition to the priestly garments.48 R. Johanan, however, stated: They forbade49 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 worn50 the wearing of one is not deemed an addition to the priestly garments.51 But why should not these52 be excluded53 on the ground of interposition?54 This55 refers to a wound on the left hand56 or even to one on the right hand on a part that does not come in contact with the objects of the service. 57 This58 is in disagreement with a ruling of Raba, for Raba, citing R. Hisda, ruled: On a part where clothes are usually worn even one thread59 causes an interposition while on a part where clothes are not usually worn a piece of material that was three handbreadths by three60 causes an interposition61 but one that was less than three handbreadths by three62 causes no interposition.63 Now this64 unquestionably differs from the view of R. Johanan;65 but must it also be assumed that it66 differs from that of R. Judah son of R. Hiyya?67 — A bandage is different68 since it is significant.69 Others have70 a different reading: R. Judah son of R. Hiyya explained: They71 learned this72 only in respect of reed-grass, but a bandage73 is regarded as an interposition.74 R. Johanan, however, stated: They forbade75 interposition76 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 with his teeth but not with an instrument. of forbidden work. 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. which proves does it not, that a change must be made wherever possible? priest himself shebuth. shebuth but not a Pentateuchal prohibition. prohibition) has been allowed. 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. and a shebuth and allows both to be superseded, requiring only a change from the usual procedure. 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). but not a Pentateuchal prohibition. 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. he handles. affect the service. worn constitutes no transgression. 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. interposition on a part of the body on which garments are not usually worn. whereby a transgression against adding to the priestly garments is committed. this expression was used v. Rash a.l.