Commentary for Eruvin 205:9
וחד אמר הא והא ביד ולא קשיא הא בלחה הא ביבישה
And the other Master explains that both rulings refer to removal with the hand, and yet there is no difficulty, since the latter refe to a soft wen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The removal of which is deemed to be work forbidden on the Sabbath.');"><sup>29</sup></span> while the former refers to a dry one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which crumbles away and its removal cannot, therefore, be regarded as forbidden work.');"><sup>30</sup></span> 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?
Explore commentary for Eruvin 205:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.