Commentary for Eruvin 206:17

ורבי יוחנן אמר לא אמרו חציצה בפחות משלש על שלש אלא במקום בגדים אבל שלא במקום בגדים

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it cannot possibly be described as a garment.');">⁵⁹</span> causes an interposition while on a part where clothes are not usually worn a piece of material that was three handbreadths by three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has the legal status of a garment.');">⁶⁰</span> causes an interposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As well as a transgression against the prohibition of adding to the priestly garment (cf. Rashi a.l.) .');">⁶¹</span> but one that was less than three handbreadths by three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which it cannot be regarded as a garment.');">⁶²</span> causes no interposition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁶³</span> Now this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ruling of Raba.');">⁶⁴</span> unquestionably differs from the view of R'Johanan;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As has just been shown.');">⁶⁵</span> but must it also be assumed that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁶⁶</span> differs from that of R'Judah son of R'Hiyya?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁶⁷</span> - A bandage is different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a piece of material of similar size.');">⁶⁸</span> since it is significant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'important'. Hence its status as a garment which even Raba might acknowledge.');">⁶⁹</span> Others have<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'say it'.');">⁷⁰</span> a different reading: R'Judah son of R'Hiyya explained: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis of our MISHNAH:');">⁷¹</span> learned this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A PRIEST . . MAY " wrap="" etc.');"="">⁷²</span> only in respect of reed-grass, but a bandage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'small belt'.');">⁷³</span> is regarded as an interposition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it does not belong to the priest's garments.');">⁷⁴</span> R'Johanan, however, stated: They forbade<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they did not say. . but'.');">⁷⁵</span> interposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁷⁶</span> 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

Explore commentary for Eruvin 206:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.