Commentary for Eruvin 206:3

אלא לאו ר"א דאמר בעלמא חייב חטאת והכא אע"ג דמכשירי מצוה דוחין את השבת כמה דאפשר לשנויי משנינן

be? if it be suggested: That of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that the preliminary requirements of a precept may only override a Shebuth but not one of the main classes of forbidden work.');">⁷</span> and [the permissibility is because it is in connection] with the Temple,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁸</span> the objection would arise: Since the Rabbis have elsewhere<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shah. 94b (the case of the finger nails) .');">⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 206:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.