Commentary for Eruvin 206:9

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא לא שנו אלא גמי אבל צלצול קטן הוי יתור בגדים

with the hand but if it is done with an Instrument all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not only R. Eliezer but the Rabbis also.');">²⁷</span> agree that guilt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a sin-offering.');">²⁸</span> is incurred?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁹</span> - And according to your line of reasoning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the ruling under discussion is R. Eliezer's.');">³⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 206:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.