Related%20passage for Eruvin 205:10

ולמאן דאמר הא ביד הא בכלי מאי טעמא לא אמר הא בלחה הא ביבישה אמר לך יבישה אפילו בכלי נמי שרי מ"ט איפרוכי איפרכא

Because It merely crumbles away. And according to him who explained that the latter referred to a soft wen while the former referred to a dry one, what was his reason for not explaining that the former referred to removal by hand and the litter to an operation by means of an instrument? - He can answer you: Concerning an instrument we have explicitly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if with an instrument, we have surely'.');">³¹</span> learnt: IF [THE OPERATION, HOWEVER, MUST BE PERFORMED] WITH AN INSTRUMENT IT IS FORBIDDEN EVERYWHERE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is, therefore, no need to repeat the same anonymous ruling in the Mishnah, cited from Pesahim.');">³²</span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can he maintain his explanation in view of this argument?');">³³</span>

Explore related%20passage for Eruvin 205:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.