Eruvin 205:1

אי אליבא דר' אליעזר קאמר אפי' לכתחילה נמי

If he made It according to the view of R'Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He could not do so according to the Rabbis who do not permit a knot in either case.');">¹</span> should not this be permitted also for the first time? - Rather say: There is no difficulty since the latter represents the view of R'Simeon while the former represents that of the Rabbis. For it was taught: if a Levite had a break in the string of his harp<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">²</span> he may tie it up; R'Simeon ruled: He may only make a loop; R'Simeon B'Eleazar said: Neither the one nor the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it also', the loop like the knot.');">³</span>

אלא לא קשיא הא ר"ש הא רבנן דתניא בן לוי שנפסקה לו נימא בכנור קושרה ר' שמעון אומר עונבה

would produce a tone; one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Discarding the shorter section of the broken string.');">⁴</span> should rather unwind the string from the lower pin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'lowers from below', sc. from the lower pin of the harp.');">⁵</span> and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having obtained sufficient length.');">⁶</span> wind it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the other end.');">⁷</span>

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אף היא אינה משמעת את הקול אלא משלשל מלמטה וכורך מלמעלה או משלשל מלמעלה וכורך מלמטה

round the upper one or unwind it from the upper pin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having obtained sufficient length.');">⁶</span> and wind it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the other end.');">⁷</span> round the lower one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus obtaining a sound length of string free from knots or loops. As the lowering of the string is no more forbidden than tying it, the former, which enables the tone to be produced, is to be preferred. Our Mishnah thus represents the view of the Rabbis of the Baraitha who, agreeing with R. Eliezer on one point, that preliminary requisites of a precept supersede the Sabbath, permit the tying up of the string on the Sabbath; but disagreeing with him that such an act is permitted for the first time, permit it only where the break occurred on the Sabbath.');">⁸</span> And if you prefer I might reply: The former as well as the latter represents the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That preliminary requisites which could not be prepared before the Sabbath may he prepared on the Sabbath.');">⁹</span>

ואיבעית אימא הא והא רבנן ולא קשיא כאן באמצע כאן מן הצד

and yet there is no difficulty, sinc the former refers to a break in the middle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the string, when a knot is essential. A loop would not be strong enough. Hence the ruling that A STRING MAY BE TIED UP.');">¹⁰</span> while the latter refers to one at the end.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at the side', near the pin, where a loop suffices to hold the string in position.');">¹¹</span> And if you prefer I might reply: Both refer to a break in the middle part, but the Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon the author of the Baraitha.');">¹²</span> holds that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though Pentateuchally permitted.');">¹³</span>

ואיבע"א הא והא באמצע מר סבר גזרינן ומר סבר לא גזרינן:

a preventive measure is enacted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. were a knot to be permitted in the middle someone might make one at the ends also.');">¹⁴</span> while the Masters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis, the authors of our MISHNAH:');">¹⁵</span> hold that no preventive measure is to be enacted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the ruling that only a loop may be made but not a knot.');">¹⁶</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>A WEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On an animal intended as a sacrifice. Cf. Lev. XXII, 22: . . having a wen . . ye shall not offer . . unto the Lord.');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חותכין יבלת במקדש אבל לא במדינה ואם בכלי כאן וכאן אסור:

MAY BE REMOVED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the hand. Lit., 'cut'.');">¹⁸</span> IN THE TEMPLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to enable the sacrifice to be offered. The removal of a wen with one's fingers on the Sabbath is only Rabbinically forbidden as a preventive measure and no such measures have been enacted in the case of the Temple.');">¹⁹</span> BUT NOT IN THE COUNTRY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where Its removal would not facilitate the performance of any precept.');">²⁰</span> IF [THE OPERATION, HOWEVER, MUST BE PERFORMED] WITH AN INSTRUMENT IT IS FORBIDDEN EVERYWHERE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since all operation performed with aid Instrument Is one of the main classes of work which is forbidden on the Sabbath even in the Temple.');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ורמינהו הרכיבו והבאתו מחוץ לתחום וחתיכת יבלתו אין דוחין רבי אליעזר אומר דוחין

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The anonymous ruling that A WEN MAY BE SCRAPED OFF IN THE TEMPLE.');">²²</span> inconsistent with the following: Carrying it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'causing it to ride', sc. carrying the paschal lamb on one's shoulder beyond four cubits in a public domain on the Sabbath when the Passover eve falls on that day.');">²³</span> bringing it from without the permitted Sabbath limit, and removing its wen do not supersede the Sabbath, and R'Eliezer ruled: They do supersede it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 65b. How then is the anonymous ruling here, which forbids the scraping of a wen on the Sabbath to be reconciled with the anonymous ruling in our Mishnah which permits it?');">²⁴</span> - R'Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Eliezer'.');">²⁵</span>

רבי אלעזר ורבי יוסי) (בן) חנינא חד אמר הא והא בלחה ולא קשיא כאן ביד כאן בכלי

and R'Jose son of R'Hanina<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. and marg. glos. Cur..ed. omit the 'R.' before Hanina and insert 'son' in parenthesis.');">²⁶</span> gave different explanations. One Master explains that both rulings refer to a soft wen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that and that about a moist one'.');">²⁷</span> and yet there is no difficulty, since the former deals with removal by the hand while the latter deals with removal by means of an instrument.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While the latter is forbidden as work the former is permitted.');">²⁸</span>

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.');">²⁹</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.');">³⁰</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?

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>

ולמ"ד הא בלחה והא ביבישה מאי טעמא לא אמר הא ביד הא בכלי אמר לך בכלי הא תנן אם בכלי כאן וכאן אסור

- The reason why the ruling was taught there is because it was desired to indicate the divergence of opinion between R'Eliezer and the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that R. Eliezer allows the use of an instrument also.');">³⁴</span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can he maintain his explanation in view of this argument?');">³³</span> - The ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning the removal of the wen in the Mishnah of Pes.');">³⁵</span> must be similar to that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'similar to . . he learned'.');">³⁶</span>

ואידך הא דקתני התם משום דקא בעי איפלוגי ר' אליעזר ורבנן

of 'carrying it' or 'bringing it from without the permitted Sabbath limit' which is only a Rabbinical restriction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It could not, therefore, refer to an operation by means of an instrument which is Pentateuchally forbidden on the Sabbath.');">³⁷</span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can he maintain his explanation in view of this argument?');">³³</span> - As regards 'carrying it' he is not in agreement with R'Nathan who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In maintaining that the carrying on the Sabbath of a living creature is only Rabbinically forbidden.');">³⁸</span> holds that a living being carries its own self;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 94a. Disagreeing with R. Nathan he maintains that such carrying is forbidden Pentateuchally.');">³⁹</span>

ואידך דומיא דהרכיבו והבאתו מחוץ לתחום קתני דרבנן

and as regards 'bringing it from without the permitted Sabbath limit', he is in agreement with R'Akiba who holds that the laws relating to Sabbath limits are Pentateuchal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sot. 27b. As the two rulings of 'carrying' and 'bringing' embody Pentateuchal prohibitions the third one, that relating to the wen, must also be Pentateuchal.');">⁴⁰</span> R'Joseph raised an objection: R'Eliezer argued,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the anonymous ruling in the Mishnah of Pesahim under discussion.');">⁴¹</span> May not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His statement that the acts enumerated in the anonymous ruling do supersede the Sabbath.');">⁴²</span> be inferred a minori ad majus?

ואידך הרכיבו דלא כרבי נתן דאמר החי נושא את עצמו הבאתו מחוץ לתחום כר"ע דאמר תחומין דאורייתא

If slaughtering which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of all ordinary beast.');">⁴³</span> is forbidden under the category of work<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. work forbidden on the Sabbath under pentateuchal law.');">⁴⁴</span> supersedes the Sabbath, how much more so should these,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The acts enumerated in the anonymous Mishnah, of Pes.');">⁴⁵</span> which come only under the category of shebuth, supersede the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that the prohibitions in the anonymous ruling, including that against the removal of the wen, are merely Rabbinical. How then could anyone maintain that the removal of a wen is a Pentateuchal prohibition?');">⁴⁶</span>

מתיב רב יוסף אמר רבי אליעזר ק"ו ומה שחיטה שהיא משום מלאכה דוחה את השבת אלו שמשום שבות אינו דין שידחו את השבת

- Rather, said R'Joseph, both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah as well as that cited from Pes. 65b.');">⁴⁷</span> deal with removal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a soft wen (v. next n.) .');">⁴⁸</span> by hand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah, therefore, cannot refer to a dry wen since such may be removed even by means of an instrument.');">⁴⁹</span> but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the apparent condition between the two Mishnahs.');">⁵⁰</span>

אלא אמר רב יוסף הא והא ביד ושבות מקדש במקדש התירו שבות דמקדש במדינה לא התירו

a shebuth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as the removal of a soft wen with one's hand.');">⁵¹</span> relating to the Temple<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. one relating to sacrifices.');">⁵²</span> within the Temple<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a wen, for instance, was found on a regular daily offering which is examined within the Temple.');">⁵³</span> has been permitted whereas a shebuth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as the removal of a soft wen with one's hand.');">⁵¹</span>

יתיב אביי וקאמר להא שמעתא איתיביה רב ספרא לאביי היה קורא בספר על האסקופה ונתגלגל הספר מידו גוללו אצלו והא הכא דשבות דמקדש במדינה הוא ולא גזרי' דילמא נפיל ואתי לאיתויי

relating to the Temple in the country<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The removal of a wen from the paschal lamb which, though the animal is ultimately brought into the Temple, is first examined at its owner's home.');">⁵⁴</span> has not been permitted. Abaye once sat at his studies and discoursed on this statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Joseph.');">⁵⁵</span> when R'Safra pointed out to him the following objection: If a man was reading in a scroll on a threshold and the scroll rolled out of his hand, he may roll it back to himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 97b q.v. notes.');">⁵⁶</span>

ולא אוקימנא באסקופה כרמלית ורה"ר עוברת לפניה דכיון דאיגדו בידו אפילו שבות נמי ליכא

Now is it not the case here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the scroll, as explained Supra, was one containing a holy Scriptural text.');">⁵⁷</span> one of a shebuth relating to the Temple<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Temple is holy and so also are the Scriptures.');">⁵⁸</span> in the country<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. outside the Temple.');">⁵⁹</span> and yet no preventive measure has been enacted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidding the rolling hack of the scroll.');">⁶⁰</span>

איתיביה משלשלין את הפסח לתנור עם חשיכה והא הכא דשבות דמקדש במדינה ולא גזרינן שמא יחתה בגחלים

against the possibility that the scroll might fa down completely<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not even one of its ends remaining in the reader's hand.');">⁶¹</span> and the man might then carry it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could R. Joseph maintain that a 'shebuth of the Temple' was not permitted in the country?');">⁶²</span> - Have we not explained this case as dealing with 'a threshold that was a karmelith in front of which passed a public domain',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 98a.');">⁶³</span> so that, since its rolled up section<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its knot', 'bunch'.');">⁶⁴</span>

אישתיק כי אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף א"ל הכי אמר לי רב ספרא אמר ליה מאי טעמא לא תשני ליה בני חבורה זריזין הן

was still in his hand, even the prohibition of shebuth does not exist.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'even a shebuth also is not', since no Pentateuchal law would be transgressed even if the entire scroll were to fall down and the man were to carry it back into the private domain by way of the karmelith.');">⁶⁵</span> He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Safra.');">⁶⁶</span> raised a further objection against him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joseph as cited by Abaye.');">⁶⁷</span> The paschal lamb may be lowered into the oven at dusk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On Friday eve to roast it (Shab. 19b) ; though, as a preventive measure or shebuth this is forbidden in the case of other foodstuffs.');">⁶⁸</span>

ואביי כהנים זריזין הן אמרינן בני חבורה זריזין הן לא אמרינן

Now is not the case here one of a shebuth relating to the Temple<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The paschal lamb being a sacrifice.');">⁶⁹</span> in the country<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the roasting is done at one,s own home.');">⁷⁰</span> and yet no preventive measure was enacted against the possibility that the man might stir up the coals?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After Sabbath had set in. An objection against R. Joseph.');">⁷¹</span> Thereupon he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye.');">⁷²</span>

רבא אמר רבי אליעזר היא דאמר מכשירי מצוה דוחין את השבת ומודה ר' אליעזר דכמה דאפשר לשנויי משנינן

remained silent. When he? came to R'Joseph and told him 'Thus said R'Safra to me, the latter asked him: Why did you not answer him, 'The members of a [paschal lamb] party<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who joined to participate in the paschal lamb which, like other sacred food, required careful attention.');">⁷³</span> are careful'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no preventive measures in their case are needed.');">⁷⁴</span> - And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How is it that he overlooked this distinction?');">⁷⁵</span> - We only presume that priests<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who from their youth are trained for the Temple service.');">⁷⁶</span> are careful, but we do not presume that the members of a [paschal lamb] party<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are mere laymen.');">⁷⁷</span> are also careful. Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that both Mishnahs deal with the case of removal by hand of a soft wen. The Mishnah of Pesahim cannot refer to removal by means of an instrument, on account of the objection raised supra that such a removal would be an act Pentateuchally forbidden; and our Mishnah cannot refer to a dry wen which may be removed even by means of an instrument since, in its final clause the use of an instrument is forbidden.');">⁷⁸</span> explained: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in our Mishnah which permits the removal of a wen by hand, which is shebuth that could have been performed prior to the Sabbath.');">⁷⁹</span> represents the view of R'Eliezer who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Besides differing from the Rabbis in the Mishnah of Pes. in the case of a shebuth.');">⁸⁰</span> ruled that the preliminary requisites of a precept supersede the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where one of the main classes of work that are Pentateuchally forbidden has to he performed, and much more so, as is the case in our Mishnah and in that of Pes., where only a shebuth is involved.');">⁸¹</span> R'Eliezer however, agreeing that a change<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the manner of their performance or preparation.');">⁸²</span> should be made as far as this is possible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is possible to remove a wen by hand he ruled in the final clause of our Mishnah that the use of an instrument is forbidden. Where, however, no change is possible, even one of the mail classes of forbidden work supersedes the Sabbath.');">⁸³</span>