Eruvin 206:1

מאי היא דתניא כהן שעלתה בו יבלת חבירו חותכה לו בשיניו בשיניו אין בכלי לא חבירו אין איהו לא

What is the proof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' that R. Eliezer agrees that wherever possible a change should he made.');">¹</span> - Since it was taught: If a wen appeared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' on the Sabbath so that there was no possibility of removing it on the previous day.');">²</span> on [he body of] a priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a priest on whom went up'.');">³</span> his fellow may bite it off for him with his teeth.

מני אילימא רבנן ובמקדש כיון דאמרי רבנן בעלמא משום שבות הכא מה לי הוא מה לי חבירו

Thus only 'with his teeth'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An act which is a mere shebuth.');">⁴</span> but not with an instrument; only 'his fellow'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is unable to remove it completely and to perform a proper piece of work.');">⁵</span> but not he himself. Now whose view could this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that the priest himself should not remove his wen even with his teeth while his friend may remove it only with his teeth but not with an instrument.');">⁶</span>

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>

לא לעולם רבנן ואי עלתה בכריסו הכי נמי

forbidden [such acts] Only as a shebuth, what matters it here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since removal with the teeth, whether one's own or one's friend's, is only a shebuth.');">¹⁰</span> whether he or his fellow does the biting? Consequently it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that the priest himself should not remove his wen even with his teeth while his friend may remove it only with his teeth but not with an instrument.');">⁶</span> must represent, must it not, the view of R'Eliezer who ruled elsewhere<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shah. 94b (the case of the finger nails) .');">⁹</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שעלתה לו נשיכה בגבו ובאצילי ידיו דאיהו לא מצי שקיל לה

that [for such acts a sin-offering is incurred but here, though the preliminary requirements of a precept supersede the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where a Pentateuchal prohibition is involved; and the removal of the wen in any manner is in fact permitted.');">¹¹</span> a change must be made as far as this is possible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the ruling that the priest himself must not remove his wen and that his friend should do it with his teeth only, which proves does it not, that a change must be made wherever possible?');">¹²</span> - No, it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 5.');">¹³</span> may in fact represent the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While R. Eliezer requires no change whatever and permits the removal of the wen even with an instrument by the priest himself');">¹⁴</span>

ואי רבנן נשקליה ניהליה ביד ותפשוט דרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר מחלוקת ביד אבל בכלי דברי הכל חייב

and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In explanation of the difficulty 'what matters it here whether he or his fellow' uses his teeth.');">¹⁵</span> if the wen had grown on his belly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A spot accessible to ones own teeth.');">¹⁶</span> the law would indeed have been so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' that the priest himself may effect the removal.');">¹⁷</span> but here we are dealing with one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. MS.M. Cur. edd. insert 'a bite'.');">¹⁸</span>

וליטעמיך לרבי אליעזר נמי לישקליה ניהליה ביד האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא רבי אליעזר היינו דגזר יד אטו כלי אלא אי אמרת רבנן היא נשקליה ניהליה ביד ותו לא מידי:

for instance, that grew on his back or his elbows where he himself cannot remove it, if this, however represents the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose main aim is to avoid the transgression of a Pentateuchal prohibition and to restrict the act of removal to a shebuth.');">¹⁹</span> why should he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest's fellow.');">²⁰</span> not be allowed to remove it with his hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in the removal by hand as by the teeth only a shebuth is involved.');">²¹</span> and this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the mention of hand instead of teeth.');">²²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כהן שלקה באצבעו כורך עליה גמי במקדש אבל לא במדינה אם להוציא דם כאן וכאן אסור:

you might<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to what may be derived even now, viz., that the preliminary requisites of a precept may override only a shebuth but not a Pentateuchal prohibition.');">²³</span> easily derive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the fact that the use of the bare hand only (a shebuth) and not that of an instrument (a Pentateuchal prohibition) has been allowed.');">²⁴</span> the statement made by R'Eleazar, for R'Eleazar stated: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer and the Rabbis.');">²⁵</span> only differ in the case of removal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of one's finger nails (Shah. 94b) .');">²⁶</span>

<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>

ורבי יוחנן אמר לא אמרו יתור בגדים אלא במקום בגדים אבל שלא במקום בגדים לא הוי יתור בגדים

why should he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest's friend who removes the wen.');">³¹</span> not be permitted even in accordance with the view of R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, as suggested, requires a change to be made wherever possible.');">³²</span> to remove it with his hand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is only a shebuth and a change from the usual mode of removal.');">³³</span> - What an argument is this! If you grant that it represents the view of R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in the case of the preliminary requisites of a precept draws no distinction between a Pentateuchal prohibition and a shebuth and allows both to be superseded, requiring only a change from the usual procedure.');">³⁴</span>

ותיפוק ליה משום חציצה בשמאל

one can easily see why removal with the hand was forbidden as a preventive measure against the use of an instrument,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a change is made from a Pentateuchal prohibition to a shebuth (though either might be equally superseded) so must a change be made from the major shebuth (removal with the hand) to the minor one (removal with a friend's teeth which is less usual than that with the hand) .');">³⁵</span> but if you maintain that it represents the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason for whose ruling is not the desirability for a change but the view that only a Shebuth may be superseded but not a Pentateuchal prohibition.');">³⁶</span> why should he not be allowed to remove it with his hand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is no less a Shebuth than removal with the teeth.');">³⁷</span> And nothing more need be said about the matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is quite evident that the view represented is that of R. Eliezer.');">³⁸</span>

אי נמי בימין ושלא במקום עבודה

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>A PRIEST WHO WAS WOUNDED IN HIS FINGER MAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath, since It is unseemly to perform the service with all exposed wound.');">³⁹</span> WRAP SOME REED-GRASS ROUND IT IN THE TEMPLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the grass helps indirectly to heal the wound (cf. foll. n.) .');">⁴⁰</span> BUT NOT IN THE COUNTRY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the reed-grass serves no religious purpose, while its application as a cure is forbidden on the Sabbath.');">⁴¹</span> BUT IF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By making of the reed-grass a tight bandage.');">⁴²</span>

ופליגא דרבא דאמר רבא אמר רב חסדא במקום בגדים אפילו נימא אחת חוצצת שלא במקום בגדים שלש על שלש חוצצות פחות משלש על שלש אינן חוצצות

IT WAS INTENDED TO FORCE OUT BLOOD IT IS FORBIDDEN IN BOTH CASES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here and here', sc. even in the Temple, since the tightening serves no ritual purpose and comes, moreover, under the category of wounding which is one of the principal classes of activity that are forbidden on the Sabbath and which even the Temple service cannot supersede.');">⁴³</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Rab'. Var. lec. 'Rabbi' throughout the passage (Emden) .');">⁴⁴</span> Judah, son of R'Hiyya explained: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis of our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁵</span> learned this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A PRIEST . . MAY WRAP etc.');">⁴⁶</span>

אדרבי יוחנן ודאי פליגא אדרב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מי נימא פליגא

only in respect of reed-grass, but a bandage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'small belt'.');">⁴⁷</span> is regarded as an addition to the priestly garments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is forbidden (cf. Zeb. 18a) .');">⁴⁸</span> R'Johanan, however, stated: They forbade<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they did not say . . but'.');">⁴⁹</span> an addition to the priestly garments only on a part of the body where the garments are usually worn; but on a part where no garments are usually worn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As on a finger, for instance.');">⁵⁰</span>

שאני צלצול קטן דחשיב

the wearing of one is not deemed an addition to the priestly garments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is permitted to put a bandage round the finger.');">⁵¹</span> But why should not these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reed-grass as well as the bandage.');">⁵²</span> be excluded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From use in the Temple. Lit., 'and let it go out for him'.');">⁵³</span> on the ground of interposition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is forbidden in the Temple services. No object may intervene between the priest's hands and the ritual object he handles.');">⁵⁴</span>

לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר רב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא לא שנו אלא גמי אבל צלצול קטן חוצץ

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wound spoken of in our MISHNAH:');">⁵⁵</span> refers to a wound on the left hand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With which it is forbidden to perform the Temple service and an interposition in that case does not in any way affect the service.');">⁵⁶</span> or even to one on the right hand on a part that does not come in contact with the objects of the service.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One, for instance, on the back of the finger.');">⁵⁷</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan's statement that, whatever its size, an additional garment on a part of the body where one is not usually worn constitutes no transgression.');">⁵⁸</span>

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