Eruvin 103a — the Talmud in English

If it is according to Rabbi Eliezer that he said this,

for, as stated, you are compelled to say that he holds like Rabbi Eliezer, that the accessories of a mitzva override Shabbat.

If so,

even initially as well

it should be permitted to make a string on Shabbat. And why did Rabbi Yehuda forbid it in the Mishna initially?

And we answer:

Rather, it is not difficult:

This is Rabbi Shimon; that is the Rabbis.

We find that Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagreed about this.

For according to Rabbi Shimon, only looping is permitted, whereas according to the Rabbis, even tying is permitted.

Therefore, the Mishna is according to the Rabbis. And they indeed hold like Rabbi Eliezer, that the accessories of a mitzva override Shabbat. But they do not hold entirely like him, for he permits even accessories of a mitzva that could have been prepared on the eve of Shabbat, whereas they hold that they override Shabbat only when it was impossible to make them on the eve of Shabbat, such as when a string broke on Shabbat. But to make a string initially on Shabbat is forbidden, for it was possible to do this on the eve of Shabbat.

And the beraita is according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the accessories of a mitzva do not override Shabbat at all, even when it was impossible to make them on the eve of Shabbat. Therefore, it is forbidden to tie; rather, one may only loop.

As it was taught: If a Levite’s string on a lyre broke—

he ties it.

Rabbi Shimon says: He loops it.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

If he makes a knot or a loop,

it too does not produce the sound,

for the lyre does not play properly again.

Rather,

if

he lets it down from below and winds it above.

For the lyre has pegs above and below, and the ends of the strings are wound around them. When one string breaks, he turns the peg below and releases from the string wound around it until the end of the string reaches the upper peg, and he winds it there, and it is thereby like a new string.

Or he lets it down from above and winds it below.

And although this too is a Torah labor, that of repairing a vessel, it is preferable to desecrate Shabbat through this and fulfill the mitzva of song over the offering than to desecrate Shabbat through tying and fulfill no mitzva, for it does not play properly.

And the Rabbis hold that it is preferable to permit the prohibition of tying. For if they permit letting it down, there is concern that they will come to make a string initially in a new lyre.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that

both the Mishna, which permits tying, and the beraita, which permits only looping—

are the Rabbis

They hold that accessories of a mitzva that it was impossible to make on the eve of Shabbat override Shabbat.

And it is not difficult:

Here,

the Mishna is speaking when the string broke

in the middle

of the lyre, for if he makes only a loop there, the music will not be heard properly, and therefore it is permitted even to tie.

Here,

the beraita is speaking when the string broke

at the side

of the lyre, where a strong knot is not necessary and a loop is sufficient.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that

when the string broke

in the middle.

And the resolution of the contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita is as we said above: this is Rabbi Shimon and that is the Rabbis.

Except that Rabbi Shimon too holds that in principle it is permitted to tie a string that broke in the middle, because accessories of a mitzva that it was impossible to make on the eve of Shabbat override Shabbat.

And Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis do not disagree.

Rather,

one master,

Rabbi Shimon,

holds: We decree

that a string that broke in the middle is prohibited on account of one that broke at the side, where tying is forbidden since a loop is sufficient.

And the other master,

the Rabbis,

holds: We do not decree

middle on account of side.

But generally, where there is no basis for making such a decree, Rabbi Shimon agrees that accessories of a mitzva override Shabbat.

Mishna:

One cuts a wart in the Temple.

If a wart grew on an animal of the daily offering, which invalidates the offering from being offered in this condition, then since offering the daily offering overrides Shabbat, it is permitted to cut the wart so that it will be fit for offering.

Specifically, it is permitted to cut it with his hand, for this involves only a rabbinic prohibition, since he does it in an unusual manner [with a deviation], because the usual way is to cut with a knife.

But to cut it with an implement is forbidden even in the Temple.

But not in the country.

Outside the Temple, it is forbidden to cut a wart even with a deviation, because, as stated, this involves a rabbinic prohibition.

And if

to cut it

with an implement—

here and there it is forbidden.

For even in the Temple it is forbidden, since it is a complete labor, as it is a derivative of shearing.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna that it is permitted to cut a wart on the daily offering on Shabbat.

And he raises a contradiction

from that which we learned in tractate Pesachim:

When the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat,

carrying it

the Passover offering on his shoulder in order to bring it to the Temple courtyard through the public domain,

and

likewise

bringing it from beyond the limit, and

likewise

cutting its wart—

do not override

Shabbat.

Despite the fact that the offering itself of the Passover offering overrides Shabbat.

Rabbi Eliezer says: They override.

It follows that the anonymous Mishna holds that cutting a wart on an offering does not override Shabbat, whereas our anonymous Mishna holds that it does override Shabbat!?

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina

make a distinction and resolve it—

One said: Both this and that,

the two Mishnayot speak

of a

wart

that is moist.

And it is not difficult:

Here,

our Mishna, which permits cutting, is speaking

by hand.

Here,

the Mishna in Pesachim, which forbids cutting, is speaking

with an implement,

which is a Torah prohibition. [

And Rabbi Eliezer permits even with an implement, because he holds that accessories of a mitzva override Shabbat, even when it was possible to make them on the eve of Shabbat. For example, here, cutting the wart is an accessory of a mitzva that it was possible to do on the eve of Shabbat.]

And one said: Both this and that are by hand.

And it is not difficult:

This

the Mishna in Pesachim is speaking

of

a wart

that is moist,

which involves a rabbinic prohibition when cutting it by hand; even a rabbinic prohibition was not permitted for the sake of the Passover offering, since it was possible to cut it on the eve of Shabbat.

This

our Mishna is speaking

of

a wart

that is dry,

which does not involve shearing even by rabbinic law.

And we inquire about it:

And according to the one who says, “This is by hand and that is with an implement,” -

what is the reason he did not say, “This is with a moist one and that is with a dry one”?

And we answer:

He could say to you: A dry one—

it is permitted even with an implement

to cut it.

What is the reason?

It crumbles entirely.

Since it crumbles because of its dryness, this is not shearing. But our Mishna forbids it with an implement, and necessarily our Mishna is not speaking of a dry wart. [

And the second one holds that even with a dry wart there is a prohibition when using an implement, since through this he repairs the offering, and it is a matter of labor.]

And we inquire about it:

And according to the one who says, “This is with a moist one and that is with a dry one,”—

what is the reason he did not say, “This is by hand and that is with an implement”?

And we answer:

He could say to you: With an implement

the Mishna in Pesachim need not teach us that it is forbidden, for

this

already

we learned

in our Mishna

“If with an implement, here and there it is forbidden,”

and why would the tanna repeat that same anonymous Mishna in two places?

And necessarily, the Mishna in Pesachim comes to forbid even by hand.

And the other one,

the second one who stated this distinction, will answer this:

That which it teaches there,

in Pesachim, a second time,

is because it seeks to present the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis,

in order to bring the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits even with an implement.

And the other one

will say to you: Indeed, this is a correct answer.

But for another reason, one cannot resolve it by saying, “This is by hand and that is with an implement,” for according to this, the Mishna in Pesachim speaks of a moist wart and of an implement, which is a Torah labor.

And it is impossible to say this, for

it teaches it in parallel with carrying it and bringing it from beyond the limit,

which involve only a

rabbinic

prohibition, for in carrying it there is no prohibition of bringing from the public domain into the private domain because “a living being carries itself.” And likewise the prohibition of limits is only rabbinic. Here too, cutting a wart is speaking of doing it by hand, which is only rabbinic.

And the other one,

will answer that these too are forbidden by Torah law.

Because

“carrying it”

comes

not according to Rabbi Natan, who says

in tractate Shabbat [94a]:

a living being carries itself,

but according to the Rabbis who disagree with him and hold that even with a living being there is a prohibition of bringing out, bringing in, and carrying in the public domain by Torah law.

And likewise,

“bringing it from beyond the limit”

comes

according to Rabbi Akiva, who says: the laws of limits are of Torah origin

they are.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

to prove that that Mishna speaks only of a rabbinic prohibition:

We learned in the continuation of that Mishna in Pesachim:

Rabbi Eliezer said:

One can learn by

a kal va-chomer

that carrying it, bringing it from beyond the limit, and cutting its wart override Shabbat:

And what of slaughter, which is

forbidden on Shabbat

because of a labor

by Torah law; nevertheless, it

overrides Shabbat

in the Passover offering.

These, which

are forbidden only

because of a rabbinic prohibition—

and is it

not logically necessary that they override Shabbat!?

It is explicit that cutting its wart involves only a rabbinic prohibition, and this is difficult for the one who establishes it as a moist wart and with an implement, which is a Torah prohibition?

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Both this and that are by hand.

The two Mishnayot speak when he cuts by hand, and both speak of a moist wart.

And although both involve a rabbinic prohibition, nevertheless there is a difference between them. For here, in tractate Eruvin, it speaks of the daily offering and other communal offerings, which are inspected for a blemish in the Temple; therefore, it is permitted to cut the blemish on Shabbat, for

the rabbinic prohibition of the Temple,

that is, of an offering, which is needed for the Temple,

in the Temple

itself

they permitted!

But in Pesachim, it speaks of the Passover offering, which each person inspects in his home and afterward brings to the Temple, and in his home they did not permit cutting the wart.

For

the rabbinic prohibition of a

need of the

Temple,

to perform it

in the country—

they did not permit!

Abaye sat and stated this teaching

of Rav Yosef, that they did not permit the rabbinic prohibition of the Temple in the country.

Rav Safra raised an objection to Abaye

from that which we learned above in our chapter [97b]:

If he was reading from a scroll on the threshold,

the entrance platform of the house,

and the scroll rolled from his hand

into the public domain—

he rolls it up

and returns it

to himself,

because this does not involve the Torah prohibition of bringing from the public domain into the private domain, since the scroll did not fall entirely into the public domain; rather, one end remained in his hand.

Here there is only a rabbinic prohibition, for they decreed that he should not return it to himself on account of a case in which it fell entirely from his hand. And in order to prevent the disgrace of sacred writings, they permitted transgressing a rabbinic prohibition.

But here, it is a rabbinic prohibition of the “Temple”

that is, the honor of sacred books, which is like the Temple,

and it is in the country, and we do not decree

the rabbinic prohibition, that he should not roll it to himself,

lest it fall

entirely from his hand

and he come to bring it

from the public domain to the private domain.

It follows that they permitted the rabbinic prohibition of the Temple even in the country!

And we answer:

And

is it

not that we established

above that it is speaking

of a threshold

that is

a karmelit, with the public domain passing before it?

For since it is joined to his hand,

one end of the scroll still remains in his hand—

there is not even a rabbinic prohibition!

For even if the scroll were to fall completely from his hand into the public domain and he were to bring it to himself onto the threshold, he would not transgress a Torah prohibition, since he brought it from the public domain into a karmelit. Therefore, when it is joined to his hand, it is permitted even initially, and the reason is not that they permitted a rabbinic prohibition in a place where there is disgrace to sacred writings.

He raised an objection

Rav Safra raised to Abaye, from that which we learned in tractate Shabbat 19b:

They lower the

offering

of Passover into the oven,

on the eve of Passover that occurs on the eve of Shabbat,

at twilight,

before the entry of Shabbat, and it continues roasting afterward during Shabbat.

This is despite the fact that with ordinary meat it is forbidden to place it in an oven on the eve of Shabbat unless it will have enough time to roast before Shabbat to the degree fit for eating under pressure [as the food of ben Derosai], because the Sages decreed lest he come to stoke the coals in order to hasten the roasting.

For here, for the sake of eating the Passover offering, they permitted it.

But here, the “rabbinic prohibition of the Temple”

is in the country,

since each person roasts his Passover offering in his home,

and we do not decree lest he stoke the coals.

It follows that they permitted the rabbinic prohibition of the Temple even in the country?

Abaye was silent

Abaye!

When

Abaye

came before Rav Yosef, he said to him

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

This is what Rav Safra said to me,

who objected to your statement that they did not permit the rabbinic prohibition of the Temple in the country, and I did not know what to answer him.

He said to him,

Rav Yosef said:

Why did you not answer him: They therefore permitted lowering the Passover offering at twilight because

that they permitted lowering the Paschal offering into the oven with nightfall because

the members of the group

who are registered for the Passover offering

are diligent!

For all those occupied with sacred matters are diligent and wise, and there is no concern that they might come to stoke the coals on Shabbat. It is not because they permitted the rabbinic prohibition of the Temple in the country.

And Abaye,

who did not answer Rav Safra in this manner, held: We say only

“the priests are diligent”

we say,

as we find in several places in the Talmud that they said this, because once a priest enters the service, it is known that they taught him the laws of sacred matters.

But

“the members of the group are diligent”

we do not say!

For there is no Israelite who does not make a Passover offering.

Rava said

to resolve the contradiction between our Mishna and the Mishna in Pesachim:

Both indeed speak in the same manner: he cuts the wart by hand, and it is moist. [

For it is impossible to establish our Mishna as referring to a dry wart, because of the earlier objection, for if so, it should be permitted even with an implement. And it is impossible to establish the Mishna in Pesachim as referring to an implement, since we proved above that there it speaks of a rabbinic prohibition.]

Nevertheless, they do not contradict one another.

For the Mishna—

it is Rabbi Eliezer

who disagrees there in the Mishna in Pesachim with the Rabbis,

who says: The accessories of a mitzva override Shabbat

even in a labor forbidden by Torah law, and even when it was possible to perform it on the eve of Shabbat—and all the more so in a rabbinic prohibition such as cutting a wart by hand.

And it should not be difficult: If so, why does the Mishna teach that it is forbidden to cut with an implement, when Rabbi Eliezer permits even a Torah labor?

Because

Rabbi Eliezer agrees that whenever it is possible to perform it with a deviation, we perform it with a deviation!

For here it is possible to cut the wart by hand, which is a deviation and is forbidden only by rabbinic law. Therefore, we do not desecrate Shabbat by cutting in the ordinary manner with an implement, which is forbidden by Torah law. Only where it is impossible to perform it through a deviation do we perform it even in the ordinary manner.