Eruvin 103b — the Talmud in English

And we raised this:

What is it?

From where do we know that Rabbi Eliezer agrees that we do not perform it in its ordinary manner where it is possible to perform it differently?

And we answered:

For it was taught in a beraita: A priest upon whom a wart arose

on his body, which disqualifies him from the service—

his fellow cuts it for him

on Shabbat

with his teeth,

so that he can serve.

And we infer:

With his teeth, yes.

Only with his teeth may he cut it for him, since its prohibition is only on account of shevut, because this is not the ordinary manner.

But

with an implement,

with which it is customary to cut,

no.

And likewise it follows that even when he cuts it with his teeth, only

his fellow, yes.

Specifically through his fellow is it permitted, because his fellow cannot cut it properly for another person without an implement.

But

he

for himself

no!

Because a person can train himself and cut his own wart with his teeth.

And we find that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disputed this in tractate Shabbat 94b. For Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who removes [cuts] his fingernails for himself on Shabbat is liable for a sin-offering, even when he removed them one with the other or with his teeth. And only when his fellow removed them for him with his fingernails or with his teeth is he exempt.

And the Sages hold that even he himself is exempt when he cuts them with his fingernails or with his teeth.

And now the Gemara proves:

Who is it,

who is the tanna who taught this beraita?

If you say it is the Sages,

who hold that the preparations for a mitzva do not override Shabbat. And here it teaches us that specifically a labor from the Torah does not override it, but shevut, such as the cutting of a wart by his fellow with his teeth, since

and

it

is in the Temple,

it does override Shabbat.

It is impossible to say so.

For

since the Sages say generally,

outside a mitzva context, that even removing his fingernails for himself with his teeth is prohibited only

on account of shevut.

If so,

here,

where you permitted him to cut the wart and transgress shevut because he is in the Temple—

what difference is there whether it is he or his fellow?

Rather, is it not Rabbi Eliezer

that

says generally,

outside a mitzva context, that one who removes his fingernails for himself with his teeth

is liable for a sin-offering.

And only when his fellow removes them for him with his fingernails is it merely shevut.

And here,

in the case of a priest upon whom a wart arose,

even though

Rabbi Eliezer holds

that the preparations for a mitzva override Shabbat

even with a labor from the Torah, nevertheless

to the extent that it is possible to perform it differently, we perform it differently.

And therefore we do not permit him to cut the wart himself, which is a prohibition from the Torah, since it is possible through his fellow, which is only shevut.

It follows that Rabbi Eliezer holds concerning the preparations for a mitzva: to the extent that it is possible to perform it differently, we perform it differently.

And we reject this:

No.

Actually,

this beraita

is the Sages

.

And if it arose

the wart

on his belly—

so too,

he could cut it himself with his teeth, which also involves only shevut.

Rather,

with what are we dealing here? With a case in which a bite arose for him,

that is, a wart,

on his back and at the inner folds of his arms,

at his elbow.

For he

himself

cannot remove it,

and therefore his fellow cuts it for him with his teeth.

But actually, Rabbi Eliezer holds that the preparations for a mitzva override Shabbat even through a labor from the Torah, and even when it is possible to perform it differently and do it through a labor prohibited only on account of shevut.

And we challenge this rejection:

And if it is the Sages

—

let him remove it for him by hand.

That is, let the Sages teach us that his fellow may cut his wart for him with his hands, which is also only shevut, for now we would learn two things:

a. The preparations for a mitzva override only shevut, but not a primary labor, for he is forbidden to cut it with an implement.

b.

And let us also resolve

this

of Rabbi Elazar.

For Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute

between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages in tractate Shabbat is specifically when he removed his fingernails

by hand, but

if he removed them

with an implement, everyone agrees that he is liable.

For it is a derivative of the labor of shearing, since he cuts a nail attached to a living person, and it resembles shearing wool from a living animal.

And we would hear this novelty only if it were written that it is permitted to cut by hand, and we would infer that with an implement it is not permitted, because it is a primary labor.

But now that it is written that he cuts it with his teeth, it is impossible to infer this, for even with his hands, which is also shevut, they did not permit him [because it is more severe shevut than with his teeth, since it is more customary to cut with the hand than with the teeth].

And if so, perhaps even with an implement it involves only shevut?

And we challenge the one who raised the challenge:

But according to your reasoning,

since you wish to establish the beraita according to Rabbi Eliezer, that it is necessary to cut through his fellow in order to perform it differently to the greatest possible extent,

raise this difficulty:

According to Rabbi Eliezer too, let him remove it for him by hand!

For even when his fellow cuts it by hand, this is a change, so why was it stated that he cuts it specifically with his teeth?

And we answer:

This—

what [can be said about it]?

If you say, this is understandable

that the beraita

is Rabbi Eliezer

is, who holds that according to the basic law the preparations for a mitzva override even a labor from the Torah, and both a primary labor and shevut are considered permitted with regard to the preparations for a mitzva.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to perform it differently and lessen the severity of the prohibition where possible.

If so, just as one changes from a primary labor to shevut,

that is

also

that one decrees regarding the hand on account of the implement.

For what difference is there between a more severe rabbinic prohibition and a less severe one? And we conclude:

For one also changes from severe shevut to light shevut. And the hand is more severe shevut than the teeth, because it is more customary to cut by hand than with the teeth. Therefore it more closely resembles an implement, and one must decree regarding it on account of an implement; therefore we permit it only with the teeth.

Rather, if you say it is the Sages,

who hold that according to the basic law the preparations for a mitzva override only shevut, but not a labor from the Torah—

let him remove it for him by hand!

A kohen who was injured

For what difference is there between severe shevut and light shevut? And we conclude:

And there is nothing further!

There is no further difficulty to raise concerning the fact that we established the beraita according to Rabbi Eliezer and proved that Rabbi Eliezer holds that to the extent that it is possible to perform it differently, we perform it differently.

Mishna:

A priest who was struck

was wounded

on his finger

on Shabbat—

wraps papyrus around it

if he is

in the Temple.

Although the papyrus heals the wound, it is permitted for him, because there is a need for the service in this. Since it is not proper that his wound should be visible at the time of the service.

But he may not

wrap papyrus around it if he is

in the country.

For the Sages prohibited healing on Shabbat, as a decree lest he grind medicinal substances.

And if

his intention in wrapping the papyrus is

to draw out blood,

by tightening the papyrus over the wound—

in both here and there it is forbidden.

For even in the Temple it is forbidden, since there is no need for the service in this.

Moreover, he transgresses a labor from the Torah of wounding, and a complete labor was not permitted in the Temple except in the service of the offerings itself.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, said: They taught

that it is permitted for a priest to wrap it and serve

only papyrus,

which is not considered a garment at all.

But

if he wraps over the wound

a small belt,

which is girded

small

and fine—

it is “an excess of garments”

and it disqualifies his service.

For a priest who wore an unnecessary garment at the time of the service disqualifies the service through this.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: They said

that

“an excess of garments”

disqualifies only when he wore it

in a place

fit for wearing

garments.

let the service be invalidated

But when not in the place of garments,

such as here, where he wore a garment on his finger—

it is not an excess of garments.

And we challenge: How do we permit wrapping papyrus or a small belt around his finger at the time of the service? For although there is no excess of garments here, nevertheless,

let it be derived

as prohibited

because of an interposition,

since the papyrus or the small belt interposes between the priest’s hand and the service.

For it is written, “And the priest shall take,” “and the priest shall cast,” implying that the service must be performed by the priest himself, that is, with his actual hand and not through another object!?

And we answer: This that papyrus or a small belt is permitted is when he wrapped it around a finger

of the

hand

left,

with which one does not perform the service.

Alternatively,

even

on the

hand

right, and not in the place of the service,

such as when he wrapped it on the back of the finger, and there is no interposition through it.

And this disputes

what Rabbi Yohanan said, that when not in the place of garments there is no disqualification of an excess of garments, implying that every garment, even one measuring three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, does not disqualify when not in the place of garments, with

what

said

Rava.

For Rava said in the name of Rav Hisda:

In the place of garments—

even a single thread

that is found between his flesh and the garment

interposes!

And although there is no excess of garments through this, for the thread is not a garment at all, nevertheless there is an interposition here between the garment and the priest’s flesh.

And we derive it from that which is written, “And he shall wear linen breeches—on his flesh,” that the garment must be directly on his flesh, without an interposition between them.

But

when not in the place of garments—

there is no deficiency of interposition, but only a deficiency of an excess of garments.

And this deficiency of “an excess of garments” exists only in wearing a garment that has at least a measure of

three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths.

For then they [the three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths of the garment’s measure]

interpose!

Not specifically that they interpose. Rather, the intention is that they disqualify by the law of an excess of garments. And he used the expression “interpose” because at first Rav Hisda used this expression concerning a single thread in the place of garments, where the disqualification is because of interposition and not because of an excess of garments. Therefore he continued with the expression “interposition” also afterward, concerning an excess of garments.

But garments that are of a measure

less than three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths—

do not interpose!

For this is not considered an excess of garments, since the designation of garment does not apply to them.

And likewise they do not interpose between the garment and his flesh, since this is not in the place of garments. Nor is it applicable to discuss the law of interposition between the priest and the service, because it is speaking of a case in which the interposition is on his body, not in the place of the service.

That is, Rava in the name of Rav Hisda disputes Rabbi Yohanan.

For Rava holds that even when not in the place of garments there is the deficiency of an excess of garments, whereas Rabbi Yohanan holds that there is a deficiency of an excess of garments only in the place of garments.

And we raised this: It is obvious to us that Rava in the name of Rav Hisda, who says that even when not in the place of garments there is the deficiency of an excess of garments,

disputes Rabbi Yohanan,

who says that there is no deficiency of an excess of garments in this case,

certainly disputes him.

Rather, this is what was asked of us: Does it also

dispute Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya,

who says that a small belt [a small girdle], even if it is not three by three, is considered an excess of garments—

shall we say that

also concerning him

Rava in the name of Rav Hisda disputes,

for Rav Hisda said that specifically a garment of three by three is an excess of garments?

Or perhaps Rav Hisda holds like Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, that a small girdle is considered an excess of garments, like a garment of three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, because of its importance?

And we resolve:

A small girdle is different, for it is important.

Therefore it is considered an excess of garments, despite its not being three by three fingerbreadths.

Some state it in another version:

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, said: They taught

that it is permitted for a priest serving in the Temple to wrap around his finger,

only papyrus.

But a small belt,

a girdle

small—

interposes.

And this means the disqualification of an excess of garments, and not that of interposition!

And Rabbi Yehuda used the expression “interposition” because of his dispute with Rabbi Yohanan, which will be explained shortly.

And Rabbi Yohanan used the expression “interposition” specifically.

Because he says [below] that a garment that is less than three by three interposes in the place of garments. And this disqualification is only because of interposition, and not because of an excess of garments, since with less than three fingerbreadths there is no disqualification of an excess of garments.

It follows that there is no practical difference between the first version and the latter version in the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya, and the entire practical difference is below, in the words of Rabbi Yohanan.

There is only a linguistic difference between the two versions.

For the first version used the expression “an excess of garments” concerning a small girdle, according to Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyya.

And the latter version used the expression “interposition.”

However, as stated, even in the latter version the intention is an excess of garments, and not the disqualification of interposition.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: They said not

that

interposition

disqualifies

with less than three by three—

except in the place of garments.

For the deficiency is because of interposition between the garment and his flesh, and this deficiency exists with any amount, since even a single thread interposes.

Here the intention is actual interposition, and because of this statement he used throughout the latter version the expression “interposition,” even when the intention is the disqualification of an excess of garments.