## Eruvin Daf 103b

###### Eruvin 103b:1
[Eruvin 103b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:1)

מַאי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: כֹּהֵן שֶׁעָלְתָה בּוֹ יַבֶּלֶת — חֲבֵירוֹ חוֹתְכָהּ לוֹ בְּשִׁינָּיו. בְּשִׁינָּיו — אִין, בִּכְלִי — לָא. חֲבֵירוֹ — אִין, אִיהוּ — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** the source for this idea? **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: If **a priest grew a wart,** which temporarily disqualifies him from performing the service, **his fellow** priest may **cut it off for him** on Shabbat **with his teeth.** The Gemara infers: **With his teeth, yes,** this is permitted; but **with an instrument, no,** he may not do so. Likewise, for **his fellow** priest, **yes,** he may cut off his wart; but **he** himself, **no,** he may not cut off his own wart.


###### Eruvin 103b:2
[Eruvin 103b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:2)

מַנִּי? אִילֵּימָא רַבָּנַן וּבַמִּקְדָּשׁ, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן בְּעָלְמָא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת — הָכָא, מָה לִי הוּא מָה לִי חֲבֵירוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: According to **whose** opinion was this *baraita* taught? **If you say** it is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, and** the leniency is based on the principle that a rabbinic prohibition does not apply **in the Temple, since the Rabbis say in general** that biting off even one’s own nails or wart, and certainly those of another, is prohibited **due to rabbinic decree,** then in this case **here, what is** the difference **to me** whether it is the priest **himself** who cuts off the wart, or **what is** the difference **to me** whether it is **another** priest who cuts it off?


###### Eruvin 103b:3
[Eruvin 103b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:3)

אֶלָּא לָאו, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּאָמַר בְּעָלְמָא חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, וְהָכָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּמַכְשִׁירֵי מִצְוָה דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, כַּמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְשַׁנּוֹיֵי מְשַׁנִּינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, wasn’t** it taught in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** who **said** that **in general** one **is liable to** bring **a sin-offering** for biting off his own nails or wart? **And here, even though** he maintains that **preparations** for a **mitzva override** the prohibitions of **Shabbat,** and it should therefore be permitted for him to cut off his own wart with an instrument, nevertheless, **as much as it is possible to alter** the procedure so that it does not entail the violation of a Torah prohibition, **one alters,** and biting off another person’s wart is prohibited due to rabbinic decree, not Torah law.


###### Eruvin 103b:4
[Eruvin 103b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:4)

לָא: לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן, וְאִי עָלְתָה בִּכְרֵיסוֹ — הָכִי נָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this contention: **No,** this is not necessarily the case. **Actually,** this *baraita* can be explained in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, **and if** the wart **grew on his abdomen,** or anywhere else easily removable by hand, **so too,** it is clear that according to the Rabbis there is no difference between himself and his fellow priest, and he may remove it himself.


###### Eruvin 103b:5
[Eruvin 103b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:5)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָלְתָה לוֹ נְשִׁיכָה בְּגַבּוֹ וּבְאַצִּילֵי יָדָיו, דְּאִיהוּ לָא מָצֵי שָׁקֵיל לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, **here, we are dealing with** a case **where,** the priest **received a bite** that developed into a wart **on his back or on his elbow,** from **where he** himself **cannot remove it,** but someone else can.


###### Eruvin 103b:6
[Eruvin 103b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:6)

וְאִי רַבָּנַן, נִשְׁקְלֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּיָד, וְתִפְשׁוֹט דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַחֲלוֹקֶת בַּיָּד, אֲבָל בִּכְלִי — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But if** the *baraita* reflects the opinion of **the Rabbis,** the other priest should be permitted to **remove** the wart **from him by hand,** rather than with an instrument, **and** therefore one should **resolve** the dilemma in accordance with the teaching of **Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute** between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the removal of one’s nails is limited to one who removed them **by hand, but** if he removed them **with an instrument, everyone agrees** that **he is liable** to bring a sin-offering.


###### Eruvin 103b:7
[Eruvin 103b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:7)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי לִישְׁקְלֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּיָד! הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — הַיְינוּ דְּגָזַר יָד אַטּוּ כְּלִי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ רַבָּנַן הִיא — נִשְׁקְלֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּיָד, וְתוּ לָא מִידֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **And according to your reasoning, Rabbi Eliezer** should **also** agree **that he** should be permitted to **remove it for him by hand.** The Gemara expresses surprise at this comment: **What is** the nature of **this** contention? **Granted, if you say** that it was taught in accordance with **Rabbi Eliezer, this is** why removing the wart **by hand was decreed** prohibited **due to** a preventive measure, lest he remove it with **an instrument,** as he maintains that removing a wart with an instrument is prohibited by the Torah. **However, if you say it** is according to the opinion of **the Rabbis, he** should be permitted to **remove it for him by hand. And nothing more** need be said, as it is clear that the *baraita* was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Eruvin 103b:8
[Eruvin 103b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** כֹּהֵן שֶׁלָּקָה בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ — כּוֹרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ גֶּמִי. בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, אֲבָל לֹא בַּמְּדִינָה. אִם לְהוֹצִיא דָּם — כָּאן וְכָאן אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a priest who was injured on his finger** on Shabbat, **he** may temporarily **wrap it with a reed** so that his wound is not visible while he is serving in the Temple. This leniency applies **in the Temple, but not in the country,** as it also heals the wound, and medical treatment is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree. **If** his intention **is to draw blood** from the wound or to absorb blood, **it is prohibited in both** places.


###### Eruvin 103b:9
[Eruvin 103b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא גֶּמִי, אֲבָל צִלְצוֹל קָטָן — הָוֵי יִתּוּר בְּגָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, said: They taught** that **only a reed** is permitted. **However, a small sash is** prohibited, as it would be **considered an extra garment,** and it is prohibited for a priest to add to the priestly garments prescribed by the Torah.


###### Eruvin 103b:10
[Eruvin 103b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:10)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא אָמְרוּ יִתּוּר בְּגָדִים אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם בְּגָדִים — לָא הָוֵי יִתּוּר בְּגָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They said** that donning an **extra garment** is prohibited **only** if it is worn **in a place** on the priest’s body where the priestly **garments** are worn. **But in a place** where those **garments** are **not** worn, e.g., on his hand or the like, a sash that is tied there **is not considered an extra garment.**


###### Eruvin 103b:11
[Eruvin 103b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:11)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם חֲצִיצָה! בִּשְׂמֹאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let him derive** that both the reed and the sash are prohibited **as an interposition.** As the reed and sash interpose between the priest’s hand and the holy vessel, they should invalidate the service. The Gemara rejects this contention: Perhaps the wound is **on** the priest’s **left** hand, while the entire service is performed exclusively with his right hand. Consequently, a bandage on his left hand is not an interposition.


###### Eruvin 103b:12
[Eruvin 103b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:12)

אִי נָמֵי בְּיָמִין — וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם עֲבוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** it is possible that the wound is **on** the priest’s **right** hand, **but not in a place** used in the **service,** which means the bandage does not interpose between his hand and the holy vessels used in the Temple service.


###### Eruvin 103b:13
[Eruvin 103b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:13)

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בִּמְקוֹם בְּגָדִים — אֲפִילּוּ נִימָא אַחַת חוֹצֶצֶת. שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם בְּגָדִים, שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ — חוֹצְצוֹת, פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ — אֵינָן חוֹצְצוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And this conclusion **disputes** the opinion **of Rava, as Rava said** that **Rav Ḥisda said: In a place** on the priest’s body where the priestly **garments** are worn, **even one** extra **thread interposes** and is prohibited, whereas **in a place** where the priestly **garments** are **not** worn, if the fabric was **three** fingerbreadths **by three** fingerbreadths, **it interposes,** but if it was **less than three** fingerbreadths **by three** fingerbreadths, **it does not interpose.**


###### Eruvin 103b:14
[Eruvin 103b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:14)

אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וַדַּאי פְּלִיגָא. אַדְּרַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא מִי נֵימָא פְּלִיגָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: This teaching **certainly disagrees with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan,** as he maintains that the prohibition against interpositions does not apply at all in a place on the priest’s body where the priestly garments are not worn. However, **shall we say that it** also **disagrees with** the opinion **of Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya,** who prohibits even a sash smaller than three by three fingerbreadths?


###### Eruvin 103b:15
[Eruvin 103b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:15)

שָׁאנֵי צִלְצוֹל קָטָן דַּחֲשִׁיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Nothing can be proven from here, as **a small sash is different, since it is significant,** and it is therefore considered a garment even if it is less than three by three fingerbreadths.


###### Eruvin 103b:16
[Eruvin 103b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:16)

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא, אָמְרִי לַהּ: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא גֶּמִי, אֲבָל צִלְצוֹל קָטָן — חוֹצֵץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to **another version, they reported** this dispute as follows: **Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, said** that **they taught** this leniency **only** with regard to **a reed, but** that **a small sash interposes.**


###### Eruvin 103b:17
[Eruvin 103b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/103b:17)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא אָמְרוּ חֲצִיצָה בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם בְּגָדִים

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They said** that there is **interposition with regard to** an article that is **less than three by three** fingerbreadths **only in a place** where the priestly **garments** are worn. **However, in a place** where the priestly **garments** are **not** worn, the following distinction applies: