ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 103
(a) Cutting off the wart of an animal is a Toldah of Gozez.
(b) A Kohen may cut off the wart of an animal by hand in the Beis
Hamikdash - because using ones hand and not an instrument is 'Kele'achar
Yad', and Chazal did not generally Isurim de'Rabbanan in the Mikdash.
(c) It is necessary to remove animals warts in the Mikdash - because they
are considered a blemish, and blemishes disqualify Korbanos from being
brought on the Mizbei'ach.
(a) Those who establish both Mishnahs (even the Mishnah in Pesachim which
forbids the removal of a blemish in the Mikdash) by a wet wart - explains
that *that* Mishnah speaks about removing it with an instrument.
(b) They do not want to establish the leniency in our Mishnah by a *dry
wart*, and to ascribe the leniency to the fact that a dry wart is not
really a blemish - because, in their opinion, the removal of a dry wart
would be permitted even using an instrument.
(a) Those who establish both Mishnahs with regard to the removal of the
wart by hand - explain that *our* Mishnah speaks by a *dry* wart, and the
Mishnah in Pesachim, by a *wet* one.
(b) They do not want to ascribe the stringency in the Mishnah in Pesachim
to the fact that it is being removed with an instrument - since our
Mishnah has already stated that ('ve'Im bi'Ch'li, Kahn ve'Kahn Asur').
(c) The Amora'im who *do* answer that the Mishnah in Pesachim speaks about
the removal of a wet wart with an instrument, explain that it is necessary
to mention it *there* (in spite of the fact that our Mishnah has already
done so *here*) - in order to introduce the Machlokes Rebbi Eliezer and
the Chachamim, who argue specifically about an Isur de'Rabbanan.
(d) Those who do establish the Mishnah in Pesachim by the removal of a wet
wart using an instrument - explain that all the cases there are, in fact,
dOraysa. How is that? Because to begin with, that Tana disagrees with
Rebbi Nasan, who holds that' an animal carries itself' (and that carrying
it on Shabbos therefore, constitutes only an Isur de'Rabbanan). The Tana
in Pesachim is of the opinion that carrying an animal on Shabbos is indeed
an Isur d'Oraysa; and as for bringing it from outside the Techum, he
follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, who holds that the Isur of Techumin is
(a) The Gemara however, rejects the above explanation on the basis of
Rebbi Eliezer, who makes a Kal va'Chomer, in which he specifically states
that bringing the animal in and removing the wart are only Asur
(b) The Tana in Pesachim forbids the removal of a wet wart even by hand
(even though our Mishnah permits it), says Rav Yosef, because although the
removal of a wart from the Korban Pesach was for the needs of the Mikdash,
it was not performed by the Kohanim in the Mikdash, but by each owner in
his own home, before bringing it to the Mikdash to be sacrificed.
Consequently, it is not considered a Shevus which is permitted in the Beis
Hamikdash. (Note: According to Rav Yosef, everyone agrees that the removal
of a *dry* wart is permitted even using an instrument.)
(c) A Sefer is Kodesh (which is why the Tana permits rolling it back from
the street) - and can therefore be compared to a Shevus de'Mikdash outside
the Beis Hamikdash.
(d) Abaye replied that we have already established the Mishnah there by an
Iskupas Karmelis, and, seeing as the person is still holding one end of
the Sefer, rolling it back does not even constitute a Shevus.
(a) Lowering the Korban Pesach into the oven close to sunset (ignoring the
normal time-to-roast-before-Shabbos that is required by roasting meat)
permitted by the Mishnah in Shabbos, does not constitute a Shevus
de'Mikdash outside the Mikdash, Rav Yosef explains - because of the
principle 'B'nei Chaburah Zerizin Hen', giving it the same strength as the
Mikdash, where the reason that most Shevusin do not apply, is because
Kohanim Zerizin Hen'.
(b) Abaye did not give this answer because he disagrees with it in
principle. 'Kohanim Zerizin Hen' is an established principle, but who says
that it extends to groups of Yisraelim who are preparing the Korban
Pesach, he argues?
(c) The author of our Mishnah who permits removing a wet wart by hand is
Rebbi Eliezer, who permits Machshirei Mitzvah on Shabbos - even if they
could have been performed before Shabbos.
(d) He nevertheless forbids using an instrument - because he concedes that
one should, as far as possible, make Shinuyim (i.e. do what needs to be
done, but in an unusual way).
(a) The Rabbanan do not require making a Shinuy. They do however, permit a
Shevus in the Mikdash. Consequently, seeing as removing a wart with one's
teeth is only a Shevus, why should they restrict the Heter of removing it,
to a second Kohen. Why should the Kohen not do it himself? Consequently,
the author of the Beraisa must be Rebbi Eliezer, and this goes to prove
that, wherever possible, Rebbi Eliezer requires a Shinuy.
(b) The Gemara, in an attempt to refute Rava's proof, argues that the
author of the Beraisa could well be the Chachamim, and that the Beraisa
does not restrict the removal of the wart to a second Kohen, only it
speaks when the wart grew on the Kohen's back, and he cannot possibly
remove it himself (what will then be the Chidush, see Tosfos DH
(c) If the author of the Beraisa is the Rabbanan, then why does he confine
the Heter to *biting off* the wart? He should have taught us that even
removing it with the hands is permitted? This would have proved Rebbi
Elazar who maintains that the Rabbanan are only lenient there by a Shevus,
but they agree by a d'Oraysa (removing the wart with an instrument), that
one is Chayav (Because Machshirei Mitzvah do not over-ride any d'Oraysos).
Now however, this remains unproven, since the Tana only permits removing
the wart by biting it off, but not by hand (which is Asur de'Rabbanan). In
that case, Machshirei Mitzvah do not even over-ride all Isurim de'Rabbanan
(d) There will be no problem however, in establishing the Beraisa like
Rebbi Eliezer, as we explained above (in 5d and 6a).
(a) A Kohen serving in the Beis Hamikdash is permitted to bind a reed
around a wound on Shabbos - because performing a cure per se, is only an
Isur de'Rabbanan, and since it is not nice for a Kohen to serve before
Hashem with an open wound, they permitted the Shevus of tying a reed
around the wound, so that he should serve with the wound covered.
(b) But if his intention is to draw out blood, then it is forbidden - a.
because this is not necessary for the Avodah, and b. because drawing blood
on Shabbos is an Isur d'Oraysa, and it is only Shevusin (of Machshirei
Avodah) that Chazal permitted in the Mikdash, not Isurim d'Oraysa.
(a) The concession for a Kohen to bind a reed around his finger does not
extend to a small belt - because a small belt is a garment, and a Kohen is
not permitted to wear more than four Bigdei Kehunah whilst performing the
(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that an extra garment is only forbidden on a
part of the body where clothes are usually worn, but not on the finger.
(c) The belt is not forbidden on the grounds that is a Chatzitzah -
because we are speaking either on the left-hand or even on the right-hand,
but on part of the hand with which the Kohen does not perform the Avodah.
(a) Rava quoting Rav Chisda says with regard to ...
1. ... be'Makom Begadim - even one thread constitutes a Chatzitzah.
(b) Rava might well agree with Rav Yehudah Brei de'Rebbi Chiya, who
forbids even a small belt (which is less than three by three Tefachim) -
because a small belt is Chashuv (whereas*he* is talking about a small
piece of plain cloth).
2. ... she'Lo be'Makom Begadim - only three by three Tefachim constitutes
a Chatzitzah (whereas Rebbi Yochanan seems to permit any size garment).
(c) The Tana of our Mishnah mentions a reed (and not a small belt, where
the Din would be exactly the same) - in order to teach us, by the way,
that a reed has the power to cure.