Back
Eiruvin
Daf 105bעֲנִיבָה דְּלָא אָתֵי לִידֵי חִיּוּב חַטָּאת – שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן, קְשִׁירָה דְּאָתֵי לִידֵי חִיּוּב חַטָּאת – לֹא שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן. הדרן עלך המוצא תפילין וסליקא לה מסכת עירובין
The reason why only forming a bow is permitted, is that it cannot lead to liability for a sin-offering, as forming a bow cannot constitute a violation of the category of the prohibited labor of tying. Consequently, the Sages permitted it. However, with regard to tying a knot, which can lead to liability for a sin-offering when performed outside the Temple, the Sages did not permit it, as Rabbi Shimon maintains that the Sages permitted only activities whose prohibition involves a rabbinic decree.
RASHI
קשירה דאתיא לידי חיוב חטאת במדינה גזרה שמא יקשור קשר של קיימא:
SUMMARY
Several aspects of the rabbinic decrees designed to preserve the integrity of Shabbat as a day of rest were discussed in this chapter. Essentially, what are the limits of rabbinic decrees? Under what circumstances do the Sages insist on full compliance and when are they more flexible? The prohibited labor of carrying out is an inferior labor, as, in contrast to the other primary categories of prohibited labor, no apparent change has been engendered in the object, and the lines demarcating the boundaries between the various domains of Shabbat are similarly not always apparent. Consequently, numerous rabbinic decrees were issued in an attempt to limit the possibility that one will transfer objects from one domain to another. The Sages prohibited transfer of objects from domain to domain even when it is accomplished through an intermediate domain, unless it was performed while observing numerous precautionary measures. Indeed, the principle established by Rabbi Shimon was, in a certain sense, the key to all of the halakhic issues discussed in this chapter; it applied to the rabbinic decrees issued to preserve the character of Shabbat as a day of rest: Wherever the Sages permitted you to perform a certain action, they merely gave you from that which was yours. As it was the Sages who issued these decrees, they, at times, permitted the performance of actions similar to those they prohibited for various reasons. Therefore, the Sages employed extensive leniency with regard to matters associated with sacred items, e.g., sacred writings, phylacteries, and the like. This approach was especially conspicuous with regard to the Temple precincts. There, many of the decrees issued by the Sages were not in effect, either due to the diligence of the priests and their meticulousness in the performance of mitzvot, in contrast to the general public, whose lack of attention could lead to failure in those matters, or due to the fact that stringency within the Temple precincts with regard to one matter could lead to laxity with regard to other mitzvot of the Temple that are Torah obligations. Nevertheless, not everything permitted by Torah law was actually performed within the Temple precincts. The suspension of decrees was implemented only for matters that were essential and with regard to which there was no danger that a Torah prohibition would be violated. Just as the Sages were lenient in applying decrees issued to preserve Shabbat as a day of rest within the Temple precincts, so too were they lenient with regard to other rabbinic decrees and stringencies there, limiting their decrees only to cases where there was concern lest even the priests in the Temple come to violate a Torah prohibition.