Talmud for Eruvin 208:17

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמאן דאמר מעזרה לא קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש פטור ומאן דאמר מכולה עזרה קסבר חייב

Is it not because it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any earthenware.');">³⁵</span> cannot attain cleanness through a ritual bath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it must he broken (cf. Lev. XI,33) .');">³⁶</span> - No; only that which may become a primary source of uncleanness is subject to the prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of entering the Temple.');">³²</span> an earthen vessel, however, is excluded since it can never become a primary source of uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The only primary source of uncleanness which a vessel can contract is that of Midras defilement (v. Glos.) , to which all earthenware vessel is not susceptible, v. Shab. 84b. For bringing in a creeping thing, however, since it is a primary source of uncleanness, one does incur guilt, contrary to the view of Samuel.');">³⁷</span> Must it be conceded that on this question<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether guilt is incurred for taking a creeping thing into the Temple.');">³⁸</span> there is a divergence of opinion between the following Tannas: IF A CREEPING THING WAS FOUND IN THE TEMPLE A PRIEST SHOULD CARRY IT OUT IN HIS GIRDLE TO AVOID KEEPING THE UNCLEANNESS THERE ANY LONGER THAN IS NECESSARY; SO R'JOHANAN B. BEROKA. R'JUDAH RULED: IT SHOULD BE REMOVED WITH WOODEN TONGS IN ORDER THAT THE UNCLEANNESS SHALL NOT INCREASE. Now do they not differ on this point: That he who said: TO AVOID KEEPING, holds the opinion that one who takes a creeping thing into the Temple incurs guilt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pentateuchally. Hence it is preferable to extend uncleanness to the girdle rather than to continue a transgression against a Pentateuchal prohibition.');">³⁹</span> while he who said: IN ORDER THAT. SHALL NOT INCREASE holds the opinion that one who takes a creeping thing into the Temple is exempt? - No, all may agree that guilt is incurred, but the point at Issue here is the following: One Master holds that it is preferable to keep an unclean object a little longer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rather than increase uncleanness by imparting it to the sacred girdle.');">⁴⁰</span> while the other Master holds that it is preferable to increase the uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rather than keeping an unclean object in the Temple even only one minute longer than is absolutely necessary.');">⁴¹</span> The point at issue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether guilt is incurred for taking a creeping thing into the Temple.');">⁴²</span> is rather the same as that between the following Tannas. We learned: WHENCE MUST IT BE REMOVED etc. Now do they not differ on this point: That he who ruled that from the Temple court it may not be removed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">⁴³</span> is of the opinion that one who takes a creeping thing into the Temple is exempt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pentateuchally. The Rabbis, therefore, enforced their Shebuth throughout the Temple, except in the case of the Hekal and Ulam and between the latter and the altar on account of their high degree of holiness.');">⁴⁴</span> while he who holds that it must be removed from any part of the court is of the opinion that guilt is incurred?

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin