Eruvin 208:1

תרו בה כיתנא אסר להו:

soak flax in it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water they drew on the Sabbath by means of the wheel. rre');">¹</span> he forbade it to them. AND FROM THE HAKER WELL.

ומבאר הקר: מאי באר הקר אמר שמואל בור שהקרו עליה דברים והתירוה

What was the 'haker well'? - Samuel replied: A cistern concerning which arguments welled forth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shehekeru, 'haker' being the Hif. of the rt.');">²</span> and its use [on a Festival] was declared to be permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra.');">³</span> An objection was raised: Not all the haker cisterns but only this one, did they permit.

מיתיבי לא כל הבורות הקרות התירו אלא זו בלבד ואי אמרת שהקרו דברים עליה מאי זו בלבד

Now if you explain it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The haker well.');">⁴</span> to mean that concerning it arguments welled forth, what<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no arguments 'welled forth' in connection with any other cistern.');">⁵</span> could be the meaning of 'only this one'? - Rather, said R'Nahman B'Isaac: A well of living water,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same expression occurs in Gen. XXVI, 19.');">⁶</span>

אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק באר מים חיים שנאמר (ירמיהו ו, ז) כהקיר ביר מימיה וגו'

as it is said in Scripture: As a cistern welleth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ke-haker'.');">⁷</span> with her water etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. VI, 7.');">⁸</span> [To turn to] the main text.

גופא לא כל הבורות הקרות התירו אלא זו בלבד וכשעלו בני הגולה חנו עליה ונביאים שביניהן התירו להן ולא נביאים שביניהן אלא מנהג אבותם בידיהם:

Not all the haker cisterns, but only this one, did they permit. And when the exiles returned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'went up'.');">⁹</span> they encamped by it, and the prophets among then, permitted them to use it [on Festivals]; and not only the prophets among them did this but it was a practice of their forefathers that they upheld.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in their hands'.');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שרץ שנמצא במקדש כהן מוציאו בהמיינו שלא לשהות את הטומאה דברי רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה רבי יהודה אומר בצבת של עץ שלא לרבות את הטומאה

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A [DEAD] CREEPING THING WAS FOUND IN THE TEMPLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath, when it is forbidden under the laws of shebuth to handle a dead creeping thing.');">¹¹</span> A PRIEST SHOULD CARRY IT OUT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath, when it is forbidden under the laws of shebuth to handle a dead creeping thing.');">¹¹</span> IN HIS GIRDLE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not with his bare hand, in order to avoid direct contact with the creeping thing and the latter's consequent conveyance of levitical uncleanness to the priest's body. Carrying alone, in the absence of direct contact, does not cause uncleanness and the girdle, though it contracts a certain degree of uncleanness (first grade) from the creeping thing, cannot carry any uncleanness to the priest's body since no degree lower than that of primary uncleanness can affect the levitical cleanness of a human being.');">¹²</span>

מהיכן מוציאין אותו מן ההיכל ומן האולם ומבין האולם ולמזבח דברי ר"ש בן ננס

TO AVOID<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a reason why the author of this ruling does not require its removal, as does R. Judah presently, to be effected by means of an instrument that is not susceptible to levitical uncleanness.');">¹³</span> KEEPING THE UNCLEANNESS THERE ANY LONGER THAN IS NECESSARY; SO R'JOHANAN B. BEROKA. R'JUDAH RULED: [IT SHOULD BE REMOVED] WITH WOODEN TONGS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are unsusceptible to levitical uncleanness.');">¹⁴</span>

רבי עקיבא אומר כל מקום שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת משם מוציאין אותו ושאר כל המקומות כופין עליו פסכתר

IN ORDER THAT THE UNCLEANNESS SHALL NOT INCREASE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By its spread to the girdle. In R. Judah's view it is preferable to allow the offending object to remain in the Temple a little longer until wooden tongs can be obtained and thus to limit the extent of the uncleanness, rather than to remove it sooner and thereby cause the uncleanness to spread to another object.');">¹⁵</span> WHENCE MUST IT BE REMOVED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">¹⁶</span> FROM THE HEKAL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or the 'Holy' which contained the candlestick, the table for the shewbread and the golden altar.');">¹⁷</span>

רבי שמעון אומר מקום שהתירו לך חכמים משלך נתנו לך שלא התירו לך אלא משום שבות:

FROM THE ULAM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Temple porch in front of the Hekal.');">¹⁸</span> AND FROM BETWEEN THE ULAM AND THE ALTAR;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the brazen altar that stood in the Temple court in front of the Ulam. If the offending object was found in any other part of the Temple court it could not be removed on the Sabbath (until after nightfall) on account of the prohibition against moving objects from a private into a public domain.');">¹⁹</span> SO R'SIMEON B. NANUS.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב טבי בר קיסנא אמר שמואל המכניס טמא שרץ למקדש חייב שרץ עצמו פטור מאי טעמא אמר קרא (במדבר ה, ג) מזכר ועד נקבה תשלחו מי שיש לו טהרה במקוה יצא שרץ שאין לו טהרה

R'AKIBA RULED: FROM ANY PLACE WHERE KARETH IS INCURRED FOR ENTERING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a state of levitical uncleanness.');">²⁰</span> PRESUMPTUOUSLY AND A SIN-OFFERING FOR ENTERING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a state of levitical uncleanness.');">²⁰</span> IT IN ERROR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the entire Temple court.');">²¹</span>

לימא מסייע ליה מזכר עד נקבה תשלחו פרט לכלי חרש דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי מאי טעמא לאו משום דלית ליה טהרה במקוה

IT MUST BE REMOVED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forthwith, even on the Sabbath.');">²²</span> IN ANY OTHER PLACES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The side chambers (according to R. Akiba) or the part of the court beyond the space BETWEEN THE ULAM AND THE ALTAR (according to Ben Nanus) .');">²³</span> HOWEVER A PSYKTER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gr. ** (wine cooler) , a large brass pot.');">²⁴</span>

לא מי שנעשה אב הטומאה יצא כלי חרס שאינו נעשה אב הטומאה

IS TO BE PUT OVER IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To keep it covered during the Sabbath. After dusk it is removed.');">²⁵</span> R'SIMEON SAID:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The point of this statement is discussed infra.');">²⁶</span> WHEREVER THE SAGES HAVE PERMITTED YOU ANYTHING THEY HAVE ONLY GIVEN YOU WHAT IS REALLY YOURS, SINCE THEY HAVE ONLY PERMITTED YOU<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Temple.');">²⁷</span>

לימא כתנאי שרץ שנמצא במקדש כהן מוציאו בהמיינו שלא לשהות את הטומאה דברי רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה רבי יהודה אומר בצבת של עץ מוציאו שלא לרבות את הטומאה

THAT WHICH IS FORBIDDEN AS SHEBUTH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But nothing that is Pentateuchally forbidden.');">²⁸</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Tobi B'Kisna citing Samuel ruled: One who brings into the Temple all object that was defiled by a creeping thing incurs guilt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And must suffer the consequence (cf. Rashi a.l. and Elijah Wilna glosses) .');">²⁹</span> but if one brings in the creeping thing itself one is exempt.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמאן דאמר שלא לשהות קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש חייב ומ"ד שלא לרבות קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש פטור

What i the reason? - Scripture said: Both male and female shall ye put out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 3 which is applied to the Temple precincts. Cf. In the midst whereof I dwell (ibid) .');">³⁰</span> from which it is inferred that only that which may attain cleanness in a ritual bath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As 'a male and female' may.');">³¹</span> is subject to the prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of entering the Temple.');">³²</span>

לא דכולי עלמא חייב והכא בהא קא מיפלגי מר סבר שהויי טומאה עדיף ומר סבר אפושי טומאה עדיף

a creeping thing, however, is excluded since it can never attain cleanness. May it be suggested that the following provides support for this view? Both male and female shall ye put out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 3 which is applied to the Temple precincts. Cf. In the midst whereof I dwell (ibid) .');">³⁰</span>

אלא כהני תנאי דתנן מהיכן מוציאין אותו כו'

excludes an earthen vessel;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. no guilt is incurred for bringing unclean earthenware into the Temple.');">³³</span> so R'Jose the Galilean. Now what could be the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Jose's ruling.');">³⁴</span>

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?