Eruvin 104b — the Talmud in English

Once he saw that they were soaking ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

flax in it,

that there were pools of water there in which flax was soaked—

he prohibited it for them!

Since there was once again concern that perhaps someone would draw water and soak flax in it, which is prohibited because it constitutes kneading [see Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 340:12].

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the cold well.”

And we explain:

What is meant by “the cold well”?

Shmuel said: It is a well about which matters were brought before the Sages, and they permitted it.

When the exiles who returned from Babylonia came up, they camped near that well, and they had no water to drink except from that well. The Sages therefore permitted them to draw water from it with a pulley on a Festival. From then on, this well remained permanently permitted for use on a Festival.

“About which matters were brought” is an expression of calling, meaning that the Sages brought proofs for their position that they had the authority to set aside a rabbinic prohibition in a time of pressing need.

They raise an objection from a source:

It was taught in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

“They did not permit all the cold wells; rather, only this one!”

And if you say

that “the cold well” means

“a well about which matters were brought before the Sages,” then

what does

“only this one” mean?

After all, the other wells were not called “a cold well” at all, since no matters were brought before the Sages concerning them. It is obvious that only this one was permitted.

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “The cold well” means

a

well of living water,

from the language of a spring.

As it is stated

in Jeremiah:

“Like a well whose waters are made cold—

so is her evil.”

And its explanation is: Just as a spring, which is a source that flows, continually renews itself and constantly adds more water, so too their evil flows forth without ceasing.

And the beraita is saying that they did not permit all the flowing wells, but only this one.

The essential passage: “They did not permit all the cold wells; rather, only this one.”

And when the people who returned from the exile came up, they camped beside it, and the prophets among them—

Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—

permitted it for them.

It was not that the prophets among them

permitted it;

rather, they already had their ancestral practice in their hands!

And this practice is considered like the practice of prophets, since, “If they are not prophets, they are the sons of prophets” [Ya’avetz].

Mishna:

A creeping creature

that is dead

and is found in the Temple—

a kohen, a member of the Temple’s priestly class, removes it with his belt,

by means of his belt on Shabbat. Although it is muktze, an object set aside and not designated for use on Shabbat, rabbinic restrictions do not apply in the Temple.

However, he may not touch it with his hand, so that the kohen himself will not become impure. But when he removes it with his belt, the kohen does not become impure from the creeping creature, because a creeping creature imparts impurity only through contact and not through carrying. Likewise, the belt, which becomes impure from the creeping creature, does not impart impurity to the kohen holding it, because the creeping creature is a primary source of impurity, whereas the belt becomes a first-degree impurity; people and vessels contract impurity only from a primary source of impurity.

Although it makes the belt, which is sacred, impure, it is nevertheless preferable to make the belt impure and remove the creeping creature quickly, in order

not to leave the impurity there

in the Temple, rather than search for wooden tongs that cannot contract impurity [because they are “simple wooden vessels,” which have no receptacle] and thereby leave the impurity in the Temple,

according to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

He does not make his belt impure; rather, he removes it

with wooden tongs,

which cannot contract impurity, so as

not to increase the impurity

by removing it with his belt and making the belt impure. Although by searching for the tongs he thereby leaves the impurity in the Temple,

From where may he remove it?

That is, where in the Temple must the creeping creature be found for it to be permitted to violate the prohibition of muktze on Shabbat and remove it from there?

From the Sanctuary, from the Entrance Hall, and from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar.

But if the creeping creature is found elsewhere in the Temple courtyard, it may not be removed on Shabbat, because of the prohibition of muktze,

according to Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas.

Rabbi Akiva says: Any place for which one is liable

—anyone who enters there while impure—

for entering deliberately,

if he entered deliberately, he is liable

to karet,

and if he entered unintentionally,

to a sin-offering,

meaning the entire Temple courtyard—

from there they remove it.

But all the other places [for Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas, this means the entire courtyard, and for Rabbi Akiva, the chambers in the courtyard]—

if the creeping creature is found there on Shabbat, they may not remove it. Rather,

they overturn a paskater over it,

a copper pot, to cover it until the conclusion of Shabbat.

Rabbi Shimon says: In a place where the Sages permitted you—

they gave you only what belongs to you.

They permitted it to you only because of a rabbinic prohibition.

The Gemara will explain that Rabbi Shimon’s statement does not refer to what was stated earlier in the Mishna, but to two different laws that Rabbi Shimon stated in tractate Eruvin.

Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna:

Rav Tavi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: One who brings

“a creeping creature that is impure,”

a vessel that became impure through a creeping creature,

into the Temple—

is liable

to karet if he did so deliberately, and to a sin-offering if he did so unintentionally, because he made the Temple impure.

But if he brought in the

creeping creature itself, he is exempt.

What is the reason?

The verse says

in the passage concerning the prohibition against entering the Temple while impure:

“From male to female you shall send out.”

And we interpret this as follows: One is liable for bringing in impurity to the Temple only for something comparable to a male or a female, meaning a person, in that

it can become pure in a ritual bath

after becoming impure. This includes an impure vessel.

A creeping creature is excluded, since it cannot become pure

in a ritual bath; therefore, one is not liable for bringing it into the Temple.

And we raise the following question:

Should we say that this supports him

from what was taught:

“From male to female you shall send out”—

to exclude an impure earthenware vessel,

for which one is exempt if he brings it into the Temple.

This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

And the Gemara infers:

What is the reason

for excluding an earthenware vessel?

Is it not because it cannot become pure in a ritual bath?

As the Torah states concerning an impure earthenware vessel, “And you shall break it,” indicating that it can become pure only through being broken.

This would be a proof for Shmuel, that one is liable for bringing into the Temple in a state of impurity only something that can become pure in a ritual bath.

And we reject this:

No!

The reason for the earthenware vessel is not that it cannot become pure in a ritual bath, but that it can never become a primary source of impurity.

In fact, one who brings a creeping creature into the Temple is liable, since the creeping creature is a primary source of impurity.

And this is how we interpret the verse:

One

who is comparable to a male or female in that he

can become a primary source of impurity.

A male or female can sometimes be a primary source of impurity—for example, a man or woman afflicted with a flux, or one impure from contact with the dead. One is liable for bringing such impurity into the Temple. This also includes all vessels, except earthenware vessels, which can become a primary source of impurity through being used as a support or seat by one afflicted with a flux, or through contact with a corpse.

An earthenware vessel is excluded, since it cannot become a primary source of impurity,

because a vessel can become a primary source of impurity only through being used as a support by one afflicted with a flux or through contact with a corpse. An earthenware vessel does not become impure through being used as a support, since it is not suitable for such use and would break. Nor does it become a primary source of impurity through contact with a corpse, as is evident from the passage concerning the red heifer: only something that can become pure in a ritual bath becomes a primary source of impurity through contact with a corpse, and an earthenware vessel cannot become pure in a ritual bath.

Should we say

that Shmuel’s ruling—that one is not liable for bringing an impure creeping creature into the Temple—is

the subject of a dispute between tannaim

?

As we learned in the Mishna:

A creeping creature that is found in the Temple—

a kohen removes it with his belt,

in order

“not to leave the impurity there,” according to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Yehuda says: He removes it with wooden tongs, so as not to increase the impurity.

Is it not that they disagree about this:

The one who says, “not to leave the impurity there,” holds that one who brings a creeping creature into the Temple is liable.

Since impurity from a creeping creature in the Temple is prohibited by Torah law, leaving its impurity there is not set aside because of the additional impurity caused by the belt.

And the one who says, “so as not to increase the impurity,” holds that one who brings a creeping creature into the Temple is exempt.

Therefore, it is preferable not to increase the impurity through the belt, even though this causes the creeping creature to remain there longer. The impurity of the belt is prohibited by Torah law, whereas the impurity of the creeping creature is not prohibited by Torah law.

And we reject this:

No!

Rather,

everyone

agrees that one who brings a creeping creature into the Temple

is liable. And here they disagree about this:

One—

Rabbi Yehuda—

holds that leaving the impurity there is preferable

to increasing the impurity through the belt, since the belt too is sacred.

And the other—

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka—

holds that increasing

the amount of

impurity is preferable

to leaving the impurity there.

Rather, should we say that Shmuel’s ruling is

the subject of a dispute between

these tannaim

?

As we learned

in the Mishna:

“From where may he remove it, and so on.”

Is it not that they disagree about this:

The one who says that it is not removed from the courtyard

on Shabbat

holds that one who brings a creeping creature into the Temple is exempt.

Therefore, the Sages did not permit the prohibition of muktze, since by Torah law there is no obligation to remove the creeping creature. Only from the Sanctuary, the Entrance Hall, and the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar may it be removed, because, out of respect for the Divine Presence, the Sages did not enforce their decree there.

And the one who says that it is removed from the entire courtyard

holds that it may be removed,

because he holds that one is liable.

Therefore, they permitted the prohibition of muktze because of the Torah obligation to remove the creeping creature.