Eruvin 105a (קה.) — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

They do not disagree with regard to this matter; rather, according to everyone, one who brings a creeping creature into the Temple is liable.

Rather,

both expounded the same verse,

each according to his own view, with regard to removing an impure object from the azarah on Shabbat:

As it is written in Divrei HaYamim:

“And the priests entered within the House of the Lord to purify it.

And they brought out all the impurity that they found in the Sanctuary of the House of the Lord [A foreign object and its accessories, which impart impurity even through a tent]

to the courtyard of the House of the Lord” [the azarah].

And once the priests had removed the impurity from the Sanctuary to the azarah—

“the Levites received it” [from the priests],

“to take it out” [from there]

to the Kidron Valley outside.”

It follows that although they required other people to remove the impurity from the azarah, other priests were not permitted to become impure in order to continue removing the impurity from the azarah and outside.

Mar,

son of Nanas,

held:

From the fact that the situation changed in the azarah—because of the distinction in the azarah, where other priests were not permitted to become impure in order to remove the impurity from there, but rather

the Levites

alone were used—

infer from this that

there is no significant impurity in the azarah!

That is, its impurity is not sufficiently severe, relative to the impurity of the Sanctuary, that they should violate any prohibition because of it.

Therefore, neither do we override the rabbinic prohibition of shevut concerning muktzeh in order to remove the creeping creature from there.

And Mar,

Rabbi Akiva

held:

The reason is not that the impurity of the azarah is less severe than that of the Sanctuary.

Rather,

as long as it is not possible to use Levites,

because the Levites are prohibited from entering the Sanctuary—for even the priests were permitted to enter only at the time of service—

they remove

the

priests

from there.

But

now,

when the impurity has reached the azarah,

when it is possible to use Levites

to enter there and remove it,

the priests no longer become impure.

But in the case of a creeping creature found in the azarah, it is not possible to leave the impurity there until evening. Therefore, even when removing it entails the prohibition of muktzeh, the creeping creature is removed from there.

The Sages taught: Everyone may enter the Sanctuary

in order

to build

there, and in order

to repair and remove

from there

the impurity.

And it is a mitzva,

ideally,

for priests

to do this.

If there are no priests there, Levites enter.

If

there are no Levites there, Israelites enter.

Whether this or that,

whether priests, Levites, or Israelites,

if they are pure, yes;

if they are impure, no.

And if there are only impure people and no pure people, they should not enter at all.

Rav Huna said: Rav Kahana,

who was a priest,

supports the priests—

he gives precedence to priests, as he does not hold in accordance with the preceding beraita, but maintains that impure priests take precedence over pure Israelites.

For Rav Kahana taught: Since it is stated

with regard to priests with blemishes,

“Only he shall not enter within the curtain”—

one might

say:

Priests with blemishes should not enter between the Entrance Hall and the Altar

in order

to make plates of beaten metal

of gold with which the Holy of Holies is covered from within?

The verse states: “Only”—

it makes a distinction!

That is, “only” is an exclusion. For every “only” and “just” in the Torah comes to exclude something.

And the verse comes to make a distinction, teaching that the prohibition does not apply in every circumstance. It also excludes this case, teaching that they are permitted to enter for the sake of carrying out the work.

And

it is a mitzva,

ideally, for

unblemished priests

to enter there.

If

there are no unblemished priests there, priests with blemishes enter.

Likewise,

it is a mitzva for

priests who are

pure.

And if

there are no pure priests there, impure priests enter.

Whether this or that,

whether unblemished or blemished, whether pure or impure,

priests, yes;

Israelites, no.

They raised a dilemma before them:

There were only two priests, one

impure and

the other

blemished—

which of them enters?

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: The impure priest enters, for impurity is permitted in the communal service!

An impure priest serves with communal offerings when there are no pure priests, whereas a priest with a blemish never serves, even with communal offerings.

Rabbi Elazar says: The priest with a blemish enters, for a blemish is permitted with regard to eating consecrated food!

But an impure person is prohibited from eating consecrated food.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says:

When the Sages permitted something to you, they gave you what is yours.

And we explain:

To what case does Rabbi Shimon refer?

He refers to that case.

To

that which we learned

above, on page 52b:

One upon whom Shabbat became manifestly imminent outside the Shabbat limit,

who was returning from the road on Shabbat eve and did not manage to enter within two thousand cubits of the city before Shabbat began,

even if he was

one cubit

outside the limit—

he may not enter

the city, since it is two thousand cubits distant from him.

Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he was

fifteen cubits

outside the city’s limit,

he may enter

the city.

Because the surveyors,

who measure the Shabbat limits,

make the measurements approximate,

as they are precise in measuring the limit but do not establish the boundary marker exactly at the end of two thousand cubits; rather, they place it fifteen cubits earlier,

because of those who err.

That is, the surveyors are concerned lest they err in the measurement, and therefore they shorten the measure.

Another explanation: Because of people who err, forget, and go outside the limit, and then return. By shortening the limit, they do not come to violate the prohibition.

Therefore, one upon whom Shabbat became manifestly imminent outside the limit, up to fifteen cubits, is in fact within the limit.

As the first tanna says—

he may not enter.

And Rabbi Shimon said to him—

he may enter!

And here, in our Mishna, Rabbi Shimon comes to provide a reason for his statement, so that you should not say that he is being lenient with regard to a Shabbat prohibition. Rather,

what is yours—

they gave you!

That is, those fifteen cubits are in fact within the city’s limit. [He says this here because of the continuation below.]

We learned in the Mishna, in the continuation of Rabbi Shimon’s statement:

For they permitted to you only a matter of shevut.

And we explain:

To what case does this refer?

It refers to that case: As the first tanna says

in the beraita above, on page 103a: If a string of a Levite’s lyre broke,

he ties it.

And Rabbi Shimon said to him

in that beraita:

He makes a bow.

And Rabbi Shimon comes to give a reason for his statement: specifically,

a bow, which does not come to entail liability for a sin-offering,

but is entirely permitted—

the Sages permitted it

in the Temple.

But

a knot, which does come to entail liability for a sin-offering,

if he makes it in the country [outside the Temple],

the Sages did not permit it

even in the Temple, as a decree lest he make a knot in the country.

And this is what Rabbi Shimon says to the first tanna:

Although I was lenient with regard to one upon whom Shabbat became manifestly imminent outside the limit, I am stringent with regard to the string of the lyre.

For there, in

a place where the Sages permitted something to you,

namely, with regard to the Shabbat limits,

what is yours—

they gave you!

And this is not a leniency.

But here, with regard to the string of the lyre, although according to the fundamental law it is permitted even to tie it, since the requirements of a communal offering override Shabbat,

nevertheless, it is prohibited.

Because

they permitted to you

in the Temple

only

a matter prohibited

as shevut

alone; but tying, which is a primary category of labor, they did not permit even in the Temple, as a decree lest one do so in the country [according to the Maharsha].

We will return to you, chapter “One Who Finds Tefillin,” and the tractate Eruvin is concluded.