Parallel
עירובין 104:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
soak flax in it he forbade it to them. AND FROM THE HAKER WELL. What was the ‘haker well’? — Samuel replied: A cistern concerning which arguments welled forth and its use [on a Festival] was declared to be permitted. An objection was raised: Not all the haker cisterns but only this one, did they permit. Now if you explain it to mean that concerning it arguments welled forth, what could be the meaning of ‘only this one’? — Rather, said R. Nahman b. Isaac: A well of living water, as it is said in Scripture: As a cistern welleth with her water etc. [To turn to] the main text. Not all the haker cisterns, but only this one, did they permit. And when the exiles returned 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. MISHNAH. IF A [DEAD] 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. WHENCE MUST IT BE REMOVED? FROM THE HEKAL, FROM THE ULAM, AND FROM BETWEEN THE ULAM AND THE ALTAR; SO R. SIMEON B. NANUS. R. AKIBA RULED: FROM ANY PLACE WHERE KARETH IS INCURRED FOR ENTERING PRESUMPTUOUSLY AND A SIN-OFFERING FOR ENTERING IT IN ERROR IT MUST BE REMOVED. IN ANY OTHER PLACES, HOWEVER A PSYKTER IS TO BE PUT OVER IT. R. SIMEON SAID: WHEREVER THE SAGES HAVE PERMITTED YOU ANYTHING THEY HAVE ONLY GIVEN YOU WHAT IS REALLY YOURS, SINCE THEY HAVE ONLY PERMITTED YOU THAT WHICH IS FORBIDDEN AS SHEBUTH. GEMARA. R. Tobi b. Kisna citing Samuel ruled: One who brings into the Temple all object that was defiled by a creeping thing incurs guilt, but if one brings in the creeping thing itself one is exempt. What is the reason? — Scripture said: Both male and female shall ye put out, from which it is inferred that only that which may attain cleanness in a ritual bath is subject to the prohibition, 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 excludes an earthen vessel; so R. Jose the Galilean. Now what could be the reason? Is it not because it cannot attain cleanness through a ritual bath? — No; only that which may become a primary source of uncleanness is subject to the prohibition, an earthen vessel, however, is excluded since it can never become a primary source of uncleanness. Must it be conceded that on this question 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, 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 while the other Master holds that it is preferable to increase the uncleanness. The point at issue 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 is of the opinion that one who takes a creeping thing into the Temple is exempt, while he who holds that it must be removed from any part of the court is of the opinion that guilt is incurred?
—