Eruvin

— R. Johanan retorted:1 Both2 expounded this same3 text: And the priests went in unto the inner part of the house of the Lord,4 to cleanse it, and brought out all the uncleanness that they found in the Temple of the Lord into the court of the house of the Lord. And the Levites took it5 to carry it out abroad to the brook Kidron.6 One Master7 holds that since in the court there was a change over8 to the Levites9 there can be no prohibition against allowing uncleanness to remain for some time in the court,10 while the other Master11 holds that up to the point12 where it was impossible for the Levites to attend13 the priests had to carry the uncleanness out, but where14 it could be done by the Levites the priests could no longer defile themselves.15 Our Rabbis taught: All may enter the Hekal to build, to repair or to take out uncleanness. It is a religious duty, however, that the priests should do it. If no priests are available16 Levites may enter. If no Levites are available Israelites may enter. But in all these cases17 only levitically clean persons may enter.18 Those who are levitically unclean may not. R. Huna observed: R. Kahana lends his support to the priests,19 for R. Kahana learned: Since it was said: Only he shall not go in unto the veil,20 it might have been assumed that priests who have a blemish must not enter between the Ulam and the altar to make the beaten plates.21 hence it was explicitly stated: ‘Only’ i.e., draw a distinction:22 Thus the commandment is that those who are without blemish are qualified, but if men without a blemish are unavailable those with blemishes may enter; the commandment is that those who are levitically clean may enter, but if no men who are levitically clean are available those who are levitically unclean may enter; but in all these cases23 priests only may enter but no Israelites.24 The question was raised: In the case of one who is levitically unclean and another who has a blemish, who of these is to enter?25 — R. Hiyya b. Ashi citing Rab replied: The levitically unclean person shall enter, since he has been declared permitted to take part in the public Temple service.26 R. Eleazar replied: The man who has the blemish shall enter, since he has been declared permitted to eat consecrated food.27 R. SIMEON SAID etc. What does R. Simeon refer to?28 — He refers to a previous statement29 where we learned: If a man was overtaken by dusk even when only One cubit outside the Sabbath limit, he may not enter it. R. Simeon ruled: Even if he was fifteen cubits away he may enter, since the surveyors do not measure exactly on account of those who might err.30 The first Tanna having thus ruled: ‘he may not enter’, R. Simeon said to him, ‘He may enter’.31 SINCE THEY HAVE ONLY PERMITTED YOU THAT WHICH IS FORBIDDEN AS SHEBUTH. What does he refer to?32 — He refers to another Statement29 where the first Tanna ruled that it33 may be tied up,34 in connection with which R. Simeon said to him:35 He may Only secure it with a loop; Only a loop which cannot involve one in the obligation of a sin-offering did the Rabbis permit,36 but a knot which might involve one in the obligation of a sin-offering the Rabbis did not permit.37 guilt, and Only differ on the question of taking it out when it was already within the Temple (cf. Rashi). complete the task their fellows had begun. remove the uncleanness while the removal from the court was relegated to the Levites, because the defilement of their bodies was not so grave a matter as that of the priests, so also in the case of the Sabbath, wherever the uncleanness is in the court, the degree of transgression must be reduced to a minimum and not even a shebuth may be abrogated. dusk. R. Kahana gives precedence ‘to unclean priests over clean Israelites. entry for the purposes mentioned is not invariably forbidden. Israelites. participate even then the former obviously takes precedence. merely given back what they had previously taken away. consideration. in a broken harp string, since only in the former case can the argument he advanced that the Sages have merely given back what they had previously taken away’ (cf. Tosaf. and Rashi a.l.).