The gemara discusses other things that are permitted in the Temple but not outside the Temple. If you find an impure dead creature (on of the eight that according to the Torah are impure) in the Temple, how do you remove it and if it is Shabbat, how far do you carry it out to remove it, despite the fact that it is muktze?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
Eruvin 104
שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ — חוֹצְצוֹת, פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ — אֵין חוֹצְצוֹת, וְהַיְינוּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא.
If the fabric was three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it interposes; but if it was less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it does not interpose. And this is the same teaching that Rava said that Rav Ḥisda said.
לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא? שָׁאנֵי צִלְצוֹל קָטָן דַּחֲשִׁיב.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Ḥisda, who prohibits a sash even smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not necessarily so, as a small sash is different, since it is significant. It is therefore like a garment, even if it is smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths.
וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַדְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן גֶּמִי לַישְׁמְעִינַן צִלְצוֹל קָטָן!
The Gemara raises a question: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rather than teaching us the halakha with regard to a reed, let the mishna teach us that a priest may wrap his wounded finger with a small sash, as that does not constitute an interposition.
מִילְּתָא אַגַּב אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּגֶמִי מַסֵּי.
The Gemara explains: The tanna teaches us another matter in passing, that a reed heals. However, as far as a priest involved in the service in concerned, there is no concern with regard to this prohibition either, as it is also a rabbinic decree that is not in effect in the Temple.
מַתְנִי׳ בּוֹזְקִין מֶלַח עַל גַּבֵּי כֶּבֶשׁ בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יַחְלִיקוּ, וּמְמַלְּאִין מִבּוֹר הַגּוֹלָה וּמִבּוֹר הַגָּדוֹל בַּגַּלְגַּל בַּשַּׁבָּת, וּמִבְּאֵר הַקַּר בְּיוֹם טוֹב.
MISHNA: One may scatter salt on Shabbat on the ramp that leads to the altar so that the priests will not slip on their way up. And likewise, one may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles and from the Great Cistern, which were located in the Temple, by means of the wheel designed for drawing water, even on Shabbat. And one may draw water from the Heker Well only on a Festival.
גְּמָ׳ רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב אִיקָא מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא לְרָבָא, תְּנַן: בּוֹזְקִין מֶלַח עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲלִיקוּ. בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ — אִין, בַּמְּדִינָה — לָא. וּרְמִינְהִי: חָצֵר שֶׁנִּתְקַלְקְלָה בְּמֵימֵי גְשָׁמִים — מֵבִיא תֶּבֶן וּמְרַדֶּה בָּהּ!
GEMARA: Rav Ika from Pashronya raised a contradiction before Rava: We learned in the mishna: One may scatter salt on Shabbat on the ramp that leads to the altar, so that the priests will not slip, from which it can be inferred: In the Temple, yes, it is permitted to do so, but outside the Temple, in the rest of the country, no, it is prohibited to scatter salt on a ramp. And he raised his contradiction from a baraita: With regard to a courtyard that was damaged on Shabbat by rainwater, so that it became difficult to cross, one may bring straw and scatter it about to absorb the water. Apparently, an action of this kind is permitted even outside the Temple.
שָׁאנֵי תֶּבֶן, דְּלָא מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: Straw is different, as one does not negate it; rather, he intends to remove it once the water has been absorbed. He is therefore permitted to scatter the straw in the courtyard, just as it is permitted to put it in any other place. However, it is prohibited to scatter objects that one intends to leave in place, such as salt, as this appears as though he is adding to the ground and building.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי מֶלַח הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּמְבַטְּלֵיהּ — קָא מוֹסֵיף אַבִּנְיָן (וּכְתִיב: ״הַכֹּל בִּכְתָב מִיַּד ה׳ עָלַי הִשְׂכִּיל״).
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This salt, what are the circumstances? If one negates it vis-à-vis the ramp so that it becomes part of the ramp, he effectively adds to the structure of the Temple, and it states with regard to the Temple: “All this do I give you in writing as God has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19). This verse indicates that all the details of the Temple structure were determined through prophecy and may not be changed in any way, even on a weekday.
וְאִי דְּלָא קָא מְבַטְּלֵיהּ, קָא הָוְיָא חֲצִיצָה.
And if he does not negate the salt vis-à-vis the ramp, it would constitute an interposition between the feet of the priests and the altar. This would mean that they would not be walking on the ramp during their service, and consequently they would not be performing the service as required by the Torah.
בְּהוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ, דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.
The Gemara answers: In fact, he does not negate the salt. However, he scatters it when the limbs of the sacrifice are brought up the ramp, a procedure that is not considered part of the Temple service subject to disqualification due to interposition, as it is merely preparation for the burning of the limbs.
וְלָא? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״, וְאָמַר מָר: זוֹ הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בְּהוֹלָכַת עֵצִים לַמַּעֲרָכָה, דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.
The Gemara asks: And is this not a service? But isn’t it written: “And the priest shall offer it whole and make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:13), and the Master said in explanation: This is referring to bringing the limbs to the top of the ramp. Evidently, this too is a service written in the Torah. Rather, say that he scatters the salt when the wood is brought up the ramp to the arrangement of wood on the altar, a procedure that is not a service.
דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: חָצֵר שֶׁנִּתְקַלְקְלָה בְּמֵימֵי גְשָׁמִים — מֵבִיא תֶּבֶן וּמְרַדֶּה בָּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא, וְהָתַנְיָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְרַדֶּה — אֵינוֹ מְרַדֶּה לֹא בְּסַל וְלֹא בְּקוּפָּה, אֶלָּא בְּשׁוּלֵי קוּפָּה!
Rava taught: In a courtyard that was damaged on Shabbat by rainwater, one may bring straw and scatter it about to make it easier to walk across. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: When one scatters the straw, he must not scatter it either with a small basket or with a large basket, but only with the bottom of a broken basket, i.e., he must scatter the straw in a manner different from that of an ordinary weekday. Rava, however, indicates that he may scatter the straw in the usual fashion.
הֲדַר אוֹקֵים רָבָא אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ וּדְרַשׁ: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם טָעוּת הֵן בְּיָדִי, בְּרַם כָּךְ אָמְרוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְרַדֶּה — אֵינוֹ מְרַדֶּה לֹא בְּסַל וְלֹא בְּקוּפָּה, אֶלָּא בְּשׁוּלֵי קוּפָּה.
Rava then appointed an amora before him to publicize his teaching, and taught: The statement I issued before you was a mistake of mine. However, in fact they said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer as follows: And when one scatters the straw, he must not scatter it either with a small basket or with a large basket, but only with the bottom of a broken basket.
מְמַלְּאִין מִבּוֹר הַגּוֹלָה. עוּלָּא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב מְנַשֶּׁה, אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא טְרַף אַבָּבָא אֲמַר: מַאן הַאי? לִיתַּחַל גּוּפֵיהּ, דְּקָא מַחֵיל לֵיהּ לְשַׁבְּתָא.
We learned in the mishna: One may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles by means of a wheel. The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Menashe when a certain man came and knocked at the door. Ulla said: Who is that? May his body be desecrated, as he desecrates Shabbat by producing a sound.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: לֹא אָסְרוּ אֶלָּא קוֹל שֶׁל שִׁיר. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַעֲלִין בִּדְיוֹפִי וּמַטִּיפִין מֵיאֶרֶק לַחוֹלֶה בַּשַּׁבָּת.
Rabba said to him: The Sages prohibited only a pleasant musical sound on Shabbat, not the rasping sound of knocking on a door. Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: One may draw up wine from a barrel with a siphon [diyofei], and one may drip water from a vessel that releases water in drops [miarak], for an ill person on Shabbat.
לַחוֹלֶה אִין, לַבָּרִיא לָא. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? לָאו דְּנָיֵם וְקָא בָּעֵי דְּלִיתְּעַר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אוֹלוֹדֵי קָלָא אֲסִיר!
The Gemara infers: For an ill person, yes, this is permitted, but for a healthy person, no, one may not do so, what are the circumstances? Is it not the case that he is dozing off and they wish to waken him, and as they do not want to alarm him due to his illness, they do it by means of the sound of water poured from a vessel? And one can learn from here that it is prohibited to produce a sound on Shabbat, even one that is unpleasant, as the Sages permitted this only for an ill person.
לָא: דְּתִיר, וְקָא בָּעֵי דְּלֵינִים — דְּמִשְׁתַּמֵּעַ כִּי קָלָא דְזִמְזוּמֵי.
The Gemara rejects this contention: No, it is referring to an ill person who is awake and whom they want to have fall asleep, and to this end they let water fall in drops, producing a sound that is heard as melodious.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הַמְשַׁמֵּר פֵּירוֹתָיו מִפְּנֵי הָעוֹפוֹת, וּדְלֻעָיו מִפְּנֵי הַחַיָּה — מְשַׁמֵּר כְּדַרְכּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִסְפֹּק וְלֹא יְטַפֵּחַ וְלֹא יְרַקֵּד כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין בַּחוֹל.
Abaye raised another objection to Rabba from a baraita: One who is guarding his produce from birds or his gourds from beasts may guard them, in the manner that he typically does so, on Shabbat, as his guarding does not entail a prohibited labor, provided that he neither claps, nor slaps his hands against his body, nor dances and produces noise with his feet, in the manner that is performed on weekdays to chase away birds and animals.
מַאי טַעְמָא — לָאו דְּקָמוֹלֵיד קָלָא, וְכׇל אוֹלוֹדֵי קָלָא אֲסִיר? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִטּוֹל צְרוֹר.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason that these activities are prohibited? Is it not because he is producing a sound on Shabbat, and any production of a sound is prohibited? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: This is not the reason. Rather, it is a decree issued by the Sages, lest while acting in his usual weekday fashion he mistakenly picks up a pebble to throw at the birds, thereby handling an object that is set-aside.
וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: נָשִׁים הַמְשַׂחֲקוֹת בֶּאֱגוֹזִים — אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא — לָאו דְּקָא מוֹלֵיד קָלָא, וְכׇל אוֹלוֹדֵי קָלָא אֲסִיר?
The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Women who play with nuts by rolling them on the ground until they collide with each other, it is prohibited for them to do so; what is the reason for this prohibition? Is it not because knocking nuts together produces a sound, and any production of a sound is prohibited?
לָא, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאַשְׁווֹיֵי גּוּמּוֹת.
The Gemara rejects this contention: No, it is prohibited because perhaps they will come to level the holes. As small holes in the ground will interfere with their game, they might level them out and seal them up on Shabbat, which is prohibited as building.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: נָשִׁים מְשַׂחֲקוֹת בְּתַפּוּחִים — אָסוּר, הָתָם מַאי אוֹלוֹדֵי קָלָא אִיכָּא?! אֶלָּא: דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְאַשְׁווֹיֵי גּוּמּוֹת.
For if you do not say that this is the reason, there is a difficulty with that which Rav Yehuda said: Women who play with apples, this is prohibited, as what production of a sound is involved there? Apples do not produce a sound when they collide with each other. Rather, the reason is that they will perhaps come to level holes, and the same reasoning applies to nuts.
תְּנַן: מְמַלְּאִין מִבּוֹר הַגּוֹלָה וּמִבּוֹר הַגָּדוֹל בַּגַּלְגַּל בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּמִקְדָּשׁ — אִין, בִּמְדִינָה — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאוֹלוֹדֵי קָלָא — וַאֲסִיר?
We learned in the mishna: One may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles and from the Great Cistern by means of the wheel on Shabbat. From this it can be inferred: In the Temple, yes, it is permitted to do so; but outside the Temple in the rest of the country, no, it is prohibited to draw water from cisterns. What is the reason for this? Is it not because he is producing a sound, and that is prohibited on Shabbat?
לָא, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יְמַלֵּא לְגִינָּתוֹ וּלְחוּרְבָּתוֹ.
The Gemara again rejects this contention: No, it is a decree issued by the Sages, lest he draw water for his garden and for his ruin. As the wheel draws up large quantities of water, once he starts to use it, he might draw water for his garden as well and thereby transgress the prohibition against watering on Shabbat, a subcategory of a prohibited labor.
אַמֵּימָר שְׁרָא לְמִימְלֵא בְּגִילְגְּלָא בְּמָחוֹזָא, אָמַר: מַאי טַעְמָא גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן — שֶׁמָּא יְמַלֵּא לְגִינָּתוֹ וּלְחוּרְבָּתוֹ? הָכָא, לָא גִּינָּה אִיכָּא, וְלָא חוּרְבָּה אִיכָּא.
The Gemara relates that Ameimar permitted people to draw water on Shabbat by means of a wheel in Meḥoza, as he said: What is the reason the Sages decreed that this is prohibited? They did so lest one draw water for his garden and for his ruin. However, here in Meḥoza there are neither gardens nor ruins. Meḥoza was entirely built up and lacked gardens or empty areas for sowing, and consequently, there was no concern that people might transgress.
כֵּיוָן דְּקָא חָזֵא דְּקָא
However, once he saw that
תָּרוּ בַּהּ כִּיתָּנָא — אֲסַר לְהוּ.
they were soaking flax in the water, he prohibited them from drawing water by means of a wheel, so that they should not draw water for prohibited purposes.
וּמִבְּאֵר הַקַּר. מַאי בְּאֵר הַקַּר? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בּוֹר שֶׁהִקְרוּ עָלֶיהָ דְּבָרִים וְהִתִּירוּהָ.
We learned in the mishna that water may be drawn on a Festival from the Heker Well. The Gemara asks: What is the Heker Well? Shmuel said: It is a cistern with regard to which they advanced [hikru] arguments and permitted drawing water from it on a Festival, by proving that the Torah permits doing so.
מֵיתִיבִי: לֹא כׇּל הַבּוֹרוֹת הַקָּרוֹת הִתִּירוּ, אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ ״שֶׁהִקְרוּ דְּבָרִים עָלֶיהָ״, מַאי ״זוֹ בִּלְבַד״?
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: They did not permit all Heker wells, but only this one. And if you say it was named because it is a cistern with regard to which they put forward arguments and permitted it, what is the meaning of Heker wells in the plural, and what does only this one mean? If it was named because of a particular announcement, how could other wells, about which no announcement was issued, bear the same name?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: בְּאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כְּהָקִיר בַּיִר מֵימֶיהָ וְגוֹ׳״.
Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The term Heker well denotes a well of living water, as it is stated: “As a well keeps its water fresh [hakir], so she keeps fresh her wickedness” (Jeremiah 6:7), i.e., it is a well of spring water.
גּוּפָא: לֹא כׇּל הַבּוֹרוֹת הַקָּרוֹת הִתִּירוּ, אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד. וּכְשֶׁעָלוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה חָנוּ עָלֶיהָ, וּנְבִיאִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן הִתִּירוּ לָהֶן. וְלֹא נְבִיאִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן, אֶלָּא מִנְהַג אֲבוֹתָם בִּידֵיהֶם.
Returning to the matter itself, the Gemara cites the above baraita in full: They did not permit all Heker wells, but only this one. And when the exiles ascended from Babylonia, they encamped by it, and the prophets among them, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, permitted it to them. And it was not really the prophets among them who permitted them to draw water from this well on a Festival, but rather, it was a customary practice that was handed down to them from their forefathers, a practice the prophets permitted them to continue.
מַתְנִי׳ שֶׁרֶץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ — כֹּהֵן מוֹצִיאוֹ בְּהֶמְיָינוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁהוֹת אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּצְבַת שֶׁל עֵץ, שֶׁלֹּא לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה.
MISHNA: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, of one of the eight species of reptile or rodent listed in Leviticus 11:29–30, one of the primary sources of ritual impurity that is found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out on Shabbat in his girdle, which was one of the priestly garments. Although the girdle will be defiled by the carcass of the creeping animal, this is the best way to proceed, so as not to delay the removal of the impurity from the Temple. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Yehuda says: The creeping animal carcass should be removed with wooden prongs, so as not to increase the impurity, as a wooden prong is not susceptible to impurity.
מֵהֵיכָן מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ — מִן הַהֵיכָל, וּמִן הָאוּלָם, וּמִבֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נַנָּס.
It is obvious that on a weekday the creeping animal carcass is removed from wherever it is found in the Temple, but from where does one remove it on Shabbat? From the Sanctuary, from the Entrance Hall, and from the area in the courtyard between the Entrance Hall and the altar, the most sanctified precincts of the Temple. However, it need not be removed from the rest of the courtyard. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת — מִשָּׁם מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ. וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַמְּקוֹמוֹת — כּוֹפִין עָלָיו פְּסַכְתֵּר.
Rabbi Akiva says: Any place where one is liable to be punished with karet if he intentionally enters there in a state of ritual impurity, and is liable to bring a sin-offering if he does so unwittingly, from there one must remove it. This includes the entire area of the Temple courtyard. And as for the rest of the places in the Temple, one covers the creeping animal carcass with a bowl [pesakhter] and leaves it there until the conclusion of Shabbat.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מָקוֹם שֶׁהִתִּירוּ לְךָ חֲכָמִים, מִשֶּׁלְּךָ נָתְנוּ לָךְ — שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּירוּ לְךָ אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת.
Rabbi Shimon says that this is the principle: Wherever the Sages permitted something to you, they granted you only from your own, as they permitted to you only activities that are prohibited due to rabbinic decree, not labors prohibited by Torah law.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב טָבִי בַּר קִיסְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּכְנִיס טְמֵא שֶׁרֶץ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ — חַיָּיב, שֶׁרֶץ עַצְמוֹ — פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִזָּכָר וְעַד נְקֵבָה תְּשַׁלֵּחוּ״, מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ טׇהֳרָה בְּמִקְוֶה. יָצָא שֶׁרֶץ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ טׇהֳרָה.
GEMARA: Rav Tavi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who brings into the Temple an object that was defiled by a creeping animal carcass, he is liable, but if he brings in the carcass of a creeping animal itself, he is exempt. What is the reason for this distinction? The verse said: “Both male and female shall you put out, without the camp shall you put them; that they defile not their camp, in the midst whereof I dwell” (Numbers 5:3). This verse teaches that the obligation to send out of the camp applies only to one who has the option of purification in a ritual bath, i.e., the male and female mentioned by the Torah; this excludes the carcass of a creeping animal, which has no purification. Consequently, one who brings the carcass of a creeping animal into the Temple is exempt, as he did not transgress the Torah’s commandment to send away the impure.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: ״מִזָּכָר עַד נְקֵבָה תְּשַׁלֵּחוּ״ — פְּרָט לִכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. מַאי טַעְמָא, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵית לֵיהּ טׇהֳרָה בְּמִקְוֶה?
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports him: “Both male and female shall you put out”; this excludes an earthenware vessel. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. What is the reason for this? Is it not because an earthenware vessel does not have purification in a ritual bath, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Tavi bar Kisna?
לָא, מִי שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה אַב הַטּוּמְאָה. יָצָא כְּלִי חֶרֶס, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נַעֲשָׂה אַב הַטּוּמְאָה.
The Gemara rejects this contention: No, the reason is that only something that can become a primary source of ritual impurity, i.e., a human being or a metal utensil, must be sent out of the camp. This excludes an earthenware vessel, which cannot become a primary source of ritual impurity.
לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: שֶׁרֶץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ — כֹּהֵן מוֹצִיאוֹ בְּהֶמְיָינוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא לְשַׁהוֹת אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּצְבָת שֶׁל עֵץ מוֹצִיאוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this issue, whether or not there is liability for bringing a creeping animal carcass into the Temple, is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in the mishna: With regard to a creeping animal carcass that is found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out on Shabbat in his girdle, so as not to delay the removal of the impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Yehuda says: He should remove it with wooden prongs, so as not to increase the impurity.
מַאי לָאו, בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁלֹּא לְשַׁהוֹת, קָסָבַר: הַמַּכְנִיס שֶׁרֶץ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ — חַיָּיב. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁלֹּא לְרַבּוֹת, קָסָבַר: הַמַּכְנִיס שֶׁרֶץ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ — פָּטוּר.
What, isn’t it the case that this is the matter with regard to which the two tanna’im disagree: The one who said we should not delay the removal of the impurity maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is liable, and therefore every effort must be made to remove it immediately. And the one who said we should not increase impurity maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is exempt. As no special command is in effect, the correct procedure is to prevent any additional impurity.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא חַיָּיב. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: שַׁהוֹיֵי טוּמְאָה — עֲדִיף. וּמָר סָבַר: אַפּוֹשֵׁי טוּמְאָה — עֲדִיף.
The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that one who brings a creeping animal carcass itself into the Temple is liable, and here, this is the matter with regard to which they disagree: The one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, holds: Delaying removal of the impurity is the consideration that takes precedence. Consequently, it is permitted even to defile the priestly garments to prevent any delay in the removal of the impurity from the holy place. Whereas the other Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Increasing impurity is the consideration that takes precedence, and therefore the impurity should be removed only by means of wooden prongs.
אֶלָּא כְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דִּתְנַן: מֵהֵיכָן מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ כּוּ׳.
Rather, the Gemara suggests that this issue is the subject of a dispute between these tanna’im, as we learned in that same mishna: From where does one remove the creeping animal carcass? Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva disagree whether it is removed only from the Sanctuary, the Entrance Hall, and the area of the courtyard between the Entrance Hall and the altar, or from the entire area of the courtyard as well.
מַאי לָאו, בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מֵעֲזָרָה לָא, קָסָבַר: הַמַּכְנִיס שֶׁרֶץ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ — פָּטוּר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִכּוּלַּהּ עֲזָרָה, קָסָבַר — חַיָּיב.
Isn’t it the case that the two tanna’im disagree about the following: The one who said we do not remove it from the Temple courtyard maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is exempt, and there is therefore no obligation to remove it from the courtyard on Shabbat. And the one who said that it must be removed from the entire courtyard maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is liable.
Follow
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
A Daf Of Their Own –Schita By a Woman
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
10.12.2025 | כ׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
נשים שוחטות- דף משלהן
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
10.11.2025 | י״ט בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevachim Daf 15-21 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Dr. Tamara Spitz
10.06.2025 | י״ד בתשרי תשפ״ו
ערל: בין הגדרה פיזיולוגית להגדרה מהותית- גפ”ת
הרבנית חנה גודינגר (דרייפוס)
10.06.2025 | י״ד בתשרי תשפ״ו
A Daf Of Their Own –Defining Your Identity
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
10.05.2025 | י״ג בתשרי תשפ״ו
ערל לב- דף משלהן
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
10.04.2025 | י״ב בתשרי תשפ״ו
Din & Daf: The Kohen Gadol’s New Clothes: Yom Kippur as Renewal
Dr. Elana Stein Hain
09.30.2025 | ח׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevachim Daf 8-14 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Dr. Tamara Spitz
09.29.2025 | ז׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
A Daf Of Their Own –The Kohen’s Garments
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
09.28.2025 | ו׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
בגדי כהונה- דף משלהן
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
09.27.2025 | ה׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevachim Daf 2-7 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Dr. Tamara Spitz
09.25.2025 | ג׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
Eruvin 104
Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ©Χ β ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧͺ, Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ©Χ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ.
If the fabric was three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it interposes; but if it was less than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths, it does not interpose. And this is the same teaching that Rava said that Rav αΈ€isda said.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ? Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧ Φ΅Χ Χ¦Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, son of Rav αΈ€isda, who prohibits a sash even smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not necessarily so, as a small sash is different, since it is significant. It is therefore like a garment, even if it is smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ¦Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ!
The Gemara raises a question: And according to the opinion of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan: Rather than teaching us the halakha with regard to a reed, let the mishna teach us that a priest may wrap his wounded finger with a small sash, as that does not constitute an interposition.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara explains: The tanna teaches us another matter in passing, that a reed heals. However, as far as a priest involved in the service in concerned, there is no concern with regard to this prohibition either, as it is also a rabbinic decree that is not in effect in the Temple.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ.
MISHNA: One may scatter salt on Shabbat on the ramp that leads to the altar so that the priests will not slip on their way up. And likewise, one may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles and from the Great Cistern, which were located in the Temple, by means of the wheel designed for drawing water, even on Shabbat. And one may draw water from the Heker Well only on a Festival.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΧΦΌ. ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ!
GEMARA: Rav Ika from Pashronya raised a contradiction before Rava: We learned in the mishna: One may scatter salt on Shabbat on the ramp that leads to the altar, so that the priests will not slip, from which it can be inferred: In the Temple, yes, it is permitted to do so, but outside the Temple, in the rest of the country, no, it is prohibited to scatter salt on a ramp. And he raised his contradiction from a baraita: With regard to a courtyard that was damaged on Shabbat by rainwater, so that it became difficult to cross, one may bring straw and scatter it about to absorb the water. Apparently, an action of this kind is permitted even outside the Temple.
Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
The Gemara answers: Straw is different, as one does not negate it; rather, he intends to remove it once the water has been absorbed. He is therefore permitted to scatter the straw in the courtyard, just as it is permitted to put it in any other place. However, it is prohibited to scatter objects that one intends to leave in place, such as salt, as this appears as though he is adding to the ground and building.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ (ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΧ³ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄).
Rav AαΈ₯a, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This salt, what are the circumstances? If one negates it vis-Γ -vis the ramp so that it becomes part of the ramp, he effectively adds to the structure of the Temple, and it states with regard to the Temple: βAll this do I give you in writing as God has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this patternβ (I Chronicles 28:19). This verse indicates that all the details of the Temple structure were determined through prophecy and may not be changed in any way, even on a weekday.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧ.
And if he does not negate the salt vis-Γ -vis the ramp, it would constitute an interposition between the feet of the priests and the altar. This would mean that they would not be walking on the ramp during their service, and consequently they would not be performing the service as required by the Torah.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara answers: In fact, he does not negate the salt. However, he scatters it when the limbs of the sacrifice are brought up the ramp, a procedure that is not considered part of the Temple service subject to disqualification due to interposition, as it is merely preparation for the burning of the limbs.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧ©Χ! ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦ·Χͺ Χ’Φ΅Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara asks: And is this not a service? But isnβt it written: βAnd the priest shall offer it whole and make it smoke upon the altarβ (Leviticus 1:13), and the Master said in explanation: This is referring to bringing the limbs to the top of the ramp. Evidently, this too is a service written in the Torah. Rather, say that he scatters the salt when the wood is brought up the ramp to the arrangement of wood on the altar, a procedure that is not a service.
ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ©Χ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ!
Rava taught: In a courtyard that was damaged on Shabbat by rainwater, one may bring straw and scatter it about to make it easier to walk across. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But wasnβt it taught in a baraita: When one scatters the straw, he must not scatter it either with a small basket or with a large basket, but only with the bottom of a broken basket, i.e., he must scatter the straw in a manner different from that of an ordinary weekday. Rava, however, indicates that he may scatter the straw in the usual fashion.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ©Χ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨: ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ.
Rava then appointed an amora before him to publicize his teaching, and taught: The statement I issued before you was a mistake of mine. However, in fact they said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer as follows: And when one scatters the straw, he must not scatter it either with a small basket or with a large basket, but only with the bottom of a broken basket.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ. Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ.
We learned in the mishna: One may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles by means of a wheel. The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Menashe when a certain man came and knocked at the door. Ulla said: Who is that? May his body be desecrated, as he desecrates Shabbat by producing a sound.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ§ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ.
Rabba said to him: The Sages prohibited only a pleasant musical sound on Shabbat, not the rasping sound of knocking on a door. Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: One may draw up wine from a barrel with a siphon [diyofei], and one may drip water from a vessel that releases water in drops [miarak], for an ill person on Shabbat.
ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ¨. Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ: ΧΧΦΉΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨!
The Gemara infers: For an ill person, yes, this is permitted, but for a healthy person, no, one may not do so, what are the circumstances? Is it not the case that he is dozing off and they wish to waken him, and as they do not want to alarm him due to his illness, they do it by means of the sound of water poured from a vessel? And one can learn from here that it is prohibited to produce a sound on Shabbat, even one that is unpleasant, as the Sages permitted this only for an ill person.
ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ’Φ· ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara rejects this contention: No, it is referring to an ill person who is awake and whom they want to have fall asleep, and to this end they let water fall in drops, producing a sound that is heard as melodious.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ€ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ»Χ’ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΦΌΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ§ΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧ.
Abaye raised another objection to Rabba from a baraita: One who is guarding his produce from birds or his gourds from beasts may guard them, in the manner that he typically does so, on Shabbat, as his guarding does not entail a prohibited labor, provided that he neither claps, nor slaps his hands against his body, nor dances and produces noise with his feet, in the manner that is performed on weekdays to chase away birds and animals.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ§ΦΉΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason that these activities are prohibited? Is it not because he is producing a sound on Shabbat, and any production of a sound is prohibited? Rav AαΈ₯a bar Yaβakov said: This is not the reason. Rather, it is a decree issued by the Sages, lest while acting in his usual weekday fashion he mistakenly picks up a pebble to throw at the birds, thereby handling an object that is set-aside.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ§ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨?
The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Women who play with nuts by rolling them on the ground until they collide with each other, it is prohibited for them to do so; what is the reason for this prohibition? Is it not because knocking nuts together produces a sound, and any production of a sound is prohibited?
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ.
The Gemara rejects this contention: No, it is prohibited because perhaps they will come to level the holes. As small holes in the ground will interfere with their game, they might level them out and seal them up on Shabbat, which is prohibited as building.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ: Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ§ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ?! ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ.
For if you do not say that this is the reason, there is a difficulty with that which Rav Yehuda said: Women who play with apples, this is prohibited, as what production of a sound is involved there? Apples do not produce a sound when they collide with each other. Rather, the reason is that they will perhaps come to level holes, and the same reasoning applies to nuts.
ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨?
We learned in the mishna: One may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles and from the Great Cistern by means of the wheel on Shabbat. From this it can be inferred: In the Temple, yes, it is permitted to do so; but outside the Temple in the rest of the country, no, it is prohibited to draw water from cisterns. What is the reason for this? Is it not because he is producing a sound, and that is prohibited on Shabbat?
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ.
The Gemara again rejects this contention: No, it is a decree issued by the Sages, lest he draw water for his garden and for his ruin. As the wheel draws up large quantities of water, once he starts to use it, he might draw water for his garden as well and thereby transgress the prohibition against watering on Shabbat, a subcategory of a prohibited labor.
ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ? ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ.
The Gemara relates that Ameimar permitted people to draw water on Shabbat by means of a wheel in MeαΈ₯oza, as he said: What is the reason the Sages decreed that this is prohibited? They did so lest one draw water for his garden and for his ruin. However, here in MeαΈ₯oza there are neither gardens nor ruins. MeαΈ₯oza was entirely built up and lacked gardens or empty areas for sowing, and consequently, there was no concern that people might transgress.
ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ
However, once he saw that
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ‘Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ.
they were soaking flax in the water, he prohibited them from drawing water by means of a wheel, so that they should not draw water for prohibited purposes.
ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ¨. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ¨? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈ.
We learned in the mishna that water may be drawn on a Festival from the Heker Well. The Gemara asks: What is the Heker Well? Shmuel said: It is a cistern with regard to which they advanced [hikru] arguments and permitted drawing water from it on a Festival, by proving that the Torah permits doing so.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° Χ΄Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈΧ΄, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ΄?
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: They did not permit all Heker wells, but only this one. And if you say it was named because it is a cistern with regard to which they put forward arguments and permitted it, what is the meaning of Heker wells in the plural, and what does only this one mean? If it was named because of a particular announcement, how could other wells, about which no announcement was issued, bear the same name?
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ³Χ΄.
Rather, Rav NaαΈ₯man bar YitzαΈ₯ak said: The term Heker well denotes a well of living water, as it is stated: βAs a well keeps its water fresh [hakir], so she keeps fresh her wickednessβ (Jeremiah 6:7), i.e., it is a well of spring water.
ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ. ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ, ΧΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ.
Returning to the matter itself, the Gemara cites the above baraita in full: They did not permit all Heker wells, but only this one. And when the exiles ascended from Babylonia, they encamped by it, and the prophets among them, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, permitted it to them. And it was not really the prophets among them who permitted them to draw water from this well on a Festival, but rather, it was a customary practice that was handed down to them from their forefathers, a practice the prophets permitted them to continue.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ β ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΉ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ§ΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ΅Χ₯, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
MISHNA: With regard to the carcass of a creeping animal, of one of the eight species of reptile or rodent listed in Leviticus 11:29β30, one of the primary sources of ritual impurity that is found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out on Shabbat in his girdle, which was one of the priestly garments. Although the girdle will be defiled by the carcass of the creeping animal, this is the best way to proceed, so as not to delay the removal of the impurity from the Temple. This is the statement of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Beroka. Rabbi Yehuda says: The creeping animal carcass should be removed with wooden prongs, so as not to increase the impurity, as a wooden prong is not susceptible to impurity.
ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ β ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ·, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ Χ Φ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ‘.
It is obvious that on a weekday the creeping animal carcass is removed from wherever it is found in the Temple, but from where does one remove it on Shabbat? From the Sanctuary, from the Entrance Hall, and from the area in the courtyard between the Entrance Hall and the altar, the most sanctified precincts of the Temple. However, it need not be removed from the rest of the courtyard. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺ β ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ. ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨.
Rabbi Akiva says: Any place where one is liable to be punished with karet if he intentionally enters there in a state of ritual impurity, and is liable to bring a sin-offering if he does so unwittingly, from there one must remove it. This includes the entire area of the Temple courtyard. And as for the rest of the places in the Temple, one covers the creeping animal carcass with a bowl [pesakhter] and leaves it there until the conclusion of Shabbat.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈ Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ° β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧͺ.
Rabbi Shimon says that this is the principle: Wherever the Sages permitted something to you, they granted you only from your own, as they permitted to you only activities that are prohibited due to rabbinic decree, not labors prohibited by Torah law.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ‘Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄, ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΧΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΧΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧ.
GEMARA: Rav Tavi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who brings into the Temple an object that was defiled by a creeping animal carcass, he is liable, but if he brings in the carcass of a creeping animal itself, he is exempt. What is the reason for this distinction? The verse said: βBoth male and female shall you put out, without the camp shall you put them; that they defile not their camp, in the midst whereof I dwellβ (Numbers 5:3). This verse teaches that the obligation to send out of the camp applies only to one who has the option of purification in a ritual bath, i.e., the male and female mentioned by the Torah; this excludes the carcass of a creeping animal, which has no purification. Consequently, one who brings the carcass of a creeping animal into the Temple is exempt, as he did not transgress the Torahβs commandment to send away the impure.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΧΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΆΧ?
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports him: βBoth male and female shall you put outβ; this excludes an earthenware vessel. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. What is the reason for this? Is it not because an earthenware vessel does not have purification in a ritual bath, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Tavi bar Kisna?
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ‘, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara rejects this contention: No, the reason is that only something that can become a primary source of ritual impurity, i.e., a human being or a metal utensil, must be sent out of the camp. This excludes an earthenware vessel, which cannot become a primary source of ritual impurity.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ β ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΉ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ§ΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ΅Χ₯ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this issue, whether or not there is liability for bringing a creeping animal carcass into the Temple, is parallel to a dispute between tannaβim, as we learned in the mishna: With regard to a creeping animal carcass that is found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out on Shabbat in his girdle, so as not to delay the removal of the impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Beroka. Rabbi Yehuda says: He should remove it with wooden prongs, so as not to increase the impurity.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧͺ, Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ, Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨.
What, isnβt it the case that this is the matter with regard to which the two tannaβim disagree: The one who said we should not delay the removal of the impurity maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is liable, and therefore every effort must be made to remove it immediately. And the one who said we should not increase impurity maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is exempt. As no special command is in effect, the correct procedure is to prevent any additional impurity.
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ£. ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ£.
The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that one who brings a creeping animal carcass itself into the Temple is liable, and here, this is the matter with regard to which they disagree: The one Sage, Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Beroka, holds: Delaying removal of the impurity is the consideration that takes precedence. Consequently, it is permitted even to defile the priestly garments to prevent any delay in the removal of the impurity from the holy place. Whereas the other Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Increasing impurity is the consideration that takes precedence, and therefore the impurity should be removed only by means of wooden prongs.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³.
Rather, the Gemara suggests that this issue is the subject of a dispute between these tannaβim, as we learned in that same mishna: From where does one remove the creeping animal carcass? Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva disagree whether it is removed only from the Sanctuary, the Entrance Hall, and the area of the courtyard between the Entrance Hall and the altar, or from the entire area of the courtyard as well.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ.
Isnβt it the case that the two tannaβim disagree about the following: The one who said we do not remove it from the Temple courtyard maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is exempt, and there is therefore no obligation to remove it from the courtyard on Shabbat. And the one who said that it must be removed from the entire courtyard maintains that one who brings a creeping animal carcass into the Temple is liable.
Follow
