Yerushalmi Eruvin 10:14 ירושלמי עירובין י׳:י״ד

MISHNAH: If a crawling animal³⁴One of the animals whose carcass is a source of original impurity (Lev. 11:29–30). It has to be removed to avoid spreading impurity. Even though the Cohen’s belt is sanctified, its impurity may be removed by the sundown following its immersion in a miqweh. was found in the Temple, a Cohen carries it outside in his belt in order not to continue the impurity, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Jehudah says, with wooden tongs³⁵Wooden implements which do not have a cavity are impervious to impurity. in order not to increase impurity.
From where does one remove it? From the Temple Hall, and the vestibule, and from between the vestibule and the altar, the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Nannas³⁶But at all other places in the Temple court one places a metal pot over it and removes it after the end of the Sabbath.. Rebbi Aqiba says, from a place where one is liable for extirpation in case of criminal intent and a purification offering if in error one removes it; at all other places one places a wine cooler³⁷Greek ψυκτήρ, -ῆρος. It must be a metal pot whose impurity can be removed in a miqweh, not a clay pot which would have to be broken into pieces. over it. Rebbi Simeon said, at a place where the Sages permitted it to you they gave it from your own since they only permitted because of rabbinic Sabbath restrictions³⁸Rabbinic leniencies regarding rabbinic restrictions do not necessarily have to follow a logically consistent system..

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a crawling animal³⁴One of the animals whose carcass is a source of original impurity (Lev. 11:29–30). It has to be removed to avoid spreading impurity. Even though the Cohen’s belt is sanctified, its impurity may be removed by the sundown following its immersion in a miqweh. was found in the Temple,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said to him, did you not prolong the impurity? He answered him, did you not increase impurity? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by him than a prohibition which will come before him¹⁶⁵Since no human killed the animal which was found in the Temple, it is better to leave it there for some time than remove it while defiling a priestly garment.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there¹⁶⁶Mishnah Pesaḥim 3:3. Ḥallah is the heave of bread dough to be given to a Cohen to eat in purity (cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah.) Making food on a holiday is permitted, but baking mazzah on Passover creates a problem if the flour is impure since the ḥallah must be given but may not be eaten; therefore it may not be baked, but then it will get sour and this is forbidden on Passover. R. Eliezer says that ḥallah should be declared not from the dough but from finished mazzah; R. Jehudah ben Bathyra says that it should be refrigerated and then burned in the evening (which is practical only in his mountain town of Nisibis). R. Joshua says that ḥallah should be given as usual and declared the Cohen’s property; then it no longer is the baker’s property and the prohibition (Ex. 13:6) it should not be seen in your property and not be found in your property does not apply., “how does one separate ḥallah in impurity on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer says, one should not declare its name until after it was baked. Ben Bathyra says, he should put it into cold water.” Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not like one who burns sancta on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer told him, it is burned automatically¹⁶⁷Since R. Eliezer does not say that one should not separate ḥallah as dough, only that one may not call it ḥallah, this implies that he prescribes that the ḥallah dough be baked as separate mazzah. If the dough had been declared as ḥallah it would be an impure sanctum which could not be burned (or baked) on the holiday.. Rebbi Joshua said to him¹⁶⁸This should read: They said to R. Joshua., are you not transgressing it should not be seen, and it should not be found? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by you than a prohibition which will come before you¹⁶⁹R. Joshua to R. Eliezer. The dough will become sour by itself, but R. Eliezer requires one actively to bake the non-food ḥallah..

There, we have stated¹⁷⁰Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:10. Blood of all animal sacrifices has to be spilled at the walls of the altar. Blood of most holy sacrifices must be given to all 4 corners of the altar; that of simple sacrifices is given in one batch. If blood of different categories is mixed, one can satisfy only one requirement. R. Joshua is consistent in prescribing the minimal action.: “[Blood] to be given in one batch which was mixed with [blood] to be given in one batch should be given in one batch. That to be given in four batches with that to be given in four batches should be given in four batches. That to be given in four batches with that to be given in one batch, Rebbi Eliezer says, it should be given in four batches. Rebbi Joshua says, it should be given in one batch. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, would you not transgress do not diminish? Rebbi Joshua answered him, would you not transgress do not add?” He said to him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by me than a prohibition which will come before me.

There, we have stated¹⁷¹Mishnah Negaˋim 14:9. A sufferer from skin disease who was healed has to undergo a double process of purification (Lev. 14). A first ceremony outside of town followed by immersion in a miqweh purifies him for all purposes except for entry into the Temple. For complete purification he then has to bring sacrifices (depending on his financial situation); the blood of one of them has to be applied by a Cohen in the Temple precinct to ear, thumb, and great toe, of the healed person who still is forbidden to enter the Temple precinct. The Mishnah which is quoted only in parts reports that anonymous majority solves the puzzle by having the person to be purified present only a minimal surface to the priest inside while R. Jehudah requires him to present all three spots simultaneously. It is agreed that a biblical violation occurs only if head and most of the body of the unpurified person are inside the Temple precinct.: “He enters his head and he puts on his ear’s cartilage, his hand and he gives on his thumb, his foot,” etc. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument¹⁷²It seems that for “R. Jehudah” one has to read “the rabbis” and vice versa but there is no manuscript evidence to support this. is inverted. There he says, it is forbidden to act craftily¹⁷³This translation of להערים seems to be false but no other meaning is known. Probably S. Liebermann is correct that the sentence is copied here from Pesaḥim 3:3 where it is correctly applied to the positions of RR. Eliezer and Joshua., but here he says that it is permitted. There that he should not enter with his head and most of his body and be punishable by extirpation. But here it is because of bringing impure implements on the Sabbath¹⁷⁴It seems that for “on the Sabbath” one has to read “into the Temple”.
In this comparison of the Mishnah in Negaˋim to that in Eruvin it seems that the rabbis accept the position of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa as practice to be followed. They prefer that the unpurified person enter the Temple precinct space three times to avoid the possibility of his inadvertently entering with most of his body; in Eruvin they prefer the speedy elimination of impurity since the presence of the belt, impure in derivative impurity, while prohibited, is not sanctionable (Maimonides, Biat Miqdash 3:17).. The argument of the rabbis¹⁷²It seems that for “R. Jehudah” one has to read “the rabbis” and vice versa but there is no manuscript evidence to support this. is inverted. There they say, it is permitted to act craftily, but here they say, it is forbidden to act craftily. There that he should not defile himself three times, but here it is a known impurity inside; it is possible for it to be removed immediately. Without impurity¹⁷⁵R. Jehudah who in Negaˋim accepts the risk of severe contamination to avoid repeted small contaminations, in Eruvin recommends waiting until the existing impurity can be eliminated without risk of increasing impurity.? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by him than a prohibition which will come before him.

If he removed it from a place where one is subject to extirpation for it and it fell into a place where one is not subject to extirpation for it, already it is subject to removal¹⁷⁶If the dead crawling animal was removed from the Temple precinct but fell down on the Temple Mount where it remains a danger to people coming to the Temple in purity, it is to be removed to a place outside of the city.. If he found another next to it, does he remove both of them or only the one subject to removal¹⁷⁷If the second animal is not on the list of Lev. 11:29–30 and therefore does not cause original impurity. The question is not answered.?

“He used to say, a wrench is made by a wrench. How was the first wrench made? It was created.¹⁷⁸Tosephta Eruvin 8:23 and Ḥagigah1:9, quoted here as commentary to the statement of R. Simeon in Mishnah 14, that rabbinic Sabbath restrictions do not have biblical justification and do not necessarily follow a system.
The statement which denies technical invention to human intelligence is attributed to R. Jehudah in Mishnah Avot 5:6; the statement here also is in the name of R. Jehudah in Sifry §355 (ed. Finkelstein p. 418), Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai ad Ex. 16:32 (ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 115), Babli Pesaḥim 54a. However at other places both Talmudim characterize human invention as “knowledge of heavenly kind”; cf. Babli loc. cit., Yerushalmi Berakhot 8:6, Note 128 (and the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 220–221).” Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: How do you explain this? From one wrench they learned many wrenches; from one Sabbath prohibition they learned many Sabbath prohibitions.¹⁷⁹One rabbinic Sabbath prohibition will have prophetic roots; the others were introduced by successive generations.”