## Eruvin Daf 105a

###### Eruvin 105a:1
[Eruvin 105a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:1)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״וַיָּבֹאוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים לִפְנִימָה בֵית ה׳ לְטַהֵר וַיּוֹצִיאוּ אֵת כׇּל הַטּוּמְאָה אֲשֶׁר מָצְאוּ בְּהֵיכַל ה׳ לַחֲצַר בֵּית ה׳ וַיְקַבְּלוּ הַלְוִיִּם לְהוֹצִיא לְנַחַל קִדְרוֹן חוּצָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both** of them, Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva, **derived their opinions from the same verse: “And the priests went into the inner part of the House of God, to cleanse it, and they brought out all the impurity that they found in the Temple of God into the courtyard of the House of God. And the Levites took it, to carry it out to the brook of Kidron”** (II Chronicles 29:16).


###### Eruvin 105a:2
[Eruvin 105a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:2)

מָר סָבַר: מִדְּאִשְׁתַּנִּי בַּעֲזָרָה בִּלְוִיִּם, טוּמְאָה בַּעֲזָרָה לֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon Ben Nannas, **maintains: As there was a change** from the priests who removed the ritual impurity from the inner part of the Temple to **the Levites,** who took over **in the courtyard,** this indicates that **there is no** obligation to remove **impurity in the courtyard,** and consequently the priests are not required to do so.


###### Eruvin 105a:3
[Eruvin 105a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:3)

וּמָר סָבַר: עַד הֵיכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר בִּלְוִיִּם, מַפְּקִי כֹּהֲנִים. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאֶפְשָׁר בִּלְוִיִּם, תּוּ לָא מִטַּמְּאִי כֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Akiva, **maintains: Up to where it is impossible** for the task to be performed **by the Levites,** as it is prohibited for Levites to enter the Sanctuary, **the priests took it out.** However, **now** in the courtyard, **where it is possible** for the ritual impurity to be removed **by the Levites, the priests no longer render themselves ritually impure,** as they are prohibited from maintaining contact with ritual impurity for any longer than necessary. That is to say, the Levites removed it from any place where they were permitted to enter.


###### Eruvin 105a:4
[Eruvin 105a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַכֹּל נִכְנָסִין בַּהֵיכָל לִבְנוֹת לְתַקֵּן וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה, וּמִצְוָה בְּכֹהֲנִים. אִם אֵין שָׁם כֹּהֲנִים — נִכְנָסִין לְוִיִּם, אֵין שָׁם לְוִיִּם — נִכְנָסִין יִשְׂרְאֵלִים. וְאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי, טְהוֹרִין — אִין, טְמֵאִין — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: It is permitted for **everyone** to **enter the Sanctuary to build, to repair, or to remove impurity** from inside. However, wherever possible, **the mitzva is** for these tasks to be performed **by priests. If no priests are available, Levites enter; if no Levites are available, Israelites enter. In both** cases, if **they are** ritually **pure, yes,** they may enter, but if **they are impure, no,** they may not enter the holy place.


###### Eruvin 105a:5
[Eruvin 105a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:5)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: רַב כָּהֲנָא מְסַיַּיע כָּהֲנֵי, דְּתָנֵי רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַךְ אֶל הַפָּרוֹכֶת לֹא יָבֹא״, יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ כֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין נִכְנָסִין בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ לַעֲשׂוֹת רִיקּוּעֵי פַחִים —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said: Rav Kahana,** who was a priest, **supports priests** by emphasizing their special sanctity. **As Rav Kahana taught** in a *baraita*: **Since it is stated** with regard to a priest who has a physical blemish, **“Only he shall not go in unto the veil,** nor come near to the altar, because he has a blemish, that he profane not My holy places; for I am the Lord who sanctifies them” (Leviticus 21:23), I **might** have thought that **priests with blemishes** may **not enter** the area **between the Entrance Hall and the altar to manufacture beaten plates** of gold for the Holy of Holies.


###### Eruvin 105a:6
[Eruvin 105a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:6)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אַךְ״ — חִלֵּק: מִצְוָה בִּתְמִימִים, אֵין שָׁם תְּמִימִים — נִכְנָסִין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין. מִצְוָה בִּטְהוֹרִין, אֵין שָׁם טְהוֹרִין — נִכְנָסִין טְמֵאִין. אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי, כֹּהֲנִים — אִין, יִשְׂרְאֵלִים — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse teaches “only”** as an expression of exclusion, which means that there is **a distinction** here: Although the **mitzva** should be performed with **unblemished** priests *ab initio*, **if no unblemished** priests **are available, blemished ones** may **enter.** Likewise, it is the duty of ritually **pure** priests; **if no pure** priests **are available, impure ones** may **enter. In both** cases, if they are **priests, yes,** they may enter, but if they are **Israelites, no,** they may not enter the holy place. According to Rav Kahana, ritually impure priests take precedence over ritually pure Israelites.


###### Eruvin 105a:7
[Eruvin 105a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:7)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: טָמֵא וּבַעַל מוּם, אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן נִכְנָס? רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: טָמֵא נִכְנָס, דְּהָא אִישְׁתְּרִי בַּעֲבוֹדַת צִיבּוּר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בַּעַל מוּם נִכְנָס, דְּהָא אִישְׁתְּרִי בַּאֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised** before the Sages: If one priest is ritually **impure and** another **has a blemish, which of them** should **enter** to perform repairs? **Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said** that **Rav said:** The **impure one** should **enter, as he is permitted** to participate **in communal service.** If the entire community is ritually impure, even impure priests may perform the service, whereas blemished priests may not serve under any circumstances. **Rabbi Elazar says:** The **one with the blemish** should **enter, as he is permitted to eat consecrated foods,** which indicates that he retains the sanctity of the priesthood despite his blemish. The Gemara leaves this question unresolved.


###### Eruvin 105a:8
[Eruvin 105a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:8)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֵיכָא קָאֵי? הָתָם קָאֵי, דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁהֶחֱשִׁיךְ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת לֹא יִכָּנֵס. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה יִכָּנֵס, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַמָּשׁוֹחוֹת מְמַצְּעִין אֶת הַמִּדּוֹת מִפְּנֵי הַטּוֹעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna that **Rabbi Shimon says:** Wherever the Sages permitted an action to you, they granted you only from your own. The Gemara asks: With regard to **Rabbi Shimon, on the basis of what** mishna did he formulate this principle? The Gemara answers: He taught this principle **on the basis** of the mishna **there, as we learned:** With regard to **one** for **whom it grew dark** while he was **outside the** Shabbat **limit, even** if he was only **one cubit** outside the limit **he** may **not enter** the town. **Rabbi Shimon says: Even** if he was **fifteen cubits** outside the limit, **he** may **enter** the town, **because** when **the surveyors** mark the Shabbat limit, they **do not measure precisely.** Rather they position the boundary mark within the two-thousand-cubit limit, **because of those who err.**


###### Eruvin 105a:9
[Eruvin 105a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:9)

דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא לֹא יִכָּנֵס, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יִכָּנֵס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **that which the first *tanna* said,** i.e., that **he** may **not enter, Rabbi Shimon said to** the *tanna*: **He** may **enter.** His reason, as stated, is that the limit does in fact extend that far, as any area the Sages granted to a person was actually permitted to him by Torah law.


###### Eruvin 105a:10
[Eruvin 105a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:10)

שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּירוּ לָךְ אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת. הֵיכָא קָאֵי? הָתָם קָאֵי, דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא — קוֹשְׁרָהּ. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — עוֹנְבָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon further said: **As they permitted to you only** activities prohibited **due to rabbinic decree,** but not actions prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara asks: **On the basis of what** teaching did he formulate this principle? The Gemara answers: He taught it **on the basis** of the mishna **there, where the first *tanna* said** with regard to a harp string in the Temple that broke on Shabbat, that **one** may **tie it** with a knot, **and Rabbi Shimon said: He** may **form** only **a bow.**


###### Eruvin 105a:11
[Eruvin 105a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:11)

עֲנִיבָה, דְּלָא אָתֵי לִידֵי חִיּוּב חַטָּאת — שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן. קְשִׁירָה, דְּאָתֵי לִידֵי חִיּוּב חַטָּאת — לָא שָׁרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason why only **forming a bow** is permitted, is **that it cannot lead to liability for a sin-offering,** as forming a bow cannot constitute a violation of the category of the prohibited labor of tying. Consequently, **the Sages permitted it.** However, with regard to **tying** a knot, **which can lead to liability for a sin-offering** when performed outside the Temple, **the Sages did not permit it,** as Rabbi Shimon maintains that the Sages permitted only activities whose prohibition involves a rabbinic decree.


###### Eruvin 105a:12
[Eruvin 105a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/105a:12)

**הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ הַמּוֹצֵא תְּפִילִּין וּסְלִיקָא לָהּ מַסֶּכֶת עֵירוּבִין**