תרו בה כיתנא אסר להו:
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.
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.
מיתיבי לא כל הבורות הקרות התירו אלא זו בלבד ואי אמרת שהקרו דברים עליה מאי זו בלבד
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?
אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק באר מים חיים שנאמר כהקיר ביר מימיה וגו׳
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.
גופא לא כל הבורות הקרות התירו אלא זו בלבד וכשעלו בני הגולה חנו עליה ונביאים שביניהן התירו להן ולא נביאים שביניהן אלא מנהג אבותם בידיהם:
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.
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.
מהיכן מוציאין אותו מן ההיכל ומן האולם ומבין האולם ולמזבח דברי רבי שמעון בן ננס
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.
רבי עקיבא אומר כל מקום שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת משם מוציאין אותו ושאר כל המקומות כופין עליו פסכתר
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.
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.
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.
לימא מסייע ליה מזכר עד נקבה תשלחו פרט לכלי חרש דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי מאי טעמא לאו משום דלית ליה טהרה במקוה
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?
לא מי שנעשה אב הטומאה יצא כלי חרס שאינו נעשה אב הטומאה
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.
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.
מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמאן דאמר שלא לשהות קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש חייב ומאן דאמר שלא לרבות קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש פטור
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.
לא דכולי עלמא חייב והכא בהא קא מיפלגי מר סבר שהויי טומאה עדיף ומר סבר אפושי טומאה עדיף
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.
אלא כהני תנאי דתנן מהיכן מוציאין אותו כו׳
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.
מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמאן דאמר מעזרה לא קסבר המכניס שרץ למקדש פטור ומאן דאמר מכולה עזרה קסבר חייב
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.