נטמא בעזרה ונעלמה ממנו טומאה וכו׳. טומאה בעזרה מנלן? אמר רבי אלעזר, כתוב אחד אומר: ״את משכן ה׳ טמא״, וכתוב אחד אומר: ״כי את מקדש ה׳ טמא״; אם אינו ענין לטומאה שבחוץ, תנהו ענין לטומאה שבפנים.
§ The Mishnah teaches about one who was ritually pure when he entered the Temple but who became impure while in the Temple courtyard, and afterward his impurity was hidden from him. The Talmud asks: From where do we derive that one is liable even if he contracted impurity in the Temple courtyard and failed to leave immediately by way of the shortest route, and not only if he entered the Temple courtyard when he was already impure? R' Elazar says: One verse states: “He has defiled the Tabernacle of YHWH” (Numbers 19:13), and one verse states: “For he has defiled the Temple of YHWH” (Numbers 19:20). If this second verse is not needed for the matter of one who contracted impurity outside before he entered the Temple courtyard, as this situation is already referred to in the previous verse, apply it to the matter of one who contracted impurity inside the Temple courtyard.
וקראי מיתרי?! הא מיצרך צריכי! דתניא, רבי אלעזר אומר: אם נאמר ״משכן״, למה נאמר ״מקדש״? ואם נאמר ״מקדש״, למה נאמר ״משכן״? אילו נאמר ״משכן״ ולא נאמר ״מקדש״, הייתי אומר: על משכן יהא חייב – שהרי משוח בשמן המשחה, ועל מקדש לא יהא חייב. ואם נאמר ״מקדש״ ולא נאמר ״משכן״, הייתי אומר: על מקדש יהא חייב – שהרי קדושתו קדושת עולם, ועל משכן לא יהא חייב. לכך נאמר ״משכן״, לכך נאמר ״מקדש״.
The Talmud asks: But is it really superfluous to have both of these verses, one having been sufficient? Aren’t they each necessary to teach a novel ruling? As it is taught in a baraita: R' Elazar says: If it is stated: “Tabernacle,” why does it state: “Temple”? And if it is stated: “Temple,” why does it state: “Tabernacle”? He explains: Had the verse stated only: “Tabernacle,” and not stated: “Temple,” I would have said that one is liable for entering the Tabernacle in a state of impurity, since it was anointed with the anointing oil, and therefore it carries greater sanctity, but he is not liable for entering the Temple, which was not anointed with the anointing oil. And had the verse stated only: “Temple,” and not stated: “Tabernacle,” I would have said that one is liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity, since its sanctity is an eternal sanctity, but he is not liable for entering the Tabernacle, whose sanctity was only for its time. For this reason, it is stated: “Tabernacle,” and for this reason, it is stated: “Temple.”