Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 15, 2017 | 讻状讝 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Shevuot 17

Questions are asked regarding the requirements for becoming obligated in a sacrifice if one became impure in the temple.聽 What is the time one needs to be there?聽 If one takes the short path out, one will not be obligated -is this something that is measured in time or not?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇拽专讘谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇诪诇拽讜转 转讬拽讜

Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary to incur any liability for impurity within the Temple, and it is no different whether the liability is to bring an offering, and it is no different whether it is to receive lashes? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘讗 转诇讛 注爪诪讜 讘讗讜讬专 注讝专讛 诪讛讜 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 砖讛讬讬讛 讚讘转 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讛讬讬讛 讙诪讬专讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讘转 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 转讬拽讜

Rava raises another dilemma: If an impure person suspended himself in the airspace of the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, what is the halakha? When it is learned as a tradition that an impure person is liable for tarrying in the Temple, is this only with regard to tarrying that is suited for bowing; but with regard to tarrying that is not suited for bowing, as in this case, where the person cannot bow down as long as he is suspended in the air, it is not learned as a tradition that one is liable? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that there is liability for tarrying within the Temple, and it is no different whether the tarrying is suited for bowing, and it is no different whether the tarrying is not suited for bowing. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讟讬诪讗 注爪诪讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诪讛讜 讘讗讜谞住 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讗讜谞住 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讬讚 转讬拽讜

Rav Ashi also raises a dilemma relating to this matter: If one intentionally rendered himself ritually impure while he was in the Temple courtyard, what is the halakha with regard to tarrying? Is it learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary when one contracts impurity while in the Temple in circumstances beyond his control, but not learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary when he renders himself impure intentionally? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary for any liability for impurity within the Temple, and it is no different whether the impurity was contracted in circumstances beyond his control, and it is no different whether it was contracted intentionally. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讝讬专 讘拽讘专 讘注讬 砖讛讬讬讛 诇诪诇拽讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讘驻谞讬诐 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讗讜谞住 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讞讜抓 转讬拽讜

Rav Ashi raises another dilemma: If a nazirite, who is prohibited from contracting impurity imparted by a corpse, found himself alongside a grave, is tarrying there a necessary condition for him to incur lashes, or is tarrying not necessary, and he is liable immediately? Is it learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary within the Temple, but not learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary outside the Temple, and the nazirite is liable immediately? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary for liability for impurity contracted in circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control, and it is no different whether the impurity was contracted within the Temple, and it is no different whether it was contracted outside the Temple. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘讗 诇讜 讘讗专讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘拽爪专讛 驻讟讜专 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽爪专讛 砖讗诪专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 注拽讘 讘爪讚 讙讜讚诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜

搂 The mishna teaches: If, at the time that one was unaware either that he was impure, or that he was in the Temple, he went out by way of a longer route when he could have taken a shorter route, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. But if he left the Temple via the shortest way, he is exempt. Rava says: With regard to the short route, which the Sages said here that he is exempt for, this does not necessarily mean that he left the Temple as quickly as possible, as if he took the most direct route he is exempt even if he walked with exceedingly small steps, heel to toe, and even if it took him all day long.

讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讛讬讜转 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讟专驻讜 讜转讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚讬讚讬讛 讛转诐 讘讚诇讗 砖讛讛

Rava raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to combining periods of tarrying, each of which is less than the amount of time necessary to recite the second portion of the verse mentioned above (II聽Chronicles 7:3)? If an impure person tarried in the Temple for less than the amount of time needed to bow down, and then started to leave, and then tarried again for less than the amount of time needed to bow down, do those two periods of tarrying combine together, so that if he tarried in total long enough to bow down, he is liable? The Gemara challenges: Let Rava resolve his dilemma from his own statement with regard to one who left the Temple with small steps, heel to toe, as such a person tarries intermittently between steps. The Gemara answers: There Rava is referring to one who did not tarry at all, walking continuously without interruption, albeit slowly. When Rava raised his dilemma here, it was with regard to one who stopped walking altogether and tarried.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讘讗 诇讜 讘讗专讜讻讛 砖讬注讜专 拽爪专讛 诪讛讜 砖讬注讜专 讙诪讬专讬 讜讻讬 讘讗 诇讜 讘讗专讜讻讛 砖讬注讜专 拽爪专讛 驻讟讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚讜拽讗 讙诪讬专讬 讘讗专讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘拽爪专讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞转谞讛 讗专讜讻讛 诇讛讚讞讜转 讗爪诇讜

Abaye raised a dilemma to Rabba that is the very opposite of the dilemma raised by Rava: If the impure person quickly went out the longer way in the measure of time ordinarily needed to go out the shortest way, what is the halakha? Is it learned as a tradition that he is liable for tarrying for a certain measure of time, and if he went out the longer way in the measure of time ordinarily needed to go out the shortest way, he is exempt? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition specifically that if he left the longer way, he is liable, whereas if he left the shortest way, he is exempt. Rabba said to Abaye: The liability for leaving using the longer way was not given so that it would be overridden for him; i.e., he is liable if he exits via the longer way, even if he runs.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诇讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讟诪讗 砖砖讬诪砖 讘诪讬转讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讛讛 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬 讚砖讛讛 讘专 讻专转 讛讜讗

Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But as for this halakha that we maintain, that an impure priest who intentionally served in the Temple is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, how can you find these circumstances? If he did not tarry in the Temple long enough to bow down, how could he have performed any service in such a short period of time? And if he tarried long enough to bow down, he is liable to be punished with karet, which is a more severe punishment than death at the hand of Heaven.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗谞讬住 谞驻砖讬讛 讘拽爪专讛 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚讛

Rabbi Zeira explains his objection: Granted, if you say that it is learned as a tradition that one is liable for tarrying for a certain measure of time, and if he did not tarry for the time it takes to bow down and leave the Temple via the shortest way, he is exempt, then you can find a case where the priest could have served in a state of impurity without becoming liable to be punished with karet. The case is where he exerted himself and ran out very quickly via the shortest way after having performed a service in a state of impurity, so that the total time that he was in the Temple was less time than it would ordinarily take him to bow and leave the shortest way. In such a case he is exempt from being punished with karet, and liable only to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven for having performed the Temple service while impure.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讜拽讗 讙诪讬专讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

But if you say that it is learned as a tradition specifically that if an impure person tarries long enough to bow down, he is liable even if he does not exceed the time required to go out the shortest way, then how can you find these circumstances?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗 讘拽爪专讛 讜讛驻讱 讘爪讬谞讜专讗 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝专 砖讛驻讱 讘爪讬谞讜专讗 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛

Abaye said: What is the difficulty? You find it in a case such as where he went out from the Temple via the shortest way, but as he was leaving he turned over one of the limbs of an offering on the altar with a fork [betzinnora]. This is an action that takes only a brief moment to perform, and yet it is considered priestly service, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: A non-priest who turns over part of an offering on the altar with a fork is liable to receive the death penalty, because he engaged in Temple service restricted to priests.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝专 砖讛驻讱 讘爪讬谞讜专讗 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讛驻讱 诇讛 诇讗 诪讬注讻诇讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讛驻讱 讘讛讜 谞诪讬 诪讬注讻诇讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the matter itself: Rav Huna says: A non-priest who turns over part of an offering on the altar with a fork is liable to receive the death penalty. What are the circumstances of such a case? If in the event that he had not turned it over, the offering would not have been consumed by the fire, then it is obvious that the non-priest is liable, as he performed the service of burning the offering on the altar. And if in the event that he had not turned it over, it would also have been consumed by the fire, then what service did he perform? Even without his action, the offering would have been burned.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 讛驻讱 讘讛讜 诪讬注讻诇讬 讘转专转讬 砖注讬 讜讛砖转讗 诪讬注讻诇讬 讘讞讚 砖注转讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻诇 拽专讜讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for Rav Huna to state this halakha with regard to a case where, had the non-priest not turned it over, it would have been consumed by the fire in two hours, but now that he turned it over, it is consumed by the fire in one hour. And he teaches us this: That any act that accelerates the service, causing it to be performed more quickly, is itself considered a service.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘注讬谞讗 讚讗讬诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪讞讘专讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讚专讱 讗讞讜专讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讜 讞讜抓 诪讞讜讟诪讜 讟讛讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讗 讗诇 讛讘讬转 讚专讱 讘讬讗讛 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

The Gemara returns to the general topic of one who enters the Temple while in a state of ritual impurity, citing Rabbi Oshaya, who said: I wish to say something, but I am afraid of my colleagues, i.e., I am afraid that they will raise an objection against me. What did he want to say? With regard to one who enters a house afflicted with leprosy, if he enters the house backward, then even if his entire body entered except for his nose, which remained outside the house, he remains pure, as it is written: 鈥淗e that enters into the house all the time that it is shut up shall be impure until evening鈥 (Leviticus 14:46), teaching that the Torah prohibited, i.e., conferred impurity, only with regard to the normal manner of entering into a house, i.e., face-first.

讜诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪讞讘专讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讜诇讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 讙专注 诪讻诇讬诐 砖讘讘讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讻诇 讗砖专 讘讘讬转

But I am afraid of my colleagues, as they might raise the following objection: If so, that the impurity depends on the person entering the house in the normal manner, then even if his entire body entered the house, he would also be pure, as he did not go into the house in the normal fashion. Rava said: This is not difficult, as if his entire body entered in this manner, he is impure, because he is no worse now, i.e., his halakha should be no more lenient, than vessels that are in the house, which become impure, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall empty the house鈥so that all that is in the house shall not be made impure鈥 (Leviticus 14:36).

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讙讙讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诐 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 砖诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜讟诪讗 砖谞讻谞住 讚专讱 讙讙讬谉 诇讛讬讻诇 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 转讘讗 讚专讱 讘讬讗讛 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, that wherever entering is mentioned in the Torah, the reference is to the normal manner of entering: With regard to those roofs that covered the various chambers found in the Temple courtyard, offerings of the most sacred order may not be eaten there, on them, and offerings of lesser sanctity may not be slaughtered there, because those roofs do not have the sanctity of the Temple courtyard. And a ritually impure person who enters the Sanctuary via those roofs is exempt, as it is stated with regard to a woman who became ritually impure: 鈥淎nd she shall not enter into the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 12:4), teaching that the Torah prohibited only the normal manner of entering the Temple. So too, in the case of a house afflicted with leprosy, where mention is made of entering, only one who enters into the house in the normal manner becomes impure, as stated by Rabbi Oshaya.

讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讗 拽讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讝讜 讛讬讗 讛转诐 拽讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖

搂 The mishna teaches: This mitzva that the ritually impure must be sent out of the Temple is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which the Sanhedrin is not liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling. The Gemara asks: To what does the tanna of the mishna refer when he says: This is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which the Sanhedrin is not liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling? Where was it taught that there is such a mitzva for which they are not liable? The Gemara answers: He is referring to a mishna found there in tractate Horayot (8b), which teaches: The Sanhedrin is not liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling with regard to a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning ritual impurity in the Temple, as this offering is brought only for an erroneous ruling on a matter whose unwitting violation requires the bringing of a fixed sin-offering, and not a sliding-scale offering.

讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖

The mishna there continues: And one who is uncertain whether or not he unwittingly transgressed a prohibition that requires a sin-offering does not bring a provisional guilt-offering for a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning ritual impurity in the Temple, as this offering is brought only when certainty about the unwitting transgression would require a fixed sin-offering, not a sliding-scale offering. Unwitting transgression of a mitzva concerning ritual impurity in the Temple results in an obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering.

讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘谞讚讛 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘谞讚讛

The mishna there continues: But the Sanhedrin is liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling with regard to a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning a menstruating woman. And one who is uncertain whether or not he unwittingly transgressed a prohibition that requires a sin-offering brings a provisional guilt-offering for a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning a menstruating woman.

讜拽讗诪专 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讘谞讚讛 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 注诐 讛讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 谞讟诪讗转讬 讜驻讬专砖 诪讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讬爪讬讗转讜 讛谞讗讛 诇讜 讻讘讬讗转讜

And it is in reference to that mishna that the tanna in the mishna here says: This mitzva, that the ritually impure must be sent out of the Temple, is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which the Sanhedrin is not liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling. And which is the positive mitzva with regard to a menstruating woman for which the Sanhedrin is liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling? If a man was engaging in intercourse with a ritually pure woman, and during the course of their act of intercourse she experienced menstrual bleeding and said to him: I have become impure, and unwittingly he immediately withdrew from her and did not wait until his penis became flaccid, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman, because his withdrawal from her is as pleasant to him as his entry. If the Sanhedrin mistakenly ruled that one may withdraw immediately, they bring a bull offering for their erroneous ruling.

讗讬转诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 砖讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讞讚讗 讗讻谞讬住讛 讜讞讚讗 讗驻专讬砖讛

搂 The Gemara further clarifies the matter of a man who immediately withdrew from the woman after she told him that she had experienced menstrual bleeding. It was stated that Abaye says in the name of Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav: He is liable to bring two sin-offerings for this unwitting transgression. And so Rava says that Rav Shmuel bar Shaba says that Rav Huna says: He is liable to bring two sin-offerings, one for his initial entry and one for his immediate withdrawal.

讛讜讬 讘讛 专讘讛 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 住诪讜讱 诇讜住转讛 讜讘诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讻谞讬住讛 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽住讘专 讬讻讜诇谞讬 诇讘注讜诇 讗诇讗 讗驻专讬砖讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘 诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗

Rabba discusses this matter, raising a question: About what case are we speaking? If we say that it was near her expected date of menstruation, when sexual intercourse is prohibited due to a concern that the woman might already be menstruating or that she might begin to menstruate during the act of intercourse, and nevertheless they engaged in intercourse, there is a difficulty: With whom are we dealing? If we say that we are dealing with a Torah scholar, granted that he will be liable to bring a sin-offering for his initial entry. That was an unwitting transgression, as he thought to himself: I can engage in intercourse with her before she begins to menstruate. But why will he be liable to bring a sin-offering for his immediate withdrawal? That transgression was intentional, since he is a Torah scholar and he knows that in such a case he must not withdraw immediately, and a sin-offering is not brought for an intentional transgression.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shevuot 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 17

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇拽专讘谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇诪诇拽讜转 转讬拽讜

Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary to incur any liability for impurity within the Temple, and it is no different whether the liability is to bring an offering, and it is no different whether it is to receive lashes? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘讗 转诇讛 注爪诪讜 讘讗讜讬专 注讝专讛 诪讛讜 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 砖讛讬讬讛 讚讘转 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讛讬讬讛 讙诪讬专讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讘转 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讛砖转讞讜讗讛 转讬拽讜

Rava raises another dilemma: If an impure person suspended himself in the airspace of the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, what is the halakha? When it is learned as a tradition that an impure person is liable for tarrying in the Temple, is this only with regard to tarrying that is suited for bowing; but with regard to tarrying that is not suited for bowing, as in this case, where the person cannot bow down as long as he is suspended in the air, it is not learned as a tradition that one is liable? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that there is liability for tarrying within the Temple, and it is no different whether the tarrying is suited for bowing, and it is no different whether the tarrying is not suited for bowing. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讟讬诪讗 注爪诪讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诪讛讜 讘讗讜谞住 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讗讜谞住 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讬讚 转讬拽讜

Rav Ashi also raises a dilemma relating to this matter: If one intentionally rendered himself ritually impure while he was in the Temple courtyard, what is the halakha with regard to tarrying? Is it learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary when one contracts impurity while in the Temple in circumstances beyond his control, but not learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary when he renders himself impure intentionally? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary for any liability for impurity within the Temple, and it is no different whether the impurity was contracted in circumstances beyond his control, and it is no different whether it was contracted intentionally. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讝讬专 讘拽讘专 讘注讬 砖讛讬讬讛 诇诪诇拽讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讘驻谞讬诐 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讗讜谞住 讙诪讬专讬 砖讛讬讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讞讜抓 转讬拽讜

Rav Ashi raises another dilemma: If a nazirite, who is prohibited from contracting impurity imparted by a corpse, found himself alongside a grave, is tarrying there a necessary condition for him to incur lashes, or is tarrying not necessary, and he is liable immediately? Is it learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary within the Temple, but not learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary outside the Temple, and the nazirite is liable immediately? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary for liability for impurity contracted in circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control, and it is no different whether the impurity was contracted within the Temple, and it is no different whether it was contracted outside the Temple. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘讗 诇讜 讘讗专讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘拽爪专讛 驻讟讜专 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽爪专讛 砖讗诪专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 注拽讘 讘爪讚 讙讜讚诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜

搂 The mishna teaches: If, at the time that one was unaware either that he was impure, or that he was in the Temple, he went out by way of a longer route when he could have taken a shorter route, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. But if he left the Temple via the shortest way, he is exempt. Rava says: With regard to the short route, which the Sages said here that he is exempt for, this does not necessarily mean that he left the Temple as quickly as possible, as if he took the most direct route he is exempt even if he walked with exceedingly small steps, heel to toe, and even if it took him all day long.

讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讛讬讜转 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讟专驻讜 讜转讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚讬讚讬讛 讛转诐 讘讚诇讗 砖讛讛

Rava raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to combining periods of tarrying, each of which is less than the amount of time necessary to recite the second portion of the verse mentioned above (II聽Chronicles 7:3)? If an impure person tarried in the Temple for less than the amount of time needed to bow down, and then started to leave, and then tarried again for less than the amount of time needed to bow down, do those two periods of tarrying combine together, so that if he tarried in total long enough to bow down, he is liable? The Gemara challenges: Let Rava resolve his dilemma from his own statement with regard to one who left the Temple with small steps, heel to toe, as such a person tarries intermittently between steps. The Gemara answers: There Rava is referring to one who did not tarry at all, walking continuously without interruption, albeit slowly. When Rava raised his dilemma here, it was with regard to one who stopped walking altogether and tarried.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讘讗 诇讜 讘讗专讜讻讛 砖讬注讜专 拽爪专讛 诪讛讜 砖讬注讜专 讙诪讬专讬 讜讻讬 讘讗 诇讜 讘讗专讜讻讛 砖讬注讜专 拽爪专讛 驻讟讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚讜拽讗 讙诪讬专讬 讘讗专讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讘拽爪专讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞转谞讛 讗专讜讻讛 诇讛讚讞讜转 讗爪诇讜

Abaye raised a dilemma to Rabba that is the very opposite of the dilemma raised by Rava: If the impure person quickly went out the longer way in the measure of time ordinarily needed to go out the shortest way, what is the halakha? Is it learned as a tradition that he is liable for tarrying for a certain measure of time, and if he went out the longer way in the measure of time ordinarily needed to go out the shortest way, he is exempt? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition specifically that if he left the longer way, he is liable, whereas if he left the shortest way, he is exempt. Rabba said to Abaye: The liability for leaving using the longer way was not given so that it would be overridden for him; i.e., he is liable if he exits via the longer way, even if he runs.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诇讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讟诪讗 砖砖讬诪砖 讘诪讬转讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讛讛 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬 讚砖讛讛 讘专 讻专转 讛讜讗

Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But as for this halakha that we maintain, that an impure priest who intentionally served in the Temple is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, how can you find these circumstances? If he did not tarry in the Temple long enough to bow down, how could he have performed any service in such a short period of time? And if he tarried long enough to bow down, he is liable to be punished with karet, which is a more severe punishment than death at the hand of Heaven.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗谞讬住 谞驻砖讬讛 讘拽爪专讛 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚讛

Rabbi Zeira explains his objection: Granted, if you say that it is learned as a tradition that one is liable for tarrying for a certain measure of time, and if he did not tarry for the time it takes to bow down and leave the Temple via the shortest way, he is exempt, then you can find a case where the priest could have served in a state of impurity without becoming liable to be punished with karet. The case is where he exerted himself and ran out very quickly via the shortest way after having performed a service in a state of impurity, so that the total time that he was in the Temple was less time than it would ordinarily take him to bow and leave the shortest way. In such a case he is exempt from being punished with karet, and liable only to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven for having performed the Temple service while impure.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚讜拽讗 讙诪讬专讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

But if you say that it is learned as a tradition specifically that if an impure person tarries long enough to bow down, he is liable even if he does not exceed the time required to go out the shortest way, then how can you find these circumstances?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗 讘拽爪专讛 讜讛驻讱 讘爪讬谞讜专讗 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝专 砖讛驻讱 讘爪讬谞讜专讗 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛

Abaye said: What is the difficulty? You find it in a case such as where he went out from the Temple via the shortest way, but as he was leaving he turned over one of the limbs of an offering on the altar with a fork [betzinnora]. This is an action that takes only a brief moment to perform, and yet it is considered priestly service, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: A non-priest who turns over part of an offering on the altar with a fork is liable to receive the death penalty, because he engaged in Temple service restricted to priests.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝专 砖讛驻讱 讘爪讬谞讜专讗 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讛驻讱 诇讛 诇讗 诪讬注讻诇讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讛驻讱 讘讛讜 谞诪讬 诪讬注讻诇讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the matter itself: Rav Huna says: A non-priest who turns over part of an offering on the altar with a fork is liable to receive the death penalty. What are the circumstances of such a case? If in the event that he had not turned it over, the offering would not have been consumed by the fire, then it is obvious that the non-priest is liable, as he performed the service of burning the offering on the altar. And if in the event that he had not turned it over, it would also have been consumed by the fire, then what service did he perform? Even without his action, the offering would have been burned.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 讛驻讱 讘讛讜 诪讬注讻诇讬 讘转专转讬 砖注讬 讜讛砖转讗 诪讬注讻诇讬 讘讞讚 砖注转讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻诇 拽专讜讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for Rav Huna to state this halakha with regard to a case where, had the non-priest not turned it over, it would have been consumed by the fire in two hours, but now that he turned it over, it is consumed by the fire in one hour. And he teaches us this: That any act that accelerates the service, causing it to be performed more quickly, is itself considered a service.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘注讬谞讗 讚讗讬诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪讞讘专讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讚专讱 讗讞讜专讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讜 讞讜抓 诪讞讜讟诪讜 讟讛讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讗 讗诇 讛讘讬转 讚专讱 讘讬讗讛 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

The Gemara returns to the general topic of one who enters the Temple while in a state of ritual impurity, citing Rabbi Oshaya, who said: I wish to say something, but I am afraid of my colleagues, i.e., I am afraid that they will raise an objection against me. What did he want to say? With regard to one who enters a house afflicted with leprosy, if he enters the house backward, then even if his entire body entered except for his nose, which remained outside the house, he remains pure, as it is written: 鈥淗e that enters into the house all the time that it is shut up shall be impure until evening鈥 (Leviticus 14:46), teaching that the Torah prohibited, i.e., conferred impurity, only with regard to the normal manner of entering into a house, i.e., face-first.

讜诪住转驻讬谞讗 诪讞讘专讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讜诇讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 讙专注 诪讻诇讬诐 砖讘讘讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讻诇 讗砖专 讘讘讬转

But I am afraid of my colleagues, as they might raise the following objection: If so, that the impurity depends on the person entering the house in the normal manner, then even if his entire body entered the house, he would also be pure, as he did not go into the house in the normal fashion. Rava said: This is not difficult, as if his entire body entered in this manner, he is impure, because he is no worse now, i.e., his halakha should be no more lenient, than vessels that are in the house, which become impure, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall empty the house鈥so that all that is in the house shall not be made impure鈥 (Leviticus 14:36).

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讙讙讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诐 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 砖诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜讟诪讗 砖谞讻谞住 讚专讱 讙讙讬谉 诇讛讬讻诇 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 转讘讗 讚专讱 讘讬讗讛 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, that wherever entering is mentioned in the Torah, the reference is to the normal manner of entering: With regard to those roofs that covered the various chambers found in the Temple courtyard, offerings of the most sacred order may not be eaten there, on them, and offerings of lesser sanctity may not be slaughtered there, because those roofs do not have the sanctity of the Temple courtyard. And a ritually impure person who enters the Sanctuary via those roofs is exempt, as it is stated with regard to a woman who became ritually impure: 鈥淎nd she shall not enter into the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 12:4), teaching that the Torah prohibited only the normal manner of entering the Temple. So too, in the case of a house afflicted with leprosy, where mention is made of entering, only one who enters into the house in the normal manner becomes impure, as stated by Rabbi Oshaya.

讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讗 拽讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讝讜 讛讬讗 讛转诐 拽讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖

搂 The mishna teaches: This mitzva that the ritually impure must be sent out of the Temple is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which the Sanhedrin is not liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling. The Gemara asks: To what does the tanna of the mishna refer when he says: This is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which the Sanhedrin is not liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling? Where was it taught that there is such a mitzva for which they are not liable? The Gemara answers: He is referring to a mishna found there in tractate Horayot (8b), which teaches: The Sanhedrin is not liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling with regard to a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning ritual impurity in the Temple, as this offering is brought only for an erroneous ruling on a matter whose unwitting violation requires the bringing of a fixed sin-offering, and not a sliding-scale offering.

讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖

The mishna there continues: And one who is uncertain whether or not he unwittingly transgressed a prohibition that requires a sin-offering does not bring a provisional guilt-offering for a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning ritual impurity in the Temple, as this offering is brought only when certainty about the unwitting transgression would require a fixed sin-offering, not a sliding-scale offering. Unwitting transgression of a mitzva concerning ritual impurity in the Temple results in an obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering.

讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘谞讚讛 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 注砖讛 讜注诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘谞讚讛

The mishna there continues: But the Sanhedrin is liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling with regard to a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning a menstruating woman. And one who is uncertain whether or not he unwittingly transgressed a prohibition that requires a sin-offering brings a provisional guilt-offering for a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning a menstruating woman.

讜拽讗诪专 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讘谞讚讛 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖 注诐 讛讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 谞讟诪讗转讬 讜驻讬专砖 诪讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讬爪讬讗转讜 讛谞讗讛 诇讜 讻讘讬讗转讜

And it is in reference to that mishna that the tanna in the mishna here says: This mitzva, that the ritually impure must be sent out of the Temple, is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which the Sanhedrin is not liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling. And which is the positive mitzva with regard to a menstruating woman for which the Sanhedrin is liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling? If a man was engaging in intercourse with a ritually pure woman, and during the course of their act of intercourse she experienced menstrual bleeding and said to him: I have become impure, and unwittingly he immediately withdrew from her and did not wait until his penis became flaccid, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman, because his withdrawal from her is as pleasant to him as his entry. If the Sanhedrin mistakenly ruled that one may withdraw immediately, they bring a bull offering for their erroneous ruling.

讗讬转诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 砖讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讞讚讗 讗讻谞讬住讛 讜讞讚讗 讗驻专讬砖讛

搂 The Gemara further clarifies the matter of a man who immediately withdrew from the woman after she told him that she had experienced menstrual bleeding. It was stated that Abaye says in the name of Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav: He is liable to bring two sin-offerings for this unwitting transgression. And so Rava says that Rav Shmuel bar Shaba says that Rav Huna says: He is liable to bring two sin-offerings, one for his initial entry and one for his immediate withdrawal.

讛讜讬 讘讛 专讘讛 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 住诪讜讱 诇讜住转讛 讜讘诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讻谞讬住讛 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽住讘专 讬讻讜诇谞讬 诇讘注讜诇 讗诇讗 讗驻专讬砖讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘 诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗

Rabba discusses this matter, raising a question: About what case are we speaking? If we say that it was near her expected date of menstruation, when sexual intercourse is prohibited due to a concern that the woman might already be menstruating or that she might begin to menstruate during the act of intercourse, and nevertheless they engaged in intercourse, there is a difficulty: With whom are we dealing? If we say that we are dealing with a Torah scholar, granted that he will be liable to bring a sin-offering for his initial entry. That was an unwitting transgression, as he thought to himself: I can engage in intercourse with her before she begins to menstruate. But why will he be liable to bring a sin-offering for his immediate withdrawal? That transgression was intentional, since he is a Torah scholar and he knows that in such a case he must not withdraw immediately, and a sin-offering is not brought for an intentional transgression.

Scroll To Top