Parallel
פסחים 26:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Raba says thus: R. Judah rules that the unintentional is the same as the intentional only in the direction of stringency, but he did not rule that the intentional is the same as the unintentional where it is in the direction of leniency. Abaye said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught: It was related of R. Johanan b. Zakkai that he was sitting in the shadow of the Temple and teaching all day. Now here it was impossible [not to lecture], and he intended [to benefit from the shade], and it is permitted? But Raba said: The Temple was different, because it was made for its inside. Raba said: Whence do I know it? Because we learned: There were passage ways opening in the upper chamber to the Holy of Holies, through which the artisans were lowered in boxes, so that they might not feast their eyes on the Holy of Holies. Now here it was impossible [to avoid going there], and he [the workman] intended [to gaze at the Holy of Holies], and it was forbidden. But is that logical? Surely R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass? Rather, they set up a higher standard for the Holy of Holies. Others state, Raba said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught, R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass. [Thus] they merely do not involve trespass, but there is an interdict. Is that not for those who stand inside [the Temple], so that it is impossible [to avoid it], while there is, an intention [to enjoy], and it is forbidden? — No: it refers to those standing outside. [It was stated in] the text, ‘R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass.’ But, does not smell involve trespass? Surely it was taught: He who compounds incense in order to learn [the art thereof] or to give it over to the community is exempt; [if] in order to smell it, he is liable; while he who smells it is exempt, but that he commits trespass! Rather, said R. Papa: Sound and sight do not involve trespass, because they are intangible; and smell, after its smoke column has ascended, does not involve trespass, since its religious service has been performed. Shall we say that wherever the religious service has been performed no trespass is involved? But what of the separation of the ashes, though its religious service has been performed, yet it involves trespass, for it is written; and he shall put them [the ashes] beside the altar, [which means] that he [the priest] must not scatter nor use [them]? — Because [the references to] the separation of the ashes and the priestly garments are two verses written with the same purpose, and the teaching of two such verses does not illumine [other cases]. ‘The separation of the ashes’: that which we have stated. ‘The priestly garments,’ as it is written, and he shall leave them there: this teaches that they must be hidden. That is well on the view of the Rabbis who say, This teaches that they must be hidden. But according to R. Dosa who disagrees with them and maintains: But they are fit for an ordinary priest, while what does ‘and he shall leave them there’ mean? that he [the High Priest] must not use them on another Day of Atonement, what can be said? — Because the separation of ashes and the beheaded heifer are two verses with the same teaching, and such two verses do not illumine [other cases]. That is well according to him who maintains, They do not illumine [other cases]; but on the view that they do illumine, what can be said? — Two limitations are written: it is written, ‘and he shall put them [the ashes]’; and it is written, [over the heifer] whose neck was broken [etc.]. Come and hear: If he took it [the heifer] into the team and it [accidentally] did some threshing, it is fit; [but if it was] in order that it should suck and thresh, it is unfit. Now here it is impossible [to do otherwise], and he intends [to benefit], and he [the Tanna] teaches that it is unfit! — There it is different, because Scripture saith, ‘which hath not been wrought with,’ [implying] in all cases. If so, even in the first clause too [the same applies]?
—