Parallel
שבועות 17
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Or, perhaps the tradition is that within [the Temple] tarrying is necessary, no matter whether for sacrifice or for stripes? It remains undecided. Raba queried: If he suspended himself in the air in the Temple, what is the ruling? Is the tradition that tarrying makes him liable only in the case of such tarrying as may be used for prostration, but for such tarrying which cannot be used for prostration there is no tradition [that he is liable]? Or perhaps the tradition is that within [the Temple] tarrying makes him liable, no matter whether it may be used for prostration or not? It remains undecided. R. Ashi queried: If he defiled himself wilfully, what is the ruling? For an accidental defilement there is a tradition that tarrying is necessary, but for wilful defilement there is no tradition that tarrying is necessary? Or perhaps the tradition is that within [the Temple] tarrying is necessary, no matter whether for accidental or wilful defilement? It remains undecided. R. Ashi queried: Does a Nazirite at a grave require tarrying for stripes or not? Within [the Temple] there is a tradition that tarrying is necessary, but outside there is no tradition that tarrying is necessary? Or perhaps for accidental uncleanness there is a tradition that tarrying is necessary, no matter whether inside or outside? It remains undecided. IF HE WENT OUT THE LONGER WAY, HE IS LIABLE; THE SHORTER WAY, HE IS EXEMPT, etc. Raba said: THE SHORTER WAY which they said [exempts him, implies] even [walking] heel to toe, and even the whole day. Raba queried: Can pauses be combined? — Let him solve it from his own statement! — There [he is exempt only] if he did not pause. Abaye inquired of Rabbah: If he went out the longer way in the time taken for the shorter way, what is the ruling? Is the tradition that the time taken [is the essential factor], and if he went out the longer way in the time taken for the shorter way, he is exempt; or, is the tradition definite that for the longer way he is liable, and for the shorter way he is exempt? — He said to him: [The law that for] the longer way [he is liable] was not given that it should be suspended for him. R. Zera objected strongly to this: Now, it is established with us that an unclean [priest] who officiated is punished by death. How can this be possible? If he did not tarry, how could he do the service? If he tarried, he is liable to kareth! Granted, if you would say that the tradition is that time [is the essential factor], then it is possible, if he strained himself in the shorter way, after he had done the service;18
—
but if you say that the tradition is definite, how is it possible? — Said Abaye: What a question! It is possible that he went out the shorter way [without tarrying first], and turned [a piece of the sacrifice on the altar fire] with a prong; and this is in accordance with R. Huna's view, for R. Huna said: A layman who turned [a piece of the sacrifice on the altar fire] with a prong is punished by death. The text says: ‘R. Huna said, A layman who turned [a piece of the sacrifice on the altar fire] with a prong is punished by death.’ How is this? If, without turning it, it would not have been consumed, this is self-evident! And if, without turning it, it would also have been consumed, then what has he done? — It is not necessary [for R. Huna to state his law except] in a case where if he had not turned it, it would have been consumed in two hours, and now [after turning it] it is consumed in one hour; and this [law] he teaches us, that an acceleration of the service is also a service. R. Oshaia said: I wish to state a law, but am afraid of my associates: He who enters a house plagued by leprosy, backwards, even with his whole body [inside] except his nose, is clean, for it is written: He that cometh into the house . . . [shall be unclean]: the normal way of coming in did Scripture prohibit; but I am afraid of my associates [in stating this law] for, if so, even if he entered wholly [including his nose, he should] also [be clean]. — Said Raba: His whole body is not worse than the vessels in the house; for it is written: [They shall empty the house before the priest comes to see the plague,] so that all that is in the house be not made unclean. It has also been taught similarly: These roofs [of the Temple] — sacrifices of the highest grade of holiness may not be eaten there, and sacrifices of a minor grade of holiness may not be sacrificed there; and an unclean person who entered the Temple by the roof is exempt, for it is said: And into the sanctuary she shall not come: the normal way of coming did Scripture prohibit. THIS IS THE POSITIVE PRECEPT CONCERNING THE TEMPLE FOR WHICH THEY [THE BETH DIN] ARE NOT LIABLE, ETC. What is he referring to that he says — THIS IS THE POSITIVE PRECEPT, etc.? He is referring to this: They [the Beth din] are not liable for [an erroneous ruling in connection with the transgression of] a positive or negative precept [concerning uncleanness] in the Temple; and they [individuals] do not bring a suspensive guilt offering for [a doubtful sin in connection with] the positive or negative precept [concerning uncleanness] in the Temple; but they [the Beth din] are liable for [an erroneous ruling in connection with the transgression of] the positive or negative precept concerning a menstruous woman; and they [individuals] bring a suspensive guilt offering for a [doubtful sin in connection with the] positive or negative precept concerning a menstruous woman. So [the Tanna here] says: THIS IS THE POSITIVE PRECEPT CONCERNING THE TEMPLE FOR WHICH THEY ARE NOT LIABLE; AND WHICH IS THE POSITIVE PRECEPT CONCERNING A MENSTRUOUS WOMAN FOR WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE? [THIS:] IF ONE COHABITED WITH A CLEAN WOMAN, AND SHE SAID TO HIM; ‘I HAVE BECOME UNCLEAN!’, AND HE WITHDREW IMMEDIATELY, HE IS LIABLE, BECAUSE HIS WITHDRAWAL IS AS PLEASANT TO HIM AS HIS ENTRY. It was stated: Abaye said in the name of R. Hiyya b. Rab: He is liable to [bring] two [sin-offerings]. And so said Raba that R. Samuel son of R. Sheba said that R. Huna said: He is liable to bring two, one for entering and one for withdrawing. Raba raised the question: In what [circumstances]? Shall we say, it was near the time of her regular period? And with whom? Shall we say, a learned man? Granted, then, for entering he should be liable, for he thought I am able to cohabit; but for withdrawing, why should he be liable, since he acted wilfully! 25
—