Shevuot — Daf 17a

או דלמא בפנים גמירי שהייה לא שנא לקרבן ולא שנא למלקות תיקו

בעי רבא תלה עצמו באויר עזרה מהו כי גמירי שהייה שהייה דבת השתחואה דלאו בת השתחואה לא גמירי או דלמא בפנים שהייה גמירי ל"ש דבת השתחואה ול"ש דלאו בת השתחואה תיקו

בעי רב אשי טימא עצמו במזיד מהו באונס גמירי שהייה במזיד לא גמירי שהייה או דלמא בפנים גמירי שהייה ל"ש באונס ול"ש במזיד תיקו

בעי רב אשי נזיר בקבר בעי שהייה למלקות או אינו צריך בפנים גמירי שהייה בחוץ לא גמירי שהייה או דלמא באונס גמירי שהייה לא שנא בפנים ול"ש בחוץ תיקו:

בא לו בארוכה חייב בקצרה פטור וכו': אמר רבא קצרה שאמרו אפי' עקב בצד גודל ואפי' כל היום כולו

בעי רבא שהיות מהו שיצטרפו ותיפשוט ליה מדידיה התם בדלא שהה

בעא מיניה אביי מרבה בא לו בארוכה שיעור קצרה מהו שיעור גמירי וכי בא לו בארוכה שיעור קצרה פטור או דלמא דוקא גמירי בארוכה חייב בקצרה פטור א"ל לא נתנה ארוכה להדחות אצלו

מתקיף לה ר' זירא אלא דקיימא לן טמא ששימש במיתה היכי משכחת לה אי דלא שהה היכי עביד עבודה אי דשהה בר כרת הוא

אי אמרת בשלמא שיעורא גמירי משכחת לה דאניס נפשיה בקצרה ועבד עבודה

Or, perhaps the tradition is that within [the Temple] tarrying is necessary, no matter whether for sacrifice or for stripes?1 It remains undecided. Raba queried: If he suspended himself in the air in the Temple,2 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,3 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?4 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?5 Within [the Temple] there is a tradition that tarrying is necessary, but outside there is no tradition that tarrying is necessary?6 Or perhaps for accidental uncleanness there is a tradition that tarrying is necessary,7 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,8 and even the whole day. Raba queried: Can pauses be combined?9 — Let him solve it from his own statement!10 — There [he is exempt only] if he did not pause.11 Abaye inquired of Rabbah: If he went out the longer way in the time taken for the shorter way, what is the ruling?12 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.13 R. Zera objected strongly to this: Now, it is established with us that an unclean [priest] who officiated is punished by death.14 How can this be possible? If he did not tarry, how could he do the service?15 If he tarried, he is liable to kareth! Granted, if you would say that the tradition is that time [is the essential factor],16 then it is possible,17 if he strained himself in the shorter way, after he had done the service;18 inflicted, unless one tarries the period of prostration. thus for the tarrying period. suspended for the period of tarrying. because he became unclean accidentally, though he tarried wilfully; but if he became unclean wilfully, perhaps he is liable for stripes, though he does not tarry. carriage (not, thereby, becoming unclean), and when there the top of the carriage was removed, thus making him unclean from the air of the cemetery; and he was warned to leave, but he remained, though not the period of tarrying, is he liable for stripes? This example is similar to that of a person entering the Temple while clean, and becoming unclean inside. Temple, but not outside; and therefore the Nazirite is liable even if he did not tarry. moments of pausing being equal to the tarrying period. Is he liable in such case, or is he liable only when the tarrying period is one uninterrupted pause? occupied is more than the tarrying period. the shorter way at a medium pace. he walks slowly. the Temple, for, if he became unclean outside, he is liable to the punishment of kareth (which is severer than ohna hshc v,hn) for entering. tarrying the period of prostration, and the time duration of going out by the longer route; and that he is exempt only if he does not tarry the period of prostration and goes out the shorter route, i.e., the time he spends in the Temple must be less than the combined times of the period of prostration and that occupied in walking out the shorter route at a medium pace. kareth, but for death by divine intervention. had spent altogether in the Temple was less than the combined times of prostration and walking out the shorter route at a medium pace.