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! 25ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸ