Shevuot

a sliding scale sacrifice should perhaps be, as in the case of ‘hearing the voice of adjuration’1 and ‘swearing clearly with the lips’2 [where a sliding scale sacrifice is brought for unwitting transgression, though neither Kareth nor death [by divine intervention] is inflicted for wilful transgression]? — Scripture says: [Whatsoever his uncleanness be] by which [he becomes unclean.]3 By which, excludes Terumah.4 Let us rather say that by which excludes Temple [and holy food] in that a sliding scale sacrifice shall not suffice, but a fixed sacrifice be necessary? Raba said of Rabbi: He draws water from deep pits;5 for it was taught: Rabbi said: I read, [If any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcass of an unclean] beast [or the carcass of unclean cattle . . . ].6 Why should cattle be written?7 — [To deduce the following:] Here it is said unclean cattle, and further on it is said unclean cattle.8 Just as there it refers to eating holy food while unclean, so here it refers to eating holy food while unclean. Thus we deduce the law regarding eating holy food while unclean; whence do we deduce the law regarding entering the Temple while unclean? — Scripture says: She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary.9 Sanctuary is equated with holy food. — If so, Terumah also [should be included for sliding scale sacrifice, if eaten while unclean], for it has been said that she shall touch no hallowed thing includes Terumah?10 — [No!] Scripture limits the application of the law by the expression, by which.11 — Let us say that the expression by which excludes Temple [and not Terumah]? — It is reasonable not to exclude Temple, because the same punishment, Kareth, is inflicted [for wilfully entering the Temple, or eating holy food, while unclean].12 — On the contrary, Terumah should not be excluded, because the act of transgression consists of eating, just as in the case of holy food [whereas in the case of the Temple, it is entering it which constitutes the transgression]? Well then, said Raba:13 Why is the punishment of Kareth for eating peace offerings [i.e., holy food] while unclean mentioned three times in Holy Writ?14 — Once for a general statement,15 once for a particular, and once for the uncleanness written in the Torah without being defined,16 so that I know not what it means. You may say, then, it means eating holy food while unclean; and since it is unnecessary to have another prohibition for eating holy food while unclean, for I deduce that from Rabbi's statement, you may utilise the prohibition for entering the Temple while unclean. — But this [extra Kareth] we require for R. Abbahu's deduction! For R. Abbahu said: Why does Scripture mention Kareth three times for eating peace offerings [while unclean]? — Once for a general statement, once for a particular, and once for things which are not eaten.17 And according to R. Simeon who holds that things which are not eaten are not punishable by Kareth if eaten during uncleanness,18 [we still require the extra Kareth to deduce that] the ‘inner’ sin offerings19 are included;20 for we might have thought that, since R. Simeon holds that sacrifices which are not offered on the outer altar, as are peace offerings, are not subject to the law of piggul,21 therefore they are also not subject to the law of uncleanness;22 he therefore teaches us that they are. [The third Kareth, then, is necessary for this deduction. How then shall we deduce that an unclean person entering the Temple brings a sliding scale sacrifice?] — Well then, the Nehardeans say in the name of Raba:23 Why does Scripture mention ‘uncleanness’ three times24 in connection with peace offerings? — Once for a generalisation, once for a particular, and once for the uncleanness written in the Torah without being explained, so that I know not what it means. You may say then, it refers to eating holy food while unclean, and since it is unnecessary to have another prohibition for that, for I deduce that from Rabbi's statement, you may utilise the prohibition for entering the Temple while unclean. But this [extra word ‘uncleanness’] we also require; since Scripture had to write [the extra] Kareth for R. Abbahu's deduction, it perforce had to write also [the extra] ‘uncleanness’, for without it the phrase would have been meaningless? — Well then, said Raba: We deduce [that an unclean person entering the Temple brings a sliding scale sacrifice] from [the similarity of phrases] ‘his uncleanness’, ‘his uncleanness’. Here it is written: [If he touch the uncleanness of man] whatsoever his uncleanness be.25 exclude a sacrifice for the lesser transgression; so that only for eating holy food while unclean is a sacrifice brought, but not for eating Terumah while unclean. Terumah excluded. . among the cattle . . . . . . and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the Lord, that soul shall be cut off from his people. that soul shall be cut off. (Approach here means eat; v. Zeb. 45b). (b) Lev. VII, 20: Anyone that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings . . . having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off (c) Ibid. 21: When anyone shall touch any unclean thing . . . and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offerings . . . that soul shall be cut off. Lev. VII, 20: Anyone that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offerings. This is a particular specification — peace offerings. Now, peace offerings are included in holy things: why should they be specified separately? — In order that we may deduce that only holy things which are sacrificed on the altar (as are peace offerings) are included in the law regarding uncleanness, but offerings for the Temple repair are excluded. (Rashi.) transgression of that sin (eating holy food while unclean), the unwitting transgression of which is punished by a sliding scale sacrifice in Lev. V, 2 (which is there not fully defined). And since we already know that unwittingly eating holy food while unclean punishable by a sliding scale sacrifice (from Rabbi's deduction, v. supra), we may apply the superfluous Kareth for deducing that it is the punishment for the witting transgression of that sin, the unwitting transgression of which is punishable by a sliding scale sacrifice, i.e., entering the Temple while unclean (for, eating holy food while unclean we already know). transgression. consumption; its eating is punishable by Kareth. Piggul is mentioned only in connection with peace offerings. The ‘inner’ sin offerings, according to R. Simeon, are, therefore, not subject to the law of piggul. sliding scale sacrifice for unwitting transgression. when anyone shall touch any unclean thing.