Shevuot 16b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

He became impure in the Temple courtyard and the impurity was forgotten by him.

And he prostrated himself, or remained there for the time required for prostration, or left by the long route, he is liable:

The Gemara asks:

Impurity in the Temple courtyard

and he did not leave immediately by the short route,

from where do we know that he is liable for it? For since Scripture said [Numbers 5], concerning entering the Sanctuary: “Send out from the camp every leper and everyone with a discharge and everyone impure through a corpse. From male to female you shall send them out; outside the camp you shall send them,” “and they shall not defile their camps,”

it follows only that one who entered the Temple and became impure is included; but as for one who became impure in the courtyard, who has already become impure, from where do we know that he too is liable!?

He said

he explained:

Rabbi Elazar:

One verse

Numbers 19:13

says: “Anyone who touches the dead, the soul of a person who dies, and does not purify himself [and enters the Tabernacle],

the Tabernacle of the Lord

he has defiled”—

And one verse

And one verse

[there, verse 20]

says: “And a person who becomes impure and does not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation,

for the Temple of the Lord

has become impure”—

it may also be learned that this applies to one who became impure in the courtyard.

And from the superfluity of the verses one learns also concerning one who became impure in the courtyard.

And we challenge this:

But the verses are superfluous

[is there, indeed, superfluity in the verses]!?

For they are both necessary

these two verses, to teach that they are liable both for entering the Sanctuary in impurity and for entering the Temple in impurity!?

For

this is

as it was taught:

Rabbi Elazar

says: If it is stated

“Sanctuary”

why is it stated

“Temple,”

and if it is stated

“Temple,”

why is it stated

“Sanctuary”!?

be stated?

Если было бы сказано только

If it had been stated

“Sanctuary”

and “Temple” had not been stated,

I would have said: For the Sanctuary he is liable, since it is anointed

he

with the anointing oil, but for the Temple

which was not anointed with the anointing oil

he would not be liable—

And if it had been stated

“Temple”

and “Sanctuary” had not been stated,

I would have said: For the Temple he is liable, since its sanctity is an eternal sanctity,

and there is no permission to sacrifice on private altars after the Temple was built,

but for the Sanctuary he would not be liable,

since there is permission for private altars after it until the Temple was built—

Therefore “Sanctuary” was stated,

“Sanctuary,”

and

therefore also

also

“Temple” was stated—

and since the verses were needed to teach concerning the Sanctuary and concerning the Temple, how can we learn from here concerning one who became impure in the courtyard, that he is liable!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar—

who learned from these verses concerning one who became impure in the courtyard—

this is what was difficult for him:

Since the Sanctuary is called

“Temple,”

and it is included in “he has defiled the Temple of the Lord,”

and the Temple is called “Sanctuary,”

and it is included in “he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord,” and if so,

what do I need two verses—

to teach concerning the Sanctuary and concerning the Temple—

for!?

If it is not applicable to impurity outside, assign it to impurity inside.

Granted, the Temple is called

And we challenge this:

Granted, the Temple is called

“Sanctuary,”

as it is written

“I shall place My Sanctuary among you,”

and Scripture is speaking of the Temple, for all the verses there deal with the Land of Israel.

But the Sanctuary, which is called

“Temple,”

from where do we know it!?

If you say, from what is written

[Numbers 10, concerning the journeying of the camps and the Sanctuary]:

“And the Kohathites, bearers of the sacred objects, journeyed,”

this cannot be said, because:

That

“sacred objects”

is written concerning the Ark,

that is, sacred things, for the Kohathites carried the Ark, the table, the menorah, and the altars, and Scripture does not intend the carrying of the Sanctuary.

Rather, from here,

as it is written [Exodus 25:8], in the command concerning erecting the Sanctuary in the wilderness:

“And they shall make for Me a Temple, and I shall dwell among them,”

and it is written

in the following verse,

“According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Sanctuary,”

so it is evident that this command concerns erecting the Sanctuary, and Scripture called it “Temple.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And he prostrated himself or remained for the time of prostration:

It follows that prostration itself does not require the measure of time of prostration,

and

Rava said:

toward the Temple, namely, toward the west, since this is genuinely a prostration.

They taught—that he is liable for prostration in which there is no remaining—

namely, toward the east, where the entrance of the Temple was, this is not considered prostration. And if he

only when he prostrated himself facing inward,

toward the Temple, that is, toward the west, because this prostration is genuinely prostration,

but when he prostrated himself facing outward,

that is, toward the east, where the entrance of the Temple was, this is not prostration; and if he

remained

there for the measure of time of prostration,

yes,

he is liable, because even if he remained without prostrating himself at all, he is liable; but if he

did not remain

there for the measure of time of prostration,

no.

Some teach this

teaching of Rava

with regard to the latter clause

of our Mishna:

“or remained for the time of prostration”:

By inference, prostration itself requires remaining—

And concerning this

Rava said: They taught

that he is not liable for prostration unless it contains the measure of remaining, the time of prostration,

only when he prostrated himself facing outward,

which is not prostration,

but

if he prostrated himself

facing inward,

which is prostration, then

even though he did not remain

for the time of prostration—he is liable.

And this is what

the tanna of the Mishna

said: He prostrated himself facing inward, or remained for the time of prostration in this prostration facing outward, he is liable.

And we explain:

What are the circumstances of

“prostration in which there is remaining,” and

what are the circumstances of

“prostration in which there is no remaining”? “

Prostration”

in which there is no remaining:

This is mere kneeling. “

Prostration”

in which there is remaining:

This is

the spreading out of the hands and feet

on the floor.

And what is the measure of remaining?

Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nachmani and one who was with him disputed this

[and another amora who was with him]

and who was he

[and who was that amora]:

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi—

And some say

[there are those who say that they disputed this]:

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi and one who was with him, and who was he: Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nachmani; and some say, it was Rabbi Shimon bar Nachmani,

that amora who disputed with Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi:

one

of them

said:

the measure of remaining is

like the recitation of this verse

[the time required to recite this verse]:

“And all the Children of Israel saw when the fire descended, and the glory of the Lord

was upon the House, and they bent their faces to the ground on the floor, and prostrated themselves and gave thanks to the Lord

for He is good, for His kindness is forever.”

And one

of them

said:

the measure is not the time required to recite the entire verse, but

like the words from

“and they bent”

to the end

[until the end of the verse].

“from kneeling on his knees.”

The Sages taught: “

Bowing”

means

on one’s face,

for he does not touch the ground either with his knees or with his body, but his head reaches the ground.

And so it says:

“And Bathsheba bowed with her face to the ground.” “

That is, one who became impure in the courtyard involuntarily, and they warned him to leave, but he did not leave: Is he liable only if he remained there for the required duration, or if he left by the longer route, just as the law is with regard to a sacrifice? Or perhaps, with regard to lashes, he is liable even if he did not remain there for the required duration and left by the shorter route. The aspects of the dilemma are:

Kneeling”

means

on one’s knees, and so it says:

“From kneeling on his knees.” “

Prostration”

is the spreading out of the hands and feet

on the floor,

and so it says:

“Shall I, and your mother and your brothers, come to prostrate ourselves before you to the ground?”

Rava raised a question:

Whether

remaining is required for lashes, or remaining is not required for lashes?

That is, one who became impure in the courtyard under duress, and they warned him to leave, but he did not leave: is he liable only if he remained there for the measure of remaining, or if he left by the long route, just as the law is concerning a sacrifice; or perhaps concerning lashes he is liable even if he did not remain for the measure of remaining, and he left by the short route? And the sides of the doubt are:

Whether

for a sacrifice

alone

it was received as a tradition

[a halakha given to Moses at Sinai] that we require

remaining,

but

for lashes it was not received as a tradition

that we require

remaining—