Shevuot 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

if he became impure in the Temple courtyard and the impurity was forgotten.

And he prostrated himself, or remained there for the time required for prostration, or left by taking the longer route, he is liable.

The Gemara asks:

Impurity in the Temple courtyard

but he did not immediately leave by the shorter route—

from where do we know

that he is liable for it? For once the verse states, with regard to entering the Sanctuary: “Command the Children of Israel, and let them send out from the camp every leper, and everyone with a discharge, and everyone impure through contact with the dead; male and female you shall send out, outside the camp you shall send them, so that they not defile their camps,” this implies only one who entered the Sanctuary while impure and thereby defiled it. But one who became impure in the courtyard, where he had already become impure—how do we know that he too is liable!?

Rabbi Elazar

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

Numbers 19:20

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

for the Sanctuary of the Lord

he has defiled.”

And from the redundancy of the verses

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

The Gemara challenges this:

But the verses are redundant

(is there indeed a redundancy in the verses)!?

They are both necessary

These two verses are needed to teach that one is liable both for entering the Tabernacle while impure and for entering the Temple while impure!?

D

This is as

it is taught:

Rabbi Elazar

says: If the term

“Tabernacle”

were stated, why would the term

“Temple”

be stated?

And if the term

“Temple”

were stated, why would the term

“Tabernacle”

be stated?

If the term

“Tabernacle”

were stated and the term

“Temple”

were not stated, I would say: He is liable for the Tabernacle, since it was anointed with the anointing oil, but for the Temple,

which was not anointed with the anointing oil,

he would not be liable—

And if the term

“Temple”

were stated and the term

“Tabernacle”

were not stated, I would say: He is liable for the Temple, since its sanctity is eternal,

as it was no longer permitted to sacrifice on private altars after the Temple was built,

but for the Tabernacle he would not be liable,

since private altars were permitted after it until the Temple was built—

Therefore the term

“Tabernacle” was stated,

and

therefore also the term

“Temple” was stated—

and since the verses were needed to teach about the Tabernacle and about the Temple, how can we learn from them that one who became impure in the courtyard is liable!?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Elazar—

who learned from these verses that this applies to one who became impure in the courtyard—

this is what was difficult for him:

Since the Tabernacle is called

“Temple,”

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

and the Temple is called “Tabernacle,”

and it is therefore included in “he has defiled the Tabernacle of the Lord,” then

why do I need two verses

to teach about the Tabernacle and the Temple?

If it does not concern impurity outside, apply it to impurity inside.

The Gemara challenges this:

Granted, the Temple is called

“Tabernacle,”

as it is written:

Numbers 26:11,

“I will place My Tabernacle among you,”

and the verse is speaking about the Temple, since all the verses there concern the Land of Israel.

But from where do we know that the Tabernacle is called

“Temple”

!?

If you say it is from what is written:

in the account of the journeys of the camps and the Tabernacle:

“And the Kohathites, bearers of the sacred objects, shall journey,”

this cannot be said, because:

That

“sacred objects”

is written with reference to the Ark.

That is, it refers to sacred objects—the Ark, the Table, the Menora, and the altars—which the Kohathites carried; the verse is not referring to carrying the Tabernacle.

Rather, it is from here, as it is written in the command concerning the establishment of the Tabernacle in the wilderness:

“They shall make Me a Sanctuary, 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 Tabernacle,”

so it follows that this command concerns the establishment of the Tabernacle, and the verse calls it “Sanctuary.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he prostrated himself or remained there for the time required for prostration”:

This implies that the prostration itself does not require the duration of a full prostration,

and

Rava said:

They taught—that he is liable for a prostration that does not include remaining there—

only when he prostrated himself facing inward,

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

But if he prostrated himself facing outward,

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

remained there for the duration required for prostration,

there is liability, since even if he merely remained there without prostrating himself at all, he is liable;

but if he did not remain there for the duration required for prostration,

there is no liability.

Some teach this statement of Rava

with regard to the latter clause

of our Mishna:

“or remained there for the time required for prostration.”

By inference, the prostration itself requires remaining there—

And concerning this

Rava said: They taught

that he is not liable for prostration unless it includes the duration required for remaining there,

only when he prostrated himself facing outward,

which is not considered prostration.

But if he prostrated himself

facing inward,

which is a prostration, then

even though he did not remain there for the duration required for prostration, he is liable.

And this is what

the tanna of the Mishna

is saying:

If he prostrated himself facing inward, or remained for the time required for prostration in that prostration which is facing outward, he is liable.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of

a prostration that includes remaining there,

and what are the circumstances of

a prostration that does not include remaining there?

“A prostration

that does not include remaining there”:

This is merely kneeling.

“A prostration

that includes remaining there”:

This is

stretching out the hands and feet

on the floor.

And what is the duration of remaining there?

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani and one who was with him disputed this

(that is, another amora who was with him),

and who was he?

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi—

And some say

that

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi and one who was with him disputed this, and who was he? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani; and some say it was Rabbi Shimon bar Naḥmani,

the amora who disputed with Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi:

One

of them

said:

the duration of remaining there is

the time required to recite this verse:

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

was upon the House, and they knelt with 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 eternal.”

And one

of them

said:

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

like the time from

“and they knelt”

to the end of the verse.

The Sages taught:

“Kida,”

that is, on one’s face,

without touching the ground with either his knees or his body; only his head reaches the ground.

And similarly it says:

“And Bat-Sheva bowed with her face to the ground.”

«

“Kri’a,”

that is, on one’s knees; and similarly it says:

“from kneeling on his knees.”

“Hishtahava,”

this is stretching out the hands and feet

on the floor,

and similarly it says:

“Shall I, and your mother and your brothers, come to bow to you to the ground?”

Rava raised a dilemma: Does one

require remaining there for lashes, or does one not require remaining there for lashes?

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:

Does the tradition

for a sacrifice

alone

teach

(as a halakha given to Moshe from Sinai) that

remaining there

is required,

but for lashes it was not taught

that

remaining there is required?