Shevuot 17a — the Talmud in English

Or perhaps

inside [

in the Temple courtyard]

the tradition teaches a period of waiting, whether for offering a sacrifice or for receiving lashes.

And we conclude:

the question remains without a resolution!

Rava raised a question:

If one became ritually impure in the Temple courtyard but did not remain there for the required time, but rather

suspended himself in the airspace of the courtyard

for the time required to bow and then immediately left by the shortest route,

what

is the ruling? Is the time he remained suspended in the airspace of the courtyard considered a period of waiting that obligates him? The two sides of the question are:

When the tradition teaches a period of waiting,

this applies

to waiting

on the ground,

which

is

suitable for bowing.

But waiting in the airspace

is not suitable for bowing;

it

is not included in the tradition—

Or perhaps: inside, the tradition teaches a period of waiting, and it makes no difference

whether the place is suitable for bowing or whether it is not suitable for bowing.

И мы заключаем:

And we conclude:

the question remains without a resolution!

Rav Ashi raised a question: If one deliberately made himself impure

intentionally

in the courtyard without having been warned beforehand, and they warned him to leave immediately, but he stood there briefly without remaining for the time required to bow,

what

is the ruling? The two sides of the question are:

Missing text (Chavruta)

Is it only when he became impure

in circumstances beyond his control that

he

is included in the tradition concerning a period of waiting,

but when he became impure

intentionally, the tradition does not teach a period of waiting—

Or perhaps: inside, the tradition teaches a period of waiting, whether he became impure beyond his control or intentionally.

And we conclude:

the question remains without a resolution!

Rav Ashi raised another question:

A nazirite is prohibited from becoming impure through contact with the dead, as it is stated [Numbers 6:6–7]: “Throughout the days of his abstention for the Lord, he shall not come near a dead person. He shall not make himself impure for his father or his mother, for his brother or his sister, when they die.”

A nazirite

who became impure while he was

in a grave

in a manner that did not make him liable for entering it—for example, he entered in a chest, box, or cabinet, which had not yet made him impure, and another person removed the ceiling above him, causing him to become impure, and they warned him to leave—

Does he

require a period of waiting in order to be

liable for

lashes,

as is the law of a nazirite who became impure? If he did not remain for the time required to bow after becoming impure, is he not liable for lashes—

Or does he not require

a period of waiting, and become liable for lashes immediately? The two sides of the question are:

Is it only

inside

that he

is included in the tradition concerning a period of waiting,

since bowing is relevant in the courtyard, but

outside [

where he is not in the courtyard]

the tradition does not teach a period of waiting—

Or perhaps: it is when the impurity arose beyond his control that the tradition teaches a period of waiting, whether inside or outside.

And we conclude:

the question remains without a resolution!

We learned in the Mishna: “He became impure among ten…”

If he took the longer route, he is liable; if he took the shorter route, he is exempt:

Rava said: The shorter route mentioned

even if he walked slowly,

heel

next to toe, and even if

he prolonged his walk

the entire day

from beginning to end,

since he did not stand still but was occupied with walking.

Rava raised a question:

How many brief

periods of waiting, each of which occurred in the middle of his walk and none of which lasted for the time required to bow,

does he have to spend

for them to combine,

if together they amount to the time required to bow?

And we challenge this:

Let us resolve it from his own statement [

from Rava’s own words], in which he exempted one who walks—even if the duration of his walking is the entire day!?

And we answer:

There, he did not wait

at all in the middle of his walking. Rather, his walking continued throughout the entire day, and in that case he is exempt because he is occupied with leaving. Nevertheless, it remains possible to ask whether, if he did wait in the middle of his walk, brief periods of waiting combine.

Abaye asked Rabbah:

If he took the longer route

and ran along it, so that the time required for walking that route was only

the time required for the shorter route, what

is the ruling? Is he liable? The two sides of the question are:

Is the rule concerning the longer route that they stated that

the duration

required to walk the longer route is what

the tradition teaches, and when he took the longer route for only the duration of the shorter route, he is exempt,

since he did not prolong his walk—

Or perhaps: it is specifically the route that the tradition teaches: “

On the longer route”

he is liable,

even if he did not wait except for the duration of the shorter route or less; “

on the shorter route”

he is exempt,

if he actually walked by the shorter route, but if he walked by the longer route for the duration of the shorter route, he is liable.

He said to him

Rabbah to Abaye:

The longer route is not set aside for him,

meaning that one who walks by the longer route is liable in every case, even if he did not wait there even for the duration of the shorter route.

Rabbi Zeira challenged this:

But if you maintain that “

an impure person who performed sacred service” [

performed Temple service],

is subject to death,

how can you find such a case!?

After all, if he entered the Temple while impure, he is liable not merely for death at the hands of Heaven, but for karet, which is more severe than death at the hands of Heaven. It must therefore be that he became impure in the courtyard itself—

And

if he did not wait

in the Temple for the time required to bow after becoming impure,

how did he perform the sacred service

in such a short time—

And

if he did wait,

then

he is liable for karet

because he entered the Sanctuary while impure, and is not subject only to death at the hands of Heaven—

If you agree that the tradition teaches a specific duration,

that is, this works if you say that one who became impure in the courtyard and waited for the time required to bow before leaving by the shorter route is liable only when he remained walking for the duration required to leave by the shorter route, but if he ran along the shorter route after waiting, he is not liable—then it works: he could

be found

liable for death but not for karet, in a case where he

forced himself

to take the shorter route and performed sacred service—

That is, for example, he performed sacred service and remained during his service for the required period of waiting, but nevertheless he is not liable for entering the Sanctuary, because after waiting he did not leave in the ordinary manner by the shorter route; rather, he ran quickly. Since he did not remain walking for the duration required for the shorter route, he is not liable, even though he waited for the required period, because liability arises only when, in addition to waiting for the time required to bow, he also remains on his exit for the duration required to leave by the shorter route.