Shevuot 17b — the Talmud in English

Rather, if you say

“a short route”

was specifically taught

and anyone who went out by the short route—even if he ran through it and did not delay for the measure of time required to go out by the short route—is liable,

how do you find it

that he can perform the service and not become liable for karet on account of entering the Temple?!

He said

he answered:

Abaye:

And what

difficulty is there?!

For

you find it

that he becomes liable to death at the hands of Heaven, but not to karet,

such as when

he became impure in the Temple courtyard, and

came by the short route

before he delayed the measure of time required for prostration,

and turned

during his going out

with the fork

[he turned over the limbs with the fork in his hand upon the altar so that they would be consumed]

as in the statement of Rav Huna!

For Rav Huna said: A non-priest who turned the limbs with the fork is liable to death;

and the same law applies to an impure person who turned the limbs with the fork: he is liable to death.

The substance of the matter: Rav Huna said: A non-priest who turned the limbs with the fork is liable to death.

And we challenge this:

What are the circumstances?!

For:

If, had he not turned them over, they would not have been consumed

[if without his turning them over the limbs would not have been consumed], then

it is obvious

that he is liable for turning them over, since through his actions the limbs were consumed, and Rav Huna did not need to teach us this law.

And if

Rav Huna is dealing with a case in which

even

if he had

not turned them over, they too would have been consumed,

if so,

what did he do

[what did he do]? And he should not be liable to death for this?!

And we answer:

It is necessary

for Rav Huna to teach us that he is liable, but only in a case

where, if he did not

have

turned them over, they would

have

been consumed in two hours, whereas now they are consumed in one hour,

[for example, without his turning them over they would have been consumed in two hours, but through his turning them over they are hastened to be consumed in one hour]—

And this he teaches us

Rav Huna:

that every bringing-near of the service—

is service.

Rabbi Oshaya said: I wish to say a matter, but I am afraid of my colleagues

[I wish to say an innovative matter, and I am afraid of my colleagues]:

One who enters a house afflicted with a lesion

with leprosy

by way of his rear, and even

if he enters in this manner

with all of him except his nose

which is outside, he is

pure—

because

it is written

[Leviticus 14:46, in the passage concerning lesions of houses]: “

And he who enters the house

all the days that he quarantines it shall be impure until evening.” And we learned from this:

the Torah prohibited the way of entering

[made impure by it]

,

but not entry by way of one’s rear.

And I am afraid of my colleagues,

because one can raise an objection to my words:

If so,

even if he enters

entirely

not by way of entry,

also

he should not become impure?!

He said

he explained:

Rava:

explained:

If he enters

entirely,

then

the person who entered is not inferior

to

vessels that

were

in the house

before the house was quarantined, which become impure, even though they did not enter the afflicted house at all,

as it is written

[there, verse 35]: “And he to whom the house belongs shall come and tell the koen, saying: It seems to me that there is a lesion in the house. And the koen shall command, and they shall clear out the house before the koen comes to see the lesion,

so that everything that is in the house shall not become impure,”

so the vessels that are already found in the house also become impure; therefore, even one who enters entirely not by way of entry becomes impure, like vessels that are found there and did not enter at all.

A beraita also teaches accordingly, in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya’s statement that “entering” in a manner other than the normal manner of entering is not considered entering:

These roofs

It was also taught so

concerning these roofs—those of the Sanctuary and the courtyard—

one may not eat there sacrificial meat of the highest sanctity, and one may not slaughter there sacrificial meat of lesser sanctity.

may not be used to eat there the most sacred offerings, and one may not slaughter there offerings of lesser sanctity.

And an impure person who enters the Sanctuary through the roofs,

And an impure person who enters by way of the roofs into the Sanctuary,

is exempt,

because

it is stated

[Leviticus 12:4, concerning a woman who gives birth]: “

And she shall not enter the Sanctuary,”

and we learned:

the way of entry—

that is, through the entrances—

the Torah prohibited.

—that is, through the doorways.

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

This is the positive commandment in the Temple for which one is not liable, and what is the positive commandment concerning a menstruant for which one is liable? If he was having relations with a pure woman and she said to him, “I have become impure,” and he withdrew immediately, he is liable, because his departure is pleasurable to him like his entry:

The Gemara asks:

Where does it stand, that it says

“This is”,

to what is our Mishna referring when it says, “This is the positive commandment in the Temple”?

And we explain:

There—

it stands upon the words of the Mishna in tractate Horayot—

it stands, for we learned there:

This is”?

They are not liable

a court that issued a mistaken ruling

for

a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple,

because its liability is an offering graduated according to means, and not a fixed sin offering.

And they do not bring

individuals

a provisional guilt offering

when one is uncertain whether he entered the Temple while impure, like the other cases liable for a fixed sin offering, where, if one is uncertain, he brings a provisional guilt offering—

for a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple;

because a provisional guilt offering is brought only for a matter which, when he learns of it with certainty, entails a fixed sin offering—

a provisional guilt-offering—when one is uncertain whether he entered the Temple while impure, as do those liable to bring a fixed sin-offering, who bring a provisional guilt-offering when they are uncertain— for a positive or a negative commandment concerning the Temple ; because a provisional guilt-offering is brought only for a matter that, once one becomes certain that he performed it, requires a fixed sin-offering.

But they are liable

a court for its ruling

for a positive commandment and a prohibition concerning a menstruant, and they bring

individuals

a provisional guilt offering for a positive commandment and a prohibition concerning a menstruant—

And

he says

in our Mishna:

“This”—

impurity in the courtyard—

“is the positive commandment in the Temple,”

for one who becomes impure in the courtyard and remains there, or who goes out by a long route, violates the positive commandment of “They shall send out from the camp,” which implies that one who became impure in the camp must go outside the camp; and regarding it we learned

that

a court

is not liable for it,

and if they mistakenly ruled to one who became impure in the courtyard that he need not leave by the short route, they are not liable for the bull for the unawareness of the matter of the community.

Our Mishna further explains the continuation of that Mishna:

“And what is the positive commandment concerning a menstruant for which one is liable? If he was having relations with a pure woman and she said to him

‘I have become impure,’

and he withdrew immediately,”

with the living organ and did not wait until it died, he is

liable

for a sin offering,

“because his departure is pleasurable to him like his entry;”

and if the court issued a ruling concerning this positive commandment, they are liable for a bull.

It was stated: Abaye said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya bar Rav: He is liable—

one who had relations with a woman and she said to him, “I have now become impure,” and he withdrew from her—

two

[two sin offerings]; and he explains it and proceeds.

And Rava likewise said in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Sheva in the name of Rav Huna: He is liable to two.

And we explain this:

One

sin-offering he is liable to bring

for entering,

since she was a menstruating woman and he did not know;

and one

sin-offering he is liable to bring

And likewise Rava said in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Shava in the name of Rav Huna: He is liable for two.

And we explain it:

One

sin offering he is liable to bring

for the entry,

for she was a menstruant and he did not know,

and one

sin offering he is liable to bring

for the withdrawal, as he explains and proceeds.

Rava examined it: In what

manner are we dealing with this?!

If you say

that he had relations with her close to the time of

her period and he should have considered the possibility that she might see blood during intercourse, and therefore he becomes liable for the entry because he is not coerced— and with whom [who is the man having relations]?

and he should have considered the possibility that she might see menstrual blood during intercourse, and therefore he is liable for the entry because he is not considered forced—

and who

If you say it was a Torah scholar,

who knows that if she says to him, “I have become impure,” he must withdraw with a dead organ,

a difficulty arises:

Granted, for the entry he should be liable, for a sin offering, because although it is close to her period, he is not considered deliberate, since he thinks the man having relations: “I can have relations and withdraw before she becomes impure”—

Rather, for separation, why should he be liable for a sin-offering

yet, since he is a Torah scholar and knows the prohibition of separation,

he is deliberate.