Shevuot 7a — the Talmud in English

But ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location") a

graduated offering

even for an unwitting transgression involving a sin for which there is a liability of death,

as is the case with the hearing of a voice

of the oath of testimony,

and with the utterance of the lips

of the oath of utterance, which are also stated in that same passage concerning a graduated offering, even though their deliberate violation is not punishable by karet?

And we answer:

The verse says,

in the passage concerning a graduated offering, “for all his impurity with which he becomes impure

in it.” “In it”—

to exclude teruma!

And we ask: From where do you have this, that the verse came to exclude teruma from a graduated offering?

Say

the opposite:

“In it”—

to exclude

one who sins through the impurity of

the Sanctuary,

for the verse was stringent with him,

that it is not sufficient for him

that atonement is not sufficient for him

through a graduated offering, until he brings a fixed offering,

for even if he is poor, he is liable to bring an animal offering, because of the severity of the impurity of the Sanctuary, whose deliberate violation is punishable by karet. But only with regard to teruma, which is less severe than it, did the verse make things lenient, so that the poor person would not have to bring a fixed animal offering, but only a graduated offering?

Rava recited concerning Rabbi—

“One who draws water from deep wells,”

for Rabbi has another source by which to establish the passage as referring to the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, and against it there is no refutation:

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi says: I shall read

[I deem that I should read in that same passage concerning a graduated offering only this verse]—“A person who touches any impure thing, or the carcass of an impure

animal ... and he shall bring his guilt offering.” And there is no need for the continuation of the verse, “or the carcass of an impure animal,” since an animal is included within animal life. If so,

Нет необходимости в продолжении стиха: «или к трупу нечистого скота», поскольку скот также относится к животным. Если так,

“animal,” why is it stated?

To teach you by a gezera shava:

It is stated here,

in the passage concerning a graduated offering,

“an impure animal,” and it is stated elsewhere,

in the passage concerning liability to karet for one who deliberately eats sacred things in impurity,

“an impure animal.” Just as there, the impurity of sacred things

[as is explicitly explained there in the verse],

so here too, the impurity of sacred things!

We have found

that we have found

the impurity of sacred things

[for there it speaks of one who eats the meat of a peace offering in impurity].

The impurity of the Sanctuary—from where do we derive it?

The verse says,

concerning a woman impure with the impurity of childbirth,

“She shall not touch any sacred thing

and

she shall not enter the Sanctuary”; the Sanctuary was juxtaposed with sacred things.

And we examine this:

If so,

since we learn from the fact that the Sanctuary was juxtaposed with sacred things, in the words of the verse, “She shall not touch any sacred thing,”

teruma also

was included in it, for teruma too was juxtaposed with sacred things through this juxtaposition.

For the Master said: “She shall not touch any sacred thing.” “Any”—

to include teruma?!

And we reject this:

The Merciful One excluded it: “In it”—

to exclude teruma.

And we challenge this:

Say, “In it”—

to exclude the Sanctuary,

and let us include teruma from the juxtaposition?

And we answer:

It is logical that we do not exclude the Sanctuary, for

entering the Sanctuary in impurity is

punishable by karet like it,

similar to eating sacred things.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary, we should not exclude teruma, for

its liability is through

eating

in impurity,

like it

of eating sacred things?

Rather, Rava said: The three occurrences of karet

that are stated concerning one who

eats

the meat of

peace offerings

in bodily impurity,

why

were they stated!?

One

for the general rule, and

one

for the specific case

[that is, to teach you through a generalization and specification that the liability is only for offerings sanctified for the altar and not for offerings sanctified for Temple maintenance].

And one,

the third occurrence of karet was stated to teach you about

the impurity written anonymously in the Torah,

in the passage concerning a graduated offering,

and I do not know what it is

that impurity,

you must say—

the impurity of sacred things.

That is, the superfluous occurrence of karet concerning one who deliberately eats the meat of peace offerings was assigned to teach from it that a graduated offering comes to atone for one who unwittingly incurs the impurity of sacred things.

And if it is not needed for the impurity of sacred things, since it is derived for him

that the verse is speaking of one who eats sacred things in impurity

from Rabbi’s gezera shava—

assign it to the impurity of the Sanctuary.

Therefore, the third superfluous occurrence of karet teaches, through “if it is not needed, assign it,” that a graduated offering atones also for the impurity of the Sanctuary.

And we raise an objection:

But this one,

this karet, which is superfluous,

is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Abahu!

For Rabbi Abahu said: The three occurrences of karet

that were stated

concerning peace offerings, why? One for the general rule, one for the specific case, and one for things that are not eaten,

such as the wood of the arrangement, frankincense, and incense, for if one ate them in bodily impurity, he is liable to karet.

And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that for things that are not eaten one is not liable to karet on account of impurity,

we need the third occurrence of karet

to include the inner sin offering

on the Day of Atonement, for eating it in impurity is punishable by karet.

For it might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon said

with regard to piggul, since the law of piggul is stated in the Torah in the passage concerning peace offerings, therefore

anything that is not offered on the outer altar like peace offerings

for the blood of the offering is not sprinkled on the outer altar, but its blood is sprinkled inside, in the Sanctuary,

one is not liable for it on account of piggul

[and therefore one is not liable to karet for eating the piggul of the inner sin offerings], if so,

on account of impurity too, one is not

liable to karet for eating it [that we should expound, as is the exposition with regard to piggul: anything that is not offered on the outer altar like peace offerings has no law of impurity], therefore

it teaches us

the superfluity of the third occurrence of karet, that one is liable even for eating inner sin offerings in impurity. And since the third occurrence of karet is for the teaching of Rabbi Abahu, the question returns: From where do we derive liability for the impurity of the Sanctuary through a graduated offering?

Rather, the Nehardeans said in the name of Rava: The three occurrences of “impurity” that were stated concerning peace offerings, why? One for the general rule, one for the specific case, and one for the impurity written anonymously in the Torah,

in the passage concerning a graduated offering.

And I do not know what it is—

you must say, the impurity of sacred things! And if it is not needed for the impurity of sacred things, since it is derived for him from Rabbi

by a gezera shava,

assign it to the impurity of the Sanctuary

for which one is liable through a graduated offering.

And we raise an objection:

But this “

impurity,” the third occurrence,

is also needed!

For

since it was necessary to write

three times

“karet” for the teaching of Rabbi Abahu, it also wrote,

necessarily, three times

“impurity,” for it could not do otherwise,

since the verse had to mention the language of impurity in order to explain the liability of karet.

Rather, Rava said: It is derived

by a gezera shava,

“his impurity,” “his impurity,”

to teach us that one is liable to bring a graduated offering for unawareness of the Sanctuary.

It is written here,

in the graduated offering,

“for all his impurity,”