Shevuot 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

However,

the offering

let him bring the sliding-scale offering

even for unwittingly violating a prohibition whose intentional violation carries liability for death,

just as is the case with the hearing of the voice

of the oath of testimony,

and with the expression of the lips

of the oath of utterance, both of which are also stated in that same passage concerning the sliding-scale offering, despite the fact that their intentional violation does not carry liability for karet?

And we answer:

The verse says,

in the passage concerning the sliding-scale offering: “for all his impurity with which he becomes impure

in it.” “In it”—

to exclude teruma!

The Gemara asks: From where do you know that the verse came to exclude teruma from the sliding-scale offering?

Say

the opposite:

“In it”—

to exclude

one who sins through the impurity of

the Temple,

for the verse was stringent with him,

so that it is not sufficient for him

to receive atonement

with a sliding-scale offering, until he brings a fixed offering,

as even a poor person is obligated to bring an animal offering, because of the severity of the impurity of the Temple, whose intentional violation carries liability for karet. It is only with regard to teruma, which is less severe than it, that the verse was lenient, so that a poor person need not bring a fixed animal offering, but only a sliding-scale offering?

Rava recited concerning Rabbi

“One who draws water from deep wells,”

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

As it is taught in a beraita, Rabbi says: I can read

the following verse alone in that passage concerning the sliding-scale offering [that is, I can read only this verse]: “A person who touches anything impure, or the carcass of an

impure animal ... and he shall bring his guilt offering.” There is no need for the continuation of the verse, “or the carcass of an impure beast,” since a beast is included within the category of animal. And if so,

why is “beast” stated?

To teach you by means of a gzera shava:

It is stated here,

in the passage concerning the sliding-scale offering,

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

in the passage concerning liability for karet for one who intentionally eats sacred food in a state of impurity,

“an impure beast.” Just as there, it is the impurity of sacred food

as is explicitly explained there in the verse,

so here, it is the impurity of sacred food!

We have found

that is, we have found

the impurity of sacred food

for there it is referring to one who eats the meat of a peace offering in a state of impurity.

From where do we derive

the impurity of the Temple?—

The verse says,

with regard to a woman impure with the impurity of childbirth:

“She shall not touch any sacred thing—

and she shall not enter the Temple”; the Temple is juxtaposed to sacred food.

And we examine this:

If so,

since we learn from the fact that the Temple is juxtaposed to sacred food in the verse “She shall not touch any sacred thing,”

teruma as well

is included in it, as teruma too is juxtaposed to sacred food 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 Temple,

and include teruma through the juxtaposition?

And we answer:

It is reasonable that we should not exclude the Temple, since

entering the Temple in a state of impurity is

liable to karet, like it

just as eating sacred food in a state of impurity is.

And we challenge this:

On the contrary, we should not exclude teruma, since

its liability is incurred through

eating

it in a state of impurity,

like it

the eating of sacred food?

Rather, Rava said: Why are there three instances of karet

that are stated

with regard to one who eats

the meat of

a peace offering

in a state of bodily impurity,

why

were they stated!?

One instance of karet is

for the general rule, and

one instance of karet is

for the specific case

that is, to teach you through the exposition of a generalization followed by a specification that the liability applies only to sacrificial offerings consecrated for the altar, and not to sacred property designated for Temple maintenance.

And one

the third instance of karet was stated to teach you about

the impurity stated anonymously in the Torah,

in the passage concerning the sliding-scale offering,

and I do not know what it is,

that impurity,

you must say—

the impurity of sacred food.

That is, the superfluous instance of karet concerning one who intentionally eats the meat of a peace offering was designated to teach that the sliding-scale offering comes to atone for one who unwittingly incurs the impurity of sacred food.

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

that the verse is referring to one who eats sacred food in a state of impurity

from Rabbi’s gzera shava,

apply it to the impurity of the Temple.

Therefore, the third superfluous instance of karet teaches, through the principle “if it is not needed for this matter, apply it to that matter,” that the sliding-scale offering also atones for the impurity of the Temple.

And we raise an objection:

But this

superfluous instance of karet

is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Abbahu!

As Rabbi Abbahu said: Why are there three instances of karet

that are stated

with regard to peace offerings? One is for the general rule, one is for the specific case, and one is for substances that are not eaten,

such as the wood of the arrangement, frankincense, and incense, for which one who eats them in a state of bodily impurity is liable for karet.

And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that one is not liable for karet for substances that are not eaten because of impurity,

we need the third instance of karet

to include the inner sin offering

on Yom Kippur, for eating it in a state of impurity incurs liability for karet.

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

with regard to piggul that, since the law of piggul is stated in the Torah in the passage concerning a peace offering,

anything that is not sacrificed on the outer altar as a peace offering

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

one is not liable for it because of piggul

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

because of impurity as well, one is not

liable for karet for eating it in a state of impurity [for we should expound, as in the exposition concerning piggul: Anything that is not sacrificed on the outer altar as a peace offering is not subject to the law of impurity]. Therefore,

it teaches us

the superfluous third instance of karet that one is liable even for eating inner sin offerings in a state of impurity. And since the third instance of karet is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Abbahu, the question returns: From where do we derive liability for impurity of the Temple through a sliding-scale offering?

Rather, the Sages of Nehardea said in the name of Rava: Why are there three instances of “impurity” stated with regard to peace offerings? One is for the general rule, one is for the specific case, and one is for the impurity stated anonymously in the Torah,

in the passage concerning the sliding-scale offering.

And I do not know what it is—

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

through a gzera shava,

apply it to the impurity of the Temple,

for which one is liable through a sliding-scale offering.

And we raise an objection:

But this

third “impurity”

is also needed!

For

since it was necessary to write

three times

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

necessarily, three times

“impurity,” for it could not have done otherwise,

as the verse had to mention the term “impurity” in order to explain the liability for karet.

Rather, Rava said: It is derived

through a gzera shava of

“his impurity” and “his impurity,”

to teach us that one is obligated to bring a sliding-scale offering for failing to realize that one was in the Temple.

It is written here,

in the passage concerning the sliding-scale offering,

“for all his impurity,”