Shevuot 16b:4שבועות ט״ז ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
16bט״ז ב

נטמא בעזרה ונעלמה ממנו טומאה וכו': טומאה בעזרה מנלן א"ר אלעזר כתוב אחד אומר (במדבר יט, יג) את משכן ה' טמא וכתוב אחד אומר (במדבר יט, כ) כי את מקדש ה' טמא (אם אינו ענין לטומאה שבחוץ תנהו ענין לטומאה שבפנים)

§ The mishna teaches about one who was ritually pure when he entered the Temple but who became impure while in the Temple courtyard, and afterward his impurity was hidden from him. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that one is liable even if he contracted impurity in the Temple courtyard and failed to leave immediately by way of the shortest route, and not only if he entered the Temple courtyard when he was already impure? Rabbi Elazar says: One verse states: “He has defiled the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Numbers 19:13), and one verse states: “For he has defiled the Temple of the Lord” (Numbers 19:20). If this second verse is not needed for the matter of one who contracted impurity outside before he entered the Temple courtyard, as this situation is already referred to in the previous verse, apply it to the matter of one who contracted impurity inside the Temple courtyard.

וקראי מיתרי הא מיצרך צריכי דתניא ר' אלעזר אומר אם נאמר משכן למה נאמר מקדש ואם נאמר מקדש למה נאמר משכן אילו נאמר משכן ולא נאמר מקדש הייתי אומר על משכן יהא חייב שהרי משוח בשמן המשחה ועל מקדש לא יהא חייב ואם נאמר מקדש ולא נאמר משכן הייתי אומר על מקדש יהא חייב שהרי קדושתו קדושת עולם ועל משכן לא יהא חייב לכך נאמר משכן לכך נאמר מקדש

The Gemara asks: But is it really superfluous to have both of these verses, one having been sufficient? Aren’t they each necessary to teach a novel ruling? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: If it is stated: “Tabernacle,” why does it state: “Temple”? And if it is stated: “Temple,” why does it state: “Tabernacle”? He explains: Had the verse stated only: “Tabernacle,” and not stated: “Temple,” I would have said that one is liable for entering the Tabernacle in a state of impurity, since it was anointed with the anointing oil, and therefore it carries greater sanctity, but he is not liable for entering the Temple, which was not anointed with the anointing oil. And had the verse stated only: “Temple,” and not stated: “Tabernacle,” I would have said that one is liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity, since its sanctity is an eternal sanctity, but he is not liable for entering the Tabernacle, whose sanctity was only for its time. For this reason, it is stated: “Tabernacle,” and for this reason, it is stated: “Temple.”

רבי אלעזר הכי קא קשיא ליה מכדי משכן איקרי מקדש ומקדש איקרי משכן נכתוב או אידי ואידי מקדש או אידי ואידי משכן משכן ומקדש למה לי שמע מינה תרתי

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar did not base his derivation on a superfluous verse, but on the change in wording between the two verses. This is what is difficult for him: Since the Tabernacle is also called Temple and the Temple is also called Tabernacle, then let the verse write either in both verses: Temple, or in both verses: Tabernacle; why do I need both “Tabernacle” and “Temple”? Conclude two conclusions from it, i.e., that one is liable even for impurity contracted inside the grounds, and that the halakha applies both in the Tabernacle and in the Temple.

בשלמא מקדש איקרי משכן דכתיב (ויקרא כו, יא) ונתתי משכני בתוככם אלא משכן דאיקרי מקדש מנלן אילימא מדכתיב (במדבר י, כא) ונסעו הקהתים נושאי המקדש ההוא בארון כתיב אלא מהכא (שמות כה, ח) ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם וכתיב (שמות כה, ט) ככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשכן:

The Gemara questions its previous assumption: Granted, the Temple is also called Tabernacle, as it is written: “And I will set My Tabernacle among you” (Leviticus 26:11), where the reference is to the Temple, as the verse is referring to that which will transpire after the Jewish people have settled in their land. But from where do we derive that the Tabernacle is also called Temple? If we say that it is derived from that which is written: “And the Kehatites, the bearers of the Temple, set forward” (Numbers 10:21), that instance of the term Temple is not written with regard to the Tabernacle; rather, it is written with regard to the Ark and the other sacred vessels. Rather, it is derived from here: “And let them make Me a Temple, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8), where the reference is to the Tabernacle, as immediately afterward it is written: “According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle” (Exodus 25:9).

והשתחוה או ששהה כדי השתחואה: אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שהשתחוה כלפי פנים אבל השתחוה כלפי חוץ שהה אין לא שהה לא

§ The mishna teaches: If he bowed down, or he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, or he went out by way of a longer route when he could have taken a shorter route, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. Rava says: They taught this only when he bowed down in the Temple courtyard facing inward, toward the Holy of Holies, as that alone is proper bowing. But if he bowed down facing outward, that is not considered bowing. When he bows facing outward, if he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, yes, he is liable, but if he did not tarry long enough to bow down, he is not liable.

איכא דמתני לה אסיפא או ששהה בכדי השתחואה מכלל דהשתחואה גופה בעיא שהייה אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שהשתחוה כלפי חוץ אבל כלפי פנים אע"ג דלא שהה והכי קאמר השתחוה כלפי פנים או ששהה כדי השתחואה בהך השתחואה דכלפי חוץ חייב

There are those who teach the statement of Rava with regard to the latter clause: Or if he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. It may be said by inference that bowing down itself entails tarrying, and the mere act of bowing does not render one liable. With regard to this Rava says: They taught this only when he bowed down facing outward. In such a case, he is liable only if he tarried long enough to bow down. But if he bowed down facing inward toward the Holy of Holies, he is liable even if he did not tarry for that length of time. And this is what the mishna is saying: If he bowed down facing inward, or if he tarried long enough to bow down while he was bowing down facing outward, he is liable.

היכי דמי השתחואה דאית בה שהייה והיכי דמי השתחואה דלית בה שהייה דלית בה שהייה זו כריעה בעלמא היא דאית בה שהייה פישוט ידים ורגלים

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of bowing in which there is tarrying, and what are the circumstances of bowing in which there is no tarrying? The Gemara answers: With regard to bowing in which there is no tarrying, that is merely kneeling. As for bowing in which there is tarrying, that is prostrating oneself while spreading one’s arms and legs in total submission.

וכמה שיעור שהייה פליגי בה ר' יצחק בר נחמני וחד דעימיה ומנו רבי שמעון בן פזי ואמרי לה ר"ש בן פזי וחד דעימיה ומנו ר' יצחק בר נחמני ואמרי לה ר"ש בר נחמני חד אמר כמימריה דהאי פסוקא וחד אמר כמויכרעו לסיפא (דברי הימים ב ז, ג) וכל בני ישראל רואים ברדת האש וכבוד ה' על הבית ויכרעו אפים ארצה על הרצפה וישתחוו והודות לה' כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו

The Gemara asks: And what is the measure of that tarrying? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani and one other Sage who was with him disagree about this. And who is that other scholar? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi. And some say that it was Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi and one other Sage who was with him. And who is that other scholar? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani. And some say it was Rabbi Shimon bar Naḥmani. One Sage says: It is as long as the time it takes to recite this following verse in its entirety, and one Sage says: It is as long as the time it takes to recite from the term “and they bowed” in the middle of that verse until the end. What is the verse? “And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord upon the House, and they bowed with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and prostrated themselves, and praised the Lord, saying: For He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever” (II Chronicles 7:3).

ת"ר קידה על אפים וכן הוא אומר (מלכים א א, לא) ותקד בת שבע אפים ארץ כריעה על ברכים וכן הוא אומר (מלכים א ח, נד) מכרוע על ברכיו השתחואה זו פישוט ידים ורגלים וכן אומר (בראשית לז, י) הבוא נבוא אני ואמך ואחיך להשתחות לך ארצה:

The Gemara discusses the different forms of bowing in greater detail. The Sages taught: The term kidda indicates falling upon one’s face, and so the verse states: “Then Bathsheba bowed [vatikkod] with her face to the ground” (I Kings 1:31). Keria means descending upon one’s knees, and so the verse states with regard to Solomon: “He rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikero’a] upon his knees” (I Kings 8:54). Hishtaḥava’a, this is prostrating oneself while spreading one’s arms and legs in total submission, and so the verse states that Jacob asked, in response to Joseph’s relating of his dream: “Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down [lehishtaḥavot] to you to the ground” (Genesis 37:10), i.e., spread out completely on the ground.

בעי רבא צריך שהייה למלקות או אין צריך שהייה למלקות לקרבן גמירי שהייה למלקות לא גמירי שהייה

§ Rava raises a dilemma: Is tarrying long enough to bow down necessary to incur lashes? If one was warned not to remain in the Temple courtyard in a state of impurity, is he liable to receive lashes only if he remains there long enough to bow down, completely spread out on the ground? Or is tarrying not necessary to incur lashes, and he is immediately liable to receive lashes? The Gemara clarifies the two possibilities: Is it learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary in order to incur liability to bring an offering, but not learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary to become liable to receive lashes?