Shevuot 17aשבועות י״ז א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Shevuot 17a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
17aי״ז א

או דלמא בפנים גמירי שהייה לא שנא לקרבן ולא שנא למלקות תיקו

Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary to incur any liability for impurity within the Temple, and it is no different whether the liability is to bring an offering, and it is no different whether it is to receive lashes? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעי רבא תלה עצמו באויר עזרה מהו כי גמירי שהייה שהייה דבת השתחואה דלאו בת השתחואה לא גמירי או דלמא בפנים שהייה גמירי ל"ש דבת השתחואה ול"ש דלאו בת השתחואה תיקו

Rava raises another dilemma: If an impure person suspended himself in the airspace of the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, what is the halakha? When it is learned as a tradition that an impure person is liable for tarrying in the Temple, is this only with regard to tarrying that is suited for bowing; but with regard to tarrying that is not suited for bowing, as in this case, where the person cannot bow down as long as he is suspended in the air, it is not learned as a tradition that one is liable? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that there is liability for tarrying within the Temple, and it is no different whether the tarrying is suited for bowing, and it is no different whether the tarrying is not suited for bowing. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעי רב אשי טימא עצמו במזיד מהו באונס גמירי שהייה במזיד לא גמירי שהייה או דלמא בפנים גמירי שהייה ל"ש באונס ול"ש במזיד תיקו

Rav Ashi also raises a dilemma relating to this matter: If one intentionally rendered himself ritually impure while he was in the Temple courtyard, what is the halakha with regard to tarrying? Is it learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary when one contracts impurity while in the Temple in circumstances beyond his control, but not learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary when he renders himself impure intentionally? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary for any liability for impurity within the Temple, and it is no different whether the impurity was contracted in circumstances beyond his control, and it is no different whether it was contracted intentionally. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעי רב אשי נזיר בקבר בעי שהייה למלקות או אינו צריך בפנים גמירי שהייה בחוץ לא גמירי שהייה או דלמא באונס גמירי שהייה לא שנא בפנים ול"ש בחוץ תיקו:

Rav Ashi raises another dilemma: If a nazirite, who is prohibited from contracting impurity imparted by a corpse, found himself alongside a grave, is tarrying there a necessary condition for him to incur lashes, or is tarrying not necessary, and he is liable immediately? Is it learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary within the Temple, but not learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary outside the Temple, and the nazirite is liable immediately? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary for liability for impurity contracted in circumstances beyond one’s control, and it is no different whether the impurity was contracted within the Temple, and it is no different whether it was contracted outside the Temple. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בא לו בארוכה חייב בקצרה פטור וכו': אמר רבא קצרה שאמרו אפי' עקב בצד גודל ואפי' כל היום כולו

§ The mishna teaches: If, at the time that one was unaware either that he was impure, or that he was in the Temple, 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. But if he left the Temple via the shortest way, he is exempt. Rava says: With regard to the short route, which the Sages said here that he is exempt for, this does not necessarily mean that he left the Temple as quickly as possible, as if he took the most direct route he is exempt even if he walked with exceedingly small steps, heel to toe, and even if it took him all day long.

בעי רבא שהיות מהו שיצטרפו ותיפשוט ליה מדידיה התם בדלא שהה

Rava raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to combining periods of tarrying, each of which is less than the amount of time necessary to recite the second portion of the verse mentioned above (II Chronicles 7:3)? If an impure person tarried in the Temple for less than the amount of time needed to bow down, and then started to leave, and then tarried again for less than the amount of time needed to bow down, do those two periods of tarrying combine together, so that if he tarried in total long enough to bow down, he is liable? The Gemara challenges: Let Rava resolve his dilemma from his own statement with regard to one who left the Temple with small steps, heel to toe, as such a person tarries intermittently between steps. The Gemara answers: There Rava is referring to one who did not tarry at all, walking continuously without interruption, albeit slowly. When Rava raised his dilemma here, it was with regard to one who stopped walking altogether and tarried.

בעא מיניה אביי מרבה בא לו בארוכה שיעור קצרה מהו שיעור גמירי וכי בא לו בארוכה שיעור קצרה פטור או דלמא דוקא גמירי בארוכה חייב בקצרה פטור א"ל לא נתנה ארוכה להדחות אצלו

Abaye raised a dilemma to Rabba that is the very opposite of the dilemma raised by Rava: If the impure person quickly went out the longer way in the measure of time ordinarily needed to go out the shortest way, what is the halakha? Is it learned as a tradition that he is liable for tarrying for a certain measure of time, and if he went out the longer way in the measure of time ordinarily needed to go out the shortest way, he is exempt? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition specifically that if he left the longer way, he is liable, whereas if he left the shortest way, he is exempt. Rabba said to Abaye: The liability for leaving using the longer way was not given so that it would be overridden for him; i.e., he is liable if he exits via the longer way, even if he runs.

מתקיף לה ר' זירא אלא דקיימא לן טמא ששימש במיתה היכי משכחת לה אי דלא שהה היכי עביד עבודה אי דשהה בר כרת הוא

Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But as for this halakha that we maintain, that an impure priest who intentionally served in the Temple is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, how can you find these circumstances? If he did not tarry in the Temple long enough to bow down, how could he have performed any service in such a short period of time? And if he tarried long enough to bow down, he is liable to be punished with karet, which is a more severe punishment than death at the hand of Heaven.

אי אמרת בשלמא שיעורא גמירי משכחת לה דאניס נפשיה בקצרה ועבד עבודה

Rabbi Zeira explains his objection: Granted, if you say that it is learned as a tradition that one is liable for tarrying for a certain measure of time, and if he did not tarry for the time it takes to bow down and leave the Temple via the shortest way, he is exempt, then you can find a case where the priest could have served in a state of impurity without becoming liable to be punished with karet. The case is where he exerted himself and ran out very quickly via the shortest way after having performed a service in a state of impurity, so that the total time that he was in the Temple was less time than it would ordinarily take him to bow and leave the shortest way. In such a case he is exempt from being punished with karet, and liable only to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven for having performed the Temple service while impure.