Shevuot 7aשבועות ז׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shevuot 7a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
7aז׳ א

עולה ויורד ניתי מידי דהוה אשמיעת קול ואביטוי שפתים

one can bring a sliding-scale offering for the unwitting violation of a transgression whose intentional violation is not punishable by karet; just as is the case of a violation for “hearing the voice” (Leviticus 5:1), which is where a litigant asks a witness to testify about an event and he takes a false oath that he did not witness the event, and for taking a false oath with the “utterance of lips” (Leviticus 5:4). In both of these cases, an intentional violation is not punishable by karet, and nevertheless one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for an unwitting violation.

אמר קרא (ויקרא ה, ג) בה בה למעוטי תרומה

The Gemara answers: It cannot be referring to one who partakes of teruma while ritually impure, as the verse concerning a sliding-scale offering states: “Or if he will touch impurity of a man in any manner of his impurity through which he can become impure” (Leviticus 5:3). The verse states “through which” to exclude an impure person who partakes of teruma from liability to bring a sliding-scale offering.

אימא בה למעוטי מקדש דלא סגי ליה בקרבן עולה ויורד עד דמייתי קרבן קבוע

The Gemara asks: But say the verse states “through which” to exclude one who defiles the Temple, and teaches that due to the severity of that transgression it is not sufficient for him to achieve atonement with a sliding-scale offering; rather, he will not achieve atonement until he brings a fixed sin-offering. Accordingly, no proof can be drawn from here.

קרי רבא עליה דרבי דולה מים מבורות עמוקים

Rava read the following verse about Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: “One who draws water from deep wells” (see Proverbs 20:5); this verse describes Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because by delving deeply into the Bible he found a source that a sliding-scale offering atones for the unwitting defiling of sacrificial foods by partaking of them while ritually impure.

דתניא רבי אומר אקרא אני חיה בהמה למה נאמרה נאמר כאן (ויקרא ה, ב) בהמה טמאה ונאמר להלן (ויקרא ז, כא) בהמה טמאה מה להלן טומאת קודש אף כאן טומאת קודש

This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse: “Or if a person will have touched any impure object, whether the carcass of an impure animal [ḥayya] or the carcass of an impure domesticated animal [behema]” (Leviticus 5:2). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Since a domesticated animal is also referred to a ḥayya, it would be sufficient if I would read only the verse’s clause about a ḥayya. Why then is an explicit clause about a behema stated? It is in order to derive a verbal analogy. It is stated in the verse here: “An impure domesticated animal,” and it is stated in the verse below with regard to one who intentionally defiles an offering by partaking of it while he is impure: “An impure domesticated animal” (Leviticus 7:21). Just as below the reference is to the defiling of sacrificial foods, so too here, the reference is to the defiling of sacrificial foods.

אשכחן טומאת קודש טומאת מקדש מנלן אמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ד) בכל קדש לא תגע ואל המקדש לא תבא איתקש מקדש לקודש

The Gemara continues: We found a source for the halakha that the sliding-scale offering atones for the defiling of sacrificial foods; from where do we derive that it also atones for the defiling of the Temple by entering it while ritually impure? The verse states with regard to a woman after childbirth, who is impure due to having given birth: “She may not touch any sacred item and she may not enter the Temple” (Leviticus 12:4). The verse juxtaposes the Temple to sacred items to teach that the halakhot that apply to one apply to the other. Accordingly, the sliding-scale offering atones for both.

אי הכי תרומה נמי דאמר מר בכל קדש לא תגע לרבות את התרומה

The Gemara asks: If so, that the liability to bring a sliding-scale offering is derived from this verse, then one should also be liable to bring the offering if he partakes of teruma while impure, as the Master said that the general term “sacred item,” in the verse: “She may not touch any sacred item,” serves to include teruma in the prohibition. Accordingly, it should also be included in the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering.

הא מיעט רחמנא בה אימא בה למעוטי מקדש מסתברא מקדש לא ממעטינן שכן בכרת כמותה

The Gemara explains: The Merciful One excludes something with the term “through which” (Leviticus 5:3). Should we say that the term “through which” serves to exclude the defiling of the Temple? No, it is reasonable that we should not exclude the defiling of the Temple, as its intentional violation is punishable by karet, just like one who defiles sacrificial foods by partaking of them while he is impure. Rather, the term must serve to exclude one who partakes of teruma while impure.

אדרבה תרומה לא ממעטינן שכן אכילה כמותה

The Gemara offers a counterargument: On the contrary, we should not exclude one who partakes of teruma while impure, as it is a violation done through eating, similar to one who eats sacrificial food while impure. Therefore, there is still no proof that one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for defiling the Temple.

אלא אמר רבא שלש כריתות בשלמים למה אחת לכלל ואחת לפרט ואחת לטומאה הכתובה בתורה סתם ואיני יודע מה היא

Rather, Rava said it can be derived from the following: Why does the Torah mention three times the punishment of karet with regard to one who partakes of peace-offerings while he is impure? The three times are Leviticus 22:3, 7:20, and 7:21. One time is to apply the punishment to the general case of a ritually impure person who partakes of any type of offering, and one time is to apply it to the specific instance of a peace-offering, and one time is to apply it to another case of defiling something sacred that is written in the Torah without specifying what it is referring to, and I do not know from that passage what that case is.

הוי אומר טומאת קודש ואם אינו ענין לטומאת קודש דנפקא ליה מדרבי תנהו ענין לטומאת מקדש

Rava continues: The only passage that describes the defiling of something sacred without specifying the situation is the passage in the Torah that discusses a sliding-scale offering brought for the defiling of sacrificial foods. Therefore, you must say that the third mention of karet is referring to the defiling of sacrificial foods. But if it is not needed to teach the matter of defiling sacrificial foods, as that has been derived through the verbal analogy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, apply it to the matter of defiling the Temple. Accordingly, one who intentionally defiles the Temple by entering it while impure is liable to receive karet, and it is reasonable that he should be liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for doing so unwittingly.

והאי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו שלש כריתות בשלמים למה אחת לכלל ואחת לפרט ואחת לדברים שאינן נאכלין

The Gemara asks: But that third mention is necessary in order to expound it in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says: Why does the Torah mention three times the punishment of karet with regard to one who partakes of peace-offerings while he is ritually impure? One time is to apply the punishment to the general case of an impure person who partakes of any type of offering, and one time is to apply it to the specific instance of a peace-offering, and one time is to apply it to an impure person who eats items that are not generally eaten, such as frankincense.

ולר"ש דאמר דברים שאינן נאכלין אין חייבין עליהן כרת משום טומאה לאיתויי חטאת הפנימית דס"ד אמינא הואיל ואמר ר"ש כל שאינו קרב על מזבח החיצון כשלמים אין חייבין עליו משום פיגול משום טומאה נמי לא קמ"ל דמיחייב

The Gemara adds: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that for items that are not generally eaten one is not liable to be punished with karet for partaking of them while he is ritually impure, the third mention is necessary in order to include the case of an impure person who eats an internal sin-offering, as it could enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Shimon says: For any type of offering that is not sacrificed on and its blood applied to the external altar in the manner that peace-offerings are, one cannot be liable to be punished with karet for eating it if it is piggul, i.e., for eating such an offering if it was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time. One might have thought that similarly, for such an offering, one is also not liable to be punished with karet for intentionally partaking of it while ritually impure; the third mention teaches us that one is indeed liable. Therefore, there is still no proof that one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for unwittingly entering the Temple while impure.

אלא אמרי נהרדעי משמי' דרבא שלש טומאות בשלמים למה אחת לכלל ואחת לפרט ואחת לטומאה הכתובה בתורה סתם ואיני יודע מה היא

Rather, the Sages of Neharde’a said in the name of Rava that it can be derived from the following: Why does the Torah mention three times the ritually impure status with regard to one who partakes of peace-offerings while he is impure? That is, each of the three times that the Torah mentions the punishment of karet, it also mentions the fact that the person was impure at the time. One time is for the general case of a impure person who partakes of any type of offering, and one time is for the specific instance of one who partakes of a peace-offering, and one time is to apply it to another case of defiling something sacred that is written in the Torah without specifying what it is referring to, and I do not know from that passage what the case is.

הוי אומר טומאת קודש ואם אינו ענין לטומאת קודש דנפקא ליה מדרבי תנהו ענין לטומאת מקדש

Now, the only passage that describes the defiling of something sacred without specifying the situation is the passage in the Torah that discusses a sliding-scale offering that is brought for the defiling of sacrificial foods. Therefore, you must say that the third mention of karet is referring to the defiling of sacrificial foods. But if it is not needed to teach the matter of defiling sacrificial foods, as that has been derived through the verbal analogy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, apply it to the matter of defiling the Temple.

והאי נמי מיבעי ליה איידי דבעי למכתב כרת לכדר' אבהו כתב נמי טמאות דלא סגי לה בלאו הכי

The Gemara asks: But that third mention is also necessary, because since it is necessary for the Torah to write the karet punishment three times in order to expound it in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abbahu, it also has to write that the person was ritually impure, as it is not sufficient to mention the punishment without mentioning for what the punishment is given. Accordingly, there is still no proof that one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for unwittingly defiling the Temple.

אלא אמר רבא אתיא טומאתו טומאתו כתיב הכא (ויקרא ה, ג) לכל טומאתו

Rather, Rava said: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the terms “his impurity” and “his impurity,” as follows: It is written here, with regard to a sliding-scale offering: “Or if he will touch impurity of a man in any manner of his impurity through which he can become impure” (Leviticus 5:3),