Shevuot 33

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

Or, perhaps the tradition is that within [the Temple] tarrying is necessary, no matter whether for sacrifice or for stripes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one becomes unclean within the Temple accidentally, the punishment, whether of sacrifice or of stripes, is not inflicted, unless one tarries the period of prostration.');">¹</span> It remains undecided. Raba queried: If he suspended himself in the air in the Temple,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For example, on becoming unclean, he immediately caught hold of a rope in the ceiling, and remained suspended thus for the tarrying period.');">²</span>

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

what is the ruling? Is the tradition that tarrying makes him liable only in the case of such tarrying as may be used for prostration,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when he is on the ground; but since he cannot prostrate himself in the air, he is not liable, even if he remains thus suspended for the period of tarrying.');">³</span> but for such tarrying which cannot be used for prostration there is no tradition [that he is liable]?

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

Or perhaps the traditio is that within [the Temple] tarrying makes him liable, no matter whether it may be used for prostration or not? It remains undecided. R'Ashi queried: If he defiled himself wilfully, what is the ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If Raba's question (whether tarrying is necessary for stripes) should be decided in the affirmative, that may be because he became unclean accidentally, though he tarried wilfully; but if he became unclean wilfully, perhaps he is liable for stripes, though he does not tarry.');">⁴</span>

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:

For an accidental defilement there is a tradition that tarrying is necessary, but for wilful defilement there is no tradition that tarrying is necessary Or perhaps the tradition is that within [the Temple] tarrying is necessary, no matter whether for accidental or wilful defilement? It remains undecided. R'Ashi queried: Does a Nazirite at a grave require tarrying for stripes or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a Nazirite (who must avoid defilement by the dead, Num. VI, 6) was borne aloft in the cemetery in a closed carriage (not, thereby, becoming unclean) , and when there the top of the carriage was removed, thus making him unclean from the air of the cemetery; and he was warned to leave, but he remained, though not the period of tarrying, is he liable for stripes? This example is similar to that of a person entering the Temple while clean, and becoming unclean inside.');">⁵</span>

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

Within [the Temple] there is a tradition that tarrying is necessary, but outside there is no tradition that tarrying is necessary?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because tarrying is measured as the duration of full prostration; this measure of duration is appropriate for the Temple, but not outside; and therefore the Nazirite is liable even if he did not tarry.');">⁶</span> Or perhaps for accidental uncleanness there is a tradition that tarrying is necessary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Nazirite became unclean accidentally, and is therefore not liable unless he tarries.');">⁷</span> no matter whether inside or outside?

בעי רבא שהיות מהו שיצטרפו ותיפשוט ליה מדידיה התם בדלא שהה

It remains undecided. IF HE WENT OUT THE LONGER WAY, HE IS LIABLE; THE SHORTER WAY, HE IS EXEMPT, etc. Raba said: THE SHORTER WAY which they said [exempts him, implies] even [walking] heel to toe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Taking very short steps, so that the toe of one foot touches the heel of the foot in front.');">⁸</span> and even the whole day.

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

Raba queried: Can pauses be combined?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Walking out by the shorter route, he paused a while, then continued walking; then paused again; the combined moments of pausing being equal to the tarrying period. Is he liable in such case, or is he liable only when the tarrying period is one uninterrupted pause?');">⁹</span> - Let him solve it from his own statement!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he holds that even if he walks very slowly, occupying the whole day, he is still exempt; though the time occupied is more than the tarrying period.');">¹⁰</span> - There [he is exempt only] if he did not pause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he occupied the whole day, he did not stop walking.');">¹¹</span>

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

Abaye inquired of Rabbah: If he went out the longer way in the time taken for the shorter way, what is the ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He ran quickly, so that the time taken in going out the longer way was only as much as would be taken in going out the shorter way at a medium pace.');">¹²</span> Is the tradition that the time taken [is the essential factor], and if he went out the longer way in time taken for the shorter way, he is exempt; or, is the tradition definite that for the longer way he is liable and for the shorter way he is exempt? - He said to him: [The law that for] the longer way [he is liable] was not given that it should be suspended for him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he runs; hence, by the longer route he is always liable, even if he runs; by the shorter he is exempt, even if he walks slowly. ohna hshc v,hn');">¹³</span> R'Zera objected strongly to this: Now, it is established with us that an unclean [priest] who officiated is punished by death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By divine intervention, , not by a human tribunal; the priest must have become unclean in the Temple, for, if he became ohna hshc v,hn unclean outside, he is liable to the punishment of kareth (which is severer than) for entering.');">¹⁴</span>

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

How can this be possible? If he did not tarry, how could he do the service?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which priestly service, however minute, could he possibly do in less time than the period of prostration?');">¹⁵</span> If he tarried, he is liable to kareth! Granted, if you would say that the tradition is that time [is the essential factor],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the periods of duration mentioned in the Mishnah are simply measurements of time: the time duration of tarrying the period of prostration, and the time duration of going out by the longer route; and that he is exempt only if he does not tarry the period of prostration and goes out the shorter route, i.e., the time he spends in the Temple must be less than the combined times of the period of prostration and that occupied in walking out the shorter route at a medium pace.');">¹⁶</span> then it is possible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To have a case of an unclean priest officiating and tarrying the period of prostration, and yet not being liable for kareth, but for death by divine intervention.');">¹⁷</span> if he strained himself in the shorter way, after he had done the service;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He ran out very quickly by the shorter route, so that, although he had tarried the period of prostration, the time he had spent altogether in the Temple was less than the combined times of prostration and walking out the shorter route at a medium pace.');">¹⁸</span>