Shevuot 34

אלא אי אמרת דוקא גמירי היכי משכחת לה

but if you say that the tradition is definite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In each case: that if he tarried the period of prostration he is liable, even if he runs out the shorter way; and that if he goes out the longer way he is liable, even if he had not tarried, and even if he runs quickly.');">¹</span> how is it possible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To have a case of an unclean priest doing the service, and presumably tarrying (in order to do the service) , and yet not being liable to kareth?');">²</span> - Said Abaye: What a question! It is possible that he went out the shorter way [without tarrying first], and turned [a piece of the sacrifice on the altar fire] with a prong;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a priestly function, and requires only a moment of time.');">³</span>

אמר אביי מאי קושיא משכחת לה כגון שבא בקצרה והפך בצינורא וכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא זר שהפך בצינורא חייב מיתה

and this is in accordance with R'Huna's view, for R'Huna said: A layman who turned [a piece of the sacrifice on the altar fire] with a prong is punished by death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is a priestly function, and must not be done by a layman. Cf. Num. XVIII, 7. Death here, too, means by Divine intervention, v. n. 1.');">⁴</span> The text says: R'Huna said, A layman who turned [a piece of the sacrifice on the altar fire] with a prong punished by death.' How is this?

גופא אמר רב הונא זר שהפך בצינורא חייב מיתה ה"ד אי דלא הפך לה לא מיעכלי פשיטא ואי דלא הפך בהו נמי מיעכלי מאי קא עביד

If, without turning it, it would not have been consumed, this is self-evident! And if, without turning it, it would also have been consumed, then what has he done? - It is not necessary [for R'Huna to state his law except] in a case where if he had not turned it, it would have been consumed in two hours, and now [after turning it] it is consumed in one hour; and this [law] he teaches us, that an acceleration of the service is also a service. R'Oshaia said: I wish to state a law, but am afraid of my associates: He who enters a house plagued by leprosy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XIV, 33 seq.');">⁵</span> backwards, even with his whole body [inside] except his nose, is clean, for it is written: He that cometh into the house.

לא צריכא דאי לא הפך בהו מיעכלי בתרתי שעי והשתא מיעכלי בחד שעתא והא קמ"ל דכל קרובי עבודה עבודה היא

[shall be unclean]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 46.');">⁶</span> the normal way of coming in did Scripture prohibit; but I am afraid of my associates [in stating this law] for, if so, even if he entered wholly [including his nose, he should] also [be clean]. - Said Raba: His whole body is not worse than the vessels in the house; for it is written: [They shall empty the house before the priest comes to see the plague,] so that all that is in the house be not made unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid 36.');">⁷</span>

א"ר אושעיא בעינא דאימא מילתא ומסתפינא מחבריא הנכנס לבית המנוגע דרך אחוריו ואפילו כולו חוץ מחוטמו טהור דכתיב (ויקרא יד, מו) והבא אל הבית דרך ביאה אסרה תורה

It has also been taught similarly: These roofs [of the Temple] - sacrifices of the highest grade of holiness may not be eaten there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they must be eaten within the Temple; and only the floor and air till the ceiling are holy, but not the attics and roofs.');">⁸</span> and sacrifices of a minor grade of holiness may not be sacrificed there;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though they may be eaten there, because, of course, they may be eaten anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem. According to Tosaf., ihdd however, they may not be eaten on the roof; but v. Pes. 85b, Rashi (s.v.) , and Adreth, Responsa, 34.');">⁹</span> and an unclean person who entered the Temple by the roof is exempt, for it is said: And into the sanctuary she shall not come:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 3; a woman after childbirth, till after 40 days for a male child, and 80 days for a female. Entering by the roof is not normal.');">¹⁰</span>

ומסתפינא מחבריא אי הכי כולו נמי אמר רבא כולו לא גרע מכלים שבבית דכתיב (ויקרא יד, לו) ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית

the normal way of coming did Scripture prohibit. THIS IS THE POSITIVE PRECEPT CONCERNING THE TEMPLE FOR WHICH THEY [THE BETH DIN] ARE NOT LIABLE, ETC. What is he referring to that he says - THIS IS THE POSITIVE PRECEPT, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'where does he stand?' Where have we learnt that the Beth din are not liable for an erroneous ruling concerning the transgression of a positive precept with reference to uncleanness in the Temple, that he states here: this is the positive precept for which they are not liable?');">¹¹</span>

תניא נמי הכי גגין הללו אין אוכלין שם קדשי קדשים ואין שוחטין שם קדשים קלים וטמא שנכנס דרך גגין להיכל פטור שנאמר (ויקרא יב, ד) ואל המקדש לא תבא דרך ביאה אסרה תורה:

? He is referring to this:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hor. 8b. apbk tny');">¹²</span> They [the Beth din] are not liable for [an erroneous ruling in connection with the transgression of] a positive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 2: Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp . . whosoever unclean by the dead; is put out of the vbhfa vbjn , i.e., Temple; v. Rashi a.l. If a person become unclean in the Temple, and stays, he is transgressing this positive precept.');">¹³</span>

זו היא מצות עשה שבמקדש שאין חייבין עליה וכו': היכא קאי דקאמר זו היא התם קאי אין חייבין על עשה ועל לא תעשה שבמקדש

or negative<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 4: And into the sanctuary she shall not come (a woman after childbirth, till after 40 days for a male, and 80 days for a female) . huk, oat');">¹⁴</span> precept [concerning uncleanness] in the Temple; and they [individuals] do not bring a suspensive guilt offering for [a doubtful sin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A suspensive guilt offering, , is brought by a person who is in doubt whether he has committed an act which, if done wilfully, is punishable by kareth, and if done wittingly, is punishable by the bringing of a sin offering; v. Lev. V, 17-19; and Rashi on verse 17; Hor. 8b.');">¹⁵</span> in connection with] the positive or negative precept [concerning uncleanness] in the Temple;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a sliding scale sacrifice, and not a fixed offering, is brought for actual unwitting transgression,');">¹⁶</span>

ואין מביאין אשם תלוי על עשה ועל לא תעשה שבמקדש

but they [the Beth din] are liable for [an erroneous ruling in connection with the transgression of] the positive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 18b.');">¹⁷</span> or negative<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 19: And unto a woman who is impure by her uncleanness thou shalt not approach.');">¹⁸</span> precept concerning a menstruous woman;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because for an unwitting transgression a fixed sin offering is brought.');">¹⁹</span>

אבל חייבין על עשה ועל לא תעשה שבנדה ומביאין אשם תלוי על עשה ועל לא תעשה שבנדה

and they [individuals] bring a suspensive guilt offering for a [doubtful sin in connection with the] positive or negative precept concerning a menstruous woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 7.');">²⁰</span> So [the Tanna here] says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to the ruling in the Mishnah just quoted from Hor. 8b.');">²¹</span> THIS IS THE POSITIVE PRECEPT CONCERNING THE TEMPLE FOR WHICH THEY ARE NOT LIABLE; AND WHICH IS THE POSITIVE PRECEPT CONCERNING A MENSTRUOUS WOMAN FOR WHICH THEY ARE LIABLE?

וקאמר זו היא מצות עשה שבמקדש שאין חייבין עליה ואיזו היא מצות עשה שבנדה שחייבין עליה היה משמש עם הטהורה ואמרה לו נטמאתי ופירש מיד חייב מפני שיציאתו הנאה לו כביאתו

[THIS:] IF ONE COHABITED WITH A CLEAN WOMAN, AND SHE SAID TO HIM; 'I HAVE BECOME UNCLEAN!', AND HE WITHDREW IMMEDIATELY, HE IS LIABLE, BECAUSE HIS WITHDRAWAL IS AS PLEASANT TO HIM AS HIS ENTRY. It was stated: Abaye said in the name of R'Hiyya B'Rab: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who withdraws forthwith.');">²²</span> is liable to [bring] two [sin-offerings].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra.');">²³</span>

איתמר אביי אמר משמיה דר' חייא בר רב חייב שתים וכן אמר רבא אמר רב שמואל בר שבא אמר רב הונא חייב שתים חדא אכניסה וחדא אפרישה

And so said Raba that R'Samuel son of R'Sheba said that R'Huna said: He is liable to bring two, one for entering and one for withdrawing. Raba raised the question: In what [circumstances]? Shall we say, it was near the time of her regular period?

הוי בה רבה במאי אילימא סמוך לוסתה ובמאן אילימא בתלמיד חכם בשלמא אכניסה ליחייב קסבר יכולני לבעול אלא אפרישה אמאי ליחייב מזיד הוא

And with whom? Shall we say, a learned man? Granted, then, for entering he should be liable, for he thought I am able to cohabit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before she has her period; if, therefore, she becomes unclean during cohabitation, he commits a sin unwittingly, and must bring a sin offering.');">²⁴</span> but for withdrawing, why should he be liable, since he acted wilfully!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being learned, he knows that it is prohibited to withdraw immediately, and is therefore liable for kareth, and not a sin offering.');">²⁵</span>