## Shevuot Daf 17a

###### Shevuot 17a:1
[Shevuot 17a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17a:1)

אוֹ דִלְמָא, בִּפְנִים גְּמִירִי שְׁהִיָּיה – לָא שְׁנָא לְקׇרְבָּן וְלָא שְׁנָא לְמַלְקוּת? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shevuot 17a:2
[Shevuot 17a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17a:2)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: תָּלָה עַצְמוֹ בַּאֲוִיר עֲזָרָה, מַהוּ? כִּי גְּמִירִי שְׁהִיָּיה – שְׁהִיָּיה דְּבַת הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה, דְּלָאו בַּת הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה לָא גְּמִירִי; אוֹ דִּלְמָא, בִּפְנִים שְׁהִיָּיה גְּמִירִי – לָא שְׁנָא דְּבַת הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה וְלָא שְׁנָא דְּלָאו בַּת הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shevuot 17a:3
[Shevuot 17a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17a:3)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: טִימֵּא עַצְמוֹ בְּמֵזִיד, מַהוּ? בְּאוֹנֶס גְּמִירִי שְׁהִיָּיה, בְּמֵזִיד לָא גְּמִירִי שְׁהִיָּיה; אוֹ דִּלְמָא, בִּפְנִים גְּמִירִי שְׁהִיָּיה – לָא שְׁנָא בְּאוֹנֶס וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּמֵזִיד? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shevuot 17a:4
[Shevuot 17a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17a:4)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: נָזִיר בְּקֶבֶר, בָּעֵי שְׁהִיָּיה לְמַלְקוּת אוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ? בִּפְנִים גְּמִירִי שְׁהִיָּיה, בַּחוּץ לָא גְּמִירִי שְׁהִיָּיה; אוֹ דִלְמָא, בְּאוֹנֶס גְּמִירִי שְׁהִיָּיה – לָא שְׁנָא בִּפְנִים וְלָא שְׁנָא בַּחוּץ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shevuot 17a:5
[Shevuot 17a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17a:5)

בָּא לוֹ בַּאֲרוּכָּה חַיָּיב, בִּקְצָרָה פָּטוּר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רָבָא: קְצָרָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – אֲפִילּוּ עָקֵב בְּצַד גּוּדָל, וַאֲפִילּוּ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Shevuot 17a:6
[Shevuot 17a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17a:6)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: שְׁהִיּוֹת מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ? וְתִיפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדִּידֵיהּ! הָתָם בִּדְלָא שְׁהָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shevuot 17a:7
[Shevuot 17a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17a:7)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: בָּא לוֹ בַּאֲרוּכָּה שִׁיעוּר קְצָרָה, מַהוּ? שִׁיעוּר גְּמִירִי – וְכִי בָּא לוֹ בַּאֲרוּכָּה שִׁיעוּר קְצָרָה פָּטוּר, אוֹ דִּלְמָא דַּוְקָא גְּמִירִי: בַּאֲרוּכָּה – חַיָּיב, בִּקְצָרָה – פָּטוּר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא נִתְּנָה אֲרוּכָּה לְהִדָּחוֹת אֶצְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shevuot 17a:8
[Shevuot 17a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17a:8)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא, אֶלָּא דְּקַיְימָא לַן: טָמֵא שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – בְּמִיתָה; הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אִי דְּלָא שְׁהָה – הֵיכִי עָבֵיד עֲבוֹדָה? אִי דִּשְׁהָה – בַּר כָּרֵת הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shevuot 17a:9
[Shevuot 17a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17a:9)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שִׁיעוּרָא גְּמִירִי – מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּאָנֵיס נַפְשֵׁיהּ בִּקְצָרָה וְעָבֵד עֲבוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.