## Shevuot Daf 17b

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

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דַּוְקָא גְּמִירִי, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say that** it is **learned** as a tradition **specifically** that if an impure person tarries long enough to bow down, he is liable even if he does not exceed the time required to go out the shortest way, then **how can you find these** circumstances?


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּא בִּקְצָרָה וְהִפֵּךְ בְּצִינּוֹרָא, וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זָר שֶׁהִפֵּךְ בְּצִינּוֹרָא, חַיָּיב מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: What is the difficulty? You find it** in a case **such as** where **he went out** from the Temple via the **shortest** way, **but** as he was leaving **he turned over** one of the limbs of an offering on the altar **with a fork [*betzinnora*].** This is an action that takes only a brief moment to perform, **and** yet it is considered priestly service, **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: A non-priest who turns over** part of an offering on the altar **with a fork is liable** to receive the **death** penalty, because he engaged in Temple service restricted to priests.


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

גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זָר שֶׁהִפֵּךְ בְּצִינּוֹרָא, חַיָּיב מִיתָה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלָא הַפֵּךְ לַהּ לָא מִיעַכְּלִי – פְּשִׁיטָא! וְאִי דְּלָא הַפֵּךְ בְּהוּ נָמֵי מִיעַכְּלִי – מַאי קָא עָבֵיד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to analyze **the** matter **itself: Rav Huna says: A non-priest who turns over** part of an offering on the altar **with a fork is liable** to receive the **death** penalty. **What are the circumstances** of such a case? **If** in the event **that he had not turned it over,** the offering **would not have been consumed** by the fire, then it is **obvious** that the non-priest is liable, as he performed the service of burning the offering on the altar. **And if** in the event **that he had not turned it over, it would also have been consumed** by the fire, then **what** service **did he perform?** Even without his action, the offering would have been burned.


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

לָא צְרִיכָא – דְּאִי לָא הַפֵּךְ בְּהוּ מִיעַכְּלִי בְּתַרְתֵּי שָׁעֵי, וְהַשְׁתָּא מִיעַכְּלִי בְּחַד שַׁעְתָּא; וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּכֹל קָרוֹבֵי עֲבוֹדָה – עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** for Rav Huna to state this *halakha* with regard to a case **where, had** the non-priest **not turned it over, it would have been consumed** by the fire **in two hours, but now** that he turned it over, **it is consumed** by the fire **in one hour. And he teaches us this: That any** act **that accelerates the service,** causing it to be performed more quickly, **is** itself considered **a service.**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: בָּעֵינָא דְּאֵימָא מִילְּתָא, וּמִסְתְּפֵינָא מֵחַבְרַיָּא. הַנִּכְנָס לְבַיִת הַמְנוּגָּע דֶּרֶךְ אֲחוֹרָיו, וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוּלּוֹ חוּץ מֵחוֹטְמוֹ – טָהוֹר. דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַבָּא אֶל הַבַּיִת״ – דֶּרֶךְ בִּיאָה אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the general topic of one who enters the Temple while in a state of ritual impurity, citing **Rabbi Oshaya,** who **said: I wish to say something, but I am afraid of my colleagues,** i.e., I am afraid that they will raise an objection against me. What did he want to say? With regard to **one who enters a house afflicted with leprosy,** if he enters the house **backward,** then **even** if **his entire** body entered **except for his nose,** which remained outside the house, he remains **pure, as it is written: “He that enters into the house** all the time that it is shut up shall be impure until evening” (Leviticus 14:46), teaching that **the Torah prohibited,** i.e., conferred impurity, only with regard to **the normal manner of entering into** a house, i.e., face-first.


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

וּמִסְתְּפֵינָא מֵחַבְרַיָּא – אִי הָכִי כּוּלּוֹ נָמֵי! אָמַר רָבָא: כּוּלּוֹ – לָא גָּרַע מִכֵּלִים שֶׁבְּבַיִת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יִטְמָא כׇּל אֲשֶׁר בַּבָּיִת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But I am afraid of my colleagues,** as they might raise the following objection: **If so,** that the impurity depends on the person entering the house in the normal manner, then even if **his entire** body entered the house, he would **also** be pure, as he did not go into the house in the normal fashion. **Rava said:** This is not difficult, as if **his entire** body entered in this manner, he is impure, because he is **no worse** now, i.e., his *halakha* should be no more lenient, **than vessels that are in the house,** which become impure, **as it is written:** “And they shall empty the house…**so that all that is in the house shall not be made impure”** (Leviticus 14:36).


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

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: גַּגִּין הַלָּלוּ – אֵין אוֹכְלִין שָׁם קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין שָׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים; וְטָמֵא שֶׁנִּכְנָס דֶּרֶךְ גַּגִּין לַהֵיכָל – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא תָבֹא״ – דֶּרֶךְ בִּיאָה אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This is also taught** in a *baraita*, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, that wherever entering is mentioned in the Torah, the reference is to the normal manner of entering: With regard to **those roofs** that covered the various chambers found in the Temple courtyard, **offerings of the most sacred order may not be eaten there,** on them, **and offerings of lesser sanctity may not be slaughtered there,** because those roofs do not have the sanctity of the Temple courtyard. **And a ritually impure person who enters the Sanctuary via** those **roofs is exempt, as it is stated** with regard to a woman who became ritually impure: **“And she shall not enter into the Sanctuary”** (Leviticus 12:4), teaching that **the Torah prohibited** only **the normal manner of entering** the Temple. So too, in the case of a house afflicted with leprosy, where mention is made of entering, only one who enters into the house in the normal manner becomes impure, as stated by Rabbi Oshaya.


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

זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. הֵיכָא קָאֵי דְּקָאָמַר ״זוֹ הִיא״? הָתָם קָאֵי – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **This** mitzva that the ritually impure must be sent out of the Temple **is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which** the Sanhedrin **is not liable** to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling. The Gemara asks: **To what does** the *tanna* of the mishna **refer when he says: This is** the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which the Sanhedrin is not liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling? Where was it taught that there is such a mitzva for which they are not liable? The Gemara answers: **He is referring to** a mishna found **there** in tractate *Horayot* (8b), which teaches: The Sanhedrin **is not liable** to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling **with regard to a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning** ritual impurity **in the Temple,** as this offering is brought only for an erroneous ruling on a matter whose unwitting violation requires the bringing of a fixed sin-offering, and not a sliding-scale offering.


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

וְאֵין מְבִיאִין אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna there continues: **And** one who is uncertain whether or not he unwittingly transgressed a prohibition that requires a sin-offering **does not bring a provisional guilt-offering for a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning** ritual impurity **in the Temple,** as this offering is brought only when certainty about the unwitting transgression would require a fixed sin-offering, not a sliding-scale offering. Unwitting transgression of a mitzva concerning ritual impurity in the Temple results in an obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering.


###### Shevuot 17b:10
[Shevuot 17b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17b:10)

אֲבָל חַיָּיבִין עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבְּנִדָּה, וּמְבִיאִין אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבְּנִדָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna there continues: **But** the Sanhedrin **is liable** to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling **with regard to a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning a menstruating woman. And** one who is uncertain whether or not he unwittingly transgressed a prohibition that requires a sin-offering **brings a provisional guilt-offering for a positive mitzva or prohibition concerning a menstruating woman.**


###### Shevuot 17b:11
[Shevuot 17b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17b:11)

וְקָאָמַר: זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ; וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבְּנִדָּה שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ? הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ ״נִטְמֵאתִי״, וּפֵירַשׁ מִיָּד – חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּצִיאָתוֹ הֲנָאָה לוֹ כְּבִיאָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is in reference to that mishna that the *tanna* in the mishna here **says: This** mitzva, that the ritually impure must be sent out of the Temple, **is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which** the Sanhedrin **is not liable** to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling. **And which is the positive mitzva with regard to a menstruating woman for which** the Sanhedrin is **liable** to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling? If a man **was engaging in intercourse with a ritually pure woman, and** during the course of their act of intercourse **she** experienced menstrual bleeding and **said to him: I have become impure, and** unwittingly **he immediately withdrew** from her and did not wait until his penis became flaccid, he is **liable** to bring a sin-offering for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman, **because his withdrawal** from her **is as pleasant to him as his entry.** If the Sanhedrin mistakenly ruled that one may withdraw immediately, they bring a bull offering for their erroneous ruling.


###### Shevuot 17b:12
[Shevuot 17b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17b:12)

אִיתְּמַר, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב: חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם. וְכֵן אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שֶׁבָּא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, חֲדָא אַכְּנִיסָה וַחֲדָא אַפְּרִישָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara further clarifies the matter of a man who immediately withdrew from the woman after she told him that she had experienced menstrual bleeding. **It was stated** that **Abaye says in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav:** He is **liable** to bring **two** sin-offerings for this unwitting transgression. **And so Rava says** that **Rav Shmuel bar Shaba says** that **Rav Huna says:** He is **liable** to bring **two** sin-offerings, **one for** his initial **entry and one for** his immediate **withdrawal.**


###### Shevuot 17b:13
[Shevuot 17b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/17b:13)

הָוֵי בַּהּ רַבָּה: בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא סָמוּךְ לְוִסְתָּהּ – וּבְמַאן? אִילֵּימָא בְּתַלְמִיד חָכָם – בִּשְׁלָמָא אַכְּנִיסָה לִיחַיַּיב, קָסָבַר יָכוֹלְנִי לִבְעוֹל; אֶלָּא אַפְּרִישָׁה אַמַּאי לִיחַיַּיב? מֵזִיד הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba discusses this** matter, raising a question: **About what** case are we speaking? **If we say** that it was **near her expected date** of menstruation, when sexual intercourse is prohibited due to a concern that the woman might already be menstruating or that she might begin to menstruate during the act of intercourse, and nevertheless they engaged in intercourse, there is a difficulty: **With whom** are we dealing? **If we say** that we are dealing **with a Torah scholar, granted** that **he will be liable** to bring a sin-offering **for** his initial **entry.** That was an unwitting transgression, as **he thought** to himself: **I can engage in intercourse** with her before she begins to menstruate. **But why will he be liable** to bring a sin-offering **for** his immediate **withdrawal?** That transgression was **intentional,** since he is a Torah scholar and he knows that in such a case he must not withdraw immediately, and a sin-offering is not brought for an intentional transgression.