Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE DELAY FOR WHICH ONE IS LIABLE

(a) Question (Rava): If Reuven (became Tamei and) delayed leaving the Mikdash less than the time of Hishtachavah (Tosfos - but at least the time needed to leave the Azarah and re-enter), is he lashed?

1. Does the time of Hishtachavah apply only to the obligation to bring a sacrifice, but not to lashes?
2. Or, does it apply to anyone that became Tamei in the Mikdash, both regarding a sacrifice and lashes?

(b) This question is not resolved.
(c) Question (Rava): If Reuven (became Tamei and) suspended himself in the air above the Azarah, what is the law?

1. Does the time of Hishtachavah apply only to someone who could bow (but someone who could not bow is exempt)?
2. Or, does it apply to anyone Tamei in the Mikdash, whether or not he can bow?

(d) This question is not resolved.
(e) Question (Rav Ashi): If Reuven intentionally became Tamei in the Mikdash, what is the law?

1. Does the time of Hishtachavah apply only to someone who became Tamei through Ones (but if he intentionally became Tamei, he is liable even if he delays less than this)?
2. Or, does it apply to anyone Tamei in the Mikdash, whether he became Tamei through Ones or not?

(f) This question is not resolved.
(g) Question (Rav Ashi): A Nazir in a cemetery who delays leaving - if he delays less than the time of Hishtachavah, is he lashed?

1. Was the time of Hishtachavah taught only regarding the Mikdash?
2. Or, does it apply to anyone who became Tamei through Ones, in the Mikdash or outside?

(h) This question is not resolved.

(a) (Mishnah): If he did not leave on the shortest path, he is liable; if he left on the shortest path, he is exempt.
(b) (Rava): If he left on the shortest path, he is exempt, even if he walked heel to toe, even if he took the entire day to leave.
(c) Question (Rava): If he intermittently pauses and walks, do the delays join up?

1. Question: Obviously, from Rava's previous law, the delays do not join up!
2. Answer: No, there he did not delay, rather he was continuously walking very slowly.

(d) Question (Abaye): If he ran out on a longer path, taking the amount of time as walking normally on the shortest path, what is the law?

1. Does the Torah allot a time for him (what he would need walking normally on the shortest path), he is exempt if he leaves in this time?
2. Or, is he always liable for taking a longer path and always exempt if he takes the shortest path?

(e) Answer (Rabah): He is liable for taking a longer path.
(f) Question (R. Zeira): The law is, a Tamei Kohen who served in the Mikdash is liable to death at the hands of Heaven - what is the case?

1. In less than the time of Hishtachavah, he cannot complete an Avodah?
2. If he took the time of Hishtachavah, he is liable to Kares (for delaying leaving), this already includes death at the hands of Heaven!
3. If you will say that the Torah allots a time for him, he is exempt if he leaves in this time, we can answer;

i. He did Avodah and ran out, all within the allotted time.

4. Summation of question: But if he is liable for a delay (even if he leaves in the time it would normally take), what is the case?

(g) Answer (Abaye): He left on the shortest path and flipped a fork (holding limbs burning on the Altar).

1. (Rav Huna): If a non-Kohen flipped a fork, he is liable to death at the hands of Heaven (because this is an Avodah).

(h) Question: What is the case of Rav Huna's law?

1. If the limbs would not have been consumed had he not flipped them, obviously he is liable for Avodah!
2. If the limbs would have been consumed in any case, he accomplished nothing, why is he liable?

(i) Answer: The case is, the limbs would have been consumed anyway, but not as soon;

1. Rav Huna teaches that hastening the Avodah is considered Avodah.

(a) R. Oshaya: I want to teach a law, but I fear that my colleagues will object!

1. I say that if one enters a house with Tzara'as walking backwards, even if he is entirely inside except for his nose, he is not Tamei - "Veha'Ba El ha'Bayis", the Torah only speaks of entering normally.
2. I fear that my colleagues will object: if so, he should be Tahor even if he totally enters!

(b) Rava: That is no objection - if he totally enters, he is Tamei, just as vessels inside become Tamei - "Yitma Kol Asher ba'Bayis"!

1. Support (Beraisa): The roofs of the (chambers of the) Azarah, may not eat Kodshei Kodoshim there, nor slaughter Kodshim Kalim;
2. If a Tamei person entered the Heichal through the roof, he is exempt - "V'El ha'Mikdash Lo Savo", the Torah only speaks of entering normally.

(a) (Mishnah): This is the Mitzvas Ase in the Mikdash to which the sacrifices for a mistaken ruling (of the great Sanhedrin which caused most of Yisrael to transgress a Mitzvah involving Kares) do not apply.
(b) Question: The language implies that the Tana was speaking about when the sacrifices for a mistaken ruling apply!
(c) Answer: Our Mishnah is a follow-up to a Mishnah in Horiyos.

1. (Mishnah): Beis Din is not liable for a (mistaken) Hora'ah on a Lav or Asei in the Mikdash;

i. One does not bring a doubtful guilt-offering for a Lav or Asei in the Mikdash;

2. Beis Din is liable for a Lav or Asei regarding Nidah;

i. One brings a doubtful guilt-offering for a Lav or Asei regarding Nidah.

3. Our Tana teaches that this is the Mitzvas Ase in the Mikdash to which the sacrifices for a mistaken ruling do not apply, they do apply to the following Mitzvah Ase of Nidah:

i. If a woman told her husband during relations that she felt a flow of blood which makes her a Nidah, if he withdraws (the Ever) immediately (while it is still in erection), he is liable to Kares, because withdrawing it is pleasurable, just as inserting it.

(d) (Rava citing Rav Huna): If he withdraws immediately, he must bring two sacrifices, one for relations with a Nidah, and one for withdrawing.
(e) Question (Rava): What is the case?

1. Suggestion: It was shortly before her Vest (the time she normally menstruates).
2. Question: Does her husband know the laws?
3. Answer #1: Yes.

i. We understand why he brings a sacrifice for relations, for he did not intentionally sin, he expected to finish relations before she became Nidah.
ii. Objection: Why does he bring a sacrifice for withdrawing, he sinned intentionally!

4. Answer #2: Her husband does not know the laws.
5. Objection: Why does he bring two sacrifices? (Since he does not know that it is forbidden to have relations with her right before her Vest, even when she told him that she became Nidah, he did not realize his sin, his transgression of withdrawing is not a 'new' mistake;) he is like one who unknowingly ate two olives' worth of Chelev, he only brings one sacrifice!