Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Shevuot 2:3 ירושלמי שבועות ב׳:ג׳
Part of: Chapter 2
Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side
משנה: נִטְמָא בָעֲזָרָה וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַטּוּמְאָה וְזָכוּר לַמִּקְדָשׁ נֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר לַטּוּמְאָה. נֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה. וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁהָה בִכְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. וּבָא לוֹ בָאֲרוּכָּה חַיָּיב וּבַקְּצָרָה פָּטוּר. זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּש שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ:
MISHNAH: If one became impure in the Temple courtyard, then was oblivious about impurity but remembered the Sanctuary, [or] was oblivious about the Sanctuary but remembered impurity, [or] was oblivious of both. If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself, or left on a lengthy path, he is liable60If somebody entered the Sanctuary area legitimately because he was pure and then became impure in the sacred precinct (e. g., a dead lizard was lying there and he accidentally touched it), no sin attaches to him if he leaves immediately on the shortest possible path. If he tarries or leaves on a longer path, he commits a sin for which he will be liable if the original awareness was followed by any forgetting.. But on the shortest path he is not liable; this is the positive commandment in the Sanctuary about which they are not liable61“They” are the members of the Supreme Court who do not have to offer a sacrifice for a wrong ruling in this matter (Mishnah Horaiot2:4)..
MISHNAH: If one became impure in the Temple courtyard, then was oblivious about impurity but remembered the Sanctuary, [or] was oblivious about the Sanctuary but remembered impurity, [or] was oblivious of both. If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself, or left on a lengthy path, he is liable60If somebody entered the Sanctuary area legitimately because he was pure and then became impure in the sacred precinct (e. g., a dead lizard was lying there and he accidentally touched it), no sin attaches to him if he leaves immediately on the shortest possible path. If he tarries or leaves on a longer path, he commits a sin for which he will be liable if the original awareness was followed by any forgetting.. But on the shortest path he is not liable; this is the positive commandment in the Sanctuary about which they are not liable61“They” are the members of the Supreme Court who do not have to offer a sacrifice for a wrong ruling in this matter (Mishnah Horaiot2:4)..
הלכה: נִיטְמָא בָעֲזָרָה כול׳. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כָּתוֹב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֶת מִשְׁכַּן יְי טִמֵּא וְכָתוּב אַחֵר אוֹמֵר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ יְי טִמֵּא. הָא כֵיצַד. לִיתֵּן חֶלֶק בֵּין לַמִּיטָּמֵא בִפְנִים לַמִּיטָּמֵא בַחוּץ. מִיטָּמֵא בִפְנִים עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיס רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ. מִיטָּמֵא בַחוּץ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא כְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. נִיטְמָא בִפְנִים וְנִכְנָס לִפְנַיי וְלִפְנִים. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁהָה כְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָיה. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁשָּׁהָא לָאו כְמִי שֶׁהִכְנִיס רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ. וְתֵימַר. עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא כְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֳוָיָיה. וָכָא עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא כְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֳוָיָיה. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. עַל אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן מִתְחַיֵיב. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרִין. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֲמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמְרֵי לֵיהּ. צֵא. וְתֵימַר. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה.
HALAKHAH: “If one became impure in the Temple courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One verse says, he defiled the dwelling place of the Eternal62Num. 19:13., another verse says, he defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal63Num. 19:20. Why is this? To state a difference between one who became inside and one who became outside64The two verses appear in the same Chapter. There must be a reason for the use of two synonyms. It is a hint that the rules are different for one who enters while impure and one who becomes impure inside. (There is another opinion, Sifry Num.126, that מִשְׁכָּן describes the movable Tabernacle and מִקְדָּשׁ the permanent Temple. The Babli 16b brings both opinions in the name of R. Eleazar.). If he became impure (inside)65It is clear that the places of “inside” and “outside” have to be switched. A person already impure becomes guilty and eventually liable for a sacrifice at the moment his head and most of his body are inside the sacred precinct; one becomingimpure inside if he tarries long enough to prostrate himself. not unless he bring his head and most of his body inside; if he became impure (outside)65It is clear that the places of “inside” and “outside” have to be switched. A person already impure becomes guilty and eventually liable for a sacrifice at the moment his head and most of his body are inside the sacred precinct; one becomingimpure inside if he tarries long enough to prostrate himself. not unless he stay for prostrating. If he became impure inside and entered further inside66Do we say that if he became impure inside and moved his head and body further inside instead of towards the outside that he is guilty on two counts?? Let us hear from the following: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” If he tarried, is that not as if he brought his head and most of his body inside, but you are saying, “he tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” And here, not unless he tarried that he could have prostrated himself67The Mishnah makes it clear that only the time elapsed inside the sacred precinct determines his liability, not the direction of his motion.. How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last68The moment he became impure or the moment he stayed longer than necessary.? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last69This essentially is a repetition of the previous argument: Not the fact that he became impure determines his guilt but the time he tarried inside. The argument is recast as introduction to the next paragraph..
HALAKHAH: “If one became impure in the Temple courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One verse says, he defiled the dwelling place of the Eternal62Num. 19:13., another verse says, he defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal63Num. 19:20. Why is this? To state a difference between one who became inside and one who became outside64The two verses appear in the same Chapter. There must be a reason for the use of two synonyms. It is a hint that the rules are different for one who enters while impure and one who becomes impure inside. (There is another opinion, Sifry Num.126, that מִשְׁכָּן describes the movable Tabernacle and מִקְדָּשׁ the permanent Temple. The Babli 16b brings both opinions in the name of R. Eleazar.). If he became impure (inside)65It is clear that the places of “inside” and “outside” have to be switched. A person already impure becomes guilty and eventually liable for a sacrifice at the moment his head and most of his body are inside the sacred precinct; one becomingimpure inside if he tarries long enough to prostrate himself. not unless he bring his head and most of his body inside; if he became impure (outside)65It is clear that the places of “inside” and “outside” have to be switched. A person already impure becomes guilty and eventually liable for a sacrifice at the moment his head and most of his body are inside the sacred precinct; one becomingimpure inside if he tarries long enough to prostrate himself. not unless he stay for prostrating. If he became impure inside and entered further inside66Do we say that if he became impure inside and moved his head and body further inside instead of towards the outside that he is guilty on two counts?? Let us hear from the following: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” If he tarried, is that not as if he brought his head and most of his body inside, but you are saying, “he tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” And here, not unless he tarried that he could have prostrated himself67The Mishnah makes it clear that only the time elapsed inside the sacred precinct determines his liability, not the direction of his motion.. How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last68The moment he became impure or the moment he stayed longer than necessary.? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last69This essentially is a repetition of the previous argument: Not the fact that he became impure determines his guilt but the time he tarried inside. The argument is recast as introduction to the next paragraph..
תַּמַּן תַּנִּינָן. הוֹצִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכַּף וְאֶת הַמַּחְתָּה. עַל אֵי זוֹ מִתְחַיֵיב. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי. עַל הָאַחֳרוֹנָה. אֲמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. הִיכָּנֵס. וְתֵימַר. עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין עַל הָרִאשׁוּנָה.
There, we have stated: “They removed the cup and the censer for him”70Mishnah Yoma.5:1. The reference really is to the end of that Mishnah: “The High Priest takes the censer in his right hand and the cup in the left hand.” In general there is a rule that all priestly service in the Temple has to be performed with the right hand only. The left hand has to be used here to make it possible for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies only once. On that it is noted (Yoma5:2, 42b l. 52) that if he went twice, using only his right hand, the service is valid. Nevertheless, it is sinful to enter the Temple building more often than necessary. About this the paragraph here is then copied in Yoma.. About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the last. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, enter, and you say about the last? But we must hold about the first71Since the first entry is necessary in any case, the High Priest cannot be faulted for the first entry even if he only carries the censer..
There, we have stated: “They removed the cup and the censer for him”70Mishnah Yoma.5:1. The reference really is to the end of that Mishnah: “The High Priest takes the censer in his right hand and the cup in the left hand.” In general there is a rule that all priestly service in the Temple has to be performed with the right hand only. The left hand has to be used here to make it possible for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies only once. On that it is noted (Yoma5:2, 42b l. 52) that if he went twice, using only his right hand, the service is valid. Nevertheless, it is sinful to enter the Temple building more often than necessary. About this the paragraph here is then copied in Yoma.. About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the last. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, enter, and you say about the last? But we must hold about the first71Since the first entry is necessary in any case, the High Priest cannot be faulted for the first entry even if he only carries the censer..
שִׁיעוּר הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיָה בָאֲרוּכָּה עֶשְׂרִים וּבַקְּצָרָה עֶשֶׂר. הִילֵּךְ חָמֵשׁ. אִין יֵיזִיל בְּדָא חָמֵשׁ וְאִין יֵיזִיל בְּדָא חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לְעוֹלָם אֵין מִתְחַיֵיב עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אֲרוּכָּה מְרוּבָּה עַל הַקְּצָרָה עֶשֶׂר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיָה בָאֲרוּכָּה שְׁלֹשִׁים וּבַקְּצָרָה עֶשֶׂר. הִילֵּךְ חָמֵשׁ. אִין יֵיזִיל בְּדָא חָמֵשׁ. אִין יֵיזִיל בְּדָא עֶשְׂרִין וְחָמֵשׁ. עַד כַּמָּה הִיא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. עַד כְּדֵי שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ. אַבָּא בַּר הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַד כְּדֵי שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם מִתַּלְמִיד לָרַב. שָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ רִבִּי.
The measure of prostrating is ten cubits72If the time frame described in the Mishnah by “prostrating” is measured by the difference in length between a lengthy and a short path, since it cannot be made dependent on the speed of one’s body motions.. How is this? If the lengthy path was twenty but the short one ten. He went five. If he went in this direction, five, if in the other, fifteen73The only thing that counts is the difference in the lengths of the paths, not the total lengths.. Rebbi Yose said, he never becomes liable unless the lengthy path exceed the short one by (ten)74From the following it is clear that one has to read “twenty”.. How is that? If the lengthy path was thirty but the short one ten. He went five. If he went in this direction, five, if in the other, twenty-five. What is the duration of prostrating75If one measures not by length but by time, still admitting differences between one person and the next.? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another76The time frame needed to speak the two words שָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ.. Abba bar Huna77This is misspelling for Abba bar bar Ḥana; cf. his statement in Berakhot2:1, Note 51, Nazir4:1 Note 12. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, “peace be with you, my teacher.78The time frame allowing three words to be spoken, which in general is the definition of “immediately”. In the Babli 16b the time given is either the time needed to recite the entire verse 2Chr. 7:3 or at least half of it.”
The measure of prostrating is ten cubits72If the time frame described in the Mishnah by “prostrating” is measured by the difference in length between a lengthy and a short path, since it cannot be made dependent on the speed of one’s body motions.. How is this? If the lengthy path was twenty but the short one ten. He went five. If he went in this direction, five, if in the other, fifteen73The only thing that counts is the difference in the lengths of the paths, not the total lengths.. Rebbi Yose said, he never becomes liable unless the lengthy path exceed the short one by (ten)74From the following it is clear that one has to read “twenty”.. How is that? If the lengthy path was thirty but the short one ten. He went five. If he went in this direction, five, if in the other, twenty-five. What is the duration of prostrating75If one measures not by length but by time, still admitting differences between one person and the next.? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another76The time frame needed to speak the two words שָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ.. Abba bar Huna77This is misspelling for Abba bar bar Ḥana; cf. his statement in Berakhot2:1, Note 51, Nazir4:1 Note 12. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, “peace be with you, my teacher.78The time frame allowing three words to be spoken, which in general is the definition of “immediately”. In the Babli 16b the time given is either the time needed to recite the entire verse 2Chr. 7:3 or at least half of it.”