אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דַּוְקָא גְּמִירִי, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכְּחַתְּ לָהּ?

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?

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? מַשְׁכְּחַתְּ לָהּ – כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּא בַּקְּצָרָה וְהָפַךְ בְּצִינּוֹרָא, וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא; דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זָר שֶׁהָפַךְ בְּצִינּוֹרָא – חַיָּיב מִיתָה.

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.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זָר שֶׁהָפַךְ בְּצִינּוֹרָא – חַיָּיב מִיתָה. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּלָא הָפַךְ לָהּ לָא מִיעַכְּלִי – פְּשִׁיטָא! וְאִי דְּלָא הָפַךְ בְּהוּ נַמִי מִיעַכְּלִי – מַאי קָא עָבֵיד?

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.

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי לָא הָפַךְ בְּהוּ מִיעַכְּלִי בְּתַרְתֵּי שָׁעֵי, וְהָשְׁתָּא מִיעַכְּלִי בְּחַד שַׁעְתָּא. וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן, דְּכָל קָרוֹבֵי עֲבוֹדָה – עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.

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.

אֲמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעֲיָא, בָּעֵינָא דְּאֵימָא מִילְּתָא וּמִסְתַּפֵינָא מֵחַבְרַיָּא: הַנִּכְנָס לַבַּיִת הַמְנוּגָּע דֶּרֶךְ אֲחוֹרָיו, וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוּלּוֹ חוּץ מֵחוֹטְמוֹ – טָהוֹר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַבָּא אֶל הַבַּיִת״, דֶּרֶךְ בִּיאָה אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.

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.

וּמִסְתַּפֵינָא מֵחַבְרַיָּא, אִי הָכִי כּוּלּוֹ נַמִי! אֲמַר רָבָא: כּוּלּוֹ – לָא גָּרַע מִכֵּלִים שֶׁבַּבַּיִת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יִטְמָא כָּל אֲשֶׁר בַּבָּיִת״.

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).

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

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.

״זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ״ וכו׳. הֵיכָא קָאֵי, דְּקָאָמַר ״זוֹ הִיא״? הָתָם קָאֵי: אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ,

§ 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.

וְאֵין מְבִיאִין אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ,

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

§ 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 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.

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

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.