Shevuos Daf 17 - Shiur Shehiyah in the Mikdash
Summary
- This shiur outlines four unresolved questions on the liability for staying in the azarah while in a state of tumah, analyzes how exit route, speed, and pauses affect obligation, and resolves how a tameh who performs avodah can incur only mitah bidei shamayim without karet through a minimal avodah. It rules on unconventional entry to a beit ha-menuga via backward entry and entry to the Heichal via rooftops as not “derech bi’ah,” and it anchors the Mishnah’s “זו היא” in Horayot, contrasting Mikdash-related aseh/lo ta’aseh with those of niddah regarding par he’elem davar and asham talui. It concludes with the case where a husband withdraws after his wife declares “nitmeiti,” affirming liability because יציאתו הנאה לו כביאתו.
- Rava asks if liability for malkot requires a shehiyah of the measure of k'dei hishtachavayah or if any lingering suffices, whereas korban for shogeg is known to require shehiyah; the Gemara leaves it as a teiku. Tosafot explains malkot here despite לאו שאין בו מעשה by treating continued presence as an extension of the initial act (like wearing shaatnez), and alternatively cites the view that לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו; Tosafot also infers that distinct liabilities require an interval at least long enough to exit and reenter, as in Makkot 21.
- Rav Ashi asks if one who became tameh bemezid in the azarah without hatra’ah and is then warned to leave requires shehiyah for malkot or is liable immediately; the Gemara leaves it as a teiku.
- # Exiting the Azarah: Route, Speed, and Pauses
- Abaye asks whether one who takes a derech arukah but runs so fast that his exit time equals the normal short path is exempt. Rava answers, “lo nitnah arukah lehidachot etzlo,” so choosing the longer route never becomes permitted even if he runs.
- Rabbi Zeira asks how tameh shimesh can yield only mitah bidei shamayim and not also karet, given that performing avodah seemingly requires shehiyah. Abaye answers that the case is where he exits by the short path and, on his way out, flips a burning limb with a pitchfork, thereby performing avodah without lingering to k'dei hishtachavayah.
- # Entering a Beit Ha-Menuga Unconventionally
- A baraita teaches that the rooftops of the lishkot lack kedushat ha-azarah, קדשי קדשים are not eaten there, קדשים קלים are not slaughtered there, and a tameh who enters the Heichal via rooftops is exempt, for “ואל המקדש לא תבאו,” restricting liability to entry דרך ביאה.
- The Mishnah’s “זו היא” follows Horayot, which states that Beit Din does not bring “פר העלם דבר של ציבור” for errors on an aseh or lo ta’aseh of the Mikdash, and an individual does not bring an asham talui for those because tum’at mikdash v’kodashav is “עולה ויורד” and not a “חטאת קבועה.” By contrast, for aseh and lo ta’aseh of niddah, Beit Din is liable for “פר העלם דבר של ציבור” and an individual brings an asham talui.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions