Talmud zu Shevuot 2:4

Everybody agrees that if he brought them inside one by one, he atoned, but he transgresses because of unnecessary entry⁵²An unnecessary entry into the Holiest of Holies is a deadly sin, Lev. 16:2.. About which one does he transgress? The colleagues say, about the last one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to enter and you are saying so? But it is about the first one. There, we have stated⁵³Mishnah Ševuot 2:4 (Note 60). The text there, reported in slightly different formulation, seems to be the correct one: “How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? 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 last.” The improper behavior was that he tarried, not that he entered when pure. This parallels the first case, where the first entry was necessary and therefore legitimate, only the second one is unnecessary and sinful.: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself, or left on a lengthy path, he is liable⁶⁰In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12..” About which one is he liable? The colleagues say, about the first one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to leave and you are saying so? But it is about the last one.

But one never is liable for any positive commandment in the Torah⁶⁴Since the rules for purification sacrifices clearly say that they are for inadvertent violations of prohibitions. Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Paršeta 1(6).! Rebbi Mattaniah said, we only came to state matters similar to the matter⁶⁵The only positive commandments which can lead to the liability for a purification sacrifice are special obligations to take steps to avoid certain prohibitions. The only examples are impurity in the Temple and relations with a menstruating woman; cf. Note 70.. How is that? If he entered the Temple impure, he is liable⁶⁶There are many verses forbidding entry into the holy precinct to impure people, each one for a specific impurity. For impurity of the dead, the sufferer from skin disease, and the sufferer from gonorrhea Num. 5:2 (taking together Num.19:20, Lev. 13:46, 15:15); for the woman after childbirth Lev. 12:4. The general prohibition covering all impurities is Lev. 15:31 as noted in the next paragraph.. If he entered pure but became impure, if he leaves on a long path he is liable, on a short one not liable⁶⁷Babli Ševuot 14b. There and in Nazir3:5 (Note 68) it is stated that the person noticing his impurity must leave in less time than is needed to prostrate himself.. Similarly, if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he leaves on a long path he is liable, on a short one not liable⁶⁸The Babli, Ševuot 18a, last line in the Wilna ed., objects to a time limit in this case while agreeing with the practice as explained in the next paragraph.. What is his shortcut? He shall cool down⁶⁹He must remain immobilized until his erection has disappeared..

If he is still there⁶³Here starts the discussion of the Mishnah. What is the situation of the person who vowed in the cemetery to be a nazir., Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving,⁶⁴R. Joḥanan holds that the vow becomes effective the moment it is uttered. Then the nazir is informed that he has to leave the cemetery immediately (and refrain from wine and shaving). If he does not obey, he can be repeatedly warned and the disregard of every warning is a new, punishable offence. and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves⁶⁵He holds that the vow becomes effective only when the nazir leaves the cemetery. Then also the warning becomes relevant for him and he can be punished if he returns to the cemetery. and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”⁶⁶If Num. 6:6, there is a general prohibition, “to any dead person he shall not come.” In v. 7, there is a particular prohibition; for close relatives “he may not be defiled.” R. Joḥanan interprets this to mean: even in a case where he does not defile himself, because he was defiled before he made the vow, he violates the separate prohibition of v. 6.? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped⁶⁷He reads the verses as they are written. The nazir can be warned, and is whipped, for an active coming to corpses. But nobody can be whipped for a prohibition formulated in the passive voice.. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there⁶⁸Mishnah Šebuot 2:3. A person who comes to the Temple precinct and belatedly remembers that he is impure, has to leave immediately. If he tarries long enough for an act of prostration, he is punished.: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating⁶⁹Where the main thrust of the entire Chapter in the Mishnah is the obligation to bring a sacrifice to purify himself from the inadvertent sin., that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.⁷⁰Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty⁷¹If the nazir actually never stopped drinking the entire day, he could not have been warned more than once. The Mishnah is irrelevant for the statement that separate warnings imply separate punishments.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once⁷⁰Mishnah 6:4. This presupposes that he was warned only once..” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped⁷²He explains the Mishnah, if there was only one warning. But if he was warned repeatedly, each action represents a new offense. (Whether tarrying plays a role in this case remains an open question in the Babli, Šebuot 17a.). A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery⁷³Legitimately, when burying a close relative. and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family⁷⁴Lev. 21:4. The verse really reads: “The husband shall not be defiled for his family, to be profaned,” meaning that the Cohen cannot defile himself for a wife he was forbidden to marry. This implies that he can be defiled only for the benefit of his legal family..” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity⁷⁵If he already is impure, touching another corpse does not change his status. (In the Babli, the Babylonian authorities disagree, 42b.). Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.⁷⁶Num. 6:7 prohibits the nazir from being defiled for his close relatives “in their death”, meaning that he does not have to leave the house when they lie dying, but only after they are dead. The same baraita is quoted in the Babli, 43a.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree⁷⁷The authorities disagreeing with Rebbi require the nazir to leave the house when they lie dying.. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there⁷⁸To avoid that vessels become impure at his death..