Shevuos Daf 17 חג השבועות דַף 17

Several questions are asked about the requirement of שהייה – delaying for a tumah violation. Rava asked: צריך שהייה למלקות – is delaying (enough time to bow) required to become liable to malkus for intentionally staying in the Mikdash after becoming tamei there, or not? לקרבן גמירי שהייה – Did [the Sages] receive the tradition about delaying only regarding the korban for unintentionally delaying, but not for malkus, or perhaps בפנים גמירי שהייה – they received a tradition about delaying for any tumah contracted inside, regardless of whether it is for a korban or malkus? Rava also asked if שהייה is required for one suspended in the airspace of the Mikdash, since he cannot bow there. Rav Ashi asked: טימא עצמו במזיד – if one was metamei himself intentionally in the Mikdash, is שהייה required? Was the tradition only for tumah contracted in the Mikdash באונס, or even במזיד? Finally, he asked if שהייה is required for a nazir who became tamei while on a grave to be liable. Was the tradition only received for tumah בפנים – inside the Mikdash, but not for tumah contracted בחוץ – outside the Mikdash (regarding nazir), or not? All these questions are left unresolved.

The Mishnah on Daf 14b taught that one who became tamei in the Mikdash and exited בארוכה – by a long way is liable for a korban, but if he exited בקצרה – by a short way, he is exempt. Rava says this exemption applies אפילו עקב בצד גודל – even for walking heel beside toe (taking very short steps), ואפילו כל היום כולו – and even if he walked so slowly that exiting took the entire day. Rava asked: שהיות מהו שיצטרפו – do multiple short delays combine for the required delay period for bowing? This cannot be resolved from Rava’s ruling exempting one who took all day to exit, because that may be where he did not pause at all. Abaye asked Rabbah: בא לו בארוכה שיעור קצרה – if he [exited] by a long way in the amount of time normally needed to exit by a short way (i.e., he ran), is he liable? Is ארוכה liable because of the time required, but this person would be exempt, or was the tradition that ארוכה is always liable, and קצרה is exempt? Rabbah answered: לא נתנה ארוכה להדחות אצלו – the long way was not given for him to be overridden, and he is liable even if he ran.

Rebbe Oshaya said: בעינא דאימא מילתא ומסתפינא מחבריא – I want to say something, but I am afraid of my colleagues who may disagree. He wanted to say: הנכנס לבית המנוגע דרך אחוריו – one who entered a house stricken with צרעת walking backwards, ואפילו כולו חוץ מחוטמו – even if all of him entered except his nose, he is tahor, because the passuk says: "והבא אל הבית" – one who comes into the house (shall be tamei), implying: דרך ביאה אסרה תורה – the Torah only “forbade” (was metamei) someone entering normally, not backwards. He was afraid his colleagues would object that if so, he should be tahor even if he completely entered the house!? Rava answered that if he is entirely inside, לא גרע מכלים שבבית – he is no less than utensils which are in the house, which are tamei without “entering” it, because the passuk implies that "כל אשר בבית" – everything in the house becomes tamei. Rebbe Oshaya’s ruling is supported by a Baraisa, which states that a tamei person who entered the היכל through the roof is exempt from kares, because the passuk ואל המקדש לא תבא – and she shall not come into the Mikdash teaches: דרך ביאה אסרה תורה – the Torah only forbade entering normally.