Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 17, scan section 32

out knowing it to be such and learns this fact only after he has gone out, he is to bring a foregoing offering. It is immaterial whether the unclean one enters the courtyard (of the temple) or its extension, since extensions are added to both city and courtyard (of the temple) only in the presence of a king, prophet, Urim and Tumim, and of the grand Sanhedrim consisting of seventy-one, two thanks-offerings and the chorus; the whole court of justice steps forth, followed by the two thanks-ofTerings and then all Israel; the inner bread is con- sumed, the outer one is burnt. But whatever has not been con- structed in this manner, does not entail guilt upon him who being unclean enters it. If one having become unclean in the courtyard of the temple forgot it, remembering, however, that he is in the holy temple; or forgot that he is in the temple but was aware of his unclean- ness; or, both facts having escaped his cognition, he made a 17 i8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. bow or was lingering there for an interval taken up by the making of a bow, or went out by the longer way, he is guilty; but if by the short way, he is not guilty. This is a positive command concerning the holy temple, for disobeying of which one is not guilty. And which is the positive command concerning menstrua- tion that entails guilt? If one being in relation with a clean woman is told by her: I have just become unclean, and there- upon immediately interrupts his relation with her, he is guilty, for separation from her affords him as much pleasure as his coming to her. R. Eliezar says: One is guilty for forgetting the cause of his uncleanness to have been a reptile, but is not guilty for forgetting (that he is in) the holy temple. R. Aquiba says (it reads) : If he has become ignorant of being unclean, whence it follows that he is guilty of obliviousness as regards uncleanness but not as regards the holy temple. R. Ismael says: The phrase " it will escape his memory" is repeated twice to declare one guilty in both cases: for forgetting his uncleanness as well as for forgetting the sanctuary. GEMARA: Said R. Papa to Abayi: It states " two divided into four," whereas it ought to be " into six " — viz. : the cogni- tion of defilement of the holy food, and of the sanctuary, in each case antecedent and subsequent. Answered Abayi: According to your theory there ought to be eight subdivisions, as cognition of defilement may be accompanied with ignorance of holy food and of the sanctuary. Rejoined R. Papa: In reality there are eight ; the Mishna, however, does not count the first four, which are not at all found in the Scripture {i.e., the Scripture finds one liable, e.g., for eating illegal fat irrespective of his antecedent cognition or ignorance of its being illegal; he must then bring a sin-offering after becoming aware of the fact, hence, of the pre- ceding cognition there is no mention in the Scripture). " It is immaterial . . . enters the cotirtyard," Qic. Whence is this ceremony attending the extension of courtyards deduced? Said R. Shimi b. Hyye, from [Exod. xxv. 9]: " In accordance with all that I show thee, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it," which last phrase means for the future generations (other- wise this phrase would be superfluous).* " When two thanks-offerings,'' etc. There is a Boraitha that * ]\ablia's objection thereto is already translated in Sanhedrim. TRACT SHEBUOTH (OATHS). ip the tM'o thanks-offerings mean their bread and not flesh. Whence is this deduced? Said R. 'Hisda, from [Neh. xii. 31]: "And I have prepared two large thanks-offerings." Now, what signi- fies the attribute " large" ? Shall we assume that it means liter- ally, then it should read bullocks! Or should it indicate merely that of their kind they were the large ones; now, does it make a difference before heaven? Does not a Boraitha state: Concern- ing a cattle burnt-offering it reads [Lev. i. 13]: "Sweet savor unto the Lord"; the same expression concerns a fowl burnt- offering [ibid., ibid. 17]; likewise concerning a meal offering the same term is used [ibid. ii. 2], which is intended to teach that before heaven all offerings, liberal as well as poor, are equal, provided they are offered to gratify the heavenly Fa- ther? It remains, therefore, to assume that the attribute, large, means simply the greater part of the thanks-offerings, i.e., the leaven bread, as there is a Mishna teaching that the thanks-offering was five Jerusalem saahs large, which are equal to six country saahs, making two eiphas each of three saahs altogether twenty tens, ten of which were leaven and the other ten of matzah. The matzah, however, consisted of three kinds: cakes, wafers, and of what was sodden (hence, the leaven cakes were threefold those of the matzah). Rami b. 'Hama said: The courtyard was sanctified with the remains of a meal-offering only, in order to make it equal to the City of Jerusalem itself — viz. : as the rule about the things eat- able within the city renders them invalid if carried outside the city, so also with things eatable within the courtyard, they become invalid out side of this yard (and a meal-offering was to be eaten only within the courtyard). Now, lest one say that as the city is to be sanctified with the leaven cakes of the thanks- offering, so also the remains of the meal offering sanctifying the courtyard be of leaven, the answer would be that there can be no meal offering of leaven, since it reads [Lev. vi. 10]: " It shall not be baked leaven, as their portion," etc., which Resh Lakish interprets to mean that not even a portion thereof be baked leaven ; hence, the above supposition is impossible. But again, why not sanctify with the two breads of Pentecost which are leaven? Nay; this cannot be admitted either; because how can this be carried out? Supposing the courtyard to be built before Pentecost, then the breads becoming holy only upon the slaugh- tering of the two lambs, are not yet capable of sanctifying; fur- thermore, the sanctification must take place on the day of 20 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. completing the building, hence, the sanctification on the holiday is out of question; nor can it be supposed that the temple be finished on the holiday, since there is a rule that the temple must not violate holidays; finally, to leave the two breads for the morrow of the holiday is not feasible, for they would become invalid in being left over night. But why not leave the finishing until sunset, when the lambs are slaughtered and the breads be- come holy, so that the sanctification could be carried out? The>-e is a tradition that building the temple must not take place in the night time; as Abayi said: We know that the building of the temple must not be completed in the night, from [Numb. ix.