Shevuot 17

We’ve discussed how important it is not to enter the Temple in a state of impurity. But what if a person becomes impure (or realized they are impure) while already in the Temple? In that case, they are required to leave quickly and efficiently. According to a mishnah on yesterday’s daf, if they delay their departure for the amount of time it takes to bow or even if they take a less than perfectly direct route to the exit, they are liable — which means some kind of rectification is necessary, though the mishnah does not say precisely what. On today’s daf, Rava asks a question designed to clarify the answer:

Is tarrying long enough to bow down necessary to incur lashes or is tarrying not necessary to incur lashes?

There are two possible consequences for being in the Temple while impure: a requirement to bring a sacrifice and corporal punishment in the form of lashes. Offering the sacrifice is inevitable in this particular case — but are the lashes? Rava is asking whether a person who doesn’t delay is exempt from those lashes, or not. Teyku, says the Gemara — this question remains an open one.

Rava has another question, this one a bit more far-fetched:

If an impure person suspended himself in the airspace of the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, what is the law?
 
What if a person became impure and rather than leaving the Temple immediately, they found a way to hang in the air, keeping their feet off the ground? Or what if they simply leapt into the air and landed after enough time had passed for them to have bowed? The Gemara explains:
 
When it is learned as a tradition that an impure person is liable for tarrying in the Temple, is this only with regard to tarrying that is suited for bowing? And perhaps with regard to tarrying that is not suited for bowing, as in this case (where the person cannot bow down while suspended in the air) it is not learned as a tradition that one is liable? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that there is liability for tarrying within the Temple, and it is no different whether the tarrying is suited for bowing or not.

Must a person be physically able to bow for the duration of the delay to affect the punishment? If they are standing or walking, bowing is possible. But while suspended in air it is not, so perhaps they are exempt (in that case) for that time spent delaying their departure?
 
Rava’s question feels a bit absurd. While the Talmud does not tell us exactly how long it takes a person to prostrate themselves on the ground, it seems like the process of doing so would take longer than a person could hang in midair, even if they had the abilities of an Olympic high jumper. Perhaps Rava is imagining a person responding to the discovery that they had become impure in the Temple by swinging themselves into a tree or onto the beam of a doorframe, although taking a vertical detour might be reasonably deemed as a non-direct route even if it does not count as a delay. This matter too is left unresolved.

The question is clearly impractical, not only because there was no Temple in Rava’s time, but because the whole scenario is borderline absurd. In this case, just as when it asks about elephants being used as walls of a sukkah, or about a man who falls off a roof and (literally) into a woman, the Talmud seeks to sharpen its understanding of the law by taking all possibilities seriously. It is not relevant whether or not a person can suspend themselves in the air for the time it takes to bow or not; what is important here is spending some time thinking about what the law would be if they could — an exercise that sharpens the mind while also potentially offering a moment of levity.

Read all of Shevuot 17 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on May 18, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.