Question (Rava): If Reuven (became Tamei and) delayed leaving the Mikdash less than the time for Hishtachava'ah (Tosfos - but at least the time needed to leave the Azarah and re-enter), is he lashed?

Does the time for Hishtachava'ah apply only to the obligation to bring a Korban, but not to lashes?

Or, does it apply to anyone who became Tamei in the Mikdash, both regarding a Korban and lashes?

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rava): If Reuven (became Tamei and) suspended himself in the air above the Azarah, what is the law?

Does the time for Hishtachava'ah apply only to one who could bow (but one who could not bow is exempt)?

Or, does it apply to anyone Tamei in the Mikdash, whether or not he can bow?

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rav Ashi): If Reuven b'Mezid became Tamei in the Mikdash, what is the law?

Does the time for Hishtachava'ah apply only to one who became Tamei through Ones (but if he b'Mezid became Tamei, he is liable even if he delays less than this)?

Or, does it apply to anyone Tamei in the Mikdash, whether he became Tamei through Ones or not?

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rav Ashi): If a Nazir in a cemetery delays leaving less than the time for Hishtachava'ah, is he lashed?

Was the time for Hishtachava'ah taught only regarding the Mikdash?

Or, does it apply to anyone who became Tamei through Ones, in the Mikdash or outside?

This question is not resolved.

(Mishnah): If he did not leave on the shortest path, he is liable. If he left on the shortest path, he is exempt.

(Rava): If he left on the shortest path, he is exempt, even if he walked heel to toe, even if he took the entire day to leave.

Question (Rava): If he intermittently pauses and walks, do the delays join up?

Question: Obviously, from Rava's previous law, the delays do not join up!

Answer: No, there he did not delay, rather he was continuously walking very slowly.

Question (Abaye): If he ran out on a longer path, in the same amount of time as if he walked normally on the shortest path, what is the law?

Does the Torah allot a time for him (what he would need walking normally on the shortest path), and he is exempt if he leaves in this time?

Or, is he always liable for taking a longer path, and always exempt if he takes the shortest path?

Answer (Rabah): He is liable for taking a longer path.

Question (R. Zeira): The law is, a Tamei Kohen who served in the Mikdash is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim;

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: He did not delay (the time for Hishtachava'ah).

Rejection: He cannot complete an Avodah in less than this time!

Suggestion: He delayed (the time for Hishtachava'ah.

Rejection: If so, he is Chayav Kares (for delaying leaving). This already includes Misah b'Yedei Shamayim!

Answer #1: If we say that the Torah allots a time for him, and he is exempt if he leaves in this time, we can answer. He did Avodah and ran out, all within the allotted time.

However, if he is always liable for a delay (even if he leaves in the time it would normally take), what is the case?

Answer (and Answer #2 - Abaye): He left on the shortest path and flipped a fork (and thereby turned over limbs burning on the Altar).

(Rav Huna): If a non-Kohen flipped a fork, he is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim (because this is an Avodah).

Question: What is the case of Rav Huna's law?

If the limbs would not have been consumed had he not flipped them, obviously he is liable for Avodah!

If the limbs would have been consumed in any case, he accomplished nothing. Why is he liable?

Answer: The case is, the limbs would have been consumed anyway, but not as soon;

Rav Huna teaches that hastening the Avodah is considered Avodah.

R. Oshaya: I want to teach a law, but I fear lest my colleagues object!

I say that if one enters a house with Tzara'as walking backwards, even if he is entirely inside except for his nose, he is not Tamei. "Veha'Ba El ha'Bayis" discusses only entering normally.

I fear lest my colleagues object that if so, he should be Tahor even if he enters totally!

Rava: That is no objection. If he enters totally, he is Tamei, just like vessels inside become Tamei - "Yitma Kol Asher ba'Bayis"!

Support (Beraisa): One may not eat Kodshei Kodoshim or slaughter Kodshim Kalim on the roofs of the (chambers of the) Azarah;

If a Tamei person entered the Heichal through the roof, he is exempt. "V'El ha'Mikdash Lo Savo" discusses only entering normally.

(Mishnah): This is the Mitzvas Aseh in the Mikdash to which the Korbanos for a mistaken Hora'ah do not apply.

Question: This connotes that the Tana was discussing when the Korbanos for a mistaken ruling apply!

Answer: Our Mishnah is a follow-up to a Mishnah in Horayos:

(Mishnah): Beis Din is not liable for a (mistaken) Hora'ah about a Lav or Aseh in the Mikdash;

One does not bring an Asham Taluy (the Korban for one who is unsure whether or not he must bring a Chatas) for a Lav or Aseh in the Mikdash;

Beis Din is liable for a Lav or Aseh regarding Nidah;

One brings an Asham Taluy for a Lav or Aseh regarding Nidah.

Our Tana teaches that this is the Mitzvas Aseh in the Mikdash to which the Korbanos for Hora'ah do not apply. They do apply to the following Mitzvah Aseh of Nidah;

If a woman told her husband during relations that she felt a flow of blood that makes her a Nidah, if he withdraws (the Ever) immediately (while it is still in erection), he is Chayav (Kares), because withdrawing is pleasurable, just like entrance.

(Abaye citing R. Chiya bar Rav, Rava citing Rav Huna): If he withdrew immediately he must bring two Korbanos, one for relations with a Nidah, and one for withdrawing.

Question (Rava): What is the case?

Suggestion: It was shortly before her Veses (the time she normally menstruates).

Question: Does her husband know the laws?

Answer #1: Yes.

Objection: Granted, he brings a Korban for relations, for he did not sin b'Mezid. He expected to finish relations before she became Nidah.

However, why does he bring a Korban for withdrawing? He sinned b'Mezid!

Answer #2: He does not know the laws.

Objection: Why does he bring two Korbanos? (Since he does not know that one may not have relations with her right before her Veses, even when she told him that she became Nidah, he did not realize his sin. His transgression of withdrawing is not a 'new' mistake.) He is like one who unknowingly ate two olives' worth of Chelev. He brings only one Korban!