Shevuot 17A

או דלמא, בפנים גמירי שהייה ⁠– לא שנא לקרבן ולא שנא למלקות? תיקו.

Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary to incur any liability for impurity within the Temple, and it is no different whether the liability is to bring an offering, and it is no different whether it is to receive lashes? The Talmud concludes: The dilemma should stand unresolved.

בעי רבא: תלה עצמו באויר עזרה, מהו? כי גמירי שהייה ⁠– שהייה דבת השתחואה, דלאו בת השתחואה לא גמירי; או דלמא, בפנים שהייה גמירי ⁠– לא שנא דבת השתחואה ולא שנא דלאו בת השתחואה? תיקו.

Rava raises another dilemma: If an impure person suspended himself in the airspace of the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, what is the halakha? 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; but with regard to tarrying that is not suited for bowing, as in this case, where the person cannot bow down as long as he is 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, and it is no different whether the tarrying is not suited for bowing. The Talmud concludes: The dilemma should stand unresolved.

בעי רב אשי: טימא עצמו במזיד, מהו? באונס גמירי שהייה, במזיד לא גמירי שהייה; או דלמא, בפנים גמירי שהייה ⁠– לא שנא באונס ולא שנא במזיד? תיקו.

Rav Ashi also raises a dilemma relating to this matter: If one intentionally rendered himself ritually impure while he was in the Temple courtyard, what is the halakha with regard to tarrying? Is it learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary when one contracts impurity while in the Temple in circumstances beyond his control, but not learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary when he renders himself impure intentionally? Or perhaps it is learned as a tradition that tarrying is necessary for any liability for impurity within the Temple, and it is no different whether the impurity was contracted in circumstances beyond his control, and it is no different whether it was contracted intentionally. The Talmud concludes: The dilemma should stand unresolved.