משנה: יְדִיעוֹת הַטּוּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. נִיטְמָא וְיָדַע וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טוּמְאָה וְזָכוּר לַקּוֹדֶשׁ נֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ קוֹדֶשׁ וְזָכוּר לַטּוּמְאָה נֶעְלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה וְאָכַל אֶת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע וּמִשֶּׁאָכַל יָדַע הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. נִיטְמָא וְיָדַע וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַטּוּמְאָה וְזָכוּר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ נֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר לַטּוּמְאָה נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע וּמִשֶּׁיָּצָא יָדַע הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד׃ MISHNAH: The kinds of awareness of impurity are two1Either centered on sancta or the Sanctuary, as detailed in the Mishnah. All violations of the Sanctuary and sancta in a state of oblivion require a sacrifice depending on the wealth of the perpetrator (Leviticus.2.2-13">Lev. 2:2–13). which are four. If one became impure, realized it, then the impurity was forgotten but he was aware of sancta; or sancta were forgotten by him but he remembered impurity; or he forgot both, ate sanctum and realized it after he had eaten: he is obligated for a variable sacrifice.
If one became impure, realized it, the impurity was forgotten but he was aware of the Sanctuary; or the Sanctuary was forgotten by him but he remembered impurity; or he forgot both, entered the Sanctuary and realized it after he had left: he is obligated for a variable sacrifice.
הלכה: יְדִיעוֹת הַטּוּמְאָה כול׳. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. פְּשִׁיטָא בִּידִיעָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁחַייָב לְהָבִיא בָהּ קָרְבָּן. אַף בִּידִיעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה כֵן. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר. הִילֵּךְ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיָצָא וְהִזָּה וְשָׁנָה וְטָבַל וְהִילֵּךְ בַּשֵׁינִי וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַייָב. וְיֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא חַייָב לְהָבִיא בָהּ קָרְבָּן. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא דְאָמַר. חַייָב עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בָּר חִייָה. הֲוִינָן סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר דָּמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּבָרִיא לוֹ שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טוּמְאָה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר וְנֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא. מִמַּה דְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא דְאָמַר. חַייָב עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה אֲפִילוּ סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר. נֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַייָב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא מִשׁוּם סְפֵק יְדִיעָה כִידִיעָה. מָה אִם בָּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם טָמֵא הוּא אִם טָהוֹר אַתְּ אָמַר יְדִיעָה וַדַּאי הִיא. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁטָּמֵא וַדַּאי אֶלָּא אֵינוֹ יוּדֵעַ אִם חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁתְּהֵא יְדִיעָה. HALAKHAH: “The kinds of awareness of impurity,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is obvious about the last awareness, until he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it2Leviticus.5.3">Lev. 5:3 requires a sacrifice if after forgetting about impurity he knew and felt guilty. Since as a general rule no obligatory sacrifice can be offered voluntarily, the verse implies that a variable value sacrifice for violations involving impurity is possible if the offerer can prove that he is liable for the sacrifice.. Is the same true for the first awareness3There can be no forgetting if there was no prior knowledge. Must this prior knowledge be one of certainty or can it be one of possibility?? Let us hear from the following4Shevuot.19a">Babli 19a, Tosephta Ṭahorot 6:7 (the full text later, Shevuot 2:1:10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.2.1.10">Note 41).: Two paths, one impure and one pure. He walked on one of them5It was known that one of the paths passed over a spot where a corpse was buried. The spot is no longer recognizable and people do no longer remember which of the paths it was. Anybody walking on one of the paths is possible impure by forming a “tent” over a corpse., entered the Sanctuary, left, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself6He observed the ritual of removing the impurity of the dead (Numbers.19">Num. 19) by being sprinkled with water containing ashes of the Red Heifer on the 3rd and 7th days and then immersing himself in a miqweh., walked on the second one, and entered the Sanctuary; he is liable7Since he walked both paths, he certainly polluted the Sanctuary by entering while impure. Even though he cannot determine which time he entered while impure, he can be sure that he did it exactly once; this is enough to trigger the obligation of a sacrifice. and he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s8Mishnah 2:6. who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, we thought that one could say that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said this if he was certain that he was impure, he had forgotten the impurity and entered the Sanctuary. But not if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure, he was oblivious of the Sanctuary and entered the Sanctuary. Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary: this implies even if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure9This implies that R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that for R. Aqiba, who admits a variable sacrifice only for cases where impurity was known, forgotten, and remembered, no sacrifice was possible in this case since the impurity was never known. It only is known that the two possibilities both were realized and there is no third alternative.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since a doubt of awareness is awareness10Since we accept the principle of the excluded middle (i.e., a statement is either true or false) a proof that the person could not have been pure both times is proof that he was impure (at least) once. For awareness of impurity no awareness of the exact time of impurity is needed. The Shevuot.19b">Babli (19b) points out that this argument is needed only for variable reparation sacrifices since for purification sacrifices no prior knowledge is required.. Since at a time when he does not know whether he was impure or pure you say it is certain knowledge, if he knows for certain that he is impure but does not know whether he is liable for a sacrifice then certainly this should be awareness11It is irrelevant to him if he does not know when the obligation of a sacrifice started since the competent Temple authority can determine that his obligatory sacrifice is legitimate..
עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. נִיטְמָא וְנַעֲשֶׁה לוֹ הַדָּבָר סָפֵק מָהוּ שֶׁיֵּיעָשֶׂה אֶצְלוֹ כְּהֶעֱלֵם דָּבָר וְיהֵא חַייָב. דֵּין כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ וְדֵין כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, if one became impure but it was for him in doubt, would this be for him like forgetting, which makes him liable12He became impure without noticing it. Then a thought arose in his mind that he might have become impure. He forgot about it, committed an offense against the laws of purity, and finally discovered that he actually had been impure to start with. Does this qualify for the sequence awareness - forgetting - awareness required for a variable sacrifice?? Each of them keeps to his opinion, as they disagreed:
אָכַל חֲמִשָּׁה זֵיתִים וְנוֹדַע לוֹ בְסָפֵק כָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד וְאַחַר כֵן נוֹדַע לוֹ בְּוַדָּאִין. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. יְדִיעַת סָפֵק קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֵין יְדִיעַת סָפֵק קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. מוֹדֶה רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּכֹהֵן מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כַּֽחַטָּאת֙ כָּֽאָשָׁ֔ם. אֵת שֶׁמֵּבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאת. אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אֵין יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאת. 13This is from Horayot 3:2:10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.10">Horaiot 3:2, Notes 40–45, and part of a longer disquisition (Notes 36–45). The quote here starts in the middle and, therefore, is not very intelligible. But in Horaiot the text is complete and completely intelligible. One ate five times the volume of an olive; he separately realized a doubt about each one. Afterwards it became known to him as a certainty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of sacrifices. Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that for the Anointed Priest the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of purification sacrifice. What is the reason? Like purification offering, like reparation offering14Leviticus.7.7">Lev. 7:7.. The knowledge about his doubt determines the transgression for one who brings a suspended reparation offering. The knowledge about his doubt does not determine the transgression for one who does not bring a suspended reparation offering.
מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תַּמָּן אָמַר. יְדִיעַת סָפֵק קוֹבַעַת לְחַטָּאת. וָכָא אָמַר. אֵין יְדִיעַת סָפֵק קוֹבַעַת לְחַטָּאת. תַּמָּן אֲשָׁמוֹ קָבְעוֹ. וָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted. There he says, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression. But here he says, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression. There, his reparation offering determines it. Here what do you have?
מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר. נִתְכַּפֵּר מִקְצָת הַחֵט נִתְכַּפֵּר כּוּלּוֹ. וָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶלָּא בִידִיעָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ חִיוּב קָרְבָּן. The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There, he said, if part of the sin was atoned, all of the sin was atoned. And here he says so? Rebbi Joḥanan said this only for the last realization which does not require any sacrifice.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל־סְפֵיק רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר. וְאֵין מַתִּירִין לוֹ לַעֲשׁוֹת. וְהָתַנִּינָן. כָּל סָפֵק הַטָּהוֹר לִתְרוּמָה טָהוֹר לְחַטָּאת וְכָל־הַתָּלוּי לִתְרוּמָה נִשְׁפָּךְ לְחַטָּאת. אֵין תָּלוּי בַחַטָּאת אֶלָּא אוֹ טָמֵא מַמָּשׁ אוֹ טָהוֹר מַמָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. מַתְנִיתָא בְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא מַחְמַת הַזֶּבַח. מַה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּדָבָר שֶׁבָּא מַחְמַת הַזֶּבַח. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם עָבַר וְעָשָׂה טָהוֹר. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן אָמַר. עָבַר וְעָשָׂה טָמֵא. וָכָא אָמַר. עָבַר וְעָשָׂה טָהוֹר. כָּאן בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד כָּאן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר כָּאן וְכָאן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. נָזִיר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בְטוּמְאַת קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ. וְהָא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִשּׁוּם סְפֵק יְדִיעָה כִּידִיעָה. וַאֲפִילוּ רִאשׁוֹנָה בְשֶׁרֶץ וּשְׁנִייָה בְמֵת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּייֵר וְהַשְּׁנִייָה מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּייֵר. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת וּשְׂנִייָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיא. Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act15It is stated in Mishnah Ṭahorot4:11 (and made explicit there in Chapters 5–6) that any doubt which arises in the public domain whether something there is impure can be disregarded. Rebbi Joḥanan’s new statement is that even though this is accepted practice, one does not teach this and if a person comes to ask about it, one does not say that the thing is pure.. But did we not state16Parah11:2. While in general the rules of purity for the water in which ashes of the Red Cow are to be dissolved to purify from the impurity of the dead are very strict, if for heave something is declared pure, such as a doubt of impurity arising in the public domain, it also must be declared pure for the sprinkling water. But if judgment is suspended, i. e., if the heave may not be eaten by a Cohen for perhaps it is impure (when its consumption would be a deadly sin), but it cannot be burned for perhaps it is pure and then the destruction of sancta would be sinful, the water is considered impure and must be poured out on the ground to avoid further pollution.
The expression חַטָּאת biblically refers to the Red Cow (Numbers.19.2">Num.19:2), not to the water which is called מֵי נִדָּה “throwing water”.(Numbers.19.20-21">Num. 19:20–21).: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice17Since the Mishnah in Parah instructs the carrier of purifying water to disregard any doubt arising in the public domain, the instruction of R. Joḥanan that one does not allow anybody to act on this rule cannot be maintained. The answer is that R. Joḥanan stated his rule only for sancta of the Sanctuary; for all sancta not connected with the Sanctuary it is a publicly stated rule that a doubt in the public domain has to be disregarded.. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure18Only if somebody acted as if it was pure and after the fact comes to ask a rabbinic authority, one has to declare the matter as pure even in the Sanctuary. “Everybody” includes R. Aqiba who in certain cases declares such a doubt as causing impurity (Ṭahorot5:1).. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There19Later in this paragraph, when he declares that a nazir, who is forbidden to become impure by the impurity of the dead, must treat a certain case of doubt of impurity as a case of certain impurity., he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain20And everybody agrees that in a private domain any doubt of impurity has to be treated as certainty of impurity.. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain21Following R. Ze`ira.. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss22A corpse, visibly the victim of an accident not seen by witnesses and found buried in straw or pebbles or other loose material. One may assume that the corpse was buried by the accident, rather than humans. Nazir 9:2:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.9.2.4">Nazir9:2 Notes 59ff., Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness10Since we accept the principle of the excluded middle (i.e., a statement is either true or false) a proof that the person could not have been pure both times is proof that he was impure (at least) once. For awareness of impurity no awareness of the exact time of impurity is needed. The Shevuot.19b">Babli (19b) points out that this argument is needed only for variable reparation sacrifices since for purification sacrifices no prior knowledge is required., even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse23While everybody agrees that the nazir is impure if it should become clear that he passed by after the accident and therefore violated the terms of his vow, in R. Simeon ben Laqish’s view the verse Numbers.6.9">Num. 6:9 clearly requires that the nazir be aware of his impurity at the moment it happens to be required to shave and start the ceremony described there. This makes the rules of nazir parallel to the rules of the variable sacrifice which also presuppose prior knowledge (Horayot 3:2:2-5:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.2-5.7">Horaiot3:3). But for R. Joḥanan, any awareness of any impurity, even a minor one which can be remedied by simple immersion in water, is counted as full awareness of impurity.. 24These two sentences have no place here; they are copied from Horaiot3:3, Notes 76,77. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.
נִיטְמָא בְמֵת וְיָדַע בְּשֶׁרֶץ וְלֹא יָדַע. אֵין שֵׁם טוּמְאָה קַלָּה אֶצֶל טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. נִיטְמָא בְמֵת וְלֹא יָדַע. בְּשֶׁרֶץ וְלֹא יָדַע. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לֹו עַל הַשֶּׂרֶץ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ עַל הַמֵּת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹדַע לוֹ עַל הַשֶּׁרֶץ תְּחִילָּה כְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ טוּמְאָה קַלָּה אֶצֶל חֲמוּרָה. אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּֽדְמָה לְטוּמְאַת הַמֵּת תִּדְחֶה לְטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ וְלִידִיעָתָהּ. וְאֵין שֵׁם לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה אֶצֶל טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. נִטְמָא בְמֵת וְיָדַע בְּשֶׁרֶץ וְלֹא יָדַע וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. בְּהֶעֱלֵימוֹ שֶׁל מֵת חַייָב. בְּהֶעֱלֵם שֶׁרֶץ פָּטוּר. יָרַד לִטְבּוֹל מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וְנִסְמְכָה לֹו טוּמְאָה קַלָּה עָֽלְתָה לֹו טוּמְאָה קַלָּה לֵיידָא מִילָּה. שֶׁאִם טָבַל וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ פָּטוּר. Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal25One of the eight animals, reptile or rodent, mentioned in Leviticus.11.29">Lev. 11:29,Leviticus.11.30">30, whose carcass makes a person impure by contact. The impurity is removed by immersion in a sufficient amount of water and the following sundown. Therefore this is considered a minor impurity in contrast with the impurity induced by a corpse (or leprosy and some bodily discharges) which need elaborate ceremonies of purification. and did not know it. The minor impurity is not mentioned with the severe impurity26A violation of the purity of the Sanctuary or its sancta can be remedied by a (variable value) sacrifice only if there had been prior awareness of the impurity but oblivion at the moment of the violation (Shevuot 2:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.2.1.1">Note 1). If the person enters the Sanctuary oblivious of his impurity but having had prior knowledge of his severe impurity, his having no knowledge of the minor impurity does not invalidate his knowledge of severe impurity; he is liable for a variable value sacrifice.. Somebody became impure through a corpse and did not know it; by a crawling animal and did not know it. Then it became known to him about the crawling animal, and after that it became known to him about the corpse. Since it first became known to him about the crawling animal, is there minor impurity together with the severe one, or since the impurity of the corpse preceded, should the impurity of the crawling animal and the knowledge about it be pushed aside so that the minor impurity not be mentioned with the severe impurity27One must assume that he entered the Sanctuary having had knowledge but momentarily being oblivious of his minor impurity but before becoming aware of his severe impurity. Before he brought his sacrifice he became aware of the prior severe impurity. If he had not become aware, clearly he would be liable for a variable sacrifice. For the violation of the purity of the Sanctuary by his severe impurity he cannot bring a sacrifice since he had no prior awareness. Does he still have to bring the sacrifice for the minor impurity or does his inability to bring one for the severe impurity disable him from bringing the one for simple impurity? No answer is given.? Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal and did not know it, and entered the Sanctuary. When he was oblivious of the corpse he is liable28All conditions for a variable value sacrifice are satisfied; the minor impurity which was unknown to him cannot interfere with the sacrifice for the severe violation.; when he was oblivious of the crawling animal he is not liable29Since he never had prior awareness of this impurity by the time he entered the Sanctuary, the basic conditions for a sacrifice are missing.. If he went to immerse himself for the severe impurity and the minor impurity was additional, it is counted also for the minor impurity30Since the purification from the impurity of the dead at the end also requires immersion (Numbers.19.19">Num. 19:19), the latter automatically eliminates the minor impurity even if the minor impurity was not on his mind while he was immersing himself.. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is not liable.
יָרַד לִטְבּוֹל מִטּוּמְאָה קַלָּה וְנִסְמְכָה לֹו טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה לֹא עָֽלְתָה לֹו טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. לֵיי דָא מִילָּה. שֶׁאִם טָבַל וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַייָב. הָא מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וְנִסְמְכָה לֹו טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה לֹא. הָא מִטּוּמְאָה קַלָּה וְנִסְמְכָה לֹו טוּמְאָה קַלָּה לֹא. יָרַד לִטְבּוֹל מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וְנִסְמְכוּ לֹו סְכָכוֹת וּפְרָעוֹת. מֵאַחַר דָּמַר רִבִּי יֹוחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כּוּלְּהוֹן תּוֹרָה הֵן אֶצֶל תְּרוּמָה. כְּמִי שֶׁהִיא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עֲלֵיהֶם כְּמִי שֶׁהִיא טוּמְאָה קַלָּה. If he went to immerse himself for a minor impurity and a severe impurity was additional, it does not count for him for the severe impurity31While it is possible to cleanse oneself from multiple impurities with one immersion (Keritot.8a">Babli Keritut8a, bottom), the immersion is effective only for those for which it is done. The only exception is a minor impurity if the immersion is for a severe one without thinking of the minor one.. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is liable32For a variable value sacrifice because of the desecration of the Sanctuary by the severe impurity.. Therefore not for a severe impurity and a severe impurity was additional33For impurities of equal severity awareness of the impurity is indispensable.. Therefore not for a minor impurity and a minor impurity was additional33For impurities of equal severity awareness of the impurity is indispensable.. If he went to immerse himself for severe impurity and tree limbs and wall extensions were additional34Impurity of the dead is spread not only by contact but also by “tent”. A person being under the same roof with a corpse in general becomes severely impure. A roof does not have to be man made. A tree under which a corpse or parts of a corpse are lying forms a tent in this sense. The same holds for outcropping of rocks or stone walls or bushes that grow in crevasses of stone walls. It is assumed here that the person underwent the full ceremony of cleansing from the impurity of the dead while not being aware that he also had passed under such a tree or outcropping. Nazir 7:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.7.3.1">Mishnah Nazir7:3. are these like severe impurity since Rebbi Joḥanan said that for heave all of them are [impure] from the Torah35Nazir 7:3:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.7.3.3">Nazir7:3, Note 158., or are they like minor impurity since the nazir does not shave because of them36If a person walked under such a tree limb or wall extensions where a piece of a corpse of at least the size of an olive might be buried, he becomes possibly impure by the severe impurity of the dead but as long as this is only a possibility, not a certainty at the moment of his passing by, a nazir cannot shave his hair off because of this impurity.?
אַנְדְּרוֹגִינֹס רָאָה לוֹבֶן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ פָּטוּר. רָאָה אוֹדֶם וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ פָּטוּר. רָאָה אוֹדֶם וְלוֹבֶן כְּאֶחָד וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַייָב. אִית תַּנַּי תַנֵּיי פָטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא דְתַנֵּי. שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין אֶחָד טָהוֹר וְאֶחָד טָמֵא. הִילֵּךְ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְהִוזָּה וְשָׁנָה וְטָבַל. בַּשֵׁינִי וְנִכְנַס חַייָב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר בָּזֶה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה פוֹטֵר בְּכוּלָּן מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. נִיחָא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינֹס גַּבֵּי לֹובֶן אַתְּ עֲבַד לֵיהּ אִשָּׁה. גַּבֵּי אוֹדֶם אַתְּ עֲבַד לֵיהּ אִישׁ. בְּרַם הָכָא אֵין כָּאן טוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר סוֹסַרְטַי. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁשָׁכַח לָרִאשׁוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָעֵי. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּשֶׁשְּׁכָחוֹ לָעוֹלָם שְׁבִיל אֶחָד הוּא. אִם שֶׁחָזַר וּשְׁכָחוֹ שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַתְייָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה כְּמַה דְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אָמַר תַּמָּן. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע אִם בְּשֶׁרֶץ נִיטְמָא אִם בְּמֵת כֵּן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר כָּאן. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע אִם בְּאוֹדֶם נִיטְמָא אִם בְּלוֹבֶן. נִיחָא תַמָּן מִשּׁוֹם דְּאָמַר. סְפֵק יְדִיעָה כִּידִיעָה. בְּרַם הָכָא מִכֵּיוָן דְּחָזָא לוֹבֶן וְאוֹדֶם כְּאֶחָד יְדִיעָה וַדַּאי הִיא. An androgynus37He has both male and female genitals, a penis with testicles and a vagina. It is not known whether he is male or female. who saw whitish [effluent]38Gonorrheal discharges from his penis. This causes severe impurity in a male. Similar discharges from a female’s urethra are pure. and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent]39Menstrual blood causes impurity to a woman; prolonged discharge causes severe impurity. No flow of blood causes impurity in a male. and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable40Since he is impure both as a male and a female, he is impure and forbidden access to the Sanctuary.. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated4Shevuot.19a">Babli 19a, Tosephta Ṭahorot 6:7 (the full text later, Shevuot 2:1:10" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shevuot.2.1.10">Note 41).: “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them5It was known that one of the paths passed over a spot where a corpse was buried. The spot is no longer recognizable and people do no longer remember which of the paths it was. Anybody walking on one of the paths is possible impure by forming a “tent” over a corpse., entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself6He observed the ritual of removing the impurity of the dead (Numbers.19">Num. 19) by being sprinkled with water containing ashes of the Red Heifer on the 3rd and 7th days and then immersing himself in a miqweh., on the second one and entered; he is liable. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in this case41He holds that the knowledge of a doubt is not the certain knowledge which triggers the liability for a sacrifice for impurity in the Sanctuary. Since between the two occasions he removed the possible impurity from the first path, it could be that the second time he was perfectly pure entering the Sanctuary.. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon42This is the correct text of the Tosephta as seen from R. David Pardo’s commentary (Jerusalem 1977).
While R. Simeon following the first quote would agree with the anonymous Tanna if there was no purification in between the two entries, R. Simeon ben Jehudah holds that no logical argument (either, or, and no third possibility) satisfies the requirement of direct awareness. declares him not liable in all cases.” One understands the androgynus, for whitish [effluent] you declare him to be a woman, for red [effluent] you declare him to be a man. But here there is no known impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if he forgot the first43Since another requirement for the sacrifice was the element of forgetting, he must have forgotten about the possible first impurity both times he entered the Sanctuary. There is no certain knowledge preceding any of the two occasions according to both versions of R. Simeon’s position.. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path44Since nobody can bring a personal sacrifice for a sin unknown to him; as long as he realizes only one incident there is only a possibility, not certain knowledge, of a violation of the Sanctuary’s sanctity. But offenses to be atoned for by a variable sacrifice do not qualify for suspended reparation offerings; no sacrifice is possible.. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah45In Mishnah 7, R. Eliezer and R. Aqiba both hold that not being unaware of the Sanctuary but being unaware of impurity triggers the obligation of a variable sacrifice. In Halakhah 2:6, Ḥizqiah holds that they disagree in that R. Eliezer requires prior awareness of the kind of impurity but R. Aqiba only of the fact of impurity.. Just as Rebbi Eliezer said there, until he knows whether he did become impure by a crawling animal or a corpse, so Rebbi Simeon says here, until he knows whether he did become impure by red [effluent] or by whitish. One understands there since he said, a doubt of awareness is awareness10Since we accept the principle of the excluded middle (i.e., a statement is either true or false) a proof that the person could not have been pure both times is proof that he was impure (at least) once. For awareness of impurity no awareness of the exact time of impurity is needed. The Shevuot.19b">Babli (19b) points out that this argument is needed only for variable reparation sacrifices since for purification sacrifices no prior knowledge is required.. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge46There is nothing unclear here about the facts of impurity, only about the person’s body. Both impurities are body- produced; they fall in the same category..
רַב חִסְדָּא בָעֵי. נִכְנַס לַמִּקָדָּשׁ כְּסָבוּר כְּנֶסֶת מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כֵּן אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים. הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ טוּמְאָה בָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁתְּהֵא יְדִיעָה. אֶלָּא כִּי אֲנָן קַייָמִין בְּבָרִיא לֹו שֶׁטָּמֵא וְנֶעֱלָם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. וָכָא בְּבָרִיא לֹו שֶׁהוּא מִקְדָּשׁ וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טוּמְאָה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. Rav Ḥisda asked: What is the situation if he entered the Sanctuary thinking it was a synagogue47He knows that he is impure and knows that as such he may not enter the sanctuary but he does not recognize the Sanctuary. The question can be asked only according to R. Ismael (Mishnah 6).? Rebbi Yose said, the following is what we are saying: One knew that there exists impurity in the world but he did not know whether one is liable for a sacrifice because of it, that certainly is awareness48Since there was awareness of impurity, his ignorance of the law is irrelevant.. But the following is where we hold, if it was clear to him that he was impure but he was oblivious of the Sanctuary, and he entered the Sanctuary49For R. Ismael he is liable for a sacrifice but not for RR. Eliezer and Aqiba.. And so if it was clear to him that this was the Sanctuary, he was oblivious of the impurity and entered the Sanctuary50He is liable for a sacrifice according to all opinions..
רִבִּי יָסַי בָעֵי. אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת בִּידִיעַת קוֹדֶשׁ וְהֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בִּידִיעַת טוּמְאָה וְהֶעֱלֵם קוֹדֶשׁ הֶעֱלֵימוֹת מָהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָֽרְפוּ. Rebbi Yose asked: If one ate half the volume of an olive being aware of the Sanctuary but oblivious of impurity and about half the volume of an olive being aware of impurity but oblivious of the Sanctuary; do the oblivions combine51This question is not answered here. It is asked again in Šabbat7:1 (9b l. 46) where it is not answered either. But there the question is compared to one whether violations of the Sabbath combine if both are small so as not to trigger the obligation of a purification sacrifice, the one made in oblivion of the Sabbath Day but awareness of the categories of forbidden work, the other in awareness of the Sabbath but oblivion of the categories of forbidden work. The latter question is not answered in the Yerushalmi either but it is discussed at length in the Shabbat.70b-71b">Babli (Šabbat70b–71b), the Galilean participant in the discussion being R. Ze`ira.?