Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot Chapter 2

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: יְדִיעוֹת הַטּוּמְאָה כול׳. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. פְּשִׁיטָא בִּידִיעָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁחַיָיב 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 חַיָיב. וְיֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב לְהָבִיא בָהּ קָרְבָּן. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא דְאָמַר. חַיָיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בָּר חִיָיה. הֲוִינָן סָבְרִין 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. חַיָיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. הָדָא אָמְרָה אֲפִילוּ סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר. נֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַיָיב. 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 יוֹדֵעַ אִם חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁתְּהֵא יְדִיעָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. נִיטְמָא וְנַעֲשֶׁה לוֹ הַדָּבָר סָפֵק מָהוּ שֶׁיֵּיעָשֶׂה אֶצְלוֹ כְּהֶעֱלֵם דָּבָר וְיהֵא חַיָיב. דֵּין כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ וְדֵין כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. 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 כַּחַטָּאת כָּאָשָׁם. אֵת שֶׁמֵּבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאת. אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אֵין יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאת. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תַּמָּן אָמַר. יְדִיעַת סָפֵק קוֹבַעַת לְחַטָּאת. וָכָא אָמַר. אֵין יְדִיעַת סָפֵק קוֹבַעַת לְחַטָּאת. תַּמָּן אֲשָׁמוֹ קָבְעוֹ. וָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. 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. 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 וּשְׁנִיָיה בְמֵת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵיר וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵיר. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת וּשְׂנִיָיה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיא. 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 שֶׁקָּדְמָה לְטוּמְאַת הַמֵּת תִּדְחֶה לְטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ וְלִידִיעָתָהּ. וְאֵין שֵׁם לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה אֶצֶל טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. נִטְמָא בְמֵת וְיָדַע בְּשֶׁרֶץ וְלֹא יָדַע וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. בְּהֶעֱלֵימוֹ שֶׁל מֵת חַיָיב. בְּהֶעֱלֵם שֶׁרֶץ פָּטוּר. יָרַד לִטְבּוֹל מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וְנִסְמְכָה לֹו טוּמְאָה קַלָּה עָלְתָה לֹו טוּמְאָה קַלָּה לֵיידָא מִילָּה. שֶׁאִם טָבַל וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ פָּטוּר. יָרַד לִטְבּוֹל מִטּוּמְאָה קַלָּה וְנִסְמְכָה לֹו טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה לֹא עָלְתָה לֹו טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. לֵיי דָא מִילָּה. שֶׁאִם טָבַל וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַיָיב. 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. אַנְדְּרוֹגִינֹס רָאָה לוֹבֶן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ פָּטוּר. רָאָה אוֹדֶם וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ פָּטוּר. רָאָה אוֹדֶם וְלוֹבֶן כְּאֶחָד וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַיָיב. 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 חַיָיב. 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 קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁשְּׁכָחוֹ לָעוֹלָם שְׁבִיל אֶחָד הוּא. אִם שֶׁחָזַר וּשְׁכָחוֹ שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַתְיָיא 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. רַב חִסְדָּא בָעֵי. נִכְנַס לַמִּקָדָּשׁ כְּסָבוּר כְּנֶסֶת מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כֵּן אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים. הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ טוּמְאָה בָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁתְּהֵא יְדִיעָה. אֶלָּא כִּי אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּבָרִיא לֹו שֶׁטָּמֵא וְנֶעֱלָם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. וָכָא בְּבָרִיא לֹו שֶׁהוּא מִקְדָּשׁ וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טוּמְאָה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. רִבִּי יָסַי בָעֵי. אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת בִּידִיעַת קוֹדֶשׁ וְהֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בִּידִיעַת טוּמְאָה וְהֶעֱלֵם קוֹדֶשׁ הֶעֱלֵימוֹת מָהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ.

MISHNAH: The kinds of awareness of impurity are two 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 ( 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. 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 it. 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 awareness? Let us hear from the following 6:7 (the full text later, Note 41 ). : Two paths, one impure and one pure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary, left, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself. 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 liable and he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s 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 pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since a doubt of awareness is awareness. 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 awareness. 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 liable? Each of them keeps to his opinion, as they disagreed: 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 offering . 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. 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? 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. 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 act4:11 (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 state11:2. 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 ( Num. 19:2 ), not to the water which is called מֵי נִדָּה “throwing water”.( 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 sacrifice 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 pure5:1). . The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, 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 domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. 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 abyss9:2 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 awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse 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 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 ( Horaiot 3:3 ). 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. . 3:3, 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. Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal. 11:29 , 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 impurity 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 ( 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 impurity? 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 liable; when he was oblivious of the crawling animal he is not liable. If he went to immerse himself for the severe impurity and the minor impurity was additional, it is counted also for the minor impurity. 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. 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 impurity8a , 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 liable. Therefore not for a severe impurity and a severe impurity was additional. Therefore not for a minor impurity and a minor impurity was additional. If he went to immerse himself for severe impurity and tree limbs and wall extensions were additional7:3 . are these like severe impurity since Rebbi Joḥanan said that for heave all of them are [impure] from the Torah7:3, Note 158 . , or are they like minor impurity since the nazir does not shave because of them cannot shave his hair off because of this impurity. ? An androgynus who saw whitish [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated 6:7 (the full text later, Note 41 ). : “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself. 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 case. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon 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 first. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah. 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 awareness. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge. Rav Ḥisda asked: What is the situation if he entered the Sanctuary thinking it was a synagogue? 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 awareness. 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 Sanctuary. And so if it was clear to him that this was the Sanctuary, he was oblivious of the impurity and entered the Sanctuary. 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 combine7:1 (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 Babli ( Šabbat 70b–71b ), the Galilean participant in the discussion being R. Ze`ira. ?

אֶחָד נִכְנַס לָעֲזָרָה וְאֶחָד נִכְנַס לְתוֹסֶפֶת הָעֲזָרָה שֶׁאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת אֶלָּא כַמֶּלֶךְ וְנָבִיא וְאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים וּכְסַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד וּכִשְׁתֵּי תוֹדוֹת וּבְשִׁיר וּבֵית דִּין מְהַלְּכִין וּשְׁתֵּי תוֹדוֹת אַחֲרֵיהֶן הַפְּנִימִית נֶאֱכֶלֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה נִשְׂרֶפֶת. וְכֹל שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה בְכָל אֵילּוּ הַנִּכְנָס לְשָׁם אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ: אֶחָד נִכְנַס לָעֲזָרָה כול׳. רַב אָמַר. בַּתְּחִילָּה. וַיַּעַל דָּוִד בִּדְבַר גָּד זֶה מֶלֶךְ וְנָבִיא. וַיָּחֶל שְׁלֹמֹה לִבְנוֹת אֶת בֵּית יי בִּירושָׁלִַם אֵילּוּ אוּרִים וְתוּמִּים. וְדָוִד אָבִיהוּ זֶה סַנְהֶדְרִין שְׁאַל אָבִיךָ וְיַגֵּדְךָ. שִׁיר וַיֵּלֶךְ אַחֲרֵיהֶם הוֹשַׁעְיָה וְשָׂרֵי. תּוֹדוֹת וָאַעֲמִידָה שְׁתֵּי תּוֹדוֹת וגו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רִבִּי יוּדָן. מַה כָּתֻב מְהַלְּכוֹת וְלֹא תַהֲלוּכוֹת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה תּוֹרְפַת יְרושָׁלִַם שָׁם וְהָיְתָה יְכוֹלָה לְהִיכָּבֵשׁ מִשָּׁם.

MISHNAH: Whether one entered the courtyard or the addition to the courtyard, because one adds to the city and the temple courtyards only by King and Prophet, and Urim and Tummim , and the Synhedrion of Seventy-One, and two thanksgiving offerings, and song, with the Court walking and the two thanksgiving offerings after them. The inner one is eaten but the outer one is burned. Any [addition] which was not made with all these, one who was entering there is not liable for it. HALAKHAH: “Whether one entered the courtyard,” etc. 1:5 (Notes 288–294 ). The second paragraph is from the end of that Halakhah, Note 326. Its inclusion indicates that all of that Halakhah should be studied here. Rav said, at the start: 24:19 . David ascended following Gad’s word , that is King and Prophet. . 3:1 . Solomon started to build the Temple of the Eternal in Jerusalem , these are Urim and Tummim. . 3:1 . And his father David , this is the Synhedrion, . 32:7 . ask your father and he will tell you. Song, after them went Hoshaia and the officers . 12:32 . . Thanksgiving sacrifices, I put up two thanksgiving sacrifices . 12:31 . . Rebbi Samuel bar Rebbi Yudan said, what is written, walking? No, being in procession. Because it was the vulnerable spot of Jerusalem; it could be conquered from there.”

נִטְמָא בָעֲזָרָה וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַטּוּמְאָה וְזָכוּר לַמִּקְדָשׁ נֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר לַטּוּמְאָה. נֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה. וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁהָה בִכְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. וּבָא לוֹ בָאֲרוּכָּה חַיָּיב וּבַקְּצָרָה פָּטוּר. זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּש שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ: נִיטְמָא בָעֲזָרָה כול׳. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כָּתוֹב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֶת מִשְׁכַּן יְי טִמֵּא וְכָתוּב אַחֵר אוֹמֵר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ יְי טִמֵּא. הָא כֵיצַד. לִיתֵּן חֶלֶק בֵּין לַמִּיטָּמֵא בִפְנִים לַמִּיטָּמֵא בַחוּץ. מִיטָּמֵא בִפְנִים עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיס רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ. מִיטָּמֵא בַחוּץ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא כְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. נִיטְמָא בִפְנִים וְנִכְנָס לִפְנַיי וְלִפְנִים. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁהָה כְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָיה. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁשָּׁהָא לָאו כְמִי שֶׁהִכְנִיס רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ. וְתֵימַר. עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא כְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֳוָיָיה. וָכָא עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא כְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֳוָיָיה. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. עַל אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן מִתְחַיֵיב. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרִין. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֲמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמְרֵי לֵיהּ. צֵא. וְתֵימַר. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. תַּמַּן תַּנִּינָן. הוֹצִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכַּף וְאֶת הַמַּחְתָּה. עַל אֵי זוֹ מִתְחַיֵיב. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי. עַל הָאַחֳרוֹנָה. אֲמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. הִיכָּנֵס. וְתֵימַר. עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין עַל הָרִאשׁוּנָה. שִׁיעוּר הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיָה בָאֲרוּכָּה עֶשְׂרִים וּבַקְּצָרָה עֶשֶׂר. הִילֵּךְ חָמֵשׁ. אִין יֵיזִיל בְּדָא חָמֵשׁ וְאִין יֵיזִיל בְּדָא חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לְעוֹלָם אֵין מִתְחַיֵיב עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אֲרוּכָּה מְרוּבָּה עַל הַקְּצָרָה עֶשֶׂר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיָה בָאֲרוּכָּה שְׁלֹשִׁים וּבַקְּצָרָה עֶשֶׂר. הִילֵּךְ חָמֵשׁ. אִין יֵיזִיל בְּדָא חָמֵשׁ. אִין יֵיזִיל בְּדָא עֶשְׂרִין וְחָמֵשׁ. עַד כַּמָּה הִיא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. עַד כְּדֵי שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ. אַבָּא בַּר הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַד כְּדֵי שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם מִתַּלְמִיד לָרַב. שָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ רִבִּי.

MISHNAH: If one became impure in the Temple courtyard, then was oblivious about impurity but remembered the Sanctuary, [or] was oblivious about the Sanctuary but remembered impurity, [or] was oblivious of both. If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself, or left on a lengthy path, he is liable. But on the shortest path he is not liable; this is the positive commandment in the Sanctuary about which they are not liable2:4 ). . HALAKHAH: “If one became impure in the Temple courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One verse says, he defiled the dwelling place of the Eternal . 19:13 . , another verse says, he defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal . 19:20 . Why is this? To state a difference between one who became inside and one who became outside126, that מִשְׁכָּן describes the movable Tabernacle and מִקְדָּשׁ the permanent Temple. The Babli 16b brings both opinions in the name of R. Eleazar.) . If he became impure (inside) not unless he bring his head and most of his body inside; if he became impure (outside) not unless he stay for prostrating. If he became impure inside and entered further inside? Let us hear from the following: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” If he tarried, is that not as if he brought his head and most of his body inside, but you are saying, “he tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” And here, not unless he tarried that he could have prostrated himself. How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last. There, we have stated: “They removed the cup and the censer for him”5:1 . The reference really is to the end of that Mishnah: “The High Priest takes the censer in his right hand and the cup in the left hand.” In general there is a rule that all priestly service in the Temple has to be performed with the right hand only. The left hand has to be used here to make it possible for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies only once. On that it is noted ( Yoma 5:2 , 42b l. 52) that if he went twice, using only his right hand, the service is valid. Nevertheless, it is sinful to enter the Temple building more often than necessary. About this the paragraph here is then copied in Yoma . . About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the last. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, enter, and you say about the last? But we must hold about the first. The measure of prostrating is ten cubits. How is this? If the lengthy path was twenty but the short one ten. He went five. If he went in this direction, five, if in the other, fifteen. Rebbi Yose said, he never becomes liable unless the lengthy path exceed the short one by (ten). How is that? If the lengthy path was thirty but the short one ten. He went five. If he went in this direction, five, if in the other, twenty-five. What is the duration of prostrating? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another. Abba bar Huna2:1, Note 51 , Nazir 4:1 Note 12 . in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, “peace be with you, my teacher.. 7:3 or at least half of it. ”

אֵי זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּנִּידָּה שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ. הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ נִיטְמֵאתִי וּפֵרַשׁ מִיָּד חַיָּיב שֶׁיְּצִיאָתוֹ הֲנָיָיה לוֹ כְּבִיאָתוֹ: אֵי זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּנִּידָּה כול׳. כָּהֲנָא אָמַר. אִי אֵיפְשַׁר שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה בָהּ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִילָּה וִידִיעָה בַסּוֹף וְהֶעֱלֵם בֵּנְתַיִים. הָתִיב רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבוּדַּיְמִי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְיִהְיוּ כֵן הַמּוֹרִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֲנָן בָּעֵיי נִכְנָסִין וְאַתְּ מַיְיתֵי לָן מוֹרִין. מַאי כְדוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. מִצְוֹת מִצְוֹת. מַה מִצְוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בִּקְבוּעַ אַף כָּאן בִּקְבוּעַ.

MISHNAH: What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman Mishnah 2:4. ? If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately he is liable, for his separation is as pleasurable to him as his entry2:5 Note 69 . . HALAKHAH: “What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman,” etc. 2:5 (Notes 60–63 ) and refers to the statement of the Mishnah there that the High Court never incurs the liability for a purification sacrifice for a wrong decision about the purity of the Sanctuary. It is explained that a purification sacrifice is due only for wrong rulings in matters that require fixed value purification sacrifices, not matters of the Sanctuary which trigger obligations of variable value sacrifices. Cahana said, is it impossible that there was knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon objected before Rebbi Mana: Could that be for the teachers? He told him, we have a problem with those entering and you bring us teachers? What about it? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, commandments, commandments . Since commandments mentioned there are about fixed-value [offerings], here also about fixed-value [offerings].

רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ. עַל הֶעֱלֵם הַשֶּׁרֶץ חַיָּיב וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא טָמֵא עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה חַיָּיב וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים לְחַיֵּיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם הַטּוּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעֱלֵם הַמִּקְדָּשׁ: רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר כול׳. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. מַחֲלוֹקֶת בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה חַיָיב וְלֹא עַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. עַל הֶעֱלֵם שֶׁרֶץ חַיָיב וְלֹא עַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לֹא יָדַע. וָכָא אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיָדַע. תַּמָּן אֲשֶׁר חָטָא בָּהּ. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע בַּמֶּה נִתְחַיָיב. הָכָא וְהוּא טָמֵא מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. וָכָא לֵית כְּתִיב בָּהּ. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. וְהוּא טָמֵא. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע בַּמֶּה נֵיטְמָא. הָכָא אֲשֶׁר חָטָא בָּהּ מִכָּל מָקוֹם. וּמַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בָּהּ. פְּרָט לְמִתְעַסֵּק.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, the crawling animal and he became oblivious 5:2 . , he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Aqiba says, and he became oblivious while he was impure 5:2 . , he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Ismael says, and he became oblivious, and he became oblivious . 5:3 , speaking of impurities generated by the human body. , two times to make him liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary12(7). . HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. Ḥizqiah says, there is disagreement between them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, interpreting the verse is between them; there are Tannaim who state, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary, and there are Tannain who state, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted4:2 where R. Eliezer and R. Joshua disagree in the case that a person knows that he has inadvertently committed a sin which if intentional is either one subject to Divine extirpation or a capital crime, but he does not know which law he broke. Examples are a person who inadvertently ate a piece of meat which either was forbidden fat or disqualified sacrificial meat, or a man who slept with a woman but he does not know whether it was his wife during her menses or his sister. R. Eliezer declares him liable for a fixed value purification sacrifice since in any case he committed a deadly sin; R. Joshua declares him not liable (and therefore prevented from sacrificing) as long as he cannot specify which prohibition he broke. It is implied that in the case of a variable value reparation sacrifice for violation of the purity of the Sanctuary the opinions are switched; R. Eliezer requires knowledge of the kind of impurity (e. g., “a crawling animal”) whereas R. Joshua only requires awareness of impurity. Ḥizqiah would trace R. Aqiba’s opinion to his teacher R. Joshua. . There he says, even if he did not know. But here he says, not unless he knew. There, by which he sinned . 4:23 , the purification sacrifice of the Prince. The verse insist, he became aware of his transgression by which he sinned , he can state the paragraph which he broke. But Lev . 5:2 only requires awareness of impurity. , not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, while he was impure 5:2 . , in all cases. Rebbi Ḥinena said, here “by what” is not written. The argument of Rebbi Joshua seems inverted. . 5:2 as requiring awareness of the nature of his impurity (or, taking vv. 2,3 together, at least certain knowledge of the kind of impurity, whether simple or severe.) But in v. 4:23 and certainly v. 27, the purification sacrifice of a commoner, where it is only required that he sinned inadvertently , can be read as authorization for a sacrifice if only the fact was known that a sin was committed. There he says, while he was impure , not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, by which he sinned, in any case. How does Rebbi Eliezer uphold by what ? This excludes the one who is occupied.