Shevuot 14
בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. בַּמָּה הֵם מִתְכַּפְּרִין? מוּטָב שֶׁיִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּפָרוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ אֵצֶל בֵּיתוֹ; וְאַל יִתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּשָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ.
for their defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. Through which means, then, do they achieve atonement for this? Is it through the internal goat or the bull of Aaron? It is better to say that they achieve atonement through the bull of Aaron, as in any event with regard to his household an exception was made to its rule that it atones only for Aaron. And one should not say that they achieve atonement through the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, as it is not found that with regard to Aaron’s household an exception was made to its rule.
וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר – הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בֵּית אַהֲרֹן בָּרְכוּ אֶת ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״.
And if it is your wish to say that this reasoning can be refuted, one can bring another proof, as it states: “House of Aaron, bless the Lord,” which is referring to all priests and not just to Aaron’s immediate household, and so it is reasonable that Aaron’s bull should atone for them.
וּמַאי ״אִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא ״בֵּיתוֹ״ כְּתִיב – כּוּלָּן קְרוּיִין ״בֵּיתוֹ״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בֵּית אַהֲרֹן בָּרְכוּ אֶת ה׳, יִרְאֵי ה׳ בָּרְכוּ אֶת ה׳״.
The Gemara clarifies the last part of the baraita: And what possible refutation is the baraita referring to when it says: If it is your wish to say that this reasoning can be refuted? The Gemara explains: And if you would say of the preceding proof that it is incorrect to suggest that all priests achieve atonement from the bull of Aaron, as with regard to it the term: “His household” (Leviticus 16:6), is written, which suggests that it atones only for his immediate family, then this can be refuted, as all of the priests are collectively referred to as his household, as is evident from that which is stated: “House of Aaron, bless the Lord; house of Levi, bless the Lord, those who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.”
וְהַאי ״אֲשֶׁר לָעָם״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: מִדְּעַם לֶיהֱוֵי! הָהוּא מִ״וּמֵאֵת עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ נָפְקָא.
The Gemara questions some of the expositions of the baraita: And with regard to this phrase: “Goat of the people” (Leviticus 16:15), does it come to teach that which the baraita teaches, i.e., that the priests do not achieve atonement through it? But that phrase is necessary to teach that the Merciful One states that the goat must be purchased with funds collected from the people. The Gemara refutes this: That requirement is derived from the verse: “And from the assembly of the children of Israel he shall take two goats” (Leviticus 16:5).
וְהַאי ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ – לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִשֶּׁלּוֹ הוּא מֵבִיא, וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר.
The Gemara asks further: And with regard to this phrase: “His own bull sin-offering” (Leviticus 16:6), does it come to teach that which the baraita teaches, i.e., that it atones only for Aaron’s transgressions, not for the transgressions of others? But that phrase is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The High Priest brings, i.e., purchases, the bull from his own funds, but he does not bring it from funds collected from the public.
יָכוֹל לֹא יָבִיא מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר, שֶׁאֵין הַצִּבּוּר מִתְכַּפְּרִין בּוֹ; אֲבָל יָבִיא מִשֶּׁל אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים, שֶׁאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מִתְכַּפְּרִין בּוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״. יָכוֹל לֹא יָבִיא, וְאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שׁוּב ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ – הַכָּתוּב שָׁנָה עָלָיו לְעַכֵּב.
One might have thought that he does not bring it from funds collected from the public because the public does not achieve atonement through it, but he may bring it from funds belonging to his brethren the priests because his brethren the priests achieve atonement through it. To counter this, the verse states: “His own bull sin-offering,” to indicate that he must purchase it using only his own funds. One might have thought that he should not bring it from others’ funds, but nevertheless, if he did it would still be valid. To counter this, the verse again states “his own.” The verse repeats the phrase to render the requirement essential.
תַּנָּא הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: מַאי שְׁנָא בִּדְעַם – דְּלָא מִכַּפְּרִי, דְּלָא קָא חָסְרִי בֵּיהּ מָמוֹנָא, דִּכְתִיב ״אֲשֶׁר לָעָם״; בִּדְאַהֲרֹן נָמֵי לָא קָא חָסְרִי בֵּיהּ מָמוֹנָא! וְקָאָמַר: כּוּלָּן קְרוּיִין ״בֵּיתוֹ״.
If both mentions of the phrase “his own” are necessary to teach about the ownership of the bull, how can the above baraita suggest that the phrase indicates that the bull atones only for the High Priest’s transgressions? The Gemara explains: This is what is difficult for the tanna of the baraita: What is different about the goat of the people that explains why it does not atone for the priests? The difference is that the priests did not forfeit any money over the purchase of it. Therefore, it does not atone for the priests, but only for the Israelites, as it is written with regard to the internal goat: “Of the people.” With regard to the bull of Aaron as well, the priests do not forfeit any money over the purchase of it, so it follows that they should not achieve atonement through it. And therefore, to explain why they do achieve atonement, the baraita states that all of the priests are collectively referred to as: His household.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב תְּרֵי וִידּוּיִן וְדַם הַפָּר, חַד כְּנֶגֶד שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים, וְחַד כְּנֶגֶד שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ, וְחַד כְּנֶגֶד שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ;
§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the priests do not achieve atonement through the scapegoat, that is why it is written in the Torah that two confessions are to be recited over the bull and that the blood of the bull is to be presented inside the Sanctuary: Of these three forms of atonement, one corresponds to the atonement provided by the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary, one corresponds to the atonement provided by the goat whose blood presentation is performed outside the Sanctuary, and one corresponds to the atonement provided by the scapegoat.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, תְּרֵי וִידּוּיִן וְדַם הַפָּר לְמָה לִי? בְּחַד וִידּוּי וְדָמוֹ סַגְיָא!
But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the priests do achieve atonement through the scapegoat, why do I need the two confessions recited over the bull and the blood of the bull to be presented inside the Sanctuary? One confession over the bull and its blood being presented inside the Sanctuary would be sufficient.
אֶחָד לוֹ, וְאֶחָד לְבֵיתוֹ. כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּךְ הִיא מִדַּת הַדִּין נוֹהֶגֶת: מוּטָב יָבוֹא זַכַּאי וִיכַפֵּר עַל הַחַיָּיב, וְאַל יָבוֹא חַיָּיב וִיכַפֵּר עַל הַחַיָּיב.
The Gemara answers: Two confessions are necessary, one for the High Priest himself, and one for his household, i.e., the priests, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The High Priest must first confess his own transgressions and only afterward those of the priests, because that is how the attribute of justice functions: It is better that the innocent come and atone for the guilty, than that the guilty come and atone for the guilty. When the High Priest confesses the transgressions of those in his house, it is better that he already be considered innocent, having confessed and been absolved of his own transgressions.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם
מַתְנִי׳ יְדִיעוֹת הַטּוּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע: נִטְמָא וְיָדַע, וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַטּוּמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ;
MISHNA: With regard to cases of awareness of the defiling of the Temple by entering it while one is ritually impure, or defiling its sacrificial foods by partaking of them while one is ritually impure, there are two types that are actually four. How so? If one became ritually impure and he was aware that he was impure, but afterward his impurity was hidden from him, though he remembered that he was partaking of sacrificial food, which is forbidden to one who is in a state of ritual impurity; this is one of the four types of awareness of impurity.
נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְזָכוּר אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה; נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה; וְאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע, וּמִשֶּׁאָכַל יָדַע – הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד.
If the fact that he was partaking of sacrificial food was hidden from him, though he remembered the ritual impurity that he had contracted; this is the second of the four types of awareness of impurity. And the same halakha applies if both this and that were hidden from him, both the fact that he was impure and the fact that he was partaking of sacrificial food. In all these cases, if he partook of the sacrificial food and was unaware either that he was impure, or that the food was sacrificial food, or both, and after he partook of it he became aware of that which he had forgotten, he is required to bring a sliding-scale offering. In this type of offering, the sinner sacrifices an animal, bird, or meal-offering, depending on his financial status.
נִטְמָא וְיָדַע, וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טוּמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ; נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה; נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה; וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע, וּמִשֶּׁיָּצָא יָדַע – הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד.
And similarly with regard to entering the Temple: If one became ritually impure and he was aware that he was impure, but afterward his impurity was hidden from him, though he remembered that he was entering the Temple, which is prohibited for one who is in a state of ritual impurity; this is the third of the four types of awareness of impurity. If the fact that he was entering the Temple was hidden from him, though he remembered the ritual impurity that he had contracted; this is the fourth type of awareness of impurity. And the same halakha applies if both this and that were hidden from him, both the fact that he was impure and the fact that he was entering the Temple. In all these cases, if he entered the Temple and was unaware either that he was impure, or that he was entering the Temple, or both, and after he left he became aware of what was hidden from him, he is required to bring a sliding-scale offering.
אֶחָד הַנִּכְנָס לָעֲזָרָה וְאֶחָד הַנִּכְנָס לְתוֹסֶפֶת הָעֲזָרָה, שֶׁאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת אֶלָּא בְּמֶלֶךְ וְנָבִיא וְאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים וְסַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, וּבִשְׁתֵּי תּוֹדוֹת וּבְשִׁיר.
As for the boundaries of the Temple with regard to the halakhot of impurity, the same halakha applies to one who enters the area that was part of the original Temple courtyard and to one who enters the later addition to the Temple courtyard, because the additional section is sanctified with the full sanctity of the Temple courtyard. The mishna notes: As, additions can be made to the city of Jerusalem or to the Temple courtyards only by a special body comprising the king, a prophet, the Urim VeTummim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, and with two thanks-offerings and with a special song. Once the addition to the courtyard is made by this body and this process, it is given the full sanctity of the original courtyard area.
וּבֵית דִּין מְהַלְּכִין, וּשְׁתֵּי תּוֹדוֹת אַחֲרֵיהֶן, וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵיהֶם.
The mishna provides certain details of the consecration ceremony. And the court would move forward, and two thanks-offerings would be brought after them, and all of the Jewish people would follow behind them.
הַפְּנִימִית נֶאֱכֶלֶת, וְהַחִיצוֹנָה נִשְׂרֶפֶת. וְכׇל שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֵׂית בְּכׇל אֵלּוּ – הַנִּכְנָס לְשָׁם אֵין חַיָּיב עָלֶיהָ.
When they would reach the end of the place that they desired to consecrate, the inner thanks-offering would be eaten and the outer one would be burned. The details of this ceremony will be described in the Gemara. And with regard to any addition to the Temple that was not made with all these ceremonial procedures, one who enters there while ritually impure is not liable to bring an offering if his entry was unwitting, nor to be punished with karet, excision from the World-to-Come, if his entry was intentional.
נִטְמָא בָּעֲזָרָה, וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טוּמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ; נֶעְלַם הֵימֶנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר הַטּוּמְאָה; נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה; וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁהָה בִּכְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה אוֹ בָּא לוֹ בָּאֲרֻוכָּה – חַיָּיב. בַּקְּצָרָה – פָּטוּר.
The first part of the mishna discussed one who became ritually impure before entering the Temple. The mishna proceeds to consider a case involving one who was ritually pure when he entered the Temple but who became impure while in the Temple courtyard, and afterward, his impurity was hidden from him but he remembered that he was standing in the Temple, or the fact that he was standing in the Temple was hidden from him but he remembered his impurity, or both this fact and that fact were hidden from him. In all these cases, if he bowed down, or he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down even though he did not actually bow, or he went out by way of a longer route when he could have taken a shorter route, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. But if he left the Temple via the shortest way, he is exempt.
זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ.
This mitzva that the ritually impure must be sent out of the Temple is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which, as is taught elsewhere in the Mishna (Horayot 8b), the Sanhedrin is not liable to bring an offering for an erroneous ruling. A communal bull sin-offering is brought because of the unwitting transgression of a prohibition involving an action by the Jewish people resulting from an erroneous halakhic decision handed down by the Sanhedrin. But if the Sanhedrin mistakenly ruled that one who became impure while in the Temple may leave by way of a longer route, they do not bring this offering, as it is brought only for an erroneous ruling on a matter that requires the bringing of a fixed sin-offering, and not a sliding-scale offering, for its unwitting violation.
וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּנִּדָּה שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ? הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ ״נִטְמֵאתִי״, וּפֵירַשׁ מִיָּד – חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּצִיאָתוֹ הֲנָאָה לוֹ כְּבִיאָתוֹ.
And which is the positive mitzva with regard to a menstruating woman for which, as is taught in Horayot there, the Sanhedrin is liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling? If a man was engaging in intercourse with a ritually pure woman, and during the course of their act of intercourse she experienced menstrual bleeding and said to him: I have become impure, and unwittingly he immediately withdrew from her and did not wait until his penis became flaccid, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman, because his withdrawal from her is as pleasant to him as his entry. If the Sanhedrin mistakenly ruled that one may withdraw immediately, they bring a bull offering for their erroneous ruling.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״הַשֶּׁרֶץ״ – ״וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ״, עַל הֶעְלֵם שֶׁרֶץ חַיָּיב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ.
Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to the sliding-scale offering the verse states: “Or if a person touches any impure thing, whether it is the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher creeping animal, and it is hidden from him” (Leviticus 5:2). A precise reading of this verse indicates that in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity by touching a creeping animal, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for having defiled the Temple or the sacrificial food, but he is not liable to bring such an offering in a case where he has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא טָמֵא״ – עַל הֶעְלֵם טוּמְאָה חַיָּיב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ.
Similarly, Rabbi Akiva says: The verse states: “And it is hidden from him, so that he is impure” (Leviticus 5:2), thereby teaching that in a case when one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, but one is not liable to bring such an offering in a case when he has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: ״וְנֶעְלַם״ ״וְנֶעְלַם״ שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים, לְחַיֵּיב עַל הֶעְלֵם טוּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ.
Rabbi Yishmael says: The verse states: “And it is hidden from him” (Leviticus 5:2), and it states: “And it is hidden from him” (Leviticus 5:3), twice, in order to render one liable to bring a sliding-scale offering both in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity and in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע?! שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן שֵׁשׁ הָוְיָין – יְדִיעוֹת הַטּוּמְאָה תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף, יְדִיעוֹת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף, יְדִיעוֹת מִקְדָּשׁ תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the halakhot concerning awareness of ritual impurity are two that are further subdivided into four. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Are these actually two states of awareness that are subdivided into four? As the mishna lists them, they seem to be two that are subdivided into six: Awareness of the impurity at the beginning and at the end, awareness of the sacrificial food at the beginning and at the end, and awareness of the Temple at the beginning and at the end.
וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, תַּמְנֵי הָוְיָין – דְּהָא אִיכָּא טוּמְאָה דְּקוֹדֶשׁ וְטוּמְאָה דְּמִקְדָּשׁ תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף!
Abaye answered him: According to your reasoning, that you count all the various cases listed in the mishna, there are eight states of awareness, as there is also awareness of the impurity in connection with eating the sacrificial food, at the beginning and at the end, and awareness of the impurity in connection with entering the Temple, at the beginning and at the end. The mishna mentions awareness of the impurity both in the first clause, which discusses partaking of sacrificial food, and in the second clause, which discusses entering the Temple.
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, שֵׁם טוּמְאָה אַחַת הִיא. מִכׇּל מָקוֹם שֵׁית הָוְיָין!
Rav Pappa refutes this: This is not difficult, as the status of ritual impurity carries one name in both cases: The person was aware that he had contracted ritual impurity and then it became hidden from him, and there is no reason to distinguish between impurity in connection with partaking of sacrificial food and impurity in connection with entering the Temple. Accordingly, Rav Pappa’s first question remains: In any case there are six states of awareness.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְעוֹלָם תַּמְנֵי הָוְיָין, אַרְבְּעֵי קַמָּיָיתָא, דְּלָא מַיְיתַן לֵיהּ לִידֵי קׇרְבָּן – לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב; אַרְבְּעֵה בָּתְרָיָיתָא, דְּמַיְיתַן לֵיהּ לִידֵי קׇרְבָּן – קָא חָשֵׁיב.
Rav Pappa said in answer to his own question: Actually, there are eight states of awareness, two of the impurity in connection with partaking of sacrificial food, two of the impurity in connection with entering the Temple, two of awareness of the sacrificial food, and two of awareness of the Temple, each pair having one awareness at the beginning and one at the end. But the first four states of awareness at the beginning do not in themselves bring the unwitting transgressor to liability to bring an offering, as if he does not reach awareness at the end, he will not have known that he transgressed. Therefore, the tanna does not count them. But the tanna does count the last four states of awareness, which bring the unwitting transgressor to the liability to bring an offering.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְעוֹלָם תַּמְנֵי הָוְיָין; וְאַרְבְּעֵי קַמָּיָיתָא, דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ – קָא חָשֵׁיב; אַרְבְּעֵי בָּתְרָיָיתָא, דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ – לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב.
And there are those who say that Rav Pappa said as follows: Actually, there are eight states of awareness, and it is the first four states of awareness at the beginning, which are not found in the entire Torah, that the tanna counts. In all the other instances where one is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression, it is not necessary that there be any awareness at the beginning. Since this is a novel requirement, the tanna counts these states of awareness. But the tanna does not count the last four states of awareness at the end, which are found also in the entire Torah, as a standard sin-offering is brought when one is made aware after the fact that he had transgressed.
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ הִלְכוֹת טוּמְאָה, מַהוּ? הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא יָדַע אִי שֶׁרֶץ טָמֵא אִי צְפַרְדֵּעַ טָמֵא – זִיל קְרִי בֵּי רַב הוּא!
The amora’im try to define the awareness of the impurity mentioned in the mishna. Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If the halakhot of impurity became hidden from him, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring a sliding-scale offering in such a situation? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say that he did not know whether a creeping animal is impure or pure or whether a frog is impure or pure, this is a topic that you could go learn in a children’s school. As these matters are explicitly recorded in the Torah, they can never be considered hidden.
לְעוֹלָם דְּיָדַע בְּטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ; וּכְגוֹן דִּנְגַע בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, וְלָא יָדַע כַּעֲדָשָׁה אִי מְטַמֵּא אִי לָא מְטַמֵּא. מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּיָדַע דִּמְטַמֵּא שֶׁרֶץ בָּעוֹלָם – יְדִיעָה הִיא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּכַעֲדָשָׁה לָא יָדַע אִי מְטַמֵּא אִי לָא מְטַמֵּא – הַעֲלָמָה הִיא? תֵּיקוּ.
Actually, Rav Pappa must have been asking about a case where he knew the essential halakha with regard to the ritual impurity of a creeping animal, and it is a case where he touched a portion of the animal that was of a lentil-bulk and he did not know the halakha concerning whether a portion that was of a lentil-bulk renders a person impure or does not render him impure. What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Does one say that since he knows generally that a creeping animal renders a person impure, it is awareness? Or perhaps one says that since he does not know whether a portion that was of a lentil-bulk renders a person impure or does not render a person impure, it is considered hidden from him. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בֶּן בָּבֶל שֶׁעָלָה לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מְקוֹם מִקְדָּשׁ – מַהוּ?
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma concerning the awareness of the Temple: If a Babylonian or a resident of another country ascended to Eretz Yisrael, and the site of the Temple was hidden from him, so that he unwittingly entered into the Temple in a state of ritual impurity, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring a sliding-scale offering to atone for his offense, or not?
אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּבָעֵי יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה – הָא לָא מְחַיֵּיב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ! אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דִּמְחַיֵּיב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ – הָא לָא בָּעֵי יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה!
The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with whose opinion was this dilemma raised? If it was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who requires that there be awareness at the beginning in order for one to become liable to bring an offering, that is difficult, as Rabbi Akiva does not deem one liable when he had a lapse of awareness that he was entering the Temple. And if the dilemma was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who deems one liable when he had a lapse of awareness that he was entering the Temple, that is difficult, as Rabbi Yishmael does not require that there be awareness at the beginning. According to both tanna’im, the dilemma is not relevant.
לָא צְרִיכָא; אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי – דְּבָעֵי יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה, וּמְחַיֵּיב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ, וְאָמַר יְדִיעַת בֵּית רַבּוֹ שְׁמָהּ יְדִיעָה. מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּיָדַע דְּאִיכָּא מִקְדָּשׁ בָּעוֹלָם – יְדִיעָה הִיא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּמְקוֹמוֹ לָא יְדַע לֵיהּ – הַעֲלָמָה הִיא? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise the dilemma only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who requires awareness at the beginning and also deems one liable when he had a lapse of awareness that he was entering the Temple, and he also says that awareness that one gains in the house of his teacher is called awareness (see 5a). What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Does one say that since he knows that there is a Temple someplace in the world, it is awareness? Or perhaps one says that since he does not know the precise location of the Temple, it is considered hidden from him. The Gemara comments: This dilemma shall stand unresolved.
אֶחָד הַנִּכְנָס לָעֲזָרָה וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כְּכׇל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אוֹתְךָ, אֵת תַּבְנִית הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֵת תַּבְנִית כׇּל כֵּלָיו
§ The mishna teaches: The same halakha applies to one who enters the area that was part of the original Temple courtyard and to one who enters the later addition to the Temple courtyard, as additions can be made to the city of Jerusalem or to the Temple courtyards only by a special body comprising the king, a prophet, the Urim VeTummim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, and with two thanks-offerings and with a special song. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: As the verse states: “According to all that I show you, the form of the Tabernacle, and the form of all its vessels,
