MISHNAH: The kinds of awareness of impurity are two¹ 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.

footnotes: ¹ Either centered on sancta

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 it². 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 awareness³? Let us hear from the following⁴ 6:7 (the full text later, Note 41).: Two paths, one impure and one pure. He walked on one of them⁵, entered the Sanctuary, left, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself⁶. 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 liable⁷ and he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s⁸ 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 pure⁹. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since a doubt of awareness is awareness¹⁰. 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 awareness¹¹.

footnotes: ² Lev ³ There 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? ⁴ Babli 19a, Tosephta Ṭahorot ⁵ It 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. ⁶ He observed the ritual of removing the impurity of the dead (Num ⁷ Since 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. ⁸ Mishnah 2:6. ⁹ This 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. ¹⁰ Since 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 Babli (19b) points out that this argument is needed only for variable reparation sacrifices since for purification sacrifices no prior knowledge is required. ¹¹ It 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.

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 liable¹²? Each of them keeps to his opinion, as they disagreed:

footnotes: ¹² He 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?

¹³ 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 offering¹⁴. 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.

footnotes: ¹³ This is from Horaiot ¹⁴ Lev

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 act¹⁵4:11 (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 state¹⁶11:2. 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 sacrifice¹⁷ 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 pure¹⁸5:1).. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There¹⁹, 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 domain²⁰. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain²¹. 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 abyss²²9:2 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 awareness¹⁰, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse²³ 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 (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.. ²⁴3:3, 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.

footnotes: ¹⁵ It is stated in Mishnah Ṭahorot ¹⁶ Parah ¹⁷ Since the Mishnah in Parah ¹⁸ Only 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 (Ṭahorot ¹⁹ Later in this paragraph, when he declares that a nazir ²⁰ And everybody agrees that in a private domain any doubt of impurity has to be treated as certainty of impurity. ²¹ Following R. Ze`ira. ²² A 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 ¹⁰ Since 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 Babli (19b) points out that this argument is needed only for variable reparation sacrifices since for purification sacrifices no prior knowledge is required. ²³ While everybody agrees that the nazir ²⁴ These two sentences have no place here; they are copied from Horaiot

Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal²⁵. 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 impurity²⁶ 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 impurity²⁷? 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 liable²⁸; when he was oblivious of the crawling animal he is not liable²⁹. If he went to immerse himself for the severe impurity and the minor impurity was additional, it is counted also for the minor impurity³⁰. 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.

footnotes: ²⁵ One of the eight animals, reptile or rodent, mentioned in Lev ²⁶ A violation of the purity of the Sanctuary or its sancta ²⁷ One 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. ²⁸ All 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. ²⁹ Since he never had prior awareness of this impurity by the time he entered the Sanctuary, the basic conditions for a sacrifice are missing. ³⁰ Since the purification from the impurity of the dead at the end also requires immersion (Num

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 impurity³¹8a, 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 liable³². Therefore not for a severe impurity and a severe impurity was additional³³. Therefore not for a minor impurity and a minor impurity was additional³³. If he went to immerse himself for severe impurity and tree limbs and wall extensions were additional³⁴7:3. are these like severe impurity since Rebbi Joḥanan said that for heave all of them are [impure] from the Torah³⁵7:3, Note 158., or are they like minor impurity since the nazir does not shave because of them³⁶ cannot shave his hair off because of this impurity.?

footnotes: ³¹ While it is possible to cleanse oneself from multiple impurities with one immersion (Babli Keritut ³² For a variable value sacrifice because of the desecration of the Sanctuary by the severe impurity. ³³ For impurities of equal severity awareness of the impurity is indispensable. ³³ For impurities of equal severity awareness of the impurity is indispensable. ³⁴ Impurity 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. Mishnah Nazir ³⁵ Nazir ³⁶ If 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

An androgynus³⁷ who saw whitish [effluent]³⁸ and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent]³⁹ and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable⁴⁰. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated⁴ 6:7 (the full text later, Note 41).: “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them⁵, entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself⁶. 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 case⁴¹. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon⁴² 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 first⁴³. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path⁴⁴. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah⁴⁵. 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 awareness¹⁰. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge⁴⁶.

footnotes: ³⁷ He has both male and female genitals, a penis with testicles and a vagina. It is not known whether he is male or female. ³⁸ Gonorrheal discharges from his penis. This causes severe impurity in a male. Similar discharges from a female’s urethra are pure. ³⁹ Menstrual blood causes impurity to a woman; prolonged discharge causes severe impurity. No flow of blood causes impurity in a male. ⁴⁰ Since he is impure both as a male and a female, he is impure and forbidden access to the Sanctuary. ⁴ Babli 19a, Tosephta Ṭahorot ⁵ It 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. ⁶ He observed the ritual of removing the impurity of the dead (Num ⁴¹ He 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. ⁴² This 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. ⁴³ Since 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. ⁴⁴ Since 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. ⁴⁵ In 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. ¹⁰ Since 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 Babli (19b) points out that this argument is needed only for variable reparation sacrifices since for purification sacrifices no prior knowledge is required. ⁴⁶ There 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.

Rav Ḥisda asked: What is the situation if he entered the Sanctuary thinking it was a synagogue⁴⁷? 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 awareness⁴⁸. 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 Sanctuary⁴⁹. And so if it was clear to him that this was the Sanctuary, he was oblivious of the impurity and entered the Sanctuary⁵⁰.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ He 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). ⁴⁸ Since there was awareness of impurity, his ignorance of the law is irrelevant. ⁴⁹ For R. Ismael he is liable for a sacrifice but not for RR. Eliezer and Aqiba. ⁵⁰ He is liable for a sacrifice according to all opinions.

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 combine⁵¹7:1 (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 (Šabbat70b–71b), the Galilean participant in the discussion being R. Ze`ira.?

footnotes: ⁵¹ This question is not answered here. It is asked again in Šabbat

MISHNAH: Whether one entered the courtyard or the addition to the courtyard⁵², 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 it⁵³.

footnotes: ⁵² The biblical definition of “Sanctuary” as applied to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem applies only to the area sanctified by Solomon and his successors during the existence of the First Temple, and its reconstruction by Nehemiah. It excludes the additions to the Temple area and the Temple Mound made by Herod. Similarly, the city of Jerusalem which represents the Camp of the Israelites in the desert is only the First Temple city, with the area between the First Temple wall and the Damascus gate being of questionable sanctity. ⁵³ There can be no liability to bring a variable sacrifice for entering the Herodian additions to the Temple Mount in a state of impurity.

HALAKHAH: “Whether one entered the courtyard,” etc. ⁵⁴1:5 (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: ⁵⁵24:19.David ascended following Gad’s word, that is King and Prophet. ⁵⁶. 3:1.Solomon started to build the Temple of the Eternal in Jerusalem, these are Urim and Tummim. ⁵⁶. 3:1.And his father David, this is the Synhedrion, ⁵⁷. 32:7.ask your father and he will tell you. Song, after them went Hoshaia and the officers⁵⁸. 12:32.. Thanksgiving sacrifices, I put up two thanksgiving sacrifices⁵⁹. 12:31.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rebbi Yudan said, what is written, walking? No, being in procession.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ This Halakhah is a very truncated and inferior copy of parts of Sanhedrin ⁵⁵ 2S. ⁵⁶ 2Chr ⁵⁶ 2Chr ⁵⁷ Deut ⁵⁸ Neh ⁵⁹ Neh

Because it was the vulnerable spot of Jerusalem; it could be conquered from there.”

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 liable⁶⁰. But on the shortest path he is not liable; this is the positive commandment in the Sanctuary about which they are not liable⁶¹2:4)..

footnotes: ⁶⁰ If somebody entered the Sanctuary area legitimately because he was pure and then became impure in the sacred precinct (e. g., a dead lizard was lying there and he accidentally touched it), no sin attaches to him if he leaves immediately on the shortest possible path. If he tarries or leaves on a longer path, he commits a sin for which he will be liable if the original awareness was followed by any forgetting. ⁶¹ “They” are the members of the Supreme Court who do not have to offer a sacrifice for a wrong ruling in this matter (Mishnah Horaiot

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 Eternal⁶². 19:13., another verse says, he defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal⁶³. 19:20. Why is this? To state a difference between one who became inside and one who became outside⁶⁴126, 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)⁶⁵ not unless he bring his head and most of his body inside; if he became impure (outside)⁶⁵ not unless he stay for prostrating. If he became impure inside and entered further inside⁶⁶? 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 himself⁶⁷. How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last⁶⁸? 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 last⁶⁹.

footnotes: ⁶² Num ⁶³ Num ⁶⁴ The two verses appear in the same Chapter. There must be a reason for the use of two synonyms. It is a hint that the rules are different for one who enters while impure and one who becomes impure inside. (There is another opinion, Sifry Num. ⁶⁵ It is clear that the places of “inside” and “outside” have to be switched. A person already impure becomes guilty and eventually liable for a sacrifice at the moment his head and most of his body are inside the sacred precinct; one becomingimpure inside if he tarries long enough to prostrate himself. ⁶⁵ It is clear that the places of “inside” and “outside” have to be switched. A person already impure becomes guilty and eventually liable for a sacrifice at the moment his head and most of his body are inside the sacred precinct; one becomingimpure inside if he tarries long enough to prostrate himself. ⁶⁶ Do we say that if he became impure inside and moved his head and body further inside instead of towards the outside that he is guilty on two counts? ⁶⁷ The Mishnah makes it clear that only the time elapsed inside the sacred precinct determines his liability, not the direction of his motion. ⁶⁸ The moment he became impure or the moment he stayed longer than necessary. ⁶⁹ This essentially is a repetition of the previous argument: Not the fact that he became impure determines his guilt but the time he tarried inside. The argument is recast as introduction to the next paragraph.

There, we have stated: “They removed the cup and the censer for him”⁷⁰5:1. 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 (Yoma5:2, 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 first⁷¹.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Mishnah Yoma. ⁷¹ Since the first entry is necessary in any case, the High Priest cannot be faulted for the first entry even if he only carries the censer.

The measure of prostrating is ten cubits⁷². 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, fifteen⁷³. Rebbi Yose said, he never becomes liable unless the lengthy path exceed the short one by (ten)⁷⁴. 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 prostrating⁷⁵? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another⁷⁶. Abba bar Huna⁷⁷2:1, Note 51, Nazir4:1 Note 12. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, “peace be with you, my teacher.⁷⁸. 7:3 or at least half of it.”

footnotes: ⁷² If the time frame described in the Mishnah by “prostrating” is measured by the difference in length between a lengthy and a short path, since it cannot be made dependent on the speed of one’s body motions. ⁷³ The only thing that counts is the difference in the lengths of the paths, not the total lengths. ⁷⁴ From the following it is clear that one has to read “twenty”. ⁷⁵ If one measures not by length but by time, still admitting differences between one person and the next. ⁷⁶ The time frame needed to speak the two words שָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ. ⁷⁷ This is misspelling for Abba bar bar Ḥana; cf. his statement in Berakhot ⁷⁸ The time frame allowing three words to be spoken, which in general is the definition of “immediately”. In the Babli 16b the time given is either the time needed to recite the entire verse 2Chr

MISHNAH: What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman⁷⁹ 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,⁸⁰ for his separation is as pleasurable to him as his entry⁸¹2:5 Note 69..

footnotes: ⁷⁹ For which the High Court has to bring a purification sacrifice if they rule wrongly, Horaiot ⁸⁰ For extirpation if he acts intentionally, for a sacrifice if unintentionally. ⁸¹ He has to stay immobile until his erection subsides; Horaiot

HALAKHAH: “What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman,” etc. ⁸²2:5 (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].

footnotes: ⁸² This paragraph does not belong here; it is copied from Horaiot

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, the crawling animal and he became oblivious⁸³ 5:2., he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary⁸⁴. Rebbi Aqiba says, and he became oblivious while he was impure⁸³ 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 oblivious⁸⁵. 5:3, speaking of impurities generated by the human body., two times to make him liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary⁸⁶12(7)..

footnotes: ⁸³ Lev. ⁸⁴ The biblical text never hints at the possibility that anybody could be unaware of being in the holy precinct; therefore no penalties are spelled out for this case. ⁸³ Lev. ⁸⁵ Lev ⁸⁶ This is the opinion formulated in Mishnah 1. The Mishnah is quoted Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. Ḥizqiah says, there is disagreement between them⁸⁷. 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 Sanctuary⁸⁸. The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted⁸⁹4:2 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. ⁹⁰ There, by which he sinned⁹¹. 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 impure⁸³ 5:2., in all cases. Rebbi Ḥinena said, here “by what” is not written. The argument of Rebbi Joshua seems inverted. ⁹². 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 occupied⁹³.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ As explained in Halakhak 1, Note 45. R. Eliezer requires awareness of the cause of his impurity, R. Aqiba only requires awareness of impurity. This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli, 18a. ⁸⁸ RR. Eliezer and Aqiba only differ in the way they deduce the law from the verse, not in the substance of the meaning. The formulation is just a matter of style. ⁸⁹ This refers to Mishnah Keritut ⁹⁰ The arguments quoted for R. Eliezer belong to R. Joshua and vice-versa. ⁹¹ Lev ⁸³ Lev. ⁹² This is R. Eliezer’s argument. As formulated in the Mishnah, he reads Lev ⁹³ Accepting that R. Eliezer refers to 4:27, the peculiar language of 4:23 still has to be explained. He excludes a person who was intent on doing something permitted when it happened that he broke a prohibition, e. g., that he was intent of sleeping with his wife when she was permitted to him and in the dark of night his sister substituted for her. She sinned but he did not.