If he had no knowledge at the beginning—whether there is knowledge at the beginning or knowledge at the end, the goats of the pilgrimage festivals and the goats of the new months atone according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon [say] that they distinguish between the goats when there is no knowledge either at beginning or end and the clean person who ate impure [food]. The goats of the pilgrimages and the goats of the new months atone, according to Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says, the goats of the pilgrimages atone but not the goats of the new months. Rabbi Shimon concurred about a goat that was not offered at a pilgrimage could be offered on a new month. If it is not offered on the new month, it should be offered on Yom Kippur. If it is not offered on Yom Kippur, it should be offered on the next pilgrimage, for from the beginning the public’s offerings are only consecrated on the condition that they be offered on the outer altar. Rabbi Shimon would say 32 goats are offered for the public every year. Thirty one outside, and they are eaten; one inside and it is not eaten, and the goat that is sent out. Twelve for the twelve months of the year. Seven for Pesach. Eight for Sukkot. Two for Yom Kippur. One for Rosh Hashanah. Two for Shavuot. One for the show-bread and one for the day. If the first atones, for what does the second atone? For uncleanness that happens between this one and that. And they thus said a Jew must bring two goats on each day but ha-kadosh barukh hu had pity on the Jews’ possessions.

Rabbi Shimon would say: Impurity of the Temple and its sacrificial foods is more serious than all the aveirot that are in the Torah, because all the aveirot that are in the Torah are atoned for by one goat but impurity of the Temple and its sacrificial foods is atoned for by 32 goats. All the aveirot that are in the Torah are atoned for once a year but impurity of the Temple and its sacrificial foods is atoned for every single month, as it says, “Assuredly, as I live—said the Lord God—because you defiled my sanctuary [with all of your detestable things and all of your abominations, I in turn will shear you away and show no pity” (Ezek 5:11). Serious were your detestable things and the abominations you did, but the impurity of the Temple and its sacrificial food is more serious than all of them.

A ma’aseh about two priestly brothers were running next to one another and they were going up the ramp. One of them preceded his fellow to the four amot. One of them took a knife and stabbed him in his heart. Rabbi Tzadoq came stood on the steps of the porch on the Temple Mount and said, “Hear me, my brothers, the house of Israel. Indeed it is said, ‘If someone is found slain in the land’ (Deut 21:1). And us, from where shall we measure? From the Sanctuary or from the courtyard?” All of Israel moaned in tears after his [words]. After that, the father of the boy came. He said to them, “I shall atone for you! My son is [still] convulsing, so the knife has not become impure.” This teaches that the impurity of the knife was more serious to them than the shedding of blood. And so it says, “And also Manasseh spilled innocent blood” (II Kings 21:16). From here , they say, for the sin of bloodshed, the shekhinah was taken away and the Temple was rendered impure.

All of those who are unclean according to the Torah, whether they are made unclean by a minor source of impurity or a major one, are liable for impurity [they impart to] the Temple and its sacrificial foods, as it says, “[When a person touches] any impure thing” (Lev 5:2), to include all the ones who are unclean according to the Torah. “Or anyone” (Lev 5:2)—why is this said? Since there are three mitzvot stated in the verse, two explicitly and two implicitly, learn the implicit from the explicit. Just as the one mad explicit [requires] an oath, so too the unexplained [require] an oath. Even if he said to the witnesses, “Come and testify for me that I have not been made unclean,” and they said to him, “[By an] oath, [we swear] that we do not know any testimony on your behalf,” can they be liable? Scripture says, “or anyone,” to separate them from the rules of impurity and bring it into the rules of oaths. “Or anyone”—to include all people, even the prince and the anointed [priest]. Rabbi Yirmiya says, it is a matter one learns from its context. As it says, “But if one’s means to not suffice for a sheep” (Lev 5:7) and it says, “And if one’s means do not suffice for two [turtledoves or pigeons]” (Lev 5:11). Scripture speaks of one who has become poor, excluding the prince and the anointed [priest], who are not in the category of those who are poor, because their sanctification lasts forever. “Any impure thing” (Lev 5:2)—why does the Scripture say “thing”? Rabbi Aqiva says, to include the nega upon whom impurity does not settle. Rather in a matter that Rabbi Aqiva did not derive from a klal u’frat, he would derive via “inclusions and exclusions.” Thus did he learn from Nahum of Gam Zu. Rabbi Natan says, to include utensils upon which impurity does not settle, except by the intention [of the maker]. He said to him, Why are utensils seen [as impure] because of intention? For Rabbi Shimon would not derive from “inclusion and exclusion,” but he would derive from klal u’frat u’klal. “Or anyone touches any unclean thing”—a generalization (klal). “Or touches the corpse of an unclean beast”—a specification (prat). “Or when one touches human impurity” (Lev 5:3)—a generalization (klal). Klal u’frat u’klal, you do not decide except by the matter of the specification [which limits the rule]. When it says, “of whatever kind by which a person becomes impure” (Lev 5:3), it goes back and generalizes. If [one proposes] that [it is all included in] the first generalization, we say no. Rather it is a klal u'frat u'klal. You do not decide except by the matter of the specification. It says to you, as the specification is explicit about explicit kinds of impurity that are in Torah—excluding a herd of camels or a herd of sheep or a pack of wild animals or a resting bird, so impurity that is not explicit in the Torah [must be excluded]. Rabbi Natan says, impurity of glens and not impufity of consecrated things, excluding the one who burns the cow and the bulls and the one who sends out the goat, which are forms of impurity of consecrated things. I know only [that the rule applies to] clean domesticated species, wild animals, and birds. Unclean domesticated animals, wild animals, and birds, from where do I know this? Scripture says, “or the corpse of an unclean sheretz” (Lev 5:2). Rabbi Yoshiya said, Is there an unclean sheretz and a clean sheretz? Rather, just as it [does not] distinguish between an unclean sheretz and a clean one, thus between a domesticated animal and a wild animal, one should not distinguish between unclean and clean. I know only that [when I have] all of it [the animal]. [That it applies when I have only] an olive’s-bulk, from where do we learn it? Scripture says, “the corpse of an unclean wild animal” (Lev 5:2). Just as Scripture says impurity, it includes an olive’s bulk. Rabbi Shimon says, what was the reason they said that the domestic animal and the wild animal is impure [in the amount of] an olive’s-bulk, but of a sheretz [only] the bulk of a lentil? Rather, just as the domestic animal and the wild animal at the beginning of their creation are an olive’s-bulk, the sheretz is at the time of its creation a lentil’s bulk.

If he was unclean and the uncleanness left him but he remembered the Temple, or he forgot this one and that one, and he prostrated himself or stayed there for [enough time] to prostrate himself or he stayed with his fellow for [enough time] to prostrate himself or he entered the addition to the courtyard and stayed [long enough] to prostrate himself—he is liable for each and every one, according to Rabbi Yishmael . For Rabbi Yishmal says, “it was hidden from him” (Lev 5:2) and “it was hidden from him” (Lev 5:3), two times, to obligate him for forgetting the matter of impurity and for forgetting the Temple. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Aqiva say, he is only liable for forgetting the impurity.