Comentario sobre Shevuot 2:9

ידיעות הטומאה. נטמא וידע – [that he became defiled and was aware] that he became defiled at the time of of defilement or afterwards.

Introduction Mishnah one discusses the second clause of the first mishnah of chapter one, which dealt with the case where a person either entered the Temple or ate holy food without knowing that he was impure.

נעלמה ממנו טומאה – and through that same act of forgetfulness/lack of awareness, he ate Holy Things, which is one [count], and he entered into the Sanctuary/Temple, which is two [counts], as it is written (Leviticus 5:4): “and the fact has escaped him,” and he is unclean/defiled, which implies that the defilement escaped him. But because he is not liable for it other than if he was aware at the beginning that he had become defiled/unclean and afterwards, it escaped him, because of this, it (i.e., the Mishnah) calls it: ידיעות הטמאה/awareness (plural) of uncleanness.

The first line of the mishnah is a quote of the second clause of the first mishnah in chapter one. After a long digression in chapter one in which the mishnah discussed which goats offered as sin-offerings atone for which types of crimes, our chapter returns to discuss the main topic at hand: the case where a person unknowingly became impure and entered the Temple or ate holy food. To refresh our memories, according to chapter one in order to enter into this category one must first have awareness then forgetfulness and then awareness. Our mishnah explains the four different possibilities for such a scenario.

ונעלם ממנו הקודש – or the Temple/Sanctuary, but if he ate Holy Things or entered into the Temple, and he was mindful of defilement, there are two other [counts] that are not written [in the Bible].

The laws concerning the discovery of having contracted uncleanness are of two kinds, subdivided into four;
[If] he became impure and was aware of it, then he forgot that he had been impure, though he remembered that the food was holy; [If the fact that it was] holy food was unknown to him, though he remembered that he was impure; [If] both were unknown to him; And he ate holy food, and was not aware, and after he had eaten, he became aware: in these cases he brings a sliding scale sacrifice. In all of the cases mentioned in this section the transgression is the eating of holy food while impure. There are actually three different possibilities mentioned in the mishnah, although the mishnah considers them to be two: 1) He knew that had contracted impurity, and then forgot but he knew that the food that he was eating was holy; 2) He forgot that the food that he was eating was holy but he knew that he was impure; 3) He forgot that the food was holy and that he was impure. In all of these cases if he were to eat of the holy food while being unaware either that he was impure or that the food was holy (or both) and afterwards realized that the food was holy or that he was impure, he is obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. A sliding scale sacrifice is a sacrifice brought based on the economic means of the sinner. If he has financial means he must bring either a sheep or goat. If he cannot afford a sheep or a goat he brings two turtledoves. If he can’t even afford these, he may bring a grain offering. This sacrifice is described in Leviticus 5:6-13.

[[If] he became impure and was aware of it, then he forgot that he had been impure, though he remembered that [he was entering] the Temple; [If the fact that he was entering] the Temple was unknown to him, though he remembered that he was impure; [If] both were hidden from him; And he entered the Temple and was not aware, and after he had gone out, became aware: in these cases he brings a sliding scale sacrifice. This section teaches the exact same law as in section one, except the sin discussed here is entrance into the Temple while impure. In this case either forgetting that he is entering the Temple or forgetting that he is impure or both will obligate him to bring a sliding scale sacrifice.

נעלם ממנו זה וזה – it is not from the numbers of awareness, but it comes to tell us that even though that at the time of eating Holy Things or entering into the Temple, he was not mindful neither of defilement nor of the holiness [of the Temple], and he Is liable for the sliding-scale offering (depending upon his financial situation).

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah consider the three possibilities in each section to be only two?

אחד הנכנס לעזרה – [to the courtyard] first.

Introduction Mishnah two discusses which areas of the Temple are included in these laws.

ואחר הנכנס תוספת – that they added to it afterwards.

It is the same whether one [while impure] enters the Temple court or the addition to the Temple court, for additions are not made to the city [of Jerusalem], or to the Temple courts except by the king, prophet, Urim and Thummim, the Sanhedrin of seventy one, and with two [loaves] of thanksgiving, and with song. And the court walks in a procession, the two [loaves] of thanksgiving [being carried] after them, and all Israel [following] behind them. The inner one is eaten, and the outer one is burnt. And as to any addition that was made without all these he who enters it [while impure] is not liable. A person who is impure and enters the Temple is obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice even if he only entered an addition that had been made to the Temple court. In other words, the holiness inherent to the Temple is also to be found in any additions made to the Temple. The reason is that the additions made to the Temple are made with the consent of all of the ruling institutions in Israel, as well being performed in a religious ceremony. Additions to the Temple or to the city of Jerusalem, which is also considered to be holy, can only be made with the consent of the following parties: 1) the king; 2) the Urim and Thummim, the two stones that sat in the high priest’s breastplate which were used to receive oracles (see Numbers 27:21); 3) the Sanhedrin of 71 elders. The additions to the Temple would be made in a great procession with two loaves of thanksgiving. Any addition to the Temple that was not made using all of these elements was considered to be of a lower status. Therefore, one who entered there while impure would not have to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. This mishnah has some interesting historical implications. In the Second Temple period, which began in the 5th century B.C.E. and continued until the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. there were no Urim and Thummim. Therefore, any additions to the Temple would not have been of the same holiness. On the other hand, the mishnah does not completely delegitimize these additions to the Temple. The last clause in the mishnah indeed admits that additions to the Temple can be made without the approval of the all of these parties. The only consequence is that one who entered there impure would not be obligated to bring a sacrifice.

שאין מוספין וכו' – therefore, this is holy like the first (i.e., the courtyard).

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think that in order to add on to the Temple they need the approval of the king, the priestly oracles and the Sanhedrin?

אלא במלך – as Scripture states (Exodus 25:9): “Exactly as I show you – the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its furnishings – so shall you make it,” this is an additional verse for expounding for the generations. For in the days of Moses, he was King and Prophet and his brother (i.e. Aaron) was the High Priest, and there were there Urim and Thumim (in the High Priest’s breast plate) and seventy elders, even so also all generations.

ובשתי תודות – with two loaves of thanksgiving offerings, and they would carry them in the circumference around until the end of the border that they sanctify, and there they consume (that is inside) and burn the second (which is outside) , and by the word of the prophet, it is consumed and by the word of the prophet it is burned, and that is exactly what is taught in the Mishnah: “the one offered inside is eaten and the one offered outside is burned.” But from Nehemiah ben Chakhliah, he completed it as it is written regarding him (Nehemiah 12:31): “and I appointed two large thanksgiving [choirs] and processions.”

ובשיר – the song that they would recite (Psalms 30:2): “I extol You, O LORD, for you have lifted me up,” But during the Second Temple period, even though there was no King and no Urim and Thumim, the Holiness that Solomon sanctified of the First Temple was a holiness for its time period and a holiness for the time to come. But the service of Nehemiah ben Chakhliah was for mere memory.

נטמא בעזרה – and he knew that he was defiled and prostrated himself with this act that escaped him towards the inside, even though he did wait/delay, or prostrated towards the outside, and he who delayed/waited in order to prostrate. But the measure of the prostration is in order that a person can read this Biblical verse in their inhabitable condition (restoration) (II Chronicles 7:12): “they knelt with their faces to the ground and prostrated themselves, praising the LORD, ‘For He is good, for His steadfast love is eternal,” and this is the Biblical verse.

Introduction Mishnah three discusses one who entered the Temple while impure.

או שבא לו בארוכה (if he went out by the longer way, he is liable) – hat he left through the longer path, for there is something shorter than It, and even if he did not first wait/delay, he is liable.

If he became impure while in the Temple court [and was aware of it], and then forgot that he was impure, though he remembered that he was in the Temple; [Or] he forgot that he was in the Temple, though he remembered that he was impure; [Or,] he forgot both; And he prostrated himself, or waited [in the Temple] the time it takes to prostrate; Or went out the long way, he is liable; [If he went out] the shorter way, he is not liable; This section is similar to the teaching in mishnah one, except it presents a new problem: he is actually in the Temple while he becomes impure. Since it is forbidden to be in the Temple while impure he therefore must leave immediately, and in the shortest possible manner. To remind ourselves, in order for him to be liable for a sliding scale sacrifice for having been in the Temple while impure he must have awareness, forgetting and then afterwards awareness. Our mishnah teaches that the forgetting can either be of the fact he was impure or that he was in the Temple or both. As long as he knew what had happened or where he was and forgot one of those two things or both, and then he worshipped in the Temple by prostrating himself, or even stayed in the Temple long enough to prostrate, or even did not take the quickest way out, he is obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. In other words, should he delay himself at all within the Temple after having become impure he will be obligated for a sliding scale sacrifice. Only if he goes out immediately will he be exempt.

ובקצרה פטור – where he didn’t prostrate, and did not wait, and left the shorter route, he is exempt.

This is the positive precept concerning the temple for which they [the court] are not liable. Usually, if the court gives a mistaken ruling with regards to a mitzvah that is punishable if done intentionally by kareth and obligates one for a sacrifice if done unintentionally, the court must bring a bullock as a sacrifice (see Leviticus 4:12). However, in this case, if the court told the person who had become impure while in the Temple that it was okay to leave through a longer path, the court is not obligated to bring the sacrifice. We will learn this law again in Tractate Horayoth 2:4, the last tractate in Seder Nezikin.

זו היא מצוה עשה שבמקדש – for there is here (Numbers 5:2): “[Instruct the Israelites] to remove from camp…anyone defiled [by a corpse].”

שאין חייבין עליה – the Jewish court, the bull for an unwitting communal sin, for if they erred unwittingly and error in this teaching, and taught to him that he should leave by the longer way, hey don’t bring on the inadvertent error of this teaching a bull for an unwitting communal sin.

ואיזו היא מצות עשה שבנדה – which is similar to that which in the Sanctuary, that defilement occurred to him when he came with legal permission to entrance [into the Temple], if the Jewish court erred in this teaching , they are liable for a bull for an unwitting communal sin (as a result of an erroneous Halakhic decision handed down by the Great Sanhedrin).

Introduction Mishnah four contains a short digression which discusses the obligation of a court to bring a sacrificial bullock if they give a wrong teaching. This subject is learned more fully in Tractate Horayoth. This digression is found here because one of the wrongful teachings for which the court is not obligated is given as an example in mishnah three.

היה משמש עם הטהורה – that [his penis] entered [her vagina] with legal permission and she said to him: ‘I have become ritually defiled now,” and he removed it immediately while his limb was hard, he is liable. But rather, he should stand without coitus until the limb dies and he can remove it without difficulty, and this is the positive commandment regarding the menstruating woman.

And which is the positive precept concerning a menstruant for which they are liable? [This:] if one cohabited with a [ritually] pure woman, and she said to him: “I have become impure”, and he withdrew immediately, he is liable, because his withdrawal is as pleasant to him as his entry. This mishnah continues the subject taught in section two of the previous mishnah, namely cases where the court is or is not obligated to bring a sacrifice if they gave a mistaken ruling. In Tractate Horayoth 2:4 we will learn that if the court made a mistake with regards to the laws of menstrual purity, in either a positive or negative commandment, they must bring the sacrifice. Our mishnah asks what is the positive commandment to which that mishnah refers. The answer is a case where a man was having sexual relations with a pure woman, i.e. a woman who was not menstruating. If, while having sex she told him that she had just begun to menstruate, he has a problem, since the Torah forbids sexual relations with a menstruant (Leviticus 20:18). Our mishnah teaches that if the court instructed him to withdraw immediately, the court has taught mistakenly and must bring a sacrifice. This is because his withdrawal while erect is actually pleasurable for him. Rather he is forbidden to withdraw until his erection disappears.

רבי אליעזר אומר השרץ ונעלם – as it states in Scripture (Leviticus 5:2): “or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing – and the fact has escaped him,” it is an additional Biblical verse, for above, it is written, “or when a person touches any unclean thing” (Leviticus 5:2), and the creeping thing is included in the unclean thing, but rather, to teach you that if he knew that he had certainly been defiled, but he doesn’t know if it was a creeping thing or if it was through a carcass, he is not liable for a sacrifice if he ate Holy Things until he has awareness at the beginning if it was through a creeping thing that he was defiled or through a carcass that he was defiled. But Rabbi Akiva holds that since he definitely knew that he was defiled, even though it was not made clear to him if the defilement that he sustained was with a creeping thing or a carcass, he is liable. And both of them exempt him from unawareness of the Temple (i.e., that he entered the Temple while ritually impure, aware that he was ritually impure, but unaware that he has entered the Temple. He is liable for a sin-offering as atonement). Rabbi Yishmael requires [the sacrifice] and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Eliezer said: “[Scripture says: ‘If any one touch… the carcass of] an impure creeping thing, and it be unknown to him’ (Leviticus 5:2), when the impure creeping thing is unknown to him, he is liable; but he is not liable, when the [fact that he is in the] Temple is unknown to him.”
Rabbi Akiba said: “[Scripture says:] ‘and it be hidden from him that he is impure’: when his impurity is unknown to him, he is liable; but he is not liable, when the [fact that he is in the] Temple is unknown to him.”
Rabbi Ishmael said: “[Scripture] twice [says:] ‘and it be hidden from him’, in order to make him liable both for the forgetfulness of the impurity and the forgetfulness of the Temple.”
Mishnah five conclude the discussion of a person who enters the Temple while not realizing that he is impure. It contains a midrashic discussion which took place between Rabbis Eliezer, Akiba, and Ishmael.
As we have explained throughout this chapter, in order to be obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice one must have known something and then forgotten it and then remembered it later on. In both mishnah one and mishnah three of this chapter we assumed that what was known and forgotten was either the fact that he was impure or the fact that he was in the Temple or both. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael in section three. His opinion is the dominant opinion in this chapter of mishnah.
Rabbi Eliezer holds that what was known and then forgotten was specifically the source of the impurity, be it an impure creeping thing or other source of impurity mentioned in Leviticus 5:2 (carcasses of pure animals). If he forgot that he was in the Temple he is not obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. Likewise if never knew that he had been made impure by an impure creepy thing, but merely knew that he was impure, he is not obligated.
Rabbi Akiva holds that what was forgotten was the fact of impurity but not the fact that he was in the Temple. Unlike Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva does not limit the knowledge and subsequent forgetfulness to the source of the impurity. Even if he never knew what the source of the impurity was, but knew only that he was impure and then forgot, he will be obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael in that the latter holds that being aware and then forgetting that one was in the Temple also makes him obligated for bringing a sliding scale sacrifice, whereas Rabbi Akiva (and Rabbi Eliezer) believe that it does not.