Commentaire sur Shevouot 2:5
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְגוֹ' וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ (ויקרא ה), עַל הֶעְלֵם שֶׁרֶץ חַיָּב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא טָמֵא (שם), עַל הֶעְלֵם טֻמְאָה חַיָּב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, וְנֶעְלַם וְנֶעְלַם שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים, לְחַיֵּב עַל הֶעְלֵם טֻמְאָה וְעַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ:
R. Eliezer dit (Lévitique 5: 2): «… chose qui rampe (sheretz)… et qu'elle lui soit cachée»: Il est responsable de la «dissimulation» de la chose rampante, et il n'est pas responsable de la dissimulation du sanctuaire. [Il est écrit: "… ou (s'il touche) la carcasse d'une chose rampante impure et que cela lui soit caché." C'est un verset superflu, car ci-dessus il est écrit: "Ou si une âme touche quelque chose d'impur" et "sheretz" est inclus dans "chose impure". C'est pour nous informer que s'il savait avec certitude qu'il était devenu impur, mais ne savait pas si par un sheretz ou par charogne (neveilah), il n'est pas responsable d'une offrande s'il a mangé de la nourriture sanctifiée; il doit savoir par quoi il est devenu impur.] R. Akiva dit: "… et que cela lui soit caché et il est impur": Il est responsable de la dissimulation de l'impureté, mais il n'est pas responsable de la dissimulation du sanctuaire. R. Yishmael dit: "et qu'il soit caché" est écrit deux fois (versets 2 et 3), pour rendre responsable de la dissimulation de l'impureté et de la dissimulation du sanctuaire. [R. Akiva soutient que depuis qu'il savait avec certitude qu'il était devenu impur, même si le type spécifique de malpropreté— sheretz ou neveilah —ne lui est pas connu, il est responsable. Et tous les deux (R. Eliezer et R. Akiva) l'exonèrent pour la dissimulation du sanctuaire, et R. Yishmael le tient responsable. La halakha est conforme à R. Yishmael.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shevuot
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot
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.