Shevuot

Scripture wishes to write cattle and beast1 for the sake of Rabbi's deduction,2 it writes also creeping thing;3 as was taught in the School of R. Ishmael: Any Biblical passage that was stated once, and then repeated, was repeated only for the sake of something new that was added to it.4 And what does R. Eliezer do with the word wherein [he hath sinned]?5 — To exclude him who occupies himself [with a permitted thing and unintentionally does that which is prohibited]. 6 And R. Johanan said: ‘Inferences of Expounders’ is the difference between them.7 And so said R. Shesheth: ‘Inferences of Expounders’ is the difference between them, for R. Shesheth was wont to change the words of R. Eliezer for those of R. Akiba, and the words of R. Akiba for those of R. Eliezer,8 Raba inquired of R. Nahman: If he was unaware of both, what is the ruling?9 — He said to him: Since there is the unawareness of uncleanness, he is liable. On the contrary, since there is the unawareness of Temple, he should be exempt! — R. Ashi said: we observe, if because of the uncleanness he leaves, then it is a case of unawareness of uncleanness, and he is liable; and if, because it is the Temple, he leaves, then it is a case of unawareness of Temple, and he is exempt:10 — Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Does he then leave because it is the Temple, unless it be also because of the uncleanness? And does he leave because of the uncleanness, unless it be also because it is the Temple?11 Well then, there is no difference,12 Our Rabbis taught: Two [public] paths, one unclean,13 and one clean; and he walked along one,14 and did not enter [the Temple afterwards]; then along the other, and entered [the Temple],15 he is liable [to bring a sliding scale sacrifice].16 If he walked along one, and entered [the Temple],17 and was sprinkled upon [on the third day], and again [on the seventh day], and bathed himself;18 and then he walked along the other,19 and entered [the Temple],20 he is liable.21 R. Simeon [b. Yohai] exempts him;22 and R. Simeon b. Judah exempts him in all these cases in the name of R. Simeon [b. Yohai]. ‘In all of them,’ source of his uncleanness in order to be liable for a sacrifice. there lay before him heleb and nothar, and he unwittingly ate one of them, not knowing which, he must also bring a sin offering. tree), but his knife slipped, and he cut something which was still attached (to the ground or tree). Or, he intended to cohabit with his wife who was clean, and he inadvertently cohabited with his sister who was sleeping near her. In these cases, his intention was quite innocent; and the word wherein (he hath sinned) implies that in such cases he is exempt from a sacrifice, and that he is liable only if his intention was to do something which is actually wrong, though he thought it was right; e.g., he intended to cut a definite thing, which he thought was detached, but which actually was attached; or, he intended to cohabit with a certain person, whom he thought was his wife, but who actually was his sister. In these cases, he brings a sacrifice, because the actual act, though innocently committed, was definitely intended; in the former cases, the actual act which was committed was not intended. that they do not differ at all as to the law; they both hold that it is not necessary that the unclean person should know the exact source of his uncleanness; but they merely choose different texts from which to deduce the law; they, therefore, differ as ‘expounders’ merely as to the texts from which they derive their ‘inferences’. not for unawareness of Temple, what is the ruling of the unclean person was unaware of both uncleanness and Temple? that he regrets his entry because of his uncleanness; and it is, therefore, a case of unawareness of uncleanness. If, however, he leaves the Temple, when told that he is in the Temple (his uncleanness is not mentioned), we realise that he regrets his entry because it is the Temple; and it is, therefore, a case of unawareness of Temple. that one fact; for his uncleanness, were it not for the fact that he is in the Temple, would not matter; and the fact that he is in the Temple, were it not for his uncleanness, would also not matter. He leaves, when told one of the facts, because he recollects immediately the other fact also. Since, however, when he entered the Temple while unclean, he was unaware of both facts, what is the ruling? itself, while realising that he has entered the Temple. uncleanness. ashes of the burnt red heifer. uncleanness, for, before entering the Temple the first time, he certainly had not the knowledge of definite uncleanness (for the first path may have been clean), and even after walking along the second path he had not now the knowledge of definite uncleanness, since he had already purified himself from the first possible uncleanness (and the second path may be clean); and in order to bring a sacrifice we require knowledge at the beginning of definite uncleanness. In the previous instance, where he had not purified himself between the two entries, he has the knowledge of definite uncleanness before entering the Temple the second time.