Commentary for Shevuot 36:18

ורבי עקיבא איידי

and next to it: If a woman conceive [and bear a male child].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, XII, 2.');">²⁷</span> R'ELIEZER SAID, [SCRIPTURE SAYS: IF ANY ONE TOUCH THE CARCASS OF AN UNCLEAN] CREEPING THING, AND IT BE HIDDEN FROM HIM etc. What is the difference between their views?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both R. Eliezer and R. Akiba agree in the Mishnah (supra 14b) that he is not liable unless he is aware that it is the Temple that he entered in an unclean state, and thus the question arises, what is the difference between them?');">²⁸</span> Hezekiah said: 'Creeping thing and carcass' is the difference between them; R'Eliezer holds, we require that he should know whether he had become unclean by [the carcass of] a creeping thing or of an animal; and R'Akiba holds, we do not require that he should know this; as long as he knows that he has actually become unclean, it is not necessary [that he should know] whether he has become unclean by a creeping thing or by an animal carcass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer holds he must know the exact source of his uncleanness (whether by a creeping thing or animal carcass) , whereas R. Akiba holds it matters not, as long as he knows he is unclean. ckj r,ub');">²⁹</span> And so said Ulla: 'Creeping thing and carcass' is the difference between them; for Ulla pointed out an incongruity between one statement of R'Eliezer's and another, and then explained it: Did R'Eliezer, then, say that we require he should know whether he had become unclean by a creeping thing or by a carcass? I question this, for R'Eliezer said: In any case, if he ate prohibited fat, he is liable, or if he a nothar, he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ker. 19a; if there lay before him , a piece of prohibited fat, and , a piece of a sacrifice left over behind the time limit for its consumption, and he ate one of them unwittingly, but he does not know which, R. Eliezer says he must bring a sin offering, because, whether he ate the heleb or nothar, he is liable for a sin offering in either case; but R. Joshua says he is exempt; and is liable only when, he knows definitely which he has eaten.');">³⁰</span> if he desecrated the Sabbath, he is liable, or if he desecrated the Day of Atonement, he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he did work unwittingly, but does not know whether it was on a Sabbath or the Day of Atonement.');">³¹</span> if he cohabited with his wife when menstruous, he is liable, or if he cohabited with his sister, he liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His wife and sister were together with him, and he cohabited with one, thinking it was his wife not believing her to be clean, but later it was ascertained that his wife was already unclean, and, moreover, a doubt arose as to whether it might not have been his sister with whom he cohabited.');">³²</span> Said R'Joshua to him, Scripture says: If his sin, wherein he hath sinned, be known to him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 23.');">³³</span> only when it is known to him wherein he hath sinned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., exactly what his sin was, does he bring a sin offering. This contradicts the previous statement of R. Eliezer, for here he says, he brings a sin offering even if he does not know exactly what his sin was, and in our Mishnah he says, he does not bring his offering unless he knows exactly the source of his uncleanness, whether carcass of creeping thing or animal.');">³⁴</span> [Ulla, however,] explains it thus: There, Scripture says: he hath sinned, then he shall bring [his offering] - as long as [he knows that] he has sinned [though he does not know the actual sin, he brings his offering]: but here, since it is already written: [If any one touch] any unclean thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 2.');">³⁵</span> why do we require: or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely, unclean creeping thing is included in any unclean thing?');">³⁶</span> Hence, we deduce that we require he should know whether he had become unclean by a creeping thing or by an animal carcass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Scripture particularises, we deduce that he does not bring an offering unless he knows the exact source of his uncleanness.');">³⁷</span> And R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture particularises, why does R. Akiba hold that it is not necessary he should know the exact source of his uncleanness, as long as he knows he is unclean?');">³⁸</span> - Because

Explore commentary for Shevuot 36:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.