Commentary for Shevuot 37:5

אמר רב אשי חזינן אי מטומאה קא פריש הרי העלם טומאה בידו וחייב אי ממקדש קא פריש הרי העלם מקדש בידו ופטור אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי כלום פריש ממקדש אלא משום טומאה כלום פריש מטומאה אלא משום מקדש אלא לא שנא

And does he leave because of the uncleanness, unless it be also because it is the Temple?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he is told one of the facts, either that he is unclean, or that he is in the Temple, he does not leave because of 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?');">¹¹</span> Well then, there is no difference,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he is exempt, because R. Eliezer and R. Akiba hold that he is liable only for unawareness of uncleanness by itself, while realising that he has entered the Temple.');">¹²</span> Our Rabbis taught: Two [public] paths, one unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Someone being buried there, and it is impossible to walk along the path without treading on the grave.');">¹³</span>

Explore commentary for Shevuot 37:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.