Shevuot 37

דבעי למיכתב בהמה וחיה לכדרבי כתיב נמי שרץ כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל פרשה שנאמרה ונשנית לא נשנית אלא בשביל דבר שנתחדש בה

Scripture wishes to write cattle and beast<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. v, 2: the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle.');">¹</span> for the sake of Rabbi's deduction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 7a.');">²</span> it writes also creeping thing;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is superfluous; but we must not deduce from this particularisation that the unclean person must know the source of his uncleanness in order to be liable for a sacrifice.');">³</span>

ורבי אליעזר האי בה מאי עביד ליה פרט למתעסק

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here the 'something new' is Rabbi's deduction.');">⁴</span> And what does R'Eliezer do with the word wherein [he hath sinned]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 23; the word wherein implies that he must know the actual sin he has committed, yet R. Eliezer holds that if there lay before him heleb and nothar, and he unwittingly ate one of them, not knowing which, he must also bring a sin offering.');">⁵</span> - To exclude him who occupies himself [with a permitted thing and unintentionally does that which is prohibited].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., on Sabbath he intended (what is permissible) to cut something which was already detached (from the ground or 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.');">⁶</span>

ורבי יוחנן אמר משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו וכן אמר רב ששת משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו דרב ששת מחליף דרבי אליעזר לרבי עקיבא ודרבי עקיבא לרבי אליעזר

And R'Johanan said: 'Inferences of Expounders' is the difference between them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He disagrees with Hezekiah who said that R. Eliezer and R. Akiba differ in their interpretation of the law; he holds 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'.');">⁷</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It matters not, since there is no difference in law between them.');">⁸</span> Raba inquired of R'Nahman: If he was unaware of both, what is the ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Eliezer and R. Akiba who hold that sin offering is brought only for unawareness of uncleanness and not for unawareness of Temple, what is the ruling of the unclean person was unaware of both uncleanness and Temple?');">⁹</span>

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן העלם זה וזה בידו מהו אמר ליה הרי העלם טומאה בידו וחייב אדרבה הרי העלם מקדש בידו ופטור

- 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he leaves the Temple, when told he is unclean (the fact that it is the Temple is not mentioned to him) , we realise 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.');">¹⁰</span> - Said Rabina to R'Ashi: Does he then leave because it is the Temple, unless it be also because of the uncleanness?

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>

תנו רבנן שני שבילין אחד טמא ואחד טהור והלך בראשון ולא נכנס בשני ונכנס חייב

and one clean; and he walked along one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But does not know whether it was the clean or the unclean path.');">¹⁴</span> and did not enter [the Temple afterwards]; then along the other, and entered [the Temple],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having forgotten that he is unclean, since he walked along both.');">¹⁵</span> he is liable [to bring a sliding scale sacrifice].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he entered the Temple while definitely unclean, and had knowledge at the beginning of definite uncleanness.');">¹⁶</span>

הלך בראשון ונכנס הזה ושנה וטבל ואח"כ הלך בשני ונכנס חייב ר"ש פוטר ורבי שמעון בן יהודה פוטר בכולן משום ר' שמעון:

If he walked along one, and entered [the Temple],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having forgotten that he had walked along one path (which possibly was the unclean one, though he is not sure) .');">¹⁷</span> and was sprinkled upon [on the third day], and again [on the seventh day], and bathed himself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 19; a person unclean by the dead requires sprinkling with water into which has been put some of the ashes of the burnt red heifer.');">¹⁸</span> and then he walked along the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Knowing that it is possibly the unclean one.');">¹⁹</span>

בכולן

and entered [the Temple],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having forgotten his possible uncleanness.');">²⁰</span> he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because either the first or the second time he entered the Temple while unclean.');">²¹</span> R'Simeon [b. Yohai] exempts him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, before he entered the Temple either the first or second time, he had not the knowledge of definite 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.');">²²</span> and R'Simeon B'Judah exempts him in all these cases in the name of R'Simeon [b. Yohai].' In all of them,'