ב"ה
Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Shegagot - Chapter 11
Shegagot - Chapter 11
1There is a difference with regard to the inadvertent violation of the prohibitions against entering into the Temple and partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure that does not apply with regard to other transgressions punishable by karet. With regard to all the other transgressions punishable by karet, if one transgressed inadvertently and ultimately, became aware that he transgressed, he is liable for a sin-offering, even though he did not have any knowledge of the transgression beforehand.אשִׁנּוּי יֵשׁ בְּשִׁגְגַת טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וּקְדָשָׁיו מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאָר כְּרֵתוֹת: שֶׁכָּל הַכְּרֵתוֹת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁגַג וְנוֹדַע לוֹ בַּסּוֹף שֶׁחָטָא, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה, הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב חַטָּאת.
With regard to the prohibitions against entering into the Temple and partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure, by contrast, one does not bring an adjustable guilt-offering unless he was aware of his ritual impurity and aware of the consecrated nature of the Temple or the food at the outset1 and aware of his ritual impurity and aware of the consecrated nature of the Temple or the food afterwards,2 and there was a lapse of awareness in the interim.אֲבָל בְּטֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וּקְדָשָׁיו - אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה לוֹ יְדִיעָה לַטֻּמְאָה וִידִיעָה לַקֹּדֶשׁ אוֹ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בַּתְּחִלָּה, וִידִיעָה לַטֻּמְאָה וִידִיעָה לַקֹּדֶשׁ אוֹ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בַּסּוֹף, וְהֶעְלֵם בֵּנְתַיִם.
What is implied? He unknowingly contracted impurity and entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food and afterwards, he became aware that he had contracted impurity, that he was impure at the time he ate or entered, and that it was consecrated food that he ate or the Temple that he entered, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a sacrifice. He is not obligated unless he knew that he contracted impurity and that it was consecrated food or the Temple, before he entered or ate.כֵּיצַד? נִטְמָא וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְשֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָכַל אוֹ שֶׁנִּכְנַס, וְשֶׁקֹּדֶשׁ הָיָה זֶה שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ אוֹ מִקְדָּשׁ הָיָה זֶה שֶׁנִּכְנַס לוֹ - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִקָּרְבָּן, עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְשֶׁזֶּה קֹדֶשׁ וְשֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס אוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיֹּאכַל.
What is implied? He contracted impurity and became aware that he contracted impurity and knew that the building was the Temple or the food was consecrated. Afterwards, he had a lapse of awareness regarding the impurity, forgetting that he had contracted impurity, and entered the Temple or ate consecrated food, knowing that this was the Temple or that this was consecrated food. Alternatively, he had a lapse of awareness and forgot that this was the Temple or that this was consecrated meat, but he was aware that he was ritually impure, and he entered or partook of the meat. Or he acted inadvertently or forgot that he contracted impurity, forgot that this was consecrated meat, or that this was the Temple and entered and ate. When afterwards, he becomes aware of the matters of which he had been unaware, he must bring an adjustable guilt-offering in all these six possible instances.3כֵּיצַד? נִטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁזֶּה קֹדֶשׁ וְשֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַטֻּמְאָה וְשָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ, וְהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ וְשֶׁזֶּה קֹדֶשׁ, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁגַג וְשָׁכַח שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ אוֹ שֶׁזֶּה בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ, וְהוּא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא וְשֶׁנִּכְנַס אוֹ אָכַל, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁגַג וְשָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא, וְשָׁכַח שֶׁזֶּה בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ וְשֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס אוֹ אָכַל, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדְעוּ לוֹ דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּתְעַלְּמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ - הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, בְּכָל צַד וְצַד מִשֵּׁשׁ מַחֲלוֹקוֹת אֵלּוּ.
How do we know that this is the law regarding the inadvertent violation of the prohibitions concerning the Temple and consecrated food? Because with regard to other inadvertent transgressions, Leviticus 4:27-28 states: “Acting in violation of one of the commandments of God that forbids an act to be performed and he was guilty or if the sin that he committed becomes known to him,” implying that he is liable if he ultimately knew of the transgression even if he was not aware of it originally. With regard to entering the Temple or partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure, ibid. 5:3 states: “And it became hidden from him, he became aware, and he became guilty.” Since the verse states “And it became hidden from him,” the implication is that he had knowledge of the matter beforehand. And since it is written: “he became aware, and he became guilty,” he ultimately had knowledge. Thus we have learned that he must have awareness initially and ultimately and a lapse of awareness in the interim.4וּמְנַיִן שֶׁדִּין שִׁגְגַת טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וּקְדָשָׁיו כָּךְ הוּא? שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּשְׁאָר שְׁגָגוֹת נֶאֱמַר "בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ אַחַת מִמִּצְוֹת ה' אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵעָשֶׂינָה וְאָשֵׁם אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ" (ויקרא ד, כז-כח) - כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּדַע בַּסּוֹף, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע בַּתְּחִלָּה; וּבְטֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וּקְדָשָׁיו נֶאֱמַר "וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם" (ויקרא ה, ג; ויקרא ה, ד). מֵאַחַר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ" מִכְּלָל שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׁם יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה, וְנֶאֱמַר "וְהוּא יָדַע" - הָא לָמַדְתָּ, שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה וִידִיעָה בַּסּוֹף וְהֶעְלֵם בֵּנְתַיִם.
2If a person contracts impurity and knows that he is impure and is aware of the Temple or that food is consecrated, but does not know the type of impurity that he contracted, then forgot that he became impure and entered the Temple or ate consecrated food, and after entering or eating became aware of the type of impurity5 that he had contracted,6 he is liable to bring a sacrifice. Although at the outset, he did not know the type of impurity he had contracted, since he knew that he was ritually impure, it is considered as if he was aware of his impurity at the outset.בנִטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁנִּטְמָא אֲבָל לֹא יָדַע בְּאֵיזֶה אָב נִטְמָא, וְשָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ, וְנוֹדַע לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּכְנַס אוֹ אַחַר שֶׁאָכַל בְּאֵיזֶה אָב נִטְמָא - הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב בְּקָרְבָּן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּאֵיזֶה אָב נִטְמָא; הוֹאִיל וְיָדַע שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, הֲרֵי הָיְתָה שָׁם יְדִיעַת טֻמְאָה בַּתְּחִלָּה.
If, however, he suffered a lapse of awareness concerning the laws of ritual impurity, e.g., he became impure because of contact with a lentil-sized portion of the carcass of a crawling animal,7 and he knew that the carcass of a crawling animal imparted ritual impurity, but did not know the measure that imparts impurity and then forgot entirely that he touched the carcass of a crawling animal and entered the Temple or ate consecrated food, and then became aware that he touched a lentil-sized portion of the carcass of a crawling animal, there is an unresolved doubt whether or not he is liable for a sacrifice.אֲבָל אִם נֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הִלְכוֹת טֻמְאָה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ, וְיָדַע שֶׁהַשֶּׁרֶץ מְטַמֵּא וְלֹא יָדַע בַּשִׁעוּר, וְשָׁכַח שֶׁנָּגַע בַּשֶּׁרֶץ כְּלָל וְנִכְנַס אוֹ אָכַל, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁנָּגַע בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ - הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם חַיָּב בְּקָרְבָּן אוֹ פָּטוּר.
A similar issue arises when a person who never saw the Temple and was never aware of its place, became impure and knew that he was impure, entered the Temple without knowing at the outset that this was its place, since he never saw it, and afterwards, remembered that he had contracted impurity and became aware that this was the Temple. There is an unresolved doubt8 if the knowledge that there is a Temple in the world is considered as awareness of the Temple or it is necessary for a person to know of the Temple’s place.וְכֵן מִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה הַמִּקְדָּשׁ מִיָּמָיו וְלֹא הֵבִין מְקוֹמוֹ, אִם נִטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁנִּטְמָא, וְשָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא, וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע בַּתְּחִלָּה שֶׁזֶּה הוּא מְקוֹמוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא רָאָהוּ מֵעוֹלָם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ זָכַר הַטֻּמְאָה, וְיָדַע שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ - הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם יְדִיעָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִקְדָּשׁ בָּעוֹלָם יְדִיעָה, אוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע מְקוֹמוֹ תְּחִלָּה.
It appears to me9 that those for whom a doubt exists regarding their obligation to bring a sacrifice should not bring a sacrifice, lest they be bringing a non-consecrated animal into the Temple Courtyard.10יֵרָאֶה לִי, שֶׁאֵלּוּ הַחַיָּבִין בְּקָרְבָּן מִסָּפֵק אֵינָן מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן, שֶׁמָּא יַכְנִיסוּ חֻלִּין לָעֲזָרָה.
If one would say: A sin-offering11 of fowl is brought even in a case of doubt12 although it is not eaten.13 There is a difference between the two. A sin-offering of fowl is brought, because the one bringing it is possibly lacking atonement and is forbidden to partake of sacrificial food until he brings a sacrifice as atonement.14 When, however, one is not lacking in atonement, he should not bring a sacrifice when there is a doubt involved.15וְאִם תֹּאמַר: וַהֲלוֹא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף בָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא אוֹתָהּ מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וְאָסוּר לֶאֱכֹל בַּקֳּדָשִׁים עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא כַּפָּרָתוֹ; אֲבָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן מִסָּפֵק.
3When a person contracts ritual impurity in the Temple Courtyard,16 to be liable for the abovementioned offering, he must initially know that he contracted impurity and that he is in the Temple. Afterwards, if he loses awareness that he contracted impurity, but remembered that he was in the Temple or he lost awareness that he was in the Temple, but did not forget that he was ritually impure, or he lost awareness of both matters, when he regains awareness, he should bring an adjustable guilt-offering.גמִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא בָּעֲזָרָה צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֵּדַע תְּחִלָּה שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְשֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ, וְאִם נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ אַחֲרֵי כֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא וַהֲרֵי הוּא זָכוּר שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ, אוֹ שֶׁנֶּעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא שָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא, אוֹ שֶׁנֶּעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וְזֶה - כְּשֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ, יָבִיא קָרְבַּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד.
The above applies provided he waits the minimum amount of time, as we explained in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash.17וְהוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה כַּשִׁעוּר, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת בִּיאַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ.
4When a person intentionally made himself ritually impure, but did not remain in the Temple Courtyard for the minimum amount of time specified, there is an unresolved doubt with regard to his obligation. Does the concept of a minimum amount of time apply only to one who contracted impurity due to forces beyond his control18 or does it also apply to one who willfully contracted impurity?19דמִי שֶׁטִּמֵּא עַצְמוֹ בְּמֵזִיד וְלֹא שָׁהָה כַּשִׁעוּר הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק, אִם שִׁעוּר הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה לָאָנוּס בִּלְבָד אוֹ אַף לַמֵּזִיד.
Therefore if such a person loses awareness of his ritual impurity, but nonetheless leaves the Temple Courtyard without tarrying, he should not bring a sacrifice.וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ, וְיָצָא וְלֹא שָׁהָה - אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן.
Similarly, there is an unresolved question if an impure person suspended himself in the space above the Temple Courtyard.20 It is unresolved whether the space above the Temple Courtyard is considered as the Temple Courtyard or not.וְכֵן אִם תָּלָה עַצְמוֹ בְּאַוִּיר עֲזָרָה הַדָּבָר סָפֵק, אִם אַוִּיר עֲזָרָה כַּעֲזָרָה אוֹ אֵינוֹ כַּעֲזָרָה.
5When a person is in doubt whether or not he entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food while ritually impure, he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering. For a person does not bring such a sacrifice unless he is unsure of the violation of a prohibition punishable by karet for which one brings a fixed sin-offering to atone for his inadvertent transgression.21המִי שֶׁנִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ אִם נִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ בְּטֻמְאָה אוֹ לָאו - אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, שֶׁאֵין מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן עַל לֹא הוֹדַע, אֶלָא בְּכָרֵת שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה.
6The following rules apply when there were two paths in front of a person, one pure and one impure,22 and he walked down the first and then walked down the second,23 and at the time he walked down the second, he forgot that he walked down the first. If he lost awareness of this ritual impurity and entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food, he is liable.ומִי שֶׁהָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין, אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר - הָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְחָזַר וְהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי, וּבְעֵת שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי שָׁכַח שֶׁהָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן, וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טֻמְאָה זוֹ, וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ - חַיָּב.
Even though originally, he did not have a definitive knowledge of his ritual impurity, but merely a partial knowledge,24 because he did not know25 that he walked down both paths so that he would definitely be impure, he is, nevertheless, liable for a sin-offering.26 For partial knowledge is considered as complete knowledge.אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה יְדִיעָה גְּמוּרָה לַטֻּמְאָה אֶלָא מִקְצַת יְדִיעָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא יָדַע שֶׁהָלַךְ בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין, שֶׁבְּהִלּוּךְ שְׁנֵיהֶן יְהֵא טָמֵא בְּוַּדַּאי, וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן חַיָּב חַטָּאת, שֶׁמִּקְצַת יְדִיעָה כְּכָל יְדִיעָה.
If he only walked down the first path and entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food, he is exempt, because it is not certain that he contracted ritually impurity.27הָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ - פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק טָמֵא.
7If, in the previous situation, he had the ashes of the Red Heifer sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days and immersed himself28 after entering the Temple29 and then walked down the second path and entered the Temple, he is certainly liable, for he has certainly entered the Temple in a state of ritual impurity, either the first time or the second time.30זהִזָּה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי וְטָבַל אַחַר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי, וְחָזַר וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ - חַיָּב; שֶׁהֲרֵי נִכְנַס כְּשֶׁהוּא טָמֵא לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּוַּדַּאי, אוֹ בְּפַעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ בַּשְּׁנִיָּה.
Although on each occasion he was in a state of uncertainty, for the status of both paths is a matter of question, here, with regard to the impurity of the Temple and consecrated objects, uncertain knowledge is considered as definite knowledge.וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל יְדִיעָה מֵהֶן סְפֵק יְדִיעָה הִיא, שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל שְׁבִיל מֵהֶן סָפֵק הוּא, כָּאן בְּטֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וּקְדָשָׁיו עָשׂוּ סְפֵק יְדִיעָה כִּידִיעָה.
8If a person was ritually impure and two witnesses tell him: “You entered the Temple,” and he tells them: “I did not enter,” his word is accepted and he does not bring a sacrifice. For if he desired, he could have said: “I entered intentionally.”31חהָיָה טָמֵא, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם 'נִכְנַסְתָּ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ', וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶם 'לֹא נִכְנַסְתִּי' - נֶאֱמָן, וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן; שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה, יֹאמַר 'מֵזִיד הָיִיתִי'.
The following rules apply it two witnesses tell a person: “You were impure when you entered the Temple. You contracted ritual impurity in our presence and you knew you were impure.” Even though there was an interim of many days between the contraction of impurity about which they testified and his entry into the Temple and thus he could have said: “I already immersed myself,”32 since he denies the statement of the witnesses and says: “I never contracted impurity,” the statement of the witnesses is accepted and he is required to bring a sacrifice because of them.אָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם 'טָמֵא הָיִיתָ כְּשֶׁנִּכְנַסְתָּ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּבְפָנֵינוּ נִטְמֵאתָ, וְיָדַעְתָּ שֶׁאַתָּה טָמֵא', אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה בֵּין טֻמְאָה זוֹ שֶׁמְּעִידִין בָּהּ וּבֵין כְּנִיסָתוֹ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ יָמִים רַבִּים, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ שֶׁיֹּאמַר 'כְּבָר טָבַלְתִּי', הוֹאִיל וְהִכְחִישׁ אֶת הָעֵדִים וְאָמַר 'לֹא נִטְמֵאתִי מֵעוֹלָם' - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִים וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל פִּיהֶם.
The rationale is that if two witnesses can cause him to receive as severe a punishment as execution,33 certainly, they can obligate him for an easier punishment, bringing a sacrifice, for he denied their testimony.אִם הֱבִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם לִידֵי מִיתָה חֲמוּרָה, קַל וְחֹמֶר שֶׁיָּבִיאוּהוּ לִידֵי קָרְבָּן הַקַּל - שֶׁהֲרֵי הִכְחִישָׁן.
9When a person entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food in a state of ritual impurity had a knowledge of the situation at the outset,34 but ultimately did not have knowledge of the matter,35 the goat offered in the Holy of Holies36 and Yom Kippur37 bring about tentative atonement38 until he becomes aware and brings an adjustable guilt-offering.טטֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וּקְדָשָׁיו שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא הָיָה לָהּ יְדִיעָה בַּסּוֹף - שָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים תּוֹלִין, עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ וְיָבִיא קָרְבַּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד.
When he does not have knowledge39 at the outset,40 the goat offered in the Temple Courtyard41 and Yom Kippur bring about atonement.וְשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהּ בַּסּוֹף - שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין.
If he did not have knowledge neither at the outset, nor ultimately,42 the goats offered on the festivals43 and on Rosh Chodesh,44 bring about atonement.וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה, לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַּסּוֹף - שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים וּשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין.
If one purposely entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food while ritually impure, the bull offered by the High Priest on Yom Kippur45 brings about atonement if the transgressor was a priest.46וְעַל זְדוֹן טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וּקְדָשָׁיו - פַּר כּוֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, אִם הָיָה הַמֵּזִיד מִן הַכּוֹהֲנִים;
If he was an Israelite, the blood of the goat offered in the Holy of Holies and Yom Kippur47 bring about atonement, as Leviticus 16:16 states concerning that goat: “And he shall atone for the holy place, because of the impurity of the children of Israel.”48וְאִם הָיָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, דָּם שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" (ויקרא טז, טז).
Footnotes
1.
I.e., before he transgressed.
2.
I.e., after he transgressed, he became aware and desired to atone for his transgression.
3.
a) He knew that this was consecrated food, but he was unaware that he was impure. b) He knew that he was impure, but he was unaware that this was consecrated food. c) He was unaware of both the above factors. d) He knew that he was entering the Temple, but he was unaware that he was impure. e) He knew that he was impure, but he was unaware that he was entering the Temple. f) He was unaware of both the above factors.
4.
For his becoming aware of the transgression a second time implies that there was a lapse in the interim.
5.
As will be explained in Sefer Taharah, there are various types of ritual impurity, each type with different laws and restrictions. These categories are referred to as an av hatum’ah, literally, “a father of ritual impurity.”
6.
Implied is that to be liable, he must ultimately know the type of impurity he had contracted. It is not sufficient merely to know that he became impure (Rav Yosef Corcus; Lechem Mishneh).
7.
See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 4:2.
8.
Keritot 14b discusses this question without resolving it.
9.
This phrase introduces a deduction which the Rambam has made through his own processes of reasoning without an explicit prior Rabbinic source.
10.
I.e., if the person was in fact not obligated to bring a sacrifice, its consecration will have been in error and therefore void. Thus the animal’s status will be that of an unconsecrated animal. Slaughtering such an animal in the Temple Courtyard violates a transgression, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 2:1.
11.
The question involves a sin-offering, because other types of sacrifices may be brought when one is in doubt whether he is liable by making a conditional stipulation.
12.
I.e., when one is not certain whether or not the person is obligated to bring the offering or not.
13.
I.e., the fowl is offered according to all the sacrificial rites, because of the possibility that the person was obligated to bring it. Yet the priests do not partake of its meat, lest the person had been exempt. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 7:10, Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:6-7, for details regarding such a situation.
14.
Ibid. 1:1; Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14.
15.
Because there is no pressing need that will be met through bringing this sacrifice.
16.
See Hilchot Bi’at Hamikdash 3:21-22. Keritot 16b notes that Numbers 19:13 and 19:20 both speak about a person imparting ritual impurity to the Temple. Thus it explains that one verse applies to a person who contracted impurity outside the Temple Courtyard and entered while impure and the other, to one who contracted impurity in the Temple Courtyard. Both must atone by bringing an adjustable guilt-offering.
17.
Hilchot Bi’at Hamikdash 3:23 explains that a person is liable if he remains in the Temple for the time it takes to read the verse: “And they bowed with their faces to the ground on the floor, prostrating themselves and giving thanks to God who is good and whose kindness is everlasting.”
18.
For, after all, if he left the Temple Courtyard as soon as he became ritually impure, we can understand why he does not require atonement: What else could he have done? If, however, he consciously incurred ritually impurity, there is reason to say that he is liable, because his being impure in the Temple Courtyard came as a result of his own actions.
19.
Tosafot, Keritot 17a, explains that this is speaking about a person who was unaware that he was in the Temple at the time that he made himself ritually impure. For if he was aware that he was in the Temple, he would not be liable for a sacrifice, since these offerings are required only when initially one is transgressing unknowingly, as stated in Halachah 1.
In his gloss to Keritot, op. cit., Mitzpeh L‘Eitan offers an alternative resolution of the difficulty, explaining that this halachah refers to a person who knows that being in the Temple Courtyard while impure constitutes a transgression, but does not know that he is liable for karet. Thus his transgression is considered as willful, and yet, with regard to an adjustable guilt-offering, he is considered as acting inadvertently, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 2.
20.
And thus waited the amount of time for which he is liable for lashes while suspended above the Temple Courtyard.
21.
See Chapter 8, Halachah I; Chapter 9, Halachah 11.
22.
I.e., anyone who walked down the impure path could not avoid contracting ritual impurity, because there was a grave positioned across the width of the path (Rav Yosef Corcus, based on Sh’vuot 19a). It was not known, however, which path was pure and which was impure.
23.
Thus he definitely contracted ritual impurity.
24.
I.e., he has a partial knowledge of the true reality. He is definitely impure- because he walked down both paths but is not aware of the full nature of his situation. This situation differs from that described in the last clause of this halachah, in that here, he is definitely impure, while there he is not.
25.
Because he forgot that he walked down the first path.
26.
More particularly, for an adjustable guilt-offering.
27.
As stated in the previous halachah.
28.
Thus purifying himself from the impurity associated with a corpse.
29.
I.e., he undertook this purification process after entering the Temple.
30.
For he entered the Temple after walking down both paths.
31.
In which instance, he would also be absolved of the obligation to bring a sacrifice. See a parallel in Chapter 3, Halachah 1.
The Rambam’s decision appears to be based on the rationale of miggo, i.e., that if the person desired to lie, he could have told a more effective lie. Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh cite the glosses of Rashi and Tosafot (Keritot 11b) who explain that the intent is not that we negate the statements of the witnesses in favor of the person’s statements (for, were that to be the case, there would be a contradiction between the initial clause of the halachah and the concluding clause). Instead, we interpret the person’s statements as meaning: “I did not enter inadvertently, but rather intentionally.” In this way, his statement is not a direct contradiction to the statement of the witnesses.
The Ra’avad explains that the emphasis on miggo reflects only one of the opinions mentioned in Keritot 11 b. The conclusion of that passage appears to differ and accept the rationale that a person’s word is accepted regarding his own self more than the statements of 100 witnesses. Thus he questions the Rambam’s ruling in the second half of the halachah. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus offer explanations that substantiate the Rambam’s ruling.
32.
And thus regained ritual purity.
33.
If they testify that he violated a transgression punishable by capital punishment.
34.
I.e., he knew that he was ritually impure and what the Temple was or that food was consecrated and then forgot.
35.
I.e., he remained unaware that he entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food while ritually impure and did not become aware of the matter until after Yom Kippur.
36.
The literal meaning of the Rambam’s words are “in the inner chamber.” See the description of this sacrifice in Hilchot Avodat Yam HaKippurim 1:1; 3:3-5.
37.
The essence of Yom Kippur itself, independent of the sacrifices offered, brings about a certain measure of atonement.
38.
Protecting him from Divine retribution, for even an inadvertent transgression brings bout a certain degree of Divine retribution.
39.
Either of his impurity or of the Temple or of the consecrated nature of the food. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh’vuot 1:3), the Rambam states that this could apply to a child raised by gentiles from birth. Thus he had no concept of the transgression at all.
40.
In which instance, he does not bring a sacrifice, as stated in Halachah 1.
41.
Literally, “outside.” This refers to the goat sacrificed as one of the additional offerings of that day, as prescribed by Numbers 29:11. See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1: l; 2:2.
42.
And thus there is no way he can atone for this transgression on his own.
43.
These are offered as sin-offerings; see Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:3; 8:1; 10:3-5.
44.
These are also sin-offerings; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 8:1.
45.
See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1; 2:2.
46.
For with regard to this sacrifice, Leviticus 16:6 states: “And he shall atone for himself and for his household.” Sh’vuot 13b states that, in an extended sense, this could refer to the entire priestly family.
47.
The essence of Yom Kippur itself, independent of the sacrifices offered, brings about a certain measure of atonement.
48.
Since the verse mentions “the children of Israel,” we understand that it refers to the people at large. That verse also mentions umipisheihem which Sh’vuot 12b interprets as referring to_ their intentional sins.
Rabbi Eliyahu Touger is a noted author and translator, widely published for his works on Chassidut and Maimonides.
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
