1

There 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. 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 outset and aware of his ritual impurity and aware of the consecrated nature of the Temple or the food afterwards, and there was a lapse of awareness in the interim.

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.

What is implied? He contracted impurity and became aware that he contracted impurity and knew that 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. Then afterwards, he became aware of the matters of which he had been unaware, he must bring an adjustable guilt-offering in all these six possible instances.

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.

א

שִׁנּוּי יֵשׁ בְּשִׁגְגַת טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאָר כְּרֵתוֹת. שֶׁכָּל הַכְּרֵתוֹת כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁגַג וְנוֹדַע לוֹ בַּסּוֹף שֶׁחָטָא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב חַטָּאת. אֲבָל בְּטֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד עַד שֶׁתִּהְיֶה לוֹ יְדִיעָה לַטֻּמְאָה וִידִיעָה לַקֹּדֶשׁ אוֹ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בַּתְּחִלָּה וִידִיעָה לַטֻּמְאָה וִידִיעָה לַקֹּדֶשׁ אוֹ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בַּסּוֹף וְהֶעְלֵם בֵּינְתַיִם. 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. כֵּיצַד. נִטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ וְשֶׁזֶּה קֹדֶשׁ. 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 וְנִכְנַס אוֹ אָכַל. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁגַג אוֹ שָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְשָׁכַח שֶׁזֶּה בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ וְשֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס אוֹ אָכַל וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּתְעַלְּמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד בְּכָל צַד וְצַד מִשֵּׁשׁ מַחֲלוֹקוֹת אֵלּוּ. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁדִּין שִׁגְגַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו כָּךְ הוּא. שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּשְׁאָר שְׁגָגוֹת נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ד כז) "בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ אַחַת מִמִּצְוֹת ה' אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵעָשֶׂינָה וְאָשֵׁם" (ויקרא ד כח) "אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא". כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּדַע בַּסּוֹף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע בַּתְּחִלָּה. וּבְטֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ה ג ד) "וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם" מֵאַחַר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִכְּלָל שֶׁהָיְתָה שָׁם יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה וְנֶאֱמַר וְהוּא יָדַע [וְאָשֵׁם] הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה וִידִיעָה בַּסּוֹף וְהֶעְלֵם בֵּינְתַיִם:

2

If 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 impurity that he had contracted, 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.

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, 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.

A similar issue arises when a person who never saw the Temple and never was 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 doubt 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.

It appears to me 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. If one would say: A sin-offering of fowl is brought even in a case of doubt although it is not eaten. 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. When, however, one is not lacking in atonement, he should not bring a sacrifice when there is a doubt involved.

ב

נִטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁנִּטְמָא [וְיָדַע שֶׁזֶּה קֹדֶשׁ וְשֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ] אֲבָל לֹא יָדַע בְּאֵי זֶה אָב נִטְמָא וְשָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ וְנוֹדַע לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּכְנַס אוֹ אַחַר שֶׁאָכַל בְּאֵי זֶה אָב נִטְמָא [הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב קָרְבָּן] אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע בַּתְּחִלָּה בְּאֵי זֶה אָב נִטְמָא הוֹאִיל וְיָדַע שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא הֲרֵי הָיְתָה שָׁם יְדִיעַת טֻמְאָה בַּתְּחִלָּה. אֲבָל אִם נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ הִלְכוֹת טֻמְאָה. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְיָדַע שֶׁהַשֶּׁרֶץ מְטַמֵּא וְלֹא יָדַע בַּשִּׁעוּר וְשָׁכַח שֶׁנָּגַע בְּשֶׁרֶץ כְּלָל וְנִכְנַס אוֹ אָכַל וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ [שֶׁנָּגַע] בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם חַיָּב קָרְבָּן אוֹ פָּטוּר. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה הַמִּקְדָּשׁ מִיָּמָיו וְלֹא הֵבִין מְקוֹמוֹ. אִם נִטְמָא וְיָדַע שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע בַּתְּחִלָּה שֶׁזֶּהוּ 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. יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵלּוּ הַחַיָּבִים קָרְבָּן מִסָּפֵק אֵינָן מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן שֶׁמָּא יַכְנִיסוּ חֻלִּין לַעֲזָרָה. וְאִם תֹּאמַר וַהֲלֹא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף בָּאָה עַל הַסָּפֵק וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא אוֹתָהּ מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים אָסוּר לֶאֱכל בְּקָדָשִׁים עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא כַּפָּרָתוֹ. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן מִסָּפֵק:

3

When a person contracts ritual impurity in the Temple Courtyard, 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. The above applies provided he waits the minimum amount of time, as we explained in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash.

ג

מִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא בָּעֲזָרָה צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֵּדַע תְּחִלָּה שֶׁנִּטְמָא וְשֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ. וְאִם נֶעְלָם מִמֶּנּוּ אַחֲרֵי כֵן שֶׁנִּטְמָא וַהֲרֵי הוּא זָכוּר שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ. אוֹ שֶׁנֶּעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁזֶּה מִקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא שָׁכַח שֶׁנִּטְמָא. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְעַלְּמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וְזֶה. כְּשֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ יָבִיא קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה כַּשִּׁעוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ:

4

When 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 control or does it also apply to one who willfully contracted impurity? 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.

Similarly, there is an unresolved question if an impure person suspended himself in the space above the Temple Courtyard. It is unresolved whether the space above the Temple Courtyard is considered as the Temple Courtyard or not.

ד

מִי שֶׁטִּמֵּא עַצְמוֹ בְּמֵזִיד וְלֹא שָׁהָה כַּשִּׁעוּר. הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם שִׁעוּר הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה לְאָנוּס בִּלְבַד אוֹ אַף לְמֵזִיד. וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְיָצָא וְלֹא שָׁהָה אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. וְכֵן אִם תָּלָה עַצְמוֹ בַּאֲוִיר עֲזָרָה. הַדָּבָר סָפֵק אִם אֲוִיר עֲזָרָה כַּעֲזָרָה אוֹ אֵינוֹ כַּעֲזָרָה:

5

When 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.

ה

מִי שֶׁנִּסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ אִם נִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ בְּטֻמְאָה אוֹ לָאו אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. שֶׁאֵין מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן עַל לֹא הוֹדַע אֶלָּא בְּכָרֵת שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה:

6

The following rules apply when there where two paths in front of a person, one pure and one impure. and he walked down the first and then walked down the second, 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. Even though originally, he did not have a definitive knowledge of his ritual impurity, but merely a partial knowledge, because he did not know that he walked down both paths so that he would definitely be impure, he is, nevertheless, liable for a sin-offering. For partial knowledge is considered as complete knowledge.

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.

ו

מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִים אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר הָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְחָזַר וְהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבְעֵת שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי שָׁכַח שֶׁהָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנָּה טֻמְאָה זוֹ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ חַיָּב. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לוֹ בַּתְּחִלָּה יְדִיעָה גְּמוּרָה לַטֻּמְאָה אֶלָּא מִקְצָת יְדִיעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא יָדַע שֶׁהָלַךְ בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין שֶׁבְּהִלּוּךְ שְׁנֵיהֶן יְהֵא טָמֵא בְּוַדַּאי וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן חַיָּב חַטָּאת שֶׁמִּקְצָת יְדִיעָה כְּכָל יְדִיעָה. הָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹ אָכַל קֹדֶשׁ. פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק טָמֵא:

7

If, in the previous situation, he had the ashes of the Red Heifer sprinkled upon him on the third and seventh days and immersed himself after entering the Temple 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. 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.

ז

הִזָּה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי וְטָבַל וְאַחַר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וְחָזַר וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַיָּב. שֶׁהֲרֵי נִכְנַס כְּשֶׁהוּא טָמֵא לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּוַדַּאי אוֹ בְּפַעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ בְּפַעַם שְׁנִיָּה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל יְדִיעָה מֵהֶן סְפֵק יְדִיעָה הִיא שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל שְׁבִיל מֵהֶן סָפֵק הוּא כָּאן בְּטֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו עָשׂוּ סְפֵק יְדִיעָה כִּידִיעָה:

8

If 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."

The following rules apply if 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 which they testified about and his entry into the Temple and thus he could have said: "I already immersed myself," 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. The rationale is that if two witnesses can cause him to receive as severe a punishment as execution, certainly, they can obligate him for an easier punishment, bringing a sacrifice, for he denied their testimony.

ח

הָיָה טָמֵא וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם נִכְנַסְתָּ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶם לֹא נִכְנַסְתִּי נֶאֱמָן וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה יֹאמַר מֵזִיד הָיִיתִי. 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. אִם הֱבִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם לִידֵי מִיתָה חֲמוּרָה קַל וָחֹמֶר שֶׁיְּבִיאוּהוּ לִידֵי קָרְבָּן הַקַּל שֶׁהֲרֵי הִכְחִישָׁן:

9

When 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, but ultimately did not have knowledge of the matter, the goat offered in the Holy of Holies and Yom Kippur bring about tentative atonement until he becomes aware and brings an adjustable guilt-offering.

When he does not have knowledge at the outset, the goat offered in the Temple Courtyard and Yom Kippur bring about atonement. If he did not have knowledge neither at the outset, nor ultimately, the goats offered on the festivals and on Rosh Chodesh, bring about atonement. If one purposefully entered the Temple or partook of consecrated food while ritually impure, the bull offered by the High Priest on Yom Kippur brings about atonement if the transgressor was a priest. If he was an Israelite, the blood of the goat offered in the Holy of Holies and Yom Kippur 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."

ט

טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא הָיָה לָהּ יְדִיעָה בַּסּוֹף שָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים תּוֹלִין עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ וְיָבִיא קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. וְשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהּ יְדִיעָה בַּסּוֹף שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּחוּץ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין. וְעַל שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ יְדִיעָה לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַּסּוֹף שְׂעִירֵי הָרְגָלִים וּשְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים מְכַפְּרִין. וְעַל זְדוֹן טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו פַּר כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר אִם הָיָה הַמֵּזִיד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים. וְאִם הָיָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל דַּם שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִּפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טז טז) "וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל":