Yerushalmi Shevuot 1:2 ירושלמי שבועות א׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: In any case⁵⁶This refers to violations of the laws of purity (Note 2). A sacrifice to atone for such a violation, either by entering the Sanctuary in a state of impurity or eating sacra in such a state, is possible only if the violation occurred while the perpetrator was oblivious of his state (Lev. 5:2–3). This implies that at some earlier time he was aware of his state. If he never remembers, clearly he has no occasion to bring a sacrifice. where there is knowledge at the start and knowledge at the end but forgetting in between there is an increasing or decreasing [sacrifice]⁵⁷Depending of the perpetrator’s wealth as explained in Lev. 5:1–13.. If there was knowledge at the start but no knowledge at the end, the he-goat whose blood in brought inside⁵⁸Lev. 16:15–16. and the Day of Atonement⁵⁹If there is no Temple, the Day of Atonement protects the perpetrator from judgment by the Heavenly Court. suspend until it becomes a certainty for him and he brings an increasing or decreasing one⁶⁰The Day of Atonement suspends but does not eliminate the obligation; there is no statute of limitations..

HALAKHAH: “In any case where there is knowledge at the start,” etc. ⁶¹Babli 4a. From where that we require knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between? The verse says, it was forgotten, it was forgotten⁶²Lev. 5:2,3. two times; this implies that he had knowledge at the start and at the end but forgetting in between. So far for Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? For Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi. As Rebbi said, it was forgotten by him, this implies that he knows. “But he knew,” there is knowledge two times. Hence Rebbi Ismael [argues] like Rebbi, and Rebbi like Rebbi Ismael. This comes even according to Rebbi Aqiba; it is the same for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of the Sanctuary as for knowledge and forgetting about the impurity of sancta⁶³In Babylonian sources [Babli 14b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 12(7)] this is consistently attributed to R. Ismael. The difference between the two is that R. Aqiba considers every stylistic variation a change in meaning whereas R. Ismael holds that “the Torah is written in the manner of common speech.”. But some want to understand it from the following: He knew and felt guilty. Was it not already said, he became impure and felt guilty^62,Lev. 5:2,3.⁶⁴The first quote is from the verse about human impurity, the other about impurity from extra-human sources. While it was argued before that one can only forget what one knew, the knowledge explicitly required in v. 3 must be explicit, it cannot have been unconsciously absorbed.? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end.

Rebbi Bun asked, if he did not know at the end, how could be bring a sacrifice⁶⁵Since any obligatory offering cannot be brought voluntarily, the fact that a sacrifice is commanded implies that the person can prove it is obligatory, i. e., he knows that a sin has been committed. Therefore the mention of ‘knowledge” in the verse cannot refer to his knowledge at the moment he offers the sacrifice.? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the end, let it refer to knowledge at the beginning⁶⁶And the mention of forgetting must be interpreted as read by R. Aqiba here and R. Ismael in the Babli sources.. They objected: Is it not written, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring⁶⁷Lev. 4:23, about the purification offering of the prince. Purification offerings are for inadvertent sins; nowhere is prior knowledge and intermediate forgetting indicated. R. Bun’s argument would force the transfer of the rules for variable sacrifices to purification ones against all tradition.? Then if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end⁶⁸A “suspended” reparation sacrifice is brought if the person suspects but is not sure that he has sinned (Lev. 5:17–18). If he then gains certainty that he has committed an inadvertent sin, a purification sacrifice is due if and only if he gains this knowledge before the next Day of Atonement. R. Bun’s argument is justified.! Explain it as referring to those who are obligated for certain purification and reparation offerings for which the Day of Atonement has passed who have to bring after the day of Atonement, while those obligated for suspended reparation sacrifices are no longer liable. The verse says, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring even after the Day of Atonement⁷⁰Yoma 8:6 (45b l. 47), Babli Keritut 25b..

⁷¹Babli 6b; Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 11(9). And from where that it speaks only about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta? He warned and punished about impurity⁷²In Lev. 22:15–16, both warning and punishment are written for priests who would violate the purity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. For the laity the corresponding verses are Lev. 7:19–20. The sacrifice for violations in purity is mentioned in Lev. 5:2–3; one has to establish that no sacrifice is possible for violations of sancta which do not belong to the Sanctuary such as heave. and required a sacrifice about impurity. Since punishment and warning spelled out later on refer to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta⁷³Deut. 26:14. The person who comes to eat his Second Tithe at the place of the Sanctuary has to make a declaration that he followed all the rules; in particular that he did not eat of it while in “deep mourning”, occupied in burying a close relative. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity but no sanction for violation of its purity is spelled out anywhere in the Pentateuch., also when He made liable for a sacrifice it is about impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, since it says, I did not eat from it in my deep mourning⁷⁴Deut.14., I could think that an Israel who ate tithe in deep mourning should bring a sacrifice. The verse says, from thes e⁷⁵Lev. 5:4. Prefix מ always is read as partitive, “some but not all.” Since it is not spelled out which infractions of the laws of impurity (or of testimony, or oaths) are included, and which are excluded, the detailed rules are left to rabbinic interpretation. Babli 33b.. For some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. I will exclude tithe which is not a deadly sin but will not exclude heave which is a deadly sin as it is said, they would die from it for they desecrated it⁷⁶Lev. 22:9. First Tithe (of which heave of the tithe was separated) is totally profane in the hand of the Levite. Second Tithe has to be eaten in purity at the place of the Sanctuary but there is no penalty for violation of its purity. But heave has to be eaten by the Cohen in purity and violation of its purity is a deadly sin.. The verse says from thes e; for some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. Or since there⁷⁷The verse mentioned in Note 76. [one speaks about] heave, also here heave. But did you not learn it from foreign worship⁷⁸The sacrifice atoning for inadvertent idolatry is declared paradigmatic for all sins in Num. 15:22.? Since foreign worship teaches about all transgressions in the Torah, to say that as foreign worship is special that one is liable for extirpation if done intentionally and for a sacrifice if done unintentionally⁷⁹The sacrifice is spelled out in Num. 15:22–29; extirpation in vv. 30–31. Babli Šabbat 69a.. This excludes heave which only is a deadly sin⁸⁰But no extirpation is mentioned for violating purity of heaves..

Rebbi Ḥanina⁸¹Read: Ḥinena. said before Rebbi Mana: Did you learn this from foreign worship? Then one should learn from foreign worship that for everything one needs one knowledge⁸²Since neither prior awareness nor forgetting are mentioned as prerequisite for a sacrifice for unintentional idolatry (nor for any other sacrifice not depending on the sinner’s wealth) one would have to explain away the mention of prior awareness for infractions of the laws of purity.! He told him, foreign worship requires a fixed value [sacrifice] but the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta an increasing or decreasing one. One cannot infer about a fixed value [sacrifice] from an increasing and decreasing one, nor for an increasing or decreasing from a fixed value one⁸³Therefore the previous argument is invalid; one has to find another argument to exclude any sacrifice for violations of the sanctity of heave.. How did you understand to say that the verse⁸⁴Lev. 5:2–3. Babli 7a. speaks about impurity of Sanctuary sancta? It is said here an impure animal⁸⁵Lev. 5:2. and it is said further on an impure animal⁸⁶Lev. 7:21.. Since an impure animal mentioned there is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta, so an impure animal mentioned here is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta. Not only Sanctuary sancta; from where the impurity of the Sanctuary⁸⁷Babli Zevaḥim 43b. The question is whether a violation of the purity of the Sanctuary can be expiated by a sacrifice or whether any such violation requires the full ceremony of Lev. 16 describing the Day of Atonement.? ⁸⁸Sifra Ṣav Pereq 14(3–6), partially quoted in Zevaḥim 43b.“The verse says: his impurity is on him⁸⁹Lev. 7:20.. How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]⁹⁰This is prohibited in Lev. 7:19.? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi says, he ate⁹¹Lev. 7:21., his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Ḥiyya says, sancta are mentioned in the plural⁹²A well-being offering is always mentioned in the plural, שְׁלָמִים. It is argued that therefore a singular cannot refer to the sacrifice. The argument is unconvincing since the sacrifice is not called שְׁלָמִים in the plural but זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים in the singular. It also is unnecessary since in 7:20 עָלָיו “on him” refers to the subject וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ “but the person”. but impurity is mentioned in the singular. How can I uphold his impurity is on him? Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Meїr says, the verse only speaks of one from whom impurity separates⁹³A person always can remove his impurity, for simple impurity by immersion in a miqweh, for severe impurities by one of the prescribed rituals. Impure sacral meat must be burned (Lev. 7:19; it also loses its impurity by rotting but as long as it is meat it remains impure.. This excludes meat from which impurity does not separate.”

If it is so, what does the Day of Atonement help him⁹⁵This refers to the second part of the Mishnah. If at some time the impurity was known, the eventual obligation of a sacrifice is not eliminated by the day of Atonement. Then what is the effect of this day?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, the Day of Atonement acts for him as a suspended reparation sacrifice. In he died before the day of Atonement, the sin is in her⁹⁶Num. 15:31. The feminine pronoun refers to נֶפֶשׁ “the breathing person”.. After the day of Atonement it already was atoned for⁹⁷Even though an eventual obligation remains for the living person, the guilt has been atoned for..

⁹⁸Babli 7b, Sifra Aḥare Pereq4(1–3).“He shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel⁹⁹Lev. 16:16., etc. In this aspect I have three impurities. The impurity of foreign worship as it is said, to defile My Sanctuary¹⁰⁰Lev. 20:3.. Sexual offenses as it is said, not to act in the rules of abominations¹⁰¹Lev. 18.30.. Spilling of blood as it is said, do not defile the Land¹⁰²Num. 35:34, a misquote from memory.. I could think that this he-goat atones for all these impurities, the verse says, from the impurities, not all impurities¹⁰³Reading the prefix מ as partitive, cf. Note 75.. We find that the verse treated the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately; also here we treat only the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately¹⁰⁴In his opinion, the Day of Atonement is exclusively for repairing any damage to the Sanctuary., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it is decided, as it is said, he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, any impurity in the Sanctuary. I could think that this he-goat atones for these impurities, the verse says, and their crimes⁹⁹Lev. 16:16.. These are the rebellions¹⁰⁵Intentional sins, intended as “breaking the yoke of Heaven”. There is no homily on חַטָּאוֹת “unintentional sins” also mentioned in the verse., for so it says, the king of Moab rebelled against me¹⁰⁶2K. 3:7..