Kommentar zu Wajikra 5:2

'או נפש אשר תגע וגו‎‎ OR IF A SOUL TOUCH [ANY UNCLEAN THING] etc., and after acquiring this uncleanness eats holy things or enters the Sanctuary, this being something which if done willfully is subject to the penalty of excision — thus is it explained in Treatise Shevuot 14b.

AND IT IS HIDDEN FROM HIM³³⁷This is the second type of case for which the offering of higher or lower value is required. It is known as “the defilement of the Sanctuary or its hallowed things.” Thus if a person who has been made unclean by any of the primary sources of uncleanness, unintentionally enters the Sanctuary, or unintentionally eats meat that is holy, he must bring the above-mentioned offering. A third — and final — case is if one swears an oath of utterance [“I shall eat” or “I shall not eat” and the like], and unintentionally fails to keep it. In this case too he is required to bring this offering. — “that is, he had forgotten his state of uncleanness. AND HE INCURRED GUILT — by eating holy food or by entering the Sanctuary.” This is Rashi’s language. Now [Rashi’s] intent is not that the [requirement of] eating the holy food or entering the Sanctuary is derived from the word v’asheim (and he incurred guilt), for this word is used with reference to all the sin-offerings mentioned previously.³³⁸Above, Chapter 4, Verses 13, 22, and 27. But this section deals in a brief manner with those points which are self-understood. For there is no sin involved in touching a carcass of an unclean beast or swarming thing [which defiles the person]. Even the priests have not been warned against it. So it is impossible that Scripture should require a person to bring an offering just because he touched them and thereby became defiled. Rather, Scripture is stating that when a person becomes defiled and forgets his state of uncleanness, or when he swears [an “oath of utterance”]³³⁷This is the second type of case for which the offering of higher or lower value is required. It is known as “the defilement of the Sanctuary or its hallowed things.” Thus if a person who has been made unclean by any of the primary sources of uncleanness, unintentionally enters the Sanctuary, or unintentionally eats meat that is holy, he must bring the above-mentioned offering. A third — and final — case is if one swears an oath of utterance [“I shall eat” or “I shall not eat” and the like], and unintentionally fails to keep it. In this case too he is required to bring this offering. and forgets the oath, and he incurs guilt by violating it — for either of these sins committed through forgetfulness, he is required to bring an offering. Now it is self-understood that the mere forgetfulness of his state of uncleanness involves no sin, except [if in that state] he ate holy food or entered the Sanctuary. Nor is there any sin in the mere forgetfulness of an oath, except if he violated it. This is the literal explanation of the verses in this section. Our Rabbis have further interpretations on this section strengthening this explanation.

ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא אשם, he had forgotten that he was ritually impure and entered the holy domain, or he had eaten sacred meat while being in such a state of impurity, offences punishable by karet if perpetrated knowingly.

And after this impurity he eats. You should not err and say that only because of touching something impure which was concealed from him and was later became known to him does he bring an offering. Therefore, Rashi says: “After this impurity he eats holy [sacrificial food or enters the Temple]. His proof is since it is written, “And incurs guilt,” i.e., by eating holy [sacrificial] food or entering the Temple, which must be after touching this impurity, for otherwise, why would he incur guilt? [Could we say that] because he becomes impure he should bring an offering? We should not ask: How does Rashi know that he eats holy [sacrificial food] or enters the Temple? Perhaps he is obligated to bring the offering for another transgression! The answer is: Rashi’s proof is since it is written here (v. 3): “Whatever that impurity may be,” and in Parshas Chukas it is written (Bamidbar 19:13): “And his impurity remains upon him.” [We derive through a gezeirah shavah:] Just as there it deals with the impurity of the Temple, so too, here, it deals with the impurity of the Temple, i.e., that he enters the Temple. Furthermore, it is written here: “The impurities of man,” and it is written in Parshas Tzav (7:21): “The impurities of man,” just as there [it deals with] eating holy [sacrificial food], so too, here, [it deals with] eating holy.

עלם ממנו‎ונ AND IT WAS HIDDEN FROM HIM — the uncleanness was hidden from him (escaped his notice, not the fact that the things he ate were holy or that the place he entered was the Sanctuary. The translation therefore is “and it — the fact that he was unclean — escaped his notice, but he actually was unclean”) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 7; cf. Shevuot 14b).

The impurity. Meaning: [The impurity was concealed from him] and not [the fact he entered] the Temple or [the awareness of] its holiness, since it is written: “And this was concealed from him and he is impure” — [from which we derive:] He is liable for concealment of impurity and not for concealment of the Temple.

‎ם‎‎‏ואש AND HE INCUR GUILT through eating sacred food or entering the Sanctuary.