Kommentar zu Wajikra 5:3

בטמאת אדם [OR IF HE TOUCHES] THE UNCLEANNESS OF MAN — This refers to uncleanness resulting from a corpse (i. e. it implies both touching the corpse itself or touching anyone who has come in contact with the corpse) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8).

ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא, “but it was concealed from him,” the same applies when the party asked to swear had forgotten the occurrence which he was now asked to swear about Nachmanides writes that actually, the Torah abbreviated, meaning to tell us that the sin occurred due to the party having forgotten something of relevance. There was no need to spell out the nature of the sin, seeing it was well known (except to the party who had committed it) He would only become guilty of the “sin” of being ritually unclean if he were to enter the precincts of the Holy Temple, or he would attempt to eat sacrificial meat, before either being alerted to it, or undergoing ritual purification in order to be on the safe side. Forgetting an undertaking by an oath is culpable only if in addition to having forgotten about it he had violated the terms of the oath.

One who swallows the carcass. This causes a person to become impure in the place of swallowing [i.e., when the carcass that is swallowed touches the esophagus] to make garments [that he is wearing] impure; if he eats it and enters the Temple he is liable. You might ask: The word בה [“אשר יטמא בה (that causes impurity within)”] is an exclusion! They already answered in the Gemara (Shavuos 7b) that it is because there is an extra exclusion — for it is written [here] in the section of the sliding scale offering (i.e., a sacrifice whose worth varies in accordance with the financial ability of the person bringing it): “Or, if he touches the impurities of man.” Thus, something [which imparts impurity] through touching is included, but what is not [capable of making impure] through touching is not. The carcass of a kosher bird does not impart impurity through touching, if so, why does the Merciful One [in the Torah] write “within”? Hence, it is an “exclusion after an exclusion,” and “an exclusion after an exclusion” only comes to be inclusive.

והוא ידע ואשם, “it came to his attention some time after the event so that he now had become guilty;” according to Rashi he had known, but had forgotten that this contact had made him ritually impure, so that he considered himself ritually pure. According to Rashi, how could he have become guilty since he had not been warned that he had committed something that results in his becoming impure?

לכל טמאתו WHATSOEVER UNCLEANNESS OF HIM IT BE — This is intended to include in this law the uncleanness resulting from touching men or women who have a flux (and those in similar physical condition e. g. ‎'וכו‎ יולדת ‎ נדה‎) Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8.

And he does not know, for he forgot. It seems that the text [“and he does not know,” which seems to be Rashi’s words] is a scribal error, and it should say: “And he realizes” [i.e., as a divrei hamaschil (s.v.)] — “that he forgot the impurity.” It is, in effect, a separate comment, meaning: “And he realizes” — this is to say that he now realizes that he forgot about the impurity when he ate the holy food or entered the Temple. (Nachalas Yaakov). Nachalas Yaakov corrected the text based on the difficulty he had in Rashi’s text: “And he does not know, for he forgot.” [The reason he changed Rashi’s text is that] this does not follow any view — for Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree about the reason the Torah repeats twice the word ונעלם (and it was concealed): Rabbi Akiva holds the view that we require that the person [who ate in impurity unintentionally] knew it was prohibited before the transgression and afterwards, and Rabbi Yishmael holds that the first word ונעלם obligates for not knowing he was impure and the second word ונעלם is for not knowing he entered the Temple or that he ate holy food. But Rabbi Akiva establishes it for previous knowledge and not for being unaware he was impure. Therefore, Nachalas Yaakov corrected the text [to follow the view of Rabbi Akiva]: “It should say: And he knew.” However, Gur Aryeh explains: He is only liable if he forgot the impurity but beforehand knew about the impurity. But if he had no knowledge whatsoever of the impurity, he is not liable. This is derived from the second time the word ונעלם is written: “ונעלם והוא ידע (and this was concealed from him, and he realizes).” This did not need to be written, for it is already written (v. 2): “And this was concealed from him, and he is impure.” Rather, you should place the phrase, “And he realizes” between one ונעלם and the other, and derive from it: After he had knowledge, he forgot the impurity. Therefore, Rashi writes as a comment to “ונעלם” — “And he did not know,” which is to say: [He is liable] specifically in this type of not knowing — that he forgot about the impurity [of which he once knew]. However, if he never knew about the impurity in the first place he is not liable.

‎‏אשר יטמא‎ — these apparently redundant words are intended to include in this law one who touches a man who had intercourse with a ה‎‏נד and has not yet immersed himself (cf. Leviticus 15:24) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8).

Entering. [This is derived] from the gezeirah shavah mentioned above (see v. 2). However, this raises a difficulty. It is understandable over, for it is written: “And this [impurity] was concealed from him, and he incurs guilt,” i.e., because the impurity was concealed from him he entered the Temple. Here, though, it is written: “[And this was concealed from him,] and he realizes, he incurs guilt.” Could it be that because he knew he was impure he ate holy food or entered the Temple?! Perhaps the answer is: The verse is written out of order, and this is what is meant: “This was concealed from him and he incurs guilt” — because the impurity was concealed from him he entered the Temple and afterwards it was known to him that he was impure (Re”m). Furthermore, we can say: We derive a gezeirah shavah from the words ואשם ואשם, and we derive the later section from the previous section.

בה — is intended to include in this law one who swallows the carrion of a clean bird (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13 8).

והוא ידע … ‎ונעלם AND IT WAS HIDDEN [FROM HIM], BUT HE KNOWETH afterwards) that he had forgotten his state of uncleanness,

ואשם AND HAD INCURRED GUILT by eating sacred food or by entering the Sanctuary in this state.