א֣וֹ נֶ֗פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּגַּע֮ בְּכָל־דָּבָ֣ר טָמֵא֒ אוֹ֩ בְנִבְלַ֨ת חַיָּ֜ה טְמֵאָ֗ה א֤וֹ בְּנִבְלַת֙ בְּהֵמָ֣ה טְמֵאָ֔ה א֕וֹ בְּנִבְלַ֖ת שֶׁ֣רֶץ טָמֵ֑א וְנֶעְלַ֣ם מִמֶּ֔נּוּ וְה֥וּא טָמֵ֖א וְאָשֵֽׁם׃
Atau apabila seseorang menyentuh sesuatu yang najis, entah bangkai binatang liar yang najis, bangkai ternak yang najis, atau bangkai binatang melata yang najis, lalu ia lupa akan hal itu padahal ia telah menjadi najis, maka ia bersalah.
Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot
MISHNAH: There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds1Lev. 5:4 requires a reparation sacrifice for inadvertent breach of a commitment made by oath, “what was pronounced, negatively or positively.” The standard example of a positive oath is somebody swearing that he will eat certain foods. The corresponding negative is an oath that he will refrain from eating certain foods. The exact expression used, לְהָרַ֣ע ׀ א֣וֹ לְהֵיטִ֗יב, by its hiph`il form points to the future. A natural complement are backward looking oaths, if a person swears that he ate or did not eat certain foods in the past (Mishnah 3:1). These four cases are equal in sanctions for willful or inadvertent breach.. There are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds2Lev. 5:2–3 requires a reparation sacrifice for a person who became impure, forgot it, and then either ate sancta in his impurity or entered the Sanctuary. The two added cases are that he knew about being impure but forgot that the food was holy or that the place was a Sanctuary.. There are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds3It is forbidden to transport anything on the Sabbath from a private domain to the public domain (Mishnah Šabbat 1:1). “Transport” includes lifting up, moving, and setting down. The two cases where one is liable (for a sacrifice if the sin was unintentional, punishment if the transgression was intentional, and is prosecutable, or extirpation by Divine decree if the crime was intentional but is not prosecutable) are “export” by a person standing inside the private domain, lifting something up inside the domain and putting it down on the outside (e. g., through a window) even without moving his feet, or “import”, somebody lifting an object from the outside to the inside and depositing it there. The two cases where one is not liable refer to a person inside who lifts an object, hands it to a person outside (so that the object never is at rest) and the second person puts it down. Since no one person completed a criminal act, no one can be held liable even though the combined action clearly is forbidden.. There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds4Lev. 13:2 defines impure skin disease as שְׂאֵ֤ת אֽוֹ־סַפַּ֨חַת֙ א֣וֹ בַהֶ֔רֶת “as elevated spot, or sapaḥat, or a white spot.” This is read as “an elevated spot (which makes the surrounding skin look elevated over the whitish spot) and a really white spot and their appendages”, deriving sapaḥat from the root ספח, “to append, adjoin.” This extends the definition of impure skin disease from two relatively well defined cases to two additional weaker symptoms..
Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot
Rebbi Mana said it without attribution21He did not ascribe the following remark to R. Joḥanan or any other earlier Amora.; Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We did state two principles which do not compare. “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds”; one has to bring four sacrifices22Mishnah 3:1, explicit in Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Parašah 9(8). For the four cases enumerated in Note 1, R. Aqiba requires four separate sacrifices. R. Ismael infers from the forward-looking formulation of the verse that only future-directed oaths can trigger liability for a sacrifice. According to him, for separate oaths in the same period of oblivion at most two sacrifices may be due.. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds”; one has to bring two sacrifices23The reference to skin disease also is in a difficult Genizah text (G, L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909, p. 264 ff.) but it cannot be correct. The purification ceremony of the healed sufferer from skin disease is independent of the particular diagnosis by which he had been declared impure and the number of sacrifices due solely depends on his financial ability. The sequel shows that one has to read “there are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds,” the second clause in the Mishnah.
The difference between RR. Aqiba and Ismael is explained in Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 12(7), Babli 14b. Both verses Lev. 5:2,3 describe situations in which a person might become impure; they both end with the remark “it was hidden from him but then he knew and was found guilty,” i. e., he forgot about the impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and then became aware of his transgression. R. Aqiba holds that since impurity is mentioned twice but the Sanctuary only by inference, no sacrifice is due for causing impurity of the Sanctuary, only for entering it in impurity. R. Ismael holds that the repetition of the clause implies the obligation of a sacrifice both for impurity of the person and of the Sanctuary. R. Aqiba will hold that separate sacrifices might be due for impurity originating outside the person (v. 2) and that created in humans (v. 3). R. Ismael will hold that separate sacrifices are due for a human entering the Sanctuary in impurity and for the impurity thereby caused to the Sanctuary. The problem is that the Mishnah is anonymous, representing R. Meїr’s Mishnah, which is R. Aqiba’s tradition.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin24R. Abin mentioned at the start of the paragraph is R. Abin the son, head of the Academy of Tiberias at the time of R. Mana in Sepphoris. The reading “R. Eleazar in the name of R. Abin” (In G: “in the name of R. Abun”, at a second occurrence “R. Eliezer ben R. Abun”) is impossible since R. Abin (Abun) the father lived a generation and a half after R. Eleazar. As already recognized by R. David Fraenckel (Qorban Ha`edah ad loc.) one must read “R. Eleazar bar Abinna”, a third generation Galilean Amora. explained it otherwise: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds” was said by Rebbi Aqiba; “there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds” by Rebbi Ismael25The Tanna of the Mishnah is not inconsistent in his use of parallel expressions but the two parallel sentences represent two different tannaןtic positions.. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: why do I need to follow Rebbi Ismael? Does it not come even following Rebbi Aqiba? Knowing and forgetting about impurity of the Sanctuary is the same as knowing and forgetting about impurity of sancta26Since Mishnah 2:1 explains that even R. Aqiba can hold that “there are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds” only if he distinguishes between awareness of impurity and awareness of the Sanctuary, there seems to be a possibility following him to require a sacrifice for infringing on the purity of the Sanctuary when there was awareness of impurity but oblivion of the Sanctuary.. He told him, does not Rebbi Ismael have forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary, and we want to follow Rebbi Aqiba27Only R. Ismael requires a sacrifice both for forgetting impurity of sancta and forgetting the Sanctuary (Mishnah 2:6). R. Ḥaggai’s inference is incorrect; R. Aqiba will not require a sacrifice in his case.? Sometimes there is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice28Even following R. Ismael.. How is this? If one became impure, realized it, then forgot about impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and left; then he became aware. Here is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice29There is no guilt attached to being impure. Guilt by impurity is incurred only if either the impure person enters the Sanctuary or eats from sancta. In the case in question there was only one forgetting; there is only one sacrifice required.
The sentence is missing in G.. Sometimes there are many forgettings of impurity and many forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. How [is this]30Text of G היךְ עבידה.? If one became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left; then he became aware31There is only one oblivion and only one sacrifice.
The sentence is missing in G.. He said, there is no sacrifice due for this impurity. Again he became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left even several times; in the end he became aware. Here are many forgettings of impurity and forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]32At the first occasion, he was aware of the Sanctuary but he thought that for his kind of secondary impurity the Sanctuary was not forbidden. Then he entered several times while forgetting about the Sanctuary. Finally he realized his error concerning both impurity and Sanctuary. R. Ismael will agree that only one sacrifice is possible..
The difference between RR. Aqiba and Ismael is explained in Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 12(7), Babli 14b. Both verses Lev. 5:2,3 describe situations in which a person might become impure; they both end with the remark “it was hidden from him but then he knew and was found guilty,” i. e., he forgot about the impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and then became aware of his transgression. R. Aqiba holds that since impurity is mentioned twice but the Sanctuary only by inference, no sacrifice is due for causing impurity of the Sanctuary, only for entering it in impurity. R. Ismael holds that the repetition of the clause implies the obligation of a sacrifice both for impurity of the person and of the Sanctuary. R. Aqiba will hold that separate sacrifices might be due for impurity originating outside the person (v. 2) and that created in humans (v. 3). R. Ismael will hold that separate sacrifices are due for a human entering the Sanctuary in impurity and for the impurity thereby caused to the Sanctuary. The problem is that the Mishnah is anonymous, representing R. Meїr’s Mishnah, which is R. Aqiba’s tradition.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin24R. Abin mentioned at the start of the paragraph is R. Abin the son, head of the Academy of Tiberias at the time of R. Mana in Sepphoris. The reading “R. Eleazar in the name of R. Abin” (In G: “in the name of R. Abun”, at a second occurrence “R. Eliezer ben R. Abun”) is impossible since R. Abin (Abun) the father lived a generation and a half after R. Eleazar. As already recognized by R. David Fraenckel (Qorban Ha`edah ad loc.) one must read “R. Eleazar bar Abinna”, a third generation Galilean Amora. explained it otherwise: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds” was said by Rebbi Aqiba; “there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds” by Rebbi Ismael25The Tanna of the Mishnah is not inconsistent in his use of parallel expressions but the two parallel sentences represent two different tannaןtic positions.. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: why do I need to follow Rebbi Ismael? Does it not come even following Rebbi Aqiba? Knowing and forgetting about impurity of the Sanctuary is the same as knowing and forgetting about impurity of sancta26Since Mishnah 2:1 explains that even R. Aqiba can hold that “there are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds” only if he distinguishes between awareness of impurity and awareness of the Sanctuary, there seems to be a possibility following him to require a sacrifice for infringing on the purity of the Sanctuary when there was awareness of impurity but oblivion of the Sanctuary.. He told him, does not Rebbi Ismael have forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary, and we want to follow Rebbi Aqiba27Only R. Ismael requires a sacrifice both for forgetting impurity of sancta and forgetting the Sanctuary (Mishnah 2:6). R. Ḥaggai’s inference is incorrect; R. Aqiba will not require a sacrifice in his case.? Sometimes there is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice28Even following R. Ismael.. How is this? If one became impure, realized it, then forgot about impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and left; then he became aware. Here is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice29There is no guilt attached to being impure. Guilt by impurity is incurred only if either the impure person enters the Sanctuary or eats from sancta. In the case in question there was only one forgetting; there is only one sacrifice required.
The sentence is missing in G.. Sometimes there are many forgettings of impurity and many forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. How [is this]30Text of G היךְ עבידה.? If one became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left; then he became aware31There is only one oblivion and only one sacrifice.
The sentence is missing in G.. He said, there is no sacrifice due for this impurity. Again he became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left even several times; in the end he became aware. Here are many forgettings of impurity and forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]32At the first occasion, he was aware of the Sanctuary but he thought that for his kind of secondary impurity the Sanctuary was not forbidden. Then he entered several times while forgetting about the Sanctuary. Finally he realized his error concerning both impurity and Sanctuary. R. Ismael will agree that only one sacrifice is possible..
Jerusalem Talmud Horayot
22Here one returns to a discussion of the theme of the Tractate, viz., the obligation of the High Court, as representatives of the people, to offer a purification sacrifice for a wrong ruling as described in Lev. 4:13–21.
It is sinful to bring an animal into the Temple precinct which is not dedicated as a sacrifice. For voluntary offerings this presents no problem; one simply has to dedicate them when bringing. But for obligatory offerings it implies that a sacrifice may be presented only if all conditions which make it obligatory are actually fulfilled. They only are liable23To bring the sacrifice. for something24An official ruling by the Court. that was clear to them and then covered from them25They forgot either a precedent or their own ruling.. What is the reason? something was hidden26Lev. 4:13. An erring High Priest (Lev. 4:1–12) or ruler (22–26) have to offer a sacrifice if they err inadvertently; the condition that a ruling must have been forgotten is introduced only for the Court., something that was clear to them and then hidden from them. 27There is no problem with the explanation just given. One tries to connect the statement with a discussion about similar rules regarding sacrifices due for violations of either Temple purity or oaths (Lev. 5:1–13), where the same condition in mentioned in Lev. 5:2,3,4. R. Ismael and R. Aqiba differ in Ševuot 1:2 about the interpretation of the verses, but not about the actual rules. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael who said, it became hidden from him, therefore he had known, and he knew28Lev. 5:4: …an oath which a man would utter without thinking, it became hidden from him, and he knew and realized his guilt …, these are two knowledges29One when he uttered the oath and one when he remembered it, separated by a period of oblivion.. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba who said, it became hidden, it became hidden, two times30R. Aqiba and R. Ismael actually are not differing in their interpretations; only R. Aqiba argues about violations of Temple purity (Lev. 5:2–3) where in both verses oblivion is mentioned but not remembering. However, in Babylonian sources [Ševuot 14b, Keritut 19a, Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Pereq 12(7)], R. Ismael is reported to read one about oblivion the impurity and the second oblivion about being in the Temple., therefore he had knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between, 31Returning to our topic, Note 22. something that was clear to them and then hidden from them.
It is sinful to bring an animal into the Temple precinct which is not dedicated as a sacrifice. For voluntary offerings this presents no problem; one simply has to dedicate them when bringing. But for obligatory offerings it implies that a sacrifice may be presented only if all conditions which make it obligatory are actually fulfilled. They only are liable23To bring the sacrifice. for something24An official ruling by the Court. that was clear to them and then covered from them25They forgot either a precedent or their own ruling.. What is the reason? something was hidden26Lev. 4:13. An erring High Priest (Lev. 4:1–12) or ruler (22–26) have to offer a sacrifice if they err inadvertently; the condition that a ruling must have been forgotten is introduced only for the Court., something that was clear to them and then hidden from them. 27There is no problem with the explanation just given. One tries to connect the statement with a discussion about similar rules regarding sacrifices due for violations of either Temple purity or oaths (Lev. 5:1–13), where the same condition in mentioned in Lev. 5:2,3,4. R. Ismael and R. Aqiba differ in Ševuot 1:2 about the interpretation of the verses, but not about the actual rules. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael who said, it became hidden from him, therefore he had known, and he knew28Lev. 5:4: …an oath which a man would utter without thinking, it became hidden from him, and he knew and realized his guilt …, these are two knowledges29One when he uttered the oath and one when he remembered it, separated by a period of oblivion.. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba who said, it became hidden, it became hidden, two times30R. Aqiba and R. Ismael actually are not differing in their interpretations; only R. Aqiba argues about violations of Temple purity (Lev. 5:2–3) where in both verses oblivion is mentioned but not remembering. However, in Babylonian sources [Ševuot 14b, Keritut 19a, Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Pereq 12(7)], R. Ismael is reported to read one about oblivion the impurity and the second oblivion about being in the Temple., therefore he had knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between, 31Returning to our topic, Note 22. something that was clear to them and then hidden from them.