Study Shevuot folio 19B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ואפילו בקמייתא?! ממה נפשך טמא הוא! אמר רבא: הכא במאי עסקינן – כגון שהלך בראשון, ובשעה שהלך בשני שכח שהלך בראשון; דהויא ליה מקצת ידיעה.
even in the first case, where he walked on both of the paths and did not purify himself in between? This is difficult, as whichever way you look at it, he is impure, since he certainly contracted impurity on one of the two paths. Rava said: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where he walked on the first path, and then afterward when he was walking on the second path he forgot that he had already walked on the first path, so that his lapse of awareness when he entered the Temple was only a lapse of partial awareness. That is, when he entered the Temple he forgot only that he had walked on the first path, and for this lapse of knowledge by itself he is not liable to bring a sin-offering, as it is not certain that he contracted impurity there.
ובהא קא מיפלגי – תנא קמא סבר: אמרינן מקצת ידיעה ככל ידיעה; ורבי שמעון סבר: לא אמרינן מקצת ידיעה ככל ידיעה.
Rava continues: And the tanna’im disagree with regard to this issue: The first tanna, who teaches that R' Shimon deems the person exempt only where there was purification between the two entries, but not in the first case, maintains that we say that partial awareness of definite impurity is counted as complete awareness. And R' Shimon ben Yehuda, who teaches that R' Shimon deems the person exempt even in the first case, where there was no purification between the two entries, maintains that we do not say that partial awareness of definite impurity is counted as complete awareness.
הלך בראשון ונכנס, הזה ושנה וטבל, חזר והלך בשני ונכנס – חייב, ורבי שמעון פוטר. ואמאי חייב? ספק ידיעה הוא!
§ The baraita teaches: If he walked on the first path and entered the Temple, and on the 3rd day he was sprinkled with waters of purification, and on the 7th day he was sprinkled upon again, and he immersed himself in a mikveh, and then he walked on the second path and entered the Temple, he is liable to bring a sin-offering; and R' Shimon deems him exempt from bringing an offering. The Talmud asks: But why is he liable according to the first tanna? Each time he entered the Temple it was only with a lapse of awareness of uncertain impurity, the first time because he might not yet have become impure, and the second time because he might already have purified himself.