Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 2.1

משנה: יְדִיעוֹת הַטּוּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. נִיטְמָא וְיָדַע וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טוּמְאָה וְזָכוּר לַקּוֹדֶשׁ נֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ קוֹדֶשׁ וְזָכוּר לַטּוּמְאָה נֶעְלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה וְאָכַל אֶת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע וּמִשֶּׁאָכַל יָדַע הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. נִיטְמָא וְיָדַע וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַטּוּמְאָה וְזָכוּר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ נֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר לַטּוּמְאָה נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע וּמִשֶּׁיָּצָא יָדַע הֲרֵי זֶה בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד:

MISHNAH: The kinds of awareness of impurity are two which are four. If one became impure, realized it, then the impurity was forgotten but he was aware of sancta; or sancta were forgotten by him but he remembered impurity; or he forgot both, ate sanctum and realized it after he had eaten: he is obligated for a variable sacrifice. If one became impure, realized it, the impurity was forgotten but he was aware of the Sanctuary; or the Sanctuary was forgotten by him but he remembered impurity; or he forgot both, entered the Sanctuary and realized it after he had left: he is obligated for a variable sacrifice.

הלכה: יְדִיעוֹת הַטּוּמְאָה כול׳. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. פְּשִׁיטָא בִּידִיעָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁחַיָיב לְהָבִיא בָהּ קָרְבָּן. אַף בִּידִיעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה כֵן. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר. הִילֵּךְ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיָצָא וְהִזָּה וְשָׁנָה וְטָבַל וְהִילֵּךְ בַּשֵׁינִי וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַיָיב. וְיֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב לְהָבִיא בָהּ קָרְבָּן. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא דְאָמַר. חַיָיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בָּר חִיָיה. הֲוִינָן סָבְרִין מֵימַר דָּמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּבָרִיא לוֹ שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טוּמְאָה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר וְנֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא. מִמַּה דְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא דְאָמַר. חַיָיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. הָדָא אָמְרָה אֲפִילוּ סָפֵק טָמֵא סָפֵק טָהוֹר. נֶעֱלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא מִשׁוּם סְפֵק יְדִיעָה כִידִיעָה. מָה אִם בָּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם טָמֵא הוּא אִם טָהוֹר אַתְּ אָמַר יְדִיעָה וַדַּאי הִיא. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁטָּמֵא וַדַּאי אֶלָּא אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁתְּהֵא יְדִיעָה.

HALAKHAH: “The kinds of awareness of impurity,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: It is obvious about the last awareness, until he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Is the same true for the first awareness? Let us hear from the following: Two paths, one impure and one pure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary, left, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, walked on the second one, and entered the Sanctuary; he is liable and he knows that he is liable to bring a sacrifice for it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, we thought that one could say that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said this if he was certain that he was impure, he had forgotten the impurity and entered the Sanctuary. But not if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure, he was oblivious of the Sanctuary and entered the Sanctuary. Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is Rebbi Ismael’s who said that he is liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary: this implies even if it was in doubt whether he was impure or pure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since a doubt of awareness is awareness. Since at a time when he does not know whether he was impure or pure you say it is certain knowledge, if he knows for certain that he is impure but does not know whether he is liable for a sacrifice then certainly this should be awareness.

עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. נִיטְמָא וְנַעֲשֶׁה לוֹ הַדָּבָר סָפֵק מָהוּ שֶׁיֵּיעָשֶׂה אֶצְלוֹ כְּהֶעֱלֵם דָּבָר וְיהֵא חַיָיב. דֵּין כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ וְדֵין כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן.

In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, if one became impure but it was for him in doubt, would this be for him like forgetting, which makes him liable? Each of them keeps to his opinion, as they disagreed:

אָכַל חֲמִשָּׁה זֵיתִים וְנוֹדַע לוֹ בְסָפֵק כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד וְאַחַר כֵן נוֹדַע לוֹ בְּוַדָּאִין. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. יְדִיעַת סָפֵק קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֵין יְדִיעַת סָפֵק קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. מוֹדֶה רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּכֹהֵן מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאת. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כַּחַטָּאת כָּאָשָׁם. אֵת שֶׁמֵּבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאת. אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אֵין יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאת.

One ate five times the volume of an olive; he separately realized a doubt about each one. Afterwards it became known to him as a certainty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of sacrifices. Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that for the Anointed Priest the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of purification sacrifice. What is the reason? Like purification offering, like reparation offering. The knowledge about his doubt determines the transgression for one who brings a suspended reparation offering. The knowledge about his doubt does not determine the transgression for one who does not bring a suspended reparation offering.

מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תַּמָּן אָמַר. יְדִיעַת סָפֵק קוֹבַעַת לְחַטָּאת. וָכָא אָמַר. אֵין יְדִיעַת סָפֵק קוֹבַעַת לְחַטָּאת. תַּמָּן אֲשָׁמוֹ קָבְעוֹ. וָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ.

The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted. There he says, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression. But here he says, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression. There, his reparation offering determines it. Here what do you have?

מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר. נִתְכַּפֵּר מִקְצָת הַחֵט נִתְכַּפֵּר כּוּלּוֹ. וָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶלָּא בִידִיעָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ חִיוּב קָרְבָּן.

The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There, he said, if part of the sin was atoned, all of the sin was atoned. And here he says so? Rebbi Joḥanan said this only for the last realization which does not require any sacrifice.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל סְפֵיק רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר. וְאֵין מַתִּירִין לוֹ לַעֲשׁוֹת. וְהָתַנִּינָן. כָּל סָפֵק הַטָּהוֹר לִתְרוּמָה טָהוֹר לְחַטָּאת וְכָל הַתָּלוּי לִתְרוּמָה נִשְׁפָּךְ לְחַטָּאת. אֵין תָּלוּי בַחַטָּאת אֶלָּא אוֹ טָמֵא מַמָּשׁ אוֹ טָהוֹר מַמָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. מַתְנִיתָא בְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא מַחְמַת הַזֶּבַח. מַה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּדָבָר שֶׁבָּא מַחְמַת הַזֶּבַח. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם עָבַר וְעָשָׂה טָהוֹר. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן אָמַר. עָבַר וְעָשָׂה טָמֵא. וָכָא אָמַר. עָבַר וְעָשָׂה טָהוֹר. כָּאן בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד כָּאן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר כָּאן וְכָאן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. נָזִיר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בְטוּמְאַת קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ. וְהָא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִשּׁוּם סְפֵק יְדִיעָה כִּידִיעָה. וַאֲפִילוּ רִאשׁוֹנָה בְשֶׁרֶץ וּשְׁנִיָיה בְמֵת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵיר וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵיר. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת וּשְׂנִיָיה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיא.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act. But did we not state: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There, he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness, even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

נִיטְמָא בְמֵת וְיָדַע בְּשֶׁרֶץ וְלֹא יָדַע. אֵין שֵׁם טוּמְאָה קַלָּה אֶצֶל טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. נִיטְמָא בְמֵת וְלֹא יָדַע. בְּשֶׁרֶץ וְלֹא יָדַע. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לֹו עַל הַשֶּׂרֶץ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ עַל הַמֵּת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹדַע לוֹ עַל הַשֶּׁרֶץ תְּחִילָּה כְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ טוּמְאָה קַלָּה אֶצֶל חֲמוּרָה. אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּדְמָה לְטוּמְאַת הַמֵּת תִּדְחֶה לְטוּמְאַת שֶׁרֶץ וְלִידִיעָתָהּ. וְאֵין שֵׁם לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה אֶצֶל טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. נִטְמָא בְמֵת וְיָדַע בְּשֶׁרֶץ וְלֹא יָדַע וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. בְּהֶעֱלֵימוֹ שֶׁל מֵת חַיָיב. בְּהֶעֱלֵם שֶׁרֶץ פָּטוּר. יָרַד לִטְבּוֹל מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וְנִסְמְכָה לֹו טוּמְאָה קַלָּה עָלְתָה לֹו טוּמְאָה קַלָּה לֵיידָא מִילָּה. שֶׁאִם טָבַל וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ פָּטוּר.

Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal and did not know it. The minor impurity is not mentioned with the severe impurity. Somebody became impure through a corpse and did not know it; by a crawling animal and did not know it. Then it became known to him about the crawling animal, and after that it became known to him about the corpse. Since it first became known to him about the crawling animal, is there minor impurity together with the severe one, or since the impurity of the corpse preceded, should the impurity of the crawling animal and the knowledge about it be pushed aside so that the minor impurity not be mentioned with the severe impurity? Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal and did not know it, and entered the Sanctuary. When he was oblivious of the corpse he is liable; when he was oblivious of the crawling animal he is not liable. If he went to immerse himself for the severe impurity and the minor impurity was additional, it is counted also for the minor impurity. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is not liable.

יָרַד לִטְבּוֹל מִטּוּמְאָה קַלָּה וְנִסְמְכָה לֹו טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה לֹא עָלְתָה לֹו טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. לֵיי דָא מִילָּה. שֶׁאִם טָבַל וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַיָיב. הָא מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וְנִסְמְכָה לֹו טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה לֹא. הָא מִטּוּמְאָה קַלָּה וְנִסְמְכָה לֹו טוּמְאָה קַלָּה לֹא. יָרַד לִטְבּוֹל מִטּוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וְנִסְמְכוּ לֹו סְכָכוֹת וּפְרָעוֹת. מֵאַחַר דָּמַר רִבִּי יֹוחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כּוּלְּהוֹן תּוֹרָה הֵן אֶצֶל תְּרוּמָה. כְּמִי שֶׁהִיא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עֲלֵיהֶם כְּמִי שֶׁהִיא טוּמְאָה קַלָּה.

If he went to immerse himself for a minor impurity and a severe impurity was additional, it does not count for him for the severe impurity. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is liable. Therefore not for a severe impurity and a severe impurity was additional. Therefore not for a minor impurity and a minor impurity was additional. If he went to immerse himself for severe impurity and tree limbs and wall extensions were additional are these like severe impurity since Rebbi Joḥanan said that for heave all of them are [impure] from the Torah, or are they like minor impurity since the nazir does not shave because of them?

אַנְדְּרוֹגִינֹס רָאָה לוֹבֶן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ פָּטוּר. רָאָה אוֹדֶם וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ פָּטוּר. רָאָה אוֹדֶם וְלוֹבֶן כְּאֶחָד וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ חַיָיב. אִית תַּנַּי תַנֵּיי פָטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא דְתַנֵּי. שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין אֶחָד טָהוֹר וְאֶחָד טָמֵא. הִילֵּךְ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְהִוזָּה וְשָׁנָה וְטָבַל. בַּשֵׁינִי וְנִכְנַס חַיָיב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר בָּזֶה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה פוֹטֵר בְּכוּלָּן מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. נִיחָא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינֹס גַּבֵּי לֹובֶן אַתְּ עֲבַד לֵיהּ אִשָּׁה. גַּבֵּי אוֹדֶם אַתְּ עֲבַד לֵיהּ אִישׁ. בְּרַם הָכָא אֵין כָּאן טוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר סוֹסַרְטַי. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁשָׁכַח לָרִאשׁוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָעֵי. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁשְּׁכָחוֹ לָעוֹלָם שְׁבִיל אֶחָד הוּא. אִם שֶׁחָזַר וּשְׁכָחוֹ שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה כְּמַה דְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אָמַר תַּמָּן. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע אִם בְּשֶׁרֶץ נִיטְמָא אִם בְּמֵת כֵּן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר כָּאן. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע אִם בְּאוֹדֶם נִיטְמָא אִם בְּלוֹבֶן. נִיחָא תַמָּן מִשּׁוֹם דְּאָמַר. סְפֵק יְדִיעָה כִּידִיעָה. בְּרַם הָכָא מִכֵּיוָן דְּחָזָא לוֹבֶן וְאוֹדֶם כְּאֶחָד יְדִיעָה וַדַּאי הִיא.

An androgynus who saw whitish [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary is not liable. If he saw red [effluent] and entered the Sanctuary, he is not liable. If he saw simultaneously whitish and red and entered the Sanctuary, he is liable. There is a Tanna who states: he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “Two paths, one pure and one impure. He walked on one of them, entered the Sanctuary on the first one, sprinkled repeatedly, immersed himself, on the second one and entered; he is liable. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in this case. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable in all cases.” One understands the androgynus, for whitish [effluent] you declare him to be a woman, for red [effluent] you declare him to be a man. But here there is no known impurity. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai said, explain it if he forgot the first. Rebbi Yose asked, where do we hold? If he forgot it forever, it is one path. If he forgot repeatedly, there are two paths. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Eliezer in the interpretation of Ḥizqiah. Just as Rebbi Eliezer said there, until he knows whether he did become impure by a crawling animal or a corpse, so Rebbi Simeon says here, until he knows whether he did become impure by red [effluent] or by whitish. One understands there since he said, a doubt of awareness is awareness. But here, since he saw whitish and red together, it is certain knowledge.

רַב חִסְדָּא בָעֵי. נִכְנַס לַמִּקָדָּשׁ כְּסָבוּר כְּנֶסֶת מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כֵּן אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים. הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ טוּמְאָה בָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁתְּהֵא יְדִיעָה. אֶלָּא כִּי אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּבָרִיא לֹו שֶׁטָּמֵא וְנֶעֱלָם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. וָכָא בְּבָרִיא לֹו שֶׁהוּא מִקְדָּשׁ וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טוּמְאָה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ.

Rav Ḥisda asked: What is the situation if he entered the Sanctuary thinking it was a synagogue? Rebbi Yose said, the following is what we are saying: One knew that there exists impurity in the world but he did not know whether one is liable for a sacrifice because of it, that certainly is awareness. But the following is where we hold, if it was clear to him that he was impure but he was oblivious of the Sanctuary, and he entered the Sanctuary. And so if it was clear to him that this was the Sanctuary, he was oblivious of the impurity and entered the Sanctuary.

רִבִּי יָסַי בָעֵי. אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת בִּידִיעַת קוֹדֶשׁ וְהֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בִּידִיעַת טוּמְאָה וְהֶעֱלֵם קוֹדֶשׁ הֶעֱלֵימוֹת מָהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ.

Rebbi Yose asked: If one ate half the volume of an olive being aware of the Sanctuary but oblivious of impurity and about half the volume of an olive being aware of impurity but oblivious of the Sanctuary; do the oblivions combine?