Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 2.5

משנה: רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ. עַל הֶעֱלֵם הַשֶּׁרֶץ חַיָּיב וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא טָמֵא עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה חַיָּיב וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים לְחַיֵּיב עַל הֶעֱלֵם הַטּוּמְאָה וְעַל הֶעֱלֵם הַמִּקְדָּשׁ:

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, the crawling animal and he became oblivious, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Aqiba says, and he became oblivious while he was impure, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. Rebbi Ismael says, and he became oblivious, and he became oblivious, two times to make him liable for forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary.

הלכה: רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר כול׳. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. מַחֲלוֹקֶת בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. עַל הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה חַיָיב וְלֹא עַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. עַל הֶעֱלֵם שֶׁרֶץ חַיָיב וְלֹא עַל הֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לֹא יָדַע. וָכָא אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיָדַע. תַּמָּן אֲשֶׁר חָטָא בָּהּ. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע בַּמֶּה נִתְחַיָיב. הָכָא וְהוּא טָמֵא מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. וָכָא לֵית כְּתִיב בָּהּ. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. וְהוּא טָמֵא. עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע בַּמֶּה נֵיטְמָא. הָכָא אֲשֶׁר חָטָא בָּהּ מִכָּל מָקוֹם. וּמַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בָּהּ. פְּרָט לְמִתְעַסֵּק.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. Ḥizqiah says, there is disagreement between them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, interpreting the verse is between them; there are Tannaim who state, he is liable for forgetting impurity but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary, and there are Tannain who state, he is liable for forgetting the crawling animal but is not liable for forgetting the Sanctuary. The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There he says, even if he did not know. But here he says, not unless he knew. There, by which he sinned, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, while he was impure, in all cases. Rebbi Ḥinena said, here “by what” is not written. The argument of Rebbi Joshua seems inverted. There he says, while he was impure, not unless he knew by what he became liable. Here, by which he sinned, in any case. How does Rebbi Eliezer uphold by what? This excludes the one who is occupied.