Shevuot 14: Tumah, Kodshim, the Temple, Intention and Consequences

Before beginning Perek II, the rabbis continue their discussion regarding atonement for kohanim, for the high priest, the Kohen Gadol, and the sequence of atonement rituals.  It is significant that the rabbis wish to ensure that those who are most holy, the kohanim, and the one holiest person are able to properly atone.  This suggests that all people transgress halachot, regardless of how educated or powerful they might be.  Not only do all people miss the mark, but all people must atone, taking personal responsibility for our errors.  

We move forward with a new Mishna.  It teaches that there are two primary understandings of tum'ah, ritual impurity:  

• one who knew s/he became tamei, ritually impure, and then knowingly ate kodshim, consecrated offering
• one who knew that s/he became tamei but then forgot that the offing was consecrated and ate it
• one who forgot s/he was tamei and that the food was consecrated and found out after eating it
• one who forgot that he became tamei and then knowingly entered the mikdash, the Temple or holy place
• one who knew he was tamei and forgot that he was entering the mikdash
• one who forgot both that he was tamei and where the Temple was located but entered and realized his action after leaving

These cases require the person to bring an oleh v'yored, a sliding scale guilt-offering which could be a goat, sheep, or dove.  This applies to one who enters the azarah of the Temple or any finished addition to the Temple.  To add to Jerusalem or to the azarah, the following are required:

• a king
• a navi
• the urim v'tumim (parts of the High Priest's breastplate)
• the Great Sanhedrin (of 71 elders)
• two of the loaves for a korban toda, a thanksgiving offering
• shira

The beit din must walk around the addition followed by the loaves and then the entire community.  The inner loaf is eaten and the outer loaf is burned.  Without these rituals, an addition does not create a problem for one who enters while tamei.  If one were in the azarah and became tamei and forgot about it but remembered where he was - or if he remembered that he was tamei but forgot where he was - or if he forgot both, then he must bow quickly before leaving.  If he stayed or took a longer path toward the exit, he is liable. 

The Mishna then speaks of other situations where one must take the shortest path away from transgression.  An example: if a woman told her husband that she felt the beginning of menstruation while in the act of intercourse, making her in a state of nidah and thus ritually impure, he cannot simply withdraw, for that would be pleasurable.  Instead he must wait for his member to lose its erection and then withdraw.

Our Mishna ends with different opinions about whether a korban is brought only if one forgot one's state of tumah but not if one forgot the holiness of the Temple.

The Gemara begins by questioning how many yedi'ot, understandings, are actually stated compared with the number that is stated.  Rav Papa notes that there is the understanding of tumah at the start and at the end, the understanding of the holiness at the beginning and at the end, and the understanding of where the Temple is at the beginning and at the end.  That equals six.  Or should this be eight cases, for each understanding of tumah is actually two cases, where one then ate a consecrated animal or entered the Temple.  Other counts are suggested as well.

Rav Papa asks about halacha when one forgets the laws of tumah.  Something simple, like whether or not rodents are tumah, or something complicated, like whether a lentil's worth of rodent is also forbidden.  Rabbi Yirmeyah wonders what to do if someone from Babylonia never knew where the Temple was located and thus entered while tamei.  Is he obligated to bring a korban?  What if he realized only later that he was in the Temple? What if he knew at the beginning?  The rabbis do not resolve this question.  

That question, is one culpable if s/he did not know that s/he was transgressing? is important in modern society as well.  We continue to question the context of the transgression, the capacity of the transgressor, the seriousness of the crime, and many other related issues when we think about responsibility and consequences.