Shevuos Daf 19 חג השבועות דַף 19

Rebbe Eliezer and Rebbe Akiva hold a tamei is חייב a korban for entering the Mikdash after forgetting his tumah, but not if he forgot the Mikdash’s location. Rava asked Rav Nachman: העלם זה וזה בידו – if there was lack of awareness for this (tumah) and for that (Mikdash) for him, is he liable for a korban? Rav Nachman answered: הרי העלם טומאה בידו וחייב – there is forgetting of tumah for him resulting in the transgression, and he is liable (although he also forgot about the Mikdash).  Rava objected that, on the contrary, his forgetting about the Mikdash caused his transgression, and he should be exempt!? Rav Ashi said: חזינן אי מטומאה קא פריש – We see, if he leaves because he was informed about his tumah, we say the violation resulted from his forgetting the tumah, and he is liable; if he leaves because he was informed about the Mikdash, then we say forgetting the Mikdash caused the violation, and he is exempt. Ravina objected: כלום פריש ממקדש אלא משום טומאה – does he separate because of being told about the Mikdash for any reason other than because he also realized about the tumah, and vice versa? Rather, regardless of what information caused him to leave, he is always פטור.

A Baraisa states: שני שבילין אחד טמא ואחד טהור – if there were two paths, one tamei and one tahor (a body was buried under one, but it is unknown which one), and someone walked on one, and then the other path, and entered the Mikdash, he is חייב a korban. If he walked on one path and entered the Mikdash, then became tahor, then walked on the second path and entered the Mikdash, the Tanna Kamma says he is liable, since he must have been tamei by one of those entries. Rebbe Shimon says he is פטור in this case. Rebbe Shimon ben Yehudah quoted Rebbe Shimon saying he is even exempt in the רישא. Although he was definitely tamei when entering the Mikdash, Rava explains that when he walked on the second path, he forgot that he had walked on the first, and never realized his definite tumah. The Tannaim argue if מקצת ידיעה ככל ידיעה – partial awareness is equal to a full awareness (where all information would combine to definite tumah). The Gemara asks that the סיפא is only ספק ידיעה – doubtful awareness, since each entry was a situation of uncertain tumah. Rebbe Yochanan explains that the Tanna Kamma holds: כאן עשו ספק ידיעה כידיעה – here they considered doubtful awareness like definite awareness. Reish Lakish says this Tanna holds this korban does not require ידיעה beforehand.

A Baraisa states: אכל ספק חלב ונודע – if one ate questionable חלב and became aware of the possible transgression, then again ate ספק חלב and became aware of the possible transgression, Rebbe says: כשם שמביא חטאת על כל אחד ואחד – just as one brings a separate חטאת for each one for a definite transgression (if he becomes aware of the first transgression before the second transgression occurs), כך מביא אשם תלוי על כל אחד ואחד – so too he brings an אשם תלוי on each [doubtful transgression], since he became aware of the possible transgression before the second eating. Rebbe Shimon says he only brings one אשם תלוי. Reish Lakish explained that Rebbe holds ידיעות ספיקות מתחלקות לחטאות – even uncertain awareness divides regarding חטאות (i.e., his awareness of a possible first transgression is sufficient to divide it from the second even if he eventually discovers that both were definite חלב, and he brings two חטאות). Rebbe Yochanan says that Rebbe means that just as awareness of definite transgression divides between חטאות, so too awareness of possible transgression divides between אשמות. The Gemara explain how these Amoraim do not contradict their positions above.