There is a distinction between the way we treat accidentally entering the Beis Hamikdash while Tameh, or accidentally consuming consecrated food, and by contrast every other prohibition for which one could be liable for Kharis, were they to sin willfully.
With every other prohibition for which one could get Kharis, if one sinned completely inadvertently, without knowing at all that one was sinning, and then they became aware of it after the fact, they would be liable for a sin offering.
Not so for consecrated foods and the Temple. One would have to be aware of the fact that he is impure and aware of the prohibitions associated either with the temple or consuming consecrated food, both at the beginning and at the end.
And the sin was caused by a lapse in judgment in the middle, in order to be liable for an adjustable guilt offering, as we discussed in the last chapter.
So, for example, if a person went into the Besamikdash and then later found out that, in fact, he was impure this entire time, he would not be liable to bring a guilt offering.
But if a person realizes that he is impure, and he knows that the temple is holy, and then, due to a lapse in judgment, he walks through the temple, and then afterwards, he realizes, my gosh, that was the temple, and I was impure.
That is a circumstance in which the person would be required to bring a guilt offering.The halacha also brings other examples.Feel free to look inside.Second halacha.
If a person knew that he was impure, but he did not know what level of impurity he was at, and that statement will make a lot of sense once we learn the laws of impurity, and then the person forgets that he's impure and goes into the Besamikdash, then he comes out and he goes, my gosh, I was impure, and then he finds out what type of impurity he had, he still would be liable for an adjustable guilt offering.
But if the person forgot the laws of impurity, for example, he became impure due to contact with a lentil-sized portion of a crawling animal, and he doesn't know whether a lentil-sized portion actually makes a person impure, and then he forgets altogether and he goes into the temple, or he eats a consecrated beefsteak,
And then he goes to Ashir, and the rabbi says, you know, a lentil-sized portion of the carcass of a crawling animal causes a person to be impure, and he goes, my gosh!So here, there's an unresolved doubt as to whether he is liable.
There's also an unresolved doubt if the person had never seen at the base of Mikdash, but he knows he's impure, and he knows he's not permitted to enter the base of Mikdash while impure, and he just walks into this pretty building, not realizing that it's the base of Mikdash.
And then someone tells him, hey, this is the base of Mikdash.There's an unresolved doubt as to what the halacha is.Rambam opines at the end that if someone does not know whether they should bring a sacrifice, they should not bring a sacrifice.
Because if they're not supposed to bring a sacrifice, then they would be bringing a non-consecrated animal into the azar, which is a big problem.
Other than, of course, those cases where halacha specifically says to bring the korban, despite the doubt.Third halacha.A person could be liable for bringing an adjustable guilt offering, even if he forgot one of the two things.
Either that this is the temple, or that he is impure.And he would be liable if he forgot both. But he would only be liable if he spent the minimum amount of time in the Mikdash, and that's discussed in Hilchas B'Yisra Mikdash.Fourth halacha.
There is an unresolved doubt if the person must spend the requisite amount of time in the B'Yisra Mikdash, in a case in which he became impure on purpose.
Therefore, if a person becomes impure on purpose, then he forgets the impurity and then walks through the B'Yisra Mikdash very quickly and does not tarry, Rambam rules he should not bring a sacrifice.
There is also an unresolved doubt if a person is impure and causes himself to be suspended above the B'Yisra Mikdash.
Fifth Halacha, if a person does not know whether he entered the Bais HaMikdash or he ate consecrated food while he was ritually impure, he would not bring a provisional guilt offering.
One would only bring a guilt offering due to lack of knowledge if the sin was one that was punishable by Kharis and in which one would bring a fixed sin offering in the case of an inadvertent transgression.
Sixth Halacha, if there were two paths and one of them is absolutely impure, right?Maybe there's a body buried under it or something. and one of them is not impure.
And a person walks down one of the paths, and then, forgetting that he walked down one of the paths, he then walks down the other path.
And then he goes into the Besa Mikdash, or he eats a consecrated food, and then he remembers, uh-oh, I walked down both paths.In this case, he would be liable to bring a provisional guilt offering.
Because he does know that if he walked down both paths, he is impure.So this is considered to be Mekses Yediyah, partial knowledge, and partial knowledge is enough.
But if he only walked down one of the paths, and then he went into the Besa Mikdash, or ate a consecrated food, he would not be liable. Seventh halacha.
If he walked down the first path, and then he entered the temple, and then he sprinkles the ashes of the red heifer on the third and seventh day, and goes to mikveh, so now he's pure, and then he walks down the second path, and then he goes into the beis ha-mikdash, here too he would definitely be liable, because at some point he has entered the beis ha-mikdash while impure.
He just doesn't know which time he did it.Eighth halacha.
If someone was impure and two people testified that he went into the beis ha-mikdash, and he says, I did not, his word would be believed over the two witnesses, because he could have said, I did so on purpose, and therefore I'm not liable for a karban.
But if the witness has testified, I saw you become impure, and then I saw you go into the Beis Hamikdash, even if there was a number of days between when they saw him become impure and when they saw him enter the Beis Hamikdash, if he testifies, no, I didn't become impure, the witnesses would be believed and he would be liable to bring a Karban.
If a person was aware of the fact that they were impure and aware of the fact that the food was consecrated, and either they went into the temple or they ate consecrated food as a result of a lack of awareness, and then that person does not become aware of the fact that they sinned, in that case the goat whose blood is sprinkled in Kedosh Kedoshim on Yom Kippur brings about atonement,
until he becomes aware of his sin, in which case he would then be liable for an adjustable guilt offering.So we refer to the atonement that Yom Kippur brings as tentative atonement.
But if he was never aware of his impurity, or was never aware of, for example, the food he's eating is consecrated, then Yom Kippur brings about complete atonement.
If a person never had any knowledge of the sin, either at the outset or after the fact, then the goats offered either on festivals or on Rosh Chodesh bring about atonement.
If one was impure and on purpose went into the base of Mikdash while impure, or ate consecrated foods while impure on purpose, one of two things is the case.
If he's a Kayin, then the bowl offered by the Kayin God on Yom Kippur brings about atonement.If he's not a Kayin, then the blood of the goat sprinkled in Kedosh HaKadoshim on Yom Kippur brings about atonement.
Sign in
