יְדִיעוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. נִטְמָא וְיָדַע וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הַטֻּמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְזָכוּר אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה, נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה וְאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע, וּמִשֶּׁאָכַל יָדַע, הֲרֵי זֶה בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. נִטְמָא וְיָדַע וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טֻמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה, נֶעֶלְמוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע, וּמִשֶּׁיָּצָא יָדַע, הֲרֵי זֶה בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: With regard to cases of awareness of the defiling of the Temple by entering it while one is ritually impure, or defiling its sacrificial foods by partaking of them while one is ritually impure, there are two types that are actually four. How so? If one became ritually impure and he was aware that he was impure, but afterward his impurity was hidden from him, though he remembered that he was partaking of sacrificial food, which is forbidden to one who is in a state of ritual impurity; this is one of the four types of awareness of impurity. If the fact that he was partaking of sacrificial food was hidden from him, though he remembered the ritual impurity that he had contracted; this is the second of the four types of awareness of impurity. And the same halakha applies if both this and that were hidden from him, both the fact that he was impure and the fact that he was partaking of sacrificial food. In all these cases, if he partook of the sacrificial food and was unaware either that he was impure, or that the food was sacrificial food, or both, and after he partook of it he became aware of that which he had forgotten, he is required to bring a sliding-scale offering. In this type of offering, the sinner sacrifices an animal, bird, or meal-offering, depending on his financial status. And similarly with regard to entering the Temple: If one became ritually impure and he was aware that he was impure, but afterward his impurity was hidden from him, though he remembered that he was entering the Temple, which is prohibited for one who is in a state of ritual impurity; this is the third of the four types of awareness of impurity. If the fact that he was entering the Temple was hidden from him, though he remembered the ritual impurity that he had contracted; this is the fourth type of awareness of impurity. And the same halakha applies if both this and that were hidden from him, both the fact that he was impure and the fact that he was entering the Temple. In all these cases, if he entered the Temple and was unaware either that he was impure, or that he was entering the Temple, or both, and after he left he became aware of what was hidden from him, he is required to bring a sliding-scale offering.
אֶחָד הַנִּכְנָס לָעֲזָרָה וְאֶחָד הַנִּכְנָס לְתוֹסֶפֶת הָעֲזָרָה, שֶׁאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת אֶלָּא בְמֶלֶךְ וְנָבִיא וְאוּרִים וְתֻמִּים וּבְסַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד וּבִשְׁתֵּי תוֹדוֹת וּבְשִׁיר. וּבֵית דִּין מְהַלְּכִין וּשְׁתֵּי תוֹדוֹת אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵיהֶם. הַפְּנִימִית נֶאֱכֶלֶת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה נִשְׂרָפֶת. וְכֹל שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה בְכָל אֵלּוּ, הַנִּכְנָס לְשָׁם אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ: As for the boundaries of the Temple with regard to the halakhot of impurity, the same halakha applies to one who enters the area that was part of the original Temple courtyard and to one who enters the later addition to the Temple courtyard, because the additional section is sanctified with the full sanctity of the Temple courtyard. The mishna notes: As, additions can be made to the city of Jerusalem or to the Temple courtyards only by a special body comprising the king, a prophet, the Urim VeTummim, and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, and with two thanks-offerings and with a special song. Once the addition to the courtyard is made by this body and this process, it is given the full sanctity of the original courtyard area. The mishna provides certain details of the consecration ceremony. And the court would move forward, and two thanks-offerings would be brought after them, and all of the Jewish people would follow behind them. When they would reach the end of the place that they desired to consecrate, the inner thanks-offering would be eaten and the outer one would be burned. The details of this ceremony will be described in the Gemara. And with regard to any addition to the Temple that was not made with all these ceremonial procedures, one who enters there while ritually impure is not liable to bring an offering if his entry was unwitting, nor to be punished with karet, excision from the World-to-Come, if his entry was intentional.
נִטְמָא בָעֲזָרָה וְנֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טֻמְאָה וְזָכוּר אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְזָכוּר לַטֻּמְאָה, נֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ זֶה וָזֶה, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁהָה בִכְדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה, בָּא לוֹ בָאֲרֻכָּה, חַיָּב. בַּקְּצָרָה, פָּטוּר. זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ: The first part of the mishna discussed one who became ritually impure before entering the Temple. The mishna proceeds to consider a case involving one who was ritually pure when he entered the Temple but who became impure while in the Temple courtyard, and afterward, his impurity was hidden from him but he remembered that he was standing in the Temple, or the fact that he was standing in the Temple was hidden from him but he remembered his impurity, or both this fact and that fact were hidden from him. In all these cases, if he bowed down, or he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down even though he did not actually bow, or he went out by way of a longer route when he could have taken a shorter route, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. But if he left the Temple via the shortest way, he is exempt. This mitzva that the ritually impure must be sent out of the Temple is the positive mitzva concerning the Temple for which, as is taught elsewhere in the Mishna (Horayot 8b), the Sanhedrin is not liable to bring an offering for an erroneous ruling. A communal bull sin-offering is brought because of the unwitting transgression of a prohibition involving an action by the Jewish people resulting from an erroneous halakhic decision handed down by the Sanhedrin. But if the Sanhedrin mistakenly ruled that one who became impure while in the Temple may leave by way of a longer route, they do not bring this offering, as it is brought only for an erroneous ruling on a matter that requires the bringing of a fixed sin-offering, and not a sliding-scale offering, for its unwitting violation.
וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּנִּדָּה שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ, הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ נִטְמֵאתִי, וּפֵרַשׁ מִיָּד, חַיָּב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּצִיאָתוֹ הֲנָאָה לוֹ כְּבִיאָתוֹ: And which is the positive mitzva with regard to a menstruating woman for which, as is taught in Horayot there, the Sanhedrin is liable to bring a bull offering for an erroneous ruling? If a man was engaging in intercourse with a ritually pure woman, and during the course of their act of intercourse she experienced menstrual bleeding and said to him: I have become impure, and unwittingly he immediately withdrew from her and did not wait until his penis became flaccid, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman, because his withdrawal from her is as pleasant to him as his entry. If the Sanhedrin mistakenly ruled that one may withdraw immediately, they bring a bull offering for their erroneous ruling.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְגוֹ' וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ (ויקרא ה), עַל הֶעְלֵם שֶׁרֶץ חַיָּב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא טָמֵא (שם), עַל הֶעְלֵם טֻמְאָה חַיָּב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, וְנֶעְלַם וְנֶעְלַם שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים, לְחַיֵּב עַל הֶעְלֵם טֻמְאָה וְעַל הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ: Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to the sliding-scale offering the verse states: “Or if a person touches any impure thing, whether it is the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher creeping animal, and it is hidden from him” (Leviticus 5:2). A precise reading of this verse indicates that in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity by touching a creeping animal, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for having defiled the Temple or the sacrificial food, but he is not liable to bring such an offering in a case where he has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food. Similarly, Rabbi Akiva says: The verse states: “And it is hidden from him, so that he is impure” (Leviticus 5:2), thereby teaching that in a case when one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, but one is not liable to bring such an offering in a case when he has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple or partaking of sacrificial food. Rabbi Yishmael says: The verse states: “And it is hidden from him” (Leviticus 5:2), and it states: “And it is hidden from him” (Leviticus 5:3), twice, in order to render one liable to bring a sliding-scale offering both in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he had contracted ritual impurity and in a case where one has a lapse of awareness that he is entering the Temple.