Or when a person utters an oath to bad or good purpose—whatever a man may utter in an oath—and, though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt in any of these matters—
ונעלם ממנו AND IT BE HID FROM HIM (he forgot that he had taken such an oath) and consequently he violated his oath. — All these cases come under the law of “a sacrifice of higher or lesser value” (according to pecuniary conditions), as is set forth here (vv. 6—13): but an oath which involves the false repudiation of a claim to money does not come under the law of this sacrifice but under that of a guilt-offering (v. 25).
ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא...אמר כי כאשר יטמא האדם ונעלם ממנו הטומאה או כאשר ישבע ונעלם ממנו השבועה ויחטא בהעלמה של אחת מאלה יתחייב להביא קרבן ובידוע שאין בהעלמת הטומאה חטא זולתי שיאכל קדשים או יבא למקדש ואין בהעלמת השבועה חטא זולתי שיעבור עליה וזה ישוב פשוטן של מקראות בפרשה זו ולרבותינו בה עוד מדרשים לחזק הענין הזה
AND IT IS HIDDEN FROM HIM...Scripture is stating that whena person becomes defiled and forgets his state of uncleanness, or when he sears [an "oath of utterance" and forgets the oah, and he incurs guilt by violating it -- for either of these sins committed through forgetfulness he is required to bring an offering. Now it is self-understood that the mere forgetfulness of his state of uncleanness involves no sin, except [if in that state] he ate holy food or entered the Sanctaury. Nor is there any sin in the mere forgetfulness of an oath, except if he violated it. This is the literal explanation of the verses in this section. Our Rabbis have further interpretations on this section strengthening this explanation.
Rabbi Akiba said: “[Scripture says:] ‘and it be hidden from him that he is impure’: when his impurity is unknown to him, he is liable; but he is not liable, when the [fact that he is in the] Temple is unknown to him.”
Rabbi Ishmael said: “[Scripture] twice [says:] ‘and it be hidden from him’, in order to make him liable both for the forgetfulness of the impurity and the forgetfulness of the Temple.”
Mishnah five conclude the discussion of a person who enters the Temple while not realizing that he is impure. It contains a midrashic discussion which took place between Rabbis Eliezer, Akiba, and Ishmael.
As we have explained throughout this chapter, in order to be obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice one must have known something and then forgotten it and then remembered it later on. In both mishnah one and mishnah three of this chapter we assumed that what was known and forgotten was either the fact that he was impure or the fact that he was in the Temple or both. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael in section three. His opinion is the dominant opinion in this chapter of mishnah.
Rabbi Eliezer holds that what was known and then forgotten was specifically the source of the impurity, be it an impure creeping thing or other source of impurity mentioned in Leviticus 5:2 (carcasses of pure animals). If he forgot that he was in the Temple he is not obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. Likewise if never knew that he had been made impure by an impure creepy thing, but merely knew that he was impure, he is not obligated.
Rabbi Akiva holds that what was forgotten was the fact of impurity but not the fact that he was in the Temple. Unlike Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva does not limit the knowledge and subsequent forgetfulness to the source of the impurity. Even if he never knew what the source of the impurity was, but knew only that he was impure and then forgot, he will be obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael in that the latter holds that being aware and then forgetting that one was in the Temple also makes him obligated for bringing a sliding scale sacrifice, whereas Rabbi Akiva (and Rabbi Eliezer) believe that it does not.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כָּל טֻמְאָה מִן הַמֵּת שֶׁהַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עָלֶיהָ, חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ. וְכָל טֻמְאָה מִן הַמֵּת שֶׁאֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עָלֶיהָ, אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לֹא תְהֵא זוֹ קַלָּה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דַּנְתִּי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה אִם עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּאֹהֶל, הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מַגָּעוֹ וְעַל מַשָּׂאוֹ. רְבִיעִית דָּם שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּאֹהֶל, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מַגָּעָהּ וְעַל מַשָּׂאָהּ. אָמַר לִי, מַה זֶה עֲקִיבָא, אֵין דָּנִין כָּאן מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר. וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי אֶת הַדְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר לִי, יָפֶה אָמַרְתָּ, אֶלָּא כֵּן אָמְרוּ הֲלָכָה:
Awareness of impurity is of two [types], which are [really] four; If one became impure and was aware, and then forgot the impurity, but remembered the sanctified [food]; or if one forgot [that the food was] sanctified, but remembered the impurity; or if one forgot this or that, and ate the sanctified [food] and was not aware, and after he ate, was aware, this one [is obligated to] a Oleh veYored [a sliding-scale sin-offering where the economic status of the individual determines whether he brings an animal, a bird, or flour]. If one became impure and was aware, and then forgot the impurity, but remembered the Temple; or if one forgot the Temple, but remembered the impurity; or if one forgot this or that, entered the Temple and was not aware, and after he exited, was aware, one [is obligated to] a oleh veyored.
The oath of a deposit can be made by men and women, by non-relatives and by relatives, by those fit and by unfit, before a court or not before a court, by oneself and by others, he is not not liable until he denies it in court, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say, whether it was by oneself or by others, since he denied it, he is liable. He is liable for an intentional violation of an oath and for its unintentional violation [along] with an intentional [denial] of the deposit, but he is not liable for the unintentional violation alone. What is he liable for the intentional violation? An asham [guilt offering] of silver [worth at least two] shekalim[coins].
מִי אֵל כָּמוֹךָ נֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וְעֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע לִשְׁאֵרִית נַחֲלָתוֹ לֹא הֶחֱזִיק לָעַד אַפּוֹ כִּי חָפֵץ חֶסֶד הוּא. יָשׁוּב יְרַחֲמֵנוּ יִכְבֹּשׁ עֲוֹנֹתֵינוּ וְתַשְׁלִיךְ בִּמְצֻלוֹת יָם כָּל חַטֹּאותָם.
Forgetfulness = purging of the violent emotions attached to the events described (Memory of Forgetfulness, xxix)
One unintended side effect of data retention is the disappearance of social forgetfulness, which allows individuals a second chance, the opportunity for a fresh start in life. We examine three domains in which social policy has explicitly recognized the importance of such a principle: bankruptcy law, juvenile crime records, and credit reports. In each case, we frame the issue in terms of the social benefits of forgetfulness, rather than in terms of individual privacy protection.
- ( Data Retention and the Panoptic Society: The Social Benefits of Forgetfulness Jean-François Blanchette &Deborah G. Johnson Pages 33-45 | Published online: 19 Jan 2011)
The whole of the time until the matter is cleared up, and even after the intentional diversion, one feels preoccupied to a degree which cannot in fact be explained by the amount of interest possessed by the whole affair
- Sigmeund Freud (The Psychical Mechanism of Forgetfulness)